Private sector or nonprofit owned and managed subsidized housing offers individuals released from incarceration an opportunity to obtain affordable housing that is not public housing. Nonprofit housing is often structured similarly to public housing or Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs) where tenants are responsible for paying 30 percent of their monthly incomes towards rent. Other forms of affordable housing are financed such that the rent structure accommodates families earning a certain fraction of the average income within a community. For example, a particular affordable housing project may rent apartments at an amount equivalent to 30 percent of the monthly income for a family that earns only 50 percent of the median income within a community, known as the Area Median Income.

Private sector or nonprofit affordable housing may be more accessible than even public housing or HCVs to individuals released from prison or jail who cannot afford market-rate. For instance, private sector or nonprofit affordable housing may be subsidized without the use of federal funding and therefore may not be bound by federal regulations that can restrict access for people with certain criminal convictions. (In general, eligibility for private sector/nonprofit affordable housing is income-based, and applicants must submit verification of income status, a credit check, and rental history.) As many nonprofit landlords are mission-driven to serve low-income and disadvantaged persons, they may be more willing to accept persons with criminal histories than would operators of federally assisted housing or even other private landlords.

Furthermore, similar to supportive housing, many private and nonprofit affordable housing projects provide access to on-site supportive services in such important areas as money management, housing maintenance, employment, and recreation. Such services can be an essential component to helping recently released individuals maintain housing and sobriety, find jobs, and avoid involvement in the criminal justice system. In some localities, community development corporations (CDCs) and nonprofit housing providers have stepped into the role of proactively creating housing for people leaving incarceration. Combining their expertise in housing development and management with their roles as community builders and organizers, CDCs have become a key component in many local continuums of re-entry assistance. Policymakers should support the role of such groups in providing re-entry assistance and seek to eliminate barriers to their success.

Example: Druid Heights Community Development Corporation (MD)

Druid Heights CDC has partnered with the Maryland Department of Corrections and dozens of community-based service providers to establish the Re-Entry Partnership (REP) initiative. Together, these organizations develop strategies to successfully reintegrate individuals being released from Baltimore's Me tropolitan Transition Center.

Example: Developing Justice in South Brooklyn Program, Fifth Avenue Committee (NY)

The Fifth Avenue Committee (FAC), a CDC based in Brooklyn, New York, provides affordable housing and social services for residents of neighborhoods in South Brooklyn. In addition, FAC provides individuals who return from prison or jail both walk-in services and opportunities to lease or obtain housing in one of its 19 affordable housing developments.

Private and nonprofit housing providers that choose to serve people leaving prison or jail need to be prepared to make available the counseling and comprehensive services that many individuals will need as part of their transition from prison to the community. Unless integrated with other support services, nonprofit housing may not be a viable option for individuals with special needs, or even for those who need stabilization and temporary assistance immediately after leaving incarceration. Policymakers should therefore encourage collaborations between housing and other service providers, and transition planners and other boundary spanners should facilitate communication between these groups on a case-by-case basis whenever possible. (See Policy Statement 5, Promoting Systems Integration and Coordination, for more on boundary spanning between agencies and organizations.)