A recent experience with a law firm that was attempting to provide reasonable alternatives to incarceration for their clients provided evidence that TEAM treatment support needed some fixes.
In this case, the law firm and the judge were convinced that an intense monitored treatment program would provide a suitable remedy for the client.
The client was living with his brother who was a farmer in a suburban community. A local outpatient treatment center agreed to support the treatment plan. Weekly outpatient group meetings were not possible due to the client’s location; but the center agreed to weekly counseling sessions. Outpatient treatment centers and local counselors were not available to the client where he lived. The Client was provided with a Treatment Manual that included lesson content normally discussed in group sessions and during 12 Step meetings. Forms and envelopes were provided and the client was instructed to mail the forms describing the prescribed activity information completed during the week. Communities near the clients residence had some weekly 12 Step meetings and once a week a phone based counseling session was completed to discuss treatment progress.
In addition, the client’s brother was supporting the client’s efforts and was provided with access to the client’s web based case management site. The brother was able to enter weekly activity comments. This activity took little time and access was limited to activity input.
iMResponsible.com processed all weekly information received from the client and his brother into their web based case management software. The case data was provided to the referral sources in a timely manner and for the first couple months all participants were satisfied.
At this point, clinical case data was not being entered into client’s, web based, case management system. Electronic transfers of data could not be accomplished as the clinical data was mostly paper. The software applications of the clinic were principally used to provide state agencies with information needed for billing purposes. The explanation from the clinic was that there was no revenue stream to cover the costs of the clinical tasks involved.
Without a local clinical partner, it was necessary to discontinue client support and to notify the referral sources that the program was being discontinued. It is my understanding that the client was later classified as not meeting judicial requirements and was then jailed.
This example is one of several that illustrate similar conditions and results.
Current revenue streams are the catalysts that predicate client treatment conditions. A supplemental issue affecting treatment results are agency required tasks that are not appropriate or cannot be completed as required. These circumstances create the basis for violations. Who, then, is guilty of the violation?
Additional articles will be provided with examples and remedies.