Washington County CJCC hears foundational training from Justice Management Institute, plans follow-up interviews and retreat

Washington County’s newly formed Criminal Justice Council received foundational training from the Justice Management Institute (JMI) and agreed to targeted next steps, including one-on-one interviews with the consultant and a longer follow-up meeting to set priorities.

Amy Whitman, a JMI program manager who led the hour-plus presentation, summarized national guidance and local examples that councils use to coordinate criminal justice system partners. “We created the National Network of Criminal Justice Coordinating Councils about 15 years ago,” Whitman said, noting JMI’s national standards work with the National Institute of Corrections and a companion “essential elements” checklist intended as a more digestible startup tool.

The presentation outlined a model CJCC with recurring components: executive-level decision makers at the table, a small steering or executive committee, standing work groups or committees, a strategic plan (typically three to five years), a data and research function, and a dedicated coordinator or director position to sustain the council’s work. Whitman said the full national standards document runs about 80 pages and the network includes 40 member jurisdictions; the “essential elements” condense that guidance into 10 attributes.

Members discussed common priorities and challenges that CJCCs address, including behavioral-health system links, diversion and pretrial processes, reducing failures to appear (FTAs) and case-processing delays. Participants raised recurring implementation obstacles: securing consistent, high-level participation; compiling and contextualizing cross‑agency data; sustaining staff or coordinator positions; and finding resources to implement strategic-plan initiatives.

On data, Whitman urged councils to start with measures that are already collected and easy to share, for example jail population, average length of stay, filings and dispositions, and to agree on how and whether data will be public. “Part of the council’s importance is being open and this is what’s happening,” Whitman said, while acknowledging that agencies sometimes worry about how data will be interpreted.

For next steps the council agreed to engage JMI further. Whitman will schedule one-on-one interviews with each council member to gather priorities and concerns; staff members Jake and others will compile the interview results for a future meeting. The council chair asked members to target a half‑day meeting in July to work toward consensus on no more than three priorities; dates will be set by staff to maximize participation.

The meeting concluded with the routine motion to adjourn. No formal votes on ordinances, resolutions or contracts were taken at this meeting.

Members said they value the forum for cross-agency communication and noted that the council’s value will grow as trust, data-sharing and small, achievable initiatives produce measurable results.