Diagnóstico del macroproyecto problema educativo del PEI

Process measurement, performance measurement, and evaluation are tools used to monitor and evaluate the achievement of program goals, identify needed improvements to the Tribal Healing to Wellness Court and to the tribal court process, determine participant progress, and provide

information to governing bodies, interested community groups, and funding sources.

uccessful Tribal Healing to Wellness Courts carefully collect, organize, analyze, and evaluate information from the beginning of the planning stage and throughout program

operations. There are three primary purposes for the collection and analysis of Tribal Healing to Wellness Court information. First, it is important to frequently monitor internal program operations in order to make changes to improve the existing process. Second, it is necessary to demonstrate the program’s effectiveness and impact on the community to tribal, federal, state, and private policy-makers and funders. Information, including collected data and stories, helps to show the success of the Tribal Healing to Wellness Court. Third, funding sources may evaluate how well the court adheres to their particular grant

management standards, design features, and performance measures.

In 2004, the NDCI established the National Research Advisory Committee (NRAC) to create and develop a uniform research plan for drug court data collection and analysis and to provide a uniform and manageable data

collection and evaluation strategy for local drug court programs. The resulting “process

evaluation” and “performance measurement” tools may be used by Tribal Healing to Wellness Courts to promote sound management

practices and to answer questions from stakeholders and funding agencies.

Drug court process evaluations are tools to be used by managers and stakeholders as they

seek to maintain successful drug court programs, enhance services, and promote research-based practices.83 Ideally, a drug court process evaluation would be undertaken

annually. Process evaluations should include descriptive statistics that are used to answer questions about the level to which the program is meeting its goals. The seven basic elements to be considered are:

1. Program Goals—Is the court achieving its program goals? Is the court achieving the legislative goals?

2. Target Population—Is the court

reaching the defined target population? Is the target population appropriately defined?

3. Alcohol and Drug Abuse Treatment—Is the court providing the appropriate dosage of treatment for participants? Are participant treatment needs (as determined by assessment) being addressed?

4. Court Process—Is the court admitting participants in a timely fashion? Are drug tests and other services occurring on a timely basis? Do sanctions and incentives make sense? Are sanctions and incentives having the intended effects? What is the ratio of sanctions

83_{Cary Heck and Meridith H. Thanner, “Evaluating Drug} Courts: A Model for Process Evaluation,” DRUG COURT REVIEW 5, no. 2, 32 (2006).

65

and incentives to the precipitating behaviors of participants?

5. Units of Service—Are participants compliant with court requirements? Are participants getting the services they need?

6. Team Member Cooperation—Does the drug court team work well together? 7. Community Support—Does the

community support the program?84 Tribal Healing to Wellness Court coordinators should direct evaluators to consider additional questions specific to their jurisdiction.

Drug court performance measurement is the establishment of research-based indicators that measure drug court program activity in order to determine correlations (not causes).85 Ideally, a drug court performance evaluation would take place toward the end of a particular grant and support further fundraising efforts. It is no longer recommended that drug courts pursue outcome evaluations.86 Instead, the NRAC has developed four primary drug court

performance measures or indicators:

1. Retention—What is the retention rate? 2. Sobriety—What is the average stretch

of sobriety for a graduating participant? What are the trends in participant sobriety over the course of the

84

Cary Heck, National Drug Court Institute, “Local Drug Court Research: Navigating Performance Measures and Process Evaluations,” LOCAL DRUG COURT RESEARCH, MONOGRAPH SERIES 6, 4-7, 21 (2006).

85

Cary Heck and Meridith H. Thanner, National Drug Court Institute, “Drug Court Performance Measurement: Suggestions from the National Research Advisory Committee,” DRUG COURT REVIEW 5, no. 2, 37 (2006). 86_{Heck, “Local Drug Court Research: Navigating} Performance Measures and Process Evaluations,” LOCAL DRUG COURT RESEARCH,MONOGRAPH SERIES 6, 7 (2006).

program?

3. Recidivism—What is the in-program recidivism rate? What is the post- program recidivism rate? How do participants compare to other similarly situated offenders in recidivism? 4. Units of Service—Which services affect

participants in a positive way? Does the way the drug court program brokers services positively affect participants?87 Collection of data is recommended; however, there is no need for a specialized Tribal Healing to Wellness Court case-management system to collect data for process evaluations or

performance measures. The Excel and Access software programs of the Microsoft Office Suite can be used in conjunction with the

information on the specific data elements (in Appendix B) in order to create a simple but usable and valuable database for evaluations and performance measurement. Also, the NIJ has developed a logic model for drug court teams to guide evaluations and performance measurement of drug court programs.88 Nevertheless, a free, generic Management Information System (MIS) is available for download at the American University website. The Buffalo Drug Court MIS, a system that mirrors the actual MIS system used by the Buffalo, New York Drug Court, Mental Health Court, and Veterans Court, was donated to the BJA Drug Court Technical Assistance Project at the American University for distribution to other drug courts.89

87_{Heck and Tanner, “Drug Court Performance}

Measurement,” at 7–12, 21. For a comprehensive list of data elements for adult drug courts see App. B.

88 _{See C}

HEESEMAN II,NIJ,PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT AND PROGRAM EVALUATION FOR DRUG COURTS, (NCJ231775, 2010). 89

66

Findings from NIJ Wellness Court Study: Component #8