Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

65
D E P A R T M E N T O F J U S T I C E N A T I O N A L I N S T IT U T E O F C O R R E C T I O N S U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Corrections

Transcript of Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

Page 1: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

DE

PA

RTMENT OF JUSTICE

NATIO

NAL INSTITUTE OF CORRECTIO

NS

U.S. Department of Justice

National Institute of Corrections

Page 2: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

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

Page 3: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

Guidelines for Developinga Criminal Justice

Coordinating Committee

Robert C. Cushman

January 2002

NIC Accession Number 017232

Page 4: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

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.

Page 5: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

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

Page 6: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee
Page 7: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

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

Page 8: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee
Page 9: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

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

Page 10: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

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 ..................................................................................37

Appendix B: Jurisdictions Mentioned in This Guide....................................................................39

Appendix 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 ..................45

The 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 ..........................................................................................................................................47

Article 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

Page 11: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

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

Page 12: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

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

Page 13: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

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

Page 14: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee
Page 15: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

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

Page 16: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

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

Page 17: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

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

IntroductionS E C T I O N 1

Page 18: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

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

Page 19: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

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

IntroductionS E C T I O N 1

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

Page 20: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

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

Page 21: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

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

IntroductionS E C T I O N 1

Page 22: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee
Page 23: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

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

Page 24: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

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.

Page 25: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

ReactiveDecisionmaking

(Putting out fires)

Operational Planning

(What will we do and when?)

Program Planning

(What can we do and how?)

Policy Planning

(What should we do and why?)

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

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

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

(What should we do and why?)

Program Planning

(What can we do and how?)

Operational Planning

(What will we do and when?)

ReactiveDecisionmaking

(Putting out fires)

GovernmentLocation

Executive order creating local planning unit/jointpowers agreement

Correction facilitiesand information systems master plans

Annual action plan; schedules,budget

Page 26: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

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

Page 27: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

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

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

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

Page 28: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

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

Page 29: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

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

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

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).

Page 30: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

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

Page 31: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

17

A Framew

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

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

Page 32: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee
Page 33: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

“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

Page 34: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

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

Page 35: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

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

Page 36: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

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

Page 37: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

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

Page 38: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

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

Page 39: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

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 two individualsalso serve on a steering committee or executivecommittee that is usually required because thetotal CJCC membership is so large. In addition,most CJCCs have both standing and special pur-pose committees. For example, some have stand-ing committees that mirror the police, courts,and corrections components of the justice system.CJCCs also may form interdisciplinary commit-tees to consider specific problem areas, such asjail crowding or juvenile matters. These may bestanding committees or committees formed for aspecific duration. CJCCs often establish subcom-mittees that pull staff from several agencies. Forexample, some subcommittees include a particu-larly knowledgeable middle manager and technicalexperts who are subordinates to CJCC members.

Some CJCCs, such as the Los Angeles CountywideCriminal Justice Coordination Committee, consistsolely of justice system officials. Others includecitizens.

25

Guiding Principles for CJCCsS E C T I O N 4

Page 40: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

Bylaws Bylaws should be developed to govern the day-to-day business of the CJCC and to delineate thespecific powers and duties of the CJCC, its mem-bers, and its staff. The development of bylawsformalizes the process of creating a skeleton of anagreement that can serve as the basis for a CJCC(see appendix E for sample bylaws for a CJCC).

Representation and Membership The CJCC should be governed by a membershipthat is broadly representative of both local electedofficials of general government and elected andappointed criminal justice agency administratorsfrom within the county’s geographic boundaries.It might also include personnel of certain nonjus-tice agencies and private citizens. Because it dealswith a number of agencies and more than oneunit of government, the CJCC should be anindependent body. Independence and broad rep-resentation help provide the systemwide perspec-tive necessary for comprehensiveness, and policydirection by local government and justice officialsensures greater responsiveness to local needs.

The Tarrant County Criminal Justice PlanningGroup (CJPG) is chaired by community vol-unteers, representative of the Tarrant Countycommunity, who serve in a “countywide”capacity. The CJPG has produced aCommunity Plan for Criminal Justice.

—Les Smith, Manager, Criminal Justice Programs, Tarrant County Administrator’s Office, Fort Worth, Texas

The CJCC should include four categories ofmembers: (1) justice officials, (2) officials of gen-eral government, (3) officials of related nonjusticeagencies, and (4) statesmen. Justice officials formthe core of these broad-based CJCCs, but thiscore should be embedded in a larger, more com-prehensive community-based context that goesbeyond the interests of the justice constituency.

There is an important distinction between acommittee made up of justice officials and a com-mittee that also includes officials of general gov-ernment (e.g., a county commissioner, city orcounty manager, or mayor) and of related agen-cies (e.g., the health department, school, or socialservices agencies).

Broad-based representation helps to ensurethat every agency affected by changes. . .has the opportunity to offer valuable insightsregarding the plan for achieving programgoals. This strategy also helps to preventagencies that are not included in the plan-ning process and/or that do not agree withthe mission, goals, or strategy from scuttlinga program or delaying its implementation.

—Jane Nady Sigmon et al.,Adjudication Partnerships: Critical Components16

CJCCs also benefit from “statesmen”—one ortwo community leaders who are not justice systemexperts and have no special interest in any por-tion of the justice system. These statesmen canestablish a sense of altruism in the CJCC byinsisting, “We expect you to get along together.We expect you to solve these problems.” Theymay also ask discerning questions. A broad baseof support is important, but citizen members rep-resenting special interests should not be added;the CJCC will most likely have too many already.

Board membership should be specified in thebylaws along with the principles governing meth-ods and terms of appointment. Overlapping termsof at least one year are important for continuityin board composition. For example, the bylawsof the Marion County, Oregon, Public SafetyCoordinating Council stipulate that, at a mini-mum, membership must consist of:

• A police chief selected by police chiefs inthe county.

• The county district attorney.

26

Guid

ing

Prin

cipl

es fo

r CJC

CsS E C T I O N 4

Page 41: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

• A public defender or defense attorney.

• A county commissioner.

• A health/mental health director.

• City council member or mayor.

• A representative of the Oregon State Police(nonvoting).

• The county sheriff.

• A state court judge.

• A director of community corrections.

• A juvenile department director.

• At least one lay citizen.

• A city manager or another city representative.

• A representative of the Oregon YouthAuthority (nonvoting).

Achieving broad participation may result in alarge CJCC, so some balance must be worked out.For example, counties with a large number ofcities may have too many local police chiefs toinclude on the CJCC. The solution is to invitethe chair of the local association of police chiefsto participate.

Selecting the Chair Selecting the CJCC chair almost always elicitscomments about the requirements of leadership.Staff and members of CJCCs have made manyobservations about a chair’s needed characteris-tics, including the following:

• We need a leader as opposed to a manager.

• He or she must have the respect of the group.

• Integrity is key.

• When they chair, it’s for the good of the group.

• Our chair runs a “tight and fair” meeting.

27

Guiding Principles for CJCCsS E C T I O N 4

• Everyone gets their say.

• If you stack the deck, it won’t help you any.

Establishing “an air of altruism” promotes theworkings of the CJCC. Using the position aschair to achieve a political advantage signals the probable demise of the CJCC.

For years, the informal practice at our CJCChas been to have a nonjustice professionalserve as chair of the CJCC. For example, a professor of criminal justice chaired our CJCC.

—Bob Maccarone, Assistant District Attorney and former Staff Director, Westchester County (New York)

Criminal Justice Advisory Board

According to Jane Nady Sigmon and colleagues:

[T]he leader must possess certain skills andtake on specific responsibilities, including:

• Articulating the current problem.

• Setting forth a vision for how the localjustice system will tackle the problem.

• Convincing other key people of its valueso it becomes a shared vision.

• Building partnerships to achieve theenvisioned change.

The leader also must be able to motivate andinspire people to commit their time and effortto the program and participate as equals arounda table, despite real or perceived differencesbetween members in power and status.17

Leadership will change over time. The CJCC willneed to plan for leadership transitions to avoidcrises when they occur.

Page 42: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

Real reform is not possible without takingrisks. Collaborative work mitigates that risk.One of the benefits of collaborative changestructures is that once the group builds itsstrength and gets a sense of its power, itrealizes that risks can be taken more readily.When the whole group has developed con-sensus about what should be done, it repre-sents a united front of experts speaking withone voice. This is a formidable voice, onethat is difficult to ignore. Collaborative lead-ers are wise if they are able to gauge whenand how to use this voice, this power, andwhen not to. Leadership must manage thisnewly found power carefully.

—Kathleen Feely, Collaboration and Leadership inJuvenile Detention Reform18

Executive Committee and StandingCommittees The purposes and composition of an executivecommittee and standing committees and task forcesmust be determined. It is important to recognizethat the need for staff support will increase as theCJCC forms committees and task forces. Largerboards almost always need an executive committee.

In Marion County, Oregon, the ExecutiveSteering Committee of the Public SafetyCoordinating Council meets on the lastTuesday of each month for the primary pur-pose of developing meeting agendas for thefull council. The members include the chairand vice chair of the council and representa-tives of both a city police department and theMarion County Sheriff’s Office.

—Bylaws, Marion County Public Safety Coordinating Council19

Voting The bylaws of most CJCCs address voting, andmost refer to a majority rule. In practice, however,many CJCCs do not actually bring issues to avote; instead, decisions are usually made by con-sensus. But consensus is not always the rule. Forexample, when an issue comes up for a vote at theHennepin County/City of Minneapolis CJCC, it isnot adopted unless there is unanimous agreement.

The CJCC will not survive long if every issuethat comes to the table is controversial andresults in bloodshed.

—John O’Sullivan, former Staff Director, Hennepin County/City of Minneapolis Criminal Justice

Coordinating Committee

The potential for a vote tends to level the playingfield in which separate agencies usually differ interms of power and authority. Representativesfrom small jurisdictions have an equal opportunityto express their views, and, if a vote is taken,their vote often carries the same weight as a largerjurisdiction.

Some jurisdictions, concerned about attendance,permit only the official members to vote. Thismeans their subordinates can attend and repre-sent them, but they cannot vote and they do notcount toward a quorum.

Setting the Agenda A clear agenda, delivered well in advance, will helppromote attendance. It should include items thatare clearly relevant to the participants. Informa-tional matters and operational-level concernsshould be kept to a minimum so that policy-leveldiscussion and action can take place. As a generalrule, the CJCC does not meddle in the internalaffairs of any single justice agency. Agenda itemsfocus on issues that cut across agency interestsor operations. Typically, this shifts the emphasisaway from looking at individual agencies andrefocuses attention on the decision points wherethey come together to do their work, as was shownin exhibit 7.

28

Guid

ing

Prin

cipl

es fo

r CJC

CsS E C T I O N 4

Page 43: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

The presiding judge of the court chairs thecabinet, and there are regularly scheduledmeetings. The meetings are structured. Itemson the agenda are timed, and agendas aredistributed a week in advance.

—Mary Ann Treadaway, Staff Member, Sacramento County (California) Criminal Justice Cabinet

In most CJCCs, the chair develops the agenda inconcert with the staff. Members are encouraged tosubmit agenda items to the staff and/or the chair.They have an obligation to do so if an upcominginitiative is likely to affect other parts of the justice system.

Meetings The CJCC should meet regularly, either monthlyor quarterly. A schedule of future meeting datesand times should be agreed upon well in advanceof the meetings. The meetings must be wellorganized and well run.

Discussions at meetings should be open,frank, and civil. Exhibiting civility andrespect for others is critical in fosteringcooperation and helping steering committeemembers grow in their understanding ofthe problems and needs of each of theparticipating agencies.

—Jane Nady Sigmon et al., Adjudication Partnerships: Critical Components 20

Financing the CJCC Once the objectives and priorities have been set,planning activities identified, and staff needs out-lined, an overall CJCC budget must be estimatedand the sources of funds considered. Federal orstate funds may be primary sources, particularly inthe early stages of CJCC development, but localgovernment revenues are a significant source inmany jurisdictions.

29

Guiding Principles for CJCCsS E C T I O N 4

Local financial investments help institutionalizethe planning process within the general structureof local government, giving it greater stability andorienting it more directly to local issues. Sharedlocal government funding also prevents domina-tion of the CJCC by one jurisdiction or justicesystem component and provides a sense of com-mitment from all of the members.

Our CJCC is governed by a joint powersagreement containing a formula for fundingby the participating jurisdictions. This is acounty made up of many cities, none beingdominant in size or assessed evaluation.

—Cynthia Brandon, Executive Director, San Mateo County (California) Criminal Justice Council

This suggests that federal and/or state financialassistance be concentrated on encouraging andinitiating or enhancing local planning and coor-dination competencies for more self-sustainingoperations. The financial contribution of localgovernments then should be incrementallyincreased as local officials become convinced thatthe CJCC’s planning, analysis, and coordinationactivities serve important local needs.

Staffing the CJCC The staff support provided to the CJCC willlargely depend on the size of the jurisdictionand the resources available, but a CJCC will notwork well unless it receives independent, full-timestaff support. The Hennepin County/City ofMinneapolis CJCC has its own budget and dedi-cated staff who report directly to county adminis-tration. Before the 1977 reorganization of theCJCC, it had no legal status, no budget, and nofull-time staff. CJCC accomplishments dependedon part-time staff contributed by member agen-cies and available funding.

Page 44: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

30

Guid

ing

Prin

cipl

es fo

r CJC

CsS E C T I O N 4

The cabinet is supported by a full-time senioradministrative analyst. Funding for this posi-tion is shared by the agencies of the execu-tive committee. In addition, the cabinet issupported by a contracted research consult-ant. The cabinet staff is responsible for moni-toring his work plan and deliverables. Thecounty funds this contract.

—Mary Ann Treadaway, Staff Member, Sacramento County (California) Criminal Justice Cabinet

Planning for staffing needs should be preceded bycareful consideration of CJCC objectives. Thenumber of staff members and their qualificationswill be determined by the types of planning,analysis, and coordination activities they willundertake. Members of the CJCC should investsome time in preliminary planning to maximizestaff effectiveness. This is a “preparing for plan-ning” step, as shown in exhibit 5, the 11-stepgeneral planning process model.

A wide variety of skills is needed. These are rarely found in a single individual. Thetraditional system designer-expediter is still needed, but so is the entrepreneuriallyminded new venture analyst, so is an ana-lytic diagnostician-controller, so is a skilledforecaster-analyst, so is a computer-modelbuilder.

—H. Igor Ansoff, quoted in John K. Hudzik and Gary W. Cordner,

Planning in Criminal Justice Organizations and Systems21

Staff members will need skills in three basic areas.First, they should have analytical skills and expe-rience. They should be able to collect and analyzedata and convert the data into useful information.This ability will depend on the second basic skillarea: practical experience and an understandingof justice system agencies and processes. Thethird skill area involves political, managerial,and administrative capacities to get along wellwith CJCC members and justice agencies.

The CJCC staff should be characterized by credi-bility, neutrality, and stability. Credibility with jus-tice agencies and local government officials comeswith demonstrated competence and neutrality andfrom the legitimacy associated with formal authori-zation to serve in an interagency and interjurisdic-tional role. Neutrality must be conscientiouslypracticed by the staff director and subordinates butcan be promoted by insulating the CJCC staff fromlocal politics (basing staffing on the merit systemrather than on political appointments). Stability ofthe unit, essential to the continuity of long-rangeplanning, is enhanced by protection from politicalinvolvement, by strong enabling legislation, and byefforts to institutionalize planning within the localgovernment structure.

Flexibility needs to be part of the jobdescription.

—Ann Bowland, Toledo-Lucas County (Ohio) Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

In successful CJCCs, the staff director and thechair of the CJCC have a close, compatible, andeffective working relationship. The best of bothworlds is to have a talented justice planner asstaff director and an effective leader as chair.

Typical Staff Assignments The work of the CJCC can be illustrated by aquick summary of typical staff assignments. Asshown earlier in exhibit 2, staff assignments mayinclude any of the following:

• Developing databases.

• Staffing CJCC subcommittees.

• Conducting legislative analyses.

• Gathering or disseminating public information.

• Coordinating agency efforts.

• Mediating interagency disputes.

• Helping agencies articulate goals and priorities.

• Planning for resource allocation and reviewingagency budgets.

Page 45: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

• Preparing grant applications and managinggrants.

• Designing, implementing, and evaluatingprograms.

• Providing technical assistance, training, andinformation brokerage services.

• Conducting special studies and a wide rangeof analysis activities.

31

Guiding Principles for CJCCsS E C T I O N 4

Exhibit 8. Framework for Evaluating a CJCC

Note: This evaluation approach was designed by Rebecca Wurzburger and appeared in Robert C. Cushman’s Program Models: CriminalJustice Planning for Local Governments (Washington, DC: National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, Law EnforcementAssistance Administration, U.S. Department of Justice, 1980), 93–100. The version presented here is modified from the Marion County PublicSafety Coordinating Council Annual Report, FY 1996–97, which was used to guide evaluation of the Marion County (Oregon) Public SafetyCoordinating Council.

• Crime analysis

• Criminal justice system analysis

• Legislative analysis

• Special studies

• Defineresponsibilities

• Coordinate with other planning units

• Formulate goal statements

• Clarify issuesand values

• Managefederal/state/local resources

• Review agencybudgets

• Design, develop,implement, and evaluateprograms

• Improvedanalysis ofproblems

• Improvedcoordination and cooperation

• Clearer goals,objectives, and priorities

• More effectiveallocation ofresources

• Improvedcriminal justiceprograms andservices

Planning Activities

Planning Input

Planning Results

Citizens CJCC Financial resources

• Integrate inputfrom taxpayersthrough com-munity forums

• Addressmonthly con-cerns

• Greateraccountabilitytowardtaxpayers

Planning Outcome

Improved criminal justice policy, coordination of resources, program efficiencies

Evaluating the CJCC Evaluation of the CJCC can do much to con-vince taxpayers that justice agencies are doingtheir job and that justice dollars are well spent. Ageneral evaluation approach is shown in exhibit 8.Polling the CJCC members should be part of anyevaluation of the CJCC. Public opinion surveyscan also provide measures of public satisfactionwith the local justice system.

Page 46: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

CJCC healthy; therefore, they should be activelypromoted. (Leadership, citizen support, and ade-quate financial support were mentioned less fre-quently as contributing factors.)

The factors that most detracted from success were(1) financial constraints; (2) staffing reductions;and (3) conflicts between agencies (over “turf”).These danger signs will need attention if a CJCCis to remain healthy.

Rejuvenating a CJCC involves answering threequestions:

• What happened to the previous CJCC?

• What has changed?

• Who should revive the CJCC?

What Happened to the Previous CJCC?Surveying previous members is a good place tobegin answering this question. Chances are thatthe previous CJCC had weak scores on the CJCCself-evaluation questionnaire presented as exhibit 1of this guide.

Ask: “How is the justice system less viablebecause the CJCC is gone?“ It’s likely thatasking this question will help officials identifymany things a CJCC could help them accom-plish that they cannot possibly accomplishon their own.

—Ann Bowland, Toledo-Lucas County (Ohio) CriminalJustice Coordinating Council

Interagency conflict can cause the demise of aCJCC. But, after a period, it may be possible torevive the CJCC and start again. Another com-mon problem is that interest wanes when a CJCCdrifts from a policy-planning orientation andbecomes consumed with operational concerns.

What Has Changed? CJCCs are rarely static. They change and adapt, orthey deteriorate and die. If a CJCC is dependent

32

Guid

ing

Prin

cipl

es fo

r CJC

CsS E C T I O N 4

The Palm Beach County (Florida) CriminalJustice Commission currently has a consultant evaluating their work andaccomplishments.

—Sally Graham, Criminal Justice Policy Coordinator,Sarasota County, Florida

The Marion County Public Safety CoordinatingCouncil has conducted several surveys to measurepublic opinion about justice services and priorities.The objectives of the public opinion surveys were to:

• Identify registered voter opinions about themost important issue facing Marion Countygovernment, with reference to crime.

• Identify registered voter attitudes toward specificstatements about fighting crime and aboutMarion County government.

• Identify whether registered voters support con-struction of a juvenile detention facility and ajuvenile justice center.

• Identify how registered voters would spendmoney between adult and juvenile corrections;prevention, intervention, and treatment pro-grams; juvenile delinquency programs; and pre-vention programs for families with children.

Hiring an outside consultant, or requesting anevaluation from the National Institute ofCorrections, may lead to a more formal andmore deliberate evaluation of the CJCC.

Rejuvenating the CJCC CJCCs are fragile: Some atrophy; others passaway entirely. In a survey of 30 CJCCs, respon-dents were asked to list the factors that signifi-cantly contributed to and detracted from thesuccess of their CJCC.22

The most important contributing factors for successwere identified as (1) good relationships withcriminal justice agencies and officials of generalgovernment; (2) the CJCC’s nonpartisan image andmultijurisdictional approach; and (3) dedicatedstaff with technical ability. These assets keep a

Page 47: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

on an unusually strong and effective leader, it willlikely suffer when leadership changes. Electionswill remove some members and new ones willreplace them, possibly threatening the continuitythe CJCC needs to survive. Newly elected andappointed officials may see the CJCC as a vestigeof old philosophies and old ways of doing things.A new executive order, a new mission statement, anew challenge, or a reorganization may be neededto help them “own” the process.

In 1997, the Hennepin County/City ofMinneapolis CJCC spent much of the yearevaluating its effectiveness and direction. Theend result was a reorganization, the adoptionof a vision and mission statement, and a for-mal cooperative agreement between the Cityof Minneapolis and Hennepin County outlin-ing organizational basics and funding respon-sibilities. The new organization has fewermembers with a slightly stronger suburbanemphasis. In addition, a vice-chair positionwas added along with a provision for theorderly transfer of the chair.

—John O’Sullivan, former Staff Director, Hennepin County/City of Minneapolis

Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

Opportunities to reinvigorate a CJCC may comefrom new or pending legislation that is expected toaffect justice system workloads. Examples includeincreased criminal penalties for drinking/drivingoffenses, a three-strikes law, and changes instate/local responsibilities for supervising offendersin custody or in the community. Each of thesemay represent an opportunity to call the localjustice leadership together to conduct problem-oriented planning.

Who Should Revive the CJCC? Reviving the CJCC is a shared responsibility, butsomeone must take the lead. Often, two or moreofficials can agree to sponsor revival of the CJCC.

An early meeting in a retreat or workshop setting,with a trained facilitator, can help a CJCC get offto a healthy, vigorous new start. Where possible,efforts to rejuvenate a CJCC should start smalland build competence gradually. Organizers shouldavoid spending too much time and energy bring-ing one or two naysayers into the fold. Instead,they might attempt to build a critical mass of thekey players and work “downhill,” beginning withtasks in which opportunities for success are thegreatest. They should build upon small gains.

Visits to other CJCCs can also help officials seenew possibilities. Even a brief telephone conver-sation with a counterpart in another jurisdictioncan help a local official think more optimisticallyabout the potential of a CJCC.

The skills of the CJCC members and staff willdevelop incrementally as they gain experience andfoster the working relationships with agency andgovernment officials necessary for comprehensivelocal justice planning. As these relationships devel-op, the CJCC should focus on strengthening thedecisionmaking capacities of the cities, counties,and justice agencies in its jurisdiction, helpingthem to improve the way they provide the servicesand programs for which they are responsible.

Any change in one part of the justice systemhas a ripple effect. Some justice agencyexecutives don’t appreciate the systemwideimpact of the decisions they make.

—Tom Giacinti, Jefferson County (Colorado) Criminal Justice Strategic Planning Committee

Demonstrating the Benefits CJCCs need to continuously demonstrate thebenefits of their collaborative efforts to memberagencies and the community at large. They needto look for opportunities to celebrate and rein-force success. Most CJCCs prepare a list of majoraccomplishments at least annually. They celebratesuccess as they achieve key milestones and objec-tives. For example, the Jail Utilization SystemsTeam (JUST) Project of Monroe County

33

Guiding Principles for CJCCsS E C T I O N 4

Page 48: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

(Rochester, New York) released the followingpublic statement:

In 1992, the Monroe County (Rochester, NewYork) Executive required all county depart-ments to incorporate total quality management(TQM) and work together to address countyproblems. Local justice system leaders joinedtogether and developed a multi-part strategy toreduce jail crowding. They developed a contin-uum of graduated restrictions for out-of-custodypretrial defendants, added graduated sanction-ing options for convicted misdemeanants,expedited case processing for prison/jail boundoffenders, and strengthened their case process-ing information system. These actions reducedthe average length of jail stay. As a conse-quence, the daily jail population was reducedby 209 beds, even though jail admissionsincreased from 13,587 in 1994 to 15,842 for1997 (20 percent).23

Some CJCCs (e.g., the Palm Beach County,Florida, Criminal Justice Commission) have a pub-lic relations subcommittee charged with interpret-ing the results of the CJCC to the public, to other

justice agencies, to government officials, and to themedia. Effectively communicating each CJCC’ssuccess will build support for planning and coordi-nation and ultimately improve local criminal jus-tice programs and services nationwide.

In the world of limited resources andincreased demands for system account-ability, criminal justice coordinating commit-tees provide forums for the key players withinthe justice system to work together, leavingtheir traditionally adversarial relationshipbehind in the courtroom. By working togethertoward the larger goal of improving servicefor the public, it is likely that criminal justicesystem leaders will also improve the func-tioning of their individual agencies.

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

34

Guid

ing

Prin

cipl

es fo

r CJC

CsS E C T I O N 4

Page 49: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

35

Notes

Notes1. This saying by Casey Stengel has become such acommon part of the American lexicon that the origi-nal source of the quotation is difficult to establish.Some of the quotations in this guide without full citations are from the author’s personal knowledge;others are from communication with the speaker.

2. Lewis Carroll, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland,New York: Harcourt Brace, 1999.

3. Christina Morehead, A Criminal Justice PlanningModel for King County, Seattle, WA: King CountyRegional Law, Safety and Justice Committee, 1991,p. 24; based on a survey of 30 CJCCs.

4. Ibid., p. 1.

5. Kathleen Feely, Collaboration and Leadership inJuvenile Detention Reform, The Pathways to JuvenileDetention Reform Series (a project of the Annie E.Casey Foundation), 1999, p. 12.

6. As quoted in Robert C. Cushman, Program Models:Criminal Justice Planning for Local Governments,Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,National Institute of Law Enforcement and CriminalJustice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration,1980, p. 9.

7. Jane Nady Sigmon, Ph.D.; John Goerdt, J.D.;Scott Wallace, J.D.; Heike Gramckow, Ph.D., J.D.;Kathy Free; and M. Elaine Nugent et al., AdjudicationPartnerships: Critical Components, AmericanProsecutor’s Research Institute (Draft) 1999, p. 4.

8. Cushman, Program Models, (see note 6) p. 29.

9. Kim Allen, Executive Director, Kentucky CriminalJustice Council, speaking at the annual membershipmeeting of the National Criminal Justice Association,July 1999, as quoted in News Update, the newsletter ofthe National Association of Criminal Justice Planners,August 1999.

10. Sigmon et al., Adjudication Partnerships: CriticalComponents, (see note 7) p. 1.

11. Ibid., p. 2.

12. Feely, Collaboration and Leadership in JuvenileDetention Reform, (see note 5) p. 14.

13. Ibid., p. 32.

14. Kim Allen, Former Executive Director, KentuckyCriminal Justice Council, speaking at the annualmembership meeting of the National Criminal JusticeAssociation, July 1999 (see note 9).

15. See “Community-Based Planning: PromotingA Neighborhood Response to Crime” in Policy andPractice (Spring 1998), a quarterly publication ofthe National Criminal Justice Association, 444 N.Capitol St. NW, Suite 618, Washington, DC 20001.

16. Sigmon et al., Adjudication Partnerships: CriticalComponents, (see note 7) p. 3.

17. Ibid., p. 2.

18. Feely, Collaboration and Leadership in JuvenileDetention Reform, (see note 5) p. 38.

19. Bylaws of the Marion County Public SafetyCoordinating Council, Salem, Oregon, 1999.

20. Sigmon et al., Adjudication Partnerships: CriticalComponents, (see note 7) p. 4.

21. As quoted in John K. Hudzik and Gary W. Cordner,Planning in Criminal Justice Organizations and Systems,New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1983, p. 134.

22. Morehead, A Criminal Justice Planning Model,(see note 3) pp. 111-112.

23. Jail Utilization Systems Team (JUST) Project,Monroe County, Rochester, New York, 1993.

Page 50: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee
Page 51: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

❐ Determine the need for and interest in forming (reforming/rejuvenating) a CJCC.

❐ Locate state legislation that mandates or facilitates formation of a CJCC.

❐ Contact a number of potential “core” members. Share this guide with them. Determine whether they will support the formation of a CJCC.

❐ Determine whether an existing group can form the basis for a CJCC or whether a new group must be formed.

❐ Decide on the geographic scope of the CJCC—countywide or other.

❐ Decide who must authorize the CJCC.

❐ Draft a proposed statement of purpose for the CJCC.

❐ Draft an authorization document or charge.

❐ Determine the structure and administrative location.

❐ Draft bylaws for consideration by the CJCC and/or authorizing groups.

❐ Determine representation and membership.

❐ Select the chair.

❐ Determine executive committee and standing committees or task forces.

❐ Decide who votes, when, and how.

❐ Develop guidelines for establishing meeting agendas.

❐ Determine whether a workshop in a retreat setting with a trained facilitator is needed.

❐ Determine financing for the CJCC.

❐ Identify the number and type of staff that will be needed; hire and train staff.

❐ Develop a method for evaluating the CJCC and for reinvigorating it if it begins to go into decline.

❐ Plan ways to celebrate success and demonstrate the benefits of the CJCC.

37

Checklist for Forming a CJCC

A P P E N D I X A

Checklist for Forming a CJCC

Page 52: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee
Page 53: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

Benton County, Oregon (78,153) Benton County Community Corrections 180 NW Fifth StreetCorvallis, OR 97330–4791Phone: 541–766–6704; fax: 541–766–6758

Dakota County, Minnesota (355,904)c/o Community CorrectionsDakota County Government Center1560 Highway 55Hastings, MN 55033Phone: 651–438–8288; fax: 651–438–8340

Gilliam County, Oregon (1,915)Tri-County (Gilliam/Sherman/Wheeler)

Community CorrectionsP.O. Box 685Condon, OR 97823 Phone: 541–384–2852; fax: 541–384–2853

Hennepin County, Minnesota (1,116,200)Hennepin County/City of MinneapolisCriminal Justice Coordinating Committee Hennepin County Government CenterSuite A–2308 Minneapolis, MN 55487–0238 Phone: 612–348–5032; fax: 612–348–7423

Hood River County, Oregon (20,411)Hood River County Community CorrectionsP.O. Box 301489 N. Eighth StreetHood River, OR 97031–0011 Phone: 541–387–6862; fax: 541–386–7822

Jackson County, Oregon (181,269)Jackson County Community JusticeP.O. Box 1584123 W. 10th StreetMedford, OR 97501–0450 Phone: 541–774–4900; fax: 541–770–9484

Jefferson County, Colorado (527,056)Jefferson County Criminal Justice

Strategic Planning Committee 700 Jefferson County Parkway, #220 Golden, CO 80401Phone: 303–271–5063; fax: 303–271–4849

Jefferson County, Kentucky (693,604)Louisville-Jefferson County Crime Commission231 S. Fifth Street, Suite 300Louisville, KY 40202Phone: 502–574–5088; fax: 502–574–5299

Josephine County, Oregon (75,726)Josephine County Community Corrections237 SE J StreetGrants Pass, OR 97526Phone: 541–474–5165; fax: 541–474–5171

Los Angeles County, California (9,519,338) Countywide Criminal Justice Coordination

Committee500 W. Temple Street520 Hall of AdministrationLos Angeles, CA 90012Phone: 213–974–8398; fax: 213–613–2711

39

Jurisdictions Mentioned in This Guide

A P P E N D I X B

Jurisdictions Mentioned inThis Guide(Listed alphabetically by county name; county populations are provided in parentheses.)

Page 54: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

Lucas County, Ohio (455,054)Toledo-Lucas County Criminal Justice

Coordinating Council301 Collingwood BoulevardToledo, OH 43602Phone: 419–244–5819; fax: 419–244–5244

Malheur County, Oregon (31,615)Malheur County Community Corrections1682 SW Fourth StreetOntario, OR 97914Phone: 541–881–2402; fax: 541–889–8311

Marion County, Oregon (284,834)Marion County Public Safety Coordinating

Councilc/o Marion County Board of CommissionersP.O. Box 14500Salem, OR 97309Phone: 503–588–5212; fax: 503–588–5237

Monroe County, New York (735,343)Monroe County Department of Public Safety33 N. Fitzhugh StreetRochester, NY 14614Phone: 716–428–4989; fax: 716–428–9023

Multnomah County, Oregon (660,486) Multnomah County Public Safety Coordinating

Council 421 SW Sixth Avenue, Suite 1075Portland, OR 97204–1620Phone: 503–988–5522; fax: 503–306–5538

Napa County, California (124,279)Napa County Office of Criminal Justice

Planningc/o County Administrator1195 Third Street, Room 310Napa, CA 94559 Phone: 707–253–4421; fax: 707–253–4176

Orleans Parish, Louisiana (484,674)Mayor’s Criminal Justice Councilc/o Office of the MayorOffice of Criminal Justice Coordination Room 8E15, City HallNew Orleans, LA 70112–2114 Phone 504–565–7100; fax: 504–565–7748

Palm Beach County, Florida (1,131,184)Palm Beach County Criminal Justice Commission301 N. Olive Avenue, Suite 1001West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone 561–355–4943; fax: 561–355–4941

Sacramento County, California (1,223,499) Criminal Justice Cabinet700 H Street, Room 7650Sacramento, CA 95814–1280 Phone: 916–874–5833; fax: 916–874–5885

San Mateo County, California (707,161)San Mateo County Criminal Justice Council610 Elm Street, #200San Carlos, CA 94070Phone: 650–802–4326; fax: 650–591–1772

Sarasota County, Florida (325,957)Sarasota County Public Safety Coordinating

Council1660 Ringling Boulevard, Second FloorSarasota, FL 34236Phone: 941–951–5249; fax: 941–954–4875

Tarrant County, Texas (1,446,219)Tarrant County Criminal Justice Planning Group100 E. Weatherford Street Fort Worth, TX 76196Phone 817–884–1734; fax: 817–884–1702

Wasco County, Oregon (23,791)Wasco County Community Corrections502 Washington Street, Suite 207The Dalles, OR 97058–2242 Phone: 541–296–9333; fax: 541–296–1739

Westchester County, New York (923,459)Westchester County Criminal Justice Advisory

Boardc/o Department of Probation112 E. Post Road, Third FloorWhite Plains, NY 10601Phone: 914–995–3569; fax: 914–995–6261

40

Juris

dict

ions

Men

tione

d in

Thi

s Gu

ide

A P P E N D I X B

Page 55: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

Free Technical Assistanceand TrainingThe following organizations currently provide freeonsite technical assistance.

National Institute of CorrectionsProvides federally funded, quick turnaround,short-term onsite technical assistance to state andlocal governments. Also provides federally fundedtraining at the NIC Academy in Longmont,Colorado, and elsewhere, and information servicesvia the NIC Information Center.

For information on services related to jail issues,contact—NIC Jails Division1960 Industrial Circle Longmont, CO 80501 Phone: 800–995–6429; fax: 303–682–0469

For information on services related to probation,parole, and community-based corrections, contact—NIC Community Corrections Division320 First Street NW Washington, DC 20534 Phone: 800–995–6423; fax: 202–307–3361Web address: www.nicic.org/about/divisions/

comm_corr.htm

Services: Available services are described in theannual service plan: Technical Assistance, Informa-tion and Training for Corrections Services Plan.This 37-page document and a separate trainingcalendar can be downloaded in PDF format atwww.nicic.org/pubs/admin.htm. A printed copycan be obtained from any NIC office. The service

plan includes instructions for requesting techni-cal assistance and training.

American Bar AssociationAmerican Bar Association/Bar Information

ProgramABA Standing Committee on Legal Aid and

Criminal Defendants 541 N. Fairbanks Court Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: 312–988–5765; fax: 312–988–5483 e-mail: [email protected]: Shubi Deoras

Services: Provides technical assistance andtraining to state and local governments interestedin improving defense services.

American University American University Criminal Courts Technical

Assistance ProjectAmerican University Justice Programs OfficeAmerican University Brandywine 1004400 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20016–8159 Phone: 202–885–2875; fax: 202–885–2885 e-mail: [email protected] address: www.american.edu/justiceContact: Joe Trotter

Services: American University, in partnershipwith the National Legal Aid and DefenderAssociation, the Pretrial Services ResourceCenter, and the Justice Management Institute,provides federally funded technical assistance toserve criminal courts and related adjudicationsystem agencies.

41

Other CJCC ResourcesA P P E N D I X C

Other CJCC Resources

Page 56: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

Additional Sources of TechnicalAssistanceCommunity Research Associates309 W. Clark Street Champaign, IL 61820 Phone: 217–398–3120; fax: 217–398–3132 e-mail: [email protected] address: www.community-research.com

Services: Provides federally funded onsite technicalassistance and training as a service of the U.S.Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance(BJA), State and Local Training and TechnicalAssistance Program. Requests must be madethrough state criminal justice planning agenciesto BJA.

Pretrial Services Resource Center1010 Vermont Avenue NW, Suite 300Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 202–638–3080; fax: 202–347–0493 e-mail: [email protected]

Services: Provides assistance concerning estab-lishing and/or strengthening pretrial servicesprograms. Also addresses jail crowding. Referencematerials available at no cost. Contractual onsitework available.

Sources of CurrentInformationThe following national organizations provide cur-rent information about sources of technical assis-tance helpful to CJCCs. Most also offer technicalassistance, training, and publications. Counterpartsmay be found at the state level.

General GovernmentInternational City/County Management

Association777 North Capitol Street NE, Suite 500Washington, DC 20002 Phone: 202–289–4262; fax: 202–962–3500Web address: www.icma.org

National Association of Counties440 First Street NW, 8th Floor Washington, DC 20001 Phone: 202–393–6226; fax: 202–393–2630Web address: www.naco.org

National League of Cities1301 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20004 Phone: 202–626–3000; fax: 202–626–3043Web address: www.nlc.org

Law Enforcement, Courts andCorrections National sources that offer technical assistance,training, and publications are listed below.Additional states offer counterparts.

American Bar AssociationCriminal Justice Section 740 15th Street NW Washington, DC 20005 e-mail: [email protected] address: www.abanet.org

For criminal justice section, see:www.abanet.org/crimjust/home.html.

For Juvenile Justice Center, see:www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/home.html.

American Correctional Association4380 Forbes Boulevard Lanham, MD 20706–4322 Phone: 800–222–5646 Web address: corrections.com/aca

American Jail Association2053 Day Road, Suite 100 Hagerstown, MD 21740 Phone: 301–790–3930; fax: 301–790–2941 e-mail: [email protected] address: www.corrections.com/aja

42

Othe

r CJC

C Re

sour

ces

A P P E N D I X C

Page 57: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

American Probation and Parole Associationc/o the Council of State Governments P.O. Box 11910Lexington, KY 40578–1910 Phone: 859–244–8203; fax: 859–244–8001 e-mail: [email protected] address: www.appa-net.org

International Association of Chiefs of Police515 N. Washington Street Alexandria, VA 22314–2357 Phone: 703–836–6767; fax: 703–836–4543 Web address: www.theiacp.org

International Community Corrections Association

P.O. Box 1987 La Crosse, WI 54602–1987 Phone: 608–785–0200; fax: 608–784–5335 e-mail: [email protected] address: www.iccaweb.org

National Association of Criminal Justice Planners

P.O. Box 11127 Washington, DC 20008 Phone: 202–347–0501 e-mail: [email protected]

National Center for State Courts300 Newport Avenue Williamsburg, VA 23185 Phone: 757–253–2000; fax: 757–220–0449Web address: www.ncsc.online.org

National District Attorneys Association90 Canal Center Plaza Alexandria, VA 22314 Phone: 703–549–9222; fax: 703–836–3195 Web address: www.ndaa.org

National Legal Aid and Defender Association1625 K Street NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20006–1604 Phone 202–452–0620; fax: 202–872–1031 e-mail: [email protected] address: www.nlada.org

National Sheriffs’ Association1450 Duke Street Alexandria, VA 22314–3490 Phone: 703–836–7827 Web address: www.sheriffs.org

For jail operations information, see:www.sheriffs.org/jail_op.htm.

Police Executive Research Forum1120 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 930Washington DC 20036 Phone: 202–466–7820; fax: 202–466–7826Web address: www.policeforum.org

Sources of Free PublicationsCorrections Connection Network159 Burgin Parkway Quincy, MA 02169 Phone: 617–471–4445; fax: 617–770–3339 Web address: www.corrections.com

National Criminal Justice Reference ServicePhone: 800–851–3420e-mail: [email protected] address: www.ncjrs.org

Services: Extensive information on criminal andjuvenile justice. This collection of clearinghousessupports all bureaus of the U.S. Department ofJustice, including the Office of Justice Programs,the National Institute of Justice, Office ofJuvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,Bureau of Justice Statistics, Bureau of JusticeAssistance, Office for Victims of Crime, andOffice of National Drug Control Policy.

National Institute of Corrections Information Center

1860 Industrial Circle, Suite A Longmont, CO 80501 Phone: 800–877–1461e-mail: [email protected]

Services: Publications; information brokerage;information search. Prisons, jails, probation,parole, community-based corrections.

43

Other CJCC ResourcesA P P E N D I X C

Page 58: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee
Page 59: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

The NeedThe administration and the city council havedetermined that the City of Denver needs todevelop a more coordinated, policy-drivenapproach to alleviate crowding in our jails.

Jail crowding is a complex and pressing problem.It needs high-level coordinated leadership andattention.

If we are to understand the causes of jail crowdingand develop a consensus for appropriate and cost-effective solutions, we need to learn more aboutthe interaction between the jails and the justicesystem, particularly between the jails and the jus-tice agencies that use the jail resource.

We also need to create new policy-orientedmechanisms that will position the justice leader-ship, officials of general government, and thepublic to work together more effectively so thatwe can move toward consensus concerning jailspace and related issues.

This action is being taken following considerationof a recommendation by consultants provided tothe Denver City Council by the National Instituteof Corrections (NIC) to “create an intergovern-mental, interagency mechanism which will effec-tively bring together the Administration, the CityCouncil, and the justice agency leadership” (seeSeptember 1997 NIC Report).

Creating the Denver JusticeSystem Task Force The mayor and president of the city councilhereby establish the Denver Justice System TaskForce. The members of this group are as follows:

• Mayor or designee.

• President of the city council or designee.

• Chair of the Public Safety Committee.

• Manager of safety.

• Police chief.

• Undersheriff.

• Presiding judge, county court.

• City attorney.

• Chief judge, Second Judicial District.

• District attorney.

• Metro Chamber of Commerce designee.

• Interneighborhood cooperation president.

The Denver Justice System Task Force’s chargeis to:

• Review and act upon the reports and recom-mendations of consultants provided by NIC,including the September 1997 and October1997 NIC Reports, which include a blueprintfor data collection and analysis.

45

Sample Charge: Charge to the Denver Justice System

Task ForceA P P E N D I X D

Sample Charge: Charge to theDenver Justice System Task Force

Page 60: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

• Direct and coordinate city and consultantresources to produce a clear and completeunderstanding of how jail space is currentlybeing used. The task force is expected to over-see an empirically based examination of jail bedutilization.

• Thereafter, and based upon this empirical infor-mation, the task force is expected to lead policydevelopment to guide current and future utiliza-tion of jail bed space and, where appropriate,the initiation and utilization of other correc-tional sanctions and options.

PrioritiesThe task force will focus priority attention onfour areas:

• The task force is expected to develop a thor-ough understanding of who is arrested and todetermine the number and characteristics ofarrested persons who are (a) detained in a pre-trial facility; or (b) cited with a promise toappear in court.

• The task force is expected to develop a robustunderstanding of (a) persons admitted to the

jails; (b) the characteristics of people releasedfrom the jails and their lengths of jail stay; and(c) a picture of how bed space is being utilized(jail population snap shot).

• The task force is expected to develop an under-standing of how cases are processed from arrestto final disposition, particularly of persons whoare spending time in the jail system.

• The task force is expected to develop recom-mendations about how Denver can better man-age its criminal justice population, includingissues related to optimal jail space for considera-tion by policymakers, the public, and criminaljustice agencies and stakeholders.

Schedule and ReportingThe task force will develop a detailed work plan and proposed schedule of milestones. Taskforce members are expected to attend monthlymeetings for 3 hours and to contribute agencyresources to necessary data collection and policyanalysis. The task force is expected to make peri-odic reports to the mayor, city council, justiceagency leadership, and the public.

46

Sam

ple

Char

ge: C

harg

e to

the

Denv

er J

ustic

e Sy

stem

Tas

k Fo

rce

A P P E N D I X D

Page 61: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

Article I: NameThe name of this Cabinet is the SacramentoCounty Criminal Justice Cabinet, and it will bereferred to as the Cabinet in the following bylaws.

Article II: AuthorityThe Sacramento County Board of Supervisorsand the Sacramento City Council established theCabinet in March 1992.

Article III: Purpose

Section A: Principal Mission The principal mission of the Cabinet is to studythe Sacramento County juvenile and criminaljustice system, identify deficiencies, and formulatepolicy, plans and programs for change when oppor-tunities present themselves. In addition, its mis-sion is to communicate and present planning,financial, operational, managerial, and program-matic recommendations to the agencies repre-sented on the Cabinet.

The Cabinet is committed to providing the coor-dinated leadership necessary to establish cohesivepublic policies which are based on research, evalu-ation and monitoring of policy decisions and pro-gram implementations. The Cabinet is committedto innovative corrections programs for adult and

juvenile offenders. Through a coordinated planningeffort the Cabinet reviews, evaluates and makespolicy recommendations on vital criminal justicesystem issues.

Section B: Guiding Principle The Cabinet is committed to serve as the plan-ning body for the Criminal and Juvenile JusticeSystem in Sacramento County.

Section C: Recommendations to Boardof Supervisors The Cabinet can make recommendations to pub-lic policy boards regarding juvenile and criminaljustice system issues.

Article IV: Members

Section A: Membership by Position There are sixteen voting members of the Cabinetwho are members due to the position they hold.These sixteen members serve on the Cabinet foras long as they occupy the position:

• Presiding Judge, Superior Court of California,County of Sacramento

• Presiding Judge, Juvenile Court, Superior Courtof California, County of Sacramento

47

Sample Bylaw

s: County of Sacramento Crim

inal Justice Cabinet, May 1999

A P P E N D I X E

Sample Bylaws: County ofSacramento Criminal JusticeCabinet, May 1999

Page 62: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

• Sheriff

• District Attorney

• Public Defender

• Chief Probation Officer

• Mayor, City of Sacramento

• Mayor, City of Citrus Heights

• Chief of Police, City of Sacramento

• County Executive

• Sacramento City Manager

• Administrator, Public Protection and HumanAssistance Agency

• Director, Department of Health and HumanServices

• Director, Department of Human Assistance

• Director, Department of Medical Systems

• County Superintendent of Schools

Section B: Representative Members There are three voting members of the Cabinetwho serve as representatives from the respectivegoverning bodies on which they serve or of whichthey are a member. The governing body whichthey represent determines who will serve on theCabinet and the length of time.

• Member, Board of Supervisors

• Representative from Cities of Folsom, Isleton,Galt

• Judge, Superior Court of California, County ofSacramento

Section C: Ex Officio Members Members of the Sacramento legislative delegationare non-voting members of the Cabinet.

Article V: Meetings

Section A: Regular Meetings The Cabinet meets on the second Thursday ofJuly, September, November, January, March andMay beginning at 8:00 a.m.

Section B: Designees Cabinet members may designate one chief staffperson to represent them and vote at Cabinetmeetings. Any member wishing to appoint adesignee is to identify the designee in writtencorrespondence addressed to the Chair of theCabinet. Designees can be changed only by noti-fying the Chair in writing.

Section C: Alternate The Sacramento County Board of Supervisorsnames a representative and alternate to serveas Cabinet members. The representative mayappoint a designee as described in Article V,Section B, to represent the Board of Supervisorswhen neither the representative nor alternate isavailable to attend.

Section D: Quorum A quorum is no less than a simple majority of thetotal membership. Designees cannot be countedwhen determining a quorum. Action may betaken by a majority of those present voting andby not less than a majority of the quorum.

Section E: Convening SpecialMeetings The Chair of the Cabinet may convene a specialmeeting. Written notice must be served at least48 hours in advance. Only items included in thewritten notice may be discussed or considered.

48

Sam

ple

Byla

ws:

Cou

nty

of S

acra

men

to C

rimin

al J

ustic

e Ca

bine

t, M

ay 1

999

A P P E N D I X E

Page 63: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

Section F: Staff Support Staff support is provided by the Public Protectionand Human Assistance Agency to a maximum of1.5 positions. Costs for such support are sharedequally by the members of the ExecutiveCommittee.

Article VI: ChairThe Chair of the Cabinet is the PresidingJudge, Superior Court of California, County ofSacramento. In instances when the Chair cannotattend a meeting, one of the other two judicialofficers serving on the Cabinet will preside overthe meeting as designated by the Presiding Judge.

Article VII: VotingEach Cabinet member has one vote. Designeesmay vote on behalf of a member if they havebeen identified by the member in written corre-spondence addressed to the Chair.

Article VIII: Committees

Section A: Purpose To expedite and facilitate the business of theCabinet and the orderly and efficient considera-tion of matters coming before it, the followingstanding committees are established.

Section B: Executive Committee The Executive Committee is to provide leader-ship in the planning and implementation of theCabinet goals by:

• Designating existing structures or creating newstructures for the achievement of the Cabinetgoals.

• Reviewing implementation plans, timetablesand costs and reporting with recommendationson such matters to the Cabinet.

• Reviewing requests made for resources, develop-ing alternatives when appropriate, and makingrecommendations to the Cabinet for respondingto such requests.

• Reviewing and making recommendationsregarding other matters delegated to it by theCabinet.

• Planning the agenda of the Cabinet meetings.

Membership

• Presiding Judge, Superior Court of California,County of Sacramento (Chair)

• Presiding Judge, Juvenile Court, Superior Courtof California, County of Sacramento

• Judge, Superior Court of California, County ofSacramento

• Sheriff

• District Attorney

• Public Defender

• Chief Probation Officer

• County Executive

• Chief of Police, City of Sacramento

• Director, Department of Health and HumanServices

Meetings

The Executive Committee meets on the secondThursday of August, October, December, February,April and June beginning at 8:00 a.m. Article V,Sections B and C, regarding designees and quorumapply to the Executive Committee meetings.

Section C: Adult Facility Planning and Operations Committee

49

Sample Bylaw

s: County of Sacramento Crim

inal Justice Cabinet, May 1999

A P P E N D I X E

Page 64: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

Section D: Juvenile Institutions,Programs and Court Committee

Section E: IntermediatePunishments Committee

Section F: Streamlining CriminalProsecution and Court OperationsCommittee

Section G: Information ExchangeCommittee (automation)(Note: The text details the mission and committeememberships of Sections C through G. These arelengthy and, therefore, are not included here.)

Article IX: ParliamentaryAuthorityRobert’s Rules of Order, revised, governs allCabinet meetings except in instances of conflictbetween the rules of order and the bylaws of theCabinet or provision of law.

Article X: Amendment ofBylawsProposed amendments to the bylaws are to beincluded on the agenda of a regularly scheduledExecutive Committee meeting. If approved by theExecutive Committee, the proposal will be for-warded to the Cabinet at a regularly scheduledmeeting for approval. Any action in response tothe proposed change in the bylaws taken by theCabinet becomes effective immediately.

50

Sam

ple

Byla

ws:

Cou

nty

of S

acra

men

to C

rimin

al J

ustic

e Ca

bine

t, M

ay 1

999

A P P E N D I X E

Page 65: Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee

U.S. Department of Justice

National Institute of Corrections

Washington, DC 20534