SUBSTANCE USE AND MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAM

Making the Transition:
Rethinking Jail Reentry in
Los Angeles County
FEBRUARY 2013

Talia Sandwick • Karen Tamis • Jim Parsons • Cesar Arauz-Cuadra

Executive Summary
The past decade has seen an increase in the use of reentry services as a way of supporting people as they are
released from jail, with the aim of reducing reoffending and enhancing public safety. Corrections agencies and
community organizations provide reentry services (such as employment programs or substance use treatment) to
mitigate risk factors that are linked to repeat criminal activity, known as recidivism. While research has shown that
reentry support can lead to lower rates of criminal activity and reincarceration, there are a variety of challenges associated with implementing these programs in correctional settings in general, and jails in particular.1
The Vera Institute of Justice (Vera) launched the Los Angeles Jail to Community Reentry Project in November 2010
to help the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD) and community-service providers increase the impact
and reach of reentry services for people returning to the community from the Los Angeles County Jail (L.A. County
Jail), with a focus on the neighborhoods of South Los Angeles and Boyle Heights. To inform strategies aimed at
improving reentry programming, Vera worked in partnership with the LASD, The California Endowment, and community leaders, advocates, and service providers to map the needs of the jail population and to identify barriers to
accessing reentry services.
The study documented the demographic profile and reentry needs of men held in the L.A. County Jail, with a focus on those with ties to Boyle Heights or South Los Angeles; opinions of people held in the jail, experiences with
current reentry services, and barriers to accessing those services; and the views of jail and community stakeholders
about the jail-based and community-based interventions available in Los Angeles County, the accessibility and cultural fit of those programs, and practical barriers to providing support.
This report describes findings from the study and offers a series of recommendations for maximizing the effectiveness of reentry services for the 160,000 people who pass through the L.A. County Jail annually.
Key study findings include:
>> The most common hurdles that people held in the jail expected to encounter upon release were related to
employment, housing, and substance use.
>> Only six people (out of the 80 people interviewed) reported receiving reentry services while in the jail.
>> While a small sample, those people who did have contact with services in the jail reported that they found
them to be helpful.
>> Despite the LASD’s recent initiatives to bring community service organizations into the jail to provide reentry
support (known as jail in-reach), many service providers interviewed for the study reported problems securing
funding and LASD authorization to provide in-jail services.
>> Budgetary constraints and understaffing adversely affect reentry services. The main LASD reentry services
provider, the Community Transition Unit, had a one-to-1,000 ratio of staff to potential clients (people held in
the jail) at the time of data collection.
>> Most community-service providers lack sufficient capacity to evaluate the effectiveness of the reentry services
that they provide.
>> There is limited communication and coordination between the LASD, other government agencies, and the
range of community-based service providers.

2

MAKING THE TRANSITION: RETHINKING JAIL REENTRY IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY

The 11 recommendations in this report address three core areas for improvement: reentry service delivery and engagement, operations and efficiency, and coordination. The recommendations build on the ongoing efforts of the
LASD and community-service providers to enhance supportive services for people leaving the jail and returning to
their communities. They include:

Reentry Service
Delivery and
Engagement

Operations and
Efficiency

Coordination

1.	

Expand reentry service outreach and tailor it for the jail environment.

2.	

Create client targeting and triage systems.

3.	

Incorporate risk and needs assessments into reentry services.

4.	

Individualize reentry service plans for maximum impact.

5.	

Take steps to overcome barriers to trust and engagement.

6.	

Strengthen linkages between the jail and community-service providers.

7.	

Standardize the procedures, staff training, and supervision used by jail-based reentry
programs.

8.	

Use data to facilitate reentry services provision.

9.	

Develop evaluation components for all reentry programs.

10.	 Enhance collaboration among reentry service providers, the Department of Mental
Health, and the Probation Department.
11.	 Increase collaboration between and among jail and community-based providers.

The report is divided into five sections. The first section provides background on jail reentry in Los Angeles County
and the second section describes the study methodology. The third section profiles the men held in the jail who
were interviewed for the study, including demographic characteristics, reentry needs, and experiences with services. The fourth section presents a series of findings and recommendations regarding the current provision of reentry
services and guidance for improving those supports. Finally, the fifth section contains conclusions that reflect on
common themes of the recommendations and appropriate next steps.
The report is intended as a starting point for conversations among LASD staff, community leaders, funders, government officials, and representatives of nonprofit organizations with the aim of reaching consensus about the services
that are needed to support people leaving the L.A. County Jail and how to improve their delivery.

A more detailed, technical report of findings and recommendations is available on the Vera
Institute of Justice website: www.vera.org/pubs/making-the-transition-technical-report

3

-

FROM THE PROGRAM DIRECTOR
In 2010, the Vera Institute of Justice began work with the Los Angeles County
Sheriff’s Department (LASD) and community agencies to evaluate and improve
the support available to people leaving the Los Angeles County Jail—commonly known as reentry services. Since this project started, problems with
overcrowding in the jail—which has been overcapacity for many years—have
intensified as a result of the State of California’s implementation of the 2011
Public Safety Realignment Act. The act, commonly referred to as realignment,
shifted responsibility for the supervision of many people serving custodial
and community sentences from state to county authorities. While the resulting influx presents a significant new challenge for the LASD, it also creates an
unprecedented opportunity to reexamine the jail’s primary function, expand
alternatives to incarceration, and focus efforts on reducing recidivism and
enhancing public safety.
Enhancing reentry services for people leaving jail reduces reoffending. The
LASD has launched a number of initiatives to improve reentry supports, including an emphasis on educational programming and in-reach initiatives that
bring representatives from community-based organizations into the jail to increase the likelihood that people will remain engaged with services when they
return home. However, providing services in this setting is extremely challenging and there is much to be done to better connect people leaving the jail with
the supports they need.
Specifically, there is a need for enhanced coordination to build a continuum
of reentry services that start in the jail and continue in the community. With
this need for collaboration in mind, Vera researchers interviewed LASD employees, services providers working for community agencies, researchers, advocates, and a sample of men in the jail from two Los Angeles neighborhoods. By
describing the challenge of jail reentry from these multiple perspectives, we
hope that this report provides a roadmap for building coordinated services on
both sides of the jail wall, with the aim of improving public safety and reducing the number of people in Los Angeles County caught in a costly and damaging cycle of recidivism.

Jim Parsons
Director, Substance Use and Mental Health Program

4

MAKING THE TRANSITION: RETHINKING JAIL REENTRY IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Contents
6	Introduction
8	

Reentry Programming in the L.A. County Jail

9	

Planned Expansion of LASD Reentry Programs

10	Methods
11	 Profile of People Interviewed in the Jail
11	 Interviewee Characteristics
11	 Reentry Priorities and Needs
16	 Expectations of Help
16	 Services Offered and Received
17	 Findings and Recommendations
18	 Reentry Service Delivery and Engagement
25	 Operations and Efficiency
28	Coordination
30	Conclusion
32	 Next Steps

5

-

Introduction
THE COMMUNITY
TRANSITION UNIT
The LASD instituted the Community Transition Unit (CTU) in
2001 with the express goal of
“link[ing] inmates to housing,
mental health, drug rehabilitation, employment, and life skills
services to help them transition out of jail and into a stable
life style.”8 The CTU draws on
national models to provide
discharge planning and release
preparation services for thousands of people in the jail annually. According to its website,
the CTU “also seeks to enhance
inmate participation in educational, vocational, and other life
skills training programs” and
“partners with correctional professionals, medical staff, mental
health staff and numerous community based, faith based and
governmental agencies who
receive referrals and facilitate
placements for the inmate
participants.” At the time of the
study, the CTU employed a staff
of 17 uniformed custody assistants who provide direct services to clients in the jail. CTU
staff service all jail facilities,
but are concentrated at the
jail headquarters in downtown
Los Angeles. The main source
of CTU funding is the Inmate
Welfare Fund.9

6

During the year ending June 2010, almost 13 million people were admitted to
jails in the United States.2 Given the high rates of recidivism for this population, it is important to provide services that can help people succeed in the
community when they are released from jail, enhancing public safety and
reducing the likelihood that they will return to custody.3 This is no small task:
people who come into contact with the criminal justice system consistently
have higher rates of mental illness, substance use, unemployment, low educational attainment, and homelessness than the general population—and many
of these issues are linked to higher rates of offending.4 At the same time, criminal justice involvement adds barriers for people returning to the community
from jail, such as severely limited opportunities for employment and exclusion
from certain government-funded programs like public housing.5
Thus, people leaving custody are often in a double bind: they are more likely
to need supportive services than the general population, but they face multiple
obstacles to getting help with the basic resources needed for stability. Furthermore, certain geographic areas–primarily home to low-income residents
from minority racial and ethnic groups—are disproportionately affected by
high rates of incarceration.6 The cycling of large numbers of people in and
out of these neighborhoods is highly disruptive for individuals, families, and
communities, leading to community-wide economic decline, weakened social
networks, and diminished trust in law enforcement.7 The significant challenges
faced by those leaving jail can contribute to reoffending. The high cost to
families, communities, and taxpayers of continued offending underscores the
importance of capitalizing on the time people spend in jail to identify those
in need of help and link them with services in the jail that they can continue
when they return to the community.
However, the very nature of the jail environment makes targeting and providing supportive interventions difficult. In the nation’s largest jail systems,
hundreds of people enter custody every day. Most are only held for a few days,
and many are held in pretrial detention without a determinate release date.
These high rates of turnover create very challenging circumstances for jail
reentry initiatives. Staff must quickly identify those who would benefit from
support, determine which services they need, and make the connections necessary to engage them in services when they return to the community.

REENTRY IN L.A. COUNTY
These challenges are felt acutely in Los Angeles County (L.A. County), which
has the largest jail system in the world: its eight facilities house more than
17,000 people on an average day. In 2001, the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (LASD) founded the Community Transition Unit (CTU) to provide reentry
services to those leaving the Los Angeles County Jail (L.A. County Jail) (see

MAKING THE TRANSITION: RETHINKING JAIL REENTRY IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY

sidebar). Since then, the LASD has worked to improve service delivery: the
department is implementing and planning several promising initiatives that
are highlighted in this report (see pages 8 and 9). Nevertheless, the majority
of people held in the jail are released without receiving services to address
any underlying issues that could increase their risk of arrest, and the demand
for reentry services greatly exceeds current capacity. A significant increase in
resources is crucial to address these shortcomings.
Adding to the challenges of providing reentry services in so large a system is
the chronic overcrowding of the county jail, which adversely affects the ability
to house people safely and provide needed services.10 The LASD and other agencies have taken many steps to reduce the population, but overcrowding remains a countywide issue.11 In addition, all reentry initiatives in California have
to take into account the 2011 shift of many criminal justice system responsibilities from the state to the counties (commonly referred to as “realignment,” see
sidebar). While the impact of these changes has yet to fully emerge, it is likely
to present a significant strain on the already crowded county jail. While this
shift in the custody and supervision of many people (and associated funding)
from the state to the county is a formidable undertaking, it is also an important opportunity to reexamine and redesign reentry services.
Finally, LASD staff have been accused of using excessive force in the L.A.
County Jail for years. The Report of the Citizen’s Commission on Jail Violence,
released in September 2012, substantiated these allegations. It is only the most
recent of numerous investigations of these allegations carried out by a variety
of organizations and the media, including the American Civil Liberties Union,
the Office of Independent Review, and the Los Angeles Times.12 All of the inquiries concluded that a culture of violence exists among jail deputies. While this
report will not explore this phenomenon in depth, it is clear that authorities
must meaningfully address it as a prerequisite for improving reentry services.

WHAT IS REALIGNMENT?
The ongoing implementation
of California’s Public Safety
Realignment Act (commonly
referred to as “realignment”)
has wide-reaching implications
for the county jail and local
criminal justice system.13 Realignment has placed many of
those who would formerly have
been sentenced to state prisons
into local jails and placed many
parolees on local supervision,
rather than state supervision,
significantly expanding the roles
and responsibilities of countylevel criminal justice agencies.
In Los Angeles County, people
convicted of non-serious, nonviolent, and non-sexual felony
offenses—with no record of
serious or violent prior convictions—are now serving their
sentences in the Los Angeles
County Jail rather than state
prison even if they are longer
than one year. Realignment has
also transferred responsibility
for post-release supervision of
most nonviolent, non-serious returning inmates from the statelevel Division of Adult Parole
Operations to the Los Angeles
County Probation Department.

7

-

Reentry Programming in the Los Angeles County Jail
Since founding the Community Transition Unit in 2001, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
(LASD) has implemented a number of other jail reentry programs. This section provides an overview of
promising initiatives that are currently underway in the Los Angeles County Jail.14
THE EDUCATION-BASED INCARCERATION (EBI) INITIATIVE, launched in October 2011, “is focused on
deterring and mitigating crime by investing in its offenders through education and rehabilitation.”15 Coursework
covers basic literacy skills as well as academic subjects like science and history. It uses classes, reading materials,
and tools such as lectures on MP3 players. Other programs that fall under the EBI umbrella—many in partnership
with community-based organizations—include life skills and personal-relations classes; GED education; computer
skills; parenting; anger management; behavior modification; and drug and alcohol education. EBI participants
can also participate in vocational training programs geared toward teaching marketable job skills and specific
trades (for instance, autobody repair and culinary arts).
MERIT (Maximizing Education Reaching Individual Transformation) participants are housed in a separate dorm
and participate in a four-phase program focusing on personal relationships, parenting, substance abuse, and
leadership and job skills. The program primarily serves domestic violence offenders, veterans, and drug court
participants.
SMART (Social Mentoring Academic and Rehabilitative Training) provides health treatment, drug rehabilitation,
GED classes, anger management, and life skills training to gay male inmates in 10-week sessions.
JUST IN REACH (JIR) is a partnership between Volunteers of America (VOA), Amity Foundation, and the LASD
with funding from the Corporation for Supportive Housing. Originally set up in 2008 and then re-launched in
February 2012, JIR aims to help clients obtain permanent housing through comprehensive case management,
job development services, and mentoring that begins in jail and continues after release. The program is based
on the premise that building relationships while people are still in the jail will increase the likelihood that people
stay engaged in services after release. JIR targets people who have been in jail three times in the past three
years and who have been homeless three times in the past five years.
AMITY PEER MENTORING provides six months of group counseling sessions facilitated by a trained peer
mentor with a history of criminal justice involvement. Participants are offered post-release housing in an Amity
facility, and mentors follow up with participants for one year after release.
VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA’S INCARCERATED VETERANS TRANSITION PROGRAM recruits veterans in
the jail and provides transitional housing with a full array of individualized, wrap-around services in the community (such as health care, education, employment assistance, transportation, etc.).
FRIENDS OUTSIDE operates Placement and Transportation Assistance for Incarcerated Substance Abusers
(PATA), a jail-based program that facilitates release from jail into drug and alcohol treatment programs as alternative sentences for eligible people in jail custody.

8

MAKING THE TRANSITION: RETHINKING JAIL REENTRY IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Planned Expansion of LASD Reentry Programs
The LASD is in the process of significantly expanding its efforts to provide supportive services for people
in custody and after release, with an emphasis on the CTU and jail in-reach. To carry out the expansion,
the CTU plans to use realignment funds to hire an additional 18 custody assistants, three deputies, and
one sergeant, and to partner with at least 14 service providers from community-based organizations.16
This section describes LASD plans to expand reentry programming.
CORRECTIONAL OFFENDER MANAGEMENT PROFILING FOR ALTERNATIVE SANCTIONS (COMPAS)
is a tool developed by the Northpointe Institute for Public Management that provides information on risk of
reoffending and service needs. The LASD is piloting a modified version of COMPAS to produce risk scores for
the realignment population in order to determine eligibility for early release to community-based programs to
complete sentences. The LASD hopes to expand use of the COMPAS to the full jail population to inform the
development of service and discharge plans. The LASD also intends to have community-based service providers
use a web-based system that interfaces with COMPAS to track reentry outcomes.
THE COMMUNITY TRANSITION RESOURCE CENTER (CTRC) will be a one-stop-shop for assistance with
identification, copies of birth certificates, reinstatement of benefits, disability services, referrals to community
service agencies, and transportation assistance. Staffed by CTU custody assistants and community-service
providers and located near the jail exit, the CTRC will serve people being released from custody. The LASD is
also planning to add a federally qualified health center to the CTRC which will house medical and pharmacy
services that people could access on release and return to in the future.17
SECOND CHANCE is a partnership between the LASD, the Department of Mental Health, and Volunteers of
America to provide case management to incarcerated people with co-occurring disorders who are also homeless and repeat offenders. Upon release, program participants will transfer into Volunteers of America supportive
housing. The program started in May 2012.

9

-

WHY BOYLE HEIGHTS AND SOUTH
LOS ANGELES?
The decision to focus on Boyle Heights and South
Los Angeles (South L.A.). is based on a combination
of socio-economic factors and the over-representation of residents from these neighborhoods within
the L.A. County Jail population. Boyle Heights is
almost exclusively Latino (94.1 percent identify as
Latino, compared to 47.7 percent county-wide).
South L.A. historically incorporates some of the
most concentrated black communities in Los Angeles County; currently 19.5 percent of South L.A.
residents identify as black (compared to 8.7 percent
county-wide).21 The ethnic composition of these
neighborhoods is mirrored in the jail, where the
two largest racial and ethnic groups are Latino (49.1
percent) and black (31.0 percent).22 These neighborhoods face multiple ­challenges:
>>high rates of unemployment—over half of residents
over 16 years old in both neighborhoods are unemployed or “not in the labor force”; 23
>>low rates of educational attainment—in both South
L.A. and Boyle Heights, more than two-thirds of
residents over 25 years old do not have a high
school diploma or equivalency;24 and
>>high rates of poverty—about a third of residents
in both neighborhoods are living at or below the
poverty line.25
These communities have well-developed, active
networks of grassroots organizers, faith-based
communities, and local service providers. There are
several instances when these networks have mobilized to address community concerns, despite a lack
of resources and limited support from the larger
Los Angeles community. It is important that reentry planning incorporates and capitalizes on these
neighborhood strengths.

10

Methods
Vera’s Los Angeles Jail to Community Reentry Project
aimed to maximize the impact of existing services by
identifying barriers to service access and providing information to help identify and target underserved and highrisk groups in the L.A. County Jail. To this end, Vera conducted a detailed review of best practices in jail reentry
and collected original data from multiple sources describing a range of perspectives on related issues.18 Specifically,
Vera researchers:
>> Interviewed 80 men (at least 18 years old) held 	
in LASD custody about reentry needs and services
between June and October 2011 (women held in the jail
were not included in this study because they have very
different needs than men)19;
>> Conducted 26 in-depth interviews with a range of
stakeholders who have experience with reentry issues,
including jail staff, community-service providers, advocates and leaders, funders, and researchers between
March and December 2011; and,
>> Analyzed administrative data to describe the jail population and provision of reentry services in the jail.
Recognizing that reentry is inherently a community
issue, the study focused on two Los Angeles neighborhoods—a subsection of South Los Angeles (South L.A.)
and Boyle Heights, which are both communities of color
confronting a variety of socioeconomic challenges (see
sidebar).20 All 80 men held in the jail who were interviewed for the study have ties to these areas and the majority of the community stakeholder interviewees work
in or serve people from these neighborhoods. This project
provides an opportunity to build culturally responsive jailbased reentry services incorporating the specific needs
of people from these neighborhoods and the challenges
that they face accessing services both in the jail and in the
­community.

MAKING THE TRANSITION: RETHINKING JAIL REENTRY IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Profile of People Interviewed in
the Jail
A description of demographic characteristics, service needs, and criminal
justice involvement of people in LASD custody that draws on the findings of indepth interviews with people held in the jail follows. (See the technical report
for further details based on the results of the interviews and administrative
data analysis: www.vera.org/pubs/making-the-transition-technical-report).

INTERVIEWEE CHARACTERISTICS
All interviewees were men who were held in Men’s Central Jail and had ties to
Boyle Heights (n=36) or South L.A. (n=44).26 They ranged in age from 18 to 60,
with a median age of 33. Most were Latino (53 percent) or black (41 percent); the
five remaining interviewees identified as white (n=2), Native American (n=1),
Asian (n=1), or Armenian (n=1).27 Boyle Heights interviewees were overwhelmingly Latino (86 percent). The majority of South L.A. interviewees were black (72
percent), but there was also a sizeable minority of South L.A. interviewees who
identified as Latino (25 percent).28
The interviewees included both people who were serving jail sentences (45
percent) and those held in pretrial detention (55 percent). The most common
top arrest charges reported were: violent charges (28 percent of interviewees);
drug charges (25 percent); property charges (18 percent); violations (18 percent);
and public order charges (9 percent). On average, the interviewees had extensive histories of criminal justice contact, with a median of six arrests and six
jail stays (including the current incarceration). The median age of first arrest
for this group was 18, but there was substantial variation, with interviewees
reporting a range of ages from 10 to 44.

REENTRY PRIORITIES AND NEEDS
Service providers’ hierarchy of reentry service needs and the self-described priorities of people held in the jail do not always coincide. For instance, a reentry
service client who is a regular drug user may identify reuniting with family
as his main priority, whereas a service provider is likely to focus on providing
substance abuse treatment and preventing relapse as his primary need. While
these two issues may certainly be related, it is important that services are
designed to address both personal priorities as well as demonstrated needs. In
this example, a service provider may have more success in engaging the client
in treatment if the program is framed as one step toward the goal of improving
his relationship with his children.
To explore both of these facets of need, the interviewers used two questioning strategies. One set of questions designed to assess personal reentry
priorities asked interviewees to name the most pressing challenges that they

11

-

expected to face after release (“self-defined reentry priorities”). The second
strategy used a series of validated screening measures and behavioral questions to document reentry needs using a set of predefined categories that
are often used as part of service intake assessments, including measures of
homelessness, rates of drug use, signs of mental illness, level of education, and
­employment histories.29
SELF-DEFINED REENTRY PRIORITIES. The priorities that interviewees
reported most frequently were employment (73 percent), housing (34 percent),
addressing problems with substance use (33 percent), improving relationships
with family, children, and intimate partners (26 percent), and staying out of
trouble (23 percent). Figure 1 provides detail on the frequency with which each
priority was reported.

Figure 1. Most commonly cited reentry priorities30 (n=80)
Other*

5%

Health

3%

Mental health

5%

Peer influence

6%

Concerns about over-policing

6%

General reintegration into society

9%

Basic needs**

10%

Education

10%

Spiritual/personal development

11%

Financial concerns

14%

Staying out of trouble

23%

Relationships

26%

Substance use

33%

Housing

34%

Employment

73%
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Percentage of Interviewees Citing Each Priority
*Other includes gang violence, concerns about parole, deportation, and a revoked driver’s license.
**Basic needs includes clothing, transportation from jail, identification, etc.

Interviewees from both neighborhoods reported certain reentry priorities at
similiar rates (for example, employment concerns), but there were notable
differences between interviewees from South L.A. and Boyle Heights in other
areas (see Figure 2). In South L.A., respondents were much more likely to give
priority to housing and financial concerns, while Boyle Heights interviewees
prioritized staying out of trouble and addressing substance use issues at higher
rates than South L.A. participants.

12

MAKING THE TRANSITION: RETHINKING JAIL REENTRY IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Percentage of interviewees from each neighborhood

Figure 2. Neighborhood differences in reentry priorities
50
43%

45

39%

40
35

31%

30
25

27%
22%
18%

20

16%

15
8%

10
5
0

Housing

•

Financial
concerns

Boyle Heights (n=36)

Substance
use

Staying out
of trouble

•

South L.A. (n=44)

REENTRY NEEDS. The interview included a number of validated scales and
targeted questions designed to investigate common reentry needs, including
employment, housing, education, and behavioral health, among others.
>> Employment. As previously noted, employment was the most widely
cited reentry priority. A majority of interviewees were unemployed at
the time of arrest (59 percent), with many reporting that they had been
unemployed for more than one year (36 percent, n=29) and some reporting
that they had never been employed (8 percent, n=6). Several interviewees
expressed a desire for skill development and job training for specific trades,
such as electrical engineering, culinary arts, mechanics, or bus driving.
­Others specifically noted a need for training in computer and office skills.
Some interviewees expressed a desire for classes about the various steps
of applying for jobs, including writing a résumé, filling out job applications,
and interviewing. A few people brought up the additional complications
of trying to find work when you have a criminal record, noting a need for
targeted employment resources that can direct people to companies willing to hire people who have felony convictions.
>> Education. Interviewees reported a wide range of levels of education from
no schooling (n=1) to bachelor’s degrees (n=4), but a substantial portion (43
percent) had neither a high school diploma nor a GED. However, only 10
percent of all interviewees self-reported education as a reentry priority.

“We need job referrals, jobs
that someone with a felony
can qualify for. Referrals that
are geared towards us.”
—46-year-old male, Boyle Heights cohort

“Housing is the number one
thing. If you’re not rested,
bathed, and fed, you don’t
stand a chance.”
—48-year-old male, South L.A. cohort

>> Housing. The majority of interviewees reported “stable” housing arrangements at the time of arrest—living in their own house or apartment or at a
family member’s home (59 percent). Just under one-fifth (19 percent) of the

13

-

interviewees reported “unstable housing,” defined as staying with a friend,
in a hotel, on the street, or in another public place.31

“I could definitely use
some type of therapy,
counseling... I just went
through something
extremely traumatic.”
—31-year-old male, South L.A. cohort

>> Behavioral health. Sixty percent of the interviewees screened positive
for a substance-related problem, corresponding with a clinical diagnosis
of drug or alcohol dependence, and the screening questions included in
the interview identified 43 percent of the cohort as having an indication
of mental health problems that warranted a full clinical assessment for
mental illness.32 Furthermore, 34 percent of the cohort screened positive
on both the substance use and mental health screens, indicating possible
co-occurring substance use and mental health disorders. The research team
also compared the results of these validated screening tools to the proportions of interviewees who self-reported substance use needs or mental
health issues as reentry priorities. Figure 3 provides an illustration of these
comparisons, which found substantial disparities between self-defined
reentry priorities and the results of the behavioral health screens.

Figure 3. Behavioral health self-defined priorities and measured
needs

60%

Substance use

Mental health

33%

43%
5%

0%

•
“My main concern is
staying sober... I’ve never
done anything illegal
sober.”
—24-year-old male, South L.A. cohort

14

20%

40%

Likely reentry need based on a screening tool

60%

•

80%

Self-defined reentry priority

The disparities illustrated in Figure 3 underscore barriers to providing mental health and drug treatment services in the jail or as part of reentry programming. Almost half of those who experience symptoms of substance
dependence do not self-identify as requiring support in this area, and as
few as one in eight of those who may benefit from psychiatric services
self-identify mental health as one of their top three priority areas of need.
These findings suggest that many people in the jail either do not want to
address their substance use and mental health problems, or do not view
treatment as a priority when compared to competing needs. It also highlights the need to consider the strategies that are most likely to engage
those with substance use and mental health needs in treatment services.
Positive screens for behavioral health issues were particularly high
among Boyle Heights interviewees, with 72 percent screening positive
for substance dependence and 53 percent screening positive for possible

MAKING THE TRANSITION: RETHINKING JAIL REENTRY IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY

­ ental health issues (as compared to 50 percent and 34 percent, respecm
tively, of South L.A. interviewees, see Figure 4).

Figure 4. Behavioral health screens by neighborhood

Mental health
disorder

34%
53%

Substance
dependence
0%

50%
72%
10%

20%

•

30%

South L.A. (n=44)

40%

50%

•

60%

70%

80%

Boyle Heights (n=36)

However, when participants were asked if they would benefit from talking
to someone about their mental health, 53 percent of Boyle Heights interviewees responded in the affirmative (the same proportion that had positive screens), but 68 percent of South L.A. interviewees reported that they
would benefit (twice the rate of people who had positive mental health
screens). This finding suggests the need to reexamine the effectiveness of
the mental health screening tools currently used in the jail while considering additional strategies for offering counseling services to people who
may not be identified using existing measures. For example, the finding
that nearly six out of 10 interviewees stated that they would “benefit from
talking to someone about their mental health” suggests that this simple
question may be a first step in deciding who requires further screening or
assessment.
>> Stigma, self-esteem, and social skills. Some interviewees spoke about
the detrimental impact that the experience of incarceration has on the
reentry process. A few people noted a “fear of rejection” and shame in
connection with the post-release job search. Others spoke more generally
about the negative impact of incarceration on their emotional well-being
and associated feelings of disgrace and depression.
Interviewees highlighted a need for classes that teach social skills and
life skills to help address these problems, focusing on new ways of thinking
and ways to approach relationships and other social situations. In particular, some interviewees noted positive experiences with Moral Reconation
Therapy and how it helped them to change their behavior.33 The findings
on stigma and emotional well-being are notable: Although the interview
instrument did not include questions that specifically address these areas,
many participants spontaneously brought them up.

“We come away with PTSD
from jail. We have shame and
depression, live in fear of
people finding out about our
past.”
—38-year-old male, South L.A. cohort

“[I want] programs to help me
change my way of thinking,
maybe even how to make
friends and connect with
others.”
—46-year-old male, Boyle Heights cohort

15

-

EXPECTATIONS OF HELP

“I have everything down pat
myself. I don’t need any help
from the jail.”
—18-year-old male, South L.A. cohort

Study participants were asked whether they expected to receive assistance to
address their self-defined reentry priorities. The vast majority of the sample (91
percent) expected to receive help with at least one of their reported priorities,
and half of the interviewees expected to receive help with all of their priorities. The majority of interviewees (79 percent) believed they would receive help
from someone in their community, compared to only 38 percent who believed
they would receive assistance from someone in the jail (these groups are not
mutually exclusive; 34 percent expected to receive help from both).
Interviewees reported a range of expectations for support outside of the
jail. Some people noted that family and friends would provide both tangible
and intangible help, from leads on jobs to emotional support. Furthermore,
some saw their social networks as a source of motivation to change: “I need to
do something more for [my children], be there for them when they need me.
I can’t do anything for them being in here.” Others reported feeling isolated,
without anyone in the community to talk to or turn to for help.
Though in many cases social networks provide positive support and influences, a number of community stakeholders mentioned that multigenerational
histories of criminal justice contact and gang affiliation can impede efforts to
end criminal activity. Interviewees commonly had family histories of incarceration and gang affiliation, with half reporting that at least one family member
had been to jail and 41 percent of all interviewees reporting at least one family
member who is involved in a gang. When asked about personal priorities for
reentry, about one fifth (23 percent) of interviewees reported a need to “stay out
of trouble” and another five people discussed the risk of returning to patterns
of drug use and involvement with gangs once surrounded by old friends. A
quarter of the interviewees reported that they had some involvement with a
gang either at present or in the past.34

SERVICES OFFERED AND RECEIVED

“I can’t do it on my own
anymore... [I’ve] always had a
hard time asking for help, but
I can’t let pride get in the way
anymore.”
—30-year-old male, Boyle Heights cohort

16

About a fifth (n=17) of the interviewees had been offered help with any of their
reentry priorities in the jail at some point in the past (including the period
of incarceration during which the interview took place), and only 11 people
reported receiving services. Despite low rates of engagement, most interviewees expressed a desire for services, with 89 percent responding positively when
asked if they would accept an offer of services in the jail.
Interviewees who were offered support in the jail most frequently reported
being offered services related to substance use treatment (n=7), housing/shelters (n=6), education (n=6) and General Relief (n=5).35 Some interviewees were
also offered services relating to employment, Supplemental Security Income,
religious support, counseling, and basic needs (for example, transportation and
clothing).

REENTRYININLOS
LOSANGELES
ANGELESCOUNTY
COUNTY
MAKING THE TRANSITION: RETHINKING JAIL REENTY

Findings and Recommendations
The following pages summarize Vera’s principal research findings and related recommendations for improving reentry services in L.A. County. The summary is organized thematically into 11
­recommendations in three categories: (1) reentry service delivery and engagement; (2) operations
and efficiency; and (3) coordination. The findings and recommendations described in this section are
documented in substantially more detail in Vera’s technical report. In addition, Appendix A of the
technical report includes a comprehensive chart providing guidance on implementation for all of the
recommendations, including information on the resource investment required, ease of implementation, magnitude and immediacy of impact, and likely community support for each recommendation.
Best practices suggest that reentry services should begin when someone is still in the jail and continue when they return to the community.36 These recommendations provide a range of suggestions
for improving services across this full continuum (see Figure 5). They are intended to support the
LASD and community providers in efforts to maximize the impact of scarce resources by improving
the efficiency and effectiveness of reentry services in L.A. County. A number of the recommendations
suggest ways to direct interventions toward those who need support most and to design coordinated
services that maximize engagement within the jail and in the community after release.
During the period under study, only 17 custody assistants (LASD’s civilian custodial staff) were
available to work with an average daily population of 17,000 people in LASD custody—a ratio of 1 to
1,000—meaning that only a small fraction of the people who passed through the jail received their
attention. Even with the anticipated addition of 18 more CTU custody assistants, it is clear that demand will continue to greatly outstrip capacity. A central recommendation is that the LASD significantly increase investment in reentry programming.

Figure 5. Essential steps in reentry service delivery and engagement

IMPROVE
AWARENESS
ASSESS
NEEDS AND
PRIORITIES
TARGET
SERVICES

DEVELOP
SERVICE
PLANS

MAXIMIZE
SERVICE
ACCESSIBILITY
AND
ENGAGEMENT

TRANSITION
INTO THE
COMMUNITY

17

-

REENTRY SERVICE DELIVERY AND ENGAGEMENT

1. Expand reentry service outreach and tailor it for the jail
environment.
To maximize opportunities for people to get help, they must be aware of the reentry services available
in the jail and know how to access these services. However, communicating with the jail population
is challenging. A lack of trust between people in custody and jail staff, security concerns, language
barriers, and literacy issues can all undermine efforts to inform people of programs and services.

FINDINGS: The CTU is the primary mechanism the jail
uses to link people held in the jail with reentry services.
However, people in the L.A. County Jail have limited
awareness of the CTU specifically and reentry services
generally. The unit uses a number of approaches to promote its services, including announcements in dorms, videos, and signage. Plans are in place to expand the scope
of these communications activities by playing promotional
videos geared toward families in visiting waiting areas
and widely distributing reentry resource guides throughout the jail. Other service providers in the jail, such as the
MERIT program (see page 8), use dorm announcements
and sign-up sheets. Nevertheless, only 26 of the people
interviewed in the jail (33 percent) had heard of the CTU.37
Of that group, nine had met someone from the CTU and
six ultimately received CTU services (see Figure 6). Most of
the people who knew about the CTU learned about it via
in-person communication—either through word of mouth
from other people held in the jail or CTU staff announcements in housing units.

Figure 6. CTU Awareness and Contact
100%
32.5%
11.3%
7.5%

80 people were interviewed
26 were aware of the CTU

to begin the process, they must complete an Inmate
Request Form that is attached to a complaint form. Some
­interviewees said they were reluctant to ask for the form
for fear of antagonizing LASD officers. Moreover, interviewees said that the forms are not easily accessible—
which was supported by researcher observations that the
request form boxes are often empty. Finally, the request
forms are only available in English, despite the high proportion of people held in the jail whose primary language
is Spanish. The CTU makes limited use of signage, which
could be an effective communications tool in the jail. Only
two interviewees noted seeing signs for the CTU, and
Vera researchers did not see any CTU posters in Men’s
Central Jail, the largest of the eight facilities. While videos
about the CTU are a potentially effective communications
strategy, their location in the intake area of the jail—a fastpaced and high-stress environment for people entering
custody—may limit their impact.

RECOMMENDATIONS:
>>Implement (with some adjustments to address issues
highlighted above) the planned expansion of CTU communications strategies, including increased signage, use
of video promotions throughout the jail, information
carts, reentry guides, and an informational video for
visiting families.
>>Pass out CTU flyers via mail call and in dorms.

9 had contact with the CTU
6 received CTU services

>>Expand the use of staff presentations about services
to all housing units (in addition to the current focus on
dorms for those already in programs).
>>Distribute a condensed reentry guide widely in the jail.

Even when potential reentry clients are aware of the
services, some jail procedures make it difficult to communicate their interest in receiving support. For example,

18

>>Ensure that materials (service request forms, signs, videos) are available in Spanish and provide translation into
other languages as needed.

MAKING THE TRANSITION: RETHINKING JAIL REENTRY IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY

REENTRY SERVICE DELIVERY AND ENGAGEMENT

2. Create client targeting and triage systems.
The combination of significant budget constraints and the projected growth of the jail population
as a result of realignment make it essential to develop a triage system to guide decisions about the
allocation of scarce reentry resources. Targeting outreach efforts toward those with the greatest
levels of risk and the most pressing needs would allow the CTU to achieve the maximum impact given
capacity limitations.

FINDINGS:

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Historically, the CTU has used a combination of formal and
informal criteria to guide decisions about targeting reentry
services. Currently, the CTU engages in limited targeting
of veterans and, in the past, the unit targeted people who
identified themselves as homeless. However, CTU staff
also reported employing a range of informal mechanisms
to target potential clients. One staff member explained
that they give priority to people who have passed through
the jail multiple times and who are held in the mid-range
security levels of the jail. People in lower security housing
often leave the jail too quickly to receive services; those
in high-security units may pose a safety risk to staff and
are often en route to state prison, rather than preparing
for release directly into the community. Some CTU staff
also reported focusing on those who want to change their
­situation and are motivated to take part in services.

>>Triage clients based on level of need (as measured by
COMPAS risk scores) and potential, or opportunity,
to provide services that address those needs before
people are released from the jail (see Figure 7). For example, “high-opportunity” groups may include frequent
recidivists, existing CTU clients, and those held in the
jail for longer periods.

The CTU has begun a planned expansion of targeted
reentry services in two ways. First, the CTU will focus
on people who participate in LASD programs under the
recently launched the Education-Based ­Incarceration
Initiative, with the assumption that participants have
demonstrated that they are amenable to services, and
are therefore more likely to benefit from reentry supports.
Second, the LASD is currently piloting a tool designed
to assess both service need and risk of re-offending (the
COMPAS) to identify people who would be appropriate
for community-based alternatives to custody. The CTU will
target this group for jail-based services (see pages 8 and 9
for details).

>>Prioritize people who are motivated to engage with
services. This may be achieved through a combination of outreach to people who are already involved in
programming and using engagement techniques, such
as motivational interviewing and treatment ­readiness
assessments, to reach those who are less likely to
­independently seek out services.

Figure 7. Need-Opportunity Triage System
LOW NEED

HIGH NEED

LOW
OPPORTUNITY

Low Priority

Low Priority

HIGH
OPPORTUNITY

Low Priority

Target
Population

19

-

REENTRY SERVICE DELIVERY AND ENGAGEMENT

3. Incorporate risk and needs assessments into reentry services.
Because average jail stays are so brief, it is important to identify individual reentry needs quickly—but
with sufficient accuracy and detail to develop reentry service plans. Service providers need tools to
identify needs that are linked to reoffending as well as each client’s personal reentry priorities, which
are not always the same.
FINDINGS:

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Currently, CTU staff have the latitude to use a variety of
approaches when initially assessing people arriving at the
jail, resulting in a wide range of practices. Some CTU employees have developed their own intake forms and structured interview questions. Others prefer more informal
and conversational methods to learn about people’s reentry needs. While it is important to be responsive to the
varying needs of clients, the use of standard intake procedures can help ensure that staff address common reentry
issues and ask questions in ways that have been proven to
be effective in eliciting information on these topics. The
LASD’s planned implementation of the ­COMPAS across
the jail will provide a standardized method for identifying
reentry risks and needs (see page 9 for more detail).

>>Use validated risk and needs assessment tools and
consider supplementing the COMPAS with other tools
as necessary.

Another important finding is that self-defined reentry priorities do not always correspond with the needs that are
flagged by more targeted questions or structured screens
and assessments. As described in an earlier section of this
report, very few people held in the jail identified accessing mental health support as a reentry priority (four out of
80 interviewees); yet, nearly two-thirds of the interviewees
(n=49) responded in the affirmative when asked, “Would
you benefit from talking to someone about your mental
health?” These disparities highlight the importance of
testing different approaches to assessing needs in order
to maximize the likelihood that people will report their
reentry concerns.

20

>>Consider using markers of recidivism risk from the
LASD’s administrative data systems (such as number of
prior admissions) to flag people who are in need of the
lengthy COMPAS assessment.38
>>Pull previous assessments at the time of jail readmission
and update them as necessary.
>>Target in-person assessments toward those who have
a high opportunity to receive reentry services (for
instance, people serving longer sentences, frequent
recidivists, existing CTU clients).
>>Consider a variety of assessment techniques depending on the type of information needed (for example, the
use of structured psychiatric assessments paired with
more open-ended questions about social support upon
reentry).

MAKING THE TRANSITION: RETHINKING JAIL REENTRY IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY

REENTRY SERVICE DELIVERY AND ENGAGEMENT

4. Individualize reentry service plans for maximum impact.
Reentry services must avoid a one-size-fits-all approach. Service plans should address the needs
identified during assessments, consider the client’s personal priorities, and take into account logistical
barriers to service provision, such as short jail stays.
FINDINGS:
There is a mismatch between clients’ perceptions of the
services offered and their individual needs and priorities. For example, the LASD is currently emphasizing the
Education Based Incarceration (EBI) initiative, but only
10 percent of those interviewed for the study identified
education as a reentry priority. While EBI includes many
vocational programs, this is not apparent from the name
of the program and may lead to confusion among people
held in the jail and community-based service providers.
Interviewees suggested programs and services that the jail
should offer, such as job training and computer classes,
unaware that many of these programs are in fact offered.

RECOMMENDATIONS:
>>Provide an opportunity for everyone to receive basic
support in reestablishing benefits (such as Social Security) and getting government identification.
>>Ensure that intensive services address criminogenic
needs (factors that are associated with reoffending, such
as substance use, a lack of problem-solving skills, and
anger management issues).
>>Differentiate between long and short stayers to design
brief interventions (such as guides to reentry resources)
and more intensive service plans (including substance
use treatment).
>>Engage people in services by addressing the issues they
view as personal priorities, such as employment, housing, and family unification. For example, reentry programs that focus on rebuilding family relationships may
provide a powerful incentive for people to address their
criminogenic needs (for example, by attending angermanagement classes as a step toward reuniting with a
spouse or children).

RISK, NEED, RESPONSIVITY THEORY
A growing number of criminal justice interventions
and assessment tools are based on Risk, Need, and
Responsivity (RNR), a set of theories first developed
in the 1980s to inform the targeting and delivery of
treatment programs designed to reduce recidivism
and enhance public safety.39 In order to maximize the
impact of treatment, RNR incorporates three main
principles into the development of service plans:
1.	 Risk. The most intensive services should be reserved for clients who have the highest risk of
recidivism. Risks for reoffending include a number
of static, or fixed, factors, including age, gender,
arrest charge, or criminal history. For those at low
risk of recidivsm, the best option may be limited
or no services—studies have shown that providing
intensive services to this group can actually make
people worse, potentially leading to increased
rates of reoffending.40
2.	 Need. Services should target factors that are linked
to reoffending, such as substance use, antisocial
personality, criminal associates, and hostility or
anger.
3.	 Responsivity. Services should be tailored to the
specific circumstances of individual clients, including such elements as motivation, environmental
support, positive relationships with correctional
staff, cognitive functioning, and self-esteem. Tools
such as the COMPAS and LSI-R assess a combination of static factors (risks) and dynamic factors
(needs) that have been shown to predict re-offense
rates.41

21

-

REENTRY SERVICE DELIVERY AND ENGAGEMENT

5. Take steps to overcome barriers to trust and engagement.
Even with a well-developed service plan, barriers associated with the jail environment—such as a
distrust of jail-based services or intimidation by gang members—can undermine efforts to engage
people with reentry services. It is essential that the LASD, the CTU, and other service providers take
steps to diminish the impact of these barriers, enhancing trust in both the CTU and reentry services
more generally.

FINDINGS: A number of people in the jail who were
interviewed as part of this study expressed concern about
the way people in custody are treated by LASD staff (for
example, one interviewee stated that “deputies here treat
us like dirt”) and interviewees noted that this contributes
to recidivism and a lack of engagement with programming. A number of interviewees expressed mistrust of any
services provided by the jail, with one person stating “It’s
coming from the jail, so I wouldn’t trust it.” This wariness
about LASD staff creates a barrier to engagement with the
CTU. Because CTU staff wear the same uniforms as other
correctional officers, many people assume that they are
guards and avoid any contact with them.

“…there’s a lack of sensitivity. If they
want to see men go back out with a noncriminal attitude, then there has to be less
­dehumanization.”
—50-year-old male, South L.A. cohort

The six people who were able to connect with the CTU
expressed satisfaction with the services, indicating that
the CTU was either somewhat helpful (n=2) or very helpful
(n=4). This group reported that the CTU staff are respectful and “do their job,” in sharp contrast to their views of
most other LASD staff. This suggests jail-based reentry
service providers can be seen as trustworthy if they overcome the initial hurdle of being viewed as general correctional staff.

“They worry about your well-being for when
you leave... They make it their job. Deputies
don’t care, though.”
—29-year-old male, South L.A. cohort

22

Other aspects of the jail environment that impede service engagement are the gang culture and racial politics
that exist in the dorms. For example, in many housing
units, shot-callers—leaders of the gang structures within
each unit—must approve any contact with service providers. Similarly, one person explained that, “They have the
school dorm but we [Latinos] can’t do that. Other Latinos
think you’re trying to hide something [if you are] in a special dorm.” Outside the jail, gang membership may hinder
a person’s ability to travel to certain neighborhoods for
services or may make someone ineligible for services.

“Anything in here is hard because it depends
on who you are, what race, whether you’re in a
gang. Too many politics.”
—29-year-old male, South L.A. cohort

There is also a perception among some of the representatives from community agencies interviewed as part of this
study that CTU staff do not share cultural, language, or
socioeconomic backgrounds with their clients.42 This may
be a misperception and could indicate conflation of CTU
staff with other LASD custodial staff. From Vera’s observations, while CTU employees may have very different socioeconomic backgrounds from the people they serve in the
jail (and by virtue of employment with the LASD do not
have personal experience with the criminal justice system),
many staff members are people of color and a number
speak Spanish as well as other languages.
A number of interviewees—people held in the jail, as well
as LASD and community stakeholders—noted the benefits
of peer mentor programs which are facilitated by people
how have similar life experiences as program clients. For
example, Amity Foundation’s peer mentors, who facilitate
jail-based reentry programs, have also spent time in jail

MAKING THE TRANSITION: RETHINKING JAIL REENTRY IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY

REENTRY SERVICE DELIVERY AND ENGAGEMENT

custody and have been through substance use treatment
themselves. Interviewees said that potential reentry ­service
clients are more likely to trust peer mentors and that they
can enhance motivation to change, and may address issues
related to the cultural responsiveness of services. Many
shared the belief that peer mentors are able to inspire and
motivate people in the jail in a way that is unique to people who have a shared experience. One CTU staff person
noted that peer mentoring may be the best chance of connecting with young adults (18 to 25) and gang members—
two often overlapping groups that numerous stakeholders
named as the most challenging populations to engage in
reentry services.

“[Peer mentors] can talk to the inmate on a level
we can’t... [It’s] important to continue bringing
in people from the outside who...have experience with the system.”

RECOMMENDATIONS:
>>Take steps to differentiate CTU staff from other LASD
employees to encourage trust and client engagement.
>>Ensure the privacy of all client interactions with CTU and
other service providers, to limit concerns about intimidation by deputies or gang members in the jail.
>>Enhance the cultural responsiveness of reentry services,
by ensuring that services are accessible to Spanishspeakers, taking gang relations into account when
designing outreach strategies, and expanding peer-mentorship and peer-education programs.
>>Evaluate and expand existing promising programs—such
as peer-mentoring programs and school dorm programs,
like MERIT and SMART (see page 8)—as a way of demonstrating effectiveness to decision-makers and funders.

—LASD staff person

23

-

REENTRY SERVICE DELIVERY AND ENGAGEMENT

6. Strengthen linkages between the jail and community-service
providers.
During the first few days and weeks after people reenter the community, they are at heightened risk
for rearrest and relapse, making this period critical for their success.43 Without support from service
providers, any progress made through jail-based programs can evaporate. The key to a successful
transition is ensuring that reentry plans continue when people return to their neighborhoods. It is
essential that the LASD and other service providers collaborate to strengthen linkages between jail and
community.
FINDINGS:

RECOMMENDATIONS:

The LASD is currently engaged in a significant expansion
of jail-based services, including, educational programming, the new Community Transition Reentry Center
and jail in-reach, which allows community organizations
to begin service provision while clients are still in the jail
(see pages 8 and 9 for detail). Many people held in the
jail expressed support for the jail in-reach service model.

>>Address concerns regarding expansion of jail-based
services by involving community providers in the design
and implementation of new programs and ensuring that
the application process for in-reach providers is well
publicized and transparent.

I­nterviewees emphasized the importance of inviting
community organizations to come into the jail to provide
services and the benefit of beginning the reentry process
while still in custody: reinstating benefits, obtaining identification, and applying for jobs.
Yet many community stakeholders expressed skepticism
about jail-based services, including jail in-reach efforts.
A number of stakeholders that were interviewed for the
study felt that more funding should be directed toward
neighborhood-based services, rather than expanding jail
programming. In fact, some providers in the study do
not believe that the LASD should be in the business of
providing services at all. Many community stakeholder
interviewees voiced concerns that CTU staff—who start
as guards and typically lack social work or case management experience and training—are not able to establish
the level of trust or quality of service provision needed to
truly help people in jail. On the other hand, some CTU
staff interviewed for the study felt that community mistrust
of the LASD was a key reason to expand in-reach services;
they suggested that clients would be much more likely to
trust community-service providers working in the jail than
LASD-managed services.

24

>>Expand jail in-reach services to maximize opportunities
for continuous services as people move from the jail into
the community.
>>Expand and enhance initiatives to support reentry clients at the moment of release (for example, the LASD’s
Community Transition Resource Center), addressing
such basic needs as identification and benefits, housing,
any necessary medication, and ­transportation.
>>Provide incentives to community-based organizations
to stay in touch with clients, including a sliding-fee scale
based on the level of client need (for example, larger
payments for clients with chronic needs, such as serious
mental illness) and payments at various service milestones following release.
>>Build on the support offered by families and friends by
involving them in reentry planning.

MAKING THE TRANSITION: RETHINKING JAIL REENTRY IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY

OPERATIONS AND EFFICIENCY

7. Standardize the procedures, staff training, and supervision used
by jail-based reentry programs.
CTU activities would benefit from greater standardization, particularly in the areas of staff training and
supervision, case management, and data entry. Standardization would serve the dual goals of improving
the efficiency, impact, and reach of reentry services and enhancing the validity of outcome evaluations
by ensuring that program implementation is consistent and that the requisite outcome data are
available for analysis.

FINDINGS:

RECOMMENDATIONS:

There is a lack of standardization in CTU policy and
practice. For example, the CTU does not have formal
­hiring criteria such as a minimum number of years with the
LASD, educational qualifications, or case-management
experience. Vera researchers were told that new staff
are selected based on attendance, and expressed interest in and dedication to improving clients’ post-release
outcomes. All CTU training is conducted on the job, with
new recruits shadowing experienced CTU staff for a brief
period, observing interactions with CTU clients. New staff
complete a check list with an experienced officer, certifying that they are familiar with the unit’s policies and procedures. The form does not provide detailed guidance on
how staff should be trained on each topic, however, and
Vera did not learn about any formal orientation about the
CTU core mission or standardized training on intake, data
entry, or service provision. Training also varies significantly
depending on the trainer and the facility where it takes
place. The training was described by some CTU staff as
more of a “familiarization” process than a formal training.

>>Increase standardization of CTU procedures, such as
training, intake procedures, data entry, supervision, and
tracking client outcomes. This could improve staff efficiency and service impact, as well as increasing the unit’s
capacity to evaluate staff and program performance.

There is also substantial variability in CTU’s processes for
providing services; individual CTU staff have designed
their own methods and procedures. In addition, there is
no standard protocol for case-management oversight, and
Vera researchers did not observe or learn about any type
of clinical supervision. The CTU does not hold case conferences or regular staff meetings for CTU custody assistants
to report to their supervisor, address issues, or request
input from CTU management or other staff—a standard
practice in most case management programs. CTU staff
noted that they engage in this process informally, reaching
out to other staff or management for support as necessary.

>>Create a staff manual that can be used as a tool for
training and an ongoing reference, including information on the CTU’s mission and role, guidelines on the
target population and service model, frequently asked
questions, information on common issues facing inmates (for example, substance use and mental illness),
and a directory of service providers working in the jail.
>>Develop more intensive training activities (including
mock client interviews, specialized mental health training, and longer training periods) as a way of improving
the quality and consistency of service provision.
>>Develop routine supervision activities (such as staff
performance reviews, case management meetings, and
performance indicators) to increase support for and
oversight of staff.
>>Create mid-level clinical supervisory positions (for
example, requiring a Masters in Social Work degree)
to provide additional support and clinical oversight for
CTU custody assistants.

25

-

OPERATIONS AND EFFICIENCY

8. Use data to facilitate reentry services provision.
There are various ways that the LASD and service providers can use data to increase the efficiency
and impact of reentry services. By enhancing the data systems and making better use of the data,
service providers can streamline the identification of clients, facilitate case management, and support
evaluation efforts.

FINDINGS:

RECOMMENDATIONS:

The LASD uses many electronic data systems for jail management purposes. However, these systems are not designed to communicate with one another, which hampers
efforts to use data to target reentry services and results
in duplicate data entry. In addition, the structure of the
CTU database and the absence of a standard data entry
protocol limit its utility as a tool for case management and
program oversight. For example, the lack of data entry
guidelines means that some of the terms found in the CTU
database are ambiguous (for instance, cases that are labeled “closed” include both successfully completed referrals to services and requests that are disposed of because
the client left LASD custody). In the absence of a unified
data system, some staff members have created their own
data-collection systems as work-arounds to support their
individual case-management activities; again, there is
wide variability in these methods. Of particular note, there
is currently no system in place to flag former CTU clients
who reenter the jail. As a result, it is rarely possible to reconnect returning clients with their CTU case managers or
other service providers, leading to duplication of activities
such as screenings and drafting service plans, and inefficient use of resources.

>>Monitor the implementation of the COMPAS to ensure
that it meets all of the CTU’s and the LASD’s data needs,
such as recording the results of intake assessments,
documenting release plans, and using information
about a person’s service contacts from previous jail stays
to inform current service plans.
>>Build upon existing data to improve identification and
targeting of new clients, by using information included
in the jail’s data systems such as current age, age at first
arrest, and history of prior incarcerations to automatically predict risk of recidivism.44
>>Use data to facilitate case management, by improving
the functionality of the data systems (such as including
automatic flags to identify people returning to jail custody and automatic updates on client housing information within the jail) and exploring information-sharing
opportunities to streamline service provision.
>>Standardize CTU data-entry procedures, creating a reliable core data set describing CTU clients, the referral
source, and the services provided as a tool for enhancing service provision and performance monitoring.

As noted previously, the LASD is in the process of piloting
a new database that includes the COMPAS risk assessment tool. According to CTU staff, this system should
begin to address a number of the existing informationgathering and sharing problems.

26

MAKING THE TRANSITION: RETHINKING JAIL REENTRY IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY

OPERATIONS AND EFFICIENCY

9. Develop evaluation components for all reentry programs.
Few agencies working inside or outside the L.A. County Jail have a sense of the return on their
investment in reentry services. Yet this information is essential for policy and budget decision making,
particularly in the current fiscal climate. Most important, evaluation is critical in determining the
specific needs of the local reentry population and in measuring the impact of services on reentry
outcomes.

FINDINGS:

RECOMMENDATIONS:

One of the major impediments to evaluating reentry services is that jail and community-service providers generally
lack systems to record accurate information on the specific
needs of the people that they serve or the effectiveness
of services provided. There are few formal efforts in place
to evaluate the success of reentry programs offered by the
CTU and community based organizations in L.A. County.
Before embarking on evaluations, it is important to agree
upon the definition of success in this context—from a
client showing up after a referral for services, to securing
employment, to preventing recidivism. Notably, a few
community-based organizations, such as Amity Foundation and Homeboy Industries, have conducted large-scale
program evaluations or are currently working with program evaluators.

>>Track reentry outcomes (including service contact,
­housing, and employment) by requiring service providers to record a core data set on client contact with postrelease services (potentially using the new COMPAS
data system).
>>Consider opportunities to design multi-agency evaluation activities, reducing costs for any single agency, standardizing the measures used to monitor performance
across multiple service providers (for instance, baseline
assessments, nature of service contact, how to measure
success), and allowing partner organizations to benefit
from their pooled knowledge.

There is currently no comprehensive attempt in L.A.
County to track people as they leave the jail, making it difficult to determine the extent to which the CTU and other
LASD reentry service providers are linking their clients
with community-based services; the LASD intends to use
the COMPAS data-system to begin addressing this gap in
data collection. A number of smaller organizations noted
the importance of evaluation but expressed frustration
because funds are not typically available to support data
collection or analysis.

27

-

COORDINATION

10. Enhance collaboration between reentry service providers, the
Department of Mental Health, and the Probation Department.
There is currently limited coordination between the LASD and other government agencies that serve
people in the jail (for example, the Department of Mental Health) or after they return to the community
(such as the Probation Department). The various departments and agencies working with people
who are held in the jail could work together to reduce duplication of activities and streamline service
provision, improving individual outcomes and saving resources.
FINDINGS:
Community and jail stakeholders reported a lack of collaboration between the CTU and the DMH in reentry
planning for people with mental health needs. This is a
serious issue given the elevated rates of mental illness
within the jail, the service needs of this population, and
the challenges that people with mental health treatment
needs face upon reentry. It is sometimes unclear which
agency is responsible for transition planning; as a result,
some people who require treatment and other supportive
services upon release may be overlooked by both agencies. In other cases, the DMH may have a comprehensive
release plan in place, but does not have sufficient notice
to implement the plan before its client is released. Vera
researchers were told that there has been some discussion about cross trainings between DMH and CTU staff
to improve collaboration, but these trainings have not yet
been scheduled.
In addition, there is no standard mechanism for sharing
information from DMH assessments and reentry service
plans when people are transferred from the Twin Towers
Treatment Facility (the LASD facility that houses people
who require intensive treatment or supervision as a result
of a serious mental illness) to other facilities. This lack of
coordination may cause people to fall through the cracks
as they move back into the general population or lead
to unnecessary duplication of screening and assessment
activities for those who already have a DMH release plan.

organizations that provide these types of services stated
that they have very little communication with the Probation Department, except when they are called in “at the
last minute for services” to meet probation conditions,
but that there is “not enough time to meet the demands.”
Stakeholders did not raise the relationship between the
CTU and the Probation Department. This is noteworthy,
given the fact that strong LASD and Probation Department coordination is especially important in the context
of realignment, as the Probation Department expands its
role to supervise more people released from jail custody.

RECOMMENDATIONS:
>>Improve CTU involvement with DMH client release plans
(for example, by ensuring timely notice of release dates).
>>Continue and expand efforts to coordinate DMH and
LASD release activities (for instance, by sharing the
DMH release plan with the CTU and community-based
organizations when appropriate).
>>Consider potential CTU-Probation collaborations to
provide additional reentry support to people who are at
high risk of recidivism.

Several interviewees discussed the potential role of the
Probation Department in reentry. Certain reentry services,
such as drug treatment or employment training, are common conditions of probation for people when they are
released from jail. Representatives of community-based

28

MAKING THE TRANSITION: RETHINKING JAIL REENTRY IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY

COORDINATION

11. Increase collaboration between and among jail and
community-based providers.
Collaboration among jail- and community-service providers is essential for effectively providing reentry
services. Coordination helps ensure a continuum of care, reduce duplicative efforts, and capitalize on
diverse skills. However, there is evidence of an adversarial dynamic between the jail and community
organizations, as well as among community providers. Many recommendations in this report rely on
the premise that reentry service providers can overcome these barriers and improve collaboration.
FINDINGS:
Many interviewees from community-based organizations
said that it is very difficult to gain access to the jail; some
expressed the view that organizations need special influence or contacts with high-ranking LASD officials to get a
foot in the door. Others highlighted the significant admin­
istrative burdens associated with jail access including
the need to complete extensive paperwork and criminal
background checks, which can delay new programs and
personnel changes. The background checks can also prevent people with criminal records from providing services,
despite the high demand for peer mentors who have life
experiences similar to those who are held in the jail.
While some community-service providers have worked in
the jail for many years and have strong relationships with
the LASD and the CTU, there is miscommunication and
mistrust between the LASD and most community-based
organizations. As previously noted, a number of providers
interviewed for this study did not believe that the LASD
should provide reentry services, while others questioned
whether LASD staff had the necessary experience and
qualifications to perform this role. Community-based
providers also expressed significant reservations about the
new Community Transition Resource Center, believing that
it will fail to engage people as they are leaving the jail.
It is also evident that miscommunication or misinformation
about funding further divides community organizations
and the CTU. Some community-service providers expressed the belief that the CTU has unrestricted, unlimited
funding and tends to direct funding toward a select group
of community organizations. The CTU, however, discussed
restricted funds and a strong interest in collaborating with
community providers to identify funding sources

During the study, Vera’s researchers learned about several
active and engaged reentry groups doing important work,
including the Los Angeles Reentry Roundtable and the Los
Angeles Regional Reentry Partnership. However, a unified
council speaking with one voice is particularly important
as local communities deal with the impact of realignment.
Another issue highlighted by jail and community stakeholders is the shortage of community-based services for
people with mental health needs who are released from
the jail. Many community providers have long waiting lists
for appointments or give priority to people who are not
involved in the criminal justice system. Other providers do
not accept clients with co-occurring substance use and
mental health disorders, or may decline a referral if someone has an open legal case.

RECOMMENDATIONS:
>>Continue examining how to coordinate release times
between the LASD and other providers with the aim
of maximizing the likelihood of a seamless hand-off of
clients to service providers.
>>Increase collaboration and communication between the
CTU and community providers, through regular meetings, joint trainings, information sharing, and increasing
CTU attendance at community meetings and site visits.
>>Move to a team case-management approach bringing
together government agencies, community providers,
and others to create comprehensive reentry plans.
>>Unify the various L.A. reentry groups into one council.
>>Address systemic barriers to community services for
people leaving the jail (such as obstacles to housing and
employment), possibly through the unified voice of a
single reentry council.

29

-

Conclusion
This is a critical moment for reentry services in L.A. County. In the face of
shrinking budgets, jail- and community-based service providers are under
tremendous pressure to respond to the needs of approximately 17,000 people
held in the overcrowded L.A. County Jail. The recently implemented realignment plan is adding to that pressure, with many people formerly bound for
state prison now serving sentences of a year or longer in the county jail. Furthermore, as more people are sentenced to local community supervision, the
number of people sent to the jail after violating probation and parole conditions may also increase.
On a more promising note, the LASD is in the process of significantly revising
its approach to reentry services on multiple fronts. First, the LASD has started
to use the COMPAS to help assess people’s risk and needs, move eligible people
into community-based alternatives to incarceration, and develop service plans
to address the needs of those who remain in jail custody. The COMPAS data
system should also address longstanding problems with the existing CTU
database. The LASD is also implementing the Education-Based Incarceration
I­ nitiative throughout the jail to identify and provide appropriate programming—including academic, vocational, and life skills training—for eligible
people in custody. In addition, the LASD’s planned Community Transition
Reentry Center will aim to meet the immediate needs of people at the time of
their release from jail and to increase access to community-based organizations. Finally, the jail has reinstated the Just In Reach program, based on local
research findings and national best practices that suggest that this approach is
an effective model for providing reentry services. (See pages 8 and 9 for more
information on these programs.)
This combination of innovative programming and investment in reentry services presents an opportunity for stakeholders in the jail, in communities, and
in funding agencies to re-evaluate the best use of the county’s costly jail beds
and to focus resources on reducing recidivism. The recommendations included
in this report are intended to inform discussions about the reentry services
that can support people while they are held in the jail and during the transition back to the community—to examine what works, what does not, and why.
With a growing jail population, it is of paramount importance that the LASD
and its community partners coordinate the use of their limited resources to
provide services that will help people succeed in the community upon release
from jail, reducing the likelihood of rearrest and enhancing public safety.
The four common threads spanning our recommendations are the need to
improve existing services, increase resources devoted to reentry, enhance relationships between the LASD and the community, and evaluate ongoing programs and services. In summary, the LASD and community stakeholders must:

30

MAKING THE TRANSITION: RETHINKING JAIL REENTRY IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY

INCREASE EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY OF EXISTING SERVICES.
The study highlights a number of areas where the LASD and community providers could enhance the impact of current reentry programming. These span
multiple elements of service provision, from advertising available services and
deciding who should be prioritized for receiving them, to maximizing opportunities for meaningful services engagement and ensuring uninterrupted service
provision as people return to the community. For instance, one of the principal
recommendations in this report suggests that the CTU target those with the
greatest levels of risk and need (rather than those who are already unlikely to
return to jail) to make the best use of scarce reentry resources. Another essential area to address is the lack of trust that people in LASD custody have in most
jail-based services. While interviewees who actually received jail-based services had positive feedback, many others never made contact with these services,
in part due to a deeply ingrained distrust of correctional staff. Taking steps to
differentiate service providers from custody staff (for instance, giving the CTU
uniforms that are clearly distinct from most deputy uniforms) or increasing
the use of peer-mentors in reentry programming are two ways that the LASD
and the CTU might begin to overcome this obstacle. The recommendations
included in this area include both relatively minor changes that require few additional resources (such as changing the format of inmate request forms) and
those that would require more substantial investments (for example, expanding jail in-reach services), but would ultimately lead to greater returns.
ENHANCE CAPACITY FOR REENTRY SERVICE PROVISION. While there is
much to be gained from improving the efficiency and impact of existing services, that alone will not be sufficient to address the demand for reentry supports; a significant increase in capacity and resources for both jail and community reentry services is required. This may seem unfeasible, given the current
fiscal climate. However, because jail is so costly and incarceration so damaging
to people and their families, even modest reductions in recidivism can yield
significant benefits in terms of avoided crimes, improved individual outcomes,
and cost savings associated with lower rates of rearrest and reincarceration.
IMPROVE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE LASD AND COMMUNITYSERVICE PROVIDERS. Although many promising programs are in place or
planned, significant barriers threaten to undermine the LASD’s new efforts to
reinvigorate reentry services. An underlying theme throughout Vera’s findings
was a significant lack of trust and coordination between the LASD and community stakeholders. All stakeholders must keep this in mind while planning
or implementing any reentry services; a supported transition between the jail
and community is critical and the events of the immediate hours or days after
release often dictate whether a person returns to jail or succeeds in the community. A number of recommendations in the report are aimed at strengthening the collaboration between jail and community-based providers in order to
support the transition home and to make sure that reentry resources are used
most effectively.

31

-

EVALUATE ALL REENTRY PROGRAMS. Finally, as new services are designed
and implemented, it is essential to collect data on what is working and where
improvements are needed. Understanding what works requires information on
both the process of providing services and outcomes for those who receive support. Historically, there has been a lack of reliable data on the services provided
in the jail, and this has limited opportunities to measure the e
­ ffectiveness
of reentry services. As the LASD redesigns the data systems used to monitor
reentry services, it needs to ensure that they are configured to collect information necessary for evaluation purposes. Further efforts are needed to explore
how to link this information to data on reentry outcomes, such as contact with
community-service providers and recidivism. Equipped with this information,
program directors, policy makers, and funders can maximize the impact of
scarce resources by investing in interventions that have proven to be effective.

Next Steps
This report contains a series of recommendations to improve reentry services,
some requiring new resources, others suggesting small changes to existing policies and procedures. While these recommendations are all feasible,
most require the support and commitment of local stakeholders. The report
is intended as a starting point for conversations among the LASD, community
stakeholders, funders, other government agencies, and non-profit organizations about how to prioritize and implement initiatives to improve reentry
services in L.A. County.

ENDNOTES
1	 A. Aos, M. Miller, and E. Drake. Evidence-based Adult Corrections
Programs: What Works and What Does Not (Olympia, WA: Washington
State Institute for Public Policy, 2006).
2	 T.D. Minton, Jail Inmates at Midyear 2010 (Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, 2011, NCJ 233431).
3	 For example, 48 percent of people admitted to the New York City jail
system in 2008 were readmitted to the jail within a year (as per personal
communication with Qing Wei, Vera Institute of Justice, 2013), and 53
percent of people who were sentenced to jail terms in Cook County
(Chicago) in 2007 returned to the jail within three years (See D.E. Olson,
“Characteristics of Inmates in the Cook County Jail,” Criminal Justice &
Criminology: Faculty Publications & Other Works, paper 4 (2011): 1-8,
retrieved from: http://ecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=10
03&context=criminaljustice_facpubs).
4	 J.A. Swartz and A.J. Lurigio, “Serious Mental Illness and Arrest: The
Mediating Effects of Substance Use,” Crime and Delinquency 53, no.
4 (2007): 581-604; and H.J. Steadman, F.C. Osher, P.C. Robbins, B.
Case, and S. Samuels, “Prevalence of Serious Mental Illness among

32

Jail Inmates,” Psychiatric Services 60, no. 6 (2009): 761-765; Office of
National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), Adam II: 2010 Annual Report
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program II (Washington DC: ONDCP,
2011); N. Freudenberg, “Jails, Prisons, and the Health of Urban
Populations: a Review of the Impact of the Correctional System on
Community Health,” Journal of Urban Health 72, no. 2 (2001): 214-235;
E.J. Latessa and B. Lovins, “The Role of Offender Risk Assessment: A
Policy Maker Guide,” Victims and Offenders 5, no. 3 (2010): 203-219; S.
Metraux and D.P. Culhane, “Homeless Shelter Use and Reincarceration
Following Prison Release: Assessing the Risk,” Criminology and Public
Policy 3 (2004): 201–22; J. Bernstein and E. Houston, Crime and Work:
What We Can Learn from the Low-Wage Labor Market (Washington, DC:
Economic Policy Institute, 2000). B. Western and B. Petit, “Incarceration
and Racial Inequality in Men’s Employment,” Industrial and Labor
Relations Review 54, no. 3 (2000): 3–16.
5	 D. Pager, Marked: Race, Crime, and Finding Work in an Era of
Mass Incarceration (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007); J.
Gonnerman, Life on the Outside: The Prison Odyssey of Elaine Bartlett
(New York: Picador, 2004); and Legal Action Center, After Prison:
Roadblocks To Reentry: A Report On State Legal Barriers Facing People
With Criminal Records (New York: Legal Action Center, 2004).

MAKING THE TRANSITION: RETHINKING JAIL REENTRY IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY

6	 T.R. Clear, “The Problem with Addition by Subtraction: The Prison-Crime
Relationship in Low-Income Communities,” in Invisible Punsishment:
The Collateral Consequences of Mass Imprisonment, edited by M.
Mauer and M. Chesney-Lind (New York: The New Press, 2002): 181-193;
and D.E. Roberts. “The Social and Moral Cost of Mass Incarceration in
African American Communities,” Stanford Law Review 56, no. 5 (2004):
1271-1305.
7	 T.R. Clear, D.R. Rose, and J.A. Ryder, “Incarceration and the community:
the problem of removing and returning offenders,” Crime & Delinquency
47, no. 3 (2001): 335-351.
8	 The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, “Community Transition
Unit,” http://www.lasdhq.org/divisions/ correctional/ bops/ctu/mission.
html (accessed May, 14 2012).
9	 The Inmate Welfare Fund includes all profits from the jail commissary
as well as “any money, refund, rebate, or commission received from
a telephone company or pay telephone provider when the money,
refund, rebate, or commission is attributable to the use of payphones
by inmates while incarcerated.” These funds must be used for programs
and services (or related personnel and infrastructure) that benefit
inmates. The Inmate Welfare Fund Commission serves as an advisory
body for decisions about the use of inmate welfare funds, though the
Sheriff has final authority. See http://la-sheriff.org/divisions/correctional/
inmate_srvs/ovrview.html (accessed May 14, 2012).
10	 The persistent overcrowding has led to ongoing federal litigation
and a federally imposed population cap. See Rutherford v. Baca, (Not
Reported) F.Supp.2d (C.D.Cal. 2006) WL 3065781
11	 For a more detailed discussion of issues related to jail overcrowding in
Los Angeles County, see: Vera Institute of Justice (Vera), Los Angeles
County Jail Overcrowding Reduction Project Final Report: Revised (New
York: Vera, 2011), available at http://www.vera.org/content/los-angelescounty-jail-overcrowding-reduction-project.
12	 The Citizens’ Commission on Jail Violence (CCJV), Report of the
Citizens’ Commission on Jail Violence (Los Angeles: CCJV, September
2012), available at http://ccjv.lacounty.gov/; American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU), Cruel and Usual Punishment—How a Savage Gang
of Deputies Controls L.A. County Jails (Los Angeles : ACLU, 2011),
available at http://www.aclu.org/prisoners-rights/report-cruel-and-usualpunishment-how-savage-gang-deputies-controls-la-county-jails; County
of Los Angeles Office of Independent Review (OIR), Violence in the Los
Angeles County Jails: A Report on Investigations and Outcomes (Los
Angeles: OIR, 2011), available at: http://laoir.com/reports/OIR-Reporton-Violence-in-the-Jails-(Oct.2011).pdf; and, refer to the Los Angeles
Times series, “Jails Under Scrutiny,” available at http://www.latimes.
com/news/local/la-me-jails-sg,0,4834651.storygallery.
13	 In this report, “realignment” refers to Assembly Bill 109 and a number
of additional laws that clarified and refined AB 109 before taking
effect on October 1, 2011. The primary changes are as follows: (1)
Many individuals convicted of non-serious, nonviolent, and non-sexual
offenses—who have no serious or violent prior convictions—are now
serving their sentences in county jails, even if they are longer than one
year; (2) Some offenders released from state prison are now released
to the supervision of the Los Angeles County Probation Department
rather than state parole; and, (3) Parole violators now serve any custody
time for violations in county jail instead of state prison. See California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, available at: http://www.
cdcr.ca.gov/realignment/.
14	 Information included in this section was assembled from interviews
with stakeholders, LASD documents, and websites. For detail on many
of the programs described here, see: The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s
Department (LASD), Education Based Incarceration, (Los Angeles: Los
Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, Correctional Services Division,
2010).

15	 LASD, 2010.
16	 “Realignment funds” refers to the increased funding that will go to local
criminal justice agencies as they take responsibility for the incarceration
of people who used to be under the supervision of the state criminal
justice authorities.
17	 Federally qualified health centers are organizations which meet specific
federal criteria and are funded in part by the Health Center Program.
For more detail, see http://bphc.hrsa.gov/about/.
18	 For a more detailed description of study methods, see T. Sandwick,
K. Tamis, J. Parsons, and C. Arauz-Caudra, Making the Transition:
Rethinking Jail Reentry in Los Angeles County—Technical Report (New
York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2012). [www.vera.org/pub/making-thetransition-technical-report]
19	 Studies have found that female jail inmates are significantly more
likely than their male counterparts to have a range of chronic medical
problems (including cancer, diabetes, asthma, and arthritis), psychiatric
disorders (including depression, bipolar disorder, and post-traumatic
stress disorder), and drug dependence. Furthermore, guidelines for
treatment of female inmates with substance use disorders call for
gender-specific treatment, because women respond differently to
certain programs and have different success rates than men. Given
that these disparities may affect the experiences of women both while
incarcerated and upon release, the reentry needs of women held in jails
merit a separate study. (See I.A. Binswanger, J.O. Merrill, P.M. Krueger,
M.C. White, R.E. Booth and J.G. Elmore, “Gender Differences in Chronic
Medical, Psychiatric, and Substance-Dependence Disorders among Jail
Inmates,” American Journal of Public Health 100, no. 3 (2010): 476482; H.J. Steadman et al., 2009; and, Patricia A. Kassebaum, Substance
Abuse Treatment for Women Offenders: Guide to Promising Practices
(Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2002,
SMA 99-3303). Additionally, the study’s focus on people who are held in
Men’s Central Jail may mean that certain groups are underrepresented
in our sample. Notably, people who are homeless, “short-stayers,”
people with mental health needs, and people held in high-security
housing units may also be underrepresented. In addition, study data
were collected over a one-year period (March 2011 to March 2012) and
the analysis presented in this report should be viewed as a snapshot of
the reentry population, their needs, and the available services during
that period; as noted in the report, LASD is undergoing a significant
period of transition and the status of the programs and initiatives
described herein may have changed since that time.
20	 South L.A. and Boyle Heights are two of 14 California neighborhoods
that are the focus of The California Endowment’s Building Healthy
Communities initiative; this study uses The California Endowment’s
definition of the neighborhood boundaries. Note that South L.A.
refers to a subsection of the larger region commonly known as South
L.A. For detailed maps of these neighborhoods, refer to http://
www.mycalconnect.org/southfig/map/ (South L.A.) and http://www.
mycalconnect. org/boyleheights/map/ (Boyle Heights).
21	 HealthyCity, “Population Characteristics, Ethnicity/Race, TCE
Community: Boyle Heights, Year: 2010,” http://www.healthycity.
org/c/chart/geo/place_based_tce/zt/2/report_geo//yk/071#/report/
[[2797,22009,[46],1]]/rank/[0,0,0,0,1,0]/yk/2012050312093410 (accessed
May 14, 2012); HealthyCity, “Population Characteristics, Ethnicity/Race,
TCE Community: South Figueroa Corridor / Vermont-Manchester, Year:
2010,” http://www.healthycity.org/c/chart/geo/place_based_tce/zt/11/
report_geo//yk/20120503121726179#/report/[[2797,22009,[46],1]]/
rank/[0,0,0,0,1,0]/yk/20120503121726179 (accessed May 14, 2012);
U.S. Census Bureau, “2010 Census Interactive Population Search:
CA-California,” http://2010.census.gov/2010census/popmap/ipmtext.
php?fl=06 (accessed May 14, 2012); and U.S. Census Bureau, “2010
Census Interactive Population Search: CA-Los Angeles County,”
http://2010.census.gov/2010census/popmap/ipmtext.php?fl=06:06037
(accessed May 14, 2012).

33

-

22	 These figures are based on a Vera analysis of administrative data
provided by LASD.
23	 The California Endowment, “Boyle Heights: Map & Data, Employment
Status,” http://www.mycalconnect.org/ boyleheights/map/ (accessed
May 14, 2012); and The California Endowment, “South Los Angeles: Map
& Data, Employment Status,” http://www.mycalconnect.org/southfig/
map/ (accessed May 14, 2012).
24	 The California Endowment, “Boyle Heights: Map & Data, Educational
Attainment,” http://www.mycalconnect. org/boyleheights/map/
(accessed May 14, 2012); and The California Endowment, “South
Los Angeles: Map & Data, Educational Attainment,” http://www.
mycalconnect.org/southfig/map/ (accessed May 14, 2012).

33	 Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT) is a cognitive behavioral approach
commonly used in corrections, which aims to address “ego, social, moral,
and positive behavioral growth.” MRT is included in SAMHSA’s National
Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices (see http://www.
nrepp.samhsa.gov/ViewIntervention.aspx?id=34).
34	 No one explicitly noted gangs as a reentry priority and very few
mentioned it during the interviews. This may stem from fear of
sharing negative feedback about one’s gang, or maybe few see gang
involvement as an issue. Furthermore, Vera researchers were told
anecdotally that high-security housing areas tend to have a larger
proportion of gang members; this study’s limited access to these housing
areas may have biased the sample towards a population with lower levels
of gang involvement.

25	 The statistic for South L.A. is for an area that is larger, but overlapping,
with the definition of South L.A. used throughout the study. City of Los
Angeles: Census 2000, South Los Angeles Community Plan Area,” http://
cityplanning.lacity.org/DRU/C2K/C2kFrame.cfm?geo=cp&loc=SCL&sg
o=ct&rpt=PvR&yrx=dummy (accessed May 14, 2012); and City of Los
Angeles: Census 2000, Boyle Heights Community Plan Area,” http://
cityplanning.lacity.org/DRU/C2K/C2kFrame.cfm?geo=cp&loc=BHt&sgo=
ct&rpt=PvR&yrx=dummy (accessed May 14, 2012).

35	 General Relief (GR) is a “County-funded program that provides financial
assistance to indigent adults who are ineligible for federal or State
programs.” For eligibility criteria, see http://dpss.lacounty.gov/dpss/gr/
default.cfm.

26	 South L.A. and Boyle Heights refer to the areas previously defined in this
report.

37	 Our interview sample may be biased in favor of greater awareness of
CTU services given that a number of them were housed in school dorms
or trustee dorms, where CTU is more likely to make announcements
about their services; thus, the true proportion of the jail population who
is aware of the CTU is likely less than one third.

27	 Three individuals identified as both Latino and black; for the purposes
of this analysis, however, the racial and ethnic categories are mutually
exclusive and these three people are included in the “Latino” category.
The majority of the interviewees who identified as Latino reported being
of Mexican descent (n=33, 79 percent of all Latinos).
28	 For ease of interpretation, percentages are used throughout this
report to describe the proportion of respondents in a given category
or expressing a particular view or opinion. Note that in cases where
the analysis refers to subgroups of interviewees (by neighborhood, for
example) percentages may refer to a small number of respondents and
differences between proportions should be interpreted with caution.
29	 A screening tool is valid if it truly measures what it was designed to
measure. For example, a valid mental health screening tool should be
predictive of those with a clinical diagnosis of mental illness.
30	 Individuals reported up to three needs and, thus, the categories included
in this table total more than 100 percent.
31	 The study’s neighborhood focus has likely led to an underrepresentation
of people who are homeless or unstably housed in the study and this
figure might not be representative of the extent of homelessness
throughout the larger jail population.
32	 LASD and the DMH conduct screening and assessment interviews to
identify people with serious mental illness during the jail intake process.
Those who require intensive treatment and those who pose a threat to
themselves or others are diverted to Twin Towers (the mental health
facility at the jail). As such, the rates of mental health problems described
here may be an undercount. In addition, individuals who were diverted
to Twin Towers may be more likely to self-report mental health needs,
making the MCJ sample biased towards those that are less likely to
report mental health as a priority. The substance use screen used for this
study is the Texas Christian University Drug Screen II (TCUDS II) and the
mental health screen used is the Correctional Mental Health Screen for
Men (CMHS-M). See K. Knight, D.D. Simpson, and J.T. Morey, Evaluation
of the TCU Drug Screen, Final Report (Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Justice, National Institute of Justice, October 2002, Doc No. 196682);
and, J. Ford and R.L. Trestman, Evidence-Based Enhancement of the
Detection, Prevention, and Treatment of Mental Illness in the Correction
Systems, Final Report (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
2005).

34

36	 A. Crayton, L. Ressler, D.A. Mukamal, J. Jannetta, and K. Warwick,
Partnering with Jails to Improve Reentry: A Guidebook for CommunityBased Organizations, Urban Institute, August 2010.

38	 For more information on this approach, see Q. Wei and J. Parsons, Using
Administrative Data to Prioritize Jail Reentry Services: Findings from the
Comprehensive Transition Planning Project, New York: Vera Institute of
Justice, 2012. URL TK.
39	 D.A. Andrews and J. Bonta, The psychology of criminal conduct: 2nd
Edition (Cinncinnati, OH: Anderson, 1998).
40	 F. Taxman, M. Thanner, and D. Weisburd, “Risk, Need, and Responsivity
(RNR): It All Depends,” Crime Delinquency 52, no.1 (2006): 28-51.
41	 The LSI-R refers to the Level of Service Inventory-Revised.
42	 People who appear in the CTU database are disproportionately black
and white as compared to the general jail population, and Latinos
are comparatively underrepresented; while only 31 percent of the jail
population is black, 43 percent of bookings in the CTU database were
associated with people who were recorded as black; on the other hand,
only 29 percent of bookings in the CTU database were associated with
people who were recorded at Latino, but 49 percent of jail bookings were
for people who were Latino. While more research needs to be done to
explore this issue, it does suggest a need to consider ways to improve
service outreach to the Latino population.
43	 P.A. Lanagan and D.J. Levin, Recidivism of Prisoners Released in
1994 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2002); L.C. Merall, A. Kariminia,
I.A. Binswanger, M.S. Hobbs, M. Farrell, J. Marsden, S.J. Hutchinson, and
S.M. Bird, “Meta-analysis of drug-related deaths soon after release from
prison,” Addiction 105, no. 9 (2010): 1545-1554.
44	 This functionality requires a data system that can identify the same clients
during recurrent jail stays using a unique identifier; e.g. the jail’s Criminal
Investigation and Identification number (CII).

MAKING THE TRANSITION: RETHINKING JAIL REENTRY IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful for the support of The California Endowment. We would like to thank
our partners in the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department for facilitating access to the jail,
providing data for the study, and for their assistance answering our numerous questions and
calls for advice. In particular, we would like to thank the staff of the Community Transition Unit,
who were a daily source of assistance throughout the project. Without your support, this research
would not have been possible.
We would also like to express our gratitude to those who shared their expertise on reentry
services in Los Angeles, the particular needs of South Los Angeles and Boyle Heights, and how our
findings can help improve justice and safety in Los Angeles County, including: Charles Fields, Will
Ing, Tamu Jones, Barbara Raymond, Beatriz Solis, and Jennifer Ybarra of The California Endowment,
Lenore Anderson of Californians for Safety and Justice, the Raben Group, and the men at Men’s
Central Jail and the numerous community and government stakeholders who graciously agreed to
be interviewed for this study. Your insight has proved invaluable throughout the life of the project.
We would also like to recognize the contribution of our current and former Vera colleagues:
Marisa Arrona, Alice Chasan, Melissa Cipollone, Mary Crowley, David Cloud, Léon Digard, Evan Elkin, Rodolfo Estrada, Elias Isquith, Peggy McGarry, Miyuki Sakoh, Ashley Schappell, Olivia Sideman,
Rebecca Tublitz, Mariana Veras, Dan Wilhelm, and Allon Yaroni.

© 2013 Vera Institute of Justice. All rights reserved.
Additional copies can be obtained from the Communications Department, Vera Institute of Justice, 233 Broadway, 12th Floor,
New York, New York 10279, (212) 334-1300. An electronic version is posted on Vera’s website at www.vera.org/pub/making-the-­
transition-summary-report. The accompanying technical report is also posted on Vera’s website at www.vera.org/pub/making-the-­
transition-technical-report.
For additional information about the research described in this report, contact Jim Parsons at jparsons@vera.org.
The Vera Institute of Justice is an independent nonprofit organization that combines expertise in research, demonstration projects,
and technical assistance to help leaders in government and civil society improve the systems people rely on for justice and safety.

Suggested Citation
Talia Sandwick, Karen Tamis, Jim Parsons, Cesar Arauz-Cuadra. Making the
­Transition: Rethinking Jail Reentry in Los Angeles County. New York: Vera Institute
of Justice, 2013.

Vera Institute of Justice
233 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10279
Tel: (212) 334-1300
Fax: (212) 941-9407

36

Washington DC Office
1100 First St. NE, Suite 950
Washington, DC 20002
Tel: (202) 465-8900
Fax: (202) 408-1972

New Orleans Office
546 Carondelet St.
New Orleans, LA 70130
Tel: (504) 593-0937
Fax: (212) 941-9407

Los Angeles Office
707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 3850
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Tel: (213) 223-2442
Fax: (213) 955-9250