Challenges
Expert panel members note that though many institutions claim to prioritize data-driven reentry strategies, it is not clear that these strategies are carried out effectively, if at all. Research-driven system change, collecting data and using it effectively, and getting better data from community partners were all named as important areas for focus to make jail reentry work more meaningfully data-driven. As the jail reentry ecosystem continues to evolve, jurisdictions need to keep up with monitoring and implementing evidence-based practices, but doing so can be constrained by limited data capacity and competing priorities for the time of key personnel.
For a variety of reasons, jails may struggle to operate with data-informed practices (Russo et al. 2020). These reasons may include:
- Difficulty collecting, recording, and accessing available data in relevant formats
- Using data to address particular issues instead of leveraging data for comprehensive strategic planning
- Lack of onsite data analysts
- Technical, legal, and organizational barriers to data sharing
As one expert noted, there is still a lack of integrated data systems in many jails, and paper-based record keeping or separate and siloed data systems do not lend themselves to data harvesting or analysis. Limited operational funds sometimes cannot support transition to full jail management system (JMS) or JMS options that are configured to support evidence-based practice in addition to jail operations.
Data collection efforts can become further hampered due to perfectionist expectations, with data not shared with agency leadership or reentry partners because it has substantial shortcomings. However, it is often best to confer on the data that is available, and that can spur support for improvements in its quality. Expert panel members emphasized their desire to enhance the streamlining of data and improve data sharing across departments. Additionally, they highlighted the need for greater accountability around data collection and efforts jails are pursuing in adopting evidence-based practices.
Opportunities
Adhering to strong research principles can foster data-informed decision-making in jails and build support from reentry stakeholders. Unlike some other aspects of jail reentry, improving data quality is an initiative that can garner support from partners with very different political or philosophical orientations, and data efforts can maintain momentum even when political landscapes shift.
Experts identified issue prioritization as a strategy for improving data efforts. If all jail administrators narrowed down five to ten components to track, this could standardize data consistency and collection. This also creates an accountability mechanism – if the same data is consistently collected and reported across jurisdictions, those that fail to report may fear negative perception from their peer institutions. Additionally, educating jail staff and partners on the why behind data collection can motivate better data engagement efforts. One participant noted that case managers could benefit from understanding the reasons for data collection, since they often do not see how the data ends up being used. Jail jurisdictions can begin advancing data and research efforts by beginning with the data they already have; it is easy to get bogged down in missing certain pieces of information and delay examining data that exists. Grant-funded community programs are generally required to collect key measures and they can also gather data on larger needs, starting with helping in one area and then building to encompass a broader understanding of reentry issues.
National and local capacity exists to assist jails and their reentry partners with data and evaluation. The National Institute of Corrections and the Bureau of Justice Assistance have supported innovation through the launch of the Jails and Justice Support Center, which provides an online hub for information sharing around jail administration, including data collection and use. One expert cited success through the initiative’s peer-to-peer learning opportunities, which have fostered beneficial knowledge sharing on evidence-based practice. Partnerships with local universities can strengthen data management efforts and the analytical capacity of jails and other reentry partners. Local universities can also serve as a source for expertise on the current state of research evidence on critical reentry topics.
As data capture improves, it makes evaluation of reentry programs and efforts more feasible. Best practices in conducting program evaluations highlighted by expert panel members included data sharing agreements, de-identified data, and consent forms for the release of information to researchers. In instances of sharing de-identified data, establishing a process for consent can empower jail jurisdictions to obtain and utilize data for ongoing analyses. In one study example, the benefits of de-identified data allowed jail data to be matched with healthcare data to form needs profiles for overdoses and evaluate the effects of MOUD programs. Program evaluation can also provide an independent assessment of curriculum fidelity, helping ensure that programs and processes are implemented as intended.
Two examples of enhancing data and evaluation come from Charleston and St. Louis Counties’ efforts as part of the Safety and Justice Challenge (Jannetta and Ervin 2022). The two counties operationalized data to enhance local reform efforts. Charleston County hired criminal coordinating justice council staff to obtain data from multiple agencies and transform the data into usable and sharable formats. In St. Louis County, a statistician was hired to manage jail data, and the county partnered with a local professor to further enhance data analysis capacity and build trust with other local partners in the reentry field. Data innovation in both sites accelerated systems-level improvements and made jail data more publicly available.