|
The Urban Institute has explored the nexus between employment and prisoner reentry through a Reentry Roundtable the Returning Home study, and an impact evaluation of the Opportunity to Succeed (OPTS) program During the May 2003 Reentry Roundtable, national experts examined policies, practices, problems, and incentives involved in connecting returning prisoners to legitimate, marketable employment. In addition, the Returning Home study explores issues related to employment by documenting the prerelease expectations and postrelease work experiences of prisoners in Illinois, Maryland, Texas, and Ohio. Finally, a process and impact evaluation of the multisite OPTS program illuminated the importance of employment and related services for returning prisoners.
Recent Findings from the Urban Institute on Employment and Reentry
-
While prisoners believe that having a job is an important factor in staying out of prison, few have a job lined up after release. The vast majority of Returning Home respondents felt that having a job would help them stay out of prison; however, on average, only about one in five reported that they had a job lined up immediately after release (see supporting text 1, 2, 3, 4, 5).
-
Despite the need for employment assistance, few prisoners receive employment-related training in prison. Several studies have shown that the vast majority of prisoners cite assistance finding employment as one of their greatest needs after release (see supporting text 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). However, only about one-third of Illinois and Maryland Returning Home respondents reported participating in an employment readiness program while in prison, and far fewer reported participating in a job-training program in prison (one-quarter of Maryland respondents and only 9 percent of Illinois respondents). One-quarter of prisoners in Virginia (2002) participated in vocational programs while in prison, as did 6 percent in New Jersey (2001) and 1 percent in Georgia (2002).
-
Participation in work release jobs in prison may have a positive impact on the likelihood of finding full-time employment after release. Respondents in the Maryland and Illinois Returning Home sample who held a work release job in prison were more likely to be fully employed and had worked more weeks after prison.
-
Case-managed reentry services may increase the likelihood of finding and maintaining employment after release from prison. The Opportunity to Succeed (OPTS) evaluation found that participants who interacted with their case manager were more likely to report full-time employment and maintain employment for a longer time than those receiving no case management.
-
Participation in outpatient substance abuse treatment is associated with full-time employment. OPTS Program evaluation found that higher levels of A/A and N/A participation among OPTS clients were associated with increases in full-time jobs.
-
Prisoners who do find work after release do not necessarily have full-time or consistent employment. When interviewed four to eight months after release, 44 percent of Illinois Returning Home respondents reported having worked for at least one week since their release. However, less than a third (30 percent) of respondents were employed at the time of the interview, and just 24 percent of all respondents were employed full-time (40 or more hours per week). At their first postrelease interview, 56 percent of Maryland respondents were either unemployed or were working fewer than 40 hours a week.
-
Transportation is a significant barrier to employment. In the OPTS evaluation, more than a third of the respondents reported having difficulty obtaining a car for work or emergencies and nearly a quarter reported various difficulties accessing public transportation. Former prisoners in a focus group in Rhode Island also cited transportation challenges as a barrier to employment as well as access to services.
-
Finding and maintaining employment may reduce recidivism. The OPTS evaluation found that an increase in levels of employment was a predictor of reductions in drug dealing, violent crime, and property crime. Returning Home findings show that Illinois respondents who were unemployed were more likely to be reincarcerated after release.
Housing and Reentry
|
In an effort to understand the dimensions of the housing challenge and how it relates to the reentry process, the Returning Home study has examined the housing arrangements of recently released prisoners, as well as the relationship between these arrangements and the successes and challenges of the reentry process. In addition, the Urban Institute has researched housing programs for returning prisoners and the ways in which housing and criminal justice agencies can effectively work together to address the housing needs of this population.
Recent Findings from the Urban Institute on Housing and Reentry
-
The majority of prisoners believe that having a stable place to live is important to successful reentry. Those with no housing arrangements believe that they will need help finding a place to live after release. In their prerelease interview, three-quarters of both theIllinois and Maryland Returning Home respondents stated that having a place to live would be an important factor in staying out of prison. Of all Returning Home respondents who did not have housing arrangements lined up in prison, over 70 percent reported that they would need some helpor a lot of help finding a place to live (see supporting text 1, 2, 3, 4).
-
The majority of returning prisoners live with family members and/or intimate partners upon release. Three months after release, 88 percent of the Returning Home respondents in Illinois and nearly 60 percent of those in Maryland were living with a family member and/or intimate partner. Between 63 and 78 percent of respondents in Ohio and Texas anticipated living with a family member upon release.
-
Many former prisoners return home to living arrangements that are only temporary. Overall, one-third of Illinois Returning Home respondents returned home to temporary living arrangements. About one in five reported living at more than one address after being in the community for one to three months, and by six to eight months after release, 31 percent had lived at more than one address. Furthermore, more than half of Illinois respondents believed they would not be staying in their current neighborhood for long. Maryland Returning Home respondents reported similar expectations of relocating six months after release, with over half expecting to leave their current location within weeks or months.
-
Housing options for returning prisoners who do not stay with family members or friends are extremely limited. Potential housing options for former prisoners include community-based correctional housing facilities; transitional housing; federally subsidized and administered housing; homeless assistance supportive housing, service-enhanced housing, and special needs housing supported through HUD; and the private market. However, most of these options are extremely limited and often unavailable to formerly incarcerated people. A Rhode Island focus group of service providers and former prisoners overwhelmingly agreed that the shortage of affordable and available housing is an enormous problem for returning prisoners.
-
Practitioners and researchers agree that there are few evidence-based reentry housing programs that target returning prisoners with mental illness. Thousands of persons with mental illness exit prisons and jails each year, and research has found that adequate housing for this population can enhance their ability to become self-sufficient and avoid future justice system contact. However, few programs provide housing for releasees with mental health problems, and there is no body of compelling evidence regarding the most effective components of such housing programs.
Communities and Reentry
|
The Urban Institute has mapped concentrations of prisoner reentry in several states and communities across the country. As a provider of research and technical assistance to the National Governors Association Reentry Policy Academy as well as through the Returning Home study, the Urban Institute has mapped the reentry to communities in Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Idaho, Georgia, Virginia,Maryland, Illinois, Ohio, and Texas. The Urban Institute also established the Reentry Mapping Network, a partnership among 12 community-based organizations to create community change through the mapping and analysis of neighborhood-level data related to reentry and community well-being.
To examine both the impact of reentry on communities and the role of communities in a prisoner's reintegration process, the Returning Home study involves interviews with returning prisoners, focus groups with members of communities that are home to large concentrations of returning prisoners, and interviews with stakeholders involved in reentry activities at the community and city levels. The Urban Institute has also convened a Reentry Roundtable exploring the role of community institutions, such as faith-based organizations and local businesses, in prisoner reentry.
Recent Findings from the Urban Institute on Communities and Reentry
- A relatively large number of prisoners return to a small number of cities in each state. For example, Chicago and Baltimore received more than half of prisoners returning to Illinois and Maryland, respectively, in 2001. Houston received a quarter of all prisoners returning to Texas. In 2002, 2 of New Jersey's 21 counties accounted for nearly a third of returning prisoners. In 2002, more than one-third (37 percent) of adult prisoners returned to 2 of Massachusetts's 14 counties. Five of Idaho's 44 counties accounted for 73 percent of returning prisoners.
- Returning prisoners are often clustered in a few neighborhoods within those cities. In 2001, 8 percent of Chicago communities (6 of 77) accounted for 34 percent of all prisoners returning to Chicago. Thirty-six percent of respondents in the Maryland Returning Home study returned to 11 percent of Baltimore communities (6 of 55). In 2002, almost half of adult prisoners returning to Suffolk County, Massachusetts, returned to just 10 percent of Boston's 630 block groups. InVirginia, about half of all prisoners returning to Richmond in 2002 returned to 15 percent of the city's 163 block groups. In 2003, 7 percent of the Zip Codes (8 of 115) in Wayne County, Michigan, all of which are located in the city of Detroit, accounted for 41 percent of all prisoners released to parole in Michigan.
- High levels of social and economic disadvantage often characterize the communities to which prisoners return. The Chicago, Baltimore, Cleveland, and Houston communities that are home to the greatest concentrations of released prisoners have above-average rates of unemployment, female-headed households, and families living below the federal poverty level. InVirginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, the cities to which the greatest percent of prisoners return have poverty rates more than twice that of the state as a whole and are characterized by higher than average levels of unemployment and female-headed households.
- Prisoners do not necessarily return to the communities from which they came. About half ofReturning Home respondents who returned to Chicago and Baltimore did not return to the neighborhood in which they lived prior to incarceration. These respondents reported that the principal reasons for relocation were either to avoid problems in their old neighborhood or because their families had moved.
- Former prisoners who relocate after they are released tend to move to neighborhoods similar to the ones they left. Illinois Returning Home findings show that prisoners who move at least once in the two years after their release move to neighborhoods with similar socioeconomic characteristics as the ones they left.
- Prisoners returning to neighborhoods perceived to be unsafe and lacking in social capital are at greater risk of recidivism. Illinois Returning Home respondents who viewed their communities as safe and good places to live were much less likely to return to prison and more likely to be employed than those who reported their communities were unsafe or characterized by low social capital. In addition, those who felt that drug selling was a problem in their neighborhood were more likely to have engaged in substance use after release than those living in neighborhoods where drug selling was not perceived to be a problem.
Public Safety and Reentry
|
In 2004, the Urban Institute convened a Reentry Roundtable to explore the links between prisoner reentry and community policing in the context of enhancing public safety. As part of that project, researchers conducted a scan of police reentry partnerships to identify innovative reentry strategies underway across the country. The Returning Home study also examines the relationship between recidivism and other factors, such as criminal and employment histories, substance use, and family relationships. In addition, researchers at the Urban Institute edited a collected volume on the topic that looks broadly at public safety and other dimensions of prisoner reentry.
Recent Findings from the Urban Institute on Public Safety and Reentry
- Most returning prisoners have extensive criminal histories. Most Returning Home respondents (between 80 and 87 percent) had at least one prior conviction, and at least two-thirds had previously served time in prison (see supporting text 1, 2, 3, 4). In Massachusetts, all but 1 percent of prisoners released from the Department of Correction in 2002 had been previously incarcerated in a Massachusetts state or county facility. Between 1996 and 2003, almost 80 percent of the individuals who were admitted and released to the Philadelphia Prison System had been previously incarcerated there.
- A substantial number of released prisoners are reconvicted or rearrested for new crimes, many within the first year after release. Illinois Returning Home findings show that one-fifth (22 percent) of released prisoners were reconvicted for a new crime within 11 months of release, and nearly one-third (31 percent) were returned to prison on a new sentence or parole revocation within 13 months of release. Maryland Returning Home findings show that within 6 months of release, roughly one-third (32 percent) had been rearrested for at least one new crime, 10 percent had been reconvicted for a new crime, and 16 percent had been reconfined to prison or jail for a new crime conviction or technical violation.
- Those with substance use histories and who engage in substance use after release are at a high risk to recidivate. Returning Home respondents who were rearrested after release had more extensive criminal and substance use histories and were more likely to have used drugs before prison as well as after release (see supporting text 1, 2).
- High crime areas are not always the same areas as those to which the highest numbers of prisoners are returning. Many neighborhoods that receive high concentrations of returning prisoners have more moderate crime rates than the regional average. In Baltimore, for example, three of the six communities that received the highest number of returning prisoners in 2001 had Part I crime rates lower than the citywide average. In Cleveland, three of the five communities that received the highest number of returning prisoners in 2001 had Part I crime rates lower than the citywide average. Most of the areas in Virginia to which the largest numbers of prisoners return experience over a third fewer crimes per 1,000 residents than the areas with the highest concentrations of crime. Still, some communities with high rates of returning prisoners also have high crime rates. In Chicago, all but one of the six neighborhoods that receive the highest concentrations of returning prisoners have crime rates higher than the citywide average.
Strategic Partnerships and Collaboration
|
The Urban Institute has partnered with municipalities, state and federal agencies, community-based organizations, and other groups to work toward developing innovative strategies to address the challenges of prisoner reentry. The Urban Institute's chief role in these endeavors is to develop an empirical base from which to frame the problem-solving efforts of these strategic partnerships. This section briefly highlights the key partnerships and collaborative efforts in which the Urban Institute has been engaged.
Launched with the support of the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the Reentry Mapping Network (RMN) is a partnership among community-based organizations and the Urban Institute, designed to create community change through the mapping and analysis of neighborhood-level data related to reentry and community well-being. Following the successful model of the National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership, RMN partners use mapping to pinpoint neighborhoods that experience high concentrations of returning prisoners and to examine community capacity to address the challenges that prisoner reentry presents. These findings are used to inform and develop targeted responses to address reentry-related problems. They help corrections officials, community organizations, and service providers develop a better understanding of the dynamics and correlates of prisoner reentry at the local level; engage local stakeholders and practitioners in developing strategies to address reentry-related challenges; and facilitate greater coordination and collaboration among state and local agencies and organizations around this work.
National Governors Association Reentry Policy Academy
The National Governors Association launched the Prisoner Reentry State Policy Academy in the summer of 2003. The goal of the Policy Academy is to help state governors and other state policymakers develop and implement prisoner reentry strategies to reduce costly recidivism rates. The Urban Institute provides research and technical assistance to inform the Academy's efforts and activities in the seven participating states: Rhode Island, Georgia, Idaho, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, and Virginia. In each of these states, Urban Institute researchers documented incarceration and release trends, characteristics of returning prisoners, release and supervision policies and practices, and the geographic distribution of released prisoners. These reports are presented in state portraits on reentry for each of the seven states and are available online at the Justice Policy Center (http://jpc.urban.org) and the National Governors Association (http://www.nga.org/center/reentry).
Council of State Governments Re-Entry Policy Council
The Urban Institute is one of 10 partners of the Re-Entry Policy Council (RPC), established in 2001 by the Council of State Governments (CSG) to assist state government officials with the growing number of people leaving prison and jail and returning to the community. The RPC is made up of key leaders and experts at the local, state, and national level, including criminal justice officials and practitioners; state legislators; workforce development, housing, health, mental health, and substance abuse officials; and service providers. The Report of the Re-Entry Policy Council, authored by CSG and the 10 project partners, provides recommendations for the safe and successful return of prisoners to the community, reflecting the common ground the Policy Council reached during a series of meetings. More information on the Reentry Policy Council and access to the full report is available at http://www.reentrypolicy.org.
New Jersey Reentry Roundtable
The New Jersey Institute for Social Justice and the New Jersey Public Policy Research Institute partnered with the Urban Institute to convene a Reentry Roundtable in October 2003. The Roundtable, followed by a series of topic-based meetings, examined the phenomenon of prisoner reentry in New Jersey and resulted in a strategic set of recommendations. The full report of the New Jersey Reentry Roundtable is available at http://www.njisj.org/reports/cominghome_report.html.
Philadelphia Reentry Roundtable
To compliment their analysis of the Philadelphia Prison System population, the Urban Institute helped to develop a community-level roundtable on reentry. Using the same model developed by the Urban Institute at the national level, the Philadelphia Roundtable sought to gather policymakers, researchers, service providers, community members, and other key stakeholders to assess and develop a strategic response to the challenge of prisoner reentry in one Philadelphia neighborhood, Frankford. Unlike other Reentry Roundtables that sought broad policy objectives, the Frankford-Philadelphia Roundtable was intended to facilitate the development of interventions that resolve practical and logistical problems within a targeted community.
Winston-Salem State University Center for Community Safety
The Urban Institute has partnered with the Center for Community Safety to provide strategic assistance in addressing the reentry challenges in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. The Urban Institute first collaborated with the Center for Community Safety on three efforts to gain an understanding of the reentry issues in the Winston-Salem community: focus groups with former prisoners, asset maps of resources in the community, and a meeting of community members on the topic of prisoner reentry. The Center for Community Safety and the Urban Institute are currently working together on reentry efforts in federal Weed and Seed sites, and the Center has become a recent partner in the Urban Institute's Reentry Mapping Network. More information on the Center for Community Safety is available at http://www.wssu.edu/WSSU/About/Partnerships/Center+for+Community+Safety.
The Reentry Roundtable series is an ongoing forum that brings together accomplished academics, experienced practitioners, community leaders, policymakers, advocates, and former prisoners to push the envelope of research and practice. Since its inception in 2000, the Urban Institute has convened eight meetings of the Roundtable. To date, topics have covered prisoner reentry as it relates to employment, public health, youth development, public safety, housing and homelessness, and institutions of civil society, such as businesses and the faith community. The goal of the Roundtable series is to sharpen the nation's thinking on the issues of prisoner reintegration and to foster policy innovations that will improve outcomes for individuals, families, and communities. More information is available on the Justice Policy Center's Prisoner Reentry web site at http://www.urban.org/Pressroom/prisonerreentry.cfm.
|
|
|
|
|
