Planning and assessing a
Law Enforcement 
Reentry Strategy 

A report prepared by the 
Council of State Governments Justice Center 
and the Police Executive Research Forum 

for the 

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Matt Schwarzfeld 
Deirdre Mead Weiss 
Martha Plotkin 
Laura Draper

[Justice Center - The Council of State Governemnets Logo]
[Police Executive Research Forum Logo]
[U.S. Department of Justice  Logo]
[Office of Community Oriented Policing Services Logo]

This report was prepared by the Council of State Governments Justice Center, in partnership 
with the Police Executive Research Forum. It was completed under Cooperative Agreement 
2005HSWXK007 awarded by the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. 
Department of Justice. The opinions contained herein are those of the authors and do not 
necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice, the 
members of the Council of State Governments, or the Police Executive Research Forum. While 
every effort was made to reach consensus and represent reviewers recommendations, 
individual opinions may differ from the statements made in the document. References to 
specific companies, products, or services should not be considered an endorsement by 
the authors or the U.S. Department of Justice. Rather, the references are illustrations to 
supplement discussion of the issues. 

The U.S. Department of Justice reserves a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable license to 
reproduce, publish, or otherwise use, and authorize others to use, this publication for Federal 
Government purposes. This publication may be freely distributed and used for noncommercial 
and educational purposes. 

Web sites and sources referenced in this publication provided useful information at the time 
of this writing. The authors do not necessarily endorse the information of the sponsoring 
organization or other materials from these sources. 

Council of State Governments Justice Center, New York 10005 
 2008 by the Council of State Governments Justice Center 

Cover and interior design by Dave Williams. Group photo on cover by Leonard A. Sipes, Jr.,
Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency.

Contents

Acknowledgments v 
Executive Summary ix 
Introduction 1 

Ten Elements 

Laying the Foundation 
Element One: Viability 13 
Element Two: Stakeholder Involvement 21 

Developing the Initiative 
Element Three: Initiatives Priority Population 35 
Element Four: Mission, Goals, and Performance Measures 51 
Element Five: Initiatives Terms and Participant Identification 61 

Implementing the Plan 
Element Six: Information Exchange and Systems Collaboration 71 
Element Seven: Transition Planning 83 
Element Eight: Enhanced Supervision 91 

Making It Stick 
Element Nine: Organizational Capacity 101 
Element Ten: Sustainability 111 

Appendix A 121 
Appendix B-1 123 
Appendix B-2 125 
Appendix B-3 131 
Appendix C 135 
Notes 137 

Acknowledgments
This toolkit could not have been written without the leadership of the Office of 
Community Oriented Policing Services (the COPS Office), particularly from 
Carl Peed, Director; Pamela Cammarata, then-Deputy Director; and Katherine 
McQuay, Senior Supervisory Policy Analyst. 

The authors appreciate the ongoing support that Chuck Wexler, Executive 
Director, Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) has provided. The PERF 
team was led by Director of Training & Technical Assistance Drew Diamond, 
who as a former police chief, made sure the toolkit would be of practical value 
to law enforcement professionals and their reentry partners. He provided 
expert reviews on every outline, draft, and program example, as well as leading 
on-site work in several jurisdictions. As always, PERFs standards ensured that 
the publication would meet the needs of policing practitioners. 

Many law enforcement and corrections personnel participated in the initial 
information-gathering focus groups the project team held in February 
2005 and September 2005. Though there are too many of them to list here, 
each should know that his or her contributions significantly advanced the project. 
Their frank and honest discussions about their successes and challenges 
in implementing reentry initiatives helped frame the core elements to an effective 
strategy. 

Thanks are also due to the personnel of the Boston (Massachusetts) Re- 
Entry Initiative, the Sacramento (California) Parole Intervention Team, and the 
Savannah (Georgia) Impact Program for taking the time to host an on-site 
review of their work and to explain how their collaborative multiagency efforts 
are increasing the likelihood that released individuals make a successful transition 
into the community. In particular, thanks are due to Blake Norton, formerly 
of the Boston Police Department, Lieutenant Steve Campas, Sacramento 
Police Department, and Demetra Butler, of the Savannah Impact Program, for 
working with the project team on these visits. The various stakeholders 
involved in these efforts provided critical perspectives and helped the project 
team identify the broad range of reentry services that can be secured through 
coordinated efforts. 

The project advisory board members, listed alphabetically below, gave 
generously of their time and expertisewhether by participating in lengthy 
and lively meetings to discuss the toolkit, reviewing drafts within their area of 
expertise, or both. Their feedback helped to strengthen the document and 
make it more user-friendly.* 

* All titles and agency affiliations for advisory board members and site visit participants reflect the 
positions they held at the time of their involvement in the project.
 Jim Bueermann, Chief, Redlands (California) Police Department 
 Demetra Butler, Coordinator, Savannah (Georgia) Impact Program 
 Edward Flynn, Commissioner, Springfield (Massachusetts) Police Department 
 Gary Hinzman, Director, Cedar Rapids (Iowa) Department of Correctional 
Services 
 Justin Jones, Director, Oklahoma Department of Corrections 
 Gary Kempker, Senior Manager, Center for Effective Public Policy 
 Nancy LaVigne, Senior Research Associate, Justice Policy Center, Urban 
Institute 
 Stefan LoBuglio, Chief, Pre-Release and Reentry Services, Montgomery 
County (Maryland) Department of Correction and Rehabilitation Pre-Release 
Center 
 Ron Miller, Chief, Topeka (Kansas) Police Department 
 Drew Molloy, Senior Policy Advisor for Corrections, Bureau of Justice 
Assistance 
 Blake Norton, Director, Public Affairs and Community Programs, Boston 
(Massachusetts) Police Department 
 John Petrila, Chairman, Florida Mental Health Institutes Department of 
Mental Health Law and Policy 
 Lee Ragsdale, Coordinator, Knoxville (Tennessee) Public Safety Initiative 
 Michelle Shaw, Acting Special Assistant to the Director, Bureau of Justice 
Assistance 
 Vincent Talucci, Senior Program Manager, International Association of Chiefs 
of Police 
 Carl Wicklund, Executive Director, American Probation and Parole Association 

The project staff also thanks all those who participated in on-site pilot 
tests in Wichita (Kansas) and Montgomery County (Maryland), providing feedback 
and sharing their first-hand experiences with reentry. 

 Alice Afifi, Supervisor, Warrant Control Section, Montgomery County 
(Maryland) Police Department 
 Sergeant Edward Brower, Community Policing Supervisor, Patrol North 
Bureau, Wichita (Kansas) Police Department 
 Captain Christina Faass, Director, Personnel Division, Montgomery County 
(Maryland) Police Department 
 Captain John Fitzgerald, Chief of Staff, Office of the Chief of Police, 
Montgomery County (Maryland) Police Department 

 Sally Frey, Director, Sedgwick County (Kansas) Re-Entry Program, Kansas 
Department of Corrections 
 Lieutenant Michael Mancuso, Deputy Director, Major Crimes Division, 
Montgomery County (Maryland) Police Department 
 Sergeant Gerald McFarland, Patrol Supervisor, 3rd District, Montgomery 
County (Maryland) Police Department 
 PO3 Robert Musser, C-SAFE grant coordinator, 4th District, Montgomery 
County (Maryland) Police Department 
 Lieutenant Douglas Nolte, Community Policing Commander, Patrol North 
Bureau, Wichita (Kansas) Police Department 
 Captain Felecia Norris, Commander, Patrol North Bureau, Wichita (Kansas) 
Police Department 
 Officer Courtney Pierce, Community Policing Division, Wichita (Kansas) 
Police Department 
 Lieutenant Ronald Smith, Deputy Director, Special Operations Division, 
Montgomery County (Maryland) Police Department 
 Deputy Chief Tom Stolz, Chief, Investigations Division, Wichita (Kansas) 
Police Department 
 Lieutenant Michael Wahl, Executive Assistant to the Chief of the Management 
Services Bureau, Montgomery County (Maryland) Police Department 
 Sergeant Gregory Wise, Supervisor, Repeat Offender Section, Special 

Investigations Division, Montgomery County (Maryland) Police Department 
A special thanks is also due to Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice 
Center Director Mike Thompson for his insights and support in determining 
the scope and direction of this publication. Then-Project Director Betsey 
Nevins vision and guidance also helped shape the teams strategies and early 
drafts of the materials. Her understanding of the complex reentry issues put 
the project on a successful track. The CSG Justice Center was also privileged 
to have advisory board member Blake Norton join the staff to work on reentry 
and other law enforcement issues. She was instrumental in developing the various 
drafts and conducting site visits. 

Any contributions the toolkit makes to advancing reentry collaborations 
are due to the involvement and diverse perspectives of these many experts.

Executive Summary 

The Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center partnered with the 
Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), with support from the U.S. Department 
of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (the COPS 
Office), to develop a report that focuses on law enforcement reentry strategies. 
Planning and Assessing a Law Enforcement Reentry Strategy integrates information 
on effective practices with an interactive assessment to form a toolkit for designing 
and evaluating reentry approaches involving law enforcement agencies. 

Purpose of the Toolkit 

The aim of this publication is to initiate an informed discussion among law 
enforcement agencies and community partners regarding reentry strategies. 
This material does not constitute a step-by-step guide in creating and implementing 
a reentry program but rather provides an overview of topics that should 
be considered and addressed within that development process. Recognizing that 
each jurisdiction is unique, this toolkit allows each agency to assess its unique 
circumstances and develop a plan of action that best suits its situation. 

What is the problem with reentry? 

Reentry by the numbers 
700,000 
Nearly 700,000 people are released from U.S. prisons annually.[1] 

9 million 
More than 9 million people are released from jail each year.[2] 

95 percent 
At least 95 percent of all state prisoners will eventually return to 
the community.[3]

68 percent 
In 15 states, 68 percent of state prisoners were re-arrested within 
three years of release and 52 percent returned to prison for a new crime 
or a technical violation of parole conditions.[4]

$53 million 
Reentry failures are expensive: for example, in fiscal year 2006, 
probation and parole revocations in Kansas accounted for 65 percent 
of its prison admissions, consuming 27 percent of prison capacity 
at a cost to taxpayers of $53 million annually.[5]

For law enforcement professionals these statistics confirm what they have 
long believed: officers are arresting and re-arresting the same individuals in 
their jurisdiction time and time again. Despite the huge investment of law 
enforcement, court, and corrections resources, spending on traditional criminal 
justice responses are not reducing recidivism rates. When reentry efforts 
fail, public safety is threatened, returning individuals and their families suffer, 
neighborhoods decline, and taxpayers foot the bill for reincarceration. 

Todays high rates of recidivism point to significant public safety challenges 
for jurisdictions of all sizes. These rates also reflect the reality that people 
returning home from prison or jail still face a number of significant 
challenges that prevent them from reestablishing themselves in the community, 
maintaining legitimate employment, and averting future criminal acts. 
Although some people argue that providing services to people leaving prisons 
and jails is coddling these individuals and not a good use of resources, the 
costs of their reoffending and reincarceration make it clear that investments 
in services that can reduce recidivism will produce cost-effective results and 
positive outcomes for public safety. 

In recent years, a diverse group of law enforcement leaders, other public 
safety professionals, and social service providers, as well as a bipartisan group 
of policymakers, have recognized the need to develop collaborative strategies 
that not only support the reintegration of people coming from prisons and jails 
back into the community but also hold them accountable for their actions 
while improving public safety. These stakeholders recognize that no single 
agency can effectively address the reentry challenge. Through true partnerships, 
however, agencies can leverage their resources and expertise to provide 
effective reentry supports, enhanced supervision, and incentives, particularly 
for those at a high risk of reoffending. 

Why should law enforcement get involved in reentry? 

Reentry is a critical strategy for law enforcement and partner agencies efforts 
to prevent future crimes and victimizations. It involves a natural extension of 
law enforcements community policing activities and strong partnerships with 
stakeholders. Using proven problem-solving approaches, law enforcement 
professionals collaboratively identify the factors that drive recidivism, analyze 
the causes, and then develop and continually evaluate efforts that address reentry 
issues. 

Law enforcement agencies are key partners in any reentry initiative. These 
agencies can contribute significantly to the reentry process through a wide 
range of activities that increase the likelihood of a successful transition to the 
community for those individuals returning from jails or prisons; examples are 
detailed throughout this publication, and some are listed below. 

Examples of law enforcement contributions to a reentry initiative 
 Enhancing surveillance of recently released high-risk individuals 
 Contributing to incentives and supports for complying with 
conditions of release 
 Working with the community in preparing for people returning 
to vulnerable neighborhoods 
 Focusing law enforcement efforts and resources on particular 
places and situations 
 Exchanging information and intelligence with public-safety 
partner agencies involved in reentry, as well as with community 
partners 
 Connecting returning individuals to services when appropriate 
and assisting victims of crime[6] 

Through these activities, law enforcement strengthens its relationships 
with community leaders and service providers, while increasing information 
sharing between the law enforcement agency and other organizations. The 
resulting benefits accrue not only to the reentry initiative but also to the entire 
law enforcement agencys crime prevention and public safety effortsincluding 
bolstering the work of gang, domestic violence, and other departmental 
units. 

How This Toolkit Works 

Planning and Assessing a Law Enforcement Reentry Strategy serves as both an 
implementation and a self-assessment guide. As such, law enforcement professionals 
can and should use this document to repeatedly chart their 
progress. It is not designed to be used as a scorecard by which a law enforcement 
agencys success is measured. Rather, law enforcement agencies interested 
in reentry can use this document to help plan and implement a reentry 
strategy; and agencies with existing reentry initiatives can use the materials to 
continuously assess and enhance their efforts, set priorities, and plan new 
aspects of an approach. 

This toolkit is organized into 10 elements that constitute an effective, 
comprehensive approach to any reentry initiative: 
1. Viability 
2. Stakeholder Involvement 
3. Initiatives Priority Population 
4. Mission, Goals, and Performance Measures 
5. Initiatives Terms and Participant Identification 
6. Information Exchange and Systems Collaboration
7. Transition Planning
8. Enhanced Supervision
9. Organizational Capacity
10.Sustainability

The elements are placed in this order to loosely mirror a planning and 
implementation process, but some activities will overlap or be ongoing. The 
elements are not in a strictly sequential order, but rather are grouped into four 
main stages that represent the program development processLaying the 
Foundation (elements one and two), Developing the Initiative (elements 
three, four, and five), Implementing the Plan (elements six, seven and eight), 
and Making It Stick (elements nine and ten). This organization provides a 
general roadmap that still allows for jurisdiction-specific variations through 
the process. While certain aspects of each element can be found within any 
comprehensive reentry initiative involving law enforcement, no agency is 
likely to have incorporated all the recommended features, because jurisdictions 
have unique needs and resources. 

Each element has a policy statement, followed by a discussion of how that 
policy can be put into practice, as well as recommendations for specific activities 
and relevant examples from the field. Each element then provides a set 
of self-assessment questions that allow law enforcement personnel to quickly 
gauge the extent to which they believe the agency is engaged in specific 
activities. Each section has a notes field that prompts users to consider and 
write out their strengths, weaknesses, and next steps. Finally, each element 
includes a list of selected resources for users who want additional information 
and guidance on particular topics within each element to assist in their 
research and planning efforts. 

Through repeated use, the toolkits materials on the 10 elements of an 
effective, comprehensive reentry initiative will enable law enforcement agencies 
to focus on individuals who are most likely to reoffend, to document their 
strategies, and to gain lasting support from policymakers and others who are 
essential to an initiatives success and sustainability. 

Any law enforcement agency whose community is receiving people 
released from prisons and jails knows it is responsible for trying to prevent 
reoffending and improving conditions in vulnerable neighborhoods. This 
toolkit is meant to facilitate the type of collaborative initiative that can accomplish 
both.
Assessing Your Agencys Reentry Strategy 

This toolkit helps users examine the extent to which their law enforcement 
agency engages in specific activities to support reentry policies. Each element 
includes broad assessment questions such as the following, which 
are then explored in more detail: 
 Does your agency work with partners to create short-term and longterm 
goals as well as ways to measure them? 
 Does your agency institutionalize information-sharing efforts with 
partners? 
 Do your agencys reentry initiative staff members participate in joint 
training efforts with partners? 
 Does your agency share information with corrections professionals that 
relate to and support their in-house efforts? 
 Does your agency refer participants to available services within the 
initiative? 
 Does your agencys chief executive officer support the initiative and 
encourage its maintenance and sustainability? 
 Does your agency have a strategy for responding to negative events 
involving initiative participants? 

Introduction 

Law enforcement professionals across the United States share the same problem: 
they have significant numbers of people returning from prisons and jails 
to their communities, often to a small number of neighborhoods already hit 
hard by crime and poverty. For a variety of reasons, the majority of these 
returning prisoners will likely commit new crimes or violate the terms of their 
supervision within a few yearsmany shortly after their release. 

In response, an increasing number of law enforcement leaders are looking 
to reentry programs as part of a comprehensive effort to prevent reoffending 
and victimizations. By building on the partnerships forged during decades of 
community policing successes, law enforcement agencies are finding themselves 
uniquely positioned to engage in reentry initiatives that can improve public 
safety, help the families and victims of people who have been incarcerated, 
and make better use of taxpayer dollars and community resources. This publication 
is meant to assist these leaders, their staff, and partnering agencies. 

Who Should Use the Toolkit? 

Planning and Assessing a Law Enforcement Reentry Strategy is a user-friendly 
toolkit primarily intended for law enforcement professionals. It also is valuable 
for their potential or current reentry partners: 

 Law enforcement professionals in agencies considering or planning a 
reentry strategy can use the guide and accompanying assessment questions 
as a detailed overview of issues and tasks to consider; as their work 
unfolds, they can self-assess their progress continually. 
 Law enforcement professionals in agencies that have already implemented 
reentry strategies can quickly examine the extent to which their 
agency engages in recommended activities and can identify gaps and 
weaknesses that can be addressed through collaboration with community 
and criminal justice partners. 
 Community partners in a reentry collaborative can familiarize themselves 
with law enforcements potential reentry roles and responsibilities, frame 
questions to ask their law enforcement partners, and get a better sense of 
when they can work together. Partners can also present the guide to local 
law enforcement executives as the starting point for a multidisciplinary 
public safety effort that focuses on people released from prison or jail. 

Why Should Reentry Be a Law Enforcement Priority? 

Nearly 700,000 people are released annually from state prisons in this country, 
and more than 9 million individuals are released from U.S. jails.[7] Their transition 
from prison or jail back into the communityreferred to as reentryis 
unsuccessful, more often than not. The reality is that the majority of people 
released from correctional facilities commit new crimes or violate their conditions 
of release and are reincarcerated. More than two-thirds of state prisoners 
studied (68 percent) were re-arrested within 3 years of their release and more 
than half (52 percent) returned to prison for a new crime or a technical violation 
of postrelease supervision.[8] 

People released from prisons and jails encounter a number of significant 
barriers to successful reentry. They often have little education and few marketable 
job skills.[9] Generally, they return to the neighborhoods they came from 
or similar locales that are ill-equipped to receive them, where job opportunities, 
appropriate housing options, physical and mental health care, and drug 
treatment services are particularly limited.[10] As law enforcement agencies 
know, these challenges to successful reentry can have significant implications 
for public safety, for released individuals and their families, and for the vulnerable 
neighborhoods where they return. 

Recidivism-related costs eclipse other public health and safety spending 
The high rates with which people released from prisons and jails return to 
prison have major public health implications, as well as a tremendous impact 
on taxpayers spending as prison populations continue to grow. Between 1995 
and 2005, the rate of prison incarceration rose markedly.[11] Current estimates 
indicate that for the first time in history, more than one in every 100 adults in 
America are in prison or jail.[12] 

Communities across the country bear the cost of this extraordinary rate of 
prison growth. Between 1982 and 2003, combined federal, state, and local corrections 
budgets rose from about $9.5 billion to nearly $61 billion, a 423 percent 
increase; this amounts to an increase from $40 to $209 per U.S. resident.[13]
In Kansas, for example, this prison growth is due in part to probation and 
parole revocations that accounted for 65 percent of prison admissions, consuming 
27 percent of prison capacity at a cost to state taxpayers of $53 million in 
2006.[14] If current policies and practices do not change, taxpayers are expected 
to pay as much as $27.5 billion during the next 5 years above what they already 
spend on prisonsfunding that will be unavailable for other public safety and 
health initiatives, education, or additional community needs.[15] 

Cost-effective way to reduce crime 

It is not clear that the growth in prison populations has resulted in increased 
public safety.16 In fact, recent research suggests that this enormous investment 
may not be the most cost-effective way to reduce crime. While increasing 
admissions to prison can lead to decreasing crime rates when the incarceration 
rates are relatively low, at a certain point, higher numbers of prison admissions 
may yield diminishing returns for public safety.[17] 

As new data emerge highlighting increases in violent crime in some jurisdictions 
across the country,* policymakers have expressed a growing interest 
in having law enforcement play a vital role in initiating or invigorating reentry 
efforts that can reduce the chances that individuals will commit new crimes 
after their release or fail to complete the conditions of their sentence. They 
also recognize that law enforcement agencies engaged in reentry are better 
able to identify and watch those released individuals whose actions may 
warrant re-arrest. 

The Benefits to Police Departments and Their Role in Reentry 

Many law enforcement experts have noted that a focus on reentry is good 
crime prevention and control. Yet no agency can do the job alone. A range 
of criminal justice and community-based entities must address the many 
challenges that affect successful reintegration. By developing collaborative 
strategies to respond to the high numbers of men and women returning from 
correctional facilities, law enforcement agencies gain (1) stronger partnerships 
with other criminal justice agencies and local social service organizations, 
(2) opportunities to share responsibility for deterring individuals returning 
from prison from committing new crimes, (3) chances to pool limited 
resources, and (4) better information sharing and intelligence gathering that 
can improve even crime-fighting efforts unrelated to reentry. Involvement can 
strengthen community policing work, particularly in vulnerable neighborhoods, 
and support many other goals as well. 

In places where law enforcement professionals are involved in an initiative, 
reentry partners have noted that they are a powerful ally. Patrol officers, 
through their work on their beats, may have knowledge of individuals who have 
been incarcerated and their associates, gangs, and neighborhood issues that 
present obstacles to successful reintegration. Law enforcement officers and 
executives have existing relationships with public and private agencies and 
service providers that are essential in addressing reentry challenges. Furthermore, 
as respected leaders in the community, law enforcement executives can 
lend credibility to this work and help convene and inspire stakeholders. 

Though only a relatively small number of law enforcement agencies 
across the nation have implemented reentry strategies, in these communities 
policing professionals have collaborated with corrections and community 
partners to enhance supervision and service provision for those people 
released from incarceration who are at high risk of committing a new crime. 
The nature of these collaborative relationships and roles for law enforcement 
in reentry has varied greatly by community to meet the unique needs and 
resources of a particular jurisdiction. 

Early research on police-corrections partnerships by the National Institute 
of Justice (1999) identified three collaborative strategies that provide a role for 
law enforcement: (1) fugitive apprehension units, (2) specialized enforcement 
partnership, and (3) interagency problem-solving partnerships.* More recently, 
research by the Urban Institute and the International Association of Chiefs 
of Police (IACP) has identified a variety of roles for law enforcement in a 
reentry partnership, as well as some key considerations for implementing these 
roles effectively. These roles include increasing surveillance, encouraging compliance, 
engaging the community, focusing on places/situations, exchanging 
information, connecting individuals to service providers, and assisting crime 
victims. 

Planning and Assessing a Law Enforcement Reentry Strategy builds on this 
earlier work documenting the law enforcement role in a reentry initiative by 
providing a tool to help agencies identify their specific jurisdictional needs and 
then designing or enhancing detailed responses to reentry challenges. 

Re-Entry Policy Council Helps Define Law Enforcement Role 

Increasing attention to reentry issues resulted in the formation in 2001 
of the Re-Entry Policy Council (RPC)a broad group of corrections, law 
enforcement, workforce, health, housing, family, community, and victim 
experts from across the country. In the landmark Report of the Re-Entry 
Policy Council, RPC members provided a comprehensive overview of the 
process and hundreds of consensus recommendations for innovative, 
multisystem collaborative reentry strategies.[18] 

Members of the RPC recognized that law enforcement involvement 
can reduce the chances that individuals will commit new crimes after their 
release or fail to meet the conditions of community supervision. These 
national experts realized that reentry is a natural focus for law enforcement 
agencies committed to enhancing public safety in their communities. 
Police departments with experience in problem solving and 
partnering with the community already have in place the building blocks 
for a reentry strategyand may even have worked on reentry without 
referring to it as such.

* A 2006 report by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) compared rates of violent crimes between 
2005 and 2006 across 56 law enforcement agencies. In these agencies, homicides increased by 2.89 percent, 
robberies by 6.48 percent, and aggravated assaults with a deadly weapon by 1.28 percent. This study 
looked at general crime trends, not just reentry populations. See PERF, A Gathering StormViolent Crime 
in America (Washington, D.C.: PERF, 2006). In 2007, PERF released data on the increases in violent crime 
in those same 56 jurisdictions between January 2005 and December 2006. See PERF, Violent Crime in 
America: Twenty-four Months of Alarming Trends (Washington, D.C.: PERF, 2007). 

 The Reentry Policy Council (as of 2007 spelled without the hyphen) is coordinated by the Council of 
State Governments Justice Center. Project partners include the Police Executive Research Forum, American 
Probation and Parole Association, Association of State Correctional Administrators, Corporation for 
Supportive Housing, National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials, National Association 
of State Alcohol/Drug Abuse Directors, National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors, 
National Association of Workforce Boards, National Center for State Courts, and Urban Institute. The 
Report of the Re-Entry Policy Council, and other RPC materials, can be accessed at www.reentrypolicy.org. 
Introduction 3 

Reports on Law Enforcements Roles in Reentry Partnerships 

In 2006 the Urban Institute identified seven community policing reentry 
activities: (1) Increasing SurveillancePolice can participate in joint 
police/probation or police/parole teams or other monitoring efforts. 
(2) Encouraging CompliancePolice can participate in meetings with people 
released from prison and jail and stress the consequences of reoffending. 
(3) Engaging the CommunityPolice can educate the community about reentry 
and engage the community in problem-solving efforts on this issue. 
(4) Focusing on Places, Situations, and ContextsPolice can apply situational 
crime prevention to reentry. (5) Exchanging Information and Intelligence 
Police and institutional corrections can share information, such as classification 
records, gang information, and release dates. (6) Connecting to Social 
ServicesPolice can direct individuals to specific social service providers 
that can meet their needs. (7) Assisting Victims of CrimePolice can engage 
victims and victim organizations in the reentry effort. 

The IACP recently provided an overview of reentry from a law enforcement 
perspective, including benefits and challenges, as well as key considerations 
for law enforcement executives. The IACP report lists major steps 
and issues for agencies that have decided to respond to the high numbers 
of people returning to the community from correctional facilities and highlights 
law enforcement agencies that have existing reentry strategies.*

* Readers interested in learning more about the value of police participation in a reentry initiative should 
consult the IACPs reentry resources, supported by the COPS Office and the Bureau of Justice Assistance, 
U.S. Department of the Justice. Developed on a parallel track, these include the report from the IACPs 
2006 National Policy Summit on Offender Re-Entry, the policy guide Building an Offender Reentry Program: 
A Guide for Law Enforcement (2007), and a DVD titled Offender Reentry: A Police Perspective (2006). 
IACPs reentry resources are available at www.theiacp.org/. 

Readers will also find valuable guidance in the Urban Institutes Prisoner Reentry and Community Policing: 
Strategies for Enhancing Public Safety (2006), which highlights the relationship between prisoner reentry 
and community policing; the Urban Institutes work on this topic has also been supported by the 
COPS Office. This guide is available at www.urban.org/publications/411061.html. 
Introduction 

Making the Case for Law Enforcements Role in Reentry

Reentry is good crime prevention 
A reentry strategy can accomplish 
the following: 
 Focus resourcesboth community 
supervision and services 
on a population that is at high 
risk of committing crimes 
 Promote collaboration with 
other agencies and community 
groups that can benefit all law 
enforcement efforts 
 Foster information sharing 
among criminal justice agencies 
that can make efforts more efficient 
and effective 
 Increase trust between the 
police and the community 

Law enforcement is a good reentry partner 
Law enforcement can contribute 
the following: 
 Criminal intelligence, patrol 
functions and capacities, and 
knowledge of the community 
to direct reentry services and 
supervision resources to men 
and women at risk of committing 
new crimes 
 Problem-solving skills to 
address crime repeatedly committed 
by the same individuals 
and demonstrate to 
elected officials, the media, 
and the public that the initiative 
has both enforcement and 
prevention components 

* Dale Parent and Brad Snyder, Police-Corrections Partnerships, NCJ 1725047 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1999). Authors define specialized enforcement 
partnerships as police-corrections collaborations to address specific problems in the community, such as 
suppressing criminally active gangs or reducing firearms violence; and interagency problem-solving partnerships as collaborations that identify problems of mutual concern and allocate resources to design and 
implement solutions. 

 This information is based largely on the IACP and Urban Institute resources referenced above, as well 
as on feedback from advisory board members recognized in the Acknowledgments section and the findings 
of the Reentry Policy Council. 
Introduction 5 

Creating a Toolkit Law Enforcement Will Find Practical 

To ensure that this toolkit would be of practical value to law enforcement professionals 
and their potential reentry partners, it builds on the solid foundation 
of a variety of existing resourcesespecially the work of the CSG Justice Centers 
Reentry Policy Council.* The Justice Center and PERF also held several 
focus groups with local leaders in policing, corrections, and community services, 
as well as national experts on this topic, to identify and describe the key 
elements of a law enforcement reentry strategy. To research these issues, the 
project team also conducted site visits to three police departments reentry initiatives: 
the Boston (Massachusetts) Re-Entry Initiative, the Savannah (Georgia) 
Impact Program, and the Sacramento (California) Parolee Orientation 
Program. Two agencies, the Wichita (Kansas) Police Department and Montgomery 
County (Maryland) Police Department, also reviewed the toolkit and 
provided feedback on how it can be used in planning and assessing a law 
enforcement reentry strategy. 

How to Use This Toolkit 

Planning and Assessing a Law Enforcement Reentry Strategy is organized into 
10 topics or elements. Meant to represent the building blocks of a reentry strategy 
that involves law enforcement, the elements each contain the following 
sections: 

 A policy statement, presented in italics, which provides a definition and 
guiding principle for that element. 
 A detailed discussion of the topics raised by the policy statement, including 
recommendations for implementing the policy. This section includes 
the following: 
	 Sidebars that provide important background information and supplemental 
	  discussion 
	 Quotations from professionals with expertise in law enforcement and 
	  reentry issues from a variety of backgrounds 
	 Program examples describing how law enforcement agencies and partners 
	  have addressed a specific recommendation or point of discussion 
 A set of assessment questions that guides respondents through a process 
of examining the extent to which their law enforcement agency engages 
in specific activities to support the policy statement and that highlights 
key planning considerations. 
 A notes field that allows the respondent to reflect on and write out the 
agencys strengths, weaknesses, and next steps after reading the discussion 
and completing the accompanying assessment questions. This component 
facilitates discussions regarding priorities in the light of the full 
range of potential law enforcement roles in reentry, as well as specific 
local circumstances. 
 A list of resources to help agencies learn more about the important issues 
identified as needing development or enhancement. The resource lists 
that follow each element in this guide are not meant to be exhaustive; 
rather, they are intended to provide examples of the types of materials 
available, with a particular emphasis on publications related to law 
enforcement. The topic headings in each resource section parallel those 
used in the assessment questions. As users identify areas in which they 
would like to begin or enhance their efforts, they can readily find the corresponding 
resources by category at the end of each element. 

* This document complements other recent projects funded by the Department of Justice on the role 
of law enforcement in prisoner reentry, including the IACP and Urban Institute resources referenced 
throughout. Many of the same police professionals and subject matter experts who contributed to the 
other publications focused on the role of law enforcement in the reentry process also generously provided 
information for the development of this assessment tool. Advisors to this and the other projects reiterated 
recommendations that are reflected in all these reports. This overlap confirms that the advice being given 
from the field is consistent and reliablebut rests with a relatively small number of individuals and agencies 
doing comprehensive work in reentry. 

Answering the questions 

The assessment questions provide an opportunity for readers to react immediately 
to the discussion and identify specific needs. By answering the questions, 
the toolkit user can see at a glance where there are potential gaps in the law 
enforcement role and the particular areas for improvement. The assessment 
questions also serve to highlight future policy considerations and implementation 
planning. For this exercise to be of any utility, readers must be honest in 
their responses. The guide and assessment tool can and should be used repeatedly. 
Continuous analysis and self-evaluation can help readers determine 
whether their responses should change over time as they try new approaches, 
add partners, or make other significant changes to their reentry initiatives. 
For law enforcement users, it may be useful for a cross-section of law 
enforcement executives, their staff, and reentry partners to read the document, 
answer the assessment questions, and meet to discuss their findings. This 
ensures that all levels and views of an agency are represented and that partners 
perspectives are included. 

The self-assessment results are not meant to be a scorecard and are 
not necessarily a reflection of the quality or success 
of an agency or initiative; rather, they are meant to help readers 
identify strengths and weaknesses at a glance and then determine 
where to make modifications and set priorities.*

* Though the assessment questions have been reviewed by focus group and site visit participants as well 
as by independent reviewers, they have not been validated statistically. 
Introduction 7 

Tailoring the ten elements 

Planning and Assessing a Law Enforcement Reentry Strategy does not get into the 
detailed steps of how to implement each aspect of an element; it provides general 
guidelines that readers should consider when tailoring responses to the 
unique needs and capacity of an agency and its jurisdiction. There is no onesize-
fits-all solution to reentry; program models must be based on available 
resources and stakeholders. 

The 10 elements that follow summarize the potential activities of law 
enforcement in reentry and position the user to plan the next level of action 
and implementation. They place the necessary tools into the hands of law 
enforcement professionals, allowing them to identify areas for improvement 
and enhance their responses to the complex problem of reentry. 

1. ViabilityLaw enforcement executives determine the current level of 
support for collaborative reentry strategies among local elected and 
appointed officials, the community, and the law enforcement agency. 
They take steps, where necessary, to develop initial and ongoing support 
for this work by engaging and educating partners and staff. 

2. Stakeholder InvolvementLaw enforcement collaborates with a broad 
range of individuals and agencies from different disciplines and backgrounds 
that have a role or significant interest in helping people successfully 
transition from prison or jail into the community. 

3. Initiatives Priority PopulationLaw enforcement and its partners conduct 
an analysis to identify a reentry population that is both at high risk 
of committing a new crime and likely to benefit from the intensive 
supervision and services that the collaborative can offer. 

4. Mission, Goals, and Performance MeasuresLaw enforcement and its 
partners define a mission for the reentry collaborative, enumerate specific 
goals, and identify ways to measure progress toward these goals. 

5. Initiatives Terms and Participant IdentificationLaw enforcement and 
its partners design parameters governing how participants will be 
involved in services and supervision and procedures for how participants 
will be identified and enrolled. 

6. Information Exchange and Systems CollaborationLaw enforcement and 
its partners create systems for appropriately exchanging information and 
for routine collaboration and communication. Formal agreements define 
the parameters of information exchanges and sustain the partnerships. 

7. Transition PlanningBefore an individual is released, law enforcement 
and corrections collaborate with each other and other partners to 
exchange key information and prepare the individual, family members, 
victims of the crime(s), and the community for his or her release. 
Introduction

8. Enhanced SupervisionLaw enforcement supports postrelease surveillance 
and supervision by sharing information to enforce the law and 
terms of supervision, helping discourage individuals from committing 
future crimes, and engaging service providers and the public to support 
successful reintegration. 

9. Organizational CapacityLaw enforcement leaders who recognize the 
value of participating in a reentry initiative create an organizational structure 
to support it. 

10. SustainabilityBeginning in a reentry initiatives earliest stages of development
or law enforcements initial involvementlaw enforcement 
leaders work with other policymakers to help ensure the efforts longterm 
survival. 

The elements are placed in this order to loosely mirror a planning and 
implementation process, but some activities will overlap or be ongoing. The 
elements are not in a strictly sequential order, but rather are organized into 
four main stages that represent the program development processLaying 
the Foundation (elements one and two), Developing the Initiative (elements 
three, four, and five), Implementing the Plan (elements six, seven, and 
eight), and Making It Stick (elements nine and ten). This presentation provides 
a general roadmap that still allows for jurisdiction-specific variations. 

Though certain aspects of each element will be present in any comprehensive 
reentry initiative with law enforcement participation, no agency will likely 
have in place all aspects of each of the 10 elements. Indeed, it may not be 
appropriate for law enforcement to participate in some of the described activities, 
given local conditions and resources. The elements are meant to provide 
an ideal, and therefore inventory an ambitious number of possible activities 
for local law enforcement agencies to consider. As with all new initiatives, it 
may be more appropriate for the law enforcement agency and its partners to 
begin with a modest effort and then build on those successes rather than take 
on a large number of tasks at once, which can often be overwhelming and 
undermine its continuation. This document, therefore, allows readers to consider 
their priorities in light of the full range of potential law enforcement 
roles in reentry and their own local characteristics, needs, and resources. 

Planning and Assessing a Law Enforcement Reentry Strategy will be most 
useful for readers who acknowledge that people released from prison and jail 
require a combination of supervision and support, and no agency alone can 
comprehensively manage the process. Executives in law enforcement agencies 
already working in this area agree that any reentry strategy requires close collaboration 
with other criminal justice, health and social service systems, as 
well as community partners. In particular, law enforcement executives should 
recognize the need to sustain a partnership with corrections agencies, which, 
unlike other organizations participating in the initiative, are involved in nearly 
every aspect of prison and jail reentry.* The authors hope that Planning and 
Assessing a Law Enforcement Reentry Strategy will help leaders and their agencies 
improve their understanding ofand foster collaboration withthe multiple 
systems affected by people returning from correctional facilities, 
ultimately increasing public safety and strengthening communities. 

* The degree to which corrections agencies are at the center of any reentry initiative is perhaps best illustrated by the fact that they are the greatest focus of the policy recommendations collected in the Report of the Re-Entry Policy Council.

Abbreviations of Frequently Cited Resources Introduction 

Byrne and Hummer, Examining | James M. Byrne and Don Hummer, Examining the 
Role of Police in Reentry Partnership Initiatives, Federal Probation 68, no. 2 (2004): 6269. 
CSG, RRPC 		      |	Council of State Governments, Re-Entry Policy 
Council, Report of the Re-Entry Policy Council Charting the Safe and Successful Return of Prisoners to the Community (New York: Council of State Governments, 2005). 
IACP, Building 		      |	International Association of Chiefs of Police, 
Building an Offender Reentry Program: A Guide for Law Enforcement (Alexandria, Va.: IACP, 2007). 
IACP, Offender Re-Entry	      | International Association of Chiefs of Police, 
Offender Re-Entry: Exploring the Leadership Opportunity for Law Enforcement Executives and Their Agencies, 
IACP/COPS National Policy Summit Final Report (Alexandria, Va.: IACP, 2007). 
IACP, Offender Reentry DVD    | International Association of Chiefs of Police, 
Offender Reentry: A Police Perspective, DVD (Alexandria, Va.: IACP, 2006). 
La Vigne et al., PRCP	      | Nancy G. La Vigne, Amy L. Solomon, Karen A. Beckman, 
and Kelly Dedel, Prisoner Reentry and Community Policing: Strategies for Enhancing Public Safety (Washington, 
D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2006). 
Ney and McGarry, GIR 	      | Becki Ney and Peggy McGarry, Getting It Right: 
Collaborative Problem Solving for Criminal Justice (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice National 
Institute of Corrections, 2006). 
Sexton, WT: Framework	      | George E. Sexton, Working Together: A Framework 
for Developing Inter-Agency Public Safety Alliances (Knoxville, Tenn.: The Knoxville Public Safety 
Collaborative, 2000).

Laying the Foundation
[Cover Image]

1 Viability 
Law enforcement executives determine the current level of support 
for collaborative reentry strategies among local elected 
and appointed officials, the community, and the law enforcement 
agency. They take steps, where necessary, to develop initial and 
ongoing support for this work by engaging and educating partners 
and staff. 

Discussion 

One of the first questions that many local law enforcement executives consider 
when thinking about employing collaborative reentry strategies is whether 
such activities are viable in their current environment. There are three main 
constituent groups to which local law enforcement executives should seek to 
be responsive: elected and appointed officials, the community (including representatives 
from agencies that provide services to people returning from 
prison and jail), and the law enforcement agencys personnel. Each groups 
support for the law enforcement agencys work in this area is critical both to 
getting reentry efforts started and to maintaining them in the long term. 

Some jurisdictions elected and appointed officials strongly supportand, 
in fact, spearheadlocal reentry efforts. In other communities, local officials 
provide limited or no clear backing for law enforcements involvement in reentry. 
For this reason, local law enforcement executives who are considering 
developing a new reentry initiative or joining an existing one should examine 
the political support for such efforts among state legislators, mayors, 
city/county managers, local council members, area sheriffs, prosecutors, and 
any other appointed or elected officials in their community. 

Beyond examining political support, law enforcement executives should 
proactively engage and educate local and state elected and appointed officials 
about reentry and why practical efforts are needed to increase the likelihood 
that individuals will return successfully to the community from correctional 
facilities. In garnering political goodwill for reentry initiatives, law enforcement 
leaders should stress to public officials that reentry strategies are the 
natural extension of the successful community policing philosophy embraced 
by the agency. A reentry initiative that involves law enforcement can bring 
together criminal justice agencies, local health and social service systems, and 
other community stakeholders to collaboratively address high recidivism 
rates.* (For further discussion of the importance of partnering with key 
stakeholders and descriptions of these agencies and groups, see Element 2:
Stakeholder Involvement.) Law enforcement executives should also stress to 
elected and appointed officials that a reentry strategy prioritizes and focuses on 
individuals who are most likely to reoffend on release and thus cycle through 
the justice system. These messages should emphasize that from law enforcements 
perspective, reentry is a coordinated crime prevention effort that seeks 
to enhance public safety. 

Agency leaders should clarify any misunderstandings elected officials 
may have about reentry and law enforcements role, such as a belief that supporting 
successful reintegration will be viewed as soft on crime. Policing 
professionals can explain how reentry efforts provide both a carrot and a 
stick to the individuals who participate in the initiative: individuals returning 
from correctional facilities are connected to services they need (such as education, 
mental health services, and housing) yet are also held accountable for 
their actions should they commit new offenses or violations. In addition, officials 
should know that law enforcements participation in a reentry initiative 
helps the agency gather important information that can be used for other 
crime prevention or law enforcement efforts. Placing a high priority on conveying 
these important messages to elected and appointed leaders about the 
reentry initiativeand its successes and challengescan help sustain collaborative 
reentry strategies and foster critical collaborative relationships in the 
midst of decreasing funding, historical barriers to collaboration, and other 
obstacles. 

As important as political support, law enforcement leaders must foster 
initial and ongoing community backing for the initiative and the police departments 
role. Law enforcement and its partners should understand what concerns 
community members may have about the initiative through informal 
surveys or interviews, community meetings, and other opportunities for twoway 
discussions. As with elected and appointed officials, community members 
may have concerns that providing services to people returning from prison or 
jail will detract from other police efforts to ensure community safety. Community 
residents may worry about the effect that individuals returning from 
prison or jail will have on the neighborhoods to which they return. Or some 
residents may have apprehensions about the reasons for law enforcements 
participation in the partnershipconcerns that often arise when an initiative 
focuses on a neighborhood or segment of the population that is overwhelmingly 
nonwhite.[19]

To ensure that community concerns are adequately addressed, law 
enforcement must offer open and candid communication with the public and 
build or enhance mutual trust. Agency leaders should develop a campaign to 
explain the initiative and maintain transparency.20 Outreach efforts should 
focus on explaining how reentry activities further law enforcements public 
safety mission: by providing the needed supports and supervision to people 
released from prisons and jails to prevent them from committing new crimes, 
reentry programs improve the lives of those residing in communities where 
most individuals return and decrease the number of victimized community 
members. (A more detailed discussion of how law enforcement can address 
community concerns is included in Element 7: Transition Planning.) 

Engaging community partners and developing and maintaining 
processesparticularly around identifying individual participants for the initiative
that are clearly defined and transparent to the public can foster support 
for the reentry effort. Involving the public and service providers should 
begin as soon as law enforcement executives consider engaging in reentry 
activities and should continue for the life of the effort. By partnering with the 
community from the initiatives inception, law enforcement and other stakeholders 
are more likely to develop and maintain broad support for their work. 

Law enforcement executives must also garner and maintain interest in a 
reentry initiative within their agency. The executive should ensure that the 
reentry effort is understood and prioritized in his or her communications with 
officers at every levelregardless of their rank or position. In agencies where 
there are unions or collective bargaining units, the chief executive should be 
sure to include their representatives in discussions of reentry and build consensus 
about going forward. 

The chief executive should stress the value of this type of real police 
work and explain reentrys value as a crime reduction and enforcement strategy. 
The executive should also stress the benefits to the agency, including 
strengthening partnerships with other justice agencies and social service 
organizations, sharing the responsibility to reduce recidivism, improving 
information sharing and intelligence gathering (even within the agency), and 
combining limited community resources to increase public safety. These messages 
emphasize that there is a high level of interest in and commitment to 
reentry effortsand that these efforts amount not to a short-lived program but 
to an ongoing public safety strategy for the agency. In addition to these themes, 
the law enforcement executive should reiterate the same points delivered to 
policymakers and the community: individuals will continue to return to the 
community regardless of whether a reentry initiative existsthe only question 
is whether the police and public will be prepared for it. The reentry effort is a 
proactive strategy to reduce crime and improve safety. 

Law enforcement agencies with successful reentry strategies have strong 
backing among local elected and appointed leaders, the community, and its 
own personnel. This support must be developed through ongoing efforts to
inform and involve these key constituent groups when reentry strategies are 
first developed and throughout the life of the initiative. The inability to garner 
and maintain constituent support may result in resistance to aspects of the initiative 
and interfere with service deliverywhich can ultimately affect the success 
of this work. In contrast, meaningful partnerships built through outreach 
and inclusion help the law enforcement agency build both trust and goodwill 
that can carry it through a critical incidentshould one occursuch as a highprofile 
crime committed by someone participating in the reentry initiative. 
Investment in creating a solid foundation of support is essential: without it, 
law enforcement executives will face difficulties in implementing all aspects of 
the initiative described throughout this guide. 

* Recidivism is used throughout this document to refer to the reincarceration of individuals who 
commit new crimes or violate their conditions of release. 

 Law enforcement executives 
have a role in providing 
policymakers with 
viable strategies. A lot of 
times, nobody wants to 
do this work until law 
enforcement takes a 
stand. By taking a lead in 
prisoner reentry, we can 
help elected officials be 
not just tough on crime, 
but also smart on crime. 

 Edward A. Flynn 
Commissioner, Springfield 
(Massachusetts) Police 
Department 

 A lot of agencies that 
evolved into doing this 
work didnt see what they 
were doing as reentry per 
se, but rather as the logical 
extension of good policing 
strategies. 

 Gary Kempker 
Senior Manager, Center for 
Effective Public Policy* 

* Mr. Kempker has more than 25 years of experience in law enforcement and corrections. His previous 
positions include Director, Missouri Department of Corrections; Director, Missouri Department of Public 
Safety; Chief, Jefferson City (Missouri) Police Department; and Interim Sheriff, Cole County (Missouri) 
Sheriffs Office. 

 Commissioner Flynn previously served as the Secretary of Public Safety for the Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts and as the Chief of Police in Arlington, Virginia. Commissioner Flynn also served as 
Chief of Police in Braintree and Chelsea (Massachusetts) and is a member of the Council of State Governments 
Justice Center Board. At this writing, he is the Chief of Police in Milwaukee (Wisconsin). 
Laying the Foundation 

 We have to educate and 
assure the community that 
reentry is not a free pass for 
offenders. Reentry is not 
soft on crime. We are 
still going to hold people 
accountable for their 
actions, but we are going 
to give them a chance to 
succeed in the community. 

 Deputy Chief Thomas 
Stolz 
Investigations Division 
Commander, Wichita 
(Kansas) Police Department*

 The partners who 
intentionally deal with 
offenders long term will 
always have a stake in 
reentrycorrections agencies, 
housing, probation, 
parole. The tough sell is 
within the police department 
because typically, a 
police officers goal is to 
deal with offenders for as 
short a period as possible. 

 Captain John 
Fitzgerald 
Chief of Staff, Office of 
the Chief of Police, 
Montgomery County 
(Maryland) Police 
Department 

* In May 1994, Deputy Chief Stolz was selected as one of the original community policing supervisors 
assigned within the department. Since then, he has helped usher in the community policing philosophy 
under which the Wichita Police Department operates. 

 Captain Fitzgerald is Chief of Staff for Chief J. Thomas Manger. He has served with the Montgomery 
County (Maryland) Police Department since 1983. 

 We see reentry as a way 
of breaking a cycle of criminal 
behaviornot just for 
the individual offenders, 
but also across the generations 
in their families. The 
children of these offenders 
like seeing us come to 
their house to check on 
their parents. Then they 
know we care and theres 
support for them out 
there. 

 Jim Bueermann 
Chief, Redlands (California) 
Police Department* 

* Chief Bueermann joined the Redlands (California) Police Department in 1978 and has served as its chief 
since 1998. Among his many affiliations, Chief Bueermann is a charter member of the Society of Police 
Futurists International. 
Laying the Foundation 

Assessment Questions 

Consider each section and thoughtfully select the category that you feel best fits your agencys current efforts in reentry. 

Column 1: not part of reentry effort 
Column 2: part of plan for reentry effort 
Column 3: part of reentry effort 
Column 4: not applicable 

Developing support for reentry among elected and appointed officials 
1. Our agency engages the following groups in discussions about the benefits of reentry strategies to gain support: 
a. Local elected officials 
b. Local appointed officials 

Developing support for reentry among community members 
2. Our agency emphasizes to the community that reentry is primarily a public safety strategy. 
3. Our agency engages community members in discussions about the benefits of reentry strategies. 

Developing support for reentry among law enforcement agency staff 
4. Our agency engages the following groups in discussions about the benefits of reentry strategies: 
a. All staff levels 
b. Collective bargaining units 
c. Sworn and nonsworn personnel 

Making the case for reentry 
5. Our agencys executive 
a. describes why reentry efforts are needed in the jurisdiction; 
b. explains how collaborative reentry strategies can enhance public safety; 
c. draws connections between reentry efforts and community policing; 
d. addresses any concerns about the agencys employing reentry strategies; 
e. encourages implementation of reentry strategies in the jurisdiction. 

Comments 

Resources* 
Developing support for reentry among elected and 
appointed officials 

CSG, RRPC 
 Policy Statement 1: Encouraging Collaboration Among Key Stakeholders, 
pp. 1822 

IACP, Building 
 What are the Challenges to Law Enforcement Participation in Offender 
Reentry? pp. 45 

Developing support for reentry among community members 

Brazzell, Diana. Informing and Engaging Communities through Reentry 
Mapping. Reentry Mapping Brief. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, 2007. 

CSG, RRPC 
 Policy Statement 7: Educating the Public About the Re-Entry Population, 
pp. 95103 

IACP, Offender Re-Entry 
 Issue Area VI: Educating the Public, pp. 1822 
 Issue Area VII: Securing Public Support, pp. 2225 

Developing support for reentry among law enforcement agency staff 

IACP, Building 
 Management and Operations, p. 16 
 What are the Challenges to Law Enforcement Participation in Offender 
Reentry? pp. 45 

IACP, Offender Re-Entry 
 Issue Area I: Asserting Leadership, pp. 45 

Making the case for reentry 

Community Resources for Justice, Inc. Returning Inmates: Closing the Public 
Safety Gap. Boston: Community Resources for Justice, Inc., 2001. Available 
at www.crjustice.org/rettex.htm. 

CSG, RRPC 
 Introduction: Understanding Re-Entry, pp. 912 
 Policy Statement 7: Educating the Public About the Re-Entry Population, 
pp. 95103 

IACP, Building 
 Why would Law Enforcement Participate in Offender Reentry? p. 3 
 What are the Benefits to Law Enforcement Participation in Offender 
Reentry? pp. 34 

IACP, Offender Re-Entry 
 Issue Area VII: Securing Public Support, pp. 2225 

La Vigne et al., PRCP 
 Reoffending Rates and Contribution to Crime in the Community, pp. 89 
 Individual Risks of Reoffending, p. 10 
 The Community-Level Impact of Reentry, pp. 1011 
 Citizen Perceptions of Safety, pp. 1214 
 Police Contributions to Reentry Efforts, p. 18 

Piehl, Anne Morrison. From Cell to Street: A Plan to Supervise Inmates After 
Release. Boston: MassInc., 2002. 

Travis, Jeremy, Amy Solomon, and Michele Waul. From Prison to Home: The 
Dimensions and Consequences of Prisoner Reentry. Washington, D.C.: Urban 
Institute, 2001. 

Related topic: Exerting leadership 

IACP, Building 
 Management and Operations, p. 16 

IACP, Offender Re-Entry 
 Issue Area I: Asserting Leadership, pp. 45 

Ney and McGarry, GIR 
 Chapter 20: Exert Leadership, pp. 191200 

* See page 10 for the full citations of the frequently cited resources that are abbreviated in this list.
Laying the Foundation 

2 Stakeholder Involvement 
Law enforcement collaborates with a broad range of individuals 
and agencies from different disciplines and backgrounds that have 
a role or significant interest in helping people successfully transition 
from prison or jail into the community. 

Discussion 

Law enforcement alone cannot develop and execute an effective reentry initiative. 
A collaborative effort among stakeholders from criminal justice agencies, 
health and human service agencies, and community leaders is needed to effectively 
address the challenges raised by reentry. To develop its strategy, a law 
enforcement agency must reach out to, and be open to working with, appropriate 
agencies and individuals and elicit a commitment to work together.* 

Many law enforcement agencies already have partnerships and relationships 
with other criminal justice professionals and social service providers 
through community policing work, task forces, or other local efforts. These 
existing relationships position law enforcement to convene stakeholders on 
reentry issuesparticularly as established partners are more likely to understand 
the abilities and tools that law enforcement can bring to the table. Contributions 
law enforcement can make to a reentry collaborative are significant. 
For example, patrol officers are in a key position to determine whether they 
will arrest someone released from prison or jail, particularly when they have 
enforcement discretion regarding minor offenses; and police have extensive 
experience gathering and analyzing data and information on neighborhood 
problems and individuals, as well as working in the community on crime prevention. 
(For a more complete discussion of law enforcement assets that can 
be leveraged in a reentry partnership, see the Introduction.) 

All potential partners can provide important contributions in a reentry collaboration 
(the roles of social service agencies and community groups are 
described below). But policing agencies should take particular note of the role 
of corrections agencies in a reentry initiative. One or more corrections agencies 
will need to be involved in both planning and day-to-day activities. For 
example, law enforcement planners can work with the administrators of correctional 
facilities to collect data to support program design or enhancement, 
or they can consult with community corrections officials to determine how 
police personnel can support supervision activities. These efforts will help to
ensure seamless transition from prison or jail into the community. Other 
police-corrections connections will be dictated by specific program goals and 
strategies and are highlighted throughout this guide. 

Law enforcement may also partner with other area law enforcement and 
criminal justice agencies, depending on the initiatives target population, goals, 
and specific strategies. For example, the district attorney or judges may be 
involved if individuals are sentenced to the initiative, perhaps to prioritize or 
streamline prosecutions for participants who commit new crimes, or in the 
event that their probation is revoked as a sanction for failing to meet the terms 
of their supervision. In this case, law enforcement may provide court officials 
with background information about the individual that would improve his or 
her chances for referral to a reentry initiative, or may voice any public safety 
concerns.21 If reentry efforts include work with youths, law enforcement will 
collaborate with juvenile justice authorities. (Special considerations for 
working with this population are discussed in Element 3: Initiatives Priority 
Population.) 

Local agencies and community-based organizations (CBO) that have historically 
worked in neighborhoods with high numbers of formerly incarcerated 
people, and have the expertise and the capacity to serve this population, 
should be engaged in the initiative. Law enforcement, with its corrections partners, 
should identify and seek to involve a broad range of providers. The following 
list highlights several categories of partners and examples of some 
ways that they can assist in program planning and serving the reentry target 
population. 

 Education and training providers can supply information about any existing 
educational, vocational, and life skills services they are deliveringor 
would be able to deliverto individuals released from correctional facilities, 
what categories of formerly incarcerated people they serve, and at 
what locations. They can also detail any policy or resource barriers to 
providing educational services that a collaborative reentry strategy can 
address. Education providers can teach general educational development 
(GED) test preparation, English as a second language (ESL), or other types 
of classes that can enhance successful reintegration. If the reentry collaborative 
prioritizes juvenile populations, public school officials should also 
be involved. 

 Housing officials can provide clarity on the local, state, and federal rules 
and regulations that may affect the ability of people released from prison 
or jail to find suitable housing, as well as insights into how to address 
issues of availability and costs. For instance, local public housing authorities 
have discretion regarding who is eligible for housing, and in some 
cases individuals with certain criminal records may be barred. Housing 
partners will be instrumental in ultimately findingor even developing
housing options for individuals. They may also be able to identify and 
propose solutions for local residents opposition to locating men and 
women returning from prison or jail within their neighborhood. 

 Health, mental health, and substance abuse treatment providers can provide 
important background on servicesboth available and neededto assist 
people leaving correctional facilities who have physical or mental health 
and substance abuse issues. They can also help determine the prevalence 
of these health issues among the reentry population, assess potential 
demand for treatment, and describe any barriers to addressing these 
needs. These partners can then take a lead role in designing strategies 
for identifying participants and connecting them to needed services. 

 Workforce development and employment professionals can highlight their current 
efforts to connect people leaving prison or jail to jobs and what types 
of people they serve (such as nonviolent, youth, substance-using). They 
can also address the challenges to helping identify employment opportunities 
for certain groups of people. Legitimate employment has a strong 
influence on whether individuals will turn to criminal acts to support 
themselves and their families,22 and employment professionals can help 
provide this critical service. 

 Community-based groups such as faith-based organizations (including individual 
churches, synagogues, and mosques), neighborhood associations, 
advocacy groups, and food and clothing banks offer many of the services 
listed above, in addition to mentoring and peer counseling, assistance 
with obtaining a legal identification card, and myriad other contributions. 
In some underserved communities, faith groups may comprise the only 
organized support networks with abundant services. These groups may 
also be best positioned to convey the message that they are behind the 
individual returning to the community and his or her successful transition. 

 Individual community members, who may or may not be connected to other 
stakeholder groups, have valuable contributions as well. People who have 
returned from prison can personally describe the challenges they faced and 
services they received that helped them become productive community 
members. Their messages can be conveyed during program orientation 
meetings and other forums (described in Element 7: Transition Planning). 
Family members of people released from incarceration, victims and their 
advocates, and business leaders are among those who can add their experiences 
and insights to help with problem-solving efforts. Ministers, rabbis, 
and imams also can provide information about what services they and 
their houses of worship provide. 

 Elected and appointed officials provide important backing for reentry efforts. 
In some jurisdictions, public officials may be key to securing financial 
support or fostering a supportive environment. They may also be aware 
of existing reentry efforts in the jurisdiction and can offer suggestions 
or practical assistance to help engage additional stakeholders. 

 Transportation groups can assist with improving how men and women 
returning from prison or jail access both public and private transportation. 
They can also provide insights into how to better connect people 
released from prison to social services and job locations. 

Determining whom to engage at the local level, when many groups, individuals, 
and organizations have a vested interest in reentry, can be difficult. 
A criminal justice agency (either law enforcement or corrections) may find it 
useful to solicit recommendations from state and county agencies. Law 
enforcement executives may also begin by contacting those agencies, organizations, 
and individuals with which the department already has a relationship 
or partnership. 

Law enforcement professionals may encounter at least some reluctance 
among certain stakeholders to serve people returning from prison. These 
groups and individuals may feel deep ambivalence about how and whether 
to apply their limited resources to people who have broken the law, whom 
they may perceive as particularly difficult to serveespecially when there is a 
significant need among the general population for these same services. 
Some may also have concerns about working with law enforcement or other 
criminal justice agencies on such an initiative, including a perceived expectation 
that law enforcement intends to use information and resources they 
provide for intelligence gathering. To the extent possible, law enforcement 
should try to gauge providers willingness and ability to serve people released 
from incarceration, their credibility in the community, and their interest in
partnering. Recognizing that every stakeholder may not have a current interest 
or ability to partner in this effort, the law enforcement agency should first work 
with stakeholders that are both willing and able to develop collaborative 
reentry strategies, and then over time expand efforts to include additional 
stakeholders. 

To address concerns of potential partners, criminal justice officials should 
highlight the compelling benefits of participating in a reentry partnership (in 
addition to emphasizing core themes discussed in Element 1: Viability). At a 
minimum, agency leaders should explain how collaboration provides valuable 
support and makes the most of limited resources and services, how effective 
interventions can help prevent future crimes that plague neighborhoods, and 
how the initiative pairs enhanced supervision with increased access to services. 
Criminal justice partners must also be transparent about their objectives: they 
should explain that the goal is to increase the likelihood of successful reentry 
so that neighborhoods can be safer and individuals subjected to less victimization. 
They should further specify that criminal justice agencies recognize that 
enlisting community partners to advance police intelligence-gathering efforts 
alone is not likely to be successful, and that agencies understand that effective 
reentry strategies must foster access to needed services and treatment. 

It is particularly important to ensure that agency executives, public officials, 
and trusted community representatives participate in a reentry initiative. 
Law enforcement executives should play a significant role in reaching out to 
other agency heads, local and state elected and appointed officials, and community 
members who can take a leadership role in the initiative. These executives 
and officialsreferred to as policymakers throughoutserve a critical function 
in moving the partnership from cooperation to collaboration. Specifically,
they should form several collaborative bodies through which the initiative is 
designed, overseen, and implemented, including the following: 

 Policy boardComposed of agency executives, elected and appointed officials, 
and community leaders, this board provides general direction for the 
initiative, periodically advises its progress and policies, helps identify and 
secure funding, advocates on its behalf, and performs other strategic 
development functions. 

 Coordinating groupMade up of individuals with the authority to make 
decisions on behalf of their agency or organization, this group oversees 
and coordinates daily operations and establishes systems to operationalize 
the initiatives design, such as mechanisms for sharing information, 
addressing challenges to the efforts effectiveness, and measuring the initiatives 
progress toward its stated goals. This group of coordinators also 
provides updates and recommendations to the policy board and supervision 
to initiative staff. 

 Line-level staffA group of personnel selected to serve in this specialized 
assignment, these staff members implement the initiative on the ground 
level, including identifying and engaging reentry participants and facilitating 
a service linkage, as well as providing enhanced community supervision. 
In some jurisdictions, particularly those that are small or in more rural 
areas, two or more of these groups may be combined. For example, the functions 
of the coordinating group may be combined with those of the line-level 
personnel, and this combined group would report to the policy board; or a single 
group may function as both the policy board and coordinating group.

* For agencies that are joining an existing initiative, this section can be used as a checklist to see if 
additional suggestions for partners can strengthen an ongoing effort. 

Reentry Stakeholders 

Throughout this document, the term stakeholder is used to describe the 
diverse groups and individuals with a role in promoting safe and successful 
reentry, including criminal justice policymakers and practitioners; education 
and training professionals; housing providers and housing systems 
officials; representatives of health, mental health, and substance abuse 
treatment systems; workforce development and employment services personnel; 
transportation officials; staff of community-based organizations, 
individual community members, and elected and appointed officials. 
Examples include the following: 

Criminal justice 
 Local law enforcement agencies 
(police departments, sheriffs 
offices) 
 Prisons 
 Jails 
 Juvenile justice authorities 
 Community corrections 
(probation and parole) 
 Prosecutors 
 Judges 
 Defense attorneys 

Education and training 
 Education officials (local public 
schools, community colleges, 
universities, vocational training 
centers) 
 Life skills providers 
Housing 
 Public housing 
 Privately owned housing 
(private apartments, 
homes for rent) 
 Affordable housing 

Health, mental health, and substance abuse 
 Mental health services 
 Public health services 
 Private health services 
 Substance abuse services 

Workforce development and employment 
 Workforce development agencies 
 Employers 
 Business associations 
 Unions 

Community-based organizations (CBO) 
 Faith-based organizations 
 Victims associations/advocates 
 Neighborhood associations 
 Food pantries 
 Clothing banks 
 Community advocacy groups 
Individual community members 
 Community leaders (such as 
ministers) 
 Persons who have returned from prison or jail 
 Victims 
 Families of individuals who have 
returned from prison or jail 
Elected and appointed officials 
 State legislators 
 Mayors 
 Governors 
 City/county/town managers 
 City/county/town council members 

Transportation 
 Rail (subways, light rail) 
 Bus

 Whats considered a 
felony as an adult may be 
suppressed as a minor. And 
the Department of Juvenile 
Justice regularly releases 
high-risk youth offenders 
who have completed their 
conviction sentence. So 
we include juveniles in our 
reentry work to focus on a 
population that we know 
has an impact on crime, 
and who would benefit 
from transitional services 
into the community. 

 Demetra Butler 
Program Administrator, 
Savannah (Georgia) Impact 
Program* 

* Ms. Butler has been the Program Administrator for the Savannah Impact Program (SIP) since 2005. 
When SIP began in 2001, Ms. Butler worked with the program as the supervisor of parole officers. She 
also previously worked as Assistant Superintendent at the Georgia Department of Corrections Coastal 
Transitional Center. 
Stakeholder Involvement 23 

 The mental health 
agency in our collaborative 
didnt realize it was 
needed as a partner until 
we cross-referenced client 
lists, and they saw how 
much we were working 
with the same people. 

 Gary Kempker 
Senior Manager, Center for 
Effective Public Policy 

Employment and Accountability 

Employment is also a key factor in whether individuals released from 
prison will be able to meet their financial obligations, including child support, 
victim restitution, court fees and fines, and other debts that, if not 
repaid, could result in their return to prison or jail and the recipients 
inability to collect. A Council of State Governments Justice Center publication, 
Repaying Debts, describes how policymakers can increase accountability 
among people who commit crimes and improve rates of child support 
collection and victim restitution. For more information, see www.reentry 
policy.org. 

Mapping Access to Services 

Using law enforcements mapping capabilities, or contracting with others 
with those resources, it is possible to chart access to public transportation 
in neighborhoods where most people released from prison return as well as 
the locations of services and supervision officers. These maps may suggest 
policy reforms that can better link individuals with needed resources and 
supervision appointments, such as increasing available services or rerouting 
buses.23 (More information on mapping for reentry is included in Element 
3: Initiatives Priority Population.) 
Stakeholder Involvement 25 

Challenges to Serving People Released from Incarceration 

Incarceration and reentry present unique challenges for service providers 
for a number of reasons. Local, state, or federal laws and regulations can 
make connecting this population to services and employment opportunities 
difficult. In some states, regulations governing the enrollment of former 
prisoners in federal benefit programs, such as food stamps or public 
housing, affect peoples access to these critical resources. Similarly, in 
some jurisdictions regulations prohibiting employment of people released 
from incarceration in certain sectors present significant barriers.24 
Providers and officials involved in the reentry initiative can contribute 
their expertise and strategies for overcoming these barriers. 

 Reentry and crime 
reduction are not police 
issues but city issues, and 
they will require a citywide 
collaboration to succeed. 

 Captain Felecia Norris 
North Patrol Bureau 
Commander, Wichita 
(Kansas) Police Department* 

* Captain Felecia A. Norris is a 26-year veteran of the Wichita Police Department. During her career, she 
has worked as Patrol Officer, School Liaison Officer, Public Affairs Detective, and Recruit Training Commander, 
among other positions. She is currently assigned as the Bureau Commander for the Patrol North 
Bureau, and manages 129 department personnel. 
 In many jurisdictions, officials may find that they are challenged just to get groups to cooperate and 
participate before they can attain true collaboration among partners. 

Making the Pitch 

Criminal justice partners should approach the organization or person 
whose involvement in the reentry initiative is sought in terms that are 
specifically appealing to that stakeholder. Knowing what issues are most 
likely to resonate with the target audience is essential. Partners should 
explain how the provider may already be serving people who have been 
released from correctional facilities. An effective pitch should state, in 
clear and accurate terms, whether the initiatives activities are likely to 
accomplish the following: 

 Revitalize a particular neighborhood 
 Improve communities confidence in the criminal justice system 
 Lower public health risks 
 Decrease unemployment 
 Increase levels of education 
 Improve community safety 

Assessment Questions 

Consider each section and thoughtfully select the category that you feel best 
fits your agencys current efforts in reentry. 

Column 1: not part of reentry effort 
Column 2: part of plan for reentry effort 
Column 3: part of reentry effort 
Column 4: not applicable 

Understanding systems affected by reentry 
1. Our agency understands how the following systems can help individuals successfully return to the community from correctional facilities: 
a. Institutional corrections 
b. Community corrections 
c. Other criminal justice agencies 
d. Education and training providers 
e. Housing officials 
f. Health, mental health, and substance abuse treatment providers 
g. Workforce development and employment agencies 
h. Community-based organizations 
i. Individual community members 
j. Elected and appointed officials 
k. Transportation providers 

Engaging stakeholders 
2. Our agency engages the following stakeholders in reentry efforts: 
a. Institutional corrections 
b. Community corrections 
c. Other criminal justice agencies 
d. Education and training providers 
e. Housing officials 
f. Health, mental health, and substance abuse treatment providers 
g. Workforce development and employment agencies 
h. Community-based organizations 
i. Individual community members 
j. Elected and appointed officials 
k. Transportation providers 

Overcoming barriers to partnering 
3. Our agency 
a. addresses any partner concerns about serving people released from correctional facilities; 
b. attends to any partner concerns about partnering with law enforcement; 
c. stresses the specific benefits of a reentry partnership for various stakeholders; 
d. maintains transparency about its objectives. 

Developing collaborative bodies 
4. Our agency assists in forming collaborative structures that 
a. guide the initiative (policy board); 
b. manage day-to-day operations 
(coordinating group). 
5. Our agency actively participates in collaborative entities that 
a. guide the initiative (policy board); 
b. manage day-to-day operations (coordinating group). 

Comments 

Resources* 

Understanding systems affected by reentry 

Burke, Peggy and Michael Tonry. Successful Transition and Reentry for Safer 
Communities: A Call to Action for Parole. Silver Spring: Center for 
Effective Public Policy, 2006. 

Byrne, James M., Faye S. Taxman, and Douglas Young. Emerging Roles and 
Responsibilities in the Reentry Partnership Initiative: New Ways of Doing Business. 
College Park: University of Maryland, Bureau of Governmental 
Research, 2002. 

Council of State Governments, Re-Entry Policy Council. How and Why Medicaid 
Matters for People with Serious Mental Illness Released from Jail. No 
date. Available at www.reentrypolicy.org/issue_areas/physical_mental_ health. 

CSG, RRPC 
 Policy Statement 2: Developing a Knowledge Base, pp. 2335 
 Policy Statement 30: Housing Systems, pp. 412422 
 Policy Statement 31: Workforce Development Systems, pp. 423434 
 Policy Statement 32: Substance Abuse Treatment Systems, pp. 434444 
 Policy Statement 33: Mental Health Care Systems, pp. 445455 
 Policy Statement 34: Children and Family Systems, pp. 456470 
 Policy Statement 35: Physical Health Care Systems, pp. 471482 

IACP, Offender Re-Entry 
 Issue Area III: Collaborating with Community Stakeholders, pp. 712 

McLean, Rachel, and Michael Thompson. Repaying Debts. New York: Council 
of State Governments Justice Center, 2007. 

Engaging stakeholders 

CSG, RRPC 
 Policy Statement 1: Encouraging Collaboration Among Key Stakeholders, 
pp. 1822 

IACP, Building 
 Building Partnerships, pp. 1315 

IACP, Offender Re-Entry 
 Issue Area III: Collaborating with Community Stakeholders, pp. 712 

Rinehart, Tammy A., Anna T. Lazlo, and Gwen O. Briscoe. Collaboration 
Toolkit: How to Build, Fix, and Sustain Productive Partnerships. Washington, 
D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing 
Services, 2001. 
 Section 2: Stakeholders 

Sexton, Working Together: Framework 
 Step 2: Identifying and Including Key Parties, pp. 2932 

Overcoming barriers to partnering 

Gordon, Mary Beth. Making the Match: Law Enforcement, the Faith Community, 
and the Value-Based Initiative. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 
Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2003. 
 Troubleshooting: Solving Problems That Could Undermine a Collaboration 
Between Law Enforcement Officials and Faith-Based Organizations, 
pp. 2629 

IACP, Building 
 What are the Challenges to Law Enforcement Participation in Offender 
Reentry? pp. 45 

Parent, Dale, and Brad Snyder. Police-Corrections Partnerships. Washington, 
D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1999. 
 Planning Partnerships, p. 37 
 Building and Maintaining Support, pp. 3738 
 Dealing With Limited Resources, p. 39 
 Overcoming Mistrust, Misinformation, and Stereotypes, p. 39 
 Removing Barriers to Information Sharing, pp. 4041 

Sexton, George E. Working Together: Assessing Organizational Readiness for Collaboration. 
Knoxville: The Knoxville Public Safety Collaborative, 2000. 

Developing collaborative bodies 

Martin, Ginger and Cheryl Roberts. From Incarceration to Community: 
A Roadmap to Improving Prisoner Reentry and System Accountability in 
Massachusetts. Boston: Crime and Justice Institute, 2004. 
 Leading System Change: The Role of Collaboration, pp. 3436 

Ney and McGarry, GIR 
 Chapter 4: View the Policy Team as Steward of the Criminal Justice 
System, pp. 2536 
 Chapter 5: Collaborate, pp. 2754 
 Chapter 6: Provide Necessary Support to the Team and the Process, 
pp. 5566 

* See page 10 for the full citations of the frequently cited resources that are abbreviated in this list.
Laying the Foundation 

Developing the Initiative
Cover Image]

3 Initiatives Priority 
Population 
Law enforcement and its partners conduct an analysis to identify a 
reentry population that is both at high risk of reoffending and likely 
to benefit from the intensive supervision and services that the reentry 
collaborative can offer. 

Discussion 

A law enforcement agency committed to decreasing victimizations by focusing 
on men and women leaving correctional facilities who are at high risk of re - 
offending must define the scope of its efforts. Although law enforcement and 
its partners may perceive discernable trends among people who reoffend, the 
process of identifying a target population must be based on an analysis of 
available data. Familiarity with problem-solving techniques positions law enforcement 
to take a lead or active role in collecting and analyzing data to design 
collaborative responses. Whether the agency is planning a new reentry 
effort or determining its role in one that already exists, it should play a prominent 
part in identifying the target population. Analyzing data should not be a 
one-time activity but rather an ongoing process; frequent and ongoing reviews 
will drive the initiatives scope and direction and inform any programmatic 
changes. 

Data used to identify the target population can be culled from a variety of 
sources. The collaborations at the heart of the reentry initiative should prove 
valuable in this effort. Among the various partners, it is particularly important 
for law enforcement to exchange information for planning purposes with corrections 
and other criminal justice agencies. (Some of the relevant contributions 
that community stakeholders may make to assist with this analysis are 
described in Element 2: Stakeholder Involvement.) Administrators of correctional 
facilities, which maintain data on individuals released from their system, 
can contribute such information as sentencing provisions, risk and needs 
assessments, correctional prerelease program participation, and residential 
addresses that can inform mapping efforts. Local probation and parole officials 
can contribute important background on relevant population characteristics
and policy issues, including intensity of supervision and how it is provided. For 
its part, law enforcement personnel should share with partners what it has 
learned about relevant crime trends, crime hot spots, offending populations, 
and community strengths and limitations derived from street-level information 
about individuals activities (such as location and crime types), and formal 
records such as arrests, incident reports, crime maps, and pertinent investigative 
information. Law enforcement agencies with research and planning units 
should leverage the expertise of research staff and seek to engage them in these 
analysis efforts. 

Reentry partners can also review information collected and analyzed by 
national policy organizations on this issue, including recommendations, 
promising practices, and examples from the field. This research can help law 
enforcement agencies and their partners learn what steps other local jurisdictions 
have taken to address reentry barriers and highlight what information 
should be considered when making decisions about potential target populations. 
These agencies relevant successes can be tailored to the unique needs 
of other communities. (Resources identified at the end of this section provide 
snapshots of several law enforcement agencies active roles in reentry efforts.) 

From these sources, policymakers should have sufficient data to make 
threshold decisions regarding the initiatives priority population. As a first 
step, planners should determine if people who commit major crimes have 
been previously incarcerated, and if so whether they served time in state penitentiaries 
or county jails. This analysis should go beyond merely counting the 
number of individuals arrested who served previous sentences; rather, it 
should highlight reasons people reoffend and suggest potential responses. 

Law enforcement leaders and other policymakers may decide either to 
work with all individuals released from prison or jail or to prioritize resources 
on a particular subgroup. In selecting a target population, law enforcement 
and reentry partners should consider not only their interests in working with 
various reentry populations, but also the initiatives capacity to address the 
needs of the target group being considered. This analysis will drive planners 
to prioritize among a number of different subgroups or a combination of subgroups 
that might form a priority population: 

1. Types of offensesAggregate data on the criminal histories of people 
returning to the community may suggest a response focusing on people 
convicted of specific types of crimes, such as gun crimes or violent 
offenses. 

2. Demographic groupsData on the extent to which specific populations 
such as juveniles, young adults, gang members, men, or women reoffend 
may indicate the need for a strategy prioritizing a specific cohort.25 

3. Supervision statusInformation on how people are released to the community 
may suggest a response concentrating on people under a particular 
form of supervision: individuals under intensive supervision, those 
with minimal supervision, or those with no postrelease supervision 
because they have already completed their sentence. 
36
Initiatives Priority Population 37 

4. Releases from jailData on the extent to which individuals are repeatedly 
detained in a local jail may prompt a combined social service and law 
enforcement response to individuals who repeatedly cycle through the 
system. 

5. Community services, needs, and capacityInformation on ex-offenders 
service needs (which may be written into their conditions of release), coupled 
with an awareness of barriers to accessing these services in the community, 
may generate a response to better connect people with a specific 
problem (such as co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders) 
to available resources, and may lead to an expansion of those resources. 

6. Geographic factorsData that compares the addresses of people who have 
returned from prison and jail, crime locations, and the capacities of these 
neighborhoods can suggest a response that focuses on a particular area. 

In some cases, policymakersbased on information collected by their 
staffmay determine that some combination of these populations present the 
greatest public safety challenge and may prioritize resources accordingly. For 
example, the initiative may focus on adult males who are on parole, whose conditions 
of release require participation in outpatient drug treatment, and who 
live in particular at-risk neighborhoods. Accordingly, the population groupings 
described more fully below are not mutually exclusive but rather provide some 
general parameters to help policymakers plan their initiative. 

 Law enforcement 
shouldnt work with lowrisk 
peopleits just not a 
good use of resources. 
Similarly, research suggests 
that with a reentry 
collaborative that provides 
intensive services and 
supervision such as a 
police-led reentry initiative, 
the very highest-risk 
people may not be worth 
the effort. Instead, our 
work in Cedar Rapids 
focuses on the middle 
majority, and we take a 
look at some risk factors 
in their lives and see if we 
can help address them. 

 Gary Hinzman 
Director, Sixth District 
Department of Correctional 
Services, Cedar Rapids 
(Iowa)* 

* Director Hinzman previously worked for the Cedar Rapids Police Department, where he also served as 
its Chief. In 2004, Director Hinzman was named the National Probation Executive of the Year by the 
National Association of Probation Executives. At this writing, he is the President of the American Probation 
and Parole Association. 

 Some jurisdictions take extra precautions in guarding juvenile offense information, even aggregate data 
that has been stripped of identifying features. It is therefore advisable to seek permission from the proper 
authority in a given state or jurisdiction before releasing or including juvenile information. 
Initiatives Priority Population 35 

Why Focus on a Subgroup? 

Men and women leaving prison and jail have complex needs that can far 
exceed available servicesboth in the correctional facility and in the communities 
to which they return. For example, one study in California found 
significant gaps between the needs of parolees and available services: only 
200 shelter beds were available for more than 10,000 homeless parolees, 
4 mental health clinics for 18,000 psychiatric cases, and 750 treatment 
beds for 85,000 released individuals with substance abuse problems.26 To 
ensure the best use of agency resources and tax dollars, law enforcement 
and its partners should identify where its resources can be most effectively 
allocated.

Types of offenses 

By looking at the types of offenses for which people are removed from the 
community (as well as past offenses), the reentry collaborative can select a target 
population that would have an impact on a particular public safety problem. 
For example, police executives may advocate focusing reentry efforts on 
individuals convicted of gun crimes as part of an effort to reduce shootings and 
armed robberies, or they may want to focus their efforts on persons who have 
committed violent crimes such as robbery and aggravated assault. 

Demographic groups 

Policymakers and their staff can examine how crime patterns relate to specific 
demographic groups that face unique challenges and service needs. In particular, 
planners can consider tailoring the initiative toward a specific gender or 
age group. For example, they can look at the impact that juveniles have on 
crime in the community. Jurisdictions have included juveniles in their priority 
population because youth who commit major crimes may receive shorter sentences, 
with less supervision, than they would as adults. Moreover, some communities 
have found that focusing on juveniles can galvanize a community 
around law enforcements involvement in a reentry strategy, helping bring 
stakeholders to the table. Enhanced supervision by law enforcement can serve 
a strategic public safety role for an otherwise minimally supervised but potentially 
high-risk population, while also providing an opportunity to engage that 
population in social services. Executives in collaboratives that focus their reentry 
strategy on youth gang members should coordinate and, where possible, 
integrate the agencys gang prevention and reentry work. 

program example: Boston (Massachusetts) Police Department 
The initial population for the Boston Re-Entry Initiative (BRI) only 
included adults. As an outgrowth of this successful venture, the Department 
of Youth Services (DYS) took the lead and helped expand this 
program. Program staff addressed juvenile reentry issues based on 
an understanding of the strong relationship between juveniles who 
leave the DYS and then graduate to become adults in the county and 
state correctional facilities. The resulting initiative consisted of a 
Boston Police Department (BPD) employee from the Boston Regional 
Intelligence Center (BRIC) working in close coordination with DYS in 
information-sharing practices, warrant apprehension, and gang/ 
group intelligence gathering. Owing to the success of this venture, 
this practice continues today. The BPD has made it a priority to 
work with DYS, not only to discuss intelligence issues but also to 
gather release information for juvenile offenders returning to Bostons 
neighborhoods. 

Stakeholders in a Juvenile Reentry Strategy 

Selecting a juvenile population will influence the types of partners 
engaged in, and the services offered by, the collaborative. The law enforcement 
agencys juvenile unit should be actively involved in planning and 
implementation. Juvenile court officialsparticularly judges and family 
advocatesshould be included, as should authorities from juvenile residential 
and aftercare facilities. Engaging education board officials and 
school resource officers can help ensure the reentry initiative is firmly 
linked to the school system. The reentry collaborative may also offer 
services for parents of at-risk youth. 

Supervision status 

If policymakers and their staff look at the impact of crimes committed by people 
under different degrees of postrelease supervision, they may determine 
that a segment of the reentry population under a specific intensity of postrelease 
supervision presents a particularly high risk of reoffending. For example, 
the collaborative may choose to focus on individuals who complete their sentences 
while incarcerated and are released to the community unconditionally.* 
In some states, sentencing statutes mandate that certain individualsoften 
those considered to pose the highest risk of reoffendingserve the entirety of 
their sentences behind bars and hence are not under the jurisdiction of the justice 
system upon release. Those in the juvenile system, similarly, may be 
released from a detention facility without supervision. A reentry strategy can 
ensure criminal justice personnel make contact with these individuals before 
or immediately after release from prison or jail; offer incentives to these individuals, 
such as access to needed services; and facilitate information sharing 
among criminal justice agencies on their locations and activities for crime prevention 
and enforcement purposes. If policymakers want to give priority to a 
population not under postrelease supervision, they should develop strategies 
to gain these individuals willing participation through incentives, since their 
participation cannot be mandated at the time of release. 

When developing a reentry strategy, policymakers decisions must be 
informed by an awareness of state sentencing statutes (such as mandatory 
minimums and truth-in-sentencing regulations), how individuals are released 
and supervised, how many people are under some form of postrelease supervision, 
how individuals risk levels are assessed, and what incentives and sanctions 
supervision agencies utilize to reduce recidivism. 

Releases from jail 

Policymakers and their staff may determine that the much larger number of 
individuals released from jails, as compared to state and federal prisons, presents 
the greatest demand on public safety resources, and thus may design a 
strategy around this population. This is particularly true if the initiative targets 
a particular concern, such as domestic violence cases or the significant percentage 
of individuals arrested for nuisance charges who have mental health 
problems. Analysis may reveal that many of the same individuals are the subject 
of repeat calls for police services and cycle into and out of local jails, and 
when released are under minimalif anysupervision. In an effort to use 
resources more effectively and with better outcomes, the collaborative may 
focus on connecting individuals released from jail who have specific needs
(such as those with mental illnesses or co-occurring drug use disorders) to 
services. Policymakers may also be more inclined to focus on a jail population 
if they fully understand the number and type of individuals that pass through 
jails in their jurisdiction.[27] 

Understanding Supervision* 

Releasing Authority: A state parole board or commission vested with the 
authority to grant the discretionary release of an individual from prison or jail prior 
to the completion of his or her full term of imprisonment. For jurisdictions with 
determinate sentencing and, accordingly, mandatory release, the releasing authority 
still may determine conditions of release. These agencies often are authorized to 
conduct revocation hearings for those under community supervision who violate 
the terms and conditions of their postrelease supervision. 

Discretionary Release: The release of a person from prison decided by a releasing 
authority, generally following the service of a minimum period of imprisonment 
but short of the maximum term of confinement. 
Often the person is released to a period of community supervision, typically 
with a set of conditions he or she must abide by in order to remain on parole or 
postrelease supervision (sometimes referred to as conditional release). Violation of 
the conditions of supervision may result in the imposition of sanctionseither community-
based or resulting in the revocation of supervision status and a return to 
prison. 

Mandatory Release: The release of a person from prison or jail that is determined 
by statute or sentencing guidelines and not at the discretion of the releasing 
authority. Under determinate sentencing codes, the exact prison term is set at the 
time of sentencing, and the person is released following a prescribed period of 
confinement. 

In some instances, the person may have served the entirety of a sentence set 
by a parole board or other releasing authority, and thus must be released without 
supervision (sometimes referred to as unconditional release). Upon release the person 
is no longer under the jurisdiction of the justice system, and he or she is not 
required to abide by any conditions of supervision and cannot be returned to prison 
absent a new conviction for the commission of a crime. 

Parole: The traditional name for the period of community supervision imposed 
on an individual granted conditional release from prison by a discretionary authority 
(such as a parole board) prior to the expiration of the sentence. In some states this 
period is referred to as postrelease supervision, community punishment, or controlled 
release. The supervision is often performed by a parole agency, though in 
some states the functions of probation and parole supervision are combined. 

Split Sentence: Judgment made at the time of sentencing mandating that an 
offender serve a certain portion of his or her total sentence in prison or jail. The balance 
of the sentence is "suspended" while the person serves a period of community 
supervision as a probationer, rather than as a parolee. If the person violates his or 
her terms of probation during that community supervision period, he or she may be 
brought for a hearing before the sentencing judge, instead of a parole board. The 
judge may then choose to revoke the period of probation and impose some additional 
sanction up to and including a period of incarceration equal to the suspended 
balance of the original sentence.

* Law enforcement and community corrections have greater authority, including the potential ability to 
mandate participation and impose sanctions, when working with people on probation and parole. However, 
policymakers should weigh this advantage against any data that may show that people who time 
out and are not under any supervision may present a greater risk of committing new crimes. 

* These definitions are adapted from the Report of the Re-Entry Policy Council: Charting the Safe and Successful 
Return of Prisoners to the Community (New York: Council of State Governments, 2005), p. 234 (Community 
Supervision: A Concise Guide). Readers should note that juvenile procedures vary greatly from 
jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Often juvenile court judges have a great deal of discretion. Accordingly, release 
from custody, discharge from supervision, diversion program decisions, and related matters should be 
coordinated closely with the judge responsible for juvenile court issues. 

 If you ask a cop, Who 
is your greatest threat to 
public safety? theyll more 
likely than not tell you that 
its the repeat offenders 
coming in and out of their 
jails. 

 Gary Kempker 
Senior Manager, Center 
for Effective Public Policy 

Jail populations are too often ignored in reentry policy discussions. The 
Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that the nations jails book 12 million 
admissions and 9 million individuals annually, compared to an estimated 
700,000 who enter and leave state and federal prisons.[28] As jails 
often serve as both the point of release and return from the criminal justice 
system as well as the point of entry, local law enforcement agencies can 
develop multidimensional relationships with local correctional authorities 
that can reduce victimization and promote public safety. Institutional data 
such as inmate conduct, gang involvement, and telephone and visiting 
contacts can prove helpful to ongoing crime investigations. Collaborations 
that leverage resources such as employment and social service agencies 
along with the local faith-based organizations can address the needs of 
inmates identified as at-risk of reoffending.

Community services, needs, and capacity 

Policymakers can select a priority population that shares a particular service 
need that may be a contributing factor to reoffending. In this case, policymakers 
and their staff must assess what services the community can currently 
offer and which can be established or enhanced to meet the priority populations 
needs to the greatest effect. 

Planners can use a combination of sources to examine aggregate data on 
critical issues that men and women leaving correctional facilities often face, 
the extent to which people with these needs reoffend, and the capacity in communities 
to which people return. In particular, policymakers should consider 
information relating to such factors as individuals mental health, substance 
use, physical health, employability, literacy, and housing. Based on these findings, 
the initiative should identify service providers who can address these 
needs or otherwise help build capacity. Alternatively, policymakers may also 
design a response, and select a target population, based on a much-needed 
service the collaborative is well positioned to address. For example, if the collaborative 
includes highly respected local substance abuse treatment providers 
with the capacity to serve this population, partners may want to identify a significant 
number of participants with the need for these services and connect 
them with these professionals. 

As part of this analysis, policymakers should become familiar with barriers 
restricting formerly incarcerated peoples access to services that can 
improve reentry success rates. This includes prisoners access to programs and 
services while incarcerated (such as behavioral change programs, employment 
readiness training, work release programs and job placement services, and 
mental health and substance use treatment), as well as services available in 
communities to which prisoners and detainees return. Policymakers should 
Geographic factors 

The reentry initiative can focus on individuals returning from prison or jail to 
a specific geographic area. Law enforcement agencies may, in fact, advocate a 
place-based reentry strategy in support of their efforts around crime hot spots. 
In general, prisoners return to a relatively small number of neighborhoods 
that typically face many challenges but have only limited resources.29 Policymakers 
can have staff or consultants map the last known addresses of released 
inmates to identify places where these individuals are concentrated within 
cities and neighborhoods, and overlay a crime map to inform prevention 
strategies in key locations.30 Partners can also use mapping to inventory what 
services are provided and what challenges and opportunities exist for individuals 
returning to these neighborhoods.31 This analysis can illustrate the need 
to find transportation options, move services closer to neighborhoods where 
most prisoners return, and devise other strategies to enhance services in areas 
that are often particularly ill-equipped to receive people returning from correctional 
facilities.32 Improving services in those neighborhoodsnot only for 
people released from prison or jail but for all residentsalso can help promote 
support for reentry efforts. 

The consideration of these six factors and others that the collaborative 
proposes can help policymakers and their staff define parameters for the 
reentry strategy. To ensure early successes, planners initially may define a 
more narrow approach and then expand the initiatives priority population 
based on additional analyses of the factors that may lead individuals to commit 
new crimes or violate their probation or parole. For example, an initial strategy 
may include only young adults released from jails who are involved in gangs 
and are from a particular neighborhood; as the initiative evolves, it may expand 
to include additional populations, such as adults released from prison who 
have committed violent offenses and are still under some form of supervision. 
Policymakers should keep in mind that the target population should be continually 
reviewed and evaluated as resources, partnerships, and factors that drive 
recidivism change in a community over time.

Mapping and Reentry 

Mapping and geographic analyses are increasingly common tools in planning 
for reentry initiatives (and not just those with law enforcement 
involvement) and in illustrating the need for a reentry strategy to stakeholders. 
For example, the Urban Institutes Reentry Mapping Network 
(www.urban.org/projects/reentry-mapping/index.cfm) consists of 14 jurisdictions 
across the country that are engaged in mapping and analyzing 
neighborhood-level data related to reentry and community well-being.33 
Mapping has also been used for analyzing related factors; for example, the 
Council of State Governments Justice Center, through its Justice Reinvestment 
Initiative (www. justicereinvestment.org), has developed a four-step 
process to (1) analyze the prison population and spending in the communities 
to which people in prison often return; (2) provide policymakers with 
options to generate savings and increase public safety; (3) quantify savings 
and reinvest in select high-stakes communities; and (4) measure the 
impact and enhance accountability. 

also examine state and local policies that can affect an individuals reintegration 
into the community, such as access to basic benefits, housing regulations, 
and employment restrictions. It is important to examine reentry challenges 
within a local context, as policies and procedures vary from state to state and 
even jurisdiction to jurisdiction. 


Assessment Questions 

Consider each section and thoughtfully select the category that you feel best 
fits your agencys current efforts in reentry. 

Column 1: not part of reentry effort 
Column 2: part of plan for reentry effort 
Column 3: part of reentry effort 
Column 4: not applicable 

Gathering information from partners 
1. Our agency shares data that can help identify a priority population with partners. 
2. Partners share data with our agency that can help identify a priority population. 

Adopting a problem-solving approach 
3. Partners use a systematic process to 
a. analyze the challenges to successful reentry in the community; 
b. identify a high-risk population for the initiative in order to best utilize resources; 
c. review the priority population decision to ensure efforts focus on high-risk persons who will most benefit from supervision and services. 

Identifying existing efforts in the field 
4. Our agency actively works to identify reentry initiatives in other communities from which 
to learn. 

Choosing a target population based on a shared understanding of local reentry issues 
5. To understand reentrys local challenges, priority population identification focuses on the following factors: 
a. Types of offenses, both past and present 
b. Demographic groups 
c. Supervision status 
d. Releases from jail 
e. Available community services, specific reentry community needs, and capacity of community programs 
f. Geographic factors 
6. To identify the priority population, our agency 
a. analyzes the factors that seem to drive recidivism; 
b. analyzes the barriers to resources and supports; 
c. develops a process for ongoing data collection on identified population; 
d. develops a process for evaluation of the priority population choices. 
7. Partners involve research and planning staff from the law enforcement agency and other 
organizations in the analysis of reentry data. 

Comments 

Resources* 

Gathering information from partners 

CSG, RRPC 
 Policy Statement 2: Developing a Knowledge Base, pp. 2335 

Rinehart, Tammy A., Anna T. Lazlo, and Gwen O. Briscoe. Collaboration 
Toolkit: How to Build, Fix, and Sustain Productive Partnerships. Washington, 
D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing 
Services, 2001. 
 Section 5: Expertise 

Adopting a problem-solving approach 

Community Policing Consortium. The Mechanics of Problem Solving. Washington, 
D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented 
Policing Services. No date. 
 Facilitators guide and slides available at www.policeforum.org. 

CSG, RRPC 
 Policy Statement 2: Developing a Knowledge Base, pp. 2335 

La Vigne et al, PRCP 
 Community Policing and Reentry, pp. 1920 

Ney and McGarry, GIR 
 Chapter 19: Adopt a Problem-Solving Approach, pp. 185190 

Identifying existing efforts in the field 

COPS Value-Based Reentry Initiative (Fact Sheet): 
www.cops.usdoj.gov/mime/open.pdf?Item=1026 

Council of State Governments Reentry Program Examples Web site: 
www.reentrypolicy.org/program_examples 

La Vigne et al, PRCP 
 Examples from the Field, pp. 2961 
IACP, Building 
 Campbell County Police Department (KY), pp. 2526 
 Indianapolis Police Department/Marion County Sheriffs Department 
(IN), pp. 2728 
 Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (NV), pp. 2930 
 Louisville Metro Police Department (KY), pp. 3132 
 Lowell Police Department (MA), pp. 3334 
 Minneapolis Police Department (MN), pp. 3536 
 New Haven Department of Police Service (CT), pp. 3738 
 Park City Police Department (UT), pp. 3940 
 Racine Police Department (WI), pp. 4142 
 Redmond Police Department (WA), pp. 4344 
 Savannah Chatham Metropolitan Police Department (GA), pp. 4546 
 Topeka Police Department (KS), pp. 4748 
 High Point Police Department/Winston-Salem Police Department (NC), pp. 4950 

National Governors Associations Prisoner Reentry Policy Academy Web site: 
www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.1f41d49be2d3d33eacdcbeeb501010a0/ 
?vgnextoid=6c239286d9de1010VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD. 

Reentry National Media Outreach Campaign Web site: www.reentrymedia 
outreach.org. 

Sacramento Police Department. City Beat Episode 17: Parole Intervention 
Team, Officer Fitness, Military to Police Careers, and Above and Beyond 
Video. No date. Available at www.sacpd.org/citybeat/citybeat.asp. 

Choosing a priority population based on a shared understanding of local reentry issues 

CSG, RRPC 
 Introduction: Understanding Re-Entry, pp. 912 
 Policy Statement 2: Developing a Knowledge Base, pp. 2335 
 Chart of Status of Parole by State, pp. 591594 

IACP, Building 
 Building Partnerships, pp. 1315 

IACP, Offender Re-Entry 
 Issue Area IV: Designing Offender Re-Entry Efforts, pp. 1216 

Ney and McGarry, GIR 
 Chapter 11: Obtain All the Necessary Information, pp. 103108 
 Chapter 12: Plan Your System Assessment, pp. 109114 
 Chapter 13: Map the System, pp. 115124 
 Chapter 14: Document and Assess Current Policies and Practices, pp. 125134 
 Chapter 15: Gather Information on Your Offender Population, pp. 135150 
 Chapter 16: Document and Assess All of the Resources Available to You, pp. 151166 

Sexton, WT: Framework 
 Step 5: Identifying a Target Population, pp. 4750 

Taxman, Faye S., James M. Byrne, and Douglas Young. Targeting for Reentry: 
Matching Needs and Services to Maximize Public Safety. College Park: University 
of Maryland, College Park, Bureau of Governmental Research, 2002. 

Related topic: Focusing on jail populations 

Mellow, Jeff, Debbie Mukamal, Stefan LoBuglio, Amy Solomon, and Jenny 
Osborne. The Jail Administrator's Toolkit for Reentry. Washington, D.C.: Urban 
Institute, 2008. 

Solomon, Amy, Jenny Osborne, Stefan LoBuglio, Jeff Mellow, and Debbie 
Mukamal. Life after Lockup: Improving Reentry from Jail to the Community. 
Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, 2008. 

Related topic: Mapping and reentry 

CSG, RRPC 
 An Explanation of Justice Mapping: Three Examples, pp. 595599 

Harris, Richard, Charles Huenke, and John P. OConnell. Using Mapping 
to Increase Released Offenders Access to Services. In Crime Mapping Case 
Studies: Successes in the Field, ed. Nancy La Vigne and Julie Wartell, pp. 6166. 
Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum, 1998. 

La Vigne, Nancy G. Mapping for Community-Based Prisoner Reentry Efforts: A 
Guidebook for Law Enforcement Agencies and their Partners. Washington, D.C.: 
Police Foundation, 2007. 

La Vigne, Nancy, and Barbara Parthasarathy. Returning Home Illinois Policy 
Brief: Prisoner Reentry and Residential Mobility. Washington, D.C.: Urban 
Institute, 2005. 

La Vigne, Nancy G., Jake Cowan, and Diana Brazzell. Mapping Prisoner Reentry: 
An Action Research Guidebook, 2d ed. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, 
2006. 

Reentry Mapping Network Web site: www.reentrymapping.org. 

* See page 10 for the full citations of the frequently cited resources that are abbreviated in this list.

4 Mission, Goals, and Performance Measures 
Law enforcement and its partners define a mission for the reentry 
collaborative, enumerate specific goals, and identify ways to measure 
progress toward these goals. 

Discussion 

To implement their commitment to supporting safe and successful reentry, 
law enforcement representatives should work with their partners to develop a 
structure for the initiative. These steps may be taken concurrently with the task 
of identifying a priority population and should certainly be in place before any 
participants are engaged. 

Early in the planning process policymakers should agree on a mission for 
the initiative. This is not simply an exercise in refining language to be used on 
materials that describe the groups efforts. It is an opportunity to articulate a 
common purpose among the different partners to guide their respective reentry 
work plans and policies. Partners should recognize that they may have different 
reasons for working in reentry and may want to focus on different target 
populations to carry out their objectives. For example, the law enforcement 
agency may prefer to focus on people who have committed violent crimes and 
are considered to be at a high risk of committing another offense or violating 
the conditions of their release. Agencies may feel that such a focus has the 
greatest potential positive impact on public safety. In contrast, prosecutors, 
who may face significant public scrutiny for such efforts, may prefer targeting 
people convicted of nonviolent misdemeanors in order to demonstrate early 
successes and minimize the chances that the commission of any new crimes 
by participants would affect community members personal safety.34 For this 
reason, policymakers from different stakeholder groups must develop written 
consensus on the initiatives missionand share this mission statement 
widely within partner agencies and the community. 

In the course of identifying potential partners, analyzing the barriers individuals 
face when returning to the community from correctional or detention 
facilities, and defining a shared mission and priority population, policymakers 
will have at their disposal a significant amount of information about individuals 
reentering their community. This research will also reveal whether existing
reentry initiatives operate in the jurisdiction. Law enforcement executives 
should consider the possibility of joining one of these initiatives (or proposing 
to restructure it to allow for greater law enforcement involvement) to leverage 
work already under way. Executives need to carefully consider the benefits and 
drawbacks of such an arrangement. Agency leaders should review the degree 
to which the missions overlap or conflict and whether meaningful opportunities 
exist for collaborative policymaking, leadership, and day-to-day operational 
activities while allowing each agency to stay true to its respective goals. If these 
criteria are not met, law enforcement executives and their partners should consider 
developing a new reentry collaborative and should identify potential 
opportunities for supporting other initiatives and coordinating with them as 
their effort progresses. 

Multiple Reentry InitiativesWhat to Look For 

Law enforcement officials may find that multiple reentry initiatives already 
exist in the jurisdiction. These may include a reentry committee composed 
of representatives from different state agencies, a state-level process initiated 
by the legislature or governor, countywide task forces formed by a 
sheriff or other county official, reentry caucuses established by one or 
more mayors in their respective municipalities, and neighborhood-level 
projects or working groups prompted by community leaders or community 
development organizations.

Based on the focus of the initiative and its stated mission, policymakers 
should identify goals and ways to measure progress toward these goals. It is 
important to ensure that goals are realistic and attainable based on the selected 
target populations risk level; accordingly, some goals should be designated as 
short-term and others as longer-term. For example, if the initiative targets individuals 
convicted of violent offenses who are homeless, goals of ensuring that 
participants will not be re-arrested for any type of infraction or will secure stable 
housing may be considered longer-term, whereas preventing them from 
committing a major crime within 90 days of their release or connecting them 
with transitional housing options would be more immediate goals. 

program example: Mission and Goals of the Knoxville (Tennessee) Public Safety Collaborative 
Mission: 
The Knoxville Public Safety Collaborative (KPSC) is a broad-based partnership 
representing the corrections, law enforcement, and social 
service communities in Knoxville, Tennessee. Our mission is to protect 
public safety and to promote better outcomes for families and children. 
We accomplish this by providing proactive, coordinated treatment 
and supervision services to high-risk/multiple-needs offenders 
and their families. 
Goals: 
1. Enhance day-to-day working relationships among community corrections 
officers, police, and social service providers in the city of 
Knoxville. 

2. Share information among parole and probation officers, police, 
and service providers to more effectively manage offenders in the 
community. 

3. Organize and share interagency information and resources to 
address changing needs and risks of offenders, as well as their children 
and families. 

4. Develop and use a comprehensive and proactive case management 
process for high-risk offenders and their children and families. 

5. Use progressive sanctions, including supervised community service, 
for offenders in KPSC's target population. 

6. Develop and implement a strategic action plan to expand and 
enhance the composition of the KPSC and to obtain the resources 
required to sustain the KPSC's mission in the future. 

The initiative should have goals related to public safety, such as reducing 
participants criminal behavior. Measuring these goals requires that mechanisms 
for sharing information between law enforcement and institutional and 
community corrections be in place. Since officers may encounter participants 
who live and work on their beat, protocols should be developed to ensure that 
law enforcement personnel are made aware of formerly incarcerated people 
participating in the initiative; this information is particularly important at both 
booking and release. Similarly, if initiative participants have new encounters 
with police and corrections, this information should be shared with other partners 
in a timely fashion. 

program example: Knoxville (Tennessee) Public Safety Collaborative 
As part of the Knoxville Public Safety Collaborative, the Knoxville Police 
Department (KPD) helps monitor and check selected parolees and probationers 
for compliance with curfews and other conditions of supervision. 
Officers are aware of program participants through the lists 
that are sent out by the KPD Community Corrections Program Manager
usually on a weekly basis for probationers and on a monthly 
basis for parolees. Should an officer have questions about someones 
supervision status, he or she can contact probation or parole or the 
KPD Community Corrections Program Manager, who is on call 24/7. 
Any information that officers collect during checks or other contacts 
with program participants are recorded on field interview cards, 
which are forwarded either electronically or in hard copy to the 
assigned probation or parole officer. Additionally, KPD arrest reports 
are generated daily through the Knox County Judicial Information 
Management System (JIMS) and electronically sent to the Probation 
and Parole Office.

To measure public safety goals, policymakers should agree on a common 
definition for recidivism that reflects their respective goals and relevant mandates. 
Stakeholders may have conflicting definitions for the types of outcomes 
they count as resulting in recidivism, ranging from rearrest, to reconviction, to 
reincarceration only after arrest for a new crime, to reincarceration for a technical 
violation of a condition of release (such as missing several supervision 
appointments). Some collaboratives compromise by agreeing upon multiple 
measures of recidivism rather than singling out one. Even if partners can 
develop a shared definition, agreeing on an acceptable level of recidivism may 
also prove challenging: some stakeholders may regard any amount of recidivism 
as an indication of failed reentry policy, whereas others may believe that 
enforcement and reincarceration, when appropriate, is part of a viable reentry 
strategy. The degree to which stakeholders reach consensus on critical issues 
such as this will have a significant impact on the long-term success of the 
initiative. 

Policymakers also should establish goals to address the underlying factors 
in their community that drive recidivism rates, such as substance use, unemployment, 
homelessness, lack of education, negative peer groups, and mental 
illnessall of which may make individuals released from prison or jail more 
prone to encounters with law enforcement and subsequent reincarceration. 
Specific goals will be based on participants needs and the services and surveillance 
provided by the collaborative. Goals might focus on connecting individuals 
to effective mental health treatment, decreasing substance use, securing 
housing options, sustaining employment, achieving literacy, acquiring a GED 
or vocational skills, addressing antisocial behaviors, and other measures that 
reduce the risks for reincarceration. Measures might include the number of 
individuals referred to services and the outcomes of their involvement 
such as number of days they were continuously employed, the amount of 
restitution they paid, or the frequency with which they were able to make 
child support payments once employed. The measures take into account how 
lives are improvedfor the person released from prison or jail, his or her 
family, and others who benefit from the individuals having a productive role 
in the community. 

Policymakers should also consider goals that focus on enhancing the 
capacity of community resources to serve all area residents in neednot just 
individuals who are enrolled in the reentry initiative. For example, a goal of 
expanding drug treatment services in the neighborhoods where most people 
released from prisons and jails return would benefit anyone in that community. 
To measure these types of goals, collaborative partners can look at the 
community-wide impact of the initiative on both first-time arrests (for nonparticipants) 
and repeat offenses (for participants). Performance measures might 
also include numbers of community members who were referred to treatment, 
completed their treatment plan, returned to treatment after a relapse, 
and received treatment but were incarcerated or reincarcerated over a defined 
period of time. Partners likewise should ensureand make clear to the public
that achieving the initiatives goals does not mean reducing services for 
others in the community. 

Policymakers should enumerate and document the initiatives services 
and supervision strategies and show how these activities support the mission 
and goals. The decision about specific reentry strategies should be made in 
light of partners capacities to address the needs and risks of the identified target 
population. For example, if the target population includes people convicted 
of domestic violence crimes, the program might position law enforcement officers 
to visit the homes of participants and to use law enforcements strengths 
in explaining to victims their rights and linking them to service providers; or 
if the target population includes individuals with mental illnesses and substance 
use disorders, the program should include providers who can address 
treatment and other needs. Performance measures should be used to determine 
how effective these services and supervision strategies are in achieving 
specified goals. Measures that are regularly and consistently reviewed can 
demonstrate early successes, assess progress toward longer-term goals, and 
indicate the need for midcourse corrections to the overall initiative design. 

As planners make decisions about the collaboratives specific reentry 
strategies, they will also clarify essential matters concerning requirements for 
initiative participants, how partners in the collaborative relate to one another 
and exchange information, what role law enforcement plays prior to and 
after participants release from incarceration, and the organizational steps 
the law enforcement agency will take to support the initiative and other efforts 
to ensure sustainability (all issues addressed in subsequent sections of this 
document). 

* Chief Miller served as the Chief of Police for six years in Kansas City (Kansas) before retiring in 2006. 
He began his career there in 1972 and rose through the ranks from patrol officer. He currently serves as 
the Chief of Police in Topeka (Kansas). 

 In a reentry initiative, a 
law enforcement agency 
doesnt have to be everything 
to everybody. It cant 
be. There are a lot of different 
ways you can make 
this work. 

 Ron Miller 
Chief, Topeka (Kansas) 
Police Department* 

Assessment Questions 

Consider each section and thoughtfully select the category that you feel best 
fits your agencys current efforts in reentry. 

Column 1: not part of reentry effort 
Column 2: part of plan for reentry effort 
Column 3: part of reentry effort 
Column 4: not applicable 

Articulating a shared mission 
1. Our agency and its partners 
a. work together to develop a mission 
statement for the initiative 
b. agree on a written mission statement for 
broad dissemination 

Identifying goals and performance measures 
2. Our agency and its partners jointly develop 
initiative goals that address the following: 
a. public safety 
b. substance abuse 
c. mental health 
d. health 
e. education 
f. housing 
g. employment 
h. capacity of community resources 
3. Our agency and its partners 
a. work together to identify ways to measure the short-term and long-term goals 
b. agree on common definitions for measuring goals (e.g., what constitutes recidivism) 
c. determine if the goals also include improving services to the larger community 

Designing initiative services and supervision strategies 
4. Our agency and its partners 
a. record the initiatives supervision strategies and services in writing 
b. institute performance measures to examine these supervision strategies and services 

Comments 

Resources* 

Articulating a shared mission 

CSG, RRPC 
 Policy Statement 3: Incorporating Re-Entry into Organizations Missions 
and Work Plans, pp. 3852 

Ney and McGarry, GIR 
 Chapter 8: Create a Mission and Goals for the Policy Team, pp.7582 

Rinehart, Tammy A., Anna T. Lazlo, and Gwen O. Briscoe. Collaboration 
Toolkit: How to Build, Fix, and Sustain Productive Partnerships. Washington, 
D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing 
Services, 2001. 
 Section 4: Shared Vision and Common Goals 

Sexton, WT: Framework 
 Step 3: Articulating the Mission, pp. 3338 

Identifying goals and performance measures 

CSG, RRPC 
 Policy Statement 6: Measuring Outcomes and Evaluating the Impact of a 
Re-Entry Initiative, pp. 8794 

IACP, Building 
 Needs Assessment, pp. 89 
 Measuring Success, p. 20 
 Key Recommendations and Advice, p. 22 

IACP, Offender Re-Entry 
 Issue Area IV: Designing Offender Re-Entry Efforts, pp. 1216 
 Issue Area VIII: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Offender Re-Entry Efforts, 
pp. 2528 

La Vigne et al., PRCP 
 Creating Realistic Goals and Operating with Limited Resources, p. 64 

Ney and McGarry, GIR 
 Chapter 8: Create a Mission and Goals for the Policy Team, pp.7582 

Rinehart, Tammy A., Anna T. Lazlo, and Gwen O. Briscoe. Collaboration 
Toolkit: How to Build, Fix, and Sustain Productive Partnerships. Washington, 
D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing 
Services, 2001. 
 Section 4: Shared Vision and Common Goals 

Sexton, WT: Framework 
 Step 7: Monitoring Progress and Measuring Performance, pp. 7280 
* See page 10 for the full citations of the frequently cited resources that are abbreviated in this list.
Developing the Initiative 

Designing initiative services and supervision strategies 

IACP, Building 
 Needs Assessment, pp. 89 
 Components and Activities, pp. 911 
 Key Recommendations and Advice, p. 21 

IACP, Offender Re-Entry 
 Issue Area IV: Designing Offender Re-Entry Efforts, pp. 1216 

Ney, and McGarry, GIR 
 Chapter 9: Understand and Specify the Goals and Outcomes of Sanctions, 
pp. 8392 
 Chapter 10: Use Evidence-Based Practices, pp. 93100 

Sexton, WT: Framework 
 Step 6: Integrating Supervision and Service Delivery, pp. 5171 

Taxman, Faye S., Douglas Young, James M. Byrne, Alexander Holsinger, and 
Donald Anspach. From Prison Safety to Public Safety: Innovations in Offender 
Reentry. College Park: University of Maryland, College Park, Bureau of Governmental 
Research, 2002. 

* See page 10 for the full citations of the frequently cited resources that are abbreviated in this list.

5 Initiatives Terms and Participant Identification  
Law enforcement and its partners design parameters governing how 
participants will be involved in services and supervision, and procedures 
for how participants will be identified and enrolled. 
Discussion 

Policymakers decisions regarding the initiatives mission, goals, and strategies 
provide a foundation for a collaborative public safety initiative focusing on a 
population at high risk of reoffending. They must next work with their staff to 
develop the rules and requirements with which participants, once selected, 
must comply.* These terms of participation can be applied to both pre- and 
postrelease aspects of the reentry initiative. They can include requirements 
such as 

 reporting regularly to a probation or parole officer, 

 maintaining a known residence, 

 submitting to drug tests, 

 complying with a curfew, 

 attending program meetings, and 

 completing a plan for receiving specified services or treatment (based in 
the community after release or in the facility prior to release). 

Partners on the policy board must also consider the important question of 
whether enrollment in the initiative is voluntary or mandatory. Competing factors 
can make this decision difficult. To provide enhanced supervision to individuals 
deemed at high risk of reoffending, policymakers may be wary of 
allowing individuals to opt out. Alternatively, to increase the likelihood that 
limited resources and services are used to their greatest benefit, policymakers 
may want to prioritize access to those individuals who are the most interested 
(including those who are under no form of supervision after their release). 

To resolve this tension, policymakers can consider scaling requirements 
so that the most important aspects of the initiative are mandatory. In particular, 
reporting requirements, such as curfews and drug tests, may be mandatory; 
other aspects, such as using certain services, may be voluntary. If 
individuals have the option of participating in some or all aspects of the initiative, 
coordinators and staff should explain the benefits of full involvement to 
eligible individuals, emphasizing the opportunity to turn their lives around by 
participating in programming that may otherwise be difficult to access. 

program example: Boston (Massachusetts) Police Department 
The Boston Re-Entry Initiative (BRI) identifies potential participants 
in the first 60 days of their incarceration at the Suffolk County House 
of Correction (SCHOC). The SCHOC and the Boston Regional Intelligence 
Center (BRIC) work with the district attorney and the U.S. attorney 
to identify those who are eligible for involvement in the BRI. 
Participants are selected for the reentry program on the basis of their 
criminal history, as the BRI targets those who are likely to reoffend 
upon release. These clients are referred to as impact players, owing to 
their significant histories of violent crimes, past and current affiliations 
with gangs or groups, and previous weapons charges. Shortly 
after the selection process is complete, this eligible group meets with 
a panel of social service providers, case managers, and law enforcement 
officials to hear a fair and balanced message regarding involvement 
in the program. Enrollment is strictly voluntary and provides 
access to additional programming and continued case management 
services for up to 12 months after release. Those individuals who opt 
out of participation do not receive the benefits, but upon release they 
will still be identified by the Boston Police Department as high-risk exoffenders. 
To make participation appealing, reentry partners emphasize 
that they offer eligibility for services and programming to which 
participants may not otherwise have access. 

Once they have identified terms of participation and addressed the question 
of whether individuals volunteer or are mandated to participate, policymakers 
should decide what is considered noncompliance and what the 
response to it will be. For each term of participation, coordinators and staff 
must communicate to participants what is considered successful achievement 
and what the consequences will be for failing to meet that level of success. 
Compliance could be rewarded through mechanisms such as graduation ceremonies; 
small tokens of recognition; certificates of rehabilitation; decreased 
supervision; or waivers of fines or fees for people who owe court costs, probation 
supervision fees, or other court-ordered payments to criminal justice 
agencies. Noncompliance, including not participating in mandated programming, 
should be sanctioned. Planners should consider questions such as how 
many missed appointments with supervisors count as noncompliance. As part 
of the initiatives response to noncompliant behavior, policymakers should 
consider implementing community-based graduated sanctions, such as electronic 
monitoring, additional reporting, or curfew checks, for less serious failures 
to comply with terms of participation. 

Planners on the coordinating group also should set parameters that govern 
the duration of a participants access to services and supervision, as well as 
benchmarks for completion. Policymakers may decide to use a set time frame 
to mark completion of individuals direct involvement in the reentry initiative. 
Alternatively, policymakers may institute benchmarks that tie an individuals 
completion to his or her accomplishment of a specified goal. For example, policies 
may state that if an individual demonstrates sustained engagement in 
mental health or substance addiction treatment, or continuous employment, 
along with a clean criminal record, he or she may be eligible for graduation. 
Policymakers also should determine an individuals reward for satisfactorily 
graduating from the program; in some cases, this will mean narrowing the 
conditions of the individuals community supervision (such as by lifting electronic 
monitoring or travel restrictions) or shortening the length of time a person 
spends under supervision, if appropriate. 

Reentry initiative administrators can work proactively to coordinate with 
the relevant releasing authoritydepending on the state, this may be a parole 
board, commission, or judgeto ensure that conditions of supervision and 
terms of participation in the reentry initiative are complementary. In addition, 
reentry initiative staff should make recommendations to the supervisory 
authority about emphasizing participants' engagement with specified community 
services, as well as recommend policies on how to respond to noncompliance 
using sanctions up to and including revocation and reincarceration. 
These policies should be agreed to by all partners and periodically revised as 
needed. 

The framework for the reentry initiative should be complete when the priority 
population, mission, goals, terms of participation, and related policies 
have been fully defined and documented. To commence operations, policymakers 
must develop protocols for consistently identifying the individual participants 
who meet the target population criteria. These protocols should 
identify when individual participants are selected (at sentencing, at intake to a 
correctional facility, or shortly before or after release), what data partners share 
to identify participants, and the processes for contributing the data. Regardless 
of the point in the criminal justice process when identification is made, risk 
assessment tools administered by corrections agencies can be a primary 
source for identifying participants. Law enforcement may have opportunities 
to contribute information it gathers at arrest and booking, as well as officers 
knowledge of specific people involved in the criminal justice system (such as 
contacts with law enforcement officers that do not rise to reportable offenses) 
to help corrections and other partners consider program eligibility. Community 
representatives, including family members of those returning from correctional 
facilities, may also offer their perspectives to help identify 
participants. A transparent process for identifying participants must be 
defined, documented, and in place when the program begins operations to 
ensure that the program can address any concerns about racial profiling or any 
other bias (see also Element 1: Viability). 

Policymakers should develop systems to ensure that individuals who are 
enrolled in the initiative are aware of what to expect and what will be expected 
from them in turn. Orientation meetings, held either before or after release, 
provide an effective forum for presenting the terms of participation, as well as 
what the initiative offers, how it can help participants, how partners are committed 
to providing assistance where appropriate, and each of the partners 
roles. In particular, law enforcements dual commitment to helping participants 
return successfully to the community and enforcing the law should be 
emphasized. Policymakers and staff should also design ways to gauge whether 
services are meeting participants needs. These may include scheduling periodic 
check-ins between staff and participants and providing participants with 
an opportunity to share feedback on their experience and present any concerns 
about the terms of participation. 
* As discussed more fully below, some terms of participation may already be ordered in an individuals 
conditions of release if he or she is on probation or parole. 

 Prior to joining the Montgomery County (Maryland) Department of Correction and Rehabilitation, Chief 
LoBuglio worked for the Suffolk County (Massachusetts) Sheriffs Department in Boston and was involved 
with the Boston Re-Entry Initiative. 

 Our departmental goal 
is to create a culture in our 
institutions so that youre 
the odd man out if youre 
not participating in our 
reentry programs. We 
know that most people 
aspire to better lives for 
themselves and their family, 
and want to hold and 
raise their children, earn 
money, and live as responsible 
members of their 
communities. So beginning 
in our detention facilities 
and continuing into 
our pre-release program, 
we focus on structuring 
incentives to encourage 
people with the motivation 
and gumption and 
provide a chance to earn 
their way back into the 
community. 

 Stefan LoBuglio, Ed.D., 
Chief, Pre-Release and 
Reentry Services, Montgomery 
County (Maryland) 
Department of Correction 
and Rehabilitation
 
Assessment Questions 

Consider each section and thoughtfully select the category that you feel best 
fits your agencys current efforts in reentry. 

Column 1: not part of reentry effort 
Column 2: part of plan for reentry effort 
Column 3: part of reentry effort 
Column 4: not applicable 

Developing policies and procedures 
1. Our agency and its partners develop terms of participation that address 
a. prerelease requirements 
b. postrelease requirements 
c. whether enrollment is voluntary or mandatory 
d. what constitutes compliance 
e. the reward system for compliance 
f. what constitutes noncompliance 
g. protocols for responding to noncompliance 
h. the duration of time services and supervision will be provided 

Identifying participants 
2. Our agency and its partners use transparent protocols for identifying individual participants that specify 
a. the criteria participants must meet to be part of the target population 
b. when participants are selected for the initiative 
c. how partners will contribute to the identification process 

Comments

Resources* 

Developing policies and procedures 

Council of State Governments Justice Center. Special Project: Assessment 
Process. No date. Available at www.reentrypolicy.org/special_projects/ 
assessment_processes. 

CSG, RRPC 
 Policy Statement 8: Development of Intake Procedure, pp. 110140 
 Policy Statement 9: Development of Programming Plan, pp. 141153 

IACP, Building 
 Practical Tools and Instruments, pp. 1213 
IACP, Offender Re-Entry 
 Issue Area IV: Designing Offender Re-Entry Efforts, pp. 1216 
 Issue Area VI: Educating the Public, pp. 1822 

Ney and McGarry, GIR 
 Chapter 21: Develop Policies, Procedures, and Programs as Strategies To 
Achieve Outcomes, pp. 201212 

Sexton, WT: Framework 
 Step 5: Identifying a Target Population, pp. 4750 
 Step 6: Integrating Supervision and Service Delivery, pp. 5171 

Identifying participants 

Sexton, WT: Framework 
 Step 5: Identifying a Target Population, pp. 4750 

Taxman, Faye S., James M. Byrne, and Douglas Young. Targeting for Reentry: 
Matching Needs and Services to Maximize Public Safety. College Park: University 
of Maryland, College Park, Bureau of Governmental Research, 2002. 

Related topic: Responding to concerns about racial profiling 

Byrne and Hummer, Examining 

Fridell, Lorie, Robert Lunney, Drew Diamond, and Bruce Kubu. Racially 
Biased Policing: A Principled Response. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department 
of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2001.
 
La Vigne et al., PRCP 
 Creating Realistic Goals and Operating with Limited Resources, p. 64 
 Overcoming Internal Organizational Challenges, p. 65 
 Agreeing on Data-Sharing Protocols, p. 65 
 Overcoming Mistrust and Misinformation, pp. 6669 
 Forging Strong and Sustainable Partnerships, p. 70 
Initiatives Terms and Participant Identification 67 

* See page 10 for the full citations of the frequently cited resources that are abbreviated in this list.

Council of State Governments 
Justice Center 

100 Wall Street 
20th Floor 
New York, NY 10005 
tel: 212-482-2320 
fax: 212-482-2344 

4630 Montgomery Avenue 
Suite 650 
Bethesda, MD 20814 
tel: 301-760-2401 
fax: 240-497-0568 

504 West 12th Street 
Austin, TX 78701 
tel: 512-507-6653 
fax: 512-474-5011 

www.justicecenter.csg.org