Community reinvestment re entry
Download
1 / 27

Community Reinvestment- Re-Entry - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 201 Views
  • Updated On :

Community Reinvestment- Re-Entry. Maureen Price-Boreland, Esq. Executive Director Community Partners in Action, established 1875 Member Agency Of Connecticut Association of Non-Profits . Goals of Effective Prison Re-entry. Safer Communities Community Investment Social reintegration

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Community Reinvestment- Re-Entry' - bina


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Community reinvestment re entry l.jpg
Community Reinvestment- Re-Entry

Maureen Price-Boreland, Esq.

Executive Director

Community Partners in Action, established 1875

Member Agency Of

Connecticut Association of Non-Profits


Goals of effective prison re entry l.jpg
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


The state of the state of connecticut re entry services l.jpg
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


The state of the state of connecticut re entry services4 l.jpg
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


Premise and need for community programs services l.jpg
Premise and Need for Community Programs/Services 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


Premise of need for community programming services contd l.jpg
Premise of Need for Community Programming/Services contd. services.

  • 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


Issues with re integration l.jpg
Issues with re-integration services.

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)


Issues with re integration contd l.jpg
Issues with re-integration contd. services.

  • 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


Issues with re integration contd9 l.jpg
Issues with re-integration contd. services.

  • 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


Employment training and re entry l.jpg
Employment/Training and Re-Entry services.

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


Health and re entry l.jpg
Health and Re-Entry services.

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


Housing and re entry l.jpg
Housing and Re-Entry services.

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


Substance use and re entry l.jpg
Substance Use and Re-Entry services.

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


Families and re entry l.jpg
Families and Re-Entry services.

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


Communities and re entry l.jpg
Communities and Re-Entry services.

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


Cognitive behavioral therapy l.jpg
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy services.

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


Program evaluations l.jpg
Program Evaluations services.

Goals:

  • Research can help to inform on effectiveness of programs

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

  • Help in the efforts to develop future activities


Program evaluations18 l.jpg
Program Evaluations services.

Evaluations should look at both Process and Outcomes:

  • 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

  • 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?


Public perception vs reality issues arguments for alternatives l.jpg
Public perception vs. Reality issues services.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


Sample programs that work l.jpg
Sample Programs that work services.

  • 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.


Resettlement est 1992 l.jpg
Resettlement-est.1992 services.

  • 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.


U s department of labor re entry grant march 2006 present l.jpg
U.S. Department of Labor Re-Entry Grant- March 2006-Present services.

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


Goals and services of prep re entry l.jpg
Goals and Services of Prep Re-Entry services.

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


Results to date 11 28 07 u s dol re entry grant l.jpg
Results to Date-11-28-07 services.U.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%


Connecticut s case study l.jpg
Connecticut’s Case Study services.

Conducted by:

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

    and

  • The Council of State Governments

    www.pewpublicsafety.org


Strategic planning and recommendations l.jpg
Strategic Planning and Recommendations services.

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


Strategic planning and recommendations27 l.jpg
Strategic Planning and Recommendations services.

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

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

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

  • 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