Finding Home-Removing Barriers to Housing for Formerly Incarcerated Individuals, Sept. 2023

• Locations: United States of America • Topics: housing, Employment Record

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail

Document text

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

-~~~ WILSON

-'=,,,

"="""

CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND JUSTICE
AT DUKE LAW

September

2023

Finding Home

Removing Barriers to Housing for
Formerly Incarcerated Individuals
Megan Moore and Angie Weis Gammell

Table of Contents
Table of Contents�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������2
Executive Summary��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������3
Summary of Recommendations������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������4
1. Repeal Exclusionary Zoning Laws �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������4
2. Reduce Barriers to Public Housing�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������4
3. Enact Policies to Minimize Barriers in Obtaining Private Housing���������������������������������������������������������5
4. Implement Housing Interventions to Meet Individual Needs�����������������������������������������������������������������5
5. Collaborate Across Agencies��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������5
6. Pursue Creative Funding Opportunities ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������5

Lack of Affordable Housing Disproportionately Affects Formerly Incarcerated
Individuals�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������6
Local Housing Policies May Limit Access to Publicly Supported Housing���������������������8
Criminal Background Screening Severely Limits Private Housing for Formerly
Incarcerated Individuals����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������10
Many Housing Programs Do Not Follow Evidence-Based Housing First Models������������ 13
Permanent Supportive Housing ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 14
Rapid Rehousing����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 15
Homelessness Diversion and Stabilization Programs ���������������������������������������������������������������������������� 15
Holistic Reentry Programming������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 16

Fragmented Government Responses Hamper Effectiveness of Programs��������������������� 18
Jurisdictions Have Limited Funding for Housing Programs������������������������������������������� 20
References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������23
About Us������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������28

2023 FINDING HOME: Removing Barriers to Housing for Formerly Incarcerated Individuals

Executive
Summary

OVER

0.5 M

people in the United States live in a state of
homelessness

the rate of homelessness among formerly
incarcerated individuals is

With over half a million people in the United States

10x HIGHER

living in a state of homelessness, media coverage and
community awareness of the issue is on the rise.1 Yet,
many jurisdictions are still struggling to develop and

than that of the general population

implement plans that significantly improve housing
access and stability for their residents. A key reality
cities must grapple with is that securing stable housing
for formerly incarcerated individuals is particularly
challenging, which helps to explain why the rate of
homelessness among formerly incarcerated individuals
is ten times higher than that of the general population.

This also means that addressing the housing needs of
this population is crucial for improving housing access

approximately

235,000

additional units of supportive housing are
necessary across the country to support the
housing needs of justice-involved individuals
alone

and stability overall. Recent estimates suggest that
approximately 235,000 additional units of supportive
housing are necessary across the country to support the
housing needs of justice-involved individuals alone.3
There is a cyclical relationship between housing
instability and the criminal legal system, whereby a

OVER

1/3

of individuals entering prison in
North Carolina had been homeless at
some point

person’s experience with either housing instability or
interactions with the criminal legal system can increase
the risk and impact of that person experiencing the other.
For instance, a North Carolina Department of Correction
(now, the Department of Adult Corrections) survey
found that over a third of individuals entering prison

rates of homelessness are approximately

50% HIGHER

for justice-impacted Black people than for
justice-impacted white people

had been homeless at some point, and the primary
reasons for homelessness included consequences of
criminal legal involvement, such as unemployment,

2023 FINDING HOME: Removing Barriers to Housing for Formerly Incarcerated Individuals

substance abuse, and a prior conviction.4 Significantly,
these consequences disproportionately impact people
of color and perpetuate existing racial inequities.
Because each challenge compounds, so too do racial
inequities. For example, the rates of homelessness
are higher for justice-impacted people of color than
for justice-impacted white people.5 The likelihood of
a justice-involved person of color receiving a callback
from a potential employer is lower than for a white
person with the same criminal background.7 In fact,
because of the way these challenges compound
existing inequities, the gap between unemployment
rates of those who have experienced incarceration and
those who have not is higher for people of color than
for white people.7 In this way, reentry, itself, becomes
racialized. Furthermore, studies have shown that people
of color are often released to neighborhoods that have
the fewest supports, the greatest need, and are the
least conducive to successful reentry, exacerbating the
challenges that people of color face.8
Given this relationship between criminal legal system
involvement and homelessness, if a jurisdiction wants
to improve its housing stability, it is imperative to
address the additional challenges impacted people
face when trying to secure housing.

2023 FINDING HOME: Removing Barriers to Housing for Formerly Incarcerated Individuals

Summary of
Recommendations
1.

Repeal Exclusionary Zoning Laws

Zoning laws can reduce the stock of affordable housing both
directly (e.g., mandating minimum lot size or requiring single
family housing development) and indirectly (e.g., increasing
land value or development costs). Municipalities should
evaluate the impact of their zoning laws to reduce policies
which have the effect of reducing housing for lower- and
middle-income individuals.

Reduce Barriers to Public Housing

Although the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (“HUD”) does not specifically prohibit allowing
individuals with criminal records into federally supported
housing programs, many local housing authorities have more
restrictive policies than required by HUD — preventing these
individuals from accessing public housing or obtaining housing
vouchers. Additionally, potentially eligible individuals may not
apply due to a lack of clarity regarding local policies.
Local policymakers should clarify or amend local housing
authority policies to ensure that formerly incarcerated
individuals eligible under HUD standards have access to
public housing. Specifically, local housing authorities should
amend their administrative plan, a document required by
HUD, to remove unnecessary criminal record-related barriers.
Additionally, policies should be revised to minimize housing
authority discretion to help ensure these requirements are
consistently applied.

2023 FINDING HOME: Removing Barriers to Housing for Formerly Incarcerated Individuals

Enact Policies to Minimize
Barriers in Obtaining Private
Housing

Policymakers should consider implementing ordinances,
laws, or regulations that allow individuals with criminal
records to obtain housing more easily. Jurisdictions
should consider enacting Fair Chance Housing
ordinances to prohibit landlords from screening tenants
based solely on criminal background. These ordinances

Additionally, policymakers should consider restructuring
existing reentry programs to provide holistic wraparound
services, including housing assistance, to individuals
immediately after their return to the community. When
implementing these programs, policymakers should
evaluate their racial equity implications to ensure groups
disproportionately impacted by the criminal justice
system are included.

could include notice requirements to potential tenants,

provisions limiting the type of convictions considered by

To leverage limited resources efficiently, housing

landlords, and provisions limiting the lookback period for

programs should aspire to high levels of cross-agency

any background checks.

and cross-organization collaboration. Existing resources,

Collaborate Across Agencies

such as direct service organizations and nonprofits,

Implement Housing
Interventions to Meet Individual
Needs
Everyone requires different levels of support and
engagement from service providers to successfully return

should be engaged early by policymakers to minimize
duplicative efforts. Policymakers should consider
collaborating across jurisdictional lines (e.g., city and
county) to maximize the effectiveness of the programs.

reason, policymakers should consider implementing a

Pursue Creative Funding
Opportunities

variety of housing programs, from Permanent Supportive

Holistic housing support programs require significant

Housing (“PSH”) for those individuals with the greatest

financial investments from communities, presenting

need, to diversion programs for those individuals

serious obstacles to implementation of these programs.

who may need only brief financial support or conflict

For that reason, policymakers should consider creative

mediation to obtain stable housing. These programs

funding solutions, such as social impact bonds, Pay-for-

should follow a Housing First model, allowing individuals

Success programs, and public-private partnerships.

to communities and maintain housing stability. For that

to gain access to stable housing without requiring that
they meet certain preconditions.

2023 FINDING HOME: Removing Barriers to Housing for Formerly Incarcerated Individuals

Lack of Affordable Housing
Disproportionately Affects
Formerly Incarcerated
Individuals
Poverty serves as one of the greatest challenges to

Moreover, poverty strongly correlates with race, with

individuals looking to reintegrate into a community, yet

21% of Black Americans living below the federal poverty

the lack of employment opportunities can keep formerly

level.11 Black workers also earn less than white workers

incarcerated individuals trapped in poverty. One study of

at every income and education level.12

formerly incarcerated women who had been convicted of
felonies found that poverty status increased the odds of
rearrest by 4.6 times.9 Additionally, the unemployment
rate for formerly incarcerated individuals is 27% — about
five times higher than the national average10; barriers
that lead to this high unemployment rate include
purposeful exclusion in the form of background checks,
stigma, and lack of education and life skills training.

Even for individuals who secure a job, having a criminal
record tends to severely affect their income-growth
trajectory given their placement into low-paying and
unstable work.13 In other words, the jobs of justiceinvolved individuals tend to have minimal pay, provide
few opportunities for growth, and are the most prone to
layoffs with any change in the economy.14 As a result,
the formerly incarcerated tend to earn significantly less,

2023 FINDING HOME: Removing Barriers to Housing for Formerly Incarcerated Individuals

both immediately and over the course of their lives.15 At

lower income residents by limiting lower- and middle-

the same time, housing costs have risen drastically over

income housing.17 These laws vary greatly, but include: i)

the past decade, making housing inaccessible to many

large-lot requirements, creating a minimum size for lots

low-income workers and compounding barriers faced by

and favoring larger, more expensive single-family homes
at lower densities; ii) community conservation districts,

formerly incarcerated individuals.

State and local governments can pursue evidence-based
programs to increase the supply of affordable housing,
including by modifying exclusionary zoning practices and
implementing land value taxes. Many localities, however,
have exclusionary zoning laws that work to price out

which require additional permitting and increase the
cost of development; iii) transit-oriented development
policies incentivizing development with access to public
transit, which may increase property values due to
increased desirability.18

Recommendation
At the state and local level, review and amend exclusionary zoning laws that disincentivize development
of lower- and middle-income housing.
Local governments should evaluate zoning laws to determine the extent to which these laws discourage
development of affordable housing. For instance, zoning policies requiring large lots or single-family housing
should be reconsidered. Localities should also evaluate the extent to which less directly exclusionary policies,
like the creation of community conservation districts, increase housing costs, limiting opportunities for lower
income individuals.

2023 FINDING HOME: Removing Barriers to Housing for Formerly Incarcerated Individuals

Local Housing Policies
May Limit Access to Publicly
Supported Housing
Given how justice involvement can affect an individual’s

discretion in determining the types of behaviors and

future employment and wages19, many formerly

convictions that can be used to begin an eviction process.

incarcerated people would benefit from public
housing assistance, but are barred from accessing
such assistance. For example, the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires
that local Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) conduct
criminal background checks and prevents individuals
with two types of convictions from living in Public
Housing or utilizing a Housing Choice Voucher: those
convicted of manufacturing methamphetamines on

Additionally, formerly incarcerated individuals report
challenges in accessing government-supported housing
programs, including rental subsidies and vouchers, due to
unclear eligibility requirements and the discretion held by
housing authority officials.22 Research has demonstrated
that these difficulties extend beyond the immediate
reentry period, potentially impacting formerly incarcerated
individuals for years after their release.23

a federally assisted housing property, or those with a
lifetime requirement to be on a sex offender registry.20
Additionally, some states, such as North Carolina, do not
have multiple tiers or durations of registry requirements,
meaning all sex offenders in states like North Carolina
have lifetime registry status and would be precluded from
ever accessing public housing resources.
Outside of these provisions, HUD requires PHAs to
determine their own policies documented in their
administrative plan for admission and continued
occupancy, which leaves PHAs with significant discretion
in evaluating criminal legal histories outside of the two
convictions barred by HUD.21 HUD has no “lookback
period” requirements limiting the number of years back
an individual’s criminal record can be searched, but
many PHAs do specify lookback periods. PHAs also have
9

2023 FINDING HOME: Removing Barriers to Housing for Formerly Incarcerated Individuals

Recommendation
Reduce barriers to public housing by revising local housing authority policies to facilitate access to
resources by formerly incarcerated individuals.
• For instance, local housing authorities should reevaluate their policies (including anything documented
in their administrative plan) regarding criminal background checks to reduce lookback periods and limit
disqualifying convictions to only those mandated by HUD. The policies should be clear and easily accessible
to the public.
• Local housing authorities should also work with communities to increase understanding of their eligibility
requirements, especially as they apply to formerly incarcerated individuals, in order to reduce confusion
surrounding the policies. To the extent possible, bureaucratic requirements should be minimized to reduce
difficulties in navigating the process.

2023 FINDING HOME: Removing Barriers to Housing for Formerly Incarcerated Individuals

Criminal Background
Screening Severely Limits
Private Housing for Formerly
Incarcerated Individuals
Many landlords require background checks and deny

related to criminal background checks for subsidized

housing to individuals with a criminal legal history. The

housing providers.29

Fair Housing Act (FHA) prohibits a landlord from denying
tenancy based on race, religion, sex, national origin,

Nonetheless, this guidance does not seem to be widely
utilized by landlords. Some landlords continue to refuse

disability and family status.24 Because of practices

to rent to people with any criminal legal history, no matter

denying those with criminal legal histories and the

how minor or old, often stating their business may be

disproportionate number of people of color in the
criminal justice system, individuals in several of these
protected classes still experience disproportionate
housing discrimination.25 To address these disparities,
the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) released updated guidance on the Fair Housing
Act in 2016, advising that landlords should not hold

negatively impacted if tenants living in nearby properties
do not want to live near someone with a criminal legal
history.30 Additionally, some jurisdictions have enacted
“crime-free” rental housing ordinances, requiring
landlords to conduct background screenings and evict
tenants if criminal conduct occurs on the property.31
These ordinances typically impose penalties on landlords

a blanket policy prohibiting those with criminal legal
backgrounds from living in their properties and should
instead consider criminal legal history on a case-by-

for violations, which may encourage landlords to screen
out potential tenants with criminal backgrounds.

case basis.26 HUD further clarified this guidance in

Communities across the country have enacted Fair

2022, stating that criminal legal history is not a good

Chance Housing ordinances prohibiting landlords

predictor for housing success and landlords should use

from screening tenants based on criminal legal

other screenings to determine whether someone would

history alone, prior to evaluating other aspects of their

be a good tenant.

The HUD guidance also states that

landlords should not deny tenancy based on criminal
28

application — such as their ability to pay rent — and
require conditional housing offers be made prior to

legal history unless for a legitimate business reason.

conducting background checks.32 Fair Chance Housing

In April 2023, HUD announced its intention to issue a

ordinances typically include exceptions for owner-

notice of proposed rulemaking to change its regulations

occupied dwellings like duplexes and accessory dwelling

2023 FINDING HOME: Removing Barriers to Housing for Formerly Incarcerated Individuals

units (ADUs), or for landlords who own four or fewer rental
units.33 Additional exceptions include offenses that result in
lifetime bans from HUD assisted properties (manufacture of

CASE STUDY

methamphetamines on federally assisted properties, and
a lifetime requirement to be on the sex offender registry).34
However, formerly incarcerated individuals have reported that
these Fair Chance Housing ordinances may actually further
complicate their search for housing because they get further
in the process, spending additional time and money, before
ultimately being rejected.

Seattle, Washington
In 2017, Seattle enacted an ordinance
prohibiting the exclusion of individuals
with criminal records from rental housing,
except for registered sex offenders.38
Specifically, the statute says no landlord

To address some of these concerns, Fair Chance Housing

may “advertise, publicize, or implement

ordinances should require that if a landlord denies a tenant

any policy or practice” excluding

housing, they must notify the applicant of the information

individuals with criminal records.39 The

that negatively impacted their housing offer and allow the

ordinance also included a first-in-time

tenant to provide evidence to refute the decision. This

provision requiring landlords to rent

evidence may include proof of rehabilitation or statements

to the first qualified applicant. Critics

of good conduct.35 Many Fair Chance Housing ordinances

suggest that the ordinance could be

also limit the types of convictions that can be used as a

improved by broadening exemptions for

basis to deny housing, as well as the length of lookback

smaller landlords living on the property,

periods based on the severity of the crime.

To create buy-

increasing enforcement of fair housing

in, localities should also engage directly with landlords of

laws, and providing other housing

all sizes to collect feedback and provide education on the

supports for formerly incarcerated

reasoning behind the ordinance. For instance, landlords may

individuals (e.g., permanent supportive

be more likely to support an ordinance if they understand

housing or subsidies).40

the evidence showing that criminal background is not a good
indicator of successful tenancy.37

2023 FINDING HOME: Removing Barriers to Housing for Formerly Incarcerated Individuals

Recommendation
Implement Fair Chance Housing ordinances to facilitate access to
private housing for formerly incarcerated individuals.
• Fair Chance Housing ordinances would prohibit private landlords
from screening potential tenants solely based on criminal
background. These ordinances could exclude smaller landlords
or landlords living on the premises. Specific provisions could
include:
- Notice and justification requirements if tenants are rejected
after the conditional lease approval.
- Procedures allowing tenants to appeal or challenge
rejections after the conditional approval.
- First-in-time provisions, requiring that landlords rent to
qualified applicants on a first-come, first-served basis.
- Limitations to the lookback period for background checks
conducted by landlords.
- Limitations to the specific convictions that landlords could
use as the basis for rejecting applicants, following HUD
guidelines.
• To ensure these ordinances do not further racial discrimination,
state and local agencies should consider conducting fair housing
audits and prioritizing enforcement of anti-discrimination in
housing laws.
• Local housing authorities should develop education and
guidance documents for private landlords outlining appropriate
uses of background checks to assist with Fair Chance Housing
ordinance compliance. Landlords who understand the ordinance
and how to comply may be more willing to support the ordinance.
- The educational efforts should also include the principles
laid out in the HUD guidelines to increase their impact and
visibility to private landlords.
• Because of the limited research on the effectiveness of these
ordinances, local policymakers should evaluate the effectiveness
of any enacted Fair Chance Housing ordinance.

2023 FINDING HOME: Removing Barriers to Housing for Formerly Incarcerated Individuals

Many Housing Programs
Do Not Follow EvidenceBased Housing First Models
Traditionally, housing programs have followed a

Although many of these programs do not specifically

“Treatment First” or “Housing Ready” approach, requiring

target formerly incarcerated individuals, this population

that individuals adhere to certain preconditions, such

disproportionately experiences housing instability and

as being substance-free or adherence to psychiatric

would strongly benefit from more robust housing support

treatment. Research shows, however, that housing ready

services.45

approaches lead to lower rates of stable housing among
participants.41 Additionally, disparate and inconsistent
approaches taken by different agencies and non-profits
may fragment the systemic response to housing needs,
leading to duplicative and inefficient efforts.

When developing a spectrum of housing programming,
local policymakers should follow a progressive
engagement model, where each individual’s strengths
and needs are recognized.46 The programs should be
flexible and targeted to the specific obstacles faced

Under a Housing First model, those with housing

by individual households. This targeted approach also

instability do not need to meet any preconditions

allows for more efficient resource distribution, with

before gaining access to stable housing. Numerous

the most costly interventions provided only to those

studies have shown that a Housing First approach

individuals with the greatest need.

leads to better outcomes for individuals experiencing
housing instability.42 A 2020 systemic review evaluated
results from 26 studies of housing programs in the
United States and Canada, finding that Housing First
programs decreased homelessness by 88% compared
to a Treatment First approach. These programs also
lead to significant savings in other public services
expenditures.43 Studies have shown that well-resourced
programs, with greater financial support and higher
levels of case management services, have higher rates
of long-term permanent housing for participants.44

These Housing First programs typically fall into three
categories with varying levels of support provided to
participants: permanent supportive housing (PSH),
rapid rehousing (RRH), and homelessness diversion and
stabilization. Additionally, reentry programs specifically
targeting individuals reentering communities after a
period of incarceration may also follow a Housing First
model. A successful housing solution should incorporate
elements of all these programs, leverage existing
resources, and require significant cross-agency and
organizational collaboration.47

2023 FINDING HOME: Removing Barriers to Housing for Formerly Incarcerated Individuals

Permanent Supportive Housing
Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) is affordable housing that also provides access to supportive services — such
as medication management and life skills trainings — to individuals with mental or physical disabilities who have a
history of homelessness. PSH falls under the Housing First approach to decreasing housing instability, in which those
with housing instability do not need to meet any preconditions before gaining access to stable housing, as opposed to
housing support programs requiring preconditions such as sobriety to obtain or retain housing. PSH has been extremely
successful in keeping formerly unhoused residents stably housed; for example, one study found PSH resulted in a
decrease in jail incidents by 40% and reduced crisis health care costs by more than $7,000 per person.48 Further,
treating underlying causes of homelessness can reduce law enforcement’s burden of responding to nonviolent crimes.

CASE STUDY

New York City’s Frequent User Service Enhancement Initiative
In New York City, the local Department of Correction, Department of Homelessness Services, and Corporation
for Supportive Housing collaborated on a Frequent User Service Enhancement (FUSE) initiative aimed
at individuals “with complex involvement in multiple public systems, numerous barriers to housing and
complicated histories of behavioral health, physical health and significant trauma.”49 The FUSE model uses data
to identify “high-cost, high-need individuals” whose cycling through various public systems demonstrates the
failure of those systems to meet their needs.50
With a goal of shifting resources from more costly crisis interventions to more efficient permanent
interventions, the second iteration of the program (“FUSE II”) placed roughly 200 individuals in permanent
supportive housing, which combines long-term housing with wraparound services such as behavioral or mental
health support.51 To fund the program, housing providers received a program fee from State or City agencies,
made use of federally funded rental subsidies, and received one-time “service enhancement” funds provided
by private and public sources.
On average, FUSE II participants experienced a 70% reduction in any shelter episode and a 40% reduction in
days incarcerated over a carefully selected comparison group.52 Half as many FUSE II participants had a recent
use of “hard” drugs as did the comparison group, and alcohol or substance use disorders were one-third less
for FUSE II participants.53 Additionally, FUSE II participants averaged 4.4 less days hospitalized for psychiatric
reasons, a large reduction compared to the 8-day average for the comparison group.54 Overall, the evaluation of
the program found that “supportive housing significantly improved [participants’] lives.”55

2023 FINDING HOME: Removing Barriers to Housing for Formerly Incarcerated Individuals

Rapid Rehousing
Rapid Rehousing (RRH) provides short- to medium-term housing support services for individuals experiencing
homelessness or housing instability.56 According to the National Alliance to End Homelessness, the core components
of an effective RRH program are: i) housing identification services; ii) financial support; and iii) case management
services.57 Depending on the structure of the program, participants may receive support for 3-24 months. A 2016
evaluation of 23 rapid rehousing programs funded by HUD found that only 2% of families participating in the programs
exited to homelessness.58 Additionally, only 10% of families experienced an instance of homelessness within one year
of exiting the programs.

Homelessness Diversion and Stabilization Programs
Diversion and housing stabilization programs target individuals as they apply for entry into a shelter or other housing
program, before the individual may experience homelessness.59 These programs typically provide similar services as
PSH and RRH, including financial support, case management, conflict mediation, referral services, and housing search
assistance. For instance, housing diversion programs could include funds for security deposits, application fees, or
moving expenses. According to the National Alliance to End Homelessness, successful diversion and stabilization
programs should make efficient screening processes available to individuals when they first contact the homeless
assistance system.60

CASE STUDY

Columbus, Ohio’s Stable Families Prevention Program
In Columbus, Ohio, the city implemented a diversion program called the Stable Families Prevention Program.61
When individuals or families contact the local homeless intake organization, screeners collect information
regarding their current housing situation. Families who can maintain stable housing for at least two days will be
referred to the diversion program. If eligible, a case worker provides referrals to community organizations and
other case management services, as well as financial support. After participation in the program, fewer than 5%
of families reentered shelters.62

2023 FINDING HOME: Removing Barriers to Housing for Formerly Incarcerated Individuals

Holistic Reentry Programming
Traditionally, many reentry efforts have focused on the continued parole or probation supervision of justice-involved
individuals, rather than on supporting them in attempts to overcome barriers. Mounting evidence shows that this
approach does not work.63 In fact, being on parole or probation was second only to drug addiction in predicting
reincarceration, even though individuals on parole and probation were less involved in new crimes.64 Instead, these
highly supervised individuals were often reincarcerated for technical violations like not reporting to a supervisor on time.
In contrast, holistic programs can effectively improve the life outcomes for formerly incarcerated individuals, helping
them to remain housed and end the cycle of reincarceration. To do so, they provide services and resources that address
a wide range of barriers from immediate needs, such as initial housing and food security, to long-term needs, like
mental health services and long-term employment. Programs may vary in terms of the specific group of justice-involved
individuals they support, but these programs all try to address basic human needs.

CASE STUDY

Los Angeles’s A New Way of Life
Beginning as a single reentry home in Los Angeles in 1998, A New Way of Life (ANWOL) has since grown into a
holistic program aimed at helping justice-involved women with reintegration through housing, support services,
legal services, and workforce and education development.65 Past case studies of participants indicated that
the majority of these justice-involved women grew up with a family member with substance abuse issues, had
a personal history of trauma, including childhood sexual abuse and interpersonal violence, and experienced
poverty.66 For this reason, housing serves as a key component of ANWOL, with the goal of giving women the
space to heal.67 In 2020, ANWOL served 94 women, successfully reuniting five of those women with their
children in that same year.68 All 94 women participated in on-site programming, leading to significant success:
97% maintained sobriety, 83% were employed or enrolled in school, and 73% accessed permanent housing.69

2023 FINDING HOME: Removing Barriers to Housing for Formerly Incarcerated Individuals

CASE STUDY

Potawatomi Nation Reentry Program
In the Oklahoma City region, the Citizen Potawatomi Nation operates a reentry program that focuses on holistic
and personalized support for justice-involved indigenous people.70 The program includes many services,
including assisting with utility payments, helping with the housing search, providing vocational training,
supplying transportation, and hosting talking circles.71 Of over 350 participants in a six-year period, less than
five returned to prison after completing the program.72 Anecdotal evidence from participants points to the
unique positioning of the program—run by and for indigenous people—as a key part of its success.73

Recommendation
Implement a variety of Housing First interventions, from permanent supportive housing to housing
diversion, to meet individual needs.
• Individuals require varying levels of support to maintain stable housing when returning to communities. As
such, policymakers should consider the full array of individual needs and implement a variety of programs to
support individuals where they are, following a progressive engagement model.
• These programs should follow a Housing First model, providing support without requiring adherence to
certain program requirements such as sobriety or psychiatric treatment.
• Existing reentry programs should be modified to provide more extensive holistic wraparound services,
including housing assistance. Racial equity should be explicitly considered when designing these programs.

2023 FINDING HOME: Removing Barriers to Housing for Formerly Incarcerated Individuals

Fragmented Government
Responses Hamper
Effectiveness of Programs
Efforts to reduce these barriers are often piecemeal
and, as a result, fail to achieve their desired results
because they do not address the complexity of
needs involved with reentry. Returning community
members also often experience difficulty connecting
to fragmented community and governmental
resources.74 To fully leverage these limited resources,
cities and counties need a coordinated approach to
maximize available services and ensure individuals
are connected to the services they need. When there
are several nonprofits and government agencies with
overlapping areas of responsibility, direct service
providers in jurisdictions with limited collaboration
between city and county report difficulty connecting
individuals to resources. Without a collaborative
approach, these service providers struggle to
understand the capacity of the system and what
areas require the biggest resource investments.
Additionally, some housing advocacy organizations,
including California YIMBY*, have cited fragmented
government responses as an obstacle to successfully
reducing homelessness in communities.75
Additionally, coordinated approaches may lead to
more buy-in from private philanthropists who may
support housing programs.

*YIMBY is an acronym for “Yes In My Backyard.”

2023 FINDING HOME: Removing Barriers to Housing for Formerly Incarcerated Individuals

CASE STUDY

Houston’s The Way Home
The Coalition for the Homeless, in partnership with direct services organizations, the city of Houston, and Harris
County, partner to manage a coordinated initiative, known as The Way Home, to respond to the community
housing crisis.76 The Coalition for the Homeless serves as the coordinator for the efforts of local governments
and non-profit organizations. The initiative is comprised of PSH, a PSH bridge program for individuals waiting
for slots in PSH, RRH, diversion, and additional wraparound services. The Way Home engages government
agencies across the city and county, as well as local direct service and nonprofit organizations, to maximize
resources available to support individuals experiencing housing instability. In the past decade, the program has
moved over 25,000 individuals into housing, and the number of individuals considered homeless has declined
by 63% since 2011.77 The Way Home provides a unique example of cross-agency collaboration operating
effectively across jurisdictional borders.

Recommendation
Explore collaboration across agency and
municipal borders.
• Given the limited resources available
to support housing programs,
policymakers should foster
collaboration across traditional agency
and municipal borders. Depending on
the local context, cities, counties, and
even regions should consider partnering
to maximize resources and reduce
duplicative efforts.
• Successful public collaboration may
also lead to more opportunity for
private-public partnership to support
effective programming, in addition to
providing potential cost savings for
government agencies.

2023 FINDING HOME: Removing Barriers to Housing for Formerly Incarcerated Individuals

Jurisdictions Have
Limited Funding
for Housing Programs
Inadequate funding is a major barrier to increasing housing options for formerly incarcerated individuals experiencing
homelessness or housing instability. Successful housing solutions must efficiently leverage existing resources through
intentional cross-agency collaboration and consider creative funding options, such as pay-for-success models or social
impact bonds.78 Under a pay-for-success model, private investors provide upfront funding, with repayment contingent on
the success of the intervention.79 Additionally, public services savings associated with the implementation of Housing
First programs should be leveraged to expand access to more individuals.

CASE STUDY

Los Angeles’s Flexible Housing Subsidy Pool, a Public-Private
Partnership
In 2014, Los Angeles County, in conjunction with other government parties and the Conrad N. Hilton
Foundation, created a flexible housing subsidy pool targeting individuals experiencing homelessness with
complex health conditions.87 The program provided rental subsidies and case management services to
participants who may not have been eligible for federal housing subsidy programs. Between 2014 and 2017,
the program provided support to over 1400 households with an investment of over $40 million.
During the implementation of the program, local government agencies and the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation
worked together closely to define the structure and goals of the program and leveraged the reputation of the
Foundation to garner support from key stakeholders.88

2023 FINDING HOME: Removing Barriers to Housing for Formerly Incarcerated Individuals

Recommendation

CASE STUDY

Pursue innovative funding

Denver’s Supportive Housing Social
Impact Bond
In 2016, Denver launched a permanent supportive
housing model aimed at supporting residents caught in a
“homelessness-jail cycle.”80 Denver used its first social impact
bond (SIB) to pay to fund the model, selecting the Mental Health
Center of Denver and the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless
as service providers.81 Under the SIB, the city raised $8.6
million from eight private investors with an agreement to pay
back the investors only if the program met its goals.82
In 2021, an evaluation of the program revealed that it had not
only met all goals, but that “more than half of the total perperson annual cost of the program was offset by reductions in
the costs of other public services, such as jail, detox and other
emergency care.”83 Using the Housing First model, under which
individuals do not have to meet any requirements like sobriety
to be able to move in, the SIB first helps place individuals in

opportunities to increase available
resources for housing support
programs.
• Given the significant community
investment required to sustain
a robust supportive housing
program, policymakers should
consider additional funding
streams, such as private-public
partnerships, Pay-for-Success
programs, and social impact
bonds.
• Early engagement with private
philanthropists may also create
opportunities for proof-ofconcept program funding to
provide the data necessary
to create sustainably funded
programs.

housing and then assigns them a case manager who can also
help them access services ranging from mental health treatment
to cooking classes.84 Results include increased housing stability
(85% of participants remained in stable housing at one year
and 77% remained at three years), a reduction in shelter use
(40% reduction in shelter visits among participants), reduced
interaction with the criminal justice system (40% reduction in
arrests among participants and 30% reduction in unique jail
stays), and better use of office-based care rather than more
costly emergency care (155% increase in office-based visits and
40% decrease in emergency department visits).85
Given this success, Denver recently entered a new pay-forsuccess partnership called Housing to Health that will use
local housing resources, $11.75 million in funding from private
investors, and up to $5.5 million in federal grant money to offer
similar services.86

2023 FINDING HOME: Removing Barriers to Housing for Formerly Incarcerated Individuals

References
1

State of Homelessness: 2022 Edition, Nat’l All. to End Homelessness, https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-inamerica/homelessness-statistics/state-of-homelessness-2021/ (last visited Apr. 27, 2023).
2

Lucius Couloute, Prison Policy Initiative, Nowhere to Go: Homelessness Among Formerly Incarcerated People (Aug. 2018), https://
www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/housing.html.
3

Justice Systems, Corp. for Supportive Hous., https://www.csh.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/JUSTICE_web.pdf
(last visited Apr. 27, 2023). Justice-involved refers to individuals who have contact or interaction with the criminal
justice system, including the police and courts.

Heather Hunt & Gene Nichol, Court Fines and Fees: Criminalizing Poverty in North Carolina 6 (Jan. 1, 2017), https://static1.
squarespace.com/static/5daf53015bc9a966f3ea3674/t/5e4c37da3858d66f86b5a3bf/1582053348919/
Nichol+Fines+and+Fees.pdf.

Adiah Price-Tucker, et. al., Harv. Univ. Inst. of Politics, Successful Reentry: A Community-Level Analysis 22 (Dec. 2019), https://
iop.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/2023-02/IOP_Policy_Program_2019_Reentry_Policy.pdf.

Id. at 9.

Lucius Couloute & Daniel Kopf, Prison Policy Initiative, Out of Prison & Out of Work: Unemployment Among Formerly Incarcerated
People (July 2018), https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/outofwork.html.

Adiah Price-Tucker, et. al., Harv. Univ. Inst. of Politics, Successful Reentry: A Community-Level Analysis 31-32 (Dec. 2019),
https://iop.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/sources/program/IOP_Policy_Program_2019_Reentry_Policy.pdf.

Kristy Holtfreter, et al., Poverty, State Capital, and Recidivism Among Women Offenders, 3 Criminology and Pub. Pol’y
Criminology and Pub. Pol’y 195, 198 (2004).

Lucius Couloute & Daniel Kopf, Prison Policy Initiative, Out of Prison & Out of Work: Unemployment Among Formerly Incarcerated
People (July 2018), https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/outofwork.html.

Homelessness and Black History: Poverty and Income, Nat’l All. to End Homelessness, https://endhomelessness.org/
blog/homelessness-and-black-history-poverty-and-income (last visited May 23, 2023).

Rakesh Kochar & Anthony Cilluffo, Pew Rsch. Ctr., How Wealth Inequality Has Changed in the U.S. Since the Great
Recession, by Race, Ethnicity, and Income, (Nov. 1, 2017), https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2017/11/01/
how-wealth-inequality-has-changed-in-the-u-s-since-the-great-recession-by-race-ethnicity-and-income/ (last visited
May 25, 2023).
13

Terry-Ann Craigie, et al., Brennan Ctr. for J., Conviction, Imprisonment, and Lost E arnings: How Involvement with the Criminal
Justice System Deepens Inequality 18 (Sep. 2020), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/convictionimprisonment-and-lost-earnings-how-involvement-criminal.
14

Id.

2023 FINDING HOME: Removing Barriers to Housing for Formerly Incarcerated Individuals

Out of Reach: The High Cost of Housing, Nat’l Low Income Hous. Coal., https://nlihc.org/oor (last visited May 2, 2023).

See Andrew H. Whittemore, Exclusionary Zoning: Origins, Open Suburbs, and Contemporary Debates, 87 J. Am. Plan.
Assoc. 167 (2021) (discussing evolution of exclusionary zoning policy in the United States).
18

Christopher Serkin & Leslie Wellington, Putting Exclusionary Zoning in its Place: Affordable Housing and
Geographical Scale, 40 Fordham Urb. L.J. 1667, 1682-88 (2013).

Lucius Couloute & Daniel Kopf, Prison Policy Initiative, Out of Prison & Out of Work: Unemployment Among Formerly Incarcerated
People (July 2018), https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/outofwork.html.

Hous. Auth. of the City of Durham, Admissions and Continued Occupancy §§ 3-15, 3-16 (2021).

Id. § 3-16.

See Danya E. Keene, et al., Navigating Limited and Uncertain Access to Subsidized Housing After Prison, 28 Hous.
Pol’y Debate 199 (2018).

Id.

Letter from Demetria L. McCain, Principal Deputy Assistant Sec’y for Fair Hous. & Equal Opportunity, to the Off. of
Fair Hous. & Equal Opportunity, Fair Hous. Assistance Program Agencies, & Fair Hous. Initiatives Program Grantees,
Implementation of the Office of General Counsel’s Guidance on Application of Fair Housing Act Standards to the Use
of Criminal Records by Providers of Housing and Real Estate-Related Transactions (June 10, 2022), https://www.hud.
gov/sites/dfiles/FHEO/documents/Implementation%20of%20OGC%20Guidance%20on%20Application%20of%20
FHA%20Standards%20to%20the%20Use%20of%20Criminal%20Records%20-%20June%2010%202022.pdf.

Id.

Press Release, Dep’t Hous. & Urban Dev., HUD No. 23-083, HUD Outlines its Action Plan to Remove Unnecessary Barriers to
Housing for People with Criminal Records (Apr. 24, 2023), https://www.hud.gov/press/press_releases_media_advisories/
hud_no_23_083.
30

See Emily Werth, Shriver Ctr. on Poverty L., The Cost of Being “Crime Free”: Legal and Practical Consequences of Crime Free
Rental Housing and Nuisance Property Ordinances (2013), http://povertylaw.org/files/docs/cost-of-being-crime-free.pdf.

Fair Chance in Housing Act, N.J. Off. of the Att’y Gen., https://www.njoag.gov/about/divisions-and-offices/divisionon-civil-rights-home/fcha/ (last visited May 8, 2023).
33

Renter Screening, City of Minneapolis, https://www2.minneapolismn.gov/business-services/licenses-permitsinspections/rental-licenses/renter-protections/renter-screening/ (last visited May 8, 2023).
34

Id.

Fair Chance Ordinance, City of Detroit, https://detroitmi.gov/departments/civil-rights-inclusion-opportunity-

2023 FINDING HOME: Removing Barriers to Housing for Formerly Incarcerated Individuals

department/about-crio/civil-rights-team/fair-chance-ordinance (last visited May 8, 2023).
36

Renter Screening, City of Minneapolis, https://www2.minneapolismn.gov/business-services/licenses-permitsinspections/rental-licenses/renter-protections/renter-screening/ (last visited May 8, 2023).
37

Calvin Johnson, Tenant Screening with Criminal Background Checks: Predictions nad Perceptions Are Not Causality,
PD&R Edge (May 17, 2022), https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr-edge-frm-asst-sec-051722.html.
38

Tom Stanley-Becker, Breaking the Cycle of Homelessness and Incarceration: Prisoner Reentry, Racial Justice, and
Fair Chance Housing Policy, 7 U. Pa. J.L. & Pub. Affs. 257, 287 (2022).

Seattle, Was., Code § 14.09.010(C) (2020).

See, e.g., Tom Stanley-Becker, Breaking the Cycle of Homelessness and Incarceration: Prisoner Reentry, Racial
Justice, and Fair Chance Housing Policy, 7 U. Pa. J.L. & Pub. Affs. 257, 304-311 (2022).

Sam Tsemberis, et al., Housing First, Consumer Choice, and Harm Reduction for Homeless Individuals with a Dual
Diagnosis, 94 Am. J. of Pub. Health 651, 654-55 (2004).

See, e.g., Yinan Peng, et al., Permanent Supportive Housing with Housing First to Reduce Homelessness and
Promote Health Among Homeless Populations with Disability: A Community Guide Systemic Review, 26 J. of Pub. Health
Mgmt. & Prac. 404 (2020).
43

Angela A. Aidala, et al., Frequent Users Service Enhancement ‘FUSE’ Initiative: New York City FUSE II Evaluation Report (2014),
https://www.csh.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/FUSE-Eval-Report-Final_Linked.pdf.
44

See, e.g., Molly Brown, et al., Housing Status Among Single Adults Following Homelessness Prevention and Rapid
Re-Housing Program Participation in Indianapolis, 69 Evaluation & Program Plan. 92 (2018).
45

Lucius Couloute, Prison Policy Initiative, Nowhere to Go: Homelessness Among Formerly Incarcerated People (Aug. 2018),
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/housing.html.
46

What is Progressive Engagement?, Nat’l All. to End Homelessness (June 4, 2021), https://endhomelessness.org/blog/
what-is-progressive-engagement/ (last visited May 25, 2023).
47

Council of State Gov’ts Just. Ctr., Four Steps to E xpand Access to Housing for People in the Justice System with Behavioral Health
Needs (2021), https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Action-Points_Four-Steps-to-ExpandAccess-to-Housing.pdf.

Five Charts that Explain the Homelessness-Jail Cycle, Urban Inst. (Sept. 16, 2020), https://www.urban.org/features/
five-charts-explain-homelessness-jail-cycle-and-how-break-it.

Id.

Mary Cunningham, et al., Urban Inst., Rapid Rehousing: What the Research Says 1 (June 2015), https://www.urban.org/sites/
default/files/publication/54201/2000265-Rapid-Re-housing-What-the-Research-Says.pdf.

2023 FINDING HOME: Removing Barriers to Housing for Formerly Incarcerated Individuals

Rapid Re-Housing Works, Nat’l All. to End Homelessness, https://endhomelessness.org/rapid-re-housing-works/ (last
visited May 8, 2023).

Meryl Finkel, et al., Abt Assocs., Rapid Re-Housing for Homeless Family Demonstration Programs Evaluation Report 34 (April
2016), https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/RRHD-PartII-Outcomes.pdf.

Nat’l All. to End Homelessness, Closing the Front Door: Creating a Successful Diversion Program for Homeless Families
1(2011), https://endhomelessness.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/creating-a-successul-diversion-program.pdf.

Id. at 3.

Id. at 4.

Id.

See Carrie Pettus-Davis, et al., Intervention Development Study of the Five-Key Model for Reentry: An EvidenceDriven Prisoner Reentry Intervention, 58 J. of Offender Rehabilitation 614 (2019).

Jesse J. Self, Homeward: Life in the Year After Prison, 93 Soc. Serv. Rev. 133, 137 (2019) (book review).

Press Kit, A New Way of Life, https://anewwayoflife.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Press-Kit-2022.pdf (last
visited May 8, 2023).
66

Jorja Leap, et al., A New Way of Life Reentry Project: A Case Study 8 (2016), https://anewwayoflife.org/wp-content/
uploads/2018/10/case_study_a_new_way_of_life_re-entry_project.pdf.
67

A New Way of Life Reentry Project: 2020 Annual Report 1, https://anewwayoflife.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/
Annual-Report-2020.pdf.

Id. at 6.

Id.

Adiah Price-Tucker, et. al., Harv. Univ. Inst. of Politics, Successful Reentry: A Community-Level Analysis 36 (Dec. 2019),
https://iop.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/2023-02/IOP_Policy_Program_2019_Reentry_Policy.pdf.
71

Id.

CPN Workforce & Social Services Tribal Re-entry Program Teaches Self-Sufficiency, Citizen Potawatomi Nation
(December 13, 2019), https://www.potawatomi.org/blog/2019/12/13/cpn-workforce-social-services-tribal-re-entryprogram-teaches-self-sufficiency/.
73

Danya E. Keene, et al., Navigating Limited and Uncertain Access to Subsidized Housing After Prison, 28 Hous. Pol’y
Debate 199 (2018).

Ned Resnikoff, California YIMBY, Housing Abundance as a Condition for Ending Homelessness: Lessons from Houston, Texas
4 (2022), http://cayimby.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Housing-Abundance-as-a-Condition-for-EndingHomelessness-FINAL.pdf.

The Way Home, Systems Operation Manual 3 (June 2022), https://irp.cdn-website.com/2d521d2c/files/uploaded/CA%20
Operations%20Manual%20-%20Final..pdf.
77

Michael Kimmelman, et al., How Houston Moved 25,000 People from the Streets Into Homes of Their Own, N.Y.
Times, (Feb. 13, 2023), https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/14/headway/houston-homeless-people.html.
78

Council of State Gov’ts Just. Ctr., Four Steps to E xpand Access to Housing for People in the Justice System with Behavioral Health

2023 FINDING HOME: Removing Barriers to Housing for Formerly Incarcerated Individuals

Needs (2021), https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Action-Points_Four-Steps-to-ExpandAccess-to-Housing.pdf.
79

What is Pay for Success (PFS)?, Urban Inst., https://pfs.urban.org/pfs-101/content/what-pay-success-pfs (last
visited May 8, 2023).
80

Emily Peiffer, et al., Starting with Stability: How Denver Is Breaking the Homelessness-Jail Cycle, Urban Inst., (Mar. 20,
2019), https://www.urban.org/features/starting-stability-how-denver-breaking-homelessness-jail-cycle.
81

Id.

Denver’s Supportive Housing Social Impact Bond a “Remarkable Success,” City of Denver, https://www.denvergov.org/
Government/Agencies-Departments-Offices/Agencies-Departments-Offices-Directory/Department-of-Finance/News/
2021/Independent-Evaluation-Finds-Denvers-Supportive-Housing-Social-Impact-a-success (last visited May 8, 2023).

Id.

Denver Extends Nationally Recognized Supportive Housing Program, Denver Found., https://denverfoundation.
org/2022/06/denver-extends-nationally-recognized-supportive-housing-program/ (last visited May 8, 2023).
87

Abt Assocs., Flexible Housing Subsidy Pool Brief Evaluation of the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation Chronic Homelessness Initiative
(Mar. 2017), https://www.hiltonfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Flexible_Housing_Subsidy_Pool_
Brief_Final.3.31.17-3.pdf.
88

Id.

2023 FINDING HOME: Removing Barriers to Housing for Formerly Incarcerated Individuals

About Us
The Wilson Center for Science and Justice at Duke Law seeks to advance
criminal justice reform and equity through science and law. We engage
with academics, policy makers, and community stakeholders to translate
interdisciplinary research into effective and practical policy. Our work focuses
on three key areas: improving the accuracy of the evidence used in criminal
cases, promoting fair and equitable outcomes in the criminal legal system,
and improving outcomes for persons with mental illness and substance use
disorders who encounter, or are at risk for encountering, the criminal legal
system. Learn more about the Center at wcsj.law.duke.edu.

2023 FINDING HOME: Removing Barriers to Housing for Formerly Incarcerated Individuals