Re-Entry Housing Options - The Policymakers' Guide, BJA, 2010

• Dec. 7, 2016 • Locations: United States of America • Topics: Prisoner Privileges, Release and Reentry

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail

Document text

This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.

-~........ ..........

REENTRY HOUSING OPTIONS:

THE POLICYMAKERS' GUIDE

Reentry Housing Options:
The Policymakers’ Guide

Katherine Cortes
Shawn Rogers

Council of State Governments Justice Center
New York, New York

This project was supported by Grant No. 2005-RE-CX-K002, awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Ofﬁce
of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Ofﬁce
of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the
Ofﬁce of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Ofﬁce for Victims of Crime. The project was
also supported, in part, by Grant No. 20020237 awarded by the Open Society Institute. The points of view
or opinions in this document are those of the authors and do not represent the ofﬁcial position or policies
of the United States Department of Justice, the Open Society Institute, or the Council of State Governments’
members. While every effort was made to reach consensus among advisory group members’ and other reviewers’
recommendations, individual opinions may differ from the statements made in the document.

Council of State Governments Justice Center, New York 10005
© 2010 by the Council of State Governments Justice Center
All rights reserved. Published 2010.
Cover design by Mina Bellomy. Interior page design by David Williams.
Suggested citation: Katherine Cortes and Shawn Rogers, Reentry Housing Options: The Policymakers’ Guide
(New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2010).

Contents

Acknowledgments
Introduction

v
vii

Reentry Housing Options Charts

Three Approaches to Increasing Housing Capacity
for the Reentry Population

I. Greater Access

II. Increased Housing Stock

III. Revitalized Neighborhoods

Conclusion

Appendix: Housing and Reentry Advisory Group

References

About the Bureau of Justice Assistance

About the Justice Center

Acknowledgments

The Council of State Governments
Justice Center thanks the Bureau of Justice
Assistance, Ofﬁce of Justice Programs, U.S.
Department of Justice, particularly former
Director Domingo S. Herraiz and Associate
Deputy Director for Justice Systems Andrew
Molloy for their enthusiastic support of this
project. Their collective leadership and guidance
have been critical to its successful completion.
Thanks are also due to the Open Society
Institute staff and leaders who found value in
this effort and provided the additional funding
needed to advance this publication.
Many thanks to the staff members who
provided rich information and insights about
the three programs proﬁled in this guide:
the Housing Authority of the County of Salt
Lake, Salt Lake County, Utah; St. Leonard’s
Ministries, Chicago, Illinois; and the New
Communities Initiative, Wichita, Kansas. The
Justice Center would like to recognize Janice
Kimball, director of housing and services,
Housing Authority of the County of Salt Lake;
David Rosa, administrator of St. Andrew’s Court
in Chicago; and Mary K. Vaughn, director of
housing and community services in Wichita, for
their patience and commitment to this project.
Each of the following individuals provided
invaluable comments on early drafts of the
guide, which undoubtedly improved the ﬁnal
product: Caterina Roman, the Urban Institute;
Christine Siksa, National Association of

Housing and Redevelopment Ofﬁcials; Steve
Berg, National Alliance to End Homelessness;
and Andy McMahon, Corporation for
Supportive Housing. Carol Wilkins, chair of
the National Reentry Resource Center Housing
Committee, also reviewed later drafts of the
guide and provided important insights and
feedback.
In addition, the Justice Center thanks all
of the individuals, too many to list here, whose
experience and thoughtful advice are reﬂected
in this publication. In particular, the authors are
indebted to the members of the Housing and
Reentry Advisory Group who helped formulate
strategies to address the affordable housing
challenges unique to the reentry population. A
full list of the advisory group members appears
in the appendix.
The authors are extremely grateful to the
Justice Center’s director Mike Thompson, who
helped shape the direction of the guide and
frame the many complex issues. The authors
also thank Jordie Hannum for his research
contributions to the project, as well as the
center’s communications director Martha
Plotkin for assisting with revising and editing
the guide. The center’s deputy communications
director, Regina L. Davis, and communications
associate, Kathryn Lynch, brought their usual
attention to detail and copyediting skills to
make this a stronger document.

Acknowledgments

Introduction

When individuals are released
from prison or jail, the ability to access safe and
secure housing within the community is crucial
to their successful reentry. Studies have shown
that the ﬁrst month after release is a vulnerable
period “during which the risk of becoming
homeless and/or returning to criminal justice
involvement is high.”1 Yet, in most jurisdictions
to which individuals return after incarceration,
accessible and affordable housing is in
exceedingly short supply. Additional challenges
unique to people with a criminal history make
it even more difﬁcult for them to obtain suitable
housing.
Historically, the national debate on
housing for people returning from prison
or jail has been considered within broader
discussions of affordable housing. However,
as the number of formerly incarcerated
individuals has skyrocketed over the last few
decades, widespread concern has developed
about how to provide them with housing in
ways that promote public safety. In 1980,
144,000 individuals were released back to their
communities from state prisons;2 by 2008 that
number had more than quadrupled to 683,106.3
The high costs associated with not providing
appropriate housing for the growing reentry
population—discussed more fully below—
became apparent, prompting many jurisdictions
across the country to look for innovative
approaches to increase affordable housing
capacity for newly released individuals.

The obstacles to securing housing for
reentering individuals are signiﬁcant. Privatemarket rental housing, for instance, is closed
to many individuals transitioning from prison
or jail either because they lack sufﬁcient
funds for move-in costs or because landlords
are unwilling to rent to people with criminal
records. Likewise, public housing often keeps
out those with a history of criminal activity,
based on limited federal exclusions and the
generally much broader local restrictions. Even
when people who have been in prison or jail are
not excluded systematically and receive ﬁnancial
assistance (for example, through housing
choice vouchers), affordable units are frequently
so scarce relative to need that the options are,
effectively, unavailable. And although many
people leaving prison or jail would like to live
with family or friends, those households may be
unable or unwilling to receive them.4 Therefore,
as a last resort, many reentering individuals
turn to homeless shelters. According to a
study in New York City, more than 30 percent
of single adults who enter homeless shelters
are individuals recently released from city and
state correctional institutions. The study also
indicates that many continually cycle in and out
of incarceration.5
Without a stable residence, it is nearly
impossible for newly released individuals to
reconnect positively to a community. More often
than not, when these individuals are not linked
to the services and support that could facilitate
their successful reintegration, they end up

Introduction

vii

reincarcerated for either violating the conditions
of release or for committing a new crime.6
There are signiﬁcant costs to public safety in the
form of increased crime and victimization. In
addition, when individuals lack stable housing
and fail to maintain steady employment,
children and others who depend on them for
support are adversely affected. Taxpayer dollars
are increasingly being spent on reincarceration
instead of much less expensive community
services that could reduce recidivism and
improve the lives of people returning from
prison or jail.*
At a time when so many people who have
had no contact with the criminal justice system
lack affordable housing, it can be difﬁcult to
garner support for appropriate housing options
for the recently incarcerated. Yet, clearly the
crime prevention concerns alone warrant
a more careful examination of what can be
done to make the most of existing capacity,
and how that capacity can be increased when
needed. This guide is written as a resource
for individuals and organizations dedicated
to enhancing public safety by reducing
recidivism—particularly by connecting the
reentry population to services and supports that
facilitate successful community reintegration.†
Elected leaders and agency administrators,
especially at the state and local levels, can use
this guide to improve their understanding of
reentry housing issues and to inform their
development of sound policies. Likewise,
community and faith-based organizations can

increase their knowledge of reentry housing
alternatives, which can direct their advocacy for
speciﬁc approaches.

How the Guide Is Organized
The guide begins with a short narrative on
housing options and a chart that proﬁles the six
different alternatives for reentry housing that
are the focus of discussion. The chart includes
the features of each of the six housing options,
along with their related beneﬁts and limitations.
The next section examines three distinct
approaches to enhance the availability of these
housing options (greater access, increased
housing stock, revitalized neighborhoods).
Examples of how each of these three approaches
has been put into action by a particular
jurisdiction are also provided.
The lists of housing options, and approaches
for increasing them, referenced in the chart
and text are not meant to be exhaustive; rather,
they indicate the most commonly accessed
housing alternatives identiﬁed by professionals
in the ﬁeld. The three jurisdiction examples
help illustrate a cross-section of the categories
of housing and the types of tactics available to
policymakers wishing to increase the reentry
housing stock in their jurisdiction.‡ Moreover,
the examples were selected because of the
broad applicability of their methods to other
jurisdictions faced with similar affordable
housing shortages for individuals returning
from prison and jail.

* The median daily cost associated with housing an individual in prison is $59.43, compared with $70 for an individual

in jail and $30.48 for an individual in supportive housing. See The Lewin Group, Costs of Serving Homeless Individuals in Nine
Cities, chartbook prepared at the request of the Corporation for Supportive Housing (New York: The Lewin Group, 2004).
† To ensure that the guide would be a practical, valuable document for policymakers and for those working in the reentry
ﬁeld, an advisory group of experts guided the development of this product (a list of advisory group members is included in
the appendix). Reviewers also drew on the advisory group’s expertise and experience to improve several different drafts of
this guide.
‡ Examples are not by their inclusion meant to be considered endorsements or “best practices.” They are illustrative of
various methods to address housing shortages for people released from prison or jail.

viii

Reentry Housing Options: The Policymakers’ Guide

Housing Options
The vast majority of people in prison or jail
expect to live with their families or friends
after their release, but many are not equipped
to receive them.7 Those closest to the person
returning to the community may lack space
or ﬁnancial resources, emotional bonds may
have eroded over periods of incarceration, and
housing regulations may limit the ability to
provide housing for family members or others
with criminal records.* For those individuals
who do not own a home and cannot live

with friends or relatives, there are six other
categories of stable housing options that may
be appropriate for supporting successful
reentry: private-market rental housing; public
housing; affordable housing (nonproﬁt or
privately owned and managed); halfway
houses; supportive housing; and specialized
reentry housing. The latter three categories are
extremely scarce—if available at all—in any
particular jurisdiction.† Any effort to address
the housing needs of the reentry population
must consider the area’s overall scarcity of
affordable housing.

The Unmet Demand for Affordable Housing
The lack of affordable housing is one of the most signiﬁcant challenges that people who are living below
the poverty level face. In 2006, nearly half of all low-income households in America spent more than 50
percent of their income on housing, whereas just 11 percent of lower-middle-income households and
only 4 percent of upper-middle-income households were spending as much proportionally on housing.
In addition, the 2008 mortgage crisis has forced many former homeowners into an already tight
affordable rental housing market. Contributing to the problem is the decade-long trend that has seen the
supply of rental housing units available to households earning less than $16,000 (in inﬂation-adjusted
dollars) shrink by 17 percent.
Source: The State of the Nation’s Housing, Harvard University Joint Center for Housing Studies
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 2008).

* Although studies indicate that the majority of recently released individuals live with a family member, close friend, or

signiﬁcant other, this option is not always possible. In some cases, conditions of parole may also prevent individuals from
returning to the home of a friend or family member because of their past relationship or because the family member has
a criminal record. Also, due to a combination of federal and local policies, many people with criminal histories are barred
from living in federally subsidized housing. As a result, people who live in federally subsidized housing are unlikely to risk
their residential stability on a family member recently released from prison or jail. See the Council of State Governments,
Report of the Re-Entry Policy Council, 265.
† For more information on the types of housing discussed in this guide and for additional types of housing that may be
appropriate, see the Reentry Housing Options Comparison Chart (http://tools.reentrypolicy.org/housing) at the Justice
Center’s website.

Introduction

Housing Options

Private-market Rental Housing
features

benefits

limitations

• Individual secures rental
property in the private
market.

• Most commonly available option in
any community.

• Rental property owners may screen
for, and refuse to rent to, people with
criminal records.8

• May be partly or entirely paid for by
public assistance.*
• Individuals may use a housing choice
voucher (Section 8 voucher) to
access rental property in the private
market.†

• Public assistance to help pay for
housing costs may be denied to
individuals with criminal records.9

• Allows individual freedom to
choose housing near work, family,
supervision, or treatment facility.

Public Housing
features

benefits

limitations

• Priority and eligibility for
housing is decided locally.

• May include units specially
designated for people with physical
or mental disabilities or older people.

• Under federal law, public housing
authorities or any federally assisted
housing provider may refuse to house
people who have been convicted of
certain offenses.§

• Tenant typically pays 30
percent of adjusted income
toward rent.‡

• More affordable than private-market
rental housing.

• The application process may be
lengthy and intimidating. Income
veriﬁcation is required.10

* Individuals returning from prison who are at or below the poverty line may, depending on state and local policies,

be eligible for public assistance (welfare) beneﬁts that can be used to secure private-market rental housing. Likewise,
many localities (for example, New York City, San Francisco) include a “shelter allowance” for individuals receiving public
assistance. These funds can also be used to secure private-market rental housing (Council of State Governments, Report of
the Re-Entry Policy Council, p. 271).
† Housing choice vouchers, commonly referred to as Section 8 vouchers, can be used to secure housing in the private rental
market or in a subsidized housing project. These vouchers subsidize rents based on a fair market rent (FMR) system. HUD
pays the difference between 30 percent of the family’s income and the FMR for the unit.
‡ Although 30 percent of monthly adjusted income (deductions are allowed for each dependent, for elderly family

members, and persons with disabilities) is the most common formula used to calculate rent for this program, tenants
are actually required to pay the greater of the following: 30 percent of monthly adjusted income; 10 percent of monthly
income (non-adjusted); welfare rent, if applicable; or a $25 minimum rent or higher amount (up to $50) set by a Housing
Authority. From HUD’s Public Housing Program, http://www.hud.gov/renting/phprog.cfm (accessed January 8, 2009).
§ Housing choice vouchers, commonly referred to as Section 8 vouchers, can be used to secure housing in the private rental

market or in a subsidized housing project. These vouchers subsidize rents based on a fair market rent (FMR) system. HUD
pays the difference between 30 percent of the family’s income and the FMR for the unit.

Reentry Housing Options Chart

Affordable Housing
(nonproﬁt or privately owned and managed)
features

benefits

limitations

• Subsidized using a variety
of government (and limited
private) sources. Generally,
tenant pays 30 percent of
income toward rent.

• Typically more affordable than
private-market rental housing.

• Availability is limited, and waiting
lists may be long.

• Depending on source(s) of funding,
may not be bound by some of the
statutory restrictions that govern
• Mission-driven to serve lowpublic housing.
income or disadvantaged
• May provide support services on site.
people.

• Owners may exercise discretion
to exclude people with criminal
histories.

• Often coordinated or
run by community
development corporations
or neighborhood-based
housing organizations.

Halfway House*
features

benefits

potential limitations

• Provides housing for
individuals close to or
just after release, usually
in a highly supervised
environment.

• Offers transition between the fully
secure, structured, monitored
environment of incarceration and the
community.

• May be available for limited duration
only.

• May enable individuals to work
during their residency while keeping
their expenses (if any) very low.

• May not be desirable to released
individuals because of rigid structure,
including possible limitations on
visitation and freedom to come and
go at will.

• May be focused on
behavior change, including
addressing substance
abuse.
• Housing may be conditional
on compliance with
community-based service
plans or other conditions.

• May have alternative funding
streams, including Substance
Abuse Prevention and Treatment
block grants from the Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration, which provide loans
to help people with substance use
disorders secure housing.

• Availability is limited, and waiting
lists may be long.

• Does not address post-sentence,
post-parole, or longer-term housing
needs.

* Halfway houses are a form of transitional housing. If there are services provided to residents, the facility may also be
considered programmatic housing.

Reentry Housing Options: The Policymakers’ Guide

Supportive Housing
features

benefits

potential limitations

• Tenant pays 30 percent of
income toward rent, often
from public beneﬁts (e.g.,
Supplemental Security
Income).

• Offers on-site services that may
include case management,
assistance with household chores,
and mental health and substance
abuse counseling.

• Under federal law, public housing
authorities or any federally assisted
housing provider may refuse people
who have been convicted of certain
offenses. If privately operated,
owners may exercise discretion
to exclude people with criminal
histories.

• Mission-driven to serve low- • May offer permanent housing.
income or disadvantaged
people. Depending on
funding source(s), eligibility
may be limited to people
who were homeless
prior to short periods of
incarceration and/or to
people with disabilities.

• Availability and funding may be
limited from one jurisdiction to
another.

• Often coordinated or
run by community
development corporations
or neighborhood-based
housing organizations.

Specialized Reentry Housing
features

benefits

• Some form of criminal
justice supervision is
typically a prerequisite
for living in this type of
housing.

• Difﬁcult to create due to lack of
• Addresses speciﬁc housing and
dedicated funding streams and
service needs of formerly incarcerated
people.
because community opposition
frequently arises when trying
• Nonproﬁt staff are trained to
to secure a site for housing for
interface with criminal justice
individuals with criminal records.
personnel.
• Offers opportunity for peer-support
and mentorship among releasees.

potential limitations

• Very limited availability.

Reentry Housing Options Chart

Three Approaches to
Increasing Housing Capacity
for the Reentry Population

For individuals to access any of
the six categories of housing options outlined
in the chart, each option must be readily
available to people leaving prison or jail and
in adequate supply. This guide discusses
how three approaches can be used to expand
these housing options: (1) creating greater
access to existing housing units (for example,
by improving housing placement services),
(2) increasing the number of housing units
made available speciﬁcally for the reentry

population (new construction or conversion
of existing units), and (3) engaging in a
comprehensive neighborhood revitalization
effort that includes, at its core, a plan to
expand services and supports, including
affordable housing, to at-risk populations. A
detailed account is provided of the beneﬁts
and challenges associated with each approach,
followed by a brief description of how it is
implemented within a speciﬁc jurisdiction.*

Housing Terms
Affordable housing: A general term applied to rental or ownership housing that is developed by
nonproﬁt community-based organizations, private for-proﬁt developers, or quasi-public agencies known
as public housing authorities, and is offered at lower-than-market costs either through inclusionary
zoning ordinances that require developers to set aside affordable units when they build a particular
number of market-rate units, or through public subsidies.11
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) HOME program: The program provides
the “largest federal block grant funding to state and local governments designed exclusively to create
affordable housing for low-income households.” Though not directed speciﬁcally at a reentry population,
each year the program grants more than $2 billion to states and localities nationwide. Communities
often use HOME funds to partner with community-based organizations to support such activities as
building, buying, and rehabilitating affordable housing units for rent or future sale. HOME funds are also
used to provide direct rental assistance to low-income people.12
Housing choice vouchers:† Assistance to individuals that can be used for rental payments and
security deposits (tenant-based vouchers), or direct subsidies to landlords (project-based vouchers).
These vouchers can only be used for very low-income residents—those individuals earning less than
50 percent of that area’s median income level—who lease housing units in the private market or in
continued on next page

* The jurisdictions’ efforts were all accomplished within state and federal housing mandates.

† These vouchers are commonly referred to as Section 8 vouchers; named for the section of the U.S. Housing Act that
authorized them.

Three Approaches to Increasing Housing Capacity for the Reentry Population

continued: Housing Terms
subsidized housing projects. Tenant payments in the Section 8 program generally are limited to not less
than30 percent of their income.13
“High-stakes neighborhoods:” Some areas within communities are typically plagued by high crime,
low employment, lack of adequate housing, and other factors that make it particularly challenging to
receive large numbers of people returning from prison or jail and to engage children and families who are
at risk of becoming involved in the criminal justice system.14 Development efforts in these areas allocate
resources throughout the community to improve housing opportunities for the entire neighborhood,
not just the reentry population. A broad-based development strategy pulls together stakeholders from
many different systems (such as workforce development, behavioral health, and public assistance) to
coordinate resources they are allocating to the same individuals or families.* In this type of strategy,
these systems unite to support collaborative efforts to sustain community safety and health.
Housing placement assistance: Assistance with all efforts associated with locating, obtaining, moving
into, and maintaining housing (as distinct from ﬁnancial rental assistance). Speciﬁc services provided
by state housing agencies, nonproﬁt housing providers, and community-based organizations (including
faith-based organizations) may include recruiting landlords for participation, directly contacting the
leasing authority and negotiating the rental terms, as well as providing individuals with money to help
cover move-in costs.15
Public housing: Housing assistance offered under the provision of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 or under
any state or local program that has the same general purposes as the federal program.16 This type of
housing is limited to individuals and families whose income is below 80 percent of the median income in
the county or metropolitan area in which they live.17
Public housing authorities (PHAs): “Any state, county, municipal, or other governmental entity or public
body authorized under state enabling legislation to engage in the development or administration of
low-rent public housing or slum clearance.”18 Typically, PHAs are the entities that administer both public
housing and housing choice vouchers in any community.
Supportive housing: Supportive housing combines affordable housing with services that are provided
on site to help people live more stable, productive lives. Tenant participation in the services offered,
which range from assistance with household chores to mental health and substance abuse counseling to
employment services, is voluntary. Supportive housing works well for people who face the most complex
challenges, including serious and persistent issues such as substance use, mental illness, and HIV/AIDS.19

* For example, in 2004, residents of one city council district in a midsized city received $8.7 million for food stamps,
unemployment insurance, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. An additional $11.4 million was spent during
the same year to incarcerate individuals from this area. Despite this convergence of public resources, city and community
leaders agreed that conditions in the district had not improved demonstrably. See the Council of State Governments Justice
Center publication, Justice Reinvestment, State Brief: Kansas, http://justicereinvestment.org/states/kansas/pubmaps-ks.

Reentry Housing Options: The Policymakers’ Guide

Laying the Groundwork for Increasing Reentry Housing Capacity
Regardless of the approach that a jurisdiction decides to pursue to increase housing capacity for
individuals released from prison or jail, there are several preliminary steps that can help guide decision
making and lay the foundation for implementation. These steps, though not sequential, include the
following:
• Documenting the housing options available in a community and categorizing them by eligibility
criteria.
• Collaborating with housing experts to obtain feedback about past strategies to expand the housing
options available to released individuals, including both tenant-based and project-based assistance,
as well as any concerns about engaging in new efforts.
• Exploring the feasibility of coordinating governmental and private entities to develop and manage
affordable housing, including integrated ﬁnancing.
• Meeting with criminal justice supervision authorities to determine if resources can be leveraged to
help housing providers manage the risks associated with providing residences to recently released
individuals.
• Educating elected ofﬁcials and community leaders on the need for housing for released individuals and
the challenges in securing it.
• Enlisting the help of community-based organizations to determine their capacity to locate the most
appropriate housing options for identiﬁed individuals in prison or jail well in advance of their release.

Three Approaches to Increasing Housing Capacity for the Reentry Population

I. Greater Access

To make the most of existing housing
stocks, jurisdictions must facilitate returning
individuals’ ﬁnding and maintaining affordable
living arrangements. Jurisdictions can improve
the chances of this happening by partnering
with nonproﬁt housing agencies, for example,
that have worked successfully with landlords
in the past to secure housing opportunities for
special-needs populations. These nonproﬁt
agencies can serve as mediators when tenantlandlord disputes arise and can also administer
both housing placement and rental assistance
programs.

Key Beneﬁts
• Housing placement and rental assistance
strategies use existing available housing.
• Rental assistance can be provided on an
as-needed basis. It might simply ﬁll a gap in
housing options available during the critical
months directly after an individual’s release
from a corrections facility, or it can extend
throughout a person’s period of supervision.
• It makes greater ﬁscal sense to use rental
assistance to make the most of existing

housing rather than spending funds on new
building projects. Positive outcomes for all,
including reduced recidivism rates, can be
achieved at lower costs.
• Although an individual typically receives only
short-term housing assistance, placement
specialists can help him or her to identify and
apply for longer-term beneﬁts, such as Section
8 (housing choice) vouchers.
• In some cases, once a tenant becomes
employed or qualiﬁes for Section 8 beneﬁts,
he or she can remain in the housing unit
and simply assume the lease and rental
payments.*

Challenges
• Existing housing stock is often limited.† In
some large urban areas, where many newly
released individuals return, the vacancy rate
for affordable housing may be extremely
low.20
• Identifying and selecting eligible tenants for
the limited spaces available in a program can
be a labor-intensive process.

* Any housing option that provides permanent housing will need to anticipate and plan for how to address future needs
after the available units have been ﬁlled (for example, by continuing to add more housing units, or having realistic
expectations about how many people will be able to access housing as some units turn over each year).
† In Montgomery County, Maryland, for example, there have been more than 16,000 names on a waiting list for the
housing choice voucher program and affordable housing (9,800 were on the waiting list for housing choice vouchers and
6,300 were on the waiting list for public housing); The Housing Opportunities Commission of Montgomery County, MD, Strategic
Plan FY 2006–2011, p. 12, www.hocmc.org/About_HOC/Documents/StrategicPlan.pdf (accessed on October 2, 2008).

Greater Access

• Available units may be concentrated in areas
that lack the resources to meet the other
service needs of the reentry population—
putting additional pressure on neighborhoods
already struggling to address high rates
of unemployment and behavioral health
problems.21

Greater Access Approach in Practice:
Homeless Assistance Rental Project
(salt lake county, utah)
In early 2005, Salt Lake County Mayor Peter
Corroon identiﬁed jail overcrowding as a
priority issue for his administration. At
his urging, the Salt Lake County Council
committed $300,000 in HUD HOME funds
later that year to help people with special
needs (such as mental illnesses, substance
use disorders, and histories of incarceration)
to secure housing. The county homeless
coordinator recommended that the funds
be used to seed a housing placement and
rental assistance program that could ease
overcrowding in the county jail as well as in
substance abuse treatment and mental health
facilities.
As a result of this funding, the Homeless
Assistance Rental Project (HARP) was launched
in January 2006. To reduce recidivism, the
project focuses on providing housing to
homeless individuals who have a history of
involvement in the criminal justice system.
Some of these individuals may come directly
from the jail or may already be homeless.
HARP also moves people awaiting release from
mental health or substance abuse treatment
facilities to subsidized housing. Jail inmates
who cannot be released into the community
until they receive mental health or substance
abuse services can then take the treatment beds,
thus freeing up jail space.

Both housing placement and rental
assistance are critical to the success of the
“greater access” approach taken by Salt Lake
County leaders. Without housing placement
assistance, people who have criminal histories
lack signiﬁcant ﬁnancial resources or stable
housing histories and are unlikely to ﬁnd
landlords willing to rent to them. They may
select inappropriate places to live, and in
some cases may endanger the stability of
their families if they attempt to return home.
Without the rental assistance offered by HARP,
these individuals are unlikely to be able to
pay security deposits or meet rent obligations
in the initial months after release. Failure to
meet rent obligations has an impact not only
on the tenant, but can have consequences for
other people released from prison or jail. When
tenants who have recently been released from
corrections settings default on rent, landlords
are less likely to accept future tenants with
criminal records, further tightening the housing
market for this group of individuals.22
As leaders from Salt Lake County began
to plan the program’s implementation, they
needed to ﬁnd a partner with extensive
knowledge of housing availability in the
county and strong relationships with area
landlords. The county found such a partner in
the Housing Authority of the County of Salt

Reentry Housing Options: The Policymakers’ Guide

Lake (HACSL). Through an intergovernmental
agreement, HACSL agreed to provide housing
placement services to eligible candidates and to
serve as an intermediary between tenants and
landlords.*
HACSL’s housing placement process
involves identifying landlords who are willing to
rent to candidates (with the backing of HACSL).
HACSL subsidizes (with HARP funds) the
share of the rent above what the tenant is able
to pay.† As part of their agreement, HACSL
mitigates landlord risk by insuring landlords
against damages or eviction proceedings—
which can be costly—and mediating landlord or
tenant concerns. The county hopes to transition
some tenants over time from HARP rental
subsidies to HUD Section 8 vouchers, which
HACSL administers.

After one year of operation, HARP had
placed tenants into ﬁfty-ﬁve housing units;
51 percent were female-led households and
32 percent of the households had children
living with them.‡ The average annual income
reported was $5,595. In 2007, due to the success
of the program, the Salt Lake County Council
committed another $300,000 in HOME funds
and $250,000 in Salt Lake County general funds
to the project.23 By October 2009, there were
ninety HARP households in Salt Lake County.24

* This process involves several additional agencies, including the County Division of Criminal Justice Services, which refers
candidates to HACSL.
† Over the ﬁrst year of the program, more than half of HARP tenants were able to pay more than the minimum monthly rent
of $50.
‡ Of the sixty-nine clients who began the program, one year later ﬁfty-ﬁve had been placed in housing, and the remaining
fourteen had quit the program.

Greater Access

II. Increased Housing Stock

Communities with tight housing
markets may opt for building new properties
or converting existing structures into housing
units speciﬁcally for the reentry population.
This option entails ﬁnding property on which
to place a facility and developing plans for
building housing units from the ground up, or
converting an existing structure into affordable
housing units. Both require that the housing
plan is appropriate for individuals reentering
the community and may call for leveraging
funding from multiple private and public
sources willing to support such a project.

Key Beneﬁts
• Relevant funding streams can be channeled
to subsidize housing units speciﬁcally for
reentering individuals, facilitating long-term
planning by ensuring a constant number of
dedicated, affordable units that are accessible
to this population.
• Potential exclusions are not as sweeping
as those from private landlords or public
housing.*
• If the housing that is set aside for reentering
individuals is not needed, the overseeing
authority can make it accessible to anyone
in need of affordable housing, creating a
permanent asset to the community.

• Congregate housing (multiple independent
units in one location) that prioritizes people
released from prison or jail for tenancy allows
supervision and services to be concentrated
and made available where the releasees
live. Such supportive housing can reduce
recidivism and produce other positive results,
such as improved efﬁciency. It may also
promote peer support and mentorship among
releasees.25
• Nonproﬁt operators and staff of new housing
stock may be trained to coordinate with
criminal justice personnel; such collaboration
can help both groups anticipate problems and
seek appropriate solutions promptly.

Challenges
• Communities may be resistant to building
projects that beneﬁt people released from
prison or jail. In addition, it may be hard to
get funding from non-criminal justice sources
for these projects.
• Finding a skilled development partner willing
to focus on affordable housing for reentering
individuals may be difﬁcult.
• Criminal justice system policies, parole
requirements, or simply public pressure may
limit the number of reentering individuals
who can live together in a new housing
development.

* Although fewer exclusions apply to this type of housing than public housing, some prohibitions still exist. For instance, if
the facility is built within a particular radius of a school or other area in which sex offenders are precluded from living, they
will be excluded.

Increased Housing Stock

• Creating new supportive housing stock
carries its own set of speciﬁc challenges.
This type of service-intensive housing is
expensive and requires long-term operating
and service ﬁnancing. Because supportive
housing typically draws on funding streams
for which tenants qualify on the basis of a
disability, many recently released individuals
are ineligible.

Increased Housing Stock Approach in Practice:
St. Leonard’s House/St. Andrew’s Court
(chicago, illinois)
In 1994, forty years after St. Leonard’s
Ministries in Chicago began offering reentry
services to residents in the community, the
nonproﬁt service provider partnered with
Lakefront Single Room Occupancy (SRO), the
Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC),
the City of Chicago, and the Illinois Housing
Development Authority to build its ﬁrst longterm housing facility speciﬁcally for men
recently released from prison. By working
with Lakefront SRO, the partnership was able
to leverage the knowledge and skill needed to
undertake housing development (for example,
assembling ﬁnancing, siting, constructing, or
buying and renovating a building). In addition,
the Corporation for Supportive Housing
provided guidance during the planning stages
of the project.
Funds to create and maintain the housing
units came from a range of sources, including
both traditional housing organizations and
criminal justice agencies. Initial ﬁnancing for
the project took three years to amass, during
which time the partners took important
steps to plan and situate the housing. Critical
ﬁnancing components were secured from
the Illinois Housing Development Authority,
which provided a loan of federal HOME funds.
Chicago’s Department of Housing and the

National Equity Fund both provided federal
housing tax credit equity as well.
To establish the new housing facility, the
project partners acquired property adjacent
to St. Leonard’s House, which is where St.
Leonard’s Ministries program for “male exoffenders” is located. This plan facilitated
a continuum of care for future residents
through the co-location of services and
housing. Selecting the adjacent property site
also capitalized on the positive community
relationships that St. Leonard’s Ministries had
built over its years of service delivery.
The new housing facility was called
St. Andrew’s Court. It opened in 1998 and
continues to provide long-term supportive
housing for forty-two men with histories of
homelessness and incarceration. Each tenant
has a private living space, with a kitchen and
bathroom facility. As of 2009, St. Leonard’s
Ministries has employed one full-time director
of supportive services and one full-time
property manager at St. Andrew’s Court.
The IDOC subsidizes the cost of twelve
of the forty-two housing units in the building
that are reserved solely for men serving parole
sentences (considered “specialized reentry
housing”). The subsidy remains constant even

Reentry Housing Options: The Policymakers’ Guide

when the amount that St. Andrew’s Ministries
collects from the tenant varies. St. Leonard’s
Ministries’ rent collection from each of these
twelve housing units is directly proportional to
increases or decreases in resident wages. The
remaining thirty units of supportive housing
at St. Andrew’s Court are subsidized with
HUD Shelter Plus Care funding, which is for
homeless and disabled tenants.* Often, many
of these thirty units have tenants with histories
of incarceration, though criminal history is
not a requirement for admission. With an
average annual household income of $6,100,
St. Andrew’s residents pay an average of $153
per month toward rent.

In 2008, St. Leonard’s Ministries reported
that clients who completed their program
during FY 2006 had a recidivism rate of 26
percent.26 This rate compared favorably with a
research brief issued by the Urban Institute in
August 2008 that cited a statewide recidivism
rate of 59 percent for the three-year period
following individuals’ release in 2002.27

* Shelter Plus Care is a program designed to provide housing and supportive services on a long-term basis for people who
are homeless with disabilities (primarily those with serious mental illness, chronic problems with alcohol or drugs, or
AIDS) and their families. See the Council of State Governments, Report of the Re-Entry Policy Council, 415.

Increased Housing Stock

III. Revitalized Neighborhoods

The revitalized neighborhoods
approach focuses the combined resources of
government agencies and nonproﬁt and forproﬁt organizations on a speciﬁc geographic
area to improve the services and supports
available to all community residents. Typically,
the neighborhoods to which most people
released from a correctional facility return
are urban areas that lack adequate services
and suffer from high crime and disorder.
This approach seeks to transform these
neighborhoods by increasing the community’s
capacity to integrate reentering individuals and
by enhancing the quality of life and safety for all
who reside there. Key to these transformations
is the addition of affordable housing units.

acting collectively may be able to work with
state and local policymakers to reform these
regulations.
• Revitalization efforts place reentry in an
appropriately broad context of families and
communities. The visible, lasting change
these efforts may bring to a neighborhood can
encourage enthusiasm for a comprehensive
reentry initiative and make the most of
investments from non-criminal justice
sources.
• Unlike most reentry housing strategies,
this approach casts a wide net, and has the
potential to positively affect a larger number
of reentering individuals, as well as their
families and neighbors.

Key Beneﬁts
• Unlike a dedicated reentry housing program,
which residents may perceive negatively
as prioritizing limited resources for people
released from prison, broad redevelopment
efforts are viewed generally as beneﬁting
everyone in the community regardless of their
involvement in the criminal justice system.
• The kinds of coordinated systems needed
for neighborhood revitalization efforts can
address regulatory and other barriers that
agencies or organizations acting alone
cannot. For example, affordability problems
are most acute in housing markets with the
strictest land use regulations; systems leaders

Challenges
• Neighborhood-based strategies require
proportionately larger investments of
resources than other approaches. Small
organizations may have trouble attracting
initial funding, as well as building the capacity
to implement efforts at this scale.
• Systems-level coordination requires
leadership, thoughtful planning, and
persistence, which may be difﬁcult to
cultivate or sustain over the long periods of
time needed to implement redevelopment
initiatives. Additionally, focusing on a group
of individuals with complex needs can carry

Revitalized Neighborhoods

political risks, which policymakers must be
careful to acknowledge and address.*
• Increasing the number of necessary
funding sources—each with their own
mandates—typically bring greater restrictions
on spending, which may result in project
goals becoming diluted. In a comprehensive
revitalization strategy, improving reentry
outcomes is just one of a number of
objectives. Partners must be careful to ensure
that people with histories of incarceration do
not get de-prioritized or even excluded from
the beneﬁts of development projects.

• Long-term success and sustainability is
dependent on developing and correctly
using evaluation measures. These measures
must allow the array of agencies involved to
examine recognized outcomes that will help
them determine if their diverse missions and
objectives are being met; however, such data
can be difﬁcult and costly to collect.
• It may take relatively long periods of time
to develop this strategy, get people into
housing, and realize positive outcomes for the
corrections system and public safety.

Revitalized Neighborhoods in Practice:
Central Northeast Wichita
(wichita, kansas)
In 2006, Kansas state leaders recognized
that without signiﬁcant policy changes, the
state would need to spend an additional $500
million to establish and operate approximately
1,292 new prison beds over the next ten
years. As an alternative to prison expansion,
Kansas policymakers decided to identify and
address the root causes of the projected tenyear, 22-percent increase in the state’s prison
population. An analysis by the CSG Justice
Center revealed that 65 percent of the new
admissions in FY 2006 were individuals who
had violated their conditions of parole or
probation.
This group of individuals alone consumed
27 percent of the state’s prison capacity at an
annual cost to the taxpayers of $53 million.
Further analysis revealed that 32 percent of
parole and probation revocations were related
to alcohol or drug use, whereas fully 58
percent of individuals who had their parole or

probation revoked demonstrated a need for
substance use or mental health treatment. If
these individuals were given stable housing
options and necessary supports and services
that reduced corrections spending, the savings
could, conceivably, be reinvested in vulnerable
neighborhoods.
Having identiﬁed substance use disorders
as well as parole and probation revocations as
factors driving the projected increase in the
Kansas prison population, state policymakers
enacted a comprehensive legislative package
designed to increase access to community
substance use treatment. Among other
provisions, it offered incentives to community
supervision authorities to appropriately
decrease their rates of revocation when
alternative linkages to treatment were
warranted. Speciﬁcally, the legislative package
included a performance-based grant program
for community corrections programs to help

* Policymakers can use strong outcomes or other program evaluation data as a buffer against politically driven reactions
to isolated incidents, such as when a released prisoner receiving housing or other beneﬁts commits a particularly heinous
crime. See Council of State Governments, Report of the Re-Entry Policy Council, 87.

Reentry Housing Options: The Policymakers’ Guide

reduce recidivism; a sixty-day program credit to
encourage individuals to successfully complete
educational, vocational, and treatment programs
before release; and the restoration of earned
time credits for good behavior for nonviolent
individuals.
Legislative leaders, with the governor’s
support, decided to reinvest a portion of
the state dollars that would have otherwise
been spent on prison construction into the
redevelopment of neighborhoods where a
disproportionate share of the state’s prison
admissions come from and where the majority
of released individuals return. The leaders
decided to initially focus their efforts on a
speciﬁc geographic area in central northeast
Wichita that has the highest incarceration rate
in the state. This area, although approximately
one-sixth the total area of the city of Wichita,
accounts for $11.4 million (39 percent) of the
$28.9 million the state spends on corrections for
the entire city.
A highly visible aspect of the challenges
facing the Central Northeast Wichita
revitalization is the landscape of many
abandoned and blighted properties and houses
that line its streets. To counter this problem, the
city has made funds available to for-proﬁt and
nonproﬁt groups who have redeveloped a small
number of scattered-site properties to use as
affordable housing. Such groups have also taken
advantage of federal ﬁnancing programs such
as housing tax credits. However, these efforts
have generally lacked coordinated support
and enough resources to have a large impact
on ameliorating blight or reducing crime or
recidivism.
In the summer of 2006, the CSG project
staff invited the mayor (when he was a
member of the city council), another city
council member, the city’s housing director,
and the Secretary of the Kansas Department
of Corrections to view the results of a
comprehensive community transformation that
had taken place in St. Louis, Missouri. After

that trip to St. Louis, Richard Baron, of the St.
Louis-based development ﬁrm McCormack
Baron Salazar, was invited to a community
meeting to outline the vision for comprehensive
community development for Central Northeast
Wichita. After the meeting, policy leaders from
state, county, and city government met and
decided to partner on this initiative.
After consulting with other experts, state
and local leaders formed a policy group made
up of ofﬁcials from both the public and private
sector that would guide a collaborative approach
to improve conditions in Central Northeast
Wichita called the New Communities Initiative
(NCI). The policy group includes the mayor
of Wichita, the county manager, seven state
cabinet secretaries, the president of Wichita
State University, local business leaders,
foundation ofﬁcials, and other representatives
from both the public and the private sectors.
In the fall of 2007, city and county staff
identiﬁed and reported to the policy group
that more than 800 vacant houses and
more than 1,400 tax-delinquent properties
(with an estimated annual loss of $631,000
in tax revenue) existed in the target area.
Additional challenges that faced this area
included relatively low student graduation and
achievement rates, a 2006 unemployment rate
of nearly 8 percent among people over the age
of sixteen (compared with the citywide rate of
3 percent), and a disproportionate share of its
citizens either in prison or under community
supervision.
The policy group decided in 2007 that a
comprehensive plan including both physical
housing/building development and human
capital components would enhance the ongoing
work and provide a framework to move the NCI
forward. The city set aside $250,000 for creating
a detailed strategic plan for this initiative. At
this writing, the city plans to issue a formal
request for a proposal from urban planning
and development consultants experienced
in creating such housing and community

Revitalized Neighborhoods

redevelopment strategies to help prepare this
plan.
NCI hopes to further include housing
and other infrastructure improvements, as
well as address service delivery and creation
of employment opportunities. Already,
the community has built a new school
and increased the types of available family

supportive services (including transitional
case management services for people released
from incarceration). City leaders hope the
NCI will create an environment much more
likely to support successful reentry in addition
to other measurable positive outcomes, such
as decreases in crime and a reduction in the
unemployment rate.

Reentry Housing Options: The Policymakers’ Guide

Conclusion

In the United States, more than
735,000 people are expected to be released from
state and federal prison each year 28 — and an
estimated nine million individuals released
from jail.29 Many of them lack stable housing,
which can increase the likelihood that they will
be rearrested.30 Community supervision is also
more difﬁcult when the released individual has
no ﬁxed housing address. Government ofﬁcials
and policymakers are fast becoming aware of
the potential risks that a shortage of affordable
reentry housing presents to the safety and
security of a community. They also recognize
the impact it can have on individuals and their
families when efforts to become a law-abiding,
contributing member of a community are
frustrated. It is hoped that the three outlined

approaches to increase reentry housing
availability discussed in this guide—greater
access, increased housing stock, and revitalized
neighborhoods—illustrate how a community
can improve the chances that individuals will
reenter the community safely and successfully.
Although it is doubtful that any single
housing approach, including those described in
this guide, will be a perfect ﬁt for any particular
jurisdiction, it is likely that most communities
can learn from and apply particular aspects of
these options. A successful reentry housing
initiative will tailor those aspects that can
address the speciﬁc characteristics and needs
of the community, and meet both planning and
implementation goals.*

* Any jurisdiction making such plans should turn to the resources of the Urban Institute (http://www.urban.org) and the

Corporation for Supportive Housing (www.csh.org) on housing for people released from incarceration, as well as to the
complete Report of the Re-Entry Policy Council and other resources at www.reentrypolicy.org. The National Reentry Resource
Center website (www.nationalreentryresourcecenter.org) contains links to many housing resources, publications, and
tools that policymakers will ﬁnd valuable. Kristina Hals’s publication, From Locked Up to Locked Out: Creating and Implementing
Post-release Housing for Ex-prisoners (Seattle: AIDS Housing of Washington, 2005), is also a resource for community
organizers and policymakers considering developing a response to reentry housing needs for the ﬁrst time.

Conclusion

Appendix.
Housing and Reentry
Advisory Group*

Steve Berg
Vice President for
Programs and Policy
National Alliance to
End Homelessness
Washington, DC
Eric Cadora
Director
Justice Mapping Center
Brooklyn, New York
Dan Cain
President
RS Eden
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Richard Cho
Program Ofﬁcer
Corporation for Supportive
Housing
New York, New York
Margaret diZerega
Program Ofﬁcer
Community Safety Initiative
Local Initiatives Support
Coalition
New York, New York
David Fairman
Managing Director
The Consensus Building
Institute
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Maria Fiore
Director of Policy
National Housing Conference
Washington, DC
Elizabeth Grifﬁth
Associate Deputy Director for
Policy
Bureau of Justice Assistance
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, DC
Mary Ellen Hombs
Deputy Director
Interagency Council on
Homelessness
Washington, DC
Laura Kadwell
Coordinator
Ending Homelessness
Initiative
St. Paul, Minnesota
Brad Lander
Director
Pratt Center for Community
Development
Brooklyn, New York

Geraldine Nagy
Director
Travis County Community
Supervision and Corrections
Department
Austin, Texas
Margie Phelps
Director of Release Planning
Kansas Department of
Corrections
Topeka, Kansas
Caterina Roman
Senior Research Associate
Justice Policy Center,
Urban Institute
Washington, DC
Julia Ryan
Senior Program Ofﬁcer
Community Safety Initiative
Local Initiatives Support
Coalition
New York, New York
Christine Siksa
Policy Analyst
National Association of
Housing and Redevelopment
Washington, DC

* Advisory group members’ titles reﬂect the positions they held at the time the advisory group met in July 2005.

Appendix. Housing and Reentry Advisory Group

Senator Liane Sorenson
Minority Whip
Delaware State Senate
Hockessin, Delaware
Ashbel T. Wall
Director
Rhode Island Department of
Corrections
Cranston, Rhode Island
Joseph Weisbord
Policy Analyst
Fannie Mae
New York, New York

Reentry Housing Options: The Policymakers’ Guide

References

1. Council of State Governments, Report of the Re-Entry Policy Council (New York: Council of State

Governments, 2005), 272.
2. Jeremy Travis and Sarah Lawrence, Beyond the Prison Gates: The State of Parole in America (Washington, DC:
Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center, 2002).
3. William J. Sabol, Heather C. West, and Matthew Cooper, Prisoners in 2008, U.S. Department of Justice,
Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 221944 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 2009).
4. Council of State Governments, Report of the Re-Entry Policy Council, 258.
5. New York City Department of Homeless Services, “Summary of DOC/DHS Data Match” (Draft of data
analysis submitted for review as part of the New York City Department of Correction and Department of
Homeless Services Discharge Planning Initiative, January 22, 2004).
6. Patrick A. Langan and David J. Levin, Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994, U.S. Department of Justice,

Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 193427 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 2002).
7. Council of State Governments, Report of the Re-Entry Policy Council, 264–65.
8. Caterina Gouvis Roman and Jeremy Travis, Taking Stock: Housing, Homelessness, and Prisoner Reentry
(Washington, DC: Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center, 2004).
9. Council of State Governments, Report of the Re-Entry Policy Council, p. 271.
10. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD’s Public Housing Program, http://www.hud.gov/
renting/phprog.cfm (accessed February 20, 2009).
11. Council of State Governments, Report of the Re-Entry Policy Council, 622; Karen Destorel Brown, Expanding

Aﬀordable Housing through Inclusionary Zoning: Lessons from the Washington Metropolitan Area (Washington, DC:
The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, 2001).
12. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Home Investment Partnerships Program,

www.hud.gov/ofﬁces/cpd/affordablehousing/programs/home/index.cfm (accessed September 9, 2008).
13. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Housing Choice Vouchers Fact Sheet, www.hud.

gov/ofﬁces/pih/programs/hcv/about/fact_sheet.cfm (accessed August 29, 2008).
14. Council of State Governments Justice Center, Justice Reinvestment Overview, http://justicereinvestment.org/

ﬁles/JR_Overview_2010_rev.pdf.
15. National Alliance to End Homelessness, Frequently Asked Questions about Housing First for Individuals and

Families, www.endhomelessness.org/content/article/detail/1424 (accessed October 2, 2008).
16. Council of State Governments, Report of the Re-Entry Policy Council, 628.
17. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD’s Public Housing Program, www.hud.gov/

renting/phprog.cfm (accessed September 4, 2008).
18. Deﬁnition provided by Yaniv Goury, director of communications, Public Housing Authorities Directors
Association (February 12, 2009).
19. Council of State Governments, Report of the Re-Entry Policy Council, 630; Corporation for Supportive

Housing, Glossary of Aﬀordable Housing Financing and Development Terms, http://documents.csh.org/
documents/ke/DevelopmentFinancingGlossary.doc (accessed October 20, 2008).

References

20. Caterina Roman, Michael Kane, and Rukmini Giridharadas, The Housing Landscape for Returning Prisoners

in the District of Columbia (Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 2007).
21. Council of State Governments, Report of the Re-Entry Policy Council, 32–33.
22. Personal communication, Janice Kimball, director of housing and services, HACSL (September 15,

2008).
23. Personal communication, Valerie Walton, grant writer/development director of housing and services,
HACSL (September 15, 2008).
24. Personal Communication, Valerie A. Walton, grant writer/development director of housing and

services, HASCL (November 30, 2009).
25. Kristina Hals, From Locked Up to Locked Out: Creating and Implementing Post-release Housing for Ex-prisoners

(Seattle: AIDS Housing of Washington, 2005).
26. Personal communication, David Rosa, administrator, St. Andrew’s Court (October 20, 2008).
27. Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center, Illinois Prisoners’ Reentry Success, Three Years after Release, Research
brief (Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2008), 1.
28. Sabol, West, and Cooper, Prisoners in 2008.
29. Allen J. Beck, “The Importance of Successful Reentry to Jail Population Growth,” presented at the Urban

Institute Reentry Roundtable, June 27, 2006, Washington, DC.
30. Roman and Travis, Taking Stock: Housing, Homelessness, and Prisoner Reentry.

Children of Incarcerated Parents: An Action Plan for Federal Policymakers

About the Bureau of Justice Assistance

The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), a component of
the U.S. Department of Justice, Ofﬁce of Justice Programs, supports law
enforcement, courts, corrections, treatment, victim services, technology, and
prevention initiatives that strengthen the nation’s criminal justice system.
BJA provides leadership, services and funding to America’s communities by:
• Emphasizing local control, based on the needs of the ﬁeld.
• Developing collaborations and partnerships.
• Providing targeted training and technical assistance.
• Promoting capacity building through planning.
• Streamlining the administration of grants.
• Creating accountability of projects.
• Encouraging innovation.
• Communicating the value of justice efforts to decision makers at every level.