F I N A L
R E S E A R C H
R E P O R T

The Housing Landscape
for Returning Prisoners
in the District of Columbia

N o v e m b e r 2 3, 2 0 0 6

Caterina Gouvis Roman
Michael J. Kane
Rukmini Giridharadas

For the Fannie Mae Foundation

URBAN INSTITUTE
Executive Summary

research for safer communities

1

Justice Policy Center

THE HOUSING LANDSCAPE FOR RETURNING
PRISONERS IN THE DISTRICT
Authors:
Caterina Gouvis Roman
Michael J. Kane
Rukmini Giridharadas

2006
The Urban Institute
2100 M Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20037
(202) 833-7200

Prepared for
The Fannie Mae Foundation

The views expressed in this report are
those of the authors and should not be
attributed to the Fannie Mae Foundation, the Urban
Institute, its trustees, or its funders. In addition, although some data analyzed in this report have been
provided by the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA), the material presented in
this report does not represent an expression of the
policies of the agency.
.

This research was supported by The Fannie Mae Foundation

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the many individuals and organizations that made contributions to this
report. Juliet Scarpa and Sinead Keegan, former research associates in the Justice Policy Center, assisted with the literature review, database development, collection of survey data, and compilation of census data. Their efforts made this report possible. Gabriella Rico, a summer intern and Hispanic Caucus
Fellow, contributed significant time to the collection of survey data. Barbara Parthasarathy, an in-house
expert on federal criminal justice statistics, provided information on federal prisoners.
We would also like to acknowledge that data on returning prisoners in 2004 were provided by the
Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA). Claire Johnson, Director of Justice and
Community Relations at the District of Columbia Pretrial Services Agency, and Co-Chair of CSOSA’s Research Review Committee, was instrumental in facilitating the data agreement between CSOSA and the
Urban Institute. In addition, Calvin Johnson, Director of Research at CSOSA, answered our many questions with patience and always in a timely fashion. We thank him wholeheartedly.
Stephanie Jennings, our first project manager at the Fannie Mae Foundation, was tireless in her efforts to make this study happen. Kristopher Rengert, our second project manager at the Fannie Mae
Foundation, took over the project with grace, and provided thought-provoking comments on all sections of
the report. A number of individuals also lent their expertise in crafting the survey protocol: Susan
Galbraith, Executive Director of Our Place, DC; Nancy Butler, Program Administrator of the Downtown
Family Center of Catholic Charities; Eric Lotke of the Alliance of Concerned Men; and Pauline Sullivan,
Executive Director of D.C. CURE. These individuals also assisted our efforts in gathering service provider
contact information. Pauline Sullivan generously provided us with a copy of “Starting Out, Starting Over,
Staying Out,” a reentry guidebook for former prisoners returning to D.C.

ii

CONTENTS

Acknowledgments...................................................................................................................................... ii

Introduction.................................................................................................................................1
Chapter One: Reentry—the National Picture ...........................................................................3
Housing Opportunities and Associated Barriers ..................................................................................... 5
Familial Households............................................................................................................................ 5
Private Market ..................................................................................................................................... 6
Federally Subsidized Housing............................................................................................................. 7
Service Enhanced Transitional and Permanent Supportive Housing.................................................. 9
Community Corrections Centers ....................................................................................................... 10
Homelessness....................................................................................................................................... 10
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 11

Chapter Two: Prisoner Reentry in the District of Columbia..................................................12
The Policy Context Surrounding Prisoner Reentry in the District of Columbia ..................................... 12
Current Reentry Strategies in the District of Columbia ......................................................................... 18
Who Is Returning Home and Where Do They Go?............................................................................... 21
Where Do Released Prisoners Go?...................................................................................................... 25
The Intersection of Reentry and Housing in the District of Columbia.................................................... 28
Housing Barriers for Returning Prisoners in the District of Columbia................................................ 39

Chapter Three: From the Perspective of the Service providers: Issues and Barriers
Facing Returning Prisoners in the District ..........................................................................43
Chapter Four: Conclusion ......................................................................................................53
References ................................................................................................................................57
Appendix A: Survey Methodology
Appendix B: Survey Instrument

iii

INTRODUCTION
This report examines prisoner reentry in the District of Columbia within the context of
housing and housing-related issues. Reentry is the process of leaving prison and returning to society. With the exception of those few who die while in prison, all prisoners will at
some point return to the community. This year, more than 630,000 prisoners will be released from state and federal prisons across the country, more than four times as many
as were released in 1980. Communities across the country are grappling with challenges
associated with the successful reintegration of former prisoners. New research has
documented that disadvantaged urban communities receive the majority of released prisoners, and they are most often concentrated in just a few neighborhoods (La Vigne and
Kachnowski 2003; La Vigne et al. 2003; La Vigne and Thomson 2003). Accessibility of
housing and other social services, such as substance abuse treatment and employment
services, is likely to affect the reentry experience of returning prisoners (Visher and Farrell 2005). This report assesses both the social fabric within communities that have a high
percentage of returning prisoners and explores the housing landscape for prisoners
within these areas and throughout the city.
More specifically, the purpose of this study is fourfold: (1) to document the geographic concentrations of returning prisoners in the District of Columbia; (2) to develop an
assessment of housing and community-based capacity in District neighborhoods where
prisoners are returning in large numbers; (3) to explore the nature of housing-related reentry programming; and (4) to draw attention to the larger policy issues of building supportive neighborhood environments for returning prisoners. Specifically, the study addresses the following questions:
1. What is the current policy context underlying prisoner reentry in the District?
2. What barriers or restrictions do returning prisoners face with regard to accessing housing?
3. Where are prisoners returning within the District of Columbia? Are there concentrations of returning prisoners in particular neighborhoods in the District?
4. Are highly disadvantaged neighborhoods receiving a large number of returning
prisoners? What are the specific characteristics (e.g., poverty, crime, education-level, housing prices, housing quality, etc.) of these neighborhoods?

1

5. What opportunities for housing exist for returning prisoners in the District? Do
areas with high concentrations of returning prisoners face particularly challenging issues with regard to housing?
This report relies on data collected from two sources: (1) The Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency provided data on the census tract locations of prisoners returning to the District of Columbia in fiscal year 2003. The data were linked to demographic information on age, race, sex, marital status, employment, and educational attainment; (2) A telephone survey was conducted using a small sample of District of Columbia agencies and organizations. The survey collected information on type of organization, history in the community, service population, services provided, and organizational
resources. The survey also asked for respondents’ opinions on issues related to the
housing needs of returning prisoners as well as the needs of the organization. The survey
methodology is provided in Appendix A. A copy of the survey can be found in Appendix B.
This report fills important gaps in information vital to the District’s continuing efforts to
implement effective strategies for reintegrating and supervising returning parolees. More
specifically, this research has been developed to provide a framework for understanding
what types of housing and housing support services exist in the geographic areas to
which persons leaving prison return, and to document the needs of communities from the
viewpoint of the service providers. The ultimate goal is to sharpen the community’s thinking on the issue of housing and prisoner reintegration, and to foster policy innovations
that will improve outcomes for individuals, families, and communities.
The report is organized as follows: First, we examine the national issue of reentry,
describing the key issues, including the barriers facing returning prisoners across the
country. Second, we discuss the reentry issues surrounding housing and homelessness,
as well as current housing opportunities available to those leaving prison. Third, we examine prisoner reentry in the District Columbia, and describe the specific policy context in
which District offenders are incarcerated and returned to their communities. This section
also includes a discussion of current federally and locally funded reentry strategies taking
place in the District. Fourth, we describe the results of the telephone survey of providers.
And last, we conclude with a research summary and recommendations for policymakers,
practitioners, and researchers.

2

CHAPTER ONE:
REENTRY—THE NATIONAL PICTURE
Last year, over 630,000 people were released from prisons nationally—four times
more than were released in 1980. Many researchers and advocates have suggested that
current service and supervision systems are inadequate to ensure that returning prisoners experience a successful reentry into society (Lynch and Sabol 2001, Petersilia 2003;
Travis 2005). In addition, the flow of prison releasees may have severe consequences for
communities, neighborhoods and families (Hagan and Petty 2000; Lynch and Sabol 2000;
Petersilia 2000).
Within states, a large proportion of released prisoners return to a small number of
disadvantaged communities (La Vigne and Kachnowski 2003; La Vigne, Mamalian,
Travis, and Visher 2003; La Vigne and Thomson 2003; Watson, Solomon, La Vigne, and
Travis 2004). Large numbers of releasees returning to disadvantaged communities may
put increased strain on communities and diminish the ability of neighborhoods to reduce
or stop decay and crime. Wilson articulates (1987, 1996) that communities experiencing
economic deprivation have also been experiencing decreasing integration of middle- and
lower-class black families, which increases social isolation and the disintegration of informal social controls. Other scholars similarly discuss the decrease in social capital
(Coleman 1988; 1990; Paxton 1999) and structural disinvestment that America’s poorest
neighborhoods experience. Wacquant (1993) states that organizations that generally
would provide goods and services have either fled disadvantaged areas or remain but
exclude impoverished residents, no longer acting as vehicles of social integration. As
shown in later sections of this report, these disadvantaged areas are the neighborhoods
to which disproportionate numbers of prisoners return.
An individual’s adjustment to life after prison is influenced by a complex set of dynamics involving institutional, systemic, family, community, and personal factors that has yet
to be fully understood. The transition from offender to prisoner to productive citizen and
engaged family member is fraught with potential pitfalls often resulting in a re-arrest for a
new crime or a violation of community supervision. Many will return to prison within three
years of release. The largest recidivism study ever conducted—undertaken by the Bureau
of Justice Statistics—examined 38,000 (projected to represent 270,000) prisoners released in 1994 from prisons in 15 states, and found that 67.5 percent of those released
were rearrested for a new crime (either a felony or a serious misdemeanor) within three
years following their release (Langan and Levin 2002). The study also found that most
recidivism (two-thirds of all events) occurs within the first year after release. For many

3

reasons, those being released today may be even less likely to make a successful reentry than were those released in the recent past. Research indicates that compared to
prisoners released in the early 1990s, recently released prisoners are more likely to be
repeat offenders, and are more likely to have been released after serving a sentence that
was the result of a violation of parole. They are also less likely to have participated in
prison programs than they were in the past (Lynch and Sabol 2001).
The idea of “successful reentry” is widely discussed but less widely defined. In general, most would measure success as the ability of returning prisoners to avoid becoming
a burden on the state. This would mean committing no new crimes and also living independently and financially supporting themselves and any dependents. For many returning
prisoners the barriers to reestablishing their lives in this way are daunting.
Unemployment is common among returning prisoners, and barriers to employment
are prevalent on many levels. Pager (2002) found that a criminal record is associated
with a 50 percent reduction in employment opportunities for whites and a 64 percent reduction for blacks. Watts and Nightingale (1996) found that one year after release, as
many as 60 percent of former prison inmates were not employed. Kling (1999) found that
an experience of incarceration decreases lifetime earnings by as much as 30 percent.
There are several explanations for the inability of many returning prisoners to find gainful
employment. Low skill levels and a lack of education may explain some of the difference
between returning prisoners and others. The average level of educational attainment of
returning prisoners is quite low—less than 12 years of schooling, compared to over 80
percent of the nation’s population having completed a high school degree (U.S. Census
Bureau 2000). These factors are exacerbated by the reluctance and inability of some employers to hire individuals with criminal histories. A survey of over 3,000 business establishments in the mid-1990s found that over 60 percent of respondents would “probably
not” or would “definitely not” hire individuals with criminal records (Holzer, Raphael, and
Stoll 2001).
Legal restrictions limit the ability of many employers to consider hiring individuals with
criminal backgrounds, as certain individuals with felony convictions are barred from being
employed in a number of sectors. These restrictions vary by state and occupation, but
often include professions that involve care giving of vulnerable populations such as children or the elderly, and positions with security firms. Some restrictions are quite severe,
such as lifetime bans on anyone with a criminal record participating in a field. Other restrictions ban employment for periods of time, or ban individuals with certain criminal
convictions. In some instances, criminal backgrounds do not preclude individuals from

4

participating in a field, but criminal histories are considered in decisions about the granting of licenses.
In addition to employment barriers, prisoners and ex-prisoners experience poor
physical and mental health. A 2002 study by the National Commission on Correctional
Health Care found that while only 3 percent of the population spent time in prison or jail
in 1996, between 12 and 35 percent of individuals with communicable diseases passed
through the incarceration system in that same year. The contagious diseases considered
in this study include many sexually transmitted diseases, AIDS, Hepatitis B and C, and
tuberculosis. The Commission identified a number of cost-saving and cost-effective interventions, including pre-release planning, that, if implemented properly, would improve
conditions for prisoners, and in so doing, would likely decrease the risk of communicable
disease in the communities to which they will someday return. Similarly disproportionate
numbers of inmates suffer from chronic diseases, such as asthma and diabetes, and from
mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder (National Commission on
Correctional Health Care 2002). A study of youth in juvenile detention found that nearly
60 percent of males and more than two-thirds of females met diagnostic criteria for one or
more psychiatric disorders (Templin et al. 2002). The study also found that about half of
all detained juveniles in the study suffered from a substance abuse disorder.
One of the most significant barriers to a successful reentry experienced by returning
prisoners is the attainment of housing. The Urban Institute’s Illinois Returning Home
study found that returning prisoners view housing as a key component—perhaps even the
most important component—of successful community reintegration (La Vigne et al. 2004).
Poor employment prospects and physical and mental illness, as outlined above, exacerbate an already difficult housing search. These, however, are far from the only barriers to
housing for returning prisoners who have spent long periods of time in an institutional
setting, and who may have limited personal and familial resources.

Housing Opportunities and Associated Barriers
The barriers to housing experienced by returning prisoners are many and varied. This
section will outline potential housing opportunities for returning prisoners and discuss the
barriers returning prisoners may experience in trying to access these options.
Familial Households
For a majority of returning prisoners, their first home post-release is that of a family
member, a close friend, or a significant other. In the Urban Institute’s Returning Home
studies in Maryland and Illinois, 49 percent and 62 percent of respondents, respectively,
interviewed about two months after their release said they slept at a friend or family
member’s home (including spouse or partner) their first night out of prison. At the time of

5

the interview the overwhelming majority (80 percent in Maryland, and 88 percent in Illinois) were living with a family member (La Vigne et al. 2003; Visher, La Vigne, and Travis
2004). These findings indicate that although family and friends may not be the very first
option for those being released from prison (i.e., the first few nights out), most will end up
living with family within a few months after release.
Research suggests that strong familial ties can assist the reintegration process (Laub
et al. 1998; Sampson and Laub 1993; Warr 1998). Families provide financial, social, and
emotional support. The family’s role—such as supportive spouse or active parent—can
foster formation of a non-criminal pro-social identity that is linked to desistance from
crime. For 10 to 20 percent of returning prisoners, however, returning to the home of a
family member, friend, or significant other is not an option. This may be the result of family conflict, the reluctance of family members to welcome a violent individual back into
their lives, or the lack of an immediate family. In some cases there are additional legal
and policy restrictions. In cases of domestic violence, for example, there may be restraining orders that prevent an individual from returning to the home of a family member who
has been victimized, or who has been abusive. Conditions of parole can also create legal
barriers to returning to the home of a friend or family member. Families living in public
housing may be precluded by federal public housing policies from allowing convicted felons or other types of offenders back in their homes. Limited financial resources may also
be a problem because low-income families may be unwilling and unable to house and
support an unemployed family member.
Generally, crime-involved men are at high risk of low pay and insecure employment,
and studies have shown that incarceration reduces earnings and employment. A study
examining the impact of incarceration on wages using data from the National Longitudinal
Survey of Youth (NLSY) found the average hourly wage of a 27 year old who has been
incarcerated is $6.49 for whites, $5.67 for Hispanics, and $5.09 for blacks, compared to
$8.09, $7.48, and $6.79, respectively, for someone who has never been to prison (Western 2002). Other studies show similar findings—that earnings loss due to incarceration
ranges between 10 and 30 percent (Grogger 1995; Kling 1999). A further complication is
that many returning prisoners owe debts for supervision fees, child support, and other
costs (Visher, La Vigne, and Travis 2004). These debts often exceed average monthly
income (ibid).
Private Market
For returning prisoners who do not have family members willing or able to take them
in, the private market is one option. It is often, however, difficult for returning prisoners to
find adequate housing in the private market for a number of reasons. Affordability is likely

6

the most significant barrier. A study by the National Low Income Housing Coalition reports that the national housing wage for 2004 is $15.37, or $31,970 a year, almost three
times the federal minimum wage (National Low Income Housing Coalition 2004). The
housing wage represents the amount a full-time worker must earn to be able to afford the
rent for a modest two-bedroom home while paying no more than 30 percent of income for
housing. Those working at minimum wage must work at least 80 hours a week to afford a
two-bedroom apartment at the local fair market rent. Many urban areas are witnessing
increasingly tight rental markets, with a severely limited number of units available for lowincome households, particularly in neighborhoods accessible by public transportation
(National Low Income Housing Coalition 2004; Obrinsky and Meron 2002).
Other more informal barriers may also exist that make searching for housing in the
private market difficult for releasees. Landlords often consider the public safety of residents to be one of their responsibilities. They may view individuals with criminal records
as a threat to safety. Criminal background checks are standard practice by many landlords, and are a serious consideration if more than one individual or household has applied for a rental property. Most states allow landlords and property owners to conduct
criminal background checks on potential tenants. In addition, federal law requires that
states set up sex offender registries. Convicted sex offenders are required to register with
local authorities, and these registries can generally be widely accessed.
Federally Subsidized Housing
For many returning prisoners, neither familial nor private market options are realistic.
Without a family willing to take them in or the money available for rent, many turn to federally subsidized housing programs as a viable option before homelessness. Federally
subsidized options include, for the most part, public housing and the Housing Choice
Voucher Program (HCVP).
Nationally, there are approximately 1.3 million households living in public housing
units, owned, managed, and operated by 3,300 Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) (see:
http://www.hud.gov/renting/phprog.cfm). Regardless of criminal histories, public housing
waitlists for individuals and families are typically long, with families with children getting
first consideration for housing. According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition
(2004), between 1996 and 1998, a family’s average time on a waiting list for public housing rose from 22 months to 33 months, a 50 percent increase. In some large cities, the
waiting period is substantially longer.
Similar in objective to public housing, the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program is
the government’s major program for aiding very low income families, the elderly, and the

7

disabled to afford decent, safe, and sanitary housing in the private market. The tenantbased nature of the program supplements low-income families and individuals what they
can afford to pay for housing in the private market. This assistance allows flexibility in the
tenant’s choice of price and location to best suit their needs. The HCV program is seen
as a critical support to families who are trying to become economically independent from
government services. However, the HCV program has long waiting lists similar to those
for public housing. For instance, Montgomery County, Maryland (a close-in suburb of the
District of Columbia) currently has an HCV waiting list of over 10,000 families (Housing
Opportunities Commission 2005).
The barriers for returning prisoners seeking to access or return to federally subsidized housing are many. The most significant hurdle is likely lack of resources—basically,
there are insufficient units available to meet the demand, as demonstrated by long waiting lists. Compounding the issues of availability is eligibility, both for public housing and
for vouchers. From a financial perspective, many PHAs ask for proof of some kind of employment or income to be eligible for Section 8, a task difficult for those just leaving prisons or jails. Many individuals, even before applying, hold the assumption that everyone
with a criminal record is automatically barred from public housing and is rejected upon
application. While the federal law does hold that certain categories of applicants be de1
nied public housing, further denials based on criminal history are at the discretion of the

PHA or landlords. Tenant selection and occupancy policies permit landlords and PHAs to
examine an applicant’s history, including criminal background, to ensure selection of a
responsible tenant and good neighbor. These searches may lead to a significant delay or
denial of admission. HUD’s One Strike and You’re Out policy gives PHAs power to deny
admission or to terminate assistance to individuals with a history of use or abuse of drugs
or alcohol, or of criminal behavior (HUD March 2000). In terms of application for assistance, no set time period is defined for past criminal activity, and is “left up to the owner
(or PHA) to determine its admission policies…The owners and PHAs should make these
decisions in the best interests of their communities” (Federal Register 24 May 2001). The
same One Strike policy, upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, encourages housing authorities to include in leases a provision that a tenant in public housing can be evicted if the
tenant, any member of the tenant’s household, or any guest engages in drug-related
criminal activity on or off the premises. However, before termination, an official appeal to
the PHA is permitted, although many applicants are unaware of this right (Bradley et al.

1

Housing Opportunity Program Extension Act of 1996 (HOPE)—this act strengthened the ability of federally subsidized
housing projects to screen out and evict drug dealers and other criminals; grounds for immediate declination of application
include prior eviction from public housing due to drug-related activity, resulting in a three-year suspension; enrollment in a
mandatory state sex offender registration program; or anyone convicted of manufacturing or producing methamphetamine
in federally assisted housing.

8

2001). Regardless of having the opportunity to appeal decisions deemed unfair, families
may be reluctant to allow family members returning from prison to live with them.
Service Enhanced Transitional and Permanent Supportive Housing
Another housing option available to those with very few resources is serviceenhanced transitional housing and supportive housing. Service-enhanced housing includes transitional (i.e., fixed length of stay) or phased-permanent housing and is coupled
with a variety of support services to assist clients in achieving self-sufficiency. In most
cases, clients do not have occupancy agreements or leases. Phased-permanent refers to
a new housing model where residents have month-to-month occupancy agreements (not
leases), and therefore have some rights of tenancy. Supportive housing is permanent
housing that provides housing to lease-holding tenants, and where social service provision is an integral component of the housing operation. Most often, regardless of program
length or permanency, supportive or service-enhanced housing programs offer a range of
services aside from housing, including family counseling, case management, medical
services, substance abuse counseling, socialization skills groups, anger management,
vocational training, and assistance with obtaining vital documents such as Social Security
cards and birth certificates. Though some jurisdictions have used these programs specifically to target returning prisoners or ex-offenders, the majority serve these populations
simply because they are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless.
Community opposition can be an insurmountable barrier to the creation of new transitional or permanent housing for the poor or those who have had contact with the criminal
justice system. This opposition, known by the acronym “NIMBY” (Not in My Backyard),
can stop the development or expansion of supportive or transitional housing. Justifications for this resistance rest in both economic and non-economic concerns (Lake 1993).
Economically, residents may be threatened by the placement of these facilities in their
neighborhoods and fear a lowering of property values. Even though empirical research
has shown that the general impact of Section 8 occupancy and supportive housing (Galster, Tatian, and Smith 1999) appears to positively impact property values, the NIMBY
mindset prospers. Other motivations behind NIMBY include fear of increased levels of
crime, noise, and traffic. Although communities focus on the negative aspects of transitional and supportive housing, research shows that if negative impacts do occur, it is
most likely because these facilities are forced into alreadytroubled areas, providing more
potential victims to criminals already active in the area (Galster et al. 2002; Goetz et al.
1996).

9

Community Corrections Centers
The corrections system provides some opportunities for housing through the use of
community corrections centers, also known as halfway houses or community reentry centers. Community corrections centers are residential programs designed to help transition
individuals returning from prison, representing a “halfway” step between prison and freedom. These facilities are overseen by either corrections or community corrections agencies (i.e., probation and parole). Although eligibility varies by state and offense, some
inmates are eligible for release into a transitional program for the last 90 to 120 days of
their sentence. Halfway houses serve several purposes. They provide a structured and
regulated environment for releasees in need of direction and assistance in returning to
the community. They attempt to increase public safety by monitoring client progress. In
addition, the residential facilities often offer supportive services and staff that act as case
managers to broker employment and social service assistance to their residents. Most
halfway houses allow residents to obtain work outside of the facility. Many advocates of
halfway houses argue that halfway houses are more likely than prisons to ensure treatment needs (e.g., medical, drug abuse, mental health) of residents are being met.
Halfway houses are used both by the federal and state correctional systems. However, halfway use is more prevalent within the federal system. In 2000, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) contracted for 282 halfway houses that provided 6,911 beds for
over 18,000 inmates (U.S. General Accounting Office 2001). Generally, inmates enter the
halfway houses 11 to 13 months before their probable release date. The average length
of stay is roughly 104 days. In contrast to the federal system, across the state system,
there were only 55 halfway houses operated by 10 state agencies in 1999. Nationwide, it
is estimated that less than one half of one percent of all inmates released in 1999 were
served by halfway houses (American Correctional Association 2000).

Homelessness
Incarceration puts returning prisoners at risk of homelessness. About a tenth of the
population coming into prisons have recently been homeless, and at least the same percent of those who leave prisons end up homeless, for at least some period of time (Roman and Travis 2004). Individuals with histories of mental illness are even more likely to
be homeless (Ditton 1999; Mextraux and Culhane 2004). A 1999 national survey of
homeless assistance providers and individuals who use their services estimated that
about 54 percent of currently homeless clients had been incarcerated—in jail or in
prison—at some point in their lives (Burt et al. 1999). The available research does not
causally link homelessness to incarceration, but does show that those who have been
incarcerated are more likely than the average citizen to have trouble finding appropriate
housing. Research also indicates that parolees without stable housing may face a higher

10

risk of recidivism, whether through rearrest for a new crime, or failure to meet basic parole requirements (Nelson, Deess, and Allen 1999). For example, a study examining
Georgia parolees found that the likelihood of arrest increased 25 percent each time parolees change addresses (Meredith, Speir, Johnson, and Hull 2003).

Conclusion
The sections above demonstrate that although there are housing options for returning
prisoners, these options are fraught with numerous obstacles, particularly for those individuals who do not have family or friends to take them in, nor the economic means to
support themselves. Given the obstacles, a substantial number of returning prisoners end
up homeless—either for short periods, or possibly, for a longer term. The next chapter
describes the specific context for prisoner reentry in the District of Columbia and outlines
current federal and local efforts targeted to the District’s returning prisoners.

11

CHAPTER TWO:
PRISONER REENTRY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
The Policy Context Surrounding Prisoner Reentry in the District of Columbia
Prisoner reentry and related housing policies in the District of Columbia are largely
governed by the implementation of the National Capital Revitalization and SelfGovernment Improvement Act of 1997 (Revitalization Act). This act set in motion a series
of momentous changes in the organization and operation of the District’s criminal justice
system. Areas affected by the Revitalization Act included Pretrial Services, the Public
Defenders Service, Superior Court, sentencing, incarceration, and offender community
supervision and parole. Many of these functions are normally the responsibility of states.
In the District, almost all functions have been shifted to the federal government via the
Revitalization Act. As such, District prisoners are now under the authority of the federal
government.
Basically, the Revitalization Act changes affect criminal law violators throughout the
entire criminal justice process in the District. With regard to sentencing, the Truth-InSentencing provisions of the Revitalization Act have shifted the District sentencing structure from indeterminate sentencing consisting of minimum and maximum prison terms
with eligibility for parole to determinate sentencing. All felons convicted after August 5,
2000, are now required to serve at least 85 percent of a determinate sentence. Under
determinate sentence structures, there is no parole, and consequently, any single sentence of imprisonment has a definite term. A specified period of “supervisory release” can
follow imprisonment (somewhat similar to parole supervision). “Under the determinate
system, where the statutory maximum sentence for an offense is a term of years, the
maximum period of incarceration is the statutory maximum for that offense minus the
maximum term of imprisonment authorized for revocation of supervisory release. For example, an offense that previously carried a maximum penalty of 5–15 years (with the person being eligible for parole after 5 years) is now an offense that can result in a maximum
period of incarceration of 13 years followed by 3 years of supervised release” (Public Defenders Office for the District of Columbia 2005). If supervision is revoked, the parolee is
subject to an additional 2 years of incarceration. Prisoners serving sentences enacted
prior to August 2000 are still eligible for parole and are released under the old system of
“parole supervision.”
For individuals convicted after August 2000, the sentencing law allows for the inclusion of intermediate sanctions, where judges can order periods of custody (e.g., nights or
weekends) as part of probationary sentence, similar to work-release. These sanctions

12

may not exceed a total of one year. The District of Columbia has opened a number of facilities (all within the city limit) called community-based “halfway back” programs for those
individuals serving short periods of time on intermediate sanctions.
With regard to prison release, decisionmaking has been shifted from the D.C. Parole
Board to the U.S. Parole Commission. With regard to incarceration, the Federal Bureau
of Prisons (BOP) oversees all D.C. offenders committed by D.C. Superior Court for violations of the D.C. criminal code. 2 The District of Columbia jail and related activities remain
the responsibility of the District of Columbia government. All District inmates housed in
Lorton Correctional Complex 3 were transferred to various federal facilities around the
country. The transfer occurred in stages, with the first prisoners transferred in March of
1998 and the last transferred in November of 2001. Table 1 displays the number of D.C.
prisoners in BOP facilities from 1994 to 2002. As expected, the number of D.C. prisoners
in BOP facilities increased dramatically between

Table 1. Population of D.C. Criminal Code Offenders in BOP Facilities, 1994–2002
D.C. Criminal Code
Year
Total BOP population
Percent of total
offenders*
1994
86
84,362
0.10%
1995
306
88,658
0.35
1996
294
92,672
0.32
1997
319
98,944
0.32
1998
615
108,925
0.56
1999
892
119,185
0.75
2000
2,410
131,739
1.83
2001
6,371
142,766
4.46
2002
6,082
149,113
4.08
Source: FY1994-2002 Extract from BOP's online Sentry System.
*The column “D.C. Criminal Code Offenders” represents those committed by D.C. Superior Court
for violations of the D.C. Criminal Code.

2

Throughout the text, offenders sentenced by D.C. Superior Court (as opposed to District Court for federal offenses) will
be referred to as “D.C. Criminal Code offenders” or “D.C. prisoners.”
3
Lorton Correctional Complex, run by the District of Columbia, was the primary prison for D.C. prisoners. The complex
was razed to make room for a condominium and retail complex.

13

1999 and 2001. In 2002, D.C. prisoners comprised 4 percent of all prisoners in BOP facilities (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2005a). District prisoners are not necessarily housed
in facilities located near the District, but are scattered across the United States. Table 2
shows that in 2003, D.C. prisoners were held in 33 states, including California, Texas,
Florida, Nebraska, and Colorado (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2005b). Within the 33
states, D.C. prisoners were held in at least 75 facilities. For details of the changes
brought about by the D.C. Revitalization Act, see Appendix III in the March 2001 Government Accountability Office report titled “DC Criminal Justice System: Better Coordination Needed among Participating Agencies”(GAO 01-187).

Table 2. States Housing D.C. Criminal Code Offenders in Federal Prisons, FY 2003a
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arkansas
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
District of Columbia
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Iowa
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Massachusetts
Maryland
Maine
Michigan
Missouri
Minnesota
Mississippi

Number of
prisoners
18
0
0
2
39
52
86
224
0
223
414
0
0
0
49
223
271
62
141
40
188
0
0
45
26
3

State
Montana
North Carolina
North Dakota
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
Nevada
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin
West Virginia
Wyoming
Unknown Facility Locationb
Total

Number of
prisoners
0
1,156
0
25
0
156
0
122
0
8
18
1
883
0
48
0
41
210
0
698
0
1
4
443
0
47
5,967

Source: FY2003 Extract from BOP's online Sentry System.
a
These numbers were compiled from a daily snapshot of prisoner locations on September 30,
2003.
b
Facilities are only available by code name; data are not available to decipher all facility names
and states

14

The District’s prisoner reentry policies and procedures also were redefined with the
implementation of the Revitalization Act. The Court Services and Offender Supervision
Agency (CSOSA), a federal agency established under the Revitalization Act, was created
to manage all federal inmates released under supervision to the District. CSOSA also
oversees those on probation supervision.
The significant changes to the District’s sentencing, incarceration, and reentry procedures over the last five years render it difficult to examine trends in incarceration and release. As shown in Figure 1, Department of Justice statistics on the District’s incarceration rate are not complete after 1999, as data between 1999 and 2002 do not include
D.C. prisoners admitted to federal prisons. The line graph essentially displays the exodus
of District prisoners from the state system into the federal system.
However, the larger picture shows that the District of Columbia’s prison population
grew significantly between 1980 and 1999 (Figure 1). Taking population into account (not
shown), in 1980, the District of Columbia’s incarceration rate was 426 per 100,000 residents. By 1999, the incarceration rate more than tripled to over 1,314 per 100,000. Although not shown in the figures, the Mayor’s Office estimates that the number of District
inmates increased by 15 percent between 1998 and 2002 (Executive Office of the Mayor
2005). Federal Justice Statistics Resource Center (FJSRC) data compiled for the Bureau
of Justice Statistics show that there were 2,713 District offenders (sentenced by Superior
Court) committed to federal prisons in fiscal year 2003 (Table 3) (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2005c). District officials believe the increase between 1998 and 2002 is, in large
measure, due to rectifying the backlogs in parole hearings and releases resulting from
the transfer of the criminal justice system from local to federal control.

15

Figure 1. Number of Prison Admissions and Releases, District of Columbia,* 1978–2002

10,000

9,000

Number of Admissions/Releases

8,000

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

Admissions

3,000

2,000

Releases

1,000

20
00

19
98

19
96

19
94

19
92

19
90

19
88

19
86

19
84

19
82

19
80

19
78

0

Year

Source: Correctional Populations in the U.S. (BJS 2002) and Prison and Jail Inmates Midyear
2002 and 2003 (Harrison and Krisberg 2004). See National Portrait of SVORI, July 2004 (Lattimore et al 2004)
* These numbers for the District of Columbia includes inmates incarcerated in and released from
both state prison and jail.

Table 3 provides a one-year snapshot of the types of offenses for which individuals
are sentenced to prison by D.C. Superior Court. In fiscal year 2003, 42 percent were sentenced on drug charges (almost all for trafficking), 12 percent for property offenses, and
28 percent for violent offenses (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2005c).

16

Table 3. Inmates Committed to BOP Facilities from D.C. Superior Court,
FY2003, by Offense
Most serious offense of conviction 4

N

All offenses
Violent offenses
Murder/manslaughter
Assault
Robbery
Sexual abuse
Kidnapping
Property offenses
Fraudulent
Embezzlement
Fraud
Forgery
Counterfeiting
Other
Burglary
Larceny
Motor vehicle theft
Arson and explosives
Transportation of stolen property
Other property offenses
Drug offenses
Trafficking
Possession and other drug offenses
Public-order offenses
Weapon offenses
Immigration offenses
Unknown

2,713
754
122
226
375
30
1
337
16
0
11
5
0
321
115
83
108
3
0
12
1136
1127
9
323
161
0
2
Total:
Source: FY2003 Extract from BOP's online Sentry System.

4

Percent
of total

27.8%
4.5%
8.3%
13.8%
1.1%
0.0%
12.4%
0.6%
0.4%
0.2%
11.8%
4.2%
3.1%
4.0%
0.1%
0.4%
41.9%
41.5%
0.3%
11.9%
5.9%
0.1%
100%

"Murder" includes non-negligent manslaughter; "sexual abuse" includes only violent sex offenses; "fraud" excludes tax fraud; “larceny” excludes transportation of stolen property; "other
property offenses" excludes fraudulent property offenses, and includes destruction of property
and trespassing; "tax law violations" includes tax fraud; "obscene material" denotes the mail or
transport thereof. “Public order offenses” include, for example, tax law violations, bribery, perjury,
nonviolent sex offenses, escape, and gambling and liquor offenses.

17

Current Reentry Strategies in the District of Columbia
With regard to reentry policy and programming, CSOSA has developed a “Comprehensive Reentry Plan” to address the identified needs of all returning prisoners through a
three-part reentry system with an emphasis on community-based supervision strategies
(see http://www.csosa.gov). This system was developed around a data-driven formulation
of the problem and a commitment to community involvement. There are three subgroups
of clients targeted for the reentry planning process. These are:
Prisoners released from Federal Bureau of Prisons facilities located across the country to community supervision provided by the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency or U.S. Probation. 5
Reentrants with no community supervision, including misdemeanants or pretrial detainees released by the District of Columbia Department of Corrections (DCDC) or
felons released by BOP owing no additional sentence time. These individuals are not
under parole (or probation) supervision and hence, will not have services mandated
by CSOSA. However, on a voluntary basis, these individuals can take advantage of
the supports offered by CSOSA.
Split-sentence probationers released by DCDC to CSOSA supervision. Although
these individuals may have spent some time in the local jail (not BOP-run prisons),
these individuals are not considered parolees.
The intent of the District’s reentry plan is to tailor services to each person’s needs,
strengths, and aspirations. CSOSA has implemented a strategy devised to follow the individual from incarceration [Phase 1] to transitional programming [Phase 2] and finally,
community reintegration [Phase 3]. Each phase has a series of substantive areas for
which recommendations are provided. These areas include (a) case management, (b)
housing, (c) education and employment, (d) substance abuse, (e) mental health, (f) identification and benefits, and (g) family and community support. CSOSA’s Community Supervision Officers (CSOs) are responsible for creating a supervision and treatment plan
for each individual under CSOSA’s supervision.
The Comprehensive Reentry Plan is linked to an “Action Plan” (also available at the
CSOSA web site). The action plan is organized as a series of general steps that have to
occur for the reentry plan to be successfully implemented. Chapter 3 of the Action Plan

5

This report focuses only on this category of returning prisoners (i.e., those under supervision by CSOSA after spending
time in a BOP facility).

18

provides recommendations for improving housing option and related services for returning prisoners. The action items for housing include: 6
Encourage individual inmates to begin the application process to place their name on
a public housing lease prior to release from incarceration.
Facilitate the rental application process in order to support returning prisoners’
chances of obtaining low-income housing.
Encourage prisoners to save in-prison and work release wages by establishing interest-bearing accounts for post-release expenses.
Assist individuals in Community Correctional Centers with finding housing, particularly
individuals who may be released to the community without supervision. The District
has been attempting to develop additional transitional and permanent housing programs for released prisoners.
Create subsidized transitional housing for newly released prisoners.
Establish subsidized transitional family housing for ex-prisoners with custodial responsibility for children.
Create more subsidized housing throughout the city.
Create housing opportunities through single-room-occupancy facilities.
Encourage disabled returning prisoners and those completing treatment to pursue
programs that can help to defray housing expenses.
To date, CSOSA has made a number of strides targeting services to returning prisoners. CSOSA now facilitates videoconferences with prisoners at Rivers Correctional Institute in Winton, North Carolina, the BOP facility with the largest number of D.C. offenders.
The videoconferences are used to provide community-based service-related information
to prisoners. Housing referral and placement information is included in the teleconference. For all eligible parolees, CSOSA also implemented the Violence Reduction Program, a three-phase, 12-month treatment intervention for men, age 18–35 with histories
of violence, weapons, and/or drug distribution convictions. Phase I includes assessment,
Phase II involves cognitive-behavioral therapy, and Phase III is focused on aftercare and
community reintegration. Another key part of CSOSA’s reentry strategy involves a partnership with the faith community. The CSOSA Faith Community Partnership is designed

6

For the most part, these items are listed as they appear in the Action Plan.

19

to provide mentors for returning prisoners. The available network of mentors—from more
than 40 faith institutions—may have housing or other resources available for returning
prisoners. CSOSA also utilizes video conferences to bring together mentors and mentees
before the prisoners are released.
In February of 2006, CSOSA opened the Reentry and Sanctions Center, a 102-bed
facility, on the grounds of D.C. General Hospital. The Center is a 28-day program designed to treat returning prisoners with substance abuse problems upon release. The
program also acts as a sanctions center to address noncompliance by all parolees and
probationers already under supervision.
In addition to the District’s “Comprehensive Reentry Plan,” the District was awarded
funds through the federal reentry initiative known as the Serious, Violent Offender Initiative (SVORI). The U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs (OJP), in conjunction with other federal partners gave grants to 69 jurisdictions, representing 89 programs. Each state, plus the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands, were given
grants. The initiative provides funding to develop, implement, enhance, and evaluate reentry strategies that will ensure the safety of the community and the reduction of serious,
violent crime.
Through the SVORI grant, the District 7 targets male and female adults and youthful
offenders between the ages of 18 and 35, who have been convicted of drug-related or
violent offenses, have served at least one year of incarceration, and were released from
incarceration within the past year. According to Research Triangle Institute and the Urban
Institute, the evaluators of SVORI, the District’s strategy focuses its resources and efforts
on employment and vocational training, family support, and mental health services (See
http://www.svori-evaluation.org for more information on D.C. as well as information on
other sites). The first client was enrolled in April of 2004. Over 150 clients were enrolled
by the end of December 2004. With regard to housing, less than 25 percent of clients receive

7

housing-related

services

(referrals

or

The SVORI grant was made to the Mayor’s Office, (not CSOSA).

20

placement)

as

part

of

SVORI.

Who Is Returning Home and Where Do They Go?
During calendar year 2004, the Bureau of Prisons released 2,204 men and women
from prison into some type of community supervision in the District. Of the total, 63 percent were released on parole (signifying they were sentenced before August 2000) and
37 percent were released on supervised release (Figure 2). Although CSOSA does not
keep detailed statistics on prisoners who are released without any type of community supervision requirement, they estimate that about 10 percent of the District’s returning prisoners will have completed their sentences upon release (not shown). The statistics that
follow only describe those individuals returning to the District under parole supervision or
supervised release.
The majority of releases was male (92 percent), black (95 percent), and single (75
percent) (Figures 3 through 5). While blacks represent 60 percent of the population in the
District of Columbia, they represent almost all of District prisoners. Being single (i.e., not
married) is a risk factor for criminal involvement. Research shows that marriage reduces
the likelihood that those previously involved in criminal activity will associate with peers
involved in criminal activities (Laub, Nagin, and Sampson 1998; Sampson, Laub, and
Wimer 2006). A strong, quality marriage is a very strong predictor of desistance from
crime (Horney, Osgood, and Marshall 1995). Sampson and colleagues (2006) found that
at age 17 to 32 being married is estimated to reduce the rate of violent offending by over
50 percent, and alcohol and drug offending by 20 percent.
Figure 2. Prisoners Released under
CSOSA Supervision, by Type of Release,
CY 2004

Figure 3. Prisoners Released under CSOSA
Supervision, by Gender,* CY 2004

Supervised
Release
37%

Male
92%

Female
8%

Parole
63%

Source: CSOSA.
*Gender was not reported for two people.

Source: CSOSA.

21

Figure 6 illustrates that 34 percent of returning prisoners were between the ages of
36 and 55, a quarter were between the ages of 26 to 35, and another quarter were between the ages of 46 and 55. The average age in 2004 of returning prisoners released in
FY2004 was 39. Half of them have less than a high school education (Figure 7). Only 8
percent have taken some college credits or have an AA degree, and another 1 percent
have a bachelor’s degree. Figure 8 shows that 39 percent of parolees were known to be
employed for some period in FY2004, full or part time. Although the Urban Institute was
not provided with current data on the criminal history of returning prisoners, a 1997 report
estimates that the average individual under the supervision in the District in 1997 had 9.9
8
prior arrests, and 3.75 prior convictions (Taxman and Bouffard 2001). The Arrestee Drug

Abuse Monitoring program (ADAM) shows that drug use is a serious problem for D.C. offenders. ADAM data show that 65 percent of adult males arrested in the District in 2003
tested positive for at least one type of drug (Zhang 2004).
With regard to housing, CSOSA has found that 41 percent of returning prisoners were
having difficulty meeting their housing needs. Fourteen percent of parolees had moved at
least three times or had lived in an emergency shelter in the previous year (Executive
Office of the Mayor 2003).

Figure 4. Prisoners Released under CSOSA Supervision, by Race,* CY 2004

Figure 5. Prisoners Released under CSOSA
Supervision, by Marital Status, CY 2004
Widowed
0.5%

Hispanic
1.4%

Separated
2.3%
Common
Law
1.5%

Other
<1%

Black NotHispanic
94.5%

White
Not-Hispanic
1.1%

Source: CSOSA
*Race/ethnicity was not known for 63 persons.
8

Divorced
3.7%
Single
75.7%

Married
8.1%

Source: CSOSA
*Marital status was not known for 170 persons

These statistics include those under both probation and parole supervision, as well as those held pretrial.

22

Figure 6. Prisoners Released under CSOSA Supervision, by Age,* CY 2004
0.4

0.35

33.6%

0.3
25.0%

Percent

0.25

23.3%

0.2

0.15

13.1%

0.1
4.7%

0.05

0.4%

0
18 to 25

26 to 35

36 to 45

46 to 55

56 to 65

Older than 65

Age in 2004

Source: CSOSA.

Figure 7. Prisoners Released under CSOSA Supervision, by Educational Attainment,*
CY 2004

College Credits/
AA Degree
8%

Diploma/GED
36%

Bachelor's Degree
or Higher
1%

Less than
6th Grade
1%

Less than 12th
Grade
46%

Source: CSOSA.
* Educational attainment was not known for 193 persons.

23

Figure 8. Prisoners Released under CSOSA Supervision, by Employment Status,*
CY 2004

Employed
38.8%

Unemployed
57.5%

Source: CSOSA.
*Information was not known for 80 persons; Employment status provides a one-time snapshot of
employment at the time of the individual’s last assessment.

24

Where Do Released Prisoners Go?
Research has shown that the social, economic, and political context of the neighborhoods to which prisoners are released can have important influence on the success or
failure of community reintegration (Clear, Waring, and Scully 2005; Petersilia 2003;
Visher and Farrell 2005). Neighborhoods do not have equal capacity to assist returning
prisoners as these individuals seek to reestablish their lives. For instance, research findings showing that the neighborhood to which ex-prisoners were released had a significant
impact on the probability of reentry failure have led researchers to speculate that
neighborhood-level processes, such as formal and informal job markets and the availability of drug markets, can markedly impact reentry success (Gottfredson and Taylor 1988).
Similarly, more recent research has suggested that living near an open-air drug market
may place returning prisoners with substance abuse problems at greater risk of relapse.
Visher and Farrell (2005) found that released prisoners who lived in neighborhoods
where they felt drug selling was a problem were more likely to have engaged in substance use after release (20 percent) than those living in neighborhoods where drug selling was not a problem (10 percent). In addition, those released prisoners who viewed
their communities as a safe place and a good place to live were much less likely to return
to prison (22 percent) than those who reported their communities were unsafe and disorganized (52 percent). Furthermore, a series of state “portrait” reports on prisoner reentry
by the Urban Institute has shown the high variations in social services across neighborhoods (see for example, Travis, Keegan, and Cadora 2003; Watson et al. 2004).
This section examines the geographic distribution of released prisoners in the District
in relation to the socioeconomic characteristics of areas with the highest percentage of
released prisoners in calendar year 2004. 9 Figure 9 shows the distribution of released
prisoners under CSOSA supervision across the District’s 188 census tracts. (Appendix C
provides a table listing the number of released prisoners and released prisoners per
1,000 population for all tracts). Although the map displays all 188 census tracts, 10 tracts
were excluded from all analyses because they either held fewer than 400 residents or
less than 20 housing units. The number of prisoners returning by tract ranged from zero
(31 tracts did not receive any returning prisoners in 2004) to 72. The tract that had 72
recently released prisoners (tract 74.08) was an average size tract where roughly 2,200
people resided in 2000. Taking population into account, tract 74.08 had 33.2 parolees per
1,000 residents. The neighborhoods that are part of tract 74.08 (which is east of the Anacostia River) include Knox Hill and Buena Vista.

9

The census tract number of the “last known address” was provided for each returning prisoner by CSOSA for CY2004.
343 records out of 2,204 did not have census tract information attached (15.5 percent missing).

25

Eight census tracts had a rate of at least 10 recently released prisoners per 1,000
residents. In the remainder of the report, these eight tracts are labeled “high-return”
tracts (see Table 4). Almost all of the high-return tracts are in the eastern part of the District, with two tracts lying east of the Anacostia River (“East of the River”). The one tract
west of East Capitol Street (59.00) contains the police station, the courthouse, and a
number of homeless shelters. 10 Table 4 lists the number of returning prisoners in addition
to the rate per 1,000 residents for the eight tracts with the highest rate of returning prisoners. The table also shows each tract’s percentage of the total number of returning prisoners.
As shown, tract 74.08 led the District in 2004 in the rate of returning prisoners per
1,000 residents. Four percent of all returning prisoners in 2004 resided in the neighborhoods of Knox Hill, Buena Vista, and Garfield Heights. The tract had 72 returning prisoners that year, for a rate of 33.2 per 1,000 residents. This rate was almost twice the rate of
the next most concentrated tract—tract 59.00.

Table 4. Census Tracts with Highest Rate of Returning Prisoners, per 1,000 Residents, CY
04, District of Columbia

74.08 (Knox Hill/Buena Vista/Garfield Heights
59.00 (Downtown East/Police Station)
87.01 (Eckington)
85.00 (Near Northeast)
88.04 (Trinidad/Ivy City)
91.01 (Langdon/Woodridge/South Central/Gateway)
88.03 (Trinidad)
98.02 (Washington Highlands)
Total

10

Number of
returning
prisoners
72
32
39
41
28
52
20
18
302

Percentage
of total
returning
prisoners
3.9%
1.7
2.1
2.2
1.5
2.8
1.1
1.0
13.7

Rate per
1,000
residents
33.2
17.2
16.1
12.8
12.3
10.8
10.4
10.0
--

It is possible that individuals gave their addresses as the address of these agencies; and hence, the address does not
necessarily represent where the individuals lives. Note that this may have occurred for released prisoner addresses in
other tracts, but the high concentration of District agencies makes is highly probable that there is some error in tract
59.00.

26

Figure 9. Rate of Returning Prisoners per 1,000 Residents to the District of Columbia, under
CSOSA Supervision, by Census Tract, with Neighborhoods Labeled for High-Return Tracts,
CY2004

Source: Urban Institute analysis of CSOSA data.

27

The Intersection of Reentry and Housing in the District of Columbia
Below we examine a number of housing characteristics for these tracts as well as
other demographic and economic characteristics. In addition to being home to large numbers of returning prisoners, most of these areas are among District neighborhoods that
have housing-related problems. The characteristics discussed in this report are defined in
Table 5. The basic demographics of the high-return tracts are shown in Table 6. Table 7
displays these housing characteristics for the eight high-return tracts. Table 8 displays
the economic characteristics associated with the high-return tracts. Figures 10 through 15
map a selected number of these characteristics. 11
Table 6 indicates that the eight high-return tracts range in population from 1,800 people to almost 5,000. Some tracts are comprised mostly of apartment buildings and,
hence, have a high housing unit density. Over 80 percent of the residents in seven of the
eight high-return tracts are black, and four of the eight tracts are tracts where over 40
percent of the households are headed by females. Almost all tracts are generally homogeneous with regard to race. Unemployment is higher than the tract average for all but
one high-return tracts. Half of the eight tracts have unemployment rates higher than 20
percent. With regard to the type of occupations held by residents, only one tract has an
larger than average number of residents working in professional or managerial occupations.
Table 7 shows that the number of housing units ranges from 625 to 1,861 housing
units. The three measures of affordability (columns 4, 5, and 6 of Table 7) show that
renters in these high-return tracts pay a significant amount of their income toward rent.
The federal standard for affordability is defined as housing costs (rent) that do not exceed 30 percent of household income. On average, across tracts throughout the city, almost 35 percent of rental households within tracts face unaffordable rental costs (see
also Figure 10). In three of the high-return tracts, over 40 percent of rental households
are rent burdened. According to the report, Housing in the Nation’s Capitol 2004 (Turner,
Kingsley, Pettit, and Sawyer 2004), the median rent in the District in 2003 was $1,150 for
a studio apartment; a two bedroom was $1,750, and a three bedroom, $2,100. The median rent for a studio apartment increased 23 percent between 2001 and 2003, while
rents for one- and two-bedroom units rose 60 and 80 percent, respectively.

11

Characteristics are shown on maps in quantiles (see legend) with five intervals. A quantile map displays a distribution of
values or observations in equal intervals. It assigns basically the same number of tracts to each of the specified number of
quantiles in the map.

28

Table 5. Description of Characteristics, Based on Census 2000 Data
Characteristic

Definition

Total Population
Housing Unit Density
Racial Heterogeneity

Total number of people, 2000
Number of housing units per square mile
One minus the sum of squared proportions of each of 5 races: Black
non-Hispanic alone, White non-Hispanic alone, Asian/Pacific Islander alone, Hispanic alone, and American Indian/Other alone.
(Numbers approaching “1” represent high heterogeneity.)
Percent of population that is any part African American
Percent of all households with children headed by a woman
Percent of population with one or more years of college
Percent of employed population in professional or managerial positions
Percent of population age 16 or older in labor force who are unemployed

Percent Black
Female-Headed Households
College Educated
Professional or Managerial
Occupations
Unemployed
Housing Characteristics
Percent Rent Burdened
Percent Rent Burdened <
$20K
Percent Rent Burdened <
$35K
Median Housing Unit Value
Median Gross Rent
Owner-Occupied Housing
Percent Crowding
Housing Stability Index

Vacant/Abandoned

Percent of all renter-households that are paying 30% or more of the
household income in rent
Percent of renter-households with incomes less than $20K that are
paying 30% or more of the household income in rent
Percent of renter-households with incomes less than $35K that are
paying 30% or more of the household income in rent
Median value housing
Median gross rent
Percent of population in owner-occupied housing
Percent of households with 1.51 or more occupants per room
The sum of z-scores 12 for housing stability (percent of population 5
or older who have been living in the same house since 1995 (last 5
years)) and owner-occupied housing, divided by the number of items
(2).
Number of vacant parcels (from D.C. parcel data). These are parcels
that are not under construction and have been considered abandoned by the District of Columbia.

Economic Characteristics
Public Assistance
Poverty
Concentrated Affluence

Concentrated Disadvantage

Index of Concentration at the
Extremes (ICE)

12

Percent of all households receiving public assistance
Percent of population with income below the federal poverty level in
1999
The sum of z-scores for high income, college educated and professional or managerial occupations, divided by the number of items
(3).
The sum of z-scores for public assistance, unemployment, poverty,
race–black non-Hispanic, and female-headed households, divided
by the number of items (5).
Proportion of the difference in households with incomes of >$25K
and >$75K, of the total population. The ICE index has values between –1 (all are poor) and 1 (all are affluent), with 0 indicating a 5050 split between poor and affluent families.

A measure of the distance in standard deviations of a sample from the mean.

29

Table 6. Demographic and Other Characteristics of the High-Return Tracts by Rate of Returning Prisoners, District of
Columbia, 2000
Rate of
returning
prisoners
Total
Housing
Racial
per 1,000
Tract # population population unit density heterogeneity
74.08
33.2
2,166
7,028
0.03
59.00
17.2
1,856
2,814
0.34
87.01
16.1
2,415
6,280
0.10
85.00
12.8
3,209
6,882
0.16
88.04
12.3
2,277
4,544
0.06
91.01
10.8
4,827
1,598
0.12
88.03
10.4
1,918
1,433
0.56
98.02
10.0
1,806
10,047
0.04
D.C.
7,785
0.29
average
3.3
3220
Source: Urban Institute analysis of CSOSA and Census data.

Percent
black
98.61
80.93
94.58
91.46
97.10
93.58
58.5
98.12
64.15

30

Percent in
Percent
professiona
Percent
femalel or
headed
Percent
college- managerial
households educated occupations unemployed
51.51
19.49
11.07
21.79
28.22
32.70
21.61
32.06
21.81
43.17
9.07
14.90
22.29
30.67
5.92
16.90
31.88
22.84
11.17
11.09
13.19
37.09
14.02
14.90
37.5
37.75
9.93
35.68
41.99
19.52
10.94
28.55
21.10

48.16

17.20

11.85

Table 7. Housing Characteristics of the High-Return Tracts by Rate of Returning Prisoners, District of Columbia, 2000

Rate of returning prisoners per Total housing
1,000
units
33.2
1,035
17.2
711
16.1
926
12.8
1,390
12.3
1,411
10.8
1,861
10.4
625
10.0
772

Percent rent
burdened
45.12
21.17
41.46
39.25
38.40
36.53
51.21
24.69

Percent of
households
with incomes
less than
$35K rent
burdened
55.53
33.42
61.29
54.09
49.08
56.33
62.71
32.90

Tract #
74.08
59.00
87.01
85.00
88.04
91.01
88.03
98.02
D.C.
average
3.3
1,550
34.55
54.36
Source: Urban Institute Analysis of CSOSA and U.S. Census Data

Percent of
households
with incomes
Percent
less than
owner
Median
$20K rent
housing unit occupied Percent
burdened
housing crowding
value
66.67
$ 106,500
10.48
6.24
36.89
$ 350,000
1.66
5.14
59.84
$ 112,800
61.49
2.13
79.22
$ 103,200
58.59
5.85
77.93
$ 86,500
25.12
5.81
56.28
$ 137,200
74.74
0.64
73.15
$ 88,600
13.78
11.40
38.94
$ 86,600
21.43
16.72
67.91

$157,200

42.87

Housing
stability
index
-1.12
-1.22
0.71
0.59
-0.34
1.06
-0.94
-0.21

5.58

-.0002

Number
of vacant
parcels
31
69
22
118
82
262
100
13
56.99

Median
gross rent
$ 452
$ 397
$ 566
$ 691
$ 503
$ 681
$ 496
$ 336
---

Table 8. Economic Characteristics of High-Return Tracts, by Rate of Return, District of Columbia, 2000

Tract #
74.08
59.00
87.01
85.00
88.04
91.01
88.03
98.02

Rate of returning
prisoners per
1,000 population
33.2
17.2
16.1
12.8
12.3
10.8
10.4
10.0

Percent
receiving
public
assistance
18.34
4.98
13.05
3.71
5.88
3.59
9.36
24.03

Percent
living in poverty
52.03
36.99
19.10
24.49
28.73
16.16
44.35
40.94

DC Ave.
3.3
6.79
Source: Urban Institute analysis of CSOSA and Census data.

21.36

31

Concentrated
affluence
-1.05
-0.25
-0.57
-0.91
-0.98
-0.34
-0.86
-1.00

Concentrated
disadvantage
1.55
0.76
0.37
0.23
0.39
-0.04
1.06
1.54

Concentration at the
extremes
-0.58
-0.53
-0.31
-0.32
-0.49
-0.24
-0.64
-0.45

-0.0003

0.0001

-0.26

Figure 10. Percent of Households Rent Burdened, by
Census Tract, District of Columbia, 2000

Figure 11. Percent of Households Owner Occupied, by
Census Tract, District of Columbia, 2000

32

Figure 12. Index of Residential Stability, District of Columbia, by
Tract, 2000

Figure 13. Percentage of Crowded Households, District of Columbia, by Tract, 2000

33

Figure 14. Number of Vacant Parcels, District of Columbia, by Tract,
2004

34

Figure 15. Concentrated Disadvantage, District of Columbia, by
Census Tract, 2000

Six of the eight high-return tracts are tracts where more than half of the households
making less than $20,000 annually are rent burdened. With the exception of the one tract
in Northwest, the median housing value of owner-occupied housing for all high-return
tracts is far below the District-wide median of $157,200. Tract 88.04—part of the Ivy City
and Trinidad neighborhoods—had the lowest median housing unit price at $86,500. This
tract has a weak housing market that did not experience the city’s economic growth as
did many other areas in the northeast. According to Housing in the Nation’s Capital 2002
(Turner, Kingsley, Pettit, Snow, and Tatian 2002), the number of households in Ivy City
dropped by 20 percent between 1990 and 2000. Although the number of housing units
declined, the overall vacancy rate increased 14 percentage points. Furthermore, onequarter of all properties in the neighborhood cluster of which tract 88.04 is a part are in
physical or financial distress. Tract 98.02 also had a very low median housing unit price
at $86,500. This tract, part of the Washington Highlands neighborhood, is part of a
neighborhood cluster that has the highest concentration of federally subsidized units. Not
surprisingly, median rent for an apartment in the tract is very low at $336.
Table 7 also indicates that across the high-return tracts, the percentage of housing
that is owner-occupied varies widely (see also Figure 11). Tract 59.00 has almost no
owner-occupied housing—the overwhelming majority of buildings in the tract are government office buildings. Tract 91.01 (Langdon/Woodridge/South Central/Gateway), which is
south of Rhode Island Avenue at the Prince George’s County border, has a high owneroccupancy rate of 75 percent. The housing stability index shows that five of the eight
high-return tracts have high turnover of residents (see also Figure 12). The sociological
literature suggests that areas that have high population turnover are often those areas
that have higher rates of social disorganization (Bursik and Grasmick 1993; Morenoff and
Sampson 1997; Sampson and Groves, 1989; Sampson et al. 1997). In turn, social disorganization is often associated with high crime rates (Bursik and Grasmick 1993; Morenoff
and Sampson 1997; Sampson and Groves 1989; Sampson et al. 1997; Sampson et al.
1999). Similarly, crowded conditions have also been associated crime; theory suggests
that crowding creates anonymity, and anonymity creates an atmosphere where persons
and households cannot be easily guarded. Two high-return tracts (88.03 and 98.02) had
crowding rates much higher than the tract average (see also Figure 13). Four high-return
tracts (91.01, 85.00, 88.03, and 88.04) had 73 or more vacant/abandoned parcels of land
(see also Figure 14). Vacancies in Tract 88.03 are severe, with 100 vacant parcels and
only 625 housing units.

13

13

Parcels may hold multiple housing units. 100 vacant parcels out of 625 housing units means that more than 16 percent
of properties are vacant.

35

The economic characteristics listed in Table 8 show that the eight high-return tracts
are, for the most part, disadvantaged neighborhoods. Although only three of the eight
tracts have more than 10 percent of the population receiving public assistance, six of the
eight tracts have 25 percent or higher percentages of residents living in poverty, and four
of these tracts have over 40 percent of their residents living in poverty. The tract average
for the District is 21 percent.
In addition to the poverty level, we also examine the levels of concentrated disadvantage and concentrated poverty across the city. Concentrated disadvantage and poverty
are important constructs within criminological and sociological study of urban life—
particularly within the social disorganization framework. The social disorganization literature outlines specific neighborhood-level structural components that influence crime.
These key structural variables are concentrated disadvantage, residential stability, concentrated poverty and concentrated affluence, concentrated immigration, and racial heterogeneity (Morenoff and Sampson 1997; Sampson et al. 1997; Sampson et al. 1999;
Sampson and Raudenbush 2001).
Concentrated disadvantage represents the economic disadvantage in racially segregated neighborhoods, with particularly high occurrences for poverty, public assistance,
unemployment, largely African American populations, and female-headed families. Theoretically, the ecological concentration of disadvantage is equated with higher rates of unemployment, financial dependence, lack of investment potential, difficulty supporting viable commercial enterprise, and institutional disinvestments (Wilson 1987; Land, McCall,
and Cohen 1990; Hagan and Peterson 1995; Sampson and Raudenbush 1999; Sampson
et al. 1999; Sampson and Raudenbush 2001). Research has shown concentrated disadvantage to be a significant predictor of homicide and other violent crime (Morenoff,
Sampson, and Raudenbush 2001; Sampson and Raudenbush 1999), violent crime specifically (Sampson et al. 1997). Across the District, our concentrated disadvantage measure ranges from –1.24 (low disadvantage) to 2.76 (high disadvantage), with a citywide
average of 0.001. Two of the eight tracts (74.08 and 98.02) have high levels of concentrated disadvantage at 1.55 and 1.54, respectively (see also Figure 15). The ICE index
(see Table 5 for a description of the index) shows that all high-return tracts except one
have concentrations of high-poverty households beyond the tract average. Research has
demonstrated that individuals and children in neighborhoods of concentrated poverty
generally fare worse in a number of outcomes (e.g., lower household income, lower attachment to employment and education, increased likelihood to be involved in crime) than
individuals and children living in poverty that are not surrounded by poor households (see
Iannotta and Ross 2002 for review of research). Consequently, the physical conditions of

36

these neighborhoods deteriorate as human and social capital resources are lost or removed (and not replaced) in the community (Coulton 2001). Research also has shown
that concentrated poverty and disadvantage translate into local inequalities for children
(Sampson, Morenoff, and Earls 1999).
Figure 16 depicts 14 “hot spots” of violent crime as designated by the Metropolitan
Police Department in 2004. The hot spot program is part of Mayor Anthony Williams’s efforts to focus city resources on high-crime areas. Neighborhood teams comprised of representatives from 15 District agencies were created in 2004 to identify, create, and implement plans to resolve the persistent problems in the identified hot spots. The overall
goal of the initiative is to better coordinate the delivery of services to resolve the economic, employment, and crime issues in these areas (2005). Although only one hot spot
overlaps directly with a high-return tract (tract 98.03/Washington Highlands), the majority
of hot spots are in areas that have over five returning prisoners per 1,000 residents. In
addition, one hotspot lies at the intersection of tracts 85.00, 88.03, and 88.04.

37

Figure 16. Rate of Returning Prisoners per 1,000 Residents to the District of Columbia,
Under CSOSA Supervision, by Census Tract, with 14 Crime Hot Spots, CY2004

Source: Urban Institute analysis of CSOSA data.

38

Housing Barriers for Returning Prisoners in the District of Columbia
As discussed in chapter one of this report, the barriers that released prisoners face
are many. They include personal barriers, legal and policy barriers, community barriers,
and indirect barriers such as lack of proper identification. The central personal barriers
involve the fact that the majority of persons incarcerated leave prison without any savings, low literacy, few or no job prospects and no access to immediate unemployment
benefits (Petersilia 2000). Legal and policy barriers include restrictions on or ineligibility
for public benefits for persons with criminal histories, restrictions that deny access to
subsidized housing, and legal restrictions that restrict hiring practices. Community opposition is a key community barrier in that residents have the ability to restrict the development of housing for criminal justice populations.
In addition to the personal, legal, policy, and community barriers to housing for the
formerly incarcerated, there are intangible obstacles that have resulted from the fragmented system of supports that potentially could assist the transition from prison or jail to
the community (e.g., corrections and community corrections, housing and homeless assistance, and general social services). No single agency or organization is responsible
for ensuring that individuals exiting prison are able to find safe and affordable housing.
Corrections departments often view their responsibility for prisoners as ending once prisoners are released, and there are few housing-related government agencies that provide
housing specifically targeted to returning prisoners.
These barriers become even more insurmountable in light of the fact that communities with large numbers of recently released prisoners are often highly disadvantaged
communities with limited ability to secure needed resources support these individuals.
The preceding section demonstrates that many of the high-return neighborhoods are high
poverty neighborhoods that also contain distressed and overcrowded housing. Levels of
concentrated disadvantage are high and these neighborhoods are predominantly made
up of poor households—further limiting the opportunity for individuals and families to pull
them selves out of poverty.
To further complicate prisoner reentry in the District, there are a number of additional
barriers that face District prisoners. First, the dispersion of D.C. prisoners across the
country creates a host of issues that may impact public safety and family stability. Studies show that family contact during incarceration is associated with lower recidivism rates
(Adams and Fischer 1976; Glaser 1969; Hairston 2002; Holt and Miller 1972; Klein, Bartholomew, and Hibbert 2002). Not only is it difficult for families to visit, but also the large
number of facilities housing inmates makes it difficult or social service organizations to
organize or fund trips or programs for families of those incarcerated. Programming would

39

be facilitated if D.C. prisoners were housed in just a few facilities, as opposed to be
spread among 75.
In addition, it may be difficult for prisoners to arrange housing when they are incarcerated in prisons far from the District. Negotiating any social service system can be
tricky, but trying to do so without the support of individuals knowledgeable about the District’s supports can make it exceedingly difficult. It is unlikely that counselors in the federal prisons can facilitate a District prisoner’s search for housing.
To complicate matters, the U.S. Parole Commission only supports the release of prisoners who can give an address of where they plan to live upon release. The result is that
many individuals may remain in prison or move into unstable living arrangements. Paul
Quander, the director of CSOSA, reports that about 25 percent of the release plans
investigated do not contain a stable housing placement. When stable housing is not available, CSOSA often arranges for temporary placement in a halfway house or shelter
(Quander 2005).
But a halfway house bed is not always available for returning prisoners to the District.
As shown in Figure 9 (earlier) there are currently only seven halfway houses (also known
as community correctional centers) for returning prisoners in the District. Table 9, below,
lists the halfway houses by location, along with the number of beds in each facility. The
seven halfway houses have a total of 531 beds. An additional 201 beds are available to
released prisoners with substance abuse problems through the new Reentry and Sanctions Center in the eastern part of town, by the Prince George’s County border.
Although BOP policy is to place returning prisoners in a halfway house “whenever
possible” (see Bureau of Prisons Program Statement 7310.04 (December 16, 1998)), only
65 percent of D.C. prisoners were given a prerelease halfway house placement in the
fourth quarter of 2002 as reported by BOP (District of Columbia Community Corrections
Facility Siting Advisory Commission 2003). The number of individuals placed into halfway
housed should have increased in recent years due to the opening of Bannum Place,
which has the capacity for 100 individuals. However, it should be noted that the future of
the halfway house may be in jeopardy because District residents are currently suing the
halfway house operator—Bannum Inc.—over zoning issues. The city asked Bannum Inc.
to vacate in July 2005. To date, the facility remains open.
In addition to community objection to halfway houses, in D.C., zoning guidelines for
the placement of various types of community residences and rehabilitation homes are
conditional, assuming “the facility shall not have an adverse impact on the neighborhood

40

because of traffic, noise, operations, or the number of similar facilities in the areas” (District

41

Table 9. Community Correctional Centers for Returning Prisoners, District of Columbia*
Community
Corrections Centers
Location
Population
Capacity
Fairview
1430 G Street NE
women
40
Efforts X Convicts
1514 8th Street NW
men
40
Community Care
3301 16th Street NW
men
30
Extended House
810 14th Street NE
men
70
Bannum Place
2210 Adams Place NE
men
100
Shaw II
1740 Park Road NW
men
13
Hope Village
2840 Langston Place SE
men
238
Total
531
* Does not include the 102-bed Reentry and Sanctions Center that serves returning prisoners
with substance abuse problems.

of Columbia Municipal Regulations no date). It is up to the discretion of the Zoning office
what constitutes an ”adverse impact.” Moreover, specific types of facilities must not exceed strict size, quantity, and location guidelines unless the Board and subsequently the
D.C. Office of Planning determine the need for facilities in particular neighborhoods.
Even those individuals returning through halfway houses still need to find a permanent home. Available subsidized housing in the District is scarce, as is affordable housing. In 2006, there were about 11,000 housing units subsidized under Section 8 or other
federal multifamily programs (Tatian 2006). Contracts for 4,505 units are set to expire
between April 2006 and March 2007. The current waiting list for public housing and Section 8 housing in the District consists of over 50,000 households (Silverman 2006). The
D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute reports that affordable housing is an increasing problem in the
District—between 2000 and 2004 the District lost 7,500 apartments priced at less than
$500 a month. Furthermore, to get a picture of the affordable housing problem in the District, the D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute calculated using 2000 Census data that there were
only 27,000 affordable apartments (costing $500 or less per month) for over 47,000 renting households in the District in 2000 with income below $20,000 (Rodgers 2006). Obtaining emergency shelter is also difficult. The Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless
reports that the waiting list for emergency shelter is at least six months (ibid). For a returning prisoner looking for subsidized shelter, this may mean more than a few months of
waiting, most likely much longer.

42

CHAPTER THREE:
FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE SERVICE PROVIDERS:
ISSUES AND BARRIERS FACING RETURNING PRISONERS IN THE DISTRICT
Although there are multiple barriers facing returning prisoners in the District, there are
a number of service providers that are dedicated to serving ex-prisoners and addressing
their housing needs. This chapter of the report discusses the perspectives obtained from
45 service providers who provide some type of housing service (e.g., temporary shelter,
referral to housing, transitional services, provision of vouchers, etc.) to individuals returning from prisons and jails. The information was obtained through a telephone survey conducted during 2003–2004. The survey, utilizing a prioritized convenience sample, asked
for information about issues involving serving returning prisoners and key barriers to service provision, and tried to capture the capacity of providers to provide services specifically to those returning from prisons or jails. For a number of reasons, many related to
the time it took to complete the survey, some of the questions were dropped from the
study half way through the survey period. To make it quicker for respondents, by midway
through data collection, we dropped the last three pages of the survey. Detailed information on the survey methodology is provided in Appendix A. A copy of the survey can be
found in Appendix B.
Forty-five organizations completed the survey. Because survey data collection utilized
a convenience sample, these organizations do not represent the universe of organizations providing housing-related reentry services in the District. All organizations provided
services to other individuals in addition to returning prisoners. With the exception of one
organization that is an umbrella organization with its headquarters in Silver Spring, all
organizations are located in the District and provide services to individuals residing in the
District. The overwhelming majority of organizations are located in Northwest D.C. (76
percent). Seven organizations (16 percent) are located in Southeast D.C., two organizations (4 percent) are located in Northeast D.C., and only one organization (2 percent) is
located in Southwest D.C. The only organization located in Southwest D.C., a shelter,
was closed in November 2004. To maintain confidentiality of responses, the geographic
locations of these organizations are not shown.
Of the 45 organizations responding to the survey, 41 (91 percent) categorize themselves as a 501(c)(3) (Figure 17). Four are non-501(c)(3) nonprofits, and 17 (38 percent)
are faith-based organizations. None of the organizations surveyed identified itself as a
for-profit private firm, a community development corporation, or a government agency.

43

Figure 17. Service Providers by Organization Type, 2003–2004

45
41

40

35

30

25

20
17

15

10
5

4

5

0

501(c)(3)

Nonprofit

Faith-based

Other

Source: Urban Institute analysis of 2003–2004 D.C. housing survey data.

With regard to the type of service organization, when asked what type of organization
would best describe your organization, 25 of the provider organizations (56 percent) described themselves as general social service providers (Figure 18). Twenty (44 percent)
described themselves as a housing referral service agency, 13 (29 percent) are homeless
shelters, 12 (27 percent) are religious organizations, 10 (22 percent) are substance
abuse treatment providers, 7 (16 percent) are health care providers, 5 (11 percent) are
independent living facilities, and 4 (9 percent) are housing providers. The remaining organizations included a group home, housing developer, property manager, or fall into the
“other” category (22 percent), which includes those organizations that offer transitional
services or were either oriented toward education (literacy, after-school), food collection
and distribution, or legal services.

44

Figure 18. Service Providers by Organization Description, 2003–2004

30
25

25
20

20

15

13

12
10

10

10
7
5

5

4

1

1

1

1

O
th
er

Sh
el
R
te
el
r
ig
ab
io
us
u
s
e
or
tre
H
g.
at
al
fw
.p
H
ea
ay
ro
th
vi
H
de
ca
om
r
re
e/
pr
Tr
ov
an
id
si
er
tio
na
In
l
de
ho
p.
us
liv
e
in
g
H
f
ac
ou
ilit
si
y
ng
pr
ov
id
G
er
ro
up
H
ou
H
om
si
ng
e
de
Pr
ve
op
lo
pe
er
ty
r
m
an
ag
er

Su
bs
ta
nc
e

H

So

ci
al
se
ou
rv
si
.p
ng
ro
re
v
fe
rra
ls
er
v.

0

Source: Urban Institute analysis of 2003–2004 D.C. housing survey data.

The geographic territory served by the organizations varies widely. One-third serve
the greater metropolitan area and another third serve only clients from the District. The
remaining organizations are a mix of organizations that only served neighborhood residents or were multistate (one organization) or regional (one organization). Most organizations (57 percent) have served District residents for over 15 years. Regarding the length
of time serving returning prisoners in the District, seven organizations did not provide information. For the organizations that did respond, one-third have been serving returning
prisoners for more than 15 years.
All 45 organizations identified the types of populations that they primarily serve (Figure 19). A large number of organizations have two or more primary populations served.
Twenty-nine

agencies

(64

percent)

surveyed

serve

persons

with

substance

abuse/addiction, 28 (62 percent) serve persons with mental illness, 28 (62 percent) serve
persons with HIV/AIDS, 26 (57 percent) organizations serve low-income individuals, and

45

25 (56 percent) serve victims of domestic violence. Fewer surveyed agencies serve
homeless families, homeless adults, migrants or refugees, or high-risk youth.

Figure 19. Number of Organizations Serving Each Population, 2003–2004
45
40
35
30

29

28

28
26

25

25
20
16

16

15

15

12

10
5

S
Lo
wD
in
om
co
es
m
tic
e
vi
ol
en
ce
H
vi
om
ct
.
el
es
s
fa
m
ilie
M
ig
s
ra
nt
s/
re
fu
ge
H
es
om
el
es
s
Yo
ad
ut
ul
h/
ts
hi
gh
ris
k
yo
ut
h

AI
D
IV
/
H

Su
bs
t

an
ce

ab
us
e/
ad
di
ct
io
n
M
en
ta
li
lln
es
s

0

Source: Urban Institute analysis of 2003–2004 D.C. housing survey data.
Note: All 45 organizations responded.

We asked organizations if they could categorize their non-homeless clients as being
“at risk of becoming homeless.” Of the 25 organizations asked the question, the majority
(13 organizations; 52 percent) reported that their clients could be categorized as at risk of
becoming homeless, but not currently homeless. And most estimated that more than half
of their clients would fit that description. The organizations were asked to analyze the
main reasons these people are homeless. Almost all of the 25 organizations asked (82
percent) believe that substance or alcohol abuse is a reason clients are homeless, making “substance abuse” the most often reason selected by organizations. Eighteen

or-

ganizations (72 percent) believe that job loss or inability to maintain a steady income
contributed to homelessness; Fifteen organizations (60 percent) believe that their clients’
failure to find affordable housing contributed to their homelessness; 11 (44 percent) cite

46

that their clients’ homelessness is caused in part because they cannot return to live with
family; and 7 (28 percent) believe that having been recently discharged from prison, jail,
or juvenile treatment facility has been a contributing factor to homelessness.
We asked organizations to estimate the percentage of clients receiving some type of
housing assistance from their organizations. Of the 25 organizations that were asked this
question, 3 (12 percent) reported that none of their clients received any housing assistance. Five (20 percent) organizations reported that up to 50 percent of their clients received housing assistance, 1 organization (4 percent) reported that 50 percent to 100
percent of their clients receive housing assistance, and 16 (64 percent) organizations reported that 100 percent of their clients received housing assistance.
The organizations also were asked questions about current agency and person-level
barriers to serving returning prisoners. 14 When asked, “what are the primary barriers that
individuals returning from prison and jails face with regard to securing safe and affordable housing?” respondents listed job-related barriers to be a major issue (Figure 20).
Eleven (44 percent) respondents felt that clients’ lack of income was a key barrier, and
another 7 organizations (28 percent) listed the tight labor market in conjunction with returning prisoners having limited employment skills. In addition, the lack of affordable
housing was listed by 10 agencies (40 percent) as a key barrier.
When asked, “What types of housing/and or housing services could most assist individuals returning from prisons and jails?” almost half of the survey respondents (12 organizations; 48 percent) believed that permanent supportive housing could most benefit
returning prisoners (Figure 21). Eleven providers (44 percent) listed transitional housing
as a key service, and another 10 (40 percent) mentioned supportive services and/or mental health services.
We also asked organizations whether there are agency-level barriers in providing
housing services to returning prisoners (Figure 22). Nine organizations said funding issues or limited resources was their biggest barrier (36 percent), and nine organizations
also mentioned limited ability to find beds or affordable housing. A few agencies mentioned that they had difficulty securing social services (e.g., mental health services) for
returning prisoners.

14

Due to problems with survey response rate, only 25 organizations were asked the open-ended questions regarding
barriers.

47

Figure 20. Top Three Primary Barriers Facing Returning Prisoners, as Reported by Service
Providers, 2003–2004
25

20

15

11
10
10
7
(44%)
5

(40%)

(28%)

0
Clients unemployed

Tight job market/No skills

Lack of affordable housing

Source: Urban Institute analysis of 2003–2004 D.C. housing survey data.
Note: 25 organizations reporting. Respondents were asked to list a number of barriers. These values
are not mutually exclusive.

48

Figure 21. Top Three Primary Barriers Facing Agencies with Regard to Serving Returning
Prisoners, as Reported by Service Providers, 2003–2004
25

20

15

10

9

9

(36%)

(36%)

6

5
3

(24%)

(12%)
0
Limited agency resources

Lack of beds/finding
affordable housing

Limited access to wraparound services

None mentioned

Source: Urban Institute analysis of 2003–2004 D.C. housing survey data.
Note: 25 organizations reporting. Respondents were asked to list a number of barriers. These values
are not mutually exclusive.

49

Figure 22. Top Three Services Voted Most Likely to Assist Returning Prisoners, as Reported by
Service Providers, 2003–2004
25

20

15
12
11
10
10

(48%)

(40%)

Permanent Supportive Housing

Supportive Services/Mental Health
Services

(44%)
5

0
Transitional housing

Source: Urban Institute analysis of 2003–2004 D.C. housing survey data.
Note: 25 organizations reporting. Respondents were asked to list a number of services. These values
are not mutually exclusive.

A number of organizations are attempting to increase their capacity to serve returning
prisoners by becoming part of comprehensive initiatives or coalitions that have the express mission to serve this population. Nine organizations (20 percent) are part of larger,
comprehensive initiatives that have been developed to serve returning prisoners (Figure
23). Three comprehensive partnerships were named: (1) the East of the River, Clergy,
Police, Community Partnership (ERCPCP); (2) CSOSA’s faith-based mentoring partnership; and (3) The Ex-Offender Reentry Coalition. ERCPCP is a large partnership whose
mission is to reach, assist, and transform young people, especially those whose lives
have been affected or influenced by drugs, crime, and violence. Through a collaboration
of clergy, police, and community, ERCPCP aims to improve the spiritual and personal
development of young people and build a system of community support that enhances
service delivery and creates healthy and safe neighborhoods. The Ex-Offender Reentry
Coalition is a loosely based coalition of community-based agencies, ex-offenders, and
government agencies in the District whose main mission is to advocate for and support
community-based reentry efforts.

50

Figure 23. Organization Is Part of Comprehensive Initiative to Serve Returning
Prisoners, 2003–2004

40

35

34

30

25

20

15

10

9

5
2
0
Yes

No

Don't Know

Source: Urban Institute analysis of 2003–2004 D.C. housing survey data.

Although only 20 percent of organizations are part of a comprehensive coalition, more
than 90 percent of the surveyed organizations work with a network of community-based
service providers to facilitate support services for returning prisoners (Figure 24). When
asked to list three agencies that are a key part of their service network, respondents
named a range of organizations from emergency shelters and food banks, to government
agencies and mental health services. Agencies in the service networks listed included
agencies in Virginia and Maryland.
The use of volunteers across all organizations was very high, particularly the use of
part-time volunteers. Of the 45 surveyed organizations, only six (13 percent) have no
part-time volunteers. Ten organizations have up to 10 part-time volunteers; 11 agencies
have 11 to 50 part-time volunteers; four organizations have between 51 to 100 part-time
volunteers; and eight organizations have over 100 part-time volunteers (six respondents
did not know how many part-time volunteers their agency had). Organizations were less
likely to use full-time volunteers. Twenty-five agencies reported they did not use full-time
volunteers. Twenty-nine organizations use consultants. Of those organizations, the mean
number of consultants used was 3.5.

51

Figure 24. Organization Works with Network of Community-Based Service Providers
to Assist Clients, 2003–2004
25
23

20

15

10

5

2

0
Yes

No

Source: Urban Institute analysis of 2003–2004 D.C. housing survey data.
Note: Only 25 organizations were asked this question.

To conclude this chapter, we caution the reader from drawing any conclusions from
the analysis of the survey data. The data represent a brief snapshot of a small snowball
sample of reentry housing providers in the District of Columbia. Because the survey responses are in no way representative of the population of reentry housing providers in
the District, we refrained from conducting any cross-tabulations (or more detailed analysis) of demographic and other data obtained from survey responses. However, we feel
that even a small snapshot of information on providers is important in drawing attention to
the housing issues facing returning prisoners.

52

CHAPTER FOUR:
CONCLUSION
This report examined the housing landscape of prisoner reentry in the District of Columbia. The report utilized census tract data for returning prisoners to examine tracts that
had high rates of returning prisoners (according to addresses supplied by returning prisoners). Eight tracts had 10 or more returning prisoners per 1,000 residents. Seven of the
eight tracts are located on the eastern side of the District. It is important to note that
there are no data in the District that estimate the number of homeless in the current parolee population. The returning prisoner census tract data used in this report are based
on addresses provided by returning prisoners to CSOSA. These data cannot estimate the
number of parolees or ex-offenders who are homeless or become homeless. In other
words, the individuals represented in the data could be homeless or become homeless at
some point. Many service providers reported that many of their clients are at risk of becoming homeless.
In calendar year 2004, 2,204 men and women were released from prison in to some
type of community supervision in the District. The majority of releases was male (92 percent), black (95 percent), and single (75 percent). The average age of these individuals
was 39, and half of them had less than a high school education. Close to 60 percent of
these individuals were unemployed at some time during the year. In addition, the analysis
provided in this report illustrates that many neighborhoods where prisoners live upon release are disadvantaged. These neighborhoods are burdened with many social issues,
and at minimum, may not have an infrastructure of support. Our survey of providers found
that the overwhelming majority believe that unemployment and lack of income is inextricably linked with housing problems for returning prisoners. In addition, providers believe
that their agencies are severely limited in serving returning prisoners because their organizational missions are often unidimensional (i.e., providing one particular service like
shelter), and individuals returning from prisoners have a host of needs and therefore
need comprehensive services.
The overwhelming majority of organizations (87 percent) report that the current housing landscape available to individuals returning home from prisons does not adequately
meet the needs of returning prisoners. Overall, providers are frustrated with the “disconnect” between the correctional system and the housing services system. Providers stress
that there are too few transitional housing and halfway house options for returning prisoners. In addition, a number of providers stated that there are too few housing facilities
that have services co-located with housing. They are searching for ways to collaborate

53

and network with other agencies to expand their capacity to meet the needs of returning
prisoners in the District. Many of these agencies have begun to meet the needs of returning prisoners through nontraditional methods—by broadening the reentry perspective to
include partners outside of the criminal justice arena. Nine of the 45 organizations responding to the survey were part of comprehensive initiatives or coalitions whose main
missions are to serve returning prisoners, and 23 organizations (of 25 organizations
asked the question) indicated they work with a network of providers to facilitate prisoner
reentry.
In addition, through CSOSA’s faith-based reentry partnership, a host of churches and
other faith institutions are partnering with CSOSA to provide mentoring services to individuals released from prison. These types of partnerships are articulating a common
ground of policy interests and are redefining the term “stakeholder” to include housing
and homeless assistance agencies, community and faith-based agencies, local residents,
and private businesses. The organizations surveyed are working hard to develop inhouse capacity to serve returning prisoners. Survey responses show that they have made
substantial efforts to utilize volunteers in their services.
Fortunately, over the past six or seven years, research examining the issues associated with the large numbers of prisoners released across the nation has increased markedly. This attention has resulted in numerous avenues for innovation in prisoner reentry
programming and related services. For instance, as the breadth and nature of the housing barriers have been elucidated, the continued policy attention has also spurred funding
for new and innovative housing-related programs across the nation that serve returning
prisoners. The District’s new Reentry and Sanctions Center is just one example. The District has been aggressive in applying for federal and non-federal grants to develop new
programming that is geared toward establishing comprehensive services targeted to
those being released from prisons and jails. The comprehensive nature of the programs,
by default, often includes some type of housing assistance or housing referral. This is the
case for CSOSA’s faith partnership. Although CSOSA does not provide housing to all returning prisoners, a number of individuals have secured housing with help from the faith
institutions participating in the mentoring program. This is typical throughout the country—few new programs (and in particular those federally funded) provide actual housing
to returning prisoners.
We make three recommendations for progress with regard to the development and
expansion of housing and housing-related services for individuals released from prison.
These recommendations apply to practitioners, policymakers, and researchers in the District and elsewhere:

54

Use data to improve services and programming. State and local leaders and researchers should analyze data to identify the housing-related reentry priorities, develop evidence-based programs, and document successes. Collection of new data
where gaps in research exist will vastly improve the limited knowledge of how best to
develop and target housing-related services to the reentry population. Evaluation of
existing and promising housing programs will assist in the identification of successful
practices and costs and benefits incurred.
Educate the community about the problems facing returning prisoners. Encourage
input from the community. Community forums and informal discussions with community residents can establish trust and lead to appropriate types of services that fit particular needs of communities. The “not-in-my-backyard” (NIMBY) phenomena can be
diminished by informing the community of the myriad of benefits that will accrue with
transitional services and transitional and permanent housing. Furthermore, it is important to encourage the development of partnerships between government agencies
and community organizations because partnerships breed trust.
Encourage and reward collaboration across systems. In requests for proposals, funders should stipulate that jurisdictions utilize partnership models. This is beginning to
happen in such initiatives as the Serious, Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI)
and the Prisoner Reentry Initiative (PRI).
For progress to be made, it is important to identify where services will be most effective and how and where cost savings can be incurred, as well as which systems will
benefit. More opportunities would arise as successes are documented and publicized. In
this view, success breeds interest, which breeds more success. Funding agencies should
mandate documentation of outcomes in a systematic method. Aggregation of data from
programs and models would provide knowledge of successes and best practices. Evidence of successful programs could then be transferred to the community and assist in
building community understanding and interest in the reentry process. More specifically,
analysis and evaluation could assist in identifying the answers to the following questions:

Do individuals commit crimes at much higher rates when they are homeless or in
shelters as compared to when they have stable or longer-term living situations? If
yes, what types of crimes?
What types of housing services are being utilized at prerelease facilities? What are
the costs and benefits associated with these facilities as compared to direct release?

55

What are the costs and benefits associated with halfway houses? What are the costs
and benefits of innovative treatment oriented reentry programs such as the District’s
Reentry and Sanctions Center?
What are the best practices of Departments of Corrections across the country for prioritizing funding for transitional facilities?
What types of individuals benefit most from halfway house placements and utilization
of services within halfway houses? How do states determine who goes to transitional
facilities? Can halfway houses be used successfully for individuals convicted of violent offenses?
Is permanent supportive housing (PSH) a viable and cost effective option for returning prisoners? Does the provision of PSH reduce recidivism?
How do we bring successful efforts to scale? Can successful but small housing programs or facilities be expanded, replicated or transferred to other jurisdictions?
With the answers to these questions progress can be made. Some communities have
developed coordinated and comprehensive approaches to addressing the housing needs
of returning prisoners and ex-offenders. These innovators are utilizing collaborative models and creative funding mixes to implement prerelease planning, transitional housing
programs, and permanent supportive housing programs.

56

REFERENCES
Adams, D., and J. Fischer. 1976. The Effects of Prison Residents’ Community Contacts on Recidivism Rates. Corrective and Social Psychiatry 22(4), 21-27.
American Correctional Association. 2000. Vital Statistics in Corrections. Lanham, Md.: American
Correctional Association.
Bradley, K.H., N.C. Richardson, R.B.M. Oliver, and E.M. Slayter. 2001. No Place Like Home:
Housing and the Ex-Prisoner. Boston, MA: Community Resources for Justice.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2002. Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2002. “Number of sentenced prisoners admitted and released from State or Federal jurisdiction, by region and jurisdiction, 1999-2001.” NCJ 198877.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2003. Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2003. “Number of sentenced prisoners admitted and released from State or Federal jurisdiction, by region and jurisdiction, 1999-2001.” NCJ 203947.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2004. National Prisoner Statistics data series (NPS-1).
Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2005a. Federal Justice Statistics Program. "Population of offenders
in Federal Prison at fiscal year-end 1994-2002 ", Washington D.C.: The Urban Institute (distributor).
Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2005b. Federal Justice Statistics Program. "States Housing D.C.
Criminal Code Offenders in Federal Prisons, FY2003: BOP03STK,” Washington D.C.: The Urban
Institute (distributor).
Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2005c. Federal Justice Statistics Program. "Offenders entering Federal prison during fiscal year 2003: BOP03IN", Washington D.C.: The Urban Institute (distributor).
Bursik, R.J., Jr., and H.G. Grasmick. 1993. Neighborhoods and Crime: The Dimensions of Effective Community Control. Lexington Books.
Burt, M.R., Y.A. Laudan, T. Douglas, J. Valente, E. Lee, and B. Iwen. 1999. Homelessness: Programs and the People They Serve. Findings From the National Survey of Homeless Assistance
Providers and Clients. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Clear, T.R., E. Waring, and K. Scully. “Communities and Reentry: Concentrated Reentry Cycling,”
In J. Travis and C. Visher (Eds.). Prisoner Reentry and Crime in America. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Coleman, J.S. 1988. “Organizations and Institutions: Sociological and Economic Approaches to
the Analysis of Social Structure.” American Journal of Sociology, 94. Supplement S95-S120.
Coleman, J.S. 1990. Foundations on Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Coulton, C. 2001. “Metropolitan and Neighborhood Context: Implications for Welfare to Work.”
Paper presented at the Workshop on the Equality of Opportunity in Metropolitan Areas: The Importance of Place. National Research Council, Washington, DC.
District of Columbia Community Corrections Facility Siting Advisory Commission. 2003. Report
and Recommendations. Washington, DC: District of Columbia Community Corrections Facility
Siting Advisory Commission.

57

District of Columbia Municipal Regulations. no date. Available:
http://dcoz.dc.gov/info/reg/chapter_01.pdf
Ditton, P.M. 1999. Mental Health and Treatment of Inmates and Probationers. NCJ 174463.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Executive Office of the Mayor. 2003. District of Columbia’s Offender Reentry Work Plan 2003.
Executive Office of the Mayor, Government of the District of Columbia. Submitted to the US. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
Federal Register. Thursday, May 24, 2001. Vol. 66, No. 101. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2001_register&docid=01-12840-filed.pdf
Galster, G., K. Pettit, A. Santiago, and P. Tatian. 2002. The Impact of Supportive Housing on
Neighborhood Crime Rates, Journal of Urban Affairs, 24:289-315.
Galster, G.C., P. Tatian, and R. Smith. 1999. “The Impact of Neighbors Who Use Section 8 Certificates on Property Values.” Housing Policy Debate, 10: 879-917
Glaser, D. 1969.The Effectiveness of a Prison and Parole System (Abridged ed). Indianapolis, IN:
Bobb-Merrill, Co.
Goetz, E.G., Lam, H.K., and A. Heitlinger. 1996. There Goes the Neighborhood? Subsidized
Housing in Urban Neighborhood. Twin Cities, MN: Center for Urban and Regional Affairs, University of Minnesota.
Gottfredson, S.D., and R.B. Taylor. 1988. “Community Contexts and Criminal Offenders.” In T.
Hope and M. Shaw (Eds.), Crime and Community Context. London: HMSO.
Grogger, J. 1995 “The Effects of Arrests on the Employment and Earnings of Young Men,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 110:756-791.
Hagan, J., and R. Peterson. 1995. Criminal inequality in America: Patterns and consequences. In
Crime and Inequality, edited by J. Hagan and R. Peterson. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press, pp. 14-36.
Hagan J., and Petty. 2002. “Returning Captives of the American War on Drugs: Issues of Community and Family Reentry.” Paper prepared for the Reentry Roundtable, Washington, D.C., Oct.
12–13, 2000.
Hairston, C.F. 2002. The Importance of Families in Prisoners’ Community Reentry. The ICCA
Journal of Community Corrections, April 11-14.
Holt, N., and D. Miller. 1972. Explorations in Inmate-Family Relationships. Sacramento, CA: Research Division, California Department of Corrections.
Holzer, H.J., S. Raphael, and M.A. Stoll. 2001. “Will Employers Hire Ex-Offenders? Employer
Preferences, Background Checks, and Their Determinants.” In The Impact of Incarceration on
Families and Communities, edited by Mary Patillo-McCoy, David Weiman and Bruce Western,
New York: NY, Russell Sage Foundation.
Horney, J.D., D.W. Osgood, and I.H. Marshall. 1995. "Criminal Careers in the Short-Term: IntraIndividual Variability in Crime and Its Relation to Local Life Circumstances." American Sociological Review 60:655-73.

58

Housing Opportunities Commission. HOC Announces Waiting Lists Will Not Open in 2005. Press
Release. Kensington, Maryland, Friday, May 6, 2005. World Wide Web page
<http://www.hocmc.org/News/waitlist2005.htm> (accessed June 1, 2005).
Iannotta, J.G., and J.L. Ross. 2002. Equality of Opportunity and the Importance of Place: Summary of a Workshop. Center for Social and Economic Studies, Division of Behavioral and Social
Sciences and Education, National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Klein, S.R., G.S. Bartholomew, and J. Hibbert. 2002. Inmate Family Functioning. International
Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 46(1) 95-111.
Kling, J.R. 1999. “The Effect of Prison Sentence Length on the Subsequent Employment and
Earnings of Criminal Defendants.” Woodrow Wilson School Discussion Papers in Economics no.
208. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.
Lake, R.W. 1993. “Rethinking NIMBY.” Journal of the American Planning Association 59(1): 8793.
Land, K.C., P.L. McCall, and L.E. Cohen. 1990. "Structural Covariates of Homicide Rates: Are
There Any Invariances Across Time and Social Space?" American Journal of Sociology 95:92263.
Langan, P.A., and D.J. Levin. 2002. “Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994,” Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, June 2002.
Lattimore, P.K., S. Brumbaugh, C. Visher, C. Lindquist, L. Winterfield, M. Salas and J. Zweig.
2004. National Portrait of SVORI. RTI International and the Urban Institute.
Laub, J.H. , D.S. Nagin, and R.J. Sampson. 1998. “Trajectories of Change in Criminal Offending:
Good Marriages and the Desistance Process.” American Sociological Review 63:225-238.
La Vigne, N., and V. Kachnowski. 2003. A Portrait of Prisoner Reentry in Maryland. Washington,
DC: Urban Institute Report.
La Vigne, N, C. Mamalian, J. Travis, and C. Visher. 2003. A Portrait of Prisoner Reentry in Illinois.
Washington, DC: Urban Institute Report.
La Vigne, N., and G.L. Thomson. 2003. A Portrait of Prisoner Reentry in Ohio. Washington, DC:
Urban Institute Report.
La Vigne, N.G., C. Visher, and J. Castro. 2004. Chicago Prisoners’ Experiences Returning Home.
Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Lynch, J.P., and W.J. Sabol. 2000. “Prison Use and Social Control.” In Policies, Processes, and
Decisions of the Criminal Justice System. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice, Criminal
Justice 2000 3: 7-44.
Lynch, J.P., and W.J. Sabol, 2001. Prisoner Reentry in Perspective. Urban Institute Crime Policy
Report, Vol. 3, September.
Meredith, T., J. Speir, S. Johnson, and H. Hull. 2003. Enhancing Parole Decision-Making
Through the Automation of Risk Assessment. Atlanta, GA: Applied Research Services, Inc.
Metraux, S., and D.P. Culhane. 2004. “Homeless Shelter Use and Reincarceration Following
Prison Release: Assessing the Risk.” Criminology and Public Policy 3(2).

59

Morenoff, J.D., and R.J. Sampson. 1997. "Violent Crime and the Spatial Dynamics of Neighborhood Transition: Chicago, 1970-1990." Social Forces 76:31-64.
Morenoff, J.D., R.J. Sampson, and S. Raudenbush. 2001. “Neighborhood Inequality, Collective
Efficacy, and the Spatial Dynamics of Urban Violence.” Criminology 39: 517-560.
National Commission on Correctional Health Care. 2002. The Health Status of Soon-to-beReleased Inmates. A Report to Congress, Volume 1. Retrieved on July 15, 2003 from the World
Wide Web: http://www.ncchc.org/pubs/pubs_stbr.html.
National Low Income Housing Coalition. 2004. Out of Reach 2004. Washington, DC: National
Low Income Housing Coalition. World Wide Web page <http://www.nlihc.org/oor2004> (accessed
June 1, 2005)
Nelson, M., P. Deess, and C. Allen. 1999. The First Month Out: Post-Incarceration Experiences in
New York City. New York, NY: Vera Institute of Justice.
Obrinsky, M., and J. Meron. 2002. Housing Affordability: The Apartment Universe. Washington,
DC: National Multi Housing Council. World Wide Web page
<http://www.nmhc.org/Content/ServeFile.cfm?FileID=3023 > (accessed October 1, 2005).
Pager, D. 2002. "The Mark of a Criminal Record." Doctoral dissertation. Department of Sociology,
University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Paxton, P. 1999. “Is Social Capital Declining in the U.S.? A Multiple Indicator Assessment.”
American Journal of Sociology, 105:88-107.
Petersilia, J. 2000. “Prisoners Returning to Communities: Political, Economic, and Social Consequences.” In Sentencing and Corrections: Issues for the 21st Century. National Institute of Justice: Papers from the Executive Sessions on Sentencing and Corrections. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, May.
Petersilia, J. 2003. When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Public Defenders Office for the District of Columbia. 2005. Criminal Law Database – Sentencing.
See World Wide Web page <http://www.pdsdc.org/CriminalLawDatabase/Sentencing.asp?ID=1>.
Quander, P. 2005. Testimony before the United States House of Representatives Committee on
Government Reform. February 2, 2005.
Rodgers, A. 2006. Testimony Of Angie Rodgers (Policy Analyst), DC Fiscal Policy Institute. At the
Public Hearing on The Comprehensive Housing Strategy Task Force Report of 2006, District of
Columbia Committee on Economic Development. June 13, 2006.
Roman, C.G., and J. Travis. 2004. Taking Stock: Housing, Homelessness and Prisoner Reentry.
Final Report to The Fannie Mae Foundation. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Sampson, R.J., and W.B. Groves. 1989. “Community Structure and Crime: Testing Social Disorganization Theory.” American Journal of Sociology 94:774-802.
Sampson, R.J. and J.H. Laub. 1993. Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points Through
Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sampson, R.J., J.H. Laub, C. Wimer. 2006. “Does Marriage Reduce Crime? A Counterfactual
Approach to Within-Individual Causal Effects.” Criminology 44: 465-508.

60

Sampson, R.J., J. Morenoff, and F. Earls. 1999. "Beyond Social Capital: Spatial Dynamics of Collective Efficacy for Children." American Sociological Review 64: 633-660.
Sampson, R.J., and S. Raudenbush. 2001. Disorder in Urban Neighborhoods—Does It Lead to
Crime? Research Brief Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
Sampson, R.J. and S.W. Raudenbush. 1999. “Systematic Social Observation of Public Spaces: A
New Look at Disorder in Urban Neighborhoods.” American Journal of Sociology, 105:603-651.
Sampson, R.J., S. Raudenbush and F. Earls. 1997. “Neighborhoods and Violent Crime: A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy.” Science 277:918-24.
Silverman, E. 2006. Families In District Struggling For Shelter. The Washington Post. Page C01.
October 22, 2006.
Tatian, P. 2006. District of Columbia Housing Monitor. Fall 2006. Washington, DC: The Urban
Institute.
Taxman, F., and J. Bouffard. 2001. "District of Columbia Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA) Risk Screening Instrument Validation Project: Final Report," U.S. Department of Justice, (District Government), July 2001.
Templin, L.A., K.M. Abram, G.M. McClelland, M.K. Dulcan, and A.A. Mericle. (2002). “Psychiatric
Disorders in Youth in Juvenile Detention.” Archives of General Psychiatry, 59:1133-1143.
Travis, J. 2005. But They All Come Back: Facing the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
Travis, J., S. Keegan, E. Cadora. 2003. A Portrait of Prisoner Reentry in New Jersey. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Turner, M.A., G.T. Kingsley, K.L.S. Pettit, and N. Sawyer. 2004. Housing in the Nation’s Capital
2004. Report Prepared by the Urban Institute for the Fannie Mae Foundation. Washington, DC:
The Fannie Mae Foundation.
Turner, M.A., G. T. Kingsley, K.L.S. Pettit, C.W. Snow, and P.A. Tatian. 2002. Housing in the Nation’s Capital 2002. Report Prepared by the Urban Institute for the Fannie Mae Foundation.
Washington, DC: The Fannie Mae Foundation.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. USA Quick Facts. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
U.S. General Accounting Office. 2001. D.C. Criminal Justice System: Better Coordination Needed
Among Participating Agencies. Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office, GAO-01-187.
U.S. General Accounting Office. 2001. Prisoner Releases: Trends and Information on Reintegration Programs. Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office, GAO-01-483.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 1997. Meeting the Challenges: Public
Housing Authorities Respond to the “One Strike and You’re Out” Initiative. Washington, DC. Office of Public and Indian Housing.
Visher, C., and J. Farrell. 2005. Chicago Communities and Prisoner Reentry. Washington, DC:
Urban Institute Report.

61

Visher, C., N. La Vigne, and J. Travis. 2004. Returning Home: Understanding the Challenges of
Prisoner Reentry Maryland Pilot Study: Findings from Baltimore. Washington, DC: Urban Institute
Report. January 2004.
Wacquant, L.J.D. 1993. “Urban Outcasts: Stigma and Division in the Black American Ghetto and
the French Urban Periphery.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 17:366-83.
Watson, Jamie, Amy L. Solomon, Nancy G. La Vigne, Jeremy Travis, with Meagan Funches, and
Barbara Parthasarathy. 2004. A Portrait of Prisoner Reentry in Texas. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Watts, H., and D.S. Nightingale. 1996. Adding it up: The economic impact of incarceration on individuals, families, and communities. Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Consortium Journal
vol. 3 (August). http://www.doc.state.ok.us/DOCS/OCJRC/Ocjrc96/Ocjrc55.htm
Warr, M. 1998. “Life-Course Transitions and Desistance from Crime,” Criminology 36(2):183-216.
Western, B. 2002. “The Impact of Incarceration on Wage Mobility and Inequality.” American Sociological Review 67:526-546.
Wilson, W.J. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged: the Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wilson, W.J. 1996. When Work Disappears : The World of the New Urban Poor. New York: Random House.
Zhang, Zhiwei. 2004. Drug and Alcohol Use and Related Matters Among Arrestees, 2003. Chicago, IL: National Opinion Research Center.

62

Appendix A: Overview of Methodology for Telephone Survey of Reentry Housing Providers
In early 2002, Urban Institute staff developed a list of District housing providers,
housing services providers, and providers that work with ex-offenders. We built on a
number of provider lists and resource mapping projects that community organizations had
already developed. At the time there was no central repository or organization that had
mapped all housing and ex-offender providers. A number of organizations in our database came from DC-CURE’s resource directory. We finalized our list and had a number
of community agencies review the list for comments and suggestions. We decided to cast
our net wide and include organizations on our database that may not be providing housing related services, but could be serving returning prisoners or ex-offenders. In spring
2003, the database contained 302 organizations. We asked our community contacts to
nominate those organizations that should be on our TIER I, priority list for completing the
surveys. We estimated that given the project funding for the task, we could complete 50
surveys. We placed 25 organizations on the TIER I list. We developed a short one-page
screening sheet to be used when we call organizations. Organizations are screened out if
they do not provide any services to returning prisoners or ex-offenders.
In spring of 2003, we developed and pilot tested the survey instrument. We worked
with three community agencies (Alliance of Concerned Men, Catholic Charities, Our
Place-DC) and numerous advisers to review and pretest the survey. In March 2003, we
mailed out a postcard to all organizations to notify them of our interest in conducting a
telephone survey. We began interviewing the Tier I organizations in April 2003 and continued serving organizations through the July 2004. Each organization is called, if
needed, up to five times. With no response after five times, we fax or mail the survey to
the organization and ask them to mail it back to us in the self-addressed, stamped envelope. After the faxing/mailing, if we receive no response, we closed out the file (i.e., no
more follow-up). By the end of the project period we had made contact with 76 organizations. Of the 76 organizations, we screened out 15, verified that another 15 are no longer
in existence (or were part of another agency), and completed surveys with 42 organizations. Three organizations refused to participate in the survey. And as stated earlier in
the report, to facilitate data collection as nonresponse to the survey grew, we dropped
the last three pages of the survey halfway through data collection.

63

Appendix B

Time Started _______

DC Housing and Supportive Services for Individuals Returning
from Prison and Jail
Section I.

Tell us about your organization
1.

May we confirm the address of your organization?
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2.

Is your organization…
[Check all that apply]
a. A 501(c)(3)
b. A non profit but not a 501(c)(3)
c. A for-profit private firm
d. A community development corporation

3.

How long has your organization been serving residents of the District?
_________ years?

4.

________months?

g. A property manager

DK/NA

h. An independent living facility
i. A religious organization
j. A substance abuse treatment provider
k. A social service provider
l. A service provider or housing referral service
m. Or something else?
(Other) ______________________________
n. DK/NA [do not read]

What is the geographic area served by your organization? [If your organization is part of a larger
organization, please answer this question about your particular location…] [do not read, probe if necessary]
a. Neighborhood (specify)______________________
b. Ward based, if so, which Ward _________
c. The District
d. DC Metropolitan area

6.

_______days?

Which of the following describes your organization? I have a list. Are you…
[Check all that apply]
A. A halfway house
b. A group home
c. A homeless shelter
d. A health care provider
e. A housing provider
f. A housing developer/Rehab/Construction

5.

e. A government agency
f. A faith-based organization
g. Other (specify)______________________
h. DON’T KNOW/NO ANSWER [do not read]

e. Multi-state, if so which states?
___________________________________________
f. Regional, if so, which region _______________
g. Other (specify)____________________________
h. DK/NA [do not read]

What is the primary population that you serve?
[DO NOT READ. Check only one.]
a. Adults who are homeless
(men only, women only, or both)
b. Families who are homeless
c. Victims of domestic violence
d. Persons with substance abuse/addiction
e. Persons with a mental illness
f. Persons with HIV/AIDS

g. Migrants or refugees
h. Low income individuals
i. Youth or high-risk youth
j. Or another population, Other _______________________
k. DK/NA [do not read]

64

7.

In addition to the primary population that you serve, whom else do you serve? Do you serve…
[Check all that apply. DO NOT READ SELECTION FROM Q6]
a. Adults who are homeless
(men only, women only, or both)
b. Families who are homeless
c. Victims of domestic violence
d. Persons with substance abuse/addiction
e. Persons with a mental illness
f. Persons with HIV/AIDS

g. Migrants or refugees
h. Low income individuals
i. Youth or high-risk youth
j. Other ____________________________
k. DK/NA [do not read]

8. How long has your organization been assisting returning prisoners in the District?
_________ years?

________months?

_______days?

DK/NA

9a. Do you serve clients or interview individuals for eligibility before they leave prison or jail?
Yes

No

DK/NA

9b. What is your primary method of communication with incarcerated clients? [read list]
a. Telephone
b. In person

c. Mail
d. Something else? __________________________

10a. Now I’d like to ask you about the types of services your organization provides. Please tell me yes or
no for each of the following services:
[Check all that apply.]
a. Advocacy
b. After school activities, recreation, or sports
c. GED, tutoring and/or literacy
d. Mentoring
e. Family Counseling and/or other family
services, parenting education
f. Case management
g. Drop-out prevention
h. Violence prevention or gang intervention
i. Emergency Shelter
j. Clothing and/or food pantry
k. Assistance in locating housing
l. Applying for subsidized housing
m. Financial assistance with rent/utilities
n. Assistance with landlord/tenant relations
o. Housing development, rehab, construction
p. Homeownership counseling

s. Job placement or job referral
t. Free or subsidized transportation services
u. Medical services, health support services
v. HIV/AIDs support or services
w. Mental health services

q. Emergency shelter
r. Job training, vocational rehabilitation,
computer classes or training, or life skills

ii. DK/NA [do not read]

x. In-patient substance abuse treatment
y. Outpatient substance abuse treatment
z. Public health education or wellness programs
aa. Legal services, civil rights protection
bb. Adoption assistance, foster care
cc. Family reunification
dd. Community development
ee. An ex-offender support group
ff. Assistance in obtaining identification
gg. Child care
hh. Any other services that I have not mentioned?
_______________________________

65

10b. Which of these services [Q10a] are more than one week in duration for participants? In other
words, which of these services establish an on-going relationship (as opposed to drop-in) with clients? [Write full description of service – as in Q10a]

11. The next few questions ask about the number of staff your organization has. If your organization
is part of a larger organization, please answer this question about your particular location… [read all
– write in DK/NA if answer is DON’T KNOW/NO ANSWER]
a. How many full-time paid staff [more than 35 hours/week] does your organization have? _______
b. How many part-time paid staff [35 hours or less/week] does your organization have? _______
c. How many full-time volunteers [more than 35 hours/week] does your organization have? _______
d. How many part-time volunteers [35 hours or less/week] does your organization have? _______
12a. Does your organization use consultants?
Yes

No

DK/NA

12b. [If ‘Yes’ in Q12a] How many?________________

13a. Does your organization currently employ a housing specialist or housing coordinator to assist clients in securing appropriate housing?
Yes

No

DK/NA

13b. [If ‘Yes’ in Q10a] How many?________________
13c. What is the title of this position [these positions]?
________________________________________________
13d. What percentage of this person’s [these people’s] time is devoted to housing functions?
___________

14. Does your organization currently have a staff person dedicated to serving returning prisoners?
Yes

No

DK/NA

Everyone serves returning
prisoners

15. Now please think about your annual operating budget for the last fiscal year. Approximately what
percentage of that budget went for housing or housing–related services [i.e., direct service provision]? [probe once if DON’T KNOW]
_______________ Percent

DK/NA

16a. Does your organization receive any special funding to provide services to individuals returning
from prison and/or jail?
Yes

No

DK/NA

16b. Has your organization written any proposals or applied for any grants to obtain funding to assist
returning prisoners?
Yes

No

DK/NA

66

17a. Is your organization part of a comprehensive community initiative or coalition to aid returning
prisoners?
Yes

No

DK/NA

[if yes, enter “yes” for 18a]

17b. [If ‘Yes’ in Q17a] Does the initiative or coalition have a name? _________________________________
17c. What is its primary mission? _______________________________________________________________
17d. Who is the primary contact person in charge of this initiative? ________________________________

18a. Do you work with a network of community based service providers in assisting clients?
Yes

No

[if yes at 17a, enter “yes” at
18a]

DK/NA

18b. Please name the THREE organizations you work most closely with. [Skip to 19a]

Section II.

Tell us about the population you serve
The following questions ask about the clients served by your organization. Clients include anyone
your organization serves.
19a. What is the estimated number of people you serve….
Each year (not counting repeat clients)? ___________

Each Year? Each Day?
Each day ___________________

19b. During the past year, approximately what percent of your total clients fall into each of the
following categories ? What percent of your clients are… [Read all – record percent]
ANNUAL (PERCENT OF TOTAL) %
Persons and families who are homeless
(men, women, or both)?
Parolees; those exiting prisons and jails?
Victims of domestic violence?
Persons with substance abuse/addiction?
Persons with mental illness?
Persons with HIV/AIDS ?
Other

%
%
%
%
%
%
%

67

20a. In the past year, what percent of your clients returning from prisons and jails were
women? [If R not sure, probe…Zero percent, less than 10 percent, 10 to 24 percent, 25 to

50, or over 50 percent?]
_______%
a. Zero [Skip to 20]
b. Less than 25%

c. 25 to 49%
d. 50 to 74%

e. 75% or over
f. DK/NA

20b.What percent were women with children? _______ Percent

∀ DK/NA

20c. Are these estimates or based on collected data?
Estimates

Collected data

20d. Approximately what percent of women with children had custody of their children? [If R

not sure, probe…Zero percent, less than 10 percent, 10 to 24 percent, 25 to 50, or over 50 percent?]
_______ Percent

20e. Do you offer any services that assist women regain custody of their children?
∀ Yes
∀ No

21. In the past year, what percent of your clients returning from prisons and jails do you
believe were at risk of homelessness but were not currently homeless?
_______________ Percent

∀ DK/NA

22. If you work with persons returning from prison who are homeless, what do you think
are the main reasons these clients are homeless? I’ll read a list and you can let me know
what you think the main reasons are. [Probe for three reasons, read the list below].
a. Recently discharged from prison/jail/juvenile
treatment facility
b. Eviction/foreclosure
c. Job loss or inability to maintain steady income
d Can’t find affordable housing
e. Unable to pay medical bills
f. Substance or alcohol abuse

g. Victims of domestic violence
g. Cannot return to live with family
h. Restrictions due to ex-offender status
i. Problems with credit
j. Other ____________________________
DK/NA

23. During the past year, approximately what percent of your clients returning from prison
received housing services or assistance from your organization? [enter 100% if organization is only a housing service provider]
Zero

∀ _______________ Percent

∀ DK/NA

IF ZERO, skip to Q25.
24. What percentage of your clients returning from prison that your organization assisted
in looking for housing found housing last year?
_______________ Percent

∀ DK/NA

68

25. What percentage of your clients who have returned from prison/jail are . . .
% OF EX-OFFENDER CLIENTS
a. Employed part time (0 to 35 hours/week)
b. Employed full time (35+ hours/week)
c. Enrolled in job training or school
d. Unemployed, but job-ready

%
%
%
%

I just have a few more questions about housing needs…
26. In your opinion, what kind of housing arrangements do you think the majority of your
clients who are returning from prisons and jails are in? Would you say the majority of
them are… [check all that apply]Returning to their families or staying with friends?
Finding private rental arrangements (not Section 8)?
Staying in emergency shelters?
Living on the street?
In public-housing/Section 8?
In a rehabilitation facility?
Other? (specify) __________________________
DK/NA (do not read)

27. In your opinion, do the current housing arrangements available to individuals returning
from prisons and jails adequately meet their needs?
Yes

No

DK/NA

28. In your opinion, what are the primary barriers that individuals returning from prisons
and jails face with regard to securing safe and affordable housing?

29. Within the District, are there any housing services that you feel are NOT being provided
to people returning from prison and jail? What are these services?

30. In your opinion, what types of housing/and or housing services could most assist individuals returning from prison and jail?

69

31. What, if any, are the primary barriers that exist for your agency in providing housing
services to returning prisoners?

32. Does your organization have any plans to change the way you provide housing-related
services in general? (e.g., expanding the range of services, focusing on fewer services,
moving premises, etc.)
Yes
No
DK/NA
If Yes, what are those plans?
________________________________________________________________

33. Does your organization have any plans to change the way you provide housing-related
services for returning prisoners?(e.g., expanding the range of services, focusing on
fewer services, moving premises, etc.?)
Yes
No
DK/NA
If Yes, what are those plans?
________________________________________________________________

34. Finally, in addition to organizations you have already mentioned, are there other organizations in the District that come to your mind that provide services to returning
prisoners?

THIS IS THE END. THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THIS IMPORTANT SURVEY.

70

Tract
74.08
59.00
87.01
85.00
88.04
91.01
88.03
98.02
75.04
96.04
89.03
89.04
77.08
99.04
97.00
91.02
74.03
79.01
99.05
79.03
48.02
78.06
49.01
96.02
75.02
75.03
80.01
76.01
84.10
74.06
98.06
73.04
88.02
87.02
46.00
30.00
32.00
98.07
33.01
74.09
68.01
47.00
58.00
28.02
98.08
92.03
99.06
19.01
77.03
99.07
98.03
73.02
80.02
49.02
50.00
92.04
78.08
99.02
98.04
36.00
76.04
60.01
78.04

Number
of Parolees
72
32
39
41
28
52
20
18
22
18
21
28
23
15
18
33
17
27
19
13
20
14
13
20
27
16
16
28
9
19
35
27
24
11
17
16
25
18
15
19
11
24
8
25
13
15
8
20
23
15
11
16
15
11
35
11
19
14
12
18
17
12
15

Pct
of Total
Parolees
3.87
1.72
2.10
2.20
1.50
2.79
1.07
0.97
1.18
0.97
1.13
1.50
1.24
0.81
0.97
1.77
0.91
1.45
1.02
0.70
1.07
0.75
0.70
1.07
1.45
0.86
0.86
1.50
0.48
1.02
1.88
1.45
1.29
0.59
0.91
0.86
1.34
0.97
0.81
1.02
0.59
1.29
0.43
1.34
0.70
0.81
0.43
1.07
1.24
0.81
0.59
0.86
0.81
0.59
1.88
0.59
1.02
0.75
0.64
0.97
0.91
0.64
0.81

Parolees
Per
1,000
33.2
17.2
16.1
12.8
12.3
10.8
10.4
10.0
9.3
9.1
8.8
8.6
8.5
8.1
7.8
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.1
7.1
7.0
6.6
6.5
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.2
6.1
6.0
5.9
5.9
5.8
5.8
5.7
5.7
5.7
5.6
5.6
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.4
5.3
5.3
5.2
5.2
5.1
5.0
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.6
4.5
4.5
4.4

Tract
33.02
96.03
98.01
22.01
78.09
74.01
31.00
25.01
23.01
78.07
22.02
74.04
29.00
64.00
77.09
21.01
74.07
72.00
21.02
69.00
76.05
48.01
25.02
76.03
92.01
71.00
84.02
24.00
78.03
19.02
20.02
77.07
34.00
44.00
17.02
83.01
61.00
95.09
68.02
93.01
95.04
90.00
35.00
95.01
96.01
94.00
93.02
28.01
27.02
60.02
37.00
83.02
38.00
99.03
40.02
99.01
51.00
43.00
18.04
68.04
95.05
55.00
95.08

Appendix C
Number
Pct
of Paof Total
rolees
Parolees
8
0.43
14
0.75
9
0.48
15
0.81
11
0.59
12
0.64
11
0.59
9
0.48
11
0.59
7
0.38
11
0.59
12
0.64
15
0.81
8
0.43
7
0.38
18
0.97
8
0.43
6
0.32
15
0.81
6
0.32
12
0.64
6
0.32
17
0.91
13
0.70
4
0.21
8
0.43
6
0.32
10
0.54
8
0.43
5
0.27
9
0.48
9
0.48
10
0.54
6
0.32
5
0.27
5
0.27
5
0.27
6
0.32
4
0.21
6
0.32
6
0.32
4
0.21
6
0.32
9
0.48
4
0.21
7
0.38
2
0.11
6
0.32
10
0.54
1
0.05
8
0.43
3
0.16
7
0.38
3
0.16
4
0.21
3
0.16
1
0.05
4
0.21
5
0.27
3
0.16
3
0.16
5
0.27
3
0.16

Parolees
Per
1,000
4.4
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.1
4.0
4.0
3.8
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.1
3.1
2.9
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.1
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.0

Tract
18.03
52.01
81.00
63.01
23.02
27.01
95.07
39.00
42.01
67.00
9.02
16.00
70.00
20.01
82.00
17.01
95.03
14.02
57.01
56.00
1.00
2.01
2.02
3.00
4.00
5.01
5.02
6.00
7.01
7.02
8.01
8.02
9.01
10.01
10.02
11.00
12.00
13.01
13.02
14.01
15.00
26.00
40.01
41.00
42.02
52.02
53.01
54.01
65.00
66.00
73.01

Number
of Parolees
3
4
2
3
1
4
1
3
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Pct
of Total
Parolees
0.16
0.21
0.11
0.16
0.05
0.21
0.05
0.16
0.11
0.11
0.05
0.11
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

Parolees
Per
1,000
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

71

72