Research problem-solving models and consider how you could use these models to evaluate criminal justice issues or programs.

Research problem-solving models and consider how you could use these models to evaluate criminal justice issues or programs.

Select a local, state, or federal criminal justice policy and research it. This could be the policy you researched and analyzed in Weeks 1–3 or select a different policy of your choice. Potential topics include:

• Stand your ground policy/castle doctrine
• Registries for individuals who have committed sexual offenses
• No bail policy/bail reform
• Plea bargaining
• Three-strikes policies
• Counterterrorism policies

Note: Speak with your faculty member if you need assistance selecting a policy for this assessment.

Assessment Deliverable

Create a 12- to 15-slide presentation in which you explain how your selected problem-solving model can be applied to evaluating a criminal justice policy. This presentation will be included in a workshop for new hires who will be evaluating criminal justice policies and programs.

Address the following in your presentation:

• Explain the value of evaluating criminal justice policies.
• Summarize the criminal justice policy selected.
• Specify whether the policy is applicable in local, state, or federal contexts.
• Include relevant details about the criminal justice policy’s purpose and its relevance to contemporary criminal justice issues.
• Analyze the ethical considerations regarding the policy. Include relevant details about:
• The advantages and challenges of the policy
• The public perception toward the policy
• The success of the policy in curbing criminal offenses
• Any unintended outcomes or consequences of the policy
• A problem or issue with the policy that needs a resolution
• Summarize the problem-solving model you selected for evaluation. Consider reviewing the problem-solving resources in the Assessment Support section.
• Explain how the problem-solving model can be used to evaluate and/or address ethical concerns related to the policy.
• Describe the process and intended outcomes of applying the problem-solving model to resolve the identified policy issue.

• Title: Applying the SARA Model to Evaluate Bail Reform Policies
• Subtitle: A Workshop for New Hires in Policy Evaluation
• Presenter Name/Department

• Evidence-Based Decisions: Moves beyond political rhetoric to data-driven outcomes.
• Fiscal Responsibility: Ensures taxpayer funds are spent on programs that actually reduce crime.
• Ethical Oversight: Identifies hidden biases or civil rights violations in current practices.
• Continuous Improvement: Allows for real-time adjustments to Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs).

• Definition: Policies that eliminate or strictly limit the requirement of a monetary deposit for pretrial release.
• Focus: Shifting from a “wealth-based” detention system to a “risk-based” assessment system.
• Mechanism: Defendants are released on their own recognizance or with non-monetary conditions (e.g., electronic monitoring) unless they pose a high flight risk or specific public danger.

• Applicability: Primarily State and Local.
• Examples: Landmark legislation in Illinois (SAFE-T Act) and New York has set the national stage.
• Federal Influence: While federal courts use the Bail Reform Act of 1984, the current movement is a state-led response to local jail overcrowding and economic disparity.

• Purpose: To uphold the “presumption of innocence” by ensuring individuals aren’t jailed solely because they are poor.
• Contemporary Relevance: Directly addresses Mass Incarceration and the Social Justice movements of the 2020s.
• Relevance to New Hires: Evaluating these policies is critical as more jurisdictions consider following the Illinois/New York models.

• Advantages: Reduces the “poverty penalty”; allows defendants to keep jobs and family ties while awaiting trial.
• Challenges: Balancing the Rights of the Accused vs. Public Safety; potential for high-profile “outlier” crimes to derail public trust.

• Polarization: Often viewed as “pro-criminal” by critics and “pro-justice” by advocates.
• Media Impact: Public perception is frequently shaped by anecdotal high-profile cases rather than broad recidivism statistics.
• Community Trust: Can improve trust in marginalized communities but may cause anxiety in areas with rising crime concerns.

• Mixed Results:
  • New York: 2025 data showed recidivism rates for most released defendants were lower or stable compared to pre-reform.
  • Illinois: Early 2024/2025 reports indicate violent crime and homicides in Chicago dropped significantly after the SAFE-T Act took effect.
• Key Finding: Eliminating cash bail generally does not lead to an automatic spike in crime if paired with robust pretrial monitoring.

• Net-Widening: Increased use of Electronic Monitoring (EM), which can be just as restrictive as jail (“house arrest”).
• Resource Strain: High demand on pretrial service officers to monitor those released without cash bond.
• Judicial Discretion: Concerns that “risk-assessment algorithms” used in place of bail may contain their own racial or socioeconomic biases.

• The Problem: A “one-size-fits-all” approach to release often ignores the specific needs of high-risk subgroups (e.g., those with recent violent felony arrests).
• The Gap: Insufficient infrastructure for non-monetary support (mental health, transit to court) leads to avoidable failures-to-appear.

• Scanning: Identifying recurring issues (e.g., jail overcrowding vs. failure-to-appear rates).
• Analysis: Researching the “Why”—is it lack of money, lack of transit, or high risk of reoffending?
• Response: Developing a customized solution (e.g., text-message court reminders + no-cash bail).
• Assessment: Measuring the result (Did court attendance go up? Did crime stay down?).

• Objective Analysis: SARA forces evaluators to look at Data Triangulation, preventing ethical decisions from being made on “gut feelings” or political pressure.
• Stakeholder Input: During the Analysis phase, SARA encourages interviewing victims and defendants, ensuring all ethical viewpoints are considered.

• Step 1 (Scanning): Identify if specific neighborhoods are seeing higher rearrest rates post-reform.
• Step 2 (Analysis): Use “Crime Scripts” to see if defendants are reoffending because they lack basic needs (housing/food) upon release.
• Step 3 (Response): Partner with community organizations to provide immediate social services upon pretrial release.

• Increased Accuracy: Decisions based on root causes rather than symptoms.
• Policy Refinement: Moving from “Total Abolition” to “Precision Pretrial Justice.”
• Public Safety: Ensuring high-risk individuals are still detained while low-risk individuals remain free and productive.

• Final Thought: Problem-solving models like SARA ensure that criminal justice reform is an evolving science, not just a legislative event.
• References:
  • Center for Problem-Oriented Policing (SARA Model).
  • APA 7 Citations (e.g., NIST, 2020; McGlave & Sneddon, 2021).