Why Prevention?
“The
homeless assistance system ends homelessness for thousands of people every day,
but they are quickly replaced by others.
People who become homeless are almost always clients of public systems
of care and assistance. These include
the mental health system, the public health system, the welfare system, and the
veterans system, as well as the criminal justice and the child protective
service systems (including foster care).
The more effective the homeless assistance system is in caring for
people, the less incentive these other systems have to deal with the most
troubled people – and the more incentive they have to shift the cost of serving
them to the homeless assistance system.” (National Alliance to End Homelessness
[NAEH], 2000)
“Prevention holds hope as
a sensible and cost effective way to stop the growth of homelessness. Given
scarce public and private resources, the continual entry and re-entry of people
into the homeless population makes it difficult to move beyond an emergency
response to the problem. Were we to stop this flow, we could more effectively
provide assistance to those who are currently homeless and begin to reduce the
size of the homeless population. Only when this is done will the end of
homelessness truly be in sight.” (NAEH,
1992)
Why Discharge Planning?
The mental health
systems, alcohol and drug treatment providers, and correctional facilities
regularly release individuals back into society with little or no support upon
exiting. The lack of support and/or
proper planning increases the likelihood of individuals returning to jail,
mental health facilities, or relapse into addictive behaviors.
U.S. Department of Justice, 2000
·
Nearly 600,000 inmates arrive yearly at the
doorsteps of communities nationwide (591,000 are state prisoners). By
comparison, fewer than 170,000 were released in 1980.
·
Inmates have always been released from prison, and
officials have long struggled with helping them to success. But the current situation is different. The numbers of returning offenders dwarf
anything known before, the needs of released inmates are greater, and
corrections has retained few rehabilitation programs.
·
Determinate sentencing means automatic
release. Indeterminate sentencing lost
credibility in part because it is discretionary use. But most corrections officials believe some power to
individualize sentences is necessary, since it is a way to take into account
changes in behavior or conditions that occur during incarceration.
·
Increased dollars have funded operating costs for
more prisons, but not more rehabilitation.
·
The Office of National Drug Control Policy
reported that 70-85 percent of State prisoners need treatment; however, just 13
percent receive it while incarcerated.
·
Nearly 1 in 5 inmates in U.S. prisons report having
a mental illness.
·
Eighty percent of returning prisoners are released
on parole and assigned to a parole office.
The remaining 20 percent (about 100,000 in the 1998), including some who
have committed the most serious offenses, will “max out” (serve their full
sentence) and leave prison with no postcustody supervision.
·
Fully two-thirds of all parolees are rearrested
within 3 years. The numbers are so high
that parole failures account for a growing proportion of all new prison
admissions. In 1980, they constituted
17 percent of all admissions, but they now make up 35 percent.
·
Recycling parolees in and out of families and
communities has a number of adverse effects.
It is detrimental to community cohesion, employment prospects and
economic well being, participation in the democratic process, family stability
and childhood development, and mental and physical health and can exacerbate
such problems as homelessness.
What is Discharge Planning?
Discharge planning is a process that occurs while the
individual is still incarcerated, which prepares the individual for her or his
re-entry into the community. Discharge planning is a formal function of
corrections administrations in several states, and occurs informally in others
via correctional health providers, community-based social services providers,
or other prison-based social services staff. Discharge plans usually include an
estimated discharge date, programs that the individual has completed in prison,
and medical records, and attempt to line up a post-release residence, medical
and mental health care providers, and other community-based services for the
individual.
Housing is Major
Barrier to Successful Reentry
·
With no income immediately upon release, ex-offenders
lack resources for rent and other housing costs, which limits housing options.
·
Offenders convicted of drug offenses are barred
from public and assisted housing.
·
Screening for criminal history is common by
landlords.
·
Siting of halfway houses and supportive housing for
ex-offenders is very contentious with prospective neighbors.
People with Mental Illnesses Often Lack
Benefits Upon Release
·
Growing numbers of men and women with severe mental
illnesses are in jail or prison. Many
cycle through corrections facilities repeatedly, costing criminal justice
systems and communities significant resources and causing pain to the
individual and their families.
·
284,000 men and women in jail have a severe mental
illness such as schizophrenia or manic depression.
·
Generally, the length of time a person is in jail
determines whether, or when, federal SSI benefits will be affected.
·
SSDI benefits are suspended following a conviction
and confinement in jail for 30 days or longer.
·
Medicaid and Medicare are suspended when someone is
incarcerated. Medicare resumes when
SSDI payments resume. Depending on
length of incarceration, Medicare may be resumed upon release but may require
redetermination of eligibility.
·
Inmates not receiving benefits when sent to jail
can apply for SSI or SSDI while incarcerated, in anticipation of their
release. They usually need assistance,
however, to obtain the appropriate forms and gather the necessary evidence.
What Can Be Done?
Innovative community programs
Improved public policy (federal, state, and local)
Sampling of Innovative Programs
Fortune
Society, a New York non-profit organization staffed
primarily by ex-offenders, provides housing and services to former prisoners.
Operates the Castle, a 59-bed center on the western edge of Harlem.
Druid Heights Transitional Housing for Ex-Offenders,
Baltimore, Maryland, started with a grant from the Enterprise Foundation. The project is part of an overall
neighborhood revitalization strategy.
Safer Foundation, Chicago, provides
education, employment and supportive services to ex-offenders and
offenders. Manages secured residential
centers.
Project Return, New Orleans, is a
90-day program that provides drug counseling, education, and job training. Incorporates non-traditional methods for
grief counseling such as tribal rituals.
Sampling of Policy
Initiatives
Federal Initiatives
The Reentry
Partnership Initiative, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice's
Office of Justice Programs and National Institute of Justice, provides new
models for offenders returning to the community in eight sites: Baltimore,
Maryland; Burlington, Vermont; Columbia, South Carolina; Kansas City, Missouri;
Lake City, Florida; Las Vegas, Nevada; Lowell, Massachusetts; and Spokane,
Washington.
The Serious and Violent
Offender Reentry Initiative was developed by the U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs (OJP), in conjunction with other federal
partners. The Reentry Initiative is a comprehensive effort that
addresses both juvenile and adult populations of serious, high-risk offenders.
It provides funding to develop, implement, enhance, and evaluate reentry
strategies that will ensure the safety of the community and the reduction of
serious, violent crime. This is accomplished by preparing targeted offenders to
successfully return to their communities after having served a significant
period of secure confinement in a state training school, juvenile or adult
correctional facility, or other secure institution.
The Reentry Initiative
represents a new way of doing business for federal, state, and local agencies.
Instead of focusing the Initiative on a competition for a limited amount of
discretionary funds, the federal partners are
coming together to help state and local agencies navigate the complex field of
existing state formula and block grants and to assist them in accessing,
redeploying, and leveraging those resources to support all components of a
comprehensive reentry program. The discretionary funding available through this
Initiative will be provided only to fill any gaps in existing federal, state,
and local resources.
Communities selected to
participate in the Reentry Initiative will have the opportunity to develop
state-of-the-art reentry strategies and to acquire knowledge that will
contribute to the establishment of national models of best practices. The
Reentry Initiative allows communities to identify the current gaps in their
reentry strategy and present a developmental vision for reentry that seeks to fill
those gaps and sustain the overall strategy. Additionally, communities can
enhance existing reentry strategies with training and technical assistance that
will build community capacity to effectively, safely, and efficiently
reintegrate returning offenders.
The Serious and Violent
Offender Reentry Initiative is supported by the U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of
Justice Programs and National
Institute of Corrections, and their federal partners: the U.S. Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, and Labor.
Massachusetts
In January 2000, the Massachusetts Executive Office for
Administration and Finance established the Working Group on Discharge
Planning. The group was charged with
examining the discharge planning policies and systems within correctional
facilities and the Commonwealth’s human service agencies and identifying
initiatives to improve these systems.
Among the
many objectives to be achieved by discharge planning, the goal of preventing releases into homelessness should appropriately
be identified as one priority. This
should include a discussion of discharge planning as both a public safety
issue, as it relates to the potential reduction of recidivism, and a cost
containment opportunity. In evaluating
the success of discharge planning conducted by both Commonwealth employees and
contracted vendors, prevention of releases into homelessness should be included
as a performance standard. This is not
to argue that discharge planning in the context of correctional facilities can,
or should, be understood as guaranteeing stable housing arrangements or
supportive services for every released inmate.
Consistent with their mission to promote public safety, however, these
institutions can be expected to act on behalf of the general public in
assisting inmates who are in their custody and are preparing to transition back
into the general public
Current Massachusetts
Best Practices
·
Needs
assessment of inmates to be discharged are conducted.
·
Through the Triage
Team system, appropriate parties likely to possess vital information
regarding post-release needs are brought together.
·
The five-day
workshops and the reintegration
program for substance abusers associated with the Correctional Recovery
Academy both involve the inmates extensively in the process of planning for
their own post-release conditions.
·
The Department of Correction’s recently established
collaborative efforts with both the Department of Public Health and Department
of Mental Health provide specialized discharge
planning services for targeted populations.
·
The Department of Corrections, in collaboration
with other agencies, appears to be in the process of expanding the involvement of community-based service
providers within their facilities.
By contracting for services with community-based providers who will
continue interacting with the inmate in the post-release period, these efforts
promise to offer some continuity of service to those passing through the
transition period. This type of
continuity is an important characteristic of effective discharge planning.
·
The Transitional
Intervention Plan also promises to provide
feedback to discharge planners regarding the success and appropriateness of
their discharge planning, which is another important characteristic of
effective discharge planning.
Planned Massachusetts Initiatives
1.
The Department of Correction is in the early
implementation stages of a system-wide
discharge planning process. As part
of this process, the Department will clearly articulate the role of discharge
planning in its overall mission. The
Department will also establish a method to monitor the operational success of
the new process and its various components.
Such an evaluation will be designed to identify both the potential
benefits and the limits of discharge planning as a means of promoting
successful reintegration and, by extension, furthering the goal of protecting
public safety.
2.
As the Department of Correction makes housing
referrals, it will compile an inventory
list of transitional and supportive housing programs being utilized by
inmates released from its facilities.
Without such an inventory, it is nearly impossible to evaluate the needs
that exist or the reallocation of resources that might be possible and desirable.
3.
As discharge planning becomes a more prominent
aspect of the Department’s work, appropriate
training for those staff carrying out these responsibilities will be
provided. The Department will develop a systematic training process by
which staff members learn to locate and identify the community resources
available to released inmates.
4.
The Department will catalogue its collaborative efforts with other state agencies and
departments and identify those that are regularly serving its released
inmates. Such identification will serve
as a first step in identifying potential areas of further collaboration to
strengthen the safety net of services available to these vulnerable populations
and thus reduce recidivism and higher long-run costs to the Commonwealth.
5.
While utilizing community-based resources for
services during the pre-discharge period poses a greater challenge for the
Department’s facilities than it does for the more geographically-specific,
county correctional facilities, linkages will be actively pursued wherever
possible. To date, the Department has
experienced limited involvement of community-based resources providing services
to inmates within its facilities. This
type of continuity of care can
provide important community links and help minimize the disruption of the
transition period.
6.
The Department will establish
procedures to gather information on
the appropriateness of its placement practices. As the Department increases its interaction with community-based
service providers, it will have an ongoing system for monitoring its reliance
on and utilization of those resources.
Without compromising the privacy rights of ex-offenders, the Department
will collect information from community-based providers about the general and
ongoing suitability of its referrals and placements. The Transitional Intervention Plan will be closely monitored as a
model in this regard. Although TIP is
designed to serve a limited population (AIDS/HIV positive inmates), the lessons
learned from its design and operation will be closely observed and shared with
the Department’s policy-makers.
7.
The Department will adopt low-cost
procedures to be followed for the one-third of its inmates who chose not to
participate in discharge planning workshops.
For example, the Department is preparing resource packets to provide certain inmates upon their
release. There will always be
non-participating or disengaged inmates who, nevertheless, have needs related
to their reintegration. Contingency plans, such
as the distribution of resource packets, are not in place at this time. While
transition planning is ultimately the responsibility of the released inmate,
the potential community costs of failed reintegration dictate that some minimal
level of useful information should be provided to all inmates being released.
8.
The Department will identify those inmates most likely to be at high risk of homelessness
beyond those suffering from substance abuse and mental illness. The Working Group on Discharge Planning
heard anecdotal evidence of the unique challenges facing some types of
offenders in their attempt to secure housing in the post-incarceration
period. The Department will attempt to
quantify this problem and articulate the need for discharge planning and community
reintegration programs appropriate to these types of special populations. Such an assessment should include a
realistic evaluation of the potential and limits of pre-release discharge
planning.
9.
Over the past several months, the Department of
Correction has undertaken “reentry initiatives” with two separate Commonwealth
communities. The initiatives involve working with local law enforcement and
community representatives to support an inmate’s transition into the
community. Specifically, the Department
is working with the City of Lowell and Hampden County. These two programs will be closely monitored
as pilots that can potentially be expanded statewide in the future.
10. The
Department will formally seek definitive word from the Headquarters Office of
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on inmate eligibility for McKinney-funded
transitional housing resources.
Having done so, the Department will then ask the Executive Office of
Public Safety (EOPS) to circulate this information to all those involved with
discharge planning from correctional facilities in order to make sure there is
universal understanding of the eligibility requirements. EOPS will then solicit the support of
parties responsible for overseeing the funding and operation of such
transitional resources to make them aware of the HUD regulations.
Illinois
Congressman Danny K.
Davis, 7th District of Illinois, introduced new legislation entitled
"Public Safety Ex-offender Self Sufficiency Act of 2002" (H.R. 3701)
into the House of Representatives on February 7, 2002. It provides for transitional housing for ex-offenders,
with on-site delivery of employment
placement and supportive services
to facilitate successful ex-offender re-entry and promote public safety.
H.R. 3701 amends the IRS code of 1986 to reflect an ex-offender
low-income housing credit to encourage the provision of housing, job readiness
training, and other essential services delivered in structured living
environments designed to assist ex-offenders in becoming self-sufficient.
This comprehensive
legislative initiative addresses the United States’ lack of a systematic,
comprehensive approach to re-integrating the increasing number of returning
ex-offenders. It seeks to decrease recidivism rates and the cost of crime to
victims, and increase public safety.
This legislation
addresses needs and solutions identified by the 7th District of Illinois
Ex-Offenders Task Force, a broad group of representatives from national and
local civil rights organizations, community-based organizations, ex-offenders,
academicians, law-enforcement officials, elected officials, community
activists, faith-based organizations, block club residents, businesses and
community residents who collaborated with the ex-offender population to find
solutions.
The Task Force identified
safe and affordable housing for ex-offenders as a key barrier and critical as a
stabilizing force. But since the issues are far broader than housing alone,
this legislative initiative addresses the re-integration of ex-offenders from a
more holistic perspective.
Among the support
services identified in the legislation are: job readiness training, employment
counseling and placement, entrepreneurial training, financial management,
substance abuse counseling, anger management, healthcare services, educational
assistance and family and crisis management. The ex-offender resident must
enter a written agreement to attend and participate in the supportive services
program and may not default on this agreement.
For a copy of the bill
and its status, go to Thomas: Legislative
Information on the Internet (http://thomas.loc.gov) and type in H.R. 3701
or contact Congressman Davis’ office at 773/533-7520.
Minnesota
Minnesota Department of Corrections has undertaken an effort to develop housing options for ex-offenders. The initial report (March 2001) recommended the following housing services:
3 Guaranteed emergency bed
access
3 Transitional housing
3 Supportive housing
3 Access to market rate and
affordable housing
Additional
recommendations focused on improved system coordination and communication,
improved transitional services and earlier release planning, as well as,
increased public education and awareness of needs.
Ohio
Ohio
Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections
The Ohio Department of
Rehabilitation and Corrections (ODRC) plans to develop and implement the Ohio
Community-Oriented Reentry (CORE) Project, which will target adult offenders
who are returning to Ohio's two largest urban areas, Cuyahoga and Franklin
Counties, and the suburban/rural area of Allen County. Through the CORE
Project, the Department will partner with various service agencies to address
the challenges of recidivism, substance abuse, and physical and mental health
issues and to support education, workforce participation, housing, family
reunification, faith-based issues, and mentoring. (Amount of DOJ grant:
$1,998,014)
Local contact:
Horst E. Gienapp, 614–752–1607.
OJP contact: Adam
Spector, 202–307–0703.
ODRC has established a designated liaison to the Community
Shelter Board and the Continuum of Care’s 10-Year Plan to End
Homelessness. She will be touring
supportive housing developed under the Rebuilding Lives Plan on September 5,
2002.
Ohio Supreme Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Justice Eve Stratton has a statewide task force to develop sentencing options
and diversion programs. The Community
Shelter Board has provided background is a resource to the court.
Franklin
County
Judge Scott Vanderkaar,
and Judge Jennifer Brunner have convened a task force to address issues of
mental illness and the local criminal justice system. Sub-committees are working on the following: Crisis Intervention
Team Training, Mental Health Courts, Jail Assessment and Referral and Public
Awareness. Tom Albanese, Program Director at the Community Shelter Board, is a
member of the Task Force
CSB staff met with Gayle
Dittmer, Chief Probation Officer, Franklin County Adult Probation, on August
28, 2002.
Next Steps for CSB
Cultivate relationship
with ODRC
3
Develop
understanding of discharge practices
3
Request
participation in CORE initiative
3
Explore
feasibility of cooperation to facilitate development of supportive housing
3
Explore
options to decrease discharge to shelter
Participate in ongoing
planning groups
3
Franklin
County Mental Health Court Task Force
3
Ohio Supreme
Court
Cultivate relationship
with Franklin County Probation and Sheriff’s Office
3
Develop
understanding of discharge and supervision practices
3
Explore
feasibility of determining extent of ex-offenders receiving homeless services
via HMIS data match with ODRC and/or sample survey of shelter residents.
3
Establish
point of contact at all local human service organizations which work with
ex-offenders
Develop state advocacy
strategy
3
Meet with
local faith-based organizations to understand advocacy and programming
activities related to criminal justice
3
Meet with
COHHIO to determine feasibility of joint advocacy efforts to develop
coordinated discharge planning and adequate resources to assure re-entry
without utilization of homeless services
3
Meet with
Columbus Coalition for the Homeless members to determine feasibility of joint
advocacy efforts to develop coordinated discharge planning and adequate
resources to assure re-entry without utilization of homeless services
Provide support to CSB
partners
3
Share
information about all of the above
3