Help GA SAKI to develop a Case Review policy and resolve team conflict that encourages collaborative conversation and input from the entire team.
Please check the box next to the following questions if the answer is 'yes'.
Please enter the applicable Event Date if there is an Event associated with this TTA.
When entering an Event Date, the Time is also required.
If the TTA is targeted to a particular audience or location, please complete the questions below.
Milestones are an element, activity, work product, or key task associated with completing the TTA (e.g. kick-off meeting, collect data from stake holders, deliver initial data analysis).
Please complete the fields below, if applicable, to create a milestone for this TTA.
During the 2019 Check-in call, GA SAKI expressed the need to develop a Case Review policy that encourages collaborative conversation and input from the entire team.
Paige and Jim thought it would be helpful to provide the team with templates to help them prepare for the Case Review Meeting to allow for collaborative conversations. Then, we'd like to have Jim join their Case Review calls to listen in and provide suggestions.
Paige sent the Case Review Template files and asked Byron about having Jim join their meeting virtually to discuss the template files and start building a relationship with the team.
Byron gave the date of the next meeting to confirm Jim's availability, and we set a date for a follow-up call to discuss.
Jim and Paige held a call with Byron to talk more about the case review process and hear about their challenges. Byron described the challenges the site was having and asked questions about lead times for case review preparation. Jim walked through options for working on communication for case review and discussed ways for the team to improve their case review process.
Jim will be developing a relationship with the site to build trust and be included in the case review process to give more insight to team members.
Jim and Paige had a call with Amy Hutsell to hear her frustrations with the site's case review process. She provided clarifying information from the previous day call with Byron.
Amy would really like for Jim to come to their case review meeting. Paige suggested it would be easier and be able to happen more often if Jim joined by phone or skype call. They all three discussed ways to help the site improve collaboration and communication.
Amy Durall spoke with Maryann. As requested, I was able to make contact with Maryann today. This was also to check in to what the advocates were feeling about case review.
A summary of our conversation is below:
• She was appreciative of the repeat contact
• She communicated that the co-location is overall working well – aiding in building relationships and increased communication
o She has forwarded a request to consider separate offices in the future to address the need for confidential conversations between community-based advocates and victims
o Currently they have one room that advocates are using for initial/confidential conversations with victims – this room is separate from their work stations/area
• Case review meetings are now occurring twice monthly
o She advised that currently they consist of investigators updating everyone on the status of cases
o She would like to see this progress to where there is an opportunity for collaborative input/decision-making by other disciplines. She mentioned this suggestion has been brought forward to the SAKI Coordinator.
During a call with Byron, he said they had implemented Jim's suggestions and thought it was going to improve their process.
Continue to check in on the progress.
Amy and Paige had a call about the overall communication barriers with an update on their MDT structure. Amy let me know that they are expecting a change in their site coordinator and with the prosecutor from one of the jurisdictions.
At the SAKI Grantees meeting, Paige spoke with Crispin, Lee, and Hannah about how things were going. They each reflected some frustration in the communication with leadership and between the different agencies. They wanted to see what ideas we had for improving those relationships.
Paige, first, let them know how difficult it was for their site having multiple prosecuting agencies. It's a very unique situation. She gave some tips for their working together to identify methods of communication. She recommended to Hannah that she speak with her Director about leading a conflict resolution meeting when the new Site Coordinator was hired.
Please respond to the Performance Metrics below. The Performance Metrics questions are based on the TTA Type indicated in the General Information section of the TTA.
Please submit a signed letter of support from your agency’s executive or other senior staff member. The letter can be emailed to or uploaded with this request. The letter should be submitted on official letterhead and include the following information:
- General information regarding the request for TTA services, i.e., the who, what, where, when, and why.
- The organizational and/or community needs specific to the request for TTA services.
- The benefits or anticipated outcomes from the receipt of TTA services.
By submitting this application to BJA NTTAC, I understand that upon approval of this application for TTA, the requestor agrees to keep BJA NTTAC informed of any circumstances that may impact the delivery of the TTA, including changes in the date of the event, event cancellation, or difficulties communicating with the assigned TTA provider.
Please call [site:phone] if you need further assistance completing this application.