United States Department of Justice
Federal Bureau of Prisons
National Institute of Corrections
Evidence Based Decision Making for Local Criminal Justice Systems
The National Institute of Corrections (NIC) is soliciting proposals from organizations, groups or individuals who would like to enter into a cooperative agreement with NIC for the eighteen month development phase of a new initiative, "Evidence Based Decision Making for Local Criminal Justice Systems" (justice systems).The overall goal of the initiative is to establish and test articulated linkages (information tools and protocols) between local criminal justice decisions and the application of human and organizational change principles (evidence based practices) to achieve measurable reduction of pretrial misconduct and post-conviction risk of re-offending. The unique focus of the initiative is locally developed strategies of criminal justice officials (defined in the full announcement) that guide practice within existing sentencing statutes and rules.
Question & Answer for Evidence Based Decision Making in Local Criminal Justice Systems 03/06/08
Q: Asking about the current composition of the advisory group, will there be additional opportunity to add people to this group or do you expect it to remain intact? A: I expect it to remain intact, and I do expect to include a number of additional members.
Q: Regarding the process and outcome evaluation, will it be competitively bid or is the incumbent going to be doing the evaluation? A: Yes the process and outcome evaluation will be competitively bid and will not go to the organization that is doing the design work.
Q: If one were to win this cooperative agreement award, would you be precluded from bidding on the process and outcome evaluation? A: Yes. We are asking the successful bidder for this development phase to prepare a Request for Proposals for the process and outcome evaluation. NIC will review the submitted evaluation design (the RFP deliverable) and prepare it for competitive solicitation.
Q: So the people who bid on this will not be allowed to bid on the process and evaluation piece? A: Yes, that is correct.
Q: I wondered if one of the tools that you are interested in is the development of a risk and needs assessment, a different one, than perhaps is already in use? A: That is not a primary outcome or deliverable of this solicitation. There is always the possibility that a local jurisdiction will want to do that when you get to the point of working with pilot sites.
Q: What would the development phase look like, in terms of interactions with local jurisdictions? Would it be one, several, multi-site, single site? A: The idea is that the conceptual framework, the research foundation and the methodologies for working with local jurisdictions, will be crafted prior to working with local sites. It's a deliberate choice we made. Rather than beginning the project with learning sites and learning by doing, we believe there is enough good research, knowledge, and experience in the field regarding how to do this work. We want to assemble that knowledge base and then take the project framework to the field. Of course, the work will get better through experience with active sites. This is the opportunity and time to develop the framework and the engagement approaches with the stakeholder groups. It is a national project only in the sense that NIC is a national agency promoting the work; our focus remains on local jurisdictions and on materials that will help the roll-out at the local level.
Q: You are anticipating intensive work in two pilot sites for up to three years? A: Yes, up to three years following this design phase. In this initial award the successful awardee is expected to assist us in producing that framework, designing the evaluation that was discussed earlier, preparing a solicitation for a group that would actually do the evaluation work, and designing an announcement and selection criteria for local jurisdictions that might apply to be one of those two initial pilot sites. So you are doing all of the preparation work, but not yet going to the field.
Q: Would you describe what you mean when you say "the development of structural linkages, tools, protocols, information systems, and dispositional strategies?" A: We are talking about strategies, information tools, actual information vehicles for getting critical information, for example, to a sentencing judge and providing him/her with the basis for making more appropriate decisions regarding the individual. We are talking about tools for individual case decision making. Some of those tools already exist and would be built on. For example, pre-sentence investigation reports are used extensively in some jurisdictions and to a limited degree in others. The project will be developmental and exploratory, and we expect that there will be new ways to bring the information to key decision makers. The structures may take different forms. There could be a feedback mechanism which informs the court of the results or outcomes of similar decisions in the past.
There will be work that needs to take place at the local criminal justice system level as well. We are looking for the collective work as well as the work that may be focused by that jurisdiction on an individual decision point. The jurisdiction may choose to prioritize, for instance, plea bargaining in their jurisdiction and create a way to do that in a more informed and evidence based way. I do want to be clear, that we are not expecting that every jurisdiction can or will want to address every dispositional decision point.
Q: The model that you are looking for is a model in which they could employ these techniques, and you are saying they could choose the one that makes the most sense for them? A: Yes, or they may create a new one with the help of the resource group. They may create something that doesn't exist in any other jurisdiction right now, but is a combination of features.
Q: You make reference to research with regard to organizational development and collaboration and I was wondering if you want new forms of organizational structure and ways in which to bring these agencies together to cooperate to create a system together? Is this part of this concept proposal? A: I would be interested in that if it is grounded in a body of research and makes sense as part of the framework, yes.
Q: Could you talk a little bit more about the role of the advisory board, how active you anticipate they will be in the project planning, and at what points? A: They have been very active up to this point in helping us understand the challenges and the benefits of this work. We anticipate that they will continue to meet twice a year. Further there are individuals on the advisory team who would like to be actively involved in aspects of the work. For this application period, they asked that they not be contacted, because many of them might end up being listed on many of the applications. They will be resources, but that will be negotiated individually with each of them. Some have more time than others to be actively involved.
Q: If we contracted with individuals from the advisory group, would they be considered representing that group or strictly that work would be as an individual contractor? In development, if the advisory group is meeting only twice a year, and if we feel that there is a need for more meetings than that, then perhaps the work could be done by some individual representatives of the group. A: NIC will pay for the basic meetings of the advisory group out of a separate budget. For more extensive work the resources will have to come from the design project itself.
Q: What is the timing for inviting Pilot sites? Does that end after the 18 months is completed or will that be done towards the end of the development phase? A: We are waiting to see what the proposals suggest. We want to focus on doing a good job of developing this and not rushing it.
Q: With regard to the objectives on page 4, could you give any guidance to extent that you are expecting that to be reflected in the response. Are we stating our intent to do this, and working it into the time line or are we expected to go into more detail? Then it states that you are going to test that with the representatives of the market segment. Am I getting this right that this would be the 2nd phase of the project? A: Yes, that would be the second phase of the project. We are looking to you folks to tell us what types of educational tools and engagement strategies that you feel would be important for these stakeholder groups. I want to emphasize that they are quite different in their interests in the criminal justice system.
Q: Is it the expectation that at every juncture that there could be improvement by using evidence based practice that it would be to our best interests to propose a tool and a strategy, so pretty comprehensive is what I am asking...a lot of detail. Are we going to look at every place in the criminal justice system where if you used evidence based practice you could reduce recidivism and make improvements. A: The expectation is that you will focus on the key criminal justice stakeholder groups as we have listed them. As you have suggested, this will get better as it goes along past the design phase, but we need a minimum set of tools so that we are able to talk to jurisdictions and to the various distinct positions or roles in these jurisdictions about what the benefits are of working the evidence based practice way. This suggests that you will need some consulting with those distinct groups in the development phase to achieve that. Keep in mind that these are five objectives that are to be accomplished over an eighteen month life cycle. What we are not asking for in your proposal is totally detailed steps that you would go through to accomplish the objectives, but we need enough description of how you accomplish those objectives that would convince us that 1) you understand it and 2) you have the capacity and competency to do it.
Q: The proposal mentioned something about seeking private funding to supplement some of this work. What role would the private funding play and have you gotten any commitment for that? A: We have been working with a couple of private foundations in describing the development phase that we have allocated our own sources to initiate. Those foundations have expressed interest in the conceptual work. At this point there is an agreement, in principle, that it is the type of work that at least one foundation is interested in. The foundation may participate in the developmental phase but it is not obligated to do so. Depending upon the products that emerge from the developmental phase, they will make an independent decision as to whether or not they want to buy into any additional jurisdictions for actual testing and delivery.
Q: So instead of there being one or two sites, there may be three or four? A: That is correct. They could also choose to invest in some of the evaluation work depending upon what is produced during this initial development phase.
Q: I want to make sure I am clear about describing organizational capacity as separate from direct related experience to this effort. A: What we would like within the fifteen pages is a brief description of your experiences in the designated areas.
Q: If the organization that gets this grant happens to be a part of a local criminal justice system, does that rule out that local criminal justice system as a possible site? A: No, but it also does not ensure that the local site is guaranteed a position as a pilot site. The final acceptance or identification of pilot sites is under the control of the National Institute of Corrections. What we are asking for in this proposal is that you assist with the development of the solicitation language and the criteria for selection, but the awardee would not be making the selections, so their local jurisdiction should not be penalized or denied an opportunity to compete.
Q: Is there any possible application for a specialty court in any of those or just a division of the court in any of those local systems? A: Each of you are going to have to decide what you want to include and how it fits within the context as you develop your own individual proposals. We will not restrict your creativity nor will we define what ultimately is going to be your proposal.
Q: In section one of your deliverables; it speaks about the post conviction offending. The majority of the RFP speaks to pretrial offending and the pretrial phase. Are we to include in our proposal the ability of these local criminal justice systems to utilize EBP in all phases of hearing a case or should we limit it to primarily pretrial? A: It should include both. It intentionally includes both. We are very interested in the pre-trial stage, as well as the plea bargaining, sentencing and post-conviction decisions. The post-conviction decisions can include violation and revocation practices of those same decision makers.
Q: What will the level of involvement of NIC be in the cooperative agreement, not the advisory board, but your actual organization? A: That will be extensive. It is our history and our way of operating through a cooperative agreement to be an active partner. For those of you who have not done business with the National Institute of Corrections, you need to be aware that probably 80% of the staff were clients of the Institute prior to joining the staff. Staff come from working backgrounds and experience in corrections or criminal justice agencies. The mission of NIC is to be very actively involved and engaged with the field of corrections. Project managers will be intimately involved in each stage of the work.
Q: My question is around statewide proposal vs. local jurisdiction coming from a rural state. A: The primary target for the developmental work is the local jurisdiction. There will however be jurisdictions that are state operated and delivered corrections. So while the pilot site is a single local jurisdiction within a state, the states interest itself might be considering how they might expand that or roll it out to serve the entire state. That would then become the states responsibility independent of this project.
Q: With the primary focus being local, one could still include state officials like state departments of corrections, probation, or parole, who are significant actors or stakeholders at the local level? A: Yes, that is correct.
Q: On the tools that we have talked about, we are looking at both tools for individual case decision making and system wide problem identification and problem solving. A: Yes, that's right.
Q: At what point will you post record of this call? A: Early next week.
Q: Must this focus on currently existing Evidence Based Practice or can the project funds be used to determine if there is evidence to base a decision on that it is a valid program? A: The project is not for the purpose of conducting research to evaluate the effectiveness of local programs. The project framework needs to be based on the body of research that is currently available.
Q: Is there any room for a local juvenile justice system to become pilot site? A: In terms of NIC, our focus would be on these two initial pilot sites being adult sites. That would not preclude a private foundation, using the same general information, from deciding to select a juvenile site independent of this work.
Q: What if a system included both adult and juvenile and we wanted to measure both and apply this to both? A: The response that we are looking for is to assist us in the development of a framework for the adult criminal justice process. If the systems apply and we select a jurisdiction that does both adult and juvenile work, our focus will be on the adult court system. If that jurisdiction chooses on it's own, with it's own resources, to adapt that process to serve it's juvenile population, we would have no reservation about that.
Q: In the cost volume pricing section, is that part of your fifteen pages or is that going to be separate? A: It will be separate from the fifteen pages that describe your response to the solicitation.
Q: May the proposal include any aspects of treatment? Would that be a plus if it does? A: What you would have to be describing must be consistent with the two goals stated on page one which states that the initiative intends to improve the quality of information that leads to making individual case decisions in local systems and secondly, engages these systems as policy making bodies to collectively improve the effectiveness and the capacity of the decision processes related to pretrial release and sentencing options. If in preparing your proposal you want to include intervention or treatment activities that in some way serve one of those two purposes, you may do so.
Questions submitted after the conference call.
Q: When will the award be made? A: The award will be made following negotiations and a budget review process with the best qualified applicant. We anticipate an award by mid-May, 2008.
Q: The RFP appears to indicate that applications in hard copy form and through grants.gov will be accepted. Is there a preference on the part of NIC for either kind of submission? A: There is no preference regarding the form in which the application is submitted.
Q: Can we present our budget/narrative as a separate document or does it need to be part of the 15 pgs? A: The budget summary sheet and the budget narrative are separate and not included in the 15 page "program narrative" limit.
Q: An earlier Q and A indicated that "travel for the advisory committee members would be paid by NIC and meetings would be held twice a year (3 times in 18 months). Would the awardee's costs to attend the Advisory Committee meetings be born by the cooperative agreement award or by NIC? A: The costs for staff of the cooperative agreement to attend Advisory Committee meetings must be covered in the cooperative agreement budget. NIC will cover the costs of the Advisory Committee members only.
I am the administrator for the Corrections Community and the Web Services Manager for the NIC Information Center.