Planning and assessing a Law Enforcement Reentry Strategy A report prepared by the Council of State Governments Justice Center and the Police Executive Research Forum for the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services U.S. Department of Justice Matt Schwarzfeld Deirdre Mead Weiss Martha Plotkin Laura Draper [Justice Center - The Council of State Governemnets Logo] [Police Executive Research Forum Logo] [U.S. Department of Justice Logo] [Office of Community Oriented Policing Services Logo] This report was prepared by the Council of State Governments Justice Center, in partnership with the Police Executive Research Forum. It was completed under Cooperative Agreement 2005–HS–WX–K007 awarded by the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions contained herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice, the members of the Council of State Governments, or the Police Executive Research Forum. While every effort was made to reach consensus and represent reviewers’ recommendations, individual opinions may differ from the statements made in the document. References to specific companies, products, or services should not be considered an endorsement by the authors or the U.S. Department of Justice. Rather, the references are illustrations to supplement discussion of the issues. The U.S. Department of Justice reserves a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use, and authorize others to use, this publication for Federal Government purposes. This publication may be freely distributed and used for noncommercial and educational purposes. Web sites and sources referenced in this publication provided useful information at the time of this writing. The authors do not necessarily endorse the information of the sponsoring organization or other materials from these sources. Council of State Governments Justice Center, New York 10005 © 2008 by the Council of State Governments Justice Center Cover and interior design by Dave Williams. Group photo on cover by Leonard A. Sipes, Jr., Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency. Contents Acknowledgments v Executive Summary ix Introduction 1 Ten Elements Laying the Foundation Element One: Viability 13 Element Two: Stakeholder Involvement 21 Developing the Initiative Element Three: Initiative’s Priority Population 35 Element Four: Mission, Goals, and Performance Measures 51 Element Five: Initiative’s Terms and Participant Identification 61 Implementing the Plan Element Six: Information Exchange and Systems Collaboration 71 Element Seven: Transition Planning 83 Element Eight: Enhanced Supervision 91 Making It Stick Element Nine: Organizational Capacity 101 Element Ten: Sustainability 111 Appendix A 121 Appendix B-1 123 Appendix B-2 125 Appendix B-3 131 Appendix C 135 Notes 137 Acknowledgments This toolkit could not have been written without the leadership of the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (the COPS Office), particularly from Carl Peed, Director; Pamela Cammarata, then-Deputy Director; and Katherine McQuay, Senior Supervisory Policy Analyst. The authors appreciate the ongoing support that Chuck Wexler, Executive Director, Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) has provided. The PERF team was led by Director of Training & Technical Assistance Drew Diamond, who as a former police chief, made sure the toolkit would be of practical value to law enforcement professionals and their reentry partners. He provided expert reviews on every outline, draft, and program example, as well as leading on-site work in several jurisdictions. As always, PERF’s standards ensured that the publication would meet the needs of policing practitioners. Many law enforcement and corrections personnel participated in the initial information-gathering focus groups the project team held in February 2005 and September 2005. Though there are too many of them to list here, each should know that his or her contributions significantly advanced the project. Their frank and honest discussions about their successes and challenges in implementing reentry initiatives helped frame the core elements to an effective strategy. Thanks are also due to the personnel of the Boston (Massachusetts) Re- Entry Initiative, the Sacramento (California) Parole Intervention Team, and the Savannah (Georgia) Impact Program for taking the time to host an on-site review of their work and to explain how their collaborative multiagency efforts are increasing the likelihood that released individuals make a successful transition into the community. In particular, thanks are due to Blake Norton, formerly of the Boston Police Department, Lieutenant Steve Campas, Sacramento Police Department, and Demetra Butler, of the Savannah Impact Program, for working with the project team on these visits. The various stakeholders involved in these efforts provided critical perspectives and helped the project team identify the broad range of reentry services that can be secured through coordinated efforts. The project advisory board members, listed alphabetically below, gave generously of their time and expertise—whether by participating in lengthy and lively meetings to discuss the toolkit, reviewing drafts within their area of expertise, or both. Their feedback helped to strengthen the document and make it more user-friendly.* * All titles and agency affiliations for advisory board members and site visit participants reflect the positions they held at the time of their involvement in the project. • Jim Bueermann, Chief, Redlands (California) Police Department • Demetra Butler, Coordinator, Savannah (Georgia) Impact Program • Edward Flynn, Commissioner, Springfield (Massachusetts) Police Department • Gary Hinzman, Director, Cedar Rapids (Iowa) Department of Correctional Services • Justin Jones, Director, Oklahoma Department of Corrections • Gary Kempker, Senior Manager, Center for Effective Public Policy • Nancy LaVigne, Senior Research Associate, Justice Policy Center, Urban Institute • Stefan LoBuglio, Chief, Pre-Release and Reentry Services, Montgomery County (Maryland) Department of Correction and Rehabilitation Pre-Release Center • Ron Miller, Chief, Topeka (Kansas) Police Department • Drew Molloy, Senior Policy Advisor for Corrections, Bureau of Justice Assistance • Blake Norton, Director, Public Affairs and Community Programs, Boston (Massachusetts) Police Department • John Petrila, Chairman, Florida Mental Health Institute’s Department of Mental Health Law and Policy • Lee Ragsdale, Coordinator, Knoxville (Tennessee) Public Safety Initiative • Michelle Shaw, Acting Special Assistant to the Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance • Vincent Talucci, Senior Program Manager, International Association of Chiefs of Police • Carl Wicklund, Executive Director, American Probation and Parole Association The project staff also thanks all those who participated in on-site pilot tests in Wichita (Kansas) and Montgomery County (Maryland), providing feedback and sharing their first-hand experiences with reentry. • Alice Afifi, Supervisor, Warrant Control Section, Montgomery County (Maryland) Police Department • Sergeant Edward Brower, Community Policing Supervisor, Patrol North Bureau, Wichita (Kansas) Police Department • Captain Christina Faass, Director, Personnel Division, Montgomery County (Maryland) Police Department • Captain John Fitzgerald, Chief of Staff, Office of the Chief of Police, Montgomery County (Maryland) Police Department • Sally Frey, Director, Sedgwick County (Kansas) Re-Entry Program, Kansas Department of Corrections • Lieutenant Michael Mancuso, Deputy Director, Major Crimes Division, Montgomery County (Maryland) Police Department • Sergeant Gerald McFarland, Patrol Supervisor, 3rd District, Montgomery County (Maryland) Police Department • PO3 Robert Musser, C-SAFE grant coordinator, 4th District, Montgomery County (Maryland) Police Department • Lieutenant Douglas Nolte, Community Policing Commander, Patrol North Bureau, Wichita (Kansas) Police Department • Captain Felecia Norris, Commander, Patrol North Bureau, Wichita (Kansas) Police Department • Officer Courtney Pierce, Community Policing Division, Wichita (Kansas) Police Department • Lieutenant Ronald Smith, Deputy Director, Special Operations Division, Montgomery County (Maryland) Police Department • Deputy Chief Tom Stolz, Chief, Investigations Division, Wichita (Kansas) Police Department • Lieutenant Michael Wahl, Executive Assistant to the Chief of the Management Services Bureau, Montgomery County (Maryland) Police Department • Sergeant Gregory Wise, Supervisor, Repeat Offender Section, Special Investigations Division, Montgomery County (Maryland) Police Department A special thanks is also due to Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center Director Mike Thompson for his insights and support in determining the scope and direction of this publication. Then-Project Director Betsey Nevins’ vision and guidance also helped shape the team’s strategies and early drafts of the materials. Her understanding of the complex reentry issues put the project on a successful track. The CSG Justice Center was also privileged to have advisory board member Blake Norton join the staff to work on reentry and other law enforcement issues. She was instrumental in developing the various drafts and conducting site visits. Any contributions the toolkit makes to advancing reentry collaborations are due to the involvement and diverse perspectives of these many experts. Executive Summary The Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center partnered with the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), with support from the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (the COPS Office), to develop a report that focuses on law enforcement reentry strategies. Planning and Assessing a Law Enforcement Reentry Strategy integrates information on effective practices with an interactive assessment to form a toolkit for designing and evaluating reentry approaches involving law enforcement agencies. Purpose of the Toolkit The aim of this publication is to initiate an informed discussion among law enforcement agencies and community partners regarding reentry strategies. This material does not constitute a step-by-step guide in creating and implementing a reentry program but rather provides an overview of topics that should be considered and addressed within that development process. Recognizing that each jurisdiction is unique, this toolkit allows each agency to assess its unique circumstances and develop a plan of action that best suits its situation. What is the problem with reentry? Reentry by the numbers 700,000 Nearly 700,000 people are released from U.S. prisons annually.[1] 9 million More than 9 million people are released from jail each year.[2] 95 percent At least 95 percent of all state prisoners will eventually return to the community.[3] 68 percent In 15 states, 68 percent of state prisoners were re-arrested within three years of release and 52 percent returned to prison for a new crime or a technical violation of parole conditions.[4] $53 million Reentry failures are expensive: for example, in fiscal year 2006, probation and parole revocations in Kansas accounted for 65 percent of its prison admissions, consuming 27 percent of prison capacity at a cost to taxpayers of $53 million annually.[5] For law enforcement professionals these statistics confirm what they have long believed: officers are arresting and re-arresting the same individuals in their jurisdiction time and time again. Despite the huge investment of law enforcement, court, and corrections resources, spending on traditional criminal justice responses are not reducing recidivism rates. When reentry efforts fail, public safety is threatened, returning individuals and their families suffer, neighborhoods decline, and taxpayers foot the bill for reincarceration. Today’s high rates of recidivism point to significant public safety challenges for jurisdictions of all sizes. These rates also reflect the reality that people returning home from prison or jail still face a number of significant challenges that prevent them from reestablishing themselves in the community, maintaining legitimate employment, and averting future criminal acts. Although some people argue that providing services to people leaving prisons and jails is coddling these individuals and not a good use of resources, the costs of their reoffending and reincarceration make it clear that investments in services that can reduce recidivism will produce cost-effective results and positive outcomes for public safety. In recent years, a diverse group of law enforcement leaders, other public safety professionals, and social service providers, as well as a bipartisan group of policymakers, have recognized the need to develop collaborative strategies that not only support the reintegration of people coming from prisons and jails back into the community but also hold them accountable for their actions while improving public safety. These stakeholders recognize that no single agency can effectively address the reentry challenge. Through true partnerships, however, agencies can leverage their resources and expertise to provide effective reentry supports, enhanced supervision, and incentives, particularly for those at a high risk of reoffending. Why should law enforcement get involved in reentry? Reentry is a critical strategy for law enforcement and partner agencies’ efforts to prevent future crimes and victimizations. It involves a natural extension of law enforcement’s community policing activities and strong partnerships with stakeholders. Using proven problem-solving approaches, law enforcement professionals collaboratively identify the factors that drive recidivism, analyze the causes, and then develop and continually evaluate efforts that address reentry issues. Law enforcement agencies are key partners in any reentry initiative. These agencies can contribute significantly to the reentry process through a wide range of activities that increase the likelihood of a successful transition to the community for those individuals returning from jails or prisons; examples are detailed throughout this publication, and some are listed below. Examples of law enforcement contributions to a reentry initiative • Enhancing surveillance of recently released high-risk individuals • Contributing to incentives and supports for complying with conditions of release • Working with the community in preparing for people returning to vulnerable neighborhoods • Focusing law enforcement efforts and resources on particular places and situations • Exchanging information and intelligence with public-safety partner agencies involved in reentry, as well as with community partners • Connecting returning individuals to services when appropriate and assisting victims of crime[6] Through these activities, law enforcement strengthens its relationships with community leaders and service providers, while increasing information sharing between the law enforcement agency and other organizations. The resulting benefits accrue not only to the reentry initiative but also to the entire law enforcement agency’s crime prevention and public safety efforts—including bolstering the work of gang, domestic violence, and other departmental units. How This Toolkit Works Planning and Assessing a Law Enforcement Reentry Strategy serves as both an implementation and a self-assessment guide. As such, law enforcement professionals can and should use this document to repeatedly chart their progress. It is not designed to be used as a scorecard by which a law enforcement agency’s success is measured. Rather, law enforcement agencies interested in reentry can use this document to help plan and implement a reentry strategy; and agencies with existing reentry initiatives can use the materials to continuously assess and enhance their efforts, set priorities, and plan new aspects of an approach. This toolkit is organized into 10 elements that constitute an effective, comprehensive approach to any reentry initiative: 1. Viability 2. Stakeholder Involvement 3. Initiative’s Priority Population 4. Mission, Goals, and Performance Measures 5. Initiative’s Terms and Participant Identification 6. Information Exchange and Systems Collaboration 7. Transition Planning 8. Enhanced Supervision 9. Organizational Capacity 10.Sustainability The elements are placed in this order to loosely mirror a planning and implementation process, but some activities will overlap or be ongoing. The elements are not in a strictly sequential order, but rather are grouped into four main stages that represent the program development process—“Laying the Foundation” (elements one and two), “Developing the Initiative” (elements three, four, and five), “Implementing the Plan” (elements six, seven and eight), and “Making It Stick” (elements nine and ten). This organization provides a general roadmap that still allows for jurisdiction-specific variations through the process. While certain aspects of each element can be found within any comprehensive reentry initiative involving law enforcement, no agency is likely to have incorporated all the recommended features, because jurisdictions have unique needs and resources. Each element has a policy statement, followed by a discussion of how that policy can be put into practice, as well as recommendations for specific activities and relevant examples from the field. Each element then provides a set of self-assessment questions that allow law enforcement personnel to quickly gauge the extent to which they believe the agency is engaged in specific activities. Each section has a notes field that prompts users to consider and write out their strengths, weaknesses, and next steps. Finally, each element includes a list of selected resources for users who want additional information and guidance on particular topics within each element to assist in their research and planning efforts. Through repeated use, the toolkit’s materials on the 10 elements of an effective, comprehensive reentry initiative will enable law enforcement agencies to focus on individuals who are most likely to reoffend, to document their strategies, and to gain lasting support from policymakers and others who are essential to an initiative’s success and sustainability. Any law enforcement agency whose community is receiving people released from prisons and jails knows it is responsible for trying to prevent reoffending and improving conditions in vulnerable neighborhoods. This toolkit is meant to facilitate the type of collaborative initiative that can accomplish both. Assessing Your Agency’s Reentry Strategy This toolkit helps users examine the extent to which their law enforcement agency engages in specific activities to support reentry policies. Each element includes broad assessment questions such as the following, which are then explored in more detail: • Does your agency work with partners to create short-term and longterm goals as well as ways to measure them? • Does your agency institutionalize information-sharing efforts with partners? • Do your agency’s reentry initiative staff members participate in joint training efforts with partners? • Does your agency share information with corrections professionals that relate to and support their in-house efforts? • Does your agency refer participants to available services within the initiative? • Does your agency’s chief executive officer support the initiative and encourage its maintenance and sustainability? • Does your agency have a strategy for responding to negative events involving initiative participants? Introduction Law enforcement professionals across the United States share the same problem: they have significant numbers of people returning from prisons and jails to their communities, often to a small number of neighborhoods already hit hard by crime and poverty. For a variety of reasons, the majority of these returning prisoners will likely commit new crimes or violate the terms of their supervision within a few years—many shortly after their release. In response, an increasing number of law enforcement leaders are looking to reentry programs as part of a comprehensive effort to prevent reoffending and victimizations. By building on the partnerships forged during decades of community policing successes, law enforcement agencies are finding themselves uniquely positioned to engage in reentry initiatives that can improve public safety, help the families and victims of people who have been incarcerated, and make better use of taxpayer dollars and community resources. This publication is meant to assist these leaders, their staff, and partnering agencies. Who Should Use the Toolkit? Planning and Assessing a Law Enforcement Reentry Strategy is a user-friendly toolkit primarily intended for law enforcement professionals. It also is valuable for their potential or current reentry partners: • Law enforcement professionals in agencies considering or planning a reentry strategy can use the guide and accompanying assessment questions as a detailed overview of issues and tasks to consider; as their work unfolds, they can self-assess their progress continually. • Law enforcement professionals in agencies that have already implemented reentry strategies can quickly examine the extent to which their agency engages in recommended activities and can identify gaps and weaknesses that can be addressed through collaboration with community and criminal justice partners. • Community partners in a reentry collaborative can familiarize themselves with law enforcement’s potential reentry roles and responsibilities, frame questions to ask their law enforcement partners, and get a better sense of when they can work together. Partners can also present the guide to local law enforcement executives as the starting point for a multidisciplinary public safety effort that focuses on people released from prison or jail. Why Should Reentry Be a Law Enforcement Priority? Nearly 700,000 people are released annually from state prisons in this country, and more than 9 million individuals are released from U.S. jails.[7] Their transition from prison or jail back into the community—referred to as reentry—is unsuccessful, more often than not. The reality is that the majority of people released from correctional facilities commit new crimes or violate their conditions of release and are reincarcerated. More than two-thirds of state prisoners studied (68 percent) were re-arrested within 3 years of their release and more than half (52 percent) returned to prison for a new crime or a technical violation of postrelease supervision.[8] People released from prisons and jails encounter a number of significant barriers to successful reentry. They often have little education and few marketable job skills.[9] Generally, they return to the neighborhoods they came from or similar locales that are ill-equipped to receive them, where job opportunities, appropriate housing options, physical and mental health care, and drug treatment services are particularly limited.[10] As law enforcement agencies know, these challenges to successful reentry can have significant implications for public safety, for released individuals and their families, and for the vulnerable neighborhoods where they return. Recidivism-related costs eclipse other public health and safety spending The high rates with which people released from prisons and jails return to prison have major public health implications, as well as a tremendous impact on taxpayers’ spending as prison populations continue to grow. Between 1995 and 2005, the rate of prison incarceration rose markedly.[11] Current estimates indicate that for the first time in history, more than one in every 100 adults in America are in prison or jail.[12] Communities across the country bear the cost of this extraordinary rate of prison growth. Between 1982 and 2003, combined federal, state, and local corrections budgets rose from about $9.5 billion to nearly $61 billion, a 423 percent increase; this amounts to an increase from $40 to $209 per U.S. resident.[13] In Kansas, for example, this prison growth is due in part to probation and parole revocations that accounted for 65 percent of prison admissions, consuming 27 percent of prison capacity at a cost to state taxpayers of $53 million in 2006.[14] If current policies and practices do not change, taxpayers are expected to pay as much as $27.5 billion during the next 5 years above what they already spend on prisons—funding that will be unavailable for other public safety and health initiatives, education, or additional community needs.[15] Cost-effective way to reduce crime It is not clear that the growth in prison populations has resulted in increased public safety.16 In fact, recent research suggests that this enormous investment may not be the most cost-effective way to reduce crime. While increasing admissions to prison can lead to decreasing crime rates when the incarceration rates are relatively low, at a certain point, higher numbers of prison admissions may yield diminishing returns for public safety.[17] As new data emerge highlighting increases in violent crime in some jurisdictions across the country,* policymakers have expressed a growing interest in having law enforcement play a vital role in initiating or invigorating reentry efforts that can reduce the chances that individuals will commit new crimes after their release or fail to complete the conditions of their sentence. They also recognize that law enforcement agencies engaged in reentry are better able to identify and watch those released individuals whose actions may warrant re-arrest. The Benefits to Police Departments and Their Role in Reentry Many law enforcement experts have noted that a focus on reentry is good crime prevention and control. Yet no agency can do the job alone. A range of criminal justice and community-based entities must address the many challenges that affect successful reintegration. By developing collaborative strategies to respond to the high numbers of men and women returning from correctional facilities, law enforcement agencies gain (1) stronger partnerships with other criminal justice agencies and local social service organizations, (2) opportunities to share responsibility for deterring individuals returning from prison from committing new crimes, (3) chances to pool limited resources, and (4) better information sharing and intelligence gathering that can improve even crime-fighting efforts unrelated to reentry. Involvement can strengthen community policing work, particularly in vulnerable neighborhoods, and support many other goals as well. In places where law enforcement professionals are involved in an initiative, reentry partners have noted that they are a powerful ally. Patrol officers, through their work on their beats, may have knowledge of individuals who have been incarcerated and their associates, gangs, and neighborhood issues that present obstacles to successful reintegration. Law enforcement officers and executives have existing relationships with public and private agencies and service providers that are essential in addressing reentry challenges. Furthermore, as respected leaders in the community, law enforcement executives can lend credibility to this work and help convene and inspire stakeholders. Though only a relatively small number of law enforcement agencies across the nation have implemented reentry strategies, in these communities policing professionals have collaborated with corrections and community partners to enhance supervision and service provision for those people released from incarceration who are at high risk of committing a new crime. The nature of these collaborative relationships and roles for law enforcement in reentry has varied greatly by community to meet the unique needs and resources of a particular jurisdiction. Early research on police-corrections partnerships by the National Institute of Justice (1999) identified three collaborative strategies that provide a role for law enforcement: (1) fugitive apprehension units, (2) specialized enforcement partnership, and (3) interagency problem-solving partnerships.* More recently, research by the Urban Institute and the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) has identified a variety of roles for law enforcement in a reentry partnership, as well as some key considerations for implementing these roles effectively. These roles include increasing surveillance, encouraging compliance, engaging the community, focusing on places/situations, exchanging information, connecting individuals to service providers, and assisting crime victims. Planning and Assessing a Law Enforcement Reentry Strategy builds on this earlier work documenting the law enforcement role in a reentry initiative by providing a tool to help agencies identify their specific jurisdictional needs and then designing or enhancing detailed responses to reentry challenges. Re-Entry Policy Council Helps Define Law Enforcement Role Increasing attention to reentry issues resulted in the formation in 2001 of the Re-Entry Policy Council (RPC)—a broad group of corrections, law enforcement, workforce, health, housing, family, community, and victim experts from across the country.† In the landmark Report of the Re-Entry Policy Council, RPC members provided a comprehensive overview of the process and hundreds of consensus recommendations for innovative, multisystem collaborative reentry strategies.[18] Members of the RPC recognized that law enforcement involvement can reduce the chances that individuals will commit new crimes after their release or fail to meet the conditions of community supervision. These national experts realized that reentry is a natural focus for law enforcement agencies committed to enhancing public safety in their communities. Police departments with experience in problem solving and partnering with the community already have in place the building blocks for a reentry strategy—and may even have worked on reentry without referring to it as such. * A 2006 report by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) compared rates of violent crimes between 2005 and 2006 across 56 law enforcement agencies. In these agencies, homicides increased by 2.89 percent, robberies by 6.48 percent, and aggravated assaults with a deadly weapon by 1.28 percent. This study looked at general crime trends, not just reentry populations. See PERF, A Gathering Storm—Violent Crime in America (Washington, D.C.: PERF, 2006). In 2007, PERF released data on the increases in violent crime in those same 56 jurisdictions between January 2005 and December 2006. See PERF, Violent Crime in America: Twenty-four Months of Alarming Trends (Washington, D.C.: PERF, 2007). † The Reentry Policy Council (as of 2007 spelled without the hyphen) is coordinated by the Council of State Governments Justice Center. Project partners include the Police Executive Research Forum, American Probation and Parole Association, Association of State Correctional Administrators, Corporation for Supportive Housing, National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials, National Association of State Alcohol/Drug Abuse Directors, National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors, National Association of Workforce Boards, National Center for State Courts, and Urban Institute. The Report of the Re-Entry Policy Council, and other RPC materials, can be accessed at www.reentrypolicy.org. Introduction 3 Reports on Law Enforcement’s Roles in Reentry Partnerships In 2006 the Urban Institute identified seven community policing reentry activities: (1) Increasing Surveillance—Police can participate in joint police/probation or police/parole teams or other monitoring efforts. (2) Encouraging Compliance—Police can participate in meetings with people released from prison and jail and stress the consequences of reoffending. (3) Engaging the Community—Police can educate the community about reentry and engage the community in problem-solving efforts on this issue. (4) Focusing on Places, Situations, and Contexts—Police can apply situational crime prevention to reentry. (5) Exchanging Information and Intelligence— Police and institutional corrections can share information, such as classification records, gang information, and release dates. (6) Connecting to Social Services—Police can direct individuals to specific social service providers that can meet their needs. (7) Assisting Victims of Crime—Police can engage victims and victim organizations in the reentry effort. The IACP recently provided an overview of reentry from a law enforcement perspective, including benefits and challenges, as well as key considerations for law enforcement executives. The IACP report lists major steps and issues for agencies that have decided to respond to the high numbers of people returning to the community from correctional facilities and highlights law enforcement agencies that have existing reentry strategies.* * Readers interested in learning more about the value of police participation in a reentry initiative should consult the IACP’s reentry resources, supported by the COPS Office and the Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of the Justice. Developed on a parallel track, these include the report from the IACP’s 2006 National Policy Summit on Offender Re-Entry, the policy guide Building an Offender Reentry Program: A Guide for Law Enforcement (2007), and a DVD titled “Offender Reentry: A Police Perspective” (2006). IACP’s reentry resources are available at www.theiacp.org/. Readers will also find valuable guidance in the Urban Institute’s Prisoner Reentry and Community Policing: Strategies for Enhancing Public Safety (2006), which highlights the relationship between prisoner reentry and community policing; the Urban Institute’s work on this topic has also been supported by the COPS Office. This guide is available at www.urban.org/publications/411061.html. Introduction Making the Case for Law Enforcement’s Role in Reentry Reentry is good crime prevention A reentry strategy can accomplish the following: • Focus resources—both community supervision and services— on a population that is at high risk of committing crimes • Promote collaboration with other agencies and community groups that can benefit all law enforcement efforts • Foster information sharing among criminal justice agencies that can make efforts more efficient and effective • Increase trust between the police and the community Law enforcement is a good reentry partner Law enforcement can contribute the following: • Criminal intelligence, patrol functions and capacities, and knowledge of the community to direct reentry services and supervision resources to men and women at risk of committing new crimes • Problem-solving skills to address crime repeatedly committed by the same individuals and demonstrate to elected officials, the media, and the public that the initiative has both enforcement and prevention components† * Dale Parent and Brad Snyder, Police-Corrections Partnerships, NCJ 1725047 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1999). Authors define “specialized enforcement partnerships” as police-corrections collaborations to address specific problems in the community, such as suppressing criminally active gangs or reducing firearms violence; and “interagency problem-solving partnerships” as collaborations that identify problems of mutual concern and allocate resources to design and implement solutions. † This information is based largely on the IACP and Urban Institute resources referenced above, as well as on feedback from advisory board members recognized in the Acknowledgments section and the findings of the Reentry Policy Council. Introduction 5 Creating a Toolkit Law Enforcement Will Find Practical To ensure that this toolkit would be of practical value to law enforcement professionals and their potential reentry partners, it builds on the solid foundation of a variety of existing resources—especially the work of the CSG Justice Center’s Reentry Policy Council.* The Justice Center and PERF also held several focus groups with local leaders in policing, corrections, and community services, as well as national experts on this topic, to identify and describe the key elements of a law enforcement reentry strategy. To research these issues, the project team also conducted site visits to three police departments’ reentry initiatives: the Boston (Massachusetts) Re-Entry Initiative, the Savannah (Georgia) Impact Program, and the Sacramento (California) Parolee Orientation Program. Two agencies, the Wichita (Kansas) Police Department and Montgomery County (Maryland) Police Department, also reviewed the toolkit and provided feedback on how it can be used in planning and assessing a law enforcement reentry strategy. How to Use This Toolkit Planning and Assessing a Law Enforcement Reentry Strategy is organized into 10 topics or elements. Meant to represent the building blocks of a reentry strategy that involves law enforcement, the elements each contain the following sections: • A policy statement, presented in italics, which provides a definition and guiding principle for that element. • A detailed discussion of the topics raised by the policy statement, including recommendations for implementing the policy. This section includes the following: – Sidebars that provide important background information and supplemental discussion – Quotations from professionals with expertise in law enforcement and reentry issues from a variety of backgrounds – Program examples describing how law enforcement agencies and partners have addressed a specific recommendation or point of discussion • A set of assessment questions that guides respondents through a process of examining the extent to which their law enforcement agency engages in specific activities to support the policy statement and that highlights key planning considerations. • A notes field that allows the respondent to reflect on and write out the agency’s strengths, weaknesses, and next steps after reading the discussion and completing the accompanying assessment questions. This component facilitates discussions regarding priorities in the light of the full range of potential law enforcement roles in reentry, as well as specific local circumstances. • A list of resources to help agencies learn more about the important issues identified as needing development or enhancement. The resource lists that follow each element in this guide are not meant to be exhaustive; rather, they are intended to provide examples of the types of materials available, with a particular emphasis on publications related to law enforcement. The topic headings in each resource section parallel those used in the assessment questions. As users identify areas in which they would like to begin or enhance their efforts, they can readily find the corresponding resources by category at the end of each element. * This document complements other recent projects funded by the Department of Justice on the role of law enforcement in prisoner reentry, including the IACP and Urban Institute resources referenced throughout. Many of the same police professionals and subject matter experts who contributed to the other publications focused on the role of law enforcement in the reentry process also generously provided information for the development of this assessment tool. Advisors to this and the other projects reiterated recommendations that are reflected in all these reports. This overlap confirms that the advice being given from the field is consistent and reliable—but rests with a relatively small number of individuals and agencies doing comprehensive work in reentry. Answering the questions The assessment questions provide an opportunity for readers to react immediately to the discussion and identify specific needs. By answering the questions, the toolkit user can see at a glance where there are potential gaps in the law enforcement role and the particular areas for improvement. The assessment questions also serve to highlight future policy considerations and implementation planning. For this exercise to be of any utility, readers must be honest in their responses. The guide and assessment tool can and should be used repeatedly. Continuous analysis and self-evaluation can help readers determine whether their responses should change over time as they try new approaches, add partners, or make other significant changes to their reentry initiatives. For law enforcement users, it may be useful for a cross-section of law enforcement executives, their staff, and reentry partners to read the document, answer the assessment questions, and meet to discuss their findings. This ensures that all levels and views of an agency are represented and that partners’ perspectives are included. The self-assessment results are not meant to be a scorecard and are not necessarily a reflection of the quality or success of an agency or initiative; rather, they are meant to help readers identify strengths and weaknesses at a glance and then determine where to make modifications and set priorities.* * Though the assessment questions have been reviewed by focus group and site visit participants as well as by independent reviewers, they have not been validated statistically. Introduction 7 Tailoring the ten elements Planning and Assessing a Law Enforcement Reentry Strategy does not get into the detailed steps of how to implement each aspect of an element; it provides general guidelines that readers should consider when tailoring responses to the unique needs and capacity of an agency and its jurisdiction. There is no onesize- fits-all solution to reentry; program models must be based on available resources and stakeholders. The 10 elements that follow summarize the potential activities of law enforcement in reentry and position the user to plan the next level of action and implementation. They place the necessary tools into the hands of law enforcement professionals, allowing them to identify areas for improvement and enhance their responses to the complex problem of reentry. 1. Viability—Law enforcement executives determine the current level of support for collaborative reentry strategies among local elected and appointed officials, the community, and the law enforcement agency. They take steps, where necessary, to develop initial and ongoing support for this work by engaging and educating partners and staff. 2. Stakeholder Involvement—Law enforcement collaborates with a broad range of individuals and agencies from different disciplines and backgrounds that have a role or significant interest in helping people successfully transition from prison or jail into the community. 3. Initiative’s Priority Population—Law enforcement and its partners conduct an analysis to identify a reentry population that is both at high risk of committing a new crime and likely to benefit from the intensive supervision and services that the collaborative can offer. 4. Mission, Goals, and Performance Measures—Law enforcement and its partners define a mission for the reentry collaborative, enumerate specific goals, and identify ways to measure progress toward these goals. 5. Initiative’s Terms and Participant Identification—Law enforcement and its partners design parameters governing how participants will be involved in services and supervision and procedures for how participants will be identified and enrolled. 6. Information Exchange and Systems Collaboration—Law enforcement and its partners create systems for appropriately exchanging information and for routine collaboration and communication. Formal agreements define the parameters of information exchanges and sustain the partnerships. 7. Transition Planning—Before an individual is released, law enforcement and corrections collaborate with each other and other partners to exchange key information and prepare the individual, family members, victims of the crime(s), and the community for his or her release. Introduction 8. Enhanced Supervision—Law enforcement supports postrelease surveillance and supervision by sharing information to enforce the law and terms of supervision, helping discourage individuals from committing future crimes, and engaging service providers and the public to support successful reintegration. 9. Organizational Capacity—Law enforcement leaders who recognize the value of participating in a reentry initiative create an organizational structure to support it. 10. Sustainability—Beginning in a reentry initiative’s earliest stages of development— or law enforcement’s initial involvement—law enforcement leaders work with other policymakers to help ensure the effort’s longterm survival. The elements are placed in this order to loosely mirror a planning and implementation process, but some activities will overlap or be ongoing. The elements are not in a strictly sequential order, but rather are organized into four main stages that represent the program development process—“Laying the Foundation” (elements one and two), “Developing the Initiative” (elements three, four, and five), “Implementing the Plan” (elements six, seven, and eight), and “Making It Stick” (elements nine and ten). This presentation provides a general roadmap that still allows for jurisdiction-specific variations. Though certain aspects of each element will be present in any comprehensive reentry initiative with law enforcement participation, no agency will likely have in place all aspects of each of the 10 elements. Indeed, it may not be appropriate for law enforcement to participate in some of the described activities, given local conditions and resources. The elements are meant to provide an ideal, and therefore inventory an ambitious number of possible activities for local law enforcement agencies to consider. As with all new initiatives, it may be more appropriate for the law enforcement agency and its partners to begin with a modest effort and then build on those successes rather than take on a large number of tasks at once, which can often be overwhelming and undermine its continuation. This document, therefore, allows readers to consider their priorities in light of the full range of potential law enforcement roles in reentry and their own local characteristics, needs, and resources. Planning and Assessing a Law Enforcement Reentry Strategy will be most useful for readers who acknowledge that people released from prison and jail require a combination of supervision and support, and no agency alone can comprehensively manage the process. Executives in law enforcement agencies already working in this area agree that any reentry strategy requires close collaboration with other criminal justice, health and social service systems, as well as community partners. In particular, law enforcement executives should recognize the need to sustain a partnership with corrections agencies, which, unlike other organizations participating in the initiative, are involved in nearly every aspect of prison and jail reentry.* The authors hope that Planning and Assessing a Law Enforcement Reentry Strategy will help leaders and their agencies improve their understanding of—and foster collaboration with—the multiple systems affected by people returning from correctional facilities, ultimately increasing public safety and strengthening communities. * The degree to which corrections agencies are at the center of any reentry initiative is perhaps best illustrated by the fact that they are the greatest focus of the policy recommendations collected in the Report of the Re-Entry Policy Council. Abbreviations of Frequently Cited Resources Introduction Byrne and Hummer, “Examining” | James M. Byrne and Don Hummer, “Examining the Role of Police in Reentry Partnership Initiatives,” Federal Probation 68, no. 2 (2004): 62–69. CSG, RRPC | Council of State Governments, Re-Entry Policy Council, Report of the Re-Entry Policy Council Charting the Safe and Successful Return of Prisoners to the Community (New York: Council of State Governments, 2005). IACP, Building | International Association of Chiefs of Police, Building an Offender Reentry Program: A Guide for Law Enforcement (Alexandria, Va.: IACP, 2007). IACP, Offender Re-Entry | International Association of Chiefs of Police, Offender Re-Entry: Exploring the Leadership Opportunity for Law Enforcement Executives and Their Agencies, IACP/COPS National Policy Summit Final Report (Alexandria, Va.: IACP, 2007). IACP, Offender Reentry DVD | International Association of Chiefs of Police, Offender Reentry: A Police Perspective, DVD (Alexandria, Va.: IACP, 2006). La Vigne et al., PRCP | Nancy G. La Vigne, Amy L. Solomon, Karen A. Beckman, and Kelly Dedel, Prisoner Reentry and Community Policing: Strategies for Enhancing Public Safety (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2006). Ney and McGarry, GIR | Becki Ney and Peggy McGarry, Getting It Right: Collaborative Problem Solving for Criminal Justice (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Corrections, 2006). Sexton, WT: Framework | George E. Sexton, Working Together: A Framework for Developing Inter-Agency Public Safety Alliances (Knoxville, Tenn.: The Knoxville Public Safety Collaborative, 2000). Laying the Foundation [Cover Image] 1 Viability Law enforcement executives determine the current level of support for collaborative reentry strategies among local elected and appointed officials, the community, and the law enforcement agency. They take steps, where necessary, to develop initial and ongoing support for this work by engaging and educating partners and staff. Discussion One of the first questions that many local law enforcement executives consider when thinking about employing collaborative reentry strategies is whether such activities are viable in their current environment. There are three main constituent groups to which local law enforcement executives should seek to be responsive: elected and appointed officials, the community (including representatives from agencies that provide services to people returning from prison and jail), and the law enforcement agency’s personnel. Each group’s support for the law enforcement agency’s work in this area is critical both to getting reentry efforts started and to maintaining them in the long term. Some jurisdictions’ elected and appointed officials strongly support—and, in fact, spearhead—local reentry efforts. In other communities, local officials provide limited or no clear backing for law enforcement’s involvement in reentry. For this reason, local law enforcement executives who are considering developing a new reentry initiative or joining an existing one should examine the political support for such efforts among state legislators, mayors, city/county managers, local council members, area sheriffs, prosecutors, and any other appointed or elected officials in their community. Beyond examining political support, law enforcement executives should proactively engage and educate local and state elected and appointed officials about reentry and why practical efforts are needed to increase the likelihood that individuals will return successfully to the community from correctional facilities. In garnering political goodwill for reentry initiatives, law enforcement leaders should stress to public officials that reentry strategies are the natural extension of the successful community policing philosophy embraced by the agency. A reentry initiative that involves law enforcement can bring together criminal justice agencies, local health and social service systems, and other community stakeholders to collaboratively address high recidivism rates.* (For further discussion of the importance of partnering with key stakeholders and descriptions of these agencies and groups, see Element 2: Stakeholder Involvement.) Law enforcement executives should also stress to elected and appointed officials that a reentry strategy prioritizes and focuses on individuals who are most likely to reoffend on release and thus cycle through the justice system. These messages should emphasize that from law enforcement’s perspective, reentry is a coordinated crime prevention effort that seeks to enhance public safety. Agency leaders should clarify any misunderstandings elected officials may have about reentry and law enforcement’s role, such as a belief that supporting successful reintegration will be viewed as “soft on crime.” Policing professionals can explain how reentry efforts provide both a “carrot” and a “stick” to the individuals who participate in the initiative: individuals returning from correctional facilities are connected to services they need (such as education, mental health services, and housing) yet are also held accountable for their actions should they commit new offenses or violations. In addition, officials should know that law enforcement’s participation in a reentry initiative helps the agency gather important information that can be used for other crime prevention or law enforcement efforts. Placing a high priority on conveying these important messages to elected and appointed leaders about the reentry initiative—and its successes and challenges—can help sustain collaborative reentry strategies and foster critical collaborative relationships in the midst of decreasing funding, historical barriers to collaboration, and other obstacles. As important as political support, law enforcement leaders must foster initial and ongoing community backing for the initiative and the police department’s role. Law enforcement and its partners should understand what concerns community members may have about the initiative through informal surveys or interviews, community meetings, and other opportunities for twoway discussions. As with elected and appointed officials, community members may have concerns that providing services to people returning from prison or jail will detract from other police efforts to ensure community safety. Community residents may worry about the effect that individuals returning from prison or jail will have on the neighborhoods to which they return. Or some residents may have apprehensions about the reasons for law enforcement’s participation in the partnership—concerns that often arise when an initiative focuses on a neighborhood or segment of the population that is overwhelmingly nonwhite.[19] To ensure that community concerns are adequately addressed, law enforcement must offer open and candid communication with the public and build or enhance mutual trust. Agency leaders should develop a campaign to explain the initiative and maintain transparency.20 Outreach efforts should focus on explaining how reentry activities further law enforcement’s public safety mission: by providing the needed supports and supervision to people released from prisons and jails to prevent them from committing new crimes, reentry programs improve the lives of those residing in communities where most individuals return and decrease the number of victimized community members. (A more detailed discussion of how law enforcement can address community concerns is included in Element 7: Transition Planning.) Engaging community partners and developing and maintaining processes—particularly around identifying individual participants for the initiative— that are clearly defined and transparent to the public can foster support for the reentry effort. Involving the public and service providers should begin as soon as law enforcement executives consider engaging in reentry activities and should continue for the life of the effort. By partnering with the community from the initiative’s inception, law enforcement and other stakeholders are more likely to develop and maintain broad support for their work. Law enforcement executives must also garner and maintain interest in a reentry initiative within their agency. The executive should ensure that the reentry effort is understood and prioritized in his or her communications with officers at every level—regardless of their rank or position. In agencies where there are unions or collective bargaining units, the chief executive should be sure to include their representatives in discussions of reentry and build consensus about going forward. The chief executive should stress the value of this type of “real” police work and explain reentry’s value as a crime reduction and enforcement strategy. The executive should also stress the benefits to the agency, including strengthening partnerships with other justice agencies and social service organizations, sharing the responsibility to reduce recidivism, improving information sharing and intelligence gathering (even within the agency), and combining limited community resources to increase public safety. These messages emphasize that there is a high level of interest in and commitment to reentry efforts—and that these efforts amount not to a short-lived program but to an ongoing public safety strategy for the agency. In addition to these themes, the law enforcement executive should reiterate the same points delivered to policymakers and the community: individuals will continue to return to the community regardless of whether a reentry initiative exists—the only question is whether the police and public will be prepared for it. The reentry effort is a proactive strategy to reduce crime and improve safety. Law enforcement agencies with successful reentry strategies have strong backing among local elected and appointed leaders, the community, and its own personnel. This support must be developed through ongoing efforts to inform and involve these key constituent groups when reentry strategies are first developed and throughout the life of the initiative. The inability to garner and maintain constituent support may result in resistance to aspects of the initiative and interfere with service delivery—which can ultimately affect the success of this work. In contrast, meaningful partnerships built through outreach and inclusion help the law enforcement agency build both trust and goodwill that can carry it through a critical incident—should one occur—such as a highprofile crime committed by someone participating in the reentry initiative. Investment in creating a solid foundation of support is essential: without it, law enforcement executives will face difficulties in implementing all aspects of the initiative described throughout this guide. * “Recidivism” is used throughout this document to refer to the reincarceration of individuals who commit new crimes or violate their conditions of release. “ Law enforcement executives have a role in providing policymakers with viable strategies. A lot of times, nobody wants to do this work until law enforcement takes a stand. By taking a lead in prisoner reentry, we can help elected officials be not just ‘tough on crime,’ but also ‘smart on crime.’” — Edward A. Flynn Commissioner, Springfield (Massachusetts) Police Department† “ A lot of agencies that evolved into doing this work didn’t see what they were doing as reentry per se, but rather as the logical extension of good policing strategies.” — Gary Kempker Senior Manager, Center for Effective Public Policy* * Mr. Kempker has more than 25 years of experience in law enforcement and corrections. His previous positions include Director, Missouri Department of Corrections; Director, Missouri Department of Public Safety; Chief, Jefferson City (Missouri) Police Department; and Interim Sheriff, Cole County (Missouri) Sheriff’s Office. † Commissioner Flynn previously served as the Secretary of Public Safety for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and as the Chief of Police in Arlington, Virginia. Commissioner Flynn also served as Chief of Police in Braintree and Chelsea (Massachusetts) and is a member of the Council of State Governments Justice Center Board. At this writing, he is the Chief of Police in Milwaukee (Wisconsin). Laying the Foundation “ We have to educate and assure the community that reentry is not a free pass for offenders. Reentry is not ‘soft on crime.’ We are still going to hold people accountable for their actions, but we are going to give them a chance to succeed in the community.” — Deputy Chief Thomas Stolz Investigations Division Commander, Wichita (Kansas) Police Department* “ The partners who intentionally deal with offenders long term will always have a stake in reentry—corrections agencies, housing, probation, parole. The tough sell is within the police department because typically, a police officer’s goal is to deal with offenders for as short a period as possible.” — Captain John Fitzgerald Chief of Staff, Office of the Chief of Police, Montgomery County (Maryland) Police Department† * In May 1994, Deputy Chief Stolz was selected as one of the original community policing supervisors assigned within the department. Since then, he has helped usher in the community policing philosophy under which the Wichita Police Department operates. † Captain Fitzgerald is Chief of Staff for Chief J. Thomas Manger. He has served with the Montgomery County (Maryland) Police Department since 1983. “ We see reentry as a way of breaking a cycle of criminal behavior—not just for the individual offenders, but also across the generations in their families. The children of these offenders like seeing us come to their house to check on their parents. Then they know we care and there’s support for them out there.” — Jim Bueermann Chief, Redlands (California) Police Department* * Chief Bueermann joined the Redlands (California) Police Department in 1978 and has served as its chief since 1998. Among his many affiliations, Chief Bueermann is a charter member of the Society of Police Futurists International. Laying the Foundation Assessment Questions Consider each section and thoughtfully select the category that you feel best fits your agency’s current efforts in reentry. Column 1: not part of reentry effort Column 2: part of plan for reentry effort Column 3: part of reentry effort Column 4: not applicable Developing support for reentry among elected and appointed officials 1. Our agency engages the following groups in discussions about the benefits of reentry strategies to gain support: a. Local elected officials b. Local appointed officials Developing support for reentry among community members 2. Our agency emphasizes to the community that reentry is primarily a public safety strategy. 3. Our agency engages community members in discussions about the benefits of reentry strategies. Developing support for reentry among law enforcement agency staff 4. Our agency engages the following groups in discussions about the benefits of reentry strategies: a. All staff levels b. Collective bargaining units c. Sworn and nonsworn personnel Making the case for reentry 5. Our agency’s executive a. describes why reentry efforts are needed in the jurisdiction; b. explains how collaborative reentry strategies can enhance public safety; c. draws connections between reentry efforts and community policing; d. addresses any concerns about the agency’s employing reentry strategies; e. encourages implementation of reentry strategies in the jurisdiction. Comments Resources* Developing support for reentry among elected and appointed officials CSG, RRPC • Policy Statement 1: Encouraging Collaboration Among Key Stakeholders, pp. 18–22 IACP, Building • What are the Challenges to Law Enforcement Participation in Offender Reentry? pp. 4–5 Developing support for reentry among community members Brazzell, Diana. Informing and Engaging Communities through Reentry Mapping. Reentry Mapping Brief. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, 2007. CSG, RRPC • Policy Statement 7: Educating the Public About the Re-Entry Population, pp. 95–103 IACP, Offender Re-Entry • Issue Area VI: Educating the Public, pp. 18–22 • Issue Area VII: Securing Public Support, pp. 22–25 Developing support for reentry among law enforcement agency staff IACP, Building • Management and Operations, p. 16 • What are the Challenges to Law Enforcement Participation in Offender Reentry? pp. 4–5 IACP, Offender Re-Entry • Issue Area I: Asserting Leadership, pp. 4–5 Making the case for reentry Community Resources for Justice, Inc. Returning Inmates: Closing the Public Safety Gap. Boston: Community Resources for Justice, Inc., 2001. Available at www.crjustice.org/rettex.htm. CSG, RRPC • Introduction: Understanding Re-Entry, pp. 9–12 • Policy Statement 7: Educating the Public About the Re-Entry Population, pp. 95–103 IACP, Building • Why would Law Enforcement Participate in Offender Reentry? p. 3 • What are the Benefits to Law Enforcement Participation in Offender Reentry? pp. 3–4 IACP, Offender Re-Entry • Issue Area VII: Securing Public Support, pp. 22–25 La Vigne et al., PRCP • Reoffending Rates and Contribution to Crime in the Community, pp. 8–9 • Individual Risks of Reoffending, p. 10 • The Community-Level Impact of Reentry, pp. 10–11 • Citizen Perceptions of Safety, pp. 12–14 • Police Contributions to Reentry Efforts, p. 18 Piehl, Anne Morrison. From Cell to Street: A Plan to Supervise Inmates After Release. Boston: MassInc., 2002. Travis, Jeremy, Amy Solomon, and Michele Waul. From Prison to Home: The Dimensions and Consequences of Prisoner Reentry. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, 2001. Related topic: Exerting leadership IACP, Building • Management and Operations, p. 16 IACP, Offender Re-Entry • Issue Area I: Asserting Leadership, pp. 4–5 Ney and McGarry, GIR • Chapter 20: Exert Leadership, pp. 191–200 * See page 10 for the full citations of the frequently cited resources that are abbreviated in this list. Laying the Foundation 2 Stakeholder Involvement Law enforcement collaborates with a broad range of individuals and agencies from different disciplines and backgrounds that have a role or significant interest in helping people successfully transition from prison or jail into the community. Discussion Law enforcement alone cannot develop and execute an effective reentry initiative. A collaborative effort among stakeholders from criminal justice agencies, health and human service agencies, and community leaders is needed to effectively address the challenges raised by reentry. To develop its strategy, a law enforcement agency must reach out to, and be open to working with, appropriate agencies and individuals and elicit a commitment to work together.* Many law enforcement agencies already have partnerships and relationships with other criminal justice professionals and social service providers through community policing work, task forces, or other local efforts. These existing relationships position law enforcement to convene stakeholders on reentry issues—particularly as established partners are more likely to understand the abilities and tools that law enforcement can bring to the table. Contributions law enforcement can make to a reentry collaborative are significant. For example, patrol officers are in a key position to determine whether they will arrest someone released from prison or jail, particularly when they have enforcement discretion regarding minor offenses; and police have extensive experience gathering and analyzing data and information on neighborhood problems and individuals, as well as working in the community on crime prevention. (For a more complete discussion of law enforcement assets that can be leveraged in a reentry partnership, see the Introduction.) All potential partners can provide important contributions in a reentry collaboration (the roles of social service agencies and community groups are described below). But policing agencies should take particular note of the role of corrections agencies in a reentry initiative. One or more corrections agencies will need to be involved in both planning and day-to-day activities. For example, law enforcement planners can work with the administrators of correctional facilities to collect data to support program design or enhancement, or they can consult with community corrections officials to determine how police personnel can support supervision activities. These efforts will help to ensure seamless transition from prison or jail into the community. Other police-corrections connections will be dictated by specific program goals and strategies and are highlighted throughout this guide. Law enforcement may also partner with other area law enforcement and criminal justice agencies, depending on the initiative’s target population, goals, and specific strategies. For example, the district attorney or judges may be involved if individuals are sentenced to the initiative, perhaps to prioritize or streamline prosecutions for participants who commit new crimes, or in the event that their probation is revoked as a sanction for failing to meet the terms of their supervision. In this case, law enforcement may provide court officials with background information about the individual that would improve his or her chances for referral to a reentry initiative, or may voice any public safety concerns.21 If reentry efforts include work with youths, law enforcement will collaborate with juvenile justice authorities. (Special considerations for working with this population are discussed in Element 3: Initiative’s Priority Population.) Local agencies and community-based organizations (CBO) that have historically worked in neighborhoods with high numbers of formerly incarcerated people, and have the expertise and the capacity to serve this population, should be engaged in the initiative. Law enforcement, with its corrections partners, should identify and seek to involve a broad range of providers. The following list highlights several categories of partners and examples of some ways that they can assist in program planning and serving the reentry target population. • Education and training providers can supply information about any existing educational, vocational, and life skills services they are delivering—or would be able to deliver—to individuals released from correctional facilities, what categories of formerly incarcerated people they serve, and at what locations. They can also detail any policy or resource barriers to providing educational services that a collaborative reentry strategy can address. Education providers can teach general educational development (GED) test preparation, English as a second language (ESL), or other types of classes that can enhance successful reintegration. If the reentry collaborative prioritizes juvenile populations, public school officials should also be involved. • Housing officials can provide clarity on the local, state, and federal rules and regulations that may affect the ability of people released from prison or jail to find suitable housing, as well as insights into how to address issues of availability and costs. For instance, local public housing authorities have discretion regarding who is eligible for housing, and in some cases individuals with certain criminal records may be barred. Housing partners will be instrumental in ultimately finding—or even developing— housing options for individuals. They may also be able to identify and propose solutions for local residents’ opposition to locating men and women returning from prison or jail within their neighborhood. • Health, mental health, and substance abuse treatment providers can provide important background on services—both available and needed—to assist people leaving correctional facilities who have physical or mental health and substance abuse issues. They can also help determine the prevalence of these health issues among the reentry population, assess potential demand for treatment, and describe any barriers to addressing these needs. These partners can then take a lead role in designing strategies for identifying participants and connecting them to needed services. • Workforce development and employment professionals can highlight their current efforts to connect people leaving prison or jail to jobs and what types of people they serve (such as nonviolent, youth, substance-using). They can also address the challenges to helping identify employment opportunities for certain groups of people. Legitimate employment has a strong influence on whether individuals will turn to criminal acts to support themselves and their families,22 and employment professionals can help provide this critical service. • Community-based groups such as faith-based organizations (including individual churches, synagogues, and mosques), neighborhood associations, advocacy groups, and food and clothing banks offer many of the services listed above, in addition to mentoring and peer counseling, assistance with obtaining a legal identification card, and myriad other contributions. In some underserved communities, faith groups may comprise the only organized support networks with abundant services. These groups may also be best positioned to convey the message that they are behind the individual returning to the community and his or her successful transition. • Individual community members, who may or may not be connected to other stakeholder groups, have valuable contributions as well. People who have returned from prison can personally describe the challenges they faced and services they received that helped them become productive community members. Their messages can be conveyed during program orientation meetings and other forums (described in Element 7: Transition Planning). Family members of people released from incarceration, victims and their advocates, and business leaders are among those who can add their experiences and insights to help with problem-solving efforts. Ministers, rabbis, and imams also can provide information about what services they and their houses of worship provide. • Elected and appointed officials provide important backing for reentry efforts. In some jurisdictions, public officials may be key to securing financial support or fostering a supportive environment. They may also be aware of existing reentry efforts in the jurisdiction and can offer suggestions or practical assistance to help engage additional stakeholders. • Transportation groups can assist with improving how men and women returning from prison or jail access both public and private transportation. They can also provide insights into how to better connect people released from prison to social services and job locations. Determining whom to engage at the local level, when many groups, individuals, and organizations have a vested interest in reentry, can be difficult. A criminal justice agency (either law enforcement or corrections) may find it useful to solicit recommendations from state and county agencies. Law enforcement executives may also begin by contacting those agencies, organizations, and individuals with which the department already has a relationship or partnership. Law enforcement professionals may encounter at least some reluctance among certain stakeholders to serve people returning from prison. These groups and individuals may feel deep ambivalence about how and whether to apply their limited resources to people who have broken the law, whom they may perceive as particularly difficult to serve—especially when there is a significant need among the general population for these same services. Some may also have concerns about working with law enforcement or other criminal justice agencies on such an initiative, including a perceived expectation that law enforcement intends to use information and resources they provide for intelligence gathering. To the extent possible, law enforcement should try to gauge providers’ willingness and ability to serve people released from incarceration, their credibility in the community, and their interest in partnering. Recognizing that every stakeholder may not have a current interest or ability to partner in this effort, the law enforcement agency should first work with stakeholders that are both willing and able to develop collaborative reentry strategies, and then over time expand efforts to include additional stakeholders. To address concerns of potential partners, criminal justice officials should highlight the compelling benefits of participating in a reentry partnership (in addition to emphasizing core themes discussed in Element 1: Viability). At a minimum, agency leaders should explain how collaboration provides valuable support and makes the most of limited resources and services, how effective interventions can help prevent future crimes that plague neighborhoods, and how the initiative pairs enhanced supervision with increased access to services. Criminal justice partners must also be transparent about their objectives: they should explain that the goal is to increase the likelihood of successful reentry so that neighborhoods can be safer and individuals subjected to less victimization. They should further specify that criminal justice agencies recognize that enlisting community partners to advance police intelligence-gathering efforts alone is not likely to be successful, and that agencies understand that effective reentry strategies must foster access to needed services and treatment. It is particularly important to ensure that agency executives, public officials, and trusted community representatives participate in a reentry initiative. Law enforcement executives should play a significant role in reaching out to other agency heads, local and state elected and appointed officials, and community members who can take a leadership role in the initiative. These executives and officials—referred to as “policymakers” throughout—serve a critical function in moving the partnership from cooperation to collaboration.† Specifically, they should form several collaborative bodies through which the initiative is designed, overseen, and implemented, including the following: • Policy board—Composed of agency executives, elected and appointed officials, and community leaders, this board provides general direction for the initiative, periodically advises its progress and policies, helps identify and secure funding, advocates on its behalf, and performs other strategic development functions. • Coordinating group—Made up of individuals with the authority to make decisions on behalf of their agency or organization, this group oversees and coordinates daily operations and establishes systems to operationalize the initiative’s design, such as mechanisms for sharing information, addressing challenges to the effort’s effectiveness, and measuring the initiative’s progress toward its stated goals. This group of coordinators also provides updates and recommendations to the policy board and supervision to initiative staff. • Line-level staff—A group of personnel selected to serve in this specialized assignment, these staff members implement the initiative on the ground level, including identifying and engaging reentry participants and facilitating a service linkage, as well as providing enhanced community supervision. In some jurisdictions, particularly those that are small or in more rural areas, two or more of these groups may be combined. For example, the functions of the coordinating group may be combined with those of the line-level personnel, and this combined group would report to the policy board; or a single group may function as both the policy board and coordinating group. * For agencies that are joining an existing initiative, this section can be used as a checklist to see if additional suggestions for partners can strengthen an ongoing effort. Reentry Stakeholders Throughout this document, the term “stakeholder” is used to describe the diverse groups and individuals with a role in promoting safe and successful reentry, including criminal justice policymakers and practitioners; education and training professionals; housing providers and housing systems officials; representatives of health, mental health, and substance abuse treatment systems; workforce development and employment services personnel; transportation officials; staff of community-based organizations, individual community members, and elected and appointed officials. Examples include the following: Criminal justice • Local law enforcement agencies (police departments, sheriff’s offices) • Prisons • Jails • Juvenile justice authorities • Community corrections (probation and parole) • Prosecutors • Judges • Defense attorneys Education and training • Education officials (local public schools, community colleges, universities, vocational training centers) • Life skills providers Housing • Public housing • Privately owned housing (private apartments, homes for rent) • Affordable housing Health, mental health, and substance abuse • Mental health services • Public health services • Private health services • Substance abuse services Workforce development and employment • Workforce development agencies • Employers • Business associations • Unions Community-based organizations (CBO) • Faith-based organizations • Victims’ associations/advocates • Neighborhood associations • Food pantries • Clothing banks • Community advocacy groups Individual community members • Community leaders (such as ministers) • Persons who have returned from prison or jail • Victims • Families of individuals who have returned from prison or jail Elected and appointed officials • State legislators • Mayors • Governors • City/county/town managers • City/county/town council members Transportation • Rail (subways, light rail) • Bus “ What’s considered a felony as an adult may be suppressed as a minor. And the Department of Juvenile Justice regularly releases high-risk youth offenders who have completed their conviction sentence. So we include juveniles in our reentry work to focus on a population that we know has an impact on crime, and who would benefit from transitional services into the community.” — Demetra Butler Program Administrator, Savannah (Georgia) Impact Program* * Ms. Butler has been the Program Administrator for the Savannah Impact Program (SIP) since 2005. When SIP began in 2001, Ms. Butler worked with the program as the supervisor of parole officers. She also previously worked as Assistant Superintendent at the Georgia Department of Corrections’ Coastal Transitional Center. Stakeholder Involvement 23 “ The mental health agency in our collaborative didn’t realize it was needed as a partner until we cross-referenced client lists, and they saw how much we were working with the same people.” — Gary Kempker Senior Manager, Center for Effective Public Policy Employment and Accountability Employment is also a key factor in whether individuals released from prison will be able to meet their financial obligations, including child support, victim restitution, court fees and fines, and other debts that, if not repaid, could result in their return to prison or jail and the recipients’ inability to collect. A Council of State Governments Justice Center publication, Repaying Debts, describes how policymakers can increase accountability among people who commit crimes and improve rates of child support collection and victim restitution. For more information, see www.reentry policy.org. Mapping Access to Services Using law enforcement’s mapping capabilities, or contracting with others with those resources, it is possible to chart access to public transportation in neighborhoods where most people released from prison return as well as the locations of services and supervision officers. These maps may suggest policy reforms that can better link individuals with needed resources and supervision appointments, such as increasing available services or rerouting buses.23 (More information on mapping for reentry is included in Element 3: Initiative’s Priority Population.) Stakeholder Involvement 25 Challenges to Serving People Released from Incarceration Incarceration and reentry present unique challenges for service providers for a number of reasons. Local, state, or federal laws and regulations can make connecting this population to services and employment opportunities difficult. In some states, regulations governing the enrollment of former prisoners in federal benefit programs, such as food stamps or public housing, affect people’s access to these critical resources. Similarly, in some jurisdictions regulations prohibiting employment of people released from incarceration in certain sectors present significant barriers.24 Providers and officials involved in the reentry initiative can contribute their expertise and strategies for overcoming these barriers. “ Reentry and crime reduction are not police issues but city issues, and they will require a citywide collaboration to succeed.” — Captain Felecia Norris North Patrol Bureau Commander, Wichita (Kansas) Police Department* * Captain Felecia A. Norris is a 26-year veteran of the Wichita Police Department. During her career, she has worked as Patrol Officer, School Liaison Officer, Public Affairs Detective, and Recruit Training Commander, among other positions. She is currently assigned as the Bureau Commander for the Patrol North Bureau, and manages 129 department personnel. † In many jurisdictions, officials may find that they are challenged just to get groups to cooperate and participate before they can attain true collaboration among partners. Making the Pitch Criminal justice partners should approach the organization or person whose involvement in the reentry initiative is sought in terms that are specifically appealing to that stakeholder. Knowing what issues are most likely to resonate with the target audience is essential. Partners should explain how the provider may already be serving people who have been released from correctional facilities. An effective pitch should state, in clear and accurate terms, whether the initiative’s activities are likely to accomplish the following: • Revitalize a particular neighborhood • Improve communities’ confidence in the criminal justice system • Lower public health risks • Decrease unemployment • Increase levels of education • Improve community safety Assessment Questions Consider each section and thoughtfully select the category that you feel best fits your agency’s current efforts in reentry. Column 1: not part of reentry effort Column 2: part of plan for reentry effort Column 3: part of reentry effort Column 4: not applicable Understanding systems affected by reentry 1. Our agency understands how the following systems can help individuals successfully return to the community from correctional facilities: a. Institutional corrections b. Community corrections c. Other criminal justice agencies d. Education and training providers e. Housing officials f. Health, mental health, and substance abuse treatment providers g. Workforce development and employment agencies h. Community-based organizations i. Individual community members j. Elected and appointed officials k. Transportation providers Engaging stakeholders 2. Our agency engages the following stakeholders in reentry efforts: a. Institutional corrections b. Community corrections c. Other criminal justice agencies d. Education and training providers e. Housing officials f. Health, mental health, and substance abuse treatment providers g. Workforce development and employment agencies h. Community-based organizations i. Individual community members j. Elected and appointed officials k. Transportation providers Overcoming barriers to partnering 3. Our agency a. addresses any partner concerns about serving people released from correctional facilities; b. attends to any partner concerns about partnering with law enforcement; c. stresses the specific benefits of a reentry partnership for various stakeholders; d. maintains transparency about its objectives. Developing collaborative bodies 4. Our agency assists in forming collaborative structures that a. guide the initiative (policy board); b. manage day-to-day operations (coordinating group). 5. Our agency actively participates in collaborative entities that a. guide the initiative (policy board); b. manage day-to-day operations (coordinating group). Comments Resources* Understanding systems affected by reentry Burke, Peggy and Michael Tonry. Successful Transition and Reentry for Safer Communities: A Call to Action for Parole. Silver Spring: Center for Effective Public Policy, 2006. Byrne, James M., Faye S. Taxman, and Douglas Young. Emerging Roles and Responsibilities in the Reentry Partnership Initiative: New Ways of Doing Business. College Park: University of Maryland, Bureau of Governmental Research, 2002. Council of State Governments, Re-Entry Policy Council. “How and Why Medicaid Matters for People with Serious Mental Illness Released from Jail.” No date. Available at www.reentrypolicy.org/issue_areas/physical_mental_ health. CSG, RRPC • Policy Statement 2: Developing a Knowledge Base, pp. 23–35 • Policy Statement 30: Housing Systems, pp. 412–422 • Policy Statement 31: Workforce Development Systems, pp. 423–434 • Policy Statement 32: Substance Abuse Treatment Systems, pp. 434–444 • Policy Statement 33: Mental Health Care Systems, pp. 445–455 • Policy Statement 34: Children and Family Systems, pp. 456–470 • Policy Statement 35: Physical Health Care Systems, pp. 471–482 IACP, Offender Re-Entry • Issue Area III: Collaborating with Community Stakeholders, pp. 7–12 McLean, Rachel, and Michael Thompson. Repaying Debts. New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2007. Engaging stakeholders CSG, RRPC • Policy Statement 1: Encouraging Collaboration Among Key Stakeholders, pp. 18–22 IACP, Building • Building Partnerships, pp. 13–15 IACP, Offender Re-Entry • Issue Area III: Collaborating with Community Stakeholders, pp. 7–12 Rinehart, Tammy A., Anna T. Lazlo, and Gwen O. Briscoe. Collaboration Toolkit: How to Build, Fix, and Sustain Productive Partnerships. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2001. • Section 2: Stakeholders Sexton, Working Together: Framework • Step 2: Identifying and Including Key Parties, pp. 29–32 Overcoming barriers to partnering Gordon, Mary Beth. Making the Match: Law Enforcement, the Faith Community, and the Value-Based Initiative. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2003. • Troubleshooting: Solving Problems That Could Undermine a Collaboration Between Law Enforcement Officials and Faith-Based Organizations, pp. 26–29 IACP, Building • What are the Challenges to Law Enforcement Participation in Offender Reentry? pp. 4–5 Parent, Dale, and Brad Snyder. Police-Corrections Partnerships. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1999. • Planning Partnerships, p. 37 • Building and Maintaining Support, pp. 37–38 • Dealing With Limited Resources, p. 39 • Overcoming Mistrust, Misinformation, and Stereotypes, p. 39 • Removing Barriers to Information Sharing, pp. 40–41 Sexton, George E. Working Together: Assessing Organizational Readiness for Collaboration. Knoxville: The Knoxville Public Safety Collaborative, 2000. Developing collaborative bodies Martin, Ginger and Cheryl Roberts. From Incarceration to Community: A Roadmap to Improving Prisoner Reentry and System Accountability in Massachusetts. Boston: Crime and Justice Institute, 2004. • “Leading System Change: The Role of Collaboration,” pp. 34–36 Ney and McGarry, GIR • Chapter 4: View the Policy Team as Steward of the Criminal Justice System, pp. 25–36 • Chapter 5: Collaborate, pp. 27–54 • Chapter 6: Provide Necessary Support to the Team and the Process, pp. 55–66 * See page 10 for the full citations of the frequently cited resources that are abbreviated in this list. Laying the Foundation Developing the Initiative Cover Image] 3 Initiative’s Priority Population Law enforcement and its partners conduct an analysis to identify a reentry population that is both at high risk of reoffending and likely to benefit from the intensive supervision and services that the reentry collaborative can offer. Discussion A law enforcement agency committed to decreasing victimizations by focusing on men and women leaving correctional facilities who are at high risk of re - offending must define the scope of its efforts. Although law enforcement and its partners may perceive discernable trends among people who reoffend, the process of identifying a target population must be based on an analysis of available data. Familiarity with problem-solving techniques positions law enforcement to take a lead or active role in collecting and analyzing data to design collaborative responses. Whether the agency is planning a new reentry effort or determining its role in one that already exists, it should play a prominent part in identifying the target population. Analyzing data should not be a one-time activity but rather an ongoing process; frequent and ongoing reviews will drive the initiative’s scope and direction and inform any programmatic changes. Data used to identify the target population can be culled from a variety of sources. The collaborations at the heart of the reentry initiative should prove valuable in this effort. Among the various partners, it is particularly important for law enforcement to exchange information for planning purposes with corrections and other criminal justice agencies. (Some of the relevant contributions that community stakeholders may make to assist with this analysis are described in Element 2: Stakeholder Involvement.) Administrators of correctional facilities, which maintain data on individuals released from their system, can contribute such information as sentencing provisions, risk and needs assessments, correctional prerelease program participation, and residential addresses that can inform mapping efforts.† Local probation and parole officials can contribute important background on relevant population characteristics and policy issues, including intensity of supervision and how it is provided. For its part, law enforcement personnel should share with partners what it has learned about relevant crime trends, crime hot spots, offending populations, and community strengths and limitations derived from street-level information about individuals’ activities (such as location and crime types), and formal records such as arrests, incident reports, crime maps, and pertinent investigative information. Law enforcement agencies with research and planning units should leverage the expertise of research staff and seek to engage them in these analysis efforts. Reentry partners can also review information collected and analyzed by national policy organizations on this issue, including recommendations, promising practices, and examples from the field. This research can help law enforcement agencies and their partners learn what steps other local jurisdictions have taken to address reentry barriers and highlight what information should be considered when making decisions about potential target populations. These agencies’ relevant successes can be tailored to the unique needs of other communities. (Resources identified at the end of this section provide snapshots of several law enforcement agencies’ active roles in reentry efforts.) From these sources, policymakers should have sufficient data to make threshold decisions regarding the initiative’s priority population. As a first step, planners should determine if people who commit major crimes have been previously incarcerated, and if so whether they served time in state penitentiaries or county jails. This analysis should go beyond merely counting the number of individuals arrested who served previous sentences; rather, it should highlight reasons people reoffend and suggest potential responses. Law enforcement leaders and other policymakers may decide either to work with all individuals released from prison or jail or to prioritize resources on a particular subgroup. In selecting a target population, law enforcement and reentry partners should consider not only their interests in working with various reentry populations, but also the initiative’s capacity to address the needs of the target group being considered. This analysis will drive planners to prioritize among a number of different subgroups or a combination of subgroups that might form a priority population: 1. Types of offenses—Aggregate data on the criminal histories of people returning to the community may suggest a response focusing on people convicted of specific types of crimes, such as gun crimes or violent offenses. 2. Demographic groups—Data on the extent to which specific populations such as juveniles, young adults, gang members, men, or women reoffend may indicate the need for a strategy prioritizing a specific cohort.25 3. Supervision status—Information on how people are released to the community may suggest a response concentrating on people under a particular form of supervision: individuals under intensive supervision, those with minimal supervision, or those with no postrelease supervision because they have already completed their sentence. 36 Initiative’s Priority Population 37 4. Releases from jail—Data on the extent to which individuals are repeatedly detained in a local jail may prompt a combined social service and law enforcement response to individuals who repeatedly cycle through the system. 5. Community services, needs, and capacity—Information on ex-offenders’ service needs (which may be written into their conditions of release), coupled with an awareness of barriers to accessing these services in the community, may generate a response to better connect people with a specific problem (such as co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders) to available resources, and may lead to an expansion of those resources. 6. Geographic factors—Data that compares the addresses of people who have returned from prison and jail, crime locations, and the capacities of these neighborhoods can suggest a response that focuses on a particular area. In some cases, policymakers—based on information collected by their staff—may determine that some combination of these populations present the greatest public safety challenge and may prioritize resources accordingly. For example, the initiative may focus on adult males who are on parole, whose conditions of release require participation in outpatient drug treatment, and who live in particular at-risk neighborhoods. Accordingly, the population groupings described more fully below are not mutually exclusive but rather provide some general parameters to help policymakers plan their initiative. “ Law enforcement shouldn’t work with lowrisk people—it’s just not a good use of resources. Similarly, research suggests that with a reentry collaborative that provides intensive services and supervision such as a police-led reentry initiative, the very highest-risk people may not be worth the effort. Instead, our work in Cedar Rapids focuses on the middle majority, and we take a look at some risk factors in their lives and see if we can help address them.” — Gary Hinzman Director, Sixth District Department of Correctional Services, Cedar Rapids (Iowa)* * Director Hinzman previously worked for the Cedar Rapids Police Department, where he also served as its Chief. In 2004, Director Hinzman was named the National Probation Executive of the Year by the National Association of Probation Executives. At this writing, he is the President of the American Probation and Parole Association. † Some jurisdictions take extra precautions in guarding juvenile offense information, even aggregate data that has been stripped of identifying features. It is therefore advisable to seek permission from the proper authority in a given state or jurisdiction before releasing or including juvenile information. Initiative’s Priority Population 35 Why Focus on a Subgroup? Men and women leaving prison and jail have complex needs that can far exceed available services—both in the correctional facility and in the communities to which they return. For example, one study in California found significant gaps between the needs of parolees and available services: only 200 shelter beds were available for more than 10,000 homeless parolees, 4 mental health clinics for 18,000 psychiatric cases, and 750 treatment beds for 85,000 released individuals with substance abuse problems.26 To ensure the best use of agency resources and tax dollars, law enforcement and its partners should identify where its resources can be most effectively allocated. Types of offenses By looking at the types of offenses for which people are removed from the community (as well as past offenses), the reentry collaborative can select a target population that would have an impact on a particular public safety problem. For example, police executives may advocate focusing reentry efforts on individuals convicted of gun crimes as part of an effort to reduce shootings and armed robberies, or they may want to focus their efforts on persons who have committed violent crimes such as robbery and aggravated assault. Demographic groups Policymakers and their staff can examine how crime patterns relate to specific demographic groups that face unique challenges and service needs. In particular, planners can consider tailoring the initiative toward a specific gender or age group. For example, they can look at the impact that juveniles have on crime in the community. Jurisdictions have included juveniles in their priority population because youth who commit major crimes may receive shorter sentences, with less supervision, than they would as adults. Moreover, some communities have found that focusing on juveniles can galvanize a community around law enforcement’s involvement in a reentry strategy, helping bring stakeholders to the table. Enhanced supervision by law enforcement can serve a strategic public safety role for an otherwise minimally supervised but potentially high-risk population, while also providing an opportunity to engage that population in social services. Executives in collaboratives that focus their reentry strategy on youth gang members should coordinate and, where possible, integrate the agency’s gang prevention and reentry work. program example: Boston (Massachusetts) Police Department The initial population for the Boston Re-Entry Initiative (BRI) only included adults. As an outgrowth of this successful venture, the Department of Youth Services (DYS) took the lead and helped expand this program. Program staff addressed juvenile reentry issues based on an understanding of the strong relationship between juveniles who leave the DYS and then “graduate” to become adults in the county and state correctional facilities. The resulting initiative consisted of a Boston Police Department (BPD) employee from the Boston Regional Intelligence Center (BRIC) working in close coordination with DYS in information-sharing practices, warrant apprehension, and gang/ group intelligence gathering. Owing to the success of this venture, this practice continues today. The BPD has made it a priority to work with DYS, not only to discuss intelligence issues but also to gather release information for juvenile offenders returning to Boston’s neighborhoods. Stakeholders in a Juvenile Reentry Strategy Selecting a juvenile population will influence the types of partners engaged in, and the services offered by, the collaborative. The law enforcement agency’s juvenile unit should be actively involved in planning and implementation. Juvenile court officials—particularly judges and family advocates—should be included, as should authorities from juvenile residential and aftercare facilities. Engaging education board officials and school resource officers can help ensure the reentry initiative is firmly linked to the school system. The reentry collaborative may also offer services for parents of at-risk youth. Supervision status If policymakers and their staff look at the impact of crimes committed by people under different degrees of postrelease supervision, they may determine that a segment of the reentry population under a specific intensity of postrelease supervision presents a particularly high risk of reoffending. For example, the collaborative may choose to focus on individuals who complete their sentences while incarcerated and are released to the community unconditionally.* In some states, sentencing statutes mandate that certain individuals—often those considered to pose the highest risk of reoffending—serve the entirety of their sentences behind bars and hence are not under the jurisdiction of the justice system upon release. Those in the juvenile system, similarly, may be released from a detention facility without supervision. A reentry strategy can ensure criminal justice personnel make contact with these individuals before or immediately after release from prison or jail; offer incentives to these individuals, such as access to needed services; and facilitate information sharing among criminal justice agencies on their locations and activities for crime prevention and enforcement purposes. If policymakers want to give priority to a population not under postrelease supervision, they should develop strategies to gain these individuals’ willing participation through incentives, since their participation cannot be mandated at the time of release. When developing a reentry strategy, policymakers’ decisions must be informed by an awareness of state sentencing statutes (such as mandatory minimums and truth-in-sentencing regulations), how individuals are released and supervised, how many people are under some form of postrelease supervision, how individuals’ risk levels are assessed, and what incentives and sanctions supervision agencies utilize to reduce recidivism. Releases from jail Policymakers and their staff may determine that the much larger number of individuals released from jails, as compared to state and federal prisons, presents the greatest demand on public safety resources, and thus may design a strategy around this population. This is particularly true if the initiative targets a particular concern, such as domestic violence cases or the significant percentage of individuals arrested for “nuisance charges” who have mental health problems. Analysis may reveal that many of the same individuals are the subject of repeat calls for police services and cycle into and out of local jails, and when released are under minimal—if any—supervision. In an effort to use resources more effectively and with better outcomes, the collaborative may focus on connecting individuals released from jail who have specific needs (such as those with mental illnesses or co-occurring drug use disorders) to services. Policymakers may also be more inclined to focus on a jail population if they fully understand the number and type of individuals that pass through jails in their jurisdiction.[27] Understanding Supervision* Releasing Authority: A state parole board or commission vested with the authority to grant the discretionary release of an individual from prison or jail prior to the completion of his or her full term of imprisonment. For jurisdictions with determinate sentencing and, accordingly, mandatory release, the releasing authority still may determine conditions of release. These agencies often are authorized to conduct revocation hearings for those under community supervision who violate the terms and conditions of their postrelease supervision. Discretionary Release: The release of a person from prison decided by a releasing authority, generally following the service of a minimum period of imprisonment but short of the maximum term of confinement. Often the person is released to a period of community supervision, typically with a set of conditions he or she must abide by in order to remain on parole or postrelease supervision (sometimes referred to as “conditional release”). Violation of the conditions of supervision may result in the imposition of sanctions—either community- based or resulting in the revocation of supervision status and a return to prison. Mandatory Release: The release of a person from prison or jail that is determined by statute or sentencing guidelines and not at the discretion of the releasing authority. Under determinate sentencing codes, the exact prison term is set at the time of sentencing, and the person is released following a prescribed period of confinement. In some instances, the person may have served the entirety of a sentence set by a parole board or other releasing authority, and thus must be released without supervision (sometimes referred to as “unconditional release”). Upon release the person is no longer under the jurisdiction of the justice system, and he or she is not required to abide by any conditions of supervision and cannot be returned to prison absent a new conviction for the commission of a crime. Parole: The traditional name for the period of community supervision imposed on an individual granted conditional release from prison by a discretionary authority (such as a parole board) prior to the expiration of the sentence. In some states this period is referred to as postrelease supervision, community punishment, or controlled release. The supervision is often performed by a parole agency, though in some states the functions of probation and parole supervision are combined. Split Sentence: Judgment made at the time of sentencing mandating that an offender serve a certain portion of his or her total sentence in prison or jail. The balance of the sentence is "suspended" while the person serves a period of community supervision as a probationer, rather than as a parolee. If the person violates his or her terms of probation during that community supervision period, he or she may be brought for a hearing before the sentencing judge, instead of a parole board. The judge may then choose to revoke the period of probation and impose some additional sanction up to and including a period of incarceration equal to the suspended balance of the original sentence. * Law enforcement and community corrections have greater authority, including the potential ability to mandate participation and impose sanctions, when working with people on probation and parole. However, policymakers should weigh this advantage against any data that may show that people who “time out” and are not under any supervision may present a greater risk of committing new crimes. * These definitions are adapted from the Report of the Re-Entry Policy Council: Charting the Safe and Successful Return of Prisoners to the Community (New York: Council of State Governments, 2005), p. 234 (Community Supervision: A Concise Guide). Readers should note that juvenile procedures vary greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Often juvenile court judges have a great deal of discretion. Accordingly, release from custody, discharge from supervision, diversion program decisions, and related matters should be coordinated closely with the judge responsible for juvenile court issues. “ If you ask a cop, ‘Who is your greatest threat to public safety?’ they’ll more likely than not tell you that it’s the repeat offenders coming in and out of their jails.” — Gary Kempker Senior Manager, Center for Effective Public Policy Jail populations are too often ignored in reentry policy discussions. The Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that the nation’s jails book 12 million admissions and 9 million individuals annually, compared to an estimated 700,000 who enter and leave state and federal prisons.[28] As jails often serve as both the point of release and return from the criminal justice system as well as the point of entry, local law enforcement agencies can develop multidimensional relationships with local correctional authorities that can reduce victimization and promote public safety. Institutional data such as inmate conduct, gang involvement, and telephone and visiting contacts can prove helpful to ongoing crime investigations. Collaborations that leverage resources such as employment and social service agencies along with the local faith-based organizations can address the needs of inmates identified as at-risk of reoffending. Community services, needs, and capacity Policymakers can select a priority population that shares a particular service need that may be a contributing factor to reoffending. In this case, policymakers and their staff must assess what services the community can currently offer and which can be established or enhanced to meet the priority population’s needs to the greatest effect. Planners can use a combination of sources to examine aggregate data on critical issues that men and women leaving correctional facilities often face, the extent to which people with these needs reoffend, and the capacity in communities to which people return. In particular, policymakers should consider information relating to such factors as individuals’ mental health, substance use, physical health, employability, literacy, and housing. Based on these findings, the initiative should identify service providers who can address these needs or otherwise help build capacity. Alternatively, policymakers may also design a response, and select a target population, based on a much-needed service the collaborative is well positioned to address. For example, if the collaborative includes highly respected local substance abuse treatment providers with the capacity to serve this population, partners may want to identify a significant number of participants with the need for these services and connect them with these professionals. As part of this analysis, policymakers should become familiar with barriers restricting formerly incarcerated people’s access to services that can improve reentry success rates. This includes prisoners’ access to programs and services while incarcerated (such as behavioral change programs, employment readiness training, work release programs and job placement services, and mental health and substance use treatment), as well as services available in communities to which prisoners and detainees return. Policymakers should Geographic factors The reentry initiative can focus on individuals returning from prison or jail to a specific geographic area. Law enforcement agencies may, in fact, advocate a place-based reentry strategy in support of their efforts around crime hot spots. In general, prisoners return to a relatively small number of neighborhoods that typically face many challenges but have only limited resources.29 Policymakers can have staff or consultants map the last known addresses of released inmates to identify places where these individuals are concentrated within cities and neighborhoods, and overlay a crime map to inform prevention strategies in key locations.30 Partners can also use mapping to inventory what services are provided and what challenges and opportunities exist for individuals returning to these neighborhoods.31 This analysis can illustrate the need to find transportation options, move services closer to neighborhoods where most prisoners return, and devise other strategies to enhance services in areas that are often particularly ill-equipped to receive people returning from correctional facilities.32 Improving services in those neighborhoods—not only for people released from prison or jail but for all residents—also can help promote support for reentry efforts. The consideration of these six factors and others that the collaborative proposes can help policymakers and their staff define parameters for the reentry strategy. To ensure early successes, planners initially may define a more narrow approach and then expand the initiative’s priority population based on additional analyses of the factors that may lead individuals to commit new crimes or violate their probation or parole. For example, an initial strategy may include only young adults released from jails who are involved in gangs and are from a particular neighborhood; as the initiative evolves, it may expand to include additional populations, such as adults released from prison who have committed violent offenses and are still under some form of supervision. Policymakers should keep in mind that the target population should be continually reviewed and evaluated as resources, partnerships, and factors that drive recidivism change in a community over time. Mapping and Reentry Mapping and geographic analyses are increasingly common tools in planning for reentry initiatives (and not just those with law enforcement involvement) and in illustrating the need for a reentry strategy to stakeholders. For example, the Urban Institute’s Reentry Mapping Network (www.urban.org/projects/reentry-mapping/index.cfm) consists of 14 jurisdictions across the country that are engaged in mapping and analyzing neighborhood-level data related to reentry and community well-being.33 Mapping has also been used for analyzing related factors; for example, the Council of State Governments Justice Center, through its Justice Reinvestment Initiative (www. justicereinvestment.org), has developed a four-step process to (1) analyze the prison population and spending in the communities to which people in prison often return; (2) provide policymakers with options to generate savings and increase public safety; (3) quantify savings and reinvest in select high-stakes communities; and (4) measure the impact and enhance accountability. also examine state and local policies that can affect an individual’s reintegration into the community, such as access to basic benefits, housing regulations, and employment restrictions. It is important to examine reentry challenges within a local context, as policies and procedures vary from state to state and even jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Assessment Questions Consider each section and thoughtfully select the category that you feel best fits your agency’s current efforts in reentry. Column 1: not part of reentry effort Column 2: part of plan for reentry effort Column 3: part of reentry effort Column 4: not applicable Gathering information from partners 1. Our agency shares data that can help identify a priority population with partners. 2. Partners share data with our agency that can help identify a priority population. Adopting a problem-solving approach 3. Partners use a systematic process to a. analyze the challenges to successful reentry in the community; b. identify a high-risk population for the initiative in order to best utilize resources; c. review the priority population decision to ensure efforts focus on high-risk persons who will most benefit from supervision and services. Identifying existing efforts in the field 4. Our agency actively works to identify reentry initiatives in other communities from which to learn. Choosing a target population based on a shared understanding of local reentry issues 5. To understand reentry’s local challenges, priority population identification focuses on the following factors: a. Types of offenses, both past and present b. Demographic groups c. Supervision status d. Releases from jail e. Available community services, specific reentry community needs, and capacity of community programs f. Geographic factors 6. To identify the priority population, our agency a. analyzes the factors that seem to drive recidivism; b. analyzes the barriers to resources and supports; c. develops a process for ongoing data collection on identified population; d. develops a process for evaluation of the priority population choices. 7. Partners involve research and planning staff from the law enforcement agency and other organizations in the analysis of reentry data. Comments Resources* Gathering information from partners CSG, RRPC • Policy Statement 2: Developing a Knowledge Base, pp. 23–35 Rinehart, Tammy A., Anna T. Lazlo, and Gwen O. Briscoe. Collaboration Toolkit: How to Build, Fix, and Sustain Productive Partnerships. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2001. • Section 5: Expertise Adopting a problem-solving approach Community Policing Consortium. The Mechanics of Problem Solving. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. No date. • Facilitator’s guide and slides available at www.policeforum.org. CSG, RRPC • Policy Statement 2: Developing a Knowledge Base, pp. 23–35 La Vigne et al, PRCP • Community Policing and Reentry, pp. 19–20 Ney and McGarry, GIR • Chapter 19: Adopt a Problem-Solving Approach, pp. 185–190 Identifying existing efforts in the field COPS Value-Based Reentry Initiative (Fact Sheet): www.cops.usdoj.gov/mime/open.pdf?Item=1026 Council of State Governments’ Reentry Program Examples Web site: www.reentrypolicy.org/program_examples La Vigne et al, PRCP • Examples from the Field, pp. 29–61 IACP, Building • Campbell County Police Department (KY), pp. 25–26 • Indianapolis Police Department/Marion County Sheriff’s Department (IN), pp. 27–28 • Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (NV), pp. 29–30 • Louisville Metro Police Department (KY), pp. 31–32 • Lowell Police Department (MA), pp. 33–34 • Minneapolis Police Department (MN), pp. 35–36 • New Haven Department of Police Service (CT), pp. 37–38 • Park City Police Department (UT), pp. 39–40 • Racine Police Department (WI), pp. 41–42 • Redmond Police Department (WA), pp. 43–44 • Savannah Chatham Metropolitan Police Department (GA), pp. 45–46 • Topeka Police Department (KS), pp. 47–48 • High Point Police Department/Winston-Salem Police Department (NC), pp. 49–50 National Governors Association’s Prisoner Reentry Policy Academy Web site: www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.1f41d49be2d3d33eacdcbeeb501010a0/ ?vgnextoid=6c239286d9de1010VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD. Reentry National Media Outreach Campaign Web site: www.reentrymedia outreach.org. Sacramento Police Department. “City Beat Episode 17: Parole Intervention Team, Officer Fitness, Military to Police Careers, and Above and Beyond” Video. No date. Available at www.sacpd.org/citybeat/citybeat.asp. Choosing a priority population based on a shared understanding of local reentry issues CSG, RRPC • Introduction: Understanding Re-Entry, pp. 9–12 • Policy Statement 2: Developing a Knowledge Base, pp. 23–35 • Chart of Status of Parole by State, pp. 591–594 IACP, Building • Building Partnerships, pp. 13–15 IACP, Offender Re-Entry • Issue Area IV: Designing Offender Re-Entry Efforts, pp. 12–16 Ney and McGarry, GIR • Chapter 11: Obtain All the Necessary Information, pp. 103–108 • Chapter 12: Plan Your System Assessment, pp. 109–114 • Chapter 13: Map the System, pp. 115–124 • Chapter 14: Document and Assess Current Policies and Practices, pp. 125–134 • Chapter 15: Gather Information on Your Offender Population, pp. 135–150 • Chapter 16: Document and Assess All of the Resources Available to You, pp. 151–166 Sexton, WT: Framework • Step 5: Identifying a Target Population, pp. 47–50 Taxman, Faye S., James M. Byrne, and Douglas Young. Targeting for Reentry: Matching Needs and Services to Maximize Public Safety. College Park: University of Maryland, College Park, Bureau of Governmental Research, 2002. Related topic: Focusing on jail populations Mellow, Jeff, Debbie Mukamal, Stefan LoBuglio, Amy Solomon, and Jenny Osborne. The Jail Administrator's Toolkit for Reentry. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, 2008. Solomon, Amy, Jenny Osborne, Stefan LoBuglio, Jeff Mellow, and Debbie Mukamal. Life after Lockup: Improving Reentry from Jail to the Community. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, 2008. Related topic: Mapping and reentry CSG, RRPC • An Explanation of Justice Mapping: Three Examples, pp. 595–599 Harris, Richard, Charles Huenke, and John P. O’Connell. “Using Mapping to Increase Released Offenders’ Access to Services.” In Crime Mapping Case Studies: Successes in the Field, ed. Nancy La Vigne and Julie Wartell, pp. 61–66. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum, 1998. La Vigne, Nancy G. Mapping for Community-Based Prisoner Reentry Efforts: A Guidebook for Law Enforcement Agencies and their Partners. Washington, D.C.: Police Foundation, 2007. La Vigne, Nancy, and Barbara Parthasarathy. Returning Home Illinois Policy Brief: Prisoner Reentry and Residential Mobility. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, 2005. La Vigne, Nancy G., Jake Cowan, and Diana Brazzell. Mapping Prisoner Reentry: An Action Research Guidebook, 2d ed. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, 2006. Reentry Mapping Network Web site: www.reentrymapping.org. * See page 10 for the full citations of the frequently cited resources that are abbreviated in this list. 4 Mission, Goals, and Performance Measures Law enforcement and its partners define a mission for the reentry collaborative, enumerate specific goals, and identify ways to measure progress toward these goals. Discussion To implement their commitment to supporting safe and successful reentry, law enforcement representatives should work with their partners to develop a structure for the initiative. These steps may be taken concurrently with the task of identifying a priority population and should certainly be in place before any participants are engaged. Early in the planning process policymakers should agree on a mission for the initiative. This is not simply an exercise in refining language to be used on materials that describe the group’s efforts. It is an opportunity to articulate a common purpose among the different partners to guide their respective reentry work plans and policies. Partners should recognize that they may have different reasons for working in reentry and may want to focus on different target populations to carry out their objectives. For example, the law enforcement agency may prefer to focus on people who have committed violent crimes and are considered to be at a high risk of committing another offense or violating the conditions of their release. Agencies may feel that such a focus has the greatest potential positive impact on public safety. In contrast, prosecutors, who may face significant public scrutiny for such efforts, may prefer targeting people convicted of nonviolent misdemeanors in order to demonstrate early successes and minimize the chances that the commission of any new crimes by participants would affect community members’ personal safety.34 For this reason, policymakers from different stakeholder groups must develop written consensus on the initiative’s mission—and share this mission statement widely within partner agencies and the community. In the course of identifying potential partners, analyzing the barriers individuals face when returning to the community from correctional or detention facilities, and defining a shared mission and priority population, policymakers will have at their disposal a significant amount of information about individuals reentering their community. This research will also reveal whether existing reentry initiatives operate in the jurisdiction. Law enforcement executives should consider the possibility of joining one of these initiatives (or proposing to restructure it to allow for greater law enforcement involvement) to leverage work already under way. Executives need to carefully consider the benefits and drawbacks of such an arrangement. Agency leaders should review the degree to which the missions overlap or conflict and whether meaningful opportunities exist for collaborative policymaking, leadership, and day-to-day operational activities while allowing each agency to stay true to its respective goals. If these criteria are not met, law enforcement executives and their partners should consider developing a new reentry collaborative and should identify potential opportunities for supporting other initiatives and coordinating with them as their effort progresses. Multiple Reentry Initiatives—What to Look For Law enforcement officials may find that multiple reentry initiatives already exist in the jurisdiction. These may include a reentry committee composed of representatives from different state agencies, a state-level process initiated by the legislature or governor, countywide task forces formed by a sheriff or other county official, “reentry caucuses” established by one or more mayors in their respective municipalities, and neighborhood-level projects or working groups prompted by community leaders or community development organizations. Based on the focus of the initiative and its stated mission, policymakers should identify goals and ways to measure progress toward these goals. It is important to ensure that goals are realistic and attainable based on the selected target population’s risk level; accordingly, some goals should be designated as short-term and others as longer-term. For example, if the initiative targets individuals convicted of violent offenses who are homeless, goals of ensuring that participants will not be re-arrested for any type of infraction or will secure stable housing may be considered longer-term, whereas preventing them from committing a major crime within 90 days of their release or connecting them with transitional housing options would be more immediate goals. program example: Mission and Goals of the Knoxville (Tennessee) Public Safety Collaborative Mission: The Knoxville Public Safety Collaborative (KPSC) is a broad-based partnership representing the corrections, law enforcement, and social service communities in Knoxville, Tennessee. Our mission is to protect public safety and to promote better outcomes for families and children. We accomplish this by providing proactive, coordinated treatment and supervision services to high-risk/multiple-needs offenders and their families. Goals: 1. Enhance day-to-day working relationships among community corrections officers, police, and social service providers in the city of Knoxville. 2. Share information among parole and probation officers, police, and service providers to more effectively manage offenders in the community. 3. Organize and share interagency information and resources to address changing needs and risks of offenders, as well as their children and families. 4. Develop and use a comprehensive and proactive case management process for high-risk offenders and their children and families. 5. Use progressive sanctions, including supervised community service, for offenders in KPSC's target population. 6. Develop and implement a strategic action plan to expand and enhance the composition of the KPSC and to obtain the resources required to sustain the KPSC's mission in the future. The initiative should have goals related to public safety, such as reducing participants’ criminal behavior. Measuring these goals requires that mechanisms for sharing information between law enforcement and institutional and community corrections be in place. Since officers may encounter participants who live and work on their beat, protocols should be developed to ensure that law enforcement personnel are made aware of formerly incarcerated people participating in the initiative; this information is particularly important at both booking and release. Similarly, if initiative participants have new encounters with police and corrections, this information should be shared with other partners in a timely fashion. program example: Knoxville (Tennessee) Public Safety Collaborative As part of the Knoxville Public Safety Collaborative, the Knoxville Police Department (KPD) helps monitor and check selected parolees and probationers for compliance with curfews and other conditions of supervision. Officers are aware of program participants through the lists that are sent out by the KPD Community Corrections Program Manager— usually on a weekly basis for probationers and on a monthly basis for parolees. Should an officer have questions about someone’s supervision status, he or she can contact probation or parole or the KPD Community Corrections Program Manager, who is on call 24/7. Any information that officers collect during checks or other contacts with program participants are recorded on field interview cards, which are forwarded either electronically or in hard copy to the assigned probation or parole officer. Additionally, KPD arrest reports are generated daily through the Knox County Judicial Information Management System (JIMS) and electronically sent to the Probation and Parole Office. To measure public safety goals, policymakers should agree on a common definition for “recidivism” that reflects their respective goals and relevant mandates. Stakeholders may have conflicting definitions for the types of outcomes they count as resulting in recidivism, ranging from rearrest, to reconviction, to reincarceration only after arrest for a new crime, to reincarceration for a technical violation of a condition of release (such as missing several supervision appointments). Some collaboratives compromise by agreeing upon multiple measures of recidivism rather than singling out one. Even if partners can develop a shared definition, agreeing on an acceptable level of recidivism may also prove challenging: some stakeholders may regard any amount of recidivism as an indication of failed reentry policy, whereas others may believe that enforcement and reincarceration, when appropriate, is part of a viable reentry strategy. The degree to which stakeholders reach consensus on critical issues such as this will have a significant impact on the long-term success of the initiative. Policymakers also should establish goals to address the underlying factors in their community that drive recidivism rates, such as substance use, unemployment, homelessness, lack of education, negative peer groups, and mental illness—all of which may make individuals released from prison or jail more prone to encounters with law enforcement and subsequent reincarceration. Specific goals will be based on participants’ needs and the services and surveillance provided by the collaborative. Goals might focus on connecting individuals to effective mental health treatment, decreasing substance use, securing housing options, sustaining employment, achieving literacy, acquiring a GED or vocational skills, addressing antisocial behaviors, and other measures that reduce the risks for reincarceration. Measures might include the number of individuals referred to services and the outcomes of their involvement— such as number of days they were continuously employed, the amount of restitution they paid, or the frequency with which they were able to make child support payments once employed. The measures take into account how lives are improved—for the person released from prison or jail, his or her family, and others who benefit from the individual’s having a productive role in the community. Policymakers should also consider goals that focus on enhancing the capacity of community resources to serve all area residents in need—not just individuals who are enrolled in the reentry initiative. For example, a goal of expanding drug treatment services in the neighborhoods where most people released from prisons and jails return would benefit anyone in that community. To measure these types of goals, collaborative partners can look at the community-wide impact of the initiative on both first-time arrests (for nonparticipants) and repeat offenses (for participants). Performance measures might also include numbers of community members who were referred to treatment, completed their treatment plan, returned to treatment after a relapse, and received treatment but were incarcerated or reincarcerated over a defined period of time. Partners likewise should ensure—and make clear to the public— that achieving the initiative’s goals does not mean reducing services for others in the community. Policymakers should enumerate and document the initiative’s services and supervision strategies and show how these activities support the mission and goals. The decision about specific reentry strategies should be made in light of partners’ capacities to address the needs and risks of the identified target population. For example, if the target population includes people convicted of domestic violence crimes, the program might position law enforcement officers to visit the homes of participants and to use law enforcement’s strengths in explaining to victims their rights and linking them to service providers; or if the target population includes individuals with mental illnesses and substance use disorders, the program should include providers who can address treatment and other needs. Performance measures should be used to determine how effective these services and supervision strategies are in achieving specified goals. Measures that are regularly and consistently reviewed can demonstrate early successes, assess progress toward longer-term goals, and indicate the need for midcourse corrections to the overall initiative design. As planners make decisions about the collaborative’s specific reentry strategies, they will also clarify essential matters concerning requirements for initiative participants, how partners in the collaborative relate to one another and exchange information, what role law enforcement plays prior to and after participants’ release from incarceration, and the organizational steps the law enforcement agency will take to support the initiative and other efforts to ensure sustainability (all issues addressed in subsequent sections of this document). * Chief Miller served as the Chief of Police for six years in Kansas City (Kansas) before retiring in 2006. He began his career there in 1972 and rose through the ranks from patrol officer. He currently serves as the Chief of Police in Topeka (Kansas). “ In a reentry initiative, a law enforcement agency doesn’t have to be everything to everybody. It can’t be. There are a lot of different ways you can make this work.” — Ron Miller Chief, Topeka (Kansas) Police Department* Assessment Questions Consider each section and thoughtfully select the category that you feel best fits your agency’s current efforts in reentry. Column 1: not part of reentry effort Column 2: part of plan for reentry effort Column 3: part of reentry effort Column 4: not applicable Articulating a shared mission 1. Our agency and its partners a. work together to develop a mission statement for the initiative b. agree on a written mission statement for broad dissemination Identifying goals and performance measures 2. Our agency and its partners jointly develop initiative goals that address the following: a. public safety b. substance abuse c. mental health d. health e. education f. housing g. employment h. capacity of community resources 3. Our agency and its partners a. work together to identify ways to measure the short-term and long-term goals b. agree on common definitions for measuring goals (e.g., what constitutes recidivism) c. determine if the goals also include improving services to the larger community Designing initiative services and supervision strategies 4. Our agency and its partners a. record the initiative’s supervision strategies and services in writing b. institute performance measures to examine these supervision strategies and services Comments Resources* Articulating a shared mission CSG, RRPC • Policy Statement 3: Incorporating Re-Entry into Organizations’ Missions and Work Plans, pp. 38–52 Ney and McGarry, GIR • Chapter 8: Create a Mission and Goals for the Policy Team, pp.75–82 Rinehart, Tammy A., Anna T. Lazlo, and Gwen O. Briscoe. Collaboration Toolkit: How to Build, Fix, and Sustain Productive Partnerships. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2001. • Section 4: Shared Vision and Common Goals Sexton, WT: Framework • Step 3: Articulating the Mission, pp. 33–38 Identifying goals and performance measures CSG, RRPC • Policy Statement 6: Measuring Outcomes and Evaluating the Impact of a Re-Entry Initiative, pp. 87–94 IACP, Building • Needs Assessment, pp. 8–9 • Measuring Success, p. 20 • Key Recommendations and Advice, p. 22 IACP, Offender Re-Entry • Issue Area IV: Designing Offender Re-Entry Efforts, pp. 12–16 • Issue Area VIII: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Offender Re-Entry Efforts, pp. 25–28 La Vigne et al., PRCP • Creating Realistic Goals and Operating with Limited Resources, p. 64 Ney and McGarry, GIR • Chapter 8: Create a Mission and Goals for the Policy Team, pp.75–82 Rinehart, Tammy A., Anna T. Lazlo, and Gwen O. Briscoe. Collaboration Toolkit: How to Build, Fix, and Sustain Productive Partnerships. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2001. • Section 4: Shared Vision and Common Goals Sexton, WT: Framework • Step 7: Monitoring Progress and Measuring Performance, pp. 72–80 * See page 10 for the full citations of the frequently cited resources that are abbreviated in this list. Developing the Initiative Designing initiative services and supervision strategies IACP, Building • Needs Assessment, pp. 8–9 • Components and Activities, pp. 9–11 • Key Recommendations and Advice, p. 21 IACP, Offender Re-Entry • Issue Area IV: Designing Offender Re-Entry Efforts, pp. 12–16 Ney, and McGarry, GIR • Chapter 9: Understand and Specify the Goals and Outcomes of Sanctions, pp. 83–92 • Chapter 10: Use Evidence-Based Practices, pp. 93–100 Sexton, WT: Framework • Step 6: Integrating Supervision and Service Delivery, pp. 51–71 Taxman, Faye S., Douglas Young, James M. Byrne, Alexander Holsinger, and Donald Anspach. From Prison Safety to Public Safety: Innovations in Offender Reentry. College Park: University of Maryland, College Park, Bureau of Governmental Research, 2002. * See page 10 for the full citations of the frequently cited resources that are abbreviated in this list. 5 Initiative’s Terms and Participant Identification Law enforcement and its partners design parameters governing how participants will be involved in services and supervision, and procedures for how participants will be identified and enrolled. Discussion Policymakers’ decisions regarding the initiative’s mission, goals, and strategies provide a foundation for a collaborative public safety initiative focusing on a population at high risk of reoffending. They must next work with their staff to develop the rules and requirements with which participants, once selected, must comply.* These terms of participation can be applied to both pre- and postrelease aspects of the reentry initiative. They can include requirements such as • reporting regularly to a probation or parole officer, • maintaining a known residence, • submitting to drug tests, • complying with a curfew, • attending program meetings, and • completing a plan for receiving specified services or treatment (based in the community after release or in the facility prior to release). Partners on the policy board must also consider the important question of whether enrollment in the initiative is voluntary or mandatory. Competing factors can make this decision difficult. To provide enhanced supervision to individuals deemed at high risk of reoffending, policymakers may be wary of allowing individuals to opt out. Alternatively, to increase the likelihood that limited resources and services are used to their greatest benefit, policymakers may want to prioritize access to those individuals who are the most interested (including those who are under no form of supervision after their release). To resolve this tension, policymakers can consider scaling requirements so that the most important aspects of the initiative are mandatory. In particular, reporting requirements, such as curfews and drug tests, may be mandatory; other aspects, such as using certain services, may be voluntary. If individuals have the option of participating in some or all aspects of the initiative, coordinators and staff should explain the benefits of full involvement to eligible individuals, emphasizing the opportunity to turn their lives around by participating in programming that may otherwise be difficult to access. program example: Boston (Massachusetts) Police Department The Boston Re-Entry Initiative (BRI) identifies potential participants in the first 60 days of their incarceration at the Suffolk County House of Correction (SCHOC). The SCHOC and the Boston Regional Intelligence Center (BRIC) work with the district attorney and the U.S. attorney to identify those who are eligible for involvement in the BRI. Participants are selected for the reentry program on the basis of their criminal history, as the BRI targets those who are likely to reoffend upon release. These clients are referred to as impact players, owing to their significant histories of violent crimes, past and current affiliations with gangs or groups, and previous weapons charges. Shortly after the selection process is complete, this eligible group meets with a panel of social service providers, case managers, and law enforcement officials to hear a fair and balanced message regarding involvement in the program. Enrollment is strictly voluntary and provides access to additional programming and continued case management services for up to 12 months after release. Those individuals who opt out of participation do not receive the benefits, but upon release they will still be identified by the Boston Police Department as high-risk exoffenders. To make participation appealing, reentry partners emphasize that they offer eligibility for services and programming to which participants may not otherwise have access. Once they have identified terms of participation and addressed the question of whether individuals volunteer or are mandated to participate, policymakers should decide what is considered noncompliance and what the response to it will be. For each term of participation, coordinators and staff must communicate to participants what is considered successful achievement and what the consequences will be for failing to meet that level of success. Compliance could be rewarded through mechanisms such as graduation ceremonies; small tokens of recognition; certificates of rehabilitation; decreased supervision; or waivers of fines or fees for people who owe court costs, probation supervision fees, or other court-ordered payments to criminal justice agencies. Noncompliance, including not participating in mandated programming, should be sanctioned. Planners should consider questions such as how many missed appointments with supervisors count as noncompliance. As part of the initiative’s response to noncompliant behavior, policymakers should consider implementing community-based graduated sanctions, such as electronic monitoring, additional reporting, or curfew checks, for less serious failures to comply with terms of participation. Planners on the coordinating group also should set parameters that govern the duration of a participant’s access to services and supervision, as well as benchmarks for completion. Policymakers may decide to use a set time frame to mark completion of individuals’ direct involvement in the reentry initiative. Alternatively, policymakers may institute benchmarks that tie an individual’s completion to his or her accomplishment of a specified goal. For example, policies may state that if an individual demonstrates sustained engagement in mental health or substance addiction treatment, or continuous employment, along with a clean criminal record, he or she may be eligible for graduation. Policymakers also should determine an individual’s reward for satisfactorily graduating from the program; in some cases, this will mean narrowing the conditions of the individual’s community supervision (such as by lifting electronic monitoring or travel restrictions) or shortening the length of time a person spends under supervision, if appropriate. Reentry initiative administrators can work proactively to coordinate with the relevant releasing authority—depending on the state, this may be a parole board, commission, or judge—to ensure that conditions of supervision and terms of participation in the reentry initiative are complementary. In addition, reentry initiative staff should make recommendations to the supervisory authority about emphasizing participants' engagement with specified community services, as well as recommend policies on how to respond to noncompliance using sanctions up to and including revocation and reincarceration. These policies should be agreed to by all partners and periodically revised as needed. The framework for the reentry initiative should be complete when the priority population, mission, goals, terms of participation, and related policies have been fully defined and documented. To commence operations, policymakers must develop protocols for consistently identifying the individual participants who meet the target population criteria. These protocols should identify when individual participants are selected (at sentencing, at intake to a correctional facility, or shortly before or after release), what data partners share to identify participants, and the processes for contributing the data. Regardless of the point in the criminal justice process when identification is made, risk assessment tools administered by corrections agencies can be a primary source for identifying participants. Law enforcement may have opportunities to contribute information it gathers at arrest and booking, as well as officers’ knowledge of specific people involved in the criminal justice system (such as contacts with law enforcement officers that do not rise to reportable offenses) to help corrections and other partners consider program eligibility. Community representatives, including family members of those returning from correctional facilities, may also offer their perspectives to help identify participants. A transparent process for identifying participants must be defined, documented, and in place when the program begins operations to ensure that the program can address any concerns about racial profiling or any other bias (see also Element 1: Viability). Policymakers should develop systems to ensure that individuals who are enrolled in the initiative are aware of what to expect and what will be expected from them in turn. Orientation meetings, held either before or after release, provide an effective forum for presenting the terms of participation, as well as what the initiative offers, how it can help participants, how partners are committed to providing assistance where appropriate, and each of the partners’ roles. In particular, law enforcement’s dual commitment to helping participants return successfully to the community and enforcing the law should be emphasized. Policymakers and staff should also design ways to gauge whether services are meeting participants’ needs. These may include scheduling periodic check-ins between staff and participants and providing participants with an opportunity to share feedback on their experience and present any concerns about the terms of participation. * As discussed more fully below, some terms of participation may already be ordered in an individual’s conditions of release if he or she is on probation or parole. † Prior to joining the Montgomery County (Maryland) Department of Correction and Rehabilitation, Chief LoBuglio worked for the Suffolk County (Massachusetts) Sheriff’s Department in Boston and was involved with the Boston Re-Entry Initiative. “ Our departmental goal is to create a culture in our institutions so that you’re the odd man out if you’re not participating in our reentry programs. We know that most people aspire to better lives for themselves and their family, and want to hold and raise their children, earn money, and live as responsible members of their communities. So beginning in our detention facilities and continuing into our pre-release program, we focus on structuring incentives to encourage people with the motivation and gumption and provide a chance to earn their way back into the community.” — Stefan LoBuglio, Ed.D., Chief, Pre-Release and Reentry Services, Montgomery County (Maryland) Department of Correction and Rehabilitation† Assessment Questions Consider each section and thoughtfully select the category that you feel best fits your agency’s current efforts in reentry. Column 1: not part of reentry effort Column 2: part of plan for reentry effort Column 3: part of reentry effort Column 4: not applicable Developing policies and procedures 1. Our agency and its partners develop terms of participation that address a. prerelease requirements b. postrelease requirements c. whether enrollment is voluntary or mandatory d. what constitutes compliance e. the reward system for compliance f. what constitutes noncompliance g. protocols for responding to noncompliance h. the duration of time services and supervision will be provided Identifying participants 2. Our agency and its partners use transparent protocols for identifying individual participants that specify a. the criteria participants must meet to be part of the target population b. when participants are selected for the initiative c. how partners will contribute to the identification process Comments Resources* Developing policies and procedures Council of State Governments Justice Center. Special Project: Assessment Process. No date. Available at www.reentrypolicy.org/special_projects/ assessment_processes. CSG, RRPC • Policy Statement 8: Development of Intake Procedure, pp. 110–140 • Policy Statement 9: Development of Programming Plan, pp. 141–153 IACP, Building • Practical Tools and Instruments, pp. 12–13 IACP, Offender Re-Entry • Issue Area IV: Designing Offender Re-Entry Efforts, pp. 12–16 • Issue Area VI: Educating the Public, pp. 18–22 Ney and McGarry, GIR • Chapter 21: Develop Policies, Procedures, and Programs as Strategies To Achieve Outcomes, pp. 201–212 Sexton, WT: Framework • Step 5: Identifying a Target Population, pp. 47–50 • Step 6: Integrating Supervision and Service Delivery, pp. 51–71 Identifying participants Sexton, WT: Framework • Step 5: Identifying a Target Population, pp. 47–50 Taxman, Faye S., James M. Byrne, and Douglas Young. Targeting for Reentry: Matching Needs and Services to Maximize Public Safety. College Park: University of Maryland, College Park, Bureau of Governmental Research, 2002. Related topic: Responding to concerns about racial profiling Byrne and Hummer, “Examining” Fridell, Lorie, Robert Lunney, Drew Diamond, and Bruce Kubu. Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2001. La Vigne et al., PRCP • Creating Realistic Goals and Operating with Limited Resources, p. 64 • Overcoming Internal Organizational Challenges, p. 65 • Agreeing on Data-Sharing Protocols, p. 65 • Overcoming Mistrust and Misinformation, pp. 66–69 • Forging Strong and Sustainable Partnerships, p. 70 Initiative’s Terms and Participant Identification 67 * See page 10 for the full citations of the frequently cited resources that are abbreviated in this list. Council of State Governments Justice Center 100 Wall Street 20th Floor New York, NY 10005 tel: 212-482-2320 fax: 212-482-2344 4630 Montgomery Avenue Suite 650 Bethesda, MD 20814 tel: 301-760-2401 fax: 240-497-0568 504 West 12th Street Austin, TX 78701 tel: 512-507-6653 fax: 512-474-5011 www.justicecenter.csg.org