The Legislature created the Washington Statewide Reentry Council in 2016 to increase collaboration among reentry stakeholders

In 2016, the Legislature created the Washington Statewide Reentry Council (Council). The Legislature's stated intent is for the Council to develop collaborative and cooperative relationships between interested parties to improve public safety and outcomes for people reentering the community from incarceration (RCW 43.380.005).

The law also directs the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee (JLARC) to complete a performance audit of the Council every six years. This is the first JLARC audit.

Governor appointments meet the statutory membership requirements

The Governor appoints all 15 members of the Council. As required by statute (RCW 43.380.030), each position represents a specific interest group or state agency. Council members serve for two years and may reapply for their position. The Council has recommended individuals for the Governor's Office to consider when vacancies occur.

Exhibit 1.1: Governor-appointed Council members must represent the following interests and state agencies

Source: RCW 43.380.030.

Council membership differs from other state reentry councils

Four other states — New York, North Carolina, Oregon, and Pennsylvania — have statewide reentry councils. Like Washington's Council, they have existed for several years and have an ongoing mandate.

• While no specific membership model is preferable, other states have more state agencies as council members or non-voting participants than Washington. Agencies include housing, licensing, social services, health, employment, and veterans affairs.
• Other councils have standing subcommittees that either take action on specific council goals or make recommendations to the full council.
• New York, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania work with local reentry councils that coordinate services for people reentering the community.
• Washington's Council has greater representation from nonprofit service providers and people who have reentered the community following incarceration (i.e., those with lived experience). The community leaders on the Council often also have lived and/or nonprofit experience.

Overall membership reflects race and gender goals, but not geographic diversity

Exhibit 1.2: Only 3 of 19 current or former Council members were from eastern Washington

Source: JLARC staff analysis of Council membership through June 2022.

The Governor must consider the self-identified race and gender and the geographic location of applicants so that membership reflects the state's incarcerated population.

The Council’s overall membership (all current and former appointees) is more racially diverse and has more women than Washington's incarcerated population.

However, Council membership does not represent the state's different geographic regions. Only 13% of current or former non-agency members are from eastern Washington counties. In contrast, 27% of the state's total population lives in eastern Washington and 31% of people reentering the community from state prisons are released in eastern Washington counties.

Council has two staff and receives administrative support from the Department of Commerce

The Council has two staff members:

• An executive director who ensures that the Council meets its statutory duties, including legislative activities and reporting. This position is confirmed by the Senate.
• A coordinator who schedules meetings, manages communications, and represents the Council to various groups.

The Department of Commerce provides facilities for Council use and manages the Council's funds.

The Council has more dedicated staff support than the other four state reentry councils that JLARC staff reviewed. North Carolina has one dedicated staff member, while the others are supported by individuals who hold other primary jobs. For example, Oregon's council is housed in and supported by the Department of Corrections reentry division.

Council staffing is in transition

The Council appointed its first executive director in 2017 and reappointed the individual in 2020. The executive director left the Council in November 2021. Following a months-long recruitment process, the Council selected a new executive director in November 2022. The Council also hired a new coordinator in October 2022. The Council continued to meet during 2022.

❮ Previous    Next ❯   

The Legislature created the Washington Statewide Reentry Council to develop collaborative and cooperative relationships between interested parties. Statute does not direct the Council to operate programs or develop policy.

The Council performs its three required functions: holding meetings, issuing reports, and seeking input

Statute requires the Council to perform three functions: hold public meetings, issue biennial reports, and solicit feedback from stakeholder groups listed in statute. The Council has performed these duties:

1. Held at least four public meetings each year. Meetings have been in person and remote. The Council has held some meetings at state prisons to ensure they hear from people directly affected by reentry programs and policies.

2. Issued biennial reports in 2016, 2018, and 2020. The report contents have varied, but each highlights Council activities and includes high-level recommendations to the Legislature and Governor regarding reentry (see section 4). Another biennial report was due in December 2022.

3. Sought input and participation from stakeholders. Although the Council has interacted with most of the stakeholder groups specified in statute, its interactions with many of them have been limited.

Statute allows the Council to perform other duties, and it has done so. These include appointing an executive director, spending funds, issuing policy recommendations, and creating subcommittees (e.g., legislative, hiring, equity). Statute also allows the Council to apply for grants and create advisory groups, but it has not done either.

As permitted by law, the Council has delegated overall responsibility for many functions to its executive director. For example, the executive director leads the effort to write the biennial report and works with Commerce to manage funds.

The Council spent $1.27 million over six years, primarily on staff and grants to nonprofits

Exhibit 2.1: Council has spent $1.27 million on staff, grants, and other expenses

Source: Council records, fiscal years 2017-2022.

Since 2017, the Council spent funds on staff, grants, and other expenses such as equipment and travel.

In four fiscal years 2017, 2020, 2021, and 2022., the Council used unspent funds (e.g., salary or travel savings) to offer grants to community nonprofits. Individual grants ranged from $8,000 to $50,000.

• The Council awarded 73% of grants to organizations that offer direct services to people reentering the community after incarceration (e.g., housing, transportation, and personal care vouchers).
• It awarded 27% of its grants to organizations for outreach materials, studies, and reentry program administration. The Council used a competitive process in only one of the four grant cycles.

The state funds other reentry grants that Council and Commerce staff administer

The Department of Commerce (Commerce) also receives separate appropriations for two grants that serve the reentry population. In the current biennium, the grants offer $300,000 to Divine Alternatives for Dads Services and $708,000 to the Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe reentry program. Both programs offer counseling, case management, employment services, and other support services. The grants help pay for the programs' staff and administration. Although appropriated to Commerce, the Council coordinator has administered both grants.

Commerce staff in the Office of Firearm Safety and Violence Prevention manage the $5 million Reentry Grant program that was funded in the 2021-23 operating budget (ESSB 5092). They provide regular updates about the process, applications, and awards at Council meetings, and have sought feedback from Council members and staff.

The Council engages with stakeholders through meetings and email

Statute directs the Council to solicit input and participation from stakeholders interested in reducing recidivism, promoting public safety, and improving community conditions for people reentering the community from incarceration.

• The Council primarily uses email and public meetings to receive input from stakeholders. For example, public meetings often include presentations from nonprofit organizations and an opportunity for public comment. The Council also has held listening sessions to learn more about the intersection of race and reentry.
• The Council staff have attended meetings of various state work groups as directed by law. They have periodically attended meetings of local nonprofits.
• Best practices note that meetings, email, and listening sessions are good tools for informing or consulting. However, if the Council wants to increase collaboration, it could also consider approaches such as advisory committees.

The Council has had limited interaction with most stakeholder groups, including those named in statute

Statute directs the Council to consult with 12 specific stakeholder groups. This requirement is separate from the direction to the Governor to appoint a diverse Council membership.

The Council's engagement with stakeholder groups varies widely. For many of the groups identified in statute, Council staff or a few Council members spoke to or met with stakeholders. Most of the interactions have not been documented or reported to the full Council.

The Council has frequent and regular interaction with:

• Individuals who have experienced reentry.
• The Department of Corrections (DOC).
• The Governor's Office.

Individuals with reentry experience and service providers are often invited to present at Council meetings. Council staff confer with DOC about activities and the Governor's Office about Council appointments.

The Council and its staff have had limited interaction with other groups.

• It has met with representatives of at least four local governmentsThurston, Spokane, and Whatcom Counties; Seattle. to discuss housing, incarceration, and employment policy.
• While the Council has met with service providers that might implement evidence-based or promising programs, it has not met with researchers such as Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) since 2017.
• The Council relies on its own membership to fulfill the statutory outreach requirement to educators and jails. Council membership includes representatives from the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges and law enforcement. The Council has not consulted with other educator groups. It has met with representatives of at least two jailsClark and Spokane Counties. to discuss a budget proviso, legislative event, and reentry best practices.
• Council staff and members have testified on bills, participated in legislative work sessions, and worked with certain members on legislation. However, it is unclear the degree to which they consult with each of the legislative caucuses.

There is no evidence of the Council consulting with specialty courts, managed care organizations, and behavioral health administrative service organizations. While Council staff have attended meetings of state behavioral health work groups, the Council has not otherwise consulted with behavioral health providers.

Council's engagement with other state entities is limited

When the Council first began, state agencies provided progress updates to the Council on the Governor's Executive Order 16-05, which directed state agencies to address specific reentry issues. In 2018, the Council also participated in Results WA, the Governor's performance management oversight effort. However, the Council has had less engagement with other state entities than is suggested by best practice. For example, other state reentry councils routinely work with agencies that address housing, licensing, veterans affairs, or employment.

In addition, the Council stated its intent to center its work in racial equity. While the Council has invited the state's Office of Equity and relevant commissions (e.g., Commission on Hispanic Affairs, Commission on African American Affairs, and Commission on Asian Pacific American Affairs) to participate in racial equity forums and membership selection, it does not regularly consult with these entities and bring information back to the full Council for consideration.

Legislative Audit Recommendation #1: The Council should develop a stakeholder engagement plan that demonstrates how it will solicit input and participation from all stakeholders identified in statute

Statute requires the Council to engage with stakeholders interested in reducing recidivism, promoting public safety, and improving outcomes for people reentering the community from incarceration. The Council also must consult with twelve stakeholder groups named in statute. This requirement is separate from the direction to the Governor to appoint a diverse Council membership.

The Council should create a stakeholder engagement plan that identifies the relevant stakeholders, the methods it will use to collect input and encourage participation from each group, and how it will consider stakeholder input in the Council’s actions, recommendations, and grants. The Council should document both planned and actual activities. Stakeholder engagement should be linked to the mission, goals, and performance measures in any subsequent strategic plan.

The Council concurs with this recommendation. You can find additional information in Recommendations.

❮ Previous    Next ❯   

The Legislature's stated purpose for the Washington Statewide Reentry Council (Council) is to improve public safety and outcomes for people reentering the community from incarceration.

The Council has not measured its performance

Statute anticipated that Council objectives and benchmarks would inform JLARC’s review.

In 2016 and 2017, the Council discussed the need for performance measures to quantify progress toward achieving its policy priorities and improve reentry outcomes over time. However, the Council did not adopt measures and has not discussed them publicly since 2017.

Best practices provide guidance that could help the Council track its progress towards achieving desired outcomes for reentry

Best practices for performance measurement start by linking an entity's activities with desired outcomes. Agencies such as the Office of Financial Management and the federal Government Accountability Office provide guidance and management tools to help with this process. For example, logic models can demonstrate how resources like staff and funding (inputs) are used for activities that generate services (outputs) to support the intended result (outcome). Outcomes can be immediate (e.g., improved coordination) or long-term (e.g., broad social goals that the work may affect).

Best practices indicate that entities should measure inputs, activities, outputs, and outcomes. Performance measures show progress toward the outcome and should be reported to stakeholders regularly.

• Performance measures should be specific, reliable, and comparable over time to track progress.
• Recommendations should be specific, feasible, cost-effective, and measurable.

Performance measures can include implementation of recommendations or progress on specific tasks (e.g., legislative change). Other state reentry councils use these types of measures.

Exhibit 3.1: A logic model can link inputs and activities, such as Council efforts at collaboration, to desired outcomes

Hover over a card to see examples

Source: JLARC staff analysis of logic model approaches and Council work.

Research literature and public agencies identify possible outcome measures for public safety and reentry

Public safety outcomes consider changes in criminal activity

Local, state, and federal agencies use recidivism as a measure of public safety. Recidivism refers to a person committing a new criminal offense after reentry into the community. There are many ways to measure it depending on the policy question. The Legislature uses the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) definition: recidivism is a new criminal charge within three years of release to the community, with the charge adjudicated within one year. 

Statute directs JLARC to determine the extent to which funds expended by the Council have contributed towards reducing recidivismCommitting a new criminal offense after reentering the community.. However, it is too soon to measure any impact on recidivism from the Council's efforts. The most recent WSIPP data shows that the recidivism rate declined from 54% for those released in fiscal year 2013 to 46% for those released in fiscal year 2018. Experts are still determining the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, changes in state law, and court decisions on recidivism data. More information is in Appendix A.

Desistance is an emerging measure that could be informative. While definitions and measurements vary, desistance can be understood as a decline or change in criminal behavior over time. For example, it can mean less serious offenses (e.g., misdemeanor offenses rather than felony) or less frequent offenses. Like many researchers, both the Department of Corrections and WSIPP report that they are considering how desistance research can inform their work.

Outcomes for individuals reentering the community reflect access to services and socioeconomic factors

The Council’s enabling statute lists housing, employment, education, and health services as possible areas for Council review. Research organizations and other entities have identified them as key indicators of reentry success as well.

• The Department of Corrections indicates that one measure of reentry is the percent of people employed three months after release.
• The Council on State Governments' Justice Center and the Urban Institute indicate that other measures include access to housing, employment, education, government-issued identification, physical and mental health care, transportation, financial services, family reunification, and therapy upon release from incarceration.

The Council could begin to track its impact by reviewing relevant data sources and performance measures

In 2022, the Council suggested a study of reentry outcomes, needs, gaps, and disparities in Washington. Study areas included recidivism, employment, addiction and mental health treatment, education, and family reunification. While this study was not funded, there are opportunities for the Council to collaborate with and learn from other entities that compile relevant data and track similar types of activities.

State agencies with relevant data include:

• Commerce (e.g., housing, public safety, business development data).
• Employment Security Department (employment and unemployment insurance data).
• Health Care Authority (e.g., public health coverage and access).
• WSIPP (criminal justice research and data).
• Washington State Statistical Analysis Center in the Office of Financial Management (clearinghouse for crime and justice statistics).

Other councils, commissions, and boards track activities similar to the Council's work. They measure:

• Number of meetings held with stakeholders and events attended or hosted.
• Legislative actions, including progress of new legislation and any legislative changes (e.g., removing specific terms from statutes, allocating a specific amount of funding to a pilot program).
• Partnerships with agencies to collect specific information.
• Completion of specific tasks or goals.

To understand its impact, the Council will need to prioritize which outcomes to focus on and identify measures to track these outcomes.

❮ Previous    Next ❯   

The Council has engaged in planning efforts, but has not developed a strategic plan

The Council has engaged in planning sessions, discussed the need for a strategic plan, and listed broad strategic priorities in the 2020 biennial report. However, it has not yet adopted a strategic plan or goals. As a result, the focus of its efforts are unclear.

• Without a plan, the Council has tried to address a broad range of reentry policy topics. The 2020 priorities appear to give equal consideration to education, housing, employment, racial equity, prison policy, community involvement, and public awareness. The Council also has addressed sentencing reform and court systems in its documents.
• In interviews with JLARC staff, Council members shared differing ideas about the purpose of the Council. For example, some believe that it should serve as a forum for information sharing, while others believe the Council should help state agencies develop policies and practices.
• The Council has awarded several grants to non-profit organizations. While the grants include output measures (e.g., people served), it is not clear how these grants have assisted the Council in fulfilling its goals.
• The Council adopted a race equity statement in 2020 and has taken part in meetings and forums concerning racial equity. It remains unclear how the Council will prioritize racial equity in its activities (e.g., grants and policy recommendations).

The current Council co-chairs have noted that they intend to develop a strategic plan, and planning has been mentioned at public meetings in 2022.

Best practices state that councils should adopt a strategic plan and goals

Best practices state that councils should develop a strategic plan that drives actions and measures progress. For example, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) writes that councils should have an agreed upon mission or outcome, establish clear goals to achieve the mission or outcome, set clear objectives and measurable targets to track progress, develop an action plan to coordinate activities and responsibilities, and identify performance measures.

A strategic plan could help the Council link its recommendations and grant activities to a broader mission or goals. For example, if the Council were to prioritize housing or employment in its plan, it could then choose grantees whose work best supported that goal. A plan would also help the Council identify ways in which it centers its work in racial equity.

Exhibit 4.1: A strategic planning process is a cycle that begins with a common mission and includes performance goals and monitoring

Source: JLARC staff analysis of GAO, Office of Finanaical Management (OFM), and additional literature identifying best practices for effective councils.

The Council has issued policy recommendations, but it has not consistently linked its recommendations to actions and results

Statute directs the Council to report its policy and funding recommendations every two years. The Council has issued 24 policy recommendations in its biennial reports on topics such as housing, education, employment, and financial obligations.

Recently, the recommendations have been too broad to show a clear connection between the Council's intent and any related legislative or agency action (e.g., passage of a bill, change in practice).

• In 2016, the Council recommended that the Legislature pass "ban the box" legislation, which would remove a barrier to employment. The Council cited specific legislation. In 2018, it reported that the Legislature had passed the Fair Chance Act. Other 2016 recommendations about education and housing also were linked to bill passage.
• In contrast, the Council's 2018 report made seven recommendations for the 2019 legislative session and ten long-term recommendations. Some recommendations reference specific legislation while others offer support for general principles (e.g., "examine and improve conditions of confinement to promote successful reentry.") The 2020 report did not indicate whether the Council's recommendations had been addressed by the Legislature, agencies, or others.

The Council's bylaws and policy statements indicate it will consider racial equity and evidence- or research-based practices in its recommendations. However, Council records and the recommendation language do not show how the Council is considering these factors. Additionally, the recommendations included in the biennial reports have not been discussed at a public Council meeting since 2017.

Legislative Auditor Recommendation #2: The Council should develop a strategic plan to guide its activities, recommendations, and spending. The plan should have performance benchmarks and measures so the Council can track its progress toward achieving the Council’s goals.

Best practices in performance measurement indicate that councils should develop a strategic plan that drives actions and measures progress. The Council should develop a plan with stakeholder input and adopt the plan at a public meeting. The strategic plan should include a mission, goals, performance measures, targets, actions, and a time frame for revisions.

The Council’s policy recommendations and grant funding should relate to the goals and targets stated in the strategic plan. The Council’s biennial reports should document upcoming priorities and actions, and the results of previous priorities and actions, including progress toward or barriers to implementation of the Council’s recommendations.

The Council concurs with this recommendation. You can find additional information in Recommendations.

❮ Previous    Next ❯