[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 36 (Friday, February 22, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9825-9833]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-3264]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
National Institute of Corrections
Solicitation for a Cooperative Agreement--Evidence Based Decision
Making for Local Criminal Justice Systems
AGENCY: National Institute of Corrections, Department of Justice.
ACTION: Solicitation for a Cooperative Agreement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Institute of Corrections (NIC) is soliciting
proposals from organizations, groups or individuals who would like to
enter into a cooperative agreement with NIC for the eighteen month
development phase of a new initiative, ``Evidence Based Decision Making
for Local Criminal Justice Systems'' (justice systems).
Project Goal: The overall goal of the initiative is to establish
and test articulated linkages (information tools and protocols) between
local criminal justice decisions and the application of human and
organizational change principles (evidence based practices) to achieve
measurable reduction of pretrial misconduct and post-conviction risk of
re-offending. The unique focus of the initiative is locally developed
strategies of criminal justice officials (broadly defined below) that
guide practice within existing sentencing statutes and rules.
The initiative intends to: (1) Improve the quality of information
that leads to making individual case decisions in local systems, and
(2) engage these systems as policy making bodies to collectively
improve the effectiveness and capacity of the decision processes
related to pretrial release/sentencing options. The local officials
will include judges, prosecutors, public defenders, court
administrators, police, human service providers, county executives and
legislators, and jail, probation and pretrial services agencies'
administrators.
Local criminal justice decisions are defined broadly to include
dispositions regarding: Pretrial release or detention and the setting
of bail and pretrial release conditions, pretrial diversion or post
plea diversion ``sentences,'' charging and plea bargaining, sentencing
of adjudicated offenders regarding use of community and custody
options, mitigation or reduction of sentences, and responses to
violations of conditions of pretrial release and community sentences.
DATES: Applications must be received by 4 p.m. EST on Friday, April 4,
2008.
[[Page 9826]]
ADDRESSES: Mailed applications must be sent to: Director, National
Institute of Corrections, 320 First Street, NW., Room 5007, Washington,
DC 20534. Applicants are encouraged to use Federal Express, UPS, or
similar service to ensure delivery by the due date. Hand delivered
applications should be brought to 500 First Street, NW., Washington, DC
20534. At the front desk, call (202) 307-3106, extension 0 for pickup.
Faxed applications will not be accepted. Only e-mailed applications
which are submitted via grants.gov will be accepted.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A copy of this announcement and the
required application forms can be downloaded from the NIC Web site at:
http://www.nicic.gov. Hard copies of the announcement can be obtained
by calling Pam Davison at 1-800-995-6423 x 3-0484 or e-mail
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background: As corrections agencies (including court-based pretrial
release and probation) take steps to align their supervision and
intervention practices with research on offender behavior change, they
and the local justice systems which they serve are increasingly aware
of the lack of deliberate connection between justice system decisions
(pretrial release, plea bargaining, sentencing, mitigation of sentence,
revocation) and the offender management options aimed at improved long-
term public safety through defendant/offender risk reduction practices.
Typically justice officials employ multiple sentencing philosophies or
goals, and lack a framework for purposefully weighing or prioritizing
goals in individual cases. Often pretrial release/detention, diversion
and sentencing decisions are made without information regarding the
nature and degree of risk to re-offend and the specific dynamic risk
factors that would help the local system determine who would benefit
the most from specific intervention or treatment approaches. Among
these ``disconnections'' is the over use of treatment resources for low
risk offenders under the assumption that treatment programs are best
employed with the more ``deserving'' or the ``first-time, non-violent
offenders.'' Further, assuming risk is a function of the seriousness of
the current charge, the vast majority of sentences are determined at
the plea bargaining stage. Thus, in order to achieve clearer alignment
of sentencing conditions with effective risk reduction, more informed
plea bargaining is essential.
Another critical issue is the lack of educational opportunities for
judges, prosecutors, public defenders, legislators and others to learn
about the evidence based practice research on offender risk reduction
and to develop strategies for more informed decision making. Local
criminal justice leaders need assistance in hammering out and testing
concrete tools for improved decision making in individual cases, as
well as the opportunity for collaborative policy making on the range
and capacity of effective pretrial release, diversion and sentencing
strategies needed in local justice systems to address the risks of
pretrial misconduct and re-offending of their particular populations.
National Institute of Corrections' Experience: Since the early
1990's, the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) has promoted
evidence based practices (EBP) through training, information sharing,
and technical assistance. At NIC the term EBP simply refers to using
the best bodies of knowledge available for decision making at the
system, organization, staff, and defendant and offender levels. Through
its technical assistance with state and local jurisdictions, the
Institute has learned that successful change efforts must maintain an
integrated EBP focus in three domains: Application of the research
principles themselves; organizational development through total
alignment of policy, practice and performance measurement; and
collaboration with the community and justice system partners who are
stakeholders in the final outcomes. Learning organizations and systems
that are disciplined enough to fully integrate the principles and apply
them throughout the implementation process, measuring and adjusting
constantly as they proceed, are able to reduce recidivism and reach
other identified justice goals.
NIC has a long history of developing tools and strategies for local
system change at the policy level. There have been valuable
collaborations with the State Justice Institute working with 40
jurisdictions on the development of intermediate sanctions. In
addition, NIC has supported policy development efforts that address
jail crowding, collaborative problem solving on pretrial, probation and
parole violations, the design of a more effective array of criminal
sanctions, prison and jail to community transition, and improved
responses to women defendants/offenders at early decision points in the
criminal justice system.
Progress to Date: To guide the development of the Initiative, NIC
invited a representative group of stakeholders to participate in a
National Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee met on June 6-8,
2007, in Chicago, IL; and November 8 and 9, 2007, in Denver, CO. The
Committee was helpful in identifying the benefits and challenges for
each stakeholder group of using evidence based practice information for
decision making and the key issues that must be addressed to garner
their support. They also made recommendations for potential strategies
to achieve project goals. The list of advisors is included as Appendix
A, and a summary of the first meeting of the National Advisory
Committee as Appendix B. Committee members ask that they not be
contacted by organizations and individuals during the applicant
preparation process. Members have expressed interest in offering their
expertise to whatever organization is selected as best qualified to
implement the project, both as advisors and contributors to specific
aspects of the work.
Goals of the Project in the Development Phase: NIC will award one
cooperative agreement for an 18 month period to work closely with the
project's National Advisory Committee and NIC project managers to
develop the conceptual framework and supporting materials for engaging
local jurisdictions in the achievement of project goals. Again, the
goals are two fold. The first is the development of structural linkages
(tools, protocols, information systems) between individual criminal
justice decisions and evidence based information on defendants and
offenders in order to achieve reductions in pretrial misconduct and
post-conviction offending. The second is the design and refinement of
pretrial and sentencing disposition strategies for the entire local
system so that it has the capacity to achieve its risk reduction goals.
For efficiency and clarity of purpose in engaging local court systems
as pilots, the conceptual framework will be developed prior to
selecting two jurisdictions as implementation and learning sites.
Additional local jurisdiction pilots may be supported by private
funding partners in this multi-year effort. NIC anticipates intensive
work in the two pilot sites for up to three years.
There are five (5) objectives for the initial 18 month development
phase of this project:
Develop the conceptual framework and supporting materials for the
initiative that define the research foundation and planned change
strategies for the local criminal justice system demonstrations. The
framework will guide intensive facilitation, training
[[Page 9827]]
and technical assistance to selected local justice systems. Based on
the framework produced in the development phase, sites will be expected
to develop (a) structural tools and protocols for individual case
decision making that link information on the risks and needs of
defendants and offenders to desired outcomes, and (b) strategies for
system-wide enhancements in the array of effective pretrial release,
diversion and sentencing options through actions of the local justice
system policy making bodies.
Develop educational tools and engagement strategies that define the
relevance of evidence based decision making for different criminal
justice stakeholder groups, local public officials (executive and
legislative branches), human services providers and the community.
These tools and strategies will be tested with representatives of the
market segments identified above.
Develop the site selection criteria and approach for choosing the
local criminal justice pilot/learning sites.
Document the process and results of project development activities
with NIC and the National Advisory Committee.
Develop designs for process and outcome evaluation of project
services and products. The evaluation project itself will be funded
separately and managed directly by NIC. The evaluation design must be
submitted to NIC no later than June 1, 2009, so that funding of the
evaluation can occur prior to the end of fiscal year 2009.
There are six (6) deliverables for the initial 18 month development
phase of this project:
Project principles and framework for aligning criminal justice
decisions with evidence based practice on the reduction of pretrial
misconduct and post-conviction offending, and for justice system
improvement and accountability, including planned change and
implementation strategies, methods of organizational and stakeholder/
jurisdiction assessment, basic principles of effective and efficient
process and program design, core implementation strategies,
measurement, and quantitative feedback.
Strategies for engagement and communication with different internal
and external stakeholders groups (listed on pages 1 and 2) and the
local criminal justice system as a whole.
Educational and training tools (multi-media) including (a) role-
specific scenarios, practical application vignettes and other active,
adult learning tools that serve to visually and viscerally illustrate
the new system environment for different stakeholders and system
actors; and (b) Q-and-A formatted documents to facilitate issues
clarification and advocacy positions for various system participants
and politically active stakeholders.
Site selection criteria and approach, including a draft
announcement soliciting demonstrations sites.
Detailed Cooperative Agreement Project Plan, renegotiated after
first 4 months of project operation.
A process and outcome evaluation design for the initiative.
Other deliverables anticipated during a second phase (12 months) of
the project are:
Individual local jurisdiction strategic work plans. At a minimum,
these site plans will utilize the tools and materials developed in
Phase 1.
Media packets for public information and stakeholder assistance.
Other implementation tools as needed such as bench books,
glossaries, research and literature reviews, case studies and treatment
capacity charts. Note that the media packets and other implementation
tools are intended for use by interested local jurisdictions and
national and state organizations across the country, as well as by the
pilot sites.
Required Expertise: The successful applicant will need the skills
and capacity to provide planning and project development assistance in
the following areas:
Achieving organizational alignment within justice systems and
agencies regarding the use of evidence based practices on reduction of
pretrial misconduct and offender risk of re-offending.
Facilitation of meetings and planning sessions of the National
Advisory Committee, and other stakeholder and work groups.
Documentation and communication of multi-level strategies,
information pieces, progress reports, timelines, budgets, meeting
records and surveys.
Management of overall project organization and business processes.
Accessing, interpreting and summarizing research in relevant
fields.
Acting as liaison and manager with research experts connected to
the project.
Conceptualization of content and process and the ability to
translate concepts into appropriate documents and other forms of
communication.
Application Instructions: Please prepare a cooperative agreement
proposal and limit the program narrative text to no more than 15 double
spaced pages, excluding statements of organizational capacity and
summaries of the experiences and capabilities of key project staff.
Please submit summaries of experience and expertise and not full
curricula vitae.
The proposal must include:
A description of project objectives, methodologies and management
plan for achieving project goals in the first 18 month period; a budget
narrative that defines the relative use of resources for the above
objective areas or categories; a list of all persons who will be
involved as a member of the project team, including their roles within
the organization, areas of expertise related to this project, and
complete contact information.
Give at least one example of your experience or your team's
experience in delivering each of the following: criminal justice system
strategic planning; surveys or program evaluations in criminal justice
or court related areas including the design, analysis of results and
how the survey or evaluation was used for policy decision making; multi
media communication for public education and criminal justice system
improvement; and assessment of jurisdiction readiness for major
organizational system change.
Explain how you would address Quality Assurance issues and progress
updates for this initiative, especially related to your
responsibilities to NIC.
Application Requirements: Applications must be submitted using OMB
Standard Form 424, Federal Assistance and attachments. Application
forms are available from http://www.nicic.gov, under the ``About Us''
bar, ``Cooperative Agreements.'' The applications should be concisely
written, typed double spaced and reference the ``NIC Application
Number'' and Title provided in this announcement.
Submit an original and three copies of your full proposal (program
and budget narrative, application forms and assurances). The original
should have the applicant's signature in blue ink. A cover letter must
identify the responsible audit agency for the applicant's financial
accounts. As previously stated, electronic submissions will only be
accepted via http://www.grants.gov.
A telephonic conference will be conducted for persons receiving
this solicitation and having a serious intent to respond on March 6,
2008, at 2 p.m. EST. In the conference, NIC project managers will
respond to questions regarding the solicitation and expectations of
work to be performed. Please notify Phyllis Modley electronically
([email protected]) by noon EST on March 4, 2008, regarding
[[Page 9828]]
your interest in participating in the conference. You will be provided
with a call-in number and instructions. In addition, NIC project
managers will post answers to questions received from potential
applicants on its Web site for the six weeks in which the solicitation
is open to public interest.
Questions regarding this solicitation should be addressed to
Phyllis Modley at [email protected], or to Dorothy Faust at
[email protected].
Authority: Public Law 93-415.
Funds Available: NIC will fund one cooperative agreement for an
estimated 18 month period for the development phase of this project for
an amount not to exceed $450,000. It is anticipated that additional
funds will be made available in subsequent years for both the intensive
assistance to pilot/learning sites and evaluation portions of this
initiative.
Following award of the cooperative agreement and in the first 4
months of the project NIC, the National Advisory Committee and the
awardee will work together to refine the Awardee Project Plan.
Based on the successful completion of the development phase and the
continued availability of funds, NIC and partner organizations plan to
award additional funds for implementation of project strategies and
assistance services. NIC reserves the option to competitively solicit
services for subsequent phases of the project. Funds may only be used
for the activities that are linked to the desired outcome of the
project. No funds are transferred to state or local governments.
Eligibility of Applicants: An eligible applicant is any private
agency, educational institution, organization, individual or team with
expertise in the described areas.
Review Considerations: Applications received under this
announcement will be subjected to a 3 to 5 person NIC and joint funding
agency Review Process.
Number of Awards: One.
NIC Application Number: 08C76. This number should appear as a
reference line in the cover letter, in box 4a of Standard Form 424.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 16.602
Executive Order 12372: This project is not subject to the
provisions of Executive Order 12372.
Additional Resources: Fourteen reference documents can be found on
NIC's Web site. Go to http://www.nicic.gov, click on ``Community,''
then scroll to ``Shared Files,'' and finally click on ``Tools for
Evidence Based Decision Making in Local Justice Systems.''
Appendix A
Evidence Based Decision Making for Local Criminal Justice Systems
National Advisory Committee Members November 2007
Hon. Shirley Abrahamson, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Wisconsin,
Madison, Wisconsin.
Edwin Burnette, Chief Public Defender, Cook County Public
Defender's Office, Chicago, Illinois.
Gary Christensen, PhD, Corrections Administrator, Retired, Dutchess
County Jail, Poughkeepsie, New York.
Major Gary Darling, Criminal Justice Planning Manager, Larimer
County, Ft. Collins, Colorado.
Robert Johnson, Anoka County Attorney, Anoka, Minnesota.
Hon. Dale R. Koch, Judge, Multnomah County Circuit Court, Portland,
Oregon.
Sally Kreamer, Director, 5th Judicial District, Department of
Correctional Services, Des Moines, Iowa.
Carlos Martinez, Chief Assistant Public Defender, Miami, Florida.
Mark S. Thompson, Judicial District Administrator, Hennepin County
District Court, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Hon. Michael Marcus, Judge, Circuit Court, Multanomah County,
Portland, Oregon.
Dr. Geraldine Nagy, Chief Probation Officer, Travis County, Austin,
Texas.
Wendy Niehaus, Director, Department of Pretrial Services, Hamilton
County Court of Common Pleas, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Michael Planet, Executive Officer, Ventura County Superior Court,
Ventura, California.
Hon. Ron Reinstein, Judge, Director, Center for Evidence Based
Sentencing, Arizona Supreme Court, Phoenix, Arizona.
Susan Shaffer, Director, District of Columbia Pretrial Services
Agency, Washington, DC.
David Soares, District Attorney, Office of the District Attorney,
Albany County, New York.
Thomas White, Director of Operations, Court Support Services
Division, Connecticut Judicial Branch, Weathersfield, Connecticut.
Appendix B
Meeting Notes June 6-8, 2007.
National Advisory Committee--Evidence Based Decision Making for
Local Court Systems.
Chicago, Illinois.
Meeting Summary:
The first day served an important purpose: To provide a common
ground of understanding and appreciation for the varying roles and
perspectives of the participants. Common threads were heard during
these discussions. Among them were the recognition that there needed to
be a systems approach to using evidence based practices information to
enhance public safety and greater collaboration with community partners
and stakeholders. In some jurisdictions there needed to be dramatic
shifts of policy and understanding of what is most effective in
reducing recidivism. Judge Reinstein described it as a ``journey for
change.''
During the final day and one-half the group continued to explore
how each stakeholder group currently uses available information to make
decisions. Then, employing a case study approach, the group discussed
how additional relevant information, associated with evidence-based
practices, might influence or change those decisions. The group then
identified the positive reasons for going to an evidence-based model
and the barriers or challenges that would need to be addressed. These
are outlined further in the document.
When reviewing these notes, please keep in mind that one of the
goals of this first meeting was to identify concerns and issues from a
variety of perspectives, and not to build a consensus. Therefore, one
or more of the participant's comments may be recorded in these notes
and is not necessarily representative of the whole group.
Day 1
Description and Scope of NIC Project: (Meeting Objective 1) The
scope and desired results of the project reviewed along with NIC's
long-term commitment to help jurisdictions make informed decisions
about the most effective ways to achieve the goal of reducing
recidivism.
Advisory Committee Introductions: (Meeting Objective 2)
Participants identified their home jurisdiction/agency; current
position and understanding and experiences using evidence based
practice (EBP) on offender risk reduction.
Edwin Burnette, Chief Public Defender, Cook County, Illinois: Cook
County is a jurisdiction that is fortunate to be on board with
evidence-based practices. ``For something like this to work, probation
is the straw that stirs the drink.''
Gary Christensen, PhD, Corrections Administrator, Duchess County,
New York: Runs a jail facility in an upstate rural county for last 30
years. Approaches issue of public safety from several angles. Chairs a
countywide criminal justice counsel for the last six years. The purpose
of the counsel is to enhance collaboration at the executive level. As a
facilitator he sees himself as
[[Page 9829]]
someone who gets the group to rally around a common goal--improving
public safety. ``No one can argue against that, whether you are a
public defender, county attorney, judge, republican or democrat * * *
we start with public safety and work through differences to achieve
that goal. It comes down to who can demonstrate in the best way, with
evidence, how to stop offenders from coming back * * *''.
Peggy McGarry, JEHT Foundation, New York, New York: Interested in
working with collaborative problem solving groups. With all her
experience in criminal justice and the changes that have taken place
over time, she would like to see us ``pull what we learned together to
make a difference in peoples' lives and their communities.''
Tim Lynch, PEW Charitable Trust: PEW launched the Public Safety
Performance Project which is a state-based sentencing reform campaign
to find ways to reduce corrections costs, hold offenders accountable
and enhance public safety. ``EBP is the underlying principle to reduce
prison populations and reduce recidivism.''
Mark Thompson, Judicial District Administrator, Hennepin County
District Court, Minneapolis: His jurisdiction has a half-dozen
Specialty Courts trying to apply evidence-based practices and develop a
system of collaboration to achieve long- and short-term goals.
Robert Johnson, Anoka County Attorney, Anoka, Minnesota: Sees the
need to shift the goal of achieving public safety from primarily
punishment and locking offenders up for as long as possible to other,
more effective approaches. Historical approaches have not produced the
desired results. ``Prosecutors have to look at areas such as diversion
and reentry to help improve public safety.''
Hon. Dale Koch, Presiding Judge Multnomah County, Portland, Oregon:
On the board of the National Center for State Courts. Oregon budget
problems are forcing his jurisdiction to look at using limited
resources more effectively; there are fewer jail and prison beds, and
fewer probation officers. ``EBP is one of the ways to address the need
to be more effective.''
Susan Shaffer, Director, District of Columbia Pretrial Services
Agency, Washington DC: Noted that sanctions and incentives are
targeting drug defendants. Wants to look at what is being done in
probation that is applicable for pretrial. ``Need to look at the
defendant at the front end of the criminal justice system and what will
help them succeed if placed on probation.'' Believes the court could
benefit from information collected at the pretrial stage to inform
decisions at sentencing. Not sure which of the EBP principles can be
applied to pretrial, in part due to the short amount of time
supervising the defendant; but is certain there is a place for EPB in
the pretrial process.
Wendy Niehaus, Director, Department of Pretrial Services,
Cincinnati, Ohio: Interested in learning how to deal with women
offenders and special populations from a systems approach. Interested
in policy, programming and process development. Sees her jurisdiction
using information to make decisions as a team. All parties are involved
in the pretrial release plan including the judge, prosecutor, defense
counsel and the defendant.
Thomas White, Director of Operations, Connecticut Judicial Branch:
Implementation of EBP is a difficult process; and when you stop
implementing it you stop doing it.'' Connecticut's EBP initiative
emphasized two things: changing the nature of programs and services to
focus on behavior change; and changing the focus of probation from
monitoring and control to one of behavior change.
Michael Planet, Executive Officer, Ventura County Superior Court,
Ventura, California: Current issues concern dealing with volume of
cases and limited budget. ``Greatest impact on defendants can be made
at the local level.'' Experienced some success in EBP with juveniles in
collaboration with foundations dealing with disparity issues and use of
specialty courts (e.g. Drug Court and Domestic Violence Court.). ``What
we can do locally is our greatest opportunity.'' Pretrial is run by the
Sheriff and decisions are based primarily on jail capacity. ``The
challenge is how to prioritize services. The Court is in a position to
bring all the parties together; this is a great opportunity.''
Hon. Ronald Reinstein, Arizona Supreme Court, Phoenix, Arizona:
``Probation is ahead of the curve in EBP.'' In his jurisdiction, he
sees a problem with not enough continuity in leadership and noted that
any EBP initiative is vulnerable due to changes in key positions. He
wants to see a process where sentencing makes sense, and does not
depend on who the prosecutor is or who the judge is. ``EBP is a journey
for change.''
David Soares, District Attorney, Albany County, New York: As a
prosecutor, he is frustrated at seeing an entire generation of people
throwing their lives away. He is further frustrated by the trend of
institutions closing, particularly in the public health area. ``There
are opportunities for us to transform our communities and to transform
lives; and if we are to change our society we need to see changes in
our courts.''
Gary Darling, Jail Administrator, Ft. Collins: ``We ran a lot of
programs in our jail with not much follow-up. It was not until we
realized that we needed to look at things from a systems approach that
we started to see some progress. We need to work with the entire
community not just those in the judicial system.'' As an example he
described a planned program that brings health-care and housing
professionals to the jail to work on release planning in order to
reduce returns to jail. Two re-entry programs are going to be used, one
faith-based and one run by human services. He noted that it should be
interesting to see how they compare.
Sally Kreamer, Director of Correctional Services, 5th Judicial
District, Des Moines, Iowa: Involved in EBP since the late 1980's. Her
jurisdiction is fortunate to have a variety of programs that are
considered to be evidence-based, such as cognitive behavioral
treatment. Presentence data sharing is done statewide with similar
processes in all jurisdictions for accumulating and reporting
information. Information is shared with all criminal justice partners.
Green light and red light designations for programs can identify which
programs are successful and at what rates in reducing recidivism. The
court gives the department the discretion to make decisions to place an
offender in treatment based on an individual assessment or risk and
needs and not offense type. At first the defense attorneys fought them
on this issue; but over time they accepted the process. Facilities have
long waiting lists; the department now works closely with the defense
to help target those that need services and maximize use of resources.
``Our banked caseload is driven by risk rather than by offense type.''
``Two tragic cases drove home the realization that assessment rather
than offense type has to be used to determine assignments.'' ``We are
moving towards achieving quality of programming and delivery of
services.''
Carlos Martinez, Chief Assistant Public Defender, Dade County
Public Defender, Miami, Florida: Florida just allocated $147 million
for new prison beds as part of an anti-murder initiative * * * largely
due to reliance on anecdotal evidence and fear driven management. ``In
Florida, risk reduction means lock more people up.'' He described
prisons as being ``a form of welfare for criminals.'' Dade County
[[Page 9830]]
Drug Court was one of the first in the nation. At first the data showed
very high success rates but it was largely due to inaccurate methods
for measuring. Once they got good data they were able to apply for
grant money and improve the program. One of his goals is to help get
more EBP information to assist in local decision-making.
Hon. Shirley Abrahamson, Chief Justice Supreme Court of Wisconsin,
Madison Wisconsin. (Justice Abrahamson joined the meeting on the second
day. Her comments are included in subsequent sections.)
Opening Arguments for Evidence-based Practices: (Meeting Objectives
3 and 4). A review of the research on risk reduction provided a means
to identify the core research principles that are key to EBP. An
objective was for participants to obtain an understanding of the
information and research that is available and important for making
decisions. There was also a review of the history and evolution of
current sentencing practices.
Definitions/Common Language: In any profession or discipline there
is language and terminology that is unique or has meaning that may not
be familiar to a person who has not used it before. In many instances a
person's perception of a term may be influenced by their own
experiences or profession. Evidence-based practices, its principles and
the research behind it, are a case in point. In order to provide a
context for further work of the Committee, a short exercise was used to
explore current understanding by advisors of key terms associated with
EBP. No attempt was made to develop consensus on definitions at this
time. The primary point of the exercise was to underscore the need to
communicate clearly to stakeholders these concepts.
The concepts and terms discussed included: recidivism, criminogenic
factors, treatment, static and dynamic risk, need, best practices, what
works, evidence based practices, meta-analysis, responsivity,
intervention, cognitive behavioral, incapacitation, general deterrence,
specific deterrence, just desserts, and risk reduction.
Research On What Is Effective In Changing Behavior And Reducing
Recidivism--Dot Faust provided a review of evidence based practice
research. Highlights included:
Actuarial Risk instruments. Third generation combines risk/need
(static/dynamic) factors. Fourth generation adds matching of services
and programs.
Stages of change: Use of staff skills to help offenders through the
stages. Has application organizationally. There is a need to educate
stakeholders and the public regarding how the model works (use language
people can understand).
4 main criminogenic factors: antisocial peers/support, antisocial
thinking, antisocial personality, criminal history.
Questions and discussion on mentally ill offenders: mental illness
is a risk factor but not as high for criminal behavior. Need to deal
with responsivity issues.
Protective Factors: case managers struggle with this in developing
supervision plans. How to measure skill-based performance? How do you
manage your hiring and training practices? With limited resources you
have to target criminogenic factors with good solid case management.
Projects and programs need to target these factors otherwise it may
lead to failure. Dosage also is very important. Appropriate treatment
shows greatest reduction in re-offending. Prosocial support. Policing
refers to it as social controls.
Measurement: what gets measured and gets feedback gets done. Data
needs to have credibility.
Program implementation and program integrity: how well you
implement is the key to success. A badly designed program can have
negative results.
EBP and Research for Women Offenders--Phyllis Modley provided the
following information: Gender-informed or gender responsive (Bloom and
Covington)
Gender Equality defined: Universal or Differentiated Policies
Pathways perspective: Survival of abuse, (Stone Center, Carol
Gilligan.)
Lifetime history of trauma (55-99% of substance abusers).
Primary caregiver of children.
More economically disadvantaged: poverty is a greater risk factor
for women than men.
Offense profiles: Only 17% violent and mostly for lesser assault
offenses. Less likely to get sentence reductions than men. Less likely
to recidivate.
SAMSHA studies of women with co-occurring disorders: Integrated
services effective.
Case management model being developed: Relational, team-based * * *
. May need an integrated theory of change for women
Missouri gender specific caseloads: Lower recidivism than general
caseloads.
The Evidence and Outcomes Currently Used: (Meeting Objective 5) The
group reviewed how each stakeholder group defined outcomes and
discussed the supporting evidence regarding those outcomes.
Prosecutors: over 2500 different Prosecutor Offices. Each seen as
its own ``kingdom.'' No one reviews charging decisions. Lots of
authority and discretion with each prosecutor. Lack of adequate data
systems, little meaningful data kept. General culture among prosecutors
does existence on how to charge cases. Performance measures--sense of
how they are doing based on anecdotal information. Diversion programs
don't use data to make decisions about implementation. Basic measures
kept are numbers of trials, convictions, arrests leading to charges, no
meaningful measures kept on public safety. Prosecutors can have
tremendous impact on public safety and other issues such as public
health. Standards kept for time-lines for cases (process standards and
goals). One strategy is vertical case assignment, one (no more than
two) prosecutor handles the case from start to finish. Little
information is automated. What is available is used primarily for
prosecution. Case files rich in information and could be shared more
readily with other agencies that may have an impact on public safety or
used to help a defendant. Speed and volume are what is measured.
Priorities given to high profile and serious felony offenses. Little
attention to the misdemeanor offender.
Defense Attorneys (Public Defender): performance measures, number
of clients seen within 72 hrs (state standard), number of interviews
(state standard), case outcomes (state standard), process time (state
standard). Level of advocacy--internal measures--number of witness
interviews, number and type of motions, number of trials, number of bar
complaints, quality--supervisors and training unit, quantity--number of
cases processed, National Association performance standards--no
accreditation process, track speedy trial demand (within 60 days). How
many cases processed, for how little money, without having cases
overturned. Performance review--client contact, number of complaints
(family, others, non-bar). Win-lose rate not an important
consideration. Social workers provide defendant services. Juvenile
Court--pleas at arraignment are measured to discourage use; policy to
avoid rushing too quickly and take more time to explain consequences.
Most misdemeanor cases not assigned attorney in Dade County Florida;
defendants not aware of potential consequences. Need to get ownership
of outcomes (caught up in the ``dispo derby''). Difficulty in getting
parties to make some decisions such as who determines who gets
electronic
[[Page 9831]]
monitoring (sheriff, judge, prosecutor, corrections, etc.).
Judges: how many, how fast, and how well things are done.
Assignments can be based on how well a judge performs. 50,000 judicial
officers in the United States. Difficult to have outcomes for any one
role. Need system outcome and all parties to work toward same goal.
Sentencing system not working well, looking towards different models:
drug courts, treatment, pilot programs. Don't have the data elements to
track and determine if they are evidence-based to evaluate what works.
Number of pleas, trials, sentenced to prison, convictions, change of
judges. Where each case is in system, how long things take, which judge
is having completion problems (workload tracking). AIM Project in
Wisconsin--risk assessment information to be required by judges as well
as information regarding the supervision/ programs that are available
and effective in the community. Maintain documentation to see what
works and what does not work.
Corrections/Probation: Other than specialty courts--it's all about
volume. PSI provides information. Risks/needs assessment completed.
Probation--condition compliance and efficiency of case processing
(timeliness of reports, assessments, contacts, case plans, warrants,
program utilization, data entry.) Measures range from successful
completion rates; process measures (program referrals aligned with risk
and needs, program retention, program fidelity to EBP); intermediate
outcomes (changes in clients' risk level scores, and increases in
protective scores that buffer against criminal behavior such as job
finding and retention); outcomes--technical violations of probation and
re-arrest for new crimes.
Corrections/Jail Administrators: number of disciplinary reports;
transition programs--data kept one year after leaving the program; time
and processing; length of stay; daily populations; mental health
programs--medication and treatment, program completions, return rate;
use of force; accreditation compliance; jail MIS (lots of information
but not broken down in a useful format to help with programming for the
offender once returned to the community); risk assessments scores.
Pretrial Services: number of defendants interviewed; number and
type of releases; time from arrest to release; number who re-offend;
number of failures to appear; interventions--team of collaborators
including treatment providers and probation share information (e.g.,
number of probation violators in jail: why are they there); trend
information used for team decisions (standing committees); ad hoc
reports on outcomes of special populations; standards--NAPSA and ABA;
surveys.
Judicial Administration: ABA speedy trial/time standards; decisions
to place in specialty court based solely on offense type (e.g., all
drug cases go to drug court); Specialty Court--program completion
rates; customer satisfaction surveys--relation of offender performance
to respect shown by the court officers and process; procedural
justice--public trust and confidence (notably lacking in family and
traffic courts); independent/specialty courts should be responsible for
the research on outcomes; volume and speed; evaluation of judges
performance varies and not routinely done--time, satisfaction, number
of affidavits; track continuances.
Day 2
Debriefing From Day One
History, definitions and outcomes: mostly process measures of speed
and volume are kept; exceptions are specialty courts; somewhat
discouraging that this is the current situation and that information
that is evidence-based is not available; courts not looking at
outcomes; missing out on the satisfaction of seeing the affect of
changes in offenders' behaviors and lives; if information is obtained,
it is not distributed to others who can use it; perception of fairness
is important and critical for the system to work; there is a need to
measure fairness (e.g., survey and feedback); DC experience showed that
when defendants felt they were fairly treated, the recidivism rate was
lower; need to talk more about treatment and the quality and
availability of services; need to talk about the way we do business;
currently there is fear of change: too invested in the way things are
done now.
Presentation--the Case Study of Abner Doolittle: (Meeting
Objectives 5 and 6). Participants used the case study to illustrate the
information typically used for case decisions, and then explored the
possible uses of enhanced (EBP) information in those decisions.
Release Decision: Is other information needed?
Pretrial: Mental health, drugs and other issues; verify--support
systems, employment, education, static factors, contacts--social and
family (phone and three or more references); currently under treatment?
medication? (asked by jail too); history of FTA; history under prior
periods of supervision; suicide screening.
Prosecutor: Usually what is presented (from the case study) is all
that is available and is enough to make decision.
Some jurisdictions don't do evaluations until booked.
What was happening with the defendant for last 5 years? Is the
defendant eligible for another track: i.e., mental health?
What Is The Release Decision?
Judges: Would release, no bond, some pretrial supervision. What
would EBP information look like?--pretrial risk assessment for FTA and
new crime/arrest (static risk); FTA on similar offenders; FTA should be
from perspective of defendant behavior, what was the FTA for;
information needed for risk reduction--more specific predictions such
as if defendant re-offends, will it be for a non-violent versus a
person crime--consider dangerousness of the potential new crime; how
they performed on supervision can help predict compliance issues and
concerns.
In-Custody Classification: What information is currently used to
classify an inmate? Mental health, gang affiliations, behavior in
custody, assessment.
What EBP information is available? Risk to re-offend, risk of
escape, behavior of similar offenders in-custody? Actuarial
information--not sure if this is helpful, could be too many types of
classifications and bog down operations. Opinions mixed. Should have a
continuity of care and attention to re-entry.
Charging Decision--is other information needed? Mental health
history.
More specific information about criminal history--what types of
victims, nature of priors. Elements of the offense. Ability to pay
restitution.
Charging Decision--would risk instrument help? May help with nature
of charge but not enough time available to use assessment. May be
considered in later decisions. Can't use propensity to commit crimes.
Charging Decision--similar offenders. Defense counsel has problems
using profiles of defendants (actuarial risk assessments). Decisions
should be individually based. Charging should be based on the merits of
the case.
Defense Decision--information needed? Advice from social workers
and other disposition specialists. Use information on social history
and prior experiences/involvement in programs. Any special needs?
Plea Negotiation Decision--information needed for plea bargain?
Discovery, police report, witness
[[Page 9832]]
interview, client/defendant statement. Talk to witnesses if enough
time. What does victim want (prosecutor). Conference with counsels and
judge (Cook County). More information on defendant can lead to more
appropriate disposition for the individual. Sometimes communication
among key parties is hampered when person is not in custody. Decision
often resolved at day of trial. What the judges will and won't accept.
The impact on defendant's family and dependants can influence what
options will be considered in plea negotiation. Pretrial information
and reports on compliance and performance. Research needed on role and
value of a established relationship between defense attorney and
defendant. Should have more time and opportunities to meet with the
defendant before getting into plea discussions. Real concern with
defense attorneys about the amount of risk assessment information
available about the defendant at this stage. This is information that
does not necessarily lead to better services or outcomes for the
defendants. Services should not be contingent on pleading guilty.
Plea Negotiation Decision--would risk assessment assist decision?
Risk assessment would help a judge when both parties are at an impasse
and they come to the court to arbitrate. Statutes or guidance need to
be in place regarding information that can be used and how it is used
at this point in case processing. (e.g. is history of substance abuse
appropriate for determining treatment options, but not for guilt
determination?). Often defendants coming from jail (in-custody group)
do not receive an assessment (depends on jurisdiction).
Pre-Sentence Report--PSI Report. What other information? Mental
health
Pretrial supervision/compliance/performance. Sentencing memorandum
from defense.
Military history. Previous treatment and supervision performance.
Example of Multnomah County's data warehouse presented. How does judge
get information without a PSI? Nationally the rates at which PSI's are
completed vary enormously (e.g. Multnomah only 3% v. Maricopa 100% of
felons).
Sentencing--what information is available for sentencing? Examples
from other jurisdictions provided.
Sentencing--what other information is currently used? Justice
Abrahamson: Guidelines developed for judges to use. American Law
Institute has project for developing sentencing guidelines. Oregon has
guidelines. If additional information is available, parties should be
creative and depart from guidelines to seek justice. Where should the
discretion lie? The prosecutor's office? Post or pre charging * * *
behind closed doors? With the judge and on the record for others to
see? Whether or not the defendant was detained may influence a
favorable outcome for the defendant. Also, costs of sentencing options
could impact decisions.
Examination of Outcomes: (Meeting Objective 6) participants
identified the benefits and potential ``hooks'', legal and ethical
issues, boundaries and challenges for increasing the importance of risk
reduction as a central goal or outcome of their work. Participants were
asked how they would accomplish this given the realities of--
organizational culture, political climate, statutory mandates,
available resources, and administrative directives.
Judges--Benefits and Hooks: more job satisfaction; resolve cases in
way that enhances public safety; get data to judges to show that
research is valid, including the limitation of research (don't over
sell it); judges want to be within the norm/middle ground of what they
should be doing with EBP; builds trusting relationships between judges
and probation, can build system capacity; convince judges that this
creates a national basis for making difficult decisions (less social
science and more public safety language.)
Judges--Issues and Challenges: Getting judges to trust evidence and
data; limitations of ``good research;'' how to work around mandatory
sentencing; don't want to be ``out in left field'' (lost credibility);
political--stakeholder, prosecutor, etc. * * * who won't go along with
strategies; trust/relationships with other stakeholders; what is the
best way to get information to the court? Ethical--make sure all the
stakeholders are involved
Corrections--Benefits and Hooks: Potentially reduce jail
overcrowding; expense of jail beds; increased accountability in system;
more professional job satisfaction for individual and in system as a
whole; prompts an environment of education (learning environment);
public safety--long-term risk reduction; better work environment--
``transformed system.''
Corrections--Issues and Challenges: Culture change more
accountability (silo orientation); more collaboration needed; pitfalls
of short-term results; EBP implementation never ends; alignment
issues--system, organization, staff; development of data systems--
meaningful data and better consumers of research; change of personal
orientation for everyone in system--fear of change and lack of
understanding; time constraints; overstating what EBP can do.
Pretrial--Benefits and Hooks: Pretrial as front-end decision can
create confidence in good information and system competence; pretrial
risk reduction goal can enhance system management of cases (e.g., get
some defendants out and identify high risk defendants); must have
confidence in agency; impacts ``accountable'' release with valid risk
assessment and reduction plans.
Pretrial--Issues and Challenges: Faith in information and
strategies; getting the ``right kind'' of information and the ``right''
time to give information; defining ``risk reduction''; power and
influence of current bond system--$$$-based, not offender performance-
based; procedural protection of presumption of innocence. How does EBP
apply in this context? Charging decisions and public safety concerns.
Defense (Public Defender)--Benefits and Hooks: ``Holistic best
interests''; potential benefit to clients; better targeting of
services--can assist in finding defendant appropriate services; could
save dollars for jail construction; long-term--possible reduction in
workload; could result in lesser restrictive sentence; use of validated
information to get around mandatory sentences; better case preparation
could result in better outcomes; message--``save money by being more
effective''; objectivity of EBP using validated assessment and
information.
Defense (Public Defender)--Issues and Challenges: Ethical/
cultural--holistic benefits for client vs. legal benefit to defendant;
trusting risk tools to validate for individual differences (e.g., race,
income status). Equal protection issues--will the defense need to get
their own assessment? How data is defined/analyzed may be to detriment
of defendant; fear of ``profiling'' the defendant; statute barriers may
prohibit EBP; political power of some stakeholders (e.g., bail
bondsmen); predictions of risk based on general profiles versus the
individual; admissibility of assessment; manipulation of defendants
when being assessed; promise of services if assessed as in need; may
result in more defendants staying incarcerated; may result in harsher
sentencing/interventions; organizationally--interference with
professional judgment; culture of challenging the system. Internal and
external politics; historically, the criminal justice system does not
reform effectively (not messaged well); capacity needs to go along with
assessment, otherwise it may lead to further justifications for
incarceration.
[[Page 9833]]
Prosecutors--Benefits and Hooks: Better judgments individually and
programmatically; more confidence in decision making; more information
available can leverage service providers to raise capacities; help
manage workload; collective accountability: everyone vested in seeing
positive outcomes.
Prosecutors--Issues and Challenges: Driver is collateral
consequences on how cases are handled: e.g., guns, sex offenders, INS/
ICE, etc. * * *; there may require more work and faith that there is no
manipulation of the process; time constraints; figure out development
of plea policies: changing current structure and format.
Administration--Benefits and Hooks: Will help with resource
management (volume and speed can help with spending more time on risk
reduction); system improvement including front end to enhance risk
reduction such as preventative services with juvenile and families.
Administration--Issues and Challenges: Alignment of all the
organizational policies, resources, evaluations * * *; need to realize
that EBP is not only for the adult system but has spillover to all
components of the criminal justice system.
Identifying Strategies for NIC: (Meeting Objective 8) After
reviewing the benefits and challenges, participants developed potential
strategies to achieve project goals.
Note: The following list represents a full menu of proposed
strategies. Not all of which were adopted in the current Request for
Proposals.
Strategies to Use EBP to Reduce Risk:
Find a pilot site or demonstration sites to make the case for using
EBP system-wide; need to be selected for success not failure; need
leadership and commitment; need to take risk; all stakeholders should
be at the same level of understanding; there should not be conflicting
understanding, mixed messages and agendas (consensus amongst the
participants); understanding that EBP is dynamic and needs learning
environment.
Work with the National District Attorneys' Association and state
prosecutors' associations at their training conferences; put together
training packages; train trainers (prosecutors) at the various
conferences with intent that demand for such training will spread to
local jurisdictions; need to show results to convince prosecutors that
this is in their best interest.
National Conference of State Legislatures' conference and other key
national conferences, e.g., the Conference of State Chief Justices;
work with pretrial services and court administrators networks and
associations; develop linkages to judges' associations for information
sharing and raising awareness and interest.
Develop road show and information packets that can be done whenever
the opportunities arise and need to carefully define public safety in
terms of offender behavior change or reduction of risk to re offend.
Funding by NIC of a major process and outcome evaluation so
eventually a compelling case can be made. Does EBP decision making save
money and achieve better outcomes?
Target local public safety/criminal justice coordinating counsels
to function as organizational models to introduce EBP.
Include governors, (National Governor's Association), Public
Defender Association, American Bar Association.
Develop a framework for integrating and implementing EBP--a
criminal justice systems approach. The framework paper would define the
mission, goals and approach; identify the issues that need to be
addressed from the perspective of different stakeholders; define terms;
define roles of stakeholders, and so forth. EBP helps frame what to do;
the principles of EBP will need to relate to the operational level (all
the players need to know what to do and what it would look like for
them).
Articulate the vision and core message of the project (something to
rally behind).
Have outside experts come to local jurisdictions to do an analysis
(not an evaluation) of the local system. (Don't start with locations
that are dysfunctional.)
Build a national consensus on EBP and sentencing.
National symposium. Co-sponsorship by PEW, NIJ, NIC, JEHT * * * et
al, to build sense of excitement and momentum, tying to reentry and
jail overcrowding (target real issues and concerns that need new and
effective direction). Provide opportunities to individuals and
jurisdictions that have not had exposure to EBP and case decision
making or collective policymaking. ``Even just discussions can lead to
positive change * * *''.
Develop core principles for systems change. Insist that everything
is done as a team modeling the continuum of EBP.
Tying this initiative to Re-entry: starts at charging and providing
offenders a way to successfully re-enter society.
Prioritize the work with pretrial and corrections/probation
agencies. These are the agencies that have the data and can
operationalize and demonstrate how things work. These agencies can act
as system pioneers. Judges can use the information and bring along
other key players such as prosecutors.
Give judges concrete data on effective interventions and practices.
Provide structure for judges to use data on individual offender.
Needs to be national salesperson for each of the system components
who can market and teach practitioners about EBP and decision making.
Dated: February 14, 2008.
Thomas J. Beauclair,
Deputy Director.
[FR Doc. E8-3264 Filed 2-21-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-36-P