Jesse Jannetta

Hannah Dodd

Brian Elderbroom

The Elected 

Official’s Toolkit 

for Jail Reentry
Overview of 

Jail Reentry

Every year, millions of people are released from incarceration, 

and the vast majority—about 9 million individuals—exit 

from local jails. Within this population, recidivism rates are high, 

resulting in a damaging cycle of incarceration, release, and reincarceration. Recidivism harms local communities and places a tremendous burden on local governments trying to maintain public 

safety and manage costs. 

Local governments spent an estimated $109 billion on criminal 

justice in 2006, a 17 percent increase over the 2003 level and 138 

percent more than was spent on criminal justice functions in 1992.1

These criminal justice expenditures reflect in part the cost of failing 

to reintegrate individuals returning from our nation’s prisons and 

jails. Many released inmates face serious problems that contribute to 

the commission of new crimes, including drug and alcohol addiction, mental illness, unemployment, and homelessness. Neglecting 

these issues not only raises criminal justice costs but increases the 

demand for social services, such as homeless shelter beds and emergency rooms. It also carries social costs that are difficult to quantify, 

including harm to victims, strain on communities, and hardships 

imposed on the families and social networks of released inmates.

Focusing on jail reentry is an opportunity for local governments to reduce recidivism and associated costs. Jail reentry initiatives encourage jails, social service providers, and other agencies 

to work together to identify and address factors that increase the 

risk that inmates will recidivate. Jail reentry initiatives also focus 

on changing the behavior of returning inmates and promoting accountability. Such initiatives help local communities strategically 

deploy limited resources to reduce harm and maximize community benefit.

Local elected officials play a vital role in jail reentry initiatives by bringing diverse stakeholders together in a shared effort 

with a common mission and vision. Local governments are wellpositioned to coordinate the reentry process. Not only do they 

operate law enforcement and jails, they run health and human services, housing authorities, workforce development boards, and local schools, which are key partners in any comprehensive reentry 

effort. Elected officials also have standing with community service 

providers and faith-based organizations that already provide many 

of the social services urgently needed by those leaving jail. 

Jail reentry initiatives offer numerous benefits for communities in addition to improving outcomes for individual inmates. 

Jail reentry initiatives have the potential to reduce crime; affect community problems, such as homelessness; and increase 

public health, safety, and well-being. Reentry initiatives can also 

improve system performance by increasing coordination and 

information-sharing among criminal justice agencies, community-based organizations, and other groups. This can reduce duplication of efforts and enhance the impact of existing resources. 

Taxpayers ultimately reap the benefits of smaller jail populations, 

reduced need for new jail facilities, and lower costs across the 

criminal justice system. 

Jail reentry initiatives have found support from a broad array of 

stakeholders, including law enforcement, corrections, social service providers, the faith community, and victims’ groups. These 

groups increasingly recognize their role in the reentry process and 

are looking to elected officials for support and leadership. Jail reentry initiatives supported by elected officials bring these groups 

to the table and encourage them to work together to develop effective interventions. By spearheading a cooperative reentry effort, 

elected officials foster shared responsibility and ensure a common 

approach to addressing this problem. 

This toolkit is designed to help elected officials meet the challenges of addressing jail reentry in their communities. It provides 

information and tools to improve the jail-to-community reentry 

process, whether that involves implementing a jail reentry initiative for the first time or expanding an existing initiative.

It is important to note that the toolkit is not meant to be a 

comprehensive guide to developing a reentry initiative. While we 

have sought to include the most significant information for elected 

officials who want to get involved in jail reentry, the reader should 

treat the toolkit as a starting point rather than a final destination. 

To this end, we have included a short directory of more extensive 

and in-depth resources that address the process of implementing a 

jail reentry initiative as well as specific needs of returning inmates. 

Many helpful reentry resources covering a wide range of topics 

are easily accessible online. We encourage readers to access these 

resources for more information about the topics introduced here, 

as well as for detailed guidance on the particular challenges their 

communities may face.

1 U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2008. “Justice Expenditure and Employment Extracts.” http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1022.

The Elected Official’s Toolkit for Jail Reentry
Using the Toolkit

This toolkit is designed for elected officials and other policymakers looking to implement or build on a local jail 

reentry initiative. It is intended for a diverse audience, including mayors and county supervisors, elected and appointed officials, 

and those representing small towns and urban counties. (We 

use the umbrella term “elected official” throughout the toolkit 

for convenience.) Elected officials are ideally situated to lead 

jail reentry initiatives. By doing so, they have the opportunity 

to improve reentry outcomes, reduce victimization, and save 

money.

The toolkit contains several one-page handouts providing information, tools, and resources for developing a reentry initiative. 

Rather than present this information in a report or paper, we have 

provided elected officials with a binder that is part briefing book 

and part implementation guide.

The toolkit is divided into two sections: 

Section 1

Fact sheets on jail reentry and the key 

components of reentry initiatives

Section 2

Tools and resources for implementing or 

expanding a reentry initiative 

Each handout is intended to stand alone, so readers can pick 

and choose the ones they need. Jurisdictions in the early stages of 

developing a reentry initiative will most likely want to pay close 

attention to the background materials on the left-hand side of the 

folder. Those who are further along may find the resources on 

the right-hand side more helpful. To get started, each handout is 

briefly described below.

Section 1: Background Information

Overview of Jail Reentry

Introduces jail reentry initiatives and explains why elected officials 

should care about them.

Jails and the Jail Population

Highlights the unique challenges and opportunities presented by 

jails and the jail population. 

The Jail-to-Community Continuum

Describes how a jail reentry initiative should operate at each point 

on the continuum from jail to community.

Stakeholders

Lists stakeholders with a vested interest in jail reentry and describes the roles they play in improving reentry outcomes.

Support for Reentry

Lists groups that have expressed their support for jail reentry initiatives, including associations of elected officials, law enforcement 

officers, community-based providers, and jail administrators.

TJC Overview

Describes the Transition from Jail to Community (TJC) initiative, 

which provides a model for local jail reentry initiatives.

Second Chance Act

Summarizes the 2008 law designed to improve outcomes for people returning to communities from prisons and jails.

Section 2: Tools and Resources

Get Involved

Provides an overview of ways in which local elected officials can 

get involved in jail reentry initiatives and the unique role that 

elected officials play in improving reentry outcomes.

Profiles of Reentry Champions

Profiles local elected officials who have championed jail reentry 

initiatives.

Examples of Reentry Initiatives

Presents case studies of jurisdictions that have successfully implemented jail reentry initiatives. 

Local Legislation

Provides examples of legislation authorizing jail reentry initiatives 

and establishing coordinating bodies.

Getting Started

Describes tools for starting a reentry initiative, including guidance for 

assessing local needs and building a framework for a local approach. 

The Elected Official’s Toolkit for Jail Reentry
Talking Points 

Presents talking points on jail reentry for use in interactions with 

constituents, stakeholders, the media, and other policymakers.

PowerPoint Template

Provides a template for a PowerPoint presentation that can be 

modified for use at legislative hearings, community events, and 

other meetings.

Resources

Lists national resources on jail reentry.
Jails and the Jail 

Population

Jails present many opportunities and challenges for inmate reintegration. Those planning jail reentry initiatives should take 

into account the unique characteristics of jails, as well as the risks 

and needs of the individuals who cycle through them.

Jails

Jails house a varied population. They hold individuals awaiting arraignment, trial, or sentencing, as well as those serving short 

sentences. Over 60 percent of jail inmates across the country are 

in pretrial status. Jails also hold individuals who have violated probation or parole conditions, inmates from overcrowded state and 

federal facilities, and inmates awaiting transfer to another facility. 

The jail population is split almost evenly among inmates held for 

public-order, drug, property, and violent offenses, and most inmates 

are held for misdemeanors. This diverse population, with its often 

unpredictable release dates, poses a planning challenge to any 

reentry effort.

The jail population is growing. The jail population in the 

United States has roughly doubled over the past two decades, 

growing even faster than state prison populations. Several factors have contributed to this growth, including increases in the 

numbers of pretrial detainees, felony offenders sentenced to jail, 

and probation and parole violators. Rising jail populations have 

obliged many communities to either build costly new jails or 

overcrowd facilities.

Inmates have short lengths of stay. Many jail inmates are 

detained for only a few hours or days, and less than one-fifth remain incarcerated for more than a month. These brief and often 

unpredictable lengths of stay present a challenge to jail reentry 

initiatives, which have a limited window of time to work with 

inmates before release. This makes postrelease interventions in the 

community particularly important for jail reentry efforts. 

Jail capacity for service provision is low. While a majority 

of jails provide at least some services, such as basic mental health 

care, substance abuse programs, or educational programming, these 

services are rarely offered to all inmates who need them. A failure 

to address the risk factors that lead to incarceration will result in 

recidivism for many released inmates. Partnerships with social service providers and faith-based organizations allow jails to expand 

the services that they offer and facilitate continuity of care after 

inmates are released.

Coordination with community services is lacking. Services in 

the jail and in the community after release are rarely coordinated. 

Compounding this problem, most jurisdictions do not have any 

single agency responsible for providing postrelease services or supervision. Many community-based organizations have preexisting 

relationships with inmates and can continue to work with inmates 

after release. Collaboration and information-sharing between jails 

and community organizations are essential to ensuring a smooth 

transition for released inmates. Transition plans facilitate this collaboration and information-sharing across the point of release.

Jail Inmates

High incarceration and recidivism rates are related to broader social problems that many communities face. Jails often act as crisis 

intervention centers for people struggling with serious difficulties, 

such as addiction or mental illness. Common obstacles that put 

released inmates at risk for reoffending include the following:

Substance abuse. Drugs and alcohol play a central role in incarceration and recidivism, with two-thirds of jail inmates meeting criteria for substance abuse or dependence. Substance abuse 

treatment, if begun during incarceration and continued in the 

community, reduces both substance use and recidivism. However, 

only a small proportion of inmates struggling with substance abuse 

problems receive treatment while incarcerated.

Employment. Research has shown a strong relationship between unemployment and crime, and large percentages of jail inmates report having been unemployed prior to their arrest. Low 

educational attainment, limited professional skills, and a criminal 

history pose significant challenges for released inmates seeking work.

Housing. Homelessness and housing instability put people 

at risk for incarceration. In fact, one out of seven jail inmates is 

homeless upon entering jail. Research suggests that released inmates who have stable housing are less likely to return to jail or 

prison. However, released inmates must overcome many obstacles 

to obtain housing, including limited financial resources, lack of 

affordable housing options, public housing ineligibility, and the 

stigma associated with a criminal record.

Mental health. People who are unable to get adequate treatment for mental illnesses and problems frequently wind up in jail. 

A study by the Council of State Governments’ Justice Center and 

Policy Research Associates found that about 17 percent of the 

jail population admitted to two jails in Maryland and three in 

New York met the criteria for a serious mental illness. In fact, jails 

sometimes serve as a community’s largest mental health service 

provider. Even a brief stay in jail can disrupt community-based 

mental health treatment and put individuals at risk of missing 

medication and losing benefits. 

The Elected Official’s Toolkit for Jail Reentry
Physical health. The jail population experiences much higher 

rates of chronic and infectious diseases than the general population, and over a third of jail inmates report a current medical 

issue needing attention. Individuals passing through jails account 

for a substantial share of the total U.S. population infected with 

tuberculosis, hepatitis, and HIV/AIDS, presenting a significant 

opportunity to improve public health. However, fewer than half 

of all jail inmates nationally receive medical examinations when 

admitted, and few of those living with infectious diseases receive 

care after release.

Key Sources

Beck, Allen J. 2006. “The Importance of Successful Reentry to Jail Population Growth” (presented to the Urban Institute Jail Reentry Roundtable, 

Washington, DC, June 27, 2006). http://www.urban.org/projects/reentry-roundtable/roundtable9.cfm.

James, Doris. 2004. “Profile of Jail Inmates, 2002.” NCJ 201932. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. http://bjs.ojp.

usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1118.

James, Doris J., and Lauren E. Glaze. 2006. “Mental Health Problems of Prison 

and Jail Inmates.” NCJ 213600. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ 

pdf/mhppji.pdf.

Karberg, Jennifer, and Doris James. 2005. “Substance Dependence, Abuse, and 

Treatment of Jail Inmates, 2002.” NCJ 209588. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/ 

content/pub/pdf/sdatji02.pdf.

Maruschak, Laura. 2006. “Medical Problems of Jail Inmates.” NCJ 210696. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/mpji.pdf.

Sabol, William, and Todd Minton. 2009. “Jail Inmates at Midyear 2008—

Statistical Tables.” NCJ 225709. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index. 

cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1004.

Solomon, Amy L., Jenny Osborne, Stefan LoBuglio, Jeff Mellow, and Debbie 

Mukamal. 2008. Life After Lockup: Improving Reentry from Jail to the Community. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. http://www.urban.org/url.

cfm?ID=411660.

Steadman, Henry J., Fred C. Osher, Pamela Clark Robbins, Brian Case, and 

Steven Samuels. 2009. “Prevalence of Serious Mental Illness among Jail 

Inmates.” Psychiatric Services 60(6): 761-765. 
The Jail-to-Community 

Continuum

Before implementing or expanding a jail reentry initiative, elected officials should work with the stakeholders involved 

in the reentry process to identify existing resources and assess 

current policies and programs. It may be helpful to consider the 

various points along the jail-to-community continuum and the 

responsibilities of the jail and community-based organizations at 

each point. Interventions focused on changing behavior and reducing recidivism should be used at each stage to improve reentry 

outcomes. Elected officials play a critical role by providing the 

overall vision and guidance and by holding the partners in the 

collaborative effort accountable for working together and doing 

their part at each point.

Jail-Based Interventions

Jails hold a diverse population, and inmates’ stays are usually short. 

Still, the period of incarceration is a valuable opportunity to begin the work of successful reentry. Jails should begin by assessing 

inmates to determine who is at the highest risk to recidivate and 

what issues need to be addressed to best prevent that from happening. At the level of the individual inmate, this assessment is 

the basis for effective release planning. At the organizational level, 

assessment information helps identify needed services and how 

many people need them. It also allows the system to direct the 

most intensive interventions to the highest-risk inmates.

Jails can deliver a full range of interventions, from information 

on community resources for low-risk or short-term inmates, to 

more intensive interventions to address substance abuse or criminal attitudes among higher-risk inmates. During their incarceration, inmates may receive needed mental and physical health services for the first time. 

Community In-Reach

The incarceration period is also a critical time to introduce inmates to service systems they will need to access upon release. Jails 

can facilitate this process, as well as expand the reentry services 

they offer, by allowing community-based organizations to enter 

the facility. This approach is known as “in-reach.” By collaborating 

with the faith-based community, social service providers, employers and workforce development boards, housing and health agencies, and other organizations, jails can offer programs that they 

might otherwise be unable to provide. As these community-based 

organizations often work with populations prone to incarceration, 

they may already have relationships with many inmates, and they 

may regard in-reach as a valuable way to serve their client population. Community in-reach allows inmates to begin or maintain 

these critical relationships and reduces treatment interruption. Jails 

should therefore develop partnerships with community-based organizations, giving them access to inmates and sharing information 

with them. Elected officials can be instrumental in encouraging jails 

to support in-reach and encouraging community organizations to 

take advantage of the opportunity to serve incarcerated clients.

Moment of Release

Community in-reach into the jail is especially critical immediately prior to release. In the first few days after release, returning inmates are particularly susceptible to drug use, homelessness, 

going off psychotropic medication, and other problems that may 

lead to reoffending. Interventions focused on bridging the time of 

release and the return to the community are crucial to preventing 

recidivism. Jails and community-based organizations should work 

together to prepare inmates for this transition, with a focus on 

keeping them engaged in changing the behaviors that led them to 

jail. Elected officials can help to foster a sense of shared responsibility for inmate success to encourage this coordination between 

the jail and the community.

Ideally, all inmates should leave jail with a resource guide that 

explains how to access community-based services, such as drug 

treatment or housing assistance, as well as with applications for 

obtaining identification, medication, and government benefits, if 

appropriate. For higher-risk inmates, it is important to develop 

a discharge plan, laying out what they need to do to avoid reoffending. Such plans can include prearranged service appointments, 

an assigned case manager, transportation from the jail, a means 

of obtaining necessary medications, and prepared applications for 

identification documents and the reinstatement of any government benefits.

Community-Based Interventions

Without follow-up in the community, jail-based services will have 

little impact on behavior. Most inmates, however, are not legally 

required to participate in community programs. (Those sentenced 

to probation are the exception.) It is therefore vital that, prior 

to an inmate’s release, jails and community-based organizations 

arrange treatment and service appointments, offer case-management services, share information across agencies, and engage the 

informal social networks that are influential in the inmate’s life, 

The Elected Official’s Toolkit for Jail Reentry
such as family, friends, employers, and the faith community. This 

increases the likelihood that released inmates will access formal 

services, such as substance abuse counseling, mental health treatment, housing assistance, and job training. 

Putting It All Together

The importance of increasing collaboration and coordination 

between the jail and community-based organizations cannot be 

overstated. Even the most well-intentioned effort, incorporating 

interventions at each of these four points along the jail-to-community continuum, can fail if there is not a concerted effort to 

identify shared goals, strategically allocate institutional and community-based resources, conduct joint reentry system planning, 

and support and sustain collaboration. A jail reentry initiative can 

serve as the nexus for this collaboration, allowing jails, communitybased organizations, and other stakeholders to develop partnerships and share information. Elected officials play a key role in 

building and sustaining this shared effort by bringing stakeholders 

to the table and monitoring their progress. A great deal of work is 

required to achieve this high level of collaboration, but the benefits that jail reentry initiatives provide to participating stakeholders, 

inmates and their families, and the community can be substantial 

and far-reaching.
Stakeholders

Awide range of groups have a stake in jail reentry. Crime and the use of public resources by individuals who fail to successfully transition from jail affect the entire public. Reentry affects 

various components of the criminal justice system, including law 

enforcement, jails, probation, and parole. It also affects the families 

and communities to which released inmates return and the inmates themselves. Elected officials should be aware of the impact 

of jail reentry on these groups, as well as how the reentry process 

affects their community as a whole. Some of the stakeholders with 

the greatest investments in jail reentry are listed below.

Law Enforcement

Law enforcement’s interest in protecting public safety gives it a 

clear stake in jail reentry initiatives that prevent reoffending. Law 

enforcement personnel also have a particular interest in interventions to stabilize the relatively small number of habitual offenders 

who cycle in and out of jail many times each year. This chronic 

offending is often the result of public order offenses arising from 

such problems as homelessness, substance abuse, and mental illness. 

Law enforcement agencies spend disproportionate resources arresting these habitual offenders—resources that would be better 

directed to more serious crimes.

Community Service Providers

Most community-based service providers, including faith-based 

organizations, already serve many individuals returning from jail, 

simply because many in the jail population need the services they 

provide. Jail reentry initiatives help these organizations work more 

effectively with jail-involved clients by improving collaboration, 

resource allocation, and information-sharing among providers and 

criminal justice agencies. 

Victims

Victims of crime, and the groups that represent them, are an important constituency in the reentry process. Most jail inmates are 

charged with misdemeanors, such as possession of drugs or public 

misconduct, but others are charged with more serious offenses 

involving another person. Victims understand firsthand the importance of protecting the public from future offending. In some 

instances, such as domestic violence situations, there is a great risk 

that a past victim could be victimized again. By focusing on inmate behavior change and risk reduction, jail reentry efforts also 

support the long-term interests of victims, preventing new crimes 

and reducing the likelihood of revictimization.

The General Public

The high rates of recidivism among released inmates make us all 

stakeholders in the jail reentry process. Along with improving 

public safety, a reentry initiative can lead to healthier neighborhoods by addressing homelessness, unemployment, substance abuse, 

and infectious diseases. Curbing recidivism can also lower criminal 

justice costs. At the same time, there may be concerns within the 

general public about the jail reentry initiative. While individuals 

have always returned from jail to the community, a jail reentry 

effort may bring this dynamic to the public’s attention for the first 

time and cause anxiety. Education on the public safety and resource 

issues involved, coupled with extensive outreach to the community, 

can help allay this anxiety. A joint education and outreach approach 

that includes many stakeholders, particularly from law enforcement, 

may be the most effective way to gain the public’s support.

Employers

Employers are a critical stakeholder in any reentry initiative. Because many jail inmates are only incarcerated for a few days, or 

even a few hours, some can return to previously held jobs. Many 

others, however, need assistance in finding a job or learning vocational skills. Ensuring that released inmates have stable employment is an important way to keep them from returning to jail. Reentry efforts should therefore involve employers, some of whom 

may already employ formerly incarcerated individuals or even 

current inmates under work-release programs. Elected officials can 

be instrumental in garnering employer support and establishing 

incentives, such as tax breaks, for hiring former inmates.

The Courts

As jail inmates are in various stages of the criminal justice process, 

the courts have tremendous interest and sway in what happens 

with the jail population. Pretrial service programs operated by the 

courts have contact with the jail population early in the process. 

These programs can conduct assessments and play an important 

role in release planning. Many judges are interested in utilizing 

any potentially effective behavior-change intervention, and their 

sentencing decisions can determine what in-jail programming individuals can complete, and even what programming is mandatory. 

The Elected Official’s Toolkit for Jail Reentry
Probation and Parole

Many individuals admitted to jail are probation or parole violators. 

Some will again be under supervision upon release. These supervision agencies have valuable information to share about many jail 

inmates, and they can play a key role in brokering—and requiring—services and treatment upon release. 

Released Inmates and Their Families

Many people end up in jail repeatedly because they struggle with 

serious and frequently co-occurring problems, such as substance 

abuse, housing instability, joblessness, and mental illness. After release, these individuals face significant obstacles, and as a result, 

many will return to jail within a short time. This cycle causes serious hardship to their families. The absence of a spouse, parent, or 

adult caretaker disrupts families and creates financial difficulties. 

Children of incarcerated parents are particularly vulnerable. Providing formerly incarcerated men and women with the services 

they need helps to break this cycle of recidivism and allows them 

to live more stable and productive lives. Families are key supports 

for inmates’ eventual success and are perhaps the greatest beneficiaries of that success.
Support for 

Reentry

Elected officials who get involved in jail reentry are likely to find broad support for reentry initiatives in their communities. According to a 2006 Zogby poll conducted for the 

National Council on Crime and Delinquency,1 the U.S. voting 

public is in favor of providing reentry services to nonviolent 

offenders by almost an eight to one margin. In fact, 70 percent 

support providing services both while inmates are incarcerated 

and after their release. 

Reflecting this public sentiment, a wide variety of local, state, 

and national organizations have voiced support for efforts to improve reentry outcomes. More than 200 organizations supported 

the passage of the Second Chance Act, a 2008 law designed to 

improve outcomes for people returning to communities from 

prisons and jails. This included diverse groups, such as the National 

Alliance for the Mentally Ill, American Conservative Union, Children’s Defense Fund, Christian Coalition, NAACP, and American 

Bar Association—organizations that represent many different interests and come from both sides of the political aisle. What unifies 

them is an understanding that reentry provides a major opportunity to increase public safety and reduce criminal justice costs.

Reentry initiatives have also found extensive support among 

the various stakeholders directly involved in the jail reentry process. These groups favor greater collaboration on the reentry issue 

and are ready and willing to work with elected officials to improve 

reentry outcomes. Key groups that have been particularly strong 

advocates of reentry efforts are profiled below.

Elected Officials

Several groups representing state and local elected officials have 

been active in reentry issues, including the U.S. Conference of 

Mayors, the National Association of Counties, the National 

League of Cities, the Council of State Governments, the National 

Conference of State Legislatures, and the National Governors Association. For example, the U.S. Conference of Mayors has established the Ex-Offender Reentry Task Force to highlight strategies 

for improving reentry outcomes. In February 2008, the task force 

(in partnership with the nonprofit organization Public/Private 

Ventures) convened the Mayor’s Summit on Reentry and Employment to discuss the impact of reentry on cities and to share 

information on effective reentry programs across the country. At 

the federal level, members of Congress gave broad bipartisan support to the Second Chance Act.

Community-Based Organizations

Community-based organizations, which provide such services as 

substance abuse counseling and mental health treatment, are critical to the success of any reentry initiative. These groups tend to 

be strong supporters of reentry efforts and have often taken the 

lead in local reentry initiatives. For this reason, national organizations such as Goodwill Industries, the Corporation for Supportive Housing, and Big Brothers Big Sisters of America, along with 

many local service providers, strongly supported passage of the 

Second Chance Act. A number of faith-based groups also supported the law, including the Salvation Army, Lutheran Services of 

America, and Catholic Charities USA. Across the United States, 

the faith community provides both crucial reentry services and 

informal social support to people returning from jails. Faith-based 

organizations are key stakeholders in jail reentry and are often active participants in reentry initiatives.

Jails

The American Jail Association, the professional association representing jail administrators, recently passed a resolution stating 

that “re-entry programs are in the best interest of society because 

they help prepare offenders for community life, help reduce future criminal behavior, remove the barriers that make it difficult 

for offenders to re-enter their communities and develop necessary 

community support.”2

 The American Correctional Association, 

which represents both jail and prison professionals, has adopted 

a similar position on reentry efforts, and both organizations fully 

supported passage of the Second Chance Act.

Probation and Parole

The American Probation and Parole Association (APPA), an 

organization representing probation officers and administrators, actively supports reentry initiatives. In the words of Carl 

Wicklund, the executive director of the APPA, “Jail reentry is 

an often overlooked process—one that requires the attention of 

local leadership because of its complexity and the large number 

of stakeholders involved in the process. Jail reentry initiatives 

that facilitate a smooth transition for people leaving jail can reduce the need for costly interventions later in the process and 

allow probation officers to focus on the individuals who pose the 

greatest risk to public safety.”3

The Elected Official’s Toolkit for Jail Reentry
Law Enforcement

Several law enforcement associations have supported reentry legislation, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police 

(IACP), the National Sheriffs’ Association, the Fraternal Order of 

Police, and the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF). IACP 

(2007) published a comprehensive resource guide, “Building an 

Offender Reentry Program: A Guide for Law Enforcement,” 

which outlines ways for law enforcement to participate in reentry 

initiatives.4 PERF has also sought to expand the involvement of 

law enforcement in reentry initiatives. In 2008, PERF partnered 

with the Council of State Governments Justice Center to develop 

a report, “Planning and Assessing a Law Enforcement Reentry 

Strategy,”5 and selected four law enforcement agencies to serve as 

sites for implementing the report’s recommendations.

Prosecutors and Defenders

In 2005, the National District Attorneys Association (NDAA), a 

professional association for prosecutors, adopted a resolution calling 

for an increased role for prosecutors in reentry issues. The resolution states that “America’s prosecutors should, where practicable, be 

participants in addressing this issue in an effort to reduce recidivism 

and ensure the safety of victims and the community.”6

 The resolution emphasizes providing programs for inmates both during and 

after incarceration. The American Bar Association (ABA) also favors greater attorney involvement in promoting successful reentry. 

Through its Reentry and Collateral Consequences Committee, the 

ABA provides reentry education and resources for its members. 

The Federal Government

The federal government is actively engaged in reentry efforts that 

include a variety of grants to organizations, states, and local governments. Most prominently, the 2008 Second Chance Act authorized funding for grants to help local and state governments 

and Indian tribes develop comprehensive reentry initiatives, as 

well as for nonprofit organizations to provide mentoring services 

to released inmates. Funding for Second Chance Act programs 

increased from $25 million in fiscal year 2009 to $100 million in 

fiscal year 2010.

1 Krisberg, Barry, and Susan Marchionna. 2006. “Attitudes of U.S. Voters toward 

Prisoner Rehabilitation and Reentry Policies.” Focus: Views from the National Council 

on Crime and Delinquency. http://nccd-crc.issuelab. org/research/listing/attitudes_of_

us_voters_toward_prisoner_rehabilitation_and_reentry_policies_focus.

2 Adopted May 3, 2008, by the AJA Board of Directors in Sacramento, CA: http://

www.aja.org/resolutions.aspx#re_entry_of_offenders.

3 Personal communication with the authors, August 5, 2009.

4 International Association of Chiefs of Police. 2007. “Building an Offender Reentry Program: A Guide for Law Enforcement.” http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/

pdf/Reentry_LE.pdf.

5 Swarzfeld, Matt, Deirdre Mead Weiss, Martha Plotkin, and Laura Draper. 2008. 

“Planning and Assessing a Law Enforcement Reentry Strategy.” 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. New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center. http://reentrypolicy.

org/jc_publications/LE_toolkit_ final/LE_Reentry_Strategy.pdf.

6 National District Attorneys Association. 2005. “Policy Positions on Prisoner Reentry Issues.” http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/policy_position_prisoner_reentry_july_

17_05.pdf.
TJC Overview

The Transition from Jail to Community initiative (TJC) was launched in 2007 through a cooperative agreement between 

the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) and the Urban Institute to develop and implement an effective jail-to-community 

transition model. Rather than a discrete reentry program, TJC is 

a comprehensive systems approach for improving public safety 

and reintegration. TJC solicits partnerships among criminal justice 

agencies, community-based organizations, and other stakeholders. 

Under the TJC model, these agencies use a collaborative, datadriven approach to provide services and supervision to the inmates who need them most. 

At the system level, the TJC model focuses on

7 Leadership, vision, and organizational culture to set 

expectations and empower stakeholders and staff;

7 Collaborative structure and joint ownership by both 

jail and community stakeholders to develop and share responsibility for joint outcomes of interest;

7 Data-driven understanding of the local issue, including characteristics of the returning population and local

barriers and assets;

7 Targeted intervention strategies to assess individuals, 

plan for release, and provide services and training in jail and 

in the community; and

7 Self-evaluation and sustainability to guide and improve 

the effort.

At the level of targeted interventions for individuals, the TJC 

model includes

7 Screening and assessment to quickly determine an inmate’s 

risks and needs and guide transition planning and service 

provision;

7 Transition case plan development to prepare individuals 

for release and reintegration; and

7 Tailored transition interventions that begin in jail and 

continue after release. Interventions should

● Enlist multiple service sectors;

● Involve community in-reach to build relationships before release;

● Use low-cost interventions, such as reentry resource 

guides;

● Involve informal support networks; and

● Enhance the role that supervision can play, when applicable.

The TJC Sites

Two TJC learning sites—Denver, Colorado, and Douglas County, 

Kansas—began implementing the model in September 2008. Under the guidance of NIC and the Urban Institute, these sites have 

built a collaborative structure among criminal justice agencies and 

community organizations in which jail reentry is a central, and 

shared, focus. Both sites are also in the process of implementing a 

The Elected Official’s Toolkit for Jail Reentry Improved Outcomes

System Elements

Intervention Elements

Targeted

intervention

strategies

Data-driven

understanding of 

local reentry

Collaborative

structure and

joint ownership

Leadership, vision,

and organizational

culture 

Self-evaluation

and

sustainability

+ + + +

Screening &

Assessment

Targeted Interventions

JAIL COMMUNITY

Transition Plan

Information & referrals Case management Formal services Informal support systems Supervision

The TJC Model
screening and assessment system to strategically allocate intervention resources to the highest-risk and highest-need individuals.

These sites have used TJC participation to add greater focus 

and direction to their preexisting reentry efforts. The need for a 

reentry effort in Douglas County became especially clear when 

the county’s relatively new jail, built in 1999 to deal with a growing number of inmates, became full after less than 10 years. Realizing that continuing to build new jails was neither financially 

feasible nor sustainable, Douglas County decided to pursue a systems change effort focused on improving reentry outcomes and 

reducing recidivism.

In both Denver and Douglas County, elected officials have 

played a key role in the TJC implementation process.

7 Mayor John Hickenlooper of Denver, concerned about 

recidivism and jail overcrowding, created a Crime Prevention and Control Commission (CPCC), which brings together individuals from criminal justice, service provider, 

and other agencies to address these issues. The CPCC has 

taken a lead role in Denver’s TJC work. As Mayor Hickenlooper said, “Technical assistance from the National Institute 

of Corrections and Urban Institute on the Transition from 

Jail to Community initiative will enhance our comprehensive model and maximize cost-effective reintegration of our 

citizens into our community.”1

7 Charles Jones, Douglas County Commissioner, was 

interested in both increasing individual reentry success and 

reducing criminal justice costs at the time of TJC selection. 

“In addition to advancing an enlightened manner of dealing with jail inmates and increasing the likelihood of their 

healthy return to the community, the reentry initiative holds 

our best hope for reducing the spiraling costs associated 

with incarceration and recidivism.”2

The TJC initiative expanded in September 2009 with the selection of four additional sites: Orange County, California; Kent 

County, Michigan; La Crosse County, Wisconsin; and Davidson 

County, Tennessee. These four sites have mirrored the progress 

made in Denver and Douglas County by implementing screening 

and assessment processes, expanding evidence-based interventions 

for the jail population, enhancing collaboration between correctional agencies and community service providers, and developing 

orgaizational structures to carry forth reentry efforts over time.

More Information and Resources

For in-depth information about all six sites and about the elements 

and structure of TJC, please visit the TJC web site at http://

www.jailtransition.com. The TJC Implementation Toolkit, a 

free, interactive web resource for starting a TJC initiative, is also 

available at http://www.jailtransition.com/Toolkit.

1 Personal communication, September 17, 2008.

2 Personal communication, September 12, 2008. 
Second Chance Act

I

n April 2008, President George W. Bush signed Public Law 110-

119, more commonly known as the Second Chance Act. This 

landmark legislation, which has both symbolic and practical value, 

authorizes the federal government to make substantial investments 

in reentry initiatives at the local level. Federal grant funding for reentry efforts is appropriated by Congress and administered by the 

Departments of Justice and Labor. In fiscal year 2009, the Second 

Chance Act funded reentry demonstration grants to state, local, 

and tribal governments for the development of comprehensive 

reentry initiatives. A separate grant program provided funding to 

nonprofit organizations to provide mentoring. Those grant programs have been supplemented in fiscal year 2010 with new grant 

programs in the areas of reentry courts, correctional education, 

technology careers training, and substance abuse programming.

The Second Chance Act is intended to1

7 break the cycle of criminal recidivism, increase public safety, 

and help states, local units of government, and Indian 

tribes better address the growing population of criminal 

offenders who return to their communities and commit 

new crimes;

7 rebuild ties between offenders and their families, while the 

offenders are incarcerated, and after reentry into the community, to promote stable families and communities;

7 encourage the development and support of, and expand 

the availability of, evidence-based programs that enhance 

public safety and reduce recidivism, such as substance abuse 

treatment, alternatives to incarceration, and comprehensive 

reentry services;

7 protect the public and promote law-abiding conduct by 

providing necessary services to offenders, while the offenders are incarcerated and after reentry into the community, in 

a manner that does not confer luxuries or privileges upon 

such offenders;

7 assist offenders reentering the community from incarceration to establish a self-sustaining and law-abiding life by 

providing sufficient transitional services for as short of a period as practicable; and

7 provide offenders in prisons, jails, or juvenile facilities with 

educational, literacy, vocational, and job placement services 

to facilitate reentry into the community.

For fiscal year 2009, Congress appropriated $25 million for 

Second Chance Act programs, including $15 million for state and 

local reentry demonstration projects. In fiscal year 2010, the appropriation amount increased to $100 million. Future appropriations will provide an excellent opportunity for local jurisdictions 

to expand existing reentry initiatives or develop new and innovative programs. 

Before jurisdictions can apply for Second Chance Act funding, they must meet several criteria. Elected officials in interested 

jurisdictions should be aware of these criteria and work with the 

appropriate stakeholders to ensure that the community is wellpositioned to secure a grant. The Second Chance Act criteria are 

key components of any effective reentry initiative, and adhereing 

to them will ensure a stronger and more successful effort.

Among the criteria for Second Chance Act reentry demonstration grant funding are the following:

7 Reentry Task Force: Grant applicants are required to have 

a reentry task force that will be responsible for coordinating 

the reentry initiative. This task force must be composed of 

local leaders (such as elected officials) and representatives 

from relevant agencies, such as jails, community-based organizations, law enforcement, probation and parole, health and 

human services, housing agencies, and workforce development boards.

7 Involvement of Jails and Community Corrections: 

Applicants are expected to provide a thorough accounting 

of the role of corrections in the reentry initiative to ensure the support and buy-in of key stakeholders, such as jail 

administrators, sheriffs, pretrial services, and probation and 

parole.

7 Strategic Plan: Applicants must submit a comprehensive 

strategic plan that includes annual and five-year performance goals. This plan should provide performance measures, an implementation schedule, plans for continuing the 

initiative once funding has ended, and a description of each 

organization’s role in the initiative. 

7 Performance Measures: Applicants must detail how the 

outcomes of their initiative will be monitored. Elected 

officials should guide the development of the measures 

they will use to hold the reentry initiative accountable for 

performance.

7 Regulatory Barriers: Applicants are required to submit a 

plan for analyzing the statutory and regulatory barriers that 

face ex-offenders. Examples include the loss of government 

benefits, including Medicaid eligibility; restrictions against 

enrollment in affordable housing, education, or employment 

programs; and voter disenfranchisement. 

The Elected Official’s Toolkit for Jail Reentry
Although these are the major criteria that applicants must 

meet, the law includes other requirements and suggestions for 

those seeking a grant. The National Reentry Resource Center 

(NRRC), established by the Second Chance Act to provide information and support services to reentry efforts nationwide, can 

help jurisdictions meet these guidelines and prepare successful 

applications. Launched in October 2009, the NRRC provides 

information, tools, and resources on its web site, http://www.

nationalreentryresourcecenter.org. The NRRC is administered by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of 

Justice, and is a project of the Council of State Governments 

Justice Center, with key project partners the Urban Institute, the 

American Probation and Parole Association, and the Association 

of State Corrections Administrators. 

1 U.S. Congress. 2008. Public Law 110-199. 110th Congress, Apr. 8.
Get Involved

Jail reentry initiatives need the support of local elected officials to be successful. Despite broad interest in reentry 

initiatives among the agencies and organizations that serve the 

jail population, these groups often work with this population in 

isolation from one another. Many communities have not established processes for cross-agency information-sharing, continuity of services between the jail and community, or performance 

measurement.

The role of elected officials is to provide vision and leadership, 

harness community interest, promote sustainable collaborations, 

and provide ongoing support for effective reentry programs and 

practices. The active involvement of elected officials lends credibility to reentry initiatives, and they are in a unique position to 

convene the necessary stakeholders to launch a reentry effort. 

Once such an effort is under way, elected officials can sustain 

partnerships, make decisions for the group, hold stakeholders accountable for accomplishing the goals of the initiative, and spread 

the word about the importance of the problem—and, ultimately, 

about the success of the initiative. 

Below are some of the ways in which elected officials can 

strengthen a reentry initiative and ensure its continued success.

Leadership and Vision

With so many stakeholders involved in the jail reentry process, 

building a consensus on goals, strategies, and resource allocation is 

an ongoing challenge. Leadership from elected officials is critical 

in developing an elevating vision, mission, and direction across a 

range of groups. Elected officials should establish objectives, build 

the necessary buy-in among stakeholders, and set a vision for 

change that motivates others.

7 Articulate a vision of how the jail reentry initiative will benefit the community. 

7 Develop a mission statement.

7 Engage the community and become a public voice for reentry initiatives.

Collaboration

Successful jail reentry initiatives require participation from local 

jails, community-based organizations, law enforcement, courts, 

probation, and government service providers. Building collaboration, coordination, and a sense of shared responsibility among 

these organizations is key to the success of any reentry initiative. 

Elected officials have a variety of tools at their disposal to support 

the development of necessary partnerships. They are well-positioned 

to bring stakeholders together and facilitate collaboration among 

diverse groups.

7 Establish a local reentry coordinating council or similar governing body. If one already exists, get actively involved.

7 Emphasize collective ownership over jail reentry among 

participating organizations.

7 Encourage stakeholders to communicate, cooperate, share 

resources, and jointly resolve problems.

Ordinances, Policies, and Legislation

Perhaps the most obvious way for elected officials to get involved in a jail reentry initiative is through the legislative process. 

In fact, many jurisdictions have established reentry coordinating 

councils through authorizing legislation (see the Local Legislation page for an example). Legislation can also be used to reduce 

barriers to successful transition. A recent survey of the mayors of 

79 cities found that 36 percent of the cities have made changes 

in ordinances or policies to improve the odds that ex-offenders 

can successfully transition back to the community.1 Among these 

cities, 77 percent made changes related to employment, and 58 

percent made changes related to housing accessibility. Elected 

officials also hold the power of the purse and should use it to 

support programs that work.

7 Develop legislation to formalize a reentry coordinating 

council.

7 Assess barriers to successful reentry that can be addressed 

through legislation or executive action, such as employer 

discrimination against those with a criminal record or restrictions on where former inmates can reside.

7 Provide fiscal incentives and reward successful reentry 

programs.

Oversight and Accountability

Given both the promise and the complexity of jail reentry initiatives, evaluation and performance measurement should be a top 

priority to determine whether the effort is working. As part of this 

The Elected Official’s Toolkit for Jail Reentry
process, elected officials should require reentry programs to collect and report data on released inmates’ outcomes. They should 

provide ongoing oversight to ensure that resources are being used 

efficiently and that ineffective strategies or programs are modified 

or terminated.

7 Ensure that agencies continuously work to sustain, evaluate, 

improve, and expand their reentry efforts.

7 Develop performance measures related to recidivism and 

hold agencies accountable for meeting specific goals.

7 Establish performance-based contracts for community providers that work with the jail population.

1 U.S. Conference of Mayors. 2009. “Status of Ex-Offender Reentry Efforts in Cities: 

A 79-City Survey.” Washington, DC: City Policy Associates. http://usmayors.org/

pressreleases/uploads/REENTRYREPORT09.pdf.
Profiles of 

Reentry Champions

Mayor Michael Bloomberg, New York City

During Michael Bloomberg’s tenure as mayor, New York City 

has made enormous strides in addressing the needs of people 

returning from jail. Since he was first elected in 2001, Mayor 

Bloomberg has provided the vision, leadership, and monetary support necessary develop an extensive range of reentry initiatives 

and programs.

One such effort is the New York City Discharge Planning 

Collaboration, a network of roughly 40 local government agencies and community-based nonprofits. It began in 2003, when 

Commissioners Martin Horn of the Department of Correction 

(DOC) and Linda Gibbs of the Department of Homeless Services discovered that a large 

proportion of individuals who frequent the jail 

were homeless. Recognizing their common ground, 

the two commissioners 

embarked on a project to 

effect system-wide change 

by increasing coordination between the criminal 

justice and social service 

spheres. In 2004, Mayor 

Bloomberg signed legislation codifying the collaboration’s efforts into law and mandating that the DOC take several 

steps to improve reentry, including data collection, informationsharing, and provision of services to inmates. According to collaboration members, Mayor Bloomberg fostered an organizational 

culture conducive to a collaborative approach, encouraging city 

agencies to “think beyond [their] four walls” and providing a “vision from the top” that was key to the effort’s success.2

Another reentry effort that has benefited from Mayor Bloomberg’s support is the Rikers Island Discharge Enhancement Program (RIDE). Initiated in 2003, RIDE facilitates a seamless transition from jail, providing inmates with prerelease discharge planning, transportation to housing or social services on the day of 

release, and continuing postrelease case management. As Mayor 

Bloomberg describes RIDE, “instead of simply opening the cell 

doors and letting people fend for themselves, we work with them 

beforehand to assess their needs and create a plan for where they 

will go and what they will do after they’re discharged. If they don’t 

have a plan, then they don’t have a chance.”

Along with supporting and encouraging these efforts, Mayor 

Bloomberg has publicly championed the importance of reentry. In 

2008, as part of the keynote address at the Mayors Summit on Reentry and Employment, Mayor Bloomberg explained that focusing on reentry “is much more than simply a public safety imperative. It’s also an opportunity to strike a blow against poverty,” noting that those who return from incarceration are “the same people 

who depend on our Human Resources Administration for food 

stamps and rental subsidies... [and] who visit our public hospitals 

and clinics for drug treatment and emergency care.” Finally, he 

emphasized that reentry efforts remain critically important even 

in difficult economic times: “Right now, all of us are facing tough 

budgets—but we can’t let that be an excuse for failing in our responsibility. We can’t let a life of crime become the default option.”

Commissioner Lisa Naito, 

Multnomah County, Oregon

Lisa Naito served on the Multnomah County Board of Commissioners from 1998 until 2008. During her 10 years on the Board, 

Commissioner Naito was actively involved in improving the jail 

reentry process in Multnomah County. In her capacity as an elected official, 

Commissioner Naito assumed a leadership role on 

the issue, brought together 

a diverse group of stakeholders, championed reentry initiatives in the community, and worked to pass 

local legislation that would 

improve reentry outcomes.

While on the Board of 

Commissioners, Commissioner Naito also served as 

the chair of the National 

Association of Counties’ 

Justice and Public Safety 

Committee as well as the chair of the Multnomah County Local Public Safety Coordinating Council. By serving in these roles, 

Commissioner Naito established herself as a local and national 

leader on criminal justice reform issues, including jail reentry. As a 

result, Commissioner Naito was among a select group of lawmakThe Elected Official’s Toolkit for Jail Reentry

“All too often, [released 

inmates] come back to 

a world with limited 

opportunities . . . We 

have a responsibility to 

. . . help more of them 

take full advantage 

of the second chance 

they’ve been given.” 1

“We know that linking 

supportive services, 

such as housing, jobs, 

addiction treatment, 

health and mental 

health programs, goes a 

long way in preventing 

recidivism. With these 

kinds of supports, 

people are far less 

likely to end up in our 

County jail again.” 3
7 Plan for inmate transition to the community to prevent 

recidivism.

7 Establish a prerelease work release center to increase 

stable employment opportunities prior to returning to the 

community.

7 Institute a community-based one-stop reentry center to 

support ex-offenders.

7 Evaluate the outcomes of the reentry programs by using 

performance measures and quality assurance evaluations.

In December 2008, less than two months after the work group 

released its final report, the Multnomah County Board of Commissioners established the Council on Successful Reentry from Jail 

to Community to implement the work group’s recommendations.

1 All quotes from Mayor Bloomberg given here are from his 2008 keynote address 

at the Mayors Summit on Reentry and Employment, http://www.ppv.org/ppv/

initiative.asp?section_id=0&initiative_id=44.

2 Montero, Gabriel. 2007. “Mapping the Universe of Reentry: The New York City 

Discharge Planning Collaboration.” New York: New York City Department of Correction. http://www.nyc.gov/html/doc/downloads/pdf/discharge_planning.pdf.

3 Naito, Lisa, et al. 2008. “Transitioning from Jail to Community: Improving Reentry Outcomes in Multnomah County, a Report.” http://web.multco.us/sites/

default/files/documents/transitioningfromjailtocommunityareport10-30-08.pdf.

4 Ibid.

ers and advocates invited to the White House in April 2008 to 

attend President George W. Bush’s signing of the Second Chance 

Act.

In fall 2008, Commissioner Naito convened an informal work 

group to discuss strategies for improving reentry outcomes in Multnomah County. The work group included the Multnomah County 

sheriff and other representatives from the Sheriff’s Office, a representative from the U.S. Department of Justice, and other key stakeholders. Under Commissioner Naito’s leadership, the work group 

issued a report4 outlining several recommendations for improved 

reentry in Multnomah County, including the following:

7 Establish a reentry council to oversee and coordinate reentry services.

7 Articulate a mission statement on jail reentry to reflect 

Multnomah County’s commitment to promote positive 

change.

7 Adopt a validated risk and needs assessment tool to ensure that reentry planning begins at jail booking.

7 Bring community programming into the jails to link 

inmates to programs prior to release.

7 Increase the connections between the jail and community 

programs.
Examples of 

Reentry Initiatives

Hampden County, Massachusetts

In Hampden County, three-quarters of inmates released from the 

jail return to inner-city neighborhoods, and half are released with 

no community supervision. Since the 1990s, the 

Hampden County Sheriff’s 

Department has worked to 

address these individuals’ 

needs through a comprehensive reentry initiative 

and a nationally replicated 

health program. The Sheriff’s Department and its 

partners have implemented 

a variety of efforts that advance the county’s vision 

of reentry as a continuum 

from jail to the community. Services are provided 

in the jail, concentrated 

at the moment of release, 

continued after release, and 

coordinated with existing 

community services.

Key elements of the Hampden County initiative include the 

following:

7 Partnerships and collaboration. The Sheriff’s Department partners with other criminal justice agencies and over 

200 service providers in its reentry efforts.

7 Assessment of needs. Every inmate undergoes a risk and 

needs assessment that informs programming, case management, classification, and release planning.

7 Mandatory in-jail programming and services. While 

incarcerated, inmates are required to attend certain programs depending upon their identified risk level and needs. 

The jail also provides inmates with mentors to support their 

rehabilitation.

7 Community in-reach. Community organizations provide programming and case management in the jail, and inmates meet with service providers, including an education 

counselor and case workers, while incarcerated.

7 Service and transition planning. Individualized treatment plans guide services both in the jail and after release. Inmates leave jail with a release plan that contains 

referrals, contact and appointment information, and other 

information.

7 Post-release services in the community. After release 

from jail, inmates can continue to receive services through 

the After Incarceration Support System (AISS) program. 

Released inmates have access to case management, support 

groups, drop-in hours with counselors, and follow-up with 

mentors.

7 Lower-security options. In 1986, Hampden County established the nation’s first day reporting center, which allows individuals to continue serving their sentences while 

living at home. Jail inmates can work toward lower security 

classifications, including day reporting, by participating in 

programs and demonstrating an interest in addressing their 

needs. This process saves jail bed days and connects inmates 

to community providers.

7 Self-evaluation. Since 1998, Hampden County’s reentry 

initiative has been monitoring its progress by tracking recidivism rates and other key indicators among sentenced inmates. 

For example, since making program participation mandatory 

in 2001, Hampden County has seen the percentage of offenders released from lower security increase from 38 percent 

to 66 percent in 2008.2

 The one-year reincarceration rate declined from 31 percent in 2001 to 23 percent in 2007.3

While reentry services originally focused on sentenced inmates 

only, the Sheriff’s Department decided to provide these services to 

the full jail population in 2009. Sheriff Michael Ashe, Jr., who was 

determined to keep reentry efforts from falling victim to a 10 percent cut in the department’s budget, chose instead to expand the 

program by using department resources more strategically. Sheriff 

Ashe recognized that, along with helping inmates, this expansion 

would save costs by reducing the length of time inmates remain 

in the facility. A pilot test of the program expansion, in fact, found 

that unsentenced, pretrial inmates were released an average of 17 

days earlier due to participation in programs that target their individual needs (and thus prepare them for lower security levels, and 

release, sooner than business-as-usual). 

A part of Hampden County’s widely recognized reentry initiative involves its nationally replicated model for improving public 

health. This model, which has evolved into Community Oriented 

Correctional Health Services (COCHS), pairs inmates diagnosed 

with chronic illnesses with a case manager and a physician, who 

are dually-based in the jail and a community health center. 

The Elected Official’s Toolkit for Jail Reentry

“Sometimes I think 

that because we at the 

Hampden County 

Sheriff’s Department 

believe in inmates 

answering the bell each 

morning for productive 

activities, people confuse 

us with being soft. 

Quite the opposite—

allowing inmates to 

hang around all day 

with nothing to do is 

my idea of being soft.”1

~ Hampden County Sheriff 

Michael Ashe
Together, they treat and educate inmates in the jail and set up appointments for them upon release. A 2004 evaluation found that 

the program significantly improved released inmates’ physical and 

mental health outcomes and that continuing with the same health 

provider after release from jail increased the use of health care 

services in the community.4

An important element of any reentry initiative is being open to 

trying new ideas, tracking the effectiveness of new programs, and 

retaining those that work. The Hampden County initiative has 

implemented several innovative measures, including

7 Mentors in the jail and community, many of whom are volunteers and ex-offenders;

7 A portfolio of documents (including identification, health 

card, and résumé) provided to all inmates;

7 A requirement that inmates spend 40 hours per week in 

programs and work assignments;

7 Job placement by Sheriff’s Department job developers; and

7 Special reentry and intervention services for two groups: the 

highest-risk offenders and those with co-occurring mental 

health and substance abuse problems.

Denver, Colorado

Jail reentry in Denver is a collaborative effort, relying on strong 

partnerships among criminal justice agencies, local government, 

and community-based organizations. Denver, which operates two 

separate jail facilities, has undertaken a variety of initiatives to 

tackle recidivism and related problems among its jail population. 

These efforts have been spearheaded by the Crime Prevention 

and Control Commission (CPCC), in close collaboration with 

the Denver Sheriff Department. The CPCC is a body formed in 

2005 to reduce crime and recidivism and to make better use of 

jail resources.2 Funded by the City and County of Denver and established under Mayor John Hickenlooper’s leadership, the CPCC 

brings together 32 representatives and top officials from criminal 

justice agencies, government, and the community. CPCC initiatives include re-visioning and implementation of Denver’s Drug 

Court, implementation of a comprehensive gang prevention and 

reduction model, jail-based mental health transition units, and efforts to identify and address causes of racial and gender disparity 

in the adult and juvenile justice systems in Denver.

The CPCC acts as the central hub of, and provides leadership 

and support for, Denver’s reentry process. Since 2006, the CPCC’s 

Community Reentry Committee has worked to establish a reentry process that includes both pre- and postrelease components. 

Within the Denver County Jail, the Life Skills Program offers a 

range of classes and case management services for eligible inmates. 

The program offers cognitive-behavioral classes and courses in 

job readiness, healthy lifestyles, treatment readiness, parenting, and 

other areas. In addition to 

the Life Skills program, the 

jail offers classes in GED 

preparation, anger management, domestic violence, and substance abuse 

to all inmates. 

As part of the transition process, staff at Denver’s Community Reentry 

Project (CRP) work with 

jail-based Life Skills case 

managers to facilitate the 

classes and build relationships with those soon to be 

released to the community. 

Participants in the Life 

Skills program are encouraged to receive continued services after 

release at the CRP, which opened in 2007 and provides case management, job readiness, housing assistance, referrals, and other services to individuals transitioning from jail. Funded by the CPCC, 

the CRP relies on its staff and community-based organizations to 

provide the many services it offers. Jail and CRP staff share client information and work closely together to ensure a seamless 

reentry process. 

The CPCC was critical to Denver’s selection in 2008 as a 

learning site for the Transition from Jail to Community (TJC) initiative. The CPCC’s collaborative structure provided a strong base 

for the initiative, which seeks to improve the jail transition process 

through a systems change approach. TJC has helped to shape Denver’s reentry strategy by emphasizing joint ownership of the issue 

by the jail and community, better matching of inmates to services, 

effective use of data, and evidence-based programming. In 2009, 

Denver began implementation of a system to prioritize those inmates most in need of help, as identified by screening and assessment. Denver has also worked to evaluate the content of both 

in-jail and CRP programming to determine how to better integrate evidence-based practices and make programs more consistent 

between the two locations.

1 Excerpt from his National Correctional Officers Week Address, http://www.

hcsdmass.org/excerptnatcorr.htm.

2 Personal communication with Martha Lyman, director of research, Hampden 

County Sheriff’s Department, February 5, 2010.

3 Ibid.

4 Hammett, Theodore M., Cheryl Roberts, Sofia Kennedy, and William Rhodes. 

2004. “Evaluation of the Hampden County Public Health Model of Correctional 

Care.” Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.

5 Personal communication, September 17, 2008.

6 For more information about the CPCC, please visit http://www.denvergov.org/

crimeprevention.

“Our Crime 

Prevention and Control 

Commission has made 

great strides to reduce 

overcrowding in our 

jails by implementing 

alternatives to 

incarceration, expediting 

case processing, and 

targeting mental health 

and reentry efforts.”1

~ Denver Mayor John 

Hickenlooper
Local Legislation

New York, New York

In December 2004, the New York City Council enacted legislation 

codifying into law the efforts of the city’s Discharge Planning Collaboration, a jail reentry working body consisting of representatives 

from government agencies, service providers, and other organizations.1

 The law specifies that the city’s Department of Correction 

must track repeat offenders who are homeless; collect information 

on inmates’ housing, employment, and substance abuse needs and 

provide that information to social service providers; make applications for government benefits available to inmates and assist certain 

inmates in preparing the applications; and provide a report to the 

mayor and the Council on the department’s discharge planning efforts and on rates of recidivism among those who have received 

discharge planning services. The last item, in particular, allows these 

elected officials to provide oversight of the department’s efforts and 

determine whether those efforts are effective at reducing recidivism. 

The following is an excerpt from Local Law No. 54:2

A Local Law to amend the administrative code of the 

city of New York, in relation to discharge planning 

services.

Be it enacted by the Council as follows:

Section 1. Declaration of legislative findings and intent. . . . The 

Council finds that assisting inmates in accessing social services 

and government benefits will improve their ability to re-integrate into the community. The Council further finds that codifying into law recent initiatives of city agencies will ensure the 

long-term continuation and expansion of such efforts. Accordingly, the Council declares that it is reasonable and necessary to 

mandate the provision of certain discharge planning services.

2. Title 9 of the administrative code of the city of New York is 

amended by adding new sections 9-127, 9-128 and 9-129 to 

read as follows:

§ 9-127 Housing, employment and sobriety needs. a. The 

department of correction and the department of homeless services shall develop a process for identifying individuals who repeatedly are admitted to city correctional institutions and who, 

in addition, either immediately before their admission to or 

after their release from such institutions, are housed in shelter 

provided by the department of homeless services.

b. The department of correction shall collect, from any sentenced inmate who will serve, after sentencing, ten days or 

more in any city correctional institution, information relating to such inmate’s housing, employment and sobriety needs. 

The department of correction shall, with the consent of such 

inmate, provide such information to any social service organization that is providing discharge planning services to such 

inmate under contract with the department of correction. 

For the purposes of this section and sections 9-128 and 9-129 of 

this title, “discharge planning” shall mean the creation of a plan 

for post-release services and assistance with access to community-based resources and government benefits designed to promote an inmate’s successful reintegration into the community.

§ 9-128 Applications for government benefits. a. The department of correction shall make applications for government 

benefits available to inmates by providing such applications in 

areas accessible to inmates in city correctional institutions. b. 

The department of correction shall provide assistance with the 

preparation of applications for government benefits and identification to sentenced inmates who will serve, after sentencing, thirty days or more in any city correctional institution and 

who receive discharge planning services from the department 

of correction or any social services organization under contract 

with the department of correction, and, in its discretion, to any 

other inmate who may benefit from such assistance.

§ 9-129 Reporting. The commissioner of correction shall 

submit a report to the mayor and the council by October first 

of each year regarding implementation of sections 9-127 and 

9-128 of this title and other discharge planning efforts, and, beginning October first, two thousand eight and annually thereafter, regarding recidivism among inmates receiving discharge 

planning services from the department of correction or any 

social services organization under contract with the department of correction.

Miami-Dade County, Florida 

In November 2005, the Miami-Dade Board of County Commissioners created a Blue Ribbon Advisory Committee to develop recommendations for ways to improve jail reentry outcomes. This committee was made up of representatives from the 

The Elected Official’s Toolkit for Jail Reentry
criminal justice, social services, workforce, and education communities, as well as elected officials. In April 2009, in accordance 

with the committee’s recommendations, the Board of County 

Commissioners adopted legislation creating the Miami-Dade 

County Reentry Council. This legislation outlines the role of 

the committee and mandates that its membership include certain 

office-holders in criminal justice, government, and community 

organizations, as well as two former inmates. An excerpt from 

the legislation follows.3

Resolution creating the Miami-Dade 

County Reentry Council

WHEREAS, the Second Chance Act of 2007, signed into 

law on April 11, 2008, is a federal law designed to ensure safe 

and successful return of prisoners to the community; and

WHEREAS, the Second Chance Act provides grants to 

states and local governments that may be used to promote the 

safe and successful reintegration of prisoners into the community, for programs such as employment services, substance abuse 

treatment, housing, family programming, mentoring, victims 

services, and methods to improve release and revocation decisions using risk-assessment tools; and

WHEREAS, the aforementioned recommendations in the 

Blue Ribbon Advisory Committee’s Final Report are perfectly 

in line with the Second Chance Act in its mission to facilitate 

the successful transition of formerly incarcerated persons back 

into the community; and 

WHEREAS, Resolution 675-08 directed the Mayor to 

apply for, receive and expend any and all grants made available under the Second Chance Act of 2007 for local reentry programs of the type recommended in the Blue Ribbon 

Advisory Committee’s Final Report, and by Resolution No. 

1064-08 directed the County’s federal lobbying team to assist 

the Mayor in identifying and applying for such grants; and

WHEREAS, the United States Department of Justice 

(DOJ), Office of Justice Programs requires local government 

seeking grant funding from its Second Chance Act to establish 

a local reentry entity comprised of relevant agencies, service 

providers, nonprofit organizations, faith-based organizations, 

foundations, and other key stakeholders; and

WHEREAS, the DOJ’s Office of Justice Programs requires such local reentry entities to plan, develop, and establish a local re-entry strategy and a five-year reentry strategic 

plan

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE 

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MIAMIDADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: 

Section 1. The Board herby creates the Miami-Dade Reentry Council to provide a forum for ongoing planning and 

coordination of local reentry services and to prepare a plan for 

implementing the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Advisory Committee Final Report, dated March 28, 2008, as well 

as the aforementioned requirements of the Second Chance 

Act of 2007 and United States Department of Justice, Office 

of Justice Programs. The plan shall include a five-year reentry 

strategic component, which will be updated as appropriate, and 

as required by the United States Department of Justice. The 

plan shall provide for evidence-based methodology and outcome measures for evaluating the efficacy and impact of the 

programs. The plan shall be submitted to the Board within less 

than a year from the effective date of this resolution.

Recommendations of the Miami-Dade County 

Blue Ribbon Advisory Committee

•	 Measure outcomes in pilot programs, and expand services based on demonstrated needs and effectiveness

•	 Convene academic partners to conduct local reentry 

research, including data collection and analysis

•	 Develop a plan for securing local reentry demonstration 

grants through the Second Chance Act

•	 Remove barriers that restrict the employment of former inmates in county government, and reduce housing 

barriers

•	 Adopt standardized processes for assessment, case management, and information sharing

•	 Engage community-based service providers prior to 

release; develop individual release treatment plans; develop interagency agreements to share medical information; and increase funding for critical support services, 

including mental health

1 See the profile of Mayor Michael Bloomberg on the Profiles of Reentry Champions page for more information.

2 Full text of Local Law 54, Introductory Number 310-A, can be accessed at 

http://legistar.council.nyc.gov, by searching for “310” in year 2004.

3 The full text of this bill, Resolution Number 321-09, is available by searching 

for “reentry council” at http://www.miamidade.gov/govaction/searchleg.asp.
Getting Started

Once the decision has been made to launch a collaborative jail reentry initiative, attention should turn to 

building a solid foundation for the effort. Bringing disparate 

stakeholders together, garnering support for a new initiative, 

assigning roles and responsibilities, and making sure that everyone follows through on their commitments are difficult tasks, 

no matter how small the undertaking. Listed below are a number of steps1 that elected officials can take to begin the work 

of getting started. 

Encourage Collaboration among 

Key Stakeholders

Elected officials have unique convening power to bring together 

diverse stakeholders around the issue of jail reentry. 

7 Recognize the complexity of existing systems: Effective reentry requires contributions from distinct and overlapping systems, including criminal justice, mental health, 

substance abuse, and workforce development. The vantage 

point of elected officials may give them a greater understanding of the systems involved than the other stakeholders, 

allowing them to facilitate mutual understanding and broad 

approaches to problem-solving. 

7 Identify key stakeholders and engage them in a discussion regarding reentry: Identifying, let alone including, all the relevant local stakeholders in a jail reentry initiative is very challenging. Elected officials, with their broad 

and deep knowledge of the constituent elements of the 

communities they represent, are uniquely qualified to identify and engage these key stakeholders. This list will contain, 

at a minimum, the sheriff, jail administrator, chief of police, 

probation officials, government social service agencies (state 

and local), community-based organizations, victim advocates, and other elected officials. 

7 Define the scope of the problem: The issues related to 

jail reentry can be daunting to the point of paralyzing an 

effort attempting to address them all immediately. An important role of leadership in establishing the initiative may 

be to focus the effort on a manageable piece of the problem, 

either in terms of issue area (e.g., housing, mental health, 

employment) or target population (e.g., frequent jail users, 

female inmates). 

Develop a Knowledge Base

There is no one-size-fits-all approach to jail reentry, and reentry 

initiatives must be designed to address the problems and resources 

that exist locally. Developing a common knowledge base enhances 

the effectiveness of jail reentry efforts by increasing the likelihood 

that they will focus on the most pressing issues and respond to 

them based on a thorough understanding of the underlying dynamics involved. 

A useful tool for developing this knowledge base is the SARA 

(Scanning, Analysis, Response, and Assessment) model.

7 Scanning: Scan the local jurisdiction to identify the problem on which efforts will be focused.

7 Analysis: Analyze the data to identify the underlying 

cause of the reentry problem being addressed; discover who, 

what, when, where, why, and how to narrow the focus of the 

initiative.

7 Response: Develop a response that is clearly linked to the 

results of the analysis.

7 Assessment: Once a response is developed and implemented, evaluate it to determine whether and the extent to 

which it achieves its goals and was implemented according 

to plan.

Analysis is the main focus of developing a common knowledge 

base. The analysis component of the SARA model as applied to 

reentry includes:

7 Understanding who is entering and being released from the 

jail;

7 Identifying what state and local policies influence and govern reentry;

7 Identifying where released inmates are returning and understanding the characteristics and service capacities of those 

communities;

7 Understanding why released inmates are re-offending; and

7 Understanding how inmates are prepared for release and 

transition to the community.

With this information in hand, the jail reentry effort will be 

ready to devise the specific strategies and activities that will reduce recidivism and improve community reintegration for the jail 

population.

The Elected Official’s Toolkit for Jail Reentry
Choose a Framework for the Effort

Successful jail reentry is a complex endeavor composed of many 

interrelated parts. Devising or adapting a comprehensive framework for the effort situates all the parts within a single “big picture” that will help each involved partner understand how their 

contributions fit within the whole. An example of such a comprehensive framework is the Transition from Jail to Community 

(TJC) model, which consists of five system-level elements:

7 Leadership, vision, and organizational culture

7 Collaborative structure and joint ownership

7 Data-driven understanding of the local issue

7 Targeted intervention strategies

7 Self-evaluation and sustainability 

Detailed information on the TJC model is available at the TJC 

project web site, http://www.jailtransition.com.

1 The first two subsections are adapted from Reentry Policy Council. 2005. “Report of the Re-Entry Policy Council: Charting the Safe and Successful Return of 

Prisoners to the Community.” Washington, DC: Council of State Governments.
Talking Points

Aprepared set of talking points will be helpful in explaining a complex jail reentry undertaking to concerned citizens, 

the media, and various stakeholder groups. Several talking points 

covering the basics of jail reentry are listed here.

Elected officials should adapt this list to their community’s 

needs and modify it based on their target audience. These talking points should also be enhanced with local data on reentry 

and the jail population. Once a reentry initiative is under way, 

talking points will expand to include measures of the initiative’s 

effectiveness, such as recidivism rates, jail population figures, and 

correctional spending. Anecdotal evidence can also illustrate an 

initiative’s successes. This could include examples of released inmates who have benefited from reentry programming or employers who have incorporated inmates into their workforce development plans. Elected officials may also want to develop additional 

talking points describing the current strengths of and gaps in the 

local jail reentry process.

7 Jail reentry affects everyone in the community. 

Along with released inmates and their families, jail reentry directly affects government and community-based 

service providers, employers, law enforcement, probation 

and parole, and other groups. Ultimately, improving the 

jail reentry process is in the best interest of everyone in 

the community.

7 Jail reentry initiatives increase public safety by reducing recidivism. Nearly three-quarters of jail inmates 

have previously been sentenced to either probation or incarceration. Jail reentry initiatives can reduce recidivism 

rates by matching the right services to the right people and 

by increasing information-sharing across the agencies that 

interact with the jail population.

7 Jail reentry initiatives make strategic use of scarce 

resources. Increasing collaboration among jails, community-based service providers, and other groups requires little 

in the way of new funding and holds great potential for 

improving outcomes. Under a jail reentry initiative, jails and 

social service providers collaborate, share information, and 

avoid duplication of effort to ensure that inmates have access 

to the services they need.

7 Many community problems intersect with the jail. 

People who suffer from mental illnesses, substance abuse and 

dependence, unemployment, homelessness, and other problems often wind up in jail. In fact, jails are the largest mental 

health providers in many communities. The jail population 

also experiences much higher rates of chronic and infectious diseases than the general population.

7 By improving outcomes for released inmates, we can 

create a stronger and healthier community. People 

leaving the jail are members of our community. They are 

our fathers and sons, sisters and neighbors. Most were arrested for misdemeanor offenses and were not incarcerated 

for very long, and many pass through the jail without being 

convicted of a crime. Reentry initiatives help these people 

access the services and treatment that they need, thereby 

strengthening families and making the community a better 

place to live.

7 The availability of services in jails is limited. While 

in the jail, most inmates do not receive the treatment they 

need or the services that will increase their chances of success in the community. For example, less than one-fifth of 

convicted inmates who struggle with substance abuse problems receive treatment while incarcerated.1

 By expanding 

programming, assessing inmates’ risks and needs, identifying 

appropriate interventions, and developing reentry plans, jails 

can improve inmates’ reentry outcomes.

7 Community-based services should be offered inside

the jail. Jails can greatly extend their service capacity by 

providing opportunities for community-based organizations 

to bring services into the jail. This approach can also reduce 

interruptions in treatment for inmates who were undergoing care in the community prior to their incarceration.

7 Jails and community-based organizations should 

work together as a network of providers. Jails and service providers interact with many of the same individuals, 

and they have a common interest in the success and rehabilitation of their clients. Given that jail-based services are 

far more effective at reducing recidivism when they are coordinated with services in the community after release, it is 

important for jails and community providers to collaborate 

on reentry efforts and share information on clients.

7 Even modest reductions in recidivism will save taxpayers money. An Urban Institute analysis2

 of the costs 

and benefits of providing jail reentry services suggests that 

reentry programs need only reduce recidivism rates by 2

percent to offset the cost of providing programming. Further reductions in recidivism beyond that level represent the 

potential “profit” to the public from the investment in jail 

reentry programming.

The Elected Official’s Toolkit for Jail Reentry
7 The federal government is making substantial investments in jail reentry initiatives. With the passage of 

the Second Chance Act, the government has signaled that it 

plans to make a long-term investment in reentry. For fiscal 

year 2009, Congress appropriated $25 million for grants to 

local reentry programs, and $100 million was appropriated 

in fiscal year 2010. 

7 A comprehensive jail reentry model has been developed to help communities build a reentry initiative. 

The Transition from Jail to Community initiative focuses on 

systems change and on developing collaborative relationships between the agencies and organizations involved in 

the reentry process. This model offers communities a comprehensive strategy for improving reentry outcomes and increasing public safety.

1 Karberg, Jennifer, and Doris James. 2005. “Substance Dependence, Abuse, and 

Treatment of Jail Inmates, 2002.” NCJ 209588. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/

sdatji02.pdf.

2 Roman, John, and Aaron Chalfin. 2006. “Does It Pay to Invest in Reentry Programs 

for Jail Inmates?” Paper presented at the Jail Reentry Roundtable, June 27–28, 

2006, Washington, DC. http://www.urban.org/projects/reentry-roundtable/upload/

roman_chalfin.pdf. 
PowerPoint 

Template

As elected officials become more involved in jail reentry work, stakeholders will look to them for leadership and vision. This may involve chairing a reentry coordinating body, and 

it will almost certainly involve becoming a champion for the effort. Regardless of whether elected officials play a formal leadership role in the initiative, they will have many opportunities to 

make presentations on local efforts to improve reentry outcomes. 

Whether these presentations are given before the local governing 

body, the state legislature, stakeholder groups, or national research 

and advocacy organizations, they offer a chance to educate others, 

generate support, and promote the initiative.

For these presentations, elected officials may find it helpful to 

have a standard set of talking points and a consistent method for 

delivering the information. PowerPoint presentations are an especially effective tool for condensing complex information and 

making sure that key messages get across to one’s audience. Using 

a standard PowerPoint presentation, tailored to jurisdiction priorities, can also save time and effort.

Included in this toolkit is a PowerPoint template that elected officials can use as a starting point for their reentry presentations. This template covers the main issues related to jail 

reentry, and it may be useful for those who need to assemble 

a presentation quickly. The template leaves space for elected 

officials to craft their own presentation using local data and information. Brackets are used to show where local information 

should be inserted.

An electronic version of this template is available from http://

www.jailtransition.com.

The Elected Official’s Toolkit for Jail Reentry
Resources

This toolkit serves as a starting point for building or expanding a jail reentry initiative. However, it is by no means an 

exhaustive guide to all elements of the complex jail reentry issue. 

Listed below are several key web sites and publications that provide further information for creating and sustaining successful jail 

reentry initiatives.

Web Sites

National Reentry Resource Center

http://www.nationalreentryresourcecenter.org

The National Reentry Resource Center (NRRC) offers an 

extensive collection of reentry information, tools, and resources. Established by the Second Chance Act and launched in fall 

2009, the NRRC is an ongoing project of the Council of State 

Governments (CSG) Justice Center and several partner organizations, with support from the U.S. Department of Justice’s 

Bureau of Justice Assistance. The NRRC provides training, 

technical assistance, and education for reentry efforts across 

the country and has a subcommittee on local government 

co-chaired by CSG and the National Association of Counties 

(NACo).

Transition from Jail to Community Initiative

http://www.jailtransition.com 

This web site provides information on the Transition from Jail to 

Community (TJC) initiative, a joint effort of the National Institute of Corrections and the Urban Institute. The web site features 

information on the TJC model and how it has been implemented 

in six sites, the TJC implementation toolkit, and links to other jail 

reentry resources.

Jail Reentry Roundtable

http://www.urban.org/projects/reentry-roundtable/

roundtable9.cfm

The Jail Reentry Roundtable, an undertaking of the Urban Institute, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, and the Montgomery 

County (Maryland) Department of Correction and Rehabilitation, was held in 2006 with support from the Bureau of Justice 

Assistance. Several papers, presentations, and reports from the 

Roundtable Initiative are available from this web site.

Documents

TJC Implementation Toolkit

Guides readers through the implementation of a comprehensive jail 

reentry initiative based on the Transition from Jail to Community 

model, which emphasizes systems change, interagency collaboration, 

and effective allocation of services according to individual needs. 

(The Urban Institute, 2009, http://www.jailtransition.com/Toolkit)

Life After Lockup: 

Improving Reentry from Jail to the Community

Presents a picture of jail reentry in America, examining opportunities, challenges, strategies, and examples of successful initiatives. 

(The Urban Institute, 2008, http://www.urban.org/publications/

411660.html)

Report of the Re-Entry Policy Council: 

Charting the Safe and Successful Return of 

Prisoners to the Community

Provides extensive and detailed information on the reentry transition process and effective social service provision, and offers 

numerous suggestions for planning and implementing a comprehensive reentry initiative. (Council of State Governments Justice 

Center, 2005, http://www.reentrypolicy.org/Report/toc)

Reentry Resource Guide

Offers an extensive list of reentry resources, organized into subtopics. (Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2009, http://

www.reentrypolicy. org/resources/jc_resources)

Reentry Partnerships: A Guide for States and 

Faith-Based and Community Organizations

Reviews strategies for developing reentry partnerships between criminal justice and community agencies and for making the best use of 

limited resources in a reentry effort. (Council of State Governments 

Justice Center, 2008, http://www.reentrypolicy.org/jc_ publications/

reentry_partnerships_guide/Reentry_Partnership_Web.pdf)

Partnering with Jails to Improve Reentry: 

A Guidebook for Community-Based Organizations

Introduces CBOs to the importance of jail reentry work, guides 

them in developing and sustaining a partnership with the jail, 

The Elected Official’s Toolkit for Jail Reentry
and provides useful resources. (The Urban Institute, 2010, http://

www.urban.org/publications/412211.html)

Reentry for Safer Communities: Effective County 

Practices in Jail to Community Transition Planning 

for Offenders with Mental Health and Substance 

Abuse Disorders

Briefly discusses the components of jail reentry planning for inmates with co-occurring substance abuse and mental health disorders and describes several examples of successful programs focusing on this population. (National Association of Counties, 2008, 

http://www.ojp. usdoj.gov/BJA/pdf/Reentry_Safer_Comm.pdf)

Decriminalizing Mental Illness: 

Background and Recommendations

Outlines strategies for integrating mental health services with the 

justice system and for diverting mentally ill offenders away from 

jail. (National Alliance on Mental Illness, 2008, http://www.nami.

org/Template.cfm?Section=Issue_Spotlights&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=67126)

Getting out with Nowhere to Go: 

The Case for Re-Entry Supportive Housing

Provides a brief introduction to the issue of housing in reentry 

efforts and summarizes a few successful reentry housing programs 

that have been implemented in cities across the country. (Corporation for Supportive Housing, 2008, http://www.csh.org/index.

cfm?fuseaction=document.showDocumentList&parentID=53)

Building an Offender Reentry Program: 

A Guide for Law Enforcement

Offers an overview of the ways in which law enforcement can be 

involved in a reentry effort. (International Association of Chiefs of 

Police, 2007, http://www.theiacp.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=

ocK1XtwlyIA%3d&tabid=253)

The Jail Administrator’s Toolkit for Reentry

Covers each step of developing a reentry initiative, including examples of useful tools and effective strategies. (The Urban Institute, 2008, http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=411661)

Status of Ex-Offender Reentry Efforts in Cities: 

A 79-City Survey

Presents results of a survey on how mayors in the United States 

are responding to the needs of inmates returning to their communities and describes successful reentry initiatives that cities have 

pursued. (U.S. Conference of Mayors, 2009, http://usmayors.org/

pressreleases/uploads/reentryreport09.pdf)

A Best Practice Approach to Community Re-entry 

from Jails for Inmates with Co-occurring Disorders: 

The APIC Model

Outlines the APIC (Assess, Plan, Identify, Coordinate) model for 

improving the reentry of jail inmates suffering from co-occurring 

disorders. (National GAINS Center, 2002, http://www.gainscenter.

samhsa.gov/pdfs/reentry/apic.pdf)
About the Authors

Jesse Jannetta is a research associate in the Urban Institute’s 

Justice Policy Center. He directs projects relating to community 

supervision and reentry from both prison and jail. Before coming 

to the Urban Institute, Mr. Jannetta was a research specialist at 

the Center for Evidence-Based Corrections at the University 

of California, Irvine, where his work included projects on GPS 

monitoring of sex offender parolees, policies on parole discharge 

and violation response, and assessment of the California Department 

of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s programs according to the 

principles of evidence-based design. He holds a master’s degree in 

public policy from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at 

Harvard University.

Hannah Dodd is a research assistant with the Urban Institute’s 

Justice Policy Center. She works primarily on research projects 

involving reentry from jail and prison, human trafficking, and 

tribal youth in the federal system. Before joining the Urban 

Institute, Hannah interned at the American Institutes for Research 

as a junior fellow in the University of Maryland’s Joint Program in 

Survey Methodology. She holds a bachelor’s degree in sociology 

and psychology from the College of William and Mary.

Brian Elderbroom is a senior associate on the Pew Center on 

the States’s sentencing and corrections initiative, the Public Safety 

Performance Project. Prior to joining Pew, Brian was a research 

assistant in the Urban Institute’s Justice Policy Center, where his 

research focused primarily on prisoner reentry and community 

supervision. Before joining the Urban Institute, Brian worked 

on a wide range of criminal justice issues as associate director of 

the North Carolina-based Common Sense Foundation and in 

positions with the Center for Death Penalty Litigation and North 

Carolina Coalition for a Moratorium. Brian holds a master’s degree 

in public administration from the George Washington University’s 

Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administration.

The Elected Official’s Toolkit for Jail Reentry
Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Amy Solomon for her invaluable input and assistance in developing this toolkit. Julie Samuels, 

Mitchell Herkis, and Maeghan Gilmore provided very helpful 

comments that greatly improved the toolkit. Finally, we thank our 

funder, the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs’ 

Bureau of Justice Assistance. Its leadership in the area of jail reentry 

is moving the field forward by providing guidance and support to 

jurisdictions across the country. 

This report was prepared by grant no. 2005-RE-CX-K148, 

awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The Bureau of Justice 

Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, 

which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National 

Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention, the Office for Victims of Crime, Community Capacity 

Development Office, and the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, 

Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking. Points of 

view or opinions in this document are those of the authors and 

do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the 

U.S. Department of Justice.

The Urban Institute is a nonprofit, nonpartisan policy research 

and educational organization that examines the social, economic, 

and governance problems facing the nation. The views expressed 

are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban 

Institute, its trustees, or its funders.

The Elected Official’s Toolkit for Jail Reentry
2100 M Street, NW

Washington, DC 20037

Phone: 202.833.7200

E-mail: paffairs@ui.urban.org

http://www.urban.org