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.

5. My organization submitted a Letter of Intent, but we no longer intend to submit a proposal on behalf of our state. Should we notify JFF? 

There is no need to notify JFF if you have decided not to prepare a proposal. Letters of Intent were intended to help our team estimate the number of state proposals to expect, but they are nonbinding and do not need to be retracted. 

6. What kind of staffing support will the FC2A team provide to states? 

In addition to the data-specific subcommittee and data gathering work provided by JFF and Coleridge, FC2A will serve as the neutral third-party convener of each state’s steering committee as well as subcommittees (as needed). We will provide states with a combination of network coordination and administrative services. Especially during Phase 1, the FC2A team is responsible for setting all State Action Network meetings, scheduling, convening virtual rooms, and sending out notes and action items after calls.  

Our team will focus on shouldering the initial burden of getting so many stakeholders together and coaching them through the process of working together. We recognize that in some states there might be existing infrastructure that our team can tap into; we’ll be mindful of how best to show up in a state’s spaces to support and accelerate the existing efforts in that state. 

As the initiative progresses past Phase 1, our goal is to work with states toward a sustainable plan that can last beyond the four-year life of the initiative. As states move into Phase 2, we will begin working on how to shift some of the FC2A team’s coordination efforts, whether through staff hiring, shifting partner roles, etc.  

7. What should we be looking to capture within our proposal narrative? 

The narrative is intended to help the review committee understand the scope of the partnerships across your state to the greatest degree possible. Our goal is to understand what state agency and partner collaborations look like in your state at a high level, which will look very different in each respective state.

8. Do applicants need to complete both Section 1 and Section 2 of the state readiness self-assessment (Appendix E)? 

Yes, please complete both sections. For Section 1, please use the 1-5 numerical rubric provided. For Section 2, please indicate either “established” or “emerging” for each respective criterion.  

Applicants should score themselves on all criteria in Section 1 and provide a narrative for each criterion. In Section 2 however, there might be criterion for which your state doesn’t intend to provide evidence because you categorize your state’s readiness as “emerging” in that area. In those cases, you can simply list “emerging” and do not need to provide evidence for that criterion in your proposal. You can still provide narratives for “emerging” criteria if relevant, but it’s not required. If you assess your state as “established” with respect to certain criterion, please always provide a narrative and prepare evidence in those instances. Please see Appendix E for full instructions. 

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.

10. A stakeholder in my state is currently engaged in a project, also funded by Ascendium, that is similar to and aligned with FC2A. Is our state still eligible to apply, especially if that stakeholder is part of our FC2A proposal?  

Similarly aligned and funded work in a given state, whether funded by Ascendium or another entity, does not impact a state’s eligibility for the FC2A initiative. However, for insight into whether any sources of current or potential future funding could be impacted by a state’s involvement with FC2A, state stakeholders should contact the relevant program officer. 

11. We can’t name specific community partners or subrecipients if any of our state agencies serve as lead applicant on our proposal, because it would violate state purchasing laws. What should we do?

Because any stakeholder group, mandatory or otherwise, can serve as the lead applicant on a state’s proposal, we would encourage you to choose a different lead applicant who is not bound by those restrictions. It would be very difficult for a state to build a competitive proposal without naming all of the stakeholders in their proposed State Action Network.  

12. Our state has multiple representatives within the leadership structures of workforce/postsecondary/corrections. Who should sign our letters of commitment?

We recognize that governance looks different in each state. Letters of commitment are meant to reflect the realities of who the key decision maker is in your state for each respective sector. In some states, the same person might have oversight over more than one of the mandatory stakeholders. In others, there might be two people co-stewarding a single agency system. We ask that states use their best judgement in reflecting the folks who ultimately hold decision making power within these systems and prioritize them for the letters of commitment. In some instances, this may require a joint letter of commitment or multiple letters of commitment to cover a single stakeholder group. 

13. How much involvement is expected from local workforce boards?

We are incentivizing the engagement of local workforce boards, if those partners are able to be at the table. If your state has the funds, resources, and willingness to engage local boards to whatever degree they're able (i.e. on a subcommittee), that is ideal but not expected. This initiative is primarily looking to mobilize state-level entities. 

14. What requirements around Institutional Review Board (IRB) approvals are required as part of FC2A?

One of the stakeholder readiness criteria listed for corrections partners in Appendix E asks states to provide evidence of their leadership's willingness to fast-track DOC Institutional Review Board approval as needed for gathering and analyzing data. Possible ways to evidence this are listed in Appendix E. Because FC2A will engage a third-party evaluator to work alongside the State Action Networks, this readiness criterion is critical to the goals of the initiative. 

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.

5. Do states need to budget for travel to convenings as part of their Phase 1 budgets? Where will the convenings be? 

Yes, please account for travel expenses related to the required convenings outlined in the RFP when crafting your Phase 1 budget. The initial all-grantee convening will be held near a major airport to make travel easy for grantees from across the country. We will update this FAQ when we know the exact location.  

State summits will be comprised entirely of stakeholders from within your state, coming together for a half-day convening. As such, those summits will take place within your state.

6. Can the line items provided in the template be changed to reflect the particulars of our state (a type of expense being categorized differently in our state than how the template has bucketed expenses, etc.)?  

Please make a short note within your written narrative to alert the review committee to these types of considerations.  

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.

4. Some of our state stakeholders have concerns about sharing state data with a third-party partner. Should we still apply? 

States often interpret “sharing with third parties” in different ways, and some states may remain conservative on data privacy. Ultimately, the discretion of a state’s data officers will be critical in interpreting state statutes, assessing the extent to which completing the necessary steps outlined in the RFP would be feasible under the current state legal frameworks, and determining whether the proposed timeline for executing agreements to advance to Phase 2 is feasible. This is why letters of commitment from state data decision-makers are such an important part of the proposal process.  

The end goal of FC2A’s technical assistance is to help states build toward a comprehensive, census-level, longitudinal data set by leveraging administrative data that already exists within the state. The FC2A initiative anticipates that states will face governance and legal hurdles; FC2A’s technical assistance is designed to help partners develop solutions.  This does not require immediate external transfer of restricted data. Instead, the emphasis in Phase 1 is on demonstrating commitment, governance, and readiness to modernize data systems and address barriers over time. States may maintain protected data in-state, use hashed identifiers or aggregated outputs, and rely on internal dashboards while working toward longer-term integration. 

5. At what point during the initiative would the necessary data be requested, and what specific data would be required? 

We aim to execute data sharing agreements with the required state agencies, as well as between each agency and the Coleridge Initiative, ideally no later than April 2027 (Month 15 of Phase 1). Following the execution of the agreements, states submit their first round of data to Coleridge, ideally no later than July 2027 (Month 18 of Phase 1) to unlock their Phase 2 award and avoid a gap in funding. Coleridge will then begin the process of data integration and linkage. 

During Phase 1, Coleridge will also facilitate an opportunity for members of the FC2A State Action Network to “test drive” the potential capabilities of integrated data dashboards using sample or synthetic data. This will deepen network members’ understanding of potential use cases and invite them to draw from their experiences to contribute to a collective and state-specific vision-setting for Coleridge’s creation of the code for states’ FC2A Integrated State Data Dashboards.  

States ultimately determine which specific data elements can be shared or linked, always under their governance. But please note that at a minimum, states would need to share or link hashed identifiers, demographics, program participation (education/training), and key dates (entry/exit). However, even if technical workarounds exist (hashing, secure enclaves, governance agreements), state agency counsel may advise against participating in this initiative. 

6. Is integrating state data into the ADRF covered by the technical assistance offered through FC2A? What if certain state agencies are more ready to meet data milestones than others? 

Helping to integrate state data into the ADRF is covered by the technical assistance offered through the initiative. States do not need to budget for that integration work, as that will not be an expense incurred by the states. In order to get data ingested and integrated on the shortest timeline possible, data ingestion from different agencies will happen in parallel, not sequentially, as various agencies become ready to begin that process. 

7. Does all of our state’s data need to be funneled through the lead applicant on our proposal, or through the subrecipient of the funds? 

Neither. All data stewards can work directly with Coleridge, regardless of their role within the State Action Network or proposal.  

8. If our state can’t or won’t share data with the ADRF, are we ineligible for this initiative? Is there some other data we can share instead? 

At the proposal stage, state data officers need to at least be open to pursuing a data-sharing agreement with Coleridge and sign a letter of commitment stating that. If your state’s data officers aren’t willing to do this, your state would be ineligible for the initiative. Ultimately, the goals of the initiative do require state-level data access. If a state secures letters of commitment but ultimately isn’t willing or able to make progress toward data integration milestones during Phase 1, they would be unable to unlock the additional funding on offer in Phase 2.  

9. Can Coleridge help us convince our state agencies to participate in data-sharing? 

Coleridge does have resources and videos that can help explain the proposed process to data stewards. As a starting point, please ensure you have shared our FC2A Data Integration Info Session with your state’s data officers. 

10. What data will states need to provide in order to successfully participate in the initiative?

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.