Meaningful Change through Coalition Building – Part 2
A Case Study on Minnesota’s Community Corrections Funding Formula
Welcome to the second of our three-part series on building coalition across differences to make way for meaningful change. Erin got us started with a discussion of a project she worked on with Hennepin County treatment courts. In this installment, you will hear from me about work to change the state funding formula for Minnesota’s correctional delivery systems. In the last installment, you will hear from both of us about how we approach building coalitions, reaching actionable consensus, and maintaining engagement.
The project: creating an equitable state funding formula for community corrections in Minnesota
Minnesota’s corrections system is complicated. Correctional services from probation to prison to parole are delivered in three different ways across the state. The state is responsible for operating the prison system while counties and the state share responsibility in various ways for community supervision. The three delivery systems for community supervision include County Probation Office counties (CPO), Community Corrections Act counties (CCA), and state Department of Corrections counties (DOC).
Funding for community corrections is shared between counties and the state. Prior to 2023, state funding for community corrections was based on three different formulas, one for each of the delivery systems, none of which adequately addressed the actual resource needs of their attached systems. The multiple funding mechanisms resulted in geographic and delivery system funding disparities across the state. Those funding disparities led to disparate access to supervision services and disparate outcomes for corrections clients across Minnesota.
The challenge: philosophical differences, politics, and limited funding led to competition rather than collaboration
Each funding mechanism was advocated for by each of the impacted delivery systems and thus each of the counties utilizing those specific systems. All CCA counties in the state belong to the Minnesota Association of Community Corrections Act Counties (MACCAC). The CPO counties belong to the Minnesota Association of County Probation Offices (MACPO). The DOC is funded through legislative appropriation, a portion of which was passed on to CPO and CCA counties. While all three entities were focused on increasing funding, each was focused on their own needs and their own state funding mechanisms. Efforts to increase funding or change the funding mechanism led by one entity were often viewed with suspicion by the others because of their competing priorities. This, combined with the reality that none of the involved entities had the authority to actually make the change they were seeking, led to a seemingly intractable challenge.
In the 2000s and 2010s, efforts had been made to address concerns with the funding mechanisms for each of the correctional delivery systems to no avail. Each system lobbied legislators for additional dollars to meet their unique challenges. Sometimes funding would increase, sometimes it wouldn’t. And the mechanisms for funding made it difficult to address needs across the entire system. In 2021, the Governor convened a working group to attempt to address the issue utilizing an outside entity, the Council of State Governments (CSG), to bring representatives for all three delivery systems together to build consensus.
The solution: coalition building
During part of my time as the Director of the Hennepin County Department of Community Corrections and Rehabilitation, I also served as President of MACCAC (2021-22) and as a member of the organization’s executive board (2020-23). Thus I had the opportunity to be involved in the working group mentioned above. While CSG did a remarkable job of identifying potential solutions, the coalition ultimately fell back into its old patterns of competition and mistrust. Within MACCAC, we agreed that the single funding formula proposed by CSG was the best solution to our funding woes. Now how to get there?
The answer became clear when evaluating what had and had not worked thus far. We needed an effective coalition that could withstand and overcome the challenges inherent in the three delivery system model.
Building coalition
Learn the landscape and assess the current foundations. Prior efforts to address the state’s funding of community supervision focused on competition, which created divisions. CPO agencies were concerned they would be eliminated and absorbed into one of the other delivery models and that the value of their work was underappreciated. DOC leadership was required to adhere to each governor’s version of policy and thus correctional spending, which hampered their ability to compromise and commit to changes. CCA counties argued for funding adaptations tied to a belief their work was more closely aligned with correctional evidence-based practices and the knowledge that the bulk of felony supervision in the state rested with their agencies. This foundation for change was shaky at best. Understanding the history and the reasons for the less-than-solid foundation made it possible to see both the potential roadblocks to success and the opportunity for different possible pathways.
Find places of existing agreement. At their core, corrections professionals, politicians, and Minnesota residents all want the same thing - safe communities. All counties could agree that the state funding was insufficient, regardless of the delivery system they utilized. All delivery systems could agree that state funding was insufficient to support their goals around community safety. We didn’t all agree on a solution. Focusing on the space of agreement by continually coming back to it when we got stuck allowed us to keep moving forward even when the going was hard.
Acknowledge differences with empathy to create momentum for compromise. One of the most important elements of effective coalition building is empathy. In this case, that meant acknowledging and valuing the different perspectives brought up by each stakeholder, across correctional delivery systems and counties. Openly expressing agreement across differences is another way to demonstrate empathy. I remember sitting in a meeting and listening to one of my colleagues from a CPO county talking animatedly about their particular funding mechanism being grossly underfunded by the state. It was clear that he was bracing for a challenge from either MACCAC or the DOC, something he was used to hearing. Instead, I agreed with him. Not only that, I offered to be a voice to advocate for his position with legislators. Then I backed it up by agreeing the next time the same issue arose. Those small steps built trust, contributing to an effective coalition and the eventual compromises that helped us all achieve a desired outcome.
Reaching actionable consensus
Don’t be afraid to try a new path. The working group led by CSG didn’t result in the hoped for change, in large part because the entities representing each delivery system were ultimately unable to agree and come to consensus. Nonetheless, at MACCAC there was recognition that we had some momentum at the legislature to potentially get the formula changed. We also recognized that doing so would require greater consensus and collaboration than we had been able to achieve during the work with CSG. So the question became, “Now what?” The answer I suggested was to leverage our parent organization, the Association of Minnesota Counties (AMC).
The decision to put AMC front and center for our efforts, rather than MACCAC or the DOC or an outside entity, meant we could leverage different relationships. It also provided a different foundation for our efforts. By centering the needs of counties rather than the needs of each individual delivery system we were able to minimize the impact of delivery system competition and the differences between urban, suburban, and rural communities. The shift away from the delivery systems leading the way created a new, more solid foundation for compromise. Ultimately, we were able to generate consensus and a clear message in support of the need for a revised funding mechanism for all delivery systems; a single funding formula tied to the work, not the delivery system. That message was formalized into a resolution that was ultimately adopted by all 87 county boards, meaning every legislator - regardless of party affiliation, spending priorities, or philosophical stance - had ties to a county that supported the need for change.
Use influence effectively. I’ve already mentioned the fact that no one involved in this effort had the authority to simply make this change occur. Not only did no one entity or individual have that authority, our coalition didn’t either. We also didn’t have all 87 counties in a room coming up with a plan and a shared message. What we did have was influence. We had representatives from county boards, correctional agencies, AMC, and others. So we created a plan to advocate first with the 87 county boards. Success in that space ultimately expanded our influence even further by adding to the size of our coalition.
Find meaningful ways to sacrifice something for the greater good. Hennepin County is the largest county in the state by population. They also have the largest community supervision agency in the state. And in many ways, other counties and other correctional agencies have sometimes viewed them as the bully, “the state of Hennepin”. By acknowledging that history and then consistently framing Hennepin as only one part of the whole, we were able to build a coalition across differences. I repeatedly said in public and in private that if the formula was equitable and created to account for actual costs, but did not improve Hennepin’s funding position, we would still support and advocate for it. I had buy-in from decision makers in Hennepin County largely because it was now AMC leading our efforts. By taking that position, I was able to increase trust and demonstrate a commitment to achieving the broader goal.
Maintaining engagement
One-on-one and small group conversations matter. I’m not a fan of back-door deals and conversations outside the group when you’re trying to create cohesion. However, I also recognize the necessity of continued connection outside the group spaces as a means for maintaining engagement within the group. Making myself available for the proverbial meeting after the meeting meant I could more readily diagnose potential future challenges and prepare for them. It also meant I could assess people’s commitment to continuing forward. I had several one-on-one conversations with a few of my MACCAC colleagues who were frustrated, concerned about the group falling into old, unproductive patterns, and convinced what we were doing wasn’t going to work or was going to be derailed by others. Those side conversations were a vital part of keeping our momentum, assuaging concerns, and demonstrating my own commitment to our coalition.
Consistency supports cohesion. Something as simple as creating a set meeting schedule and a concrete timeline from the very beginning creates a sense of structure and commitment among group members. For many, this is an obvious part of the process, but you would be surprised at how many times this becomes an after thought. Starting the first meeting with these two items, rather than waiting to the end, made it clear that the work to build cohesion was being prioritized. Because AMC’s leadership made it a priority, all of us in the group understood that we also needed to make it a priority. We met on a consistent schedule and our working relationships were more cohesive as a result. That consistency also made it easier for group members to plan accordingly and stay involved and engaged.
Don’t ignore the conflicts. While we were able to get our group members to agree that a single funding formula was the answer to addressing everyone’s funding needs, we didn’t all like the numbers being plugged into that formula or the dollar figures that came out the other side. We didn’t all agree on the exact formula. But by calling out the conflicts, we were able to address them head on and create meaningful compromise. No one got exactly what they wanted. But everyone got something. And everyone felt heard.
The outcome: big change happens in stages
In 2023, the Minnesota legislature passed a sweeping change to the way community corrections is funded in the state. The new formula accounted for actual costs in ways the old mechanisms never quite did. The coalition created by uniting all 87 of Minnesota’s counties behind a singular message resulted in success. A single funding formula now exists for community corrections in Minnesota. The new formula resulted in increased funding in almost every county. However, while the formula was clear on the amount of money necessary to fully fund the delivery of community supervision services based on that formula, the dollar amount ultimately appropriated by the legislature did not fully fund the demonstrated financial need. The work to reach that funding level continues. There are new people at the table bringing new ideas and new strategies. But the roadmap created through the work to change the formula still exists. The state’s 87 counties, united through coalition and led by those in positions of influence, can achieve their ultimate goal.
