Phase II/III Jurisdictions

Click here to read more about the EBDM Sites’ areas of focus in Phase III.

Click here to read more about the EBDM Sites’ activities at the start of Phase III.

In August 2010, the Evidence-Based Decision Making in Local Criminal Justice Systems Initiative selected seven jurisdictions to serve as “EBDM sites” as part of Phase II of this initiative. They included

  1. Mesa County, Colorado
  2. Grant County, Indiana
  3. Ramsey County, Minnesota
  4. Yamhill County, Oregon
  5. City of Charlottesville/County of Albemarle, Virginia
  6. Eau Claire County, Wisconsin
  7. Milwaukee County, Wisconsin

These seven sites were selected as a result of their demonstration of collaboration among key policymakers, track record of success in previous high-impact initiatives, and commitment to using research to guide sound decision making.

The goal of Phase II was for the sites to develop implementation plans to specifically reduce the likelihood of pretrial misconduct, post-sentence reoffense, and other forms of community harm that result from crime.

With guidance from NIC, Initiative partners, and an assigned technical assistance provider, the sites engaged in a deliberate and strategic process to assess their current policy and practice and determine methods to more effectively integrate research into local policy and practice.

The Phase II Planning Process

While the experience of each EBDM site varied somewhat, each followed a similar set of planning activities:

  1. In each site, a collaborative team of multidisciplinary policymakers was established to lead the local effort.
  2. Significant time and effort were devoted to understanding the basis upon which decisions were made at key points within and across agencies, and to assess policies and practices at these decision points. The purposes of these efforts were to determine the degree to which research evidence guided decisions and to identify strengths, challenges, and targets for future change.
  3. The policy teams engaged staff from their agencies in the policy and practice analysis process, and most conducted awareness building activities for staff throughout their system’s agencies.
  4. Each team developed a preliminary public communications strategy designed to further educate and engage the local community in efforts to reduce crime and victimization and to support healthier communities.
  5. Each team also defined their desired goals and outcomes, established performance measures, created logic models, and developed a detailed work plan for implementing system changes.

The seven EBDM sites serve as models to communities throughout the nation regarding how best to stem the tide of escalating justice system costs and alarming rates of reoffense among justice-involved individuals.

  • The EBDM initiative in our area served as a vehicle to open doors to collaboration on a series of ongoing discussions about [current] projects, services, and processes that needed further attention. – Charlottesville/Albemarle County

    Much like Barney Fife yelled, “Citizen’s Arrest!” we now hear, “EBDM, EBDM!” in courtrooms, plea negotiations, agency trainings, and everyday conversations. We have had a culture change and there is no doubt about it! – Mesa County

    [The EBDM initiative is] more like learning to speak a language than how to push a button. – Milwaukee County

Sites interested in engaging in a similar planning process in their local communities are encouraged to first read the EBDM Framework carefully. Those interested in pursuing the ideas in the Framework and implementing an EBDM justice system in their community can follow the steps the seven EBDM sites undertook using the EBDM Roadmap and the EBDM Starter Kit.

Phase III Implementation

During Phase III, NIC provided support to EBDM sites in the successful implementation of critical change strategies, development of communication strategies, and measurement of data to track progress toward meeting systemwide goals.