At the state level, it is relatively easy to identify lead authorities for distinct systems, such as mental health, labor, and workforce, although responsibility for one aspect of prisoner re-entry, such as mental health, rarely seems concentrated exclusively under one person's authority. ^[1]   Determining who to engage at the local level, when a jumble of groups, individuals, and organizations has a stake in re-entry in each city or county, is likely to be particularly vexing.

The preceding recommendation explained the value of becoming familiar with the different systems that need to be represented in the initiative. That research should help point to the various organizations that play key roles in a system, such as the Workforce Investment Board, which runs the local One-Stop. At the local level, community audits can help generate an inventory of relevant groups and individuals. ^[2]   Unfortunately, even an initial list of target constituencies and familiarity with their respective systems does not guarantee an audience receptive to a joint initiative around prisoner re-entry.

Some of these key organizations and agencies, at both the state and local level, might immediately recognize the value of participating in a prisoner re-entry initiative, or they may already be addressing this issue. Almost always, however, there will be at least some reluctance to exploring the possibility of working together around prisoner re-entry among some organizations whose role is critical to a prisoner's safe and successful return to the community.

In these situations, it will be useful to engage some leadership in the re-entry effort. Appealing to someone who is both interested in prisoner re-entry and who exercises influence over the staff, organization, or agency hesitant to invest any time in a discussion around this issue can be a helpful way to get that individual or entity to the re-entry table. The chief executive of a jurisdiction--such as the governor, county executive, or mayor--is obviously particularly well situated to exert such influence. It is also difficult to turn down a request from state legislators, city council members, or judges, whose authority is seen to span beyond any particular agency.

A state legislature can play a role by creating an oversight commission for a re-entry initiative. Many states have legislated the creation of such commissions to coordinate work groups on sentencing. A few have established more general commissions or study committees to evaluate and develop recommendations for improving prison population management and other aspects of the criminal justice system, which necessarily includes strategies around re-entry. For example, the Maine legislature created the Commission to Improve the Supervision, Management, and Incarceration of Prisoners, which is charged with making recommendations to reduce prison and jail populations, to reduce corrections costs and recidivism, and to improve public safety. ^[3]   Similar directives setting up committees to study prison population management were passed in New Hampshire and South Carolina. ^[4]  

It is also important to appeal to the person whose involvement in the re-entry initiative is sought in terms that are particularly and individually compelling. To that end, knowing what issues are most likely to resonate with the target audience is essential (e.g., revitalizing a particular neighborhood, improving communities' confidence in the criminal justice system, lowering rates of HIV infection, decreasing unemployment, increasing community safety, postponing the construction of a new correctional facility). (See Policy Statement 3, Incorporating Re-Entry into Organizations' Missions and Work Plans, Recommendation c, for more on how government officials can appeal to potential partner agencies in the community in terms directly relevant to those agencies.)

Careful thought should be given to who will lead the initial planning discussions. As indicated earlier, people whose authority is seen to span multiple organizations or agencies can be particularly effective leaders of an initiative in which success depends on extensive collaboration. Inevitably, at least some participants will approach a planning discussion warily, and will assess who is trying to situate themselves for a contract or grant, which constituencies are favored by virtue of their representation in the initial planning meetings, or what particular issue area is likely to be spotlighted. For these reasons, the chairperson's role is particularly important. In some jurisdictions, assuaging suspicions of various interest groups is best achieved by designating two co-chairs of the initiative.

Example: Family Life Center (RI)

Planning discussions around prisoner re-entry, which resulted in the establishment of the Family Life Center, were chaired by two elected officials: A state legislator and a city councilman, both with extensive credibility in the African-American and Latino communities and among their peers in General Assembly and City Hall, represented individuals from two neighborhoods in Providence that receive disproportionately large numbers of people released from the state correctional facility.