Challenges
Short stays and unpredictable release dates are facts of life for jail reentry. Complex needs to support success are as well. This makes coordination between jail-based and community-based reentry partners, and coordination across providers of different services and supports, critical to success. Funding shortages, time commitments, lack of strategic planning, siloed workstreams and the jail staffing challenges mentioned above can stymie community providers from reaching their full potential to support reentry. Expert panel members noted that partner coordination can also be stressed by tensions around funding. As one panel member put it: “I know in a lot of communities there is infighting, fighting for the same dollars, and a lot of communities have worked to figure out collaboration…There has to be some kind of mechanism to manage infighting over scarcity of resources.” Further, programs funded through grants may have requirements about which populations can be served, increasing the complexity of finding services that can work with everyone who needs reentry support.
Additionally, having multiple case managers for different needs (e.g., substance abuse treatment, mental health, reentry) can cause further confusion, for both jail staff and people returning from jail. This connection to multiple service systems can be a tremendous asset as most staff will not have the specialized knowledge in all the different areas of need in the reentry population. However, clarity of communication and coordination between the professionals working with a person returning from jail are necessary to realize the full potential of multiple case managers.
Opportunities
Experts believed that technology could be better employed to enhance coordination and access to services. Shared case management data systems can allow different case managers to communicate and see the same information, and that information can be accessible to the person after their return to the community. The COVID-19 pandemic created new opportunities to connect virtually both before and on the day of someone’s release and can also facilitate team approaches to working to support someone’s reentry. Technology can also provide automated solutions to improve data-sharing across agencies and community partners, though the process of developing the data-sharing agreements to allow this can be lengthy.
While virtual meetings between partners is a valuable tool, expert panel participants emphasized the importance of getting community partners in the same room to build relationships. They said it is important to bring community partners into the facility to connect with individuals before their release, not just for having a plan but already being connected to the resource and having a personal contact/rapport to build from. Providing avenues for community partners to engage with each other through building social networks and coordination across community networks was highlighted as a successful mechanism. One panel member uses bimonthly community partner meetings, through which partners gain familiarity with jail leadership, building credibility and sustaining continued collaboration on the reentry model. Some participants also flagged the necessity to individually carve out partnerships, with one giving this specific example: “I needed judges on my team. I’d meet with the senior judge, build a relationship with them. That’s the judge that is going to bring it back to all the other judges. Same with the prosecutors. Find the prosecutor who is going to listen, and they can inform the others.” For strategic coordination, collaborative bodies consisting of agency and organization heads such as criminal justice coordinating councils can be extremely beneficial to enhance coordination and efficiency in achieving agreed upon outcomes and decrease competition among system stakeholders by allocating resources accordingly.
It is also important to have a process for getting community partners access to the jail. One expert described how this process works for partners in their community: “We also have an orientation for everybody that’s a partner for us on Zoom, to make it as easy as possible to get in and out of the facility and build that relationship. If we’re just making referrals to community agencies, that doesn’t work. We know this works because we’re working with four community partners now and grants that they have, and we’re assisting them getting into the facility, accessing the individuals that they need to access.” On the community side, jail staff and other reentry partners should also visit community-based programs and services such as transition housing options in person prior to transferring or referring individuals there, as they can vary in quality. One expert described finding the conditions in some community service sites to be very poor.
In situations in which there are multiple case managers working with someone, establishing a mechanism for determining that one of them is the primary coordinator can make the process less confusing for the reentering individual and more efficient and effective for the reentry service partners. This person can be the “quarterback” of a multi-disciplinary team working with someone, facilitating continuity of care and consistency of approach, ideally based on a shared transition plan. They can also be responsible for sharing information about changes in specific services that can have a ripple effect into other areas.
A final but vital component in strengthening coordination is looping in jail staff. With reentry partners coming in and out of the facility, jail staff should be made aware of their role in the reentry process. A panel member described how jail reentry work can be consistently communicated to jail staff: “It might be useful…that all of this is part of the annual training for officers, program staff, and administrative staff. That way it becomes part of the system. It’s not something separate.”