Page 53 - 2021_JA_Complete2

Christine Oliver (1990) to determine IOR to better stabilize funding for another organization—often a non-
these motivations. desired activities. It might be worth governmental organization—take
For this article, we want to focus giving up a bit of control to provide control of the project. This is not
on two primary types of IORs: man- better guarantees for the various unique to criminal justice organiza-
datory and voluntary. Mandatory organizations to achieve their stated tions. We have observed in several
IORs are motivated by necessity. In outcomes. government sectors a desire to
this case, necessity refers to IORs External organizations can also control projects using contracts
required by a higher legal or regula- seek IORs with criminal justice and subcontracts. In the end, this is
tory authority than the criminal organizations to enhance the per- probably as much about efficiency
justice organization. Because so ceived legitimacy of the partnering as control.
much of what drives our IORs in organization in the public eye. That To summarize, once an organiza-
criminal justice is funding, this is, a perception of the partnering tion has defined, or had defined for
higher authority could be the fund- organization providing services that it, some problem to be addressed,
ing agency that requires multiple are needed in the community and the selection of programs and
types of organizations to be part of delivered in a proper and appro- partner organizations begins. We
a funding application. priate manner. Likewise, criminal recommend some combination of
Voluntary IORs may be moti- justice agencies can seek IORs with needs assessment and logic mod-
vated by a range of factors that other organizations to raise their eling to operationally define the
leaders believe are required in order profile and bolster their legitimacy. desired outcomes of the program or
to achieve the desired outcomes of One key decision here is whether practice. From there, the EBP to be
the organization. The first factor is the criminal justice organization implemented can be chosen.
related to the initiating (or “index”) views such partnership as the We now turn to some ideas on
organization’s motive to obtain proper way to conduct business. how the “responsible” organiza-
resources needed to advance their The final factor to explain tion can choose the external orga-
self-interests. If the initiating orga- motivation for entering an IOR is nizations that can best assist in the
nization can get other organizations “efficiency.” In this case, organiza- implementation of the EBP and the
to provide resources to achieve its tions may enter an IOR to reduce evaluation of its impact. Of course,
outcomes, the motivation is cat- costs through joint training, pur- in some instances the partners may
egorized as “asymmetrical.” This chasing, or providing services in be “mandatory.” In those situations
is usually determined by observ- a more cost-efficient manner. One where choices can be made, we
ing how lopsided the governance motivational factor in this area is to believe these choices are important.
structure of IOR turns out to be. If provide services that are not a part
one organization calls the shots, the of traditional correctional practice. Selecting the “Right” EBP
IOR is highly asymmetrical. An IOR with the right organizations Since we are using EBPs as our
On the other hand, if organiza- can achieve the additional services example around which IORs could
tions are motivated by consensus without a major cost to the correc- be developed, we want to focus on
and cooperation in pursuit of tional organization, especially in selecting the appropriate types of
mutual goals, we have the “reci- terms of staffing. programs. This allows us to discuss
procity” factor. Organizations that When the reentry funding began how to select partners for IORs in a
tend to operate in the same out- (Second Chance Act, in particu- future article. We begin with a dis-
come and funding environment lar), we observed criminal justice cussion of what constitutes an EBP.
(“domain”) are more likely to organizations entering the project There was once a commercial
form voluntary reciprocal IORs. proposal development process for a laxative product that sought
The key difference between asym- seeking reciprocal relations—the to define “regular.” In the end,
metrical IORs and those with “hold hands and sing Kumbaya” the advice was something like
greater reciprocity is the amount of approach. After a few years, we saw “what’s regular for you is regular.”
power and governance held by one those same organizations seek more The same cannot be said of EBPs.
organization. asymmetrical relationships, where Instead, selecting the right EBP for
IORs can also be sought to they had more authority in the pro- your project is a matter of fitting the
provide an element of “stability” to posed IORs. practice/program to the problem—
hedge against environmental uncer- Sometimes this means the crimi- or matching the intervention to the
tainty. In periods of tight budget nal justice organization tries to hold outcome(s) you want to achieve.
and grant funding, either the crimi- most of the control over the situ- Because we are working in the
nal justice agency or the potential ation. At other times, the criminal justice field, these are the initial
partner agencies may seek out an justice organization seeks to make requirements for a program/

AMERICANJails JULY | AUGUST 2021 | 51