broken windows evaluation -...

1

ANCHOR CENTER PRIVATE FOUNDATION HOME to STAY

Correctional Mental Health Facility Low Income Housing Treatment

Balancing Accountability & Treatment

Management Accountability for Public Safety

BROKEN WINDOWS

EVALUATION

2

Embracing Broken Windows for Offender Reentry By Gary Hinzman, MPA, Director Sixth Judicial District Department of Correctional Services Cedar Rapids, Iowa ([email protected]) It is my pleasure to comment on this Broken Windows Evaluation. Our focus in the Sixth Judicial District is on offenders reentering the community from jail, prison, or our own residential programs. This includes individuals supervised in our intensive treatment programs, such as Drug Treatment Court (an integrated mental health and substance abuse approach to reforming antisocial behavior) and our Mental Health Reentry Programs. I am pleased that the staff of the Sixth Judicial District has shown a good balance of treatment and offender accountability in their application of programs and services provided under the Broken Windows model. We unequivocally believe that such a balance is required to produce successful short-term risk management and long-term behavioral reform outcomes, with the goal of improving public safety. When attending a reentry meeting a few years ago in Washington, DC, I was pleased to hear Sheri Nolan, of the Attorney General's Office, discuss the need to measure intermediate outcomes for federally funded reentry initiatives. I think we can all agree that a lower rate of recidivism, as measured by increased public safety and reduced victimization, is a laudable outcome, but it is somewhat abstract and therefore difficult to define and measure. Gaining an understanding of which offenders are being assessed, who is receiving appropriate services, and how risk is being reduced can help determine intermediate and ultimate public safety outcomes. In addition, it was encouraging to read the International Community Corrections Association monograph series The Need to Develop Intermediate Outcome Measures by Patricia Van Voorhis and her colleagues. The series references assessments for reductions in aggression, criminal thinking, substance abuse-related problems, and attitudes. As well, Van Voorhis calls attention to the importance of measuring offender risk and to improving offenders’ cognitive skills and family functioning. I believe that a good balance of treatment and offender accountability offers the best results; one without the other provides a weaker model and, ultimately, is less effective. Administrators often feel as though they have to make a decision between being known as agencies that are invested in treatment programs, which is known as "What Works" or “evidence-based practices,” or being known as organizations that embrace restorative or community justice practices by following the Broken Windows model. In reality, an organization should create a good balance of programs focused on treatment and offender accountability, beginning with good assessments. In our work in the Sixth Judicial District, we discovered the need to demonstrate that our programs have an impact rather than to simply produce a series of activities that are not clearly tied to publicly valued intermediate and final outcomes. In this regard, our staff champions the need for evidence-based policies, programs, and practices. When we evaluate intermediate outcomes, we not only provide more tangible measures of offender success but also a road map to determine the success of our staff. As an example, rather than just measuring the number or percentages of probationers employed, we should measure if they are job-ready and have received job-retention training; whether they are in a prosocial environment, away from others who may still be involved in illicit employment activities; or if they have held a job long enough to be considered in stable employment. When we measure treatment success, it is not enough to measure who has been referred to treatment; we should also measure the follow-through rate of the supervising agent and the success rate of the facilitators. Success of cognitive programs can be measured by reductions in risk scales or lower placement on an intermediate sanctions continuum. When we measure sustained treatment related to problems and attitudes, we need to look at education, substance abuse, mental health, employment, family functioning, housing, counseling, mentoring, etc. We should also be concerned with individual and social responsibility related to supporting one's family and participating in reparative and victim awareness programs. As the authors of the Broken Windows report compellingly wrote, the best results come from good assessments and from balancing supervision and accountability in the field. We witness great success in the Sixth Judicial District, for example, by using a High Risk Unit to track and monitor offenders to bring about compliant behavior. Correctional agencies need to embrace effective programming to smooth the transition of an offender’s reentry to the community. Those offenders who want to make a positive contribution will find the ways and means to do so. Those who are not up to the task will simply find excuses and, under our application of Broken Windows, they will be met with consequences. We use an internal management process called Management Accountability for Public Safety (MAPS) to track the intermediate outcomes that produce successful results. This data-driven process not only allows us to stay the course but it also allows management and supervisory personnel to better design mentoring and training programs for our field staff. This process enhances our results. Finally, we place great emphasis on being more than an agency that administers probation, parole, and residential programs. We are a partner in the community, as evidenced by our two boards of directors (one for the District and one for our non-profit foundation, the Community Corrections Improvement Association); our eight advisory boards, which engage over 200 key community leaders; and our participation in several local and federal task forces. It is through these community-based advisory boards that we hold ourselves accountable for providing services that respond to what the community has told us that it wants, as opposed to doing things that we think the community needs. This is the spirit of Broken Windows.

“In reality, an organization should create a good balance of programs focused on treatment and accountability, beginning with good assessments.”

Proven Safety, Positive Change

3

Administrative Team

Malinda Lamb, PhD, LISW, CCJP, CCDP‐D, is the Clinical Services Director for the Sixth

Judicial District Department of Correctional Services. For further information about the

Clinical and Treatment Programs within the Sixth Judicial District or the Housing Programs

within the Community Corrections Improvement Association, contact her at

[email protected] or 319‐398‐3675.

Jean Kuehl, Assistant Director, Sixth Judicial District Department of Correctional Services.

Responsibilities: Organizational Development, Internal Investigations, EBP, training,

quality assurance strategies to increase and improve the effectiveness and efficiency of

community corrections practitioners, oversight of several CCIA programs. Contact her at

[email protected] or 319‐398‐3675.

Bruce Vander Sanden, MA, is the Assistant Director for the Sixth Judicial District

Department of Correctional Services. For information on the High Risk Unit, Prisoner

Reentry programs, or neighborhood‐based supervision strategies within the Sixth Judicial

District, or on the federal Weed and Seed initiative, Project Safe Neighborhoods, or

AmeriCorps VISTA within the Community Corrections Improvement Association, contact

him at [email protected] or 319‐398‐3675.

Cindy Engler, Assistant Director, Sixth Judicial District Department of Correctional Services. She is responsible for Field Services and Residential Facility operations district‐wide. Contact her at [email protected] or 319‐398‐3675.

4

Strategy #1: Place Public Safety First

The Sixth Judicial District has created a High Risk Unit. All members of this unit have gone through the Iowa Law Enforcement Academy and are certified as peace officers in Iowa. Members work with local, state and federal task forces to address public safety needs. Intermediate measures are used to determine the effectiveness of this approach.

Strategy #2: Supervise Probationers in the Neighborhood, Not the Office

The Sixth Judicial District has developed four community offices in the Weed and Seed areas of Cedar Rapids and one office in a like neighborhood in Iowa City. The Sixth Judicial District is the only probation department in the country to have the Weed and Seed designation.

Strategy #3: Rationally Allocate Resources

The Sixth Judicial District has been able to reallocate resources within the department to accomplish a “broken windows transformation.” The District created a non-profit foundation, the Community Corrections Improvement Association, in order to be able to obtain resources from non-traditional means. The District has proven that good outcomes can be obtained without additional governmental resources. The District has used such resources to create drug and treatment courts for offenders who have drug and mental health issues.

Strategy #4: Provide for Strong Enforcement of Probation Conditions and a Quick Response to Violations

The Sixth Judicial District has continually drawn a “line in the sand,” so to speak, to assure offender compliance with the conditions of their probation or release from jail or prison. Offenders who score as aggressive and non-compliant on the MATRIX scale developed by the District are aggressively supervised by the High Risk Unit. Special attention is placed on compliance, intermediate sanctions, or revocation. There is a zero tolerance approach to the non-compliance of gang bangers and habitual criminals.

Strategy #5: Develop Partners in the Community

As the reader of this report will see the Sixth Judicial District operates with two boards of directors (one for its non-profit foundation) and one for the District. As well, the District has established eight advisory boards. These advisory boards help the District understand community needs and values, and they hold the District accountable in much the same way that a CompStat process holds law enforcement agencies accountable. In many ways, the advisory boards are superior to a CompStat process because their existence integrates accountability with “real time” community desires. The total number of actual citizens involved is over 200 and includes crime victims, professionals from various specialty areas, and neighborhood residents.

Strategy #6: Establish Performance-Based Initiatives

The Sixth Judicial District has developed Management Accountability for Public Safety (MAPS) with allows the management team to monitor intermediate outcomes. Each division, each unit, and each staff member are held accountable for success.

Strategy #7: Cultivate Strong Leadership

The Sixth Judicial District has continuously developed leadership from within. Developing leadership for the District has been a tireless goal. The following section entitles “The Professional Connection to APPA” more specifically highlights this issue.

TheRelationshiptotheBrokenWindowsModel

AddressingtheStrategiesOutlined

5

“TheProfessionalConnectiontoAPPA”

Sixth District Executive Staff

Gary Hinzman, MPA APPA Past President

Bruce Vander Sanden , MA APPA Treasurer

Jean Kuehl Chair of Restorative Justice & Prevention Committee

Malinda Lamb, PhD Chair of Issues, Positions & Resolution Committee

Sixth District Management Team

Members Who Are

Graduates of the APPA Leadership Institute

Jerri Allen‐Executive Officer

Sam Black, MA‐Supervisor

Cynthia Dennis, MA‐Supervisor

Greg Fitzpatrick, MA‐Supervisor

Malinda Lamb, PhD‐Clinical Director

Carolyn Scheer‐Executive Officer

Beth Skinner, PhD‐Supervisor

Laura Strait‐Supervisor

Bruce Vander Sanden, MA‐Division Manager

6

Edward E. Rhine, PhD, is Deputy Director, Office of Offender Reentry, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. Dr. Rhine’s career has included leadership and management positions in both juvenile and adult corrections. He was formerly the Chairperson of the Release Authority and Deputy Director of Parole, Courts and Community Services for the Ohio Department of Youth Services. Prior to that, he served as the Director of Field Operations for the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles. Dr. Rhine has written and edited numerous publications addressing the history and practice of paroling authorities, the impact of due process on prison discipline, leadership and change issues in probation and parole, offender reentry, and “best practices” in corrections. Recently, he co-authored, with Anthony C. Thompson, an article called “The Reentry Movement in Corrections: Resiliency, Fragility and Prospects,” which appeared in the Criminal Law Bulletin. Dr. Rhine teaches part-time in the Sociology Department at Ohio State University. He is the recipient of the 2004 E.J. Henderson Award, bestowed by the International Community Corrections Association, and of the 2005 Bennett J. Cooper Award, bestowed by the Ohio Community Corrections Organization.

FOREWARD

Edward E. Rhine

The stirrings of the Broken Windows model of probation began in 1997 during a small gathering of individuals at the Manhattan Institute, in New York City. They came to discuss the state of probation and its prospects for the future. Attended by academicians and practitioners alike, the participants quickly came to a consensus that the timing was right to mobilize a national initiative to reinvent probation. Thereafter, a larger group formed and began working as members of the Reinventing Probation Council. With strong support from the American Probation and Parole Association and the National Association of Probation Executives, several key publications followed, accompanied by the sponsorship of numerous professional forums through which the Broken Windows model was launched. The use of the metaphor “Broken Windows” was intended to redirect the practice of probation away from the traditional management of individual caseloads to a much broader commitment to engaging the community in the business of community supervision. The paradigm shift called for under the Broken Windows model urged that the field adopt a new narrative to guide the focus of probation—one that sought to engage probation officers as partners willing to contribute to public safety and to the quality of community life. The Reinventing Probation Council issued its recommendations at the turn of the 21st century. Believing that the profession had reached a critical turning point in its history, the Council concluded that the leaders in the field could: “… no longer wait for major shifts or increases in funding or resources to flow their way. They must be willing to take the first steps on their own, with or without new support, and they must demonstrate positive results NOW, under present conditions and in the environments in which they labor daily. The must be willing to fully assume responsibility for creating credible supervision strategies that the public and other critical stakeholders value. They must, in essence, chart a course for the present and future that establishes the worth of their work and then challenge others to furnish greater support if the desire is there to sustain and expand upon the contributions and accomplishments of probation (p. 2).” The report that follows illustrates very clearly that there were leaders who not only embraced this challenge, but who met it head‐on and who continue to do so in a highly successful manner. The leadership and staff of the Sixth Judicial District Department of Correctional Services in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, have crafted a distinctive and innovative illustration of the Broken Windows model in practice. Their efforts highlight the myriad benefits gained by incorporating the breadth of the model’s vision and its proactive, evidence‐based principles and strategies. Even more, the Sixth Judicial District demonstrates that the model itself applies not just to probation, but also to parole or post‐release supervision and to community corrections. The impressive story of the Sixth Judicial District is told in this report, authored by Mario Paparozzi. Dr. Paparozzi is a well‐known and highly regarded community corrections expert, experienced policymaker, former practitioner, and currently a Professor of Criminal Justice at the University of North Carolina at Pembroke. His examination of the Sixth Judicial District elucidates a uniquely productive range of initiatives, engineered through community‐centered correctional services and aimed at enhancing and transforming the quality of life across diverse counties and neighborhoods.

7

Under the direction of Gary Hinzman and his management team, including Malinda Lamb, Jean Kuehl, Bruce Vander Sanden, and Cindy Engler, the Sixth Judicial District has marshaled an expansive vision showing how far a community corrections agency can go given thoughtful leadership, capable management, and the capacity to sustain a course of reform and redirection over a prolonged period. The Sixth Judicial District has implemented results‐driven, outcome‐focused strategies and multifaceted programs that promote public safety, reduce victimization, ensure accountability, and support offender rehabilitation. The Broken Windows model emphasizes the need for a systemic, yet local, focus on the social ecology of crime and neighborhood relations. As Dr. Paparozzi shows, Director Hinzman and his staff have created a striking array of residential and non‐residential programs and services that target the arena of community, victim, and citizen priorities and concerns while, at the same time, maintaining a progressive commitment to supervision strategies and sound correctional practices. They have accomplished this by establishing durable community collaborations, cultivating strong community partnerships, and seeking to always be responsive to civic concerns. The fruits of their efforts reflect the essence of the Broken Windows model. The Sixth Judicial District has become and remains a valued community partner across the entire spectrum of local crime prevention, reduction, and control. As is well known, the growth of the US prison, jail, probation, and parole populations has been enormous and unrelenting for the past several decades. The unprecedented size of these increases, coupled with the national economic downturn, has imposed significant budgetary constraints on how much further correctional systems and supervision populations can or will continue to grow. This environment has created an impetus for policymakers to seek meaningful ways to hold offenders accountable and to reduce costs, alongside a growing recognition that effective strategies and programs need to be in place to support offender reentry and community reintegration. The Sixth Judicial District has created a strong and effective infrastructure by which such pathways can and are being achieved. It offers a model approach that is worthy of study and replication by agencies and corrections jurisdictions across the country with responsibility for supervising offenders in the community.

8

Reinventing Probation, Parole, and Community Corrections:

The Context for Neighborhood‐Based Programs Established by the

Sixth Judicial District Department of Correctional Services

By

Mario Paparozzi, PhD

University of North Carolina at Pembroke

This report was commissioned by Gary Hinzman, Director of the Sixth Judicial District Department of Correctional Services in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

Biographical Sketch

Mario Paparozzi

For 30 years, Dr. Paparozzi worked at the New Jersey Department of Corrections. He held positions that ranged from parole

officer trainee to supervisory and management titles, including Deputy Interstate Compact Administrator, Assistant

Commissioner of Community Programs, and Chairman of the New Jersey State Parole Board.

After retiring from his practitioner career, Dr. Paparozzi accepted a faculty appointment at The College of New Jersey’s

Department of Law and Justice, where he also served as the Associate Director of The Criminal Justice Research and Policy

Center.

In 2002, Dr. Paparozzi accepted a position at the University of North Carolina at Pembroke. He is Professor and Department

Chair of the Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice.

Dr. Paparozzi also served as an elected county legislator in Union County, New Jersey (1992–1994). He was Finance Committee

Chairman and oversaw corrections and social services.

Dr. Paparozzi holds a PhD and Public Manager Certification from Rutgers University. He has also completed numerous training

courses related to correctional and social services.

Dr. Paparozzi’s publications are extensively cited by scholars and practitioners. In addition, Dr. Paparozzi has delivered numerous

keynote addresses, seminars, and professional training sessions in 46 states, the District of Columbia, Singapore, Germany,

Poland, the United Kingdom, Canada, Bermuda, and The Council of Europe in Strasbourg, France. He has served as an

international judge for the United Kingdom’s International Community Justice Awards Conference hosted by Her Royal Highness

Princess Anne and the British Home Office.

Dr. Paparozzi has appeared on several television and radio shows in the United States and Canada, including A&E’s Investigative

Reports, NBC’s Dateline, and Geraldo Rivera. He has published op ed articles in major newspapers and has been interviewed by

numerous representatives of the print, radio, and television media on topics related to social and criminal justice, government,

and other civic‐minded issues.

9

IntroductionAt the close of the 20th century, an interesting turn of events occurred within the probation, parole, and community

corrections profession. Specifically, there were some within the profession who had reached their personal and

professional tipping points with regard to public dissatisfaction and politically driven criticism of the effectiveness of

community corrections services. The criticisms of community corrections were nothing new, and for the most part they

constituted a rehashing of complaints that have been part of the professional life of community corrections since the

mid‐1970s (Dal Pra & Hendershot, 1998; Dickey & Smith, 1998; Rhine, 1999). Through a series of serendipitous events,

some critics of the status quo within the profession coalesced as a group and formed what has been dubbed the

Reinventing Probation Council (hereinafter referred to as the “Council”).

The Council met on several occasions under the auspices of the Robert A. Fox Leadership Program at the University of

Pennsylvania. The result was the publication of a report entitled Transforming Probation Through Leadership: The

Broken Windows Model. The Council’s report delineates the major criticisms levied at community corrections by external

and internal stakeholders. As well, it states, from an insider’s perspective, why the criticisms of “outsiders” have

generally been valid for the better part of the last three decades. The report also lays out a blueprint for change for the

first time in the profession’s modern history—a change that will bolster the profession’s image with regard to being a

valuable component of a complex criminal justice system.

Since the Council’s report was published, many probation, parole, and community corrections jurisdictions have

attempted to implement policies, practices, and programs that follow its blueprint for change. As with the

implementation of any new policies, practices, and programs that derive from a seismic paradigm shift, there is a steep

learning curve for professionals working within the system as well as for the general public and politicians responsible

for shaping policies through laws and budget allocations.

The Sixth Judicial District, under the leadership of Director Gary Hinzman, is one jurisdiction that has worked to

implement the Broken Windows model of community correctional services outlined by the Council. Director Hinzman is

a member of the Reinventing Probation Council, and he has been a central figure on the national stage advocating for

the Council’s blueprint for change. The primary purpose of this report is to review and comment on the extent to which

the Sixth Judicial District has successfully incorporated the Broken Windows model into its policies and practices.

This report is the first comprehensive attempt to evaluate the implementation of the Council’s blueprint for change. The

report examines the integrity of implementation of the elements of the Council’s blueprint (a process evaluation) and

the value of outcomes achieved (an outcome evaluation). The outcome evaluation is constrained by the lack of a

comparison group and by time constraints of this project, and is based more on first‐hand observations and on data

available through mechanisms put in place prior to and during the implementation of Broken Windows probation within

the Sixth Judicial District. As time passes, it is recommended that the Sixth Judicial District collect follow‐up data on

offender recidivism and on measures of building community capacity for viable social and economic life within targeted

neighborhoods. Such data will enable a more systematic documentation of the effects of programs and services

administered within the context of Broken Windows Theory and reinvented community correctional services.

Notwithstanding the methodological constraints involved in documenting outcomes, the observations and qualitative

data gathering methods (e.g., interviews, participation in everyday activities involved in the supervision of offenders,

10

review of staff and agency reports) of the on‐site evaluator, Dr. Mario Paparozzi, strongly indicate that desired outcomes

are being achieved. The desired outcomes fall into two general categories: reduced victimization/increased public safety

and the building of community capacity for the development of informal and formal social control mechanisms in order

to promote healthy communities.

WhyReinventingProbationinCommunityCorrectionsIsRelevantCritics of the status quo who constituted the Council focused on the unrealistically high probation/parole officer‐to‐

offender caseload ratios and the general lack of resources allocated to community corrections when compared to other

criminal justice system components (e.g., prosecution, policing, prisons, the courts). The Council argued that community

corrections rarely has had the opportunity to demonstrate its real value to the public (Paparozzi, 2008). “Value to the

public” was defined as enhanced public safety (i.e., fewer crime victims) and the restoration of individual crime victims

and of communities victimized by crime.

The Council reflected on some basic concepts that it felt should be the driving force behind a reinvented community

corrections system in America: public safety and justice for all. Enhanced public safety within community corrections

settings would be achieved through a blend of short‐term risk management and longer‐term behavioral reform of

offenders using an array of pre‐ and post‐release community correctional programs and services commonly viewed as

alternatives to incarceration (e.g., pre‐trial services, probation, community‐based residential programs, parole). These

short‐term risk management and longer‐term offender behavioral reform efforts would be primarily focused on

curtailing crime by reducing offender recidivism.

In addition to enhancing public safety through short‐term risk management and longer‐term behavioral reform

strategies, the Council believed that the objective of increased justice for crime victims could also be accomplished. For

example, short‐term risk management strategies hold offenders strictly accountable for their misdeeds through

increased monitoring of offender behavior and zero tolerance for violating the conditions upon which their liberty is

based. Zero tolerance does not mean that offenders must be reincarcerated for every rule infraction. Instead, it refers to

the need for “some response” from community corrections authorities; there are no “free passes.”

Out of the work of the Reinventing Probation Council arose the call for adopting a new paradigm for probation and

community corrections. The new paradigm that was embraced fell squarely within the four corners of a well‐known

theory: Broken Windows Theory.

BrokenWindowsTheoryUnder Broken Windows Theory (BWT), crime and delinquency are explained as being causally tied to the disorderly

behaviors of a relatively small number of individuals living in a defined neighborhood or community. Disorderly

behaviors include public drinking, sleeping in public places, panhandling, peddling sex, hanging out in public places and

in abandoned buildings, and engaging in other forms of behavior that are contrary to community norms for prosocial

behavior. BWT suggests that once a neighborhood is disrupted by low‐level antisocial behaviors, even by a

comparatively small number of neighborhood residents, there are long tentacles of community disruption and

destruction which foster a more expansive deterioration of quality of life, thereby sowing the seeds for higher crime

11

rates involving more serious crimes. Some of the tentacles of community disruption are the abandonment of

neighborhoods by local businesses, a loss of jobs, transitions of neighborhoods characterized by stable home ownership

to transient rental neighborhoods, and a general loss of services that typify healthy or prosocial communities.

Broken Windows Theory goes on to explain that traditional methods used by criminal justice agencies, including

custodial and community correctional services, have only involved reacting to crime. Moreover, the theory notes that

not enough time, attention, and resources have been put into preventing crime by developing neighborhood‐based

solutions that can be sustained over time and that do not require ongoing police, correctional, and social service

presence. In short, BWT sets forth the notion that disorder in a community creates unhealthy communities that

experience a variety of social problems, including crime. The goal, therefore, is to establish community‐based

mechanisms that nurture informal social control and community integration. This will result in a decreased reliance on

the formal criminal justice system to reduce crime rates.

Broken Windows Theory requires partnerships within the criminal justice and social service systems and, most

importantly, across the spectrum of government and privately provided services that touch crime and delinquency both

proactively and reactively. These partnerships are necessary to ensure that the services provided by correctional

agencies will solve relevant problems in meaningful ways. “Relevant problems” are those everyday problems that are

most important to the citizens most affected by crime, delinquency, and the overall deterioration of neighborhoods.

The Sixth Judicial District has developed numerous community partnerships designed to solve problems that are most

relevant to its constituency. These partnerships extend beyond traditional criminal justice system components and

include the public education system; city, county, state, and federal governments; faith‐based entities; social services;

neighborhood associations; civic associations; physical and mental health care providers; and the business community.

InnovativeLeadershipOne of the major tenets of the Reinventing Probation Council’s blueprint for improving community corrections services

is that leadership is the foundation from which all else succeeds or fails. Only through innovative and strong leadership

can probation, parole, and community corrections break out of past practices that are the result of a vicious cycle of

insufficient funding, devalued offender supervision and management services, and the resultant higher rates of

victimization of innocent citizens by poorly supervised offenders.

The Director of the Sixth Judicial District and his senior management team have shown the personal and professional will

to demonstrate that neighborhood‐based supervision, or the BWT model for doing business, is more productive than

maintaining the status quo, which is based on the belief that government resources must be allocated before anything is

done. The professional will to demonstrate the value of community corrections is both necessary and sufficient for new

program implementation—at least in the short term, until the value of the new innovation is self‐evident.

Stability of leadership is also critical (Rhine, 1999; Corbett, 1999; Petersilia, 1990). Too often, and for reasons related

more to politics than professionalism, leaders of correctional agencies and/or systems are replaced after relatively short

periods of time (Paparozzi & Caplan, 2009). Of course, replacing leaders when they are bad is good practice; however,

replacing good leaders for the wrong reasons, as has often happened in corrections, stymies innovation as well as

professional growth and development.

12

The Director of the Sixth Judicial District is a recognized and respected professional within community corrections, with a

passion for innovation and service to the public. He is involved in numerous extracurricular professional activities within

the Sixth Judicial District, in the State of Iowa, nationally, and internationally.

Leadership in the Sixth Judicial District has been stable for approximately 20 years, yet the creativity and tenacity

needed to successfully implement innovative neighborhood‐based community corrections strategies have not waned.

Equally important, the Director has continually groomed new leaders from within and outside the Sixth Judicial District,

ensuring continuity of passionate, courageous, and innovative leadership for many years to come.

AccountabilityThe overarching goal of the Sixth Judicial District is to prevent further victimization. Achieving that goal will also increase

public safety through a reduction in recidivism and revocation rates. To ensure that it is meeting its goal of delivering

publicly valued results with regard to community correctional services, the Sixth Judicial District has taken a two‐

pronged approach to guarantee accountability: an internal process known as MAPS and an external process led by

advisory committees.

MAPSThe Sixth Judicial District has developed an innovative and effective way to identify and provide stewardship over its

staff and the programs that it administers. Management Accountability for Public Safety (MAPS) focuses and

maintains accountability on selected intermediate outcomes determined to impact success. It is an evidence‐based form

of the CompStat model, a management tool made famous by the New York City Police Department. In the CompStat

model, crime data is entered into computers and is then reviewed and analyzed to identify resources best suited to deal

with crime patterns. There is ongoing follow‐up and assessment to evaluate the results and make adjustments.

The MAPS program was developed in a similar fashion. Identifying measurable intermediate outcomes that produce

success was the first step. Examples of measurable intermediate outcomes include: 1) employment 2) treatment and

interventions 3) housing stability 4) education 5) financial compliance 6) internal quality assurance and audits 7) staff

environmental issues 8) neighborhood strategies and 9) offender accountability. The next step was to establish baseline

data for each intermediate outcome. For illustrative purposes, the Sixth Judicial District uses the “traffic light” model.

The baseline average (with slight variance plus or minus) is a yellow light, above average is a green light, and below

average is a red light.

One outcome is highlighted at each monthly management team meeting. Supervisors report on the achievement of

their units as compared to the baseline established for the specific outcome and as compared to baselines of other units

in the District. Supervisors are held accountable for their unit outcomes. Accountability means examining successful, or

less than successful, results. After examining the intermediate outcomes, coaching and mentoring techniques are used

as needed to improve results. The following is a more detailed overview of the selected intermediate outcomes.

13

EmploymentResearch has demonstrated that employment is effective in reducing recidivism. Unemployed offenders are three times

more likely to return to prison than offenders who are employed. The Sixth Judicial District implemented a new tracking

model to monitor an offender’s employment status. This model compares offenders’ unemployment rates with national,

state, and local unemployment rates.

Initially, a baseline for each unit and staff member was extracted based on current offender unemployment rates. Next,

benchmarks were developed for each unit and staff member to work towards, based on national, state, and local

unemployment rates. The benchmarks were meant to drive the use of evidence‐based practices and to indicate when

coaching and mentoring opportunities for supervisors and staff might be beneficial. Future data collection efforts will

focus on tracking average wages and average tenures at places of employment, and on matching job interests with

placements.

Offenders face multiple barriers to employment. (See an example of the District’s employment charts on page 17.) Many

employers conduct background checks on potential employees, which may prevent offenders from gaining employment

regardless of their work history and skills. A major goal of the Sixth Judicial District is to improve offenders’ ability to find

work and to help them reintegrate into their communities. To this end, the Sixth Judicial District has developed the

Certificate of Offender Rehabilitation and Employability (CORE). Completing CORE is a step offenders can take to help

them prepare for work and become productive members of their communities.

CORE was developed to address factors that employers are likely to consider when hiring (e.g., completion of education)

and that will support offenders’ increased tenure in employment and reduce their risk of recidivism (e.g., being

substance free, having stable housing). The certificate is more comprehensive than other similar certificates. For

example, before other certificates are granted, offenders must often meet broad criteria, such as employment, paying

fines, community service. CORE, on the other hand, includes specific indicators (e.g., six months of full‐time

employment, six months of stable housing, Silver level of National Career Readiness Certificate, completed HS diploma

or GED). This comprehensiveness allows CORE to capture information about how offenders’ improvements in other

aspects of their lives indirectly impact their ability to maintain gainful employment. Since the requirements of CORE are

more rigorous than those of most other certificates, completing CORE requires significant effort and commitment on the

part of offenders. By providing offenders with this certificate, the Sixth Judicial District hopes to convince employers that

more than a criminal history should be evaluated when making decisions to hire.

Collaborations will be key when launching and maintaining CORE. Currently, the Sixth Judicial District is working with The

HIRE Network to receive feedback on the certificate and if/how it might be used as a national model. Kirkwood

Community College will be using the certificate in conjunction with adult basic learning and the National Career

Readiness Certificate. The Sixth Judicial District and Kirkwood Community College will be approaching American College

Testing (ACT) to work in tandem with their National Career Readiness Certificate. At a state level, the Iowa Department

of Corrections Central Office is working with Iowa Workforce Development to discuss how the certificate may fit into

existing infrastructures. Future steps include educating correctional staff on the certificate, issuing a press release with

Kirkwood Community College, meeting with ACT, and introducing the certificate to other key stakeholders at the state

level.

14

TreatmentandInterventionsOffenders’ criminogenic needs are identified using the Level of Service Inventory‐Revised (LSI‐R) assessment tool.

Criminogenic needs are those factors that, if addressed, provide the greatest opportunity for recidivism reduction. Once

these needs are identified, appropriate treatment and interventions are suggested and referrals are made. Through the

MAPS process, a thorough review takes place of targeted needs, actual referrals, and successful completion of

interventions. When lack of appropriate referrals and unsuccessful completion of interventions are identified, staff

receive further coaching and mentoring. The MAPS process also identifies gaps in treatment resources and indicates

how best to allocate the treatment interventions that are offered. (See page 18 for examples of charts used to track

intermediate outcomes for treatment and interventions.)

HousingA tracking model was developed to determine housing needs for offenders leaving work release residential facilities.

Time frames of 12, 18, and 24 months were used. It was discovered that offenders who moved three or more times in an

18‐month period showed much higher re‐arrest and revocation rates. This finding is consistent with research on risk

prediction. The MAPS process provides staff with a deeper understanding of the relationship between unstable housing

and unsuccessful outcomes. (See page 19 for examples of housing charts.)

EducationAnother intermediate outcome measure is education, specifically the high school drop‐out rate of youthful offenders

(individuals below age 25) and attempts to complete a GED or obtain a high school diploma. Historically, the Sixth

Judicial District has collaborated with a local school district to operate an alternative high school (which is not currently

active), and it was found that the graduation rates were very favorable. It is well known that not only does school

completion benefit offenders in the long term, but it also provides more prosocial structured time in the short term. By

looking at those education initiatives that most benefit youthful offenders, the District can target its resources and

interventions more effectively. (See page 20 for examples of education charts.)

FinancialComplianceFinancial compliance is an important skill that is often lacking within the correctional population. Financial compliance

facilitates the interests of victims, upholds restorative justice values, meets the mandatory conditions of correctional

supervision, and is an intricate part of the revenues needed to support corrections operations. The Sixth Judicial District

actively monitors and works with those individuals under correctional supervision so that they understand the

importance of their financial obligations. Education, coaching, and mentoring are provided, as needed, to ensure that

appropriate compliance levels are met. (See page 21 for examples of financial compliance charts.)

Not only does the Sixth Judicial District monitor financial compliance throughout the period of probation or parole

supervision, but it has put in place other efforts for full compliance. For example, if offenders can discharge early, they

must first sign confessions of judgment to acknowledge their legal obligations to continue to pay. The confessions of

judgment are filed with the court. If offenders who have not fully paid previous supervision fees return to supervision,

15

all fees are collected prior to discharge. Any additional unpaid supervision fees are referred to the State Treasurer’s

Office, where they are offset by income tax returns, etc.

QualityAssuranceandAuditingQuality assurance and auditing processes have been created to evaluate the quality of services provided. Audit results

help determine if the focus of offender behavior change is targeted properly, if the appropriate level of supervision is

identified, and if effective case management strategies are being used. The audit process identifies deficiencies, helps

supervisors develop corrective action plans with staff, and evaluates the corrective actions taken. The Sixth Judicial

District has dedicated a group of management staff to this process. (See Keepers of the Vision on page 21.)

EnvironmentalIssuesIssues related to an agency’s work environment can be a critical factor in determining if the agency is able to accomplish

its mission. Employees who come to work each day knowing they are valued, who are given the tools they need to do

their job, and who are treated with consistency and fairness will, in turn, be more productive and reflect a positive

attitude in the work place. Some ways to measure the health of an agency’s environment include monitoring sick leave

usage, attendance at department functions, complaints filed against management, and efforts to support colleagues in

times of need. Ongoing measuring and monitoring of indicators such as these help managers stay on course.

ParticipationinNeighborhoodStrategiesThe Sixth Judicial District examines the level of involvement that members of a particular unit have with the community.

Initiatives such as attending neighborhood meetings; locating an office in the community; participating in marches,

vigils, community gardens, and other neighborhood events; contributing to public safety; and helping to bring social and

economic capital to the community are tracked and evaluated.

Activity →

Departmental Unit ↓

Staffing Neighborhood

Offices

Attending Neighborhood/

Community Board

Meetings

Participating in Neighborhood/

Community Events

Staff on Community

Boards

Staffing Agency Team

Meetings

Staff Attending Advisory

Committee Meetings

TOTALby Unit

Linn County ProbationJohnson County ProbationRural County ProbationHope HouseNelson CenterHinzman CenterANCHOR Center

TOTAL by Activity

16

Activity →

Departmental Unit/Staff ↓

Staffing Neighborhood

Offices

Attending Neighborhood/

Community Board

Meetings

Participating in Neighborhood/

Community Events

Staff on Community

Boards

Staffing Agency Team

Meetings

Staff Attending Advisory

Committee Meetings

Linn County ProbationStaff 1 Lundby TownhomesStaff 2 Imago Christi ChurchStaff 3 Wellington HeightsStaff 4 Wellington Heights

Johnson County ProbationStaff 1 Broadway

Rural County ProbationStaff 1

Hope HouseStaff 1

Nelson CenterStaff 1

Hinzman CenterStaff 1

ANCHOR CenterStaff 1

MeasuringOffenderAccountability

Offenders who score as aggressive and non‐compliant on the MATRIX scale developed by the Sixth Judicial District are closely supervised by the District’s High Risk Unit for compliance or revocation. There is zero tolerance for antisocial behavior by gang bangers and habitual criminals. For other offenders, sanctions and curfews are imposed, when needed; the number of home visits and field contacts are monitored; and home searches are increased and tracked. The total number of absconders is monitored, as well as the length of time absconders are in the community, with the goal of decreasing absconding and limiting the amount of time that absconders are missing before being arrested.

Activity in the Field & Apprehension of Absconders

�

Activity Number PercentageArrests 31 10%Curfew Checks 7 2%Field Checks 162 52%Other Agency Assists 16 5%Searches 71 23%Transports 27 9%

TOTAL 314

Month/Year

AbscondersApprehended

7 Daysor Less

8-30Days

31-90Days

91-180Days

181-270Days

271-365Days

More ThanOne Year TOTAL

January 5 15 9 6 0 1 7 43February 9 9 5 7 3 4 3 40

March 6 10 8 6 1 3 3 37TOTAL 20 34 22 19 4 8 13 120

17% 28% 18% 16% 3% 7% 11%

Length of Time Absconded

17

Example: EMPLOYMENT

Rgn

Total

OffendersUnemployed

1. Data overall statewide 2. Breakdown for each District (Region) 3. Detail for a single District

4. Data by each work unit in the District

Work Unit ‐ Example 1





Staff – Example 1

Staff – Example 2

Staff – Example 3

Staff – Example 4

Staff – Example 5


The benchmarks (red, yellow & green)

are determined by the overall

Unemployment rate within the District.

5. Data by each staff member within the work unit

Data Unknown

Data Unknown

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

18

Example: TREATMENT

1. Detail for the District


The benchmarks (red, yellow & green) are

determined by the overall rate of offenders

not currently participating in treatment.









1136 Total Offenders

49% 550 Participating In or Completed Treatment

42% 475 Referral Stage

9% 111 Not Currently Participating in Treatment

2 2% 96

3 12% 25

5 5% 97

10 8% 124

8 5% 173

49 14% 353

Staff – Example 1

Staff – Example 2

Staff – Example 3

Staff – Example 4

Staff – Example 5

13 17% 78

9 14% 64

9 12% 73

11 18% 62

7 9% 76

19

Example: HOUSING





Unsatisfactory rate within the District.



1115 Total Offenders

57% 636 Satisfactory

21% 238 Needs Improvement

22% 241 Unsatisfactory






Work Unit ‐ Example 693 23% 409

40 36% 112

11 16% 70

29 16% 186

16 9% 179

16 34% 146

Staff – Example 1

Staff – Example 2

Staff – Example 3

Staff – Example 4

12 23% 53

6 12% 51

2 6% 35

9 19% 47

Data pertains to field offenders with an

Intensive or High‐Normal level of

supervision based on the Iowa Risk.

Housing information is obtained from

questions 27, 28 & 29 of the LSI‐R.

20

Example: EDUCATION





Unemployment rate within the District.


Data Unknown







Staff – Example 1

Staff – Example 2

Staff – Example 3

Staff – Example 4

Staff – Example 5


21

Example: FINANCIAL

KeepersoftheVisionThe Sixth Judicial District reclassified a number of entry‐level supervisors to become executive officers. Working with the

management person who has overall responsibility for quality assurance, as well as with the Sixth Judicial District

training officer, executive officers’ duties include auditing, quality assurance, training, implementing evidence‐based

programs, and mentoring staff. They work in unison as a district‐wide team and individually within specific units, where

they also organize and facilitate cognitive groups.

Executive officers compile data for the MAPS process, which their supervisors share at Management Team meetings.

After each meeting, the executive officers meet with a designated subject matter expert (e.g., employment, cognitive

groups) to review the outcomes. They note any changes that are needed in the quality assurance process, suggest new

data to be included, develop protocol for mentoring staff, and recommend new training for staff. This process eliminates

“one‐and‐done” reporting and ensures increased quality performance.

Discharges 06‐01‐11 to 11‐30‐11

Supervision Fees

Discharged Totalwith Total % Paid Still

Agent Zero Balance Discharged in Full OwedJim Berger 3 4 75% $300.00Loralee Walker 0 2 0% $345.00Shawn Simmons 1 1 100% $0.00Shelly Morelock 5 8 62% $838.00Silje Lynne 1 1 100% $0.00Unit Total 10 16 63% $1,483.00

Staff – Example 1

Staff – Example 2

Staff – Example 3

Staff – Example 4

Staff – Example 5

22

AdvisoryCommitteeStructureThe Sixth Judicial District has developed an extensive network of community advisory committees and working groups

that meet regularly at the initiative of the District. The advisory committees include the Offender Services Advisory

Committee, Northern Restorative Justice Advisory Committee, Law Enforcement Advisory Committee, Southern RJ

Advisory Committee, Cultural Competency Advisory Committee, Victims Services Advisory Committee, and Rural

Advisory Committee. These committees and groups are comprised of citizen volunteers, business leaders, members of

the faith community, professionals working in other sectors of the criminal justice system (e.g., municipal and county

law enforcement, district attorneys, the defense bar, the judiciary, the Iowa Department of Corrections), public school

personnel, elected officials and staff at the municipal, county, and state levels, representatives from the local media

(e.g., newspaper and television), social service and treatment providers, ex‐offenders, and crime victims. In total, more

than 200 community leaders and stakeholders participate.

The advisory committees meet to discuss the efficacy of current policies, practices, and programs and to develop new

strategies for addressing the most relevant matters of crime and justice. They provide current information about the

needs of the community and about the perceptions of the community with regard to correctional services being

delivered by the Sixth Judicial District. Most importantly, the committees and working groups hold the Sixth Judicial

District responsible for delivering services that reduce offender recidivism rates, foster a sense of justice for all, and

rebuild deteriorating neighborhoods.

In addition to their very important accountability function, the advisory committees and working groups foster a sense

of joint responsibility across all sectors of the criminal justice, human service, and treatment services systems. In the

truest sense, all the entities that make up these committees and groups have become partners and collaborators in

solving problems related to crime prevention and in restoring neighborhoods and the larger community.

The Sixth Judicial District embraces a culture of transparency through its network of advisory committees and working

groups. This transparency stands in contrast to the more cloistered approach to doing business of criminal justice

agencies in general, and correctional agencies in particular, which have historically shied away from engaging with

external stakeholders. By isolating themselves from external stakeholders, community correctional agencies have often

focused only on those activities deemed to be important to internal stakeholders and have lost sight of public value. The

Sixth Judicial District has broken with tradition in this regard.

BrokenWindowsProgramsandInterventionsintheSixthJudicialDistrictTypical probation and parole organizations routinely assume that their legitimate work involves doing things to, for, and

with the offenders under their supervision. To be sure, these are immutable responsibilities of any community

corrections entity that is worth the funding that supports it. The new BWT paradigm, however, requires expanding this

view of “what should be owned” by community corrections agencies in the course of conducting their business. In

addition to doing things to, for, and with offenders under supervision, the BWT model for doing business brings to the

fore the problems of housing, education, health care (physical and mental), domestic violence, economic development,

23

crime and delinquency prevention, and overall neighborhood wellness. Indeed, these same issues are consonant with

the popular prisoner reentry movement that began approximately ten years ago and that continues at full throttle

today. The Sixth Judicial District has embraced the BWT model and has become a force for positive change—the type of

change that makes communities, better, safer, and more vibrant.

Neighborhood‐BasedVersusNeighborhood‐PlacedCommunityCorrections The Sixth Judicial District is responsible for providing correctional services in Linn and Johnson Counties, as well as four

more rural counties in eastern Iowa. Within all six counties, but more specifically within Linn and Johnson Counties, the

District has implemented several programs that are intended to provide enhanced correctional supervision services to

offenders in community‐based residential facilities, on probation, or on parole. In addition, the Sixth Judicial District

provides programs and services to residents of neighborhoods and communities who are affected by crime. These non‐

offenders, who do not typically have standing within a correctional system or the broader criminal justice system, are

provided with access to opportunities and resources that could potentially improve their lives and the quality of life in

their communities. This, in turn, fosters healthy communities and leads to a myriad of attendant benefits.

The idea of providing correctional programs and services to non‐offenders who are affected by crime rates in their

communities is a major component of the new paradigm for community corrections professionals and is consistent with

BWT. This new paradigm promotes a proactive approach that targets the prevention of crime and delinquency, in

addition to managing illegal behavior after it has occurred. The public safety and economic benefits of crime and

delinquency prevention programs and services are profound and have been well‐documented (Prothrow‐Stith &

Weissman, 1993).

Under this new paradigm, it becomes necessary to accept the community‐based notion that working with offenders

includes working with the neighborhoods where offenders live, work, attend school, worship, and spend their free time.

Community partnerships, collaborations, and activism—new roles for the modern‐day probation, parole, and

community corrections officer—are all essential under this new paradigm.

NeighborhoodCenters

Among the District’s community‐based activities are its operation of neighborhood centers and its support of

neighborhood coalitions. Neighborhood centers are home to services for offenders and non‐offenders alike, including:

standard probation and parole services (e.g., neighborhood reporting centers), so that the District has a public safety

presence in neighborhoods; neighborhood resource center coordinators; volunteer income tax assistance; Narcotics

Anonymous and Alcoholics Anonymous meetings; clothing for the needy; Partnership for Safe Families programs;

employment skills programs; batterer’s education programs; community policing; and neighborhood revitalization

programs.

The neighborhood center concept is supported by neighborhood associations, local law enforcement authorities who

work in collaboration with community corrections officers at the centers, civic leaders, local elected and city government

officials, and offenders and at‐risk individuals residing in the communities where the neighborhood centers are located.

Property values in these neighborhoods are once again on the rise, businesses are returning to the communities, and

24

interest in collaborating with, rather than avoiding, the police is growing. These positive changes are all characteristic of

naturally healthy neighborhoods and communities.

Following are descriptions of three neighborhood centers operated by the Sixth Judicial District.

WellingtonHouseIn August 1999, the Sixth Judicial District ventured into neighborhood‐based supervision with the opening of the

Wellington Heights Neighborhood Center at 392 15th Street SE in Cedar Rapids. The house is owned by the Wellington

Heights Neighborhood Association and was renovated by people from the Wellington Heights area, as well as work

crews from Anamosa State Penitentiary and Iowa Medical Classification Center. Contractors and individuals in the Cedar

Rapids area donated materials, labor, and furnishings. The first three years consisted of building relationships with the

neighborhood community and providing neighborhood‐based supervision for correctional clients. As a result of a solid

working relationship with the neighborhood, the house has blossomed into a neighborhood resource center. Currently,

two full‐time probation/parole officers, along with part‐time staff, provide neighborhood‐based supervision; a part‐time

Community Treatment Coordinator helps clients and people in the neighborhood with employment issues; a full‐time

Family Support Worker from Family Services assists families that have at least one child under the age of five address

domestic violence issues; the Cedar Rapids Police Department has an office for officers; Campfire USA facilitates an

afterschool program three days a week; Narcotics Anonymous hosts weekly meeting; a batterer’s education program is

conducted weekly; and a community vegetable garden is maintained.

Many events intended to facilitate neighborhood involvement and dialogue and to promote community building take

place at Wellington House, including: weekly coffee and donuts; monthly potluck dinners and lunches; the Annual

Pumpkin Carving and Giveaway, during which more than 125 pumpkins are carved and given away to neighborhood

children and more than 125 treat bags are distributed; and the Annual Christmas Party and Toy Drive, sponsored by the

Sixth Judicial District in partnership with Horizons Family Service Alliance, during which more than 160 gifts are donated

to neighborhood families.

As more agencies seek to provide services at this neighborhood‐based facility, the District and the neighborhood

association have plans to expand parking and to remodel the attic so that there is more office space. Plans are also

underway to modify the neighborhood garden to include a victims memorial.

Wellington House at Halloween Probation/Parole Officers Christmas at Wellington House

Randy Day (left) & Ron Erwin (right)

relax after carving several pumpkins.

25

MoundViewResourceCenterIn the fall of 2005, the Sixth Judicial District, in cooperation with the United States Department of Justice Weed and Seed

program, opened the Mound View Neighborhood Resource Center (MNRC). Prior to relocating to this new site, the

MNRC was located for a couple of years in the Brownstone community building. The current MNRC is located in the

church building owned by Imagio Christi Church at 1700 B Ave NE.

Under the District’s administration, the MNRC currently offers the following services:

• a probation/parole office • a VITA (Volunteer Income Tax Assistance) center • an on‐site coordinator for referrals to emergency shelters and other services • free bus tickets and Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) referrals • Internet service for job searches • a copy machine for DHS documents • Free Bread Friday • a mail program for people who are homeless • a call center for people who are homeless • a donation distribution program • family services, provided by the Partnership for Safe Families.

MNRC has also served as a hub for community volunteer efforts. After the devastating floods in Cedar Rapids in June

2008, MNRC was designated by the city of Cedar Rapids and the County of Linn as the primary point of coordination for

volunteer efforts. The Sixth Judicial District, along with 60 AmeriCorps VISTA members, led the effort to recruit and

coordinate thousands of volunteers to assist hundreds of flood‐affected families in the first year after the disaster.

Imagio Christi Church, Probation Officer Stairway to DCS/CCIA “No Closed Doors” site of Mound View Mike Skaggs Neighborhood Programs Neighborhood Resource Center

BroadwayNeighborhoodCenterResidents in the Broadway neighborhood of Iowa City, Johnson County, began pushing for changes after a 1998 drug‐

and gang‐related shooting. In 2000, a homicide again focused attention on the seriousness of the neighborhood’s crime

problems. In response to community concerns, the Sixth Judicial District’s Restorative Justice Community Sub‐

committee began working with Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County to develop a probation satellite station at the

Broadway Neighborhood Center. The Center, located in the heart of the affected community, offers a number of

26

programs, including childcare, afterschool programs, GED classes, parent support services, and community development

activities.

The satellite station opened in 2002, in a small basement office of the Broadway Neighborhood Center. A probation

officer was based on site to help increase the accountability of offenders residing in the neighborhood and to provide

them with enhanced, accessible services. The probation officer has also engaged justice officials proactively in the

community; involved the neighborhood residents in defining their needs and developing solutions; created a one‐stop

center providing accessible services to underserved residents; and addressed emerging concerns about an increasingly

transient population of urban immigrants.

The neighborhood probation officer has provided leadership that has led to collaborations with community

stakeholders. School personnel, landlords, local merchants, faith‐based members, police, juvenile and adult probation,

DHS Community Partnership, City of Iowa staff, staff from substance abuse housing, parks and recreation staff, youth

service providers, and other interested community members meet monthly in support of a joint vision: Broadway is a

safe neighborhood where all residents are invested in maintaining safe and healthy community. This group collaborates

with neighborhood residents to identify needs and to bring resources to the neighborhood to respond to these needs.

Their accomplishments include the following:

• expanded prosocial recreational activities for youth and teens, including a gym that is open three nights/week, a

summer 3‐on‐3 basketball league, and Children of Promise mentoring services.

• expanded services for neighborhood residents provided by AmeriCorps VISTA, including employment/workforce

development for both youth and adults, GED courses, and expanded summer programming for all age groups.

• community strengthening events, including National Night Out, block parties, and a “319” event, named after the

neighborhood’s area code, which is intended to showcase the neighborhood and mitigate negative stigma.

• community service projects, which allow offenders to repair harm in the neighborhoods in which they live.

• housing mediation programs, which allow youth and families to understand behaviors necessary to continue residing

in subsidized housing.

• programs in which police and landlords work together on drug awareness/identification, conducting records checks,

and outlining behavioral expectations for residents.

• welcome centers at local schools and in the neighborhood that provide resources and information on community

expectations.

• monthly forums, in which the police chief, DHS protective workers, probation officers, and school officials discuss

community norms and hear residents’ perspectives.

• increased patrols in the area and a Street Crime Action Team (SCAT) to address the needs of families moving into the

area from large urban areas, where behaviors such as public drinking, smoking, THC, and poor guardianship over

children were overlooked. These families were quickly becoming involved with the criminal justice and/or child

protective system, as well as transient living arrangements.

27

• Family Team meetings, in response to child safety issues.

• community mediations, which give all residents a chance to express their concerns and work with the neighborhood

center to develop solutions. Circles of support and accountability, in which the neighborhood probation officer

facilitates a dialogue with all involved parties, have been used for smaller conflicts.

• treatment services for offenders, as well as support for educational, employment, or childcare needs.

• services, such as a Spanish‐speaking paralegal, to help non‐English speaking residents navigate the criminal justice and

social service systems.

• support for victims of domestic abuse who, due to immigration issues, were often reluctant to report crimes and who

risked being ostracized by the community if they sought help for their abuse.

• meetings to address the concerns of local businesses affected by crime in their neighborhood and to develop

strategies that would allow the area to once again be economically viable.

• a community garden.

The benefits resulting from these efforts have been innumerable:

• Residents have direct and immediate access to system officials when emergent situations arise (e.g., “My boyfriend

was arrested and I want him out”).

• Residents know that when crises develop, staff will quickly intervene to develop non‐violent solutions.

• High levels of rapport and trust have been established between the probation officer and the community. Residents

can report concerns without being labeled as “snitches.” Family members are more likely to report offender misbehavior

knowing that a caring and appropriate response will result. Crime victims can report to the center and seek assistance

confidentially.

• The daily presence of a staff member reassures neighborhood residents that someone nearby is paying attention and

looking out for them. Citizens have become the eyes and ears of the community and have become more accountable for

their neighborhood.

• The physical appearance of the neighborhood served by the Center has improved significantly. Residents are taking

more pride in their living units and their common community areas. In addition, the neighborhood’s primary landlord

has made significant structural improvements to the nearby strip mall and the neighborhood.

• Offenders have become involved in community activities and have served as resources to others.

With the Broadway Neighborhood Center, crime rates have gone down, particularly for adults, and public safety has

increased. This, in turn, has increased the reinvestment of social and economic capital in the community. In sum,

neighborhood residents and businesses have come to believe that it is possible to take control of their community.

28

Broadway Neighborhood 500 people attended Building a Habitat house PO visits children Center the 319 Music Festival in the neighborhood

NorthLibertyUnityCoalitionNorth Liberty, located in Johnson County, is one of the fastest‐growing small towns under the jurisdiction of the Sixth

Judicial District. The North Liberty Unity Coalition was the brainchild of the Sixth Judicial District. It was prompted by the

concerns of juvenile probation officers, who felt that minority youth in the area were at risk of negative outcomes unless

a community collaboration, similar to that of the Broadway neighborhood, was formed. Thus, under the leadership of

the Assistant Director of the Sixth Judicial District, a broad cross‐section of individuals and representatives from the

community (including volunteers, government, agencies, and schools) convened in October 2005 to discuss how to work

together to proactively address the concerns that come with rapid growth. Research was clear that proactive

community‐strengthening activities could abate these concerns. The North Liberty Unity Coalition (NLU) was formed in

support of that goal.

The mission of the Coalition is to enhance the health and well‐being of children, families, and neighborhoods in North

Liberty by developing and engaging a network of individual and community resources in community‐strengthening

activities. The Coalition’s vision is to create “a safe and welcoming community where all citizens are actively engaged in

the process of community building and members are supported in opportunities for healthy growth and development.”

A focus of the Coalition is on proactive measures that help underserved at‐risk youth become productive adults—in

particular, to bridge gaps in services to keep these youth from penetrating the juvenile justice system. A neighborhood‐

based office, the North Liberty Community Center, was built near an area where there is a concentration of people living

in public and subsidized housing, offenders supervised by the Sixth Judicial District, and at‐risk youth. The North Liberty

Community Center contains a recreation center and library programs—prosocial forums, supervised by prosocial adults,

where youth gather and engage in recreational and educational activities that help divert them from antisocial activities.

These and other programs have benefited not only youth but the surrounding business community—in particular a local

shopping mall, which had been complaining that groups of rowdy youth were disrupting its business activities and

impeding its merchants’ ability to achieve financial success. The Sixth Judicial District has also benefited from being part

of the Coalition and by defining, implementing, and supporting its programs. The District’s involvement with the North

Liberty Unity Coalition has enabled it to gain legitimacy within the community, which enhances its ability to supervise

and monitor offenders under its control. As well, NLU’s programs are likely diverting countless at‐risk youth and adults

from becoming involved in the criminal justice system.

29

SupervisingIndividualswithMentalHealthand/orSubstanceAbuseDisorders(ThissectionwascontributedbyDr.MalindaLamb.)

The mission of the Sixth Judicial District Clinical Programs is to enhance community and personal safety and to facilitate

positive change in supervised individuals with mental health and/or substance abuse disorders. Through specialized

services and partnerships with community providers, the Sixth Judicial District supports and encourages individuals in

their pursuit of a successful integration into their community.

MentalHealthPre‐TrialReentryProgramThe Mental Health Pre‐Trial Reentry Program was established in Linn County in 2001. The program is funded and staffed

in collaboration with the Linn County Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities department, with the goal of

identifying individuals who have been charged and arrested on a felony or on an aggravated or serious misdemeanor

and who have/or potentially have a mental health concern or disorder. Referrals to this program are made by Sixth

Judicial District pre‐trial interviewers, the judiciary, and/or Linn County jail staff.

A Community Treatment Coordinator (CTC) from the Sixth Judicial District meets with the offender and conducts an

initial screening. If it appears that the offender could benefit from services within the mental health system, the CTC

works with the appropriate court officials to determine if the individual meets the legal criteria for eligibility. Then the

offender is referred for a full psychological evaluation. Recommendations are made by a treatment provider and

attempts are made to refer the individual to appropriate programs and resources. The offender is then released to the

supervision of a specialized Sixth Judicial District CTC, who works with the offender and community treatment agencies

to encourage follow‐through with the suggested recommendations. The offender remains in the Mental Health Pre‐Trial

Reentry Program until sentenced in court on the charge. If adjudicated, the offender goes to a specialized probation

caseload for clients with mental health issues.

SpecializedCaseloadsSpecialized caseloads were developed to address the unique and often difficult needs of offenders who have mental

health and/or substance use disorders. These caseloads are supervised by individuals who have formal education and/or

training in working with individuals who have mental health, substance use, and co‐occurring disorders. Due to the

significant needs of these offenders, the caseload size of a specialized agent is often less than that of an agent with a

more traditional caseload. Specialized agents spend more time working collaboratively with community treatment

providers and with offenders to create case plans that maintain community safety.

SubstanceAbuseEvaluationProgram(SAEP)The Substance Abuse Evaluation Program was developed to address the needs of offenders who are involved in the

criminal justice system and who are required by the court to complete a substance abuse evaluation. Iowa code requires

that all individuals charged with Operating While Intoxicated (OWI) be evaluated by a licensed substance abuse

treatment provider. In 1999, the Sixth Judicial District was the first correctional department in the state of Iowa to

become a licensed provider.

30

The results and recommendations resulting from the evaluation are submitted to the court and, after the offender signs

a release, to the appropriate community treatment agencies for services. The individual is then responsible for

completing the recommended treatment.

TreatmentandAccountabilityforSafeCommunities(TASC)The Treatment and Accountability for Safe Communities program began in 1987 as part of a five‐year federally funded

grant. The TASC program is staffed by three certified alcohol and drug counselors who are Sixth Judicial District

employees. TASC staff perform substance abuse evaluations for offenders who are currently under correctional

supervision. Based on the results of the evaluations, offenders who are eligible to receive substance abuse treatment

services may either be referred to the Strategies for Self Improvement and Change (SSIC) program or to community

treatment agencies for other services. Once referred, offenders are responsible for attending and completing the

recommended treatment; participation in treatment is a focus of their correctional supervision.

StrategiesforSelfImprovementandChange(SSIC)The Strategies for Self Improvement and Change program is an approximately nine‐month Criminal Conduct and

Substance Abuse Treatment program developed by Harvey Milkman, PhD, and Kenneth Wanberg, ThD, PhD. This

treatment program is jointly facilitated by Sixth Judicial District employees (SAEP and TASC staff) and staff from local

substance abuse agencies. With their varied expertise, these facilitators are better able to address offenders’ unique

substance use and criminal thinking issues. Upon completion of the SSIC program, Sixth Judicial District staff provide an

aftercare component to address relapse prevention. In this way, they support offenders as they work towards

establishing an addiction‐free life in the community.

DrugTreatmentCourt(DTC)Within the Sixth Judicial District, there are two Drug Treatment Courts: one in Linn County and one in Johnson County.

The Linn County DTC began accepting referrals in August 2007, and the Johnson County DTC began accepting referrals in

January 2008. The Sixth Judicial District DTC Program is designed to provide intensive community supervision to

individuals who have drug abuse and dependency issues and who have been sentenced to probation, rather than being

incarcerated, for an aggravated misdemeanor or felony charge. Many offenders in this program have also been

diagnosed with mental health problems. The goal of the DTC Program is to help these offenders become more self‐

sufficient and better able to maintain positive changes long after community supervision is completed.

DTC is a five‐phase program. The minimum amount of time needed to complete all five phases is 12 months; many

individuals require more time than this. The phases begin with assessment and evaluation, referral for appropriate levels

of service, and case plan development. Through supervision and activities grounded in restorative justice principles,

offenders are encouraged to create ties to prosocial people and activities that will offer them the support they need to

avoid drug abuse relapse and other behaviors that lead to recidivism; they are provided with substance abuse treatment

and with help accessing mental health services; and they receive assistance in obtaining safe and stable housing and

employment.

31

Throughout the program, offenders attend regular court hearings, where they update the DTC team and their peers on

progress towards their case plan goals. The team consists of the judge, prosecuting attorney, defense attorney, DTC

coordinator, DTC supervising agent, a community substance abuse agency representative, and a mental health

professional. The team rewards positive behavior with incentives such as certificates, small prizes, and positive feedback

from the judge. Negative behavior results in sanctions, which could include loss of a privilege, community service hours,

or jail time. In addition to court appearances, offenders are expected to meet with their probation officers, attend all

recommended substance abuse treatment, and provide random UAs as requested. As an offender progresses through

the phases of the program, the requirements and expectations increase, depending on the case plan.

The unique aspect of the Sixth Judicial District’s DTC Program is that it addresses co‐occurring disorders. According to a

2009 report by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), which is a major contributor

of research and evaluation within the substance abuse and mental health arenas, integrated treatment for substance

abuse and mental health disorders has been shown to be more effective than independently or paralleled treatment of

these disorders.

MentalHealthReentryProgram(MHRP)The Mental Health Reentry Program was originally established in 2000 through a federally funded grant. The program

was designed to address the growing population of individuals with mental health disorders who were exiting prison and

beginning parole supervision. Offenders eligible for MHRP have an Axis I diagnosis according to the Diagnostic and

Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM‐TR).

The MHRP provides a high level of service, intensive supervision, and support to participants. Its goals are to help

offenders

• successfully complete correctional supervision

• take responsibility for past and future actions and behavior

• understand the consequences of past behaviors

• overcome barriers needed to access resources and services in the community

• navigate services and resources available in the community

• set and working towards personal goals

• maintain a prosocial lifestyle

• create a desire to live without corrections involvement.

MHRP staff make appropriate referrals to treatment programs and monitor follow‐up. They also connect offenders with

other community support systems, resources, and opportunities, including stable housing and employment, in order to

facilitate their successful reintegration into the community and to break the cycle of recidivism.

32

CommunityAccountabilityBoards(CAB)Community Accountability Boards were originally established to provide offenders in the Mental Health Reentry

Program with the resources and support they need to live independently and prosocially. Community Accountability

Boards are comprised of local community members and service providers who meet with offenders every two to three

months to discuss each participant’s successes and challenges. CAB members support offenders by suggesting resources

and services that might help them address challenges they are encountering, and they remind offenders who are not

using the services and resources to which they have been referred of their need to be accountable and responsible for

their actions. Community Accountability Boards have met with such great success that they were expanded in 2007 to

include offenders who are not assigned to the MHRP but who have diagnosed mental health disorders.

LookingtotheFuture:TheANCHORCenterThe ANCHOR (Accountability and kNowledge to Create Hope, Opportunity, and

Resources) Center is a new mental health residential correctional facility located

within the Sixth Judicial District that began providing outpatient services in 2009.

The program will provide residential services once funding is obtained.

The ANCHOR Center is a result of the need to respond to the continuing increase in

the number of individuals within the correctional system who have mental health

and/or substance use disorders. This offender population disproportionately

struggles with traditional methods of correctional supervision. The goal of the

ANCHOR Center is to provide a continuum of care to as many individuals as possible who are in need of services. Current

programming connects offenders with existing community services that address their needs. The residential facility will

be used as an assessment and evaluation unit to determine the needs of each individual and as a supportive structure

within which to stabilize residents mentally and physically.

The physical environment of the facility is very different from that of traditional residential correctional facilities. It is

designed, following the principles proposed by David Sine and James Hunt in Design Guide for the Built Environment of

Behavioral Health Facilities, to reduce the risk of suicidal and other potentially harmful behaviors. This approach to

facility design includes the use of specialized furniture and hardware, ranging from locks to shower heads.

A staffing pattern that includes non‐traditional residential correctional staff is essential to the ANCHOR Center’s success.

Staff are needed to assess and evaluate offenders, address their medical needs (which include being on a range of

medications), and connect individuals with the community resources that can enhance their ability to be successful. The

Sixth Judicial District hopes that this facility can become a model to other districts in Iowa, as well as to the nation, of an

effective program for individuals with mental health and/or substance use disorders who are in the criminal justice

system.

The ANCHOR Center

33

HighRiskUnit

With burgeoning jail and prison populations, judges are often pushed

towards sentencing high‐risk offenders to community supervision. In 2001,

the Sixth Judicial District created a High Risk Unit (HRU) to supervise

offenders who may pose a significant risk to public safety. Among those

supervised by the HRU are 25 offenders rated objectively as being at the

greatest risk for violating their terms of supervision. These offenders are

known as the “Top 25.”

Probation/parole officers assigned to the HRU provide support services to

probation, parole, and residential units in all six counties of the Sixth

Judicial District. A primary objective of the HRU is to ensure compliance

with supervision conditions in order to minimize short‐term risk and

maximize long‐term behavioral reform. Swift detection of violations

facilitates intervention before there are new crime victims. The HRU also establishes a framework within which

intermediate sanctions and treatment referrals can be immediately made. If appropriate, violators are revoked and sent

to community‐based residential facilities, jail, or prison. All gun crimes are considered for prosecution in the federal

courts.

The HRU is currently staffed by 13 full‐time officers certified by the Iowa Law Enforcement Agency (ILEA) and by 13

reserve officers who meet ILEA standards. These officers may be the first peace officers to have been recruited and

trained as part of a reserve unit, as a result of enabling legislation from the Iowa Legislature. The HRU officers wear the

full uniform and are trained in skills such as driving and the proper use of firearms.

TheWorkoftheHRUThe HRU enhances community safety by conducting residence, school, treatment program, and/or employment checks

on offenders under supervision. It investigates locations and facilities likely to be havens for offenders participating in

illegal activities. Since 2002, it has followed a process to locate and apprehend absconders from supervision and

escapees from residential facilities. In the year following program implementation, the number of probation/parolees

who absconded from residential facilities was reduced by 33%.

To rigorously monitor offenders, deter absconding, and facilitate absconders’ apprehension, the chief judge of the Sixth

Judicial District has issued an additional order to standard probation conditions that requires probationers to agree to a

search of their house, vehicle, or personal possessions based on reasonable suspicion by probation officers or other law

enforcement officers working with probation officers. This is a powerful investigative and enforcement tool that

probation can employ to improve public safety.

HRU Officers Justin Wheatley, Gabe Schappveld, and Susan Fabian

34

The Sixth Judicial District has developed an electronic system to share offender information and profiles with its own

officers as well as with area law enforcement personnel. Using a computerized imaging system, the District is able to

immediately share offender photos, vehicle information, and home pictures. This software also provides the ability to

map and plot clusters of offenders based on type of offense and other factors. Some offenders, particularly those

involved in drug sales and gang activities, attempt to use interstate transfers to further the goals of their criminal

activities. To address this, the High Risk Unit has started to share offender information with federal task forces.

Currently, High Risk Unit officers are assigned to the local Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) task force, the Safe Streets

Initiative, and the Iowa State Department of Criminal Investigation/Public Safety. They are active members of the Iowa

Law Enforcement Intelligence Network and the Midwest Gang Investigator Association. HRU officers also work closely

on U.S Department of Justice initiatives, including Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN) and Weed and Seed.

GangResistanceEducationandTrainingProgram

Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T.) is a nation‐wide, school‐based program that focuses on teaching

students life skills as an immunization against delinquency, youth violence, and gang membership. A family component

of the program aims to improve communication among family members and family decision‐making skills.

Normally operated by law enforcement, it is the Sixth Judicial District that has taken a leadership role in administering

and operating G.R.E.A.T. in the District, in forming partnerships with local agencies involved in education and criminal

justice, and in working directly with students and their families. These partnerships encourage positive relationships

among students, parents, schools, the community, and officers from law enforcement and probation/parole. Students

and their families have an opportunity to see that these officers are primarily interested in solving problems in order to

prevent crime and delinquency rather than being primarily interested in reacting to illegal behavior after it has occurred.

G.R.E.A.T. is funded primarily through grants procured by the Sixth Judicial District. The Cedar Rapids Police Department

has assumed a secondary role with respect to funding, while the education constituency provides minimal funds. It is

clear that without the strong support of this initiative by the Sixth Judicial District, the program would dissipate in the

District.

SixthJudicialDistrictResidentialFacilities

The Sixth Judicial District operates three community‐based residential facilities—the Gerald R. Hinzman Center, Hope

House, and the Larry A. Nelson Center. The facilities, which have state‐of‐the‐art security equipment, are designed for

higher‐risk offenders who require enhanced supervision. They also offer short‐term placements to stabilize offenders

under supervision in the community who are in danger of being revoked. Residents include male and female offenders

on probation, parole, and work release from an adult institution, as well as federal offenders. Housing in the facility is

based on gender and security assessments of the residents.

The residential program is a phased program, with individuals earning privileges as rewards for prosocial behavior.

Cognitive skills training groups are available to residents, as are a variety of support groups related to substance abuse,

35

anger management, batterer’s syndrome, and life skills. Staff also work extensively helping residents find gainful

employment and readying them for transition to community settings.

Residents are required to pay for room and board. This fee is essential in that it trains residents to be financially

responsible, to budget, etc. The payment of fees is also important because the Sixth Judicial District’s budget for

residential facilities presumes subsidies from residents’ fees. It appears, however, that even if all residents worked all

the time (a fact that is unlikely due to external obstacles such as a lack of available employment opportunities and an

unskilled workforce), the Sixth Judicial District would run at a deficit with regard to its budget for the residential

facilities.

SixthJudicialDistrictVictimServicesProgram

The Sixth Judicial District’s approach to victim services is grounded in the idea of restorative justice—that is, the belief

that criminal acts harm individuals and the communities in which they live. Under the restorative justice paradigm for

providing victim services, the crime victim, the injured community, and the offender are all important participants and

are, therefore, all in need of restoration. The primary focus of the Sixth Judicial District’s victim services efforts is to

create an environment of healing for individuals and communities, as well as a sense of accountability for offenders.

Examples of restorative justice programs offered by the Sixth Judicial District include: Family Group Conferencing, Family

Team Meetings, Circles of Support and Accountability, Talking Stick Circles, Accountability Boards, Restorative

Community Services, Victim Offender Mediation, Adult Mentoring Programs, and Victim Impact Classes. A major focus of

Victim Impact Classes is to teach offenders empathy. Empirical research has shown that empathy training, which

promotes the de‐objectification of victims, is one of the major principles associated with recidivism reduction.

The Sixth Judicial District employs a victim services coordinator. In addition to connecting victims with services, the

coordinator collaborates on a variety of other restorative justice initiatives within the District and recruits volunteers in

order to enhance the District’s ability to deliver comprehensive victim services to a broad constituency. The victim

services coordinator is herself a victim, having experienced the homicide of her child.

To further connect victim services with other District activities, a member of the Victim Services Advisory Committee—

one of six advisory committees that support the Sixth Judicial District’s Board of Directors—liaises with each of the other

advisory boards that address the full range of correctional and criminal justice issues facing the District. In this way,

victims’ interests become part of a broader justice discussion rather than remain an isolated sub‐component of the

crime and justice dialogue.

CommunityCorrectionsImprovementAssociationInitiatives

The Community Corrections Improvement Association (CCIA) is a 501(c) (3) non‐profit foundation established to build

solutions for healthier communities in the Sixth Judicial District. The foundation was established for the express purpose

of supporting the District’s neighborhood‐based approach to community correctional services—an approach that

attempts to break the cycle of dysfunction in families, neighborhoods, and communities.

36

In addition to securing funding for, and developing, valuable community programs, CCIA has paved the way for many

sweeping changes in the Iowa corrections system. CCIA established a statewide Commission on Restorative and

Community Justice Issues and, with the participation of prominent national leaders, it encouraged the development of

many of Iowa’s restorative and community justice programs. CCIA also formed a Commission on the Status of Mental

Health of Iowa’s Prison Population. This Commission hosted a public forum for state legislators and policymakers,

leading the way for meaningful mental health reform. In a landmark move, CCIA commissioned a study by the National

Institute of Corrections, the Correctional Management Institute of Texas, and Sam Houston State University to examine

span of control, or the number of individuals or resources that a person can effectively supervise in a structured setting.

The report, entitled The Importance of a Low Span of Control in Effective Implementation of Evidence Based Probation

and Parole Practices, has become a benchmark for the field.

CCIA has been the foundation of choice for the City of Cedar Rapids to distribute $18 million in flood recovery funds to

affected residents after the historic 2008 floods. It has been the recipient of funding from the Robert Wood Johnson

Foundation, The Hall Foundation, and the Greater Cedar Rapids Foundation for specific projects. CCIA has been asked by

the United States Attorney’s Office, the Iowa Department of Human Services, and Linn County to develop and operate

key programs integral to community betterment. It has also been selected to receive funding from HUD and from tax

credits to build low‐income housing.

Following are some of the critical programs operated under the CCIA umbrella:

YouthProgramsThe three Youth Programs offered by CCIA—Children of Promise, the Foster Grandparent Program, and the Youth

Leadership Program—target high‐risk, high‐need youth. They seek to prevent the next generation of offenders by

serving primarily those who have a parent in the correctional system. Among the programs’ main goals are increasing

regular school attendance and academic performance, decreasing behavioral referrals at school, and increasing self‐

esteem. These factors are all associated with increased success in school, work, and life. Staff and volunteers for all

three programs undergo a thorough assessment and background check before they are assigned to the programs.

ChildrenofPromiseMentoringProgramThe Children of Promise mentoring program targets youth between the ages of five and eighteen who have a parent in

the correctional system. Youth are paired with adult mentors who act as friends, guides, and role models. Together they

engage in activities that expand youth’s skills, interests, and experiences.

The mentors are all volunteers. The coordination of the program, its training, and its comprehensive oversight are the

responsibility of staff paid through funding procured by CCIA.

FosterGrandparentProgramThrough the Foster Grandparent Program, volunteers who are at least 55 years of age help youth in schools, Head Start

Centers, and Early Head Start Centers develop reading and social skills. Volunteers must be physically able to work at

37

least 15 hours per week with their assigned child. Depending on need and ability, some volunteers work with up to five

children, and many consistently donate far more than 15 hours of their time.

The pre‐service training for volunteers consists of a 20‐hour course. Volunteers also attend monthly meetings and

training sessions. They receive assistance with transportation to their service sites and meals while working with youth.

They are also provided with annual physical examinations and supplemental accidental and liability insurance coverage.

A paid staff member coordinates and oversees the program, which is funded by a combination of federal and local grant

monies.

YouthLeadershipProgramThe Youth Leadership Program involves youth between 5th and 12th grades who demonstrate leadership potential and

who are at risk for crime and delinquency, based on having one or more individual, social, and/or economic deficits that

could be precursors to antisocial behavior. In addition, all youth who participate in the Children of Promise mentoring

program are invited into the Youth Leadership Program.

Program participants are afforded the opportunity to establish meaningful and long‐lasting relationships with adult role

models; they participate in structured character development education programs; and they become involved in

stewardship activities centered on neighborhood and community interests as opposed to self‐interest. The program has

three major components:

• a five‐week summer enrichment program that integrates research‐based curriculum, such as the All Stars Risky

Behavior Prevention Program, as well as the Family Enrichment Program and Cultural Enrichment programming

• year‐round participation in small group mentoring

• a Leadership Resiliency Program (LRP) for freshman and sophomore youth who attend Washington High School.

The Youth Leadership Program is funded by the CCIA. Funds are typically sufficient to pay for pilot programs that test

program efficacy. Once initial funding ends, however, it is essential to establish a stable source of funding so the

programs can continue from year to year.

CirclesofSupportandAccountabilityCircles of Support and Accountability support offenders in the reentry process, engage them in the community, draw

attention away from the past and, instead, focus on the future, and encourage restoration and healing among people

impacted by crime. In a structured, constructive environment, offenders who choose to participate in the program (i.e.,

participation is not mandatory) discuss their daily challenges and receive advice and feedback from other circle

members that is designed to elicit deeper reflection.

Besides offenders, circle members include volunteer facilitators, individuals of significance to offenders (should they

decide to participate), and community members who have a stake in offenders’ successful reintegration. Circles of

Support and Accountability were developed in partnership with various faith‐based communities, although the circles

are “content neutral” (i.e., there is no proselytizing). Faith‐based communities are a natural source of volunteers

38

because of their commitment to serving people in need. These volunteers, through the process of working intensively

with offenders, become effective advocates for system change.

Circles are conducted in neighborhood settings to maximize the participation of concerned citizens. A paid staff person

identifies suitable facilitators, recruits other circle members, and is responsible for the training and ongoing coaching of

circle participants. Circle members are trained to emphasize offenders’ strengths and to encourage ways that these

strengths can be used to build a more positive, prosocial future. Circle members also hold offenders accountable for

behaviors that they have the power to change. This attempt at accountability is done with compassion and with the

understanding that behavioral change is often a slow and arduous process.

Offenders are considered equals within the circles. Groups clearly recognize that offenders are first and foremost

individuals with many complex facets to their personalities, not primarily offenders. This philosophy helps offenders

become reconnected to people and things that are outside their self‐interests. The development of a social conscience is

believed to foster recidivism reduction and restorative justice objectives because it creates a web of social groupings

that become important to offenders.

PartnershipforSafeFamiliesThe Partnership for Safe Families (PSF) was established in 1995, with the assistance of the Edna McConnell Clark

Foundation. PSF is a community‐wide effort to promote family safety and stability and to prevent child abuse. It brings

families, neighbors, and professionals together as partners to solve challenges that families face. It particularly

addresses the needs of families whose children are at risk of being placed in foster care or who are already in foster

care. (In Fiscal Year 2009, 11,394 children in Iowa were placed in foster care. The average length of stay was 18.5

months.)

PSF is based on the belief that everyone is part of the solution. It became the working model for Iowa’s Community

Partnerships for Protecting Children (CPPC), promoting best practices for the protection of children and families.

PSF offers various forms of support:

Professional to Family: Trained professionals plan Family Team Meetings to bring families in crisis together with

personal and community supports. They use the existing strengths of families to help them move out of crisis, develop

protection and care plans for their children, and reach goals.

Parent to Parent: Parents who have had their children removed from their care and who have navigated the child

protection system to be successfully reunited with their children or to have other safe, permanent arrangements made

are trained as Parent Partner mentors. These mentors connect other parents to resources, help improve their parenting

and life skills (which reduces reabuse and foster care reentry), and, as a result of their unique insights, help foster client

engagement.

Community Engagement: Trained volunteers are a source of information and referral for families who are experiencing

challenges. Families then become neighborhood partners, engaging in community service and completing volunteer

projects.

39

Family Resource and Referral Centers: PSF staff support family resource centers, offering a monthly clothing giveaway,

providing household items that can be earned through their programs, and coordinating the work of volunteers. In

addition, Family Support workers offer one‐on‐one support to families in need.

Through these initiatives, PSF served 956 children in 373 families during 2010. Almost 100% of the families served by PSF

are below the poverty level, and 49% of families have at least one African‐American parent. The average yearly PSF cost

per child is only $520. The average annual per child cost to the Department of Human Services for foster care is $5,100–

$5,904. When PSF is successful in reuniting children with their families, there is a reduced need for foster care

placement, fewer financial resources are required, and, most importantly, families are strengthened and given hope for

a better future.

EachOneReachOneAmeriCorpsProgramCCIA administers the Each One Reach One AmeriCorps program in collaboration with the Sixth Judicial District and five

community partners. This AmeriCorps program focuses on building safer communities by infusing them with social

supports and services and by empowering those in need so that they are able to overcome significant barriers.

Meaningful mentoring practices offered by volunteers, known as “members,” address the issues facing at‐risk youth,

families, offenders, and chronically unemployed/underemployed in targeted high crime, high poverty neighborhoods in

Linn, Johnson, and Tama Counties.

Services for at‐risk and high‐risk children and youth:

Through the Children of Promise program, members act as mentors to children who have an incarcerated parent.

At Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County and in North Liberty, members offer community‐based afterschool and summer programs that contribute to the academic growth and civic involvement of students and their families.

Services for high‐risk families:

Members serving at the Partnership for Safe Families offer support to families involved with the child welfare system.

Offender services:

Members placed at the Department of Correctional Services provide social support to offenders through the development of 1‐1 Mentoring, Circles of Support and Accountability, and cognitive skills group services.

Members provide self‐betterment programs to prisoners at the Iowa Medical and Classification Center (IMCC), which is the reception center for Iowa’s prison system, and at the Iowa Correctional Institution for Women.

Members supervise and work alongside offenders completing community service projects as part of an effort to repair the harm they have done to communities. This program helps offenders form attachments to their communities while acquiring job skills.

Members help offenders, as well as chronically unemployed/underemployed residents, with job search activities.

40

Services for residents of at‐risk neighborhoods:

A member serving at the Linn County Public Health Office provides access to health care for underserved people in the community.

A member at United Way’s 211 provides information to those in need and referrals to community resources.

Members serving with the Salvation Army organize service projects, recruit community volunteers, and help with the logistics of donated items.

WeedandSeedProgramOperation Weed and Seed is a federal government strategy that aims to “weed out” crime and the social problems that

create environments in which crime and delinquency flourish and to “seed” communities with human services that

encompass crime prevention and intervention, substance abuse treatment, recreation, worship, housing, education, and

employment—all of which lead to neighborhood revitalization.

While the responsibility for administering Weed and Seed grants has traditionally fallen to police agencies, the Sixth

Judicial District has become the first (and perhaps only) correctional organization to take a leadership role in the

administration of the federal grant. Because the Sixth Judicial District embraces a blend of law enforcement, social

casework, and community activism, and because it is community‐based rather than community‐placed, it is ideally

suited to operationalize the spirit and intent of a Weed and Seed program and to work with troubled populations in

neighborhoods.

Specifically, it is through the CCIA that the Sixth Judicial District was able to apply for and receive funds under the Weed

and Seed Program for the city of Cedar Rapids. The Sixth Judicial District devoted considerable time and effort to its

grant application. Of particular note is that the District was able to convince federal authorities to assign a federal Weed

and Seed designation to the District, as opposed to the more traditional approach of designating a large city. Crucial to

the process was convincing several separate law enforcement and governmental entities within the Sixth Judicial District

to coordinate services in order to support the District’s application. The partner agencies in the Sixth Judicial District’s

Weed and Seed initiative are: the City of Cedar Rapids, the Partnership for Safe Families, the United Way of East Central

Iowa, Cedar Rapids Schools, the Linn County Attorney, the federal DEA, the federal ATF, the United States Attorney for

the Northern District of Iowa, the Sixth Judicial District, the Corporation for National and Community Service, and

several neighborhood associations representing the targeted areas of Cedar Rapids.

The Sixth Judicial District has used Weed and Seed funds to develop programs and services designed to operationalize

BWT in neighborhoods throughout the District, including Mound View, Wellington, Oak Hill Jackson, Taylor, and

Northwest. Examples of Weed and Seed programs currently in place include the Volunteer Income Tax Assistance

Program, AmeriCorps VISTA, and Project Safe Neighborhoods.

VolunteerIncomeTaxAssistance(VITA)Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) centers are located in neighborhood resource centers created through the

Weed and Seed program. VITA is a volunteer‐based program that provides free tax preparation and e‐filing services to

individuals with low to moderate incomes—especially to those who quality for the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). The

41

primary goal of VITA is to promote the EITC. While the EITC is the nation’s largest and most effective anti‐poverty

program, it is complex and underutilized.

VITA was initiated in the Cedar Rapids Weed and Seed site during the spring of 2006, for the 2005 filing season. The

program began with a part‐time coordinator and a half dozen volunteers operating out of two locations. Since then,

funds have been leveraged for a full‐time coordinator who recruits more than 40 community volunteers per year, with

services being provided at seven locations. The volunteers are trained in current tax law and receive IRS certification.

United Way and United Way 211 have become substantial partners, assisting with VITA’s funding and scheduling

through their call‐in resource referral system. The partnership has proven invaluable and has contributed to the growth

of the program, as demonstrated below.

Since the Central Cedar Rapids Weed and Seed program began, more than $6.5 million in federal refunds have been

returned to the Cedar Rapids community. Roughly 40% of those refunds ($2.5 million) have been EITC. In a Brookings

Institution report, it is estimated that for each dollar of EITC returned to the community, an additional $1.58 is

generated in local economic activity (Holt, 2006). VITA also saves clients hundreds of dollars in tax preparation and rapid

refund fees. It is estimated that the community saves more than $1.25 million as a result of the free service.

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Returns Filed 112 334 727 977 1142 1275

Federal Returns $82,609 $424,000 $833,317 $1,427,428 $1,806,555 $1,938,113

EITC $36,930 $212,159 $429,882 $591,916 $649,341 $670,856

AmeriCorpsVISTAThe AmeriCorps VISTA program is a federally funded program whose goal is to fight poverty in America. Local private

social service agencies and/or government agencies can apply to become AmeriCorps VISTA sites. Once approved,

agencies receive funds to pay for individuals who perform a variety of functions designed to ameliorate conditions of

poverty and neighborhood decay.

VISTA members have worked with the Sixth Judicial District since 2006. Today, the District employs eight full‐time VISTA

members and one VISTA lead worker. Working in conjunction with staff employed by the District, VISTA workers provide

countless services to offenders, offenders’ families, and citizens who are not involved in the justice system. VISTA

members are actively involved in neighborhood revitalization projects. As such, they coordinate community meetings,

identify problems that are most pressing to neighborhood residents, and lead remedial efforts at the city, county, state,

and federal levels.

ProjectSafeNeighborhoodsProject Safe Neighborhoods is a national initiative that focuses on reducing gang activity and gun‐related violence. This

initiative is typically led by police organizations; however, in Cedar Rapids, the Sixth Judicial District has taken the lead.

Monthly meetings are held with law enforcement agencies to share information and intelligence regarding gang‐related

42

gun activity. Close working relationships are maintained with the Office of the United States Attorney in order to ensure

swift federal intervention when prosecution for gang‐related gun activity is warranted.

As part of PSN, the Sixth Judicial District facilitates a program to help offenders who are leaving prison reintegrate into

the community. All offenders who exit the prison system to parole or a residential facility are required to attend; adult

family members are encouraged to attend as well. The program, Welcome and Resource Notification (WARN), brings

together a panel of representatives from various human services organizations, including substance abuse treatment,

neighborhood associations, and the faith community, as well as law enforcement agencies. The human services

organizations describe to offenders services that are available to help them transition back into the community. Law

enforcement agencies present their role in community safety and convey a message of cooperation with community‐

based corrections, emphasizing that a return to crime will result in swift and certain penalties. The U.S. Attorney’s office

presents on federal firearms laws and consequences for violations. Since the inception of WARN in April 2004, there

have been more than 900 participants. Of those, only two have been charged with violations of federal firearms laws.

Project Safe Neighborhoods also provides funding for an administrative law judge (ALJ) who presides over all parole

revocation hearings for the Sixth Judicial District. Prior to the assignment of this ALJ, there was only one ALJ who

presided over all parole revocation hearings for the entire state. The additional funding has enabled the Sixth Judicial

District to target its highest risk offenders, referred to as the “Top 25,” who have violated conditions of their parole and

to streamline its parole revocation process by reducing the time between detection of violations and hearings before an

ALJ. The ALJ assigned to the Sixth Judicial District also oversees hearings for the District’s Mental Health Reentry

Program.

HometoStayHome to Stay is a $5.3 million low‐income housing project built by CCIA for families with a member who is reentering

the community from a correctional facility or who has a criminal record that excludes him or her from other low‐income

housing. Home to Stay is not a Public Housing Authority project. CCIA partnered with Community Housing Initiatives,

Inc., also located in Iowa, to fund this project. As well, Home to Stay, LP, was awarded Low‐Income Tax Credits and State

Home Funds in 2008. At the time the first units were rented to offenders, CCIA had no debt connected to this project.

Home to Stay consists of 24 townhouses with one, two, three, or four bedrooms. The grounds are fenced with security

gates to keep out non‐residents. In addition to the townhomes, CCIA built a community center within the complex. The

community center has a conference room, community rooms for larger events, and offices for staff, social workers,

employment specialists, and mentors. All residents, whether under probation supervision or not, are required to

participate in group counseling and other programming as needed. The Sixth Judicial District also provides funds for a

probation/parole officer on site. Reserve probation officers, who are certified law enforcement officers, maintain a

presence at the complex during non‐business hours.

The Sixth Judicial District has partnered with the Iowa Board of Parole to create a specific Housing Reentry Program.

Inmates who may qualify to live at Home to Stay are identified approximately one year in advance of their parole date.

They and their families are interviewed and evaluated for acceptance. Once inmates are accepted to reside at Home to

Stay, and while they are still incarcerated, the District and CCIA, in conjunction with institutional staff, initiate a variety

43

of transitional services for both offenders and their families, including parenting programs, increased family visitation,

job counseling, and counseling to prepare offenders’ families to accept them back into the home.

The Iowa Board of Parole has developed an approved protocol for transitioning inmates from prison into Home to Stay:

• Parolees are first sent to a residential facility operated by the Sixth Judicial District for 30 days of work release.

• Then they are placed on live‐out status for an additional 30 days of work release. During this time, they are allowed to

reside with their families at Home to Stay.

• When the live‐out status is successfully completed, the Sixth Judicial District recommends a parole status to the Iowa

Board of Parole. When the Board of Parole grants parole status, it is conditional upon the parolee adhering to all the

rules and conditions of the Home to Stay program.

Community Center at Home to Stay Playground at Home to Stay Inside Home to Stay

CommunityCollaborationsinResponsetoRegionalFloodingDisaster

In June 2008, the Greater Cedar Rapids Area was devastated by flooding, the likes of which had not been seen in the

area before. The flooding destroyed housing, interrupted business, and shut down most government services. It was one

of the greatest natural disasters in America’s history, and the fifth most costly.

Like so many other government services, courts and corrections agencies were adversely affected by the floods. In

addition to addressing criminal justice system‐related problems caused by the floods, the Sixth Judicial District became

extensively involved in assisting flood victims. Relying on its long‐standing relationships with its community partners, the

Sixth Judicial District mobilized a swift and coordinated response to address flood victims’ needs. The District’s attitude

was, “This is what the community needs and this is how we are going to respond,” as opposed to “we only do this and

no more.” This attitude reflects the District’s expansive view of its correctional mission within the larger criminal justice

context.

ArrangingCourtAppearances,Arraignments,andAssessmentsThe floods in Linn County caused the loss of jail and courthouse facilities. Within a few days of the beginning of the

disaster, there was a dire need to make alternative arrangements to process initial appearances/arraignments and to

conduct court assessments, which are required by the courts at the time of hearings.

44

The Sixth Judicial District pulled together a working group of law enforcement and judiciary officials, resolved “turf”

issues, and established a specific strategy for ensuring that the critical services provided by the courts and the sheriff

could continue. The Sixth Judicial District volunteered the Human Resource Center at its Correctional Services Complex

for the purpose of conducting initial appearances. This temporary court was held at least three times each day (mid‐

morning, 4 p.m., and 8 p.m.). As well, a magistrate was on call for court hearings throughout the night and weekends.

The temporary court continued operations at this site for close to one year.

Sixth Judicial District staff also conducted court assessments for inmates housed at the neighboring Jones County Jail. In

order to have the assessments conducted in a timely fashion, the assessments routinely began at 4 a.m.

HousingInmatesAs a result of flooding, the Linn County Sheriff, Don Zeller, was faced with the need to relocate 409 inmates. The Sixth

Judicial District proactively reworked its program in order to establish viable housing for 80 inmates. A temporary court

system was set up to handle intake bookings, an intake fingerprint unit was established for county inmates, and 80 beds

in the Nelson Center were reallocated to house Linn County inmates. To make room for these 80 inmates, individuals

who resided in the Nelson Center at the time were put through rigorous risk assessments in order to identify those who

were suitable for placement in alternative custodial programs (e.g., electronic monitoring, house arrest, intensive

supervision); modifications were made to the sections of the Nelson Center that were to house the inmates in order to

appropriately secure the facility; and the Linn County Board of Supervisors officially designated the Nelson Center as an

alternate county jail site.

The Linn County Sheriff utilized 80 beds at the Nelson Center for approximately one year. The Sixth Judicial District

remained committed to this arrangement and to helping its community partners in law enforcement and the judiciary,

even though there were serious financial consequences for the District, since the beds were not available to house state

and federal inmates, who provide the District with a revenue stream.

CoordinatingVolunteersThrough CCIA, the Sixth Judicial District procured additional VISTA members—89 VISTA Summer Associates (8–10 week

positions) and 25 year‐long VISTA members—to aid in disaster relief. A Sixth Judicial District staff person was assigned to

supervise VISTA members, and Sixth Judicial District staff helped recruit, train, and coordinate community volunteers. A

plan was put in place to house VISTA members, to procure special clothing and equipment to ensure the safety of

volunteers and staff, and to arrange transportation so that volunteers could travel to and from the sites where they

were most needed.

Bruce Vander Sanden, a member of the management team at the Sixth Judicial District, worked closely with his partners

at the United Way to quickly gain an understanding of how to establish a Volunteer Reception Center (VRC). The primary

functions of the VRC were to assess damage to homes; to match volunteers with flood victims in order to assist them

with the recovery process—especially providing labor to “muck and gut” flood‐ravaged houses; to share information;

and to provide resources and referrals as flood waters receded. Initially, a local church basement was utilized as the

VRC; as the operation grew, more space was made available.

45

HelpingThroughNeighborhoodCentersThe Sixth Judicial District already had neighborhood centers in communities that were hardest hit by the floods. In these

neighborhood centers, District staff routinely interact with neighborhood associations, coordinate recreational activities

for youth, and provide countless civic benefits.

These neighborhood centers were extremely important in helping flood victims recover once the waters started to

recede. Because of the strong relationships formed between Sixth Judicial District staff and the community, area

residents felt assured that they were among competent people who could be trusted to help them solve the numerous

disaster‐related problems that they faced.

RestoringTimeCheckParkThe historic neighborhood of Time Check faced the full brunt of the flood. The river surge forced the river to roll into the

Time Check area, creating a stronger “second current” through the heart of the community. Time Check Park and its

recreation center sat in the path; both were ruined. A year after the flood, CCIA began working with the North American

Association of Wardens and Superintendents (NAAWS) on plans to rebuild Time Check Park. This became one of NAAWS’

Make a Smile projects, an initiative begun after Hurricane Katrina to help communities rebuild—especially parks—after

natural disasters.

Make a Smile is a joint venture of the North American Association of Wardens and Superintendents, the Correctional Peace Officer Foundation, and the

Association for Professional Women in Corrections. Financial and organizational support for the Cedar Rapids project was provided by the Community Corrections

Improvement Association.

After many months of planning, Make a Smile volunteers from around the country started to arrive in Cedar Rapids the

weekend of June 5, 2010. Local volunteers and resources also came from the Cedar Rapids Parks Department and

Forestry Division, Green Iowa AmeriCorps, Community Housing Initiatives, Inc., HACAP, Matthew 25, Northwest

Neighborhood Association, the City of Cedar Rapids, and Working for Iowa (composed of members of the skilled building

trades unions).

Over 90 volunteers worked on this project each day, along with Sixth Judicial District and CCIA staff and VISTA members,

who also coordinated the project. Within a week, workers had installed a new playground, swings, tether ball courts,

horseshoe courts, a pavilion, and a bandstand. Additionally, the existing baseball field and basketball courts were

restored to like‐new condition. Once the rebuild was finished, the Mayor of Cedar Rapids planted a tree which serves as

a sign of hope and progress for families, neighborhoods, and a community still trying to heal from the flood.

46

FiscalOversightIn total, the Sixth Judicial District, in partnership with CCIA, delivers nearly $3 million in supportive services to troubled

neighborhoods annually. The Board of Directors for the Sixth Judicial District is the ultimate advisory committee for the

District. This legislatively established, independent entity made up of prominent citizens representing a variety of

community interests (e.g., business, education, health care, faith communities, law enforcement, and elected and

appointed local government officials) oversees fiscal matters, policy development, and programs adopted by the Sixth

Judicial District. The Director of the Sixth Judicial District is chosen by the Board of Directors.

The Sixth Judicial District operates under Iowa’s Community Corrections Act (CCA). As a CCA entity, the Sixth Judicial

District makes its budget requests through an intermediary—the State of Iowa Department of Corrections—rather than

directly to the state legislature and governor. The Director of Corrections, a gubernatorial appointee, evaluates and

prioritizes budget requests from local community corrections agencies in the broader context of statewide needs and

then presents these requests to the state legislature and governor.

As might be expected when state funds are finite, the Sixth Judicial District has sometimes found itself at odds with the

State of Iowa Department of Corrections with regard to funding for new program initiatives or program expansion

requests. When this happens, the Sixth Judicial District is placed in the position of having to lobby for its perceived

needs, even if those needs are contrary to the budgetary preferences of the Director of Corrections. These lobbying

efforts are often aimed directly at the state legislature.

In fact, the Sixth Judicial District has done an excellent job at bringing its program and fiscal concerns to legislators in a

variety of ways. For example, the District hosts an annual “Legislative Night.” Local, state, and federally elected and

appointed officials, as well as concerned citizens, are invited to the offices of the Sixth Judicial District to learn about the

value and costs of the programs and services being provided by the District. The District also educates legislators

through its extensive network of advisory boards.

FundingNon‐CCIAProjectsThe following programs are funded by grants acquired through the Sixth Judicial District as opposed to CCIA. These

programs are designed to establish a public safety presence and to bring social and economic capital to troubled

communities served by Broken Windows.

Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T.)

Department of Justice $90,000.00

Mental Health Reentry Program

Tobacco settlement funding $67,000.00

Neighborhood‐based supervision programs General appropriations 5 FTEs

47

FundingCCIAProjectsBWT programs administered by CCIA in conjunction with the Sixth Judicial District make up an array of neighborhood‐

based services that involve paid professionals (e.g., social service and treatment providers), concerned citizens,

volunteers, law enforcement authorities, civic associations, the judiciary, the State Department of Corrections, and the

faith community. State dollars do not fund CCIA‐initiated programs. Instead, CCIA raises funds through private donations

and a variety of grant sources. For example, as a community‐based non‐profit, CCIA applies for and receives grant

funding from United Way and from local and federal government programs such as AmeriCorps VISTA. In this regard,

CCIA competes with all other non‐profits vying for a limited pool of funding opportunities. CCIA is, in fact, very effective

in procuring funding—perhaps more effective than most similar entities.

Grant funds are typically used to seed new programs and to test their viability for continued funding; they are not

usually used for ongoing support of programs. However, ongoing operational funding is needed in order to sustain

CCIA’s programs and initiatives. A very real dilemma faced by CCIA is that virtually all of its BWT program innovations are

in jeopardy for the long‐term without continued funding from a stable revenue source.

In fiscal year 2010, CCIA funding was significant. A detailed breakdown of funding follows:

CCIABudgetedProgramsintheSixthJudicialDistrictfor2010PROGRAM/FUNDING SOURCE

Partnership for Safe Families (PSF)

Department of Human Services $ 49,800.00

Linn County DECAT $301,310.79

United Way of East Central Iowa $ 25,000.00

Housing Fund of Linn County $ 20,000.00

Community Partnership for Protecting Children $ 15,000.00

Foster Grandparent Program

Corporation for National Community Service $173,288.00

Children of Promise

Iowa Department of Public Health $ 33,833.00

Batterer’s Education Program

Fee‐Based $120,000.00

Youth Leadership Program/Children of Promise/Foster Grandparent

48

United Way of East Central Iowa $175,000.00

Weed and Seed

Department of Justice, Community Capacity Development Office $142,000.00

Linn County Witwer Grant‐Mound View Resource Center $ 800.00

Project Safe Neighborhoods

Department of Justice, Governor’s Office of Drug Control Policy $22,053.00

Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA)

ISED Ventures $15,000.00

United Way of East Central Iowa $35,000.00

Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA)

Corporation for National & Community Service $345,000.00

BankIowa $ 2,500.00

Greater Cedar Rapids Community Foundation $ 10,296.00

Greater Cedar Rapids Community Foundation $ 16,000.00

AmeriCorps

Corporation for National & Community Service $302,431.00

Home to Stay

Housing Fund of Linn County $58,480.00

All City Drum Corps

Donations $ 2,000.00

DoesBrokenWindowsProbationMakeaDifference?Research clearly tells us that recidivism rates are substantially and positively affected by rehabilitation and education

when compared to punishment and isolation of offenders from society. Broken Windows Theory programs, such as

those offered by the Sixth Judicial District, specifically serve this purpose. Educating those at risk to offend, as well as

those reentering society after incarceration, and providing them with the programs and resources they need to succeed

offers them alternatives to engaging in criminal activity. In addition, working with the neighborhoods where offenders

live, work, attend school, worship, and play allows corrections agencies to target the prevention of crime, rather than

49

solely manage it after it has occurred, and to create more collaborative relationships with the communities that they

serve.

Does the work advanced by the Sixth Judicial District make a difference? The chart below was compiled from the

website of the National Justice Mapping Center. It shows that in the metropolitan areas of the Sixth Judicial District (Linn

and Johnson Counties), the rate of people going to prison per 1000 is much lower than in other comparable urban areas

in the State of Iowa. The cost to incarcerate is also much lower in the Sixth Judicial District when compared to the cost in

other areas.

Rank by

County County

Rate Per

1,000

Total

Admitted

$Cost/

Year Population

% Household

Income

Under $25K

1 Black Hawk County 5.14 417 33.6M 129,276 24.30%

2 Des Moines County 4.35 105 8.2M 41,058 23.60%

3 Woodbury County 3.33 203 13.7M 102,831 22.80%

5 Scott County 3.21 325 19.6M 166,650 20.90%

9 Polk County 2.73 729 70.8M 429,439 16.90%

26 Pottawattamie County 2.01 109 9.6M 90 20.30%

29 Dubuque County 1.91 106 6.0M 93,072 19.70%

38 Story County 1.55 93 8.3M 87,214 23.40%

58 Linn County 1.04 135 7.8M 209,226 16.60%

77 Johnson County 0.86 78 3.8M 131,005 23.60%

Prison Admissions Rate (2008) Summary

The low prison admissions rates and costs per year for Linn and Johnson Counties (the largest in the Sixth Judicial District

and the state’s second most populated region) may be partially explained by the success of the Sixth Judicial District’s

and CCIA’s Broken Windows Theory programs. Though there is no empirical study to show exact cause and effect, it is

reasonable to conclude that if the Sixth Judicial District’s BWT programs ceased to exist, there would be significant

consequences for the State of Iowa. For example, if offender recidivism rates increased partly as a result of a lack of

support services, there would be a need to utilize more state prison and county jail space. Moreover, if programs aimed

to prevent crime and delinquency prevention were curtailed or eliminated, more at‐risk individuals would likely become

involved in the criminal justice system. The associated costs would be very significant but would likely pale in

comparison to the costs associated with failing neighborhoods (e.g., abandonment of housing, schools that are unable to

achieve educational goals, loss of neighborhood businesses).

50

Measured another way the Sixth Judicial District demonstrates the effectiveness of its Broken Windows Strategies

through a comparison of the direct or new commitment rates to prison and the probation revocation rates to prison.

The Sixth Judicial District is the second most populated district in the State of Iowa. The following chart shows how the

district compares to other districts.

District (2009) Direct (new) Commitments Probation Revocations

First District 223 282

Second District 189 211

Third District 164 122

Fourth District 79 64

Fifth District 633 478

Sixth District 146 130

Seventh District 267 103

Eight District 162 163

RetoolingManagementInformationSystemstoBetterMeasureProgramImpactThe Sixth Judicial District has retooled its management information system (MIS) to ensure that the everyday work of its

staff is results‐driven. The new features of the District’s MIS attempt to measure the impact of programs and services on

offender recidivism reduction. As work on the MIS progresses, it is recommended that the MIS measure not only

activities related to work performed with offenders under supervision but also the results of activities that reflect the

new domains of responsibility for community corrections, such as housing, education, health care (physical and mental),

domestic violence, economic development, crime and delinquency prevention, and overall neighborhood wellness.

Specifically, it is recommended that the following measures be incorporated into the Sixth Judicial District’s MIS:

• neighborhood/community satisfaction

• neighborhood/community capacity building

• economic viability in targeted areas

• victim satisfaction with programs and services

• prevention of crime and delinquency in targeted areas

• cost avoidance and cost savings produced by programs and services administered within the Sixth Judicial District.

51

ConclusionThe Sixth Judicial District should serve as a beacon to community corrections agencies across the country. Consistently

demonstrating “out of the box” thinking, the Sixth Judicial District is the only community corrections jurisdiction to

adopt virtually all key elements of the Broken Windows model. Starting with a results‐driven focus, the Sixth Judicial

District has identified publicly valued results (desired outcomes) and has set about implementing evidence‐based and

theoretically sound policies and practices to ensure the delivery of desired outcomes. The Sixth Judicial District has

successfully melded individual offender recidivism practices (“What Works”) with neighborhood‐based services that

attend to social correlates of crime, but that are typically ignored within the “What Works” framework. This point is

extremely noteworthy, especially in light of professional debates that have pitted “Broken Windows” against “What

Works.”

The Management Accountability for Public Safety (MAPS) concept adopted by the Sixth Judicial District attempts to

institutionalize practices that will enhance prospects for the continuation of the District’s efforts. Leadership is essential

to successful practice in community corrections. Over time, as leadership changes, MAPS could serve as the mechanism

to routinize the charismatic leadership that has moved the Sixth Judicial District towards a reinvented community

corrections service—one that embraces a broad range of evidence‐based and theoretically relevant practices, regardless

of their paradigmatic underpinnings.

52

ReferencesBurrell, W. & Gelb, A. (2007, July). You get what you measure: Compstat for community corrections. Retrieved from http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedfiles/You%20Get%20What%20You%20Measure.pdf

Corbett, R. P. (1999). In search of leadership. Corrections Management Quarterly, 3(1), vi–vii.

Dal Pra, Z., & Hendershot, M. J. (1998). Re‐engineering in community corrections. Perspectives, 22(4), 20–22.

Dickey, W. J., & Smith, M. E. (1998). Rethinking probation: Community supervision. Community Safety. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Holt, S. (2006, February). The earned income tax credit at age 30: What we know. Retrieved from http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2006/o2childrenfamilies_holt/20060209_Holt.pdf

Paparozzi, M. A., & Caplan, J. M. (2009, December). A profile of paroling authorities in America: The strange bedfellows of politics and professionalism. The Prison Journal, 89(4), 401–425.

Paparozzi, M. A., & DeMichele, M. (2008, July). Probation and parole: Overworked, misunderstood, and under‐appreciated: But why? The Howard Journal, 47(3), 275–296.

Petersilia, J. (1990, January). Conditions that permit intensive supervision programs to survive. Crime and Delinquency, 36(1), 126–145.

Prothrow‐Stith, D., & Weissman, M. (1993). Deadly consequences. New York, NY: Perennial Publishing, Inc.

Reinventing Probation Council. (2000, July). Transforming probation through leadership: The “Broken Windows” model. Retrieved from http://www.manhattan‐institute.org/html/broken_windows.htm

Rhine, E. (Ed.). (1999). “Broken Windows" probation: The next step in fighting crime. Retrieved from http://www.manhattan‐institute.org/pdf/cr_07.pdf

Sine, D. M., & Hunt, J. M. (2007). Design guide for the built environment of behavioral health facilities (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: National Association of Psychiatric Health Systems.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). (2009). The evidence: Integrated treatment for co‐occurring disorders (DHHS Publication No. SMA‐06‐4366). Retrieved from http://store.samhsa.gov/shin/content//SMA08‐4367/TheEvidence‐ITC.pdf

Van Voorhis, P., Spruance, L., Sutherland, J., Johnson Listwan, S., & Gentry Sperber, K. (2003, January). The need to develop intermediate outcome measures. Journal of Community Corrections: Monograph Series #5. Vanstone, M. (2004). Supervising offenders in the community: A history of probation theory and practice. Aldershot, Hampshire, UK: Ashgate Publishing Limited..

54

Broken Windows Report

Appendix A

COGNITIVE PROGRAMMING

In addition to the numerous programs highlighted in this report, the Sixth Judicial District Department of Correctional Services also provides other cognitive programming to increase the likelihood of success for its clientele. This programming consists of the implementation of CALM, Moving On, and Thinking for a Change curricula. CALM CALM is a 24-week cognitive behavioral class that targets attitudes supporting criminal behavior and that promotes the effective management of emotions. Both cognitive restructuring and cognitive skill building are incorporated into the class materials. The target population for this curriculum is males age 16 and older who have identified needs in anger management, problem solving, assertiveness skills, and cognitive restructuring. Moving On Moving On is a 30-session curriculum-based program that was developed exclusively for women offenders. The primary goal of the program is to provide women with alternatives to criminal activity by helping them identify and mobilize personal and community resources. The target population for this curriculum is females age 16 and older who are under correctional supervision. Thinking for a Change Thinking for a Change is a cognitive behavioral curriculum that teaches effective problem solving and social skills, while also addressing participants’ ineffective and/or antisocial thinking patterns. The target population for Thinking for a Change is male and female offenders who have identified needs in cognitive skills and cognitive restructuring.

55

STAFF CREDENTIALS, LICENSURES, AND SUCCESSION PLANNING With all of the clinical, treatment, and cognitive programming that is offered within the Sixth Judicial District, the District is constantly monitoring and striving to have as many staff as possible trained and/or credentialed to provide such programming. The District is also mindful of succession planning; it is constantly thinking about how it can not only continue but move forward in the programming and services that it offers. Below is a breakdown of the current licensure, certification, and trainers within the district. CLINICAL CADC 5 certified, 4 working towards certification CCDP, CCDP-D (Certified Co-Occurring Professional)

1

CCJP (Certified Criminal Justice Professional) 1 LBSW (Licensed Bachelor of Social Work) 1 LMHC (Licensed Mental Health Counselor) 2 Licensed Psychologist 1, 3 doctoral interns (Summer 2011–Spring

2012) LISW (Licensed Independent Social Worker) 1 Licensed Health Service Provider 1 TRAINERS Motivational Interviewing 6 trainer of trainers, 2 MINT CALM 1 trainer of trainers, 26 trained facilitators (this

includes the District’s own staff and those it contracts with)

Moving On 1 trainer of trainers, 27 trained facilitators Thinking for a Change 8 trained facilitators Sex Offender 1 master trainer Static, Stable Acute, ISORA

2 polygraph examiners

56

Broken Windows Report

Appendix B

Central Cedar Rapids Weed and Seed Central Cedar Rapids Weed and Seed Central Cedar Rapids Weed and Seed

Program ReviewProgram ReviewProgram Review

Table of Contents

Letter from the Site Coordinator 3

Weed and Seed Program Value—Leveraged Resources 4

Weed and Seed Program Value—Resources returned to Community 5

Weed and Seed Return on Investment 6

AmeriCorps*VISTA Program 7

Corridor Flood Recovery 8

Final Flood Statistics 10

Map of Inundated Area 11

Flood Assessments 12

Additional VISTA Projects 13

VISTA Events and Special Projects 15

AmeriCorps NCCC 16

BRIGHTEN 17

Volunteer Income Tax Assistance Program (VITA) 18

Neighborhood Resource Centers 19

Drug Court and G.R.E.A.T Programs 20

Personal Possessions Replacement Program (PPRP) 21

Weed and Seed Evaluation 22

Awards and Recognition 23

Acknowledgements 24

In June 2004, Central Cedar Rapids Weed and Seed received official recognition by the Community

Capacity Development Office (USDOJ). Five funding cycles and seven years later, I am proud to present

you with a report that attempts to reflect the impact the program has had on the core neighborhoods of

the City of Cedar Rapids: Wellington Heights, Oakhill Jackson, Moundview, NW and Taylor. Some existing

strategies were strengthened while new ones were developed. Progress would not have been possible

without the tireless work of our community partners, the neighborhoods and many government agencies.

Some of the highlights include:

Support of an existing Neighborhood Resource Center (Wellington) and the development of three new

NRCs (Moundview, Oakhill Jackson and Northwest)

Creation of Central Cedar Rapids Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) program. VITA has been in

operation for 6 years, providing over 4600 clients assistance with federal income tax returns totaling $6.8

million.

Creation and operation of the BRIGHTEN (Beautify Restore Improve upGrade Houses To Empower

Neighborhoods) program that has completed close to 300 projects with the help of 1200 volunteers

Coordination of the 2nd largest AmeriCorps*VISTA program in the country

The leveraging of over $5 million in additional programing to support community betterment projects

Recipient of several awards, including the Weed and Seed Coordination Honor Award in 2009

Of all the programs and strategies, our response to the flood was unprecedented. The Community

Corrections improvement Association (CCIA), AmeriCorps*VISTA and program staff responded to the

country’s 5th largest natural disaster in these ways:

Created the Volunteer Reception Center -initial coordination point for all flood recovery volunteer efforts

Coordinated rebuild efforts at the Community Recovery Center

Coordinated and supported over 7600 volunteers who donated 205,000 hours of work

Worked on over 2000 of the 5400 flood impacted properties

Conducted yearly visual assessments and reported on the recovery process

The following pages will go into greater detail of all the accomplishments of Central Cedar Rapids Weed

and Seed. I am very proud of all that we have achieved and look forward to the continuation of many of

these strategies.

Sincerely,

Bruce Vander Sanden

Central Weed and Seed site Coordinator

Weed and Seed Program Value Weed and Seed Program Value Weed and Seed Program Value

Programs & Grants

Leveraged

Amount

Weed and Seed Grants $892,000.00

AmeriCorps*VISTA $3,633,619.00

Flood Recovery $123,628.00

BRIGHTEN $23,800.00

United Way (VITA) $246,250.00

ISED (VITA) $45,165.04

VITA—Other $26,000.00

Neighborhood Centers $8,167.95

Gang Resistance Education And

Training (G.R.E.A.T)

$111,671.58

TOTAL $5,110,301.57

Donations &

Fundraisers

Amount

VISTA/Flood Recovery $145,528.60

Art Exhibit (Nov 2009) $1,300.00

ICA Silent Auction $3,115.00

Litow & Pech Fundraiser $14,500.00

Tribute Dinner $8,989.51

Cash Donations $13,745.02

Miscellaneous $500.00

Burger Cook Off 2011 $299.09

TOTAL $187,977.22

Total Resources Leveraged:

$5,298,278.79$5,298,278.79$5,298,278.79

For every $1 Weed and Seed an

additional $4.93 was leveraged leveraged leveraged to be used as

program funds.

Weed and Seed Program ValueWeed and Seed Program ValueWeed and Seed Program Value

Dollars Saved within the Community

VITA—Tax Prep Fees Saved $799,225.00

BRIGHTEN—Value of services given $97,169.00

Drug Court—$ saved vs. prison $2,600,000.00

AmeriCorps NCCC Value $744,800.00

VISTA Volunteer Labor Value $5,718,975.20

TOTAL $9,960,169.20

Dollars Generated within the Community

VITA—Federal Refunds $6,565,166.00

VITA—EITC Multiplier $4,093,913.00

PPRP—Dollars to applicants $20,967,332.62

FEMA Match Dollars/Flood Recovery $3,383,500.40

Jump Start Match Dollars/Flood Recovery $2,063,110.00

Sleep Out—Funds for shelters $39,000.00

Program Donations (various) $3,274.26

TOTAL $37,115,296.28

Total Dollars Returned to Community

through Weed and Seed:

$47,075,465.48$47,075,465.48$47,075,465.48

Weed and Seed Return on Investment Weed and Seed Return on Investment Weed and Seed Return on Investment

Total Resources Leveraged:

$5,298,278.79$5,298,278.79$5,298,278.79

Total Dollars Returned to Community:

$47,075,465.48$47,075,465.48$47,075,465.48

$1 leveraged = $1 leveraged = $1 leveraged =

$8.89 returned to Community $8.89 returned to Community $8.89 returned to Community

AmeriCorps*VISTA FIGHTING POVERTY WITH PASSION

AmeriCorps*VISTA, Volunteers In Service To America, is a national service program dedicated to eliminating

poverty by helping individuals and low-income neighborhoods make positive changes for themselves. Through

AmeriCorps*VISTA, ordinary people provide extraordinary service in more than 1,200 projects nationwide.

Throughout the year, AmeriCorps*VISTA provides full-time members to nonprofit, faith-based and other

community organizations, and public agencies. Year-Long members are available to the community for the

entire 365 days on a full-time basis which is described by Congress as “24 hours a day, 7 days a week.”

AmeriCorps*VISTA builds

permanent infrastructure in

non-profit organizations to help

them more effectively bring

individuals and communities out

of poverty.

Benefits and Support

In addition to making a credible effort to help

people and communities escape poverty,

Year Members and Summer Associates re-

ceive benefits and support during and after

successful completion of service.

Members receive:

·Living Stipend: $858/month

·A Segal AmeriCorps Education Award:

Year Member: $5,550 education award

or $1,500 cash stipend

Summer Member: $1,174 education

award or $250 cash stipend

Year Summer

2007 14 8

2008 28 86

2009 44 19

2010 44 19

TOTAL 157 177

AmeriCorps *VISTA Members with Weed and Seed

On June 13, 2008, the Cedar Rapids community was confronted with devastation

on a level never thought possible.

The Cedar River crested at 31.12 feet, 11.12 feet above the previous record.

10 square miles, 1,300 city blocks under water.

5,283 homes damaged.

940 businesses damaged.

47 non-profits and 30 faith organizations damaged.

With 25,000 Cedar Rapids residents evacuated and over 5,000 homes flooded, the

Cedar Rapids community will forever be changed.

Corridor Flood Recovery

On July 2, 2008 AmeriCorps*VISTA

members established the Volunteer Reception Center (VRC) to match

volunteer efforts with those flood victims that had the most need. The

VRC was designed to mobilize volunteers in the recovery process

and implement a reliable tracking system for volunteer hours to use as

a FEMA match.

VISTA Answers the Call to Service ...

To support the flood response effort, the AmeriCorps*VISTA state office leveraged additional resources for flood relief, including 25 year-long VISTA positions and 100 summer positions. This exceptional recruitment of VISTAs allowed for immediate service for a community that was in dire need of help.

Statistics from July and August 2008

16,632 Total # calls

Need assessments completed 746

Work Sites Coordinated 278

90 Volunteer groups coordinated

1,915 Volunteers Coordinated

Volunteer Hours Coordinated 40,511

VRC office operations were the heart of the volunteer effort. The VRC answered all calls for assistance from homeowners and volunteers. In the first two months, the VRC received close to 4,000 calls for assistance. The staff at the VRC worked hard to match volunteers with needs and coordinate work sites. During the first two months of operation the VRC staff was directly responsible for the coordination of volunteer hours totaling a FEMA match of over $676,500.

While the VRC office coordinated the worksites, VRC field operations assisted in leading volunteers in the direct clean-up of flood affected homes. From removing destroyed appliances to pulling up floorboards, VISTA members gradually transitioned from mucking and gutting to rebuilding.

“The ability to give back to Cedar Rapids

has been a tremendous opportunity.”

Final AmeriCorps*VISTA Flood Statistics Final AmeriCorps*VISTA Flood Statistics

Total number of calls

fielded: 37,84537,84537,845

Total Volunteer

Groups Coordinated:

335335335

Total Volunteers

Coordinated:

7,6547,6547,654

Total VISTA Hours

Coordinated:

84,19384,19384,193

Total Volunteer Hours

Coordinated:

206,311206,311206,311

Never doubt that a small group of committed people can change the world.

Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.—Margaret Mead

Statistics as of 8/31/2010

As of 8/31/2010

In an effort to evaluate the continued impact of the June 2008 flood on housing conditions in the

flood-impacted areas of Cedar Rapids, VISTA members conducted three significant visual assessments:

Homeless Assessment (Winter 2008) - This assessment evaluated households living in apparent substandard

conditions within the flood affected area. The number of trailers/campers, tents, cars, garages, and second

floor spaces being used as living quarters were noted. For the purposes of this study, homelessness was

defined as living in quarters that are outside the pre-flood parameters or living in homes lacking an occupancy

permit.

Flood Assessments

Trailer Tent Car 2nd Floor Garage Other Total

SW 52 0 0 33 0 0 85

SE 15 2 2 34 1 0 54

NW 45 3 2 39 0 1 90

NE 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

Total 113 5 4 106 1 1 230

1 and 2 Year Flood Assessments (June 2009, 2010) - To mark the one-year anniversary, the VISTA program

conducted a visual assessment of each flood-impacted residential property, classifying each structure along

the continuum of recovery. The data gathered provided a unique glimpse into the community’s residential

recovery, presenting the only numerical analysis of overall progress. VISTA members coordinated a similar

visual assessment at the 2-year anniversary to measure the gains that had been made and to quantify the work

that remains.

Additional VISTA Projects

Matthew 25 Ministry Hub

Each spring season, the Matthew 25 Ministry Hub

organizes an effort to help beautify flooded

neighborhoods by placing decorated flowerpots on

street corners and planting flowerbeds. VISTA

members assist in painting, planting, and distributing

flowerpots.

The music mentoring program pairs elementary

students with adult musicians to offer both music

lessons and extra support for youth development.

PICTURE

Jane Boyd: Afterschool Programs

Jane Boyd provides year-round programming for

at-risk youth in south-east Cedar Rapids, including

tutoring, mentoring, and various trips to community

cultural societies.

Linn County Hunger Free Network

The Hunger Free Network is a coalition of local food

providers, which seeks to understand the barriers to

community members’ fulfillment of nutrition needs.

This takes place through scheduling and facilitating

Think Tank meetings and creating and distributing

surveys for local food recipients and pantries.

Tiger Cub Kids Club

Located at Taylor Elementary School, Tiger Club is a

no charge before/after school program available to

students. Homework help, gardening/nutrition, crafts

and fitness fun are some of the activities Tiger Cub

Club members participate in.

PICTURE

Restorative Justice Mentoring

The vision is to create a community in which every

offender experiences nurturing on-to-one

relationships and community support, allowing them

to develop their full potential, capable of making

informed and responsible decisions as involved, law

abiding members of our community.

Cedar Rapids Neighborhoods

The various neighborhood associations of Cedar

Rapids are the non-profit entities that help meet the

needs of neighbors and establish identity in each

area. VISTAs are helping to establish better

communication between groups.

VISTA Projects Continued

Linn County Public Health

Healthy Homes is a department of the Linn County

Public Health which focuses on local indoor air quality

(IAQ) through performing free IAQ inspections,

making recommendations to home owners, and

advocating for improving indoor conditions that

negatively impact residents’ health.

VISTA members assisted in alleviating risk of disease

vectors through monitoring mosquito populations,

responding to reports of mosquito breeding loca-

tions, and sampling sentry chickens for mosquito-

borne illness.

Additionally, with the increase of H1N1 awareness,

VISTAs have stepped up to assist maintaining thor-

ough documentation of the mass vaccination clinics

held by LCPH.

UMCOR: Block by Block

This local recovery organization is a local coalition of

private resource generators and recovery-focused

organizations. Its unique approach to neighborhood

recovery brings neighbors together through the

entire recovery process, one block at a time. Through

cooperation and collaboration, families help others

and nation-wide volunteers contribute as well.

Prison Re-Entry Study

This study involved VISTA members working with the

Iowa Corrections Offender Network database. VISTA

members extracted and analyzed pertinent data

regarding the rates of success for individuals in the

correctional system, after they were released from

prison.

Tenant Assistance Project

Members of AmeriCorps VISTA joined forces with

Community Corrections Improvement Association and

Iowa Legal Aid on July 31 and August 1 to canvass resi-

dences originally run by a landlord convicted of insur-

ance fraud. The Tenant Assistance Project set out to

learn more about the people who make their home in

these properties and provide them with information on

the resources available to them, such as a series of fo-

rums designed to help tenants understand the process

of foreclosure.

PICTURE

VISTA Events and Special Projects

Martin Luther King Day of Service

“Make it a day on, not a day off” is the motto of the

MLK Day of Service. Initiated by Congress in 1994,

Martin Luther King Day of Service is a nationwide

effort to transform the federal holiday honoring Dr.

King into a day of community service. VISTA members

help coordinate a week of service projects for

community members each January.

Super Tax Saturday

Held the second week of February at Coe

College, Super Tax Saturday offers tax clients

free tax preparation through VITA and an op-

portunity to gather valuable information and

resources from a Financial Education Fair.

Vendors include local banks, credit unions,

non-profits, and the IRS.

Sleep Out for the Homeless

An annual event to raise funds for Linn County’s

homeless shelters, AmeriCorps*VISTA members have

assisted in the coordination and solicitation of funds

for this eye-opening event. Held in Green Square Park,

volunteers spend a cold November night sleeping in

card board boxes or on the grass in order to raise

awareness for homelessness.

Money Smart Week

Money Smart WeekSM is a public awareness

campaign designed to help consumers better

manage their personal finances. A nationwide

effort, groups come together once a year to

stress the importance of financial literacy,

inform consumers where they can get help,

and provide free educational seminars and

activities throughout the week. Programming

is offered to all demographics and income

levels and covers all facets of personal fi-

nance from establishing a budget to first time

home buying to estate planning.

Funds raised for shelters in Linn County

2008 $8,000

2009 $11,000

2010 $20,000

TOTAL $39,000

PICTURE Life’s most persistent and urgent question

is, “What are you doing for others?”

- Martin Luther King, Jr.

AmeriCorps NCCCAmeriCorps NCCCAmeriCorps NCCC The Community Corrections Improvement Association, in partnership with Weed and Seed and

AmeriCorps*VISTA, was able to partner with AmeriCorps NCCC to assist with flood recovery, BRIGHTEN, and

other Weed and Seed initiatives.

AmeriCorps NCCC (National Civilian Community Corps) is a full-time, team-based residential program for men

and women ages 18-24. The mission of NCCC is to strengthen communities and develop leaders through direct,

team-based national and community service. To date, 13 NCCC teams have been coordinated through CCIA,

completing and assisting with a number of projects.

AmeriCorps NCCC Project Accomplishments

August 2008—August 2010

160 homes refurbished for disaster victims

3,830 damage assessments completed

184,955 pounds of debris/trash removed

993 volunteers recruited or coordinated

3 buildings painted or renovated

10 houses painted or renovated

800 feet of boardwalk removed

1 house demolished

1,950 pounds of food received, inventoried, or distributed

2,560 pounds of clothing collected or distributed

15 feet of fencing removed

1 Museum/historical building renovated

AmeriCorps NCCC Quick Stats

Total Teams Coordinated through CCIA: 13

Total Team Members Coordinated: 127

Total Team Hours Worked: 39,200

Total Value of NCCC Partnership—

$744,800$744,800$744,800

Service Through Teamwork

BRIGHTEN focuses on outside code violations when

homeowners – due to age, disability, financial issues, or

other circumstances – are not able to restore their homes

without help. BRIGHTEN performs such tasks as

sanding, scraping, power-washing, and painting, in order

to improve homes and neighborhoods.

Beautify Restore Improve upGrade Houses To Empower Neighborhoods

Economic

Impact

Project Value

Painted $93,599

Power Washed $1,120

Yard Work $980

Litter Pick-up $840

Miscellaneous $630

TOTAL $97,169

BRIGHTEN By the Numbers …

Total Volunteers :

1,244

Volunteer Hours:

10,482

Total Projects Completed:

285

Painted (houses, porches,

garages): 55

Power-washed houses:

4

Litter Pick-up

(blocks, alleys, vacant lots): 167

Miscellaneous

(drywall, windows, doors, ramps): 43

VOLUNTEER INCOME

TAX ASSISTANCE

VITA seeks to maximize the dollar amount coming back

into the community by eliminating rapid refund fees,

educating the community on Earned Income Tax Credit

(EITC) eligibility, and promoting other available financial

opportunities.

The largest federal initiative to reduce poverty, the EITC is often unclaimed by 15-25% of eligible taxpayers. EITC dollars act as a work incentive and income supplement for qualifying taxpayers. Furthermore, for each dollar of

EITC returned to the community, an additional $1.58 is generated in local economic activity (Holt, p.13).

The Volunteer Income Tax Assistance program

offers FREE tax preparation services to low and

moderate income families and individuals

throughout the country. The Central Cedar Rapids

Weed and Seed VITA Program opened in 2006 with

two neighborhood locations and has steadily

expanded ever since.

Tax Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

# of sites 2 4 4 5 4 7

# of returns

completed

112 334 727 977 1142 1275

Federal Refund

$$$

$82,609 $424,144 $886,317 $1,427,428 $1,806,555 $1,938,113

EITC $$$ $36,930 $212,159 $429,882 $591,916 $629,341 $670,856

Volunteers assist a taxpayer during the 2009 tax filing season.

For each dollar of EITC

returned to the community,

an additional $1.58 is

generated in local economic

activity.

The Value of VITA

Revenue Generated:

Federal Refunds Returned: $6,565,166

EITC dollars generated*: $4,093,913

Savings Generated:

Tax Prep Fees Saved: $799,225

Total Economic Impact:

$11,458,304

*Calculated Entry: Total EITC funds X $1.58

Neighborhood Resource Centers

Referrals and Assistance Provided:

Housing Employment Services

Medical JARC/NTS Rent

Food Clothing Utilities

Tax Prep Bus Tickets Family Trouble

Neighborhood Resource Center Locations:

Wellington Heights Neighborhood Resource Center

392 15th St, Cedar Rapids

Mound View Neighborhood Resource Center

1700 B Ave NE, Cedar Rapids

Oakhill Jackson Neighborhood Resource Center

510 16th Ave SE, Cedar Rapids

Northwest Neighborhood Resource Center

1412 Ellis Blvd NW, Cedar Rapids

Community Programs:

Batterers Education Program

NA Meetings

Neighborhood Association Meetings

Talking Stick

Neighborhood Resource Centers serve as community "hubs" where referrals can be obtained and

services accessed. Services are divided into three basic categories: (1) Drop-in, (2) Community

Programs, and (3) On-Site Providers. Drop in services are available to any individual walking

through the resource center doors. These services are typically provided by the Resource Center

Coordinator or an AmeriCorps*VISTA member, if present. Community Programs cover a vast array

of meetings, seasonal activities, and events that use the Neighborhood Resource Centers. On-Site

Providers are also currently available at two centers.

Drug Treatment Court

Drug Court is a special court given the responsibility to handle cases involving substance-abusing offenders through

comprehensive supervision, drug testing, treatment services, and immediate sanctions and incentives.

The 6th Judicial District Department of Correctional Services with the help of the AmeriCorps*VISTA program created

what is known as Drug Treatment Court in 2007. Drug Courts in Iowa have proven to be extremely effective in deterring

crime and drug use, reducing recidivism, and saving money by helping clients to avoid serving prison terms.

Drug Treatment Court provides a great economic benefit to the community.

The average cost of spending a day in prison is $54.02.

The average cost of spending a day with Community Corrections is $1.88.

Since Sept 2007, 98 clients have been served in Linn County through Drug

Treatment Court, saving the community nearly $2.6 million.

The G.R.E.A.T. Program is a school-based, law enforcement

officer-instructed classroom curriculum. With prevention as

its primary objective, the program is intended as an

immunization against delinquency, youth violence, and gang

membership. In Cedar Rapids, curriculum was delivered to

Polk Elementary, Johnson Elementary, and McKinley Middle

Schools. Students ranged from 4th—8th grade.

G.R.E.A.T. graduation rates

Nov. 2007—22 elementary graduates

Jan. 2008—150 middle school graduates

Jan. 2008—101 elementary graduates

Summer 2008—60 middle school graduates

G.R.E.A.T.

Gang Resistance Education And Training

Personal Possessions Rep

lacemen

t Pro

gram

The Personal Possessions Replacement Program (PPRP) was designed to assist flood-

impacted homeowners and renters with replacing personal possessions lost during the

Flood of 2008. Funded through the Local Options Sales Tax (LOST), qualified homeowners

could receive up to $10,000 while eligible renters could receive up to $4,000. This

program was administered through CCIA and the Weed and Seed program because of its

alignment with the Weed and Seed strategy to assist the 5 target neighborhoods.

“You’re GIVING me $10,000!? I

don’t know what to say. THANK

YOU, THANK YOU!”

- Anonymous Homeowner

PPRP Homeowner Statistics

Total Applicants: 2076 2076 2076

Received Money: 1907

SBA Remittance: 139

Not Eligible: 169

PPRP Renter Statistics

Total Applicants: 934 934 934

Received Money: 789

SBA Remittance: 17

Not Eligible: 133

Total LOST Funds Distributed

$20,967,332.62$20,967,332.62

“This process was the easiest

thing I’ve done since the flood.

God bless you for ... still caring

about flood victims.”

- Anonymous Homeowner

Evaluating Weed and Seed

In January 2006, a needs assessment was completed within the Central Cedar Rapids Weed and Seed

neighborhoods. The following were identified as important components for new “Seed” initiatives:

Adult Residents: Housing and Neighborhood Relations Program

Youth Residents: Fun Activities & School/Education Programs

The following “Weed” strategies were also identified as being important components of the program:

Focusing on Drug and Property Crimes

Increasing Bike Patrol Law Enforcement

Another comprehensive evaluation was completed in December 2009. This post flood evaluation not-

ed the following:

No crime displacement pattern found in any neighborhood bordering the flooded areas

(Statistics examined homicides, assaults, auto theft, theft, and criminal mischief)

Most people living in the five Weed &

Seed neighborhoods feel “Very Safe” or

“Somewhat Safe”

Most students feel safe in their

neighborhoods

Most students “like” and “trust” the

police in their neighborhoods

It went on to identify that In general, most

citizens living in the five Weed & Seed

neighborhoods reported their current quality of

life as “good”.

Awards and RecognitionAwards and RecognitionAwards and Recognition

Home Town Builder Award (December 2008)

United Way Community Partner Award (May 2009)

Weed and Seed Coordinator’s Award (July 2009)

Iowa Governor Award (received by members; 2009, 2010, 2011)

AmeriCorps Week National Photo Contest, First Place (May 2010)

Local Hero Award (received by member, July 2010)

Rebuild Iowa Award (received by members, July 2010)

Rebuild Iowa Certificate of Appreciation (July 2010)

Acknowledgements

United States Attorney’s Office

Wellington Heights Neighborhood Association

City of Cedar Rapids

6th Judicial District, Department of Correctional Services

Oak Hill Jackson Neighborhood Association

United Way of East Central Iowa*

Linn County Attorney’s Office

Cedar Rapids Police Department

Cedar Rapids Neighbors*

Taylor Neighborhood Association

DEA

ATF

Juvenile Court Services

Mound View Neighborhood Association

Northwest Neighbors Association

Iowa Legal Aid*

Cedar Rapids Community Schools

Linn County Landlords Association

Southwest Neighbors

Coe College

Matthew 25 Ministry Hub*

Linn County Partnership on Substance Abuse

Harbor Association

Mt. Zion Baptist Church

Willis Dady Emergency Shelter*

W.R.A.P.*

Rockwell Collins

Greater Cedar Rapids Community Foundation

Thank you to all our partners that have helped make the Cedar Rapids Weed and Seed program successful.

Jane Boyd Community Center*

United Way 211

IRS

Hope United Church of Christ

Mercy Medical Center

St. Luke’s Hospital

Linn County Public Health*

Mission of Hope*

Paul Engle Center*

Block by Block*

Linn Area Long Term Recovery Coalition (LALTRC)

Mt. Mercy University

First United Methodist Church—Marion*

Presbyterian Disaster Assistance

ISED

Tapestry Time Bank*

Children of Promise

Catholic Worker House

Aging Services*

Food Chain of Linn County*

HACAP*

Home to Stay*

Horizons*

Tiger Cub Kids Club*

Community Corrections Improvement Association*

Alliant Energy

Corporation for National and Community Service

*Denotes agencies that have received AmeriCorps*VISTA members

broken windows evaluation -...

Documents