The Second Chance Project @ ... by The Advocacy Foundation, Inc.

The e-Advocate Quarterly Magazine Matthew 18:21-22 | Luke 5:30-32

The Second Chance Project @ …

“Helping Individuals, Organizations & Communities Achieve Their Full Potential”

Vol. VIII, Issue XXXV – Q-4 October | November| December 2022

The Advocacy Foundation, Inc. Helping Individuals, Organizations & Communities Achieve Their Full Potential

The Second Chance Project @

...

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Helping Individuals, Organizations & Communities Achieve Their Full Potential

1735 Market Street, Suite 3750 | 100 Edgewood Avenue, Suite 1690 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Atlanta, GA 30303

John C Johnson III, Esq. Founder & CEO (878) 222-0450 Voice | Fax | SMS

www.TheAdvocacyFoundation.org

Page 2 of 64

Page 3 of 64

Biblical Authority ______

Matthew 18:21-22 (NIV) The Parable of the Unmerciful Servant 21

Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?" 22 Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times. ______

Luke 5:30-32 (NIV) 30

But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law who belonged to their sect complained to his disciples, "Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and 'sinners'?" 31 Jesus answered them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 32 I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

Page 4 of 64

Page 5 of 64

Table of Contents The Second Chance Project @ ...

Biblical Authority I.

Introduction – The Problem Defined

II.

The Second Chance Act of 2007 – The Original

III.

The Second Chance Act of 2009 – Expungements Added

IV.

The Second Chance Act of 2012 – Demonstration Projects

Paradigm Shifting – Evidence-Based Programming

VI.

Systems Reform Planning – Juvenile Justice Reform

VII.

The Utilizing Mentors Initiative – Reducing Recidivism

VIII. Evidence-Based Correctional Practices – Early Starts

Attachments A. ...Reentry Matters: Strategies & Successes B. Letter to The Congressional Committee on The Judiciary C. Frequently Asked Questions About The Second Chance Act

Page 6 of 64

Page 7 of 64

Introduction There are currently over 2.2 million individuals serving time in federal and state prisons, and millions of people cycle through local jails every year. Of those in state and federal prison, approximately, 95 percent will be released and return to communities across the nation. A majority of these individuals have needs that, if unaddressed in prison, during the reentry process, and after release, will negatively impact their ability to live productive, pro-social, crime-free lives in the community. These needs include housing and employment challenges, relationship and family issues, and substance abuse and mental health problems. The Second Chance Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-199) helps to address these significant challenges by providing comprehensive responses to the significant number of incarcerated adults who are returning to communities from prison, jail, and juvenile residential facilities. Programs funded under the Second Chance Act help to promote public safety by ensuring that the transition individuals make from prison and jail to the community is successful. Section 211 of the Act authorizes grants to nonprofit organizations and federally recognized Indian tribes that may be used for comprehensive wrap-around services/programs which incorporate the use of trained mentors to promote the safe and successful reintegration into the community of adults who have been incarcerated. The Second Chance Act legislation authorizes federal grants to government agencies and nonprofit organizations to provide employment assistance, housing, substance abuse treatment, family programming, mentoring, victimâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s support and other related services that help reduce recidivism. The Second Chance Act also establishes the National Offender Re-entry Resource Center for the purpose of managing, monitoring, and disseminating information to the service providers and community organizations delivering services under the Second Chance Act. "We know from long experience that if they can't find work, or a home or help, they are much more likely to commit more crimes and return to prison.â&#x20AC;? (George W. Bush, 2004)

"Almost all states have in place a system of expunging records or providing a meaningful chance for ex-offenders to rebuild their life. The federal government has no such system. Therefore, I introduced H.R. 623 , the Second Chance Act of 2007, which provides that federal ex-offenders have the same second chance as many state offenders."- Rep. Charles Rangel, Jun 5, 2007. "Individuals released from prison have no chance of becoming productive members of society because their criminal records prevent employers from considering them for Page 8 of 64

jobs. This leads many of them to return to lives of crime. In an effort to change the dynamic of recidivism, we must remove barriers to employmentâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;particularly criminal recordsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;which hang over the heads of ex-offenders, even those who have been rehabilitated. The Second Chance Act allocates $360 million towards programs that would help the ex-offenders adjust to their new environment after their release from prison. Focusing on four different areas: employment, housing, access to health services and families, it would provide a secure setting for the individual and make the transition easier, which would reduce the rate of recidivism."- Rep. Charles Rangel, Jul 27, 2007. "The reality is that there are limited prospects for persons with criminal records. Each time they acknowledge their criminal pasts on job applications, they are likely to be turned away. H.R. 623 would remove this barrier of the past and lower the rates of recidivism by offering these individuals real opportunities for gaining legitimate employment..."- Rep. Charles Rangel, Mar 12, 2007. Note: Of the total SCA funding, $55 million was in the form of demonstration grants to more than 100 state, local and tribal governments to plan and implement re-entry strategies

Page 9 of 64

Page 10 of 64

The Second Chance Act of 2007 The Second Chance Act serves to reform the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. The purpose of the Second Chance Act is to reduce recidivism, increase public safety, and assist states and communities to address the growing population of inmates returning to communities. The focus has been placed on four areas: jobs, housing, substance abuse/mental health treatment and families. The Second Chance Act of 2007 (H.R. 1593), titled "To reauthorize the grant program for reentry of offenders into the community in the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, to improve reentry planning and implementation, and for other purposes" was submitted to the House by Representative Danny Davis (D-IL) to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to reauthorize, rewrite, and expand provisions for adult and juvenile offender state and local reentry demonstration projects to provide expanded services to offenders and their families for reentry into society. H.R. 1593 was signed into law April 9, 2008. On April 20, 2005 Representative Robert Portman (R-OH2) introduced H.R.4676 and Senator Samuel Brownback (R-KS) introduced S.2789 Second Chance Act 2005 during the 108th Congressional Session however both bills died in committee. During the 109th Congressional Legislative Session, Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) introduced S.1934 and Representative Robert Portman (R-OH2) reintroduced the Second Chance Act (2007) S 1934 without success. However, during the 110th Congressional Legislative Session, Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE) and Representative Danny K. Davis (DIL7) successfully ushered the passage of H.R.1593 Second Chance Act of 2007 receiving bipartisan support from 218 Democrats, 129 Republicans enacting the bill into legislation on April 9, 2008. In 2011, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) introduced S.1231 requesting reauthorization of the Second Chance Act during the 112th Congressional Legislative Session. Since that time, the submission has been placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar (July 21, 2011) where it has remained for further review. The Reauthorization of the Second Chance Act provides for the expansion of state and local reentry demonstration projects to provide expanded services to offenders and their families for reentry into society, as well as the necessary services to remain productive members of society. As of July 2008, the United States House of Representatives appropriated $45 million while the Senate tentatively appropriated $20 million for grants authorized under the Act. The Second Chance Act provides a number of grants, over a two-year period, to state and local governments in order to: Page 11 of 64

 

   

promote the safe and successful reintegration of offenders into the community upon their release, provide employment services, substance abuse treatment, housing, family programming, mentoring, victim services, and methods to improve release and relocation, provide mentoring services to adult and juvenile offenders, implement family-based treatment programs for incarcerated parents who have minor children, provide guidance to the Bureau of Prisons for enhanced reentry planning procedures, provide information on health, employment, personal finance, release requirements and community resources. Recidivism

Each year, as approximately 650,000 people are released from state and federal prisons and between 10 and 12 million more are released from local jails, they struggle with substance abuse, lack of adequate education and job skills, and mental health issues, and a large number of these people return to prison within three years of their release due to inadequate services and opportunities. Two-thirds of released inmates are expected to be rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within three years of release. Such high recidivism rates translate into thousands of new crimes each year. Jobs The National Institute of Justice Reports that 60 percent of former inmates remain jobless a year after their release because of their criminal records and the low literacy levels that hamper them in their search for employment. Employment rates and earnings histories of people in prisons and jails are often low before incarceration as a result of limited education experiences, low skill levels, and the prevalence of physical and mental health problems; incarceration only exacerbates these challenges. Housing Current laws deny housing to former offenders with drug-related convictions. A report by Human Rights Watch, No Second Chance, focuses on the unfairness of the one-strike policy in public housing. More than 10 percent of those entering prisons and jails are homeless in the months before their incarceration. For those with mental illness the rates reach 20 percent. Released prisoners with a history of shelter use were almost five times as likely to have a post-release shelter stay. Page 12 of 64

Substance Abuse & Mental Health Treatment Over a fourth of all offenses are drug-related and over 70 percent of the recidivists return to prison with drug or alcohol problems, in part because little treatment has been made available during earlier incarceration and little was made available after their release. In a study of more than 20,000 adults entering five local jails, researchers documented serious mental illness in 14.5 percent of the men and 31 percent of the women, which taken together, comprises 16.9 percent of those studied. [18] The incidence of serious mental illness is two to four times higher among prisoners that it is in the general population.

Page 13 of 64

Page 14 of 64

The Second chance Act of 2009 Expungements Added

On March 16, 2009, Congressman Charles B. Rangel [D-NY] sponsored and introduced The Second Chance for Ex-Offenders Act of 2009 [HR 1529] which would permit expungement of records of certain nonviolent criminal offenses. Second Chance for ExOffenders Act of 2009 - It amends the federal criminal code to allow an individual to file a petition for expungement of a record of conviction for a nonviolent criminal offense if such individual has: (1) never been convicted of a violent offense and has never been convicted of a nonviolent offense other than the one for which expungement is sought; (2) fulfilled all requirements of the sentence of the court in which conviction was obtained; (3) remained free from dependency on or abuse of alcohol or a controlled substance for a minimum of one year and has been rehabilitated, to the court's satisfaction, if so required by the terms of supervised release; (4) obtained a high school diploma or completed a high school equivalency program ; and (5) completed at least one year of community service. Status of the Legislation. Latest Major Action: As of 11 July 2011: Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.'

Page 15 of 64

Update: In 2008, there were two bills entitled "The Second Chance Act (SCA)" (both are mentioned below). The Second Chance Act by Congressman Davis was passed and signed into law by President Bush - who had requested such legislation as early as 2004. Due to a lack of organization of supporters at a grassroots level, the SCA by Congressman Rangel failed to gather sufficient Members to get out of committee. Congressman Rangel office staffers have indicated intent to re-introduce the bill in the 111th Congress. The Second Chance for Ex-Offenders Act of 2007 (H.R. 623), titled "To permit expungement of records of certain nonviolent criminal offenses" is a bill submitted to the United States House of Representatives by Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY) to amend the federal criminal code to allow an individual to file a petition for expungement of a record of conviction for certain nonviolent criminal offenses. The resolution was introduced on January 22, 2007.

Qualifications The bill specifies five criteria that individuals must meet in order to qualify for the Second Chance Act. They are:   

 

No convictions for a violent offense and no conviction for a nonviolent offense other than the one they are trying to expunge. Must have fulfilled all requirements of their sentence. Must have remained free from drug or alcohol dependency for at least one year and have been rehabilitated to the court's satisfaction, if that is part of their sentence. Must have obtained a high school diploma or GED. Must have completed at least one year of community service, as determined by the court.

Nonviolent offenses are defined by the Act as "a misdemeanor or felony offense... [that does not involve] the use of a weapon or violence and which did not actually involve violence in its commission."

Procedure The bill divides the procedure into two components. First, the offender may file a petition for expungement in the court where the record was obtained, with a copy sent to the United States District Attorney of that district. Within sixty days, the District Attorney may make a recommendation to the court and notify the offender of the recommendation. Next, the court delivers a ruling after considering evidence submitted by both the offender and District Attorney or other government agencies. The court will take into consideration the offender's eligibility as per the bill's qualifications, and also whether expunging their record will have an adverse effect on the public good or safety. Page 16 of 64

Effects Upon expungement, all records pertaining to the criminal offense, except publicly available court opinions and appeal documents, would be sealed. Ex-offenders would no longer be required to divulge information related to the expunged conviction. Their status as ex-offenders would not be grounds to disqualify them from any profession. However, a nonpublic record of a disposition or conviction would still be retained by the Department of Justice for use in any subsequent legal action.

Disclosure The Department of Justice would maintain nonpublic manual or computerized index of expunged records containing former offenders names and contact information for the agency, office, or department with custody of the expunged records for contact purposes. The former offender would be required to make their records available in the following scenarios:   

To the licensing agency or office when attempting to obtain a license to carry a firearm; To law enforcement when involved in a criminal investigation; To any city, state, or federal employers when applying for a job in those fields related to investigation or prosecution of people under civil or criminal statues, such as a police officer.

Anyone other than the offender disclosing information about their expunged criminal offense would be subject to fine or imprisonment for up to a year.

Reversal Any subsequent conviction, at either Federal or State level, would result in a restoration of the expunged record. Outside Support HR 623 has received strong support from various grassroots organizations working with prisoners, former prisoners and ex-offenders, including the Prison Fellowship International-affiliated-Justice Fellowship, the Chabad-affiliated-Aleph Institute, Families Against Mandatory Minimums, FedCure.org, Crimnion International, the Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition, and Offender Aid & Restoration.

Page 17 of 64

Bi-Partisan Sponsorship Representative

District

Neil Abercrombie Yvette Clarke

Hawaii/1

Steve Cohen

Tennessee/9

Keith Ellison Bob Filner

Minnesota/5 California/51

Charlie Gonzalez RaĂşl Grijalva

Texas/20

Barbara Lee

California/9

Michael McNulty Gwen Moore

New York/21

New York/11

Arizona/7

Date Notes signed 06/26/2007 member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus 03/20/2007 member of the Committee on Education and Labor, the Small Business Committee, the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus 02/13/2007 member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus 04/22/2008 member of the Congressional Black Caucus 08/03/2007 chairman of House Veterans' Affairs Committee; member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus 02/13/2007 member of the Small Business Committee and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus 02/06/2007 member of the Committee on Education and Labor and the Small Business Committee; second vice-chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus 02/13/2007 co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus; first vice-chair of the Congressional Black Caucus 06/26/2007

Wisconsin/4 02/13/2007 member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus Eleanor Norton Washington, 06/15/2007 member of the Congressional Progressive D.C. Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus Collin Peterson Minnesota/7 07/19/2007 chairman of the House Agriculture Committee Nick Rahall West 05/16/2007 chairman of the House Resources Virginia/3 Committee Charles Rangel New York/15 01/22/2007 author of resolution; chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee; member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus JosĂŠ Serrano New York/16 02/06/2007 member of the Congressional Progressive Page 18 of 64

Representative Pete Stark

District

Date signed

California/13 03/10/2008

Maxine Waters New York/16 02/06/2007

Lynn Woolsey

California/6

07/19/2007

Albert Wynn

Maryland/4

02/06/2007

Notes Caucus member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus member of the House Appropriations Committee, member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus member of the Congressional Black Caucus

Arguments For and Against The primary arguments made by Rep. Rangel and supporters of the bill have been economic: by forcing all federal ex-offenders, including those who only offended once, those convicted of non-violent crimes, and those whose offense may have occurred years or even decades ago) to reveal their status to prospective employers severely limits their job opportunities after release. In many cases, this lack of job stability perpetuates a cycle of poverty and other forms of disenfranchisement, becoming a major contributor to recidivism, which in turn increases demands on the resources of the federal prison system and drives up prison costs. The goal of the legislation would be to reward non-violent felons for good behavior and a demonstrated desire and commitment to rehabilitating themselves by assisting them in re-establishing themselves as full members of their communities. Expunging criminal records would carry other benefits as well, removing or dramatically minimizing obstacles towards obtaining housing, education, and the restoration of voting rights. Another point raised by Rangel has been that serious problems with the federal justice system, such as mandatory minimum sentencing laws, which he alleges are responsible for sending a disproportionate number of women and minorities to prison, could be combated through his bill by making it easier for offenders to move on after their release, rather than being continually reminded of, and being forced to pay, for their past crimes.

Page 19 of 64

Page 20 of 64

The Second Chance Act of 2012 for Demonstration Projects The grant program authorized under Section 101 of the Second Chance Act helps states, units of local government, and Indian tribal governments to develop and implement comprehensive and collaborative strategies to address the challenges that offender reentry and recidivism reduction pose. specific program, but rather ―Reentry‖ is not a a research-driven process that starts when an offender is initially incarcerated and ends when the offender has been successfully reintegrated into his or her community as a law-abiding citizen. The reentry process includes the delivery of a variety of program services in both pre- and post-release settings to ensure that the offender safely and successfully transitions from a juvenile residential facility to the community. Recidivism Definition. The Second Chance Act [42 U.S.C. 3797w(h)(3)] requires that recidivism be a measure of success in funded programs. For purposes of this solicitation, recidivism is defined as ―a return to secure confinement with either a new adjudication or as the result of a violation of the terms of supervision within 12 months of initial release.‖ Collaboration with Other Federal Agencies. OJJDP and the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) are collaborating on the Second Chance Act implementation to support both juvenile and adult reentry efforts. Similarly, BJA and OJJDP are working with the National Institute of Justice in support of the research and evaluation activities called for in the Second Chance Act. For more information on the implementation of the Second Chance Act initiatives and Frequently Asked Questions, visit the National Reentry Resource Center at www.nationalreentryresourcecenter.org Note: For those interested in submitting applications to adult-related demonstration reentry projects, visit the BJA Web site at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/. Evidence-Based Programs or Practices OJP considers programs and practices to be evidence-based when their effectiveness has been demonstrated by causal evidence (generally obtained through one or more outcome evaluations). Causal evidence documents a relationship between an activity or intervention (including technology) and its intended outcome, including measuring the direction and size of a change, and the extent to which a change may be attributed to the activity or intervention. Causal evidence depends on the use of scientific methods to Page 21 of 64

rule out, to the extent possible, alternative explanations for the documented change. The strength of causal evidence, based on the factors described above, will influence the degree to which OJP considers a program or practice to be evidence-based. OJP’s CrimeSolutions.gov and OJJDP’s Model Programs Guide. Web sites are two resources that applicants may use to find information about evidence-based programs in criminal justice, juvenile justice, and crime victim services. Purpose, Goals, and Objectives Section 101 of the Second Chance Act supports state, local, and tribal governments as they develop and implement comprehensive and collaborative strategies that address the challenges that offender reentry pose and to reduce recidivism. Within the context of this initiative, reentry is not envisioned to be a specific program, but rather a process that begins when the offender is first confined and ends with the offender’s successful community reintegration, evidenced by a lack of recidivism. See 42 USC 3797w(h). The objective of this program is to provide juvenile offenders with appropriate evidencebased services—including addressing individual criminogenic needs—based on a reentry plan that relies on a risk/needs assessment that reflects the risk of recidivism for that offender. Approved Uses for Award Funds Approved uses for award funds include the following: Use Evidence-Based Assessment Instruments for Reentry Planning. The research literature provides strong evidence that offender populations should be assessed to determine their risk and needs factors and supervision levels and services so that they can receive appropriate interventions. Use of reliable, validated, and normed assessment instruments for a specific population increase the chances that individuals will be matched with the appropriate type of treatment and reentry services. Target Risk Factors that Affect Recidivism. While juvenile offenders reentering the community have a variety of treatment and behavioral needs, special focus should be given to address the dynamic risk factors most closely associated with reoffending behavior. Examples include a history of anti-social behavior, having delinquent peers, gang involvement, and problems with substance abuse. OJJDP urges applicants to use the results of needs and risk assessments to identify the most urgent needs to address. Provide Sustained Case Planning/Management in the Community. Reentry services should begin when the individual is first incarcerated and continue when the individual is released into the community. Since most offenders are at the greatest risk of rearrest the first few months after release, services should be most intensive at the time of release to the community. OJJDP urges applicants to use consistent and Page 22 of 64

sustained pre- and post-release case management and supervision that responds to the offender’s transition from incarceration to the community for at least 6 months. Support a Comprehensive Range of Services for Offenders. Based on an individual offender’s risk/needs assessment, OJJDP encourages applicants to make available a comprehensive range of programs targeted to the needs of individual offenders, including treatment services that employ age appropriate cognitive, behavioral, and social learning techniques; educational, literacy, vocational, and job placement services; mentoring services; substance abuse treatment (including alcohol abuse); housing; mental and physical health care services; and programs that encourage safe, healthy, and responsible family and parent-child relationships that enhance family reunification, as appropriate. The 10 Requirements of a Comprehensive Reentry Program Section 101 of the Second Chance Act outlines the following 10 requirements that an application must meet to secure funding for a comprehensive reentry program. 1. A plan that describes the jurisdiction’s long-term reentry strategy, including measurable annual and 5-year performance outcomes relating to the goals of increasing public safety and reducing recidivism. One goal of the plan shall be a 50percent reduction in the rate of recidivism over a 5-year period. 2. A detailed reentry implementation schedule and sustainability plan for the program. 3. Documentation reflecting the establishment of a reentry task force, consistent with the requirements set forth at 42 USC 3797w(i) and comprised of relevant state, tribal, territorial, or local leaders and representatives of relevant agencies, service providers, nonprofit organizations, and other key stakeholders. The task force should examine ways to pool resources and funding streams and collect data and best practices in offender reentry from stakeholder agencies and organizations. The required task force and the strategic planning requirement above provide a key opportunity for local policymakers to work together to identify and address local barriers to effective reentry, including barriers that are policy-related or procedural in nature. 4. Discussion of the role of local governmental agencies, nonprofit organizations, and community stakeholders that will be coordinated by, and that will collaborate on, the offender reentry strategy of the applicant, and certification of the involvement of such agencies and organizations. Participants in the creation of the reentry strategy should include representatives from the fields of public safety, corrections, housing, health, education, substance abuse, children and families, victims’ services, employment, and business. 5. Extensive evidence of collaboration with state and local government agencies overseeing health, mental health, housing, child welfare, education, substance abuse, victims services, and employment services and local law enforcement agencies. Page 23 of 64

6. An extensive discussion of the role of state corrections departments, community corrections agencies, and local jail corrections systems in ensuring successful reentry of offenders into their communities. Applications must include letters of support from corrections officials responsible for facilities or offenders to be served through this project (see What an Application Is Expected To Include, on page 18). 7. Documentation that reflects explicit support of the chief executive officer of the applicant state, unit of local government, territory, or Indian tribe and how this office will remain informed and connected to the activities of the project. 8. A description of the methods and outcome measures that the applicant will use to evaluate the program and a discussion of how such measurements will provide a valid assessment of the impact of the program. The primary objective of the Second Chance Act is to reduce recidivism. Based upon reliable research findings, there are six fundamental strategies of evidence-based correctional practice that are widely accepted as efficacious in reducing future criminal behavior. These six strategies are outlined in the Appendix A: Second Chance Act Grantees: What You Need to Know to Ensure Your Program Is Built on Principles of Effective Practice. Applicants must clearly articulate how they have integrated these evidence-based strategies into their program design. 9. A description of how the project could be broadly replicated if demonstrated to be effective. 10. A plan for the analysis of the statutory, regulatory, rules-based, and practice-based hurdles to reintegration of offenders into the community. (Note: this may be integrated into the strategic planning requirement and guided by the local task force discussed above). Target Population Targeted youth must be admitted to the program prior to their 18th birthday. However, award recipients may continue to implement a reentry plan for these individuals beyond their 18th birthday. OJJDP does not have a set timeline for terminating these services, but instead, they can continue as long as is deemed therapeutically necessary. Page 24 of 64

The target population for the initiative must be a specific medium- to high-risk subset of the population of individuals currently confined in juvenile residential facilities, such as a juvenile detention center, juvenile correctional facility, or staff-secure facility. For federally recognized Indian tribes, the individuals may be housed in a tribal, regional, county, or local detention center pursuant to state or tribal law. Applicants must identify and define the specific subset of offenders, or combination of subsets, that they propose to be the target population of their project. For example, jurisdictions may choose to target offenders who are: A specific demographic or set of demographics (age, gender, etc.). Returning to a specific community, neighborhood, or zip code. Housed in the same facility. Assessed/classified as high risk. Applicants must provide their reason for selecting this target population and supporting documentation to justify their decision. Data Collection and Local Research Partnerships In applying for these grants, lead applicants and their sub-grantees agree to collect and provide enrollment and participation data during all years of the project to support all related research efforts and program evaluations. Applicants also agree to provide detailed individual-level data, in the format that OJP specifies during this time period (and for the following 5 years for recidivism data). This may include but will not be limited to the following: Participant Characteristics: Age Gender Race/ethnicity Criminal history Educational history Incarceration history Employment history Substance abuse history Page 25 of 64

Mental health history Family history Social and personal history Post-release recidivism Post-release employment Post-release housing.

Intervention Information: Service history In-program services provided Program costs Duration of services Point of service (pre-/post-release). Applicants further agree to implement random or other modes of participant assignment that the evaluation design requires, cooperate with all aspects of the evaluation project, and provide comparable individual-level data for comparison group members. OJP encourages applicants to consider a partnership with a local research organization that can assist with data collection, performance measurement, and local evaluations. One resource that applicants may use is the e-Consortium for University Centers and Researchers for Partnership with Justice Practitioners. The e-Consortium provides a resource to local, state, federal, and other groups who seek partnerships with nearby (or other) university researchers and centers on projects that are mutually beneficial to the criminal justice community. The e-Consortium can be found online www.gmuconsortium.org/.

Page 26 of 64

Page 27 of 64

Paradigm Shifting by Nancy Ritter In the last three decades, the number of inmates released from the nation's prisons each year increased fourfold. Recidivism rates continue to be alarmingly high. To address this national dilemma, Congress passed the Second Chance Act (SCA) in 2008 to help criminal offenders successfully return to the community after they are released from prison or jail. Through the SCA, the Bureau of Justice Assistance has awarded more than $250 million — through 300 grants to government agencies and nonprofit organizations — to help mediumand high-risk adult and juvenile offenders successfully re-enter society and remain crime-free. This fall, NIJ released a report on the first phase of a two-phase evaluation of demonstration sites funded under the SCA. Called an "implementation evaluation," this phase was an in-depth examination of 10 state and local government agencies from around the country that were among the first to receive SCA funding. The findings of an implementation evaluation are important because they define the "it" in the second phase of the study that aims to answer the central question "Does it work?" This question will be answered in the "outcome study," which will examine the impact of the SCA on recidivism and determine the cost-effectiveness of the new re-entry programs. The outcome study will be completed in 2015. A Social Imperative Ron D'Amico, the principal investigator on the evaluation, cites significant — and straightforward — reasons why the nation's ability to reintegrate prisoners has become a social policy imperative. "We have huge numbers of people who have been incarcerated over the past few decades," said D'Amico, a senior social scientist with Social Policy Research Associates. Page 28 of 64

The numbers are, frankly, staggering:    

More than 1.6 million adults were in state and federal prisons in 2010. 750,000 were in local jails in 2010. More than 4.8 million were under community supervision in 2011. 700,000 were released in 2011, four times the number released into the community 30 years ago.

Within three years of release from jail or prison, two-thirds of offenders are rearrested and half are reincarcerated for a new crime or parole violation. In addition to the extraordinary burden this places on the nation's correctional system, there is the stark reality of the individual lives behind the numbers. Half of offenders have not graduated from high school, and many have drug-abuse problems or mental or physical impairments. They face overwhelming challenges finding work and housing and reintegrating with their families. "And," D'Amico noted, "they tend to be released into a relatively small number of urban neighborhoods that are fragile at best, characterized by high rates of poverty and other social problems." The SCA, which passed with widespread bipartisan support, is the largest fiscal effort to date to try to turn the tide of these sobering realities. Study Shows Three System Changes One of the goals of the implementation evaluation is to determine whether the SCA demonstration grants can achieve fundamental, system-level changes. In the initial phase of the study, the researchers collected qualitative data on how the SCA-funded programs are being operated. The recently released findings from this first phase show three major system changes: 1. Partnerships are growing. 2. Services are becoming more "holistic." 3. There is a cultural shift in thinking about how services are delivered. "Although it is too early to tell if these changes will be long-lasting — or if they will extend to broader criminal justice and re-entry systems — the 10 sites definitely changed their business as usual under the SCA, creating practices worthy of continuing and emulating," D'Amico said. System Change #1: Partnerships Are Growing Because state and local agencies and nonprofits often lack the capacity to deliver reentry services by themselves, partnerships can be crucial. SCA funding has led to new partnerships, which are increasing the delivery of re-entry services. Page 29 of 64

Coordination between probation and parole departments and service providers has significantly improved. Case managers and parole officers are connecting with community groups that they did not know existed before SCA. Weak or limited partnerships that existed before SCA have been made stronger and more inclusive. "With Second Chance funding, all of the stakeholders who have a role in ensuring the success of returning offenders are having more regular meetings where they are doing re-entry planning in a much more comprehensive way," D'Amico said. Of course, there were challenges in building these partnerships. Substantial ramp-up time was needed (sometimes one to two years) before partnerships operated smoothly. Case managers, particularly those who serve in a parole officer role, too, required training in needs-based services planning. That said, the researchers found that partnerships in the 10 demonstration sites have improved as a result of SCA funding. And, although it cannot be known whether important features, such as frequent all-stakeholder services-planning meetings, will continue when funding ends, D'Amico said there are clear indications that some project components are likely to continue. System Change #2: Services Are Becoming More 'Holistic' The researchers found five significant improvements in the delivery of re-entry services in the 10 SCA demonstration sites: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

There is greater continuity of services from pre-release to post-release. Staff members are better prepared to work with offenders. Assessments are being used well for services planning. There is more time for case management. More re-entry services are available.

One of the most significant findings concerns the role of case manager. When offenders are released into the community, they must meet specific conditions of parole, including reporting once a month (or with whatever frequency the state requires) to their parole officer. This means that, historically, most parole officers handled hundreds of cases, leaving them with little time to focus on anything other than whether offenders are complying with their conditions of parole. But, with SCA funding, some sites provided special change-management training to parole officers, allowing them to assume more of a case manager role. Other sites brought in case managers from municipal departments and nonprofits. "Although their titles differ from site to site â&#x20AC;&#x201D; re-entry specialist in one, enhanced parole agent in another â&#x20AC;&#x201D; there's no doubt that case management was perceived as a critical, value-added feature in all of the sites," D'Amico said.

Page 30 of 64

After the case managers perform an assessment, which considers risks, needs, goals, strengths and barriers, they broker re-entry services in the community. Of course, assessments, per se, are not new, but the research found that SCA funding is enabling case managers to think more holistically. Essentially, D'Amico said, case managers function as mentors, enforcers and brokers of the services that each offender needs to successfully re-enter the community. See "Program Services Under the Second Chance Act" This is not to suggest that adding the role of case manager was smooth sailing. Yes, blending the roles of case manager and parole officer helped head off turf wars and also increased offender participation in programs, because offenders knew that they could face re-incarceration if they did not show up for appointments and service assistance. But there were downsides, too. "Some offenders had perceptions of parole officers, who then took on the role of case manager, that negatively affected their ability to take full advantage of SCA services," D'Amico explained. But facing these challenges also helped prompt a cultural shift among corrections professionals that D'Amico characterized as "very exciting." System Change #3: A Cultural Shift in the Re-entry Mindset Perhaps the most heartening observation the researchers made in their evaluation of the 10 demonstration sites to date concerns a true "cultural shift" â&#x20AC;&#x201D; from a focus on simply enforcing re-entry rules and regulations to a rehabilitative philosophy and an acceptance of evidence-based practices. Put simply, many of the case managers and parole officers reported that they are approaching their jobs in new ways. "One administrator said that Second Chance completely changed the way his agency thinks about re-entry planning," D'Amico said. "He pointed to a new mindset throughout the organization regarding what is needed to help offenders be successful after they are released." The evaluation report discusses some of the long-standing cynicism and skepticism that case managers â&#x20AC;&#x201D; particularly those who come from a corrections background â&#x20AC;&#x201D; are overcoming through better communication, planning and training. It would be hard to overstate the strain that corrections facilities have historically faced: inadequate funding to support staff members who operate under extremely heavy workloads with a complicated population. "In the past, corrections professionals have been constrained with what they are able to do with available funds, and also how they perceive their mission," said D'Amico. With Page 31 of 64

the aid of SCA funding, these institutional challenges could be overcome as corrections agencies began to focus less on compliance and monitoring and more on a holistic, rehabilitative philosophy that identifies what each offender needs to successfully return to the community. One of the lessons learned in the evaluation to date is that this type of cultural shift is not easy. It is not a transformation that happens quickly. Training staff takes time, and challenges remain. "This cultural shift is far from complete," D'Amico said, noting that permanent changes in system-wide structures and policies are difficult to point to at this stage of the evaluation. "Nonetheless," he added, "this transformation is an important one that will likely last well past the end of any formal funding." Among the lessons learned to date:     

Projects need substantial ramp-up time. Identifying and training case managers are crucial steps. Re-entry success could be improved if there were more housing and mental health service providers. Women require different assessment methods and re-entry services than men. Preventing staff turnover must be a high priority.

Next Step: Outcome Study The goals set by the Bureau of Justice Assistance when it issued the competitive solicitations for SCA funding were significant: increased employment, education and housing opportunities; increased payment of child support; and a 50 percent reduction in recidivism within 12 months of release. These types of outcomes will be measured in the outcome phase of the evaluation. Data collection on 1,000 offenders in seven of the 10 sites will continue through the fall of 2014. Then, using a random assignment design, the researchers will compare offenders who received SCA services to those who did not to determine whether the outcomes achieved under the SCA are different than they would have been without the law and funding. There are substantial obstacles to successful re-entry after incarceration. On the individual level, they include poor social skills, low levels of education, the lingering effects of trauma, poor work history, weak or nonexistent support networks, and a lack of willingness to embrace the sorts of changes that, frankly, are necessary to turn one's life around. On the community and societal levels, barriers include economic downturns, community prejudice and a changing policy landscape. Page 32 of 64

And it seems to go without saying that none of these challenges is likely to diminish in the foreseeable future. As other states join California in realignment â&#x20AC;&#x201D; shifting prison populations to jails and community supervision â&#x20AC;&#x201D; these challenges will, in fact, be compounded by the sheer number of offenders who will need to be reintegrated into the community. "This makes it more important than ever to determine the outcomes of the SCA re-entry programming," said Marie Garcia, program officer for NIJ's re-entry portfolio. "The challenges surrounding a successful re-entry to society after incarceration are enormous," she added. "Quite simply, this is increasingly becoming everyone's problem."

Page 33 of 64

Page 34 of 64

Systems Reform Planning â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2014 Reentry Planning for Juveniles Developing a Juvenile Reentry System that reduces recidivism and improves positive youth outcomes is extremely challenging for even the most sophisticated state or local juvenile correctional agency. The 2014 [RFP] solicitation [targeted] funding for 12-month planning grants during which time state or local-level juvenile justice agencies [would] convene a reentry task force and develop and finalize a comprehensive statewide

juvenile reentry systems reform strategic plan. This plan will guide efforts to reduce the historical baseline recidivism rates for youth returning from confinement in state or locally run and/or managed juvenile correctional facilities. The plan will also guide efforts to reform the system to include: (1) improved assessment policies and practices; (2) a more integrated approach to prerelease services and planning and post-release services and supervision that reflects what research demonstrates improves youth outcomes; and Page 35 of 64

(3) enhanced program/policy monitoring, quality assessments, implementation supports, accountability practices, and youth outcome data collection, analysis, reporting, and decision-making. Purpose Section 101 of the Second Chance Act authorizes the Department of Justice to award grants to state and local juvenile justice agencies to improve reentry outcomes for incarcerated youth. This solicitation will support comprehensive statewide reform to juvenile reentry systems and processes to improve juvenile reentry outcomes. Goals and Objectives Section 101 of the Second Chance Act supports eligible applicants who develop and implement comprehensive and collaborative strategies to reduce recidivism, increase public safety, and address the challenges that reentry poses. Within the context of this initiative, OJJDP does not envision reentry to be a specific program. Instead, OJJDP defines reentry as a process that begins when a juvenile is first confined, includes the assessment, services, and release planning that occurs in the facility and the services and supervision youth receive upon reentry, and ends with his or her successful reintegration into the community. The Second Chance Act Comprehensive Juvenile Reentry Systems Reform Planning Program will fund, at the state or local levels, policy and practice reforms to juvenile reentry systems and processes that reduce recidivism rates and improve positive outcomes for youth returning from confinement in state or locally run and/or managed juvenile correctional facilities. These reforms should advance the adoption, integration, and effective implementation of the principles and practices that research has demonstrated improve youth outcomes, which are outlined in Appendix A: Second Chance Act Grantees: What You Need to Know to Ensure Your Program is Built on Principles of Effective Practice. OJJDP requires applicants to clearly articulate how their planning process and proposed systems reforms will advance these principles and practices. For purposes of this solicitation, recidivism can be defined in accordance with the definition utilized by the applicant agency. This definition must be clearly articulated in the application and evidence of an establishedan historical baseline recidivism rate must be provided. The applicant agency must describe their system for tracking and measuring recidivism, and document the capacity to continue to collect and maintain relevant data to track the recidivism raterecidivism data according to the definition provided during the length of the project period and beyond.

Page 36 of 64

Target Population This solicitation will support the development of a comprehensive statewide systems reform plan to reduce juvenile reentry recidivism rates and improve positive youth outcomes. As a result, applicants should identify a large enough target population of incarcerated youth to impact state or local outcomes and focus on youth assessed as medium to high-risk for reoffending. Award recipients must admit targeted youth to the program prior to their 18th birthday. However, they may continue to implement a juvenile reentry plan for these individuals beyond their 18th birthday. OJJDP does not have a set timeline for terminating these services, but instead, they can continue as long as is deemed therapeutically necessary. Target Population Data Collection and Local Research Partnerships In applying for these grants, applicants agree to collect and provide enrollment and participation data during all years of the project in cooperation with any and all related research efforts and program evaluations. Applicants also agree to provide detailed individual-level data in the format that OJP will specify during this time period (and for the following 5 years for recidivism data). This may include but will not be limited to the following participant characteristics:

ubstance abuse history

-release recidivism -release employment -release housing Intervention information: -program services provided program costs Page 37 of 64

-/post-release) Applicants further agree to implement random or other modes of participant assignment that the evaluation design requires, cooperate with all aspects of the evaluation project, and provide comparable individual-level data for comparison group members. OJP encourages applicants to consider a partnership with a local research organization that can assist with data collection, performance measurement, and local evaluations. One resource that applicants may use is the e-Consortium for University Centers and Researchers for Partnership with Justice Practitioners. This e-Consortium provides resources to local, state, federal, and other groups who seek to connect to nearby (or other) university researchers and centers on partnerships and projects that are mutually beneficial to the criminal justice community. The e-Consortium can be found online at www.gmuconsortium.org/ Defining and Measuring Youth Reentry Outcomes The Second Chance Act mandates that recidivism is a measure for success in funded programs. For the purposes of this solicitation, OJJDP encourages applicantsto measure successful youth reentry outcomes in the following ways: Recidivism reduction:

post-release from confinement. These baseline recidivism rates should include: o measures for rearrest, reconviction, and/or reincarceration based on a statewide definition of recidivism and technical violation rates. o rates disaggregated, at minimum, by youthsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; assessed risk levels. o recidivism that occurs once youth transition from juvenile court jurisdiction to adult court jurisdiction.

rates.

Positive youth outcomes: r the target youth population. To the extent possible given data capacity, these baselines should include:

Page 38 of 64

o outcomes for youth while in facilities. Example outcomes include level of services provided and youth engagement with these services; accomplishment of treatment goals, particularly for youth with mental health and/or substance abuse disorders; educational progress and credit attainment; vocational and other types of skill development and attainment; and level of family engagement/involvement. o outcomes for youth in the community upon reentry. Example outcomes include time to school re-enrollment and school attendance, employment, involvement in prosocial activities, substance use, and family involvement in the child welfare and other service systems.

these positive youth outcomes.

As part of the planning process, OJP requires applicants to establish an outcome measurement and evaluation plan that includes baseline rates and improvement targets, as outlined above, and a plan to collect, analyze, and report the data that measures these outcomes, and ultimately, to use this data to guide ongoing reentry systems reforms. Applicants should describe in their proposals their current data collection and analysis capacity and how they will strengthen this capacity internally and/or through external partnerships with local experts. In addition, OJJDP may require applicants who are awarded implementation grants to set aside funding to partner with a third-party evaluator to conduct an independent evaluation of their implementation reforms. Mandatory Requirements of a Comprehensive Reentry Program Section 101 of the Second Chance Act outlines the following requirements that applicants must include in their applications to secure funding for a comprehensive reentry program. They are: 1. A juvenile reentry strategic plan that describes the stateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s long-term reentry strategy, including measurable annual and 5-year performance outcomes relating to the longterm goals of increasing public safety and reducing recidivism. Performance outcomes should also address increased education opportunities, reduction in violations of conditions of supervised release, and increased participation in substance abuse and mental health services. One goal of the plan shall be a 50-percent reduction in the rate of recidivism over a 5-year period. 2. A detailed juvenile reentry implementation schedule and sustainability plan for the program.

Page 39 of 64

3. Documentation reflecting the establishment of a juvenile reentry task force comprised of relevant state, tribal, territorial, or local leaders and representatives of relevant agencies, service providers, nonprofit organizations, and other key stakeholders. The task force should examine ways to pool resources and funding streams and collect data and best practices in juvenile reentry from stakeholder agencies and organizations. OJJDP notes that this task force and the strategic plan requirement above provide a key opportunity for policymakers to work together to identify and address local barriers to juvenile reentry, including policy or procedural barriers. 4. Discussion of the role of local government agencies, nonprofit organizations, and community stakeholders that the applicant will coordinate and collaborate with on the reentry strategy and certification of the involvement of such agencies and organizations. Participants in the creation of the strategy should include representatives from public safety, corrections, housing (including partnerships with public housing authorities), health, education, substance abuse, children and families, victimsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; services, employment, and business. 5. Extensive evidence of collaboration with state and local government health, mental health, housing, child welfare, education, substance abuse, victims services, child support, and employment services, and local law enforcement agencies. 6. An extensive discussion of the role of state corrections departments, community corrections agencies, and local secure confinement systems in ensuring successful reentry of juveniles into their communities. Applications must include letters of support from corrections officials at facilities or individuals to be served through this project. 7. Documentation that reflects explicit support of the chief executive officer of the applicant state, unit of local government, territory, or Indian tribe and how this office will remain informed and connected to the activities of the project. 8. A description of the evidence-based methodology and outcome measures that the applicant will use to evaluate the program and a discussion of how the applicant will use such measurements to assess the impact of the program. The primary objective of the Second Chance Act is to reduce recidivism. Based upon reliable research findings, there are eight fundamental principles and practices that are demonstrated to reduce recidivism and improve positive outcomes for youth in the juvenile justice system. These eight principles and practices are outlined in Appendix A : Second Chance Act Grantees: What You Need to Know to Ensure Your Program is Built on Principles of Effective Practice. Applicants must clearly articulate how their proposed juvenile reentry system reforms will advance the adoption, integration, and effective implementation of these principles and practices. 9. A description of how the project could be broadly replicated if demonstrated to be effective. Page 40 of 64

10. A plan for the analysis of the statutory, regulatory, rules-based, and practice-based hurdles to reintegration of juveniles into the community. (Note: Applicants may integrate this plan into their strategic plan, and the local task force can guide its implementation, as discussed above.) 11. A baseline recidivism rate for the proposed target population, including documentation to support the development of the rate. OJP will require all grantees to provide a baseline recidivism rate upon award. Evidence-Based Programs or Practices OJP strongly emphasizes the use of data and evidence in policy making and program development in criminal justice, juvenile justice, and crime victim services. OJP is committed to: antity and quality of evidence OJP generates;

field; and

OJP considers programs and practices to be evidence-based when their effectiveness has been demonstrated by causal evidence, generally obtained through one or more outcome evaluations. Causal evidence documents a relationship between an activity or intervention (including technology) and its intended outcome, including measuring the direction and size of a change, and the extent to which a change may be attributed to the activity or intervention. Causal evidence depends on the use of scientific methods to rule out, to the extent possible, alternative explanations for the documented change. The strength of causal evidence, based on the factors described above, will influence the degree to which OJP considers a program or practice to be evidence-based. Based upon reliable research findings, there are eight fundamental principles and practices that are demonstrated to reduce recidivism and improve positive outcomes for youth in the juvenile justice system. These eight principles and practices are outlined in Appendix A of this solicitation. Applicants must clearly articulate how their planning process and proposed systems reforms will reflect these principles and practices. Federal Partners Reentry Funding Opportunities OJP encourages applicants to be cognizant of other federal agencies that provide reentry funding for activities other than those that BJA administers. Visit these agenciesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Web sites and use as many resources as possible to fill gaps and address different needs. Some examples of these additional federal agencies include the following: Page 41 of 64

based and community organizations, at www.doleta.gov/grants/find_grants.cfm buse and Mental Health Services Administration: substance abuse and mental health resources at www.samhsa.gov

www.portal.hud.gov/portal/page/portal/HUD

resources, etc. at www.hhs.gov/ n: correctional education resources at www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ovae/pi/AdultEd/correctional-education.html ning, technical assistance, information services, and other resources at nicic.gov/

information services, and other resources at www.usich.gov/

Page 42 of 64

Page 43 of 64

The Utilizing Mentors Initiative Adult Reentry – Utilizing Mentors The Second Chance Act grant programs are designed to help communities develop and implement comprehensive, evidence-based, and collaborative strategies that promote success and reduce the likelihood of recidivism of individuals returning from incarceration. ―Reentry‖ is not a specific program, but rather a process that starts at jail or prison intake, and ends when formerly incarcerated individuals have been successfully reintegrated into their communities as law-abiding citizens. The reentry process includes the delivery of a variety of evidence-based services in both pre- and post-release settings designed to ensure that the transition to the community is successful, and to reduce the likelihood of recidivism. Mentoring of formerly incarcerated individuals can be an important element of reentry strategies that achieve these goals. Goals, Objectives, and Deliverables This project is aimed at promoting more effective and successful reentry for formerly incarcerated individuals through the utilization of comprehensive, evidence-based wrap-around reentry plans which address the identified needs of the individuals and are supported by trained mentors. These needs are often related to housing, employment, substance abuse, and mental health. A core component of programs supported under this solicitation is the utilization of trained mentors who are assigned to program participants. The assigned mentors then support the individuals’ preparations for release and help to link them to programs and services in the community that address their identified needs. In addition, mentors provide emotional support and encouragement to individuals returning from incarceration, hold them accountable throughout the treatment process, and play active roles in promoting positive behavioral changes. ―Mentoring‖ refers to a developmental relationship in which a more experienced person helps a less experienced person develop specific knowledge and skills to increase the likelihood of successful reentry. Mentoring is a process that includes the informal transmission of knowledge, social capital, and psychosocial support that are perceived by the recipient as relevant to work, career, and/or professional and personal development. The primary goal of the mentoring process is preparing an individual (prerelease) for reentry, and supporting him/her during the reentry process to enhance Page 44 of 64

success and promote public safety (post-release). Mentoring involves communication and is relationship-based, and can take many forms. It may consist of a one-to-one relationship in which a designated mentor works directly with a formerly incarcerated individual. Mentoring can also occur in a small group setting, where a designated mentor works with a group of formerly incarcerated individuals. While mentoring approaches and programs will not look the same across jurisdictions, there are a number of key characteristics of high quality mentoring that provide a solid foundation upon which effective mentoring approaches and programs are built. These characteristics include:

department/entity responsible for the state/local/tribal correctional facility, and the individual correctional facility/facilities that are releasing the mentoring program participants.

the department/entity responsible for the state/local/tribal correctional facility and other stakeholders who share responsibility for the reentry process.

(which should be based on adult learning theory and tailored to the needs of individuals), the roles of mentors in promoting successful reentry, the qualifications and requirements associated with serving as a mentor, and objective processes to screen and select mentors, and to match selected mentors to individuals. e-service and in-service training for mentors on topics such as evidencebased offender management practices, methods to link individuals returning from incarceration to needed programs and services in the community, criminogenic needs and their relationship to the likelihood of recidivism, strategies to help hold individuals accountable in the community while supporting their participation in treatment, methods to promote behavior change (e.g., motivational interviewing, cognitive-behavioral intervention strategies such as Thinking for a Change), the roles and responsibilities of other partners/stakeholders involved in the reentry process (e.g., community corrections agencies), the importance of ongoing collaboration with other partners/stakeholders involved in the reentry process, and specific collaboration strategies.

quality improvement efforts of the mentoring program. Examples of outcomes that such systems track include, but are not limited to, the following: o Number of mentoring program participants who successfully complete treatment o Number of mentoring program participants who find and maintain employment Page 45 of 64

o Number of mentoring program participants who find and maintain stable housing o Number of mentoring program participants who successfully complete post-release supervision o Number of mentoring program participants who have not recidivated (e.g., rearrested, charged for a new offense, reincarcerated, etc.) at specific intervals following release (e.g., 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, etc.) o Number of mentoring program participants who have recidivated (e.g., rearrested, charged with a new offense, reincarcerated, etc.) Mandatory Requirements To be eligible to receive an award under this project, applicants must demonstrate compliance with the following seven mandatory program components: 1. Demonstrate a cost-effective program strategy which provides mentoring and other services to a minimum of 250 individuals returning from incarceration during the 3-year project period. 2. Include a Memorandum of Agreement or Understanding (MOA or MOU), or another form of documentation more binding than a letter of support, that clearly demonstrates an established collaborative relationship between the applicant, the correctional agency, and the specific facility or facilities in which the applicant proposes to work. This documentation should describe the nature of the partnership, discuss the correctional facility access that will be granted to mentors to enable mentors to work effectively with individuals prior to release, and identify the data elements and performance measures that the correctional agency will provide â&#x20AC;&#x201D;or assist the grantee in obtainingâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;for the purpose of measuring the impact of grant activities. The documentation must also clearly describe the empirically-validated assessment tool or tools used by the correctional agency to determine the risk level and identify the criminogenic needs of the individuals to receive mentoring services. The extent to which the applicant is able to demonstrate a collaborative partnership with the correctional agency, access to mentees within facilities prior to release, if applicable, and the ability and willingness of the correctional agency to share data for performance measurement purposes will be key factors in assessing the strength of applications. Applications that do not include an MOA or other acceptable form of documentation will not be selected for funding. 3. Provide both pre- and post-release mentoring services to individuals. For the purpose of this solicitation, applicants must propose to provide services to mentees prior to release, during the transition phase when individuals reenter the community, and after release has occurred. Applicants that do not include both pre- and post-release mentoring components for each mentee will not be chosen for funding. For example, Page 46 of 64

applicants that propose to provide pre-release services only will not be selected for funding. Some correctional facilities are located far from jurisdictions to which formerly incarcerated individuals may be returning and where applicant organizations and mentees are located. In these circumstances it is acceptable that prerelease services are limited to screening, assessment, and transition planning including identification of eligibility for benefits and benefits enrollment. 4. Describe a comprehensive menu of transitional programs and services to be offered to individuals participating in the mentoring program to support their community reintegration. Applicants are expected to demonstrate their capability to deliver or broker evidence-based programs and services for individuals that will be offered in conjunction with the core mentoring component, and are designed to increase the likelihood of successful reentry and reduce recidivism. Such programs and services often include cognitive-behavior approaches, and address the following individual needs and issues: lack of viable housing options, educational deficits, substance abuse problems, mental health needs, anger management problems, family dysfunction, and absence of employment/job skills. 5. State the number of mentors who will be recruited, provide a timeline for recruiting mentors, and list the community partners the applicant will engage in recruiting mentors. If awarded a grant, BJA will measure performance against this number. 6. Provide outlines of the pre-service and in-service training curricula that will be provided to all mentors. The following topics should, at a minimum, be covered in the mentor training curricula: a. Characteristics of the criminal justice system as a whole, with a specific focus on institutional and community corrections, and the reentry process. b. Relevant policies and procedures of the correctional agencies/facilities referring individuals to the proposed mentoring program. c. Interpersonal communication skills that enhance mentor effectiveness and promote individual success in the community following release. Specific issues to be addressed include strategies (e.g., motivational interviewing, use of cognitive behavioral interventions such as Thinking for a Change) to help hold formerly incarcerated individuals accountable in the community while supporting their participation in treatment, and promoting positive behavioral changes. Characteristics of evidencebased offender management practices and strategies mentors can use to support such practices. d. Criminogenic needs, their relationship to the likelihood of recidivism, and strategies that mentors can use to help monitor and address them, if needed. e. Awareness of the specific treatment programs and services available to individuals in the community. Page 47 of 64

f. Procedures and methods to link/refer individuals to needed programs and services in the community g. The roles and responsibilities of other partners/stakeholders involved in the reentry process (e.g., community corrections agencies). h. The importance of ongoing collaboration with other partners/stakeholders involved in the reentry process and specific collaboration strategies. i. Awareness of and sensitivity to victim-related issues. Applicants are encouraged to seek constructive methods of incorporating victims’ perspectives into the mentoring process, in close coordination with the corrections agency and community-based victim services organizations. j. Ethical standards related to serving as a mentor, including boundary issues and upholding an appropriate mentor/mentee relationship. k. Promoting safety while serving as an effective mentor. 7. Articulate a clear plan to track mentoring program participant outcomes for at least 12 months following release. This plan must describe the process for obtaining information about recidivism from the relevant corrections and/or community corrections agencies. As described in the Performance Measures section below, grantees will also be required to provide the number of program participants who are re-incarcerated within the 12-month period following their initial release. 8. Provide a baseline recidivism rate for the proposed target population, including documentation to support the development of the rate. All grantees will be required to provide a baseline recidivism rate upon award. Resources for Civil Legal Aid In May 2012, new guidance was issued to inform Second Chance Act grantees that expenditures on a wide range of legal services for individuals returning from incarceration may be an appropriate use of grant funds, where such services further the Second Chance Act’s purpose to ―break the cycle of criminal recidivism, increase public safety and help states, local units of government, and Indian tribes, better address the growing population of criminal offenders who return to their communities.‖ Civil legal assistance can play a critical role in addressing barriers to successful reintegration. The guidance clarifies that an allowable use of Second Chance Act funds for reentry services includes referral to and payment of legal services related to the purpose of the grant, such as:

Page 48 of 64

Credit Reporting Act;

other family law services that help stabilize individuals and families impacted by incarceration. This guidance is available at www.bja.gov/Programs/SecondChanceLegalServicesGuidance.pdf Target Population The target population for mentoring programs supported under this solicitation must be a specific subset of the population of individuals aged 18 and older convicted as an adult and imprisoned in a state, local, or tribal prison or jail. For federally recognized Indian tribes, the individuals may be housed in a tribal, regional, county, or local jail pursuant to state or tribal law. Applicants must identify and define the specific subset of formerly incarcerated individuals, or combination of subsets, that are proposed to be the target population of their project. For example, applicants may choose to specifically target individuals who:

Applicants must justify in the proposal the reason for selecting their identified target population and provide data to support this selection. In addition, applicants must provide the total number of formerly incarcerated individuals the project expects to serve during the grant period and provide evidence demonstrating that they will have that many individuals released from prison/jail during the timeframe. Regardless of the specific characteristics (e.g., demographics, location to which they will be returning, whether or not they are housed in the same facility) of the selected target population, individuals who comprise this population must be moderate to high risk of re-offending, based upon the results of one or more empirically-validated risk assessment instruments utilized by the partnering correctional agency. The Second Chance Act requires applicants to respond to specific performance outcomes related to the long-term goal of stabilizing communities by reducing recidivism and reintegrating formerly incarcerated individuals into the community. Each grant Page 49 of 64

recipient will be required to report on its progress toward achieving its strategic performance outcomes listed in the Performance Measures section below. Note: In the Project Abstract, applicants must provide the projected number of formerly incarcerated individuals to be served. If awarded, grantee performance will be measured, in part, against this number. Evidence-Based Programs or Practices OJP places a strong emphasis on the use of data and evidence in policy making and programming in criminal justice. OJP is committed to:

field; and

Page 50 of 64

Page 51 of 64

Evidence-Based Correctional Practices The primary objective of the Second Chance Act is to reduce recidivism. Based upon reliable research findings, there are six fundamental principles of evidence-based correctional practice that are widely accepted as strategies to reduce future criminal behavior. 1. Objectively Assess Criminogenic Risks and Needs: Maintain a comprehensive system to establish risk screening and needs assessment. The actuarial assessment of offenders—in a reliable and valid manner—is essential for the effective supervision and treatment of people returning from prisons, jails, and juvenile facilities (Andrews and Bonta, 1998). The levels of supervision and services for individual offenders must be matched to individual risk and need. 2. Enhance Intrinsic Motivation: Staff must be able to relate to offenders in interpersonally sensitive and constructive ways in order to enhance intrinsic motivation in offenders. Research findings suggest that motivational interviewing or other cognitivebehavioral communication techniques can effectively enhance the offender’s desire to initiate and maintain behavior changes (Miller and Rollnick, 2002; Miller and Mount, 2001). 3. Target Higher-Risk Offenders: Prioritize primary supervision and treatment resources for offenders who are at higher risk to re-offend. Consistent findings from a wide variety of recidivism studies show that supervision and treatment resources focused on lower-risk offenders produce little if any positive effect on the rates of subsequent criminal behavior (McGuire, 2001, 2002) and can at times increase the risk level of low-risk offenders. Maximum benefit is gained only when intervention resources are directed to moderate- and high-risk offenders. 4. Address Offenders’ Greatest Criminogenic Needs: The greatest emphasis must be placed on addressing those needs which are most closely associated with criminal behavior. When the factors that lead the offender to commit crimes are effectively addressed, that person is less likely to commit crime (Elliot, 2001). 5. Use Cognitive-Behavioral Interventions: These strategies are focused on changing the offender’s thinking patterns in order to change future behavior. The most effective interventions provide opportunities for participants to practice new behavior patterns and skills with feedback from program staff. 6. Determine Dosage and Intensity of Services: Higher-risk offenders require significantly more structure and services than lower-risk offenders. High-risk offenders Page 52 of 64

should receive a minimum of 300 hours of cognitive-based interventions, moderate-risk offenders should receive a minimum of 200 hours, and low-risk offenders should receive a minimum of 100 hours of cognitive-based interventions. Additionally, during the initial three to nine months post-release, 40 percent to 70 percent of high-risk offendersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; free time needs to be occupied with delineated routine and appropriate services (Bourgon and Armstrong, 2006; Latessa, 2004; Gendreau and Goggin, 1995). Important Things to Understand From the Research: Correctional staff needs to work with offenders to ensure they have the tools needed for success in the community. Correctional and community staff must understand the importance of working with moderate- and high-risk offenders rather than low-risk offenders to demonstrate that their program can decrease recidivism. The most effective organizational-change strategies involve supervision and coaching of staff to reinforce the expected way of doing businessâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;training alone is not sufficient. Questions to Ask As You Launch Your Program: Who are you targeting for your program? Do the risk and needs of your target population match the services and supports youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve funded through your Second Chance grant? When and how are the risks and needs of your target population assessed? Following the risk/need assessment, are the services, supervision, and interventions recommendations developed with the offender? Are these interventions based upon a systematic assessment of individual levels of risk and criminogenic needs? How are services coordinated for your target population as they move from the institutional phase, to the reentry phase, to the community phase? How is programming that is begun in prison linked to the programming that the offender receives in the community? How are supervision and treatment resources prioritized for moderate and high risk offenders? Are your interventions cognitive-behavioral based? Page 53 of 64

What data is collected on individuals? Do you collect case-level data on which of your program participants have: (1) Housing, (2) Employment, (3) Substance Abuse Treatment [if necessary], (4) Mental Health Treatment [if necessary], and (5) Social Support?

Page 54 of 64

Page 55 of 64

References 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chance_Act_%282007%29 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chance_Act_%282009%29 3. http://famm.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/FAQ-Second-Chance-Act-5.4.pdf 4. http://nij.gov/journals/273/pages/second-chance-act-evaluation.aspx 5. http://www.ojjdp.gov/grants/solicitations/FY2014/2ndChanceReform.pdf 6. https://www.bja.gov/Funding/14SCAMentoringSol.pdf 7. http://www.ojjdp.gov/grants/solicitations/FY2012/SecondChanceActDemo.pdf 8. http://nij.gov/journals/273/pages/second-chance-act-evaluation.aspx 9. http://iccalive.org/icca/images/reentrymatters.pdf 10. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/243294.pdf 11. http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/SCA_Fact_Sheet.pdf

Page 56 of 64

Page 57 of 64

Attachment A Reentry Matters: Strategies & Successes

Page 58 of 64

Reentry Matters:

Strategies and Successes of Second Chance Act Grantees Across the United States November 2013

With over 95 percent of people in the nation’s state prisons expected to be released at some point,1 officials at all levels of government recognize the need for initiatives to support the successful reentry of these individuals to their communities. For the estimated 60,000 youth incarcerated in juvenile detention and correctional facilities on any given day,2 there is a particular urgency to help them avoid crime and improve their prospects for a successful future when released. In 2008, Congress responded to these needs by passing the Second Chance Act, first-of-its-kind legislation that was enacted with bipartisan support and backed by a broad spectrum of leaders in law enforcement, corrections, courts, behavioral health, and other areas. The legislation authorizes federal grants that support reentry programs

for adults and juveniles, nearly 600 of which have been awarded to government agencies and nonprofit organizations in 49 states by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs. The program snapshots below illustrate the positive impact these reentry initiatives can have by focusing on areas vital to reintegration back into the community, including employment, education, mentoring, and substance abuse and mental health treatment. Also highlighted are programs that address the needs of a particular population, such as youth, women, and tribal communities. Representing a wide range of populations served, these programs also demonstrate the diversity of approaches that can address recidivism and increase public safety.

Supporting Employment and Job Readiness

have been shown to earn 40 percent less annually than they had earned prior to incarceration and are likely to have less upward economic mobility over time than those who have not been incarcerated.3 Meaningful employment can help individuals succeed in the community after release from incarceration because it refocuses their time and efforts on pro-social activities, making them less likely to engage in risky behaviors or interact with criminal associates.4 Reentry programs that focus on preparing individuals in prisons and jails for employment can have a significant impact on those individuals, their families, and their communities.

Employment is widely seen by practitioners, researchers, policymakers, and formerly incarcerated individuals alike as crucial to successful reintegration into the community and decreasing the risk of recidivism. Yet the stigma of incarceration and having been out of the workforce for a period of time often contribute to the challenges individuals face when trying to find a job after release. Individuals who have been incarcerated

Key Terms and Definitions Criminogenic Risk (Risk): The likelihood that an individual will engage in new criminal activity. In this context, risk does not refer to the seriousness of a crime that a person may commit in the future. Validated risk/needs assessments generally provide information simply on the likelihood that a person will reoffend.

Criminogenic Needs (Needs): The characteristics (such as antisocial attitudes, beliefs, and thinking patterns) or circumstances (such as a person’s friends or family dynamics) that research has shown are associated with criminal behavior, but which can be modified.

Responsivity: The concept of tailoring services to individuals’ distinct characteristics, service needs, motivation, and learning styles. All service components should incorporate cognitive-behavioral and social learning methodologies.

Risk/Needs Assessment: A comprehensive examination and evaluation of both static (historical and/or demographic) and dynamic (changeable) criminogenic factors that predict risk of recidivism. Results can be used to guide decisions about services, placements, supervision, and, in some cases, sentencing.

New York City Office of the Criminal Justice Coordinator Program: Harlem Parole Reentry Court, New York, New York In a reentry court program, judges, case managers, and community supervision officers work in a collaborative process to develop a reentry plan, assign services based on an individual’s needs, and monitor compliance and success. A project of the Center for Court Innovation, the Harlem Parole Reentry Court was established in 2001 and serves adult men and women who are assessed to be at medium to high risk of reoffending and are returning to New York City’s East and Central Harlem neighborhoods from correctional facilities in the state.

Key features of the Harlem Parole Reentry Court include an emphasis on job readiness and employment to promote self-sufficiency and accountability; use of a risk assessment tool to determine individuals’ risk levels and needs; cognitive-behavioral therapy to help shift criminal thinking and behavior; and the use of graduated sanctions and incentives to respond promptly and proportionately to both violations of and compliance with the conditions of supervision. The program also celebrates and reinforces achievements through graduation ceremonies in which participants can demonstrate to their families and community the positive changes they have made.5 A newer aspect of the program is providing support for families of young adults, ages 18 to 26, who are on parole, beginning pre-release and continuing through the first nine months after release.

About one-third of participants were employed 12 months after release, compared to only a quarter of a group of similar individuals who were on parole but did not participate in the reentry court. Additionally, more reentry court participants were employed full-time than in the comparison group (25 percent vs. 19.8 percent).6

The reincarceration rate 12 months after release was 14.7 percent for program participants, compared to 19.3 percent for the comparison group.7 Graduated Sanctions and Incentives The use of graduated sanctions and incentives is an evidence-based practice that allows for more options—particularly community-based options—to respond to low-level violations, with the goal of holding individuals accountable for their actions. In fact, research has shown that when penalizing a person for violating the conditions of his or her release, the immediate application of a sanction has a greater impact on preventing future criminal behavior than the severity of the sanction itself.8 Graduated sanctions and incentives also have great potential for cost savings, as many jurisdictions have found community-based treatment to be less expensive and more effective than incarceration or prison-

based treatments.9 Furthermore, diverting individuals who committed lower-level crimes to community-based programs can free up beds and resources for those incarcerated for more serious crimes. In the Harlem Parole Reentry Court, the range of possible sanctions for missed appointments with program staff, failed drug tests, and other misconduct includes curfews, an increased number of required court appearances, a period of confinement in a residential substance abuse treatment facility, and, for the most serious cases, a return to prison. Compliant behavior may be reinforced with reduced court reporting or a relaxation of travel restrictions.

Ottawa County, Michigan Program: West Shoreline 2nd Chance Connections In this program, participants receive case planning that prepares them to reintegrate into their communities, reconnect with their families, and find employment upon release from prison or jail. By serving individuals convicted of felonies who have been assessed as at medium and high risk of reoffending, the program applies resources that maximize the impact on recidivism. A core objective of the program is to prepare individuals on parole or probation and are parents of minor children to get jobs and provide for their families. The program provides

• training in the “soft skills” necessary for long-term employment, such as communication and problem solving. The program is a collaborative project of Ottawa County; Muskegon Community College; the Michigan Department of Corrections; and community-based organizations, including 70x7 Life Recovery, Goodwill Industries, Mediation & Restorative Services, and Pathways, MI. Program administrators have also built strong partnerships with employers in the community to increase participants’ job opportunities.

West Shoreline 2nd Chance Connections Program Graduates10

• a 13-week transitional employment initiative in which participants receive the classroom-based and hands- on training necessary to prepare for a career in the manufacturing industry, followed by temporary, structured, and subsidized employment; and “Our journey of hiring ex-offenders began over a decade ago. I had just started our business, and a guy came in looking for a job who said he had recently been released from prison. I was desperate for more help at the time and appreciated his honesty, so I hired him on the spot. David* has been with us for over 12 years now and is one of our best employees. About five years ago, we decided to take on a fellow named Jeff through 70x7 Life Recovery’s staffing agency. Like David, Jeff showed a real appreciation just to be working, and he had a great attitude. At one point, a car manufacturer had problems with an accelerator pedal sticking and urgently needed us to make a large quantity of a single part in order to fix the problem. Working with me on a Sunday night, Jeff shared with me how great it was to be working and earning money, paying taxes, and, by making this automotive part, being able to possibly prevent someone from getting hurt or killed. This is when I knew we were doing the right thing. We now have 10 employees who were formerly incarcerated and are now able to support their families, supply them with health insurance, and restore their own dignity. Every one of these guys has a key to the door of our business. I trust them with my livelihood and, in turn, they are a great bunch of dedicated, hardworking employees. Being a small part of their success makes my wife Carin and I feel very blessed.” — Andy Ribbens, President of Premier Finishing, Inc., Walker, MI * Names of employees have been changed.

Building Strong Foundations Through Education

Contributing to the challenges involved in reentry is the fact that individuals in the criminal justice system often have had limited education. A Bureau of Justice Statistics study found that the majority of individuals incarcerated in state prisons lack a high school diploma or its equivalent.11 Because education is strongly tied to a personâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s employment opportunities, financial stability, and quality of life, providing educational and vocational programs to adults and youth during incarceration is critical. A recent study by the RAND Corporation found that, on average, individuals who participated in correctional education programs were 43 percent less likely to recidivate upon release than those who had not participated.12 In addition, connecting individuals to these programs when they return to their communities after incarceration can set them on the path to obtaining employment and having the tools they need to succeed upon their release.

City of Oakland, California â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Department of Human Services Program: Comprehensive Community Cross-System Reentry Support (C3RS) Project In the C3RS Project, government and nonprofit partners work together to reduce recidivism among 4

youth (ages 13 to 18) who are returning to Oakland from a juvenile detention facility. A collaborative process informs each activity, including communitybased case management, multidisciplinary team meetings, cross-systems training, data sharing and collection, and addressing needs of the youthsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; families. These young people receive a number of assessments to identify risk levels, key criminogenic needs, and mental health needs, all of which inform their case plans. Each of the youth is assigned a community-based case manager who meets with them both pre- and post-release. A strong element of the program is its focus on re-engaging the youth in school upon their release. Through the program, school representatives are now located directly at the Alameda County Juvenile Justice Center, which has greatly improved and expedited the school placement process for youth exiting the detention facility. This unique partnership includes the City of Oakland Department of Human Services; Alameda County Health Care Services; Alameda County Probation; Oakland Unified School District; communitybased case management agencies including East Bay Asian Youth Center, East Bay Agency for Children, The Mentoring Center, California Youth Outreach, and Youth UpRising; and Bay Area Legal Aid, a legal advocacy organization.

In the first year of the program, of the 592 participants, 442 (74.4 percent) were reenrolled in school. Of the 161 who received job training, 102 (63.4 percent) were placed in jobs.

Approximately 98 percent of Oakland youth are currently placed in the Oakland Unified School District within three days of their release, compared to three years ago when the average time for school placement was at least eight days.

Fostering Positive Relationships and Facilitating Services through Mentoring

Youth mentoring programs have long been established across the country, as research has found that youth who have at least one meaningful, caring relationship with an adult are twice as likely as youth without a meaningful adult relationship to have healthy family and social relationships, to be financially self-sufficient, and to be engaged in their communities.13 For youth involved in the juvenile justice system, the need for positive role models and pro-social activities is even greater. The concept of mentoring as a means of support and guidance is increasingly applied with adults involved in the criminal justice system. While it is difficult to measure the impact of interpersonal relationships on behavior, it is believed that mentors can provide important support during the transition from incarceration to the community. Mentoring services can also help a program apply responsivity principles. A mentor can address an individual’s low motivation or unpreparedness for change, enhance pro-social thinking and behavior through modeling, and engage the program participant in substance abuse or mental health treatment, education, or family-based support services.

Of the people who participated in NHRI’s step-down process, 81 percent successfully completed the program, compared to just 63 percent of those who did not participate.

Connecticut Department of Correction Program: New Haven Reentry Initiative Through the Connecticut Department of Correction’s New Haven Reentry Initiative (NHRI), the New Haven Correctional Center serves as a “step-down” facility from the prison to the community. Beginning before release, a step-down approach provides incarcerated individuals with a continuum of care to prepare for challenges upon their return and help increase the likelihood that they will not reoffend. While at the facility, participants are escorted on program furloughs, or temporary releases, to address areas of need identified in their reentry plans. Furlough activities may include community-based treatment, meetings with potential employers, educational programs, or 12-step program meetings. As of March 2013, NHRI had enrolled 296 participants. NHRI is involved in a number of activities that promote collaboration and information sharing across agencies to support reentry. The program’s main partners are Easter Seals Goodwill Industries, a community-based service provider, and Family ReEntry, Inc., which is contracted to manage the initiative. NHRI staff also participate in two regular community events: bi-weekly meet-and-greet panels for individuals newly released to New Haven, a project of the city’s Parole, Adult Probation, and Police Departments; and monthly Reentry Roundtable meetings, which are attended by representatives from government agencies and community-based organizations, elected officials, and formerly incarcerated individuals and their families. The initiative also draws on the valuable support of “community advocates,” individuals who have been incarcerated and were able to sustain positive changes in their lives after their release. Teamed with case managers, the advocates serve as role models and have been an invaluable asset in the intensive case management model, particularly reconnecting individuals with the services they require after a lapse in participation. 5

“I have been a Community Advocate for Easter Seals Goodwill Industries for two and a half years, supporting and mentoring ex-offenders returning home through the New Haven Reentry Initiative funded by the Connecticut Department of Correction. I went to jail at the age of 19 and served 20 years on a 30-year sentence. The turning point for me came during year 12, when I had a life-changing conversation with a person serving a life sentence who encouraged me to improve myself and utilize my leadership abilities for good. I earned my GED, enrolled in college courses, and got a job. I began facilitating groups to help others and became a positive force on the inside, so it was only natural for me to transition upon my release to my current role working with youth and adult ex-offenders. I do presentations to potential NHRI participants inside the prisons, addressing realistic expectations and the supportive benefits to enrolling into this program. I explain to the men that what they put into the program is what they will get out of it. I encourage them to be honest with themselves regarding the serious issues—for example, domestic violence, substance abuse, anger and mental health issues—that typically lead to reincarceration. We get participants to be honest and truthful about the deep-rooted issues, which is why this program is so effective. The Reentry Initiative has earned strong street credibility within the City of New Haven due to the sincerity of staff and the opportunities that the program creates, which are different from so many existing programs.” —William Outlaw, Jr., Community Advocate, Easter Seals Goodwill Industries, New Haven, CT

Roca, Inc. Program: Springfield Community Mentoring Project, Springfield, Massachusetts Roca, Inc. coordinates mentoring services for young adult males, ages 18 to 24, who are involved with gangs and have substance abuse needs. The program trains three types of mentors: volunteers who provide oneto-one mentoring and group-based support, staff case managers, and workplace mentors. Mentors meet with participants in the correctional facility before their release, enabling the mentors to develop strong relationships with their mentees. By offering different types of mentor relationships and approaches, the program engages participants on a number of levels and addresses multiple needs. The program’s emphasis on employment helps young men focus on building a sustainable future away from gang and criminal activity. 6

Roca works in partnership with the Superior and District Courts’ Probation Office, the Hampden County Sheriff’s Department, and the Massachusetts Department of Youth Services—relationships that are critical to meeting the needs of high-risk youth in the Springfield area.

The Social Impact Exchange recently named Roca as one of the top 100 nonprofits in the country for social impact for its youth intervention model. In addition, the organization will be the lead provider in the Massachusetts Juvenile Justice Social Innovation Financing pilot project, which employs a partnership between government, philanthropic, and private investors to fund social services and maximize impact.

Addressing Substance Abuse and Mental Health Needs

Substance abuse and mental illness are significant issues among incarcerated individuals. The majority of people in prisons and jails meet criteria for substance dependence or abuse,14 and a 2009 study of jail populations found 16.9 percent of the population to have a serious mental illness—three to six times the rate for the general population.15 Moreover, these populations often overlap, with individuals who have co-occurring substance abuse and mental health disorders representing up to 11 percent of the prison population.16 Most of these individuals with substance abuse and/or mental health needs are released from incarceration without receiving the treatment they need, and a large number return to the criminal justice system. Addressing these needs before and after release from incarceration is crucial in promoting recovery and increasing the likelihood they will avoid criminal behavior and stay out of prison or jail.

Minnesota Department of Corrections Program: Co-occurring Program at Minnesota Correctional Facility-Lino Lakes This program provides evidence-based, integrated treatment to adults with co-occurring substance abuse

and mental health disorders returning to communities across the state. By integrating treatment, the program addresses substance abuse and mental health needs in tandem, rather than through separate systems, ensuring that services support one another and produce the best possible outcomes for the individual. The program uses risk and needs assessments to prioritize high-risk and high-need individuals. Program administrators work closely with communitybased service providers in a process wherein program participants and multidisciplinary teams—made up of mental health providers, community supervision agents, community treatment and service providers, and family members—work together to develop a release plan and ensure continuity of care during the transition period. Participants enter the program 6 to 12 months pre-release and continue 6 months after release. In addition to treatment, program components include • educational programming; • mental health and substance abuse treatment; • other cognitive-behavioral treatment interventions; • motivational interviewing; • pro-social skills development; • employment and job readiness services; and • referrals to housing.

In partnership with the Minnesota National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, the Minnesota Department of Corrections has hosted two forums on co-occurring disorders that focused on collaborative planning, resulting in new efforts in the state to improve service delivery for individuals with co-occurring disorders returning to the community after incarceration. Represented in the forums and subsequent working groups were state and local government agencies, communitybased treatment providers, correctional administrators, community corrections agencies, clients, and their families.

Supporting Youth to Avert Future Involvement in the Criminal Justice System While the number of youth in juvenile detention and correctional facilities has declined significantly in recent years, there are still approximately 60,000 youth in residential facilities on any given day in the United States. Many of these young people struggle with challenges such as low levels of education, substance abuse and mental health issues, housing instability, and past trauma. Communities have a unique opportunity and responsibility to ensure that these youth are given the chance to overcome barriers to success, avoid crime, and ultimately thrive.

Ohio Department of Youth Services The Ohio Department of Youth Services (Ohio DYS) partners with three community-based organizations to offer mentoring and supportive services for youth who are returning from juvenile detention facilities to one of five counties in the state. Services begin six months prior to release and continue for a minimum of six months after release. Mentors maintain regular communication with their mentee’s parole officer, social worker, and family to help ensure that the youth receive comprehensive, individualized services in the community. The program employs three mentoring models to accommodate the varying security classification levels and criminogenic risk levels of the youth who are served: one-to-one mentoring, group mentoring, and peer mentoring, which incorporates young adult mentors for youth who may respond better to reinforcement from individuals closer to their age. Of program participants on parole in the first year of the program, 76 percent have maintained their mentoring relationship after returning to their communities.17 8

Texas Juvenile Justice Department Program: Gang Intervention Treatment: Reentry Development for Youth (GitRedy), Harris County, Texas The Texas Juvenile Justice Department’s GitRedy program provides family-focused reentry services to gang-affiliated youth, ages 13 to 19, who are returning to Harris County from the department’s correctional institutions. Based on assessments at intake, the agency offers comprehensive case management and a range of services based on the individual needs of each youth. Every 30 days, case plans reviewed by a collaborative, multidisciplinary team of practitioners are updated and revised, as needed. Reinforcing the collaboration, staff members receive training in the Systems of Care model, a comprehensive, cross-agency approach to providing services to children and families. Services include evidence-based practices for youth such as Aggression Replacement Training® and Functional Family Therapy, as well as medical treatment, educational programs, and vocational training.

Of the Ohio DYS mentees on parole, 58 percent are enrolled in school, and 35 percent obtained their GED or high school diploma before leaving the detention facility.19

Addressing the Distinct Needs of Women

“When I signed up for this program I really did not think it would work for me. I felt that I would always struggle, and to be truthful I was afraid I would return to prison after a short while. Here it is years later and not only am I able to keep a job and take care of my family, but I am currently learning how to start my own business.”

—Lyndsey* Project Reconnect participant Girl Scouts of Eastern Oklahoma

Women involved with the criminal justice system have a distinct set of issues, including high rates of substance abuse, mental health disorders, and victimization and past trauma; low rates of employment and financial stability; and challenges in maintaining child custody. However, being a minority of the total prison population at approximately 7 percent,20 women often find that correctional and reentry programs are not tailored with their needs in mind. Reentry programs that focus on these needs will better assist women returning home from incarceration, as well as their children and families.

Girl Scouts of Eastern Oklahoma Program: Project Reconnect, Tulsa, Oklahoma The Girl Scouts of Eastern Oklahoma serves women who will be returning to the Tulsa area after incarceration and have children between the ages of 5 and 18. The program provides them with services that allow them to maintain contact with their children through bi-monthly visits in the facility. Acknowledging that the commute to prison can be challenging or prohibitive for many families, the Girl Scouts of Oklahoma transports children for biweekly visits with their mothers in prison. On alternate weeks, the women take parenting classes, and their children receive supplementary educational classes. A key component of Project Reconnect is its mentoring program, connecting the incarcerated mothers with volunteer mentors to aid in the reentry process. Since

the start of the grant project in October 2010, the organization has trained 200 mentors.21 Additionally, the organization has forged partnerships with various organizations in the community—including faithbased groups, service organizations, and treatment providers—to support and provide reentry services.

Of the 181 Project Reconnect participants who have been in the community for at least 12 months after release, only 4 (2.2 percent) have recidivated.22

Of the 125 individuals who participated in employment development, 73 percent (92 people) have obtained and maintained a job. Of the 36 participants in the vocational rehabilitation program, 72 percent (26 people) have obtained and maintained employment.23

Supporting the Strengths and Needs of Families Incarceration affects not only the high number of individuals in prisons and jails in the United States but also their children and families. In 2007, an estimated 1.7 million children under 18 had a parent in prison.24

* Name has been changed.

These children and other family members often face significant consequences from having a loved one in prison, such as financial difficulties, housing instability, loss of emotional support and guidance, or social stigma. Children of incarcerated parents are at increased risk of poor school performance,25 substance use, and mental health problems.26 At the same time, family support can be a key factor in successful reentry. Some research has shown that people who regularly interact with their families while incarcerated are more likely to succeed when returning to their community than those who do not.27 Many reentry initiatives are addressing the needs of the children and families of incarcerated individuals, while building on the strengths of these networks to help support the individuals during incarceration and through the transition of returning home.

Multnomah County, Oregon Program: Family Supports for Treatment and Reentry Success: Center for Family Success In Multnomah County, treatment and family service providers work with incarcerated individuals with substance abuse needs and their children and families to assess their needs and provide appropriate services. Targeting medium- to high-risk individuals for the program, the providers use a continuum of treatments and foster a smooth transition to services

This grant project enabled the county to create a unique internship opportunity for university students, both graduate and undergraduate: interns act as â&#x20AC;&#x153;family advocatesâ&#x20AC;? who are paired with individuals at the time they enter the criminal justice system or reenter from incarceration to facilitate the delivery of family engagement services for the individuals and their families.

available in the community. The program operates in collaboration with the Oregon Department of Corrections and community-based service providers. Prior to release, incarcerated parents receive addiction services, as well as evidence-based parenting skills training through an educational program called Parenting Inside Out. To assist the individualsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; families, program administrators created a pamphlet that explains criminal-justice terminology and provides contact information for available services. The program also collaborates with the Center for Families for Success, an initiative of Pathfinders of Oregon, to provide a comprehensive program that has demonstrated success in family engagement, case planning, and helping to repair the relationships between incarcerated and formerly incarcerated individuals and their families.

Serving Tribes and Reservations with Culturally-Relevant Programs Tribal communities experience unique challenges with reentry. One reason for this is the way in which local, state, federal, and tribal systems intersect, which is different for each tribe and state. These criminal justice and human service systems work together to enforce laws and implement programs for tribal members and non-members on tribal lands. In addition to these logistical and administrative challenges, tribal communities are often underserved and have high levels of need. Tribal communities experience high rates of crime and victimization, and unemployment and lack of adequate housing are particular problems for returning individuals. Furthermore, American Indians and Alaska Natives are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system and are incarcerated at a higher rate than the national average,28 making it especially important to focus resources on reentry in tribal communities.

Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin Program: Wisconsin Tribal Community Reintegration Program In a partnership with the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, the Oneida Tribe combines evidence-based correctional practices with cultural practices to serve American Indians who are assessed to be at medium or high risk of reoffending and are returning to one of three Indian nations in the state: Oneida, Menominee, and Stockbridge-Munsee. The program offers release planning, services, and advocacy addressing employment, substance abuse needs, financial management, housing, family support, and legal issues.

In the past year, program administrators completed the first draft of the Dream Catcher Curriculum, a one-of-a-kind curriculum that integrates cognitive methods, cultural and spiritual education, experiential education, social interaction skills, and literacy education.

Notes 1. “Reentry Trends in the U.S.,” U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, accessed October 22, 2013, http://www.bjs.gov/content/reentry/reentry.cfm. 2. “Easy Access to the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement: 19972011,” Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, accessed October 22, 2013, http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp/. 3. The Pew Charitable Trusts, Collateral Costs: Incarceration’s Effect on Economic Mobility (Washington: The Pew Charitable Trusts, 2010). 4. Joe Graffam, Alison Shinkfield, Barbara Lavelle, and Wenda McPherson, “Variables Affecting Successful Reintegration as Perceived by Offenders and Professionals,” Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 40, no. 1/2 (2004): 147–171. 5. New York Times City Room blog highlighted the ceremony in a feature: Kia Gregory, “Easing the Passage from Prison,” New York Times, February 15, 2013, http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/15/easing-thepassage-from-prison. 6. Outcome data are based on preliminary findings from an ongoing evaluation to be released in 2014. 7. Ibid. 8. Eric J. Wodahl, Brett Garland, Scott E. Culhane, and William P. McCarty, “Utilizing Behavioral Interventions to Improve Supervision Outcomes in Community-Based Corrections,” Criminal Justice and Behavior 38, no.

In addition, the program addresses issues that pertain particularly to Indian populations, such as historical trauma stemming from displacement and assimilation. The program also offers cultural and spiritual practices and organizes leaders in each of the three tribal nations to participate in welcomehome ceremonies and serve as positive role models. As the responsivity principle states, interventions are more effective when they take into account the race, ethnicity, gender, culture or other characteristics of the target population. By offering culturally relevant components, the program serves a unique role for the state’s justice-involved American Indian population and helps ensure that these individuals succeed in their communities when they return from incarceration.

The Second Chance Act Grant Programs The Second Chance Act’s grant programs are funded and administered by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs. Within the Office of Justice Programs, the Bureau of Justice Assistance awards Second Chance Act grants to programs serving adults returning to their communities after incarceration, and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention awards grants to programs serving youth returning from juvenile correctional facilities.

4 (2011): 386–405; Angela Hawken and Mark Kleiman, Managing Drug Involved Probationers with Swift and Certain Sanctions: Evaluating Hawaii’s HOPE (Washington: National Institute of Justice, 2009); Michael Spiegler and David Guevremont, Contemporary Behavior Therapy (Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing, 2009). 9. Stephanie Lee, Steve Aos, Elizabeth Drake, Annie Pennucci, Marna Miller, and Laurie Anderson, Return on Investment: Evidence-Based Options to Improve Statewide Outcomes (Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2012); Marc Levin, Adult Corrections Reform: Lower Crime, Lower Costs (Austin: Texas Public Policy Foundation, 2011); Doug McVay, Vincent Schiraldi, and Jason Ziedenberg, Treatment or Incarceration? National and State Findings on the Efficacy and Cost Savings of Drug Treatment Versus Imprisonment (Washington: Justice Policy Institute, 2004); National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, Crossing the Bridge: An Evaluation of the Drug Treatment Alternative-to-Prison (DTAP) Program (New York: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, 2003). 10. Figures from Ottawa County on graduations and employment are as of February 2013. 11. Caroline Wolf Harlow, Education and Correctional Populations (Washington: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2003).

Notes continued 12. Lois M. Davis, Robert Bozick, Jennifer L. Steele, Jessica Saunders, and Jeremy N. V. Miles, Evaluating the Effectiveness of Correctional Education: A Meta-Analysis of Programs that Provide Education to Incarcerated Adults (Washington: RAND Corporation, 2013). 13. Michelle Alberti Gambone, Adena M. Klem, and James P. Connell, Finding Out What Matters for Youth: Testing Key Links in a Community Action Framework for Youth Development (Philadelphia: Youth Development Strategies, Inc., and Institute for Research and Reform in Education, 2002). 14. Christopher J. Mumola and Jennifer C. Karberg, Drug Use and Dependence, State and Federal Prisoners, 2004 (Washington: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2006); Jennifer C. Karberg and Doris J. James, Substance Dependence, Abuse, and Treatment of Jail Inmates, 2002 (Washington: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2005). 15. Henry J. Steadman, Fred C. Osher, Pamela Clark Robbins, Brian Case, and Steven Samuels, “Prevalence of Serious Mental Illness Among Jail Inmates,” Psychiatric Services 60, no. 6 (2009): 761–65. 16. John F. Edens, Roger H. Peters, and Holly A. Hills, “Treating Prison Inmates with Co-occurring Disorders: An Integrative Review of Existing Programs,” Behavioral Sciences & the Law 15, no. 4 (1997): 439–457. 17. Figures from Ohio Department of Youth Services are as of October 31, 2012. 18. Kathleen A. Fox, Vincent J. Webb, Alejandro Ferrer, Charles M. Katz, and Eric Hedberg, Gang Intervention Treatment Re-Entry Development for Youth (GITREDY): A Report on the First Year of Implementation (Huntsville, TX: Sam Houston State University, 2012).

19. Figures from Ohio Department of Youth Services are as of October 31, 2012. 20. E. Ann Carson and Daniela Golinelli, Prisoners in 2012—Advance Counts (Washington: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2013). 21. Figures from the Girl Scouts of Eastern Oklahoma are as of September 2013. 22. Ibid. In Oklahoma recidivism is defined as a return to Oklahoma Department of Corrections custody. 23. Ibid. 24. Lauren E. Glaze and Laura M. Maruschak, Parents in Prison and Their Minor Children (Washington: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2008). 25. Ashton D. Trice and JoAnne Brewster, “The Effects of Maternal Incarceration on Adolescent Children,” Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology 19, no. 1 (2004): 27–35. 26. Susan D. Phillips and James P. Gleeson, “What We Know Now that We Didn’t Know Then about the Criminal Justice System’s Involvement in Families with whom Child Welfare Agencies Have Contact,” Children, Families, and the Criminal Justice System (Chicago: University of Illinois at Chicago, 2007); Joseph Murray and David P. Farrington, “The Effects of Parental Imprisonment on Children,” Crime and Justice: A Review of Research 37, no. 1 (2008): 133–206. 27. Creasie Finney Hairston, “Family Ties During Imprisonment: Do They Influence Future Criminal Activity?” Federal Probation 52, no. 1 (1988): 48–52. 28. Christopher Hartney and Linh Vuong, Created Equal: Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the US Criminal Justice System (Oakland: National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 2009).

The Council of State Governments Justice Center is a national nonprofit organization that serves policymakers at the local, state, and federal levels from all branches of government. It provides practical, nonpartisan advice and evidence-based, consensus-driven strategies to increase public safety and strengthen communities. To learn more about the Council of State Governments Justice Center, please visit csgjusticecenter.org. Established by the Second Chance Act, the National Reentry Resource Center (NRRC) provides education, training, and technical assistance to states, tribes, territories, local governments, community-based service providers, non-profit organizations, and corrections institutions involved with prisoner reentry. The NRRC’s mission is to advance the reentry field by disseminating information to and from policymakers, practitioners, and researchers and by promoting evidence-based principles and best practices. The NRRC is administered by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance and is a project of the Council of State Governments Justice Center, in cooperation with the Urban Institute, the Association of State Correctional Administrators, the American Probation and Parole Association, and other key partner organizations. To learn more about the NRRC, please visit csgjusticecenter.org/nrrc. This project was supported by Grant No. 2010-MU-BX-K084 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. 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, the Office for Victims of Crime, the Community Capacity Development Office, and the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. To learn more about the Bureau of Justice Assistance, please visit bja.gov.

Suggested citation: Council of State Governments Justice Center, Reentry Matters: Strategies and Successes of Second Chance Act Grantees Across the United States (New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2013).

Attachment B Letter to The Congressional Committee on The Judiciary

Page 59 of 64

September 18, 2013

The Honorable Jim Sensenbrenner Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Committee on the Judiciary U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 The Honorable Louie Gohmert Vice Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Committee on the Judiciary U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 The Honorable Robert C. "Bobby" Scott Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Committee on the Judiciary U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 RE:

Hearing on Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Prisons

Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner, Vice Chairman Gohmert, and Ranking Member Scott: We are writing to express our support for actions that can be taken by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to reduce unnecessarily lengthy incarceration and costs in the federal prison system. Several of our organizations are dedicated to promoting a fair and just criminal justice system and have been engaged in research and advocacy at the federal and state levels for several decades. We welcome this opportunity to draw on our extensive experiences to share lessons on how to achieve effective reform. Given limited resources, we urge the BOP to prioritize evidence-based policies and programs that would reduce the population and cost of the federal corrections system without compromising public safety. Introduction A report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) found that the number of people confined under the BOP’s jurisdiction grew from about 25,000 in 1980 to nearly 219,000 in 2012 – an increase, on average, of about 6,100 individuals each year.1 Despite disproportionate investment

Congressional Research Service, “The Federal Prison Population Buildup: Overview, Policy Changes, Issues, and Options,” by Nathan James (R42937; Jan. 22, 2013).

in prison capacity in recent decades, our federal system remains severely overcrowded. Funding for BOP now makes up a quarter of the Department of Justice (DOJ) budget. As Attorney General Eric Holder said recently to a gathering of the American Bar Association, “Widespread incarceration at the federal, state, and local levels is both ineffective and unsustainable. It imposes a significant economic burden – totaling $80 billion in 2010 alone – and it comes with human and moral costs that are impossible to calculate.” We now have a generation of evidence-based reforms throughout the country that have reduced prison populations and costs at the state level without adverse impacts on public safety. BOP can replicate this success using its existing authority by adopting the practices described below. Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program The BOP can and should expand the use of its Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program (RDAP). Congress mandated that the BOP make available substance abuse treatment for each person in BOP custody with a “treatable condition of substance addiction or abuse” and created an incentive for people convicted of nonviolent offenses to complete the program by authorizing a reduction of incarceration of up to one year. However, the full cost-saving benefits of RDAP are not currently being realized. For example, according to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report that assessed the program, from 2009 to 2011 only 19% of those who qualified for a 12-month sentence reduction after completing the program received the maximum sentence reduction. On average, eligible RDAP graduates received only an eight-month reduction.2 BOP also has an opportunity to significantly expand the eligible pool benefiting from a sentence reduction and further increase savings and reduce overcrowding. For example, BOP should revise its definition of “violent offender” to exclude people whose offense involved mere possession of a firearm, rather than actual violence. Moreover, because BOP policy requires completion of RDAP in a community corrections facility, those with detainers are barred from residential placement and cannot benefit from RDAP’s sentence reduction. Many of those disqualified are low-level undocumented immigrants. According to BOP estimates, changing BOP policy to allow completion of RDAP by this population alone would save $25 million each year because of reduced time in prison.3 We are encouraged that the BOP is considering this policy change and urge you to support participation by undocumented immigrants. Compassionate Release Unless one of several rare exceptions applies, a court may not revisit a sentence once a conviction is finalized.4 One of those exceptions is when the BOP Director asks the court to 2

Government Accountability Office, Eligibility and Capacity Impact Use of Flexibilities to Reduce Inmates’ Time in Prison 13-14 (2012), available at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-320 (hereinafter “GAO Report”). 3 GAO Report at 35. 4 See 18 U.S.C. § 3582.

reduce a sentence because “extraordinary and compelling” reasons warrant such a reduction.5 For many years, the Bureau limited “extraordinary and compelling circumstances” to those cases where the prisoner had a terminal illness with a life expectancy of one year or less or had a profoundly debilitating medical condition.6 However, the U. S. Sentencing Commission promulgated a guideline in 2007 that delineated additional circumstances a court could take into account, including “the death or incapacitation of the inmate’s only family member capable of caring for the inmate’s minor child or children or any other reason determined by the Director.”7 This summer, BOP set forth additional guidelines, expanding eligibility to the parents of minor children contemplated by the Commission and extending eligibility to certain other prisoners, including revised criteria for elderly inmates who did not commit violent crimes and who have served significant portions of their sentences.8 We are heartened by the expanded grounds announced by the BOP, but concerned that, until now, the sentence reduction authority has been rarely invoked. We urge the Bureau to take full advantage of the new guidelines to identify and bring to the court’s attention all worthy cases that meet the outlined criteria. Community Confinement The BOP is obligated by law to ensure people in federal prison have an opportunity to spend a portion of time at the end of their sentences “(not to exceed 12 months) under conditions that will afford [them] a reasonable opportunity” to prepare to return to society.9 The statute provides that the BOP may transfer eligible people to contract residential re-entry centers (RRCs), also called halfway houses, and, up to the lesser of 6 months or ten percent of the term of imprisonment, in home confinement for up to the one-year total that Congress provides in the Second Chance Act.10 The Second Chance Act sponsors understood the role that halfway houses play in the management of the federal prison population and explicitly rejected the Bureau’s alteration of policies in 2002 and 2005 limiting halfway house use, and expanded the law’s guarantee of consideration for pre-release programming from six to 12 months. The Second Chance Act specifically amended the law governing RRC transfers to instruct the BOP to ensure that placement in community corrections be “of sufficient duration to provide the greatest likelihood of successful reintegration into the community.”11 Stays in RRCs alone in 2010 averaged only 95 days and people released to RRCs and home detention averaged only 4.5 months.12 Although the 5

See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). GAO Report at 25. 7 See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, app. note A. 8 BOP Program Statement No. 5050.49 9 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(1). 10 Second Chance Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-199, § 251 (2008). 11 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(6). 12 GAO Report at 17, Tbl. 2. 6

BOP has begun to give staff more discretion about how much time people must serve in halfway houses, who should be placed in a halfway house, and who may be placed directly on home confinement, much more needs to be done to ensure that people benefit from the full 12-month reentry period. While the BOP cites high costs and lack of space, the 2012 GAO report notes that the BOP failed to clarify the cost of RRC beds and home detention services and that it provided â&#x20AC;&#x153;no road mapâ&#x20AC;? as to how to secure this information. The limited use of RRCs and home detention is an area where the BOP can improve the implementation of Second Chance Act directives. We urge you to ascertain up-to-date costs and savings possible under the program; to ask the BOP why its use of halfway houses and home detention has been so sparing; and determine what the BOP might need to implement the directives in the Second Chance Act. Conclusion Federal prison populations and costs cannot truly be addressed without Congressional action to reduce the number of people entering federal prison each year. For example, the U.S. Sentencing Commission concluded that certain mandatory minimum penalties, which apply too broadly, are excessively severe, and are applied inconsistently, have led to an explosion in the federal prison population and spending on federal prisons.13 Nevertheless, the Administrative changes described above would both save money and promote successful reentry, increasing public safety. We urge you to use your influence to promote these policies. Sincerely, Drug Policy Alliance Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM) The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights National African American Drug Policy Coalition, Inc. Open Society Policy Center The Sentencing Project United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society

cc: Members of the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations

U.S. Sentencing Commission, Report to the Congress: Mandatory Minimum Penalties in the Federal Criminal Justice System 367-69 (2011), available at http://www.ussc.gov/Legislative_and_Public_Affairs/Congressional_Testimony_and_Reports/Mandatory_Minimu m_Penalties/20111031_RtC_Mandatory_Minimum.cfm.

Attachment C Frequently Asked Questions About The Second Chance Act

Page 60 of 64

The Second Chance Act Frequently Asked Questions What does the Second Chance Act do? The Second Chance Act primarily authorizes federal funding for state and federal reentry programs. It also directs –but does not require – the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to consider giving federal prisoners longer stays in halfway houses, and authorizes funds for a very limited, test program for elderly prisoners (see below for details). The “second chance” the bill refers to applies almost exclusively to people leaving prison – it does not give shorter sentences to people already in prison. Does the Second Chance Act help people only when they get out of prison? With few exceptions, yes. The bill is designed to provide programs that help people leaving prison reenter their communities, so that they do not reoffend. Only three parts of the bill may be able to affect how long a person stays in prison. These three parts only affect people in federal prison. 1. The first lengthens the outer limits of the time an individual is guaranteed consideration for prerelease community corrections (halfway house) from six months to 12 months. However, there is no new requirement that the BOP give every person the full 12 months in a halfway house at the end of their sentence. 2. The second creates a limited pilot program called the Elderly and Family Reunification for Certain Nonviolent Offenders provision. This provision will likely only take place in one facility and is unlikely to provide relief for many individuals (see below for requirements). 3.

Finally, the bill increases slightly the percentage of a federal sentence that can be served in home confinement. There is no requirement that the BOP give prisoners any time in home confinement.

What federal funding is authorized under the Second Chance Act? How is it distributed? The Second Chance Act authorizes federal funding for state and federal reentry programs. In Congress, no money can be spent (appropriated) unless it is first authorized. Once authorized, the appropriations committee appropriates or distributes funds to a program. Sometimes it distributes the full amount authorized. Sometimes the amount available is less than the amount authorized. We do not know yet whether Congress will appropriate some, all or none of the money the Second Chance Act authorizes. The Second Chance Act authorizes funding for: 1. Existing demonstration and long-term adult and juvenile offender state and local reentry programs (does not apply to federal prisons), including: • Existing adult and juvenile offender state and local reentry demonstration projects (includes educational, literacy, vocational and job placement services; a full continuum of substance abuse treatment services; and provision of comprehensive services upon reentry including mental and physical health care).

•

New grants to states, tribal and local reentry courts for demonstration programs that would monitor juvenile and adult offenders reentering the community and provide them with coordinated and comprehensive reentry services and programs, including: coordinated and comprehensive reentry services and programs including drug and alcohol testing and health services and assessment; community impact panels and victim impact classes; and community services to juvenile and adult offenders, including housing assistance, education, job training and conflict intervention skills. • Development, implementation or expansion of state, tribal or local demonstration drug treatment programs that are alternatives to imprisonment. • Development, implementation or expansion of comprehensive and clinically appropriate familybased demonstration substance abuse treatment programs as alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent parent drug offenders or prison-based family treatment programs for incarcerated parents of minor children. • Improvements in education at state, tribal, and local prisons, jails and juvenile facilities. • Technology career training demonstration programs. 2. Enhanced drug treatment and mentoring programs, including • Continued and improved drug treatment programs at state, tribal and local prisons, jails or juvenile facilities. (Does not apply to federal prisons.) • Nonprofit and tribal initiatives to provide mentoring and other transitional services. (Does not apply to federal prisons.) • Nonprofit initiatives to provide mentoring, job training, and job placement services to eligible offenders (over the age of 18 and never convicted of a violent or a sex-related offense). (Applies to both federal and state prisons.) 3. Improved federal offender reentry (applies to federal prisons only), including: • Demonstration programs that establish a federal prisoner reentry strategy. • Assistance to prisoners with obtaining identification prior to release. • A pilot program called “Elderly and Family Reunification for Certain Nonviolent Offenders.” This program will probably take place at a single facility designated by the Attorney General and will allow eligible elderly offenders who have served ten years or more of a long sentence to serve out the remainder of their terms in home detention. (Please see FAQ on this program below for more information on who is eligible.) • A demonstration program to supervise high risk individuals in community corrections facilities and home confinement. 4. Reentry research • Funding for research on juvenile and adult offender reentry, post-incarceration supervision violations and revocations, the needs of incarcerated parents, and the effectiveness of depot naltrexone for heroin addiction. 5. Community corrections (applies to federal prisons only) • The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) shall ensure that a prisoner serving a term of imprisonments spends a portion of the final months of that term (not to exceed 12 months) in a community correctional facility or appropriate conditions that will afford the prisoner a reasonable opportunity to adjust and prepare for the reentry of that prisoner to the community. The BOP may place a prisoner in home confinement for the shorter of 10 percent of the term of imprisonment or six months.

What is a demonstration program, demonstration project or pilot program? These are all different ways of describing an experimental program that takes place in a limited number of prisons and that is designed to show the government whether the program will work. How does the bill encourage increased use of halfway house placement prior to release from federal prison? The bill clarifies the statute governing federal halfway house placement prior to release, and ensures consideration of longer placements – but it does not require the BOP put people in halfway houses earlier or for longer periods of time. The bill: • Requires the BOP to ensure that, to the extent practicable, a prisoner is considered for halfway house placement or other conditions assisting in release preparation for up to 12 months, not just up to six months as set forth in current law. This provision does not require the BOP to grant each prisoner 12 months in a halfway house; • Makes a strong statement about how the BOP should approach pre-release halfway house decisions. It directs the BOP to issue regulations that ensure that placement in a halfway house is, among other things, determined on an individual basis and of “sufficient duration to provide the greatest likelihood of successful reintegration into the community.” • Eliminates 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)’s reference to placing a prisoner in a halfway house for only 10 percent of the prisoner’s sentence, a provision the BOP has relied on to limit halfway house time to only the final 10 percent of the person’s good-time adjusted sentence or six months, whichever was shorter. The BOP had relied on a mistaken reading of the 10 percent provision to issue regulations limiting its own ability to consider a prisoner for pre-release halfway house to the final 10 percent or six months of the prisoner’s good-time adjusted sentence; • Clarifies that BOP’s broad discretion to determine the place of confinement, including to a halfway house (but not home confinement) is not limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c). That is, any limits expressed in the halfway house provision, 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c), do not restrain the BOP’s discretion to determine the place of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). When can someone be placed on home confinement? The bill gives the BOP discretion to place a prisoner in home confinement for six months or 10 percent of the whole term of imprisonment, whichever is less. This section of the bill does not require the BOP will award six months, 10 percent or any time in prison.

Who benefits from the change in halfway house time? When will this go into effect? While the Second Change Act goes into effect immediately upon receiving the President’s signature, the BOP has 90 days after that to issue regulations implementing the new halfway house provisions. The regulations must ensure that halfway house placement is determined on an individualized basis and is sufficiently long to provide the greatest chance for successful reentry. Again, it does not guarantee or give anyone the right to the full 12 months in a halfway house, only the right to be considered for up to 12 months in a halfway house. Will the bill let elderly prisoners out early? The bill includes a pilot program for federal prisoners called the Elderly and Family Reunification for Certain Nonviolent Offenders. It is a demonstration program that may be limited to only one BOP

facility. (The law allows the BOP to set up more than one demonstration program, but this is not likely.) At that facility, the BOP will select individuals who meet the following criteria: (i) not less than 65 years of age; (ii) serving a term of imprisonment that is not life imprisonment -• based on conviction for an offense or offenses that do not include any crime of violence (as defined in section 16 of title 18, United States Code), sex offense (as defined in section 111(5) of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act), offense described in section 2332b(g)(5)(B) of title 18, United States Code, or offense under chapter 37 of title 18, United States Code, • and has served the greater of 10 years or 75 percent of the term of imprisonment to which the offender was sentenced (75 percent becomes more than 10 years when the sentence is for longer than 160 months); (iii) has not been convicted in the past of any federal or state crime of violence, sex offense, or other offense described in clause (ii); (iv) has not been determined by the Bureau of Prisons and in the sole discretion of the BOP, to have a history of violence, or of engaging in conduct constituting a sex offense or other offense described in clause (ii), even without a record of convictions; (v) has not escaped, or attempted to escape, from a BOP institution; (vi) with respect to whom the BOP has determined that release to home detention under this section will result in a substantial net reduction of costs to the federal government; and (vii) has been determined by the BOP to be at no substantial risk of engaging in criminal conduct or of endangering any person or the public if released to home detention. The BOP is required to carry out this program in FY 2009 (that is, beginning in October 2009) and FY 2010. Does the bill mean that people in state prisons will get to do drug treatment sooner? Unfortunately, we do not know the answer to this question yet. Many prisons are likely to have increased funding for drug treatment programs. However, we do not know which prisons will be able to expand the number of drug treatment programs available to incarcerated individuals. In addition, increased numbers of programs are not likely to be immediate. Prisons will need to find qualified instructors for the new classes, and this process will take some time. Does the bill mean there will be more RDAP programs in federal prisons? No. The bill does not authorize new funding for more RDAP programs. Does the bill provide drug treatment as an alternative to incarceration? Not in the federal system. The Second Chance Act authorizes funding to states, tribal, or local prosecutors to expand, develop or implement qualified drug treatment programs that are alternatives to imprisonment. This does not apply to individuals convicted in a federal court. State, tribal or local prosecutors must apply for funding from the U.S. government and local entities if they would like to expand, develop or implement drug treatment programs that act as an alternative to incarceration. No state, tribal or local entity is required to enact such a program.

Does FAMM know where each demonstration program will be implemented, including alternatives to incarceration, drug treatment programs or the Elderly and Family Reunification program? No, FAMM does not know and is unable to track what prisons will carry out which demonstration programs. We urge you to let us know as new programs are introduced in prisons. Does the bill reinstate federal parole or increase the rate of good conduct time? No, the bill does not reinstate federal parole, nor does it increase the rate at which good conduct time is awarded. Similarly, the bill does not clarify or correct the BOPâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s present method of computing good conduct time. Is the Second Chance Act a law? Not yet. It has been passed by both the Senate and the House, but the President still has to sign it into law. The President has to sign the bill, to allow the bill to pass without comment or veto the bill within 10 days after receiving the bill. The President has not yet received the bill as of March 20, 2008.

5Â Â

Page 61 of 64

Notes ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ Page 62 of 64

Page 64 of 64