Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-07-06 BHAC MINUTES1 Behavioral Health Advisory Committee (Mental Health-Substance Use Disorders) MINUTES July 6, 2021 3:00-5:00 PM FINAL 1) Call to Order/ Introductions Excused Heidi Eisenhour-Chair X_ Ariel Speser-Vice Chair Excused Chris Ashcraft X_ Patricia Beathard _X_ Jill Buhler-Rienstra _X_ Anne Dean _X_ David Fortino X Patrick Johnson X Sheila Westerman Guests: James Kennedy, Jolene Kron, Brian Richardson, Minnie Whalen, Barbara Carr, Yuko Umeda, Jud Haynes, Pam Kozora, Apple Martine, Leah Russell, Lori Fleming, Julie Canterbury, Gabbie Caudill, Whitney Friddle, Lexa Murphy, Richard Davies, Brian Gleason, Minnie Whalen, James Kennedy, Joe Nole, Allison Arthur, Brian Richardson Staff: Anna Mc Enery 2) The Agenda for July 6th was approved with one modification as there will be no budget report today. Member Anne Dean (M)/Member Patrick Johnson (S) Approved unanimously. 3) Review/Adoption of draft Minutes of May 4, 2021 Member Jill Buhler-Rienstra (M)/ Member Sheila Westerman (S) Approved unanimously. 4) PRESENTATIONS a. Update N.E.A.R. (Neuroscience, Epigenetics, ACEs, and Resilience) Science Workshop and Training for Jefferson County-1/10th of 1% Vendors- Minnie Whalen, Clallam Resilience Project Manager Minnie Whalen presented a brief PowerPoint about the N.EA.R. Science Training coming up on July 9. She reported that as of today there are 27 registered participants. This is the first of two opportunities, the first is a training and the second is a workshop. Minnie shared the registration process includes questions to help understand the level of experience and understanding of participants regarding ACE’s or trauma and its impact on how the brain functions, how these experiences affect how people act, and how it impacts a person’s long-term health and wellbeing. 2 Minnie stated that the July 9 training would be a stepping-stone to create common knowledge among the agencies participating. She said that by having a shared language and knowledge there is a common jumping off point. The second workshop at the end of the month will be more geared to an agency level with specific target points. Minnie extended the invitation to participants of the committee, and guests in attendance, to register if they have interest. Anna Mc Enery encouraged Committee members to attend if they can. She also noted that James Kennedy made a comment in the chat, recommending that everyone take the ACE’s test if they have the opportunity. b. Update Drug Court - Richard Davies- Public Defenders Office & James Kennedy- Prosecutor’s Office Richard Davies reported that last year a process began to update the Drug Court program. Drug Court started in Jefferson County in 2003, when Drug Courts were a new phenomenon. The initial program began without a lot of information about what should happen, but it moved forward with Ford Kessler and with Richard, himself. It was set up to be treatment oriented, with a lot of positive reinforcement. However, a lot has happened with Drug Courts across the country and it was time to make some updates to the one here in Jefferson County. During COVID, there were fewer case filings and so fewer individuals were participating in Drug Court. It was quickly apparent that it would be advantageous to bring in an outside agency to do some training. Richard explained that the first part of that process was for them to do an assessment. Information about the Drug Court program here was submitted to the National Drug Institute. They reviewed that information, had an opportunity to watch our Drug Court in action, (via ZOOM), and to observe the weekly Drug Court staffing. As a result, Richard explained, a report was received in early June of 2021. The National Drug Institute summarized best practices for any Drug Court, offered some recommendations and next steps for the Jefferson County Drug Court. Richard explained that it has been very hard to find time to implement any of the National Drug Institutes recommendations due to COVID and the backlog of court cases that are now beginning to get back on track. The National Drug Institutes priority recommendations are: 1. Implement standardized assessment tools to determine who gets in to drug court. These are to be objective, with clearly defined exclusion criteria specified in writing, and should be communicated to potential referral sources as well as to participants. In the past, Richard noted, that entry into drug court has been somewhat subjective – whether this has been based on defense experience with a participant, or the prosecutors’ idea about how a prospect is going to do, or with input from law enforcement regarding readiness of an individual for drug court. 3 2. They recommend continuous training for Drug Court staff on the National model. • Take essential elements of a treatment court through the National Association of Drug Court Professionals – E-Learning center. • Get training for the team • Familiarize ourselves with sanctions and therapeutic responses • Go to a program called Law School 101 with respect with how to make a drug court work 3. They emphasize a need to incentivize participants through increased focus on, and use of, rewards for learning or maintaining good behavior. 4. They suggest ensuring that drug testing is random and unpredictable, observed, and frequent -- including weekends and holidays. 5. They recommend that Law Enforcement be participating in Drug Court as eyes and ears in the community 6. Additionally, that the present policies and procedures of Drug Court be revised and updated. Further comments from The National Drug Institute included: • They were impressed with the compassion and commitment from each Drug Court team member. • They recommend a “stabilization phase” for Drug Court. They believe there is a benefit with getting people to start being truthful about what they struggle with before they are required to no longer use those substances. • They suggest formalizing a Phase Advancement process. That participants and providers are given multiple ways to provide support rather than just the traditional NA or AA route. • Commendation for being open to new ideas, striving to make improvements. • Commended for the practice of doing a Drug Court “in-person” meeting around the council table with everyone at the same level, judge, lawyers, providers’, and the participants. • Suggested implementation of an Alumni Program and a Peer Mentorship Program. • Commendation for the Treatment Program that is now in our jail helping inmates. • Suggest creating MOU’s – between agencies. • Recommend the Program Participant Manual is updated. • Recommend a decrease frequent extended jail sanctions or the use of jail for detox or waiting for treatment dates. • Institute an information system that is data driven as opposed to institutional memory of staff on the Drug Court team. • Set aside dedicated time for training and discussion about how to make changes as a staff, not have all staffing geared only to participants. 4 Richard expressed his belief that the recommendations are possible. However, it will take time, and some recommendations will take additional funding to bring to fruition. He asked that members of the BHAC and other mental health groups continue to stay involved, help keep the Drug Court staff on track to implement these changes by questioning them and making them accountable to keep up with reporting. James Kennedy shared reactions to the report. James said that two of the things that jump out are: 1) Positive reinforcement – some of the items that could be used will be expensive for drug court. 2) Finding an appropriate and effective intake tool as a subscription fee is required. “The Rant,” an evidence based clinical supervision and assessment tool, is an objective screening process but with a price. James noted too that the guidelines that were provided do require the team to fill in a lot of the details. Time has been an issue with moving recommendations forward due to the Court calendar and required activity. He knows that there is a need to begin working on the fine details. One of the other interesting recommendations James Kennedy noted was for a bifurcated Drug Court. The National Drug Institute does not recommend having high-risk offenders and low-risk offenders sitting in the same treatment program or the same Drug Court together. He expressed a concern that there may not be time for that type of program in the courts’ schedule. An average Drug Court docket still takes about half the time of an average Mental Health Court docket. James said that housing is still a need even if we are going to be flexible with where people stay while they are in Drug Court. We currently have someone who is going to graduate from Drug Court who has lived in a homeless shelter the entire time and they have been in Drug Court, for over a year. James believes that housing is the long-standing problem and is one of the biggest parts of the systemic issues our community is facing. Staff Anna Mc Enery shared some of the comments that had been written in the ZOOM Chat about incentives that are possible. • Salish Behavioral Health has given OlyCAP gift cards to use with their clients. • Incentives are also allowed with CGTA funding with parameters. • NAMI has awarded gift cards to the Behavioral Health Court graduates. • District Court uses part of their 1/10th of 1% budget for incentive cards Anna also shared there has been some discussion about having a County employee in the role of the Therapeutic Court Coordinator, (after Ford Kessler retired). This person could staff all three courts and Anna said some of the 1/10th of 1% funds could help to pay for this position. Brian Gleason shared information about how a position like this worked at his previous job. There was one person who received all the referrals, did all screening and assessments, and then criteria for each person and program were set up. James Kennedy thought this might be possible for Jefferson County. 5 Member, Sheila Westerman commented that creating a new management system, drafting MOU’s, updating the Drug Court manual, developing an intake tool, and training -- are all time consuming and require resources. It is her suggestion that concentrated efforts might be more successful by having semi-annual retreats with concentrated time to focus on these tasks. Sheila also expressed concern about a bifurcated Drug Court. Richard Davies responded to Sheila’s concern. Richard explained that the current Drug Court attendees enjoy helping those going down a path when the user’s relationship with substances is early in their disorder, and when are not committing serious crimes. The National Institute’s concern is that those at the beginning of their journey do not have the same mind set as those who are at the end of their journey. The goal is to treat the underlying issue. Member, Patrick Johnson noted that there is a lot of good material in the report from the National Institute that could be helpful to other agencies. He asked that the report be shared as needed. c. 1/10th of 1% RFP for School-based Mental Health Services- 2021/2023 -RFP Panel Staff Anna Mc Enery shared with the group that two agencies had responded to the RFP. They were Jumping Mouse for the Brinnon School pilot project and MCS Counseling for the School Based Mental Health services. The RFP Panel included: Patrick Johnson, Ariel Speser, Anna Mc Enery, and Commissioner Eisenhour. The Panel interviewed both agencies. Patrick Johnson expressed his impression that the RFP process was enlightening. And he feels that two excellent proposals were received. Patrick noted that these RFPs are especially important as the priority is children. Children are at the forefront of the need for positive services. He felt that both proposals had strong emphasis on cooperating with schools, both have a track record that is excellent with the schools, both organizations went beyond what the budget reflects, and both need to pay staff and administrative costs. They stretch themselves to accommodate as many kids as they can, and they don’t do it in a way that is detrimental to the success of the program. Both organizations are completely committed. Anna shared specific recommendations from the RFP Panel: 6 Vice-Chair, Ariel Speser expressed that the Panel does recognize the need to fund both proposals in full, but this is what is available for this RFP cycle. Member Jill Buhler-Rienstra/(M) that the recommendation of the committee be approved. Member Sheila Westerman/(S). David Fortino asked if both programs would be viable as they were presented to the Committee with the funding short fall. Anna Mc Enery responded that their contractual and funding amounts were reviewed from the last few years. The Committee added another 15% to that. They may have to cut out some of the additional training, but the committee did not go below what they received in funding, in the past. Member Patrick Johnson added that we encouraged them to tell us about their other funding sources; we believe if there is a resource out there, they will find it. The Vote was favorable. 5) VENDOR REPORTS Dove House/Recovery Café Brian Richardson shared a power point about the Recovery Café. They are a part of a larger network of 29 Recovery Café’s across the country. Recovery Café fulfills its mission to improve recovery and quality of life for those with behavioral health disorders, by providing long term peer-based recovery support services. Members commit to 24 hours drug and alcohol free, and participate in one recovery circle per week, as well as having opportunities to give back. Recovery Café volunteers are not participating in a recovery circle, but they help in many different roles: outreach, data entry, kitchen etc. Brian shared that long term outcomes for recovery are the best when the individual has a good relationship with their counselor/treatment provider and stays in treatment over the long-term. This is the hope for Recovery Café to fill. Recovery Café - By The Numbers January 1, 2020-June 20, 2021 Current Members: 46 Meals Served: 1056 Members Served: 85 Outreach Hours: 210 Weekly Recovery Circles: 5 Member Contacts: 717 Total Circles Held: 120 School for Recovery Classes: 2 Unique Volunteers: 43 Volunteer Hours: 485 Recovery Challenges: • 57% struggle with substance use • 45% struggle with alcohol use • 44% have been homeless in the past • 40% struggle with Mental Health • 31% experienced ‘a lot’ of trauma • 19% are experiencing homelessness • 18% experienced DV/SA 7 Brian expressed the undergoing culture change – we are all in recovery for something. Recovery Café is not here to fix everyone. We are non-judgmental and want to celebrate members for who they are. The hope is to be there to help them be successful. Co-Chair, Ariel Speser on behalf of the BHAC, offered kudos and thanks to Brian and his team for what they do. 1. Juvenile Court/ Therapeutic Support for Independent Living Barbara Carr shared information about the new Pfeiffer House which is at the center of their Therapeutic Support Program. The house is at the corner of Taylor and Lawrence across from the Rec Center. Today and tomorrow there is an “Open House” for interested community members to visit. She explained that funds from the Housing Task Force were received to rehabilitate the facility, as well as funding from the Department of Commerce. Barb reviewed what it took to refurbish the house. The program will be ready to take its first residents in a few weeks. Juvenile Services staff member Marcus Farley has been working since January to come up with assessments, intake interview formats, and creating the structure upon which the support will be given to residents once they move in. The goal for every resident is to gain a pathway to sustainable independent living. Marcus will be the bridge between residents and services they need. The house has six units, two units will be shared. There is a potential for more rooms to double up. Maximum right now would be seven to nine people. The goal is to provide sustainable living for a year and then to transition the tenants to a more permanent living plan. Anna Mc Enery asked where the referrals would come from. Barb explained that referrals can come in through OlyCAP or by Dove House for emerging adults aged 18- 24. They could also come from Peninsula Housing Authority, from Foster Care, they may be self-referred or it could be another provider referral – i.e., Recovery Café. 2. Juvenile Court/Functional Family Therapy Barbara Carr explained that this program has been ongoing for some time. There were significant challenges based on referrals coming from schools during the Pandemic. Trying to catch students in a net before they became chronically truant. OSPI had indicated to school that the language that defines truancy were not to be counted during COVID. State-wide and Nation-wide many kids were lost. Attempts were made to catch some of these kids when schools would call Juvenile Services directly and ask that they outreach to the family. Since January of 2020, five families were served even though schools were not open. A good piece of news is that the legislature did change the language authorizing the use and programming for youth to reach them earlier. Barb will be meeting with all schools and will be redefining the MOUs that are in place. 8 Anna Mc Enery asked for clarification around language of the BECCA bill and the Truancy law. Barb explained that previous language limited Juvenile Court involvement merely to the processing of petitions. The partnerships created between Juvenile Court and Jefferson County schools was somewhat outside of legislative authority. It only worked because our schools were supportive of it. The new truancy law gives the Court less ability to coerce behavior through appearances and the threat of incarceration. Barb went on to say, that it is going to take a lot more case management to motivate and engage kids and families to participate. The new law encourages a stronger partnership – the goal is to be non-punitive and to get those kids engaged. Anna asked what age Barb would like to see this program begin to be most effective. Barb believes that middle school must be the focus. It is where habits are created and credits are not being counted for graduation. By the time, students get to high school they can dig a hole that is very hard to get out of. Barb explained that all schools are required by statute to try to reengage the student who is not showing up. By the time students get to middle school and high school the engagement is much more of a partnership. 6) Next meeting September 7th 3:00-5 pm-via Zoom 7) Adjournment of Meeting