1

Community Reinvestment- Re-Entry

Maureen Price-Boreland, Esq.

Executive Director

Community Partners in Action, established 1875

Member Agency Of

Connecticut Association of Non-Profits

2

Goals of Effective Prison Re-entry

Safer Communities• Community Investment • Social reintegration• Stabilize the offender in the community• Continued intervention/supervision post incarceration

Reduce Recidivism

Reduce incarceration cost to the state

3

The “state” of the State of Connecticut re-entry services

Connecticut is viewed nationally as progressive in its re-entry efforts

CT’s DOC is committed to re-entry services

DOC and CSSD have a proven track record of funding a myriad of services for re-entry services

CT has a long and established good working relationship between the DOC, Board of Parole, CSSD and Community Providers

4

The “state” of the State of Connecticut re-entry services.

CT through the legislative leadership of Bill Dyson and Mike Lawlor conducted a review and implementation of reinvestment strategies (Building Bridges 2003 & 2004) which has resulted in correctional cost reinvestment and legislation on prison and jail overcrowding

CT has a rich group of established community providers who have partnered in providing quality re-entry services to the criminal justice population for many years

This partnership and alternatives to incarceration have resulted in immense savings to the State of Connecticut. Estimated average community cost per person $3,000-$8,000 vs. $27,000-$30,000 for incarceration

5

Premise and Need for Community Programs/Services

Approximately 96% of those incarcerated will return to the community

Period immediately following release is a critical transition point for offenders

Managing re-entry is critical so that fewer crimes are committed

Managing re-entry so that fewer crimes are committed enhances public safety

6

Premise of Need for Community Programming/Services contd.

Managing re-entry so that there are fewer returns to prison=significant cost savings

Managing re-entry benefits families and communities

Coordinated approach to re-entry is effective in reducing recidivism

Churning is expensive

7

Issues with re-integration

Men and Women are re-entering with:

Low levels of educational and vocational skills

Many with health related issues to include mental health and substance abuse

Serious housing, educational, employment, social and family needs

Most are returning to concentrated communities which are already deprived of resources and ill equipped to meet the challenges of this population. (Five towns reflect 50% of the incarcerated population)

8

Issues with re-integration contd.

Limited assistance in reintegration for end of sentence inmates (EOS) pose immediate public safety risks

Increased pressure on criminal justice system to solve the social ills within communities

Significant collateral impact

9

Issues with re-integration contd. Persistent pressure for a tougher response to crime

More bi-furcation between urban and suburban areas• African American Ratio 12:1 in CT.• 88% of those overdosing on drugs according to DPH’s 2004 report are

white

Significant racial and ethnic disparity in the system

10

Employment/Training and Re-Entry

Challenges:

Prison records diminish prospects for stable employment and reduces average wages

Time spent in prison is time spent out of the legitimate labor market

Stigma associated with having served time

Ex-Offenders are barred from working in certain types of jobs

Desired results:

Employed ex-offenders are less likely to return to prison

Education and Job Training placements reduces the likelihood of re-incarceration

11

Health and Re-Entry

Challenges:

Nationally 30-40% of offenders report chronic physical or mental health conditions, most commonly depression, asthma and high blood pressure

Higher rates of schizophrenia, depression, bipolar disorder and posttraumatic stress than general population (21% with significant needs in Connecticut)

Infectious diseases including HIV/AIDS are a significant problem

Incarceration makes offenders ineligible for Medicaid

Desired Results:

Facilitating timely linkages between corrections and local mental health and physical care providers is critical

Services should meet the specialized and identified risk factors of the offender e.g. sex offender treatment, domestic violence, substance abuse

12

Housing and Re-Entry

Challenges:

Housing is one of the most pressing concerns for ex-offenders

Without housing ex-offenders have trouble finding and maintaining stable employment

Without stable housing, ex-offenders are more likely to return to prison

Public Housing denies housing to ex-offenders

Some ex-offenders will find housing with family or friends, others in public shelters and many are homeless

Desired Result:

Securing stable housing is critical to fostering successful re-entry

Appropriate housing should take into consideration a healthy and supportive environment

13

Substance Use and Re-Entry

Challenges:

88% of Connecticut offenders report substance abuse addiction or substance abuse having an impact on their incarceration

26% receive treatment while incarcerated

Offenders identify substance abuse as being a critical factor associated with problems for employment, schooling, family, finances and criminal activity

Desired Results:

Continuum of services from prison to community addressing substance abuse

Adequate inpatient and out patient evidenced based substance abuse services

14

Families and Re-Entry

Challenges:

Incarceration has a major impact on the family unit

Family oriented services can appropriately strengthen ties between offenders and their loved ones

Desired Results:

Strong family relationships can lead to improved employment outcomes and act as a protective factor against further criminal activity.

Need to be mindful and plan for issues such as domestic violence, risk of injury to children that may not be conducive to family reintegration

15

Communities and Re-EntryChallenges:

Large number of offenders returning to mostly 5 communities in Connecticut

These communities are overwhelmed with managing this concentration

Limited resources to address the social ills that ex-offenders bring back to the community

Desired Results:

Network of informal control, empowered and informed part of the solution – family, religious organization, mentor

Strong partnerships between formal and informal controls

Information sharing between parole, probation and community providers strengthen the ability to identify, predict and possibly deter future criminal activity

16

Cognitive Behavioral TherapyChallenges:

Offenders make poor choices in problem solving

Many offenders exhibit poor impulse and self control

Desired Results:

Offenders must develop better reasoning skills, learn problem solving skills and improve self control

Teach offenders to anticipate problematic situations and develop alternate pro-social behavioral response to those situations

Crisis intervention with intense case management is critical

These services need to be administered close to release and reinforced post release

17

Program Evaluations

Goals:

1. Research can help to inform on effectiveness of programs

1. Evaluations will produce evidence on the link between “good” re-entry and recidivism

1. Help in the efforts to develop future activities

18

Program Evaluations

Evaluations should look at both Process and Outcomes:

A. Process evaluations- Does not evaluate effectiveness.

Identify issues that obstruct program participation and program operation- quantitative and qualitative

Identify clear operational details of the program

B. Outcomes:

Does the program reduce recidivism?

Is the program cost effective?

Does the program produce benefits in terms of education, substance abuse reduction, employment, housing stability, family functioning and cognitive skills?

19

Public perception vs. Reality issuesArguments for Alternatives

Time served is a significant component of the rising prison population

Time served does not influence recidivism

Increasing time served does not contribute to general deterrence

Time in prison is expensive

Longer prison terms erode community ties

The pressure to punish the offender beyond the established sentence can be counter-productive

We cannot imprison our way out of the problem

20

Sample Programs that work

Resettlement, established 1972- Long term case management services to female offenders 6 months prior to release and up to one year follow up services in the community.

U.S. Department of Labor re-entry grant.-Awarded to Connecticut under the President’s Re-Entry Initiative. Focuses only on non-violent offenders for employment services.

21

Resettlement-est.1992

Have at least 4 to 6 months left on their sentence

Participant must actively participate in identifying needs and problems, setting goals to overcome issues and succeed.

Participant must develop a concrete transitional plan addressing goals for the future

Participant must help develop and sign a commitment contract

Ongoing individual and group guidance, support and encouragement

Basic needs offered ; housing, clothing, identification, access to employment services, substance abuse/mental health, and medical treatment.

22

U.S. Department of Labor Re-Entry Grant- March 2006-Present

3 Year Grant to Community Partners in Action and a group of collaborative community partners:

Department of Correction

Capital Workforce Development Board

Urban League of Greater Hartford

Families in Crisis

South Arsenal Neighborhood Development Corporation (SAND)

Co-Opportunity, Inc.

Our Piece of the Pie

23

Goals and Services of Prep Re-Entry

Seeks to strengthen the Greater Hartford offenders with an employment centered program that incorporates:

Risk and Needs assessment Case Management Mentoring and Family intervention Job Training Job Development, placement and intervention Substance Abuse Other Transitional services

24

Results to Date-11-28-07U.S. DOL Re-Entry Grant

Participants enrolled- 318

History of Alcohol or Substance Abuse- 224

Received Job Training Activities- 44

Received Work preparation activities- 306

Received Mentoring Services- 232

Job Placements- 166

Recidivism Rate- 28%

25

Connecticut’s Case Study

Conducted by:

Public Safety Performance ( A project of the Pew Charitable Trusts)

and

The Council of State Governments

www.pewpublicsafety.org

26

Strategic Planning and Recommendations

1. Coordinated and centralized re-entry system to include stakeholders:

Correctional Staff

Community Corrections

Police

Judicial staff

Non-Profit Provider Network

Mental Health Providers

Local Workforce Boards

Victim Advocates

27

Strategic Planning and Recommendations

2. Coordinated system should include- Institutional phase, structured re-entry phase and community re-integration phase.

3. Coordinated communication system between Corrections and Community providers to ensure identification and provision of services based on risk and needs

4. Legislative and State Agencies- Intervention in assisting with siting residential facilities

5. Support for Non-Profits to enhance their service delivery and ensure stability of the provider network – Constant loss of staff to state agencies, ability to hire staff with required qualifications