SANTA BARBARA COUNTY
DRUG COURT PROCESS
EVALUATION
January 2013
Santa Maria Drug SATC and DDX Courts
The UCSB Drug Court Research Team conducted a process evaluation of the
Santa Barbara County Drug Court in Santa Maria in September and October of
2012. Team meeting observations, court session observations, and stakeholder
surveys and interviews were conducted. Both the Substance Abuse Treatment
Court and the Dual Diagnosis Court were examined. Results of this evaluation
are presented and discussed.
Santa Barbara County Drug Court Process Evaluation—Santa Maria
Santa Barbara County Drug Court Process
Evaluation
S A N TA M A R I A D R U G S AT C A N D D D X C O U R T S
UCSB Evaluation Team
University of California, Santa Barbara
D e p a r t m e n t o f C o u n s e l i n g , C l i n i c a l , a n d S c h o o l P s yc h o l o g y
Santa Barbara, CA 93106-9490
Merith Cosden, PhD
[email protected]
Jill Sharkey, PhD
[email protected]
Kayleigh L. Welsh, MA
[email protected]
Megan Donahue, MA
[email protected]
Justin Gauthier, BA
[email protected]
Jennifer Hughes, MA
[email protected]
Jessica Larsen, Ed.M.
[email protected]
This project was funded by the Santa Barbara County Probation Department, 2011 Public Safety Realignment Act.
Page 1
Santa Maria SATC and DDX Courts
Contents
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 4
What are drug courts? ............................................................................................................................ 4
Santa Barbara County Drug Court ....................................................................................................... 4
Table 1: 10 Key Components of Drug Courts ..................................................................................... 5
Best Practices of Drug Courts ................................................................................................................. 6
PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................. 8
Purpose of the Report.............................................................................................................................. 8
METHODS ............................................................................................................................ 8
Data Collection ......................................................................................................................................... 8
Measurements............................................................................................................................................ 8
Team Meeting Observations ............................................................................................................... 8
Courtroom Observations ...................................................................................................................... 8
Stakeholder Interviews & Surveys ...................................................................................................... 8
TEAM MEETING OBSERVATIONS ........................................................................................ 9
Purpose and Procedures ......................................................................................................................... 9
Measurement .......................................................................................................................................... 9
Data Collection ...................................................................................................................................... 9
Results ......................................................................................................................................................... 9
SATC......................................................................................................................................................... 9
DDX ....................................................................................................................................................... 10
Summary.................................................................................................................................................. 11
COURTROOM OBSERVATIONS ......................................................................................... 12
Purpose and Procedures ...................................................................................................................... 12
Measurement ....................................................................................................................................... 12
Data Collection ................................................................................................................................... 12
Results ...................................................................................................................................................... 12
SATC...................................................................................................................................................... 12
DDX ....................................................................................................................................................... 14
Summary.................................................................................................................................................. 15
STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS .............................................................................................. 16
Purpose and procedures ...................................................................................................................... 16
Measurement ....................................................................................................................................... 16
Data Collection ................................................................................................................................... 16
Results.................................................................................................................................................... 16
Individual Roles ...................................................................................................................................... 17
Judge .................................................................................................................................................... 17
Coordinator ......................................................................................................................................... 18
District Attorney................................................................................................................................... 19
Public Defender/Defense Attorney................................................................................................. 20
Probation Department ....................................................................................................................... 21
Page 2
Santa Barbara County Drug Court Process Evaluation—Santa Maria
Substance Abuse Treatment Provider ............................................................................................. 22
Mental Health Treatment Providers ................................................................................................ 23
Law Enforcement ................................................................................................................................. 24
Team Cohesion ....................................................................................................................................... 25
Diversity................................................................................................................................................... 26
Gender-Specific Practices ................................................................................................................ 26
Culture-Specific Practices .................................................................................................................. 26
Courtroom Practices .............................................................................................................................. 27
Most Effective Practices ..................................................................................................................... 27
Areas for Improvement ...................................................................................................................... 28
Summary.................................................................................................................................................. 28
STAKEHOLDER SURVEYS ................................................................................................... 29
Purpose and procedures ...................................................................................................................... 29
Measurement ....................................................................................................................................... 29
Data Collection ................................................................................................................................... 29
Results ...................................................................................................................................................... 29
SATC...................................................................................................................................................... 30
DDX Court ............................................................................................................................................ 34
Summary.................................................................................................................................................. 37
CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................. 38
Summary of findings ............................................................................................................................. 38
Future Suggestions and Dirctions ........................................................................................................ 40
APPENDIX ......................................................................................................................... 41
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 53
Page 3
Santa Maria SATC and DDX Courts
Introduction
W H AT A R E D RU G C O U RT S ?
The revolving door of arrest and recidivism for offenders with drug abuse problems stimulated the criminal justice system
to become involved in the treatment as well as punishment of these offenders. Drug treatment courts are a major form of
this ‘therapeutic jurisprudence’ (Hora, 2002). Drug treatment courts are designed to reduce drug use and related criminal
activity by offering drug offenders the opportunity for court-supervised, community-based, drug and alcohol treatment in
lieu of incarceration. Since their inception in Florida in 1989, drug courts have expanded to over 1,000 courts nationally
with representation in every state, while similar programs have emerged in other countries.
S A N TA B A R B A R A C O U N T Y D RU G C O U R T
The Santa Barbara County, Substance Abuse Treatment Court (SATC) was among the first 200 Drug Courts implemented in
the United States, and has served over 1000 participants since its inception in 1993. The SATC follows the key component
guidelines established by the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (see Table 1). A Policy Council comprised of
the Presiding Judge, District Attorney, Public Defender, Probation Officer, and representatives from treatment providers
meets monthly to develop and oversee SATC operations, determining eligibility criteria, treatment requirements, and
graduation policies.
The SATC is a pre-plea program for adults charged with a misdemeanor or felony who demonstrate a need for substance
abuse treatment. Offenders are ineligible if they have been charged with a violent crime, the distribution of drugs, or a sex
crime. In additional to meeting eligibility criteria, participants must be determined suitable (i.e., motivated and able to
benefit from treatment) by the treatment team, which includes the Judge, prosecutor, defense attorney, probation officer
and treatment provider.
Programs in North and South Santa Barbara County (Santa Maria and Santa Barbara) follow similar treatment protocols.
These protocols include case management, relapse prevention groups, drug treatment groups with the MATRIX,
educational and vocational assessment and training, and drug testing. In addition, participants have regular court
supervision and meetings with their probation officer.
The Dual Diagnosis (DDX) court in North Santa Barbara County (Santa Maria) is part of the problem solving courts but
modified for post-conviction felony clients who have been identified as having a co-occurring mental health and substance
abuse problems. These problems require additional services that include medications under the supervision of a
psychiatrist, and mental health treatment. Mental Health providers are included in team discussions and give input on
client status and progress in the program.
Both programs are approximately 18 months long with five phases of treatment graded in intensity.
Phase 1: Stabilization & Assimilation (minimum 10 weeks)
Phase 2: Recovery Plan Development (minimum 10 weeks)
Phase 3: Reality and Life Skills Development (minimum 10 weeks)
Phase 4: Ongoing treatment (minimum 12 weeks)
Phase 5: Expanded Life Skills and Graduation Preparation (minimum 18 weeks)
Participants successfully completed the program when they met their treatment goals and tested negative for substances
for at least 45 consecutive days.
Page 4
Santa Barbara County Drug Court Process Evaluation—Santa Maria
TA B L E 1 : 1 0 K E Y C O M P O N E N T S O F D RU G C O U R T S
1. Drug courts integrate alcohol and other drug treatment services with justice system case processing.
2. Using a non-adversarial approach, prosecution and defense counsel promote public safety while
protecting participants’ rehabilitation needs.
3. Eligible participants are identified early and promptly placed in the drug court program.
4. Drug courts provide access to a continuum of alcohol, drug, and other related treatment and
rehabilitation services.
5. Abstinence is monitored by frequent alcohol and other drug testing.
6. A coordinated strategy governs drug court responses to participants’ compliance.
7. Ongoing judicial interaction with each drug court participant is essential.
8. Monitoring and evaluation measure the achievement of program goals and gauge effectiveness.
9. Continuing interdisciplinary education promotes effective drug court planning, implementation, and
operations.
10. Forging partnerships among drug courts, public agencies, and community-based organizations
generates local support and enhances drug court effectiveness.
SOURCE: Office of Justice Programs (1997/2004).
Page 5
Santa Maria SATC and DDX Courts
BE S T PRACT ICE S OF DRUG COURTS
Drug Courts were developed prior to research to support their effectiveness; however, initial guidelines were established
(the 10 Key Components) to direct drug courts in a productive direction. When the 10 key components were articulated,
they were based on observations of drug court practices that appeared to work. Research has followed to study these
practices and empirically determine their effectiveness. In a large review of this research, Carey, Mackin, and Finigan
(2012) studied 69 drug courts for whether or not they engaged in practices related to each of the 10 key components,
comparing recidivism for those that did and did not employ those practices. Drug court practices were considered Best
Practices if there were: (1) 40 or more drug courts that employed that practice, and (2) analyses which yielded significant
reductions in recidivism. Drug court practices were considered Promising Practices if: (1) there were 20 or more drug courts
that employed that practice, and (2) analyses which yielded significant reductions in recidivism. The results indicated that
significant reductions in recidivism were related to 28 drug court practices, each associated with one of the key
components. The results are described below, and outlined in Table 1.
Key Component 1. The analysis found that significant reductions in recidivism were related to law enforcement being
involved as part of the drug court team; judge, attorneys, treatment program coordinator, probation, treatment
representatives, and law enforcement attending staffing; and the judge, attorneys, treatment representatives, probation,
coordinator, and law enforcement attending court sessions. In addition, treatment representatives keeping in contact
regularly with the court was also related to significant reductions in recidivism.
Key Component 2. Significant reductions in recidivism were related to the drug court allowing participants to enter on nondrug related charges.
Key Component 3. Significant reductions in recidivism were related to a lapse of 50 days or less between arrest and drug
court program entry, and a drug court program caseload of 125 participants or less.
Key Component 4. Significant reductions in recidivism were related to working with two or fewer treatment programs;
mandating participants to attend a particular number of individual treatment sessions; offering gender specific services,
mental health treatment, parenting classes, or family/domestic relations counseling; and a minimum program length of 12
months or longer.
Key Component 5. Significant reductions in recidivism were related to drug court programs that received their drug test
results back in two or fewer days.
Key Component 6. Significant reductions in recidivism were related to drug court team members being given written
guidelines for administering sanctions. In addition, drug courts that did not allow someone other than the judge to impose
sanctions on a participant outside of the court sessions saw significant reductions in participant recidivism.
Key Component 7. Significant reductions in recidivism were related to: biweekly court hearings for participants in Phase 1;
the judge spending 3 or more minutes on average with each participant; and the judge’s term being indefinite.
Key Component 8. Significant reductions in recidivism were related to reviewing data, reviewing program statistics, and
using the results of program evaluations to modify program operations.
Key Component 9. Significant reductions in recidivism were related to requiring new drug court employees to participate in
formalized training.
Key component 10. No significant reductions in recidivism were found.
Page 6
Santa Barbara County Drug Court Process Evaluation—Santa Maria
Table 2: Drug Court practices that have been identified as effective in research
Key
Component
Drug Court Practices
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
6
7
7
7
8
8
9
Law enforcement is a member of the drug court team
Judge, both attorneys, treatment, program coordinator, and probation
attend staffings
A representative from treatment attends drug court team meetings
Coordinator attends drug court team meetings
Law enforcement attends drug court team meetings
Judge, attorneys, treatment, probation, and coordinator attend court
sessions (status review hearings)
A representative from treatment attends court sessions (status review
hearings)
Law enforcement attends court sessions (status review hearings)
Treatment communicates with court via email
Drug Court allows non-drug charges.
The time between arrest and program entry is 50 days or less
Program caseload (number of individuals actually participating at any one
time) is less than 125
The drug court works with two or fewer treatment agencies
The drug court has guidelines on the frequency of individual treatment
sessions that a participant must receive
The drug court offers gender specific services
The drug court offers mental health treatment
The drug court offers parenting classes
The drug court offers family/domestic relations counseling
The minimum length of the drug court program is 12 months or more
Drug test results are back in two days or less
Team members are given a copy of the guidelines for sanctions.
Participants have status review sessions every two weeks in first phase
Judge spends an average of 3 minutes or greater per participant during
status review hearings
The judge’s term is indefinite
The results of program evaluations have led to modifications in drug
court operations
Review of the data and/or regular reporting of program statistics has led
to modifications in drug court operations
All new hires to the drug court complete a formal training or orientation
*Table adapted from: http://www.npcresearch.com/Files/Appendix_C_Best_practices_comparing_ yes_to_no_with_N_sizes.pdf
Page 7
Santa Maria SATC and DDX Courts
Purpose
PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
The purpose of this study was to describe the pre-court staffing process and the courtroom process followed by the Santa
Maria Substance Abuse Treatment Court (SATC) and Dual Diagnosis Court (DDX). The evaluation focused on processes
associated with the 10 key components of drug courts, to determine the extent to which the court adhered to these
practices.
Methods
DATA C O L L E C T I O N
Data were collected in two ways: through observation of staffing and court procedures by outside evaluators, and through
interview and survey responses from the key stakeholders (team members) themselves. Four measures were used: two
sets of observation instruments (one to assess the process of the team staffing prior to the court session and one to assess
the court process itself) and two self-report instruments (a structured survey and a semi-structured interview). By
obtaining information from multiple sources we were able to provide stronger documentation of program activities.
MEASUREMENTS
Several measurements were adapted from previous process evaluation materials and/or constructed by the researchers for
the purposes of this evaluation. Measurement tools were used to structure observations of team meetings and courtroom
hearings, as well as to obtain open-ended and survey information from stakeholders. Instruments were adapted from
current studies (e.g., Carey et al., 2012; Cumming & Wong, 2008; Rossman, Roman, Zweig, Rempel, & Lindquist, 2011a;
Rossman et al., 2011b; Satel, 1998) and were developed to meet the goals of this project of providing multiple sources of
information to determine the extent to which the program met the key components related to program effectiveness. All
forms are attached in the Appendix.
Team Meeting Observations
Standardized observations of the drug court team’s staffing were conducted by the program evaluators. Information was
recorded on time spent talking about each participant, topics discussed during the staffing meeting, the team process and
team cohesion.
Courtroom Observations
Standardized observations of the courtroom process were conducted by the program evaluators. Information was recorded
on time spent on each participant; participant characteristics; judicial interactions with participants; and the use of
sanctions, recognition, and incentives with participants.
Stakeholder Interviews & Surveys
A structured interview and survey of the drug court process was conducted with which each team member. Respondents
were asked about the role of each team member and about aspects of the court process that corresponded to each of the
10 key components. They were also asked about the strengths of the program and areas they would like to see improved.
Page 8
Santa Barbara County Drug Court Process Evaluation—Santa Maria
Team Meeting Observations
PURPOSE AND PROCEDUR ES
Drug court team meetings were observed in order to understand and describe the staffing process. Areas noted were time
spent talking about each of the participants, the topics discussed, and team cohesion.
Measurement
An instrument was adapted from several sources in the drug court literature (Carey et al., 2012; Cumming & Wong, 2008;
Giacomazzi & Bell, 2007; Rossman et al., 2011b), to assess time spent discussing each case, as well as the content of the
discussions, including whether or not the team talked about treatment progress, case management, vocational and
educational goals, drug urine analyses (negative and positive), sanctions, and incentives. Researchers also coded different
facets of team cohesion.
Data Collection
Data were collected on team meetings for the SATC and DDX in Santa Maria. Team meetings were observed at the Santa
Maria courthouse. Three researchers attended each staffing. Researchers attempted to remain as inconspicuous as possible
during their observations. Team meetings typically began early in the morning and continued until lunch break, with the
court process following in the afternoon.
RESULTS
SATC
The SATC team meetings were held on Tuesday mornings with the court processing of clients later that same afternoon.
Total time spent in the observed staffing was 125 minutes. In attendance were the judge, defense attorney, prosecutor,
treatment liaison, probation officer, and law enforcement.
Case Discussions
Researchers coded the first 40 case discussions at the staffing which lasted 68 of the 125 total staffing minutes. Average
time each case was discussed was 1.7 minutes with a range from 1 to 5 minutes.
Observation
Total staffing time
Total time coded
Cases coded
Average time per case
Range in time per case
Number
125 minutes
68 minutes
40
1.7 minutes
1 min. – 5 min.
The topics most frequently discussed were treatment progress and supervision/case management progress. Other topics
included use of sanctions, positive and negative drug tests, incentives, and vocational goals.
Discussion topics
Treatment progress
Supervision/case management progress
Sanctions
Positive urinalysis
Negative urinalysis
Incentives
Vocational goals
Educational goals
Page 9
% of cases
83%
80%
25%
15%
10%
10%
10%
0%
Santa Maria SATC and DDX Courts
Team Cohesion
Researchers completed a scale that examined aspects of team cohesion after the conclusion of the meeting. The questions
were rated on a scale of 1=Strongly Disagree to 5=Strongly Agree. Results indicated that the team was perceived as
respectful toward each other, respectful toward clients, as sharing information freely, working as a team, and as open with
each other (see below):
Question
Did there appear to be a mutual respect between the agencies?
Did team members share information and knowledge freely with one another?
Did there appear to be a general sense of teamwork and partnership between the team members?
Did there appear to be an openness of information and communication between the team
members?
Did there appear to be a respect for clients being discussed (i.e., intrinsic worth, rights, capacities,
uniqueness, commonalities)?
Rating
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.7
4.0
DDX
The DDX team meeting met on Thursday mornings; on the day of the observation they also conducted an impromptu
staffing meeting in the afternoon for an individual who was in-custody. Total time spent in staffing activities during the
observation was 145 minutes. In attendance were the judge, defense attorney, prosecutor, probation officer, law
enforcement, psychologist, and multiple treatment providers.
Case Discussions
Researchers coded the case discussions at the staffing. A total of 37 cases were discussed for a total of 113 minutes of the
145 staffing minutes. The average time for each case was 3.05 minutes with a range from 1 minute to 28 minutes. The
additional time in staffing was a result of a DDX client being detained for a probation violation at the time the staffing was
taken place and subsequently brought before the team during the staffing.
Observation
Total staffing time
Total time coded
Cases coded
Average time per case
Range in time per case
Number
145 minutes
113 minutes
37
3.05 minutes
1 min. – 28 min.
The topics most frequently brought up in case discussions were treatment progress and supervision/case management
progress. Other topics discussed included use sanctions, vocational goals, negative drug tests, positive drug tests and use of
incentives. The data are presented below:
Discussion topics
Treatment progress
Supervision/case management progress
Sanctions
Vocation/employment goals
Negative urinalysis
Positive urinalysis
Incentives
Educational goals
% of cases
87%
87%
46%
16%
14%
8%
3%
0%
Page 10
Santa Barbara County Drug Court Process Evaluation—Santa Maria
Team Cohesion
Researchers also completed a scale that examined aspects of team cohesion after the conclusion of the meeting. The
questions were rated on a scale of 1=Strongly Disagree to 5=Strongly Agree. As seen below, the team was perceived as
respectful toward each other, respectful toward clients, as sharing information freely, working as a team, and open with
each other.
Question
Did team members share information and knowledge freely with one another?
Did there appear to be an openness of information and communication between the team
members?
Did there appear to be a respect for clients being discussed (i.e., intrinsic worth, rights, capacities,
uniqueness, commonalities)?
Did there appear to be a general sense of teamwork and partnership between the team members?
Did there appear to be a mutual respect between the agencies?
Rating
5.0
5.0
4.7
4.7
4.7
S U M M A RY
Observations of the team process noted strong team cohesion, with team members willing to exchange information and
come to agreement based on shared information. The team was respectful of participants, and spent most of their time
talking about participants’ progress in treatment and with their case managers. To a lesser extent, they also discussed drug
tests, sanctions, vocational goals, and rewards.
Page 11
Santa Maria SATC and DDX Courts
Courtroom Observations
PURPOSE AND PROCEDUR ES
Drug court hearings were observed in order to describe that process in relation to the 10 key components.
Measurement
Two measurement instruments were created: one completed for each participant and another completed based on all
hearings. The instruments were adapted from a variety of sources in the drug court literature. Variables recorded included:
time spent on each case, case characteristics, judicial interactions with the defendant, and the use of sanctions and
incentives (Carey et al., 2012; Cumming & Wong, 2008; Rossman, Roman, Zweig, Rempel, & Lindquist, 2011(a); Rossman et
al., 2011(b); Satel, 1998).
Data Collection
Data were collected on team meetings for the SATC and DDX in Santa Maria. SATC observations were completed over two
days. The first 40 cases were observed on one day, and 36 cases were observed on the second day. The DDX hearing
process was observed once, with three researchers in attendance. Court hearings began after lunch and continued through
the afternoon.
RESULTS
SATC
Time
There were 76 cases observed for a total of 2 hours and 42 minutes. The average time spent per case was 2.13 minutes. A
majority of the cases were heard for 1-2 minutes (85%).
4%
11%
1-2 minutes
3-7 minutes
85%
8+ minutes
Page 12
Santa Barbara County Drug Court Process Evaluation—Santa Maria
Participants
Almost half of the participants were male (49%) and half female (51%). A majority of cases heard were regular status
hearings (95%) and/or sentencing hearings (4%), while some were pre-participation hearings (3%). About 7% of the
participants observed were in custody at the time of their hearing. Most of the clients asked questions or made statements
while their case was being heard (91%), and a small percentage of them displayed art, a talent, and/or shared a success
story (9%). A minority of the participants appeared with their counsel at the time of their hearing (33%), although this may
be a reflection of participants having met with counsel prior to the hearing. Family members appeared with participants
approximately 14% of the time, and family members spoke or otherwise participated in 7% of hearings.
Judicial Interactions
The judge made eye contact and spoke directly to the defendants almost all of the time (96% and 97%, respectively). The
judge asked non-probing questions often (83%) and also elicited questions or statements from the participants frequently
(80%). Half of the time, the judge imparted instructions or advice to the participants (50%), and sometimes explained the
consequences of compliance (14%) and noncompliance (17%) in the program. The judge directed comments to the
audience in 16% of the hearings and spoke off-record in 1% of the cases. Treatment reports were conveyed orally during
the hearings by the judge and/or treatment staff 18% of the time.
Noncompliance and Sanctions
Noncompliance with some aspect of the program was observed in 22% of the 76 total cases. Program noncompliance was
observed in the following manners: positive or missed drug tests (13%), treatment absence(s) (3%), participant re-arrests
(3%), poor attitude (3%), violation of rules at treatment (5%), violation of probation/noncompliance (3%), disrespecting
court staff (1%), failing to obtain license (1%), violation of no-contact order (1%), admission of drug usage (1%), and/or nonresolved felonies (1%).
Sanctions were administered in 22% of cases. Sanctions were observed being administered in the following manners:
admonishment from the judge (17%), participant remanded into custody (7%), placement into a different treatment court
(4%), increased treatment requirements (4%), failed/dropped from drug court program (3%), drug court failure pending
urine analysis results (1%), and probation revocation (1%).
Recognition and Incentives
Recognition was given in 46% of the 76 total cases observed. Recognition was observed for the following accomplishments:
doing well overall (5%), having baby soon (3%), med compliance (3%), re-obtaining driver’s license (1%) participation in
PRRC classes (1%), artwork (1%), involvement in sober extracurricular sports (1%), turning in letter of apology (1%), and
nearing graduation (1%).
Incentives were administered in 84% of the 76 observed cases. Incentives were observed as follows: courtroom applause
(80%), praise from judge (73%), shook hands with judge (10%), received certificate (7%), child received toy (3%), participant
released from custody (1%), picture with client’s child and the judge (1%), encouragement from judge (1%), lifting of nocontact order (1%).
Page 13
Santa Maria SATC and DDX Courts
DDX
The DDX court hearings began on Thursday mornings after lunch and lasted through the afternoon.
Time
The total time spent hearing court cases was 2 hours, 7 minutes, and a total of 33 cases were heard. The average time spent
per case was 3.8 minutes. About half of the cases were heard for less than three minutes (55%), and half were heard for
three minutes or more (45%).
15%
1-2 minutes
30%
55%
3-7 minutes
8+ minutes
Participants
About half of the participants were male (55%) and half female (45%). A majority of the cases heard were regular
participant status hearings (85%) and/or sentencing (21%), while some were pre-participation hearings (15%).
Approximately 12% of the participants were in custody at the time of their hearing. Most of the clients asked questions or
made statements while their case was being heard (85%). None of the participants displayed art, a talent, and/or shared a
success story. A majority of the participants appeared with their counsel at the time of their hearing (91%). Family members
appeared with participants about 21% of the time, and family members spoke or otherwise participated in defendant
hearings in 6% of the cases.
Judicial Interactions
The judge made eye contact and spoke directly to the defendants almost all of the time (94% and 97%, respectively). The
judge asked non-probing questions often (88%) and also elicited questions or statements from the participants frequently
(88%). During most of the cases, the judge imparted instructions or advice to the participants (85%), and sometimes
explained the consequences of compliance (12%) and noncompliance (36%) in the program. The judge directed comments
to the audience in 18% of the hearings and spoke off-record in 3% of the cases. Treatment reports were conveyed orally
during the hearings by the judge and/or treatment staff 48% of the time.
Noncompliance and Sanctions
Noncompliance with some aspect of the program was observed in 55% of cases. Program noncompliance was observed in
the following manners: positive or missed drug tests (24%), participant re-arrest (24%), treatment absence(s) (15%),
violation of probation/noncompliance (12%), violation of rules at treatment (9%), admission of drug usage (6%), returned
on warrant (3%), possession of illicit substance(s) (3%), left treatment (3%), altercation with bailiff (3%), violation of nocontact order (3%), and unresolved traffic tickets (3%).
Sanctions were administered in 55% of cases. Sanctions were administered in the following manner: admonishment from
the judge (42%), recommendation for residential treatment (18%), case sent to another court (9%), case sent to sentencing
(9%), probation terms increased and/or imposed (6%), admonishment from other staff (3%), attendance at an increased
number of meetings (3%), imposition of a monetary fine (3%), bail revoked (3%), participant required to report to a
treatment center (3%), continued jail time (3%), doctor to determine status (3%), and/or sanction to be determined upon
drug testing results (3%).
Page 14
Santa Barbara County Drug Court Process Evaluation—Santa Maria
Recognition and Incentives
Recognition was given in 33% of the cases. Recognition was observed for the following accomplishments: drug-free days
(24%), working their program (9%), job/school event (6%), eligible for graduation (6%), phase advancement (3%), looking
for work (3%), had child recently (3%), getting license (3%), help with Recovery Walk (3%), doing better (3%), and/or not
leaving their program (3%).
Incentives were administered in 36% of the cases. Incentives included praise from judge (36%) and praise from other staff
(6%).
S U M M A RY
Observations of the court process indicated a high level of involvement from the Judge, with direct engagement with
clients. A variety of sanctions, recognitions and incentives were used. Participants’ compliance and non-compliance with
the program, as discussed during the staffing, was presented to the court as a whole. More time was spent with DDX than
regular SATC clients, as they had more complex issues to address, but all participants were acknowledged individually and
provided with sanctions, acknowledgements and incentives based on their treatment progress.
Page 15
Santa Maria SATC and DDX Courts
Stakeholder Interviews
PURPOSE AND PROCEDURES
Drug court team members’ perceptions of the drug court team and the drug court process in Santa Maria were also
assessed. In order to capture this information, an interview protocol was adapted that focused on the areas of interest and
arrangements were made to meet with many team members to complete these interviews.
Measurement
Interview protocols were largely adapted from NPC Research (2006). This interview protocol was designed specifically for
the purpose of drug court process evaluations NPC Research, a leading drug court process evaluation body, and has been
utilized in numerous process evaluations that they have conducted. The adapted protocol contained a total of 37 questions,
each requesting answers for SATC and DDX treatment courts separately. The interviews included questions on team
functioning and responsiveness to clients.
Data Collection
A total of 15 collaborative court team members involved in the Santa Maria drug court were interviewed for this report. A
majority of the interviews were arranged for and conducted on an afternoon in October at the Santa Maria courthouse. The
remaining interviews were completed within the next week, with the exception of one interview that was completed a
couple of weeks later. Research assistants obtained signed informed consent forms prior to interviewing each team
member, and made every attempt to interview the stakeholders in private locations. Interviews ranged from 15 to 45
minutes in length.
Results
The findings reported here focus on stakeholders’ perceptions of team member roles, team cohesion, and responses to
diverse client needs. In addition, participants described what they considered to be the most effective practices of the court
as well as its areas for improvement. The interviews were read independently by two of the authors of this report, with
final decisions on how to label and describe roles reached by consensus. Quotes are provided, but were edited to maintain
anonymity while retaining their intent.
Page 16
Santa Barbara County Drug Court Process Evaluation—Santa Maria
INDIVI DUAL ROLES
Each stakeholder was asked about their role within the court (i.e., “What is your role (or what do you do) in the drug court
program?”), as well as about the roles of other team members (i.e., “What is the role of the…”). The following tables outline
the findings on stakeholder perceptions of these roles.
Judge
The judge’s role was reported, first and foremost, as that of team leader, both in the staffing and in the courtroom. In
addition, he was described as a collaborative team participant during staffing. In the courtroom, he was noted as building
relationships with clients, providing rewards and sanctions, and serving a traditional judicial role. The only differences
between the judge’s role in SATC and DDX were that the DDX court required a bigger treatment team and more
collaboration, and the judge was especially nurturing and supportive in the DDX court.
Roles
Team leader
Descriptions
 Captain of team/team leader
 Final decision-maker
 Referee
Collaborative team
participant
Has relationship with
clients

Participates in staffing










Parental figure
Cheerleader
Good/bad cop
Flexible approach
Supportive
Nurturing and supportive (DDX)
Jailor
Rewards/punishes
Sanctions/incentives
Praise/admonishment



Keeps order
Oversees proceedings
Calling the matters
Provides rewards &
sanctions
Judicial role
Page 17
Quotes
The judge makes the final decision about whether
someone is accepted or excluded. He’s ultimately the
decision maker. The judge is the captain of the team.
He takes information from all sides, weighs it, and
makes a decision.
He participates in the staffing. He makes this a team
approach and makes everyone a part of the team.
This is the person who builds a one to one
relationship with the defendant and that relationship
is critically important. He’s the father figure and
mother figure. A great deal depends more on the
interpersonal interaction than on the legal
consequences.
He is there to give praise and to hand out sanctions.
He is like dad—he gives kudos, he gives punishments.
It’s definitely a complicated role – a little bit of
everything from the good and bad cop to a paternal
figure to someone who can both encourage and
admonish the defendants.
He oversees the criminal proceedings. He can shorten
probation, change sentencing, dismiss the case.
Santa Maria SATC and DDX Courts
Coordinator
Most respondents described the coordinator’s role as obtaining funding/grants to support the program. In addition, she
was described as supporting best practices, engaging in conflict resolution and program coordination and creating new
initiatives. A few were unsure of her primary duties. Stakeholder descriptions of each of the coordinator’s roles are given
below, as well as accompanying stakeholder quotes to further explain each role. Stakeholders did not note any specific
difference between the coordinator’s role in SATC and DDX.
Roles
Funding/grants
Descriptions
 Finances/funding
 Grants
 Liaison
 Obtains data
Assuring best
practices


Conferences
Trainings
Conflict resolution

Manage relationships and conflicts
Program
coordination
New initiatives





Focuses efforts on programs in need
Makes sure everything runs smoothly
Finds resources
Treatment contracts
Creates new programs
Other

Behind-the-scenes work
Quotes
She oversees the grants. She helps with the
funding for everything that lets the courts be able
to do what they do. She is the liaison between
the drug court and the reports that are required
for the funding, making sure that everything is
done correctly and we continue to get funding.
She makes sure everyone is up to date on best
practices through making training available
She will mediate between agencies if there are
miscommunications.
She is focused on whatever has needs. She makes
sure that the process is running smoothly.
To obtain grant funding to create new programs.
If we are setting up a new court, she assists in
treatment for that.
She does a lot of things behind the scenes
Page 18
Santa Barbara County Drug Court Process Evaluation—Santa Maria
District Attorney
The district attorney’s role was seen as assuring public safety and holding clients accountable, with a few specifically noting
the importance of playing a traditional role in addition to being a team member. In addition, she was seen as being a
collaborative team participant, serving a legal district attorney role, and giving special considerations for defendant’s
mental health issues. Stakeholders noted that the only difference between the district attorney’s role in SATC and DDX was
the understanding and consideration for mental health issues in DDX treatment court.
Roles
Public safety
Holds clients
accountable
Descriptions
 Maintaining public safety
 Gatekeeper
 Determining defendant eligibility
 Ensures defendants are not committing
crimes
 Upholding community interests
 Protects integrity of the program
 Restitution
 Explains consequences
 Responds to non-compliant behavior
 Plays “bad guy” with defendants
 Holds clients accountable
Collaborative team
participant



Traditional legal role





Special
considerations for
mental health (DDX)
Page 19
Makes defendant suggestions
Part of the collaborative team
Adds to courtroom presentation of
client’s history
Representing the state’s interests
Keeps team on legal track
Typical DA role
MH professionals have input with them
Understanding of client’s MH needs
Quotes
In drug court, the DA is our gatekeeper. (The DA
is) making sure participants are not committing
crimes or terrorizing people. [Looking out for
what is] good for the community.
There are victims (associated) with these clients,
so (the DA) makes sure restitution occurs. Also
they hold clients accountable and help them see
that probation is a privilege not a right. They
ensure that if a person does not comply with the
purpose of the program, that a proper response
is made by the court
In our courtroom she is part of the team, and
even though she objects to a lot of the stuff she
has recommended a defendant for treatment.
They sit in the state’s seat and represent the
state’s interests.
She is very understanding of client’s mental
health needs. It is a big plus to have a DA that
understands they need help.
Santa Maria SATC and DDX Courts
Public Defender/Defense Attorney
The public defender/defense attorney’s role was reported as serving the traditional role of representing clients’ legal rights.
In addition, the public defender was described as a collaborative team participant, counselor to their clients, and as
connecting clients to resources. The only difference noted between the district attorney’s role in SATC and DDX were the
emphasis on the understanding of the influence of mental health issues in client’s treatment and progress.
Roles
Represent clients’
legal rights
Collaborative team
participant
Counselor
Connecting client to
resources
Descriptions
 Protects client rights
 Represents client interests
 Client advocate
 Legal work/counsel
 Helps clients in entering pleas
 Engages in collaborations/negotiations
 Makes recommendations
 Responds to sanctions
 Participates in sentencing
 Passionate about the program






Understanding of
mental health issues
(DDX)


Counselor/“social worker” to clients
Helps clients
Establishes client rapport
Places clients into programs
Connecting clients with resources (i.e.,
money, food, housing, treatment)
Involved in treatment
Quotes
She is looking out for their best interest … making
sure they are getting a fair hearing/trial, fair
representation
They are part of the team and help determine
what a proper sanction would be for a violation
making sure it is a fair and effective sanction.
They sign off on the collaborative decisions
instead of fighting against them. They also make
appropriate recommendations, and sometimes in
certain situations make more stringent
recommendations than the DA.
They're responsible for being a voice of reason to
get clients to change their conduct. They become
counselors.
An extended social worker role for placing clients
in programs and helping clients with non-court
related issues if they have problems with housing
or problems getting food and providing for basic
needs for family…(the) office has bought books
for people to go to school, bought groceries ..
helped people get their electric paid to keep their
water and electric on.
Understanding of mental illness
Evaluating the role of mental illness in
client’s treatment and treatment needs
Page 20
Santa Barbara County Drug Court Process Evaluation—Santa Maria
Probation Department
The probation department’s role was reported as determining client suitability, supervising clients, reporting to the court
being involved in the staffings, and providing client support. Probation officers with this program were also noted as being
knowledgeable of mental health issues. The only difference between the probation department’s role in SATC and DDX
noted was the emphasis on having and applying knowledge of mental health issues in the DDX treatment court.
Roles
Determining client
suitability
Supervision
Provides client
support
Descriptions
 Determines suitability
 Gauges motivation for treatment (DDX)
 Client supervision
 Drug testing
 Contact with defendants
 Locates using/violating clients
 Office visits with clients
 Reports on client progress
 Participates in staffings
 Participates in calendar
 Communication with team
 Supportive of clients
 Refers clients to services
Knowledgeable of
MH (DDX)


Reporting to
court/court
involvement
Page 21
Treatment team collaboration
Helps with client rehabilitation
Quotes
First and foremost probation does the interview
to see if somebody is suitable.
They are the eyes and ears of the court and do
home visits, drug testing. They check on people
at night and early in the morning. They are the
watchdog of the program.
They report to the court when somebody is
falling by the wayside.
Our probation officers are like case managers.
They do some counseling and they do referral for
services.
These probation officers are experts in the field
of mental health and medications. It’s a very
tough calendar.
Santa Maria SATC and DDX Courts
Substance Abuse Treatment Provider
The treatment providers’ role was reported as communicating client progress to the courts, providing substance abuse
treatment, and providing case management and access to other services. Stakeholders noted that the only difference
between treatment providers’ role in SATC and DDX were that DDX clients typically required more extensive case
management/supervision, more expertise in working with mental illness, and specialized dual diagnosis client services.
Roles
Communication to
court on client
progress
Descriptions
 Reports on client progress
 Court appearances
 Attends staffings
 Part of treatment team
 Makes client recommendations
Client contact/case
management







Provide treatment
for substance abuse

Provide access to
comprehensive
treatment services






Constant client contact
Social work/case management
Obtain client trust
Client accountability
Guide clients to graduation/success
More extensive case management (DDX)
Provides treatment and gives client
“tools” for sobriety
Drug testing
Housing
Food
Mental health
Medication
Counseling
Expertise working with mental illness
(DDX)
Quotes
They are a huge part of the team. The provider is
notified of misconduct, usage, statements of
admission, and they are good about contacting
the court if there is a violation. The judge is
always asking them for the opinions, thoughts,
and ideas because they are the ones spending
time with defendant.
They guide all of the clients toward the goal of
graduating, and whatever steps they have to
take from the beginning to that end. They do
some social work and case management.
The defendant attends several groups weekly.
(Providers) deal directly with the client to teach
coping skills and a better way to live without the
use of drugs and alcohol. They teach them about
their addiction
Making sure clients’ needs are met, including
housing, food, mental health, medication,
relationship counseling; whatever will give them
the best chance possible to be successful. They
have more expertise working with mentally ill
defendants than anyone else. (DDX)
Page 22
Santa Barbara County Drug Court Process Evaluation—Santa Maria
Mental Health Treatment Providers
The role of mental health professionals included providing medication, interviewing clients, referring clients to counseling,
and monitoring clients’ mental health progress. Several respondents noted a diminished level of involvement due to fiscal
cutbacks. Stakeholders noted that in the DDX court mental health may provide an increased level of client follow-up.
Roles
Medication
Descriptions
 Referrals for medication and checks
compliance with medication
Interviews clients to
determine MH needs




Interviews defendants
Consultations
Makes client recommendations
Assessments
Refer for counseling





Linkage to services
Provides interventions (DDX)
Conduct client follow-ups
Involved in client treatment
Report on client progress and
compliance
Educates others on mental health issues
Participates in staffings (DDX)
Recent limitations due to fiscal cutbacks
Monitor progress
Court involvement
Page 23



Quotes
(They) make sure the clients are on their
medications. Provides the court information
regarding individuals’ mental health states, their
medication, and whether they are improving.
The doctors will interview defendants and
recommend treatment interventions when mental
health issues present themselves. They might
recommend the client to be moved to the mental
health calendar to be more closely monitored.
(They make) psychologist referrals and referrals to
outside agencies.
They report to staffing and to the court about how
they are doing.
Educates the court on both calendars on issues
related to mental health. Unfortunately lately they
are limited in what they can do because of funding.
Santa Maria SATC and DDX Courts
Law Enforcement
Stakeholders answered questions on the role of law enforcement referencing both community law enforcement agencies
(i.e., local police), as well as the courtroom presence of law enforcement (i.e., the bailiff). The role of law enforcement was
reported as enforcing safety of the courtroom, collaborative team participant, building relationships with clients, assuring
community safety, and fundraising. The only difference between law enforcement’s role in SATC and DDX was that the
police department had become more familiar with mental health issues by way of staff trainings in the DDX court.
Roles
Enforces safety of
courtroom
Collaborative team
participant
Builds relationship
with clients
Descriptions
 Bailiff presence
 Controls courtroom atmosphere
 Maintains peace, order, security in
courtroom
 Transports incarcerated clients to and
from courtroom
 Involved in team communications
 Participates in staffing
 Provides client support
 Talks to clients in need
 Invited to client graduations
Community safety





Arrests clients
Makes client home visits
Refers clients to treatment courts
Serve bench warrants
Mental health staff trainings (DDX)
Fund raising

Raise money
Quotes
They transport [clients] from jail and holding cells.
They make sure the courtroom is safe and that the
court room keeps a flow to it. If the judge
remands someone into custody, they are the ones
to arrest them and put them into county jail.
Ours goes a little beyond court room security. Our
bailiff participates in conferencing.
Our bailiff is a really good influence to a lot of
them…he’s nice to them, and I think it’s important
because I think they are not used to people being
nice to them or caring about them.
They are the ‘spearpoint’, they come into contact
with these folks to begin with. We have officers on
the police department that know the users and try
to refer the people to drug court…. They're being
trained how to deal with mentally ill defendants in
the field. (DDX)
They’re a key source of support in the community.
Page 24
Santa Barbara County Drug Court Process Evaluation—Santa Maria
TEAM COHESION
Each stakeholder was asked to answer the questions, “How well do you feel the partners involved in the SATC work
together?” and “How well do you feel the partners involved in the DDX work together?” Overall, stakeholders reported that
the team works very well together. Primary themes emerged reflecting that the team was viewed as collaborative, closeknit, concerned with clients’ best interests, and non-adversarial.
Primary Themes
Work well together
Collaborative team
Close-knit team
Concern for clients
Non-adversarial
Page 25
Descriptions
 All team members made a statement
that the team works well together.
 Collaborative
 Communication in place
 Electronic communications
 Striving to understand roles as part of a
collaborative team
 Active involvement
 No fighting
 Frequent staffing
 Professional
 Family
 Close-knit
 Respectful to each other
 Camaraderie
 Supportive
 Social outside of work
 Same goals toward client change
 Care about clients
 Interested in clients
 Have client’s best interests in mind
 Shared treatment model


Non-adversarial
Stakeholders attend drug court trainings
Quotes
I think we work together great. In this court we
work together remarkably well.
I think everyone has strived to understand their
role (as part of the team) and to develop a true
collaboration.
This spirit of collaboration is unheard of and I
would say it’s probably one of the best
collaborative efforts in the country, if not in the
world.
The camaraderie of the team is important and it’s
really good in this court.
We work together, play together, and really
become a family here.
Everyone has input and we can come to some sort
of agreement about what is best for the
defendant.
There’s an interest in getting a more complete
picture of the defendants, from their legal history,
mitigating factors, substance use disorder and
mental health history.
Everyone is pulling in the same direction to have
people change
In DDX, we’ve never had a violation of probation
hearing ever, and that’s unheard of in the courts.
I’ve told some of my colleagues this and they can’t
believe we’ve never had a probation violation
hearing.
Santa Maria SATC and DDX Courts
DIVERSITY
Two areas of client diversity were explored in the stakeholder interviews; gender-specific practices (i.e., “What are the
gender-specific practices of this court?”) and culture-specific practices (i.e., “What are the culture-specific practices of this
court?”). The findings are outlined in the tables below.
Gender -Specific Practices
Stakeholders described the available gender-specific practices of the court in different ways. Some noted the availability of
gender-specific groups and gender-specific programs, as well as sensitivity to client gender and sexual orientation. Others
focused on there being similar treatment for men and women. There were no differences in stakeholder answers on gender
treatment for SATC and DDX.
Specific practices
Same treatment
Gender specific
groups
Gender specific
programs
Sensitive to
gender/sexual
orientation
Descriptions
 Clients receive same treatment
regardless of gender
 Groups at treatment providers’
 Seeking Safety
 Project Premie
 Seeking Safety
 TC House



Court sensitivity to gender
Respects others’ differences
Respect privacy of others
Quotes
It’s pretty much the same, if the person is doing well,
the person gets applauded.
Treatment providers have gender specific groups they
run when appropriate.
We have gender specific treatment programs and
programs specifically for young mothers.
We have men only and women only clean and sober
living homes.
The court is very sensitive to gender (The court) respects
clients as men, women, gays, lesbians, transgender. We
had young gay men being harassed in a clean and sober
home, and intervened to correct that.
Culture-Specific Practices
Stakeholders’ descriptions of culture-specific services varied. Some described language specific resources, culture specific
programs, courtroom sensitivity, and trainings for staff. However, there were variations in the level of perceived culturespecific practice, with some noting high sensitivity to cultural differences and others low sensitivity. There were not any
differences in stakeholder answers from SATC to DDX.
Specific practices
Language specific
resources
Culture specific
programs
Descriptions
 Spanish language materials
 Spanish speaking counselors and staff
 Hearings in appropriate language or with
translators
 Spanish language groups
 Specific treatment for Native Americans
 Religious-based programs
Courtroom
sensitivity



Sensitive to name pronunciation
Sensitive to culture
Sensitive to religion
Trainings

High sensitivity
Low sensitivity




Providers attend annual cultural
competence training
High sensitivity
Same treatment for all
No culturally-specific practices
Accommodations only for Spanishspeaking clients
Quotes
We have Spanish materials and handbook. Spanish
speaking defendants are referred to Spanishspeaking counselors…all the court hearings are
conducted in the appropriate languages for the
defendants.
We have a Native American population so we
work with the Santa Ynez tribal health clinic to
provide culture specific treatment.
We have some religious-based programs
Judge is really sensitive to names, i.e., using
mother maiden name and father last name and
switching it around (for Latinos), so he always
makes sure he gets it right.
(We) require providers to complete annual cultural
competence training.
Very sensitive to people’s cultures and religions.
I think we try to be the same across the board. I
don’t believe there are any culture specific
practices. Just a few programs have Spanishspeaking counselors.
Page 26
Santa Barbara County Drug Court Process Evaluation—Santa Maria
COURT ROOM PRACT ICE S
Stakeholders were asked to answer these two questions on most effective court practices and areas for improvement:
“What do you think are the most promising practices of this drug court?” and “Are there any changes you would like to see
happen that you think would improve the program or make it more effective?” Their answers are outlined below.
Most Effective Practices
Stakeholders identified the most effective practices of the court as being team collaboration, team members’ relationships
with each other, team member relationships with clients, the use of rewards and sanctions, the intensity of interventions,
the Judge’s role, and other evidence-based court practices. The only difference in stakeholder answers from SATC to DDX
was that that DDX required more client care.
Specific practices
Team collaboration
Working relationship
of team members
Relationship of team
to clients
Descriptions
 Team collaboration
 Team decision-making
 Talking versus yelling/fighting
 Communication
 Have the same goal
 Absence of conflict
 Respect each other
 Value each other’s opinions
 Care about each other
 Like family
 Care about defendants’ progress
 Telling defendants you care
 Understanding clients
 Compassion
 Established relationship with clients
Use of rewards and
sanctions



Positive reinforcement
Immediate responses to bad behavior
Client accountability
High intensity of
intervention













Frequency of courtroom appearances
Increased probation/supervision
Increased program attendance
Increased drug testing
Establishes relationship with client
Treats clients well
Cares about clients
Is the source of clients’ motivation
Compassionate
Consistent with clients
Evidence-based treatment models
Client-focused
Existence of core committee and
policy council
Judge’s role with
clients
Court treatment
practices
Page 27
Quotes
The collaboration is huge – there’s no conflict in the
court room. I think when you present a united front it
allows the client to succeed better. You can’t run an
operation like this unless everyone is one board.
We respect each other and we value each other’s
professional opinions. We talk and don’t yell, we
respect each other, we value each other’s professional
opinions.
The level of compassion and care that the team
exhibits. I think the relationship that the defendants
have with the court, with providers and with
treatment. In DDX – [it is the] same, but even more so
because these are people who have been unwanted,
unloved, uncared for, not understood; so we’ve
created a system that changes that and destigmatizes mental illness.
Frequency of appearance in court with positive
reinforcement of good behavior and very quick
reaction to very bad behavior. Not having to wait for
violation of probation to be filed for the sanctions to
be imposed.
Very frequent program attendance 4 or 5 days at
beginning. Frequent drug testing to keep people from
using.
I don’t think I’ve seen a judge who treats people the
way he does and cares the way he does. You will hear
it from the people all the time, “I’m doing it for you
Judge.”
Evidence-based treatment models. Existence of core
committee and policy council.
Santa Maria SATC and DDX Courts
Areas for Improvement
Stakeholders described court improvement as primarily being increasing resources. They also noted providing additional
client support, retaining the same judge, obtaining community support, and having alternative detoxification models. The
only difference in stakeholder answers from SATC to DDX was that stakeholders identified an increased need for funding in
DX programs, where clients have an increased demand for and lack of access to needed mental health resources.
Specific practices
Increasing resources
Descriptions
 Increasing capacity for more clients
 Increasing funding (especially for DDX)
 Increasing number of probation officers
 Developing programs for families
 More providers
 More treatment facilities/beds
 More access to quality programs
 Increasing secular treatment options
 Access to DDX programs
 Increased medication support
 Training for facilities/programs
Quotes
I’d like to see the capacity expand in drug court
and DDX to include more people. We need more
probation officers because they're already
stretched too thin. More residential treatment
facilities, more clean and sober beds, and training
for those facilities and programs. We need
programs that are for families because we tend to
separate moms and dads when they’re both
struggling so we can help build families from the
ground up and help them get a place to live.
Additional client
support



Retaining Judge

Increasing
community support

Getting knowledge out about drug court
effectiveness
Other models for
client detox

Medical versus social model for
detoxification
Getting people help to find work, pay rent, and
pay fines. How do you help people do that? We
need to build a system of community service to
work fines off.
Keep the judge. It’s unfortunate that we’re losing a
vital part of drug court. Losing your commander
and chief who’s worked so hard for you over the
years is detrimental to the program.
Getting knowledge out there to other judges and
law enforcement on the importance and
effectiveness of drug courts. I believe other
entities believe it is a waste of time and money
and it’s quite the contrary.
We really need a medical model detox versus a
social model detox. In the current detox, the
people live together and provide support but there
is no medication management. We need a
medical model.
Help clients find work
Community service for defendants
Help clients find ways to pay fines and
rent
Retaining the same judge
S U M M A RY
The stakeholder interviews yielded important information about how the drug courts operate from an internal perspective.
All key participants (Judge, Coordinator, Public Defender, District Attorney, Probation, Treatment Providers, Mental Health
and Law Enforcement) were interviewed about their own activities and each others’ activities on the drug court treatment
team. The interviews explored team members’ perceptions of the treatment team staffing meetings, as well as the actual
courtroom proceedings.
Both traditional and non-traditional roles were described for each participant, reflecting the additional responsibilities
and role adaptations needed to create a non-adversarial drug court treatment team. Participants reported a high level of
collaboration with positive interpersonal relationships. Despite differences in roles and perceptions of client needs, staff
reported being able to come to agreement on decisions and focus on best practices for the client. Differences among staff
were noted in their perceptions of how well the team addressed client diversity. In terms of possible changes, increasing
resources were high on most respondents’ lists, as was not changing the treatment team and increasing community
awareness and support for the program.
Page 28
Santa Barbara County Drug Court Process Evaluation—Santa Maria
Stakeholder Surveys
PURPOSE AND PROCEDUR ES
A survey was adapted from scales created by previous researchers that focused on stakeholder perceptions of drug court
adherence to the 10 Key Components for Drug Courts. Stakeholders completed the survey during in-person interviews with
the research team.
Measurement
An interview protocols was adapted from three scales by Hiller and colleagues (Hiller, Unpublished; Hiller et al., 2010; NPC
Research, 2006), which were themselves created to assess adherence to the 10 Key Components of drug courts. The
adapted survey contained 37 questions. Each question solicited a level of agreement ranging from 1= Strongly Disagree to
5=Strongly Agree.
Data Collection
A total of 15 team members involved in the drug court completed the survey, with 13 answering questions for the SATC and
12 for the DDX Court. Surveys were administered at the same time as the in-person interviews in October and November
2012 at the Santa Maria courthouse. Research assistants obtained informed consent prior to talking to each team member,
and made every attempt to facilitate the stakeholders completing the surveys in private locations.
RESULTS
Responses for each question are separated according to the 10 Key Components that were derived from Hiller et al.’s
(2010) factor analysis. Hiller et al.’s scale examined perceptions of drug courts’ adherence to the 10 Key Components of
Drug Courts. The authors found that while several of the Key Components stood alone, others could be collapsed into
combined categories. Responses to each statement are examined separately for each court (i.e., SATC, DDX).
Page 29
Santa Maria SATC and DDX Courts
SATC
Eligibility and Program Components
This category includes aspects of Key Components 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, and speaks to the client eligibility and suitability
requirements and standard program components.





Key Component 3 -- Eligible participants are identified early and promptly placed in the drug court program.
Key Component 4 – Drug courts provide access to a continuum of alcohol, drug, and other related treatment and
rehabilitation services.
Key Component 5 – Abstinence is monitored by frequent alcohol and other drug testing.
Key Component 6 – A coordinated strategy governs drug court responses to participants’ compliance.
Key Component 7 – Ongoing judicial interaction with each drug court participant is essential.
There were high levels of agreement across those items which indicated that there were specific criteria for admission to
the SATC and that there were standard court and treatment interventions. Some disagreement was noted on whether or
not participants were required to watch the reviews of other participants, and there was some question as to the
availability of gender-specific interventions.
Question
A participant must meet explicit legal criteria to
be eligible for the program.
A potential participant must meet distinct
treatment criteria to be eligible for the program.
Participants attend regular status/review
hearings with the judge.
Participants are required to watch the
status/reviews of the other participants.
Participants can participate in educational and
vocational assessment and training.
A participant may be referred to a higher level
treatment if needed.
Gender-specific treatment is available to those
who want it.
Culturally-sensitive interventions are utilized.
Drug test results are quickly communicated to
the drug court team.
Precautions are taken to prevent participants
from tampering with their drug tests.
The severity of the sanction is matched with the
seriousness of the infraction.
Minor infractions result in minor sanctions
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
1
0%
0%
4
50%
Strongly
Agree
5
50%
2
0%
0%
0%
16.7%
58.3%
25%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
16.7%
33.3%
25%
25%
0%
8.3%
8.3%
41.7%
41.7%
0%
0%
0%
25%
75%
8.3%
16.7%
0%
66.7%
8.3%
0%
0%
0%
0%
16.7%
0%
50%
8.3%
33.3%
91.7%
0%
0%
8.3%
8.3%
83.3%
0%
0%
8.3%
16.7%
75%
0%
8.3%
8.3%
50%
33.3%
3
Page 30
Santa Barbara County Drug Court Process Evaluation—Santa Maria
Therapeutic and Individualized Jurisprudence
This category includes aspects of Key Components 2, 4, and 6, and speaks to the therapeutic aspect of the drug court
process and individualized components of the process in relation to the drug court clients.



Key Component 2 – Using a non-adversarial approach, prosecution and defense counsel promote public safety
while protecting participants’ rehabilitation needs.
Key Component 4 –Drug courts provide access to a continuum of alcohol, drug, and other related treatment and
rehabilitation services.
Key Component 6 – A coordinated strategy governs drug court responses to participants’ compliance.
There was agreement among most respondents that the collaborative aspects of a drug court were well implemented:
adversarial goals were set aside, treatment goals were integrated with court goals, and sanctions and rewards were utilized
effectively for clients. There was some discrepancy as to whether or not clients’ treatment plans and services varied to
meet individual needs. This discrepancy may reflect a lack of shared knowledge as to what clients receive outside of the
court setting.
Question
Traditional adversarial roles are set aside during
the drug court process.
The operations of the drug court reflect both
court and treatment goals.
Treatment plans are individualized to the needs
of each participant.
Treatment plans are similar for each participant.
All participants receive the same set of
treatment services.
Rewards are matched to the level of compliance
shown by the participant.
The drug court judge tends to individualize the
sanctions given to the participant.
The drug court rewards participant progress in
the program.
Sanctions are effective for influencing participant
compliance.
Page 31
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
1
0%
2
9.1%
0%
4
36.4%
Strongly
Agree
5
54.5%
0%
0%
0%
16.7%
83.3%
0%
0%
8.3%
16.7%
75%
16.7%
8.3%
25%
33.3%
16.7%
25%
33.3%
33.3%
8.3%
0%
0%
8.3%
8.3%
41.7%
41.7%
0%
0%
16.7%
25%
58.3%
0%
0%
16.7%
8.3%
75%
0%
0%
0%
50%
50%
3
Santa Maria SATC and DDX Courts
Team Collaboration and Communication
This category is mostly comprised of Key Component 1, but also involves an aspect of Key Component 9. This category
speaks to level of team collaboration and communication experienced within the drug court process.


Key Component 1 – Drug courts integrate alcohol and other drug treatment services with justice system case
processing.
Key Component 9 – Continuing interdisciplinary education promotes effective drug court planning,
implementation, and operations.
There was agreement on the collaborative working of the team.
Question
The judge values the treatment providers’
recommendations about the participants.
Court and treatment staff have a difficult time
communicating with each other.
The team has worked hard to understand each
other’s perspective.
Major decisions are made collaboratively by the
drug court team.
Everyone feels like they are an important part of
the drug court team.
Team members understand each others’ roles.
Treatment and court staff work well together.
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
1
0%
2
0%
0%
4
25%
Strongly
Agree
5
75%
75%
25%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
33.3%
66.7%
0%
0%
0%
16.7%
83.3%
0%
0%
0%
25%
75%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
33.3%
25%
66.7%
75%
3
Community Support
This category reflects Key Component 10, and speaks to level of support that the drug court has garnered in the community
and the method in which community support is obtained.

Key Component 10 – Forging partnerships among drug courts, public agencies, and community-based organizations
generates local support and enhances drug court effectiveness.
There were varied responses as to the level of community support, availability of resources and media attention to the
program. In particular, responses reflect the perception that additional positive media attention could be garnered.
Question
The drug court has a rich network of treatment
resources.
The community is supportive of the drug court’s
efforts.
The drug court uses the news media to garner
support.
Media attention has been positive.
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
1
0%
33.3%
4
33.3%
Strongly
Agree
5
16.7%
2
16.7%
0%
0%
33.3%
41.7%
25%
8.3%
8.3%
41.7%
25%
16.7%
0%
8.3%
33.3%
33.3%
25%
3
Page 32
Santa Barbara County Drug Court Process Evaluation—Santa Maria
Data Driven Program Development
This category reflects Key Component 8, the degree in which the drug court program uses data and evaluation to continue
to develop program efforts.

Key Component 8 – Monitoring and evaluation measure the achievement of program goals and gauge
effectiveness.
Responses to these items suggested that the evaluation reports that are written each year were not being shared with all of
the team members.
Question
Evaluation data have been used to make changes
in the drug court.
The team regularly uses data to assess the
operations of the program.
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
1
0%
2
0%
0%
0%
25%
4
50%
Strongly
Agree
5
25%
41.7%
33.3%
25%
3
Graduated Sanctions
This category reflects Key Component 6, and speaks to the manner in which the drug court responds to client behavior with
sanctions.

Key Component 6 – A coordinated strategy governs drug court responses to participants’ compliance.
There was strong agreement that sanctions were used in a graduated manner in response to client behavior.
Question
The drug court uses a graduated system of
sanctions to address noncompliant behavior.
Strongly
Disagree
1
0%
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
2
0%
3
0%
4
45.5%
Strongly
Agree
5
54.5%
Defense and Prosecution Collaboration
This category reflects Key Component 2, and speaks to the level of collaboration between the defense and the prosecution
in drug court proceedings.

Key Component 2 – Using a non-adversarial approach, prosecution and defense counsel promote public safety
while protecting participants’ rehabilitation needs.
There was agreement on the non-adversarial approach used by defense and prosecution in the drug court.
Question
Prosecution and defense work together to
identify who is eligible for court.
Defense and prosecution work well together.
Page 33
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
1
0%
2
0%
0%
4
33.3%
Strongly
Agree
5
66.7%
0%
0%
0%
25%
75%
3
Santa Maria SATC and DDX Courts
DDX Court
Survey responses were obtained from 12 DDX stakeholders. The results are reported below.
Eligibility and Program Components
This category includes aspects of Key Components 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, and speaks to the client eligibility and suitability
requirements and standard program components.





Key Component 3 -- Eligible participants are identified early and promptly placed in the drug court program.
Key Component 4 – Drug courts provide access to a continuum of alcohol, drug, and other related treatment and
rehabilitation services.
Key Component 5 – Abstinence is monitored by frequent alcohol and other drug testing.
Key Component 6 – A coordinated strategy governs drug court responses to participants’ compliance.
Key Component 7 – Ongoing judicial interaction with each drug court participant is essential.
There were variations in response to many of the items on eligibility and treatment. Agreement was found on participants
attending regular status hearings and getting drug test results quickly. While a majority of respondents endorsed other
items on eligibility and treatment, the greatest variability was noted on clients receiving gender appropriate treatment,
watching other status hearings, and receiving educational or vocational assessment and trainings.
Question
A participant must meet explicit legal criteria to
be eligible for the program.
A potential participant must meet distinct
treatment criteria to be eligible for the program.
Participants attend regular status/review
hearings with the judge.
Participants are required to watch the
status/reviews of the other participants.
Participants can participate in educational and
vocational assessment and training.
A participant may be referred to a higher level
treatment if needed.
Gender-specific treatment is available to those
who want it.
Culturally-sensitive interventions are utilized.
Drug test results are quickly communicated to
the drug court team.
Precautions are taken to prevent participants
from tampering with their drug tests.
The severity of the sanction is matched with the
seriousness of the infraction.
Minor infractions result in minor sanctions
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
1
0%
15.4%
4
46.2%
Strongly
Agree
5
30.8%
2
7.7%
0%
0%
23.1%
53.8%
23.1%
0%
0%
0%
7.7%
92.3%
0%
23.1%
15.4%
30.8%
30.8%
0%
15.4%
23.1%
38.5%
23.1%
0%
0%
7.7%
23.1%
69.2%
7.7%
15.4%
15.4%
53.8%
7.7%
0%
0%
7.7%
0%
23.1%
0%
38.5%
15.4%
30.8%
84.6%
0%
0%
8.3%
8.3%
83.3%
0%
0%
7.7%
30.8%
61.5%
0%
15.4%
7.7%
53.8%
23.1%
3
Page 34
Santa Barbara County Drug Court Process Evaluation—Santa Maria
Therapeutic and Individualized Jurisprudence
This category includes aspects of Key Components 2, 4, and 6, and speaks to the therapeutic aspect of the drug court
process and individualized components of the process.



Key Component 2 – Using a non-adversarial approach, prosecution and defense counsel promote public safety
while protecting participants’ rehabilitation needs.
Key Component 4 –Drug courts provide access to a continuum of alcohol, drug, and other related treatment and
rehabilitation services.
Key Component 6 – A coordinated strategy governs drug court responses to participants’ compliance.
As with the SATC, there was strong agreement that the court provided a non-adversarial, treatment-oriented approach for
helping participants. There was less agreement as to whether treatment plans and services were individualized for clients.
Question
Traditional adversarial roles are set aside during
the drug court process.
The operations of the drug court reflect both
court and treatment goals.
Treatment plans are individualized to the needs
of each participant.
Treatment plans are similar for each participant.
All participants receive the same set of
treatment services.
Rewards are matched to the level of compliance
shown by the participant.
The drug court judge tends to individualize the
sanctions given to the participant.
The drug court rewards participant progress in
the program.
Sanctions are effective for influencing participant
compliance.
Page 35
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
1
0%
2
0%
0%
4
33.3%
Strongly
Agree
5
66.7%
0%
0%
0%
23.1%
76.9%
0%
0%
7.7%
15.4%
76.9%
23.1%
7.7%
23.1%
46.2%
30.8%
23.1%
15.4%
23.1%
7.7%
0%
0%
7.7%
15.4%
53.8%
23.1%
0%
0%
15.4%
30.8%
53.8%
0%
0%
23.1%
15.4%
61.5%
0%
0%
23.1%
46.2%
30.8%
3
Santa Maria SATC and DDX Courts
Team Collaboration and Communication
This category is mostly comprised of Key Component 1, but also involves an aspect of Key Component 9. This category
speaks to level of team collaboration and communication experienced within the drug court process.


Key Component 1 – Drug courts integrate alcohol and other drug treatment services with justice system case
processing.
Key Component 9 – Continuing interdisciplinary education promotes effective drug court planning,
implementation, and operations.
There was agreement on the collaborative nature of the team.
Question
The judge values the treatment providers’
recommendations about the participants.
Court and treatment staff have a difficult time
communicating with each other.
The team has worked hard to understand each
other’s perspective.
Major decisions are made collaboratively by the
drug court team.
Everyone feels like they are an important part of
the drug court team.
Team members understand each others’ roles.
Treatment and court staff work well together.
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
1
0%
2
0%
0%
4
30.8%
Strongly
Agree
5
69.2%
61.5%
38.5%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
30.8%
69.2%
0%
0%
0%
30.8%
69.2%
0%
0%
0%
23.1%
76.9%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
46.2%
30.8%
53.8%
69.2%
3
Community Support
This category reflects Key Component 10, and speaks to level of support that the drug court has garnered in the community
and the method in which community support is obtained.

Key Component 10 – Forging partnerships among drug courts, public agencies, and community-based organizations
generates local support and enhances drug court effectiveness.
There were varied responses to the questions of community support, availability of resources and media attention to the
program. In particular, responses reflect the need to obtain additional resources and positive media attention.
Question
The drug court has a rich network of treatment
resources.
The community is supportive of the drug court’s
efforts.
The drug court uses the news media to garner
support.
Media attention has been positive.
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
1
0%
46.2%
4
30.8%
Strongly
Agree
5
7.7%
2
15.4%
0%
0%
38.5%
46.2%
15.4%
7.7%
7.7%
61.5%
15.4%
7.7%
0%
7.7%
38.5%
38.5%
15.4%
3
Page 36
Santa Barbara County Drug Court Process Evaluation—Santa Maria
Data Driven Program Development
This category reflects Key Component 8, the degree in which the drug court uses data to develop program efforts.

Key Component 8 – Monitoring and evaluation measure the achievement of program goals and gauge
effectiveness.
Responses suggested that the evaluation reports written each year were not being made available to all team members.
Question
Evaluation data have been used to make changes
in the drug court.
The team regularly uses data to assess the
operations of the program.
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
1
0%
2
0%
0%
7.7%
46.2%
4
38.5%
Strongly
Agree
5
15.4%
53.8%
23.1%
15.4%
3
Graduated Sanctions
This category reflects Key Component 6, the manner in which the drug court responds to client behavior with sanctions.

Key Component 6 – A coordinated strategy governs drug court responses to participants’ compliance.
A majority of respondents agreed that sanctions were used in an appropriate manner.
Question
The drug court uses a graduated system of
sanctions to address noncompliant behavior.
Strongly
Disagree
1
0%
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
3
2
0%
15.4%
4
30.8%
Strongly
Agree
5
53.8%
Defense and Prosecution Collaboration
This category reflects Key Component 2, the level of collaboration between the defense and the prosecution.

Key Component 2 – Using a non-adversarial approach, prosecution and defense counsel promote public safety
while protecting participants’ rehabilitation needs.
There was agreement on the non-adversarial approach of defense and prosecution.
Question
Prosecution and defense work together to
identify who is eligible for court.
Defense and prosecution work well together.
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
1
0%
2
0%
0%
4
30.8%
Strongly
Agree
5
69.2%
0%
0%
0%
23.1%
76.9%
3
S U M M A RY
The survey reflects team member perceptions that both the SATC and DDX teams work well together; they report effective
communication between treatment and judicial team members and defense and prosecution working together in a nonadversarial manner. Team members reported that sanctions were used appropriately. However, there was some question
about individualization of treatment options for participants in the DDX Court, as well as the use of gender and culturesensitive services. That is, some team members questioned whether enough was being done to provide individualized
interventions for participants in the DDX court. There was also some question about the sufficiency of gender-sensitive and
culture-sensitive services.
Page 37
Santa Maria SATC and DDX Courts
Conclusions
S U M M A RY O F F I N D I N G S
This drug court process evaluation utilized four sources of information: 1) observations of the team staffing prior to
courtroom proceedings; 2) observations of courtroom proceedings; 3) interviews with stakeholders (team members); and
4) survey responses from team members. Each addressed aspects of the 10 key components which are considered critical
elements for effective drug court functioning.
There was consistency in the information obtained through these different methods. Support for the key components, and
areas in need of further development, are described below.
Key Component #1:
Drug courts integrate alcohol and other drug treatment services with justice system case processing.
Strong support for this component was obtained both from observations of the staffing process and from reports of team
members themselves. There is strong support for the impact of this component on program effectiveness in the literature.
Observations made during the staffing reflected that team members discussed treatment progress as well as drug test
results and compliance with program requirements. Participation by both treatment team members and criminal justice
representatives were noted, and respect for each others’ ideas observed. These observations were corroborated by
Interviews with the team members themselves. Team members reported that the Judge valued the treatment providers’
recommendations, that there was good communication between staff representing the criminal justice system and
treatment providers, and decisions about participants were made collaboratively. Team members reported that among the
most effective parts of the program were the team collaboration and working relationships of team members.
Key Component #2:
Using a non-adversarial approach, prosecution and defense counsel promote public safety while protecting participants’
rehabilitation needs.
Team cohesion and respect for each other’s viewpoints was evident in the staffing observation. This was the case for
defense and prosecution, as well as for treatment and court personnel. This observation was supported from the team
survey that the prosecution and defense set aside their adversarial goals during the court process. Team members
reported that the defense attorney and public defender did maintain their traditional responsibilities but also engaged in
non-traditional non-adversarial roles as part of the SATC. Research has focused on the importance of allowing clients with
non-drug related charges to enter treatment. The eligibility requirements in this program include a wide range of nonviolent charges. The non-adversarial process in this program permeated all aspects of the program.
Key Component #3:
Eligible participants are identified early and promptly placed in the drug court program.
During the interviews, team members reported that the District Attorney was responsible for assuring that participants met
the eligibility criteria for the program, while in the surveys there was strong support for the defense and prosecution
working together to determine who was eligible. In the surveys, all team members indicated that there were clear
eligibility criteria for program entry while a majority, but not all, indicated that there were clear criteria about suitability as
well. Although the collaborative efforts to determine eligibility by prosecution and defense would suggest facilitation of the
process by which participants were able to enter the program, the promptness of identification and placement was not
directly evaluated in this study.
Page 38
Santa Barbara County Drug Court Process Evaluation—Santa Maria
Key Component #4:
Drug courts provide access to a continuum of alcohol, drug, and other related treatment and rehabilitation services.
The SATC and DDX courts were designed to utilize one treatment program, with two others utilized to provide specialized
services for parenting women and for those with a dual-diagnosis. All were required to follow similar treatment protocols
for substance abuse treatment in addition to specialized interventions, and the programs themselves lasted 18 months.
These are all factors associated with treatment effectiveness (Hiller et al., 2010). While the team was observed talking
about treatment for many clients, less focus was placed on work and none on educational possibilities during the sessions
coded. Some concerns were raised by stakeholders about the extent to which gender and culture sensitive services were
provided, and the extent to which individualized treatment was available to those in the DDX court.
Key Component #5:
Abstinence is monitored by frequent alcohol and other drug testing.
The therapeutic use of frequent drug and alcohol testing was noted through observation of staffing and courtroom
processing as well as through interviews and surveys with the staff. Positive and negative drug tests were discussed in the
staffing; in court, the Judge reported on these findings to the clients and assigned sanctions and incentives accordingly.
Interviews with team members indicated that both treatment staff and probation officers engaged in drug testing.
Although specific time for receiving drug tests, which is associated with drug court effectiveness, was not addressed, team
members reported that results were provided quickly and identified the intensity of drug testing as one of the effective
practices of the SATC.
Key Component #6:
A coordinated strategy governs drug court responses to participants’ compliance.
Stakeholders reported that rewards and sanctions were used in a graded and appropriate manner with participants. The
team was observed discussing rewards and sanctions as part of the staffing, and the Judge was observed to provide both to
participants as part of the court process. Judicial implementation of rewards and sanctions with participants has been
identified as an effective practice. Written guidelines for administering rewards and sanctions have also been identified as
an effective practice. This did not exist at the time of the observations, but was in the process of development and has
since been finalized.
Key Component #7:
Ongoing judicial interaction with each drug court participant is essential.
Observations in the court reflected a high level of activity between the participants and the Judge. He made eye contact
and spoke directly to defendants; he asked questions, provided information, and assigned defendants with sanctions and
rewards in response to their behaviors. In interviews, program staff described the Judge as having important relationships
with clients in which he served as both a paternal figure, establishing rules, and a maternal figure, providing support. This
is an important component as it is strongly related to drug court effectiveness. While having continuity has also been
associated with effectiveness, an upcoming change will mean a new Judge taking his place.
Key Component #8:
Monitoring and evaluation measure the achievement of program goals and gauge effectiveness.
Stakeholder surveys indicated that some team members were not aware of how evaluation activities were used to impact
program decisions. While some members of the team had access to the yearly evaluation reports prepared for the
program, others were not. Fewer members of the DDX than SATC team reported that evaluation reports were used to
effect decisions. This is important given data that shows that drug court programs that utilized evaluation data to improve
program activities are more effective. Evaluation reports on SATC and DDX outcomes are prepared at the end of each year
and presented at a meeting of the Policy Council but not all team members attend those meetings. Thus, reports are not
easily accessible by the team as a whole.
Page 39
Santa Maria SATC and DDX Courts
Key Component #9:
Continuing interdisciplinary education promotes effective drug court planning, implementation, and operations.
The stakeholders reported participation in drug court trainings. They also indicated that the court coordinator had an
important role in keeping the team up to date on best practices, trainings, and grant opportunities. This is important, as
prior studies have shown that continuing education is associated with drug court effectiveness. Finally, several team
members indicated that the treatment staff were required to attend trainings on gender-specific and culture-specific
interventions, although there was some disagreement among team members as to whether or not this was sufficient to
meet clients’ needs.
Key Component #10:
Forging partnerships among drug courts, public agencies, and community-based organizations generates local support
and enhances drug court effectiveness.
Community involvement was addressed in the stakeholder interviews and surveys. While some of the team members
agreed that community involvement was strong, others were not as sure of this. While earlier studies have not associated
community support and media attention with reductions in recidivism, there are other obvious advantages to these factors,
including fiscal support and support for utilization of services. There was sentiment among respondents of a need to obtain
more community support and more media attention on the effectiveness of the program.
F U T U R E S U GG E S T I O N S A N D D I RCT I O N S
1) The collaborative process is strong in the Santa Maria drug court and is associated with respectful and positive
relationships among the key stakeholders. At least one change in key staff (the Judge) occurred shortly after the
observations were conducted, however. There is a need to assure maintenance of group cohesion and
collaboration beyond this change and as other staff changes occur in the future.
2) Some team members indicated that they were not that familiar with the specific interventions clients received.
More information about specific treatment protocols for clients should be addressed at team meetings.
3) There were differences in staff perceptions regarding how well the program specifically addressed client diversity;
that is, some staff members felt that more could be done in terms of providing interventions that were sensitive to
clients’ gender and cultural diversity. The team might benefit on additional trainings on what it means to provide
gender specific and culturally sensitive interventions.
4) Although evaluation reports on program outcomes are developed each year, they are not shared with the
treatment team per se, and are not used by the team to make program decisions. Reports can be shared with the
team in the future, and methods of utilizing the information to improve program performance discussed.
5) A list of sanctions and rewards was not available at the time of the observation. Although it was finalized shortly
thereafter, determining the utility of this list in the drug court is an important next step for the program.
6) Finally, many of the program staff felt that the program would benefit from further community support.
Continuing to increase community awareness of the effectiveness of the SATC and DDX courts could benefit the
programs by increasing community support and use of this resource.
Page 40
Santa Barbara County Drug Court Process Evaluation—Santa Maria
Appendix
The appendix includes the following instruments:
1. Team Meeting Observations
2. Team Meeting Observations – By Case
3. Team Meeting Observations
4. Court Hearing Observations – Individual Sessions
5. Court Hearing Observations
6. Stakeholder Survey
7. Stakeholder Interview
Page 41
Santa Maria SATC and DDX Courts
Drug Court Team Meeting Observations
(to be completed DURING the meeting)
Date: ___________________________________________
Observer: _____________________________________________________________________________________
Team Observed: ________________________________________________________________________________
Location: ______________________________________________________________________________________
1. Start Time:____________
2. Stop Time: __________
3. Total Meeting Length (in minutes):______
4. Stakeholders in attendance: (check all that apply)









Judge(s)
Project/Resource Coordinator(s)
Defense Attorney(s)
Prosecutor(s)
Treatment Liaison(s)
Case Manager(s)
Probation Officer(s)
Law Enforcement
Other(s); specify:_____________________________________________________________
5. Who ran the staffing?: (check all that apply)








Judge(s)
Project/Resource Coordinator(s)
Defense Attorney(s)
Prosecutor(s)
Treatment Liaison(s)
Case Manager(s)
Probation Officer(s)
Law Enforcement
Adapted from:
Carey, S. M., Mackin, J. R., & Finigan, M. W. (2012). What works? The ten key components of drug court: Research-based best practices. Drug Court
Review, 8(1), 6-42. Retrieved from http://www.ndci.org/sites/default/files/nadcp/DCR_best-practices-in-drug-courts.pdf
Cumming, T., & Wong, S. M. (2008). An evaluation of SDN’s inclusion support agencies: Exploring strengths-based approaches to inclusion support.
Retrieved from http://www.sdn.org.au/downloads/6-%20EVALUATION%20OF%20SDN%27S%20ISA-Final%20Copy.pdf
Rossman, S. B., Roman, J., Zweig, D. K., Rempel, M., & Lindquist, C., eds. 2011. The Multi-Site Drug Court Evaluation. Washington, D. C.: The Urban
Institute. (Study work product: does not appear in formal publication). Retrieved from
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/237111.pdf
Page 42
Santa Barbara County Drug Court Process Evaluation—Santa Maria
Page 43
Santa Maria SATC and DDX Courts
Drug Court Team Meeting Observations
(completed AFTER the meeting)
Did not
participate
1
2
3
4
Participated
Thoroughly
5
1. Judge(s)
1
2
3
4
5
2. Project/Resource Coordinator(s)
1
2
3
4
5
3. Defense Attorney(s)
1
2
3
4
5
4. Prosecutor(s)
1
2
3
4
5
5. Treatment Liaison(s)
1
2
3
4
5
6. Case Manager(s)
1
2
3
4
5
7. Probation Officer(s)
1
2
3
4
5
8. Law Enforcement
1
2
3
4
5
9. Other; Specify:
1
2
3
4
5
Please rate the level of participation in the
staffing meeting of each stakeholder:
Strongly
Disagree
1
2
Neither Agree
nor Disagree
3
4
Strongly
Agree
5
10. Did there appear to be a mutual respect between the
agencies?
1
2
3
4
5
11. Did there appear to be a respect for clients being
discussed (i.e., intrinsic worth, rights, capacities, uniqueness,
commonalities?)
1
2
3
4
5
12. Did team members share information and knowledge
freely with one another?
1
2
3
4
5
13. Did there appear to be a general sense of teamwork and
partnership between the team members?
1
2
3
4
5
14. Did there appear to be an openness of information and
communication between the team members?
1
2
3
4
5
During the drug court team staffing meeting:
USE THE INFORMATION FROM THE OBSERVATION TABLE TO ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
15. Number of cases discussed: _______________________________________
16. Average discussion time per case (in minutes): ________________________
17. How many case discussions mentioned participant treatment progress?: ______________
18. How many case discussions mentioned participant progress toward educational goals?: ______________
19. How many case discussions mentioned participant progress toward vocation/employment/volunteering goals?:
______________
20. How many case discussions mentioned supervision/case management issues and/or progress?: ______________
21. How many case discussions mentioned urine analyses?: ______________
22. If UA’s were mentioned, how many discussed negative results?: ______________
23. If UA’s were mentioned, how many discussed positive results?: ______________
24. How many case discussions mentioned sanctions?: ______________
25. How many case discussions mentioned incentives? ____________________
Drug Court Team Meeting Observations – After and Drug Court Teem Meeting Observations – By Case adapted from:
Carey, S. M., Mackin, J. R., & Finigan, M. W. (2012). What works? The ten key components of drug court: Research-based best practices. Drug Court Review, 8(1), 6-42. Retrieved
from http://www.ndci.org/sites/default/files/nadcp/DCR_best-practices-in-drug-courts.pdf
Cumming, T., & Wong, S. M. (2008). An evaluation of SDN’s inclusion support agencies: Exploring strengths-based approaches to inclusion support. Retrieved from
http://www.sdn.org.au/downloads/6-%20EVALUATION%20OF%20SDN%27S%20ISA-Final%20Copy.pdf
Giacomazzi, A. L. & Bell, V. (2007) Drug court program monitoring: Lessons learned about program implementation and research methodology. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 18(3),
294-312. doi:10.1177/0887403407301494
Rossman, S. B., Roman, J., Zweig, D. K., Rempel, M., & Lindquist, C., eds. 2011. The Multi-Site Drug Court Evaluation. Washington, D. C.: The Urban Institute. (Study work product:
does not appear in formal publication). Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/237111.pdf
Page 44
Salvatore, C., Henderson, J. S., Hiller, M. L., White, E., & Samuelson, B. (2010). An observational study of team meetings and status hearings in a juvenile drug court. Drug Court
Review, 7(1), 95-124. Retrieved from http://www.ndci.org/sites/default/files/ndci/DrugCourtReviewVolume7PDF.pdf
Santa Barbara County Drug Court Process Evaluation—Santa Maria
Drug Court Hearing Observations (Individual Sessions)
CASE #:
(to be completed DURING the court session; one for EACH participant)
Court: _____________________________________________________ Date: ____________________
1. Start Time: __________________________
2. Stop Time: ____________________________
3. TOTAL Length: _________________
4. Gender:
 Male
 Female
5. Appearance Type: (check all that apply)
 Regular judicial status hearing
 Pre-participation/potential new participant
 In custody appearance
 Sentencing
Observer Initials: _________
6. Indicate if the following stakeholders participated in the
hearing: (check all that apply)
 Judge
 Dedicated prosecutor
 Dedicated defense attorney
 Conflict attorney
 Project/resource coordinator
 Psychiatrist/psychologist
 Probation officer
 Treatment agency (works for community based tmt.)
 Law Enforcement
 Child welfare/Social services worker; specify:
 Other; specify: ___________________________
Indicate if the following occurred during the hearing:
YES
NO
GENERAL COURTROOM OBSERVATIONS
7. Did drug court participants appear with counsel in the cases that were observed?


8. Were treatment progress reports conveyed orally (e.g., by the P.O. or treatment liaison)?


9. Did a family member of the defendant attend the appearance?


10. Did a family member of the defendant speak or otherwise participate during the appearance?


JUDICIAL INTERACTIONS
11. Judge made regular eye contact with defendant (for most of the appearance).


12. Judge talked directly to defendant (as opposed to through attorney).


13. Judge engaged with participant (e.g., elicited questions/statements, imparted instructions/advice, etc.).


14. Judge explained consequences of future non/compliance (e.g., phase advancement, graduation, jail, etc.)


15. Judge directed comments to the audience (e.g., using the current case as an example).


16. Defendant asked questions.


17. Defendant made statements.


18. Defendant displayed art/talent (e.g., displayed artwork, sang, etc.).


DEFENDANT INTERACTIONS
19. Defendant shared a success story or story of successful personal progress.
20. Noncompliance was: (check all that apply)
 Treatment absence(s)
 Re-arrest
 Poor attitude
 Missed court date(s)
 Returned on warrant
 Positive drug test(s)
 Violated rules at treatment
 Other; Specify:_______________________________
a. What was the court’s response?: (check all that apply)
 None
 Admonishment from judge
 Admonishment from other staff; who?: __________
 Participant failed drug court
 Other sanction(s); list all: __________


21. Were any of the following incentives administered?:
(check all that apply)
 Courtroom applause
 Shook hands with judge
 Praise from judge
 Praise from other staff; specify: _____________
 Other reward; specify: _____________________
22. Were any of the following recognized?: (check all that apply)
 Drug-free days
 Eligible for graduation
 Phase advancement
 Job/school event
 Other; specify: _____________________
Adapted from:
Carey, S. M., Mackin, J. R., & Finigan, M. W. (2012). What works? The ten key components of drug court: Research-based best practices. Drug Court Review, 8(1), 6-42.
Cumming, T., & Wong, S. M. (2008). An evaluation of SDN’s inclusion support agencies: Exploring strengths-based approaches to inclusion support.
Rossman, S. B., Roman, J., Zweig, D. K., Rempel, M., & Lindquist, C., eds. 2011. NIJ’s Multi-Site Drug Court Evaluation Courtroom Observation Protocol. Washington, D. C.: The Urban Institute. (Study work
product: does not appear in formal publication).
Rossman, S. B., Roman, J., Zweig, D. K., Rempel, M., & Lindquist, C., eds. 2011. The Multi-Site Drug Court Evaluation. Washington, D. C.: The Urban Institute. (Study work product: does not appear in formal
Page
publication).
Satel, S. L. (1998). Observational study of courtroom dynamics in selected drug courts. National Drug Court Institute Review, 1(1), 56-87.
45
Santa Maria SATC and DDX Courts
Court Session Observations
(completed AFTER the entire court session)
Court: ____________________________________________________
Judge: ____________________________________________________
Date:______________________________________________________________________________________________
Observer: __________________________________________________________________________________________
Morning or afternoon session?: ________________________________________________________________________
1. Start time: ______________
2. End time: ______________ 3. Total hearing length (in minutes): ______________
4. Total number of court appearances observed: ___________________________________
5. Were the cases called in an intentional order (e.g., sanctions first)? (If unsure, ask a member of the drug court team).
 Yes
 No
a. If YES, what specifically was the intentional order?
 Sanctions first
 ‘Good reports’ first
 Other; specify:____________________________________________________________________________
6. Was the court session open to the public?
 Yes
 No
7. Was the court session open to participants other than when their case was called?
 Yes
 No
8. Did drug court participants have to stay for the entire court session, or were they allowed to exit after their appearance?
(Answer “stay” if only a small number of participants are allowed to leave due to employment-related or other special
circumstances)
 Must Stay  Allowed to Exit
 Depends on Phase
9. Was there arranged seating for the participants?
a. Participants in custody
 No
 Jury box
 Other; specify;
b. Regular court appearances
 No
 Jury box
 Other; specify;
Adapted from:
Cumming, T., & Wong, S. M. (2008). An evaluation of SDN’s inclusion support agencies: Exploring strengths-based approaches to inclusion support.
Retrieved from http://www.sdn.org.au/downloads/6-%20EVALUATION%20OF%20SDN%27S%20ISA-Final%20Copy.pdf
Rossman, S. B., Roman, J., Zweig, D. K., Rempel, M., & Lindquist, C., eds. 2011. NIJ’s Multi-Site Drug Court Evaluation Courtroom Observation Protocol.
Washington, D. C.: The Urban Institute. (Study work product: does not appear in formal publication). Retrieved from
http://173.231.132.82/sites/default/files/documents/4_Court_Observation_MADCE.pdf
Satel, S. L. (1998). Observational study of courtroom dynamics in selected drug courts. National Drug Court Institute Review, 1(1), 56-87.
Page 46
Santa Barbara County Drug Court Process Evaluation—Santa Maria
Stakeholder Survey
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Interview Date: ________________________________
Drug Court Site: _______________________________
Respondent’s Name: ____________________________
UCSB Evaluation
Respondent’s Title: _____________________________
Team
Respondent’s Organization: _______________________________________________________________
Respondent’s email: _____________________________________________________________________
Please answer the following questions to the best of your ability.
7. How many hours in an average week do you spend on Drug Court activities? _______________________________
8. If you had to divide up the time you spend on Drug Court activities into the following categories, how many hours
in an average week do you think you would put into each category? (Your best estimates are fine.):
Task
DRUG COURT
Description
Attending court sessions, attending team meetings & planning meetings,
preparing for court, and doing progress reports on participants.
CASE MANAGEMENT
TREATMENT SESSIONS
Meeting with clients and making referrals, phone calls, answering
questions, determining appropriate treatment, home visits, monitoring
progress, contacting treatment providers, screenings and evaluations,
assessments.
Preparing for and conducting individual or group treatment sessions.
DRUG TESTS
Administering UAs and other drug tests.
COORDINATION AND/OR
SUPERVISION
Writing grants, data management, doing reports for the state, supervising
employees, program development, doing the budget, billings and invoices,
coordinating the courts, trainings.
# of Hours
Other
TOTAL
(Should match hours in Question 7)
How many hours each week do you spend on other work activities?
Task
Description
9.
# of Hours
What kind of education or training have you received related to drug courts? (Please check all that apply).




Training by local drug court staff
NADCP
Other; Specify:______________________________________________________________________
Other; Specify:______________________________________________________________________
Adapted from:
Hiller, M. (unpublished). Drug Court Components Questionnaire. Personal communication.
Hiller, M., Belenko, S., Taxman, F., Young, D., Perdoni, M., & Saum, C. (2010). Measuring drug court structure and operations: Key components and beyond. Criminal Justice
and Behavior, 37(9), 933-950. doi:10.1177/0093854810373727
NPC Research (2006). Adult Drug Court Typology Interview Guide. Retrieved from
http://www.npcresearch.com/Files/NPC_Research_Drug_Court_Typology_Interview_Guide_(copyrighted).pdf
NPC Research Copyright Notice:
Copyright 2004 Northwest Professional Consortium, Inc. (dba NPC Research). To ascertain whether you have the current version or for other information about this instrument,
please contact Shannon Carey at NPC Research, 4380 SW Macadam Ave., Ste. 530, Portland, OR 97239-3857, 503-243-2436, [email protected] or
Page 47
www.npcresearch.com.
Permission is hereby granted to reproduce and distribute copies of this work for nonprofit purposes, provided that this copyright notice is included on
each copy. Development of this tool was funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Department of Justice.
Santa Maria SATC and DDX Courts
For the remainder of the questions, please circle the answer that shows how much you agree or disagree that each item
describes the Santa Barbara County Drug Treatment Court. If you are a member of both the SATC and the DDX team,
please circle responses for each team separately.
SATC
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1. Traditional adversarial roles are set aside
during the drug court process
2. The operations of the drug court reflect
both court and treatment goals.
3. Prosecution and defense work together
to identify who is eligible for court.
4. A participant must meet explicit legal
criteria to be eligible for the program.
5. A potential participant must meet
distinct treatment criteria to be eligible for
the program.
6. The judge values the treatment
providers’ recommendations about the
participants.
7. Court and treatment staff have a difficult
time communicating with each other.
8. The team has worked hard to
understand each other’s perspective.
9. Major decisions are made collaboratively
by the drug court team.
10. Everyone feels like they are an
important part of the drug court team.
11. Team members understand each
others’ roles.
12. Treatment and court staff work well
together.
13. Defense and prosecution work well
together.
14. Participants attend regular
status/review hearings with the judge.
15. Participants are required to watch the
status/reviews of the other participants.
16. Participants can participate in
educational and vocational assessment and
training.
17. A participant may be referred to a
higher level of treatment if needed.
18. Treatment plans are individualized to
the needs of each participant.
19. Treatment plans are similar for each
participant.
Strongly
Agree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
QUESTION
Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Agree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
1
DDX
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Page 48
Santa Barbara County Drug Court Process Evaluation—Santa Maria
SATC
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Page 49
20. The drug court has a rich network of
treatment resources.
21. All participants receive the same set of
treatment services.
22. Gender-specific treatment is available
to those who want it.
23. Culturally-sensitive interventions are
utilized
24. Drug test results are quickly
communicated to the drug court team.
25. Precautions are taken to prevent
participants from tampering with their drug
tests.
26. The drug court uses a graduated system
of sanctions to address noncompliant
behavior.
27. Rewards are matched to the level of
compliance shown by the participant.
28. The drug court judge tends to
individualize the sanctions given to the
participant.
29. The severity of the sanction is matched
with the seriousness of the infraction.
30. The drug court rewards participant
progress in the program.
31. Sanctions are effective for influencing
participant compliance.
32. Minor infractions result is minor
sanctions.
33. The community is supportive of the
drug court’s efforts.
34. The drug court uses the news media to
garner support.
35. Evaluation data have been used to
make changes in the drug court.
36. The team regularly uses data to assess
the operations of the program.
37. Media attention has been positive.
Strongly
Agree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
QUESTION
Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Agree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
1
DDX
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Santa Maria SATC and DDX Courts
Stakeholder Interview
1.
Interview Date: ________________________________
2.
Drug Court Site: _______________________________
3.
Respondent’s Name: ___________________________
4.
Respondent’s Title: _____________________________________________________________________
5.
Respondent’s Organization: _______________________________________________________________
6.
When did you become involved in the drug court program?
a. SATC
b.
7.
DDX
How is your role in drug court different from someone in a similar role in a traditional court system?
a. SATC
b.
9.
DDX
What is your role (or what do you do) in the Drug Court program?
a. SATC
b.
8.
UCSB Evaluation
Team
DDX
What are the main goals of your drug court?
a. SATC
b.
DDX
10. Describe the case referral process.
(How are eligible participants identified?) Who does the initial screening? (DA, PD, Probation Pre-trail services?)
a. SATC
b.
DDX
11. What are the eligibility (e.g., Only nonviolent offense? Limit on number or prior convictions? Need for treatment?)
and exclusionary (e.g., types of offenses, mental health issues) criteria?
a. SATC
b.
DDX
Adapted from:
NPC Research (2006). Adult Drug Court Typology Interview Guide. Retrieved from
http://www.npcresearch.com/Files/NPC_Research_Drug_Court_Typology_Interview_Guide_(copyrighted).pdf
NPC Research Copyright Notice:
Copyright 2004 Northwest Professional Consortium, Inc. (dba NPC Research). To ascertain whether you have the current version or for other information
about this instrument, please contact Shannon Carey at NPC Research, 4380 SW Macadam Ave., Ste. 530, Portland, OR 97239-3857, 503-243-2436,
[email protected] or www.npcresearch.com. Permission is hereby granted to reproduce and distribute copies of this work for nonprofit purposes,
provided that this copyright notice is included on each copy. Development of this tool was funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Department of
Justice.
Page 50
Santa Barbara County Drug Court Process Evaluation—Santa Maria
12. What are the suitability requirements?
a. SATC
b.
DDX
13. Who is responsible for final determination about program entry? (DA, PD, Judge?)
a. SATC
b.
DDX
14. How are decisions about responses to participants’ behaviors made (e.g. by the team, judge)?
a. SATC
b.
DDX
15. What is the role of the judge? (Duties, level of involvement?)
a. SATC
b.
DDX
16. What is the role of the coordinator? (Duties, level of involvement?)
a. SATC
b.
DDX
17. What is the role of law enforcement both in the court and in the community? (Duties, level of involvement?)
a. SATC
b.
DDX
18. What is the role of the Probation Department? (Duties, level of involvement?)
a. SATC
b.
DDX
19. What is the role of the Public Defender or other defense counsel? (Duties, level of involvement)
a. SATC
b.
DDX
20. What is the role of the State's/District Attorney? (Duties, level of involvement?)
a. SATC
b.
DDX
21. What is the role of the treatment provider? (Duties, level of involvement?)
a. SATC
b.
Page 51
DDX
Santa Maria SATC and DDX Courts
22. What is the role of mental health (i.e., psychologist; if they are represented)?
a. SATC
b.
DDX
23. How well do you feel the partners involved in the SATC work together? (Give examples)
a. SATC
b.
DDX
24. What is the primary philosophy or treatment model used? (At each agency?)
a. SATC
b.
DDX
25. What are the gender-specific practices of this court (if any)?
a. SATC
b.
DDX
26. What are the culture-specific practices of this court (if any)?
a. SATC
b.
DDX
27. What is considered good behavior?
a. SATC
b.
DDX
28. What behaviors are considered non-compliant?
a. SATC
b.
DDX
29. Why do participants fail?
a. SATC
b.
DDX
30. What do you think are the most promising practices of this drug court?
a. SATC
b.
DDX
31. Are there any changes you would like to see happen that you think would improve the program or make it more
effective?
a. SATC
b.
DDX
Page 52
Santa Barbara County Drug Court Process Evaluation—Santa Maria
References
Carey, S. M., Mackin, J. R., & Finigan, M. W. (2012). Appendix C: Best practices comparing yes to no with n sizes. NPC
Research. Retrieved from http://www.npcresearch.com/Files/Appendix_C_Best_practices_comparing_
yes_to_no_with_N_sizes.pdf
Carey, S. M., Mackin, J. R., & Finigan, M. W. (2012). What works? The ten key components of drug court: Research-based
best practices. Drug Court Review, 8(1), 6-42.
Cumming, T. & Wong, S. M. (2008). An evaluation of SDN’s inclusion support agencies: Exploring strengths-based
approaches to inclusion support. Retrieved from http://www.sdn.org.au/downloads/6%20EVALUATION%20OF%20SDN%27S%20ISA-Final%20Copy.pdf
Giacomazzi, A. L. & Bell, V. (2007) Drug court program monitoring: Lessons learned about program implementation and
research methodology. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 18(3), 294-312. doi:10.1177/0887403407301494
Hiller, M. (Unpublished). Drug Court Components Questionnaire. Personal communication.
Hiller, M., Belenko, S., Taxman, F., Young, D., Perdoni, M., & Saum, C. (2010). Measuring drug court structure and
operations: Key components and beyond. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(9), 933-950.
doi:10.1177/0093854810373727
Hora, P. F. (2002). A dozen years of drug treatment courts: uncovering our theoretical foundation and the construction of a
mainstream paradigm. Substance Use & Misuse, 37, 1469–1487.
NPC Research (2006). Adult Drug Court Typology Interview Guide. Retrieved from
http://www.npcresearch.com/Files/NPC_Research_Drug_Court_Typology_Interview_Guide_(copyrighted).pdf
Rossman, S. B., Roman, J., Zweig, D. K., Rempel, M., & Lindquist, C., eds. (2011a). NIJ’s Multi-Site Drug Court Evaluation
Courtroom Observation Protocol. Washington, D. C.: The Urban Institute.
Rossman, S. B., Roman, J., Zweig, D. K., Rempel, M., & Lindquist, C., eds. (2011b). The Multi-Site Drug Court Evaluation.
Washington, D. C.: The Urban Institute. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/237111.pdf
Salvatore, C., Henderson, J. S., Hiller, M. L., White, E., & Samuelson, B. (2010). An observational study of team meetings and
status hearings in a juvenile drug court. Drug Court Review, 7(1), 95-124.
Satel, S. L. (1998). Observational study of courtroom dynamics in selected drug courts. National Drug Court Institute Review,
1(1), 56-87.
Page 53