Evidence-Based Decision Making (EBDM) Initiative: Alignment between Local and State. Corrections Research Network Colorado 2017

Transcription

1 Evidence-Based Decision Making (EBDM) Initiative: Alignment between Local and State Corrections Research Network Colorado 2017

2 The next 45 min of your life What is the EBDM Stuff Why are we doing this How did we build collaboration

3 Why EBDM? Growing body of evidence that can (and does) inform justice system agencies performance and increase effectiveness Historically, there have been demonstrations of successful approaches/changes within individual operating agencies around the country, not systemwide A primary perceived barrier is the lack of system collaboration around a common set of outcomes and principles

4 The Vision of the EBDM Initiative What if we create and test a Framework for evidence-based decision making that brings partners together in a new way, a truly collaborative way? encourages these partners to find consensus around what the justice system in their community however large or small hopes to achieve? led to a new way of making decisions about individuals and about the system itself?

5 Through the EBDM Initiative we hoped to Affirm effective practices Inspire improved practices Tools & Processes Thorny Barriers

6 EBDM OVERARCHING GOAL To create a framework for justice systems that will result in improved system outcomes through true collaborative partnerships, systematic use of research, and a shared vision of desired outcomes. A permanent shift in expectations about what is possible. --Joe McCannon, Wisconsin EBDM Summit, Jan 2014

7 Professional judgment enhanced by evidencebased knowledge Opportunity for harm reduction EBDM Principles Operate collaboratively Decisions based on data

8 Decision Makers at the Local Level Law Enforcement Officials Pretrial Officials Victim Service Providers Prosecutors Defense Attorneys Jail Administrators Court Administrators Judges, Commissioners, Magistrates Probation/Parole/Community Corrections Officials City/County Managers/Commissioners Community Representatives (e.g., civic leaders, members of faithbased organizations, service providers) Behavioral Health and Human Service Representatives

9 Overview of Local Level EBDM Phase I Framework Development May 2008-March 2010 Phase II Planning Process June 2010-August 2011 Phase III Implementation August 2011-Dec NIC began its sponsorship of the Evidence-Based Decision Making in Local Criminal Justice Systems (EBDM) initiative in May 2008 In Phase I, we built the EBDM Framework In August of 2010, NIC selected, on a competitive basis, seven local jurisdictions from across the country to participate in Phase II The same seven sites continued on to the Implementation Phase (Phase III)

10 EBDM Local Sites (Phases II & III) Yamhill County (McMinnville), Oregon Mesa County (Grand Junction), Colorado Ramsey County (St. Paul) Minnesota Milwaukee County (Milwaukee), Wisconsin Eau Claire County (Eau Claire), Wisconsin Grant County (Marion), Indiana County of Albemarle, city of Charlottesville, Virginia

11 Eau Claire County Change Target summary Phase 3

12 Pre-Charge Diversion Program Program Fee 100% Restitution upfront Education class (video, thinking report) Remain offense free until case is closed If a participant fails to meet the requirements, prosecution of case continues

13 Eau Claire results: diversion Completions >95% of participants successfully complete the program

14 120 Eau Claire results: Charge Breakdown Disorderly Conduct Drug Possession Theft Other

15 Eau Claire results: Restitution Collected Year Restitution Collected 2012 $4, $5, $7, $8, $11, Total $37,056.43

16 Eau Claire results: Recidivism Study The risk of reoffending nearly DOUBLES when Diversion-eligible offenders are formally prosecuted 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 37.7% 33.6% 25.1% 18.6% 21.1% 13.0% 1-Year Recidivism 2-Year Recidivism 3-Year Recidivism Control Group Diversion

17 Eau Claire Results: Collateral Effects Clearance Rate Total Criminal Cases 102% 100% 98% 96% 96% 98% 100% 101% 94% 92% 90%

18 1,400 1,200 1, Eau Claire Results: Collateral effects 49.5% Increase in Felony Case Dispositions from 2012 to ,113 1,

19 Overview of Statewide EBDM 2013 and Beyond Phase IV Preparation for Expansion Sep 2013 Dec 2014 Phase V Planning Process Mar 2015 Mar 2016 Phase VI November December 2017 Participate in a process designed to prepare teams within the state for the EBDM planning phase Engage in EBDM planning activities at state level and in multiple local jurisdictions (i.e., a state team + approx. 5 local teams) Engage in EBDM implementation activities at state level and in multiple local jurisdictions

20 Phase V States Wisconsin Indiana Virginia

21 Participating Jurisdictions Indiana State EBDM Policy Team Bartholomew County Hamilton County Hendricks County Jefferson County Porter County Tipton County Virginia State EBDM Policy Team Chesterfield County /Colonial Heights City of Norfolk City of Petersburg Prince William County/Manassas/ Manassas Park City of Richmond Staunton/Augusta/ Waynesboro Wisconsin State EBDM Policy Team Eau Claire County Milwaukee County Chippewa County La Crosse County Marathon County Outagamie County Rock County Waukesha County

22 Key Justice System Decision Points: State and Local Level EBDM

23 Decision Makers at the State Level The Governor s Office and Cabinet State Supreme Court, Judicial Department, Court Rule Making Authority, Administrative Office of the Courts State Legislators (Chairs or representatives of standing or ad hoc judiciary, corrections or sentencing committees, joint judiciary and budget committees) Office of the Attorney General State Defense Bar State Directors of Corrections; probation and parole/community corrections State Pretrial Administrator Paroling authority Victim Service Providers Directors of State Behavioral Health, Health, Employment, Family Services, Housing, Veterans Affairs, Financial Assistance, and other agencies serving justice-involved individuals Families of offenders/advocacy groups Representatives of State Criminal Justice Coordinating Groups, Advisory Boards, Sentencing Commissions, Criminal Justice Advocacy Groups, and Reform Coalitions (e.g., mental health alliances) State Defense Counsel Association State Judges Association State Prosecutors Association State Law Enforcement (sheriff, police, jail administrators) Association

24

25 NIC s Goals for Phase V Assist state and local-level policy teams as they conduct a series of planning activities to implement systemwide change strategies that will Align local and state jurisdictions with one another and with the principles of EBDM Assist teams in reaching their individual and collective harm reduction goals By the end of Phase V, sites are expected to have a fully developed strategic action plan for achieving their change targets, and to the extent possible, begin implementing change strategies

26

27 What is the Phase V Roadmap? The Phase V roadmap is basically a tool Designed for use by multidisciplinary criminal justice teams Who have agreement about the EBDM Framework Are committed to working together To help these teams build their capacity to engage in EBDM To guide them through the Phase V planning process Outlining a core set of activities to advance system alignment That breaks the planning process into concrete, discreet and manageable steps Ultimately for assisting teams in preparing for the implementation of EBDM strategies to achieve their harm reduction goals (Phase V)

28 Roadmap for Phase V Preparing to Implement the EBDM Framework at the State Level and Within Local Jurisdictions Core Activities Build genuine, collaborative policy teams at the state and local levels. Build a shared vision for EBDM in the state. Likely Action Steps (Others may be added, where needed) Administer a policy team collaboration survey (one or more times). Establish ground rules and operating norms. Develop a vision/mission statement for the team s work. Articulate roles and responsibilities of team members. Assess readiness to engage in EBDM in terms of both strengths and needs. Develop One Less individual (or similar) statements and a team document that reflects these statements. Take other steps to build/enhance the collaborative climate of the policy team. Engage in discussions with local EBDM representatives in an effort to develop a shared vision for achieving EBDM statewide. By the end of Phase V, the EBDM teams will have Highly functioning collaborative policy teams at the state and local levels. A vision/mission for each policy team. Track records of meaningful team accomplishments. A shared vision for the criminal justice system for achieving EBDM (i.e., spanning local and state-level decision points).

29

30 Data and research Model Polices/practice System-Wide Collaboration Professional Development Risk tools Diversion/Behavioral change

31 Shared Data Definitions

32 Comprehensive Outcome, Research, and Evaluation (CORE) Reporting System

33 Data Collection Admission Discharge Referral/ Screening Progress Updates Participants are referred and screened Eligibility, program type Participants start the program Employment, education, medical, mental health, AODA, etc. one per admission! Updates as they progress through the program Services, AODA testing, outcomes, incentives, sanctions by event! Participants complete or terminate the program Status, services, AODA testing

34 Data Collection Ability to track: Program type Funding source Specifics by type of program Connection to other systems Ability to submit data electronically Some existing data will be maintained Sites can only view their own data

35 EBDM Resources NIC Evidence-Based Decision Making Webpage EBDM Starter Kit Initiative Website WI CJCC

36 Tiana Glenna, MS Criminal Justice Manager Office of the County Administrator (715) Megan Jones, PhD Director, Research & Policy WI Department of Corrections (608)