1. “Dying to be Heard” Module One: Developing Effective Recommendations
For Domestic Violence
Fatality Review Teams
The goal of domestic violence fatality review is to strengthen systemic responses by conducting focused, multidisciplinary examinations into the circumstances surrounding a fatal incident for insight into how future deaths may be prevented.
This is achieved through recommendations for systems enhancements to improve domestic violence
investigation, intervention, and prevention. Poorly developed recommendations will only hamper what it is you’re trying to achieve.
Developing effective recommendations requires some know-how and practical guidance.
This presentation is designed to help you make your recommendations as effective and useful as possible.

2. The Purpose of Recommendations
Achieve change
Define the actions that need to be taken
Provide a framework for dialogue
Without effective recommendations, you have reduced chances of achieving change.
Effective recommendations help you define and prioritize the actions that need to be taken to enhance the system’s response.
Effective recommendations make a constructive contribution to problem-solving and provide meaningful
opportunities for dialogue with decision-makers within systems.
6/23/2018

3. The Double-SMART Model
Specific
Measurable
Achievable
Results-oriented
Time-bound +
The quality of your recommendations can be assessed against the following ten inter-related and mutually reinforcing criteria, which is called the Double-SMART model. We’re going to go through these criteria one by one.
6/23/2018

4. The Double-SMART Model
Solution-oriented
Mindfulness
Argued
Responsive
Targeted
6/23/2018

5. Specific
Each recommendation should address one specific problem or issue
Specific—Each recommendation should address one specific issue ONLY, although you can feel free to propose one or more specific actions to be taken as long as they are clearly defined and separated using bullet or number points. This will assist people in the system in understanding and implementing the recommendations as well as facilitate follow-up by monitoring bodies.
Checkpoints:
Does the recommendation address one specific topic or issue?
Are individual action points clearly differentiated within the recommendation?
Are all the proposed actions directly related to the subject of the recommendation?
6/23/2018

6. Measurable
Each recommendation should be developed so that the Team can assess unequivocally whether or not and to what extent the recommendation has been implemented
Measurable—People in the system and monitoring bodies should be able to assess unequivocally whether or not and to what extent a recommendation has been implemented. The recommendation should be designed in such a way as to make the evaluation as easy as possible. It’s also good to include an introductory sentence or two that outlines the current level of the problem, establishing a baseline or snapshot for future comparison.
Checkpoints:
Does the body of the recommendation establish the current situation with clarity?
Does the recommendation include or imply an indicator for follow-up?
Would a different or modified indicator be easier to verify in future?
To what extent will the evidence given by the indicator be irrefutable?
6/23/2018

7. Achievable
The implementation of the recommendation should be possible in practical terms
Achievable—Any recommendation should seek to be realistic and reasonable. It is the responsibility of the system to find and assign the resources to do it. Alternative or additional actions that might produce the desired results more easily or reinforce the results should be considered.
Checkpoints:
Is the implementation of this recommendation possible in practical terms?
Are there alternative or complementary actions that could be recommended?
Which options will meet least resistance in addressing the situation?
Weigh ease of implementation. Is it feasible in operative terms? Is it based on financial resource availability? Is it reasonable? Are there alternative resources that could be used to a lesser extent?
6/23/2018

8. Results-oriented
A recommendation identifies the actions required for the desired end-result
Results-oriented—The actions suggested in the recommendation should be designed
to lead to a desired outcome. This desired result may be implicit in the recommendation or concretely defined.
Checkpoint:
Does the recommendation identify the desired outcome for the future and/or
concrete actions to that end rather than merely describing the problem and calling for
change?
Are the action steps concrete?
Will they bring about the desired change?
6/23/2018

9. Time-bound
A recommendation should include a realistic time-frame for implementation
Time-bound—Including a realistic time-frame for implementation assists the authorities in prioritizing their response, increases pressure for action and enhances accountability. Timing may be
expressed in terms of months or years or for “immediate” implementation. Alternatively, a
short-, medium- and long- term framework may be employed but there should be mutual
clarity over what each implies in numerical terms.
Checkpoints:
Does the recommendation identify by when implementation should be initiated and/or
completed?
Is the time-frame sufficiently short to create pressure for change but sufficiently long
to take genuine time requirements for implementation into account?
Are there time requirements? Is there a need for urgency? Will the change take months or years?
6/23/2018

10. Solution-oriented
A recommendation proposes credible solutions backed by concrete actions
Solution-oriented—Recommendations that simply call for ‘change’ or ‘improvement’ will require further study by the systems before a solution can be identified, let alone implemented. This reduces
significantly the strategic possibilities for achieving concrete results. Wherever possible, try not just to identify problems but also to propose credible solutions. Recommended actions should be concrete and concise but include the relevant details to avoid mis-implementation.
Checkpoints:
Does the recommendation identify concrete actions that should help overcome the problem
identified?
Is there a need to include technical elements or change the phrasing in order to avoid
misinterpretation or erroneous implementation?
Does the recommendation simply call for change or improvement, or does it lay out concrete and concise actions?
Should certain recommendations be omitted in order for prospective implementers to focus on more urgent ones?
Is the recommendation dependent on the implementation of others?
6/23/2018

11. Mindfulness
A recommendation should take prioritization and risks into consideration
Mindfulness—Be mindful that your team may identify many issues that require action. As monitoring of the status of recommendations is an ongoing process, reserving less pressing recommendations may be useful in enabling the implementing systems to focus on more urgent ones. Also be mindful of any risks that may potentially arise from implementation in terms of a negative impact. Unforeseen negative consequences of implementation will discredit both the preventive initiative of your team and the implementing systems.
Checkpoints:
Are some recommendations in the report so important that they should be made a priority?
Would it be better to omit certain recommendations in order to get the systems to
focus on fewer, more urgent ones?
Is the implementation of some recommendations dependent on the implementation of
others first?
Could the implementation of any specific actions have a negative impact?
6/23/2018

12. Argued
A recommendation should be based on high-quality objective evidence and analysis
Argued--Recommendations should be based on high quality objective evidence and analysis
gathered during the fatality reviews. The systems’ relevant institutional standards, professional code of conduct, and best practices should be clearly outlined and applied, when necessary. This information gives credibility, assists teams in defending their position, and justifies why the recommendation should be implemented.
Check-points:
Is the recommendation based on objective, verified and quality evidence?
Do the recommendations directly relate to the cases reviewed and the findings?
Does the analysis identify the relevant legal, professional and best practice
justifications for the recommendation?
Does the justification lead logically and persuasively to the related recommendation?
6/23/2018

13. Responsive
A recommendation should mitigate an identified problem and not the symptoms of the problem
Responsive—Does the recommendation identify the root cause(s) of the problem (i.e. the systems and
processes that need to be put in place or modified to mitigate the problem) rather than merely the symptoms of the problem? It should mitigate risk factors.
Checkpoints:
Do the actions proposed in the recommendation address directly the causes rather
than the symptoms?
If the root causes remain unidentified, is there another route for actions to be applied?
6/23/2018

14. Targeted
A recommendation should be directed to particular institutions that can legally and practically implement it
Targeted—Be mindful of institutional protocols and hierarchies. Does the recommendation target the system and proper authorities that can legally and practically implement the recommendation?
Checkpoints:
Which specific person or people in the organizational hierarchy are most able to implement the recommendation in practice?
6/23/2018

15. In Conclusion
The Double – SMART model is a framework for analysis and review of your recommendations to make them more effective
6/23/2018

16. For more information khartz@mnadv.org 301.352-4574
Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence
Karen Hartz, Project Manager
6/23/2018