RFP: Join JFF’s Cohort of Fair Chance to Advance State Action Networks 

Evidence of existing working relationships and commitments to collaboration between corrections, postsecondary education and training providers, the state higher education system, community-based organizations, policymakers, and/or employer-oriented actors in the state.

Evidence of past commitments to working with leaders and advisors who have lived experience of arrest, incarceration, or other interactions with the criminal justice system.

Evidence of commitment to ensuring that all people who are or have been incarcerated have access to opportunities no matter what charges they faced or how much time they served and regardless of their demographic identity or socioeconomic status.

Evidence of commitment to aligning academic and career pathways offered in carceral facilities and in community settings to the interests and aspirations of students.

Evidence of existing coordination and partnerships between corrections agencies, institutions of higher education, providers of services to people returning to their communities, housing providers, and/or community-based organizations to adequately support learners as they continue their academic and career pathways after release.

A willingness and ability to track short-term impact and outcomes over the life of the FC2A initiative, as well as the capacity (or evidence of progress toward the capacity) to integrate statewide data systems that track educational and employment outcomes.

Evidence within the state of shared commitment to advocating for the removal of policy barriers that automatically disqualify people from jobs or professions based on their records, without considering the degree to which the charges individuals were convicted of are relevant to the roles or professions they’re pursuing.

1. How many states will be selected?

Four states will be selected for this initial FC2A cohort, with an aim for geographic and contextual diversity.

2. What kind of support will JFF provide?

JFF and the Coleridge Initiative will offer technical assistance, data tools, evaluation support, network facilitation, and invitations to national meetings, activities, and learning events.

3. Can I schedule a one-on-one appointment with someone on the Fair Chance to Advance team?

We can’t offer one-on-one appointments, but we do have office hour opportunities during the open RFP period. You can register for these sessions at this link. We will update the FAQs following each office hours session.

4. Which states have applied for Fair Chance to Advance? How can I stay informed?

We cannot share which states have applied ahead of the announcement of the four selected State Action Networks. We encourage interested parties to contact other stakeholders in their state ecosystems to learn whether there is a proposal in progress or submitted for your state. The best way to stay informed about the initiative's progress and ways to get involved is to sign up for the FC2A newsletter.

1. Who is eligible to apply?

A collaborative proposal must be submitted on behalf of an entire state by a coalition that includes five specific mandatory stakeholders: representatives of the state’s public agencies/systems for corrections, postsecondary education, and workforce development, including the officers overseeing data for each of these agencies; state government leaders and policymakers; and leaders whose lives have been impacted by incarceration. States are strongly encouraged to also include reentry services professionals, leaders of community organizations, and employers as additional stakeholder groups.

This initiative is designed to be applicable to any state context that meets the criteria stated in the RFP, regardless of size, carceral infrastructure, population, political demographics, etc.

2. Can a state submit more than one proposal?
While it is technically possible, submitting multiple proposals from the same state is strongly discouraged, as it may signal a lack of alignment among key stakeholders. States are encouraged to collaborate and put forward a single, comprehensive proposal that reflects broad coordination and shared priorities.

3. My state already has a statewide strategic plan for supporting learners and workers at reentry. Should we prepare a proposal Fair Chance to Advance? 

FC2A’s inaugural cohort is designed for leading edge states. States that can leverage existing strategic plans, gubernatorial executive orders or other momentum such as Reentry 2030* will be well positioned for FC2A. During Phase 1, selected states will map existing efforts and identify opportunities to accelerate with an explicit focus on education and employment outcomes.

*Reentry 2030 is a national initiative led by the CSG Justice Center that partners with states to set bold reentry goals with population-based metrics and to implement cross-sector strategies that improve reentry outcomes through coordinated efforts in economic mobility, housing, behavioral health, and other key areas that support successful reintegration.

4. Do proposals need to include every stakeholder group listed?

Proposals must include all five mandatory stakeholders. While additional stakeholder engagement is not required at the proposal stage, JFF will prioritize proposals that proactively include commitments from the additional three FC2A stakeholder groups. Following state grantee selection, JFF will work with selected states to build a comprehensive network representative of all eight FC2A stakeholder groups. Individual stakeholder groups (such as an individual nonprofit) cannot unilaterally apply for this initiative.

5. Who should be the lead entity in submitting our state’s proposal? Does it need to be the organization that will receive the funds?
Any stakeholder group, mandatory or otherwise, within the planned State Action Network can act as the lead applicant on a state's proposal. However, it is important to ensure that all mandatory stakeholders outlined in the RFP are aware of and included in the proposal. We encourage you to choose the lead entity that makes the most sense for your state.

Since each state has different rules about which entities can receive and re-distribute money, we have designed the initiative to be flexible in this regard. It is ultimately up to each respective State Action Network to determine which entity in their state is best suited to act as the subrecipient and re-distributor of the funds. The lead applicant and subrecipient of funds do not need to be one and the same entity.

6. Are states that have no centralized higher education authority eligible to apply?

Every state context is different in this regard; some states may have both a system office for higher education and a state consortium for HEP partners. For the purposes of this initiative, state-based consortia of higher education in prison programs that oversee postsecondary education in this space count as state-level higher education entities.

7. Could you clarify the various corrections stakeholders that should be involved in the State Action Network?

This will differ by state context. We are aware that in some states, corrections and community supervision are considered two separate entities (in which case both should be involved), while in other states corrections and community supervision operate as a single entity.

8. Is FC2A focused exclusively on state prisons, or might states also partner with youth facilities, county jails, etc.?

While it is not a requirement to have representatives from youth, local, or federal facilities engaged at the time of proposal submission, we will actively encourage states to bring representatives from agencies or divisions overseeing other correctional facilities in their state—including local jails, federal facilities, facilities for youth, and others—into state planning conversations.

9. Is it acceptable for a State Action Network to include locally focused nonprofit/community partners and direct service providers, in addition to state-level stakeholders? How specific should the proposal be about local stakeholders, such as individual fair chance employers?

State Action Networks can certainly include stakeholders with a more local scope, but it is important to keep in mind that the FC2A initiative is intended primarily to mobilize and amplify the work of public state systems that historically have not operated in concert on a statewide scale. States should identify their primary, critical stakeholders in each stakeholder group while also thinking about which entities might instead participate in subcommittees or other nodes of the broader state network throughout the initiative.

JFF is interested in learning where applicants see momentum around fair chance opportunities in whatever form they take in their state: individual employers or organizations that play an outsized role in the state or larger entities such as a union, workforce board, or chamber of commerce helping to mobilize around these issues. JFF defers to individual states to determine how best to evidence what their respective fair chance ecosystems look like to date and the stakeholders most critical to next steps.

1. What is the funding structure?

In Phase 1, subgrant funding of up to $300,000 is available for planning and coordination. States that complete the required Phase 1 deliverables can unlock up to $1.8 million in Phase 2 subgrant funding for implementation.

2. Is hiring new staff an allowable expense (i.e. a statewide coordinator, etc.)?

Yes, you may use funds to hire new staff during either Phase 1 or Phase 2. However, Phase 2 budgets will be developed over the course of Phase 1, so for the purposes of the initial proposal we are asking for a Phase 1 budget only; Phase 1 budgeting is the focus at this stage. In addition, we recommend states consider the supports that JFF and Coleridge will be providing, to ensure that possible staffing choices account for and complement the free technical assistance offered through the initiative.

3. What about the Phase 2 budget? Will each stakeholder group receive an equal share of funding?

We are asking only for a Phase 1 budget allocating the initial $300,000 of funding at the proposal stage. During Phase 1, State Action Networks will strategize about how best to utilize the $1.8 million of Phase 2 funding in advance of that additional support. Both budgets should be a reflection of the on-the-ground realities in the state and do not need to stipulate an equal distribution of funds across stakeholder groups.

4. The Phase 1 Planning Deliverables include “a summary of fundraising efforts to date, as well as the network’s plans to continue to cultivate interest from local funders during Phase 2.” What does this fundraising entail? Would the direct grantee be the entity responsible for fundraising?

JFF conceives of State Action Networks' fundraising efforts quite broadly. While there is no specific bar to meet, JFF will work closely with each State Action Network to ensure the network is planning for ways to make their state’s momentum financially sustainable past the life of the subgrant through additional investments.

We’re aware that state government agencies cannot fundraise. However, any related investments from state/local government would be considered part of the fundraising plan, and JFF will consider the fundraising plan of a State Action Network holistically; no one stakeholder, even the direct grantee, is considered exclusively responsible for these efforts. Instead, fundraising is considered something that each stakeholder in the network should contribute to as they are able.

1. What is the end goal of the data-focused technical assistance from Coleridge?

Coleridge’s technical assistance will focus on moving states toward a comprehensive, census-level, longitudinal data set within their state, leveraging the administrative data that already exists within a state to scale data collection and integration efforts. There is also the possibility to leverage programmatic data to augment state-level data sets.

2. What data points will be needed from DOCs to effectively engage in the data side of the initiative?

At a minimum, Coleridge’s data work with states would need individual identifier (hashed), demographics, intake and exit dates, program (education and training) participation, and offense (if it is germane to the ability to participate). If DOCs are able to provide information on transition services or release conditions, that is helpful but not required.

3. What is the best way for a state to demonstrate readiness for Phase 1 data-sharing milestones?

Regardless of the level of sophistication in a state’s current data systems, at a baseline JFF is looking for a statewide commitment to engaging in data-sharing work as part of the proposal, including letters of commitment from the primary state officers who oversee postsecondary, workforce, and corrections data. Applicant states that are further along in the data-sharing process should evidence that in their proposal materials. Over the course of the initiative, Coleridge will support state data partners in modernizing and working toward data-sharing agreements and data integration in their states, as well as standing up integrated data dashboards.

1. I’m an organization/consulting firm/nonprofit that works across various states. How can I be involved in a State Action Network?

If you or your organization works in a state or states that are planning to apply for the initiative, your organization could potentially be one of the stakeholders included in that state's FC2A proposal. We strongly recommend that individuals, consultants, and organizations that work across multiple states be in touch with the relevant stakeholders in respective states about that possibility. If you plan to be the lead applicant for a proposal, it is important to ensure that the five mandatory stakeholders outlined in the RFP are aware of and included in your proposal.

2. I represent a national organization. How can I be involved in Fair Chance to Advance?

The best way for national organizations to get involved at this stage is to leverage state-based relationships and get looped into state proposals. As we transition from Phase 1 of the initiative to Phase 2, there may be opportunities to plug in new partners based on the needs and implementation plans for each state. We also encourage you to join our Fair Chance to Advance movement. For now, that means signing up for our FC2A newsletter here to stay up to date on future opportunities.

3. The RFP names JFF and Coleridge as technical assistance providers. Is it possible to engage additional providers in network activities, such as individuals providing continuous improvement support or systems change implementation support—entities associated with the technical assistance providers or within individual state networks?

Yes, it is possible that states will elect to use subgrant funds to engage additional TA providers who bring expertise beyond the scope of JFF or Coleridge. There is a higher likelihood that states would elect to use funds in this way as part of Phase 2, but it is an allowable expense for Phase 1 as well.

4. How is JFF and FC2A collaborating with CSG Justice Center and Reentry 2030?

JFF and CSG are in regular communication about the complementary efforts and opportunities for collaboration between the two initiatives. If a state participating in Reentry 2030 is selected for the inaugural cohort of FC2A, JFF and CSG will work together to ensure that the state continues to benefit from both efforts and explore explicit ways to work together in the state.