Transcript Prison to Home - Community Partners in Action

Community ReinvestmentRe-Entry
Maureen Price-Boreland, Esq.
Executive Director
Community Partners in Action, established 1875
Member Agency Of
Connecticut Association of Non-Profits
1
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
2
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
3
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
4
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
5
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
6
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)
7
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
8
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
9
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 reincarceration
10
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
11
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
12
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
13
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
14
Communities and Re-Entry
Challenges:

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
15
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy
Challenges:

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
16
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
17
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 operationquantitative 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?
18
Public perception vs. Reality issues
Arguments 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
19
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.
20
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.
21
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
22
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
23
Results to Date-11-28-07
U.S. DOL Re-Entry Grant

Participants enrolled-

History of Alcohol or Substance Abuse- 224

Received Job Training Activities-

Received Work preparation activities-
306

Received Mentoring Services-
232

Job Placements-
166

Recidivism Rate-
28%
318
44
24
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
25
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
26

Victim Advocates
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
27