IncreasingPublicSafety ThroughSuccessful OffenderReentry ... ›...

Increasing Public SafetyThrough SuccessfulOffender Reentry:Evidence-Based andEmerging Practicesin Corrections

A companion document to:

THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CORRECTIONSTPC REENTRY HANDBOOK

and

THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CORRECTIONSTPC CASE MANAGEMENT HANDBOOK

This project was supported by Grant No. 2004-RE-CX-K007, awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department

of Justice. Points of view in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official positions or

policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Center for Effective Public Policy © 2007

Preface iiAcknowledgments ivIntroduction 2Purpose of This Handbook 2Intended Audience 3Handbook Structure 3Additional Resources 4Section One: Offender Reentry from a National Perspective 5Introduction 5Chapter 1: Scope of the Problem 6Chapter 2: A National Shift Toward Reentry 8Section Two: A Framework for Offender Reentry 16Section Three: Leadership and Organizational Change 22Introduction 22Chapter 1: Demonstrating Leadership 23Chapter 2: Preparing for Organizational Change 29Chapter 3: Preparing Staff for Organizational Change 36Section Four: A Rational Planning Process for a Learning Organization 46Introduction 46Chapter 1: Conducting a Rational Planning Process 47Chapter 2: Data Collection and Monitoring: The Foundation of Rational Planning 60Section Five: The Essential Role of Collaboration 70Introduction 70Chapter 1: Collaboration: What Is It and Why Is It So Important? 71Chapter 2: Collaboration Between Institutional Corrections and Community Supervision Agencies 73Chapter 3: Multidisciplinary Collaboration 77Chapter 4: How to Collaborate 86Section Six: Key Strategies in Effective Offender Management 94Introduction 94Chapter 1: An Evidence-Based Approach to Reentry 96Chapter 2: Assessment 101Chapter 3: Programs and Services 106Chapter 4: Success-Driven Supervision 118Chapter 5: Staff-Offender Interactions 131Chapter 6: Effective Case Management 141Section Seven: Women Offenders 158Introduction 158Chapter 1: Women Offenders 159Chapter 2: Gender Responsiveness 162Chapter 3: Key Management Issues for Women Offenders 165Section Eight: Conclusion 189Appendix 190Offender Reentry Policy and Practice Inventory 190

Table of Contents

iIncreasing Public Safety Through Successful Offender Reentry: Evidence-Based and Emerging Practices in Corrections

Increasing Public Safety Through Successful Offender Reentry: Evidence-Based and Emerging Practices in Corrections

In the United States, approximately 650,000adults and nearly 100,000 juveniles are releasedfrom incarceration each year (Harrison & Beck,2006; Glaze & Bonczar, 2006; Glaze & Palla,2005; Snyder & Sickmund, 2006). They return tocommunities with critical needs around housing,employment, mental health, substance abuseissues, et cetera. Often these offenders return tocommunities that are unprepared to addressthese issues. Outcome measures indicate thatmost offenders released from correctionalinstitutions do not reintegrate back into thecommunity successfully and instead return to thecriminal justice system because of new crimes orparole violations.

In response to the rising costs of incarcerationand public safety concerns, the U.S. Departmentof Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau ofJustice Assistance (BJA) and its federal partnersfunded the Serious and Violent Offender ReentryInitiative (SVORI) as a comprehensive federaleffort designed to facilitate improved outcomesfor adult and juvenile offenders as they reenterthe community from incarceration. This initiativeprovided guidance and support on a nationallevel to many public and private agencies in thepursuit of reduced offender recidivism andenhanced public safety. Although institutionalcorrections and community supervision agenciescertainly are not alone in their efforts to reduceoffender recidivism, their critical role and uniqueposition in managing offenders on a day-to-daybasis and during their transition from prison tothe community require them to serve as theinitiating forces in broad-based efforts towardincreased offender success and public safety.

In 2004, the Center for Effective Public Policy(the Center) received funds under SVORI todevelop materials for institutional correctionsand community supervision staff that woulddefine clearly and specifically their changing rolein promoting successful offender reentry. TheCenter developed and piloted two trainingcurricula for institutional corrections andcommunity supervision personnel, includingpolicymakers, mid-level supervisors, and lineofficers. These curricula, developed from thetrainings conducted in five States, providepolicymakers and practitioners with theinformation and tools they need to serve asagents of change by reorienting their respectiveinstitutional offender management andsupervision functions toward the enhancementof public safety through successful offenderreentry. The Community Safety ThroughSuccessful Offender Reentry curricula include:

• A Training Curriculum for CorrectionsPolicymakers, which provides institutionalcorrections and community supervision agencyleadership staff with the basic information andresources they need to begin changing theiragency’s vision, mission, policies, and practicesto align with effective offender reentry strategies.

• An Agencywide Training Curriculum forCorrections, which provides institutionalcorrections and community supervisionagency policymakers and practitioners withtraining materials for staff at all levels oncritical issues related to offender reentry.These materials are designed to enhanceknowledge among training participants andengage staff in the culture change necessaryto establish successful offender reentry as afundamental organizational philosophy.

Preface

i i

i i iIncreasing Public Safety Through Successful Offender Reentry: Evidence-Based and Emerging Practices in Corrections

In addition to these training curricula, the Centerdeveloped this handbook, which builds upon theexperience of delivering training and technicalassistance to States that participated in thisproject. The handbook serves as a supplement tothe curricula or as a stand-alone reference forinstitutional corrections and communitysupervision agency staff interested in achievingsuccessful offender reentry as a means to publicsafety. Collectively, these products provideinstitutional corrections and communitysupervision agencies with materials to betterinform the development of effective policy andbuild the capacity of staff to achieve moresuccessful outcomes with offenders.

ReferencesGlaze, L. E. & Bonczar, T. P. (2006). Probationand parole in the United States, 2005.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of JusticeStatistics.

Glaze, L. E. & Palla, S. (2005). Probation andparole in the United States, 2004. Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of JusticePrograms, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Harrison, P. M., & Beck, A. J. (2006). Prison andjail inmates at midyear 2005. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Justice, Office of JusticePrograms, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Langan, P. A., & Levin, D. (2002). Recidivism ofprisoners released in 1994. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Justice, Office of JusticePrograms, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Snyder, H., & Sickmund, M. (2006). Juvenileoffenders and victims: 2006 National Report.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,Office of Justice Programs, Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention.


The following individuals from the Center forEffective Public Policy were the primary authorsof this handbook:

• Dr. Kurt Bumby, Senior Manager• Madeline Carter, Principal• Susan Gibel, Administrative Manager• Rachelle Giguere, Program Assistant• Leilah Gilligan, Senior Manager• Richard Stroker, Senior Manager

The Center would like to acknowledge thefollowing individuals for their review andsubstantive contributions to this document:

• Mark Carey, President, The Carey Group,White Bear Lake, Minnesota

• Bryan Collier, Deputy Executive Director, TexasDepartment of Criminal Justice

• Marilyn Van Dieten, Vice President, OrbisPartners, Inc.

• Maureen Walsh, Chairman, MassachusettsParole Board

Special thanks are extended to the followingindividuals for their significant contributions tothe document’s development:

• Julie Boehm, Reentry Manager, Division ofOffender Rehabilitative Services, MissouriDepartment of Corrections

• Peggy Burke, Principal, Center for EffectivePublic Policy

• Paul Herman, Senior Manager, Center forEffective Public Policy

• Gary Kempker, Senior Manager, Center forEffective Public Policy

• Becki Ney, Principal, Center for Effective PublicPolicy

• William Woodward, Director of Training andTechnical Assistance, Center for the Study andPrevention of Violence, Institute of BehavioralScience, University of Colorado at Boulder

Finally, the Center’s staff extends its warmestthanks to the following Bureau of JusticeAssistance Community Safety Through SuccessfulOffender Reentry grant recipients, who helped toshape our thinking and provided much of theinsight and learning contained in this handbook.They include the leadership and staff from thefollowing agencies:

• Kansas Department of Corrections• Massachusetts Executive Office of Public

Safety, Massachusetts Department ofCorrection, and Massachusetts Parole Board

• Oklahoma Department of Corrections• Oregon Department of Corrections and

partner community corrections agencies• West Virginia Department of Corrections• Wisconsin Department of Corrections

Acknowledgements

iv

Increasing Public SafetyThrough SuccessfulOffender Reentry:Evidence-Based andEmerging Practicesin Corrections

__________________________

Edited by:Madeline M. Carter

Susan GibelRachelle GiguereRichard Stroker

Center for Effective Public PolicySilver Spring, Maryland

2007



PURPOSE OF THIS HANDBOOKThis handbook is intended to inform, illustrate,and provide guidance to readers regarding a newvision for corrections that has, as its hallmark,promoting offender success as a key element forincreasing public safety. Not only does thishandbook explore the reasons why institutionalcorrections and community supervision agenciesshould realign their policies and practices tosupport this vision, but it also provides aframework for how to engage in this work. Thisframework, upon which the organization of thisdocument is based, includes four components toconsider when implementing an effectiveoffender reentry strategy:

• Leadership and Organizational Change• Rational Planning Process• Collaboration• Effective Offender Management Practices

Within this framework, this handbook will outlinehow institutional corrections and communitysupervision agency leadership can realign theirvision and mission to produce more successfuloutcomes with offenders while changing theorganizational culture, increasing agencyeffectiveness through enhanced partnershipswith others, and engaging staff in effectiveoffender management practices that will helpthem to be more successful in their work withoffenders.

This handbook provides these agencies withinformation, tools, and resources as they work toincrease the likelihood that offenders will bereleased from their care prepared to assumetheir active, vital, and law-abiding roles in thecommunity.

Introduction

2

3Increasing Public Safety Through Successful Offender Reentry: Evidence-Based and Emerging Practices in Corrections

INTENDED AUDIENCE

HANDBOOK STRUCTUREThe handbook is constructed of several sections,each providing important information regardinga specific topic. Section One, Offender Reentryfrom a National Perspective, reviews the scope ofthe problems facing institutional corrections andcommunity supervision agencies and describesthe response at the national level to address thecomplex issues around offender reentry.

In Section Two, A Framework for OffenderReentry, a common language and model for

offender reentry is introduced along with someguiding principles for this work.

The remaining sections of the handbook delveinto each component of the model in moredetail. Section Three discusses the importance ofleadership and organizational change to offenderreentry efforts. Section Four outlines a rationalplanning process, and Section Five demonstratesthe importance of internal and externalcollaboration to undertaking this work. Effective

Enhancing public safety through successfuloffender reentry requires those responsible forpreparing the offender to reenter the communityand those responsible for supervising the offenderin the community to work together to provide theoffender with access to the services andresources necessary to succeed. Therefore, thishandbook is intended to engage institutionalcorrections and community supervision agenciesat the state and local levels in embracing boththe vision of offender success as a means topublic safety and the necessary activities to beundertaken to achieve this goal. For simplicity,throughout this handbook the language“institutional corrections and communitysupervision agencies” is used to encompassprisons, jails, and community-based supervisionentities at all levels whose staff may benefit fromthe broad-based material presented.

As institutional corrections and communitysupervision agencies broaden their missions,agency leaders must clearly articulate this newdirection in policy and strategy to their staff andengage their employees in the process of change.To do this, they must also share the reasons forthis change in direction. Only with the support ofand enthusiasm from staff at all levels canagencies respond successfully to the complexneeds of incarcerated and released offenders,

and ensure that appropriate policy and practicechanges are made that can positively impactpublic safety. For this reason, this handbook isdirected to institutional corrections andcommunity supervision agency policymakers, topmanagers, and mid-level managers who have theauthority to create the necessary organizationalchanges that can ultimately enhance publicsafety.

This handbook was developed based on theCenter’s experiences working with agenciesprimarily concerned with the majority of offendersunder their supervision: adult, male offenderstransitioning from prison to the community.Therefore, its language and content are consistentwith this population. However, much of thematerial (e.g., on leadership and organizationalchange, collaboration, and rational planning) isbroadly applicable to the challenges faced as awhole, and may indeed be useful to practitionersworking with juveniles, females, or other specialoffender populations. Although it is beyond thescope of this document to attend fully to thereentry issues facing these populations,information that is particularly germane forjuvenile offenders is referenced throughout thehandbook, and a separate section (Section 7) isdevoted to female offenders.


offender management strategies, including themost up-to-date research on evidence-basedpractices, are presented in Section Six.

Key steps are summarized at the conclusion ofeach section. An inventory of questions for users

to begin to assess their current policies andpractices as they relate to each componentdescribed is also included. The questions for allcomponents are presented in full in the OffenderReentry Policy and Practice Inventory within theAppendix.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCESThis handbook is intended to provide aframework for institutional corrections andcommunity supervision agency leaders who areinterested in implementing more effectiveoffender reentry strategies. While collaborationwith state, local, and private agencies is crucial toimplementing such strategies, this document is,for the most part, more narrowly focused on thecritical role institutional corrections andcommunity supervision agencies play in offenderreentry. However, because multidisciplinarycollaboration is essential to their success, therole and structure of these external partnershipsare addressed briefly in Section Five, TheEssential Role of Collaboration.

Two companion documents to this handbook arecurrently under development and are fundedunder the Transition from Prison to Community(TPC) initiative.1 One of these documents willaddress broader, multiagency issues much morespecifically. The other handbook will focus on avery critical but specific issue: offender casemanagement. Together, these three documentswill serve as a series on offender reentry.

• The Transition from Prison to Community(TPC) Reentry Handbook will describe the TPCmodel and provide hands-on guidance on howto form multidisciplinary teams to address thebroad, policy-level changes across systems tosupport offender success. Although the TPCReentry Handbook will focus on the changesinstitutional corrections and communitysupervision agencies are undertaking, it willprimarily speak to those changes necessary ata policy level, with particular attention paid to

how multiagency operations are reshaped bypartnerships.

• The Transition from Prison to Community(TPC) Case Management Handbook willaddress case management in great detail (thistopic will be discussed in general in thishandbook as well as in the TPC ReentryHandbook). Its purpose will be to assistmanagers, first line supervisors, and line staffin bringing about changes in policy, practice,functional definitions, and skill sets. Thechanges will result in a new approach todealing with individual offenders utilizinginteractions with offenders as interventions inthemselves, engaging offenders in the processof change, and redefining success as thedesired outcome of case management. Thehandbook will speak to the notion ofinterdisciplinary case management, as well ascase management mechanisms that canbridge the gap between institutions andcommunity supervision agencies. While thepreviously described handbooks will likelytouch on many of the same topics, the TPCCase Management Handbook will explore thecross-system change process in greater depth,and will include tools, examples, andstrategies for use by leadership, mid-levelmanagement, and line staff.

4

INTRODUCTIONInstitutional corrections and communitysupervision agencies have historically definedtheir primary missions as providing custody andcontrol of incarcerated offenders, assuringcompliance with the conditions of release, andreturning post-release condition violators to theappropriate authority for revocation. In recentyears, however, momentum nationally has shiftedaway from a heavy reliance on incarceration asthe solution to crime to a new focus onsuccessful offender reentry as a means toenhance public safety.

The nation’s traditional reliance on incarcerationhas resulted not only in a record number ofincarcerated Americans, but has also had theconcomitant result of a significant increase in thesheer number of offenders returning tocommunities. Outcome measures indicate thatmost offenders released from prison do notsuccessfully reintegrate back into the community.Most end up back in jail or prison, either as aresult of technical violations or because of thecommission of new crimes.

In response to these high rates of recidivism andthe growing impact of revocations on prisonbeds, many states are examining and redefiningthe mission and function of their institutionalcorrections and community supervisionagencies. They are exploring how theirinstitutional, releasing, and communitysupervision policies, practices, and resources canbe integrated into a more coherent andpurposeful effort that produces the outcomesthey seek: reductions in criminal behavior andenhanced public safety.

In this section, Chapter 1 will outline the scope ofthe problems facing the nation, including thenumber of individuals incarcerated and undercommunity supervision, the high costs ofcorrections and crime to the nation, and themultiple and complex barriers facing offenders asthey transition to the community. Chapter 2 willoutline the national response to these issues anddescribe the shift in approach to the wayinstitutional corrections and communitysupervision agencies are working with offenders.

Section One:

Offender Reentry from aNational Perspective Madeline M. Carter


Incarceration Rates in AmericaThe United States leads the world in incarcerationrates, with more than two million adults confinedin prisons and jails. This translates to one inevery 136 individuals in the U.S. confined in thenation’s correctional institutions (Harrison &Beck, 2006). In addition, over 96,000 youth (agesten through eighteen years of age) were in someform of public or private residential custody in2003 (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006).

These figures represent a 700 percent increase inincarcerated persons in the past three and a halfdecades2 (Public Safety Performance Project,2007). The increase is generally attributed topublic policy changes such as “get tough”sentencing and correctional reforms including“three-strikes” laws, “truth-in-sentencing” laws,drug laws, the decline of discretionary releaseoptions, the emergence of surveillance andcontrol activities and programs, and risingrevocation rates. Collectively, these policiesincrease the number of individuals coming intothe corrections system while simultaneouslyincreasing their length of stay.

The Significant Number ofIndividuals under Probation andParole Supervision in theCommunityThe magnitude of the correctional problemincreases substantially when considering thenumber of adults under some form ofcorrectional supervision in the community, nearly5 million persons in calendar year 2005 (Glaze &

Bonczar, 2006).

In combination, these numbers represent atripling of the correctional population in twenty-five years. In 1980, one in every ninety adults wasunder some form of correctional supervision(incarcerated in jail or prison, or in thecommunity under parole or probationsupervision). By 2005, this number grew to onein every thirty-two adults (Glaze & Bonczar,2006). Further, in 2001, it was estimated that 4.3million adults had previously served time in stateor federal prison (Bonczar, 2003), withsubstantially more who at one time had beenunder some form of community supervision.

The Increasing Numbers ofOffenders Returning toCommunitiesThis reliance on incarceration has resulted notonly in a record number of incarcerated Americansbut also in an increased number of offendersreturning to communities. It is estimated that ofthe 2.1 million Americans in prison or jail in 2005(Harrison & Beck, 2006), ninety-five percent ofthese prisoners will eventually be released into thecommunity (Hughes & Wilson, 2005). In fact, ofthe approximately 650,000 people released fromprison each year, approximately 500,000 arereleased under parole supervision (see Harrison &Beck, 2006; Glaze & Bonczar, 2006; Glaze & Palla2005).

Rates of VictimizationExamination of this problem through arguablythe most important lens, the rate of victimizationin the United States, underscores the importanceof taking steps necessary to reduce the likelihoodthat offenders will commit additional crimes. It isestimated that, in the year 2005, one in every 574individuals was the victim of a reported propertyor personal crime (excluding murder) (Catalano,2006), with youths aged twelve to seventeenmuch more likely to become a victim of violentcrime than adults (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006).These numbers presumably represent only a

While prison is still a relatively rareexperience for many Americans, it isbecoming a more common event,especially for certain segments of oursociety—in particular, young black andHispanic males.

- Austin & Fabelo, 2004

Increasing Public Safety Through Successful Offender Reentry: Evidence-Based and Emerging Practices in Corrections6

CHAPTER 1: SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM

portion of true victimizations, given theprevalence of underreported crimes, particularlyin some crime categories.

Beyond the psychological and emotional costs ofvictimization is the cost impact of crime onvictims. In 2002, economic costs alone wereestimated at $15.6 billion for property theft ordamage, stolen cash, medical expenses, and lostwages due to injury (Austin & Fabelo, 2004).

Resource Investment and FiscalConsequencesCosts to victims are not the only economic costsresulting from high crime, incarceration, andcommunity supervision rates. The enormousgrowth in the number of offenders undercorrectional control has fiscal consequence.Despite the fact that States have been facingfiscal constraints in recent years (in 2004, Statesfaced a total of $78 billion in deficit [Austin &Fabelo, 2004]), corrections spending hasincreased. In 1980, the United States spent $9billion on corrections; today correctional spendingsurpasses $60 billion (Public Safety PerformanceProject, 2007; BJS, 2007). The average annualcost to incarcerate an adult offender is $23,876(Public Safety Performance Project, 2007) and ajuvenile offender is $43,000 (CASA, 2004).Aggregate costs are projected to rise to $2.5–$5billion per year due to prison expansion and

operational costs in the foreseeable future (PublicSafety Performance Project, 2007).

This increased spending for corrections comes ata price of reduced spending for other neededpublic services. For example, between 1977 and2001, total state and local expenditures forcorrections increased 1,001 percent, compared to448 percent for education, 482 percent forhospitals and healthcare, and 617 percent forpublic welfare (Lotke, Stromberg, & Schiraldi,2004).

The Social Costs on FutureGenerationsIt is important to recognize the impact of crimeand increasing offender populations, not only onpublic budgets and the safety of communitiesbut also on the next generation. Fifty-five percentof all inmates have children under the age ofeighteen (Travis, Cincotta, & Solomon, 2003).This is enormously important given that theresearch indicates that having an incarceratedparent is a significant risk factor for delinquency(Waul, Travis, & Solomon, 2002).

Failure AboundsMore than half of released offenders fail in thecommunity and ultimately are returned to prisonfor either a technical violation of the conditions oftheir supervision or commission of a new crime(Langan & Levin, 2002; Brown, Maxwell, DeJesus,& Schiraldi, 2002). Thirty percent of adult offendersreleased from state prisons are rearrested withinthe first six months following their release. Withinthree years of release, this number increases totwo-thirds rearrested (Langan & Levin, 2002).Failed offenders make up a substantial proportion

The key is for policymakers to base theirdecisions on a clear understanding of thecosts and benefits of incarceration—andof data-driven, evidence-based alternativesthat can preserve public safety whilesaving much needed tax dollars.

- Public Safety Performance Project, 2007

Keeping dangerous people away fromtheir potential victims remains aneffective, yet limited, means for publicsafety. As a society though, we are not in aposition to keep every offender locked upindefinitely. Not only is it not cost-effective, it’s not viable. We cannot buildenough prisons to permanently hold everyperson incarcerated today. Nor would thepublic allow that.

- Roger Werholtz, Secretary, Kansas

Department of Corrections,

KDOC July 2006 Newsletter


of state prison admissions each year. Over the lastdecade, for example, approximately one-third ofstate prison admissions included offenders whoviolated their parole conditions (Harrison & Beck,2006). In contrast, in 1980, revocations accountedfor only seventeen percent of prison admissions(Travis & Lawrence, 2002).

The situation is no better for juvenile offenders.Between fifty and seventy percent of youngoffenders released from institutional custody arerearrested within two years (Austin, DedelJohnson, & Weitzer, 2005). A majority of youth(sixty-two percent) in custody in 2003 had beenin custody before, most on at least two prioroccasions (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006).

Failure is PredictableThe reasons that cause offenders to fail are notsurprising. Most offenders enter the criminaljustice system with myriad problems, and manyleave with these same issues.

• Mental Health Disorders. Up to one-third of allincarcerated adults have a diagnosable mentaldisorder, yet appropriate in-prison services arelacking. Forty to sixty percent of prison and jailinmates with mental illness do not receivetreatment (Ditton, 1999; Harlow, 1998).Similarly, approximately sixty to eighty percentof youth in the juvenile justice system havemental health difficulties, yet each day onlyone-third of all youth in need of mental healthservices actually receive the necessaryinterventions (NMHA, 2004).

• Substance Abuse Problems. Roughly three-fourths of adult inmates, and an estimatedforty to seventy percent of detained youth (NIJ,2002), have substance abuse problems. Yetonly about ten percent of adults receive formaltreatment while incarcerated (Hammett, 2000;Mumola, 1999) and only sixteen percent ofyouth in juvenile correctional facilities receivesubstance abuse treatment (CASA, 2004).

• Co-Occurring Disorders. Of the incarceratedadults and juveniles with mental healthdifficulties, between sixty and seventy-five

percent have co-occurring substance abuseissues (The National GAINS Center, 2001;2002).

• Lack of Education and Vocational Skills. Fortypercent of adults released from correctionalinstitutions do not have a high school diplomaor GED. Only one-third of inmates receivevocational training while incarcerated (Harlow,2003). Roughly thirty to fifty percent of detainedyouth have special education needs; whendisorders that interfere with educationalperformance and achievement are taken intoaccount, the percentage increases toapproximately seventy-five to eighty percent(Rutherford, Bullis, Anderson & Griller-Clark,2002). However, many youth placed in thesefacilities are not adequately screened andassessed for academic or other special needs,and large numbers of these youth are releasedwithout having received appropriate orsufficient educational or vocational skills toensure their success (Altschuler & Brash, 2004;Rutherford et al., 2002).

• Employment Barriers. Most adult and juvenileoffenders leave prison facing significantbarriers to employment, including loweducational attainment, literacy problems, anda lack of employment history. The effect ofthese barriers is compounded by laws limitingaccess to some career positions, socialstigma, and lingering substance abuseproblems (Altschuler & Brash, 2004; Mears &Travis, 2004; Rubinstein, 2001).

Through a national lens, the enormity of thisproblem is clear. The majority of offendersreleased from correctional institutions will returnunsuccessfully to the community, with the publicsafety and fiscal impact this implies. But the futureholds the promise of change, as institutionalcorrections and community supervision agenciescontinue to advance new approaches andpractices that are proving to be effective inpromoting successful offender outcomes that willultimately enhance public safety.


CHAPTER 2: A NATIONAL SHIFTTOWARD REENTRY


The Emergence of a NewPhilosophy of OffenderManagementGiven the increasing rate of incarceration, thesheer fiscal impact of correctional allocations onstate budgets, and offender reentry failure ratesexceeding 50 percent, it is not surprising that acall for a greater emphasis on strategies that willresult in more successful outcomes withoffenders can be heard from all corridors.

Correctional agencies have released offenders tothe community since the first penitentiary in theU.S. was opened in 1790 and have providedpreparatory service and reintegration support fordecades. While performance of correctionalagencies was once assessed on the basis ofprovision of service and accomplishment ofactivities (e.g., number of offenders confinedwithout incident, number of offenderssuccessfully meeting restitution requirements),today’s focus on effective offender reentry is

sharply distinct, more squarely directed at theachievement of public safety through successfuloffender outcomes.

A focus on successful offender outcomes bringswith it new responsibilities to understand thefactors that contribute to risk (or, in theconverse, the factors that can mitigate or reducerisk) and to realign correctional policy andpractice with the specific purpose of supportingsuccessful outcomes.

The emergence of this new approach hasresulted from a confluence of factors, including agrowing body of knowledge about effectiveinterventions, a shift in public sentiment towardscrime and offenders, and a number of nationalinitiatives on offender reentry.

Effective Correctional InterventionsOver the past two decades, a considerable bodyof knowledge, first termed the “what works”movement and more recently “evidence-basedpolicy and practice,” has emerged to guidecorrectional practice. Today’s correctionalpractitioner has the benefit of scientificknowledge to guide and direct recidivismreduction efforts with both adult and juvenileoffenders. This body of work has hadtremendous impact on the corrections field,arguably providing, for the first time, explicitguidance around outcome-driven work withoffenders. Not only has the emergence ofevidence-based policy and practice providedenhanced knowledge and tools for day-to-dayoffender management work, it has also capturedthe interest and support of policymakers andfunders interested in investing in change effortsthat will produce the desired results.

This year, some 600,000 inmates will bereleased from prison back into society. Weknow from long experience that if theycan’t find work, or a home, or help, theyare much more likely to commit morecrimes and return to prison. So tonight, Ipropose a four-year, 300 million dollarPrisoner Reentry Initiative to expand jobtraining and placement services, to providetransitional housing, and to help newlyreleased prisoners get mentoring,including from faith-based groups.America is the land of the second chance—and when the gates of the prison open, thepath ahead should lead to a better life.

- President George W. Bush, 2004 State of

the Union Address

Changing Public SentimentRecent understanding of the attitudes ofAmericans towards crime and offenders is alsofueling the engines of change. The perception thatthe public’s interest is to get tough on crime hasbeen refuted by public opinion research. Recentsurveys suggest that the public sentiment is “getsmarter, not tougher.” A recent survey (Krisberg &Marchionna, 2006) found that U.S. voters:

• Support (by an almost 8:1 margin)rehabilitative services for prisoners, asopposed to a punishment-only system,favoring services both during incarcerationand after release from prison.

• Believe a lack of life skills (66 percent), theexperience of being in prison (58 percent), andbarriers to reentry (57 percent) are majorfactors in the rearrest of prisoners after release.

• Believe a lack of job training is a significantbarrier to releasing prisoners.

• Consider medical care (86 percent), theavailability of public housing (84 percent), andstudent loans (83 percent) to be importanttools for offender reintegration.

• Support offering services such as job training,drug treatment, mental health services, familysupport, mentoring, and housing assistanceto prisoners.


Second Chance Act of 2007:Community Safety Through Recidivism Prevention

To reauthorize the grant program for reentry of offenders into the community in the OmnibusCrime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, to improve reentry planning and implementation,and for other purposes including:

• Providing offenders in prisons, jails, or juvenile facilities with educational, literacy,vocational, and job placement services to facilitate reentry into the community;

• Providing substance abuse treatment and services (including providing a full continuum ofsubstance abuse treatment services that encompasses outpatient and comprehensiveresidential services and recovery);

• Providing coordinated supervision and comprehensive services for offenders upon releasefrom prison, jail, or a juvenile facility, including housing and mental and physical healthcare to facilitate reentry into the community, and which, to the extent applicable, areprovided by community-based entities (including coordinated reentry veteran-specificservices for eligible veterans);

• Providing programs that encourage offenders to develop safe, healthy, and responsiblefamily relationships and parent-child relationships; and involve the entire family unit incomprehensive reentry services (as appropriate to the safety, security, and well-being of thefamily and child);

• Encouraging the involvement of prison, jail, or juvenile facility mentors in the reentryprocess and enabling those mentors to remain in contact with offenders while in custodyand after reentry into the community;

• Providing victim-appropriate services, encouraging the timely and complete payment ofrestitution and fines by offenders to victims, and providing services such as security andcounseling to victims upon release of offenders; and

• Protecting communities against dangerous offenders by using validated assessment tools toassess the risk factors of returning inmates and developing or adopting procedures to ensurethat dangerous felons are not released from prison prematurely.

- 110th Congress, 1st Session, H.R. 1593, November 14, 2007

• Believe that planning for reentry should beginat sentencing (44 percent). Another 27 percentbelieve that it should begin twelve monthsprior to release.

• Support or strongly support (78 percent)pending legislation to allocate federal dollarsto prisoner reentry (The Second Chance Act).

National InitiativesGiven the importance and complexity of reentry,and in light of recent data and informationregarding the high rate of offender failures afterrelease from incarceration, the need for a newstrategy is evident. It is not surprising, then, thata number of national initiatives have beenundertaken by a variety of entities in recent yearsto support advancement of this new approach tooffender management.3

The Serious and Violent OffenderReentry InitiativeIn an effort to support focused work on the topicof offender reentry at the State level, andencourage State agencies to engage inmultidisciplinary, collaborative policy work, theU.S. Department of Justice and its federalpartners (the U.S. Department of Health andHuman Services, U.S. Department of Labor, U.S.Department of Housing and UrbanDevelopment, U.S. Department of Education,U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs, and U.S.Social Security Administration) sponsored theSerious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative(SVORI). This multi-year initiative provided seedmoney for programming, as well as training andtechnical assistance on a variety of topics relatedto reentry, to all States and U.S. territories. Thereis no doubt that, in addition to the manysuccesses at the operational level in terms ofspawning new initiatives, programs, andpartnerships, the SVORI project contributed to anational dialogue on the topic of reentry andbrought to the conversation stakeholders fromnon-criminal justice agencies.

This initiative continues today under the namePresident’s Prisoner Reentry Initiative (PRI) withsupport from the Office of Justice Program’s

Bureau of Justice Assistance and the U.S.Department of Labor.

The National Governors Association PrisonerReentry Policy AcademyThe National Governors Association (NGA)Prisoner Reentry Policy Academy assembledinterdisciplinary policy teams, led by each Stategovernor’s office, to include state agencyrepresentatives from housing, public safety andcorrections, health and human services, labor,and welfare, as well as others in a number ofstates. These state policy teams collected andanalyzed data regarding their offenderpopulations and assessed service gaps andbarriers to reentry. The initiative is credited inmany states with drawing the attention of keynon-public safety stakeholders to the issue ofoffender reentry.

The Transition from Prison to CommunityInitiativeLikewise, the Transition from Prison toCommunity Initiative (TPC), sponsored by theNational Institute of Corrections, advocates acomprehensive, system-wide approach tooffender reentry. The TPC model is a frameworkthat guides jurisdictions to:

• Mobilize interdisciplinary, collaborativeleadership teams (often convened bycorrections agencies) to guide reentry effortsat the state and local levels.

• Deliberately involve non-correctionalstakeholders (public, private, and communityagencies) who can provide services andsupport as reentry initiatives are planned andimplemented.

• Engage in a multidisciplinary rational planningprocess that includes a careful definition ofgoals as well as the development of a clearunderstanding of the reentering populationand rates of recidivism, and a thoughtfulreview of existing policies, procedures, andresources for reentry.

• Implement validated offender assessments atvarious stages of an offender’s movementthrough the system.

1 1Increasing Public Safety Through Successful Offender Reentry: Evidence-Based and Emerging Practices in Corrections

• Target effective interventions as demonstratedby good research to offenders on the basis ofrisk and criminogenic needs identified byassessments.

• Expand the traditional roles of correctionalstaff beyond custody, security, accountability,and monitoring to include an integratedapproach to offender management thatengages offenders in a process of change.

• Integrate the typically isolated stages of anoffender’s involvement in the criminal justicesystem (beginning at admission to incarceration(or earlier), and continuing through assessment,programming during incarceration, preparationfor release, release, and supervision in thecommunity), into a carefully managed processwith close communication and collaborationamong prisons, releasing authorities, and post-prison supervision staff.

• Assure that all transitioning offenders areequipped with basic survival resources suchas identification, housing, appropriatemedications, and linkages to communityservices and informal networks of supportbefore, during, and after they are released andmove into the community.

• Develop the capacity to measure progresstoward specific outcomes, and to trackprogress continually, using such informationfor further improvement.

The TPC model encourages these strategicsystem changes in order to reduce recidivismamong transitioning offenders, reduce futurevictimization, enhance public safety, and improveboth the quality of life in communities and thelives of victims and offenders.

The Council of State GovernmentsEqually influential is the Report of the Re-EntryPolicy Council: Charting the Safe and SuccessfulReturn of Prisoners to the Community (2005;www.reentrypolicy.org), an initiative anddocument that has synthesized knowledge,documented change efforts, and providedspecific guidance to States in their efforts toenhance prisoner reentry efforts.

Each of these initiatives underscores theinextricable link between offender success andpublic safety, and supports, in varying ways, thework of corrections professionals to realign theiragencies in service of this goal.


President’s Prisoner Reentry InitiativeThe President's Prisoner Reentry Initiative (PRI) is designed to provide funding to state unitsof government to develop and implement institutional and community corrections-basedoffender reentry programs. PRI strengthens urban communities characterized by largenumbers of returning, nonviolent prisoners. PRI is designed to reduce recidivism by helpingreturning inmates find work and assess other critical services in their communities. PRIsupports strategies to deliver prerelease assessments and services and to develop transitionplans in collaboration with other justice- and community-based agencies and providers forsupervised and nonsupervised, nonviolent offenders.

PRI envisions the development of model reentry programs that begin in correctional institutionsand continue throughout an offender's transition to and stabilization in the community. TheOffice of Justice Programs' (OJP) Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) has partnered with the U.S.Department of Labor (DOL) to administer PRI grants. These programs provide for individualreentry plans that address issues confronting offenders as they return to the community.

- U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, http://www.reentry.gov.learn.html,

last accessed December 11, 2007

Moving Forward with a Focus onPublic Safety through SuccessfulOffender ReentryFor these goals to be realized, substantialbarriers must be overcome. Among the mostsignificant of these barriers are the fragmentationwithin and across agencies and systems,correctional cultures that focus more heavily oncustody and control measures, sometimes to theexclusion of rehabilitative approaches, and a gapin knowledge, skills, policies, programs, andservices that align with an evidence-basedapproach to offender management.

The remainder of this handbook provides aframework for addressing these barriers that isconsistent with this new approach to offendermanagement. The following section willintroduce the framework and some guidingprinciples for undertaking this work.

ReferencesAltschuler, D. M., & Brash, R. (2004). Adolescentand teenage offenders confronting the challengesand opportunities of reentry. Youth Violence andJuvenile Justice, 2, 72-87.

Austin, J., Dedel Johnson, K. & Weitzer, R. (2005).Alternatives to the secure detention andconfinement of juvenile offenders. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Justice, Office of JusticePrograms, Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention.

Austin, J. & Fabelo, T. (2004). The diminishingreturns of increased incarceration. Washington,DC: The JFA Institute.

Bonczar, T. (2003). Prevalence of imprisonment inthe U.S. population, 1974–2001. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Justice, Office of JusticePrograms, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Brown, D., Maxwell, S., DeJesus, E., & Schiraldi,V. (2002). Workforce and youth development foryoung offenders: A toolkit. Washington, DC:Justice Policy Institute.

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) (2007). Keyfacts at a glance: Direct expenditures by criminaljustice function, 1982–2004 (Web site).http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/exptyptab.htm, last accessed August 1, 2007.

Catalano, S. (2006). Criminal victimization, 2005.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Officeof Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Ditton, P. (1999). Mental health and treatment ofinmates and probationers. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Glaze, L. & Bonczar, T. (2006). Probation andparole in the United States, 2005. Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of JusticePrograms, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Our resources are misspent, ourpunishments too severe, our sentencestoo long.

- Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, August 9, 2003,

in a speech to the American Bar Association


Glaze, L. E. & Palla, S. (2005). Probation andparole in the United States, 2004. Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of JusticePrograms, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Hammett, T. M. (2000). Health-related issues inprisoner reentry to the community. Paperpresented at the Reentry Roundtable on PublicHealth Dimensions of Prisoner Reentry.Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Harlow, C. W. (1998). Profile of jail inmates, 1996.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of JusticeStatistics.

Harlow, C. W. (2003). Education and correctionalpopulations. Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau ofJustice Statistics.


Hughes, T., & Wilson, D. J. (2005). Reentry trendsin the United States (Web site). http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/reentry/reentry.htm, last accessedAugust 1, 2007. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Krisberg, B. & Marchionna, S. (2006). Attitudesof U.S. voters toward prisoner rehabilitation andreentry policies. Oakland, CA: National Council onCrime and Delinquency.

Langan, P. A., & Levin, D. (2002). Recidivism ofprisoners released in 1994. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Justice, Office of JusticePrograms, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Lotke, E., Stromberg, D., & Schiraldi, V. (2004).Swing states: Crime, prisons and the future of thenation. Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute.

Mears, D. P., & Travis, J. (2004). The dimensions,pathways, and consequences of youth reentry.Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Mumola, C. J. (1999). Substance abuse andtreatment, state and federal prisoners, 1997.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Officeof Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

National Center on Addiction and SubstanceAbuse at Columbia University (CASA) (2004).Criminal neglect: Substance abuse, juvenile justice,and the children left behind. New York, NY:National Center on Addiction and SubstanceAbuse at Columbia University.

The National GAINS Center (2002). Theprevalence of co-occurring mental and substanceabuse disorders in jails, Spring 2002. Delmar, NY:The National GAINS Center for People with Co-Occurring Disorders in the Justice System.

The National GAINS Center (2001). Co-occurringmental health and substance use disorders amongyouth involved in the juvenile justice system(Online Tutorial). http://www.ncmhjj.com/curriculum/juvenile/index.htm, last accessedAugust 1, 2007.

National Institute of Justice (NIJ) (2002).Preliminary data on drug use and related mattersamong adult arrestees and juvenile detainees,2002. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofJustice, National Institute of Justice.

National Mental Health Association (NMHA)(2004). Mental health treatment for youth in thejuvenile justice system: A compendium ofpromising practices. Alexandria, VA: NationalMental Health Association.

Public Safety Performance Project (2007). Publicsafety, public spending: Forecasting America’sprison population 2007–2011. Washington, DC:The Pew Charitable Trusts.


Reentry Policy Council (2005). Report of theRe-Entry Policy Council: Charting the safe andsuccessful return of prisoners to the community(Web site). New York, NY: Council of StateGovernments. http://www.reentrypolicy.org/Report/About, last accessed December 11, 2007.

Rubinstein, G. (2001). Getting to work. HowTANF can support ex-offender parents in thetransition to self-sufficiency. New York, NY: LegalAction Center.

Rutherford, R. B., Bullis, M., Anderson, C. W., &Griller-Clark, H. M. (2002). Youth with disabilitiesin the corrections system: Prevalence rates andidentification issues. Monograph series oneducation, disability and juvenile justice.Washington, DC: U.S. Office of Education, Officeof Vocational and Adult Education; Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of JusticePrograms, Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention; Washington, DC: U.S.Office of Special Education Programs.

Snyder, H. & Sickmund, M. (2006). Juvenileoffenders and victims: 2006 National report.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,Office of Justice Programs, Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Preventions.

Travis, J., Cincotta, E., & Solomon, A. L. (2003).Families left behind: The hidden costs ofincarceration and reentry. Washington, DC: UrbanInstitute.

Travis, J. & Lawrence, S. (2002). Beyond theprison gates: The state of parole in America.Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Waul, M., Travis, J., & Solomon, A. L. (2002).Background paper: The effect of incarceration andreentry on children, families, and communities.Washington, DC: Urban Institute.



Never before have the conditions for change incorrectional practice been as promising as theyare today. Correctional agencies across thecountry are embracing a new approach to theirwork, fueled by a number of factors. On onehand these factors include increasingincarceration rates, the rate of offender failure,escalating costs for prison construction andoperations, and the diminishing public dollar. Onthe other they include a virtual explosion ofknowledge about what works (and, perhaps moreimportantly, what does not work) with adult andjuvenile offenders, public sentiment supportingreentry initiatives, and substantive and fiscalsupport from a variety of sources.

However, understanding the need for and beingcommitted to a new strategy for offender reentryis only the initial step. Given the complex factorsthat must be considered when undertaking thework of realigning correctional policy andpractice, agencies will need the appropriate tools,information, and guidance to develop aneffective strategy for offender reentry.

This section will outline some guiding principlesand propose a framework for approaching thiswork.

Philosophy and GuidingPrinciples of this HandbookOver the past several years, the Bureau of JusticeAssistance has worked with numerousjurisdictions on the topic of offender reentry. Thatexperience has underscored the importance ofhaving clarity of focus and a common languageregarding critical concepts. The philosophy andgeneral principles that guided the development ofthe framework are presented here.

What is the Principal Objective ofOffender Reentry?The principal objective of offender reentry is topromote successful offender outcomes.Offenders are successful when they lead law-abiding lives, support their dependents, pay theirtaxes, engage in pro-social activities, and arepositive and contributing members of theircommunities.

Why Should InstitutionalCorrections and CommunitySupervision Agencies Invest inPromoting Successful OffenderOutcomes?First, promoting successful offender outcomesenhances public safety. Offenders who engage inlawful conduct are improving the safety of theircommunities. Criminal acts avoided represent apositive outcome for all persons in thatcommunity, especially those who may have beenvictimized by these crimes.

Second, promoting successful offender outcomesallows for a better allocation of (often limited)resources. There are a variety of fiscal costsassociated with any crime. When crimes do notoccur, these monetary consequences areavoided. Further, many offenders are returned toprison for violations that do not include thecommission of new crimes. Occupying a prisonbed has significant cost implications and otherrepercussions for any jurisdiction. Offenders whoabide by conditions, engage in appropriatebehaviors, and attend to their responsibilities areunlikely to be returned to prison. Avoidingreincarceration allows funds to be investedelsewhere.

Section Two:

A Framework for OffenderReentry Madeline M. Carter

16


Third, promoting successful offender outcomesprovides a focus for positive action that isconsistent with both public expectations and thecentral responsibilities of institutionalcorrections and community supervisionagencies. It is a primary responsibility ofinstitutional corrections and communitysupervision agencies to correct the attitudes,behaviors, and actions of offenders and addressother critical factors that are related directly to anoffender’s criminal propensities. Research overthe past twenty years has demonstrated thatspecific types of interventions can impact thefuture conduct of adult and juvenile offenders byreducing their risk to reoffend. The public expectscorrections agencies to encourage appropriatebehavior during incarceration and to utilize theseinterventions to impact an offender’s ability toengage in appropriate conduct in the communityafter release from prison.

How Should Agencies Approachthe Planning and Implementationof Offender Reentry Efforts inOrder to Best Accomplish TheseOutcomes?The remaining sections of this handbook providea framework for action, general informationabout pertinent topics and research, specificexamples from particular jurisdictions, andpractical tips to help institutional corrections andcommunity supervision agencies identify thepolicies and practices that can be modified toimprove their approach to offender reentry. Thefollowing activities have been found to have

particular significance to jurisdictions working toaccomplish more successful outcomes withoffenders:

• Understanding the principles that underlieoffender reentry efforts and the direction ofthis work from a national perspective.

• Establishing a clear vision for the work andpromoting the acceptance of this vision withininstitutional corrections and communitysupervision agencies.

• Appreciating the leadership that will berequired to move institutional corrections andcommunity supervision agencies in newdirections.

• Developing collaborative approaches withininstitutional corrections and communitysupervision agencies and with other agenciesand individuals around offender reentryefforts.

• Taking a rational approach to planning.• Employing evidence-based practices to achieve

these successful outcomes.

The Framework for an EffectiveOffender Reentry StrategyThe vision of successful offender outcomesrepresents a shift for both institutionalcorrections and community supervision agenciesfrom the sole focus on punishment,incapacitation, monitoring, and accountabilitytoward a more balanced approach of alsofocusing on offender success as a means toenhance public safety. To realize this vision, analignment of mission, a rethinking of thesystems, actions, and methods currently in use,must also occur.

The framework for an effective offender reentrystrategy described in this handbook providesinstitutional corrections and communitysupervision agency leaders and their staffs with away to organize their thinking and activities asthey work to build more effective offendermanagement practices. This framework includesfour key components:

Promoting successful offenderoutcomes is an appropriate and perhapsfundamental corrections goal because itenhances public safety, encourages thebest use of limited resources, and createsa focus for positive action that isconsistent with public expectations andthe responsibilities of institutionalcorrections and community supervisionagencies.


• Leadership and Organizational Change• Rational Planning Process• Collaboration• Effective Offender Management Practices

Leadership and Organizational ChangeAdopting a new vision for institutional correctionsand community supervision agencies requirescommitted leaders at the highest levels of theorganization. Leaders must agree that successfuloffender reentry is a primary goal of the agency,not just a program or service. Committed leadersunderstand the power and importance of thisnew vision for institutional corrections andcommunity supervision agencies, as well as theenormity of the work that must take place for thisvision to be realized. While some make the falseassumption that effective offender reentry,transition, and evidence-based practices translateinto the adoption of a few new tools andapproaches or the modification of work activitiesof a select number of staff members, committedand visionary leaders understand that the work ismuch more fundamental than this. A thoroughexamination of, and modification to, theorganization’s culture, addressing such issues asthe manner in which the agency is organized;how staff is hired, trained, and promoted; theways in which functions are integrated; and staff’s

understanding of its role in achieving the agency’svision, is central to achieving successfuloutcomes with offenders. In other words, thispart of the framework addresses why the agencyadopts a particular focus and accompanyingchange strategies. Section Three of this handbookwill address this issue.

Rational Planning ProcessAs leaders consider the best methods to advancetheir agencies by embracing a new vision andundertaking a change in organizational culture,they should also put into place a system ormethod that will assist them to rationallyconsider where the agency is in relation to itsvision and how best to get it to where it wants tobe. The objective identification of issues, gaps,problems, and opportunities will give the agencythe ability to move deliberately in the desireddirection. Once the agency’s needs for movingforward are identified and prioritized, leaders candevelop the specific strategies that will be mostpowerful and have the greatest impact onachieving the results they seek. This part of theframework, then, addresses how to undertake thechange process. Section Four of this handbookwill describe the rational planning process ingreater detail.

CollaborationSince the barriers to successful reentry are multi-faceted, building collaborative partnerships isessential at both the policy and casemanagement levels. Institutional corrections andcommunity supervision agency leaders mustidentify and collaborate with their externalpartners. Similarly, internal collaboration amongstaff members working within institutions,between institutional and community supervisionstaff and between those working in thecommunity is equally important. This part of theframework addresses with whom institutionalcorrections and community supervision agenciesshould be working and how these partnersshould work together. Section Five of thishandbook will identify the various forms ofcollaboration at the State, regional, and locallevels, and at the policy and case management


Kansas Risk Reduction Initiative:A Multilayered, Multiagency Statewide Change Initiative

The Kansas Department of Corrections (DOC) has demonstrated a long-standing commitment toenhancing public safety through the establishment of successful offender reentry initiatives.These initiatives have focused on building bridges to agencies external to corrections, and withincorrections, building the capacity of staff, changing the culture of the Department of Corrections,and realigning responsibilities and resources to achieve the State’s risk reduction goals.

The DOC developed a long-range, wide-reaching strategic plan detailing the establishment ofexternal partnerships and the restructuring of its internal organization. A Statewide,multidisciplinary Reentry Policy Council has been established and a steering committeeformed to execute the strategies laid out in the plan.

Statewide data has been collected to identify barriers to offender success and has been used tosupport key legislative changes. Among other things, the data resulted in the passage of SenateBill 14, which appropriates funds to support the enhancement of risk reduction efforts at thecommunity corrections level.

Within the State’s correctional institutions, a strategic effort to align programs to deliverservices based upon assessed criminogenic needs was undertaken. Staff from all parts of thecorrectional institution have been involved in training and change management initiatives.

The parole division has undertaken a deliberate review of policies and practices to identify waysto reduce the number of revocations as a result of conditions violations, and to determine theextent to which policy and practice support risk reduction and reentry. The number of failingparolees dropped twenty-six percent from 2004 to 2006 as a result (KDOC, 2006). Effortscontinue to reduce the failure rate further.

At the local level, in 2003, the Shawnee County Reentry Program was started; later the programwas expanded to Sedgwick County. Both serve as models for the implementation of evidence-based practices.

Beginning in the fall of 2007, all thirty-three community corrections districts in the state willbegin a partnership program with the DOC to align community corrections with DOC reentryinitiatives and evidence-based policy and practice.

levels. It will describe the ways in which thesecollaboratives are structured, the benefits ofcollaboration, and the research that defineshighly functioning teams.

Effective Offender ManagementPracticesEnhancing outcomes with adult and juvenileoffenders requires the adoption of specificprinciples and practices empiricallydemonstrated to be effective in reducingrecidivism. These principles and practicestranslate into very specific activities and are acornerstone of effective correctional practice. Inisolation of the other elements of the framework,these evidence-based practices will likely

19


Public safety through effective offender management in institutions and in the community hasalways been the cornerstone of our mission at the Department. However, the concept of publicsafety through successful prisoner reentry requires us to reexamine what we do in our agency.We should be evaluating, from the moment an offender enters our probation or prison system,what will help that offender succeed upon return to the community. This shift in philosophytouches virtually every aspect of offender management, from the way supervision levels aredetermined to the type of programming that is provided both in prison and in the community.

Our focus on prisoner reentry means that we not only examine how we manage offenders, butalso how we engage and motivate offenders. Offenders in our custody are personallyaccountable for making their own choices about the life they will lead when they are releasedfrom prison. Taking personal responsibility for one’s actions is the foundation of our criminaljustice system. Prisoner reentry is about encouraging, motivating and challenging offenders totake responsibility for their lives from the day they enter prison.

- Matt Frank, Former Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Corrections

demonstrate limited utility. By adopting andimplementing them effectively in the context ofclear vision, leadership, and a realignedorganizational culture, supported by a strategicplanning and implementation process andenhanced through collaborative partnerships,agencies can realize the maximum potential ofthese evidence-based practices. This aspect ofthe framework therefore addresses in whatoffender management activities agencies shouldengage. Section Six of this handbook detailsthese principles and practices.

Assessing Offender ReentryEffortsAn Offender Reentry Policy and Practice Inventoryis included in this handbook to assistinstitutional corrections and communitysupervision agencies to examine their activitiesalong each of these four dimensions. Each of thesubsequent chapters in this handbook provides aset of key steps for readers to consider withregard to their own agency’s efforts.

In addition, each section concludes with a set ofquestions designed to assist the agency inconducting a self-assessment to determine theextent to which the effective offender reentryframework is being implemented. (The completeinventory is included in the Appendix.) Agencyleaders are encouraged to bring together a groupof staff members to consider and discuss thequestions in the inventory. This process willunveil successful activities already underwaywithin the agency, knowledge gaps andperception differences among staff, and mostimportantly, specific opportunities foradvancement towards successful offender reentry.

ReferencesKansas Department of Corrections (KDOC)(2006). Weighing the positive impact of federalassistance. KDOC Newsletter, October 2006.http://www.dc.state.ks.us/newsroom/newsletters/October_2006.pdf, last accessed December 11,2007.


INTRODUCTION

Change is a common occurrence in bothinstitutional corrections and communitysupervision agencies. Sometimes changes arecreated or developed from within an agency inresponse to problems, opportunities, or newinformation, and at other times they may beimposed by individuals outside an agency. Theissue is not so much whether an agency shouldor will change its direction, focus, policies, ormethods but how it will change them, who willbe directing these changes, and how changescan best be implemented.

Substantial research findings, conclusions aboutthe effectiveness of various approaches tooffender management, reflections on individualand collective values, budget considerations, andmany other factors have caused leaders injurisdictions across the country to question someof the basic approaches that have been taken tothe preparation of offenders for release. Most ofthese adult and juvenile offenders are returning toinstitutions within three years after their release,bringing with them the enormous costs (fiscaland social) associated with failure. A growingbody of literature has helped to focus attention onsome of the critical steps that could be taken todecrease the likelihood of these failures occurring.In light of these developments, institutional

corrections and community supervision agencyleaders in many jurisdictions have becomeinterested in taking actions that will improve theiroverall offender management strategies andoffender reentry practices in particular.

The types of changes that must be made toimprove offender reentry practices touch onnearly every aspect of institutional correctionsand community supervision agencies’ work, andclearly involve the work of other agencies as well.To successfully orchestrate and implement newapproaches to offender reentry, individuals withinthese agencies must be willing to demonstratespecific leadership qualities, understand theunderlying forces that form the basis of theagency’s culture, and appreciate the implicationsthat new work requirements or expectations haveon employees. Chapter 1 will focus on theseimportant considerations. Chapter 2 will provideguidance on understanding current agencyculture and creating a vision statement foroffender reentry in order to prepare fororganizational change. Finally, Chapter 3 willdiscuss how to prepare staff for this change.

Life is change, growth is optional. Choosewisely.

- Clark & Anderson, 1995

Section Three:

Leadership and OrganizationalChange Richard Stroker

22


CHAPTER 1: DEMONSTRATINGLEADERSHIP

Leadership DefinedNumerous authors have provided a multitude ofwords to convey what they believe the wordleadership truly means. Many of these definitionsfocus on particular actions, methods, andattitudes that can be displayed by individuals. Forinstance, Kouzes and Posner (2002) in theirwork have indicated that:

Leadership is not a place, it’s not aposition, and it’s not a secret code thatcan’t be deciphered by ordinary people.Leadership is an observable set of skillsand abilities.

Utilizing this definition, the particular traits,characteristics, skills, and methods used byindividuals who demonstrate the essentialqualities of leadership can be examined.

Leadership Distinguished fromManagementThe terms leadership and management aresometimes used interchangeably; however,several authors on the topic of leadership pointout the important differences between these twonotions. For example, Peter Drucker (1999) andWarren Bennis (1989) have indicated thatleadership is doing the right things, whilemanagement is doing things right.

Authors Stephen Covey, Roger Merrill, andRebecca Merrill (1996) express it in the followingway: leadership is making sure that the agency’s“ladder is against the right wall” and that you“do the right thing for the right reason in theright way.” In other words, leaders must makecertain that agencies are focused on the rightthings and are moving in the proper direction ortowards the correct overall goals. Determiningthe right direction is an exercise that involves anindividual’s principles and values and an

appreciation and application of pertinent factsand information.

By contrast, managers are responsible in theirday-to-day work for ensuring that specific tasksare discharged properly and effectively. Theirdaily focus is on the execution of workresponsibilities and making certain that the bestmethods are used to move in the direction thathas been indicated. Warren Bennis (1997)indicates some of the fundamental distinctionsbetween the focus or actions of leaders andmanagers. He notes that:

• Leaders ask what and why. Managers ask howand when.

• Leaders focus on the horizon. Managers focuson the bottom line.

• Leaders are willing to challenge the statusquo. Managers accept the status quo.

The degree to which top and mid-level managersof an agency are able to work in harmony canhave enormous implications for the overalleffectiveness of the agency in reaching particulargoals. In the offender reentry arena, leadershipand management can be viewed in the followingway: leadership is choosing to pursue a course ofaction to develop new strategies andpartnerships in order to reduce the likelihood ofreleased offenders returning to institutions, whilegood management is finding and employing ona daily basis the best methods and practices thatwill enable the agency to reduce the likelihood ofan offender’s return to prison.

Leadership Can Occur at AnyLevel of an AgencyOne of the most misunderstood notions ofleadership is that it can only be exercised by thetop management of an agency. However, justbecause a certain individual holds positional


leadership does not necessarily mean that aperson exhibits leadership qualities. Sinceleadership is about a way of behaving and notabout holding any particular position, leadershipqualities can be demonstrated by anyone at anytime. R.J. House (2004) writes that: “Leadershipis the ability of an individual to influence,motivate, and enable others to contribute towardthe effectiveness of an agency.”

Within any agency, office, or unit, there areindividuals at various levels considered to beleaders by their coworkers. This might be basedon their experience and credibility, their ability tosee the broader landscape and not be undulyinfluenced by some particular event, or theirwillingness to be innovative and to try newmethods or approaches. Some individuals are soadept at demonstrating leadership qualities thattheir leadership is almost invisible until you stepback and see the influence that they have on theactions of others.

If anyone can demonstrate leadership qualities,then institutional corrections and communitysupervision agencies are likely filled withindividuals who act like leaders. The potentiallysignificant impact that these individuals can haveon an agency, or on the goals or objectives of thetop managers of an agency, will be discussedmore fully in the chapter on organizationalchange. For the purposes of this section,however, it is assumed that leadership is largelyabout demonstrating certain skills and abilities,and that anyone at any level in an agency candemonstrate these traits.

Key Leadership CharacteristicsIf leadership is a way of behaving and not theholding of a particular position, then it is helpfulto outline some of the key elements of goodleadership in a way that is clear to anyone whomight be interested in becoming a leader.

Maintaining a Focus on the FutureLeaders are willing to imagine things as theycould be and are willing to make the necessarychanges to help an agency modify its course. As

noted above, leaders are willing to question thestatus quo. Leaders might ask, “Why are wedoing the things that we do?” or “What are ouroverall objectives?” These questions go to theheart of an agency’s purpose and direction. It isinteresting to ask people who are engaged in avariety of correctional tasks why they are doingwhat they do. Answers are sometimes providedalong the lines of “This is how we always do it”or “This is what I was told to do.” Leaders areunwilling to stop their inquiries based on theseanswers.

When a person thinks about what an agencycould be accomplishing, the direction that itcould be following, or the outcomes that it couldbe striving to achieve, then that person isthinking like a leader. A focus on a preferredfuture often helps to identify the types ofchanges that an agency must make in order tobe successful at moving in a new direction.

Being Proactive and Having aPassionate PurposeAuthor Eudora Welty (1995) once stated that allsignificant change starts from within. Beforeleaders in institutional corrections andcommunity supervision agencies can effectivelyinitiate change, they must first be convinced ofthe value of pursuing a new course. The growingbody of literature demonstrating the positiveimpacts of offender reentry as a correctionsphilosophy stands as one powerful argument forthe benefits of undertaking particular actions orengaging in necessary modifications in order toimprove offender outcomes. Once convinced,effective leaders embrace the need for changeand become advocates for modifying an agency’sdirection or methods.

Initiating necessary change, rather than waitingfor circumstances to require action, is an

Leadership is a means. Leadership towhat end is the crucial question.

- Drucker, 1999


example of proactive behavior. Stephen Covey(1989) writes that being proactive is “…morethan being aggressive or assertive. It is bothtaking initiative and responding to outsidestimuli based on one’s principles.”

When individuals are convinced of the need topursue or implement change, they can act with apassionate purpose. In the absence of a belief inparticular goals, it is easy to be distracted ordeterred from objectives. Changing the goals,direction, or activities of an institutionalcorrections or community supervision agencyregarding offender reentry will require a long-term approach. Leaders who are persuasive thatachieving certain offender reentry goals is bothconsistent with the agency’s values and beliefsand in the best interests of the agency and thepublic will be more successful at helping theiragency engage in long-term change.

Demonstrating a Willingness to Listenand LearnGood leaders demonstrate the ability to listen toand appreciate the perspectives of others,whether these include formulating ideas aboutthe best direction or goals for the agency, ortrying to understand and identify the best ways ofsolving existing problems or meeting the needsof the agency.

Leaders understand that, in order to bring aboutpositive change, they must understand wheretheir agency currently is, as well as where theywould like it to be. Albert Einstein once remarkedthat “the significant problems we face cannot besolved at the same level of thinking we were atwhen we created them.” Leaders are willing toapply new information, ideas, or methods toovercome present challenges. Leaders are alsowilling to spend the time necessary tounderstand the fundamental nature of importantissues. The causes of problems are oftentimescomplex, and the ability to listen and learn willhelp leaders determine the true root of an issue.

Putting Egos Aside and DevelopingPartnershipsWhile some leaders prefer a high profileexistence, many of the best agency leadersoperate in a low-key manner. This may reflect apersonal choice or the realization that what trulymatters is not their personal recognition but theadvancement of their agency towards particulargoals. Effective work in the offender reentry arearequires the development of key partnershipsbetween institutional corrections and communitysupervision agencies as well as numerous otherentities. The ability to develop a close workingrelationship with the leaders of these agencies islikely to be essential to the long-term success ofoffender reentry efforts. Partnerships, both insideand outside of an agency, require considerationand respect. It is easier to formulate partnershipswhen individual egos are not placed front andcenter.

Leaders know when to step up and be heard,when to be held accountable, and when to stepback and let others receive attention or acclaim.Individuals who are prepared to accept theblame for mistakes made by others in theiragency and to deflect credit to those who aremore deserving of recognition are demonstratingkey leadership attributes. As Lao-Tsu onceexplained, “To lead people, walk beside them. Asfor the best leaders, the people do not noticetheir existence.”

Providing Clear and ConsistentStatements about the IntendedDestinationIn order for the staff of an agency to be able tofollow the direction or goals of a leader or forothers to understand what is intended in thefuture, it is imperative that these goals beexpressed in a clear and consistent way.Management expert W. Edwards Deming (1993)expressed this notion in the following way: “Theaim of the system must be clear to everyone inthe system. The aim must involve the plans forthe future.”


There are many ways that individuals canannounce, reinforce, or promote their visionregarding offender reentry. Presentations togroups, speeches to staff, training events, andarticles in publications or newsletters can helpdeliver messages about new goals or methods.Every interaction between a supervisor and asubordinate is also a training opportunity. Whatindividuals say to one another on a personallevel can be more powerful than a presentationmade to an audience. In order to impact theperspective of others, individuals mustconsistently indicate the value to the agency ofmoving in a particular direction.

Remaining Flexible in Their Methods ofAchieving ObjectivesWhile it is important to remain steadfastregarding the overall objective, leaders know thatthey must be flexible in creating the bestmethods to get there. Line staff, front linesupervisors, responsible managers, and othersoften have excellent ideas on how best to modifycurrent methods or implement new changes inwork requirements. Leaders must promote theoverall objectives so that the direction of theagency can be fully understood and appreciated,yet they must also involve others in determining

the most appropriate or effective means forreaching particular goals. General George S.Patton put it this way: “Don’t tell people how todo things. Tell them what to do, and let themsurprise you with the results.”

Some people are excellent at indicating whatcannot be done. They can identify a significantnumber of obstacles that would prevent theagency from achieving a particular outcome. Thenegative prophecy (e.g., “This can’t be done; Ican’t do it”) is encouraged when leaders try totell employees exactly how to do something.Effective leaders appreciate the value ofexpressing what must be done, consistently andcontinually reinforce the intended goal, and theninvite discussion from various individuals aboutthe best way to achieve it.

Displaying a Positive AttitudeLeaders must decide for themselves the attitudesthat they will display. Leaders are best positionedto influence, motivate, and enable others whenthey supply an uplifting message and convey apositive outlook. Napoleon Bonaparte onceindicated that “a leader is a dealer in hope.”

Most individuals who work in institutionalcorrections and community supervision agencieswant to be successful at what they do, and theywant to make a difference in their communitiesor their work place. Leaders understand that,while the work is often difficult, employees canbe inspired by ideas and the belief that theirefforts are contributing towards a greater good.This message is most effectively communicatedwhen the speaker is able to articulate anoptimistic view about the future of the agencyand to demonstrate a positive personal attituderegarding the intended direction, policies, ormethods of that agency.

Doing Things in Ways that Build TrustEvery partnership, collaboration, or workenterprise depends upon individualsdemonstrating a certain level of trust in eachother. In many situations, actions could be takenthat would be harmful to coworkers or partners

The Reentry Director has convened a[committee of ] Cross Divisional ReentryExecutive Team Leaders to identify moreclearly staff roles and responsibilities asthey relate to reentry. It is the job of theExecutive Team Leaders to promoteDepartment culture change byintroducing new and substantiallydifferent ways of doing business thatdemonstrate the outcomes as benefits,i.e., greater community safety, fewervictims, and a more effective and efficientway of doing business.

- Matthew Frank, Former Secretary,

Wisconsin Department of Corrections


and could destroy or erode trust. Working in thepublic sector, it is often easy to blame others,point fingers, or take other actions that attemptto shield an individual or an agency from blamebecause of the interconnected nature of manyactivities. Leaders recognize the importance ofresolving issues without attempting to establishfault. Some agencies have a long history ofblaming others or operating in a distrustful orfearful environment. In such situations, it isdifficult to listen to new messages, modify workmethods, or embrace change.

Empowering others to act and delegatingauthority appropriately can also be meaningfulways to build trust. Theodore Rooseveltremarked: “The best executive is the one whohas sense enough to pick good people to dowhat must be done and self-restraint to keepfrom meddling with them while they do it.” Trustis something that is built over time and can besignificantly damaged by a single incident.Individuals who are skilled leaders are vigilant intheir efforts to demonstrate their trust in others.

Being Willing to Take Some CalculatedRisksEvery action or decision in the correctionsenvironment carries with it some risk. Whileinstitutional corrections and communitysupervision agencies seek to minimize thepersonal risks involved for everyone, policiesmust still be created. Decisions and actionsbased on those policies occur every day. Aquestion to consider is whether the policieseffectively assist the agency in realizing its mostimportant or significant goals.

Decisions must be made in light of theinformation that is available. In the correctionsworld, a significant amount of information isgenerated. Ruth Stanat (1990), the president ofan international research agency, once remarkedthat many managers are “drowning in data, butstarved for information.” When the true goals orobjectives of an agency are clear, it is easier todetermine the kind of information that would behelpful for managers to know in order to make

decisions. Institutional corrections andcommunity supervision agencies move forwardor backward or stand still based on the decisionsthat are made every day by agency staff.Commitment to a new course of action willrequire that difficult decisions be made about theutilization of personnel, the allocation ofresources, and many other issues. Progress willdepend on the willingness of leaders to makethese often-difficult decisions. British PrimeMinister David Lloyd George once expressed theneed to take certain risks in this way: “Don’t beafraid to take a big step when one is indicated.You can’t cross a chasm in two small steps.”

Taking Steps to Cultivate Team SpiritWhen employees embrace ideas and worktogether to realize particular outcomes, thegreatest possible gains can be realized. Many ofthe leadership skills mentioned above are criticalto the development of team spirit, but a fewadditional ones can be mentioned here.

First, it can be important for others to see aleader who is willing to do some of the hardwork that must be done and not always leaving itfor others to complete. Second, decisionsregarding recognition and rewards, orpunishment, must be objective and appropriate.Finally, prioritizing critical work activities andeliminating less productive tasks can boostmorale and demonstrate a commitment toparticular objectives. Some of these elements willreceive additional attention in the next chapter.

ConclusionAs the above information demonstrates,leadership is about identifying the proper courseor direction for an agency and demonstratingparticular characteristics that can help influence,motivate, and enable others to help the agencymove in the intended direction. In order tofurther explore some of the dynamics associatedwith change, attention will now be given to theimpact that an agency’s culture can have on theability of a leader to move an agency in aparticular direction.


• Envision a preferred future; expressthis vision clearly and consistently tostaff and partners.

• Embrace and advocate for change.• Recognize leaders at every level of

the agency and their important rolein carrying out change.

• Consider the perspectives, findings,and opinions of staff at all levels.

• Be flexible in the methods employedto reach your vision.

• Develop and maintain partnershipswith others inside and outside of theagency.

• Motivate others by communicating ina positive manner.

• Demonstrate trust in staff by provid-ing them with leadership opportuni-ties.

• Judiciously use information to takecalculated risks towards accomplish-ing your goals.

KEY STEPS


Understanding An Agency’sExisting Culture Relative toOffender ReentryWhen new employees join an agency, theyalmost immediately see and hear things thatconvey information about how work is done inthat office or institution. Do people seem toenjoy working together or do they ignore eachother? What do employees say to each other incasual conversation about coworkers,supervisors, or offenders? Is chaos and panicfairly evident, or is work done in a calm, rationalway? The initial impressions gathered by a newemployee may largely be observations about theculture in a work location.

In either an institutional corrections orcommunity supervision environment, two factorsare ever-present: (1) rules exist, and (2) staffmust interpret and carry out rules in order tomeet job responsibilities. Yet the nature andspirit with which certain tasks are carried out aredriven largely by the attitudes of the employeesof an institution or office. Attempting tounderstand the nature of the beliefs that shapeemployee behavior can have tremendous valuefor leaders who are attempting to introducesignificant changes in work requirements oroutlining a new vision for the agency.

Recognizing Organizational CultureOrganizational culture refers to the acceptednorms, practices, values, customs, traditions, orbehavior patterns of employees. Organizationalmanagement author Edgar H. Schein (1992) haswritten that an organization or office culture isdeveloped over time in response to worksituations, external pressures or forces, and theneed to solve particular problems.

Once certain attitudes, behaviors, or methodsare embraced by a majority of the employees inan area, then they can be passed along to newemployees, who in turn are expected to pattern

their behaviors in accordance with theseaccepted norms. The culture of a workplace canshape the initial reaction of employees tocomplex matters. If the majority of employees inan office have concluded that most new policiesmake their work more difficult, then all newpolicies may be initially treated with suspicion. Ifa supervisor is thought to be capable andinterested in the welfare of subordinates, theninstructions by this person will be carried outwithout much discussion or delay. These types ofreactions are reflections of the norms of aworkplace.

Some writers have noted that the best way tounderstand the culture of a workplace is to try tochange something that impacts the day-to-daywork of its employees. Some offices or areasrespond with enthusiasm for particular changes.These may be changes that reinforce the valuesof that workplace or are consistent with thebehavior patterns of the employees. Staffmembers who volunteer to participate inparticular efforts may be demonstrating thatharmony exists between the culture of that officeand the new work being contemplated. Mostmanagers have probably experienced situationswhere proposed changes were resisted by someemployees at every turn, perhaps because thechanges envisioned would create friction or wereinconsistent with the accepted norms orpractices of that office.

The largest single resource that institutionalcorrections and community supervision agenciescan utilize to solve any issue is their ownpersonnel. Understanding the norms and valuesof staff can help institutional corrections andcommunity supervision agency administratorsand top managers understand the expectations,needs, and requirements of their employees,including those that must be reconciled oraddressed in order to realize the intendedbenefits of proposed changes.

CHAPTER 2: PREPARING FORORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE


Examining Current PracticesTasks can be accomplished in many differentways, while still being in compliance with mostpolicies or rules. For instance, information atintake could be gathered in a sterile, formal wayby asking offenders to respond to specific,predetermined questions with largely yes or noanswers. Alternatively, it can be assembledthrough a more extensive dialogue withoffenders, where open-ended questions are thenorm. While both of these approaches indeedaccomplish the requirements of a policy, theyactually reflect very different ways of doingbusiness. Managers who engage in acomprehensive review of work activities may finda rich compilation of employee practices. Forexample, before making changes to the types ofquestions posed to an offender at intake, amanager first might determine which approach isthe norm in a particular institution, office, orother setting.

Offender reentry touches on essentially everyaspect of offender management, from intake tocommunity supervision and beyond. Discussionsabout reentry necessarily involve employees whoperform nearly every type of job within aninstitutional corrections or communitysupervision environment. A comprehensivereview of existing policies, training opportunities,skill levels, job descriptions, and the basis forhiring or promotion decisions may be anappropriate way to begin the examination ofcurrent practices. What do the types of rewardsor recognitions given to the agency’s employeesindicate about the agency’s preferences,expectations, and direction regarding offenderreentry? What recognition is given to staffmembers who do excellent work in helping theagency reach its offender reentry objectives?Considered collectively, this information canprovide valuable insight into what these practicesindicate about the focus of the agency’s efforts.

Gaining a Clear PerspectiveIt is certainly possible for different offices orareas within an agency to display varying normsand cultures. These different cultures maybecome more evident when a broad topic, suchas offender reentry, is discussed. To gain moreinsight into the culture of a particular office orarea, it is helpful for a manager to createopportunities for staff to talk about their beliefsand values. Individual interviews, focus groups,or other forums allow for employees todemonstrate or indicate some of the acceptedelements of their office culture. Stephen Covey(1991) has noted in his work that, in general, itmight be helpful to leaders to spend less timetalking at, and more time listening to, theiremployees. By listening to employees, leaderscan gain new insights about the forces or beliefsthat drive employee performance.

A careful review of certain types of data orpertinent information may also yield someinteresting findings. For instance, if oneinstitution has the most (or the least)disciplinary infractions each month (compared toinstitutions of similar security level and size), amanager might want to understand better howdisciplinary matters are addressed at that facility.Institutions with the most inmates at sick call,supervision offices with the most absconders, oroffices with the lowest (or highest) percentage of

The notion, and related practices, thatsupporting successful reentry is everyone’sbusiness takes a while to filter throughoutthe agency as previously defined jobdescriptions may not have included aninvestment in offenders’ transition to thecommunity. By prioritizing successfulreentry as a part of the agency’s publicsafety mission, strategies that may havepreviously applied only to specificsegments of the agency’s workforce arenow a concern for everyone.

- Maureen Walsh, Chairman,

Massachusetts Parole Board

30


staff taking sick leave might be indications ofsome larger truth. Identifying the types ofinformation that is meaningful, and determininghow best to examine or use this information, isan important part of examining culture.

Examining critical policies and compliance levelsis another way of examining the norms of aworkplace. Given limited resources and a setnumber of available hours and staff, whichpolicies are routinely followed and which areoften ignored? By considering the language ofthese policies, the messages transmitted byleaders of the agency about particular workexpectations, external pressures, or other factors,a manager can develop an understanding of whysome policies appear to be more important thanothers to particular employees.

Appreciating the Difficulties Associatedwith Changing an Agency’s CultureEvery practitioner has seen how the attention ofagency heads and top management can shiftfrom one concern to another depending uponevents of the moment. Many practitioners havealso seen positional leaders say different thingsabout the nature, purpose, or direction of workdepending upon the identification of some newobjective, or the audience involved, or thepresence of a troubling issue or circumstance.When these individuals at the top of the agencyexpress ideas in inconsistent ways or announcechanges to long-standing practices or goals, itcan create confusion within the workplace. Totemper this confusion, employees fall back upontheir own accepted norms, values, and beliefs,i.e., their agency culture. Further, employees whohave seen many changes come and go over timedevelop a certain resistance to any change that isnot consistent with the values of their office;employees with more experience may be themost deeply rooted in the culture of their workenvironment.

To embrace change, employees must understandwhy the change is necessary, how it will impactthem, and why it is beneficial for the agency andothers. As noted in the section on leadership,having a clear, consistent message thatarticulates the personal and agency valuesrepresented in the new way of doing business iscritical. It is also imperative that employees beinvolved in determining the best methods to beused in accomplishing the desired goals. Itmight not be possible to force the employees ofan agency to accept a leader’s vision; however,employees who can appreciate the importance ofthe agency’s new direction and who are involvedin formulating strategies and methods to realizenew outcomes will be much more likely toembrace change.

Preparing Yourself for ChangeCreating the proper goals and objectives for anagency requires leaders to have an appreciationfor the empirical information relative to the topicinvolved, as well as an understanding of theirown jurisdiction. In other words, a leader mustbe adequately prepared to engage in the righttypes of change.

Reviewing the Research and Informationon Offender ReentryThe past fifteen years have seen tremendousactivity concerning offender-focused research.The “what works” literature, evidence-basedpractices, and meta-analysis of programminginterventions have led practitioners to concludethat specific types of activities and interventionscan have a significant impact on the likelihood ofan adult or juvenile offender returning to custody.Individuals who are interested in exploring

When the formula “successful reentry =community safety” was presented to theagency, a place for everyone becameapparent.




changes in the offender reentry realm shouldbecome fully versed in this information andconsider the implications of this research fortheir agency and other potential partner agenciesin this effort. For a review of these practices, seeSection Six of this handbook.

Research within the jurisdiction may also highlightsome particular ingredients or elements of apotentially successful approach. For instance,improvements in the use of risk assessment tools,institutional programming efforts, prereleaseactivities, or partnerships with other agencies mayproduce some interesting data or results. In onejurisdiction, it was found that during an offender’sfirst two months after release, the likelihood ofreturn to prison was reduced by one percent forevery day of employment (Meredith, 2003). Thistype of information provides a powerful impetusto change efforts.

Sharing Key Offender Reentry Conceptswith OthersWithin any institutional corrections orcommunity supervision agency, responsibilitiesin key areas are often divided among numerouspersonnel. Creating opportunities for thesepersonnel to learn about critical local or nationalresearch findings, examine relative data, anddevelop strategies can be critical to the ultimatedevelopment of a particular vision for the agency.In the final analysis, securing internal consensusamong top management will be essential to thecreation and execution of new policies andmethods. Involving these individuals early in thediscussion affords them the opportunity to frameissues, explore possibilities, and developownership of future products.

Other agencies may also be interested inpartnering with an institutional corrections orcommunity supervision agency once certain dataor information is shared. In some jurisdictions,state entities responsible for mental health orsubstance abuse services have been surprised tolearn about the percentage of their communityclients who are under criminal justicesupervision. In some states, this information has

helped to break down traditional agency barriersand create a sense of shared responsibility.Developing key partnerships is one of theessential elements of a sound long-term offenderreentry strategy. As with internal staff, the soonerthat leaders from other agencies can see the dataand be involved in discussions regardingoffender reentry, the earlier they can begin toidentify the potential for mutual undertakings.

Creating a Vision Statementfor Successful Offender ReentryEffortsIn order for an agency to move forward withmodifying its goals, practices, methods, orapproaches to offender reentry, it must formulatea vision statement that reflects the intendeddirection of the agency and the values of itsleaders and staff.

Considering the Elements of a VisionStatementA vision statement should indicate a preferredfuture and the desired outcomes toward whichan agency seeks to work. The ideas and choicesidentified in a written pronouncement of thispreferred future should reflect the values andbeliefs of its authors. In addition to indicatingwhere the agency is headed, the vision statementshould be positive and uplifting, using words

There is perhaps no tool more powerfulthan a clear vision. A clear vision, orfocus, harnesses our energy and directs itwith precision on our desired goals.Consider this: The sun is a powerfulsource of energy with billions of kilowattsof energy. But, with sunscreen and a hat aperson can shield themselves from itseffects. A laser is a relatively weak sourceof energy by comparison. It representsonly a few watts of energy but, whenfocused in a coherent stream of light, itcan drill a hole in a diamond.

- Ries, 1997

32


that will help inspire others to embrace this newdirection fully.

While an agency’s vision may be focused on loftyambitions, it should be written in language thatcan be easily understood by others. When peopleread or hear a vision statement, they should beable to form a clear idea about what the agencyis striving to accomplish. In addition, the visionstatement should avoid exact details regardinghow the agency will move forward in its efforts.The purpose of the vision statement is toindicate an agency’s intended direction andperhaps why the agency is choosing to undertakethat particular journey. What precisely the agencywill do or how it will advance in the direction ofits vision should be left for specific individuals orgroups to determine.

Consider, for example, the following visionstatement that was drafted for consideration atthe Seventh American Forests Congress (1996):

The great American forest, since our nation’sfounding, has provided the resources to buildour homes, our schools, our churches—ithas provided the inspiration for ourphilosophers, our poets, our artists. Workingtogether we can continue to improve,enhance and protect this great naturalresource to help insure that we have healthyforests with clean water, clean air, abundantwildlife, wilderness, and working forests inharmony with the needs of all Americans andfor the generations yet to come.

This statement indicates a generally desiredoutcome (improving, enhancing, and protectingforests), reflects some of the values of itsauthors (forests are a tremendous naturalresource, people can work together, needs andinterests can work in harmony), explains why thework is important (so that current and futuregenerations can enjoy the benefits of thisresource), and is written in a positive, uplifting,and easily understood way. This statement does

Vision of the Georgia Reentry Impact ProjectWe will promote public safety through collaborative partnerships, which reflect a seamlesssystem that ensures all returning offenders are law abiding, productive citizens of theircommunities.

Vision of the Michigan Prisoner ReEntry InitiativeThe Vision of the Michigan Prisoner ReEntry Initiative is to reduce crime by implementing aseamless plan of services and supervision developed with each offender, delivered through stateand local collaboration, from the time of their entry to prison through their transition,reintegration, and aftercare in the community.

http://www.michpri.com/index.php?page=what-we-do, last accessed December 11, 2007.

Vision of the New York Reentry Task ForceThe vision of the Reentry Task Force is to build a safer New York resulting from the successfultransition of offenders from prison to living law-abiding and productive lives in theircommunities.http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/crimnet/ojsa/initaitives/tpci_crtf.htm, last accessed December 11, 2007.

A Vision for Effective Offender Reentry in Rhode IslandOur vision of offender reentry in Rhode Island is of an integrated statewide system that fostersthe preparation and gradual transition of incarcerated individuals to productive, healthy, andcrime-free lives.


not indicate exactly how this vision will berealized, but it paints a vivid picture of apreferred future.

Creating an Agency’s Vision StatementAs noted earlier, it is important to have keymanagers participate in the drafting andconsideration of a vision statement concerningoffender reentry, as this area impacts so manyaspects of institutional corrections andcommunity supervision work. New directionsneed a tremendous amount of internal supportto survive. Failing to include all managers in thework of envisioning the agency’s approach tooffender reentry may lead to friction or concernswhen the full consequences of offender reentrywork are realized by all employees.

Further, reentry work necessarily involves thecollaboration of numerous partners. Establishinga meaningful dialogue with potential partnersbefore the vision statement is created will allowthese agencies the opportunity to consider,embrace, and create language that will form thebasis of a comprehensive vision statement. Somecorrections agencies have developed theiroffender reentry efforts internally and then soughtto bring other agencies into the discussion afterthe fact. This leads other agencies to see offenderreentry as a corrections issue entirely, with only aminor role or responsibility for external agencies.Effective reentry work requires many agencies andindividuals to work together on a significantnumber of issues; involving these partners earlyin the process will aid in the development of jointownership and responsibility concerning thereentry effort.

The preceding page includes examples of visionstatements created by collaborative teams ofinstitutional corrections and communitysupervision agencies working with the NationalInstitute of Corrections on its Transition fromPrison to the Community (TPC) initiative. Theyexemplify how such efforts can clearly reenvisionthe future toward which corrections agencies andtheir partners are working.

Announcing and Promoting the VisionStatementOnce the vision statement has been developed,it must be shared with others in a manner thatpromotes maximum knowledge andunderstanding of what the vision statementintends to convey about the agency’scommitment to reentry.

Some agencies have formal methods for sharingimportant pronouncements with staff members(e.g., issuing a copy to all staff with theirpaychecks) while others rely on more informalmeans (e.g., asking supervisors to brief theirsubordinates at regular meetings). Whatevermethods are employed, the critical question iswhether employees understand what is beingsaid, why it matters, and what it will ultimatelymean for them and the agency.

Information about a vision statement can beplaced in internal publications, listed on a Website, or be discussed as a special item atregularly scheduled meetings. Most likely, manymethods will have to be employed over time, anda consistent message will have to be providedconcerning the reason for and meaning of thevision statement in order to persuade staff of theagency’s commitment. Most managers haveseen vision statements on a variety of topicsduring their careers. While communicating thevision statement is an important first step, staffmembers may wait to see if the vision isincorporated into the routine business of theagency, is reflected in the agency’s policies andtraining events, is referenced by the agency’sleaders during presentations or meetings, and ishighlighted in public statements. A consistentreinforcement of the vision is important topromoting investment in the agency’s newdirection.

ConclusionLeaders who seek to create a new vision ofoffender reentry for their agencies have theopportunity to initiate and foster meaningfulmodifications to the agency’s direction andoperation. In moving forward, leaders can

34


prepare themselves by becoming fully versed onthe growing body of information regardingoffender reentry and by considering the culturesof their own agencies and how the cultures willimpact efforts toward change. Being informed onthese matters will help agency leaders moveforward with the greatest possibility of successfor their intended changes.

• Gain a fuller perspective of theagency’s culture by listening toemployees and collecting informationfrom different offices or areas withinthe agency.

• Review existing policies and practicesin the agency and determine whatmessages regarding the importanceof offender reentry these policies andpractices convey to staff and offend-ers.

• Examine, recognize, and understandthe accepted practices, behaviors,norms, and attitudes present in alllevels of the agency.

• Review the research and literature onoffender reentry and share it withothers.

• Create a vision for offender reentrywith the help of a diverse group ofkey staff.

• Promote the vision consistentlythrough publications, presentations,and public statements.

KEY STEPS


The Different Situations,Circumstances, and LimitationsFaced by StaffIn carrying out the responsibilities of institutionalcorrections and community supervisionagencies, staff members are tasked withperforming wide-ranging activities. What nearlyall of these activities have in common, whether itis interacting with offenders, performingadministrative tasks, dealing with external forces,or managing employees, is that there seems tobe more to do than can be done in the timeallotted. Expanding populations, increasedpaperwork, stagnant or shrinking budgets, orspecific public expectations can create some longand difficult days for employees. It is within thiscontext that institutional corrections andcommunity supervision agencies attempt toengage in implementing new directions, goals, orwork methods.

Recognizing the Importance ofPrioritizationWork activities should reflect the most importantpriorities of an agency. As Stephen Covey (1991)notes:

Most people and organizations approachtime management within the context ofprioritizing one’s schedules. It is much moreeffective to schedule one’s priorities thathave been identified in conjunction with keyroles and goals and determined throughassessment of personal and organizationalmissions.

In other words, once an agency is clear aboutwhat it wants to do, it should prioritize the timeemployees spend performing different types ofwork so that the tasks performed more accuratelyreflect overall priorities. Covey refers to this as“putting first things first.” The reason that manypeople have no time to tackle new assignments

is because there are so many old assignmentsstill being performed that do not align with thecurrent agency vision. Many agencies suffer fromthe weight of work activities that are performedor carried out in some particular way for reasonsthat no one can recall. One key to makingchanges in the workplace is to prioritize workactivities in ways that are consistent with theagency’s broader goals and eliminate work thatholds a low priority.

When agencies take a look at how security staffor community supervision employees spendtheir time, they may be surprised to learn howlittle time is actually spent performing thefunctions that constitute the reason for thecreation of the position. When these employeesindicate that they have “no time to spend withoffenders because they are busy doing otherthings,” it means that other priorities have beenimposed on their schedule. If an agency wantssecurity staff to spend more time with offendersin a housing unit or supervision staff to spendmore time with offenders during home visits,then other duties will have to be eliminated,reassigned, or combined in ways that will allowthese employees the time that they need to dothe work that matters most.

Institutional corrections and communitysupervision agencies can benefit greatly byengaging in a thorough review of how employeesspend their time, identifying tasks or activitiesthat reflect a low priority (or that no longer needto be done at all) and eliminating these tasks.Eliminating certain tasks can concern someemployees because, even though they see thatthere is little value in doing that particularactivity, they may be reluctant to give up doingwork that they understand and perform well,particularly if they are concerned that the newtasks will be hard to understand.

CHAPTER 3: PREPARING STAFF FORORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE


Helping Staff Overcome BarriersFront line staff and first line supervisors have thebest understanding of the challenges that theyface in meeting everyday job requirements orexpectations. In creating a new direction or focusconcerning offender reentry, institutionalcorrections and community supervision agenciesalso have the opportunity to consider andaddress a variety of traditional problems andgenerate new solutions to help staff overcomethese issues. For instance, intra-agencycommunication is often an issue in largeagencies. Offender reentry work, because ittouches so many areas of the agency’s operation,can present a new opportunity to work on thisproblem. Similarly, long-standing issues withother agencies (e.g., lack of responsiveness toparticular matters) can receive new attention ifan interagency offender reentry team isestablished.

Managers often see certain problems, whetherinternally or externally driven, as intractable.Rather than spending time solving suchproblems, managers or other staff may deviseways to get around the issue. While somepositive results can come from such actions, it isusually better to find productive ways ofidentifying and resolving the underlying issues.Arguably it is the fundamental responsibility ofsupervisors and managers to identify and resolveproblems for their employees, but, like front linestaff, supervisors and managers are often busywith other work and satisfying other priorities.Allowing time for supervisors and managers tolearn about the actual factors causing theseproblems and encouraging them to work withinterdivisional or interagency teams to resolvedifficulties is critical for a healthy agency.

A focus on offender reentry activities providesthe opportunity, and possibly a framework, forthe identification and elimination of variousproblems. While most agencies approachproblems in a win/lose frame of mind (i.e., youcan win, or I can win, but we can’t both win),offender reentry activities offer various agenciesthe opportunity to develop mutually beneficial

solutions to a variety of matters (i.e., if we dothis in a particular way, we can both gainsomething of value). Stephen Covey (1989) refersto this as the “win/win principle.” Once staffmembers see that offender reentry work is avehicle for eliminating or overcoming variousproblems, acceptance of the direction and goalsof the effort will be more easily obtained.

Training, Job Qualifications, andHiring/Promotional Decisions

Seeking Employees with the NecessarySkills and Abilities for the AgencyIn order for employees to have the critical skillsand abilities that will be required to performnecessary tasks associated with effective offenderreentry work, employees will either have topossess these skills already, or they will have toreceive adequate training so that they can developthe ability to successfully do the work. If offenderreentry work is largely about preparing offendersto be successful in communities after theirrelease from confinement, then one responsibilityof institutional corrections and community

One of our greatest challenges today isengaging staff at all levels of theorganization in that part of our agencymission that speaks to successful offenderreentry. Most corrections leaders nowrecognize the importance of a successfultransition from prison to communityliving, both because the numbers ofinmates leaving prison have been growingand because failure during this high risktime creates new crime victims. Ourpublic safety role demands that we do agood job with transition. While leadershipmay be firmly committed to this goal, truechange depends on involving line staffand, probably most important, the mid-level manager.

- Max Williams, Director, Oregon

Department of Corrections


supervision agencies is to prepare their staffmembers to be successful at performing the tasksnecessary to achieve this goal.

It is possible to identify some of the skills andabilities institutional corrections and communitysupervision agencies want to keep in mind whenmaking hiring or promotional decisions forpositions that will have some specificresponsibility concerning future offender reentrywork. If agencies seek to promote effectiveoffender reentry practices by front line staff, theymight be interested in individuals who can utilizemotivational interviewing techniques, imagine orcreate incentives for offenders, employ particularcommunication skills, and build partnershipswith other individuals. If the agency determinesthat some of these skills or abilities are desirable,interest in these skills can be included in jobannouncements, interview questions, or hiring orpromotional decision making. Such efforts notonly help the agency identify those who arecapable of meeting the demands of the position,they also contribute to efforts to communicatethe agency’s commitment to reentry and toimpact the agency culture.

Committing to Staff TrainingIn order to prepare employees to be skillful atpromoting offender success, various types oftraining classes should be required. Agenciesshould examine the types of training classes thatare currently being offered. Training represents aspecific resource allocation, but (as mentionedearlier in the discussion on agency culture) italso reflects the general goals and objectives ofthe agency. Since training opportunities and stafftime are valuable resources, training classesdemonstrate the agency’s priorities and values.What kinds of training activities are currentlybeing offered to front line and supervisorypersonnel? A commitment to developingeffective offender reentry practices will require adedication of necessary training resources andopportunities. As was discussed aboveconcerning work activities, training should reflectthe overall goals and priorities of an agency:areas with a low priority should receive less

training attention, whereas those areas ofgreatest importance to the achievement of theagency’s vision should account for the greatestproportion of training time.

Training is an essential component in helping staffto see the agency’s commitment to offenderreentry and to prepare them to carry out new ormodified job tasks. Providing employees with aclear understanding of how they will be trainedand prepared to carry out different or new types ofjob duties, or use new tools, will ease concernsabout how the agency’s vision and goals regardingreentry will impact individual staff members.

Staff Incentives

Considering the Value of Staff IncentivesResearch and practical experience indicate thatpositive reinforcement and incentives are moreeffective at encouraging behavior modificationthan negative reinforcement (Andrews & Bonta,1994)4. This has had some impact on offendermanagement, as institutional corrections andcommunity supervision agencies have begun toreconsider the types or nature of incentives thatcan be offered to offenders to encourage andsustain appropriate behaviors. Institutionalcorrections and community supervision agenciesmight also consider the power and value of usingpositive incentives with employees who are askedto change their work activities or behaviors,rather than primarily relying on negativeconsequences for noncompliance withrequirements.

An examination of the types of things thatemployees are looking for in their work canproduce some interesting results. In a recentsurvey of over 4,000 job seekers from twenty-onecountries, the Accenture Corporation (2006)asked the following question: “What are youlooking for in your work?” The top three answersincluded:

• Challenging and interesting work.• Recognition and rewards.• Opportunities for career growth.


If this example is indicative of employees ininstitutional corrections and communitysupervision agencies, then perhaps positiveincentives can in fact be a powerful influence onjob satisfaction and employee behavior.

Developing New IncentivesThe above survey appears to indicate that manyemployees want to do work that is worth doing;they want to be recognized when they do it well;and they want the opportunity to build a careerin a place that offers them the first two things.This leads to a simple question: What types ofrewards or recognitions do institutionalcorrections and community supervision agenciescurrently give their employees? What additionaltypes of recognition could be given to staffmembers who do excellent work in helping theagency to reach its offender reentry objectives?

In some agencies, examples of good offenderreentry work are regularly featured in internalpublications. Providing employees with this typeof information has two potential benefits: itconveys appreciation to the individual whodeserves it, and it encourages other employeesto undertake similar types of work. Someagencies offer employees who have done goodwork the opportunity to be featured in a localnewspaper; others will simply send a letter ofappreciation. Whatever vehicles are employed,personal recognition can provide a powerfulincentive for staff.

Consider the impact that performanceevaluations or quality assurance measures canhave on employees. Are the most appropriateresponsibilities being adequately measured? Isreasonable feedback provided to employees tohelp them understand what they are doing welland what they could improve upon? Do agenciesseek opportunities to recognize good work as away of promoting more good work?

Agencies should look beyond the incentivesbeing offered to consider whether certaindisincentives are at work as well. When deserving

employees are overlooked for promotion, whenissues with employees who are not doing goodwork are ignored, when work requirements arecontinuously altered, and when priorities seem tobe ill defined, it is easy for staff to becomediscouraged. Eliminating disincentives may bejust as important to a productive agency asdeveloping appropriate incentives.

Mobilizing Staff to Undertake aChange ProcessBeyond the specific elements discussed above,preparing employees for change requires creatinga process that anticipates and is prepared torespond to employees’ concerns. As notedabove, many people are uncomfortable, at leastto some degree, with change. While some willrespond to the implementation of newphilosophies, policies, and procedures as anopportunity for positive change, others will needto be drawn into the change process in ways thatcan evoke their enthusiasm and commitment.

In determining strategies for engaging staff inthe change process, the following elementsshould be taken into consideration:

• Communicate. Resistance to change is morelikely to occur when information about theproposed change has not been adequatelycommunicated. Information should beprovided in an accurate and timely manner toemployees, particularly those most directlyaffected by the changes (Carol Flaherty-ZonisAssociates, 2007).

• Clarify the Impact of Change. When confrontedby change, many people will respond morepositively when they understand how exactlythe change will impact them in theperformance of their job. While it is importantto convey the agency’s vision for successfuloffender reentry to staff, care must also betaken to clarify for each position within theagency the impact of the proposed changes(Carol Flaherty-Zonis Associates, 2007).


• Encourage Feedback and Response. Resistanceis often fueled by lack of ownership in thechanges occurring, and a mindset, accurate orotherwise, that those making the decisions donot comprehend fully the factors affected bythe change. While not all staff can be includedeffectively in the change process, creatingsystems that encourage feedback on proposedand implemented changes can encourageparticipation and buy-in. Equally important,while not all suggestions must beincorporated into the agency’s plan forchange, feedback must be considered andstaff members’ concerns responded to in away that makes them feel heard (CarolFlaherty-Zonis Associates, 2007).

• Understand Resistance. It is practical to expectresistance whenever a change process isimplemented; however, planning to respondeffectively to resistance can only occur whenthe reasons behind the resistance are fullyunderstood. Resistance can be in response tofeelings of loss of control, loss of power orinfluence, concerns regarding whether newskills will be necessary and whether thoseskills can be learned along with myriad otherfactors. Care should be taken to understandfully the reasons for resistance before decidingon a strategy to confront them (Carol Flaherty-Zonis Associates, 2007).

• Make Use of Informal Leadership. As notedearlier, leaders are present at all levels withinthe agency. While the commitment andenthusiasm of those with positionalleadership in the agency is important, it isequally important to recognize thecontribution toward the change process thatinformal leaders within the agency can make.Care should be taken to identify and engagethese leaders; they will in turn serve to helpcarry the message of reentry to those withwhom they come into contact.

• Mentor/Model New Behaviors. Employees willnot be persuaded of the value of changeunless they see it modeled in the behaviors of

those in leadership positions. They will wantto see leadership walk the talk. Leaders shouldcreate opportunities to demonstrate theagency’s new way of conducting business androle model accordingly (Carol Flaherty-ZonisAssociates, 2007).

• Focus on the Middle. Not all employees can bepersuaded of the positive aspects of change;some employees will always embrace changewith enthusiasm, while others will always beobstructionists. The agency’s plan for changeshould recognize this and allocate resources(for example, training opportunities)accordingly, investing in those employees whoare in the middle and capable of persuasion,rather than a small subset of intractableindividuals.

• Remember that Change is a Long-Term Process.Finally, it is important to recognize that eachindividual’s timeline for accepting change isdifferent, and that the process of changingminds is a long-term investment. The payoff isnot always readily apparent, and may takemonths or years to manifest itself fully (CarolFlaherty-Zonis Associates, 2007).

ConclusionAgency leaders planning to develop newstrategies or goals in the offender reentry areamust appreciate not only the importance ofestablishing and announcing a new vision, theymust also consider the context in which thesenew goals will be received by staff. Manyconcrete steps can be taken to appreciate theculture, requirements, needs, and circumstancesof agency staff who must find ways to implementthe tasks associated with this vision. An interestin encouraging employee success, as well aspromoting offender success, is an essentialingredient to effectively implementing newoffender reentry strategies.


• Reinforce the agency’s vision by pro-moting and hiring staff memberswho possess the attitudes, skills, andabilities to carry it out.

• Prioritize the work tasks of employ-ees to support the agency’s vision,and eliminate those activities that donot help the agency achieve itsvision.

• Place training emphasis on thoseaspects of the agency's work that aremost fundamental to achieving itsvision.

• Encourage supervisors and managersto understand thoroughly and cre-atively problem-solve barriers tochange.

• Consider staff concerns and encour-age their feedback.

• Use incentives to underscore theagency's values and reinforce staffefforts to be supportive of the vision.

• Mobilize employees for the changeprocess by communicating regularlyand often with employees regardingthe changes to be made, clarifyingthe impact of changes on them, andencouraging feedback.

• Utilize informal leaders; mentor andmodel the behaviors desired in thestaff.

• Focus your efforts on staff within the"persuadable middle."

KEY STEPS

Assess Your Agency:Leadership and Organizational Change

Yes No NotClear

1. Are the institutional and post-release supervision agenciescommitted to promoting offender success?

2. Does agency policy clearly indicate that offenders’ successfulcompletion of supervision following release from confinementis a primary goal?

3. Are agency managers routinely involved in discussions aboutthe purpose or focus of offender management activities (i.e., topromote successful outcomes)?

4. Have special means or strategies been used (e.g., annualmeetings, publications, the distribution of a rewritten visionstatement) to communicate to staff the agency’s specific visionand expectations regarding offender management andsupervision (i.e., to promote successful outcomes)?

5. Does the agency hire/promote individuals who support theagency’s vision and who have the necessary qualities to assistin carrying out the vision?

6. Is training provided to facilitate the development of the specifictypes of skills necessary to intervene with offenders in ways thatwill promote successful case outcomes?

7. Does the agency routinely involve staff at all levels in discussionsregarding the ways in which the agency can most effectivelycarry out its mission?

8. Does the agency value and measure those activities thatpromote offender success?

9. Does the agency prioritize work activities that promotesuccessful offender outcomes (in contrast to focusing exclusivelyon custody and control, and surveillance and punishment-orientedactivities)?

10. Are incentives offered to reward and recognize staff memberswho support the agency’s vision for offender reentry?

11. Do line staff members understand that they play a significantrole in providing offenders with opportunities to be successful?


ReferencesAccenture Corporation (2006). Traditionalemployer characteristics remain most popularamong job seekers, Accenture survey finds.http://accenture.tekgroup.com/article_print.cfm?article_id=4407, last accessed July 24, 2007.

Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1994). Thepsychology of criminal conduct. Cincinnati, OH:Anderson.

Bennis, W. (1989). On becoming a leader. NewYork, NY: Addison Wesley.

Bennis, W. (1997). Learning to lead: A workbookon becoming a leader. New York, NY: PerseusBooks.

Carol Flaherty-Zonis Associates (2007). Buildingculture strategically: A team approach forcorrections. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofJustice, National Institute of Corrections.

Clark, K., & Anderson, L. (1995) Life is changegrowth is optional. Saint Paul, MN: CepPublications.

Covey, S. R. (1989). The 7 habits of highly effectivepeople. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Covey, S. R. (1991). Principled-centered leadership.New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Covey, S., Merrill, A., & Merrill, R. (1996). Firstthings first. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Deming, W. E. (1993). The new economics: forindustry, government, education, (2nd ed.).Cambridge, MA: MIT Center for AdvancedEducational Services.

Drucker, P. F. (1999). Management challenges forthe 21st century. New York, NY: Harper Business.

House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman,P. W., & Gupta, V. (eds). (2004). Culture,leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE studyof 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications.

Kouzes, J. M. & Posner, B. Z. (2002). Theleadership challenge. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Meredith, T. (2003). Executive summary:Automated parole risk assessments. Atlanta, GA:Applied Research Services (ARS).

National Institute of Corrections & Crime andJustice Institute (2004). Implementing evidence-based practice in community corrections: Theprinciples of effective intervention. Washington,DC: National Institute of Corrections,Community Corrections Division, & Boston, MA:Crime and Justice Institute.

Ries, A. (1997). Focus: The future of your companydepends on it. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture andleadership, (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Seventh American Forest Congress (1996). Manyvoices—A common vision. Seventh AmericanForest Congress (Web site). http://www.yale.edu/forest-congress/vision.html, last accessed August1, 2007.

Stanat, R. (1990). The intelligent corporation:Creating a shared network for information andprofit. New York, NY: AMACOM/AmericanManagement Association.

Welty, E. (1995). One writer’s beginnings.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.


INTRODUCTIONFor many institutional corrections andcommunity supervision agencies, creating publicsafety through the successful reintegration ofadult and juvenile offenders is a significant shiftin organizational focus. Adopting successfuloffender reentry strategies as a method forachieving greater public safety represents arevisioning of how these agencies approach theirwork with offenders and a better understandingof how increasing opportunities for offenders tobe successful in the community enhances publicsafety. It is not necessarily second nature forinstitutional corrections and communitysupervision agencies to think primarily in termsof offender success; the tradition as a professionhas been to concentrate on punishment,incapacitation, monitoring, and accountability.While these remain important goals, a growingbody of research on effective offender practicesindicates that to impact public safety,institutional corrections and communitysupervision agencies will have to think differentlyabout many aspects of their work, aboutoffenders, and about the nature and impact oftheir work on offenders and communities.

Shifting the agency’s focus to successful offenderreentry may require a reevaluation of theagency’s vision, mission, goals, and objectives.As the preceding section on organizationalchange indicates, the agency’s policies, practices,and organizational culture may need to bereexamined through a new lens of offenderreentry. As offender reentry becomes theoperating principle underlying all the agency’sefforts, it becomes the perspective through which

the department’s policies, procedures, andactivities must be evaluated. The challenge forinstitutional corrections and communitysupervision agencies seeking to implementsuccessful offender reentry strategies is to ask ofevery policy or procedure: How does this impactthe opportunity for offenders to be successful inthe community?

Rational planning offers a structured,collaborative process through which institutionalcorrections and community supervision agenciescan organize themselves to approach a changeprocess that will result in a successful offenderreentry strategy. This section will highlight thecritical elements of a rational planning processand provide references to resources forinstitutional corrections and communitysupervision agencies seeking to engage in thatprocess as part of a successful offender reentryeffort. In Chapter 1, an overview of the rationalplanning process will be provided. Chapter 2 willexplore in more detail the process of datacollection, essential to an effective planningprocess.

Section Four:

A Rational Planning Processfor a Learning Organization

Susan Gibel and Leilah Gilligan

46 Increasing Public Safety Through Successful Offender Reentry: Evidence-Based and Emerging Practices in Corrections


CHAPTER 1: CONDUCTING A RATIONALPLANNING PROCESS

Why a Rational Planning Process?

The “how” of a rational planning process couldfill a book (Carol Flaherty-Zonis Associates, 2007;CSOM, 2002, 2007; McGarry & Ney, 2006) andwill be covered only briefly in this section.Because more information is currently available5

to assist institutional corrections and communitysupervision agencies in conducting a rationalplanning process, the remainder of thishandbook will focus instead on why a rationalplanning process is critical to the success ofinstitutional corrections and communitysupervision agencies seeking to implement aplan for offender reentry.

As institutional corrections and communitysupervision agencies consider moving forwardwith the development and implementation of astrategic plan for successful offender reentry, it isimportant to have a system or method to assistin the rational consideration of the factorsinvolved: What is the agency’s vision for reentry,where does the agency currently stand in relationto that vision, what critical problems, needs, orgaps must be addressed to achieve the vision,and what strategies will be most effective inaddressing the identified problems, needs, orgaps? The consideration and implementation ofa strategic plan for offender reentry is atremendous undertaking, involving complexactivities such as data collection and analysis,setting priorities for tasks, and developing anunderstanding of system workings, gaps, andchallenges. Participants in the process mustdevelop an understanding of evidence-based andemerging practices in order to prioritize theissues to be addressed and to craft viable and

effective solutions to the problems identified. Itis an undertaking that involves, at various times,numerous staff members from manydepartments within the agency, and one thatrequires careful coordination to ensure that keystakeholders are involved and that duplicativeand inefficient efforts are avoided.

A rational planning process helps to identifyissues, gaps, problems, and opportunities forchange objectively, thus enhancing the agency’sability to move forward constructively. Without arational planning process, there is a danger thatdecisions will be made and policies andprocedures instituted before problems areidentified and analyzed properly. This can resultin a great deal of effort being put into developingand implementing a strategic plan for offenderreentry that ultimately fails to improve offendersuccess, an essential measure of effective reentryinitiatives.

Unless institutional corrections and communitysupervision agencies invest in a rational planningprocess, they run the risk of prematurelyadopting solutions in an attempt to achieve aspecific goal or outcome. Even with the bestintentions, wide-reaching changes in policies andprocedures may be implemented that ultimatelyhave no effect (or worse, a negative effect) on thevery problems they were designed to address.There may be many reasons for this. Forexample, agencies may be under pressure torespond to a problematic event or subject toexternal pressures to make changes quickly; theymay be seeking to take advantage of new fundingstreams or staff enthusiasm regarding new andpromising ideas. Regardless of the reason, theseattempts to promote system change, althoughbased on the best of intentions, may not producethe desired results.

He who fails to plan, plans to fail.

- Anonymous Proverb


Rather, reasonable, effective, and lasting changeis most likely to occur when those involvedunderstand and agree upon:

• What is to be accomplished (a vision foroffender reentry).

• Where the agency is in relation to that vision.• The critical problems, needs, or gaps to be

addressed between where the agency is nowand what it wants to accomplish.

• The strategies that will be most effective inaddressing these problems, needs, and gaps.

Put another way, the agency will be mostsuccessful in reaching its vision for successfuloffender reentry if it knows where it is, where itwants to go, the obstacles in its way, and thebest methods for overcoming those obstacles.Conducting a deliberate, thorough, and criticalself-assessment, and planning for changeaccordingly, greatly increases the agency’schances for successfully implementing change.

What is a Learning Organization?The title of this section is “A Rational PlanningProcess for a Learning Organization.” While themeaning of the term “learning organization” mayseem very straightforward, it in fact refers to ahost of activities that together create the basisfor a dynamic learning process. In a learningorganization, “people continually expand theircapacity to create the results they truly desire,...new and expansive patterns of thinking arenurtured, …collective aspiration is set free,and…people are continually learning to see thewhole together” (Senge, 1990).

In the National Institute of Corrections’ guide toBuilding Culture Strategically: A Team Approachfor Corrections (2007), a learning organization isdescribed as one based on five disciplines:

• Personal Mastery. Achieving personalexcellence both within the context of theagency and one’s individual goals.

• Mental Models. Understanding the differencesin personal perspectives and those of otherstaff and colleagues.

• Team Learning. Understanding how otherslearn, and how to use those skills to engage ingroup learning.

• Sharing a Vision. Sharing a commonunderstanding of the agency’s vision.

• Systems Thinking. Understanding theinterrelatedness and interdependence ofsystems, and the “ripple effect” of changes inany one part of the system on others.

All of these disciplines are crucial to an effectiverational planning process. Together, theyrepresent a set of skills and shared knowledgethat is critical to the process of understandingthe current environment, determining whatneeds to be changed, identifying the barriers thatimpede change, strategizing to overcome them,and establishing desired outcomes. Whenselecting individuals to participate in the rationalplanning process, agencies should take care toinclude individuals that demonstrate competencein these various arenas.

Steps in a Rational PlanningProcessThe goal of rational planning is to engage in aprocess through which reasonable, effective, andlasting change can be achieved. That processincludes creating a vision, setting goals,educating those involved on key topics related toreentry, gathering and assessing information,setting priorities and developing a strategic plan,and monitoring the strategic plan for itseffectiveness (McGarry & Carter, 1993; McGarry& Ney, 2006). The following is an overview of thesteps involved in conducting a rational planningprocess (adapted from McGarry & Carter, 1993,and McGarry & Ney, 2006).

Step One: Articulate a Vision

If you don’t know where you’re going,then any road will do.

- Lewis Carroll,

Through the Looking Glass, 1871


The first step in the rational planning process isthe articulation of a vision for offender reentry.The need to develop a vision (as well as theimportant elements of an effective visionstatement) is covered in the previous section onorganizational change. It bears repeating,however, that it is impossible to plan effectivelywithout a clear statement of what the agencyhopes to achieve, if for no other reason thanthere would be no way to measure when successhas indeed occurred. Articulating a clear anduplifting vision is a function of strong leadershipand effective collaboration. It is critical thatinstitutional and community corrections leaderscommunicate clearly to those involved in therational planning process where they want theiragencies to go, and provide direction, focus, andpurpose for offender reentry activities.

The agency’s vision statement should express apreferred future and the outcomes desired by theagency. This information will guide the rationalplanning process as a strategic plan is developedand goals are set. The vision should reflect thevalues and beliefs of the agency’s leaders. Thesewill be important considerations for staff, who willwant to understand the principles underlying thechanges in policy and practice (especially if thechanges reflect a reconsideration of the functionof institutional corrections and communitysupervision agencies away from the sole focus onpunishment, incapacitation, monitoring, andaccountability toward a more balanced approachthat includes a focus on offender success). Thevision should be clear and easily understood. Thecommunication of the vision to employees andexternal partners is an important part of therational planning process, and one designed togarner support and enthusiasm for the agency’soffender reentry effort. As such, the vision shouldbe communicated regularly and consistently aspart of the rational planning process.

Step Two: Create a Steering CommitteeBefore the particulars of creating a steeringcommittee and its subcommittees are discussed,it is important to begin by emphasizing the roleof collaboration in the rational planning process.

The implementation of a successful offenderreentry strategy is a long-term commitment thatrequires collaboration as a critical element. Overthe course of both the rational planning processand the development and implementation of thestrategic plan, many disciplines, manysubstantive areas, and critical community andstate agency partners may be involved in theeffort. Yet, even within the nucleus of the rationalplanning process, the steering committee itself,effective collaboration is essential, and a lack ofcollaboration can undermine all of the agency’sefforts.

The steering committee is tasked with bringingtogether myriad executive and management levelleaders and possibly staff from other levelswithin and outside of the agency, each of whomwill bring a unique perspective to the table. Inorder for the work of the steering committee tosucceed, these team members must be able toset aside their individual agendas and engageeach other collaboratively in order to seek outsolutions to the complex issues to beinvestigated and resolved. When appointingmembers to the steering committees, careshould be taken to ensure that the individualsselected possess the necessary collaborativeskills.6

The Benefits of a CommitteeEngaging in a rational planning process is anactivity that requires an investment of time andresources on the part of the many individualsinvolved in offender reentry, from leadership andmanagement, to employees working withoffenders in the institutions and in the field, toadministrative staff tasked with gathering andsynthesizing information. Moreover, it can be alengthy process that requires oversight to ensurethat activities remain focused on the strategicplan. Such an enterprise is beyond the efforts ofany single individual. A steering committee, onthe other hand, has not only the ability to createand carry out a rational planning process, butalso more resources, diverse perspectives, andthe enhanced capacity a broader group ofindividuals can bring to the table.

What is the Role of the Steering Committeeand Subcommittees?The role of the steering committee is to provideexecutive level oversight to the rational planningprocess and to serve as the decision makingbody responsible for authorizing theimplementation of a strategic plan for offenderreentry. It is likely that the functions of thesteering committee will be supported bysubcommittees (which may be larger or smallerthan the steering committee) charged withgathering, analyzing, and synthesizing data intorecommendations for action to be acted upon bythe steering committee. Subcommitteesgenerally are charged with providing support tothe steering committee in its efforts to develop adetailed and thorough understanding of the:

• Research on evidence-based and emergingpractices.

• Process of an offender’s case through thesystem, beginning with intake at theinstitution and proceeding through dischargefrom community supervision.

• Offender population being served, in terms oflevel of risk, sentence length and conditions,criminogenic needs, and responsivity factors.

• Policies (formal and informal) that guide themanagement of offenders and the agency’soperations.

• Practices (formal and informal) that guide themanagement of offenders and the agency’soperations.

• Available resources and services to assistoffenders to be successful (e.g., issues oftreatment, housing, family, employment,education, and health).

• Staff attitudes, knowledge, and skills regardingoffenders and offender reentry.

This information provides a foundation for therational planning process. Without a thoroughunderstanding of the characteristics of thepopulation it hopes to impact (offenders served),the means through which such change can beaccomplished (evidence-based and emergingpractices), and the tools available foraccomplishing change (resources, services,agency policies and procedures, and staff

attitudes, knowledge, and skills), the steeringcommittee will be unable to fulfill its purpose.

While subcommittees may provide informationand make recommendations, it is the steeringcommittee’s responsibility to:

• Direct and oversee the data and informationgathering and analysis process.

• Review data and information, and seekadditional information as needed.

• Prioritize gaps and challenges, targeting thoseissues most likely to have the greatest impactif addressed.

• Identify detailed and specific strategies toaddress the prioritized gaps.

• Oversee the implementation of thesestrategies.

• Evaluate the impact of the change strategies.

What Should Be the Composition and Size ofthe Steering Committee?The composition and size of the steeringcommittee will differ from agency to agency,depending on agency size, current reentrypartners, and offender population served (e.g.,adults, juveniles, or both). An effective committeesize is generally no more than twenty individuals,exclusive of members of subcommittees or othergroups tasked with performing assignments forthe steering committee. The steering committeeshould include such key leaders as the director orsecretary of the agency (or other equivalentposition) and deputy directors for facilities,programming, transition, community supervision,and research. Representatives from staff that willbe closer to the implementation process, such aswardens, district managers for parole offices, andother employees in charge of classificationpolicies and procedures and training, may also beappropriate members of a steering committee.Additional members may include employeesdirectly involved in the management of offenders,such as parole officers, corrections officers, casemanagers, and treatment and programming staff(although line staff may be best utilized asmembers of subcommittees). Each agency willalso need to balance the benefits of includingmultiple perspectives against the need for a



manageable and effective committee size. Evenwhen the number of employees involved in thesteering committee must be limited for thisreason, the committee is encouraged to seekinput from all levels of staff in some fashion(through focus groups, subcommittee work, staffsurveys, et cetera).

Step Three: Understand the Research onEvidence-Based PracticesThe application of evidence-based principles andpractices, the objective, balanced, andresponsible use of the current scientific evidenceto guide and inform efficient and effectiveinstitutional corrections and communitysupervision agency practices in a manner thatwill facilitate the most effective outcomes, is akey element in the rational planning process. Theadoption of evidence-based principles andpractices enables the agency to operate outsidethe unpredictable framework of “good ideas” andwith reliance on the empirical basis of thestrategies they craft.

Once the steering committee has been formed,there may be some temptation to move quicklyto problem solving to take advantage of theenthusiasm of the newly organized committee.However, in order for the principles of evidence-based practice to best inform and guide the workof the agency, it is necessary at this stage for thesteering committee to take the time to educatethemselves fully on the principles of evidence-based practice and how these principles relate toeffective offender interventions. In order to doso, steering committee members may becharged with reviewing published information onthese principles, they may engage in cross-training activities, or outside expertise may bebrought in to provide information to thecommittee. A combination of these is likely to bethe most effective approach to enhancing theknowledge of steering committee members.

Step Four: Collect Baseline Data andInformationThe collection and evaluation of information isamong the most critical of the steeringcommittee’s responsibilities. The rationalplanning process is a method of implementingchange that relies on the objective collection andevaluation of information in order to assess theagency’s effectiveness in achieving its vision.

As with all steps in the rational planning process,the collection of data should be carefullyconsidered. What data will be collected, bywhom, and how, are only some of the questionsthe steering committee will need to consider. Thecommittee should take into account thequestions it wants answered, and then task theappropriate departments and/or subcommitteeswith the collection and analysis of that data. Asmentioned above, the committee should collectdata regarding the characteristics of the offenderpopulation, the system and communityresources available to that population, theagency’s current policies and practices (bothformal and informal), and staff attitudes,knowledge, and skills regarding offender reentry.The committee’s requests for information shouldbe detailed and specific, so that the committeereceives the kind of information it needs to setpriorities and determine strategies forintervention.

The steering committee must also consider howthe data it needs will be collected. Data may bestored electronically in databases or it may needto be collected from paper files. Someinformation may only be available through focusgroups or interviews (e.g., this kind of inquirymay be the only method of determining informalagency practices, staff attitudes regardingoffenders, and staff knowledge of evidence-basedpractice). Data collection may require accessingcase files and interviewing offenders and ex-offenders regarding their experiences. Outsideagencies may be the repositories for some of thedata identified by the steering committee; thismay necessitate negotiations concerning accessand confidentiality issues.


The Principles of Evidence-Based PracticesDeveloping a thorough understanding of the principles of evidence-based practices is a centralelement in the rational planning process. Understanding these principles will help the steeringcommittee determine the type of data to be collected and how that data should be interpreted,and inform the development of the agency's strategic plan for offender reentry.

The eight principles of evidence-based practices are (NIC & CJI, 2004):

1. Assessment: Assess dynamic and static risks factors. Risks and needs must be assessedregularly, using a validated risk assessment tool, in order to determine appropriateinterventions and services.

2. Enhance Intrinsic Motivation: Use Motivational Interviewing and other motivationenhancement techniques to encourage changes in offender behavior.

3. Target Interventions:a. Risk Principle: Prioritize supervision and treatment resources for higher risk offenders.b. Need Principle: Target interventions to criminogenic needs.c. Responsivity Principle: Be responsive to temperament, learning style, motivation,

culture, and gender.d. Dosage: Structure 40-70 percent of high-risk offenders’ time for three to nine months.e. Treatment: Integrate treatment into the full sentence/sanction requirements.

4. Skill Train with Directed Practice: Use cognitive-behavioral strategies in programmingdelivered by well-trained staff.

5. Increase Positive Reinforcement: Research suggests a ratio of four positive reinforcementsto one negative reinforcement will encourage progress in learning new skills andbehaviors.

6. Engage in Ongoing Support in Natural Communities: Realign offenders with prosocialsupport systems in their communities (e.g., spouses, friends, employers).

7. Measure Relevant Process and Practice: Maintain accurate and detailed documentation ofchanges in offender cognitive and skill development, and evaluate offender recidivism todetermine effective practice.

8. Provide Measurement Feedback: Monitor delivery of services for quality assurance andmaintain and enhance program fidelity and integrity. Provide offenders with feedback tobuild accountability and enhance motivation for change.


Finally, the committee must determine who willcollect the data and who will analyze it,recognizing that these two functions may requirea different set of skills.

A timetable should be created to track the datacollection process. Given the complexity of thetask, the process of gathering data is one thatmay involve numerous concurrent activities,different groups of people, and perhaps varyingdata collection or analysis methodologies. It mayspan months or longer; as a result, it will beimportant for the steering committee to have atool that will help it oversee and manage thisprocess. In developing a work plan and timeline,the committee should take into account thetiming of its goals and objectives for consideringthe data and identifying change strategies.

It is important to distinguish here between thesteering committee’s work plan (the committee’splan for accomplishing the work with which ithas been tasked) and the agency’s strategic planfor reentry, which will be developed during therational planning process. The steeringcommittee’s work plan will establish benchmarksfor educating members about evidence-basedpractices, collecting and analyzing data, andconducting a gap analysis. The agency’s strategic

plan will set out a plan and benchmarks forimplementing the recommendations of thesteering committee, such as modifying personnelpromotion criteria, establishing new institutionalprogramming, or setting up parameters forevaluating community resources.

Step Five: Determine the Strengths andGaps in the Agency’s Reentry EffortsBy this stage in the process, the agency hasarticulated a vision for successful offender reentry,created a steering committee (and possiblysubcommittees), and charged the steeringcommittee with developing a strategic plan. Thesteering committee has educated itself about theprinciples of evidence-based practices andcollected information on a wide range of issues(such as the offender population, the resourcesand services available to intervene effectively withthis population, current policies and practiceregarding the management of offenders, and staffattitudes, knowledge, and skills).

The next step in the rational planning process isto conduct a gap analysis to determine thestrengths and weaknesses of the jurisdiction’scurrent reentry efforts; this assessment will guidethe steering committee’s efforts through theremainder of the rational planning process.

Six Dimensions of Baseline DataTo develop a complete understanding of the agency's current offender management practices,the steering committee will want to collect information on each of the following six dimensions(adapted from CSOM, 2002 & 2007):• The System Dimension: Analysis of the processing of a case from intake through discharge

from community supervision.• The Offender Population Dimension: Analysis of the offender population, particularly in

terms of sentence length, level of risk, criminogenic needs, and responsivity factors.• The Policy Dimension: Analysis of the policies that guide the management of offenders in

the institution and community.• The Practice Dimension: Analysis of the practices employed, not codified in written policy,

that guide the management of offenders.• The Resource Dimension: Analysis of the resources available to manage and serve offenders

in the jurisdiction, both within institutions and in the community.• The Staff Dimension: Analysis of staff attitudes, knowledge, and skills related to evidence-

based practices and offender reentry.

The steering committee should focus as mucheffort on identifying strengths of the currentreentry efforts as it does on identifying gaps.Knowing what is working allows the committee tobuild upon those strengths in crafting a strategicplan. It allows the committee to make use ofexisting resources and recognize the practicesthat are supportive of the vision. Good work andeffective policies need to be recognized, and thereasons for their success understood.

It is equally important that the committeeidentify the current gaps in the system. Asystematic assessment of the informationgathered by the committee ensures thatproblems and areas of need are identifiedcorrectly so that the committee’s efforts arefocused effectively. Understanding the gaps inthe system will assist the committee in the nextstep of the rational planning process: settingpriorities for action. The committee mustunderstand the gaps that exist, the underlyingreason for these gaps (e.g., lack of resources,staff attitudes, inconsistent or contradictory

policies and procedures), and their impact onoffender reentry.

Step Six: Develop and Prioritize GoalsOnce the gaps in the agency’s current practiceare identified through the data collection andanalysis process, the committee must proceedwith prioritizing the problems and areas of needidentified, and crafting a set of goals andaccompanying objectives to address each issue.The criteria for prioritization may vary fromagency to agency, and may include suchconsiderations as the urgency of the identifiedproblems, the resources available to address theissues, or the need for legislation.

One of the overriding criteria for prioritizationshould be the potential for impact of any givenchange. Experience demonstrates that agenciesare likely to identify many change opportunitiesduring the rational planning process. Thetemptation will be great to craft solutions tomany or all of them at once. However, change isdifficult, and agencies should be strategic aboutstaging change in manageable phases, andprioritizing change opportunities based on thedegree of impact the change will have on theoutcomes they are striving to achieve.

It is therefore important that careful thought begiven to each of the presented opportunities forchange, and that they are prioritized for actionbased on a set of objective criteria. In this way,the steering committee can be confident in theirdecisions and will also have the ability to explainand justify those decisions to stakeholdersoutside of the process. These decisions are madeeasier by the rational planning process, whichhas helped the committee gather data to supportthe problem analysis, identify specific gaps, andunderstand the impact of proposed changestrategies on those issues.

Step Seven: Create a Strategic Plan toImplement Prioritized GoalsOnce targets of change have been selected andprioritized by the committee, the next step in therational planning process is the creation of a

By three methods we may learn wisdom.First by reflection, which is noblest.Second by imitation, which is easiest, andthird by experience, which is the bitterest.

- Confucius

Because we began our formal efforts toimprove transition many years ago, wehave made much progress on our originalgoals. It is now time to create a newroadmap for our future. It is time toreview our current gaps and barriers.After the analysis, the next steps in ourimprovement process should becomeclear and a plan can be developed.

- Max Williams, Director, Oregon

Department of Corrections



strategic plan. Creating a strategic plan involvescrafting a set of goals and objectives that mapout the change process.

Goals should be stated clearly and concisely, andshould focus on measurable outcomes. Unlikethe agency’s vision (which is a statement of apreferred future) and mission (which lays out thework of the agency in service of that vision), goalsare concrete, measurable steps that the agencycan take to realize its mission. For example, if theagency’s mission statement is to assure thatevery offender is prepared for release and has areentry plan that includes suitable housing,treatment, and employment placements, thenone of the goals of the agency’s strategic planmay be to increase the availability of suitablehousing resources for offenders by ten percentwithin the next eighteen months.

Objectives are a series of action steps in supportof the desired goal. Like goals, objectives shouldhave time limits and measurable outcomes. Inthe example above, if the goal is to increase theavailability of suitable housing resources foroffenders by ten percent within eighteen months,then one objective in service of that goal may beto meet with all the community agencies thatprovide housing to provide education onoffender reentry needs by a specific date.

Stating goals and objectives in measurable termsis important to the committee’s ability to monitorsuccess. Having made the effort to gatherinformation and determine objectively the nextsteps necessary in the process for change, it isimportant that the committee be able to measureits success in quantifiable terms. This not onlyserves as a measure of whether the committee’sactions have achieved their stated goals, but alsoas a method of demonstrating the effectiveness ofthe process to other stakeholders.

For greater ease in monitoring the results, thestrategic plan should include a timeline thatdetails deadlines and outcome measures. Somegoals may be targeted for immediate action, whilethe implementation of others may be dependenton the prior achievement of other goals. The finalplan will likely be complex and involve individualsthroughout the agency and from other stakeholderagencies. The strategic plan should be a dynamicdocument, regularly updated based upon routineperformance reviews.

Step Eight: Monitor the Impact of theStrategic PlanOnce the strategic plan has been developed bythe steering committee, it must be implementedand the impact of the plan monitored. Despitethe time and careful effort that the committee

Uncovering Gaps in the SystemThe reentry policy team in Georgia determined that a significant number of offenders whowere eligible for release on parole were not being released because of the absence of anappropriate housing plan. In some cases, offenders were not able to identify a suitable locationand efforts by staff had been unproductive. Select members of the policy team from severalindividual agencies formed a special group—the Reentry Partnership Housing team—andbegan to develop a variety of innovative solutions to these housing issues. First, data wasgathered to determine the extent of the problem. To date, over 500 cases of offenders who areeligible for release but who have significant difficulties finding suitable housing have beenidentified. Second, a grant funding source was identified that could be used to pay for short-term housing in particular cases (Re-Entry Partnership Housing Program, 2006). Third,suitable housing locations were identified, and compensation rates were determined. As aresult of these efforts, over 240 inmates have now been placed in housing under the ReentryPartnership Housing effort, which has resulted in net cost savings to the state of over $3.8million.

has invested in the rational planning process, itswork is not over. As important as these earliersteps are, all the work of the committee could beconfounded if the impact of the strategic plan isnot monitored and needed mid-coursecorrections in the plan are not made. Therefore,performance measures must be included as anintegral part of the strategic plan; ideally, data willbe collected throughout the implementation

process to ensure that difficulties or unintendedconsequences are recognized as quickly aspossible.

The committee will be monitoring for two differentresults: 1) is the strategic plan being implementedin a timely fashion and according to thecommittee’s direction and 2) are the results of theactions taken consistent with the committee’s

Illinois Evidence-Based Practices Coordinating CouncilGoal 1: Apply actuarial and dynamic risk/need tools to determine the best method of offenderintervention.Effectiveness in risk reduction requires the use of targeted interventions that are proven to beeffective by research. The first step toward this end is to fully understand the characteristics ofthe individual offender that lead to criminal behavior and corresponding application oftechniques that lead to a reduction in criminal behavior. This goal is designed to ensure thatactuarial tools that effectively and efficiently allow agency staff to determine the best course ofaction toward risk reduction are put in place.

Adapted from the Illinois Action Plan for Implementing Evidence-Based Practices

What should bedone?(Objectives)1. All caseworkerswill use a generic,validated, actuarialrisk/need tool forall targeted adultoffenders undersupervision.

How will it be done?(Strategies orActivities)A. Determine what

tool to usestatewide.

B. Find funding totrain all PO's.

C. Develop an LSI-Rrollout plan.

D. Train all staff whohave supervisionor intake role.

E. A screening toolof the Wisconsinmodel or the briefLSI will beapplied on selectcases todetermine furtherassessment.

Who will takethe lead?

AssessmentCommittee

AOIC

AOIC

Counties

Counties

Date objectivewill be done?

Done

Done

Done

August 30

August 30

How will we knowit's done?(Outcome Measures)Percent of newintake medium/highrisk offenders undersupervision withLSR-R completedwithin 60 days ofintake.

By Sept 30, 2005, 75percent of newintakes will haveLSI-R completed.

Target: 95 percent

Percent of offenderswith completed LSI-R or previous toolreassessed with theLSI-R no less thanevery twelve months.

By Sept 30, 2006, 75percent of previouslyassessed offenderswill be reassessedwith the LSI-R.

Target: 95 percent



expectations? The first is a matter of determiningif the steps laid out by the committee are beingimplemented in the fashion and on the scheduledetermined by the committee. The second is morecomplicated: Is the strategic plan successful? Arethe actions being implemented resulting in thedesired change?

In many ways, the monitoring process willresemble the data collection process; thecollection of data during the monitoring processis intended both to determine success and toinform and drive future changes to the strategicplan. The elements of effective performancemeasurement are consistent, therefore, with the

Excerpt from the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction’s Strategic Plan

Offender Programming: Targeting Criminogenic NeedsRecommendation #10: New programs that are developed shall incorporate the principles that driveeffective correctional programming, provide staff training prior to their adoption, and be guided by atraining manual that directs all work relevant to the program. They shall be reviewed and approvedsubject to their compliance with a standardized protocol to be established in Departmental policy.

Recommendation #11: Existing programs shall be reviewed and maintained or eliminated based onthe extent to which they address the dynamic domains used to assess offender needs as part of reentryplanning. Departmental resources will be allocated over time to support existing programs thateffectively address these areas, as well as to create treatment interventions in offender need areas whereadditional programming is necessary.

In the past ten or fifteen years, a great deal of material regarding the characteristics of effectivecorrectional programs has appeared in the professional literature. This now well-establishedliterature speaks to “what works” in terms of rehabilitative programming. Even moresignificantly, it has identified a number of principles that drive effective correctionalprogramming. These principles state that interventions should target the known predictors ofcrime and recidivism for change; provide treatment services that are behavioral in nature; andensure that treatment interventions target the criminogenic needs of high-risk offenders forchange (that is, the dynamic risk factors or domains to be used in reentry planning). Theeffectiveness of treatment is also enhanced to the extent that the interventions are reinforcedand continued in the community; using well-trained, adequately supervised staff; providingstructured “relapse prevention” aftercare services; and matching styles of treatment services tothe specific learning styles of offenders.

A crucial element of this literature is the importance it attaches to understanding“criminogenic needs.” These are dynamic risk factors—characteristics of offenders that canchange (in contrast to static risk factors, which cannot change). These dynamic risk factors,identified by an objective assessment instrument, help predict an offender’s likelihood or riskof reoffending. Such factors include anti-social attitudes, values, and beliefs; anti-social peersand associates; substance abuse; educational deficiencies; vocational deficiencies; mentalhealth; and anti-social personality factors (e.g., risk-taking, aggression, impulsivity, low self-control). Programming that targets these dynamic risk factors may reduce the probability thatan offender will reoffend.

Adapted from the Ohio Plan for Productive Reentry and Recidivism Reduction, 2002,

http://wwwdrc.state.oh.us/web/ReentryFinalPlan.pdf, last accessed December 11, 2007.


elements of effective data collection: a consensuson what kind of information should be collected(recall that outcome measurements should beclearly defined within the strategic plan’s goalsand objectives), and the objective and thoroughcollection and analysis of that data. If monitoringdemonstrates that efforts have beenunsuccessful, or have created unintendedconsequences, a gaps analysis should beperformed to determine why the efforts madeunder the strategic plan were unsuccessful andwhat new priorities and goals should be crafted.

ConclusionEffective efforts to design and implement asuccessful offender reentry strategy require theuse of a rational planning process. Such aprocess ensures that system strengths and gapsare analyzed objectively and that solutions arebased upon a careful consideration of theagency’s greatest needs and available resources.Rational planning is an endeavor in which theagency should involve staff representing a varietyof perspectives. It is a long-term processrequiring the investment of often-limited timeand resources; however, its benefits are many,including the design of a strategic plan groundedin objective decision making and demonstrableresults that will organize and guide the agency’sefforts to achieve its vision.

Monitoring New Release PracticesIn Missouri, the Department of Corrections (DOC) changed its release practices to require alloffenders to move to a Transitional Housing Unit (THU) within 180 days of their release to thecommunity. While in the THU, offenders receive intense release preparation and areconnected with services and resources from the community to ensure continuity of care uponrelease.

Critical Outcome Information IdentifiedAs part of the implementation of this new policy, the DOC conducted a study evaluating theoutcomes of offenders leaving transitional housing units prior to release after sixty days andagain at twelve months (Oldfield, 2007). The department found that offenders who stayed in aTHU for five months or more were more successful (with less recidivism and lower technicalviolations) than offenders who either stayed in a THU for less than five months or werereleased directly from an institution. This data reinforced the department’s commitment to itsplan to require that all offenders release from a THU to the community.

New Questions RaisedOther interesting findings have emerged from this study. The results indicated little differencein the effect of THU participation on gaining employment after release. Why would this occur?Are THU programs not focused enough on employment issues? Are gaining and securingemployment after release more a result of the quality of community supervision than theservices provided during incarceration? Given this evaluative data, the DOC is probing thisissue further to determine the steps necessary to both reduce recidivism and technicalviolations and ensure that offenders are better prepared for gainful employment after theirrelease from incarceration.


• Create a steering committee ofdiverse individuals who represent keysectors of the organization.

• Collect information about the offend-er population (sentence length andconditions, level of risk, criminogenicneeds, and responsivity factors).

• Develop an understanding of theresources currently available toaddress the risk/needs of offenders,in terms of both quality and capacity.

• Conduct a thorough review of theagency's policies and practices relat-ed to offender reentry.

• Identify the strengths and gaps in theagency’s current work.

• Identify priority change strategies.• Create a strategic plan to implement

priority change strategies and estab-lish specific goals, objectives, time-tables, and measurable outcomes.

• Monitor and revise the strategic plan.

KEY STEPS

CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION ANDMONITORING: THE FOUNDATION OFRATIONAL PLANNING

Perhaps the most time-consuming and yet vitalstep in the rational planning process is thecollection of data: the collection of baseline dataand information at the start of the planningprocess, and the collection of data used todetermine the impact of changes implementedas a result of that process. The rational planningprocess relies on the objective consideration ofthis data, and the subsequent prioritization andimplementation of strategies based on thatcareful consideration.

The following provides further detail regardingthe data collection process: the information to begathered and the uses for such information(adapted from McGarry & Ney, 2006).

Narrowing the FocusThe task of data collection may initially seemdaunting, and it will be important that thesteering committee invest time in the thoughtfulclarification of the focus of its inquiry to decidewhat the committee is attempting to learn fromits efforts, and what data will help themaccomplish these goals. This will prevent thecommittee from engaging in a protractedinformation gathering process that yieldsunnecessary data. At the same time, thecommittee must not be limited in its thinkingand must consider all of the factors thatcontribute to a successful offender reentrystrategy.

In determining the focus of the data collectionprocess, the steering committee may want to askitself who, what, when, where, why, and how.

Why Should Data Be Collected?As indicated above, the steering committeeshould first address the question of why dataneeds to be collected. A thorough understandingof the role of data collection in an effectiverational planning process is important; withoutan understanding of and commitment to thisvital component, steering committee membersmay become impatient with the data collectionprocess or may assume that the knowledge atthe table is sufficient to guide their planningwork. Committee members must be committedto and engaged in this line of inquiry in order toachieve the greatest degree of success.

What Data Should Be Collected?As indicated in Chapter 1, what data should becollected is a question requiring carefulconsideration by the steering committee. At aminimum, the following list of topics should beconsidered by the committee as necessarytargets for information collection:

• Research on evidence-based and emergingpractices

• Offender population• Understanding the system• Resources• Policies and practices• Resources• Staff attitudes, knowledge, and skills

Research on Evidence-Based andEmerging PracticesIt is important that the steering committeededicate itself to educating its members on thecurrent research on evidence-based and

Give me six hours to chop down a tree,and I will spend the first four hourssharpening the axe.

- Abraham Lincoln


emerging practices at the very beginning of theprocess. The reason for engaging in a rationalplanning process is to avoid decision makingbased on intuition or conventional wisdom andto engage instead in a decision making processbased on a thorough understanding of whatcontributes to offender success. Anunderstanding of evidence-based and emergingpractices will prepare the steering committee toengage in this kind of analysis.

Committee members will have many differentavenues through which to inform and educatethemselves on evidence-based and emergingpractices. A growing body of literature is availableregarding evidence-based practices; steeringcommittee members may be charged withreviewing and discussing this literature as part ofthe steering committee’s regular meetings.

The committee may also seek the assistance ofexperts on evidence-based and emergingpractices, bringing these individuals tocommittee meetings to provide information andtraining to committee members. Subcommitteesmay also be charged with gathering informationand presenting it to the committee to expeditethe learning process.

Offender PopulationAt its core, reentry is an approach that seeks toincrease public safety by improving the likelihoodfor offenders to succeed following release fromconfinement. It only makes sense, then, that anyreentry strategy should be based on a thoroughunderstanding of offenders and the barriersthese individuals face in becoming lawful andproductive citizens.

Data should be gathered regarding key aspects ofthe offender population. Committee membersshould develop a clear understanding of therange of offenders served by the agency,including offenses of conviction, criminalhistories, length of sentences, risk levels,treatment and service needs, programmingreceived, length of supervision, locations towhich they return, and recidivism rates. Thedemographics of the offender population areequally important: age, race/ethnicity, sex/gender,socioeconomic status, cultural background,marital or family status, and the primarylanguages spoken and understood. It is only witha thorough understanding of the population tobe served that the steering committee can craftreentry approaches and policies that can improvean offender’s opportunities for success.

Understanding the SystemAs part of the data collection process, thesteering committee should invest time and effortin the development of a system map. This should

Collecting Data for the Rational Planning Process: Baseline Data QuestionsThe following provides a few examples of baseline data questions a steering committee mightask to understand better their offender population:

What are the characteristics of our offender population?• What are their criminal, social, employment, and educational histories?• What percentage of the offender population is high risk? Medium risk? Low risk?• What are the criminogenic need breakdowns among these population groups?• What responsivity factors are present for these groups (e.g., functional level, mental health

condition, level of motivation, cultural background)?• What is the average length of supervision for the offender population?• To which communities are offenders released?• How many offenders are revoked for technical violations? Which violations?



include a visual depiction and description of howan offender’s case is processed through thesystem, beginning with the offender’s intake atthe institution and proceeding through dischargefollowing community supervision, and shouldemphasize the decision points throughout theprocess. It is important for the committee tounderstand fully these critical decision points andwho is responsible for decision making at eachstage, as these decision points may be theimpetus for changes to the strategic plan.

The information necessary to develop a systemmap can be found in a variety of places, includingagency policies and practices (see below) andState statutes regulating procedures, as well asinformation gathered in interviews and focusgroups. The steering committee (or subcommitteeassigned to the task) may engage in the processof system mapping over several meetings,concentrating on a particular piece of the processat each meeting. System mapping may involvetouring offices and institutions to observe theprocess in action (McGarry & Ney, 2006).

The most effective system maps have both avisual and a descriptive aspect. A flowchart maybest represent a visual picture of the process, butshould be supplemented by a narrative thatexplains the flow of offenders through the systemand critical decision making points. The systemmap should include information on (CSOM,2002, 2007; McGarry & Ney, 2006):

• Major steps and key decision points.• Decision options and key decision makers at

each point.• Sources of influence on each decision.• Amount of time necessary to move a case

from one point in the system to the next.• Norms and assumptions (formal or informal)

at various steps and decision points.

Policies and PracticesIt is important that the steering committeedevelop an understanding of the agency’s currentpolicies and practices, both formal and informal.Only a thorough understanding of these issues

can enable the steering committee to determinehow current policy and practice may eithercontribute to or hinder successful offenderreentry efforts. Furthermore, the comparison offormal policy to informal practice is important indemonstrating to the steering committee the gapbetween where the agency stands in regards toits vision and where it wants to be, and whatefforts must be made to change theorganizational culture.

The steering committee will want to gatherinformation on policies and practices thatdirectly affect offenders (e.g., disciplinary actionsfor infractions, standard supervision conditions)and those that directly affect staff working withoffenders (e.g., evaluation and promotionpolicies and practices). The impact of policiesand practices on reentry efforts should beevaluated (i.e., are inmates denied visitationrights as a disciplinary measure, and whatimpact does that policy have on efforts topromote pro-social behaviors?).

Policies and practices should be mapped todetermine if the actions of one agency have asignificant impact on the efforts of another (i.e.,are excessive conditions being set for thesupervision of offenders, thereby impairing theability of a parole agent to establish anindividually tailored case management plan?).Information on policies and practices thatdetermine the programming an offender receives(e.g., job training, education, treatment) and theimpact of other policies and practices on theoffender’s eligibility for those services (e.g.,classification policies that prohibit offenders fromparticipating in needed services as a result oftheir classification level) are just a few examplesof the data that should be collected and analyzed.

ResourcesIn addition to identifying the needs andcharacteristics of the offender population, thesteering committee must also develop a thoroughunderstanding of the current internal and externalresources available to provide services to thispopulation. Data must be collected on resources



available to serve offender needs such astreatment (drug, mental and other health needs),education, employment, housing, andtransportation, among others. Information shouldalso be gathered pertaining to resources foroffenders’ families, such as family or couplestherapy, parenting skills training, and services forchildren of incarcerated individuals. As data iscollected on the offender population and specificneeds are identified, inquiries regarding resourcesto meet those needs should be explored.

In gathering data on available resources, careshould be taken to document such informationas program requirements, eligibility, cost,capacity, and demographics served.7

Staff Attitudes, Knowledge, and SkillsWhile a strong commitment from leadershipwithin institutional corrections and communitysupervision agencies is integral to the success ofoffender reentry, there is little question that muchof the hands-on work of reentry will beperformed by line staff, who have ongoing anddirect contact with offenders. It is important thatthe steering committee, as part of the datacollection process, gather information to help itunderstand current staff attitudes, knowledge,and skills regarding reentry. It is likely that part ofthe strategic plan developed for the agency willinclude some aspect of staff training andeducation regarding reentry, to prepare staffmembers to assist offenders in successfullyreintegrating into the community.

Staff attitudes are particularly important todetermine; staff members who do not believereentry is a legitimate goal may resist efforts toimplement reentry strategies. Attitudes towardoffender reentry may also reflect a disbelief in theeffectiveness of reentry as a means of achievingpublic safety, a simple resistance toward change,or a belief that offenders are incapable of beingrehabilitated. The steering committee shouldmake efforts to understand not only theprevailing attitudes among staff but also thereasons driving them.

Staff knowledge may be a more straightforwardmatter with regards to gathering information, butthe steering committee should be aware that theact of gathering information might raise concernsand fears among staff. As discussed in SectionThree on leadership and organizational change,staff members may resist change when theybelieve that the changes will require skills they donot possess, thus endangering their positions orchances of promotion. The steering committeewill be interested in gathering informationregarding what the staff knows and understandsabout reentry (e.g., what are the importantcomponents of reentry; what is evidence-basedpractice; what are the principles of risk, need, andresponsivity; how do their interactions contributeto an offender’s chances of success).

Finally, staff skills should be measured. Specificskills are important to the success of offenderreentry strategies, such as MotivationalInterviewing, the ability to construct an effectivecase management plan, and the effectiveassessment of offenders at various stages in thereentry process. An important source ofinformation for the steering committee on thisissue will be the agency’s training department,which should be able to provide informationabout the types of training made available tostaff, the agency’s training requirements, andstaff utilization of its programs. A review of theresults of quality assurance efforts also willprovide important information about staff skillsand competency levels.

The steering committee also may want torecognize the opportunities for education in thesedata collection activities (e.g., sharing informationabout the agency’s vision prior to engaging staffin discussions about attitudes toward reentry,making staff more aware of training opportunitieswithin the agency, et cetera).

Who Should Collect the Data?Each steering committee will have differentresources available for data collection. It isunlikely that steering committee members, whowill often be executive level staff, will be involveddirectly in the data collection itself. Rather, the

steering committee will be responsible fordirecting the data collection process bydetermining what data should be collected anddelegating the actual data collection process toagency staff (such as the agency’s researchdepartment) or to members of a subcommitteewho are uniquely qualified to collect and analyzedata. The steering committee may even delegateoversight of the data collection process to asubcommittee that, working under the directionof the steering committee, will be responsible forcrafting or refining avenues of inquiry, facilitatingaccess to data among departments and agencieswith different data collection systems orconfidentiality requirements, and supervising thestaff charged with the data collection.

Where is the Data to BeCollected?Unless the agency has already developed asophisticated and integrated technology system,

it is likely that the data required by thecommittee will be stored in a variety of locationsand in a variety of forms, both electronic andpaper. Even if the agency has such a system, therange of data necessary for collection will requireoutreach to other agencies, each of which willhave its own data collection system and itsunique requirements regarding the sharing ofinformation. Those charged with collecting datafor the steering committee will need to navigatethese various systems and obstacles in order toprovide the committee with the most completeinformation possible.

How Will the Data Be Collected?How the data will be collected will depend to agreat extent on the form that the data takes. Datastored in database systems may be easilyacquired through programmed or speciallycrafted searches. Other data may require carefulexamination of paper files and reviews of case

Collecting Data for the Monitoring Process:Sample Data Questions

In follow-up to the implementation of their strategic plan, the steering committee shouldmonitor the impact of the changes made as a result of the rational planning process.

• How many offenders experience technical violations/new crimes within 3 months,6 months, 1 year, 3 years?

• How does the technical/new crime population compare with those in compliance in termsof level of risk, needs addressed, and other key factors?

• What percentage of adult offenders released from prison secured employment within 30days of release? 60 days? What is the length of employment?

• What percentage of juvenile offenders returned to school following release from custody?What percentage received a high school diploma or GED?

• Are offenders who receive transitional services more successful once released into thecommunity than those released without these services?

• Of those individuals released from prison, is the recidivism rate lower the earlier theoffender obtains employment? Is the rate affected by the length of employment?

• Did juvenile offenders whose families were actively involved in the intervention processrecidivate at lower rates than juveniles for whom family involvement was absent?

• Do the offenders who receive vocational training exhibit lower recidivism rates than thosewho do not receive such training?

• What percentage of offenders with a substance abuse problem received treatment whileunder supervision?

• What percentage of juvenile offenders receiving services for co-occurring mental healthdifficulties continued to receive those services once released into the community?



management plans. Data to be collected fromexternal sources will require consultation todetermine what is possible, from both a humanresource and information sharing perspective. Forexample, the steering committee may want datafrom an outside agency (e.g., wage progressionfor released offenders, success rates for treatmentprograms, offender utilization of communityservices, educational attainment). While thecommittee may be able to supply personnel toconduct the data collection, confidentialityconcerns (e.g., HIPAA) may prohibit outsidepersonnel from accessing those records. Ifresources are an issue, the committee may haveto consider providing funds to the outside agencyto finance the collection of data or determinealternate sources of data that may be useful.

Additionally, some information will be anecdotalin nature (such as the description of informalstaff practice); this kind of information will haveto be gathered through interviews, focus groups,or other survey methods. Finally, the agency’spolicies and practices, contained in employeemanuals, agency directives, procedural manuals,logbooks, announcements, newsletters, andmemos, must also be reviewed in order for thesteering committee to develop a thoroughunderstanding of this material.

Data collection can shed an unflattering light byrevealing unfavorable facts or characteristicsabout the agency and its success in addressingaspects of offender reentry. It is important thatthe steering committee support the collection ofall necessary information, including data that isuncomplimentary to the agency, so that thecommittee can understand fully the currentstatus of the agency’s reentry efforts and base itsdecisions on objective information.

Monitoring the Impact of theSteering Committee’s DecisionsAs McGarry and Ney note in Getting It Right:Collaborative Problem Solving for Criminal Justice,“the cornerstone of good planning is that it neverends.” It cannot be emphasized enough that datacollection is a process that the steering committee

should approach as ongoing and cumulative. Asimportant as it is to gather baseline data at thestart of the rational planning process, it is equallyimportant that the committee require that datacollection continue. The collection of data tomonitor the impact of the steering committee’sdecision fulfills two functions:

• Monitoring data assists the steeringcommittee in determining whether the actionstaken to implement the agency’s strategic planhave had the intended result. Monitoring datahelps determine whether targeted outcomeswere achieved and assists in identifying anyunintended consequences that may need tobe addressed.

• Monitoring data also provides information fornew avenues of inquiry and the continuedrefinement of the agency’s strategic plan.Monitoring data establishes whether thecurrent goals and objectives of the agency’sstrategic plan have been met and opens upnew opportunities to proceed with additionalactivities that will advance the agency’s visionand mission.

Unless the changes put into place by the steeringcommittee are monitored, the committee cannotbe assured that the decisions it made actuallyresulted in the committee’s intended outcomes.Furthermore, without conducting performancemeasurements (set during the crafting of thestrategic plan), the steering committee will beunable to demonstrate to key stakeholders theimpact of the agency’s efforts.

Monitoring the impact of the agency’s strategicplan also provides opportunities for thecommittee to continue the process of identifyingand responding to gaps and challenges, whichallows for ongoing development and refinementof the agency’s strategic plan for offender reentry.

ConclusionData collection is the foundation of an effectiverational planning process. The data collectedregarding the characteristics of the agency’s

offender population; the resources available torespond to offender needs; the agency’s currentpolicies and practices; agency staff attitudes,knowledge, and skills regarding reentry; andevidence-based and emerging practices are theunderpinnings of the steering committee’sefforts to consider the gaps and challengesconfronting the agency in its reentry efforts andinform the development of a strategic plan forenhancing outcomes with offenders. The datacollected should guide and inform the work ofthe committee throughout the rational planningprocess.

In approaching data collection, the steeringcommittee should consider established methodsof inquiry: who, what, when, where, why, andhow. Considering these questions will assist thecommittee in creating a thorough approach todata collection and ensure that all of the datanecessary to its deliberations is gathered.

Data collection should be approached as anongoing and cumulative process that continuesbeyond the initial stage of establishing baselinedata and extends not only to monitoring theimpact of the agency’s strategic plan but also tocreating new avenues of inquiry and action.

• Narrow the focus of the steeringcommittee's inquiry to ensure thatnecessary data is collected withoutengaging the committee in a protract-ed process that impedes progress.

• Prioritize the committee's data collec-tion requests to ensure a quickresponse.

• Become conversant in the researchon evidence-based practices.

• Collect baseline data on the offenderpopulation, the interventionresources available, policies and prac-tices that guide the agency’s offendermanagement work, and staff atti-tudes, knowledge, and skills.

• Make sure that the process extendsbeyond initial baseline data collectionand that data collection is tied to per-formance measures established aspart of the strategic plan.

• Ensure that data collection is ongoingand cumulative, designed not only tosubstantiate the success of imple-mentation measures, but also to openup new avenues of inquiry and action.

KEY STEPS



Assess Your Agency:Rational Planning

Yes No NotClear

1. Has the agency developed a clear, data-supported understanding ofthe offenders who are under their control and supervision (e.g.,critical information about the offender population that includes:offenses of conviction, length of sentences, risk levels, treatment andservice needs, responsivity issues, programming received, length ofsupervision, locations to which they return, recidivism rates)?

2. Has the agency developed a clear understanding of current reentrypolicies and practices from intake to community release, supervision,and aftercare?

3. Has the agency developed a detailed understanding of the servicesand resources currently available for this population (bothinstitutional and community-based)?

4. Has the agency developed a working knowledge of evidence-basedpractices and promising approaches in the area of offendermanagement and reentry?

5. Has the agency gathered information on the attitudes, knowledge,and skills of staff to assess their ability to work effectively withoffenders?

6. Has the agency identified its offender management and reentry gapsand need areas based on these analyses?

7. Has the agency prioritized for implementation key strategiesspecifically designed to address the most significant need/gap areas?

8. Has the agency developed a strategic plan to organize and guide theimplementation of change strategies?

9. Has the agency established goals and objectives to implementprioritized change strategies?

10. Has the agency established a monitoring plan to assess the impact ofthese change strategies?


ReferencesCarol Flaherty-Zonis Associates (2007). Buildingculture strategically: A team approach forcorrections. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofJustice, National Institute of Corrections.

Center for Sex Offender Management (CSOM)(2002). Managing sex offenders in the community:A Handbook to guide policymakers andpractitioners through a planning andimplementation process. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Justice, Office of JusticePrograms.

Center for Sex Offender Management (CSOM)(2007). Enhancing the management of adult andjuvenile sex offenders: A handbook forpolicymakers and practitioners. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Justice, Office of JusticePrograms.

McGarry, P., & Carter, M. (1993). Theintermediate sanctions handbook: Experiences andtools for policymakers. Silver Spring, MD: Centerfor Effective Public Policy.

McGarry, P. & Ney, B. (2006). Getting it right:Collaborative problem solving for criminal justice.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,National Institute of Corrections.

Oldfield, D. (2007). Missouri re-entry processupdate to March 31, 2007. Missouri Departmentof Corrections, Research and Evaluation.http://www.doc.missouri.gov/reentry/PDF/March2007_ProgressReport.pdf, last accessedDecember 11, 2007.

Re-Entry Partnership Housing Program (2006).Re-Entry Partnership Housing Programannouncement. Atlanta, GA: State Board ofPardons and Paroles and Georgia Department ofCorrections.

Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York,NY: Doubleday Currency.


INTRODUCTIONDaunting problems face adult and juvenileoffenders upon their return to the community. Acriminal history alone is a significant challenge toaddressing the basic necessities of life (e.g.,housing, employment); however, these individualsoften have additional problems that create otherchallenges to their ability to succeed. Theseproblems, including drug or alcohol abuse, mentalhealth difficulties, problematic familyenvironments, and a lack of education, will likelycontinue to challenge their opportunities forsuccess when they are released from prison backinto the community. Because of the complexdifficulties faced by many offenders, the stigmathey face upon release, and the lack of support theywill likely encounter in their attempts tosuccessfully reintegrate into the community, noone agency can address these myriad issues.Therefore, collaboration, both internal and external,is a critical element of any successful reentry effort.

In some important ways, collaboration providesa foundation for successful offender reentrystrategies because it brings together a multitudeof stakeholders, including institutionalcorrections and community supervisionagencies, other criminal justice and publicagencies, the community, and the offender’s ownsupport system, to create opportunities for theoffender to achieve success upon release.

Internal collaboration is equally as important,however. Many institutional corrections andcommunity supervision agencies have a history ofworking in isolation of one another. In this way,agencies operated in an “in or out” orientation,with little or no information exchange orpartnership evident. For offender managementefforts to be successful, however, it is moreapparent than ever that correctional staff mustwork collaboratively with their own colleagues aswell, whether that be correctional officers,counselors, and institutional employers sharinginformation and working with the offender as ateam, or institutional corrections and communitysupervision staff exchanging information andworking closely together to build an informedtransition and community supervision plan.

In this section, collaboration as a necessarycomponent of successful offender reentry will beexplored. In Chapter 1, collaboration will be definedand its importance to offender reentry discussed.Chapter 2 will focus specifically on the unique andimportant relationship between institutionalcorrections and community supervision, the targetaudience for this handbook, in the area of offenderreentry. An overview of multidisciplinarycollaborative teams will be covered in Chapter 3.Finally, in Chapter 4, the elements of successfulteams will be examined and the steps to establishan effective collaborative team will be discussed.

Convicted felons may lose many essentialrights of citizenship, such as the right tovote and to hold public office, and areoften restricted in their ability to obtainoccupational and professional licenses.Their criminal record may also precludetheir receiving government benefits andretaining parental rights, [and] be groundsfor divorce…. The restrictions onemployment and housing createformidable obstacles to law-abidingness.One has to question whether we arejeopardizing public safety by making it sodifficult for prison releasees to succeed.

- Petersilia, 2003

Section Five:

The Essential Role ofCollaboration Susan Gibel and Leilah Gilligan


CHAPTER 1: COLLABORATION: WHAT ISIT AND WHY IS IT SO IMPORTANT?

What is Collaboration?Collaboration—diverse agencies and individualsworking together to achieve goals that anindividual or agency cannot achieve alone—isthe most effective way to respond to thechallenges of reentry. Many agencies may alreadybe engaged in activities that require working withothers, such as:

• Networking (exchanging information formutual benefit).

• Coordinating (exchanging information formutual benefit and to achieve a shared goal).

• Cooperating (exchanging information, alteringactivities, and sharing resources for mutualbenefit and to achieve a common goal)(Huxham, 1996).

True collaboration, however, requires institutionalcorrections and community supervision agenciesto do more than talk, or exchange and shareinformation and resources. Rather, it requires

them to work together within their own agenciesand with other justice and public sector systemand community-based partners to achieve a goalthat would be beyond the reach of any individualpartner to the effort. Collaboration, in otherwords, can help teams and agencies solveproblems that would otherwise be unsolvable.

Historically, collaboration has not been acornerstone of the justice system. In fact, legalconstructs can and have posed significantbarriers to collaboration. Some of thosechallenges include (Carter, 2005; CEPP, 2005a):

• The adversarial nature of the legal system.• A competition for limited resources.• Political and public pressure faced by elected

officials.• The creation or existence of agencies that have

overlapping or duplicative responsibilities.• The creation or existence of agencies that have

missions that are at odds with one another.

Increasingly, however, institutional correctionsand community supervision agencies are findingnew ways to collaborate more effectively internallyand with other parts of the justice system, as wellas with external stakeholders, in an effort tosurmount very complex problems, including thechallenges associated with offender reentry.

In order for these collaborative efforts to besuccessful, participants must be willing toengage fully in the process. While strong andcommitted leaders are critical to successfuloffender reentry efforts, long lasting andsustainable change requires the commitment ofmany individuals working together toward a

Collaboration is working together toachieve a common goal that cannot beachieved without partners.

The corrections system can—andshould—achieve better results in reducingthe reoffending that creates new crimevictims and results in enormous costs toOregon. However, our correctionsprofessionals cannot do this alone… thesuccess of prison-to-community transitionis complex. Many public and privateagencies have responsibility for parts of it,yet no agency has responsibility for all ofit. Improving our system will require thecommitment, dedication, and persistenceof many, working together.

- Remarks made by Joe O’Leary, Policy

Advisor to Governor Kulongoski, on behalf

of Governor Kulongoski, to the Oregon

Department of Corrections and their com-

munity corrections partners on May 1, 2007.

common cause. Collaborative partners must setaside individual agendas, coalesce around ashared vision, and commit to working togetheruntil the desired outcomes are achieved. Thesecollaborative partnerships can have a significanteffect, including enhancing relationships withinand between institutional corrections andcommunity supervision agencies and producinglongstanding connections between allied justicesystem and community agencies.

Why Collaborate?

Collaboratives draw from the experience,perspective, and diversity of their team membersin an effort to work toward a more purposefuland reasoned approach to problem solving.Instead of assuming that any one agency has theability, authority, or capacity to resolve a problemas complex as reentry, successful collaborativepartnerships recognize that it takes thecombined efforts of many committed individualsand agencies to resolve these issues.

In recent decades, the public, elected officials,and other system stakeholders have heightenedtheir expectations of institutional corrections andcommunity supervision agencies. In addition toincapacitation, they also expect correctionsinterventions to cost less and to enhance publicsafety by reducing recidivism. This is a tall order,and one that cannot be easily filled by any singleagency. For this reason, collaborative problemsolving teams are increasingly recognized as avaluable entity through which the effectiveresolution of complex criminal justice problems,such as those associated with reentry, might beachieved.

ConclusionCollaboration is the process of working togetherto achieve a common goal that cannot beachieved by any single individual or agency.Given the myriad and complex barriers offendersface in transitioning to the community,collaboration, although sometimes difficult andtime-consuming, has tremendous potential foraddressing the problems associated withoffender reentry.

Collaboration offers the best method of seekingout and finding solutions to the challengesposed by offender reentry. It has the potentialboth to coalesce the efforts of institutionalcorrections and community supervisionagencies, and to bring to the table the manystakeholders who have an interest in safercommunities and successful offenders. It is onlythrough effective collaboration that the ultimategoal of safer communities through successfuloffender reentry can be achieved, for it is indeeda goal that cannot be achieved by any singleagency or individual acting alone.

The criminal justice system is addressingproblems that have become increasinglycomplex and rooted in difficult andcomplicated social issues. Court,community, and criminal justiceprofessionals join forces to analyzeproblems and create responsive solutions;and judges, court administrators,prosecutors, defense attorneys, probationand parole representatives, correctionspersonnel, victim advocates, lawenforcement officers, and public andprivate treatment providers reach out toone another to forge partnerships that willenable them to address complex medical,social, fiscal, and behavioral problems thatpose significant threats to the safety andwell-being of our communities.

- CEPP, 2005a

No individual is wise enough bythemselves.

- Titus Maccius Plautus (254 BC-184 BC)



CHAPTER 2: COLLABORATION BETWEENINSTITUTIONAL CORRECTIONS ANDCOMMUNITY SUPERVISION AGENCIESInstitutional corrections and communitysupervision agencies are the linchpin tosuccessful offender reentry. They are responsiblefor determining and providing for the offender’sneeds while incarcerated and for transitioningand monitoring the offender’s return to thecommunity. Traditionally, institutional correctionsand community supervision agencies haveviewed themselves as, if not mutually exclusive,at least independent efforts. In somejurisdictions, this division may in fact beorganizationally structured with the separation ofinstitutional corrections and communitysupervision agency functions into distinctagencies. In actuality, institutional correctionsand community supervision agencies representtwo parts that form a whole in the importantwork of offender management. As a result, theseagencies might do well to adopt an “in to out”philosophy, rather than continuing to subscribeto an “in or out” mentality. An “in to out”framework means that all professionals, whetherbased in institutions or in the community,assume a shared responsibility for encouragingsuccess as adult and juvenile offenders movefrom institutional corrections to communitysupervision agencies (Bumby, Talbot, & Carter,2007).

How institutional corrections and communitysupervision agency systems approach theseresponsibilities, and how they partner with eachother in their efforts, are crucial questions. If thecollective goal of institutional corrections andcommunity supervision agencies is communitysafety, then they must be willing to collaborate toprovide the offender with the best possibleopportunities for success. Furthermore, toensure the continued safety of the community,these agencies must develop policies andpractices that support and institutionalize

collaborative problem solving between theirdivisions or agencies.

It is important to emphasize that much of thediscussion that follows also applies tomultidisciplinary collaborations; however, in thischapter the emphasis is on collaborationbetween institutional corrections and communitysupervision agencies. In addition, although thetext below will refer to institutional correctionsand community supervision agencies as if theseare a single agency, whether they are in factstructurally divided within the same agency orseparate, independent agencies, the need forgreater collaboration remains the same.

Most institutional corrections and communitysupervision agencies assume that internalcollaboration, collaboration within the ranks oftheir own agency, happens effortlessly and on anongoing basis. In many jurisdictions, however,this is not the case. During the rational planningprocess, it is not uncommon for institutionalcorrections and community supervision agenciesto discover contradictory policies andprocedures, policies and procedures that createsilos among the agencies’ various divisions, orpolicies and procedures that actually impedeefforts to collaborate among divisions.

In order to overcome these barriers to effectivecollaboration, agencies will need to concentratetheir efforts at two levels: collaboration amongpolicymakers, and collaboration among line staffoperating at the case management level.

• Policymaking Level. Collaboration at this levelshould involve individuals that havepolicymaking or decision making authority fortheir respective agencies, departments, ordivisions. This level of collaboration includes

the directors or deputy directors, district officemanagers, regional managers, and wardens,to suggest just a few. Individuals that havepolicy and decision making authority can openaccess to new resources or services previouslyunavailable to offenders returning fromconfinement, promote joint efforts in publicand policymaking discussions, and assureaccess to line staff so that they are able toserve as members of case managementteams.

• Case Management Level. The other type ofcollaboration is at the case management level,involving individuals at the line level (e.g.,correctional officers, counselors, teachers, jobsupervisors, transition coordinators, paroleofficers, trackers) responsible for the directsupervision of offenders. These are individuals

who can provide additional information orperspective about offender needs, assist in thedevelopment of appropriate interventionstrategies, provide access to services andsupports to supplement those available withininstitutional corrections and communitysupervision agencies, and support ongoingmonitoring and follow up activities.

Policymaking LevelPerhaps the best example of an institutionalcorrections and community supervision agencyteam at the policymaking level is the steeringcommittee. The steering committee is designedto bring together executive and managementlevel leaders from within the agency to designand conduct an investigation into the agency’scurrent policies, procedures, and reentry efforts,with the purpose of developing a strategic plan

Oregon: Collaboration within the AgencyOregon has sustained a system-wide focus on improving transition since 1999, and muchprogress has been made. We have had success in our change efforts, yet many challengesremain if we are to live up to our goals.

One of our greatest challenges today is engaging staff at all levels of the organization in thatpart of our agency mission that speaks to successful offender reentry. Most corrections leadersnow recognize the importance of a successful transition from prison to community living, bothbecause the numbers of inmates leaving prison have been growing and because failure duringthis high risk time creates new crime victims. Our public safety role demands that we do agood job with transition. While leadership may be firmly committed to this goal, true changedepends on involving line staff and, probably most important, the mid-level manager.

It is important to continue improving transition without waiting for additional resources to dothis work. Many improvements can be made to the transition process by reprioritizing staffduties [and] reducing bureaucratic barriers.

In 2004, [the Oregon Department of Corrections] reorganized to better align agency operationswith its vision and mission. A new Transitional Services Division was created, tying together theservices that directly affect the ability of an offender to transition successfully back to thecommunity. The programs within the prisons that reduce the risk of criminal behavior, such aseducation, vocational programs, cognitive programs, addictions treatment programs, parentingprograms, and religious services are in this division. Community corrections, includingsupervision, community-based services, and community-based sanctions are also in this division.

- Max Williams, Director, Oregon Department of Corrections



for reentry for the agency and a work plan for theimplementation of the strategic plan.

As was noted in Section Four, effectivecollaboration is critical to the rational planningprocess. The effort of developing the agency’sstrategic plan, and the implementation of thatplan, is a long-term commitment that requiresthe application of complex solutions. Throughoutthis process, the steering committee mustremain committed to a single vision of reentryand focused on its collective efforts. Maintainingthis kind of commitment over many months oryears requires a commitment to workingtogether, to collaborating, in order to achieve thefull realization of the strategic plan. Thisendeavor is impossible without the dedication ofall key stakeholders within the agency.

Case Management LevelAs important as it is to the change process,collaboration at the policymaking level alone isinsufficient to bring about an effective offenderreentry strategy. As mentioned in Section Threeon leadership and organizational change, a newstrategy toward offender reentry must reachdown to all levels of staff and actively bring theminto the change process.

Barriers to collaboration often exist at the stafflevel. Collaboration requires a shared vision thatmoves individuals beyond their personal ideas ofhow to fulfill their job requirements and placestheir individual efforts within the framework of alarger vision. Given the time and resourceconstraints facing an overwhelming majority ofinstitutional corrections and communitysupervision agencies, many employees (perhapswithout even being aware of it) may view theirroles so individually that they fail to consider howthey fit into the larger process of achieving theagency’s vision and carrying out its mission. Forexample, corrections officers may view their jobas purely custodial and have little interest in oropportunity for talking with case counselorsabout an offender’s daily behavior, visitors, orother issues; case counselors may haveinformation that could be useful to institutional

treatment providers but have no organizedmethod to share this information; and paroleofficers may not receive offenders’ institutionalrecords, let alone have the ability tocommunicate with those who have been workingwith the offenders throughout theirconfinements. Without a specific and articulatedvision of how each of these individuals fit into alarger mission, there is no way to ensure acollective, overarching perspective on how theoffender, the offender’s particular level of risk andneeds, and the offender’s transition to thecommunity should and will be managed.

The problems created by the lack of a commonvision for offender reentry, and effective

Instituting new reentry programs andpolicies has led to increased internalcommunication and coordination betweenunits previously separated by jobfunction. The initiative has also led toformalized relationships and anarticulation of shared commitment withother state entities.

When collaboration happens in thiscontext, individuals begin to understandand share a vision of reentry. Paroleagents recognize the benefits of workingwith institutional staff to develop atransitional plan for the offender thatbegins several months prior to theoffender's release, while correctionalofficers recognize that engagement in theappropriate treatment and institutionalprograms may increase an offender'sopportunities for success in thecommunity. Each individual begins tounderstand and appreciate the ways inwhich they can engage with andencourage offenders in the course of theirday-to-day interactions.




information sharing to support this outcome,often are exacerbated at the point whenoffenders are released from a correctionalinstitution under community supervision.Community supervision officers may not beprovided with detailed information regarding anoffender’s experience while incarcerated, beyonda cursory report or case file notes. A number ofimportant questions may remain unanswered:Did the offender have visitors while incarcerated?If so, how might those visits trigger certainconcerns around community supervision? Didthe juvenile offender’s parent(s) participate infamily interventions prior to the juvenile’srelease? If the offender is incarcerated on adomestic violence charge, did the victim—orpotential new or additional victims—haveacrimonious visits with the offender? Did theoffender participate meaningfully in treatment orlife skills programs (e.g., did the offender sign upand attend faithfully)? Should treatment becontinued in the community to capitalize onprogress made? Without this kind of knowledge,community supervision officers lack the essentialinformation about an offender’s background andinstitutional history to monitor, supervise, andrefer offenders to appropriate treatment andsuccessfully transition them into the community.

In order to facilitate collaboration between thesecorrectional functions, the leaders of institutionalcorrections and community supervision agenciesmust institutionalize policy and practice thatpromotes intra-agency information sharing. Theymust also promote case staffings and organizeall staff around the collective goal of reducingrecidivism and enhancing community safety. Justas no one agency can solve the problemsassociated with reentry, no one staff member hasthe full picture of any offender. Each is chargedwith a different aspect of working with offenders(e.g., supervision or security, overseeing a workassignment, or conducting case management)and each has some critical pieces of informationand insight essential to the overarching goal ofoffender success.

ConclusionDespite the best collaborative efforts of outsidestakeholders, a successful offender reentrystrategy has little hope of succeeding withoutstrong collaboration between institutionalcorrections and community supervisionagencies. Although many corrections agenciesconsider internal collaboration to be occurringeffortlessly and on an ongoing basis, employeesworking within institutions may see theirresponsibility as custody and control, having littleif anything to do with preparing offenders forreturn to the community. Likewise, communitysupervision staff members may consider theirjobs as unrelated to the confinement of theoffender. Effective offender reentry efforts willrequire institutional corrections and communitysupervision agencies to consider themselves astwo parts that form a whole in the importantwork of offender management.

• Assess the state of current collabora-tion between institutional correctionsand community supervision staff,including investigating policies andprocedures that may impede collabo-rative efforts.

• Form teams at the policymaking levelto promote collaboration betweeninstitutional corrections and commu-nity supervision agencies and to cre-ate a collaborative strategic plan.

• Form teams at the case managementlevel to facilitate collaboration amonginstitutional corrections and commu-nity supervision staff, and to assurethe more effective management ofoffenders as they transition to thecommunity.

• Devote at least as much time andresources to enhancing internal col-laboration as is devoted to building

KEY STEPS

External collaboration with multidisciplinarystakeholders is also important to successfuloffender reentry. As stated in the introduction tothis chapter, significant and sometimesoverwhelming problems confront offendersreturning to their communities. Basic necessitiessuch as housing, employment, and sustenancemay be difficult to obtain. Additional problemsmay plague their efforts to reintegrate intosociety: the availability of treatment (e.g.,substance, mental health), access to education,family dysfunction, and the lack of pro-socialnetworks. These are complicated problems,requiring complex solutions, and no singleagency, organization, or community serviceprovider can provide adequately for all of these.

Institutional corrections and communitysupervision agencies must work with a multitudeof stakeholders to resolve these difficultchallenges and provide opportunities foroffenders to be successful.

Striving Toward a Common VisionObviously, external stakeholders such ascommunity-based treatment or service providersare likely to have a different focus or vision thaninstitutional corrections and communitysupervision agencies. Their ultimate goal mightbe defined as providing the best quality care orservices to individuals in need, rather than beingdefined as reducing recidivism or improvingpublic safety. However, the vision of community-based stakeholders is, in all likelihood,compatible with corrections’ public safety goals,as successful offender outcomes ultimatelytranslate into community safety and wellness.Recognizing this and moving toward a sharedvision across agencies and disciplines is key toforming collaborative external partnerships thatwill help overcome common barriers tosuccessful offender reentry.

Two Levels of MultiagencyCollaborationJust as with collaboration between institutionalcorrections and community supervisionagencies, there are two levels of collaborationthat are necessary to offender reentry efforts forexternal collaboratives:

• Policymaking Level. Collaboration is critical atthe State, regional, or local level and shouldinvolve individuals that have policymaking ordecision making ability for their respectiveagencies. This level of collaboration wouldinclude the directors or deputy directors orother key leadership of stakeholder agencies.Individuals that have policy and decisionmaking authority can open access to newresources or services previously unavailable tooffenders returning from confinement,promote joint efforts in public andpolicymaking discussions, and assure accessto line staff so that they are able to serve asmembers of case management teams.

• Case Management Level. The other type ofcollaboration is at the case management level,involving individuals who provide directservices to offenders and their families. Theseindividuals can assist with additionalinformation/perspectives on offender needs,the development of appropriate interventionstrategies, access to services and supports to

Through a shared vision, key stakeholdersare able to find common ground that canserve as a catalyst for promoting offendersuccess and ensuring public safety: eachstakeholder begins to recognize theirunique role, and the cumulative energyand effort becomes powerful.

- CEPP, 2007

CHAPTER 3: MULTIDISCIPLINARYCOLLABORATION

Increasing Public Safety Through Successful Offender Reentry: Evidence-Based and Emerging Practices in Corrections 77


supplement those available within institutionalcorrections and community supervisionagencies, and support of ongoing monitoringand follow up activities. Case managementplans that are developed with input from all of

the key individuals involved in themanagement of the case will be broader andmore comprehensive and provide for greatercoordination and continuity in care.


Policy Level Collaboration(Typical structural relationship)

Tier 1Statewide Multidisciplinary

Policymaking Team

Tier IIStatewide Multidisciplinary

Implementation Team

Institutional and Other MultidisciplinaryCommunity Corrections Action-Oriented

Steering Committee Subcommittees

Case Management Level Collaboration(Case management collaboration occurs in a variety of settings)

Institutional Corrections/Community Supervision

Institutionally-Based Institutionally- and Community-BasedCase Management Community-Based Case Management

Teams Case Management Teams Teams


External CollaborationInstitutional corrections and communitysupervision agencies must partner with otherpublic sector agencies, community-based serviceand treatment agencies, faith and community-based organizations, members of the public, andothers, including employers andeducational/vocational institutions, victimadvocates, and housing authorities, in an effortto bring all necessary community input andresources to bear on the issue of offenderreentry.

As indicated above, multidisciplinarypartnerships must be organized at both thepolicymaking and case management level. Oftenthe policymaking team will take the form of astatewide policy team on reentry, established orsupported by the governor or legislature,consisting of cabinet level officials from theState’s various institutional corrections andcommunity supervision, justice, and publicsector agencies, and community partners.Members of such a policy team would includerepresentatives from agencies responsible foreducation, social services, healthcare, mentalhealth, workforce, and housing, to name just afew. A policy team such as this will consider andmake decisions on statewide reentry efforts andmay influence funding or provide oversight forreentry initiatives. The policy team may considerand put into place policies and practices toencourage and facilitate collaboration at the casemanagement level.

Staff members who work directly with adult orjuvenile offenders are more likely to be involvedin more localized, case management levelcollaboratives. The purpose of thesecollaboratives is not to create or implementpolicy (although the efforts of these teams willlikely inform and influence policy). Rather, it is tobring together those individuals and agenciesthat can enhance the likelihood of a seamlesstransition from the institution to the communityfor the offender, and offer support by providingthe resources and opportunities needed toprevent reoffense (e.g., education, housing,

workforce, health, and treatment). Each memberof the collaborative will bring a uniqueperspective and unique solutions to problemsassociated with offender transition and reentry. Aworkforce development representative, forexample, might be able to support a jobplacement. An individual who represents theeducational system can be helpful for addressingbarriers to a juvenile’s return to a public schoolor may have important information aboutalternative educational settings. A housingrepresentative might offer creative solutions tofinding a place for the offender to live. Membersof community boards or victim advocate groupsmight offer guidance about how best to notifythe community that a violent offender isreturning in a way that promotes informationsharing and support rather than inciting fear andhostility.

Who Are the ExternalStakeholders that Should BeInvolved?As has been suggested throughout thishandbook, adult and juvenile offendersencounter a variety of challenges in their effortsto resume their lives productively in thecommunity. It is common for returning offendersto face barriers, including limited affordable oravailable housing, problems with securing ormaintaining employment or education, thepresence of physical or mental health problems,financial instability, family problems, and outcryfrom the public about their presence in thecommunity. Clearly, no single agency can addressall these issues alone. In an effort to overcomethese problems, and support offenders as theytransition in an effort to prevent reoffense, acombination of traditional and non-traditionalpartnerships is essential.

In addition to the involvement of the criminaljustice system and other public sector agenciesthat in some capacity serve the offenderpopulation (such as labor, housing, education,transportation, health, et cetera), community,service, and faith-based providers should also beactive participants in the collaboration in order


for it to effectively address the complex social,behavioral, and health issues that are linkedinextricably to offender success. Community-based partners will undoubtedly bring differentresources to the resolution of offender behavioralissues, as well as a wealth of knowledge aboutthe community (CEPP, 2005c).

Those stakeholders who should be involved inpolicymaking and case management level reentrycollaboratives include individuals and agencieswho:

• Have a vested interest in community safety.• Are directly or indirectly responsible for sex

offender management.• Work closely with or advocate for victims.• Can provide mentoring or positive social

supports.• Offer educational and vocational services.

• Can promote access to appropriate andaffordable housing.

• Deliver healthcare services.• Provide mental health services.• Have the ability to facilitate access to

employment.• Can provide support and assistance to

children and families of offenders.

Specifically, these stakeholders might include:

For juvenile offenders:• Juvenile and family courts• Juvenile institutional corrections and

community supervision or youth servicesagencies

• Social services agencies• Child welfare and family services agencies• Victim advocates• Education partners

Executive Order to Form a Committee on Prisoner Reentry In Rhode IslandIn 2004, Rhode Island Governor Donald Carcieri established a committee to create asystematic, statewide approach to increasing public safety through more effective offenderreentry. The executive order explicates that since recidivism rates top over 50 percent in thestate and that “all offenders, with the exception of 21 men serving life without parole, willeventually return to the community,” additional steps are necessary to ensure public safety.Executive Order 04-02 (State of Rhode Island, 2004) states:

I, Donald L. Carcieri, by virtue of the power vested in me as Governor of the State of RhodeIsland and Providence Plantations, do hereby order as follows:

1. The Governor’s Committee on Prisoner Reentry is hereby established to create acomprehensive plan and systematic approach to promoting reentry strategies for alloffenders prior to release from incarceration with continued support from probation,parole, and community-based agencies after release.

2. The Committee on Prisoner Reentry shall:a. Provide ongoing coordination at the executive level of reentry initiatives across the state;b. Ensure agreement on overall policy direction;c. Resolve policies and practices that impede successful reintegration;d. Assign senior staff from the departments and offices involved to implement establishedpriorities.

3. The Committee on Prisoner Reentry shall be comprised of at least fifteen members. Allmembers shall be appointed by the Governor, and shall serve at the pleasure of theGovernor. The Governor shall select a chairperson.

4. All executive state departments and agencies shall support the efforts and goals of theCommittee.


• Employment officials• Releasing authorities• Health and behavioral health representatives• Mentors• Faith and community-based partners

For adult offenders:• Criminal courts• Adult institutional corrections• Community supervision agencies• Paroling authorities• Victim advocates• Mental health agencies• Public health departments and other

healthcare agencies• Veterans’ affairs officials• Housing authorities• Employment agencies• Social services agencies• Faith and community-based partners

Representation by offenders, ex-offenders, oroffender rights organizations can also beappropriate and may impact the effectiveness ofa collaborative team because of the uniqueperspectives they are able to offer.

Policymaking CollaborativesAt the policymaking level, two tiers of teams areoften established: one that will function as thedecision making body on reentry policy issues,and one that will serve to implement thosedecisions. Case management teams are localizedin nature, involving individuals generallyresponsible for providing direct services tooffenders. These teams are all multidisciplinaryin nature, involving justice system, public sector,and community service agencies in addition toinstitutional corrections and communitysupervision agencies.

Policymaking Teams: Tier IPolicymaking teams often take two forms: adecision making body authorized to review andset policy for the state on reentry issues (Tier I),and a Tier II team charged with implementingthe decisions of the decision making body.

The Tier I team often is established by executiveorder of the governor; likewise, members,generally cabinet level executives, are appointedby the governor to serve on the team. In somestates the governor or his/her representative willchair the team; in other states, corrections

Rhode Island: Tier IIn Rhode Island, the Governor’s Office and Cabinet form the Tier I reentry group. Part of thegroup’s mission is to ensure that the State implements a collaborative policymaking effort toachieve the vision of effective offender reentry. The group’s mission reads:• Define the State’s vision for prisoner reentry;• Communicate the State’s vision for and commitment to prisoner reentry to agency staff

and, as appropriate, to those outside of state government;• Specifically articulate the role each agency in state government does and should play in

supporting effective reentry efforts;• Establish processes to assess the extent to which effective reentry policies and practices are

in place;• Assure communication among agency staff and agency leadership regarding policies and

practices currently in place;• Resolve challenges that arise as a result of coordinating activities among agencies;• Agree on policy changes that are essential to the achievement of the vision;• Secure and make effective use of resources, to the extent that additional resources are

needed;• Oversee the implementation of agreed upon policy changes; and• Monitor change strategies to determine if they are producing the desired results.



directors will assume that role. Although, giventheir critical role in offender reentry, institutionalcorrections and community supervision agenciesplay a key role in such policy teams, it is notuncommon for leadership to be situated in theoffice of the governor.

Tier I members generally include thoseindividuals with decision making authority fortheir agencies. Tier I team members generallyinclude directors (or equivalent positions) of allof the state’s justice system and public sectoragencies, such as corrections, workforce/labor,housing, welfare, mental health, economicdevelopment, education, public safety,transportation and social services. Communitypartners are also typically represented. Suchpartners might include victim advocacyorganizations, community groups, faith andcommunity-based organizations and treatmentproviders. Any statewide agency or organizationthat can either aid offenders in their successfultransition to the community or pose barriers totheir successful reintegration should beconsidered for inclusion on the team. The inputand unique lens through which this diversegroup of individuals sees the issue of reentry will

help to identify challenges as well as creativesolutions to those challenges.

The Tier I team may meet frequently or, as ismore likely given the other demands upon themembers, only several times each year. Like allcollaborative teams, Tier I teams will need tomeet more frequently in the beginning to developa team vision and mission and to determine howthe team will do business together.

Policymaking Teams: Tier IIThe Tier II team is generally responsible forimplementing the decisions of the Tier I team. Ifthe Tier I team is charged with deciding what willhappen, the Tier II team is responsible fordetermining how it will happen. Tier II teams aregenerally responsible for crafting andimplementing strategies for achieving the goalsset by the Tier I team.

This team is generally staffed by executivesempowered to make changes within theiragencies. Membership on the Tier II team willmirror that of Tier I in significant ways, in thatthe set of agencies and community partners willgenerally be the same. (The Tier II team may not

Rhode Island: Tier IIIn Rhode Island, the Governor’s Office and Cabinet has established a group of policy levelrepresentatives to form a Tier II group responsible for defining change strategies andoverseeing their implementation. Specifically, this group has developed five broad goals (withadditional objectives within each goal) to organize their offender reentry efforts in the state.These include:

• Implementing a comprehensive offender assessment strategy, including an empiricallybased offender assessment tool, and a process for designing a single, dynamic casemanagement plan for every offender.

• Assuring that the interventions available to offenders within the institutions, as well asthose provided in the community, meet the criminogenic needs of the offender population,and that offenders are appropriately matched to the needed interventions.

• Establishing proactive release planning that begins at intake and addresses barriers toreentry.

• Ensuring that offender supervision policies and practices support successful offenderreentry.

• Developing a unified data and information sharing process.


replicate the membership of Tier I completely,given the different purposes of the teams. Inboth cases, membership should be limited tothose individuals who can contributemeaningfully to the team’s purpose.)

To accomplish their goals effectively, the Tier IIteam typically meets more frequently, generally atleast monthly, to review progress and makedecisions on the implementation process. TheTier II team may have subcommittees of its own,charged with gathering information, craftingrecommendations, and performingimplementation tasks. The work of thesesubcommittees will feed into the work of the TierII team, just as the work of the Tier II team willcontribute to and enhance the performance ofthe Tier I team.

Case Management TeamsAs indicated above, case managementcollaboratives will be localized in nature, and willhave the purpose of bringing together individualsproviding direct services to offenders and theirfamilies in order to enhance an individualoffender’s opportunities for success. The team willmeet on a case-by-case basis to developappropriate intervention strategies and provideaccess to services and resources to supplementthose available within institutional corrections andcommunity supervision agencies. As part of thecase management plan, the team will developongoing monitoring and follow up activities and,as a team, share responsibility for making effortsto enhance the successful transition of theoffender. As with the policymaking teams,individuals from any agency that can eithersupport offenders in successfully transitioning to

Wisconsin Department of Corrections: Key Targets of ChangeA Department Reentry Steering Committee, consisting of representatives from each division inthe Department, was appointed to evaluate and coordinate the Department’s reentry efforts.Ultimately, the committee identified key targets for change, developed charters with targetedareas of emphasis within the Department, and formed cross divisional teams to address thetargeted areas. These include:

• Creating an inmate unified case plan: The unified case plan will be used by staff in boththe Division of Community Corrections and Adult Institutions.

• Creating a standardized prerelease program: The program includes a module fortransitional preparation which makes communication between Community Correctionsand Adult Institutions mandatory.

• Enhancing continuity of services for offenders with alcohol and other drug abuse issues:Addressing the continuum from prison to the community that builds on treatment/relapseprevention that does not duplicate resources and targets needs.

• Establishing employment readiness and placement: Connecting what education is beingprovided to offenders in institutions to the current community labor market.

• Encouraging mentors and enhancing community support networks.• Addressing the needs of our special populations, such as female offenders and the

mentally ill: Enhanced reentry case planning between the institutions and the field.• Enhancing staff development and training opportunities: A pilot for field/institution

practicum is targeted for rollout in July 2007. The practicum will increase awareness of jobduties of counterparts in the field and within institutions, which will increasecommunication between divisions.

- Matthew Frank, Former Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Corrections


the community or pose barriers to success shouldbe included on the team. Memorandums ofUnderstanding that delineate clearly theresponsibilities of each partner to the collaborativemay be useful in the early stages of collaboration.Such documents formalize the commitment ofteam members and can assist all team membersin understanding not only their role in the processbut also the role of other team members.

The case management process, including thecomposition of effective case managementteams, is covered in the TPC Case ManagementHandbook, produced under the Transition from

Prison to Community (TPC) initiative sponsoredby the National Institute of Corrections.

ConclusionEffective reentry strategies require those bestequipped to assist offenders in becomingsuccessful within the community (in authority,knowledge, or resources) to come together tocraft solutions to the complex challenges facingoffenders. In order to do this, institutionalcorrections and community supervision agenciesmust engage in multidisciplinary collaborativeswith external partners who bring those elementsto the table.

Wisconsin: Collaboration at the Local LevelThe Great Lakes Inter-Tribal Council collaborates with the Wisconsin Division of JuvenileCorrections (DJC) (2006) to assist Native American youth as they transition back into thecommunity. A representative of the Council meets with youth during their stay in theinstitution and serves as a liaison with the community. He provides them with informationabout their heritage and traditions, and provides skill-building opportunities specific to eachchild’s needs. Upon release from the institution, the representative will escort the youth backinto the community to try to reconnect him with his tribe.

Michigan: Multi-Layered CollaborationsMichigan provides an excellent example of multi-layered, collaborative partnerships working toincrease offender success. Each pilot site of the Michigan Prisoner Reentry Initiative (MPRI)(2007) has a Local ReEntry Advisory Council made up of key stakeholders in the communitywho work to educate the community and build support for the effort and a Steering Team ledby the Warden of the community’s releasing facility, a representative from the local fieldoperations office, and two representatives from faith-based, human service, or planningcommunity organizations. This Steering Team is mandated by the Governor to include activerepresentatives from all the service agencies necessary for effective prisoner reentry, includingemployment, vocational training and education, housing, healthcare, mental health, alcoholand drug abuse services, family and child welfare, community-based and faith-basedorganizations, victim advocates, and ex-offenders.

The Steering Team then appoints service providers to a Transition Team. The Transition Teamworks with the incarcerated offender, institutional staff, and parole agents (who are provided anoffice within the institution) to develop a Transition Accountability Plan (TAP) to ensure thatthe transition of the offender from prison to the community is seamless. These collaboratingpartners work together and share information to create and update the TAP, which serves as acase management and supervision plan for the offender while incarcerated, preparing forrelease, and under supervision in the community.


Collaborating with key external stakeholders willhelp to ensure that all parties who affect or areaffected by offender reentry have a voice inresolving common barriers to transition and canoffer unique and effective suggestions about howto resolve common problems. Working as acollaborative unit will enable the team to makethe most of limited resources and devisecomplementary reentry policies and practicesthat will support the successful transition ofoffenders back into the community, in an effortto enhance public safety. Key stakeholdersinclude public sector agencies, faith- andcommunity-based service and treatmentagencies, members of the public, and others,including employers and educational/vocationalrepresentatives, victim advocates, and housingauthorities. These stakeholders bring importantand necessary perspectives and resources tobear on the issue of offender reentry.

Collaboration can be difficult and can require asubstantial investment of time on the part of allagencies involved. However, the payoff is likely tobe significant. While it will undoubtedly requirean initial investment of time and energy toidentify, bring, and keep all key stakeholders atthe table, the distribution of responsibilities anddiscretion that is shared across all agenciesinvolved in offender reentry makes collaborationnecessary (McGarry & Ney, 2006). As alreadynoted, no one agency can solve the manychallenges associated with offender reentry. Inorder to reach the collective goal of safercommunities through successful offenderreentry, agencies must be willing to shareinformation and resources (e.g., throughimplementing memoranda of understanding),set aside individual agency agendas inconsideration of the needs of the larger group,and make a top priority of actively participatingin the collaborative for as long as it takes to worktoward attainment of the desired goals.

• Promote the establishment ofmultidisciplinary teams that operateat both a policymaking and casemanagement level.

• Identify and bring together keyexternal policymaking stakeholders tothe offender reentry process. Theseinclude corrections, workforce/labor,housing, welfare, mental health,economic development, education,public safety, transportation, socialservices, and other community andfaith-based service providers.

• Create multiple layers of multidiscipli-nary collaborative teams to addresspolicy issues related to offenderreentry (Tier I), implement offenderreentry strategies across agencies(Tier II), craft and oversee theimplementation of the agency’sstrategic plan (steering committee),and address the needs of individualoffenders in crafting interventionsstrategies (case management teams).

• When appropriate, developMemorandums of Understanding thatdelineate clearly the responsibilities ofeach partner to the collaborative.

KEY STEPS

CHAPTER 4: HOW TO COLLABORATEThe simple willingness to collaborate is animportant element for any collaborative team.The process of collaboration, however, is onethat requires a specific set of skills and tools inorder to be successful. This chapter provides abrief overview of the important steps in creatinga collaborative and the characteristics of aneffective team.

Developing a Shared Vision forthe Team’s WorkIn Section Three, the need to develop a vision foroffender reentry for the institutional correctionsand community supervision agencies wasdiscussed. The purpose of developing an agencyvision is to provide direction for the efforts of theagency and an understanding of the preferredfuture toward which the agency is striving. Thevision articulates the values and beliefs of theagency and serves both to motivate and inform.During the rational planning process (covered inSection Four), the agency’s vision for reentrydrives the work of the steering committee as itseeks to develop and implement a strategic planfor offender reentry.

For many of the same reasons, a shared vision isnecessary for any collaborative team to besuccessful. Teams must be clear from the onsetabout what they want to accomplish and howthey will work together to achieve it. Althoughthis may seem like a natural first step in thecollaborative process, many teams rush to actionwithout first thinking about what they collectivelywant the ultimate result of their work to be.

Initially, team members may not consider a visionstatement to be necessary. Not yet understandingthe nature of collaboration and that the teammust be striving to accomplish togethersomething they cannot accomplish individually,they may believe that other vision statementscrafted outside the collaborative efforts of theteam are adequate to guide the team’s work. Inshort, they do not yet understand how the wholecan be more than the sum of its parts.

The team should work together to establish avision statement (or a statement about thepreferred future) as one of their first tasks. Toestablish this vision, teams will need to engagein a process that takes into account the diverseopinions and backgrounds of all the participatingindividuals, divisions, and/or agencies, and cometo consensus on an overarching goal that willdrive the team’s work. Common visionstatements for reentry-focused teams include“Reducing recidivism through seamless andeffective reentry practices,” or “Enhancingcommunity safety by effectively transitioningoffenders to the community.”

Team members should refer to and reflect upontheir vision as they embark on their worktogether. The vision statement serves as animportant anchor for team members as theybecome involved in the day-to-day and oftencomplex work of implementing changes that willmove them in the direction of achieving theirvision.8

Crafting a Mission StatementAfter the team has developed a vision statementfor its work, it must also develop a missionstatement that clearly delineates the action it willtake in service of the vision. An effective mission

Department of Correction staff and ParoleReentry Officers conducted a series ofcross-trainings. (Line officers who havetalked on the phone for years met face toface!) DOC staff took a field trip to theParole regional offices and were providedan orientation to field operations. Parolestaff were hosted at the institutions toattend triage meetings (case conferences).This was all in service of developing ashared vision of our work.





statement will lay out the work the collaborativewill do in order to work toward progress on thevision. The mission statement should definespecifically what the work group’s focus will be,and should be measurable, with performanceoutcomes and deadlines for accomplishment.The mission statement will provide theframework for the work of the team, and goalsand objectives (specific action steps to beaccomplished in furtherance of the mission) willbe developed based on the mission statement.

Characteristics of Effective TeamsSubstantial research from disciplines outside ofthe criminal justice field has shed light on whysome teams are successful and others are not.Teams who are just starting out should considerthe elements that make teams effective and workto incorporate these elements into theircollaborative efforts.

There are eight characteristics that are commonamong teams that become successfulcollaboratives. Those characteristics include(Larson & LaFasto, 1989):

• A clear and elevating goal (or vision). High-performing teams have both a clearunderstanding of the goal to be achieved anda belief that the goal embodies a worthwhileor important result; teams with a clear andelevating goal understand that whether theteam succeeds clearly makes a difference. Forreentry collaboratives, the vision of enhancingcommunity safety through the successfultransition of offenders to the community is acenterpiece of the team’s efforts.

• Results-driven structure. A team’s structureshould be designed around the results to beachieved. Teams should have clear roles andaccountabilities (e.g., team members knowtheir role on the team and what is expected ofthem), have an effective communicationsystem (e.g., important decisions and findingsare documented, issues are discussed in anopen environment), have a method tomonitor the team’s performance and provide

feedback (to ensure that expectations of allteam members are being met), and use fact-based judgments (e.g., objective, factual dataform the basis for the team’s decisionmaking).

• Competent team members. In this context,competency refers not only to the necessaryskills and abilities needed to do the work, butalso the personal characteristics required toachieve excellence while working well withothers. Three common features of competentteam members are the essential skills andabilities to conduct the work, a strong desireto contribute, and the capacity to collaborateeffectively.

• Unified commitment. Unified commitment isbest characterized by team spirit, or a sense ofloyalty and dedication to the team. It is oftenexhibited by a sense of excitement andenthusiasm for the team and its work, awillingness to do anything that has to be doneto help the team succeed, and an intenseidentification with the people who are on theteam.

• Collaborative climate. A collaborative climateis most commonly described in the adage,“The whole is greater than the sum of itsparts.” Teams operating in a truly collaborativeclimate work well together, and trust is amainstay virtue. Trust is bred by honesty (i.e.,integrity and truthfulness), consistency (i.e.,predictable behavior and responses), andrespect (i.e., treating people with dignity andfairness).

• Standards of excellence. Standards define thoseexpectations that eventually determine thelevel of performance a team deemsacceptable. Three variables are integral toestablishing and sustaining standards ofexcellence: the extent to which the team’sstandards are clearly and concretelyarticulated, the ability of team members tomeet those standards, and the team’s abilityto exert pressure on itself to improve.


• External support and recognition. Externalsupport and recognition is measured by theextent to which those individuals and agenciesoutside the team who are capable ofcontributing to the team’s success acknowledgeand support the work of the team.

• Principled leadership. Leadership is necessaryto any collaborative endeavor. Ideally,collaborative teams have more than their fairshare of leaders, individuals who demonstrateleadership qualities such as vision, have thewillingness to ask “what” and “why” andchallenge the status quo, and who stay clearlyfocused on the team’s destination. Effectiveleaders keep the team results-oriented andfocused on their vision. They inspireenthusiasm and encourage action. All of thesequalities are important to the work of thecollaborative team, to effectuate change.

Assessing the State ofCollaborationTeams may have worked together on other issuesin the past and, as a result, may have a history ofworking well together. Conversely, they may havefaced challenges to their efforts to collaborateeffectively in their prior work groups. As a result,one of the first steps of the team should be toassess the state of the collaborative team fromthe onset. One measure of the team’s ability tocollaborate is the Collaboration Survey(http://www.collaborativejustice.org/assess/survey.htm), a multi-question scoring instrumentdesigned to assess how well teams are trulycollaborating. Administering this survey at thebeginning of the team’s work and then on aperiodic basis thereafter will help to ensure thatthe team is working well together over time.

Supporting the Team andthe ProcessNo matter what issue a team undertakes, staffsupport will be key to its success. Reentry teamswill require support in terms of coordinationacross multiple agencies, as well as datacollection and analysis, strategic planning,implementation of change strategies, andmonitoring and evaluation. Teams will need todesignate members of the team, or in somecases hire a staff member or multiple individuals,to function as the team’s staff.

In order to operate effectively, teams shouldensure that the following roles are filled:

• A chair (often the team’s substantive leader),someone who is well respected by allmembers of the team, has the capacity toobtain buy-in from the leadership of allrelevant agencies and stakeholders, and isable to affect change. (This role should befilled by a stakeholder from one of theparticipating agencies, e.g., a key individual inthe governor’s office, the corrections director,et cetera.)

• A facilitator (ideally an objective person who isnot a member of the team and therefore hasno stake in outcomes of the team’s decisions)who can guide the work of the team

• An administrative staff person who isresponsible for organizing meetings,developing meeting records, andcommunicating with all members of the teamabout meeting dates, work assignments, anddeadlines. (This role might be filled by avolunteer from a participating agency.)

The most important single ingredient inthe formula of success is knowing how toget along with people.

- Theodore Roosevelt

Effective leaders establish a vision of thefuture, enlist others to embrace the vision,create change, and unleash the energy andtalent of contributing members.

- CEPP, 2005b


These three parties should work together on anongoing basis to (adapted from Gilligan & Carter,2006):

• Establish a system of communication, includingsetting an appropriate meeting schedule.Ensuring that the team has a way tocommunicate and exchange information iscrucial. Regular team meetings are a commonmethod of ongoing communication.Facilitators should help the group to decide ona regular meeting schedule and attend to thedetails of when and where the meetings willbe held, how long the meetings will be, andwho is expected to attend.

• Guide the team through the establishment ofground rules. Very early in the group process,members should have a discussion abouttheir ground rules, which should establishteam members’ expectations for their conductwith one another.

• Define meeting goals and the products that willbe produced. Each meeting should beconvened with a specific set of goals in mindand should result in one or more products.

• Develop meeting agendas that will direct theteam’s work. Detailed agendas should indicatethe tasks to be accomplished; the fulfillmentof these should result in the achievement ofthe meeting’s goals and the production of thedesired work product(s).

• Guide the team’s discussions during meetings.The team’s facilitator should guide the group’sdiscussions in such a way as to ensure that allmembers have a voice and have anopportunity to contribute equally.

• Summarize key points. Summarizing facilitatesa progressive discussion by demonstratingthat members have been heard.

• Note key points and decisions throughout eachmeeting. Documenting a meeting’sdiscussions, typically through the use of a flip

chart, facilitates progressive dialogues bynoting on paper key points and decisions.

• Determine the team’s mode of decision making.Teams will need to surface critical issues fordiscussion and come to a resolution of howdecisions will be made (e.g., by consensus ormajority rule).

• Identify methods for team members to educateone another about their individual roles andresponsibilities. Reentry teams are composedof individuals who represent a variety ofinterests, whether they are from the sameagency or many. While members typicallyappreciate the diversity of their colleagues’points of view, they often do not havesufficient background knowledge to appreciatethem fully.

• Surface the values individual members bring tothe team process and find common groundamong these. Individual values can be criticallyimportant when it comes to making decisions.For this reason, teams should set aside timeto air their personal values and then agreeupon a set of core values they will use toguide their work together. Doing so will assurethat the decisions made are based upon thegroup’s agreed upon values rather than eachindividual’s personal values.

• Clarify each individual’s roles andresponsibilities on the team, and clearlyarticulate the expectations of team members.Teams should work to articulate the roles andresponsibilities of each team member so thateach member knows what is expected of himor her.

• Establish a work plan that includes specificgoals and objectives designed to assure thesuccess of the team in achieving its mission.The identification of specific goals andobjectives will serve as the team’s road mapto achieving its mission. Teams shoulddevelop a specific work plan complete withindividual assignments and deadlines and


routinely review and update the plan to ensurethat work is progressing.

• Hold team members accountable for theirwork. For a collaborative effort to succeed,each individual must commit to do his or herpart. Once this is done, the group’s normshould be to hold one another accountable tothese commitments.

Achieving all of these tasks will not be easy, butis likely to yield significant dividends. The moredisciplines and agencies that are involved inexamining the hurdles associated with reentryand crafting possible solutions, the more likelythe chance that the team will succeed inachieving its vision.

ConclusionAlthough the process of collaboration can provedifficult, given the many and sometimesconflicting interests of those coming together toaddress offender reentry, research has providedimportant tools to assist in the functioning ofeffective collaborative teams. These tools can beapplied across different types of collaborativeteams, regardless of their purpose. Whethercollaborative teams are formed withininstitutional corrections and communitysupervision agencies, or between those agenciesand other external stakeholders, it is importantthat the research on effective teams be applied inthe establishment and management of theseteams. Attention to process as well as substanceis essential to a successful collaborative.

• Develop vision and mission state-ments for each collaborative, to focusand guide the work of the team.

• Identify staff support for the team.• When possible, make use of an out-

side facilitator to assist the group inits process.

• Use the Collaboration Survey or otherassessment tool to determine theteam's effectiveness.

• Value process as much as substancein collaborative efforts.

KEY STEPS

A shared commitment to realize specifiedgoals and outcomes forms the basis forcollaboration; those goals and outcomesare the criteria by which to judge a team’seffectiveness, make decisions on changeinitiatives and the use of resources, andchoose among competing problems andsolutions.

- McGarry & Ney, 2006

Assess Your Agency:Collaboration

Yes No NotClear

1. Has a State-level, multidisciplinary policy team been established tocollaboratively direct a comprehensive effort to improve offendermanagement and reentry policies and practices?

2. Are the leaders of State agencies that are responsible for, orcontribute to, offender management and reentry committed toworking together on this issue?

3. Have individual stakeholders identified the ways in which theiragencies can contribute to effective offender management andreentry?

4. Do stakeholders demonstrate equal ownership and investment inoffender reentry?

5. Does the team include individuals, agencies, and organizations fromthe State that:• Are directly or indirectly responsible for offender management?• Work closely with, or advocate for, victims?• Provide mentoring or positive supports for offenders?• Offer educational and vocational services to offenders?• Promote access to appropriate and affordable housing for offenders?• Provide mental health services to offenders?• Facilitate access to employment opportunities for offenders?• Provide support and assistance to children and families of formerlyincarcerated individuals?

6. Are the efforts of the team defined through a clearly articulatedvision, a clear mission, and specific goals regarding offendermanagement and reentry in the State?

7. Has leadership, facilitation, and staff support been dedicated to theState-level multidisciplinary team?

8. At the case management level, do staff members collaborate with oneanother to facilitate successful offender reentry (e.g., doinstitutionally-based staff collaborate with one another; doinstitutional and community-based staff work together to ensure asmooth transition and continuity of care; does communitysupervision work closely with service providers and others to assureeffective case management)?



ReferencesBumby, K., Talbot, T., & Carter, M. (2007).Managing the challenges of sex offender reentry.Silver Spring, MD: Center for Sex OffenderManagement (CSOM), Center for Effective PublicPolicy.

Carter, M. (2005). Collaboration: A trainingcurriculum to enhance the effectiveness of criminaljustice teams. Silver Spring, MD: Center forEffective Public Policy.

Center for Effective Public Policy (CEPP) (2005a).What is collaborative justice?http://www.collaborativejustice.org/what.htm,last accessed May 28, 2007. Silver Spring, MD:Author.

Center for Effective Public Policy (CEPP) (2005b).How to collaborate.http://www.collaborativejustice.org/how.htm, lastaccessed May 28, 2007. Silver Spring, MD:Author.

Center for Effective Public Policy (CEPP) (2005c).Who collaborates in criminal justice?http://www.collaborativejustice.org/who.htm, lastaccessed May 28, 2007. Silver Spring, MD:Author.

Center for Effective Public Policy (CEPP) (2007).Community safety through successful offenderreentry: A training curriculum for correctionspolicymakers. Washington DC: U.S. Departmentof Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau ofJustice Assistance.

Gilligan, L. & Carter, M. (2006). The role offacilitators and staff in supporting collaborativeteams. Silver Spring, MD: Center for EffectivePublic Policy.

Huxham, C. (Ed.) (1996). Creating collaborativeadvantage. London, England: Sage.

Larson, C., & LaFasto, F. (1989). Teamwork:What must go right, what can go wrong. NewburyPark, CA: Sage.

McGarry, P. & Ney, B. (2006). Getting it right:Collaborative problem solving for criminal justice.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,National Institute of Corrections.

Michigan Prisoner ReEntry Initiative (MPRI)(2007). Creating safer neighborhoods and bettercitizens (Web site). http://www.michpri.com/index.php?page=home, last accessed December11, 2007.

Petersilia, J. (2003). When prisoners come home.New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

State of Rhode Island (2004). Governor’ssteering committee on corrections reform andprisoner reentry. Executive Order 04-02.http://www.doc.ri.gov/documents/reentry/04-02_PRISONER_REENTRY.pdf, last accessedDecember 11, 2007.

Wisconsin Division of Juvenile Corrections (DJC)(2006). DJC Newsletter, November 2006.http://www.wi.doc.com/index_juvenile.htm, lastaccessed December 11, 2007.

INTRODUCTIONAttempting to ensure that adult and juvenileoffenders will exit correctional institutions andreenter communities as crime-free, responsible,and contributing members of society can be adaunting endeavor. The steady rise in prisonadmissions and releases, in and of itself, poses asignificant challenge to facilitating successfulreentry. Factoring in influences such as negativepublic sentiment, political exigencies, andincreased scrutiny by policymakers onlyexacerbates the complexity of these efforts.Complicating matters even further are theremnants of the “nothing works” era incorrections that began in the late 1970s andlasted for roughly two decades (see, e.g.,Andrews & Bonta, 2007; Burke & Tonry, 2006;Petersilia, 2003). Largely a function of a reportedlack of evidence to support their effectiveness,rehabilitative ideals were replaced with anemphasis on incapacitation, deterrence,proportionality, and punishment as the primarymeans of crime control and communityprotection. Certainly, these are important aspectsof the correctional system, but they are notsufficient for reducing recidivism and increasingpublic safety.

Recent trends continue to show an increase inthe number of released offenders who aresubsequently reincarcerated within short periodsof time (Harrison & Beck, 2006). As a result,today’s institutional corrections and communitysupervision agencies are faced with the questionof how to stop the revolving door phenomenonwhile maintaining community safety. Correctionalpolicymakers and practitioners undoubtedly want

to do the right thing, but good intentions do notalways translate into correctional policies andoffender management practices that will beeffective. Unfortunately, the range of strategiesthat sound right, look right, or feel right may notactually be right. Therefore, to help guidecorrections agencies toward what is right forreducing recidivism and increasing public safety,this section provides an overview of the research-supported principles and practices that can beused to establish a maximally effective system ofoffender management.

Chapter 1 offers a working definition of anevidence-based approach, outlines the ways inwhich correctional research can be evaluated,and highlights a number of benefits of anevidence-based approach. Building upon the coreevidence-based principles of effective correctionalintervention, Chapter 2 emphasizes the key rolethat assessment plays in facilitating efficient andeffective case management decisions throughoutthe institutional correctional and communitysupervision systems, from the point of intake,throughout the course of incarceration, andfollowing release to the community. Chapter 3provides an overview of the correctionalprograms, services, and interventions for adultand juvenile offenders that researchdemonstrates are effective in reducing recidivismand promoting positive offender outcomes. Alsoaddressed are the multiple elements that areessential for ensuring program implementationand integrity, without which correctionalprograms and services will be ineffective.

Section Six:

Key Strategies in EffectiveOffender Management Kurt M. Bumby



Research-supported and promising strategies forpost-release supervision are presented inChapter 4, with an emphasis on the value andeffectiveness of a balanced approach tosupervising adult and juvenile offenders in thecommunity. Chapter 5 clarifies that effectiveoffender management strategies are not solelyabout assessment processes, specific programsand services, or supervision practices. Rather,evidence-based practice in corrections is also afunction of the nature of the relationships and

interactions between corrections practitionersand staff, all of whom can be powerful agents ofchange. Finally, Chapter 6 synthesizes theevidence-based strategies highlighted throughoutthis section into the overarching process andillustration of case management in corrections.Taken together, these chapters demonstrate that,when structured within a broader reentryframework, effective offender managementstrategies play a significant role in promotingpublic safety through successful offender reentry.

CHAPTER 1: AN EVIDENCE-BASEDAPPROACH TO REENTRY

IntroductionWhen the safety of communities is at hand, noone would dispute the inadvisability of decisionmaking guided primarily by instinct, reaction, ortrial and error. Indeed, many institutionalcorrections and community supervision agencyofficials nationwide recognize the need for a well-informed reentry strategy that will help themattain the overarching goal of public safety.Fortunately, they have the benefit of years ofempirical evidence that illustrates the specificinterventions and strategies that are effective forreducing recidivism among adult and juvenileoffenders. As such, the movement towardevidence-based correctional practice has becomeincreasingly popular.

What an Evidence-BasedApproach Means and AchievesFor corrections officials and other keypolicymakers, the concept of an evidence-basedapproach is alluring, as it provides guidanceabout what works and alleviates concerns aboutwhether the decision to modify specific adult andjuvenile offender management strategies will beworth the investment. In addition to crimereduction, it carries with it the promise of costeffectiveness and better resource utilization.However, it has become a cliché in some ways.Sometimes, an evidence-based approach isendorsed by agencies without a full appreciationof the implications at the policy level, whatimplementation requires at the practice level, oreven what an evidence-based approach truly is.

Becoming evidence-based is not simply aboutissuing an executive order or instituting a revisedseries of policies. Nor is it solely aboutestablishing a new cluster of programs andservices. Rather, it is a shared philosophy andapproach that permeates the correctionalsystem. As emphasized in the precedingsections, it is a commitment to a new way of

doing business. For the purposes of thishandbook, the following working definition wasdeveloped to describe what is meant by anevidence-based approach:

Just as numerous other disciplines and agencies(e.g., medical, mental health, education, childwelfare) have come to rely on research to informtheir efforts and enhance their effectiveness,adult and juvenile corrections agencies can alsodraw upon empirical evidence to improve results.Indeed, a considerable body of contemporaryresearch exists already and is instructive not onlywith respect to what works in corrections, butalso what does not work (see, e.g., Andrews &Bonta, 2007; Aos, Miller, & Drake, 2006; Aos,Phipps, Barnoski, & Lieb, 2001; MacKenzie,2006). Taking full advantage of this literature canresult in the following:

• Evidence-Based Policies. Legislators and otherpolicymakers develop well-informed criminaland juvenile justice provisions andoverarching agency standards grounded inresearch about what is most effective andwhat is not effective for enhancing publicsafety.

• Evidence-Based Practices. Correctionspractitioners judiciously invest their effortsand resources on methods demonstrated byresearch to reduce recidivism and promoteother successful outcomes, rather than onstrategies empirically shown to have either noimpact (or an undesirable impact), or whichremain yet untested.

The objective, balanced, and responsibleuse of current scientific evidence to guidecorrectional strategies in a manner thatwill facilitate the most effective outcomes.



The body of correctional literature is everevolving, and with new research comes thepotential for new evidence that either supports orrefutes current strategies. Adopting an evidence-based approach thus requires agencies to makean ongoing commitment to adjust policies andpractices over time in accordance with thecontemporary research.

An Evidence-Based ApproachRequires Careful Weighing of theEvidenceGenerally speaking, establishing public policy,including that within the criminal justice arena,can be the subject of much controversy. Wheninterested parties with opposing viewpointsdebate the issues at hand, it is not uncommonfor them to cite examples of research evidenceselected to support the merits of their respectivepositions. Such an approach is clearly not anobjective or balanced use of the availableresearch.

Identifying effective correctional interventionsand other offender management strategies is notsimply a matter of tallying the number of studiesthat support a specific intervention andcomparing it to the count of those studies thatfailed to support the intervention. All research isnot created equal. Variations in the ways in whichstudies are designed, carried out, and ultimatelyreported have an impact on the relative weightthat should be placed on the findings. While notan exhaustive list, the following are among themost common and useful factors to considerwhen weighing empirical evidence.

Sample SizeAn important first step is to be aware of thenumber of offenders that were included in agiven study, because sample size makes a veryreal difference. Small samples limit the ability ofresearchers to generalize the findings, becausethese offenders are less likely to berepresentative of the larger offender population.This is because the idiosyncratic characteristicsof a small group of offenders can skew thefindings in one direction or another. Conversely,

the greater the sample size, the better thechances are for having a sample that moreclosely resembles offenders in general.

Consider how likely it is that a group of twentyoffenders will “look like” the broader offenderpopulation, in contrast to a sample of 500offenders. In addition to the increased potentialto be able to generalize the findings and makebroader inferences, large sample sizes also offermore statistical power and precision to theresearch. This means that any observedintervention effects (or lack thereof) are morelikely to be real and not simply due to chance.Simply put, large sample sizes result in a greaterdegree of confidence that research findings aremore reliable, meaningful, and applicable. Inaddition, large sample sizes allow researchers toask more refined questions about therelationship between specific variables of interest(e.g., age, gender) and the outcomes that aremeasured.

Comparison GroupsIn order to determine whether a specificcorrectional intervention has a significant impacton outcomes, researchers must be able tocompare the offenders who received thatintervention to offenders who received nointervention and/or a different intervention.Without comparison groups, neither theresearcher nor the consumers of the researchhave a reference point and, as such, the findingsprovide little to no guidance with respect topolicy and practice decisions. For example,simply reporting a low recidivism rate for a groupof juvenile offenders who completed a cognitiveskills program does not provide any evidencethat the recidivism rate is linked to that specificintervention. To begin making any reasonableinferences about the effectiveness of thecognitive skills program, one would need toknow the recidivism rate for juvenile offenderswho did not participate in the program.

The existence of a comparison group does notautomatically mean that observed differencesbetween the intervention and control groups are

definitely the result of the interventions. Otherinfluences may be operating (e.g., different ages,different risk levels, additional interventions thatwere provided) and could be confounding thefindings. Therefore, reference groups should bematched to the intervention groups based ondemographic characteristics, recidivism risk,crime type, and other important variables. Thishelps to ensure that the groups are as similar toone another as possible. Much like using largesample sizes, using matched comparison groupsmakes it more likely that any significantdifferences in outcomes can be attributed to theintervention.

Random AssignmentEven though carefully matching intervention andcomparison groups increases the value of theevidence, this is still not the ideal researchdesign. Indeed, the ways in which those groupsare identified for inclusion in the first place candistort the findings. It could be that theintervention group was comprised of highlymotivated offenders and that the comparisongroup primarily included resistant offenders, orthat the offenders in the intervention group werealready at low risk to recidivate, whereas thecomparison group primarily included high riskoffenders. These important preexistingdifferences are known as selection biases, whichcan artificially inflate the findings and leadconsumers to make stronger inferences aboutthe impact of the intervention than are actuallyjustified.

The preferred method for attempting to level theplaying field is to draw from a single source ofpotential research subjects and then randomlyassign them to the intervention and comparisongroups. Because the subsequent groups ofoffenders came from the same larger group anddid not preexist as independent groups, theprocess of random assignment ideally results inequivalent samples that are not systematicallydifferent across key variables. Randomassignment cannot guarantee that this willalways be the case, however. As such,researchers must still compare the interventionand comparison groups to ensure theirequivalence and statistically control for anydifferences that surfaced despite the randomassignment process. Although randomassignment is ideal, it is certainly not alwaysfeasible within correctional systems. Someoffenders who need risk-reducing interventions(e.g., substance abuse treatment, intensive post-release supervision) would not receive them ifthey were subjects of a study that used arandomized design. That would be incompatiblewith the broader correctional goal of maximizingpublic safety and could potentially violate equalprotection provisions of the law.

Cross-Site ReplicationIdeally, the results of individual studies can begeneralized so that corrections agenciesthroughout the country have the benefit ofapplying the findings to their own offendermanagement systems. In addition to having a

Questions to Consider When Evaluating Research Evidence• Does the research sample include the specific offender population of interest (e.g., adults,

juveniles, female offenders)?• Is the sample size large enough to consider them to be relatively representative of the

population of interest?• Were comparison groups used?• If comparison groups were used, did the researcher make sure that the intervention and

comparison groups were similar or matched?• Were offenders randomly assigned to intervention and comparison groups?• If confounding variables existed, did the analysis control for those factors?• Have these findings been replicated in other locations?• Was this study published in a professional scientific journal?



sound research design, this can be accomplishedwhen other independent sites in other locationscreate identical or very similar studies and thosestudies yield parallel results. Commonly knownas cross-site replication, this approach increasesthe confidence that the observed interventioneffects are genuine and not simply an artifact ofthe research design, specific samples used,location, or other confounding variables. Cross-site replication is especially important when theresearcher has a vested interest in the outcomesbecause they are testing a model that theydeveloped themselves, are receiving externalfunds or other resources from a party that hasfinancial interests in the outcomes, or relying onongoing funding or support that is contingent onpositive demonstrations.

Meta-AnalysisThe factors described above are useful whenconsidering the evidence obtained from singleresearch studies. The higher the quality of theresearch, the more weight it holds and the moreimplications it has for institutional correctionaland community supervision practices. However,an evidence-based approach is not designedsolely around one or two individual studies, evenif they are high quality. Taking into account only alimited number of studies can result in bias andsubjectivity, whether intentional or inadvertent. Atruly evidence-based approach is based on acomprehensive and systematic review of the bestavailable research and takes into account thestrengths and limitations of the individualstudies that comprise that larger body ofevidence. This also means that as newinformation surfaces, it must be consideredwithin the context of previous research.

A generally objective and increasingly commonapproach to weighing the broad research base isknown as meta-analysis. It allows researchers toevaluate, concurrently and systematically, theaccumulation of empirical studies about aspecific intervention in order to identify anoverall effect size. A meta-analysis can alsocontrol for potentially confounding variables(e.g., quality of research design, older versusnewer studies, researcher affiliation with the

program being studied). As such, thissophisticated statistical analysis is animprovement over rudimentary and non-scientific methods such as simply counting thenumber of studies that support the effectivenessof a specific intervention and comparing theresults to the number of studies that did notsupport the effectiveness of that intervention.

The Multiple Benefits of anEvidence-Based ApproachWhen the research is weighed carefully, when itsimplications for the current system of offendermanagement are explored fully, and when it isstrategically applied to institutional correctionaland community supervision policies andpractices, the paramount benefit is reducedrecidivism and increased public safety. Evidence-based strategies also prove advantageous foradult and juvenile offenders and their families inmultiple ways, such as enhancing problem-solving skills, strengthening importantrelationships and community supports,solidifying protective factors for the family,managing the complex dynamics associated withthe offender’s return home, and maintainingoverall stability within the home. In addition,when corrections agencies adopt an evidence-based approach, multiple other benefits arerealized, as highlighted below:

• Internal Clarity and Meaning. Sometimes,agency policies and practices exist withoutstaff members having a full understanding ofthe underlying reasons for why they do whatthey do, other than because it is simply howthings have always been done. Using research-supported strategies presents an importantopportunity to move beyond the status quo.Staff members can be engaged and educatedabout effective correctional interventions andhow their work in the institution orcommunity is part of a bigger picture (theways in which they contribute to public safetythrough successful reentry). Thisdemonstrates a specific purpose for theirwork, demonstrates the value of theirrespective roles in the agency, and emphasizesthat what they do (and how they do it) on a

day-to-day basis truly matters and makes areal difference in both the short and longterm.

• External Explanatory Power. Groundingcorrectional policies in empirical evidence canalso be enlightening and instructive forstakeholders outside the criminal justicesystem, including legislators, other agencies,victims and their families, and the broaderpublic. Specifically, it provides a clear andarguably indisputable rationale (i.e., increasedpublic safety) behind the interventions andstrategies that are being employed and explainswhy other approaches are not being used. Thiscan ultimately instill a greater degree ofconfidence about the efforts of institutional andcommunity corrections agencies, which in turncan foster increased support.

• Resource Efficiency. Adopting an evidence-based approach also ensures that correctionalresources will be strategically deployed in amanner that yields the best results from adollars and sense perspective. As highlightedin the chapters which follow, when research-supported correctional interventions are used,the subsequent net benefits resulting fromcrime reductions outweigh the costs ofimplementing these interventions (Aos et al.,2001; Cohen, 2005; Drake, 2007; McDougall,Cohen, Swaray, & Perry, 2003; Welsh, 2004;Welsh & Farrington, 2000). Put simply,institutional and community correctionsagencies get more bang for the buck.

• System Accountability. Because such acommitment creates a results-drivenstructure, it promotes accountability fordemonstrating outcomes. By monitoringeffectiveness of interventions and strategiesthat are employed, as well as the integrity oftheir implementation, agency officials arebetter able to identify key strengths and needs.Refinement of correctional policies andpractices can be made accordingly, all in theinterest of maximizing public safety and otheroutcomes.

ConclusionCorrections agencies nationwide are faced withgrowing prison populations and are charged withreducing recidivism among the large number ofadult and juvenile offenders who are released.Administrators and practitioners alike continueto seek the most effective and efficient methodsto respond to this challenge. Adopting anevidence-based approach provides the neededanswers. When current research is used wisely toinform correctional policies and practices,increasing public safety through successfulreentry becomes possible.

• Revisit the agency’s vision and mis-sion for reentry to identify the extentto which they complement or specifi-cally articulate an evidence-basedphilosophy.

• Identify the ways in which teammembers define an evidence-basedapproach and how those descriptionscomport with the working definitionoffered in this handbook.

• Establish and employ mechanisms forcommunicating to agency staff at alllevels the specific ways in which anevidence-based approach can benefitthem, the agency, offenders and theirfamilies, and the broader community.

• Critically explore the underlying ration-ale that drives current offender man-agement practices within the agency.Identify which strategies were imple-mented based on a careful review ofthe “what works” literature and whichwere not. Then determine the agency’scommitment and readiness to makeadjustments accordingly.

KEY STEPS



IntroductionFrom the point of incarceration throughout theperiod of post-release supervision, multipleimportant case management decisions are madeby a range of institutional corrections andcommunity supervision professionals. Becausethese decisions carry with them considerableimplications for public safety, all stakeholders inthe reentry process (e.g., institutional staff,paroling authorities, post-release supervisionofficers) should have access to comprehensive,accurate, and up-to-date information about eachoffender. Assessments are the means by whichthis information is provided and, therefore, theyare the key to informed decision making.

Well-Grounded AssessmentsIncrease the Effectiveness ofReentry EffortsResearch indicates that when offendermanagement strategies are driven by reliable andvalid assessments, reentry outcomes can bemaximized. Specifically, such assessments arenecessary for the effective and judicious use ofcorrectional resources, reductions in recidivism,and increased public safety (e.g., Andrews &Bonta, 2007; Lowenkamp, Latessa, & Smith,2006). A vital step toward creating soundassessments is to ground them in what areknown as the core principles of effectivecorrectional intervention: risk, need, andresponsivity (see Andrews & Bonta, 2007).

Risk PrincipleFirst, correctional practitioners must identify thelevel of recidivism risk posed by each offender,because this has significant implications for theintensity of case management efforts. Theempirical evidence reveals that matching theintensity of interventions to the assessed level ofrisk results in better outcomes, with intensivestrategies having much better impact on higherrisk offenders than with lower risk offenders(Andrews & Bonta, 2007). After all, there ismuch more room for improvement or potential

for risk reduction with those offenders who posea higher risk.

Because low risk offenders are already less likelyto recidivate, and because there is very limitedroom for risk reduction, investing considerabletime and correctional resources on thatsubgroup of offenders is unlikely to yieldsignificant public safety benefits. Furthermore, tothe surprise of some practitioners, the researchdemonstrates that when intensive correctionalstrategies are used with low risk offenders,recidivism rates may actually increase (see, e.g.,Andrews & Bonta, 2007; Cullen & Gendreau,2000; Gendreau, Goggin, Cullen, & Andrews,2001; Lowenkamp, Latessa, & Holsinger 2006).

The importance of risk assessments, then, is clear.By identifying those adult and juvenile offenderswho are most apt to recidivate and prioritizingstaff time and resources for them, institutionaland community corrections agencies will be betterpositioned to reduce recidivism and increasepublic safety (Altschuler & Armstrong, 1994;Andrews & Bonta, 2007; Lowenkamp et al., 2006).To assess risk most accurately, research-supportedor empirically validated tools should be used,rather than relying solely on individualpractitioners’ subjective judgments and instincts,which are far less accurate or reliable (Grove &

RiskReduction

Potential

High RiskOffenders

Moderate RiskOffenders

Low RiskOffenders

CHAPTER 2: ASSESSMENT

Examples of Common Research-Supported Tools for Assessing Riskand/or Criminogenic Needs

For adult offenders:• Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS)• Historical, Clinical, and Risk Management Factors (HCR-20)• Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R)• Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LSI/CMI)• Psychopathy Checklist Revised (PCL-R)• Statistical Information on Recidivism (SIR)• Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG)• Wisconsin Risk and Needs

For juvenile offenders:• Psychopathy Checklist – Youth Version (PCL-YV)• Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY)• Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI)

Meehl, 1996; Grove, Zald, Lebow, Snitz, & Nelson,2000). Additionally, by adopting tools that havebeen researched extensively and cross-validatedacross multiple jurisdictions (as opposed to anagency creating its own tool that simply seems tohave the right types of items but that has not beenformally validated), staff members are better ableto differentiate higher from lower risk offenders.

Need PrincipleSecond, assessments should focus on identifyingthe dynamic or changeable risk factors(commonly known as criminogenic needs) thatare directly linked with recidivism (see Andrews& Bonta, 2007). The most salient criminogenicneeds identified in the research on adult andjuvenile offenders are the following (Andrews &Bonta, 2007):

• History of antisocial behavior/poor self control• Antisocial personality• Antisocial attitudes and cognitions• Antisocial associates/negative peer affiliation• Problematic family/marital circumstances• School/work difficulties• Lack of prosocial leisure/recreational interests

and activities• Substance abuse

When corrections practitioners identify offenders’criminogenic needs, they can then focus offendermanagement strategies on the types of issuesthat will result in the best outcomes, rather thantargeting areas that are not actually associatedwith recidivism (i.e., non-criminogenic needs).Key examples of non-criminogenic needs includethe following (Andrews & Bonta, 2007):

• Anxiety and stress• Vague feelings of psychological/emotional

distress• Low self esteem• Feelings of alienation and exclusion• Physical inactivity• Lack of ambition• History of victimization

It is important for correctional practitioners todifferentiate between criminogenic and non-criminogenic needs, as efforts to reducerecidivism and increase public safety will beundermined if they target offenders’ non-criminogenic needs (Andrews & Bonta, 2007).As is the case with assessing risk, practitionersshould use research-supported assessment toolsto identify offenders’ criminogenic needs mostreliably.



Fortunately, multiple tools already exist forconducting valid and reliable risk-needassessments and, as such, institutionalcorrections and community supervision agencieswill be well served by adopting one or more ofthose instruments. Ideally, these agencies willwork together to identify and implement the samerisk-need assessment tool. This will provide acommon language for practitioners, reduce thepotential for unnecessary duplication ofassessments, and increase the consistency andobjectivity of case management decision making.

Although some research-supported andpromising tools exist for special offenderpopulations such as sex offenders (see Center forSex Offender Management, 2007 for a review),the vast majority of assessment tools within thecorrections field are validated only on adult andjuvenile males. Although gender responsive risk-need assessment instruments for adult womenand adolescent girls remain lacking, someimportant and promising advances have beenmade (see Section 7: Women Offenders).

Responsivity PrincipleThird, correctional practitioners must identifyindividual characteristics that may haveimplications for offenders’ responses tointerventions. Known as specific responsivityfactors, examples may include gender, culture,learning style, cognitive development, or level ofmotivation. The responsivity principle indicatesthat responsivity factors should be taken intoaccount when determining the appropriatecourse of intervention. This may include makingadjustments to existing programs and services toaddress these factors, matching service providersor supervision officers to individual offenders, orotherwise tailoring interventions to ensuremaximum benefit (Andrews & Bonta, 2007;Cullen & Gendreau, 2000).

Additional Tips for ImprovingAssessmentsBeyond the emphasis on the core principles ofrisk, needs, and responsivity as the foundation ofassessment processes, correctional practitioners

can also increase the utility of assessmentsthrough the following practices:

• Assess Early. When adult and juvenile offendersenter the criminal or juvenile justice system,comprehensive assessments at thepresentencing phase, including validated riskand needs assessments, can provideinvaluable baseline assessment informationabout them. At the point of intake intocorrectional facilities, assessments assistinstitutional staff with identifying service needsand potential barriers that must be addressedduring the period of incarceration. This createsgreater opportunities to meet those needs wellin advance of release. Risk and needsassessments at this early point also allowinstitutional staff to determine the appropriateintensity of case management efforts and totriage offenders into prison-based programsand services that are commensurate with theirlevel of risk (i.e., higher intensity services forhigher risk offenders).

• Assess Accurately. Assessments are only asgood as the methods that are used and theskills and competencies of the practitionerswho are conducting the assessments. Ashighlighted previously, instinct and experienceare not reliable approaches to assessing risk.Rather, the most accurate and reliableinformation about risk and needs comes fromstructured, objective, and empirically validatedassessment tools. Effectively using these typesof tools requires specialized training andongoing supervision to make sure that they arebeing scored, interpreted, and applied to casemanagement decisions correctly. In addition tousing empirically validated tools as a means ofenhancing the accuracy of assessments,institutional and community correctionspractitioners will have more reliable findings ifthey gather information from multiple sources,rather than relying only on a single data point.

• Assess Deliberately. Practitioners can alsoenhance the usefulness and effectiveness ofassessments by attending to process-related

variables. More specifically, as described inChapter 5 of this section of the handbook(Staff-Offender Interactions), whenpractitioners take deliberate steps to enhanceengagement and internal motivation amongoffenders, the assessment and subsequentintervention processes are more productive.The effective use of Motivational Interviewingtechniques exemplifies a purposefulassessment approach that has becomeincreasingly common within the correctionalfield (Ginsberg, Mann, Rotgers, & Weekes,2002; Miller & Rollnick, 2002).

• Assess Often. A premise that underlies thenotion of promoting public safety throughsuccessful reentry is that risk can change overtime, particularly as a function of effectivecorrectional interventions. Risk levels can alsoincrease when offenders engage in problembehaviors such as affiliating with antisocialpeers or abusing substances. Therefore, it isimportant to conduct repeated assessmentsthroughout the course of an offender’s time inthe institutional corrections and communitysupervision systems, from the point of entry,throughout the period of incarceration, andinto the community, as a formal and objectivemeans of monitoring changes in risk and

Translating Research into Practice:Evidence-Based Recommendations for Offender Assessment in California

To improve offender programming in California, the Expert Panel on Adult Offender andRecidivism Reduction Programming made a number of recommendations to the CaliforniaDepartment of Corrections and Rehabilitation (2007). Two key recommendations included:selecting and using objective assessment tools to identify high-to-moderate risk offenders; andassessing their criminogenic needs and responsivity to determine appropriate treatment. Thefollowing depicts their plan for an assessment process supported by research:


Adapted from California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2007


needs. Having access to current and updatedassessment data ensures that institutionalcorrections and community supervision staffare able to make well-informed casemanagement decisions at key decision pointsand on an ongoing basis. Among thestakeholders that benefit from ongoingassessment data are prison-based programstaff, institutional caseworkers, parolingauthorities and other release decision makers,community supervision officers, community-based providers, and the offenders themselves.

• Assess Collaboratively. Finally, because differentstakeholders interact with offenders fordifferent purposes and at different points intime, these practitioners must collectivelyassume responsibility for assessing offenders.In addition, because assessment data thatmay be readily accessible to one practitionermay be inaccessible to others, a commitmentto sharing assessment information acrossagencies and disciplines is important. Bycollaborating as partners in the ongoingassessment process, all parties will beoperating with the most comprehensive andup-to-date information about each offender.

ConclusionQuality assessments ensure that casemanagement decisions are well informedthroughout the reentry process, particularly whenthese assessments are conducted within theevidence-based framework of the core principles ofeffective correctional intervention. By usingresearch-supported assessment tools, employingpromising techniques that can increase offenderengagement in the assessment process, andsharing important assessment information overtime, institutional corrections and communitysupervision professionals will significantly increasethe likelihood that reentry efforts will be successful.

• Review the agency’s assessment poli-cies and procedures to determinewhether they are currently groundedin the principles of risk, need, andresponsivity, and make revisions asnecessary.

• Take inventory of the various assess-ment tools used within the agency,and identify whether these tools areempirically validated and appropriatefor the offender population(s) servedby the agency. Where gaps exist,adopt an empirically validated risk-need tool(s).

• Provide practical training and policy-driven guidance to staff about how touse risk-need tools for case manage-ment purposes, beginning at thepoint of intake, during the course ofincarceration, and continuingthroughout the period of post-releasesupervision.

• Invest in skill-building initiatives forstaff (e.g., Motivational Interviewing)to maximize their effectiveness dur-ing the assessment process.

• Explore current policies relative toinformation sharing across agenciesand disciplines. Where internal andcross-agency barriers exist, developcomplementary policies that will facil-itate routine sharing of criticalassessment information.

KEY STEPS

CHAPTER 3: PROGRAMS AND SERVICES

IntroductionFor decades, rehabilitative ideals were among thecornerstones of corrections agencies. However,during the latter part of the twentieth century, asthe rate of violent crime escalated, publicconfidence in the criminal justice system wanedand correctional systems began to draw sharpcriticisms from policymakers. At the same time,an influential researcher proclaimed thatcorrectional rehabilitative programs wereineffective (Martinson, 1974). This combinationof factors resulted in a widespread philosophicalshift that almost exclusively favored punishment,incapacitation, proportionality, and deterrence.Subsequently, agency investments in correctionalprograms and services were curtailed and manyresources were redirected toward increasingprison capacity.

Since that time, researchers have demonstratedthat punishment- and sanctions-drivenapproaches do not have the intended impactwith either adult or juvenile offenders when usedin isolation (see, e.g., Aos et al., 2006; Cullen &Gendreau, 2000; Drake, 2007; Smith, Goggin, &Gendreau, 2002). As such, corrections officialsand other policymakers are striving to identifyand implement proven strategies that will reducecrime, increase public safety, and improveoffender reentry outcomes overall. This evidence-based movement has brought a renewed focuson rehabilitative efforts as an important meansto that end.

Many Correctional Programs andServices “Work”If reentry is to be successful, adult and juvenileoffenders must be equipped with the skills,competencies, and resources that will allow themto remain stable, crime-free, and productiveupon their return to the community. This cannotbe accomplished simply by incarceratingoffenders and monitoring them following release.While important aspects of corrections, these

offender management strategies will not result insignificant reductions in recidivism. Rather, theymust be used in combination with correctionalinterventions that are demonstrated to beeffective.

Institutional and community correctionsagencies therefore need to ensure that qualityevidence-based programs and services are inplace to address the range of offenders’identified criminogenic needs and other barriersto reentry. Fortunately, correctional officials andpractitioners have the benefit of an extensive andever-growing body of research about the types ofcorrectional interventions that work for adult andjuvenile offenders, as well as those that do notwork (see, e.g., Aos et al., 2001; 2006; Drake,2007; MacKenzie, 2006; Seiter & Kadela, 2003).The tables that follow highlight several keyexamples of those programs and services.

More is Sometimes—But NotAlways—BetterGiven the wide range of programs and servicesthat exist in institutions and the community, theinstitutional corrections and communitysupervision practitioners who are responsible forcase management may be tempted to assignevery offender to as many prison-based andcommunity-based programs and services aspossible. This more is better approach makesintuitive sense when working toward theoverarching goal of reducing recidivism and, insome instances, it can be effective. Under othercircumstances, it does not lead to the desiredoutcomes and may actually have the oppositeeffect.

Density Matters: Target MultipleCriminogenic NeedsAs highlighted in Chapter 2 (Assessment), theneed principle emphasizes the importance ofmaking criminogenic needs the focus ofcorrectional interventions. Changes in thesecrime-producing factors are associated with



Adapted from Drake, 2007

Prison-based cognitive-behavioralprograms (general and specific)

Cognitive behavioral drug treatment(prison-based)

Intensive prison-based substance abuseprograms with community aftercare

Intensive prison-based substance abuseprograms without community aftercare

Prison-based cognitive-behavioralsex offender treatment

Community-based drugtreatment

Prison-based correctional industriesprograms

Prison-based basic adulteducation

Community-based employmenttraining and job assistance

Prison-based vocationaleducation

Educational/cognitive-behavioraldomestic violence programs

Community-based cognitive-behavioralsex offender treatment

Adapted from Aos, Miller, & Drake, 2006

Work releaseprograms

0%

31.2%

14.9%

12.6%

12.4%

8.2%

7.8%

6.9%

6.8%

5.6%

5.3%

5.1%

4.8%

15.9%

Juvenile sex offendertreatment

Multisystemic Therapy(MST)

Interagency coordinationprograms

Behavior modificationprograms

Aggression ReplacementTraining (ART)

Boot camps

7.3%

Functional Family Therapy(FFT)

10.5%

10.2%

8.2%

0%

Juvenile drugcourts 3.5%

2.5%

Examples of Adults Programming andAssociated Impacts on Recidivism

Examples of Juvenile Programming andAssociated Impacts on Recidivism

significant reductions in recidivism. Whenprograms are designed to target multiplecriminogenic needs (in other words, when theyincrease the density of these targets), recidivismis further reduced (see Andrews & Bonta, 2007).For example, correctional programs that address4-6 criminogenic needs have significantly betteroutcomes than those that target only 1-3criminogenic needs (see, e.g., Andrews & Bonta,2007). Beyond reducing post-release recidivism,greater density also has a significant impact onprison misconduct (French & Gendreau, 2006).Substantially lower incidences of institutionalmisconduct are achieved for correctionalprograms that address 3-8 criminogenic needs ascompared to programs in which only 1-2criminogenic needs are targeted (French &Gendreau, 2006). Put simply, with respect todensity, more is better.

Conversely, focusing on offenders’ non-criminogenic needs reduces density, which inturn causes programs to become diluted andless effective. Indeed, with every additional non-criminogenic need that becomes a focus ofprogramming, the overall impact of correctionalinterventions is successively undermined. As

illustrated in the following graph, once thebalance of programming efforts shifts in favor ofnon-criminogenic needs, recidivism rates beginto increase incrementally (see Andrews & Bonta,2007). Under these circumstances, more iscertainly not better.

Dosage Matters: Intervene withAppropriate Duration and IntensityThe effectiveness of correctional programs alsovaries in relation to the dosage of interventions(i.e., the units of service or number of treatmentsessions provided over a given time period).Consistent with both the risk and needprinciples, higher risk offenders who havemultiple criminogenic needs benefit more fromhigher dosages (Bourgon & Armstrong, 2005;Landenberger & Lipsey, 2005; Lipsey, 1995;Lowenkamp, Latessa, & Holsinger, 2006). Morespecifically, research reveals the following(Bourgon & Armstrong, 2005; Lipsey, 1995):

• High-risk, high-need offenders who receivehigher dosages of interventions over longerperiods of time are less likely to recidivatethan are similar offenders who receive a lesserdosage.

Recidivism Impact as a Function of Density ofCriminogenic vs. Non-Criminogenic Needs Targeted by Programs

-60%

-50%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3

Adapted from Dowden, 1998, in Andrews & Bonta, 2007

Targeting more criminogenicthan non-criminogenic needs

Targeting more non-criminogenicthan criminogenic needs



Oregon Legislature: Funding Evidence-Based ProgramsIn 2003, the Oregon Legislative Assembly (2005) passed a bill requiring state agenciesincluding the Department of Corrections and the Oregon Youth Authority to spend at least 25%of state monies on evidence-based programs by 2005. In 2007 the requirement was raised foragencies to spend at least 50% of program monies on programs demonstrated empirically tobe effective, and by 2009 the requirement will be 75%.

The statute defines "evidence-based programs” as those that are based on scientific research,are cost-effective, and are intended to reduce criminal or delinquent behavior. The statutereads:

"Program" means a treatment or intervention program or service that is intended to:• Reduce the propensity of a person to commit crimes;• Improve the mental health of a person with the result of reducing the likelihood that the

person will commit a crime or need emergency mental health services; or• Reduce the propensity of a person who is less than 18 years of age to engage in antisocial

behavior with the result of reducing the likelihood that the person will become a juvenileoffender.

"Scientifically based research" means research that obtains reliable and valid knowledge by:• Employing systematic, empirical methods that draw on observation or experiment;• Involving rigorous data analyses that are adequate to test the stated hypotheses and justify

the general conclusions drawn; and• Relying on measurements or observational methods that provide reliable and valid data

across evaluators and observers, across multiple measurements and observations andacross studies by the same or different investigators. [2003 c.669 §3; 2005 c.503 §12]

• A minimum of 200-300 contact hours isneeded to reduce recidivism for higher riskoffenders with multiple needs.

• Low dosage (i.e., 100 contact hours) is notsufficient for reducing recidivism among highrisk-high need offenders.

Taken together, the research on density anddosage indicates that while more is, in fact,better in some cases, it is not better in others.Because the differential impact appears to be afunction of offenders’ level of risk and needs, thishighlights again the importance of using reliableand valid risk-need assessments to identify whichoffenders will benefit most from which types ofinterventions, for how long, with what level ofintensity, and under what circumstances.

How Correctional Programs areImplemented is as Important asWhich Programs areImplementedHaving the right types of programs in place is animportant step toward promoting successfulreentry. However, it should come as no surprisethat if these programs are not well implemented,they are less likely to be effective (see, e.g.,Andrews & Bonta, 2007). This vitalimplementation piece is often known as integrityor fidelity.

For example, as noted previously in this chapter,Functional Family Therapy (FFT) and AggressionReplacement Training (ART) are among theevidence-based programs for juvenile offendersthat reduce recidivism significantly (see Drake,2007). However, the extent to which these

programs are delivered appropriately and withinthe established protocols has an impact on theactual outcomes (Barnoski, 2004). The figurebelow illustrates that when program integrity (asa function of provider competency) wasacceptable, juveniles’ recidivism rates decreasedconsiderably, whereas recidivism rates actuallyincreased for juveniles who participated in FFT orART programs that were delivered by suboptimalproviders (Barnoski, 2004).

Integrity MattersA number of factors influence the integrity ofprogram implementation and service delivery,including, but not limited to, the following (seeAndrews & Bonta, 2007):

• A sound underlying theoretical model that isknown to affect behavior change (i.e.,cognitive-behavioral and social learning).

• Formalized manuals and otherpolicies/procedures that guide service delivery.

• Staff selection practices that are based onimportant relationship qualities and skills thatare necessary for influencing change.

• Adequate training to ensure that staffunderstand their specific roles andresponsibilities.

• Ongoing clinical supervision of staff toprovide specific feedback designed to enhanceskills and performance.

Each of these factors is independently andsignificantly associated with the overalleffectiveness of correctional programs andtherefore requires ongoing attention from bothadministrators and practitioners (see Andrews &Bonta, 2007; Cullen & Gendreau, 2000; Lipsey &Landenberger, 2006; Lowenkamp et al., 2006).Indeed, many of these factors can beincorporated into agency performance measuresand used as quality assurance/continuous qualityimprovement indicators.

Another key aspect of correctional programintegrity, and one that is closely linked torecidivism, is the extent to which programs foradults and juveniles adhere to the core principlesof effective correctional intervention (i.e., risk,need, and responsivity) as well as the corepractices for effective correctional interventions(e.g., cognitive-behavioral and social learningapproaches, staff characteristics, training, andsupervision). The greater the adherence is, thebetter the outcomes are (see, e.g., Andrews &Bonta, 2007; Lowenkamp et al., 2006). Thisholds true for prison- and community-basedprograms and services, halfway houses, andcommunity supervision practices. Notsurprisingly, as program integrity decreases,recidivism increases. Therefore, to maximizereentry efforts, corrections administrators musttake active steps to increase the integrity of

Adapted from Barnoski, 2004

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

Provider rated "competent" Provider rated "not competent"

Decreasedrecidivism

Increasedrecidivism

FFT ART

Effect of Provider Competency on Juvenile Offender Recidivism: FunctionalFamily Therapy (FFT) and Aggression Replacement Training (ART)

Increasing Public Safety Through Successful Offender Reentry: Evidence-Based and Emerging Practices in Corrections1 10

1 1 1Increasing Public Safety Through Successful Offender Reentry: Evidence-Based and Emerging Practices in Corrections

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

Adheretoall3principlesAdhereto2principlesAdhereto1principleAdheretonone

Decreasedrecidivism

Increasedrecidivism

Program Adherence to the Principles of Risk,Need, and Responsivity: Impact on Recidivism

Andrews et al., 1999

A Checklist for Enhancing Correctional Program Integrity and Effectiveness• Is staff hired or selected based on qualities, characteristics, and attributes that will increase

program effectiveness (e.g., communication and relationship skills, recognition of the valueof rehabilitative efforts)?

• Is an effective theoretical model of change clearly in place (e.g., behavioral, social learning,cognitive-behavioral)?

• Are specific expectations outlined for staff about what to do to carry out the programeffectively (e.g., modeling, skill practicing, reinforcement)?

• Is staff trained to follow the model (preservice and on the job)?• Are staff members supervised and monitored as they deliver programming (e.g., for

relationship skills and interactions, adhering to the model)?• Is the program delivered with appropriate intensity, dosage, and as designed?

Adapted from Andrews & Bonta, 2007

program and service delivery, both in theinstitutions and in the community.

Comprehensive Services ShouldBe AvailableWithout question, reducing recidivism as ameans of promoting public safety is the chiefobjective of reentry efforts. This is largelyaccomplished by targeting criminogenic needs

through evidence-based interventions andstrategies. It is also important that correctionalpractitioners identify and assist offenders withresolving fundamental survival needs that arenecessary for adult and juvenile offenders totransition successfully from the institution to thecommunity (see, e.g., Altschuler & Armstrong,1994; Petersilia, 2003). For some offenders,these may include the following:


How Well Do Correctional Programs Measure Up?Over the past several years, researchers have assisted hundreds of adult and juvenilecorrectional agencies with exploring the extent to which their programs adhere to theprinciples and practices of effective correctional intervention. Using the Correctional ProgramAssessment Inventory – 2000 (CPAI-2000; Gendreau & Andrews, 2001), programs areevaluated across several domains: program implementation and leadership, offenderassessment, program characteristics, staff characteristics, evaluation, and other elements.Among the programs that were assessed, a considerable proportion were found to be in needof improvement (Matthews, Hubbard, & Latessa, 2001; Pealer & Latessa, 2004). The followingwere among the most common concerns:

• Standardized and objective assessments to identify risk, needs, and responsivity factorswere lacking.

• Treatment modalities and practices did not have a strong theoretical basis.• Services were often not matched to offender risk.• A one-size-fits-all approach to treatment was used.• There was an over reliance on punishment, with only sporadic rewards.• Program evaluation was lacking, in terms of both assessing within-treatment change and

examining recidivism outcomes.

Because research indicates that greater adherence to the principles and practices of theeffective correctional interventions is progressively associated with greater reductions inrecidivism (see, e.g., Andrews & Bonta, 2007; Lowenkamp et al., 2006), it is important forcorrectional agency administrators to emphasize program integrity, routinely monitor andevaluate these issues, and participate in ongoing improvement efforts to address identifiedareas of need.

• Obtaining personal documentation such asbirth certificates, state identification, socialsecurity cards, driver’s licenses or permits.

• Transitioning to private or state-assistedinsurance.

• Accessing public assistance.• Identifying and navigating public

transportation system.• Developing or improving life skills (e.g.,

shopping on a limited budget, hygiene andgrooming, banking/money management,cooking).

• Enhancing job skills, such as completingemployment applications, practicing jobinterviewing, and establishing positive workhabits.

• Identifying transitional or other suitablehousing.

Although these types of issues may not bedirectly linked to recidivism, they can nonethelesscreate significant barriers to communityreintegration if left unaddressed. Correctionsagencies must therefore have in place acomprehensive range of services and supportsthat take into account offenders’ full range ofreentry needs.

Continuity of Care and Aftercareare CriticalSome adult and juvenile offenders who areapproaching release continue to have interventionneeds that will need to be addressed in thecommunity. As such, correctional staff must takeactive steps to ensure that these individuals arelinked with appropriate programs and servicesprior to release in order to prevent unnecessary


ThischartexhibitstheeffortsofthePennsylvaniaDepartmentofCorrectionsinevaluatingtheextenttowhichtheir

availableprogramsandinterventionsmeettheprinciplesofeffectiveintervention.

WORK&EDUCATION

MandatoryEducation

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

SpecialEducation

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

GED

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

SecondaryDiploma

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

VocationalEducation

General

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

VocationalEducation--

Apprenticeship

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

CITIZENSHIP

UnitBasedCitizenship

CharacterDevelopment

FAMILY/RELATIONSHIP/SELF

LongDistanceDads

NA

FreshStart

NA

ParentingProgramServices

NA

ParentsAnonymous

NA

NA

FoundationParenting

NA

ElderlyInmates

LongTermOffenders

PositiveRelationships

ReadingtoYourChildren

Adh

erin

gto

the

Prin

cipl

esof

Effe

ctiv

ePr

ogra

mm

ing:

Prog

ram

Eval

uati

onin

Penn

sylv

ania

Targ

etscri

me-p

roducin

gneeds

Targ

etshigh

-risk

case

s

Conductsris

kandnee

dsasse

ssm

ents

Utilize

scogn

itive

-beh

aviora

lappro

ach

Disrupts

delinqu

ency

network

Inclu

desre

lapse

preve

ntion

com

ponent

Reinfo

rcesinteg

rityofse

rvice

s

Integ

rates

withco

mm

unity-b

ased

progr

am

Based

onpro

gram

theo

retic

alm

odel

Provid

esinten

sivese

rvice

s

Matc

hesoffe

nder’s

perso

nality

andlea

rningsty

le

OFFENSERELATED

ThinkingforaChange

TherapeuticCommunities

ResidentialSubstanceAbuseTreatment

AODAbuseEducation

AODGroupCounseling

RelapsePrevention

12StepFacilitation

SexOffenderProgram

ViolencePrevention

BatterersProgram

ImpactofCrime

Victim

AwarenessEducation

REENTRY

CORAftercare,ContinuumofCare

Legend

Meetsprincipleofeffectiveprogramming

Doesnotmeetprincipleofeffectiveprogramming

Partiallymeetsprincipleofeffectiveprogramming

Ada

pted

from

http

://w

ww

.cor

.sta

te.p

a.us

/sta

ts/l

ib/s

tats

/AD

Res

ults

andR

ecom

men

dati

ons.

pdf.,

last

acce

ssed

July

25,2

007

Targ

etscri

me-p

roducin

gneeds

Targ

etshigh

-risk

case

s

Conductsris

kandnee

dsasse

ssm

ents

Utilize

scogn

itive

-beh

aviora

lappro

ach

Disrupts

delinqu

ency

network

Inclu

desre

lapse

preve

ntion

com

ponent

Reinfo

rcesinteg

rityofse

rvice

s

Integ

rates

withco

mm

unity-b

ased

progr

am

Based

onpro

gram

theo

retic

alm

odel

Provid

esinten

sivese

rvice

s

Matc

hesoffe

nder’s

perso

nality

andlea

rningsty

le

1 14 Increasing Public Safety Through Successful Offender Reentry: Evidence-Based and Emerging Practices in Corrections

delays or interruptions in needed services (see,e.g., Altschuler & Armstrong, 1994; Petersilia,2003). Furthermore, research demonstrates thatthe impact of prison-based programs andservices is maximized when those programs arefollowed by parallel services in the community(see, e.g., Andrews & Bonta, 2007; Gaes,Flanagan, Motiuk, & Stewart, 1999; Lawrence,Mears, Dubin, & Travis, 2002; MacKenzie, 2006;Seiter & Kadela, 2003). In addition, for juvenileoffenders, aftercare programs and services areessential and have a greater impact in thecommunity (Altschuler & Armstrong, 1994;Altschuler & Brash, 2004; Lipsey & Wilson, 1998).Promoting continuity of care and other aftercareservices therefore becomes an important part ofcase management.

Included among the many specialized needs thatmay require attention with respect to continuityof care are the following:

• Mental health services• Healthcare• Substance abuse treatment• Education/employment services• Housing• Family interventions

As highlighted in Chapter 6 of this section of thehandbook (Effective Case Management),seamless service delivery is best accomplishedthrough “reach in” and “reach out” activitiesduring the transition phase, whereby institutionalcorrections and community-based providerscollaborate with one another and with offendersto identify appropriate aftercare resources andsupports. For example, identifying a communitymental health center or public health clinic with asliding fee scale is important for uninsured orunderinsured offenders who have mental healthor healthcare needs. Scheduling an initialappointment prior to release can be beneficial as

Meeting the Challenge: Securing Identification for ParoleesOne of the biggest challenges facing the Massachusetts Parole Board was securingidentification for offenders leaving prison for parole supervision through the Registry of MotorVehicles (RMV). Parolees lacking primary and secondary identification (e.g., birth certificates,social security cards, and utility bills) were unable to secure quickly the identification needed toobtain essential needs—housing and employment, traveling, and applying for state and federalbenefits. The Board found that only a small number of ex-offenders could meet therequirements of the RMV, and that many had to wait several months to receive replacementcards and birth certificates before returning to the RMV, which had serious implications foroffenders’ successful transition to the community.

The Parole Board and the RMV reached an agreement to enable parole officers to verify theidentity (including birth date and social security number) and home address of parolees usinglaw enforcement databases. Parole officers then escorted parolees equipped with a new paroleidentification form (authenticated by the parole office) and a photograph to the RMV to securepermanent identification. Given that ex-offenders are already screened, they are prioritized forservice when they apply at the RMV office.

With the formation of a new partnership and an innovative strategy to meet standard RMVrequirements, the Board has successfully secured 345 identification cards for parolees over thecourse of one year.

From correspondence with Maureen Walsh, Chairman, Massachusetts Parole Board, and

Massachusetts Parole Board, Parole News, June 2007, http://www.mass.gov/Eeops/docs/pb/

june_07.pdf, last accessed November 26, 2007.


well, especially for those with chronic needs andthose who are prescribed medication. Similarly,for offenders who have recently completedprison-based substance abuse treatment,correctional caseworkers or communitysupervision officers should work proactively toidentify a local aftercare substance abusetreatment program and local AA/NA meetings(including meeting dates, times, and locations)prior to their release to the community.

To facilitate continuity of care and aftercareduring the transition and release process, somecorrections agencies have partnered with otherhuman service agencies and organizations toestablish “one-stop shops.” In these locations,offenders are able to meet with their post-releasesupervision officer, obtain employmentassistance, receive direct services or referrals formental health and healthcare, and access publicassistance from professionals who arespecifically poised to assist and support them asthey return to the community. Still othercorrections agencies, particularly thoseresponsible for juvenile offenders, have pooledresources and created networks of providers toaddress concurrently the multiple needs ofreentering juveniles (see, e.g., Altschuler &Armstrong, 1994; Wiebush, Wagner, McNulty,Wang, & Lee, 2005). Another helpful tool is tocreate resource directories for local communitiesthat can be accessed not only by institutional andcommunity corrections practitioners but also byoffenders and their families.

Recognize the Needs of FamiliesAlthough the focus of many interventions is onthe offenders themselves, practitioners must alsotake into account the challenges and needs of

partners, parents and guardians, children, andother family members of offenders, as they arelikely to be impacted psychologically, emotionally,behaviorally, developmentally, and financially,both in the short and long term (see, e.g.,Altschuler & Armstrong, 1994; Mears & Travis,2004; Solomon, Waul, Van Ness, & Travis, 2004;Travis & Waul, 2003). The social stigmaassociated with having an offender as a relativecan create significant hardships for families inand of itself. In addition, the return of anoffender to a previously established andotherwise stable home in which a partner,children, or other family members reside maycreate unexpected disruptions. If domesticviolence, sexual abuse or other maltreatment,marital difficulties, or other family difficultiesexisted prior to the offender’s incarceration, theremay be ongoing dynamics and aftereffects thatneed to be addressed. Therefore, programs andservices specifically for families of incarceratedoffenders are important to have in place. Thesemight include marital or family therapy, parentingskills classes, substance abuse treatment andsupport groups, victim services, and mentoringprograms that target children of incarceratedparents. Community-based partnerships andother sources of support must be identified forfamilies as early as possible during the offenders’incarceration, and links to these services must beemphasized particularly during the transition andrelease-planning phase (Solomon et al., 2004;Travis & Waul, 2003). In addition, it is importantfor partners, parents, and other family membersto be aware of the offenders’ specific risk factorsand range of effective coping strategies, so thatthey are able to support the offenders’ progresstoward a stable, law-abiding lifestyle.

Revising Inmate Visitation Policy to Better Serve Reentry GoalsIn an effort to provide “more meaningful and productive contacts between offenders and theirfamily members,” the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (2002) revised itspolicy on inmate visitation to “remove barriers prohibiting family members from visiting andprovide for the reactivation of the visitation list for parole violators.” Doing so aids thedepartment in reaching its offender reentry goals by “providing family members withopportunities to be constructively engaged with the offender during his or her confinement.”


ConclusionAn effective reentry strategy relies heavily onprograms and services that are designed toreduce offenders’ risk, increase their skills andcompetencies, and enhance their overall stabilityin the community. The extensive research andprofessional literature in the corrections fielddraws attention to numerous evidence-based andpromising interventions for adult and juvenileoffenders, provides helpful guidance to agenciesregarding how to improve the fidelity, integrity,and impact of those programs and services, andhighlights the need to address the multiplereentry needs and barriers experienced byoffenders and their families.

• Take stock of existing programs andservices and identify the extent towhich they comport with the evi-dence-based literature about correc-tional interventions that work.

• Analyze offender population data toexplore the prevalence of crimino-genic and other key reentry needswithin the context of current programand service capacity and availability.

• Identify any significant gaps in need-ed programs and services for offend-ers and their families and begin toformulate strategies to enhanceagency capacity for these programs.

• Invest in an independent, objectivereview or process evaluation of theagency’s programs (e.g., using theCPAI).

• Incorporate formal performancemeasures and/or continuous qualityimprovement indicators to monitorprogram fidelity and service deliveryover time.

KEY STEPS

Increasing Public Safety Through Successful Offender Reentry: Evidence-Based and Emerging Practices in Corrections 1 17

CHAPTER 4: SUCCESS-DRIVENSUPERVISIONIntroductionSupervising adult and juvenile offendersfollowing their release from incarceration is acentral component of the reentry process.Indeed, supervision officers have long assumed apivotal role in promoting successful communityreintegration and public safety through acombination of practices that includesmonitoring, enforcement, service brokerage, andengaging community supports. However, duringthe “nothing works” era, as priorities ininstitutional corrections agencies de-emphasizedrehabilitative efforts in favor of a more punitiveand retributive approach, a similar movementoccurred within community supervisionagencies, whereby surveillance and sanctioningstrategies became paramount. This emphasis, incombination with steadily increasing caseloadsof offenders under post-release supervision,significantly curtailed many of the change-promoting and social casework activities (i.e.,advocating for and brokering treatment,educational, and other rehabilitative services;linking offenders to needed resources andsupports) that had previously supported thetransition from prisons to the community.

Despite the expectation that a principal focus onsurveillance and sanctioning would reducerecidivism, neither the corrections system northe community at large has experienced such animpact with either adult or juvenile offenders(see, e.g., Aos et al., 2006; Drake, 2007).Community supervision agencies can, however,improve outcomes for offenders under post-release supervision and reap tangible communitysafety benefits by designing supervisionstrategies that are well grounded in thecorrectional research. It also requires an agencymission that explicitly recognizes that offendersuccess is a means of increasing public safety.Put simply, when offenders are successfulfollowing release from incarceration (i.e., they

remain stable, productive, and crime-free),communities are safer.

Some Approaches to OffenderSupervision Work and Some DoNotIn the preceding chapters, a number ofcorrectional interventions were highlightedbecause empirical evidence demonstrates thatthey work individually and collectively to reducerecidivism and enhance outcomes for adult andjuvenile offenders. Supervision strategies andother community management approaches areincluded in that “what works” research, and thefindings can be very informative for communitycorrections and supervision agencies who arestriving to improve their effectiveness. Indeed, asillustrated in the figure on the following page,correctional research indicates that while somesupervision strategies are effective for adults andjuveniles, others are not (see, e.g., Aos et al.,2006; Drake, 2007; Lipsey & Wilson, 1998;MacKenzie, 2006).

For example, intensive supervision that is drivenby close surveillance and monitoring alone haslimited to no impact on recidivism (see, e.g., Aoset al., 2006; Drake, 2007; Lipsey & Wilson, 1998;MacKenzie, 2006). Similarly, when intermediatesanctions are used as the primary supervision orcommunity management strategies (e.g.,electronic monitoring, drug testing, boot camps),recidivism is not reduced significantly (see, e.g.,Aos et al., 2001, 2006; Drake, 2007; MacKenzie,2006). In some cases, the use of theseintermediate sanctions actually has the oppositeeffect and increases recidivism (see, e.g., Aos etal., 2001; 2006; Drake, 2007; MacKenzie, 2006).

Other approaches to supervision have muchmore positive outcomes. Specifically, whenofficers pair monitoring and accountabilitystrategies with social casework activities, they are

1 18 Increasing Public Safety Through Successful Offender Reentry: Evidence-Based and Emerging Practices in Corrections

likely to attain the desired results of decreasingrecidivism and increasing public safety (see, e.g.,Aos et al., 2001, 2006; MacKenzie, 2006). Withadult offenders, this strategy is referred to as abalanced or rehabilitation-oriented supervisionapproach. As applied to juvenile offenders, thisconcept is sometimes known as intensiveaftercare (see, e.g., Altschuler & Armstrong,1994; Wiebush et al., 2005). The underlyingphilosophy of these types of approaches is thatsupervision should be results-driven and thatofficers must assume a direct role in ensuringthat offenders will be successful following releaseto the community.

Applying the Core Principlesof Effective CorrectionalIntervention Also Works forSupervisionIdentifying what works and what does not workwith respect to supervision is an important stepfor community supervision agencies as theystrive toward maximizing public safety throughsuccessful reentry. Equally important is themanner in which agencies establish operationalpolicies and procedures to guide officers inapplying evidence-based principles to their day-

to-day supervision practices. When the coreprinciples of effective correctional intervention(i.e., risk, need, and responsivity) are used tostructure institutional and community-basedprogramming efforts, and when practitionersattend to evidence-based program integrityvariables (e.g., staff selection and supervision,appropriate intensity and dosage), interventionsare increasingly effective in reducing recidivism(Andrews & Bonta, 2007). Although research onthe application of these principles specifically tooffender supervision practices is limited, thesame appears to hold true. To illustrate,investigators have found that recidivism ratesdecrease when the following risk-need conditionsare met throughout the course of supervision(Lowenkamp, Pealer, Smith, & Latessa, 2006):

• High-risk offenders are targeted for the moreintensive supervision strategies.

• Periods of supervision are longer for high-riskoffenders than for low risk offenders.

• More program referrals are made for high-riskoffenders.

• More criminogenic than non-criminogenicneeds are the focus of intervention.

Surveillance-oriented parole(juveniles)

Intensive supervision:Treatment-oriented (adults)

Intensive probation withprogramming (juveniles)

Intensive supervision:Surveillance-oriented (adults)

5%

0%

21.9%

0%

Electronic monitoring

Drug testing

0%

0%

Adult boot camps 0%

Scared Straightprograms (juveniles)

Shock incarceration(juveniles) 6%

6.8%

Common Supervision Frameworks:Impact on Recidivism

Intermediate Sanctions for OffenderManagement: Impact on Recidivism

Adapted from Aos et al., 2001, 2006;Drake, 2007

Adapted from Aos et al., 2001, 2006;Drake, 2007


As depicted in the graph below, the more thatsupervision officers adhere to these risk-needconditions, the better the outcomes are(Lowenkamp et al., 2006). When multiple risk-need conditions are addressed throughsupervision practices, recidivism rates declinesubstantially, whereas in the absence of risk-needapplication during the course of supervision,recidivism rates may increase.

Success-Driven SupervisionRequires BalanceThroughout this handbook and in this sectionspecifically, it has been emphasized that focusingon offender success is an important way toincrease public safety in the short and long term.Sometimes, putting the spotlight on offendersuccess is misinterpreted as meaning thatsurveillance, enforcement, and sanctioning arenot important (or are less important) aspects ofcommunity supervision. This is certainly not thecase. While the social casework activities thatcharacterize success-driven supervision arenecessary, they are not sufficient. Nor are themonitoring and enforcement activities sufficientby themselves.

As described previously, when supervisionstrategies become overly weighted towardmonitoring and sanctioning, there is generally

little to no impact on recidivism, at least not inthe desired direction. There is also someevidence, albeit limited, that when the balance ofsupervision practices shifts primarily in favor ofsocial casework activities, the outcomes are alsoless than optimal (Paparozzi & Gendreau, 2005).For example, researchers revealed that paroleeswho were supervised by officers with a socialcasework orientation had much higherreconviction and overall revocation rates thanoffenders supervised by officers with a morebalanced orientation (i.e., a blend of enforcementand social casework) (Paparozzi & Gendreau,2005). These findings led the investigators in thisstudy to hypothesize that the officers whofavored a social casework philosophy may nothave provided adequate direction, structure, andlimit setting and, as such, the offenders wereheld less accountable, were less engaged in thechange process, and ultimately were lesssuccessful (Paparozzi & Gendreau, 2005).

The important message here is that communitysupervision agency leaders are advised not toadopt an either/or supervision philosophy inwhich either monitoring and enforcement orsocial casework occurs in the absence of theother. To be most effective with adult and juvenileoffenders, these philosophies and practices mustcoexist, and the agency mission must take into

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

Adhered to 0 Adhered to 1-2 Adhered to 3-4

Decreasedrecidivism

Increasedrecidivism

Adherence to Risk-Need Principles in SupervisionPractices: Impact on Recidivism

Adapted from Lowenkamp, Pealer, Smith, & Latessa, 2006



account the dual roles of supervision officers asmonitors/enforcers and social caseworkers. Afterall, both are designed to achieve the sameprimary goal: to increase public safety. Whatdiffers are the ways in which these sets ofactivities help to achieve this common goal.

In effect, the monitoring/enforcement and thesocial casework functions represent two sides ofthe same coin. On the one side, the socialcasework supervision activities are designed toenhance offenders’ internal controls and shapetheir behaviors so that they can ultimately remainstable, successful, productive, and crime-free inthe community—eventually ultimatelyindependent of being under the supervision ofthe corrections system. On the other side of thecoin, monitoring/enforcement providesimportant external controls, structure,accountability, and public protection safeguardsas offenders transition from correctional facilitiesto the community. In many ways, the externalcontrols that occur via the enforcement andmonitoring aspects of supervision provide asystem of checks and balances for the internalcontrols that are being developed through thesocial casework aspects. When offendersdemonstrate that their own internal controls arenot adequate, supervision officers still have theleverage of the correctional system and formalrisk management mechanisms to maintainpublic safety. Therefore, a balanced supervisionapproach provides officers with full coverageover the types of activities that are necessary forachieving successful outcomes.

Supervision Officers Should BeRecognized as Change AgentsIt is unlikely that anyone would disagree with theidea that outcomes of a success-drivensupervision strategy (and any other correctionalintervention, for that matter) are ultimately afunction of offenders’ choices. This includes theirwillingness to commit to the change process,develop important self-management andproblem solving skills, maintain prosocialattitudes and values, genuinely participate inprograms and services that will help themacquire and refine skills, rely on appropriatecommunity networks, and comply withestablished post-release conditions.

At the same time, supervision officers can be apowerful influence on offenders’ attitudes andbehaviors through their ongoing work withoffenders throughout the course of supervision.This is one of the key distinctions betweensurveillance-oriented and success-drivenapproaches to supervision. Indeed, as describedfully in Chapter 5 of this section of the handbook(Staff-Offender Interactions), all correctionspractitioners—including supervision officers—can facilitate change among offenders byconsistently using evidence-based relationshipskills and practices in their routine interactionswith offenders (Andrews & Bonta, 2007; Dowden& Andrews, 2004). From a practical perspective,supervision officers can be positive agents ofchange in the following ways (see Fulton, Stone,& Gendreau, 1994; Taxman, Yancey, & Bilanin,2006):

• Developing productive, change-promotingrelationships with offenders and their familiesin a way that decreases resistance andincreases offender investment.

• Modeling during all supervision contacts theprosocial attitudes and behaviors they expectoffenders to exhibit, and working with themduring these contacts to practice effectiveproblem-solving and other skills.

• Advocating for and brokering needs-basedservices for offenders and their families andsupporting their participation in theseprograms and services.

Monitoring andenforcement

Socialcasework

Supervision Philosophies andFunctions Should be Balanced

• Providing incentives, rewards, and reinforcersconsistently when offenders demonstrateprosocial attitudes and behaviors, attainestablished goals, and comply withsupervision expectations.

• Using the firm but fair nature of the officer-offender relationship to demonstratedisapproval for antisocial attitudes andbehaviors and to apply proportional sanctionswhen warranted.

All Supervision Contacts ShouldBe Meaningful and PurposefulThe aforementioned practices draw attention toanother important difference between asurveillance-oriented and success-drivensupervision approach: the nature and purpose ofofficer-offender contacts. Within a surveillance-oriented approach, contacts tend to becomeobligatory tasks that serve little purpose outsideof meeting a policy-driven expectation orstandard. Not surprisingly, contacts that occurprimarily for the sake of documenting that theyoccurred do little to promote public safety or tofacilitate offenders’ successful reintegration intothe community. On the other hand, officer-offender contacts within a success-drivenapproach are purposefully designed aroundmeasuring progress and achieving meaningfulgoals. In other words, supervision contacts are

results driven (see, e.g., Altschuler & Armstrong,1994; Fulton, et al., 1994; Taxman, Shepardson,& Byrne, 2004; Taxman et al., 2006; Wiebush etal., 2005).

Therefore, to maximize their ability to influencechange and enhance outcomes, supervisionofficers must take advantage of the various face-to-face contacts (i.e., both field and officecontacts) that they have with the adult andjuvenile offenders on their caseloads. When usedstrategically, officer-offender contacts can bevaluable for not only ensuring accountability andcompliance, but also for facilitating offenderchange and success.

• Initial contacts. The initial interactions betweensupervision officers and offenders can go along way in setting the stage for successfulsupervision outcomes, namely by providingexcellent opportunities to begin engagingoffenders and fostering their internalmotivation. The use of MotivationalInterviewing (described more fully in Chapter5) is a specific strategy that can facilitate thisprocess up front, as well as throughout thecourse of supervision, and it has becomeincreasingly popular with supervision officersin recent years (Clark, Walters, Gingerich, &Meltzer, 2006; Ginsberg, Mann, Rotgers, &

Surveillance-Oriented vs. Success-Driven Supervision:How Do the Key Philosophies and Practices Differ?

Surveillance-Oriented• Officers are viewed as enforcers of release

conditions• Monitoring occurs primarily to identify

compliance and need for sanctions• Contacts are driven by adherence to policies

and standards• Emphasis is on sanctions/punishment for

noncompliance and problem behaviors• Referrals to programs and services are

ancillary/secondary• Officers react after problems arise

Adapted from Fulton et al., 1994; Taxman et al., 2006

Success-Driven• Officers are viewed as agents of change• Monitoring occurs to assess progress,

goal attainment, and compliance• Contacts are driven by problem-solving

and change-promoting interests• Emphasis is on reinforcers to promote

positive behavioral change, sanctioningwhen warranted

• Advocacy and brokerage for programsand services are central

• Needs are anticipated in advance andofficers intervene proactively



Weeks, 2002; Miller & Rollnick, 2002; Walters,Clark, Gingerich, & Meltzer, 2007). Officers canalso maximize the utility of initial contacts withthe offenders assigned to their caseloads byreviewing risk-need assessment findings withthem (see, e.g., Taxman et al., 2006; Taxman etal., 2004). Particularly when this occurs inconjunction with Motivational Interviewingtechniques, it can assist offenders withdeveloping insight into the relationshipbetween identified criminogenic needs andtheir problem behaviors, and it can begin tofacilitate recognition of important changes thatthey may need to make (see, e.g., Taxman etal., 2006; Taxman et al., 2004). Taking it a stepfurther, when officers explain the variousprograms and services that can help offendersbecome successful in the community andprevent them from having further encounterswith the justice system, offenders may be moremotivated to participate in these programs.Finally, initial contacts are an important timefor officers to review and clarify post-releasesupervision conditions with offenders, outlineincentives and rewards that are associated withengagement in the change process andcompliance with expectations, and explain thepotential consequences and sanctions that areused to respond to violations.

• Home visits/contacts. Supervision officers canuse home visits to accomplish multipleimportant objectives as well. Over and aboveverifying offenders’ residence and periodicallyconfirming curfew compliance, home contactsallow officers to assess the quality and stabilityof the home environment and identify anypotential risk factors (e.g., presence ofdrugs/alcohol, weapons, antisocial associates)that may signal a need to intervene. Inaddition, home contacts provide opportunitiesto observe the nature and quality of theinteractions between offenders and theirpartners, parents, or other family members.During these contacts, officers can begin toengage these individuals as positive supportsby identifying a common goal with the familymembers: to ensure and support the successof the offender. When officers establish thesepartnerships with family members, they havean additional set of eyes and ears that can beuseful for holding offenders accountable,supporting change, and communicating aboutimportant issues that may arise.

• Other collateral and community contacts.Similar to home visits, other field contactsprovide the opportunity for supervisionofficers to interact with offenders in naturalenvironments to meet several objectives. Foroffenders who are employed, enrolled inschool, or involved in a treatment program,field contacts in these settings candemonstrate to offenders that the officers areinterested in and supportive of theirparticipation in these prosocial activities.Officers can frame such contacts as a meansof verifying and reinforcing that offenders arecontinuing to demonstrate that they are doingwell, rather than simply verifying that theoffenders are where they are supposed to be.In addition, officers can use these contacts tobuild relationships with employers, schoolofficials, or providers and elicit theirinvolvement as community supports foroffenders. Field contacts can also be used toengage other individuals who may bemembers of offenders’ community supportnetworks, such as mentors, AA/NA sponsors,or members of the faith-based community.

Benefits of Supervision Officers’ Useof Motivational Interviewing

• Ensures that officers take an activerole in facilitating behavior changeand influencing successful reentry

• Prepares offenders for the changeprocess, increases internal motivationand investment

• Places responsibility on offenders,prevents officers from working harderthan the offenders

• Provides officers specific tools formanaging offender resistance andhelps prevent difficult situations fromgetting worse

• Allows officers to address problembehaviors while still being motivational

Adapted from Clark et al., 2006

Because of their routine interactions with theoffenders, these individuals can provideofficers with insights into offenders’ day-to-dayactivities and behaviors through a perspectivethat tends to differ significantly from what theofficer may observe during a face-to-facecontact only with the offenders themselves.

• Office contacts. Although field contactstypically provide supervision officers with therichest and most diverse opportunities forboth monitoring and supporting offenders,office contacts can also be meaningful. Forexample, office contacts allow supervisionofficers and offenders to engage and interactwithout the distractions of the home, work, orschool environment. This may be especiallyimportant when concerns or other issues needto be raised, by either the officer or theoffender, in a more discrete setting. Officecontacts can also be used purposefully asbehavioral contingencies to shape offenders’behaviors. Reporting requirements can bereduced when an offender has consistentlydemonstrated responsibility and progress, orincreased when greater accountability isneeded because of problem behaviors orviolations of post-release conditions.

Responses to Violations ShouldBe Measured and ProportionalUndoubtedly, some adult and juvenile offenderswill exhibit problem behaviors and violate releaseconditions following their return to thecommunity. Because the overarching goal ofsuccessful reentry is to promote public safety,supervision officers must be ready and willing torespond effectively to these violations. This doesnot mean, however, that a revocation ofconditional release and a return to incarcerationwill be the most appropriate, effective, or efficientmeans to that end (see, e.g., Altschuler &Armstrong, 1994; Burke, 2004; Carter, 2001).Indeed, while some violations significantlycompromise public safety (e.g., committing aviolent crime), others are more “technical” innature (e.g., missing work, failing to report for anoffice contact) and do not pose an unacceptablethreat. Some violations are driven by offenders’firmly entrenched antisocial attitudes, deliberatedisregard for supervision expectations, and activeresistance to the change process. Yet others maybe situationally driven or symptomatic of otherdifficulties (e.g., mental health issues, familychaos, relationship problems, financialhardships, substance abuse relapse).

Technical violation rate

0%

20%

40%

60%

Social CaseworkOrientation

Balanced Orientation EnforcementOrientation

Technical Violation Rates As a Function of ParoleOfficers’ Orientation to Supervision

Adapted from Paparozzi & Gendrea, 2005



These and other differences in the nature of (andreasons for) violation behaviors mean that themanner in which officers respond should bevaried, flexible, and well-informed, based on theindividual circumstances of any given case (see,e.g., Altschuler & Armstrong, 1994; Burke, 2004;Carter, 2001). However, agencies must also takesteps to prevent officers from responding inwidely inconsistent and largely subjective ways.Disparate and inequitable responses to violationscan occur when policies provide insufficientguidance and structure for officers and can alsobe a function of officers’ different personalitiesand styles, philosophies about supervision, andinterpretations of policies (Burke, 2004; Carter,2001; Paparozzi & Gendreau, 2005).

For example, supervision officers whosesupervision approach is centered exclusively onsurveillance and monitoring may be overly rigid,crack down on offenders, and provide harshsanctions for all technical violations when lessonerous responses would have been appropriateor sufficient. While this might have an immediateeffect on recidivism (primarily because offendersare more apt to be revoked and returned toincarceration before a crime actually occurs), itdoes not promote successful reentry or reducerecidivism over the long term. Conversely, someofficers tend to be overly lenient when problembehaviors arise and may therefore be lessinclined to cite offenders for technical violationseven when they should, which does not servepublic safety interests either.

Research on this very issue reveals technicalviolation rates vary considerably in relation toofficers’ orientations toward supervision(Paparozzi & Gendreau, 2005). This highlightsagain the need for a balanced approach to post-release supervision in which responses toviolations are measured and proportional.

When thinking about how best to manageviolations, it can be a valuable exercise for agencyadministrators to work closely with officers in thefield to identify the overarching goal of post-releasesupervision, envision what an ideal supervision

system might look like, and then examine whethertheir current responses to violations support thatgoal and resemble that ideal system (Burke, 2004;Carter, 2001). If the goal of supervision is tofacilitate offenders’ successful reentry as a meansof increasing public safety, the following may beparticularly helpful principles and ideals againstwhich agencies can gauge their current approaches(Burke, 2004; Carter, 2001):

• Adult and juvenile offenders (and theirfamilies) clearly understand the expectationsof post-release supervision and recognize thatany problem behaviors or noncompliance willresult in some type of sanction or response.

• Supervision practices are designed to preventviolations by identifying offenders’ risk andneeds, brokering services proactively,assessing progress routinely, and limiting thenumber of supervision conditions imposed toprevent unnecessary overload.

• Officers respond to every violation in order toensure that offender accountability remains avisible priority.

• Officers have at their disposal a range ofsanctions and other strategies for respondingto violations, and they are empowered toimpose lower-level sanctions when warrantedand without unnecessary administrative orbureaucratic barriers.

• All responses are timely and proportional,thus demonstrating an immediate and logicallink between offenders’ problem behaviorsand the accompanying responses.

• The lowest level sanction or response isalways used in order to manage correctionalresources effectively and allow offenders theongoing opportunity to modify their behaviorsand work toward successfully completingsupervision, provided that public safety willnot be unnecessarily compromised.

• Referrals to programs and services areincluded as potential responses to violationsas appropriate, so that offenders can use skill-building and risk-reducing resources toenhance their ability to be productive andstable in the community.

• The system processes violations efficiently for

the benefit of both the offenders and theofficers.

• External stakeholders understand the agency’soverall philosophy, approach, and purposeswith respect to responding to violations.

• Responses to violations assist officers andoffenders alike with attaining successfulsupervision goals.

As is the case with other offender managementdecisions, supervision officers are most likely toidentify effective responses to violation behaviorswhen they collaborate with other key stakeholdersto consider potential interventions within thecontext of community safety and offender needs(see, e.g., Burke, 2004; Carter, 2001).

A Success-Driven ApproachRequires the Support ofSupervision OfficersIn some community corrections and supervisionagencies, a success-driven model has beenestablished through these agencies’ vision,mission, and goals and the officers havesubsequently bought in to the associatedphilosophies and practices. However,administrators and managers who are at adifferent stage and are currently consideringadopting such an approach may have concernsabout the extent to which they will experienceskepticism and resistance. Their concerns maybe most significant with respect to the officerswho will be expected to engage in and balance

the enforcement/monitoring and social caseworkactivities that characterize the success-drivensupervision model.

Educating officers about the superior outcomesand public safety benefits of a success-drivenapproach can be an important first step ingarnering their support. This may be especiallycompelling when officers are enlightened aboutany offender management or supervisionstrategies they use on a day-to-day basis thathave little to no impact on recidivism and thatmay actually increase recidivism of the adult orjuvenile offenders on their caseloads. In addition,when agencies assist supervision officers withunderstanding the ways in which a success-driven approach will actually benefit them (e.g.,encountering less resistance from offenders andtheir families, working with offenders who aremore internally motivated, managing theircaseloads more effectively and efficiently, betteroutcomes for offenders on their caseloads), theymay be apt to recognize its utility and value.Finally, it can be worthwhile to help officers andsupervisors recognize that using evidence-basedsupervision strategies will put them and theagency on more solid ground in the event that acase with a particularly negative outcome comesunder scrutiny from the public or other externalstakeholders.

As some agency leaders begin to take stepstoward formally implementing a success-driven

What Factors Should Be Considered When Responding to Violations?• Nature and seriousness of the problem behavior• Degree to which community safety was compromised• Current risk level of the offender, or recent change in risk level• Overall stability in the community, including employment, housing, financial, social, and

family circumstances• Responses to prior interventions or sanctions• Ongoing patterns of noncompliance versus an isolated instance• Presence of assets, resources, community supports, or services and• Extent to which the offender can be realistically and safely maintained in the community

with adjustments to the supervision plan

Adapted from Burke, 2004; Carter, 2004



model, they might be pleasantly surprised to findthat officers’ existing beliefs and desires aboutwhat effective supervision should look like arealready congruent with such an approach.Indeed, just as researchers have found thatsupport for rehabilitative efforts is notuncommon within the range of staff working incorrectional institutions (e.g., custody officers,correctional case managers, unit supervisors)(Farkas, 1999; Larivière & Robinson, 1996),others have found that similar orientations areprevalent among probation and parole officers(see, e.g., Fulton, Stichman, Travis, & Latessa,1997; Paparozzi & Gendreau, 2005; Quinn &Gould, 2003; Seiter, 2002; Seiter & West, 2003;West & Seiter, 2004).

For example, supervision officers in multiplestudies recognize the importance of their dualroles as enforcers/monitors and caseworkers forpromoting successful offender outcomes andpublic safety (Fulton et al., 1997; Quinn & Gould,2003; Seiter, 2002; Seiter & West, 2003; West &Seiter, 2004). More specifically, many understandthe value of assessing offenders’ individual riskand needs early in the supervision process andproactively linking them to appropriateprograms, services, and other resources, ratherthan making referrals primarily in response toproblems that arise later. They also cite the

importance of keeping abreast of offenders’employment needs, making job referrals, helpingthem obtain and maintain employment, andproviding on-the-job support andencouragement. As illustrated in the chart above,when supervision officers rate the types of thingsthat will allow them to carry out their dutiesmore effectively, their responses overwhelminglyfavor more programs and services to supportoffenders’ successful reintegration (as well aspublic support for reentry efforts), rather thanadditional get tough measures or enforcementtools (Quinn & Gould, 2003).

Taken together, this information is noteworthy foragency officials and other key policymakers in thefollowing ways:

• It signals the possibility that obtaining buy-infrom supervision officers should not beassumed to be a daunting or insurmountabletask.

• It implies that the attitudes and values ofmany staff members, and arguably some oftheir current supervision practices, mayalready lean in the direction of the evidence-based correctional literature pertaining tosupervision of adult and juvenile offenders.

• It suggests that the line level staff directlycharged with ensuring public safety, as well as

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Public tolerance for parolees

Public education about parole off icers' roles

Educational services for parolees

Employment services for paroless

Treatment services for parolees

Stricter laws or policies

Greater latitude to exert authority/control

Percentage Agreement

By Their Own Accounts: What Parole Officers NeedTo Promote Successful Reentry

Adapted from Quinn & Gould, 2003

the offenders for whom they are responsible,may currently lack necessary resources.

Therefore, to increase the likelihood thatsupervision officers will be both willing and ableto operate within a balanced, success-orientedframework, agency leaders must be prepared tocritically evaluate internal and external resources,staffing patterns, and caseloads (Burrell, 2006;DeMichele, 2007). Indeed, for communitysupervision officers who are attempting toimplement evidence-based supervision practices,caseload size is perhaps the most significant

barrier (Burrell, 2006; DeMichele, 2007).If officers are expected to employ effectivestrategies, smaller caseloads are necessary(Burrell, 2006; DeMichele, 2007).9 This allowsthe officers greater opportunities to develop anduse relationship skills and other techniques toengage offenders, broker appropriate programsand services, foster community ties, andcoordinate case management efforts with otherstakeholders involved in each case (Altschuler &Armstrong, 1994; Burrell, 2006; Caplan, 2004;DeMichele, 2007; West & Seiter, 2004; Wiebushet al., 2005).

A Model Strategy for Adult Offenders: Proactive Community Supervision (PCS)The Proactive Community Supervision (PCS) model is a key example of a balanced, success-driven approach (see Taxman et al., 2006; Taxman et al., 2004). Broadly speaking, PCS isdesigned to promote successful supervision outcomes by engaging offenders early in thesupervision process, employing supervision strategies and other interventions that targetcriminogenic needs, and fostering positive involvement with community support networks.Consistent with the principles of effective correctional intervention, PCS emphasizes theimportance of assessing risk and criminogenic needs, prioritizing interventions to higher riskoffenders, and making interactions between supervision officers and offenders purposefulduring the ongoing supervision/case management process. Within the State of Maryland, theDivision of Parole and Probation implemented the PCS model through the following methods:

• Agency guidelines and expectations were established regarding officer-offender interactionswithin local offices in order to create the positive environment necessary to engageoffenders and support change.

• Officers were trained to use Motivational Interviewing skills and techniques.• Supervisors and managers provided coaching to officers, observed the quality of officer-

offender contacts, and provided feedback.• Officers were trained to use the Level of Service Inventory–Revised (LSI-R) as a reliable way

to assess risk and needs and develop well-informed and responsive case plans.• Case plans were designed to include a combination of internal and external controls, as

well as programs and services to target criminogenic needs.• Supervisors were required to review and approve supervision plans to ensure that these

plans were individualized based on offenders’ risk and needs.• Community partnerships were developed to address employment, programming, and

monitoring.• Performance measures that focused on both offender outcomes as well as the outcomes

within individual supervision units were established.

Preliminary findings in Maryland are very promising. Compared to a matched group ofoffenders supervised in a more traditional approach, offenders under the PCS model havesignificantly lower rearrest rates, and fewer warrants are issued for technical violations(Taxman et al., 2006).



A Model Strategy for Juvenile Offenders:The Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP)

In the 1990s, concerns arose throughout the country about the transition and reentry of high-risk juveniles from institutional programs to the community. Subsequently, the IntensiveAftercare Program (IAP) model was developed and became widely recognized as a promisingreentry initiative for juvenile offenders (Altschuler & Armstrong, 1994; Wiebush et al., 2005).The IAP model is designed around three key sets of core activities: prerelease planning andpreparation during the juvenile’s incarceration, deliberate and structured transition planningthat requires both institutional and aftercare staff to be involved prior to and following release,and substantial reintegration activities that balance needed programs and services with externalcontrols and conditions.

On a more specific level, and congruent with evidence-based correctional literature, thefollowing case management practices are emphasized (see Althschuler & Armstrong, 1994;Wiebush et al., 2005):

• Using validated risk assessment tools to identify higher risk juveniles for the focus ofintervention efforts.

• Creating individualized, assessment-driven case management plans that include family,peer, school, and other social networks.

• Identifying service needs beginning at the point of intake and beginning to address theseneeds during the course of incarceration, while proactively anticipating community-basedresources that will be needed post-release.

• Maintaining a balance between monitoring/surveillance activities and programs andservices.

• Ensuring that case management efforts are coordinated by community supervision officersor case managers with small caseloads.

• Implementing a system of rewards and incentives in combination with graduated andproportional sanctions.

• Establishing and maintaining key linkages with community-based resources and otherpositive networks of support in the community.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) sponsored a multi-phase,multi-site implementation and evaluation project using the IAP model. Although superioroutcomes in terms of long-term recidivism reductions have not yet been consistently identified,a number of promising findings have been revealed (Wiebush et al., 2005). For example, sitesthat implemented the IAP model enhanced program and service access for high risk juvenileoffenders reduced institutional misconduct among IAP juveniles, reduced the length of timethese juveniles remained incarcerated, and promoted a more balanced approach to post-releasesupervision.

In addition to adequately addressing caseloadsizes, administrators can increase officers’effectiveness by reviewing and eliminatingperformance expectations that are outdated andno longer of value, redeploying existingresources, increasing agency capacity throughadditional appropriations, or using trainedparaprofessionals (e.g., case aides, trackers,criminal justice interns, volunteers) to providesupport to officers.

ConclusionBy definition, successful reentry is contingent onoffenders’ ongoing stability in the community.Because supervision officers have suchimportant responsibilities for managingoffenders following release from incarceration,they are uniquely poised to influence positiveoutcomes, specifically by way of their supervisionphilosophies and practices. The best availableresearch indicates that a balanced, success-driven approach to supervision, whereby officersblend enforcement and monitoring withcasework activities, is effective in reducingrecidivism. As such, when implemented inaccordance with the principles of effectivecorrectional intervention and paired withevidence-based programs, services, andpractices, this model of post-release supervisionplays a key role in facilitating public safetythrough successful reentry.

• Ensure that promoting offender suc-cess is an explicit focus of theagency’s vision/mission for post-release supervision.

• Critically examine the extent to whichcurrent supervision strategies areconsistent with evidence-based prin-ciples and practices, and be genuine-ly committed to make adjustmentsaccordingly.

• Establish supervision policies andpractices that include both surveil-lance and monitoring activities andsocial casework activities (includingmeaningful field contacts) andinclude these responsibilities in offi-cers’ performance expectations andreviews.

• Assess prospective supervision offi-cers’ attitudes and beliefs aboutsupervision as part of the hiring andselection process, with ideal candi-dates demonstrating support for abalanced philosophy.

• Review current and historical viola-tion data critically to identify anytrends that signal under- or over-responding to offenders’ problembehaviors, and create a system ofgraduated violation responses thatrequires timely, proportional, effi-cient, and effective responses to allviolations.

• Develop performance indicators thatinclude process elements and out-comes for supervision practices (e.g.,application of risk-need principles,number and type of program refer-rals, nature and frequency of fieldcontacts, technical violation and revo-cation rates).

KEY STEPSRecommended MaximumCaseload Sizes for Community

Supervision Officers

Adult Juvenileoffenders offenders

Highest risk 20 15

Moderate tohigh risk

50 30

Low risk 200 100

Adapted from Burrell, 2006



CHAPTER 5: STAFF-OFFENDERINTERACTIONSIntroductionAs outlined in the preceding chapters in thissection of the handbook, successful reentryoutcomes depend upon the implementation ofmultiple evidence-based principles and practicesspecific to assessment, programs and services,and supervision. Although the combination ofthese strategies is necessary to achieve positivecorrectional outcomes, it is not sufficient.Indeed, a key lesson from the research is thatnone of these components will be fully effectiveunless offenders are motivated internally,engaged actively, and influenced positivelythroughout the intervention process. The latterelements can best be realized through productiverelationships and interactions betweencorrectional practitioners and the adult orjuvenile offenders with whom they have routinecontact.

This chapter provides an overview of thepowerful influences of staff-offender interactionson offender engagement, motivation, andbehavioral change and highlights the specificqualities, skills, and behaviors of staff that areimportant to promoting desired outcomesamong offenders. These elements are known asrelationship and structuring principles ofeffective correctional intervention (see Andrews& Bonta, 2007; Dowden & Andrews, 2004).

Successful Reentry is Dependentupon Offenders’ Readiness andInternal Motivation to ChangeMost professionals and others would likely agreethat people in general are not likely to changetheir behaviors until they first recognize a needto change. Furthermore, most would probablyconcur that the greatest potential to make lastingchanges ultimately stems from internalmotivation and genuine engagement in anintervention process, rather than from externalpressures alone. This is, in fact, true for

individuals across most settings, including adultsand juveniles involved in criminal and juvenilejustice systems.

Unfortunately, correctional systems are nottypically designed to promote engagement andinternal motivation among offenders and, insome ways, the very nature of these systems canactually increase resistance (Ginsberg et al.,2002; Taxman et al., 2004). Consider, forexample, the typical environment withincorrectional facilities, where maintaining safety,order, and structure are paramount. Staffmembers control the movements and activitiesof offenders, who are limited substantially interms of what they are allowed to do and whenand how they are allowed to do it. Similarly, whenoffenders are released to the community,multiple conditions and restrictions are imposedon them as a means of behavioral control in theinterest of maintaining accountability and publicsafety.

Although the use of external controls is animportant and necessary feature withininstitutional corrections and communitysupervision settings, it potentially fosters anunderlying adversarial us versus them way ofthinking among both offenders and the staffcharged with managing them. Additionally, it caninadvertently place responsibility for offenders’behaviors on institutional corrections andcommunity supervision professionals rather thanon the offenders themselves. Moreover, thesecontrols do not produce lasting effects on publicsafety when used in isolation. Observed successtends to be short-lived because it is primarily afunction of offenders demonstrating complianceto avoid further sanctions or restrictions.

Successful reentry over the long term dependsheavily upon offenders being internally motivatedto make attitudinal and behavioral changes. They


must be ready and willing to engage in thechange process while incarcerated, continue asthey reintegrate into the community, andmaintain these changes over time. Therefore,institutional corrections and communitysupervision staff must consider the ways inwhich they can facilitate change (not solelycompliance) with adult and juvenile offenders.Decades of research indicates that this is bestaccomplished through quality workingrelationships and interactions between staff andoffenders.

Change-Promoting Relationshipsbetween Institutional Correctionaland Community SupervisionPractitioners and Offenders areGrounded in CommonCharacteristicsWithin the mental health and behavioral healthfield, evidence-based practices emphasize theimportance of therapist-client relationships (seeCastonguay & Beutler, 2006; Norcross, 2002).The nature of these relationships can impacttreatment outcomes in both positive andnegative ways, over and above the actualinterventions that are provided. Service providersmaximize the effectiveness of interventions whenrelationships with their clients are characterizedby a strong therapeutic alliance, warmth andempathy, effective management of attitudes orfeelings about their clients, collaborativedevelopment of treatment goals, and tailoredresponses to clients’ readiness and motivation tochange (see Castonguay & Beutler, 2006; Miller& Rollnick, 2002; Norcross, 2002).

Although the relationships between staff andoffenders differ in many ways from therapist-client relationships, the overall quality of theirinteractions should be similar, if they share thegoal of promoting and maintaining positivechange. Indeed, the evidence-based correctionalliterature confirms that the nature of staff-offender relationships contributes substantially tothe effectiveness of interventions (see, e.g.,Andrews & Bonta, 2007; Dowden & Andrews,2004). Specifically, in order to be most effective

in facilitating engagement and change,institutional correctional and communitysupervision staff must demonstrate the followingqualities in their working relationships withoffenders:

• Mutual respect• Openness• Attentiveness• Structure and support• Warmth and empathy• Genuineness• Flexibility

These characteristics collectively illustrate therelationship principle of effective correctionalintervention and create an environment thatallows adult and juvenile offenders to feelcomfortable expressing themselves, becomeincreasingly open and less resistant to receivingfeedback, and begin to consider the need to makeadjustments in their lives (see, e.g., Andrews &Bonta, 2007; Dowden & Andrews, 2004).Additionally, establishing such a relationshipallows practitioners to better assess the extent towhich offenders are ready and internallymotivated to change initially and over time. Inturn, interventions and strategies are adjustedaccordingly in order to minimize resistance andcontinue to facilitate engagement and motivationthroughout offenders’ tenure in the system (see,e.g., Miller & Rollnick, 2002). This type ofrelationship between staff and offenders is inclear contrast to the more traditional staff-offender relationship, which tends to be builtupon power, authority, and control.

Motivational InterviewingProvides a Model Framework forEnhancing Offender EngagementOne of the most promising approaches toincreasing individuals’ interest and commitmentin the intervention process, including thosewithin the criminal justice system, is the use ofMotivational Interviewing (Ginsberg et al., 2002;Miller & Rollnick, 2002). Broadly speaking, asapplied to institutional correctional andcommunity supervision practices, this strategy


involves establishing collaborative relationshipsbetween institutional and communitypractitioners and the offenders with whom theywork, respecting the offenders’ currentperspectives, and facilitating their readiness andmotivation to change without attempting to forcechange upon them (Ginsberg et al., 2002).

The guiding principles of MotivationalInterviewing are as follows (see Miller & Rollnick,2002):

• Express empathy. When individuals feelaccepted and do not perceive themselves asbeing judged, they are more likely to engagewith practitioners and are subsequently moreopen to change. The skillful use of reflectivelistening without communicating criticism orblame is an important part of this process.

• Develop discrepancy. Rather than telling peoplewhy they should change their behaviors, staffshould assist them with self-assessing or self-diagnosing. As a result, individuals are able tosee on their own the incongruence betweenimportant personal goals and values and theiractual behaviors. In turn, they are

independently able to determine the need forchange.

• Roll with resistance. Instead of engaging incounterproductive confrontations with clientswhen resistance, reluctance, or ambivalence isexpressed, practitioners should accept thisresistance as an understandable part of thechange process. It also provides a signal thata new strategy may be warranted. Effectivelyworking through resistance can take the formof inviting the client to consider newinformation or perspectives, while ensuringthat the practitioner does not impose his orher own viewpoints. This gives the clientpermission to accept or reject the information,which ultimately allows the client to remain inthe driver’s seat.

• Support self-efficacy. Even when peopleindependently recognize a problem and aneed to change, they are unlikely to engage inthe intervention process if they feel hopelessor powerless about their actual ability tochange. Practitioners must view theindividuals as capable of change, convey thisconfidence, and assist them with believing

ManageResistanceEffectively,PromoteOngoing

Engagement

Engage Offender,Foster InternalMotivation

ExploreOffender’sInternal

Motivation andReadiness toChange

Establish aChange-PromotingRelationship

Important Groundwork for Increasing the Effectiveness ofCorrectional Practices


that they are fully capable of overcomingdifficulties and successfully changing.

By understanding Motivational Interviewingphilosophies and using these strategieseffectively, institutional corrections andcommunity supervision practitioners are betterequipped to interact effectively with offenders atdifferent stages of change, foster internalmotivation, and facilitate offenders’ ownership ofthe change process (Clark et al., 2006; Ginsberget al., 2002). As such, interventions are morelikely to be responsive and effective.

Supporting Offender Change isthe Responsibility of All StaffWithout a doubt, offender participation inevidence-based programs and services (e.g.,cognitive skills training, substance abusetreatment) enhances reentry efforts and reducesrecidivism by facilitating positive changes incriminogenic needs. It should be noted, however,that potential for offender change is not confinedto offenders’ physical presence and participationin correctional programs. This is good news, asprogramming encounters represent only a smallfraction of the ways in which offenders spend theirtime either in institutions or in the community.

Some of the most powerful opportunities tosupport offender change exist outside of theformal treatment setting and occur as a result ofthe behavioral influences of correctionspractitioners. Indeed, social learning andbehavioral principles demonstrate that humanbehavior in general is shaped by people’sobservations of, and interactions with,reinforcements and punishments from others.The compelling evidence underlying thesepractices, therefore, has significant implicationsfor staff-offender interactions, particularly thoseinvolving front-line staff such as custody officers,youth care workers, supervision officers, programstaff, and others who have routine contact withoffenders (e.g., work crew supervisors, educationprofessionals, community mentors). Specifically,the attitudes and behaviors modeled by thesestaff, and the ways in which staff members

respond to offenders, have a considerable impacton shaping ongoing and future attitudes andbehaviors of offenders (see, e.g., Andrews &Bonta, 2007). Put simply, regardless of whetherthey are aware of it, all institutional correctionsand community supervision staff are influentialchange agents. In turn, they contribute in bothpositive and negative ways, and on an ongoingbasis, to reentry outcomes.

Every Interaction Provides anOpportunity to Influence PositiveAttitudinal and BehavioralChangesTo take full advantage of the routine teachingmoments that exist at any given point in time, itis important that staff members understand anduse the following set of skills and practices tostructure and guide their everyday contacts withoffenders (i.e., the structuring principle)(Andrews & Bonta, 2007; Dowden & Andrews,2004):

• Model Desired Attitudes and Behaviors. Themore offenders are exposed to prosocialattitudes and behaviors, the more likely theyare to begin to adopt and display suchattitudes and behaviors. Therefore, staff mustalways model the kinds of prosocial attitudesand behaviors that are desired of offenders,such as healthy communication patterns. Thisis especially important given that manyoffenders come from home and communityenvironments in which prosocial attitudes andvalues are not predominant and may even beviewed in negative terms.

• Promote Skill Acquisition and EffectiveProblem-Solving Through Structure andPractice. As suggested by the adage practicemakes perfect, offenders are better at adoptingnew skills when they have the opportunity tolearn and practice those skills in a structuredway. Staff must clearly describe and explainthe skills that are needed (e.g., key steps in theproblem-solving process), model the properways to use these skills, provide offenderswith opportunities to practice these skills (e.g.,


through role-playing), receive feedback abouthow well they demonstrated the skills, andensure that they are given additionalopportunities for skill practice and refinement.Enhancing problem-solving and other key skillsets (e.g., anger management, assertiveness,and conflict resolution) will assist offenderswith remaining successful in the community.Correctional facilities provide multiple real-lifeopportunities for staff to work with offenderson these skills. Similarly, communitysupervision officers can assist offenders andtheir families with putting these skills to useas they experience actual challenges in thecommunity.

• Use Reinforcers and Incentives Consistently andGenerously. Reinforcement involves providinga positive response or reward or removing anegative element as a means of increasing thefrequency of a desired behavior. Because ofthe powerful motivating influence on behaviorchange, reinforcements or rewards should beimmediately and consistently provided tooffenders any time they demonstrate positive,prosocial attitudes or behaviors. To be mosteffective, experts suggest that reinforcersshould outweigh the use of punishments orsanctions using an ideal ratio of fourreinforcers for every punisher (see Andrews &Bonta, 2007). However, consistent andgenerous reinforcement can be challenging incorrectional contexts, as it is often humannature to focus on problem behaviors.Additionally, for some staff, going out of one’sway to reinforce offenders simply for meetingbasic expectations may feel unnatural andunnecessary. Nonetheless, the use ofreinforcements and incentives is essential forfacilitating offender motivation and positivechange.

• Use Disapproval and Punishment Wisely andSelectively. Punishment is the act of imposinga negative stimulus or removing a positive onewhen problem behavior is demonstrated.Punishment can be fairly effective forpromoting short-term compliance (simply to

avoid the punishment or sanction), but it haslittle effect on enhancing internal motivation orfacilitating long-term changes in attitudes orbehaviors. Therefore, reinforcement is thepreferred approach. Within corrections, acombination of punishments andreinforcement is required, as some behaviors(e.g., high-risk behavior, noncompliance, newarrest) require that sanctions are applied in theinterest of deterrence, retribution, and broadpublic safety interests. To reiterate, however, forevery punisher used in response to a problembehavior, four reinforcers for prosocialbehaviors should be provided in order to havethe most impact on behavior change.

• Remain Authoritative, Not Authoritarian. It isnot uncommon for the interactions betweensome correctional practitioners and offendersto be characterized by positional power,control, inflexibility, and demands forobedience. Not surprisingly, this authoritarianapproach is not conducive to increasingengagement or internal motivation. Much likethe use of punishment, it may result in adegree of short-term compliance but notlasting change. Correctional staff members aremore effective change agents when theyinstead use an authoritative approach thatincludes respect, predictability,encouragement, and the leverage of aproductive working relationship. This firm butfair approach allows practitioners to establishthe rapport necessary for engaging offenderswhile maintaining clear expectations, limits,rewards, and consequences. As such,behaviors can be gradually influenced withoutincreasing resistance that arises fromattempting to force change.

• Assume an Advocacy and Brokerage Role.Program staff, correctional case managers,and supervision officers should work withoffenders and their families to identify neededprograms, services, and resources withinfacilities and the community. Facilitatingaccess or serving as a liaison and link betweenthese resources and the offenders is an

important aspect of supporting andmaintaining the change process. It also allowsoffenders and their families to recognize staffmembers’ ongoing interest in andcommitment to their successful reintegrationin the community.

Staff-Offender InteractionsShould Be a Visible PriorityWithin the Organizational CultureIn order to translate the theories behind theserelationship and structuring principles intoconsistent and effective agency-wide practices,they must be made an explicit priority withininstitutional corrections and communitysupervision agencies. Indeed, establishingproductive working relationships that facilitateengagement, motivation, and change should bea given for all staff and should be clearly reflectedwithin an agency’s driving philosophies, mission,policies, and culture. This is most likely to beachieved and highly visible when agency

administrators and managers take the followingactions on a consistent basis:

• Understand and target the attitudes andorientations staff have about offenders andoffender interventions that may either supportor undermine a change-promotingenvironment.

• Clarify the underlying rationale and bottomline for a specific focus on staff-offenderinteractions, both in terms of what such afocus means and what it does not mean.

• Rigorously pursue and support staffdevelopment issues (i.e., preservice training,ongoing in-service training, direct supervision)to ensure that staff acquire and userelationship and structuring skills routinelyand effectively.

• Demonstrate agency investment in andcommitment to these principles through staffrecruitment, selection, and retention efforts.

see Andrews & Bonta, 2007; Dowden & Andrews, 2004

Consistent,ProsocialModeling

EffectiveReinforcement,Punishment

AppropriateUse ofAuthority

Advocacy,Brokerage forResources

Structured Skill-Building, Problem-

Solving

Attitude andBehaviorChange

Important Elements of Staff-Offender Interactions Needed toInfluence Change: Core Correctional Practices


Understand and Target Staff Attitudesand BeliefsWithout question, obtaining and maintaining staffbuy-in is an integral aspect of establishing theoverall agency culture. It is particularly salientwith respect to front-line staff (e.g.,corrections/custody officers, supervision officers).By virtue of their frequent contact with offenders,these staff members are in ideal positions tofacilitate offender engagement, motivation, andbehavioral change. In addition, because theperspectives of front-line staff influence their day-to-day interactions with adult and juvenileoffenders, it is important to ensure that theirorientations toward this work are congruent withthe expectations and values of the agency.

In some jurisdictions, staff attitudes are alreadyproperly aligned or, at the very least, within therealm of the desired culture. For example,investigations involving supervision officers’viewpoints reveal that they consider offenderrehabilitation as well as their social caseworkresponsibilities (e.g., advocacy, referrals, andservice brokerage) as very important to successfulreentry (see, e.g., Fulton et al., 1997; Paparozzi &Gendreau, 2005; Quinn & Gould, 2003; Seiter,2002; Seiter & West, 2003; West & Seiter, 2004).Similarly, as seen in the preceding graph, researchindicates that institutional corrections staff in avariety of positions, including correctional/custody officers, are supportive of correctionalrehabilitation efforts (Farkas, 1999; Larivière &

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Correctionalmanagers/supervisors

Healthcare/psychologystaff

Vocational/employmenttraining staff

Programming staff

Case managementofficers

Correctional officers

Percentage of Staff

Presence of a Rehabilitation-Supportive Orientation among VariousInstitutional Corrections Professionals

Adapted from Larivier̀e & Robinson, 1996

The 3 Rs of Staff-Offender Interactions in the Oregon Department of CorrectionsAs a key component of implementing evidence-based practices to promote successful reentry,the Oregon Department of Corrections (2007) promotes productive interactions between staffand offenders through a “3 Rs” philosophy:• Role model pro-social behaviors• Reinforce positive behaviors• Redirect negative behaviors


Robinson, 1996) and may even have an interestin assisting in the intervention process (Larivière& Robinson, 1996). Furthermore, when comparedto correctional officers whose orientations towardoffenders are punitive, officers with intervention-supportive attitudes are more likely to experiencethe following benefits (Larivière & Robinson,1996):

• Greater career and job satisfaction.• Less job stress.• More empowerment on the job.• An increased sense of physical safety on the

job.• Greater support for the agency mission.

Whether a function of preexisting attitudes, staffselection practices, training efforts, and/orinternalization of agency missions, this dataprovides an optimistic perspective about thereceptiveness of front-line staff to their roles aschange agents.

Of course, not all corrections professionals holdattitudes and beliefs that are naturally conduciveto maintaining productive interactions withoffenders or supporting intervention efforts.Some are not opposed to other staff (e.g.,treatment and education personnel) having arole in the offender engagement, motivation, andchange process, but they may view their ownprofessional responsibilities as limited tocustody, control, and enforcement (see, e.g.,Farkas, 1999; Fulton et al., 1997). Others may beleery altogether about offenders’ abilities tochange and they may question an approach thatfocuses on quality staff-offender relationships asan important component of the correctionalsystem, potentially viewing it as being soft onoffenders. Still others, particularly staff memberswith longevity in their positions (who have likelywitnessed shifting correctional philosophies andpriorities over the years) may simply go throughthe motions while waiting for this perceivedphase to pass. Yet despite having attitudes thatare less than enthusiastic about the value ofcorrectional interventions, these staff membersare not necessarily resistant to assuming a

change agent role. Indeed, even correctionalofficers who hold negative attitudes towardoffenders and are largely punitive in theirorientations express a willingness to contributeto an agency mission that emphasizes effectivecorrectional practices (Larivière & Robinson,1996).

Taken together, these and other similar findingsspeak to the importance of understanding staffvalues and perspectives, taking steps to reinforcecomplementary orientations, and targeting non-supportive attitudes for change. This can helpfoster an agency culture that embraces the use ofrelationship and structuring elements to shapeoffenders’ behaviors in prosocial ways andthereby leads to successful reentry.

Clarify the Bottom LineAnother key to increasing staff buy-in for anagency culture in which staff-offenderinteractions are a routine part of doing businessis to reiterate the underlying rationale forimplementing these principles and practices. Themessage should be unmistakable andconsistently repeated that such an emphasis isnot incompatible with public safety interests oroffender accountability, or that punishment,deterrence, and retribution are no longer relevantphilosophies or goals. Nor does it mean thateither rehabilitative or punishment philosophiesmust exist at the expense of the other. Rather,staff must be taught to appreciate that thesephilosophies and practices can and shouldcoexist if the goal is to facilitate public safety andeffective reentry outcomes. The relationships andinteractions between staff and offenders, incombination with additional evidence-basedcorrectional interventions, are an importantmeans to that end.

The value of these coexisting philosophies,principles, and practices may be furtherilluminated, and buy-in increased, when staffmembers are educated about their effectivenessnot only in reducing recidivism post-release, butalso for decreasing institutional misconduct,which translates into increased safety and order



within correctional facilities (French & Gendreau,2006).

Rigorously Pursue and Support StaffDevelopmentIt should come as no surprise that theeffectiveness of staff-offender interactions islinked to the integrity of their implementationand the extent to which staff are adequatelytrained and supervised (see, e.g., Andrews &Bonta, 2007; Dowden & Andrews, 2004). Assuch, staff development is particularly importantand has a number of implications:

• Preservice training provides the opportunity tointroduce newly hired staff to the agencyphilosophies and expectations, particularlythose concerning the roles of all staff aschange agents. Under ideal circumstances,preservice training activities should be used tobegin teaching staff members the necessaryrelationship and structuring skill sets andprovide them with multiple opportunities topractice these skills in a controlledenvironment prior to entering the field.

• On-the-job staff development and skillpracticing are among the most importantaspects of the staff development process.Community supervision agency supervisors,unit managers, and others in an oversightcapacity play a vital role in this respect. Theymust describe and model for their staff theexpected relationship qualities and ways ofinfluencing behaviors, observe staff as theywork with offenders, offer corrective feedbackwhen warranted, and provide reinforcementsfor appropriate demonstrations of these skills.Peer mentoring by more experienced staff canbe a valuable source of support, guidance, andproblem solving as staff develop and usethese relationship and structuring skills.

• Agency administrators must provide the tools,resources, and other supports necessary toensure that all staff members are able to carryout their duties effectively. This may include,for example, funding for specific skill-building

initiatives (e.g., intensive MotivationalInterviewing training) that will enhance staffeffectiveness, or instituting flexible schedulesor leave options to allow staff to participate inoff-site professional development activities. Inaddition, administrators and supervisorsshould encourage, reward, and advocate forstaff who seek out and participate incontinuing education activities that will furtherthe agency’s mission, such as obtainingspecialized certifications or advanced degrees.Performance-based rewards, recognition, andadvancement opportunities should beprioritized for those staff members who clearlyexcel in their work, exceed minimumperformance expectations, and are able todemonstrate exceptional outcomes.

Staff Recruitment and SelectionPracticesFinally, agency administrators and supervisorscan promote these organizational prioritiesthrough staff recruitment, interviewing, andselection practices. For example, duringinterviewing processes, they should specificallyexplore staff attitudes and orientations towardoffenders and offender rehabilitation. Staffrecruitment and interviewing processes alsoprovide the opportunity to clarify expectationsregarding the roles of all staff, includingcorrections/custody officers, supervision officers,and other front-line staff, as change agents.Incongruence between individual staff members’attitudes, orientations, and role expectations andthe philosophies, priorities, and expectations ofthe agency can lead to poor quality interactionsbetween staff and offenders, job dissatisfaction,burnout, and increased turnover. Consequently,this impacts the ability of other staff to manageworkloads effectively and creates hardships withproviding the training, staff development, andongoing supervision of new and existing staff.However, turnover does provide an excellentopportunity for agencies to recruit and hire newstaff members whose attitudes and philosophiesare more congruent with the organizationalculture, which can ultimately maximize staffretention, minimize the turnover potential, and


provide agency stability in the short and longterm.

The specific strategies outlined above as ameans of shaping and maintaining a change-supportive agency culture should sound familiar.This is because the activities largely parallel thekey relationship and structuring practices used toshape offenders’ attitudes and behaviors as ameans of enhancing outcomes. Indeed, both aredriven by the social learning and behavioralapproaches that are so effective in influencinghuman behavior.

ConclusionTo be successful in the community, adult andjuvenile offenders must be committed to long-term positive change. Given the ability ofinstitutional and community correctional staff toinfluence and shape offenders’ attitudes andbehaviors through the nature and quality of theirrelationships and routine interactions with them,staff members can play a pivotal role inimpacting behavior change and, therefore, publicsafety. As agencies strive toward improvingreentry practices, they may be tempted to focustheir efforts on strategies such as risk-needassessments, evidence-based programming, andpost-release supervision efforts because of theirwidely recognized impact on reducing recidivism.However, even with the right assessmentprocesses and the right types of programming,long-term offender change cannot be fullyrealized absent offender engagement andinternal motivation. These rely, in large part, onthe relationship and structuring principles ofbehavioral influence. Therefore, it is essentialthat equal attention be paid to these evidence-based elements to guide staff-offenderinteractions, so that offender reentry and publicsafety outcomes are maximized.

• Elevate and formalize the value ofstaff-offender interactions throughthe agency mission.

• Promote an agency environment inwhich productive, civil, dignified, andquality professional relationships areexpected among all staff members atall times and hold staff accountablefor these relationships.

•Ensure that agency administrators,supervisors, and managers consis-tently model and reinforce thedesired style of interactions with theirstaff that are expected between staffand offenders.

• Invest in staff training programs thatwill enhance relationship skills andinteractions (e.g., MotivationalInterviewing, other engagement andcommunication strategies).

• Incorporate specific expectationsabout staff-offender interactions intoperformance expectations and per-formance reviews for staff in all posi-tions.

KEY STEPS

CHAPTER 6: EFFECTIVE CASEMANAGEMENTIntroductionThe term “case management” is sometimesdescribed in ways that imply it is a discrete taskor activity that is distinct from the effectivepractices outlined in the preceding chapters. Inreality, however, case management is thesynthesis of these practices. Conducting or usingrisk-need assessments, delivering or brokeringprison- and community-based programs andservices, providing or supporting post-releasesupervision efforts, and influencing offenderchange through meaningful interactions are allinterrelated aspects of case management.

For the purposes of this handbook, casemanagement is conceptualized as theoverarching process through which institutionalcorrections and community supervisionpractitioners purposefully integrate evidence-based strategies, rationally deploy and allocateresources, and effectively collaborate within andacross facility and community lines to facilitatesuccessful reentry. In addition, case managementis a means of working with offenders (asopposed to doing to offenders) toward a sharedgoal. Finally, it is an incremental, cumulative, andphased process that, for each offender, is guidedby an individualized, assessment-driven, and

dynamic plan of action from the point of entrythrough their ultimate return to the community.10

Case Management Efforts BridgeThree Sequential Phases of theReentry ProcessIn order to maximize the potential for successfulreentry, a number of key case managementobjectives must be met as adult and juvenileoffenders move through the institutionalcorrections and community supervision systems.These objectives and the associated casemanagement activities and strategies are bestillustrated when considered within the context ofthree specific but overlapping stages of thereentry process: the institutional, transition, andcommunity phases.

Institutional PhaseCase management officially begins upon intake,at which time the first objective is quickassessment of offenders to identify andsubsequently address any issues that may pose athreat to the safety and security of the facility orwhich critically affect the well-being of theoffender. Once any such issues are resolved,institutional corrections staff initiate, from theoutset, the gradual and deliberate process of

Evidence-BasedPrograms andServices

EFFECTIVECASE MANAGEMENT

Success-OrientedPost-ReleaseSupervision

Ongoing,Validated Risk-Need

Assessment

Quality, ProductiveStaff-OffenderInteractions

SUCCESSFUL REENTRY



ensuring that offenders are adequately preparedto return to the community. Put simply, a focuson reentry essentially begins at the point of entry.

To attain the ultimate goal of preparing offendersfor release and reintegration, the following areamong the chief case management objectivesand activities during the institutional phase:

• Triage Offenders. Shortly after intake, conductformal assessments using empiricallyvalidated tools to determine the appropriateintensity of case management efforts that willbe necessary for each offender. Offenders whopose a greater risk for recidivism and whohave multiple criminogenic needs are targetedfor a more intensive case management track,whereas those whose recidivism risk is alreadylow and who have few criminogenic needs aredesignated for a case management path thatrequires minimal institutional and staffresources. This process of sorting offendersbased on assessments ensures thatinstitutional resources are brokered efficientlyand effectively.

• Chart a Course of Intervention via a CaseManagement Team. Use a coremultidisciplinary team approach to developeach offender’s case management plan(described in more detail later in this chapter).Such a team is comprised of institutionalrepresentatives who will have a significantintervention and management role with theoffender during the period of incarceration(e.g., caseworker, substance abuse or othertreatment providers, educational or vocationalstaff, health/mental health care professionals,housing unit/custody staff). To build the casemanagement plan, the team works together toreview the assessment findings, identifyintervention needs, and develop strategies toaddress these needs. The plan shouldsequence and prioritize interventions basedon the most salient criminogenic needs andsignificant barriers to reentry.

• Reinforce. Take advantage of the multipleopportunities to provide tangible incentives,rewards, and reinforcements when offendersdemonstrate desired behaviors. Thesebehaviors may include taking ownership in thedevelopment of their case plans, participatingin prison-based risk-reducing programs andskill-building services, practicing effectiveproblem solving and communicationtechniques, participating in familyinterventions, and maintaining appropriateinstitutional conduct. Beyond increasing theprosocial attitudes and behaviors, consistentreinforcement fosters offender engagement,internal motivation, and investment in thechange process, all of which are necessarybuilding blocks for successful reentry.

• Review, Reassess, and Readjust. Throughout theperiod of incarceration, routinely reviewoffenders’ case management plans (e.g., everyninety days) with the offenders to exploreprogress, challenges, and ongoing needs. Inaddition, update risk assessments atappropriate intervals to identify importantchanges that have occurred over timeobjectively. These ongoing reviews andassessments position the team to evaluate thecurrent appropriateness of the objectives,strategies, and timelines detailed in the casemanagement plans and make well-informedmodifications accordingly.

Transition PhaseApproximately six months prior to an offender’santicipated release date, the formal transitionphase begins. It is not wholly distinct from theinstitutional and community phases. Rather, itmerges with and bridges the various casemanagement activities that occur throughout thereentry process. It is at this juncture thatinstitutional and community practitionersformally partner to assist offenders with aseamless transition from correctional facilities tothe community. To facilitate a deliberate, smooth,and well-coordinated handoff, the following casemanagement activities are essential during thetransition phase:


• Realign the Team Composition. Ensure that thecore case management team evolves from aworking group of institutional staff into anappropriate blend of relevant institutional andcommunity stakeholders. For example, thecommunity supervision officer joins the teamat this point, providing an importantopportunity to build rapport with the offenderprior to release. In addition, representativesfrom relevant community agencies and entities(e.g., community mental health, health andhuman services, schools, family services,specialized treatment programs) becomemembers of the case management team aswarranted. Over time, these individuals play anincreasingly greater role, while the institutionalteam members begin to gradually step back.The coordination of case managementactivities becomes a shared responsibilitybetween the institutional caseworker and thecommunity supervision officer and isultimately assumed by the supervision officeras the transition phase ends.

• Link to Community-Based Resources. Facilitatecontinuity of interventions and a seamlesstransition to the community by connectingoffenders and their families to neededprograms and services in the returningcommunity. This requires dedicated outreachefforts, whereby institutional practitionersidentify, make referrals to, and assist offenders

with contacting these resources. It is alsoaccomplished via in-reach activities throughwhich community-based practitioners conductservice-specific needs assessments, determineeligibility for their respective programs andservices, and facilitate access to theseservices.

• Explore Community Support Networks. Workdiligently with adult and juvenile offenders tobuild, enhance, and maintain (or rebuild andreestablish) strong relationships withsignificant individuals in their lives who can bea positive influence upon their return to thecommunity. These may include partners orspouses, parents or other family members,AA/NA sponsors, members of community-and faith-based organizations, and trainedvolunteers or mentors. Networks of supportcan offer encouragement, foster accountability,and mitigate some of the challenges offendersencounter during the community reintegrationprocess (e.g., housing, financial,transportation).

Although identifying community supportsshould be an objective at the outset ofoffenders’ incarceration, it becomes especiallyimportant as they prepare for release. Thishighlights again the importance of outreachand in-reach activities during the transitionphase.

Out-Reach

In-Reach

InstitutionalPractitioners

CommunityPractitioners

Effective Case Management Requires“Out-Reach” and “In-Reach” During the Transition Phase

• Reassess, Readjust, Record, and Reinforce.Update risk-need assessments, evaluateparticipation and progress in prison-basedprograms and services, and review institutionalconduct and adjustment. Thoroughlydocument and use this information to makesure that case management plans are current,well informed, and appropriately structured asthe offenders begin to reintegrate into thecommunity. In addition, use the information todevelop discharge summaries at the point ofoffenders’ release to the community. Therevised case management plan and dischargesummary are vital for ensuring that thecorrections practitioners and otherstakeholders who will be working withoffenders in the community will be operatingfrom the most accurate and up-to-dateinformation. As always, continue to usereinforcers, rewards, and incentives to motivateoffenders internally as goals are attained,progress is made, and other positive behaviorsand changes are identified.

Community PhaseIn this final phase of the reentry process, theprimary case management goal is to ensure thatoffenders are stable and successful in thecommunity, which ultimately translates intopublic safety. The most intensive casemanagement activities continue to be prioritizedfor high-risk, high need adults and juveniles, asthey are most likely to have difficulties withcommunity reintegration. In addition, during the

community phase, the following casemanagement practices are particularly salient:

• Realign the Team Composition. Finalize theteam membership in a manner that ensuresthat case management responsibilities arefully assumed by the community supervisionpractitioners and other service providers whoare working closely with the offender in thecommunity. If outreach and in-reach effortsare effectively coordinated during thetransition phase, most of these stakeholderswill already be at the table.

• Supervise for Success. Employ a balancedapproach to post-release supervision thatconsists of a blend of enforcement/monitoring and social casework functions.Specifically, use external controls (e.g.,reporting requirements, curfews, drug testing,other specialized conditions) as warranted topromote accountability; at the same time,continue to broker programs and services(e.g., mental health services, familyinterventions, substance abuse treatment,education/employment services) and workclosely with members of community supportnetworks to ameliorate destabilizinginfluences. Ground all supervision strategiesin the philosophy that offenders’ success inthe community is the key to public safety, andimplement research-supported supervisionapproaches that have been demonstrated tobe most effective in attaining these outcomes.

Realign the teamcomposition

Supervise for success

Re-assess andreadjust

Reinforce and retreat

Triage offenders

Chart a course ofintervention via a casemanagement team

Reinforce

Review, re-assess, andreadjust

Realign the teamcomposition

Link to community-based resources

Explore communitysupport networks

Re-assess, readjust,record, and reinforce

Institutional PhaseTransition Phase

Community Phase

Summary of Key Case Management Objectives in a Phased Reentry Process



• Reassess and Readjust. Conduct formalassessments (i.e., risk-need) and informalassessments (e.g., via office and field visits,communication with community supports,employers, and treatment providers)throughout the course of the communityphase. These reassessments allow the casemanagement team to keep abreast ofimportant changes in offenders’ risk, needs,attitudes, behaviors, and overallcircumstances and subsequently make anynecessary revisions to case managementplans. Detecting factors that signal anincreased potential for recidivism areespecially important during this phase.Examples include evidence of affiliating withantisocial peers, use of drugs or alcohol, orunstable housing or employment. In theseinstances, formal sanctions or other strategicadjustments to case plans may be required.Responses to violations must beproportionate to the nature and seriousness ofthe behavior and delivered in a manner thatprevents unnecessary returns to incarcerationwhile continuing to ensure accountability andpublic safety.

• Reinforce and Retreat. Finally, in anticipation ofoffenders’ eventual discharge from thecorrectional system, a key case managementobjective is to cultivate self-efficacy andhealthy autonomy among offenders, which isnecessary for them to maintain stability andsuccess independently in the community.Reentry outcomes are ultimately determinedby offenders’ ongoing motivation, personalcommitment, and genuine change. Again,these elements can be bolstered byconsistently using incentives and reinforcers.Therefore, as adult and juvenile offendersdemonstrate positive decision making andincreased responsibility over time, the casemanagement team should gradually reducethe intensity of case management efforts.Provided that offender risk does not precludesuch an approach, this allows institutionalcorrections and community supervisionpractitioners to provide more and more

invaluable opportunities for offenders to putinto place the skills they have developed orenhanced, while still having the supports andleverage of the criminal justice system as apublic safety backup if necessary. In otherwords, the balance of external and internalcontrols progressively shifts in favor ofoffenders’ self-reliance on internal controls,ideally reinforcing offenders’ abilities toremain productive and crime-free long afterthe period of post-release supervision ends.

The Case Management PlanProvides the Roadmap forInstitutional Corrections andCommunity SupervisionPractitioners and Offenders AlikeThe interrelated objectives and activities thatspan the three phases of the reentry processunderscore the fact that no single practitionercan assume sole responsibility for all aspects ofcase management. Effective case management isa shared responsibility among multiple agencies,organizations, and disciplines, all of whom areworking toward the same end goal of ensuringpublic safety through successful reentry. Thisparallels the goal of most adult and juvenileoffenders: returning to and remaining in thecommunity.

To attain this common goal, institutionalcorrections staff, community supervision officers,service providers, and offenders alike need aclear guide to help them navigate effectively andefficiently through the institutional, transition,and community phases. The case managementplan becomes that roadmap. It is the result ofcarefully collecting and synthesizing keyinformation about an offender and translatingthat information into a comprehensive plan ofaction that is:

• Singular in nature• Individualized• Dynamic

When developing such a plan, the offender mustbe engaged and involved in the process. After all,

effective case management is not about “doingto” an offender; it is about working with anoffender. If adult and juvenile offenders are notencouraged and expected to be activeparticipants in their own case planning efforts,they are less apt to take ownership and may bemore resistant to the interventions and strategiesthat are designed to assist them.

One Offender, One PlanIn some instances, because a given offender hasmultiple needs that warrant intervention,multiple case management plans are developedfor that offender. Consider the followinghypothetical: Shortly after the intake andassessment process in a correctional facility, acaseworker develops a service plan that outlinesthe offender’s housing unit assignment, workdetail, and recommended prison-basedinterventions. Throughout the period ofincarceration, as the offender enters theprescribed programs (e.g., educational services,substance abuse treatment, sex offendertreatment), separate intervention plans for theserespective programs and services are developedand addressed independently with the offender.Later, for release consideration, or in anticipationof a presumptive release date, a release plan isdeveloped and presented to the parole board orother releasing authority. Once released, asupervision officer creates a post-releasesupervision plan that includes specificconditions, restrictions, and community-basedprogramming requirements. In turn, eachcommunity-based program then develops anindividual plan for the offender.

Although this illustration is extreme, it representsa very real potential. Even with the best ofintentions, if the practitioners involved in reentryefforts fail to collaborate effectively around casemanagement, a number of problems may arise.These include fragmented offender managementactivities, duplication of efforts, unclear roles andresponsibilities, lost information across agenciesand disciplines, and misallocation of resources.Moreover, using multiple case plans for a singleoffender can create confusion, frustration, andeasy opportunities to pass the buck among all

parties involved, including the offender. It mayalso create a situation in which the offender isunnecessarily overburdened with demands, thusdecreasing the likelihood of successfully meetingexpectations.

The ideal is to craft a single case managementplan for each offender that comprehensivelyaddresses the intervention needs andmanagement strategies that will ultimatelyfacilitate a successful return to the community.This plan essentially becomes a behavioralcontract that integrates the following (see, e.g.,Taxman et al., 2006; Taxman et al., 2004):

• Specific, measurable objectives orexpectations for the offender—and the family,as appropriate—during a specific period oftime (e.g., 90 days).

• Target dates associated with each of thespecific objectives.

• Interventions and strategies that will beprovided to assist the offender (and family)with meeting these objectives.

• Staff responsible for working with the offenderto meet these objectives through the identifiedinterventions and strategies.

• Specific incentives, rewards, or consequencesfor meeting or failing to meet specificobjectives or expectations.

Individual Offender, Individualized PlanBecause offenders differ in multiple ways, soshould their case management plans. Ashighlighted in the preceding chapters in thissection of the handbook, outcomes aremaximized when interventions and strategies arematched based on the individual risk level,criminogenic needs, and responsivity factors of agiven offender. Put simply, one size fits all casemanagement plans will not effectively reducerecidivism, increase public safety, or lead tosuccessful reentry. Case management plans mustbe assessment-driven and tailored to the specificindividual.

To illustrate, consider an adult offender with anextensive history of substance abuse,longstanding patterns of criminal behavior,



affiliation with negative peers, antisocialattitudes, and who is assessed at high risk forrecidivism. Initially, a primary objective on thecase management plan may be to focus onengaging the offender and fostering internalmotivation. This could take the form of acorrectional caseworker processing theassessment findings with the offender to assistwith developing insight into the criminogenicneeds that ultimately led to incarceration (see,e.g., Taxman et al., 2006; Taxman et al., 2004). Inaddition, the case manager provides informationabout the prison-based intervention programsand services that can give the offender a jumpstart on increasing the likelihood of successfulreentry and reducing the chances of beingincarcerated again. In so doing, the offender maybegin to independently recognize the importanceof engaging in the change process.

The case management plan for this offendermight then be structured to include a cognitiveskills intervention program to focus on cognitiverestructuring, emotional management, andproblem-solving skills, followed by an intensivetherapeutic community substance abuseprogram within the correctional facility. It may befurther modified by including expectations thatthe offender practice these skills on an ongoingbasis within the institution, initially applied tointeractions in the housing unit, then expandedto include the work assignment setting, and thento leisure and other contexts or activities. Whenthe offender successfully meets these objectives,the case management plan might be modifiedagain to include a lower intensity maintenanceprogram and AA/NA support groups, first in theinstitution and continuing following release.

As this offender enters the community, the planmay center around intensive supervision thatincludes random drug testing, maintainingemployment (but that is restricted to minimizeexposure to high risk situations), routine officeand field contacts, and ongoing substance abusesupport groups. If the offender later begins todemonstrate noncompliance with post-releasesupervision, is known to be affiliating with

antisocial peers again, and tests positive during adrug test, the case management plan wouldneed to be adjusted. Provided that the offendercan still be managed effectively in the communitywith appropriate strategies, the revised planmight include a short-term residential treatmentprogram followed by day treatment, morefrequent drug testing, and increased contactswith the supervision officer, both scheduled andunannounced.

In contrast, the case management plan would bequite different for a moderate risk juvenileoffender with very few criminogenic needs, butwho is identified as having significant depressivesymptoms and a history of suicide attempts. Theplan during the institutional phase may initiallytarget addressing suicidal ideation and self-injurious behaviors, and could include the use ofan anti-depressant medication. Later, a time-limited psychoeducational class aboutunderstanding mental health disorders may beadded to the plan, followed by a weekly cognitive-behavioral group to address underlying causes ofdepression and symptom management.Ultimately, after identifying an appropriatecommunity-based provider, these interventionsmight be replaced with individual and familytherapy during the transition and communityphases. Updated assessment findings mightreveal a need only for low intensity post-releasesupervision that includes medicationcompliance, routine medication checks with aqualified mental health provider, outreach forcrisis intervention services as needed, andrelatively limited office or field contacts with thesupervision officer.

Dynamic Offender, Dynamic PlanThe case management plan must be a fluid,flexible, and responsive working document thatevolves with the offender as the offender movesthrough the institutional, transition, andcommunity phases. This is important because—as highlighted in the examples above—changesoccur with offenders and their circumstancesover time. Some of these changes affectrecidivism potential and intervention needs, and

others provide evidence of progress and stability.Regardless of the nature and direction of thesefluctuations, the case plan must be adjusted inorder to be most effective.

For example, throughout the course ofincarceration, if an offender has participated inrisk-reducing programs and services, completedvocational skills training, and consistentlydemonstrated positive institutional adjustment,the case management team and classificationstaff may determine that a transitional orcommunity corrections facility is appropriate.The case management plan could then beadjusted to focus on specific strategies relevantfor the transition phase, such as participating inprerelease classes or work-release programs,exploring housing options, engaging in familyreunification activities, or connecting withemployment services and other community-based resources. This also providesreinforcement for the progress made by theoffender thus far, creates opportunities foradditional incentives for demonstrating prosocialbehaviors, and continues to foster internalmotivation. Alternatively, for an offender who hasbeen released under community supervision butwho has recently begun to demonstratenoncompliance with release conditions, the casemanagement plan may require adjustments thatcould include more frequent officer contacts, an

earlier curfew, and additional monitoring.Depending on the underlying reasons fornoncompliance (e.g., substance abuse, maritalconflict), relevant treatment services may need tobe incorporated into the plan as well.

The dynamic nature of the case managementplan is also important because the plan cannotrealistically incorporate at the outset everypotential intervention or management strategythat will be needed from start to finish. Rather, itshould be limited to the key targets of changethat are most important during a given period oftime. Specific objectives and strategies should besequenced in a manner that makes the planmanageable for both the offender andinstitutional corrections and communitysupervision practitioners, generally beginningwith the core criminogenic needs of thatoffender. As these objectives are met, the plan ismodified accordingly and new objectives replacethe old.

A final advantage of a dynamic casemanagement plan is that it promotes theseamlessness that is so important for successfulreentry. Specifically, as a unified plan that isinitially crafted at the point of intake and isroutinely updated and adjusted for continued usethrough release and reintegration, it minimizesthe potential for last minute (and oftentimes

Using the Transition Accountability Plan to Guide Case Management in Missouri

Participating State Agencies

ImprovePublicSafety

Prisons

Transitional Accountability Plan (TAP)

InstitutionalPhases

TransitionalPhase

CommunityPhases

Adapted from MDOC, 2007

1Intake,

AssessmentAnd

Classification

2

ProgrammingAnd

Treatment

3

ReleasePreparation

4CommunitySupervision

AndServices

5

DischargeAnd

Aftercare

Board of Probation and Parole



preventable) reentry barriers to arise. Theupdates and changes to the case managementplan are guided by information sharing thatcrosses institutional and community lines. Assuch, all stakeholders have a shared awarenessof ongoing intervention needs and required riskmanagement strategies and they are clear abouttheir respective roles in ensuring that theseissues are addressed in an adequate and timelymanner. This results in greater accountability forcontinuity of case management efforts, therebyreducing the potential for issues to fall throughthe cracks as offenders transition from theinstitution to the community.

ConclusionIdentifying and then executing the wide range ofactivities necessary to guide adult and juvenileoffenders through a successful return to thecommunity is not a simple endeavor. Thischallenge is compounded by the need to ensurethat correctional and community resources areefficiently managed, that interventions andstrategies from multiple disciplines areintegrated and coordinated, and that publicsafety is always maintained. Indeed, the overallcase management process, which is largelydesigned for these purposes, can seem quitedaunting. Yet when institutional corrections staffand community supervision practitioners andother key stakeholders work collaboratively as acase management team armed with a focusedplan of action, they are most ideally positioned toaccomplish each of these goals.

• Establish or revise agency policies toensure that comprehensive casemanagement expectations are clearlydelineated for each phase of the reen-try process (i.e., institutional, transi-tion, community).

• For each phase of the reentryprocess, clarify the specific case man-agement roles and expectations forinstitutional staff and supervisionofficers to prevent duplication ofactivities or diffusion of responsibili-ties.

• Develop complementary policies andprocedures across institutional cor-rections and community supervisionagencies that articulate specificshared or collaborative case manage-ment responsibilities, including in-reach and outreach activities duringthe transition phase.

• Collaboratively develop a model forcase management planning thatestablishes a single, individualized,dynamic plan for each offender.

• Incorporate key elements of the casemanagement process into formal per-formance expectations and reviews(e.g., in-reach and outreach activities,timely and assessment-driven caseplan development and reviews, appli-cation of evidence-based practices).

KEY STEPS

Assess Your Agency:Effective Offender Management Practices

Yes No NotClear

1. Assessment:• Are offender assessments conducted shortly after admission toprison, and in an ongoing fashion thereafter, to identify risk level,criminogenic needs, and responsivity factors?

• Are empirically supported or promising assessment tools used?If yes, please list which tools are used:

• Do the results of the empirically supported or promisingassessment tools inform the offender management process (e.g.,treatment planning, supervision case planning)?

2. Case Management: Please answer these questions in relation to thework done by staff and partners with individual offenders. This maybe termed “correctional counseling” or some other term withincorrectional institutions, or “field supervision” while an offender isunder supervision in the community:• Do the stated goals of case management (within institutions and inthe community) include the provision of safe, secure custody,monitoring/supervision, and successful offender reentry?

• Is case management a seamless continuum from admission toprison until the termination of community supervision?

• Does each offender have a single, dynamic case management planthat follows him/her from intake through post-release supervision?

• Is this approach to case management supported and enhanced byinformation technology?

• Does the case plan address the offender’s risk and needs at eachstage (intake and incarceration phase, prerelease planning phase,and reentry and post supervision phase)?

• Is the case plan updated to reflect changes in the offender’s riskand needs, and to document improvement and progress made?

• Is information about the offender exchanged between institutionand community supervision staff?

• Are multidisciplinary team approaches used to manage offenders?• Are noncorrections partners (such as public agencies, communitypartners, nonprofits, family members, etc.) involved in creating,updating, and accessing case plan information?

• Does the case plan identify programmatic interventions appropriatefor the offender based on the offender’s assessed level of risk andcriminogenic needs?

• Do case management plans target the three to four (or more) mostsignificant criminogenic needs?

• Are offenders prioritized for participation in programs and servicesbased on risk and needs?

• Are policies, procedures, and priorities in place to facilitate theactual delivery of such interventions to offenders?

• Are interventions delivered in a timely way in view of an anticipatedrelease date?




Yes No NotClear

• Are offenders active participants in creating and updating their owncase plans (as opposed to just complying with its terms)?

• Do appropriate corrections staff members (within institutions andin the community) receive skills training on how to better engageoffenders in the change process?

• Are interactions with offenders, including infractions andviolations, viewed as opportunities to enhance motivation?

3. Institutional/Residential Interventions:• Are existing institutionally-based programs and services foroffenders:- Multimodal and integrated?- Cognitive-behavioral in nature?- Skills-oriented?- Linked with parallel services in the community?- Matched to offenders based on risk, needs, and responsivityfactors?- Monitored and evaluated?

4. Proactive Release Planning:• Does planning for release begin when offenders enter theinstitutional or residential setting?

• Does the release planning process include bothinstitutional/residential staff and community stakeholders?

• Are barriers to reentry anticipated and identified early in the releaseplanning process?

• Are transition and case management plans tailored to address therisk, need, and responsivity factors of every offender?

• Are offenders actively involved in the development of transition andcase management plans?

• Are community resources that support the transition processidentified prior to release?

• Are the needs of victims addressed in the release planning process?

5. Informed Release Decision Making:• Are offenders released to the community through a discretionarydecision making process?

• Does the releasing authority have access to, and does it use, theresults of risk assessments, transition plans, and information frominstitutional programming to inform decision making?

• Does the releasing authority establish conditions based upon theassessed risk level and criminogenic needs of offenders?

• Does the releasing authority use structured guidelines to informdecision making?

• Does the releasing authority use information from victims andvictim advocates to inform decision making?



Yes No NotClear

6. Success-Oriented Approach to Supervision:• Do current supervision policies and practices reflect a strength-based approach (in contrast to a more exclusive focus on deterrenceor punishment)?

• Is multiagency collaboration a key feature of supervision?• Are supervision levels assigned and adjusted over time based on therisk level and needs of each offender?

• Are the nature and frequency of field contacts guided by the risklevel and needs of offenders?

• Do supervision officers use incentives to promote and reinforcepro-social, appropriate offender behavior?

• Are responses to supervision violations flexible, graduated, andreasonable, and informed by the risk posed by offenders and theseverity of the violations?

7. Programs and Services:• Do community and institutional programs and servicescomplement one another? (Is there continuity of care?)

• Are offenders linked to specific community supports that canenhance the supervision process and promote success (e.g.,informal social support networks, mentoring programs forjuveniles)?

• Are the following programs and services available to offenderswhile incarcerated:- Healthcare services?- Behavioral health programs?- Life skills assistance?- Substance abuse services?- Educational and vocational services?- Employment assistance or job matching?- Social services?- Housing assistance?- Programs for children and families?

• Are the following programs and services available to offenderswhile in the community:- Healthcare services?- Behavioral health programs?- Life skills assistance?- Substance abuse services?- Educational and vocational services?- Employment assistance or job matching?- Social services?- Housing assistance?- Programs for children and families?

152



Yes No NotClear

8. Monitoring and Evaluation:• Has the agency established a specific monitoring and evaluationplan regarding offender reentry with clearly defined performancemeasures and outcomes, including:- Educational achievement scores, graduation, or GED attainment?- Job placement and retention?- Stability in housing?- Behavioral health symptom improvement?- Sobriety?- Stability of health?- Family preservation?- Recidivism?- Nature and frequency of violations?- Other(s)_____________________________________

• Are monitoring and evaluation data routinely collected andanalyzed?

• Are the results of the data analyses used to inform the developmentand/or revision of reentry policies and practices?


ReferencesAltschuler, D.M., & Armstrong, T.L. (1994).Intensive aftercare for high risk juveniles: Acommunity care model. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Justice, Office of JusticePrograms, Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention.

Altschuler, D. M., & Brash, R. (2004). Adolescentand teenage offenders confronting the challengesand opportunities of reentry. Youth Violence andJuvenile Justice, 2, 72-87.

Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2007). Thepsychology of criminal conduct (4th ed.).Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

Andrews, D. A., Dowden, C., & Gendreau, P.(1999). Clinically relevant and psychologicallyinformed approaches to reduced reoffending: Ameta-analytic study of human service, risk, need,responsivity, and other concerns in justice contexts.Unpublished manuscript. Ottawa, Ontario:Carleton University.

Aos, S., Miller, M., & Drake, E. (2006). Evidence-based adult corrections programs: What works andwhat does not. Olympia, WA: Washington StateInstitute for Public Policy.

Aos, S., Phipps, P., Barnoski, R., & Lieb, R.(2001). The comparative costs and benefits ofprograms to reduce crime. Olympia, WA:Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

Barnoski, R. (2004). Outcome evaluation ofWashington State’s research-based programs forjuveniles. Olympia, WA: Washington StateInstitute for Public Policy.

Bourgon, G. & Armstrong, B. (2005).Transferring the principles of effective treatmentinto a “real world” prison setting. Criminal Justiceand Behavior, 32, 3-25.

Burke, P. (2004). Parole violations revisited: Ahandbook on strengthening parole practices forpublic safety and successful offender transition. SilverSpring, MD: Center for Effective Public Policy.

Burke, P. & Tonry, M. (2006). Successfultransition and reentry for safer communities: A callto action for parole. Silver Spring, MD: Center forEffective Public Policy.

Burrell, W. (2006). Caseload standards forprobation and parole. Lexington, KY: AmericanProbation and Parole Association

California Department of Corrections andRehabilitation (2007). Expert panel on adultoffender and recidivism reduction programming,report for the California Legislature: A roadmap foreffective offender programming in California.http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/news/ExpertPanel.html,last accessed December 11, 2007.

Caplan, J. M. (2006). Parole system anomie:Conflicting models of casework and surveillance.Federal Probation, 70, 32-36.

Carter, M. (2001). Responding to parole andprobation violations: A handbook to guide localpolicy development. Silver Spring, MD: Center forEffective Public Policy.

Castonguay, L. G., & Beutler, L. E. (2006).Common and unique principles of therapeuticchange: What do we know and what do we needto know. In L. G. Castonguay & L. E. Beutler(Eds.), Principles of therapeutic change that work(pp. 353-369). New York, NY: Oxford UniversityPress.

Center for Sex Offender Management (CSOM)(2007). The importance of assessment in sexoffender management: An overview of keyprinciples and practices. Silver Spring, MD:Author.

Clark, M., Walters, S. T., Gingerich, R., & Meltzer,M. (2006). Motivational Interviewing forprobation officers: Tipping the balance towardschange. Federal Probation, 70, 38-44.

Cohen, M. (2005). The costs of crime and justice.New York, NY: Routledge.

154


Cullen, F. T., & Gendreau, P. (2000). Assessingcorrectional rehabilitation: Policy, practice, andprospects. In Criminal justice 2000: Policies,processes, and decisions of the criminal justicesystem (pp. 109-176). Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Justice.

DeMichele, M. T. (2007). Probation and parole’sgrowing caseloads and workload allocation:Strategies for managerial decision making.Lexington, KY: American Probation and ParoleAssociation.

Dowden, C. (1998). A meta-analytic examinationof the risk, need and responsivity principles andtheir importance within the rehabilitation debate.Unpublished master’s thesis. Ottawa, Ontario:Carleton University.

Dowden, C., & Andrews, D. A. (2004). Theimportance of staff practice in delivering effectivecorrectional treatment: A meta-analytic review ofcore correctional practice. International Journal ofOffender Therapy and Comparative Criminology,48, 203-214.

Drake, E. (2007). Evidence-based juvenile offenderprograms: Program description, quality assurance,and cost. Olympia, WA: Washington StateInstitute for Public Policy.

Farkas, M. A. (1999). Correctional officerattitudes toward inmates and working withinmates in a “get tough” era. Journal of CriminalJustice, 27, 495-506.

French, S.A., & Gendreau, P. (2006). Reducingprison misconducts: What works! Criminal Justiceand Behavior, 33, 185-218.

Fulton, B., Stichman, A., Travis, L., & Latessa, E.(1997). Moderating probation and parole officerattitudes to achieve desired outcomes. ThePrison Journal, 77, 295-312.

Fulton, B., Stone, S., & Gendreau, P. (1994).Restructuring intensive supervision programs:Applying “what works.” Lexington, KY: AmericanProbation and Parole Association.

Gaes, G. G., Flanagan, T. J., Motiuk, L. L., &Stewart, L. (1999). Adult correctional treatment.In M. Tonry & J. Petersilia (Eds.), Prisons: Crimeand justice: A review of research (pp. 361-426).Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Gendreau, P., & Andrews, D. A. (2001).Correctional Program Assessment Inventory-2000(CPAI-2000). Saint John, Canada: University ofNew Brunswick.

Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., Cullen, F. T., &Andrews, D. (2001). The effects of communitysanctions and incarceration on recidivism. In L.L. Montiuk & R. C. Serin (Eds.), Compendium2000 on effective correctional programming:Volume 1 (pp. 18-21). Ottawa, Ontario:Correctional Service of Canada.

Ginsburg, J. I. D., Mann, R. E., Rotgers, F., &Weekes, J. R. (2002). Motivational interviewingwith criminal justice populations. In W. R. Miller& S. Rollnick, Motivational interviewing: Preparingpeople for change (2nd ed.) (pp. 333-346). NewYork, NY: Guilford Press.

Grove, W. M., & Meehl, P.E. (1996). Comparativeefficiency of informal (subjective,impressionistic) and formal (mechanical,algorithmic) prediction procedures: The clinical-statistical controversy. Psychology, Public Policyand Law, 2, 293-323.

Grove, W. M., Zald, D. H., Lebow, B. S., Snitz, B.E., & Nelson, C. (2000). Clinical versusmechanical prediction: A meta-analysis.Psychological Assessment, 12, 19-30.


Landenberger, N. A., & Lipsey, M. W. (2005). Thepositive effects of cognitive-behavioral programsfor offenders: A meta-analysis of factorsassociated with effective treatment. Journal ofExperimental Criminology, 1, 451-476

Larivière, M., & Robinson, D. (1996). Attitudes offederal correctional officers towards offenders.Research Report R-44. Ottawa, Ontario:Correctional Service of Canada.

Lawrence, S., Mears, D. P., Dubin, G., & Travis, J.(2002). The practice and promise of prisonprogramming. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Lipsey, M. W. (1995). What do we learn from 400research studies on the effectiveness oftreatment with juvenile delinquents? In J.McGuire (Ed.), What works? Reducing reoffending(pp. 63-78). New York, NY: John Wiley.

Lipsey, M. W., & Landenberger, N. A. (2006).Cognitive-behavioral interventions. In. B. C.Welsh & D. P. Farrington (Eds.). Preventingcrime: What works for children, offenders, victims,and places (pp. 57-71). Dordrecht, Netherlands:Springer.

Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (1998). Effectiveintervention for serious juvenile offenders: Asynthesis of research. In R. Loeber & D. P.Farrington (Eds.), Serious and violent juvenileoffenders: Risk factors and successful interventions(pp. 313-345). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lowenkamp C. T., Latessa E. J., & Holsinger, A.M. (2006). The risk principle in action: Whathave we learned from 13,676 offenders and 97correctional programs? Crime and Delinquency,52, 77-93.

Lowenkamp, C. T., Latessa, E. J., & Smith, P.(2006). Does correctional program quality reallymatter? The impact of adhering to the principlesof correctional intervention. Criminology andPublic Policy, 5, 201-220.

Lowenkamp, C., Pealer, J., Smith, P., & Latessa,E. (2006). Adhering to the risk and needprinciples: Does it matter for supervision-basedprograms? Federal Probation, 70, 3-8.

MacKenzie, D. L. (2006). What works incorrections? Reducing the criminal activities ofoffenders and delinquents. New York, NY:Cambridge University Press.

Martinson, R. (1974). What works? Questionsand answers about prison reform. The PublicInterest, 35, 22-54.

Matthews, B., Jones-Hubbard, D., & Latessa, E. J.(2001). Making the next step: Using assessmentto improve correctional programming. The PrisonJournal, 81, 454-472.

McDougall, C., Cohen, M. A., Swaray, R., & Perry,A. (2003). The costs and benefits of sentencing:A systematic review. Annals of the AmericanAcademy of Political and Social Science, 587, 160-177.

Mears, D. P., & Travis, J. (2004). Youthdevelopment and reentry. Youth Violence andJuvenile Justice, 1, 3-20.

Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2002). MotivationalInterviewing: Preparing people for change (2nded.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Missouri Department of Corrections (MDOC)(2007). Missouri’s plan to prepare offenders forsuccessful transition from prison to thecommunity. http://www.doc.mo.gov/reentry/PDF/TAPBrochure.pdf, last accessed December11, 2007.

Norcross, J.C. (Ed.). (2002). Psychotherapyrelationships that work: Therapist contributionsand responsiveness to patient needs. New York,NY: Oxford University Press.

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation andCorrection (2002). Ohio plan for productiveoffender reentry and recidivism reduction.http://www.drc.state.oh.us/web/ReentryFinalPlan.pdf, last accessed November 26, 2007.

Oregon Department of Corrections (2007). TheOregon Accountability Model, Staff/InmateInteraction Component. http://www.oregon.gov/DOC/PUBAFF/oam_staff.shtml, last accessedNovember 26, 2007.


Oregon Legislative Assembly (2005). Evidence-based programs, Chapter 182. Oregon RevisedStatutes, 2005 Edition (Web site).http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/182.html, lastaccessed May 24, 2007.

Paparozzi, M., & Gendreau, P. (2005). Anintensive supervision program that worked:Service delivery, professional orientation, andorganizational supportiveness. The PrisonJournal, 85, 445-466.

Pealer, J. A., & Latessa, E. J. (2004). Applying theprinciples of effective intervention to juvenilecorrectional programs, Corrections Today, 66(7),26-29.

Petersilia, J. (2003). When prisoners come home:Parole and prisoner reentry. New York, NY: OxfordUniversity Press.

Quinn, J. F., & Gould, L. A. (2003). Theprioritization of treatment among Texas paroleofficers. The Prison Journal, 83, 323-336.

Seiter, R. (2002). Prisoner reentry and the role ofparole officers. Federal Probation, 66, 50-54.

Seiter, R. P., & Kadela, K. R. (2003). Prisonerreentry: What works, what does not, and what ispromising. Crime and Delinquency, 49, 360-388.

Seiter, R. P. & West, A. D. (2003). Supervisionstyles in probation and parole: An analysis ofactivities. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 38,57-75.

Smith, P., Goggin, C., & Gendreau, P. (2002).The effects of prison sentences and intermediatesanctions on recidivism: Age, gender and race.Ottawa, Ontario: Solicitor General of Canada,Corrections Research Branch.

Solomon, A. L., Waul, M., Van Ness, A., & Travis,J. (2004). Outside the walls: A national snapshotof community-based prisoner reentry programs.Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Taxman, F. S., Shepardson, E. S., & Byrne, J. M.(2004). Tools of the trade: A guide toincorporating science into practice. Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Justice, NationalInstitute of Corrections.

Taxman, F. S., Yancey, C., & Bilanin, J. E. (2006).Proactive community supervision in Maryland:Changing offender outcomes. Baltimore, MD:Maryland Division of Parole and Probation.

Travis, J., & Waul, M. (Eds.) (2003). Prisonersonce removed: The impact of incarceration andreentry on children, families, and communities.Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Walters, S., Clark, M., Gingerich, R., & Meltzer,M. (2007). A guide for probation and parole:Motivating offenders to change. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute ofCorrections.

West, A. D., & Seiter, R. P. (2004). Social workeror cop? Measuring the supervision styles ofprobation and parole officers in Kentucky andMissouri. Journal of Crime and Justice, 27, 27-57.

Welsh, B. (2004). Monetary costs and benefits ofcorrectional treatment programs: Implicationsfor offender reentry. Federal Probation, 68, 9-13.

Welsh, B. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2000).Correctional intervention programs and costbenefit-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27,115-133.

Wiebush, R. G., Wagner, D., McNulty, B., Wang,Y., & Le, T. (2005). Implementation and outcomeevaluation of the Intensive Aftercare Program:Final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention.


INTRODUCTIONAs institutional corrections and communitysupervision agencies examine existing policiesand practices and consider how best to adaptthem to encourage successful offender reentry,important opportunities are presented to thinkabout the varying needs of diverse groups ofoffenders, and how policy and practice takestheir different needs into account. The rapidlyincreasing population of women undercorrectional supervision, their differences frommale offenders in terms of the pathways thatbring them into the system, their risks andneeds, and their role in the community fromwhich they have come and to which they willreturn suggest that institutional corrections andcommunity supervision agencies need to thinkdifferently about how to promote women’ssuccessful reentry.

In this section, the unique challenges tosuccessful reentry faced by women offenders willbe explored. Chapter 1 outlines womenoffenders’ involvement in the criminal justicesystem and their distinctive pathways tocriminality. Chapter 2 focuses specifically on theprinciples of gender responsiveness. Finally, inChapter 3, an overview of the key offendermanagement issues with women offenders ispresented, with an examination of some of thespecific issues raised in the reentry process.

This section is provided in recognition of theunique challenges faced by women offendersreturning to their communities; however, it is notintended as a comprehensive exploration of thistopic. The section will provide a brief overview ofthe issues involved and direct the user toadditional resources that may be useful incrafting policies and practices to address womenoffender reentry.

Section Seven:

Women OffendersJudith Berman, Adapted by Susan Gibel

This section of the handbook was adapted from "Women Offender Transition and Reentry:Gender Responsive Approaches to Transitioning Woman Offenders from Prison to theCommunity.” The Bureau of Justice Assistance and the Center for Effective Public Policyextends their thanks to the National Institute of Corrections and the article’s author, JudithBerman, for permission to modify and include the article in this handbook.

Berman, J. (2005). Women offender transition and reentry: Gender responsive approaches to transi-

tioning women offenders from prison to the community. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Corrections, National Institute of Corrections. http://www.nicic.org/Library/021815, last accessed

November 28, 2007.


159

CHAPTER 1: WOMEN OFFENDERSThe population of incarcerated women offendersis growing, and continues to grow at a faster ratethan the population of men (Harrison & Beck,2003). Many trace the increase to changes inState and national drug policies that mandatedprison terms for even relatively low-level drugoffenses. Nationally, the number of womenincarcerated in State and Federal prisons andlocal jails has jumped eightfold between 1980and 2002 (Lapidus et al., 2005). Between 1986and 1999, the number of women incarcerated inState facilities for drug-related offenses aloneincreased by 888 percent (compared to anincrease of 129 percent for non-drug offenses)(Lapidus et al., 2005). The female offenderpopulation continues to rise at a faster rate thanthe male offender population: from June 30,2003 to June 30, 2004, the number of women inState and Federal prison increased by 2.9percent, while the rate for men rose 2.0 percent(Harrison & Beck, 2005). Moreover, this doesnot include women under communitysupervision.

A similar situation exists for female juveniles.Although the juvenile offense rate in 2004 wasthe lowest since 1980, the proportion of femalejuveniles relative to male juveniles continues toincrease. Rates of arrest for female juvenilesincreased or decreased less than the rates ofarrest for male juveniles (Snyder, 2006). In 2004,24 percent of arrests for aggravated assault andthirty-three percent of arrests for other assaultscould be attributed to female juveniles. Thesefigures are much higher than those for femaleinvolvement in other types of violent crime.Between 1980 and 2004, the juvenile arrest ratefor simple assault increased 290 percent forfemale juveniles, compared to 106 percent formale juveniles. Most of the increase in femalearrest rates for violence can be attributed tofamilial abuse or relational aggression, includingdomestic violence (Chesney-Lind & Irwin, 2007).Between 1995 and 2004, juvenile arrests for drugabuse violations increased 29 percent for

females, compared to a decrease for malejuveniles of eight percent (Snyder, 2006).

For many women, involvement in the criminaljustice system has become a revolving door fromwhich they cannot escape, particularly for thosewho are drug-involved or for whom meeting theobligations of the system (supervision conditionsor fees and restitution, for example) becomes anobstacle in itself. Many institutional correctionsand community supervision agencies have takena position against differentiating between malesand females and make efforts to apply policiesand practices universally. Research, however, hasidentified significant differences between maleand female offender populations that may helpshed light on this revolving door (See, e.g.,Bloom, Owen, & Covington, 2003; Chesney-Lind,1997; Dehart, 2005; NIC, 2000; Richie, 1996).

Pathways to Criminality for Girlsand WomenOffending patterns for women and girls arequalitatively different from men. In comparisonto men, women are:

• Less likely than men to have been convicted ofa violent crime (Greenfield & Snell, 1999).

• Less likely to be a major dealer or kingpin in adrug enterprise and less likely to have played amajor planning role in a drug related crime(Lapidus et al., 2005).

• Less likely to have used a gun or otherweapon in the commission of the crime(Greenfeld & Snell, 1999).

• Less likely to present the same degree ofdanger to the community as their malecounterparts (Bloom, Owen, & Covington,2003).

Women become involved in criminal behavior fordifferent reasons than men do, and thesereasons are important when considering how tokeep women from reentering the system oncethey leave. “Women’s most common pathways



to crime are based on survival of abuse, poverty,and substance abuse.” (Bloom, Owen, &Covington, 2003.) The relationship betweenthese three factors is complex and significant.Physical, sexual, and emotional abuse are verycommon in the life histories of womenoffenders. These can be the source of asubstance abuse problem (using drugs to self-medicate the pain of abuse) or they can also be aresult of involvement in a lifestyle that revolvesaround substance use, such as an intimaterelationship with a substance abuser who alsocommits acts of sexual or domestic violence.Similarly, many women are driven to the drugtrade by poverty or become involved inprostitution (often following a history of sexualabuse) that then leads to substance abuse andvulnerability to further physical and sexual abuse.In other words, violence in the lives of womenprior to their involvement in the criminal justicesystem is often connected to the criminalbehavior with which they are charged (Bloom,Owen, & Covington, 2003; Dehart, 2005; Lapiduset al., 2005).

Similarly, women who are involved in thecriminal justice system are significantly morelikely than men are to have mental healthproblems and/or previous involvement in themental health system (Ditton, 1999). Forexample, the rate of Posttraumatic StressDisorder (PTSD) is very high among substanceabusers, averaging 12-34 percent, compared tolifetime prevalence in the adult U.S. populationof about 8 percent. For women with substanceabuse disorders, the rate is 30-59 percent (CSAT,2005b). Mental health problems serve as acommon trigger for substance use, andsubstance use can in turn exacerbate somemental health problems, and/or set the stage forfurther experiences of trauma. Women in thecriminal justice system also experience high ratesof depression, anxiety, and other personality andmood disorders (CSAT, 1999). Institutions areincreasingly finding that helping women managemental health symptoms through cognitive,behavioral, and relational approaches, and notjust medication, has a positive impact on the

institutional environment and individual behavior(Hills, Siegfried, & Ickowitz, 2004).

Females in the Juvenile JusticeSystemLike adult women offenders, female juvenilesenter the justice system with different and oftenmore severe problems than male juveniles. Riskfactors for female juveniles include childhoodabuse and neglect, mental health and substanceabuse issues, problematic peer and datingrelationships, family contexts, and earlychildhood behavioral patterns (Acoca & Dedel,1998). Female juveniles are likely to be youngerthan their male counterparts (Bergsmann, 1994)and more likely to have run away from home(Chesney-Lind & Shelden, 1998) and to haveattempted suicide (Miller, 1994). Femalejuveniles experience higher rates of abuse thando their male counterparts (see, e.g., Brosky &Lally, 2004; Browne, Miller, & Maguin, 1999;McClellan, Farrabee, & Crouch, 1997), withestimates ranging from 43 percent to as high as80 percent (Acoca & Dedel, 1990).

Although the incidence of mental healthdisorders among juveniles in the justice systemis high, it is particularly high among femalejuveniles. A 1997 study estimated that 84 percentof female juveniles (compared to 27 percent oftheir male counterparts) had evidence of seriousmental health symptoms (Timmons-Mitchell etal., 1997). Similarly, an epidemiological study ofpsychiatric illnesses among youth in detentionpublished in 2002 estimated that 74 percent offemale juveniles (compared to 66 percent oftheir male counterparts) met the criteria for acurrent disorder (Teplin, Abram, McClelland,Dulcan, & Mericle, 2002).

Family Role DistinctionsAnother important difference betweenincarcerated men and women is that women aresignificantly more likely to have been primarycaretakers of children prior to entering prison(Mumola, 2000) and are more likely to plan toreturn to that role upon release (Hairston, 2002).This fact alone transforms the experience of


many incarcerated women. They are concernedin an ongoing way with their children’s day-to-day welfare, since incarceration may have causedsignificant family disruption and children areoften moved several times during a woman’sincarceration. While 90 percent of children ofmale offenders continue to live with their motherduring their father’s incarceration, only 28percent of children of female offenders live withtheir other parent. Instead, they live withgrandparents (52.9 percent), other relatives (25.7percent), in non-relative foster homes (9.6percent), or with friends/others (10.4 percent)(Mumola, 2000).

Incarcerated women stand to lose their parentalrights if they do not stay abreast of child welfareactions that require regular contact between aparent and a child placed in foster care (see, e.g.,Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) of 1997,and for more information about ASFA, see ChildWelfare League of America’s Web site athttp://www.cwla.org.). At the same time, fewcorrectional institutions maintain relationshipswith child welfare agencies that would facilitatethe sharing of information with offenders, andenable offender participation in relevantproceedings. The limited number of facilities forwomen means that visitation can be especiallydifficult, since children and caregivers may haveto travel long distances and caregivers often donot have the time or the means to do so. Thenegative impact of a threatened mother-childrelationship, whether through action like aTermination of Parental Rights petition orinaction like lack of contact, can have a dramaticimpact on women during their incarceration, aswell as increase the obstacles faced duringreentry.

ConclusionAny attempt to address the successfulreintegration of female offenders into thecommunity following incarceration in an adult orjuvenile facility must address the many andvaried distinctions between male and femaleoffenders and integrate that information into thedevelopment of informed policies and practicesthat build upon the strengths presented by thosedistinctions. Institutional corrections andcommunity supervision agencies must becognizant of different pathways to criminality forgirls and women and the impact of thoseexperiences on both their interaction with thejustice system and their ability to reintegratefollowing release.

Female offenders, regardless of age, presentdissimilar risks to the communities to which theyreturn. In addition, they impact in different waysthe communities to which they return, oftenreassuming primary responsibility to provide andcare for children and/or other family members.While they share the need for suitableemployment, housing, and treatment programswith male offenders, programs and servicesdesigned to meet these needs for femaleoffenders must also address issues related tohistories of physical and sexual abuse anddepression.

The unique characteristics of this population andthe strengths and challenges they bring to effortsto reintegrate female offenders should be fullyexplored as part of building effective and genderresponsive reentry strategies.


CHAPTER 2: GENDER RESPONSIVENESSResearch on the differences between male andfemale offenders invites institutional correctionsand community supervision agencies to considerhow policies and practices either acknowledge orignore the ways in which women’s experienceswithin and outside the criminal justice systemare different from their male counterparts. It alsoinvites consideration of how the role ofinstitutional corrections and communitysupervision agencies in supporting the successof reentering women offenders might beadjusted to maximize the strengths inherent inthese differences and minimize the inherentchallenges and obstacles. Researchers in thisfield call this being “gender responsive:” takingaccount of the differences in experience that menand women bring to the criminal justice andinstitutional corrections and communitysupervision systems and adjusting strategies andpractices in ways that are appropriatelyresponsive to those differences (Bloom, Owen, &Covington, 2003). While this also opens the doorto looking at more effective gender responsiveprogramming for men (such a step would beencouraged), the correctional system wasdesigned with the predominantly malepopulation in mind, incorporating assumptionsabout typical male behaviors, experiences, andcriminal pathways. While this has not necessarilyproduced the desired results for men, as there issignificant work to be done in improving offenderreentry success rates for men, it has in effectrendered the unique experiences of womeninvisible within the field of criminal justice.

The study of gender responsiveness has takencues from many other arenas, includingsubstance abuse treatment, which has begun torecognize the limitations of certain treatmentmodels when used with women, differences inwomen’s typical patterns of and physicalresponses to substance abuse, and theimportance of addressing issues of trauma andvictimization as part of a comprehensiveapproach to intervening in women’s substance

abuse behaviors (Hanson, 2002). Because somany women in the criminal justice system havesubstance abuse problems, this field hascontributed significantly to the thinking aboutgender responsive approaches to womenoffenders.

The health field has also been instructive. Forexample, recent research on heart disease hassubstantiated differences in the way heart attacksmanifest in women. While the disease isessentially the same, a blockage in the flow ofblood to the heart muscle, women oftenexperience a different set of symptoms than mendo. This has caused many women and theirdoctors to fail to recognize a heart attack inprogress (McSweeney et al., 2003). Thus, it isnot only in the obvious areas of reproductivehealth that physicians and researchers need tolook at differences between men and women.Instead, they need to look at the many and subtleways in which women’s bodies are different frommen’s bodies. Once these differences areunderstood, they must take the next step ofeducating the public and health carepractitioners about how to respond moreeffectively to health problems in women.

Principles of GenderResponsivenessA gender responsive approach to womenoffenders in the correctional system includesseveral key elements or principles, according toGender Responsive Strategies: Research, Practice,and Guiding Principles for Women Offenders, theinfluential 2003 report by Bloom, Owen, andCovington. These principles address the areas ofgender, environment, relationships, services andsupervision, economic and social status, andcommunity:

• First and foremost is the simpleacknowledgement that gender does make adifference for correctional practice. Withoutthis acknowledgement by senior policymakers,

162


and grounding in the knowledge of genderdifferences, there is little support for changingand improving policy and practice based onthe gender specific needs of women.

• Next would be creating an environment basedon safety, respect, and dignity. Given the highrates of trauma and victimization of women inthe correctional system, it is important forboth offenders and staff that the environmentdoes not reinforce or exacerbate the impact ofa history of violence. Women must be freefrom sexual and other forms of abuse by staffand other offenders. As the field of psychologyhas taught, behavioral change is most likely tooccur in environments that are safe, nurturing,compassionate, and consistent. While theseare not concepts typically associated with aprison environment, taking cues from the fieldof treatment becomes increasingly importantas the field of corrections renews itscommitment to rehabilitation and offendersuccess in the community.

• The field of developmental psychology (andmuch anecdotal experience) teaches thatwomen’s experience is defined throughrelationships, in contrast to men, whosemajor developmental tasks are definedthrough achieving autonomy andindependence. Many of women’s criminalexperiences can be best understood in thecontext of unhealthy relationships, often withsignificant others who encourage substanceabuse or make demands on women tobecome involved in the drug trade orprostitution. Because of dysfunctional familybackgrounds and histories of domesticviolence and sexual abuse, many women incorrectional institutions have no experience ofhealthy, trusting, prosocial relationships witheither men or women. For correctionalpractice, this means that policies andpractices need to promote healthyrelationships within the institutional setting,as well as support offenders’ healthyconnections with children, families, significantothers, and the community.

• Women’s typical pathways into crime and thecriminal justice system involve a complexinterplay of trauma and victimization,substance abuse, and mental health problems.Services and supervision provided to womenoffenders, therefore, should address theseissues in an integrated way in order torespond most effectively to how womenactually experience and understand them.Cultural issues also need to be appropriatelyintegrated into program design in order toincrease participant retention and havemaximum impact on the targeted offenders.

• From a socioeconomic point of view, mostwomen who enter the criminal justice systemare economically disadvantaged, with littleeducation, few job skills, and sporadicemployment histories. Many have relied onpublic assistance that, in some states, will nolonger be available following a felony drugconviction. At the same time, many of thesewomen are single mothers who must findways to support both themselves and theirchildren. Their capacity to be economicallyself-sufficient is essential to their success intheir community, especially if understood inthe context of relationships. Women who arenot self-sufficient must depend on family orsignificant others. While some families andsignificant others can be sources oftremendous support and stability, others cancontribute to women’s instability and leavethem vulnerable to further involvement insubstance abuse or other criminal activities.

• Women typically return to the samecommunities from which they left to go toprison. The challenges they faced there likelywill still exist for them upon their return.Therefore, they need to find support withinthose same communities in order to face themyriad challenges that accompany reentry:staying clean and sober, finding safe andsober housing, returning to a primarycaretaker role for their children, findingemployment that pays a livable wage alongwith child care and transportation, and


negotiating the requirements of communitysupervision along with the possibility ofadditional requirements of the child welfaresystem. For some women, this also involvesfinding care for chronic health conditions likeHIV. Just as the services and programmingwithin corrections need to take account of theinterrelationship of substance abuse, violence,mental health, and family/relationship issuesin women’s lives, so do supportive services inthe community. Services must becomprehensive, and must be coordinated sothat receiving support does not placeadditional burdens on returning offenders. Inorder to achieve this level of service forwomen, institutional corrections andcommunity supervision agencies need to joinforces with public and private communityorganizations to ensure that the communitysupport is available for women to successfullyfulfill their criminal justice system obligations,and achieve successes that will ensure thatthey do not return to prison.

There is ongoing work in the development ofspecific models for practice based on thesegender responsive principles. They can serve asboth a basis for self-assessment and a guidelinefor implementation of changes. Manyjurisdictions have incorporated these principlesthrough such practices as developing contractorrequirements for women’s treatment servicesthat require a gender specific treatmentapproach; creating gender specific caseloads forcommunity supervision; revising family visitationprograms to better support mother-childrelationships; and revising intake procedures toidentify and address PTSD and co-occurringmental health and substance abuse disordersearly in a woman’s stay in prison so that womensuffering from trauma are better able to copewith the demands of institutional life. These arejust examples of ways in which genderresponsive principles have been translated intopractice.

ConclusionResearch has provided important information onhow a consideration of the different experiencesof male and female offenders can impactsuccessful reentry. While both male and femaleoffenders face many of the same challenges tosuccess (e.g., housing, employment, substanceabuse issues), the solutions to these issues oftenare achieved through different methods,requiring different sets of skills, services, andprogramming. An acknowledgement that gendermakes a difference in the success of institutionalcorrections and community supervisionagencies’ reentry policies and practices is a keyfirst step in developing a strategic plan that willprovide avenues for successful reentry for thegrowing population of women offenders.

• Acknowledge that gender (male andfemale) makes a difference.

• Apply the principles of genderresponsiveness to the developmentand implementation of reentry poli-cies and practices.

• Use models from other fields of study(such as health and substance abusetreatment) to inform the considera-tion, development, and implementa-tion of gender responsive policiesand practices.

KEY STEPS


CHAPTER 3: KEY MANAGEMENT ISSUESFOR WOMEN OFFENDERSWhile women face many of the same obstaclesas men during their period of incarceration andthroughout the early stages of their return to thecommunity (e.g., addressing substance abuseissues or locating jobs and housing), women’sreentry experience is influenced by the samefactors that create their unique pathways into thecriminal justice system. These include:

• Histories of physical and sexual abuse.• The combination of substance abuse and

mental illness.• Economic disadvantage.

In addition, women offenders are unique in thatthey are challenged by the expectation (their ownand that of others) that they will resume full-timeparenting responsibilities upon their release. Inaddition, many also are faced with the challengeof managing chronic physical health problemssuch as HIV or hepatitis. Perhaps one of thegreatest challenges for institutional correctionsand community supervision agencies is the needto understand and implement strategies thataddress this entire complex of issuessimultaneously rather than considering themindependently or sequentially.

Assessment

Every offender goes through a process ofassessment upon entry into an institution, andoften at various stages throughout theirincarceration and beyond. Full and accurateinformation gathering is a critically importantcomponent of reentry, since all decisions aboutan offender’s experience (from custody level, toeligibility for programs, to type of programmingneeded, to the types of support necessary toachieve success) are linked to what can beknown about each offender, the risks the offenderpresents, and what types of programming andsupport the offender needs in order to succeed.

Assessments, however, serve many differentpurposes. The first function of assessment andthe mainstay of most correctional programs is aclassification system that predicts an offender’slikelihood of rearrest, reconviction, absconding(e.g., community risk assessment instruments),or serious misconduct (e.g., institutional custodyclassification and reclassification instruments).Another important function of assessment is theidentification of treatment needs. Needsassessments complement the risk assessmentand direct correctional practitioners to treatmenttargets that should be addressed during thecorrectional term and upon release. Theseassessments are often understood in terms ofthe particular tools that are used. Most states,however, use the same assessment tools for menas they do for women, despite what is knownabout the different pathways, needs, andcustodial behavior presented by males and

Prerelease is not the beginning of offenderreentry. It is a stage that follows andshould be built upon efforts that begin atintake, including assessment, caseplanning, and the provision of programsand services.

Assessment: Key Questions1. Is information gathered on the issues

that are most relevant to women (e.g.,abuse and trauma, family andchildren, mental health,relationships)?

2. Have the assessment tools beenvalidated on a relevant femalepopulation?

3. Does the staff conducting assessmentsunderstand the areas in which maleand female offenders differ?


females. An inventory conducted by the NationalInstitute of Corrections, now several years ago,found that at that time only fourteen states hadvalidated institutional risk assessments forwomen offenders, and fewer (eight states) haddifferent needs assessments for women and men(Van Voorhis & Presser, 2001).

Tools that are validated on male populationsinvariably overclassify the risk level of womenoffenders. In other words, the highest riskwomen are almost inevitably lower risk (forassaultive misconducts, non-walkaway escapes,and violence) than the highest risk men(Hardyman & Van Voorhis, 2004). Thedesignation of high risk, therefore,miscategorizes some women offenders and canlead to fewer opportunities for programming andstepdown to community placements. In addition,there is evidence that some factors currentlyassessed in ostensibly gender-neutral toolsoperate differently in men and women. Forexample, a factor like greater education thatsuggests lower risk of institutional infractionsamong men enhances rather than lowers the riskof such infractions among women (Hardyman &Van Voorhis, 2004).

Another problem with these non-validated, non-gender specific tools is that they can miss someof the issues that constitute women’s uniqueexperience, and therefore provide insufficientinformation about the placements,programming, and other needs that will advancewomen’s success. While current correctionalpractice strongly emphasizes the need todedicate resources toward the criminogenicneeds of offenders (or in other words, thosefactors most likely to contribute to futurecriminality) (Andrews & Bonta, 1998), there isconsiderably more research needed tounderstand whether the criminogenic needs

shared by men and women are, in fact, the onesthat will contribute most significantly to women’ssuccess both within and outside the institution(Hardyman & Van Voorhis, 2004). Some studiessuggest that factors such as the well-being of awoman’s children, which are not accounted forin existing gender neutral assessment tools, havea profound impact on women’s institutional andpost-institutional behavior and need to beunderstood more fully (Hardyman & VanVoorhis, 2004).

Institutional corrections and communitysupervision agencies are strongly encouraged toexamine their assessment processes and ensurethat the tools that are being used for womenhave been validated on an appropriate femalepopulation. More importantly in the short term,however, is to recognize the need to gather fulland accurate information about the women whoare entering the institutions, whether that isaccomplished by revising existing tools or simplysupplementing existing tools with additionalassessment instruments in order to solicitinformation on those factors known to beimportant to women. These factors include:history of abuse; current relationship status;mental health concerns, especially PTSD; familyissues (including how many children the offenderhas, whether she is caring for parents or otherfamily members, who provides care in thewoman’s absence, concerns the offender hasabout family members’ wellbeing, and whethershe needs assistance in working with childwelfare agencies to ensure that her parentalrights are not terminated); and socioeconomichistory and what she will need in order tobecome economically self-sufficient.

Research is underway to test whether and howthese gender specific factors actually predict risk(McCampbell, 2005) and it is clear that thecurrent generation of risk assessment tools hasnot adequately addressed these issues forwomen. Preliminary evidence has been reportedwhich suggests that when gender responsiveitems are used to predict criminal behavior theyare more predictive than traditional risk/need

The first step in assessment should beasking each woman her goals in each ofthe basic life areas.


assessments (Van Voorhis, 2007; Blanchette,2007). Further research is needed to augmentthese findings; however, it is clear that the issuesidentified above (e.g., mental health, child care,relationships) are significant issues that must beacknowledged and addressed before a womanwill be able to address those factors successfully.

Until recently there have been few efforts todevelop or modify assessments to be genderresponsive. However, there are some recentdevelopments that hold promise:

• The National Institute of Corrections, inconjunction with Pat Van Voorhis at theUniversity of Cincinnati, has developed acomprehensive gender responsive assessmenttool that has been validated with a sample ofwomen in Missouri (Van Voorhis, 2007).

• The University of Cincinnati has developed atrailer which consists of a number of genderresponsive items that can be used in additionto existing risk needs assessment tools (VanVoorhis, 2007).

• Orbis Partners of Ottawa Canada[www.orbispartners.com] is piloting arisk/needs/strengths assessment that wasdeveloped for women. The Service PlanningInventory for Women (SPin-W) incorporatesgender responsive needs and protectivefactors across ten critical domains.

Whatever tool is used, information needs to begathered across all of the basic life areas(subsistence/livelihood, residence,health/sobriety, family/relationships, and criminaljustice compliance). This will enable adetermination of what concerns women arebringing with them to the institution that willimpact their experience, what issues need to beresolved over the period of incarceration, andwhat challenges will need to be surmounted asthey approach their release into the community.Assessments should also be looking forstrengths and protective factors that can benurtured in order to build women’s resilience asthey face the challenges they will inevitablyencounter while incarcerated and upon release.

Finally, sufficient attention should be paid to thecontext of these assessments since it might beexpected that women will withhold informationunless and until they can trust that it will be usedfor their benefit and not their detriment. This is adifficult task in the correctional environment butone that is built upon the gender responsivenessprinciples of both environment (safety, respect,and dignity) and relationships (modeling andfacilitating healthy connections with others).

Behavior and Programming

As part of the transformation from a security-oriented to success-oriented approach tocorrections, women’s institutions must considerhow to incorporate the elements of genderresponsiveness on both a structural andprogramming level. Of primary concern isensuring that women who have experiencedphysical, sexual, and emotional trauma, especiallythose with PTSD, are not further traumatized bythe environment or the behavior of staff,including but not limited to sexual misconductand verbal abuse. This is both a training andleadership issue, representing the kind of broadorganizational change covered in Section Three. Itrequires the coordination of new training for staffon key issues related to women offenders and thereconsideration of existing policies and practicerelated to providing incentives for staff to adoptnew behaviors. It also requires the clear and opencommitment of the institutional leadership toimplementing this kind of change. Taking on

Behavior and Programming:Key Questions

1. Does staff have the necessary trainingto translate assessment informationinto a meaningful case plan?

2. Do programs and services effectivelycorrespond to the risks and needsidentified among women?

3. Do programs and services, and thestructure through which they aredelivered, reflect the interrelatednessof women’s risks and needs?


institutional culture is a difficult but necessaryelement of facilitating successful reentry forwomen offenders, since their experience withinthe institution will inevitably impact theirexperiences on the outside, perhaps far into thefuture (Harding, 2000).

Structurally, consideration should be given to thecreation of appropriate and sustainablerelationships between offenders andrepresentatives of the institution, such ascreating a case management system wherebywomen are encouraged to develop a healthy,supporting, or encouraging relationship with ateam of staff members whose primary interest isthe woman’s success. This can also beaccomplished through connections between theinstitution and community-based agencies.When community-based treatment and otherservice providers are encouraged to provideservices to women in the institution, these sameservice providers are better equipped to provideongoing services to the women when they leaveand, in fact, may be better equipped toanticipate, plan, and proactively prepareoffenders for release than those with institutionalexperience alone. With the connections andrelationships in place, women offenders may bemore likely to follow up with essential servicesupon their return to the community, thusenhancing their likelihood of success in all of thebasic life areas. This is especially importantbecause women typically have shorter lengths ofstay in prison than do men (Greenfeld & Snell,1999; Parke & Clarke-Stewart, 2002). There isoften insufficient time for women to completetreatment and other types of programmingduring their incarceration. Communitypartnerships are essential to ensure that what isbegun in the institution can be completed in thecommunity, and/or opportunities for treatmentand programming that are missed in theinstitution can be compensated for incommunity-based programming.

Programming availability and content must alsoreflect the gender specific needs of women.Because the challenges women face in thecommunity are interrelated, programming forwomen must address these issues in integratedrather than compartmentalized ways. Forexample, programming must reflect anunderstanding of how violence in the lives ofwomen impacts many of their decisions andexperiences, including where to work, where tolive, who to trust, with whom to associate, andwhether to use drugs. Only when women receivehelp in understanding these interrelationshipscan they begin to develop strategies forsustaining a healthy crime-free life in thecommunity.

Additional Considerations in theTransition of Women Offenders

Subsistence/LivelihoodIn order to succeed in the community, womenneed to be equipped for gainful employment.Institutions can benefit from partnerships withlocal or statewide workforce developmentagencies in order to ensure that institutionaleducation, job readiness, and employmenttraining match the opportunities available towomen on the outside. Too often women spendvaluable time learning skills that their criminaljustice status will prevent them from using forlegal employment (i.e., employment requiringlicensure, often unavailable to those with felonycriminal records), or that are unlikely to lead to

Because the challenges women face in thecommunity are interrelated, programmingfor women must address these issues inintegrated rather than compartmentalizedways. For example, programming mustreflect an understanding of how violencein the lives of women impacts many oftheir decisions and experiences, includingwhere to work, where to live, who to trust,with whom to associate, and whether touse drugs.


jobs with sufficient wages for them to support afamily. Women who cannot support themselveswill need to rely on others, and research on thepathways to criminality for women offendersindicates that this dependence is often directlyrelated to their criminal behavior. Programmingneeds to target long-term economic self-sufficiency as a primary goal, and begin movingwomen offenders in that direction to the extentpossible.

ResidenceMost jurisdictions have many fewer institutionsfor women than men do. As a result, mostwomen are housed far from the communities towhich they will return (an average of 160 miles)(Travis, Cincotta, & Solomon, 2003), which limitstheir ability to build relationships with and/orremain connected to both the people andservices in those communities. The use ofcommunity-based alternatives for women isespecially important for this reason. Community-based residential facilities for women can helpprevent some of the disruption caused byincarceration while serving many of the samepurposes, especially for those women who areclassified at the lowest custody levels. Womenshould be diverted to or transferred tocommunity-based facilities for as much of theirsentences as possible.

Family/RelationshipsFor the wellbeing of women offenders, as well astheir children and their children’s caregivers onthe outside, institutions need to develop policiesand practices that recognize that healthyrelationships are critical to women’s long-termsuccess. “Studies comparing the outcomes ofprisoners who maintained family connectionsduring prison through letters and personal visitswith those who did not suggest that maintainingfamily ties reduces recidivism rates.” (Travis,Cincotta, & Solomon, 2003). Institutions mustwork to remove as many obstacles as possible tosustaining and, where possible, improving theessential connections between women, theirchildren and families, and other members of theirexisting support networks. This can include

creating child friendly visiting spaces and policies(e.g., allowing physical contact, providing snacks,removing limits on the number of children thatcan visit, working with community groups todevelop programs for weekend long visits; pairingparenting classes with therapeutic visitingprograms, flexible visiting hours). Institutionsshould consider eliminating family visits from thelist of privileges that can be taken away andinstead view them, like daily exercise, as activitiesessential to offender well-being. Other methodsof strengthening family/relationship ties includecreating family reunification counseling programsto help prepare offenders and their significantothers for the challenges of reentry, andidentifying a child welfare liaison to ensurewomen are aware of and meeting obligations thatwill prevent termination of their parental rights.

When women do have children in foster care,they need assistance from the correctionalinstitution to remain in contact with theirchildren. They may need flexibility on approvedphone numbers (foster children can betransferred with minimal notice and case workersreassigned) and the ability to make calls that arenot collect (not all foster parents will acceptcollect calls), copy cards and letters sent to them(to prove that the offender kept in contact), andwork with legal services to prepare for and attendhearings. Even if children are not in foster care,they may enter a crisis and women may needflexibility in order to be involved. For example,children may attempt suicide, drop out of school,get evicted from their living situation, or have anemotional breakdown. While incarcerationinevitably disrupts family and communityconnections, there are myriad ways thatinstitutions, in partnership with community-based organizations, can work to mitigate someof those effects and better prepare women andtheir significant others for their eventual return.

Health/SobrietyMost women who enter prison are in poor healthas a result of lifestyles that damage their bodies,and poverty and histories of abuse prevent themfrom seeking and receiving the help they need


(Bloom, Owen, & Covington, 2003; CSAT, 1999).Ironically, prison may be the first place thatwomen receive regular treatment for both acuteand chronic physical and mental healthproblems. Screening for health problems inwomen is essential, both because some of thehealth conditions are infectious and may needspecialized management, and because physicaland mental impairments can prevent womenfrom participating in and benefiting from otheressential programming. Some recent studieshave suggested that women entering prison havemuch higher rates of self-injury or self-harm thanwomen who are not incarcerated. Womenoffenders who exhibit self-injury behaviors do notadjust to the institutional environment orrespond to programming as well as women whodo not exhibit this behavior (Wichmann, Serin, &Abrucen, 2002). Understanding this critical issuefrom a behavioral and programming perspective(not to mention assessment) seems critical tosuccessfully working with women while they areincarcerated.

Women also need to be screened for pregnancyso that proper prenatal care can be administeredand preparations made for birth and infant care,or steps can be taken to terminate the pregnancy,if appropriate. It is important that treatment beprovided in a manner consistent with individualdignity, respect, and privacy. Too often women inprison are treated as if their bodies are publicproperty (Galbraith, 1998), and this kind oftreatment runs counter to the ultimate goal ofencouraging women to value and take care oftheir bodies. In addition to treatment for disease,institutionalized women need education onhealth related issues, including reproductivehealth, nutrition and exercise, mental health, andmanaging chronic diseases.

Of all the health issues that women bring toprison, substance abuse is probably the mostcommon, both alone and in combination withother mental and physical health problems. TheCenter for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT), abranch of the Substance Abuse and MentalHealth Services Administration of the U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services, haspublished a variety of technical assistancematerials pertaining to best practices insubstance abuse treatment for women, includingSubstance Abuse Treatment for Women Offenders,Guide to Promising Practices (CSAT, 1999). TheCSAT approach is to view substance abuse asbeing intricately intertwined with all the majorfacets of a woman’s life. The substance abusecannot be addressed as an isolated problem. If awoman is to heal and maintain recovery, thetreatment program must help her address bothher social and psychological needs. These areasinclude the impact of physical and sexual abuseduring childhood, depression, domestic violence,the drug and alcohol abuse of her partner,relations with her children, and the guilt, shame,and low self-esteem and confidence that her lifeexperience has produced (CSAT, 1999).

According to the National Institute on DrugAbuse (NIDA, 2005), research shows thatwomen receive the most benefit from drugtreatment programs that provide comprehensiveservices for meeting their basic needs, includingaccess to the following:

• Food, clothing, and shelter• Transportation• Job counseling and training• Legal assistance• Literacy training and educational opportunities• Parenting training• Family therapy• Couples counseling• Medical care• Child care• Social services• Social support• Psychological assessment and mental health

care• Assertiveness training• Family planning services

While some of these issues (such astransportation or couples counseling) are lessrelevant to incarcerated women, they becomevery relevant to women upon leaving the


institution. Correctional substance abuseprogram leaders, therefore, need to consider howto partner with their community correctionscounterparts and community-based treatmentproviders to ensure that these offender reentryneeds are addressed through their programdesign that should, ideally, involve community-based providers in a seamless network ofservices.

The principle that emerges from the well-researched area of substance abuse interventionis the need to integrate and not isolate thevarious elements of women’s experience inprogram design. This will apply to substanceabuse as well as mental health treatment,physical and sexual health education,employment training and preparation, parentingskills programs, and general life skills, stressmanagement, problem solving, andempowerment. Each of these topics needs tointegrate information on coping with trauma andmental health symptoms; managing parenting,elder care, and childcare responsibilities; anddealing with sexual harassment or abuse(whether by a partner, treatment provider,employer, corrections officer, or supervisionofficer). All must be oriented toward increasingwomen’s self-efficacy, the sense that the offenderhas the power to affect the course of her life. Thecombination of integrated service elements withattention to the institutional and treatmentenvironment can have a profound effect onwomen’s ability to move toward genuinebehavioral change. On an institutional level,understanding the issues that impact a woman’shealth can suggest a variety of funding sourcesthat may assist the woman in receiving the carethe offender needs in the community.

Criminal Justice ComplianceAs most correctional officers know, women’sbehavior in institutions differs from that of men.Women commit far fewer serious and violentmisconducts than men but are more frequentlycited for minor misconducts (Hardyman & VanVoorhis, 2004). Researchers note that staffmembers who are inexperienced or untrained in

working with women often use write-ups as away to manage minor incidents, which hassignificant repercussions for incarcerated women(Hardyman & Van Voorhis, 2004). Multipleinfractions such as staff disrespect or yelling canelevate a woman’s custody level, thus limitingher access to visitation, programming, andultimately release on supervision, despite the factthat these women pose little risk to safety eitherwithin or outside the institution. In addition,disciplinary codes in the institutions often fail todistinguish between misconducts with severeand relatively minor implications. For example,all assaults will be coded the same, whetherinvolving a sexual assault, an aggravated assaultinvolving substantial injury to the victim, orsimple assaults with no injury (which is far morecommon among women). This, too, can result inover classification of women. Moreover, there areother implications: at the time of release, theparoling authority’s release decision may bebased on a skewed impression of what a highnumber of misconducts represent in terms ofwomen’s institutional compliance and risk ofreoffense.

The issue of institutional misconducts reaffirmsthe importance of gender specific assessments,both at initial classification and reclassification.For one thing, troubled women (i.e., those withmental illness, experiences of abuse, substanceabuse, and other high needs) appear to commitmore misconducts than women who score highon criminal and institutional history (thetraditional predictors) (Hardyman & Van Voorhis,2004). Thus, for women, needs may be better

Women commit far fewer serious andviolent misconducts than men but aremore frequently cited for minormisconducts. Researchers note that staffmembers who are inexperienced oruntrained in working with women oftenuse write-ups as a way to manage minorincidents, which has significantrepercussions for incarcerated women.


predictors of misconduct than criminal history,though most institutions still rely on the latterrather than the former to make classificationdecisions (and custody classification accordingto need rather than behavior poses ethicalquestions that need to be addressed) (Hardyman& Van Voorhis, 2004). In addition, mostassessments do not take account of genderspecific needs, even those that have been shownto correlate to institutional adjustment such ashaving been a victim of child abuse,codependency or lack of power in relationships,and mental health (Hardyman & Van Voorhis,2004).

Release PreparationRelease preparation should begin immediatelyfollowing intake assessment and thedevelopment of an individual programming plan.Like their pathways into the system, women’sneeds upon leaving institutions are directlyinfluenced by their gender specific experience.While all offenders need to think about housing,women need to consider whether they will besafe from domestic violence if they choose to livewith an intimate partner. While all offenders needto consider job opportunities, women typicallyhave more limited work histories and lowerexpectations for their wage levels than men do,despite their need to support themselves andtheir children (LaVigne, Kachnowski, Travis,Naser, & Visher, 2003). Reunification withchildren may be the primary issue for women, sothey are also more likely to need childcare, andwill have to consider whether a potential joblocation or schedule will allow them access toaffordable childcare opportunities. Thus, aswomen are prepared for release, the subjectsmay be similar but the questions and issues thatneed to be addressed are likely to be differentfrom those addressed for men.

At the time of release, women should leave theinstitution with the essentials for their survival.The release package should include:

• All paperwork• A reasonable supply of medication (based on

the availability of public health services)

• Social security card• Birth certificate• Government identification• Copy of her case management plan (with

updated assessments)• Schedule for her first week

This can be a difficult process requiringsignificant coordination, and should be initiatedin a timely fashion. The offender will need bothmoney and transportation from the facility to hernew residence. Most importantly, the offenderwill need a case manager or other supportivecontact in the community who can help hernegotiate the challenges of her reentry.Depending upon how long the offender has beenincarcerated, the offender may need anorientation to new technologies, such as credit-like cards for public transportation, publicassistance, and Medicaid. Community-basedagencies, faith groups and others can beimportant allies both to the individuals beingreleased and to the institutions. They can serveas a necessary bridge and offer services thatwomen need but that the institution is notstructured to provide.

As part of a systemic approach to offenderreentry, the prerelease period should includeupdated assessments and revisions to the casemanagement plan, as necessary. If theinstitutional programming plan has beensuccessful, women will be returning to thecommunity with different needs than when theyleft. These changes should be noted both toassist the woman in developing her sense ofsuccess and self-efficacy, and to assist thecommunity supervision agency and communityservice providers in moving forward with thewoman rather than duplicating work that hasbeen done. Institutional corrections andcommunity supervision agencies need to lookcarefully at parole rates, look at the releasingauthority’s interpretation of institutionalbehaviors, and ensure that women are beingreleased on supervision at rates at least equal tothose of the male population. If a casemanagement plan is being used to help assessoffenders’ eligibility for supervision, and the

172


programming or other structural support is notin place for women to meet the goals of theirplans successfully, the institution may need toaddress this issue on a system-wide basis.

Additional Considerations DuringRelease Preparation

Subsistence/LivelihoodWhile the ultimate goal is for women to be self-supporting and financially independent, withsufficient education and training opportunities toensure long-term stability and growth, theimmediate concern in the prerelease phase is onshort-term survival and stabilization. Womenshould be working toward job opportunities thatwill provide living wages and benefits, thoughsubsidized employment and minimum wagework are often necessary as a beginning, due topoor work histories and discrimination byemployers. Women offenders reentering thecommunity will also need to consider where theywill acquire food, clothing, and other essentialsupon release, and where they will be able toreceive mail, make phone calls, and receivemessages in order to pursue job, housing, andother opportunities and responsibilities.Institutions can help by ensuring that womenapply for any public health or cash benefits forwhich they may be eligible at the earliest possibleopportunity, including prior to release. Someprograms take as long as three months todetermine eligibility, and still others routinelyreject certain types of applicants and require anappeal. Assisting women in this area may requireworking with other public systems both tobecome familiar with their procedures and toidentify roadblocks and challenges that maycause delays. Women should also leave theinstitution equipped with proper identification.

Research has shown that offenders whoparticipate in work release programs are morelikely to find and retain employment in the threeto six months following release than those whoparticipate in either job training or job readinesseducation or institutional job placements(LaVigne, Kachnowski, Travis, Naser, & Visher,2003). There have traditionally been many fewerwork release opportunities for women than formen, but clearly this is the direction to follow toassist women in achieving financial stability. Theparticular challenge for women is ensuring thatfinancial dependence does not lead torelationships that jeopardize their sobriety, theirphysical, sexual, and emotional safety, or theirlikelihood of becoming involved in criminalactivities. When domestic violence is an issue ina woman’s life, the offender needs to be activelyencouraged to seek alternatives to returning tothe abusive relationship. While such arelationship may satisfy an immediate need forfinancial support and companionship, it can behighly detrimental to her longer-term prospects.

ResidenceResidential goals include safe, sober, permanent(and permanently affordable) housing that willaccommodate a woman and her children, thoughmany women pass through homeless sheltersand other housing alternatives on their waytoward the goal of a permanent residence.Women may need to rely on a network of familyand friends, though this option should becarefully considered in terms of whether thesituation supports or threatens her sobriety(Sullivan, Mino, Nelson, & Pope, 2002). Toomany women leaving prison end up homeless.This often leaves them extremely vulnerable toboth drug use and violent victimization. To avoidthis scenario, prerelease planning is essential.Many public housing authorities will not servewomen with criminal histories that include drugfelonies. This can severely limit women’s options.Even public housing for which an ex-offender iseligible often has long waiting lists and cannot beconsidered a survival or even stabilization phaseoption. Corrections agencies should work toensure that there are sufficient halfway houseplacements for women in the communities wherewomen are most likely to return. Halfway house

Service systems that case managers need tobecome familiar with in order to assistwomen include: substance abuse treatment,child welfare, housing and homelessness,public assistance (e.g., TANF, food stamps,SSI), mental health, child care, Medicaid,and HIV/AIDS Services.


placements can facilitate a successful returnbecause they allow women time in theircommunities to seek appropriate housing andemployment without resorting to old criminalnetworks, abusive partners, or living on the street.

Among the housing challenges that somewomen face is the challenge of meeting ChildWelfare requirements in order to regain custodyof children in foster care. A woman must locatehousing adequate for the size of her family butoften, in the case of subsidized housing, cannotrent a large enough apartment until the childrenare actually in her custody. This creates a difficultsituation for women whose goal is familyreunification. Finally, while most incarceratedwomen come from and will return to urbanenvironments, special attention should be paidto women from rural communities. Ruralcommunities tend to have fewer housing optionsand other services, and women are more likely toneed to rely on family and friend networks inorder to avoid homelessness. While that couldbe a positive development if the family issufficiently healthy and supportive, it could alsoplace a woman back in a situation that is eitherdangerous and/or conducive to relapse.

Family/RelationshipsRegardless of how long a woman has beenincarcerated, whether the offender has maintainedcontact with her children, and whether theoffender has a positive relationship with thechildren’s caregiver(s), family reunificationfollowing incarceration can be challenging bothemotionally and practically. It is made easier,however, if family ties have been supportedthrough the period of incarceration. During theprerelease phase, institutions can facilitatesuccessful family reintegration by creatingopportunities for both offenders and familymembers to learn about what to expect, andhelping them to plan for anticipated challenges.Some corrections agencies have designedprograms at prerelease centers that involve familycounseling sessions with offenders and theirfamilies, and/or group educational sessions forfamilies alone. While involving families directly is

ideal, it is not always possible at isolatedinstitutions. Alternatives include partnering withcommunity-based agencies to provide counselingor information sessions, and increasing visitationopportunities such as weekend stays for childrenand visits with partners that might include ameeting with a prerelease counselor, or usingvideo conferencing technology.

In addition to family reunification issues,prerelease is an important time to consider howto develop or support appropriate andtherapeutic offender relationships with treatmentand other service providers in the community, aswell as with community supervision officers. Ifcommunity-based treatment providers have notbeen involved during incarceration, they shouldbe invited to meet with offenders prior to releaseto establish a connection and set upappointments for the women upon release.Similarly, other service providers should beinvited to share whatever resources they haveavailable since a personal contact will make itmore likely that a woman will avail herself of theresources once the offender is in the community.Supervision officers should also be encouragedto make contact with offenders well in advance ofrelease in order to discuss expectations andestablish appointments.

Health/SobrietyPrerelease planning for health and sobrietyissues involves ensuring that plans are in placefor continuity of treatment for physical health,mental health, and substance abuse relateddisorders. State and local public health agenciesare important partners in this endeavor, sincemost reentering offenders will rely heavily onpublic sector health care services upon release(RAND, 2003). Applications for public healthbenefits may need to be submitted prior torelease in order to ensure that services will be inplace when offenders leave the institution.Determination of eligibility can take up to ninetydays in some cases, and may require appeals,depending on the eligibility claim. Manyoffenders will need education on how to managechronic illnesses in order to avoid an over-


reliance on emergency services. They will alsoneed to be prepared to manage theirreproductive health, and will need counseling oncontraceptive options, as well as protectingthemselves (and/or their partners) from sexuallytransmitted diseases. Offenders who identify aslesbian will need different information in termsof their sexual health, and may also needreferrals to health care providers who aresensitive to their differing health needs.

Community-based substance abuse treatmentservices for the poor are limited, and can beespecially so for women, and even more so forwomen with children who require childcareservices or residential treatment facilities wherechildren can accompany them. Because theimmediate period following release can be sodangerous to sobriety, the fact that so manytreatment facilities have long waiting lists can beparticularly damaging to this population ofwomen. Ideally, women should leave theinstitution with a prearranged placement in anappropriate level of treatment. If not, they willmost likely need to rely on self-help groups untilan opening becomes available and should beprovided information on the locations andschedules of these meetings. This should not beconsidered sufficient, however, since mostsubstance-abusing women who are returning tothe community will need multidimensionalsupport around their drug use behaviors whichself-help groups are not necessarily geared toprovide.

Criminal Justice ComplianceDuring the prerelease period, women should bewell informed about the criminal justiceconditions that will be applied upon their release,and have an opportunity to meet with thesupervision officer to whom they will bereporting in order to begin to establish a rapportand clarify expectations. They should be assistedin anticipating which conditions are going to bethe most difficult for them, and how they mightovercome those difficulties, whether it is a matterof transportation to meet contact requirements,or avoiding contact with people who mightthreaten their sobriety. Women will need to know

how much money they will need to dedicate tofees of various kinds and if they will need to payrent at a halfway house or contribute to the costsof treatment. This process can be an importanteducation in planning and budgeting and willhelp women manage some of the stress that willsurely accompany their release. This is also atime to examine other system obligations thatmight compete or conflict with their criminaljustice compliance requirements, such as childwelfare requirements for family reunification,participation in a dependency court, or TANF.Often, each system representative (e.g.,supervision officer, child welfare caseworker,judge) will assume that their requirementsshould supersede all others, leaving women inan untenable position. Many women needassistance negotiating a plan that will not be arecipe for failure, and women should not have tochoose between these equally vital needs.

Release: Key Questions1. Have supervision officers been

integrated into the prerelease processand received necessary informationabout institutional achievements,progress, and ongoing needs?

2. In addition to basic supplies forsurvival (e.g., money, identification,etc.), is there an established linkagewith a supportive person in thecommunity with whom the offendercan make contact immediately uponrelease?

3. Many incarcerated women havemental and physical disorders. Dowomen leaving the institution haveprescriptions, adequate supplies ofmedication, and an appointment witha community-based health careprovider?

4. Is gender used as an analytic categoryin monitoring and evaluating releaserates? Are women being released atrates comparable to men andappropriate to their level of threat tothe community?


ReleasePart of a systemic approach to offender reentryinvolves consideration of the role of communitysupervision. Too often, whether parole is part ofthe same or a different agency, institutionalcorrections and community supervision agenciesdo not communicate well or work together tofacilitate reentry for offenders. As institutionalcorrections and community supervision agenciesmove toward a focus on offender success as ameans of achieving public safety, thiscommunication becomes increasingly important.Interpersonal communication among treatmentproviders, case managers, supervision officers,community service providers, and othersinvolved in addressing offender needs andobligations is critical to providing support to thewoman’s reentry efforts.

Additional Considerations at Release

Subsistence/LivelihoodUnless a woman is in the unlikely position ofhaving a job waiting for her when followingrelease, the first days or even weeks out of prisonwill likely be a basic struggle for survival. Withoutincome, women need to find ways to acquirefood, clothing, and transportation, maintainbasic hygiene, and fulfill their criminal justiceobligations. Many will need public services, suchas those provided by faith and community-basedorganizations like clothing banks and foodpantries. Women should leave with a list ofproviders of basic services, with as muchinformation as possible about locations, hours ofoperation, accessibility by public transportation,contact phone numbers, et cetera.

ResidenceNo woman should leave the institution without aplace to go, whether it is to the home of a familyor friend, a shelter, or a halfway house, andtransportation to get there. The lack of a plan,however, is not a good reason to keep womenpast their release date. The solution is aproactive approach, adequate preparation time,and a solid backup plan facilitated by strongconnections between the institution and a

network of community shelter and housingproviders. Ideally, a woman will be going wheresomeone is expecting her arrival. Absent thesepreparations, many women will end up spendingtheir time on the street, a condition that is notconducive to long-term success.

Family/RelationshipsThe first task for many women upon release willbe locating their children and other members oftheir family and making contact with them.Depending on how long the offender has beenincarcerated and if the offender has remained incontact, this experience will vary in the level ofdifficulty, satisfaction, pain, and frustration itmight produce. Preparing a woman for thisprocess by encouraging family contact prior torelease or, if necessary, preparing a woman tohandle the feelings of disappointment orloneliness the offender might experience if theprocess does not go as the offender would like,is an important prerelease task. Though not asubstitute for family, encouraging contact withservice providers, twelve-step groups, and otherpotential sources of support can help womencope while seeking to reconnect with family.

Health/SobrietyAvoiding relapse is perhaps one of the biggestchallenges for newly released women. Part of awoman’s early survival on the outside will bedependent on knowing whom to contact forsupport (and whom to avoid) when the urge touse substances becomes strong. While currentthinking about relapse is that it is part of thejourney to sobriety, offenders should be strivingto lengthen the period of time between relapsesor, in other words, increase the periods ofsobriety. An early relapse can set the stage forfailure in the community, since it will make itdifficult to successfully reconnect with family andmanage criminal justice obligations, if not causea return to custody in and of itself. Therefore,women with substance abuse issues should belinked as quickly as possible with an appropriatelevel of treatment. This may require that theirMedicaid eligibility be established, thatappointments have been made prior to release,


and that information from the institution hasbeen shared with the treatment facility.

Women with other physical and mental disordersin addition to substance abuse issues will needto be able to continue on medication regimes,and establish routines in the community that arecompatible with self-care. Women who arehomeless are vulnerable to additional illnessesand infections and have a very difficult timemanaging care of chronic illnesses like HIV ordiabetes. Therefore, women who are ill have aparticular need for a stable residential plan toprevent worsening of their conditions and effortsshould be made to ensure that education on self-care is part of the release plan. Prereleasemanagers may be able to assist women inlocating housing resources that are tied tofunding streams for HIV/AIDS or severe mentalillness. It is vital that institutions provide aprescription and/or supply of medication thatwill realistically carry a woman until she can meetwith a community health care provider or untilmedical benefits can go into effect. A backupplan must be in place in case the process takeslonger than expected.

Criminal Justice ComplianceThe primary criminal justice goal for returningoffenders at the earliest stages of release is toreport for community supervision as required.This can be facilitated with prescheduledappointments, and a transportation plan.Supervision officers should be prepared to assistwomen in making sure that their basic survivalneeds are being met in order to prevent themfrom failing in their criminal justice obligationsfor no other reason than that basic survival takesprecedence. Supervision officers should also beprepared for women looking to them for supportand advice.

Supervision and ServicesEffective supervision for women involvespartnerships with community-based services,including those under contract with communitysupervision agencies, those with formal orinformal collaborative relationships, and thosethat are unaffiliated in any way beyond referral. Ifessential community service providers are notcurrently involved in the reentry partnership,efforts should be made to involve them. Ideally,supervision officers should be looking to thesecommunity-based services as partners in a teamapproach to offender management, helping todetermine the risks and needs of individualoffenders and the best strategies for addressingthem based on available resources. These wouldinclude: mental health and substance abusetreatment providers, especially those who canwork with dually-diagnosed women and thosethat have programs geared toward women with

Supervision and Services:Key Questions

1. Do supervision officers see their roleas helping offenders succeed?

2. Are supervision officers trained ingender responsive approaches tosupervising women offenders? Dothey understand and take into accountfamily and child related issues,women’s safety from abuse, andmental health issues? Are theyprepared to provide support andfacilitate access to services as well asperform more traditional oversightactivities?

3. Are contracted service providers (e.g.,substance abuse treatment providers,employment programs, etc.) requiredto provide gender responsiveprograms for women?

4. Do supervision officers use a range ofsanctions and rewards to help shapeoffender behavior? Is there policy inplace to help guide the use ofsanctions and rewards?


children; employment programs, especially thosethat have programs to address the specificchallenges women face in the workforce;domestic violence and sexual assault serviceproviders; halfway housing providers; and childcare specialists.

Increasingly, community supervision agencies areconsidering ways to make supervision practicesmore gender responsive. Some are organizinggender specific caseloads, while others aremaking efforts to train all officers on strategiesand practices most effective with women.Agencies that have made these efforts havebegun to see increasing numbers of womensuccessfully completing their supervisionobligations. Women are more likely to besuccessful when attention is paid to the qualityof the relationship between the officer and theoffender (Koons, Morash, Burrow, & Bynum,1997). Women’s success also depends uponsupport in dealing with family obligations, suchas ensuring that childcare is available at requiredprograms. More generally, the services to whichwomen are referred, and especially services forwhich the corrections agency contracts, shouldbe required to demonstrate that their programsare gender responsive. Gender responsiveprograms should be structurally designed tomeet women’s needs (like providing onsitechildcare and single sex treatment groups) andthe content should also integrate the variety ofissues known to be significant for women, suchas victimization and trauma.

Community supervision professionals, like theirinstitutional colleagues, need to embrace theposition that a significant part of their role is tohelp offenders succeed. It is no longer sufficient,in this model, to focus on surveillance,infractions, and failures; rather, considerationmust be given to how to motivate and supportoffenders in meeting their obligations andachieving success in the community. Thisrequires an ability to assess and make best useof offender strengths, such as helping offendersto articulate their own goals for their future andhow their period of supervision can help them

progress in their chosen direction. Supervisionofficers are increasingly being asked to functionas case managers, a balance requiring bothsupport and management skills. Communitysupervision agencies should consider how wellprepared their staff members are to fulfill boththe supporting and enforcing functions requiredby this approach. One important key to effectivecase management and supervision is being veryup front with information about expectations andconsequences. Women may be more likely toaccept being held accountable by someone whothey look to for support when the accountabilitymeasures are perceived as fair and predictable,rather than arbitrary and personal.

Most women under community supervision willbe relatively low-risk offenders (in terms of risk topublic safety) compared to the population ofmen. This suggests that they may be low priorityon a mixed supervision caseload. While thisreduces their chances of being violated fortechnicalities, it may also increase their chance offailure since women offenders need support inorder to succeed in becoming sober,independent, law-abiding members of thecommunity (Bloom & McDiarmid, 2000). Unlessthe system has developed a relationship with acommunity-based agency to provide casemanagement services to women offenders, thesupervision officer may be the only personpositioned to provide support and facilitateaccess to needed services. This challengeunderscores the importance of taking a teamapproach with community-based serviceproviders to the supervision of women offenders.Some of these service providers (e.g., substanceabuse treatment, halfway housing providers) maybe well equipped to provide the casemanagement services the women need, freeingthe supervision agent to play a supporting ratherthan primary role in seeing that women’sessential needs are met.

Because women offenders present so manyneeds, however, there is an additional challenge:ensuring that women are not over supervised,that their level of obligation does not exceed the


level of their crime or risk they pose to thecommunity, and that their readily apparent needsare not automatically translated into greatercriminal justice requirements. In other words, itis very important that supervision officersrecognize and provide guidance and referrals forproblems like domestic violence. However,attendance at a battered women’s support groupshould not necessarily become an additionalobligation of a woman’s conditions ofsupervision. Community supervision agenciesand others who have any control oversupervision conditions should make every effortto ensure that conditions for women are realistic,relevant, and research-based.

Additional Considerations DuringCommunity Supervision

Survival/LivelihoodHolding a job is a typical condition ofcommunity supervision, and research supportsthe connection between employment and loweroffending rates among offenders undercommunity supervision (Visher, LaVigne, &Travis, 2004). Women, however, face obstaclesthat most men do not in finding and keepingjobs. In addition to histories that typically includeless education and training, greater incidences ofmental illness, and limited work experience andearnings, women need to have adequate,affordable childcare and a backup plan for timeswhen children are sick in order to succeed in theworkplace (Reed & Leavitt, 1998). They need tohave safe transportation; women are notnecessarily safe when walking or taking publictransportation at certain times or in certainplaces. They need to understand how to managesexual harassment issues if they should arise. If awoman needs to leave her job in order to achievesafety from sexual or physical abuse, this shouldnot be held against her. To supervise womeneffectively, supervision officers need tounderstand the specific barriers that women facein the job market and in retaining employment.

In order to be most effective with womenoffenders, supervision officers should try toeducate themselves on the local resourcesavailable to support employment among womenoffenders. Ideally, the community supervisionagency will have formal relationships withworkforce assistance programs that specialize inhard-to-place employees. Some of theseprograms will include services in other areas aswell, like substance abuse treatment, and somewill help direct women into jobs, likeconstruction trades, that promise a bettereconomic future for women and their families.These programs should be assessed for theirgender responsiveness, such as whether they areprepared to help women address domesticviolence and sexual harassment, both of whichcan profoundly impact employment stability.They should also be assessed as to whether thestaff includes women whose backgrounds reflecttheir client population.

ResidenceAffordable housing is a national crisis, andwomen under community supervision arevictims of this crisis along with many other low-income groups. They also face additionalobstacles, however, since criminal backgroundchecks are a mainstay of housing applications,and many are still struggling with addiction,mental illness, and other obstacles to stability.Some women under community supervision willbe fortunate in finding a placement at a halfwayhouse facility that is designed to help womenwith the reentry process, whether a prereleasefacility or a facility designed for women who havebeen released to community supervision. It isbest for women when supervision officers worktogether with staff at these residential facilities tomanage the various services and obligations ofeach individual woman. For women withoutaccess to these resources, supervision officersneed to be mindful of their vulnerability tohomelessness—not considering homelessness afailure for which the women are responsible, butrather a challenge that they are facing due tomultiple obstacles. Supervision agencies shouldwork closely with local homelessness programs


to help women on supervision stay connected totreatment services and other essential supportservices that are significantly threatened whenstable housing is not available.

When family or friends provide housing,supervision officers should seek ways to includethese individuals as part of the woman’s supportnetwork. Using them not merely as collateralcontacts who will report on the woman’sbehavior but as assets who can support her inher efforts to succeed, supervision officers canhelp the support network remain in place andbecome stronger. Officers can educate family andfriends on issues such as addiction, ensure thatthe presence of the offender is not placing undueburdens on the household that can jeopardizeher stability, and provide referrals to services if,in fact, they are needed. This kind of approachboth assists women under communitysupervision in maintaining a stable residence,and honors the importance of these relationshipsin the lives of women.

Many believe that most women offenders do notbelong in prison at all, and that community-based corrections facilities are the best, mostappropriate option for non-violent womenoffenders. Advantages of these kinds of facilitiesinclude the ability of women to maintainconnections in the community that will facilitatetheir ability to locate permanent affordablehousing.

Family/RelationshipsReintegrating with family after a period ofincarceration is one of the most difficult andemotionally loaded challenges that women face.Supervision officers need to be aware that, inaddition to the emotional issues that maygenuinely wreak havoc on women’s ability tocope, women may face legal issues which willrequire their presence in court. They may beunder obligations to the child welfare system toparticipate in a variety of programs in order toavoid losing their children permanently. Thismeans they may need legal assistance for whichreferrals will be helpful, and they may need to

negotiate visitation and program schedules thatwill present logistical challenges as they attemptto meet their other obligations as well. Whilesupervision agencies typically have little to sayabout family and parenting issues except insofaras they involve the offenders’ contacts withothers who might have criminal justice historiesor be actively involved in substance abuse, it ishelpful to women in particular if supervisionofficers can be aware of and acknowledge thechallenges they may be facing. Supervisionofficers can then provide them with sufficientflexibility to address these important matters, aswell as referrals to community-based agenciesthat may be able to assist. Efforts expended toassist women in becoming effective parents andintegrated members of supportive, functionalfamilies can be expected to pay returns inwomen’s success in the community.

Health/SobrietySubstance abuse treatment providers can besupervision officers’ most important andvaluable allies in working with the many womenoffenders who have substance abuse issues(CSAT, 2005a). As partners, substance abusetreatment agencies are often prepared to providecase management services, and can work closelywith supervision officers to develop relapseprevention plans and other resources to helpofficers maintain perspective on the risks andneeds of women offenders. Together, treatmentproviders and officers can agree on responses toviolations or failures in treatment, theconsistency of which will assist women inunderstanding and meeting their obligations. Itis essential that treatment providers have bothknowledge and experience in working within acriminal justice system as well as in treatingwomen offenders, in order that they recognizethe need for gender specific, women onlyprograms, and are prepared to address thecomplicated lives of women returning to thecommunity from incarceration.

To some extent, the effectiveness of thispartnership will depend on the cooperation ofthe institutions in providing treatment programs


that comply with State treatment standards (thusenabling consistent follow up), facilitating thesharing of information among institutional andcommunity treatment providers, andencouraging access to offenders by communityproviders during the prerelease period.Community supervision agencies are responsiblefor developing ongoing collaborativerelationships with the treatment providers,including protocols for sharing case information,and establishing clear expectations of the rolesand responsibilities of the different agencies inmanaging the women.

Supervision agencies should be aware of howwomen generally are responding to a giventreatment program. Because men in treatmentsignificantly outnumber women, many treatmentfacilities have developed programs based on theneeds and substance abuse patterns of men.Even when these programs provide women-onlygroups, they may be doing so using approachesthat were developed for a male population andthus fail to address the differences in men’s andwomen’s drug use and recovery patterns, theirdifferent co-occurring problems (like eatingdisorders), and the ways that violence, mentalhealth, and family and significant relationshipsimpact their substance use (Kassebaum, 1999).In other words, it may be that the program is notmeeting the needs of the women, and womendrop out or fail to progress not because they areresistant but because they are essentiallyinvisible within the context of the program. Therehas been significant research in the past decadeon the substance abuse treatment needs ofwomen, and partnerships should be sought withthose programs that are familiar with thisresearch and are best equipped to address thegender specific needs of women.

Criminal Justice ComplianceMost supervision officers are aware of theimportance of providing swift and certainconsequences for inappropriate behavior. Fewerare familiar with or adept at providing rewardsand recognition for small or even largesuccesses. Operant conditioning, the idea of

using positive and negative reinforcement toshape behavior, is basic to behavioralmodification. In fact, research in this area hasshown that positive reinforcement is much moreeffective than negative reinforcement (Bandura,1996; Bandura & Ross, 1963; NIC & CJI, 2004;Gendreau & Goggin, 2007; Higgins & Silverman,1999). Yet community supervision has alwaysbeen more focused on responses to violationsthan accomplishments. In the switch toward asuccess-oriented corrections system, developinga set of rewards is just as important as a set ofsanctions for violations. These rewards caninclude everything from certificates ofachievement (e.g., six months without a missedappointment, completion of parenting program,etc.) to ceremonies of celebration (e.g.,completing a phase of treatment, completingsupervision, etc.) to early discharges. The pointis to find things to celebrate and provide womenwith sources of pride and accomplishment.

Response to ViolationsAccountability to the case management plan(crafted while the woman was incarcerated) willclearly be different outside the institution thanwithin it. Accountability should always be basedon clearly defined expectations and an advanceunderstanding of consequences. Sanctionsshould be graduated, gender responsive, andappropriate to the level of the violation andshould avoid over-reliance on revocation and

Response to Violations:Key Questions

1. Are expectations and potentialconsequences clear and responsesconsistent?

2. What policies and practices are inplace to ensure that women are notunnecessarily revoked andreincarcerated? Are conditionsreasonable?

3. Is there a system of responses thatboth reward and punish asappropriate?


reincarceration which may have severe long-termrepercussions for both women and their children.In addition to the offender’s accountability,releasing authorities and community supervisionagencies need to be accountable for making surethat expectations are reasonable based on theavailability and accessibility of services, as well asthe gender responsiveness of services. Finally,data should be kept that includes gender as ananalytic category to ensure that rates of violationand revocation are comparable between men andwomen. If large discrepancies are found, thereshould be some investigation into the sources ofthe problem.

ConclusionOffender reentry is a complicated matter, but it isvital to the cause of public safety and communitystability that institutional corrections andcommunity supervision agencies address theseissues head on. Creating an effective offenderreentry system for both men and womenoffenders requires a multidisciplinary,collaborative approach by the full range ofcorrections and community-based stakeholders.Effective collaboration is itself a challenge,requiring the development of a shared vision andgoals, and trusting relationships among workingmembers of the collaborative. A commitment tooffender success, including women offenders,can prove to be the common ground that willmake these collaborations possible. In workingwith women offenders in particular, institutionaland community corrections and communitysupervision professionals should be mindful offour key issues:

• Gender matters. Men and women come to thecriminal justice system in different ways andwith different life experiences which must beaccounted for if the system is going tosucceed in helping them become sober,contributing, crime free members of thecommunity.

• Effective offender reentry requires a systemwide approach, beginning with thorough,gender specific assessment and individualized

case planning at offenders’ entry into theinstitutional system, the provision of targetedservices, and concluding with linkages togender specific aftercare services.

• When working with or planning for work withwomen offenders, consider their roles in thecommunity as mothers and members offamilies. These relationships are essential totheir understanding of themselves and afailure to take these vital relationships intoaccount often sets up women to fail.

• The role of trauma and violence in the lives ofwomen offenders is not to be underestimatedin terms of how it impacts their experiencewithin the correctional system, and how it willimpact them when they return to thecommunity. All staff working with womenshould be trauma-informed.


Assess Your Agency:Women Offenders

Yes No NotClear

1. Are the institutional and post-release supervision agencies committedto implementing gender responsive policies and services to womenoffenders?

2. Has the agency developed a working knowledge of the principles ofgender responsiveness:• Does agency policy and practice reflect an understanding thatgender matters in relation to the successful management andreintegration of women offenders?

• Has the agency created an environment for women offenders basedon safety, respect, and dignity?

• Do agency policies and practices promote healthy relationshipswithin the institutional setting, as well as support women offenders’healthy connections with children, families, significant others, andthe community?

• Do programs and services offer women offenders the opportunitiesto learn skills that will allow them to be economically self-sufficient?


4. Has the agency developed a clear, data-supported understanding ofthe women offenders who are under its control and supervision (e.g.,critical information about the women offender population thatincludes: offenses of conviction, length of sentences, risk levels,treatment and service needs, responsivity issues, programmingreceived, length of supervision, locations to which they return,recidivism rates)?

5. Is training provided to staff to facilitate the development of thespecific types of skills necessary to intervene with women offendersin ways that will promote successful case outcomes?

6. Does the agency prioritize work activities that promote successfuloutcomes for women offenders (in contrast to focusing exclusively oncustody and control, and surveillance and punishment-orientedactivities)?

7. Does the agency use assessment tools that have been validated on arelevant women offender population?

8. Do agency staff members conducting assessments understand thekey areas in which male and female offenders differ and how thatshould impact the assessment process?


Assess Your Agency:Women Offenders

Yes No NotClear

9. Does the agency offer gender responsive programming and servicesfor women offenders?

10. Are case management plans developed in a manner that reflects theinterrelatedness of women’s risks and needs, and are programs andservices structured to address these risk and need areas?

11. Has the agency developed gender responsive policies and procedures(e.g., discipline), taking into account the differences between maleand female offenders?


ReferencesAcoca, L. & Dedel, K. (1990). The femaleoffender: What does the future hold? Lanham,MD: American Correctional Association.

Acoca, L., & Dedel, K. (1998). No place to hide:Understanding and meeting the needs of girls inthe California juvenile justice system. SanFrancisco, CA: National Council on Crime andDelinquency.

Andrews, D., & Bonta, J. (1998). The psychologyof criminal conduct (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH:Anderson Publishing.

Bandura, A. (1996). Mechanisms of moraldisengagement in the exercise of moral agency.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71:364-374.

Bandura, A., & Ross, D. (1963). Vicariousreinforcement and imitative learning. Journal ofAbnormal and Social Psychology, 67(6): 601-607.

Bergsmann, I. R. (1994). Establishing afoundation: Just the facts. In AmericanCorrectional Association and Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention’s 1994National Juvenile Female Offenders Conference: ATime for Change (pp. 3-14). Lanham, MD:American Correctional Association.

Blanchette, K. (2007). Gender-responsive risk/needassessment: A response. Paper presented at theInternational Community Corrections Association15th Annual Conference, San Diego, California.

Bloom, B., & McDiarmid, A. (2000). Gender-responsive supervision and programming forwomen offenders in the community. Topics incommunity corrections, annual issue 2000:Responding to women offenders in thecommunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofJustice, National Institute of Corrections.

Bloom, B., Owen, B., & Covington, S. (2003).Gender-responsive strategies: Research, practice,and guiding principles for women offenders.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,National Institute of Corrections.

Brosky, B. A., & Lally, S. J. (2004). Prevalence oftrauma, PTSD, and dissociation in court-referredadolescents.

Browne, A., Miller, B., & Maguin, E. (1999).Prevalence and severity of lifetime physical andsexual victimization among incarcerated women.International Journal of Law and Psychiatry,22(3/4), 301-322.

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT)(1999). Substance abuse treatment for womenoffenders: Guide to promising practices.Technical Assistance Publication (TAP) Series 23.Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health andHuman Services, Substance Abuse and MentalHealth Services Administration.

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT)(2005a). Continuity of offender treatment forsubstance use disorders from institution tocommunity. Treatment Improvement Protocol(TIP) Series 30. Rockville, MD: U.S. Departmentof Health and Human Services, Substance Abuseand Mental Health Services Administration.

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT)(2005b). Substance abuse treatment for personswith co-occurring disorders. TreatmentImprovement Protocol (TIP) Series 42. Rockville,MD: U.S. Department of Health and HumanServices, Substance Abuse and Mental HealthServices Administration.

Chesney-Lind, M. (1997). The female offender:Girls, women and crime. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications.

Chesney-Lind, M., & Sheldon, R. (1998). Girls,delinquency and juvenile justice. Belmont, CA:Wadsworth Publishing.


Chesney-Lind, M., & Irwin, K. (2007). Beyond badgirls: Gender, violence and hype. New York, NY:Routledge.

Dehart, D. (2005). Pathways to prison: Impact ofvictimization in the lives of incarcerated women.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,National Institute of Corrections.

Ditton, P. M. (1999). Mental health andtreatment of offenders and probationers: Specialreport. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofJustice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau ofJustice Statistics.

Galbraith, S. (1998). And so I began to listen totheir stories. Delmar, NY: The National GAINSCenter for People with Co-Occurring Disorders inthe Justice System.

Gendreau, P., & Goggin, C. (1997). Correctionaltreatment: Accomplishments and realities. In P.Van Voorhis, M. Braswell, & D. Lester (Eds.),Correctional counseling and rehabilitation.Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Company.

Greenfeld, L., & Snell, T. (1999). Womenoffenders: Special report. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Justice, Office of JusticePrograms, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Hairston, C. (2002). Prisoners and families:Parenting issues during incarceration. Paperpresented at the U.S. Department of Health andHuman Services, From Prisons to HomeConference, Washington, DC.

Hanson, G. (2002). In drug abuse, gendermatters. NIDA Notes 17(2). Bethesda, MD:National Institute on Drug Abuse, NationalInstitutes of Health, U.S. Department of Healthand Human Services.

Harding, R. (2000). The Psycho-socialenvironment of prisons and its relationship torecidivism. Canberra, Australia: AustralianGovernment Criminology Research Council.http://www.aic.gov.au/crc/reports/2000-Harding.html, last accessed November 28, 2007.

Hardyman, P., & Van Voorhis, P. (2004).Developing gender-specific classification systemsfor women offenders. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Justice, National Institute ofCorrections.

Harrison, P. & Beck, A. (2003). Prisoners in 2002.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of JusticeStatistics.

Harrison, P. & Beck, A. (2005). Prison and jailoffenders at midyear 2004. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Justice, Office of JusticePrograms, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Higgins, S. T. & Silverman, K. (Eds.) (1999).Motivating behavior change among illicit-drugabusers: Research on contingency managementinterventions. Washington, DC: AmericanPsychological Association.

Hills, H., Siegfried, C., & Ickowitz, A. (2004).Effective prison mental health services: Guidelinesto expand and improve treatment. Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Justice, NationalInstitute of Corrections.

Koons, B., Morash, M., Burrow, J., & Bynum, T.(1997). Expert and offender perceptions ofprogram elements linked to successful outcomesfor incarcerated women. Crime and Delinquency43(4): 512-532.

Lapidus, L. Luthra, N., Verma, A., Small, D.,Allard, D., & Levingston, K. (2005). Caught inthe net: The impact of drug policies on womenand families. New York, NY: American CivilLiberties Union, Break the Chains: Communitiesof Color and the War on Drugs, & The BrennanCenter at New York University School of Law.http://www.fairlaws4families.org/, last accessedNovember 28, 2007.


LaVigne, N., Kachnowski, V., Travis, J., Naser, R.,& Visher, C. (2003). A portrait of prisoner reentryin Maryland. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/410655_MDPortraitReentry.pdf, last accessed November 28,2007.

McCampbell, S. (2005). National Institute ofCorrections Gender-Responsive StrategiesProject: Jail applications. Gender-ResponsiveStrategies for Women Offenders Bulletin Series,April 2005. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofJustice, National Institute of Corrections.

McClellan, D. S., Farabee, D., & Crouch, B. M.(1997). Early victimization, drug use, andcriminality. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24(4),455-476.

McSweeney, J., Cody, M., O’Sullivan, P.,Elberson, K., Moser, K., & Garvin, B. (2003).Women’s early warning symptoms of acutemyocardial infarction. Circulation: Journal of theAmerican Heart Association, 10: 2619-2623.http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/reprint/108/21/2619, last accessed November 28, 2007.

Miller, D. (1994). Exploring gender differences insuicidal behavior among adolescent offenders:Findings and implications. Journal of CorrectionalEducation, 45, 134-138.

Mumola, C. (2000). Incarcerated parents andtheir children: Special report. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Justice, Office of JusticePrograms, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

National Institute of Corrections (NIC) (2000).Topics in Community Corrections, Annual Issue,2000: Responding to Women Offenders in theCommunity Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofJustice, National Institute of Corrections.

National Institute of Corrections (NIC) & Crimeand Justice Institute (CJI) (2004). Implementingevidence-based practice in community corrections:The principles of effective intervention.Washington, DC: National Institute ofCorrections, Community Corrections Division, &Boston, MA: Crime and Justice Institute.

National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) (2005).NIDA InfoFacts: Treatment Methods for Women.Bethesda, MD: National Institute on DrugAbuse, National Institutes of Health, U.S.Department of Health and Human Services.http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/treatwomen.html, last accessed June 16, 2005.

Parke, R., & Clarke-Stewart, K. (2002). Effects ofparental incarceration on young children. Paperpresented at the U.S. Department of Health andHuman Services, From Prisons to HomeConference, Washington, DC.

RAND Corporation (2003). Prisoner reentry:What are the public health challenges? RANDResearch Brief. Santa Monica, CA: RANDCorporation. http://www.rand.org/publications/RB/RB6013/RB6013.pdf, last accessed November28, 2007.

Reed, B., & Leavitt, M. (1998). Modifiedwraparound and women offenders in communitycorrections: Strategies, opportunities andtensions. In M. McMahon (Ed.), Assessment toassistance: Programs for women in communitycorrections (1-106). Lanham, MD: AmericanCorrectional Association.

Richie, B. (1996). Compelled to crime: The genderentrapment of battered black women. London,England: Routledge.

Snyder, H. N. (2006). Juvenile arrests 2004.OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Justice, Office of JusticePrograms, Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention.


Sullivan, E., Mino, M., Nelson, K., & Pope, J.(2002). Families as a resource in recovery fromdrug abuse: An evaluation of La Bodega de laFamilia. New York, NY: Vera Institute of Justice.

Teplin, L. A., Abram, K. M., McClelland, G. M.,Dulcan, M. K., & Mericle, A. A. (2002).Psychiatric disorders in youth in juveniledetention. Archives of General Psychiatry, 59, 133-143.

Timmons-Mitchell, J., Brown, C., Schulz, S. C.,Webster, S. E., Underwood, L. A., & Semple, W.E. (1997). Comparing the mental health needs offemale and male incarcerated juveniledelinquents. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 15,195-202.

Travis, J., Cincotta, E., & Solomon, A. (2003).Families left behind: The hidden costs ofincarceration and reentry. Washington, DC: UrbanInstitute.

Van Voorhis, P., & Presser, L. (2001).Classification of women offenders: A nationalassessment of current practices. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute ofCorrections.

Van Voorhis, P. (2007). Gender-responsiverisk/need assessment. Paper presented at theInternational Community Corrections Association15th Annual Conference, San Diego, California.

Visher, C., LaVigne, N., & Travis, J. (2004).Returning home: Understanding the challengesof prisoner reentry. Maryland Pilot Study:Findings from Baltimore. Washington, DC: UrbanInstitute.

Wichmann, C., Serin, R., & Abrucen, J. (2002).Women offenders who engage in self harm: Acomparative investigation. Ottawa, Ontario:Correctional Service of Canada, Research Branch.

National detention and prison populationgrowth, the rate of release of offenders to thecommunity, accelerating correctional costs, arecognition that incarceration is falling short ofour hope to stem the tide of recidivism, and asubstantial body of evidence regardingapproaches that can significantly impact thelikelihood that offenders will offend again haveresulted in a growing interest in offender reentryand effective offender management practices.This handbook describes an approach tobeginning or continuing the important work ofassuring that institutional corrections andcommunity supervision agencies are aligned insuch a way that they can have the maximumpotential for promoting the success of offendersupon their return to the community.

This framework includes four key components:

• Exercising leadership and undertakingorganizational change efforts.

• Undergoing a rational planning process.• Building and supporting internal and external

collaborative relationships.• Engaging in empirically based offender

management practices that are effective inreducing recidivism.

Experience demonstrates that by following thisapproach, institutional corrections andcommunity supervision agencies will improvenot only the way in which their work isconducted, but also the outcome of their efforts.This approach will result in:

• Clarity of purpose and direction for the agency(a clear vision).

• A more thorough understanding of thecorrections agency and its surrounding system

(through the development of a system map,creation of resource directories, and a risk-based understanding of the offenderpopulation).

• The prioritization of those work activities mostlikely to result in offender success (such asmeaningful offender contacts andengagement, effective case management, andprograms and services that reduce risk).

• The identification and implementation ofspecific strategies and tools that will supportthe agency’s activities (for instance, the use ofempirically-based assessment tools,motivational interviewing techniques, andengagement of community supports in theoffender change process).

• Improvements in important workingrelationships (within corrections andcommunity supervision and across agencyboundaries resulting in, for example,collaborative case management and enhancedaccess to or availability of resources andservices).

Ultimately policymakers, professionals, andcommunity members seek the same end: safercommunities. Promoting offender successthrough the strategies outlined in this handbookoffers the greatest opportunity to realize thisgoal.

Section Eight:

Conclusion Madeline M. Carter



Appendix

OFFENDER REENTRY POLICY ANDPRACTICE INVENTORYThe purposes of this inventory are to assistinstitutional corrections and communitysupervision agencies to begin to look critically attheir current policies and practices incomparison to evidence-based and emergingpractices for offender reentry, and to identifyissues and need areas that require furtherexamination. This inventory does not provide acomprehensive description of all of the policiesand practices necessary for successful offenderreentry.

How to Use This InventoryThis inventory can be utilized in a variety of waysand settings. Institutional and communitycorrections practitioners are encouraged toemploy it in the manner that is effective for theirpurposes. However, it is important to point outthat the value of engaging in this exercise ismaximized when respondents spend timeprocessing their answers to the questions in thecontext of a group discussion. Through thisprocessing, strengths, needs, and divergingopinions around policies and practices arediscovered and examined within a lens ofsuccessful offender reentry.

Processing the QuestionsIn a group setting, users should review the itemsmarked “No” in order to identify need areas forimprovement. Positive responses indicatestrengths of the agency (or agencies) in workingtoward successful offender reentry and provideopportunities to build upon current successes.Items marked as “Not Clear,” as well asconflicting answers between respondents, mayindicate an area requiring furtherresearch/inquisition, where the actual policies orpractice must be clarified for certain staff withinthe agency, or where policies or practice divergebetween agencies/divisions. For example, wherean institutional representative may answer yes toa question, and a post-release supervisionrepresentative may answer no to the samequestion, further discussion on the reasons forthis discrepancy should ensue.

The value of the inventory lies not so much in itscompletion but in the promise of clarification,discovery, and advancement that can be itsresult.

190


Leadership and Organizational Change Yes No NotClear

1. Are the institutional and post-release supervision agencies committedto promoting offender success?

2. Does agency policy clearly indicate that offenders’ successfulcompletion of supervision following release from confinement is aprimary goal?

3. Are agency managers routinely involved in discussions about thepurpose or focus of offender management activities (i.e., to promotesuccessful outcomes)?

4. Have special means or strategies been used (e.g., annual meetings,publications, the distribution of a rewritten vision statement) tocommunicate to staff the agency’s specific vision and expectationsregarding offender management and supervision (i.e., to promotesuccessful outcomes)?

5. Does the agency hire/promote individuals who support the agency’svision and who have the necessary qualities to assist in carrying outthe vision?

6. Is training provided to facilitate the development of the specific typesof skills necessary to intervene with offenders in ways that willpromote successful case outcomes?

7. Does the agency routinely involve staff at all levels in discussionsregarding the ways in which the agency can most effectively carry outits mission?

8. Does the agency value and measure those activities that promoteoffender success?

9. Does the agency prioritize work activities that promote successfuloffender outcomes (in contrast to focusing exclusively on custody andcontrol, and surveillance and punishment-oriented activities)?

10. Are incentives offered to reward and recognize staff who support theagency’s vision for offender reentry?

11. Do line staff understand that they play a significant role in providingoffenders with opportunities to be successful?


Rational Planning Yes No NotClear

12. Has the agency developed a clear, data-supported understanding ofthe offenders who are under their control and supervision (e.g.,critical information about the offender population that includes:offenses of conviction, length of sentences, risk levels, treatment andservice needs, responsivity issues, programming received, length ofsupervision, locations to which they return, recidivism rates)?

13. Has the agency developed a clear understanding of current reentrypolicies and practices from intake to community release, supervision,and aftercare?


15. Has the agency developed a working knowledge of evidence-basedpractices and promising approaches in the area of offendermanagement and reentry?

16. Has the agency gathered information on the attitudes, knowledge,and skills of staff to assess their ability to work effectively withoffenders?

17. Has the agency identified its offender management and reentry gapsand need areas based on these analyses?

18. Has the agency prioritized for implementation key strategiesspecifically designed to address the most significant need/gap areas?

19. Has the agency developed a strategic plan to organize and guide theimplementation of change strategies?

20. Has the agency established goals and objectives to implementprioritized change strategies?

21. Has the agency established a monitoring plan to assess the impact ofthese change strategies?

Collaboration Yes No NotClear

22. Has a State-level, multidisciplinary policy team been established tocollaboratively direct a comprehensive effort to improve offendermanagement and reentry policies and practices?

23. Are the leaders of State agencies that are responsible for, orcontribute to, offender management and reentry committed toworking together on this issue?

Yes No NotClear

24. Have individual stakeholders identified the ways in which theiragency can contribute to effective offender management and reentry?

25. Do stakeholders demonstrate equal ownership and investment inoffender reentry?

26. Does the team include individuals, agencies, and organizations fromthe State that:• Are directly or indirectly responsible for offender management?• Work closely with, or advocate for, victims?• Provide mentoring or positive supports for offenders?• Offer educational and vocational services to offenders?• Promote access to appropriate and affordable housing foroffenders?

• Provide mental health services to offenders?• Facilitate access to employment opportunities for offenders?• Provide support and assistance to children and families of formerlyincarcerated individuals?

27. Are the efforts of the team defined through a clearly articulatedvision, a clear mission, and specific goals regarding offendermanagement and reentry in the State?

28. Has leadership, facilitation, and staff support been dedicated to theState-level multidisciplinary team?

29. At the case management level, do staff members collaborate with oneanother to facilitate successful offender reentry (e.g., doinstitutionally-based staff collaborate with one another; doinstitutional and community-based staff work together to ensure asmooth transition and continuity of care; does communitysupervision work closely with service providers and others to assureeffective case management)?

Effective Offender Management Practices Yes No NotClear

30. Assessment:• Are offender assessments conducted shortly after admission toprison, and in an ongoing fashion thereafter, to identify risk level,criminogenic needs, and responsivity factors?

• Are empirically supported or promising assessment tools used?Ifyes, please list which tools are used:

• Do the results of the empirically supported or promisingassessment tools inform the offender management process (e.g.,treatment planning, supervision case planning)?



Yes No NotClear

31. Case Management: Please answer these questions in relation to thework done by staff and partners with individual offenders. This maybe termed “correctional counseling” or some other term withincorrectional institutions, or “field supervision” while an offender isunder supervision in the community:• Do the stated goals of case management (within institutions and inthe community) include the provision of safe, secure custody,monitoring/supervision, and successful offender reentry?

• Is case management a seamless continuum from admission toprison until the termination of community supervision?

• Does each offender have a single, dynamic case management planthat follows him/her from intake through post-release supervision?

• Is this approach to case management supported and enhanced byinformation technology?

• Does the case plan address the offender’s risk and needs at eachstage (intake and incarceration phase, prerelease planning phase,and reentry and post supervision phase)?

• Is the case plan updated to reflect changes in the offender’s riskand needs, and to document improvement and progress made?

• Is information about the offender exchanged between institutionand community supervision staff?

• Are multidisciplinary team approaches used to manage offenders?• Are noncorrections partners (such as public agencies, communitypartners, nonprofits, family members, etc.) involved in creating,updating, and accessing case plan information?

• Does the case plan identify programmatic interventions appropriatefor the offender based on the offender’s assessed level of risk andcriminogenic needs?

• Do case management plans target the three to four (or more) mostsignificant criminogenic needs?

• Are offenders prioritized for participation in programs and servicesbased on risk and needs?

• Are policies, procedures, and priorities in place to facilitate theactual delivery of such interventions to offenders?

• Are interventions delivered in a timely way in view of an anticipatedrelease date?

• Are offenders active participants in creating and updating their owncase plans (as opposed to just complying with its terms)?

• Do appropriate corrections staff members (within institutions andin the community) receive skills training on how to better engageoffenders in the change process?

• Are interactions with offenders, including infractions andviolations, viewed as opportunities to enhance motivation?

32. Institutional/Residential Interventions:• Are existing institutionally-based programs and services for offenders:- Multimodal and integrated?- Cognitive-behavioral in nature?- Skills-oriented?- Linked with parallel services in the community?


Yes No NotClear

- Matched to offenders based on risk, needs, and responsivity factors?- Monitored and evaluated?

33. Proactive Release Planning:• Does planning for release begin when offenders enter theinstitutional or residential setting?

• Does the release planning process include bothinstitutional/residential staff and community stakeholders?

• Are barriers to reentry anticipated and identified early in the releaseplanning process?

• Are transition and case management plans tailored to address therisk, need, and responsivity factors of every offender?

• Are offenders actively involved in the development of transition andcase management plans?

• Are community resources that support the transition processidentified prior to release?

• Are the needs of victims addressed in the release planning process?

34. Informed Release Decision Making:• Are offenders released to the community through a discretionarydecision making process?

• Does the releasing authority have access to, and does it use, theresults of risk assessments, transition plans, and information frominstitutional programming to inform decision making?

• Does the releasing authority establish conditions based upon theassessed risk level and criminogenic needs of offenders?

• Does the releasing authority use structured guidelines to informdecision making?

• Does the releasing authority use information from victims andvictim advocates to inform decision making?

35. Success-Oriented Approach to Supervision:• Do current supervision policies and practices reflect a strength-based approach (in contrast to a more exclusive focus on deterrenceor punishment)?

• Is multiagency collaboration a key feature of supervision?• Are supervision levels assigned and adjusted over time based on therisk level and needs of each offender?

• Are the nature and frequency of field contacts guided by the risklevel and needs of offenders?

• Do supervision officers use incentives to promote and reinforcepro-social, appropriate offender behavior?

• Are responses to supervision violations flexible, graduated, andreasonable and informed by the risk posed by offenders and theseverity of the violations?

36. Programs and Services:• Do community and institutional programs and servicescomplement one another? (Is there continuity of care?)


Yes No NotClear

• Are offenders linked to specific community supports that can enhancethe supervision process and promote success (e.g., informal socialsupport networks, mentoring programs for juveniles)?

• Are the following programs and services available to offenderswhile incarcerated:- Healthcare services?- Behavioral health programs?- Life skills assistance?- Substance abuse services?- Educational and vocational services?- Employment assistance or job matching?- Social services?- Housing assistance?- Programs for children and families?

• Are the following programs and services available to offenderswhile in the community:- Healthcare services?- Behavioral health programs?- Life skills assistance?- Substance abuse services?- Educational and vocational services?- Employment assistance or job matching?- Social services?- Housing assistance?- Programs for children and families?

37. Monitoring and Evaluation:• Has the agency established a specific monitoring and evaluationplan regarding offender reentry with clearly defined performancemeasures and outcomes, including:- Educational achievement scores, graduation, or GED attainment?- Job placement and retention?- Stability in housing?- Behavioral health symptom improvement?- Sobriety?- Stability of health?- Family preservation?- Recidivism?- Nature and frequency of violations?- Other(s)_____________________________________

• Are monitoring and evaluation data routinely collected and analyzed?• Are the results of the data analyses used to inform the developmentand/or revision of reentry policies and practices?

Women Offenders Yes No NotClear

38. Are the institutional and post-release supervision agencies committedto implementing gender responsive policies and services to womenoffenders?


Yes No NotClear

39. Has the agency developed a working knowledge of the principles ofgender responsiveness (please indicate yes, no, or not clear for each):• Does agency policy and practice reflect an understanding thatgender matters in relation to the successful management andreintegration of women offenders?

• Has the agency created an environment for women offenders basedon safety, respect, and dignity?

• Do agency policies and practices promote healthy relationshipswithin the institutional setting, as well as support women offenders’healthy connections with children, families, significant others, andthe community?

• Do programs and services offer women offenders the opportunitiesto learn skills that will allow them to be economically self-sufficient?


41. Has the agency developed a clear, data-supported understanding of thewomen offenders who are under their control and supervision (e.g.,critical information about the women offender population that includes:offenses of conviction, length of sentences, risk levels, treatment andservice needs, responsivity issues, programming received, length ofsupervision, locations to which they return, recidivism rates)?

42. Is training provided to staff to facilitate the development of thespecific types of skills necessary to intervene with women offendersin ways that will promote successful case outcomes?

43. Does the agency prioritize work activities that promote successful out-comes for women offenders (in contrast to focusing exclusively on custodyand control, and surveillance and punishment-oriented activities)?

44. Does the agency use assessment tools that have been validated on arelevant women offender population?

45. Do agency staff members conducting assessments understand thekey areas in which male and female offenders differ and how thatshould impact the assessment process?

46. Does the agency offer gender responsive programming and servicesfor women offenders?

47. Are case management plans developed in a manner that reflects theinterrelatedness of women’s risks and needs, and are programs andservices structured to address these risk and need areas?

48. Has the agency developed gender responsive policies and procedures(e.g., discipline), taking into account the differences between maleand female offenders?

Endnotes


1 For additional information about the TPC model,including reasons to implement the approach, keyfeatures of the model, and key learnings from statesinvolved in the TPC Initiative, see the E-LearningModule that will soon be available at the NIC LearningCenter at http://nic.learn.com.

2 This represents a comparison of 1970 to 2005 data.3 The initiatives discussed here are representative of

activities underway around the country; see also theCouncil of State Governments Re-Entry Policy Council,and other initiatives sponsored by both federalagencies and leading national foundations.

4 For additional references on the importance of positivereinforcement to behavioral change, see NIC & CJI,2004.

5 More information on how to conduct such a planningprocess is available in the TPC Reentry Handbook, anadditional resource for corrections practitionersseeking to implement a successful offender reentrystrategy in the context of a multidisciplinary agencyeffort. Other resources include Carol Flaherty-ZonisAssociates (2007), McGarry, P. & Ney, B. (2006),CSOM (2002), and CSOM (2007).

6 See pages 87-88 of Section Five, Chapter 4 for adiscussion of effective team members.

7 For a detailed guide to conducting a resourceassessment, see McGarry & Ney, 2006, p. 151-161.

8 For a detailed guide to creating a vision statement, seeCarter (2005), Collaboration: A Training Curriculum toEnhance the Effectiveness of Collaborative Teams.

9 As noted in the American Probation and ParoleAssociation’s Caseload Standards for Probation andParole, “[d]espite the fact that it is very difficult todefine an optimal caseload size…, a general consensusseems to be emerging from the research, practice anddialogue in the field” (Burrell, 2006). These representAPPA’s promulgated standards for supervisioncaseloads.

10 The explanation of effective case management in thehandbook is conceptually consistent with theIntegrated Case Management and Supervision Model(ICMS) outlined in two companion documents, TheNational Institute of Corrections TPC ReentryHandbook, and The TPC Case Management Handbook,forthcoming from the National Institute of Corrections.Both of these approaches move beyond a traditionalcontact-standard driven, surveillance model ofsupervision to a case management approach thatengages offenders in the process of change.

198

IncreasingPublicSafety ThroughSuccessful OffenderReentry ... ›...

Documents

Transcript of IncreasingPublicSafety ThroughSuccessful OffenderReentry ... ›...