Frequently Asked Questions

Over the last two decades, NIC has collaborated with national experts to create a series of comprehensive assessments to explore how closely agency-wide policies and practices align with evidence-based research that supports improved outcomes for women and individuals who identify as gender diverse. A brief description of each instrument is provided below:

Gender-Informed Practices Assessment (GIPA): The GIPA was developed over three years by the National Institute of Corrections - U.S. Department of Justice, the Center for Effective Public Policy (CEPP), and an advisory team of experts.[1]

This assessment was designed to provide a comprehensive assessment of women’s correctional facilities (prisons, jails, and detention facilities across 12 domains: Leadership, External Support, Facility, Management and Operations, Staffing and Training, Culture, Discipline, Classification and Assessment, Case and Transitional Planning, Research-Based Programming, Services, Quality Assurance and Evaluation

The GIPA assessment is conducted over 4-5 days by external evaluators who are experts in operations and programs. The process begins with a series of meetings with facility and department leaders. These meetings are designed to: 1) provide foundational information on the research and evidence regarding justice-involved women and the gender-responsive, trauma-informed, and evidence-based approaches that yield improved outcomes among women, their families, and communities, and 2) prepare the department and facility for data collection activities which include observing operations and programs, reviewing reports, policies, program and related materials; interviewing staff and stakeholders; and conducting staff, resident and stakeholder focus groups and surveys. Upon completion of the GIPA assessment process, the evaluation team scores the GIPA and summarizes strengths, challenges and opportunities across all 12 domains. The major opportunities are prioritized and used to help agencies develop a strategic plan.

Agencies that have implemented the GIPA, have reported a number of outcomes including –the effective application of gender-responsive principles, assessments and programs, improved safety and welfare of women and staff, and the targeting of critical factors that reduce institutional misconduct, revocation, and reoffending. 

Gender-Responsive Policy and Practice Assessment (GRPPA). The GRPPA was developed by NIC, the Center for Gender and Justice, and a team of experts[2] to provide an alternative assessment process for agencies interested in conducting an internal review of jail and facility-wide policies and practices.[3]  Rather than an external team used to conduct the GIPA,  agencies identify an internal work group and are provided with guided instruction to review gender-responsive policies and practices. The GRPAA assesses the alignment with the available research across five domains: 1) Environment; 2) Staffing; 3) Assessment, Classification, and Case Management; 4) Services and Programs; and 5) Quality Assurance and Evaluation.  It is intended as the first step in a more substantial process to understand the current facility, program policies, and practices so that reforms and/or enhancements can be planned. Templates for action plans are provided to help agencies move toward improving or changing current practices toward those that are more gender-responsive. Agencies that are interested in completing the GRPPA can download the assessment process and protocol on-line by accessing the following website: Gender-Responsive Policy & Practice (GRPPA) | National Institute of Corrections (nicic.gov).

Supervision Agencies Gender-Responsive Evaluation - SAGE (formerly known as the Gender Responsive Policies and Practices Assessment- Community Version GRPPA-CV) was developed in 2021 by the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) in collaboration with the Center for Effective Public Policy (CEPP) to enhance outcomes with women and gender diverse populations under supervision in the community. Drawing on methods and strategies developed for the GIPA and GRPPA, SAGE represents a compilation of the research on evidence-based and gender-responsive practices and the best thinking of practitioners focused on community corrections. 

Supervision agencies are invited to respond to a solicitation from NIC. If accepted they are provided with virtual training, coaching, and technical assistance to complete the assessment process.  This includes developing an internal work group, conducting a multi-method and comprehensive assessment, scoring items across 6 domains including Leadership and Culture, Staff Training and Retention, Assessment and Case Planning, Treatment and Services, Supervision Approaches, and Quality Assurance and, developing an action plan.

The SAGE process includes four phases. During Phase 1, CEPP works with the agency to identify experts in evidence-based practices and champions for gender-responsive and trauma-informed practices.  This team participates in a series of virtual training sessions to become familiar with gender-responsive and trauma-informed practice principles, how to use the various assessment methods, how to score SAGE, and how to summarize the results. During Phase 2, CEPP works with the team to develop an implementation plan with a complete schedule of activities and to identify who, when, and how staff women and other clients will participate in the assessment. In Phase 3, the data is collected and summarized to identify strengths, challenges, and opportunities across the six domains within the assessment. Finally, during Phase 4, the team meets with CEPP to identify priority targets, complete a strategic plan, and prepare to report their results to leadership and agency staff.  They are also encouraged to identify action steps that can be achieved within the next 12 months with technical assistance from CEPP and NIC.

Like the GIPA and GRPPA, the information gathered during the assessment process is summarized across six domains and used to guide the development of a strategic plan.

After the data is collected and summarized, each agency will use the SAGE scoring manual, to identify strengths, challenges, and opportunities in each domain. The results can then serve as the foundation for strategic planning efforts and provide targeted recommendations to assist agencies in refining specific policies and practices.  The results 2, of the SAGE can also be used to change key practices and programs to be more gender-responsive. Previous jurisdictions have used the results of the evaluation to implement strategies to launch training initiatives for staff in trauma-informed care and strength-based interventions, implement tools to support staff selection and hiring procedures; revise policies for assessment, supervision, technical violations, and supervision conditions; and expand collaboration with community providers.

Agencies invited to participate in the SAGE process, are required to identify a project coordinator responsible for managing each phase of the SAGE project. The project coordinator is encouraged to identify staff and other team members voluntarily and who share a strong interest in advancing outcomes for women and gender diverse populations. Ideally, team members will also share expertise in one or more of the domains. Generally, smaller agencies are encouraged to identify 4-6 team members, while larger agencies should consider six to eight team members. Team members should include staff with knowledge of SAGE domains, communication specialists, directly impacted women, and one or more community agency partners.

Project Coordinators should expect to spend approximately 12-14 days on this project over an eight-month period. Team members should expect to spend approximately seven days on this project over a six-month period. The most intense time commitment occurs during months three and four as sites complete the assessment activities.

During the SAGE process, project coordinators will participate in one 2-hour planning and SAGE preparation meeting, and six 3-hour training sessions with all team members. Session titles are listed below. 

• Virtual Session 1:  Gender Responsive Principles and Practices
• Virtual Session 2:  Assessment Methods and Strategies
• Virtual Session 3:  Assessment Methods: Demonstrating how to Facilitate a Focus Group and Conduct Observations
• Virtual Session 4:  Scoring the SAGE
• Virtual Session 5: Finalizing the Implementation Plan (Only Project Coordinators)
• Virtual Session 6:  Action Plan Presentation 

The SAGE instrument explores evidence-based and gender-responsive research across six domains: Leadership and Culture, Staffing and Training, Assessment and Case Planning, Programs and Services, Supervision Strategies, and Quality Assurance and Evaluation. 

SAGE involves a multi-method protocol implemented by an Agency Implementation Team. Agency team members participate in the following activities:  staff interviews, focus groups with women and staff, observation of probation and parole activities, surveys of women and staff, observations of specific activities including supervision and case management, and policy and document reviews.

The SAGE process is typically completed over 6-8 months and includes four phases. 

 CEPP will provide training and coaching to ensure that agency team members are able to deliver the various assessment methods.

Each jurisdiction will be work with a consultant from CEPP to assist with the implementation of stage. 

NIC anticipates that products will vary depending on agency circumstances and needs. Each site is required to attend the virtual trainings, participate in the four phases of SAGE, and complete the SAGE Implementation Process and Action Plan.

To support the implementation of gender and trauma-informed policies and practices across agencies, NIC may offer each site access to technical assistance over a specified period. The goal of this technical assistance is to assist sites that participated in SAGE to begin to work on the goals outlined in the Action Plans.

The WRNA Interview + Survey should be updated annually with clients or in the case of a significant event (i.e., a new offense, relapse, change in case manager, assault, etc.).

As a general rule, overrides on specific questions should occur only when information in the official record contradicts the system-involved person’s stated response to the question. They should not be the result of the interviewer’s perception of the issue in question. Within the interview guide, items which may be overridden are noted on the assessment with an asterisk (*) next to the question number. These are the only items which may be overridden in the scale.

Between 1980 and 2019, the number of incarcerated women in the U.S. increased by 700%. When considering the latest available data from 2020, the increase since 1980 reduces to 475% due to COVID-related correctional policy changes. Regardless, women continue to be the fastest growing segment of the criminal justice system (The Sentencing Project, 2022).

References cited:

The Sentencing Project. (2022, May). Incarcerated women and girls. Fact sheets. Author.
https://www.sentencingproject.org/fact-sheet/incarcerated-women-and-girls/  

The suite of WRNA instruments are considered fourth-generation validated risk/needs assessments. Three core versions reflect instruments validated for adult women in post-conviction settings: (1) Institutional Intake; (2) Pre-Release; (3) Community/Probation/Post-Release. The WRNA includes the needs and strengths most pertinent to women as identified in multiple validation studies.

Generally, the WRNA has been validated with adult, system-involved women assigned to institutions, pre‐release, community residential settings, probation, and parole/post-release supervision after having been adjudicated guilty for an offense. The WRNA is not currently validated for use for women on pre-trial status. And although some jurisdictions may decide to use the instrument to inform judicial sentencing decisions, it was not designed specifically for this purpose, nor for determining an “in or out” decision (i.e., incarceration versus no incarceration). Such decisions should be based on local sentencing guidelines and the larger correctional philosophies of each jurisdiction.

The WRNA was found to perform differently depending on the environment; some needs predict institutional adjustment problems better than they predict community recidivism. It is important for your agency to consider what needs are more potent in the setting you are providing services in.

The WRNA was developed through federal monies, and are in the public-domain, distributed with no charge. The copyrights for the assessments are held by the University of Cincinnati and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

For the WRNA, it is generally recommended that case planning takes place with individuals who score moderate risk or higher. Individuals who score low risk on the WRNA may not have needs that necessitate case planning and doing too much with these individuals may backfire.

No, NIC cannot provide funding for keynote speakers at a conference. However, NIC can provide training at a conference, providing it meets our initiatives.

Thinking for a Change (T4C) is not designed to be used with individuals assessed as low-risk; rather for those identified as medium- to high-risk. If you choose to use the lessons as you describe, we ask that you do not call the program T4C, because such changes (use with a different population or in a different manner) violate the fidelity of the program as it was designed and evaluated.

NIC does not currently have the T4C curriculum available for distribution in languages other than English. Agencies who are delivering T4C are strongly encouraged, based on their client population needs, to have the English version of T4C 4.0 translated to ensure fidelity in the curriculum's delivery to non-English speaking participants.

When and where will NIC offer facilitator training? 
The National Institute of Corrections will not be providing Thinking for a Change Facilitator training in Fiscal Year 2024. 

Upcoming and future trainings on NIC's newly updated Public T4C forum: https://community.nicic.gov/forum. You can subscribe to all comments and/or all topics in the forum to stay updated with any and all T4C announcements. 

This link is a map of all the agencies who have people trained by NIC to provide T4C Facilitator training to their staff and region, you may want to consider reaching out to some agencies in your area (if applicable). 

If you are looking for someone to come to train your staff to become T4C facilitators, we recommend that you reach out to the T4C authors to find out about experienced and vetted T4C trainers who the authors have approved to provide T4C training at a cost. There is no cost associated with any NIC hosted training, but if you reach out to a private agency through the T4C Authors to provide T4C training there will be costs/fees, etc. Here is the link to contact the T4C Specialists: https://t4c.nicic.gov/form/contact

NIC offers the Thinking for a Change Facilitator Training to correctional agencies in a 44-hour blended learning experience. The program is provided in partnership with a corrections agency. The program includes:

• 6 Virtual Instructor Led Training (VILT) sessions
• Inter-Session Work (independent study/practice).
• 1 Instructor Led Training (ILT) program.

Typically, all event and activities are scheduled within a seven week timeframe. This allows participants to complete inter-session work between the VILTs and the ILT. The ILT portion of the training is conducted onsite at the corrections agency site. 

There are no fees charged for NIC's Thinking For A Change Facilitator Training. However, when attending a Host Site sponsored event all travel, lodging, and per diem costs will be the responsibility of the participant’s agency. In addition, participants will be responsible for the costs associated with printing their training manual and intersession assignments. NIC recommends that two staff members register from each interested agency.