+ Engagement

The justice system is comprised of multiple stakeholders including judges, court administrators, defense and prosecuting attorneys, law enforcement, and probation. Survivors of crime and persons impacted by it, as well as the clients within the criminal and juvenile justice system and their families, all have a stake and say. There are multiple systems that play a big part in responding to, and addressing the antecedents of crime. These include state and county administrative leaders, education systems, behavioral health and healthcare systems, social service and child welfare agencies, community based non-profit and other social service agencies, and employment and housing entities.

Engagement is based on the value that people working together can find common space and agreed upon goals that maximize partnership, synergy and the coordinated use of resources.

JustSolve works within existing coordinating committees, and can assist a locality in developing an oversight structure to guide system improvements in an accountable, lean, effective and inclusive manner.

+ Exploration

JustSolve operates according to the premise that even the best-run county systems must commit to addressing inequities, inefficiencies, and an underdeveloped use of less restrictive and costly resources.

This requires that the county look at the entire system, since each component of the system is interrelated. A systemic perspective will often begin with a large portrait. Aggregate data is obtained that ascertains the various contact points throughout the criminal justice process, from initial police contact through incarceration, broken down by race, ethnicity, gender, geography and offense. This is the first step of a diagnostic process that will later assist in determining what systemic or programmatic intervention improvements could be applied to reduce unnecessary delays, inefficiencies and/or prevent failures that lead to incarceration. Interventions can involve the juvenile detention facilities and jails, probation departments, and other agencies that affect these trajectories. Through this data-driven process, counties can effectively intervene to solve problems.

Policy makers and leaders often have “hunches” about the causes of problems. Sometimes these hunches are correct, but in most instances they may only be partially correct or altogether incorrect. When policy and practice choices are based on hunches or anecdotes, the results can be costly, ineffective, and even harmful.

Hunches are best used as a starting point. Subject experts can often develop hypotheses to assist in identifying problem areas and potential causes. These hunches or hypotheses can be triangulated by using additional qualitative and quantitative data to confirm and better understand problems, causal factors, and potential solutions.

+ Examination

Exploration is akin to an open process of identifying patterns, trends, and anomalies that point to areas needing system improvement. By contrast, examination is the process of intentionally narrowing and deepening the focus to learn more about these patterns. Program and system improvements are premised on the understanding that at each stage of the justice process (ie: arrest; diversion; pretrial or pre-adjudication; sentencing or court disposition; and community supervision) discretionary decisions are made and programs are implemented that greatly influence system outcomes.

By disaggregating data at each system decision and process point, problems to be addressed and successes to be championed are illuminated. For example, a county may be concerned about probation failures that lead to jail sentences. A study of probation failures will help understand the scale of the problem and will ultimately lead to solutions that will promote probation success and reduce jail confinement. The solution may also involve other county services, such as behavioral health treatment systems. Another key component is to disaggregate by race, ethnicity, gender and geography in order to understand impacts and inequities in the system that lead to solutions that make a more just and equitable system.

The examination phase is designed to accomplish three goals: Provide a data-driven portrait of system utilization in areas of inquiry, based on a snapshot or specific period of data. This baseline data can be drawn from reports on population, court processing, probation, or other spaces relevant to the areas of inquiry.

The examination process is most often a layered approach that starts with a broad focus on data in large aggregate form, and then moves to drilling down on salient areas. This disaggregation process helps the team learn more about the particular factors that are contributing to the system issues. As the analysis reveals trends or patterns, teams can discuss the data, identify issues that are contributing to system problems, and generate new questions to be explored. It is important to resist making conclusive findings about the source of problems prematurely. While drilling down on the data can be tedious, it is far more costly and wasteful to make bad policy decisions based on incomplete or inaccurate data.

The examination phase is where many systems feel they lack the internal systems to gather, analyze and interpret the data. JustSolve can assist counties in illuminating and crystalizing improvement opportunities.

+ Envision

Following examination and analysis of the current state and baseline data, solutions can be designed. The process of drilling down on the data will not only naturally illuminate what is happening, but also what may be done to address other problem areas. Teams typically meet and review the data together to discuss potential solutions. Solutions are essentially hypotheses about how certain system changes or particular program interventions will address problem areas. These solutions can come in the form of innovations that are homegrown by the local stakeholders, or existing practices or evidence-based programs that have been tested in other jurisdictions to great effect.

Emphasis should be placed on areas that will have the greatest impact, usually in the form of practice changes in system flow or operation. Implementing programs to change offender behavior are important and potentially impactful, but they are often costly. Conversely, system changes often require little or no cost and can produce dramatic results. The envisioning should conclude with decisions about the course of action that will be taken to address problems, and tested to assure it indeed solves the problem.

This envisioning phase is more than just determining a systemic or programmatic solution. It includes developing a plan that:

• Has consensus and agreement so the solution will be implemented
• Establishes the policy decisions and protocols that will be necessary to successfully implement the program
• Identifies funds and resources that will be obtained through outside funding streams, reallocation, cost avoidance, or other means
• Identifies staffing, training and material needs

+ Execution

Execution is simply the process of implementing policy or practice changes that are identified through the exploration and envisioning phases. It is important that special attention is paid to implementation. A good program or idea will fail if not properly implemented. If implementation is not closely monitored, an inaccurate assumption can be made that the practice or program solution was the wrong one, when in fact, if implemented properly, would be the right solution. Often premature assessments are made showing that programs and solutions are a failure. Resistance to change is a normal part of the process when implementing new ways of working that run counter to prevailing culture and practice. But with steadfast leadership and management solutions, a proper trial will emerge to determine efficacy.

+ Evaluation

The data portraits that are developed before the execution process provide a baseline from which system change can be measured. It is very powerful and motivating to see the results and the change that is produced through the system improvement effort.

Ongoing evaluation will provide the dashboard or report card that shows whether or not the executed solutions were impactful. If they are not impactful, new hypotheses can be formed as to what will solve problems, and new approaches can be applied and tested. If the solutions were impactful, as is often the case, evaluation will show positive results and opportunities to continuously improve and refine system practices and solutions.

+ Evolution

The 7 E’s model is based on the same principles and processes that have been shown to work when creating system change. The model outlines the sequential steps of the process with continuous improvement as the crucial link among all the steps. Embedding continuous improvement processes into a system allows for it to continue to adjust and evolve based on evaluation findings.

The data-driven process is iterative and represents a continuous improvement cycle. Although the process is sequenced, several steps can and will be repeated. For example, engagement is an ongoing participation process that continues throughout each phase of the work, and evaluation is a continued examination process after execution and implementation.

Drawing from the 7 E’s system change model, JustSolve will assist jurisdictions and communities in identifying the problems within their systems, and develop cost effective solutions that promise the greatest impact. Jurisdictions will not only be left with improved capacity to continue data-driven approaches, but with new, emerging innovations that can be exported to other jurisdictions grappling with similar problems.