U.S. Department of Justice R T M E N T OFJU P A STI E C ... › idoc › files ›...

DE

PA

RTMEN

T OF JUSTICE

NATIO

NAL INSTITUTE OF COR

RECT

ION

S

U.S. Department of Justice

National Institute of Corrections

U.S. Department of JusticeNational Institute of Corrections

320 First Street N.W.Washington, DC 20534

Morris L. Thigpen, Director

Virginia A. Hutchinson, Chief, Jails Division

Richard E. Geaither, Project Manager

National Institute of CorrectionsWorld Wide Web Site

http://www.nicic.org

Guidelines for Developinga Criminal Justice

Coordinating Committee

Robert C. Cushman

January 2002

NIC Accession Number 017232

This guide was prepared under technical assistance event No. 99J1125 from the National Institute of Corrections,U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view or opinions stated in this guide are those of the author and do notnecessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

iii

This document provides guidelines for establishinga local criminal justice coordinating committee(CJCC). It describes CJCCs and provides specificguidance for their development and operation.

The guide will help appointed and elected offi-cials of general government and executives oflocal justice systems from jurisdictions of all sizescreate or strengthen local CJCCs. It should be ofparticular interest to citizens and public officialswho sense that more collaborative, better coordi-nated decisionmaking processes can improve thelocal criminal justice system significantly.

During a strategic planning process of theNational Institute of Corrections (NIC) JailsDivision, staff noted that many of the consultantsconducting site visits to local jurisdictions wererecommending that those jurisdictions strengthentheir local planning, analysis, and coordinatingcapabilities. In many cases, the consultants wererecommending the formation of a broad-based

CJCC. This was particularly true of NIC-sponsoredtechnical assistance designed to help communitiescope with jail crowding. NIC has found, in manycases, that what a community was treating as solelya “jail problem” was, instead, a systemwide condi-tion requiring an intergovernmental and intera-gency response.

We hope this guide will assist others who wish toimprove communication, cooperation, and coor-dination in their local criminal justice system. Weinvite all criminal justice practitioners involvedin this work to contact the NIC Jails Divisionfor additional assistance if needed. Contact infor-mation for the Jails Division and other CJCCresources is provided in appendix C of this guide.

Morris L. ThigpenDirector

National Institute of Corrections

Foreword

Foreword

v

This guide was developed to assist the communi-ties being served by NIC technical assistanceprograms and the NIC consultants providingtechnical assistance. It lays the groundwork forunderstanding the relationship between a CJCC’soperations and its impact on jail crowding andfor many other system improvements.

Many people and organizations contributed ideasand materials to this guide. It is impossible tothank them all individually. The CJCCs men-tioned in this guide are listed in an appendix;each contributed in some way. In addition, manyother colleagues, staff members, and CJCC mem-bers have contributed ideas found in these pages.

Richard Geaither, a correctional program special-ist at the NIC Jails Division, has served as aninitiator, supporter, and adviser of this work; healso has served as NIC monitor.

I want to thank Patricia Carrillo for productionsupport. Also, I am indebted to Katie Ryan for hereditorial assistance and to Karen Swetlow of AspenSystems Corporation, who edited the final versionof this guide and coordinated its production.

Robert C. CushmanNovember 2001

Preface and Acknowledgm

ents

Preface and Acknowledgments

vii

Contents

ContentsForeword ......................................................................................................................................iii

Preface and Acknowledgments....................................................................................................v

List of Exhibits ..........................................................................................................................viii

Executive Summary.....................................................................................................................ixCJCCs: The Need................................................................................................................................ixCJCCs: The Advantages .....................................................................................................................ixGuide Overview...................................................................................................................................ix

Section 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................1CJCC Self-Evaluation Questionnaire ..................................................................................................1The Need for Improved Criminal Justice Coordination......................................................................2The Connection Between Planning, Analysis, and Coordination......................................................3Benefits of Local Justice Planning and Coordination..........................................................................4The Context of Planning and Coordination .......................................................................................6

Section 2. A Framework for Justice Planning and Coordination ............................................9Levels of Planning and Coordination: Agency, City/County, and Comprehensive ...........................9Policy, Program, and Operational Planning .......................................................................................10Improved Understanding of Justice Problems ....................................................................................12Overcoming Common Problems in Conducting an Analysis ...........................................................14

Section 3. Coordinating Mechanisms—A Developmental View ............................................19Informal Coordination........................................................................................................................19The Justice Forum...............................................................................................................................19Adjudication Partnerships ..................................................................................................................19The Justice Task Force ........................................................................................................................20County or City Justice Planning Units ..............................................................................................20Regional Justice Planning Units.........................................................................................................20Corrections Advisory Boards ..............................................................................................................21An Ideal Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee.........................................................................21

Section 4. Guiding Principles for CJCCs.................................................................................23Creating a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee ......................................................................23Staffing the CJCC...............................................................................................................................29Evaluating the CJCC ..........................................................................................................................31Rejuvenating the CJCC......................................................................................................................32Demonstrating the Benefits ................................................................................................................33

Notes............................................................................................................................................35Appendix A: Checklist for Forming a CJCC ..................................................................................37Appendix B: Jurisdictions Mentioned in This Guide....................................................................39Appendix C: Other CJCC Resources ...............................................................................................41

Free Technical Assistance and Training ............................................................................................41Sources of Current Information..........................................................................................................42Sources of Free Publications ...............................................................................................................43

Appendix D: Sample Charge: Charge to the Denver Justice System Task Force ..................45The Need ............................................................................................................................................45Creating the Denver Justice System Task Force ................................................................................45Priorities ..............................................................................................................................................46Schedule and Reporting......................................................................................................................46

Appendix E: Sample Bylaws: County of Sacramento Criminal Justice Cabinet, May 1999 ..........................................................................................................................................47Article I: Name ...................................................................................................................................47Article II: Authority ...........................................................................................................................47Article III: Purpose..............................................................................................................................47Article IV: Members ...........................................................................................................................47Article V: Meetings.............................................................................................................................48Article VI: Chair.................................................................................................................................48Article VII: Voting..............................................................................................................................49Article VIII: Committees....................................................................................................................49Article IX: Parliamentary Authority ..................................................................................................50Article X: Amendment of Bylaws ......................................................................................................50

List of Exhibits

Exhibit 1. CJCC Self-Evaluation Questionnaire ........................................................................................2Exhibit 2. Activities, Objectives, Purpose, and Goals of Local Justice Planning......................................5Exhibit 3. Relationships Between Policy, Program, and Operational Planning ......................................10Exhibit 4. Types, Locations, and Products of Justice Planning and Coordination ..................................11Exhibit 5. An 11-Step General Planning Process Model ........................................................................13Exhibit 6. Comparative Analysis Example ...............................................................................................15Exhibit 7. The Seven Key Justice System Decision Points ......................................................................17Exhibit 8. Framework for Evaluating a CJCC ..........................................................................................31

viii

Cont

ents

This guide will be useful to anyone who wishes toestablish or strengthen a criminal justice coordi-nating committee (CJCC) or learn how a CJCCcan alleviate jail crowding and accomplish othersystem improvements. “Criminal justice coordi-nating committee” is an inclusive term appliedto informal and formal committees that providea forum where many key justice system agencyofficials and other officials of general governmentmay discuss justice system issues.

This guide offers advice on how CJCCs can beinitiated within local governments, describes therange of planning and coordinating activities thatmight be undertaken, describes alternative orga-nizational forms for CJCCs, presents guidelinesfor operating a CJCC, and describes the benefitslocal governments can expect to derive fromthese activities.

CJCCs: The Need Administration of the justice system is primarilya responsibility of local governments. In manycities and counties, a sentiment is expressed thatthe system of criminal justice should, and could,work better. Scarce local resources could beallocated more efficiently if city and county lawenforcement activities, court practices, and cor-rections programs were planned and conductedin a coordinated fashion.

This sentiment is especially acute in jurisdictionswhere jail crowding is a severe or chronic prob-lem. This guide provides an answer to those whoask: Could improved planning and coordinationreverse crowding in correctional institutions andwork overload in other justice agencies? Could asystemwide, interagency, and intergovernmentalCJCC help in this area?

CJCCs: The Advantages The work of CJCCs can produce many benefits,including better understanding of crime andcriminal justice problems, greater cooperationamong agencies and units of local government,clearer objectives and priorities, more effectiveresource allocation, and better quality criminaljustice programs and personnel. Taken together,these results can increase public confidencein and support for criminal justice processes,enhancing system performance and, ultimately,the integrity of the law.

Improved planning and coordination help individ-ual justice agencies become more efficient, produc-tive, and effective. Such improvements also helpofficials of general government—such as the citymayor, board of supervisors, and county commis-sioners—evaluate and make decisions about thejustice system and its cost and performance. Manylocal governments also are finding that compre-hensive systemwide planning (interagency andcross-jurisdictional) helps to streamline the entirelocal system of justice, eliminating duplication,filling service gaps, and generally improving thequality of service while controlling costs.

The major benefits of local justice planning areshown in the following exhibit, which illustratesthe relationships between major planning activi-ties and lists goals and objectives that could beadopted by any CJCC.

Guide Overview Section 1 of this guide addresses the need forimproved justice system coordination. It describesthe connections between planning, analysis, andcoordination; summarizes the benefits of local

ix

Executive Summ

ary

Executive Summary

justice planning and coordination; and discussesthe context within which coordination must beachieved. This section also contains a question-naire for a quick self-evaluation that may be con-ducted by any jurisdiction.

Section 2 establishes a justice planning and coor-dination framework designed to provide a betterunderstanding of the planning process as a disci-pline. It begins by describing planning and coor-

dination efforts at three levels: the justice agencylevel; the city/county level; and the comprehensiveinteragency and intergovernmental level, whereplanning and coordination are focused on thejustice system as a whole. This section of theguide emphasizes comprehensive planning andcoordination. It describes a collaborative methodfor improving systemwide coordination, one thatabandons reliance on centralized planning and

x

Exec

utiv

e Su

mm

ary

Activities, Objectives, Purpose, and Goals of Local Justice Planning

• Crime analysis

• Criminal justice system analysis

• Productivity analysis

• Legislative analysis

• Special studies

• Databasedevelopment

• Definition ofresponsibilities

• Convening andserving coordi-nating groups

• Coordinationwith otherplanning units

• Formulationof goal statements

• Clarificationof issues andvalues

• Constructionof goal hierarchies

• Managementof federal/state/localresources

• Review ofagencybudgets

• Program design,development,implementation, and evaluation

Improved analysis ofcriminal justiceproblems

Improvedcoordination andcooperation

Clearer goals,objectives, and priorities

More effectiveallocation ofresources

Improved cri-minal justiceprograms andservices

Improvedcapacity andquality of personnel

Improved criminal justice policy, program, and operational decisionmaking

Protect integrityof the law

Control crime anddelinquency and/or root out causes of crime

Improve quality of justice

Improve criminaljustice systemand relatedprograms

Increase com-munity supportfor criminaljustice system

Major Justice Planning Activities

Planning Objectives

Purpose of Planning

Criminal Justice System Goals

• Technical assistance

• Informationbrokerage

control. The approach set forth protects andhonors the independence of elected and appoint-ed officials from the different branches and levelsof government.

Section 2 also describes three types of planning:policy, program, and operational. It shows howthese types of planning can be linked systemati-cally in a series of planning steps to improve jus-tice system communication, cooperation, andcoordination. Exhibits 3, 4, and 5 illustrate howpolicy planning (setting goals and objectives)leads to program planning (selecting specificcourses of action), which then leads to opera-tional planning (allocating resources to imple-ment plans). Evaluation of the planning processfeeds knowledge into a new planning cycle. Suchstep-by-step planning can lead to incrementalimprovement in justice system operations.

Identifying and analyzing problems is one of themost important steps in the planning process. Forthis reason, this guide offers concrete examplesthat demonstrate the critical role of data collec-tion and analysis. It also describes how CJCCsconvert data into useful information.

Section 3 describes distinctive coordinationmechanisms that improve local justice systemcollaboration. Each represents an increasinglymore comprehensive coordination model—anevolution toward an ideal CJCC.

Section 4 prescribes guidelines and principles forcreating, staffing, evaluating, rejuvenating, anddemonstrating the benefits of a CJCC.

Examples from local jurisdictions with advancedplanning practices are provided throughout theguide. These illustrate how the planning processis being applied to improve justice coordinationthroughout the United States. This guide alsoincludes five appendixes:

• Appendix A provides a checklist for formingor rejuvenating a CJCC.

• Appendix B lists the jurisdictions mentionedin this guide.

• Appendix C lists CJCC resources.

• Appendix D provides a sample charge for acriminal justice task force.

• Appendix E provides sample bylaws for a CJCC.

xi

Executive Summ

ary

If you don’t know where you’re going, youmight end up somewhere else.

—Casey Stengel1

This guide is designed to help local governmentofficials improve justice planning, analysis, andcoordination capabilities. It responds to a needidentified by National Institute of Corrections(NIC) consultants who have been providingonsite technical assistance to local governmentsthroughout the United States. They report thatmany of the corrections-related issues that triggerrequests for technical assistance are rooted inunderdeveloped local justice system planning,analysis, and coordination capabilities.

Jail crowding and planning for new facilities fre-quently result in requests for technical assistancefrom NIC. In these situations, weak local plan-ning, analysis, and justice system coordination arespecial handicaps. These capabilities are essentialif a community is to manage its way out of its cur-rent situation successfully. Improving a local gov-ernment’s abilities in these areas offers benefits farbeyond improved management of problems at thejail or corrections in general. This guide will helpany community improve its justice system (that is,the way all of the justice agencies within a localjurisdiction work together).

A criminal justice coordinating committee(CJCC), or a similarly constituted group, is thekey mechanism for accomplishing these improve-ments. “Criminal justice coordinating committee”is an inclusive term applied to informal and for-mal committees that provide forums in which alarge number of key justice system agency officialsand other officials of general government may dis-cuss justice system issues.

Although it may not be apparent at first, planningdemonstrates an optimistic attitude. It reflects thepoint of view that citizens, as well as appointedand elected officials, can change the way thingswork instead of being victimized by circumstancesthat appear to be beyond their control.

This guide offers advice on how CJCCs canbe initiated within local governments, describesthe range of planning and coordinating activitiesthat might be undertaken, describes alternativeorganizational forms for CJCCs, presents guide-lines for operating a CJCC, and describes thebenefits local governments can expect to derivefrom these activities.

The CJCC has many variations but often evolvesinto the ideal, formalized structure associatedwith its name. The challenge for local govern-ments is to fashion their own “localized”approach; this guide is designed to help achievethat goal. (See appendixes A through C for achecklist of items to consider when forming orreviving a CJCC; a list of jurisdictions men-tioned in this guide; and a list of other trainingand technical assistance resources, informationresources, and free publications available tojurisdictions considering establishing a CJCC.)

CJCC Self-EvaluationQuestionnaire Exhibit 1 is a questionnaire that will permit juris-dictions to conduct a quick self-evaluation. Anylocal jurisdiction that can answer all of thesequestions in the affirmative has a healthy CJCCand probably is achieving competent systemwideplanning and coordination. Jurisdictions seekingto improve their CJCCs can do so by implement-ing many of the suggestions set forth in this guide.

1

IntroductionS E C T I O N 1

Introduction

The Need for ImprovedCriminal JusticeCoordination In most jurisdictions of the United States, theresponsibility for crime prevention, crime control,and improvement of the administration of justicerests largely with local government. But often, thelocal government machinery set up to deal withcrime does not work well. Examples may includethe following:

• The narcotics detail of a police departmentpostpones arrests until the entire network of a

drug ring is identified, then processes 50 to 100new cases into the local justice system. Jails andcourts, unprepared for the influx, are suddenlymore crowded and backlogged.

• In another locale, the jail has been crowded fora long time, the county cannot afford to build anew one, and public support for financing a newjail is at an all-time low. Legal liability is a con-cern, yet officials of general government andjustice agencies seem to be immobilized. Thereis no consensus about what needs to be done.

• Concerned about crime, a county board of com-missioners approves a large budget increase for

2

Intro

duct

ion

S E C T I O N 1

Exhibit 1. CJCC Self-Evaluation Questionnaire

Score1=no or never;

5=yes or always

1. Does the CJCC deal with a complete or nearly complete local justice system? (Do all local programs and services for offenders fall within the planning jurisdiction?) 1 2 3 4 5

2. Does the CJCC have sufficient authority to obtain necessary data and to develop plans for the local justice system? (Is the CJCC formally authorized to undertake comprehensive systemwide planning and coordination? Does it have adequate access to agency information, and do agencies cooperate in implementing plans?) 1 2 3 4 5

3. Is planning well integrated into the operations of general government? (Does the CJCC receive significant financial support or other support from the local government?) 1 2 3 4 5

4. Does the CJCC emphasize policy- and program-level planning (as compared with being preoccupied with operational planning)? 1 2 3 4 5

5. Are the CJCC members attending meetings? (Is attendance good? Do the members, rather than alternates, frequently attend?) 1 2 3 4 5

6. Does the CJCC undertake a wide variety of activities rather than allocate grant funds? 1 2 3 4 5

7. Is the CJCC broadly representative (e.g., city/county/state/federal levels of government; executive/judicial/legislative branches; law enforcement, courts; corrections subsystems; other major constituencies)? 1 2 3 4 5

8. Does the CJCC have sufficient, independent staff support? 1 2 3 4 5

9. Is sufficient attention devoted to planning for planning? (Have policymakers thought out exactly what they want the CJCC to accomplish and how these goals will be achieved? Are planning tasks clearly delineated? Have staff been recruited with the skills and experience needed to undertake these tasks? Have the duties, responsibilities, and functions of the CJCC been specified and communicated to participating agencies?) 1 2 3 4 5

10. Do neutrality, credibility, and stability characterize the CJCC? (Can agency personnel trust the chair, executive committee, and staff to remain impartial and to act in the interest of the system as a whole? Does the staff facilitate good working relationships with agency personnel and other officials of local government?) 1 2 3 4 5

11. Have the CJCC and its planning process been systematically evaluated? Do the evaluation results demonstrate the CJCC’s usefulness to local government? 1 2 3 4 5

county law enforcement and jails. Increasingthe capacities of only part of the system, howev-er, results in more arrests for minor offenses,increases the jail population, and contributes tocourt delay but does not reduce serious crime.

Situations like these are familiar in many locali-ties. The first indication that a major decisionhas been made in one part of the criminal justicesystem often comes in the form of a deluge ofnew cases that overwhelms another part of thesystem. Agencies needlessly duplicate each other’sefforts, increasing the overall cost of local servic-es. Decisions made with inadequate informationproduce unintended or unanticipated effects.Interagency disputes may be settled only whenthe opposing parties tire of fighting.

The Connection BetweenPlanning, Analysis, andCoordination Planning is the process by which we bring antici-pations of the future to bear on current decision-making. Planning is future oriented, rooted in thebelief that we can make decisions that not onlywill help us anticipate and cope with alternativefutures but also will help us have more controlover determining that future.

“Would you tell me, please, which way Iought to walk from here?” asked Alice. “Thatdepends a good deal on where you want toget to,” said the Cheshire Cat. “I don’t muchcare where—” said Alice. “Then it doesn’tmatter which way you go,” said the Cat. “—so long as I get somewhere,” Alice added asan explanation. “Oh, you’re sure to do that,”said the Cat, “if you only walk long enough.”

—Lewis Carroll, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland 2

Planning is an integral part of informed policymaking and competent agency management.Because planning involves defining problems,

clarifying objectives, establishing priorities, andinstituting programs, every executive must regardplanning as a major responsibility of his or herjob. Planning is part of the executive function,not something to be assigned to others.

Local justice planning is directed toward the goalof improved decisionmaking. It requires analysisand produces improved coordination as well asother benefits. Planning is the larger concept.Interestingly, the words “planning,” “analysis,”and “coordination” are often used interchange-ably, as if it is understood that they are related.More recently, the word “collaboration” has oftenbeen substituted for the word “coordination.”

More recent definitions of comprehensivecriminal justice planning have taken on themeaning of planning as coordination. Thisrecognizes that fragmentation is a fact in thecriminal justice system and that decision-making is decentralized. Central planning asa comprehensive model tends to be associ-ated with total control, and this runs counterto the separation of powers doctrine.

—Christina Morehead, A Criminal Justice Planning Model for King County 3

Over the years, criminal justice planning commit-tees increasingly have been renamed “criminaljustice coordinating committees.” This changereflects a realistic attempt to move away fromsome negative baggage associated with the word“planning,” especially its connection to centraliza-tion of authority and control. Centralization ofcontrol is an unfortunate feature of some planningefforts. It offends independently elected andappointed officials who feel obligated to constant-ly fight against erosion of their authority. So, tomany, a criminal justice coordinating committeemay initially appear to be a criminal justice plan-ning committee in disguise.

This guide attempts to assuage these fears bydescribing a collaborative version of planningthat is devoid of emphasis on controlling others.

3


But the issue will most likely resurface in eachlocality that attempts even the collaborativeversion of planning being recommended here.

We face an inescapable choice betweenplanning and chaos.

—Norman Bel Geddes

Benefits of Local JusticePlanning and Coordination Good planning at the local level can be expectedto result in:

• Improved analysis of problems. Planning pro-duces the data and analyses needed by electedofficials and justice administrators to improvetheir decisionmaking.

• Improved communication, cooperation, andcoordination. Planning provides a mechanismfor improving communication, cooperation, andcoordination among police, courts, corrections,and private service agencies as well as betweendifferent levels of government and the threebranches of government. Improved coordina-tion is a result of planning.

• Clear goals, objectives, and priorities. Planningpermits more precise articulation of purposesand links goals, objectives, tasks, and activitiesin more meaningful ways.

• More effective allocation of resources.Planning provides a framework for resourceallocation decisions. It simplifies setting priori-ties for the use of resources to achieve justicegoals and objectives.

• Improved programs and services. Planning pro-duces a clearer understanding of problems andneeds. Planning also makes it easier to formu-late goals and objectives and to evaluate andcompare alternative programs and procedures.

• Improved capacity and quality of personnel.Planning focuses organizational effort and pro-vides agency personnel with new knowledgeand information.

Planning can result in benefits to the entire com-munity, such as making the justice system moreaccountable, more open to the public, more effi-cient, and more effective. Justice system coordina-tion can also save taxpayer money.

Systemwide planning affords an opportunityfor the disparate components of the justicestructure to work together. Collaboration inthe analysis of problems and the sharing ofinformation, resources, and expertise canbuild local capacity for crime prevention,justice reform, and community mobilization.Strong planning capacity can also provideelected officials and criminal justice execu-tives with the data and analysis essential forestablishing rational policies and prioritiesfor a complex system.

—Christina Morehead, A Criminal Justice Planning Model for King County 4

Many different justice planning and coordinationactivities serve to improve justice system policy,program, and operational decisionmaking at thelocal level. Exhibit 2 illustrates the relationshipsbetween major classes of justice planning activitiesand general objectives and goals that may beadopted by any CJCC. Each planning activitycontributes to one or more of the six planningobjectives, which, in turn, contribute to improveddecisionmaking and, ultimately, to the achievementof justice system goals. Although most planningactivities actually contribute to the achievementof more than one planning objective, each islocated above the one it most directly serves.

Planning can also increase public confidence inand support for the justice system. Ultimately,the effectiveness of the justice system depends onthe willingness of the majority of citizens to obeythe law and to report crime, identify suspects,and cooperate with the prosecution. Citizen co-operation is also necessary if ex-offenders are toreintegrate into the fabric of the community suc-cessfully. Anything that can be done to increase

4

Intro

duct

ion

S E C T I O N 1

public confidence in the justice system and itssupport for justice processes contributes to systemperformance. A coherent plan, produced by acoordinating body that speaks with a responsiblevoice, can soothe public fears of crime and allayany concerns that little can be done about it.

In the aggregate, planning can protect the integrityof the law. Planning can produce a justice system

that makes it unnecessary for aggrieved citizens totake the law into their own hands; that does notallow the morale of justice agency personnel tosink to the point where unethical behavior seemsjustified; and that prevents public services frombecoming so poor that courts must close facilitiesand grand juries must expose scandals. As peoplerecognize that crime is less a problem to be solved

5


Exhibit 2. Activities, Objectives, Purpose, and Goals of Local Justice Planning

• Crime analysis

• Criminal justice system analysis

• Productivity analysis

• Legislative analysis

• Special studies

• Databasedevelopment

• Definition ofresponsibilities

• Convening andserving coordi-nating groups

• Coordinationwith otherplanning units

• Formulationof goal statements

• Clarificationof issues andvalues

• Constructionof goal hierarchies

• Managementof federal/state/localresources

• Review ofagencybudgets

• Program design,development,implementation, and evaluation

Improved analysis ofcriminal justiceproblems

Improvedcoordination andcooperation

Clearer goals,objectives, and priorities

More effectiveallocation ofresources

Improved cri-minal justiceprograms andservices

Improvedcapacity andquality of personnel

Improved criminal justice policy, program, and operational decisionmaking

Protect integrityof the law

Control crime anddelinquency and/or root out causes of crime

Improve quality of justice

Improve criminaljustice systemand relatedprograms

Increase com-munity supportfor criminaljustice system

Major Justice Planning Activities

Planning Objectives

Purpose of Planning

Criminal Justice System Goals

• Technical assistance

• Informationbrokerage

than a condition to be managed, planning isincreasingly viewed as a sign of good management.Planning protects the integrity of the law to thedegree that it converts ideals into practice—byadministering justice. Competent planning, inshort, is a sign of good government.

Effective collaboration also protects theleaders essential to successful change. Allpublic system reform requires risk taking onthe part of its leaders. The justice systemoperates in a politically charged environ-ment. . . . Maintaining the status quo ismuch easier and certainly the path of leastresistance. It is safer, but it is sometimeswrong . . . but no leader can or should beexpected to bear all the risks. A collabora-tive body involving all the system’s actorsprovides a context for leadership to emergeand offers the protection of collegialsupport and policy consensus when contro-versy—a predictable by-product of realchange—eventually arises.

—Kathleen Feely, Collaboration and Leadership inJuvenile Detention Reform 5

The Context of Planningand Coordination Developing competence in planning and applyingit effectively to criminal justice policymaking andoperations is no easy task. In large part, the diffi-culties of justice planning (as well as the needfor it) arise from the nature of the system itself.By design, the system is fragmented. No centralauthority manages it. No one branch of govern-ment or level of government is responsible for theentire process.

The checks and balances with which the localjustice system is punctuated are intentional andnecessary, but they do result in inefficienciesand conflicts. There is great dispersion of power

among divergent forces. And the professional ori-entations, values, and managerial perspectives ofkey agency participants are markedly different—often diametrically opposed. This makes conflictand tension among justice agencies virtuallyinevitable as each understandably attempts toturn events to its own advantage.

Appointed and elected officials of general govern-ment and citizens concerned with broad policyissues must rely on justice agency heads for adviceon what to do about crime and justice problems.But these executives seldom agree. Although thedifferent agencies must interact (they share thesame clients and workload), they often do so onlywhen absolutely necessary—and then with littleapparent concern for the “system” of which theyare a part.

Typically, policing is a city function, while thecourts are state, the prosecutor independentwhether he is city, county or state, and cor-rections divided between the city or countyjail function and the state prison. Typically,three levels of government are alsoinvolved—city, county, and state—as wellas two branches of government—executiveand judicial—with involvement as well onpolicy and funding matters by the legislativebranch. Throughout the system, many offi-cials are directly elected, and thereforeeven if they are performing what is normallyregarded as an executive function, they arelikely to be independent of the chief execu-tive of the jurisdiction.

—Blair Ewing, former Policy Adviser, U.S. Department of Justice6

In such a context, comprehensive planning mustseek to build linkages among agency decision-makers without attempting to subordinate themto any higher authority. No one is at the helm,but no “master planner” will be allowed to steer.Not fragmentation, but the problems resulting

6

Intro

duct

ion

S E C T I O N 1

from it, must be the target. Accommodation andcooperation can be fostered only if planning is ableto demonstrate mutual regard for agencies that worktogether to achieve shared objectives. The inde-pendence of the key participants must be respected.

The justice system is like a large plumbingapparatus, held together only by the materialflowing through it.

—Richard A. McGee, former Administrator, Youth andAdult Corrections Agency, State of California

Sometimes, a concern about respecting the doc-trine of the separation of powers leads a key jus-tice leader, often a judge, to express discomfort atbeing asked to serve on a CJCC. But judges serveon many CJCCs and, in fact, chair them in somecommunities.

The reality is that CJCCs bring independentlyelected and appointed people together in a forum

All of us have this concept that we knowwhat each other does. I’ve learned that Ihaven’t a clue about what other people doand the problems that they have and howwhat we do may affect them. Only when youunderstand them can you give them dueconsideration. If you can accommodatethem, then you do.

—Adjudication partnership member, quoted in Jane Nady Sigmon et al.,

Adjudication Partnerships: Critical Components7

where they agree to work together, realizing theyhave interdependent relationships. Under theconstitutions of each state, these key participantsrecognize they are independent and have an obli-gation to remain so. Nothing in this model shouldbe interpreted to suggest that they will or shouldlose their independence.

7


Justice planning is a discipline that may be appliedat the agency, city/county, and comprehensivesystemwide levels to improve decisionmaking inthree broad areas. The three types of planning(policy, program, and operational) are describedin this section, and an 11-step general model ofthe planning process is presented. Problem identi-fication and analysis, a critical planning step, isgiven special emphasis.

Levels of Planning andCoordination: Agency, City/County, and Comprehensive More advanced local planning and coordinationefforts are able to link local justice planning, andtherefore local decisionmaking, at three levelsof government: the justice agency level, thecity/county level, and the local justice systemlevel. All three levels of planning are important,and each strengthens and receives support fromthe others. But the purpose and emphasis at thethree levels are not the same.

Agency Planning and Coordination At the agency level, planning is designed to assisttop management of a department or agency—thepolice chief, sheriff, or chief judge. Planning atthis level should be targeted toward the needs ofthe agency and the decisions it must regularlymake. Agency planners will develop statisticalanalyses to support administrative and operationaldecisions; review, update, and disseminate poli-cies, procedures, rules, and regulations; and assistin the preparation of agency budgets. Agencyplanning is aided by planning at the city, county,and interagency levels, and it contributes to plan-ning at more comprehensive levels.

City/County Planning and Coordination At the city/county level, the individual justiceagency heads are joined by officials of generalgovernment—the mayor, city council, city andcounty chief administrative officers, county com-missioners—and the planning and coordinationefforts shift to meet the decisionmaking needs ofthese officials as well.

Coordinated city/county planning requires coop-eration to integrate the efforts of autonomouscriminal justice agencies, each with their ownmandates, perspectives, and constituencies. Atthe county level, for example, local justice plan-ning might mean coordinating the activities ofthe county sheriff, the probation department, theprosecutor, the public defender, and the countycourts. The challenge at this level is to enhancecooperation and coordination among constitu-tionally separate government agencies. Suchinteragency planning both contributes to and isadvanced by the planning of individual agenciesand more comprehensive justice systemwide plan-ning and coordination.

Comprehensive Systemwide JusticePlanning and Coordination There is also a need for local planning at a thirdlevel—the comprehensive set of police, court,corrections, and allied public and private agen-cies that make up the criminal justice system.Separate planning efforts at the city/county levelare limited in their ability to deal with the totaljustice system because neither jurisdiction con-tains all the components of that system. At aminimum, comprehensive planning and coordina-tion must join city/county efforts and deal withthe individual responsibilities of police, courts,

9

A Framew

ork for Justice Planning and CoordinationS E C T I O N 2

A Framework for Justice Planningand Coordination

and corrections agencies. But it may extend evenfarther. Planning and coordination at this sys-temwide level may require coordination of city,county, regional, state, federal, and private justiceagency activities. It also may involve organiza-tions other than criminal justice agencies (e.g.,public assistance agencies, employment agencies,and the schools) that provide services to offend-ers. This type of planning, then, transcends juris-dictional and agency boundaries.

To be really effective, local criminal justiceplanning must encompass all three levels—justice agency planning, coordinated justiceplanning on a citywide and countywide basis,and comprehensive planning for the local jus-tice system as a whole. The three levels areinterdependent building blocks of local plan-ning. Each has its own purposes and distin-guishing characteristics, but planning at allthree levels of government should interlock.

—Robert C. Cushman8

Policy, Program, andOperational Planning Justice planning is concerned with improvingdecisionmaking in three broad areas: (1) theidentification of long-term goals and objectives(policy planning), (2) the selection of specificcourses of action (program planning), and (3)the allocation of resources to accomplish definedpurposes (operational planning). Relationshipsamong these three levels of planning are illustratedin exhibit 3.

Policy Planning Policy planning is focused on answering the ques-tion, What should we do and why? It producespolicy guidelines expressing important values,philosophies, and judgments on which to baselong-term plans. Thus, policy planning leads todecisions that determine long-term justice goalsand objectives.

Program Planning Program planning is designed to answer the ques-tion, What can we do and how? It is concerned

10

A Fr

amew

ork

for J

ustic

e Pl

anni

ng a

nd C

oord

inat

ion

S E C T I O N 2

Exhibit 3. Relationships Between Policy, Program, and Operational Planning

Source: Bert Nanus, “A General Model for Criminal Justice Planning,” Journal of Criminal Justice 2 (1974): 345–356.

Policy Planning

Establishes purposes

(What should we do and why?)

Program Planning

Selects courses of action

(What can we do and how?)

Operational Planning

Allocates resources

(What will we do and when?)

Local criminal justice planningbegins by analyzing problems and setting objectives.

It proceeds to defining strategies, policies, and plans to achieve objectives.

It then implements planning decisions, reviews program performance, and provides feedback for a new planning cycle.

ReactiveDecisionmaking

(Putting out fires)



Program Planning


Policy Planning


Local ComprehensiveCriminal Justice

Planning

CoordinatedCity/County Criminal

Justice Planning

Agency CriminalJustice Planning

with assessing the feasibility of alternative coursesof action, developing appropriate program andcontingency plans, and constructing guidelines foraction. Thus, program planning decisions lead tothe adoption of specific courses of action.

Operational Planning Operational planning answers the question, Whatwill we do and when? It produces specific plansfor the allocation of resources to implement andevaluate justice programs and services. Thus,operational planning decisions lead to the alloca-tion of resources to implement plans. Examples

of activities associated with these three levels ofplanning are presented in exhibit 4.

Reactive Decisionmaking Policy, program, and operational planning con-trast with reactive decisionmaking, which can bedestructive to any organization. Reactive deci-sionmaking is largely unplanned and crisis orient-ed. It often involves prompt mobilization of largenumbers of justice agency and general govern-ment personnel. A certain amount of reactivedecisionmaking takes place in most agencies andgovernment units. In some, it is the primary mode

11

A Framew


Exhibit 4. Types, Locations, and Products of Justice Planning and Coordination

Agency CriminalJustice Planning

Local ComprehensiveCriminal Justice

Planning

CoordinatedCity/County Criminal

Justice Planning

State and localstatutes; agencymission statements

Program develop-ment; manpower planning; proce-dures manual

Annual budgetpreparation; project implementation

Hastily preparedmemo detailing planto deal with unantic-ipated budget cutor court decision

Mayor’s crime con-trol platform; countypublic safety goalsand objectives

Reorganization plan unifyingcounty correctionsagencies

Annual budget;implementationschedules

Decision regardingpersonnel overtimerequests; establishtemporarycourtroom

Decision regardingunanticipated jailovercrowdingor unanticipatedimpact of new legislation

Planning Type

Policy Planning


Program Planning




ReactiveDecisionmaking

(Putting out fires)

GovernmentLocation

Executive order creating local planning unit/jointpowers agreement

Correction facilitiesand information systems master plans

Annual action plan; schedules,budget

for the day-to-day management of immediateorganizational problems. Such a “firefighting”approach can be disruptive. Examples of reactivedecisionmaking are also shown in exhibit 4.Planning can help reduce the need for this kindof crisis-oriented decisionmaking.

Reactive decisionmaking administers first aid.It is not designed to produce lasting solutions.In fact, the amount of time and energy ex-pended on reactive decisionmaking is onemeasure of an organization’s inability to antic-ipate and affect its own future.

—Billy Wasson, former Staff Director, Marion County(Oregon) Public Safety Coordinating Council

Policy, program, and operational planning andcoordination flow together in practice. Each typeof planning should take place at each planninglevel. It would be a mistake to assume, for exam-ple, that the federal government does policyplanning while state governments do programplanning and local governments do operationalplanning.

Today, in most jurisdictions, the need to respondto short-term workload crises, immediate politicalevents, and a 1-year budget cycle encourages afocus on operational planning and the allocationof resources. As a result, personnel spend a dispro-portionate amount of time and effort on operationalplanning at the expense of policy and programplanning. Experience has shown that, for policyand program planning to occur, they must bedeliberately, consciously, and continuouslyemphasized by top management. Policymakersmust insist on it, and staff resources assigned tothese functions must be protected from beingdiverted back into operational planning.

A General Model of the PlanningProcess A rational planning model can lead to a more bal-anced focus on policy, program, and operationalplanning. There are many planning models. Most

12

A Fr

amew

ork

for J

ustic

e Pl

anni

ng a

nd C

oord

inat

ion

S E C T I O N 2

consist of an orderly series of interdependent stepsand follow a rather predictable path from policyplanning through program and operational plan-ning. One general planning model, consisting of11 steps, is shown in exhibit 5.

In this model, policy planning begins with prepar-ing for planning (step 1), followed by efforts toforecast probable, possible, and desirable futurestates (steps 2 through 4). Program planningincludes efforts to identify problems (step 5),set goals (step 6), identify alternative courses ofaction (step 7), and select preferred alternatives(step 8). Operational planning (steps 9 through11) includes planning for implementation, imple-menting plans, and monitoring and evaluatingprogress. The final step, monitoring and evalua-tion (step 11), provides the feedback needed toimprove decisionmaking each time the full plan-ning cycle takes place. Each level of governmentneeds to adopt its own version of such a step-by-step planning process. Jurisdictions with advancedpractices use some version of this process to guidelocal justice planning.

Key decisionmakers not attending your CJCCmeetings? Are they sending alternates or notappearing at all? Solution: Make sure policymatters are at the core of the agenda anddiscussion. The policymakers will attend.

—Mark Cunniff, Executive Director, National Associationof Criminal Justice Planners

Improved Understandingof Justice Problems The limited scope of this guide does not permita thorough description of each of the planningsteps shown in exhibit 5 or the major planningactivities shown in exhibit 2. Nevertheless, it isnecessary to discuss certain activities that con-tribute to improved analysis of justice problems.

The ability to conduct analyses is at the heart ofthe problem identification step (step 5) of the

11-step general planning process model. Withouta clear analysis of problems, many justice deci-sions are guided solely by past experience, anec-dotes that describe atypical cases, intuition, andconflicting testimonies.

Development of effective criminal justicepolicy is rooted in the ability of a jurisdictionto obtain data on how its system operatesand the ability to analyze that data andpresent that data in a meaningful manner.

—Kim Allen, former Executive Director, Louisville-Jefferson County (Kentucky) Crime Commission9

The Critical Role of Information Competent planning produces the informationneeded by local officials and agency executives toimprove their understanding of justice problems.

A constant flow of timely and relevant informa-tion helps decisionmakers define justice problems,set goals and priorities, and implement and evalu-ate strategies for accomplishing goals. It providesmanagers with new facts and new knowledge, in acumulative fashion. It sets the stage for a continu-ous improvement process built on knowledge thatcan replace the trial-and-error method of initiat-ing programs.

Development of an Adequate Database

Because basic information needed for decision-making is lacking in most jurisdictions, mostCJCCs must concentrate first on the develop-ment of an adequate database. Problems in access-ing data generated by justice agencies must beovercome. If enabling legislation does not formallyprovide for access to data, the CJCC leadershipmust work to establish the relationships and infor-mal understandings that will ensure such access.

13

A Framew


Exhibit 5. An 11-Step General Planning Process Model

1. Prepare for planning

2. Describe pres-ent situation

3. Develop projections

4. Consider alter-native futures

5. Identify problems

6. Set goals

9. Plan for imple-mentation

10. Implementplans

11. Monitor andevaluateprogress

What can be done

Wha

t will

be

done

8. Select preferredalternatives

7. Identify alter-native coursesof action

What should be done

Experience in many local jurisdictions hasshown that these problems can be overcomeby providing an adequate information basefor use in the analysis of crime and criminaljustice problems. This puts local governmentin a better position to base actions uponknowledge gained.

—Brian Mattson, Criminal Justice Planner, Jefferson County (Colorado) Criminal Justice

Coordination Committee

Early emphasis should also be given to describingsystem operations and identifying problems.Constructing clear statements of problems andsetting objectives for overcoming them will helpdirect the planning effort toward solving specificproblems. A problem-solving orientation also willhelp galvanize organizational action around visi-ble, concrete, and attainable objectives and giveplans greater relevance, credibility, and substance.

Integration of Data From DisparateInformation Systems

Although most jurisdictions have a large amountof data, they often do not have the ability to con-vert that data into useful information. CJCCsoften take on the challenge of integrating dis-parate justice information systems. For example,the Hennepin County/City of MinneapolisCJCC created a subcommittee—the IntegratedSystems Advisory Board—and assigned the boardresponsibility for developing a business model forintegrating the criminal justice information sys-tems at the city, county, and state levels. A num-ber of CJCCs took this same approach, includingthose in Sacramento and Los Angeles Counties,California; Lucas County, Ohio; and WestchesterCounty, New York.

At the core of Decision Support System-Justicein Multnomah County, Oregon, is a “data ware-house,” a large centralized database that integratesselected data from a variety of local and statecriminal justice agencies. Los Angeles County has

adopted a similar approach. Other communitieshave developed “subject in process” informationsystems that track individual offenders from arrestto final disposition.

Overcoming CommonProblems in Conductingan Analysis Four problems are commonly found in jurisdic-tions where analysis capability is inadequate orabsent: the crime problem has not been defined,a comparative context cannot be established,there is an inability to define problems at key sys-tem decision points in the criminal justice process,and incomplete analysis has been conducted.

Crime Problem Not Defined The first area of concern is a lack of reliable andsufficiently detailed statistics to clearly definethe crime problem—statistics concerning theoffender, the victim, the criminal event, and theenvironment in which the crime occurs. Whenthe CJCC conducts a crime analysis, it willacquire detailed information describing criminalevents, offenders, and victims. Usually, this canbe accomplished by analyzing data that alreadyexist in police offense reports, arrest reports, anddispatch cards.

Comparative Context Cannot BeEstablished The second common problem is that the juris-diction has not developed and assessed data thatwill allow it to compare itself with other juris-dictions of similar size and circumstance. Thedata usually are available, but a comparativeanalysis has never been constructed. A simplecomparative analysis compares a county withperhaps four or five counties in the state that are somewhat smaller in population and anotherfour or five counties that are somewhat larger.Other statewide averages (e.g., mean and medi-an scores) might also be included.

14

A Fr

amew

ork

for J

ustic

e Pl

anni

ng a

nd C

oord

inat

ion

S E C T I O N 2

This information can be produced in tabular formas shown in exhibit 6, which shows scores foreach county along with an average for the 8 to10 other counties (a composite or surrogate peercounty average). It shows the percent differencebetween the jurisdiction and this average. Thistype of analysis will provide any jurisdiction witha useful comparative context.

The comparative analysis tables should containrates per 10,000 population for the followingmeasures:

• Crimes reported to the police, including sepa-rate calculations for violent and nonviolentcrime.

• Adult and juvenile arrests for felonies andmisdemeanors.

• Number of felony, misdemeanor, and traffic fil-ings and dispositions in local and state courts.

• Number of jail bookings for felony, misdemeanor,and traffic law violations, by arresting agency.

• Average length of jail stay, by type of inmate.

• Average daily population in jail, by inmate type.

• Number of people on felony and misdemeanorprobation.

• Commitments to state prison.

Similar indicators and measures can also be col-lected concerning the processing of juvenile cases.

A subsequent step in this analysis is to develop apicture of current trends within the jurisdiction,using these same crime and justice workloaditems. Here, the comparison is not with othercounties but, rather, is a year-to-year comparisonof changes within the jurisdiction over time (per-haps a 5-year period). This will help inform thejurisdiction about trends and changes in the localjustice system.

Inability to Define Problems atKey System Decision Points The third area of concern is a lack of meaningfulstatistics and information to describe and defineproblems in the criminal justice process. The

15

A Framew


Exhibit 6. Comparative Analysis Example

County Serious Crimes Serious Crime RateCounty Population (1999) Reported to Police (per 10,000 population)

A 45,164 1,896 417.6

B 43,430 1,925 443.2

C 40,281 1,780 441.9

D 39,595 2,106 531.9

E 36,572 3,254 889.8

F 36,427 1,327 364.3

G 35,886 1,431 398.8

H 35,636 1,882 528.1

Peer county total 501.95

County of interest 38,900 1,732 445.2

Percent difference –11.3

Note: This is an example of only a few of the items that could appear in a comparative analysis. Other statewide averages could also beadded to the table (e.g., statewide mean or statewide median scores).

remedy here is to initiate a justice system analysisto produce detailed and comprehensive statisticsabout the workings of the criminal justice system.

Usually a flow chart is constructed to show thenumber of persons and cases entering the justicesystem and the processes that lead to final disposi-tion. Creating a flow chart in itself informs analy-sis by describing more precisely the justice systemand its boundaries and illustrating the interdepen-dencies among system components. The level ofdetail depends on the purpose of the analysis andthe data available, but even the simplest flowchart can provide a useful snapshot of the justicesystem in operation.

The seven key justice system decision points to beshown in the flow chart include:

• The decision to arrest.

• The decision to detain pretrial.

• The decision to release from pretrial detention.

• The decision to prosecute.

• The adjudication decision.

• The sentencing decision.

• The decision to modify a sentence.

The flow chart will represent offender and caseflow, as shown in exhibit 7. This is a justice“system” representation.

One advantage of a justice system analysis is thatit minimizes the need to identify problems associ-ated with individual agencies. It is centered onanalyzing processes (i.e., on analyzing the decisionpoints in the system where the agencies cometogether to do their work).

The flow of cases and people through the sevenjustice system decision points is governed byjustice policies, which are subject to change.Changes in policy have workload and expenditureimpacts. The data provide an empirical picture ofcurrent policies and begin to identify policychoice alternatives.

A metaphor for the analysis process involvesshining a light on each decision point to illumi-nate it. Once illuminated, the data that empiri-cally describe current policy can be mirroredback—not only to justice system decisionmakersbut also to other justice system officials who maybe affected by the existing policies and to officialsof general government and the public. Often,changes occur as a result of this feedback processalone. No other action is necessary.

All the decision points do not have to be analyzedat once. They can be examined one at a time.Consider, for example, the decision to detainarrestees in jail during the pretrial period. A rela-tively straightforward analysis can empirically illus-trate the number and characteristics of arresteeswho are booked into jail as opposed to those whoare released with a summons or promise to appear(citation) in lieu of jail. The result of the analysiscan be a simple table listing arrest offenses and thenumber and percentage of arrestees for each offensewho were booked or cited, by arresting agency.

Incomplete Analysis The fourth common problem is that even whenneeded information is available, there is often alack of skilled personnel and/or time to analyze it.The remedy here is to hire and train justice sys-tem planner/analysts and to strengthen planningmechanisms at the agency, city/county, and com-prehensive planning levels.

16

A Fr

amew

ork

for J

ustic

e Pl

anni

ng a

nd C

oord

inat

ion

S E C T I O N 2

17

A Framew


Referral or deliveryto other service or resource

Release, no further action

Field citation withpromise to appear

No

No

NoNo prosecution

In custodyNot in custody

Dismissed, not guilty, etc.

Noncustody

Localcustody

Sentencemodified

Statecustody

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes

Pretrialdetentiondecision

Arrestdecision

Delivery topretrial jail

Decisionto release from

pretrial jail

Decision to prosecute

Adjudicationdecision

Sentencingdecision

Exhibit 7. The Seven Key Justice System Decision Points

“Criminal justice coordinating committee” is aninclusive term applied to informal and formalcommittees that provide a forum within which alarge number of key justice system agency officialsand other officials of general government may dis-cuss justice system issues. The form and structureof these groups vary.

One way to understand the differences among jus-tice system coordinating groups is to think abouta process in which a jurisdiction might movethrough developmental stages, as if it were on anevolutionary journey. The coordinating mecha-nisms at each stage of this evolution representincremental improvements. Each stage is valu-able, serves a useful purpose, and then gives wayto an increasingly more formalized and more com-prehensive organization. This is the general tra-jectory, but there will be many exceptions.

Informal Coordination In the most basic circumstances, meetings amongofficials are likely to be informal. In these jurisdic-tions, justice system coordination depends almostentirely on well-established, informal communica-tion and person-to-person relationships. This canwork well in less populous jurisdictions. If thejustice system operating within the jurisdiction issmall enough and manageable enough, the leader-ship can accurately understand the “whole.” At acertain size, however, this informal arrangementproves to be inadequate. As a jurisdiction’s crimi-nal justice system becomes larger and more com-plex, more standardized coordination mechanismsare necessary to avoid problems with communica-tion, cooperation, and coordination.

The Justice Forum The next developmental step involves gatheringa group of justice officials to establish a forum forinformation sharing. These informal meetings mayor may not be regularly scheduled. The membershipis not comprehensive; that is, it rarely includes city,county, and state levels of government and repre-sentatives from all three branches of government.

Adjudication Partnerships Adjudication partnerships, another importantstep toward comprehensiveness, are defined asfollows:

An adjudication partnership is a formal orinformal collaborative effort in which repre-sentatives of key justice system agencies jointogether in multiagency task forces, steeringcommittees, or planning groups to:

1. Identify and discuss a problem.

2. Develop goals and strategies for addressingthe problem.

3. Oversee the implementation of a plan tomanage or solve the problem.

Ideally, the membership of an adjudicationpartnership will include the three primary play-ers in any adjudication process: the prosecu-tion, the defense, and the court.

The underlying concept of the adjudicationpartnership is not new. It serves as an umbrellaconcept under which many interagency effortscan be classified.10

19

Coordinating Mechanism

s—A Developm

ental ViewS E C T I O N 3

Coordinating Mechanisms—A Developmental View

Adjudication partnerships are being encouragedthrough a cooperative effort of the AmericanProsecutor’s Research Institute, the NationalCenter for State Courts, and the National LegalAid and Defender’s Association. The AmericanProsecutors Research Institute and the NationalCenter for State Courts have identified 103 adjudi-cation partnerships through a national mail survey.

The Justice Task Force The single feature that characterizes this develop-mental stage is that an authorized authoritymakes appointments to a task force and gives ita “charge,” which is often a single, pressing issue.For example, as shown in the sample charge pro-vided in this document (appendix D), a jurisdic-tion may form a jail task force to deal with jailcrowding. Task forces represent a formal acknowl-edgment that improved planning and coordina-tion must take place. One weakness of thisapproach is that it may not be comprehensiveenough. For example, establishing a jail task forcenarrowly defines the situation as a “jail problem”or the “sheriff ’s problem,” rather than as a sys-temwide problem or justice system dysfunction.

Jail crowding is less a problem to solve thanit is a systemwide condition that needs to becontinuously managed.

—Richard Geaither, National Institute of Corrections,Jails Division

In other situations, the formation of a specialtask force may be more informal. For example,in Dakota County, Minnesota, the local directorof community corrections successfully formed anintermediate sanctions task force, melding togeth-er a group of justice officials who had neverworked well together in the past.

County or City JusticePlanning Units Often justice planning and coordination effortsare confined to the jurisdictional boundaries of a

city or county government. This is a “go it alone”approach, in which a city/county attempts to focusits efforts only on agencies that are part of the cityor the county. Often, this approach is control ori-ented, based on the philosophy that if you are notresponsible for it, you cannot control it.

A few months ago, the mayor changed thename of the agency to the Mayor’s Officeon Criminal Justice. The mayor had recog-nized for some time that it is not feasiblefor the mayor to coordinate the justice sys-tem in this city because he really controlsonly one of the many agencies that makeup the system—the police department. Allof the other parts of the system are admin-istered by other levels of government. Thisdiversity weakens the ability of the mayoror any other public official to effectivelycoordinate the system.

—Respondent to a request for CJCC information in a major U.S. city

Regional JusticePlanning Units The 1968 Omnibus Crime Control and Safe StreetsAct created the Law Enforcement AssistanceAdministration (LEAA) and outlined the meansby which state and local units of government wouldreceive federal support for criminal justice planningand action. The LEAA established a grant programto help state and local governments expand theirplanning capabilities. To receive these funds, alocality or group of localities needed to form aregional planning unit (RPU). Grants managementdominated the agendas of most of the RPUs.

By the time the LEAA program was phased outin 1982, the RPUs that existed primarily to garnerand administer federal grant funds disappeared.But others evolved to the point where federalinitiatives, although still important, no longerserved as the primary stimulus. These local units

20

Coor

dina

ting

Mec

hani

sms—

A De

velo

pmen

tal V

iew

S E C T I O N 3

increasingly targeted the bulk of their resourceson analysis, coordination, technical assistance,and other planning activities undertaken forthe benefit of all local justice agencies withinthe county or region. Many RPUs reinventedthemselves as CJCCs, including the Louisville-Jefferson County (Kentucky) Crime Commission,established more than 30 years ago and probablythe oldest continuously operating CJCC in theUnited States; the Toledo-Lucas County (Ohio)Criminal Justice Coordinating Council; and theLos Angeles Countywide Criminal JusticeCoordination Committee.

Corrections Advisory BoardsMany states have passed community correctionsacts, encouraging localities to limit commitmentsto the state prison system (and thus create localcorrections options) and to strengthen traditionaljail and probation operations. In return for finan-cial aid, the community corrections acts requirelocalities to form a broad-based local correctionsadvisory board and an annual plan. This providesmany communities with motivation, structure,and valuable experience in improving justice sys-tem coordination.

While these coordination mechanisms are heavilyfocused on the corrections subsystem, they oftenperform many of the more comprehensive func-tions associated with a CJCC. In fact, in severalstates—Oregon and Colorado, for example—thecorrections advisory boards were a direct steppingstone to the eventual legislative mandate forCJCCs.

Oregon counties with particularly stronglocal justice coordination groups includeMarion, Jackson, Josephine, Benton, andMalheur. Several smaller counties—Wasco,Hood River, Gilliam, and Sherman—havebanded together to jointly build and operatea regional correctional facility.

—Representative, Oregon State Community Corrections

Jefferson County, Colorado, is one example. Ithas a strong local justice coordination group thatbuilt on the prior experience of a local communi-ty corrections advisory board and other relatedcoordination mechanisms.

An Ideal Criminal JusticeCoordinating Committee The ideal CJCC would have the followingcharacteristics:

• Encompass broad representation, recognizedauthority, and adequate staff support.

• Include representation of city, county, and statelevels of government operating within the geo-graphic boundary of a county or region.

• Include representatives of all functional compo-nents of the justice system.

• Involve citizens on the CJCC, committees, orboth.

• Be established by an intergovernmental agree-ment; its role would be spelled out in a writtenstatement of purpose.

• Receive funding, in part, from each memberagency to ensure a political and financial stake.

• Enjoy the support and willing participation ofall members, who collectively carry great weightand prestige.

• Remain administratively independent so thatno one jurisdiction or justice system componentwould control the organization.

• Ensure that the staff includes a sufficient num-ber of professionals with criminal justice experi-ence, technical skills, and analytical capabilities.

Coordination groups with the characteristicsdescribed above are still rare. Many jurisdictionshave not yet arrived at the point where they havethe analysis and coordination capabilities thatare the hallmark of a modern, systems-orientedCJCC. Many also lack comprehensiveness.

21

Coordinating Mechanism

s—A Developm

ental ViewS E C T I O N 3

Seven critical elements were observed insuccessful adjudication partnership efforts.These critical elements are leadership;broad-based membership; clear, useful,and achievable goals; a team approach; along-term view; a commitment to using newinformation and monitoring progress; andcriminal justice system and community sup-port. . . . Together, these critical elements pro-vide a solid basis for criminal justice leadersand managers to coordinate and collaboratewith other agencies to address significantneeds and problems in their jurisdictions.

—Member, adjudication partnership,quoted in Jane Nady Sigmon et al.,

Adjudication Partnerships: Critical Components11

Still, in many places, justice planning in any ofthese forms results in improved communication,cooperation, and coordination; a better under-standing of the nature of crime and justice systemproblems; and greater efficiency and effectivenessin operations. These jurisdictions can advance tothe forefront by incorporating the elements iden-tified as characteristic of successful local CJCCs.

22

Coor

dina

ting

Mec

hani

sms—

A De

velo

pmen

tal V

iew

S E C T I O N 3

Research and experience have produced a “col-lective wisdom” about how to create, staff, evalu-ate, and rejuvenate CJCCs. General guidelinesderived from these principles are discussed inthis section. Lessons learned from the JuvenileDetention Alternative Initiative (JDAI) includethe following:

The Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiativehas shown that detention systems can changewhen key policy-level system actors cometogether and do three things: (1) develop con-sensus (relying heavily on data) about what iswrong with the system; (2) develop a vision ofwhat the new system should look like; and (3)develop and implement a plan of action.

In pursuing these three activities, seven princi-ples emerged from the successes and failures ofthe JDAI sites:

1. Forming a collaborative group for systemreform is extremely hard work and will takelonger than you think.

2. For collaboration to work, all the relevantstakeholders must be at the table.

3. In collaboration-driven reforms, the groupmust develop consensus about what shouldchange and how it should change.

4. There’s no real collaboration without nego-tiation and willingness to compromise.

5. Without strong and able leaders, reform isunlikely.

6. Collaborative leadership must include ajurisdiction’s “movers and shakers.”

7. Self-assessment and data are essentialengines for effective collaboration.12

Creating a Criminal JusticeCoordinating Committee Who initiates action, or by whose authority isaction initiated? How does a CJCC get started?The answers to these questions vary, dependingon the locality and the situation.

If there is concern about jail crowding, thenthat’s where you start. Give them somethingimportant to do. Start with an assessment ofthe current situation. Create a vision of whatthe system should look like. Engage them inclosing the gap between what exists andwhat is desired.

—Bob Maccarone, former Staff Director, Westchester County (New York) Criminal Justice Advisory Board

Consultants who provide onsite technical assis-tance on behalf of the National Institute ofCorrections commonly find that a communityasks for technical assistance because there isuncertainty and ambiguity about who can legiti-mately take action or how to proceed, notbecause they are unaware that the situationneeds attention.

The source of initiative for change can come fromunlikely sources. Often, it comes from a problemeveryone is concerned about. For example, a crisiscan lead to increased collaboration.

Key justice agency leaders and officials of generalgovernment must provide leadership. One ormore of these men and women must step forward.This leadership is most likely to emerge duringtimes of change or crisis.

23

Guiding Principles for CJCCsS E C T I O N 4

Guiding Principles for CJCCs

In other situations, a CJCC may emerge simplybecause of the cumulative weight of financialpressure. It may be nothing specific, other than ageneral sense that justice system expenditures aregrowing faster than those of general government,or recognition that the growth rate of justiceagency workloads is simply not sustainable.CJCCs provide a way for officials who worryabout budgets to involve themselves in theprocess earlier. In these situations, the CJCCmay emerge slowly and incrementally.

In the early days, when energy is high butskepticism is rampant, it helps to establisha beachhead from which to work by doingsomething that feels like a group success.Later, when members feel that they belong toa group, more intractable obstacles can beaddressed. It is important to begin with a fewsimple challenges, prove they can be over-come, and then move onto the bigger ones.

—Kathleen Feely, Collaboration and Leadership inJuvenile Detention Reform13

Holding a daylong workshop, with assistance froma skilled facilitator, in a retreat setting is one goodway to initiate a CJCC. These workshops mightbe repeated, at least annually, as a way to refocusand reenergize the CJCC.

Relationship to State JusticePlanning Function CJCCs are more likely to be created and to suc-ceed in states where state government encourageslocal criminal justice planning, analysis, and coor-dination. State governments can play a powerfulrole by assisting and empowering local jurisdic-tions. They can help localities define the needs oftheir communities, support local efforts to devel-op balanced and systemic solutions, and obtaindata to guide decisionmaking.

State agencies also benefit by developing andmaintaining relationships with CJCCs. Includingrepresentatives of local CJCCs on state criminal

justice planning agency boards, committees, andtask forces will forge important links to improvestate and local justice planning and coordination.

Suggested guidelines for states to promote betterstate/local justice coordination partnershipsinclude the following:

• Ensure that state officials operating at the locallevel have been expected to participate andprovide information for local planning efforts.

• Provide technical or financial assistance toenhance local efforts in data collection andanalysis for policy purposes.

• Provide support and assistance in the develop-ment of local coordinating councils and train-ing on policy planning.

• Provide incentives through grant awards forjurisdictions with planning boards and for juris-dictions that see the “big picture” and recognizesystemic and fiscal impacts of new projects.

• Recognize there are no “cookie-cutter”approaches; avoid attempting to impose homo-geneity in an environment marked by variety.

• Acknowledge that states and localities must tryto overcome their negative history and agree todisagree on some issues.14

Some states have deliberately fostered the forma-tion of local CJCCs, either as comprehensive crim-inal justice planning bodies or through communitycorrections act legislation. Oregon and Coloradoare two states that have migrated toward morecomprehensive CJCCs. These states built on suc-cessful experiences with community correctionsacts that required state and local partnerships toimprove local corrections operations through bet-ter planning, analysis, and coordination. Maryland,Pennsylvania, and Virginia have statewide ini-tiatives that promote collaboration across justicesystem components and focus on concerns andpriorities at the community level.15

Geographic Scope Justice system planning is enhanced when itencompasses as complete a “system” of justice as

24

Guid

ing

Prin

cipl

es fo

r CJC

CsS E C T I O N 4

possible. CJCCs benefit from geographic bound-aries that are coterminous within the jurisdiction-al boundaries of a local justice system. Normally,this means a geographic area with the sameboundaries as a county. Municipalities usuallyinvest heavily in police services, and counties aremore involved in court and correctional services.Thus, if a CJCC’s coverage extends to the countyboundaries, it usually deals with a complete, ornearly complete, local justice system. Even injurisdictions with many state-administered crimi-nal justice activities, a countywide arrangementusually pulls together most locally administeredfunctions.

This principle leads to related notions, for exam-ple, that joint city/county CJCCs are generallypreferable to either single-city or county-onlyCJCCs. Geography is less important than therange of justice functions falling within the juris-diction of the CJCC.

A different set of guidelines appears to governsmaller cities and counties without major popula-tion centers. Smaller cities and counties caneffectively combine their resources to support acomprehensive multicounty CJCC effort thatnone could provide alone. Small counties canbe grouped in different ways. One approach isto encourage them to fall together into naturalgroups based on local preference or traditionalintercounty alliances, such as a council of govern-ments. Another is to organize around existingmulticounty judicial districts.

Authorization and Purpose Many coordinating groups operate informally, forexample, at the request of a mayor, judge, or chiefadministrative officer. The effectiveness of thegroup, however, will be enhanced by a degree ofindependence and the legitimacy accorded byformal authorization. A first step in setting up alocal coordinating body of the kind envisionedhere is to obtain legal authorization for the CJCCto serve as a cross-agency and cross-jurisdictionalplanning and coordination mechanism. Forexample, the CJCC might be established by ajoint resolution of local governments, a joint

powers agreement, a municipal ordinance, a reso-lution of the county government, a statute, or anexecutive order.

A clearly articulated purpose and mission state-ment should be prepared and formally adopted.Whatever form of enabling mechanism is used,its provisions should describe the CJCC’s locationwithin local government and its major purposes,duties, and powers, and outline the mutualresponsibilities of the CJCC and the agencies itserves. Such a document will legitimize CJCCstaff efforts to obtain line agency cooperationin collecting necessary data and to implementCJCC-sponsored plans and programs.

Structure Most CJCCs with advanced practices are city/county collaborations. Typically, they are inde-pendent from the city and/or county administra-tive structure. The staff, too, is responsible to theCJCC, although they may be housed in a city orcounty office building.

All CJCCs have a chairperson and many alsohave a vice-chair. Normally, these

U.S. Department of Justice R T M E N T OFJU P A STI E C ... › idoc › files ›...

Documents

Transcript of U.S. Department of Justice R T M E N T OFJU P A STI E C ... › idoc › files ›...