Inclusive Justice: The Rise of Community Voices in Criminal Justice Coordinating Councils
As the reach and impact of Criminal Justice Coordinating Councils (CJCCs) broadens, the role of community members serving in high-level positions has become a major point of interest for both existing CJCC members and the communities they serve. Recognizing the importance of diverse perspectives, CJCCs are increasingly ensuring that their decisions are shaped by those with first-hand experience rather than relying solely on justice stakeholders. JMI contacted members of the National Network of Criminal Justice Coordinating Councils (NNCJCC) to learn about how CJCCs select community members to join boards and subcommittees, and how those members are strengthening their CJCCs and communities.
Involvement of community members varied across CJCCs; average involvement stands at four members, though responses ranged from as low as one member to as high as nine, with additional community members serving on subcommittees and many CJCCs reporting plans to expand community involvement in the near future. Selecting community members in most jurisdictions is a collaborative process with input from multiple justice-system stakeholders. Some applicants were appointed by high-level positions among local stakeholders or partner organizations, particularly those focused on behavioral health, homelessness, or justice system interaction; others applied by submitting letters of interest, resumes, filling out applications, and interviewing with current CJCC members to determine the responsibilities of the role and how applicants’ lived experiences contribute to the work of their CJCC.
Most community members possessed voting rights on par with traditional justice-system stakeholders, with a few contributing specifically to committees or workgroups. Especially valued are individuals who have navigated the justice system themselves, with certain counties even earmarking positions for these crucial perspectives. Representation aims to reflect the community’s racial and ethnic makeup, with a keen interest in amplifying Hispanic/Latinx voices, the insights of young adults, and those with behavioral health expertise. Alongside primary CJCC boards, multiple jurisdictions operated additional subcommittees focusing solely on community voices and contributions to their CJCC. Creating platforms for community voices fosters a more nuanced understanding and resources linked directly to lived experiences. Due to the critical nature of this work, a handful of counties offer stipends or compensation for these community members.
As CJCCs seek to broaden these opportunities, the community’s commitment to contribute their time and energy is abundantly clear. The growing emphasis on community involvement signifies a shift towards a more comprehensive and supportive justice system—one that fosters stronger connections between the system’s stakeholders and the communities they serve.