competency to stand trial phase ii n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Competency to Stand Trial, Phase II: PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Competency to Stand Trial, Phase II:

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 33

Competency to Stand Trial, Phase II: - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 140 Views
  • Uploaded on

Competency to Stand Trial, Phase II:. DSHS Has Not Met Performance Targets—Better Management and Analysis Could Help it Do So. Preliminary Report. Elisabeth Donner, Zane Potter, Eric Thomas, and Sarah Unbehaun JLARC Staff.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Competency to Stand Trial, Phase II:' - adrienne-conway


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
competency to stand trial phase ii

Competency to Stand Trial, Phase II:

DSHS Has Not Met Performance Targets—Better Management and Analysis Could Help it Do So

Preliminary Report

Elisabeth Donner, Zane Potter,

Eric Thomas, and Sarah Unbehaun

JLARC Staff

competency services intended to prevent prosecution of mentally incompetent defendants
Competency Services Intended to Prevent Prosecution of Mentally Incompetent Defendants
  • Criminal defendants are not competent to stand trial if they:
    • Lack capacity to understand the proceedings against them; or
    • Cannot assist in their defense.
  • State statute requires that “no incompetent person shall be tried, convicted, or sentenced for the commission of an offense so long as such incapacity continues.” (RCW 10.77.050)

Competency to Stand Trial Audit 2 of 2

Phase I Report Page No. 1

2012 legislation ssb 6492 provided guidance to dshs and jlarc
2012 Legislation (SSB 6492) Provided Guidance to DSHS and JLARC

DSHS’s reported increase in referrals raised concerns about amount of time defendants wait for evaluation.

DSHS

JLARC

  • Directed JLARC to complete two performance assessments of the agency’s approach and success in meeting targets.
    • First study completed December 2012.

Competency to Stand Trial Audit 2 of 2

Legislation established performance targets for how long DSHS has to complete competency evaluations.

Report Page No. 1-2

key points in today s presentation
Key Points in Today’s Presentation

Overview of competency services

DSHS has not consistently met statutory targets

Analyses DSHS can perform to help determine best way to reach the statutory targets

Opportunities for improvements based on review of defendant data, WA’s process, and other states

Five Legislative Auditor recommendations to help DSHS meet statutory requirements and improve collaboration between system partners

Competency to Stand Trial Audit 2 of 2

Report Page No. 3-33

slide5
Background: DSHS Provides Competency Evaluation and Restoration Services to the Courts
other parties involved in the competency process can contribute to delays
Other Parties Involved in the Competency Process Can Contribute to Delays

Steps in the Initial Evaluation Process

Who is responsible?

1

Defendant’s competency questioned Trial suspended

Attorney

Judge

Defendant sent to jail or released to community

Court

Four documents sent to hospitals

2

Court

Jail

Evaluation Period Begins for DSHS

Evaluator assigned, evaluation scheduled

3

DSHS

Materials reviewed

Defendant interviewed and tested

Report with opinion written

4

DSHS

Report distributed to Court

5

DSHS

Evaluation Period Ends for DSHS

Competency hearing scheduled

6

Court

7

Defendant’s competency determined

Judge

Competency to Stand Trial Audit 2 of 2

Report Page No. 5, 21-22, App. 6

dshs is responsible for providing competency services at no cost to courts
DSHS is Responsible for Providing Competency Services at No Cost to Courts

DSHS

Department of Social and Health Services

BHSIA

Behavioral Health and Service Integration Administration

Western State Hospital

Eastern State Hospital

According to DSHS, approximately $87.5 million in 2011-13 biennium.

Competency to Stand Trial Audit 2 of 2

Report Page No. 3-4

competency services include evaluations and restoration
Competency Services Include Evaluations and Restoration

Initial Evaluations

Hospital Restoration

Usually conducted by psychologists from Eastern or Western State Hospital.

A psychiatrist, a social worker, and nurses attempt to restore defendant to competency using approaches such as medication management and education on judicial process.

Court order determines evaluation setting.

Outpatient

Jail

Community

An evaluation is conducted prior to end of court-ordered period of restoration.

Inpatient

Hospital

Competency to Stand Trial Audit 2 of 2

Report Page No. 3-5

most evaluations take place in jails
Most Evaluations Take Place in Jails

Evaluation Referrals By Setting, 2012

Hospital

(inpatient)

13%

Community

19%

(outpatient)

68%

Jail

(outpatient)

Total Referrals: 2,939

Source: JLARC staff analysis of DSHS data.

In 2012, 80% of initial evaluations were referred to Western evaluators.

Competency to Stand Trial Audit 2 of 2

Report Page No. 3

dshs evaluators are based at the hospital and travel to outpatient settings
DSHS Evaluators Are Based at the Hospital and Travel to Outpatient Settings

WEST

EAST

San Juan

Whatcom

Evaluators travel to:

Evaluators travel to:

Pend

Oreille

Okanogan

Ferry

Stevens

Skagit

  • Jails
  • Jails

Island

  • Compfests
  • Community locations

Clallam

Snohomish

Defendants travel to:

Chelan

Jefferson

Spokane

Douglas

  • Hospital

Lincoln

Kitsap

King

Mason

Grays Harbor

CompFest

CompFest

381 mi

Grant

Kittitas

Whitman

Adams

round trip

Pierce

Thurston

Pacific

Lewis

Garfield

Franklin

Columbia

Yakima

Benton

Asotin

Walla Walla

Wahkiakum

Cowlitz

Skamania

Klickitat

Clark

Source: JLARC staff analysis of DSHS information.

Competency to Stand Trial Audit 2 of 2

Report Page No. 3-4

identified five areas of concern
Identified Five Areas of Concern

1

Not Consistently Meeting Performance Targets Established in SSB 6492

2

Not Completed 2012 Plan For New Statutory Requirements

3

Not Implemented Other Key Statutory Requirements

4

Not Provided Accurate or Timely Performance Reporting

5

Not Determined Why It Has Not Met Its Own Staffing & Productivity Assumptions

Competency to Stand Trial Audit 2 of 2

Report Page No. 7-20

recommendations intended to provide dshs with better management information
Recommendations Intended to Provide DSHS With Better Management Information

Improve performance reporting

Develop and implement a service delivery approach and staffing model to meet the targets

Address non-compliance with statutory requirements

Improve collaboration between key system partners

Establish ongoing training

Competency to Stand Trial Audit 2 of 2

Report Page No. 2, 29-33

1 dshs is not consistently meeting statutory performance targets ssb 6492
1) DSHS Is Not Consistently Meeting Statutory Performance Targets (SSB 6492)

Intended to “sustainably improve the timeliness of services related to competency to stand trial.”

Setting

Days to Admit Defendant or to Complete Evaluation

% Referrals Meeting Targets

(11/1/12 to 4/30/13)

Average

Jail

7 days

11%

21days

Admit within 7 days

24%

Hospital

20 days

Targets effective November 2012

113 days

Community

21 days

8%

Target effective May 2013

Source: JLARC staff analysis of hospital data.

Competency to Stand Trial Audit 2 of 2

Report Page No. 7

2 dshs has not completed its 2012 plan for new statutory requirements
2) DSHS Has Not Completed Its 2012 Plan for New Statutory Requirements
  • In Phase One report, DSHS reported its plan to meet new statutory requirements and challenges.
  • In July 2013, the Administration reported that many key actions were not completed.
  • Not clear that all actions reported as “complete” had been implemented.
  • JLARC staff observed lack of clear communication between headquarters and hospitals.

Competency to Stand Trial Audit 2 of 2

Report Page No. 11

3 dshs has not implemented other key statutory requirements to date
3) DSHS Has Not Implemented Other Key Statutory Requirements to Date

Requirement in Statute

  • DSHS Status
  • Quality of evaluations shall not diminish.

No definition of “quality evaluation.” No process in place to monitor and review quality, nor is evaluators’ consistency reviewed.

  • Ensure that forensic competency resources are spent efficiently and clinically appropriately.
  • Budget information is estimated. Administration has not analyzed or compared efficiency of current approaches.

Procedures to monitor length of stay to ensure release when clinically appropriate and within statutory time limit.

Not yet implemented its proposed actions to do so.

Competency to Stand Trial Audit 2 of 2

Report Page No. 11, 15, 18-19

4 dshs has not provided accurate or timely performance reporting
4) DSHS Has Not Provided Accurate or Timely Performance Reporting
  • DSHS required to report annually and quarterly if targets not met. Two quarterly reports released to date:
  • Annual report due 12/1/2013; not yet released.
  • Western is addressing data quality and data management.

Inaccurate

Eastern reporting cannot be replicated using DSHS data

  • Inconsistent
  • Different timeframes, different approaches to calculating timeliness
  • Delayed

Quarter ending 12/2012, released 9/2013 Quarter ending 3/2013, released 10/2013

Competency to Stand Trial Audit 2 of 2

Report Page No. 11-12

5 dshs has not determined why its own assumptions are not being met
5) DSHS Has Not Determined Why Its Own Assumptions Are Not Being Met
  • Reported in 2012 that it could meet statutory targets if it met three assumptions:

Staffing Level

High turnover at Western State

  • Not consistently met

Evaluator Productivity

Does not have accurate information

Referral Rate

  • Has not analyzed whether original assumptions are appropriate, or if other factors have changed to make them impractical.

Competency to Stand Trial Audit 2 of 2

Report Page No. 8-9

service delivery approach has remained the same despite shift in evaluation referral location
Service Delivery Approach Has Remained the Same Despite Shift in Evaluation Referral Location

Western State Hospital

Eastern State Hospital

% Inpatient

% Outpatient

91%

81%

79%

67%

33%

21%

19%

9%

2001

2012

2001

2012

1,319

Referrals

2,343

Referrals

348

Referrals

596

Referrals

Source: JLARC staff analysis of DSHS data.

Neither the Administration nor the hospitals can report whether current approach is the most efficient.

Competency to Stand Trial Audit 2 of 2

Report Page No. 16-17

analysis of existing data could help administration meet statutory requirements
Analysis of Existing Data Could Help Administration Meet Statutory Requirements
  • Legislature intended for the Administration to meet the targets whenever possible and to

“manage, allocate, and request appropriations for resources in order to meet these targets.”

    • Examine existing internal capacity and workforce issues.
    • External factors.
    • Assess effectiveness of current strategies.

Administration needs better management information to develop strategies to meet targets.

Competency to Stand Trial Audit 2 of 2

Report Page No. 13-19

slide21
Review of Defendants’ Data, Washington’s Process, and Other States’ Practices Highlights Opportunities for Improvements
analysis of court and hospital data and review of promising practices
Analysis of Court and Hospital Data and Review of Promising Practices

Attempt to see the process as a whole

First analysis to combine court and hospital data

Highlights importance of parties’ cooperation and coordination

Led to two additional key findings

Practices from counties, other states, and the National Judicial College

Competency to Stand Trial Audit 2 of 2

Report Page No. 21-26, App. 6

key finding additional questions may merit further r eview
Key Finding: Additional Questions May Merit Further Review

Additional questions would require additional data; for example, outcomes for defendants whose cases are dismissed.

Sample Misdemeanor Cases:

Dismissed, found not competent

22%

Not dismissed

40%

26%

Dismissed, found not competent, referred for civil conversion evaluation

12%

Dismissed, though found competent

Source: JLARC staff analysis of AOC and DSHS data.

Competency to Stand Trial Audit 2 of 2

Report Page No. 21, 23

key finding data on defendants experiences can help with service d elivery
Key Finding: Data on Defendants’ Experiences Can Help With Service Delivery

Analyzing this data can help identify delays and common case characteristics, and develop strategies for an efficient service delivery approach.

Sample Cases:

No previous interaction with criminal justice system

10%

90% had previous interaction with the criminal justice system

No previous interaction with criminal justice system

Of those,37% were referred for competency evaluations more than once

10%

Previous interaction with the criminal justice system

Referred for competency evaluations more than once

Of those, 37%

90%

Source: JLARC staff analysis of AOC and DSHS data.

Competency to Stand Trial Audit 2 of 2

Report Page No. 22-25

courts that refer defendants for multiple evaluations impact state and county resources
Courts That Refer Defendants for Multiple Evaluations Impact State and County Resources

Example: All King County misdemeanor defendants January 2011 to April 2013.

  • 359 individuals referred for multiple evaluations.

If each was referred once, the decrease in referrals would have been equal to the output of two evaluators over two years.

  • Administration could review referral characteristics and other opportunities such as diversion programs.

Competency to Stand Trial Audit 2 of 2

Report Page No. 17

promising practices from counties other states and the national judicial college
Promising Practices From Counties, Other States, and the National Judicial College

All parties involved in competency processes could benefit from sharing promising practices.

Counties

Other States

Have taken actions to improve the timeliness of the process, reorganized certain functions to improve efficiency and ensure referrals are appropriate.

National Judicial College

Drafted best practices for competency evaluations and strongly focused on the need for collaboration and training.

Competency to Stand Trial Audit 2 of 2

Report Page No. 25-26

legislative auditor recommendation 1 improve performance reporting
Legislative Auditor Recommendation #1:Improve Performance Reporting

The Administration should provide accurate, consistent, and timely reporting on the number of defendants referred for competency evaluations, the number of evaluations completed, the timeliness of completing those evaluations, and timeliness in admitting defendants to the hospitals.

Competency to Stand Trial Audit 2 of 2

Report Page No. 12, 29

legislative auditor recommendation 2 develop service delivery approach and staffing model
Legislative Auditor Recommendation #2: Develop Service Delivery Approach and Staffing Model
  • After collecting and analyzing descriptive data about its current operations, DSHS should hire an independent, external consultant to develop:
    • A service delivery approach that enables the Administration to meet the statutory targets; and
    • A staffing model to implement the new approach.

DSHS should report to the appropriate committees of the Legislature on its implementation of the service delivery approach and the staffing model, including any barriers or resource needs, by December 2015.

Competency to Stand Trial Audit 2 of 2

Report Page No. 19-20, 29-31

legislative auditor recommendation 3 comply with statutory requirements
Legislative Auditor Recommendation #3:Comply With Statutory Requirements

The Administration should take actions to comply with additional statutory requirements from SSB 6492.

The Administration should report to the appropriate committees of the Legislature before the 2015 Legislative session on actions it has taken to address non-compliance with statute. If additional resources or changes to legislation are needed, DSHS should submit a request in the 2015-17 agency budget request.

Competency to Stand Trial Audit 2 of 2

Report Page No. 20, 31

legislative auditor recommendation 4 develop formal collaboration approach
Legislative Auditor Recommendation #4:Develop Formal Collaboration Approach

The Administration, its primary judicial system partners, including the Administrative Office of the Courts, and other stakeholders should meet to develop an approach to assure collaboration and communication among the partners.

Competency to Stand Trial Audit 2 of 2

Report Page No. 26, 31-32

legislative auditor recommendation 5 establish cross training opportunities
Legislative Auditor Recommendation #5:Establish Cross Training Opportunities

The Administration should work with its judicial system partners, including the Administrative Office of the Courts and other stakeholders, to develop training specific to their professions, as well as training material appropriate for cross training.

Competency to Stand Trial Audit 2 of 2

Report Page No. 27, 32-33

next steps and contacts
Next Steps and Contacts

Proposed Final Report April 2014

Eric Thomas, Project Lead

360-786-5182

eric.thomas@leg.wa.gov

Elisabeth Donner, Research Analyst

360-786-5190

elisabeth.donner@leg.wa.gov

Zane Potter, Research Analyst

360-786-5194

zane.potter@leg.wa.gov

Valerie Whitener, Project Supervisor

360-786-5191

valerie.whitener@leg.wa.gov

www.jlarc.leg.wa.gov