Module 1: Section 1:
There are four main benefits of implementing the TJC model in your community

Benefit 1: Long-Term Public Safety

Communities fail to maximize opportunities to enhance long-term public safety when those discharged from jail with high risk and need are not identified and prepared properly for release, supervised, or supported in the community.

Public safety TJC strategies include:

• Implement transition planning using validated screening, assessment, and evidence-based programming and interventions during incarceration to facilitate successful transition to the community when the person is released.
• Provide law enforcement with information on which releases from the county's correctional facility (jail) are on pretrial release, probation, subject to curfews, or have other conditions for which police officers can hold them accountable.
• Transition substance abusers directly to outpatient or residential substance abuse facilities. Every day addicts are sober is a day they will not resort to illegal activities to support their habits and a day they will manage their thoughts and actions to stay out of trouble.
• Provide regular forums to discuss needs of inmates transitioning from jails to communities.

Benefit 2: Cost Effectiveness

The TJC model allows you to use your dollars and your resources in a more cost-effective way by identifying partners for collaboration and allocating scarce resources wisely to best manage offenders based upon the level of risk they pose to your community. Sharing resources can save time and resources—particularly important in times of budgetary constraints. In the long term, collaborative partnerships that reduce recidivism and public health problems add up to substantial savings.

There are many examples of how the TJC model's focus on collaboration can reduce unnecessary costs:

• Partners can conduct joint training and purchase shared resources.
• Partners can coordinate service provision to target interventions for the most appropriate offenders, address service gaps, and avoid service redundancies.
• Community options can be used to intervene with low-risk, high-need people, rather than incarcerating them.
• Efforts for low-risk, low-need individuals can focus on enhancing prosocial engagement within jobs, communities, and relationships, rather than on incarcerating them and actually increasing their likelihood of reoffending.
• Lower recidivism rates can reduce the need for costly jail beds.

Benefit 3: Improved Individual Outcomes

Many individuals in jails have co-occurring needs, so the TJC model is designed to put an infrastructure in place to motivate individuals to effectively address their risk and needs. Such an infrastructure at the agency level benefits recently released individuals who want to take ownership of their transition and recovery plans¹.

List of improved individual outcomes:

• Enhanced public safety
• Decreased victimization
• Decreased criminal justice system costs
• Reduced recidivism
• Reduced drug and alcohol use
• Reduced homeless shelter use
• Increased obtained and sustained employment
• Improved physical health
• Improved behavioral and mental health
• Fewer emergency room visits
• Increased access to benefits
• Improved use of community resources and community involvement
• Increased family and community engagement
• Increased use of treatment and services that change offender behavior

Benefit 4: Resource Expansion

“The whole is greater than the sum of the parts” describes the synergy that can occur when agencies adopt the TJC model. Agencies that operate in “silos” that don't interact with outside partners agencies can't compete with agency collaboration that pools knowledge and resources from across agencies and organizations. Jails can play a key role in this relationship, offering a framework that reinforces, regularizes, and rationalizes the notion of working together for the good of society.

Resource expansion benefits:

• Better coordination and pooling of resources
  • Cross-training
  • Coordinated delivery of services and resources to increase continuity and avoid duplication or conflict
• Increased use of services
  • Co-location of staff from multiple agencies in one place prevents offenders from having to travel to multiple places in a short period of time.
  • Co-location of staff increases continuity of service, consistency of purpose, and delivery of services.
• Case management connectivity
  • A shared data system for tracking individuals and their involvement across multiple agencies and measuring their outcomes
  • A shared responsibility for case management allows the system to use all resources fully from jail to the community, thus enhancing or enlarging the transition service net.

Jails can play a key role in this relationship, offering a framework that reinforces, regularizes, and rationalizes the notion of working together for the good of society.

¹ Robinson, M., and G. White. 1997. “The Role of Civic Organization in the Provision of Social Service: Towards Synergy.” Research for Action 37. Helsinki, Finland: World Institute for Development Economics Research.

The Goal of the Online Resource

The aim of this online learning resource is to provide you, our TJC partners and those interested in community transition efforts, with practical information to help you implement the model. The TJC learning sites were instrumental in the development and continued revisions of the Toolkit. Working with these sites throughout the last years allows us to tailor the Toolkit content based on the actual needs and reality jails and communities face when implementing a reentry initiative. This resource has several purposes:

• Give an overview of the TJC initiative.
• Help begin the process of implementing a reentry initiative in your community.
• Foster an understanding of the key elements necessary to implement the TJC model.
• Explain basic TJC concepts and terms.
• Provide resources for jail administrators, community providers, elected officials, and other stakeholders.
• Serve as an advocacy tool for community stakeholders interested in gaining support for the model.

This online resource is arranged in nine user-friendly modules based on the key components of the TJC model:

Module 1: Getting Started introduces the Transition from Jail to the Community Initiative and outlines how to use this online learning resource.

Module 2: Leadership, Vision, and Organizational Culture focuses on leadership, vision, and organizational culture in the success of your community's jail transition strategies.

Module 3: Collaborative Structure and Joint Ownership provides practical information to help you develop a reentry system where collaboration and joint ownership permeates the transition process.

Module 4: Data-Driven Understanding of Local Reentry examines the vital role that reliable data plays in successfully transitioning people from jail to the community, and provides tools and information to help jurisdictions collect and manage data.

Module 5: Targeted Intervention Strategies provides an overview of targeted intervention strategies to improve outcomes of people transitioning from jail to the community.

Module 6: Screening and Assessment focuses on the importance of identifying the risks and needs of your population as the starting point of any targeted intervention strategy.

Module 7: Transition Plan Development emphasizes the elements of an individualized written transition plan that lays out the intervention, treatment, and services for a person in jail and after release based on a prior assessment of the person's risk and needs.

Module 8: Targeted Transition Interventions concentrates on the development and implementation of appropriate jail transition strategies and follow-up services in your community.

Module 9: Self-Evaluation and Sustainability highlights the use of data and scientific evaluation to understand the effectiveness of interventions and system initiatives, determine their fit within a system of transition and reentry, and highlights strategies to help sustain the Initiative's efforts.

In addition, two key documents, the TJC Implementation Roadmap and the TJC Triage Matrix Implementation Tool guided the content of this learning resource. The roadmap identifies the tasks, subtasks, participants, and associated milestones and products for implementing the TJC model. Included in the Implementation Roadmap is the TJC Implementation Tracking Tool to help you track your milestones and timeframe when implementing the TJC framework. The Triage Matrix Tool outlines implementation considerations related to the targeted intervention elements of the TJC model.

Additional resources providing more information on the TJC initiative are located at the TJC web site, including the TJC brochure, which provides a brief overview of the initiative and the model and the Final Report: Process & Systems Change Evaluation Findings from the TJC Initiative, examining implementation of the TJC model across the six Phase 1 learning sites.

The recommended audience for this online resource is stakeholders, administrators, and staff working with individuals returning to their communities after being discharged from jail:

• Sheriffs
• Jail administrators
• Correction officers involved in transition efforts
• Jail treatment staff
• Community corrections staff
• Pretrial services staff
• Reentry coordinators
• Community providers
• Social service providers
• Probation officers
• Pretrial services
• Government officials, including county board and legislative members and staff of the executive branch of local government
• Criminal justice coordinating council members
• Judges and officers of the court

While each module stands alone, they also build on one another in the order outlined in the TJC model, beginning with system-level elements of the initiative and then moving toward individual-level interventions. We recommend that you begin with Module 2: Leadership, Vision, and Organization Culture and work your way through to Module 9: Self-Evaluation and Sustainability

Each module should take between 20 to 30 minutes to complete and follows the same format:

• Welcome Page: includes the module's title, the focus of the module, a quote from a practitioner, average time to read the module, and the recommended audience.
• Module Objectives: include the specific information discussed in the module, the titles of each section, and the knowledge you should gain by completing it.
• The Transition from Jail to Community Model: visually highlights where the module fits in the TJC model.
• Content Sections: provides key information on areas of interest relating to the module's subject matter.
  • Resources: provides additional resources with links to content.
  • Reentry Revisited: after each section, one or two multiple choice or true and false questions are provided for you to test your knowledge of the information you've read. Your response is anonymous and your answer is not recorded.
  • Summary: a brief review of what the section covered.
• Terms Used in the Field: the last section in each module, where key terms and concepts are defined.
• Conclusion: a brief review of the main issues covered by the module as a whole

Throughout the modules there will be words and phrases that are hyperlinked to direct you to documents, other sections of the module, or that pull up “popup” windows with additional information.  The hyperlinks are activated by clicking on the highlighted words or phrases.

The development of the TJC online learning resource was informed by the knowledge and expertise of a diverse group of advisors, including jail administrators, sheriffs, social service providers, community and victim advocates, formerly incarcerated individuals, corrections policy experts, and researchers.

Jeff Mellow

- is a professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at John Jay College and a member of the Doctoral Faculty in Criminal Justice at the City University of New York Graduate Center. He is a project team member of the National Institute of Corrections’ Transition from Jail to the Community Initiative, and site director in Manhattan for the Office of National Drug Council Policy’s Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program. His research interests primarily focus on program implementation and evaluation, developing effective correctional programs, improving the health care needs of justice-involved individuals, and community corrections. Dr. Mellow has conducted research and evaluations on a wide variety of correctional topics, including halfway back, reentry, and correctional health care programs.  He is lead author of The Jail Administrator’s Toolkit for Reentry and has recently been published in Crime and Delinquency, American Journal of Public Health, and Criminal Justice Policy Review. Dr. Mellow earned his Ph.D. from the School of Criminal Justice at the University at Albany of the State University of New York. He can be reached at jmellow@jjay.cuny.edu.

Gary E. Christensen

- has worked within the correctional field for the past 35 years. He has researched extensively the premise of evidence-based or outcome-driven practice within a correctional milieu and initiated several innovative correctional programs, including the Dutchess County Jail Transition Program (DCJTP), which has been recognized nationally for significant recidivism reduction and the enhancement of general public safety.  In addition to his responsibilities as jail administrator, Dr. Christensen also served in an advisory capacity to the Executive and Legislative branches of County Government as chair of the Dutchess County Criminal Justice Council (CJC) and authored legislation to counter the effects of police racial profiling and coordinated criminal justice system master planning and the implementation of system-wide, evidence-based criminal justice practice.  For his many contributions to the field of corrections, Dr. Christensen has received recognition from numerous local and state entities and, in 2007, received national acclaim by being named the Jail Administrator of the Year by the American Jail Association.  Since his retirement from public service, as president of Corrections Partners, Inc., Dr. Christensen continues to work with leaders throughout the field of criminal justice to enhance the implementation of evidence based practice throughout their systems of criminal justice. He has developed the Applied Correctional Transition Strategy (ACTS), a comprehensive software suite designed to enhance all aspects of daily jail transition as well as provide policy-makers with essential information to ensure that allocated resources lead to the most productive and cost efficient outcomes.  Dr. Christensen continues to serve on several national advisory boards investigating innovative responses to pressing issues within corrections and author publications for the field at large, inclusive of the Transition from Jail to the Community Implementation Initiative/Toolkit, Evidence-Based Decision Making Initiative,   and the Prison Rape Elimination Act National Review Panel.  Dr. Christensen is a Professor of Management, Leadership, and Organizational Psychology at the University of Phoenix, School of Advanced Studies, an Adjunct Professor at Marist College, and qualified as a Master Police/Peace Instructor by the State of New York.

Kevin Warwick

- began working in the field of Criminal Justice in 1981 and has over 33 years of experience working for a 2,000-bed county corrections facility. As assistant superintendent of community corrections, Mr. Warwick managed 15 community-based programs, including three partnership programs with probation, parole, and numerous community-based providers. In 1986, he designed and directed the first day reporting center in the country with the Hampden County Sheriff’s Department in Massachusetts. Mr. Warwick developed all of the reentry programs in Hampden county. Mr. Warwick has worked with jurisdictions all around the country in 48 states developing reentry programs, jail overcrowding programs, and management solutions. He is the lead technical assistance provider for the NIC Transition from Jail to Community project. He is presently a consultant working for many counties around the country on reentry planning and program implementation. He has published numerous articles on community corrections, jail treatment, and reentry programs. Mr. Warwick has a master’s degree in social work from University of Connecticut and is an adjunct professor at Western New England College, the University of Massachusetts and Community College of Vermont. He received the Jim Justice Professional Excellence Award in May 1994, presented by the Corrections Association of Massachusetts. Mr. Warwick is the president of Alternative Solutions Associates, Inc., providing various consulting services including training, development, evaluation of local criminal justice systems, and program design and development. He can be reached at warwickevin@msn.com.

Janeen Buck Willison 

- is a Senior Research Associate in the Justice Policy Center at the Urban Institute. She has more than a decade of experience managing and directing complex multi-site fieldwork studies of youth and adult populations, including studies which employ experimental (random assignment) and quasi-experimental designs and performance measurement frameworks. Her research focuses on adult and juvenile reentry, specialized courts, juvenile justice reform, mental health interventions for offenders, and evidence-based practice and systems change. She is Principal Investigator for the National Institute of Justice (NIJ)-funded Evaluability Assessment (EA) of the FY2011 Second Chance Act (SCA) Adult Offender Reentry Demonstration Projects and the Evaluation of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention FY2010 SCA Juvenile Offender Reentry Demonstration Projects. Additionally, she serves as the Evaluation Director for the Transition from Jail to Community (TJC) initiative in six sites and co-leads an assessment of the National Institute of Corrections’ Norval Morris workforce transformation project.  Ms. Buck Willison is a graduate of Hood College and holds a Master’s degree in Justice, Law and Society from American University in Washington, D.C. She can be reached at jbuck@ui.urban.org.

Contributors

The authors would like to thank the following individuals for their assistance in the development of this resource:

Kevin Barnes-Ceeney

- former probation officer for the South Wales Probation Service and doctoral student at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, for all of his help in drafting the reentry revisited questions, section summaries, and resource content. His field experience and insights managing high-risk offenders was a great benefit when drafting the modules.

Jesse Jannetta, Allison Dwyer, Amy Solomon, Diana Brazzell, Andrea Matthews, and Shebani Rao

- at the Urban Institute for their tireless efforts in reviewing each module and providing excellent feedback.
We would personally like to thank our Transition from Jail to Community core team members in each of the following  counties for their time, effort, and commitment in implementing the TJC initiative.

Phase I TJC Learning Sites

Davidson County, TN

Jeaneice Shearon, TJC Site Coordinator and Re-Entry Coordinator, Davidson County Sheriff's Office
Carla Brookins, Re-Entry Specialist, Davidson County Sheriff's Office
Gerry Ivy, Re-Entry Specialist, Davidson County Sheriff's Office
Melinda McDowell, JMS Database Program Manager, Davidson County Sheriff's Office
Paul Mulloy, Director of Programs, Offender Reentry Center
Davidson County Sheriff's Office
Carmen Turks, Re-Entry Specialist, Davidson County Sheriff's Office
Chuck Willis, Pretrial Manager, Davidson County Sheriff's Office

Denver, CO

Shelley Siman, TJC Site Coordinator and Program Coordinator, Denver Crime Prevention and Control Commission
Shirley Beye, Diversion Officer, Life Skills Program, Denver Sheriff Department
Lisa Calderon, Director, Community Reentry Project
Cathie Dunphy, Denver Crime Prevention and Control Commission
Angela Hardin, Case Manager, Community Reentry Project
Regina Huerter, Executive Director, Denver Crime Prevention and Control Commission
Carol Lease, Executive Director, Empowerment Program
Michael Than, Major, Denver Sheriff Department
Paul Oliva, Captain, Denver Sheriff Department

Douglas County, KS

Shannon Murphy, TJC Site Coordinator and Reentry Director, Douglas County Sheriff's Office
Mike Caron, Programs Director, Douglas County Sheriff's Office
Deborah Ferguson, Adult ISP Officer III, Douglas County Community Corrections
Wes Houk, Sergeant, Douglas County Sheriff's Office
Marciana Vequist, Senior Therapist for Adult Outpatient Services, Bert Nash Community Health Center
Norm White, Customer and Community Affairs, Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitative Services

Kent County, MI

Ross Buitendorp, Clinical Director, Network 180 Addiction Services
Dave Anderson, Captain, Kent County Sheriff's Office
Randy Demory, Captain. Kent County Correctional Facility
Barb DeVos, Community Corrections Planner, Office of Community Corrections
Jack Greenfield, President/CEO, Arbor Circle
Andrew VerHeek, Community Corrections Planner, Office of Community Corrections

La Crosse County, WI

Jane Klekamp. TJC Site Coordinator and Manager, Chemical Health and Justice Sanctions, La Crosse County Human Services
Vicki Burke, Chair, Judiciary and Law Committee, La Crosse County Board of Supervisors
Doris Daggett, Captain, La Crosse County Sheriff's Department
Mike Kiefer, Programs Coordinator, La Crosse County Sheriff's Department
Mary Kay Wolf, Executive Director, YWCA La Crosse
Orange County, CA
Dominic Mejico, TJC Site Coordinator, Inmate Services Administration Manager, Orange County Sheriff's Department
Greg Boston, Administration Manager II, Inmate Services, Orange County Sheriff's Department
Melody Cantrell, Inmate Re-Entry Supervisor I, Inmate Services, Orange County Sheriff's Department
Sharron Gibson Casler, Director, Inmate Services, Orange County Sheriff's Department
Geoffrey Henderson, Senior Program Director, Phoenix House Orange County
Stacey McCoy, Assistant Division Director, Orange County Probation Department
Robert Rangel, Director, Program Division/Public Information Officer, Orange County Probation Department
Heather Wroniak, Research Analyst, Inmate Services, Orange County Sheriff's Department

Phase II TJC Learning Sites

Ada County, ID

Michael Moser, TJC Site Co-Coordinator, Manager, Alternative Sentencing & Programs, Ada County Sheriff's Office
Christopher Saunders. TJC Site Co-Coordinator and Supervisor, Programs, Ada County Sheriff's Office
Amy Aaron, Manager, Planning and Research, Ada County Sheriff's Office
Joseph DeRosier, Jail Sergeant, Ada County Sheriff's Department
Brian Hippe, Sergeant, Pretrial Release & Compliance, Ada County Sheriff's Office
Lynn Jones, Alternative Sentencing Supervisor, Ada County Sheriff's Office
Sandy Jones, Manager, Misdemeanor Probation, Ada County Sheriff's Office
Timothy Leigh, Assistant Manager, Idaho Department of Labor
Paul Stoltenberg, Sergeant, Jail Inmate Classification, Ada County Sheriff's Office
DeLanie Valentine, Director, Adult Behavioral Health & Youth Services, Easter-Seals Goodwill

Franklin County, MA

Ed Hayes, TJC Site Coordinator and Assistant Deputy Superintendent of Treatment, Franklin County Sheriff's Office
Candace Angier, Former TJC Site Coordinator, Assistant Superintendent, Inmate Programs, Franklin County Sheriff's Office
Leslie Bannish, Assistant Deputy Superintendent, Classification, Franklin County Sheriff's Office
Rebecca Bialecki, Executive Director, North Quabbin Community Coalition
Fred Bliss, Assistant Deputy Superintendent, Business Process & Information Technology, Franklin County Sheriff's Office
Lucinda Brown, Community Relations Coordinator, Greenfield District Court
Tonie Deangelis, Chief Probation Officer, Greenfield District Court
Holly Kosisky, Asset Development & Community Collaboration Coordinator, Community Action
Tim Simons, Field Officer, Massachusetts Probation
Stephen Wheeler, Chief Probation Officer, Orange County Courts

Fresno County, CA

Kay Hickman, TJC Site Co-Coordinator, Fresno Probation
Michelle LeFors, TJC Site Co-Coordinator, Offender Programs Manager, Fresno County Sheriff's Office
Terry Barnes, Sergeant, Fresno County Sheriff's Office
Neil Dadian, Captain, Fresno County Sheriff's Office
Nancy Dominguez, Probation Services Manager, Fresno Probation, Adult Division, AB 109 Unit
Craig Downing, Fresno Probation
Pete Garcia, Fresno Probation
Stephanie Gibbs, Sergeant, Fresno County Sheriff's Office
Kirk Haynes, Probation Services Manager, Fresno Probation
Emma Hughes, Cal State Fresno
Paul Lee, Probation Officer, Fresno Probation
David Ruiz, Probation Services Manager, Fresno Probation
Joy Thompson, Division Director, Adult Probation Services, Fresno Probation
David Touma, Senior Systems and Procedures Analyst, Fresno Probation
Jared Verdiales, Probation Officer, Fresno Probation

Hennepin County, MN

Brad Kaeter, TJC Coordinator, Adult Probation Services, Department of Community Corrections and Rehabilitation
Stephanie Ahles, Acting Supervisor, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, Department of Community Corrections and Rehabilitation
Pamela Benson, Probation Officer, Adult Field Services, Department of Community Corrections and Rehabilitation
Jennifer DeCubellis, Area Director, Human Services and Public Health Department
Andrea Ferstan, Director of Income Strategies, United Way
Dennis Gilbertson, Division Manager, Adult Corrections Facility, Department of Community Corrections and Rehabilitation
Brittany Lockwood, Corrections Officer, Adult Corrections Facility, Department of Community Corrections and Rehabilitation
Ana Memedovich, Principal Planning Analyst, Human Services and Public Health Department
Connie Meyer, TJC Co-coordinator and Program Manager, Adult Corrections Facility, Department of Community Corrections and Rehabilitation
Deborah Nonemaker, Principle Planning, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, Department of Community Corrections and Rehabilitation
Tony Orozco, Corrections Officer, Adult Corrections Facility, Department of Community Corrections and Rehabilitation
Julie Rud, Manager, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, Department of Community Corrections and Rehabilitation
Jennifer Schuster-Jaeger, Area Director Organizational Change Management, Department of Community Corrections and Rehabilitation
Brent Sizer, Detention Lieutenant, Hennepin County Sheriff's Office

Howard County, MD

Patricia Schupple, TJC Site Coordinator, Deputy Director, Howard County Detention Center
Yolanda Bethea, Director, Community Supervision, Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services
Andrew Eckstein, Northern Regional Assistant Director, Community Supervision, Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services
Darlene Jolly, TJC Assistant Site Coordinator, Community Programs Counselor, Howard County Detention Center
Janet Jones, Adult Services Coordinator, Howard County Mental Health Authority
Jack Kavanagh, Director, Howard County Detention Center
Paula McCreary, Technical Services Manager, Howard County Department of Technology & Communication Services
Barrington Page, Program Administrator I, Howard County Health Department
Scott Pullen, Reentry Coordinator, Howard County Detention Center
Pam Sorensen, Classification/ Work Release Supervisor, Howard County Detention Center
Donna Wells, Executive Director, Howard County Mental Health Authority

Jacksonville, FL

Tammy Morris, TJC Site Coordinator, Captain, Howard County Detention Center
Kenneth Arnold, Director, River Region Human Services
Waylon Barkley, Captain, Jacksonville Sheriff's Office
Katherine Burns, Reentry Coordinator, Jacksonville Reentry Center
Jennifer Caldwell, Public Safety Analyst Supervisor, Jacksonville Sheriff's Office
Mike Jowers, Leuitenant, Jacksonville Sheriff's Office
Barrington Page, Program Administrator I, Howard County Health Department
George Pratt, Sergeant, Jacksonville Sheriff's Office, Pretrial Services
Kristen Smith, Aftercare Services Manager, River Region Human Services
Celbrica Tenah, Public Safety Analyst II, Jacksonville Sheriff's Office
Tara Wildes, Chief, Jacksonville Sheriff's Office

Santa Barbara, CA

Kim Shean, TJC Coordinator, Probation Manager, Santa Barbara County Probation Department
Stephen Foley, District Attorney, County of Santa Barbara District Attorney
Tanja Heitman, Deputy Chief Probation Officer, Santa Barbara County Probation Department
Tom Jenkins, Retired Commander, Community representative; former Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office
Mark Mahurin, Lieutenant, Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office
Tim McWilliams, Lieutenant, Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office
Rai Montes De Oca, Public Defender, Office of the Public Defender
Ali Neuffer, District Attorney, County of Santa Barbara District Attorney
Takashi Wada, Interim Director, Alcohol, Drug & Mental Health Services

San Diego, CA

Billy Duke, TJC Coordinator, Captain, San Diego County Sheriff's Department
J.J. Anderson, Community Programs Director, San Diego County District Attorney's Office
Charlene Autolino, Chair, Disability Health Center
Kenneth Barnes, Program Director, Health and Human Services Agency
Matthew Braner, Deputy Public Defender, San Diego County Public Defender's Office
Wayne Brooks, Lieutenant, San Diego Sheriff's Department
Christine Brown-Taylor, Reentry Manager, East Mesa Detention Facility and Reentry Services, San Diego County Sheriff's Department
Frank Clamser, Detentions Support Captain, San Diego County Sheriff's Department
Robert Ford, Deputy Public Defender, San Diego County Public Defender's Office
Erika Frierson, Lieutenant (Facility Commander) Vista Detention Facility, San Diego County Sheriff's Department
Michael Hall, Supervisor, PRO Division/Smart Probation, San Diego County Probation
Grace Liu, San Diego County District Attorney's Office
Rachel Solov, Deputy District Attorney, San Diego County District Attorney's Office
Christine White, Supervising Probation Officer, Evidence-Based Practices Operational Support, San Diego County Probation
Lourdes Zavala-Garcia, Senior Pretrial Services Officer, Pretrial Services

We would also like to thank the following agencies and their representatives for contributing transition materials and information for this online learning resource:

And finally, a special thank you to our active partners Kermit Humphries, Jim Barbee, Pat Taylor, and Danny Downes at the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) for the support and hours of expertise they have contributed to the Transition from Jail to Community Initiative and the development of the TJC online learning resource. Their commitment to this project along with NIC Director Morris Thigpen, NIC Research and Evaluation Chief, Chris Inness, and NIC Jail Division Chief, Virginia Hutchinson cannot be overstated.

This project was supported by Cooperative Agreement No. 09K110GJY4, awarded by the National Institute of Corrections. The National Institute of Corrections is a component of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Points of view or opinions in this Toolkit are those of the authors and do not represent the official position of the United State Department of Justice.

Additional information and links to our TJC Partners, materials, and other jail reentry relevant projects and resources are available on the TJC homepage.

References

Robinson, M., and G. White. 1997. The Role of Civic Organization in the Provision of Social Service: Towards Synergy. Research for Action 37. Helsinki, Finland: World Institute for Development Economics Research.

According to Warren Bennis, a leading theorist of the principles of effectual leadership, “Leaders are people who do the right thing; managers are people who do things right.”¹

Most of us know a leader when we see one, but often have a difficult time defining the specific characteristics of leadership. In this section, you will learn the fundamentals of leadership.

Let's begin with a quick exercise:

Think of someone who you believe is great leader. What are the characteristics that individual has? Now think of someone who is a manager, but not a leader. Do the characteristics and personality traits differ between the two?

Bennis has spent years interviewing leaders and outlines four common characteristics of effective leadership. See how closely your ideas of leadership match up with Bennis's.

What Makes a Leader?

• Management of Attention: The ability “to find a compelling cause or vision that will focus the minds and the energies of everyone involved.”²
• Management of Meaning: The ability to communicate vision and dreams so that they are tangible and have real meaning for others and will be supported.
• Management of Trust: The ability to be consistent, honest, and reliable in everything one does.
• Management of Self: The ability to know one's strength and weakness, nurture one's strengths, and learn from mistakes.³

Leadership is also about empowering others. The organizational development research is clear that a control-oriented, autocratic style of management decreases job effectiveness. An effective leader understands that each person needs to believe that he or she can make an important contribution to the organization. Empowering others also expands the capacity that a leader has to accomplish things.

Bennis notes these characteristics of situations in which people are empowered:⁴

• People feel significant: Everyone should feel that they make a difference to the organization's success.
• Learning and competence matter: Leaders value learning and mastery of skills, and so do people who work for leaders.
• People are part of a community: Leaders develop an organizational culture in which there is a sense of being part of a team.
• Work is exciting: Leaders design an environment where work is stimulating and challenging.

For more information

1. Bennis’ Leadership Qualities. A description of Warren Bennis’s six personal leadership qualities.
2. Blagg, Deborah and Susan Young (2001).  What Makes a Good Leader. Harvard Business School Bulletin.

¹ Warren Bennis, “Why Leaders Can't Lead,” Training and Development Journal (1989): 36.

² Warren Bennis, “The Handy Guide to the Gurus of Management—Programme 5,” https://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/work/handy/bennis.shtml

³ Bennis, “Why Leaders Can't Lead,” 35–39.

⁴ Ibid.

In this section, we emphasize how essential effective leadership is when developing a jail transition strategy in your community. It is critical that the leadership at all levels of your agency, but specifically the sheriff, jail administrator, and leaders from key partnering agencies, are enthusiastic transition proponents. Without the absolute commitment of these key stakeholders, practitioners throughout the system will not be able or willing to build the system of transition that is called for by the TJC model.

For a TJC effort to realize its potential for systems change, as opposed to being a discrete program, our experience tells us that leaders in local government, nongovernment, and community-based organizations must be willing and have a vision to reshape their agency missions and foster a change in organizational culture. Indeed, leadership as part of TJC model implementation calls for system partnership among leaders to align their actions to attain “big picture” system goals. It is only through such leadership choices that the TJC model can achieve long-term public safety benefits that have proven to be possible and attainable.

Identifying local leaders to champion systems change, interagency collaboration, and partnership is one of the first things a community needs to do when implementing the TJC model.

Anyone can be the champion of the TJC model:

• Jail administrators
• Sheriffs
• Mayors
• County commissioners
• Judges and officers of the court
• Local funders
• Local stakeholders

Key characteristics of a TJC leader:

• Understands that implementing the TJC model contributes to long-term public safety.
• Is enthused enough to get the community excited about the TJC vision, build support for the vision, and commit to the long-term process.
• Is an expert on the TJC model and the five key system elements that must be in place for the model's success.
• Understands the formal and informal dynamics of his or her community.
• Demonstrates the ability to be part of a larger team; a system player.
• Trusts his or her vision and is able to take criticism for shifting the organizational culture to a focus on transitioning people from jail to the community.
• Has an ability to be flexible in adjusting his or her vision to the overall vision of the key stakeholders.
• Bases his or her decisions on evidence-based practices and supports accountability.
• Committed to making difficult decisions requiring all organizational/system practices and policies to be evaluated continually and revised as necessary to insure long-term public safety outcomes.
• Supports an organizational culture which encourages innovation and learning.
• Trusts his or her colleagues' and partners' abilities, understands that they are capable of solving problems, treats them with respect, provides opportunities for others to practice leadership, and empowers them to go and make change.
• Recognizes the importance of engaging all organizational and system stakeholders in the process over the short and long term.

The TJC leaders and other key decision-makers will need to perform the following activities:

• Encourage active involvement in setting expectations, identifying important issues, articulating a clear vision of success, and engaging staff and other stakeholders in the TJC effort.
• Lead local efforts to build a common vision for systems reform.
• Develop infrastructure for interagency and community collaboration, coordination, and information sharing.
• Align missions and organizational cultures of partner agencies to support overarching TJC goals.
• Clarify and define roles and responsibilities to facilitate local TJC implementation.
• Identify champions or “change agents” from all levels at key agencies to move the TJC initiative forward.

For more information:

1. Jannetta, Jesse, Hannah Dodd and Brian Elderbroom. The Urban Institute's The Elected Official's Toolkit for Jail Reentry. Bureau of Justice Assistance.

In this section, you will learn about the importance of developing a vision for your initiative that incorporates a TJC model perspective. Lorri Manasse, an organizational specialist, defines vision as “the development, transmission, and implementation of an image of a desirable future” and considers the vision as an essential quality of leadership and one that “gives life to an organization.”¹

In her view, the vision starts off very personal, often based on the leader's “personalized professional values, personal images of possibilities, and personal assessments of a situation,” but quickly evolves to strategically guide the organization.²

Manasse's research found common characteristics in how organizational experts define vision as: some comprehensive but personal picture of a desired future that a leader conveys to members of his or her organization. Once the organizational member “buys into” the vision, they join the leader in turning their shared vision into reality.³

Or, as Westley and Mintzberg state, a leader's vision can be broken down in three stages:⁴ (1) the envisioning of “an image of a desired future organizational state,” which (2) when effectively articulated and communicated to followers serves (3) to empower those followers so that they can enact the vision

In other words,

Vision (idea) → Communication (word) → Empowerment (action)⁵

“Vision without action is merely a dream. Action without vision just passes the time. Vision with action can change the world.” Joel Barker⁶

Does your agency need a new vision?

Ask yourself how you are presently dealing with the issue of transitioning people from the jail back to the community. Is your agency what Bolman and Deal call a “psychic prison,” that is, one where you're “unable to look at old problems in new light, doing more of what [you] know rather than probing and questioning what [you] don't know”?⁷

If so, it's time to develop a new vision.

Four qualities of an effective TJC vision:

1. It envisions the future of your agency and its commitment to the TJC model.

The vision should articulate how the organization or system would be functioning in several years. Commonly, a visioning exercise asks the question “in five years, our organization or system will be an organization that….” This exercise is used to develop long-term goals and a picture of what the organization is striving for.

2. It is collaboratively developed.

Developing the vision collaboratively increases the chance of it becoming a shared vision. It is important to take the time to create a shared vision so that the voices and values of system stakeholders are reflected in the organization's work. This collaborative approach has impact beyond the formulation of the shared vision, because it accommodates transformational leadership practice as people reconnect with the overarching purpose of their work as professionals. This leads people to perform at a higher level as they strive to attain outcomes beyond personal compensation.

Within any system or organization, the best place to start is with a group of leaders discussing system or organizational practice and establishing a need for system change. Through visioning exercises, they can identify common views and values. Identifying a set of common views and values across diverse system stakeholders offers both a base on which to build consensus about the initiative's mission and goals, and offers direction for next steps, including a mission statement.

3. It is flexible enough to allow many different stakeholders to understand how they contribute to the attainment of improved outcomes for incarcerated populations.

Remember that the vision must be easy to explain to everyone who needs to understand the model, including the public. The vision should reflect and contribute to the work of a community reentry committee or criminal justice coordinating council.

4. A mission statement flows from it.

The vision should give shape to more immediate actions, including the development of a shared mission. An effective shared organizational mission should be measurable and reflect the values and daily practices of that organization or system. Each action within an organization or system should be measured against the mission statement.

Before you begin, establish clear guidelines:

The vision

• The vision should be no longer than a paragraph.
• The vision should stand for a very high, perhaps even unattainable, level of excellence.
• The vision should inspire others to strive for common goals beyond their self-interests.
• Visioning must be a collaborative process.

The mission

• The mission should be developed to ground the vision and reflect practices that the organization accomplishes on an ongoing basis.
• The mission should be no more than a paragraph long, measurable, and stated simply.
• The mission should reflect the shared value and practice of involved organizational stakeholders.
• The mission should articulate the overarching practices, actions, or outcomes that make it unique and contribute to the best interests of all served.

How to develop a shared vision

Invite those supervisors charged with developing a shared vision and mission to a meeting or engage them during in-service training. Leave plenty of time (block out at least two hours), so useful discussion can take place and not be cut short by daily tasks. This demonstrates the importance of this work, and when a process is led collaboratively, it shows that leaders value staff input.

You might want to start by discussing the issues and barriers people face after release from jail. Next, share a draft mission and a description of the process that led to this point, and ask them for their opinions.

Line staff should be engaged to strengthen the vision and mission and be encouraged to suggest changes consistent with TJC implementation efforts. As part of this discussion, they might be asked what we (including the leaders) as members of the organization can do to enhance long-term public safety even more.

It should be expected that line staff of all walks within the criminal justice system will have diverse views regarding what should or should not happen with the incarcerated individuals. None of their views should be dismissed; rather each of their views and values should be discussed in the context of actual practices and policies and their effectiveness in enhancing long-term public safety.

Here are more ideas about how to get buy-in of the vision from your staff.

Remind them that

• The TJC model is consistent with the historical mission of “correctional” agencies.
• Agencies that infuse their culture with transitional programming are those that typically run the safest and cleanest facilities; better manage correctional populations, maintain safer facilities, less stress, and provide an environment that promotes safety and health.
• Reentry is a systems approach to solve a problem that affects all organizations associated with criminal justice populations.
• The TJC model is a system, not a program.
• Participation within the implementation and application of the TJC model will prompt staff to become part of the system and offer the opportunity to interface with other system professionals.
• When implemented and applied properly, the TJC approach will result in outcomes that stop the “revolving door” that staff see on a daily basis and make real, measurable contributions to a safer community.

Key points to remember

• The vision isn't final until everyone involved in the process of developing it has had a chance to discuss it and add their thoughts and suggestions.
• Recognize that you are increasing the chance of buy-in by taking the time to discuss, get feedback from, and implement the suggestions of all stakeholders, including those within the community.
• Policy, procedures, and directives will need to be tied to the vision and mission.
• Don't expect that buy-in is automatic and realize that everyone will not share your enthusiasm for this approach.
• As a leader, you need to take into account people's motivation to work in your organization
• The TJC concept is ongoing and will need adjustment over time based on the needs of the system and community.

Summary

Now that you have completed this section you understand that the development of a new vision and mission may be important for the successful implementation of the TJC model. While a vision may exemplify a very high level of excellence, the mission grounds such ideals in everyday institutional activities. You recognize that it is vital to involve staff and other stakeholders in the process of formulating the vision and mission

For more information:

1. Adams, Don. “The Pillars of Planning: Mission, Values, Vision.” A short article on the difference between mission, values, and vision.

2. Denver Sheriff Department. Mission statement with desired outcomes and initial strategies.

3. Orange County, CA. The TJC Vision Statement for Orange County.

¹ Lorri A. Manasse, “Vision and Leadership: Paying Attention to Intention,” Peabody Journal of Education 63 (1985): 150–73.

² Ibid.

³ Ibid.

⁴ Frances Westley and Henry Mintzberg, “Visionary Leadership and Strategic Management,” Strategic Management Journal 10(1989): 18–19.

⁵ Ibid.

⁶ Joel Barker, “Famous Joel Barker Quotations,” http://www.quotes.net/quote/10490 Joel Barker Famous Joel Barker Quotations.

⁷ Lee G. Bolman and Terrence E. Deal, Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership (San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1991).

This section will help you understand the organizational culture of your agency and allow you to identify the formal and informal culture that impedes or facilitates the implementation of the TJC model.

What is organizational culture?

Stanley Herman, a well-known organization development consultant, defined organizational culture as the prevailing assumptions, values, and norms that characterize the management and interactions that occur in the daily operation of the organization.¹

The organizational culture dictates how things are done, the type of people it attracts, who exercises authority, what behavior is rewarded (both formally and informally), and how the staff view their job and role in the organization.

Herman also introduced the idea of the organizational iceberg to depict the strength of the informal and hidden cultural elements in organizational life, which are often as powerful as the formal elements in dictating how the organization operates and changes over time. In other words, you must consider how the formal and informal aspects of your organization are interrelated when developing and implementing the TJC model.

The iceberg metaphor is quite simple:

First, picture an iceberg and remember what we were taught as kids; only a small part of an iceberg is visible above water. The tip that we see seems like the entire iceberg, but it's actually less than 10 percent of its mass.

The formal aspects of an organization (e.g., mission, goals, policies, procedures, physical facilities, and financial resources) are the iceberg's tip, floating above the water. Everyone pays attention to the tip without remembering that what lies under the water—the human, cultural, informal aspects of the organizational culture. These aspects often control the organization.

The Organizational Iceberg

Above the Water: Formal Organizational Aspects

Waterline: Interorganization Aspects

• How people outside the organization view it

Below the Water: Human Aspects

After reviewing the organizational iceberg, think about how important it is to identify and address the “waterline” and “below the water” aspects of your organization. Remember that implementation of the TJC model will likely fail unless these human aspects support it.

Waterline

• How is your organization perceived by other organizations with which you interact?
• How is your organization perceived by the community?
• Do you receive open and honest feedback from other organizations about your organization?
• Do others perceive your organization and staff as committed to helping people transition from jail to the community?

Below the Water

• Are the formal and informal structures in your organization consistent?
• Who has informal power in the organization and may influence how the TJC model is perceived?
• Are there differences among the staff with regard to the roles and mission of the agency?
• Will the TJC model disrupt any power and influence patterns at your agency?
• Do you know the individual needs, desires, and feelings of your staff?
• Are the staff willing supporters of the TJC model? If not, why?
• Are the staff willing to partner and share power and resources with staff in other stakeholder agencies?

Institutionalizing the TJC model in your agency

How do you develop an organizational culture supportive of the TJC model that becomes so strong and institutionalized that the leaders can leave and the new organizational culture continues?

The answer lies in the leaders' ability to articulate the application of the TJC model; but more importantly, institutionalization is won or lost based upon what the leaders actually do. When implementing a model that requires change, leadership modeling is essential. Even a very articulate, charismatic leader who says all the right things cannot fool people into buying into and integrating these practices unless the leader lives, eats, and breathes the model on a consistent basis.

Other key points to remember when changing the organizational culture

• The organizational environment must be safe, secure, and stable before change can take place.
• Articulate every single initiative in the context of your mission and vision.
• Build strong relationships with external stakeholders, communities, internal stakeholders, those incarcerated, and service providers.
• Develop a culture that focuses on learning for the purpose of obtaining the best results and enhancing long-term public safety.
• Commit to measurement, self–assessment, monitoring, and change as needed.
• Develop a sense of ownership by all staff.
• Provide staff incentives for being part of the TJC model.
• Deliver organizational transparency.

For more information:

1. Christensen, Gary, E. 2004. Leadership within Corrections: The Creation of Learning Organizations. Corrections Managers’ Report. Available: http://www.correctionspartners.com/articles/Lead_w-in_corr.orgs_learning_orgs.pdf.

2. Flaherty-Zonis, Carol. 2007. Building Culture Strategically: A Team Approach for Corrections, published by National Institute of Corrections.

3. Foxall, Mark,. 2006. “Analyzing Our Culture to Improve Our Jail,” Douglas County Department of Corrections, Omaha, Nebraska. In National Institute of Correction's Proceedings of the Large Jail Network Meeting.

¹ Stanley M. Herman, “What Is This Thing Called Organization Development?” Personnel Journal 50 (1971): 595–603.

A Decision Making Process to Manage Change

In this section, you will learn how a management team can provide a supportive environment for the TJC model and increase the likelihood of it being institutionalized in your organizational culture.

Why a management team?

Cultural change is unlikely to occur unless staff feel like they have control, power, and decision-making capabilities in the organization—not just in TJC issues but in all matters. An effective management team allows staff members from various parts of the organization to come together and make decisions by committee in concert with and with the authority of top level leadership. These activities are quite useful to gain the ideas of many regarding a large change initiative, such as a TJC implementation; perhaps equally important is the positive influence such activities have on organizational culture. Despite these realities it is also important that all involved understand that, ultimately, top-level leadership has the final responsibility for all organizational decisions.

An effective management team also employs key leaders from throughout your organization to participate in a shared vision and mission consistent with the tenets of the TJC model. With the assistance and full participation of the management team, top-level leaders can gain the support necessary to change policy and practice to realize the TJC model.

Forming a management team

Members of the management team should be chosen for their interest in the process as well as their influence with people or groups who are part of the organization. By virtue of their involvement and demonstrated commitment to TJC implementation, they increase the interest and buy-in of their followers and give them a voice in the process.

Management teams are usually made up of members within the organization. By no means should this team be committed to “lock-step” agreement with the leaders; on the contrary, given that a management team represents an organizational group, the team must honestly evaluate all proposed TJC initiatives. As part of this evaluative process, the management team should feel empowered to question or “nay say” to assist in understanding the impact of TJC implementation on the organization or system.

The process of seeking consensus described above is integral to the viability of a management team; honest dialogue and solving difficult problems as a team increases the buy-in of management and shows other people in the organization how effective such a process can be.

Benefits of a management team

• Helps the organization understand the leaders and their expectations.
• Helps the leaders with decision making.
• Makes more information about TJC implementation available to all levels of the organization.
• Raises the professionalism and accountability of everyone by spreading authority and control.
• Increases collaboration among employees to advance TJC efforts.
• Gains buy-in among internal organizational stakeholders.
• Lessens reliance on top-down decision making by leaders.
• Increases transparency and understanding.
• Represents the interests of multiple organizations in the system.
• Facilitates agreement on prioritizing issues.

For more information:

1. Davidson County, TN Sheriff’s Office. Intranet website screen shot. A goal of this website is to enhance collaborative organizational communication, keep staff informed about current initiatives, and highlight staff successes.

2.Davidson County, TN Sheriff’s Office. 2009. An introductory communication letter to sheriff’s office staff explaining the TJC initiative and the importance of being a partner in the reentry process.

This section defined a number of basic terms used in this module. These terms will be highlighted throughout the module, allowing you to rollover the term to see the definition.

Leader:

Top-level leaders create the direction of the organization and motivate their staff to want to achieve the vision, mission, and goals of the organization. However, people of any level or occupation within an organization are leaders when, through their actions, ideas, and values, they inspire others to innovate and perform at a level that realizes outstanding outcomes beyond those required to simply comply with or meet standing organizational or system procedures. Leaders of all levels have different responsibilities, but how they influence those around them is most important in changing organizational culture.

Managers:

People at or near the top of the organization who are responsible for the entire agency.¹

Mission:

The articulation of an organization's or system's purpose, what makes it unique, and what it will do on a day-by-day basis to strive toward the previously developed shared vision.

Organizational culture:

Prevailing assumptions, values, and norms that characterize the management and personal interactive processes that occur in the day-to-day operation of the organization.²

Organizational Development:

An approach to the management and leadership of organizations that recognizes the importance of human interpersonal processes, as well as formal structure and content as important and legitimate subject matter to be examined and evaluated in the context of common, agreed upon goals.³

Transformational leadership:

The ability to motivate followers to work for transcendental goals that go beyond immediate self interests. Transformational leaders rely on vision, charisma, and the ability to build professional, communicative relationships with stakeholders.⁴

Vision:

The development, transmission, and implementation of an image of a desirable future.⁵

¹ Richard L. Phillips and Charles R. McConnell, The Effective Corrections Manager: Correctional Supervision for the Future (Boston: Jones and Bartless Publishers, 2005), 40.

² Herman, “What Is This Thing Called Organization Development?”

³ Ibid.

⁴ Human Resource Training and Individual Development (Broad Graduate School of Management, Michigan State University, 2004), http://www.studies-online.org/MGT413/Notes/Leadership.ppt#267,9,Transformational Leadership.

⁵ Manasse, “Vision and Leadership.”

Christopher Donelan, Sheriff of Franklin County, was born and raised in Western Massachusetts. He has spent 29 years in public service in the capacities of Police Officer, Probation Officer and Legislator. He was elected Sheriff in 2010. He earned a B.S. degree in Criminal Justice from Westfield State College and a Master of Public Administration degree from American International College. Prior to becoming Sheriff, Donelan served four terms in the Massachusetts House of Representatives. While in The House, he was a member and Vice Chair of the Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security and a member of the Committee on Substance Abuse and Mental Health. Much of his work as Sheriff has come from his experience working on statewide issues of public safety, substance abuse and education.

What makes a successful TJC leader?
Practice what you preach, and be strong and consistent.  I made some very tough decisions during the turn-around of my facility. Some were changes in key personnel positions.  But the decisions were made and then we followed through.  I also actively participated in meetings and groups with the inmate population.  I was personally invested.  The message to staff was clear:  “I am in this with you, and we will not be changing course”. With that kind of a clear message, we began to move forward together.

What are your tips for getting support from system stakeholders for the TJC Initiative?
It’s all about relationships. Form and build relationships in the community before you need them.  If the relationships exist, trust exists.  When we called on community partners, they were more than willing to work with us because the relationship already existed.  They knew us, knew our vision and our goals, and saw the value in partnering with us.

Daron Hall, Sheriff of Davidson County, is a native Nashvillian and has spent nearly 25 years dedicated to the field of public safety. He earned a B.A. degree with an emphasis in criminology from Western Kentucky. Prior to becoming Sheriff, Hall worked under the direction of three Davidson County Sheriffs. His private sector experience includes program director for Corrections Corporation of America where he had the opportunity to work in Brisbane, Australia. In 2005, he received the Ambassador of Hope Award from the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI) for outstanding service to the mentally ill in criminal justice. He currently serves as the 101st president of the American Correctional Association.

What makes a successful TJC leader?
As a leader, two main focuses for us were on trust and support. Trust the skills of your people and trust that the community would respond if appropriately involved. It is extremely important to support both staff and community throughout the process during the good as well as the challenging times.

What are your tips for getting support from system stakeholders for the TJC Initiative?
For us, the key was open communication from the very beginning. As we, initially, began the process we had involvement at every level - including all levels of governmental leadership to community agencies leadership. We have continued this by establishing, implementing, and maintaining community and facility work groups around all the major need areas for those who will be released. As part of this, we have quarterly meeting involving all parties in collaborative communication and shared data results.

Jim Flory, Douglas County Commissioner, is a life-long resident of Douglas County, Kansas. Jim attended Lawrence schools, received both his undergraduate degree and law degree from the University of Kansas, and was a deputy sheriff in Douglas County for 7 years while attending KU and KU law school. He retired from the U.S. Department of Justice in 2006, after serving 27 years as a prosecuting attorney. During his legal career, Jim was the District Attorney of Douglas County, Assistant Attorney General (Kansas), Assistant United States Attorney and the United States Attorney for the District of Kansas.

What makes a successful TJC leader?
The primary role of a successful TJC leader is to provide unequivocal support to the TJC staff who will carry out the program.  While economic support is critical, the TJC leader must also actively assist staff in generating and maintaining a public commitment to this community-wide program.  

What are your tips for getting support from system stakeholders for the TJC Initiative?
Communication is the key ingredient for gaining and retaining the involvement of system stakeholders. To be a true "stakeholder," the agencies and personnel in the system must feel that they have a meaningful voice in formulating and implementing the initiative.

Lisa M. Calderón is the Director of the Community Reentry Project in Denver where she works with formerly incarcerated persons for their successful transition back into the community.  She received her Master's degree in Liberal Studies from the University of Denver, and law degree from University of Colorado at Boulder. As a former legal director of a battered women's program, Lisa is qualified as an expert witness on issues of domestic violence and victim advocacy. Lisa is involved with several community-based initiatives to create more opportunities for low-income women, youth of color, and formerly incarcerated persons.  She is a commissioner on the Denver Crime Prevention and Control Commission and was appointed to the State Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Council.

What makes a successful TJC leader?
The TJC process requires the willingness of both criminal justice representatives and community providers to come to the table and commit to staying engaged through challenging conversations.  The Crime Prevention and Control Commission provided the structure for this process, and the TJC initiative provided a roadmap for implementation. As a result of our year-long visioning process, we were able to collectively develop a sense of ownership among all participants that kept us working together toward a common purpose. Our common ground was that we all wanted to stop the cycle of recidivism and increase public safety. We all understood that developing lasting solutions required long-term planning and upfront investment in training a core team of individuals including executive leadership and direct service providers. This approach allowed us to develop a continuity of services initiated within the jail by Life Skills staff, and then handed off to community partners for transitional services and client support.  The TJC initiative enabled us to build our capacity by targeting our limited resources toward medium and high-risk populations by implementing validated assessments and evidence based methods.  As the Chairperson of the Community Reentry Committee, I helped to navigate perspectives, ensuring that community voices did not get eclipsed by systems officials, while at the same time, cultivating an exchange where community providers also learned from criminal justice experts. 

What are your tips for getting support from system stakeholders for the TJC Initiative?
It's important that the collaboration not be criminal justice-system dominated. In the initial stages, I insisted that we move the Community Reentry Committee meetings from criminal justice system boardrooms into the community. That was symbolically important to have our meetings in rotating community spaces so that providers felt they were on a more equal playing field with systems officials.  Now, after working together for several years, we have our meetings both in community and justice system spaces because we have developed that trust that all of our voices are equally important. You need to have community partners that are vocal advocates for the needs of clients, but can also be effective collaborators with the city.  Those aren't mutually exclusive concepts—the city needs to institutionalize reentry, and the community needs to be at the table informing policy and providing input to inform the changes that need to occur within the system.

Ross Buitendorp is a contract manager with Network180, which manages the public mental health and substance use disorder services within Kent County Michigan.   Ross received his bachelor's degree from Calvin College and his Masters of Public Administration from DePaul University.  Ross has worked in the substance abuse and mental health field for 15 years, many of those years was in collaboration with the criminal justice system in different capacities, both as a provider and manager of services.  Currently he is on the steering committee for the Kent County Michigan Prisoner Reentry Initiative (MPRI) and manages the contract for the MPRI mental health program in Kent County. 

What makes a successful TJC leader?
A successful TJC leader must have an understanding of the multiple systems that must work together with a united goal of successful community reintegration.  This means that not only must that leader know the systems involved but they also must understand the many different bio-psycho-social issues that confront individuals returning to their communities.  The TJC leader will be able to show how all systems need to respond to a client's needs and the overall benefits that a unified reentry system provides the client and community.      

What are your tips for getting support from system stakeholders for the TJC Initiative?
In order to get support from system stakeholders there needs to be support for TJC within leadership of the jail at a minimum.  Without jail support TJC will not be successful.  Once there is that base support of the jail, use data provided through research that is already out there to show key stakeholders the overall benefit for community safety, client well being, and costs savings.

Collaboration is “a cooperative venture based on shared power and authority. It is nonhierarchical in nature. It assumes power based on knowledge or expertise as opposed to power based on role or function.”¹ If communication is the foundation of the partnering pyramid, collaboration is the pyramid's tip, with coordination and commitment squarely in the middle.²

All four C's of partnering are important for the success of the TJC model, but collaboration must occur for the model's long-term success.

To see if you are ready to be part of a collaborative effort. You should be able to answer “Yes” to each statement below.

¹ W. A. Kraus, Collaboration in Organizations: Alternatives to Hierarchy (New York: Human Sciences Press, 1980), p. 12.

² North Carolina's Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative: Going Home. A Systemic Approach to Offender Reintegration. Accessed 12/8/2009 at https://slideplayer.com/slide/235085/.

³ D. Robinson, T. Hewitt, and J. Harriss, Managing Development: Understanding Inter-organizational Relationships (London: Sage for the Open University, 1999), 7.

⁴ Kraus, Collaboration in Organizations, 12.

In this section we discuss how to formalize the collaborative structure. We doubt that any two locations will have identical collaborative structures, but often it is a pyramid-style structure comprising an executive-level reentry council or criminal justice coordinating council; a reentry implementation committee that includes a core-team group of members and subcommittees or work groups composed of system stakeholders. Each group or agency will have its own unique role to play in the collaborative structure, and agencies may use documentation such as memoranda of understanding to formalize the collaborative process in writing.

Section 2: 1. Forming an Executive-Level Reentry Council

In many jurisdictions, the executive-level reentry council is initially charged with developing the organizational structure of the reentry implementation committee. This council should be composed of high-level individuals such as sheriffs, county commissioners, city council members, jail administrators, judges, and officers of the court. They provide the jail-to-community reentry effort with broad strategic guidance, give it legitimacy in the jurisdiction through their support, and hold it accountable for meeting its goals and objectives. Many jurisdictions already have an executive-level reentry or criminal justice coordinating council or some other established body that can serve in this function. Adding the TJC Initiative, however, to the agenda is key.

Responsibilities of the executive-level reentry council include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Championing the initiative in the community.
• Serving as a vehicle for community-wide communication.
• Selecting members of the council's committees and subcommittees.
• Holding the initiative accountable for meeting performance measures.
• Setting policy for the TJC initiative.
• Identifying macro-level evaluation components.

Section 2:2 Forming a Reentry Implementation Committee

The reentry implementation committee is a central team of individuals who oversee the detail-oriented work of devising and implementing the jurisdiction's TJC strategy. The implementation committee needs to have an active and committed membership to carry out its work.

Knowledge and ability to make a time commitment may be more important than formal position in selecting committee members. In some jurisdictions, members of the executive council will meet to recommend implementation committee membership. Some of the members may come from the reentry council (although they may be too busy to make the necessary commitment), whereas others will be from the greater stakeholder community. In other jurisdictions, the implementation committee is convened prior to the executive-level reentry council.

Responsibilities of the reentry implementation committee may include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Meeting at least monthly.
• Communicating regularly with the executive-level reentry council to keep them fully informed on the progress of the TJC initiative.
• Providing recommendations to the executive-level reentry council on important decisions in the design and implementation of the initiative.
• Developing goals, outcomes, and measures for the TJC initiative.
• Convening and overseeing work groups to address specific implementation issues.
• Identifying what entity or person will complete these tasks.
• Providing for clear date of review for each of these to monitor the progress of the group.

Task 2: Collaboration Structure and Joint Ownership of the TJC Implementation Roadmap to see a to-do list of the tasks and subtasks needed to create and implement a collaborative structure.

Consider inviting the jail's TJC reentry coordinator (e.g. point person), mental health providers, defense attorneys, community shelter staff, educators, community corrections officers, housing authority staff, the district attorney's office, victim's advocates, health care providers, employment specialists, people from the faith community, and other social service providers to serve on the reentry implementation committee.

Section 2: 3. Core Team

An effective core team is an integral part in the success of implementing TJC in your community. Unlike, the executive-level reentry council and the larger reentry implementation committee, the core team is the key mechanism for sharing day-to-day leadership of the TJC effort. This small group of people work closely with the designated TJC coordinator who is championing the TJC model in your community to monitor progress, identify priority tasks, and carry them out. Core teams create multiple keepers of the “big picture” regarding the TJC strategy and increase the ability of sites to make progress in multiple areas simultaneously. The most effective core teams include people from different agencies, representing both criminal justice and community spheres, who contribute varied perspectives and knowledge bases to TJC implementation planning.

4. Work Groups

A responsibility of the reentry implementation committee is to convene and oversee work groups tasked on specific implementation issues. Volunteers for these working groups can come from the reentry implementation committee membership or from key players outside the committee who have the skill set, subject expertise, and the interest in completing these tasks.

For example, a community provider with expertise in correctional programming may be involved in a curriculum development subcommittee but may not be on the reentry implementation committee. Work groups will complete concrete, discrete tasks delegated to them by the reentry implementation committee. The committee should give them clear, written directives with defined end products; the committee should bring its results to the executive-level reentry council for review and approval.

Experience from the TJC Phase 1 learning sites informs us that working groups are most efficient when they are assigned a specific purpose, accomplish their assignment, and then disband with the understanding that the group can be renewed whenever appropriate. Each working group automatically expires after 12 months, unless the reentry implementation committee determines the group should continue.

Click here to see the responsibilities, list of members, and invitees of The Howard County, Maryland, TJC Organizational Structure.

Section 2: 5. Memoranda of Understanding

The success of the reentry implementation committee will depend more on what responsibilities participating agencies accept rather than what they are obligated to contribute. Nevertheless, though normally not legally binding, formalizing the process by drafting a memorandum of understanding (MOU) expresses a long-term commitment to the process and adds a sense of credibility and professionalism to the reentry collaboration.

Other benefits of an MOU:

• Facilitates communication by defining a process for regular meetings, phone contact, or data exchange.
• Protects both parties against differing interpretations of expectations by either party by spelling out details of the relationship.
• Enhances the status of the case management agency in the community through formalized relationships with established or influential agencies.
• Reduces friction over turf issues by specifying responsibilities.
• Transfers authority to perform a mandated function from one agency to another or from one level of government to another.
• Creates a clear and formalized agreement to move forward and partner together.
• Specifies services for a provider agency to provide to clients.
• Specifies the type of clients appropriate for the case management agency and how referrals should be made.
• Cuts through red tape by defining new or altered procedures for clients.

Sections of an MOU:

• Purpose or goal of the collaboration or partnership
• Key assumptions
• Operating principles or statement of agreement
• The name of each partnering agency
• Each partner's responsibilities under the MOU
• Effective date and signatures

Jails, governmental agencies, and community-based organizations may need to develop formal linkages with each other outside of the reentry implementation committees' MOU. Linkages would include agency-to-agency formal agreements with probation and public health departments, community health centers, community mental health centers, drug treatment programs, STD counseling and test sites, tuberculosis clinics, Medicaid offices, HIV infection services, one-stop workforce centers, housing providers, and service providers presently working with those transitioning from jail to the community.

Information Sharing

MOUs or other information release forms are essential when developing structures for information sharing and service coordination among providers and between providers and the facility. The most common reason for poor information sharing is confusion or misperceptions around what agencies are allowed to share while enforcing privacy policies and requirements. The TJC initiative recommends implementing formal guidelines for the following purposes:

• Referring inmates to community providers.
• Informing providers about the release of relevant individuals. For example, those with a history of homelessness and mental illness.
• Sharing release plans with providers.
• Developing systems for sharing the information, such as electronic databases or regular meetings among providers.

For more information and examples from the field:

1. Crayton, Anna, Liz Ressler, Debbie Mukamal, Jesse Jannetta and Kevin Warwick. Partnering with Jails to Improve Reentry: A Guidebook for Community-Based Organizations, Urban Institute.
2. Cushman, Robert. C. 2002. Guidelines for Developing a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee. The National Institute of Corrections.
3. Davidson County, TN. Faith-based jail to the community work group statement of purpose with measurable short and long term goals.
4. San Diego, CA. San Diego Reentry Roundtable Overview.
5. Howard County, MD.  TJC Organizational Structure.
6. Douglas County, KS, Sheriff’s Office Reentry Programs highlights reentry-related programs at the jail, acknowledges staff from the jail and community by name for their work, etc.

Organizational Chart Examples

1. Denver, CO. Initial organizational chart, and working group outcomes explaining early TJC initiative structure and responsibilities (Large jail example). 
2. Kent County, MI. Initial organizational chart explaining early TJC Initiative Structure (Medium/large jail example). 
3. La Crosse County, WI. Initial organizational chart and mission explaining early TJC Initiative structure (Medium/large jail example).
4. San Diego, CA. San Diego County TJC Initiative Structure. (Large jail example).

Memorandum of Understanding and Partnership Agreement Examples

1. Johnson, Mary, and Linda Sterthous. 1982. A Guide to Memorandum of Understanding [MOU] Negotiation and Development. This is a great guide for a complete understanding of how to develop an MOU. The authors provide model MOUs that are easily adaptable when developing interagency agreements for a returning population.
2. Davidson, County, TN. Memorandum of Understanding between Sheriff's Office and TJC partner agencies (Davidson County, TN).
3. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene Memorandum of Agreement example is a template to use between agencies. Note the paragraph on page 2 of the NYC MOU dissolving both parties of liability. A similar provision in your MOU could make the agencies you approach more comfortable signing such an agreement.
4. Orange County, CA. Memorandum of Understanding between Sheriff's Department Inmate Reentry Unit and TJC partner agencies (Orange County, CA).
5. Snohomish County, WA. Department of Corrections’ Collaborative Agreement with the County’s Human Services Department and the Washington State Department of Corrections.
6. Sullivan County, NH. Department of Corrections’ Memorandum of Understanding.
7. Denver, CO. Partnership agreement with vision/ mission.

In this section you will learn in more detail how to develop a reentry implementation committee made up of public and private agency and community-based organization representatives to increase the success of the Transition from Jail to Community model.

In most communities, agencies and organizations are already providing services to the criminal justice population. The issue is to what degree these services are being provided in a coordinated and collaborative way. This section will guide you through the development and promotion of a multidisciplinary reentry implementation committee, including jail staff, other criminal justice and human service agencies, and community-based organizations. A reentry implementation committee will allow your jurisdiction to jointly craft and carry out a jail-to-community transition strategy that maximizes the impact of available resources, improves individual outcomes, saves money, and delivers long-term public safety.

The development and implementation of a reentry implementation committee requires the following key steps:

1. Select a TJC coordinator
2. Identify partnering agencies and interested stakeholders
3. Reach out to earn partner support
4. Convene the partnering agencies
5. Identify shared goals, principles, and outcomes of interest
6. Write a mission and vision statement
7. Document partner agencies' resources and gaps
8. Develop common performance measures

The following sections discuss these 8 steps, though modules Data-Driven Understanding of Local Reentry and Self-Evaluation and Sustainability also discuss steps 7 and 8.

Step 1: Select a TJC coordinator

Identifying a TJC coordinator in your agency or the community with the clout, independence, and fortitude to bring the right people together is the first step in the partnering process. A local reentry champion of the TJC model, such as the sheriff or the county commissioner, will select a coordinator and give him or her total support and cooperation to move the process along as well as some policy-level decision making authority. This person must have the necessary time to devote to moving this complex effort forward. The coordinator can be from a jail, the courts, probation, or a community setting; there is no one job title, position, or training experience needed to play this role. Determining the right person is dependent on local politics, history, and personalities.¹ Often it is based on which organization has money for this position or is willing to add these duties as part of someone's job.

Think about what characteristics you are looking for in this person:

• Committed to the TJC model.
• Knowledgeable about the risks and needs of people transitioning from jail to the community.
• Interested in understanding current research or best practice.
• Personable, well organized, and a communicator with strong listening skills.
• Has the clout to get things done.
• Knows the community and its stakeholders.
• Respected by both internal and external staff of their home organization.
• Understands current policies and practices throughout the community related to reentry.
• Open to other organizational cultures and values.
• Able to facilitate a process.
• Believes in the capacity of incarcerated people to change.

Step 2: Identify partnering agencies and interested stakeholders

Identifying partnering agencies and community leaders is a key component to the success of the TJC model. You will find that some will be government agencies, but the majority will probably be agencies providing services at the local level. The long-term goal is for the agencies to form a coordinating reentry council, so including the right agencies and the appropriate agency representative is essential.

The spectrum of your possible collaborators is wide open:

Key stakeholders include:

• Jail administrators or sheriffs
• Police departments
• Community supervision and pretrial services agencies
• The courts, prosecutors, and public defenders
• County executives and local legislators
• City officials
• Treatment and social service providers
• Health and mental health agencies
• Housing, economic development, and workforce development agencies
• Local businesses and corporate entities
• Victim advocates
• The formerly incarcerated and their families
• Community residents
• Faith- and community-based providers
• Veterans Affairs

Here is how to start:

Begin by making a list of all the government and nongovernment agencies and community-based organizations your agency presently works with to help transition people from jail to the community.

• In Montgomery County, Maryland, the Department of Labor has set up a One-Stop Center in the jail.  This allows the inmates to get the necessary job search and development skills needed prior to being released from the facility.

Next, identify any other government and nongovernment agencies and community-based organizations that have contacts with the jail population pre- or post-release but which are not formally engaged in the transitional process.

• Police in your community may drop off suspects for processing at the jail's booking site but may not have any formal collaboration with the jail.

Finally, identify the government and nongovernment agencies and community-based organizations that play a key role in meeting the risks and needs of the returning population but have no connection to the jail.

• The local community health care system often doesn't have a relationship with the jail.

Every field has its own terms and the correctional field is no exception. This section defined a number of basic terms used in this module. These terms have been highlighted in purple throughout the module, allowing you to rollover the term to see the definition.

Boundary spanners:

“Individuals who can facilitate communication across agencies and profession to coordinate policies and services.”¹

Efficacy:

The power to produce an effect.

Fidelity:

A measure of the degree to which a given intervention is actually applied or carried out as intended.

Logic model:

“A picture of how your organization does its work—the theory and assumptions underlying the program. A program logic model links outcomes (both short- and long-term) with program activities/processes and the theoretical assumptions/principles of the program.”²

Long-term public safety:

Differing from simple public safety, which is enhanced for the short term while an offender is incarcerated, long-term public safety involves the prevention of and protection from events that could endanger the safety of the general public, and sustains this desired state over a significant period of time after an offender is released from jail.

Partnership:

“A formal agreement between two or more parties that have agreed to work together in the pursuit of common goals.”³ Within the criminal justice system, partnership requires that system stakeholders put aside past differences or competition in favor of a mutually agreed upon or shared mission.  

Public safety:

The prevention of and protection from events that could endanger the safety of the general public such as crimes or disasters.

Stakeholders:

People, practitioners, or actors within the system of criminal justice as well as those employed outside the system or within the community who share interest in or offer service to transitioning offenders.

Chester Cooper is Director of the Hennepin County’s Department of Community Corrections and Rehabilitation (DOCCR). He joined DOCCR in 2008, bringing 30 years of law enforcement experience to the position. Director Cooper began his career as a Detention Deputy with the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office and has held the ranks of Deputy, Sergeant, Lieutenant, Captain, and Inspector as well as Area Director of DOCCR overseeing Adult Services and Deputy Sheriff. In 1994, he was awarded the Medal of Honor by the Minnesota Public Safety Service Awards Committee. A graduate of the FBI National Academy in Quantico, Virginia, he also holds a Bachelor's Degree from the University of Minnesota (1982). Director Cooper is active in his community serving as church Deacon; in this capacity he reaches out to the community in various ways by assisting those in need.

What is your approach for getting multiple agencies to work collaboratively, getting work done, and accomplishing TJC Initiative goals? The key element of successful partnering is to first identify each agency’s goals (recidivism reduction, public safety, other client outcomes such as housing, employment, etc.) and then include representatives from those agencies in the planning process to help ensure their desired outcomes are achieved; it is also critical to work toward a long-term funding strategy. This said, it was beneficial for us to choose a strong lead (United Way) to advise us on community engagement issues. Having established service providers sit on the core TJC team and attend the community TJC meetings were helpful to support and maintain a shared focus and an understanding of TJC’s initiatives, goals and outcomes.

This section will help you learn how objective information or data can inform, improve, and refine your jail transition process.

Data can answer questions about

• Characteristics of your population
• Who should be targeted for intervention
• What crimes are most likely to cycle through your jail
• What resources are available

A data-driven approach to local reentry is the exact opposite of making decisions based on hunches, incomplete information, hunches, or a tradition of doing things in a certain way.

To begin, ask yourself

• What kinds of data do agencies in your community have?
• How can these data be used to improve the transition process from jail to the community?
• What capacity is in place to develop, collect, maintain, and analyze these data?
• What factors influence whether and how data are used in the decision-making process?

Accessing, collecting and analyzing local data are a first step to

• Confirm or refute perceptions about pressing issues.
• Monitor progress, measure outcomes, and formulate policies.
• Assess the characteristics of the jail population, local crime problems, laws, policies, and local resources.
• Identify issues, problems, and potential solutions for the jail population pre- and post-incarceration.
• Increase understanding of target populations of particular interest.
• Identify subsets of the population likely to consume disproportionate criminal justice and program resources.
• Identify geographic areas to which the jail population returns.
• Identify benchmarks and develop measures to chart progress toward them.
• Trace service referrals, engagement, and utilization, and share that information with partner agencies.
• Inform or implement improvements to your strategy.
• Identify resources that can be leveraged.
• Support sound decision making about policy and resource allocation

For more information and examples from the field

1. The Council of State Governments. Report of the Re-Entry Policy Council.  Relevant information on developing a knowledge base of information, including (a) understanding who is being released from prison, and (b) identifying what state and local policies influence and govern reentry. It also speaks to data issues for multiorganizational reentry initiatives like the TJC.

2. Gail, Elias. 2007. How to Collect and Analyze Data: A Manual for Sheriffs and Jail Administrators, Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections. A comprehensive discussion on data collection, management, and analysis.

3. Howard County, MD. Map of Zip Codes to which Howard County inmates are returning. This is a useful tool in visualizing the communities individuals from the Howard County Detention Center are returning.

This section helps you understand what data should be collected and used to make decisions. Agencies are often faced with one of two problems:

• Some agencies have only basic information about their population and available resources, and start from scratch when developing their data collection systems.
• In contrast, other agencies are rich in data, but the data are not in a format that can be easily extracted, analyzed, shared, or presented in easy-to-comprehend reports.

To make matters worse, even when available, the data are often located in different electronic management systems (EMS) or separately on paper documents, which makes data integration nearly impossible. Rarely do agencies have the ability to share real-time data.

Regardless of which of these problems your agency has, the first step is to review management information systems, program records, and other data sources maintained by the jail, pretrial services, community corrections, the courts and community partners to identify the characteristics and needs of their jail-involved clients, as well as the range of available resources in the jail and the community.

This information is critical to create a baseline understanding of the pre-TJC state, an accurate assessment of key issues, and the development of an appropriate set of integrated responses.

To begin, you will need to identify what data are presently available from the jail, pretrial services, community corrections, the courts, service providers, and other sources; in what format; and how confident you are in the data's reliability. We recommend that you begin by cataloging the following information:

• Name of each data source
• Information available from each source
• Data format (e.g., electronic, paper)
• Ownership of data
• How to access the data
• Restrictions on data

Once you have the baseline information, it is time to prioritize and develop a system to collect necessary data not currently collected. Some of the information will be primary data, and some will be secondary data.

Addressing the following six questions is the best way to begin collecting and using data.

1. What data needs to be collected?

At the individual level

• Individual characteristics: age, name, race/ethnicity, education, employment history, criminal justice history, physical and mental health needs, length of stay, risk and needs factors, program participation, and geographic area to which the individual returns post-release.
• Subsets of the population that consume disproportionate criminal justice and program resources (e.g., frequent users, the severely mentally ill, and those with chronic diseases).
• Individual outcomes such as recidivism, employment, health care access, and sobriety.

At the system level

• Your community's crime problems, locations of crimes, laws and policies that impede or facilitate successful transitioning from jail to the community.
• The availability and accessibility of services, gaps in services, fractured or unfunded services, data on programs, and resources that can be leveraged to support reentry.

2. How can data be obtained?

• Intake, screening, and assessment files
• Program data from the jail, pretrial services, community corrections, the courts, and community agencies
• Self-administered surveys of clients or staff
• Interviewer-administered surveys of key stakeholders, service providers, and clients
• Focus groups
• Direct observations

3. Who is responsible for collecting the data?

• Managers
• System stakeholders: courts, pretrial services, probation, jail, police, treatment providers, and others
• Office of computer information services or local information technology (IT)/data management group/department

4. How confident are you that the data are accurate?

• Develop clear instructions and definitions about what is to be collected
• Identify who originally enters the data
• Train staff on data entry
• Verify that the data appear to be complete
• Regularly evaluate the fidelity and accuracy of data, methods of collection, and the people collecting data
• Develop written policies, procedures, and guidelines in place to verify data quality

5. In what format will the data be collected?

• Electronically, via a management information system on a computer
• Paper based, such as case files and paper directories
• Verbally, via personal interviews and phone surveys

6. How will you use the data you collect?

• Develop and disseminate easy-to-read reports
• Meet with staff to review results
• Identify necessary changes

Ada County, Idaho’s Sheriff Department collects and disseminates recidivism data in a short, easy to read and engaging format to gain support for its frequent flyer reentry program.

Data Challenges

Data collection is often challenging, and you should be aware of the problems you might face. Chuck Shorter at Tulane University identifies the following barriers to collecting data:¹

• Lack of knowledge about where data exist
• Lack of knowledge about how to access data
• Data not in electronic form
• Data in an incompatible format
• Only aggregated data available
• Only individual-level data available
• Frequency of data release
• Approval process for accessing data
• Previous interactions and history of partnerships (e.g., lack of trust)
• Fear of misinterpretation/misuse of data
• Confidentiality and privacy concerns
• Policies, including federal and state laws that limit access
• Limited resources (e.g., staff time)

Fortunately, there are a number of ways to address these barriers. In general, as we discussed in the Collaborative Structure and Joint Ownership module, a reentry implementation committee can help gain trust and facilitate standardized data collection among partnering agencies. You might want to hire an IT consultant if you begin to find that the data systems you want to integrate are not compatible.

Finally, as was also discussed in the previous module, developing a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that includes a data-sharing agreement clause will ease fears of misuse of data.

For more information on data collection, click here for the Pre- and Post-Release Intervention Sections of the Triage Matrix Implementation Tool and the TJC Pre-Implementation Case Flow Process templates to begin your inventory of the interventions in the jail facility, at transition, and in the community.  

For more information and examples from the field

1. Howard County, MD Presentation to the Reentry Coordinating Council on Who's in the Jail.

2. La Crosse County, Wisconsin TJC case flow process diagram based on classification, Proxy screen scores and LSI-R assessment.

3. Montgomery County Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Confidentiality Agreement: Montgomery County, Maryland, Pre-Release & Reentry Services.

4. New York Transition from Prison to Community  Strategy and MOU on Data Sharing, TPC Reentry Handbook (2008, pp. 181–196).

5. Urban Institute. Short, eight-item questionnaire to identify if your agency collects the following criminal justice client data.

6. Urban Institute. A detailed list of suggested TJC baseline measures of jail population characteristics.

7. Urban Institute. TJC Performance Management Worksheet. A detailed chart of TJC baseline measures of jail inmate population characteristics in Excel format and a memo providing guidance to assemble the initial TJC performance indicators.

¹ Chuck Shorter, “Barriers to Accessing/Sharing Data.” Presentation of the data sharing and access subgroup of the Center for Disease Control. Available at http://online.fliphtml5.com/dpxe/vohv/ and https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/tracking/wkshop04/pdfs/II/discuss1/1_shorter.pdf.

This section provides an overview of management information systems and how this technology can assist in the collection and analysis of necessary data to understand reentry in your community.

A management information system (MIS), also referred to as an automated data system, is a computer system that enables you to record data in a systematic way and helps to manage all aspects of your agency. Ideally, an MIS can exchange data electronically with partnering agencies.

Some agencies do not have an MIS in place to record data and continue to rely on paper records, which can only be retrieved manually and are extremely time-consuming to analyze. Though an MIS requires training, support, and maintenance, its advantages far outweigh the time and resources it takes to implement it.

What MIS you decide to use is based on your agency's resources, expertise, and compatibility with other systems. Agencies that do not have the resources to purchase a database software package often use Microsoft Access© when developing a database system. In the resource section, we have provided an Access© template and data entry instructions for how to use it.  

A well-designed MIS has certain characteristics:

• Permits you to enter information once
• Assigns a unique identifier that follows an individual over time so records can be easily linked to other data systems across agencies.
• Facilitates data entry, access, and use
• Increases data accuracy
• Produces easy-to-read reports that are readily available

Picture an MIS that

• Collects individual data, including program participation, education, employment, and disciplinary problems.
• Examines classification scores of recidivists to assist with classification and program placement decisions for future inmates.
• Assesses the differences in recidivism rates of program participants versus nonparticipants.
• Evaluates the effect of educational and employment programs as well as substance abuse and mental health treatment on recidivism rates.
• Identifies habitual misdemeanor offenders at intake and prompts appropriate program referral.
• Produces easy-to-read aggregate and individual-level reports.

Data Quality Program
We all know the saying “garbage in, garbage out. Your management information system’s (MIS) data will only be accurate if what you input is complete, accurate and timely. The best structured MIS in the world is useless if data are entered sporadically or incorrectly.
Developing a Data Quality Program can ensure data reliability. The following are key points when developing a Data Quality Program:

• Support an agency culture of quality data
• Identify who is responsibility for data quality management
• Train data entry personnel
• Develop clear procedures for data entry (e.g., consistent definitions)
• Develop procedures when data errors are encountered
• Develop a process for regularly validating the data

Interagency Information Sharing and Protecting Confidentiality

An MIS is integrated when agencies (e.g., law enforcement, courts, pretrial services, jails, community corrections, medical providers, human service organizations, and community-based organizations) working with the same population have the ability to access and share information electronically. Having an integrated MIS in place increases the ability to provide continuity of care to individuals at time of release.

Agencies using an integrated MIS recognize the privacy concerns for the electronic tracking of an individual's sensitive personal information. Firewalls can be developed so only those who have permission and a password have access to the data. In addition, agencies can establish a unique identifier other than social security or a DOC number, which could help track the individual after discharge without the loss of privacy or increased stigmatization that could occur through use of a DOC number.

For more information and examples from the field

1. Criminal Justice Research and Evaluation Center, John Jay College. Instructions and Microsoft Access© intake data entry form produced for a social service agency that works with delinquent youths.

2. Davidson County, TN Sheriff’s Office. 2010. Basic client information spreadsheet tracking housing status, program completion, case notes and other reentry items.

3. Davidson County, TN. 2010. Client program and employment attendance spreadsheet records.

4.  Denver. A detailed quarterly report tracking inmate outcomes, class attendance, referrals, demographics, and other reentry items.

5. Denver. Multi-Party Release of Information Consent Form (ROI). Crime Prevention and Control Commission Mental Health Committee. PowerPoint presentation and ROI form.

This section provides an overview of some key points to consider in developing analysis and reports from your collected data. Data can be very powerful. Just imagine having data on the number of jobs the formerly incarcerated held after being part of an in-jail employment program, and you were able to show that they had lower re-arrest rates over a 12-month period post-release than those who were not part of the job program. Politicians and funders like to support success stories that are backed by hard data.

After you evaluate the available data and begin to collect data needed to evaluate your efforts, data mining is the process by which you measure a variety of TJC outcomes, ranging from producing simple descriptive statistics - like how many men and women are substance abusers and the proportion of jail inmates who are sentenced or pretrial detainees - to more complex analyses that may include comparing your data with other similar data at the state or national level. The goal, however, is to use the data you have collected to inform your agency and other stakeholders about where to put your transition resources and, eventually, how successful you have been transitioning people from jail to the community.

Randy Demory of the Kent County Sheriff's Office in Michigan has these data mining recommendations.¹

1. Plan Ahead: Centralize all of your data analysis efforts for easy retrieval, and designate a skilled person or a data team to handle all data requests. You will want to provide your data team with tools to pull data from the MIS in an easy-to-manipulate format that allows for the creation of basic tables like cross tabs.

2. Avoid Data Overload: Too many tables and numbers make people shy away from the data. Instead focus on using more charts and graphs, and produce only reports that are meaningful and directed toward what the partners need.

Howard County, Maryland’s Detention Center produces a monthly snapshot of its jail population. This assessable and easy-to-read information allows those interested to better understand how they can meet the unique needs of different jail subpopulations.  Hennepin County, Minnesota's Crossover Population Report. Note that it is only five pages with easy-to-read tables and bullet points.

3. Measure What Matters: Use the data to help you define what is most important to your agency. The Kent County Jail has focused on analyzing and disseminating the following types of data:

• Jail population statistics
• Inmate incident statistics
• Program performance data
• Employee performance data

Click here for Kent County Jail's monthly Performance Measures for the Main Jail, Community Reentry Center (CRC), and Honor Camp. These are items that Kent County reports each month to the Office of the Sheriff and quarterly to county administration as part of its performance-based budgeting process.

For example, the Kent County Jail reports the rate of violence in the Main Jail, since that is important to them. They also report the percent of “productive residents” at the CRC and Honor Camp, with “productivity” defined as working or being in programs at least 20 hours a week. They track the numbers of people who are helped to find jobs. They also have a goal of meeting a certain number of active partnerships with community program providers, and they do meet that very easily each month.

Sober Unit Living Stats

4. Require Flexibility: Train your data team to handle data requests beyond what the MIS software reports produce. This means that they will need to learn how to write queries of the system.

5. Produce Regular Statistical Reports: Determine what data reports your agency needs most. Decision makers should have access to daily, weekly, or monthly reports. An annual statistical report is also recommended to assess population characteristic and program change over time.

In Denver, routine data extracts from the Jail Management System and Reentry Database are reported, including client demographics, Proxy Triage Risk Screener scores, Level of Service Inventory (LSI) subscale and total scores (e.g.,  living situation, employment/education, and alcohol/drug problems) and the type and frequency of services utilized. Reports are also generated by the Life Skills Diversion Officers and the Community Reentry Project Case Managers. At the system-level, the data reports help Denver’s Sheriff Department strategize on the level of resources needed to implement jail transition. At the individual-level, the proxy and assessment results drive the development of appropriate treatment and discharge plans.

¹ Randy Demory, “Measuring What Matters,” Large Jail Network Bulletin (Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections, 2001).

This section defined a number of basic terms used in this module. These terms have been highlighted in purple throughout the module, allowing you to rollover the term to see the definition.

Data:

A recording of facts, concepts, or instructions on a storage medium for communication, retrieval, and analysis.

Data-driven process of local reentry:

The process of collecting and analyzing data to make appropriate decisions when transitioning individuals from the jail to the community.

Data mining:

The “process of analyzing data in order to determine patterns and their relationships.”¹

Management information system:

“An information collection and analysis system, usually computerized, that facilitates access to program and participant information. It is usually designed and used for administrative purposes.”²

Primary data:

Original data obtained directly from individuals through screening, assessment, surveys, interviews, or focus groups.

Secondary data:

Useful data already collected for another purpose, such as health records and resource information.

¹ Biere, Mike (2011). The new era of enterprise business intelligence: Using analytics to achieve a global competitive advantage. NY: IBM Press.

² Bureau of Justice Assistance, Center for Program Evaluation and Performance Measurement. Available at https://www.bja.gov/programs/crppe/performance-measures.html.

Principle 1. Organizational Culture

Effective organizations have well-defined goals, ethical principles, and a history of efficiently responding to issues that have an impact on the treatment facilities. Staff cohesion, support for service training, self-evaluation, and use of outside resources also characterize the organization.

Principle 2. Program Implementation/Maintenance

Programs are based on empirically-defined needs and are consistent with the organization's values. Programs are fiscally responsible and congruent with stakeholders' values. Effective programs also are based on thorough reviews of the literature (i.e., meta-analyses), undergo pilot trials, and maintain the staff's professional credentials.

Principle 3. Management/Staff Characteristics

The program director and treatment staff are professionally trained and have experience working in offender treatment programs. Selection of staff is based on evidence of beliefs that are supportive of rehabilitation, relationship styles, and effective therapeutic skills.

Principle 4. Client Risk/Need Practices

Offender risk is assessed by psychometric instruments of proven predictive validity. The risk instrument includes a wide range of dynamic risk factors, or criminogenic needs (e.g., antisocial attitudes and values). The assessment also takes into account the responsivity of offenders to various styles and modes of service. Changes in risk level over time (e.g., three to six months) are routinely assessed in order to measure intermediate changes in risk/need levels that may occur as a result of planned interventions.

Principle 5. Program Characteristics

The program aims to change a wide variety of criminogenic needs (factors that predict recidivism) by using empirically valid behavioral, social learning, and cognitive behavioral therapies that are directed toward high-risk offenders. The ratio of rewards to punishers is at least 4:1. Relapse preventions strategies are available once offenders complete the formal treatment phase.

Principle 6. Core Correctional Practice

Program therapists engage in the following therapeutic practices: anti-criminal modeling, effective reinforcement and disapproval, problem-solving techniques, structured learning procedures for skill-building, effective use of authority, cognitive self-change, relationship practices, and motivational interviewing.

Principle 7. Inter-Agency Communication

The agency aggressively makes referrals and advocates for its offenders to ensure they receive high-quality services in the community.

Principle 8. Evaluation

The agency routinely conducts program audits, consumer satisfaction surveys, process evaluations of criminogenic need changes, and follow-ups of recidivism rates. The program effectiveness is evaluated by comparing its recidivism rates to those of risk-control groups using other treatments or of a minimal-treatment group.

In this section, you will learn the importance of prioritizing resources and targeting intervention strategies based on system and individual factors. Clearly, given the diversity of the jail population, unpredictable lengths of stay, limited resources, and principles of evidence-based practice, it is not possible or desirable to provide the same level of intervention to everyone who enters the jail setting.

In fact, to obtain an optimum level of efficiency and effectiveness, quick screening tools should be used to separate low-risk offenders from their medium- and high- risk counterparts. The key is to match the right person to the right resources so that higher risk individuals receive more intensive interventions in the jail and the community.

This research-driven practice of targeting the needs of higher risk offenders is often controversial.  Many jails and communities tend to “over-program” lower risk offenders and use valuable resources to change their behavior despite the fact that intensive programming of lower risk offenders is likely to make them worse rather than better. As a part of such a practice, not only does it make lower risk offenders worse, but valuable treatment opportunities are missed for higher risk offenders who are far more likely to reoffend at a much higher rate and frequency than their lower risk counterparts. Therefore, the TJC project recommends a triage system to help a system determine “who gets what.”

Triage Planning

The word triage comes from the French term “trier,” to sort. We often think of triage scenarios when natural and human disasters occur and decisions have to be made quickly to identify and treat the most seriously injured.

Triage protocols are effective because they:¹

• Bring order to a chaotic situation.
• Quickly sort a large number of people on the basis of a serious condition.
• Set the path for individualized treatment.
• Facilitate a coordinated effort between jail- and community-based supervision agencies and providers.
• Are fluid enough to accommodate changes in the number of people involved in the process, the availability of resources, and the extent of need.  

A jail setting is a busy and sometimes chaotic environment, but decisions still have to be made at reception to determine each individual's risk and needs. This is a particularly acute problem within a jail facility because of the rapid rate of turnover and short length of stay of most inmates. A triage matrix, tailored to the needs, resources, and timelines of your jurisdiction, will help determine the appropriate allocation of services by categorizing individuals and identifying the appropriate mix of targeted interventions.

The following case studies will help you to begin thinking about the unique risk and needs of your population.

Case study 1. Mrs. Thomas is a 42-year old, married mom of two children awaiting trail and charged with driving under the influence. She is a recovering addict, has one prior felony for drug possession for which she served 180 days in jail, and has been drug free for two years before her most recent relapse.  Mrs. Thomas has also worked part-time at a convenience store for the last two years. She does not have a history of failure to appear.

Case study 2. Mr. Banks is a 33-year-old, single male serving a nine-month sentence in the county jail for possession of a half of gram of methamphetamine. Mr. Banks started using drugs when he was 12, dropped out of school in the 11th grade, and served his first prison term at 19 for robbery. He has spent 8 years in prison, the last time before his recent jail stay was for stealing a car while under the influence. At the time of his current arrest, Mr. Banks was unemployed and living in a shelter after losing his construction job for not showing up to work on time.

Case study 3. Mr. Jones is a 19-year-old, single man serving a 15-day sentence for possession of marijuana and medication (i.e., Concerta, a stimulant used to treat ADHD) for which he didn't have a prescription. Prior to his arrest, Mr. Jones had no prior criminal record, attended community college, was employed part-time as a waiter at a local eatery and lived with his mother.

Using these three case studies, ask yourself the following questions about these individuals:

• Which screenings and assessment instruments are needed to identify their risk and needs as they enter your facility?
• What are their unique risks?
• What is the likelihood of Mrs. Thomas in case study 1 appearing in court when required?
• How pressing is the need for intervention?
• How extensive is the need for intervention?
• What is the likelihood of reoffending and how severe might the crime be?
• What are their unique needs?
• Do you know their length of stay?
• What factors would you use to sort them by risk and needs?
• What type of jail and community intervention is required?
• What type of transition planning and which specific targeted interventions, if any, are needed?

Don't worry if you don't have all the answers. In this module and the next three modules, you will learn how to perform the following 11 tasks (outlined in the Targeted Intervention Strategies section of the TJC Implementation Roadmap and designed to address these and related topics):

1. Complete the Triage Matrix Implementation Tool.
2. Apply screening instruments to all jail entrants.
3. Apply risk/needs assessment instrument(s) to selected jail entrants.
4. Produce transition case plans for selected jail entrants.
5. Develop pretrial practices to support jail transition
6. Define scope and content of jail transition interventions currently in place.
7. Provide resource packets to all jail inmates upon release.
8. Deliver in-jail interventions to selected inmates.
9. Deliver community interventions to selected released inmates.
10. Provide case management to selected jail entrants.
11. Provide mentors to selected jail entrants.

To begin, review The Triage Matrix Implementation Tool referenced in Task 1 and developed by the TJC project team to help your jurisdiction prioritize goals, identify target populations, and allocate limited resources to your jurisdiction's intervention strategies. The underlying concept is that everyone in the jail population should get some intervention, which may be as minimal as receiving basic information on community resources, but the most intensive interventions are reserved for inmates with higher risk and needs. The triage matrix includes the following four sections:

1. Screening and Assessment
2. Transition Case Plan
3. Pre-Release Interventions
4. Post-Release Interventions

The triage matrix includes a worksheet for each section and a sample matrix with all sections completed. All content in the sample triage matrix is approximate and should be adapted to fit your community. We recommend that you fill in the triage matrix as soon as possible to better understand the strengths and gaps in your present transition system.

¹ United States Army, Office of the Division Surgeon, 10th Mountain Division.  Presentation delivered as part of a Trauma-Focused Training.  Fort Drum, NY.

² Fretz, Ralph. 2006. What Makes a Correctional Treatment Program Effective:  Do the Risk, Need, and Responsivity Principles (RNR) Make a Difference in Reducing Recidivism? Kearney, N.J.: Community Education Centers, Inc. http://www.academia.edu/31758960/What_Makes_A_Correctional_Treatment_Program_Effective_Do_the_Risk_Need_and_Responsivity_Principles_RNR_Make_a_Difference_in_Reducing_Recidivism.

Section 1: Resources

1. Bogue, Brad, Nancy Campbell, Mark Carey, Elyse Clawson, Dot Faust, Kate Florio, Lore Joplin, George Keiser, Billy Wasson, and William Woodward. 2004. Implementing Evidence-Based Practice in Community Corrections: The Principles of Effective Intervention. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.
2. Christensen, Gary. January 2008. Our System of Corrections: Do Jails Play a Role in Improving Offender Outcomes? Washington, DC: Crime and Justice Institute and the National Institute of Corrections.
3. Dunworth, Terry, Jane Hannaway, John Holahan, and Margery Austin Turner. 2008. Beyond Ideology, Politics, and Guesswork: The Case for Evidence-Based Policy. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.
4. Urban Institute. Case planning worksheet.
5. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration. October 2007. A Guide to Evidence-Based Practices on the Web.

In the last section, we frequently used the terms risk and needs. In this section, you will learn the research behind the risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model and why this model is an important concept to understand when carrying out the 10 tasks outlined in the Targeted Intervention Strategies section of the TJC Implementation Roadmap.

Risk-Need-Responsivity Model

Researchers have spent years formulating the principles of effective intervention strategies for correctional populations. Many researchers support the risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model, which states that the risk and needs of the incarcerated individual should determine the strategies appropriate for addressing the individual's criminogenic factors before and after release.

According to Don Andrews and James Bonta, leading criminal justice scholars, the RNR model is based on the following three principles:¹

1. Risk principle. Match the level of service to the offender's risk of reoffending, based on static factors (e.g., age at first arrest, history of arrest, current age) and dynamic factors (e.g., substance abuse, antisocial attitudes). Higher-risk offenders should receive more intensive intervention.

2. Need principle. Assess criminogenic needs and target them in treatment. High-risk offenders should receive intensive treatment, while low-risk offenders should receive minimal or no treatment.

3. Responsivity principle. Maximize the offender's ability to learn from a rehabilitative intervention by providing cognitive behavioral treatment and tailoring the intervention to the learning style, motivation, abilities, and strengths of the offender.

Criminogenic needs are dynamic (changeable) risk factors that are proven through research to affect recidivism. These factors include:²

• Antisocial values, beliefs, and cognitive-emotional states.
• Rage, anger, defiance, criminal identity.
• Antisocial friends.
• Isolation from prosocial others.
• Substance abuse.
• Lack of empathy.
• Impulsive behavior.
• Family dysfunction, such as criminality, psychological problems, abuse, neglect.
• Low levels of personal education.

Criminologist Edward Latessa believes that programming focused on cognitive behavioral therapy is the most effective way to treat criminogenic needs. As he states, “Thinking and behavior are linked: offenders behave like criminals because they think like criminals; changing thinking is the first step towards changing behavior.” ³

¹ Bonta, James and D. A. Andrews. 2007. Risk-Need-Responsivity Model for Offender Assessment and Rehabilitation. Ottawa: Public Safety Canada, June. Available at:https://www.pbpp.pa.gov/Information/Documents/Research/EBP7.pdf

² Latessa, Edward J., Cullen, Francis T., and Gendreau, Paul. 2002. “Beyond Correctional Quackery: Professionalism and the Possibility of Effective Treatment.” Federal Probation 66(2): 43-49.

³ Chapman, Tim, and Hough, M. 1998. Evidence-based Practice: A Guide to Effective Practice. London: Home Office Publications Unit.

⁴ Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Intensive Program Prisons web page. https://drc.ohio.gov/programs.

Section 2: Resources

1. Fretz, Ralph. 2006. What  Makes  A  Correctional Treatment Program Effective: Do the Risk, Need, and Responsivity Principles (RNR)  Make a Difference in Reducing Recidivism? This article describes the risk-needs-responsivity model, and the importance of generating a treatment environment. 
2. Grattet, Ryken, Jesse Jannetta, and Jeff Lin. 2006. Evidence-based Practice in Corrections: A Training Manual for the California Program Assessment Process (CPAP).  University of California, Irvine: Center for Evidence-Based Corrections.
3. National Resource Center on Justice Involved Women. An online resource for professionals, policymakers, and practitioners who work with adult women involved in the criminal justice system.
4. Scott, Wayne. 2008. Effective Clinical Practices in Treating Clients in the Criminal Justice System. Boston, Mass: Crime and Justice Institute.

In many jurisdictions the concept of Targeted Intervention Strategies is synonymous with working with the sentenced population. When asked why this is the case, the two most reoccurring jurisdictional responses are:

• Not enough time and resources to work with pretrial detainees before they are released.
• Community safety issues with pretrial release.

In this section, we will highlight the importance of incorporating the pretrial population into your TJC work. First, we will outline some important pretrial population facts, then identify the benefits of targeting pretrial detention for TJC practices and finally, demonstrate that community safety is not put at risk when pretrial detention alternatives are implemented properly.

The Facts

1. Pretrial inmates make up 61 percent of the jail population around the country.
2. Pretrial population continues to rise at a higher rate than the sentenced population.
3. 88 percent of detainees are in jail for a period of time during pretrial because they cannot afford bail.
4. 53 percent (of the 88 percent) stay in jail the entire pretrial period because they can never raise enough bail money to be released.
5. Pretrial inmates who cannot post bond stay in jail for an average of 121 days compared to an average of 12 days for those who meet the financial conditions of their release.
6.  The use of money bail in felony cases has increased from 53 percent in 1990 to 70 percent in 2006.

The facts speak for themselves. A majority of defendants are spending a lot of time in jail throughout the pretrial period. Often times by the time they have plead guilty they have either sat in jail for so long they have served their time and are released, or have only a few weeks left on their sentence to serve.

In many jails comprehensive treatment interventions are reserved for the sentenced population, so the opportunity for many defendants to receive in-jail services is lost because the entire or majority of their sentence is served during the pretrial period.

The Solution

The laws in most jurisdictions require courts to release defendants on the least restrictive conditions necessary to reasonably assure public safety and court appearance.  Validated pretrial risk assessment tools are in use in many jurisdictions that successfully sort defendants into categories showing their risks to public safety and of failure to appear in court.  By using these tools, jurisdictions can match appropriate pretrial release conditions to the identified risk levels of each defendant, and help judges to assure that only those with unmanageable risks remain in jail pending trial.

Jails benefit from this practice since it relieves overcrowding, saves them money and can free up additional space for pretrial and sentenced inmates who present a higher public safety risk to the community.

Lower risk defendants benefit by returning to their jobs, families, and communities where they can receive the support and treatment services they often need.

Is Pretrial Release Safe for the Community?

Empirical research continues to demonstrate that most defendants appear in court as required and are not rearrested on new charges while on pretrial release.  Even those defendants who score in the highest risk level in validated pretrial risk assessments appear in court and remain arrest-free while their cases are pending in a large majority of the cases.  For example, research in Virginia shows that over 90 percent of defendants in the highest risk category make all their court appearances, and 70 percent have no rearrests. Kentucky, which mandates a validated pretrial risk assessment done on every defendant coming before every judge has a re-arrest rate of 8 percent and a failure to appear rate of 10 percent. Though higher than in Virginia, both states have found that using an evidence-based risk assessment instrument increases the success rates beyond those realized using clinical or professional judgment alone to determine release decisions. It is because of these and similar findings that the Conference of Chief Justices, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, the National Sheriffs’ Association, and the American Jail Association, among others, have all called for the use of evidence-based pretrial risk assessment tools to help judges identify the small minority of defendants who pose too great a risk to be released.

Resources

Pretrial Justice Institute (2010) Pretrial Services Program Implementation: A Starter Kit. Washington, DC: Pretrial Justice Institute.

Vetter, Stephanie J. and John Clark (2012). The Delivery of Pretrial Justice in Rural Areas: A Guide for Rural County Officials. Washington, DC: National Association of Counties.

¹ United States Army, Office of the Division Surgeon, 10th Mountain Division.  Presentation delivered as part of a Trauma Focused Training.  Fort Drum, NY.

² Fretz, Ralph. 2006. What Makes a Correctional Treatment Program Effective:  Do the Risk, Need, and Responsivity Principles (RNR) Make a Difference in Reducing Recidivism? Kearney, N.J.: Community Education Centers, Inc.

This section defined a number of basic terms used in this module. These terms have been highlighted throughout the module, allowing you to rollover the term to see the definition.

Assessment

The systematic collection, analysis, and utilization of objective information about an offender's level of risk and need.¹

Cognitive behavioral process

The complex relationship among thoughts, feelings, and behavior. People learn to manage this relationship from personal experience and from interaction with significant others. Deficits in the cognitive behavioral process may reinforce antisocial behavior, and these deficits often can be corrected through cognitive behavioral therapy.²

Criminogenic factors

Recognized factors that have been proven to correlate highly with future criminal behavior.

Criminogenic needs

Factors that research has shown have a direct link to offending and can be changed.

Effective practice

Modes of operation that produce intended results,³ and, in relation to the TJC model, that enable the successful community reintegration of offenders so they end up leading productive and crime-free lives.

Evidence based practice

the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual offenders by integrating individual clinical expertise with the best available external clinical evidence from systematic research.⁴

Modeling

Within a social-learning environment, the demonstration of pro-social skills by correctional officers, staff, and counselors to reinforce positive changes exhibited by transitioning offenders. An all-important aspect of any transition effort because successful transition efforts have been proven to take place within social-learning environments.

Responsivity

Matching an offender's personality and learning style with appropriate program settings and approaches.⁵

Risk

The probability that an offender will commit additional offenses.⁶

Triage

The process by which a person is screened and assessed immediately on arrival at the jail or community service to determine the urgency of the person's risk and needs in order to designated appropriate resources to care for the identified problems.⁷

¹ Zajac, Gary. 2007. Principles of Effective Offender Intervention. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, Office of Planning, Research, Statistics & Grants, Camp Hill, PA.

² Chapman, Tim and Michael Hough. 1998. Evidence-based Practice: A Guide to Effective Practice. London: Home Office Publications Unit.

³ Ibid.

⁴  Adapted from David L Sackett, William M.C. Rosenberg, J.A. Muir Gray, R. Brian Haynes and W. Scott Richardson. 1996 (January). “Evidence based Medicine: What It Is and What It Isn't.” British Medical Journal 312, 71-72. .

⁵  Zajac, Gary. 2007. Principles of Effective Offender Intervention. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, Office of Planning, Research, Statistics & Grants, Camp Hill, PA.

⁶ Ibid.

⁷ Cook, S. and D. Sinclair. 1997. “Emergency Department Triage: A Program Assessment Using the Tools of Continuous Quality Improvement.” Journal of Emergency Medicine 15: 889-894.

Gevonnia M. Thurman, Correctional Officer, Thinking for a Change. Gevonnia M. Thurman joined the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office in 2004.  In 2013, she became a Certified Instructor for General Instructions. She is currently assigned to the Programs Unit where she handles inmate program schedules, is a “Thinking for a Change” instructor at the Montgomery Correctional Center, and Pre-Trial Detention Facility. Officer Thurman earned an Associate of Specialized Technology Degree from National School of Technology in Miami Fla in 1997.   She received the Corrections Officer of the Month award in August 2014.  

What is your approach to motivating inmates and your fellow officers to support T4C? 
My approach to motivating inmates enrolled in Thinking for a Change (T4C) is to engage in active listening, where I focus and listen to each of their goals. Throughout the program, I continue to remind them of their goals and provide feedback on how the inmates can achieve them by using the T4C tools. I have found that a combination of active listening, encouragement, and support increases inmates’ utilization of services provided through our reentry program.

As a fellow officer, I understand the feelings my coworkers experience daily in our work environment.  My approach to introducing T4C and motivating my coworkers is showing them how the T4C lessons can apply to our work and personal lives. My belief is that we must accept change within ourselves before we can help others change; this can be achieved by officers and inmates learning and speaking the same language of T4C.

This section provides an overview on why and how routine screening of individuals' risks, needs, and strengths is an essential component of an effective jail transition intervention strategy. Remember that screens are not used to diagnose an individual's risk or needs, but only to identify the individual for further assessment.

We start with the five Ws (who, what where, when, and why) and one H (how) to help us with our understanding.

Who do you screen?

Universal screening is a key element of the TJC model. This means that everyone entering your facility, regardless of length of stay or conviction status, is screened for risk to reoffend, pretrial release, health, and behavioral concerns that might affect transition to the community. These screens help to identify:

• Detainees who can be safely released to the community pending court, either on their own recognizance or under pretrial supervision, if it is available.
• People jailed who need to receive more comprehensive services and a full assessment with a risk and needs assessment tool.

What do you screen them for?

Physical health, behavioral health, risk of drug or alcohol withdrawal, and suicide risk screens are probably administered to every new arrestee arriving at your facility. In addition, the TJC model recommends a quick risk-to-reoffend and pretrial release screens. These screens allow you to group the arrestees into low, medium, and high risk and needs categories.

• The risk-to-reoffend screen allows you to group the arrestees into low, medium, and high risk and needs categories.
• The pretrial release screen will help identify the risk of failure to appear and danger to the community during the adjudication period.

A TJC Triage Matrix goal is to identify low-risk offenders and assign them to minimal intervention to prevent the inefficient expenditure of time and resources on extensive assessment and programming, and to separate low-risk individuals from their higher risk counterparts.

Include the following items in screening to evaluate risk within the jail and in the community:

• Physical health
• Infectious diseases
• Substance abuse
• Mental health
• Suicide risk
• Need for medication
• Disabilities
• Criminal history
• Current offense
• Risk to reoffend
• Pretrial release

In Section 3, we discuss a number of valid, short, and easily administered screens available to identify an incarcerated person for further assessment.

Where do you screen them?

Screening should be done at intake during central booking or soon after.

When do you screen them?

Screening takes place early on. Here are some key times when administering screens is most common:

On arrival at the jail

• A brief health screen to “determine if arrestee can be admitted to the jail based on any medical needs (e.g., risk of drug or alcohol withdrawal; acute medical needs) that must be addressed at a medical facility.”¹

During the booking process

• A brief screen(s) to identify physical, behavioral health, risk of drug or alcohol withdrawal, and suicide risk.
• A brief screen to classify arrestees into low, medium, and high risk-to-reoffend categories.

Before the first court appearance

• A brief pretrial release screen to classify arrestees into low, medium, and high risk of flight and re-arrest.

Why do you screen?

Screening is normally the first opportunity to quickly capture basic information about a person's risk and needs and is used to determine if a fuller assessment is warranted. Screening also offers information important to jail classification, pretrial release, and, at the evaluation stage, for comparison of groups, programs, and/or interventions.

In short, effective screening practices help jail administrators and professionals throughout the local system of criminal justice first understand who is in the jail and why. Screening information can then be used to facilitate discussion about what general system practices might be utilized to insure the most effective and efficient use of system resources and the best long-term public safety outcomes.

How do you screen them?

A system of valid and reliable screens requires the following steps:

1. Develop or select validated screening instruments.
2. Create a structure to apply the screening tools to all jail entrants.
3. Train staff to apply the screening tools.
4. Apply the screening tools to all jail entrants.
5. Analyze the information to flag those who need further assessment.

Now that you understand the five Ws and one H of screening, you will want to take the time to conduct a case flow analysis of your present screening process to understand fully the reasons you perform screening and what you will do with the information obtained. A Screening and Assessment Case Flow Process template is available in Section 1 of Module 8: Tailored Transition Interventions.

¹ Mark D. Martin and Thomas A. Rosazza, Resource Guide for Jail Administrators (Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, 2004), p. 141.

This section provides an overview on why and how assessment of individual's risks, needs, and strengths is an essential component of an effective jail transition intervention strategy. Just as we did in the previous section, we start with the five Ws (who, what, where, when, and why) and one H (how) to help us with our understanding.

Who do you assess?

Assessment is used for those who are in the target population for intensive reentry interventions, as identified by screening for risk to re-offend.

What do you assess them for?

Individuals who score in the medium or higher range on screening should then be administered a comprehensive risk/needs assessment instrument to classify them by risk/need and offer them appropriate treatment and transitional services. The assessment process is likely to uncover many needs (criminogenic and noncriminogenic) among your incarcerated population that affect their current level of functioning and their ability to transition back to the community.

Where do you assess them?

Depending upon the assessment instrument utilized, officers or case managers will require some additional training to create the proper atmosphere for assessment. The assessment process should take place within a private area where an officer or a case manager can engage the incarcerated person in effective two-way communication. The dialogue should be somewhat structured and designed to facilitate discussion around the individual's dynamic criminogenic needs or changeable factors within the individual's life that, if addressed, will increase the probability of a successful transition from jail to home.  

When do you assess them?

Assessment is ongoing—beginning at intake and continuing in the community after the person is released. Here are some key times when various screening and assessments are most common:

Immediately after booking

• Any person who screens positive for suicide risk, drug or alcohol withdrawal, or any serious medical need should be further assessed by a qualified medical professional and monitored immediately.

After admission to the jail

• As resources allow, people who were identified by screening with medium or higher risk to reoffend should be administered a comprehensive risk/needs assessment instrument after being admitted to the jail.

• Guided by information obtained as a result of comprehensive risk/need assessments, there may also be specialized assessments that will be useful to examine some incarcerated people for higher need areas such as substance/alcohol abuse or other criminogenic and noncriminogenic needs.

Every three, six, or nine months while incarcerated

• Depending on available resources, individuals should be reassessed every three, six, or nine months while incarcerated to inform the construction of their initial jail-to-community transition plan and subsequent revisions to that plan.

Situational

• Reassessment should also occur based on individual circumstances. Martin and Rosazza² recommend six reasons to reassess:

1. Improvement or deterioration of an incarcerated person's behavior
2. A crisis in the incarcerated person's life
3. Medical or mental health emergency
4. Court documents and commitment orders
5. An individual's request for reclassification
6. An officer's request for classification of an inmate

In the community

• Upon release, the primary agency charged with working with the individual should review the individual's file and determine what further assessments, if any, are needed.

Why do you assess?

Assessment informs decisions about classification, placement, and programming in the jail and transitional care upon release. Assessment is used to identify the criminogenic needs of an individual - those factors that are related to the likelihood of future criminal behavior and can be changed. It also indicates whether a specialized needs assessment is warranted.

Here are four key reasons for assessment:

1. Allows you to see the big picture of your population's needs and trends over time.
2. Allows you to make informed decisions regarding efficient and cost-effective strategies to address criminogenic population needs during incarceration and upon release.
3. Helps identify prevalent criminogenic needs.
4. Identifies the level of support, responsibility and training your staff and contract vendors need to work with incarcerated people before and after release.

How do you assess them?

A system of valid and reliable assessment requires the following steps:

1. Develop or select assessment instruments that are or will be validated for use with your population.
2. Create and implement protocols to apply the assessment tools to selected jail entrants.
3. Train staff to apply the assessment tools.
4. Identify the subset of incarcerated people to receive formal assessment (medium and high risk).
5. Identify the assessment tool (or tools) to be applied to medium- and high-risk incarcerated people.
6. Create and implement protocols to apply assessment tool(s) to jail entrants identified appropriate for more extensive assessment(s).

Click here for TJC Pre-Implementation Case Flow Process Screening and Assessment Template.

For more information

1. Christensen, Gary,  Jesse Jannetta and Janeen Buck Willison. 2012. The Role of Screening and Assessment in Jail Reentry. A Transition from Jail to Community Initiative Practice Brief.

2. Johnson,  Kelly Dedel and Patricia L. Hardyman. 2004. How Do You Know If the Risk Assessment Instrument Works? Topics in Community Corrections.

² Ibid.

This section provides assistance and guidance in selecting appropriate screening tools and assessment instruments that satisfy both the informational requirements of the TJC model and local concerns (e.g., inexpensive, easy to administer, yield information useful to a variety of partners). This section offers different types of instruments to assess specific inmates' risk and needs.

Questions to think about before choosing screens and assessments include the following:

• Is the screen or assessment valid and reliable?
• Is the screen or assessment copyrighted?
• Is there any cost to use the screen or assessment?
• How much staff time is needed to complete the screen or assessment?
• What is the cost of administering the screen or assessment, including staff time and training?
• How much training is involved to administer the screen or assessment?
• Is medical, mental health, or substance abuse training necessary to administer the screen or assessment?
• Is the screen or assessment available in other languages?
• Is the screen or assessment available in electronic format?

Screens and Short Assessments Used During the Booking Process

The TJC model recommends that each person booked at your jail receive a short risk-to-reoffend screen and a pretrial risk assessment. The risk-to-reoffend screen will help identify those who need a full risk and needs assessment and are targeted to receive intensive services pre- and post-release as well as those of lower risk who are candidates for release, diversion, or alternatives to incarceration.  The pretrial risk assessment will help identify the risk levels for failing to appear in court and rearrest. In some jurisdictions, the court may delegate to booking officers the authority to release those defendants who score as low risk on the risk assessment.  The risk-to-reoffend screen will help identify those who need a full risk and needs assessment.

Though it may seem okay to cut corners and use the score from a risk-to-reoffend screen or assessment to determine who should receive pretrial release, a number of factors relevant in predicting criminogenic risk and needs do not predict pretrial risk. The use of separate instruments is advised.

Risk-to-Reoffend Screens

The following table highlights three risk-to-reoffend screens for this purpose. Our intent is not to endorse any individual screen, but instead to draw your attention to screens commonly used in correctional settings that are well regarded by experts in the field.

The Proxy Risk Triage Screener is the shortest of the three, with only three items. The eight-item Level of Service Inventory—Revised Screening Version categorizes a person into a low-, medium-, or high-risk group. The Wisconsin Risk Assessment, an 11-item instrument, asks more comprehensively about criminal history, drug/alcohol interference, living arrangements, and general attitude regarding change.

It is also possible to develop a risk screener using the administrative data on the jail population available in a jurisdiction. This can be done by examining factors related to recidivism that are captured in the jail MIS and analyzing which correlate most significantly with recidivism. For an example of this process for developing a screening tool, see the Vera Institute’s work on creating the Service Priority Indicator for the New York City Department of Corrections. Developing a jurisdiction-specific screening tool is a much more analytically complicated undertaking than implementing one of the commonly used tools, but may provide better prediction of recidivism.

Pretrial Risk Assessments

The following table highlights three pretrial risk assessment instruments. Our intent is not to endorse any individual instrument, but instead to draw to your attention pretrial screens commonly used that are well regarded by experts in the field.

The Ohio Pretrial Assessment Tool is the shortest of the three, with seven items, the point totals are grouped into three levels of risk – low, moderate, and high. The eight-item Virginia Pretrial Risk Assessment Instrument categorizes a person into five levels of risk – lowest to highest. The Kentucky Risk Assessment Instrument is the longest of the three (12-items) and like Ohio’s tool, groups the point totals into low-, moderate-, or high-risk group.

In 2014, the Laura and John Arnold Foundation will be releasing a pretrial risk assessment tool that is based on a study of hundreds of thousands of cases from numerous jurisdictions.  The intent of the instrument is that it can be universal; that is, it can be used in any jurisdiction in the country.  Another feature of the instrument is that is comprised entirely of criminal history factors – information that would be readily available to a booking officer.  In addition, several states, including Ohio, Virginia, Kentucky, Colorado, and Florida, have validated their pretrial risk instruments within their state. These developments mean that there will be a validated pretrial risk assessment tool available for use in every jurisdiction in the country.

Assessments for Persons Who Score Medium to High on a Risk/Needs Screen

Comprehensive criminogenic risk/need assessment instruments are targeted to those who scored medium to high on the quick screen, indicating that they may need more intensive intervention. Multipurpose risk/needs assessments are advantageous because they not only evaluate the risk of recidivism, but identify categories of needs in areas identified as being most likely to impact recidivism, including education, employment, financial, family, housing, leisure, substance abuse, criminal thinking, and other personal needs. By discerning these criminogenic needs areas, the assessment tools identify targets for intervention.

Research consistently identifies eight major criminogenic needs, and further distinguishes between the "big four" (those most strongly related to re-offending) and the lesser four. They are:³

Big four criminogenic needs

1. History of antisocial behavior
2. Antisocial personality pattern
3. Antisocial cognition
4. Antisocial associates

Lesser four criminogenic needs

1. Family/marital factors
2. Lack of achievement in education/employment
3. Lack of pro-social leisure or recreation activities
4. Substance abuse

³ Andrews, D.A., James Bonta, and J. Stephen Wormith. "The Recent Past and Near Future of Risk and/or Need Assessment."Crime and Delinquency, 52:1, 7-27.

The following table provides information on seven comprehensive risk/needs assessments for inmate treatment, planning, and placement.

Here we briefly discuss some other screens and assessments used in the jails and the community throughout the country.

Specialized Screens and Assessments

Specialized screens and assessments, in conjunction with comprehensive general risk and needs assessments, can be used to contribute to targeted treatment and transitional planning. Selective use of one or more of these tools is recommended when an individual scores high on all or a section of a comprehensive risk/needs assessment. The tables below list commonly used behavioral health, substance abuse, and sex offender screens and assessments.

Behavioral Health Screens and Assessments

Here we briefly discuss some other screens and assessments used in the jails and the community throughout the country.

Medical Screens

1. The Texas Uniform Health Status Update is a medical screen that is easy to use and comes with user-friendly instructions. Some benefits of this screen are its one-page length and instructions to guide the screener on its use.

2. The New York City Correctional Health Services screen is a four-page screening instrument that uses prompting questions during the medical history section. The screen includes a section on the last page that reminds the staff to give each inmate three brochures on HIV, sexually transmitted disease, health, and dental needs.

Activities of Daily Living Screen

Dr. Brie Williams, a geriatrician and correctional health care expert, recommends that inmates who miss two or more of the following activities of daily living (ADL) answers be transferred directly to a nursing home or assisted living facility if family cannot care for them. Inmates who miss one ADL and/or have fallen in the past year should be assessed more carefully for possible assisted living or nursing home–level care.

Activities of Daily Living: Is the inmate able to do each of the following?

• Bathing: sponge, shower, and/or tub
• Dressing/undressing: able to pick out clothes, dress and undress self (tying shoes is not included)
• Toileting: able to get on/off toilet, clean self afterward
• Transferring: able to get in/out of bed and chair without assistance or mechanical aids
• Eating: able to completely feed self
• Mobility: able to walk without help except from cane, walker, or crutch and does not need lifting from bed

Suicide Risk Screens

1. The Texas Commission on Jail Standards' Mental Disability/Suicide Intake Screen is one page and determines if a further mental health evaluation is needed. Any positive response to the six suicide-related questions requires further evaluation of the person.

2. The Suicide Prevention Screening Guidelines, a 16-item screen developed by the New York Commission of Correction, has detailed instructions on how to administer it and is well-regarded by experts.

Alcohol or Drug Withdrawal Screens

1. The Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol (CIWA-AR) is a recommended alcohol withdrawal screen that can also be used for the psychoactive drug benzodiazepine. This screen requires five minutes to administer and may be reproduced freely.

2. Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS) is an opiate-withdrawal screen.

Substance Abuse Screens

1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services – Simple Screening Instrument for Substance Abuse (pages 7 - 15).

Treatment Screens

1. CJ Comprehensive Intake (TCU CJ CI) is usually administered by a counselor in a face-to-face interview held one to three weeks after admission, when the offender has had time to detox and reach greater stabilization and cognitive focus (90 minutes).

2. CJ Client Evaluation of Self and Treatment, Intake Version (TCU CJ CEST-Intake) is a self-rating form completed by the offender at the time of admission to treatment. It includes short scales for psychological adjustment, social functioning, and motivation. These scales also provide a baseline for monitoring offender performance and psychosocial changes during treatment (15 minutes).

3. CJ Client Evaluation of Self and Treatment (TCU CJ CEST) records offender ratings of the counselor, therapeutic groups, and the program in general. It also contains scales assessing psychological adjustment, social functioning, and motivation (35 minutes).

4. TCU Criminal Thinking Scales (TCU CTS) is a supplement to the Criminal Justice - Client Evaluation of Self at Intake(CJ-CESI) and CJ-CEST and is designed to measure “criminal thinking.” The six criminal thinking scales are Entitlement, Justification, Power Orientation, Cold Heartedness, Criminal Rationalization, and Personal Irresponsibility, which represent concepts with special significance in treatment settings for correctional populations (five to ten minutes).

Homelessness Screens

1. New York City Department of Health Homelessness Checklist is a nine-item screen to determine the rate of homelessness of the jail population. The homeless are often frequent users of the jail and shelter system. Identifying this population can help your jail at incarceration transition to direct these individuals to supportive services and shelter or supportive housing at release instead of sending them back to the street, knowing that they will shortly return to jail.

Employment Assessments

An important issue to address among your jail population is its vocational and employment needs. Many maintain that there is a very strong connection between employment and crime: when individuals are working, they are less likely to be committing crimes. Thus, it is important that we do what we can to foster the employability of inmates when they leave our jails.

Many government and nonprofit agencies have developed tools to assess the employment readiness of people with criminal records. We include two employment assessment tools.

1. PS Plus Employment Assessment Form was developed in the United Kingdom for a prison and community-based project. It surveys for vocational interests, skills, and history; education levels and qualifications; and other barriers to employment, such as driver's license suspension.

2. Maryland Correctional Education Program Employment Survey was originally developed by the New Mexico Corrections Department and modified and adapted by the Maryland Correctional Education Program. This assessment tool poses a series of 49 questions intended to identify potential challenges the job seeker may face. This tool groups issues by the following six categories: education/training, personal/health, offender, attitude, support, and job search.

For more information and examples from the field

1. Mellow, Jeff,  Debbie Mukamal, Stefan LoBuglio, Amy Solomon, and Jenny Osborne. 2008. The Jail Administrator’s Toolkit for Reentry, Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance.

2. Orange County, CA. Pretrial risk assessment instrument and report analyzing risk scores by offender characteristics.

Prerelease Risk Information

1. Vetter, Stephanie J. and John Clark. 2013. The Delivery of Pretrial Justice in Rural Areas.

Proxy Information

1. Bogue, Brad, William Woodward and Lore Joplin. 2005. Using a Proxy Score to Pre-screen Offenders for Risk to Reoffend.
2. Davidson County, TN Sheriff’s Office. 2010. A comparison of inmates completing Proxy questions and inmates released without Proxy scores.
3. Davidson County, TN Sheriff’s Office. 2010. Proxy Data Report. Proxy report with data obtained during the initial classification assessment.
4. Denver Sheriff Department. Risk/Need Screening and Assessment Pilot Overview. Proxy pilot and Level of Service Inventory report including tables and graphs.
5. Douglas County, KS Sheriff’s Office. 2009. Douglas County Proxy Fact Sheet. Proxy fact sheet including a discussion on Proxy score ranges are determined.
6. Orange County, CA Sheriff’s Department. 2009. Proxy Pilot 2009 Results. Proxy pilot report including tables and graphs.
7. Orange County, CA. Pilot proxy data spreadsheet.

In this section, you will learn the importance of a well-designed physical and staffing environment to facilitate the screening and assessment process. There are two main questions to ask:

1. How well suited is your jail's intake and release area for efficiently screening and assessing a larger number of people on a daily basis?
2. Has your staff been properly trained in your agency's screens and assessments?

The following are recommendations to ensure proper screening and assessment of your population.

Privacy

Many older jails were not built to provide intake and release functions in privacy; however, this does not mean that improvements cannot be made.¹ Information collection that might involve sensitive information – such as doing medical screens, risk screens, and assessments - should be conducted in a semi-private area where inmates feel comfortable discussing such information about themselves. This will increase the truthfulness of their information and the validity of the information for housing and programming needs.

Location

The intake and release areas or other areas should be designated with an appropriate number of case/discharge planners and interview rooms or cubicles to maximize the efficiency of working with the population. Often, facilities without specific space designed for reentry services use consultation areas designed for professional visits with lawyers and social workers or specially designed stations within a receiving/discharge area.

Training Staff

In many jails, custodial, medical, mental health, and programming staff are all involved in some way in screening and assessing individuals, and all should participate in training. Universal participation also helps cement staff commitment to the TJC model. The level of training required is directly related to the type of assessment instrument being used.

Full assessments, for example, take significantly longer to complete than screening instruments. The most common mistake among staff is to have the incarcerated person complete an assessment with little or no assistance from the staff. Such an approach is not responsive to the individual. The best information is gathered through an interactive assessment process undertaken by trained and committed staff who are active listeners. Staff must be identified who have the interest and capability to complete these assessments as they were designed.

Most of the screens we have mentioned were designed to require minimal training. Full assessment work will require more extensive training to ensure that your staff is maximizing the effectiveness of the instrument. Therefore, an agency must ensure that it has the resources available to provide full initial training to designated staff. Train-the-trainer modules are available for most assessments, which will allow staff on-site to train others as the need arises.

Measures and methods should be implemented for quality assurance to ensure that quality information is obtained and that screening and assessment are completed as prescribed. These practices range from simple process measures to more comprehensive quality and outcome evaluations.  For example, simple evaluation of daily process reports should insure that all people entering the jail receive the appropriate screening, while more comprehensive practices should include inter-rater reliability checks conducted by trained supervisors to maintain standards that insure instrument outcomes are the same or similar regardless of who performs the assessment.

Agencies already working with the jail population—such as drug and alcohol treatment providers—may be able to offer your staff interview and assessment training. However, prior to entering into such an arrangement, it is important to insure that these providers are utilizing evidence-based assessments and curricula. Motivational interviewing training may be useful for developing staff assessment capacities while maximizing valid responses.

At a minimum, screening and assessment training should cover the following areas:

• Understanding the prevalent risk and needs within the population.
• Techniques for building dialogue and soliciting valid responses during the assessment process.
• Adhering to confidentiality requirements when recording the information.
• Instructions on administering specific screens and assessments.
• Techniques used to monitor and assess whether the screen and assessments are being properly conducted.
• Strategies to offer remediation to staff who need additional training.

For more Information

1. Carey, Mark. 2010. Continuous Quality Improvement – Coaching Packet.
2. Flannes, Steven. Working Effectively with the Angry, Critical Client: Real World Solutions to Help You Get the Job Done.
3. Hampton-Newport News Criminal Justice Agency. 2005. Motivational Interviewing: An Introduction.

¹ Mark D. Martin and Thomas A. Rosazza, Resource Guide for Jail Administrators (Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, 2004).

This section defined a number of basic terms used in this module. These terms will be highlighted in purple throughout the module, allowing you to rollover the term to see the definition.

Active listening skills:

A technique for improving understanding of what is being said by taking into account how it is said and the nonverbal signs and body language that accompany it.

Assessment:

A system of assessing inmate criminogenic risks and needs for the purpose of determining transition needs; for use in the facility as well as the in the community.

Custodial level:

The degree of supervision an inmate receives in a jail facility.

Criminogenic needs:

Factors that contribute to criminal behavior and can be changed.

Custody reassessment/review:

The periodic review and update of an incarcerated person's custody level, which takes into consideration any change in the person's risk and needs.

Inmate classification:

An objective means of assessing severity and type of crime and inmate risks while in jail (as opposed to risk of recidivism after release), resulting in specific risk classifications and cell assignment.

Jail programs:

Any formal, structured activity that takes inmates out of their cells and engages them in instrumental tasks.

Motivational interviewing:

A direct, client-centered counseling style for eliciting behavior change by helping clients to explore and resolve ambivalence regarding change.¹

Needs assessment instrument:

Used to identify criminogenic and noncriminogenic needs of individuals for assignment to employment, education, drug treatment, mental health, and other programs.

Preclassification assessment:

To be completed on all newly admitted inmates prior to housing assignments to determine custody levels. (Initial custody – conduct primary classification based upon verified, objective data, generally within 72 hours, if preclassification housing is available.)

Programs:

The activities that are provided, such as educational and vocational opportunities, counseling services, recreation, and hobbies.

Reliability:

The degree to which an instrument consistently measures an attribute over time.

Screening:

The strategy used to identify an individual's potential risk or needs as he or she enters the jail or another agency.

Validity:

The degree to which a measure accurately reflects the concept that it is intended to measure.

¹ Mark D. Martin and Thomas A. Rosazza, Resource Guide for Jail Administrators (Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, 2004), p. 139.

This section describes the important role formal transition plans play in the TJC model. Informed by risk and needs assessment, a transition plan specifies

• The types of interventions an individual needs
• When and where interventions should occur and who will provide them
• The activities for which the individual needs to take responsibility

Transition plans are intended to help make transition back to the community as healthy and productive as possible by developing specific actions and/or strategies designed to address individual needs. Beyond the obvious advantage of planning for success over the medium to long term, transition plans provide specific direction for an individual during his or her first days post-release. As we are all too aware, choices people make soon after their release are pivotal to their success or failure.

Transition plans target issues such as housing, employment, family reunification, educational needs, substance abuse treatment, and health and mental health services. In many cases, a transition plan is the primary intervention for individuals released within hours or a few days of entering jail.

We use the term “transition” because it embodies a central tenet of the TJC model—that the overwhelmingly majority of those in jail are passing through—returning to the community—and need help identifying support and interventions in both locations.

We also recognize that the vast majority of people housed within your jail will transition directly from your jail to your streets in a relatively short period of time making coordination with professionals and supports within your local community an essential component of the process.

A transition plan has three components:

1. In-custody (prerelease) plan section
   This component specifies prerelease interventions to be delivered either by jail staff or community-based providers conducting jail “in-reach.”
2. Discharge plan section
   This component specifies interventions addressing the “moment of release”—those critical first hours and days after release from jail—and facilitating the provision of needed services in the community.
3. Post-release plan section
   This component specifies interventions for covering the mid- to long-term transition period upon return to the community. Though the post-release plan is initially developed in jail, it is expected to be revised in the community.

Implicit in this approach is the understanding that one size does not fit all and that plans should be tailored to the needs of each individual. Some individuals, for example, will need extensive services and support, including intensive case management, to effectively transition to the community; others may require only minimal assistance, if any.

Regardless of the individual, however, the goals of a transition plan are to

• Prioritize a person’s higher risk needs identified by a validated assessment.  
• Develop an individualized written plan of intervention.
• Identify when goals have been accomplished.
• Identify who is responsible for providing each intervention.
• Link and schedule appointments with community providers.
• Ensure continuity of interventions from jail to the community.
• Establish goals and/or targets of change that are agreed upon by the inmate and those responsible for his or her custody and treatment.  

For more information

1. Burke, Peggy,  Paul Herman, Richard Stroker, and Rachelle Giguere. 2010. TPC Case Management Handbook: An Integrated Case Management Approach, Washington, DC. National Institute of Corrections.

2. Burke, Peggy. 2008. TPC Reentry Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model.  Information on the “Transition from Prison to the Community Model: Transition Accountability Plans (TAP)” is available on page 212.

3. Carey, Mark. Coaching Packet: Effective Case Management. 2010. The Center for Effective Public Policy.

5. Christensen, Gary E. 2008. Our System of Corrections: Do Jails Play a Role in Improving Offender Outcomes? National Institute of Corrections/Crime and Justice Institute.

6. Conly,  Catherine H. Conly. 2005.  Helping Inmates Obtain Federal Disability Benefits: Serious Medical and Mental Illness, Incarceration, and Federal Disability Entitlement Programs, Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.

7. Parent, Dale G. and Cranston Mitchell. 2002. Transition from Prison to Community Project Briefing, Abt Associates Inc. Transition Accountability Plan PowerPoint slides 16–18.

8. Warwick, Kevin,  Hannah Dodd and S. Rebecca Nuesteter. 2012. Case Management Strategies for Successful Jail Reentry: Transition from Jail to Community Initiative Practice Brief, Urban Institute.

This section guides you through the development of a transition plan based on the National Institute of Corrections' Transition Accountability Plan (TAP). According to Peggy Burke, author of the Transition from Prison to Community Reentry Handbook, a transition plan has the following components:

• It is based on validated assessments of risk and needs.
• It indicates appropriate interventions to address the highest areas of criminogenic need.
• It is developed early in the period of incarceration.
• It is shared with members of the case management team.
• It follows the individual through his or her time in the jail and post-release.
• It is automated so that the collaborative case management team can update it and share it across organizational boundaries.¹

At minimum, according to Burke, transition plans should²

• Identify the assessed risk level and criminogenic needs of the incarcerated person.
• Develop strategies to address obstacles and triggers.
• Outline the incarcerated person's responsibilities clearly and concisely, and work with him or her to gain consensus on how to carry out these responsibilities.
• Articulate specific goals that are directly related to the highest rated domains of criminogenic need. Each goal should specify strategies that are clearly stated, measurable, attainable, relevant, and have a timeline.
• Afford a degree of flexibility to accommodate change and recognize small successes during planning, treatment, and intervention.  
• Identify the individual's strengths or protective factors, and build strategies to maximize prosocial assets already present in the individual's life.
• Assess the need for interventions to minimize the effects of criminal thinking on the realization of an offender's transition plan.
• Assess the individual's readiness for change, and consider the best ways to enhance motivation for change.

The transition plan template (click here) reflects the minimum requirements of an effective transition plan. Our purpose is not to recommend anyone transition plan, but instead to provide you with a transition plan template you can modify based on your jurisdiction's needs. However, as discussed in the previous section, each plan must identify the types of interventions an individual needs, when and where interventions should occur, and by whom.

Discussed here is the rationale for each section of the plan:

• Transition Plan Section
  The plan begins with the incarcerated person's name and identifying information. Identifying the individual's current status (pretrial detainee or sentenced inmate) and expected release date helps you estimate how much time you have to work with this individual prior to his or her release
• Risk Level, Treatment and Criminogenic Needs Section
  The plan reminds you of the importance of an objective, validated assessment to guide the transition plan. For example, a person who does not have a substance abuse problem should not be referred to substance or alcohol treatment. You will want to modify this portion of the plan based on the risk assessment used in your facility. Persons who have a medium- to high-risk score should have more referrals than those with low-risk scores.
• Interventions Needed Section
  This section of the plan identifies the 10 most common needs incarcerated people face when returning to the community. It’s important to remember that intervention in the following needs is based on assessed needs, not a one-size fits all intervention strategy. 
   
  1. Identification
     Recognizing the need for multiple types of identification—for example, to apply for a job, public benefits, or a driver's license—this section determines the number of identification documents a person has. Ideally, the individual will have access to identification application forms in jail to begin the process prior to release.
  2. Benefits Eligibility
     Recently released persons will need a source of income, at least temporarily, until they are employed. Though not all will qualify for public entitlements, this plan identifies the available benefits so individuals can begin applying for eligibility while incarcerated or at release.
  3. Transportation
     The first few hours and days after release are crucial in determining whether a person will recidivate. Those discharged without reliable transportation to home or to a program may find themselves dropped off or walking in an environment that triggers problematic behavior. Over the longer term, transportation is a key factor in gaining and maintaining employment, attending school, making appointments, and participating in treatment.
  4. Housing
     Stable housing is an important component of successful reintegration back into the community. Those released without shelter are more likely to return to the criminal justice system.
  5. Medical/Mental Health/Dental
     For individual and public health reasons, it is important that recently released individuals attend to their health care needs; a plan to maintain their medical regimen after release and a referral to a health care provider for any health-related issues are key. Individuals with mental health issues must have medication at release and continue with mental health treatment immediately upon release.
  6. Substance/Alcohol Abuse Counseling/Treatment
     Substance abuse is a dynamic criminogenic risk factor that affects recidivism. Those identified with a recent history of problematic drug use or dependency should be referred to treatment.
  7. Family
     Though reuniting with family members can be exciting, it can also be stressful for both those returning to the community and their families. It is important to know what the family situation is prior to determining whether marital and family counseling and parenting classes are appropriate. Many factors—including family criminality, domestic violence, sexual offense, and varying levels of abuse—are important considerations.
  8. Education
     A low level of personal education is a criminogenic risk factor. Though education is often not included in a person's short-term transition plan, it should be noted for longer term planning, particularly if the person does not have a high school diploma or GED.
  9. Employment
     Getting a job is one of the most important things people need to do after release. The job development section helps begin the process by identifying what, if any, skills must be attained before the individual is employable.
  10. Financial Obligations
      Paying financial obligations is an important part of the transition process. Failure to pay court fines or child support increases the chance of the person being re-arrested and possibly serving additional time in jail.
       
• In-Jail Program Participation Section
  This section identifies the prerelease interventions based on assessed higher risk needs delivered by either jail staff or community-based providers conducting jail “in-reach” that are available to meet the needs of the incarcerated population. The plan identifies what program(s) a person has participated in and whether he or she will need to continue working on each identified need in the community after release. This section will help determine moving into step-down programs like work release, day reporting, and electronic monitoring. Each jail should modify this section based on its range of existing transition programs and services available within the jail and the community.
• Post-Release Community Referrals Section
  This section specifies effective interventions in the community designed to continue the work begun in the jail facility to address the person’s needs at the “moment of release”—those critical first hours and days after release—and longer term—weeks and months after returning to the community.

A comprehensive knowledge of community resources by the transition planner is essential. Each individual who needs a referral must be given the agency's name and address as well as a contact person's name, and in many cases the date and time of an appointment. Though the post-release plan is initially developed in jail, it should be reviewed and revised by a community-based partner upon release.

Released individuals often have a difficult time following up on a referral, even when post-release services are available and accessible. This plan includes a reentry accountability plan so the person can work with his or her case manager or counselor to identify behaviors that may impede them from utilizing a referred community service.

• Completion of Plan Section
  This section records whether the transition plan was completed and discussed with the incarcerated person.
• Case Manager/Counselor Information and Inmate Agreement Section
  This section formalizes the transition plan process and requires the inmate to sign the agreement in an effort to increase buy-in and participation.

For more information and examples from the field

1. Burke, Peggy B. Burke. 2008. TPC Reentry Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model.

2. Howard County, MD Detention Center. Howard County Reentry Checklist.

3.  Denver Sheriff Department. Denver Jail to Community Reentry Case Management Form.

4.  Douglas County, KS Sheriff’s Office Corrections Division. 2008. Reentry Eligibility, Rules and Expectations.  A comprehensive inmate questionnaire: Reentry eligibility, rules, expectations and development of transition goals.

5. Hennepin County, MN. Hennepin County TJC Transition Plan.

¹ Peggy B. Burke, TPC Reentry Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model (Washington, DC: Center for Effective Public Policy, The National Institute of Corrections, 2008).

² Ibid.

This section provides an overview of whom to target for transition plans. Your goal is to identify high-risk and -needs individuals, those research tells us stand to benefit the most from a transition plan. Research indicates that low-risk individuals do not need transition plans, and resource limitations may preclude planning for those who are not likely to be released back to the community or for whom someone else will take responsibility for developing a plan (i.e., those facing transfer to state or federal prison).

First, determine if your incarcerated population has been screened and assessed for risk and need and whether that information is easily accessible.

Second, the TJC model recommends using a person's risk and needs levels as the two main criteria to identify who should receive transition plans.

1. Risk

Screen your entire jail population and assign individual levels of risk of reoffending to each inmate. Set a cut-off point considering the risk screen score and the resources available to provide extensive assessment and transition services to higher risk inmates.

Remember that based on the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model for assessment and rehabilitation, low-risk individuals should not be targeted for extensive intervention; however, as indicated in previous modules, they can still receive referrals and information that will address targeted needs. For higher-risk inmates above the established cut-off point, a more extensive risk/needs assessment should be conducted to inform your transition plan. When considering a “cut-off” point, it is also advisable to design your process so that more comprehensive assessments are only performed with people for whom resources or services are available.   

2. Needs

Next, identify the criminogenic needs (e.g., antisocial values, substance abuse, family dysfunction, antisocial friends, and low levels of personal education) of the population who have a high-risk score and for whom you will or are able to provide transition planning interventions. As discussed previously in Module 5, research shows a positive relationship between these needs and re-arrest.

Transition plans should also target and address basic survival needs (e.g., identification, housing, employment), health, and mental health needs because homelessness and severe mental illness, for example, can affect transition from jail to the community. Transition plans should address the needs identified by individual risk/needs assessments and avoid a “one-size-fits-all” approach.

Other criteria your jurisdiction will want to consider:

• Length of stay: How long a person is going to be incarcerated is often used to identify where the person receives a transition plan. Generally, you should develop transition plans for sentenced and pretrial persons whose assessments determine need for a transition plan and who are expected to stay in jail for more than 10 days. Transition plans should be initiated in the community after release for those with high risk and/or needs, but who will be in jail for a shorter period.
• Crime Type: Some jurisdictions identify crimes or offender types for whom they choose not to offer transition planning services due to their values or beliefs related to those crimes or offender types regardless of the research.  Therefore, each jurisdiction should determine if they will limit services by crime or offender type and develop an exclusion list so resources will not be wasted on offenders for whom comprehensive services will not be made available.
• County of release: Will transition plans be provided to people with high risk or needs who are released to counties outside of your jurisdiction?
• Chronic health problems: From a public health standpoint, will all individuals identified with an infectious disease (e.g., HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, viral hepatitis, sexually transmitted disease) receive a transition plan?
• Capacity: Will time and monetary cost, staff availability, and staff training limit transition plans, even for those who meet the threshold criteria? Is some method available to target the highest need individuals to ensure the best expenditure of available resources?
• Receptivity: Will the transition plan be voluntary? The TJC model recommends that all persons who meet the criteria receive a transition plan, whether they want it or not.
• Incentives: Develop incentives to foster inmate participation in the recommended services, especially post-release.

  • In-jail Incentives

    • More visitations
    • Later curfews
    • More phone access
    • More recreation time
    • Additional meals/snacks
    • More television
    • Movie nights
    • Access to more television channels
    • Certificates of completion
    • Letters of recognition
    • Improved housing assignments
    • Extra or early movement into community corrections
    • Good-time credits
  • Community-based Incentives
    • Bus passes
    • Access to phone cards
    • Food
    • Special activities for people who participate in programs – donated from community
    • Better housing
    • Family reconciliation
    • Certificates of completion
    • Letters of recognition
    • Being asked to serve as a mentor to other offenders
    • Reduction of conditions
    • Early termination of supervision

For more information and examples from the field

1. La Crosse, WI.  TJC Process system case flow chart outlining screening assessment, targeted treatment and transition planning.

2. Lowenkamp, Christopher T.  and Edward J. Latessa. 2005. Developing Successful Reentry Programs: Lessons Learned from the ‘What Works’ Research. Corrections Today,  72–77.

3. Howard County, MD. Howard County Jail Transition Reentry Map.

In this section, we discuss case management and the transition plan process. Ideally, one individual oversees and coordinates all phases of the transition plan. This individual could be a correctional case manager, community service provider, community supervision officer (pretrial and/or probation), correctional program staff, or other designated staff member.

For the section that follows, we use the term “case manager,” but this role could be filled by someone inside or outside the jail—or both, with a dual-based case management system.

Keys to Effective Case Management

• Make a connection at the first meeting.
• Have a good orientation for each client.
• Provide a welcoming environment.
• Establish an empathic relationship with the client.
• Complete a comprehensive assessment of the client.
• Engage clients and link them to appropriate interventions.
• Develop a comprehensive treatment plan for which clients agree to be held accountable.
• Develop a contract that focuses on short-term goals and accountability.
• Work with the client to develop a comprehensive aftercare plan.
• Provide a system of incentives to assist clients in meeting their goals.
• Have a good understanding of the communities to which people return.
• Be aware of community services and resources.
• Understand that different treatment approaches suit different clients.
• Provide regular opportunities to review progress with the client.

In addition to the “hard” components of the transition plan identified above (risk/needs), what is most important is the professional's ability to work with the incarcerated person to design a transition plan that meets the needs of the jurisdiction and facilitates change in behavior after release. Therefore, although the case manager starts the transition planning process, to achieve maximum effectiveness, the transition plan must be developed in collaboration with the incarcerated person.

Corrections professionals know that the individual's participation in the transition planning process increases adherence to the plan and that even people with high risk and needs can often recognize their problems and have preferences about which interventions are best suited for them. Simply stated, a person who views his or her transition plan as his or her own will be more likely to adhere to agreed-upon actions and will be far more likely to avoid behaviors associated with recidivism.

The transition plan process has six steps:

• Step 1: Identify the transition plan population.
• Step 2: Begin to fill out the transition plan.
• Step 3: Prepare the transition plan in consultation with the incarcerated person.
• Step 4: Identify interventions.
• Step 5: Make referrals.
• Step 6: Ensure that the transition plan follows the person back to the community.

For more information and examples from the field

1. Burke, Peggy , Paul Herman, Richard Stroker, and Rachelle Giguere. 2010. TPC Case Management Handbook: An Integrated Case Management Approach, (Washington, DC. National Institute of Corrections).
2. Healey, Kerry Murphy. 1999. Case Management in the Criminal Justice System, Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice: Research in Action.
3. Fresno County, CA. Fresno County TJC Participation Agreement.
4. Orange County, CA. 2009. Orange County Transitional Reentry Center. Transitional reentry center compliance agreement and instructions – contract style form signed by participant and probation officer.
5. Taxman, Faye. 2006. Assessment with a Flair (Purpose): Offender Accountability in Supervision Plans, Federal Probation.
6. Warwick, Kevin, Hannah Dodd and S. Rebecca Neusteter. 2012. Case Management Strategies for Successful Jail Reentry, Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Consent Form Examples

1. Denver Sheriff  Department. Inmate's consent form for release of reentry information.
2. Douglas County, KS Sheriff's Office. Reentry Release of Information. 2009. Inmate's consent form for release of reentry information.
3. La Crosse County, WI. Reciprocal Authorization for Disclosure of Confidential Information. Inmate's consent form for release of reentry information.

Step 1: Identify the transition plan population

• Review all screens and assessments gathered at intake.
• Identify assessed individuals in need of a transition plan, and determine who will receive more intensive interventions based upon a risk triage process.
• Generate a list of soon-to-be-released individuals to further assist triaging based on risk, needs, and length of stay.

Step 2: Begin to fill out the transition plan

• Fill out sections of the transition plan using information available from the person's file, inclusive of information obtained while under pretrial supervision.
• Triage activities dictate who should be seen first and to what extent he or she will receive service and/or further assessment.

Step 3: Prepare the transition plan in consultation with the incarcerated person.

• A program room, booking area, or other space in the jail should be designated for transition planning conferences.
• To maximize effectiveness and impact, case managers, counselors, or officers responsible for transition planning meet face-to-face with incarcerated individuals to discuss and form transition plans, including the interventions needed both in jail and after release to the community.
• If prerelease interventions are required, offer to help the transitioning person apply or sign up.
• Discuss pre- and post-release interventions and make referrals as indicated by interviews and assessments. Inmates receive a copy of the transition plan with names of the service providers, addresses, telephone numbers, time and date of appointments, and, if possible, public transportation routes to get there.

Step 4: Identify interventions

The case manager, reentry director, counselor, or officer

• Counsels the incarcerated person on interventions available in the jail and in the community.
• When feasible, invites a community service provider into the jail to meet face-to-face with the person prior to his or her release to enhance successful linkage and responsivity after release.
• Works with jail classification and security to coordinate transition plan activities, including housing assignments, program attendance, and referrals to in-custody and community-based services.
• Develops incentives (e.g., increased visitation, release earlier in the day for those with a plan, improved access to services) to reward the person for starting the in-jail component of the plan and meeting short-term goals.
• At a minimum, creates a mechanism and timeline to update a transition plan when the incarcerated person completes in-jail programming. The transition plan should act as a “living” document and be reviewed with the incarcerated individual and updated to reflect progress and new goals.

Step 5: Make referrals

The case manager, reentry director, counselor, or officer

• Communicates with evidence-based community programs and agencies to ensure intervention referrals.
• Revises transition plans as changes occur.
• As much as practical, acts as a liaison with community entities to support and invite their presence within the jail. May make presentations and provide information as well as meet potential referrals prior to their release.
• Schedules referrals for appointments for specific times whenever possible.
• Notifies local health departments in advance of the release of any person with an infectious disease such as active tuberculosis.

Step 6: Ensure that the transition plan follows the person back to the community

The case manager, reentry director, program staff counselor, or officer

• Determines a comprehensive process for having transition plans follow people from jail to the community.
• Ensures that transition plans are written in a format that allows them to also be used by probation officers and service providers upon release.
• Ensures that all individuals with mental health issues leave with medication and an appointment at their local health clinic.
• Contacts all individuals with high risk and/or high needs within the first week after release to determine if they have kept appointments, maintained prosocial contacts, complied with treatment or probation directives, and maintained employment. Provides any additional help or referral that might be necessary.

This section defined a number of basic terms used in this module. These terms will be highlighted in purple throughout the module, allowing you to rollover the term to see the definition.

Case manager:

The individual responsible for establishing release planning and addressing offender issues during and after incarceration.

Criminogenic:

Recognized factors that are proven to correlate highly with future criminal behavior.

Discharge plan section:

Specifies interventions addressing the moment of release—those critical first hours and days after release from jail—and facilitating the provision of needed services in the community.

In-custody (pre-release) plan section:

Specifies prerelease interventions to be delivered by either jail staff or community-based providers conducting jail “in-reach.”

Post-release plan section:

Specifies interventions covering the mid- to long-term transition period to the community. Although the post-release plan is initially developed in jail, it should be revised in the community.

Prosocial:

Caring about the rights and welfare of others.¹

Transition plan:

Preparation and strategy for each individual prisoner's release from custody, preparing them for return to the community in a law-abiding role after release. In some jurisdictions, transition plans are referred to as case management, discharge, reentry, supervision, or aftercare plans.

Trigger:

“A stimulus which has been repeatedly associated with the preparation for, anticipation of, or the use of alcohol or other drugs. These stimuli include people, places, things, time of day, emotional states, and secondary drug use.”²

¹ J.W. A. Sanstock, A Topical Approach to Lifespan Development, 4th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2007).

² Joan E. Zweben, Peggy F. Hora, and Judith B. Cohen, Moving Evidence Based Treatment into the Drug Court Setting (Rockville, MD: Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, 2004). Available at http://www.ebcrp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/060506_040423_Moving-evidence-based-treatment-into-the-drug-court-setting.pdf.

This section will help you first identify the current jail and community transition intervention programs currently in place and then determine gaps in service. This is a starting point in any intervention process and is useful for the following reasons:

• Helps you to understand service availability and accessibility
• Helps you identify gaps in services
• Assists in evaluation of new resources and/or approaches
• Improves responsiveness
• Improves system continuity
• Helps jails and service providers coordinate their interventions
• Gives you information to develop resource guides

Intervention examples

1. Resource information and referrals
2. Courses
3. Training sessions
4. Formal services, treatment, and training
5. Case management
6. Mentoring
7. Supervision

You will want to briefly describe the type of interventions available, the client and staff type, and when and where the intervention takes place.

Next, use other sources to add to your inventory. These can include the following:

• Health and human service resource guides are available in most cities and counties. The United Way or government agencies publish these guides, which often focus on a particular need, such as homelessness, HIV/AIDS, or job training.
• Partnering agencies and stakeholders, discussed in the Collaborative Structure and Joint Ownership module, have a wealth of knowledge on available services.
• The presently and formerly incarcerated are often willing to assist in understanding system efficiencies and gaps in service. Consider convening several focus groups of recently released individuals and others released some time ago, and ask them directly which resources were helpful and which were not.

Do not assume that all the information you receive is accurate and current.

• All services must be contacted before being listed in your final inventory and should be contacted every six months to verify the information.
• Some service providers will tell you they provide multiple programs, when the reality is they mainly refer clients to other services.
• Make sure to question providers on the specific programs they offer and the eligibility requirements.
• Services not meeting the needs of the inmates or not consistent with known best practices should be deleted from the database and alternative agencies sought.

The following are categories that might be included in a community inventory:

Finally, develop a database that inventories programs in the jail and the community to better manage available services and help you identify any gaps or lack of continuation of services from the jail to the community.

Provided here is a template of a jail- (J) and community-based (CB) service and treatment inventory table. You will want to revise the template based on the service availability in your community. However, the 29 interventions listed are the most common services offered and found useful by those transitioning from jail to the community.

Conducting a case flow analysis

Many communities conduct a case flow analysis to take an inventory of the resources available and evaluate the resource gaps in their community. Such an analysis involves community agencies; corrections, pretrial services, probation, the courts, parole; social work agencies; and the incarcerated themselves in the cataloging of available information and data and asks them to identify and fill in any community resource gaps. Allow all participants to include what information, data, and/or community resource they would find valuable to help transition people from jail to the community that does not presently exist.

The process of conducting a case flow analysis is as follows:

• Identify who will be responsible for developing the case flow analysis.
• Develop a standardized template for all partners to fill out.
• Make it available electronically to facilitate dissemination and easy updating.
• Solicit partner input during the meeting and/or through a survey.
• Emphasize the importance of partners being open about what resources they do and do not have.
• Develop the case flow report.
• Use the information to identify gaps in service and/or resources and make recommendations.

The following questions and TJC Pre-Implementation Case Flow Process templates attached to them are designed to help you start this process. We include four blank Case Flow Process templates for your own analysis. No two jail systems are alike, so make sure to modify the questions and templates to fit your needs.

Under each template, we also provide an example from one county to help you understand how the tables might be completed. Remember that these examples are pre-TJC implementation, so the goal here is to observe how one county filled in its information and the resource gaps this particular county is facing.

We hope this promotes more discussion in your own county. For example, in the Case Flow Process In-Jail Services and Treatment Programs County Example, the county acknowledges that no anger management programs are offered because of a lack of volunteers. This is the type of detail you will want to include in your own analysis to help the reentry implementation committee understand the present process, how individuals are presently flowing through the system, and ways to improve the process.

1. Screening and Assessment Key Questions

• What screens and assessment instruments are used?
• What type of individuals are screened and assessed?
• What percentage of the total population is screened and assessed?
• At what point in the process is this done?
• How will screening and assessment help to determine interventions?
• Is treatment based on the risk and needs level identified from assessment instruments?
• Who is responsible for completing the assessments?
• Is assessment information shared with staff in the facility?
• Is assessment information shared with community agencies and other system stakeholders?
• How are assessment data stored?
• Are assessment data analyzed?
• Who makes decisions based upon data analysis?
• What gaps do you see in the present system?
• What are the strengths of the current system?

Click here for Case Flow Process: Screening and Assessment Template and County Example

2. Case Management Services Key Questions

• How does an inmate “enter” the case management system?
• Does screening and/or assessment contribute to case management?
• What are the key intervention decision points as the inmate moves through your jail-to-community system?
• How is an inmate's movement in and through the system (case flow) monitored or tracked? Is this information entered into a database?
• How do court-ordered services match with practices associated with needs-driven targeted case planning?
• How is an inmate's movement/compliance with court-ordered services tracked?
• What information are providers expected to report? How often?
• How are referrals and utilization captured in the system?
• How is this process coordinated with community providers?
• Have interventions assigned routinely by the courts, community corrections, or the jail as part of a routine case management practice or policy been determined to be evidence-based?
• What are the gaps in the present system?
• What are the strengths of the current system?

Click here for Case Flow Process Case Management Services Template and County Example

3.  In-Jail Treatment and Transitional Programs Key Questions

• How is movement into programs determined?
• Is there good coordination between the jail and community provider staff?
• Do in-jail programs match community-based programs on approach or curriculum?
• Have in-jail and community programs been evaluated rigorously and deemed as evidence-based?
• What is the referral process?
• Are inmates linked to the same providers they worked within the jail as they reenter the community?
• Is there a central classification system that considers reentry case flow?
• Is risk to re-offend information used in concert with objective jail classification information? 
• Does jail classification prevent groups of inmates from utilizing transition services? 
• How are inmates solicited to participate in programs?
• How is movement into programs determined?
• Does screening and/or assessment drive the program/intervention assignment?
• Is a standardized means or method utilized to identify or solicit offenders equally, regardless of sanction, placement, or any other factor?
• What is the primary focus and goal of transition programs?
• Is programmatic information provided to community providers? How?
• How are data collected on this process?
• What are the major gaps in this system at present?
• What are the strengths of the current system?
• How is success measured?

Click here for Case Flow Process In-Jail Services and Treatment Programs Template and County Example

4. Community-Based Treatment Key Questions

• When inmates transition to the community, are they linked to the same providers they saw in the jail?
• For individuals needing multiple services, who coordinates services across providers?
• Do programmatic initiatives within the community match similar initiatives offered within the jail?
• Is there good coordination between jail and community management and staff?
• Does jail treatment or transition staff remain engaged in the process and “reach out” to community providers to assist community programs and enhance program continuity?
• What is the referral process from jail to the community provider?
• Does programmatic information flow to and from community providers?
• Are universal case plans available and/or shared?  
• How are data collected on this process?
• What are the major gaps in providing transitional service from the jail to the community at present?
• What are the strengths of the current interagency collaborations?

Click here for the Case Flow Process Community-Based Treatment Template

Once the case flow process is completed, have the reentry council review the case-flow tables to discuss how individuals are presently flowing through the system and ways to improve the process.

Key considerations when evaluating the information obtained from the case-flow analyses:

• What are the characteristics of the high-risk clients you are trying to serve?
• What are the goals of each program and how will goal attainment be measured and evaluated?
• How do the goals of individual programs or stakeholders fit with the goals of the system at large?
• How long will clients be in jail?
• What services can be provided at the facility based on length of stay?
• Does the program dosage and intensity compare to that of similar evidence-based programs?
• What is the proper program dosage needed?
• How will in-jail interventions be linked to community-based interventions?
• Will there be a coordinated plan and curriculum?
• Does the curriculum have to be delivered in sequential order (e.g., do you have to start at lesson 1, or can you come in at lesson 10)?

The case flow tables should also help you understand the following issues:

• The pre-initiative process by which the jail population interacts with each partnering agency
• How the community serves the jail population
• Resources needed to fill identified gaps and/or change existing practice

For more information and examples from the field

1. Allegheny County, Pennsylvania Department of Human Services. Cover Letter. A template of a cover letter and a self-report questionnaire you can send to agencies requesting information about their services. The questionnaire was adapted from a survey developed by Department of Human Services, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.

2. Davidson County, TN Sheriff’s Office. Davidson County In-Jail Program Target Populations.

3. Kent County, MI. TJC Pre-Implementation Case Flow Maps.

4. Urban Institute. Jail Transition in “Your” County. A questionnaire that you can send to different stakeholders in your community, including the formerly incarcerated, to better understand their perceptions of the barriers that impede individuals from receiving services.

5. Urban Institute. In Custody Client Flow Chart.

This section will help you create resource packets or guides to empower those incarcerated to use services while in jail and after release. You will also learn the best way to distribute the guides, including training for jail staff.

The development of a user-friendly county- or city-specific resource brochure, pamphlet, or pocket-size resource guide will help the returning population and their families understand the community resources available to meet their needs.

The content of resource brochures and guides ranges from listing the most important numbers and hotlines to providing a description of the challenges inmates face at release and helpful tips to manage them.

Resource packets are important for a number of reasons:

• Link those leaving jail to interventions that can help them.

• Help jail staff gain a better understanding of community services when assisting inmates.

• Provide an easy guide for the formerly incarcerated when they are released.

Following are 12 recommendations for the development of reentry guides:¹

1. Provide an honest and hopeful introduction.
2. Provide letters of support and sponsorship from other former inmates.
3. Prioritize crucial first steps, and include a reference list for less immediate issues.
4. Incorporate the guide into a training curriculum with in-person support.
5. Provide the guide well ahead of release to help prepare a smoother transition.
6. Include content that helps to manage specific challenges.
7. Include maps of cities, transportation routes, and the locations of major service providers.
8. Include informative, motivational text, being conscious of prevalent literacy levels.
9. Include only service providers committed and accessible to individuals with a history of involvement in the criminal justice system.
10. Be sensitive to language barriers.
11. Keep the guide small, portable, and discreet.
12. Evaluate reactions before and after the publication of the guide.

Read more details about each recommendation.

Benefit Boards and Online Community Resources Databases

Benefit boards located throughout your facility and online community resource databases are easy and effective ways to share resources for those transitioning back to the community. The San Diego County District Attorney's office, San Diego County Sheriff's Department, San Diego County Probation Department, and San Diego Re-entry Roundtable developed in partnership 2-1-1 San Diego, a reentry section on the 2-1-1 website: http://www.211sandiego.org/Re-entry.

San Diego's 2-1-1 Post Incarceration Re-Entry Resources

For more information and examples from the field

Following are examples of different types of resource materials for people transitioning from jail and prison to the community.

1.Cuyahoga County, Ohio. 2011. Going Home to Stay: A Guide for Successful Reentry for Men and Women.

2. Davidson County, TN Sheriff’s Office. 2008. Reentry packet and information and referral guide.

3. Douglas County, KS. Reentry resource list with map and bus routes.

4. Howard County, MD. Howard County Probation reporting information sheet.

5. Douglas County Sheriff’s Office Corrections Division. Crisis Resource Card.

6. Fishman, Nancy and Jeff Mellow. 2008. Essex County Smart Book: A Resource Guide for Going Home will give you a better idea of information you may want to include in a resource guide.

7. Howard County, MD. Howard County Reentry Xpress session outline.

8.  Orange County Sheriff’s Department Inmate Service Division. Client Release Guide: A guide to food, shelter & other emergency services in Orange County.

¹Mellow and Dickenson, “The Role of Prerelease Handbooks for Prisoner Reentry,” Federal Probation 70 (2006): 70–76.

This section explains the process of developing and delivering interventions through an evidence-based curriculum to selected people in the jail and upon release to the community. Interventions can include short courses, training sessions, formal services, and treatment programs. Whenever possible, the program and services offered in the jail should mirror or work in conjunction with community programs, ideally by the same provider in and out of the jail.

Course selection must consider

• The individual's length of stay
• The level and type of criminogenic risk and need that will be targeted and serviced
•  Group space and staff who can deliver the curriculum
• Training needs of staff to deliver the curriculum
• Alignment with existing programs and services both in jail and the community.

Work done while in jail to begin treatment, develop relationships with service providers, and connect individuals to service appointments in the community will have less impact after release if there is no follow-up in the community. Community-based organizations and support networks must provide continuity of care—or in many cases, initiate care—through services, training, treatment, and case management when an individual is released.

There are five basic steps to developing and delivering interventions.

Step 1: Determine which individuals should receive which interventions.

The eligibility for participation in any in-jail and community-based intervention is based on a thorough risk/needs assessment, a completed transition plan, and the individual's length of jail stay. Secondary considerations include jail and community capacity, staff availability, staff training, financial resources, and receptivity of the incarcerated population.

Guided by evidence-based practices, low-risk individuals with few needs do not receive comprehensive interventions but still have access to less intensive referrals and services in the jail and the community.

High-risk individuals with many needs should receive the most comprehensive interventions available at the jail and upon release.

Click here for a table that outlines the type of in-jail and community interventions available to a person based on his or her risk and needs score and length of stay in the facility or program. As you see, the longer the length of stay, the more interventions are available in the jail setting.

Step 2: Select interventions.

After you identify your population needs, it's time to define the content and curriculum of evidence-based short courses, training sessions, formal services, and treatment programs designed to reduce recidivism.

Research shows that certain interventions have the greatest impact on recidivism rates for correctional populations. The following are five major areas of treatment:

• Cognitive behavioral/life skills groups
• Substance abuse groups/ CBT substance abuse treatment
• Job readiness and employment
• Educational programs
• Housing and community reintegration planning

We recommend that you enlist programming experts, such as those listed below, to suggest evidenced-based interventions for your population:

• Psychologists
• Correctional researchers
• Staff from institutes and government agencies
• Consultants
• Other jail facilities

These experts understand the importance of evidence-based interventions and will be helpful in discussing with you which interventions are backed by research proving their effectiveness. They should also be able to help you to understand the research and build capacity within your own organization to evaluate programs and services and ensure that you utilize only those programs or services that are proven to be effective. You can often locate them by contacting

• American Correctional Association
• American Jail Association
• American Probation and Parole Association
• Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's Center for Behavioral Health and Justice Transformation (GAINS Center)
• International Community Corrections Association
• National Institute of Corrections
• Colleges and universities
• Community-based organizations

Remember, regardless of whom you work with, make sure to have them show you why theirs is an evidenced-based intervention. Empirically based studies have provided evidence of the statistically significant effectiveness of the treatment or program.

Step 3: Pilot the new intervention.

Pilot testing your program on a small group before extending the intervention to all individuals who meet the criteria is necessary for the following reasons:

• It allows you to identify which factors helped or hindered implementation of the intervention before you spend a large amount of time and money on the intervention.
• It allows you to determine whether staff are adequately trained, and if not, gives you time to help them improve the delivery of the intervention.

Step 4: Implement the intervention.

High-quality implementation of the intervention is the next step. An evidenced-based curriculum alone does not guarantee successful implementation. Your organization has to be “ready” and have the capacity to meet the challenges of implementing a new program. The following factors influence high-quality implementation:¹

• Staff selection
• Pre-service and in-service training
• Ongoing consultation and coaching
• Staff evaluation
• Facilitative administration
• System interventions

Step 5: Extend the new intervention to all individuals who meet the criteria.

Moving to a full-scale implementation of the intervention occurs once the pilot program has been determined to be successful. Of course, once you have fully implemented the program, your work to develop effective transitional services is not complete. Developing and delivering evidence-based interventions is an ongoing, iterative process. In Module 9: Self-Evaluation and Sustainability, you will learn methods for continually evaluating your progress and ensuring that you are delivering the most effective and valid interventions.

For more information and examples from the field

1. Finn, Peter. 1997. The Orange County, Florida, Educational and Vocational Programs, National Institute of Justice Program Focus. A recommended resource on how programs can be implemented in your jail.

2. Kent County, MI Sheriff's Office. Reentry Program Schedule of Classes.

3. La Crosse County, WI. Thinking for a Change Training. Training flyer for system stakeholders.

4. Orange County, CA Probation Department. Orange County Transitional Reentry Center Orientation Handbook.

5. Sullivan County, NH Department of Corrections. 2011. Community Corrections Program Schedule of Programs and Services.

6.Urban Institute. A table of different cognitive-behavioral, substance abuse, fatherhood, and staff curricula, including cost and number of classes required.

7. Urban Institute. A table of educational programming available through satellite TV and other distance learning techniques.

8. Urban Institute. 2011. TJC Intervention Inventory (LSI-R Version).

9. Fresno County, CA. Fresno County TJC Unit Sergeant and Correctional Officer Job Descriptions.

¹ C. A. Denton, S. Vaughn, and J. M. Fletcher, “Bringing Research-Based Practice in Reading Intervention to Scale,” Learning Disabilities Research & Practice 18 (2003): 201–211.

This section aims to help you understand how to support prosocial behavior through incentivizing program participation and mentoring. Often, the target population for in-jail and community interventions is resistant because of long histories of failed efforts in programs and ambivalence about change.

As Former Deputy Commissioner Kathleen Coughlin of the New York City Department of Corrections notes, incarcerated people have been disappointed numerous times before by the criminal justice and social service systems, and they are both “program-weary” and “program-wary.”

Your recruitment and retention efforts must take into account this resistance to programming, because limited outreach will undoubtedly result in low participation and completion rates.

Research indicates that incentives can motivate people to sign up and complete programs.

In-Jail incentives

• Increased visitation
• Later curfews for work release inmates
• Later lock-in times
• More phone access
• More recreation time
• More television
• Movie nights
• Access to more television channels
• Certificates of completion
• Letters of recognition
• Graduation ceremonies
• Improved housing assignments
• Extra or early movement into community corrections
• Good-time credits
• Extra Food or snacks
• Juice machines
• Microwave
• Hand Sanitizer

Community-Based incentives

• Bus passes
• Access to phone cards
• Food vouchers
• Special activities for people who participate in programs – donated by the community
• Housing
• Family reconciliation efforts
• Certificates of completion
• Letters of recognition
• Being asked to serve as a mentor to other offenders
• Reduction of supervision conditions
• Early termination of supervision
• Community recognition

Mentoring

Mentoring can help with successful reintegration by providing positive role models to people returning to the community. Ideally, individuals are paired with mentors during custody, with the intent of maintaining the relationship in the community after release. It is important to note that if former offenders are to be considered for this purpose, they must be well past their own criminal issues and have demonstrated consistent prosocial behavior over a significant period of time (generally understood to be a minimum of one-year). 

Though each mentor/mentee relationship is different, a successful mentor will have the following attributes:

• Good listener
• Positive role model
• Has good boundaries
• Communicates effectively
• Understands the time commitment
• Patient
• Has knowledge and resources to help solve problems and address needs, within appropriate limits
• Clear on the role and what they can and can't do (i.e., they know they're not a case manager)
• Maintains contact and provides updates with the agency overseeing the mentoring program

Peer mentoring by previously incarcerated individuals or those in recovery who have turned their lives around and have maintained a prosocial lifestyle for an extended period since their offense can also serve an important role in the transition process. In fact, research has found that support from recovering peers may be more effective in reducing recidivism than support from clinical staff or correctional officers.¹

You can't beat the credibility of an ex-offender when trying to show offenders how their lives can be different. They can look a prisoner in the eye and say, “I have been in your shoes.”

—Sheriff Michael Hennessey
San Francisco Sheriff's Department

Training

Developing a mentoring program takes time, and a training program is required to teach volunteers how to mentor people while they are incarcerated and after release.
Following are a few recommendations:

• Screen all mentors to ensure they have the appropriate demeanor, time commitment, and motivation to dedicate a minimum of one year working with a mentee.
• Provide a mentor training program.
• Provide ongoing support during the mentorship.

For more information and examples from the field

1. National Mentoring Partnership: Expanding the World of Quality Mentoring. Mentoring resources and information in the Program Resource section of this website.

2. SAMHSA. 2005. Successful Strategies for Recruiting, Training, and Utilizing Volunteers: A Guide for Faith- and Community-Based Service Providers.

3. San Diego County, CA. San Diego County presentation on Las Colinas Reentry Facility client flow.

4. Fresno County, CA. Fresno County TJC Unit Guidelines and Procedures (incentive structure described therein).

¹ H. K. Wexler, “The Success of Therapeutic Communities for Substance Abusers in American Prisons,” Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 27 (1995): 57–66.

This section defined a number of basic terms used in this module. These terms have been highlighted in purple throughout the module, allowing you to rollover on the term to see the definition.

Core components of an intervention:

The most essential concepts (those that contribute significantly to changes in attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors), activities, and ideas included in the intervention.

Evidence-based:

A practice that has been proven to be effective through scientific research and, once applied locally, is measurable and evaluated consistently for its effectiveness.

Incentive:

A method or action to used to reinforce program participation and/or the exhibit of prosocial skills or behavior.

Mentoring:

“The practice of matching up an individual who has a stable educational, professional and personal life with another individual who is in need of guidance in those areas.”¹

Post-release interventions:

Interventions designed to aid the individual's transition from jail to the community and to sustain gains made through prerelease interventions. Examples of discharge interventions include resource packets; referrals to community agencies; scheduled appointments in the community; a temporary supply of medication; identification documents; updated transition plans; transportation to a service provider, home, or probation office; and contact information for key individuals who will facilitate the individual's service plan in the community.

Pre-release interventions:

Interventions delivered either by jail staff or community-based providers in the jail. Examples of prerelease interventions include provision of informational resources such as resource packets, information bins in the facility, or a designated resource officer; brief training programs that prepare individuals for reentry; services such as drug and alcohol treatment, educational programs, and job training; access to community-based and informal social supports such as family, mentors, and members of the faith community; and case management to facilitate continuity of care.

Conclusion

Jail-based and community interventions include the distribution of resource packets, working closely with case managers or treatment managers, and participating and completing an evidence-based cognitive-behavioral program. Before delivering interventions, a detailed resource inventory should be drawn up. It is important to keep the inventory updated. Interventions that are provided should have empirical studies that show them to be effective. Such interventions must be targeted to those who have the greatest risks and needs. Carefully considered incentives may promote program participation.

¹ Institute on Women & Criminal Justice, Mentoring Women in Reentry: A WPA Practice Brief (2008). Available here.

1. Honest and Hopeful

An example of this style of writing is found in the introduction of the Tucson, Arizona handbook, Guidelines for Getting Out (Tucson Planning Council, 2005, p.2)

The transition to life after prison is a big challenge, and this brochure is designed to help you through this exciting but often difficult time. If you take to heart the following suggestions we think these resources can help you to be successful with rebuilding.

Do your homework. Make as many arrangements for yourself as you can before you get out. Use this brochure to write to agencies for help.

Give yourself time to adjust. Don’t try to accomplish everything right away. Take time alone or with family and close friends only. Be patient with yourself and know it might take you a while to reach your goals. You may feel depressed or overwhelmed. This is normal – just take some time to heal.

Ask for help. There is an answer to every question you have. All you need to do is ask. This does not make you weak, it makes you smart. Call the agencies in this pamphlet. If they can’t help you, ask them who can. Keep asking until you get the right answer.

2. Provide letters of support and sponsorship from other former inmates.

Include positive statements by formerly incarcerated individuals dispersed throughout the resource:

Been in the game since I was 12. By the time I was 22, I was through. I gave up the game because I had children and I didn't want them comin' into the jail to see me. I'm soft but I know where I come from.¹

¹ New York City Commission on Human Rights, Making It Happen & Staying Home (2005), New York: New York City Commission on Human Rights, p. 5.

3. Prioritize crucial first steps, and include a reference list for less immediate issues.

A reentry guide should focus on the immediate, crucial aspects of moving toward life stability within the first few months after release; true self-sufficiency and social reintegration should be handled through other routes.

4. Incorporate the guide into a training curriculum with in-person support.

The most effective way to prepare individuals for reentry is through in-person prerelease instructional programs. Introducing the guide and its contents during prerelease classes will familiarize those incarcerated and give them a chance to make arrangements before release to increase the likelihood of successful transition to the community.

5. Provide the guide well ahead of release to help prepare a smoother transition.

Having the guide available in advance will allow individuals to consider employment, housing, and other topics prior to release, weighing the feasibility and benefits of their options. The guide will also provide a basis for program officers or case managers to discuss these options with transitioning offenders. This process of personal orientation and familiarization is essential to maximizing the positive effect of resource packets.

6. Include content that helps to manage specific challenges.

Sample text of job letters and resume layouts can make guides more engaging and effective in helping plan for reentry.

7. Include maps of cities, transportation routes, and the locations of major service providers.

Maps of geographic areas with different service providers marked can be an excellent source of information, especially for those with minimal reading skills.

8. Include informative, motivational text, being conscious of prevalent literacy levels.

Remember that many inmates have learning disabilities and have difficulty reading above a sixth-grade level. Therefore, the complexity and length of text in a guide must be compatible with the literacy levels of the intended audience.

9. Include only service providers committed and accessible to individuals with a history of involvement in the criminal justice system.

The clients should be referred to agencies that best meet the needs of the inmate population. Some agencies specialize in working with women or other distinct groups of offenders. Both the client and the agency must be comfortable working with one another. Agencies may assert that they work with the formerly incarcerated but in practice seek to waitlist them or refer them to another agency.

10. Be sensitive to language barriers.

The issue of developing foreign language versions for certain jurisdictions is also important to consider.

11. Keep the guide small, portable, and discreet.

Make the guide reasonable and attractive for individuals to carry with them. If possible, the guide should be designed to be transportable in a back pocket. Gang colors and titles that would mark users as formerly incarcerated should be avoided. These small design features are likely to have important effects on clients' use of the guide.

12. Evaluate reactions before and after the publication of the guide.

Objective evaluation of the guide to refine the first edition and subsequent revisions is the only way to gauge effectiveness. Focus groups and questionnaires with those incarcerated, corrections staff, provider agencies, and transitional experts can be used to help improve content.

1. Staff selection

Identify who is best qualified to carry out the intent of the curriculum. Beyond academic credentials, certain characteristics should be part of the staff selection process (e.g., respect for those in need, knowledge about the community of their return, and open-mindedness).

2. Pre-service and in-service training

Training is an efficient way to provide knowledge of background information, theory, and values to staff and to introduce and reinforce the core components of a new curriculum and the rationale for key practices.

3. Ongoing consultation and coaching

Typically, most of the skills needed by staff for the successful implementation of a new curriculum are learned on the job with the help of training and a consultant or coach who is familiar with the core concepts of the curriculum, as well as the organizational or system culture in which the curriculum will be delivered. Such a presence helps to diagnose misdirection and missed opportunities and maximizes scarce resources. In cases where errors in implementation or delivery are identified, remediation in the form of coaching and consultation has proven to be quite beneficial.

4. Staff evaluation

Assessment of staff progress provides useful feedback to administrators and curriculum developers regarding the progress of implementation, the quality of training and coaching, and strengths and weakness in the intervention itself.  Care, however, should be taken to ensure that evaluations are based upon objective criteria that all understand and agree with.

5. Facilitative administration

A leadership team that is oriented as an action learning team uses data to inform decision making to support the overall process. Such a team also uses systems of objective evaluation to keep staff organized and focused on desired outcomes, as well as program fidelity.

6. System interventions

Develop strategies to work with external stakeholders and resources to ensure diffusion of complementary messages throughout the jail and the community. Mixed messages from different parts of the system will impede individual change.

In this section, we discuss the importance of developing a strong and lasting self-evaluation component to your TJC initiative. Your goal is to recognize that only through ongoing evaluation will you understand your successes, identify areas for improvement, learn from them, and institute policies and procedures that will continually clarify and improve your future efforts.

At the most basic level, self-evaluation helps you answer three questions:¹

1. Is the TJC initiative producing the desired results?
2. Is the TJC initiative having the greatest possible impact on public safety?
3. Is the TJC initiative making the most efficient use of public funds?

Self-evaluation doesn't have to be complicated or costly, and any short-term inconvenience is far outweighed by the risk of not identifying the areas where improvement is needed to successfully implement the TJC initiative. In fact, without self-evaluation, your resources will not be used as effectively as they might be and your efforts to improve long-term public safety will not have the impact that they should.

According to the Evaluation Toolkit produced by the Government of Ontario, Canada², evaluation is beneficial because it enables you to

• Demonstrate effective, efficient, and equitable use of financial and other resources.
• Measure actual changes and progress made.
• Identify success factors, need for improvement, or areas where expected outcomes are unrealistic.
• Respond to demands for accountability.
• Validate that desired outcomes are being achieved.

Self-Evaluation Process

The self-evaluation process is ordered in four simple steps:

You will learn more about elements 1, 3, and 4 in the following sections. Refer back to Module 4: Data-Driven Understanding of Local Reentry for Step 2: Data Collection.

¹ Council of State Governments, Re-Entry Policy Council. 2005. “The Report of the Re-Entry Council.”

² Government of Ontario Canada. n.d. “Evaluation Toolkit.”

An evaluation roadmap is a graphical summary outlining how you plan to evaluate your TJC initiative. Each step of the roadmap must be completed before the next step can occur. Here, the old adage applies: “If you don't know where you're going, you'll probably end up somewhere else.”

A theory of change model, often referred to as a logic model, is one of the most common tools used to map out your specific community's approach.
It will not only document your theory of change for the TJC initiative but articulate to your TJC partners the rationale for actions or strategies. It guides your self-evaluation by identifying how resources and activities or programs are linked to desired outcomes.

Your theory of change model will describe your TJC strategies and activities, and also help identify the data that should be collected by stating what measures will be used for its short- and long-term outcomes. A reentry council or criminal justice policy council, as well as each partnering agency, will typically develop its own theory of change model.

The flow of the theory of change model begins with identifying the target population and ends with long-term outcomes. We've listed the headings most often used for each column.

Figure 1. Theory of Change Column Headings

A Theory of Change Model:

• Offers a written rationale or a theory for selecting various strategies, programs, or intervention activities to implement the TJC initiative.
• Identifies the objective or change you hope will occur by implementing those various strategies, programs, or interventions to the population targeted.
• States the strategies, programs, and activities to be implemented (Activities in figure 2).
• Identifies the immediate, short-term outcome of the strategies, programs, or intervention activities (Outputs in figure 2).
• Identifies the intermediate outcomes of the strategies, programs, or intervention activities (Outcomes in figure 2).
• Identifies the final outcomes (long-term outcomes) of the strategies, programs, or intervention activities (Impact in figure 2).

Figure 2. Theory of Change Model

(click for larger version)

Developing a theory of change model is a group activity; it requires input from multiple stakeholders central to your community's TJC initiative. Crafting a theory of change model begins by convening key stakeholders from the community and the jail to discuss and define the initiative's goals and objectives, and the interventions or activities your community views as essential to achieving these goals and objectives. As discussed in module 4, a data-driven understanding of local reentry issues should inform many of these early discussions.

A theory of change model, however, is only a first step. You will still need to define your key outcome measures, determine what data will be needed to measure these outcomes, decide how to collect and analyze the data, then do so, and report the results. See module 4 for more information on data collection and analysis.

Below, we have provided several examples of theory of change models, focusing on transitioning people back to the community, provided by the Criminal Justice Research and Evaluation Center at John Jay College.

Figure 3. Collaborative Initiative Program Plan
Criminal Justice Research and Evaluation Center, John Jay College.

(click for larger version)

Figure 4. Reentry Committee Community Capacity Building—Process Logic Model
Criminal Justice Research and Evaluation Center, John Jay College

(click for larger version)

Figure 5. Mother and Child, Jail and Community Connections
Criminal Justice Research and Evaluation Center, John Jay College

(click for larger version)

Performance Measures

The development of TJC performance measures is the next step after developing your theory of change model. Performance measurement refers to the “regular and systematic collection of quantitative information that will empirically demonstrate results (outcomes) of activities (e.g., modified policies, practices, new program activities). Performance measurement connects indicators (i.e., quantitative measures) with a specific agency or jurisdictional objectives (i.e., expected outcomes).” ¹

Performance measures determine the type of data you must collect to measure your short, intermediate, and long-term outcomes and are thus directly connected to your theory of change model. Reports of these data and outcomes should be readily available to assist decision makers in resource allocation and implementation strategy.

David Osborne and Ted Gaeble, in Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit Is Transforming the Public Sector ² identify the power of performance measures:

• What gets measured gets done.
• If you don't measure results, you cannot tell success from failure.
• If you can't see success, you can't reward it.
• If you can't reward success, you're probably rewarding failure.
• If you can't see success, you can't learn from it.
• If you can demonstrate results, you can win public support.

Innovating agencies use performance measures to improve performance but they also recognize that for desired behaviors to replace old habits or behaviors, they must be reinforced. Below are several examples of actions or rewards to reinforce desirable organizational behaviors or actions:

• Paying for performance: Use performance measures as a basis to determine and reward effectiveness.
  
  The New York City Department of Corrections, for example, employs performance-based contracts with its transitional service providers. Service providers bill the NYC DOC for individual clients, and the billing structure relies on a pay scale that ties increased fee amounts with continued client involvement. Performance-based contracts provide strong incentives for service providers to be aggressive in their efforts to maintain client engagement.

• Managing for Performance: Use performance measures to improve outcomes through the following steps: identify problems, analyze them, locate the root cause, and develop and implement the solution.
• Budgeting for Results: Use performance measures and information to allocate resources. As table 1 indicates, results-based budgeting is outcome driven, promoting ongoing evaluation and interagency collaboration.

Table 1. Traditional Budgeting vs. Budgeting for Results ³

Begin by developing TJC performance measures for each of your theory of change model's short-term, intermediate, and long-term outcomes. This needs to be done before you develop your data collection plan to make sure your strategy for collecting data supports each performance measure used in your self-evaluation. There must be a clear and compelling link between your initiative's objectives, outcomes, performance measures, and indicators, and the data you plan to regularly collect and analyze.

Many people believe that rearrest, reconviction, and reincarceration rates are the only ways to measure successful transition strategies. Although long-term public safety is paramount, there are other important process and system outcomes to measure to enhance public safety and efficiency.

The TJC initiative has developed a menu of performance measures that reflect and support the initiative's broad goals to increase public safety, improve reintegration outcomes, and effect systems change. To help you with this process, we have identified the following system-level, public safety, and reintegration TJC initiative outcomes and performance indicators:

• System-Level Outcomes
• • Screening, assessment, referrals, engagement, service utilization, and completion

• Public Safety Indicators and Outcomes
• • Reduced reoffending, reduced jail stays, and increased time between jail stays

• Reintegration Indicators and Outcomes
• • Reduced substance use, reduced homelessness and increased housing stability, increased employment and employment stability, and improved physical or mental health

The menu of TJC performance measures located at the end of this module offers several indicators (actual measures) for each above measure. The process measures, although difficult to track, should be a priority for each jurisdiction as they will allow progress to be monitored on an ongoing basis. Depending on the agreed upon definitions (e.g., indicators selected, specified time frame for measurement), the public safety and reintegration measures can take a long time to demonstrate progress and success. The process measures represent intermediate outcomes that should be monitored closely, keeping in mind that if the associated activities are targeted and implemented correctly, they should positively affect reintegration and public safety outcomes.

¹ Rossman, Shelli B., and Laura Winterfield. 2009. Coaching Packet: Measuring the Impact of Reentry Efforts. Silver Spring, MD: The Center for Effective Public Policy, p. 8.

² Osborne, David, and Ted Gaeble. 1992. Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit Is Transforming the Public Sector. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

³ Office of the Governor. 2005. The FY 2005-06 Executive Budget . Columbia, SC:
Author.

System-Level Performance Measures

This menu of system-level performance measures helps you identify those that are most important to your initiative. You may want to collect and review these data monthly to support internal monitoring but report on them quarterly to the broader stakeholder group to track outputs and short-term and intermediate outcomes.

System-Level Performance Measures

Public Safety Performance Measures

Reintegration Performance Measures

Data Collection

While the TJC initiative does not require a fully developed or collaborative management information system (MIS) in place for self-evaluation or inter-agency information-sharing, your agency should have the basic protocols and capacity to collect and access information relevant to operations and outcomes. An MIS is needed to measure performance and program success along desired outcomes through an external evaluation and a self-evaluation. This system will allow for each community to determine the who, what, where, and when of targeted service delivery. Refer back to Module 4: Data-Driven Understanding of Local Reentryfor Step 2: Data Collection.

Resources

1. Burke, Peggy. B. 2008. TPC Reentry Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model. Chapter 6, “TPC Performance Measurement Framework."

2. Kent County, MI Sheriff’s Office. TJC mission-driven system-wide performance measures and outcomes.

3. Miami-Dade County, FL. 2008. Breaking the Cycle: Rehabilitation and Job Training in County Jails. Miami-Dade County Blue Ribbon Advisory Committee. A comprehensive report recommending initiatives to facilitate the reentry of inmates into the community and reduce recidivism.

4. Demographic characteristics the Montgomery County, Maryland, Correctional Facility uses to understand more fully the needs of its population.

5. University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension. 2002. Enhancing Program Performance with Logic Models.

6. Urban Institute. TJC Performance Management Worksheet: Core. A detailed chart of TJC baseline measures of jail inmate population characteristics in Excel format and a memo providing guidance to assemble the initial TJC performance indicators.

7. Urban Institute. 2009. TJC Initiative Theory of Change Model. Brief explaining Theory of Change models.

8. W.K. Kellogg Foundation. Logic Model Development Guide.

This section will help you understand the type of routine assessment and evaluations your agency should conduct to support your ongoing TJC initiative. You will also learn the steps needed to plan your evaluations.

What Is Routine Assessment?

Routine assessment is the process of regularly gathering, analyzing, and interpreting your data to help you and your partnering agencies improve and revise the TJC initiative and its components. An important aim is to use your data to answer key questions about your jail transition processes – e.g., who are you serving, what are the criminogenic risks and needs of those individuals, what programs and interventions are these individuals receiving and do these programs meet their identified criminogenic needs? – and to modify and strengthen the application of the TJC model in your community based on the answer to those questions. A quality assurance process uses similar data but goes beyond data analysis to include assessment of how services and programming are delivered and may also include client satisfaction measures

Here is how to begin:

• Convene your TJC's coordinating reentry council to determine the key outcomes that are of interest to partners and potential funders to show progress in achieving the TJC initiative.
• Form a specific data or evaluation working group.
• Jointly produce a theory of change model. This process will highlight the overall model outcomes, including immediate, intermediate, and long-term outcomes.
• Develop a data collection procedure based on your consensus outcomes, ideally with different agencies helping with the data collection and analysis.
• Analyze the data to answer agreed upon research questions designed to evaluate important outcomes identified by the coordinating reentry council.   
• Have reentry council members interpret analyses and results.
• Disseminate the findings to stakeholders on a regular basis.

Feedback

We encourage you to establish mechanisms—such as forums, focus groups, routine reports from partner agencies and client satisfaction surveys—to obtain early and frequent feedback from partners and constituents.

Think of feedback as having the following components:¹

• Data are used to objectively examine the TJC initiative, focusing on the model at the system and individual level.
• Structured meetings are held to review the data and increase collaboration among the partners.
• Use the analysis to make decisions and ensure that the TJC initiative is being implemented as expected and is improving.
• Repeat the process on a routine basis.

Assessment and Evaluation Capacity

The TJC initiative recommends that at least one partnering agency has the capacity to plan and implement routine assessments and evaluations of the initiative. This agency will utilize this capacity to advance the overarching goals of TJC and will feedback its results regularly to stakeholder decision makers to inform decision making, organizational reorientation, and resource allocation. Building your internal capacities to make evaluation part of your agency, instead of using outside consultants or evaluators to analyze your TJC initiative, is important because it

• Increases responsibility for competent data management and collection by the partnering agencies.
• Decreases the likelihood that the TJC initiative and its outcomes will be opposed.
• Influences organizational culture to accept data findings and resultant changes in policy or practice.
• Teaches agencies to improve their TJC initiative without relying on outside help.
• Allows for a system to make educated and targeted decisions on where they would like to allocate their resources.
• Builds the necessary resources to sustain long-term assessment and evaluation.

In Jacksonville, Florida, the Sheriff’s Department analyzes risk screen scores to identify candidates for pretrial risk assessment and for risk and criminogenic needs assessment. After reviewing the data, Jacksonville changed their procedures and began releasing inmates to pretrial servies with risk screen scores below certain cutoffs.

However, if you don't have in-house research staff, you may want to partner with local research organizations or academic institution to help you with your evaluations.

¹ Miles, Mathew, Harvey Hornstein, Daniel Callahan, Paula Calder, and R. Steven Schiavo. 1969. “The Consequences of Survey Feedback: Theory and Evaluation.” In The Planning of Change, edited by Warren Bennis, Kenneth D. Benne, and Robert Chin (457–68). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

² Buck Willison, Janeen, Sam G. Bieler, Kideuk Kim. 2014. “Evaluation of the Allegheny County Jail Collaborative Reentry Programs.” Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Evaluation Techniques

The type of assessment and self-evaluation you decide on depends on the data you have and the outcomes you wish to evaluate. Though we often use the term self-evaluation in the general sense, there are many types of evaluations. The five most common you might use for the TJC initiative are

1. Process Evaluation: Documents all aspects of program planning, development, and implementation and how they add value to services for those transitioning from the jail to the community.

Data sources that support process evaluations usually include program materials, direct observation of the intervention, and semi-structured in-person interviews with staff and other stakeholders that focus on the intervention.

2. Outcome Evaluation: Assesses the extent to which an intervention produces the intended results for the targeted population; outcome evaluations typically use some kind of comparison group (e.g., participants who are similar to the target population but don't get the intervention being evaluated). This technique is more formal than performance measurement.

Note: Outcome evaluations are in-depth studies that include comparison groups; these evaluations take many months to obtain results and are often expensive. An independent evaluator may be needed. The benefit of an outcome evaluation is that it answers specific questions and it attributes outcomes directly to the program or initiative studied.

3. Performance Measurement: Based on regular and systematic collection of data to empirically demonstrate results of activities.

Note: Performance measurement only tracks outcomes. Unlike an outcome evaluation, it cannot attribute those outcomes or changes to specific program activities. However, performance measurement is relatively easy to design and implement, and it is less resource intensive than outcome evaluations.

4. Cost-Benefit Evaluation: Measures how much an initiative, its programs, and partnerships cost, and what, if any long- short-term savings the initiative generated.

5. Quality Assurance (QA) Assessment: Involves systematic monitoring of the various aspects of a program, service, or process to ensure that standards of quality are being met; under TJC, this would include your screening, assessment, programming and case planning services. For example, QA data collection that supports QA practices could include a pre- and  post-test  administered short questionnaire to participants before class starts and then at the end or a brief client satisfaction survey asking them about the  quality of services they received. 

Below we explore two evaluation techniques in more depth:

Process Evaluation

A process evaluation will help you determine whether the TJC initiative and its programs are being implemented in the intended way, and what types of clients typically participate in the initiative.

The process evaluation focuses on capturing the basic elements of the TJC initiative as it presently functions in your community.

These data would be captured through structured observations of the TJC stakeholders, interviews with program staff, and a review of all available documentation.

Basic system-level questions you would seek to answer include

• What is the overall TJC initiative strategy?
• How is it different from business as usual?
• Who is involved? Who are the stakeholders?
• What does each stakeholder contribute?
• What are the core elements of the approach?
• What are the mechanisms for collecting data on clients—prior history, current experiences, and follow-up?

Additional questions include

• How many agencies, partners, and clients participate in the TJC initiative?
• What is the pool of potential participants?
• What are the eligibility criteria to participate?
• How many participate in each program?
• How long do they remain engaged with each service provider before and after release?
• How do potential participants learn about the TJC initiative?
• How do TJC participants differ from others incarcerated?
• What types of services or referrals does each participant receive?
• What are the background and demographic characteristics of participants for each service?
• Why did the participants show up to the community providers after release?

Process evaluations also assess penetration rates and program fidelity. These terms are defined below:

Penetration Rate: The TJC initiative's reach into the target population. In other words, the number of inmates engaged in the program divided by the number of eligible inmates in the target population.

Program Fidelity: How closely the implementation of a program or component corresponds to the original model.

This is particularly important in the TJC Initiative because with limited time and resources it is imperative that all program elements adhere to the originally designed program model in order for the intervention to be as successful as possible.

Quality Assurance:  A robust QA process supports the improvement of transition work over time (and makes deterioration in quality less likely). A QA plan allows all providers to participate in a process of self improvement. It also pushes the development of clear shared standards for how key elements of the transition process should be carried out, fostering consistency of approach throughout the system.

The following programmatic Quality Assurance strategies/activities are critical in monitoring how effective your programs are performing.

First, identify the key components that make this a quality, evidence-based process:

• Is it an evidence-based or a best-practice program?
• What types of offenders are best suited to benefit from the program?
• Are risk to reoffend screening data used to inform placement and/or system action?
• How are offenders identified for placement in the program (e.g., based on what criteria? By whom?)? 
• What are the minimum resources required to implement the program effectively (e.g., qualified staffing, adequate space, appropriate technology, sufficient time, participant criteria)?
• Does the program come with a comprehensive curriculum and training documents provided by the program developer?
• Is there an understanding of how the program was intended to be implemented? For example, the program's duration, class size, frequency of sessions or activities, and  materials to be used or discussed in delivery of the program.
• Is there an agreement on what system and individual level outcomes would indicate program success (i.e., the program is achieving the desired outcomes)? Is there a clear target population for the program?
• Does the program target and reduce specific criminogenic needs?

Second, work with staff on site: What were the criteria for program staff selection?

• Is the staff familiar with the participants' needs?
• Does the staff person have a background in delivering groups?
• Are staff experienced in delivering these curricula to an offender population within a correctional environment?
• Was the staff provided comprehensive training before program implementation?
• Does staff understand and support screening and assessment and identification of offender groups for programming? 
• Does the staff maintain characteristics that facilitate communication?
• Is a thorough implementation plan developed prior to the start of the program?
• Are appropriate resources made available to staff and participants?
• Does the staff have access to a staff training manual?
• Is there ongoing training and supervision for the program staff?
• Has the staff been tested to insure on their understanding of program curriculum, requirements, and goals?

Third, monitor the program's operations and measure the program's performance.

• Are screening and assessment procedures and process followed as designed – e.g., are the right people being screened and assessed?
• Are program eligibility criteria adhered to?
• Are programs being facilitated/delivered by trained (certified) staff?
• Are case plans being developed in a timely manner according to established benchmarks determined by the initiative's partners?
• Do case plans incorporate assessment data and address the individual's criminogenic needs?
• Is the program held in an adequate space?
• Is there an agreement on what aspects of the program will be measured?
• Does sufficient data exist in electronic format to enhance performance evaluation?  Is a system in place and evaluation tools developed to gather performance and outcome feedback from the program participants and staff (e.g., observations, surveys, administrative data, audits, assessment instruments, and file reviews)?
• Is there adequate record keeping?
• Can you measure short, intermediate, and long-term outcomes?

Fourth, improve the program through:

• Quality team collaboration
• Using a strength-based, supportive approach
• Being results-oriented based upon objective, transparent measures
• Using measures that are individual- and system-focused
• Embracing a learning organization orientation
• Enhancing long-term sustainability through policy adjustments that are informed by objective evaluation
• Celebrating success and improvement

 Sample System Questions for consideration to maintain program philosophy and integrity

• What staff will be allocated to oversee the quality assurance (QA) process?
• How will QA outcomes be reported, to whom, and for what purpose? 
• How will observations and feedback be structured?
• How will system and individual audits be structured?  How often will they be conducted? By whom? How will outcomes be utilized? 
• How will this quality assurance process guide the adjustment of curriculum and programming to better meet the needs of the clients being served?
• How will gaps between the current and expected levels of quality be addressed?
• What process will be enacted to utilize QA outcomes to revise policy, procedure, and/or practice?
• How will revisions be reported to TJC, system, or organizational stakeholders?

 Final Report: Process & Systems Change Evaluation Findings from the TJC Initiative is a detailed account examining how implementation worked in the TJC Phase 1 learning sites.

Resources

1. Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA). Center for Program Evaluation and Performance Measurement. State and local agencies will find useful resources for planning and implementing program evaluations and for developing and collecting program performance measures at this site.  
2. Council of State Governments. 2005. Report of the Re-entry Policy Council: Charting the Safe and Successful Return of Prisoners to the Community .
3. Denver’s Crime Prevention and Control Commission. Quarterly progress report of TJC system service providers including basic performance measures.
4. Denver. Community Reentry Project (CRP) Evaluation. A two page self-report survey from Denver’s Community Reentry Project designed to determine how clients perceive the programmatic staff and programs. 
5. Fresno County, CA. Fresno County presentation on the TJC Unit to the CCP.
6. Domurad, Frank and Mark Carey (2010). Coaching Packet: Implementing Evidence-Based Practices.  The Center for Effective Public Policy.
7. Klekamp, Jane (2012). An Investment in the Future: La Crosse County Charts a Course for Transition from Jail to the Community. National Jail Exchange. This report examines La Crosse, Wisconsin implementation of the Transition from Jail to Community Initiative.
8. Moore, Byron. 2008. Programs Unit Report: Jail Re-Entry. Multnomah County Sheriff's Office.
9. The Omni Institute (OMNI). Online survey and cover letter developed by OMNI institute to learn more about Denver’s reentry process.
10. Orange County, CA. Transitional Reentry Center Exit Interview on Program Responsivity.
11. Orlando, FL., Inmate Re-Entry Program Review Score Sheet . The process evaluation was designed by the Orange County, Florida, Corrections Department as an easy-to-use program review score sheet for its reentry program to determine if the program was in compliance with the department’s standards.
12. Process and Systems Change Evaluation Findings from the Transition from Jail to Community Initiative (2012). This report examines the six Phase 1 sites' TJC implementation experiences and presents findings from the cross-site systems change evaluation.
13. Urban Institute. Outcome evaluations require some level of statistical knowledge. Click here for a brief discussion of descriptive, bivariate, and multivariate statistics.
14. Urban Institute. Excel formula tutorial to help agencies evaluate the number of unique bookings.
15. Urban Institute and Douglas County, KS. Transition from Jail to the Community Stakeholder Survey.
16. Urban Institute. TJC Core Leaders Phone Interviews. 2009. A guide to evaluate TJC progress.

The ultimate goal of the TJC initiative is to build jail-to-community transition efforts that last. Sustainability employs formal and informal mechanisms to ensure the changes in policy, procedures, and outcomes achieved by the initiative are retained over time. It is never too early in your initiative to think about and plan for sustainability.

Planning for sustainability is an important part of the TJC initiative because political, organizational, and social change will occur over time and your goal is to make the TJC initiative part of your organization and community's culture.

To a certain degree, sustainability planning has been built into the TJC initiative. The specific tasks outlined in the TJC Implementation Roadmap and the Triage Matrix help guarantee the buy-in and perceived value of the TJC initiative.

Nevertheless, achieving sustainability can be difficult. The community and its stakeholders must recognize that the TJC initiative has value and is financially self-sustaining.

Sustainability is multifaceted. It is more than just leveraging funds or resources to support programs or interventions. Rather, sustainability must occur at several levels of your initiative, including the system, partnership, agency, and program levels¹.

Here, we briefly review tactics and mechanisms commonly used to facilitate sustainability.

Roles and Responsibilities

Clarifying the roles and responsibilities of the partners and individuals your TJC initiative hopes to involve is essential. It provides stakeholders with clear “marching orders” and a sense of their role and purpose in the effort; this, in turn, facilitates their sustained involvement with and support of the initiative.

Stated more succinctly, individuals and the agencies they represent are more likely to engage in an effort when they have a clear understanding of its purpose and their role. In turn, clarifying roles and responsibilities, particularly decision-making authority, helps avoid the confusion and duplication of effort that often occurs when roles and responsibilities are ill-defined. Mechanisms include:

Governance Structure

As discussed in Module 3: Collaborative Structure and Joint Ownership, different groups will be charged with different tasks and decision-making authority. The TJC governance structure reflects this. It generally consists of an executive-level group, an implementation group, and various work groups. Developing a basic organizational chart that depicts how these groups work together is key.

• Executive-level group: local stakeholders (e.g., agency heads, program directors, local officials) with the connections and experience to vet and assist the initiative with changing policy or procedures.
• Implementation group: stakeholders charged with planning and implementing the initiative; could include some executive-level individuals but generally consists of individuals familiar with the agency's policies and procedures, and the issue of local reentry.
• Workgroups: specialized groups that form to address a specific task or issue, such as screening, assessment, or data and evaluation. Again, some individuals from the implementation group may sit on work groups but workgroup membership will likely draw from a broader pool.

Determining the division of labor is important in each group. Begin by defining roles and responsibilities for each individual. Make sure to clarify what are individuals charged to do, by when, and to whom do they report? Likewise, decision-making authority must be defined so that all individuals in the initiative have a clear understanding of who is accountable for its success.

Formal partnership agreements are also recommended. Developed and executed formal memoranda of agreement (also called memoranda of understanding) with core partners help clarify responsibilities, manage expectations about agency and staff resources, and facilitate continued buy-in. Sample MOAs and MOUs are provided in Module 3.

¹ Blank, Martin J., A. Kwesi Rollins, and Carlo Ignacio.  “Building Sustainability in Demonstration Projects for Children, Youth and Families” prepared for OJJDP. Washington, D.C.: Institution for Education Leadership (IEL), p.1. 

Policies and Procedures

Changes in policy, practices, and procedures should be written out. This will increase the likelihood that such changes will be adopted and implemented as intended. For example, as your jurisdiction implements key elements of the TJC model like universal screening in the jail or targeted assessment of criminogenic risks, the details about these new policies and procedures—when the procedures occur, where, who is responsible for performing them, and how the results will be used and by whom—are written down and circulated to key stakeholders. Written procedures don't have to be too formal but should provide enough detail so that anyone who reads them understands how and why they are being used. Helpful questions to consider include

What business aspects need to be formalized?

• Screening and assessment procedures
• Referral and service agreements
• Transition plans and case management

Are policies, procedures, and decision points documented?

• Who is doing what, to whom, when, how, and for how long?
• Are these materials accessible to the broad collaborative?

Information Exchange and Data Sharing

Many jurisdictions struggle with information flow and exchange. Mechanisms like the MOUs discussed above and those below facilitate information sharing by clarifying what information will be shared, about what, with whom, and for how long. This empowers staff to request and provide information, and to use the information. It also facilitates greater transparency and collaboration among agencies, reduces duplication of effort, and promotes more efficient use of scarce resources.

• Client-level
  • Release of information (ROI)—an ROI specifies that inform about a client can be shared with other agencies. This is essential for the development of transition case plans and monitoring of those plans.
  • Interagency agreement or memorandum of understanding—as discussed above, MOUs may specify an agency's agreement to participate in an initiative; address details about the use of resources, such as redeployed staff; and clarify data and information that will be collected and shared.

• Partner and Community-level—the mechanisms below promote sustainability by keeping partners and other constituents informed of progress and issues; they also provide a running record of decisions made and changes in policy and procedures. The implementation group should decide who should receive these materials and how often.
  • Meeting notes
  • Newsletters
  • E-mail list-serve or web site

Public Education and Outreach

Support from various constituencies is vital to the progress and sustainability of the TJC initiative. Public education and outreach is an essential mechanism by which to identify, engage, and retain the interest and support of key constituencies. In turn, local leaders can serve as ambassadors for the initiative, taking its message to new and influential groups willing to lend their support. Ask stakeholders for their input about groups to target and enlist those stakeholders reaching out to those groups.

Public education and outreach should tell the story of your initiative and highlight early wins, milestones, or successes. Another key message is what those early wins, milestones, or successes mean for constituents (i.e., public resources saved, increased public safety, a better community). Anything that demonstrates how the initiative is making a positive impact or how it is designed to do so should be part of the initiative's story. Education and outreach can be conducted in many informal and inexpensive ways:

• Release briefs, fact sheets and newsletters about issues central to the initiative
• Videotape success stories and use them in outreach efforts to new groups
• Write op-ed pieces
• Engage the local business community
• Involve local media—invite local newspapers, TV stations, or community bloggers to key events or meetings

Funding and Resource Sharing

Leveraging resources to sustain or expand staffing, programming, or other approaches requires creativity. Funding, though important, is just one element. Here, we encourage you to think broadly about the resources at your disposal and to consider the tactics listed below:

• Know your assets
  • Define and think about assets broadly. Leverage stakeholder expertise and “know how” around key issues. For example, some will have participated in the kinds of collaborative effort required by TJC, so tap them for lessons learned or tactics to secure funds or cultivate new resources. Ask agency partners to cross-train staff involved in the initiative. Ask for in-kind donations that will allow the initiative to distribute resources.

• Inventory local resources and funding trends ¹
  • Many cities and counties maintain a directory of local or regional foundations, philanthropic organizations, and civic groups. Review these directories to determine their funding interests and reach out to key contacts². Think creatively about the needs of your initiative and how they may align with the funding interests of these groups.

• Leverage successes
  • Document progress, milestones, and other successes that you can share with prospective funders as evidence of that your approach works and is worth their investment. While some funders will want to see your claims backed up by data, others will be moved by client statements.
  • Think creatively about your partnership and approach
  • Partner with other agencies on grant applications; leverage their experienced grant writers.
  • Leverage past expertise to demonstrate your jurisdiction's ability to collaborate, coordinate, and implement initiatives.
  • Consider “cost-sharing” for a staff position.
  • Redeploy underutilized staff and consider co-locating to maximize information sharing efficient staff collaboration.³
  • Although many funders are financially constrained today, they may be willing to fund part of your request or match an amount⁴; likewise, they may be willing to provide in-kind resources or share their cache of volunteers to assist with service provision.

Taken together, these tactics will enhance the long-term sustainability and viability of your effort if implemented thoughtfully and early. Consider forming a sustainability workgroup early in the initiative to brainstorm options, develop a plan for sustainability, and take steps toward that goal.

Resources

1. Douglas County, KS Sheriff’s Office Corrections Division Reentry Program. 2008. Inmate and program fact sheets.

2. Douglas County, KS Sheriff’s Office Corrections Division Reentry Program. 2010. Reentry Newsletter Volume III, Issue I.

3. Douglas County, KS Sheriff’s Office. 2008. Douglas County Jail Serves as National Model for Reentry Program. Press release for radio on the TJC initiative.

4. Douglas County, KS Sheriff’s Office. Douglas County Reentry Program Selected by National Institute of Corrections and Urban Institute’s “Transition from Jail to the Community (TJC)” project.  Press release on the TJC initiative.

5. Douglas County, KS Sheriff’s Office. Fact Sheet on the TJC Initiative.

6. Institution for Education Leadership. Building Sustainability: In Demonstration Projects for Children, Youth and Families.  Prepared for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

7. Hennepin County, MN, Department of Community Corrections & Rehabilitation. 2014. Corrections Connections Volume 8, Issue 4.

8. La Cross County, WI.  Justice for All newspaper article series exploring different parts of La Crosse County ‘s criminal justice system.: Introduction, jail, electronic monitoring, treatment courts, probation, and the Town Hall coverage.

9. Murphy, Shannon. 2009.   Transition from Jail to Community Initiative: Once County’s Experience, American Jails.

10. Orange County Sheriff’s Department. 2008. Facts at a Glance 2008 - Inmate Service Division Inmate Re-Entry.

¹ Weiss, Heather, Julia Coffman, and Marielle Bohan-Baker. 2002. Evaluation's Role in Supporting Initiative Sustainability. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project, p. 15.

² Ibid.

³ Blank, Martin J., A. Kwesi Rollins, and Carlo Ignacio.  “Building Sustainability in Demonstration Projects for Children, Youth and Families” prepared for OJJDP. Washington, D.C.: Institution for Education Leadership (IEL), p. 11.  Here, Blank et al. provide guidance on redeploying funds but we apply the recommendation to staffing. 

⁴ Ibid, p. 12

This section defined basic terms used in this module. These terms have been highlighted in purple throughout the module allowing you to roll over the term to see the definition.

Activities:

Actions taken in order to meet objectives.

Evaluation:

“Evaluation has several distinguishing characteristics relating to focus, methodology, and function. Evaluation (1) assesses the effectiveness of an ongoing program in achieving its objectives, (2) relies on the standards of project design to distinguish a program's effects from those of other forces, and (3) aims at program improvement through a modification of current operations.”¹

Feedback:

A process in which outside staff and organizational members collaboratively gather, analyze, and interpret data and then use their findings to alter aspects of the organizational structure and work relationships.

Goals:

What an initiative is designed to achieve, typically general in nature and describing long-term outcomes.²

Outcomes:

The changes at the individual, organizational, or system level intended as the result of an initiative.

Outputs:

Completed activities internal to the initiative or organization as specified strategies are implemented.³

Performance measurement:

“Involves ongoing data collection to determine if a program is implementing activities and achieving objectives. It measures inputs, outputs, and outcomes over time. In general, pre-post comparisons are used to assess change”.⁴

Performance measures:

“Ways to objectively measure the degree of success a program has had in achieving its stated objectives, goals, and planned program activities. For example, number of clients served, attitude change, and rates of rearrest may all be performance measures”⁵

Self-evaluation:

“The evaluation of a program by those conducting the program”⁶

Logic Model/Theory of change model:

“A diagram and text that describes/illustrates the logical (causal) relationships among program elements and the problem to be solved, thus defining measurements of success.”⁷

Conclusion

Self-evaluation and sustainability are key components of the TJC initiative. Self-evaluation helps you understand how well the initiative is working and what changes need to be made to achieve better outcomes. As you have seen, the process is not complicated. First, draft an evaluation roadmap that outlines how you plan to evaluate the TJC initiative, including developing your TJC performance measurements. Next, form a data/evaluation working group, formalize your data collection procedures, analyze the data, and disseminate the findings. Ensure the TJC initiative's sustainability by clarifying roles and responsibilities of the initiative's participants, develop a culture of data sharing, outreach, and leverage your community's resources to support the initiative.

¹ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. n.d. “Program Evaluation Glossary.”

² Miles, Mathew, Harvey Hornstein, Daniel Callahan, Paula Calder, and R. Steven Schiavo. 1969. “The Consequences of Survey Feedback: Theory and Evaluation.” In The Planning of Change, edited by Warren Bennis, Kenneth D. Benne, and Robert Chin (457–68). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

³ Ibid.

⁴ Bureau of Justice Assistance. Center for Program Evaluation and Performance Measurement. 

⁵ Ibid.

⁶ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. n.d. Online Program Evaluation Glossary.

⁷ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. n.d. “Introduction to Logic Modeling, Performance Measurement and Program Evaluation: A Primer for Managers.”