8a: Building a Plan for Implementation (2024)

Harm Reduction GoalBy 2015, 75% of all offenders successfully completing sentences will not recidivate.Objective 150% reduction in defendants appearing in pilot division who spend more than 7 days in
pretrial custody within six months of implementation of CISPR pretrial assessment toolDate of CompletionLead PersonOthers ResponsibleResource NeedsPartner Coordination

Action Step 1

Begin to consider results
of CISPR pretrial
assessment tool adopted
via pretrial work plan in
making release decisions3/1/12BottgerDA, PD, ADC, private defense barApproved tool, agency to administerCJSD (administering agency)

Action Step 2

Gather 2006 baseline
data (pilot judge
division) on time spent
in pretrial custody, FTA,
and reoffense rate for
those released5/1/12Sheetz, CasselberryJail staff, court staffTime

Action Step 3

Develop and implement
plan to gather current
data from pilot division
on time spent by
defendants in pretrial
custody, FTA, and
reoffense rate of those
released5/1/12Sheetz, CasselberryJail staff, court staffTimeAction Step 4Compare results to
baseline7/1/12SheetzAction Step 5Consider results and
implications, including
changing tool and
changing court practices8/1/12BottgerDA, PD, ADC, private defense bar, CJSD, SOAction Step 6Develop agency/case-
level logic model8/1/11Judge BottgerExecutive Committee

Potential Barriers

1) If the CISPR Tool is not available by March 1, 2012, this could require us to either delay use of a risk
assessment tool or start with one tool and then switch to the Colorado tool when it is available,
complicating outcome measurement.

2) We will need to overcome any reluctance on the part of defendants and their attorneys to submit to a
pre-disposition assessment of any kind, even if it does not expressly call for incriminating information.

3) Timing of administration is critical. If administered before the defendant first appears in county court for
video arraignment, the county court judge will have the benefit of the results. This will not only allow for
earlier release, it will reduce the likelihood that the district court will significantly change the bond or bond
conditions. Although such a change is not harmful per se, it could create the impression that the district
court was critical of the county court’s bond decision.

4) A more liberal bond philosophy may result in fewer people entering substance abuse treatment as a
bond condition.

Strategies to Address Barriers

1) Identify key players in CISPR development. See if district can help move along in any manner, including
volunteering as a pilot district.

2) As CISPR has not been finalized, it is unknown what questions it will ask. Regardless, we will likely gain
the confidence of the defense bar only through experience.

3) One solution is to get a commitment from the county court judges to follow EBDM principles in setting
bond for felony defendants.

4) Monitor participation in “fast-track” meth treatment program.

Communications Strategy

Create an “interested players and parties” distribution list and send weekly short, yet informative, emails.

Utilize mesacourt.org website to post updates for parties to access.

Hold brown bag lunches to generally discuss pilot and ongoing results.

Objective 2Within 12 months of implementation of sentencing guide, at least 30% of defendants sentenced to
probation or community corrections will show a 10 point reduction in LSI score from sentencing to
end of sentenceDate of CompletionLead PersonOthers ResponsibleResource NeedsPartner Coordination

Action Step 1

Encourage defendants
and attorneys from the
bench to have a
completed LSI for every
defendant before
sentencing in pilot
divisionOngoingBottgerProbation, defendants,
defense counsel, DA’sLSI, trained personnel to
administer (already in place)Action Step 2Use results of LSI,
including new summary
sheet, to inform
sentencing decisions
(get low risk people
out of system,
impose conditions to
address 1–2 greatest
needs of rest)OngoingBottgerDA’s, defense counsel,
defendants

Action Step 3

Use motivational
interviewing
techniques at
sentencingOngoingBottgerPO’s trained in MI to monitor and
suggest improvementsPO’s trained in MI (already in place);
periodic judge trainingAction Step 4Gather research on
value of periodic in-
court reviews,
including whom to
include and how
often8/1/11BottgerModleyCurrent researchAction Step 5Conduct periodic
in-court reviews of
medium and high
risk offenders, if
supported by
researchOngoingBottgerDA’s, defense counsel,
probation, CJSDTimeAction Step 6Re-administer LSI
to offenders near
end of sentenceOngoingProbationDefendants,
defense counselTrained PO’s
(already in place)Action Step 7Gather baseline
data on offenders
sentenced in 20062/1/14Casselberry, probationStatisticianAction Step 8Gather data on
risk/needs of
offenders
sentenced
during pilot
project2/1/14Casselberry, probationStatisticianAction Step 9Compare data4/1/14BottgerCasselberry, probationStatistician

Potential Barriers

1) Because some members of the defense bar believe the LSI is biased and that results of any risk/needs
assessment may portray some defendants in a less favorable light, some defendants will refuse to submit
to an LSI or participate in the PSI process entirely.

2) Changing the format of the PSI is problematic because it has been standardized statewide.

3) Plea agreements that impose requirements inconsistent with LSI results

4) Lack of experience in MI techniques

5) We do not have a precise or measurable way to determine whether a sentence follows EBDM principles.

6) Outgoing risk/needs scores may be unavailable for some defendants sentenced in 2006.

Strategies to Address Barriers

1) Continue to meet with all parties to develop trust with one another on how the risk/needs information
will be used. The courts should encourage participation in the PSI process and demonstrate how this
information will be used in sentencing, proving that sentences will be imposed that match the risk/needs
of the defendant. In addition, probation department will offer training to defense bar on LSI.

2) An acceptable alternative is to attach a face sheet to each PSI which gives the defendant’s risk level
(low, medium, high) and identifies his or her top two to four criminogenic needs.

3) Persuading counsel and defendants to make open-ended plea agreements; rejecting agreements that
impose conditions inconsistent with LSI results

4) Experience and training

5) Monitor research to see if anyone develops a way to determine whether a sentence follows EBDM
principles.

6) Recognize limitations of data.

Communications Strategy

Distribute results as compiled to DA, PD, ADC, private defense bar, probation, CJSD, members of
Executive Board, and Criminal Justice Leadership Council.

Consider public distribution.