Bill Overview
Title: District of Columbia Code Returning Citizens Coordination Act
Description: This bill requires the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to provide, every 90 days, 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 or to any District of Columbia law enforcement agency, but may disclose such information 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: Individuals under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Prisons returning to Washington D.C.
Estimated Size: 45000
- The bill affects individuals who are under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Prisons as part of the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997, which includes those returning to the District of Columbia.
- The target population includes incarcerated individuals who are going through the re-entry process in Washington D.C.
- Post-conviction and re-entry service organizations in the District of Columbia would also be significantly impacted due to their enhanced access to release information.
- Legal representatives and counsel for detained individuals in D.C. will have improved access to their clients' release information.
Reasoning
- The target population consists mainly of individuals incarcerated under federal laws but returning to the District of Columbia. These individuals often face challenges during re-entry such as finding employment, housing, and accessing social services.
- The wellbeing of previously incarcerated individuals may be influenced by their ability to reintegrate successfully into society, which is directly related to the availability of support services informed by their release dates.
- Post-conviction organizations and legal representatives in Washington D.C. are critical in assisting those re-entering society, and improved access to release information can help these organizations coordinate better support services.
- While the affected population is not large compared to the overall U.S. population, enhancing the transition period can profoundly affect individual wellbeing over the long term.
- The policy's budget is modest considering both the size of the targeted population and the operational scope of coordinating different government and non-government stakeholders within D.C.
Simulated Interviews
Re-entry Program Coordinator (Washington D.C.)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will improve coordination among re-entry organizations and ease the transition process for many returnees.
- Timely access to release information allows us to better plan for individual needs and resources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Probation Officer (Washington D.C.)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a probation officer, this policy will streamline some processes for supervision and follow-up, though its broader effects depend on organizational implementation.
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 | 6 | 6 |
Lawyer (Washington D.C.)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improved access to client release information will allow for better preparation of post-release legal needs and services.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Case Manager (Washington D.C.)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Early information on release dates can help us manage our programs more effectively to meet individuals at release.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Social Worker (Washington D.C.)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having advanced notice on release dates means better planning for family reunification and community support.
- Families often struggle with sudden releases; more structured information can alleviate some stress.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Community Activist (Washington D.C.)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a step in the right direction for transparency and re-entry reform, but needs more actionable steps and community involvement.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Former Inmate (Washington D.C.)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Knowing my release date earlier would have helped my family and me prepare mentally and logistically.
- While the policy is helpful, its actual benefits depend heavily on execution and additional resources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Retired Advocate (Washington D.C.)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy leverages necessary information flow but needs reasonable budget allocation and cross-sector collaboration to be effective.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Director of Legal Aid Organization (Washington D.C.)
Age: 44 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Access to updated information will improve our legal strategies and support for post-conviction clients.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Policy Analyst (Washington D.C.)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The potential success of this policy depends on the detailed implementation plans and the willingness of all parties to adapt to new communication lines.
- On paper, the policy is invaluable for providing structure and foreknowledge, reducing friction in the re-entry process.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 2: $3500000 (Low: $2000000, High: $5000000)
Year 3: $3500000 (Low: $2000000, High: $5000000)
Year 5: $3750000 (Low: $2500000, High: $5000000)
Year 10: $4000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $6000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Coordination between federal and local agencies requires efficient data systems and clear guidelines for data sharing.
- Data privacy and compliance with existing rules about criminal justice data handling are crucial.
- This will enhance the ability of local entities and legal representatives to aid in reentry programs, potentially reducing recidivism in the long term.
- Monitoring of the system and protocol adjustments may be needed based on initial implementation findings.