National Jail Exchange 2014 http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange
Jail Reentry Planning: A Little Collaboration and Communication Go a Long Way By Andrew Verheek, Planner, Kent County Office of Community Corrections, Grand Rapids, Michigan
Kent County’s experiences with the Transition from Jail to the Community (TJC) initiative started with conversations and formal planning in 2008—with the fruits of these labors continuing through to the current day. For those who are not familiar with TJC, it refers to a technical assistance program made available through the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) and managed by the Urban Institute. Kent County received TJC assistance from NIC and the Urban Institute through in Phase I of that initiative. The Office of Community Corrections (OCC) and the Kent County Sheriff jointly led the project, with the assistance of several other agencies and stakeholders, as shown in Figure 1, page 2 (sidebar). The overall flow of Kent County’s reentry initiative across the past several years is shown in Figure 2, page 3. The work accomplished through the TJC initiative led to three primary achievements:
Creation of reentry pods for both men and women in the Kent County Correctional Facility (KCCF);
Continuation of the Kent County Community Reentry Coordinating Council (CRCC) beyond the initial project period; and
Development and implementation of a proxy risk assessment tool at KCCF.
Page 1 National Jail Exchange – http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange
National Jail Exchange 2014 http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange
Successful launch of Kent County’s jail reentry initiative was thanks to three main ingredients:
Buy-in from multiple stakeholders;
Leadership from key players such as the Kent County Sheriff’s Department and Network180, the community mental health authority for Kent County; and
Willingness on the part of all stakeholders to collaborate and communicate to arrive at the best long-term solutions that would satisfy Figure 1. Core Organizations each stakeholder’s needs. Involved in Kent County’s TJC Initiative
These elements also ensured that jail reentry services would continue after the close of TJC technical assistance in Kent County. But chief among these ingredients, it was precisely the willingness of the partner agencies to collaborate and communicate that turned out to be the essential driving factor in the success of Kent County’s jail reentry efforts. Given the primary importance of collaboration and communication to TJC outcomes in Kent County, this article focuses on how those two elements have played out over the past several years.
Kent County Sheriff’s Department Kent County Office of Community Corrections Network180 Arbor Circle Family Outreach Center Hope Network Grand Rapids Coalition to End Homelessness Women’s Resource Center Michigan 61st District Court Kent County Circuit Court Probation Office Kent County Parole Office Kent County Friend of the Court Kent County Victim-Witness Office Kent County Administration Grand Valley State University, Department of Criminal Justice
Page 2 National Jail Exchange – http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange
National Jail Exchange 2014 http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange
Figure 2. Milestones in Kent County’s TJC Initiative
Summer 2008 Kent County agencies begin conversations on jail reentry
September 2009 County staff attend TJC kickoff in Washington, D.C.
Fall 2008
February 2009
County participates in TCJ training
Reentry coordinating council holds 1st formal project meeting
August 2009
June 2009
County is selected as a TJC site
County applies to become a TJC site.
October 2009
February 2010
October 2010
Kent County holds local TJC kickoff
County implements proxy risk assessment
Men's reentry pod and programming opens
October 2012
September 2011
Women's reentry pod opens
Consultants make last site visit
December 2012 County staff attend TJC "lessons learned" session in Denver, Colo.
Page 3 National Jail Exchange – http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange
National Jail Exchange 2014 http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange
1) Collaboration in Planning None of the successful programs or implementation of the proxy risk assessment used at KCCF would have been possible without the buy-in of the agencies and stakeholders that have made the TJC initiative a successful endeavor. In fact, the success of the TJC work in Kent County rests solely on the shared commitment of the various agencies and stakeholders involved with this project. One of the first tasks we faced was defining the pathway in which the project would proceed. The project would involve making decisions about which population(s) would be served, which services would be provided, who would provide them, how those services would be implemented, and so forth. But first, we had to agree on how to manage the overall project and how we would make decisions. Without the collaboration of all the stakeholders, our jail reentry efforts most likely would have gone nowhere. So, at the onset of the initiative, we formed a steering committee that was tasked with getting the project moving in a positive direction. The steering committee included staff from the Kent County Sheriff’s Department, Kent County Office of Community Corrections, Kent County Circuit Court Probation, and other government agencies. Having a smaller steering group at the beginning of this journey helped the project in two ways. First, the initial members of this group were familiar with each other from working on other projects and initiatives in Kent County. This fostered an environment where people were comfortable enough with each other to openly and frankly discuss matters of importance to this reentry effort. Second, having a smaller group allowed the steering committee to deliberately add new members who brought competencies and experience in areas we identified as being missing from the group and the project itself. Regular teleconferences with our consultants assisted in keeping the group focused on matters being handled by the steering committee and by subcommittees. The men and women from the Urban Institute and NIC were patient while listening to us describe the growing pains of this initiative. Not only did they provide a useful sounding board, they provided guidance on how to tackle our hurdles as well as illustrating how other communities have moved past roadblocks to successfully implement a solid reentry plan.
Page 4 National Jail Exchange – http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange
National Jail Exchange 2014 http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange
“Who will be served?” An early task was creating a triage model to define which offender populations would receive which services at reentry. The reasons were both practical and professional. On the professional side, evidence-based practices (EBP) indicate, in short, that offenders have different levels of risk and need and should be treated and served accordingly. Kent County made a decision early on in the process to adhere to evidence-based practices, which translated to triaging who would and would not receive services. This was true for both the male and female populations. As for the practical aspect, KCCF has experienced an average of 26,500 individuals booked into the facility during each of the past 5 years. Even if we could grow money on trees and magically conjure enough space to provide needed services, it would not be possible to provide treatment and services to all detainees. The TJC team agreed early on to focus resources on those offenders who were identified as high-risk and high-need and who would be incarcerated long enough to receive meaningful programming and substance abuse treatment. Having stakeholders involved with the group who were well-versed in evidence-based practices and programming, plus consultants who helped steer these initial conversations around who should be targeted and served by this initiative, Kent County was able to address programming and targeting issues from the onset of the project. “What programs and services will be offered?” Making decisions on what programming would be provided through KCCF’s reentry efforts could have been marked with false starts had there not been a strong sense of communication and collaboration from the beginning. True collaboration takes a committed group of stakeholders who are willing to hear each other out in terms of suggestions and opinions and are respectful of the insights of other participants. Effective collaboration played out in this initiative through the necessary give and take in terms of setting priorities for programs. One challenge was the limited amount of classroom space available in the KCCF reentry pods. This meant that not everyone would be able to see their programming suggestions or options implemented. We consciously delegated a majority of the decisions on the what, when, where, and how programming should be implemented to the programming subcommittee. It consisted of staff from service providers, the Kent County jail, and additional stakeholders, all of whom had the educational background and experience needed to make decisions on programming issues. The subcommittee evaluated which evidence-based services could be provided within the parameters of how long individuals were staying in KCCF and of available space. The Page 5 National Jail Exchange – http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange
National Jail Exchange 2014 http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange
subcommittee also helped determine which services could be condensed in such a way that the fidelity of the program was not lost. The subcommittee’s recommendation for programming and how those services should be implemented helped the decision-making process proceed smoothly once these discussions made it back to the larger stakeholder group. If not for the team’s commitment to fostering an environment that was conducive to open and frank discussion, compromise, and a little bargaining, stakeholders might have been at loggerheads for a majority of the project. That would have caused unnecessary delays in getting reentry services up and running for eligible offenders. “What intervention philosophy?” Our process for deciding which cognitive-behavioral treatment (CBT) curriculum to use in the reentry pods at KCCF provides another example of how communication facilitates decisionmaking. The decision to utilize the Thinking for a Change (T4C) CBT curriculum was not made in a single meeting. The groundwork for using this program involved discussions held over the course of several Program Subcommittee and full CRCC meetings. This process included introducing EBP principles and instructing stakeholders on how EBP could guide our choice of programming. At that point, we were ready to review the different types of CBT curriculums that were available. As a first step, staff from OCC, Kent County Sheriff’s Department, Network180, and others had to collect, exchange, and analyze data to better understand the potential number of inmates who could be served by a cognitive program. We also had to examine whether there would be a large enough population of inmates incarcerated long enough in KCCF to justify the use of a program such as the T4C curriculum in particular. Given the length of time necessary to provide the T4C curriculum as intended by the developers of the program, it was important to know that enough of the inmate population would be housed long enough in KCCF to complete the program. Open and honest communication between stakeholders helped smooth over disagreements over which CBT curriculum would be most appropriate for use within reentry services at KCCF. Having a good communication base continues to provide benefits through to the current day in terms of providing CBT services at KCCF. Continuous feedback on the CBT program through Program Subcommittee meetings has allowed stakeholders to ask questions about the program, Page 6 National Jail Exchange – http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange
National Jail Exchange 2014 http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange
prompted modifications to how the program is administered, and given us opportunities to provide updates on how well the program is progressing in the reentry pods at KCCF.
2) Collaborating in Program Implementation Just as it took time to talk through the reasons for selecting and implementing our cognitive program at KCCF, we all agreed it would take time and collaborative effort to implement programs. This collaborative spirit manifested itself in a number of different ways. Staff training Collaboration was necessary to procure the training necessary for people to act as facilitators for the T4C curriculum. Agencies worked together to apply for the funding for facilitator training, to schedule space for the training, and to find a convenient time to hold the training so that individuals could attend. Gender responsiveness Though stakeholders had talked about the need for gender-specific programming in KCCF, there wasn’t a separate reentry pod for women until approximately 2011. Women had been identified as a population that needed reentry services, but there were few to no programs in place at KCCF to provide gender-specific services. The reentry initiative in Kent County initially focused on male offenders because of their larger population and longer length of stay. Once the discussion began in earnest through the Program Subcommittee and CRCC regarding the different issues affecting women offenders and their reentry experiences, we explored what gender-specific programming was needed and how a female reentry pod could be created in KCCF. A big part of this effort was to educate stakeholders about the need for and importance of trauma-based treatment options for female offenders. The project’s culture of open communication, which includes the ability to patiently listen to others, helped some stakeholders to hear the message that female offenders are unique and need different programming than men. Collaboration boosted the efforts to open a female reentry pod at KCCF. Stakeholders worked together to collect and analyze data specific to female offenders at KCCF as well as jointly applying for and implementing grants to fund female offender programming at KCCF. Page 7 National Jail Exchange – http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange
National Jail Exchange 2014 http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange
3) Collaborating to Understand Local Data One of the primary system elements within the TJC Model is that jail reentry initiatives are guided and driven by an understanding of local data. In fact, the central importance of local data and its use in a jail reentry initiative is shown in diagrams of the TJC Model. (See Figure 3.) Data appears to act as the balancing element between the other four main elements.
Figure 3. The TJC Model
Without data from a variety of sources, the jail reentry work in Kent County most likely would not have gained traction nor would it have had its current staying power. Data were obtained from various sources and stakeholders as the collaborative nature of Kent County’s TJC project helped whittle away the silo thinking that normally frames conversations regarding local agency data.
Page 8 National Jail Exchange – http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange
National Jail Exchange 2014 http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange
Silo thinking often works to confine individual stakeholders to the interests of their particular organizations, which hinders the sharing of data that could be employed in support of a project. In the case of Kent County, we did not see our stakeholders retreating to the relative safety of their individual silos on a large scale. Needed data was shared, discussed, and utilized through the life of the project. A subcommittee guided the data collection and analysis efforts related to Kent County’s TJC work from the onset. The group met regularly to discuss the data needed to move forward on different initiatives within the TJC project, where the data would be collected from, and who would collect it. This helped us to get questions answered and to move ahead on those initiatives. Another subcommittee was tasked with the development and implementation of a proxy risk assessment tool for use within KCCF. This was a major focus of the overall TJC project, and it underpinned all other aspects of the new reentry project. This committee helped direct data collection and analysis efforts to create a validated tool that would support case-by-case decision-making for individuals to receive reentry services. Data collection and analysis was not limited to these two groups. Agencies providing reentry services in the context of the TJC project often collected data specific to their services and shared this information with the larger CRCC or with other subcommittees when it came time to evaluate the progress of these services or provide support for further grant applications.
4) Collaborating to Refine the Approach Another of the benefits of the various involved stakeholders working towards a common goal is the group’s continuous, shared emphasis on evaluation and system improvement. Open communication has made possible the implementation of new ideas and initiatives. Communication between stakeholders also has provided pathways by which concerns have been voiced about existing jail reentry programming. Creating a respectful environment has allowed stakeholders to voice dissenting opinions regarding the growth and direction of jail reentry programming in Kent County without the fear that their ideas and opinions will not be heard or taken into consideration. By keeping an eye on how jail reentry programming continues to unfold and evolve over the years, we have been able to continue our work over time with minimal bumps and diversions. Page 9 National Jail Exchange – http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange
National Jail Exchange 2014 http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange
Evaluation Evaluation efforts are not based solely on the need for more formal evaluations conducted by outside evaluators. Nor was our focus on evaluation limited to the built-in meetings held when Kent County’s TJC coordinators were in town for site visits or additional training opportunities. A pattern of self-evaluation of the progress and ways to improve Kent County’s jail reentry program was evident from the very start of this process. Committee members and stakeholders have been and continue to be encouraged to bring issues to the programming committee as well as to the CRCC as a whole. This spirit of collaboration also helps in conducting more formal evaluations. Without the willingness of stakeholders to provide data, conduct research, and discuss findings, evaluation results would fall far short of our shared goal of providing an accurate read on how well the program is progressing. Modifying Risk Assessment Procedure At the onset of Kent County’s use of the proxy risk assessment, every offender who was booked into the Kent County Correctional Facility was screened using this three-question proxy risk assessment. This added up to approximately 17,400 individuals in 2010, the first year of use. Upon review, we determined that the vast majority of these offenders were not being housed long enough in KCCF to receive programming. Based on data provided by the Kent County Sheriff’s Department, 69% of all inmates booked into the facility during 2010 stayed 5 days or fewer in the facility. We therefore decided to concentrate staff time and energy on providing the proxy risk assessment to individuals staying 3 or more days. In other words, the proxy would be reserved for those offenders who were most likely to stay longer and who would be classified by KCCF staff. This reduced the number of individuals who received a proxy risk assessment to 7,109 individuals in 2011. It also increased the chances that those most in need of and qualified for services would be identified swiftly by KCCF staff. By reducing the number of proxy risk assessments done, we improved our reentry services and program delivery.
Page National Jail Exchange – http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange
10
National Jail Exchange 2014 http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange
Applying the Knowledge of Correctional Officers KCCF officers played a significant role in the success of Kent County’s jail reentry efforts. However, these staff members were originally left out of the planning and implementation stages of this project. It became apparent through discussions during committee meetings, planning sessions, and other trainings that the correctional officers working in the male and female reentry pods needed to be involved in our jail reentry efforts. We realized that correctional officers were an untapped resource that could provide much-needed insight into how programming in the reentry pods was actually working. Officers were uniquely able to offer suggestions on what may or may not work in the reentry pods. This experience showed us that corrections staff need to be included in all phases of a reentry planning initiative in order to ensure all relevant stakeholders are at the table and helping make decisions that impact the course of the initiative. Acquiring Grant Funding Kent County’s jail reentry initiative started small and grew steadily as funding became available and our service needs became known. Our collaborative approach to evaluation and tracking other metrics has given us a stronger basis to ask for more funding and an expansion of services. As in the case of many initiatives of this kind, financial backing is not guaranteed. Grant funding tends to come with finite timelines, and monies provided by local governmental or other nonprofit entities cannot be counted upon in unsure financial times—as we have experienced over the past 6 to 7 years. The willingness of CRCC members to work collaboratively to problem-solve funding issues has allowed the jail reentry project in Kent County to continue well past the time that the Urban Institute and NIC were providing technical assistance. Stakeholders have consistently worked to provide meaningful evaluation metrics that enabled us to demonstrate the program’s effectiveness, which in turn improves our attractiveness to funders.
Page National Jail Exchange – http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange
11
National Jail Exchange 2014 http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange
Recent findings from evaluations have given support to Kent County’s assertion that reentry programming is making a difference in the reduction of recidivism.
Eighty percent (80%) of men participating in the main reentry program have avoided rearrest after their release from incarceration. Participants had rearrest and reconviction rates 45% and 50% lower than a matched comparison group of nonparticipants Participants who remained in a second men’s reentry program for longer periods of time had significantly reduced recidivism outcomes than those who stayed for a shorter time. Rearrests decreased by 52% for those who stayed in the program for median and higher doses.
These findings have been used to justify continued funding and support from agencies such as the Kent County Correctional Facility and the Kent County Office of Community Corrections. Our collaborative approach also has helped us find new grant opportunities and apply for grant funds. Grants have enabled Kent County’s jail reentry services to grow as new service needs have been identified. A collaborative work environment has allowed stakeholders to bring new service needs to the table as well as helping the larger CRCC work together to expand existing programming or institute new services. An example of a service expansion at KCCF is the addition of the Women’s Reentry Pod. Various stakeholders advocated strongly for the inclusion of gender-specific programming for female offenders. For the men, workforce development services have been added to the array of reentry programming as the need became clearer and service providers were found who were willing to step up and provide this option. Quality employment is important to the successful reentry of formerly incarcerated individuals. Finding a provider willing to begin services while offenders were still incarcerated and to continue those services after their release was also of importance to the success of the program. Once these pieces were aligned, Kent County was able to add this piece to the initiative.
Page National Jail Exchange – http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange
12
National Jail Exchange 2014 http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange
Success Leads to Better Futures While collaboration and communication have been of primary importance to the success of jail reentry programming and services in Kent County, there are other important pieces to putting together a successful initiative. As noted earlier, an initial buy-in from a core group of agencies provided this project its initial liftoff and allowed it to move forward.
The Kent County Sheriff was an early supporter of jail reentry programming in KCCF. This allowed for leveraging support from other organizations and agencies that could have been reluctant to participate without the knowledge that the Sheriff and KCCF would be supportive of this work.
Without the support of OCC and its willingness to add the CRCC as a standing subcommittee of Kent County’s Community Corrections Advisory Board, the administrative structure of the jail reentry work might not have been possible.
OCC staff willingness to provide data collection and data analysis assistance from the very start of the project was another ingredient that helped grow this successful project.
Adding in additional stakeholders has worked to widen the input and broaden the cooperation that is important to keeping the jail reentry initiative in Kent County afloat. The Women’s Resource Center, Arbor Circle for individuals requiring case management and substance abuse services, and Hope Network for workforce development services are three agencies that joined our initiative later on.
All of the efforts and hard work put into jail reentry in Kent County by the stakeholders and other interested parties has created an initiative that has staying power. The jail reentry programming initiated through NIC’s technical assistance to Kent County continues through to the current day. Not only did we meet that initial goal, but we also expanded TJC’s impact to include gender-specific programming for women and case management programming for individuals transitioning back into the community.
Page National Jail Exchange – http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange
13
National Jail Exchange 2014 http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange
Even if we took for granted the hard work undertaken by stakeholders to ensure the success of Kent County’s jail reentry project, none of the growth in this initiative (let alone getting it off the ground in the first place) would have been possible without strong commitments to open and honest communication along with an adherence to collaborating together at every step along the way. Communication and collaboration are the glue that continues to make jail reentry work strong in Kent County. Other local or county-wide governments that want to accomplish something equally ambitious and far-reaching would be wise to ensure these elements are present in their own jail reentry initiatives. Without communication and collaboration, efforts to initiate or improve upon jail reentry in any community are bound to falter and eventually fail. This initiative has begun to show promising signs in improving the lives of participants as well as reducing the recidivism rate in Kent County. Participants have commented to correction officers and service providers about the positive impact the reentry program has had on their lives. Examples include increased confidence to get and hold a job and a feeling of pride of in completing their GED. Additionally, the positive impact of Kent County’s jail reentry effort can be measured by the continued involvement of stakeholders over the years. Sometimes initiatives like this falter after the consultants have left and the initial excitement has waned. Reentry in Kent County has grown and improved since the initial planning phase ended because of the continued effort and support of the stakeholders. Many of these stakeholders were present from the beginning of the initiative, meaning that they have given over 5 years to this program. Their commitment not only has helped support reentry through the years, it has fostered a culture of reentry in Kent County. This has borne fruit not only locally but also statewide, as Kent County has become known as an innovator and leader in jail reentry issues within the state of Michigan.
For more information, contact Andrew Verheek, Kent County Community Corrections Planner, at (616) 632-5367 or Andrew.Verheek@kentcountymi.gov.
Page National Jail Exchange – http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange
14
National Jail Exchange 2014 http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange
Resources Transition from Jail to the Community. [Web page]. U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections. http://nicic.gov/jailtransition TJC Implementation Toolkit. [Web page]. U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections. http://nicic.gov/TJCToolkit2
Document available at: http://community.nicic.gov/blogs/national_jail_exchange/archive/2014/07/09/jail-reentry-planning-alittle-collaboration-and-communication-go-a-long-way.aspx The National Jail Exchange is an ongoing electronic journal focusing on providing information to jails practitioners. This blog is funded by a contract from the National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. To write an article or to learn more about the National Jail Exchange, visit the homepage for this journal at: http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange.
Page National Jail Exchange – http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange
15