Introductions (Mike)
About Us: CSG as Noahs Ark of crime policy (two of every player in CJ policy), tackle issues w/ potential for bipartisan consensus; CP report generated hearings in both houses, priority to translate into policy practice, look at variety of aspect of issue: currently major focus on mental health courts
BJA wants to ensure that grantees are informed by research, have made a priority for us; NMHA has gotten tacit green light; first time meeting w/ NIJ and NIDA
S 1194: leg is incredibly flexible; passed unanimously; no funding in 2004 budget (authorized but not appropriated); encouraged that the bill passed so not unexpected that it didnt get into it;
Will it emerge in Congresss budget? Have gotten signal there will be money, just a question of how much, optimism is guarded;
Activities of Interagency planning committee: commitment from agency directors, laying ground-work for administering grant program (want to avoid rush for putting together solicitation w/o adequate collaboration) start small, dont bring too many agencies into fold yet (HUD, Medicaid, etc), focus on components of MOU; CSG to staff collaboration (call meeting, write-up minutes, etc);
Overlap with Research Initiative: not a lot of money for research and TA; mentions substance abuse / COD explicitly, includes MH agencies w/ sub abuse and COD treatment. Current meeting to focus on research side (rather than policy side); in context of need for research, reality that current MHC stuff long-term at best, need to collect what the research says asap; goal to consolidate methodology, simplify findings; assist jurisdictions applying for grants: building apps from same prevalence numbers: purpose is to gather people whose agencies fund work in this area (BJA included b/c move money to other agencies even though cant do research themselves), discuss process to get researchers on the same page, work towards deliverables. Have researcher buy-in (Steadman, Monahan); focal point: assemble lead researchers (identified by todays participants), explore these deliverables / hand-out draft stuff
Research activities of represented organizations
NIJ Overview: 11 MH projects, which are a combo of open solicitations / earmarks
· 4 yr study in CT Correctional MH Research Program (2002-2006): earmark, Bob Tressman is PI (principal investigator)
· Juvenile Justice MH Initiative (2001, almost end), St. Louis
· MH Courts (w/ Macarthur): Hank Steadman
· MH screens tested in various correctional settings
· American Indians risk assessment
· COD in Ohio
· (Upcoming): Pinellas Co. FL Public Defender Jail Diversion Program an earmark (dont have comparison group, makes research difficult); very vibrant program w/ lots of funding both county and private (eg. private housing)
· (Upcoming): CCI has an earmark, look at MHCs supported by CCI, look at kinds of real data they have (feasibility studies) build on what theyre doing re: research (Nahama Broner)
o nonprofit which est. Midtown Comm Court; investment by NYS Chief Justice and other key positions have supported it
o based in NY but do lots of work nationally: resemble VERA but just courts
Macarthur / Network on Mandated Commty Treatment
About MacArthur
· identifying difft types of leverage / coercion re: outpatient commitment
o next step to examine outcomes of difft types of leverage
· will come in December for 4 more years of funding
· look on web site re: bios for members
MacArthurs CJ/MH activities
· evaluation of Broward County
· cost studies (Steadman / Morrissey)
· Medicaid Eligibility;
· King County (Tom McGuire, economist)
· collab w/ NIJ to look at 7 courts (Hanks)
· support complementary inits, eg. CSG, Bazelon (to keep our researchers honest)
· support Joe Cocozzas branch of PRA
· recidivism study (Phoenix, Philly)
· Models for Change Initiative Juvenile Justice systems reform (PA, IL, LA)
· NCJJ to do baseline assessment, document change process, track leverages
NIDA -- About
· fund research, none specific MHC, but some related
· give priority to research that engages other agencies (eg. NIDAs a science-based institute, encourage cross-agency study)
Research Activities
· drug court research (6 yrs ago RFA): range of topics: structural components; role of judges; sans and incentives; EBPs from behavioral therapies in sans and incs; level of integration b/w treatment providers and DCs (Rand study: found missing linkage w/ MH treatment, even though most DCs seeing people w/ multiple morbidities)
· PA (emailed): co-morbid conditions; work w/ NIMH and other agency (?)
· starting to look at other speciality courts
· another PA thats interested in research that informs clinical practice, has relevance for policymakers: treatmnet models; adpotion of EBPs; measuring quality of treatment; cost effectiveness
· CJ DATS (Faye Taxman responsible for deving technology): large scale multisite research cooperative; spec. offender reentry, except for project collab w/ BJA devment of interagency info mant system, building on SAMHSA-built provider data entry system; impact of system on long-term outcomes; can get info on indl participant, as well as whole program (eg. MHC) holistically (eg. crude sense of #s enrollment, completion)
o very early in process, dont know upcoming work, cost;
o also deving quick / easy screen to be used by both CJ and MH professionals
o www.cjdats.org
· Synopsis of properties / qualities of good eval research:
o should help people understand difference b/w eval study and broader scientific qs (eg. appropriate schedule of sanctions and rewards):
NIMH
· homelessness prevention grant that considers role of CJ involvement
· have economics PA
· have dissem and implem PA
· EBP RFA (joint w/ SAMHSA)
· using CJ referral to get treatment (Fisher / Morrissey, using King Co. data)
· Dom violence cts as avenue for MH treatment (Beth Kauffman; Kate Cerruli)
· Nancy Wolff post-doc training program (sub abuse and MH people);
· Contract w/ Hank to do MH / CJ cross-training study
· Nancy Wolff project: ref. to handout as group w/ potential for working w/ outside partners
· Bob Trussman ref to handout:
o set up lab to take EBPs that work in community and adapting to prison setting
o Connected guy: UConn Dept of Psychiatry; MH Dir for DOC (positioned to work across interace)
o looking at Texas Medication Algorithm to help manage bipolar disorder, asking how itll work in the prison system
· lots of other stuff, but dont form coherent agenda (investigator initiated)
Michael, BJA:
· Res SA Treatment: evidence-base behind prison-based treatment and outcomes
· Screening / Assessment in DC
· Moving towards LE education
· as build solictiation for S 1194, need to work with you guys
Follow up w/ all participants to get exhaustive lists
· lots of great stuff planned, already out there
· each funder has found a way to do this stuff; appreciative of thirst in field
· talking about same researchers in many cases
· people should email
· should also email their nominations as no-brainers
o using their calendars and no-brainers can get a target date on the calendar
NEXT MEETING: funders and researchers; 20 people; October; DC
Purpose: get group to coalesce around existing research, organize it
· inventory of things already answered / research underway / planned
· juveniles? Laurie says keep them out, too many complicating considerations legal questions difft; Denise / Janice: makes it vastly more complicated
o Radonna: lots of existing research; most ability to intervene; shouldnt shy away, happens too much
§ eg. OJJDP juvenile screening/assessment tools for correctional facility much better than anything for adults
o CP only contemplated adults, would need big helping hand (Cocozza)
o MT: deving template to apply to adults, then possibly consider re: applying template to juveniles
· trying to est. chemistry among places doing stuff along these lines
· reviewing science, highlighting gaps in science: consensus building exercise
· foster collaborative relationships across sa / mh / cj, as well as equipping local communities to help foster research questions (community participation in research)
· ensure court research doesnt overwhelm meeting (b/c so much existing research in this area)
How to organize meeting and inventory:
how to deal with difft language used by difft agencies / orgs
2 options were discussed: a) matrix sorted by pt on continuum; b) key concepts
OPTION A: CONTINUUM / MATRIX
· show continuum, points merge at difft places, show where research is at differnet pts; include outisde the continuum qs, eg. what makes good outcome measurements / evaluation (what makes good research, quality of evaluators)
· Organized around matrix: both decision points and broader questions that hit upon all points (eg. outomes; screening/referral; prevalence) plug something in each box at each point in the continuum
o if its too broad, funders feel like it already falls under existing PAs
o cant be too narrow
o can organize panels around matrix
o web-oriented, clickable for more info
o county v. state; rural v. urban; men v. women;
· organize by pts along the contacts w/ treatment and CJ systems (Denise)
o eg. early intervention by provider (way to long outside of CJ agencies)
o drug court research underanalyzed treatment piece (Janice); we need to think about how to pull in treatment perspective
o paucity of treatment-oriented research
· work around matrix, take notes and update matrix, devp work plan to pursue Initiative goals
OPTION B: BROAD CONCEPTS
· organize by broader questions (Radonna)
o could be applicable no matter where on system you are, eg. screening / assessment; defining / measuring outcomes
§ although aspects of each question specific to pt on continuum
o Radonna in past has devd panel around broad questions comprised of people w/ specific expertise
§ eg. someone present on research piece, someone presenting from ct. perspective
o dont want to start w/ MHCs as an anchor
Who should be at meeting
· include practitioners
· Use the following as a starting point for invite list which well send out for their review, and theyll send to us their nominations
o Doug Marlowe: Radonna says doesnt do COD, just SA
o Roger Peters: done synthesis of research; not NIH-funded, but knows people who are; written on screening
o Holly Hills: written on treatment of women
o Health Foundaiton of Greater Cincy and other local groups
o RWJF and supportive housing: more programmtic than research
o JEHT has interest in MHCs
o Bazelon
§ then obligated to have NAMI and NMHA, consumer rep
§ Laura: should def have consumer crowd
· will have to consider who funds whose travel
o MacArthur and NIMH people will be covered; NIDA will have to consider
Useful to develop platform/MOU w/ buy-in from all groups at the table?
· orgs as signatories on letterhead? or MOU?
o just about meeting or broader than meeting?
o as product of meeting, produce written doc w/ list of future goals; doc would represent mutual interest in future goals, from which MOU can evolve
o invitiation from us, w/ agency logos: needs directors approval
· has big symbolic value
Are we happy enough w/ meeting to endorse it?
· NIDA will want much more info re: matrix, deliverables, etc.
· could just acknowledge that we all got together and talked
· must be designed w/ a diverse sense of audiences in mind, re: enhances work we all do on our own
· Denise J-B will do: one-paragrapher saying these are the agencies represented, these are the objectives, heres what wed like from you to help us get there
Mikes decision
· CSG to draft materials upon which meeting will be based
· if realistic, will shoot for directors sign off
· if not, no sweat, meeting will be set in motion in any case
· well be sending out logistics and other pre-matrix info in the next couple weeks
Things were not sure whether to cover
· legal / ethical issues? Richard Bonnie
Schedule for upcoming meeting: prepared for when S 1194 $ is available (as much as possible), but also function as a long-term resource; good to keep in mind but not something to plan around;
