RETURNING HOME The Challenge of Reuniting Returning Citizens with their Families and Communities A project of the International Community Corrections Association (ICCA) Funded by the Public Welfare Foundation
Every year, about 720,000 citizens • are released from prison. • Their assignment: • Return to their home communities. • Reunite with their families. • Restore their lives as productive citizens.
They’re coming home.Let’s make sure they come home for good with appropriate structure, support, accountability and supervision. 720,000 prisoners come home each year.
They’re coming home.Let’s give them the tools they need do it right. 480,000 will be re-arrested without re-entry services.
300,000 released prisoners get sent back to prison. THINK OF THE COST! • Cost of imprisonment: $30,000 to $43,000 • Lost tax revenues: $5,000 to $10,000 • Lost economic activity: $25,000 to $100,000+ (Annual costs, per person)
Insert local stats • Insert local stats • Insert local stats 300,000 released prisoners get sent back to prison. THINK OF THE COST!
Communities lose productive citizens • Neighborhoods lose a sense of safety and trust • Families are broken apart Cost: Immeasurable 300,000 released prisoners get sent back to prison. THINK OF THE COST!
7 to 9 million people circulate in and out of jails each year • 2.9 million are in jails and prisons right now • 97 % of all inmates are eventually released, but… • 67% will be re-arrested DO THE MATH! We Have a RE-ENTRY Crisis
Much of this is due to the fact that people leaving prison are released directly onto the streets and without needed re-entry services. The Re-arrest Rate is 67%
Some communities have found effective ways to address the crisis. We can all benefit from their success.
Community Corrections Programs Gradual re-entry programs and neighborhood settings that emphasize: • Drug Monitoring • Supervision • Structured Movement • Public Safety
Community Corrections Programs Gradual re-entry programs and neighborhood settings that emphasize: • Treatment • Skill development • Employment • Family reunification have been shown to cut recidivism rates significantly.
Think of it: Of 720,000 citizens released from prison every year, only 240,000 remain arrest free.
Community corrections programs like these could help up to 300,000 more citizens return home for good. Neighborhood-based programs that provide support, supervision, training and treatment: • Residential Re-Entry Centers• Half-Way Houses • Day-Reporting Centers• Residential Treatment Centers • Work Release Programs• Family Reunification Programs
It’s Working in San Antonio With community support, Crosspoint Halfway House expanded services to help more citizens achieve successful reentry PARTICIPANTS WIN: Chances of successful re-entry increased significantly COMMUNITY WINS: Crime reduced, safety increased, property values are unaffected or increased
It’s Working in Bellingham, Washington In this rural area of Washington State, community support made the difference in approving a 34-person capacity halfway house PARTICIPANTS WIN: Chances of successful re-entry increased significantly COMMUNITY WINS: Crime reduced, safety increased, property values are unaffected or increased
It’s Working in Rural Colorado Construction of a 70-bed halfway house in northeastern Colorado meant jobs for local residents as well as support for returning citizens PARTICIPANTS WIN: Chances of successful re-entry increased from significantly COMMUNITY WINS: Crime reduced, safety increased, property values are unaffected or increased
It’s Working in New Hampshire Successful halfway house program from Massachusetts expanded to Manchester with support of local police and probation departments PARTICIPANTS WIN: Chances of successful re-entry increased significantly COMMUNITY WINS: Crime reduced, safety increased, property values are unaffected or increased
It’s Working in Harlem Cleaning out trash and drug dealers, this abandoned “castle” was renovated to provide supervised housing for formerly homeless returnees. PARTICIPANTS WIN: Chances of successful re-entry increased significantly COMMUNITY WINS: Crime reduced, safety increased, property values are unaffected or increased
How it works: Half Way House • A positive transitional living environment. • Residents pay room and board. • They also receive counseling and job training. • A gradual, fully secured, supported re-connection.
How it works: Family Re-Unification • Re-entry Programs provide offenders with the opportunity to reunite with their spouses and children and work out legal custody and family visitation issues. Re-entry planning includes: • Supervised family reunification • Family therapy • Parenting classes • Child support payment plans
How it works: Day Reporting Center Offenders who qualify live at home and work but must check in regularly at a Day Reporting Center where they receive intensive supervision and services, including: • Educational services • Vocational Services • Treatment • Drug Monitoring
How it worked for Michael • Like many offenders with mental health issues and co-occurring substance abuse, Michael was not an intentional criminal. Now a client at the Alvis House Reflections Program, Michael, his wife, Christina and their children all participate in the family support program that is enabling Michael to lead a productive life. • “Coming to this program is one of the best things I could have done. I have a path to a new way of living now and my family and I understand each other a little better, too.”
How it works for theChief of Police in San Antonio, TX “These residents have curfews and are checked regularly for drug use and work hard not to jeopardize their status. Though crime does occur in these neighborhoods, we have not associated any of the crimes with the halfway houses or their residents.”
--Michael Helle, President, San Antonio Police Officers Association “Our own experience demonstrates that Crosspoint’s around the clock staffing, constant attention to safety and security, and its ability to provide accountability for its residents, all combine to make Crosspoint transitional homes a safe addition to a neighborhood.”
-- Mary Ellen Stone, King County Sexual Assault Resource Center Seattle, Washington How it works for theSex Offender Management (SOM) Team in King County “SOM promotes public understanding that ‘not in my neighborhood’ is not a viable solution. Instead, communities that are aware and monitor convicted sex offenders are safer and more empowered. An offender who is invisible to the neighborhood is a threat in hiding. Increased visibility and ties to the community help make sex offenders more accountable for their actions and decrease the likelihood of re-offending”
-- Gov. Bobby Jindal • Leadership of Governors • • LA.: Gov. Jindal press release: “hammer away at dubious distinction of highest incarceration rate in the world” with day reporting, jail reentry & work release
-- Gov. Jennifer Granholm • Leadership of Governors • • MI.: Granholm’s advisory: Reduce prisons 10% with nonviolent and geriatric release, invest in probation and parole staff and reentry. “Decide who we’re afraid of and who we’re mad at.”
How it works for neighborhoods like yours • Halfway house residents perform community services including: • • Graffiti Removal • • Lawn mowing • • Trash pickup
Addressing community fears and misconceptions • Community opposition is the single largest barrier to increasing community capacity for transitioning people from prison back to their homes. • The chief causes of this opposition are natural fears and concerns for safety, but also misconceptions and biases based on myths, stereotypes and unfounded assumptions
Myth: Re-entry Programs lead to increased crime in the neighborhood. Reality: Re-entry Programs provide supervision and support for people who might otherwise go astray. Crime actually is reduced in neighborhoods with Re-entry Programs.
Myth: Halfway Houses lower property values. Reality: Most Halfway Houses are major renovations of existing properties, and are meticulously maintained. They almost always raise the value of the property they are in. They have no effect on, or increase the value of those around them.
Myth: Re-entry Program residents will bring drugs and dope-dealing into the neighborhood. Reality: Clients are randomly and regularly searched and tested for drugs and alcohol, with severe consequences for any use -- almost always resulting in a resident’s temporary or permanent removal from the program.
We appreciate your concern and invite you to get involved: • Talk to your local law enforcement officials • Take a tour of your local reentry facility • Visit the website: www.iccaweb.org
Second Chances Selected Bibliography Cox, Stephen M. “A Study of Reconviction Rates of Discharged Inmates from the Connecticut Department of Correction.” Central Connecticut State University, 2006. Fehr, Larry M. “Review of Recent Evaluation Research on Community Residential Reentry Centers.” Journal of Community Corrections, Winter 2005-2006. Daniels, Timothy and Toumpas, Ernest, Certified Appraisers. “General Real Estate Market Study of Properties Located within proximity of North End House.” Concord, New Hampshire, December, 2004. Drake, Elizabeth. “Does Participation in Washington's Work Release Facilities Reduce Recidivism?” Washington State Institute for Public Policy. November 2007. Eisenberg, Michael. “The Second Biennial Report on the Performance of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Rehabilitation Tier Programs.” Criminal Justice Policy Council. State of Texas. February, 2003. Engel, Len. “Priorities and Public Safety: Reentry and the Rising Costs of our Corrections System.” The Crime and Justice Institute, Community Resources for Justice, for The Boston Foundation, 2009. Fehr, Larry M. “Literature Review of Impacts to Communities in Siting Correctional Facilities.” Washington Council on Crime and Delinquency. Seattle, Washington, July, 1995. Feldman, Lisa. “Studies on Halfway Houses.” Produced by the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice and commissioned by DC Prisoners Legal Services. The full report is available from the Justice Policy Institute, Washington, DC. January 1, 2002. Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy. “The Impact of Supportive Housing on Surrounding Neighborhoods: Evidence from New York City.” New York University School of Law, 2008.
Gilbert, Michael J. “Rethinking Our Policy Responses to Crime and Reentry.” University of Texas at San Antonio, Power Point presentation. June, 2010. Gregg Jordan and Associates. “Letter to John Larivee, Community Resources for Justice, December 2, 2004.” Corporate Real Estate Services, Boston, Massachuetts. Hetz-Burrell, Nicole and English, Kim. “Community Corrections in Colorado: A Study of Program Outcomes and Recidivism, FY00-FY04.” Office of Research and Statistics, Division of Criminal Justice, Department of Public Safety, State of Colorado. May 2006. John Howard Society of Alberta. “Halfway Houses.” 2001 Latessa, Edward J., Lovins, Lori Brusman and Smith, Paula. “Follow-up Evaluation of Ohio's Community Based Correctional Facility and Halfway House Programs – Outcome Study.” Division of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati. February 2010. Levin, Marc, Esq. “Texas Criminal Justice Policy Reform: Lower Crime, Lower Cost.” Texas Public Policy Foundation Center for Effective Justice. January, 2010. Levin, Marc A., Esq. “Thinking Outside the Cell: Solutions for Public Safety, Victims and Taxpayers.” Texas Public Policy Foundation, Power Point presentation. December, 2009.
Pryzybylski, Roger. “What Works? Effective Recidivism Reduction and Risk Focused Prevention Programs: A Compendium of Evidence-Based Options for Preventing New and Persistent Criminal Behavior.” RKC Group for the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice. February 2008. Schmitt, John, Warner, Kris, and Gupta, Sarika. “The High Budgetary Cost of I ncarceration.” Center for Economic and Policy Research. Washington, D.C., June, 2010. ________________. “Texas Residential Programs: Community Corrections Facilities.” Report to House Corrections Interim Committee. Texas Department of Criminal Justice. TDCJ – CJAD. July 16, 2002. Vuong, Linh, Hartney, Christopher, Krisberg, Barry, and Marchionna, Susan. “The Extravagance of Imprisonment Revisited.” National Council on Crime and Delinquency. Oakland, California, January, 2010. Wilson, Mike, and Krsulisch, Lisa. “Cost-Benefit Analysis for Justice Policy: A Step-by-Step Guide.” Vera Institute of Justice, January, 2011. Worcel, Sonia D., Burrus, Scott W.M. and Finigan, Michael W. “Study of Substance-Free Transitional Housing and Community Corrections in Washington County, Oregon.” Document Number 225802; funded by U.S. Department of Justice grant, Award Number 2005-DD-BX-1009. NPC Research. 2009.