Bill Overview
Title: District of Columbia Code Returning Citizens Coordination Act
Description: This bill requires the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to provide specified information (e.g., the scheduled release date) to the Mayor of the District of Columbia for each person under the jurisdiction of the BOP pursuant to the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997. The BOP must also provide, upon the request of the Mayor, such information to the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District. The Mayor of the District of Columbia may not disclose the provided information outside of the District government, except to counsel for the detained individuals, and to organizations that provide legal representation to individuals in criminal or post-conviction matters, or in matters related to re-entry.
Sponsors: Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large]
Target Audience
Population: Returning citizens under the District of Columbia jurisdiction affected by the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997
Estimated Size: 5700
- The bill pertains to people who are under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Prisons and are scheduled for release, particularly those from the District of Columbia.
- It specifically mentions coordination for individuals detained under the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997.
- These individuals are likely currently incarcerated or recently released individuals residing in or returning to the District of Columbia.
- The coordination aims to help these returning citizens with re-entry into society, affecting their post-release support and services.
Reasoning
- The target population is the individuals under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Prisons who are originally from DC and maybe scheduled for release. This group is relatively small compared to the entire US population.
- The policy is likely to have a significant impact on those receiving coordinated re-entry support, including legal representation, housing, and employment assistance.
- While the policy is highly relevant to returning citizens in DC, it has no direct effect on individuals outside this jurisdiction immediately.
- The budget constraints suggest that the policy is designed to provide detailed preparative engagement rather than broad, nationwide changes.
- For those directly affected, the policy could mean more structured and informed transition plans, improving socio-economic stability and thereby personal wellbeing over time.
Simulated Interviews
Unemployed (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy will make my transition easier. Having someone from the Mayor's office to coordinate releases can help with getting housing and work.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Social Worker (Baltimore, MD)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Facilitating better coordination will improve outcomes for individuals reintegrating into society. We can develop better support programs with more information.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Community Service Coordinator (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any improvement in communication can make coordination seamless, which is vital for reducing recidivism rates.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Law Student (Richmond, VA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Although I am indirectly affected, having better communication could inspire different states to apply similar approaches, which is promising.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Federal Program Analyst (New York, NY)
Age: 50 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could set a benchmark for re-entry practices; however, it hinges on the accurate deployment and minimal politicization.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Construction Worker (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Hopefully, the policy can help my brother get the support he needs to find a job and avoid falling back into old habits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Non-Profit Director (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Coordinated efforts can streamline help we deliver, improving housing stability faster.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Restaurant Manager (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 36 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Faster, clearer coordination with DC officials means better preparation and placement options for those leaving prison.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Retired (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The path to re-integration gains strength through administrative collaboration. Meaningful change requires sustained effort even after improving systems.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Policy Analyst (Chicago, IL)
Age: 38 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's an intriguing policy. The efficacy depends on operation at the community level and resource availability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1500000 (Low: $1000000, High: $2000000)
Year 2: $1550000 (Low: $1050000, High: $2050000)
Year 3: $1600000 (Low: $1100000, High: $2100000)
Year 5: $1700000 (Low: $1200000, High: $2200000)
Year 10: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $2500000)
Year 100: $3000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $4000000)
Key Considerations
- The coordination between federal and district authorities is key to supporting returning citizens.
- Privacy concerns and data protection are crucial given the sensitivity of information shared.
- The policy aims to facilitate smoother reentry for formerly incarcerated individuals, which could have longer-term social benefits.