Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Reentry Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Reentry providers report sharp funding declines that outpaced rising demand; urge restoration
Summary
The D.C. Reentry Action Network told the oversight hearing that reentry funding has fallen by 26% since 2022 even as client numbers increased dramatically, and that ARPA losses and shifting OVSJG allocations require immediate budget attention to prevent service gaps.
Reentry service providers told the committee that cuts to OVSJG reentry funding have left programs stretched thin just as demand for reentry supports has grown.
Paula Thompson, founder and CEO of Voices for a Second Chance and co‑chair of the D.C. Reentry Action Network (RAN), said OVSJG funding for reentry services has fallen 26% since 2022, a decline she tied to the expiration of ARPA funds that had briefly bolstered programming. ‘‘Since 2022, OVSJG's funding for reentry services has been cut 26%, totaling over $6,300,000 in reductions,’’ Thompson said.
Thompson told the committee reentry program enrollments have risen — the testimony reported that more than 7,200 returning citizens accessed OVSJG‑supported reentry programs in 2024, up from 794 in 2020 — while per‑person funding available for reentry dropped sharply from about $14,700 per person in 2022 to under $2,600 in 2024 (testimony by RAN). RAN witnesses described declines in housing support for returning citizens in 2024 after prior increases in 2022–2023 when ARPA funds were available.
Providers listed priority needs for returning citizens: stable housing, employment services, mental‑health and substance‑use treatment, transportation and flexible direct client assistance. Thompson said programs had been able to provide hotel stays and short‑term housing stabilization but warned that sustained reductions would worsen homelessness and recidivism.
OVSJG Director Jennifer Porter acknowledged the agency’s need to balance competing priorities and described efforts to maintain long‑running grantee relationships while supporting capacity building for new or expanded services. Committee members asked for more granular data on reentry award renewals, new grantees, and per‑program outcomes to help prioritize any proposed restoration.
Reentry advocates asked the council to consider local revenue to sustain programs previously supported by ARPA and to ensure reentry services are not deprioritized when overall agency budgets are allocated.
