-

U.S. Department of Justice 

National Institute of Corrections 

TPC ReenTRy

Handbook 

Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 

a companion document to: 

InCREaSInG PUbLIC SaFETY THRoUGH SUCCESSFUL oFFEndER REEnTRY: 

EVIdEnCE baSEd and EMERGInG PRaCTICES In CoRRECTIonS 

and 

THE naTIonaL InSTITUTE oF CoRRECTIonS 

TPC CaSE ManaGEMEnT Handbook 
U.S. Department of Justice


National Institute of Corrections


320 First Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20534 

Morris L. Thigpen 

Director 

Thomas J. Beauclair 

Deputy Director 

John E. Moore 

Chief, Transition and Offender Workforce 


Development Division


Kermit Humphries 

Project Manager 

National Institute of Corrections 

www.nicic.org 
TPC ReenTRy

Handbook 

Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 

Peggy B. Burke 

august 2008 

nIC accession number 022669 
TPC Reentry Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community 

Model is a companion to the national Institute of Corrections’ TPC Case Management 

Handbook and the bureau of Justice assistance’s Increasing Public Safety Through 

Successful Offender Reentry: Evidence-Based and Emerging Practice in Corrections. 

This document was prepared under cooperative agreement number 06C49GJk9 from 

the national Institute of Corrections, U.S. department of Justice. Points of view or opinions 

stated in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the 

official position or policies of the U.S. department of Justice. 

Copyright © 2008, Center for Effective Public Policy. The national Institute of Corrections 

reserves the right to reproduce, publish, translate, or otherwise use and to authorize others 

to publish and use all or any part of the copyrighted material contained in this publication. 
Dedication 


This handbook is supplemented throughout by the comments and observations of those who have been 

involved in implementing the Transition from Prison to the Community model. It is to them and their colleagues in the eight states that participated in the pilot test of the model that this handbook is dedicated. 

Too numerous to name, they are the individuals and teams who did the hard work of transforming both the 

goals and the culture of corrections to embrace the vision of offender success for community safety. They 

have been courageous enough to hold themselves to the challenging standards of evidence, collaboration, and leadership to make a difference for communities, victims, and offenders. 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Dedication iii 

Foreword


In recent years, correctional agencies across the nation have focused on the challenge of helping a 

growing number of offenders make a safe transition from prison to the community. In 2001, the national 

Institute of Corrections (nIC) launched its Transition from Prison to the Community (TPC) Initiative to bring the 

best of practical thinking and research knowledge to this issue. our goal was to articulate a comprehensive 

and strategic approach to transition that would incorporate the lessons of evidence-based practice, 

emphasize the importance of collaboration, and provide a practical tool for corrections agencies to utilize. 

The result was the creation of the TPC model, and the significant accomplishments of eight states that 

worked with nIC to implement and adapt the model to the realities of day-to-day operations. This TPC 

Reentry Handbook presents the important principles of the TPC model and documents the experiences of 

the eight states that have put the model into practice: Georgia, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, new York, north 

dakota, oregon, and Rhode Island. It summarizes the significant accomplishments already achieved in 

these states, provides insight into the challenges they faced, and provides guidance about successful 

strategies for bringing about change in transition and reentry practices. 

Perhaps one of the most significant lessons from this experience is that the work of transition and reentry 

does not belong to corrections agencies alone. It overlaps with the interests and mandates of many public 

agencies, community organizations, victims, offenders, and their families. However one may decide to 

adapt the ideas in the TPC model, it seems clear that a collaborative approach will be essential. 

I would like to commend the TPC teams in the eight states that have worked with nIC on this Initiative. Their 

efforts are generating improved outcomes for community safety and providing a valuable set of experiences to help guide their colleagues in other jurisdictions as they continue to address the challenges of 

transition and reentry. 

Morris L. Thigpen 

Director 

national Institute of Corrections 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Foreword v 

Acknowledgments 

bringing the national Institute of Corrections’ (nIC’s) TPC Reentry Handbook to press has been a challenging undertaking. The effort has drawn on the work of so many practitioners, researchers, funders, policymakers, thinkers, and leaders that it seems an almost impossible task to acknowledge everyone to whom 

it is indebted. 

nIC’s Transition from Prison to the Community (TPC) Initiative has undertaken the formidable tasks of: 

•	 Widening the focus of corrections from custody,security,and compliance to include reducing the

likelihood of reoffending as a community safety strategy. 

•	 Suggesting that the functions of prisons, release,and postrelease supervision should work collaboratively.

•	 Insisting that interventions with offenders comport with the principles of evidence-based practice.

•	 Encouraging the use of good information, monitoring,and evaluation to guide policy and practice.

•	 Demanding that measurable outcomes be defined—and that they be measured.

•	 Encouraging corrections agencies to invite other stakeholders (service providers, victim advocates,

community organizations, and others) to come to the table and work collaboratively on the challenge 

of transition and reentry. 

nIC must be recognized for its vision and leadership in identifying the need and focus for the TPC Initiative. 

at first, Cranston Mitchell, and then, kermit Humphries of nIC have led and guided the work with great skill 

and competence. nIC’s Cooperative agreement Partner, abt associates, in particular dale Parent and Liz 

barnett, deserve recognition for their clear thinking and the inclusive process they used to seek input and 

guidance for developing the model. as implementation proceeded, the work of the technical assistance 

team led by the Center for Effective Public Policy was immensely critical in carrying the ideas of the model 

forward, and in working with the states to shape and adapt its content to be helpful in practical ways. That 

team, including my colleagues Madeline Carter, becki ney, Paul Herman, Gary kempker, and Richard 

Stroker at the Center,along with Donna Reback, Bill Woodward,and Elyse Clawson of the Crime and Justice

Institute, and Jeff Padden, Le’ann duran, and Paul Elam of Public Policy associates, all deserve recognition 

for their work. Richard Stroker, in particular, made significant contributions to the drafting of chapter 4 about 

implementation of the model. Tim bynum and Scott decker provided important guidance that shaped the 

Initiative’s approach to measurement and evaluation strategies. 

Most of all, of course, we must acknowledge the “stakeholders” in the eight participating states who came 

to the table to do the hard work of system change. In particular the leaders and chairs of change teams, 

as well as the staff who supported the work in each state, were critical to the Initiative and to the development of this handbook. It is impossible to name them all, but without their passion, dedication, hard work, 

and creativity, this handbook would not have been written. More importantly, the basic system change 

taking place in those states could never have happened. 

a key aspect of the cooperative agreement for technical assistance with the Center for Effective Public 

Policy was the naming of a site coordinator to work with each of the states, advise them on the formation of 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Acknowledgments vii 
teams, and facilitate their progress through the steps of the TPC implementation strategy. Following are the 

individuals and organizational partners assigned as site coordinators over the course of the effort: 

Georgia: Richard Stroker, Senior Manager, Center for Effective Public Policy 

Indiana: Elyse Clawson, Law and Justice Institute, and Gary kempker, Senior Manager, Center for 

Effective Public Policy 

Michigan: Jeff Padden, Le’ann duran, and Paul Elam, Public Policy associates, and becki ney,


Principal, Center for Effective Public Policy


Missouri: Paul Herman, Senior Manager, Center for Effective Public Policy


new york: donna Reback, Criminal Justice Consultant


north dakota: William Woodward, Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, University of	

Colorado


oregon: Peggy burke, Principal, Center for Effective Public Policy


Rhode Island: Madeline Carter, Principal, Center for Effective Public Policy


Peggy burke 

Project Director 

Center for Effective Public Policy 

viii TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
Contents


Dedication................................................................................................................................................................. iii


Foreword..................................................................................................................................................................... v


Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................................................ vii


Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................. 1


background................................................................................................................................................................ 1


Using This Handbook................................................................................................................................................ 3


note .............................................................................................................................................................................. 4


Chapter 1. Transition and Reentry: A Key Public Policy Issue ............................................................. 5


The Significance of Reentry ................................................................................................................................... 5


Scope and nature of Transition and Reentry .................................................................................................... 5


Successful offender Reentry as a Public Safety Issue....................................................................................... 5 


beyond Corrections and Criminal Justice......................................................................................................... 6


barriers to Reentry................................................................................................................................................. 6 


Strategic Partnerships........................................................................................................................................... 6 


Historical Context ..................................................................................................................................................... 7


Correctional Paradigms ....................................................................................................................................... 7 


The new Century .................................................................................................................................................. 7 


Ripe for Change.................................................................................................................................................... 8 


notes ............................................................................................................................................................................ 9


Chapter 2. The Transition from Prison to the Community Model ...................................................... 11


Vision, Mission, and Goals of the TPC Model .................................................................................................. 11


The Challenge of Reentry defined .................................................................................................................... 11


distinctive elements of the TPC Model.............................................................................................................. 12


Seamless Process With Key Decision Points...................................................................................................... 12 


Community Safety Through offender Success................................................................................................ 12 


Involvement of noncorrectional Stakeholders................................................................................................ 12 


Leadership ............................................................................................................................................................ 14


System and organizational Change................................................................................................................. 14 


Collaboration as a Way of Doing Business....................................................................................................... 14 


Collaborative Teams and Change Management.......................................................................................... 15


TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Contents ix 
Evidence-based Practice .................................................................................................................................. 15 


Performance Measurement .............................................................................................................................. 16


Major Components of Implementation ........................................................................................................... 16


Pilot Test: eight Participating States.................................................................................................................... 17


Profiles of the Eight Pilot States .......................................................................................................................... 17 


Technical assistance........................................................................................................................................... 19 


Continuity............................................................................................................................................................. 20 


notes .......................................................................................................................................................................... 20


Chapter 3. Why and How To Take on the Challenge of Transition and Reentry: 


Lessons from the Eight TPC States ................................................................................................................. 21


accomplishments................................................................................................................................................... 21


dimensions of the Implementation Challenge .............................................................................................. 21


Lessons Regarding Change in Correctional Culture.................................................................................... 22


organizational Culture Change ....................................................................................................................... 22 


Leadership ........................................................................................................................................................... 23 


Lessons Regarding a Collaborative approach to Transition and Reentry ............................................. 23


Partnerships Within Corrections......................................................................................................................... 23 


Partnerships beyond Corrections ...................................................................................................................... 24 


Lessons of Committing to evidence-based Practice.................................................................................... 25


The basics of Evidence-based Practice ........................................................................................................... 25 


Programs are necessary but not Sufficient ..................................................................................................... 26 


orientation to the Research.............................................................................................................................. 26 


being Prepared for Implementation.................................................................................................................. 28


notes .......................................................................................................................................................................... 28


Chapter 4. Implementing the Model............................................................................................................ 29


The TPC Implementation Roadmap .................................................................................................................. 29


1. Create and Charter Teams............................................................................................................................ 31 


2. Develop a Clear Vision and Mission.............................................................................................................. 34


3. Develop a Workplan....................................................................................................................................... 35 


4. Understand Current Policy, Practice, Populations, and Resources ............................................................ 35 


5. Align With Evidence-Based Practice............................................................................................................. 37 


6. Conduct a Gaps analysis .............................................................................................................................. 38 


7. Identify Targets of Change.............................................................................................................................. 38


8. develop an Implementation Plan................................................................................................................. 42 


9. Execute, Monitor, adjust, Correct................................................................................................................... 42 


10. Evaluate ......................................................................................................................................................... 44


x TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
a Checklist for Tracking Progress along the TPC Roadmap....................................................................... 44


notes .......................................................................................................................................................................... 51


Chapter 5. Case Management: A Critical Element of the TPC Model ........................................... 53


developing the Integrated Case Management and Supervision Model .............................................. 53


overview of the ICMS Model .............................................................................................................................. 54


Goals of the ICMS Model................................................................................................................................... 58 


Elements of the ICMS Model ............................................................................................................................. 58 


Targeting Strategy: Tiers of Case Management Strategies............................................................................ 63


organizational Support for ICMS........................................................................................................................ 64


Tools ...................................................................................................................................................................... 64 


Skills ....................................................................................................................................................................... 66 


organizational Changes.................................................................................................................................... 66 


Implementing the ICMS Model........................................................................................................................... 67


notes .......................................................................................................................................................................... 75


Chapter 6. TPC Performance Measurement Framework...................................................................... 77


Three dimensions..................................................................................................................................................... 77


System Change................................................................................................................................................... 77 


Reentry Indicators............................................................................................................................................... 77 


Public Safety........................................................................................................................................................ 78


Timeframe ................................................................................................................................................................. 78


Feasibility................................................................................................................................................................... 78


developing Specific Measures in each dimension ...................................................................................... 78


System Change................................................................................................................................................... 78 


Reentry Indicators............................................................................................................................................... 81 


Public Safety Measures ...................................................................................................................................... 81 


Practice exercises................................................................................................................................................... 82


Chapter 7. Emerging Issues, Challenges, and Opportunities............................................................ 89


The Importance of Leadership............................................................................................................................ 89


TPC Implementation as a Work in Progress..................................................................................................... 89


Understanding organizational and Cultural Change.................................................................................. 90


State and Local Partnerships............................................................................................................................... 91


The Rewards of addressing Reentry .................................................................................................................. 92


note ............................................................................................................................................................................ 92


TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Contents xi 
Bibliography of Resources on Offender Reentry ..................................................................................... 93


offender Reentry Websites................................................................................................................................... 93


General offender Reentry Literature................................................................................................................. 93


Prison and Jail Populations .................................................................................................................................. 94


Parole, Community Supervision, and Reentry................................................................................................ 95


evidence-based Practices and Programs....................................................................................................... 96


Risk, needs, and Responsivity............................................................................................................................. 96


Recidivism Studies .................................................................................................................................................. 97


employment and Reentry..................................................................................................................................... 97


Housing/Homelessness and Reentry ................................................................................................................ 97


Health, Mental Health, Substance abuse, and Reentry .............................................................................. 98


Collaboration in the Criminal Justice System ................................................................................................ 98


Families, the Community, and Reentry............................................................................................................. 99


Victims and Reentry............................................................................................................................................... 99


Juvenile offenders.................................................................................................................................................. 99


Female offenders ................................................................................................................................................. 101


Sex offenders......................................................................................................................................................... 101


Appendix I. Capsule Descriptions of TPC Implementation in Eight Pilot States ....................... 103


State of Georgia..................................................................................................................................................... 103


State of Indiana...................................................................................................................................................... 106 


State of Michigan................................................................................................................................................... 107 


State of Missouri ..................................................................................................................................................... 110 


State of new york................................................................................................................................................... 114 


State of north dakota ........................................................................................................................................... 115 


State of oregon ...................................................................................................................................................... 117 


State of Rhode Island............................................................................................................................................ 119 


Appendix II. Examples From the Implementation Efforts of the Eight TPC States..................... 123 


Forming and Chartering Teams 

Example 1. Indiana Policy Group and Steering Committee......................................................................... 127


Example 2. Structure of Michigan’s Prisoner Reentry Initiative ..................................................................... 129


Example 3. Rhode Island Team Structure........................................................................................................ 130


Example 4. North Dakota TPC Working Group Structure............................................................................... 131


Example 5. Missouri Substance abuse ad-Hoc Team Charter...................................................................... 132


Example 6. Meeting Management Tool—Standardized Meeting Agenda................................................ 138


Example 7. new York’s Transition from Prison to the Community Initiative: 


Glossary of Criminal Justice Terms................................................................................................ 139


Example 8. Missouri Invites other Stakeholders to the Table......................................................................... 143


xii TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
articulating a Clear Vision


Example 9. Georgia Reentry Impact Project Vision....................................................................................... 145


Example 10.Vision Statements From Three TPC Sites ..................................................................................... 146


documenting Current Population, Policy, and Practice


Example 11. Rhode Island’s Strategic Use of TPC Subcommittees............................................................... 147


Example 12. a Primer on System Mapping ..................................................................................................... 149


Example 13. Rhode Island TPC “Mapping the System—Zone 1” .................................................................. 152


Example 14. Rhode Island’s Seven-Zone Timeline Illustration........................................................................ 153


Example 15. Missouri Reentry Process (MRP) offender Populations analysis ............................................. 154


Example 16. New York’s Transition from Prison to the Community Initiative—Population Analysis............ 158


Example 17. Georgia Risk Reduction Programming available Through doC ............................................ 166


Improving the Use of Information


Example 18. new York TPC Strategy on data Sharing ................................................................................... 180


Example 19. new York Presents an Information Strategy............................................................................... 197


evidence-based Practice 

Example 20. oregon’s Legislation Requiring Evidence-based Practice ..................................................... 200


Identifying Targets of Change and Setting Priorities


Example 21. Indiana’s Gap analysis and Targets of Change....................................................................... 207


Example 22. Georgia’s Targets of Change ..................................................................................................... 221


Improving offender Management


Example 23. Missouri’s Transition accountability Plan.................................................................................... 227


Example 24. Michigan’s Gender Responsive Strategies for Reentry............................................................ 230


Example 25. new York State Support and Expectations of Local Reentry Task Forces.............................. 233


Example 26. Michigan’s Implementation Plan ............................................................................................... 243


Preparing organizations for Change 

Example 27. Georgia—Key Messages for Organizational Change: A Presentation to Wardens,

Superintendents, and Chief Probation officers........................................................................ 252


Case Management 

Example 28. Michigan Prisoner ReEntry Initiative Collaborative Case Management ............................... 258


emerging Issues, Challenges, and opportunities


Example 29. Michigan Collaborative Case Management and Supervision Tracks ................................... 259


Example 30. new York and north dakota Trainings on Collaboration......................................................... 261


Example 31. New York’s Local Reentry Task Forces—Membership and Strategic Plan Outline................ 263


TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Contents xiii 

List of Exhibits


Chapter 2


2-1 The Transition from Prison to the Community Model.............................................................................. 13


2-2 overview of States Participating in the TPC Initiative Pilot Test ............................................................ 18


Chapter 3 

3-1 Eight Evidence-based Principles for Effective Interventions.................................................................. 27


Chapter 4


4-1 TPC Implementation Roadmap............................................................................................................... 30


4-2 Some Types of Teams Involved in TPC Implementation ........................................................................ 33


4-3 TPC Implementation Roadmap Checklist .............................................................................................. 45


Chapter 5


5-1 Features of the Integrated Case Management and Supervision Model for Reentry ....................... 56


5-2 Integrated Case Management and Supervision Model ...................................................................... 59


5-3 Integrated Case Management and Supervision, Phase 1: From admission Until Release 


Phase begins .............................................................................................................................................. 61


5-4 Integrated Case Management and Supervision, Phase 2: 6–12 Months before to 6 Months 


after Release.............................................................................................................................................. 62


5-5 Integrated Case Management and Supervision, Phase 3: The Community Phase .......................... 63


5-6 Example of Targeting Case Management and Supervision Resources.............................................. 65


5-7 Integrated Case Management and Supervision Checklist.................................................................. 68


5-8	 Worksheet To Assist in Making Choices and Developing a Workplan	

To Implement the ICMS Model................................................................................................................. 72


Chapter 6


6-1 Examples of System Change Measures.................................................................................................. 80


6-2 Examples of Reentry Indicators................................................................................................................ 82


6-3 Examples of Public Safety Measures ....................................................................................................... 83


6-4 Example of Establishing TPC Performance Measures............................................................................ 84


6-5	 System Change Measures Worksheet..................................................................................................... 86


6-6	 Reentry Indicators Worksheet .................................................................................................................. 87


6-7	 Public Safety Worksheet............................................................................................................................ 88


Chapter 7 

7-1 operating norms for TPC Partners developed by the Missouri Steering Team .................................. 91


TPC ReenTRy Handbook: List of Exhibits xv 

InTRodUCTIon


Background 

during the first years of the 21st century, the field of 

corrections has faced challenges unlike anything 

experienced before. almost 700,000 prisoners were 

released from federal and state prisons in 2005, a 

trend that continues to grow. These individuals 

transition to communities all across the nation; most 

are still under correctional supervision. a high 

percentage of them are rearrested in short order, 

and roughly two-thirds return to prison within 3 

years—either as a result of new convictions or as a	

result of parole revocations. at the same time, many 

states are facing considerable budget shortfalls 

while prison populations continue to grow. Communities and policymakers alike are asking how this 

cycle of failure and escalating costs can be 

interrupted. Thus has come to be the high-profile 

issue known as “transition” or “reentry.” 

In response to these concerns, the national Institute 

of Corrections (nIC) launched its Transition from 

Prison to the Community (TPC) Initiative in 2001. 

From the beginning nIC conceived of the initiative 

as an effort to draw together and synthesize the 

best thinking of practitioners and researchers in the 

field on how to revamp correctional efforts to 

enhance the successful return of offenders, increase community safety, and reduce recidivism. 

over 18 months during 2001 and 2002, nIC, with the 

assistance of abt associates as its “cooperative 

agreement” partner, assembled five working groups 

of practitioners, researchers, and policy experts 

who met periodically to debate the lessons emerging from the field and from research that could 

help reshape practice. 

The results of the TPC Initiative have been threefold: 

•	 A TPC model that outlines the elements of 

practice that, if fully implemented, represent the 

best thinking and evidence about how to 

manage transition and reentry successfully for 

community safety and reduced victimization. 

•	 A TPC implementation strategy that outlines 

clearly the sequence of tasks, decisions, and 

management approach needed to implement 

the model. 

•	 The accomplishments of eight states—Georgia,

Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, new York, north 

Dakota, Oregon,and Rhode Island—that	

participated in a pilot test of the TPC model. In 

transforming practice in their own jurisdictions, 

these states provide significant lessons that will 

encourage and guide other jurisdictions interested in improving reentry practices. 

not surprisingly, given the critical nature of the 

reentry challenge, the nIC TPC Initiative is not the 

only national effort to improve practice. The national Governor’s association Reentry Policy 

academy; the Council of State Governments’ 

Reentry Policy Council; the Serious and Violent	

Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI); the President’s	

Prisoner Reentry Initiative (PRI) of the U.S. Justice 

department, bureau of Justice assistance; and the 

JEHT1

 Foundation’s support of reentry efforts in a 

number of states all underline the importance of 

reentry as a public policy issue. all of these efforts 

converge and reinforce one another on many 

levels. 

The nIC effort distinguishes itself in a number of 

ways. It is at once very specific, but also far reaching. The TPC Initiative has provided hands-on 

guidance to the participating jurisdictions, supporting on-the-ground improvements in operating 

agencies from which demonstrable results are 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Introduction 1 
already emerging. Participating jurisdictions receive 

technical assistance from nIC and have opportunities to exchange information and experiences with 

other jurisdictions participating in the Initiative and 

to participate in periodic cross-site workshops. 

The TPC Initiative is also far-reaching, because it has 

produced a model and an implementation 

strategy that other jurisdictions can draw on, adapt, 

and use to guide change in their own unique 

circumstances. The TPC model does not require 

significant additional resources to initiate but is 

about system change and redeploying current 

resources to accomplish desired outcomes. However, success with TPC has enabled a number of 

the participating states to secure additional 

resources from their own state legislatures and from 

federal and private foundation funding. 

It is often said that the greatest insights are often 

the most simple. The TPC model is, at its heart, very 

simple. It poses three major tenets. 

•	 The goal is successful offender reentry to enhance public safety—no new crimes, no new	

victims—for safer,stronger communities.

•	 Reentry requires collaboration both within the	

fragmented correctional arena and also across 

traditional boundaries to include human service 

agencies, community organizations, and citizens. 

no one can do this alone, least of all correctional agencies. agencies whose mission it is to 

provide substance abuse services, to enhance 

employability and employment rates, to provide 

education, to provide health care financing and 

services, and to provide mental health services 

all have a reason to be at the table. 

•	 Corrections must base practice on evidence,

adopting strategies and methodologies proven 

to work and discarding those that do not work. 

In contrast to the simplicity of the TPC model, 

endeavors to truly enhance and support successful 

reentry are challenging and complex. For many 

years, corrections as a profession has focused 

heavily on custody, control, and surveillance, 

protecting community safety by incapacitating 

offenders.Virtually all offenders return to the	

community, however, so community safety requires 

expanding the focus of corrections to include 

behavior change. This expansion of corrections’ 

mission constitutes a significant shift for much of the 

field. Collaboration, while ultimately sensible, is a 

relatively new mode of doing business and flies in 

the face of the silos that characterize much of 

public policy. basing practice on evidence, particularly in a field that only a few decades ago asserted that there was no evidence that behavior could 

be changed, requires a major shift in outlook. 

The jurisdictions that have participated in the TPC 

Initiative to date have recognized and taken on 

these complex challenges. They have demonstrated the essential soundness of the model, reshaped 

and improved it, and made it their own. Their efforts 

within the context of the TPC model have generated significant change and improvements in how 

their systems operate, how they engage a wide 

range of stakeholders, and in what the outcomes 

are for offenders. 

This handbook presents the TPC model and summarizes the experiences and accomplishments of 

the eight states that have helped develop, improve, 

and bring the model to life. The handbook also 

presents the TPC implementation strategy that 

developed out of the experiences of the eight 

participating states. Jurisdictions interested in 

implementing the TPC model will find the following 

tools to help them get started: 

•	 Suggestions on how to organize such a transition	

effort (whom to involve and how to organize into 

steering, implementation, and task groups). 

•	 A step-by-step set of activities to assist jurisdictions in setting their own vision and goals, 

collecting information to better define transition 

challenges (and strengths) unique to their own 

situations, and identifying targets of change. 

•	 Examples of the innovations that participating	

sites found to be important and helpful in 

revamping transition practices. 

2 TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
•	 Information on how the principles of evidencebased practice can strengthen reentry efforts. 

•	 The outlines of a new approach to case management to support transition and reentry. 

•	 A performance management strategy designed	

to measure progress. 

nIC anticipates that leaders of reentry efforts, both 

correctional professionals and their colleagues from 

other disciplines, will find the lessons and experiences captured in the TPC Reentry Handbook 

helpful as they lead change in their respective 

jurisdictions. 

Using This Handbook 

The TPC Reentry Handbook has been developed 

as a resource for a broad range of stakeholders 

involved in improving transition and reentry practices. Chapter 1 discusses transition and reentry as 

a critical public policy issue, highlighting the 

reasons a variety of stakeholders have an interest in 

this issue and providing some historical context for 

current discussions. 

Chapter 2 outlines the origins, development, and 

key features of the TPC model and introduces the 

reader to the eight states that have worked with 

nIC to implement it. 

Chapter 3 provides some insights into early accomplishments of the TPC Initiative and examines the 

challenges of implementation. It also reports some 

of the lessons emerging from the eight states’ implementation experiences. 

Chapter 4 walks the reader through the TPC 

Implementation Roadmap, the steps for implementing the TPC model. This chapter is fairly brief, so as to 

give a clear overview of the implementation 

process, but uses extensive cross-references to 

materials in appendix II collected from the eight 

pilot states to illustrate how these states approached each step in the process, translating the 

ideas of the TPC model into action. The chapter 

Companion Resources 

Additional resources have been developed—or are under development—as companion documents to this 

handbook. 

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

Corrections is a guide developed as part of the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI) of the 

Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. It complements 

information contained in the TPC Reentry Handbook but addresses the challenges of correctional leadership and 

organizational change in more detail. The basic tenets and principles presented in Increasing Public Safety 

Through Successful Offender Reentry are based on the same body of evidence and on work done in some of the 

same jurisdictions reported on in this handbook. 

Other products developed as part of the BJA effort include two curricula on the enhancement of public safety 

through successful offender reentry. They were developed as resources for jurisdictions interested in mounting 

training efforts to engage a broader set of policymakers and staff in successful reentry efforts. Although these 

resources have not been published to date, information about their contents and how to access them will be 

posted on the website of the Center for Effective Public Policy (www.cepp.com). The TPC Case Management 

Handbook, forthcoming from NIC, is being developed as a resource for correctional agencies working to change 

their case management practices to encourage offender success. It is intended to be a resource for line staff, 

first-line supervisors, and managers implementing the Integrated Case Management and Supervision approach 

discussed in chapter 5 of this document. 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Introduction 3 
also includes a checklist for tracking overall progress in TPC implementation. 

Chapter 5 introduces Integrated Case Management and Supervision (ICMS), a new approach to 

offender case management and supervision that 

emerged as the pilot states implemented the TPC 

model. This chapter highlights the innovations the 

pilot states found necessary and useful to managing reentry and transition at the individual case 

level. In introducing ICMS, chapter 5 is more 

detailed and hands on than the chapters that 

precede it. It includes a checklist for reviewing 

current practices and exercises to guide users 

through the choices they will have to make in 

adapting current supervision and case management practices to the ICMS model. a forthcoming 

nIC publication, the TPC Case Management 

Handbook, will provide more detailed guidance 

about putting ICMS into practice. 

Chapter 6 explains an approach to performance 

measurement to assist practitioners in reshaping 

their management information systems and 

evaluation procedures. This approach captures 

important information about progress in implementing the model and in tracking its outcomes in terms 

of both reentry indicators and public safety outcomes. The goals are to track progress using: 

•	 System change measures.

•	 Intermediate outcomes, or “reentry indicators,”

such as participation in programming, employment, education, job skill development, and so 

forth. 

•	 Offender outcomes related to community safety,

namely, reductions in recidivism and increases in 

successful transition. 

This chapter is also more hands on, with worksheets 

and exercises to help users consider their own 

choices in refining performance measurement. 

Chapter 7 discusses key emerging issues and 

challenges recognized by the states undertaking 

this work. In essence, the challenge of transition and 

reentry calls for long-term and continuing improvements in correctional and community supervision 

practices, changes that will likely continue to unfold 

for years to come. 

a bibliography of resources on offender reentry 

and two appendixes complete the handbook. The 

bibliography lists a wide range of Web-based and	

print resources relating to offender transition and 

reentry, organized by topic. appendix I presents 

capsule descriptions of the process of implementing the TPC model in each of the eight pilot states, 

highlighting distinctive aspects of each state’s work 

on transition and reentry. appendix II provides 

extensive examples of tools and work products 

from the pilot states that illustrate their efforts to 

implement the model and improve their approach 

to offender reentry. 

Note 

1. The JEHT Foundation’s name stands for the core 

values of justice, equality, human dignity, and 

tolerance that underlie the Foundation’s mission. 

4 TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
CHaPTeR 1 

Transition and Reentry: A Key Public Policy Issue 


The Significance of Reentry 

Scope and Nature of Transition 

and Reentry 

The attention of communities and policymakers all 

across the country is focused on the phenomenon 

of offender reentry. More than 698,000 offenders 

returned from state and federal prisons to communities nationwide in 2005.1 As large numbers of 

offenders return to the community, citizens and 

policymakers alike are asking whether offenders 

are equipped to become law-abiding, tax-paying 

members of society. Can they be expected to 

refrain from reoffending and from revictimizing their 

fellow citizens? 

At present, the answers to these questions are not 

reassuring. Even as offenders transition to the 

community, a significant proportion of them return 

from the community to prison in fairly short order for 

new crimes or for violations of parole. If current 

trends continue, we can expect that within 3 years 

of release, 67.5 percent of released offenders will 

be arrested, 46.9 percent will be convicted of a 

new crime, and 51.8 percent will be returned to 

prison.2 

Policymakers and the public are concerned about 

the public safety and about the costs of unsuccessful reentry. Spending on corrections has been 

among the fastest growing items in state budgets 

over the past 20 years. American taxpayers spent 

$9.6 billion for corrections in 1982. By 2003, this figure 

had risen to $61 billion. These figures do not include 

the costs of arrest, prosecution, or court processing; 

the costs to victims; or other collateral costs. 

Between 1977 and 2003, total state and local 

expenditures for corrections increased 1,173 

percent, compared with: 

•	 505 percent for	education,

•	 572 percent for hospitals and healthcare,	and

•	 766 percent for public welfare.3 

Successful Offender Reentry 

as a Public Safety Issue 

Perhaps the most significant reason for the widespread interest in offender reentry is the growing 

awareness that successful offender reentry promotes public safety. If an offender can return to the 

community without reoffending and without 

victimizing another person, then the community is 

safer. If he/she can also become a productive 

member of society—working, supporting his family, 

and paying taxes—the community is stronger and 

more stable. Everyone wins. 

As the dialogue on reentry continues, communities 

are beginning to look to correctional agencies not 

only to maintain safe and secure institutions and to 

monitor offenders upon release, but also to equip 

those offenders during and after their incarceration 

to be law-abiding once released. There is a growing understanding that, if we can be more successful in enhancing offender transition and reentry, we 

can anticipate fewer victims, contain correctional 

costs, and have stronger, healthier communities. 

As correctional agencies take stock of their ability 

to respond to these expectations from the public 

and from state-level policymakers, they are finding 

that there are significant aspects of correctional 

systems, as these have evolved over the past 30 

years, that do not effectively support a seamless 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Transition and Reentry 5 
process of reentry. First, correctional systems themselves exhibit a high degree of fragmentation in 

offender management. The management of 

prisons and the management of postrelease 

supervision have developed into very distinct areas 

of expertise and responsibility—whether or not they 

are located within the same agency—and the 

sharing of complete information across those 

boundaries is not typical. Traditionally, prisons have 

seen their role as the maintenance of safety and 

security within their own walls, and they have not 

been expected to concern themselves with 

offenders after release. On the other hand, parole 

or postrelease supervision agencies have seen their 

role as beginning once a released offender arrives 

in a field office, not before. Moreover, despite the 

obvious needs of offenders for educational, substance abuse, and employment-related services, 

funding such services for offenders has not been a 

priority either within prisons or in the community, 

given the fiscal demands of constructing and 

operating expanded prison capacity. 

In short, until very recently, the concept of comprehensive, collaborative partnerships among key 

stakeholders to support successful offender reentry 

simply did not exist. The widespread realization that 

these partnerships, beginning within corrections, are 

essential to support public safety has sparked 

widespread interest in developing a strategy for 

collaboration. The National Institute of Corrections 

(NIC) Transition from Prison to the Community (TPC) 

Initiative provides a workable, practical framework 

to guide the formation of these critical partnerships. 

Beyond Corrections and 

Criminal Justice 

Barriers to Reentry 

Even a cursory review of the data regarding 

offenders indicates some of the barriers they face 

in reentering the community and some of the 

services they need: 

•	 Up to one-third of all adult offenders within

correctional institutions have a diagnosable 

mental disorder, yet receive no appropriate 

services in prison.4 

•	 Three-fourths of adult inmates have substance

abuse problems, yet only about 10 percent 

receive formal treatment while incarcerated.5 

•	 Of incarcerated adults and juveniles with mental

disorders, 60 to 75 percent have co-occurring 

substance abuse difficulties.

6 

•	 Of adults released from correctional placement,

40 percent have not obtained a general equivalency diploma (GED) or high school diploma.7 

•	 Only one-third of inmates receive vocational

training while incarcerated.8 

•	 Fifty-five percent of inmates have children under

18 years of age.9 

Clearly, these deficits and challenges raise barriers 

to offenders seeking employment that will generate 

a living wage and lead to a stable and lawabiding lifestyle.Yet the public agencies created 

and funded to provide services to address these 

challenges have not traditionally identified returning offenders as a population in which they have 

an interest. 

Strategic Partnerships 

Offenders are often parents and members of the 

workforce. Giving them access to the services that 

strengthen their ability to be parents and productive members of the workforce and help them 

manage their physical and mental illnesses can only 

make the community at large stronger and healthier. Recognizing this, the individuals who developed 

the TPC model with NIC incorporated a heavy 

emphasis on partnerships both within and outside of 

corrections. The premise is that major public and

community agencies addressing education, 

employment, and mental and physical health issues 

share a common interest with corrections. Their 

client populations overlap considerably, creating 

incentives for joint planning to identify needs and

6 TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
deliver services to those populations.As the TPC 

Initiative has unfolded, the wisdom of this premise 

has been affirmed many times over. A key policy 

advisor from the Governor’s Office in Georgia, 

involved in the TPC Initiative in that state, commented on the importance of such partnerships: 

Reentry occurs outside of the bricks and mortar of 

the prison walls, and, therefore, involving those 

state and local partners who connect with . . . 

offender[s] once they leave prison is critical . . . . 

While engaging those nontraditional partners 

certainly takes more time and effort, it’s very 

encouraging to see solutions brought to the table 

that any one agency alone could never provide, 

and to see agencies begin to understand their 

organization as playing a part in ensuring that 

prisoners exit prison as law-abiding, contributing 

members of society. 

—Hannah Heck, Policy Director 

Office of the Governor 

State of Georgia 

Historical Context 

Correctional Paradigms 

For much of the first half of the twentieth century, 

the business of corrections—indeed the very name 

“corrections”—was focused largely on the rehabilitation of offenders. Individuals were sentenced to 

prison for an indeterminate period. While incarcerated, offenders were to participate in various 

programs that would contribute to their rehabilitation. Parole boards were charged with releasing 

offenders when they had been rehabilitated. 

By the 1970s, faith in this model of corrections was 

beginning to wane. First of all, those studying the 

effectiveness of correctional programming found 

little evidence from research and concluded, 

famously, that “nothing works.”10 At the same time, 

critics of parole and the indeterminate sentence 

found that parole boards had few, if any, standards 

upon which to make their judgments and charged	

that their actions ran counter to the principles of 

fundamental fairness. Also at the same time, crime 

rates began to rise, and the public became more 

demanding of sentences that were “tough on 

crime.” 

These three developments gave rise to a new 

“determinate” sentencing model that focused on 

the punishment aspects of a sentence, abandoning interest in rehabilitation. Many states abolished 

discretionary parole release. During the 1980s and 

1990s,this “just deserts”approach to sentencing	

and the notion that criminal sentences could not 

really change behavior and reduce the likelihood 

of reoffending opened the door to longer and 

longer periods of incarceration. Such sentences 

were geared primarily for punishment and incapacitation. If criminal sentences couldn’t change 

behavior, at least they could keep people behind 

bars—and out of communities—longer. In response 

to this paradigm shift, correctional agencies 

invested heavily in increased bedspace capacity, 

and investment in correctional programming 

decreased proportionally. Although most institutions 

did retain programs of some sort, they have not 

had the priority, funding, or support to serve great 

numbers of offenders. 

Community corrections agencies have similarly 

emphasized incapacitation with enhanced 

surveillance and monitoring technologies such as 

electronic monitoring, substance abuse screening, 

and use of the Global Positioning System. These 

agencies stressed compliance with conditions and 

expected staff to bring noncompliance to the 

attention of the court or paroling authority. 

The New Century 

As the new century opened, the heavy investment 

in incapacitation began generating large numbers 

of returning offenders. The combination of this 

growing population with the significant fiscal crises 

facing many states gave rise to the burgeoning 

interest in reentry. 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Transition and Reentry 7 
A parallel evolution in the field also influenced the 

development of NIC’s TPC model. Ironically, as state 

sentencing schemes were focusing more on 

deserved punishment and incapacitation, a body 

of research was accumulating that provided 

well-founded insights into the types of interventions 

with offenders that are, in fact, associated with 

reductions in recidivism. Beginning with the work of 

Canadian researchers who utilized the techniques 

of meta-analysis to systematically analyze large 

numbers of studies, this research provides the 

evidence upon which to base correctional practice that reduces recidivism. 

In sum, four developments in the field are reshaping 

how agencies define their correctional mission. First, 

larger numbers of offenders are being released 

from prison to the community. Second, a significant 

proportion of these offenders are returning to 

prison, raising questions of community safety and 

the effectiveness of current strategies. Third, fiscal 

crises in many states have heightened concerns 

about ever-growing correctional costs. Fourth, 

research is beginning to define specific principles of 

evidence-based practice that can help shape 

correctional practice to reduce this failure and 

enhance community safety. 

Ripe for Change 

In the face of these significant developments, NIC 

launched an initiative to build a sound model to 

guide efforts toward more successful offender 

transition and reentry. Beginning in late 2000, the 

agency brought expert practitioners and researchers together in several overlapping advisory groups 

to define and flesh out a new model of the transition 

process. The advisory groups were charged with 

designing a model that would account for the 

realities of operating agencies but draw on the 

latest thinking on effective interventions, collaboration, and the use of good information to shape and 

evaluate transition strategies. The overarching goal 

of the model was to enhance public safety by 

supporting successful offender transition to the 

community. Success, in the context of the TPC model, 

was defined as the reduction of recidivism and the 

increased ability of offenders to become lawabiding, contributing members of their communities. 

Early working papers generated by the initiative 

identified the basic premises of the model:11 

•	 Corrections, law enforcement,and human

services agencies are stakeholders in the 

transition process. These stakeholders need to 

articulate and promote common interests, 

integrate and coordinate policies, and develop 

mutual ownership of an improved transition 

process. 

•	 Stakeholders should freely share information

about transition both within and among their 

organizations. 

•	 Transition should be built upon proven reforms

and best practices. 

•	 Transition reforms should be affordable,transferable, and adaptable. 

•	 Basic transition reforms should apply to all

imprisoned offenders, including those given 

discretionary release and those who leave at 

the end of their prison terms. 

•	 The allocation of resources for programming,

supervision, and services should be directly 

proportional to the level of risk posed by any 

given group of offenders. 

NIC then took steps to disseminate the TPC model 

through a national technical assistance initiative 

that would work with states interested in implementing the model. The subsequent chapters of this 

handbook describe the implementation process, 

highlight lessons and accomplishments, and outline 

new approaches to case management and 

performance measurement that are products of 

the implementation effort. 

8 TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
Notes 

1. William J. Sabol, Todd D. Minton, and Paige M. 

Harrison, Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2006 

(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,

Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2007). 

2. Timothy Hughes and Doris James Wilson,“Reentry 

Trends in the United States” (Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 

2002), www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/reentry/reentry.htm 

(accessed May 22, 2008). The study included more 

than 270,000 prisoners released from prison in 15 

states in 1994, representing two-thirds of all the 

prisoners released in the United States that year.

3. Kristen A. Hughes. Justice Expenditure and 

Employment in the United States, 2003 (Washington, 

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

Statistics, 2006). 

4. Paula M. Ditton, Mental Health and Treatment of 

Inmates and Probationers (Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 

Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1999); and Caroline Wolf 

Harlow, Profile of Jail Inmates, 1996 (Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1998). 

5. Theodore Hammett,“Health-Related Issues in 

Prisoner Reentry to the Community” (paper presented at the Reentry Roundtable on Public Health 

Dimensions of Prisoner Reentry, Urban Institute,

Washington, DC, October 2000); and Christopher J. 

Mumola, Substance Abuse and Treatment, State 

and Federal Prisoners, 1997 (Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 

Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1999). 

6. The Prevalence of Co-Occurring Mental and 

Substance Abuse Disorders in Jails (Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health 

Services Administration, National GAINS Center for 

People With Co-Occurring Disorders in the Justice 

System, 2002); and “Co-Occurring Mental Health 

and Substance Use Disorders Among Youth Involved in the Juvenile Justice System,” online 

tutorial, National GAINS Center for People With 

Co-Occurring Disorders in the Justice System and 

the University of Washington, 2001), www.ncmhjj. 

com/curriculum/juvenile/index.htm (accessed May 

22, 2008). 

7. Caroline Wolf Harlow, Education and Correctional 

Populations (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2003). 

8. Ibid. 

9. Jeremy Travis, Elizabeth Cincotta McBride, and 

Amy Solomon, Families Left Behind: The Hidden 

Costs of Incarceration and Reentry (Washington, 

DC: Urban Institute, 2006), www.urban.org/ 

url.cfm?ID=310882. 

10. Douglas Lipton, Robert Martinson, and Judith 

Wilks, The Effectiveness of Correctional Treatment: A 

Survey of Treatment Evaluation Studies (New York, 

NY: Praeger Publishers, 1975). 

11. Dale G. Parent and Liz Barnett,“Transition from 

Prison to the Community Initiative: Preliminary Draft” 

(Washington,DC: U.S.Department of Justice,National Institute of Corrections, 2002), www.nicic.org/ 

pubs/2002/017520.pdf (accessed May 22, 2008). 

NIC Accession Number 017520. 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Transition and Reentry 9 

CHaPTeR 2 


The Transition from Prison to the Community Model 


Vision, Mission, and Goals of the 

TPC Model 

Webster’s New World Dictionary, Second Edition 

(1984) defines a model as “the representation of a 

planned object that is regarded as a standard of

excellence to be imitated.” The Transition from 

Prison to the Community (TPC) model was developed for precisely this purpose. It was intended to 

define a standard of excellence for offender 

transition that would encourage correctional 

practitioners to implement its various elements. As 

chapter 1 explained briefly, the TPC model is based 

on knowledge and experience drawn from a 

varied group of practitioners and on extensive work 

by the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) to 

synthesize the knowledge emerging from the 

research on effective interventions with offenders to 

reduce recidivism. 

In essence, the TPC model is a framework that can 

assist jurisdictions to undertake system change

designed to: 

•	 Reduce recidivism among transitioning

offenders. 

•	 Reduce future victimization.

•	 Enhance public safety.

•	 Improve the lives of communities, victims,

and offenders. 

The Challenge of Reentry 

Defined 

As NIC began its work on developing a model and 

strategic approach for transition and reentry, its 

advisers identified a constellation of problems that 

defined the reentry challenge. Large numbers of 

offenders were being released to communities 

across the nation, and far too many of them were 

failing, for many reasons. The approach to reentry 

at that time was characterized by: 

•	 Lack of focus on offender success as the desired

outcome of correctional efforts. 

•	 Lack of consensus that transition should begin at

admission to prison (or before) and extend 


through discharge in the community (and 


beyond).


•	 Extreme fragmentation among the agencies

involved in managing transition, both among 

correctional agencies themselves and between 

criminal justice and other stakeholders.

•	 Lack of empirically based, validated assessments

of risk and need conducted at intervals during 

the transition process to target the use of 

interventions. 

•	 Lack of offender programs/interventions based

on the principles of evidence-based practice. 

•	 An offender population with a high incidence of

untreated mental illness and substance abuse 

and deficits in employment skills and education. 

•	 Lack of a single,dynamic case management

strategy for offenders that could guide the 

targeting of interventions, enhance linkages to 

informal networks of support, and involve the 

offender. 

The NIC advisory groups began articulating a 

model that would address these problems. 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: TPC Model 11 
Distinctive Elements of the 

TPC Model 

Several elements distinguish the TPC model from 

other models of reentry: 

•	 The concept of transition and reentry as a

seamless process with key decision points. 

•	 Community safety achieved through offender

success. 

•	 Involvement of noncorrectional stakeholders.

•	 System and organizational change.

•	 Collaboration as a way of doing business.

•	 Collaborative teams and change management.

•	 Evidence-based practice.

•	 Performance measurement.

Each of these elements is addressed below. 

Seamless Process With Key 

Decision Points 

Unlike many earlier efforts that have focused on

offender reintegration, the TPC model takes a very 

broad view of reentry. Rather than waiting until 6 

months before release or until after release to focus 

on reentry, TPC efforts begin at admission or sooner, 

with assessments used to plan the interventions and 

activities needed to prepare an offender for 

release. A single, dynamic Transition Accountability 

Plan (TAP)1

 is developed for each offender and is 

modified as the offender moves through the entire 

correctional process to reflect both progress and 

changes in risk and need. 

This integrated, continuous, and coherent process is 

illustrated in exhibit 2-1. The model identifies 10 

steps, 6 of which (in bold) are also key decision 

points for correctional agencies: 

1. Sentencing 

2. Admission to prison 

3. assessment and classification 

4. behavior and programming 

5. Release preparation 

6. Release/revocation 

7. Supervision and services 

8. discharge 

9. Aftercare 

10. Law-abiding citizen 

The reentry process has an enormous impact on 

public safety, effective use of scarce public resources, and restoration of victims. Accordingly, the 

entities that have a stake in how well the process 

supports successful offender transition—the prison, 

community supervision, the release authority, and 

human services agencies—and their overlapping 

involvement in the steps in the process are shown 

at the top of the model diagram. The model rests, 

importantly, upon a foundation of a sound Transition 

Accountability Plan and Integrated Case Management and Supervision. 

Community Safety Through 

Offender Success 

Perhaps the most distinctive aspect of the TPC 

model is that it refocuses correctional practices on 

the goal of public safety through offender success. 

It does so by viewing virtually every aspect of 

correctional operations as an element in that 

overall strategy. This is a departure from the recent 

emphasis on risk management and surveillance in 

incarceration and postrelease supervision (i.e., 

using security levels and levels of supervision to 

target control by level of risk). The TPC model 

includes risk management, but also incorporates 

risk reduction as a key interest. 

Involvement of Noncorrectional 

Stakeholders 

The model also specifically identifies reentry as 

important to both correctional and noncorrectional stakeholders. This perspective grew out of several 

important insights provided by those who developed the model: 

12 TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
Exhibit 2-1. The Transition from Prison to the Community Model 

Release Authority 

Community Supervision 

Prison 

Human Services Agencies 

Sentencing Admission to Prison 

Assessment

and

Classification

 BehaviorProgramming and

Release

Preparation 

Release/

Revocation 

Supervision

and

Services Discharge Aftercare 

LawAbiding

Citizen 

Institutional Phase Reentry Phase Community Phase 

Transition Accountability Plan – Integrated Case Management and Supervision

Violation 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: TPC Model 13 
•	 Transitioning offenders have significant deficits

and needs for services that are typically funded 

and/or provided by noncorrectional agencies, 

by community organizations, and by informal 

networks. Therefore, these stakeholders must be 

part of developing a reentry strategy if offenders’ needs are to be addressed. 

•	 Noncorrectional agencies in particular have

mandates—from legislative funders, executive 

leadership, and from the community—to serve 

certain populations that often overlap significantly with the correctional population. If those 

agencies are aware of this overlap, they will likely 

identify which of their interests can be served by 

coming to the table to plan a collaborative 

strategy regarding reentry. 

•	 Collaboration means strength in numbers and

strength to effect change. The advantages of 

collaboration can be a powerful incentive, 

engaging partners in mutually reinforcing efforts. 

Leadership 

Given the dimensions of the reentry challenge and 

the significant realignment of goals and resources it 

will require, the TPC model also explicitly spells out 

the need for leadership commitment at the highest 

levels of state government. From the beginning, NIC 

defined participation of the chief executive of at 

least three state entities as essential: the agency 

responsible for administration of prisons; the agency 

responsible for release decisionmaking, setting of 

conditions, and revocation decisionmaking; and 

the agency responsible for postrelease supervision. 

All would be critical stakeholders in implementing 

the model. In addition, NIC sought the partnership 

of the chief executives of state agencies involved 

in the provision of mental health, substance abuse, 

employment, and educational services. 

System and Organizational Change 

Recognizing that many of the challenges to 

successful reentry were inherent in current correctional practices, the architects of the TPC model 

made system and organizational change and the 

management of that change key elements in the 

model. Implementation of the TPC model would 

involve not simply the addition of resources and the 

filling of gaps, but basic changes in how correctional agencies and their partners do business. It 

would involve embracing new goals and partners, 

redefining the roles and responsibilities of staff (and 

offenders), developing new skills, and redefining 

measures of success. 

One important example of system change envisioned by the model is the use of empirically based, 

valid assessments of risk and need to guide the 

management of an offender through incarceration 

and community supervision. This policy could well 

require an agency to develop an entirely new 

assessment protocol, train staff in its use, and then 

incorporate the new protocol into case planning 

and management. It could also mean the realignment of program resources to adopt evidencebased program interventions. It might also involve 

the need to move offenders within the prison 

system to ensure that they have access to interventions appropriate to their risk and needs and that 

they complete those programs before release. This 

in turn could require adaptations in security classification and housing policies. 

Collaboration as a Way of 

Doing Business 

To combat the extreme fragmentation inherent in 

our correctional systems and other public service 

delivery systems, the TPC model specifically incorporates collaboration as a method for stakeholders 

involved in the effort. Collaboration has been 

defined as “the sharing of information, the changing of activities, the dividing of resources, and the 

improvement of the capacity of another for the 

benefit of all and to achieve a common goal.”2

 It is 

the effort to improve the capacity of others that 

makes collaboration a unique enterprise. Collaboratives are different from cooperatives and 

coalitions because they involve more formal and 

sustained commitment and rely on the conviction 

14 TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
that, while retaining their uniqueness and autonomy, organizations that share and pursue common 

goals can accomplish much more together than 

they can alone. 

In Oregon, the keys to our sustained and ongoing 

focus on improving reentry have been broad-based 

involvement in the process and sustained leadership from the department’s director. A steering 

committee consisting of prisons, community 

corrections, the parole board, local criminal justice 

system representatives, social service agencies, the 

juvenile justice system, crime victims, and families 

of offenders was charged with guiding the effort to 

improve transition. Then work groups were formed 

with additional participants with expertise in the 

specific change areas identified by the steering 

committee. Involving literally hundreds of people 

from inside and outside the Department of Corrections provided a momentum that could not be 

stopped. 

—Ginger Martin, Assistant Director 

Transitional Services Division 

Oregon Department of Corrections 

Collaborative Teams and Change 

Management 

The depiction of the TPC model in exhibit 2-1 can 

be considered an ideal to be achieved, a schematic of how transition efforts could look in the 

future if the model and its principles are adopted 

and implemented. The developers of TPC recognized that current practice differs substantially from 

the model in many respects and therefore made 

forming, chartering, and supporting collaborative 

teams a central element of implementing the 

model. These teams are responsible for defining a 

vision and mission for transition and identifying and 

making the changes necessary to bring practice 

into alignment with the model, using the principles 

of collaboration. They are the change agents that 

undertake the detailed and complex work of 

transforming policy, practice, and all of the 

trappings of large, geographically dispersed 

organizations to reflect the model itself. 

Chapter 4 of this handbook discusses in detail the 

teams to be mobilized and gives practical guidance about the management of such teams, and 

appendix II gives examples of forming and chartering teams. When energized by strong leadership, 

these teams are the linchpins in implementing the 

model and creating a successful approach to 

offender transition. 

Evidence-Based Practice 

One of the assumptions underlying the TPC model is 

that, even with collaborative efforts, good planning, 

and state of the art assessments, offender success 

and reduced recidivism will continue to be elusive 

unless the interventions used with offenders are 

effective. Evidence of effectiveness is a complex 

and demanding requirement of the TPC model, but 

essential nonetheless. Offenders must not only be 

assessed periodically using valid assessments of risk 

and criminogenic need, but effective interventions 

must also be available and targeted by risk and 

need, in adequate dosage levels, with attention to 

the principle of responsivity. 

The most recent endorsement for this requirement 

comes from the National Research Council, which 

recently issued a set of recommendations for 

correctional agencies emphasizing the importance 

of implementing interventions that have been 

demonstrated through sound research to be 

effective in reducing recidivism. The council places 

particular emphasis on the importance of sound 

implementation strategies, training of staff, and 

adherence to good program design.3 

Another aspect of evidence-based practice vital 

to the TPC model is its emphasis on the role of line 

staff in interacting with offenders to enhance their 

motivation and engage them in the process of 

change.4

 It is important to involve higher risk 

offenders in specific treatment programs targeted 

to their criminogenic needs. It is equally important 

for staff to use techniques such as motivational 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: TPC Model 15 
The Responsivity Principle 

The responsivity principle is based on the understanding that characteristics such as culture, 

gender, motivational stage, developmental stage, 

and learning style influence how an individual will 

respond to different types of treatment. In the 

context of corrections, the responsivity principle 

calls for considering individual characteristics when 

matching offenders to services. Responsivity also 

requires using treatment strategies that have been 

proven effective with the offender population, such 

as cognitive-behavioral therapy and motivational 

interviewing. 

Source: Lore Joplin, Brad Bogue, Nancy Campbell, Mark Carey, 

Elyse Clawson, Dot Faust, Kate Florio, Billy Wasson, and 

William Woodward, Implementing Evidence-Based Practice 

in Community Corrections: The Principles of Effective Intervention 

(Boston, MA: Crime and Justice Institute, 2004), 

www.crjustice.org/cji/NICCJI_Project_ICCA.pdf. 

interviewing or cognitive-reflective communication 

in their day-to-day interactions with offenders to 

encourage behavior change. 

Performance Measurement 

Recognizing that many previously implemented 

correctional initiatives have proven ineffective, the 

TPC model addresses the need of correctional 

systems to define outcomes clearly, measure 

desired outcomes (e.g., reductions in recidivism 

and increases in community stability), and track the 

system changes geared to bring about these 

results. 

In sum, the TPC model seeks to move correctional 

practice: 

•	 From:	 Focusing primarily on custody and 

monitoring. 

To: Including recidivism reduction through 

behavior change as a major focus.

•	 From: Allowing silos to fragment the transition 

process. 

To:	 Redesigning efforts into a coherent 

process. 

•	 From: Defining transition as a corrections 

problem. 

To:	 Defining transition as a public policy issue 

in which many stakeholders have an 

interest. 

•	 From: Using unproven methods.

To: Using practices based on evidence.

•	 From:	 Measuring inputs. 

To:	 Measuring intermediate and final 

outcomes. 

Major Components of 

Implementation 

The TPC model itself defines the destination where 

transition and reentry efforts need to arrive to be 

successful. The implementation process is akin to 

the journey toward that	destination.

A jurisdiction seeking to implement the TPC model	

will need to: 

•	 Mobilize interdisciplinary, collaborative leadership teams (convened by correctional agencies, 

governors’ offices, or other appropriate authorities) to guide reentry efforts at state and local 

levels. 

•	 engage in a rational planning process that 

includes a careful definition of goals, a clear 

understanding of the current reentering population and rates of recidivism, and a thoughtful 

review of existing policies, procedures, and 

resources for reentry. 

•	 deliberately involve noncorrectional stakeholders 

—public, private, and community agencies— 

who can provide services and support as reentry 

initiatives are planned and implemented. 

16 TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
•	 Implement validated offender assessments at 

various stages of the offender’s movement 

through the system. 

•	 develop the capacity to create a Transition 

accountability Plan for each offender to guide 

case management and program interventions 

from the time of admission to prison until the time 

of discharge from supervision in the community. 

•	 Choose effective interventions, as demonstrated 

by good research, for individual offenders on the 

basis of risk and criminogenic needs identified by 

assessments. 

•	 ensure that all transitioning offenders are 

equipped with basic survival resources such as 

identification, housing, appropriate medications, 

linkages to community services, and informal 

networks of support before, during, and after 

they are released and move into the community. 

•	 expand the traditional roles of correctional staff 

beyond custody, security, accountability, and 

monitoring to include an integrated approach 

to offender management that engages offenders in a process of change. 

•	 develop the capacity to measure progress 

toward specific desired outcomes, to continually 

track progress, and to use such information for 

further improvement. 

Pilot Test: Eight Participating 

States 

Once developed for pilot testing, the TPC model 

became a framework for NIC-funded technical 

assistance to states interested in implementing its 

goals and strategies. In 2002, Missouri and Oregon, 

two states whose experiences had significantly 

shaped those designing the model, agreed to 

serve as pilot sites to further develop and test the 

ideas in the model. 

Subsequently, other states were invited to apply to 

participate in the TPC Initiative. Applicants were 

asked to commit key leadership from their correctional institutions, postrelease supervision agencies, 

and paroling authorities. They were also expected 

to form two teams: a policy team at the state level 

involving chief executives of other state agencies 

with a stake in offender reentry and an implementation team of top-level managers from those 

agencies. Ultimately, Georgia, Michigan, North

Dakota, Indiana, New York, and Rhode Island were 

selected to participate. 

Exhibit 2-2 highlights the diversity in general populations, correctional populations, and incarceration 

rates among the participating eight states. Despite 

this diversity, the TPC implementation process has 

proven to be a productive undertaking for all the 

states, assisting each one to make significant 

changes in its focus and approach to reentry. 

Profiles of the Eight Pilot States 

Georgia 

Georgia was accepted as a participant in the TPC 

Initiative in April 2004.With leadership for this effort 

provided by personnel from the Office of the 

Governor, key managers from numerous agencies 

have collaborated on what is called the Georgia 

Reentry Impact Project (GRIP).A steering committee of the heads of the agencies that are the 

primary partners in this initiative oversees the effort. 

A policy team composed of key managers who 

have decisionmaking authority from the partner 

agencies directs the investigation of reentry 

practices, identification of critical issues, and 

coordination of implementation activities. Three 

implementation workgroups are making necessary 

modifications or improvements to reentry practices 

throughout the state, following recommendations 

made by the policy team and embraced by the 

steering committee. The vision of the GRIP effort is 

“Promoting public safety through collaborative 

partnerships, which reflect a seamless system, to 

ensure that all returning offenders are law-abiding, 

contributing members of their community.” 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: TPC Model 17 
Exhibit 2-2. Overview of States Participating in the 

TPC Initiative Pilot Test 

2006 

Incarceration Rate Postrelease 

2005 State 2006 Prison 2005 per 100,000 2005 Parole Supervising 

Georgia 9,073,000 51,536 16,974 550 23,344 Parole Board 

Site Population Population Releases Population Population Agency 

Indiana 6,272,000 27,472 16,432 435 6,627 DOC 

Michigan 10,121,000 50,701 12,397 502 20,924 DOC 

Missouri 5,800,000 30,639 18,881 524 17,400 DOC 

North Dakota 637,000 1,342 998 211 246 DOC 

New York 19,255,000 62,950 25,198 326 54,524 DOP 

Oregon 3,641,000 13,614 6,177 368 20,515 CC/DOC 

Rhode Island 1,076,000 2,079 769 195 344 DOC 

Key: CC = Community Corrections; DOC = Department of Corrections; DOP = Division of Parole.


Note: For all states, DOC was the agency in charge of institutions.


Sources: State population—Lauren E. Glaze and Thomas P. Bonczar, Probation and Parole in the United States, 2005 (Washington, 


DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2006); prison population, releases, and incarceration rate—William J. 


Sabol,Todd D. Minton, and Paige M. Harrison, Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2006 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 


Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2007); parole population—U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States, Resident 


Population—States: 1980–2006, www.census.gov/compendia/statab/.


Indiana 

Indiana has participated in the TPC Initiative since 

2003. The effort was revitalized under the direction 

of newly appointed Indiana Department of Correction Commissioner J. David Donahue in 2005 under 

the title “Road to Reentry.” Commissioner Donahue 

has received leadership support from the Indiana 

governor and a wide range of state agencies. The 

mission set out by these leaders is “[t]o enhance 

public safety through improving the successful 

transition of offenders to the community.” 

Michigan 

Michigan began participating in the TPC Initiative 

in 2003, and the state’s program is known as the 

Michigan Prisoner ReEntry Initiative (MPRI). With 

technical assistance from the National Governors 

Association in addition to NIC, Michigan’s goal is to 

have the entire state involved in MPRI by 2008. The 

goals of MPRI are to promote public safety by 

reducing the threat of harm in communities where 

released offenders take up residence, and to 

increase success rates of released offenders by 

fostering effective risk management and treatment 

programming, offender accountability, and community and victim participation. 

Missouri 

Missouri has been engaged in the TPC Initiative 

since 2002. The Missouri Reentry Process (MRP) was 

formalized by executive order of newly elected 

Governor Matt Blunt in September 2005. A cabinetlevel leadership group spearheads the effort. Along 

with representatives from the community, eight 

state agencies have partnered to strengthen 

offender reentry practices: the Office of the State 

Courts Administrator and the Departments of 

Corrections, Social Services, Mental Health, Revenue, Health and Senior Services, Economic 

Development, and Elementary and Secondary 

Education. An MRP steering committee with 

18 TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
membership drawn from top-level staff from all the 

participating state agencies and from private 

service providers and community members is 

charged with implementing the decisions and 

strategy of the cabinet leaders. 

new york 

New York began its reentry work in 2003 and was 

selected to participate in the TPC Initiative in early 

2004. The vision of the New York State Interagency 

Reentry Task Force and Transition from Prison to 

Community Initiative is “a safer New York resulting 

from the successful transition of offenders from 

prison to living law-abiding and productive lives in 

their communities.” To accomplish its vision, the task 

force is working to increase the number of offenders who successfully transition from prison to their 

communities through a coordinated statewide 

system that assesses and responds to offender risks 

and needs, supports offender accountability and 

reparation to victims and communities, promotes 

offender self-sufficiency, and encourages family 

and community involvement in offender success. 

north dakota 

In mid-2003, North Dakota began initial work on the 

TPC model. In July 2005, the newly appointed 

director of the North Dakota Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitative Services reaffirmed 

this state’s participation in the TPC Initiative. Since 

that time, the Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitative Services has led the North Dakota 

TPC effort with the support of the State Workforce 

Development Agency, North Dakota Job Services, 

the North Dakota Department of Human Services, 

and the North Dakota Housing Finance Agency. In 

addition, North Dakota has revised its databases 

serving both prisons and community supervision to 

directly emphasize the three highest scoring 

criminogenic needs for each offender. 

oregon 

Oregon has participated as a pilot TPC site since 

2002. The Oregon Department of Corrections has 

made a commitment to what it calls “The Oregon 

Accountability Model,” which is consistent with the 

TPC model and provides a foundation for inmates 

to lead successful lives upon release. Oregon’s 

model has six components: criminal risk factor 

assessment and case planning, staff-inmate 

interactions, work and programs, children and 

families, reentry, and community supervision. 

Rhode Island 

Rhode Island joined the TPC initiative in 2002.

Commitment to the effort was formally established 

in March 2003 by an Executive Order of the Governor naming the membership and charge of The 

Governor’s Steering Committee on Prisoner Reentry. 

The initiative has been implemented in a threetiered reentry governance structure. Tier I is chaired 

by the Governor’s Office, and its membership 

consists largely of the Governor’s cabinet, although 

representatives from the city of Providence are also 

members. Tier II (the steering committee itself) 

represents the deputy directors or those with similar 

positions within each Tier I member agency. These 

agencies are the Department of Corrections; the 

Department of Labor and Training; the Department 

of Education; Rhode Island Housing; the Department of Children,Youth and Families; the Parole 

Board; the Rhode Island Board of Governors for 

Higher Education; the Division of Information 

Technology; the Department of Health; the Department of Mental Health, Retardation and Hospitals; 

the Public Transit Authority; and the Department of 

Human Services. Tier III represents local community 

service organizations actively involved in discharge 

planning for offenders and individuals with case 

management responsibility representing institutional corrections, probation, and parole. 

Appendix I describes the work in each of these 

eight states in greater detail. 

Technical Assistance 

The eight pilot states have received technical 

assistance over the course of their participation in 

the TPC Initiative. During the early phases of the 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: TPC Model 19 
initiative, as the model was being developed, Abt 

Associates provided assistance in collaboration 

with consultants drawn from the Center for Effective 

Public Policy (the Center) and other partners.

5

 In 

mid-2004, NIC asked the Center, along with its 

consultants and partners, to lead the technical 

assistance on implementation of the TPC model 

under a cooperative agreement with NIC. Each 

state received a site coordinator, who assisted the 

various TPC teams formed in each state by facilitating their meetings, helping to develop and implement work plans, identifying other resources, and 

supporting exchange of information among the 

sites. NIC also convened several cross-project

workshops on topics important for implementing 

the model. 

Continuity 

Of the eight participating states, four have experienced a change of governor and cabinet-level 

leadership since the inception of the effort. In each 

instance, change in leadership and party affiliation 

has not led to change in support for the initiative. 

When asked about their ability to sustain this effort 

through significant changes in leadership, many of 

the key stakeholders involved in several of the 

participating states cited the compelling nature of 

the work. Because the focus on transition and 

reentry is ultimately about public safety and 

reducing victimization, it is embraced from all 

quarters. The states also credit the resiliency of the 

partnerships forged at many levels within correctional agencies and across traditional boundaries— 

partnerships that build trust, commitment to the 

vision, and momentum for change. 

Notes 

1. The term “Transition Accountability Plan” is used 

here, although the states participating in the 

initiative have varied in their choice of name for this 

tool. The central ideas of the plan are more important than the specific name. It is a single, dynamic 

plan, shared across a case management team, 

updated as progress is made, and used to guide 

case management. 

2. Chris Huxham, ed., Creating Collaborative 

Advantage (London, UK: Sage, 1996), cited on

www.collaborativejustice.org. 

3. National Research Council of the National 

Academies, Parole, Desistance from Crime, and 

Community Integration (Washington, DC: The 

National Academies Press, 2007). 

4. Scott T. Walters, Michael D. Clark, Ray Gingerich, 

and Melissa L. Meltzer, Motivating Offenders to 

Change: A Guide for Probation and Parole (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National

Institute of Corrections, 2007), NIC Accession 

Number 022253. 

5. The members of the TPC technical assistance 

team are listed in the Acknowledgments. 

20 TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
CHaPTeR 3 

Why and How To Take on the Challenge of Transition 

and Reentry: Lessons from the Eight TPC States 

Accomplishments 

Perhaps the most persuasive argument for taking 

on the challenge of transition and reentry is the 

growing evidence that the goals of reduced 

recidivism and reduced victimization can be 

attained. This handbook is not intended to constitute an evaluation of the Transition from Prison to 

the Community (TPC) Initiative or of the work of the 

participating states. It does, however, report on the 

work undertaken by the states to improve their 

efforts at performance measurement, and it relays 

some of the encouraging indications coming from 

those efforts. 

Georgia, Michigan, Missouri, and Oregon—the 

states with the most advanced outcome measurement efforts in place—are beginning to report 

reductions in recidivism for offenders moving 

through the restructured transition and reentry 

process. Georgia reports increasing levels of 

successful parole completion—71 percent in 2007, 

up from 66 percent in 2005. Michigan’s overall 

recidivism outcomes through May 2007 show a 

23-percent improvement in total returns to prison 

against a 1998 baseline when controlling for a 

history of prior parole failure. Missouri reports lower 

levels of technical and criminal violations for 

offenders going through its transitional housing 

units: 6.8 percent lower after 6 months and 4.1 

percent lower after 12 months, in comparison with 

a 2005 baseline. Oregon’s balanced scorecard 

reports for 2006 and 2007 show decreasing rates of 

revocation and absconding during the first 180 

days after release. 

To generate these types of outcomes, the participating states have made major changes in how	

they do business by implementing the TPC model. 

They have begun to document their “system 

changes”—basic shifts in policy, practice, resource 

allocation, and their own performance measurement systems. This chapter reports encouraging 

examples of: 

•	 Embracing successful offender transition, reductions in recidivism, and reductions in victimization 

as the vision and goal of transition and reentry 

efforts.

1 

•	 Creating and sustaining collaborative partnerships among correctional agencies and nontraditional partners at the state and local level.2 

•	 Embracing the principles of evidence-based	

practice, including the implementation of empirically based, validated assessment of risk and 

criminogenic need.3 

•	 Targeting resources according to those assessments of risk and needs.

4 

•	 Increasing ability to measure outcomes, from	

increases in employment, housing, and treatment accessibility at release to decreases in 

returns to prison for parole violations and new 

crimes.

5 

Dimensions of the 

Implementation Challenge 

Some of the most important lessons emerging from 

the experience of the eight pilot states have to do 

with the genuine challenges of implementation. 

The three major tenets of the TPC	model—

highlighted in the introduction to this handbook— 

are fairly simple: 

•	 The goal is offender success in pursuit of recidivism reduction and public safety. 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Lessons from the Eight TPC States 21 
Positive accomplishments of the TPC team include 

implementation of the COMPAS risk/needs assessment, emphasis on prison and community 

programs and services, creation of a successful 

reentry housing model, and the partnership that 

has been formed between the criminal justice 

agencies and the nontraditional organizations such 

as social services and faith-based groups. Working 

together, we can make a difference. 

—Garland Hunt, Chairman 

Board of Pardons and Parole 

State of Georgia 

•	 The approach is a collaborative one, requiring	

the resources and expertise of a range of 


stakeholders.


•	 The practices adopted must be effective,as	

demonstrated by good research, i.e., they must 

be evidence based. 

On the other hand, implementation is far from 

simple. 

It is hard to argue with the notion that it is in the 

best interests of community safety to reduce 

recidivism among transitioning offenders and to 

encourage these offenders to become contributing, law-abiding members of society. It is also 

important to understand the efforts required to 

change our current system of corrections and 

human services so that these outcomes are 

possible. An early working paper produced by the 

TPC development committees and staff made the 

following realistic assessment: 

The TPCI [TPC Initiative] will be a seachange for participating jurisdictions. It will	

mean a fundamental shift in the mission of 

correctional agencies, and, consequently, 

equally fundamental changes in agencies’ 

priorities, operating procedures, staffing 

and management practices. It will require 

corrections, releasing, supervision, and 

human service agencies to form strategic 

and tactical partnerships to integrate and 

coordinate basic policies, and to sustain 

and nurture those partnerships and policies 

over time. It will require many agencies to 

reallocate resources and to seek more 

effective and targeted ways to use them. 

Progress toward the model envisioned by 

the TPCI will be difficult and will require 

administrative and political commitment 

over time. Transition reform is not for the 

short-winded or faint-spirited.6 

From the beginning, then, the architects of TPC saw 

significant changes in mission, priorities, operations, 

and resources as essential to accomplishing its 

vision of more successful offender reentry in service 

of community safety. The challenges would be 

considerable, but the anticipated gains provided a 

worthy goal for the effort. 

This chapter outlines the lessons that have been 

learned in implementing the TPC model; many of 

these lessons represent new challenges that 

emerged during implementation. The goal is not to 

dispel enthusiasm or optimism for the effort—quite 

the contrary. Anticipated benefits are being 

realized in the participating states, and the rewards, 

as reported by those who have been part of the 

effort, are impressive. However, it is also important to 

be realistic about the challenges inherent in 

implementation, to go into the work with a clear 

understanding of what to expect (especially of 

how long it will take), and to learn from the experiences of those who have gone before. 

Lessons Regarding Change in 

Correctional Culture 

Organizational Culture Change 

The TPC model implies shifting from an exclusive 

focus on custody, security, and surveillance within 

correctional agencies to a wider focus that engages offenders in a process of change. It is hard to 

overestimate the implications that this shift implies 

for most correctional agencies—a move from 

containing offenders to engaging them in change 

22 TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
efforts, from risk management to risk reduction. This 

shift implies new roles for staff involving new skill sets, 

new ways of interacting with offenders, and new 

measures for staff performance and organizational 

achievements. 

When asked about his advice for colleagues in other states undertaking the 

challenge of structuring a correctional 

facility around reentry goals . . . 

Be patient. It will take a lot of time to change the 

culture of corrections at a facility level. Changing 

the culture . . . is necessary in order to give 

offenders the opportunity to take responsibility for 

themselves, which is something that they don’t do 

in conventional prisons. . . . You will also need the 

right type of staff. Staff need to be aware that there 

will be a learning curve. . . . [T]he first instinct 

may be to punish someone for a minor infraction. 

It is more important to educate the offender on the 

reason that the infraction is wrong . . . to allow the 

offender to consider the consequences of his action 

the next time. 

—Michael Lloyd, Superintendent 

Plainfield Reentry Educational Facility 

Department of Corrections 

State of Indiana 

A focus on offender behavior change, risk reduction, and reentry success requires nothing less than 

a shift in organizational culture, the “values, assumptions, and beliefs the people in an organization 

hold that drive the way they think and behave 

within the organization.”7

 Participants in the TPC 

Initiative have found that implementation changed 

everything from job descriptions to performance	

evaluation systems, management reports, and 

classification practices. Such significant cultural 

change requires the participation and training of a 

wide range of staff and the patience and tenacity 

to stay with a long and difficult undertaking. 

The TPC model implies significant change for 

noncorrectional agencies as well, in that the model 

defines offenders as a population to be served. 

Offenders may well have been a population 

ignored or even avoided in the past, and one that 

brings different and challenging needs. 

Leadership 

Clearly, fundamental change across organizations 

and systems does not just happen. It requires strong,

purposeful leadership and commitment to reshaping the work of corrections. Because successful 

transition and reentry require the involvement of 

postrelease agencies and stakeholders, the TPC 

model redefines who needs to be at the table. Key 

correctional leaders must commit to active participation, to a willingness to revisit basic assumptions, 

and to engagement with other, nontraditional 

stakeholders in the implementation effort. 

Lessons Regarding a 

Collaborative Approach 

to Transition and Reentry 

Partnerships Within Corrections 

The designers of the TPC model were struck from 

the beginning by the excessive fragmentation that 

characterizes correctional systems, which typically 

are compartmentalized and geographically 

dispersed. Institutions and field supervision are 

traditionally quite separate, even if located in the 

same department. The releasing authority is typically distinct from both, even if administratively part 

As we have addressed the challenge of reentry and 

transition, a key to success has been the involvement and leadership of the Governor’s staff. System 

changes have both a policy and a budget impact. 

Their presence and encouragement for agency 

heads to participate has instilled accountability 

from agency staff to implement the improvements 

needed for successful offender reentry. 

—Beth Oxford, Director of Parole 

Board of Pardons and Paroles 

State of Georgia 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Lessons from the Eight TPC States 23 
of a correctional department. Indeed, one of the 

most imposing gaps to bridge in the implementation of the TPC model has been the movement of 

an offender from inmate status to parolee status by 

way of a single, dynamic case planning process 

that shares information across the divide between 

institutional and community supervision. States 

implementing the TPC model have observed the 

importance and benefit of working more collaboratively across these traditional boundaries. 

One of the major issues affecting collaboration	

within corrections (and collaboration between 

The Probation and Parole unit has become part of 

the Department’s thinking about offender management including, but not limited to, the transition of 

incarcerated offenders back into the community. 

Awareness of community supervision is now taken 

into account in planning and providing prison 

programming, preparing offenders for discharge, 

tracking program participation, and sharing 

information. 

Probation and Parole staff has had the opportunity 

to contribute to significant projects that in the past 

would likely have involved institutional staff only, 

such as participation on Tier II of the Prisoner 

ReEntry project; the development of the Transition 

from Prison to Community Data System (TPCDS); 

. . . and improved information exchange with the 

Discharge Planners. 

At the other end, Probation and Parole Officers are 

becoming more familiar with the prison functions 

and the needs of newly released offenders. Just as 

institutional programming needs to be based on 

awareness that inmates have lives before and after 

prison, so too do community corrections staff need 

to be aware that incarceration is not merely a 

break in the action: for the offenders, prison is a set 

of experiences that must be factored into their 

postrelease lives. 

—Sisan Smallman 

Assistant Probation and Parole Administrator 

Department of Corrections 

State of Rhode Island 

corrections and noncorrectional agencies) is the 

ability to exchange case information in an electronic format. Many agencies have found this issue 

to be among the most tenacious of problems, but 

many have also surmounted those problems with 

technology that allows them to share case plans. 

At a minimum, implementation strategies must 

anticipate information sharing as a key issue. 

Partnerships Beyond Corrections 

A commitment to enhancing successful reentry, as 

outlined in the TPC model, and to evidence-based 

practice also implies that correctional leaders will 

build partnerships with other stakeholders at the 

policy and service-delivery levels. Noncorrectional 

stakeholders may find that coming to the transition/ 

reentry table will enable them to accomplish their 

own missions more effectively—a powerful incentive for them to participate. 

The notion that transition and reentry are issues that 

go beyond the purview of corrections is basic to 

the TPC model. A particularly good summary of this 

concept, which is also integral to other national 

reentry initiatives, appears in the Reentry Policy 

Council’s website at www.reentrypolicy.org/ 

government_affairs/national_initiatives. This website 

describes a number of national reentry initiatives 

and includes a summary of the Reentry Policy 

Council’s exhaustive report outlining the interests of 

many noncorrectional stakeholders in transition 

and reentry. 

Participation of legislative stakeholders can be 

critical for accessing funding. Participation of law 

enforcement, prosecution, and legal defense 

stakeholders can create support and anticipate 

barriers. Other key stakeholders can facilitate the 

availability of appropriate, effective interventions. 

Although correctional agencies do fund and 

provide certain types of services, they also rely on 

other agencies to provide services such as access 

to state-issued identification, benefits for eligible 

offenders, and informal networks of support (e.g., 

family and faith-based organizations). 

24 TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
At the local level, nontraditional partners can be 

particularly helpful in building informal networks to 

support offenders’ basic needs as they transition 

back to the community. In Indiana, for instance, a 

local bank has become one of the vital partners of 

the Plainfield Educational Reentry Facility (PERF). 

PERF has been established by the Indiana Department of Correction as a facility devoted to preparing offenders for reentry, many of whom will be 

transitioning back to nearby Indianapolis. The bank 

Establishing Transitional Housing Units in each of 

our Minimum and Medium security institutions 

created an environment where offenders can 

honestly focus on preparing themselves for their 

transition home and both staff and services are 

oriented toward successful reentry. 

Released offenders now go home with a real transition plan that is developed in the institution and 

follows the offender into the community. In many 

cases, the plan includes prearranged appointments 

for aftercare treatment and job placement assistance in the community. 

Community Workforce Development staff meet with 

offenders in prison before release to bridge the gap 

between “wanting a job” and “getting a job” with 

assistance from the local Workforce Development 

Career Center. 

—Thomas Clements 

Assistant Division Director, Division of Adult Institutions 

Department of Corrections 

State of Missouri 

I was already aware of considerable overlap in the 

populations that DMH and DOC serve. As I said 

early on, “Your clients are our clients.” Given that 

overlap, it was clear that we had comparable 

goals—in particular, reducing recidivism and 

making communities safer. Working at these goals 

together made a lot more sense than going at it 

independently. I believed that DOC could help us 

as much as we could help them. 

—Mark Stringer, Director 

Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse 

Department of Mental Health 

State of Missouri 

has partnered with PERF to equip offenders with 

bank cards for accessing their own funds to make 

purchases in the facility’s canteen. After the 

offenders’ release, these cards can be linked to 

checking accounts that the bank is willing to 

establish for those who used their bank cards 

responsibly while incarcerated. This equips transitioning offenders with a basic survival tool, provides 

a local business with an opportunity to contribute 

to safe and orderly reentry, and expands the 

customer base for other local businesses. 

Lessons of Committing to 

Evidence-Based Practice 

The Basics of Evidence-Based 

Practice 

The TPC model calls for the use of evidence-based 

interventions and programs for offenders. As the 

research on effective interventions mounts, and as 

jurisdictions focus increasingly on offender success	

as a community safety issue, the importance of 

evidence-based practice to transition and reentry 

becomes ever clearer. Interest and support for 

services and programs designed to change 

offender behavior continue to grow. To be credible, 

program interventions intended to change behavior must be built on the evidence, identify specific 

outcome measures, and be evaluated to demonstrate their worth—all essential concepts within the 

TPC model. Moreover, existing programs should be 

routinely reviewed for their effectiveness and adherence to the principles of evidence-based practice. 

The challenges facing jurisdictions implementing	

the model include the following: 

•	 Creating sufficient program capacity to address	

the criminogenic needs of high-risk offenders. 

•	 Ensuring that programs are effective and	

comport with the principles of evidence-based 

practice, namely: 

❏ Interventions must be targeted appropriately 

by risk, need, and responsivity. 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Lessons from the Eight TPC States 25 
❏ Dosage must be appropriate. 

•	 Creating the expectation that programs will be	

routinely evaluated and measured against their 

recidivism-reduction goals. 

•	 Terminating interventions and programs that are	

ineffective. 

When asked what had been learned 

from the TPC implementation process 

that would have been helpful to know at 

the beginning . . . 

It would have been enormously helpful . . . to have 

been more fully aware of the value of developing a 

long-term strategic reentry plan in collaboration 

with other state and community agencies, of the 

need to design programs based on formal validated needs assessments, of the wisdom of 

instituting programs that are evidence based, with 

the understanding that every program should be 

designed with an evaluation component that identifies performance measures and routinely collects 

and analyzes data. 

Had I known then what I know now I would have 

begun the work with a formal strategic three- to 

five-year plan and gradually constructed the pieces 

of reentry work incrementally based on evidencebased practice and individual assessments in a 

more sequenced and systemic manner. 

—Roberta Richman, Assistant Director 

Rehabilitative Services 

Department of Corrections 

State of Rhode Island 

Strong leadership will be necessary to reshape practice to support these endeavors. Implementation will 

likely require change in population movement 

practices to allow offenders access to appropriate 

programming for appropriate lengths of time. To 

support such programming, leadership will need to 

secure adequate resources and funding both within 

institutions and in the community. 

Programs Are Necessary but Not 

Sufficient 

As one of the key leaders involved in early TPC 

implementation efforts in Missouri is fond of saying, 

“TPC is a philosophy, not a program.” Many jurisdictions have developed specific programs geared to 

working with offenders before and after release, 

and the TPC model assumes that some new 

programs will be essential, either with new funding 

or with redeployment of existing resources.Yet such 

programs will not be truly effective unless agency 

policy and practice begin with a valid assessment 

of risk and need, respond to failures in treatment or 

technical violations in treatment, and follow 

principles of good case management. TPC is not 

only about the implementation of effective programs, but also about the system change needed 

to support those programs appropriately. 

One critical element of evidence-based practice is 

the involvement of staff—both correctional and 

noncorrectional—in efforts to enhance the motivation of the offenders with whom they come into 

contact. Evidence-based practice emphasizes that 

frontline staff in correctional facilities and community supervision agencies have the opportunity to 

influence offender change. Every meeting with an 

offender to discuss a case plan or consider the 

offender’s progress or challenges gives the staff 

member involved an opportunity to interact with 

the offender in ways that can enhance the offender’s motivation.8

 Promoting motivational interactions requires reshaping staff roles responsibilities, 

skills, and performance evaluation. 

Orientation to the Research 

It may seem self-evident that reentry efforts should 

incorporate programs and treatment that work. 

Understanding precisely what that means requires	

some degree of self-education as transition efforts 

unfold. The National Institute of Corrections (NIC) 

has supported the development of a set of materials produced by the Crime and Justice Institute 

that synthesize the principles of evidence-based 

26 TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
Exhibit 3-1. Eight EvidenceBased Principles for Effective 

Interventions 

practice and effective interventions with offenders 

(see exhibit 3-1). The principles are meant to guide 

policymakers and practitioners as they develop, 

fund, and evaluate program models. A full explanation of the principles of evidence-based practice 

and complete references linking the principles to 

the empirical research underlying them is available 

on the Crime and Justice Institute website, http:// 

crjustice.org/cji/evidencebased.pdf. 

Perhaps one of the most difficult of these principles 

to implement is targeting interventions by risk of 

reoffense. Within institutions, an offender’s security 

level and housing assignment are often tied to an 

assessment of institutional misconduct or escape 

risk. Housing assignment often limits accessibility to 

programs, which may be in another unit or facility 

altogether, and significant crowding and high case 

loads can make access to programming problematic for any offender. However, targeting interventions can be a means of coping with limited 

resources because it provides a substantive rationale for selectively assigning program resources.

9 

Reentry efforts oriented to research must keep in 

mind that research is constantly changing. For an 

organization’s practice to be evidence based, it 

must constantly refresh its understanding of the 

literature, review its own performance measurement data, and be a “learning organization”10 

capable of changing course and modifying 

practice as new information becomes available. 

The greatest reward so far is to have been part of 

an effort that is an extraordinary model for systems 

change in state government. 

—Mark Stringer, Director 

Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse 

Department of Mental Health 

State of Missouri 

1. Assess actuarial risk/needs. 

2. Enhance intrinsic motivation. 

3. Target interventions. 

a. Risk principle: Prioritize supervision and 

treatment resources for high-risk offenders. 

b. Need principle: Target interventions to 

criminogenic needs. 

c. Responsivity principle: Be responsive to 

temperament, learning style, motivation, 

culture, and gender when assigning 

programs. 

d. Dosage: Structure 40–70 percent of 

high-risk offenders’ time for 3–9 months. 

e. Treatment: Integrate treatment into the full 

sentence/sanction requirements. 

4. Skill train with directed practice (use 

cognitive-behavioral treatment methods). 

5. Increase positive reinforcement. 

6. Engage ongoing support in natural 

communities. 

7. Measure relevant processes/practices. 

8. Provide measurement feedback. 

Source: Lore Joplin, Brad Bogue, Nancy Campbell, 


Mark Carey, Elyse Clawson, Dot Faust, Kate Florio, 


Billy Wasson, and William Woodward, Implementing 


Evidence-Based Practice in Community Corrections: 


The Principles of Effective Intervention (Boston, MA: 


Crime and Justice Institute, 2004), www.crjustice.org/cji/


NICCJI_Project_ICCA.pdf.


TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Lessons from the Eight TPC States 27 
Being Prepared for 

Implementation 

To be prepared to implement the TPC model, 

practitioners should appreciate both the potential 

impact of success, as well as the hard realities of 

the work ahead. The next chapter takes the reader 

through the steps of the TPC Implementation 

Roadmap, linking the discussion to extensive 

examples and illustrations from the eight pilot states 

whose programs are described in appendix I of this 

handbook. 

Commit yourself to the long haul and form collaborations at every opportunity . . . . Shared, real-time 

decisionmaking by persons with the authority to 

make the decisions forms bonds that are long 

lasting. And this work takes years and years, so 

those bonds are critical. 

—Dennis Schrantz, Deputy Director 

Planning and Community Development 

Administration 

Department of Corrections 

State of Michigan 

Notes 

1. See appendix II, examples 9 (Georgia) and 10 

(Michigan, New York, Rhode Island). 

2. See appendix II, examples 1 (Indiana), 2 (Michigan), and 3 (Rhode Island). 

3. See the assessment strategy section for each 

state in appendix I. 

4. See Michigan’s case management framework in 

appendix II, example 28. 

5. See extensive examples from Oregon and 

Missouri in chapter 6. 

6. Dale Parent and Liz Barnett, Transition from Prison 

to the Community Initiative (Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections, 2002):4–5, NIC Accession Number 017520. 

7. Carol Flaherty-Zonis, Building Culture Strategically: 

A Team Approach for Corrections (Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of	

Corrections, 2007):15, NIC Accession Number 

021749. 

8. Scott T. Walters, Michael E. Clark, Ray Gingerich, 

and Melissa L. Meltzer, Motivating Offenders To 

Change: A Guide for Probation and Parole (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National	

Institute of Corrections, 2007), NIC Accession 

Number 022253. This recent NIC publication provides extensive guidance about the techniques of 

motivational interviewing as one way to engage 

offenders in the process of change. 

9. The Washington State Institute for Public Policy 

also has published a concise and readable overview of a significant body of research on effective 

correctional interventions. See Steve Aos, Marna 

Miller, and Elizabeth Drake, Evidence-Based Public 

Policy Options To Reduce Future Prison Construction, Criminal Justice Costs, and Crime Rates 

(Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public 

Policy, 2006), www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/06-10-1201. 

pdf. 

10. Peter Senge, The Fifth Discipline (New York: 

Doubleday Currency, 1990). See also Carol FlahertyZonis, Building Culture Strategically: A Team 

Approach for Corrections, pages 33–34. 

28 TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
CHaPTeR 4


Implementing the Model 

The TPC Implementation 

Roadmap 

In light of the complexities of addressing the 

challenges of transition and reentry, the National 

Institute of Corrections (NIC) committed significant 

technical assistance resources to the eight states 

participating in the Transition from Prison to the 

Community (TPC) Initiative. Under a cooperative 

agreement with NIC, the Center for Effective Public 

Policy has been providing this implementation 

assistance and documenting the evolution of the 

TPC work in those states. 

One tool developed as part of the assistance is a 

framework known as the TPC Implementation 

Roadmap, a sequence of 10 steps necessary to 

move a jurisdiction from its current situation to more 

seamless and effective transition and reentry 

practices. The steps are as follows: 

1.	 Create and charter teams. 

2.	 Develop a clear vision and mission. 

3.	 Develop a workplan. 

4.	 Understand current policy, practice, populations, 

and resources. 

5.	 Align with evidence-based practice. 

6.	 Conduct a gaps analysis. 

7.	 Identify targets of change. 

8.	 Develop an implementation plan. 

9.	 Execute, monitor, adjust, correct. 

10. Evaluate. 

Exhibit 4-1 is the graphic representation of the 

roadmap. Down the left-hand side of the table are 

the various elements of the transition process. 

Across the top of the table are the systematic steps 

that a team implementing the model should follow 

with respect to each element of the model. Each 

cell on the matrix represents a set of work tasks that 

must be completed. The cells are deliberately 

open, because each state will define the specific 

work to be done in each. These steps in implementation appear in logical sequence but often there 

may be a need for more than one iteration of a 

step. For instance, as the work proceeds, it will be 

necessary to charter task teams as specific objectives are selected, and it will likely be necessary to 

return to the gathering and analysis of information 

as more issues are defined. 

At the bottom of the table a set of “conditions” is 

listed that provide the foundation for the implementation process. This part of the graphic communicates that the implementation effort must be 

based on strong leadership, vision, collaboration, 

information, evidence-based practice, and a 

commitment to system change. Throughout the 

process, each element of transition should be 

addressed—from sentencing through admission, 

assessment and classification, behavior and 

programming, release preparation, release, supervision and services, responses to violations, discharge, 

and aftercare. Also, throughout the process the 

requirements of a unifying Transition Accountability 

Plan should be considered. The roadmap graphic is 

the framework and outline of the process by which 

a jurisdiction would complete the work of implementing the TPC model. 

This chapter discusses the 10 steps of the TPC 

implementation roadmap using examples drawn 

from each of the eight TPC pilot states to help 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the Model 29 
Elements

of theTransition Process 

Components of an Implementation Strategy 

Team(s) 

Vision 

and

Mission 

Workplan 

Understand

Current Practice,

Policy, 

Populations,

Resources 

Align With

EvidenceBased

Practice 

Gaps

Analysis 

Targets of 

Change 

Implementation

Plan 

Execute,

Monitor, 

Adjust,

Correct Evaluate 

SentencingAdmission toPrisonAssessment andClassificationBehavior andProgrammingReleasePreparationReleaseSupervisionServicesResponses toViolationsDischargeAftercare

Support for Implementation• Committed Leadership• Shared Vision• Collaboration Across Traditional Boundaries Within and Outside the Criminal Justice System• Good Information for Decisions• Evidence-Based Practice• Commitment to System Change; Identifying Common Interests and Mutual Benefits

Exhibit 4-1. TPC Implementation RoadmapIncreasing public safety by reducing the threat of harm by released offenders and increasing offenders

u

c

c

e

ss 

by fo

stering 

effe

ctive risk 

m

a

n

a

g

e

m

e

nt, a

c

c

o

u

nta

bility for b

oth 

offe

n

d

er a

nd 

s

y

stem 

offi 

cials, a

nd 

c

o

m

m

u

nity and victim participation 

30 TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
explain the process and illustrate how these states 

have used the process to make significant change. 

These examples are found in appendix II. 

1. Create and Charter Teams 

As mentioned earlier, significant system change 

requires leadership and detailed work—gathering 

information, evaluating performance, identifying 

options, and developing new strategies. Essentially, 

the engines of change for TPC are teams chartered 

by leadership at the highest levels of state government. Usually these teams are required on at least 

three levels: 

•	 State policy—Representatives from the Governor’s office, cabinet members leading a range 

of state agencies, state court leadership, law 

enforcement, and statewide victim advocacy 

and ex-offender groups. 

•	 State implementation—Deputy director-level 

officials from state agencies and representatives 

of private and community organizations. 

•	 Local/community—District/regional staff of state 

agencies, local service providers, and local 

elected officials. 

Specific implementation subcommittees and task 

teams may also be formed and then disbanded as 

their work is completed. 

Although TPC envisions participation of stakeholders both from within the corrections community 

and from other agencies with some influence on or 

interest in transition, among most of the pilot states 

corrections has taken a lead role in inviting stakeholders to the table. This requires nontraditional 

collaborations, with correctional leaders reaching 

out to invite and encourage the participation of 

others. As the initiative got underway in one state, 

the director of corrections hosted a series of early 

morning sessions in his office that brought fellow 

cabinet members together on a monthly basis for 

the better part of a year. This laid the support and 

groundwork for those agencies assigning deputy 

director-level staff to what became a statewide 

steering committee. 

In Indiana the Department of Correction chaired 

both a policy group at the highest level of state 

government agencies and a steering committee 

from those agencies to conduct analyses and 

develop recommendations. Membership included 

the state police and the state departments of 

health and workforce development (see example 

1, appendix II). 

Variety of Teams 

As the TPC Initiative has unfolded in the eight states, 

the specific approach to team formation has 

depended on differences in how states typically do 

their work. Some states have structured teams or 

groups as a way to gather broad input from 

interested citizens and organizations and to garner 

public support. In Michigan, an advisory group 

drawn from citizens, various organizations, and 

agency employees has numbered as many as 300 

individuals during the course of the effort. Other 

states take other approaches. In North Dakota, 

working teams were organized around specific 

aspects of the TPC model and around evidencebased practice, whereas Michigan and Rhode 

Island took other approaches in their team configurations, based on their size and organizational 

frameworks (see examples 2, 3, and 4, appendix II). 

Chartering 

Another key aspect of team formation is the 

chartering of teams. As such groups are brought 

together, it is critical that they have a clear understanding of what is expected of them, what their 

timeframe is, who should be involved, and what 

resources they have. Participating states have 

made extensive use of team charters to provide 

clear direction and to enhance the productivity of 

teams at all levels. When Missouri organized a 

number of teams around substantive aspects of 

transition—housing, substance abuse, employment—it used team charters to clarify exactly what 

was expected of each team. The charter for 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the Model 31 
Missouri’s Substance Abuse Ad-Hoc Team (example 5, appendix II) is a good example of how a 

charter can be an important tool in using teams to 

manage change. 

Structure and Roles of Teams 

Exhibit 4-2 presents information on the typical 

purpose, activities, and membership of the types of 

teams that states have found helpful in TPC implementation. Team membership frequently overlaps, 

both to facilitate communication and to capitalize 

on the specialized knowledge, experience, and 

credibility of key participants in the effort. 

Team Member Roles 

The implementation process outlined by NIC also 

encourages states to delineate specific roles and 

responsibilities for individual members of chartered 

teams. For instance, the Michigan Prisoner ReEntry 

Initiative, or MPRI as the TPC effort is known in that 

state, identified five roles for each team: cochairs, 

facilitator, recorder, research coordinator, and 

liaison. Cochairs would define the agenda and 

guide the work of the group. A facilitator would 

prepare agendas and guide discussions to keep 

the group on task. A recorder would make sure that 

a complete record of the group’s work was made 

and disseminated. A research coordinator would 

take responsibility for organizing efforts to gather 

and analyze information. A liaison would keep 

abreast of the work of other teams and how it 

affected his or her own team’s efforts. 

Substantive Focus of Teams 

Typically, team and subcommittee efforts have 

focused on the seven decision points of the TPC 

model: assessment and classification, behavior and 

programming, release preparation, release decisionmaking, release revocation, supervision and 

services, and discharge. Michigan had these 

decision points in mind when it took the additional 

step of creating clusters of committees to avoid 

duplication and fragmentation. The clustering 

meant that the four teams working on assessment/ 

classification, inmate behavior and programming, 

inmate release preparation, and inmate 

educational/vocational and employment issues 

were charged with working closely together. 

Structuring the Work activities of Teams 

Given the number of teams, the complexity of the 

work, and the extended period of time TPC implementation requires, tools for structuring committee 

work have proven helpful. A simple meeting 

template was developed and adapted for use by 

the working teams (see example 6, appendix II). It 

serves as a sort of generic agenda to keep a 

team’s attention focused on goals, completion of 

specific tasks, and accountability. In addition to 

structuring meeting activities, the template also 

provides a standard format for recording the 

discussions, decisions, and participants at each 

meeting—creating a critical record of the work 

and accountability for each team’s charge. 

Because participants in this process are drawn from 

many different disciplines, issues, terminology, and 

operating assumptions must be clarified. In New 

York, for instance, the TPC Initiative assembled a 

glossary of criminal justice terms (see example 7, 

appendix II) to make certain that all terms routinely 

used in discussion would be understood by noncriminal justice participants. Another way of 

facilitating such “cross training” is the exchange of 

contact information with names, titles, agencies, 

and organizational charts. 

Local Teams 

The TPC Initiative assumes the importance of 

leadership at the state level. Correctional institutions, postrelease supervision (in many states), 

funding of social services, and sentencing policy 

are typically the responsibility of state government. 

However, as one TPC participant is fond of saying, 

“All reentry is local.” As offenders leave prison, they 

are returning to communities where they will either 

be successful or not. The TPC model, as it has 

unfolded, has involved the development of critical 

partnerships at the local level, typically involving 

32 TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
Exhibit 4-2. Some Types of Teams Involved in 

TPC Implementation 

State Level Policy Team 

Purpose: To provide leadership, direction, authority, resources, decisionmaking to the statewide effort. 

Activities: Establishing a vision, chartering implementation and task teams, providing resources, setting


priorities, reviewing alternative proposals for change.


Membership: Governor’s office, cabinet members, state court administrator, law enforcement, prosecution, 


leadership of statewide stakeholder groups (victim advocates, associations of county-level community 


corrections agencies, defense bar, community-based service providers).


Implementation Team (or Steering Committee) 

Purpose: To present information and recommendations to the state-level policy team in support of the vision 


they have articulated.


Activities: Conducting information-gathering, analysis, and development of proposed priorities, changes, 


and shifts in policy and practice—and implementing the decisions of the state-level policy team.


Membership: Deputy director-level officials of state operating agencies, service providers, research and 


planning staff from participating agencies.


Implementation Subcommittees 

Purpose: To develop specific proposals and implementation plans for specific elements of transition 


and reentry.


Activities: Becoming specialists on a specific reentry topic such as assessment, case planning and 


management, treatment programming of particular types—and developing specific proposals for change.


Membership: System experts on specific aspects of the system, potential collaborative partners.


Task Teams 

Purpose: To carry out specific ad hoc assignments for the policy and implementation teams.


Activities: Organizing and conducting events to seek input or disseminate information about transition and 


reentry efforts, developing specific campaigns or strategies for community education.


Membership: Staff from partner agencies.


Local Reentry Teams 

Purpose: To assist in soliciting support and involvement in transition efforts at the community level. 

Activities: Forming collaborative case management teams to work with individual offenders, conducting 

analysis of existing resources/capacities to assist in transition, identify gaps, and marshal resources to 

ensure a range of resources are available. 

Membership: Local elected officials, local community-based organizations involved in providing services to 

offenders, management and line staff of state agencies operating within communities to provide services to 

offenders in institutions and in the community. 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the Model 33 
representatives of state agencies who operate 

within communities, local elected officials, community organizations, service providers, victim and 

offender advocacy groups, faith-based organizations, and individual citizens. For example, the State 

of Missouri has local reentry teams that serve every 

county in the state. Michigan has commissioned 

and secured funding for local-level teams to 

provide services to transitioning offenders. In New 

York, federal Byrne funds and state funds have 

been used to support the work of County Reentry 

Task Forces (CRTFs). 

In St. Louis, the Missouri Eastern Region Re-Entry 

Group Effort (MERRGE) Steering Committee has 

taken on the reentry challenge within the context of 

the state’s Missouri Reentry Process structure. The 

local team is chaired by Missouri Probation and 

Parole and involves the Missouri Department of 

Mental Health, the State Division of Workforce 

Development, the Boone County Community 

Partnership, a St. Louis circuit judge, the University 

of Missouri (St. Louis), the Missouri Career Center, 

U.S. Probation, the mayor’s advisor on housing 

issues, and community and faith-based organizations that provide services to offenders returning 

from prison. 

Recruitment of local stakeholders calls for some 

creativity. In Missouri, the Missouri Reentry Process 

working teams, or MRP as the TPC Initiative is known 

in that state, developed an information piece that 

was circulated among agencies, inviting them to 

become part of the initiative. It introduced the 

concepts of transition and reentry, putting them in 

the context of desired results such as decreased 

rates of crime and unemployment and observing 

that those released from Missouri’s prisons overlap 

significantly with the target populations of other 

state agencies. The document hits on some of the 

key themes that encourage such joint investment in 

transition: overlapping populations, universal 

interest in community safety, and benefits from 

community stability. This tool can be found as 

example 8, appendix II. 

2. Develop a Clear Vision 

and Mission 

The leaders of any transition and reentry initiative 

must make the effort to articulate their goals for the 

future—why they are undertaking this work and 

how their state will be different in the future if they 

are successful.Within the TPC framework, this is a 

collaborative endeavor of all corrections stakeholders and noncriminal justice stakeholders. Once 

the effort has been made to bring diverse stakeholders to the table by identifying common clients, 

common interests, and mutual benefits that cross 

traditional boundaries, articulating a unifying vision 

and core mission becomes possible. This shared 

vision then creates the impetus to complete the 

work of collaborating on policies, procedures, 

information sharing, and outcome measures across 

agencies. 

From the very beginning, this effort had a winning 

feel to it. The leadership at DOC was charismatic 

and visionary. The TPC model made perfect sense. 

. . . The task—reducing returns to prison—was 

crystal clear and apolitical. . . . The original 

steering team members were decisionmakers who 

were not afraid to call shots and take risks. . . . 

Everyone believed that the effort would have 

historical significance. We were right. 

—Mark Stringer, Director 

Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse 

Missouri Department of Mental Health 

Given the changes in focus and purpose that 

criminal sentencing and corrections have experienced in recent decades, the work on vision and 

mission is critical to ensure the commitment of key 

stakeholders and unity of purpose. The vision 

statement should be written and widely shared so 

that it can provide direction and purpose for the 

significant efforts required to reshape transition and 

reentry. Although a vision statement is not meant to 

34 TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
communicate how a state will accomplish its future 

vision of reentry, it should make clear the direction 

of efforts and why they are important. A vision will 

also reflect the values, ideals, and principles of 

collaborative undertaking and provide an optimistic 

framework to guide the work. 

All of the states involved in the TPC Initiative have 

crafted vision statements that link community safety 

with successful offender transition and reentry. 

Vision statements are often developed in a retreat 

setting that allows the leadership team to spend 

enough uninterrupted time together to discuss in 

depth the compelling nature of the reentry challenge and how they envision meeting that challenge. Georgia’s TPC effort, the Georgia Reentry 

Impact Project, or GRIP as it is know in that state, 

provides a good illustration of how a clear, concise 

vision statement links successful transition with 

public safety, and how one state presented its TPC 

effort clearly as an initiative directly supported by 

the Governor. This particular document also brings 

in a statement of the specific mission of GRIP, 

another key product of leadership’s work on 

reentry. (See example 9, appendix II for the GRIP 

vision statement, and example 10, appendix II for 

some other states’ vision statements.) 

3. Develop a Workplan 

The subsequent steps of the roadmap encompass 

multiple tasks involving many agencies and individuals organized into a variety of teams. For an 

orderly movement through the process, the next 

step is the development of a workplan articulating 

specific information-gathering and analytic tasks in 

support of the teams’ work. Specific timelines and 

assignment of responsibilities are important aspects 

of this work planning. 

As teams are chartered and take on the work, first 

of understanding the present situation and then of 

developing strategies for change, a structured way 

of outlining specific objectives, tasks, schedules, 

and products will be essential. Each of the participating states has developed a structure for this. 

example 11 in appendix II presents the structure 

created by Rhode Island to manage the work of its 

various subcommittees. 

4. Understand Current Policy, 

Practice, Populations, and 

Resources 

Current reentry practices and outcomes so clearly 

need improvement that the temptation to move 

quickly to solutions is understandable. However, 

based on practitioner and researcher experience, 

the TPC implementation strategy includes a deliberate and collaborative review of the current situation to identify and then prioritize targets of 

change. Too often, public policy initiatives are 

begun on the assumption that the appropriate 

solutions are obvious and all that is needed is the 

will to put them in place. Because the corrections 

and reentry systems are complex, fragmented, 

geographically dispersed, and overlap the boundaries and interests of so many stakeholders, it is likely 

that no one agency or individual has a really clear 

picture of how things currently operate. To develop 

a clear strategy to move forward requires a shared 

understanding of the current situation. 

Policy and Practices—Institutions, 

Release, and Community Phases 

Once working teams are assembled, efforts should 

be undertaken to clearly understand exactly how 

current policy and practice shape the process of 

offender transition and reentry. This step in the 

process should result in a system map that charts 

the flow of cases through key decision points and 

includes the following: 

•	 A review of policy and practice governing

transition and reentry, including assessment, case 

planning, current transition preparation, and 

protocols for sharing information. 

•	 A clear profile of the transitioning population

including numbers, recidivism rates, times served, 

and access to programs. 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the Model 35 
•	 A resource inventory identifying current, formal

interventions available for transitioning offenders 

both within institutions and in the community. 

There are numerous strategies to be used in gathering and analyzing this information, but in general, 

the goal is to develop a clear picture of how cases 

move through the system and where the current 

situation works at cross-purposes with the goal of 

successful reentry. Critical areas to examine include 

assessment, case planning and management, 

preparation for postrelease housing, employment, 

substance abuse and mental health services, and 

linkages with informal networks of prosocial support. 

The technical assistance team developed a primer 

on system mapping to assist the pilot states (see 

example 12, appendix II). This primer outlines a 

step-by-step process for creating a map of current 

reentry practices, adding quantitative information, 

and identifying areas that require further information gathering. It is critically important to conduct 

the system mapping in the context of a group 

discussion involving individuals with firsthand 

knowledge of various aspects of the system. These 

individuals would include both correctional staff 

(institutional and field, program and custody), 

service providers in institutions and in the community, and those who understand automated case 

management systems, the assessment protocols in 

place, and the guidelines governing discretionary 

release and responses to violations. examples 13 

and 14, appendix II, are maps developed by those 

involved with the Rhode Island TPC effort. 

offender Populations 

Offenders transitioning from prison to the community are a large, diverse, and growing population. 

Understanding the risks, needs, dimensions, and 

other characteristics of the population is critical to 

planning appropriate interventions and case 

management. 

examples 15 and 16, appendix II, present the type 

of information that pilot TPC states found helpful to 

assemble in their work. The examples differ in the 

level of detail about population, but that is to be 

expected. Available data systems and research 

capabilities vary from state to state and determine 

exactly how detailed and sophisticated an analysis 

will be possible. Whatever the limitations, however, it 

is essential that those planning changes in transition 

and reentry practices know how many offenders 

are typically released over a given period of time, 

what their current success rates are, and what 

factors are associated with success and failure. 

Resources and Services 

A critical element of the TPC model is the use of 

effective, evidence-based correctional programs of 

various sorts to address and reduce the criminogenic needs of offenders, particularly high-risk 

offenders. With the steep growth in prison population and need to deploy significant budget to build 

and maintain prison bed capacity, funding for 

institutional and community programs is generally 

regarded as insufficient. Nevertheless, most states 

have programs that should be documented and 

used to best effect. A first step is to catalog existing 

programs, target populations, eligibility requirements, costs (if offenders in the community, for 

instance, must pay for services), and accessibility 

(i.e., location and hours of availability). example 17, 

appendix II, is an inventory that identifies precisely 

the nature, location, and capacity of program 

resources available within Georgia’s correctional 

facilities. 

Information and Measurement Capacity 

One of the basic tenets of the TPC model is that 

practice should be based on evidence of effectiveness. This tenet implies that whatever program 

interventions we adopt should have a track record 

of success. It also implies that the leaders and 

managers of change must have good information 

to guide their work, including information about 

current practices, feedback about their own efforts, 

and documentation of outcomes. To be so well 

informed requires good management information, 

sharing of information across boundaries, and some 

36 TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
capacity for evaluation and research. As part of 

“understanding current practice,” the TPC implementation effort should take stock of those capacities.What information is routinely provided to 

managers and staff? How can that information be 

used to best effect? How can it be improved? 

One of the most difficult challenges in conducting 

good transition planning is securing access to data 

from different state agencies. Participating TPC 

states confronted many difficulties in information 

and measurement capacity due to fragmentation 

of agencies, incompatibility of information systems, 

and rapid obsolescence of legacy systems. New 

York provides a good example of how to overcome 

information problems and generate good information. The New York TPC Initiative chartered a 

Research and Information Support Team (RIST) to 

build new partnerships and approaches in information sharing. example 18, appendix II, outlines the 

problem of sharing case-level information and the 

solution devised by RIST. example 19, appendix II, is 

the presentation that introduced this innovation to 

those involved in the TPC Initiative in New York. It 

provides a specific example of how the RIST 

partnership was presented to the New York TPC 

steering group with a list of the projects undertaken 

and of how one critical question of eligibility for 

benefits was addressed. 

5. Align With Evidence-Based 

Practice 

This step in the process addresses another implication of the commitment to use evidence-based 

practices: the need to review existing offender 

programs to determine the degree to which they 

comport with the principles of effective intervention. This step also asks teams to review overarching 

policies regarding the targeting of those interventions on the basis of risk, need, and responsivity. 

Situations where interventions fall short or where it is 

not possible to know of their efficacy become 

candidate targets of change under step seven in 

the TPC implementation roadmap. 

Reviewing programs is perhaps one of the most 

difficult aspects of reviewing current practice, as it 

requires staff time and expertise or obtaining 

assistance from outside. It also means questioning 

the usefulness of programs that may be longstanding and popular, regardless of their foundation in 

evidence. 

Of course, many correctional agencies have been 

making progress on this front for some years. 

Indeed, Oregon—one of the states that served as a 

model site for the TPC Initiative—is operating under 

state legislation passed in 2003 that requires the 

Oregon Department of Corrections and other 

agencies to allocate an increasing percentage of 

their program funding to evidence-based practices. The legislation stipulates that, beginning in July 

2009: 

The Department of Corrections, the 

Oregon Youth Authority, the State Commission on Children and Families, that part of 

the Department of Human Services that 

deals with mental health and addiction 

issues, and the Oregon Criminal Justice 

Commission shall spend at least 75 percent 

of state moneys that each agency receives 

for programs on evidence-based programs.

1 

example 20, appendix II, provides the full text of this 

Oregon legislation. 

NIC has developed a range of resources and tools 

for operating agencies to use in reviewing programs. These materials include a checklist that 

agencies can use to review their current interventions2

 and a quality assurance manual with specific 

guidance on practices to enhance alignment with 

evidence-based practice.3

 Other tools, such as the 

Correctional Program Assessment Inventory,

4

 are 

also available to states engaged in reviewing 

programs to see if their design and implementation 

match the best thinking in the field. 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the Model 37 
Be consistent, persistent, patient. Moving research 

into practice is a long-term commitment. It will 

take years to align your agency practices with the 

principles from research. So start with the basics: 

those three principles of effective interventions of 

targeting high-risk offenders, focusing interventions 

on criminal risk factors, and delivering programs in 

styles appropriate for the offender population. Then 

look to begin aligning your agency functions. For 

example, if you are going to target higher risk 

offenders, you must first know who they are. Then 

you will want to know how your programs and 

personnel resources are being invested.

—Ginger Martin, Assistant Director 

Transitional Services Division 

Oregon Department of Corrections 

Alignment with evidence-based practice requires 

going beyond assuring the availability of sound, 

proven treatment programs. It also requires redefining staff roles to include interactions with offenders 

to enhance their motivation and engage them in 

the process of change. Chapter 5 of this handbook 

details the role of line staff as key influencers in 

offenders’ motivation to change. 

6. Conduct a Gaps Analysis 

Having agreed on a vision for the future and 

developed an understanding of the present (about 

offenders, policies, practices, resources), teams will 

need to analyze the gaps that exist between 

where they want to be and where they are. This 

step of the implementation process involves a 

conscious comparison between current practices, 

resources, policies, and perspectives and those 

implicit in the TPC model. example 21, appendix II, 

is drawn from early work conducted in Indiana 

under the TPC Initiative. Known as the Indiana 

Offender Reintegration Project, the effort conducted a careful review of practice and then 

articulated the gaps that existed between that 

practice and the principles of the TPC model. This 

document illustrates one way of compiling 

information to highlight gaps or problems that 

might be addressed and of connecting them to 

the specific recommendations for change. 

7. Identify Targets of Change 

The gaps analysis will likely reveal a wide range of 

gaps or mismatches between the real and the 

ideal. For example, after completing their gaps 

analyses, the TPC policy team in Georgia and the 

TPC steering committee in Indiana identified many 

targets of change (see examples 21 and 22, 

appendix II). Leaders must then establish priorities. 

They will determine which problems are most 

urgent and important, what sequence makes most 

sense, what ingredients for change are necessary 

and available, and which are most important for 

moving practice closer to supporting successful 

reentry. Inevitably, there will be some changes that 

can be initiated rather quickly and yield measurable improvements. Other changes will require 

more time, effort, resources, stakeholder buy-in, or 

even legislation. Leadership and staff will be 

challenged to think strategically about how to 

move forward on targets of change. Recommendations emerging from the Georgia GRIP project 

provide a good example of how the various 

analyses can be used to articulate and support 

specific changes in practice (see example 22, 

appendix II). 

The experiences of the eight states participating in 

the TPC Initiative indicate that targets of change 

corresponding to the components of the TPC 

model will include many of the following problem 

areas. 

Case Management 

As the TPC model was designed, the need for a 

single, dynamic case plan was recognized almost 

immediately. In the past, if case plans were prepared at all, they were prepared separately before 

incarceration as part of a presentence investigation or at some point during incarceration. Then, 

upon release, if a case plan had been prepared at 

all, it would be prepared all over again, without 

38 TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
benefit of information from the original plans 

developed by court or prison staff. The TPC model 

includes a Transition Accountability Plan (TAP), 

conceived of as a single, dynamic plan developed 

at the time of admission to prison or even before, 

incorporating the presentence investigation 

information and then updated and revised as the 

offender completes programs, acquires strengths, 

and prepares for release. It is intended to transfer to 

field staff for reassessment and updating in the 

community. It should include the results of assessments and identify the interventions appropriate to 

an offender’s level of risk and criminogenic need. 

Each of the participating jurisdictions found they 

needed to design and implement a TAP because 

previous practices had simply not met these 

criteria. 

The challenge of creating such a plan in electronic 

form so that it can be updated and shared is part 

of the TAP undertaking. Numerous agencies have 

invested in automated, electronic case-planning 

software that offers both opportunities and challenges. Such software typically populates certain 

fields in a case plan, drawing data from an automated assessment. 

As efforts progressed in the eight states, it became 

apparent that a TAP was necessary, yet not sufficient, to glue together the principles and desired 

outcomes of the model. A plan was ultimately only 

a piece of paper or an electronic file. Also needed 

were a new way of interacting with offenders, a 

way to engage partners in this endeavor, and a 

way to integrate custody/security/surveillance with 

a focus on offender success. The need for a fuller 

concept of case management emerged, and a 

significant development effort was mounted as part 

of the technical assistance effort. Chapter 5 of this 

handbook details the new case management 

approach for transition and reentry, Integrated 

Case Management and Supervision. 

Designing and implementing the TAP itself proved 

to be a significant challenge. Many of its basic, 

planned characteristics were difficult to implement. 

Among these were linking it effectively to assessments, creating new protocols and data systems to 

support it, transforming it into electronic format that 

could be shared across agencies and divisions, 

training staff on developing improved case plans, 

and ensuring that it was updated to reflect 

changes in program completions and changing 

levels of risk and need. 

Yet participating states made significant strides 

toward a single, dynamic, sharable TAP. Missouri’s 

TAP (example 23, appendix II) is presently available 

in electronic form and can be shared across 

institutions and fields within corrections and with 

other agencies involved in the management of the 

case. Georgia is developing similarly automated 

case plans that can be shared with partnering 

agencies. 

assessment of Risk and need 

Corrections has always practiced various types of 

assessment. Within correctional facilities, classification for security and housing assignments is well 

established. Since the 1980s, risk classification to 

establish a “level of supervision” in the community 

has also become well established. The development of risk assessment techniques that identify 

both level of risk and level of criminogenic need is 

an important step toward ensuring that effective 

interventions are appropriately targeted to generate maximum recidivism reduction. Participating 

TPC jurisdictions are all either using, developing, or 

in the process of implementing assessment protocols that are designed to be used periodically 

during an offender’s incarceration and postrelease 

supervision to guide participation in programs. This 

has been a major change for some states but it is 

essential to the TPC model. Oregon,5

 Rhode Island, 

and North Dakota now use the LSI-R (Level of 

Service Inventory-Revised) or the LS/CMI (Level of 

Service/Case Management Inventory). Michigan 

and Georgia have implemented COMPAS (Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions). Missouri and Indiana have or are 

developing assessment protocols based on their 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the Model 39 
own populations, and New York has developed 

and is considering implementing its own risk assessment tool. 

Targeting by Risk, need, and Responsivity 

Scarcity of sound, evidence-based programs to 

address offenders’ criminogenic needs is a major 

target of change for the TPC states. Most correctional agencies report insufficient funding for, or 

unavailability of, effective correctional interventions. 

To compound the problem, offenders typically do 

not have access to programs that match their risks 

and needs and are delivered according to their 

learning styles. Although some of the pilot states 

have succeeded in securing foundation and 

federal funding to underwrite services, they have 

had to struggle to ensure that even the available 

programs are targeted effectively. For example, 

within institutions, access to programs often 

depends on an offender’s security level and, 

hence, housing assignment. Housing assignment, 

in turn, has a major influence on proximity and 

accessibility of programs. 

Release Preparation 

Release preparation is a segment of TPC work that 

has received a great deal of attention. At least five 

states, Georgia, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, and 

Oregon, have developed specialized housing units 

so that individuals nearing release can be located 

with others also preparing for release in housing 

with access to programs and, optimally, in close 

proximity to the communities in which they will 

reside after release.“In-reach” procedures that 

bring together a team of parole officers, institutional staff, and program providers have begun to 

emerge as a way to do preplanning with incarcerated offenders anticipating release. Such in-reach 

procedures are not well defined at this time, but 

typically involve the activities of field-based staff 

and resources in meeting with the offender before 

his or her release from prison, often with the collaboration of institutional case managers. 

Nontraditional, collaborative partnerships are 

supporting this work, bringing together community 

organizations, employers, and service providers. In 

Indiana, for instance, a partnership between the 

Department of Corrections and a local bank has 

created the opportunity for inmates nearing 

release to have access to ATM cards. The cards are 

issued initially to give offenders access to their 

inmate accounts (e.g., to make authorized purchases in the facility’s canteen). As inmates use 

these cards responsibly, they are introduced to a 

common aspect of community life. Upon release, 

they are able to open a bank account with the 

participating bank. 

Survival needs 

As states have worked to encourage successful 

offender transition and reentry and to target 

programming to higher risk offenders, they have 

recognized that virtually all offenders, regardless of 

risk and criminogenic need, have basic survival 

needs as they return to the community. Things as 

simple as state-issued identification cards, a roof 

over their heads, a job, or a supply of prescription 

medicine have not always been available. Furthermore, little systematic attention has been given to 

helping eligible offenders access benefits such as 

food stamps, veterans’ benefits, Medicaid, and 

disability benefits when they are released from 

prison. 

Finding appropriate housing has been a significant 

problem for many returning offenders, and some 

TPC states have shown particular interest in developing new solutions in this area. In Georgia, a 

special team was created to identify possible 

resources and new housing partners to create 

options for inmates who were eligible for parole but 

had no acceptable housing plan. The Georgia 

team has been able to place hundreds of inmates 

in appropriate housing that was previously unavailable, thus allowing them to be released on parole. 

The state estimates that this placement has resulted 

in a cost avoidance of approximately $4 million. 

40 TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
Special Populations 

All offenders returning to the community from prison 

experience challenges and barriers, but these are 

not all alike. The TPC states have focused on 

women offenders, offenders with mental illness, and 

sex offenders as populations with distinct challenges. example 24, appendix II, illustrates how 

Michigan has adapted the principles of evidencebased practice to guide its reentry work with 

women offenders. In Rhode Island, the TPC leadership has developed what they refer to as a “learning lab” within their women’s correctional institution 

to test and study the innovations considered for 

transition and reentry statewide. In Missouri, work 

with specialized case loads of women offenders is 

generating much higher levels of successful transition. North Dakota continues to focus on women as 

a population of special interest in its TPC work. 

Release and Revocation 

In several TPC states, paroling authorities still have 

extensive authority in discretionary release decisionmaking, and have become quite involved in 

the TPC efforts. In both Missouri and Michigan, for 

instance, the paroling authorities establish a 

tentative release date that provides a goal toward 

which the offender can work in completing the 

programs set out in the TAP. In the postrelease 

period, clear policy on responding to violations can 

be an integral part of an overall transition and 

reentry strategy.

6 

Parole boards do more than just make release 

decisions. We must also be concerned that 

offenders have the skills, tools, and resources that 

they need so that they don’t return and so that we 

reduce recidivism. We have to be concerned about 

risk and public safety—these are the two main 

concerns for all parole boards and the two main 

concerns for the Michigan Prisoner Reentry 

Initiative. 

—Barbara Sampson, Chair 

Michigan Parole Board 

Supervision and Services 

All the TPC pilot states are working with state and 

local partners, including private service providers, 

to ensure access for returning offenders to programs targeted to their risks and needs. New York’s 

Division of Criminal Justice Services, a key stakeholder in the state’s TPC Initiative, has provided 

funding and guidance in membership, roles, and 

responsibilities to local reentry task force teams. 

(example 25, appendix II, provides the program 

announcement for this part of New York’s work on 

reentry.) 

discharge and aftercare 

Two critical questions arise once an offender has 

completed a significant portion of supervision. The 

first question is: How long must the offender remain 

under supervision? In some of the pilot states, 

offenders are eligible for early termination of 

supervision once they have successfully completed 

a portion of the supervision period. Some of the 

states, such as Michigan, have investigated the 

extent to which case termination options are being 

used, the consistency with which rules or policies 

are being applied, and opportunities to expand 

termination options for certain types of cases. 

The second question is: What does the offender 

need to continue positive community reintegration 

efforts once supervision ends? For many offenders, 

a variety of specific criminogenic risks/needs or 

survival factors may require additional attention, 

support, or programming after the completion of 

supervision. TPC sites answer this question by 

developing a discharge plan with considerable 

involvement of the offender, positive social support 

members, and community program staff. The 

discharge plan should identify those actions or 

activities that need to be completed before the 

end of supervision and should outline opportunities 

in the community for continuing positive or necessary activities after discharge from correctional 

supervision (e.g., substance abuse programming, 

job preparation efforts, working with a mentor). 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the Model 41 
After discharge from supervision, the “aftercare” 

period begins, with continuing case management 

provided by local community providers, mentors, or 

other appropriate individuals. Missouri and Michigan have striven to develop effective discharge 

plans and involve appropriate community members in appropriate aftercare activities. 

8. Develop an Implementation Plan 

Once priority targets of change have been identified and agreed to, steering committees or policy 

teams will need to outline and clarify the general 

and specific changes most needed for the jurisdiction to realize its broader reentry objectives. They 

will also have to identify precisely how to move 

forward with complicated tasks such as modifying 

existing practice, developing and using new tools 

or approaches, integrating new work or work 

expectations into an existing framework, overcoming barriers to the exchange of information, and 

finding compatible technologies to allow for 

interagency communication. The states generally 

determined that it is important to create implementation teams or work groups that have a clear 

understanding of their responsibilities, are provided 

with specific timeframes for completing this work, 

and involve individuals who are most knowledgeable about the specific issues to be addressed. 

In the words of one person who is involved with the 

work of an implementation team:

The best advice I could give to someone who is 

just starting to work with an implementation work 

group is threefold: 1) Recognize that successful 

implementation requires a long-term commitment, 

2) Don’t lose sight of what you’re ultimately trying 

to accomplish through your efforts, and 3) Make 

certain you have the right folks on the bus and in 

the right seats. 

—Michael Nail, Assistant Director 

Corrections Division 

Georgia Department of Corrections 

In each TPC state workgroups were charged with 

implementing (or recommending to a higher level 

group) policy changes, new tools (e.g., assessment 

tools), modifications to training, and amendments 

to specific work practices. The workplans created 

by individual TPC states generally contained the 

goals and objectives, specific tasks, anticipated 

timeframes, and responsibilities of particular 

individuals for each implementation workgroup 

(see, for example, Michigan’s implementation 

workplan in example 26, appendix II). 

9. Execute, Monitor, Adjust, Correct 

Once implementation work teams are ready to 

initiate changes, organizations must consider the 

extent to which staff, particularly frontline staff and 

firstline supervisors, have been prepared to carry 

out the planned changes. 

Preparing the organization for Change 

The preparation of staff for significant change has 

three broad components that work together to 

create an environment that will support the implementation changes that will be developed. Despite 

the necessity of new policies, training programs, 

information or tools, or other modifications to the 

practices of an organization, what will matter most 

is how frontline staff, frontline supervisors, and 

middle managers embrace the need for and value 

of the changes and how they use the tools, information, or policies to guide their day-to-day efforts. 

The first component might be termed general staff 

preparation. It may largely be focused on informational sessions that broadly discuss reentry topics 

and familiarize staff with some of the reasons why 

change is needed, the vision of the organization 

regarding reentry, the importance of working 

collaboratively with other organizations to accomplish mutual goals, and the research on evidencebased practices. These sessions should help staff 

appreciate the need to make certain changes in 

approach, method, or the tools used to do the work 

at hand. This type of organizational preparation 

usually occurs early in an effort and often is 

42 TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
complete before implementation work teams are 

ready to move forward with their efforts. 

Each TPC state found an appropriate method for 

initiating this type of staff education—either through 

special TPC “kickoff” meetings or tailored training 

events for managers and selected staff or by taking 

opportunities at regularly scheduled meetings or 

conferences to explain and describe the value of 

moving forward with interagency reentry efforts. 

Whatever their form or occasion, these training or 

informational events introduced staff to reentry 

concepts and provided a foundation for further 

work. They created an opportunity for staff to reflect 

on their current practices and organizational 

culture and to see something of the intended 

process and future direction of reentry efforts in 

their jurisdiction. 

The second component of organizational preparation involves managers within an organization 

preparing other managers, supervisors, or their 

counterparts in partnering organizations for the 

planned changes to policy, practice, or methods so 

that these individuals can, in turn, prepare their staff 

members for these changes. Significant change 

within organizations occurs when all levels of staff 

not only see and appreciate the nature or direction of intended changes, but also understand and 

embrace the practical implications of these 

changes for their work. 

During this stage of organizational preparation, 

leaders of implementation efforts make presentations to their peers, managers in other divisions of 

their organization, or managers in other organizations.With this second component, some specific 

things may start to happen. Individual policies 

might be amended, training lesson plans developed or changed, or resources allocated differently. The changes in approach or method are now 

more visible, are being discussed by people other 

than the directors of organizations or the leaders of 

the top-tier reentry group, and are being incorporated into the formal structure and processes of the 

organization. 

An example of this component of organizational 

preparation is the series of presentations recently 

made by the incarceration implementation team of 

the Georgia Reentry Impact Project to all wardens 

or superintendents and chief probation officers 

within the state and to participants at the Georgia 

Probation Association Conference (see example 27, 

appendix II). These presentations show leadership at 

work bringing change into the core functions of correctional agencies as they manage offenders and 

prepare them for reentry. They reflect the value of 

delivering reentry information in a variety of ways 

and at a variety of levels within and across organizational lines to change the focus and culture of the 

individuals who work within organizations. 

The third component of organizational change is 

characterized by the skill building and more 

specific training that staff receive to help them do 

work in new ways. This training may involve using 

new assessment tools, creating improved case 

plans (or making better use of case plans), interacting with offenders in different ways at prerelease 

centers or in housing units, delivering information to 

offenders that will be critical to reentry planning, or 

addressing “survival needs” after release. This training 

might cover general topics, such as motivational 

interviewing or effective communication skills, or very 

specific topics such as how to properly fill out a new 

assessment form or how to inform an inmate about 

particular assistance available regarding housing, 

employment, or various community services. 

Frontline staff must be knowledgeable about the 

specific work activities they are expected to 

perform, and frontline supervisors must encourage 

and support the way their staff are accomplishing 

their work after the new training. The modification 

of audit content or processes, recognizing the 

accomplishments of specific types of new work 

through praise or publications, and other practical 

supports may be used to encourage, support, and 

continue the use of new or improved work practices. Evidence of organizational change on this 

level would be the delivery of motivational 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the Model 43 
interviewing information within the context of 

overall reentry objectives, the development of a 

single case plan that is used by frontline staff across 

divisions or organizations to help promote successful offender outcomes, and recognition of staff in 

publications or at meetings for their implementation 

of new offender reentry practices. 

The Work of Implementation Teams 

During implementation, work teams will complete 

their assignments, implementing actions or recommending them to steering committees or oversight 

teams. Several implementation teams may be 

created or one large team with several subgroups. 

These teams do substantial problem-solving work 

and may often adjust their activities to meet new or 

unforeseen circumstances, such as substantial 

problems with incompatible information technology systems, statutory barriers that were not 

originally considered, the need for additional 

resources or personnel that may not be available, 

and the development of issues or problems that 

were not present when the implementation groups 

were created. 

As they work, implementation teams will need to 

receive feedback and to consider emerging data 

or information so that they can determine if they 

are moving forward in the best possible manner. The 

development of “critical reentry indicators” may 

help not only these implementation work groups, 

but also steering committees and policy teams, to 

make this determination and to know whether 

substantial modifications to approach or method 

will be necessary. (See chapter 6 for more information on performance measurement.) 

10. Evaluate 

The kinds of measurement discussed in the previous 

section involve routine monitoring of data regarding operations of the various partner agencies, 

which generally are produced through routine 

management information systems. In addition to 

this tracking of management indicators, efforts to 

revamp reentry practices should also allocate or 

seek resources and expertise to conduct sound 

evaluation research to provide feedback to 

leadership about performance and about potential changes and refinements in course. At least one 

of the participating TPC sites—Michigan—has been 

able to secure significant foundation funding to 

conduct an outcome evaluation. Others are 

exploring partnerships with universities to conduct 

controlled research studies of the impact of their 

interventions and broader efforts towards reentry. 

A Checklist for Tracking 

Progress Along the TPC 

Roadmap 

Exhibit 4-3 is a tool for tracking overall progress 

toward implementation of the TPC model. The 

checklist walks through the major steps of implementation, asking the user to reflect on progress 

toward the various aspects of the model. Other, 

more detailed workplans will also be needed, such 

as Michigan’s method of tracking a lengthy list of 

specific tasks and activities (see example 26, 

appendix II). The TPC Implementation Roadmap 

Checklist is designed to help leadership take a 

broad view of how efforts are progressing and 

identify both accomplishments and areas for 

further attention. 

44 TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
Implementation Step Begun In Process Completed 

Examples From the TPCPilot States (See Appendix II)

1. Create and charter teams.

1. Has a statewide leadership team been established with

cabinet-level leadership and support? Does membershipinclude:

Example 1: Indiana Policy Group andSteering CommitteeExample 2: Structure of Michigan’s Prisoner Reentry InitiativeExample 3: Rhode Island Team StructureExample 4: North Dakota TPC Working Group StructureExample 5: Missouri Substance AbuseAd Hoc Team Charter 

• Representative of the Governor’s office? • Institutional, community corrections, and releasing

authority?

• State agencies charged with providing services for health,

mental health, substance abuse, vocational education, andyouth and family?

• Any other key stakeholders?

2. Has a deputy director-level steering committee been sponsored 

by the leadership team with a clear charter?

3. Are local reentry task forces established at the city, county, or 

regional levels addressing the challenges of reentry in thosecommunities?

4. Do those local reentry task forces have membership both from

state agencies and local communities?

5. Does each of these teams have a clear understanding of ground

rules for membership; a designated chair, facilitator, and recorder; and adequate staff support?

2. Develop a clear vision and mission.

6. Has your leadership team articulated a clear and elevating

vision of the future? Do all participants understand how yourcommunities will benefit if you are successful in your transitionand reentry efforts?

Example 9: Georgia Reentry ImpactProject VisionExample 10: Vision Statements From Three TPC Sites

7. Is your vision supported by a clear statement of mission, i.e., an

overall outcome that is measurable and achievable?

Exhibit 4-3. TPC Implementation Roadmap ChecklistCompleting the following checklist periodically during the TPC implementation effort can provide a concise overview of progress toward changes in transition and reentry practices. 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the Model 45 
TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model Exhibit 4-3. TPC Implementation Roadmap Checklist (continued) Begun In Process Completed Implementation Step Examples From the TPC Pilot States (See Appendix II) 3. Develop a workplan. 4. Understand current policy, practice, populations, and resources. 9. Has your effort undertaken the following: Example 12: A Primer on System Mapping Example 13: Rhode Island TPC “Mapping the System—Zone 1” Example 15: Missouri Reentry Process (MRP) Offender Populations Analysis Example 16: New York’s Transition From Prison to Community Initiative: Population Analysis Example 17: Georgia Risk Reduction Programming Available Through DOC

Example 18: New York TPC Strategy on Data SharingExample 19: New York Presents an Information Strategy 

• Creation of a system map that outlines how cases currently

move through the system from sentencing (or before)through discharge from supervision (and after)?

• Analysis of the current incarcerated, reentering, and

supervision populations that includes information onnumbers, profiles of offenses, risk levels, criminogenicneeds, and deficits?

• Collection of data on current outcomes or performance of

the transition process, including recidivism (e.g., rearrest,reconviction, return to prison), at different time intervals?

• An investigation into current barriers for offenders returning

to the community?

• A review of current policies and practices of criminal justice

agencies and their partner agencies that affect transition andreentry, specifically those that create barriers or hinder access to helpful services and resources such as:o Assessment?o Programming and interventions?o Release preparation?

8. Does each of the teams working on transition and reentry have:

Example 11: Rhode Island’s Strategic Use of TPC Subcommittees

• A specific set of tasks for which they are accountable?• A timeline for completion of tasks and subtasks?• Clear assignment of responsibility for these tasks to

individuals or subcommittees?

• A regular meeting schedule and way of reporting work to the

leadership of the transition and reentry effort?

46 
Exhibit 4-3. TPC Implementation Roadmap Checklist (continued) 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the Model 

Implementation Step Begun In Process Completed 

Examples From the TPC

Pilot States (See Appendix II)

o Release practices?

o Supervision and services?o Responses to violations?

• A review of existing resources and services available to

offenders within both institutions and communities?

• Completion of the Integrated Case Management and

Supervision Checklist to assess current practices in casemanagement?

5. Align with evidence-based practice.

10. Does your system assess offenders’ risks and needs (using 

validated, actuarial assessment tools) at entry into the systemand at various points thereafter, especially before release to the community?

11. Does your system use positive incentives to enhance the intrinsic 

motivation of offenders to transition successfully withoutreoffending?

12. Does your system: 

• Prioritize supervision and treatment resources for higher risk

offenders?

• Target interventions to offender needs related to their 

criminality (criminogenic needs)?

• Take into account temperament, learning style, motivation, 

culture, and gender when assigning programs?

• Structure 40%–70% of high-risk offenders’ time for 3–9

months?

• Integrate treatment into incarceration, transition, and

community phases of the sentence?

13. Do you employ cognitive-behavioral treatment methods?14. Do you use and emphasize positive reinforcement for desired 

behaviors?

47 
TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model Example 22: Georgia’s Targets of Change Implementation Step Begun In Process Completed Examples From the TPC Pilot States (See Appendix II) 15. Do you engage ongoing support for successful transition from offenders’ natural networks of support? 16. Do you measure outcomes of your practices? 17. Do you provide feedback to staff and offenders about behavior and outcomes? 6. Conduct a gaps analysis. 18. Has your team carefully considered what it has learned about current practices and resources in contrast to its vision of the future? Example 21: Indiana’s Gap Analysis and Targets of Change 19. What are the gaps between where you are now, and where you want to be in your “preferred future”? 7. Identify targets of change. 20. You likely will identify many gaps between the current situation and where you would like your transition and reentry practices to be in the future. You need to prioritize your desired changes, which will become your targets of change. Have you identified likely targets of change for the following?

• Assessment practice.• Programming and interventions with offenders.• Targeting strategies for resources by risk, need, and 

responsivity. 

• Release preparation.• Work with special populations.• Release and revocation practices.• Supervision strategies and services in the community after

release. 

• Discharge and aftercare.• Integrated case management and supervision.• Case plans (e.g., do you have transition accountability

plans in place?).

Exhibit 4-3. TPC Implementation Roadmap Checklist (continued) 

48 
Exhibit 4-3. TPC Implementation Roadmap Checklist (continued)

Implementation Step8. Develop an implementation plan.

24. Do you have procedures in place to track changes in your own 

system and ways of operating over time? (A measurementstrategy should define and collect data that documentsimprovements in such things as assessment, case planning, andtargeted interventions as offenders move through the transitionand reentry process.) 

Begun In Process Completed 

21. Do you have a detailed implementation plan in place? (Because 

TPC implementation is a complex undertaking, you mustsupport the work of teams in executing your plans for change. It Example 26: Michigan’s is important to sustain efforts, to structure them with a detailed Implementation Plan implementation plan, to require regular progress reports, and toadjust and correct strategy based on the experience of planningand implementing change.) 

Examples From the TPC

Pilot States (See Appendix II)

See chapter 6 for examples ofapproaches to measuring andtracking changes in recidivism,reentry indicators, and systemchange. 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the Model 

9. Execute, monitor, adjust, correct.

22. Do you currently have procedures in place to define and track 

outcomes? (At a minimum, your transition efforts must includethe development of outcome measures and the capability tocollect, analyze, and use data on outcomes. The most basicmeasures would involve recidivism data—including arrests,reconvictions, and reincarceration—on offenders transitioningfrom prison to the community. Outcome data should be collected at 6 months postrelease and 1, 2, and 3 yearsthereafter. 

23. Do you have procedures in place to document indicators 

associated with successful offender outcomes such as employment, sobriety, involvement in and completion of required treatment, and stable housing? (Your efforts should include the development of process or interim measures that would trackimprovements in such reentry indicators.)

49 
Implementation Step Begun In Process Completed 

Examples From the TPC

Pilot States (See Appendix II)

10. Evaluate.

25. Have you discontinued interventions proven ineffective and 

supported those demonstrated to contribute to recidivismreduction? Optimally, the stakeholders involved in this effort will also be able to identify research capability—within agencies,local universities, or other research organizations—to plan andconduct controlled studies to document the outcomes ofinterventions currently in use.)

Exhibit 4-3. TPC Implementation Roadmap Checklist (continued) 

50 TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
Notes 

1. 72nd Oregon Legislative Assembly, 2003 Regular 

Session, Enrolled Senate Bill 267. 

2. Implementing Effective Correctional Management of Offenders in the Community: Implementation Checklist, Revised August 22, 2005, http://nicic. 

org/Downloads/PDF/Library/020171.pdf. 

3. Implementing Evidence-Based Practice in 

Community Corrections: Quality Assurance Manual 

(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 

National Institute of Corrections, 2005), http://nicic. 

org/downloads/PDF/Library/021258.pdf. 

4. The Correctional Program Assessment Inventory 

(CPAI) is an inventory developed out of the metaanalysis literature on effective programs. CPAI 

consists of 75 items covering 8 components critical 

to the understanding of what constitutes an 

effective program (e.g., program implementation, 

client preservice assessment, program characteristics, staff characteristics, evaluation) and two areas 

integral to effective programs (emphasis on evaluation and ethical considerations). All of the components and the questions asked of programs consist 

of factors influenced by reviews of the literature on 

effective correctional programs. P. Gendreau and 

D.A. Andrews, Correctional Program Assessment 

Inventory (CAI) (Saint John, Canada: University of 

New Brunswick, 1996). 

5. In Oregon, most community corrections agencies 

use the LS/CMI, and the Oregon Department of 

Corrections is moving toward implementing this 

instrument. 

6. See NIC’s Parole Violations Revisited: A Handbook 

on Strengthening Parole Practices for Public Safety 

and Successful Transition to the Community (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National 

Institute of Corrections, 2004), http://nicic.org/ 

Library/019833. This publication summarizes the 

work that preceded the TPC Initiative. A Webbased version of this handbook is available at 

http://nicic.org/Library/020398. 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the Model 51 

CHaPTeR 5 

Case Management: A Critical Element of 


the TPC Model 

The eight states selected to participate in the 

National Institute of Corrections’ (NIC) Transition 

from Prison to the Community (TPC) Initiative have 

been working to integrate the goals and philosophy of TPC throughout their systems, including at 

the individual case level. As they began the process 

of searching for a case management model 

consistent with TPC, the states and the Center for 

Effective Public Policy (CEPP) sought guidance from 

the published literature. To identify innovations 

being implemented in operating agencies, they 

reviewed websites, and conducted telephone 

interviews. These efforts provided good but limited 

information. The literature yielded a few examples 

of efforts to develop new approaches to supervision that integrate the results of the research on 

evidence-based practice1

 and document a 

balanced approach to managing offenders that is 

designed to lower rates of both technical violations 

and new arrests.

2 

CEPP and the states also identified a number of 

automated packages that guide staff through the 

assessment process and then integrate assessment 

information into case plans.

3 They also found that 

the term “case management” has become more 

frequently used in the journals and in presentations 

at professional correctional conferences, supplanting in part the older term “supervision.”4 Yet despite 

this apparent interest in the field, a detailed model 

that would guide the management and supervision 

of cases from the time of admission to prison until 

discharge from postrelease supervision in the 

community and that incorporated the principles 

and goals of the TPC Initiative was not readily 

available. 

Developing the Integrated 

Case Management and 

Supervision Model 

In response to this lack of an available framework 

to guide case management for transition and 

reentry, NIC asked CEPP to develop such a model, 

consistent with the TPC Initiative and based on the 

experiences of sites implementing the TPC model. 

The result is the Integrated Case Management and 

Supervision (ICMS) model. It is integrated because 

it provides a framework to bring together differing 

but ultimately complementary perspectives, 

concepts, implementation efforts, and outcomes. 

ICMS responds to recent developments in the field 

of criminal justice and corrections that have 

motivated the quest for a new approach to 

supervision and case management: 

•	 The great number of offenders returning from	

prison to the community has led to the understanding that virtually all offenders will be back 

in the community at some point. In the interest 

of public safety, criminal justice efforts from the 

point of first formal contact should anticipate 

and plan for transition and reentry. (Optimally, this 

would occur before trial, but may occur at the 

presentence stage or at admission to prison.) 

•	 Criminal justice agencies are more aware that,

to encourage successful reentry, they will need 

to collaborate among themselves and with 

other systems that serve or have some contact 

with the offender, the offender’s family, the 

offender’s community, and the victim. 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Case Management 53 
•	 The principles of evidence-based practice are

gaining wide acceptance, and there is a 

growing interest in how these principles can 

reshape and strengthen case management 

and supervision. 

•	 Research on evidence-based practice indicates

that not all offenders are alike and that resources 

should be targeted to offenders at higher risk of 

reoffending, both to enhance public safety and 

to maximize resources. 

•	 A growing set of innovations around the country

is seeking to broaden thinking and practices 

beyond a traditional “supervision” framework 

of monitoring compliance with conditions and 

meeting of contact standards. Examples of 

such innovations are Effective Parole Supervision 

(Georgia), Proactive Community Supervision 

(Maryland), Environmental Corrections (as 

outlined by Cullen, Eck, and Lowenkamp), 

and Ohio’s evidence-based approach to 

supervision.5 

The ICMS model was developed in parallel with 

the implementation efforts taking place in the 

eight TPC states. Not only did the innovations and 

experiences of the eight TPC states influence the 

ICMS model, but the development of the ICMS 

model influenced the states’ implementation of 

TPC. The efforts have been interactive and mutually 

supportive. 

With the collaboration and assistance of the JEHT 

Foundation, CEPP held two workshops in late 2006 

and mid 2007 that brought representatives from 

some of the TPC states together, along with project 

staff, to push forward the thinking on the ICMS 

model. The goals, principles, and major activities of 

the model continue to evolve: 

•	 Oregon’s county community corrections agencies are developing and using in-reach protocols 

as they prepare for prisoners returning from 

prison. 

•	 Collaborative “case conferencing” in New York

and Michigan involves stakeholders such as 

corrections, local service providers, and workforce agencies. 

•	 In Missouri, offenders are becoming more

involved in developing their own case plans and 

taking ownership in the outcomes. 

•	 Institutional and field supervision computer

systems in North Dakota are sharing information 

on specific cases on an unprecedented scale. 

•	 In Indiana, local partners located within the

reentry institution are involved in assisting with 

plans for reentering offenders. 

•	 In Rhode Island, institutional corrections and

postrelease supervision staff are working together 

on inmate reentry plans. 

•	 In Georgia,a completely new risk assessment

protocol is now informing planning for offenders’ 

transition. 

•	 Elements of ICMS are in practice in each of the

eight states, and efforts are under way to bring 

the entire model into everyday operations. 

The rest of this chapter presents an overview of the 

ICMS model. Although the chapter provides more 

detail than do the other chapters of this handbook, 

the discussion that follows here is primarily for those 

involved in leading the implementation of the TPC 

model or in leading major changes designed to 

enhance successful offender transition and reentry. 

A more detailed resource designed to guide the 

efforts of teams charged with tailoring and putting 

the ICMS model into operation will be found in the 

forthcoming TPC Case Management Handbook. 

Overview of the ICMS Model 

Case management and supervision are the 

strategic use of resources at the case level to 

accomplish agreed-upon objectives. The ICMS 

54 TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
model is the application of this strategic use to 

enhance community safety through the prevention 

of future victimization. It seeks to reduce relapse 

and recidivism, encouraging offenders to be 

successful in support of safer and healthier 

communities. It uses a common framework and 

language to monitor progress and to update 

outcomes during the phases of incarceration, 

release, and community supervision. 

In essence, ICMS is a framework that synthesizes the 

goals and principles of the TPC model into a way of 

structuring interactions with individual offenders to 

accomplish the goals of successful transition and 

offender reentry. While facilitating custody, control, 

and supervision, ICMS assesses and motivates 

offenders, providing targeted interventions to 

address their risks and needs during incarceration, 

during a release phase, and after release to the 

community. Michigan has adapted the model to 

what it calls “collaborative case management.” 

example 28, appendix II, defines collaborative 

case management and outlines its core values, 

vision, and mission, within the Michigan Prisoner 

ReEntry Initiative.

The ICMS model is based on a significant departure 

from past attitudes. First, and perhaps most importantly, it is based on a clear understanding and 

acknowledgment that successful transition and 

reentry go hand-in-hand with community safety. It 

also recognizes that simply incapacitating an 

individual for a period of time and then monitoring 

behavior after release has little hope of reducing 

risk, whereas combining incapacitation/monitoring 

with support for change has proven to reduce 

recidivism. Finally, the notion that an offender is 

actually to be involved in setting goals and 

making plans—rather than given instructions and 

monitored—represents a radical departure from 

past practice. 

A key feature of the ICMS model is that it recognizes and remedies much of the fragmentation that 

has characterized our efforts with offenders in the 

past. The transition accountability plan provides the 

roadmap for the ICMS process, linking risks and 

needs to specific programs in which the offender 

will participate. The model also creates a mandate 

and a framework for key partnerships between staff 

in correctional institutions and correctional staff 

involved in postrelease supervision, between 

correctional agencies and other stakeholders, and 

between the offender and those other individuals 

involved in case management. Each of these 

partnerships is a radical departure from past 

practice. The gulf between institutional corrections 

and field staff is of long standing, confirmed by 

organization charts, chains of command, agency 

policy, and even by geography. Similarly, the gulf 

between correctional agencies and other public 

agencies, private organizations, community groups, 

and individuals is just as wide. 

Another significant characteristic of the model, 

particularly for line staff, is its incorporation of the 

principles of evidence-based practice.6 This has 

implications in a number of areas. Sound, empirically based and validated assessments must be 

completed to identify offenders’ risks and criminogenic needs. The model then requires that line staff 

be involved in building case plans that address 

those risks and needs—linking offenders with 

appropriate correctional interventions, services, 

and programs to reduce risk. What research 

suggests, in addition, is that as correctional staff 

interact with offenders, they should use communication and problem-solving skills to engage offenders in the process of change, thereby enhancing 

their motivation to change, which is critical to 

reducing risk.7

 Evidence-based practice, then, 

implies a significant culture change for many 

systems. 

Exhibit 5-1 highlights the aspects of ICMS that 

integrate important and balancing goals, practices, and roles. 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Case Management 55 
Exhibit 5-1. Features of the Integrated Case Management and 

Supervision Model for Reentry 

Policy and system change integrated with day-to-day 

operations 

Implementation of the Integrated Case Management 

and Supervision (ICMS) model begins at the highest 

leadership and policy levels within a state government. 

It recognizes that an effective approach to transition 

requires system change, redefining roles, responsibilities, building partnerships, and changing the way 

business is done. Unlike models of case management or 

supervision that focus primarily on what a line officer 

does (e.g., so many contacts of such a type per month, 

soliciting help for an offender from a community 

program), the ICMS model is supported explicitly by 

leadership, policies, procedures, assessment tools, 

program interventions, and organizational-level 

partnerships that support the work of line staff as they 

manage individual cases. 

Community safety integrated with offender success 

Too often in the past, correctional professionals have 

viewed the interests of the community and the interests 

of offenders as diametrically opposed. The TPC model 

generally and its ICMS model specifically recognize that, 

if an offender returning to the community can successfully transition (e.g., without reoffending, while supporting a family and paying taxes), then the interests of the 

offender and the community converge. 

Custody, supervision, and monitoring integrated with 

case management and support for change 

Emerging evidence about effective interventions suggests 

that treatment targeted to risk and criminogenic need is 

associated with reduced recidivism. Interventions are no 

longer simply a period of incapacitation through 

incarceration followed by monitoring offender behavior 

after release; rather, interventions geared to changing 

behavior are now becoming accepted. Instead of 

abandoning external controls and efforts to hold offenders 

accountable, this model balances appropriate supervision, surveillance, and compliance monitoring with 

effective treatment interventions. 

Assessment and planning integrated with specific 

intervention activities 

Assessment has been a common activity in corrections 

for decades. Until very recently, assessments were used 

to determine how much security (within institutions) or 

surveillance (during probation or parole) was required 

to manage the risk of an offender. The ICMS model 

specifically links assessments to interventions designed 

to reduce risk by addressing criminogenic needs 

beginning with sentencing and continuing through 

incarceration, release, postrelease supervision, and 

discharge. 

Prison case management integrated with community 

supervision and case management 

New case management approaches are surfacing in the 

literature, largely directed at offenders who are under 

parole or probation in the community. The ICMS model 

explicitly spans institutional, release, and community 

phases, recognizing the importance of a coherent 

management strategy across these three aspects of an 

offender’s sentence. Of particular importance is a 

seamless transition between treatment interventions 

used during incarceration and those used in the 

community. Consistency in approach, building on past 

progress, and using information about past treatment 

experiences are critical to effective interventions and 

offender success. 

Efforts of case managers (in prison and in the 

community) integrated with efforts and responsibility 

of offenders themselves 

A traditional approach to offender custody and supervision is to define what is expected of the offender— 

compliance with rules and conditions—and then define 

the role of correctional staff as monitoring compliance 

with those rules and conditions. The ICMS model 

integrates these two streams of activity so that correctional professionals interact with offenders in supportive 

ways and offenders acknowledge and work to address 

their criminogenic needs. That is, offenders take 

56 TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
Exhibit 5-1. Features of the Integrated Case Management and 

Supervision Model for Reentry (continued) 

responsibility for participating in, rather than simply 

complying with, efforts to reduce their risk. 

Work of case managers integrated with involvement 

in specific “programs” 

For some time, progressive correctional professionals 

have been looking to literature on evidence-based 

practice to guide them in developing and using specific 

programs for offenders to address criminogenic needs 

(e.g., cognitive restructuring programs, effective 

substance abuse programming, employment and 

education programs). ICMS recognizes that the interactions offenders have with custody staff and correctional 

case managers in institutions, or with parole officers/ 

case managers in the field, are also “interventions” 

that can engage offenders in the process of change, 

enhance their motivation, and help them to maintain 

change. 

Case management integrated with case planning 

This aspect of the ICMS model recognizes that working 

with offenders on transition requires not just developing 

a plan (such as the Transition Accountability Plan 

identified in the TPC model), but understanding that 

there is a whole set of roles, responsibilities, and 

activities to be undertaken by the offender, the case 

manager, the case management team, and other staff 

in implementing the plan. 

Automated case management systems integrated 

with human case management 

A number of jurisdictions have had the resources and 

foresight to design (or tailor existing) automated case 

management systems (e.g., the Maryland Offender 

Software for Case Empowerment and the Level of 

Service/Case Management Inventory currently in use 

in Oregon). These software packages allow line staff to 

enter the responses to an assessment protocol directly 

into a database. The software then generates an 

assessment report and walks staff through the development of a case plan, outlining interventions that might 

address the top criminogenic needs. These are very 

powerful tools that assist line staff in moving accurately 

and efficiently through assessment and planning. 

(Considerable training of staff and tailoring of the 

software are required.) The ICMS model acknowledges 

that to truly engage case management, such tools must 

also be integrated with the subsequent efforts of a case 

manager or case management team (e.g., in undertaking certain activities, interactions with offenders, and 

capturing of information and progress). 

Recognition that not all offenders are alike integrated 

with the recognition that offenders have many 

similarities 

Individual assessments and development of case plans 

are important and are repeatedly updated through the 

steps of the ICMS model. At the same time, the model 

builds on the fact that line staff find it very helpful to 

think about the similarities of groups or types of 

offenders in developing “tracks,” or specialized case 

loads, to enhance offender success. 

Resources from the correctional system and other 

formal systems integrated with informal networks of 

support 

The principles of evidence-based practice suggest that 

it is critical to link higher risk offenders with specific 

programmatic interventions geared to meet their 

criminogenic needs. In addition, those principles 

indicate that it is very important to link offenders with 

networks of formal and informal support that will 

reinforce prosocial values and provide assistance as 

they work to change their own behavior patterns and 

to reintegrate into the community. The ICMS model 

specifically highlights “resource stakeholders” who can 

assist in mobilizing transition resources such as 

housing, mentorship, and other social supports. 

continued on 58 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Case Management 57 
Exhibit 5-1. Features of the Integrated Case Management and 

Supervision Model for Reentry (continued) 

Resources mobilized and/or directly managed by 

correctional agencies integrated with services/ 

resources accessed through noncorrectional 

agencies 

Although not as extensive as many would prefer, 

treatment interventions and other resources directly 

Goals of the ICMS Model 

The first step in moving toward the ICMS approach is 

to clarify the goals for individuals moving through 

the correctional system. On both the institutional 

and the community sides, the goals of the TPC 

model and its approach to case management and 

supervision are (1) community safety through both 

the security and custody of institutions during a 

period of incarceration and (2) the successful 

transition of offenders from prison to the community 

once they have served their periods of incarceration. Over time, attainment of these two goals would 

be measured through reductions in recidivism. 

In practice, collaborative teams at the state policy 

level involved in TPC implementation have set 

additional goals beyond crime reduction for their 

interactions with offenders (e.g., building stronger 

communities and families through enhanced 

employment, treatment of mental illness, educational attainment). The ICMS model also lends itself 

to such a broader set of goals because it deliberately brings to the table stakeholders who are 

involved in the provision of services that support 

those goals. 

Elements of the ICMS Model 

The Integrated Case Management and Supervision 

model has five components. As illustrated in exhibit 

5-2, these components embody eight core principles and are implemented in three phases 

through six core activities. Each of these elements 

of the ICMS model is addressed below. 

provided and/or funded by correctional agencies do 

exist. The ICMS model specifically calls for building 

collaborative partnerships with other service delivery 

networks at the policy and operational levels to bring a 

broader range of resources to bear in the management 

of cases. 

eight Core Principles 

Implementing ICMS demands a firm focus on the 

principles and values that underlie it. The ICMS 

model requires a commitment to the following 

eight core principles: 

1.	 Supervising and managing offenders to en­


hance successful transition and reentry for 


community safety.


2.	 engaging case management and supervision 

from admission to prison (or before) through 

discharge to the community (and beyond) in a 

coherent and integrated process. The largely 

fragmented process now in existence involves 

significant disconnects between what happens 

to offenders in prison and what happens after 

they are released to supervision. 

3.	 Using the principles of evidence-based practice. This principle demands that policymakers 

use the lessons emerging from the research to 

shape their practices and use of resources, as 

specified in the next two principles. 

4.	 basing supervision and case management 


plans on empirically based and validated 


assessments of risk and criminogenic need.


This principle requires a commitment to selecting and implementing assessment protocols 

that are valid, reliable, and normed to a jurisdiction’s populations. 

5.	 Targeting supervision and case management 

by risk and needs to have maximum impact on 

58 TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
Exhibit 5-2. Integrated Case Management and Supervision Model 

Evidence-Based 

Assessment, 

Case Planning, 

and Targeted Interventions 

Offender 

Participation Collaboration 

Successful Transition 

and Reentry 

No new crimes 

No new victims 

Safer communities 

Operationalized by: 

Organizational 

Support 

Control and Support 

Through Programs 

and Offender/ 

Staff Interactions 

Eight Core Principles Three Phases Six Core Activities 

reducing recidivism and enhancing community 

safety. This principle implies that choices will 

need to be made about where to use resources, with some offenders receiving proportionately more supervision/treatment and others 

receiving less. 

6.	 Engaging the offender in the process of change 

by using supervision and case management 

interactions to enhance motivation. This principle implies that efforts will be made to engage 

offenders in the process of change during the 

course of incarceration and postrelease 

supervision. 

7.	 defining supervision and case management 

as a collaborative process that involves 

correctional staff (both institutional staff and 

field/community staff), community service 

providers, and informal networks of support such 

as families, mentors, employers, and associates. 

Such collaboration requires the close integration of efforts within correctional institutions with 

efforts in the community and also the involvement of non-criminal justice partners at all 

stages of the process. 

8.	 Forming multidisciplinary supervision and case 

management teams to work with the offender 

through assessment, case planning, and implementation. This requires that, at the case level, 

correctional staff work collaboratively with 

others in a team approach to supervision and 

case management. 

Five Components 

The components of the ICMS model are those 

aspects of the model that most distinguish it from 

past practice in corrections and that are necessary 

to achieving its stated goal of community safety 

through successful offender transition and reentry: 

1.	 Evidence-based assessment, case planning, 

and targeted interventions. 

2.	 Participation of the offender. 

3.	 Collaboration. 

4.	 Control and support through programs and 

staff/offender interactions. 

5.	 Organizational support. 

evidence-based assessment, Case Planning, and 

Targeted Interventions. The ICMS model involves a 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Case Management 59 
continuing process of assessment and dynamic 

case planning and implementation based on 

evidence. Plans for individual offenders are targeted by risk and criminogenic need—during 

incarceration, during the release phase, and after 

release to community supervision and beyond. 

Participation of the offender. Much of traditional 

correctional policy and practice defines the 

offender’s primary responsibility as compliance with 

rules within institutions and compliance with 

conditions of supervision in the community. The 

ICMS model expands the offender’s responsibility to 

active participation in risk reduction. It recognizes 

that motivation for change is critical to offenders’ 

success and employs techniques to enhance 

motivation for change. 

Collaboration. Developing case plans and implementing and changing them over time involves 

collaborative partnerships among correctional 

agency personnel (institutional and community), 

other service providers and community organizations, and the offenders and their informal networks 

of social support. This collaborative approach is 

adopted at a variety of levels and across a range 

of boundaries. For instance, at the highest policy 

levels in a state, teams involving cabinet-level 

officials from a range of agencies will set expectations, direct the building of operational working 

protocols, and make resources available. Within 

corrections, collaborative work will involve both 

custody/supervision staff and program staff from 

institutions and the field. At the community level, 

collaboration will require involvement of correctional staff, other agency staff, community organizations, and informal networks in working with 

individual offenders. 

Control and Support for offender Change. The ICMS 

model combines custody/control/supervision with 

interventions specifically geared to reducing the 

likelihood of recidivism. It also views staff interactions with offenders as opportunities to engage the 

offender in the process of change. 

organizational Support. Implementation of the 

ICMS approach to managing and supervising 

offenders will, in many agencies, involve significant 

change in organizational norms and culture. The 

model clearly articulates the need for significant 

organizational support—including strong leadership 

at all levels for a deliberate organizational development strategy. This strategy would identify changes 

in organizational infrastructure, culture, and practices that must be implemented to support the 

ICMS model. This, of course, is a major part of the 

organizational change process required to implement the overarching TPC model (see “Lessons 

Regarding Change in Correctional Culture” in

chapter 3). Organizational support will address such 

things as policy and procedures, staff job descriptions, staff performance evaluations, and management information systems. 

Six Core activities 

Given the goal, principles, and components of the 

model, certain core activities will be essential to its 

implementation. Staff will need to know what is 

expected of them to bring the model into practice. 

What will they do to operationalize this new model? 

What are the activities in which line staff will be 

engaged? The ICMS model expects that staff will 

do the following: 

1.	 Conduct assessments of offenders’ risks, needs, 

strengths, and environment. 

2.	 Form, participate in, and lead case management teams that work collaboratively. 

3.	 Develop and implement—along with offenders 

and other partners within both correctional and 

other agencies—a transition accountability 

plan geared directly to the level of offender risk 

and the criminogenic needs. 

4.	 Provide or facilitate access to programs and 

interventions to address risk and needs. 

5.	 Involve offenders in the case management 

process and engage them in the process of 

change, making efforts to enhance their 

60 TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
motivation (e.g., by using incentives for positive 

performance). 

6. Review progress and adapt plans accordingly	

over time, including monitoring conditions of 

supervision and responding appropriately to 

both technical and criminal violations. 

For many jurisdictions, these activities are a radical 

departure from past practices that cast line staff 

primarily in a monitoring function—whether that be 

monitoring behavior and compliance with institutional rules by custody staff in institutions, or monitoring behavior and compliance with conditions of 

supervision by supervision staff in the community. 

Given these new expectations for staff activities, it 

will be absolutely critical to relieve staff of some 

responsibilities to enable them to take on these 

new roles. Ensuring that staff are not spending time 

on requirements directed at low-risk offenders will 

be particularly important. 

Three Phases 

The ICMS model structures activities from the time a 

person is admitted to prison, or before, until that 

individual is released from correctional supervision 

into the community, and even beyond. The model 

distinguishes three distinct phases, however, 

because challenges, activities, resources, and 

milestones will differ across time. The phases are 

intrinsically interrelated with the second phase 

building on the first and the third phase building on 

the first two. 

•	 Phase 1: Incarceration (see exhibit 5-3). This 

phase lasts from admission to prison until roughly 

6–12 months before release. This phase involves 

initial assessments, establishment of an anticipated release date, and development of a 

transition accountability plan to guide programming within the institution over the entire length 

of anticipated incarceration. This programming 

Exhibit 5-3. Integrated Case Management and Supervision,

Phase 1: From Admission Until Release Phase Begins 

Psychopathic 

Case Management 

and Supervision for

Reentry Track 

• Offender/case manager/ 

staff interactions are key 

• Participation in riskreduction programming 

Admission 

to Prison 

Assessment 

Custody Control 

Community 

Support 

Track 

Standard 

Track 

Stabilization 

Track 

Release 

Highest 

Risk/ 

High/ 

Medium 

Risk 

Medium/ 

Low Risk 

High


Needs


Low


Needs


TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Case Management 61 
Exhibit 5-4. Integrated Case Management and Supervision, 

Phase 2: 6–12 Months Before to 6 Months After Release 

To 

Release 

Phase 

Highest 

Risk/ 

Psychopathic 

High/ 

Medium 

Risk 

Medium/ 

Low Risk 

anticipates release and is geared to prepare the 

offender to be able to transition successfully, 

without reoffending. 

•	 Phase 2: Release (see exhibit 5-4). Phase 2 

begins 6–12 months before release and stretches 

through the first 6 months after release. This 

phase involves completion of remaining programming before release, establishing plans for 

housing and employment, establishing plans for 

needed community services in substance abuse 

and mental and physical health, and survival 

needs such as identification, application for 

benefits, and connections with informal networks 

of support. This phase continues through release 

until stabilization is accomplished. 

Case Management and

Supervision for Reentry Track 

• In-reach of community reentry 

team, including parole officer 

• Offender/case manager/parole 

officer interactions are key 

• Case plan updated/revised 

• Linkages to resources geared 

to top need areas 

• Attention to survival needs 

Admission to 

Release Phase 

(6–12 months 

before release) 

Assessment/ 

Reassessment 

• Attention to survival needs 

• Detailed surveillance/containment 

• Plan for postrelease prepared 

Community 

Support Track 

• Linkages to 

available 

community 

resources 

• Attention to 

survival needs 

Standard Track 

Attention to 

survival needs 

Stabilization 

Track 

High 

Needs 

Low 

Needs 

•	 Phase 3: The Community (see exhibit 5-5). Phase 

3 extends from 6 months after release through 

discharge from supervision into the community 

and beyond. This phase involves the long-term 

stabilization of the offender and, for those with 

significant relationships with community support 

networks, the movement of major responsibility 

for case management to those appropriate 

agencies. 

The phases of the model reflect the assumption 

that case management will require different 

strategies and likely different partners as an 

offender moves through the ICMS process. 

62 TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
Exhibit 5-5. Integrated Case Management and Supervision, 

Phase 3: The Community Phase 

High 

Needs 

Low 

Needs 

Medium/ 

Low Risk 

High/ 

Medium 

Risk 

Highest 

Risk/ 

Psychopathic 

Case Management and

Supervision for Reentry Track 

• Community case management 

team led by probation officer 

• Case plan updated/revised 

• Probation officer/offender 

interactions are key 

• Linkages to resources geared 

to top need areas 

• Attention to survival needs 

Transition from 

Release Phase 

(6 months 

after release) 

Assessment/

Reassessment 

Maximum surveillance 

control plan implemented 

Community Support 

Track 

• Linkages to available 

community resources 

• Attention to survival 

needs 

Standard Track 

• Attention to 

survival needs 

• Lowest supervision 

level 

• Discharge at 

earliest time 

Stabilization 

Track 

Discharge/Community 

Case Management 

Discharge 

Targeting Strategy: Tiers of Case 

Management Strategies 

The ICMS model adopts a targeting strategy that 

integrates the principles of evidence-based 

practice into the core operations of correctional 

agencies and their partners, making explicit the 

fact that different “tiers” or “tracks” of case management are appropriate for offenders of different 

risk levels. For decades, probation and parole agencies and correctional institutions have engaged in 

“classification” efforts to articulate different groups 

of offenders and their varying needs for security, 

supervision, and interventions.Within prisons, 

custody classifications have served primarily to 

identify at what security level an offender must be 

housed to prevent violence and disciplinary 

problems. In community corrections, classification 

has been used to assign the level of supervision for 

an offender, based on risk, and to determine 

whether assignment to a specialized case load 

(e.g., drug offenders, sex offenders) might be 

appropriate. Targeting seeks to ensure that individuals with higher levels of risk and need receive 

interventions targeted specifically to those needs, 

and that offenders at lower levels of risk and need 

receive fewer resources, both in security/custody/ 

supervision and in programming/services/ 

interventions.

8 Targeting can be thought of as a 

way to allocate resources in line with an agency’s 

mission and with desired outcomes. It assumes that 

resources are limited and tries to “get the most 

bang for the buck.” 

Because the ICMS model includes the reduction of 

recidivism as a primary goal, the targeting strategy 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Case Management 63 
adopted here is geared to ensure the matching of 

offenders’ level of risk and criminogenic need with 

appropriate interventions. It is not sufficient simply 

to assess offenders’ risks and needs. This must be 

supported by policies, procedures, and allocation 

of resources to ensure that individuals with higher 

levels of risk and need will receive interventions 

targeted specifically to those needs. In addition, 

policies, procedures, and allocation of resources 

must be designed such that offenders at lower 

levels of risk and need also receive fewer resources 

—both in terms of security/custody/supervision and 

programming/services/interventions. The ICMS 

model incorporates several case management 

“tracks” that reinforce the targeting of resources, 

services, as well as staff time. Offenders with higher 

risk and needs are managed using the full panoply 

of assessment tools, programming, and staff time 

and attention. Individuals with higher risks and 

needs have a more detailed and resourceintensive transition accountability plan that includes specific objectives to address the several 

highest need domains. Michigan has adapted this 

ICMS model as part of its TPC implementation, 

basing levels of supervision on assessed risk as part 

of its collaborative case management strategy 

(see example 29, appendix II). 

Regardless of track, however,the ICMS model

requires that upon release, all offenders receive 

attention for basic survival needs and linkages to 

benefits and services to which they are eligible. This 

would include assessment of medical and mental 

health needs, strength assessments, eligibility for 

federal benefits, identification, housing issues, 

employment, and connections with informal 

networks of support. A basic transition accountability plan must be completed for every offender. 

Exhibit 5-6 lists some of the typical resources 

involved in case management and how they might 

be targeted to create tracks for offenders. Offenders low on the risk scale would receive much less in 

the way of targeted programs and less time and 

attention from staff. 

Organizational Support for ICMS 

Although case management is the strategic use of 

resources to accomplish specific outcomes at the 

case level, the efforts of entire organizations—and 

the entire system of agencies involved in the TPC 

collaboration—must be geared to support the work 

at the case level. As noted above, support at the 

organizational level is critical to implementing the 

ICMS model and to the TPC model overall. This 

following section discusses the kinds of support that 

leaders and policymakers need to provide in order 

to reshape their organizations to accomplish the 

goals of successful transition and reentry and 

enhanced public safety. 

Tools 

In order to carry out their responsibilities under ICMS, 

staff will need a set of tools, created and sanctioned by agency policy, that will enable them to 

complete their work with a high degree of quality. 

assessment Protocols 

Empirically based assessments of risks and needs 

are absolutely essential to the implementation of 

the TPC model. Although many jurisdictions have 

such protocols in place, for those that do not, this 

will be an important change in practice. These tools 

must go beyond the typical classification tools used 

for housing and security assignments in correctional 

institutions. They must also go beyond static assessments of risk, to include identification of criminogenic needs, so that appropriate intervention 

strategies can be employed. 

Case Plan 

The TPC model calls the case plan, a key tool, the 

Transition Accountability Plan (TAP), and several of 

the TPC pilot states have adopted this name. However, the exact title of the case plan is not important 

if it has the characteristics essential to supporting 

good case management and supervision. 

64 TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
Exhibit 5-6. Example of Targeting Case Management and 

Supervision Resources 

Services 

Highest 

Risk 

Offender 

High- or 

MediumRisk 

Offender 

Low-Risk 

Offender 

Low-Risk, 

High-Need 

Offender 

Assessment of risk and needs 

Collaborative case management and 

supervision team 

Assessment of specific program needs 

Designing and implementing case management and supervision plan with targeted 

interventions 

Supervision/case management interactions 

that engage offender in process of change 

Participation in EBP programs targeted by risk 

and need 

Periodic reassessment moves to other tracks 

Access to entitled benefits 

Informal networks of support 

Access to routine programming (institutional) 

or community resources (community) 

Addressing survival needs 

Maximum control and surveillance 

Periodic reassessment moves to 

other tracks 

Link to noncorrectional resources 

Minimum supervision 

Early discharge 

Access to community services per needs 

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

EBP = evidence-based practice 

The plan must be based on good, empirically 

based and validated assessments of risk and 

needs; indicate appropriate interventions to 

address the highest areas of criminogenic need; 

and be updated to reflect progress. It must be 

developed early in the period of incarceration, 

shared with members of the case management 

team, and follow the offender through his/her time 

in the institution and under postrelease supervision 

and beyond. Optimally, the case plan is automated 

so that the collaborative case management team 

can update it and share it across organizational 

boundaries. Automation will also make tracking 

progress across all cases more manageable 

because data from the TAPs would be analyzable 

for outcomes. 

At a minimum, a TAP should do the following: 

•	 Identify the assessed risk level and criminogenic	

needs of the offender. 

•	 Develop strategies to address obstacles and	

triggers. 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Case Management 65 
•	 Outline the offender’s responsibilities clearly and

concisely. 

•	 Have specific goals that are directly related to

the highest rated domains of criminogenic need. 

For each goal, it should specify strategies that 

are clearly stated, measurable, attainable, 

relevant, and have a timeline. 

•	 Identify the offender’s strengths and build its

strategies on these strengths. Assess an offender’s 

readiness for change, so that the case management team can consider the best ways to 

enhance motivation for change. 

Perhaps most importantly, the same TAP must be 

used throughout the process, building on past 

experiences and information. It is first developed in 

the institution and then changes to reflect progress, 

difficulties, changing goals, and all else that follows. 

It must move with the offender through the three 

phases of the process and be the “game plan” that 

all members of the case management team use. 

offender Self-assessment 

Another tool that some agencies are adopting as 

a way of engaging offenders in the process of 

change is an offender self-assessment. This asks 

offenders to consider their own strengths and 

challenges, what their goals are, and what specific 

activities they will undertake to accomplish those 

goals. It also creates an opportunity for dialogue 

between offenders and staff that may lead to 

further engagement. 

Memorandums of Understanding 

Because offenders will probably need to access 

services and resources from partner agencies as 

well as from within the correctional system, line staff 

need their agencies to develop, negotiate, and 

maintain memorandums of understanding (MOUs) 

that spell out how those agencies will cooperate 

with other service providers at the case level. 

In-Reach Protocols 

One term that is emerging in the reentry field is 

“in-reach.” This term describes activities of individuals who work primarily outside of correctional 

institutions but who, in anticipation of the release of 

an offender,“reach in” to the institution by a 

personal visit, phone call, or other communication 

to make contact with the offender and institutional 

staff. For example, The Michigan Prisoner ReEntry

Initiative has “transition teams” composed of 

community partners and correctional staff who 

conduct in-reach into prisons to meet with soon-tobe released prisoners. In-reach is part of creating a 

continuous TPC process from beginning to end, an 

opportunity for field staff, community service 

providers, family, and mentors to work with the 

offender to clarify the implications of assessment, 

case plans, and implementation strategies. This 

type of activity requires formal recognition through 

policy and procedure so that correctional staff will 

understand that it is expected and supported. 

Skills 

Because ICMS is a significant shift from the monitoring and surveillance approach to case management, staff will require skill sets not typically required 

or nurtured in the past. For example, motivational 

interviewing, cognitive reflective communication, 

and general interpersonal skills will be added to 

those that agencies have traditionally expected 

among institutional and parole staff in recent 

decades—skills in self-defense, firearms, and critical 

incident management. 

Organizational Changes 

Clear articulation of Vision and Mission 

Line staff will be able to alter their job responsibilities 

in significant and successful ways only if their 

organization reengineers itself to support that work. 

Leaders must clearly articulate the vision and 

mission for these case management changes. If an 

organization and its partners have gone through 

66 TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
the TPC implementation process, then this primary 

support should be in place. However, revisiting the 

vision and mission frequently, with energy and with 

authority, will extend this support to the changes 

occurring at the line level as the new approach to 

case management is implemented. 

Workload Reductions 

It is unrealistic to expect line staff to carry out a 

whole new set of responsibilities without removing 

some of their existing responsibilities. One way that 

some agencies are supporting change is to 

reanalyze workloads and generate specific proposals for workload reductions.When implemented, 

these workload reductions free staff time for the 

additional roles and responsibilities envisioned in 

ICMS. 

organizational Infrastructure 

The changes introduced by the ICMS model must 

be reflected in the standard infrastructure of the 

organizations implementing the model. Position 

descriptions must reflect new expectations. Supervision and mentoring of staff must be retooled to 

support the model; first-line supervisors must be 

brought into the change process and expectations 

for their roles redefined. Quality control systems 

must be put into place. Performance appraisal 

systems must be revisited and retooled—field staff 

cannot continue to be evaluated solely on 

whether they have met their contact standards. 

Contact standards must necessarily address not 

only the quantity of contact but also the type of 

interaction that happens during those contacts. 

Organizations must review the full range of policies 

and procedures to identify the ways in which these 

do and do not support the ICMS approach and 

modify them as necessary. 

Program availability and Guidance in 

Targeting by Tracks 

An important principle of evidence-based practice 

is that effective interventions can reduce the risk of 

recidivism. Line staff’s case management approach 

will be successful only if such interventions are 

available and accessible and directed to the right 

offenders for the right needs. For case management to be effective, agencies will need to ensure 

that programs are available and accessible and 

that line staff thoroughly understand the protocols 

for assignment to tracks. 

Another key aspect of evidence-based practice is 

the importance of targeting interventions by risk 

and needs. In practice, this will likely require the 

definition of different “tracks” for offenders—or some 

approach that will enable line staff to channel 

offenders into the appropriate category. This 

should enable staff to make sure that low-risk and 

low-needs offenders are handled significantly 

differently than high-risk and high-needs offenders. 

Protocols for assignment to tracks should be clear 

and clearly understood by line staff. 

authorization for Interagency Teams 

Within the TPC model and the ICMS approach to 

case management, case management will probably be the responsibility of teams drawn from 

different disciplines. Line staff will need specific 

direction, authorization, and support to engage in 

collaborative case planning, and also direction on 

how to target this resource-intensive approach to 

appropriate offenders. 

Implementing the ICMS Model 

The TPC implementation process encourages 

stakeholders in leadership positions to move to a 

new approach to case management for transition 

and reentry. As part of this process, the TPC model 

encourages the careful consideration of current 

practices and systems as a necessary step to 

planning changes and innovations. Exhibit 5-7 is a 

checklist designed to help practitioners begin the 

process of analyzing their current practices. 

After an agency has analyzed its own practices, 

leaders may want to consider how the ICMS model 

could be tailored for implementation in their own 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Case Management 67 
Exhibit 5-7. Integrated Case Management and Supervision Checklist 

1. You might begin by having everyone on the team charged with reshaping case management in 

support of transition and reentry complete this checklist independently. This will allow each team 

member to consider the various features of ICMS, the degree to which your current operations are 

consistent with the model, and where they diverge from it.You will need to consider these questions 

from the point of view of institutional corrections, postrelease supervision, and other agencies that 

may be providing services to offenders. 

2. After completing the checklist, review it together, discussing your answers and coming up with a 

single set of responses that best approximates the collective perspective of your team. 

3. Next, discuss the extent to which current practice in your jurisdiction matches the concepts of ICMS 

as outlined above. 

4. Finally, consider the implications of this discussion for your team’s work plan. Are there areas of 

significant difference between the model and your operations? If so, what are they? What would you 

have to change to bring practice more in line with the model? 

Area Yes Planned Not Clear No 

Definition/Goal of Offender Case Management 

1. Is offender success to enhance public safety a goal that has 

been articulated and embraced by: 

•	 TPC leadership?

•	 Institutional correctional staff?

•	 Postrelease supervision staff?

•	 Service providers?

•	 Community partners?

•	 If you asked staff who work directly with offenders what

the purpose or goal of their work is, would they say 

that their job is to assist offenders to successfully 

transition to the community? Or to successfully

complete supervision?

2. Are your TPC efforts focused on transition: 

•	 Beginning with admission to prison (or before)?

•	 During incarceration?

•	 In the months before release?

•	 During the release decisionmaking process?

•	 After release and throughout community supervision?

•	 After discharge from supervision?

3. Is it understood and accepted that interactions with 

offenders should: 

•	 Engage the offender in the process of change?

•	 Work with the offender to develop and complete a case

plan that, when implemented, will increase the 

likelihood of positive change?

68 TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
Exhibit 5-7. Integrated Case Management and Supervision Checklist 

(continued) 

Area Yes Planned Not Clear No 

Tools 

4. Tools consistent with the ICMS model: 

•	 Does your jurisdiction use empirically based assessment

tools to determine offenders’ risks and needs?

				—At which decision point(s)?

				—Which instrument(s) are used?

•	 Do you develop a single, ongoing, dynamic case management plan?

•	 Does it specifically address offender’s individual criminogenic

needs?

•	 Are you adopting different strategies of case management

depending on offenders’ risk levels?

•	 Are conditions of supervision specifically tailored

to address criminogenic needs?

•	 Do case management plans link offenders to programs that

incorporate the principles of evidence-based practice?

•	 Do field staff and community partners routinely conduct

“in-reach” into prisons to engage offenders before release?

•	 Are collaborative partnerships in place to provide services to 

offenders in institutions and in the community?

•	 Are there clear policies in place that guide responses to

technical violations by risk and severity?

Case Plans 

5. Case plan as a key aspect of ICMS: 

•	 Does every offender have a case plan that is developed	

soon after admission to	prison?

•	 Is that plan updated and shared with other	staff

as the offender moves through the period of 

incarceration?

•	 Does that plan move with the offender to the	

field after release from	prison?

•	 Is the plan available to all members of a	case

team, including partners in the field, while the offender 

is incarcerated and planning	reentry?

•	 Does the plan include partners from other agencies as	

the offender’s criminogenic needs require those 

services?

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Case Management 69 
Exhibit 5-7. Integrated Case Management and Supervision Checklist 

(continued) 

Area Yes Planned Not Clear No 

Typical Activities 

Training and Skill Development 

Responsibility for offender Case Management 

6. Activities typical to offender case management: 

•	 At each point in time, is it clear who is responsible for

case planning and management for offenders?

•	 Do case management activities address the basic

survival needs of transitioning offenders, such as 

securing personal identification, determining eligibility 

for benefits, obtaining suitable housing, and acquiring 

needed medications?

•	 Is the person or team responsible for case manage­ ment or supervision charged with active coordination 

and linkages of offenders to programs/interventions 

that address their criminogenic needs?

•	 Do current offender management practices include

monitoring progress in programs and in everyday life?

•	 Do you monitor conditions of supervision?

•	 Do you routinely use positive reinforcement and

lessening of restrictions in response to positive 

performance?

•	 Do you use proportional sanctions based on risk and

severity (including intermediate responses short of 

revocation) for noncompliance?

•	 Do you create linkages between the offender and

natural systems of prosocial support in the family and 

community (e.g., family support groups, contacts with 

employers, faith community)?

7. Training and skill development: 

•	 Are staff routinely trained in the administration of

appropriate, empirically based risk and needs 

assessments?

•	 Are staff routinely trained in motivational interviewing?

•	 Are staff trained in responsivity assessment protocols?

•	 Are booster sessions offered to keep staff skills current?

•	 Do your agencies invest in developing in-house experts

to provide training to staff?

8.		Do you employ a team approach to case	

management?:

•	 Do institutional staff and field corrections staff	

work together on management of specific	cases?

•	 Are agencies other than corrections involved in	

case	management?

•	 If you employ a team approach, does the team leader	

seek input and provide information to 

other teams’ members in other	agencies?

•	 Do first-line supervisors routinely reinforce	

expectations about offender case 

management with line	staff?

70 TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
Exhibit 5-7. Integrated Case Management and Supervision Checklist 

(continued) 

Area Yes Planned Not Clear No 

Individual Agency Infrastructure Supportive of Offender Case Management 

9.		Do all aspects of the agency’s policies, practices, and	

leadership support effective offender case	management?

•	 Is successful transition and reentry clearly	included

as part of the agency’s vision and	mission?

•	 Is agency leadership visibly supportive of offender case	

management?

•	 Are staff resources identified to carry out the	

work of implementing, assessing, and improving 

case	management?

•	 Have agencies made the effort to develop formal and	

informal collaborative agreements with other stake­ holders to work together on successful	transition?

•	 Do your management information systems support	

offender case	management?

•	 Do job descriptions, hiring practices, performance	

evaluations, hiring, and promotion policies support 

offender case	management?

•	 Are case audit procedures in place that	

routinely hold staff accountable for integrating 

the principles of evidence-based practice in 

their case management	activities?

jurisdiction. A correctional organization and its 

collaborative partners will need to agree on and 

articulate their own definition of case management and supervision for reentry and its goals, 

principles, key components, core activities, and 

other aspects. Exhibit 5-8 provides a format for 

recording the work of a team as it engages these 

issues. It highlights the various elements of the ICMS 

model, providing space for a team to record its 

work to tailor the various aspects of the model for 

its own situation. As a record of discussion, choices/ 

decisions, and tasks for implementing those decisions, the completed worksheet can serve as the 

outline for a workplan to implement the ICMS 

model. 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Case Management 71 
Exhibit 5-8. Worksheet To Assist in Making Choices and Developing a 

Workplan To Implement the ICMS Model 

To implement an approach to case management and supervision directly focused on reentry, an 

organization and its collaborative partners will have to choose and articulate their own definition of case 

management and its goals, principles, key components, core activities, and other aspects. The following 

worksheet highlights the various elements of the ICMS model and provides space for your team to record 

its work in tailoring these elements to your own situation. As a record of discussion, choices/decisions, and 

tasks for implementing those decisions, the completed worksheet can serve as the outline for a workplan 

to implement the ICMS model. 

ICMS Model Jurisdiction’s Approach 

Definition 

The Integrated Case Management and Supervision for Reentry 

(ICMS) model is the strategic use of resources at the case level 

to enhance community safety through the prevention of future 

victimization. It seeks to reduce recidivism and relapse, 

encouraging offenders to be successful in support of safer and 

healthier communities. It uses a common framework and 

language to monitor progress and to update outcomes during 

the phases of incarceration, release, and community 

supervision. 

While providing custody, control, and supervision, ICMS	

assesses, motivates, and provides targeted interventions to 

offenders while addressing their risks and needs during 

incarceration, during the release phase, and after release to 

the community. 

Goal 

The goal of the ICMS model for reentry is community safety and 

crime prevention through enhancing the ability of offenders to 

successfully reintegrate into the community without reoffending. 

Core Principles 

Engage this process from admission to prison (or before) 

through discharge in the community (and beyond) in a coherent 

and integrated process. 

Supervise and manage offenders to enhance successful 

transition and reentry for community safety. 

Use the principles of evidence-based practice. 

Use empirically based and validated assessments of risk and 

criminogenic need at key stages of the process. 

These assessments form the basis of the supervision and case 

management plan. 

Supervision and case management interactions engage the 

offender in the process of change. 

A multidisciplinary supervision and case management team 

works with the offender through assessment, case planning, 

and implementation. 

72 TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
Exhibit 5-8. Worksheet To Assist in Making Choices and Developing a 

Workplan To Implement the ICMS Model (continued) 

ICMS Model Jurisdiction’s Approach 

Core Principles (continued) 

Supervision and case management constitute a collaborative 

process that involves correctional staff (institutional and field/ 

community), community service providers, and informal 

networks of support. Such collaboration requires specific 

strategies to work across traditional boundaries between 

institution and community. 

Key Components 

The ICMS model involves evidence-based assessment, case 

planning, and targeted interventions. 

The offender participates in the process and is accountable for 

both compliance and risk reduction. 

Correctional agencies collaborate with one another across 

traditional boundaries of institution/community, custody/control/ 

supervision, and case management. 

Institutional and community corrections agencies focus on both 

custody/control/supervision and risk reduction. 

Correctional agencies collaborate with noncorrectional 

stakeholders. 

Organizational development strategy supports ICMS. 

Core activities 

Conduct assessments of offenders’ risk, needs, strengths, and 

environment. 

Form, participate in, and lead case management teams that 

work collaboratively. 

Enhance motivation. 

Develop and implement—along with the offender and other

partners within both correctional agencies and other agencies—a transition accountability plan geared directly to the 

offender’s level of risk and criminogenic needs, covering all 

phases and evolving over time. 

Provide (or provide access to) programmatic interventions to 

address highest risk and criminogenic need. 

Involve offenders in the case management process, making 

efforts to enhance motivation (e.g., by using incentives for 

positive performance). 

Review progress and adapt plans periodically over time, 

including monitoring conditions of supervision and responding 

appropriately to both technical and criminal violations. 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Case Management 73 
Exhibit 5-8. Worksheet To Assist in Making Choices and Developing a 

Workplan To Implement the ICMS Model (continued) 

ICMS Model Jurisdiction’s Approach 

Targeting Strategy 

Categories of offenders are defined to allow targeting by risks and 

needs. 

Lowest risk offenders receive the least control/supervision and 

the fewest risk reduction resources. 

Higher risk offenders receive greater control and greater levels

of risk reduction resources. 

All offenders receive survival resources and supports. 

Phases 

Phase 1: Incarceration (from admission or presentence 

investigation up to 6–12 months before release). 

Phase 3: Community (from 6 months after release until 

discharge from criminal justice supervision, and beyond in 

some cases). 

Phase 2: Release (6–12 months before release through 6–12 

months after release). 

74 TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
Notes 

1. Betsy A. Fulton, Susan B. Stone, and Paul 

Gendreau, Restructuring Intensive Supervision 

Programs: Applying “What Works” (Lexington, KY: 

American Probation and Parole Association, 1994). 

2. Betsy A. Fulton, Amy Stichman, Lawrence Travis, 

and Edward Latessa,“Moderating Probation 

and Parole Officer Attitudes to Achieve Desired 

Outcomes,” The Prison Journal 77(3):295–312. 

3. D.A. Andrews, James L. Bonta, and J. Stephen 

Wormith, Level of Service/Case Management 

Inventory: An Offender Assessment System, User’s 

Manual (Tonawanda, NY: MultiHealth Systems, Inc., 

2004). 

4. Peggy B. Burke, Parole Violations Revisited: A 

Handbook for Strengthening Parole Practice and 

Successful Offender Reentry (Washington, DC: 

National Institute of Corrections, 2004), NIC Accession Number 019833. 

5. Sara Andrews and Linda S. Janes,“Ohio’s 

Evidence-Based Approach to Community 

Sanctions and Supervision,” Topics in Community 

Corrections, 2006, 17–20. 

6. Madeline M. Carter, Susan Gibel, Rachelle

Giguere,and Richard Stroker, eds., Increasing 

Public Safety Through Successful Offender Reentry: 

Evidence-Based and Emerging Practices in 

Corrections (Silver Spring, MD: Center for Effective 

Public Policy, 2007). A more detailed discussion of 

the principles of evidence-based practice appears 

in the companion to this handbook. 

7. Faye S. Taxman, Christina Yancey, and Jeanne E. 

Bilanin, Proactive Community Supervision in 

Maryland: Changing Offender Outcomes 

(Baltimore: Maryland Division of Parole and 

Probation, 2006). 

8. Lore Joplin, Brad Bogue, Nancy Campbell, 

Mark Carey, Elyse Clawson, Dot Faust, Kate Florio, 

Billy Wasson, and William Woodward,“Using an 

Integrated Model to Implement Evidence-Based 

Practices in Corrections,” www.nicic.org/Library/ 

020175, accessed May 22, 2008. 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Case Management 75 

CHaPTeR 6


TPC Performance Measurement Framework


This chapter provides an overview of the measurement aspects of the Transition from Prison to the 

Community (TPC) Initiative and of tools for developing a measurement strategy tailored to a state’s 

own efforts. It defines areas of measurement and 

provides illustrations, including examples from a 

number of TPC jurisdictions, and ends with an 

exercise that can be used to structure discussions 

of change teams involved in this work. 

As described earlier in this handbook, the TPC 

model is designed to reduce recidivism and 

increase the successful reintegration of offenders 

returning from prison to the community, thereby 

enhancing public safety and reducing victimization. It seeks to accomplish this by mobilizing the 

principles of evidence-based practice and by 

creating collaborative partnerships between 

criminal justice and other agencies to assess and 

manage offenders from the time of admission to 

prison until discharge from postrelease supervision 

and beyond. 

Three Dimensions 

To measure the performance of the TPC Initiative, a 

jurisdiction must establish a measurement strategy 

that answers questions about three dimensions: 

system change, reentry indicators, and public 

safety. 

System Change 

The measurement strategy must answer a range of 

questions regarding system change: Has the model 

been implemented? Have system changes been 

made so that policies, procedures, resources, and 

tools consistent with the elements of the model and 

with evidence-based practice are in place and 

operating? This measurement is akin to a process 

evaluation. The major system change areas include 

the following: 

•	 Assessment.

•	 Case management.

•	 Targeted interventions.

•	 Collaboration.

Reentry Indicators 

Here the measurement strategy must be designed 

for routine gathering of information about variables 

typically associated with successful transition: Is 

there evidence that the incidence of offender 

characteristics associated with reduced recidivism 

and prosocial behavior is increasing or has increased to acceptable levels? These measures 

may be desirable in and of themselves (e.g., stable 

employment). However, because they are not 

specific measures of reduced recidivism, they are 

identified as “reentry indicators.” They are arguably 

associated with the ultimate goal of reduced 

recidivism, and even by themselves, they represent 

positive outcomes for the community at large. The 

major reentry indicator areas would include the 

following: 

•	 Employment.

•	 Housing.

•	 Mental and physical	health.

•	 Substance abuse and substance abuse	

treatment. 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: TPC Performance Measurement Framework 77 
Public Safety 

On this dimension, the performance measurement 

strategy should track measures associated with 

lower rates of recidivism and victimization: Are risk 

and recidivism decreasing among the reentering 

population? These “public safety outcomes” are 

differentiated from reentry indicators because, 

ultimately, even if an offender is employed and has 

housing, he/she is not a public safety success unless 

he/she remains crime free. The major public safety 

areas include the following: 

•	 Rates of successful completion of supervision.

•	 Rates of rearrest, reconviction,and readmission

to prison. 

•	 Risk levels over time as measured by validated

assessments. 

Timeframe 

Because the TPC approach is based on the understanding that reentry takes place from the time of 

admission to prison, or before, through discharge 

from postrelease supervision, or beyond, the measures described here reflect the model’s definition 

of the three phases of the reentry process: 

•	 Incarceration (from admission until 12 months

before release). 

•	 Release (from 12 months before release through

12 months after release).

•	 Community (from 12 months after release

through discharge from community supervision). 

Feasibility 

As a team designs its measurement strategy, it is 

important to consider whether using certain 

measures is feasible, given the information available and its reliability. In considering each measure, 

the following questions should be addressed: 

•	 Can we develop an operational definition of the

measure that all stakeholders agree on? 

•	 Are the data elements needed for this measure

available? If so, where? In what form (electronic, 

manual)? 

•	 Are these data elements routinely collected

(or could they be) in the course of normal 

operations? 

•	 If the data exist in some system outside the

direct control of correctional agencies, are 

agreements in place (or could they be) to 

access those data and exchange them in 

electronic form? 

Developing Specific Measures 

in Each Dimension 

System Change 

System change measures should revolve around

evidence that the changes required by the model 

are in place and should answer the following 

questions: 

Have we changed our system so that we have and 

use appropriate assessments? 

Answering this question requires a specific measure 

that indicates whether comprehensive assessments 

are being completed and whether they are being 

completed within a timeframe that allows them to 

be used as case management tools throughout the 

three phases of the reentry process. Assessments 

should be available for use in long-term institutional 

programming and programming as offenders are 

approaching release, being stabilized in the community, and completing their period of supervision. 

This measure should indicate the following: 

•	 The percentage of offenders receiving comprehensive assessments that include valid, reliable 

evaluation of risk and criminogenic need within 

certain timeframes such as: 

❏ Within 30 days after admission. 

❏ Annually. 

❏ 12 months before release.

78 TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
❏ Within 60 days after release. 

❏ Before discharge. 

do we use assessment information to set priorities 

for the use of resources to have the most impact on 

reducing the risk of recidivism and increasing 

successful reentry (targeted interventions)? 

Answering this question requires a measure that 

tracks how assessment information is made available and used to determine case management 

strategies. Evidence of the assessment information

should be reflected in case management documentation, activities, and offenders’ participation in 

activities identified in the case management 

process. A progression and evolution of these 

indicators should also be evident throughout the 

reentry process. These data could be gathered and 

reported for the entire system and also by institution, by case manager, by region/office, and/or by 

parole officer. 

For offenders currently in the incarceration phase, 

this measure should indicate the following: 

•	 The percentage in custody with a comprehensive case management plan that reflects, for the 

top four criminogenic need domains diagnosed 

for each offender: 

❏ Specific programming recommended.

❏ Specific programming in progress.

❏ Specific programming completed.

•	 The percentage of cases in which case management plans reflect ongoing review and 

updating, with periodic review being conducted 

at least annually and modifications reflecting 

progress and emerging challenges. 

For offenders currently in the release phase, this 

measure should indicate the following: 

•	 The percentage in custody with a case management plan that documents in-reach activities and indicates, for the top four criminogenic 

need domains and for critical survival domains 

identified for each offender: 

❏ Specific prerelease activities to be

completed. 

❏ Progress on completion. 

•	 The percentage in the community with a case

management plan that indicates, for the top 

four criminogenic need domains: 

❏ Specific programming planned.

❏ Specific programming completed.

For offenders currently in the community phase, this 

measure should indicate the percentage with case 

management plans who successfully complete 

plan components during the release phase. 

are policies and procedures in place to respond 

effectively to technical violations of parole? are 

these policies and procedures guided by risk of the 

offender and the severity of the offense so that 

appropriate incentives, sanctions, and problemsolving responses are available and used? 

For all offenders on postrelease supervision, this 

measure should indicate the following: 

•	 The percentage with technical violations noted

in the course of the year. 

•	 Responses to those violations according to these

categories: 

❏ Number and type of violations, with responses 

noted by type that are managed in the 

community. 

❏ Number and type of violations, with responses 

noted by type that are handled through an 

administrative hearing process. 

❏ Number and type of violations, with responses 

noted by type that are handled through a 

formal revocation proceeding. 

❏ Number and percentage of offenders revoked to prison, by type. 

do we, as a system, have practices, policies, and 

partnerships in place that foster collaboration and 

counteract the fragmentation and lack of coordination that have characterized reentry in the past? 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: TPC Performance Measurement Framework 79 
Answering this question requires documentation of 

those partnerships, practices, and policies that 

facilitate cross-system collaboration. Regarding

partnerships, this measure should indicate the 

following: 

•	 Existence, membership,and charter of collaborative teams involved in the reentry effort. 

•	 Existing memorandums of agreement regarding

aspects of system change. 

•	 Periodic completion of the “collaboration

survey” to measure the level of and changes in 

the collaborative climate of the effort. 

Regarding practices,this measure should indicate

the following: 

•	 Existence of in-reach activities.

•	 Evidence from case management strategies on

collaborative case management. 

Exhibit 6-1 provides examples of specific measures

from Oregon and Michigan used to track system

changes inherent in those states’ efforts at transition 

and reentry. 

Exhibit 6-1. Examples of System Change Measures 

From Oregon’s Scorecard: 

• Percentage of high- and medium-risk inmates in which release plan was developed by counselor/PO/inmate 

participation. 

• Percentage of high- and medium-risk inmates that enter programs prioritized on their Oregon Corrections 

Plan. 

• Engagement rate for cognitive programs delivered to high- and medium-risk inmates. 

• Engagement rate for alcohol and drug programs delivered to high- and medium-risk inmates. 

• Percentage of inmates completing their education. 

• Percentage of inmates completing cognitive programs. 

• Percentage of inmates completing alcohol and drug programs. 

• Percentage of high- and medium-risk inmates removed from a program by Department of Corrections 

administrative action. 

From the Michigan Prisoner ReEntry Initiative (MPRI) Evaluation: 

• When is the COMPAS (Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions) administered? 

What percentage of individuals have been administered the COMPAS at specific intervals (e.g., 2 months 

before release, 6 months before release)? 

• What percentage of transition accountability plans are updated upon release? 

• What is the degree of needs-based programming delivered in prison? In the community? (For example, is programming provided to address the three principal criminogenic needs?) 

• Who is part of the transition (case management) team? Have we been successful at forging community 

partnerships? 

• During incarceration, what is done to plan for employment, housing, substance abuse treatment, and other 

identified needs specific to the offender? 

• Are these services linked with services outside of prison (continuity of care)? 

80 TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
Reentry Indicators 

Reentry indicators should provide insight regarding

the desirable outcomes associated with such things 

as prosocial life styles and stability in the community, 

but falling short of actual reductions in recidivism, 

although they may lead to them. These indicators 

should answer the following questions: 

are offenders reentering the community more likely 

to be employed? 

This measure should indicate the following: 

•	 The percentage of offenders who have some

employment within 30 days, 6 months,and 1

year of release. 

•	 The percentage of offenders who have had

stable employment for 6 months or 1 year.

are offenders identified as having continuing 

substance abuse needs participating in and 

completing treatment during the incarceration, 

release, and community phases? 

This measure should indicate the following: 

•	 The percentage of high- to medium-risk offenders who have been assessed as having substance abuse as a top criminogenic need and 

who are participating in and completing 

substance abuse treatment in prison and in 

aftercare in the community. 

•	 The percentage of offenders whose tests show

they are drug free. 

are offenders who have been identified as having 

serious mental illness receiving appropriate 

treatment during all phases of the reentry process? 

This measure should indicate the percentage of 

mentally ill offenders receiving appropriate interventions in the institution and the community. 

does the case management strategy involve 

planning for, securing, and retaining stable living 

situations as offenders reenter the community? 

This measure should indicate the following: 

•	 The percentage of offenders who have a stable

home as part of their release plan. 

•	 The percentage of offenders on release who are

homeless, in transitional housing, or in long-term 

housing. 

•	 The average number of changes of address over

the course of a year per offender on supervision. 

are offenders involved with formal and informal 

prosocial networks as they prepare for release, 

return to the community, and complete supervision? 

This measure should indicate the following: 

•	 The percentage of offenders in prison who have

a record of visitation and contact with stable, 

prosocial associates. 

•	 The percentage of offenders who have informal

prosocial networks represented in their case 

management team. 

•	 The percentage of offenders involved in in-reach

activities before release. 

Exhibit 6-2 provides examples of reentry indicators

from Oregon, Missouri,and Michigan.

Public Safety Measures 

Improvement in public safety should be evaluated 

by concrete measures: fewer returns to prison and 

fewer new arrests and convictions of those released 

from prison. These measures should answer the 

following questions: 

are increasing proportions of offenders returning 

from prison to the community successfully reintegrating into the community, and is public safety 

being enhanced? 

This measure should indicate the following: 

•	 The percentage of admissions to prison represented by individuals on parole supervision at 

the time of admission, accounting for the type of 

violation (criminal or technical) and the specific 

nature of the violation. 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: TPC Performance Measurement Framework 81 
Exhibit 6-2. Examples of Reentry Indicators 

From Oregon’s Scorecard: 

• Percentage of offenders with housing at release. 

• Percentage of offenders with employment/education at release. 

• Percentage of designated offenders that continue alcohol and drug treatment after release. 

• Percentage of high- and medium-risk offenders receiving support from “Home for Good.” 

• Percentage of offenders participating in treatment under community supervision. 

• Percentage of offenders employed while under community supervision. 

• Percentage of restitution paid by offenders upon file closure. 

From the Missouri Reentry Process (MRP) Scorecard: 

• Analysis prior to the implementation of MRP indicated certain factors among the baseline population associated with recidivism after 3 years. These “correlates of return to prison in Missouri” are being tracked. They 

include: 

• Employment at first need score. 

• Vocational score on release. 

• Substance abuse at first need score. 

• Work score on release. 

• Mental health score on release. 

• Social at first need score. 

• Family at first need score. 

• Educational score. 

From the Michigan Prisoner ReEntry Initiative (MPRI) Evaluation: 

• Does parolee have housing upon release? What type of housing? 

• Does parolee have employment upon release? Where? What wages? What type of employment? 

•	 The percentage of individuals on parole supervi- Exhibit 6-3 provides examples of public safety	

sion who are arrested, convicted, and returned measures from Oregon and Missouri.

to prison,at intervals of 6 months, 1 year, 2 years,

and 3 years.	 Practice Exercises 

•	 The percentage of those released from prison	 Jurisdictions will establish performance measures 

who are arrested, convicted, and returned to that reflect their specific goals and objectives and 

prison,at intervals of 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, the availability, reliability, and format of their data 

and 3 years. sources. Exhibit 6-4 illustrates how to structure a	

discussion for developing a measurement 

82 TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
Exhibit 6-3. Examples of Public Safety Measures 

From Oregon’s Scorecard: 

• Percentage of offenders successful during the first 180 days after release from prison to the community (by 

county). 

• Percentage of offenders who successfully complete supervision. 

• Percentage of offenders under postprison supervision who are convicted of a felony within 3 years of release 

from prison. 

From the Missouri Reentry Process (MRP) Scorecard: 

• Percentage of offenders with technical violations during specific postrelease periods (6 months, 12 months, 

2 years). 

Georgia’s Innovations in Performance Measurement 

As part of Georgia’s participation in the TPC Initiative, the 12 state agencies involved spent significant time 

studying existing transition practices and data and developing an action agenda of 28 items. Each recommendation included the requirement that data must be identified to track both process and outcome. In a 2007 issue of 

NIC’s Topics in Community Corrections, participants in the Georgia TPC effort described the development of a 

unique strategy for measuring progress toward these TPC goals.* The strategy is consistent with the notion of 

“public safety, reentry indicators, and system change measures” outlined in this chapter, but builds on the 

extensive literature on managing success in business enterprises. In their own research, the Georgia team found 

that a number of indicators, including ratios of positive to negative drug screens, residential moves, number of 

days employed, and months attending programs, were associated with increased completion of parole without 

commission of a new offense, a key public safety measure. 

These measures are available on a real-time basis through a Web-based system and are routinely examined 

statewide, regionally, and by parole offices and officers. Those parole offices with the best performance for parole 

completion are recognized at annual gatherings of the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles, and leaders focus 

directly on this performance measure in all their interactions with staff. Georgia’s experience provides a good 

example of how measurement can be used not only to track progress, but to encourage it. 

* Danny Hunter, George Braucht, and John Prevost, “Improving Parole Outcomes with Performance Leadership and Data: Doing What 

Works,” in Topics in Community Corrections: Promising Strategies in Transition from Prison (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 

National Institute of Corrections, 2007), pages 35–44. 

framework. For each of the three dimensions 

discussed above—system change, reentry, and 

public safety—the exhibit illustrates the logic of 

establishing performance measures according to 

goals and objectives. 

Exhibits 6-5 through 6-7 are exercises for practitioners to use in considering how to develop a 

measurement strategy that is appropriate to 

transition and reentry efforts in their own jurisdictions. These exercises walk users through each of 

the dimensions, asking them to make choices 

about measures, definitions, and possible sources of 

data. A team working on developing a measurement strategy for a reentry initiative can use this 

exercise to begin its work. 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: TPC Performance Measurement Framework 83 
Exhibit 6-4. Example of Establishing TPC Performance Measures

Goals and Objectives Measure(s) Data Elements and Source

System Change

Reentry IndicatorsWhat did we say we were going to do?Take steps to make sure that offenders are prepared to access employment immediately upon release from prison and that they do so. These steps will include building a partnership with workforce development agencies in the community and include employment issues in the casemanagement strategy from the time of admission through release to the community.Did we do it?

•	 Is the infrastructure in place?•	 Have agency agreements been established between the Department of Corrections

and the workforce regarding joint interests, goals, and activities?

•	 Does the case management strategy documentation make accommodation for

specifi c plans around job skills, job readiness, and job development? 

•	 Documented policy and

procedures, tools, and supporting data system in place 

•	 Training for staff completed

Descriptive analysis of current practices 

What did we say we were going to do?Put into place a protocol for valid, empirically based assessments of offender risks and needs to be conducted at appropriate intervals from time of admission to prison until discharge fromsupervision in the community.Did we do it?

•	 Is the infrastructure in place?•	 Has such a protocol been developed, validated, implemented, and codified in policy

and procedure within institutions and within field services? 

•	 Documentation in policy and

procedure 

•	 Tools in place•	 Supporting data system in

place 

•	 Training for staff completed

Descriptive analysis of currentpractices 

PerformanceAre all offenders being assessed within specified timeframes? 

Number and percent of offendersroutinely receiving these assessments:

•	 Within 30 days of admission•	 Annually while incarcerated•	 At release•	 Annually in the field

Data from case files 

84 TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
Goals and Objectives Measure(s) Data Elements and Source

PerformanceDo all offenders for whom employment is a medium- or high-risk domain on their risk/needsassessment have an updated employment component of their case management strategy whileincarcerated? Just before and after release? During the community phase? 

•	 Number and percent of highor medium-risk offenders

with current employment domain included in theircase management strategy

• Number and percent of highor medium-risk offenders

with current employment domain who are referred to workforce development agency (or other partneragency) 

• Number and percent of these

who receive services

• Number and percent of these

who are placed 

•	 Case files•	 Case management strategy

documents 

OutcomesAre offenders more likely to be employed in reasonably paying jobs and to retain those jobs? 

•	 Number and percent of

offenders with employment at release and within 6 months of release

•	 Average wage levels

•	 Case files•	 Case management strategy

documents 

Public SafetyWhat did we say we were going to do?

•	 Reduce the likelihood of offender recidivism.

•	 Number and percent of

returning offenders who arerearrested within 6 months,1 year, 3 years 

• Number and percent of

returning offenders who arereconvicted within 6 

months, 

1 year, 3 years 

• Number and percent of

returning offenders who arereadmitted to prison within 6 months, 1 year, 3 years 

•	 National Crime Information

Center 

•	 Court records•	 Department of Corrections

admission records 

•	 Reduce the risk presented by offenders. •	 Average levels of risk over

time among population incustody (for those originally scored as medium to highrisk) and in the field 

Case management/assessment records 

Exhibit 6-4. Example of Establishing TPC Performance Measures (continued) 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: TPC Performance Measurement Framework 85 
Exhibit 6-5. System Change Measures Worksheet 

Area of Measurement Potential Definition(s) Sources 

Assessment 

Targeting appropriate interventions by risk 

and need 

Collaboration and partnerships 

Responses to violations 

86 TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
Exhibit 6-6. Reentry Indicators Worksheet 

Area of Measurement Potential Definition(s) Sources 

Employment 

Housing 

Drug/alcohol services 

Mental health services 

Connection with prosocial networks 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: TPC Performance Measurement Framework 87 
Exhibit 6-7. Public Safety Worksheet 

Measure and Period (check selection) Possible source(s) 

180 days 

1 year 

3 years 

180 days 

1 year 

3 years 

180 days 

1 year 

3 years 

At admission 

At discharge 

Rearrest 

6 months 

2 years 

Reconviction (felony, misdemeanor, any) 

6 months 

2 years 

Recommitment 

6 months 

2 years 

Risk levels 

At release 

88 TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
CHaPTeR 7 

Emerging Issues, Challenges, and Opportunities


The Importance of Leadership 

Significant organizational, cultural, and systemic 

change is a challenge that requires strong and 

competent leadership. The TPC model stresses the 

importance of leadership from the start, and the 

formation and chairing of change teams by 

high-level state leaders has been a major part of 

TPC implementation. As the eight states involved in 

the effort have moved forward, key leaders or 

“champions” have emerged at all levels and have 

approached the leadership challenge in different 

and creative ways. In both Oregon and Missouri, for 

example, the Director of Corrections reached out 

informally to colleagues at the cabinet level, 

beginning a conversation to establish the rapport 

and partnerships required to lead change. 

Each state has also assigned staff at varying levels 

of authority and responsibility to support and 

coordinate the effort. Regardless of level of authority, their influential leadership is evident in the 

progress underway. Their passion, commitment, and 

hard work are truly leadership in action. 

TPC Implementation as a Work 

in Progress 

Although the basic tenets and goals of the TPC 

model are simple, implementation is a challenging 

and complex undertaking. In essence, the effort 

seeks to put in place the very best practice, as 

judged by evidence. Doing so requires strong, 

enduring collaborations, continuity of effort, significant resources, and tenacity. Among the eight 

states participating in the TPC Initiative, even those 

involved the longest will acknowledge that they are 

not finished. 

It is essential, in the development of statewide and 

executive-level support for reentry, to build relationships first before any formal action is taken. Don’t 

start with building support at the Governor’s office 

or you may find that your partners are not with you 

in the end. It is important to lay the groundwork for 

any initiative by investing time talking to the 

leaders that play a role in transition, whether they 

realize it right away or not. Talk to them about the 

role their agency plays in the success of inmates 

leaving prison and returning to community living. 

Talk to them about [how important it is], in terms 

of community safety, that this process of transition 

goes well. I have found these conversations to be 

invaluable in building true partners in the goal of 

improving prison reentry. Granted, it takes a little 

longer to build this interest and these relationships 

before taking a formal action such as an executive 

order issued by the Governor, as was the case in 

Oregon, but by the time we were at this point all of 

the member agencies wanted to participate in this 

important work. 

—Max Williams, Director 

Oregon Department of Corrections 

On the one hand, this is understandable given the 

dimensions of the challenge. Work continues on 

changing offender management practices, 

securing and improving treatment resources, 

enhancing staff capabilities, and putting good 

performance measurement systems in place. On 

the other hand, it is important to recognize that 

these jurisdictions have come far, that they are 

realizing important gains, and that their experience 

can serve as an example for other jurisdictions 

beginning or continuing this work. 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Emerging Issues, Challenges, and Opportunities 89 
As these and other states move forward in implementation, they will undoubtedly develop new 

benchmarks to measure progress. The development of such benchmarks will continue to emerge 

from the experience of these states as they 

strengthen their measurement systems and gain 

enough experience with successive cohorts of 

released offenders to track changes even more 

clearly. Research and evaluation are needed 

particularly to translate the lessons from research 

into practical guidance for those seeking to 

implement encouraging practices. It is also important for operating agencies to understand that 

they will inevitably come upon research that is 

conflicting and that they need to develop methods 

for sorting out those differences with local stakeholders.

1 

Finally, the TPC model must be brought up to scale. 

Of necessity, implementation in most states began 

with efforts in one or more institutions, in one or 

more regions of a state, involving some programs 

and not others. A future challenge will be to bring 

all practices, statewide and systemwide, into 

alignment with the model. 

Transition from Jail to the 

Community 

NIC is beginning a Transition from Jail to the 

Community (TJC) Initiative, building on the lessons 

of TPC but with the knowledge that there are as 

many differences as similarities between the two 

efforts. The experiences of these two perspectives 

on reentry can be expected to enrich one another 

in the future. 

Understanding Organizational 

and Cultural Change 

Perhaps the most important thing to maintain while 

going forward with implementation is a clear 

understanding that the TPC model is about organizational and cultural change. Lessons learned by 

the eight pilot states underscore this point. Missouri, 

for example, learned early in its implementation 

process to build upon its mistakes and successes. As 

the Missouri Reentry Process (MRP) effort gained 

momentum and stakeholders developed core 

messages to solidify the support and understanding 

of those involved, they developed a list of “to do’s” 

and “not to do’s” to communicate what it would 

take to be successful (see exhibit 7-1). This list 

provides good advice to colleagues around the 

country who are undertaking similar efforts. 

The organizational and cultural change important 

to the TPC model has two major dimensions. The first 

dimension speaks to the vision, mission, and goals of 

transition and reentry efforts. Accommodating the 

notion that the entire system is working toward 

something more than safe, secure institutions and 

more than surveillance and monitoring requires a 

major shift in culture. Engaging offenders in the 

process of change, enhancing their motivation, 

and seeking changed behavior to reduce future 

offending and victimization likewise requires a 

major cultural change. 

The most significant change in my job and work 

duties is related to a change in my personal 

philosophy and understanding that public safety 

does not just simply include safe, secure, and 

constitutional confinement; public safety is also 

about risk reduction. I now emphasize to my staff 

the importance of identifying offender liabilities that 

could lead to the offender’s return to prison and the 

need to develop action plans to address these 

areas. Managing a case is no longer about just 

responding to problems. Case management is 

about identifying the problems that are linked to 

criminal behavior and addressing those areas with 

evidence-based practice interventions to reduce the 

risk of [offenders] committing new offenses and 

making new victims. 

—Alan Earls, Associate Superintendent 

TCC 

Missouri Department of Corrections 

90 TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
Exhibit 7-1. Operating Norms for TPC Partners Developed by the 

Missouri Steering Team 

After all is said and done, there is no such thing as managing change.You 

lead change or you follow it. 

—Peter Drucker1 

What To Do What Not To Do 

•	 Obtain full support and clear delegation of authority from

the state agency director. 

•	 Keep other department heads informed and invested.

•	 Know partners and their histories.

•	 Educate partners on correctional issues and language.

•	 Be data-driven. (“In God we trust. All others bring data.”)

•	 Accept only senior decisionmakers from partner agencies

for membership on the steering team. 

•	 Choose a steering team leader who is a boundary spanner

and has rank, common sense, personality, patience, 

persistence, thick skin, an open mind, and a sense of 

humor. 

•	 Use a professional facilitator.

•	 Be clear and firm in assignment of responsibilities (shared

responsibility is an illusion). 

•	 Not only fall in love with the TPC concept, but marry it!

•	 Tolerate mediocrity, indifference, inconsistent participation, or nonprofessional 

conflict among steering team members. 

(Replace them, if necessary.) 

•	 Rely exclusively or even primarily on

national data. 

•	 Underestimate resistance.

•	 Overestimate resistance.

•	 Wait for the “right time” to get started.

•	 Take on world hunger.

•	 Promise what you cannot deliver.

•	 Give up.

1 Drucker, P. (2004). As quoted in T. Clements and M. Stringer’s Good Government in Action: Missouri’s Transition from Prison to the 

Community Initiative. Presentation available online: www.dmh.missouri.gov/ada/provider/sti/04/051804%20TPCI%20Spring%20Institute 

%20Good%20Government%202004.pdf. 

The second dimension of cultural change has to do 

with how corrections agencies interact with one 

another and with noncorrectional stakeholders. It is 

about collaboration. Collaboration flies in the face 

of the culture underlying large, bureaucratic 

organizations that are creatures of the industrial 

revolution—a culture that compartmentalizes work 

into component parts and does not naturally lend 

itself to cooperation across boundaries. As the eight 

states implementing the TPC model have moved 

forward with their work, they have found the need 

to enhance their understanding of, and skills in, 

collaboration. The level of effort these states have 

invested in honing collaboration skills demonstrates 

the degree of cultural change required of systems 

implementing effective new strategies for transition 

and reentry. example 30 in appendix II shows the 

goals of trainings held by North Dakota and New 

York to encourage the formation of collaborative 

teams both within corrections (North Dakota) and 

with local partners (New York). 

State and Local Partnerships 

As the TPC work began, it was clear that partnerships would be required across a range of state 

agencies. As the effort has evolved, it has become 

clear that partnerships at the local level as well 

as partnerships that involve both state- and 

community-level stakeholders must be established 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Emerging Issues, Challenges, and Opportunities 91 
Before Entry 

As corrections grapples with the challenges of reentry, there are those who are beginning to ask 

whether the lessons of this work may have 

relevance for the policies and practices that 

determine who is subject to “entry” into prison in

the first place. Discussions under way in California 

are calling for giving judges greater flexibility to 

determine who is an appropriate candidate for a 

prison sentence and who might be managed as 

effectively through community-based supervision. 

and strengthened. One example can be found in 

New York, which has developed partnerships with a 

number of County Reentry Task Forces (CRTFs) and 

has provided funding for their work in developing 

county-level strategic plans. (See example 31 in 

appendix II). 

The Rewards of Addressing 

Reentry 

The work of reshaping public policy and practice 

regarding offender transition and reentry is a 

decades-long undertaking. It poses clear new 

goals—public safety and reduced victimization 

through offender success. It poses new ways of 

doing business—collaboratively, based on research. 

Although not exhaustive, the bibliography of 

reentry resources included in this handbook lists 

some of the other documents and websites that 

offer helpful information on and tools for the 

important work of improving offender transition and 

reentry. 

The TPC Initiative and parallel efforts (see “Bibliography of Resources on Offender Reentry”) have 

made a good beginning and significant progress, 

gathering accomplishments and new insights along 

the way. Hopefully this handbook will serve as one 

resource wherever efforts are being made to 

improve transition and reentry practices. 

In reflecting on why noncorrectional stakeholders 

may be interested in coming to the table to work 

on reentry: 

[N]obody really wants to take the time to learn 

enough about corrections or the justice system. 

Until you talk about money. We spend most of it,

and so they can’t have it, but they need it. And the

other agencies likely spend it more effectively than 

we do. So, that is the reward. Help us spend less 

so you can spend more on the root causes of 

crime: addiction, mental illness, child abuse. Our 

children are dying; let’s help make it stop. That is 

the real reward of working on reentry. 

—Dennis Schrantz, Deputy Director 

Policy and Strategic Planning Administration 

Michigan Department of Corrections 

Note 

1. The federal Office of Management and Budget 

has published standards for evidence on effectiveness that can be found at www.excelgov.org/ 

admin/FormManager/filesuploading/OMB_memo_ 

on_strong_evidence.pdf. The University of Colorado’s Center for the Study and Prevention of 

Violence has also assembled information on 

effective programs and how they are assessed as 

to effectiveness; see www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/index.html. 

92 TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
Bibliography of Resources on Offender Reentry 


Offender Reentry Websites 

Justice System Assessment and Training (J-SAT), 

www.j-sat.com/index.aspx, accessed May 22, 2008. 

Office of Justice Programs Reentry Website, U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 

www.reentry.gov, accessed May 22, 2008. 

“Parole Violations Revisited,” Center for Effective 

Public Policy and U.S. Department of Justice, 

National Institute of Corrections, www.parole 

violationsrevisited.org, accessed May 22, 2008. 

“Prisoner Reentry Policy Academy,” National 

Governors Association Center for Best Practices, 

www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.1f41d49be 

2d3d33eacdcbeeb501010a0/?vgnextoid=6c23928 

6d9de1010VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD, 

accessed May 22, 2008. 

“Reentry National Media Outreach Campaign,” 

Annie E. Casey Foundation, www.reentrymedia 

outreach.org/index.html, accessed May 22, 2008. 

“Reentry Roundtable,” The Urban Institute, 

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

index.cfm, accessed May 22, 2008. 

“Reentry Trends in the United States,” U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/reentry/reentry.htm, 

accessed May 22, 2008. 

“Transition from Prison to the Community,” U.S. 

Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections, www.nicic.org/TPCIModel, accessed May 22, 

2008. 

“Washington State Institute for Public Policy,” 

www.wa.gov/wsipp, accessed May 22, 2008. 

General Offender Reentry 

Literature 

American Bar Association (ABA). 2007. ABA Commission on Effective Criminal Sanctions Report With 

Summary of Recommendations. Chicago. 

Barnett, Liz, and Dale G. Parent. 2002. Transition from 

Prison to Community Initiative. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections, and Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates, 

www.nicic.org/pubs/2002/017520.pdf, accessed 

May 22, 2008. 

Cullen, Francis T., and Paul Gendreau. 2000.“Assessing Correctional Rehabilitation: Policy, Practice, and 

Prospects.” Criminal Justice 2000: Policies, Processes, 

and Decisions of the Criminal Justice System 

3:109–76. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Justice, National Institute of Justice. NCJ 185530. 

Farabee, David. 2005. Rethinking Rehabilitation: 

Why Can’t We Reform Our Criminals? Washington, 

DC: American Enterprise Institute Press. 

Glover, Kit, and Kurt M. Bumby. 2002.“Reentry at the 

Point of Entry.” In Juvenile Justice Today: Essays on 

Programs and Policies. Lanham, MD: American 

Correctional Association, pp. 39–46. 

Immerwahr, John, and Jean Johnson. 2002. The 

Revolving Door: Exploring Public Attitudes Toward 

Prisoner Reentry. Washington, DC: The Urban 

Institute. 

Krisberg, Barry, and Susan Marchionna. 2006. 

Attitudes of U.S.Voters Toward Prisoner Rehabilitation and Reentry Policies. Oakland, CA: National 

Council on Crime and Delinquency. NCJ 215829. 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Bibliography 93 
Kurki, Leena. 1999. Incorporating Restorative and 

Community Justice into American Sentencing and 

Corrections. Sentencing & Corrections: Issues for 

the 21st Century, no. 3. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. NCJ 

175723. 

Legal Action Center. 2004. After Prison: Roadblocks 

to Reentry. New York: Legal Action Center, www.lac. 

org/lac/index.php, accessed May 22, 2008. 

López, Gerald P. 2005. The Center for Community 

Problem Solving Reentry Guide. New York: Center 

for Community Problem Solving Press. 

Lotke, Eric, Deborah Stromberg, and Vincent 

Schiraldi. 2004. Swing States: Crime, Prisons and the 

Future of the Nation. Washington, DC: Justice Policy 

Institute. 

Lynch, James P., and William J. Sabol. 2001. Prisoner 

Reentry in Perspective. Crime Policy Report, vol. 3. 

Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. NCJ 191685. 

Mackenzie, Doris L. 2001.“Sentencing and Corrections in the 21st Century: Setting the Stage for the 

Future.” Final report for National Institute of Justice, 

grant number 96–SC–LX–0001. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 

www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/189089.pdf, 

accessed May 22, 2008. 

Michigan Department of Corrections. 2008. 

“Michigan Prisoner ReEntry Initiative; Creating 

Safer Neighborhoods and Better Citizens,” 

www.michpri.com, accessed May 22, 2008. 

Nelson, Marta, and Jennifer Trone. 2000. Why 

Planning for Release Matters. Issue in Brief. New 

York: Vera Institute of Justice, State Sentencing and 

Corrections Program. NIC Accession Number 

016911. 

Reentry Policy Council. 2005. Report of the Re-Entry 

Policy Council: Charting the Safe and Successful 

Return of Prisoners to the Community. New York: 

Council of State Governments. 

Solomon, Amy, Michelle Waul, Asheley Van Ness, 

and Jeremy Travis. 2004. Outside the Walls: A 

National Snapshot of Community-Based Offender 

Reentry Programs. Washington, DC: The Urban 

Institute, www.reentrymediaoutreach.org/ 

resourceguide.htm, accessed May 22, 2008. 

Taxman, Faye S., David Soule, and Adam Gelb. 1999. 

“Graduated Sanctions: Stepping Into Accountable 

Systems and Offenders.” Prison Journal 792:182–205. 

Travis, Jeremy. 2000. But They All Come Back: 

Rethinking Prisoner Reentry. Research in Brief. 

Sentencing & Corrections Issues for the 21st Century, 

no. 7. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 

National Institute of Justice. NCJ 181413. 

Travis, Jeremy. 2005. But They All Come Back: Facing 

the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry. Washington, DC: 

Urban Institute Press. 

Travis, Jeremy, and Joan Petersilia. 2001.“Reentry 

Reconsidered: A New Look at an Old Question.” 

Crime and Delinquency 473:291–313. 

Travis, J., and C.Visher, eds. 2005. Prisoner Reentry 

and Crime in America. New York: Cambridge 

University Press. 

Zogby International.“Americans Abandon ‘Punishment Only’ Attitudes in Effort To Reduce Crime.” 

Zogby Poll, April 19, 2006, www.zogby.com/news/ 

readnews.dbm?id=1101, accessed May 22, 2008. 

Prison and Jail Populations 

Commission on Safety and Abuse in America’s 

Prisons. 2006. Confronting Confinement: A Report of 

the Commission on Safety and Abuse in America’s 

Prisons. New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 

www.prisoncommission.org/report.asp, accessed 

May 22, 2008. 

Harlow, Caroline Wolf. 2003. Education and Correctional Populations. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. NCJ 195670. 

94 TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
Harrison, Paige M., and Allen J. Beck. 2005. Prison 

and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2004. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice 

Statistics. NCJ 208801. 

Harrison, Paige M., and Allen J. Beck. 2005. Prisoners 

in 2004. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. NCJ 210677. 

James, Doris J. 2004. Profile of Jail Inmates, 2002. 

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

of Justice Statistics. NCJ 201932. 

Public Safety Performance Project. 2007. Public 

Safety, Public Spending: Forecasting America’s 

Prison Population 2007–2011. Washington, DC: The 

Pew Charitable Trusts, www.pewcenteronthestates. 

org/initiatives_detail.aspx?initiativeID=31336, 

accessed May 22, 2008. 

Tonry, M., and J. Petersilia, eds. 1999. Prisons. Crime 

and Justice, vol. 26. Chicago: University of Chicago 

Press. 

Walmsley, Roy. 2003. World Prison Population List, 5th 

ed. London: Home Office Research, Development 

and Statistics Directorate. 

Parole, Community Supervision, 

and Reentry 

Burke, Peggy. 2004. Parole Violations Revisited: A 

Handbook on Strengthening Parole Practices for 

Public Safety and Successful Offender Transition. 

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

National Institute of Corrections, www.nicic.org/ 

pubs/2004/019833.pdf, accessed May 22, 2008. 

Burke, Peggy, and Michael Tonry. 2006. Successful 

Transition and Reentry for Safer Communities: A Call 

to Action for Parole. Silver Spring, MD: Center for 

Effective Public Policy, www.cepp.com/documents/ 

A%20Call%20to%20Action%20for%20Parole.pdf, 

accessed May 22, 2008. 

Carter, Madeline M. 2001. Responding to Parole and 

Probation Violations: A Handbook to Guide Local 

Policy Development. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections. 

NIC Accession Number 016858. 

Gendreau, Paul, Claire Goggin, and Betsy Fulton. 

2001.“Intensive Supervision in Probation and Parole 

Settings.” In C.R. Hollin, ed., Handbook of Offender 

Assessment and Treatment. Chichester, UK: Wiley. 

Glaze, Lauren E., and Seri Palla. 2005. Probation and 

Parole in the United States, 2004. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice 

Statistics. NCJ 210676. 

Leschied, A., A. Cummings, and L. Baker. 2005. 

“Models of Supervision Relevant to the Delivery of 

Effective Correctional Service.” Journal of Community Corrections 14:6–10. 

National Institute of Corrections. 2006. Effectively 

Managing Violations and Revocations. Topics in 

Community Corrections. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Justice. NIC Accession Number 

period301. 

Petersilia, Joan. 2000. Challenges of Prisoner Reentry 

and Parole in California. CPRC Brief 12(3). Berkeley: 

University of California, California Policy Research 

Center. 

Petersilia, Joan. 2003. When Prisoners Come Home: 

Parole and Prisoner Reentry. New York: Oxford 

University Press. 

Taxman, Faye S. 2002.“Supervision—Exploring the 

Dimensions of Effectiveness.” Federal Probation 

662:14–27. 

Taxman, Faye S., Christina Yancey, and Jeanne E. 

Bilanin. Proactive Community Supervision in Maryland: Changing Offender Outcomes. Paper 

presented to the Maryland Division of Parole and 

Probation, January 3, 2006, www.dpscs.state.md.us/ 

publicinfo/publications/pdfs/PCS_Evaluation_ 

Feb06.pdf, accessed May 22, 2008. 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Bibliography 95 
Travis, Jeremy, and Sarah Lawrence. 2002. Beyond 

the Prison Gates: The State of Parole in America. 

Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. 

Evidence-Based Practices 

and Programs 

American Correctional Association and International Community Corrections Association. 2005. 

What Works and Why: Effective Approaches to 

Re-Entry. Lanham, MD. 

Aos, Steve, Marna Miller, and Elizabeth Drake. 2006. 

Evidence-Based Adult Corrections Programs: What 

Works and What Does Not. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. NIC Accession 

Number 021136. 

Dowden, Craig, and D.A. Andrews. 2004.“The 

Importance of Staff Practice in Delivering Effective 

Correctional Treatment: A Meta-Analytic Review of 

Core Correctional Practice.” International Journal 

of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 

482:203–14. 

Lowenkamp, Christopher T., and Edward J. Latessa, 

2005.“Developing Successful Reentry Programs: 

Lessons Learned From the ‘What Works’ Research.” 

Corrections Today 672:72–74, 76–77. 

National Institute of Corrections and Crime and 

Justice Institute. 2004a. Implementing EvidenceBased Practice in Community Corrections: The 

Principles of Effective Intervention. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Justice, and Boston: Crime and 

Justice Institute. NIC Accession Number 019342. 

National Institute of Corrections and Crime and 

Justice Institute. 2004b. Implementing EvidenceBased Principles in Community Corrections: Leading Organizational Change and Development. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, and 

Boston: Crime and Justice Institute. NIC Accession 

Number 019344. 

Petersilia, Joan. 2004.“What Works in Prisoner 

Reentry? Reviewing and Questioning the Evidence.” Federal Probation 68:4–8. 

Seiter, Richard P., and Karen R. Kadela. 2003.“Prisoner Reentry: What Works,What Does Not, and 

What Is Promising.” Crime and Delinquency 

49:360–88. 

Taxman, Faye S., Eric S. Shepardson, and James M. 

Byrne. 2004. Tools of the Trade: A Guide to Incorporating Science Into Practice. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections. NIC Accession Number 020095. 

Risk, Needs, and Responsivity 

Andrews, D.A., and J. Bonta. 1998. The Psychology of 

Criminal Conduct, 2d ed. Cincinnati: Anderson 

Publishing Company. 

Austin, James, Patricia Hardyman, and John Irwin. 

2002. Exploring the Needs and Risks of the Returning 

Prisoner Population. Conference Report.Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. NIC Accession Number 

019063. 

Bogue, Brad M., Anjali Nandi, and Arthur E. Jongsma, 

Jr. 2003. The Probation and Parole Treatment 

Planner. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. 

Cellini, H.R. 2005.“Predicting Risk of Violence.” 

Offender Programs Report 92:17–32. 

Healey, Kerry M. 1999. Case Management in the 

Criminal Justice System. Research in Action.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National 

Institute of Justice. NCJ 173409. 

Kennedy, S. 2004.“A Practitioner’s Guide to Responsivity: Maximizing Treatment Effectiveness.” Journal 

of Community Corrections 12:7–30. 

Lowenkamp, Christopher, Jennifer Pealer, Paula 

Smith, and Edward J. Latessa. 2006.“Adhering to 

the Risk and Need Principles: Does it Matter for 

Supervision-Based Programs?” Federal Probation 

70(3), www.uscourts.gov/fedprob/December_2006/ 

adhering.html, accessed May 22, 2008. 

National Institute of Corrections. 1999. Classification 

and Risk Assessment. Topics in Community Corrections.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. 

NIC Accession Number period166. 

96 TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
Recidivism Studies 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2002. Recidivism of 

Prisoners Released in 1994. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Justice. NCJ 193427. 

Gendreau, Paul, Tracy Little, and Claire Goggin. 

1996.“A Meta-Analysis of Adult Offender Recidivism: 

What Works?” Criminology 34:575–607. 

Solomon,Amy,Vera Kachnowski, and Ava Bhati. 

2005. Does Parole Work? Analyzing the Impact of 

Postprison Supervision on Rearrest Outcomes. 

Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. NIC Accession 

Number 020415. 

Steurer, Stephen, Linda Smith, and Alice Tracy. 2001. 

Three-State Recidivism Study. Lanham, MD: Correctional Educational Association. NIC Accession 

Number 017446. 

Employment and Reentry 

American Bar Association. 2007. Report to the 

House of Delegates on Employment and Licensure 

of Persons With a Criminal Record. Chicago. 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2004. Justice Expenditure 

and Employment in the United States, 2001. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice. NCJ 202792. 

Hagan, John. 1993.“The Social Embeddedness of 

Crime and Unemployment.” Criminology 31:465–90. 

Houston, Melissa. 2004. Offender Job Retention: A 

Report From the Offender Workforce Development 

Division, National Institute of Corrections. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National 

Institute of Corrections, Office of Correctional Job 

Training and Placement. NIC Accession Number 

021352. 

Jucovy, Linda. 2006. Just Out: Early Lessons From the 

Ready4Work Prisoner Reentry Initiative. Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures. 

Solomon, Amy, L., Kelly Dedel Johnson, Jeremy Travis, 

and Elizabeth Cincotta McBride. 2004. From Prison 

to Work: The Employment Dimensions of Prisoner 

Reentry: A Report of the Reentry Roundtable. 

Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. 

Housing/Homelessness and 

Reentry 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2004. Guide for Developing Housing for Ex-Offenders. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Justice. NCJ 203374. 

Corporation for Supportive Housing website, 

www.csh.org, accessed May 22, 2008. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development. 

2001.“Final Rule—Screening and Eviction for Drug 

Abuse and Other Criminal Activity.” Federal Register 

66(101):28775–28806. 

Human Rights Watch. 2004. No Second Chance: 

People With Criminal Records Denied Access to 

Public Housing. New York: Human Rights Watch. 

Maine State Housing Authority. Rental Assistance 

Coupon Plus Program, www.mainehousing.org/ 

RENTALPrograms.aspx, accessed May 22, 2008. 

National Alliance to End Homelessness.“Reentry,” 

www.endhomelessness.org/section/policy/ 

focusareas/reentry, accessed May 22, 2008. 

Reentry Policy Council, Council of State Governments.“Re-entry Housing Options Comparison,” 

http://tools.reentrypolicy.org/housing#chart_row7, 

accessed May 22, 2008. 

Reynolds, Sue. 1997. Not a Solo Act: Creating 

Successful Relationships To Develop and Operate 

Supportive Housing. New York: Corporation for 

Supportive Housing. 

Rodriguez, Nino, and Brenner Brown. 2003. Preventing Homelessness Among People Leaving Prison. 

New York: Vera Institute of Justice, State Sentencing 

and Corrections Program. 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Bibliography 97 
Travis, Jeremy, and Caterina Gouvis Roman. 2004. 

Taking Stock: Housing, Homelessness, and Prisoner 

Reentry. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. 

Health, Mental Health, 

Substance Abuse, and Reentry 

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program. 2003. 

Preliminary Data on Drug Use and Related Matters 

Among Adult Arrestees and Juvenile Detainees, 

2002. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 

National Institute of Justice. NCJ 200755. 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. 1999. Substance Abuse 

and Treatment of State and Federal Prisoners, 1997. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. NCJ 

172871. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2001. 

Helping Inmates Return to the Community. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services. 

Hammett, Theodore M. 2000. Health-Related Issues 

in Prisoner Reentry to the Community. Paper 

presented at the Reentry Roundtable on Public 

Health Dimensions of Prisoner Reentry. Washington, 

DC: The Urban Institute. 

Kirkman, A., L. Schatzel, and F. Osher. 2005.“The 

National GAINS Re-entry Checklist: A Practical Tool 

for Transition Planning for Detainees With Mental 

Illness.” American Jails 19(4):34–37. 

National GAINS Center for People with CoOccurring Disorders in the Justice System. 2001. The 

Prevalence of Co-Occurring Mental and Substance 

Abuse Disorders in the Criminal Justice System. Fact 

Sheet Series. Delmar, NY: National GAINS Center for 

People with Co-Occurring Disorders in the Justice 

System. 

National Institute on Drug Abuse. 2006. Principles of 

Drug Abuse Treatment for Criminal Justice Populations: A Research-Based Guide. Bethesda, MD: 

National Institutes of Health. 

Osher, Fred, Henry J. Steadman, and Heather Barr. 

2002. A Best Practice Approach to Community 

Re-entry from Jails for Inmates with Co-occurring 

Disorders: The APIC Model. Delmar, NY: National 

GAINS Center for People with Co-Occurring 

Disorders in the Justice System. 

Collaboration in the Criminal 

Justice System 

Burke, P.B. 2001.“Collaboration for Successful 

Prisoner Reentry: The Role of Parole and the Courts.” 

Corrections Management Quarterly 53:11–22. NCJ 

189673. 

Byrne, James M., Faye S. Taxman, and Douglas 

Young. 2002. Emerging Roles and Responsibilities in 

the Reentry Partnership Initiative: New Ways of 

Doing Business. Final report for National Institute of 

Justice, grant number 2000–IJ–CX–0045. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of 

Justice. NCJ 196441. 

Carter, M.M., ed. 2005. The Emergence of Collaboration as the Preferred Approach in Criminal Justice. 

Silver Spring, MD: Center for Effective Public Policy. 

NIC Accession Number 021201. 

McGarry, P., and M. Carter, eds. 1993. The Intermediate Sanctions Handbook: Experiences and Tools for 

Policymakers. Silver Spring, MD: Center for Effective 

Public Policy. NIC Accession Number 000213. 

McGarry, Peggy, and Becki Ney. 2006. Getting It 

Right: Collaborative Problem Solving for Criminal 

Justice. Silver Spring, MD: Center for Effective Public 

Policy. 

National Institute of Corrections and Crime and 

Justice Institute. 2004. Implementing EvidenceBased Practice in Community Corrections: 

Collaboration for Systemic Change in the Criminal 

Justice System. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Justice, and Boston: Crime and Justice Institute. 

98 TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
Families, the Community, 

and Reentry 

Brazzell, Diana. 2007. Informing and Engaging 

Communities Through Reentry Mapping. 

Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. 

Center for Policy Research, Office of Child Support 

Enforcement (OCSE). 2006. Working With Incarcerated and Released Parents: Lessons From OCSE 

Grants and State Programs. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services. 

La Vigne, Nancy, Jake Cowan, and Diana Brazzell. 

2006. Mapping Prisoner Reentry: An Action Research Guidebook, 2d ed.Washington, DC: The 

Urban Institute. 

Travis, Jeremy, Elizabeth Cincotta, and Amy Solomon. 2003. Families Left Behind: The Hidden Costs of 

Incarceration and Reentry. Washington, DC: The 

Urban Institute. 

Waul, M., J. Travis, and A. Solomon. 2002. Background 

Paper: The Effect of Incarceration and Reentry on 

Children, Families, and Communities. Washington, 

DC: The Urban Institute. 

Young, Douglas, Faye S. Taxman, and James Byrne. 

2002. Engaging the Community in Offender Reentry. 

Final Report. College Park, MD: University of Maryland, Bureau of Governmental Research. 

Victims and Reentry 

Hook, Melissa, and Anne Seymour. 2003.“Offender 

Reentry Requires Attention to Victim Safety.” 

Perspective 27:24–29. 

Lehman, J., T.G. Beatty, D. Maloney, S. Russell, A. 

Seymour, and C. Shapiro. 2002. The Three “R’s” of 

Reentry. Washington, DC: Justice Solutions. 

Office for Victims of Crime. 2006. National Crime 

Victims Week Resource Guide. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office for Victims of Crime, 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/ncvrw/2006/pdf/resource_ 

guide.pdf, accessed May 22, 2008. 

Seymour, Anne. 2000. The Victim’s Role in Offender 

Reentry: A Community Response Manual. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office for 

Victims of Crime. NCJ 194061. 

Seymour, Anne. 2002. Victim Impact Statement 

Resource Package. Washington, DC: Justice 

Solutions, www.justicesolutions.org/art_pub_victim_ 

impact_resource.pdf, accessed May 22, 2008. 

Seymour, Anne. 2003.“Chapter 7: Victim Issues.”


In P. Burke, ed., A Handbook for New Parole Board 


Members. Association for Paroling Authorities 


International (www.apaintl.org/en/index.html), and 


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


National Institute of Corrections.


Juvenile Offenders 

Altschuler, David M., and Troy L. Armstrong. 2001. 

“Reintegrating High-Risk Juvenile Offenders Into 

Communities: Experiences and Prospects.” Corrections Management Quarterly 5(1):72–88. 

Brown, David, Sarah Maxwell, Edward DeJesus, and 

Vincent Schiraldi. 2002. Barriers and Promising 

Approaches to Workforce and Youth Development 

for Young Offenders. Baltimore, MD: The Annie E. 

Casey Foundation. 

Cocozza, Joseph J., and Kathleen Skowyra. 2000. 

“Youth With Mental Health Disorders: Issues and 

Emerging Responses.” Juvenile Justice 7:3–13. 

Dedel, Kelly. 1997. Assessing the Education of 

Incarcerated Youth. San Francisco: National 

Council on Crime and Delinquency. 

Kazdin, Alan. 2000.“Adolescent Development, 

Mental Disorders, and Decision Making in Delinquent Youth.” In T. Grisso and R. Schwartz, eds. Youth 

on Trial. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

Klopovic, James, Michael Vasu, and Douglas 

Yearwood. 2003. Effective Programming Practices 

for at-Risk Youth: A Continuum of Community-Based 

Programs. Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute. 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Bibliography 99 
Lipsey, Mark W., and David B. Wilson. 1998.“Effective Intervention for Serious Juvenile Offenders: 

A Synthesis of Research.” In R. Loeber and D.P. 

Farrington, eds., Serious and Violent Juvenile 

Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions. 

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Mears, D. 2001.“Critical Challenges in Addressing 

the Mental Health Needs of Juvenile Offenders.” 

Justice Policy Journal 1:41–61. 

Mendel, Richard A. 2000. Less Hype, More Help: 

Reducing Juvenile Crime,What Works—and What 

Doesn’t. Washington, DC: American Youth Policy 

Forum. 

Mendel, Richard A. 2001. Less Cost, More Safety: 

Guiding Lights for Reform in Juvenile Justice. 

Washington, DC: American Youth Policy Forum. 

National Center on Substance Abuse. 2002. Criminal Neglect: Substance Abuse, Juvenile Justice and 

the Children Left Behind. New York: Columbia 

University. 

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court 

Judges. 2003. Reconnecting: The Role of the 

Juvenile Court in Reentry. Reno, NV. 

The National GAINS Center for People with CoOccurring Disorders in the Justice System. 2001. 

“Working Together for Change: Co-Occurring 

Mental Health and Substance Use Disorders Among 

Youth Involved in the Juvenile Justice System” 

(online tutorial), www.ncmhjj.com/curriculum/ 

juvenile/index.htm, accessed May 22, 2008. 

National Mental Health Association. 2004. Mental 

Health Treatment for Youth in the Juvenile Justice 

System: A Compendium of Promising Practices. 

Alexandria,VA. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 2001. OJJDP Research 2000. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Justice. NCJ 186732. 

Parent, D.G.,V. Lieter, S. Kennedy, L. Livens, D.Wentworth, and S. Wilcox. 1994. Conditions of Confinement: Juvenile Detention and Correctional 

Facilities. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention. NCJ 145793. 

Reclaiming Futures. 2003. Kids, Drugs, and Crime: 

Quick Facts. Portland, OR: Reclaiming Futures 

National Program Office, School of Social Work, 

Portland State University, www.reclaimingfutures.org, 

accessed May 22, 2008. 

Rutherford, Robert B., Jr., Michael Bullis, Cindy 

Wheeler Anderson, and Heather M. Griller-Clark. 

2002. Youth With Disabilities in the Correctional 

System: Prevalence Rates and Identification Issues. 

Monograph Series on Education, Disability and 

Juvenile Justice. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research, The Center for Effective Collaboration and Practice, and College Park, MD: National 

Center on Education, Disability, and Juvenile 

Justice. 

Sickmund, Melissa. 2000. Census of Juveniles in 

Residential Placement Databook. Fact Sheet. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office 

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

FS 200008. 

Sickmund, Melissa. 2004. Juveniles in Corrections. 

Juvenile Offenders and Victims National Report 

Series Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention. NCJ 202885. 

Wilson, J.J., and J.C. Howell. 1993. A Comprehensive 

Strategy for Serious,Violent, and Chronic Juvenile 

Offenders. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention. NCJ 143453. 

100 TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
Female Offenders 

Berman, Judy. 2005. Systemic Criminal Justice 

Planning: Improving Responses to Women Offenders in Hamilton County, Ohio. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections. NIC Accession Number 020872. 

Berman, Judy. 2005. Women Offender Transition and 

Reentry: Gender Responsive Approaches to 

Transitioning Women Offenders from Prison to the 

Community. Center for Effective Public Policy and 

U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of 

Corrections. 

Bloom, Barbara, Barbara Owen, and Stephanie 

Covington. 2003. Gender-Responsive Strategies: 

Research, Practice, and Guiding Principles for 

Women Offenders. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections. 

NIC Accession Number 018017. 

Covington, Stephanie. 2002. A Woman’s Journey 

Home: Challenges for Female Offenders and Their 

Children. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. 

Dodge, Mary, and Mark R. Pogrebin. 2001.“Collateral Costs of Imprisonment for Women: Complications of Reintegration.” The Prison Journal 81:42–54. 

Hartwell, Stephanie. 2001.“Female Mentally Ill 

Offenders and Their Community Reintegration 

Needs: An Initial Examination.” International Journal 

of Law and Psychiatry 24:1–11. 

Ney, Becki, and Teri Martin. 2005. Using Jail Exit 

Surveys To Improve Community Responses to 

Women Offenders. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections. 

NIC Accession Number 020853. 

Ritchie, Beth E. 2001.“Challenges Incarcerated 

Women Face as They Return to Their Communities: 

Findings From Life History Interviews.” Crime and 

Delinquency 47:368–89. 

Van Voorhis, Patricia. 2001. Classification of Women 

Offenders: A National Assessment of Current 

Practices and the Experiences of Three States. 

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

National Institute of Corrections. 

Sex Offenders 

Carter, Madeline, Kurt Bumby, and Thomas Talbot. 

2004.“Promoting Offender Accountability and 

Community Safety Through the Comprehensive 

Approach to Sex Offender Management.” Seton 

Hall Law Review 34:1273–97. 

Center for Sex Offender Management. 2000. 

Community Supervision of the Sex Offender: An 

Overview of Current and Promising Practices. Silver 

Spring, MD. 

Center for Sex Offender Management. 2000. Myths 

and Facts About Sex Offenders. Silver Spring, MD. 

Center for Sex Offender Management. 2001. 

Recidivism of Sex Offenders. Silver Spring, MD. 

Center for Sex Offender Management. 2002. 

Educating the Community About Sexual Assault 

and the Management of Sex Offenders in the Community: A Training Curriculum. Silver Spring, MD. 

Center for Sex Offender Management. 2002. 

Managing Sex Offenders in the Community: A 

Handbook To Guide Policymakers and Practitioners 

Through a Planning and Implementation Process. 

Silver Spring, MD. 

Center for Sex Offender Management. 2002. An 

Overview of Sex Offender Management. Silver 

Spring, MD. 

Center for Sex Offender Management. 2002. 

Supervision of Sex Offenders in the Community: A 

Training Curriculum. Silver Spring, MD. 

Center for Sex Offender Management. 2002. Time To 

Work: Managing the Employment of Sex Offenders 

Under Community Supervision. Silver Spring, MD. 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Bibliography 101 
Center for Sex Offender Management. 2005. Key 

Considerations for Reunifying Adult Sex Offenders 

and their Families. Silver Spring, MD. 

Center for Sex Offender Management. Revised 

2005. An Overview of Sex Offender Treatment for a 

Non-Clinical Audience: A Training Curriculum. Silver 

Spring, MD. 

Center for Sex Offender Management. 2006. The 

Role of the Victim and the Victim Advocate in 

Managing Sex Offenders: A Training Curriculum. 

Silver Spring, MD. 

Center for Sex Offender Management. 2006. 

Understanding Treatment for Adults and Juveniles 

Who Have Committed Sex Offenses. Silver Spring, 

MD. 

Center for Sex Offender Management. 2007. The 

Effective Management of Juvenile Sex Offenders in 

the Community: A Training Curriculum. Silver Spring, 

MD. 

Center for Sex Offender Management. 2007. 

Female Sex Offenders. Silver Spring, MD. 

Center for Sex Offender Management. 2007. 

Managing the Challenges of Sex Offender Reentry. 

Silver Spring, MD. 

Cumming, Georgia, and Robert McGrath. 2005. 

Supervision of the Sex Offender: Community 

Management, Risk Assessment, and Treatment, 2d 

ed. Brandon,VT: Safer Society Press. 

English, Kim, Suzanne Pullen, and Linda Jones. 1996. 

Managing Adult Sex Offenders on Probation and 

Parole: A Containment Approach. Lexington, KY: 

American Probation and Parole Association. 

102 TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
aPPendix i 

Capsule Descriptions of TPC Implementation in 


Eight Pilot States 


State of Georgia 

Name of the Initiative in Georgia 

In April of 2004, Georgia was accepted as a 

participant in the National Institute of Corrections 

(NIC) Transition from Prison to the Community (TPC) 

Initiative. Since that time, key leaders from numerous agencies have collaborated on what is called 

the Georgia Reentry impact Project (GRiP). They 

work together on a variety of teams that are 

focused on improving offender reentry activities 

throughout the state. 

The vision of these leaders is “Promoting public 

safety through collaborative partnerships, which 

reflect a seamless system, to ensure that all returning offenders are law-abiding, contributing members of their community.” 

Team Leadership Structure 

The primary partners in this initiative are leaders 

from the Office of the Governor, the Council of 

Superior Court Judges, the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, and the Departments of Corrections, Community Affairs, Education, Human 

Resources, Labor, and Technical and Adult Education. Other organizations that have had representatives participate in steering committee and policy 

team meetings include the Department of Juvenile 

Justice, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, and 

the Workforce Investment Board. 

Employees with these partner agencies are working 

together to study and resolve issues, develop new 

and innovative strategies, and encourage greater 

short- and long-term success for the approximately 

20,000 offenders released annually from Georgia’s 

prisons. 

The work of this initiative is overseen by a steering 

committee that is composed of the agency heads 

or top authorities for the partner entities. The 

steering committee is chaired by a representative 

from the Office of the Governor and meets twice a 

year to consider recommendations, make decisions 

concerning the direction of the effort, and assist the 

policy team in overcoming specific obstacles 

associated with this effort. 

The policy team is the “engine” that drives all GRIP 

work activities. The policy team meets monthly and 

is composed of deputy directors, division directors, 

and other appropriate individuals from the primary 

partner agencies. The policy team is chaired by the 

Governor’s Policy Advisor on Public Safety and 

General Government. 

Initially, the policy team was tasked with studying 

offender reentry in the state and making recommendations for improvement to the steering 

committee. The policy team formed workgroups 

that were tasked with gathering information and 

considering current and emerging practices in the 

following areas: sentencing, assessment and 

classification, release decisionmaking and transitional preparation, community supervision and 

resources, employment and education, housing, 

institutional and community-based treatment, and 

data and mapping. 

As a result of the work of the policy team, 3 core 

recommendations and 27 specific recommendations were made to the steering committee in 

October of 2005. The steering committee approved 

all recommendations and tasked the policy team 

with implementing them. The policy team re-formed 

into an implementation oversight team and 

established six implementation workgroups for the 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Appendix I 103 
following areas: assessment and intake, institutional 

programming, transition planning and case management, release decisionmaking, community 

supervision and services, and evaluation.When 

the implementation groups had made sufficient 

progress on a variety of specific issues, they were 

re-formed to eliminate overlaps and maximize 

the efficiency of this undertaking. Currently, three 

workgroups are implementing the original recommendations: the Pre-Incarceration Workgroup, 

the Incarceration Workgroup, and the PostIncarceration Workgroup. These workgroups meet 

frequently. Additionally, the evaluation workgroup 

has continued with its activities. 

The implementation oversight team meets every 

other month to receive reports from workgroup 

chairs, to resolve issues, to coordinate activities, and 

to develop strategies for moving forward with the 

overall effort. 

Early Targets of Change 

Georgia identified one specific target of change 

very early in the project. Some offenders who were 

eligible for parole had no acceptable residence 

and so were remaining in prison for months, and 

sometimes years, beyond their release eligibility 

dates. Several key employees of the partner 

agencies worked together to resolve this problem. 

Their effort, called the Reentry Partnership Housing 

Project, resulted in the identification of grant funds 

and the linking of funds with certified housing 

providers. The project’s innovative solutions made 

possible the discharge of approximately 240 

offenders who would not otherwise have been 

released. As a direct result of this group’s work, the 

state has realized an estimated cost avoidance 

benefit of nearly $4 million. 

Other early targets of change included the 

following: 

•	 Developing enhanced offender assessment

tools. 

•	 Expanding institutional programming in cognitive

skills, substance abuse resistance, and vocational 

education. 

•	 Creating career centers within prerelease and

transitional housing centers. 

•	 Assisting offenders close to release with obtaining critical papers (e.g., driver’s licenses, Social 

Security card, disability benefits, veterans’ 

benefits). 

All of these activities are continuing to receive 

attention. 

Assessment and Case Management 

Strategy 

Although Georgia had used a classification tool 

within institutional corrections for many years, this 

tool was not useful for identifying significant criminogenic risks and reentry needs or the corresponding institutional programming. As a result, the 

Georgia Department of Corrections (GDC) implemented the COMPAS instrument,1

 and this tool is 

now being used at intake to identify criminogenic 

risks and needs, form the basis of a reentry case 

plan, and inform institutional placement for programming purposes and reentry planning. This 

Web-based assessment instrument and associated 

case planning tool follows the offender from prison 

intake, informs release decisionmaking, and facilitates parole and/or probation supervision. 

After considering the institutional intake setting in 

which assessments were conducted and the fact 

that offenders were waiting for some time in county 

jails before being admitted to prison, GDC determined that the COMPAS assessment would best be 

administered by probation staff while an offender 

was being held in the county jail before admission. 

GDC has tested this approach and is now expanding its use. Conducting the COMPAS assessment 

prior to admission will allow diagnostic counselors 

and parole staff at intake centers to have the 

benefit of this objective assessment information 

when they interview offenders. Intake facilities will 

continue to conduct other types of assessments 

104 TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
(e.g., medical, mental health, educational), and the 

results of these assessments will be merged with the 

COMPAS information by institutional counselors who 

will then, with input from parole staff, develop the 

reentry case plan. 

The reentry case plan is entered into an automated 

system that can be accessed by institutional, 

parole, and probation staff. Developing the ability 

to share automated information across systems is a 

notable achievement. The automated reentry case 

plan can be updated by the various staff who will 

work with the offender over time. The creation of a 

single, unified case plan has been a longstanding 

objective of the primary partners in this effort. Work 

in this area is continuing. 

Survival Needs 

Work on offender housing issues was an early target 

of change. Helping inmates to gain necessary 

documents (e.g., Social Security cards, picture 

identification) or access to entitlement information 

has also been a key focus of this work. Cooperation 

among agencies has allowed for significant 

progress in these areas. 

To promote more positive offender outcomes after 

release, several divisions within GDC developed a 

“Reentry Skills Building Handbook” in cooperation 

with the Division of Public Health, Department of 

Human Resources, Department of Driver Services, 

Department of Veterans Service, Department of 

Labor, and the Board of Pardons and Paroles. This 

handbook, which is given to offenders before their 

release, provides practical information concerning 

housing, employment, money management, 

relationships, probation and parole supervision, 

veteran’s benefits, and many other critical areas. 

Increased institutional programming in cognitive 

skills, vocational education, and substance abuse 

should also assist offenders with their transition. 

Additionally, prison industry enhancement (PIE) 

programs are being developed that should aid 

offenders in learning job skills and building assets 

that can be used during and after transition from 

prison. 

Prerelease Planning 

Studies in Georgia indicate that inmates who 

participated in “transition centers” were 11 percent 

less likely than general population releasees to 

return to prison within 3 years of release. GDC has 

significantly expanded its prerelease centers and 

transitional centers to allow more offender participation in prerelease programming. The 1,400 

additional prerelease beds and 4 re-missioned 

in-house transition centers for offenders who are 

within a year of completing their sentences will 

allow many more inmates to experience important 

transitional programming before release and 

increase linkages established before release with 

community-based aftercare services. 

One particular prerelease activity that has encouraged partnerships is the “Fatherhood Initiative,” a 

collaborative effort of the Department of Human 

Resources, the Department of Technical and Adult 

Education, the Department of Labor, and GDC. 

Offenders who owe child support learn job skills at 

certain prerelease centers, and partner agencies 

help them secure training, education, and employment so that they are able to make child support 

payments soon after release from prison. 

Selected prerelease centers have been pilot sites 

for testing a variety of transitional services and 

programs. These centers have expanded programs, 

developed new approaches to existing programs, 

and made innovative use of staff and resources. 

They are also developing new protocols for prerelease planning and services. 

Innovative Partnerships 

Local reentry initiatives have been the focus of 

Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative 

(SVORI) activities in Georgia. SVORI efforts in selected 

communities resulted in local partners joining teams 

to study and develop methods of facilitating 

offender reentry with local transition centers. Some 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Appendix I 105 
of these local efforts, particularly in Savannah, have 

yielded significant results. GDC probation staff serve 

as local coordinators for this effort. 

Linking TPC Initiative and SVORI activities has 

been a matter of ongoing interest, and efforts to 

coordinate the state and local aspects of these 

initiatives will continue. 

State of Indiana 

Name of the Initiative in Indiana 

Indiana has participated in the TPC Initiative since 

2003. The effort was revitalized under the direction 

of Indiana Department of Correction (DOC) 

Commissioner J. David Donahue in 2005 under the 

title Road to Reentry. Commissioner Donahue has 

received leadership support from the Indiana 

governor and a wide range of state agencies. The 

mission set out by these leaders is “To enhance public safety through improving the successful transition 

of offenders to the community.” 

Team Leadership Structure 

Partners in this initiative are leaders from the 

Indiana Departments of Education, Health, Natural 

Resources, Transportation,Veterans’ Affairs, and 

Workforce Development; the Attorney General’s 

Office; the Family and Social Services Administration; the Indiana Council of Community Mental 

Health Centers, Inc.; the Indiana Criminal Justice 

Institute; the Indiana Housing and Community 

Development Authority; and the Bureau of Motor 

Vehicles. 

The work of the initiative is guided by a steering 

committee consisting of representatives from the 

partnering organizations. The steering committee 

schedules meetings on a quarterly basis.Work 

teams are formed and meet as needed to carry 

out specific tasks necessary to accomplish the 

goals of the Road to Reentry initiative. 

Early Targets of Change 

One distinctive aspect of the effort in Indiana is 

found at the Plainfield Reentry Educational Facility 

(PREF). In addition to the expected reentry activities 

of case planning, assessment, and programming, 

the institution has developed innovative partnerships with local community stakeholders. For 

example, offenders at PREF receive education on 

money management and modern banking tools. 

While incarcerated, offenders are provided with an 

ATM card to make purchases at the canteen snack 

bar. This allows offenders to experience the changes 

in banking and money management that have 

occurred in recent years. A similar approach is 

planned for female offenders released from the 

Madison Correctional Facility. 

Other early targets of the initiative included providing state identification cards for offenders leaving 

the prison system. ID cards are currently being 

issued at several DOC facilities with plans to expand this effort to ensure all offenders have the 

opportunity to leave institutions with valid identification. In addition, ensuring that veterans’ benefits are 

available to eligible offenders was an effort undertaken through the cooperation of Department of 

Veterans’ Affairs. 

Assessment Strategy 

The assessment instruments currently used were 

developed specifically for the Indiana DOC. They 

include risk/needs assessments as well as assessments for mental illness, substance abuse, and 

other areas. DOC is currently evaluating additional 

tools to be used throughout the process. 

Survival Needs 

The initiative has addressed identification needs as 

described above. Housing is being coordinated 

through the Reentry Accountability Plan and 

through contact with local communities. DOC has 

signed a memorandum of agreement with the 

Family and Social Services Administration to allow 

application for Medicaid, Temporary Assistance for 

106 TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
Needy Families, and food stamp benefits before 

release from prison. Family and other issues are 

particularly addressed at the Plainfield Reentry Educational Facility (see below). 

Prerelease Planning 

Prerelease planning is done at all DOC facilities. 

While reentry is a focus throughout the Indiana 

DOC, particular effort has focused on the Plainfield 

Reentry Educational Facility (www.in.gov/indcorrection/reentry/center/). This institution was created 

primarily to focus on reentry services to offenders 

returning to the greater Indianapolis area. It opened 

in 2006 and provides education and skill building 

during the last 6 to 24 months of incarceration. 

Case Planning and Management 

A single case management plan has been developed to move with offenders from arrival at a DOC 

facility, through their incarceration and supervision, 

and finally into their transition to the community. The 

case management plan is called the Reentry 

Accountability Plan (RAP). 

Innovative Partnerships 

Indiana’s Road to Reentry initiative has nurtured 

innovative partnerships to further its mission. One 

example is the partnership between the DOC and 

the Department of Workforce Development. One 

benefit of this partnership is the permanent assignment of a job developer from the staff of the 

Department of Workforce Development to the 

Plainfield Reentry Educational Facility. Another 

important partnership—with local stakeholders—is 

the PREF Advisory Board. This board of more than 

two dozen members has been drawn from local 

business, media, law enforcement, prosecution, the 

faith community, and nonprofit service providers, as 

well as correctional leadership. The board provides 

a forum both for informing the community about 

PREF’s mission and activities and for securing 

community input, involvement, and support. One 

example of this involvement and support was 

reported by the Hendricks County Flyer in October 

of 2006: “Nearly two dozen Central Indiana businesses were recently represented at the first 

Plainfield Re-Entry Educational Facility Opportunity 

Fair, which was more than twice as many as had 

been expected.”2 

The Corporation for National and Community 

Service (CNCS) awarded the Indiana DOC a 1-year 

grant, effective April 29, 2007, for up to 20 

AmeriCorps*VISTA members for the purpose of 

eliminating poverty through reentry efforts. Each 

member provides 1 year of full-time service supported by a small living stipend provided by CNCS. 

The Indiana DOC has six VISTA members and 

oversees the VISTA projects at Dismas of Michiana 

and the Family Justice Center for a total of nine 

VISTA members currently statewide.VISTA members 

do not provide direct services to the offender 

population but build an agency’s capacity to carry 

out its mission by enhancing, strengthening, and 

furthering ongoing reentry efforts. 

State of Michigan 

Name of the Initiative in Michigan 

Michigan’s participation in the TPC Initiative began 

in 2003 and is known as the Michigan Prisoner 

Reentry initiative (MPRi). In addition to the assistance provided by NIC through the TPC Initiative, 

Michigan received assistance from the National 

Governors Association (NGA) in developing its 

comprehensive, statewide transition and reentry 

model. MPRI integrates lessons learned from the 

state’s experiences with SVORI and incorporates 

the policy statements and recommendations 

contained in the Council of State Governments’ 

Reentry Policy Council Report. MPRI will be implemented statewide by October 2008. 

The vision of MPRI is that every prisoner released 

from prison will have the tools needed to succeed 

in the community. The mission of MPRI is to reduce 

crime by implementing a seamless plan of services 

and supervision developed with each offender— 

delivered through state and local collaboration— 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Appendix I 107 
from the time of their entry to prison through their 

transition, reintegration, and aftercare in the 

community. 

The goals of MPRI are to: 

•	 Promote public safety by reducing the threat of

harm to persons and their property by released 

offenders in the communities to which those 

offenders return. 

•	 Increase success rates of offenders who transition from prison by fostering effective risk management and treatment programming, offender 

accountability, and community and victim 

participation. 

Team Leadership Structure 

With strong leadership from Michigan’s Governor, 

the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) 

provides the management staff for MPRI under its 

Office of Offender Reentry along with its Planning 

and Community Development, Field Operations, 

and Correctional Facilities Administrations. MPRI is 

overseen by the State Policy Team (SPT), which is 

composed of top-level leaders from five state 

departments. The Governor’s criminal justice policy 

advisor chairs the team. The five member departments of the SPT and their focus areas are as 

follows: 

•	 Department of Corrections: Prisoner custody,

education, and training; parole decision process; 

and parolee supervision. 

•	 Department of Community Health: Physical and

mental health, alcohol and drug addiction 


services.


•	 Department of Labor and Economic Growth:

Housing, adult education, vocational training, 

employment preparation, and employment 

services. 

•	 Department of Human Services: Family and child

welfare. 

•	 Department of Education: Education for former

prisoners and their children. 

MDOC is supported in this work by both for-profit 

and nonprofit organizations, most notably Public 

Policy Associates, Inc., and the Michigan Council on 

Crime and Delinquency. 

Early Targets of Change 

MPRI is a statewide strategic approach to creating 

safer neighborhoods and better citizens. The result 

of MPRI will be reduced crime, fewer victims, safer 

neighborhoods, better citizens, fewer returns to 

prison, and reduced costs. 

The lynchpin of the MPRI model is collaborative 

case management (CCM) and supervision. CCM is 

an effective strategy for reducing crime and 

engaging all partners in a collaborative process 

that holds offenders accountable for their behavior 

and increases the likelihood of their success. CCM 

links offender assessment information with evidence-based supervision and intervention strategies at each stage of the transition and reentry 

process. 

A second critical component of MPRI is a strong 

and sustained local community capacity to 

support offender transition and reentry. Communities throughout Michigan are dedicated partners in 

MPRI and committed to improved prisoner reentry 

that results in less crime by preparing offenders 

during transition to the community. 

Assessment Strategy 

MPRI has focused on assessment and classification 

by incorporating approaches to fully respond to 

assessed risk, needs, and strengths through a 

Transition Accountability Plan (TAP). MPRI uses an 

assessment instrument (COMPAS) that integrates 

many elements of risk, needs, and strengths into a 

single assessment. Along with the TAP, effective 

assessment and classification are key components 

of the MPRI model. COMPAS addresses the variables 

and key principles for assessment that underlie the 

initiative and is based on research that shows what 

works to reduce recidivism. This evidence-based 

108 TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
approach is fundamental to the implementation of 

the full MPRI model. 

Survival Needs 

Highly specific reentry plans are developed for all 

returning prisoners to ensure the provision of critical 

services such as housing, employment, and treatment for mental illness. 

Prerelease Planning 

Local prison in-reach teams conduct case management meetings with key prison staff and 

offenders before the offenders are released. 

Weighing offender risks, needs, and strengths, staff 

provide a coordinated package of services, 

programs, and interventions to help improve 

offender success in transitioning back into and 

staying in society. 

Case Planning and Management 

The Transition Accountability Plan is the comprehensive case plan that summarizes all the information that is needed about the offender, including 

information obtained from COMPAS and other 

critical assessments, the actions that must occur 

prior to release, the terms and conditions of parole 

supervision, goals and expectations, noted progress 

toward those goals, and the array of interventions 

and services that the offender participates in. 

Under the MPRI model, the TAP process begins 

when the offender enters prison and continues 

through incarceration, release to the community, 

community supervision, and aftercare. The TAP is first 

prepared for all offenders during the prison intake 

process (Phase 1: Getting Ready). It is updated as 

part of the parole decision process when the 

prisoner is approaching his/her earliest release date 

(Phase 2: Going Home) and updated again while 

the prisoner is in the community (Phase 3: Staying 

Home). The TAP serves as a concise guide for 

prisoners, former prisoners, correctional and field 

staff, service providers, victims, faith-based organizations, and community members involved in case 

management and supervision. 

Innovative Partnerships 

When Governor Jennifer M. Granholm launched 

MPRI immediately after her election in 2002, the 

effort was assisted greatly by innovative partnerships inside and outside of state government. A 

for-profit think tank for policy development, Public 

Policy Associates, Inc., assisted in the macroplanning for the initiative and worked collaboratively to 

raise millions of dollars in foundation funds. This effort 

was made possible by the MPRI partnership with 

the Michigan Council on Crime and Delinquency, 

whose decades of successful work in community 

organizing were essential to moving the initiative 

from the pilot site stage to its current statewide 

capability, which will be fully up to scale by 2010. 

During its first year of implementation in fiscal year 

2006, the Michigan legislature funded eight pilot 

sites to establish an organizational structure to 

support local community transition and reentry 

efforts. In 2006, the JEHT Foundation provided 

additional funding to expand the number of pilot 

sites to 15. These initial funds supported the costs of 

establishing local community coordinators, advisory 

groups, prison in-reach teams and the organizational structure needed to sustain ongoing transition and reentry efforts at the local level. The 

initiative is a collaborative effort administered 

through a public and private partnership that 

includes the Departments of Corrections, Community Health, Education, Human Services and Labor 

and Economic Growth; Public Policy Associates, 

Inc., and the Michigan Council on Crime and 

Delinquency. 

Local sites have a variety of teams and committees 

who plan, organize, and implement Comprehensive Prisoner ReEntry Plans for their jurisdictions. 

Steering teams guide the effort, and committees 

are responsible for prison in-reach and for coordinating prison facility and parole supervision. A 

unique local governance structure led by nonprofits and Michigan’s federally funded employment 

“One Stop Shops” (Michigan Works!) carries out the 

role of fiscal agent and is responsible for open and 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Appendix I 109 
competitive contract bidding and comprehensive 

plan monitoring. Local MPRI community coordinators provide full-time administrative support for the 

effort. See appendix II for more information on 

Michigan’s Local Governance Structure. 

The goals of the local governance structure are to: 

•	 Provide as much statewide consistency as

possible in the implementation of the MPRI 

model while protecting local control by the MPRI 

steering team and other stakeholders. 

•	 Provide protection from legal liability to local

stakeholders involved in the MPRI process 

through their involvement in formal and established administrative structures. 

•	 Ensure that key decisions about the design,

implementation, and oversight of the local MPRI 

comprehensive plans are part of a formal, clear, 

and open process that involves community 

leaders, representatives from MDOC, local 

elected and appointed officials, and citizens 

who support the crime fighting goals of MPRI. 

•	 Provide an effective forum to conduct public

education about MPRI. 

In 2008, local MPRI efforts will cover 100 percent of 

Michigan’s 83 counties through 18 county and 

regional steering teams. 

Performance Measurement 

Key outcome measures to determine the success 

of MPRI include: 

•	 Reducing recidivism (defined as a return to

prison during the term of parole). 

•	 Increasing the time between release and failure.

•	 Reducing the number of violations of supervision

conditions by parolees. 

One interim objective is to increase the parole 

approval rate by 2 percent each year as the parole 

board gains confidence in release outcomes. 

Another objective is to increase the success rate of 

MPRI participants as much as 10 percent statewide 

when the MPRI model is fully implemented. 

As of May 2007, 7,614 offenders have been or are 

currently engaged in MPRI programming. Of these, 

5,746 (75.5 percent) have been paroled or have 

completed their sentences. Of this group of 5,746, 

848 (14.8 percent) have been returned to prison, as 

compared with 248 (19.1 percent) of the 1998 

baseline cohort. To date, an initial 23-percent 

improvement in recidivism outcomes has been 

noted. 

State of Missouri 

Name of the Initiative in Missouri 

Missouri has been engaged in the TPC Initiative 

since 2002. Known as the Missouri Reentry Process 

(MRP), the state’s initiative began under the 

leadership of former Director of Corrections Gary 

Kempker and is now supported by and continuing 

to move forward under the leadership of current 

Director of Corrections Larry Crawford. 

Team Leadership Structure 

A cabinet-level leadership group spearheads the 

effort. Eight state agencies—the Departments of 

Corrections, Economic Development, Elementary 

and Secondary Education, Health and Senior Services, Mental Health, Revenue, and Social Services 

and the Office of the State Courts Administrator 

—and representatives from the community have 

partnered to strengthen offender reentry practices. 

Directly under the cabinet-level group is the MRP 

steering committee. The membership of this committee includes top-level staff from the aforementioned state agencies as well as representatives 

from private service providers and community 

members. 

Finally, a leadership committee ensures that 

implementation plans are being successfully 

executed and provides additional guidance, 

direction, and assistance to the steering committee. 

110 TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
Early Targets of Change 

Early targets of change in Missouri included the 

creation of transitional housing units (THUs), which 

are housing units or wings in correctional institutions. 

The Department of Corrections has established 

these units in 11 institutions. Within 180 days before 

an offender’s release, the offender is moved to a 

THU and while there works on goals outlined in his/ 

her Transition Accountability Plan and receives 

intensive case management focused on a seamless transition to home. Programming offered in the 

THU includes, but is not limited to, the following 

areas: employability skills/life skills, cognitive skills, 

parenting, substance abuse education, longdistance dads, and the impact of crime on victims. 

All offenders in the THU are registered in the “Great 

Hires” system and linkages are made to community 

resources to ensure continuity of care upon release. 

Other changes include the following: 

•	 Development of an employability screening and

rehabilitation plan process for each offender. 

•	 Revision of Department of Mental Health

institutional substance abuse treatment certification standards to place emphasis on discharge 

planning, transition practices, and successful 

linkage to community providers for continuity of 

care. 

•	 Provision of formal mental health discharge

planning by institutional mental health services 

providers, allowing offenders to make direct 

linkage to community providers for continuity of 

care. In February 2005, the D5-8.12 Mental Health 

Discharge Planning policy was finalized. This 

policy established guidelines for preparing 

offenders with serious mental illness for discharge 

to the community. 

•	 Implementation of evidence-based programs for

enhancing offender motivation, problem solving 

ability, and thinking process. Contract services 

have been secured for provision of these 

services, and an implementation team will 

oversee the use of cognitive skills programming 

in correctional facilities, treatment centers, supervision districts, and community supervision 

centers statewide. 

•	 Screening of all offenders before release for

services offered at local One-Stop Career 

Centers such as Parents’ Fair Share, the Career 

Assistance Program, and Veterans Services. 

Offenders are registered in Great Hires and have 

an appointment scheduled with a career center 

before release from prison. 

•	 Provision of a monthly career center overview to

offenders in THUs by Division of Workforce 

Development staff. 

•	 Establishment of links with the Division of Workforce Development and local workforce investment boards for services to offenders before 

release. 

•	 Development of a targeted educational effort

for prospective employers that demonstrates the 

benefits of hiring offenders following release from 

prison along with a partnership with One-Stop 

Career Centers, where appointments are 

scheduled for offenders before release from 

prison. 

•	 Provision of the Building Strong Families (BSF)

program in all THUs. In January 2005, the University of Missouri Extension was awarded the 

contract to offer BSF, a strength-based program 

that it developed and tested over an 8-year 

period in Missouri. BSF helps families identify and 

build strengths, face their challenges, and make 

informed choices. 

•	 Revision of Missouri DOC Procedure IS13-3.1,

Offender Visitors, to include a paragraph directing that all staff assigned to work in a visiting 

room receive training focused on offender and 

family dynamics, family values, and the importance of family and prosocial relationships within 

90 days of being assigned to the visiting room. 

The Central Training Academy developed a 

training program to coincide with the procedure 

requirement. 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Appendix I 111 
•	 Initiation of pilot testing of the Supportive Parent/

Child Visitation (SPCV) model for incarcerated 

parents, their children, and other family members 

at Algoa Correctional Center and the Western 

Reception, Diagnostic, and Correctional Center. 

SPCV centers on healing and building positive 

relationships, previsit preparation, structured visits, 

and postvisit debriefings. The Missouri DOC has a 

timetable for implementing SPCV throughout the 

state. 

The Missouri DOC and Department of Social 

Services (DOSS) have entered into a memorandum 

of understanding (MOU) that allows for DOSS staff 

to enter institutions to provide onsite services and/ 

or information to offenders in THUs. Services and 

information include how best to work with DOSS, 

food stamps, foster care, child support, and temporary assistance. 

Assessment Strategy 

The Missouri DOC uses three major assessment 

processes and tools: one for the institutions, one for 

parole decisionmaking, and one for supervision in 

the community. All three tools have been validated 

and revalidated on the Missouri offender population. However, the time has come for Missouri to 

move to a single, ongoing dynamic assessment 

process with a single assessment tool for the three 

aforementioned areas. Significant initial work on this 

project is under way. 

Survival Needs 

Ensuring that all offenders have a Social Security 

card, birth certificate, and state identification card 

when released from prison will directly affect an 

offender’s ability to obtain employment within the 

first 60 days after release. To provide this help,all THUs 

have assisted offenders with obtaining replacement 

Social Security cards through an informal agreement with their local Social Security office.3 The 

Missouri DOC and DOSS have entered into an MOU 

to assist offenders in obtaining birth certificates 

before release. DOC and the Department of 

Revenue are working together to provide state 

identification cards to offenders before release. To 

obtain a state identification card, offenders must 

have a Social Security card and birth certificate.All 

identification documentation will be scanned at the 

institution and electronically sent to the Department 

of Revenue along with an electronic application 

and picture. This process will be piloted at Algoa 

Correctional Center and Women’s Eastern Reception, Diagnostic and Correctional Center. 

During fiscal year 2002, approximately 30 percent of 

the 6,650 parole violators returned to prison did not 

have a known stable address at the time of their 

reincarceration. To begin addressing this barrier to 

reentry, probation and parole staff are now 

members of regional housing boards across the 

state. They are working with these boards to identify 

additional housing resources for reentering 

offenders. 

Prerelease Planning 

The Transition Accountability Plan in Missouri is 

initiated when an offender is first placed under the 

purview of DOC. As the offender’s assets and 

liabilities are determined, a detailed individualized 

plan is formulated and key mentors are identified 

and assigned to the offender’s case management 

team. This plan lays the groundwork for success. 

During incarceration, the offender, his/her family, 

staff, and community resources work together to 

address past issues and to ensure that the offender 

continues to work toward achieving his/her goals in 

preparation for release. As the offender successfully 

completes a goal, the plan is modified. 

DOC has purchased and installed videoconferencing equipment in most of the institutions 

with THUs and in strategically placed probation and 

parole offices to enhance the reentry planning 

process by connecting the offender with the field 

officer, treatment provider, and other significant 

participants involved in the offender’s case management plan. The equipment also allows the 

112 TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
family to participate in release planning without 

having to travel to the institution. 

Case Planning and Management 

The use of the Transition Accountability Plan 

strengthens DOC’s ability to hold offenders 

accountable for their actions, provides offenders 

with the tools necessary to identify and address 

liabilities that contribute to criminality, and provides 

concerted department and community resources 

to support offenders’ goals during incarceration, 

upon release, and during supervision within the 

community. 

Innovative Partnerships 

To offer individualized, community-based treatment 

programming that helps offenders succeed in both 

employment and substance abuse treatment 

without one interfering with the other, MRP has 

fostered a partnership with the Division of Alcohol 

and Drug Abuse. Initiated in 2004 and effective 

April 1, 2005, this partnership has resulted in a 

restructuring of all of the division’s primary recovery 

treatment to include multiple levels of care and 

flexible vocational programming. This model 

incorporates employment as a treatment goal, 

offers employment interventions, and does not 

interfere with existing employment. 

Much work has been done at the state level to 

ensure that MRP is implemented efficiently and 

effectively; however, it is critical that the same work 

be accomplished at the local level. To address 

local needs, more than 30 local steering teams 

have been established to lead, guide, direct, and 

manage MRP at the local level. These teams 

include representatives from the same entities that 

are on the state steering team plus additional key 

local stakeholders. 

DOSS applied for and received a grant for 20 VISTA 

workers to work on reentry resource issues in 18 rural 

Missouri counties. Probation and parole officers 

working with offenders in the field rely on a variety 

of agencies and professionals to provide mental 

health services for offenders. There currently is no 

standard of care for agencies or professionals 

working with offenders unless they are certified by 

the Department of Mental Health or contracted by 

DOC. Consequently, the quality of the mental 

health services provided varies, for example, with 

regard to the conditions under which information is 

shared, the level of involvement of field officer and 

family members, and the conduct of assessment, 

treatment planning, treatment evaluation, and 

discharge planning. 

To address this, the Departments of Corrections and 

Mental Health collaborated to develop guidelines 

for mental health and substance abuse treatment 

professionals providing professional clinical services 

to offenders under probation or parole field supervision. The guidelines also delineate expectations of 

probation and parole officers in the referral and 

treatment process. These guidelines now accompany each probation and parole referral for mental 

health or substance abuse services. 

Performance Measurement 

The Missouri DOC Research Unit has completed an 

initial outcome study on offenders released through 

MRP. The initial results are encouraging. The study 

found that the 6-month postrelease rate of recidivism for offenders released from a THU was 6.8 

percent lower than that of a comparable group of 

offenders released from institutions without THUs. The 

12-month postrelease rate of recidivism for offenders released from a THU was 4.7 percent lower than 

that of the comparison group. If the reduction in 

recidivism continues both as the number of offenders who go through the reentry process increases 

and as the time from release increases, then the 

reentry process will significantly reduce the number 

of offenders returning to prison. 

Outcome measures have been developed for key 

DOC reentry targets and initiatives, and partnering 

agencies have also developed outcome measures 

for their reentry targets and initiatives. 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Appendix I 113 
State of New York 

Name of the Initiative in New York 

New York began its reentry work in 2003 with the 

new york State interagency Reentry Task Force and 

Transition from Prison to Community initiative, and 

the state was selected to participate in NIC’s TPC 

Initiative in early 2004. The vision of the Task Force is 

“a safer New York resulting from the successful 

transition of offenders from prison to living lawabiding and productive lives in their communities.” 

To accomplish its vision, the Task Force is working to 

increase the number of offenders who successfully 

make the transition from prison to their communities 

through a coordinated statewide system that 

assesses and responds to offender risks and needs, 

supports offender accountability and reparation 

to victims and communities, promotes offender 

self-sufficiency, and encourages family and community involvement in offender success. 

Team Leadership Structure 

New York established a policy team consisting of 

commissioners and directors from state government 

agencies. The policy team is responsible for developing a shared vision, establishing agency commitment, and assigning core staff able to devote time 

and resources to developing a seamless reentry 

process to serve on a steering committee. The 

following agencies are participating: 

•	 Division of Criminal Justice Services

•	 Department of Correctional Services

•	 Division of Parole

•	 Board of Parole

•	 Division of Probation and Correctional

Alternatives 

•	 Office of Mental Health

•	 Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse

Services 

•	 Department of Labor

•	 Division of Housing and Community Renewal

•	 Division of the Budget

•	 Department of Health

•	 Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance

•	 Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disability 

•	 Office of Children and Family Services

Early Targets of Change 

New York has created a Research and Information 

Support Team (RIST) composed of researchers from 

the 14 stakeholder agencies. RIST does the following: 

•	 Designs and conducts original statistical analyses

of existing data to answer questions pertaining 

to reentry issues. 

•	 Summarizes findings from academic literature,

government reports, and unpublished research 

previously conducted by participating agencies 

and relevant to questions posed by the Task 

Force. 

•	 Establishes working arrangements among

partner agencies regarding how to share 


needed information.


•	 Develops data infrastructure to facilitate an

efficient response to the information needs of 

the Task Force. 

Innovative Partnerships 

In 2006, New York State dedicated funds from the 

federal Byrne Grant program to support the 

development of nine county reentry task forces 

(CRTFs) for Erie, Monroe, Nassau, Oneida, Orange, 

Rensselaer, Rockland, Suffolk, and, most recently, 

Westchester counties. These task forces seek to: 

•	 Provide coordinated services across a wide

spectrum of needs to high-risk offenders returning to the community. 

•	 Collaborate with state criminal justice and

human service agencies to develop transition 

114 TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
plans for high-risk offenders transitioning from 

prison back into the community. 

•	 Enhance local capacity to develop strategies to

provide services and manage risk. 

The role of the CRTFs is to coordinate and strengthen the community response to high-risk offenders 

transitioning from prison back to the community, 

with the ultimate goal of reducing the number who 

return to prison for new convictions. In 2007, New 

York committed additional dollars to continue 

support to the original nine CRTFs and to develop 

new ones in at least another three counties. 

Evidence-Based Principles 

In an effort to incorporate evidence-based principles into policy and practice, New York has 

supported a number of training events for criminal 

justice and nonjustice partner agency staff involved 

in the state reentry initiative at all levels, from 

policymaker to field agent to case manager. 

Additionally, the original CRTFs participated in a 

3-day training focused on strengthening collaborative partnerships among participating county 

agencies and adopting evidence-based practices 

to develop and implement case plans for returning 

offenders. A similar training will be developed for 

the new CRTFs. 

The state Department of Correctional Services 

(DOCS) is developing cognitive-based programming and building evidence-based competencies 

among key program staff to provide effective 

services to offenders housed within its institutions. 

DOCS also recently opened a pilot unit for offenders transitioning to the community. 

Survival Needs 

The Interagency Reentry Task Force and Transition 

from Prison to Community Initiative has been 

reinvigorated through a change in administration 

resulting from the elections of 2006. Under the 

leadership of the Division of Criminal Justice and 

the Deputy Secretary for Public Safety’s office, a 

cross-agency committee has been formed and 

charged with ensuring that transitioning offenders 

have the identification documents and Medicaid 

eligibility required for accessing needed services 

immediately upon reentry to the community. 

Case Planning and Management 

Through CRTFs, local communities in New York have 

been funded to develop case management and 

planning capacity to assist offenders returning from 

prison to the community. 

State of North Dakota 

Name of the Initiative in 

North Dakota 

In July of 2005, the newly appointed director of the 

North Dakota Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation (DOCR), Leann Bertsch, reaffirmed 

North Dakota’s participation in the TPC Initiative. 

Since that time, DOCR has been leading the North 

Dakota reentry effort, with the support of the State 

Workforce Development Agency, North Dakota Job 

Services, the North Dakota Department of Human 

Services, and the North Dakota Housing Finance 

Agency. 

Team Leadership Structure 

The effort has been guided by the state-level policy 

team, including the agencies named above. The 

day-to-day work of the initiative has been guided 

by internal DOCR working groups, with participation 

of all divisions and levels of staff as well as staff from 

outside stakeholder agencies. 

Early Targets of Change 

Workgroups have been formed around the following topics: 

•	 evidence-based Practice: This workgroup 

supports the overall vision of the effort, which is 

focused on recidivism reduction. Heavy emphasis has been given to case planning based on 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Appendix I 115 
assessed risk and criminogenic needs. Program 

audits are in progress to assure the quality of 

current practice. 

•	 offender behavior and Programming: This 

workgroup has developed and implemented an 

integrated case plan that is currently in use in a 

paper version. 

•	 education, Vocational Training, and employment: 

Testing and assessment for educational, vocational, and employment needs are conducted 

at intake into prison, and these assessments 

follow the offender through the period of 

incarceration and into the community. 

•	 Revocation decisionmaking: The workgroup has 

instituted the use of assessment tools to determine the level of risk, the nature of the violation, 

the original offense, and the offender’s response 

to supervision when violation of parole occurs. 

The workgroup is also developing a revocation 

decisionmaking guideline,“Managing Noncompliant Behavior,” that will provide a more 

consistent, systematic, and community safetybased approach to deciding whether revocation is appropriate. 

•	 inmate Release Preparation, discharge, and 

aftercare: Work is under way to develop a 

database and automate the case-planning 

process. At present the prison ITAG database is 

being developed with case plans. One hundred 

percent of offenders’ assessments are now in the 

database, and information about the transition 

programming available for offenders is also 

accessible. A case plan manual has been 

developed. A continuing need in this area is for 

additional programming resources. 

•	 Release decisionmaking: Level of Service 

Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) assessment information 

and good time release dates are currently being 

used as a way to determine a projected release 

date for planning purposes. 

•	 Parole Supervision and Services: Field Services 

now has access to the ITAG database, a first for 

DOCR. Case managers and treatment staff in the 

prisons are now making aftercare appointments 

before an inmate’s release for a continuum of 

care to the community. 

•	 Female offenders: Work is under way on the 

development of gender-responsive programming for female offenders consistent with 

evidence-based practices. 

•	 Faith-based initiatives: A mentorship pilot 

program has been developed in Bismarck. This 

workgroup is also identifying faith-based groups 

in Bismarck that are interested in working with 

offenders. 

Assessment Strategy 

DOCR has fully implemented the use of the LSI-R 

initial assessment as part of its approach to determining appropriate interventions and a case 

management plan.Validation of the LSI-R on a 

North Dakota population is currently in progress. An 

assessment of risk factors has been added to the 

field services database to enable this information 

to be used during postrelease supervision. 

Sex offender assessments used in North Dakota 

include the Static-99, Stable-2000, Minnesota Sex 

Offender Screening Tool–Revised (MnSOST-R), and 

the Acute. These assessment tools, as well as the 

LSI-R, are being used to develop sex offenderspecific case plans and help guide decisions 

regarding whether to refer sex offenders for civil 

commitment proceedings. 

Survival Needs 

The team is currently working with the North Dakota 

Department of Transportation to develop a method 

for acquiring driver’s licenses or identity cards for all 

offenders when they are released. In addition, the 

Interagency Council on Homelessness is supporting 

DOCR efforts to identify housing for reentering 

offenders. The Department of Human Services is 

116 TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
working with the team to address the need for 

medication for offenders reentering the community 

and has formed a workgroup to examine potential 

legislative changes that might be necessary. 

Prerelease Planning 

Since beginning its work on transition and reentry, 

DOCR has been able to allocate 60 beds to 

transitional capacity, along with 54 beds for individuals being assessed for possible return to prison. 

In the biennium budget for 2007–09, DOCR planned 

to increase the number of transition beds by 60. In 

addition, 30 transitional beds are now available for 

women offenders, with another 45 proposed in the 

biennium budget. There are also now 50 halfway 

house beds in Fargo. 

Case Planning and Management 

Development of a single case plan is under way. 

This plan will be used from the time an individual 

enters prison, through the release phase and the 

period of postrelease supervision. Currently, the 

case plan is developed within ITAG and transferred 

manually to field supervision staff when the offender 

is released. Parole officers take risk/strategy information from the prison case plan, sentencing 

report, and a full reassessment of the LSI-R upon 

release to continue with the case plan in the field. 

They place special emphasis on identifying the 

three criminogenic need domains on which to 

concentrate in case planning. 

North Dakota has developed specialized case 

loads to manage offender supervision. Sex offender 

specialists, reentry parole officers, and diversion 

caseloads allow officers to spend time on high-risk 

offenders. North Dakota has also developed a “top 

50” highest risk offender report to identify those 

offenders who pose the highest risk for recidivism. 

Innovative Partnerships 

The state team is working with local reentry task 

forces in Bismarck and Fargo, originally funded 

through the SVORI Initiative. 

State of Oregon 

Name of the Initiative in Oregon 

Oregon has participated in the TPC Initiative since 

2002. The Oregon Department of Corrections has 

made a commitment to what it calls the oregon 

accountability Model, which provides a foundation 

for inmates to lead successful lives upon release. 

The model has six components: criminal risk factor 

assessment and case planning, staff-inmate 

interactions, work and programs, children and 

families, reentry, and community supervision. 

Team Leadership Structure 

Led by the Oregon DOC, the Transition Advisory 

Committee is the forum though which multiple 

agencies have collaborated since 1999 in working 

toward more successful transition of offenders from 

prison to the community. This committee includes 

representatives from all segments of DOC and from 

the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, 

county-level community corrections agencies, 

other state agencies that provide services to 

transitioning offenders and their families, and the 

community. In May 2007, the governor formally 

recognized this interagency collaboration by 

issuing an executive order that created a Reentry 

Policy Council. The council is responsible for planning, developing, implementing, and overseeing an 

improved and multiagency transition approach for 

Oregon. 

Early Targets of Change 

An early goal was the development of a model for 

transition that includes the following components: 

•	 assessing criminal risk factors at intake and 

creating a corrections plan or intervention plan 

to address the highest risk factors during incarceration. Assessing criminal risk factors and the 

risk to reoffend helps DOC first to identify those 

inmates most likely to fail upon reentry and then 

to provide them with programming to increase 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Appendix I 117 
their chances of being successful and crime-free 

when they return to the community. 

•	 Creating prisons that specialize in transition and 

release. Historically, inmates have been assigned 

to institutions based only on available bed 

space and custody level.With the implementation of this new model, regional releasing facilities have been designated. Six months prior to 

release, inmates are transferred to a regional 

reentry institution located close to their home 

community. During this time, preparation for 

release is intensified, family contact is facilitated, 

and parole officers are more able to begin 

in-person contact before release. 

•	 automated transition plans. Release planning 

begins 4–6 months before release. A transition 

plan that forms the continuation of the corrections plan is created and available to the parole 

officer through the statewide information 

system. The institution counselor works with the 

community-based parole officer to create a 

plan that continues to address criminal risk 

factors while meeting community stability needs 

such as housing and employment. 

•	 alternative incarceration programs. The Oregon 

DOC offers intensive prison programs to selected 

inmates who are at risk of reoffending because 

of untreated addictions and criminal thinking. 

Alternative incarceration programs have three 

phases. Inmates who successfully complete the 

first phase (the residential phase) move into the 

community. Still considered inmates, they are 

supervised for 90 days while practicing the skills 

and discipline learned in prison. Those who 

complete this “transitional leave” phase are 

eligible to have their prison sentences reduced. 

After transitional leave, they are supervised by 

parole officers while completing their postprison 

supervision sentences. 

Assessment Strategy 

Validated assessments of risk and need are conducted at admission to prison and upon release to 

the community to inform the planning for transition 

to the community. More frequent, periodic assessments are being planned. 

Survival Needs 

Two initiatives are currently under way to ensure 

that the urgent needs of all offenders are met as 

they transition to the community. The first focuses on 

precertification of federal benefits. The second 

focuses on the transition of mentally ill offenders, 

with the goal of ensuring continuity of care during 

the transition to the community. 

DOC partners with the Family Planning Unit of the 

Oregon Health Division to provide each releasee 

with a “Smart Start” packet that includes healthrelated supplies and family-planning educational 

materials as well as information about public health 

services in the community. 

Prerelease Planning 

Approximately 6 months before release, most 

inmates are transferred to a regional reentry prison 

located closer to the community to which they will 

return. Programming prepares the inmate for 

release, and release plans are developed with the 

parole officer. 

Case Planning and Management 

A corrections plan is developed for each inmate 

based on an assessment of risks and needs. The 

plan seeks to reduce the risk of recidivism by 

addressing inmates’ dynamic risk factors correlated 

with future criminal behavior. This plan is available 

electronically at all DOC facilities and within all 

local community corrections agencies. 

Innovative Partnerships 

A recent partnership between the Oregon DOC 

and the Veterans Incarcerated Workgroup, the 

National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, and 

Vietnam Veterans of America has resulted in the 

publication of A Guide for Incarcerated Veterans in 

Oregon by the Department of Veterans Affairs 

118 TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
Medical Center in Portland. This handbook provides 

a wealth of information about such things as 

resources in the community, how to get started in 

planning for transition, and how to go about 

seeking federal benefits. 

DOC is also partnering with the Department of 

Human Services to issue inmates a type of debit 

card that can be used to access state benefits 

such as food stamps and welfare payments. At 

release, inmate trust account dollars are transferred 

so they can be accessed through the card, replacing the old system of issuing a check that was often 

difficult to cash. This provides offenders instant 

access to their money to pay for food, transportation, and other immediate transition-related needs. 

DOC has worked with the Department of Motor 

Vehicles (DMV) to develop a process to verify 

inmates’ names while they are incarcerated. As a 

result, DMV now accepts DOC release identification cards as proof of identity for former inmates 

who have a verified name. This makes it easier for 

offenders to obtain a driver’s license or state 

identification card. 

Performance Measurement 

Oregon has implemented a “balanced scorecard” 

approach to measuring its performance in offender 

transition and reentry. Following are some of the 

transition indicators the Oregon DOC and its 

partners are tracking: 

•	 Percentage of inmates with housing at release.

•	 Percentage of inmates with employment/

education at release. 

•	 Percentage of high- and medium-risk inmates for

whom a release plan was developed collaboratively by the institutional counselor, the parole 

officer, and the inmate. 

•	 Percentage of high- and medium-risk inmates

who enter programs prioritized in their corrections plans. 

•	 Rate of participation in cognitive programs for

high- and medium-risk inmates. 

•	 Participation rate in alcohol and drug programs

delivered to high- and medium-risk inmates. 

•	 Percentage of inmates needing education who

actually complete education. 

•	 Percentage of inmates completing programs.

•	 Percentage of offenders who successfully

complete supervision. 

Improvements in these indicators are defined as 

benchmarks in DOC’s strategic plan. 

State of Rhode Island 

Name of the Initiative in Rhode 

Island 

The Rhode Island Governor’s Steering Committee 

on Prisoner Reentry is responsible for Rhode Island’s 

reentry efforts. 

Team Leadership Structure 

Rhode Island joined the TPC Initiative in 2002. 

Commitment to the effort was formally established 

in March 2003 by an Executive Order of the Governor that named the membership and charge of 

the Governor’s Steering Committee on Prisoner 

Reentry. The initiative has been implemented in a 

three-tiered reentry governance structure. Tier I is 

chaired by the Governor’s office and is composed 

largely of the Governor’s cabinet. Representatives 

from the city of Providence are also members of 

Tier I. Tier II (the steering committee itself) represents 

the deputy directors or those with similar positions 

within each Tier I member agency. The following 

agencies are represented: 

•	 The Departments of Corrections (including the

parole board); Children,Youth and Families; 

Education; Health; Human Services; Labor and 

Training; and Mental Health, Retardation and 

Hospitals. 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Appendix I 119 
•	 Division of Information Technology.

•	 Parole Board.

•	 Public Transit Authority.

•	 Rhode Island Board of Governors for Higher

Education. 

•	 Rhode Island Housing.		

Tier III represents local community service organizations actively involved in discharge planning for 

offenders and individuals with case management 

responsibility from institutional corrections, probation, and parole. 

Early Targets of Change 

As Rhode Island has worked toward a long-term 

strategic plan to enhance offender transition and 

reentry and defined five key work areas to meet 

this goal—employment, housing, probation and 

parole tracking, probation and parole staffing, and 

training—opportunities for immediate system 

improvement have presented themselves and 

allowed for “early wins.” Each of the following 

examples, which reflect a small representation of 

Rhode Island’s many accomplishments to date, 

represents the significant role the collaborating 

partners play in Rhode Island’s reentry work: 

•	 The Department of Labor and Training has issued

and awarded a contract to a local service 

provider to develop an industry-based transitional employment program for offenders, 

dedicated agency funds to hire a full-time staff 

member to conduct work readiness workshops 

and provide job search assistance to prisoners, 

co-located probation and parole staff in one of 

their local One-Stop Career Centers, and 

provided training for One-Stop Center staff on 

offender reentry and its special challenges. 

•	 The Department of Education has realigned its

comprehensive education strategy within DOC’s 

Education Unit and has implemented a series 

of changes to create more responsive and 

supportive educational programs for incarcerated adults. 

•	 The Department of Mental Health, Retardation,

and Hospitals and DOC have jointly funded a 

position in a community mental health agency 

to work inside the prisons with inmates who are 

eligible for aftercare services and for funding in 

the community for treatment of their mental 

illness. The department has also collaborated on 

a technical assistance project to enhance 

Rhode Island’s ability to support the work of 

Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) teams 

managing clients who are involved in the 

criminal justice system. 

Assessment Strategy 

As a result of Rhode Island’s participation in the TPC 

project, DOC has adopted the LSI-R for risk/needs 

assessment. Institutional counselors are responsible 

for the administration of the LSI-R. The LSI-R was 

introduced in early 2006 in the adult women’s 

institutions and is administered to all women serving 

sentences of more than 6 months. The department 

is currently phasing in the assessment protocol in all 

of the male institutions. In addition, DOC will institute 

a gender-responsive assessment tool for women 

offenders. 

Survival Needs 

Two of the key issues for transitioning offenders in 

Rhode Island are identification and housing. DOC 

has worked with the Department of Motor Vehicles 

to facilitate obtaining state-recognized identification for offenders soon to be released to the 

community. The project allows DOC to provide state 

issued ID cards to inmates along with their release 

papers. The ID cards will be valid for the 6 months 

following release. 

Housing is a significant concern for both men and 

women released from the state prison system. 

Several options are currently being considered by 

the Tier II reentry housing partners, including the 

120 TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
establishment of permanent supportive housing 

programs, shelter and care programs, and other 

community-based housing options. DOC has 

funded several community agencies to provide 

discharge planning. One agency is in the process 

of creating 19 permanent housing units for their 

clients. 

Prerelease Planning 

Rhode Island has been a forerunner in discharge 

planning. Discharge planning for inmates with HIV 

began in 1992. Since the 1990s, DOC has contracted with 12 community agencies to provide discharge planning services to all offenders 6 months 

(or more) before release to begin the transition 

process. Discharge plans address employment, 

education, housing, treatment, and other community needs and link offenders to services before 

discharge. In many cases, particularly with high-risk 

offenders (including sex offenders), discharge 

planners continue their work with the offender after 

he/she is released, coordinating services and 

activities with probation and parole staff and local 

police departments. 

Case Planning and Management 

A key principle of the TPC project is the need to 

unify the many agencies that work with offenders 

and their families. An emerging initiative is the 

establishment of a unified approach to case 

planning and management across and within 

government agencies. This aspect of Rhode Island’s 

case planning and management efforts is in a 

preliminary stage. 

However, Rhode Island has made much progress in 

establishing an Individual Program Plan (IPP) that 

will link offenders’ risk/needs assessments, social 

history, institutional program plans, and discharge 

plans through a Web-based automated system. The 

automated system is currently in its testing phase. 

On a broader scale, Rhode Island has made a 

statewide commitment to link and bridge all 

government agencies’ information systems. The 

Interagency Data Sharing Initiative is in a pilot 

phase, but plans are under way to use prisoner 

reentry as the second phase, ultimately enabling 

DOC and other agencies such as the Departments 

of Children,Youth, and Families; Education; and 

Human Services to share data and facilitate 

multiagency case management. 

Innovative Partnerships 

Key partnerships and initiatives are emerging in 

Rhode Island as a result of the TPC initiative: 

•	 Providence, Newport,and Pawtucket have

formed locally based multidisciplinary collaborative teams to examine offender transition and 

reentry from the community perspective. These 

teams are also working to strengthen and build 

community partnerships and services to enhance community safety through a more 

effective system of policies and services for 

returning offenders. 

•	 DOC houses approximately 240 pretrial and

sentenced women offenders (Rhode Island has 

a unified jail and prison system). A pilot initiative is 

under way to establish gender-responsive 

transition services for women. This initiative 

involves considering the adoption of genderresponsive risk/needs instruments, evaluating 

programs available to women to determine the 

extent to which they are both gender responsive 

and evidence based, examining institutional 

classification and discipline policies for women, 

and evaluating the training needs of uniformed 

and nonuniformed staff with respect to embracing reentry as an agency philosophy and mission 

and carrying out specialized approaches to 

working with women offenders. This pilot project 

also serves as the learning lab for Rhode Island’s 

Tier II, the steering committee. As implementation 

strategies are developed by Tier II’s workgroups, 

these strategies will first be pilot-tested in the 

women’s facilities, where a smaller offender 

TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Appendix I 121 
population and fewer staff will permit a more 

controlled testing ground and opportunity for 

impact evaluation. Strategies demonstrated to 

be effective will be phased in at the male 

institutions. 

Notes 

1. COMPAS: Correctional Offender Management 

Profiling for Alternative Sanctions. See 

www.northpointeinc.com/compas.htm. 

2. Jerry Battiste,“PREF Opportunity Fair links employers with employees,” Hendricks County Flyer, Oct. 27, 

2006, www.flyergroup.com/local/local_story_ 

300133401.html. 

3. The U.S. Social Security Administration has since 

terminated its agreements with individual states 

and is currently developing one MOU to be used 

nationally. 

122 TPC ReenTRy Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
Appendix II 

Examples From the Implementation Efforts of the 

Eight TPC States

TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 123 
124 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model
Appendix II: Examples From the Implementation Efforts of the Eight TPC States 

Forming and Chartering Teams 

Example 1. Indiana Policy Group and Steering Committee ................................... 127 

Example 2. Structure of Michigan’s Prisoner Reentry Initiative.............................. 129 

Example 3. Rhode Island Team Structure ............................................................. 130 

Example 4. North Dakota TPC Working Group Structure ...................................... 131 

Example 5. Missouri Substance Abuse Ad-Hoc Team Charter.............................. 132 

Example 6. Meeting Management Tool—Standardized Meeting Agenda.............. 138 

Example 7. New York’s Transition from Prison to the Community Initiative: 

Glossary of Criminal Justice Terms..................................................... 139 

Example 8. Missouri Invites Other Stakeholders to the Table................................ 143 

Articulating a Clear Vision 

Example 9. Georgia Reentry Impact Project Vision ............................................... 145 

Example 10. Vision Statements From Three TPC Sites ........................................ 146 

Documenting Current Population, Policy, and Practice 

Example 11. Rhode Island’s Strategic Use of TPC Subcommittees...................... 147 

Example 15. Missouri Reentry Process (MRP) Offender Populations 

Example 16. New York’s Transition from Prison to the Community 

Example 17. Georgia Risk Reduction Programming Available 

Example 12. A Primer on System Mapping ........................................................... 149 

Example 13. Rhode Island TPC “Mapping the System—Zone 1”.......................... 152 

Example 14. Rhode Island’s Seven-Zone Timeline Illustration.............................. 153 

Analysis ............................................................................................ 154 

 Initiative—Population Analysis .......................................................... 158 

Through DOC.................................................................................... 166 

Improving the Use of Information 

Example 18. New York TPC Strategy on Data Sharing ......................................... 180 

Example 19. New York Presents an Information Strategy .................................... 197 

Evidence-Based Practice 

Example 20. Oregon’s Legislation Requiring Evidence-Based Practice................ 200 

Identifying Targets of Change and Setting Priorities 

Example 21. Indiana’s Gap Analysis and Targets of Change................................ 207 

Example 22. Georgia’s Targets of Change ............................................................ 221 

Improving Offender Management 

Example 23. Missouri’s Transition Accountability Plan .......................................... 227 

Example 24. Michigan’s Gender Responsive Strategies for Reentry..................... 230 

Example 25. New York State Support and Expectations of Local Reentry 

 Task Forces ...................................................................................... 233 

Example 26. Michigan’s Implementation Plan ....................................................... 243

Preparing Organizations for Change 

Example 27. Georgia—Key Messages for Organizational Change: 

 A Presentation to Wardens, Superintendents, 

and Chief Probation Officers ............................................................. 252 

TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 125 
Case Management 

Example 28. Michigan Prisoner ReEntry Initiative Collaborative 

Case Management............................................................................ 258 

Emerging Issues, Challenges, and Opportunities 

Example 29. Michigan Collaborative Case Management and 

Supervision Tracks............................................................................ 259 

Example 30. New York and North Dakota Trainings on Collaboration................... 261 

Example 31. New York’s Local Reentry Task Forces—Membership 

and Strategic Plan Outline ................................................................ 263 

126 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
Example 1. Indiana Policy Group and Steering Committee 

INDIANA POLICY GROUP 

Indiana Offender Reintegration Project 

(A TPC Initiative) 

Fall 2004 

Superintendent 

Indiana State Police 

State Representative 

Indiana General Assembly 

Commissioner 

Indiana Department of Workforce Development 

Executive Director 

Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council 

Commissioner 

Indiana Commission for Higher Education 

Chairperson 

Indiana Parole Board 

Executive Director 

Indiana Public Defender Council 

State Senator 

Indiana General Assembly 

Policy Director for Public Safety 

Office of the Governor 

Vice Chairperson 

Indiana Parole Board 

Commissioner 

Indiana Department of Correction 

Director 

Indiana State Personnel Department 

Director 

Indiana State Budget Agency 

Executive Director 

Indiana Judicial Center 

Chief Justice 

Indiana Supreme Court 

Secretary 

Indiana Family and Social Services 

Administration 

Executive Director 

Indiana Criminal Justice Institute 

Commissioner 

Indiana State Department of Health 

Executive Director 

Indiana Housing Finance Authority 

TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 127 
INDIANA STEERING COMMITTEE 

Indiana Offender Reintegration Project (IORP) 

(A TPC Initiative)

Fall 2004 

Director of Field Operations 

Indiana Department of Workforce Development 

Deputy Chief Probation Officer for Administration 

Marion County Superior Court Probation Department 

 Staff Attorney 

Indiana Judicial Center 

Program Director for Co-Occurring Disorders, Criminal Justice 

and TANF Relations, Division of Mental Health and Addiction 

Indiana Family and Social Services Administration 

Director of Community Corrections State Program 

Indiana Department of Correction 

Deputy Director, Bureau of Family Resources, Division of 

Family and Children 

Indiana Family and Social Services Administration 

Adult Case Management Services 

Indiana Department of Correction 

Director, Research & Planning 

United Way of Central Indiana 

Juvenile Justice Liaison, Office of Student Services 

Indiana Department of Education 

Commander, Training Division 

Indiana State Police 

Director, Employment Administration Division 

Indiana State Personnel Department 

 Board Member 

Indianapolis Neighbor Resource Board 

 Senior Judge 

Indiana Supreme Court 

Director 

Allen County Community Corrections 

Senior Vice President, Workforce Services Development 

Goodwill Industries of Central Indiana, Inc. 

Executive Director 

Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council 

Associate Professor of Public and Environmental Affairs 

Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis 

President and Chief Executive Officer 

Mental Health Association in Indiana, Inc. 

Director of Primary Care 

Indiana State Department of Health 

Indiana Offender Reintegration Project Administrator 

Indiana Department of Correction 

Director of ACES 

Choices 

Strategic Planner 

Indiana Department of Correction 

Vice Chairperson 

Indiana Parole Board 

Fiscal Analyst, Ways and Means Committee Office 

Indiana General Assembly 

Director of Community Development 

Indiana Housing Finance Authority 

Assistant Executive Director 

Indiana Public Defender Council 

Budget Analyst 

Indiana State Budget Agency 

Special Assistant to the Commissioner 

Indiana Department of Correction 

Director of Mental Health and Behavioral 

Management 

Indiana Department of Correction 

Executive Director 

Hamilton County Community Corrections 

Community Reintegration Chaplain 

Going Home Program, Choices 

Deputy Director, Research and Planning 

Indiana Criminal Justice Institute 

128 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
Example 2. Structure of Michigan’s Prisoner Reentry Initiative 

GOVERNOR 

Jennifer M. Granholm 

STATE POLICY TEAM 

Team Leader: Teresa Bingman, 

Deputy Legal Counsel 

Office of the Governor 

Public Safety – Department of Corrections 

Patricia L. Caruso, Director 

Dennis Schrantz, Deputy Director, Policy & Planning 

Alcohol & Drug Abuse/Mental & Physical Health Care 

Department of Community Health, Michael Ezzo, 

Chief Deputy Director 

Employment/Education/Housing 

STRUCTURE OF MICHIGAN’S 

PRISONER RE-ENTRY 

INITIATIVE 

ADVISORY COUNCIL 

Key Stakeholders 

Organizations

Associations

Individuals

State Departmental Staff

EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT TEAM 

Co-Leaders from Each Team/MDOC Resource Specialists/SVORI 

Inmate Assessment and Classification 

Inmate Behavior and Programming 

Inmate Release Preparation 

Release Decision Making 

Parole Supervision and Services 

Implementation Decision Point Work Groups/Clusters 

Department of Labor & Economic Growth 

Robert Johnson, Special Executive Assistant to the Director 

Family and Child Welfare - Family Independence Agency 

Revocation Decision Making 

Inmate Education, Vocational Training, 

Employment 

Laura Champagne, Chief Deputy Director 

Additional 

Individuals 

and 

Groups 

Parole Discharge and Aftercare 

Offender Services: Housing, Family & Child Welfare, 

Alcohol & Drug Treatment, 

Mental & Physical Health Care, Employment 

Education, Vocational Training + 

Inmate Education/Voc Training Co-Leaders 

Cluster 1 

Cluster 2 

Cluster 3 

 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 129 
130 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
Example 4. North Dakota TPC Working Group Structure 

Mirroring some key aspects of the TPC Model, the North Dakota TPC Initiative commissioned 

working groups organized around the following issue areas and focused on specific targets of 

change. 

1. Evidence Based Practices: Target—evidence-based practice program evaluation - both 

internal and external to DOCR 

2. Education, Vocational Training and Employment: Target—Develop additional support and 

funding to increase the number of vocational programs offered in the prison's division. 

3. Offender Behavior and Programming: Target—Develop, maintain and use a case 

management plan to insure that the dynamic risk factors identified on the LSI-R are addressed 

based on individual needs. 

4. Offender Assessment and Classification: Target—Develop a new PSI to incorporate 

assessment information 

5. Faith Based Issues: Target—Reduce recidivism through enhancing faith based community 

support for offenders. 

6. Female Offender Issues: Target—Provide gender responsive services and programs to 

female inmates to achieve recidivism reduction. 

7. Revocation Decision Making: Target—Develop and implement information form to be used 

prior to the revocation hearing and train staff statewide in its use. 

8. Parole Supervision and Services: Target—Determine how the ND State Prosecutors, 

Department of Human Services staff can better communicate prior to a parolee's release into the 

community. 

9. Release Decision Making: Target—Ensure that release decisions are founded upon sound 

paroling theory and match those decisions to research based correctional programming, re-entry 

planning, and community supervision strategies. 

10. Revocation Decision Making: Target—To establish guidelines to improve outcomes with 

offenders who require interventions, while addressing violations and relapse that may lead toward 

recidivism. 

 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 131 
Example 5. Missouri Substance Abuse Ad-Hoc Team Charter 

TEAM MISSION: 

Identify effective substance abuse treatment approaches and opportunities for the 

Transition from Prison to Community (TPC) Initiative Team so they can recommend 

strategies to improve transition practices of offenders. 

TEAM SPONSOR: Transition from Prison to Community (TPC) Initiative Team 

BACKGROUND: 

INTRODUCTION: 

Each year approximately 1500 offenders return to Missouri communities following a 

period of confinement in a state correctional institution. In light of the significant 

number of offenders who re-enter society, we must ask an important public safety related 

question: How do we want them when they come back? The number of individuals 

returned to prison in Missouri for parole violations is growing. During FY 2002, 28% 

(4,417) of all prison intake consisted of parole violator returns. 97% of incarcerated 

offenders will at some point be released from prison and return to live in communities 

throughout the State. Public safety is enhanced when offenders transition successfully 

from prison to their community. There is an increasing need for the Department of 

Corrections to work collaboratively with departments of state government and other 

stakeholders to strengthen the likelihood that offenders will transition from their period of 

incarceration to become productive, law abiding citizens. 

A Transition from Prison to Community (TPC) model, developed by the National 

Institute of Corrections is providing a philosophical framework in Missouri for 

stakeholder agencies to promote common interests, integrate services and improve the 

overall offender transition process. The Department of Corrections, Department of 

Mental Health, Department of Economic Development, Department of Social Services, 

Department of Health and Senior Services and Office of State Courts Administrator 

participated in an inter-departmental planning meeting concerning offender transition on 

September 10, 2002. At that time an inter-departmental TPC steering team was formed. 

The steering team was charged with “managing efforts for the collaborating organizations 

to improve transition practices for offenders in order to enhance public safety, reduce 

recidivism and maximize all available resources.” 

The Steering Team has identified a number of key factors that impede successful 

offender transition and contribute to offender recidivism and re-incarceration. Systemic 

based strategies must be developed around each of the key factors to improve offender 

transition and enhance public safety. One of these key factors is returning offenders to 

the community with the skills and resources necessary to stay free of substances, both 

alcohol and drugs. 

132 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
ISSUE 

The mission of the substance abuse ad hoc team is to identify effective substance abuse 

treatment approaches and opportunities for offenders, starting with those in-prison, and 

continuing in the community after release. We should identify “what works,” and also 

explore how to make these programs available to every offender in need. 

JUSTIFICATION 

Baseline Data Questions gathered through the TPC Steering Committee show that: 

1) a continuity of treatment that starts in the institution and continues in the community 

seamlessly promotes success (Question 15 G); 

2) institutional treatment has a small but positive impact (Question 15 C); 

3) of all those who return to prison, 31% are returned for a new drug conviction 

(Question 15); 

4) of those offenders admitted into prison from July through November of 2002, over 

50% needed substance abuse treatment that the Department could not provide 

(Question 15); 

5) for offenders released from FY 98 to FY02, 49.2% of those leaving with a substance 

abuse problem were returned after 3 years compared with only a 37% return rate for 

those leaving without a problem (Question 15 A); 

6) during the period FY98-FY02, 65% of offenders with a known SA problem did not 

enter a treatment program before first release (Question 15 B); 

7) the supervision outcome for those who received institutional substance abuse 

treatment is better for offenders who received treatment than those who did not, 

especially in the first year after release (Question 15 C); 

8) offenders with a known SA problem on release are much more likely to have an 

active SA problem while under supervision compared to those who left prison with 

no SA problem (Question 15 D); 

9) for offenders released from FY 98 through FY 02, 63% with a known substance 

abuse problem did not receive treatment either in prison or in the field (Question 15 

E); 

10) during this same time frame, of offenders with a known SA problem, 62% 

successfully completed community treatment (Question 15 F); 

11) for offenders with known SA problems who receive both institutional and community 

treatment (after 30 days), only 4.7% return to prison within the first year compared 

with 28.3% who do not receive treatment (Question 15 G). 

• About 39% of all Missouri inmates were under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time 

of the sentencing offense and alcohol and/or drugs were involved in nearly half of all 

offenses that led to incarceration.1 

• In FY 2002, 40.2% of all Missouri inmate admissions were due to alcohol (8.8%) or drug 

offenses (31.4%).2 

1 Senator Harold Caskey report to Missouri Senate: “Arresting the Overflow, Alternatives to Prison 

Overcrowding and Expansion in Missouri, “ 1999. 

TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 133 
• Nearly one third of all Missouri offenders under supervision by probation or parole have 

been convicted of a drug offense.3 

• The Department of Corrections estimates that 75% of offenders in Missouri need substance 

abuse services.4 

• Treatment for drug and alcohol addiction cuts drug use in half, reduces criminal activity up to 

80%, increases employment, decreases homelessness, improves physical and mental health, 

and reduces domestic violence, child abuse, and lost worker productivity.5 

• In-prison treatment that is followed by a period of community-based treatment enhances 

results. Arrest rates and drug usage are cut at least 50%.6 

The I concept paper presented the “need principle.” The Need Principal holds that when 

“dynamic” risk factors, or criminogenic needs are effectively treated, offenders’ probability of 

recidivism declines. Treatment decisions should be based on individual offender’s dynamic risk 

factors discerned through objective assessment processes. Offenders should be re-assessed 

periodically on dynamic risk factors to inform decisions about changes in custody, placement, 

service or supervision. Dynamic risk factors include: 

• Anti-social attitudes, values and beliefs, 

• Anti-social peers and associations, 

• Substance abuse 

• Educational deficiencies, 

• Vocational deficiencies, 

• Mental health 

• Life skills and social skill deficiencies, and 

• Characterological defects (anger, aggression, egocentrism, impulsivity, etc.)7 

Dr. Alexander Holsinger was contracted to conduct an analysis of information generated by 

focus groups consisting of offenders and parole officers. The following information pertaining 

to substance abuse was pulled from that report: 

• Benefits of substance abuse treatment were evident throughout findings 

2 Missouri Department of Corrections, May 2001, Monthly Fact Sheet. 2 Missouri Chamber of Commerce (2001), “2001 Study of Missouri State Government Spending.” 2 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Substance Abuse Treatment: 

Findings from the National Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study.” 2 U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, (Dec. 1997). “Improving the Nation’s Criminal 

Justice System: Findings and Results from State and Local Program Evaluations.” 2 Dale Parent, Liz Barnett, Abt Associates Inc., “Transition from Prison to Community Initiative-Preliminary 

Draft.” Page 13, prepared for National Institute of Corrections, February 27, 2002. 

134 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
• Need for additional substance abuse services present in focus group data, as well as 

Baseline data 

• Specific need cited regarding substance abuse assessment processes (Validated? 

Normed?) 

• Recommendation to closely examine programs 

o Compare their condition to Principles of Effective Intervention 

o Other components of “What Works” 

• While importance of substance abuse treatment is irrefutable in the current literature 

base, Program Quality is a different, more in-depth issue in need of being addressed. 

CONCLUDING STATEMENT 

A large and growing body of evidence points to a direct relationship between substance use and 

criminal behavior among offenders. An equally large body of evidence shows that “treatment 

works” and is a cost effective way of reducing criminality as well as providing the best 

opportunity for offenders to be returned to the community as useful and productive citizens. 

BOUNDARIES: 

3⁄4 The team is to make recommendations only. 

3⁄4 The team shall comprise a representative sampling of the stakeholders. 

3⁄4 The team shall consist of no more than eight (8) members. 

3⁄4 The meetings shall be held in Jefferson City, Missouri. 

3⁄4 The meetings will be held during a period of time where there is a minimal amount of 

cost associated with this proposal development. 

DESIRED OUTCOME: A successful project will result in... 

• Reduce the number of people being returned to prison due to substance abuse 

problems. 

3⁄4 Areas to focus on: 

 Assessment 

 Integrated services delivery (within different agencies & stakeholders) 

 Continuity of Care (may start prior to incarceration) 

 Improved access and timeliness of various of types of treatment 

 Best practices 

 Offender families 

UNDESIRED OUTCOME: A successful project will not result in... 

TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 135 
• Negative impact on public safety 

• Negative impact on public perception of substance abuse services for offenders 

• Duplication of efforts by the various agencies involved in the offenders treatment 

ESTIMATED DATE FOR COMPLETION: 

MEETING FREQUENCY & DURATION: 

Date: 04-24-03 

Time: 9:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. 

Location: DOC Training Academy, Room 3C 

 1717 Industrial Drive 

Jefferson City, MO 

Date: 05-15-03 

Time: 9:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. 

Location: Governor’s Office Building, Room 470 

 200 Madison Street 

 Jefferson City, MO 

Date: 06-03-03 

Time: 9:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. 

Location: Governor’s Office Building, Room 460 

 200 Madison Street 

 Jefferson City, MO 

MEMBERS: 

• Department of Mental Health/Alcohol & Drug Abuse 

o Rosie Anderson-Harper 

• Division of Offender Rehabilitative Services 

o Marta Nolin 

• Substance abuse community providers 

o Gene Morgan 

o Barron Pratte, Ph.D., Executive Director, SE MO Community Treatment Center 

• Probation & Parole Officer 

o Joyce Nilson 

o Terri Sharp-Roney 

• Parole Board Member 

o Donna White 

• Department of Corrections Institutional Caseworker 

o Deborah Hager, Unit Supervisor, Farmington Correctional Center 

• National Council on Alcoholism 

o Jean Roth-Jacobs 

136 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
• Office of State Court Administration (OSCA)/Drug Court 

o Marie Peoples 

• Kansas Parole Board Chairman 

o Marilyn Scafe 

TEAM CHAIRPERSON: Gene Morgan 

FACILITATOR: Blake Shaw, 1st meeting 

Colleen Dowd, 2nd & 3rd meeting 

RECORD KEEPER: To be determined 

LEGAL COUNSEL: To be determined on an as needed bases. 

TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 137 
Example 6. Meeting Management Tool—Standardized Meeting Agenda 

TRANSITION FROM PRISON TO COMMUNITY INITIATIVE (TPCI) TEAM MEETING 

Date: 

Time: 

Location: 

AGENDA TOPICS: TIME: PERSON RESPONSIBLE: 

MEETING OUTCOME: 

If this were a successful meeting it would result in ...... 

KEY POINTS: 

MEMBERS NOT ATTENDING: 

ACTION ITEMS RESPONSIBLE DEADLINE 

Next Meeting 

Date: 

Time: 

Location: 

138 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
Example 7. New York’s Transition from Prison to the Community 

Initiative: Glossary of Criminal Justice Terms 

Term Definition 

Arraignment1 The hearing before a court having jurisdiction in a criminal case, in 

which the identity of the defendant is established, the defendant is 

informed of the charge and of his/her rights, and the defendant is required 

to enter a plea. 

Arrest4 Taking a person into custody, in a case and in the manner authorized by 

law. An arrest may be made by a peace officer or by a private citizen. 

Bail2 Money or property promised or given to the court as security when an 

accused person is released before and during his trial with the agreement 

that the defendant will return to court when ordered to do so. Bail is 

forfeited if the defendant fails to return to the court. 

Bench Warrant9 A process of a criminal court directing a police officer or a uniformed 

court officer to take into custody, a defendant who has previously been 

arraigned upon the accusatory instrument by which the action was 

commenced, and to bring him before such court. 

Charge4 A formal allegation that a specific person has committed a specific 

offense. 

Community 

Corrections1 

The use of a variety of officially ordered program-based sanctions that 

permit convicted offenders to remain in the community under conditional 

supervision as an alternative to an active prison sentence. 

Conditional 

Discharge8 

If the court sees fit, it can discharge the offender conditionally for a 

specified period of time. This means that the offender must not commit a 

further offense during that time period. If they do commit a further 

offense, they will be guilty of ‘breaching’ their conditional discharge and 

will be re-sentenced accordingly. 

Conditional 

Release 

Mandatory release of an offender from prison after completion of a 

portion of the term as prescribed by law to parole supervision for the 

remainder of the sentence. 

Conviction4 A judgment, based either on the verdict of a jury or a judicial officer or 

on the guilty plea of the defendant, that the defendant is guilty. 

Defer Sentencing A judgment by the court that sentencing shall be postponed for a 

specified amount of time, during which the offender will be on probation. 

Determinate 

Sentencing 

Offender is given a fixed term of incarceration that may be reduced by 

good time and merit time. 

Dismissal2 A decision by a judicial officer to end a case for legal or other reasons 

Disposition2 The final judicial decision which ends a criminal proceeding by judgment 

of acquittal or dismissal or which sets the sentence if the defendant is 

convicted. 

Failure to Appear Criminal defendant fails to appear in court as required. 

Felony A serious crime that can be punished by up to one year or more in prison. 

TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 139 
Term Definition 

Felony Drug 

Offender10 

A defendant who stands convicted of the felony possession, sale or intent 

to sell marijuana or a controlled substance as defined in articles 220 and 

221 of New York State Penal Law. 

First Appearance1 An appearance before a court officer during which the legality of the 

defendant’s arrest is initially assessed and the defendant is informed of 

the charges on which s/he is being held. At this stage in the criminal 

justice process, bail may be set or pretrial release arranged. 

Good Time

1 The amount of time deducted from the time to be served in prison on a 

given sentence as a consequence of good behavior. 

Grand Jury 

Hearing2 

A legal process in which citizens selected by law and sworn to investigate 

criminal activity and the conduct of public officials and to hear the 

evidence against accused persons sit as a jury to decide if enough 

evidence exists to bring an accused to trial; grand jury hearings are 

generally closed to the public and their proceedings are kept secret by 

law. This hearing is held in lieu of a preliminary hearing. 

Guilty Plea

2 A formal response by a person accused of committing a specific crime 

admitting that the charges are true. 

Indeterminate 

Sentence 

A sentence to prison with a minimum and maximum term. 

Indictment2 A formal written accusation, made by a grand jury and filed in court, 

alleging that a specific person has committed a specific crime. 

Jails1,3 A confinement facility administered by an agency of local government, 

typically a law enforcement agency, intended for adults but sometimes 

also containing juveniles, which holds people detained pending 

adjudication or committed after adjudication, usually those committed on 

sentences of a year or less. Offenders sentenced to prison are also housed 

in county jails awaiting transfer. 

Maximum 

Expiration 

Completion of the full term of a sentence, including both incarceration 

and post-release supervision portions. 

Misdemeanor A crime that is less serious than a felony and for which the punishment 

can include imprisonment for up to one year in jail. 

No True Bill Grand jury voted against indictment of the accused. 

Parole 

Revocation1 

The administrative action of a paroling authority removing a person from 

parole status in response to a violation of lawfully required conditions of 

parole, including commission of a new offense, and usually resulting in a 

return to prison. 

Parole2 The conditional release of a convicted offender from prison before the 

end of his sentence based upon requirements for the offender’s behavior 

set and supervised by a parole agency. 

Persistent Felony 

Offender9 

A person, other than a persistent violent felony offender, who stands 

convicted of a felony after having previously been convicted of two or 

more felonies. 

140 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
Term Definition 

Plea Bargain2 An agreement between the prosecutor and the defense attorney that the 

defendant will plead guilty to a crime in exchange for some concession 

from the state, usually a lesser charge, the dismissal of other pending 

charges, or a recommendation by the prosecutor for a reduced sentence. 

Plea2 A defendant’s formal answer in court to the charge that he committed a 

crime. 

Predicate Felony 

Conviction9 

Where an offender currently stands convicted of a felony, a prior felony 

conviction in which the following criteria apply: (1) the prior conviction 

was in New York State of a felony or in another jurisdiction of an offense 

for which a term of imprisonment in excess of one year or a sentence of 

death was authorized and is authorized in New York State, whether or not 

imposed; (2) the sentence was imposed before the commission of the 

present felony, and; (3) the sentence was imposed not more than ten years 

before the commission of the current felony excluding any time during 

which the defendant was incarcerated between the commission of the 

prior and current felonies. 

Pre-plea 

Investigation7 

The process by which probation officers investigate and produce a report 

pursuant to a Criminal Court order or request prior to conviction. 

Preliminary 

Hearing1 

A proceeding before a judicial officer in which three matters must be 

decided: (1) whether a crime was committed, (2) whether the crime 

occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, and (3) whether 

there are reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant committed the 

crime. 

Pre-Sentence 

Investigation 

The examination of a convicted offender’s background including his/her 

past behavior, family circumstances and physical and mental health, prior 

to sentencing. Pre-sentence examinations are conducted by probation 

officers and are submitted to sentencing authorities. 

Pre-Sentence 

Report2 

A document which details the past behavior, family circumstances, and 

personality of a convicted adult offender and gives information about the 

crime he or she committed. It is prepared by a probation agency in order 

to assist the court in determining the most appropriate sentence. 

Pretrial Release1 The release of an accused person from custody, for all or part of the time 

during prosecution, upon his/her promise to appear in court when 

required. 

Probation 

Revocation1 

A court order taking away a convicted offender’s probationary status and 

usually withdrawing the conditional freedom associated with the status in 

response to a violation of the conditions of probation. 

Probation2 Conditional freedom granted to an offender by the court after conviction 

or a guilty plea with requirements for the offender’s behavior set and 

supervised by the court. 

Released on Own 

Recognizance1 

The pretrial release of a criminal defendant on his/her written promise to 

appear in court as required. No cash or property bond is required. 

Remand6 To order an accused person to be kept in custody pending further court 

appearance. 

TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 141 
Term Definition 

Recidivism1 The repetition of criminal behavior. In statistical practice, a recidivism 

rate may be any of a number of possible counts or instances of arrest, 

conviction, correctional commitment, or correctional status change 

related to repetitions of these events within a given period of time. 

Second Felony 

Offender9 

A person, other than a second violent felony offender, who stands 

convicted of a felony other than a class A-1 felony, after having 

previously been subjected to one or more predicate felony convictions. 

Second Felony 

Drug Offender10 

A second felony offender who stands convicted of the felony possession, 

sale or intent to sell marijuana or a controlled substance as defined in 

articles 220 and 221 of New York State Penal Law. 

Sentencing 

Hearing5 

A hearing before a judge to determine the appropriate sanction to be 

imposed upon a person convicted of a crime. Defense and prosecution 

speak, witnesses may be called. Defendant has the right of allocution. 

Judge imposes sentence 

Sentencing1 The imposition of a criminal sanction by a judicial authority. 

Split Sentence

1 A sentence explicitly requiring the convicted offender to serve a period of 

confinement in a local, state, or federal facility, followed by a period of 

probation. 

Superior Court 

Information9 

A written accusation by a district attorney which charges one or more 

defendants with the commission of one or more offenses, at least one of 

which is a crime, and which serves as a basis for the prosecution thereof. 

Trial2 A proceeding, either civil or criminal, in court, where the law and 

evidence are reviewed, and the guilt, liability, or other issues are 

determined by jury or judge. 

1. Schmalleger, F. (2004). Criminal justice: A brief introduction. Upper Saddle River, 

NJ: Prentice Hall. 

2. http://www.azvictims.com/cjs/glossary.asp 

3. http://www.cjpc.state.tx.us/glossary/glossaryadult.html 

4. http://www.sfgov.org/site/budanalyst_page.asp?id=5215 

5. http://www.co.dakota.mn.us/cc/Glossary.htm 

6. http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/cms/2714.htm#R 

7. http://dpca.state.ny.us/350.htm 

8. www.youth-justiceboard.gov.uk/PractitionersPortal/CourtsAndOrders/Disposals/ConditionalDischarge 

9. LexisNexis. (2005). Graybook: New York criminal statutes and rules. Newark, NJ: 

Matthew Bender & Company. 

10. New York State Penal Law § 70.70. 

142 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
Example 8. Missouri Invites Other Stakeholders to the Table 

MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

TRANSITION FROM PRISON TO COMMUNITY

INITIATIVE (TPC)

August 21, 2002 

THE CHALLENGE 

One of the most pressing and multifaceted challenges facing state government in 

Missouri and across the nation is the reintegration of adult offenders who leave state 

prisons. In Missouri, we currently have approximately 30,000 offenders incarcerated 

in our correctional institutions. 97% of all Missouri prisoners will at some point be 

released to go home. It is in the best interest of all Missourians that when released, exfelons reintegrate into the community safely. There is an increasing need for 

correctional agencies to work collaboratively with community-based organizations and 

service providers to strengthen the likelihood that returning offenders will not 

recidivate, but will become responsible parents, secure employment and contribute to 

their communities. How we plan for offender transition from incarceration to 

becoming a productive, law-abiding citizen is a strategic investment in public safety 

and the social and economic health of families and communities throughout Missouri. 

Successful offender reintegration contributes to the achievement of Missouri Results: 

• A safe, secure place to live and work 

• Decreased rate of crime 

• Decreased rate of unemployment 

• Decreased reliance on public support 

• Decreased incidence of family violence 

• Increased percentage of students who achieve targeted skill levels 

• Reduced deaths and injuries associated with substance abuse 

Offenders come to prison with educational deficits, poor job skills and substance 

abuse problems that contribute to criminal behavior. 

• During FY02, DOC received 15,872 admissions to prison. 

• 28% (4,417) of all prison admissions were parole violator returns. 

• During FY02, 14,884 offenders were released from Missouri prisons and

returned home to live in communities across our state. 

• Multiple state agencies often provide services to offenders after their 

release, and/or to their families, e.g. 46% of high-risk parolees released in 

1999 also received services from Department of Mental Health. 

• Children of incarcerated parents are five times more likely to go to prison as an 

adult than their peers. 

TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 143 
75% of incarcerated offenders and 64% of community-supervised offenders have a 

significant history of substance abuse or dependence. 

THE OPPORTUNITY 

The National Institute of Corrections’ (NIC) Transition from Prison to Community 

Initiative is designed to help states improve offenders’ transition from prison to

communities, thereby increasing public safety, reducing recidivism and new

victimization, and making better use of scarce state and local resources. 

The TPC promotes corrections, releasing, supervision, and human service agencies to 

form strategic and tactical partnerships to integrate and coordinate basic policies, and 

to sustain and nurture those partnerships and policies over time. It will lead many 

agencies to seek more effective and targeted ways to use their resources to achieve 

important goals and results. 

TPC Goals: 

For released offenders to remain arrest-free over the long haul and to become

competent and self-sufficient members of their communities. 

TPC Premises: 

• Corrections, law enforcement and human service agencies are stakeholders in 

the transition process. These stakeholders need to articulate and promote 

common interests, integrate and coordinate policies, and develop mutual 

ownership of an improved transition process; 

• Stakeholders should freely share information relating to transition within and 

among stakeholders’ organizations; 

• Transition should be built upon proven reforms and best practices; 

• Transition reforms should be affordable, transferable, and adaptable; 

• Basic transition reforms should apply to all imprisoned offenders, including 

those given discretionary release and those who leave at the end of their prison 

terms; and, 

• The allocation of resources for programming, supervision and services should 

vary directly with the level of risk that those groups of offenders pose. 

THE NEXT STEPS 

1. Identify a person to serve as a primary TPC contact for your department. This 

person should be an individual who is authorized to represent your agency’s 

interests and positions with this initiative. These individuals should attend a 

TPC briefing meeting on August 30, 2002 from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. 

2. The primary TPC contact along with other appropriate individuals identified by 

each department should attend a one-day TPC workshop on September 10, 

2002 in Jefferson City. 

For further information, please contact the TPC Chairperson for the Department of 

Corrections listed below..... 

144 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 145

Example 9. Georgia Reentry Impact Project Vision

The Georgia Reentry Impact Project (GRIP):

Policy Team Recommendations

GRIP Vision

Promoting public safety through collaborative partnerships which reflect a seamless system that 

ensures all returning offenders are law-abiding, productive community citizens. 

GRIP Mission

Establish effective methods that permeate all levels of affected agencies and organizations 

to reduce recidivism through collaborative partnerships that support offender 

transition to the community. 

October 3, 2003 

STATE OF GEORGIA

SONNY PERDUE, GOVERNOR
Example 10. Vision Statements from Three TPC Sites 

Vision of the Michigan Prisoner ReEntry Initiative 

“The Vision of the Michigan Prisoner ReEntry Initiative is to reduce crime by 

implementing a seamless plan of services and supervision developed with each 

offender, delivered through state and local collaboration, from the time of their entry 

to prison through their transition, reintegration and aftercare in the community.” 

Vision of the New York Reentry Task Force 

“The vision of the Reentry Task Force is to build a safer New York resulting from the 

successful transition of offenders from prison to living law-abiding and productive 

lives in their communities.” 

A Vision for Effective Offender Reentry in Rhode Island 

“Our vision of offender reentry in Rhode Island is of an integrated statewide system 

that fosters the preparation and gradual transition of incarcerated individuals to 

productive, healthy, and crime-free lives.” 

146 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
Example 11. Rhode Island’s Strategic Use of TPC Subcommittees 

Rhode Island Reentry Steering Committee Meeting--Tier II 

Workplan 

Work Activities: Each subcommittee is tasked with developing a detailed understanding of one or more 

specific substantive topic areas. To assure continuity in the type of information collected in order to 

achieve this depth of understanding, each subcommittee is expected to gather the same type of 

information. Although the work products and outcomes should and will be similar, the methods and 

timetable for gathering this information will be decided by each individual subcommittee. Subcommittees 

are expected to: 

1. Establish the structure of the subcommittee. Select those who will serve as chair, facilitator, recorder 

and reporter. Agree on a regular meeting schedule and location. 

2. Discuss specifically the goal of the subcommittee. It is important for all members to be clear about the 

purpose of their work; this will make it easier to determine the path for achieving it and reduce the 

likelihood that the team will be anything less than fully successful. Articulate a goal—one that each 

member understands with absolute clarity—that describes the importance of a clear understanding of 

this area in order to assure that the essential components are in place to achieve successful offender 

reentry. 

a. For example: The goal of the Supervision, Violation, and Revocation Subcommittee of the 

Rhode Island Reentry Steering Committee is to gather and analyze information that is key to 

understanding this area of offender management in service of assessing the effectiveness of 

our current efforts to manage the reentry and post-release supervision of prisoners returning to 

the community. 

3. Discuss the composition of the subcommittee team. Determine whether additional expertise is needed 

to accomplish your task and if so, enlist the participation of others who are well positioned to help. 

4. Develop a strategy to undertake the analysis phase of your work. To develop a comprehensive 

understanding of your area of responsibility, it will be necessary for the subcommittee to collect the 

following: 

• Offender Population Data: Identify the data that would be helpful in understanding this issue area 

in a more specific way. Spend a full work session asking yourselves, “If we had data to tell us 

everything we needed to know about this issue as it relates to transitioning offenders, what would 

that report include?” Make a list of your responses (For example, “What is the marketable skill 

level of the incarcerated population?” “Of the offenders in need of housing upon release, how 

many have no contact provisions and what are the relevant restrictions?”). 

o Supports to this phase of the work: The national TPC project staff will be available to 

assist subcommittees in terms of reviewing the research questions identified, assisting the 

subcommittee in refining them as needed, identifying sources for the collection of these 

data, designing a data collection effort, and potentially, the analysis of the data collected. 

• System Mapping: Develop a system map reflecting processes and decision points in this area. 

System maps detail the specific steps that are taken in moving an individual through a system of 

activities. They reflect the professionals involved at key decision points and the time elapse 

between each step of the process. Before beginning the development of a system map from 

‘scratch,’ be sure that one has not already been developed. 

o Supports to this phase of the work: Samples of system maps are available for review as 

are more detailed instructions for developing them. 

• Resource Inventory: Develop a resource inventory that documents the program and services 

currently available in your area. Resources include specialized expertise by certain individuals, 

services available to support staff in the accomplishment of their work, services available to support 

offenders, etc. Document the services and capacity available, the extent to which these services 

TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 147 
are utilized, etc. (Some examples of ‘resources’ include: individuals who provide offender 

assessment services or those who have the capacity to serve as trainers on assessment or 

classification instruments; the number of supervision officers and particular areas of expertise or 

specialization some might possess; the vocational training services available, inside the institutions 

and in the community; or the types of treatment services available to support transitioning/released 

offenders. 

• Policy and Practice Analysis. Determine as a group the additional information you need to collect 

in order to understand your area. 

a. Consider collecting agency policies that reflect the philosophies and procedures used to 

make decisions or deliver services. 

b. Consider interviewing key staff (either individually or in a focus group) to develop a deeper 

understanding of ‘the way things really work.’ 

c. Consider observing key practices (a revocation hearing, a treatment group, or a release 

planning session) to enhance your knowledge and understanding further. 

• Best Practices Analysis. Understanding one’s own system of offender management and service 

delivery is best assessed against the backdrop of national best practices. In this last stage of 

information gathering, look outside the state to understand the what has been learned through 

empirical research, and the best practices approaches that have been adopted in other 

jurisdictions. 

o Supports to this phase of the work: National project staff can assist subcommittees in 

identifying resources from around the country, including Web sites, documents, relevant 

research, models from specific jurisdictions, and individuals to contact for further 

information. 

• Gaps Analysis. Once the information noted above is collected, the subcommittee’s task will be to 

organize and synthesize it in such a way that Steering Committee members can: (1) understand 

the current state of practice in this area, and (2) the strengths and weaknesses of the current state 

of practice in Rhode Island. While the subcommittee’s role is not to make decisions regarding 

actions that might be taken to address the gaps identified in current practice, it will be valuable for 

the subcommittee to be prepared to share their thinking about this with the Steering Committee. 

Work Products: Subcommittees should work toward the preparation of a final report—verbal and 

written—to the Steering Committee that synthesizes the way in which the work was conducted; that 

provides, in essence, a detailed review of the findings from the information collection and analysis phase; 

and the subcommittees’ recommendations for advancing this particular area of work. The subcommittees’ 

written products should include reports detailing the above, with attachments representing meeting records, 

information collected, etc. In the interim period before subcommittees are prepared to make their final 

report, progress reports will be expected and will serve as ‘check in’ points to elicit feedback from the 

Steering Committee on the progress and direction of each subcommittee. 

Timeline: While each subcommittee will have the ability to develop its own work plan and accompanying 

time line, subcommittees are expected to complete their work no later than March 15, 2005. 

First Check In Opportunity: For the next Steering Committee meeting, each subcommittee should be 

prepared to report out on the following: 

1. The goal of the subcommittee; 

2. The composition of the team; 

3. The individuals who have assumed the roles of chair, facilitator, reporter, and recorder; 

4. The first three tasks the team has agreed to undertake, and their timeline for each task (to provide 

a flavor the for the work the subcommittee is planning); and 

5. Questions, concerns, or issues the subcommittee wishes to bring to the Steering Committee for 

discussion and resolution. 

148 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
Example 12. A Primer on System Mapping 

Rhode Island Transition from Prison to Community (TPC) Initiative 

A Primer for Mapping Current Transition/Reentry Process 

The system mapping exercise will produce an accurate and detailed flow chart that describes 

how inmates move through a state’s correction system, onto community supervision, and how 

they are eventually discharged from corrections supervision and moved into aftercare. System 

mapping will give corrections and human service officials a common understanding of the 

process, and help them assess problems, identify solutions, set priorities, and plan 

implementation of reforms. 

The system map should display in graphic terms how offenders flow through your correctional 

system. It should display the important decision points through which offenders move in order to 

enter, pass through, and exit your system. Each decision point will have (a) inputs, (b) decisions 

and (c) outputs. 

Inputs may consist of the individuals about whom decisions are made. They also may consist of 

information transmitted from one part of the organization to another that is used to make 

decisions about those individuals. A decision point may have single or multiple input channels. 

Decisions are made by identifiable persons who make choices about individual offenders by 

applying particular criteria or decision rules to information about the individual offenders. 

Outputs from decision points may consist of individuals and information. A decision point may 

have multiple output channels. Each output channel becomes an input to a subsequent decision 

point. 

For the initial mapping exercise, we suggest you focus on individual offenders as inputs to and 

outputs from decision points. Later, you may want to do a similar mapping of information flow to 

identify strengths and weaknesses of your system. 

The system map should encompass decision points that support the following functions that are 

essential elements of the TPC Model: 

Assessment and Classification 

Inmate Behavior and Programming

 Release Preparation 

 Release Decision-making 

Supervision and Services 

Violations and Revocation

Discharge, and 

 Aftercare. 

These elements may not (probably will not) translate cleanly into the decision points in your 

system. Indeed, one of the TCPI elements (e.g., Violations and Revocation) may consist of a 

cluster of decision points and their related inputs and output flows. 

Your system map should display enough detail to accurately show how particular flows occur 

within your system. For example, the TPC model has an element termed “Release DecisionMaking”. Each state will have a different set of processes by which release decisions are made, 

and your flow chart should reflect them. Some states will have more, and some less, complex 

flow charts around release decision making, and around other elements of the TPC model. 

TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 149 
Your system map should display aspects of the offender flow that are specific or unique to your 

correctional system. For example, a substantial portion of Indiana’s prison inmates are released 

not to parole, but to probation, and are supervised by court-based local probation officers after 

their release from prison rather than by state parole officers. That practice should show up as an 

additional flow in Indiana’s system map. Similarly, Indiana has a release channel called 

“community corrections” that would need to be displayed within its system map. 

Your may want to begin by drawing a rough system map (one that covers the entire system, but 

that contains less detailed information than you eventually will develop). You could divide this 

rough map into “zones”. For example, one “zone” might be labeled “Intake” or “Reception”, or 

“Front-End”. This zone might cover processes by which sentenced offenders are: 

• received into the custody of your correctional agency, 

• assigned to initial intake housing (e.g., sent to a central reception center); 

• assessed (e.g. information to determine offenders’ risks and needs are gathered from 

other sources, from diagnostic tests, or from interviews.); 

• classified (decisions about offenders’ custody levels and housing assignments); 

• Initial case plans are developed based on assessment and classification results. 

You might want assign a different group of staff members to develop a sub-map for each zone. 

These staff members should be well acquainted with the processes and flows included within 

their particular zone of the overall system map. The individual sub-maps they produce could be 

assembled to form a more detailed overall system map. 

Each decision point in the system map should be clearly labeled, and distinguished from all 

others. Each input to a decision point and each output from a decision point also should be 

clearly and unambiguously labeled. 

The next step is to document the system map by assembling available information about the: 

• Flow of offenders into and out of the decision point; 

o number, 

o characteristics, 

o source, 

o destination, 

o problems 

 It is particularly important to note—to the extent possible—the proportion 

of offenders who have problems for which an agency other than 

corrections has formal jurisdiction (e.g., substance abuse, mental 

illness, housing, employment, etc.). 

• Decision criteria or practices 

o what are they? 

o who established them? 

o how do they work? 

o who makes the decisions? 

o how long does it take? 

o what does it costs? 

It is important to document what you know AS WELL AS WHAT YOU DO NOT KNOW about 

decision points and inputs and outputs in the system map. For example, to fully document a 

flow or decision point you may need information that another agency possesses or controls. If 

you know where that information is, but cannot quickly access it, note that in the documentation. 

If you don’t know whether the information is available, or, if it is available, whether you can get 

access to it, indicate that. As more agencies become engaged as partners in the Transition 

planning process, these information gaps can be filled. 

150 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
If also is important include information in the documentation about problems with the flow of 

offenders in and out of decision points, or about the decision making process. For example, note 

if some information that decision makers need to process cases in a timely was is often missing, 

arrives late, or is highly unreliable, and thus, results in delays in decision making. This is a 

preliminary notation of problems, barriers, and obstacles, and will be supplemented by additional 

inquiry, dialog, and scrutiny as planning moves forward. The objective is to capture well-known, 

chronic, or especially significant problems as a starting point. 

Finally, you should compare the system map with the elements of the TCPI model. For each 

TCPI element you should note the extent to which your existing practices conform or do not 

conform to the expectations of the TPC model. For example, the TPC model expects that 

assessments will be done very soon after inmates enter your prisons, and will be done using 

empirically validated risk instruments that measure both static and dynamic risk factors. How 

soon after admission are inmates assessed? Is your risk assessment instrument validated for 

your population? When was it validated (if it was 20 years ago, it probably needs to be done 

again)? Does your risk instrument include on both static (ones that do not change, like prior 

criminal record) and dynamic (ones that can change with interventions, like substance abuse) risk 

predictors? 

Similarly, the TPC model expects that Transition Accountability Plans will be formulated for each 

inmate soon after they complete their assessments. These plans should address the dynamic 

risk factors identified in the assessments, and guide provision of programs and services as 

inmates pass through prison, into community supervision, and on to discharge. Do you have a 

case planning process that structures inmates’ access to and participation in programs while 

confined? How soon after assessment does that case planning process start? Does it address 

inmates’ identified dynamic risk factors? What proportion of case plans are actually implemented 

during confinement? What factors limit implementation of those plans? Does your case planning 

process guide programming after inmates are released from prison? 

TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 151 
152 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 153 
Example 15. 

Missouri Reentry Process (MRP) 

Offender Populations Analysis 

154 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 155 
156 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 157 
Example 16. 

New York’s Transition from Prison 

to the Community Initiative 

Population Analysis 

158 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 159 
160 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 161 
162 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 163 
164 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 165 
Example 17. Georgia Risk Reduction Programming Available Through DOC 

166 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 167 
168 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 169 
170 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 171 
172 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 173 
174 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 175 
176 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 177 
178 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 179 
Example 18. New York TPC Strategy on Data Sharing 

Summary of Proposed MOU for Facilitating Data Sharing 

Among Agencies Participating in New York State’s TPC Initiative 

The Problem 

Many of the analyses likely to be needed by the Steering Committee and its workgroups will require 

sharing case-level data among two or more participating agencies.1

 Unfortunately, under participating 

agencies’ existing procedures for sharing data for research purposes, it often takes months to arrange and 

complete such analyses. If the normal processes have to be repeated separately for each analysis, the 

work of the Steering Committee and its workgroups will be repeatedly and substantially delayed. 

Requested analyses often can be completed quickly, once the relevant data have been compiled and 

prepared for analysis. Typically, the sources of greatest delay in projects that require sharing data among 

agencies are 

• the process of preparing, reviewing, and approving requests for access to data, and 

• the process of matching records from two or more sources. 

The Solution 

The TPC Research and Information Support Team (RIST) recommends establishing a single, 

over-arching MOU to govern data sharing for the purpose of supporting TPC analyses. To that 

end, the Team has 

• reviewed the data sharing policies of each participating agency, 

• reviewed a sample of existing MOUs that have been adopted by participating agencies 

for similar purposes, 2 and 

• prepared a draft MOU that the Team believes is consistent with participating agencies’ 

existing policies. 

The proposed MOU would establish policies and procedures that would expedite the approval 

and matching processes by 

• creating a “TPC Core Database,” which would incorporate individual-level data from 

DOCS, DOP, DCJS, and perhaps DPCA; 

• establishing a “certification” process, whereby the construction of additional, special 

purpose, interagency data sets could be authorized as needed on the basis of 

documentation confirming that a proposed data project conforms to the requirements of 

the TPC MOU (without a need to develop a separate MOU for each instance); and 

• “pre-matching” personal identifiers available in the Core Database with the internal 

database identifiers used in participating agencies’ data systems. 

1 Dozens of such analyses are anticipated. 2

 The existing MOUs varied substantially in format, from brief and general, to long, detailed, precise, and legalistic. 

The Team chose to adopt a very detailed format, reasoning that agencies that prefer the briefer format would still 

find the more detailed approach acceptable (but not necessarily vice-versa). 

180 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
• The Core Database will permit nearly immediate turn-around for a substantial proportion 

of analyses needed for TPC purposes. 

• On those occasions when analyses require additional data not included in the Core 

Database, 

o the certification process will expedite authorization to access the relevant data, 

and 

o extracting the necessary records from the appropriate systems will be greatly 

expedited (in most cases) by having already completed the “pre-match.” 

• The proposed MOU takes into account the fact that some of the relevant, individual-level 

data cannot be shared in identifiable form for TPC purposes (e.g., Medicaid data or data 

relating to participation in treatment for chemical dependence), and it allows for the 

possibility that the agency hosting such data might have to be the last in line to add data 

to a composite file and might then have to be the agency that conducts the requested 

analyses. 

Provisions of the MOU 

The following briefly outlines the contents of each of the major sections of the MOU, as drafted 

by the RIST members. 

Intent 

The participating agencies agree that they intend, whenever possible and as appropriate, to 

• Share data to support TPC analyses 

• Conduct and contribute to TPC analyses 

• Develop and maintain an adult core database 

• Explore the desirability and feasibility of a juvenile core data base 

• Construct and analyze special data sets as needed 

• Match person or case identifiers in advance 

• Limit release of data and findings to the TPC Steering 

Committee, its work groups, and the agencies that contributed data (except with the 

explicit approval for wider distribution by the Steering Committee and the agencies that 

contributed data). 

Participating agencies also agree that an agency may decline to supply requested data or conduct 

requested analyses, provided the party explains in writing why supplying the data or conducting 

the analyses is either illegal or not feasible. 

Definitions 

Definitions are provided for the following key terms: TPC analysis, data project, data project 

description, certification, data provider, data recipient, lead agency, aggregated data set, deTPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 181 
identified data set, limited data set, identifiable data set, adult core data base, and special data 

set. 

Confidentiality Safeguards Applicable to All Participating Agencies 

Paragraphs 22 – 30 specify actions and limitations on use of data designed to protect 

confidentiality of individuals who are the subjects of the data, to which all participating agencies 

must agree. 

Agency-Specific Provisions 

Paragraphs 31 – 37 specify exceptions and additional limitations that apply to certain types of 

data or data held by certain participating agencies. 

Request and Certification Procedures 

Each instance of a need to prepare and analyze a “special data set” requires a separate data 

project description and data project certification. This section 

• explains identification and role of the lead agency 

• specifies the required elements of a data project description, and 

• explains the forms and procedures required to “certify” that a proposed data project 

complies with the provisions of the MOU. 

Disclosure of Findings 

Specifies that, prior to release to the Steering Committee or its workgroups, the findings of TPC 

analyses 

• will be reviewed by data providers to correct factual errors, misinterpretations of data 

elements, or misinterpretation of agency policies, and 

• will not be disclosed to anyone who is not a party to the MOU, without the explicit 

approval of the TPC Steering Committee and the agencies that contribute data to the 

analyses. 

Attachment A: Certification Form 

Attachment A of the MOU is the form that is to be completed, signed, and attached to the “data 

project description” for each proposed “data project.” It “certifies” that a proposed data project 

complies in all respects with the provisions of the TPC MOU. 

According to the current draft of the MOU, the person authorized to sign the certification for 

each agency involved in a data project would be the agency’s representative on the Research and 

Information Support Team (RIST). An agency is, of course, free to establish internal procedures 

not documented in the MOU that might be prerequisite to authorizing its RIST representative to 

“sign off” on individual projects. However, since the purpose of establishing the certification 

process is to expedite the approvals, any additional layers of review should be kept to a 

minimum. 

182 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING 

CONCERNING SHARING OF DATA AND OTHER DATA ANALYSIS RESOURCES 

AMONG AGENCIES PARTICIPATING IN

THE NEW YORK STATE TRANSITION FROM PRISON TO COMMUNITY INITIATIVE 

(hereinafter “TPC”), 

WHICH AGENCIES (hereinafter “the parties”) INCLUDE

The New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services (hereinafter “DCJS”) 

having its principal offices at 4 Tower Place, Albany, NY 12203, and 

The New York State Department of Correctional Services (hereinafter “DOCS”) 

having its principal offices at Building 2, State Campus, Albany, NY 12226, and 

The New York State Division of Parole (hereinafter “DOP”) 

having its principal offices at 97 Central Avenue, Albany, NY 12206, and 

The New York State Department of Health (hereinafter “DOH”) 

having its principal offices at Corning Tower, Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12237, and 

The New York State Department of Labor (hereinafter “DOL”) 

having its principal offices at the State Campus, Building 12, Albany, NY 12240, and 

The New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (hereinafter “DHCR”) 

having its principal offices at Hampton Plaza, 38-40 State Street, Albany, NY 12207, and 

The New York State Division of Probation and Correctional Alternatives (hereinafter 

“DPCA”) having its principal offices at 80 Wolf Road, Albany, NY 12205, and 

The New York State Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services (hereinafter 

“OASAS”) having its principal offices at 1450 Western Avenue, Albany NY 12203, and 

The New York State Office of Children and Family Services (hereinafter “OCFS”) 

having its principal offices at 52 Washington Street, Rensselaer, NY 12144, and 

The New York State Office of Mental Health (hereinafter “OMH”) 

having its principal offices at 44 Holland Avenue, Albany, NY 12229, and 

The New York State Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities 

(hereinafter “OMRDD”) having its principal offices at 44 Holland Avenue, Albany, NY 

12229, and 

The New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (hereinafter “OTDA”) 

having its principal offices at 40 North Pearl Street, Albany, NY 12243. 

TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 183 
WHEREAS, in order to identify potential targets for improvements in the management of 

offenders transitioning from prison to community and to support development of a 

multidisciplinary Transition Accountability Planning process, the parties have a mutual interest 

in compiling and sharing information about the characteristics and circumstances of offenders 

transitioning from prison to community, as well as information about case processing decisions, 

services, and other interventions for offenders transitioning from prison to community; and 

WHEREAS, many analyses needed by the TPC Steering Committee and its workgroups for the 

above-mentioned purposes will require preparing data sets that include data maintained by two 

or more of the parties to this agreement; and 

WHEREAS, it is recognized by the parties that, if the data sharing request and approval process 

and the data matching process must be undertaken separately for each TPC-related analysis, the 

work of the TPC Steering Committee and its workgroups will be repeatedly and substantially 

delayed; 

NOW, THEREFORE, in order to promote efficiency in responding to the information needs of 

the TPC Initiative, the parties agree as follows: 

1. The MOU will be deemed executed for the purpose of referencing the MOU as of the 

date it has been signed by authorized representatives of at least two of the parties. The 

MOU will become effective for each individual party as of the date it is signed by an 

authorized representative of the respective party. 

Intent 

2. Share data to support TPC analyses. The parties intend to share data needed to support 

TPC analyses for the TPC Steering Committee and its workgroups, to the extent that such 

data 

a. are under the control of a party to this agreement; and 

b. are readily available or obtainable given a reasonable commitment of resources; 

and 

c. are, in the judgment of the party in control of the data, not prohibited by 

applicable statutes and regulations to be shared for the purposes to be served by 

TPC analyses; and 

d. can be shared using data management procedures that comply with applicable 

statutes and regulations and the provisions of this MOU. 

3. Conduct and contribute to TPC analyses. The parties intend to conduct analyses, or assist 

in the conduct of analyses, or otherwise contribute knowledge and expertise, as such 

contributions are requested by the TPC Steering Committee and its workgroups, or as 

individual parties independently determine that sharing information in their possession 

will facilitate the work of the TPC Steering Committee and its workgroups, to the extent 

that the individual parties determine that such contributions are feasible and that the 

necessary resources can be committed. 

184 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
4. Develop and maintain an adult core data base. To support rapid completion of as many 

as possible of the analyses needed by the TPC Steering Committee and its workgroups, 

DOCS, DOP, and DCJS intend to develop and maintain an adult core data base that 

combines information from existing DOCS, DOP, and DCJS data bases, and which is 

made available to DOCS, DOP, and DCJS analysts to support TPC analyses. The adult 

core data base will include information for offenders in selected annual prison release 

cohorts. It will be developed and maintained pursuant to a data project description and 

data project certification prepared and executed by DCJS, DOCS, and DOP, according to 

procedures detailed in paragraphs 30 through 38 of this agreement. 

5. Explore the desirability and feasibility of a juvenile core data base. The parties intend to 

assist OCFS in determining whether it is desirable and feasible to construct a juvenile 

core data base, analogous to the adult core data base referenced above. If judged by the 

TPC Steering Committee to be desirable and feasible, the juvenile core data base will be 

developed and maintained pursuant to a data project description and data project 

certification prepared by OCFS and executed by parties that agree to join in the resulting 

certified data project, according to procedures detailed in paragraphs 30 through 38 of 

this agreement. 

6. Construct and analyze special data sets as needed. The parties intend to construct special 

data sets as needed to support TPC analyses that cannot be accomplished using either the 

adult core data base alone, or, if it is developed and implemented, the juvenile core data 

base alone. Individuals to be included in special data sets may be identified via analyses 

of a core data base, but a special data set will also incorporate information which is not 

included in a core data base and may include information from parties who do not 

contribute data to a core data base. Special data sets will be developed and analyzed 

pursuant to data project descriptions and data project certifications, according to 

procedures detailed in paragraphs 30 through 38 of this agreement. 

7. Match person or case identifiers in advance. In order to expedite the eventual 

construction and analysis of special data sets when the need arises, the parties intend to 

undertake advance matching of person or case identifiers for individuals in the release 

cohorts represented in the adult core data base to the person or case identifiers that serve 

as links to case-level data in the parties’ respective data systems. 

8. Limit release of data and findings. Data sets and analytic findings produced pursuant to 

this agreement are intended to be used for TPC purposes only. No individual level 

information will be disclosed to anyone except those specified as data recipients in an 

applicable data project certification that conforms to the confidentiality protections 

specified in paragraphs 21 through 38 of this agreement. Aggregate findings will not be 

released to any person or organization other than the TPC Steering Committee, its 

workgroups, and the agencies that contributed data, without the approval of the Steering 

Committee and the agencies that contributed data. 

9. Decline under exceptional circumstances. A party may decline to supply data or conduct 

analyses requested by the TPC Steering Committee or its workgroups, provided the party 

explains to the Steering Committee in writing why supplying the requested data or 

conducting the requested analyses is either illegal or not feasible. 

TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 185 
Definitions 

10. TPC analysis means a qualitative or quantitative analysis of offender characteristics and 

circumstances, case processing decisions, case plans and planning processes, or services 

and other interventions for offenders transitioning from prison to community, conducted 

at the request of the TPC Steering Committee or its workgroups, or proposed by the TPC 

Research and Information Support Team and endorsed by the Steering Committee. 

11. Data project means a set of activities undertaken to combine data provided by more than 

one of the parties to this agreement, or to provide data maintained by one agency to 

analysts in another agency, and to conduct one or more TPC analyses using the shared 

data set. The data to be incorporated in a data project could come from existing 

electronic data bases, or a data project could include conducting original interviews, 

conducting original surveys, or conducting original data collection from paper case files. 

12. Data Project Description (DPD) means a document describing the purposes and methods 

of a proposed data project. A DPD is required as part of the process of certifying that a 

proposed data project complies with the provisions of this MOU. 

13. Certification means a document, signed by the parties serving as data providers and data 

recipients for a data project detailed in an accompanying data project description, which 

attests to the fact that the data project complies with the provisions of this MOU. 

14. For any given data project, an agency that is a party to this agreement may serve as a data 

provider, a data recipient, or the lead agency, or may serve any combination of these 

functions: 

a. Data provider means a party to this agreement that provides data to another party 

to this agreement pursuant to a certified data project, in a manner consistent with 

applicable rules, regulations, statutes, and the provisions of this MOU. 

b. Data recipient means a party to this agreement that receives data from another 

party to this agreement pursuant to a certified data project, in a manner consistent 

with applicable rules, regulations, statutes, and the provisions of this MOU. A 

data recipient may also be a data provider, when a data recipient combines data 

from two or more data providers, then forwards the combined data set to another 

data recipient or returns the combined data set to the original data provider. 

c. Lead agency means a party to this agreement that accepts responsibility for 

preparing the data project description for a given data project and for coordinating 

data preparation and TPC analyses for that project. The lead agency usually will 

also be the party taking responsibility for conducting the TPC analyses for a given 

data project, but there will be exceptions due to limitations on sharing data held 

by certain agencies. 

15. Aggregated data set means a data set providing information on some number of variables 

(P), provided as counts of the numbers of cases with each unique combination of values 

for the P variables. Combinations with fewer than 5 cases are excluded, so that it is not 

possible to identify individual persons either directly or indirectly. An aggregate data set 

may be provided in one of the following equivalent formats: 

a. a P-way table, in which each cell corresponds to a unique combination of values 

for the P variables, each cell contains a count of the number of cases having the 

186 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
corresponding combination of values, and the count in each cell is either zero or 

at least five; or 

b. a data file containing one record for each case, in which each record contains the 

values for the P variables in the corresponding case, and there are either zero 

records (no cases) or at least five records (>= 5 cases) having each unique 

combination of values for the P variables that occurs in the data set; or 

c. a data file containing one record for each unique combination of values for the P 

variables that occurs in the data set, in which is recorded the P values that define a 

unique combination and the number of cases (at least five) having the 

corresponding combination of values. 

16. De-identified data set is defined in this agreement according to the stringent criteria 

adopted in the OMH privacy policy. A data set is considered de-identified if either 

condition (a) or condition (b) is satisfied: 

a. all of the following identifiers of the individual (and relatives, employers, or 

household members) are removed: 

i. Names; 

ii. All geographic subdivisions smaller than a State, including street address, 

city, county, precinct, zip code, and their equivalent geocodes (except that 

including the initial 3 digits of a zip code is permissible if the 

corresponding geographic area contains more than 20,000 people); 

iii. Elements of dates (except year) directly related to the individual, and all 

ages and elements of dates that indicate age for individuals over 89, unless 

aggregated into a single category of age 90 and older; 

iv. Telephone numbers; fax numbers; email addresses; social security 

numbers; medical record numbers; health plan beneficiary numbers; 

account numbers; certificate or license numbers; vehicle identifiers and 

serial numbers, including license plate numbers; device identifiers and 

serial numbers; 

v. Web Universal Resource Locators (URLs); 

vi. Internet Protocol (IP) address numbers; 

vii. Biometric identifiers; 

viii. Full face photographic images; and 

ix. Any other personally unique identifying number, characteristic, or code 

(e.g., indictment numbers or docket numbers); OR 

b. A person who is employed by the data provider, who has appropriate knowledge 

and experience with generally acceptable statistical and scientific principles and 

methods, determines that the risk is very small that the information could be used, 

alone or with other reasonably available information, to identify the individual 

who is the subject of the information. 

17. Limited data set means a data set that excludes the following direct identifiers of the 

individual or of relatives, employers, or household members of the individual: 

a. Names; 

b. Postal address information, other than town or city, State, and zip code; (County 

may be included because it is not considered postal address information for this 

purpose); 

TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 187 
c. Telephone numbers; fax numbers; email addresses; social security numbers; 

medical record numbers; health plan beneficiary numbers; account numbers; 

certificate or license numbers; vehicle identifiers and serial numbers, including 

license plate numbers; device identifiers and serial numbers; 

d. Web Universal Resource Locators (URLs); 

e. Internet Protocol (IP) address numbers; 

f. Biometric identifiers; and 

g. Full face photographic images; 

18. Identifiable data set means a data set that does not qualify as an aggregate data set, a deidentified data set, or a limited data set according to the criteria specified in this 

agreement. 

19. Adult core data base means a data set combining information from existing DOCS, 

DOP, and DCJS data bases, made available to DOCS, DOP, and DCJS analysts without 

the necessity of further approvals, for the purpose of conducting TPC analyses as the 

need for such analyses arise. 

20. Special data set means a data set that includes information that is not available in the 

adult core data base, usually (but not necessarily) combined with information from the 

adult core data base. A special data set is constructed pursuant to a certified data project, 

incorporates information from one or more of the data providers identified in the 

certification, and is made available for TPC analyses to one or more of the data recipients 

identified in the certification, as provided in the associated data project description. 

Confidentiality Safeguards Applicable to All Participating Agencies 

21. Data recipients may use data received from other parties pursuant to this agreement only 

for TPC purposes, as described in the applicable data project descriptions. 

22. Data recipients will not combine information in a certified data set with information from 

sources other than those authorized in the applicable data project descriptions. 

23. Data recipients will restrict access to data received from other parties to those employees 

whose responsibilities require access to accomplish the functions authorized in the 

applicable data project descriptions. 

24. Data recipients will store all physical media containing individually identifiable 

information in secure locations. 

25. Data recipients will refrain from adding any information that would make the records 

more identifiable than specified in the applicable data project descriptions. 

26. Data recipients will retain the data only as long as necessary to effectuate the purposes 

specified in the applicable data project descriptions. Upon completion of the TPC 

analyses, the data recipients agree to return or, with the consent of the providing 

agencies, destroy all confidential or proprietary information. Destruction includes the 

complete purging of all confidential information from all computers and back up media 

storage. 

27. Data recipients will permit data providers to monitor, audit, and review activities of 

receiving agencies to assure compliance with this agreement. 

188 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
28. Data recipients will not disclose individual level information received from data 

providers to any other person or organization, except as explicitly authorized in the 

applicable data project description and certification. 

29. No party to this agreement may disclose to any other party to this agreement any 

chemical dependence treatment information that is governed by 42 CFR Part 2 in a form 

that permits it to be linked to an identifiable individual, nor any information that 

identifies individuals as chemical dependency treatment participants, without the written 

consent of each individual who is the subject of such data. Additionally, no party to this 

agreement may disclose to any other party to this agreement any information that 

identifies an individual’s HIV status. 

Agency-Specific Provisions 

30. DCJS can provide criminal history information under the following conditions: DCJS 

can provide aggregate data sets without restriction; can provide identifiable data sets, 

limited data sets, or de-identified data sets from which sealed cases have been excluded; 

and can also provide data sets which include sealed cases, dates, and geographic 

subdivisions, provided that such data sets are otherwise de-identified. DCJS can serve as 

a data recipient and, resources permitting, can match data sets, conduct person-level 

analyses on matched data sets, and provide matched data sets (either identifiable, limited, 

or de-identified, as permitted by the laws, rules, and regulations governing data 

disclosure by DCJS and the other parties contributing data to the matched data sets) to 

other parties to this agreement serving as data recipients, pursuant to applicable data 

project descriptions. 

31. DOCS can provide aggregate data sets, de-identified data sets, limited data sets, or 

identifiable data sets, pursuant to certified data projects that comply in all other respects 

to the provisions of this agreement. DOCS can serve as a data recipient and, resources 

permitting, can match data sets, conduct person-level analyses on matched data sets, and 

provide matched data sets (either identifiable, limited, or de-identified, as permitted by 

the laws, rules, and regulations governing data disclosure by DOCS and the other parties 

contributing data to the matched data sets) to other parties to this agreement serving as 

data recipients, pursuant to applicable Data Project Descriptions. 

32. DOP can provide aggregate data sets, de-identified data sets, limited data sets, or 

identifiable data sets, pursuant to certified data projects that comply in all other respects 

to the provisions of this agreement. DOP can serve as a data recipient and, resources 

permitting, can match data sets, conduct person-level analyses on matched data sets, and 

provide matched data sets (either identifiable, limited, or de-identified, as permitted by 

the laws, rules, and regulations governing data disclosure by DOP and the other parties 

contributing data to the matched data sets) to other parties to this agreement serving as 

data recipients, pursuant to applicable Data Project Descriptions. 

33. DOH can provide aggregated data sets but cannot release individual level data (neither 

identifiable, limited, nor de-identified data sets) for the purposes of TPC analyses. DOH 

can serve as a data recipient for client identifying data and, resources permitting, can 

match data sets and conduct client level analyses on matched data sets. 

34. DOL is prohibited by federal and state privacy statutes and regulations from sharing 

client identifying data without a specific release from each client. However, DOL can 

TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 189 
serve as a data recipient for client identifying data and, resources permitting, match data 

sets and conduct client level analyses on matched data sets. Nonetheless, DOL is limited 

to providing only aggregate data and reports, and de-identified data sets, to other parties 

absent individual specific releases from each client. 

35. DPCA can provide aggregate data sets from the Integrated Probation Registration System 

without restriction and other such data sets from which sealed cases have been excluded 

or de-identified or as otherwise not restricted. It is further understood that any data 

physically maintained on behalf of DPCA by DCJS is within DPCA control for purposes 

of this MOU. 

36. OASAS is prohibited by federal privacy regulations from sharing client identifying data 

without a specific release from each client. OASAS can serve as a data recipient for client 

identifying data and, resources permitting, match data sets and conduct client level 

analyses on matched data sets. In the absence of client consent, OASAS is limited to 

providing only aggregate data sets and reports to other parties. 

37. OCFS may provide, resources permitting, aggregate data sets, de-identified data sets, 

limited data sets, or identifiable data sets pursuant to certified data projects and, resources 

permitting, can match data sets, conduct person-level analyses on matched data sets, and 

provide matched data sets (either identifiable, limited, or de-identified, as permitted by 

the laws, rules, and regulations governing data disclosure by OCFS) to other parties to 

this agreement serving as data recipients, pursuant to applicable Data Project 

Descriptions. 

38. OMH may provide health information in aggregated data sets or de-identified data sets. 

OMH may also provide health information in limited data sets pursuant to a standard 

Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreement and a Data Exchange Agreement, 

provided the proposed use of the data is judged by OMH to constitute bona fide research. 

OMH can serve as a data recipient for client identifying data and, resources permitting, 

match data sets and conduct client level analyses on matched data sets. 

Request and Certification Procedures 

39. Each instance of a need to prepare and analyze a special data set requires a separate data 

project description and data project certification. 

40. One of the parties to this agreement will be designated to serve as the lead agency for 

each data project, based on the recommendation of the Research and Information Support 

Team chairperson, with the approval of the Steering Committee representatives from the 

agencies participating in the data project. 

41. The Research and Information Support Team representative from the lead agency will 

coordinate preparation of the data project description, certification by the parties serving 

as data providers and data recipients for the data project, construction and maintenance of 

the necessary data set, and the analyses specified in the data project description. 

42. The data project description must include the following elements: 

a. The purpose of the project and the questions to be addressed by the project; 

b. A definition of the cohort or sample of cases to be analyzed and an explanation of 

how cases will be identified and selected; 

c. Identification of the parties that will serve as data providers and data recipients; 

190 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
d. A list of the data elements or explanation of the types of data needed to support 

the proposed analyses, presented separately for each prospective data provider; 

e. An explanation of matching criteria and procedures, including matching sequence 

if more than two data providers will be contributing data; 

f. A summary of anticipated analyses and products; and 

g. Designation of the party or parties to conduct analyses. 

43. The data project description will be reviewed for feasibility and compliance with the 

provisions of this agreement by the Research and Information Support Team 

representatives of the parties designated as data providers and data recipients for the 

proposed project, drawing on the expertise of other staff in their respective agencies as 

appropriate. 

44. If satisfied that the proposed data project complies with the provisions of this agreement 

and does not violate the policies of their respective agencies, each Research and 

Information Support Team representative of the parties designated as data providers and 

data recipients for the proposed project will sign a certification form, included with this 

MOU as Attachment A, which 

a. Identifies the parties designated as data providers and data recipients; 

b. Certifies that the associated data project description conforms in all respects to the 

requirements for a data project description as specified in this MOU and describes 

a data project that conforms in all respects to the provisions of this MOU; 

c. Certifies that individuals for whom case record data are requested are the subjects 

of bona fide TPC Analyses being conducted or coordinated by the lead agency as 

described in the associated data project description; 

d. Certifies that any data obtained by data recipients from data providers will only be 

used for the purposes described in the associated data project description; 

e. Includes a summary of the kinds of data requested from each data provider and 

certifies that the associated data project description includes a specific listing of 

the data items requested from each data provider. 

45. A completed certification form signed by the Research and Information Support Team 

representatives of the parties designated therein as data providers and data recipients shall 

constitute authorization to proceed with the data project as described in the associated 

data project description. 

Disclosure of Findings 

46. The findings of TPC analyses conducted pursuant to certified data projects will be 

reviewed by data providers to correct factual errors, misinterpretations of data elements, 

or misinterpretation of agency policies prior to being disclosed to the Steering Committee 

or its workgroups. 

47. The data exchanged among the agencies that are parties to this agreement may be 

protected by law, rule or regulation, and the findings of TPC analyses are confidential 

policy advice to the Steering Committee and its workgroups and will not be disclosed by 

any party to this agreement to any person or organization that is not party to this 

agreement without the explicit approval of the TPC Steering Committee and the agencies 

that contributed data to the analyses. 

TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 191 
Term and Termination 

48. This agreement shall take effect for each individual party immediately upon signature by 

that party, and shall remain in effect for each individual party so long as that party 

remains committed to the TPC data sharing initiative. 

49. Each party shall have the right to terminate its participation in this agreement 

immediately upon written notice to the other parties. 

50. This agreement may be modified or amended upon written notice of approval by a 

majority of members of the TPC Steering Committee and the unanimous written consent 

of the parties to this agreement. 

192 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
Signatures 

51. In witness whereof, the parties signed this agreement on the day and year appearing 

opposite their respective signatures. 

NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES 

By: _________________________________ Title: ______________________________________ 

Date: ____________ 

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES 

By: _________________________________ Title: ______________________________________ 

Date: ____________ 

NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF PAROLE 

By: _________________________________ Title: ______________________________________ 

Date: ____________ 

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 

By: _________________________________ Title: ______________________________________ 

Date: ____________ 

NEW YORK STATE DEPARMENT OF LABOR 

By: _________________________________ Title: ______________________________________ 

Date: ____________ 

NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL 

By: _________________________________ Title: ______________________________________ 

Date: ____________ 

NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF PROBATION AND CORRECTIONAL ALTERNATIVES 

By: _________________________________ Title: ______________________________________ 

Date: ____________ 

NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF ALCOHOLISM AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE SERVICES 

By: _________________________________ Title: ______________________________________ 

Date: ____________ 

NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES 

By: _________________________________ Title: ______________________________________ 

Date: ____________ 

TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 193 
NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF MENTAL HEALTH 

By: _________________________________ Title: ______________________________________ 

Date: ____________ 

NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF MENTAL RETARDATION AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES 

By: _________________________________ Title: ______________________________________ 

Date: ____________ 

NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF TEMPORARY AND DISTABILITY ASSISTANCE 

By: _________________________________ Title: ______________________________________ 

Date: ____________ 

194 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
ATTACHMENT A: CERTIFICATION FORM 

Certification by Data Recipients 

WHEREAS, the data recipients listed below request permission from the data providers listed below to compile and 

analyze certain case record information specified in the attached Data Project Description, in accordance with the 

provisions of the attached “Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Sharing Of Data And Other Data Analysis 

Resources Among Agencies Participating In The New York State Transition From Prison To Community Initiative” 

(hereinafter “the MOU”) first executed on <mm/dd/yyyy>; 

1. The undersigned data recipients certify that the attached Data Project Description conforms in all respects 

to the requirements for a Data Project Description as specified in the attached MOU and describes a data 

project that conforms in all respects with the provisions of the attached MOU; 

2. The undersigned further certify that the individuals for whom case record data are requested are the 

subjects of bona fide TPC Analyses being conducted or coordinated by the Lead Agency as described in the 

attached Data Project Description; 

3. The undersigned further certify that any data obtained from data providers pertaining to the individuals for 

whom case record data are requested will only be used for the purposes described in the attached Data 

Project Description; 

4. The undersigned further certify that the attached Data Project Description includes a specific listing of the 

data items requested from each data provider, which listing may be summarized as follows: 

<brief paragraph summarizing kinds of data requested to be inserted here> 

5. The undersigned further certify that only the appropriate data managers and analysts of the data recipients 

or their agents will have access to the data, and that the data recipients and their agents will comply in all 

respects with the procedures, requirements, and conditions specified in the MOU 

Research and Information Support Team (RIST) 

Representative 

Data Recipients Date 

Name Title Signature 

(Lead Agency) 

TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 195 
CERTIFICATION FORM (CONTINUED) 

Approval by Data Providers 

The undersigned agree that the data providers listed herein shall provide the items of case record information 

specified in the attached Data Project Description, to the extent such items are contained in data providers’ files, 

subject to the terms and conditions of the attached MOU. 

Research and Information Support Team (RIST) 

Representative 

Data Providers Date 

Name Title Signature 

196 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
Example 19. 

New York Presents an 

Information Strategy 

TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 197 
198 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 199 
Example 20. 

Oregon’s Legislation Requiring 

Evidence-Based Practice 

200 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
72nd OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2003 Regular Session 

Enrolled 

Senate Bill 267 

Sponsored by COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY (at the request of AFSCME Council 75) 

CHAPTER ................................................. 

AN ACT 

Relating to public safety; creating new provisions; amending ORS 181.620 and 181.637; and declaring 

an emergency. 

Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon: 

SECTION 1. ORS 181.620 is amended to read: 

181.620. (1) The Governor shall appoint a Board on Public Safety Standards and Training consisting of

 [23] 24 members as follows: 

(a) Two members shall be chiefs of police recommended to the Governor by the Oregon Association of

 Chiefs of Police; 

(b) One member shall be a sheriff recommended to the Governor by the Oregon State Sheriffs’ 

Association; 

(c) One member shall be a fire chief recommended to the Governor by the Oregon Fire Chiefs’ 

Association; 

(d) One member shall be a representative of the fire service recommended to the Governor by 

the Oregon Fire District Directors’ Association; 

(e) One member shall be a member of the Oregon State Fire Fighter’s Council recommended to 

the Governor by the executive body of the council; 

(f) One member shall be a representative of corrections personnel recommended to the Governor 

by the Oregon State Sheriffs’ Association; 

(g) One member shall be a representative of the fire service recommended to the Governor by 

the Oregon Volunteer Fire Fighters’ Association; 

(h) One member shall be a representative of public safety telecommunicators; 

(i) One member shall be a district attorney recommended to the Governor by the Oregon District 

Attorneys Association; 

(j) One member shall be the Superintendent of State Police; 

(k) One member shall be the Chief of the Portland Police Bureau; 

(L) One member shall be the State Fire Marshal; 

(m) One member shall be the Chief of the Portland Fire Bureau; 

(n) One member shall be the Director of the Department of Corrections; 

(o) One member shall be the Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation for 

Oregon; 

(p) One member shall represent forest protection agencies recommended to the Governor by the 

State Forestry Department; 

(q) One member shall be an administrator of a municipality recommended to the Governor by 

the executive body of the League of Oregon Cities; 

(r) Two members shall be nonmanagement representatives of law enforcement; 

(s) One member shall be a public member. A person appointed as a public member under this 

section shall be a person: 

TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 201 
(A) Who has no personal interest or occupational responsibilities in the area of responsibility 

given to the board; and 

(B) Who represents the interests of the public in general; [and] 

(t) Two members shall be representatives of the private security industry recommended to the 

Governor by the Advisory Committee on Private Security Services; and 

(u) One member shall be a representative of the collective bargaining unit that represents 

the largest number of individual workers in the Department of Corrections. 

(2) The term of office of a member is three years, and no member may be removed from office 

except for cause. Before the expiration of the term of a member, the Governor shall appoint the 

member’s successor to assume the member’s duties on July 1 next following. In case of a vacancy 

for any cause, the Governor shall make an appointment, effective immediately, for the unexpired 

term. 

(3) Except for members who serve by virtue of office, no member shall serve more than two 

terms. For purposes of this subsection, a person appointed to fill a vacancy consisting of an unexpired term 

of at least one and one-half years has served a full term. 

(4) Appointments of members of the board by the Governor, except for those members who serve 

by virtue of office, are subject to confirmation by the Senate in the manner provided in ORS 171.562 and 

171.565. 

(5) A member of the board is entitled to compensation and expenses as provided in ORS 292.495. 

SECTION 2. ORS 181.637 is amended to read: 

181.637. (1) The Board on Public Safety Standards and Training shall establish the following 

policy committees: 

(a) Corrections Policy Committee; 

(b) Fire Policy Committee; 

(c) Police Policy Committee; and 

(d) Telecommunications Policy Committee. 

(2) The members of each policy committee shall select a chairperson and vice chairperson for 

the policy committee. Only members of the policy committee who are also members of the board are 

eligible to serve as a chairperson or vice chairperson. The vice chairperson may act as chairperson in the 

absence of the chairperson. 

(3) The Corrections Policy Committee consists of: 

(a) All of the board members who represent the corrections discipline; 

(b) The chief administrative officer of the training division of the Department of Corrections; 

(c) A security manager from the Department of Corrections; and 

(d) The following, who may not be current board members, appointed by the chairperson of the 

board: 

(A) One person recommended by and representing the Oregon State Sheriffs’ Association; 

(B) Two persons recommended by and representing the Oregon Jail Managers’ Association; 

(C) One person recommended by and representing a statewide association of community corrections 

directors; [and] 

(D) One nonmanagement corrections officer employed by the Department of Corrections; and 

(E) One corrections officer who is a female, who is employed by the Department of Corrections 

at a women’s correctional facility and who is a member of a bargaining unit. 

(4) The Fire Policy Committee consists of: 

(a) All of the board members who represent the fire service discipline; and 

(b) The following, who may not be current board members, appointed by the chairperson of the 

board: 

(A) One person recommended by and representing a statewide association of fire instructors; 

(B) One person recommended by and representing a statewide association of fire marshals; 

(C) One person recommended by and representing community college fire programs; and 

(D) One nonmanagement firefighter recommended by a statewide organization of firefighters. 

(5) The Police Policy Committee consists of: 

(a) All of the board members who represent the law enforcement discipline; and 

(b) The following, who may not be current board members, appointed by the chairperson of the 

board: 

(A) One person recommended by and representing the Oregon Association of Chiefs of Police; 

202 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
(B) Two persons recommended by and representing the Oregon State Sheriffs’ Association; 

(C) One command officer recommended by and representing the Oregon State Police; and 

(D) One nonmanagement law enforcement officer. 

(6) The Telecommunications Policy Committee consists of: 

(a) All of the board members who represent the telecommunications discipline; and 

(b) The following, who may not be current board members, appointed by the chairperson of the 

board: 

(A) Two persons recommended by and representing a statewide association of public safety 

communications officers; 

(B) One person recommended by and representing the Oregon Association of Chiefs of Police; 

(C) One person recommended by and representing the Oregon State Police; 

(D) Two persons representing telecommunicators; 

(E) One person recommended by and representing the Oregon State Sheriffs’ Association; 

(F) One person recommended by and representing the Oregon Fire Chiefs’ Association; 

(G) One person recommended by and representing the Emergency Medical Services and Trauma 

Systems Program of the Department of Human Services; and 

(H) One person representing paramedics and recommended by a statewide association dealing 

with fire medical issues. 

(7) In making appointments to the policy committees under this section, the chairperson of the 

board shall seek to reflect the diversity of the state’s population. An appointment made by the 

chairperson of the board must be ratified by the board before the appointment is effective. The 

chairperson of the board may remove an appointed member for just cause. An appointment to a 

policy committee that is based on the member’s employment is automatically revoked if the member 

changes employment. The chairperson of the board shall fill a vacancy in the same manner as making an 

initial appointment. The term of an appointed member is two years. An appointed member may be 

appointed to a second term. 

(8) A policy committee may meet at such times and places as determined by the policy committee 

in consultation with the board. A majority of a policy committee constitutes a quorum to conduct 

business. A policy committee may create subcommittees if needed. 

(9)(a) Each policy committee shall develop policies, requirements, standards and rules relating 

to its specific discipline. A policy committee shall submit its policies, requirements, standards and 

rules to the board for the board’s consideration. When a policy committee submits a policy, requirement, 

standard or rule to the board for the board’s consideration, the board shall: 

(A) Approve the policy, requirement, standard or rule; 

(B) Disapprove the policy, requirement, standard or rule; or 

(C) Defer a decision and return the matter to the policy committee for revision or reconsideration. 

(b) The board may defer a decision and return a matter submitted by a policy committee under 

paragraph (a) of this subsection only once. If a policy, requirement, standard or rule that was returned to a 

policy committee is resubmitted to the board, the board shall take all actions necessary to implement the 

policy, requirement, standard or rule unless the board disapproves the policy, requirement, standard or rule. 

(c) Disapproval of a policy, requirement, standard or rule under paragraph (a) or (b) of this 

subsection requires a two-thirds vote by the members of the board. 

(10) At any time after submitting a matter to the board, the chairperson of the policy committee 

may withdraw the matter from the board’s consideration. 

SECTION 3. As used in this section and section 7 of this 2003 Act: 

(1) “Agency” means: 

(a) The Department of Corrections; 

(b) The Oregon Youth Authority; 

(c) The State Commission on Children and Families; 

(d) That part of the Department of Human Services that deals with mental health and 

addiction issues; and 

(e) The Oregon Criminal Justice Commission. 

(2) “Cost effective” means that cost savings realized over a reasonable period of time are 

greater than costs. 

(3) “Evidence-based program” means a program that: 

TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 203 
(a) Incorporates significant and relevant practices based on scientifically based research; 

and 

(b) Is cost effective. 

(4)(a) “Program” means a treatment or intervention program or service that is intended to: 

(A) Reduce the propensity of a person to commit crimes; 

(B) Improve the mental health of a person with the result of reducing the likelihood that 

the person will commit a crime or need emergency mental health services; or 

(C) Reduce the propensity of a person who is less than 18 years of age to engage in 

antisocial behavior with the result of reducing the likelihood that the person will become a 

juvenile offender. 

(b) “Program” does not include: 

(A) An educational program or service that an agency is required to provide to meet 

educational requirements imposed by state law; or 

(B) A program that provides basic medical services. 

(5) “Scientifically based research” means research that obtains reliable and valid knowledge by: 

(a) Employing systematic, empirical methods that draw on observation or experiment; 

(b) Involving rigorous data analyses that are adequate to test the stated hypotheses and 

justify the general conclusions drawn; and 

(c) Relying on measurements or observational methods that provide reliable and valid 

data across evaluators and observers, across multiple measurements and observations and 

across studies by the same or different investigators. 

SECTION 4. As used in sections 5 and 6 of this 2003 Act, “agency,” “cost effective,” 

“evidence-based program” and “program” have the meanings given those terms in section 3 

of this 2003 Act. 

SECTION 5. (1) For the biennium beginning July 1, 2005, the Department of Corrections, 

the Oregon Youth Authority, the State Commission on Children and Families, that part of 

the Department of Human Services that deals with mental health and addiction issues and 

the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission shall spend at least 25 percent of state moneys that 

each agency receives for programs on evidence-based programs. 

(2) Each agency shall submit a report containing: 

(a) An assessment of each program on which the agency expends funds, including but 

not limited to whether the program is an evidence-based program; 

(b) The percentage of state moneys the agency receives for programs that is being expended 

on evidence-based programs; 

(c) The percentage of federal and other moneys the agency receives for programs that 

is being expended on evidence-based programs; and 

(d) A description of the efforts the agency is making to meet the requirements of subsection 

(1) of this section and sections 6 (1) and 7 (1) of this 2003 Act. 

(3) The agencies shall submit the reports required by subsection (2) of this section no 

later than September 30, 2006, to the interim legislative committee dealing with judicial 

matters. 

(4) If an agency, during the biennium beginning July 1, 2005, spends more than 75 percent 

of the state moneys that the agency receives for programs on programs that are not evidence 

based, the Legislative Assembly shall consider the agency’s failure to meet the requirement 

of subsection (1) of this section in making appropriations to the agency for the 

following biennium. 

(5) Each agency may adopt rules necessary to carry out the provisions of this section, 

including but not limited to rules defining a reasonable period of time for purposes of determining 

cost effectiveness. 

SECTION 6. (1) For the biennium beginning July 1, 2007, the Department of Corrections, 

the Oregon Youth Authority, the State Commission on Children and Families, that part of 

the Department of Human Services that deals with mental health and addiction issues and 

the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission shall spend at least 50 percent of state moneys that 

each agency receives for programs on evidence-based programs. 

(2) Each agency shall submit a report containing: 

(a) An assessment of each program on which the agency expends funds, including but 

204 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
not limited to whether the program is an evidence-based program; 

(b) The percentage of state moneys the agency receives for programs that is being expended 

on evidence-based programs; 

(c) The percentage of federal and other moneys the agency receives for programs that 

is being expended on evidence-based programs; and 

(d) A description of the efforts the agency is making to meet the requirements of subsection 

(1) of this section and section 7 (1) of this 2003 Act. 

(3) The agencies shall submit the reports required by subsection (2) of this section no 

later than September 30, 2008, to the interim legislative committee dealing with judicial 

matters. 

(4) If an agency, during the biennium beginning July 1, 2007, spends more than 50 percent 

of the state moneys that the agency receives for programs on programs that are not evidence 

based, the Legislative Assembly shall consider the agency’s failure to meet the requirement 

of subsection (1) of this section in making appropriations to the agency for the 

following biennium. 

(5) Each agency may adopt rules necessary to carry out the provisions of this section, 

including but not limited to rules defining a reasonable period of time for purposes of determining 

cost effectiveness. 

SECTION 7. (1) The Department of Corrections, the Oregon Youth Authority, the State 

Commission on Children and Families, that part of the Department of Human Services that 

deals with mental health and addiction issues and the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission 

shall spend at least 75 percent of state moneys that each agency receives for programs on 

evidence-based programs. 

(2) Each agency shall submit a biennial report containing: 

(a) An assessment of each program on which the agency expends funds, including but 

not limited to whether the program is an evidence-based program; 

(b) The percentage of state moneys the agency receives for programs that is being expended 

on evidence-based programs; 

(c) The percentage of federal and other moneys the agency receives for programs that 

is being expended on evidence-based programs; and 

(d) A description of the efforts the agency is making to meet the requirement of subsection 

(1) of this section. 

(3) The agencies shall submit the reports required by subsection (2) of this section no 

later than September 30 of each even-numbered year to the interim legislative committee 

dealing with judicial matters. 

(4) If an agency, in any biennium, spends more than 25 percent of the state moneys that 

the agency receives for programs on programs that are not evidence based, the Legislative 

Assembly shall consider the agency’s failure to meet the requirement of subsection (1) of 

this section in making appropriations to the agency for the following biennium. 

(5) Each agency may adopt rules necessary to carry out the provisions of this section, 

including but not limited to rules defining a reasonable period of time for purposes of determining 

cost effectiveness. 

SECTION 8. The provisions of section 7 of this 2003 Act apply to biennia beginning on or 

after July 1, 2009. 

SECTION 9. (1) As used in this section, “agency,” “evidence-based program” and “program” 

have the meanings given those terms in section 3 of this 2003 Act. 

(2) Each agency shall conduct an assessment of existing programs and establish goals 

that enable the agency to meet the requirements of sections 5 (1), 6 (1) and 7 (1) of this 2003 

Act. Each agency shall work with interested persons to establish the goals and to develop 

a process for meeting the goals. 

(3) No later than September 30, 2004, each agency shall submit a report containing: 

(a) An assessment of each program on which the agency expends funds, including but 

not limited to whether the program is an evidence-based program; 

(b) The percentage of state moneys the agency receives for programs that is being expended 

on evidence-based programs; 

TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 205 
(c) The percentage of federal and other moneys the agency receives for programs that 

is being expended on evidence-based programs; and 

(d) A description of the efforts the agency is making to meet the requirements of 

sections 5 (1), 6 (1) and 7 (1) of this 2003 Act. 

SECTION 10. This 2003 Act being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public 

peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this 2003 Act takes effect 

on its passage. 

Passed by Senate March 5, 2003 Received by Governor: 

......................M.,.............................................., 2003 

Repassed by Senate July 24, 2003 

Approved: 

........................M.,............................................., 2003 

............................................... 

 Secretary of Senate 

............................................................................. 

................................................ Governor 

President of Senate 

Passed by House June 24, 2003 Filed in Office of Secretary of State: 

Repassed by House July 29, 2003 .......................M.,............................................... 2003 

 ................................................................ ...................................................... 

Speaker of House Secretary of State 

206 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
Example 21. Indiana’s Gap Analysis and Targets of Change 

INDIANA OFFENDER REINTEGRATION PROJECT 

First Report: Laying the Foundation 

Overview 

The State of Indiana was selected by the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) to participate in 

the model reentry project titled, “Transition from Prison to Community Initiative” (TPC). 

Indiana’s Offender Reintegration Project (IORP) is based on the TPC model. IORP is designed 

to promote successful offender community reintegration upon release from prison by employing 

research-based practices in a case management approach to effectively address offender risks 

and needs while protecting public safety. This public safety-focused model is “. . . organized 

around identifying factors that put offenders at increased risk of recidivism, and engaging those 

offenders in treatment, programming, or supervision strategies that modify those factors, 

thereby lowering their odds of committing crimes after release.” 

Indiana’s Offender Reintegration Project represents a substantial shift in criminal justice 

practices based on proven methods for ending the cycle of recidivism. IORP promotes 

collaborative efforts to help offenders return to their communities as productive citizens. 

Through the project, state and local agencies, organizations, and businesses will join forces to 

identify and provide the unique combination of services needed to successfully guide these men 

and women as they leave the criminal justice system and return home. 

The goals of the Indiana Offender Reintegration Project are to promote public safety and reduce 

recidivism. 

Analysis Findings and Recommendations 

The Steering Committee for Indiana’s Offender Reintegration Project conducted a “gap 

analysis” to compare Indiana’s current policies and practices related to the transition from prison 

to community to a National Institute of Corrections’ model for offender reentry. Work Groups 

comprised of Steering Committee members were formed to answer strategic planning questions 

in each of the seven functional areas potentially requiring reform based on the model. 

Recommendations stemming from Indiana’s gap analysis are: 

1. Resource allocation must be focused on offenders who are at highest risk to re-offend 

and pose the greatest threat to public safety upon release. 

2. Develop a system for sharing information among the various components of the criminal 

justice system and its community partners to obtain comprehensive and timely offender 

information. 

3. Enhance and implement comprehensive procedures to systematically assess offender 

security risk level and program/treatment/service needs upon admission to the 

Department of Correction. 

TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 207 
4. Ensure each offender is housed in the most appropriate custody level while maintaining 

access to programs and services needed to reduce recidivism upon release. 

5. Periodically update offender assessments, including prior to release from prison. 

6. Develop Transition Accountability Plans (TAP; i.e., an offender’s reintegration plan) for 

all offenders upon admission to the Department of Correction. 

7. Identify justice system and community stakeholders to be involved in the development of 

the TAP and create procedures for this interdisciplinary work. 

8. TAP must be based on comprehensive assessments of offender risk, background, 

criminal history, treatment/program/service needs, etc. 

9. The TAP should be used as a guide or blueprint for the treatment, programs, and 

/services an offenders needs, beginning in the correctional setting. 

10. The TAP should be considered as an evolving blueprint and should be updated as 

necessary based on new assessments and information about the progress of 

intervention efforts. 

11. TAP programs should (a) be research-based and positively affect factors which lead to 

recidivism upon release, (b) address identified dynamic risk factors, and (c) employ 

standardized curricula system-wide. 

12. Identify staff responsible for implementation of the TAP when an offender is under 

correctional custody. 

13. Establish rewards and sanctions to hold offenders accountable to the TAP (both in 

prison and upon release to the community). 

14. Establish procedures to transition the TAP from the Department of Correction to the 

community when an offender is released. 

15. Identify parties responsible for implementation of the TAP when an offender is released 

into the community. 

16. Review existing laws, rules, and administrative practices which might bar offenders from 

basic needs (e.g., employment) and services (e.g., welfare benefits). 

17. The TAP should be considered as an evolving blueprint and should be updated as 

necessary based on new assessments and information about the progress of community 

intervention efforts. 

18. Community supervision levels and services should follow from the TAP. 

19. Identify staff responsible for implementation of community supervision responsibilities 

under the TAP. 

20. Examine programs currently being offered in communities to ensure (a) that they are 

research-based and sustain reductions in recidivism upon release and (b) enhance 

208 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
community capacity to achieve baseline programs and services needed by offenders 

(e.g., housing, jobs, food, mental/medical health, substance abuse, etc.). 

21. Develop performance-based accountability procedures for community providers offering 

programs and treatment to offenders who are still under the jurisdiction of the justice 

system. 

22. Develop standardized responses (i.e., sanctions and rewards) for TAP violations and 

accomplishments. 

23. Tie responses to violations and accomplishments to the TAP. 

24. Develop a standardized process for early discharge from community supervision based 

on demonstrated reduction in dynamic risk factors. 

25. Establish a process to transition responsibility for post-discharge activities to the exoffender and the community. 

TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 209 
THE TPC MODEL: ASSESSMENT AND CLASSIFICATION 

Assessment occurs soon after offenders are admitted to prison and is the process by which 

information is obtained about offenders that is needed to make decisions about their placement, 

management, and programming while confined, and about the timing and conditions of their release 

to the community. Assessments are used to measure offenders’ risk of engaging in behaviors of 

concern (e.g., escape while confined, recidivism after release, etc.) or the presence of specific 

strengths or deficits. Different assessments are used for measuring different aspects of offenders’ 

strengths or needs. Instruments used to predict risk of recidivism should be empirically based, 

validated on the population of offenders to which they will be applied, and should rely on objective 

and uniformly accessible variables. 

Classification is the process whereby correctional institutions use information about offenders to 

make decisions about the conditions under which they will be confined. Classification decisions 

focus on such things as inmate’s custody level and specific housing assignment. Those decisions, in 

turn, strongly affect the transition process—for example, offenders may be unable to enter a 

vocational training program (needed to lower a dynamic risk factor—lack of employable skills) until 

they are transferred to a lower custody level. 

Under the TPC both assessment and classification are conceived to be continuous—or at least, 

periodic and reiterative—processes. Offenders are re-assessed to determine their progress on 

mitigating dynamic risk factors. They are re-classified to determine if their custody levels should be 

modified based on their conduct and behavior in their current custody level. 

Source: National Institute of Corrections Transition from Prison to Community Initiative Manual 

Gap Analysis Findings: Current Practices In Indiana 

Systematic dynamic risk assessment is not currently conducted upon intake to prison with one 

exception—the LSI-R (Level of Service Inventory-Revised) is used to assess risk factors among male 

youth incarcerated as adults. Some dynamic risk factors are assessed either upon intake to the to 

the prison system or at an assigned facility, such as educational needs, mental health needs, medical 

needs, substance abuse and sex offender identification. The department is currently developing risk 

assessment instruments to be used upon admission to and prior to release from prison. 

The department currently employs a classification assessment tool to determine appropriate facility 

placement during an offender’s period of incarceration. An offender’s classification assessment is 

reviewed, at a minimum, on an annual basis. The department’s classification assessment tool and 

process are currently being revised. 

Some dynamic risk factors may be continually assessed in response to specific problems or as the 

offender progresses through applicable program components. Individualized treatment based on an 

offender-specific case management plan does not currently occur. The department is currently 

designing a case management approach to offender management. 

210 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
Steering Committee Recommendations 

1. Enhance and implement comprehensive procedures to systematically assess offender security 

risk level and program/treatment/service needs upon admission to the Department of Correction. 

2. Ensure each offender is housed in the most appropriate custody level while maintaining access 

to programs and services needed to reduce recidivism upon release. 

3. Periodically update offender assessments, including prior to release from prison. 

TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 211 
THE TPC MODEL: TRANSITION ACCOUNTABILITY PLANS (TAP) 

The Transition Accountability Plan (TAP) integrates offenders’ transition from prisons to communities 

by spanning phases in the transition process and agency boundaries. The TAP is a collaborative 

product involving prison staff, the offender, the releasing authority, community supervision officers, 

human services providers (public and/or private), victims, and neighborhood and community 

organizations. The TAP describes actions that must occur to prepare individual offenders for release 

from prison, defines terms and conditions of their release to communities, specifies the supervision 

and services they will experience in the community, and describes their eventual discharge to 

aftercare upon successful completion of supervision. The objective of the TAP is to increase both 

overall community protection by lowering risk to persons and property and by increasing individual 

offender’s prospects for successful return to and self-sufficiency in the community. 

The TAP process begins soon after offenders enter prison and continues during their terms of 

confinement, through their release from prison, and continues after their discharge from community 

supervision as an evolving framework for aftercare provided by human service agencies or other 

means of self-help and support. At each step along this continuum, the TAP is administered by a 

Transition Management Team, whose members include prison staff, parole supervision staff, and 

community agencies and service providers. The membership of the Transition Management Team 

and their respective roles and responsibilities will change over time. During the institutional phase 

prison staff may lead the team. During the reentry and community supervision phase parole officers 

may lead the team. During the reintegration phase human services agencies or community services 

providers may lead the team. After offenders have successfully completed community supervision, 

their TAP may continue and be managed by staff of human services agencies, if the former offender 

chooses to continue to seek and receive services or support. At each stage in the process Team 

members will use a case management model to monitor progress in implementing the plan. 

Source: National Institute of Corrections Transition from Prison to Community Initiative Manual 

Gap Analysis Findings: Current Practices In Indiana 

Individual offender programming and treatment based on a case management/accountability plan is 

not currently systematically employed by the Department of Correction. Current department 

procedures and programs that are consistent with the development of a TAP include risk assessment 

(as noted above); the Adult Program Management Data System; intake classification procedures and 

annual reviews of offender classification; the department’s Transition Program, and parole release 

procedures; calculation of Earliest Projected Release Dates; and the Victim/Witness Notification 

Program. 

212 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
Steering Committee Recommendations 

1. Develop Transition Accountability Plans (TAP; i.e., an offender’s reintegration plan) for all 

offenders upon admission to the Department of Correction. 

2. Identify justice system and community stakeholders to be involved in the development of the 

TAP and create procedures for this interdisciplinary work. 

3. TAP must be based on comprehensive assessments of offender risk, background, criminal 

history, treatment/program/service needs, etc. 

4. The TAP should be used as a guide or blueprint for the treatment, programs, and /services an 

offenders needs, beginning in the correctional setting. 

5. The TAP should be considered as an evolving blueprint and should be updated as necessary 

based on new assessments and information about the progress of intervention efforts. 

6. TAP programs should (a) be research-based and positively affect factors which lead to 

recidivism upon release, (b) address identified dynamic risk factors, and (c) employ standardized 

curricula system-wide. 

7. Identify staff responsible for implementation of the TAP when an offender is under correctional 

custody. 

8. Establish rewards and sanctions to hold offenders accountable to the TAP (both in prison and 

upon release to the community). 

TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 213 
THE TPC MODEL: RELEASE FROM PRISON TO THE COMMUNITY 

The model requires that jurisdictions establish target release dates for inmates early in their terms of 

imprisonment. The target release date is the benchmark around which elements of the Transition 

Accountability Plan are arranged. 

Target release dates should be established for individual inmates using processes that are fair, 

objective, equitable, and based on rational policy objectives (e.g., to impose just punishment, to 

protect public safety). The public and policy makers should understand that effective transition does 

not thwart Justice, but occurs after Justice has been served. 

Releasing authorities can establish target release dates by release guidelines or by policy statements 

applicable to general categories of inmates. We recommend that states develop and use structured 

release guidelines that incorporate validated risk-prediction instruments, and that permit policy-guided 

overrides for exceptional cases. 

We recommend that the corrections agency, releasing authority, and supervision agency have a 

consistent—even congruent—approach to risk assessment and risk management. Ideally, the 

partners in the transition process would use the same assessment instruments to predict risk of 

recidivism. This will reduce duplication and promote a consistent approach to risk management 

across agencies. If a common risk instrument is not possible, the agencies should use generically 

similar information to assess offenders’ risk. 

Source: National Institute of Corrections Transition from Prison to Community Initiative Manual 

Gap Analysis Findings: Current Practices In Indiana 

For a vast majority of Indiana’s incarcerated offenders, the Earliest Projected Release Date (EPRD) 

is statutorily determined by the length of the determinate sentence, the number of days incarcerated, 

and credit time earned. Offenders who are serving an indeterminate sentence under Indiana’s old 

criminal code, are released based on the number of days incarcerated and upon review by Indiana’s 

Parole Board. Based on county participation and judicial approval, offenders also may be released 

60 to 180 days prior to their EPRD under the Community Transition Program. 

Steering Committee Recommendations 

1. Establish procedures to transition the TAP from the Department of Correction to the community 

when an offender is released. 

2. Identify parties responsible for implementation of the TAP when an offender is released into the 

community. 

3. Review existing laws, rules, and administrative practices which might bar offenders from basic 

needs (e.g., employment) and services (e.g., welfare benefits). 

214 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
THE TPC MODEL: SUPERVISION AND SERVICES IN THE COMMUNITY 

In the community phase, the model proposes that supervision should be structured around a case 

management model. The case manager should develop a case plan for each offender, which shows 

how the community-phase of the offender’s TAP will be implemented. The case management model 

we envision is consistent with the enforcement of elements of the TAP related to public safety. Case 

management should strive for parsimony, by allocating high-cost responses, interventions and 

services to offenders who pose the greatest risk. 

The case plan is the foundation for monitoring each offender’s progress in the community, to 

intervene when needed, to advocate on behalf of those affected by the case plan, and to refer 

offenders to service providers as required. 

Source: National Institute of Corrections Transition from Prison to Community Initiative Manual 

Gap Analysis Findings: Current Practices In Indiana 

Supervision conditions are generally the sole means by which offender management in the 

community phase is individualized based on offender need. The Department of Correction’s Sex 

Offender Monitoring and Management program utilizes a case plan in a containment team structure 

during the community supervision phase, but offender assessment and case planning does not 

currently occur for all offenders during community supervision. The LSI-R (Level of Service 

Inventory-Revised) is used on a limited basis by certified parole agents. Each parole district has a 

staff Substance Abuse Counselor who develops a case plan in conjunction with the parole agent to 

monitor substance abuse. Parole has an electronic program designed to track and maintain 

individual parolee information. 

Accountability is achieved through community supervision conditions and is enforced when violations 

are detected. Positive reinforcement occurs within the supervision options available (both in intensity 

of supervision and the conditions imposed), and on an officer-by-officer basis. 

Very little formal advocacy occurs on behalf of the offender though this varies from field officer to field 

officer. Community supervision agencies actively seek community services based on offender need. 

Little or no proactive advocacy occurs on behalf of victims and other members of the community. 

Referrals (i.e., connecting offenders with appropriate community services) are made on a case-bycase basis depending on offender need, the availability of programs and services in the community, 

and the case officer involved. 

TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 215 
Steering Committee Recommendations 

1. The TAP should be considered as an evolving blueprint and should be updated as necessary 

based on new assessments and information about the progress of community intervention 

efforts. 

2. Community supervision levels and services should follow from the TAP. 

3. Identify staff responsible for implementation of community supervision responsibilities under the 

TAP. 

4. Examine programs currently being offered in communities to ensure (a) that they are researchbased and sustain reductions in recidivism upon release and (b) enhance community capacity to 

achieve baseline programs and services needed by offenders (e.g., housing, jobs, food, 

mental/medical health, substance abuse, etc.). 

5. Develop performance-based accountability procedures for community providers offering 

programs and treatment to offenders who are still under the jurisdiction of the justice system. 

216 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
THE TPC MODEL: RESPONSE TO VIOLATIONS AND 

ACCOMPLISHMENTS WHILE ON COMMUNITY SUPERVISION 

States should develop structured policies to govern responses to offenders when they violate 

conditions of release as well as when they have significant positive accomplishments. 

Source: National Institute of Corrections Transition from Prison to Community Initiative Manual 

Gap Analysis Findings: Current Practices In Indiana 

Probation, parole, and community corrections utilize many of the same responses to violations, 

including, reprimands/counseling, increased drug testing, more frequent reporting requirements, 

residence searches, administrative hearings, modification of conditions, revocations, etc. While this 

list represents a continuum of graduated sanctions, most jurisdictions do not have formal sanctioning 

guidelines. Proportional sanctioning is available but utilization is. In general, responses to violations 

are not uniformly handled from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. 

The use of a continuum of rewards for accomplishments while on community supervision is less 

widespread and uniform than responses to violations. Current practices in rewarding positive 

community adjustment include a decrease in the level of supervision, a decrease in the frequency of 

reporting requirements, placement in a less restrictive environment, early discharge and rewards 

such as bus passes, employment and education programs, etc. 

Steering Committee Recommendations 

1. Develop standardized responses (i.e., sanctions and rewards) for TAP violations and 

accomplishments. 

2. Tie responses to violations and accomplishments to the TAP. 

TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 217 
THE TPC MODEL: DISCHARGE FROM COMMUNITY SUPERVISION 

Just as release from prison gives inmates an incentive for good behavior and addressing risk-related 

problems, so discharge from supervision gives offenders incentive to conform to the terms and 

conditions of their release from supervision. In addition, discharge signals the end of supervision— 

the end of the active portion of the criminal sanction—and the beginning of a formal re-integration of 

offenders into the body of civil society. 

Source: National Institute of Corrections Transition from Prison to Community Initiative Manual 

Gap Analysis Findings: Current Practices In Indiana 

By statute, a majority of offenders released from the Department of Correction are on parole for two 

years unless discharged earlier. Certain sex offenders may remain on parole for up to 10 years. 

Probationers are on community supervision for the length of their suspended sentence unless they 

are discharged earlier. The conditions under which offenders are discharged from community 

supervision are not currently based on standardized responses to demonstrated reductions in risk. 

Steering Committee Recommendation 

1. Develop a standardized process for early discharge from community supervision based on 

demonstrated reduction in dynamic risk factors. 

218 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
THE TPC MODEL: AFTERCARE AND SERVICES 

FOLLOWING RELEASE FROM COMMUNITY SUPERVISION 

The transition process seeks to produce offenders who are law-abiding citizens with the strengths 

and skills to successfully manage the problems they will face daily. However, as with citizens 

generally, . . .offenders [discharged from community supervision] may require assistance and 

services from human service agencies. The offender’s TAP contains a framework to guide human 

service providers, as well as a wealth of information they might need to respond to requests for 

assistance from the offender. 

The TAP process begins soon after offenders enter prison and continues during their terms of 

confinement, through their release from prison, and continues after their discharge from supervision 

as an evolving framework for aftercare provided by human service agencies or other means of selfhelp and support. . . After offenders have successfully completed community supervision, their TAP 

may continue and be managed by staff of human services agencies, if the former offender chooses 

to continue to seek and receive services or support. 

The discharge phase begins when the offender’s sentence ends or when officials make a 

discretionary choice to end community supervision. In this phase it is the responsibility of the former 

offender, human services providers, and the former offender’s network of community supports, 

linkages, and mentors to continue relevant aspects of the TAP during the period of aftercare. 

Source: National Institute of Corrections Transition from Prison to Community Initiative Manual 

Gap Analysis Findings: Current Practices In Indiana 

Very little is known about offenders once they are discharged from their obligation to the criminal 

justice system. The justice system no longer has legal authority over the individual and, for the most 

part, no further monitoring or follow-up is undertaken. 

Steering Committee Recommendation 

1. Establish a process to transition responsibility for post-discharge activities to the ex-offender 

and the community. 

TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 219 
TP220C REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model

CRITICAL NEXT STEPS 

1. The following work groups led by Steering Committee members and comprised of subject matter experts 

will be formed to develop action plans for implementation of the recommendations presented in this report: 

Community Resource Work Group, Community Supervision Work Group, Personnel Work Group, and 

Technology Work Group. 

2. Three existing Steering Committee Work Groups also will develop action plans to implement 

recommendations: Adult Case Management Work Group, Employment Work Group, and Risk and Needs 

Assessment Task Force. 

3. Steering Committee activities will be coordinated as necessary with other key groups such as the 

Department of Correction’s IORP Implementation Team and the Indiana General Assembly. 

4. Work group progress toward implementation of approved recommendations and critical next steps will be 

presented to the Policy Group on January 14, 2 

220 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
Example 22. Georgia’s Targets of Change 

Georgia Reentry Impact Project 

Recommendations 

The Policy Team studied nine phases of offender reentry and developed the following 

three core recommendations: 

1. Implement better interagency electronic communications as outlined by the 

interagency information technology working group to improve continuity and 

accountability for offender reentry. Utilize emerging XML technologies to 

develop a single repository and source for offender data that is accessible to all 

partner agencies. Overcome barriers (including HIPAA requirements) to sharing 

offender information with other pertinent agencies and community partners. 

2. Develop and implement an automated assessment instrument that identifies an 

offender’s risk to re-offend, as well as the offender’s crime-producing factors and 

behaviors. This instrument will drive offender placement into evidence-based 

interventions. Task the criminal justice information technology interagency 

sharing group with reviewing existing electronic systems and determining 

information that can be shared and a timeline for sharing the information. 

3. Driven by recommendations derived by the automated assessment instrument, a 

Transition Accountability Plan (TAP) should be developed as a pre-sentence 

investigation and will follow the offender through the criminal justice system 

from sentencing (or entry into the prison) to reentry into the community. The 

TAP will include critical pre-entry and reentry issues that are relevant for release 

planning (i.e. housing, disability, substance abuse, physical and mental health, 

employment, education, family and community supports). The TAP should be 

updated continually as needed and should take the place of a release-planning 

document. The TAP should be available electronically. The TAP should create a 

seamless system between institutional and community service providers to swiftly 

assess and treat the crime-producing behaviors of offenders. 

I. SENTENCING 

1. Authorize a pre-sentence investigation workgroup to review current 

sentencing practices; implement a criminogenic risk and needs based, victim 

TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 221 
restoration and family/community pro-social supports assessment, and provide 

this information to judges prior to sentencing. 

2. Review and recommend modifications to existing mandatory sentencing laws 

to accommodate community-based alternatives to prison, and a period of 

community supervision after release from incarceration. 

3. Authorize a workgroup to examine utilization of existing sentencing 

alternatives and diversionary facilities, including specialty courts (mental 

health, drug, DUI, reentry, etc.); and consider expanding community-based 

sentencing alternative that are derived from evidence-based practices. 

II. INSTITUTIONAL INTAKE AND CLASSIFICATION 

4. Modify the intake/assessment process to identify and document genderspecific criminogenic risk and reentry needs and use the TAP as a component 

in making institutional placements. 

5. Share the TAP with institutional program and parole staff, faith/communitybased service providers and all other relevant parties; and provide a means for 

these individuals to input offender program participation and progress 

III. INSTITUTIONAL PROGRAMMING 

6. Expand programming/beds allocated for special needs (substance abuse, sex 

offenders. mental health) and develop or expand specialized housing units to 

include faith and character-based dorms, work release and in-house 

transitional centers so that available space will exist to accommodate 

recommendations contained in the TAP and have offenders released in a 

timely fashion. 

7. Target crime producing factors and behaviors that have been identified by an 

assessment instrument on offenders who are at a high risk of reoffending so as 

to address these factors and behaviors through programs and services 

delivered by designated staff. 

8. Expand evidence-based institutional programming that prepares offenders for 

post-release employment or continuation of education or job training: 

• Vocational and job skill programming, alternative ways of providing 

skills training, and integration with prison industries; 

• Cognitive/Behavioral Training; 

• Education 

o English-as-a-Second-Language (ESL) classes. 

222 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
9. Consider expansion of existing relationships with technical colleges to 

broaden the range of available vocational programming to offenders. Also, 

continue to provide dual credit for programs offered by the Department of 

Technical and Adult Education in order to support enrollment in technical 

colleges upon the offender’s return to the community. 

IV. OFFENDER TRANSITION 

10. Develop a transitional services procedure that includes factors that are 

necessary for successful reentry: housing, treatment, and programs, 

employment, family issues and financial obligations (i.e. child support and 

restitution to crime victims) and designate institutional staff responsible for 

implementation. 

11. Work with driver’s services and other organizations to ensure that necessary 

identification and other pertinent documents for employment are available to 

the offender prior to release. 

12. Administer through the Georgia Department of Corrections a disability 

qualification advocate program to assist inmates in securing Medicaid and 

Social Security Benefits prior to release. 

V. RELEASE DECISION MAKING AND TRANSITION 

13. Consider the offender’s progress on goals outlined in the TAP as a significant 

factor for release decision-making. 

14. Assign pre-release and post-release conditions that are consistent with the 

goals of the individual offender’s TAP. 

VI. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY/FAMILY SUPPORT 

15. Complete housing arrangements in accordance with offender’s TAP at least 

90-120 days prior to release. 

16. Utilize the Alternative Living Facilities Manual or create a similar resource 

directory of housing options with links to other sources as noted by other 

pertinent agencies. 

17. Provide offenders with a certificate of progress when they have successfully 

completed one year of community supervision. This document will assist the 

offender in accessing housing and employment options. 

TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 223 
18. Implement a program whereby inmates who participate in prison work 

programs will place their residual earnings (after restitution and/or housing in 

prison) in escrowed savings accounts and use these funds for transition 

obligations including housing. 

19. Develop and implement model guidance on offender eligibility for public 

assisted housing. 

20. Expand interaction with faith/community-based organizations to create 

additional transitional or reentry housing, particularly for offenders with 

special needs. 

21. Share information concerning offender’s circumstances with public housing 

authorities. 

VII. COMMUNITY SUPERVISION 

22. Establish protocols that incorporate supervision with social services, law 

enforcement and other agencies that interact with offenders and their families. 

23. Integrate the post-release supervision plan with the offender’s TAP. 

VIII. COMMUNITY PROGRAMS 

24. Develop linkages between institutional treatment and community treatment 

providers, particularly for groups requiring specialized services (i.e. sex 

offenders, brain injured, mentally retarded, HIV+ offenders). 

25. Sanction and encourage regular collaborative events and information sharing 

opportunities between institutional staff, local supervision and service 

provider staff to discuss offender eligibility and intervention issues, capacity 

and available slots in community programs. 

26. Develop and improve existing collaborative partnerships with local 

community service boards to provide more effective community-based 

offender programs. Identify additional community staff and resources that 

will target the indigent offender population for expedient and affordable 

substance abuse and mental health treatment options. 

IX. NEXT STEPS 

27. Implementation: Establish an implementation team consisting of 

representatives from each of the policy team agencies to operationalize the 

recommendations. 

224 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
28. Communication: Develop an orientation for partner organizations on the “big 

picture” benefits of effective offender reentry; publicize the benefits and 

outcomes of the GRIP program to local governments and organizations. 

29. Evaluation: Create measurable benchmarks and standards against which the 

GRIP program can be evaluated. 

Juvenile Offender Reentry Considerations 

During the preparation of the TPC recommendations, much attention was focused on the 

development of ideas related to the adult offender population. However, the following 

were a list of considerations that have been developed specific to the juvenile offender 

population. Further collaboration is necessary to provide a complete list of juvenile 

recommendations. 

I. SENTENCING 

1. Evaluate the need for and the cost of juvenile courts having juvenile predisposition assessments and reports available to the court prior to disposition. 

2. Review and recommend modifications to juvenile disposition options to 

further reduce or further eliminate the short term program provided by the 

Department of Juvenile Justice. Study recommendations made by the 

Juvenile Code Re-write Committee to consider dispositional options relating 

to the serious, violent or chronic juvenile offenders. 

II. INSTITUTIONAL PROGRAMMING 

3. Target the risks and needs of juvenile offenders at a high risk of offending 

through evidence-based practices, programming and services. 

4. Expand the existing Department of Juvenile Justice program of youth to 

community transition to all state Youth Development Campuses (YDCs). 

III. OFFENDER TRANSITION 

5. Evaluate whether family involvement in juvenile release and transition 

planning activities can be increased or improved in order to better support 

transition and achieve successful reintegration into the community. 

6. Study and recommend ways to ensure that released juveniles are transitioned 

to an appropriate educational placement upon release and not be automatically 

funneled to an alternative school. 

TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 225 
IV. RELEASE DECISION MAKING AND TRANSITION 

7. Support the Juvenile Code Re-Write Committee’s recommendations that 

support DJJ flexibility to request designated felon release based on program 

progress and success rather than the minimum length of stay. 

V. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY/FAMILY SUPPORT 

8. Recommend that the Department of Juvenile Justice continue and improve its 

current planning/aftercare planning processes. 

9. Seek to provide older juvenile offenders with needed housing and 

employment assistance by expanding existing agreements with the 

Department of Labor and other faith and community-based groups as 

appropriate. 

VI. COMMUNITY SUPERVISION 

10. Support the Juvenile Code Re-Write Committee initiative to strengthen 

support for mental health and substance abuse treatment in the community for 

juveniles involved with courts who have mental illness, substance abuse or 

whose competency may be an issue. 

VII. COMMUNITY PROGRAMS 

11. Strengthen and broaden existing Department of Juvenile Justice initiatives that 

link institutional treatment with community service providers for special 

needs populations. 

VIII. NEXT STEPS 

12. Consider specific juvenile justice system issues both as part of the overall 

justice system as well as based on the special needs of the juvenile system 

population. 

13. Identify the specific juvenile system issues that are of interest to local 

governments, schools and other community organizations. Consider whether 

there should be a separate process within the GRIP TPC framework to focus 

specific juvenile issues. 

226 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
Example 23. 

Missouri’s Transition 

Accountability Plan 

TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 227 
228 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 229 
Example 24. Michigan’s Gender Responsive Strategies for Reentry 

There are five general approaches to effectively managing and assisting women parolees: 

1. Acknowledge that gender makes a difference. 

2. Create an environment based on safety, respect, and dignity. 

3. Develop policies, practices, and programs that are relational and promote healthy 

connections to children, family, significant others, and the community. 

4. Address substance abuse, trauma, and mental health issues through 

comprehensive, integrated, and culturally relevant services and appropriate 

supervision. 

5. Provide women with opportunities to improve their socioeconomic conditions. 

See: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections manuscript, Research, Practice and 

Guiding Principles for Women Offenders; Gender Responsive Strategies (Bloom, Owen, Covington, et al; 

July 2003). (http://www.nicic.org/Library/018017) 

Approaches to Addressing Gender Responsive Strategies 

Acknowledge That Gender Makes a Difference 

• Allocate both human and financial resources to create women-centered services 

• Designate a high-level administrative position for oversight of management, supervision, and 

services 

• Recruit and train personnel and volunteers who have both the interest and the qualifications 

needed for working with women under criminal justice supervision. 

Create an Environment Based on Safety, Respect, & Dignity 

• Conduct a comprehensive review of the institutional or community environment in which women 

are supervised to provide an ongoing assessment of the current culture. 

• Develop policy that reflects an understanding of the importance of emotional and physical safety. 

• Understand the effects of childhood trauma to avoid further trauma. 

• Establish protocols for reporting and investigating claims of misconduct. 

• Develop classification and assessment systems that are validated by samples of women 

offenders.

Develop Policies, Practices, and Programs That Are Relational and Promote Healthy Connections 

• Develop training for all staff and administrators in which relationship issues are a core theme. 

Such training should include the importance of relationships, staff-client relationships, 

professional boundaries, communication, and the mother-child relationship. 

• Examine all mother and child programming through the eyes of the child (e.g. child-centered 

environment, context), and enhance the mother-child connection and to child caregivers and 

other family members. 

• Promote supportive relationships among women offenders. 

• Develop community and peer-support networks. 

Address Substance Abuse, Trauma, and Mental Health Issues 

• Service providers need to be cross-trained in these three primary issues. 

• Resources, including skilled personnel, must be allocated. 

• The environment in which services are provided must be closely monitored to ensure the 

emotional and physical safety of the women being served. 

• Service providers and criminal justice personnel must receive training in cultural sensitivity so 

that they can understand and respond appropriately to issues of race, ethnicity, and culture. 

230 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
Provide Women With Opportunities To Improve Their Socioeconomic Conditions 

• Allocate resources within both community and institutional correctional programs for 

comprehensive, integrated services that focus on the economic, social, and treatment needs of 

women (jobs, family services, alcohol/drug and mental health treatment). Ensure that women 

leave prison and jail with provisions for short-term emergency services. 

• Provide training, education, and skill-enhancing opportunities to assist women in earning a living 

wage. 

• Provide sober living space in institutions and in the community. 

Comprehensive Prisoner ReEntry Plan 

EIGHT PRINCIPLES OF EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICESi 

1. Assess Actuarial Risk/Needs. 

2. Enhance Intrinsic Motivation. 

3. Target Interventions. 

a) Risk Principle: Prioritize supervision and treatment resources for higher risk offenders. 

b) Need Principle: Target interventions to criminogenic needs. 

c) Responsivity Principle: Be responsive to temperament, learning style, motivation, culture, and 

gender. 

d) Dosage: Structure 40-70% of high-risk offenders’ time for 3-9 months. 

e) Treatment: Integrate treatment into the full sentence/sanction requirements. 

4. Skill Train with Directed Practice (use Cognitive Behavioral treatment methods). 

5. Increase Positive Reinforcement. 

6. Engage Ongoing Support in Natural Communities. 

7. Measure Relevant Processes/Practices. 

8. Provide Measurement Feedback. 

Implementing Evidence Based Practices 

Implementing the principles of evidence based practice in corrections is a tremendous challenge requiring 

strong leadership and commitment. Such an undertaking involves more than simply implementing a 

research recommended program or twoii. These 7 Guidelines provide insight into implementation. 

Limit new projects to mission-related initiativesiii 

• Clear identification and focus upon mission is critical within business and the best-run human 

service agencies. 

• When mission scope creep occurs, it has a negative effect on progress, morale, and outcomes. 

Assess progress of implementation processes using quantifiable dataiv 

• Monitoring system implementations for current, valid information regarding progress, obstacles, 

and direction changes is pivotal to project success. 

Acknowledge and accommodate professional over-rides with adequate accountabilityv 

• No assessment tool, no matter how sophisticated, can (or should) replace a qualified 

practitioner’s professional judgment. All professional over-rides need to be adequately 

documented, defensible, and made explicit. 

Focus on staff development, (research, skill development, management of behavioral/organizational 

change processes) within the context of a complete training or human resource development programvi 

• Staff need to develop reasonable familiarity with relevant research. 

• Informed administrators, information officers, trainers, and other organizational ambassadors are 

necessary to facilitate this function in larger agencies or systems. 

TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 231 
Routinely measure staff practices (attitudes, knowledge, and skills) that are considered related to 

outcomesvii 

• Critical staff processes and practices should be routinely monitored in an accurate and objective 

manner to inform managers of the state of the operation. 

Provide staff timely, relevant, and accurate feedback regarding performance related to outcomesviii 

• At an organizational level, gaining appreciation for outcome measurement begins with 

establishing relevant performance measures. Keys: If a certain kind of performance is worth 

measuring, it’s worth measuring right (with reliability and validity); Any kind of staff or offender 

activity is worth measuring if it is reliably related to desirable outcomes; If performance measures 

satisfy both the above conditions, these measures should be routinely generated and made 

available to staff and/or offenders, in the most user-friendly manner possible. 

Utilize high levels of data-driven advocacy and brokerage to enable appropriate community servicesix 

• In terms of producing sustained reductions in recidivism, the research indicates that the treatment 

service network and infrastructure is the most valuable resource that criminal justice agencies 

can access. 

• Collaborating and providing research and quality assurance support to local service providers 

enhances interagency understanding, service credibility, and longer-term planning efforts. It also 

contributes to the stability and expansion of treatment services. 

ENDNOTES 

i See: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections manuscript, Implementing Evidence 

Based Practice in Community Corrections (April 2004). 

ii Minimally, a commitment to EBP involves: a) developing staff knowledge, skills, and attitudes congruent 

with current research-supported practice (principles #1-8); b) implementing offender programming 

consistent with research recommendations (#2-6); c) sufficiently monitoring staff and offender 

programming to identify discrepancies or fidelity issues (#7); d) routinely obtaining verifiable outcome 

evidence (#8) associated with staff performance and offender programming. 

iii Harris & Smith, 1996; Currie, 1998; Ellickson et al, 1983 

iv Harris & Smith, 1996; Burrell, 2000; Dilulio, 1993; Palmer, 1995; Mihalic & Irwin, 2003; Gottfredson et 

al, 2002 

v Burrell, 2000; Clear, 1981; Andrews, et al, 1990; Kropp, et al, 1995; Gendreau et al, 1999 

vi Latessa, et al, 2002; Elliott, 1980; Harland, 1996; Andrews, 1989; Miller & Rollnick, 2002; Taxman & 

Byrne, 2001; Taxman, 2002; Baer, et al, 1999; Gendreau, et al, 1999; Durlak, 1998 

vii Gendreau, et al, 1999; Henggeler et al, 1997; Miller & Mount, 2001 

viii Burrell, 1998; Lipton, et al, 2000; Carey, 2002; O’Leary & Clear, 1997; Bogue, 2002; Maple, 2000; 

Henggeler, 1997; Miller & Mount, 2001 

ix Corbette, et al, 1999; Gendreau & Goggin, 1995; Gendreau, et al, 1993; Meyers & Smith, 1995; Bogue, 

2002; Maple, 1999 

232 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
Example 25. New York State Support and Expectations of Local Reentry 

Task Forces 

State of New York – Division of Criminal Justice Services 

PROGRAM ANNOUNCEMENT 

Request for Applications to Develop Local reentry task Forces/Strategies 

Program Overview/Understanding the Problem 

Each year approximately 26,000 offenders are released from New York State prisons and 

return to local communities. Consistent with Governor Pataki’s goal of making New 

York the safest state in the nation, - it is now the sixth safest state - the New York State 

Offender Reentry Task Force, through the Division of Criminal Justice Services, is 

offering funding for local communities to establish local prisoner reentry task forces as a 

tool to reduce recidivism and increase public safety. 

Upon release from prison, many offenders have difficulties obtaining housing, securing 

employment, accessing treatment services, and reunifying with their families. As 

research has shown, to the extent an offender is employed, sober, in a stable living 

environment, and moving toward self sufficiency, the greater chance he or she has of not 

committing further crimes – benefiting the community by reducing crime and improving 

the stability of the community. 

Reentry is more than just a criminal justice issue. Emphasis on reentry serves the broader 

community’s interest in public safety as well. Public, community and neighborhood 

organizations, and criminal justice and human service agencies are all stakeholders in this 

process. Collaboration in an effort such as this is critical. Coordinating the delivery of 

support services and securing interdisciplinary collaboration between the criminal justice, 

social services, educational, health and mental health systems during the reentry process 

are key factors in assuring successful reentry. 

Not only in New York, but across the United States, significant attention has been paid to 

the record numbers of offenders returning to the community and to the promise of 

innovative interventions designed to smooth their transition. The focus on offender 

reentry at the federal level has been demonstrated by: (1) the appropriation of 

considerable funding to assist communities in improving their reentry process; and (2) 

groundbreaking collaboration among the Social Security Administration and the 

Departments of Justice, Labor, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban 

Development, Veterans Affairs, and Education in the development of strategies to 

address the challenges of offender reentry. 

TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 233 
Consistent with the national focus on offender reentry, in 2003, New York State 

convened a prisoner Reentry Task Force to examine current statewide reentry policies 

and develop a comprehensive continuum of reentry services, programs and supervision 

that is consistent with national best practices. The Reentry Task Force is comprised of a 

Policy Team of commissioners and directors from fourteen criminal justice and human 

service agencies directly involved in offender reentry and a Steering Committee of 

representatives from each of these agencies. The Reentry Task Force has adopted the 

Transition from Prison to Community (TPC) model of reentry developed by the National 

Institute of Corrections (NIC), which espouses shared interest among criminal justice and 

human service agencies for achieving the successful transition of persons from prison to 

the community. 

The vision of the Reentry Task Force is to build a safer New York resulting from the 

successful transition of offenders from prison to living law-abiding and productive lives 

in their communities. In order to achieve this vision, the Reentry Task Force is working 

to establish a coordinated statewide system to accurately assess and respond to offender 

risks and needs, support offender accountability and reparation to victims and 

communities, promote offender self-sufficiency, and encourage family and community 

involvement. 

The Reentry Task Force recognizes that local communities play a critical role in the 

successful transition of persons from prison to the community. Accordingly, the Reentry 

Task Force has developed this grant program to support the establishment or 

enhancement of local reentry task forces to coordinate and strengthen the community 

response to high-risk offenders transitioning from prison back to the community with the 

ultimate goal of reducing the number who return to prison after committing new crimes. 

The role of county-level reentry task forces would be threefold. First, county task forces 

would provide coordinated services to high-risk offenders around housing, employment, 

education, family support and reunification, substance abuse, mental and physical health, 

and other transitional needs. County task forces would collaborate with state criminal 

justice, particularly with the State Division of Parole, and human service providers to 

develop well-crafted transition plans for high-risk offenders transitioning from prison 

back into the community. Second, county task forces would assess the current system of 

offender transition in the county and implement strategies to enhance successful 

transition. Lastly, local task forces would develop the community’s capacity to assist in 

offender reentry through means such as public education, development of mentoring 

programs, and inclusion of ex-offenders in volunteer services as a means of reparation. 

2) Funding, Match and Program Period 

Grant awards of up to $100,000 will be made available to each of the New York State 

IMPACT counties. The IMPACT counties include the 17 largest counties that account for 

80% of the crime outside of New York City and are participating in our statewide crime 

reduction program administered by the District Attorneys offices. Award priority will be 

given to those jurisdictions with the highest volume of returning offenders. Grant funds 

234 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
must be expended within the contract period, in accordance with the program budget. 

Grant recipients are required to designate $5,000 of grant funds for travel to attend two 

mandatory workshops. This requirement is addressed further in Section 4 (d) of this 

announcement. 

 This program will be funded by the Federal Fiscal Year 2005 Edward Byrne Justice 

Assistance Program Grant. Therefore, grant recipients must provide a hard cash match 

equal to 10% of the total project cost (or 11.11% of the final award.) Operation IMPACT 

II program funds may be used as eligible match for this program if IMPACT II funds 

support components of the Reentry Project. 

Contracts will be for the 18 month period beginning January 1, 2006 through June 30, 

2007. Contingent upon availability of funds, these contracts may be renewed for one 

year. 

3) Targeted Offender Population 

The targeted returning offender population for this grant consists of those returning from 

prison who are deemed by the local reentry task force to pose a significant risk to public 

safety or who present to the community with reintegration needs that are particularly 

difficult to address. The State Reentry Task Force will work jointly with the local 

partnerships to identify high-risk offender populations specific to each grant recipient 

county. 

Offenders returning from prison may be under parole supervision or may have been 

released due to the maximum expiration of their sentence. Grantees may also choose to 

develop specific protocols to target such sub-populations as sex offenders or those with a 

history of violence. 

4) Program Requirements/Activities 

a. Development and composition of local reentry task forces 

The primary requirement of this grant program is the establishment of a comprehensive 

reentry task force. The County Executive’s Office will be the fiscal agent responsible for 

administering the grant and will identify the implementing agency to oversee the Reentry 

Project. The designated agency will serve as the chair of the local reentry task force. An 

alternate management structure for the task force may be considered upon request by the 

county. At a minimum, the reentry task force must include the following 

agencies/organizations: 

1. Regional or Area Parole Office 

2. Sheriff’s Office 

3. Police Department (of largest jurisdiction) 

4. County Department of Mental Health 

5. County Department of Probation 

6. County Department of Social Services 

TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 235 
7. Local VESID (Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities) 

Office 

8. Local One-Stop Center (Department of Labor) 

9. OASAS Field Office (Addiction Specialist) 

10. Faith-based/community organization(s) 

11. Victim advocacy organization(s) 

Because the criminogenic needs of returning offenders and available system resources 

will differ across counties, grantees should consider engaging other reentry stakeholders 

as appropriate. Additional optional partners may include: community treatment 

providers, New York State Police Community Outreach Representative, district 

attorney’s office, county legislators, local research partners, local educators and 

representatives from courts, the local housing authority, and the business community. 

Grantees are encouraged to build on existing structures; therefore, if a group is already in 

place with an appropriate composition and similar purpose, it may serve as the foundation 

for the complete reentry task force. 

Representatives from DCJS, the Division of Parole, the Department of Correctional 

Services and other State agencies, as appropriate, will partner with the local reentry task 

forces by providing supportive services and technical assistance via the Statewide 

Reentry Task Force. To ensure the coordination between the State and local 

jurisdictions, and to further enhance the contribution of State agency representatives, 

grantees will be required to interact with the Statewide Reentry Task Force. Minimally, 

the local reentry task force chairperson and the reentry coordinator will be required to 

attend periodic meetings of all grant recipients coordinated by DCJS and the Division of 

Parole (co-chairs of the Statewide Reentry Task Force). 

b. Designation of Reentry Coordinator 

In addition to the development of local reentry task forces, a second program requirement 

is the designation of a full-time county reentry coordinator. The role of the reentry 

coordinator would be twofold. First, the reentry coordinator would be responsible for 

developing a case conferencing process to assist in the coordination of services for highrisk offenders. An extension of this function will be to communicate service gaps, 

redundancies or inconsistencies experienced at the individual case-level to the full reentry 

task force for their attention in the context of strategic planning and system-wide 

assessment and coordination. 

For those offenders under supervision, case management coordination would be provided 

following referral by the supervising agency. For offenders who are not under criminal 

justice supervision, the reentry coordinator would develop an “in-reach” process to 

establish contact with eligible offenders pre-release. One mechanism by which this could 

occur is through exit orientations conducted by teams including law enforcement, service 

providers and the reentry coordinator to deliver a collective message that the offender 

will be held accountable for his/her actions post-release, but that there are specific 

236 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
services available in the community, including case management by the reentry 

coordinator, to assist in the reentry process. 

The second role of the reentry coordinator is to oversee a comprehensive assessment of 

the local reentry system that the task force must undertake as part of the grant 

requirements. The reentry coordinator would act as a facilitator, working across agency 

lines to enhance partnerships among criminal justice and human service agencies. This 

could include developing coordinated working agreements that address duplication of 

services and establishing new relationships with agencies that could assist in the county 

reentry process. 

c. Roles and activities of local reentry task forces 

Once established, local reentry task forces will oversee the following activities: 

• Assist in the coordination of services in targeted, high-risk cases: Assist in 

coordinating services in high-risk re-entry cases to enable the offender to meet needs 

that will reduce the probability of recidivism and increase self-sufficiency in areas 

such as housing, employment, education, family support and reunification, substance 

abuse, and mental health. 

• Strategic planning and system-wide coordination: Assess the quality and 

comprehensiveness of the current system of offender transition within the county 

through use of the Transition from Prison to Community (TPC) model; implement 

strategies that enhance the accountability and management of all offenders reentering 

the community and improve the coordination of services across agencies; 

• Public education and outreach: Engage the community in building a reentry system 

through public education and activities that: (1) explain the reentry process to the 

public; and (2) provide for community participation in reentry planning and 

programming such as offender mentoring. 

d. Training 

County reentry teams must reserve $5,000 for two training workshops to be arranged by 

the Statewide Reentry Task Force and conducted by technical assistance providers 

designated by the Statewide Reentry Task Force. The training workshops will address 

the components of the Transition from Prison to the Community (TPC) approach to 

offender reentry and the fundamentals of effective collaboration. The workshops will: 

(1) assist teams in the development of collaborative, sustainable partnerships that 

integrate basic policies; (2) enhance the provision of services; and (3) maximize 

resources in order to improve the transition process for returning offenders and increase 

the likelihood of successful reintegration. 

Local reentry task force leadership along with the reentry coordinator and the regional 

Parole representative will be required to attend the first training to be held in Albany. 

Additionally, once the entire reentry task force has been established, complete teams will 

be required to attend a collaboration training. 

TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 237 
e. Grant timeline 

Within the first 90 days following the grant award, local reentry task forces must conduct 

their first meeting and designated members must attend the mandatory workshop 

trainings. Task forces must meet at least quarterly for the remainder of the grant period. 

Also within the first 90 days, grantees must designate a reentry coordinator. The reentry 

coordinator should immediately establish a relationship with the regional Parole office 

and begin to develop the case conferencing process described above for both supervised 

and unsupervised offenders. Throughout the remainder of the grant period, the reentry 

coordinator will continue to manage the case conferencing process while concurrently 

overseeing the system assessment to be conducted by the complete task force. 

Systematic assessment of the county reentry process relative to currently understood best 

practices in offender reentry should be conducted and completed by June 30, 2006. The 

steps necessary to complete this task will be outlined in detail during the first mandatory 

training workshop. The assessment should include an analysis of the returning offender 

population as well as a compilation of the existing resources, policies and practices with 

regard to the reintegration of these offenders. 

Following the system assessment, grant recipients will be required to submit a county 

reentry strategy that identifies three measurable goals that the local reentry task force will 

achieve over the remaining twelve months of the grant. Once achieved, these goals 

should begin to bridge the identified gaps between current and best practices. 

Additionally, grantees must submit an implementation plan to achieve these goals, a 

method to gather data and measure progress toward goal fulfillment, and an updated 

budget, as appropriate. 

f. Funding uses 

Grant funds, first and foremost, must be used to support a reentry coordinator 

position to help coordinate services to targeted cases and assist in system assessment as 

described above. A variety of methods may be used to meet this requirement: 1) If the 

county already has a full-time reentry coordinator or equivalent position supported by 

another source, the funds supporting this position may be applied toward the required 

cash match for this program. Grant funds may then be used to support other allowable 

program activities and costs described below; 2) County may choose to hire a consultant 

to support the coordinator position; and 3) A new position may be established and hired 

for the reentry coordinator. 

All grantees must allocate $5,000 of their grant funds for travel to attend two mandatory 

workshops. 

Any grant funds remaining after the support of a reentry coordinator position and travel 

for mandatory workshops may be used for the following: 

238 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
1. Purchasing treatment or other specialized services needed to improve the reentry of 

high-risk offenders. 

2. Providing victims and other persons whose safety may be placed in jeopardy by 

offender reentry with services to enhance their safety. 

3. Systems coordination planning and developmental activities that bring key 

stakeholder agencies/organizations together. 

4. Purchasing supplies and services required by the workgroup to carry out its plans 

(e.g., preparation and printing of educational materials). 

5. Providing services and advice to families of reentering offenders who will be housing 

those offenders and helping them to reintegrate into the community. 

6. Training community members and volunteers to assist reentering offenders through 

mentoring and other programs designed to increase offender employment and 

otherwise improve their adjustment to the community. 

5) Performance Measures 

As indicated in the grant timeline Section 4(e) above, each local reentry task force will be 

required to establish three measurable goals that can be monitored and evaluated 

throughout the duration of the grant period. DCJS will assist local reentry task forces in 

the measurement and calculation of these goals and will provide information to each 

grant recipient county regarding their specific returning offender population. 

6) Application Requirements 

Applications must be submitted by the County Executive’s Office. Only one application 

will be accepted from each county. 

a. Memorandum of Understanding 

Applicants must submit an MOU signed and dated by the chief executive officers of each 

of the required criminal justice and human service agencies on the reentry task force 

indicating their planned participation. The MOU should describe an understanding of the 

grant deliverables and indicate the agreement of the signatories to participate in a 

coordinated multi-disciplinary approach to offender reentry. A sample MOU is provided 

with this announcement. The original signed MOU may be mailed and be received by 

the due date to: DCJS Funding, 4 Tower Place, Albany, New York 12203, Attn: Anne 

Marie Strano, or you may scan the signed MOU and attach it to your GMS application. 

Individual agency MOUs are not acceptable. In addition, letters of support may 

not be substituted in place of one originally signed MOU. 

b. Budget 

Applicants are required to submit a budget that includes a concise narrative outlining how 

funds would be spent. As each county task force is required to complete a 

comprehensive system assessment, the budget should only outline how initial funds will 

be spent in order to complete this assessment and early case conferencing activities. For 

example, this may include the cost of the full-time reentry coordinator and estimated 

TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 239 
travel expenses for the training in Albany to be conducted in the Winter of 2006. 

Applicants’ budgets should then identify how remaining grant funds will be used to 

develop, execute and evaluate their county reentry strategy during the implementation 

phase of the grant. 

c. Narrative 

The narrative portion of the application should be at least four, but no more than eight, 

double-spaced, single-sided pages with 12-point text font and one-inch margins and can 

be typed in a word processing format first and then copied and pasted into the program 

specific question area in GMS. Narratives should consist of responses to each of the 

following questions. 

1. County-level reentry issues 

Describe up to four specific reintegration issues experienced by the submitting county. 

Include references to present key policies and practices affecting transition that are 

currently in place. You may incorporate data from your county reentry profile which is 

attached to this program announcement. 

2. Need for grant support 

How would this grant opportunity assist the county in its efforts to increase the success 

rate of offenders transitioning from prison to the community? 

How would this grant opportunity improve the county’s capacity to conduct coordinated 

case management and evidence-based planning around offender reentry? 

How would the local reentry task force build appropriate community participation in the 

reentry process? 

3. Current state of collaboration 

If a team is already in place with an appropriate composition and congruous purpose that 

could be expanded to function as the reentry task force, please describe the team, its 

mission, and its members. 

If a suitable team does not currently exist, please describe any recent, formal 

collaboration between criminal justice and human service agencies established in your 

county to solve common problems or achieve mutual objectives. 

4. Reentry coordinator 

Describe the proposed plan for implementing the reentry coordinator function. 

If this role is currently being accomplished in the county, please describe the position and 

the agency or agencies supporting it. Alternatively, please describe the position to be 

240 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
created, as envisioned, including where it would be located and the supervising agency or 

agencies. 

7) Application Preparation, Forms and Requirements 

Grant applications should be submitted to the NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services 

(DCJS) automated DCJS Grants Management System (GMS). The system allows an 

agency to complete an application electronically and submit it over the Internet. If upon 

reading this program announcement you are interested in completing a grant application, 

and you have not previously been registered to use the DCJS GMS system, your agency 

will need to register and be assigned a password. The Registration Request Form and 

instructions for use of the GMS system can be found at the following Internet address: 

http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/ofpa/gms.htm 

When your request has been processed, you will receive a username, password, 

instructions and a link to a user manual. Please allow 3-5 business days for your 

Registration Request to be processed. Applicants are encouraged to register their 

agency immediately. 

Should you have difficulty in accessing or using the GMS system, please email GMS 

Technical Assistance at funding@dcjs.state.ny.us for assistance. 

All applications must be received by 5:00 p.m. December 5, 2005. 

8) Timeline 

DCJS will receive applications starting November 4, 2005 and continue receiving 

applications through the close of business (5:00 p.m.) on December 5, 2005. All 

applications will be reviewed and awards made to those applications selected for funding 

by January 1, 2006. 

9) Approval and Notification of Award 

The Director of Criminal Justice will provide oversight of the grant review process. The 

Director will announce the final grant award decisions based on the review and rating of 

applications and recommendations by the staff. Nothing herein requires DCJS to approve 

grant funding for any applicant. 

DCJS will notify all applicants in writing as to whether or not they will receive a grant 

award. 

10) Administration of Grant Contracts 

Contract Approval – All contracts are subject to the approval of the Attorney General and 

the Comptroller of the State of New York, and until said approval has received and 

indicated thereon, the Contract shall be of no force and effect. 

TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 241 
Contract Period – Contracts will be executed for an 18-month period beginning January 

1, 2006 and may be renewed for one year, subject to the continued availability of grant 

funding. 

Contract Activities –All activities must have prior approval from DCJS and meet 

guidelines established by the State of New York and the Federal government. 

Contract Changes – Contracts with grantees may be executed, terminated, renewed, 

increased, reduced, extended, amended, or renegotiated at the discretion of the Director 

of Criminal Justice in light of a grantee’s performance, changes in project conditions, or 

otherwise. 

Records – Grantees must keep books, ledgers, receipts, work records, consultant 

agreements and inventory records pertinent to the project; and in a manner consistent 

with DCJS contractual provisions and mandated guidelines. 

Liability – Nothing in the contract between DCJS and the grantee shall impose liability 

on the State of New York, for injury incurred during the performance of approved 

activities or caused by use of equipment purchased with grant funds. 

Payments – Payments to reimburse project expenses will be made pursuant to schedule 

specified in a contract entered into between the State of New York and the grant award 

recipient. 

Reports – The grantee shall submit to DCJS reports in a format and time schedule 

specified in the grant contract, which shall include a description of the program efforts 

undertaken during the report period and the current status of the project. Reports must 

address program goals and objectives to be monitored and evaluated throughout the 

duration of the grant period. 

Review – The grantee’s performance in all areas mentioned above, in addition to the 

services contracted for, will be monitored by DCJS. Monitoring activities may take the 

form of site visits, record inspections, written and telephone communication, or other 

methods deemed necessary by DCJS. 

Revocation of Funds – Funds awarded to an applicant who does not implement an 

approved project within 120 days of the execution date may be revoked and reallocated to 

another applicant at the discretion of the Director of DCJS. 

Standard Contract Provisions – Grant contracts executed as a result of this Program 

Announcement will be subject to the terms and conditions of Appendix A and Appendix 

a-1, which are available for review on the Internet site 

http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/ofpa/forms.htm. 

242 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 243 
244 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 245 
246 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 247 
248 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 249 
250 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 251 
Example 27. 

Georgia—Key Messages for 

Organizational Change: 

A Presentation to Wardens, 

Superintendents, and 

Chief Probation Officers 

252 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 253 
254 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 255 
256 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 257 
Example 28. Michigan Prisoner ReEntry Initiative Collaborative Case 

Management 

Transferred to Transferred to Paroled to 

Phase 1 Facility Phase 2 Facility Community 

TAP Begins TAP Updated TAP Updated 

Phase 1: Getting Ready (Intake) Phase 2: Going Home (PER) Phase 3: Staying Home (Parole) 

CORE COMPAS COMPAS ReEntry CORE COMPAS 

Lead: R&GC Staff Lead: ARUS Lead: Agent 

Team: Community Transition Team: Institutional Parole Agents, Team: Transitional Team, 

Team, Family Members Transition Team, Field Agents, Family 

Family 

Figure 1. The illustration demonstrates the milestones associated with implementing collaborative case management. 

 Phase 1: Getting Ready. R&GC staff will complete the CORE COMPAS and begin the 

Transition Accountability Plan (TAP) at Intake. 

 Phase 2: Going Home. The COMPAS-ReEntry will be administered by an ARUS as part of the 

Parole Eligibility Report. The TAP will also be updated before the parole interview. 

 Phase 3: Staying Home. The CORE COMPAS will be administered and the TAP will be 

updated again by Parole Agents once the offender is released on parole. 

DEFINITION Collaborative Case Management is the strategic and coordinated use of 

resources at the case level to enhance community safety. 

It seeks to reduce recidivism and relapse, encouraging prisoners and former 

prisoners to be successful while supporting the development of safer 

neighborhoods and better citizens. 

CORE VALUES 1. Hold offenders accountable. 

2. Focus on a commitment to offender success. 

3. Utilize evidence-based practices. 

4. Reinforce a strength-based approach to behavior change. 

5. Recognize that no approach will completely eliminate crime. 

VISION CCMS is an effective way to reduce crime by engaging all partners in a 

collaborative process that holds offenders accountable for their behavior and 

increases offender success. 

MISSION MPRI partners will create, maintain, and operate a seamless system of 

collaborative case management and supervision that includes assessment, 

planning, management, and collaboration that begins at intake to prison and 

continues through successful transition back into the community. 

CORNERSTONES The four cornerstones – assessment, planning, management, and collaboration 

– support the offender’s transition through incarceration into the community 

and are built upon five core values. 

DEMONSTRATIONS Collaborative Case Management began with Phase 2 and Phase 3 with a 

demonstration project in the Capital Area in July 2006 and will expand Phase 2 

and Phase 3 implementation to another demonstration site, Kent County, in 

Spring 2007. 

258 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 259 
260 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
Example 30. New York and North Dakota Trainings on Collaboration 

Transition and Reentry from 

Prison to the Community 

A Workshop for New York Teams 

Collaborating on the 

Transition from Prison to the Community (TPC) Initiative 

Albany, New York 

May 8 – 10, 2006 

 “The vision of New York State’s Reentry Task Force is to build a safer New York 

resulting from the successful transition of offenders from prison to living law-abiding and 

productive lives in their communities.” 

Workshop Goals 

The goals of this workshop are to: 

• Review New York’s vision for successful transition and reentry, its definition of 

“offender success,” its empirical basis, and consider together how best to 

achieve our vision through a state-local partnership; 

• Provide an overview of transition and reentry from a national perspective and its 

implications for New York; 

• Orient participants to the Transition from Prison to the Community (TPC) model – 

in particular the role of evidence-based practice – and New York’s progress in 

implementing the model; 

• Provide an opportunity for each participating team to define its individual mission 

and goals with respect to offender reentry in the context of the State’s vision; 

• Emphasize the importance of collaboration to reentry work and provide an 

opportunity for team building during the workshop along with resources to 

strengthen each task force’s collaboration skills in the future; 

• Articulate the responsibilities of local teams for: 

o Conducting a system assessment regarding current policies, practices, 

and resources relevant to transition and reentry; 

o Testing and developing a case conferencing and service coordination 

capability; 

o Developing a strategic plan for enhancing reentry efforts at the local level 

including a case conferencing and service coordination capability; and 

o Identifying three measurable outcomes toward which the CRTF will work. 

TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 261 
Enhancing the Effectiveness of 

Our Collaborative Work as a Departmental Team:

Transition and Reentry 

from 

Prison to the Community 

A Workshop for the 

North Dakota Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation 

Workshop Goals 

There is general agreement in the criminal justice field that offender transition 

and reentry initiatives can benefit from collaboration among the agencies and 

disciplines that share responsibility for working with offenders who are released 

into the nation’s communities. It is still challenging for many jurisdictions to 

maximize their collaborative reentry efforts – even within the boundaries of a 

single organization when that organization has a range of functions and 

responsibilities. This workshop, with its focus on collaboration within the North 

Dakota Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, will provide an opportunity 

for participants to gain a greater understanding of the elements of successful 

teams, to begin to apply some of these concepts to their own work on offender 

transition issues, and to better prepare them to engage in collaborative efforts 

with other agencies and stakeholders in the communities they serve. 

The goals of this workshop are to: 

• Promote a common understanding of the language and concepts of 

collaboration; 

• Clarify the vision and mission of implementing successful transition that 

has been embraced by the Department and its leadership; 

• Brief and orient participants on progress to date in implementing the 

Transition from Prison to the Community model; 

• Provide an opportunity for participants to explore the implications of the 

Department’s vision and mission regarding transition, contribute to its 

evolution, and discuss the importance of collaboration in their work; 

Promote team building; and 

262 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
Example 31. New York’s Local Reentry Task Forces—Membership 

and Strategic Plan Outline 

Suffolk County Reentry 

Suffolk County CJCC Phone 631-852-6824 

P.O. Box 205 Yaphank Ave. 

Yaphank, NY 11980-0205 Fax 631-852-5164 

Task Force 

Suffolk County Reentry

Task Force Strategic Plan 

For New York’s Transition from Prison 

to Community Initiative 

TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 263 
July 2006 

Suffolk County Reentry Task Force Members 

Name Agency 

Ahearn, Laura - Executive Director Parent’s For Megan’s Law 

Colleen Ansanelli - Program 

Coordinator 

Criminal Justice Coordinating 

Council 

Michael Burdi– Director Region III NYS Division of Parole 

Dan Callahan– Forensic Program 

Director 

Hands Across Long Island 

Doreen Conway - Vocational Training 

Coordinator 

Office of the Sheriff 

Cira DiPietro – Program Specialist NYS Division of Parole 

John Desmond - Director Probation Department 

Don Fries – Area Supervisor NYS Division of Parole 

Louis Gallagher – Supervising 

Psychologist 

Division of Community Mental 

Hygiene 

James Golbin – Chief Planner Probation Department 

Edward Hernandez – Deputy 

Commissioner 

Department of Social Services 

Robert Lewis – Bureau Chief NYS Division of Parole 

Lisa Lite-Rottmann- Regional Director NYS Office of Alcohol and 

Substance Abuse Services 

Robert Marmo - Chief Planner Criminal Justice Coordinating 

Council 

Margaret McRoberts – Coordinator of 

Transitional Services 

NYS Division of Parole 

Aristedes Mojica - Inspector Suffolk County Police Department 

Paul Murphy – Senior Parole Officer NYS Division of Parole 

Raymond O’Rourke – Labor Specialist Department of Labor 

Daniel Osborne – Bureau Chief NYS Division of Parole 

Kenneth Perez – Assistant Director 

Bureau of Systems Development 

NYS Office of Alcohol and 

Substance Abuse Services 

Kimberly Schaivone, – Steps Program NYS Division of Criminal Justice 

264 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
Coordinator Services 

Michael Stoltz - Executive Director Clubhouse of Suffolk County 

Shelda Washington NYS Department of Corrections 

Michael White – Parole Officer NYS Division of Parole 

Kerri Kosloff – Research Intern James Madison University 

TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Appendix II 265 
Table of Contents

Vision............................................................................................................

Mission.........................................................................................................

Roles of Task Force Members....................................................................

Profile of the Reentering Population ...........................................................

Offenses Committed by Offenders Released in 2003 .................................

Gender and Age Demographics....................................................................

Risk Levels .....................................................................................................

Arrest History..................................................................................................

Incarceration History ......................................................................................

Sex Offenders in Suffolk County ...................................................................

Health, Mental Health and Substance Abuse

Social Achievement (i.e. education, employment, financial stability) ..........

Sources of Information ................................................................................

Current Reentry Procedures in Suffolk County ..........................................

Community Resources................................................................................

Case Conference Examples .......................................................................

Best Practices for Reentry...........................................................................

Gaps / Barriers in Reentry Process ............................................................

Recommended Practices............................................................................

Outcome Goals............................................................................................

Activities for Meeting the Outcome Goals...................................................

266 TPC REENTRY HANDBOOK: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model 
National Institute of Corrections 

Advisory Board 

Collene Thompson Campbell 

San Juan Capistrano, CA 

Norman A. Carlson 

Chisago City, MN 

Michael S. Carona 

Sheriff, Orange County 

Santa Ana, CA 

Jack Cowley 

Alpha for Prison and Reentry 

Tulsa, OK 

J. Robert Flores 

Administrator 

Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Washington, DC 

Stanley Glanz 

Sheriff, Tulsa County 

Tulsa, OK 

Wade F. Horn, Ph.D. 

Assistant Secretary for Children and Families 

U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services 

Washington, DC 

Byron Johnson, Ph.D. 

Department of Sociology and Anthropology 

Baylor University 

Waco, TX 

Harley G. Lappin 

Director 

Federal Bureau of Prisons 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Washington, DC 

Colonel David M. Parrish 

Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office 

Tampa, FL 

Judge Sheryl A. Ramstad 

Minnesota Tax Court 

St. Paul, MN 

Edward F. Reilly, Jr. 

Chairman 

U.S. Parole Commission 

Chevy Chase, MD 

Judge Barbara J. Rothstein 

Director 

Federal Judicial Center 

Washington, DC 

Jeffrey L. Sedgwick 

Acting Assistant Attorney General 

Office of Justice Programs 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Washington, DC 

Reginald A. Wilkinson, Ed.D. 

Director 

Ohio Business Alliance 

Columbus, OH 

B. Diane Williams 

President 

The Safer Foundation 

Chicago, IL
U.S. Department of Justice 

National Institute of Corrections 

Washington, DC 20534 

MEDIA MAIL 

POSTAGE & FEES PAID 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Permit No. G–231 

Official Business 

Penalty for Private Use $300 

Address Service Requested 

www.nicic.org