Technical Assistance # 13C1044

Transcription

1 Technical Assistance # 13C1044 Orange County, Florida July 31 August 01, 2013 Prepared by: Gary E. Christensen, Ph.D. President Corrections Partners, Inc.

2 2

3 3 Table of Contents Technical Assistance Request - NIC Overview 4 Pre-visit Planning, Discussion, and Analyses 5 Orange County Stakeholders Interviewed and/or in Attendance 11 Onsite Agenda/Interview Schedule 12 Orange County Community Corrections Offender Trends by Unit - Information Obtained Onsite via Interview 13 Individual Interviews on site July 31-August 1, 2013 Policy-Level, System Stakeholders 21 Observations, Recommendations, and Summary 23 Appendix A Sample QA CCD Audit Schedule Appendix B Proxy Implementation Documents Appendix C - Power Point Onsite Facilitation/Planning Slides Appendix D National Perspective Reentry and Jail Transition - The Transition from Jail to the Community Model

4 4 REQUEST FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE NIC OVERVIEW Technical Assistance Report Technical Assistance (TA) # 13C1044 Gary E. Christensen, Ph. D. On behalf of Chief Michael A. Tidwell, Dr. Cindy Boyles of the Orange County Community Corrections Division (CCD), submitted a written request for technical assistance to the Community Services Division of the National Institute of Corrections. This request was confirmed by Chief Jim Cosby of the NIC Community Services Division in April Subsequent to the approval of this request, through a series of discussions with Dr. Boyles, Juanita Beason, and Robbye Braxton-Mintz (NIC Correctional Program Specialist - Community Services Division), the undersigned agreed to provide technical assistance for the CCD in Orlando, Florida on July 31 and August 1, This technical assistance was designed to evaluate the practices of the CCD in the context of known best practices or evidence based policy and practice (EBP). The current technical assistance included pre-visit interviews and review of supplied documents, policies, and data followed by pre-visit electronic exchange of information and questions designed to facilitate discussion onsite. The entirety of this pre-visit exchange was intended to accommodate jurisdiction specific dialogue in the context of EBP and result in an onsite agenda that facilitated meaningful evaluation of current CCD practices and further informed discussion relative to possible implementation of evidence-based policy and practice.

5 5 Pre-visit Planning, Discussion, and Analyses Subsequent to the approval of this project, a series of telephone calls and s were exchanged between Dr. Christensen, Dr. Boyles, and Juanita Beason to coordinate and plan on-site technical assistance and gain a common understanding of its purpose, proposed consultation strategies, and intended outcomes. To assist the undersigned to understand and analyze the CCD, the following information was provided by Dr. Boyles previous to the site visit. This information was reviewed in its entirety and provided the basis for pre-visit site planning, analysis, and preparation. It is also important to note that this technical assistance was prompted, at least in part, by a murder allegedly committed by an Orange County defendant while assigned to the CCD Home Confinement Unit on electronic monitoring. As with any local criminal justice outcome, there are many factors and criminal justice system stakeholders both within and outside of the CCD who contributed to this horrible outcome; however, comprehensive analysis of this incident is beyond the scope of this technical assistance.

6 6 Pertinent to this technical assistance however, is the fact that as a result of this incident the CCD Home Confinement Program was suspended initially by the Mayor s Office. Despite the obvious implications and liabilities related to the aforementioned incident, to its credit, the CCD has chosen to use this incident as impetus for an overarching review of its procedures. It also must be noted that, prior to the incident cited above, changes had begun to enhance quality assurance and consistency of practice throughout the CCD (Sample QA CCD Audit Schedule included in Appendix A). Subsequent to review of all of the information provided by the CCD, yet still prior to the site-visit, the undersigned shared with CCD leaders (identified by Dr. Boyles) information inclusive of the tenets of evidence-based policy and practice, system decision making, and best practice offender transition and reentry strategies. This information was intended to give foundation for possible actions and system changes; while insuring jurisdiction-specific understanding of current practices within the CCD. To further facilitate the best possible use of face-to-face, onsite visit time, the undersigned developed pre-visit questions specific to each of the CCD units to begin virtual dialogue with the leadership of each of the units. The questions and responses of each of the units are provided below. Additional discussion, still prior to the site visit, built on CCD leadership responses to offer context for the proposed site visit agenda utilizing foundational EBP materials.

7 7 CIU Responses There isn t exchange of information with the jail facility or other provider, agency, etc. regarding transition/reentry issues, risk factors, criminogenic need, etc. as only a handful of offenders are released directly from jail to begin their CCD Supervision. Risk to reoffend does not play any part in the first report or assignment to the Central Intake. Central Intake does, however, use this information to make the Supervising Officer assignment. Risk to reoffend may play a part in the judge s decision to sentence someone to CCD supervision. Once a client reaches Intake, we complete a risk assessment to determine likelihood of recidivism, and use this and other information (juvenile, mental health, etc.), to make the appropriate Probation Officer assignment. Probation conditions are set by the court, which may take criminogenic risk/need into account. Probation officers can make other referrals to deal with other issues as they see fit.

8 8 Is risk/need measured for these populations? Do program assignments or case assignments/plans reflect measured risk/need? What effect does this placement have on rearrest, reincarceration, or violations? PTD Responses Currently we use the ORAS to measure Risk and Needs for DUI s only. Misdemeanors are not assessed. Program assignments are not based on risk/needs nearly everyone in PTD is minimum risk. Program assignments are based on the type of charge/conditions the client must complete. I don t think we have statistics to evaluate the effect placement has on rearrest, reincarceration, or violations, for any unit. How would you separate out the effect of the placement from the effects of the initial situation that cased the client to score in a particular category in the first place maybe historical data?

9 9 How often are presentence investigations completed and do they all include a validated assessment of criminogenic risk/need? How often is success/compliance measured? Are reassessments of criminogenic need conducted? Does risk to reoffend play any part in reporting frequency? Caseloads? Is there a Quality Assurance process in place designed to insure that individual case plans are targeted to reflect and mitigate measured high risk criminogenic need? Are conditions of supervision designed to reflect or affect measured criminogenic risk/need? Misdemeanor Probation Responses - The courts in our jurisdiction do not order PSIs on misdemeanant cases; however a policy and procedure is in place should they want to order them - We keep monthly statistics that show our successful/unsuccessful closures and it also calculates a success rate. - Reassessments are completed for clients who will be on our supervision for more than a year. We ve just recently transitioned to using the Ohio Risk Assessment System (ORAS) instrument in February 2013, so we haven t started doing reassessments yet. Prior to the implementation of ORAS, we were using the Wisconsin risk/needs assessments and we completed risk re-assessments at the 6 month mark. - The score on the risk assessment determines the supervision level, the caseload assignment and frequency of contacts. We have 3 separate levels telephone reporting (lowest risk clients); moderate supervision (1 office contact per month or every other month depending on score); intensive supervision (highest risk clients, domestic violence offenders or sex offenders) and they re seen 1-2x/month depending on the risk score and/or circumstances. - There is a QA process. The supervisor must review the supervision plan developed by the officer and client and sign off on it. Right now, we re using a paper risk needs rather than an electronic version with a focus on employment/financial situation and condition compliance (referrals to court ordered conditions). For the majority of our clients who report in to the office, they re seen individually where the officer can address criminal attitudes, peer associations/neighborhood problems as well as substance abuse. - Conditions of supervision are ordered by the court prior to a risk assessment occurring, therefore the conditions are developed by the state attorney, defense attorney and judiciary based on criminal history, information included in the charging affidavit and/or what they think they can get the defendant to plea to. i.e. if the charging affidavit doesn t address information regarding substance abuse and it s not a substance abuse related offense, then typically the court is not ordering evaluations for substance abuse. Additionally, even though the statute requires the courts to order a 26-week batterer s intervention program on domestic violence cases, our courts are ordering an 8-hour anger management class because the likelihood of the defendant taking the plea increases.

10 10 How are these practices determined and/or informed by risk and/or need? What are the caseloads of those supervising offenders under pretrial supervision? Is there any programming/services available/required for offenders on home confinement? ACS/PRS Responses ACS does not use the risk/needs tool to determine eligibility for our program. Assignment are based upon criminal history, worksite need and availability, contractual agreement, etc. ACS does not provide supervision or service pretrial cases normally, but we do supervise upward of 300 clients per officer that are court ordered to perform various days or hours of community service The minimal supervision standard is determined through the use of a risk assessment utilized by the Pretrial Services unit in the jail Marie Eady (84 which include 23 mental health ), Ray Schalk ( 91 telephone reporting), Serina Montijo (73 to include Spanish speaking clients), Ada Perez (77), Steve Pieper (71) Clients referred to Pretrial Release Supervision include the internal Learn to Earn Program which is an employment referral service program

11 11 Orange County Stakeholders Interviewed and/or in Attendance Onsite (June 31-August 1, 2013) Chief Michael A. Tidwell Deputy Chief Cornita Riley Linda Weinberg, Deputy County Administrator Cindy Boyles, Manager, Community Corrections and Inmate Programs Juanita Beason, Assistant Manager (Acting), Community Corrections and Inmate Programs Georgia Hart, QA Team (ACA Accreditation and policies) Mike Benzer, Administrative Supervisor (Acting) Orlando Portalatin - HR Hector Lopez, HR Ann Marie Giltner, Manager, Inmate Administration Sandy Keegan, Administrative Supervisor (Acting), Pretrial Services Major Vic Adkins, Security Operations Major Rich Powell, Security Support Scott Shevenel, attorney Capt. Janice Bradstreet, Chief s Liaison Allen Moore, Public Information Sue McLendon, Pretrial Diversion (PTD) Gary Bassa, Alternative Community Service (ACS) Maria Scruggs, Pretrial Release Supervision (PTRS) Maddy Wright, Administrative Supervisor (Acting), Probation Shanqueta Ashley, Unit Supervisor (Acting), Probation Sr. CCO Greg Webb Sr. CCO Lucy Barnes Sr. CCO Bob Smedley Sr. CCO Leslie Delgado CCO Ben Adams CCO Nancy Gayden CCO Marcus Braden CCO Kimberly Dukes

12 12 Onsite Agenda and Interview Schedule Community Corrections Division Orange County Corrections

13 Orange County Community Corrections Offender Trends by Unit Information Obtained Onsite via Interview 13 The following information was derived as a result of pre-visit analyses and onsite interviews as outlined in the onsite agenda (above): Overall Client Caseload Explicitly noted by all interviewed is the decline in CCD cases as a whole. While some decline in cases can be attributed to the event alluded to earlier within this report; much of this decline began prior to this incident. Factors contributing to this decline are thought to include reduction in the overall local criminal justice population and reduction in jail crowding. It is important to note that a major goal of the CCD has always been understood to be jail bed reduction. Current offender caseloads by CCD Division are outlined below:

14 14 Based on June 1, 2013 Figures Officer : Client Ratio Officers* Clients 1 Officer Per ACS Clients PTD PTRS/MH Probation Officers PO Csld Max Csld Probation 2887 Csld IST TRS Mod Team * Does not include Admin Officers (court liaison, drug testing)

15 15 Home Confinement Cases Prior to Incident As a result of the incident discussed earlier in this report, all use of home confinement and electronic monitoring was ceased by the Orange County Mayor. It was noted through onsite discussion that many cases assigned to the Home Confinement Unit were assigned directly by various courts and were used for various purposes including supervision of those on bail or bond. It was also noted that criminogenic risk and need were not part of the consideration for home confinement nor was a programmatic component utilized for targeted reduction of criminogenic need. This resulted in high caseloads of offenders of mixed risk. Many technological and equipment related difficulties were also noted inclusive of false alarms, equipment malfunction, and lack of authority for CCD officers to respond directly to notifications or indications of violations. This is due at least in part to regulations that preclude CCD officers from making arrests and therefore require drafting revocation paperwork, obtaining a judge s signature, filing with the clerk office, filing for

16 16 and issuing a warrant and notifying a law enforcement agency to investigate home confinement violations. Also clear was the lack of consistent quality assurance practices by CCD supervisors that monitored adherence to important rules and standards for electronic monitoring and home confinement. Such practices were required by policy but not completed with any consistency. CCD leadership has enhanced consistent quality assurance practices beginning in the 2 nd quarter of 2012 that continue to date. Examples of current quality assurance reports are included in Appendix A.

17 17 Pretrial Diversion Cases Pretrial Diversion is used by the Orange County system of criminal justice and overseen by the PTD Unit of the CCD largely for first or lower risk DUI and Non-Violent Misdemeanor defendants referred by the state attorney s office. These offenders are distributed to Tier 1 or Tier 2 assignment (based upon defined offense related criteria) and agree to adhere to rigorous treatment and community service as part of a 12 or 15 month contract mandated by the state. Each offender is responsible for a range of fees, which at times tend to be an impediment to successful completion; however, members of the PTD unit reported an 84% rate of success. In return for successful completion of the PTD contract, pending charges are dismissed without record of a conviction.

18 18 Pretrial Release Cases The Pretrial Services (PTS) begins work with incarcerated offenders within the Orange County Correctional Facility receiving area with an assessment of current crime and related factors, risk to reoffend, and risk related to court reappearance. This assessment is completed using a structured interview process and the Virginia Model Pretrial Assessment tool and is often used by the initial appearance judge to aid in release decisions. Based upon risk scores derived from the initial assessment process, released offenders are assigned to community supervision ranging from telephone reporting (lower risk offenders) to supervision contact 2-3 times per week (higher risk offenders). It should be noted that Pretrial Release Supervision (PTRS) operates separately from other pretrial services provided and that the Orange County Chief Judge recently rendered ineligible for PTRS any defendants with dangerous crimes as defined by Florida Statute. This requires PTS court officers to notify Initial Appearance Judges that these offenders are not eligible for PTRS.

19 19 Probation Cases With 9 Officers, the CCD Probation Unit supervises approximately 1300 offenders compromised of Traffic Offenses (approximately 70%) and Misdemeanors (approximately 30%). DUI offenders are required to attend extensive state-mandated programming at a relatively significant expense for between 26 and 52 weeks. While costs to offenders can be waived at times, cost was recognized as a significant impediment for offenders striving to complete the program. The Ohio Risk Assessment System (ORAS) is utilized within CCD Probation to obtain criminogenic risk and need information; however Officers stated that they have little to no authority to focus on criminogenic needs in their case plans. They further stated that some courts will listen to probation recommendations (derived from ORAS) but many will not utilize this information to guide decision making and/or program assignment.

20 20 Alternative Community Services Cases The Alternative Community Services Unit (ACS) helps with placement of offenders in community work sites throughout Orange County. The ACS Unit manages approximately 100 non-profit worksites throughout Orange County and interacts with these worksites to help clients complete their community service successfully. ACS helps to supervise a range of offenders who come from a wide range of referral sources (incarcerated and released on supervision, State Department of Corrections, Misdemeanor Probation, directly from the courts, etc.) and work assignments range from a minimum of 5 hours total to 16 hours per month. Approximately 2300 offenders are supervised by 6 CCD officers. It should be noted that as of October 1, 2013, the ACS unit will no longer supervise offenders released from the State Department of Corrections; therefore ACS caseloads are expected to be reduced significantly.

21 21 Individual Interviews on site July 31-August 1, 2013 Policy-Level, System Stakeholders As reflected by the Site Agenda, it was agreed that the undersigned would conduct personal interviews with the following policy-level, CCD Stakeholders: Chief Michael A. Tidwell Deputy Chief Cornita Riley Linda Weinberg, Deputy County Administrator Cindy Boyles, Manager, Community Corrections and Inmate Programs Juanita Beason, Assistant Manager (Acting), Community Corrections and Inmate Programs The general tone of all interviews revealed policy level stakeholders who showed interest in the continuing improvement of the CCD and Orange County Corrections as a whole (inclusive of incarcerated offenders). As part of this discussion, the development of programs and practices that have continuity from Orange County Jails to the CCD was considered and it was revealed that the CCD is in the process of taking responsibility for all offender programs delivered both in the jail and on community supervision. The intention of this policy is to make consistent the application of EBP department wide. In this context, the NIC/Urban Institute s Transition from Jail to the Community Model was considered for its applicability throughout the Orange County System of Corrections. Also discussed was the reality that much of what the CCD is assigned or directed to do with/for offenders is dictated by entities outside of the Orange County Corrections Department (OCCD). Articulated was the need for a commonly understood, criminal justice system-wide approach to the management of Orange County offenders (inclusive of shared system level goals/outcomes). Previously shared information outlining common system decision points at which offender populations are managed throughout a criminal justice system (more information led to interest in

22 22 integrating/understanding how the efforts of the OCCD fit with other important criminal justice stakeholders throughout Orange County. In this context the local criminal justice coordinating council (CJCC) was mentioned as a viable entity through which many policylevel stakeholders could be engaged. Examples of system level recidivism reduction strategies were also shared to help to begin a process in which OCCD could better integrate its strategies to reduce criminal recidivism with the local criminal justice system at large to realize enhanced long-term public safety outcomes. Also shared as part of these interviews was the reality of high caseloads with offenders of varying risk to reoffend and the related difficulties encountered by CCD officers in managing these cases as effectively as possible. Despite having completed training and implementing the Ohio Risk Assessment System (ORAS), criminogenic risk and need information is utilized in some units of the CCD, yet not in others. Accordingly, a significant percentage of CCD case loads are comprised of lower risk and first time offenders. The sporadic usage of ORAS information within the CCD to guide targeted case management is complicated further by the fact that courts commonly assign treatment for CCD offenders without consideration of ORAS assessment information. Also noteworthy is the fact that programs/interventions to which offenders are assigned (by either the courts or the CCD) have not been evaluated to determine the extent to which they adhere to evidence-based policy and practice.

23 23 Observations, Recommendations, and Summary Orange County Community Corrections and Offender Reentry

24 24 Observations Officials of the Orange County Corrections Department of all levels showed great interest in the local application of current offender research inclusive of criminal justice system decision making and the Transition from Jail to the Community Model. Accordingly, all demonstrated a strong commitment and an openness to evaluate different ways of managing their offender population to obtain the best long term public safety outcomes. Within Orange County a positive system orientation was evident that could accommodate the implementation of effective community corrections practices as well as jail transition efforts both within Orange County facilities and throughout the community. While recognizing that in many cases data are not available that would be useful to various areas of EBP implementation, a strong acceptance of the use of data to drive future decision making was consistent among all interviewed. Various services exist for offenders within the community and the jail, but a system of coordination of same between the jail and the community is limited. Despite having completed training and implementing the Ohio Risk Assessment System (ORAS), criminogenic risk and need information is utilized in some units of the CCD, yet not in others. Accordingly, caseloads throughout the CCD are comprised of offenders with vastly different criminogenic needs. For incarcerated populations, neither risk to reoffend information nor an evidenced-based method to determine treatment targets or develop case/transition plans are available. The data and information that the CCD does collect that could be helpful to the courts at various system decisions points is not commonly provided or utilized by the courts. However, the professional relationships and motivation to improve that were evident provide for an atmosphere of positive collaboration within the OCCD and position it to capitalize on existing strengths while addressing limitations or gaps in its own practice as well as leading discussion throughout the Orange County

25 25 Criminal Justice System designed to facilitate the implementation of evidence-based policy and practice. As outlined throughout this report, discussions with various Orange County Corrections Department Stakeholders resulted in a variety of EBP implementation paths for consideration. Accordingly, for clarity, all recommendations below will be divided into three (3) categories: CCD Specific Practices, Transition from Jail to the Community, and Evidence-Based Decision Making - Orange County Criminal Justice System.

26 26 RECOMMENDATIONS - CCD Specific Practices Implement an automated full system screening tool (such as the Proxy tool discussed on site Proxy Implementation document provided in Appendix B ) to understand the entire CCD offender population by risk to reoffend. o Once implemented, such a tool would give CCD leadership information to evaluate the actual number of lower, medium, and higher risk offenders for which they are responsible at any given time. o After full system screening, develop procedures to govern when, how, why, and by whom existing tools such as the Virginia Model Pretrial Tool and the Ohio Risk Assessment System (ORAS) are utilized, keeping in mind that longer or more intensive actuarial assessment processes should only be utilized if they are intended to drive case plans targeted to reduce criminogenic need. Evaluate available system resources (staff, fiscal, and service providers) to determine the extent to which services are available to manage offenders of differing risk/need within the community. o Using the information derived from full system screening (described above) and integrating this information with common terms and conditions of probation (if applicable), determine how offenders of each level of risk will be supervised (i.e. lowest risk telephone or no reporting; higher risk evidence driven case/treatment plan). o Commonly accepted sanctions or methods of short-term control such as Electronic or GPS Monitoring, Alternative Sanctions, Diversion, etc. should be considered for their usefulness in offender management within the community; however, practices/services available or needed to reduce the likelihood of re-offense for higher risk offenders should also be evaluated for their use in concert with these strategies. o Determine officer caseload size by risk to reoffend. Full system screening information will provide the actual number of offenders in various risk categories, then, using this information, CCD leadership can determine the number of officers/staff available to supervise offenders of varying risk levels. As part of this discussion, CCD civilian staff (such as Correctional Aides or Administrative Specialists) should be considered to perform functions related to lower risk offender populations such as monitoring of telephone contacts. o Prioritize CCD resource allocation to highest risk offenders. Ensure that higher risk offender populations are managed by officers with appropriate caseload sizes and that sufficient evidencebased services are available for targeted risk/need reduction prior to allocating resources to lower risk offenders. o As resource allows (after higher risk offenders are accounted for) develop less intensive protocols to manage lower risk offenders; however ensure prioritization of resources by risk to reoffend (i.e. the higher the risk the more service/supervision).

27 27 o Evaluate and realign existing CCD units to identify duplication of efforts, over programming/assignment of lower risk offenders, consistency of effort/action by risk to reoffend, etc. Formalize the consistent use of the ORAS to be used for targeted case planning throughout CCD for all higher risk offenders. Identify system services/programs/interventions available to mitigate higher risk needs identified by the ORAS. o Determine the extent to which existing programs are evidence based. o If applicable, identify gaps in services/programs/interventions for criminogenic needs identified by the ORAS. Develop an automated system of case management to enhance the consistency of service/program/intervention assignment driven by ORAS assessment. Where possible, develop quality assurance processes to be used on a regular basis to evaluate the use of automated processes identified above such as Proxy implementation, ORAS, and Case Management. o Develop outcome based quality assurance efforts for each CCD Unit/Practice/Intervention that measure system outcomes such as recidivism, violation rates, etc. o Report these outcomes regularly throughout the organization. o Using outcomes from the overarching QA process, evaluate current policies and practices and revise as necessary.

28 RECOMMENDATIONS - Transition from Jail to the Community (TJC) 28 Review the Transition from Jail to the Community Model Implementation Toolkit available An overview of the TJC Model is provided within Appendix D. Consider the implementation of an automated full system screening tool (such as the Proxy tool discussed on site Proxy Implementation document provided in Appendix B ) to understand the entire incarcerated offender population by risk to reoffend. o Once implemented, such a tool would provide information to evaluate the actual number of incarcerated lower, medium, and higher risk offenders. Informed by risk to reoffend screening throughout the incarcerated population, higher risk offenders could be targeted to receive intensive service within the jail and be readied for transition to the community while lower risk offenders could be evaluated for alternatives to incarceration, community supervision, or diversionary practices as applicable. Consider the use of an actuarial assessment of criminogenic needs such as the ORAS to drive jail transition planning for higher risk offenders. Review programs within the jail as well as the community to ensure that they have continuity and that they utilize evidence-based program curricula to mitigate identified criminogenic needs of transitioning, higher risk to reoffend inmates. RECOMMENDATIONS - Evidence-Based Decision Making - Orange County Criminal Justice System To realize most effective outcomes, important, policy-level stakeholders within the Orange County Criminal Justice (CJ) System should: o Formalize the role of the existing Criminal Justice Coordinating Council and develop a common system mission to be utilized as a standard of evaluation for existing and proposed programs as well as for various outcome and process measures. Information relative to this task is available within the TJC implementation toolkit (available o Agree upon and define system outcomes such as recidivism as well as important process measures such as those outlined within the TJC implementation toolkit (available o Evaluate existing data for its usefulness in evaluating system-wide actions, decisions, and outcomes and the interface ability of existing IT systems. o Evaluate the actions and policies of stakeholder agencies relative to alignment with agreed upon system mission and measurements. o Consider the use of the Evidence Based Decision Making Model (more information to assist in CJ system evaluation and to understand how the efforts of the OCCD fit with other important criminal justice stakeholders.

29 29 Summary Led by Chief Tidwell and his executive team, the Orange County Corrections Department has realized many practices that are intended to decrease the rate at which Orange County offenders reoffend. Within Orange County, there also exists a group of policy-level stakeholders (of which Chief Tidwell is part) who are interested in the improvement of offender outcomes throughout Orange County. Indeed, many services and initiatives are available throughout Orange County that could be well-poised to contribute to a larger system mission of enhanced long-term public safety. The major effort is to coordinate the application and use of existing efforts and services in the Orange County Corrections Department as well as CJ system at large (informed by scientific analysis and research) to evaluate and implement evidence based policy and practice proven to enhance long-term public safety. As with any change initiative, special care must be taken to implement key foundational components (outlined throughout this report) to establish a proven system of offender behavioral change, reentry, and/or transition; rather than a compilation of innovative, yet unrelated, programs and/or services whose full benefit to Orange County as a whole is somewhat unclear. It has been a great pleasure to work with the committed professionals of the Orange County Corrections Department. Their unified commitment to the betterment of criminal justice practice is quite refreshing and extremely unique. It is this writer s belief that the collaborative atmosphere established within Orange County Corrections Department of can yield significant benefit both within their organization as well as the system at large as more criminal justice stakeholders are engaged in the local application of evidence-based policy and practice. Special thanks go to Dr. Cindy Boyles and Assistant Manager Juanita Beason for their assistance in supplying vital information and coordination

30 30 of site-visit logistics. This writer looks forward to the progress of the Orange County Corrections Department, its system at large, and its contributions to enhancement of longterm public safety within Orange County. Accordingly, this writer stands ready to assist in any way that he is able to clarify or help to move forward the recommendations or discussion contained herein. Respectfully submitted, Gary E. Christensen, Ph. D.

31 31 Appendix A Sample QA CCD Audit Schedule

32 32

33 33

34 34

35 35

36 36 Appendix B Proxy Implementation Document

37 37

38 38

39 39

40 40

41 41

42 42

43 43 Appendix C CJCC ppt. Facilitation/Planning Slides Electronic Copies of all Materials Furnished in.ppt and.pdf format

44 44

45 45

46 46

47 47

48 48

49 49

50 50

51 51

52 52