New York County Defender Services

Testimony of

Maria Colosi

Re-entry Advocate and Grant Manager

New York County Defender Services

Before the

City Council Committee on Criminal Justice

Oversight - Programming to Prevent Recidivism and Promote Public Health and Safety

February 19, 2025

Thank you Chair Brooks-Powers and the Committee on Criminal Justice for holding this hearing

to address programming to prevent recidivism and promote public health and safety. My name is

Maria Colosi and I am the Re-entry Advocate and Grant Manager of the Re-entry Unit at New

York County Defender Services (NYCDS).

NYCDS is an indigent defense office that every year represents tens of thousands of New

Yorkers in Manhattan’s Criminal, Family, and Supreme Courts. Our Re-entry Unit is comprised

of social workers, justice peers, and advocates who specialize both in the carceral facilities where

our clients are held, and the community-based services that these individuals will need to rebuild

their lives once they are released from incarceration. This elite team works together to support

our clients’ transition back into our communities, and is funded in no small part by a generous

grant from the NYC Council Speaker’s Initiative for Discharge Planning.

I. Background:

Reentry support is one of the most critical, and under-resourced, components of the criminal

legal system. Each year, thousands of New Yorkers are discharged from our local jails, and return

to our communities after periods of incarceration that have disrupted employment, housing,

medical care, and family stability. How the City prepares and supports people for release, and

what barriers it removes or reinforces at the moment of reentry, has direct consequences for

public health, community safety, and long-term recidivism outcomes.The period immediately following release is one of the most destabilizing and high-risk moments

for an individual, and without meaningful reentry support, individuals face significant barriers

that increase the likelihood of reincarceration. Recognizing this critical lapse in services, several

years ago, our office began to extend the scope of our advocacy to our clients after their

sentencing, and provide re-entry support to those emerging from incarceration. Our Re-Entry

team endeavors to stop the cycle of arrest and incarceration, prevent future crimes or parole

violations, and strengthen communities. Our work is funded in no small part through a generous

grant from the NYC Council Speaker’s Initiative for Discharge Planning but we urge our city

leaders to make this funding a fixed portion of the public defender portfolio.

II. Importance of Reentry Services

Reentry programming must also be understood as a public safety strategy. When individuals are

supported in meeting their basic needs, complying with supervision requirements and accessing

services, they are far less likely to return to custody. Conversely, when reentry services are

underfunded, delayed, or unavailable, it increases the risk of technical violations, re-arrest, or

further destabilization. Despite its importance, reentry programming remains severely

underfunded and vulnerable to cuts. Sustained investment in reentry is one of the most effective

ways to reduce recidivism, support community stability, and ensure that individuals leaving

custody have a genuine opportunity to succeed.

A. Funding public defender offices to provide reentry services is critical to advancing

public safety

Traditionally, public defense work ends at sentencing, leaving clients adrift once their trial-level

case is closed. At NYCDS, we believe public defender offices are uniquely positioned to

provide not only legal representation, but consistent advocacy post-conviction.

Our office already knows our clients. We already know their needs, their histories, and their

families. And we know the difficulties they face while incarcerated and post-release. Our reentry

team leverages the knowledge of our social workers and trial attorneys to start building a

relationship with a client as early as sentencing. While our clients are incarcerated, the re-entry

team meets with them regularly. We speak with them about their goals, get to know their loved

ones, and create a plan with them that we then help them execute. We often put in program

referrals and coordinate with outside providers while our clients are still incarcerated. When our

clients come home, a peer advocate meets them at the bus stop or in the community, ready with a

cell phone and transportation. Our team is there physically to walk through the first days

post-release with our clients – escort them to parole, take them to programs, and to be a support

for them. The week our clients reenter the community after being in custody is often the mostcritical and overwhelming. Our clients are often relieved to have a friendly face there to walk

through this time with them, particularly because our team members have been through it

themselves.

Ultimately, our reentry work is grounded in a continuity of care model, which recognizes reentry

as a process rather than a single event. Effective reentry begins well before release and must

continue afterwards in a coordinated and intentional way. This continuity of care model

emphasizes individualized planning developed with client input, and with support delivered by

staff, including peer specialists whose lived experience allows them to understand the structural

and practical barriers clients face. We believe public defender offices are uniquely positioned to

provide not only legal representation, but consistent advocacy and reentry support

post-conviction.

B. Proposed Legislation

Int. 0246-2026 (Hudson): In relation to returning funds remaining in commissary

accounts when incarcerated individuals are released from custody

NYCDS supports this legislation. Access to one’s own funds at the moment of release can

meaningfully reduce instability during an already vulnerable transition period. Individuals

leaving custody often do so with little to no resources. Having immediate access to one’s own

personal funds can make the difference between being able to secure transportation, food, or

basic necessities.

While we strongly support the intent of this bill, we respectfully raise several implementation

questions that are critical to ensuring the policy operates as intended and does not create

unintended barriers or delays.

First, clarity is needed regarding when and how funds will be issued. Any delays in issuing funds

risks undermining the purpose of the legislation, as even short delays can have outsized

consequences during the immediate post-release period. Additionally, safeguards should be put

in place to ensure that the process of returning commissary funds does not delay release itself or

create administrative bottlenecks that prolong custody.

Second, the bill currently contemplates returning funds in cash. While cash may be appropriate

in some circumstances, individuals should also have the option to receive funds by check or

another preferred secure method. Offering choices can increase safety, by reducing the risk of

loss or theft.

Lastly, we are seeking clarification on how this process would operate for individuals

transferring from DOC custody to state custody. It is essential to understand whether the transferof commissary funds would be automatic in such cases or whether a separate process would

apply. Clear procedures are needed to ensure that individuals do not lose access to their funds

while transferring custody.

The proposed legislation advances an important and commonsense idea: people should leave

custody with access to their own money to support their immediate needs. It is concerning that,

absent this legislation, individuals may be released from custody without immediate access to

their own funds.

III. Programming while in custody

There is not nearly enough programming being offered to people in custody on Rikers Island.

Educational, vocational, and behavioral health programs are proven to create humane conditions

and reduce recidivism in the long run. Yet, the majority of people in custody are denied

meaningful access to the educational, vocational, therapeutic, and socio-emotional programs that

would keep them safe, improve mental health, help them grow, and prepare them for successful

reentry. This is not an isolated issue but a systemic failure that has persisted despite clear legal

standards and repeated warnings from oversight bodies.

The Board of Correction’s Minimum Standards clearly require at least five hours per day of

programming.1 But that requirement is not being met. When DOC leadership was asked point

blank by the previous Criminal Justice Committee Chair, Sandy Nurse, if they were complying

with this requirement, their response was strikingly “No.”2 There was no way around it. They

were clearly failing to meet their programming obligations.

These issues were significantly compounded when, in 2023, the City eliminated around $17

million in contracts with nonprofit organizations that had long provided services, including

education, counseling, substance use support, and reentry programming.3 At the time, the DOC

asserted that it could absorb these services internally. However, in practice, participation in

programming declined sharply,

4 and as said above, DOC leadership acknowledged that they were

unable to meet minimum programming requirements once nonprofit providers were removed.

Programming, despite being a small fraction of the DOC’s overall budget, was among the first

areas to be cut, even though it is perhaps one of the most effective investments for reducing

recidivism and improving public safety at DOC’s disposal. While it is encouraging that nonprofit

1 Minimum Standards § 9-1102 Jacob Kaye, Jail programming suffers a year after DOC cut nonprofit contract, Queens Eagle (May 20, 2024) at

https://queenseagle.com/all/2024/5/20/jail-programming-suffers-a-year-after-doc-cut-nonprofit-contract.

3 NYC poised to cut $17 million in community reentry programs, Fortune Society

https://fortunesociety.org/media

_

center/nyc-poised-to-cut-17-million-in-community-provided-reentry-programs/

4 Id. referencing the Mayor’s Management Report.programming is now returning following new contracts, and we are thankful to the new

Commissioner and administration for restoring these critical services, the experience of the last

two years, including a consistent jail population rise, demonstrates why programming must never

again be treated as expendable.5 They should be treated and protected as essential infrastructure

for safety, stability, and successful reentry.

As we move forward, there are still some basic questions that remain unanswered: What

programs are being offered? How long are the waitlists? Who is eligible to participate? Which

programs are available at each facility, including those such as the West Facility where access

has historically been non-existent? And critically, what portion of these services is provided by

outside nonprofit partners versus internal DOC staff? Without answers to these questions, it

becomes impossible to assess whether programming is sufficient, effective, or lawfully adhering

to the Board’s Minimum Standards.

Meaningful programming is central to rehabilitation and public safety. It reduces idleness,

improves mental health outcomes, strengthens reentry preparation, and lowers the likelihood that

individuals will cycle back into custody. Restoring and protecting them affirms a commitment to

dignity and public safety.

IV . Conclusion

Reentry services are a critical component of any system that claims to prioritize public safety,

dignity, and successful outcomes. Individuals leaving custody often do so without stable housing,

identification, healthcare, or access to benefits, while simultaneously being expected to comply

with onerous and confusing parole conditions, court obligations, and supervision requirements.

These requirements are frequently imposed without adequate support, creating conditions where

even minor setbacks can result in serious consequences. Reentry services address these

challenges by providing stabilization and continuity at a moment when support is most urgently

needed.

We fundamentally believe that providing adequate support during this process enhances public

safety. That is why the grant funded by the New York City Council, along with a 3-year federal

grant is so critical; it allows us to engage with clients at the point of release, provide immediate

support, and develop individualized reentry plans that reflect each client’s needs and goals. We

are, therefore, able to have staff be present when a client is released, escort clients to required

parole or court appointments, and to help secure critical resources.

5 Jacob Kaye, After controversial cuts and fallout city taps nonprofits to resume services at Rikers, Queens Eagle

(Feb. 2, 2026)

rs.

https://queenseagle.com/all/2026/1/30/after-program-cuts-and-fallout-city-taps-nonprofits-to-resume-services-at-rikeIn a year when the city will be issuing a new RFP for public defense, we urge the Council and

Mayor to go beyond its traditional funding platform and invest in re-entry programs through the

public defender offices. This funding will not only ensure that the current jail population is

reduced to meet the City’s commitment to close Riker’s Island but also work to make sure that it

does not increase in future years.

If you have any questions about my testimony, please email policy@nycds.org.