< PreviousTRANSLATING RESEARCH Effectiveness of AA Studies focusing on whether AA is effective at reducing substance abuse have produced some positive results, although overall, the conclusions from such studies have been mixed. Nonetheless, when Kelly et al. (2020) looked at 27 evaluation studies containing 10,565 participants, they found that AA was just as effective as other treatment programs, such as motivational enhancement theory and cognitive behavioral strategies. In addition, AA was found to be more effective at maintaining abstinence. In another systematic review of AA evaluations, Kaskutas (2009) found rates of abstinence were much higher among those who attend versus those who do not. At the same time, there is research in this area. In other studies, qualitative researchers have demonstrated that AA can facilitate the change of members in different important dimensions that may be important in reducing recidivism. For example, Glassman et al. (2022) provided a review of findings that suggests AA can improve new social identities and boundaries. Glassman et al. (2022) interviewed members of AA about their sense of belonging associated with membership. They found that having a sense of belonging was indeed helpful and achieved by AA members. Given these findings, there is reason to support AA’s continued use within probation and parole. In the next section of this paper, I argue that AA also supports the suppositions of the two popular models of correctional intervention. Models of Correctional Intervention/ Rehabilitation The “What Works” Literature The “What Works” literature, often called “evidence- based/effective intervention,” suggests that if certain principles of effective intervention and classification are followed, programs can reduce the recidivism of justice- involved individuals. Originally formulated in the early 1990s by Andrews, Bonta, and Hoge (1992), the Risk- Need-Responsivity Model suggested that standardized, established, and validated risk assessments should be utilized in corrections to determine the “what, when, and how” to intervene with people who engage in crime. THE 12 STEPS ARE: We admitted we were powerless over alcohol and that our lives had become unmanageable. We Came to believe in a power greater than ourselves. (This is not a mandatory part of the program, and many meetings are available for people who are atheists and/or agnostic. In addition, many in AA use the “group fellowship” as their higher power.) Making a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God (something external to ourselves) as we understand him (as we know him/her is an essential aspect of AA). Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves. Admitted to God, ourselves, and another human being the exact nature of our wrongs. (Again, for many people in AA, God is only a term for external control.) We were entirely ready to have God (something external to ourselves) remove all these character defects. Humbly ask him (or anyone external to themselves) to remove our shortcomings. Made a list of all persons we have harmed and became willing to make amends to them all. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible except when to do so would injure them or others. Continued to take personal inventory, and when we were wrong, promptly admit it. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understand him, praying only for knowledge of his will for us and the power to carry it out. Having had a spiritual awakening due to these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics in all our affairs.TRANSLATING RESEARCH This literature has produced additions and revisions known as the “What Works” model of correctional intervention. These principles of effective interventions were embraced by the field of corrections because they challenged the early views that “nothing works” (Martinson, 1974) to reduce recidivism. Now, instead of interventions and procedures based on gut feelings about what an individual’s risk and needs are and what types of interventions should be implemented, today, there are practical steps that correctional programs can follow and implement. Correctional supervisors set forth to implement these changes and to demonstrate that their programs are effective. Often funding was attached to such implementation. What has followed is a large amount of continued research based on evaluation studies with randomized, controlled samples--the gold standard for demonstrating whether a program “worked.” Much of this research came from the University of Cincinnati, led by Ed Latessa and Frank Cullen and their graduate students. This “What Works” literature, often called the Principles of Effective Intervention, provides a blueprint for corrections practitioners to follow to reduce recidivism and change behavior. Many of these principles were developed by researchers using a quantitative research method called meta-analyses. While there are many principles of effective intervention, some of the principles are listed below (Lovins & Latessa, 2018): Treatment effectiveness should be determined through evaluation research and extensive, systematic, quantitative reviews of these studies. Controlled randomized evaluation studies are the gold standard in finding “what works.” Programs for people who offend should target areas related to recidivism, such as antisocial attitudes and associates, family problems, and substance abuse. Programs should use standardized assessment tools to determine the specific individual’s risks and needs. Based on the assessment, the intensity and duration of the intervention should be determined. The treatment intervention should be cognitive- behaviorally based, in which individuals are confronted with their thinking and the behaviors associated with that thinking, given problem-solving and coping skills, and opportunities to practice new behaviors. Cognitive- behavioral programs have been found throughout various disciplines to change behavior effectively. As stated earlier, these principles of effective intervention have been found in numerous studies and systemic reviews of this research to reduce recidivism. Many probation departments have been trained in these principles, initially led by the Corrections Research Center based at the University of Cincinnati, and procedures and policies based on these principles have been implemented around the country as well as around the world. Desistance Research Another emerging body of research regarding correctional intervention is desistance. It is based on a theory of why law violators desist (or stop) criminal behaviors. Desistence is “the long-term abstinence of criminal behavior among those who previously have engaged in a pattern of crime” (Maruna, 2001, p. 21). Initial desistance research focused on the aging-out or maturation process that naturally occurs with law violators over time. These theorists and researchers found that most people who offend will likely stop their law-violating and substance- abusing behaviors through prosocial, naturally occurring events. Sampson and Laub (1993) found that these events create “turning points or trajectories” in people’s lives that cause desistance from criminal behavior and substance abuse. For example, finding a good job, getting married, and associating with law-abiding friends, have all been related to reductions in recidivism. In the last 20 years, desistance research has emphasized the role of cognitive transformations in altering life trajectories. In the research of Maruna (2001), for example, formerly justice-involved men and women from Liverpool, England, were characterized by similar “condemnation scripts” or risk factors (e.g., poverty, delinquent associates, weak social bonds) that are known correlates of criminal behavior. However, what differentiated criminal “persisters” from “desisters” was not background factors but the extent to which they were able to cognitively “rewrite their narratives” and find meaningful roles in the community. Moreover, the desisters, Maruna (2001) reported, had a more positive outlook for the future and a stronger sense of control over their lives. Similarly, in a long-term follow-up study of males and females who committed serious law violations, Giordano TRANSLATING RESEARCH et al. (2002) found that cognitive shifts in identity and attitudes toward crime were determining factors in desistance. Although changes in social relationships and other environmental factors provided “hooks for change,” it was “cognitive and identity transformations and the actor’s role in the transformation process” that led to sustained patterns of desistance. In addition to these critical findings in the desistance literature, researchers have criticized “what works” literature as being too narrowly focused on their definition of effectiveness. For example, they argue that while large quantitative studies provide helpful information, qualitative studies where law violators are encouraged to discuss their motivations, justifications, and cognitive shifts/ frames are also helpful. In addition, data gathered using longitudinal studies can be important in the search for changing behavior, and such types of research should be included in determining whether a program is “effective.” The remainder of this paper examines AA through the lens of these theoretical models. It proposes ways to integrate AA more fully into probation/parole programs as a viable option for addressing substance abuse issues. Even now, AA participation is often imposed as a mandated condition of probation. However, some take the position that, given the spiritual nature of the program, it cannot and should not be required. I argue that while AA does utilize God in its material, those who criticize AA for this aspect of the program have never sat in and observed AA meetings. In my research, I have found that AA is consistent with the theories and principles of effective interventions mentioned above, does not mandate belief in God, is cost-effective, and works to change behavior. Therefore, AA should be included in the list of programs that are “effective.” During my career as a criminologist, I have had the opportunity to engage in various research pertinent to corrections and substance abuse interventions. Most of my early work was rooted in the “what works” literature. More recently, I have been involved in qualitative and ethnographic research on women struggling to maintain sobriety and stay out of the criminal justice system. As a result of \my research, I have observed AA meetings for over 20 years. I have had the opportunity to interview and casually converse with people actively engaged in AA. Through this lens, I can discuss what happens behind the doors of AA and how members perceive the benefits and weaknesses of the program. One of my consistent observations has been how much AA utilizes cognitive behavioral strategies for change. According to the Applied Behavior Analysis website, “Cognitive behavioral intervention relies on processes whereby people learn to become experts of their behavior, while examining their thoughts and emotions and then applying several strategies” (AppliedBehaviorAnalysisEdu. org). A strategic undertaking for AA participants is to challenge their thoughts contributing to substance abuse and devise alternative ideas and responses to these challenging instances. One person in my study said, “this is a thinking program; our thoughts lead us to alcohol.” Another person in AA said, “AA taught me how to change my thinking by playing the tape through in my head and recognizing the consequences of my actions.” These are clear cognitive behavior concepts played out in AA every day. Commonly found in criminological theories is the concept that relationships are related to why people commit crimes and desist from crime. Another goal of AA is to encourage members to find other sober friends, find a sponsor to support them in and throughout the AA program, and enjoy fellowship with other AA members. Another participant in my study claimed, “AA has given me a family and a sense of belonging. I wouldn’t be able to quit drinking without my sponsor and support group.” A woman in my study conveyed her happiness in having sober people to hang out with. An additional important component of AA is to reframe past behavior into something that allows a person to move out of the guilt phase and into the change process. For example, a 50-year-old woman I have followed consistently for over 20 years often fretted over how she had let down her kids and wasn’t a good mother. After AA participation, she could reframe past behavior and create a new identity. The woman told me she learned “she wasn’t a bad mom; she was a sick mom.” Redemption scripts tend to be done by the leads or speakers of the meetings when they tell their stories. A script that speakers are supposed to follow includes “what the past was like, what happened, and what it is like today.” These scripts allow for redemption for the past and contribute to a new identity.TRANSLATING RESEARCH Conclusion AA should be considered a viable tool for probation and parole professionals. Research using quantitative and evaluation methods has found that AA works at achieving abstinence from alcohol. In addition, AA includes many of the important components of behavioral and cognitive change found to be necessary among law violators and those who want to change behaviors. I argue that the program should be reconsidered in the eyes of the “what works” researchers. Finally, I believe that AA could be more effective if corrections practitioners trulygenuinelyrstand what is happening in the meetings to help facilitate change. References Alcoholics anonymous big book(4th ed.). (2002). Alcoholics Anonymous World Services. Andrews, D. A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R. D., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. T. (1990). Does correctional treatment work: A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28(3), 369-404. Belenko, S., Johnson, I. D., Taxman, F. S., & Reickmann, T. (2016). Probation staff attitudes toward substance abuse treatment and evidence-based practices. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(2), 313–333. Feucht, T. E, & Gfroerer, J. (2011, Summer). Mental and substance use disorders among adult men on probation or parole: Some success against a persistent challenge. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Data Review. 1-16. https://www.ncjrs.gov/ pdffiles1/nij/235637.pdf Giordano, P. C., Cernkovich, S. A., & Rudolph, J. L. (2002). Gender, Crime, and Desistance: Toward a Theory of Cognitive Transformation.American Journal of Sociology,107(4), 990–1064. Glassman, H. S., Moensted, M., Rhodes, P., & Buus, N. (2022). The politics of belonging in Alcoholics Anonymous: A qualitative interview study. American Journal of Community Psychology, 70(1-2), 33-44. Kaskutas, L. A. (2009). Alcoholics Anonymous effectiveness: Faith meets science. Journal of Addictive Diseases, 28(2), 145–157. Kelly, J. F., Abry, A., Ferri, M., & Humphreys, K. (2020). Alcoholics Anonymous and 12-step facilitation treatments for alcohol use disorder: A distillation of a 2020 Cochrane Review for clinicians and policymakers. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 55(6), 641–651. Kelly, J. F., Humphreys, K., & Ferri, M. (2020). Alcoholics Anonymous and other 12-step programs for alcohol use disorder. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd012880.pub2 Kelly, J. F., Stout, R. L., Magill, M., Tonigan, J. S., & Pagano, M. E. (2010). Mechanisms of behavior change in alcoholics anonymous: Does Alcoholics Anonymous lead to better alcohol use outcomes by reducing depression symptoms? Addiction, 105(4), 626–636. Lovins, L. B., & Latessa, E. J. (2018). One state’s use of program evaluation to improve correctional practices. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 34(1), 81–96. Martinson, R. (Spring 1974). “What Works? - Questions and Answers About Prison Reform,”The Public Interest, pp. 22-54. Maruna, S. (2001). Making good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. American Psychological Association. Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1992). Crime and deviance in the life course.Annual Review of Sociology, 18,63–84. Biographical note: Dr. Dana Hubbard is an Associate Professor at Cleveland State University in the Criminology, Anthropology, and Sociology Department. She is also a Research Associate at the Criminology Research Center at Cleveland State. Her research interests include women and crime, race and crime, and corrections and the intersection of all of these areas. She has published in journals such as Justice Quarterly, Crime and Delinquency, and the Prison Journal. She has also been the recipient of numerous grants associated with evaluation research.IMPACTFUL LEGISLATION MAKING THE CASE FOR IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION SUPPORTS IN JUSTICE Alexandra Walker, PhD Johanna Leal, MATRANSLATING RESEARCH Introduction The legislative season often brings mounting pressure to implement meaningful changes to the criminal legal system. From proposed amendments to criminal codes to the introduction of promising interventions, legislators, leaders, and practitioners alike try to use the legislative process to deliver sustainable reform. Regardless of the original intent, legislation outcomes are often unclear, and the effectiveness of reforms remains in question, creating in some the perception that the criminal legal system is immune to socially significant change. Luckily, implementation science suggests otherwise, as it has helped us understand that a strategy is not enough to effect change. Instead, we need to consider how a strategy is implemented. Effective implementation is, in fact, crucial for actualizing socially significant outcomes. Decades of research have helped us know more about effective change strategies today than at any other time in history (Bonta & Andrews, 2016; Gendreau et al., 2017; Latessa & Lowenkamp, 2005; Maruna et al., 2013; Taxman & Caudy, 2015). The tremendous amount of scientifically based knowledge that has demonstrated better outcomes for people is leaps ahead compared to the days of “nothing works” in the 1970s (Martinson, 1974). As a result, leaders seeking to improve outcomes are faced with an overwhelming number of options (and, at times, competing options) for promising and best practices, inventories of programs, new approaches, strategies, and tools. The sheer volume of new ideas and innovations is daunting and alluring to others. History has demonstrated that what policies or practices are chosen may not move the needle toward the desired results as much as how they are integrated into daily work (Burrell & Rhine, 2013; Fixsen et al., 2019; Rhine et al., 2006; Tapia & Walker, 2020). Despite good intentions and a tremendous number of resources, years of the policy change and new ideas are piling up, with only a small number being implemented in a way that can demonstrate outcomes to scale. Pressure to do something new or different is commonplace. Implementation challenges, including competing/ shifting objectives and resource issues, create barriers to effective, systemic change. As we look to new and better ways of doing business, we must consider the value and practicalities associated with providing proper implementation support--support which, in part, involves aligning the policies, practices, and programs connected with our strategies. This article argues that effective implementation is needed to ensure better outcomes in criminal legal and human service systems. Without building capacity and infrastructure for this work, legislatively mandated changes in criminal legal reform will continue to produce inconsistent and limited results. Legislative Patterns Tell Us a Lot About Our Outcomes Much is undoubtedly happening legislatively; this can be readily confirmed by looking at the record. What is less certain is whether the legislative activity is yielding the intended outcomes. Unfortunately, with the pace of change, the nature of the legislative process, and the pressure for legislators to, well, legislate, it is rare to have the time to pause and take stock of how new ideas, programs, and innovations are panning out in practice. For example, in the last five years in one midwestern state, more than 200 bills were passed related to the criminal legal system, comprising approximately 10% of the 2000-plus pieces of legislation impacting the state overall that the legislature in that state passed during the same time frame. Legislation is usually designed to serve people, communities, and systems better. Yet no one can benefit from legislative changes that they do not experience. Those changes must be put into practice whenever legislation requires some form of change, whether it be a slight shift or a new way of doing business. Indeed, Fixsen and colleagues emphasize the importance of effective implementation for any change to achieve improved system outcomes. Implementation, or how we put things into practice, directly impacts fidelity and sustainability—an impact that has been shown across disciplines (Fixsen et al., 2019). It is worth noting that more than 20 years ago, the Harvard Business Review reported that 70% of implementation efforts fail, whether they are driven from the top, the bottom, or with critical mass (Beer & Nohria, 2000), and that statistic has remained constant (Fixsen et al., 2019). While it is clear that planned and purposeful implementation has a noticeable impact on the efficiency, effectiveness, and sustainability of change efforts, legislation is rarely TRANSLATING RESEARCH crafted to allow the time, effort, and evaluative resources necessary to let changes stick. Instead, due to time, resource, and structural constraints, the intent of the legislation is often diluted over time or shifts entirely, only to be discovered years later, down the road, as another problem to fix legislatively. Current Study Five years of criminal legal legislation in one midwestern state were analyzed using an implementation framework and perspective. First, each bill was reviewed, and implementation-specific criteria (detailed below) were cataloged. Specifically, the review looked at the types of changes required by the legislation and whether there were implementation support components included within the bill. Additionally, the extent to which funding and staffing were sufficient to support the work appropriately was documented. 1 As mentioned above, between 2017 and 2021, more than 200 bills related to criminal legal issues were passed (Table 1), a significant and telling number from an implementation standpoint. Although bill drafters are generally very careful to allow for flexibility, the amount of time, effort, and resources required to do new and different things, to learn from them, iterate the process and try again differs for every agency and every piece of legislation. Such factors are rarely accounted for when agencies are expected to implement multiple changes, big and small simultaneously. Even significant resource investments in initiatives have not resulted in socially substantial outcomes. This is because sustainable implementation efforts require considerable focus and intentionality on aligning agency practices, developing people, and constructing organizational cultures that support these initiatives long term. However, in many cases, so many change initiatives are passed that organizations are depleted of the human and organizational capital required to support the work. It must also be mentioned that the vast array of required legislative changes passed in any given year all too often includes mandates that are misaligned or in direct conflict with one another, which creates considerable complexity and ambiguity for those responsible for carrying out those changes. These various challenges reinforce the need for expert- level implementation supports to be infused into public policy from the beginning. Otherwise, most legislative change efforts are destined to be ineffective without removing significant portions of existing work from those organizations to create space for new and different ways of doing business. While 200 pieces of legislation in five years is considerable, it should be noted that many people impacted by the criminal legal system are also entangled with the behavioral health system and social services. As shown in Table 2, when legislation in these two additional areas during the same five-year period is included, the overall number of bills signed into law that impacted justice-involved populations and the agencies designed to serve them increases to over 300. Table 1: Passed Criminal Legal Legislation in a Midwestern State, 2017-2021 Table 2: Legislation Impacting Justice-Involved Individuals and Agencies, 2017-2021TRANSLATING RESEARCH For this study, 179 2 criminal legal bills passed in one midwestern state were reviewed during the five years between 2017 and 2021. Figure 1 provides an overview of the rubric used to document each bill’s implementation components as described in the yearly Digest of Bills prepared by the Office of Legislative Legal Services. Criteria include changes that depart from standardized practice and require implementation support for people to operationalize, evaluate, and scale in practice. In many cases, multiple implementation criteria were needed within a single piece of legislation. Findings All legislation reviewed required some degree of implementation at the state and local level and most required multiple implementation components. Every mandated change has its implementation challenges, resource demands, and expectations. The work of Fixsen and colleagues (2019) demonstrates that implementation efforts for a single new policy/procedure can require upwards of 4 to 17 years to be fully completed if successful. When change efforts are compounded with layered, intricate, and varied requirements, this adds to the complexity, resource intensiveness, and time needed to implement with any quality measure fully. The results demonstrate how organizations are, in many ways, fighting a losing battle, as each year brings about hundreds of new requirements, shifts, and changes that all demand implementation supports. Much of the reviewed legislation required shifts in existing practice along with new requirements, programs, or accountability for further processes. Interestingly, up to 7% of reviewed legislation included evaluation components in any given year, and not even 5% included a pilot program phase provision. The omission of evaluations creates situations where organizations are unlikely ever to know whether the changes they are making are having an impact if their efforts are efficient and practical, even if the changes are taking place in practice at all. It also leaves a lot of room for creative reporting processes and a gap between what we believe is happening versus what is happening in practice. Leaders often need more time or capacity to carry out verification efforts. They must move quickly from one implementation effort to the next to keep up with all the yearly changes. It comes as no surprise that less than 50% of the legislation enacted during the review period included appropriations to provide funding. Leaders may be motivated during the legislative process to report that no additional funding will be necessary, as funding requirements often decide whether a piece of legislation passes. Since many leaders do not openly discuss organizational barriers, challenges, limitations, and costs when it comes to desired legislation, the result is commonly referred to as “unfunded mandates.” These are extremely difficult to accommodate with existing resources and place an Figure 1: Implementation Criteria Considerations Rubric 1 State and local agencies are often asked to participate in the fiscal note review process to identify whether funding and employees are necessary to complete the work. It has been the experience of these writers that agency heads are not always able to share open and honest information about the impact of pending legislation. In many cases, reporting that there will be fiscal needs associated with changes results in important legislation failing through the process. Therefore, many agency heads are under pressure to report back to the legislature that there is no fiscal impact when the truth may be far different. As such, the data on funding and FTEs in this study should be reviewed with discernment as it may represent what was required to pass the bill as opposed to what was needed to support it. 2 26 bills were excluded from review as they were written to clarify existing language, and/or move things around in statute.TRANSLATING RESEARCH incredible burden on agencies and stakeholders who are forced to do more with less. While maximizing resources can be considered a best practice when changes are aligned, the realities of the array of legislation passed in any given year make that very difficult, if not unlikely. To appreciate the scope of this problem, consider that 31% of passed legislation in 2021 included funding/ appropriations. That translates to 24 “unfunded” bills in just one year, whose implementation expenses must be covered by existing resources. Moreover, on average, 25% of bills enacted between 2,017 and 2021 included funding/appropriations. That translates to more than 150 unfunded mandates over five years stretching organizational capacity and creating misalignment and competition for existing resources. Most agencies impacted by legislation must have existing infrastructure and the capacity to implement significant changes well, and most legislation does not include these considerations. Without the necessary implementation capacity and infrastructure, most change efforts, legislative or otherwise, are at significant risk of failure, costing taxpayers and the community millions. Without purposeful leadership and support, full implementation, defined as 50% of the people engaged in the change have met a measure of fidelity (Fixsen et al., 2019), can take more than a decade to accomplish, with some studies indicating it can take even longer—if it happens at all. Understanding this gap illuminates why our efforts to make change through legislation alone have a limited impact on system outcomes. As each legislative session approaches full swing, agency heads and legislators must consider how they craft, structure, and design legislation so they are set up for success. This requires an implementation framework to account for the people, data, organizational culture, leadership, and feedback dynamics involved. Tools such as The Legislation Impact Tool 3 are necessary to facilitate dialogue and discussion between legislators and corporate leaders about the realities of legislation and its impact on the people and the work. Barriers to Implementing Legislation Developing and replicating effective policies, practices, and programs requires considerable attention from diverse groups of stakeholders, implementation experts, and applied researchers over sufficient periods (Fixsen et al., 2019; Wolfe, 1995). In many cases, ten years or more are needed to clearly understand organizational outcomes (Fixsen et al., 2019). Only when an organization reaches some level of fidelity (doing things consistently and with quality) can there be a consistent way to judge whether a program exists in practice and a way to interpret results and outcomes. Given this, one factor standing in the way of implementation is that more time should be allowed. Demands on legislators and those in leadership roles compel them to pass more and more bills and implement more and more changes, making it impossible for those responsible for implementation to keep up with the pace of new demands. As a result, large departments or entire organizations are put in the position of trying to implement ideas from previous leadership or legislation without understanding why or analyzing whether they align with other efforts. It could be said that many of today’s challenges are a direct result of yesterday’s ideas. Another barrier to impactful legislation stems from the desire of many state decision-makers and agencies to replicate what is working somewhere else. An illustrative Table 3: Implementation Considerations of Criminal Legal Legislation in a Midwestern State 3 Gain access to The Legislation Impact Tool here: https://acji.org/legislation-impact-toolTRANSLATING RESEARCH example of this was brought to light by an L.A. Times editorial on what was intended to be a therapeutic rehabilitation facility for youth in L.A. County (Times Editorial Board, 2021). Looking to reform their approach and improve outcomes for justice-involved youth, local leaders borrowed ideas from model programs in other states and contexts, expecting the same outcomes for some of the most challenging youth cases in their county. Reform efforts started with Senate Bill 81 (SB 81), also known as the “Juvenile Justice Realignment” bill. SB 81 limited certain types of commitments to a state youth correctional facility and provided funding to county probation to support youth who had committed serious offenses.Seeking opportunities to implement SB 81, the Los Angeles County Probation Department leveraged SB 81 funding to demolish a county-operated juvenile camp in Malibu called Camp Kilpatrick and build a new cottage-style facility guided by the Missouri Youth Services Institute (MYSI) model. Stakeholders wanted to offer a different way of rehabilitating youth and depart from the typical boot camp style and institutional approach of traditional county youth camps. The goal was to provide a therapeutic community through a home-like environment with a wide range of individualized programming emphasizing trauma-informed care in a small-group setting. More than $50 million was spent on a state-of- the-art residential campus, and optimistic leaders coined the term “L.A. Model” for this project, only to have it closed four years later by the governor. In addition, an evaluation report presented to the county by an outside non-profit group, Evident Change (2021), revealed that it was unclear what outcomes the L.A. Model could have achieved because it was never properly implemented in the first place. The failed implementation of the L.A. Model is a case study of the troubling, costly, and all too common gap between leaders’ vision and what happens in practice. Just because something has worked in one state, community, or agency does not mean it will perform the same in another locale. We must consider the context, culture, needs, and people involved and create flexibility, implementation supports, and evaluation supports that balance the need for fidelity to the practice with the unique needs of the context in which it is being implemented (Fixsen et al., 2019). When the new policy or innovation is not aligned with the existing priorities of the implementing agency, the gap between what legislation is trying to accomplish and what is happening in practice grows wide and deep. Another common barrier to the successful implementation of legislation is that very seldom do we take the time to check in on the implementation of legislation after initial installation. Suppose we follow up on legislation through sunset reviews or new reporting structures. In that case, the focus is almost always on outputs or metrics that show progress, with little discussion or attention given to the inherent barrier and alignment issues in any implementation effort. As a result, legislators and agency heads are busy and move on to tackle the next pressing issue, missing out on the opportunity to improve processes, adjust practices, align and blend efforts with existing systems, learn from mistakes, and consider reprioritizing or stopping doing certain things altogether. The goal of implementation is the full and effective use of new ways of doing business in practice. Simply creating legislation or developing a new policy strategy does not guarantee results. Unfortunately for all of us, legislation and the large bureaucracies and agencies tasked with implementation are at risk of policy “workarounds” that prevent people from changing what they do in day-to-day practice. Consider the efforts that many states have taken to reduce technical violations. When these efforts began en masse, the focus was predominantly on creating structured tools as decision-making supports when providing sanctions and incentives. These new processes were implemented haphazardly, quickly shifting to an administrative process, documenting what staff already wanted to do with their clients. Soon after, many states moved to more prescriptive processes to reduce technical violations, removing discretion from staff to make violation decisions and placing that responsibility either with leadership or with blanket policies that restricted anything other than the desired outcome. Yet, even after all this effort, and for many organizations, a tremendous amount of work placed on leadership to review individual cases, technical violations have remained primarily unchanged. At the same time, some were reduced in the short term only to return to the status quo soon after. Regarding parole in Colorado, Senate Bill 2019-143 was crafted after years of trying to address this issue internally within state organizations and through the legislature. By 2019, considerable frustration with poor outcomes existed among leaders, legislators, and other critical stakeholders. As a result, SB19-143 was prescriptive about what behaviors were eligible for a return to prison and the alternatives for Next >