Coordination to Reduce Barriers to Reentry: lessons learned from

Coordination to Reduce Barriers to Reentry:

lessons learned from COVID-19 and beyond

REPORT TO CONGRESS FROM THE REENTRY

COORDINATION COUNCIL

APRIL 2022

Attorney General, Merrick B. Garland

U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)

Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Marcia Fudge

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

Secretary of Labor, Marty Walsh

U.S. Department of Labor (DOL)

Secretary of Education, Miguel Cardona

U.S. Department of Education (ED)

Secretary of Health and Human Services, Xavier Becerra

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)

Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Denis McDonough

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)

Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

REENTRY

COORDINATION

COUNCIL

MEMBERS:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 4

I. Stakeholder Engagement .......................................................................................................... 5

II. Barriers to Reentry .................................................................................................................... 7

Housing Insecutity and Homelessness ................................................................................................ 8

Food Insecurity. ................................................................................................................................... 8

Health Care Needs ............................................................................................................................... 9

Barriers to Education ......................................................................................................................... 11

Barriers to Employment .................................................................................................................... 11

Veteran-Specific Reentry Barriers. ................................................................................................... 12

III. What Works: Examples of Effective Policies and Programs ............................................... 12

Programs, Policy, and Guidance ....................................................................................................... 13

Virtual Services ................................................................................................................................. 15

Wraparound Reentry Services ........................................................................................................... 16

Interagency Collaborations ............................................................................................................... 17

Prioritizing Perspectives from those with Lived Experience ............................................................ 19

IV. Recommendations to Further Reduce Barriers to Successful Reentry .............................. 20

Data Collection and Funding Language ............................................................................................ 21

Housing ............................................................................................................................................. 21

Food Security. ................................................................................................................................... 22

Health Care ........................................................................................................................................ 22

Education ........................................................................................................................................... 23

Employment. ..................................................................................................................................... 24

Targeted Services .............................................................................................................................. 24

Supervision-related Reforms. ............................................................................................................ 25

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 26

Introduction

Each year, about 600,000 people in the United States enter prisons; and at the same time, people are

sent to jails across our country over 10 million times per year.

Individuals returning to their

communities after a term of imprisonment face a number of barriers to success, including housing

insecurity, inability to access health care, food insecurity, and barriers to education and employment.

These longstanding barriers were exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic and compounded by

additional hurdles, including limited access to government and community-based services and support.

Yet, despite the pandemic’s tragic toll, new

resources and creative solutions emerged,

providing innovative approaches to combating

barriers to reentry and to assisting justice system-

impacted individuals. This report represents the

efforts of six federal agencies, joined in

collaboration with the Department of Justice, to

study the impact of COVID-19 on longstanding

barriers to reentry, to review efforts taken to ease

those barriers, and to collaborate on efforts to

improve successful outcomes for those returning

home after contact with the criminal legal

system. This reentry collaboration effort stems

from Section 505 of Pub. L. No. 115-391, the

First Step Act of 2018 (FSA), which reauthorized

the Second Chance Act, and requires the

Attorney General to “coordinate on Federal

programs, policies, and activities relating to the

reentry of individuals returning from

incarceration to the community, with an

emphasis on evidence-based practices and

protection against duplication of services” and to

“submit to Congress a report summarizing the achievements” of the agency collaboration, including

“recommendations for Congress that would further reduce barriers to successful reentry.”

In compliance with the FSA’s mandates, in October 2021, the Attorney General convened the Reentry

Coordination Council (RCC), inviting representatives from the Department of Housing and Urban

Development (HUD), the Department of Labor (DOL), the Department of Education (ED), the

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and the

Department of Agriculture (USDA). These federal agency partners engaged in preliminary steps to

launch this effort to collaboratively address current barriers to reentry and provide recommendations to

reduce those barriers, with the hope and expectation of expanding agency partnerships and solidifying

this interagency collaboration going forward.

“Removing barriers to successful reentry

for previously incarcerated individuals is

an important part of the Justice

Department’s mission to keep our

country safe, uphold the rule of law, and

pursue equal justice under law. We will

continue our work with our partners

across all levels of government and

beyond to develop collaborative

approaches that advance our shared

goals of ensuring equal access to justice

and economic opportunity for all,

including individuals returning from

incarceration to our communities.”

ATTORNEY GENERAL MERRICK B.

GARLAND

This report summarizes the RCC’s collaboration thus far and provides recommendations to further

reduce barriers to successful reentry based on RCC member agencies’ collective efforts as well as

stakeholder feedback. The first section of the report describes the RCC’s stakeholder engagement

efforts, including hosting listening sessions with experts in various reentry-related fields and soliciting

feedback from organizations that work extensively in areas of reentry. The report then discusses various

barriers to reentry, with a special emphasis on barriers that were exacerbated by the COVID-19

pandemic. The third section of the report provides examples of effective agency programming and

funding efforts, including innovations that resulted from the COVID-19 pandemic. Finally, in the fourth

section, the RCC suggests additional actions that could further reduce barriers to reentry, and signals

that it will continue and expand this partnership and work.

I. Stakeholder Engagement

The RCC prioritized stakeholder engagement as a critical component of this collaborative effort. The

RCC “collaborat[ed] with interested persons, service providers, nonprofit organizations, and State,

tribal, and local governments” in compliance with Section 505 of the FSA,

and went beyond these

mandates to learn from the expertise and experience of a variety of people and organizations, soliciting

broad perspectives from individuals and organizations involved in several aspects of reentry. Especially

important were opportunities to hear from individuals who have experienced reentering the community

from carceral settings, in an attempt to learn from their experience and to incorporate their policy

recommendations in our analysis and recommendations. The RCC also sought information on reentry

efforts and programs that have proven effective and in areas where the federal government should focus

additional attention.

Listening Sessions

The RCC hosted a series of listening sessions with community advocates and partners, including a

listening session attended by Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta. Each session highlighted a

different theme: (1) collateral consequences and loss of rights associated with convictions; (2)

employment and education; (3) housing and food security; and (4) health care and Veterans. Each

session included a range of reentry experts, including academics, policy analysts, correctional

practitioners, jurists, and justice-impacted individuals who had personally experienced barriers to

reentry.

Each listening session is described in more detail below; however, common themes emerged across the

sessions. Presenters emphasized that substantive reentry should begin at the outset of incarceration and

stressed the importance of ongoing long-term supports targeted to help individuals returning from

incarceration reach economic stability and independence. Stakeholders stressed the importance of

including those who have received, and are receiving, reentry services in tailoring solutions. They also

emphasized the critical need for data collection and performance metrics to measure the success of

federal programs and grantees.

Collateral consequences and loss of rights associated with convictions: Invited guests in this session

included representatives from national nonprofit, nonpartisan organizations that span the criminal-

justice continuum. Their presentations emphasized the broad and deep impacts criminal convictions,

including on economic stability, and stressed the need for creating real second chances and eliminating

collateral consequences. They discussed the impact of incarceration on the family and the need for

reentry reunification and child custody supports. Stakeholders also underscored the importance of

partnerships and specifically highlighted Reentry 2030, a new national campaign to build a stronger,

more equitable future of reentry. Reentry 2030 is led by nonprofit organizations partnering with

corrections administrators, state agencies, and people who have been directly impacted by the criminal

justice system, with support from DOJ and philanthropy. Presenters stressed that approaches to reentry,

like Reentry 2030, should be human centered, coordinated, transparent, and equitable.

Employment and education: Experts, including criminal justice policymakers and a state correctional

administrator, presented quantitative research on the impact of incarceration on employment and

earnings, and emphasized the importance of creating real, useful educational and employment

opportunities and getting buy-in from the intended participants of those opportunities so they are

invested in and enthusiastic about the outcomes. The panelists cautioned that some fields of

employment, including fields promoted through work programs in custody, contain state licensure

requirements that present bureaucratic employment barriers, often unknown to incarcerated individuals

and carceral facilities. They identified the need to evaluate state licensure requirements to ensure that

they are not creating unnecessary barriers for justice-impacted individuals. The experts also highlighted

the importance of financial assistance, mentoring, and digital literacy as key supports for educational

and employment success. In addition, the experts identified as focus areas the need to expand criminal

record-clearing and expungement opportunities, connect occupational training and jobs during

incarceration with post-release employment, and ensure that credits earned in carceral settings are

transferrable to educational degrees and credentials.

Housing and food security: Experts in this session emphasized that housing and food security are basic

needs. Meeting those basic needs is not only essential for survival, but also critical in creating a sense

of independence for formerly incarcerated individuals. Speakers encouraged funding for reentry

services that use a holistic framework. For example, the founder of a Los Angeles, California-based

transitional housing facility for women leaving carceral settings presented a case study of her

organization, a “healing space” that serves as a model of a welcoming environment for women to rejoin

their community after incarceration while simultaneously addressing the physical, mental, and social

contexts that shape experiences before, during, and after prison. Stakeholders further emphasized the

importance of federal food benefits to reentry and noted that justice-impacted individuals living in

transitional housing should have the option of receiving direct food benefits. They explained that

although most transitional housing facilities provide three meals per day, the reality was that, residents

engaged in daily work and training away from these facilities may miss some, or all, of those daily

meals. If the reentry center does not provide a meal supplement, clients must use their daily wages to

pay for food, making food benefits particularly helpful.

Health Care and Veterans: A recurring theme from the various stakeholders during this session was

the limited capacity in most communities to provide continuity of care across correctional and

community health systems. Practitioners identified gaps in health insurance coverage as a barrier to

reentry. Presenters also addressed the specific needs of Veterans, who often face significant mental

health and substance use disorder challenges. The panelists again recognized the interconnectedness of

reentry support, noting that the impact of unmet health care needs is far-reaching and can lead to

unemployment, homelessness, and continued involvement in the criminal legal system.

“The missions of the agencies represented here bring collective strength,

visibility, and power. Together, we can assess the best resources and services to

meet the needs of individuals and communities before interaction with the

justice system, and we can improve public safety by pursuing successful

outcomes after individuals return from incarceration.”

ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY GENERAL VANITA GUPTA

REENTRY COORDINATION COUNCIL JANUARY 2022 LISTENING SESSION

Stakeholder Feedback

In addition to listening sessions, the RCC received feedback from a wide range of reentry-related

organizations. The RCC received input from twenty stakeholder organizations, including justice-

impacted individuals, policy and research organizations, prosecutors’ networks, criminal justice-reform

coalitions, correctional leaders, and organizations that provide direct services, including workforce

development and housing, to justice-impacted individuals. Stakeholders provided perspectives on the

largest barriers faced by individuals who are returning to the community after incarceration in the areas

covered by each of the member agencies. They also identified the programs, policies, or activities of

government agencies that are most effective at reducing barriers to reentry and addressed federal

funding or legislative reforms to reduce barriers to reentry. Stakeholders also addressed the impact of

the COVID-19 pandemic on reentry efforts and how the pandemic has affected stakeholder

organizations’ reentry work, and any adaptations and innovations made as a result of the pandemic.

II. Barriers to Reentry

The criminal legal system impacts a large segment of the U.S. population. Over five million people in

the United States were under the supervision of adult correctional systems at the end of 2020, and as

many as one in three adult Americans have been arrested at least once.

In 2020, nearly 550,000 people

were released from prison.

Individuals in prison and jail are disproportionately poor compared to the

overall U.S. population.

Moreover, people of color are overrepresented in the nation’s prison and jails:

Black Americans make up thirty-eight percent of the incarcerated population despite representing

twelve percent of the U.S. population.

It is no secret that formerly incarcerated people and individuals under supervision face many barriers,

including in employment and economic mobility, housing, public benefits, access to education, civic

participation, and access to treatment and health care. The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated the

collateral consequences of a criminal conviction and created additional barriers to reentry. Specifically,

the pandemic resulted in the termination or curtailment of most reentry-related training and services in

carceral facilities. The lack of access to technology and internet security in those facilities significantly

hindered the ability of reentry service providers to make virtual training adaptations. In addition, the

availability of safe, affordable housing remains limited, and the pandemic brought new health

challenges, including through the devastation of the COVID-19 virus, and additionally related to the

expanded need for, and inability to access mental health and substance use disorder treatment. Further,

the economic downturn caused by the pandemic impacted jobs, particularly in low-wage industries that

have been traditionally more likely to employ formerly incarcerated individuals.

Although by no means an exhaustive compilation, the RCC agencies and community stakeholders

identified the following barriers as significant obstacles to successful reentry.

Housing Insecurity and Homelessness

The nation as a whole faces a severe shortage of affordable housing and rental assistance relative to

need; federal housing assistance is not an entitlement and only serves one in five eligible renter

households.

However, certain populations, including those with criminal justice system involvement,

face even greater challenges with obtaining and maintaining housing and housing assistance. The

shortage of affordable housing during the COVID-19 pandemic placed persons with criminal

histories and with limited or no credit histories (which is often a byproduct of incarceration) at a

particular disadvantage. In some jurisdictions, the lack of safe, stable housing also delayed approval

for discretionary release from prison, leading those without housing to serve more time behind bars

than those with stable housing available to them.

Even fewer housing options are affordable and

accessible, making it more difficult for individuals with disabilities to successfully transition from

carceral or other institutional settings.

Even prior to the pandemic, formerly incarcerated people were almost ten times more likely to

experience homelessness than the general public.

Those who have been incarcerated more than once

are thirteen times more likely to experience homelessness.

Moreover, research shows that the lack of

stable housing following incarceration leads to a higher likelihood of rearrest and reincarceration.

the other hand, there is a growing body of evidence that shows that the provision of housing assistance,

particularly when accompanied with supportive services, can help reduce recidivism and decrease

involvement in the criminal justice system.

Despite this evidence, there is no federal program that

provides housing assistance specifically for people with criminal justice involvement and, in fact, most

federal housing programs are difficult to access for people with criminal records. Certain federal

statutes and regulations prohibit access for people with certain criminal convictions.

Moreover, some federal statutes also authorize, and in some cases require, federally assisted housing

providers and public housing agencies (PHAs) to screen for, and deny admission on the basis of, a

prospective tenant’s criminal record

and to terminate tenancy based on criminal activity. Advocates

have advised HUD that the scarcity of affordable housing has been used to justify overly restrictive

screening policies. Some HUD-assisted housing providers have also implemented policies that prohibit

tenants from allowing visits by family members with criminal records,

even though there is no federal

law, regulation, or HUD policy that requires or encourages placing such restrictions on visitors.

Food Insecurity

USDA defines very low food security as “multiple indications of disrupted eating patterns and reduced

food intake.”

According to one study, 91% of people released from prison reported experiencing food

insecurity.

Certain established regulations and policy to address food insecurity, including the

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) (7 U.S.C. § 2011 et seq.) and state Temporary

Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) (42 U.S.C. § 601 et seq.) programs may restrict benefits based

on criminal history. Individuals who have been deemed ineligible for food benefits must rely on

community-based supports that have been made scarcer by the tremendous demand and economic

downturn caused by the pandemic.

Section 11 of the Food and Nutrition Act deems individuals who are incarcerated for more than 30 days

ineligible for SNAP benefits during their incarceration.

However, states may request waivers to begin

processing SNAP applications from incarcerated individuals prior to their release, allowing individuals

who are eligible to receive benefits sooner upon release. To date, less than fourteen states use a pre-

release waiver to assist formerly incarcerated people with reentry.

Additionally, a strong working

relationship between state human services agencies, who administer SNAP, and state departments of

corrections is important to ensure that those leaving incarceration are connected to core supports and

services upon release. In many cases, making these connections prior to release can lead to more

successful engagement and enrollment.

Section 115 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconcilation Act of 1996 prohibits

states from providing SNAP benefits to individuals convicted of drug felonies unless the state passes

legislation to extend benefits to these individuals.

While South Carolina is the only state to have kept

a full ban in place, a number of other states continue to have modified versions of the ban.

Some

states make successfully passing a drug test an additional condition for receiving SNAP and TANF

benefits.

Women, who comprise the majority of recipients for SNAP and TANF, are more likely to

be incarcerated for drug crimes in state prisons.

Because women are more likely to have children,

these restrictions have a significant impact on families, as families receive a much lower overall benefit

when a parent is ineligible for food benefits because of a felony drug conviction

Section 6(o) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 also includes a requirement that most adults aged

18 to 49 not raising minor children must work or participate in an employment and training program at

least twenty hours per week in order to maintain eligibility for SNAP; if they are not participating in

work-related activities, these individuals may only receive SNAP benefits for three months within a

three-year period.

While there are some exceptions, including an option for States to request waivers

for areas with high unemployment, this eligibility rule is a serious restriction. It can have a

disproportionate impact on those individuals who may face more serious barriers to employment,

including formerly incarcerated individuals.

Health Care Needs

Coverage, access, and continuity of health care are particularly important for returning community

members. Formerly incarcerated individuals face higher mortality rates than other individuals.

Poor

access to health care after release is also associated with increased recidivism.

Medicaid coverage can

be crucial to ensuring a successful transition following incarceration: a recent study found that

expanded access to Medicaid can reduce recidivism within the first year of release by 11.5%.

Moreover, better health and access to health care during reentry can improve employment, housing,

and family support outcomes.

Pursuant to section 1905(a) of the Social Security Act, individuals in carceral settings may be enrolled

in Medicaid, but reimbursement of covered Medicaid services is prohibited for incarcerated individuals,

except as inpatients in a medical institution.

This is otherwise known as the “Medicaid inmate

exclusion.” Although there appears to be interest amongst prisons, jails, and their partner agencies to

identify and enroll eligible people in public health care benefits prior to release, many facilities do not

have processes or staffing in place to do so. One study found that only 28% of jails screen for Medicaid

eligibility at release.

As a result, those returning from incarceration may face obstacles when seeking

to find, understand, and use information to inform their health-related decisions and take appropriate

health-related actions for themselves.

Efforts to provide health care for individuals while incarcerated, including mental health and substance

use disorder treatment, have a high risk of failure without continuity of care upon release. Access to

Medicaid coverage for returning community members can provide continuity of care that may improve

health outcomes, reduce recidivism, and improve public safety.

However, depending on a person’s

state of residence, Medicaid benefits may not be easily accessible, or may not be available at all to

adults released from a correctional facility. Some states have opted to implement policies and

procedures to facilitate the eligibility process, to ensure services are available as promptly as possible

upon reentry into the community.

However, that eligibility is only valid in the state of residence,

typically the state in which the correctional facility is located, with few exceptions. Often, when

individuals reenter the community, their families, social supports, housing, and employment

opportunities may not be in the same state. In the event the individual moves to another state to resume

community life, the Medicaid benefits established in the state where the individual was formerly

incarcerated do not transfer to the new state. Medicaid eligibility must then be re-established, again

resulting in delay or denial of services.

Beyond access to basic health care needs, criminal justice-involved individuals are more likely to

experience substance use disorders and mental health conditions.

Substance abuse and demand for

health-related services increased during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Approximately sixty-five percent of the U.S. prison population has an active substance use disorder.

However, only a small portion of individuals with a substance use disorder receive treatment while

incarcerated.

According to one study, individuals recently released from incarceration are over forty

times more likely to die from an opioid overdose than the general population.

The weeks immediately

following reentry are when individuals are most vulnerable to relapse and recidivism.

However,

people who are enrolled in health care coverage when released are more likely to use community-based

services that could help reduce their chances of recidivating.

Further, many reentry providers, including some HHS grantees, particularly those who engage with

clients for mental health and substance use disorders, report that obtaining clients and referrals during

the pandemic has been difficult for their reentry programs. Prior to the pandemic, reentry programs

were required to begin assessment and pre-release services for incarcerated individuals while they were

still incarcerated, a certain number of months prior to release. However, due to the public health

emergency and following guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), most

jails and prisons closed to outside visitors, including service providers, during the pandemic, and

grantees were therefore not allowed to provide in-person services pre-release. The pandemic also

changed the way assessments and pre-release services were handled. Grantees had to transition to jail

and prison staff referring potential client’s names to grantees so they could reach out by phone, or by

other methods or platforms, such as letters, email, or virtual videoconference, to encourage participation

in their programs, and conduct pre-release services. Moreover, not being able to meet in person and the

lack of viable virtual alternatives due to the pandemic has hindered maintaining and establishing

relationships with family and communities, which is important for successful reentry into these

programs and ultimately a successful transition to the community.

Barriers to Education

Formerly incarcerated people are almost twice as likely to lack a high school diploma and are eight

times less likely to complete college than the general public.

Yet, most educational programs and

online courses available outside of incarceration are inaccessible to the incarcerated population.

In carceral settings, access to specialized courses and waiting lists for educational programming were

already significant issues prior to the pandemic.

COVID-19 has exacerbated these issues, because, as

noted above, correctional facilities generally did not allow outside visitors (who in some cases served

as teaching staff for programming) and therefore curtailed many educational programs that were being

offered. While technology-based learning can effectively enhance learning opportunities in carceral

settings if appropriately implemented, virtual learning platforms are not a substitute for in-person

learning with educational professionals and peer mentors to aid the learning process.

Moreover, technology inside correctional facilities is often limited, so a switch to virtual learning was

not always feasible or easily implemented. Many correctional systems do not have wired or wireless

internet or adequate internet security to allow for successful distance learning, resulting in classes and

programs being completely curtailed throughout the pandemic.

Remote or virtual learning can also be a challenge for formerly incarcerated individuals after release.

Many do not have stable access to technology, including the internet, upon release. Moreover, without

digital literacy training during incarceration, formerly incarcerated individuals—especially those who

served long sentences—may lack sufficient proficiency in computer technology to use virtual platforms

and successfully take advantage of virtual learning opportunities.

Barriers to Employment

The public workforce system has experience serving individuals with justice system involvement. For

example, DOL issues grant programs that directly serve people released from prison.

However,

COVID-19 ended a significant amount of this programming. In addition, adult reentry grants awarded

in 2020 and 2021 required case managers to begin providing services to individuals while they were

still in confinement, but some individuals’ release dates changed during the beginning of the

pandemic—often on short notice—making it difficult for some grantees to begin service pre-release.

Prisons and jails were also closed to grantee case managers because of COVID-19 and staffing

shortages. In a few cases, grantees could deliver services remotely through technology. However, as

noted above, most institutions were not equipped with the needed technology. Similarly, closures of

county records departments and state motor vehicle offices delayed obtaining copies of birth certificates

and driver’s licenses—necessary documentation to establish identity for employment.

Even in non-pandemic times, widespread use of criminal background checks has resulted in people

with past convictions being effectively removed from the employment process.

More than 19 million

Americans, or approximately eight percent of the working-age population, have a felony conviction.

These individuals may struggle to find employment post-release and, when employed, often face low

earnings, which correlates with an increased likelihood of reincarceration. These employment-related

outcomes also demonstrate racial disparities in impact: the effect of a criminal record is forty percent

larger for Black applicants than White applicants.

Moreover, although millions of individuals with

felony convictions are likely eligible to have their criminal records expunged, many are unable to do

so because the process is complicated and often costly, and low-cost or free access to counsel or legal

assistance is rarely provided in postconviction proceedings.

Although federal law limits the consideration of criminal history in hiring;

noncompliance or lack of

knowledge about this guidance creates a barrier for justice-impacted individuals. Some occupations

and industries explicitly bar the hiring of people with criminal records. There are 27,000 state

occupational licensing restrictions based on criminal records.

These restrictions result in those

reentering being barred, often for life, from participating in twenty-five percent of the economy, even

if they have or have gained relevant training and experience in a particular occupation while

incarcerated.

Under federal law, some individuals convicted of certain crimes are barred from

working in the banking and transportation sectors, as well as from various state-licensed jobs in health

care and education which further compounds these inequities.

Lengthy community supervision sentences, including those with sometimes onerous restrictions, may

also hinder successful reentry. Standard supervision conditions can restrict justice-impacted individuals

from earning additional income or traveling to access better employment opportunities, thereby limiting

their ability to pay court-related debt and to support their families, including through child support

payments. This further pressures people to find any available job after incarceration, rather than

focusing on finding employment with opportunities for long-term stability and advancement.

Veteran-Specific Reentry Barriers

Veterans represent approximately eight percent of jail and prison populations.

This population often

has extensive medical, mental health, and substance use disorder treatment needs—needs which have

been linked to traumatic experiences that can result from military service.

Incarcerated Veterans also

face numerous psychosocial issues and thirty percent have a history of homelessness.

Upon release,

Veterans can experience significant challenges finding available treatment and resources. In addition,

ten percent of incarcerated Veterans are not eligible for VA services due to dishonorable or bad conduct

discharge statuses, and an additional thirteen percent may not be eligible for services due to other than

honorable discharge statuses.

III. What Works: Examples of Effective Policies and Programs

The many hurdles to stability after justice system involvement negatively impact individuals, families

and communities, and exacerbate social and economic disadvantages more broadly, particularly for

low-income communities and communities of color. Eliminating barriers to successful reentry

improves outcomes and reduces recidivism, thereby promoting public safety. Federal agencies and

grantees are working hard and pursuing innovative strategies to improve the ability of their programs

and services to assist justice-impacted individuals. Many of these strategies were creative solutions

developed as a direct response to increased barriers experienced due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Programs, Policy, and Guidance

Housing

HUD has long been focused on access to housing for justice-impacted individuals, issuing guidance in

2016 clarifying that the overbroad use of criminal records as the basis for denying admission to housing

by landlords and HUD-assisted housing providers may place them at risk of violating the Fair Housing

Act, given the over-representation of people of color in the criminal justice system.

The guidance emphasized that while landlords and housing providers may conduct criminal history

screening among applicants, such screening must be supported by reliable evidence that the landlord

or housing provider’s policy or practice of making housing decisions based on criminal history actually

assists in protecting resident safety and/or property. While the guidance focused on race and national

origin, the same principles apply to discrimination because of disability, since various studies have

shown that the criminal justice system also disproportionately impacts people with disabilities.

Stakeholder feedback revealed that many HUD-assisted housing providers had not modified their

policies and practices to adhere to the 2016 guidance and continued to make overly broad use of

criminal records as the basis for denying access to HUD programs. As a result, on April 12, 2022, HUD

issued an internal directive to principal staff to conduct an agency-wide review of all existing

regulations, guidance, and sub-regulatory policy documents and to propose amendments that will

reduce barriers to housing for persons with criminal histories or their families and make HUD programs

as inclusive as possible. This review is intended to reinforce the 2016 guidance that criminal records

should not be taken at face value, or used in an over-broad manner to deny access to HUD-assisted

housing, and is grounded in growing evidence that stable housing reduces recidivism and increases

public safety and overly broad exclusions of people with criminal records does not increase public

safety.

HUD also made policy changes that impact the formerly incarcerated as a result of the COVID-19

pandemic. Under general HUD policy, individuals who were deemed unhoused upon entry to a

correctional facility are no longer deemed unhoused if detained or incarcerated longer than 90 days.

However, waiver authority obtained through the CARES Act enabled HUD to expand access for

formerly incarcerated people to HUD’s unhoused programs and extended this timeframe to 120 days

during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, the American Rescue Plan provided HUD with 70,000

Emergency Housing Vouchers, which were used to secure housing through partnerships with over 600

public housing authorities across the country. HUD used its statutory authority through the American

Rescue Plan to establish alternative requirements with respect to mandatory and permissive

prohibitions of admission for Emergency Housing Voucher applicants. Specifically, HUD eliminated

the public housing authority’s ability to deny admission for an Emergency Housing Voucher based on

drug-related activity to ensure that the vouchers could be used to serve populations of homeless and at-

risk of homeless individuals, including formerly incarcerated people, and to serve individuals

struggling with drug addiction, as that addiction may be one of the root causes of the lack of housing.

Prohibitions based on criminal activity regarding drug possession were considered separately from

criminal activity against persons (i.e., violent criminal activity) in a manner similar to the HUD-VA

Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) Program, discussed in more detail below.

In June 2021, HUD sent a letter clarifying that justice-impacted individuals were among the eligible

populations for Emergency Housing Vouchers and encouraged public housing providers and their

Continuum of Care partners to ensure that individuals released from incarceration were given

consideration for the vouchers.

HUD also emphasized its commitment to taking a comprehensive

approach to addressing reentry housing needs, including developing tools and guidance to ensure that

applicant screening and tenant selection practices avoid unnecessarily overbroad denial of housing to

applicants on the basis of criminal records; reviewing existing HUD policies and regulations that limit

access to housing and HUD assistance among those with criminal conviction histories; and publishing

findings regarding the best practices on reentry housing programs.

Health Care

Given the prevalence of substance use disorders among those leaving incarceration, the easing of

restrictions to access substance use disorder treatments due to the COVID-19 pandemic was particularly

important for this population. In March 2020, in an attempt to reduce the risk of COVID-19 infection

among patients and health care providers, HHS, through the Substance Abuse and Mental Health

Services Administration (SAMHSA), issued an exemption to opioid treatment programs whereby a

state could request an exception for all “stable” patients in a treatment program to receive 28 days of

take-home doses of methadone, medication used to treat opioid use disorder.

States could also request

up to 14 days of take-home doses of methadone for those patients who were “less stable” but who the

treatment provider believed could safely handle the medication at home.

Similarly, in consultation

with HHS, the Drug Enforcement Administration also issued guidance allowing authorized providers

to prescribe controlled substances such as buprenorphine to new and existing patients with opioid use

disorder via telehealth, without the need for an in-person medical evaluation.

State authorities, patients, and treatment providers reported that these exemptions enhanced and

encouraged the use of opioid treatment program services, and specifically resulted in increased

treatment engagement, improved patient satisfaction, and few incidents of misuse or medication

diversion. As a result of this positive feedback, in November 2021, SAMHSA extended the methadone

take-home flexibilities for one year, effective upon the eventual expiration of the COVID-19 public

health emergency and noted that the agency is considering mechanisms to make the flexibilities

permanent HHS policy.

In addition, HHS and DOJ intend to pursue rulemaking to allow continued

flexibility for prescribing buprenorphine to patients via telehealth.

First Step Act Implementation

DOJ’s Bureau of Prisons (BOP), in implementing the First Step Act, has put in place a new system of

risk assessments and needs assessments for every incarcerated person, as well as dozens of evidence-

based recidivism reduction programs and productive activities that correlate to areas of need. Over

82,000 people in BOP custody are currently participating in curriculum-based recidivism reducing

activities, and thousands more are participating in work assignments, all aimed at preparing these

individuals for their reentry to the community once their sentences are complete. The time credits

system, created by the First Step Act, is helping incentivize individuals to participate in these education

programs, vocational trainings, and work assignments, as recommended based on their needs

assessments. Because there are many disqualifying offenses and prior convictions in the First Step Act,

not every person serving a term of incarceration in BOP custody is eligible to receive Time Credits

towards pre-release custody or supervised release, but there are privileges associated with participation

in recidivism reduction programs and productive activities for all in BOP custody. Cognizant of the

effect that rehabilitation and reentry programs have on individual recidivism outcomes—and their

concomitant effect on community and national public safety—and the complementary need to ensure

that the implementation of the First Step Act does not exacerbate harmful disparities in the criminal

justice system, DOJ will publish data that annually reflect how the First Step Act’s disqualifying

offenses and prior convictions result in those in federal custody being ineligible to earn time credits

towards pre-release custody and supervised release, including by racial and ethnic groups, as slated in

the Department’s final Earned Time Credits rule published in January 2022. BOP’s activities in this

space are documented in the Department of Justice’s annual First Step Act Report, published in April

2022.

Virtual Services

When the pandemic began, most drug courts and reentry programs closed their in-person operations

and either moved to virtual or remote services or halted proceedings altogether. As previously

discussed, these changes created a barrier to accessing a number of reentry services, as providers were

unable to begin in-person assessments and pre-release services in the carceral setting, and some clients

lacked access to technology for services upon release. However, for some federal grantees, the use of

virtual platforms has made it easier to provide services to justice-impacted populations, including

greater access to court, behavioral treatment services, and recovery support services. Specifically, the

use of remote services has reduced common barriers to access, such as transportation and associated

costs, child care, and the need to take time off work.

Moreover, virtual adjustments allowed grantees, in many cases, to further tailor their services to the

specific needs of their populations. Adjustments included lighter touch supervision for low-risk

probation and parole populations, the adoption of new types of programs and services for high risk/high

need groups, and greater flexibility in how and when program participants were able to access

services.

During the beginning of the pandemic, two of HHS’s reentry-related grantees, Time for a

Change/Sweet Dreams in San Bernardino, California, and Serving Children and Adults in Need in

Laredo, Texas, consistently have been able to serve more clients than their monthly client targets and

had follow-up services rates near one hundred percent. Despite being restricted from in-person

consultations with clients in carceral settings, these organizations have been able to build relationships

with their clients during the intake process and maintain those relationships throughout participation in

the program. The grantees utilized innovative strategies such as sending letters and postcards to clients

while incarcerated and ensuring, when possible, the same staff follow the client through the program.

The grantees also found that including families in activities and events was beneficial to keeping clients

engaged.

VA’s Veterans Health Administration (VHA) provides direct outreach and linkage services for

Veterans who are engaged at all points of the criminal justice process. These services were significantly

impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, as the widespread limitation of in-person visits at prisons, jails,

and court facilities required operational adjustments to continue engaging justice-impacted Veterans.

VHA’s Veterans Justice Programs staff greatly increased their use of virtual outreach tools, including

video and telehealth technology. In FY 2021, VHA used funding provided under the CARES Act to

purchase data plans for VA-owned iPads. They then placed the devices in prisons, jails, and other

criminal justice settings to enable contact between incarcerated Veterans and VA outreach staff. These

VA-owned iPads are currently in use in 104 criminal justice partner facilities.

Incarcerated individuals who maintain supportive relationships with family members have better

outcomes when they return to the community.

With limitations and restrictions on in-person visiting

due to the pandemic, access to affordable communications services became especially critical to

incarcerated people, whose primary or only communications option is to purchase telephone services

from providers that typically charge high rates. In May 2021, the Federal Communications Commission

took steps to reduce these barriers that impede incarcerated people’s ability to stay connected with

family and loved ones by lowering the interstate rate caps on calling services in carceral settings and,

for the first time, establishing caps on international calling service rates at all prison and jail facilities.

Finally, while the expansion of virtual services has expanded accessibility, in many cases it also resulted

in the unintended consequence of excluding those that live in rural communities without access to

broadband or internet. The RCC notes that efforts to pivot to remote services should be considered with

an understanding of the full impact. The RCC’s grant-making agencies, including HHS and DOJ’s

Office of Justice Programs (OJP), plan to continue to track performance across grantees, with a special

focus on the impact of COVID-19 adaptations. Operational adjustments prompted by the pandemic that

build upon earlier innovations that can be expanded or taken to scale will be included in forthcoming

evaluations of funding grantees.

Wraparound Reentry Services

Federal funding has played a critical role in supporting research and evidence-based reentry programs

and services. These programs and services address the needs of, and barriers faced by, people leaving

incarceration and returning to communities across the nation as well as formerly incarcerated

individuals and individuals with criminal legal histories. One of the oldest federal reentry programs is

DOJ’s Second Chance Act (SCA) grant program that supports state, Tribal, local, and territorial

governments and nonprofit organizations in making general system improvements and providing a

wide range of reentry services. Since 2009, more than 850 SCA awards have been allocated to grantees

across 49 states, Washington D.C., Guam, and Puerto Rico.

Many SCA awardees, including Project Ready in Muskingum County, Ohio, are engaged in a wide

range of efforts to support reentry. Project Ready aims to reduce repeated incarceration of adults,

especially among those facing poverty, mental health conditions, and/or substance use disorders, by

coordinating services and providing focused mentoring. Through its efforts, Project Ready helps those

in carceral settings successfully transition to independent living. In its first year, the total recidivism

rate for Project Ready participants was eleven percent, well under the thirty-one percent rate of

recidivism for the county overall. In addition to reducing recidivism, Project Ready successfully

partnered with multiple agencies and organizations within the local and adjacent communities.

Individual care plans were developed for each participant and immediate needs such as SNAP benefits

and Medicaid were obtained in nearly all cases. Moreover, as a result of the program’s efforts,

additional housing was developed within the community to help meet the needs of the reentry

population.

In addition to food benefits to address nutrition insecurity, SNAP beneficiaries may be eligible to

receive employment, training, and related supportive services through SNAP E&T. The program is

flexible, allowing state agencies to tailor services and supports to the needs of participants and the

communities in which they live.

SNAP E&T funds can further support participation in adult education

and high school equivalency classes, postsecondary education, and vocational training and other job

training activities, by helping cover the costs of such supports as child care, transportation, and

expenses related to participation in SNAP E&T.

One reentry service provider, the Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO), emphasized that SNAP

E&T partnerships were particularly crucial during the pandemic, as the federal program provided

stability when state and local funding and private philanthropy fluctuated due to the economic

uncertainty of the time. CEO reported that approximately seventy percent of their Colorado participants

were enrolled in SNAP E&T, receiving paid work-based learning from CEO and access to support

services, like reimbursement for commuting costs and fees in obtaining vital documents upon release.

As a response to the COVID-19 pandemic, in 2021, the government of Colorado identified SNAP E&T

as a capacity-building program for underserved communities and provided additional state investment

into E&T vocational services, increasing reimbursement for state reentry partners like CEO.

Further, the VA is developing a new grant program that will fund a wide range of civil legal aid for

Veterans who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. Although the grant program is not reentry

specific, the legal services funding will undoubtedly address issues commonly encountered during the

reentry process, including those related to housing, family law, and record expungement. In addition,

as a way to better serve reentering individuals more broadly, DOJ’s OJP encourages reentry-related

grantees to use grant funds to address collateral consequences of convictions, including expungement

of old criminal records when that remedy is available under the law, noting that using funds for these

purposes has been previously allowable but not expressly specified in prior grant programs.

Finally, HHS has conducted research on interventions to divert people, particularly those with serious

mental illness and substance use disorders, away from the criminal justice system entirely.

Mental

Health Block Grants provide treatment and recovery support services to adults with Serious Mental

Illness and children with Serious Emotional Disturbances. These grants, including COVID Relief

Supplement funds, permit the use of funds supporting care coordination to promote pre-adjudication or

pre-sentencing diversion, providing care during gaps in enrollment after incarceration, and supporting

other efforts related to enrollment for providing community mental health services.

Interagency Collaborations

Interagency collaborations have been a successful strategy for reentry programming during the

pandemic, when access to services has been limited. RCC agencies have been working together to

provide comprehensive programs that address the range of needs and supports required for reentry.

For example, in 2018, BOP and DOL partnered to

establish a National Apprenticeship Program to

promote Registered Apprenticeships for incarcerated

individuals. Through this program, individuals in BOP

facilities have the opportunity to obtain industry

recognized skills and nationally recognized DOL

credentials, rather than the state level certifications that

had previously been earned in BOP Registered

Apprenticeships. The national certification process

enhances participants’ ability to secure meaningful

employment following release. This collaboration

further allows individuals who complete a program in

one state and release to another to obtain a federal

credential that is applicable across the country. BOP

currently offers 165 Registered Apprenticeships

ranging from 2,000 to 8,000 hours, with over 2,000

enrollees. Even during the height of the pandemic in

2021, 706 individuals completed the program and

received DOL certification. Further, beginning in fiscal

years 2022 and 2023, DOJ and DOL will partner to

provide intensive job training in selected BOP facilities followed by intensive, individualized reentry

support during halfway house or home confinement.

HUD and DOJ have previously partnered to administer the Juvenile Reentry Assistance Program

(JRAP), targeting youth aged 24 or below who reside in public or Section 8 housing, or who would be

residing in public or Section 8 housing but for their criminal record. The goal of JRAP was to increase

opportunities for these youth to pursue education, gain financial literacy, find work, and secure

affordable housing. To accomplish these goals, the agencies provided grant funding to PHAs that had

established a partnership with nonprofit civil legal aid organizations that focused on expunging, sealing,

or correcting criminal records and providing other services to assist with mitigation and prevent

collateral consequences of convictions or other contact with the criminal legal system. From 2016 to

2019, JRAP awarded over $2 million to 21 PHAs nationwide. The housing authorities channeled most

of these funds to civil legal aid providers. Approximately 1,000 youth were served through the program.

This population was 84% Black, largely between the ages of 17 and 24, and lived in public housing

(with a smaller percentage living in Section 8 Housing). As a result of JRAP funding, 644 expunging,

sealing, or correcting criminal records cases were opened, and 262 (40%) of those cases were

successfully granted. Other mitigation interventions included legal services related to driver’s licenses

and identification, housing, financial obligations, school readmission, and alternative discipline. The

program also assisted the served youth populations with the payment of fines and debts, and with

obtaining penalty waivers, and new employment and public benefit opportunities.

JRAP ceased in 2019. However, lessons learned from the comprehensive approach of the program were

integrated into other HUD grant programs. In particular, after JRAP, the Residential Opportunity and

Self Sufficiency Program (ROSS) specifically notified grantees that ROSS coordinators could assist in

connecting residents to legal aid and other providers for expunging, sealing, or correcting criminal

records or securing certificates of rehabilitation. Further, in 2016, HUD and DOJ launched the Pay for

“Returning citizens bring

skills and persistence to

the workforce that are

valuable to employers.

The Department is

dedicated to expanding

employment

opportunities for

returning citizens who

deserve to be supported

with opportunities to

succeed.”

SECRETARY OF LABOR

MARTIN J. WALSH

Success (PFS) Permanent Supportive Housing Demonstration. PFS is an innovative financing model

that leverages philanthropic and private dollars to provide up-front financing, with the government

paying after they generate results (i.e., “pay for success”). One PFS grantee in Los Angeles used the

model to expand jail diversion, housed over 349 people at some point throughout the demonstration,

and made over $2.2 million in success payments to investors based on observed participant outcomes.

The PFS research team is currently analyzing the full range of data for the Demonstration, with a report

expected later this year.

ED is collaborating with DOJ as part of the full restoration of Pell Grants in approved prison education

programs, which will expand opportunities for individuals who are incarcerated to access and engage

in postsecondary education. Incarcerated people who participate in postsecondary education and

training programs are forty-three percent less likely to recidivate than those who do not.

In fact, every

dollar invested in prison-based education conservatively yields $4 to $5 in taxpayer savings in reduced

incarceration costs.

Through the collaboration, ED and DOJ are providing technical assistance to

college programs operating under the Second Chance Pell pilot program. ED and DOJ also meet

regularly to discuss emerging issues for justice-impacted individuals pursuing higher education.

While not limited to justice-impacted Veterans, HUD-VASH is a collaborative effort that pairs HUD’s

Housing Choice Voucher rental assistance with VA case management and supportive services,

including substance use counseling and other supports necessary to aid in recovery and maintain

housing in the community. This model attempts to address the confluence of needs faced by the Veteran

population and recognizes that providing an individual with safe housing serves as a critical first step

in helping the individual recover from addiction. Using broad waiver authority, HUD established that

by agreeing to administer the HUD-VASH program, a PHA is relinquishing its authority to determine

the eligibility of families in accordance with regular Housing Choice Voucher program rules and PHA

policies, with some exceptions. Specifically, PHAs do not have the authority to screen any potentially

eligible family members or deny assistance for any grounds normally permitted under 24 CFR §

982.552 (broad denial for violations of HCV program requirements) and § 982.553 (specific denial for

criminal activity and alcohol abusers), with one exception.

Prioritizing perspectives from those with lived experience

Many federal agencies are focused on centering the subject-matter expertise of justice-impacted

individuals in their reentry efforts. For example, in July 2021, DOJ’s OJP posted a Visiting Fellows

Program solicitation, which sought applicants with justice system experience to work collaboratively

on specific strategies that build on and improve investments in reentry and reintegration. OJP selected

two applicants to fund under this category, whose work will focus on strengthening outcomes for

justice-impacted individuals. In addition, during FY 2022, the VA’s Veterans Justice Programs will

fund new peer support specialist positions at VA facilities to work specifically with justice-impacted

Veterans. These peer specialists, themselves Veterans who have gone through the transition from jail

or prison to the community, will assist other Veterans in navigating reentry and minimize triggers or

issues that lead back to the justice system. The peer support specialist positions are an expansion of the

existing VA justice-impacted programming model, which has previously relied on interventions only

by licensed clinical outreach staff.

IV. Recommendations to Further Reduce Barriers to

Successful Reentry

While this report highlights some innovative steps that agencies and community partners have taken

and are taking to eliminate barriers to reentry, the federal government has much more to do. Pursuant

to the First Step Act of 2018 (FSA), this report must also include “recommendations for Congress that

would further reduce barriers to successful reentry.”

Though it is by no means an exhaustive list, this

section proposes recommendations and considerations for actions that both RCC member agencies and

Congress can take to further facilitate successful reintegration, with a particular focus on needs related

to housing, food security, health care, education, and employment. In addition, this section emphasizes

the need for good data collection and assessment practices and robust funding language to ensure the

most successful program results for justice-impacted individuals. Finally, the section highlights the

benefits of targeting solutions to specific populations and proposes investment and research in

supervision-related reforms that reduce recidivism and strengthen communities.

DATA COLLECTION AND FUNDING LANGUAGE

Common recommendation themes that emerged across issue areas involved improved data collection

and broader funding language. Specifically, agencies and stakeholders emphasized the need for federal

agencies to find innovative ways to incentivize good data collection and assessment efforts. This is

important both on the front end, to understand where services are most needed, and on the back end, to

evaluate whether services are effective, useful, and equitable across various demographics. ED’s

Office of Federal Student Aid serves as an example. Particularly in light of congressional restoration

of access to Pell Grants for incarcerated individuals, Office of Federal Student Aid continuously

evaluates its policies, procedures, and operations to identify areas where incarcerated students may face

barriers to applying for and receiving federal student aid. As a result of its evaluation, Office of Federal

Student Aid has initiated changes to its systems to remove or mitigate these barriers, including

developing a process for identifying incarcerated individuals to take special steps to limit barriers or

challenges to those students. Office of Federal Student Aid has also initiated changes to its systems to

improve data collection about incarcerated students and their receipt of federal student aid.

Some RCC agencies cautioned that grantees who do not proactively focus on reentry or providing

services to individuals with criminal records may avoid or intentionally exclude this population from

their participant pool due to real and perceived increased difficulties in serving the reentry population,

particularly when those grantees are evaluated on their participants’ successfully finding employment

and/or meeting other service needs. Changes to funding language that would require or encourage

grantees to serve individuals with justice system involvement would be helpful to ensure that this

population can benefit from a broader array of federal grant funds. To support this effort within HHS,

the HHS Reentry/Criminal Justice Working Group developed strategies to encourage more grantees to

open their participant pool to individuals with criminal records. These strategies include giving

additional points to grant applicants that will include justice-impacted individuals in their participant

pool, reserving funds specifically for grantees that serve the reentry population, and encouraging

grantees to partner with local, often smaller, organizations that are already providing services to

individuals with criminal records.

RCC agencies are also exploring additional ways to include perspectives from justice-impacted

individuals. One strategy would be to conduct outreach to organizations led by people with experience

to raise awareness of funding availability and other opportunities for federal support and partnership.

HHS has ongoing work directly related to engaging individuals with experience across a range of

human services areas in federal programming, policy, and research and has published a brief on

methods and emerging strategies.

While most of the recommendations related to better data collection and revised funding language

involve actions that federal agencies can take, there is also an opportunity for Congress to assist.

Legislative language and/or policy guidance ensuring that funding is eligible to serve individuals with

criminal records could help to ensure that this population benefits from a broader array of federal grant

funds. Legislation could also be used to authorize implementation grants to community-based

nonprofits to operate comprehensive “one-stop” reentry centers and reentry service assistance hotlines.

HOUSING

Many PHAs have taken steps to comply with HUD’s best practices guidance

and have revised policies

and initiated programs to provide greater access to persons with criminal backgrounds. However, many

housing providers continue to use rigid policies for evaluating criminal backgrounds that screen out

individuals who committed non-violent crimes or whose criminal activity occurred many years ago.

While PHAs have some discretion in setting their own criminal screening policies, HUD’s 2016

guidance took a significant step in helping housing providers understand how the use of criminal

records in their screening policies could lead to liability under the Fair Housing Act.

HUD could

further help PHAs and other housing providers by issuing criminal screening best practices and a

sample policy to help PHAs and other housing providers implement HUD’s guidance.

In addition, collaborations between HUD and other agencies, like the HUD-VASH program with the

VA and the JRAP with DOJ, provide comprehensive services that address the range of needs and

supports required for reentry, including robust housing counseling, with a specific focus on assisting

persons with criminal histories identify and locate affordable housing and housing options in areas of

opportunity. With congressional funding support, HUD could reinitiate programs like JRAP; however,

rather than being restricted to youth, the program could be expanded to a larger HUD-assisted

population, including public housing and Housing Choice Voucher applicants.

With Congressional authorization, HUD could also encourage and, in within its statutory basis,

incentivize PHAs and other housing providers to provide housing opportunities specifically targeted to

people involved in the criminal justice system. Many housing providers have engaged in partnerships

and efforts to proactively improve access to federal housing assistance for justice-involved people, as

well as to create housing that is specifically intended to support reentry to the community. These include

examples where PHAs have partnered with reentry organizations and corrections agencies to adopt

admissions preferences for people leaving prison or jail who are receiving reentry services. In addition,

some communities have also created permanent supportive housing models for people reentering the

community from incarceration who have experienced or are at high-risk of experiencing homelessness.

Finally, several legislative bills have been proposed to address a wide-range of housing-related barriers

to reentry. These bills include requiring that public housing authorities consider specified factors,

including evidence of rehabilitation, before denying or terminating assistance based on criminal

conduct and limiting the types of “covered criminal conduct,” that may bar admission to federally

assisted housing. Legislation has also been proposed to repeal existing laws that makes individuals

convicted of offenses involving the possession of a controlled substance ineligible for federal benefits

for up to one year, and that allow public housing agencies to obtain information from drug abuse

treatment facilities. These types of legislative efforts to eliminate barriers and collateral consequences

to convictions could further facilitate successful reentry.

FOOD SECURITY

Restoring access to food benefits for those with

a felony drug conviction could provide basic

support and reduce food insecurity for formerly

incarcerated individuals and families.

Specifically, as proposed by President Biden in

the American Families Plan, Congress could

repeal the lifetime ban that prohibits individuals

convicted of certain offenses related to the

possession, use, or distribution of a controlled

substance from receiving SNAP benefits or

assistance under programs funded by TANF

block grants.

In addition, currently, unless

specifically excepted, individuals residing in carceral facilities do not constitute a household. Congress

could address this issue with legislation that stipulates that individuals who are incarcerated but

scheduled to be released within a certain period of time would qualify as individual households for

purposes of SNAP eligibility.

Legislation that allows individual food benefits for recently released individuals who are living in

halfway or transitional housing facilities could further support reentry efforts by ensuring that these

individuals have food security as they engage in training and employment outside of the residential

facility.

HEALTH CARE

Access to quality health care is a critical component for successful reentry. Prior to the passage of the

Affordable Care Act (ACA), most justice-impacted individuals did not meet Medicaid’s income or

categorical eligibility requirements, and typically would have been uninsured with limited access to

needed services.

Medicaid expansion for adults, made possible by the ACA, offered new

opportunities to increase health coverage for the formerly incarcerated, contributing to their ability to

access care and reduce recidivism risks.

“USDA is committed to examining

barriers to reentry for individuals

returning from incarceration and

identifying efforts to improve food

security for this population.”

SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE

TOM VILSACK

HHS has issued guidance related to Medicaid as it relates to incarcerated populations.

In addition, as

mandated by the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act, HHS convened a stakeholder

workgroup to discuss innovative strategies and develop best practices to help incarcerated individuals

and those releasing from carceral settings who are otherwise eligible for Medicaid, and to ensure

continuity of coverage and seamless transitions back to the community. The development of further

HHS guidance, informed by recommendations of the stakeholder group, is predicated on a future

Report to Congress.

Further, jurisdictions should develop mechanisms to establish partnerships and referral mechanisms

between the criminal justice system and other programs and services. Criminal justice authorities,

including judges, state executives, police, and corrections officials, often have significant influence

over the reentry process and experience. Criminal justice coordinating committees that include criminal

justice authorities and representatives from other social service and health care programs should engage

in both strategic program planning and coordinate on more day-to-day issues. For example, corrections

officials should work with local community mental health and substance use providers to develop

transition services, “warm handoff” release procedures, and a more integrated behavioral health system.

EDUCATION

Congress’s restoration of access to Pell Grants for incarcerated individuals in December 2020

represents a unique opportunity to improve reentry outcomes. Notwithstanding this significant effort

to remove educational reentry barriers, additional resources and programs are needed to grow the

educational continuum both inside and outside of correctional facilities. Federal agencies should

continue to collaborate with correctional facilities and institutions of higher education to ensure that

the facilities are able to implement and achieve educational supports for justice-impacted individuals

notwithstanding their various operational, jurisdictional, and state law differences.

Technical assistance activities provided by ED under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act

(WIOA) will build capacity for integrated education and training programs, and industry credentialing

specifically geared towards incarcerated individuals. Adult education programs in correctional

facilities, funded in part under WIOA, provide some students who are incarcerated with services to

attain a high school diploma or its equivalent. Other ED funding streams also provide support for

education during incarceration. However, the disproportionate education gaps experienced by

individuals who are incarcerated show much more progress is needed to prepare incarcerated

individuals for postsecondary education, especially in light of the new eligibility for Pell Grants in

prison education programs. Adult education programs in correctional facilities can provide stronger

intentional on-ramps into postsecondary education. Also, additional investments in safe technology in

carceral settings would help to supplement in-person learning and adapt to evolving educational

platforms and methods of instruction.

Further, Title I, Part D, Subpart 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 is

designed to provide educational services to neglected or delinquent children and youth in institutions

for neglected or delinquent children and youth, in community day programs, and in adult correctional

institutions so that these students can transition to schooling or employment, and in order to prevent

recidivism.

However, despite research showing

the very real benefits of keeping youth in the

community at the local level, as opposed to

correctional facilities at the state level, very few

students served through Title 1, Part D, Subpart 1

are placed in community day or nonresidential

educational programs.

Prioritizing community

day and nonresidential education under Title I,

Part D, Subpart 1 in order to better address the

needs of justice-impacted students should be an

issue for further administrative and legislative

consideration.

EMPLOYMENT

DOL and BOP’s collaboration through the National Apprenticeship Program helped ensure nation-

wide employment for participants upon release. DOL will continue to collaborate with agency partners

to design programming to remove employment-related reentry barriers. The President’s FY23 budget

supports key investments in First Step Act implementation, including $100 million for DOJ’s BOP and

DOL to develop a national initiative to provide comprehensive workforce development services to

those in federal prison, both during their time in BOP facilities and after they are transferred to

community placement.

DOL and DOJ would also oversee evaluation to assess these programmatic

efforts on recidivism, labor market outcomes, and other key metrics.

Further, states are increasingly enacting reforms to ease occupational licensing barriers for those with

prior felony convictions; however, licensing restrictions vary dramatically. Some states continue to lack

even the most basic protections for justice-impacted individuals seeking a license to work.

Like the

National Apprenticeship Program, any reentry-focused employment training should promote available

licensing and credentialing tools so that justice-impacted individuals train for jobs that do not have

barriers that would prohibit them from working in that industry upon release. Moreover, to facilitate

post-incarceration employment, states should continue to develop systems and agreements needed for

justice-impacted individuals to secure REAL ID, a driver’s license or identification card that is also a

form of federal identification, at the time of release.

TARGETED SERVICES

VA programmatic efforts illustrate that targeting services to specific populations can be a successful

strategy for reentry. Effective identification of Veterans in criminal justice populations is the vital first

step toward facilitating access to needed VA services for Veterans upon release. VA’s Veterans Reentry

Search Service tool offers criminal justice agencies a free, accurate means of identifying Veterans

among incarcerated and defendant populations. Additionally, obtaining accurate release information

“I am committed to ensuring that the

Department works to serve currently-

and formerly incarcerated students

well, and to increasing access to high-

quality post-secondary education for

these students.”

SECRETARY OF EDUCATION

MIGUEL CARDONA

from carceral facilities and federal partners may allow VA to expedite the restoration of VA benefits

post-incarceration.

This targeted strategy could be replicated to support other groups of people needing reentry services,

such as American Indians and Alaska Natives and survivors of human trafficking. DOJ’s OJP has

worked to address Tribal needs through Second Chance Act grant programs, as well as resources and

opportunities specifically designed for Tribes. DOJ’s National Institute of Corrections (NIC) provides

training and technical assistance opportunities for Tribal corrections; however, this work represents a

very small portion of NIC’s portfolio. Given the unique cultural differences within the 574 federally

recognized Tribes, and possible operational challenges of law enforcement and corrections efforts on

Tribal lands, NIC would welcome the opportunity to work with interested Tribal communities to assist

in developing programs for reentry focused on Indian Country jails. More broadly, while the reentry

needs of American Indians and Alaska Natives in federal or state carceral settings—such as stable

housing, food security, and access to health care, education, and employment—are generally the same

as the rest of the justice-impacted population, the many unique cultural practices and diverse geographic

locations presented warrant differing consideration. Services and programs that are responsive to these

considerations would benefit American Indians and Alaska Natives returning from incarceration and

to their communities.

In addition, federal funding and policy could encourage correctional facilities to consider new strategies

to better serve individuals who have experienced trafficking and have criminal records due to their

trafficking experiences. These efforts, including educating prison and jail staff about human trafficking,

identifying those who have been (or are being) trafficked, and gathering intelligence that can be shared

with law enforcement around perpetrators, should begin in prison and jails and continue after release.

Survivors of trafficking who have been incarcerated require services to address a wide range of

immediate, ongoing, and long-term needs. HHS published guidance that introduces evidence-based

practices that could be used to help incarcerated individuals who have experienced trafficking,

including supportive housing programs and legal assistance with vacating criminal records. Such

efforts assist trafficking survivors achieve self-sufficiency, avoid re-victimization, and successfully

reintegrate into society.

In FY22, OJP’s National Institute of Justice is seeking proposals for research

on strategies to improve outcomes for justice-impacted human trafficking victims.

Additional

research is needed to better understand the intersection between trafficking and prisons, as well as how

reentry programs can use more trauma-informed, culturally competent, and victim-centered approaches

to combat barriers to reentry for this population.

SUPERVISION-RELATED REFORMS

Supervision and parole are meant to reduce the risk that a person will commit another criminal act, and

to support rehabilitation and reentry, not to serve as punishment or long-term incarceration for an

offense. Accordingly, supervision and any associated conditions should be aimed at rehabilitation,

deterrence, and public safety. DOJ’s NIC introduced a study of the Dosage Probation model, a model

of probation that suggests that the length of supervision should be determined by the number of hours

of intervention necessary to reduce risk, rather than an arbitrarily or customarily established amount of

time (e.g., three years, five years, etc.).

Further, no adverse consequences for nonpayment of fines

and fees should be imposed without first conducting an ability-to-pay determination and establishing

that the failure to pay was willful.

During the pandemic, many jurisdictions utilized innovative models of supervision for low-risk

probation and parole populations. In person check-ins at parole and probation offices in many

jurisdictions pivoted to virtual check-ins, many limited drug testing to only the most high-risk cases,

and many jurisdictions stopped arrests and violations of supervision for minor violations that did not

constitute new criminal activity—known as “technical violations.” For people who are compliant with

the terms of their supervision, presumptions or considerations of early termination of probation or

supervised release may be appropriate depending on the individualized facts and circumstances of the

case. Strategies like these may continue to be studied, evaluated, and implemented to increase

community safety through recidivism reduction. These strategies can also achieve fiscal savings by

reducing periods of supervision and barriers to reentry.

Conclusion

Stakeholder have long focused on efforts to mitigate against barriers to reentry. The launch of the RCC

represents one additional step forward toward reducing these barriers. This report describes initial work

of the collaboration thus far; however, there is much more this body can achieve. The composition of

the RCC, representing expertise and missions across many sectors of society, provides an effective

mechanism to promote access to justice efforts more broadly. Specifically, this interagency effort offers

an opportunity to break down silos between federal agencies, to understand the broad impact of the

justice system, and to pursue a comprehensive approach to identifying effective solutions. While this

report provides preliminary recommendations that could further facilitate successful reentry,

particularly addressing needs related to housing, food security, health care, education, and employment,

broader collaboration and innovation will undoubtably be required to advance successful outcomes.

Both RCC member agencies and community stakeholders recognize that a permanent collaborative

effort, perhaps with an expanded scope and additional federal agency participants, would be helpful to

further facilitate not only the successful reentry of justice-impacted individuals but also to propose

innovative solutions related to access to justice issues more broadly.

SPOTLIGHT ON CONTRIBUTORS

• Susan Burton, A New Way of Life Reentry

Project (ANWOL)

• Raymond Dodd, Washington Lawyers’

Committee

• Roberta “Toni” Meyers Douglas, The Legal

Action Center (LAC)

• Ames Grawert, The Brennan Center for Justice

• DeAnna R. Hoskins, JustLeadershipUSA

(JLUSA)

• Joel K. Johnson, TASC, Inc. (Treatment

Alternatives for Safe Communities)

• Noah Kim, The Brennan Center for Justice

• Judge Steve Leifman, Miami-Dade County

Court – Criminal Division

• Vivian D. Nixon, The Justice Lab at Columbia

University

• Casey Pheiffer, The Center for Employment

Opportunities (CEO)

• Megan Quattlebaum, Council of State

Governments Justice Center

• Jim D. Seward, The Council on Criminal

Justice (CCJ)

• Faye S. Taxman, Schar School of Policy and

Government at George Mason University

• Josh Tewalt, Idaho Department of Correction

• Bill Underwood, The Sentencing Project

• Tyrone Walker, Georgetown University’s

Prisons and Justice Initiative (PJI)

• Vikki Wachino, Viaduct Consulting, LLC

• Alliance for Safety and Justice (ASJ)

• Center for American Progress (CAP)

• Center for Employment Opportunities

(CEO)

• Collateral Consequences Resource Center

(CCRC)

• Fair and Just Prosecution (FJP)

• JustLeadershipUSA (JLUSA)

• Justice Roundtable

• LA Conservation Corps (LACC)

• Life Unbolted Inc. (LU)

• National Alliance on Mental Illness

(NAMI)

• National Conference of State Legislatures

(NCSL)

• National Low Income Housing Coalition

• Prison Fellowship (PFM)

• Pioneer Human Services

• R Street Institute

• Safer Foundation

• Shriver Center on Poverty Law

• The Doe Fund

• The Vera Institute of Justice (Vera)

• Workforce Inc. (d/b/a RecycleForce)

Stakeholder engagement was an essential component of this collaborative effort. The RCC would

like to express our sincere thanks and appreciation to the individuals and organizations listed

below for serving as listening session panelists and providing comprehensive feedback on

barriers to reentry. These stakeholders’ collective expertise and experience provided critical

perspectives on barriers to reentry and a wide range of policy recommendations to mitigate

against these barriers. This report does not necessarily reflect the views of any contributor.

See Wendy Sawyer & Peter Wagner, Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2022, PRISON POLICY INITIATIVE (Mar. 14,

2022), https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2022.html.

First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, 5234 - 5235 (2018).

Ibid.

See U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE, BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS, CORRECTIONAL POPULATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES, 2020

– STATISTICAL TABLES (Mar. 2022), https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpus20st.pdf; Lucius Couloute, Nowhere to Go:

Homelessness among formerly incarcerated people, P

RISON POLICY INITIATIVE (Aug. 2018),

https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/housing.html

; Shawn Bushway et. al., Barred from employment: More than half of

unemployed men in their 30s had a criminal history of arrest, 8 Science Advances No. 7 (Feb. 18, 2022),

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abj6992.

See U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE, BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS, PRISONERS IN 2020 – STATISTICAL TABLES 19 (Dec. 2021),

https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/p20st.pdf.

See Sawyer & Wagner, supra note 1.

Id.

Corianne Payton Scally, et al., The Case for More, Not Less: Shortfalls in Federal Housing Assistance and Gaps in

Evidence for Proposed Policy Changes,

URBAN INST., at 1, (Jan. 2018),

https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publiction/95616/case_for_more_not_less.pdf

; G. Thomas Kingsley, Trends in

Housing Problems and Federal Housing Assistance, URBAN INST., (Oct. 2017),

https://www

.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/94146/trends-in-housing-problems-and-federal-housing-

assistance.pdf.

Letter from Marcia L. Fudge, Secretary, U.S. Dep’t of Housing and Urban Development, to Public Housing Authorities,

Continuums of Care, Multifamily Owners, and HUD Grantees 1 (June 23, 2021),

https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/PA/documents/SOHUD_reentry_housing_letter.pdf.

See Couloute, supra note 4.

Id.

See, e.g., Kimberly Burrowes, Can Housing Interventions Reduce Incarceration and Recidivism? HOUSING MATTERS

(Feb. 27, 2019), https://housingmatters.urban.org/articles/can-housing-interventions-reduce-incarceration-and-recidivism;

Leah A. Jacobs & Aarton Gottlieb, The Effect of Housing Circumstances on Recidivism: Evidence from a Sample of

People on Probation in San Francisco, 47 C

RIM. JUST. BEHAV. 1097-1115 (Sept. 2020),

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8496894/pdf/nihms-17434785.

See 42 U.S.C. § 13663(a); 24 C.F.R. §§ 960.204(a)(4), 982.553(a)(2) (mandatory prohibition of people on the lifetime

sex offender registry); 42 U.S.C. § 1437n(f); 24 C.F.R. §§ 960.204(a)(3), 982.553(a)(1)(ii)(C), 2012 (mandatory

prohibition of people convicted of methamphetamine manufacture or production on the premises of federally assisted

housing).

See Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105- 276, 112 Stat. 2461, 2640, (1998).

See, e.g., Marie Claire Tran-Leung, When Discretion Means Denial: A National Perspective on Criminal Records

Barriers to Federally Subsidized Housing, S

ARGENT SHRIVER NAT’L CTR. ON POVERTY LAW (Feb. 2015),

https://www.povertylaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/WDMD-final.pdf; John Bae et al., Opening Doors: How To

Develop Reentry Programs Using Examples from Public Housing Authorities, VERA INST. (Sept. 2017),

https://www.vera.org/downloads/publications/Opening-Doors-Full-Report.pdf.

U.S. DEP’T OF AGRIC., ECON. RES. SERV., Definitions of Food Security, https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-

assistance/food-security-in-the-u-s/definitions-of-food-security.

Emily A. Wang, et al., A Pilot Study Examining Food Insecurity and HIV Risk Behaviors among Individuals Recently

Released from Prison, AIDS

EDUC. PREV. (Apr. 2013), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3733343.

Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, Pub. L. No: 88-525, 78 Stat. 703 (1964), amended by Pub. L. No. 116-94, 133 Stat.

2534 (2019).

See U.S. DEP’T OF AGRIC., FOOD & NUTRITION SERV., Waiver Database, https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/waivers/rules.

See Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-193, § 115, 110 Stat.

2105, 2180 (codified at 21 U.S.C. § 862a (1996)).

See CTR. FOR LAW & SOC. POLICY, No More Double Punishments: Lifting the Ban on SNAP and TANF for People with

Prior Felony Drug Convictions (Aug. 2021), https://www.clasp.org/publications/report/brief/no-more-double-

punishments.

See id.; see also CONG. RESEARCH SERV., R42394, DRUG TESTING AND CRIME-RELATED RESTRICTIONS IN TANF,

SNAP, AND HOUSING ASSISTANCE 11 (2016), http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42394.pdf.

See THE SENTENCING PROJECT, Incarcerated Women and Girls (Nov. 24, 2020),

https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/incarcerated-women-and-girls.

See 7 U.S.C. § 2015(o)(2)A).

See Jhamirah Howard, et al., U.S. DEP’T OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVS., THE IMPORTANCE OF MEDICAID COVERAGE FOR

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INVOLVED INDIVIDUALS REENTERING THEIR COMMUNITIES 6 (Apr. 2016),

https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_legacy_files//146076/MedicaidJustice.pdf.

Id.

See Erkmen Aslim, et al., A Welfare Analysis of Medicaid and Crime, GEORGE MASON LAW & ECONOMICS RESEARCH

PAPER (Apr. 10 2022), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4080361.

Id.

42. U.S.C. § 1396d(a)(A) (1965); see U.S. DEP’T OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVS., State Health Official Letter to

Facilitate Successful Reentry for Individuals Transitioning from Incarceration to Their Communities (April 28, 2016),

https://www.hhs.gov/guidance/document/facilitate-successful-re-entry-individuals-transitioning-incarceration-their-

communities.

See U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE, BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS, CRITICAL CONNECTIONS: GETTING PEOPLE LEAVING

PRISON AND JAIL THE MENTAL HEALTH CARE AND SUBSTANCE USE TREATMENT THEY NEED, at 6 (Jan. 2017),

https://bja.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh186/files/publications/Critical-Connections-Full-Report.pdf.

Id.

See, e.g., U.S. DEP’T OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVS., State Health Official Letter to Facilitate Successful Reentry for

Individuals Transitioning from Incarceration to Their Communities.

See U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE, BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS, DRUG USE, DEPENDENCE, AND ABUSE AMONG STATE

PRISONERS AND JAIL INMATES, 2007-2009 (rev. Aug. 10, 2020), https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/dudaspji0709.pdf.

See NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTH, NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE, COVID-19 & Substance Abuse

https://nida.nih.gov/drug-topics/comorbidity/covid-19-substance-use.

See NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE, CRIMINAL JUSTICE DRUG FACTS, (June 2022),

hhtp://nida.hin.gov/publications/drugfacts/criminal.justice.

Id.

See Shabbar I. Ranapurwala, et al., Opioid Overdose Mortality Among Former North Carolina Inmates: 2000-2015,

M. J. PUB. HEALTH (Sept. 2018), https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304514.

Id.

See, e.g., U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE, BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS, CRITICAL CONNECTIONS, supra note 31, at 34.

Lucius Couloute, Getting Back on Course: Educational exclusion and attainment among formerly incarcerated people,

RISON POLICY INITIATIVE (Oct. 2018), https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/education.html.

Id.

See U.S. DEP’T OF LABOR, EMPLOYMENT & TRAINING ADM., WIOA PERFORMANCE RESULTS AT-A-GLANCE,

https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/performance/wioa-performance

; DOJ’s Bureau of Prisons collaborates with federal

agencies to provide reentry services to assist in reentry preparation, while federal grantees, like DOL grantees, work to

pursue reentry programs and services to assist individuals from state, local, and Tribal correctional facilities

See Michelle Natividad Rodriguez & Beth Avery, Unlicensed & Untapped: Removing Barriers to State Occupational

Licenses for People with Records, N

AT’L EMP. LAW PROJECT, at 7 (Apr. 2016), https://s27147.pcdn.co/wp-

content/uploads/Unlicensed-Untapped-Removing-Barriers-State-Occupational-Licenses.pdf.

See Nick Sibilla, Barred from Working, INST. FOR JUSTICE, at 3 (Aug. 2020), https://ij.org/wp-

content/uploads/2020/08/Barred-from-Working-August-2020-Update.pdf.

Devah Pager, The Mark of a Criminal Record, 108 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY 937, 959 (Mar. 2003),

http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/pager/files/pager_ajs.pdf; Christopher Uggen, et al., The Edge of Stigma: An Experimental

Audit of the Effects of Low-Level Criminal Records on Employment, 52 CRIMINOLOGY 627, 629 (Nov. 2014),

http://users.soc.umn.edu/~uggen/Uggen_Vuolo_Lageson_Whitham_Ruhland_Crim_14.pdf.

EEOC, No. 915.002, Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment

Decisions Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act

(Apr. 25, 2012), https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/enforcement-

guidance-consideration-arrest-and-conviction-records-employment-decisions.

See, e.g., NAT’L EMP. LAW PROJECT, FAIR CHANCE LICENSING REFORM: OPENING PATHWAYS FOR PEOPLE WITH

RECORDS TO JOIN LICENSED PROFESSIONS, at 18 (Oct. 2017) https://s27147.pcdn.co/wp-

content/uploads/FairChanceLicensing-v4-2019.pdf.f.

Id.

See RESTORATION OF RIGHTS PROJECT, 50-STATE COMPARISON: LIMITS ON USE OF CRIMINAL RECORD IN

EMPLOYMENT, LICENSING, & HOUSING, https://ccresourcecenter.org/state-restoration-profiles/50-state-

comparisoncomparison-of-criminal-records-in-licensing-and-employment.

U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE, BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS, VETERANS IN PRISON AND JAIL, 2011-12, at 1 (Dec. 2015),

https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/vpj1112.pdf.

See Andrea K. Finlay, et al., A Scoping Review of Military Veterans Involved in the Criminal Justice System and their

Health and Healthcare, 7 H

EALTH & JUSTICE 1, 2 (2019),

https://healthandjusticejournal.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s40352-019-0086-9.pdf.

Id.

Id. Although such discharges are provided as a result of serious offenses, drug possession or abuse could be considered

“low-level conduct,” depending on the drug/quantity possessed. See generally Todd Mihill, Marijuana Discharges: A

Level Playing Field?, Mason Veterans and Servicemembers Legal Clinic (Spring 2019),

https://mvets.law.gmu.edu/2019/05/13/marijuana-discharges-a-level-playing-field; Kevin Lonergan, Service Discharges;

DD Form 214 Explained, U.S.

ARMY (Feb. 8, 2012),

https://www.army.mil/article/73343/service_discharges_dd_form_214_explained; U.S.

DEP’T OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Applying for Benefits and Your Character of Discharge,

https://www.benefits.va.gov/benefits/character_of_discharge.asp.

U.S. Dep’t of Housing & Urban Dev., Office of General Counsel Guidance on Application of Fair Housing Act

Standards to the Use of Criminal Records by Providers of Housing and Real Estate-Related Transactions 2 (Apr. 4, 2016),

https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/HUD_OGCGUIDAPPFHASTANDCR.PDF

See U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE, BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS, DISABILITIES REPORTED BY PRISONERS: SURVEY OF

PRISON INMATES, 2016 (Mar. 2021), https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/disabilities-reported-prisoners-survey-prison-

inmates-2016; Erin J. McCauley, The Cumulative Probability of Arrest by Age 28 Years in the United States by Disability

Status, Race/Ethnicity, and Gender, 107 A

M. J. PUB. HEALTH RES. 1977, 1980 (Dec. 2017),

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2017.304095.

See U.S. DEP’T OF HOUSING & URBAN DEV., Why Housing Matters for Successful Reentry and Public Safety, THE EDGE,

(Apr. 19, 2022), hhpts://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr-edge-frm-asst-sec-041922.html.

See U.S. Dep’t of Housing & Urban Dev., Defining “Chronically Homeless” Final Rule, 80 Fed. Reg. 75791, 75793

(Dec. 4, 2015), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-12-04/pdf/2015-30473.pdf

See Letter from Marcia L. Fudge, Secretary, U.S. Dep’t of Housing and Urban Development, supra at note 8.

Id.

U.S. DEP’T OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, OPIOID TREATMENT PROGRAM (OPT) GUIDANCE (Mar. 16, 2020),

https://www.samhsa.gov/medication-assisted-treatment/statutes-regulations-guidelines/methodone-guidance.

Id.

U.S. DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, GUIDANCE DOCUMENT, https://deadiversion.usdoj.gov/GDP/DEA/(DEA-

DC-022)(DEA068)%20DEA%20SAMHSA%20buprenorphine%20telemedicine%20%20(Final)%20+Esign.pdf.

U.S. DEP’T OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, METHADONE TAKE-HOME FLEXIBILITIES EXTENSION GUIDANCE, (Nov. 18,

2021), https://www.samhsa.gov/medication-assisted-treatment/statutes-regulations-guidelines/methodone-guidance.

U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, First Step Act Annual Report, (April 2022),

https://www.ojp.gov/first-step-act-annual-report-april-2022

See CORRECTIONS & COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CENTER, Innovations in Supervision:

Adapting Operations to Keep Communities Safe (July 9, 2021),

https://nationalreentryresourcecenter.org/sites/default/files/inline-files/innovationsinSupervision-adaptingOperations.pdf.

See, e.g., Margaret diZerega & Sandra Villalobos Agudelo, Piloting a Tool for Reentry: A Promising Approach to

Engaging Family Members, V

ERA INST., at 2 (Mar. 2011), https://www.vera.org/downloads/Publications/Piloting-a-Tool-

for-Reentry-Updated.pdf.

Press Release, Federal Communications Commission, FCC Lowers Interstate and International Prison Phone Rates To

Help Families Stay Connected (May 20, 2021), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-372625A1.pdf.

See U.S. DEP’T OF AGRIC., FOOD & NUTRITION SERV., E&T Policy and Guidance, https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/et-

policy-and-guidance.

See Appropriation To Department of Human Services for Supplemental Assistance Nutrition Program, HB21-1270,

Colorado General Assembly (2021 Regular Session), https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/HB21-1270.

See Sue Pfefferle, et al., U.S. DEP’T OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVS., APPROACHES TO EARLY JAIL DIVERSION:

COLLABORATIONS AND INNOVATIONS (July 2019), https://aspe.hhs.gov/reports/approaches-early-jail-diversion-

collaborations-innovations-0.

Lois M. Davis, et al., EVALUATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CORRECTIONAL EDUCATION: A META-ANALYSIS OF

PROGRAMS THAT PROVIDE EDUCATION TO INCARCERATED ADULTS xvi (2013),

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR266.html.

Brian Walsh and Ruth Delaney, First Class: Starting a Postsecondary Education Program in Prison, VERA INST., at 6

(Nov. 2020), https://www.vera.org/downloads/publications/first-class-post-secondary-education-in-prison.pdf.

PHAs will still be required to prohibit admission if any member of the household is subject to a lifetime registration

requirement under a state sex offender registration program. See Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers: Revised

Implementation of the HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Program, 86 Fed. Reg. 53,207, 53,209 (Sept. 27, 2021)

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-09-27/pdf/2021-20734.pdf.

First Step Act of 2018, supra at note 2.

See generally Syreeta Skelton-Wilson, et al., U.S. DEP’T OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVS., METHODS AND

EMERGING STRATEGIES TO ENGAGE PEOPLE WITH LIVED EXPERIENCE: IMPROVING FEDERAL RESEARCH, POLICY, AND

PRACTICE (Dec.2021),

https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/47f62cae96710d1fa13b0f590f2d1b03/lived-experience-brief.pdf.

U.S. Dep’t of Housing & Urban Dev., OGC Guidance, supra at note 58.

Id.

Press Release, The White House, FACT SHEET: The American Families Plan (April 28, 2021),

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/04/28/fact-sheet-the-american-families-plan/

See Jhamirah Howard, supra note 26.

Id.

See, e.g., U.S. DEP’T OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVS., State Medicaid Director Letter to Implement At-Risk Youth

Medicaid Protections for Inmates of Public Institutions (Jan. 19, 2021), https://www.medicaid.gov/Federal-Polic-

Guidance/Downloads/smd21002.pd; Medicaid and Justice-Involved Populations (Aug. 17, 2017),

https://www.medicaid.gov/state-resource-center-/downloads/mac-learning-collaboratives/justice-involved-

populations.pdf; State Health Official Letter to Facilitate Successful Reentry for Individuals Transitioning from

Incarceration to Their Communities (Apr. 28, 2016) https://www.hhs.gov/guidance/documents/facilitate-successful-re-

entry-individuals-transitioning-incarceration-their-communities.

See Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title I, Part D, Subpart 1, Secs. 1411-1419 (codified as amended

at 20 U.S.C. §§ 6431-6439).

See Robert Bozick et al., Does Providing Inmates with Education Improve Postrelease Outcomes? A Meta-Analysis of

Correctional Education Programs in the United States, 14 J.

EXPERIMENTAL CRIMINOLOGY 389-428 (Sept. 2018).

OFFICE OF MGMT. & BUDGET, BUDGET OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, FISCAL YEAR 2023, at 34,

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/budget_fy2023.pdf.

See Sibilla, Barred from Working, supra note 45 at 1.

See NAT’L HUMAN TRAFFICKING TRAINING & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CTR., REENTRY: APPLICATION AND LESSONS

LEARNED FOR THE HUMAN TRAFFICKING FIELD at 4 (July 12, 2019), https://nhttac.acf.hhs.gov/system/files/2021-

09/Reentry%20Lit%20Review_FINAL%20Under%20OTIP%20Review_July%202019.pdf.

See Nat’l Inst. of Justice, Grant Solicitation: NIJ FY22 Research and Evaluation on Trafficking in Persons (Mar. 7,

2022), https://nij.ojp.gov/funding/O-NIJ-2022-171189.pdf.

See NAT’L INSTITUTE OF CORRECTIONS, DOSAGE PROBATION: RETHINKING THE STRUCTURE OF PROBATION, at16 (Jan.

2014), https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/027940.pdf.