Introduction

Employment can play a critical role in reducing recidivism, but 

some communities simply do not have enough resources for 

corrections, reentry, and workforce development practitioners to 

provide every adult leaving prison or jail with the services they need 

to reduce their likelihood of reoffending and increase their level of 

job readiness.

Some jurisdictions have made significant progress in implementing 

both recidivism-reduction and employment strategies, but these 

efforts are often made with limited coordination. An integrated 

approach is needed to ensure that criminal justice and workforce 

development systems utilize their available resources in ways that 

reduce recidivism and improve the employability of their shared 

population. The Integrated Reentry and Employment 

Strategies (IRES) white paper helps policymakers, 

administrators, and practitioners collaboratively determine

if resources are focused on the right people, using the right 

interventions, at the right time.

The IRES pilot project was designed to test innovative approaches 

to reducing recidivism and increasing job readiness for people 

returning from incarceration and to identify successful strategies 

for integrating reentry and employment programming. The 

pilot project focuses on operationalizing a level of cross-systems 

coordination among corrections, reentry, and workforce 

development agencies on a scale rarely seen in the field. The theory 

being tested is that by applying resources based on an assessmentdriven referral process, recidivism and employment outcomes will 

improve. Thus, the pilot project has the potential to influence both 

correctional and workforce development programming across the 

country by providing a replicable framework for organizing crosssystems coordination in a cost-effective way. 

THE INTEGRATED 

REENTRY AND EMPLOYMENT 

STRATEGIES PILOT PROJECT:

Four Questions Communities Should Consider 

When Implementing a Collaborative Approach

April 2017

To help corrections, reentry, and workforce 

development administrators and practitioners navigate 

the complex issues related to coordinated planning and 

service delivery, The Council of State Governments 

Justice Center, in collaboration with expert 

practitioners and researchers, developed a white paper 

on integrating reentry and employment strategies using 

a resource-allocation and service-matching tool. The 

work was conducted with the leadership and support 

of a public-private partnership involving the U.S. 

Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance 

and the Annie E. Casey Foundation, with guidance 

from the U.S. Department of Labor’s Employment and 

Training Administration. 
2

Four Questions Communities Should Consider

The three-year IRES pilot project began in 2015 in two sites—Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, and Palm Beach County, Florida1. 

Despite the challenges associated with integrating the efforts of corrections, reentry, and workforce development agencies, the sites 

have made significant strides toward establishing processes for referring people to appropriate employment services and ensuring 

that the services meet the needs of the reentry population. These efforts are not limited to the two IRES pilot sites; other communities 

across the country have begun exploring some of the strategies outlined in the white paper to establish an integrated approach. 

To assess a community’s ability to integrate the efforts of criminal justice and workforce development systems, policymakers and 

practitioners should consider the following questions:

1. Is our leadership committed to a collaborative approach?

2. Do we conduct timely risk and needs assessments and job-readiness screenings?

3. Have we conducted a comprehensive process analysis and inventory of employment services that are 

provided pre- and post-release?

4. Do we have a coordinated process for making service referrals and tracking data?

Many communities are successful in one or more of these areas, but few have been able to address all four at a systems level. 

Integrating reentry and employment services is challenging and requires intensive collaboration and commitment from 

policymakers and practitioners. 

It is not assumed that recidivism will automatically drop and the employability of people returning from incarceration will increase 

once communities address these four questions; communities have unique challenges and opportunities. Rather, these questions 

can help guide communities toward establishing policy and programmatic frameworks that ensure existing resources for reentry 

and employment services are leveraged in the most impactful way.

1. Is our leadership committed to a collaborative approach?

Are state and local policymakers and key leaders from the criminal justice and workforce development systems fully invested in 

reducing recidivism and increasing the job readiness of people returning to the community after incarceration?

Why it matters

Reducing recidivism and increasing the job readiness of people returning to the community after incarceration requires a collaborative 

cross-systems approach involving a jurisdiction-wide committee or planning team. Strong leadership that includes people responsible for 

the state and local funding of this work is essential to provide guidance to all agencies involved and to make policy changes. Additionally, 

practitioners from corrections, reentry, and workforce development agencies must be at the table to brainstorm solutions to challenges 

identified throughout the planning process. 

What it looks like

✓ Executive leadership involvement: Identifying and assembling a team of committed executive leaders is critical to 

successful planning and implementation. The role of an executive leadership team is to champion an integrated approach 

and hold agencies accountable for establishing policies and procedures that will accomplish shared objectives. Executive 

leaders are also able to influence policies or identify different funding streams, if necessary.
The Integrated Reentry and Employment Strategies Pilot Project: Four Questions Communities Should Consider 3

✓ Representative planning team: A planning team—which may be part of an existing criminal justice coordinating 

council or task force—is assembled to guide the planning and implementation processes. The planning team includes 

key leaders from the criminal justice system, such as community supervision officers, facility administrators, program and 

agency administrators, and community-based reentry service providers; as well as leaders from the workforce development 

system, such as members of the local workforce board, employment and training service coordinators, community college 

administrators, and community-based employment service providers. It is important that the planning team represents 

diverse perspectives from across the corrections, reentry, and workforce development fields. 

✓ Designated project coordinator: A project coordinator manages the planning process by scheduling meetings across 

stakeholder groups, gathering baseline data for the target population (i.e., the number of people being released from incarceration 

and their demographic information and assessment results), identifying protocols for administering reentry and employment 

services, and organizing subcommittee work to brainstorm solutions to problems as they arise. The project coordinator ensures 

that activities associated with systems integration stay on track and that the work gets done.

✓ Commitment to vision, mission, and guiding principles: The planning team is clear that the goal of systems 

integration is to reduce recidivism and improve the job readiness of people returning to the community after incarceration 

and is committed to making the necessary agency-and systems-level changes to achieve those goals. Formal agreements, 

such as signed letters of support, are in place to document the initiative’s goals and guiding principles, as well as to set the 

expectation that top decision makers will be in attendance for planning meetings. Employment service providers are already 

serving large numbers of people who have been released from prison or jail or who are required to find jobs as conditions 

of their probation or parole. To improve outcomes for this population, best practices from the workforce development, 

corrections, and reentry fields are leveraged. In order for each field’s investments to be maximized, correctional supervision, 

treatment, reentry supports, and other services are coordinated.

In Practice: Planning Teams in Milwaukee County, WI 

The Milwaukee County Integrated Reentry and Employment Strategies (IRES) Pilot Project is guided by a planning team 

that includes stakeholders from the corrections, reentry, and workforce development fields and is led by an executive 

committee, which includes Lieutenant Governor Rebecca Kleefisch (R), Senator Lena Taylor (D), Representative Rob 

Hutton (R), WI Department of Corrections Secretary Jon Litscher, WI Department of Workforce Development Secretary Ray 

Allen, Milwaukee County Executive Chris Abele (D), and Mayor Tom Barrett (D). Members of the planning team and the 

executive committee are also members of other task forces, such as the Milwaukee Reentry Network and the Governor’s 

Task Force on Minority Unemployment, which helps to promote collaboration and consistency across other initiatives.
4

2. Do we conduct timely risk and needs assessments and job-readiness screenings?

Is a risk and needs assessment conducted for everyone admitted to prison or jail? Does the risk and needs assessment identify 

a person’s likelihood of reoffending and associated needs so correctional programming can be targeted accordingly? Are jobreadiness screenings conducted prior to release to inform referrals to community-based employment programming?

Why it matters

Matching people to the most effective combination of correctional interventions, community supervision, and employment services 

is dependent on the use of reliable, validated screening and assessment tools. These tools can help identify each person’s risk and 

needs associated with potential future criminal activity. Employment programs are well positioned to address risk factors because 

they already have large numbers of people with criminal histories coming through their doors, and they can provide a prosocial 

environment that may help counter negative peer influences and reduce the amount of time people spend engaged in antisocial 

activities. Successfully addressing risk-related attitudes and behaviors not only helps reduce recidivism but also makes program 

participants more employable.2 Finally, assessing a person’s readiness for work informs which types of services he or she will receive.

Challenges to Prioritizing Employment Services for the Reentry Population 

American Job Centers—commonly known as one-stop centers—are designed to provide employment and training 

services throughout the country. These centers are overseen by state or local workforce investment boards (WIBs), 

which are chaired by local businesses. It is the responsibility of the WIBs to ensure that one-stop centers are connected 

to key partners, including employment service providers, public assistance programs, community colleges, and other 

education or training providers. The services provided at each one-stop center may vary, but all one-stop centers offer 

a core set of services, such as providing information on job openings and student financial aid, and assisting with job 

searches, resume writing, and interviewing. Although these services are usually sufficient for people who require less 

intensive support for finding and keeping a job, they are not sufficient for serving a less job-ready population. For less 

job-ready people, some centers provide more advanced services focused on education and training or refer them to other 

community-based service providers for more intensive services. 

Some experts frame the employment issue for people returning to their communities after incarceration in an economic 

supply-and-demand context. As unemployment rates decline, there are more open jobs than there are qualified workers 

to fill them. Although people returning from incarceration are often seeking work, many have characteristics that make 

it difficult for them to connect to sustainable employment, such as behavioral health needs and housing instability. This 

population may also lack the skills and professional attributes that employers seek. Additionally, employers may be reluctant 

to hire people returning to the community after incarceration due to liability concerns or a perceived or real lack of skills.

Given these challenges and the pressure that one-stop centers face to meet job placement goals, the reentry population 

is not always prioritized for services. One-stop centers and WIB leaders must be engaged in the initiative’s goals and 

committed to considering new ways to build capacity and better target resources to maximize outcomes for people 

returning from incarceration who are less job ready.
The Integrated Reentry and Employment Strategies Pilot Project: Four Questions Communities Should Consider 5

The IRES white paper introduces the Resource-Allocation and Service-Matching Tool, which is based on two key 

dimensions—a person’s criminogenic risk and needs and his or her job readiness. There are four groupings that result 

from assessing people under correctional supervision along these dimensions—lower risk/more job ready, lower risk/

less job ready, higher risk/more job ready, and higher risk/less job ready. Each group can be assigned to a combination 

of employment program components and service-delivery strategies that are tailored to their risk for criminal activity and 

complemented by correctional treatment interventions. 

Some people returning to the community after incarceration require intensive services and programming to reduce their 

risk of reoffending, while others perform better with less intensive interventions and supervision. Because the tool groups 

people first by risk and then by job readiness, resources are focused where they can be most effective. For example, 

a higher-risk person returning from prison who has limited work experience and negative attitudes about legitimate 

employment will receive intensive, structured services that complement close supervision. In contrast, a lower-risk person 

with a history of successful employment will benefit from minimal supervision and may need assistance with little beyond 

writing a resume or reinstating a driver’s license.

Lower Risk/

More Ready

(GROUP 1)

Lower Risk/

Less Ready

(GROUP 2)

Higher Risk/

More Ready

(GROUP 3)

Higher Risk/

Less Ready

(GROUP 4)

Step 1:

Assess Risk

THE RESOURCE-ALLOCATION AND SERVICE-MATCHING TOOL

and Needs

Step 2:

Assess Job

Readiness

Step 3:

Deliver 

Targeted

Services

Low or Lower Risk Moderate/High or

 Higher Risk

Risk and Needs Assessment

with Objective, Validated Tool

GROUP 1

Employment

Program

Components

Integrated Risk and Job-Readiness Packages Integrated Risk and Job-Readiness Packages

Cognitive Behavioral Interventions

GROUP 3

Employment

Program

Components

GROUP 2

Employment

Program

Components

GROUP 4

Employment

Program

Components

This assessment measures people's risk of reoffending and related needs,

and helps inform supervision policies and non-employment referrals/program 

placements that address criminogenic risk and responsivity needs.

Job-Readiness Assessment

Less Intensive Application of ServiceDelivery Principles for Groups 1 and 2 More Intensive Application of ServiceDelivery Principles for Groups 3 and 4

What it looks like

✓ Validated risk and needs assessments: In addition to assessing a person’s risk of reoffending, validated, objective risk

and needs assessments also identify what must be addressed through treatment interventions in order to lower a person’s

risk of reoffending, as well as inform how treatment interventions should be delivered to support the way a person learns.

Reducing recidivism requires that resources for community supervision and treatment interventions and programming be

prioritized for people assessed at a higher risk of reoffending. Assessment information also guides decisions on reentry plans

and referrals to employment services that draw on the resources of multiple systems.

✓ System-wide definition of job readiness: The way employment programming and services are delivered varies

greatly across the field, and there is little standardization in how agencies assess whether or not a person is ready for work.

Job readiness is often determined by a person’s work experience and various skill sets that make him or her more or less

Figure 1: The Resource-Allocation and Service-Matching Tool
6

competitive in the labor market. People with criminal histories commonly experience barriers to employment,3 but it is 

also possible for people returning home from incarceration to join—or rejoin—the workforce immediately upon release, 

especially if they have extensive work experience, high levels of education, and/or professional and technical skills. A 

common definition of job readiness is used across agencies that provide employment services to ensure consistent case plan 

development and measures of success.

✓ Job-readiness assessments and screenings: Risk and needs assessments help inform the intensity with which

employment services are delivered; however, these decisions require a second assessment that focuses on a person’s level

of job readiness. Job readiness assessments typically consist of a structured series of questions about a person’s history of

employment; education and certification accomplishments; and attitude toward work, such as his or her general motivation

and resilience when disappointment occurs. Job-readiness assessments are used to focus intensive employment services on

people who are likely to experience difficulties finding or maintaining a job.

✓ Mechanisms for information sharing: When information from the risk and needs assessments is appropriately shared

by corrections with workforce development professionals and reentry service providers, the results enhance service matching

and the need to conduct multiple screenings is eliminated. Community-based reentry service providers often establish

memorandums of understanding (MOUs) with corrections agencies or parole and probation to access assessment information.

✓ Baseline data: Baseline data helps corrections, reentry, and workforce development agencies understand the number of

people returning to the community after incarceration and their associated needs so services can be aligned accordingly.

This data also allows progress to be tracked over time. The planning team gathers data on the number of people returning

from incarceration, including their demographic information, criminal history, and assessment results. Reports containing

this information are generated at least annually so services can be targeted to the population projected to return to the

community.

In Practice: Assessment Processes and Information Sharing in 

Palm Beach County, FL 

At the Sago Palm Reentry Center—a state correctional facility located in Palm Beach County—reentry service 

providers conduct risk and needs assessments at least nine months prior to a person’s release date. Pre-release 

services are then prescribed to begin addressing the person’s criminogenic needs and a reentry plan is developed 

to prepare the person for release. For people returning to the county from other state and local facilities, reentry 

service providers conduct risk and needs assessments upon that person’s release into the community. All assessment 

information is accessible to the Criminal Justice Commission, contracted community-based providers, and the local 

one-stop center in a shared database to ensure coordinated delivery of services.
The Integrated Reentry and Employment Strategies Pilot Project: Four Questions Communities Should Consider 7

In Practice: Collecting Baseline Data in Milwaukee County, WI 

Collecting risk and job-readiness data can help the planning team strategize ways to tailor reentry and employment 

services to meet the needs of those returning from incarceration and ensure funding is allocated to support the services 

that have proven over time to be effective. Fifty percent of the people who returned to Milwaukee County in 2015 from the 

four correctional facilities included in the pilot project were assessed as less job ready and at a higher risk of reoffending. 

Therefore, a significant number of community-based service providers must be equipped to provide employment services 

that increase a person’s job-readiness level while addressing the underlying characteristics that make that person more 

likely to reoffend.

DATA DEFINITIONS

Higher Risk: Medium, Medium with Override Consideration, or High Recommended Supervision Level

Lower Risk: Low Recommended Supervision Level

More Ready: Unlikely Education/Vocational Need Scale or Unlikely Employment Expectations Scale

Less Ready: Probable or Highly Probable Education/Vocational Need Scale or Probable or Highly Probable 

Employment Expectations Scale

Lower Risk/

More Ready

(GROUP 1)

Lower Risk/

Less Ready

(GROUP 2)

Higher Risk/

More Ready

(GROUP 3)

Higher Risk/

Less Ready

(GROUP 4)

13%

(102 people per year)

9%

(69 people per year)

28%

(218 people per year)

50%

(393 people per year)

3. Have we conducted a comprehensive process analysis and inventory of

employment services provided pre- and post-release?

Do we have a clear understanding of how a person moves through the correctional system—from admission to the facility 

through enrollment in community-based programming upon release—and what assessment information is considered when 

making program referrals? Are our community-based service providers equipped to meet the employment and reentry needs of 

people returning from incarceration?

Why it matters

An analysis of correctional, reentry, and workforce development agency processes—from the point of admission to the facility 

through enrollment in programming in the community—gives stakeholders a more comprehensive understanding of the points 

of intervention. This analysis includes a review of processes related to the timing of screenings and assessments, data collection, 

correctional program referral and enrollment, release planning, community supervision, and community-based program referral 

and enrollment. Additionally, interviews with key stakeholders and practitioners shed light on the adherence to these processes 

and areas for improvement. Assessing the type and intensity of the available employment and reentry services is essential to 

understanding the assets and gaps that exist in each community.

What it looks like

✓ Detailed process analysis: The planning team traces the steps of a person’s involvement in the justice system—from

the moment the person enters the correctional facility to enrollment in post-release community-based programming. At

each point in the program referral process, the following questions are asked:

Figure 2: Risk and Job Readiness of People Returning to the Community After Incarceration
8

• What is the process associated with the program referral?

• Is the process timely and efficient?

• What information is collected at that point in the process?

• How is that information shared and with whom?

• How does that information inform what happens at the next point in the process?

A process flow chart is often created to illustrate the various referral and enrollment points throughout a system and is used 

to facilitate a conversation with the planning team about how the process works in practice.

✓ Service capacity: The planning team reviews service contracts to identify what employment services are available 

in the community, attends task force meetings, and interviews people who were formerly incarcerated. In resource-rich 

communities, multiple agencies may be providing similar services, while in other communities there may be only one 

or two agencies offering a particular employment service. In either case, the types of services offered and the way they 

are delivered align with the needs of people returning from incarceration to that particular community. By assessing the 

services provided within each agency, corrections, reentry, and workforce development administrators better understand 

their community’s capacity to meet the needs of people returning home from incarceration and how to better match people 

to services based on their assessed needs. Armed with this knowledge, policymakers and practitioners are able to identify 

gaps in services to determine where resources and training should be allocated. 

✓ Evidence-based services: Although employment is an important part of reentry, simply placing someone in a job 

will not prevent reoffending. To help people returning from incarceration succeed in the workplace, community-based 

employment programs need to address people’s underlying attitudes about crime and work that make them both more 

likely to reoffend and to have problems finding and keeping a job. Effective strategies for reducing recidivism include 

tailoring services to a person’s distinct needs (such as cognitive behavioral interventions to address antisocial thinking and 

behaviors) as identified by an evidence-based risk and needs assessment. 

To engage people who face barriers to employment—including those returning from incarceration—services must be 

matched to a person’s level of job readiness. Employment programs for this population generally aim to achieve two broad 

goals—promoting job readiness and finding and retaining employment—that dictate what type of services to provide. 

See Figure 3.

Figure 3: Core Components of Effective Employment Services

Goal 1: Promote Job Readiness Goal 2: Find and Retain Employment

• Education and Training • Non-Transitional Subsidized Employment

• Soft/Cognitive-Skill Development • Job Development and Coaching

• Transitional Job Placements • Retention and Advancement Services

• Non-Skill-Related Interventions • Financial Work Incentives
The Integrated Reentry and Employment Strategies Pilot Project: Four Questions Communities Should Consider 9

✓ Identifying existing services in the community: To assess the landscape of services available in the community—

including identifying what level of risk and needs each agency is best equipped to serve—the planning team conducts interviews

with existing service agencies and participants. These interviews are designed to understand what employment services are

offered and how they are delivered. Questions to help the interviewer understand how services are offered may include:

• Are there staff dedicated to providing case management?

• Does the agency offer cognitive-behavioral interventions?

• Are cognitive treatments and interventions that address criminal thinking offered?

Figure 4: Principles of Service Delivery

Service Delivery

Principles

Less Intensive Application for

Lower-Risk People

More Intensive Application for 

Higher-Risk People

Engagement Avoid intensive engagement

and case management

Intensive case management and use of 

cognitive-behavioral approaches

Timing Timing is still important, but less of a 

priority for lower-risk people

Connect with people shortly after release 

from jail/prison

Incentives Incentives are less of a priority and need 

for lower-risk people

Enhance motivation through 

communication and incentives

Coordination Community supervision should not be 

intensive, and supervision officers do not 

have to play an active role

Work closely with community supervision 

officers, who can assist with intensive 

engagement

Structured Time Avoid disrupting existing prosocial ties Structure time in a prosocial environment

LOWER RISK HIGHER RISK

In Practice: Providing Evidence-Based Services in New York City 

The New York City-based Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO) operates a transitional job program that offers 

employment programming. All participants enroll in a five-day life skills class that teaches the basic expectations for 

behavior and performance on the job. During the life skills class, other barriers to employment, such as the need for 

proper identification, are addressed. Participants are then placed in a transitional job for an average of nine weeks. 

During that time, participants continue to receive soft-skill development services from their supervisor and job 

coach. CEO staff regularly assess the job readiness of participants through the use of “Passports to Success,” which 

are booklets with checklists that reflect job-readiness factors—such as the ability to cooperate with a supervisor, 

demonstrated effort at work, and punctuality—that the site supervisor completes each day. When participants are 

deemed “job ready,” they begin working with a job developer to find full-time, unsubsidized employment. CEO then 

provides one year of financial incentives and job-retention services.

The factors that put a person at a higher risk of reoffending can have a significant impact on employability. Therefore, 

beyond what types of services are provided, agencies must also consider how services are delivered to reduce 

recidivism, including efforts to engage people in programming, timing of services, incentives, coordination with other 

supports, and the use of structured prosocial activities. Employment service providers collaborate with corrections agencies 

that conduct risk and needs assessments to develop integrated responses. See Figure 4.
10

• Does the treatment environment motivate participants to support one another?

• Are participants engaged in services prior to release from incarceration?

• Does the agency offer incentives for participation?

• Do staff regularly communicate with supervision officers and other community or family supports?

• Does the agency offer a structured programming schedule?

✓ Alignment of funding requirements: The planning team facilitates discussions with agency administrators and

policymakers about how resources can be used most efficiently to improve reentry and employment outcomes. Concentrating

intensive resources on fewer participants and sequencing services properly can have a far greater impact on reducing

recidivism and increasing job readiness than trying to provide the most basic assistance to everyone. Service contracts with

providers incorporate evidence-based service delivery principles and core components of effective programming, as well as

capacity-building opportunities and quality assurance measures.

4. Do we have a coordinated process for making service referrals and tracking data?

Who is responsible for making referrals to service providers in the community? Does that agency track the referrals and coordinate 

provider efforts?

Why it matters

It is often unclear which agency is responsible for making referrals to community-based reentry and employment services. 

Supervision officers are often overwhelmed with heavy caseloads and need support to provide reentry services to their most 

difficult–to–serve populations. Reentry agencies may change the scope of available programming as a result of funding limitations 

or changes in leadership. New reentry agencies may also be established in the community. Given this ever-changing landscape, 

practitioners from the criminal justice system often refer people to agencies that are successful at placing participants in jobs 

quickly; however, these agencies are not necessarily equipped to address a person’s risk and needs that lead to reoffending. To assist 

practitioners in identifying agencies that have services designed to address a person’s assessed risk and associated needs, while also 

promoting job-readiness skills, communities should establish a coordinated process for making service referrals and tracking data. 

What it looks like

✓ Lead coordinating agency: A lead coordinating agency is established to promote collaboration between agencies. In

some communities the lead coordinating agency operates within the criminal justice system, while in other communities it

is a centralized agency that operates within the workforce development system. Regardless of which agency is designated as

the lead coordinator, the roles and responsibilities are consistent and include evaluating community-based reentry programs

and their fidelity to evidence-based programming, coordinating transition planning, and tracking referrals and services to

promote collaboration among reentry service providers.

✓ Ongoing evaluation of community-based reentry services: The planning team first identifies what employment

services are available in the community and how they are delivered. Next, the lead coordinating agency keeps track

of available services and ensures that agencies incorporate evidence-based principles into their programs. The lead

coordinating agency identifies capacity-building needs and makes training opportunities available to contracted agencies.

The lead coordinating agency may also oversee employment service contracts.

✓ Coordinated transition planning: Information such as assessment results and program participation data is shared

with the lead coordinating agency, which then identifies which employment agencies offer the evidence-based programming

that best matches a person’s risk and needs. The employment service provider engages people that are incarcerated prior

to release to inform them of the services available in the community, and, when possible, begins service delivery in the
The Integrated Reentry and Employment Strategies Pilot Project: Four Questions Communities Should Consider 11

institution. Additional engagement opportunities may include partnerships between correctional staff and community 

supervision officers to prepare for release and collaborating with family members or other social supports to establish a 

reentry plan.

✓ Tracking referrals and services: A shared database assists workforce development, reentry, and corrections agencies

in tracking referrals and the services that have been delivered. A shared database is also used to track program participants’

progress. Information collected includes program participants’ demographic information, as well as their criminal history,

assessment results, reentry and employment services they have received and those they are currently enrolled in, and any

supervision conditions. The lead coordinating agency maintains the shared database, ensures data is regularly entered by

agencies and service providers, and uses the data to assess program impact and report on outcomes.

✓ Promoting coordination, collaboration, and sustainability: As the oversight body, the lead coordinating

agency understands how the reentry and employment service providers in the community differ in the services and

programs they provide. Therefore, the lead agency develops partnerships and mechanisms for coordinating cross-program

referrals to better match people to services and make the best use of resources. Because of the collaboration among reentry

and employment service providers that the lead coordinating agency helps facilitate, the community is well-positioned

to collectively seek new or ongoing funding for reentry and employment services. Once funding is awarded, the lead

coordinating agency establishes contracts with reentry and employment agencies that are best equipped to serve people

returning from incarceration. 

In Practice: The Role of a Lead Coordinating Agency 

The Palm Beach County Criminal Justice Commission (CJC) has 21 public sector members representing local, state, 

and federal criminal justice and governmental agencies and 12 business members representing private companies and 

the Economic Council of Palm Beach County. The CJC functions as a liaison between corrections and community-based 

reentry agencies to ensure that people returning from incarceration are connected to programming that meets their 

assessed needs. For example, the CJC funds positions within community-based reentry agencies that conduct risk and 

needs assessments pre-release in the Sago Palm Reentry Center. Staff in these positions begin programming in the 

facility based on assessed risk and needs and establish a reentry plan to ensure a seamless continuation of services when 

the person is released from incarceration. The reentry plan consists of wraparound services including coordination with 

family members and other community supports, identification of housing resources, and enrollment in public assistance 

and benefits programs. In addition to contracting with community-based providers for service delivery, the CJC manages 

assessment and referral processes, engages and enrolls people in programming pre-release, and maintains a shared 

database to track participant outcomes. The CJC has an established history of building strong partnerships to improve the 

criminal justice system and serves as a catalyst to coordinate agencies across the county through the Reentry Task Force. 

Criminal Justice Commission

Community-Based Reentry and Employment Service Agencies

CareerSource, Gulfstream Goodwill Industries, 

The Lord's Place, and Riviera Beach Justice Services Center

CJC Functions:

1. Contract with

agencies for service 

delivery

2. Coordinate assessment and referral

processes

3. Engage and enroll

people in programming pre-release

4. Maintain database to

track outcomes

Sago Palm

Reentry Center

FL DOC

Facilities County Jails

Figure 5: Agency Coordination in Palm Beach County, FL
12

Conclusion

Coordinating systems and services is challenging, but collaboration is critical for communities working to reduce recidivism and

increase the employability of people returning from incarceration. The four questions highlighted above were derived from the

first year of the IRES pilot project and can be used to facilitate conversations with key stakeholders about a community’s ability to

integrate the efforts of the corrections, workforce development, and reentry fields and to determine what reentry and employment

services are available to meet the needs of people returning from incarceration. For additional information regarding the IRES 

pilot project, visit csgjusticecenter.org/reentry/the-reentry-and-employment-project. 

Endnotes

1 The National Reentry Resource Center is working with a team of expert partners to provide technical assistance to both pilot sites for up to three years. 

These partners and consultants, such as the Heartland Alliance National Transitional Jobs Network and the National Institute of Corrections, have extensive 

experience in policy analysis, program development and implementation, and research.

2 Edward J. Latessa, “Why Work is Important and How to Improve the Effectiveness of Correctional Reentry Programs That Target Employment,” Criminology 

and Public Policy 11, no. 1 (2012): 87–91.

3 Harry J. Holzer, Steven Raphael, and Michael A. Stoll, “Employment Barriers Facing Ex-Offenders,” presented at Reentry Roundtable on The Employment 

Dimensions of Prisoner Reentry: Understanding the Nexus between Prisoner Reentry and Work, New York University, May 19-20, 2003, available at urban.org/

UploadedPDF/410855_holzer.pdf.