Meeting people where they are: How to solve six programming barriers in corrections

Across conversations with agency and facility leaders nationwide, one question comes up again and again: how do you deliver evidence-based programming to the people who are hardest to reach?

“Hard to reach” can mean different things for different organizations — in community corrections, your participants may face transportation barriers. In jails and prisons, persistent understaffing may be a pain point affecting program availability. There are many conditions, both internal and external, that may make a participant or group hard to reach.

A few examples covered below include:

1. Individuals facing transportation barriers

2. Individuals in restrictive housing

3. Those on lengthy waitlists

4. Individuals in facilities with limited staffing (and limited programming)

5. Individuals in precontemplation or who are mandated to programming

6. Special populations for whom evidence-based programming has historically been limited

So, let’s solve for how you can get the right programming to the right people, when they want and need it most.

Solving for each challenge: Programming that meets people where they are

1. Transportation barriers: Flexibility of access

For participants who live in rural areas, don’t have access to reliable transportation, or who have schedules that conflict with in-person meeting times, just getting to a session can pose a challenge.

To support program delivery for people with transportation barriers:

• Ask about practical barriers, like transportation or work conflicts, before logging slow engagement as resistance.

• Offer sessions at nontraditional times, including evenings or weekends, for participants who work fixed hours.

• Hold groups or check-ins closer to where participants live, like at community centers, libraries, or partner agencies.

• Use phone or video check-ins when an in-person isn’t needed.

• Offer digital programming as a way for participants to engage anytime, anywhere.

While traditional in-person programming requires an individual to overcome what can be significant logistical barriers, digital programming can offer flexibility and easier access.

How Oregon Recovery Services got more individuals access to and engaged in programming →

2. Restrictive housing: Programming that doesn't need a group

Offering programming to those in restrictive housing raises challenges for staff. Moving residents to a group room is staff-intensive and time-consuming. There are often safety considerations, and sometimes group space isn’t available at all.

To expand access to programming for this population:

• If possible, provide self-directed print materials, like Interactive Journals, that residents can complete in their cells.

• Leverage digital, tablet-based platforms so residents can access secure, approved content on their own.

• Set a check-in schedule so a facilitator or case manager sees each person's progress without needing to sit with them for it.

• Plan ahead for the move back to general population so programming continues without a gap.

• When appropriate, place individuals working on the same programs in the same cell so they can discuss and improve together.

The Utah Department of Corrections uses Atlas to deliver structured, evidence-based, risk-need-responsive programming to individuals in restrictive housing. After one year, participants working through tablet-based Interactive Journaling® content logged 6,200 sessions, completed 2,600 Journals, and demonstrated an 85% engagement rate. The data shows people in restrictive settings will do meaningful work on their own when the opportunity is there.

Read more about lessons learned from Utah’s pilot →

3. Waitlists: Starting engagement before a slot opens

In some systems, people wait as long as two years for programming to open up. Self-directed, facilitator-light content gives leadership a way to start engagement before a slot exists, instead of asking people to wait in place.

The Washington Department of Corrections uses Atlas for self-directed education to increase readiness for treatment. The goal is that by the time they are off the waitlist, participants will be primed for engagement, more self-aware, and require less intensive services. With 83% agreeing Atlas helped them toward their treatment goals, that plan is bearing fruit.

Explore results from the Washington DOC program pilot →

To engage individuals on program waitlists:

• For non-clinical programs, use trained peers to expand access to programs.

• Decide upfront how self-directed work connects to the eventual program slot, so it complements group work instead of duplicating it.

• Track who's engaging with self-directed or digital work and how much, so intake staff can gauge readiness before someone reaches the front of the line.

• Set expectations that self-directed content is a bridge to the program they're waiting for, not a replacement for it

4. Staffing shortages: Lowering the demand on facilitator time

Programs built around a fixed facilitator-to-participant ratio can only scale as far as staff availability allows. Digital programming makes room for self-guided learning and growth.

If your agency is dealing with a shortage of programming staff:

• Match program intensity to risk. Use self-directed programs for lower-risk participants and save staff-led sessions for people with higher-intensity needs.

• Train peer mentors to co-facilitate select programs, with staff support and oversight.

• If you use a digital platform, choose one that flags participants who stall or need attention, so staff don't have to check each person's progress by hand.

• Pilot changes with one program before scaling to all of them, so staff can adjust the routine before it's facility-wide.

• Partner with community providers, volunteers, faith-based groups or local college internship programs to expand facilitation capacity.

How Midland County Adult Probation saved staff 10 hours of time per week →