Solicitation for a Cooperative Agreement-Evidence Based Decision Making for Local Criminal Justice Systems, 9825-9833 [E8-3264]

Agencies

• Department of Justice
• National Institute of Corrections

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 36 (Friday, February 22, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9825-9833]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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: 
https://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 
pdavison@bop.gov.

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 https://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 https://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 
(pmodley@bop.gov) 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 pmodley@bop.gov, or to Dorothy Faust at 
dfaust@bop.gov.
    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 https://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