The preceding policy statements in this Report explained the value of determining the extent to which people who are incarcerated and people who are released from prison and jail correspond to different systems' and organizations' service population. Both geomapping and data matching between systems' client rosters or databases are extremely valuable tools to illustrate this overlap. (See Policy Statement 2, Development of a Knowledge Base for a discussion of these techniques.)

Establishing the extent to which service populations overlap is useful not only in determining how the missions of distinct organizations or systems relate, but also in prompting new options for funding. Too often, state and local government officials and community leaders designing a re-entry initiative appeal to policymakers for new or increased funding for a program, while overlooking opportunities that existing funding streams present. Indeed, state and local government officials, in addition to community leaders, can often cobble together funding for an initiative by coordinating, blending, or leveraging funding streams that are managed by distinct system officials but intersect among the same targeted people, families, and communities. The following chart suggests some funding streams which may be used for re-entry populations. The sources listed in the chart do not comprise a comprehensive list, but are intended to serve as useful examples.

Non-Traditional Funding Streams for Re-Entry Initiatives [chart opens in a new window]

These sources of revenue are not presented as opportunities to supplement or supplant the existing budgets of departments of corrections or community corrections agencies. As it is, administrators of other state and local agencies for whom these funds represent a significant percentage of total agency budgets are quick to point out that these dollars currently do not go far enough to meet the existing demand for services. Instead of attempting to use these streams to replace or augment funding already directed to prisoners or individuals supervised in the community, state and local government officials should think strategically about how these and other funding opportunities can be better leveraged to support prisoner re-entry initiatives that will direct resources to needy individuals who would otherwise be underserved.

State and local government officials seeking to leverage funding opportunities to support re-entry initiatives will likely face one of several scenarios. In one scenario, the partnering organizations, neither of which has the resources to independently serve people while they are incarcerated or following their release, each draw on their existing budgets, and, with the two sets of resources, jointly cover the cost of the initiative.

Example: Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program, Oklahoma Marriage Initiative and the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (OK)

The Oklahoma Marriage Initiative (OMI), funded by TANF, provides programming to strengthen the relationships of both married and unmarried couples, especially from low-income families, throughout the state. Because many prisoners fall into this target population, OMI has partnered with the Department of Corrections (DOC) to train DOC staff chaplains to teach the evidence-based Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program (PREP) curriculum. OMI provides the training and workshop materials for inmate participants, and DOC covers the cost of staff time and expenses incurred around training.

In a second scenario, state and local government officials identify a source of funding that could help support a re-entry initiative, but they determine that the organization leading the initiative is unlikely to appeal to the funder. Accordingly, one of the partnering organizations is put forward as the grantee. For example, a health foundation is much more likely to be interested in awarding a grant to a community health center or other health provider than to a county jail.

Example: All-County Jail Collaborative, Allegheny Department of Corrections, Allegheny Department of Health and Human Services, and Allegheny County Health Department (PA)

The Allegheny County Department of Corrections, Department of Health and Human Services, along with the Health Department's nonprofit subsidiary, Allegheny Correctional Health, are working together to improve the transition to the community for people with mental illness who are incarcerated in the county jail. When seeking funding for their reintegration project, officials representing the Department of Corrections wrote in support of grant applications submitted by county health agencies to a variety of private foundations, including the Jewish Healthcare Foundation of Pittsburgh and the Staunton Farm Foundation. The foundations, which subsequently approved the grant applications, were interested primarily in community health issues, but had had little history of targeting populations involved in the criminal justice system.

In a third scenario, state and local government officials use a single funding stream and disburse it to each of the partners involved in the re-entry initiative. The funding stream gets directed to a single agency, which in turn redirects the money out to partner agencies. The coordinating agency coordinates the application for the funds, contracts for services with partner agencies, and is ultimately accountable for the services provided by the partner agencies.

Example: Assembly Bill 2034, Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health

Assembly Bill 2034 (AB 2034) provides funds to the California Department of Mental Health, which in turn disburses to county departments of mental health, for the purpose of reducing homelessness among people with mental illness, identifying people released from prison and jail as one key component of the target population. In Los Angeles, the Department of Mental Health establishes contracts with other agencies to provide comprehensive, integrated services; the Department of Corrections is contracted to refer and screen participants for eligibility; while health, substance abuse, and housing agencies are contracted for service provision.

In a fourth scenario, government officials establish new entities, often independent, 501(c) organizations, to serve as a locus for monies. Because the director of such an organization does not report to any particular state or county agency, but rather to an independent board of directors, this strategy is perhaps most likely to reflect a true partnership among different public agencies and the community. For this reason, such an approach is also likely to be especially appealing to private foundations or other potential funders.