Report Successful Reentry: Exploring Funding Models to Support Rehabilitation, Reduce Recidivism

Introduction

Reentry programs are essential for ensuring the successful rehabilitation and reintegration of individuals released from jails and prisons into their communities.

According to the Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. releases over 7 million people from jail and more than 600,000 people from prison each year. These individuals face significant challenges reintegrating into society, such as finding employment, housing, and health care. Without adequate support, many of these individuals reoffend and return to prison, leading to an increase in recidivism rates.

Reentry programs provide a range of services, including job training, housing assistance, health care and substance abuse treatment, among others. The effectiveness of reentry programs in reducing recidivism rates continues to be explored with some promising preliminary results. The National Institute of Justice explains, “[w]e don’t have a strong understanding of what works and what doesn’t, and there’s a pressing need for additional research to help us better understand the dynamic process of reentry.”

Funding for reentry programs has increased in the past few years, indicating the recognition of the importance of such programs in reducing recidivism rates. States have become the testing ground for innovative solutions which have shown preliminary successes.

Exploring Different Funding Models for Reentry Programs

Funding sources for reentry programs vary widely, and it is important to consider the benefits and challenges of each of them.

Federally Funded:

One source of funding for reentry programs is federal grants, which relies primarily on competitive grant applications. For example, the Second Chance Act was originally passed by Congress in 2008, and reauthorized several times, to provide funding to states for reentry programs. Most recently, the Bureau of Justice Assistance--responsible for distribution of second chance funds—is looking to fund two organizations to design and administer a competitive incubator initiative for community- and faith-based reentry providers. The maximum award is $4 million per applicant. While federal funding can provide a significant boost to state-level reentry programs, it is subject to political priorities and may not always be consistent or reliable.

State Funded:

In New York, the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision offers a variety of programs, including vocational training, educational programs and substance abuse treatment. The state also partners with community organizations to provide additional services, such as mentoring and job placement assistance. New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision reports that individuals who participate in vocational or academic programs were 13% more likely to obtain employment after release.

In Oregon, the Washington County Community Corrections Department (WCCC) received federal funding to provide offenders with substance-free transitional housing. The WCCC aimed to pair supervision with substance-free housing to enhance offenders’ abilities to commit to substance-free and crime-free lives. The WCCC offers a service-rich environment to those it supervises, with access to substance-free transitional housing as just one of many available supports. Following a study of the program, researchers concluded the program was a cost-effective use of public funds.

Following an examination of four other reentry programs throughout Oregon, The Oregon Criminal Justice Commission reported the programs generated a 33% decrease in all new felony and misdemeanor arrests when compared to similar offenders matched on risk. When broken down, the programs decreased the property crime arrest rate by 38%.

Looking at individuals receiving new charges, the programs showed a 27% drop for all charges collectively and, divided by charge, there was a 41% drop in misdemeanor charges and a 33% drop in felony charges. The study also noted that the program was cost-effective with each dollar invested in these offender reentry programs generating $6.73 in benefits such as avoided criminal justice costs to taxpayers and reduced victimization costs.

Additionally, program staff at the Multnomah Reentry Enhancement Coordination Program report that 70% of their participants are out of government/intermediary housing within 90 days after release, further saving the system and opening up beds in halfway homes and other transitional housing programs. The four pilot programs were originally funded through a federal grant, the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program.

Reentry efforts have continued through a plethora of funding sources, including state funds. For example, the Northern Oregon Regional Correction Facility funds a three-phase reentry program through state grants and county justice reinvestment initiatives.

In Ohio, the Office of Reentry within the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) is critical in connecting individuals with communities, programs, and services. Funding can be requested from the ODRC by community partners in order to implement approved reentry programs.

Other agencies also aid in Ohio’s reentry process. The Ohio Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services (OhioMHAS) Bureau of Criminal Justice has expanded community capacity to continue treatment services and provide access to recovery supports for people with mental illness and substance use disorders when they return to the community from Ohio’s adult prison system.

In addition to state level-resources, Ohio’s counties also play a role in connecting community partners with individuals reentering society. For example, Montgomery County’s Office of Reentry works with a variety of community stakeholders to provide programming and services to the men and women who return to Montgomery County from incarceration. With many partners comes many funding sources. Much of the funds for reentry programming in Ohio are financed through a combination of state appropriations, fines and fees, and private donations.

Innovative Funding Models

Some states, like Colorado and California, have developed unique and innovative new models to funding reentry services.

Colorado

Colorado has partnered with private foundations to provide additional funding for reentry programs. This model of funding is most similar to the federal funding model and provides for a competitive grant process—often these models are referred to as a “grantee models”. Colorado calls its program the WAGEES model.

Colorado has embraced the use of intermediaries to serve as liaisons between the Colorado Department of Corrections and community-based organizations. For example, the Colorado Department of Corrections selected the Latino Coalition for Community Leadership to serve as a grantmaking intermediary, providing administrative oversight as well as leadership, resources and capacity-building skills to help community-based programs.

The Urban Institute’s analysis of the Colorado WAGEES model, describes the program as a “particularly innovative example.” WAGEES is short for Work and Gain Education and Employment Skills. Under WAGEES, Colorado set aside state resources for grants to community-led organization that provide direct services to a local client base of formerly incarcerated people who are reentering society.

The Colorado Division of Criminal Justice uses a competitive grant process to award funding to organizations. The grant process includes a review of grant applications and site visits to evaluate the program’s effectiveness. The Colorado Division of Criminal Justice also requires organizations that receive funding to submit regular reports on the progress of their programs. The program's success is attributed to its emphasis on evidence-based practices, collaboration between state agencies and community organizations, and consistent monitoring and evaluation.

One example of an organization that has received funding under Colorado's model is the Center for Employment Opportunities , which provides job training and placement services to individuals released from prison in Colorado.

California

Increasingly unique models are available to state policymakers. For example, California’s “Pay-for-Success” model that incentivizes service providers to provide positive outcomes if they are hoping to be compensated for their work. In addition to California’s Adult Reentry Grant Program, the state has experimented with a new funding model they refer to as the pay-for-success approach. Assembly Bill 1837 (2014) established the Social Innovation Financing Program now known as the “Pay for Success Grant Program.” It provided $5 million in funding through the Recidivism Reduction Fund to support three local projects. The program sunsetted in 2022.  

The unique aspect of the funding required that California only pays for services that produce positive outcomes. The state contracts with nonprofit organizations to provide reentry services, and the organizations are only paid if they achieve predetermined outcomes, such as reduced recidivism rates or increased employment rates. This unique funding model incentivizes organizations to provide effective services and ensures that taxpayer dollars are being used efficiently.

According to a 2020 Legislative Report, the program was “an innovative financing mechanism that shifts financial risk from traditional funder[s]—usually government—to a new investor, who provides up-front capital to scale an evidence-based social program to improve outcomes for a vulnerable population.”

Recent Legislative Examples of state legislative funding for reentry programs

1. Colorado SB 64 (2019) created the community-based reentry cash fund.
2. Delaware SB 250 (2022) made appropriations for “planning, research and reentry” under the Department of Corrections.
3. Georgia HB 30 (2019) appropriated $5,187,760 to the Department of Community Supervision to provide a collaboration of governmental and non- governmental stakeholders to develop and execute a systematic reentry plan for Georgia offenders and ensure the delivery of services to reduce recidivism and support the success of returning citizens.
4. Hawaii HB 2309 (2022) appropriated funds to the department of public safety for identification card machines, to the Hawaii paroling authority for community housing for parolees and to the department of health for a forensic peer specialist program—totaling approximately $1.1 million.
5. Hawaii SB 3294 (2022) appropriated $200,000 for a solution based process that allows incarcerated individuals, their families, and prison staff members to discuss and produce written transition plans for an individual leaving prison.
6. Idaho SB 1198 (2019) appropriated $12.2 million to the Department of Correction, North Idaho Reentry Center.
7. Iowa HB 2559 (2022) appropriated $2,608,109 to the Department of Corrections for education programs for incarceration people at state penal institutions.
8. Louisiana HB 893 (2022) directed 45% of justice reinvestment savings to be allocated to the Louisiana Community and Technical College System for targeted investments in educational and vocational training aimed at recidivism reduction programming for adult and juvenile offenders.
9. Louisiana HB 105 (2019) appropriated $161,221,046 to the Criminal Justice Reinvestment Initiative which is intended to incentivize the expansion of recidivism reduction programming and treatment services by investing in reentry services. Additionally, $5.9 million was appropriated for local reentry services.
10. Maryland HB 158 (2022) transitioned a previous pilot program into the Maryland New Start Grant Program within the Department of Labor which is responsible for administering a competitive grant program to organizations to create or support existing entrepreneurship development programs for individuals reentering society.
11. Minnesota HB 2 (2019) appropriated $150,000 each year from the workforce development fund for a grant to Better Futures Minnesota to provide job skills training to individuals who have been released from incarceration for a felony-level offense and are no more than 12 months from the date of release. Further, $188,000 each year was appropriated for a grant to AccessAbility Incorporated to provide job skills training to individuals who have been released from incarceration for a felony-level offense and are no more than 12 months from the date of release.
12. Missouri HB 3009 (2022) made several appropriations for reentry programs, including a specific appropriation of $300,000 for a pilot program to engage a nonprofit agency equipped to provide video job interviewing with vetted second-chance employers, onboarding assistance and job coaching..
13. Ohio HB 166 (2019) appropriated $250,000 in each fiscal year for the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction to create and implement a program to award grants to at least one nonprofit organization that operates reentry employment programs.
14. Texas HB 1 (2019) appropriated $250,000 in fiscal year 2020 and $250,000 in fiscal year 2021 in General Revenue in Strategy, Treatment Services, for the Department of Criminal Justice to enter into an agreement with the cities of Houston and Dallas to establish and operate a pilot program for reentry services to offenders released from TDCJ facilities who are returning to the Houston area.
15. Wisconsin AB 56 (2019) appropriated $250,000 in each fiscal year for the offender reentry demonstration project.

Providing support for individuals who have been involved in the criminal justice system and helping them successfully reintegrate into their communities relies on the ability of service providers to achieve success. Here are some examples of successful programs that can be learned from.

Reentry Programming Examples

• Minnesota Challenge Incarceration Program (CIP): a three-phase program that includes intervention and rehabilitation, an initial and final community component, and intensive supervised release. According to the National Institute of Justice, CIP participants were less likely to be re-arrested than the comparison group (62% versus 75%, respectively) during the follow-up period.
• Texas Project RIO: Project Re-Integration of Offenders (RIO) began in 1985 as a two-city pilot program in Texas, but expanded into a statewide program. The project provides vocational, educational, and job preparation services through the Windham School, a school operating within the state's prisons. According to the National Institute of Justice, an evaluation of the program showed 69% of participants found employment, compared with 36% of a matched group of non-RIO participants. One year after release, participants had worked at some time during more three-month intervals than comparison group members. During the year after release, only 23% of high-risk participants returned to prison, compared with 38% of a comparable group of non-RIO parolees.
• Michigan Vocational Village Program: The program provides vocational training in fields such as carpentry, plumbing and electrical work. People participating in Vocational Village programming are housed together in one unit that acts as a therapeutic learning environment that supports their success. They Full days of training and classroom instruction are intended to mimic a typical workday outside prison walls and they will receive state and nationally recognized certifications in their trade.
• Georgia State Prison Education Project: The nonprofit program run through Georgia State University provides educational opportunities, including college courses. Participants are enrolled as degree-seeking individuals and may continue their courses to receive a full degree upon completion.
• Colorado Second Chance Center: The program provides support and resources to individuals who have been released from prison, including housing assistance, employment services and substance abuse treatment. According to the Center’s Executive Director Hassan Latif, the recidivism rate for the program is below 10% and below 6% more recently—far lower than the almost 50% rate statewide.

Conclusion

State legislatures have recognized the importance of reentry programs and passed laws to fund these programs in recent years. These programs can provide critical support to formerly incarcerated individuals and help reduce recidivism rates. Program examples show that state-funded reentry programs come in many different forms, and each state has its unique approach.