RULE: Captions should be split into individual caption groups such that whole phrases, nouns, sentences, and flow of dialogue is interrupted as minimally as possible, while abiding by the 60 character limit. Please don't correct grammar or remove words just format.

WHY: This allows the captions to be easily read by the viewer, with logical breaks and enough time on screen. 

 

Split captions...
Please don't correct grammar or punctuate:
after terminal punctuation
before conjunctions
before prepositions:   So, for all those services that you're potentially providing, 3% is marginal. And as I mentioned before, it's not depicted here, but studies have also shown that providing intensive services to low-risk individuals may actually increase the criminal behavior. And so that's something you really want to be aware of.
 
And this really speaks to adherence. If you're thinking about implementation and you're thinking about the R&R principles, risk, needs, and responsivity, what you have to think about is that you can, as I said before, there are certain organizations or localities or whatever the case may be that may only assess risk. Oftentimes, we only assess risk because we want to identify placement in programs.
 
We use that criteria for something else entirely. If you're looking to actually reduce recidivism and implement the model, what this pretty much shows is that for interventions that do not adhere to any of the three principles of any of the three principles, so risk, need, or responsivity, if you do none of that, you're likely to have criminogenic results. So, you actually see an increase in recidivism.
 
That's the two bars on the on the left. Those are for both community and residents populations, right, in terms of reentry. And then you see that if you would hear to all three principles far to the right, you could have a range of recidivism from 17 to 35 percent if you're addressing risk, needs, and responsivity, which is something that the fourth-generation tools do accomplish.
 
So, you see a kind of an incremental increase return on your investment, right? If you address one principle, you've got marginal improvement in recidivism. Two principles, fairly solid, but three principles, you're looking at 17 to 35 percent in custodial and community-based settings as a range. So really the idea is that the more of it that you do, the more of an impact you'll have recidivism.
 
If you can manage to implement the model in its entirety, assessing and addressing all three principles, you get a pretty good return on your investment, up to 35 percent reduction in recidivism. So wanted to talk briefly about some of the implementation considerations and some of the things that we worked on in the learning collaborative itself, some of the considerations that the site's tousled with, and that you may be thinking of. So, one of them is sort of when we think about R&R and we think about these particular assessments, really, it's like, where are we going to do this? And so, we know that engagement with the legal system occurs along a continuum from law enforcement to the courts to institutional corrections and community corrections.
 
There are a lot of partners, the system is generally complex. So how can R&R services be situated to benefit as many individuals as possible, and how can information be shared between agencies to maximize benefit? It's very hard to put an assessment in one single place that's going to benefit everyone, but how can you maximize your investment on this? If we're talking about reentry, let's say in the context of release from jails or prisons, right? Probably you can maximize your investment by thinking about pre-release planning and then sharing that information with community corrections, with treatment providers, and with others that are going to be working with the individual. So how can we maximize that to benefit as many people as possible? And then, wherever we situate it, how can we share the information to ensure that people have access to it and therefore can collaborate a little bit around that response for that individual? So that was really challenge number one.
 
Like, where are we going to do this? Where makes most sense? Another issue that you really have to think about is the organizational climate conducive to R&R implementation, right? I think this is something that all of our sites really focused on and some to their surprise and some not. I think the value of R&R and the criminal justice system, the successful implementation of R&R can require a change in core ideologies from a focus on authority, supervision, safety, to more therapeutic and rehabilitative philosophies. Are all our partners on board with that? That's critical question to ask.
 
And so there may be a need to provide staff with foundational training, information like I'm providing today. To think about, do we understand what R&R is theoretically? Do we understand what it is in practice? Do we buy into it? And are we willing to explore making the changes that are necessary to implement it with efficacy? So, this is really a critical probably should have been the first consideration before you even think about where to put it. But really thinking about is the climate conducive? Are all of our partners on board? I've already sort of went over this, but using the structured and validated instruments to assess R&R.
 
You can try to do an R&R without the instruments. You could be more conscientious of the different risk factors. You could be more conscientious of the needs.
 
You can attempt to match needs to risk. You can try to do all that, and you can, in theory, promote that kind of an environment. But if you don't have the data and you don't have the information from these tools, it's probably not going to be as successful as it could be.
 
I'll say it definitely won't be as successful as it could be. Really, really want to think about implementing a tool as a critical foundational piece for this. Again, don't get caught up in the science of it all.
 
Choose an instrument based on the relative fit for your organization and really want to target fourth-generation tools if you can. Somewhere I would absolutely start the search. The other thing is utilize information obtained from the assessment as intended.
 
I know this probably sounds like, of course. Well, if I could count the number of times in my career, whether it's R&R or any other kind of screening tool, where information screening assessment information is being collected either because it's mandated by someone, the government, a funder, whatever the case may be. But the information just sits in a file, whether it's an electronic file or it's an actual drawer.
 
The idea is that you collect the information, you're investing a lot of resource, and then you use it to inform service provision. You have to connect all those dots. You have to pull that string entirely through.
 
If you're just collecting information and you're not using the information, then you really haven't accomplished much. So, you really have to think about you really have to think about that and think about how you ensure that that information gets utilized. There are policies and procedures that would come into play that would indicate who looks at it, what they're going to do with it, what gets recorded, how it gets shared, how it gets followed up on, and so on and so forth.
 
So that's something use it as it's intended. Don't let it just be another piece of paper in a file. That's an incredible waste of time and resources to have it be that without the return on investment.
 
Also, the idea of limiting reliance upon professional discretion. Again, I don't want people to remove their professional discretion. I know that that would be a major barrier for folks to think if that were the process that their professional discretion would all of a sudden be rendered useless.
 
That's not the point. The point is to trust the tool. When you implement tools like this, they're validated, they're relatively accurate at predicting risk.
 
If they put out a risk score to low, moderate, or high, they identify needs and then identify options for planning, treatment planning, and case planning, go with it. You can make adjustments based on professional judgment, but the idea is to learn to trust the tool and see how it works. I think that's a thing that's hard for many people to do.
 
Remember, these are validated tools that are determined to accurately measure risk needs and responsivity. Really, what you have to do is you have to build a partnership to facilitate R&R services. Wherever the program may be housed, wherever the assessment may be done, like I said before, that's not necessarily going to be all encompassing in terms of its benefit on the legal system and all the partners that may also be working with that individual.
 
They're going to have to work hard to develop and maintain collaborative relationships with other organizations that are providing some of the services that you may be seeking out as part of this plan. If you're doing R&R assessments and you're identifying behavioral health treatment needs, you're going to be partnering with behavioral health treatment organizations, employment services, housing resources, etc., etc. The idea is that, to the extent possible, you need to build those collaborative relationships, not only to secure the services, but also to help ensure that the interventions that are beginning are optimized, that everybody's on the same page, so on and so forth.
 
That's really, really critical. I'm going to stop there. I promised a half hour, and I'm right on the half hour, and we're going to hear from our three sites.
 
They're going to tell you a little bit about their experiences with the learning collaborative and what they're doing around R&R. I think this is going to be more valuable than hearing any more from me on the overview, but I'll be around to answer questions as well. We're going to start with Raoul Ayala.
 
He's the supervising attorney in the Central District of California at the Federal Public Defenders Office. Raoul, you're muted. Thank you.
 
Sometimes you just can't get me to shut up though, right? Thank you, Dr. Mike. Let me just say a few words of thanks, of course, to Samshia for making this training available to our programs and for scheduling and for selecting us as a site. I know there was others that applied, and we thank Samshia for that, and of course, partnering with PRA and providing us with the expertise of Dr. Chappelle and his associates and colleagues in moving us along in our program.
 
And of course, our cohorts from Arizona and Oklahoma will have consistently demonstrated their commitment, their scale, and resilience in the learning collaborative, and the treatment court work that they've done. They're good examples and showed us that we are also on the right track. I want to thank, of course, our collaborative court teams, which, you know, I represent the our collaborative court teams here in the Southern, excuse me, Central District of California, which is LA and surrounding counties.
 
We have seven counties around in our district, over 20 plus million people. We have four pre-trial collaborative courts, our diversion courts, and we have three post-conviction drug treatment and re-entry courts. We have, you know, a pretty active group of programs in our district, and we've been operating since 2011-2012.
 
So, we've got a lot of experience and a lot of committed individuals in these programs. We are one of 94 judicial district, federal judicial districts. When we first started in 2011-2012, there was only a handful of programs like ours.
 
Now, luckily, you know, there are closer to 150 collaborative courts, and the federal judicial system, about 50 of them are pre-trial or diversion type programs, and about 100 are post-conviction drug courts, including some veterans courts, mental out courts, and the like. So, this was when we saw the opportunity to participate in this collaborative to learn more about the R&R, you know, we jumped at the at the EO, at the prospect. You know, Dr. Mike is correct.