1. Comprehensive Program Review - CJI -
Crime and Justice Institute at Community Resources for Justice
Comprehensive Program Review - CJI -
February 17, 2012
Round III

2. CRJ Strategic Planning Goals
Excellence
Innovation
Workforce and Workplace
Customer Delight
Growth
Overview of how the presentation is laid out 2

3. SP Goal #1: Excellence Project Close Out
Designed to address the administrative aspects of closing out each project, and to ensure the knowledge, experience and information gained from each project experience carries forward
At the close of each project the project lead fills out the Project Closeout Form that covers all administrative aspects of the project from the funding source, to award info, and “lessons learned”
This process also includes a client satisfaction survey that is ed out to our clients at the end of the project. The results of the surveys are included in the project closeout to expand the “lessons learned”.
Since it’s roll-out in November, 3 PCFs have been completed 3

4. SP Goal #1: Excellence Human Subjects Training
CJI does research with human subjects (e.g., survey, focus group/interview participants, case file reviews, etc)
Committees charged with protecting the rights and welfare of human subjects are called “Institutional Review Boards” (IRBs)
IRB approval is needed for some research
Historically, IRB approval was compartmentalized by project and sought as needed; recently, the training piece has become a mandate
A sub-committee was designated to develop a process aimed at ensuring staff knowledge and access to resources
Human Subjects training. 4

5. SP Goal #2: Innovation
Pretrial Work
Studying pretrial populations as a jail management strategy
Relevancy in CA as the state faces policy-driven realignment
Public Welfare Foundation
Component of funding is to build CJI capacity to fill gap in technical assistance services available
Evaluation Work
CS Collaborative
SJS Collaborative
Cost-Benefit Analysis
In an effort to manage local jail populations, many jurisdictions are looking more critically their pretrial decision making and who they are sending to jail
This is especially true in California, where recent legislative changes are shifting offenders from state prison to local supervision
There is a lack of technical assistance to the field on this topic, so the Public Welfare Foundation has asked CJI to build its capacity to be a pretrial technical assistance provider, first in California and then nationally.
We will be working to build our topic knowledge and reach out to a network of advisors, and then we will begin work with pilot technical assistance sites 5

6. SP Goal #3: Customer Delight
Samples of Unsolicited Feedback:
“It has been great working with you.  I love how passionate you are about our work and our community”
- JRI Alachua County Site
“We would like to thank you for your hard work on making the CA Statewide Probation Work Session a great success. We look forward to continue working with you to help make our communities a safer place.”
–Chief Probation Officers of California
“I want to thank you again for your informative presentation.”
- A Coming Home Directory Agency 6

7. Percent Rating “Very Good” or “Excellent” (N=5)
SP Goal #3: Customer Delight
Excerpt from Client Satisfaction Survey
Pew PSPP: South Carolina
Percent Rating “Very Good” or “Excellent” (N=5)
Surveys Sent
No. of Responses
Response Rate 30 5
17%
“Kristy was always well-prepared for our meetings and facilitated those meetings very professionally. I hope that I have the opportunity to work with her again.” 7

8. SP Goal #4: Workforce and Workplace
CJI In-Service Training Evaluation, November 11, 2011
Percent Rating “Very Good” or “Excellent” (N=12)
Efforts Implemented:
Expansion of tools to support virtual office
Orientation Program & E-Resource Library
In-service Trainings
w/ evaluations for CQI
Conference/Training Application Process
Cost-Benefit Analysis Competency
Internal Organizational Assessment
Expansion includes recruiting WebEx and Outlook calendar 8

9. Likert Survey of Organizational Climate CJI Administration, October 2011
Purpose: Determine our ability to meet tomorrows demands
Survey was anonymous
Management defined as Divisional Leadership Team
Survey distributed to all staff and encouraged to complete
15 of 17 staff completed survey (88% response rate)
20-point scale, continuum of management styles
Lower scores are indicative of a hierarchical/ authoritative management structure
Higher scores are indicative of a participative style of management
Gap score calculations
Smaller gap scores indicate areas of strength
Overall, larger gap scores can be used to prioritize needs
Describe categories of questions (leadership, motivation, control, etc)

10. Likert Mapping - Motivation
SYSTEM 1
SYSTEM 2
SYSTEM 3
SYSTEM 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
(4) How often are rewards and involvement used as motivational tools with staff?
Seldom
Sometimes
Often
Very frequently X
(5.40)  O
(5) Where is responsibility felt for achieving organizational goals?
Mostly at top
Top and middle
Fairly general
At all levels X 
 (6.33)
(6) How much cooperative teamwork exists?
Very Little
Relatively little
Moderate amount
A great Deal
 (2.27) 
(7) How much does your involvement in decision-making contribute to your motivation?
Not very much
A great deal
 (3.27) 
This category had both organizational priorities and organizational strengths in it.
X=Average (mean) score for current situation.
O=Average (mean) score for ideal situation.
(#.##)=Gap size (O-X).
Top three organizational strengths
Top three organizational priorities

11. Likert Mapping – Goals SYSTEM 1 SYSTEM 2 SYSTEM 3 SYSTEM 4 1 2 3 4 5 6
SYSTEM 1
SYSTEM 2
SYSTEM 3
SYSTEM 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
 (15) How are organizational goals established?
Orders issued
Orders, some comments invited
After discussion, by orders
By group action (except in crisis)  X
(4.47)  O
 (16) How much covert resistance is there to the goal of implementing evidence-based practices?
Strong resistance
Moderate resistance
Some resistance at times
Little or none
X O
(.27)
X=Average (mean) score for current work environment
O=Average (mean) score for ideal work environment
(#.##)=Gap size (O-X).
Top three organizational strengths
Top three organizational priorities

12. Likert Survey – Summary of Findings
Current climate is consultative or participative
Staff are indicating a desire to have more:
Rewards and motivation
Responsibility for organizational goals
Involvement in establishing organizational goals
Staff believe a great deal of cooperative teamwork exists and accurately communicate to management
Implications of Findings
Implications: we are using the information to inform workforce needs

13. SP Goal #5: Growth Organizing Business Development: RFP search process
Systematic search of sources/sites to which CJI would like to expand (inc. federal, states, counties, cities, foundations)
Started the new search process in December 2011
7 assistant & associate-level staff conducting regular searches
Implemented criteria, key-word search suggestions, and a vetting form that staff submit to their managing associate that summarizes any RFPs they think are worthy to pursue
So far, we have vetted over 10 RFPs and are pursing at least of them
More RFPs are being examined and it will help us to expand into different content areas and jurisdictions 13

14. SP Goal #5: Growth Other Mechanisms that support CRJ and CJI:
Types of Projects:
National and Local
Sustained Impact
Trainings
Websites
“Re-newable” Contracts
5 potential
3 awarded, 2 pending 14

15. PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS

16. Project Highlights: GA Policy Work
Partnership with the Pew Center on the States- Public Safety Performance Project (PSPP)
Governor of GA asked for assistance and established the Criminal Justice Reform Council
Council issued report with 23 recommendations for potential changes to the system focused on nonviolent crimes
Legislation currently being finalized
Successful process in SC and AK 16

17. Project Highlights: Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI)
JRI is a strategic and data-driven process to help jurisdictions assess their systems and implement policy options aimed at reducing reliance on incarceration that will ultimately lead to cost savings
The strategy calls for greater use of evidence-based practices aimed at addressing the underlying causes of crime

18. CJI Map with JRI Locations
Phase I: Policy Development
Intensive, on-site technical assistance to engage leaders and key stakeholders, conduct a comprehensive analysis of criminal justice data, and identify strategies to reduce costs and increase public safety
Phase II: Implementation Support
Targeted technical assistance and funding to support the implementation of justice reinvestment strategies
Sites are eligible to apply for Phase II support upon successful completion of Phase I 18

19. Justice Reinvestment Organizational Chart
Meghan Guevara
Project Director
Project Assistant
Kristen Nielse n
Research Director
Kristin Bechtel
NYC, Lane,
Mike Kane
SC, SF, Yolo
Sarah Savage
Cost Analysis
Projections &
Mike Wilson
Research Assistant
Jesse Revicki
TA Director. Allegheny
Zach Dal Pra
SC, SF, Lane
Peter Ozanne
Lisa Brooks
NYC
Michelle Webster
Johnson
Barbara Pierce
Alachua
Judy Sachwald
Yolo
Cross-Site Support
Kristy Danford
Vacant Associate
George Keiser, Policy Support
Len Engel, Policy Support

20. 4) Support jurisdictions in implementation of policies and practices
Components of JRI
Interagency strategic planning: a collaborative of decision-makers from public safety partner agencies is the driving force
Collection/analysis of Criminal Justice system data: developing jail population projections and identifying correctional drivers is used to challenge anecdotal evidence
1) Identify correctional drivers and project jail population if nothing changes
2) Identify opportunities for reducing reliance on incarceration (e.g., long stays for minor offenses or low risk offenders)
3) Develop strategies to help jurisdictions modify policies and practices
4) Support jurisdictions in implementation of policies and practices
PHASE I
PHASE II

21. Development of Alternative Strategies
Correctional drivers are used to prioritize strategies and research and other jurisdictional practices inform implementation.
Examples include:
Implementing an objective pretrial risk assessment and expanding community-based pretrial supervision
Implementing a risk and needs assessment for community supervision to target interventions where they are most needed
Adopting a continuum of graduated responses to probation violations

22. Document Costs and Potential Savings
As policy reforms are considered, quantify their potential impact
Cost savings through reduction in incarceration
Reinvestment in community supervision, interventions, etc.
Consider short-term savings in marginal costs and long-term savings in capital costs
Develop a plan to measure actual impact upon implementation

23. Moving Forward

24. CJI Moving Forward Strategic Planning Retreat – March 29th
Progress/goals of FY ‘12 to feed into FY ’13
Budget planning over next three years
Commitment to supporting continuous quality improvement with internal processes

25. CRIME AND JUSTICE INSTITUTE
COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM REVIEW
FEBRUARY 17TH 2012

26. STAFFING Turnover 2/1/11 – 1/31/12 Overdue Performance Evaluations
JULY 3 PT 2 FT
AUGUST 2 PT 3 FT
SEPTEMBER 1 PT 4 FT
OCTOBER 1 PT 4 FT
NOVEMBER 1 PT 6 FT
DECEMBER 0 PT 7 FT
The part-time employees listed are interns, who do not receive formal performance appraisals due to their short-term employment (typically 1 semester = 6 months or less, occasionally 1 full school year)
We have 2 part-time interns – the 3rd listed became inactive in May 2011, and will be terminated as of 12/31/11.
Last CPR Turnover:
CJI: 18.8%
CRJ: 23.4%

27. REVENUE ACTUAL VS. BUDGET VARIANCE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. NOV. DEC.
FAVORABLE/(UNFAVORABLE)
JULY-DECEMBER 2011
JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. NOV. DEC.
FYTD: $(443,387)
At the time of the last CPR, the FYTD was $(207,336)
Numbers obtained from FMRs

28. REVENUE - EXPENSES ACTUAL VS. BUDGET VARIANCE
FAVORABLE/(UNFAVORABLE)
JULY-DECEMBER 2011
JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. NOV. DEC.
FYTD: $(6,189)
At the time of the last CPR, the FYTD was $10,053
Numbers obtained from FMRs

29. GROSS EARNINGS & WAGES ACTUAL VS. BUDGET VARIANCE FYTD: $34,739
FAVORABLE/(UNFAVORABLE)
JULY-DECEMBER 2011
FYTD: $34,739
At the time of the last CPR, the FYTD was $11,740
Numbers obtained from FMRs