Challenges
While the expert panel members named behavioral health as among the highest-priority jail reentry service needs, there were many other critical areas they raised alongside it. Housing emerged in the discussions as a prominent service gap for those transitioning out of jail settings due to the scarcity and cost of housing options. The intersection of housing and behavioral health needs complicates housing provision. One expert panel member noted: “Very few places have homes for serious and persistent mental health…It’s a small population to serve but finding that programming seems to be a challenge just about everywhere.” Substantial resources and planning are required to coordinate the delivery of behavioral health services in tandem with stable housing.
Criteria and restrictions to enter available housing options can exclude many in the reentry population. People leaving jail may not meet the criteria for housing intended for people experiencing homelessness, because a certain amount of continuous time without stable housing is required and time in jail is considered being housed or because they cannot show evidence of prior residency or connection to the area. Many places that provide housing services require people to be sober before they can be admitted, but stable housing can be critical for people attempting to engage in treatment to achieve sobriety. Housing options are also often designed for males, reducing options for women who may encounter additional barriers such as limited housing options that allow children to stay there along with their parent. Improving service provision after release requires a shift in stigma around availability of services for those with prior criminal legal system involvement. Housing difficulties are even more unattainable for those with sex offense convictions, who are often barred from the few reentry housing options that exist.
Lack of transportation creates an additional barrier for a wide variety of things people need after returning from jail, from showing up to work to making treatment and community supervision appointments. One expert mentioned that while their organization provides a program to connect people with benefits, the program’s success is limited due to transportation barriers.
Opportunities
One suggestion from the expert panel was to ensure jail reentry efforts have a means to deliver on concrete survival needs first. Connecting individuals with basic needs, such as food, shelter, and MOUD, were identified as top opportunities for service provision. Some expressed frustration with programs that make unrealistic claims, such as getting everyone a job. What jails and service providers do feasibly have control over is ensuring that individuals are enrolled in and connected to services, including SNAP, Medicaid (where available for this population), transportation, and emergency shelter. These connections were identified as the key priorities in influencing positive reentry outcomes. They might not be sufficient to ensure reentry success but would be a precondition for consistently engaging in longer-term interventions such as substance abuse and mental health treatment.
While expensive, supportive housing interventions like a rigorously evaluated Denver intervention have been shown to successfully house participants, both in the short and long term, and reduce the length and number of jail stays and number of jail days (Cunningham et al. 2021). The model shows promise if landlords and other stakeholders expand housing options for those with a criminal record. Beyond landlords, business community engagement can support other reentry needs such as employment connections. Experts elevated the importance of connecting individuals with jobs they would actually want and providing options for viable career pathways, Direct engagement with employers can help.
Finding ways to enhance community reentry capacity also makes it more possible to address complex and varied reentry needs. A potential best practice that enhanced community capacity raised in the expert panel discussions is the public defender’s office’s hiring of social workers, who work with people to connect them with resources and to the community. In some communities, local workforce development organizations have introduced a case management component to their service to meet personal or survival needs while also focusing on job readiness and employment. Models like these do require additional coordination to bridge potential gaps between their reentry approaches and that of the jail. Building sustainable local capacity also reduces reliance on grant-funded supports, which are not sustainable for long-term systems change.
Strengthening community provider capacity also increases the ability to provide culturally responsive services. This can start with recruiting staff who speak languages that are common in the jail population and that are from or know local communities that many people in the jail call home. In San Diego, the Thinking for a Change Curriculum – a cognitive behavioral change program – was translated into Spanish to ensure accessibility for the large Mexican American population in San Diego. However, culturally competent approaches can’t be assumed to travel across communities. As an expert panel member said: “When San Diego changed their whole Thinking for a Change curriculum, we thought we were so smart and brought it to Jacksonville, and then they said it doesn’t relate to our Spanish speaking population. So, it highlights the point that it’s very regional, and we can’t assume anything about any specific area.”
Experts described a model in which community providers begin by helping with a service, and over time, this develops their own capacity. Providing guidance and support as community partners increases their capacity and can be immensely important for their development. As one expert framed this: “A lot of people who do this work need to have training wheels put on them. And then funding them, working on those collaborative efforts that provide funds to the community.” Experts elevated multiple opportunities to build community provider capacity. In Dutchess County, New York, experts aided in the development of a model where initially, mostly government people were doing the reentry work, but the county hired community nonprofits to eventually supplement that work.