Executive Overview
Safe and affordable housing is a fundamental pillar for the successful reintegration of people coming back to community from incarceration, particularly for Black women as this group faces disproportionately high rates of housing instability. Given that the majority of incarcerated women are mothers— many of whom were primary caregivers before their incarceration—securing safe and affordable housing plays a critical role in their transition home for themselves and family reunification.
Drawing on national emerging best practices, state-level legislative models, and insights from successful housing programs, this analysis underscores the urgent need for comprehensive, data-driven solutions by those most impacted.
What is stable housing?
According to Mental Health America, “Stable housing means that you aren’t living in uncertainty about your housing situation and generally have a choice over when to move. The opposite of this – housing instability – can mean you’re facing a number of different challenges, like struggling to pay rent, overcrowding in shelters, moving frequently, or spending most of your income on housing.”
This report examines the structural barriers to housing stability, the compounded challenges of reentry for Black women, and the necessity of family reunification services in housing support efforts.
Housing is more than shelter—it is the foundation upon which employment, health, and family restoration are built. Addressing these challenges requires a strategic and collaborative approach that ensures returning citizens, especially Black women who are parents, are given the opportunity to return to their communities and reunite with their families.
Now Home Overview
Now Home is a pilot initiative powered by I Be Black Girl (IBBG) designed to address the housing crisis for women returning home from incarceration who want to parent. This community-led effort centers the leadership and experiences of system-impacted women and will shape housing recommendations for key partners within the housing ecosystem. It focuses on strengthening the capacity of Nebraska agencies to effectively connect women with critical housing resources essential for long-term stability and well-being.
I Be Black Girl Overview
IBBG serves as a collective for Black women, femmes and girls to actualize their full potential to authentically be, through autonomy, abundance and liberation. IBBG envisions a world where Black women, femmes, and girls can live wholly and leads with several impactful programs that align with its mission of reproductive wellbeing and systemic change:
• Maternal Health Initiatives – Disrupts systems that perpetuate maternal morbidity and mortality among underrepresented populations.
• Community-Led Investment – Redistributes resources fostering collective power and transforming philanthropy.
• Economic Freedom – Works to abolish pay equity gaps and empowers underrepresented populations to achieve economic security and dignity.
• People Power – Builds community capacity through organizing to address systemic harm.
Through these initiatives, IBBG is actively reshaping the systems that impact Black women, femmes, and girls, ensuring their voices, leadership, and lived experiences drive lasting and transformative change.1
Introduction
Research underscores the critical need for targeted support systems that address housing, employment, and family stability for system-impacted Black women returning home from incarceration. For example, Black women face a staggering 46% unemployment rate when returning home—the highest among many demographic groups. For context, the Prison Policy Initiative reports that the unemployment rate for Black women in the general population is 6.4%, a stark contrast. Comparatively, the highest national unemployment rate ever recorded in the U.S. was 24.9% during the Great Depression.
Additionally, 50% of incarcerated Black women in prison are mothers with minor children. For women in jail, the number is even higher—80% of women in jail are mothers, many of whom were primary caregivers before their incarceration. By centering the experiences of those disproportionately impacted, all women returning home will benefit.
The primary goal of this report is to expand the knowledge base of Nebraska’s reentry housing and support service providers by equipping them with innovative national and local best practices. These strategies aim to implement the most effective housing solutions for women transitioning back into their communities after incarceration.
National Landscape
Funding Trends
Over the past decade, funding for projects at the intersection of housing and carceral system involvement has followed a mixed trajectory. Historically, funding for reentry programs has fluctuated based on political priorities and economic conditions. There is growing recognition of the need for more robust and flexible funding options to ensure that system-impacted individuals and their families can secure safe and affordable housing upon returning to their communities. According to research, homelessness and residential instability has been identified as one of the greatest challenges confronting ex-offenders and their chance to achieve successful reintegration (Gunnison & Helfgott, 2011; Rodriguez & Brown, 2003; Roman & Travis, 2006),2 and this issue is particularly pronounced for formerly incarcerated women with families.
Compared to the general public, formerly incarcerated men are roughly 9 times more likely to experience homelessness, while formerly incarcerated women are nearly 13 times more likely to be homeless (Couloute, 2018)3. The majority of justice-involved women are also the primary caregivers to their underage children, with the typical incarcerated woman having 2.3 children (Greenfeld & Snell, 1999).4
A growing body of evidence shows that providing housing assistance—particularly when paired with supportive services—can reduce recidivism and decrease involvement in the criminal justice system. Federal and state resources offer a patchwork of housing and support services for system-impacted individuals, including programs through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which fund housing construction, affordability, and access initiatives at the community level. HUD-funded housing programs include:
• Continuum of Care (CoC) program5
• Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program6
• Housing Choice Voucher program7 (formerly called the Section 8 program)
• Local Public Housing Authorities8
In addition to these resources, some communities have also been able to tap into state or local general funds, which may not have as many funding restrictions as federal programs.
Nebraska Supreme Court Upholds 2023 Parole Reform Law
The Nebraska Supreme Court has ruled that the parole reforms passed by the state legislature in 2023 are constitutional, effectively overturning a lower court’s decision that had struck down the new measures. The result of this action will mean that Nebraska will implement a new parole system, marking a significant shift in Nebraska’s approach to parole. In its decision, the Supreme Court affirmed that the Nebraska legislature has both the authority and responsibility to establish policies governing the parole process. The parole reforms were designed to revise how parole decisions are made and were challenged in court on constitutional grounds. However, the Supreme Court’s ruling rejected these arguments, declaring that the legal changes do not conflict with constitutional mandates.
Reentry Coordination Council and Report to Congress
There has been an increased emphasis on fostering collaboration among federal, state, and local agencies to support system-impacted individuals in securing housing. During the COVID-19 pandemic, representatives from multiple federal agencies formed the Reentry Coordination Council, aimed at reducing barriers to reentry and improving housing stability for system-impacted individuals. These collaborative efforts sought to align policies, programs, and resources needed to facilitate successful reentry. In its 2022 report to Congress, the Reentry Coordination Council stated: “There is no federal program that provides housing assistance specifically for people with criminal justice involvement... Most federal housing programs are difficult to access, and certain federal statutes and regulations prohibit access to housing for people with certain criminal convictions.”
Second Chance Act
One source of funding for reentry programs are federal grants, which relies primarily on competitive grant applications. For example, the Second Chance Act was originally passed by Congress in 2008 and was reauthorized several times to provide funding to local programs for system-impacted individuals. While federal funding can provide a significant boost to state-level reentry programs, it is subject to political priorities and may not always be consistent or reliable. In FY 2024, the national Second Chance Act awarded $9.3 million to state, local, and tribal governments, as well as nonprofit organizations, to support evidence-based initiatives aimed at reducing recidivism and improving outcomes for individuals returning from state and federal prisons, local jails, and juvenile facilities. Additionally, the Act provides training and technical assistance to agencies and nonprofits that receive these grants.
Reentry 2030
Reentry 2030, a national initiative led by The Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center, Correctional Leaders Association, and JustLeadershipUSA, is supported by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance under the Second Chance Act. In 2024, the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services became the fourth state in the nation to launch this initiative, bringing together leaders across justice, workforce, health, and housing sectors at both state and local levels to improve reentry success for individuals with criminal records. According to their website, Nebraska has “committed to setting bold, meaningful, and transparent reentry goals while tracking progress on outcomes to drive systemic change”.
Some of Nebraska’s key commitments under Reentry 2030 include:
• Reducing recidivism by increasing reentry success rates by 15%.
• Expanding education access, including a 30% increase in GED completion and a 50% increase in college coursework enrollment during incarceration.
• Enhancing program participation, with a 50% increase in tablet-based programming and a 25% increase in vocational and life skills training.
• Ensuring healthcare access, with 100% of eligible incarcerated individuals enrolled in Medicaid before release.
• Supporting employment, aiming for 90% of individuals released on parole to be gainfully employed within 30 days.
• Strengthening reentry coordination, including the creation of a statewide Nebraska Reentry Council to foster collaboration among public, private, and nonprofit stakeholders.
Impact of Funding on Housing Projects
Organizations and institutions face many challenges providing housing and supportive services to system-impacted individuals and their families. There are many reasons why creating and maintaining funding partnerships is difficult in the housing and support space for system-impacted individuals:
• Many successful housing nonprofits rely on a limited mix of federal, state, local, and private funding. In most philanthropic spaces, nonprofits compete against each other for a limited set of resources. This competition can be intense both within and across communities, as these funding sources are often limited.
• Navigating the administrative complexities of various funding requirements and reporting can be time-consuming and resource-intensive. Dealing with the administrative workload associated with compliance and documentation can divert valuable resources away from direct service provision.
• Many nonprofits struggle with inadequate funding levels to meet the demand for housing services, leading to long waiting lists and unmet needs. Securing long-term funding commitments can be challenging.
• Slowness and delays in funding allocation can hinder the timely execution of reentry services and housing projects, affecting the ability to provide both immediate and long-term support to system-impacted individuals.
• Certain funding sources come with restrictions that may not align with the specific needs of system-impacted individuals and their families, limiting their effectiveness. For example, some federal and other funds are limited to a dedicated set of housing that may not match the needs of system-impacted individuals in that area.
Black women face a staggering 46% unemployment rate when returning home—the highest among many demographic groups. In comparison, the unemployment rate for Black women in the general population is a much lower 6.4%. (Prison Policy Initiative)
Compared to the general public, formerly incarcerated men are roughly 9 times more likely to experience homelessness, while formerly incarcerated women are nearly 13 times more likely to be homeless. (Prison Policy Initiative)
Black individuals make up 5% of Nebraska’s population but account for 21% of people in jail and 29% of people in prison, highlighting stark racial disparities in incarceration. (Vera Institute of Justice)
Since 1980, the number of women in jail in Nebraska has increased by 932%, and the number of women in prison has risen 724%, reflecting the growing impact of incarceration on women, many of whom are mothers.
(Vera Institute of Justice)
State Legislative Bills: Filling Gaps in Funding
This patchwork funding landscape requires reentry programs and related entities to implement innovative strategies. Several states have crafted legislation to fill in gaps to support system-impacted households. The purpose of these bills are to provide targeted financial support for reentry programs by ensuring that system-impacted individuals have access to the housing resources they need to promote long-term stability. In the report Successful Reentry: Exploring Funding Models to Support Rehabilitation, Reduce Recidivism,9 the National Conference of State Legislature (a bipartisan organization that supports state legislators) offers the following recent examples of bills drafted for reentry funding initiatives:
Colorado SB 64 (2019)
Created the community-based reentry cash fund where there policymakers can appropriate dollars for the intended purpose.
Delaware SB 250 (2022)
Made appropriations for “planning, research and reentry” under the Department of Corrections.
Georgia HB 30 (2019)
Appropriated $5,187,760 to the Department of Community Supervision to provide a collaboration of governmental and non- governmental stakeholders to develop and execute a systematic reentry plan for Georgia offenders and ensure the delivery of services to reduce recidivism and support the success of returning citizens.
Hawaii HB 2309 (2022)
Appropriated funds to the department of public safety for identification card machines, to the Hawaii paroling authority for community housing for parolees and to the department of health for a forensic peer specialist program—totaling approximately $1.1 million.
Hawaii SB 3294 (2022)
Appropriated $200,000 for a solution based process that allows incarcerated individuals, their families, and prison staff members to discuss and produce written transition plans for an individual leaving prison.
Idaho SB 1198 (2019)
Appropriated $12.2 million to the Department of Correction, North Idaho Reentry Center.
Iowa HB 2559 (2022)
Appropriated $2,608,109 to the Department of Corrections for education programs for incarcerated people at state penal institutions.
Nebraska LB 631 (2024)
Allocated $10,111,051 from the General Fund and $455,873 from the Parole Program Cash Fund for FY 2024-25 to the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services to support reentry initiatives.
Gaps in Housing Support for System-Impacted Individuals
In recent decades, the U.S. has seen the rise of both mass incarceration and homelessness, which share similar structural and root causes and can be mutually reinforcing.10 To fully assess the landscape of agencies that work with systemimpacted individuals, it is critical to discuss who experiences the most negative housing outcomes after leaving jail or prison.
• According to a report by the Prison Policy Initiative, in 2008, 2% of formerly incarcerated people experienced homelessness, a rate that is nearly 10 times higher than the rate of homelessness among the general public.11
• The data visual below from the Prison Policy Initiative shows that the rates of homelessness among formerly incarcerated women are higher than in formerly incarcerated men.
• A similar trend can be seen across other factors such as race, ethnicity, age, time sense release and whether a person has been incarcerated once or more than once.
• Individuals identifying as Black have higher rates of homelessness compared to folks who identify as Hispanic or White, folks who are 45 and older have higher rates of homelessness than all younger groups, and individuals who have been incarcerated more than once have higher rates of homelessness than those who were incarcerated one time.
• Finally, individuals who have been released for less than two years have higher rates of homelessness than those who have been released for longer than 2 years.
The dynamics of mass incarceration and homelessness have disproportionately harmed people of color, particularly Black Americans, who are overrepresented in prisons and jails and are more likely to experience homelessness (Pettit and Western 2004; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] 2021).12 LGBTQ+ and transgender individuals are also significantly overrepresented in incarcerated populations.13 They face higher rates of homelessness, unemployment, and discrimination, which contribute to their increased involvement in the criminal justice system. In both adult and youth facilities, LGBTQ+ individuals often encounter physical, sexual, and verbal harassment, as well as a lack of gender-affirming housing and healthcare.
In Nebraska, Black individuals make up 5% of Nebraska’s population but account for 21% of people in jail and 29% of people in prison, highlighting stark racial disparities in incarceration.14 Since 1980, the number of women in jail in Nebraska has increased 932%, and the number of women in prison has risen 724%, reflecting the growing impact of incarceration on women, many of whom are mothers.15 African Americans represent 4.77% of Nebraska’s general population but 27.74% of the incarcerated population, demonstrating significant over representation in the criminal justice system. Incarceration is not only an urban phenomenon. In fact, on a per capita basis, the most rural places in the state often lock up the highest raw numbers of people in jail and send the most people to prison.16
Supervision
According to a report on Reentry and Housing Stability from three federal offices,17 community supervision requirements can limit a returning individuals’ access to housing. These requirements can limit where and with whom individuals can live. Individuals required to live in correctional-run post-release transitional housing may have rules and requirements that restrict their ability to find employment or permanent housing. For example, “mandated programming, such as counselor check-ins or group meetings, may coincide with individuals’ work schedules, thereby requiring them to choose between violating the transitional housing rules or potentially losing their job. They may also be prohibited from interacting with other people who have a conviction, making it impossible to live with friends or family who also have criminal backgrounds.”18
Supervision requirements may also place financial burdens on returning individuals that make it harder to afford housing. A significant number of individuals described going into debt while on parole and were deemed to be “noncompliant” with parole conditions when they were unable to pay the fees related to substance use testing, treatment, or restitution. Additionally, parole sanctions that result in short-term stays in jails or treatment programs can put individuals at risk for losing their housing. Research found that many individuals experienced housing disruptions due to a supervision sanction that required “forced” moves to treatment, care, or prison.19
Post-Release Housing Assistance
In an ideal system, individuals in prison or jail would develop person-centered discharge plans before release in coordination with community corrections and service providers. However, when release planning occurs (if it does at all) and what services are included varies greatly. According to a nationwide survey of Department of Corrections staff, “the majority of responding DOCs (71 percent) indicated that they provide at least one type of post-release housing assistance…Indeed, more than half of DOCs indicated that they contract for transitional housing (65 percent) or halfway house (52 percent) services.”20 Survey respondents stated that DOC staff were less likely to provide housing assistance directly, but nearly half (44 percent) indicated that they directly provide some form of short-term rental assistance, such as financial assistance to private landlord partners or support for hotel stays. By contrast, direct provision or contracting for long-term housing options, such as permanent supportive housing or long-term rental assistance, is much less common.21 Responding DOCs indicated that connections with these services are typically accomplished via referrals to outside providers. For example, in the case of permanent supportive housing, nearly 90 percent of DOCs make referrals in an effort to connect people to this service, whether to the housing agencies themselves or to intermediaries such as CoCs. At the same time, most respondents indicated that people may be released into shared living arrangements with family members (84 percent) or temporary arrangements such as shelters (79 percent).22
System-impacted individuals frequently encounter housing discrimination from housing authorities and property managers, making it challenging to secure safe and affordable housing. Facing discrimination in an environment where it is already difficult to obtain affordable housing can lead system-impacted individuals to encounter long waiting lists, excessive fees, credit checks, large security deposits, unsafe housing options, and other barriers to safe housing. It can also be challenging to acquire professional references for those who haven’t been employed recently. Commonly reported barriers to housing placement for women returning home from incarceration include:
• A lack of safe and affordable housing options, particularly for families with children.
• Discrimination and stigma based on criminal justice history or record.
• Restrictive housing provider and landlord policies, including those pertaining to individuals with sex offense records or people with behavioral health needs.
• Widely reported gaps in dedicated supportive and permanent housing units, particularly for families with children.
• A lack of knowledge among corrections staff about available housing options suitable for women, femmes and their families.
• Rules requiring the individual to remain incarcerated until a specific address has been identified can slow down the housing navigation process.23
Now Home: Project Overview
The Now Home Project was a year-long initiative built to curate solutions to the housing crisis for system impacted women, influenced and designed by the very women who have been most impacted. The project included:
• Launch of a Community Advisory Committee of system impacted women from Omaha and Lincoln. The CAC met monthly with activities that included skill building, such as ethical storytelling, media and PR support, leadership strengths support, vision and program design, and more.
• Embedding two advisors into the CAC who have previously navigated incarceration as a parent, and who both lead in the housing space in Nebraska.
• Listening Circle sessions with system impacted women to better understand real life experiences from preparation for parole through reentry and beyond, as it relates to finding safe and accessible housing.
• Data obtained through a thoughtful survey delivered to women currently incarcerated at the Women’s Prison in York, Nebraska.
In-Facility Survey Feedback
Respondents to our May 2025 survey shared the following answers to each question below: When you hear the term “safe and stable housing” what comes to mind?
• Accommodation and care as a human being some empathy
• Housing that is felon friendly yet safe
• House that doesn’t cost an arm and leg that is in good shape
• A place where no one will hurt me
• Housing that doesn’t cost all of my paycheck and is in good condition
• Housing that I can afford, is not run down, and is in a safe neighborhood.
• Clean water to shower in and violence free and not over crowded
• Where I can live and not worry about being kick out plus i can afford the rent
• A place I don’t have to worry about my belongings being stolen or my safety being at risk
• Going home to my own apartment with my husband and children.
• The home I was raised in with my siblings and mother in a good neighborhood without gang violence, drugs, alcohol, or domestic abuse. No fear of losing my home due to financial hardship or eviction.
• Somewhere I can be comfortable and do my time without having to watch my surroundings and be paranoid.
• A secure affordable house in a nice safe neighborhood with a loving family or community blessed by God
• Anything that is a roof over your head which makes it possible for you to be able live a healthy lifestyle
• Having a consistent place to go where all my needs are being met (food, sleep, hygiene) safe - an environment where there aren’t any harmful situations occurring
• [A] housing environment that is safe for my child and me. Stable when I can afford to live in it.
What would have made your experience with maternal health services better?
• If the medical department would have been honest with me NOT removed my UTERUS without my knowledge or permission leaving me unable to carry children. I was depressed for many years here after the partial hysterectomy and still find myself very sad about it at times. I was never even given counseling.
• Medical treatment is not good here where I am you can keep telling them there is something that is something wrong or hurts they just over look it
• Yes, faced [the] challenge of accessing maternal health services while incarcerated.
• To encourage family support more in birth
• They put people on an involuntary medication order when they can’t control them, and give them shots of haldol. That’s the go-to. That’s what happened to me and many others.
What other types of housing support do you think you will need when you are released?
• Assistance on background portions of rental applications in addition to credit and rental history. I’m a felon and finding housing will not be easy especially without my credit history and rental history in order on top of the criminal background
Listening Session Feedback and Recommendations
Listening sessions were set up to better understand the experiences of women and femmes returning from incarceration detailed profound gaps in the housing process, highlighting issues such as critical deficiencies in pre-release planning, housing search communication barriers, and limited, inequitable housing options. Session participants described obstacles encountered at every step of the housing journey—from before release, through the first week, and into the following month, including:
• Critical gaps in pre-release planning
• Housing search communication barriers (e.g. mail only correspondence)
• Housing options for women are limited and inequitable
• Overwhelming challenges in the first weeks after release
• Financial and credit barriers
• Family reunification challenges
Session participants also discussed positive and helpful moments in their journeys toward housing from incarceration, including the role of individual champions and agencies that filled critical gaps in housing and services.
Pre-Release Planning: A Critical Gap
Listening session participants described pre-release planning as “scary and scarce,” particularly for women and femme inmates. They noted that the reentry process often begins with parole officers who make critical housing decisions without consideration of the person’s personal context or history. As one participant explained, “The way they decide where you go when you hit parole, your PO [Parole Officer] who you haven’t met, no context/ history, they are only looking at your sheet/behavior history, black/white looking at your charges.”
Many participants expressed deep frustration with the institutional staff responsible for reentry support. The lack of lived experience among these professionals left many feeling misunderstood and underserved. One woman stated that, “Re-entry/CO—none of them have lived experience. They can get the job because they do not have a record. Some may have sympathy, but there’s rarely empathy.” For women without family support, the challenge is even more pronounced. The insufficiency of current reentry measures prompts a call for comprehensive assistance. As one participant said, “If it’s ‘THAT close to ‘normal life’... why can’t they go one step further and knock it out of the park with re-entry support?”
Another session participant highlighted the disorganized nature of the pre-release planning process by accounting their firsthand experience with a reentry resource coordinator, “When she was close to being paroled, everything was last minute—didn’t have the set plan until she was before the parole board. The Parole Board asked ‘How do you not have a plan?’ I looked at the re-entry resource person, but she didn’t have an answer.” These narratives collectively underscore a critical gap in pre-release planning. The reliance on impersonal data and the absence of empathetic, experienced staff leave many women unprepared for reentry—a situation that necessitates immediate, strategic reform to better support the transition back into community life.
Housing Search Communication
Listening session participants also highlighted significant communication barriers that severely complicated their housing searches after release. They described how outdated methods—such as relying solely on mail, facing strict phone and internet restrictions, and encountering overall technological gaps—hamper timely access to housing information and landlord communication. As one participant said, “They give the paper with all of the addresses, and you have to communicate with them via MAIL only. By the time mail arrives, availability might be scarce.”
In addition, access to the phone and to the internet was consistently mentioned as a significant obstacle. The technological skill gap that some individuals may experience after release can compound these challenges:
“Can’t use the phone freely... everything is supervised. Landlords aren’t answering a collect call.”
“Federal halfway houses can’t have cell phones. State work release can’t have your own personal phone. It’s hard to contact landlords.”
Housing Options for Women: Limited and Inequitable
“Halfway houses don’t have internet access.”
“Phones/technology is a huge barrier also, not knowing how to do it/use them”
A consistent theme throughout the listening sessions was the stark disparity between housing options for women versus men. Several participants highlighted this inequity by stating, “There’s way more [housing options] for men than women...” and, “The long-term recovery options don’t exist for women, just for men.” They further emphasized the lack of dedicated resources for women, noting the existence of, “Only one halfway house that caters specifically to women being released [from York or County Jail].” Participants also lamented the absence of supportive recovery environments by asserting that there were, “NO sober living [options] for women, especially women with a baby/children for reunification.”
Housing restrictions also emerged as an additional hurdle. Some women shared specific limitations, such as, “Couldn’t live with dad (registered guns).” Others explained complications with living with family members who, “…had to curtail their lifestyle for PO drop-ins.” One participant detailed the extensive challenges in finding suitable family support, remarking, “Has gone through every family’s household and for one reason or another, she can’t be there (e.g. gun ownership, proximity to old run-around people). Don’t want family to have to change their lives for them in order to give housing.”
Furthermore, transitional housing options for women were reported to have long waitlists or did not meet their specific needs, as captured in comments like, “Female houses have barely any openings.” “LNK doesn’t have a halfway house just for women... coed only for Oxford,” and “Fresh Start is one just for women but there’s always a waitlist.” Together, these narratives underscore a systemic gap in reentry support that disproportionately affects women and femmes, leaving them with significantly fewer housing options when compared to their male counterparts.
Importance of the Housing Journey
Before Release
For listening session participants, the journey to housing began well before release. Individuals faced significant obstacles to accessing housing due to a limited amount of housing information. Many individuals shared that they had applied to three different transitional programs and then waited up to six weeks for a response, all while receiving help from a case manager with their applications. Their efforts were further set back by challenges such as not having identification or complete documentation ready, having family members who lived in a different county, limited information on available housing stock, and no employment lined up prior to release.
First Week After Release
Once released, the first week post-release proved to be a desperate scramble for housing stability. Listening session participants described their experiences staying in emergency shelters, using temporary hotel vouchers, or even crashing on someone’s couch while making daily calls to housing programs. They relied on bus passes provided by their reentry programs and had to pay application fees totaling $150, all while facing the requirement to present proof of income. Lack of computer access hampered online housing searches - especially for those living in rural areas. A session participant described sometimes being 40 miles away from the nearest services with limited transportation options to get there, and stated that cell phone challenges further complicated their efforts. In many cases, even with food pantry assistance and by searching across three different towns, they found nothing that met their needs.
First Month and Beyond
During the first month and beyond, some listening session participants eventually managed to secure shared housing through church connections. Despite this, the challenges of maintaining employment persisted as they had to take three bus rides to work and simultaneously save for a security deposit amid high utility costs. Many struggled with not knowing how to build credit and were forced to pull together landlord references from scratch. Meanwhile, efforts to achieve family reunification continued, as their children remained with extended family members. These robust accounts further illustrate the complex and often fragmented pathway toward long-term housing stability for system-impacted women and femmes.
First Weeks After Release: Overwhelming Challenges
The first weeks after release were marked by overwhelming challenges and competing priorities. Participants described the period as one in which the need for both internal drive and external support was paramount. One individual explained this dual necessity by stating, “Motivation/drive/will is SO required AND the resources.”
Another participant detailed the logistical and systemic pressures they faced, stating that it was “hard to work the program, go to classes, outpatient therapy, therapist, medication. Can’t pay fines, get parole extended. Impossible to be out of society and shoved back into community.” Amid these struggles, personal health and family reconnection emerged as a focal point for some. One woman shared her critical focus during this demanding time: “Priority was getting to see doctors... Focus on getting healthy as the #1 priority. Relationship back with kids and grandkids.”
For others, the burden of grief significantly compounded the difficulties of reentry. As one participant poignantly expressed, “Lost her son in drowning. Grieving and feelings not understood. Being pushed to do something is too overwhelming (get the job, do this thing, get housing, be perfect).” These narratives collectively illustrate how the critical period after release is characterized by a convergence of systemic obstacles and deeply personal burdens, underscoring the urgent need for more supportive reentry processes.
Financial and Credit Barriers
The women identified credit history and financial obstacles as major barriers to housing. One participant succinctly captured this challenge with the phrase, “rebuilding credit/taxes” while another emphasized the complete absence of financial means by stating, “HAD NO CREDIT.” The difficulties of the rental process were further underscored by one woman’s account: “Finding landlords... county time is still viewed the same as pen time. Misdemeanor assault/DUI also viewed as problematic.” Participants stated that burdens such as the “cost of applications” and other upfront costs brought further financial strain to the process, and that “money talks for private landlords.” Participants also shared specific resources that helped them address financial and credit barriers:
• Kickstart/SELF - credit builders
• Credit One - credit card
• Cobalt CU (secured credit card, $300 minimum)
• Metro CU
Family Reunification Challenges
Several women shared painful experiences with family separation and reunification that underscored the emotional toll of the incarceration process. They described how the system’s handling of parental rights not only disrupted family bonds, but left them feeling isolated and unsupported. One participant recounted their firsthand experience with this, explaining:
“Parental rights were terminated for two youngest while she was inside. Kids would come to visit, and she wouldn’t show up (because jail didn’t set things up ahead of time, and she didn’t even know they’d been approved). The only session they allowed her to go to was the parental rights termination meeting.”
In addition to these experiences, several women discussed the informal networks they relied on while incarcerated. They noted that while fellow inmates often provided mutual support, this peer assistance could not replace professional guidance or legal understanding. As one woman observed: “Women on the inside would all support each other through DHS and parental rights, but we didn’t know legalities or rights.” This lack of official support extended to counseling services, leaving many feeling abandoned by the system. As one participant shared, there was “NO counseling for the women.” Another woman shared the need for early intervention, arguing that support should begin during incarceration rather than only after release. She stressed the systemic neglect of family reunification efforts by the prison system, noting:
“Counseling/support should start INSIDE. No one to facilitate it inside. Prison doesn’t care about family reunification. Again, all resources are for men.”
These narratives illustrate the profound challenges in maintaining family connections during incarceration—a critical gap that exacerbates the difficulties of reentry and underscores the urgent need for reform in supportive services for women.
The Role of Individual Champions
Across multiple narratives, the women emphasized the transformative impact that individual advocates had on their housing journeys. They shared that personal connections and resource-sharing—often facilitated through social media—provided essential support during an otherwise isolating reentry process. One participant stated, “people who share resources on social media is what people need.” Another reflected on the critical role of her advocate, explaining, “If it wasn’t for Racquel...” and another underscored this reliance by remarking, “100% of my resources for re-entry came from Olivia @ RISE.”
In addition, one woman recalled how a particular program and the persistent efforts of its staff directly contributed to her housing stability, sharing: “Holy Name Crown program - was on the list forever, and was bugging them. They renovated a 2 bedroom into a 3 bedroom with a full basement, fully furnished - it was the first step to move out of a friends’ house.” These stories illustrate that individualized support, whether through dedicated advocates or proactive programs, can fundamentally alter the trajectory of reentry by connecting women with vital resources and opportunities.
The Importance of Networks
Women who succeeded in finding housing often relied heavily on personal connections or networks developed during incarceration. For many, these networks were essential for accessing both employment and housing opportunities immediately upon release. One participant recounted her experience: “found a job immediately, connected with women she was inside with who were also out and working. Internally networked and got a fast food job.” Similarly, another woman emphasized the importance of peer support, stating that “fellow peers were the beacon and the light, plus RISE.”
However, the process of building and maintaining these networks was not without its challenges. Several women expressed that the constant effort to connect with numerous individuals could be draining. As one woman poignantly observed, “It’s exhausting to over-connect in an effort to try and be in the network so you end up getting connected (or the hope of getting connected) for jobs and housing. That can also burn you when you are reaching out to SO many people and some of them are the wrong people.” These narratives highlight both the critical role of interpersonal connections in facilitating reentry and the inherent emotional and practical toll that comes with constantly having to build these networks.
The Housing-Employment Cycle
The women consistently emphasized the circular relationship between housing and employment, noting that one element often depended on the stability of the other. They explained that without a secure living situation, securing employment becomes nearly impossible. One participant encapsulated this dependency by stating, “You can’t have employment until you have housing. Don’t care what anyone says. Person needs to feel safe, have a place to get ready.” Another woman reinforced this idea by prioritizing housing, remarking, “Housing is #1 - safe place to be, your mind can settle, you don’t have to look over your shoulder. Work - is close second.” The need to balance multiple elements of stability was also highlighted, with one participant noting, “Needing ALL of the three legs of the stool - housing, credit, jobs.”
Despite recognizing the importance of these elements, the women frequently described employment options as severely limited. One participant observed, “JOBS are the hardest - the only options aren’t good options: Airlite Plastic, warehouse jobs, fast food.” Another participant captured the prevailing sentiment regarding available work opportunities by stating, “Everyone in Lincoln is going to IHOP or Kawasaki to work after they get out...we need better jobs.” These narratives underscore the critical, intertwined challenges of securing both stable housing and meaningful employment, and they point to an urgent need for integrated reentry strategies that address both aspects simultaneously.
Systemic Barriers and Discrimination
Women expressed deep frustration with how their criminal records negatively impacted their housing options, feeling that the system reduced their identities to a single, stigmatizing mark on paper. One participant shared, “First time offender, yet the record always gets her in the end. You don’t know my whole story and why I ended up there.” Another highlighted the immediacy of judgment in the rental process, stating that, “[the] toughest partthey look at the paper, and it’s over (the record on the paper).” Further compounding these issues, women noted that mechanisms meant to mitigate record impacts were largely ineffective: “The set aside doesn’t actually do in reality what it’s supposed to. Same with juvenile records.” Adding to the frustration, one woman remarked on the exclusionary practices of support programs: “OHA’s program is easy to get into, but they don’t accept felons.”
The intersections of race and criminal record also emerged as significant barriers. One woman questioned her place in society, asking, “Where do you belong? When you aren’t accepted or supported by your people, let alone the white system.” Several participants further expressed the sentiment that the system was designed to ensure recidivism rather than rehabilitation, observing, “They bank on folks going back/revolving door.” One woman detailed the cyclical nature of their experience, sharing, “There’s nothing to help you get out faster, and once you get out, there’s nothing to keep you from picking up the hammer again and really setting it off.” She concluded with an insight about the system’s intentions, “they don’t want rehabilitation, they want you back in - as a number.” These narratives underline the profound impact that criminal records and systemic biases have on housing opportunities.
Success Stories and Solutions That Worked
Despite the challenges they face, many women shared success stories and solutions that worked for them. They described a range of strategies and community supports that helped them navigate the housing system. One participant explained the importance of personal initiative, stating, “private landlords is the key.” Another woman highlighted a specific resource available for those with limited credit, and noted specific landlords that will rent to folks with low credit. In addition, transitional housing options proved to be a vital bridge for some women reentering the community, as one shared, “currently at Oxford House - needed the gap and break (Fresh Start as another option) when getting out.” Community institutions also played a role; one woman’s experience with supportive funding was captured with, “Berean Church helps with costs for Oxford - but their funding is limited to folks who are members.” While these resources provided critical assistance, personal and flexible support remains essential for long-term housing stability.
“Magic Wand” Solutions
Listening session participants identified key policy gaps and barriers to women and femmes returning home from incarceration to safe and affordable housing:
• Background check policies
• Income requirements
• Occupancy restrictions
• Probation requirements
• Program eligibility rules
Participants who shared positive re-entry and housing success experiences identified the following strategies to be helpful in finding safe and affordable housing post-incarceration:
• Early documentation preparation, before release
• Connected support services
• Flexible funding access
• Understanding landlords, willing to rent to them
• Transportation support
• Family/community networks
When asked what changes they would make with a “magic wand,” the women offered a series of ideas designed to transform their reentry experiences. The women proposed the following concrete solutions:
• Customized pre-release planning with individualized pre-parole plans.
• “PSI – you know my traumas and history RIGHT in front of you... use it for release.”
• Dedicated, supportive, resource-rich women’s reentry housing for the first 1-2 years after release.
• Financial and Credit Support including education about building or rebuilding credit history. Support navigating making restitution payments, while also managing other budget requirements
• More Income-Based Housing Options
• Second Chance Employment Network
“It’s few and far between that you hear about women getting GOOD employment after release.” “Wish more employers and bosses would learn about being a second chance employer.”
• Mental health providers with lived experience of incarceration (therapists, psychiatrists, etc.)
These women’s stories illuminate the complex, interconnected challenges of housing after incarceration and the creative resilience required to overcome them.
Examples of Housing Initiatives for System-Impacted Households
Agencies supporting Nebraskans returning to communities to find safe and affordable housing options face a rapidly changing set of challenges. Effective reentry partnerships require coordination and collaboration across a wide array of different groups, including nonprofit and government entities. In addition, reentry system referrals tend to happen internally and it can take time for groups providing housing options and services to build enough trust, align priorities, and map out shared goals among partners.24 Policy changes at the federal, state, and local levels can directly impact programs for system-impacted individuals, such as restrictions on public housing eligibility. The table below provides a snapshot of both nationwide and Nebraska-specific housing reentry programs with measurable outcomes:
Community Name Program Name Program Description
San Francisco Reentry Transitional and Supportive Housing Program
Reentry Council of the City & County of San Francisco
Washington State Reentry Housing Pilot Program (RHPP)
Provides various housing options and supportive services for system-impacted adults, with the goal of offering stable housing and comprehensive support to help individuals successfully reintegrate into their communities.
Coordinates local efforts to assist adults returning home to their communities from San Francisco County Jail, San Francisco juvenile justice placements, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation facilities, and the United States Federal Bureau of Prisons.
The pilot initiative aimed to reduce recidivism among released high-need prisoners discharged without stable housing. An evaluation of the program demonstrated that combining housing resources with services significantly increased the likelihood of successful community reintegration.
Missoula, MT Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) program
A law enforcement-led initiative designed to divert individuals from the carceral system and connect them with services to achieve housing stability. The program improves responses to mental health crises by fostering collaboration between law enforcement, mental health providers, and community resources. This approach aims to reduce arrests and increase access to mental health services, ultimately supporting individuals in securing stable housing.
National SAFE Housing Network Is a national organization that serves 20 states to provide a framework for holistically supporting formerly incarcerated individuals. They offer legal services, safe housing, housing stability support services, and advocacy to help individuals reintegrate into their communities.
Rhode Island Open Doors
Nebraska Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services
Open Doors renovated a former ice cream factory in the Silver Lake neighborhood of Providence. It is the only supportive housing program in Rhode Island to specifically support the successful reentry of formerly incarcerated individuals. Open Doors’ home also is designed to meet LEED Gold building standards.
Offers reentry services that include individualized reentry planning. Reentry specialists work with individuals to create a plan that addresses housing, transportation, employment, education, and medical/mental health services. They connect individuals with community resources and programs to support their transition back into society. NDCS is the state corrections agency for the state of Nebraska. NDCS currently has 9 institutions confining over 5,000 inmates.
Community Name Program Name Program Description
Omaha, NE & National Black & Pink TRANSitions Program
Omaha, NE
Q.U.E.E.N.S.Butterfly SAFE House
Launched in Omaha, Nebraska in 2018, Black & Pink National’s TRANSitions program builds a pathway toward safe housing for people who are system impacted and identify as transgender women, gender nonconforming individuals, and queer people living with HIV/AIDS. The program began by serving formerly incarcerated transgender women, often of color, who experienced housing instability.
A non-profit focused on making a safe and supportive place for women to call home. The Executive Director is formerly incarcerated, and has seen first hand how the lack of housing, resources, education, employment and support will lead an individual back into incarceration. Q.U.E.E.N.S. offers intentional peer support, building relationships, educating and providing job readiness skills, along with wrap-around after care services.
Bay Area, CA Impact Justice: The Homecoming Project
Lincoln, NE Bridges to Hope
Reentry Alliance of Nebraska (RAN)
An Enterprise-funded housing model for people returning home to the Bay Area, CA after being sentenced to over 10 years in prison. It pairs people leaving prison with welcoming hosts who have a spare room in their homes and a desire to help someone make a fresh start. Community navigators provide reentry coaching and connect participants to local organizations offering wrap-around services.
A program developing a tiny home village to provide 18 units of permanent housing for formerly incarcerated individuals. The village will consist of homes ranging from 200 to 500 square feet, and will be self-managed by the residents. The project aims to address the housing obstacles faced by those reentering society after incarceration.
(RAN) is a network of nonprofits, businesses, faith communities, and people with lived experience with Nebraska’s carceral system collaborate with one another, sharing knowledge, and weighing in on problems and solutions pertaining to reentry and the justice system in Nebraska. Their coalition includes nonprofit agencies, private businesses, faith communities, staff within the prison and probation system, people who have lived experience with Nebraska’s carceral system, and other concerned community members.
Center for People
Mental Health Association of Nebraska
The Center for People organization offers comprehensive services to support low-income, high-needs families and individuals, including those transitioning from incarceration.
The Mental Health Association of Nebraska is a peer-operated nonprofit provides alternative programs to those who live with mental health and/or substance use and addiction issues, including those with a history of incarceration.
Lincoln & Omaha, NE Community Justice Center The Community Justice Center’s mission is to advance community safety, respect, responsibility, repair, reintegration, and healing in the aftermath of harm through evidence-based restorative justice programming and practices. They provide peer-led onsite programs in reentry and community settings with the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services, Douglas County Department of Corrections, Nebraska State Probation, the Iowa Department of Corrections and with Juvenile Probation in Douglas County.
Lessons Learned: Sustainability and Continuity of Services
Agencies serving system-impacted individuals continue to meet complex challenges and strive for the sustainability of effective services in the long term. What on-the-ground reentry housing practices, policies and strategies show measurable progress in supporting people who are exiting prison? Which programs help system-impacted families in finding safe and stable housing options and supports that allow for family reintegration?
A report written for three federal agencies called Reentry and Housing Stability: Final Report offers snapshots of a variety of housing and reentry focused programs that identify program participants through in-reach in carceral settings or rapidly after release to provide housing assistance. Overall, the case studies below note that there are several types of housing approaches necessary to increase the housing stability of individuals exiting prison or jail:
• Permanent supportive housing programs dedicated to returning individuals.
• Dedicated housing vouchers with connection to supportive services.
• Dedicated housing vouchers without services.
• Supportive services including housing assistance. Each program includes a description of the served population, housing and service types, and relevant study results (e.g., housing obtainment, housing retention, factors related to housing).25
In a nationwide survey of Department of Corrections (DOC) staff, respondents stated the following needs and access issues restrict or limit housing options for system-impacted individuals:
• DOC reentry coordinators reported a need for increased financial and organizational support for reentry housing programs.
• Responding DOCs noted that they would like their agency to work more effectively with community partners in identifying people in need and connecting them to housing (especially landlords).
• Many responding DOCs noted the need for increased access to long-term housing options, such as housing vouchers and permanent supportive housing. Respondents noted that many individuals need support beyond short term solutions, and their departments would have increased reentry success if longer-term options were available.26
Conclusion
Safe and affordable housing is essential for the successful community reintegration of systemimpacted individuals. The challenges are welldocumented, with housing being one of the most salient needs returning citizens face (Lutze et al., 2014; O’Brien, 2001; Roman and Travis, 2004).27 Housing is arguably the most vital element of reentry, providing stability, reducing homelessness-related law enforcement contact, and supporting employment, substance use recovery, and compliance with parole or probation.28 Policies aimed at increasing the long term housing stability of folks exiting prison or jail are paramount in ensuring that person’s successful reentry and long-term stability. Without intentional policy interventions, obstacles to stable housing such as discrimination in the housing market, unemployment, and community supervision requirements will continue to shape the experiences of system-impacted individuals returning home from incarceration. Housing is more than a basic, physical necessity—it is the foundation upon which employment, health, and community reintegration are built. Addressing these challenges requires a shift toward solutions that acknowledge the realities of reentry and create pathways to long-term housing stability. The data is clear, and the need is urgent. The future of reentry is being written now, and the choices we make will shape its course.
“ Housing is #1 - safe place to be, your mind can settle, you don’t have to look over your shoulder.”
Action Steps: Housing stability for system-impacted individuals
Elected Officials
• Create dedicated funding streams for reentry housing programs, following models like Colorado’s reentry cash fund and Nebraska’s LB 631
• Draft legislation to fill gaps in housing support specifically for women and femmes, addressing the severe disparity in available options compared to men, including a focus on both urban and rural housing
• Remove restrictive housing policies that disproportionately impact systemimpacted individuals, especially those with children
PRACTICAL ACTION:
Allocate funding to establish at least one women-specific reentry facility in every major jurisdiction, modeled after recommendations from formerly incarcerated women who cite the critical need for “a re-entry facility just for women”
Funders
• Reduce administrative complexities in funding requirements to proactively support resources to / for direct services
• Commit to multi-year funding cycles to ensure program continuity for programs like Q.U.E.E.N.S. Butterfly House and Black & Pink’s TRANSitions
• Support credit-building initiatives specifically for system-impacted women, such as secured credit card programs through credit unions, or flexible funding pools to support ID/documentation programs (as an example)
PRACTICAL ACTION:
Fund “navigator” positions that must be filled by individuals with lived experience of incarceration, as participants consistently reported: “100% of my resources for re-entry came from [individual advocates]” who understood their specific challenges
Property Owners / Landlords
• Partner with reentry programs to waive background and credit checks for program participants
• Accept alternative forms of tenant references beyond traditional employment history
• Establish fair and reasonable security deposit policies
PRACTICAL ACTION:
Designate a percentage of your rental units (start with just one unit) as “second chance housing” with clear, consistent criteria for acceptance rather than blanket rejection based on criminal history, addressing the experience that “the toughest part is when they look at the paper, and it’s over before you even have a chance to tell your story.”
System-Impacted Individuals
• Connect with peer support programs like those offered by Mental Health Association of Nebraska
• Build networks with other formerly incarcerated women who have successfully navigated housing challenges
• Document your housing search process to identify barriers that can be addressed through advocacy
PRACTICAL ACTION:
Open a secured credit card with a minimum deposit (e.g., $300 at Cobalt CU) or connect with credit-building programs like Kickstart/SELF to establish credit history, as many women reported “I had no credit” as a major barrier to housing.
Prison Staff / Corrections Officers / Parole Officers
• Develop comprehensive knowledge of available housing options specifically for women in your community
• Ensure all eligible incarcerated individuals are enrolled in Medicaid before release
• Intentional and thoughtful pre-release planning specifically for housing and employment stability needs
PRACTICAL ACTION:
Print and regularly update resource lists from social media and other sources to overcome the barrier of limited phone and internet access (as one participant noted: “There are a few people who post all of the resources on social media. Advocates/caseworkers can follow on social media and then PRINT to share with folks who need it”).
Service Providers / Nonprofits
• Prioritize hiring staff with lived experience of incarceration, who can provide both sympathy and empathy
• Create (or partner to create) housing programs to address the unique needs of women with children and family reunification goals
• Offer or partner with existing family counseling services as part of housing support programs, starting pre-release
PRACTICAL ACTION:
Establish a landlord liaison program, or partner with existing programs that support connecting women who lack phone access to landlords, addressing the reported barrier that “landlords aren’t answering a collect call” and “we need someone to make the phone calls FOR you when you don’t have a phone”
Housing is more than shelter—it is the foundation upon which employment, health, and family restoration are built. As one woman noted: “You can’t have employment until you have housing, I don’t care what anyone says. A person needs to feel safe, have a place to get ready. It’s where it all starts: housing”
1 I Be Black Girl website. Accessed April 14, 2025.
2 Lutze, Rosky, and Hamilton. Homelessness and Reentry: A Multisite Outcome Evaluation of Washington State’s Reentry Housing Program for High Risk Offenders, page 472.
3 Couloute, Lucius. Prison Policy Initiative. Nowhere to Go: Homeless Among Formerly Incarcerated People. Aug 2018.
4 Greenfield and Snell. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Women Offenders. Dec 1999.
5 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Continuum of Care Program Eligibility page.
6 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Community Development Block Grant program.
7 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. HCV Applicant and Tenant Resources page.
8 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Find Your Local Public Housing Agency (PHA) page.
9 National Conference of State Legislatures. Successful Reentry: Exploring Funding Models to Support Rehabilitation, Reduce Recidivism. June 2023.
10 American Academy of Political and Social Science. Community Supervision, Housing Insecurity, and Homelessness. Sept. 2022. Dallas Augustine and Margot Kushel.
11 Prison Policy Initiative. Nowhere to Go: Homelessness among formerly incarcerated people. Lucius Couloute. August 2018.
12 American Academy of Political and Social Science. Community Supervision, Housing Insecurity, and Homelessness. Sept. 2022. Dallas Augustine and Margot Kushel.
13 Prison Policy Initiative. Visualizing the unequal treatment of LGBTQ people in the criminal justice system. Alexi Jones. March 2021.
14 Vera Institute of Justice. Incarceration Trends in Nebraska. 2019.
15 Vera Institute of Justice. Incarceration Trends in Nebraska. 2019.
16 Vera Institute of Justice. Incarceration Trends in Nebraska. 2019.
17 Reentry and Housing Stability: Final Report. RTI International. December 2024.
18 Reentry and Housing Stability: Final Report. RTI International. December 2024.
19 Reentry and Housing Stability: Final Report. RTI International. December 2024.
20 The Council of State Governments Justice Center. Building Connections to Housing During Reentry. Charles Francis, Joseph Hayashi, and Alexandria Hawkins. March 2023.
21 The Council of State Governments Justice Center. Building Connections to Housing During Reentry. Charles Francis, Joseph Hayashi, and Alexandria Hawkins. March 2023.
22 The Council of State Governments Justice Center. Building Connections to Housing During Reentry. Charles Francis, Joseph Hayashi, and Alexandria Hawkins. March 2023.
23 The Council of State Governments Justice Center. Building Connections to Housing During Reentry. Charles Francis, Joseph Hayashi, and Alexandria Hawkins. March 2023.
24 Office of Behavioral Health, Disability, and Aging Policy. Reentry and Housing Stability: Final Report, December 2024.
25 Office of Behavioral Health, Disability, and Aging Policy. Reentry and Housing Stability: Final Report, December 2024.
26 The Council of State Governments Justice Center. Building Connections to Housing During Reentry. Charles Francis, Joseph Hayashi, and Alexandria Hawkins. March 2023.
27 There’s No Place Like Home: Importance of Housing Stability for Reentry. Sept 2023. Beverly Reece & Tanja Link.
28 There’s No Place Like Home: Importance of Housing Stability for Reentry. Sept 2023. Beverly Reece & Tanja Link
