Cook County HOPE Adult Redeploy Illinois Team and Partner Survey II

Cook County HOPE Adult Redeploy Illinois
Team and partner survey
Background
As many of you may know, the Cook County HOPE Adult Redeploy Illinois (ARI) program is working
on a corrective action plan which has included a site visit, progress reports and now this brief survey to
team members. The brief survey aims to collect feedback direct from the perspective of team members
on any modifications to the program’s target population and case referral process. The target population
refers to the population that the program is designed to serve (e.g., violent/non-violent, high risk/low
need, high risk/high need, drug-addicted, long or short criminal history, etc.).
Survey responses will be anonymous and we do not ask for your name or position, although we do ask for
the length of time you have been on the team. Note that you will have to write something in for each
answer to move through the survey, except for the last optional question. The words “N/A” can be used,
but please use sparingly. We expect the survey to take about 15 minutes. The information gathered in the
survey will be shared with the Adult Redeploy Illinois Oversight Board. Thank-you for taking the time to
complete the survey.
General
1. Please indicate the length of time in years and months that you have worked with the Cook HOPE
Adult Redeploy Illinois (ARI) team.*
2. What do you consider the biggest strengths of the Cook HOPE ARI program?
3. What do you consider the biggest challenges of the Cook HOPE ARI program?
Target population
4. From your perspective, what is the target population of the Cook HOPE ARI program? (e.g.,
what population is the program designed to serve – violent/non-violent, high risk/low need, high
risk/high need, drug-addicted, long or short criminal history, prison-bound, etc.?)
a. From your perspective, does the program enroll individuals that fit the target population
you indicated above?
b. If not, describe the target population that is routinely admitted to the program.
5. From your perspective, please describe some common reasons that individuals are not accepted
into the program.
a. If this has changed in recent months, please detail changes.
6. Describe any concerns you have related to the target population of the Cook HOPE ARI program.
Case referral process
7. From your perspective, describe any modifications to the case referral process for the Cook
HOPE ARI program from June 2015 to present.
a. If modifications to the case referral process occurred, describe the impact of the changes
on the program.
8. Describe any concerns you have related to the case referral of the Cook HOPE ARI program.
Optional
9. Please use the space for anything else you want to share with Adult Redeploy Illinois.
*To ensure anonymity, results of question #1 will only be shared with Adult Redeploy Illinois (ARI) and
Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority (ICJIA) staff.
Report for Cook County HOPE Adult
Redeploy Illinois Team & Partner Survey
1. Please indicate the length of time, in years and months, that you
have worked with the Cook HOPE Adult Redeploy Illinois team.
(Optional)
Count Response
1 5 years, 6 months.
1 Approx. 5 years
2. What do you consider to be the biggest strengths of the Cook

HOPE ARI program?
Count Response
1 -T he T eam process -Judge Portman.
1 Addressing possible violations swiftly
1 T he concept of the program itself seems promising if it were to be properly

implemented. Most team members are very dedicated employees who have the genuine
interest of the clients at heart.
1 T he dedicated work that the team tries to accomplish in the face of adverse,
unnecessary conditions.
1 T he dedication of the line staff to servicing clients and attempting to implement a

successful program.
1 T he opportunity for rehabilitation of each participant.
1 T he team is very dedicated to providing personalized services to the participants, in

order to address their needs where they are at. Also, in my observation, the court has
been treated a bit like a "red-headed stepchild" within the court system and the team
has dealt with that dynamic well, while continuing to provide court services.
1 belief in program model, dedication to success of participants, passion for working

within criminal justice system to create reform and assist participants in making better
life choices
3. What do you consider to be the biggest challenges of the Cook

HOPE ARI program?
Count Response
1 - Permanently or long termed Assigned Assistant State's Attorney - T raining and

consistency component for the revolving door of Assistant State's Attorney's assigned
-T eam members not knowing their respective role and job responsibilities -Additional
resources for clients served including housing or transition housing -Lack of warrant
service by the Sheriff's department -Implementation of the new sanctions protocol
hinders team ability to tailor sanctions to specific clients with specific needs.
1 Judge Jackie M Portman
1 Judicial oversight.
1 Making and implementing long-needed changes to the program and procedures,

necessary to bring the program in line with current evidence-based practices.
1 T he fact that there continues to be opposition from the Judge in relation to

implementing policies and procedures for the program. T his goes hand-in-hand with the
arbitrary rules/procedures that are often implemented by the Judge, making team roles
unclear and causing confusion among some team members.
1 T he program still seems to be too heavily jail-based in regards to sanctions. Judge is

often not on the same page as the other employees which makes it difficult to adhere to
the team based approach intended.
1 lack of cohesiveness, unfinalized PPM which has not been implemented and makes the
program feel somewhat in limbo, lack of willingness for compromise among team
members
1 staying within the HOPE model in situations that require a broader application of
discretion
4. Cook HOPE is enrolling and serving participants with moderate-

high risk and low-moderate needs.
12.50% Strongly agree 12.50% Disagree
37.50% Agree 37.50% Neutral
Value Percent Responses
Disagree 12.5% 1
Neutral 37.5% 3
Agree 37.5% 3
Strongly agree 12.5% 1
T ot al: 8
5. Assessment information is used to guide participants' supervision

level and service referral decisions.
12.50% Rarely
25.00% Very often
37.50% Sometimes
25.00% Often
Very often 25.0% 2
Often 25.0% 2
Sometimes 37.5% 3
Rarely 12.5% 1
T ot al: 8
6. Program participants have adequate and consistent access to

quality services that address their needs (e.g., anti-social thinking,
substance use disorders, mental illness).
12.50% Very often
50.00% Sometimes
37.50% Often
Very often 12.5% 1
Often 37.5% 3
Sometimes 50.0% 4
T ot al: 8
7. Participants have input into their individualized case plans.

12.50% Never
25.00% Often
12.50% Sometimes
50.00% Rarely
Often 25.0% 2
Sometimes 12.5% 1
Rarely 50.0% 4
Never 12.5% 1
T ot al: 8
8. The program provides an appropriate mix of incentives and

sanctions (e.g., 4 positives to one negative) to support participants'
success.
12.50% Agree
12.50% Neutral
50.00% Strongly disagree
25.00% Disagree
Strongly disagree 50.0% 4
Disagree 25.0% 2
Neutral 12.5% 1
Agree 12.5% 1
T ot al: 8
9. Overall, how do you see Cook HOPE implementing, or failing to

implement, evidence-based practices?
Count Response
1 Change is difficult, and there has been some difficulty in identifying the best practice as it
applies to this court and then following through with it.
1 HOPE has major issues implementing evidence-based practices due to opposition from
the Judge.
1 I think once the PPM is finalized and an agreement is reached, HOPE can fully implement
the EBP
1 It is impossible to adhere to evidence based practices when the deciding factor is not
supportive of these practices.
1 NOT ES T O ABOVE 4-8: 4a) until new procedures are adopted and implemented the
Court will continue to insist on taking high-needs individuals, this is improper unless the
HOPE-based model is modified to separate and account for the high-need vs
low/moderate need clients. Client risk level is generally appropriate. 8) the program as
administered continues to fall significantly short of any meaningful systemic use of
positive reinforcement, outside that done by individual team members, with individual
clients, under individual circumstances. T eam members continue to make efforts to
attempt to change long-standing practices that are (and have been) in contradiction to
evidence based practices, and continue to attempt to suggest ways in which the
program can be brought into line with evidence based practices.
1 implementing well
1 meh
1 the aim is to implement evidence based practices but some situations require
application of discretion where evidence has not yet been collected.
10. The program is able to respond immediately to punish unwanted

participant behavior with sanctions and reinforce desired behavior
with incentives.
12.50% Strongly agree 12.50% Disagree
75.00% Agree
Disagree 12.5% 1
Agree 75.0% 6
T ot al: 8
11. Participants have a clear understanding of what responses

(positive or negative) they can expect resulting from certain
behaviors.
12.50% Strongly agree
37.50% Disagree
25.00% Agree
25.00% Neutral
Disagree 37.5% 3
Neutral 25.0% 2
Agree 25.0% 2
T ot al: 8
12. Sanctions are consistently applied when a participant engages in

unwanted behavior.
12.50% Agree
50.00% Disagree
25.00% Neutral
Disagree 50.0% 4
Neutral 25.0% 2
Agree 12.5% 1
T ot al: 8
13. When sanctions are applied, the severity of the response matches
the behavior.
12.50% Never 12.50% Very often
25.00% Often
37.50% Rarely
12.50% Sometimes
Very often 12.5% 1
Often 25.0% 2
Sometimes 12.5% 1
Rarely 37.5% 3
Never 12.5% 1
T ot al: 8
14. When sanctions are applied, the responses are those that were
agreed upon by the group.
12.50% Very often
25.00% Rarely
12.50% Often
50.00% Sometimes
Very often 12.5% 1
Often 12.5% 1
Sometimes 50.0% 4
Rarely 25.0% 2
T ot al: 8
15. The rules and conditions of the Cook HOPE program are clear to
all team members.
12.50% Agree
25.00% Neutral 25.00% Disagree
Disagree 25.0% 2
Neutral 25.0% 2
Agree 12.5% 1
T ot al: 8

implement, swift, certain, and fair principles?
Count Response
1 As with the evidence-based practices, Judicial opposition to swift, certain, and fair
principles is a major obstacle. T his is despite the repeated efforts of the Project
Manager to try and implement these practices.
1 Implementing well.
1 PPM has not been finalized yet but team members are implementing some elements of
swift certain and fair principles in terms of quick sanctions in response to negative
behaviors and there are some negative behaviors that are followed with specific
sanctions
1 Review of 11-15 above: 10) sanctioning of unwanted behavior is immediate and certain.
Positive reinforcement has generally not been used outside of individual team (e.g. PO
and PD) members conducting individual interventions with individual clients under
individual circumstances. 13) it is generally agreed by staff that the current sanction
regimen is outside evidence based practices, both in proportion to the
behavior/violation and in relation to the severity of punishment generally. T he program
is undeniably swift (often at the expense of due process), for the most part certain (in
the sense that the Court rarely deviates from its prior practices despite contrary
evidence regarding efficacy or an argument citing to evidence based practices),
however the program still struggles with fairness, at least as applied T he Court
continues to have issues with fairness.
1 Right now we are struggling with the swift part only because of having to stop using
instant cups, and the regular lab testing of drug samples makes the time between the
violation and the sanction longer than it's been in the past. It's also hard to measure or
evaluate the perception of the participants when it comes to certain and fair.
1 T he program operates quite swiftly, however, swiftness is not equally balanced with
certain or fair principles. Fairness is often disregarded and consistency is not always
guaranteed.
1 We have the swift part down. T he certain & fair and not being met. Often times
sanctions are random or too harsh in regards to the violation. Escalated sanctions are
often given as well which goes against swift certain fair principles.
1 the intent of the team is to implement SCF principles, but there is (naturally) not a
consensus in all situations as to what SCF is.
17. Participants are given the opportunity to speak and be heard in
court.
25.00% Sometimes 25.00% Very often
50.00% Often
Very often 25.0% 2
Often 50.0% 4
Sometimes 25.0% 2
T ot al: 8
18. Participants for whom English is not their first language have
access to interpreters.
25.00% Often
75.00% Very often
Very often 75.0% 6
Often 25.0% 2
T ot al: 8
19. Participants are treated with respect in court.

12.50% Very often
25.00% Rarely
25.00% Often
37.50% Sometimes
Very often 12.5% 1
Often 25.0% 2
Sometimes 37.5% 3
Rarely 25.0% 2
T ot al: 8
20. Participants receive explanations in plain language about how

decisions are made, what the decisions are, and what they need to do
to comply.
12.50% Rarely 12.50% Very often
25.00% Sometimes
50.00% Often
Very often 12.5% 1
Often 50.0% 4
Sometimes 25.0% 2
Rarely 12.5% 1
T ot al: 8
21. All participants are treated the same (regardless of race, gender,
age, etc.).
25.00% Rarely 25.00% Very often
25.00% Sometimes 25.00% Often
Very often 25.0% 2
Often 25.0% 2
Sometimes 25.0% 2
Rarely 25.0% 2
T ot al: 8

implement, procedural justice?
Count Response
1 I think there are serious due process issues related to this court. too many instances to
list
1 Implementing well.
1 In comparison to similar programs, this program appears to be failing.
1 T he implementation of procedural justice is often dictated in court by the mood of the

Judge or how late the call sometimes begins.
1 T he lack of written procedures and a myopic focus on "swift", along with the lack of
consent from probation clients, are two roadblocks to rating the program positively on
procedural justice grounds.
1 T his is hard because I don't know how it's perceived by the participants.
1 not sure how to answer
1 the answers to the above questions are with respect to the entire team and not just
one person (i.e. how participants are treated in court by all team members)
23. People involved in the Cook HOPE team always trust one another.
25.00% Agree 25.00% Strongly disagree
50.00% Disagree
Disagree 50.0% 4
Agree 25.0% 2
T ot al: 8
24. All team members have a clear understanding of what Cook HOPE
is trying to accomplish.
25.00% Agree
12.50% Neutral
50.00% Disagree
Disagree 50.0% 4
Neutral 12.5% 1
Agree 25.0% 2
T ot al: 8
25. Cook HOPE team members have a clear sense of their roles and
responsibilities.
37.50% Agree
25.00% Disagree
25.00% Neutral
Disagree 25.0% 2
Neutral 25.0% 2
Agree 37.5% 3
T ot al: 8
26. The people who lead the Cook HOPE team communicate well with
the members.
12.50% Agree
37.50% Strongly Disagree
25.00% Neutral
25.00% Disagree
Strongly Disagree 37.5% 3
Disagree 25.0% 2
Neutral 25.0% 2
Agree 12.5% 1
T ot al: 8
27. There is a clear process for making decisions among the members
on the Cook HOPE team.
12.50% Strongly Agree 12.50% Strongly Disagree
12.50% Agree
25.00% Disagree
37.50% Neutral
Disagree 25.0% 2
Neutral 37.5% 3
Agree 12.5% 1
Strongly Agree 12.5% 1
T ot al: 8
28. People on the Cook HOPE team are open to different approaches
to how to do the work and are willing to consider different ways of
working.
12.50% Strongly Agree 12.50% Strongly Disagree
25.00% Neutral
50.00% Disagree
Disagree 50.0% 4
Neutral 25.0% 2
T ot al: 8
29. The people in leadership positions for Cook HOPE have good
skills for working with other people and organizations.
12.50% Strongly Agree
25.00% Strongly Disagree
12.50% Agree
25.00% Neutral 25.00% Disagree
Disagree 25.0% 2
Neutral 25.0% 2
Agree 12.5% 1
T ot al: 8
30. Everyone who is a member of the Cook HOPE team wants this
program and its participants to succeed.
12.50% Disagree
25.00% Neutral
Disagree 12.5% 1
Neutral 25.0% 2
T ot al: 8
31. Overall, how would you describe the level of team collaboration?
Count Response
1 All team members are generally on the same page save for the judge. Officers,
attorneys, and involved supervisors respect one another and work well together.
1 Collaborate well.
1 Commentary on 23-30. 23) T he team members (the State, PD, and PO's) all trust one
another and believe that each are working to assist clients and implement a proper
program. 28) the team members are always open to new and different approaches and
have considered difference ways of working. 26 and 29) Depending on how one defines
"leader" the answer to these questions is either disagree or agree. T he team and staff
all have good skills and experience in leading and working with other people and
organizations. If this review includes the Court as the "leader" then the review is
disagree - this is one of the Court's primary failings. 28) Getting the court to consider
changing long-standing practices (even when objections to those practices as being
contrary to evidence-based practices are themselves long-standing) has been very
difficult, However, over the past 4 years, the Court HAS made incremental changes in
certain practices and procedures in response to the prior CAPs and other r
1 Everyone is open to discussion.
1 If you couldnt tell by the amount of strongly disagrees listed but there is a clear divide
with team members especially the judge. Leadership is extremely poor and trust is
completely gone. Probably the worst its ever been.
1 T here is no team collaboration. I, along with others, have been told by the Judge to
NOT trust other members of the team. T he team has also been told, repeatedly, to
NOT trust ARI. Arbitrary rules implemented by the Judge have made some team roles
and responsibilities unclear. T he "team" approach has become even worse since the
last ARI report was issued back in December 2016/January 2017. It is my belief that this
fractured team approach could negatively affect those probationers participating in the
program.
1 fair
1 the team collaborates as would be expected in a traditionally adversarial forum. It is not

perfect but for the most part communication is consistent.
32. From your perspective, how do you see the development of an
updated policies and procedures manual assisting the program overall
and to address issues in the CAP (i.e., alignment with evidence-based
practices and procedural justice)?
Count Response
1 As the process is going so far, I don't see a written policy having any effect whatsoever.
Judge does not seem to want to agree to anything related to evidence based practices
and is insistent on having complete discretion and control.
1 I think it can be beneficial to bring the team together to make decisions more
collaboratively based upon the behavior response guide that was developed. However,
without it currently being implemented it's hard to make an assessment.
1 If the manual is detailed and followed it could assist in helping the program align with
evidence based practices.
1 It would not be an updated policy and procedures manual, as there has never been an
original one in place. All the hard work put-in by most of the team will be for naught if the
Judge does not follow a PPM or even hinders the development of one.
1 T he current "updated" policy has not been implemented. T here are bits & pieces that
we have tried to put into place but it is very blurry. Its not clear what is in place & what is
not. And there has been resistence from the judge to implement and of the new policies
we have tried to put into place.
1 T he development is to rigid and does not allow for case specific assessment or
considerations when trying to make an appropriate plan
1 We're struggling to finalize some policies and procedures in a way that fully aligns with
the model or evidence-based practices. T he manual should help provide guidance, but it
is not a solution in and of itself.
1 unlikely to effect the change desired.
33. What, if any, new policies or changed policies do you think would
be beneficial to the program?
Count Response
1 1) Separation of the program and participants into two distinct tracks: High Need and
Low/Moderate Need. L/M clients would be under a traditional hope-based, SCF-type
program. High Need clients would be treated under a modified program more in keeping
with a Drug/Mental Health/Vet Court model. 2) Implementation of screening and a
consent mechanism to identify inappropriate clients (as to risk, need, and willingness to
participate) prior to transfer into the program.
1 Ensure that the sanctions align with evidence-based practices. Sanctioning on failed
sanctions catches participants a lot and should be re-examined.
1 I don't know if anything can save this program at this rate.
1 I think the behavior response guide needs to be finalized, followed by all team members,
and implemented.
1 Overhaul of sanctions. Still a major problem in the program.
1 Relaxing the sanctions and incentives to allow team to consider an individuals specific
circumstances and needs. Goes to the fairness of the individual.
1 T his is hard to determine with the current Judicial leadership in place.
1 reaching consensus on implementation would be more beneficial than changing policy.
34. What additional or different resources would you like to see for
the program?
Count Response
1 -Housing -More incentives -More treatment options -More job and skill resources -
More then one cognitive partner, in the least reinstituting the in-house cognitive
program as an option
1 Additional funding for incentives, money for housing, employment readiness, etc.
Continued training required of all members of the team.
1 Housing resources
1 N/A.
1 New Judge
1 Resources for positive reinforcement materials.
1 more group cohesiveness exercises
1 team-wide accessible case management technology.
35. Please use this space for anything else you want to share with
Adult Redeploy Illinois. (Optional)
Count Response
1 Due to the retaliation that staff members incurred during the last survey, I am nervous as
to what will happen when these results are shared. Also, please know that the officers
and attorneys genuinely care for the clients within this program and do want to see
them succeed. However, this does not appear to be a universal desire as the program
seems to set people up to fail currently. T he program is in need of dire reform in regards
to judicial leadership.
1 I would not print direct quotes from this survey or make them available to the ARIOB or
court. T he way the questions are worded, it feels like we're being set up a bit, so I don't
feel comfortable being totally open.
1 It is my belief that the recommendation of replacing the Judge made in in the previous
report is still a position held by most on the team. ARI has been aware of the Judicial
issues for some time, which is why many on the team were hoping that the original
report would finally have some impact. However, this just brought more work in the
form of a second CAP (within a 2-3 year period) and backlash from the Judge to many of
those on the team. It is for these very reasons that many are hesitant to even answer
this survey. Anonymity was also guaranteed in the first report, but it can often be
intuited by those reading the summaries (the Judge) which team member/department
provided which responses. T he team and program, as they are currently being run, are
beyond repair and are in need of a Judicial change. I believe that the current atmosphere
surrounding the team and program could have a negative impact on those individuals
participating in the program. T he team has already been burned o
1 many of the questions contained herein allow for a response via sometimes, often,
never etc. and are too broad to be quantified in such a manner.
Cook County HOPE Adult Redeploy Illinois Team & Partner Survey
Response ID:18 Data
2. General
Please indicate the length of time, in years and months, that you have worked with the Cook HOPE Adult
Redeploy Illinois team. (Optional)
What do you consider to be the biggest strengths of the Cook HOPE ARI program?
What do you consider to be the biggest challenges of the Cook HOPE ARI program?
3. Evidence-Based Practices
Cook HOPE is enrolling and serving participants with moderate-high risk and low-moderate needs.
Assessment information is used to guide participants' supervision level and service referral decisions.
Program participants have adequate and consistent access to quality services that address their needs
(e.g., anti-social thinking, substance use disorders, mental illness).
Participants have input into their individualized case plans.
The program provides an appropriate mix of incentives and sanctions (e.g., 4 positives to one negative) to
support participants' success.
Overall, how do you see Cook HOPE implementing, or failing to implement, evidence-based practices?
4. Swift Certain Fair Principles

The program is able to respond immediately to punish unwanted participant behavior with sanctions and
reinforce desired behavior with incentives.
Participants have a clear understanding of what responses (positive or negative) they can expect
resulting from certain behaviors.
Sanctions are consistently applied when a participant engages in unwanted behavior.
When sanctions are applied, the severity of the response matches the behavior.
When sanctions are applied, the responses are those that were agreed upon by the group.
The rules and conditions of the Cook HOPE program are clear to all team members.
Overall, how do you see Cook HOPE implementing, or failing to implement, swift, certain, and fair
principles?
5. Procedural Justice
Participants are given the opportunity to speak and be heard in court.
Participants for whom English is not their first language have access to interpreters.
Participants are treated with respect in court.
Participants receive explanations in plain language about how decisions are made, what the decisions
are, and what they need to do to comply.
All participants are treated the same (regardless of race, gender, age, etc.).
Overall, how do you see Cook HOPE implementing, or failing to implement, procedural justice?
6. Team Functioning and Collaboration

People involved in the Cook HOPE team always trust one another.
All team members have a clear understanding of what Cook HOPE is trying to accomplish.
Cook HOPE team members have a clear sense of their roles and responsibilities.
The people who lead the Cook HOPE team communicate well with the members.
There is a clear process for making decisions among the members on the Cook HOPE team.
People on the Cook HOPE team are open to different approaches to how to do the work and are willing to
consider different ways of working.
The people in leadership positions for Cook HOPE have good skills for working with other people and
organizations.
Everyone who is a member of the Cook HOPE team wants this program and its participants to succeed.
Overall, how would you describe the level of team collaboration?
7. Other
From your perspective, how do you see the development of an updated policies and procedures manual
assisting the program overall and to address issues in the CAP (i.e., alignment with evidence-based
What, if any, new policies or changed policies do you think would be beneficial to the program?
What additional or different resources would you like to see for the program?
Please use this space for anything else you want to share with Adult Redeploy Illinois. (Optional)
8. Thank You!
New Send Email Cook County HOPE ARI Team & Partner Survey
Response ID:19 Data
2. General

principles?

organizations.
7. Other
8. Thank You!
Response ID:20 Data
2. General
1. Please indicate the length of time, in years and months, that you have worked with the Cook HOPE
Adult Redeploy Illinois team. (Optional)
5
2. What do you consider to be the biggest strengths of the Cook HOPE ARI program?
Serves a low need population that would head to prison most likely when violate. There are no other courts
that would provide services in lieu of prison to most of the ARI participants.
3. What do you consider to be the biggest challenges of the Cook HOPE ARI program?
The team dynamics
4. Cook HOPE is enrolling and serving participants with moderate-high risk and low-moderate needs.
Agree
5. Assessment information is used to guide participants' supervision level and service referral decisions.
Often
6. Program participants have adequate and consistent access to quality services that address their
needs (e.g., anti-social thinking, substance use disorders, mental illness).
Often
Sometimes
8. The program provides an appropriate mix of incentives and sanctions (e.g., 4 positives to one negative)
to support participants' success.
Agree
9. Overall, how do you see Cook HOPE implementing, or failing to implement, evidence-based practices?
In process now of Setting up a evidence based practice grid

10. The program is able to respond immediately to punish unwanted participant behavior with sanctions
and reinforce desired behavior with incentives.
Agree
11. Participants have a clear understanding of what responses (positive or negative) they can expect
Agree
12. Sanctions are consistently applied when a participant engages in unwanted behavior.
Disagree
13. When sanctions are applied, the severity of the response matches the behavior.
Often
14. When sanctions are applied, the responses are those that were agreed upon by the group.
Never
15. The rules and conditions of the Cook HOPE program are clear to all team members.
Agree
16. Overall, how do you see Cook HOPE implementing, or failing to implement, swift, certain, and fair
principles?
Need to implement and agree on sanctions and incentives grid

organizations.
7. Other
8. Thank You!
Response ID:21 Data
2. General

principles?

organizations.
7. Other
8. Thank You!
Response ID:22 Data
2. General

principles?

organizations.
7. Other
8. Thank You!
Response ID:23 Data
2. General
The model considers each defendant's potential for rehabilitation.
the HOPE model is not designed metrically to address substance abuse other than alcohol.

principles?

organizations.
7. Other
8. Thank You!
Response ID:24 Data
2. General
n/a
n/a
Neutral
Sometimes
Sometimes
Sometimes
Neutral
n/a

Neutral
Neutral
Neutral
Sometimes
Sometimes
Neutral
principles?
n/a
17. Participants are given the opportunity to speak and be heard in court.
Sometimes
18. Participants for whom English is not their first language have access to interpreters.
Sometimes
Sometimes
20. Participants receive explanations in plain language about how decisions are made, what the decisions
Sometimes
21. All participants are treated the same (regardless of race, gender, age, etc.).
Sometimes
22. Overall, how do you see Cook HOPE implementing, or failing to implement, procedural justice?
n/a

Neutral
24. All team members have a clear understanding of what Cook HOPE is trying to accomplish.
Neutral
25. Cook HOPE team members have a clear sense of their roles and responsibilities.
Neutral
26. The people who lead the Cook HOPE team communicate well with the members.
Neutral
27. There is a clear process for making decisions among the members on the Cook HOPE team.
Neutral
28. People on the Cook HOPE team are open to different approaches to how to do the work and are willing
to consider different ways of working.
Neutral
29. The people in leadership positions for Cook HOPE have good skills for working with other people and
organizations.
Neutral
30. Everyone who is a member of the Cook HOPE team wants this program and its participants to
succeed.
Neutral
n/a
7. Other
32. From your perspective, how do you see the development of an updated policies and procedures
manual assisting the program overall and to address issues in the CAP (i.e., alignment with evidence-
based practices and procedural justice)?
n/a
33. What, if any, new policies or changed policies do you think would be beneficial to the program?
n/a
34. What additional or different resources would you like to see for the program?
n/a
35. Please use this space for anything else you want to share with Adult Redeploy Illinois. (Optional)
8. Thank You!
Jul 13, 2017 15:26:18 Success: Email Sent to: ICJIA ARI
Response ID:25 Data
2. General
belief in program model, dedication to success of participants, passion for working within criminal justice
system to create reform and assist participants in making better life choices
lack of cohesiveness, unfinalized PPM which has not been implemented and makes the program feel
somewhat in limbo, lack of willingness for compromise among team members
Agree
Sometimes
Often
Rarely
Disagree
I think once the PPM is finalized and an agreement is reached, HOPE can fully implement the EBP

Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Sometimes
Sometimes
Disagree
principles?
PPM has not been finalized yet but team members are implementing some elements of swift certain and
fair principles in terms of quick sanctions in response to negative behaviors and there are some negative
behaviors that are followed with specific sanctions
Often
Very often
Sometimes
Often
Rarely
not sure how to answer

Disagree
Neutral
Neutral
Disagree
Neutral
Disagree
organizations.
Neutral
succeed.
Strongly agree
fair
7. Other
I think it can be beneficial to bring the team together to make decisions more collaboratively based upon
the behavior response guide that was developed. However, without it currently being implemented it's hard
to make an assessment.
I think the behavior response guide needs to be finalized, followed by all team members, and implemented.
more group cohesiveness exercises
8. Thank You!
Response ID:26 Data
2. General
5 years, 6 months.
The dedicated work that the team tries to accomplish in the face of adverse, unnecessary conditions.
The fact that there continues to be opposition from the Judge in relation to implementing policies and
procedures for the program. This goes hand-in-hand with the arbitrary rules/procedures that are often
implemented by the Judge, making team roles unclear and causing confusion among some team
members.
Neutral
Rarely
Sometimes
Rarely
Strongly disagree
HOPE has major issues implementing evidence-based practices due to opposition from the Judge.

Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Rarely
Sometimes
Strongly disagree
principles?
As with the evidence-based practices, Judicial opposition to swift, certain, and fair principles is a major
obstacle. This is despite the repeated efforts of the Project Manager to try and implement these practices.
Sometimes
Often
Sometimes
Sometimes
Sometimes
The implementation of procedural justice is often dictated in court by the mood of the Judge or how late the
call sometimes begins.

Strongly disagree
Strongly disagree
Strongly disagree
Strongly Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
organizations.
Strongly Disagree
succeed.
Neutral
There is no team collaboration. I, along with others, have been told by the Judge to NOT trust other
members of the team. The team has also been told, repeatedly, to NOT trust ARI. Arbitrary rules
implemented by the Judge have made some team roles and responsibilities unclear. The "team" approach
has become even worse since the last ARI report was issued back in December 2016/January 2017. It is
my belief that this fractured team approach could negatively affect those probationers participating in the
program.
7. Other
It would not be an updated policy and procedures manual, as there has never been an original one in
place. All the hard work put-in by most of the team will be for naught if the Judge does not follow a PPM or
even hinders the development of one.
This is hard to determine with the current Judicial leadership in place.
N/A.
It is my belief that the recommendation of replacing the Judge made in in the previous report is still a
position held by most on the team. ARI has been aware of the Judicial issues for some time, which is why
many on the team were hoping that the original report would finally have some impact. However, this just
brought more work in the form of a second CAP (within a 2-3 year period) and backlash from the Judge to
many of those on the team. It is for these very reasons that many are hesitant to even answer this survey.
Anonymity was also guaranteed in the first report, but it can often be intuited by those reading the
summaries (the Judge) which team member/department provided which responses. The team and
program, as they are currently being run, are beyond repair and are in need of a Judicial change. I believe
that the current atmosphere surrounding the team and program could have a negative impact on those
individuals participating in the program. The team has already been burned once by the first report. I would
be extremely disappointed if either nothing is done or there is even more Judicial backlash based on this
second report.
8. Thank You!
Response ID:27 Data
2. General
Addressing possible violations swiftly
Judge Jackie M Portman
Agree
Often
Often
Often
Strongly disagree
meh

Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
Rarely
Rarely
Strongly disagree
principles?
We have the swift part down. The certain & fair and not being met. Often times sanctions are random or too
harsh in regards to the violation. Escalated sanctions are often given as well which goes against swift
certain fair principles.
Often
Very often
Sometimes
Rarely
Often
I think there are serious due process issues related to this court. too many instances to list

Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
organizations.
Strongly Disagree
succeed.
Strongly disagree
If you couldnt tell by the amount of strongly disagrees listed but there is a clear divide with team members
especially the judge. Leadership is extremely poor and trust is completely gone. Probably the worst its ever
been.
7. Other
The current "updated" policy has not been implemented. There are bits & pieces that we have tried to put
into place but it is very blurry. Its not clear what is in place & what is not. And there has been resistence
from the judge to implement and of the new policies we have tried to put into place.
Overhaul of sanctions. Still a major problem in the program.
New Judge
I have serious problems as a team member in doing these "anonymous" surveys in general. Last time I
participated in this type of survey the information was used against me by judge portman. I was very
hesitant to even fill out this survey but at the end i felt it was important to mention my concerns. Judge
Portman is and will also be the biggest problem with this program. She is extremely resistent to any of the
changes that we have tried to put in place. She has tried to retaliate personally against me after the Ali Abid
report was sent out. Relationships with team members are broken and I dont see them being repaired
without new leadership quite frankly. Again I fear that just by reporting these issues to ARI that I personally
will face retaliation by the judge & I will be attacked. Can you imagine what that feels like to be in this
position? I hope ARI takes a serious look at Judge Portmans "leadership" & they way that she runs this
program. These issues have been reported for years and yet ARI has done nothing outside of put a "cap" in
place. I feel ARI leadership has failed to adequately address the issues raised by HOPE staff members for
years. If I could, I would leave this program today but unfortunately do not have the freedom to leave. I cant
tell you the amount of personal attacks I have had to endure over the years both verbally & in written form.
Again, if ARI shareholders want to seriously change COOK HOPE these concerns need to be addressed.
8. Thank You!
Response ID:28 Data
2. General
The team is very dedicated to providing personalized services to the participants, in order to address their
needs where they are at. Also, in my observation, the court has been treated a bit like a "red-headed
stepchild" within the court system and the team has dealt with that dynamic well, while continuing to
provide court services.
Judicial oversight.
Agree
Very often
Very often
Sometimes
Disagree
Change is difficult, and there has been some difficulty in identifying the best practice as it applies to this
court and then following through with it.

Agree
Disagree
Neutral
Often
Often
Agree
principles?
Right now we are struggling with the swift part only because of having to stop using instant cups, and the
regular lab testing of drug samples makes the time between the violation and the sanction longer than it's
been in the past. It's also hard to measure or evaluate the perception of the participants when it comes to
certain and fair.
Often
Very often
Often
Often
Very often
This is hard because I don't know how it's perceived by the participants.

Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Neutral
Agree
Neutral
organizations.
Agree
succeed.
Strongly agree
Everyone is open to discussion.
7. Other
We're struggling to finalize some policies and procedures in a way that fully aligns with the model or
evidence-based practices. The manual should help provide guidance, but it is not a solution in and of itself.
Ensure that the sanctions align with evidence-based practices. Sanctioning on failed sanctions catches
participants a lot and should be re-examined.
Additional funding for incentives, money for housing, employment readiness, etc. Continued training
required of all members of the team.
I would not print direct quotes from this survey or make them available to the ARIOB or court. The way the
questions are worded, it feels like we're being set up a bit, so I don't feel comfortable being totally open.
8. Thank You!
Response ID:29 Data
2. General
The opportunity for rehabilitation of each participant.
staying within the HOPE model in situations that require a broader application of discretion
Neutral
Often
Sometimes
Rarely
Neutral
the aim is to implement evidence based practices but some situations require application of discretion
where evidence has not yet been collected.

Agree
Neutral
Neutral
Often
Sometimes
Neutral
principles?
the intent of the team is to implement SCF principles, but there is (naturally) not a consensus in all
situations as to what SCF is.
Very often
Very often
Often
Often
Often
the answers to the above questions are with respect to the entire team and not just one person (i.e. how
participants are treated in court by all team members)

Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Neutral
Neutral
Neutral
organizations.
Neutral
succeed.
Neutral
the team collaborates as would be expected in a traditionally adversarial forum. It is not perfect but for the
most part communication is consistent.
7. Other
unlikely to effect the change desired.
reaching consensus on implementation would be more beneficial than changing policy.
team-wide accessible case management technology.
many of the questions contained herein allow for a response via sometimes, often, never etc. and are too
broad to be quantified in such a manner.
8. Thank You!
Response ID:30 Data
2. General

principles?

organizations.
7. Other
8. Thank You!
Response ID:31 Data
2. General
-The Team process
-Judge Portman.
- Permanently or long termed Assigned Assistant State's Attorney
- Training and consistency component for the revolving door of Assistant State's Attorney's assigned
-Team members not knowing their respective role and job responsibilities
-Additional resources for clients served including housing or transition housing
-Lack of warrant service by the Sheriff's department
-Implementation of the new sanctions protocol hinders team ability to tailor sanctions to specific clients with
specific needs.
Strongly agree
Very often
Sometimes
Often
Agree
implementing well

Agree
Strongly agree
Strongly agree
Very often
Very often
Strongly agree
principles?
Implementing well.
Very often
Very often
Very often
Very often
Very often
Implementing well.

Agree
Agree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Strongly Agree
organizations.
Strongly Agree
succeed.
Strongly agree
Collaborate well.
7. Other
The development is to rigid and does not allow for case specific assessment or considerations when trying
to make an appropriate plan
Relaxing the sanctions and incentives to allow team to consider an individuals specific circumstances and
needs. Goes to the fairness of the individual.
-Housing
-More incentives
-More treatment options
-More job and skill resources
-More then one cognitive partner, in the least reinstituting the in-house cognitive program as an option
8. Thank You!
Response ID:32 Data
2. General
The concept of the program itself seems promising if it were to be properly implemented. Most team
members are very dedicated employees who have the genuine interest of the clients at heart.
The program still seems to be too heavily jail-based in regards to sanctions. Judge is often not on the same
page as the other employees which makes it difficult to adhere to the team based approach intended.
Disagree
Sometimes
Sometimes
Rarely
Strongly disagree
It is impossible to adhere to evidence based practices when the deciding factor is not supportive of these
practices.

Agree
Disagree
Disagree
Never
Rarely
Disagree
principles?
The program operates quite swiftly, however, swiftness is not equally balanced with certain or fair
principles. Fairness is often disregarded and consistency is not always guaranteed.
Sometimes
Often
Rarely
Sometimes
Rarely
In comparison to similar programs, this program appears to be failing.

Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
organizations.
Disagree
succeed.
Disagree
All team members are generally on the same page save for the judge. Officers, attorneys, and involved
supervisors respect one another and work well together.
7. Other
As the process is going so far, I don't see a written policy having any effect whatsoever. Judge does not
seem to want to agree to anything related to evidence based practices and is insistent on having complete
discretion and control.
I don't know if anything can save this program at this rate.
Housing resources
Due to the retaliation that staff members incurred during the last survey, I am nervous as to what will
happen when these results are shared. Also, please know that the officers and attorneys genuinely care for
the clients within this program and do want to see them succeed. However, this does not appear to be a
universal desire as the program seems to set people up to fail currently. The program is in need of dire
reform in regards to judicial leadership.
8. Thank You!
Response ID:33 Data
2. General
Approx. 5 years
The dedication of the line staff to servicing clients and attempting to implement a successful program.
Making and implementing long-needed changes to the program and procedures, necessary to bring the
program in line with current evidence-based practices.
Neutral
Sometimes
Often
Never
Strongly disagree
NOTES TO ABOVE 4-8: 4a) until new procedures are adopted and implemented the Court will continue to
insist on taking high-needs individuals, this is improper unless the HOPE-based model is modified to
separate and account for the high-need vs low/moderate need clients. Client risk level is generally
appropriate. 8) the program as administered continues to fall significantly short of any meaningful systemic
use of positive reinforcement, outside that done by individual team members, with individual clients, under
individual circumstances.
Team members continue to make efforts to attempt to change long-standing practices that are (and have
been) in contradiction to evidence based practices, and continue to attempt to suggest ways in which the
program can be brought into line with evidence based practices.

Agree
Agree
Agree
Rarely
Sometimes
Neutral
principles?
Review of 11-15 above: 10) sanctioning of unwanted behavior is immediate and certain. Positive
reinforcement has generally not been used outside of individual team (e.g. PO and PD) members
conducting individual interventions with individual clients under individual circumstances. 13) it is generally
agreed by staff that the current sanction regimen is outside evidence based practices, both in proportion to
the behavior/violation and in relation to the severity of punishment generally.
The program is undeniably swift (often at the expense of due process), for the most part certain (in the
sense that the Court rarely deviates from its prior practices despite contrary evidence regarding efficacy or
an argument citing to evidence based practices), however the program still struggles with fairness, at least
as applied The Court continues to have issues with fairness.
Often
Very often
Rarely
Often
Sometimes
The lack of written procedures and a myopic focus on "swift", along with the lack of consent from probation
clients, are two roadblocks to rating the program positively on procedural justice grounds.

Agree
Agree
Agree
Disagree
Neutral
Disagree
organizations.
Disagree
succeed.
Strongly agree
Commentary on 23-30. 23) The team members (the State, PD, and PO's) all trust one another and believe
that each are working to assist clients and implement a proper program. 28) the team members are always
open to new and different approaches and have considered difference ways of working. 26 and 29)
Depending on how one defines "leader" the answer to these questions is either disagree or agree. The
team and staff all have good skills and experience in leading and working with other people and
organizations. If this review includes the Court as the "leader" then the review is disagree - this is one of the
Court's primary failings. 28) Getting the court to consider changing long-standing practices (even when
objections to those practices as being contrary to evidence-based practices are themselves long-standing)
has been very difficult, However, over the past 4 years, the Court HAS made incremental changes in
certain practices and procedures in response to the prior CAPs and other reviews. The primary challenge
is, and has been, maintaining and insisting on changed practices in the face of a generalized resistance to
change.
The TEAM (as in the POs, PD, State, and Coordinators ALL collaborate and work together well as a team.
The Court, however, does not view its role as being collaborative, rather that the other team members are
wholly subordinate and should execute their duties, and defer, as the Court dictates. This tension exists in
any judicial program, however it is particularly problematic here when necessary changes are being
resisted based on a desire to continue long-standing (albeit improper) practices.
7. Other
If the manual is detailed and followed it could assist in helping the program align with evidence based
practices.
1) Separation of the program and participants into two distinct tracks: High Need and Low/Moderate Need.
L/M clients would be under a traditional hope-based, SCF-type program. High Need clients would be
treated under a modified program more in keeping with a Drug/Mental Health/Vet Court model.
2) Implementation of screening and a consent mechanism to identify inappropriate clients (as to risk, need,
and willingness to participate) prior to transfer into the program.
Resources for positive reinforcement materials.
8. Thank You!

Cook County HOPE Adult Redeploy Illinois Team and Partner Survey II

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Cook County HOPE Adult Redeploy Illinois Team and Partner Survey II

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Cook County HOPE Adult Redeploy Illinois

Team and partner survey

Case referral process

2. What do you consider to be the biggest strengths of the Cook

1 -T he T eam process -Judge Portman.

1 Addressing possible violations swiftly

1 T he concept of the program itself seems promising if it were to be properly

1 T he dedication of the line staff to servicing clients and attempting to implement a

1 T he opportunity for rehabilitation of each participant.

1 T he team is very dedicated to providing personalized services to the participants, in

1 belief in program model, dedication to success of participants, passion for working

3. What do you consider to be the biggest challenges of the Cook

1 - Permanently or long termed Assigned Assistant State's Attorney - T raining and

1 Judge Jackie M Portman

1 Making and implementing long-needed changes to the program and procedures,

1 T he fact that there continues to be opposition from the Judge in relation to

1 T he program still seems to be too heavily jail-based in regards to sanctions. Judge is

4. Cook HOPE is enrolling and serving participants with moderate-

37.50% Agree 37.50% Neutral

Value Percent Responses

Strongly agree 12.5% 1

5. Assessment information is used to guide participants' supervision

25.00% Very often

Value Percent Responses

Very often 25.0% 2

6. Program participants have adequate and consistent access to

Value Percent Responses

Very often 12.5% 1

7. Participants have input into their individualized case plans.

Value Percent Responses

8. The program provides an appropriate mix of incentives and

50.00% Strongly disagree

Value Percent Responses

Strongly disagree 50.0% 4

9. Overall, how do you see Cook HOPE implementing, or failing to

10. The program is able to respond immediately to punish unwanted

Value Percent Responses

Strongly agree 12.5% 1

11. Participants have a clear understanding of what responses

Value Percent Responses

Strongly agree 12.5% 1

12. Sanctions are consistently applied when a participant engages in

Value Percent Responses

Strongly agree 12.5% 1

Value Percent Responses

Very often 12.5% 1

Value Percent Responses

Very often 12.5% 1

25.00% Strongly disagree

25.00% Neutral 25.00% Disagree

Value Percent Responses

Strongly disagree 25.0% 2

Strongly agree 12.5% 1

16. Overall, how do you see Cook HOPE implementing, or failing to

25.00% Sometimes 25.00% Very often

Value Percent Responses

Very often 25.0% 2

75.00% Very often

Value Percent Responses

Very often 75.0% 6

19. Participants are treated with respect in court.

Value Percent Responses

Very often 12.5% 1

20. Participants receive explanations in plain language about how