Consensus Questions #5: Today's question, which is divided into four parts, relates to Criminal Justice Coordinating Councils. The current League of Women Voters of Illinois position is stated below, followed by the updated consensus study questions on this topic.
Existing Position: NONE
Consensus Questions:
5a. Should Criminal Justice Coordinating Councils (CJCCs) be created throughout the state?
PRO: A CJCC is a forum through which executive-level elected and justice system leaders in local jurisdictions — and sometimes states —meet regularly to collaboratively coordinate responses to justice system problems. CJCCs are beneficial because they work to reduce duplication of effort and conflicting practices. Improved collaboration and cooperation among these justice system leaders allows efficient use of limited resources. CJCCs help to manage the justice system priorities, plan system change initiatives, and create a shared vision of justice. Because of the decision-level policymakers who serve on a CJCC, the CJCC’s mission, and the data-guided process it uses to work on issues, a CJCC is uniquely positioned to effectively and efficiently address issues that confront the local justice system.
CON: While Illinois currently has some CJCCs in place, there are limited examples of CJCCs with long-term success. Lack of consistent funding sources and dedicated staff present operational issues leaving most CJCCs with many great ideas but a lack of funding to implement them. Little research exists on how CJCCs affect criminal justice outcomes. Research is needed to examine the impact of collaboration on the criminal justice system.
5b. Should CJCCs include a wide representation from local justice systems agencies, other government bodies, service providers, and the community?
PRO: CJCCs need all the key players in the criminal justice community including heads of law enforcement agencies, the judiciary, probation departments, court administrators, local government leaders, service providers, such as substance use and mental health treatment providers; victims' advocates; those offering housing resources; workforce training or educational assistance; veterans' advocates; members of faith-based groups; offender rights group representatives; and former offenders. Wide representation helps ensure a full understanding of the problems to be solved and effective leveraging of resources.
CON: Coordinating a big group can be difficult, which can hinder communication and an ability to act quickly to address issues.
5c. Should incentives and support be provided for the establishment of local CJCCs to assist them as they develop strategic plans to address crime and corrections policy?
PRO: A consistent funding source is important to launching and sustaining CJCCs. More effective resource allocation, as well as more cooperation and transparency, can help improve public opinion and trust in the justice system.
CON: The incentives and support for CJCCs must be adequate and sustainable. Local communities are overwhelmed with high expenses and demands and cannot afford new initiatives that further burden communities financially.
5d. Should there be cooperation and coordination between the State and CJCCs in order to share experience and data with the goal of improving plans to address crime and corrections policy both locally and statewide?
PRO: CJCCs create a coordinated way for both the state and local communities to share data and experiences for criminal justice planning and effective use of limited funding resources. By sharing goals/problems/data, all parties may find more cost-effective and efficient ways to address local problems which may lead to savings in financial and human capital and improved outcomes regarding recidivism and behavior change.
CON: Most crime is local. Local communities do not need the state to direct them on what needs to be done in their communities.
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:
Background Reading on CJCCs in Illinois:
Gleicher, L., Reichert, J., & Head, C. (2018). Collaboration in criminal justice: A review of the literature on criminal justice coordinating councils. Chicago, IL: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.18817.76648 also available at https://icjia.illinois.gov/researchhub/articles/collaboration-in-criminal-justice-a-review-of-the-literature-on-criminal-justice-coordinating-councils
Background on CJCCs from National Perspective:
Justice Management Institute, Criminal Justice Coordinating Council Network http://www.jmijustice.org/network-coordination/national-network-criminal-justice-coordinating-councils/
CJCC Success Story:
Edith Brady-Lunny and Ted Gest (2018), Justice Success Story: How Illinois Cut its Prison Population. The Crime Report. https://thecrimereport.org/2018/01/29/justice-success-story-how-illinois-cut-its-prison-population/
State Engagement with CJCCs:
National Council of State Legislators (2020), State Engagement With Local Justice: Criminal Justice Coordinating Councils.https://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/state-engagement-with-local-justice-criminal-justice-coordinating-councils.aspx
Aimee Wickman and Nastassia Walsh (2015), Resources on Criminal Justice Coordinating Councils (CJCCs).https://www.naco.org/blog/resources-criminal-justice-coordinating-councils-cjccs#:~:text=A%20criminal%20justice%20coordinating%20council,systemic%20responses%20to%20justice%20problems
Essential characteristics for a high-functioning CJCC:
National Council of State Legislators, Criminal Justice Coordinating Councils: Interview With Tiana Glennahttps://www.ncsl.org/blog/2020/01/15/criminal-justice-coordinating-councils-interview-with-tiana-glenna.aspx
If you would like more information on this question, please contact Janet Stiven, LWV of Wheaton, at jastive123 [at] aol.com.
