States are seeking ways to include people with lived experience (PwLE) of incarceration in reentry policy development, decision-making, and program implementation. Multiple new reentry policy changes are taking place at the federal and state level, bringing new opportunities to improve health and safety. The National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP) and the Health and Reentry Project (HARP) are partnering to support states in these efforts through our State Reentry Learning and Action Network and Seven-State Reentry Learning Collaborative. Bringing in the perspectives of currently and formerly incarcerated individuals, family and community members, and other partners can make policy development and implementation successful. NASHP and HARP recently sat down with DeAnna Hoskins, CEO of Just Leadership USA (JLUSA), to discuss how states can effectively collaborate with people affected by incarceration. The conversation has been adapted into this FAQ for state leaders.
1. Who do we mean when we say someone has “lived experience of incarceration”?
A Broad Definition
The broadest definition of someone who has lived experience of incarceration includes people who are currently or formerly incarcerated, as well as their families, friends, and communities. It’s important to include communities in this definition, as people from communities with high rates of incarceration often have similar needs and concerns to people who have experienced incarceration and may themselves be at high risk of incarceration. In addition, despite never being incarcerated themselves, corrections officers and other people who work in corrections facilities have a specific type of lived experience with incarceration. However, the definition used in a particular circumstance may be defined based on the goals of the work.
2. How can we find people with lived experience who are willing to engage with policymakers and policy implementers?
Identify, Inform, and Activate
Start by identifying impacted communities or groups. For example, state Departments of Corrections (DOC) may be able to supply a list of zip codes that have the highest rates of releases, or state parole agencies may be able to supply counties with the highest numbers of supervisees. Some states also have an Office of Reentry, a reentry council, or other reentry-focused department that can be useful in assessing this type of information. Once the most impacted communities have been identified, states can make sure they are aware of the changes or opportunities and how it may affect their community. This can look like physically going into the community and hosting community events or disseminating information in partnership with trusted local organizations to raise awareness. When inviting people to engage with the state, be clear about people’s ability to affect policy design and implementation and, where possible, work to create consistent feedback loops for ongoing communication and trust building.
Collaborate with Trusted Community Partners
Many people with lived experience are willing to engage but may not always trust the process or the people asking for their input. Partnering with people and groups who are trusted by the community, such as peer navigators, community health workers, credible messengers, or others who work with or support people with lived experience, can facilitate connections to others who are interested in sharing their experiences and increase the level of trust in the process. In many cases, there are organizations already in the community with deep relationships with the impacted individuals. These partners may be different across different communities but good places to start finding them include community organizing and advocacy groups, reentry service providers, faith-based organizations, and other community-based organizations with strong local ties.
3. How can we set up partner engagements in the community to make it easy for people to participate?
Environment and Supports
Tapping into a community partner’s expertise to design the structure and environment of the engagement is crucial for ensuring accessibility. For in-person engagements, accessibility includes concrete things such as choosing a convenient and trusted location (for example, a space at a community-based organization) and a time where people don’t have to miss work or school, which may be outside traditional work hours. Setting up the engagement to recognize power dynamics, for example by having the state staff be in listening mode and relying on a community partner to facilitate the conversation, can help people feel comfortable. Coordinating to provide food and other resources, such as child care, can also help people stay engaged. If you are working with people who do not speak English as a primary language, it is important to ensure that multilingual facilitators or translators are available. For virtual communication, facilitators can make sure that participants have the technology needed and internet access, can navigate the technology platform, and have a safe space from which to join the meeting.
Reimburse Expertise
Stipends and other forms of payment, such as a choice between gift cards or transportation vouchers for participation, are a great way to thank people for sharing their expertise. This is especially true for people who experience incarceration, who may struggle more than others with access to food, transportation, and employment opportunities. However, organizers should be aware that some people with low incomes may not be able to accept financial support for participating without risking income eligibility limits for other benefits.
4. How can we build and keep trust with people with lived experience?
Clarity and Consent
Creating a safe and meaningful engagement starts by building trust, which is a process that does not happen automatically and can take some time. Clarity of purpose and expectations are crucial for building this trust and require creating a shared understanding of why people are being asked for their input and working up front to ensure agreement about how their information will be used. For many people, sharing their experience and opinions can come with risks, so it is essential that individuals control and consent to how their information will be used. This may require that facilitators present options for deidentifying comments in post-engagement reports, using aggregate information, or finding other ways to protect the anonymity of participants.
Be Mindful of Trauma
State sponsors and facilitators may not know in advance whether someone has told their story 100 times or if this is the first time they’re sharing it. Sharing personal experiences of incarceration may include memories of traumatic events, which can be emotionally overwhelming, and, for some, even retraumatizing. While some people may be comfortable, others may need more support or training before or after sharing their experiences to minimize risk of retraumatization. Having mental health resources, such as peers or social workers, in attendance to intervene, provide support, and share resources can ensure that people do not leave the engagement in distress. In addition, clarity about what information is being sought may free up participants to not feel compelled to tell their entire story and instead to talk about what they needed and what could or would be helpful for individuals returning from incarceration.
5. What kinds of questions should we ask people with lived experience of incarceration?
Target Unique Perspectives
People with lived experience have access to unique information: what it is like to experience incarceration, and in some cases, return to a community, and/or support a loved one with experience of incarceration. Getting this information requires focusing the questions on their experiences, including what they needed or wished they’d had, what helped them, and how the system as it exists now did or didn’t meet their needs. It can be helpful to have a community partner be prepared to be the first person to share and describe the challenges they experienced during reentry, thereby modeling what kind of information your team is looking to receive.
Follow their Lead
It is also important to leave space for people to share anything they feel is relevant but may be outside the specific questions you’re asking. Asking “what do YOU want me to know?” and listening carefully to what they say can yield important insights that you might miss otherwise.
6. How can we engage people who are currently incarcerated and corrections staff?
Involve Corrections in Planning from the Outset
Communication with and buy-in from correctional staff and leaders is essential to gaining access to people behind the wall. Involving DOC, or, if you are trying to talk with people in jails, involving sheriffs, jail administrators, and other corrections staff, from the outset of planning can support gaining corrections buy-in, clarifying goals of and process for the engagement, and addressing security, operational, and other concerns. In some places, correctional staff can also support identifying individuals, including other staff members, who may want to participate. In prisons, it can also be helpful to connect with incarcerated people who are elected representatives on warden’s forums or other councils or other types of leaders within specialized units (such as substance use disorder treatment units or faith-based units) to find participants. Corrections leaders may also be able to connect you with the tablet or other technology their facility uses to facilitate short surveys or other ways to gather input from currently incarcerated people.
Understand Corrections’ Priorities and Limitations
It’s important to understand that state DOC and local jails’ staff’s roles are to ensure safety and security. When they are asked about someone entering a correctional facility to engage currently incarcerated people, they are going to want to know what risk it presents to maintaining safety and how it will affect their daily operations. For example, there needs to be enough corrections staff available to ensure security for a visitor, which can be especially challenging in the context of correctional workforce shortages, and visits need to be timed to not interrupt meals, counts, or other scheduled activities.
Reimburse Expertise
While a traditional stipend for engagement may be impossible in corrections settings, facilitators can add money to commissary funds to express gratitude for participation. Where possible, facilitators should explore ways to waive the administrative fees if they are contributing to commissary funds so that participants receive the full compensation.
Resources
- Centering Lived Expertise — CSG Justice Center
- Key Stakeholders: People with Lived Experience — NACo
- Strategies for Meaningfully Engaging MassHealth Members to Inform Program and Policy Decisions
- Lifting Lived Experience Across Criminal Justice Settings — Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
