- Build an effective team representing a suggested list of agencies and conduct the review. The review should identify a strategy for conducting the review; establishing a review team of qualified stakeholders; limiting the size of the team; and involving other stakeholders in secondary roles to create buy-in and elicit ideas from public perspectives. Other stakeholders may include victims and their families, former offenders and their families, and members of citizens’ groups.
Agencies to be considered for involvement: law enforcement, court administrators, records, employment offices, prosecutors/defense, probation, driver licensing, victims/public, judges, treatment/medical staff, social services, mental health.
- Establish short-term and long-term goals of the review; assign responsibilities to team members; promote communication and cooperation among members/agencies; and avoid partisanship.
- Establish guiding principles to direct the review process including:
- Achievable. Recommended outcomes should be practical and realistic.
- Context. Understand and recognize differences between jurisdictions.
- Comprehensive. The review should encompass the broader criminal justice system and consider any peripheral agencies.
- Compromise. Participants should expect to compromise on some issues and solutions.
- Constructive. Discussion should focus on existing problems and positive steps to overcome obstacles.
- Culturally and socio-economically sensitive. Efforts should be culturally and socioeconomically sensitive of various populations.
- Evidence-based. Agencies and participants should rely on hard data and peer-reviewed research.
- Inclusive. The perspectives of agencies affected by recommendations should be considered.
- Measurable. Identify specific outcome measures for evaluation of the review process.
- Responsive. The process should be responsive to the concerns of the professionals and agencies involved.
- System-centred. Integrate segments of the criminal DWI system and facilitate cooperation among agencies and do not limit improvements to one segment.
- Conduct a strategic assessment of the system using critical questions developed from existing research. Jurisdictions need to determine their current situation before they can decide where they need to go. The assessment should include interviews with key staff in the system, the gathering of data and locating the source of problems.
Please refer to the Critical Questions section below.
- Discuss and evaluate potential solutions. Evaluation criteria should be derived from the goals and objectives previously established. Each suggested solution should be carefully vetted to avoid unintended negative consequences and to gauge the costs associated with implementing the changes. The recommended changes should be cognizant of the core functions of agencies to avoid assigning tasks that are unrelated to their main purpose. Finally, evaluators should consider the role of offender assessment and treatment as part of the review. Failing to address the root cause of the problem will likely result in continued offending.
- Select reasonable and viable solutions to all identified problems. Negotiate the most effective strategies after members of the review are afforded opportunities to share their thoughts, concerns, concurrence, or disagreement. Integrate system components and facilitate communication to reduce duplication in the system. Streamline the process and fill gaps using concrete steps that are practical and measurable to guide the implementation process.
- Create consensus among stakeholders by building support. Review members should be encouraged to remain focused on outcomes that will contribute to the overall goal and recognize concessions will be part of the negotiation process. Encourage cooperation and compromise by staying mindful of long-term goals, risk-reduction, and public safety. Agency buy-in can be achieved by presenting hard data and evidence. To the extent possible, recommendations should be substantiated by facts, not anecdotes or isolated events.