jail reentry planning: a little collaboration and ... · jail reentry planning: a little...

National Jail Exchange 2014http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange

National Jail Exchange – http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange

Jail Reentry Planning:

A Little Collaboration and

Communication Go a Long Way By Andrew Verheek, Planner, Kent County Office of Community Corrections, Grand

Rapids, Michigan

Kent County’s experiences with the Transition from Jail to the Community (TJC) initiative started with conversations and formal planning in 2008—with the fruits of these labors continuing through to the current day. For those who are not familiar with TJC, it refers to a technical assistance program made available through the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) and managed by the Urban Institute. Kent County received TJC assistance from NIC and the Urban Institute through in Phase I of that initiative. The Office of Community Corrections (OCC) and the Kent County Sheriff jointly led the project, with the assistance of several other agencies and stakeholders, as shown in Figure 1, page 2 (sidebar).

The overall flow of Kent County’s reentry initiative across the past several years is shown in Figure 2, page 3.

The work accomplished through the TJC initiative led to three primary achievements:

Creation of reentry pods for both men and women in the Kent County Correctional Facility (KCCF);

Continuation of the Kent County Community Reentry Coordinating Council (CRCC) beyond the initial project period; and

Development and implementation of a proxy risk assessment tool at KCCF.



Successful launch of Kent County’s jail reentry initiative was thanks to three main ingredients:

Buy-in from multiple stakeholders;

Leadership from key players such as the Kent County Sheriff’s Department and Network180, the community mental health authority for Kent County; and

Willingness on the part of all stakeholders to collaborate and communicate to arrive at the best long-term solutions that would satisfy each stakeholder’s needs.

These elements also ensured that jail reentry services would continue after the close of TJC technical assistance in Kent County. But chief among these ingredients, it was precisely the willingness of the partner agencies to collaborate and communicate that turned out to be the essential driving factor in the success of Kent County’s jail reentry efforts.

Given the primary importance of collaboration and communication to TJC outcomes in Kent County, this article focuses on how those two elements have played out over the past several years.

Figure 1. Core Organizations Involved in Kent County’s TJC Initiative

Kent County Sheriff’s Department

Kent County Office of Community Corrections

Network180

Arbor Circle

Family Outreach Center

Hope Network

Grand Rapids Coalition to End Homelessness

Women’s Resource Center

Michigan 61st District Court

Kent County Circuit Court Probation Office

Kent County Parole Office

Kent County Friend of the Court

Kent County Victim-Witness Office

Kent County Administration

Grand Valley State University, Department of Criminal Justice



Figure 2. Milestones in Kent County’s TJC Initiative

Summer 2008

Kent County agencies begin conversations on

jail reentry

Fall 2008

County participates in TCJ training

February 2009

Reentry coordinating council holds 1st formal

project meeting

June 2009

County applies to become a TJC site.

August 2009

County is selected as a TJC site

September 2009

County staff attend TJC kickoff in Washington,

D.C.

October 2009

Kent County holds local TJC kickoff

February 2010

County implements proxy risk assessment

October 2010

Men's reentry pod and programming opens

September 2011

Consultants make last site visit

October 2012

Women's reentry pod opens

December 2012

County staff attend TJC "lessons learned"

session in Denver, Colo.



1) Collaboration in Planning

None of the successful programs or implementation of the proxy risk assessment used at KCCF

would have been possible without the buy-in of the agencies and stakeholders that have made

the TJC initiative a successful endeavor. In fact, the success of the TJC work in Kent County rests

solely on the shared commitment of the various agencies and stakeholders involved with this

project.

One of the first tasks we faced was defining the pathway in which the project would proceed.

The project would involve making decisions about which population(s) would be served, which

services would be provided, who would provide them, how those services would be

implemented, and so forth. But first, we had to agree on how to manage the overall project and

how we would make decisions. Without the collaboration of all the stakeholders, our jail

reentry efforts most likely would have gone nowhere.

So, at the onset of the initiative, we formed a steering committee that was tasked with getting

the project moving in a positive direction. The steering committee included staff from the Kent

County Sheriff’s Department, Kent County Office of Community Corrections, Kent County Circuit

Court Probation, and other government agencies.

Having a smaller steering group at the beginning of this journey helped the project in two ways.

First, the initial members of this group were familiar with each other from working on other

projects and initiatives in Kent County. This fostered an environment where people were

comfortable enough with each other to openly and frankly discuss matters of importance to

this reentry effort. Second, having a smaller group allowed the steering committee to

deliberately add new members who brought competencies and experience in areas we

identified as being missing from the group and the project itself.

Regular teleconferences with our consultants assisted in keeping the group focused on matters

being handled by the steering committee and by subcommittees. The men and women from

the Urban Institute and NIC were patient while listening to us describe the growing pains of this

initiative. Not only did they provide a useful sounding board, they provided guidance on how to

tackle our hurdles as well as illustrating how other communities have moved past roadblocks to

successfully implement a solid reentry plan.



“Who will be served?”

An early task was creating a triage model to define which offender populations would receive

which services at reentry. The reasons were both practical and professional. On the

professional side, evidence-based practices (EBP) indicate, in short, that offenders have

different levels of risk and need and should be treated and served accordingly. Kent County

made a decision early on in the process to adhere to evidence-based practices, which

translated to triaging who would and would not receive services. This was true for both the

male and female populations.

As for the practical aspect, KCCF has experienced an average of 26,500 individuals booked into

the facility during each of the past 5 years. Even if we could grow money on trees and magically

conjure enough space to provide needed services, it would not be possible to provide

treatment and services to all detainees. The TJC team agreed early on to focus resources on

those offenders who were identified as high-risk and high-need and who would be incarcerated

long enough to receive meaningful programming and substance abuse treatment. Having

stakeholders involved with the group who were well-versed in evidence-based practices and

programming, plus consultants who helped steer these initial conversations around who should

be targeted and served by this initiative, Kent County was able to address programming and

targeting issues from the onset of the project.

“What programs and services will be offered?”

Making decisions on what programming would be provided through KCCF’s reentry efforts

could have been marked with false starts had there not been a strong sense of communication

and collaboration from the beginning. True collaboration takes a committed group of

stakeholders who are willing to hear each other out in terms of suggestions and opinions and

are respectful of the insights of other participants. Effective collaboration played out in this

initiative through the necessary give and take in terms of setting priorities for programs.

One challenge was the limited amount of classroom space available in the KCCF reentry pods.

This meant that not everyone would be able to see their programming suggestions or options

implemented. We consciously delegated a majority of the decisions on the what, when, where,

and how programming should be implemented to the programming subcommittee. It consisted

of staff from service providers, the Kent County jail, and additional stakeholders, all of whom

had the educational background and experience needed to make decisions on programming

issues. The subcommittee evaluated which evidence-based services could be provided within

the parameters of how long individuals were staying in KCCF and of available space. The



subcommittee also helped determine which services could be condensed in such a way that the

fidelity of the program was not lost. The subcommittee’s recommendation for programming

and how those services should be implemented helped the decision-making process proceed

smoothly once these discussions made it back to the larger stakeholder group.

If not for the team’s commitment to fostering an environment that was conducive to open and

frank discussion, compromise, and a little bargaining, stakeholders might have been at

loggerheads for a majority of the project. That would have caused unnecessary delays in getting

reentry services up and running for eligible offenders.

“What intervention philosophy?”

Our process for deciding which cognitive-behavioral treatment (CBT) curriculum to use in the

reentry pods at KCCF provides another example of how communication facilitates decision-

making. The decision to utilize the Thinking for a Change (T4C) CBT curriculum was not made in

a single meeting. The groundwork for using this program involved discussions held over the

course of several Program Subcommittee and full CRCC meetings.

This process included introducing EBP principles and instructing stakeholders on how EBP

could guide our choice of programming. At that point, we were ready to review the different

types of CBT curriculums that were available.

As a first step, staff from OCC, Kent County Sheriff’s Department, Network180, and others had

to collect, exchange, and analyze data to better understand the potential number of inmates

who could be served by a cognitive program. We also had to examine whether there would be

a large enough population of inmates incarcerated long enough in KCCF to justify the use of a

program such as the T4C curriculum in particular. Given the length of time necessary to provide

the T4C curriculum as intended by the developers of the program, it was important to know

that enough of the inmate population would be housed long enough in KCCF to complete the

program.

Open and honest communication between stakeholders helped smooth over disagreements

over which CBT curriculum would be most appropriate for use within reentry services at KCCF.

Having a good communication base continues to provide benefits through to the current day in

terms of providing CBT services at KCCF. Continuous feedback on the CBT program through

Program Subcommittee meetings has allowed stakeholders to ask questions about the

program,



prompted modifications to how the program is administered, and given us opportunities to

provide updates on how well the program is progressing in the reentry pods at KCCF.

2) Collaborating in Program Implementation

Just as it took time to talk through the reasons for selecting and implementing our cognitive

program at KCCF, we all agreed it would take time and collaborative effort to implement

programs. This collaborative spirit manifested itself in a number of different ways.

Staff training

Collaboration was necessary to procure the training necessary for people to act as facilitators

for the T4C curriculum. Agencies worked together to apply for the funding for facilitator

training, to schedule space for the training, and to find a convenient time to hold the training so

that individuals could attend.

Gender responsiveness

Though stakeholders had talked about the need for gender-specific programming in KCCF, there

wasn’t a separate reentry pod for women until approximately 2011. Women had been

identified as a population that needed reentry services, but there were few to no programs in

place at KCCF to provide gender-specific services. The reentry initiative in Kent County initially

focused on male offenders because of their larger population and longer length of stay. Once

the discussion began in earnest through the Program Subcommittee and CRCC regarding the

different issues affecting women offenders and their reentry experiences, we explored what

gender-specific programming was needed and how a female reentry pod could be created in

KCCF.

A big part of this effort was to educate stakeholders about the need for and importance of

trauma-based treatment options for female offenders. The project’s culture of open

communication, which includes the ability to patiently listen to others, helped some

stakeholders to hear the message that female offenders are unique and need different

programming than men.

Collaboration boosted the efforts to open a female reentry pod at KCCF. Stakeholders worked

together to collect and analyze data specific to female offenders at KCCF as well as jointly

applying for and implementing grants to fund female offender programming at KCCF.



3) Collaborating to Understand Local Data

One of the primary system elements within the TJC Model is that jail reentry initiatives are

guided and driven by an understanding of local data. In fact, the central importance of local

data and its use in a jail reentry initiative is shown in diagrams of the TJC Model. (See Figure 3.)

Data appears to act as the balancing element between the other four main elements.

Figure 3. The TJC Model

Without data from a variety of sources, the jail reentry work in Kent County most likely would

not have gained traction nor would it have had its current staying power. Data were obtained

from various sources and stakeholders as the collaborative nature of Kent County’s TJC project

helped whittle away the silo thinking that normally frames conversations regarding local agency

data.



Silo thinking often works to confine individual stakeholders to the interests of their particular

organizations, which hinders the sharing of data that could be employed in support of a project.

In the case of Kent County, we did not see our stakeholders retreating to the relative safety of

their individual silos on a large scale. Needed data was shared, discussed, and utilized through

the life of the project.

A subcommittee guided the data collection and analysis efforts related to Kent County’s TJC

work from the onset. The group met regularly to discuss the data needed to move forward on

different initiatives within the TJC project, where the data would be collected from, and who

would collect it. This helped us to get questions answered and to move ahead on those

initiatives.

Another subcommittee was tasked with the development and implementation of a proxy risk

assessment tool for use within KCCF. This was a major focus of the overall TJC project, and it

underpinned all other aspects of the new reentry project. This committee helped direct data

collection and analysis efforts to create a validated tool that would support case-by-case

decision-making for individuals to receive reentry services.

Data collection and analysis was not limited to these two groups. Agencies providing reentry

services in the context of the TJC project often collected data specific to their services and

shared this information with the larger CRCC or with other subcommittees when it came time

to evaluate the progress of these services or provide support for further grant applications.

4) Collaborating to Refine the Approach

Another of the benefits of the various involved stakeholders working towards a common goal is

the group’s continuous, shared emphasis on evaluation and system improvement. Open

communication has made possible the implementation of new ideas and initiatives.

Communication between stakeholders also has provided pathways by which concerns have

been voiced about existing jail reentry programming. Creating a respectful environment has

allowed stakeholders to voice dissenting opinions regarding the growth and direction of jail

reentry programming in Kent County without the fear that their ideas and opinions will not be

heard or taken into consideration.

By keeping an eye on how jail reentry programming continues to unfold and evolve over the

years, we have been able to continue our work over time with minimal bumps and diversions.


Page

10National Jail Exchange – http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange

Evaluation

Evaluation efforts are not based solely on the need for more formal evaluations conducted by

outside evaluators. Nor was our focus on evaluation limited to the built-in meetings held when

Kent County’s TJC coordinators were in town for site visits or additional training opportunities.

A pattern of self-evaluation of the progress and ways to improve Kent County’s jail reentry

program was evident from the very start of this process. Committee members and stakeholders

have been and continue to be encouraged to bring issues to the programming committee as

well as to the CRCC as a whole.

This spirit of collaboration also helps in conducting more formal evaluations. Without the

willingness of stakeholders to provide data, conduct research, and discuss findings, evaluation

results would fall far short of our shared goal of providing an accurate read on how well the

program is progressing.

Modifying Risk Assessment Procedure

At the onset of Kent County’s use of the proxy risk assessment, every offender who was booked

into the Kent County Correctional Facility was screened using this three-question proxy risk

assessment. This added up to approximately 17,400 individuals in 2010, the first year of use.

Upon review, we determined that the vast majority of these offenders were not being housed

long enough in KCCF to receive programming. Based on data provided by the Kent County

Sheriff’s Department, 69% of all inmates booked into the facility during 2010 stayed 5 days or

fewer in the facility. We therefore decided to concentrate staff time and energy on providing

the proxy risk assessment to individuals staying 3 or more days. In other words, the proxy

would be reserved for those offenders who were most likely to stay longer and who would be

classified by KCCF staff. This reduced the number of individuals who received a proxy risk

assessment to 7,109 individuals in 2011. It also increased the chances that those most in need

of and qualified for services would be identified swiftly by KCCF staff. By reducing the number

of proxy risk assessments done, we improved our reentry services and program delivery.


Page


Applying the Knowledge of Correctional Officers

KCCF officers played a significant role in the success of Kent County’s jail reentry efforts.

However, these staff members were originally left out of the planning and implementation

stages of this project. It became apparent through discussions during committee meetings,

planning sessions, and other trainings that the correctional officers working in the male and

female reentry pods needed to be involved in our jail reentry efforts. We realized that

correctional officers were an untapped resource that could provide much-needed insight into

how programming in the reentry pods was actually working. Officers were uniquely able to

offer suggestions on what may or may not work in the reentry pods.

This experience showed us that corrections staff need to be included in all phases of a reentry

planning initiative in order to ensure all relevant stakeholders are at the table and helping make

decisions that impact the course of the initiative.

Acquiring Grant Funding

Kent County’s jail reentry initiative started small and grew steadily as funding became available

and our service needs became known. Our collaborative approach to evaluation and tracking

other metrics has given us a stronger basis to ask for more funding and an expansion of

services. As in the case of many initiatives of this kind, financial backing is not guaranteed.

Grant funding tends to come with finite timelines, and monies provided by local governmental

or other nonprofit entities cannot be counted upon in unsure financial times—as we have

experienced over the past 6 to 7 years.

The willingness of CRCC members to work collaboratively to problem-solve funding issues has

allowed the jail reentry project in Kent County to continue well past the time that the Urban

Institute and NIC were providing technical assistance. Stakeholders have consistently worked to

provide meaningful evaluation metrics that enabled us to demonstrate the program’s

effectiveness, which in turn improves our attractiveness to funders.


Page


Recent findings from evaluations have given support to Kent County’s assertion that reentry

programming is making a difference in the reduction of recidivism.

Eighty percent (80%) of men participating in the main reentry program have avoided

rearrest after their release from incarceration. Participants had rearrest and

reconviction rates 45% and 50% lower than a matched comparison group of

nonparticipants

Participants who remained in a second men’s reentry program for longer periods of

time had significantly reduced recidivism outcomes than those who stayed for a shorter

time. Rearrests decreased by 52% for those who stayed in the program for median and

higher doses.

These findings have been used to justify continued funding and support from agencies such as

the Kent County Correctional Facility and the Kent County Office of Community Corrections.

Our collaborative approach also has helped us find new grant opportunities and apply for grant

funds. Grants have enabled Kent County’s jail reentry services to grow as new service needs

have been identified. A collaborative work environment has allowed stakeholders to bring new

service needs to the table as well as helping the larger CRCC work together to expand existing

programming or institute new services.

An example of a service expansion at KCCF is the addition of the Women’s Reentry Pod.

Various stakeholders advocated strongly for the inclusion of gender-specific programming for

female offenders.

For the men, workforce development services have been added to the array of reentry

programming as the need became clearer and service providers were found who were willing

to step up and provide this option. Quality employment is important to the successful reentry

of formerly incarcerated individuals. Finding a provider willing to begin services while offenders

were still incarcerated and to continue those services after their release was also of importance

to the success of the program. Once these pieces were aligned, Kent County was able to add

this piece to the initiative.


Page


Success Leads to Better Futures

While collaboration and communication have been of primary importance to the success of jail

reentry programming and services in Kent County, there are other important pieces to putting

together a successful initiative. As noted earlier, an initial buy-in from a core group of agencies

provided this project its initial liftoff and allowed it to move forward.

The Kent County Sheriff was an early supporter of jail reentry programming in KCCF. This

allowed for leveraging support from other organizations and agencies that could have

been reluctant to participate without the knowledge that the Sheriff and KCCF would be

supportive of this work.

Without the support of OCC and its willingness to add the CRCC as a standing

subcommittee of Kent County’s Community Corrections Advisory Board, the

administrative structure of the jail reentry work might not have been possible.

OCC staff willingness to provide data collection and data analysis assistance from the

very start of the project was another ingredient that helped grow this successful project.

Adding in additional stakeholders has worked to widen the input and broaden the

cooperation that is important to keeping the jail reentry initiative in Kent County afloat.

The Women’s Resource Center, Arbor Circle for individuals requiring case management

and substance abuse services, and Hope Network for workforce development services

are three agencies that joined our initiative later on.

All of the efforts and hard work put into jail reentry in Kent County by the stakeholders and

other interested parties has created an initiative that has staying power. The jail reentry

programming initiated through NIC’s technical assistance to Kent County continues through to

the current day. Not only did we meet that initial goal, but we also expanded TJC’s impact to

include gender-specific programming for women and case management programming for

individuals transitioning back into the community.


Page


Even if we took for granted the hard work undertaken by stakeholders to ensure the success of Kent

County’s jail reentry project, none of the growth in this initiative (let alone getting it off the ground in

the first place) would have been possible without strong commitments to open and honest

communication along with an adherence to collaborating together at every step along the way.

Communication and collaboration are the glue that continues to make jail reentry work strong in Kent

County. Other local or county-wide governments that want to accomplish something equally ambitious

and far-reaching would be wise to ensure these elements are present in their own jail reentry initiatives.

Without communication and collaboration, efforts to initiate or improve upon jail reentry in any

community are bound to falter and eventually fail.

This initiative has begun to show promising signs in improving the lives of participants as well as

reducing the recidivism rate in Kent County. Participants have commented to correction officers and

service providers about the positive impact the reentry program has had on their lives. Examples include

increased confidence to get and hold a job and a feeling of pride of in completing their GED.

Additionally, the positive impact of Kent County’s jail reentry effort can be measured by the continued

involvement of stakeholders over the years. Sometimes initiatives like this falter after the consultants

have left and the initial excitement has waned. Reentry in Kent County has grown and improved since

the initial planning phase ended because of the continued effort and support of the stakeholders. Many

of these stakeholders were present from the beginning of the initiative, meaning that they have given

over 5 years to this program. Their commitment not only has helped support reentry through the years,

it has fostered a culture of reentry in Kent County. This has borne fruit not only locally but also

statewide, as Kent County has become known as an innovator and leader in jail reentry issues within the

state of Michigan.

For more information, contact Andrew Verheek, Kent County Community Corrections Planner, at (616)

632-5367 or [email protected].


Page


Resources

Transition from Jail to the Community. [Web page]. U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of

Corrections. http://nicic.gov/jailtransition

TJC Implementation Toolkit. [Web page]. U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections.

http://nicic.gov/TJCToolkit2

Document available at:

http://community.nicic.gov/blogs/national_jail_exchange/archive/2014/07/09/jail-reentry-planning-a-

little-collaboration-and-communication-go-a-long-way.aspx

The National Jail Exchange is an ongoing electronic journal focusing on providing information to jails

practitioners. This blog is funded by a contract from the National Institute of Corrections, U.S.

Department of Justice. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the authors and do

not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

To write an article or to learn more about the National Jail Exchange, visit the homepage for this journal

at: http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange.

http://community.nicic.gov/blogs/national_jail_exchange/archive/2014/07/09/jail-reentry-planning-a-little-collaboration-and-communication-go-a-long-way.aspx

http://community.nicic.gov/blogs/national_jail_exchange/archive/2014/07/09/jail-reentry-planning-a-little-collaboration-and-communication-go-a-long-way.aspx

http://nicic.gov/NationalJailExchange

jail reentry planning: a little collaboration and ... · jail reentry planning: a little...

Documents