Inmate Reentry Programs: Enhanced Information Sharing Could Further Strengthen Coordination and Grant Management
Published: 2012-12-14T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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 two-thirds 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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. 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. Assisting  the reentry population—former inmates or inmates preparing for release  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.
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   Unlike some other executive  direct and collateral costs of incarceration. branch councils, the Federal Interagency Reentry Council does not  receive an appropriation from Congress and does not employ full-time  staff.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   Member agencies provide a range of services, from direct  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.
We have previously reported on the importance of sound federal grant  management practices. fragmentation, overlap, and duplication across the government since  2011, emphasizing opportunities to achieve greater efficiencies and more  effective delivery of government services, and have studied grants  management at DOJ in particular. 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.
GAO, Federal Grants: Improvements Needed in Oversight and Accountability Processes,  GAO-11-773T (Washington, D.C.: June 23, 2011). 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.
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. 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. 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  reentry. 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. We compared  agencies’ coordination activities with best practices for interagency  collaborations. 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.
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. 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.
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.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: Reentry Population Needs
paragraphs: 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  reenter society. 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. In addition, former inmates are subject  to a wide variety of legal and regulatory sanctions and restrictions, which  are referred to as collateral consequences.
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. 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  grant may include job placement or vocational training, such as  construction.
section_title: Grant Program Administration and Reentry Grant History
paragraphs: 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.
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). 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  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. DOJ administers  these grants through the SCA program and has awarded funding through  a number of SCA solicitations. 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.  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. The purpose of ORP is to expand  or enhance substance abuse treatment and related recovery and reentry  services to former inmates returning to the community.
section_title: Prior Findings Related to Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication across DOJ Grant Programs
paragraphs: 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. In March 2011 and  February 2012, we issued our first two annual reports in response to this  requirement. 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. 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. 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.
section_title: Federal Reentry Grant Programs Are Fragmented but Minimally Overlapping, Reducing the Risk for Duplication
subsections: section_title: Nine Reentry Grant Programs Are Fragmented across Three Federal Agencies
paragraphs: 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. 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 justice- related matters, such as indigent defense.
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.  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.
section_title: Grant Program Overlap Is Minimal and the Risk of Duplication Is Low
paragraphs: 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. 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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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  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.
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. 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.
GAO-12-517.
section_title: Agencies Have Taken Steps to Coordinate Their Reentry Programs and Further Reduce the Potential for Unnecessary Duplication in Funding
subsections: section_title: Agencies Have Acknowledged Where Overlap Exists and Have Taken Steps to Coordinate Efforts
paragraphs: 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, 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.
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  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 grant- administering 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  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,  which was established in 2008. DOJ partially funds the center, and  under a cooperative agreement, the Council of State Governments  Justice Center manages it. 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.
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.
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— 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  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.
section_title: Agencies Have Taken Action, or Have Actions Under Way, to Further Reduce the Risk of Unnecessary Duplication
paragraphs: 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. 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.
section_title: Agencies Are Measuring Grantee Performance and Conducting Program Evaluations, but Additional Information Sharing Could Be Beneficial
subsections: section_title: Agencies Require Grantees to Collect Information on a Variety of Metrics to Assess Grantees’ Performance
paragraphs: 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. According to DOJ’s  Bureau of Justice Statistics, there is no single definition of recidivism that  is used universally. 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. 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.
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  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  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.  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.
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  an overview of the measures each agency collects from its grantees to  indicate recidivism.
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  families in treatment services, DOJ requires grantees to report on the  number of family members who participate in services.
section_title: Agencies Analyze Grantee Performance Data to Improve Operations but Additional Information Sharing Could Be Beneficial
paragraphs: 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.
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 on- site clinical or administrative technical assistance on an as-needed basis  to improve a program outcome. In contrast, DOJ collects aggregate-level  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. We have also reported on the  importance of measuring performance.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.
section_title: DOJ and Labor Have Commissioned Program Evaluations, and Efforts Are Ongoing to Determine Program Effectiveness in Reducing Recidivism
paragraphs: 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.Accordingly, DOJ and Labor have commissioned program evaluations,  examples of which are listed below.
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. 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.
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’ post- program 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.
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. However, the report noted  that findings on recidivism should be interpreted with caution because  “while  required grantees to verify and document that participants  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. 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. 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.
Further, a 2010 DOJ Inspector General report identified program  deficiencies with both PRI and SVORI. 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  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. 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 community- based 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.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Appendix I: The Role of the Federal Bureau of Prisons in Reentry
paragraphs: 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. 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.
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.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.
section_title: Appendix II: Federal Interagency Reentry Council Accomplishments
paragraphs: 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 well- being 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.
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.
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.
section_title: Appendix III: Summary of Ongoing Agency Reentry Program Evaluations
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Justice
section_title: Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Labor
section_title: Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Health & Human Services
section_title: Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: 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.