INMATE REENTRY 

PROGRAMS

Enhanced Information 

Sharing Could Further 

Strengthen 

Coordination and 

Grant Management

Report to Congressional Committees

December 2012

GAO-13-93

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-93, a report to 

congressional committees. 

December 2012 

INMATE REENTRY PROGRAMS 

Enhanced Information Sharing Could Further 

Strengthen Coordination and Grant Management

Why GAO Did This Study

About 700,000 inmates are released 

from federal and state custody each 

year, and another 9 million are booked 

into and released from local jails. 

Former inmates face challenges as 

they transition into, or reenter, society, 

such as finding housing and 

employment. According to the most 

recent data available, more than twothirds of state prisoners are rearrested 

for a new offense within 3 years of 

release, and about half are 

reincarcerated. Federal reentry grants 

are available for state and local 

providers, as successful reentry

reduces rearrest or reincarceration, 

known as recidivism. GAO was asked 

to review (1) the extent to which there

is fragmentation, overlap, and 

duplication across federal reentry grant 

programs; (2) the coordination efforts 

federal grant-making agencies have 

taken to prevent unnecessary 

duplication and share promising 

practices; and (3) the extent to which 

federal grant-making agencies 

measure grantees’ effectiveness in 

reducing recidivism. GAO identified 

and analyzed the grant programs and 

agencies that supported reentry efforts 

in fiscal year 2011; analyzed agency 

documents, such as grant solicitations; 

and interviewed agency officials. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOJ, Labor, 

and HHS enhance their information 

sharing on approaches for determining

how effectively grantees reduce 

recidivism. In response, DOJ, Labor, 

and HHS reported that they would take 

actions to address our 

recommendation. 

What GAO Found

In fiscal year 2011, the Departments of Justice (DOJ), Labor (Labor), and Health 

and Human Services (HHS) separately administered nine fragmented but 

minimally overlapping reentry grant programs with low risk of duplication. 

Specifically, GAO found that these grant programs are fragmented since more 

than one federal agency is involved in administering the programs. Further, GAO 

found that overlap across the nine programs was minimal because the programs 

varied in (1) their applicant eligibility criteria, (2) the extent to which their funds 

solely benefit the reentry population, and (3) their primary services funded. For 

example, Labor’s reentry program limits eligibility to private, nonprofit 

organizations that will use the funds primarily to assist current or former 

inmates—residing in or released from any facility—with their employment needs. 

In contrast, one of DOJ’s reentry programs limits eligibility to governmental 

entities that will use the funds primarily to assist current or former inmates—

residing in or released from state, local, or tribal facilities—with their substance 

abuse treatment needs. Given the variance across eligible applicants,

beneficiaries, and primary services, the overlap across the nine programs is 

minimal and the risk of duplication—when two or more agencies or programs are 

engaged in the same activities, provide the same services to the same 

beneficiaries, or provide funding for the same purpose—is low.

DOJ, Labor, and HHS have acknowledged where some overlap exists and 

therefore have taken steps to coordinate their reentry efforts to further prevent 

unnecessary duplication and share promising practices. For example, in 2011, 

the U.S. Attorney General convened the Federal Interagency Reentry Council—a 

group of federal agencies whose mission is to make communities safer; assist 

those returning from prison and jail in becoming productive, taxpaying citizens; 

and save taxpayer dollars by lowering the direct and collateral costs of 

incarceration. Further, agency officials from all three agencies reported that they 

share grant solicitations with one another before issuing them, and in 2009, DOJ

and HHS established a memorandum of agreement to formally coordinate 

funding activities related to reentry. In addition, all three agencies have taken 

action, or have actions under way, to require their grant applicants to report other 

federal funds they are receiving, or plan to receive, and consider this information 

before they will make new award decisions. 

DOJ, Labor, and HHS are measuring grantee performance and conducting 

program evaluations, but they could enhance information sharing about the 

methods they use to collect and analyze data to determine how effectively 

grantees reduce recidivism. To monitor grantee performance, DOJ, Labor, and 

HHS collect different performance information, such as rearrest, reincarceration, 

and employment rates, through several web-based grant management systems, 

each with varying strengths and limitations. However, the agencies have not 

formally discussed these systems with one another, or how they analyze the data 

they collect, despite engaging in collaborations during which such discussions 

would be practical and useful. Consistent with effective interagency coordination 

practices, sharing information like this could help the agencies better leverage 

existing practices and improve their approaches to determining and reporting on 

grantee effectiveness. 

View GAO-13-93. For more information, 

contact David C. Maurer at (202) 512-9627 or 

maurerd@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs

Letter 1 

Background 7

Federal Reentry Grant Programs Are Fragmented but Minimally 

Overlapping, Reducing the Risk for Duplication 13

Agencies Have Taken Steps to Coordinate Their Reentry Programs 

and Further Reduce the Potential for Unnecessary Duplication 

in Funding 21

Agencies Are Measuring Grantee Performance and Conducting 

Program Evaluations, but Additional Information Sharing Could 

Be Beneficial 28

Conclusions 38

Recommendations for Executive Action 39

Agency Comments 39

Appendix I The Role of the Federal Bureau of Prisons in Reentry 41

Appendix II Federal Interagency Reentry Council Accomplishments 44

Appendix III Summary of Ongoing Agency Reentry Program Evaluations 50

Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Justice 53

Appendix V Comments from the Department of Labor 55

Appendix VI Comments from the Department of Health & Human Services 57

Appendix VII GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 59

Tables

Table 1: Four Phases of the Federal Grant Life Cycle 10

Contents 
Page ii GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs

Table 2: Fragmentation across Federal Reentry Grant Programs in 

Fiscal Year 2011 14

Table 3: Variations in Applicant Eligibility across Federal Reentry 

Grant Programs, Fiscal Year 2011 16

Table 4: Variations in Population Targets across Federal Reentry 

Grant Programs, Fiscal Year 2011 17

Table 5: Variations in Primary Services Funded across Federal 

Reentry Grant Programs, Fiscal Year 2011 18

Table 6: Federal Agencies’ Recidivism-Related Measures 31

Table 7: Agencies’ Use of Grant Management Systems for 

Performance Reporting and Analysis 32

Table 8: Selected BOP Inmate Reentry Programs and Activities 42

Table 9: Federal Interagency Reentry Council Accomplishments 46

Table 10: DOJ and Labor Reentry Grant Program Evaluations 50

Figures

Figure 1: Potential Needs of the Reentry Population 9

Figure 2: Issues Related to Reentry 45

Abbreviations

BOP Federal Bureau of Prisons

CFDA Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

DOJ Department of Justice

GMS Grants Management System

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

MIS Management Information System

PMT Performance Measurement Tool

PRI Prisoner Reentry Initiative

ORP Offender Reentry Program

RExO Reintegration of Ex-Offenders

SAIS Service Accountability Improvement System

SCA Second Chance Act

SVORI Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs

United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, DC 20548

December 14, 2012

The Honorable Lamar Smith

Chairman

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.

Ranking Member

Committee on the Judiciary

House of Representatives

The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.

Chairman

The Honorable Robert C. “Bobby” Scott

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security

Committee on the Judiciary

House of Representatives

About 2.2 million individuals were incarcerated in state, federal, and local 

facilities in 2011, and the United States spent more than an estimated 

$82.7 billion on federal, state, and local corrections, according to the most 

recently available data.1 About 700,000 inmates are released from federal 

and state custody each year, and another 9 million are booked into and 

released from local jails. These former inmates face considerable 

challenges as they transition into, or reenter, society after incarceration. 

When successful reentry fails, rearrest or reincarceration may result. 

According to the most recent data available, more than two-thirds of state 

prisoners are rearrested for a new offense within 3 years of their release 

and about half are reincarcerated—this is known as recidivism.2

 

1

For data on the number of individuals incarcerated, see Department of Justice, Bureau of 

Justice Statistics, Correctional Populations in the United States, 2011 (Washington, D.C.: 

November 2012). Bureau of Justice Statistics’ data on correctional expenditures are

preliminary. The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistical agency of Department of 

Justice. 

Assisting 

the reentry population—former inmates or inmates preparing for release 

2

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 

Special Report: Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994, (Washington, D.C.: June 

2002). According to Department of Justice officials, the Bureau of Justice Assistance is 

currently working on a new national recidivism study that involved about 30 states and 

75,000 former inmates. DOJ estimates that the report will be completed by December 31, 

2012.

 
 

Page 2 GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs

from federal, state, and local correctional facilities—in successful reentry 

is essential, as the economic and societal costs of high incarceration 

rates are significant. High rates of recidivism mean more crime, more 

victims, and more pressure on an already overburdened and 

overcrowded criminal justice system. As we have recently reported, 

inmate crowding remains a significant concern, and federal prisons are 

nearly 40 percent over capacity.3

In 2011, the U.S. Attorney General convened the Federal Interagency 

Reentry Council—a group of federal agencies whose mission is to make 

communities safer; assist those returning from prison and jail in becoming 

productive, taxpaying citizens; and save taxpayer dollars by lowering the 

direct and collateral costs of incarceration.4 Unlike some other executive 

branch councils, the Federal Interagency Reentry Council does not 

receive an appropriation from Congress and does not employ full-time 

staff.5

 

3

GAO, Bureau of Prisons: Growing Inmate Crowding Negatively Affects Inmates, Staff, 

and Infrastructure, 

Member agencies provide a range of services, from direct 

assistance with reentry to the administration of grants. For example, the 

Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is the 

sole agency responsible for the custody of more than 218,000 federal 

inmates, and considers the process of reentry to begin the day the inmate 

is incarcerated. Accordingly, BOP is involved in the direct provision of 

reentry services, such as vocational training, faith-based programs, and 

substance abuse treatment, which help current inmates prepare for 

GAO-12-743 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 12, 2012). 

4

Agencies included on the Federal Interagency Reentry Council and the council’s working 

group are the Department of Justice, Department of the Interior, Department of 

Agriculture, Department of Labor, Department of Health and Human Services, Department 

of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Education, Department of Veterans 

Affairs, Office of National Drug Control Policy, Social Security Administration, Domestic 

Policy Council, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, White House Office of FaithBased and Neighborhood Partnerships, Office of Personnel Management, Office of 

Management and Budget, Internal Revenue Service, Federal Trade Commission, 

Interagency Council on Homelessness, Small Business Administration, and Court 

Services and Offender Supervision Agency—the last of which is only on the Federal 

Interagency Reentry Council’s working group. Collateral costs quantify the size of the 

effect of incarceration to both the individual and the individual’s family.

5

The Federal Interagency Reentry Council has no separate budget, and council 

representatives participate in council activities while also fulfilling their respective 

responsibilities at their home agencies. In contrast, the United States Interagency Council 

on Homelessness receives a separate appropriation from Congress and employs full-time 

staff. 
 

Page 3 GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs

release. For fiscal year 2012, BOP estimates spending about 9 percent, 

or $604 million of its $6.6 billion operating budget, on reentry-related 

services. In contrast, DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Assistance and the 

Departments of Labor (Labor) and Health and Human Services (HHS) all 

administer grant funding to state and local reentry service providers so 

that they may, for example, assist the reentry population train for and find 

jobs, obtain substance abuse treatment, and locate housing as needed. 

Collectively, these three federal agencies were appropriated over $165 

million in fiscal year 2012 and nearly $185 million in fiscal year 2011 for 

three of their respective reentry grant programs. These three funding 

streams—the Second Chance Act (SCA) program, the Reintegration of 

Ex-Offenders (RExO) program, and the Offender Reentry Program 

(ORP)—support both the adult and the juvenile reentry population.6

We have previously reported on the importance of sound federal grant 

management practices.7 We have also published annual reports on 

fragmentation, overlap, and duplication across the government since 

2011, emphasizing opportunities to achieve greater efficiencies and more 

effective delivery of government services,8 and have studied grants 

management at DOJ in particular.9 In 2012, we reported that DOJ’s grant 

programs overlap across 10 justice areas, contributing to the risk of 

unnecessarily duplicative grant awards for the same or similar 

purposes.10

 

6

The SCA program is carried out through the authority provided in the Second Chance Act 

of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-199, 122 Stat. 657 (2008). The RExO program is carried out 

through authority provided in Section 171 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, Pub. 

L. No. 105-220, 112 Stat. 936, 1031-34, and Section 212 of the Second Chance Act of 

2007, Pub. L. No. 110-199, 122 Stat. 657, 680-83. HHS’s ORP grants are authorized 

under Section 509 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended.

Moreover, the DOJ, Labor, and HHS Inspectors General 

7

GAO, Federal Grants: Improvements Needed in Oversight and Accountability Processes, 

GAO-11-773T (Washington, D.C.: June 23, 2011).

8

GAO, Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax 

Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-11-318SP (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 2011), and 

2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and Fragmentation, 

Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-12-342SP (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 28, 

2012).

9

GAO, Justice Grant Programs: DOJ Should Do More to Reduce the Risk of Unnecessary 

Duplication and Enhance Program Assessment, GAO-12-517 (Washington, D.C.: July 12, 

2012).

10The actions we suggested that would help address this issue are discussed later in this 

report, along with the agency’s position.
 

Page 4 GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs

have listed grant management or grant accountability among their 

respective departments’ top 10 management challenges from at least 

2007 through 2011. The DOJ Inspector General has also included 

detention and incarceration on its list since 2006.

Given the importance of inmate rehabilitation and the variety of federal 

initiatives, including grants, to facilitate successful reentry, you asked us 

to review the role various federal agencies play in helping to reduce 

recidivism, and what agencies know about the effectiveness of the 

programs they administer. Specifically, this report addresses the following 

questions (1) To what extent is there fragmentation across the federal 

grant programs that exist to support inmates’ reentry into society, and to 

what extent do these grant programs overlap or duplicate? (2) What 

coordination efforts have federal grant-making agencies taken, if any, to 

prevent unnecessary duplication and share information on promising 

reentry approaches? (3) To what extent do federal grant-making agencies 

measure grantees’ effectiveness in reducing recidivism?

Using the framework established in our prior work addressing overlap, 

fragmentation, and duplication, we use the following definitions for 

analysis of reentry grant programs:

• Fragmentation: when more than one federal agency (or more than 

one organization within an agency) is involved in the same broad area 

of national interest.

• Overlap: when programs have similar goals, devise similar strategies 

and activities to achieve those goals, or target similar users. Overlap 

may result from statutory or other limitations beyond an agency’s 

control.

• Duplication: when two or more agencies or programs are engaged in 

the same activities or provide the same services to the same 

beneficiaries. When granting agencies do not identify overlap, assess 

its impact, or coordinate their activities in acknowledgment of the 

overlap, there is a heightened risk of unnecessary duplication 

because one granting agency may not be knowledgeable of the ways 

in which its funding decision duplicates another’s. At times, federal 

funding is leveraged by design to achieve a single purpose through 

multiple federal funding streams. These funding arrangements are not 

characterized as unnecessary duplication for purposes of this review 

so long as federal agencies are aware of them and have deliberately 

planned for grant programs to be complementary. Duplication also 

occurs when a single grantee uses grant funds from different federal 

sources to pay for the exact same expenditure.
 

Page 5 GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs

To address our first and second objectives, we first identified federal grant 

programs that supported reentry efforts in fiscal year 2011. Specifically, 

we identified grant programs that provided either new or continuation 

funds to support direct services for the adult reentry population. In order 

to be included in our scope, the grant program—or a grant solicitation 

under this program—must have either (1) specifically targeted the reentry 

population for its services, included the reentry population as a target 

population, or (2) included an element specific to reentry or corrections for 

which the funding could be used. We identified the grant programs 

meeting these criteria through key word searches in federal databases—

the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA), Grants.gov, and 

USASpending.gov—as well as a review of agency documents.11 We 

excluded programs that did not meet all our criteria, including programs 

that the reentry population may benefit from but are not specifically 

targeted. Utilizing the framework established in our prior work addressing 

fragmentation, overlap, and duplication, we then reviewed the grant 

solicitations issued under these grant programs to make determinations 

about the extent to which they were fragmented, overlapping, or 

duplicative.12

 

11CFDA is a government-wide compendium of federal programs, projects, services, and 

activities that provide assistance or benefits to the American public. Grants.gov serves as 

the central grant identification and application portal for more than 1,000 federal grant 

programs. USAspending.gov displays data pertaining to federal grants.

In making these determinations, we considered, collectively, 

three factors: (1) which applicants were eligible for the grant programs, 

(2) the extent to which the reentry population is the sole target of the 

grant programs’ services, and (3) the primary services these grant 

programs funded. Further, we interviewed agency officials from DOJ, 

Labor, and HHS to gauge their awareness of other federal reentry funds 

and where they were being allocated. We also interviewed officials from 

the Council of State Governments Justice Center and the Association of 

State Correctional Administrators, and examined a number of federal 

agency and industry reports on the services needed to ensure effective 

12GAO-11-318SP and GAO-12-342SP. 
 

Page 6 GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs

reentry.13 To determine how agencies coordinate with one another in the 

administration of these programs, we reviewed agency documents, such 

as a memorandum of understanding between DOJ and HHS, and Federal 

Interagency Reentry Council reports, such as the 2011 Reentry Council 

Accomplishment Report. In addition, we conducted interviews with 

officials from DOJ, Labor, and HHS, as well as the Federal Interagency 

Reentry Council to obtain a better understanding of what grant programs 

they operate and how they coordinate with one another.14 We compared 

agencies’ coordination activities with best practices for interagency 

collaborations.15

 

13The 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. We spoke to officials on the Association of State Correctional Administrators 

Reentry and Community Corrections Committee, which works to identify and implement 

best practices in reentry and community-based programs to reduce the number of inmates 

returning to prison after release. We met with these organizations because of their 

experience with the reentry field.

Further, we conducted visits to three states—New York, 

California, and Texas. We selected these three states based on the size 

of each state’s inmate population and the concentration of reentry grants 

provided in 2011 within their specific jurisdictions. We interviewed nine 

grantees in these states because they were located in jurisdictions that 

received multiple grants. While we cannot generalize the results of our 

interviews with these grantees to all grantees, we were able to obtain 

more specific information on the types of services funded with federal 

grants funds and the grantees’ views on coordination activities. To add 

additional context to our audit work, during our visits to California and 

Texas, we also met with officials in nearby BOP facilities to discuss their 

reentry efforts. Our observations from these visits cannot be generalized, 

but our discussions with the BOP officials illuminated the challenges with 

which inmates are faced upon their release and the reentry programs 

specific prisons are providing while inmates are in their custody.

14Specifically, we met with officials from DOJ’s Office of Justice Programs, including the 

Bureau of Justice Assistance; Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management; and 

National Institute of Justice; DOJ’s BOP, including the National Institute of Corrections; 

Labor’s Employment and Training Administrations and Office of Grants Management; and 

HHS’s Administration for Children and Families, National Institutes of Health, Assistant 

Secretary for Planning and Evaluation; and Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 

Administration.

15GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain 

Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005).
 

Page 7 GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs

To analyze the extent to which DOJ, Labor, and HHS use grant 

monitoring and assessments to determine program effectiveness in 

reducing recidivism, we analyzed agency documentation, such as 2011 

grant solicitations that outline grantee reporting requirements, grant 

management policy guidance, and the agencies’ most recently available 

reports on grant program evaluations. We also interviewed officials from 

DOJ, Labor, and HHS to learn more about their grant-monitoring and 

evaluation practices, as well as their grant management systems. We 

reviewed guidance to federal agencies from the GPRA Modernization Act 

of 2010 and best practices for interagency collaborations.16

We conducted this performance audit from January 2012 through 

December 2012 in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the 

audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 

basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We 

believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Further, 

during our visits, we asked grantees about their experiences in collecting 

recidivism data and providing performance information to the federal 

agencies that funded them. We also analyzed these grantees’ most 

recent quarterly performance reports—reports that grantees are required 

to submit to their federal granting agency describing the ways in which 

they have used the grant funds and their specific accomplishments.

The potential needs of the reentry population vary and generally cross 

over several areas, as shown in figure 1. For example, according to the 

BOP Director’s statement to Congress in March 2012, most inmates need 

assistance with things such as job skills, vocational training, education, 

substance abuse treatment, and parenting skills if they are to successfully 

 

16Pub. L. No. 111-352, 124 Stat. 3866 (2011). The GPRA Modernization Act amends the 

Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285 

(1993).

Background

Reentry Population Needs
 

Page 8 GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs

reenter society.17 Further, according to the Federal Interagency Reentry 

Council, about 66 percent of inmates have substance abuse or 

dependence issues, and 24 percent have mental illness issues. In 

addition, according to various Urban Institute reports on reentry, between 

54 and 40 percent of former inmates were not able to obtain employment 

within 7 to 10 months of release.18 In addition, former inmates are subject 

to a wide variety of legal and regulatory sanctions and restrictions, which 

are referred to as collateral consequences.19

 

17Federal Bureau of Prisons FY 2013 Budget Request, Before the Committee on 

Appropriations, Subcommittee of Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies, 

112th Cong. 203 (2012) (statement of Charles E. Samuels, Jr., Director of the Federal 

Bureau of Prisons).

18Urban Institute, Life After Prison: Tracking the Experiences of Male Prisoners Returning 

to Chicago, Cleveland, and Houston (Washington, D.C.: May 2010), and One Year Out: 

Tracking the Experiences of Male Prisoners Returning to Houston, Texas, (Washington, 

D.C.: June 2009). 

19In September 2012, DOJ’s National Institute of Justice established a public website to 

inventory state and federal legal and regulatory sanctions and restrictions that result in 

collateral consequences of conviction.
 

Page 9 GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs

Figure 1: Potential Needs of the Reentry Population

a

Life skills services are provided through mentoring and counseling and address issues such as 

parenting and behavioral/anger management. 

BOP provides reentry services to inmates within federal prisons (see app. 

I for a list of services). Other federal agencies, through their reentry grant 

program funds, assist state and local entities in providing reentry services 

to the reentry population that may return to their communities.20

 

20According to various research, as well as federal officials, reentry programs are 

essential for those former inmates who are at a high risk for recidivism; however, research 

on low-risk offenders shows that it can be detrimental to their reentry success to provide 

too much intervention. 

For 

example, a community nonprofit organization may receive a federal grant 

to assist members of the reentry population in their job training skills 

following inmates’ release from prison. Such services funded through the 
 

Page 10 GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs

grant may include job placement or vocational training, such as 

construction.

Federal grant programs are generally created by statute and funded 

through appropriations. Competitive grants are announced through 

solicitations—or announcements to applicants of funding opportunities—

and a single program may award funding through multiple solicitations. 

Once a grant is awarded, statutes may require that a primary grant 

recipient—that is, the one to whom the federal agency makes the original 

award—then award a portion of its grant to a subgrantee. Where statutes 

do not require subgranting, a grantee may voluntarily choose to award all 

or a portion of its funds to subgrantees. Further, federal agencies’ 

monitoring of grantee performance is important to help ensure that 

grantees are meeting program and accountability requirements. Table 1 

describes the phases of the federal grant life cycle and the common 

activities agencies engage in within each phase.

Table 1: Four Phases of the Federal Grant Life Cycle

Grant phase Common activities

Preaward • Announce the opportunity

• Receive and review applications

Award • Notify the grantee

• Publicly announce the awarding of funds

Implementation • Disburse payment

• Collect and review grantee progress reports

• Conduct site visits to monitor for compliance

Closeout • Reconcile financial data and other reports

Source: GAO.

Federal grants to assist with reentry efforts have been in place for several 

years and have had a number of incarnations. Two of these former efforts 

are the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI) and the 

Prisoner Reentry Initiative (PRI).21

 

21Both programs were implemented under the authority granted by the reentry program 

codified at 42 U.S.C. § 3797w.

 SVORI—a $300 million collaborative 

effort among DOJ, Labor, HHS, and the Departments of Education and 

Housing and Urban Development—began in 2002. The goal of the 

SVORI grant program was to reduce recidivism among high-risk 

Grant Program 

Administration and 

Reentry Grant History
 

Page 11 GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs

offenders—those who faced multiple challenges upon returning to the 

community from incarceration. SVORI concluded in fiscal year 2005, but 

its goals continued through the PRI, which DOJ and Labor administered. 

The PRI grant program focused on reducing recidivism by helping former 

inmates find work and providing them access to other critical services in 

their communities. PRI concluded in fiscal year 2008 when its 

appropriation expired.

Since PRI’s conclusion, DOJ, Labor, and HHS each have implemented 

grant programs that support reentry services at the state and local levels. 

The Second Chance Act of 2007 authorizes the Attorney General to 

administer federal grants to state and local government agencies, 

territories, or Indian tribes, or any combination thereof, in partnership with 

stakeholders, service providers, and nonprofit organizations to provide 

employment assistance, substance abuse treatment, housing, mentoring, 

and other services that can help reduce recidivism.22 DOJ administers 

these grants through the SCA program and has awarded funding through 

a number of SCA solicitations.23 Under the Second Chance Act of 2007 

and the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, Labor implemented its RExO 

program and has awarded funding through a few RExO solicitations.24

RExO is designed to strengthen communities to which the majority of 

former inmates return to through an employment-centered program that 

incorporates mentoring, job training, and other comprehensive transitional 

services. This program seeks to reduce recidivism by helping former 

inmates find work when they return to their communities. Finally, HHS 

developed the ORP solicitation under its Programs of Regional and 

National Significance grant program.25

 

22Pub. L. No. 110-199, 122 Stat. 657 (2008).

The purpose of ORP is to expand 

23Specifically, in fiscal year 2011, DOJ issued eight solicitations that provided funding for 

direct services for the adult reentry population under the SCA program: (1) Adult 

Mentoring Grants to Non-Profit Organizations; (2) Adult Offender Reentry Program for 

Planning and Demonstration Projects; (3) State, Local, and Tribal Reentry Courts; (4) 

Adult Offenders with Co-occurring Substance Abuse and Mental Health Disorders; (5) A 

Family-Based Offender Substance Abuse Treatment Program; (6) Technology Careers 

Training Demonstration Projects for Incarcerated Adults and Juveniles; (7) The Honest 

Opportunity Probation with Enforcement Demonstration Field Experiment; and (8) 

Demonstration Field Experiment: Fostering Desistance Through Effective Supervision.

24Pub. L. No. 105-220, 112 Stat. 936.

2542 U.S.C. § 290bb-2.
 

Page 12 GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs

or enhance substance abuse treatment and related recovery and reentry 

services to former inmates returning to the community.

In 2010, we were directed to identify programs, agencies, offices, and 

initiatives with duplicative goals and activities within departments and 

government-wide and report annually to Congress.26 In March 2011 and 

February 2012, we issued our first two annual reports in response to this 

requirement.27 In our 2012 report and a subsequent follow-on report, we 

found that of the 253 grant solicitations that DOJ issued in fiscal year 

2010, there was overlap across 10 justice areas, including corrections, 

recidivism, and reentry. We reported that this overlap contributed to the 

risk of unnecessarily duplicative grant awards for the same or similar 

purposes.28 We also reported that DOJ generally lacked awareness of the 

extent to which its grant programs overlapped and thus was not 

positioned to minimize the risk of potential unnecessary duplication before 

making grant awards. In the July 2012 report that expanded on these 

findings, we recommended, among other things, that DOJ assess its 

grant programs for overlap and that DOJ require its grant applicants to 

report past, current, and prospective federal funding it has or plans to 

receive.29 DOJ agreed with our recommendations and has begun to take 

steps to implement them, such as exploring options to carry out an 

assessment to determine the extent of unnecessary duplication, if any, 

and the risk associated with unnecessary program duplication.

 

26Pub. L. No. 111-139, § 21, 124 Stat. 8, 29-30 (2010).

27GAO-11-318SP and GAO-12-342SP. 

28GAO-12-517 and GAO-12-342SP. 

29GAO-12-517. 

Prior Findings Related to 

Fragmentation, Overlap, 

and Duplication across 

DOJ Grant Programs
 

Page 13 GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs

DOJ, Labor, and HHS separately provided new or continuation grant 

funding to support direct services to the adult reentry population through 

nine grant programs in fiscal year 2011. Since more than one federal 

agency is involved in this same broad area of national interest, these 

programs are fragmented. As shown in table 2, these agencies awarded 

about $630 million to new grantees in that year.

30 In some cases, the 

program is exclusively for reentry—as is the case with Labor’s RExO 

program. In other instances, such as DOJ’s Edward Byrne Memorial 

Justice Assistance Grant program, grantees may use the money for 

reentry-related services, but they may also use it for other criminal justicerelated matters, such as indigent defense.31

 

30This amount includes funding for “new” awards—awards for grantees that are not 

currently receiving funds, and does not include funding for “continuation” awards—awards 

made to grantees to continue a program that was initially awarded funding in a prior year. 

Some of the grant solicitations that awarded funds in fiscal year 2011 were open to both 

juvenile and adult reentry populations.

31Indigent defense refers to the defense of individuals accused of a crime and unable to 

afford representation. 

Federal Reentry Grant 

Programs Are 

Fragmented but 

Minimally 

Overlapping, 

Reducing the Risk for 

Duplication

Nine Reentry Grant 

Programs Are Fragmented 

across Three Federal 

Agencies
 

Page 14 GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs

Table 2: Fragmentation across Federal Reentry Grant Programs in Fiscal Year 2011 

Department/agency Grant program 

Number of 

new grantees 

Funding 

awarded to 

new grantees 

Number of new 

grantees specific 

to reentry

Funding for 

new grantees 

specific for 

reentry

Justice/Bureau of 

Justice Assistance

Second Chance Act 99 $40,983,248 99 $40,983,248

Residential Substance Abuse 

Treatment for State Prisoners

55 $22,817,755 N/Aa

Edward Byrne Memorial Justice 

Assistance Grant

56 $246,018,352 N/Aa

Justice and Mental Health 

Collaboration 

40 $7,757,426 N/Aa

Labor/Employment 

and Training 

Administration

Reintegration of Ex-Offenders 25b $30,227,870 25 $30,227,870

Health and Human 

Services/Various 

Agencies

Programs of Regional and National 

Significance (includes the Offender 

Reentry Program)

(Agency: Substance Abuse and Mental 

Health Services Administration)

262 $160,854,143 N/Ac

Healthy Marriage Promotion and 

Responsible Fatherhood Grants

(Agency: Administration for Children 

and Families)

134d $121,393,729 5 $6,744,690

The Linkage to Life Program: 

Rebuilding Broken Bridges for Minority 

Families Impacted by HIV/AIDS

(Agency: Office of the Secretary)

N/Ae

Health Improvement for Re-entering 

Ex-offenders Initiative

(Agency: Office of the Secretary)

N/Af

Source: GAO analysis of information obtained from DOJ, Labor, and HHS.

a

Not applicable; according to DOJ officials, they are not able to separate out grant funds provided for 

reentry-related services. 

b

Department of Labor Reintegration of Ex-Offenders funds are awarded on a program-year basis. 

c

Not applicable; no new grants were awarded in fiscal year 2011, only continuation funding was 

provided in this year. HHS provided continuation funds totaling $16,373,000 to 41 grantees. 

d

This includes 14 child welfare grants issued under this grant program. 

e

Not applicable; no new grants were awarded in fiscal year 2011, only continuation funding was 

provided in this year. HHS provided continuation funds totaling $2,840,000 to six grantees. According 

to HHS officials, all six grantees provide services to the reentry population, as well as other target 

populations. However, the funds cannot be separated out by target population. 

f

Not applicable; no new grants were awarded in fiscal year 2011, only continuation funding was 

provided in this year. HHS provided continuation funds totaling $1,977,511 to eight grantees—all that 

provide services to the reentry population. 
 

Page 15 GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs

Fragmentation of these federal grant programs is due in part to the 

legislative creation of the programs. For example, under the Second 

Chance Act of 2007, DOJ is directed to administer federal grants to 

provide employment assistance, substance abuse treatment, housing, 

mentoring, and other services that can help reduce recidivism.32

Accordingly, DOJ developed the SCA grant program, and issued a variety 

of solicitations under this grant program. While HHS is required to 

address priority substance abuse treatment needs of regional and 

national significance, the Secretary may carry out these activities directly 

or through grants or cooperative agreements, and accordingly, HHS 

developed the ORP solicitation.33

When considering, collectively, which applicants are eligible for the grant 

programs, the extent to which the reentry population is the sole target of 

the grant programs’ services, and the primary services these grant 

programs fund, we found that overlap across the nine programs was 

minimal. Therefore, the risk of duplication—when two or more agencies or 

programs are engaged in the same activities, provide the same services 

to the same beneficiaries, or provide funding for the same purpose—is 

low.

With respect to applicant eligibility, because there are three primary 

categories of applicants—state and local governments; tribal 

governments; and private, nonprofit, and community-based 

organizations—there is some overlap in this area. Specifically, as 

illustrated in table 3, five of the nine grant programs extended eligibility to 

all three categories of applicants.34

 

3242 U.S.C. § 3797w.

However, one allowed only state and 

local government applicants, and another allowed only private, nonprofit, 

or community-based applicants. Analyzing the data from the vantage 

point of the applicants themselves, state and local government agencies 

could apply to eight of the nine programs; tribal governments could apply 

to seven; and private, nonprofit, or community-based could apply to six.

3342 U.S.C. § 290bb-2.

34Included in the five grant programs that were open to all categories of applicants is the 

SCA grant program; however, only one of the eight solicitations for that program in fiscal 

year 2011 was open to nonprofit organizations. This solicitation required grant applicants 

to partner with a governmental agency.

Grant Program Overlap Is 

Minimal and the Risk of 

Duplication Is Low
 

Page 16 GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs

Table 3: Variations in Applicant Eligibility across Federal Reentry Grant Programs, Fiscal Year 2011

Eligible entity

Department Grant program 

Governmental 

agencies (state, 

local)

Tribal 

government

Private, 

nonprofit, or 

communitybased 

organizations

Justice Second Chance Act X X Xa

Residential Substance Abuse Treatment for State Prisoners X 

Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant X X 

Justice and Mental Health Collaboration X X 

Labor Reintegration of Ex-Offenders X 

Health and 

Human 

Services 

Programs of Regional and National Significance (includes the 

Offender Reentry Program) 

X X X 

Healthy Marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood 

Grants

X X X 

The Linkage to Life Program: Rebuilding Broken Bridges for 

Minority Families Impacted by HIV/AIDS

X X X 

Health Improvement for Re-entering Ex-offenders Initiative X X X 

Source: GAO analysis of grant solicitations.

a

Only one of the eight grant solicitations issued in fiscal year 2011 for adult former inmates under the 

Second Chance Act was open to nongovernmental agencies. 

Nevertheless, with respect to the extent to which the grant programs 

targeted the reentry grant population, we found greater variation and less 

overlap. Across the nine programs, as table 4 illustrates, three restricted, 

or targeted, their funds exclusively for use in assisting the reentry 

population. These were DOJ’s SCA program, Labor’s RExO program, 

and HHS’s Health Improvement for Re-entering Ex-offenders Initiative. 

Another five programs offered a range of solicitations, but at least one of 

these programs’ solicitations exclusively targeted the reentry population. 

For example, HHS issued a solicitation for ORP under its Programs of 

Regional and National Significance Program. Last, one program—DOJ’s 

Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program—was so 

broad as to encompass reentry amongst a number of other criminal 

justice or corrections uses. Since more than half of the programs target 

populations other than the reentry population, the overlap in this area is 

minimal.
 

Page 17 GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs

Table 4: Variations in Population Targets across Federal Reentry Grant Programs, Fiscal Year 2011

Department Grant program 

Reentry population is 

the exclusive target 

of the program and all 

solicitations

At least one grant 

solicitation 

targets the reentry 

population

Corrections or 

criminal justice is 

the target but 

funds can be 

used for reentry 

Justice Second Chance Act X 

Residential Substance Abuse Treatment for 

State Prisoners

X 

Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance 

Grant

X 

Justice and Mental Health Collaboration X 

Labor Reintegration of Ex-Offenders X 

Health and 

Human Services

Programs of Regional and National 

Significance (includes the Offender Reentry 

Program) 

X 

Healthy Marriage Promotion and Responsible 

Fatherhood Grants

X 

The Linkage to Life Program: Rebuilding 

Broken Bridges for Minority Families Impacted 

by HIV/AIDS

X 

Health Improvement for Re-entering Exoffenders Initiative X 

Source: GAO analysis of grant solicitations.

We also found greater variation, and thus less overlap, when assessing 

the primary services these nine grant programs fund, as shown in table 5. 

Across the nine programs, one grant program covered a wide range of 

reentry services; two programs’ primary services were mental health and 

substance abuse; one program’s primary services were employment and 

life, family, and parenting skills; and the remaining five programs had one 

or no primary use of funding. For example, DOJ’s Residential Substance 

Abuse Treatment for State Prisoners primarily funded substance abuse 

treatment for state prisoners, and Labor’s RExO program primarily funded 

services for employment assistance. Analyzing the data from the vantage 

point of the primary services, the greatest number of programs—four of 

the nine—focused funding primarily on substance abuse treatment, a 

different grouping of three programs focused its funding for health issues, 

another set of three focused on mental health and substance abuse 

treatment, and another set of three focused on employment. Because of 

the range in primary services that these programs fund, the overlap in this 

area is minimal as well.
 

Page 18 GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs

Table 5: Variations in Primary Services Funded across Federal Reentry Grant Programs, Fiscal Year 2011

Primary services funded

Department Grant program 

Employment 

(Includes 

education and 

vocational 

training) Housing Health 

Mental or 

behavioral 

health 

Substance 

abuse

Life, 

family, and 

parenting 

skills

Reentry 

courtsa

None, 

general 

corrections 

that could 

be used for 

reentry

Justice Second Chance 

Act 

X X X X X X X 

Residential 

Substance Abuse 

Treatment for 

State Prisoners

X 

Edward Byrne 

Memorial Justice 

Assistance Grant 

X 

Justice and 

Mental Health 

Collaboration

X X 

Labor Reintegration of 

Ex-Offenders 

X 

Health and 

Human 

Services 

Programs of 

Regional and 

National 

Significance 

(includes the 

Offender Reentry 

Program) 

X X 

Healthy Marriage 

Promotion and 

Responsible 

Fatherhood 

Grants

X X 

The Linkage to 

Life Program: 

Rebuilding 

Broken Bridges 

for Minority 

Families Impacted 

by HIV/AIDS

X 

Health 

Improvement for 

Re-entering Exoffenders Initiative 

X 

Source: GAO analysis of grant solicitations.

a

According to the SCA solicitation for reentry courts, a reentry court is designed to leverage 

partnerships among courts, social services, and the community to facilitate successful reentry. 

Reentry courts necessitate considerable cooperation between corrections and local judiciaries, since 
 

Page 19 GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs

they require the active involvement of community corrections agencies or parole boards in 

transitioning former inmates back into the community through active judicial or executive branch 

oversight. On its solicitation, DOJ does not define a specific model for reentry courts. 

When considering the three areas together—applicant eligibility, targeting 

of services, and primary services funded—the overall overlap is minimal. 

Specifically, there were variations in the applicant eligibility standards and 

target populations, even when grant programs allowed spending for the 

provision of similar services. For example, Labor’s reentry program limits 

eligibility to private, nonprofit organizations that will use the funds 

primarily to assist current or former inmates—residing in or released from 

any facility—with their employment needs. In contrast, one of DOJ’s 

reentry programs limits eligibility to governmental entities that will use the 

funds primarily to assist current or former inmates—residing in or 

released from state, local, or tribal facilities—with their substance abuse 

treatment needs. As we have previously reported, having multiple 

agencies with varying expertise involved in delivering services can be 

advantageous.35

Further, federal agency officials from DOJ, Labor, and HHS stated that 

reentry can be enhanced by coinvestment—where a variety of entities in 

one community are receiving funds from multiple sources to assist with 

reentry—as these reentry programs can complement one another. We 

observed the benefits of this coinvestment when we interviewed grantees. 

For example, one of the nine grantees we interviewed received funds in 

2011 from two different grant programs—ORP and RExO. These two 

funding streams helped the grantee provide both substance abuse 

treatment and employment assistance to the reentry population it served. 

Another grantee received a HHS Healthy Marriage Promotion and 

For example, agencies may be better able to tailor 

programs to suit their specific missions and needs. We have also 

previously reported that overlap among grant programs may be desirable 

because such overlap can enable granting agencies to leverage multiple 

funding streams to serve a single purpose. For example, according to 

DOJ officials, they encourage grantees to use multiple streams of funding 

to fully implement their projects when local and federal funding is limited.

 

35GAO, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education: Strategic 

Planning Needed to Better Manage Overlapping Programs across Multiple Agencies, 

GAO-12-108 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 20, 2012); Homelessness: Fragmentation and 

Overlap in Programs Highlight the Need to Identify, Assess, and Reduce Inefficiencies, 

GAO-12-491(Washington, D.C.: May 10, 2012); and Financial Literacy: Overlap of 

Programs Suggests There May Be Opportunities for Consolidation, GAO-12-588 

(Washington, D.C.: July 23, 2012).
 

Page 20 GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs

Responsible Fatherhood Grant in fiscal year 2011, and also received a 

RExO grant in 2012. The former assisted fathers reentering the 

community to develop parenting, relationship, and money management 

skills, while the latter grant would be used to assist both male and female 

former inmates with obtaining employment. Further, a few grantees 

stressed that the reentry population had various needs and that it is 

important that not just one need be met, but that the full array of services 

be available to prevent recidivism. According to Labor officials, given the 

volume of ex-offenders that are released each year, competition for 

limited reentry assistance from service providers in their communities is 

stiff. Of the more than 700,000 inmates released each year, according to 

each agency’s most recent annual data, the SCA program provided 

services to approximately 6,600; the RExO program provided services to 

about 7,500; and the ORP program provided services to about 3,300.36

Although the overlap is minimal across applicant eligibility, program 

targeting, and the services the grant programs fund—and the risk for 

duplication is therefore low—we have previously reported that the 

existence of overlapping grant programs is an indication that agencies 

should increase their awareness of where their funds are going.37 We 

have also reported that in addition to increasing their individual 

awareness, granting agencies should coordinate to ensure that any 

resulting duplication in grant award funding is purposeful rather than 

unnecessary. According to DOJ officials, it is in the best interest of each 

agency to know where there is active overlap between existing inmate 

reentry projects, as this allows for coordination of service delivery and the 

leveraging of federal resources, if appropriate. As we discuss in the next 

section of this report, DOJ, Labor, and HHS have implemented a number 

of mechanisms, partly in recognition of the overlap that does exist, to 

coordinate their granting efforts. Furthermore, officials acknowledge that 

even more can be done to increase awareness over the flow of federal 

funds and manage the risk, however low it may be, of unnecessary 

duplication. 

 

36Data for the SCA and ORP program are from 2011, and data for the RExO program are

from 2010—the most recent annual data available.

37GAO-12-517. 
 

Page 21 GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs

With acknowledgment of some overlap, DOJ, Labor, and HHS have taken 

a variety of steps to coordinate their reentry efforts as a means to prevent 

unnecessary duplication and share promising practices. The steps are 

consistent with best practices for interagency collaboration,38

Intra-agency coordination. Recognizing some overlap across their grant 

programs, both DOJ and HHS developed intra-agency working groups to 

internally coordinate their reentry efforts. For example, DOJ launched 

Project Reentry in 2010 to “focus federal resources on increasing public 

safety and maximizing the efficient use of public safety dollars by 

reducing recidivism rates.” According to DOJ officials, DOJ has some of 

the same members on Project Reentry as it has on the Federal 

Interagency Reentry Council to ensure that communication and 

collaboration is in place between the two groups. According to DOJ 

officials, Project Reentry provides opportunities for DOJ components to 

communicate; coordinate; brainstorm; and implement projects, initiatives, 

and ideas focused on improving outcomes in prisoner reentry. Efforts of 

Project Reentry include organizing workshops on reentry issues and 

supporting reentry courts by developing a tool kit on reentry. According to 

HHS officials, in 2010, its working group developed an agency-wide 

inventory of HHS efforts to assist incarcerated and reentering individuals 

and their families. According to a HHS official from the office that 

and include 

intra- and interagency working groups, the collective Federal Interagency 

Reentry Council, and a national resource center to obtain information, 

such as promising practices.

 

38GAO-06-15. 

Agencies Have Taken 

Steps to Coordinate 

Their Reentry 

Programs and Further 

Reduce the Potential 

for Unnecessary 

Duplication in 

Funding

Agencies Have 

Acknowledged Where 

Overlap Exists and Have 

Taken Steps to Coordinate 

Efforts
 

Page 22 GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs

coordinated the inventory efforts, the primary purpose of the inventory is 

to serve as a resource document so that HHS officials are aware of what 

projects are going on and who is working on them. Although the official 

stated that the working group no longer has regular meetings, members 

now informally coordinate and participate in the Federal Interagency 

Reentry Council.

Interagency coordination. Agency officials from DOJ, Labor, and HHS 

report that they have developed strong partnerships with their counterpart 

grant makers as a result of prior collaborative initiatives, such as SVORI 

and PRI. Although officials from DOJ and HHS reported that some of this 

grant coordination is informal and ad hoc, DOJ, Labor, and HHS have 

developed more formal and ongoing coordination mechanisms, as well. 

For example, DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Assistance and HHS’s Substance 

Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration first developed a 

memorandum of understanding in 2009 to improve formal coordination 

and communication in various programmatic areas, including reentry. 

Specifically, the agreement states that these agencies will coordinate on 

the development of grant solicitations, grantee conferences, and the 

vetting of relevant publications, among other things. Reference to this 

agreement is also included in subsequent ORP grant solicitations, stating 

that these agencies “share a mutual interest in supporting and shaping 

offender reentry-treatment services, as both agencies fund ‘offender 

reentry’ programs . . . ORP grantees will be expected to seek out and 

coordinate with any local federally-funded offender reentry initiatives 

including ‘Second Chance Act’ offender reentry programs, as 

appropriate.” The memorandum assists these agencies in establishing a 

mutually reinforcing or joint strategy, consistent with best practices for 

interagency collaboration. Agency officials reported that their interagency 

coordination has encouraged personal relationships among grantadministering staff and as a result, they are in contact at various phases 

in the grant life cycle. For example, officials from all three agencies said 

they are sharing some draft grant solicitations with one another to obtain 

feedback before issuing them. DOJ and Labor officials stated that they 

share the solicitations when the subject matter is relevant and not on a 

routine basis with all federal agencies. DOJ officials also stated that they 

are sharing lists of funded grant recipients with Labor, and that they 

publicly announce grant award decisions.

Federal Interagency Reentry Council. To enhance coordination across 

the federal agencies involved in reentry activities, the council’s working 

group has taken several actions since its inception in 2011. Consistent 

with best practices for interagency collaboration, the council has helped 
 

Page 23 GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs

agencies to define and articulate a common outcome, establish mutually 

reinforcing or joint strategies, identify and address needs by leveraging 

resources, and agree on roles and responsibilities. Specifically, the 

Federal Interagency Reentry Council has

• Inventoried all major federal reentry programs, including grant 

programs that supported reentry services in fiscal years 2009 and 

2010, and Federal Interagency Reentry Council officials stated that 

they continue to update the inventory to include resources available in 

2011 and future years. According to HHS officials, the council 

modeled this effort after HHS’s initiative to develop its intra-agency 

inventory. Further, HHS officials stated that understanding what 

resources are available is the first step to preventing unnecessary 

duplication.

• Convened research staff from 12 of its member agencies to regularly 

share information about reentry research and identify opportunities for 

research collaboration. Supporting the collaborative efforts of the 

council, officials from HHS, DOJ, and the Department of Commerce’s 

Census Bureau convened a research conference in January 2012 to 

discuss developing and improving federal household survey 

measures relating to incarceration. According to a HHS official, such 

measures would increase knowledge of the effects of incarceration 

and reentry on individuals and their families.

• Working with the Office of Management and Budget, developed an 

interagency intranet site for the council, which allows all federal 

agencies to share key documents and resources. Information included 

on the site includes PowerPoint briefings and reentry-related 

recommendations.

In addition to its efforts to coordinate across federal reentry grant 

programs, according to member agency officials, the Federal Interagency 

Reentry Council has been focused on reducing the barriers that exist for

the reentry population. For example, the council has taken several actions 

to address collateral consequences of criminal convictions—these are the 

laws and policies that restrict former inmates from things such as 

employment, welfare benefits, access to public housing, and eligibility for 

student loans for higher education. Such collateral penalties place 

substantial barriers to an individual’s social and economic advancement 

and can challenge successful reentry. Appendix II provides a summary of 

the council’s efforts to reduce reentry barriers and to achieve its other 

goals.

The National Reentry Resource Center. The Second Chance Act 

provided for the establishment of the National Reentry Resource Center, 
 

Page 24 GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs

which was established in 2008.39 DOJ partially funds the center, and 

under a cooperative agreement, the Council of State Governments 

Justice Center manages it.40

• Reentry Service Directories. In 2009, the National Reentry 

Resource Center catalogued state-led reentry efforts and launched a 

nationwide online directory of state reentry coordinators. 

Understanding the important role local governments play in reentry, in 

partnership with other stakeholders, the center has expanded the 

directories to include city- and county-led initiatives.

The center’s staff provide education, 

training, and technical assistance to states, tribes, territories, local 

governments, service providers, nonprofit organizations, and corrections 

institutions working on reentry issues. The National Reentry Resource 

Center’s mission is to advance the reentry field through knowledge 

transfer and dissemination and to promote evidence-based best 

practices. Some of the activities the National Reentry Resource Center 

staff, along with key stakeholders, have undertaken include the 

development of the Reentry Services Directories, National Criminal 

Justice Initiatives Map, a library of reentry resources, and a website 

known as the What Works in Reentry Clearinghouse, among other things.

• National Criminal Justice Initiatives Map. Taking the inventory on 

federal reentry resources that the Federal Interagency Reentry 

Council assembled, the National Reentry Resource Center developed 

an online, interactive map that highlights major federal reentry 

initiatives and identifies reentry grantees in every state. The map 

seeks to provide a place-based catalog of national initiatives and 

programs designed to reduce the recidivism rates of people returning 

from prison, jail, and juvenile facilities. According to Federal 

Interagency Reentry Council and Council of State Governments 

Justice Center officials, this resource allows both federal staff and 

local stakeholders to identify reentry resources in their jurisdictions 

and coordinate more effectively at the local level. However, at 

present, the map does not include the flow of funds to subgrantees. 

For example, one grantee we interviewed in New York stated that its 

program did not provide direct services in the New York area—

 

39Pub. L. No. 110-199, § 101, 122 Stat. 657, 666-667 (2008) (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 

3797w).

40The National Reentry Resource Center is funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, 

DOJ; the Public Welfare Foundation; the Annie E. Casey Foundation; the Open Society 

Institute; and the Joyce Foundation. 
 

Page 25 GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs

although the grantee is listed on the map as being a provider in New 

York. Rather, the grantee stated that its program provided funds to 

four of its affiliates in other states. Council of State Governments 

Justice Center officials stated that the map is based on the Federal 

Interagency Reentry Council’s inventory and is for informational 

purposes. Further, Federal Interagency Reentry Council officials 

stated that they continually work to update the inventory, and 

associated map, and that these efforts mark the first step to visually 

depicting the general flow of federal dollars. Five of the nine grantees 

we interviewed reported utilizing the map and finding it very useful. 

For example, three grantees reported that it was useful in helping 

them identify other resources in their jurisdictions. Three other 

grantees that had not used the map stated that they think it would be 

useful for future use.

• Library of reentry resources. The web-based library includes 

documents of interest to state and local policymakers, community and 

faith-based organizations, and the reentry population. Resources are 

organized by topic, such as juveniles, sex offenders, substance 

abuse, and mental health and include publications authored by 

organizations, researchers, service providers, and practitioners 

working in the reentry field.

• What Works in Reentry Clearinghouse. This website—launched in 

2012—offers access to research on the effectiveness of a wide variety 

of reentry programs and practices. According to the website, it 

provides a one-stop shop for practitioners and service providers 

seeking guidance on evidence-based reentry interventions, as well as 

a useful resource for researchers and others interested in reentry. The 

clearinghouse currently includes information on employment, housing, 

and mental health, and the National Reentry Resource Center has 

plans to add additional issue areas. Since the site was recently 

launched, it is too soon to assess how grantees are using this website 

to inform their program design and implementation.

Other efforts to share promising practices across agencies. In 

addition to some of the efforts listed above, DOJ, Labor, and HHS have, 

for example, held conferences or meetings for their grantees so that they 

may meet with one another, learn from panelists and presenters, and 

share information. DOJ officials stated that for the first time, in May 2012, 

its SCA conference was open to other federal agency reentry grantees. 

The grantees we interviewed stated that this type of coordination with 

other grantees has been, or would be, very useful, and that they learn 

information about other grantees through mechanisms such as 

conference calls and through their technical advisers. In addition, all three 

agencies share information on their agency websites about promising 
 

Page 26 GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs

practices to sustain successful reentry efforts. Specifically, DOJ maintains 

the Crime Solutions website—CrimeSolutions.gov—which includes 

information to assist users with practical decision making and program 

implementation on specific justice-related programs, including reentry, 

and presents the existing evaluation research against standard criteria. 

The CrimeSolutions.gov and What Works in Reentry Clearinghouse are 

linked to each other. Further, Labor maintains a website for its RExO 

grantees to share information, such as stories of efforts of grantees, and 

HHS officials stated that they are in the process of fully implementing a 

similar website. Finally, the Council of State Governments Justice Center, 

with support from DOJ, launched a reentry program database in 2010, 

which highlights community-based reentry programs that self-report 

promising practices and policies that facilitate successful reentry.

In addition to the steps that DOJ, Labor, and HHS have taken—

independently and through the Federal Interagency Reentry Council—to 

coordinate reentry efforts, they have also taken, or plan to take, further 

action to reduce the potential that grantees are using funds from different 

agencies or programs for the same purpose. As our prior work at DOJ 

has shown, if an applicant, either as a grantee or as a subgrantee, 

receives multiple grant awards from overlapping programs, the risk of 

unnecessary duplication increases, since the applicant may receive 

funding from more than one source for the same purpose without federal 

agencies being aware that this situation exists. Such duplication may be 

unnecessary if, for example, the total funding received exceeds the 

applicant’s need, or if neither granting agency was aware of the original 

funding decision.41 To help guard against this, HHS requires its reentry 

grantees to provide current or potential funding information from 

applicants. Officials stated that they have used this information for some 

grant programs to help ensure that funds will not be awarded for activities 

that are already supported by other agencies. Further, in response to our 

findings and recommendations from prior work, which specifically 

addressed issues of overlap and the importance of DOJ having 

awareness of the other sources of funds that applicants may have applied 

for or are receiving, DOJ has plans under way to assess all of its grant 

programs to determine the extent of any unnecessary duplication.42

 

41GAO-12-517. 

42GAO-12-517. 

Agencies Have Taken 

Action, or Have Actions 

Under Way, to Further 

Reduce the Risk of 

Unnecessary Duplication
 

Page 27 GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs

Further, DOJ plans to use the results of this assessment to determine 

how it will require grant applicants to report on other federal funding for 

the same purposes that they currently receive or have recently applied for 

in their grant applications.43 DOJ is also currently piloting such a 

requirement for a limited number of programs. Although Labor currently 

makes funding decisions without asking for information about and 

regularly considering other sources of an applicant’s federal funding to 

carry out the same or similar activities, it also has plans under way to 

collect and incorporate this information into its future grant solicitations. 

Labor officials acknowledged the benefits of collecting this information in 

helping to further prevent duplication, and toward the end of our audit 

work, told us that they have held meeting with HHS officials to learn how 

HHS collects this information from its grantees. As of early November, 

2012, Labor officials revised one of the department’s RExO grant 

solicitations to include a requirement that prospective grantees report 

other federal funding sources in their applications. Revisions to this 

solicitation were in final review, and officials stated that once it is 

approved, they plan to include this requirement in all future RExO grant 

applications

 

43Additionally, DOJ reported in September 2012 that all fiscal year 2012 solicitations 

issued through its Office of Justice Programs now include a clause that grantees must 

report to DOJ any federal funds they receive that have been, are being, or will be used, in 

whole or in part, for one or more of the identical cost items for which the Office of Justice 

Programs granted them funds for already.
 

Page 28 GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs

To assess individual grantee performance, DOJ, Labor, and HHS require 

their SCA, RExO, and ORP grantees to collect information on a variety of 

metrics, including those specific to recidivism.44 According to DOJ’s 

Bureau of Justice Statistics, there is no single definition of recidivism that 

is used universally.45 Instead, recidivism is composed of multiple 

measures, including, rearrest, reconviction, or a return to jail or prison 

with or without a new sentence—all of which indicate an individual’s 

return to the criminal justice system.46

For the SCA grant program, DOJ defines recidivism as “a return to prison 

and/or jail with either a new conviction or as a result of a violation of the 

terms of supervision within 12 months of initial release.” Although DOJ 

officials have established a goal that SCA programs should reduce 

Therefore, agencies require 

grantees to collect information on measures such as the number of 

program participants who are arrested or reincarcerated. In some cases, 

federal agencies may include all these measures in their assessment of 

how well grantees are doing to help inmates successfully transition to 

nonprison life. In other cases, an agency may use fewer measures.

 

44Under the Second Chance Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-199, § 101, 122 Stat. 657, 664-

667 (2008) (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 3797w), grantees are required to measure their 

progress toward increasing public safety by reducing rates of recidivism.

45The Bureau of Justice Statistics conducted two studies of recidivism of released 

prisoners that provide national estimates of the recidivism rate of prisoners in the 1980s 

and 1990s. 

46Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 

Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994 (Washington, D.C.: 2002), and Recidivism of 

Prisoners Released in 1983 (Washington, D.C.: 1989). 

Agencies Are 

Measuring Grantee 

Performance and 

Conducting Program 

Evaluations, but 

Additional 

Information Sharing 

Could Be Beneficial

Agencies Require Grantees 

to Collect Information on a 

Variety of Metrics to 

Assess Grantees’ 

Performance
 

Page 29 GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs

recidivism, they have not set a specific numeric target. Instead, officials 

stated that they compare the results individual grantees report in reducing 

recidivism with the average across all SCA grantees. DOJ officials stated 

that they are waiting for the results of an ongoing SCA program 

evaluation, which we discuss later in this report, so that they will have 

more information to determine what, if any, numerical targets would be 

most appropriate and what effect the SCA program has had on 

recidivism. Although DOJ officials have been collecting recidivism data 

from SCA grantees quarterly, they stated that they cannot use these data 

to determine the program’s impact on recidivism because they have 

concerns with the validity and reliability of data. Specifically, according to 

DOJ officials, some SCA grantees experienced difficulties accessing 

recidivism data, and as a result, data may not accurately reflect the 

criminal justice outcomes of the participants after they receive reentry 

services. For example, a grantee that is a county jail facility may not have 

access to criminal justice data outside its jurisdiction, which makes it 

difficult to track if a participant commits another crime in a different 

jurisdiction.

To help address data reliability challenges, DOJ officials stated that, as of 

October 2012, they will require SCA grantees to report on recidivism 

measures once at the end of their grant period rather than every quarter, 

as previously required. DOJ officials told us that they believe the reduced 

frequency in reporting will give grantees more time to access and review 

data they acquire from secondary sources and result in numbers that 

more accurately reflect recidivism outcomes. In addition, DOJ officials 

stated that this change will provide DOJ staff with more time to provide 

SCA grantees targeted technical assistance in data collection and 

reporting, which they believe will help mitigate the challenge of acquiring 

data from secondary sources. In another step to help ensure the reliability 

of data DOJ collects, the department requires SCA grantees to report on 

the source of their data, as well as any steps taken to ensure its validity.

For the RExO grant program, Labor defines recidivism as those cases in 

which an individual is “re-arrested for a new crime or re-incarcerated for 

revocation of the parole or probation order within 1 year of their release 

from prison.” If a participant is rearrested and subsequently released 

without being convicted of a new crime during that time, Labor stipulates 

that RExO grantees may remove these participants from the recidivism 

rate. Using this definition, Labor has set a target goal for its grantees that 
 

Page 30 GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs

no more than 22 percent of all the participants a grantee serves should 

recidivate, which is half the national rate of recidivism at 12 months.47

Although HHS officials stated that the department does not collect data 

on recidivism from its ORP grantees because no single definition of 

recidivism is used universally, HHS does require ORP grantees to report 

on the “criminal justice status” of program participants, which includes 

information on their arrest or incarceration. Using its definition, HHS has 

set a target goal for its grantees that 95 percent of all participants will 

have reported having no involvement with the criminal justice system for 

the 30 days prior to the reporting period—or no more than 5 percent of all 

participants reporting involvement with the criminal justice system during 

this time. HHS reported to Congress in its fiscal year 2013 Congressional 

Budget Justification that its ORP grantees active in fiscal year 2011 

achieved this goal with 4.8 percent of participants’ reporting involvement 

with the criminal justice system during the 30 days prior to the reporting 

period. In contrast to Labor’s requirement that RExO grantees maintain 

documentation supporting the recidivism outcomes they report, HHS 

requires ORP grantees to have their participants self-report any 

interaction with the criminal justice system for the 30 days prior to each 

reporting period. According to HHS officials, they take steps to validate 

data and perform periodic audits to ensure their validity. Table 6 provides 

Labor reported to Congress as part of its fiscal year 2013 Congressional 

Budget Justification that RExO grantees have achieved this goal with an 

average of 14 percent of RExO participant’s recidivating. However, Labor 

officials stated that recidivism can be a difficult outcome measure to track 

and they have had some concerns about the accuracy of data reported by 

grantees. As a result, according to Labor officials, they require RExO

grantees to maintain documentation supporting the recidivism outcomes 

they report. During RExO program operations site visits, Labor officials 

stated that they review case files to ensure grantees are maintaining this 

documentation. Further, on an annual basis, Labor officials stated that 

they review all the performance data RExO grantees submit to ensure 

program outcomes have been reported for all participants. Additionally, 

Labor officials stated that the ongoing RExO program evaluation, 

discussed later in this report, will independently verify the recidivism 

outcomes reported by grantees.

 

47Bureau of Justice Statistics, Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994.
 

Page 31 GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs

an overview of the measures each agency collects from its grantees to 

indicate recidivism.

Table 6: Federal Agencies’ Recidivism-Related Measures

Department

Grant 

program Recidivism-related measures

Justice Second 

Chance Act

Number of participants who were arrested for a new 

offense

Number of participants who were convicted of a new 

offense

Number of participants who had a revocation of the terms 

of supervised release

Number of participants who were reincarcerateda

Labor Reintegration of 

Ex-Offenders

Number of participants who were rearrested for a new 

crime 

Number of participant reincarcerated for revocation of a 

parole or probation order

Health and 

Human 

Services 

Offender 

Reentry 

Programb

Number of arrests

Number of arrests for drug-related offenses

Number of nights spent in jail or prison

Source: GAO analysis of DOJ, Labor, and HHS data.

a

Prior to fiscal year 2012, DOJ also required SCA grantees to report on the number of participants 

who had a technical violation of supervised release. DOJ officials stated that this measure was 

removed as of October 2012 because it was the most problematic for SCA grantees to report on 

consistently and the least likely to indicate criminal behavior. 

b

The Offender Reentry Program is a grant solicitation under HHS’s Programs of Regional and 

National Significance. 

In addition to recidivism-specific metrics, DOJ, Labor, and HHS also 

require grantees to collect and report on performance information related 

to other grant purposes. For example, Labor’s RExO program is focused 

on reducing recidivism through employment assistance. Accordingly, 

Labor officials also require its grantees to monitor and report on the 

percentage of participants who enter employment, the employment 

retention rate, and the average earnings of program participants. 

Similarly, as HHS’s ORP program aims to expand or enhance substance 

abuse treatment and related recovery, HHS officials require its grantees 

to monitor and report on the rate of substance abuse relapse and the 

number of participants who receive inpatient or outpatient treatment. 

Further, DOJ developed a core set of performance measures that all SCA 

grantees are required to report on, such as the rate of successful program 

completion, but it also includes metrics particular to the specific SCA 

solicitation. For instance, since the SCA Family-Based Prisoner 

Substance Abuse Treatment solicitation requires grantees to involve 
 

Page 32 GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs

families in treatment services, DOJ requires grantees to report on the 

number of family members who participate in services.

DOJ, Labor, and HHS analyze recidivism data to improve grant program 

operations in a variety of ways, but agencies could enhance information 

sharing about the methods they use to collect and analyze data to 

determine and report on overall program effectiveness. Agencies require 

their reentry program grantees to submit performance reports, at varying 

intervals, using their respective web-based grant management systems. 

According to officials from all three agencies, they use data grantees 

provide to determine the effectiveness of individual grantees. If data 

indicate a problem, officials stated that they may visit a grantee’s 

operations in person or otherwise provide targeted technical assistance to 

improve program outcomes. Table 7 describes the systems each agency 

uses, the frequency with which grantees are required to report, and the 

frequency with which agencies analyze grantee data.

Table 7: Agencies’ Use of Grant Management Systems for Performance Reporting and Analysis 

Department Grant management systems 

Frequency grantees 

submit reports

Frequency agencies 

analyze data 

Justice Performance Measurement Tool (PMT)

collects quantitative grantee performance information, 

such as data on recidivism outcomes and participant 

enrollment among others.

Quarterly, except recidivism 

data, which are required 

once during the grant 

period

Quarterly, except recidivism 

outcomes, which are 

considered once at the end of 

the grant period

Grants Management System (GMS) collects narrative 

performance information, such as program successes 

and challenges over the reporting perioda

Semiannually Semiannually 

Labor Management Information System (MIS)

collects quantitative information such as data on 

recidivism outcomes and employment rates. 

Quarterly, although 

grantees can use MIS for 

case management and 

enter data more frequently

Weekly and quarterly 

Health and 

Human Services

Service Accountability Improvement System (SAIS) 

collects quantitative information such as data on 

recidivism outcomes and substance abuse relapse. 

Semiannually, although 

grantees can use SAIS for 

case management and 

enter data more frequently

Bimonthly and semiannually

Source: GAO analysis of DOJ, Labor and HHS data.

a

For the semiannual reports, DOJ requires SCA grantees to provide narrative responses to seven 

questions: (1) What were your accomplishments within this reporting period? (2) What goals were 

accomplished, as they relate to your grant application? (3) What problems/barriers did you encounter, 

if any, within the reporting period that prevented you from reaching your goals or milestones? (4) Is 

there any assistance that [DOJ] can provide to address any problems/barriers identified in question 

#3? (5) Are you on track to fiscally and programmatically complete your program as outlined in your 

grant application? (6) What major activities are planned for the next 6 months? (7) Based on your 

knowledge of the criminal justice field, are there any innovative programs/accomplishments that you 

would like to share with BJA? 

Agencies Analyze Grantee 

Performance Data to 

Improve Operations but 

Additional Information 

Sharing Could Be 

Beneficial
 

Page 33 GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs

The grant management systems DOJ, Labor, and HHS use to monitor 

grantee effectiveness have different functionalities that present different 

benefits to agencies and grantees in collecting and analyzing 

performance data to improve operations. Specifically, Labor and HHS 

require RExO and ORP grantees to use MIS and SAIS to submit 

performance reports. Although grantees are required to submit reports to 

Labor and HHS on a quarterly or semiannual basis, because the systems 

allow grantees to enter participant-level data directly, grantees may enter 

these data more frequently for case management purposes. In fact, both 

agencies expect their grantees to use the systems as case management 

tools. According to HHS officials, they require ORP grantees to regularly 

enter participant-level data and provide data analysis training so grantees 

can use data to inform program decisions. For instance, HHS officials 

stated that ORP grantees use SAIS to aggregate data to identify trends or 

gaps in services and then make adjustments as needed in their 

operations. Further, two RExO grantees we met with reported finding 

Labor’s MIS system useful, as they could use a single system for both 

case management and grant-reporting purposes. In contrast, one SCA 

grantee we interviewed stated that it had to develop its own case 

management systems to track participant-level data, since DOJ requires 

its grantees to enter aggregate, rather than participant-level, data into 

DOJ’s PMT. 

Because RExO and ORP grantees can use MIS and SAIS to enter 

participant-level data and may do so on a more frequent basis, Labor and 

HHS officials can monitor and take action in response to those data. For 

instance, Labor officials use MIS to generate a weekly report that 

provides them with a snapshot of performance across all RExO grantees. 

According to officials, they can review data from the weekly report to see 

how many participants entered employment or who was arrested or 

reincarcerated. If data reveal that a particular grantee is showing a lower 

than expected rate of entered employment or other result indicating a 

program challenge, Labor officials stated that they take action to work 

with the grantee to identify resources and technical assistance that could 

improve the performance outcome. One RExO grantee we met with 

stated that Labor technical assistants visited its operations site about 

three or four times each year for the duration of its grant and provided 

helpful assistance that the grantee believes resulted in increased program 

participation. Similarly, according to HHS officials, they use SAIS on an 

ongoing basis to monitor performance across ORP grantees. According 

to program officials, if SAIS data indicate an issue, they can initiate onsite clinical or administrative technical assistance on an as-needed basis 

to improve a program outcome. In contrast, DOJ collects aggregate-level 
 

Page 34 GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs

data through PMT, which DOJ officials stated that they review quarterly. 

In addition, for certain grant programs, DOJ employs a semiannual review 

process that it calls GrantStat. Officials stated that during a GrantStat 

review, they assess PMT performance data and other relevant 

information, such as grantees’ semiannual narrative reports and input 

from DOJ’s technical assistance providers. DOJ’s goal during GrantStat is 

to determine how effective an overall grant program is in meeting its goals 

and which grantees may need targeted technical assistance, and in which 

areas, to improve their operations and participant outcomes. While DOJ 

has applied the GrantStat review process to several programs that it 

funds—as resources have permitted—officials stated that they used 

GrantStat specifically to assess the performance of selected SCA 

grantees in April and May 2011. As a result, DOJ officials stated that they 

had a better understanding of the quality of data that SCA grantees 

submit using PMT. They also stated that the assessment helped inform 

future funding decisions, such as which SCA grants funded in fiscal year 

2009 should be continued. According to DOJ officials, planning is under 

way to determine the programs that will be prioritized next for GrantStat 

review.

Although agency officials stated that they have had discussions about the 

capabilities of their systems, agencies have not formally met with one 

another, or through the Federal Interagency Reentry Council, to discuss 

the relative strengths and challenges of their systems, how frequently 

they collect and analyze grantee performance data, and how they 

determine overall program effectiveness. For example, according to 

Labor officials, they provided an informational overview of MIS to HHS 

officials, and provided HHS with access to MIS so officials could test the 

functionality of the system. In addition, DOJ officials stated that they had 

informational discussions with other members of the Federal Interagency 

Reentry Council, particularly Labor, about their performance 

measurement systems. Part of the Federal Interagency Reentry Council’s 

mission is to enhance communication, coordination, and collaboration 

across federal agency reentry initiatives. Further, we have previously 

reported on the importance of interagency coordination and information 

sharing across federal entities.48

 

48GAO, Bureau of Prisons, Improved Evaluations and Increased Coordination Could 

Improve Cell Phone Detection, 

We have also reported on the 

GAO-11-893 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 6, 2011), and 

GAO-06-15. 
 

Page 35 GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs

importance of measuring performance.49 By maximizing existing 

information-sharing and collaborative forums, such as the one the Federal 

Interagency Reentry Council affords, all three agencies would have an 

opportunity to share information on (1) what data they collect, (2) how 

often they review and analyze data, and (3) what decisions their analyses 

inform to improve program operations and report results, as well as to 

consider the feasibility of adopting any promising practices as 

appropriate. DOJ, Labor, and HHS generally agreed that information 

sharing of this kind would be useful. Discussions going forward would 

need to consider things such as the design of each system, the strengths 

and limitations of the respective grant management systems vis-à-vis 

each agency’s grant management policies and requirements, and the 

cost and benefits of adopting promising practices.

In addition to the program-monitoring activities that agencies have taken 

at the individual grantee level, DOJ and Labor have spent approximately 

$22 million to commission program evaluations to assess the 

effectiveness of selected reentry grant programs. Program evaluations 

are individual systematic studies conducted periodically or on an ad hoc 

basis to assess how well a program is working. They are often conducted 

by experts external to the program, inside or outside the agency, as well 

as by program managers. As we have previously reported, for programs 

where outcomes, such as reducing recidivism, may not be achieved 

quickly, or where their relationship to the program is uncertain, program 

evaluations may be needed in addition to performance measurement, to 

examine the extent to which a program is achieving its objectives.50

 

49GAO, Managing for Results: A Guide for Using the GPRA Modernization Act to Help 

Inform Congressional Decision Making, 

Accordingly, DOJ and Labor have commissioned program evaluations, 

examples of which are listed below.

GAO-12-621SP (Washington, D.C.: June 15, 

2012), and Agencies’ Annual Performance Plans under the Results Act: An Assessment 

Guide to Facilitate Congressional Decisionmaking, GAO/GGD/AIMD-10.1.18

(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 1, 1998).

50GAO, Performance Measurement and Evaluation, Definitions and Relationships, 

GAO-11-646SP (Washington, D.C.: May 2, 2011), and Program Evaluation, Studies 

Helped Agencies Measure or Explain Program Performance, GAO/GGD-00-204

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 29, 2000).

DOJ and Labor Have 

Commissioned Program 

Evaluations, and Efforts 

Are Ongoing to Determine 

Program Effectiveness in 

Reducing Recidivism
 

Page 36 GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs

• The Second Chance Act authorizes DOJ’s National Institute of Justice 

to evaluate the effectiveness of the SCA projects funded using a 

methodology that generates evidence of which reentry approaches 

and strategies are most effective.51

• Labor commissioned a program evaluation of its RExO grant program 

with officials expecting final results in June 2014. The evaluation 

began in fiscal year 2008 and examines impacts on participants’ postprogram labor market outcomes and rates of recidivism by comparing 

outcomes of RExO participants with the outcomes of randomly 

assigned individuals who are eligible for but do not receive RExO 

services.

Accordingly, the National Institute 

of Justice commissioned evaluations of grant programs funded under 

two SCA solicitations—SCA Reentry Courts and SCA Adult 

Demonstration. DOJ estimates that a report providing final results for 

the SCA Reentry Courts will be completed in summer 2015 and that a 

report providing interim results of the SCA Adult Demonstration 

program will be completed in spring 2013. DOJ officials also told us 

that a report with final results of the SCA Adult Demonstration 

program should be completed in summer 2015.

See appendix III for summary information regarding ongoing DOJ and 

Labor ongoing program evaluations.

The findings of these evaluations will likely add to the information 

agencies have to demonstrate the overall effectiveness of these 

programs as currently implemented in reducing recidivism. But because 

these evaluations are ongoing, it limits the available evidence agencies’ 

have to demonstrate their effectiveness in reducing recidivism. 

Nevertheless, agencies already have the results of program evaluations 

that Labor and DOJ commissioned for PRI and SVORI—predecessor 

reentry programs to SCA and RExO that were intended to reduce 

recidivism. In terms of recidivism, the final PRI program evaluation 

published in January 2009 concluded that recidivism rates across all 

grantees appeared low at 1 year postrelease.52

 

51Pub. L. No. 110-199, § 101, 122 Stat. 657, 667 (2008) (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 

3797w(n)).

However, the report noted 

that findings on recidivism should be interpreted with caution because 

“while [Labor] required grantees to verify and document that participants 

52Evaluation of the Prisoner Re-Entry Initiative. A report prepared at the request of the 

Department of Labor, Jan.13, 2009.
 

Page 37 GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs

were not re-arrested before entering data into MIS, site visits revealed 

that some grantee staff used a ‘no news is good news’ approach by 

recording that participants had not recidivated, even if they were not able 

to verify the outcome.” The report stated that recidivism outcome data 

were missing for about 12 percent of PRI program participants. 

Additionally, as noted in the evaluation report, the study did not include a 

control or comparison group and therefore was not intended to assess the 

effectiveness of PRI at improving program outcomes. DOJ’s National 

Institute of Justice’s evaluation of the SVORI program concluded that 

when compared with nonprogram participants, SVORI participants 

showed no discernible differences on outcomes with respect to 

recidivism.53 A subsequent report funded by DOJ concluded in February 

2012 that additional research was necessary into the sequencing and 

effects of specific combinations of reentry services and that a longer 

follow-up period with program participants may be necessary to observe 

the positive effects of the SVORI program on participants’ criminal 

behavior and interactions with the criminal justice system.54

Further, a 2010 DOJ Inspector General report identified program 

deficiencies with both PRI and SVORI.

 According to 

DOJ officials, the design of the ongoing SCA Adult Demonstration 

evaluation includes assessing the types, intensity, and quality of the 

services being provided over 3 years.

55

 

53Pamela K. Lattimore and Christy A. Visher, The Multi-site Evaluation of SVORI: 

Summary and Synthesis. A report prepared at the request of the Department of Justice, 

December 2009. 

For instance, the report found 

that SVORI and PRI grantees were not required to identify a baseline 

recidivism rate that would be needed to calculate any changes in 

recidivism rates as a result of the program. Additionally, SVORI 

solicitations issued between 2002 and 2004 did not specify a time frame 

after release in which to track a program participant’s recidivism. As noted 

in the Inspector General report, a time frame after release in which to 

track recidivism outcomes is needed so that progress can be 

demonstrated and outcomes compared at varying points during the 

54Pamela K. Lattimore and Christy A. Visher, et al. Prisoner Reentry Services: What 

Worked for SVORI Evaluation Participants? (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2012). The 

Department of Justice provided federal funds for this report to be prepared.

55DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Office of Justice Programs’ Management of Its 

Offender Reentry Initiatives (Washington, D.C.: July 2010). 
 

Page 38 GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs

monitoring period. In addition, the report recommended, among other 

things, that agencies require reentry grantees to establish baseline 

recidivism rates to facilitate comparison of recidivism rates between 

participants of reentry programs and nonparticipants. For both the SCA 

and RExO reentry grant programs, DOJ and Labor have taken steps to 

address some of the deficiencies. For example, DOJ requires its SCA 

grantees to provide a baseline recidivism rate they can use later to 

determine program impact, if any, on recidivism. Additionally, both DOJ 

and Labor have specified a 12-month time frame after release from prison 

or jail by which to measure recidivism. Further, according to Labor 

officials, as a result of the deficiencies identified with the PRI and SVORI 

programs, the department implemented several steps, including annually 

reviewing data, to ensure the reliability and validity of the recidivism data 

that RExO grantees report.

In contrast, HHS officials stated that although they do conduct program 

evaluations, they have not done this for ORP because of its size 

compared with other HHS grant programs. According to HHS’s Office of 

the Inspector General, HHS is the largest grant-making organization in 

the federal government, awarding $370 billion in grants in fiscal year 

2010.56 However, HHS does permit ORP grantees to spend up to 20 

percent of their grant funds on program evaluations and data collection. 

According to HHS officials, they collect and periodically review these 

evaluations and have used the findings, alongside other research, to 

change elements of program design. For example, officials stated that 

they changed the ORP solicitation to require that grantees work with 

correctional facilities to ensure a smoother transition and greater 

continuity of treatment services as an inmate transitions to communitybased treatment. However, officials stated that the majority of 

performance data they use to analyze ORP’s overall program 

effectiveness is gathered through the information individual grantees 

report using SAIS.

Given the number of federal agencies involved in reentry, the high levels 

of recidivism, and current resource constraints facing the federal 

government, it is important that federal agencies be well aware of how 

 

56HHS Office of the Inspector General, Top Management and Performance Challenges 

Facing the Department of Health and Human Services in Fiscal Year 2011, (Washington, 

D.C.: November 2011). 

Conclusions
 

Page 39 GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs

their grant funds are spent and monitor grantee performance to ensure 

the highest return on federal investment. Accordingly, federal agencies 

have taken a variety of actions to enhance coordination to prevent 

unnecessary duplication and monitor grantees performance. These 

actions include developing a memorandum of understanding to improve 

formal coordination and communication, sharing draft grant solicitations 

with one another to obtain feedback before issuing them, and 

inventorying all major federal reentry programs. Additionally, as multiple 

agencies are involved in federal efforts to reduce recidivism, they have an 

opportunity to learn from one another about promising approaches for 

collecting and analyzing data and making determinations about individual 

grantee and overall grant program effectiveness. Given that the effect of 

prior reentry efforts—SVORI and PRI—on recidivism was inconclusive, 

effective analysis of recidivism data gathered from current reentry 

programs is particularly important. However, DOJ, Labor, and HHS 

officials have not formally shared information on the relative strengths and 

limitations of the respective grant management systems and their unique 

approaches to monitoring outcomes. By taking action to share information 

on how well their grantees reduce recidivism, agencies could leverage 

existing collaborations, such as the Federal Interagency Reentry Council, 

and further strengthen their program management.

To better utilize the performance information they collect from grantees, 

enhance the capacity of their respective grant management systems, and 

improve overall management of reentry programs designed to reduce 

recidivism, we recommend that the Attorney General, the Secretary of 

Labor, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services maximize 

existing information-sharing forums, such as the Federal Interagency 

Reentry Council, to (1) share details on how agencies collect and analyze 

their data, as well as how they determine program effectiveness, and (2) 

consider the feasibility of adapting any promising practices in the future.

We provided a draft of this report to DOJ, Labor, and HHS for comment. 

We received written comments from each that are reproduced in 

appendixes IV through VI, respectively. In addition, DOJ and HHS 

provided technical clarifications, which we incorporated where 

appropriate. 

DOJ concurred with the recommendation in this report. Labor and HHS 

did not specifically state whether they concurred with our 

recommendation. All three departments reported that they would 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments 
 

Page 40 GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs

establish a subcommittee of the Federal Interagency Reentry Council 

Staff Working Group in the first quarter of fiscal year 2013 to (1) share 

performance measures, (2) assess and monitor grant performance 

information collected from grantees with a goal of improving overall 

management of reentry programs designed to reduce recidivism, and (3) 

communicate best practices for improving the coordinated delivery of 

evidenced-based services. These proposed steps, if implemented, would 

address the intent of our recommendation.

We are sending copies of this report to the Attorney General, the 

Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, 

selected congressional committees, and other interested parties. In 

addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-9627 or maurerd@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in 

appendix VII. 

David C. Maurer, Director

Homeland Security and Justice Issues
Appendix I: The Role of the Federal Bureau of 

Prisons in Reentry 

Page 41 GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs

According to the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Federal Bureau of 

Prisons (BOP), the process of reentry begins the day an inmate is 

incarcerated, and generally should continue after an inmate is released. 

BOP considers reentry to be a high priority and includes it in its mission:

“The mission of the BOP is to protect society by confining offenders in the 

controlled environments of prisons and community-based facilities that 

are safe, humane, cost-efficient, and appropriately secure, and to provide 

inmates with a range of work and other self-improvement programs that 

will help them adopt a crime-free lifestyle upon their return to the 

community.” 

BOP estimated that about $640 million of its $6.6 billion fiscal year 2012 

operating budget is dedicated to reentry activities. According to BOP 

officials, the estimate is based on the costs of larger programs that 

specifically support reentry, such as education and vocational training 

initiatives and drug treatment programs. But officials stated that because 

reentry is a process and not a specific program, some initiatives that 

support reentry would not be captured in this estimate. For example, at a 

minimum, all BOP institutions offer the General Equivalency Diploma or 

English as a Second Language programs and therefore BOP included the 

costs of these programs as part of its reentry activities budget. However, 

the estimate does not include BOP-sponsored activities that are relevant 

to reentry that may be held on more of an ad hoc basis at individual BOP 

institutions. As we reported in September 2012, according to BOP 

officials, growth in the inmate population has led to increased waiting lists 

for programs.1 For instance, as of the end of fiscal year 2011, about 2,400 

inmates in male medium security institutions participated in residential 

drug treatment, almost 3,000 more inmates were on the waiting list to 

participate, and the average wait for enrollment exceeded 3 months. 

Table 8 illustrates the variety of reentry-related programs BOP provides.

 

1

GAO, Bureau of Prisons: Growing Inmate Crowding Negatively Affects Inmates, Staff, 

and Infrastructure, GAO-12-743 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 12, 2012).

Appendix I: The Role of the Federal Bureau 

of Prisons in Reentry
Appendix I: The Role of the Federal Bureau of 

Prisons in Reentry 

Page 42 GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs

Table 8: Selected BOP Inmate Reentry Programs and Activities 

Reentry program 

categories Examples of BOP reentry programs/activitiesa

Number of correctional

facilities offering the 

program, fiscal year 

2011

Program participants, 

fiscal year 2011

Drug treatment Programs include the following:

• Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program: 9- to 12-

month intensive drug abuse treatment program.

• Non-Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program: 

flexible program geared toward inmates with low-level 

substance abuse treatment needs.

• Drug Abuse Education: program for inmates with a 

history of drug abuse that encourages selfexamination on drug abuse and the cycle of crime.

• Community Transition Drug Abuse Treatment: 

program supports the continuation of drug abuse 

treatment for inmates through their period of 

community transition.

Residential: 63

Non-Residential : all

Drug Abuse Education: 

all

Community Drug 

Transition is provided at 

Residential Reentry 

Centers. 

Residential: 18,757

Non-Residential: 15,211

Drug Abuse Education: 

41,243

Community Transition: 

16,973

Education/

vocational training

Programs include General Equivalency Diploma, English 

as a Second Language, and Adult Continuing Education 

(includes classes such as computer literacy and financial 

planning, among others).

All correctional facilities 

offer General 

Equivalency Diploma, 

English as a Second 

Language, and Adult 

Continuing Education.

Certain facilities may 

offer additional classes 

or workshops to 

supplement the primary 

curriculum. 

General Equivalency 

Diploma: 20,979

English as a Second 

Language: 2,862

Continuing Education: 

17,946

Psychology 

services and sex 

offender 

management

Programs include the following:

• Non-Residential Sex Offender Management: moderate 

intensity program primarily for first-time sexual 

offenders.

• Residential Sex Offender Management: intensive 

program designed for sexual offenders convicted of 

multiple offenses.

• Challenge: residential treatment program for highsecurity inmates with a history of substance abuse or 

mental illness.

• Resolve: treatment program for female inmates with 

trauma-related mental illness.

Non-Residential Sex 

Offender Management: 

5 

Residential Sex 

Offender Management:

1 

Challenge: 14

Resolve: 10

Non-Residential: 455

Residential: 112

Challenge: 1,979

Resolve: 2,198

Residential Reentry 

Centers

BOP contracts with Residential Reentry Centers to help 

facilitate an inmate’s community transition. Centers provide 

inmates with employment counseling and job placement 

assistance, financial management assistance, and 

substance abuse treatment or counseling as well as other 

services, which may vary by facility.

All Residential Reentry 

Centers

72,494 
Appendix I: The Role of the Federal Bureau of 

Prisons in Reentry 

Page 43 GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs

Reentry program 

categories Examples of BOP reentry programs/activitiesa

Number of correctional

facilities offering the 

program, fiscal year 

2011

Program participants, 

fiscal year 2011

Faith-based 

programs 

Programs include Life Connections and Threshold.

• Life Connections: 18-month multifaith-based 

residential program that includes mentoring and 

community service, among other things.

• Threshold: 6- to 9-month nonresidential version of Life 

Connections.

Life Connections: 5

Threshold: 78

Life Connections: 394

Threshold: 757

Release 

preparation 

program

Program includes classes or presentations providing 

employment assistance such as résumé preparation and 

job search strategies.

117 62,236 

Source: GAO analysis of BOP documents.

a

For residential programs, inmates live in a unit separate from the general BOP population. For 

nonresidential programs, inmates are typically housed among the general population. 

Further, BOP developed a plan in 2011 to implement the Inmate Skills 

Development Initiative. Through this initiative, BOP intends to measure 

skills inmates acquired through effective programs with the goal of 

reducing rates of recidivism. Once fully implemented, the process will 

involve identifying inmate strengths and weaknesses using a 

standardized assessment tool, linking programs used to identify specific 

deficit areas, and tracking the inmates’ progress on their individualized 

plans throughout incarceration. According to BOP officials, correctional 

facilities are currently utilizing an assessment tool to measure inmates’ 

skills, and consider the initiative’s plan to be a living document that they 

will continue to update and improve. In 2010, we reported on BOP’s 

progress in implementing the Inmate Skills Development Initiative.2

 

2

GAO, Federal Bureau of Prisons: BOP Has Mechanisms in Place to Address Most 

Second Chance Act Requirements and Is Working to Implement an Initiative Designed to 

Reduce Recidivism, 

In that 

report, we recommended that BOP develop a plan for implementing the 

initiative that includes key tasks, responsibilities and timelines, as well as 

a comprehensive cost estimate. BOP has since taken actions to 

implement these recommendations.

GAO-10-854R (Washington, D.C.: July 14, 2010).
Appendix II: Federal Interagency Reentry 

Council Accomplishments

Page 44 GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs

The Attorney General convened the Federal Interagency Reentry Council 

for its first meeting on January 5, 2011. At that meeting, the council 

adopted a mission statement to (1) make communities safer by reducing 

recidivism and victimization, (2) assist those returning from prison and jail 

in becoming productive citizens, and (3) save taxpayer dollars by lowering 

the direct and collateral costs of incarceration. In addition, the council 

developed the following goals:

• identify research and evidence-based practices, policies, and 

programs that advance the council’s mission around prisoner reentry 

and community safety;

• identify federal policy opportunities and barriers to improve outcomes 

for the reentry population;

• promote federal statutory, policy, and practice changes that focus on 

reducing crime and improving the well-being of formerly incarcerated 

individuals, their families, and communities;

• identify and support initiatives in the areas of education, employment, 

health, housing, faith, drug treatment, and family and community wellbeing that can contribute to successful outcomes for formerly 

incarcerated individuals;

• leverage resources across agencies that support this population in 

becoming productive citizens, and reducing recidivism and 

victimization; and

• coordinate messaging and communications about prisoner reentry 

and the administration’s response to it.

According to the council, reentry is not only a public safety issue, but it 

also involves a variety of other issues, as shown in figure 2.

Appendix II: Federal Interagency Reentry 

Council Accomplishments
Appendix II: Federal Interagency Reentry 

Council Accomplishments

Page 45 GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs

Figure 2: Issues Related to Reentry

To address this wide range of issues, at its first meeting, the council 

developed a number of short-term issues on which to focus. These 

included

• providing visibility and transparency to federal reentry programs and 

policies,

• coordinating and leveraging federal resources for reentry, and

• removing federal barriers to reentry.
Appendix II: Federal Interagency Reentry 

Council Accomplishments

Page 46 GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs

Council working group members, who currently represent 20 federal 

agencies, reported in 2011 and 2012 accomplishing several activities to 

achieve these short-term goals, some of which are highlighted in table 9.1

Table 9: Federal Interagency Reentry Council Accomplishments 

Short-term goals Accomplishments

Providing visibility and transparency to 

federal reentry programs and policies

• Reentry public education materials. Council agencies developed and disseminated 

a set of public education materials, including the Reentry Council Overview, and the 

Reentry MythBusters series. Reentry MythBusters are fact sheets designed to clarify 

existing federal policies that affect formerly incarcerated individuals and their families 

in areas such as public housing, access to benefits, parental rights, employer 

incentives, and more.

• Website. Council agencies launched a website, which is housed within the 

Department of Justice-funded National Reentry Resource Center. The website 

provides public access to materials, activities, agency contacts, an interactive map of 

federal reentry resources, and a broad set of informational resources including the 

What Works in Reentry Clearinghouse.

• Leadership and visibility. Leaders and staff from many of the council agencies 

highlighted reentry in speeches, meetings, congressional briefings, and testimonies in 

Washington, D.C. and around the country. They also held reentry-focused events and 

met with key stakeholder organizations, including the major state, city, and county 

associations; faith-based groups; research and policy organizations; foundations; 

advocates; and others. Council agencies have also contributed to recent statewide 

Reentry Summits. 

Coordinating and leveraging federal 

resources for reentry

• Federal reentry inventory. Council agencies inventoried the major federal reentry 

resources going to states and localities. The National Reentry Resource Center then 

developed an interactive map that describes the major federal reentry initiatives and 

identifies active reentry grants in every state and by each federal agency.

• Intranet site. The Office of Management and Budget developed an interagency 

intranet site for the council, which allows all agencies to share material in one place.

• Collaborative reentry solicitations. Several agencies have collaborated to (1) 

develop new solicitations that reflect the reentry priorities of their agencies and/or (2) 

solicit input into and enhance joint planning for their existing funding streams.

• Reentry Researcher Network. Council agencies convened research staff from 12 

federal agencies to share information about reentry research and identify 

opportunities for collaboration. The reentry researcher network is developing an 

inventory of reentry research under way and is hosting a series of research briefings 

 

1

Agencies include the Department of Justice, Department of Interior, Department of 

Agriculture, Department of Labor, Department of Health and Human Services, Department 

of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Education, Department of Veterans 

Affairs, Office of National Drug Control Policy, Social Security Administration, Domestic 

Policy Council, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, White House Office of FaithBased and Neighborhood Partnerships, Office of Personnel Management, Office of 

Management and Budget, Internal Revenue Service, Federal Trade Commission, 

Interagency Council on Homelessness, Small Business Administration, and Court 

Services and Offender Supervision Agency.
Appendix II: Federal Interagency Reentry 

Council Accomplishments

Page 47 GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs

Short-term goals Accomplishments

on agency-funded projects.

• National Reentry Conference. The Department of Justice-funded conference 

expanded its 2012 national conference of Second Chance grantees to include 

grantees from other federal agencies.

• Women and reentry. The Department of Health and Human Services convened a 

conference focused exclusively on the reentry needs of women.

• Reentry Policy Guidance and Toolkit for U.S. Attorneys. The Department of 

Justice issued new guidance about U.S. Attorney involvement in reentry efforts. The 

Department of Justice also developed a Reentry Toolkit for U.S. Attorneys, who are 

increasingly engaging in reentry efforts as part of their antiviolence strategies.

• Federal Inter-branch Reentry Focus. The Department of Justice convened the U.S. 

Sentencing Commission, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the Federal 

Judicial Center, and Bureau of Prisons to share information and consider coordinated 

reentry strategies for the federal criminal justice population.

Removing federal barriers to reentry • Reducing housing barriers and homelessness.

• The Housing and Urban Development Secretary and Assistant Secretary sent a 

letter to executive directors of public housing authorities explaining current 

federal regulations and informing local public housing authorities that in many 

circumstances, formerly incarcerated people who have served their time should 

not be denied that access. Stating that “people who have paid their debt to 

society deserve the opportunity to become productive citizens and caring

parents, to set the past aside and embrace the future. Part of that support 

means helping former inmates gain access to one of the most fundamental 

building blocks of a stable life—a place to live.” 

• The United States Interagency Council on Homelessness published Searching 

Out Solutions: Constructive Alternatives to Criminalization, which focuses, in 

part, on effective housing strategies for the reentry population.a

• Collateral consequences.

• The Attorney General wrote to state attorneys general asking them to review the 

collateral consequences of criminal convictions in their states and consider 

eliminating those that prevent reentering individuals from becoming productive 

members of their communities.

• The Department of Justice is leading a multiagency effort to modify or eliminate 

federal regulations that may impose unnecessary collateral consequences on 

individuals with criminal records.

• Federal barriers to employment. 

• An interagency working group identified critical opportunities for reducing federal 

barriers to employment. It developed an action plan that includes a broad set of 

strategies to promote model policies; enhance existing training, enforcement, 

and compliance monitoring authorities in this area; create public education 

materials; and increase companion services to help remove barriers to reentry.

• The Secretary of Labor hosted a Roundtable on Workforce Development and 

Employment Strategies for people with criminal records.

• The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission held a meeting examining 

private and government employers’ use of arrest and conviction records in 

employment, the applicable legal standards, and best practices of employers.

• The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission updated enforcement 

guidance on the use of arrest and conviction records in employment decisions. 

The revised guidance calls for employers to assess applicants on an individual 
Appendix II: Federal Interagency Reentry 

Council Accomplishments

Page 48 GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs

Short-term goals Accomplishments

basis rather than uniformly excluding those with criminal records from 

consideration.

• The Department of Labor finalized and distributed guidance to the public 

workforce system regarding employer job postings that contain hiring 

exclusions/restrictions based on criminal history. 

• The Office of Personnel Management is considering revising federal hiring 

practices to ensure that individuals with criminal records are not unnecessarily 

deterred from pursuing federal job opportunities.

• Access to federal benefits and treatment.

• An interagency working group developed an action plan designed to improve 

access to federal benefits such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, 

food assistance, veterans, Social Security, and others that can help stabilize the 

reentry population, and by extension their families, after release. The action plan 

includes concrete coordination, training, and public education opportunities that 

will improve access by clarifying policies; increasing communications across 

agencies at the federal, regional, and state levels; and providing information and 

tools to direct service providers.

• The Department of Veterans Affairs issued a policy change in April that expands 

eligibility for its health care to include individuals in community-based settings.

• The Department of Veterans Affairs revised its administrative policy limiting its 

prison outreach to the 6 months prior to a veteran’s release. The revised policy 

will allow assessment and release planning with incarcerated veterans to begin 

earlier, thus enhancing the odds of successful reentry and reintegration.

• The Department of Agriculture also surveyed its nationwide partners and their 

local affiliates to learn more about nutrition assistance services currently being 

provided and to build on promising practices in promoting benefit access to the 

reentry population. Department of Agriculture officials will research effective 

programs that collect information needed to apply prior to release, ensure that 

individuals have appropriate identification upon release, and conduct prerelease 

outreach on the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program,

• The Social Security Administration is continuing to work with corrections officials 

to establish prerelease agreements for Social Security benefits and 

memorandums of understanding for replacement Social Security cards.

• The Department of Health and Human Services is assisting the field in 

understanding how to improve access to health care and treatment for the 

returning population, including funding a pilot project with the Department of 

Justice’s National Institute of Corrections to evaluate early access to Medicaid 

as a reentry strategy, and providing information about the Affordable Care Act 

and how its provisions might affect vulnerable populations, such as the reentry 

population.

• Child support issues for incarcerated parents. As part of the Department of 

Health and Human Services, the Office of Child Support Enforcement is 

spearheading a subcommittee to identify child support barriers to reentry, to build 

new partnerships and enhance existing partnerships, and to coordinate and leverage 

resources for child support and reentry.

• Tax education products. The Internal Revenue Service created new informational 

publications in English and Spanish that provide information on federal tax 

responsibilities, tax credits, and tax benefits and other information for the formerly 

incarcerated and consolidated this information on its designated Prisoner-Reentry 

Program webpage.
Appendix II: Federal Interagency Reentry 

Council Accomplishments

Page 49 GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs

Short-term goals Accomplishments

• Higher education policy. The Department of Education engaged agency partners, 

internal stakeholders, and external advocacy groups to consider recent research on 

the now-widespread use of criminal background checks in the college admissions 

process. 

Source: GAO analysis of Federal Interagency Reentry Council documents.

a

United States Interagency Council on Homelessness, Searching Out Solutions: Constructive 

Alternatives to the Criminalization of Homelessness (Washington, D.C.: 2012). 
Appendix III: Summary of Ongoing Agency 

Reentry Program Evaluations

Page 50 GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs

Table 10 provides summary information about the Department of Justice 

and Department of Labor Second Chance Act (SCA) and Re-integration 

of Ex-offenders (RExO) evaluations of grant programs that support adult 

reentry services.1

Table 10: DOJ and Labor Reentry Grant Program Evaluations 

Evaluation Agency Cost Length Description

Results 

Expected

SCA Evaluation of 

Honest Opportunity 

Probation with 

Enforcement 

Demonstration Field 

Experiment 

DOJ National 

Institute of Justice

$2,499,944 42 months Multisite evaluation to include a process 

evaluation to document the changes 

necessary to implement the program, an 

outcome evaluation to determine the 

program’s impact on offender recidivism 

and probation compliance, and a costeffectiveness study to assess the 

programmatic costs and any potential 

savings achieved through reduced 

probation revocations. 

March 2015

 

1

There are multiple forms of evaluation studies including (1) process or implementation 

evaluation, which assesses the extent to which a program is operating as it was intended. 

It typically assesses program activities’ conformance to statutory and regulatory 

requirements, program design, and professional standards or customer expectations; (2) 

outcome evaluation, which assesses the extent to which a program achieves its outcomeoriented objectives. It focuses on outputs and outcomes (including unintended effects) to 

judge program effectiveness but may also assess program process to understand how 

outcomes are produced; (3) impact evaluation, which is a form of outcome evaluation that 

assesses the net effect of a program by comparing program outcomes with an estimate of 

what would have happened in the absence of the program. This form of evaluation is 

employed when external factors are known to influence the program’s outcomes, in order 

to isolate the program’s contribution to achievement of its objectives; (4) cost-benefit and 

cost-effectiveness analysis, which are analyses that compare a program’s outputs or 

outcomes with the costs (resources expended) to produce them. When applied to existing 

programs, they are also considered a form of program evaluation. Cost-effectiveness 

analysis assesses the cost of meeting a single goal or objective and can be used to 

identify the least costly alternative for meeting that goal. Cost-benefit analysis aims to 

identify all relevant costs and benefits, usually expressed in dollar terms.

Appendix III: Summary of Ongoing Agency 

Reentry Program Evaluations
Appendix III: Summary of Ongoing Agency 

Reentry Program Evaluations

Page 51 GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs

Evaluation Agency Cost Length Description

Results 

Expected

SCA Reentry Court 

Evaluation

National Institute of 

Justice 

$2,988,850 53 months Multisite evaluation of the program to 

include a process evaluation to document 

and compare program models and 

implementation. An impact evaluation will 

examine rearrests, reconvictions, 

violations, and returns to incarceration 

using pre- and post-archival data and 

data from interviews and drug tests in 

select sites. Cost-benefit analyses will 

calculate avoided public costs by 

comparing program interventions with 

“business-as-usual” conditions.

Summer 2015

SCA Adult 

Demonstration Projects 

Evaluation

National Institute of 

Justice 

$3,656,357 53 months Evaluation of a subsample of 15 SCA 

adult demonstration sites funded by DOJ 

in 2009. The evaluation will include 

impact, process, and outcome analyses 

and cost assessments of reentry services 

provided by the sites.

Summer 2015 

(interim results 

in spring 

2013)a

SCA Adult Offender 

Reentry Demonstration 

Projects Evaluation

National Institute of 

Justice 

$2,934,589 39 months The evaluation will include a process, 

outcome, and cost evaluation of eight 

programs that were funded in fiscal years 

2010 and 2011. The evaluation will study 

the programs to determine whether they 

achieved the primary goals of reducing 

recidivism and increasing public safety, 

as well as other goals, including 

increased employment and education 

opportunities, reduced violations of 

conditions of release, increased payment 

of child support, increased housing 

opportunities, reduced drug and alcohol 

abuse, and increased access to 

substance abuse treatment and mental 

health services.

Spring 2016

SCA Evaluation of the 

Multisite Demonstration 

Field Experiment: What 

Works in Reentry 

Research 

National Institute of 

Justice 

$3,000,000 48 months In an effort to provide rigorous evidence 

of what works in reentry, the National 

Institute of Justice will conduct one or 

more experiments of promising reentry 

interventions, strategies, or programs. 

Reentering offenders will be randomly 

assigned to receive the experimental 

treatment or to receive “business-asusual” reentry services (or some other 

clearly defined control treatment). The 

evaluation has been funded by the 

National Institute of Justice in partnership 

with the Bureau of Justice Assistance as 

part of the Demonstration Field 

Experiment program.

Winter 2016 
Appendix III: Summary of Ongoing Agency 

Reentry Program Evaluations

Page 52 GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs

Evaluation Agency Cost Length Description

Results 

Expected

Reintegration of ExOffenders Random 

Assignment Evaluation 

Labor’s 

Employment and 

Training 

Administration

$6,964,569 64 months Random assignment evaluation of a 

demonstration serving formerly 

incarcerated individuals through 

employment-centered programs. The 

impact evaluation began in fiscal year 

2008 and examines impacts on 

participants’ postprogram labor market 

outcomes and rates of criminal recidivism 

by comparing outcomes of RExO 

participants with the outcomes of 

randomly assigned individuals who are 

eligible for but do not receive RExO 

services. 

June 2014

Source: GAO analysis of agency documents.

a

This evaluation was originally scheduled to be completed in fall 2013. According to DOJ officials, the 

project was extended by 6 months to (1) allow for a 12-month post-treatment follow-up period for all 

SCA participants, and (2) allow grantees time to collect criminal history and administrative data for all 

offenders who received SCA services if the offenders’ informed consent has been secured. These 

data will be used to create recidivism rates for the sample. 
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Justice 

Page 53 GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs

Appendix IV: Comments from the 

Department of Justice
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Justice 

Page 54 GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Labor

Page 55 GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs

Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Labor
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Labor

Page 56 GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department 

of Health & Human Services 

Page 57 GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs

Appendix VI: Comments from the 

Department of Health & Human Services
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department 

of Health & Human Services 

Page 58 GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs
Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 59 GAO-13-93 Inmate Reentry Programs

David C. Maurer, (202) 512-9627 or maurerd@gao.gov

In addition to the contacts named above, Joy Booth, Assistant Director; 

Tracey Cross; Justin Dunleavy; David Alexander; Billy Commons, III; 

Katherine Davis; and Eric Hauswirth made key contributions to this report.

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(441026)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.