Reentry Housing
Systems, Programs, and Policy
North Carolina DOC
May 2007
Ryan Moser
Corporation for Supportive Housing
50 Broadway, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
212-986-2966x248
Reentry in Perspective

Approx. 2.1 million individuals are incarcerated in total in the
U.S.
– 1.3 million in state and federal prisons
– Another 750,000 are incarcerated or detained each day in local
and county jails.



Approximately 670,000 individuals are released from State
and Federal prisons each year; that is about 1,840 releases
every day.
This does not include jails, roughly four times as many
people are released from jails daily.
Nationally, about 54% of homeless persons in shelter report
previous incarceration
– 49% report previous time in jail
– 18% report previous time in prison
Incarceration Rates in CSH States
CSH State Populations
Rate of
Incarceration
(per 1000)
Convicted in
Custody
Held in Jail
Released in
2004
Texas
976
171,338
66,534
65,800
California
682
166,532
82,138
117,762
Michigan
663
49,014
18,118
13,723
Maryland
636
23,276
12,386
10,531
Ohio
559
44,976
19,853
28,170
Connecticut
544
19,744
No Jail
6,707
New Jersey
532
28,124
17,621
14,418
Illinois
507
44,669
20,066
38,646
New York
482
62,963
29,535
26,043
North Carolina
620
53,854
17,171
9,315
Rhode Island
313
3,639
No Jail
828
Minnesota
300
9,187
7,023
5,849
Total Sentenced
738
1,512,823
747,529
672,202
*Over 50% of the correctional population in New York is released into the greater New York City area.
*In 2006, 103,813 individuals were admitted to NYC DOC facilities with an average daily population of 13,497.
Service Needs of Incarcerated
Populations

Homelessness
– 10% are Homeless upon entry.

Substance Use
– 83% of State and Federal prisoners had histories of
drug use and that 57% of them were using in the last
month before their offense.

Mental Illness
–
–
–
–
22% MI (NAEH, CSG)
16% are MI per DOJ (1999)
6% male SPMI, 12% SPMI Female (CCJ)
½ - ¾ of all Inmates Report MI Symptoms
Service Needs of Incarcerated
Populations, Continued

Educational attainment
– 46% of jail inmates report not having completed high school
– 13.1% completed only 8th grade or less

Foster care involvement
– 11.5% of jail inmates had lived in a foster home, agency, or
institution

Familial status/factors
– About 70% of women in local jails have young children
– 46.3% of jail inmates had a family member incarcerated
– 10.9% of jail inmates report being physically or sexually abused
prior to age of 18; 20.2% for female inmates
– 31% of inmates grew up with parental drug or alcohol use
What are the Barriers at Release?










No identification, SSI, birth certificate
No disability determination
Definitions of homelessness can exclude people coming from
correctional settings
No access to health or mental health services (excepting
emergency care)
Parole or Probation regulations- high risk of technical violations
Lack of affordable housing resources and access issues
Limited income
Legal and illegal discrimination (criminal record, mental illness,
substance use, homelessness, poverty, race)
Post traumatic stress disorder, difficulty reintegrating
Family reunification issues, particularly for women
Variation:
Setting and Individual
Psychological Environment
Threat of Danger
Hyper-Vigilant
Trust as Liability
Physical
Environment
Jail
Urban
Rural
Social Environment
Housing
General Population
Protective Custody
Administrative Segregation
Special Housing Units
Mental Health Wards
DOC’s rules and regulations
Inmate Code
Racial/Ethnic associations
Urban/Rural differences
Gangs/Organizations
SPMI
Character
Disorder
Substance
Use
Prison
Maximum
Medium
Minimum
Trauma
History
Gender
Learning
Disability
The Intersection of Mental Health and
Corrections
Mental Health and Correctional Trends Since 1970
1,600,000
1,400,000
Number in Institution
1,200,000
Persons Receiving Treatment in the State
Hospitals
1,000,000
Persons Receiving Treatment in the Private
Hospitals
Persons Receiving Psych Care in Gen
Hosp
800,000
Persons in Custody in Jail
600,000
Persons in Custody in Prison
400,000
200,000
0
1970
1976
1980
1986
1990
Year
1998
2000
2004
Breaking Down the Reentry
Population to Target Effectively
Low Need
Individuals who are able-bodied and employable, who face an
income/affordability gap; also may need short-term assistance with
community reintegration
Moderate Need
Individuals with limited employment history and educational
achievement, and who may have substance abuse, health or
mental health challenges
Frequent cyclers
often fall in
this category
High Need
Individuals with disabilities such as serious
mental illness and chronic health and substance
abuse issues who will need longer-term services
Potential Residential
Outplacements Post-Incarceration
Permanent Housing
Market
Affordable
Public Housing/Rental Assistance
Service Enriched
Permanent Supportive
Transitional
Housing
Jail
Homelessness
Treatment
Street
Bridge Rental
Assistance
Unsuitable
Housing
¾, ½ Housing
Shelter
Transitional
Program
Emergency
Setting
Emergency
Housing
Safe Haven
The Cost of the Status Quo




Culhane, Metraux and Hadley
(2003) documented that supportive
housing tenants each used an
average of $40,000 per year in
public emergency systems
Individuals cycle between jails,
shelters, emergency rooms, and
services at high costs (Gladwell’s
“Million Dollar Murray,” 2006)
In 1982, national spending on law
enforcement was less than $36
billion. This increased 417%
($185.5 billion) by 2003.
This would support 10.3 million
units of supportive housing
annually.
Reinvestment Client
Profile: Incarcerated
with SPMI
3758 days of hospital
over 21 years @
$400/day
= $1,503,200
399 days of jail time over
6 years @ $70 a day
= $27,930
$1,531,130 = Total Cost
$72,910 = Annual Cost
*Does not include private hospital,
treatment, court or arrest costs.
The Good News: There are Alternatives
Aligning Systems
through
Supportive Housing
Criminal
Justice
Fractured Systems
Housing
Aligning Resources to Create
Reentry Supportive Housing

Focus on people who are inappropriately or overly
incarcerated or institutionalized:
–
–
–
–




(Homeless) parolees with high risk of violation
Frequent flyers
Street homeless individuals with active substance use
Mentally ill individuals that could benefit from an alternative to
incarceration
Determine cost associated with preventable prison, jail, and
other systems use
Structure housing and services initiative with projected
recidivism reduction target
Obtain private funding to “prime the pump” and achieve
initial savings
Invest savings into housing (i.e. operating and services)
Aligning Multiple Systems for
Better Results
Criminal
Justice
Housing
HUD
Shelter +
Care
Public
Housing
Authorities
Section 8
NYS DOC
Social
Services
NYC DOC
Shelter Plus
Care
PROBATION
NY/NY III
Service
Contracting
through
Criminal
Justice/Human
Service
Agencies
PAROLE
Bridge
Rental Support
Client
Identification
Transitional
Case
Management
Health and
Behavioral
Health
Mental Health
Support
Services
Housing
Support
ACT Teams
Supportive Housing
Employment
Employment
Initiatives both
Federal
and Local
Cost Savings Potential for Parole
Violators in NY



On average, parole violations result in 120 day
prison stays (0.45 years)
Preventing violations for 200-250 individuals
would reduce state prison bed needs by 90-100
beds
Closing prison facility of 100 beds would save
$2.5-6 million that could be reinvested into a
capitalized operating and service fund for
supportive housing
How is Supportive Housing
Financed and Targeted?

Funded through blend of sources:
– Capital - Low to no-debt permanent financing & tax credit
equity
– Operating – Rental assistance or operating contracts
(Section 8, Shelter Plus Care, etc.)
– Services – Contract or fee-for-service revenues from various
human service agencies/programs


Operating and services funding drives eligibility and
targeting of units (e.g. mental health, HIV/AIDS, etc.)
There are no dedicated operating and services funding
streams for parolees, and many are ineligible for existing
streams/housing
Integrating Corrections with
Supportive Housing




Provide bridge rental assistance for returning inmates
during “re-entry” phase (e.g. parole term)
Fund prison- or jail-based “in-reach” services to assess,
recruit and facilitate referrals to supportive housing
Enhance case management services in existing units of
supportive housing
Capitalize operating and social services reserves to “buy”
set-aside units for re-entering individuals in new mixed
tenancy supportive housing developments
The Fortune Society’s Fortune
Academy (The “Castle”)
Emergency and Transitional (Phase-Permanent)



Targeted tenancy: Formerly
incarcerated men and women,
some people living with
HIV/AIDS
Model: Emergency housing (18
beds) and Phase-Permanent
Supportive Housing (41 units)
Funding:
– Capital: HHAP grant, LIHTC,
Historic Tax Credits
– Operating: HOPWA, HUD SHP
– Services: HOPWA, existing
agency services
Project Renewal, Parole Support
and Treatment Program
Transitional with Mental Health and Chemical Dependency Focus



Targeted tenancy: 50 individuals
with mental illness and
substance use issues released
from state prison with a
minimum of a one-year parole
obligation
Model: Transitional (2-year),
scattered-site, 50 units
Funding:
– Capital: None
– Operating and Services:
• OMH Supported Housing
• DOJ Byrne discretionary grant
via NYS Parole
The Doe Fund,
Ready Willing and Able
Transitional with Employment Focus



Targeted tenancy: Formerly
incarcerated men in recovery,
committed to sobriety, self-help
through employment and
transition to independent living
Model: Transitional (912months), 470+ units
Funding:
– Capital: HPD
– Operating and Services:
• DHS
• HUD McKinney-Vento
Supportive Housing Program
• Earned Revenues
• Private Sources
• DOJ Byrne Discretionary Grant
St. Leonard’s House’s
St. Andrew’s Court
Emergency and Permanent



Targeted tenancy: Homeless
men with histories of
incarceration, leaving
emergency housing
Model: Supportive housing,
42 studio apartments
Funding:
– Capital: Illinois Housing
Development Authority
grant, 9% tax credits, FHLB
AHP
– Operating/Social Services:
HUD McKinney Shelter Plus
Care, IL DOC contract
The Bridge, Inc.’s Iyana House
Permanent with Mental Health Focus



Targeted tenancy: Women
released from state prison on
parole with serious mental
illness and histories of
homelessness
Model: Permanent supportive
housing with intensive supports;
18 studios
Funding:
– Capital: NYS Office of Mental
Health bond financing
– Operating: HUD McKinneyVento Supportive Housing
Program
– Services: NYS Office of Mental
Health net deficit financing
Heritage Health and Housing’s MIX
Program
Emergency and Permanent with Mental Health Focus



Targeted tenancy:
Parolees with SPMI
Model: Transitional “Safe
Space” (6 beds) and
Scattered-site Supportive
Housing (18 apartments)
Funding:
– Capital: None
– Operating/Services: HUD
SHP (Transitional) and
NYS OMH Supported
Housing (Scattered-site)
Challenges for Reentry Housing Service
Providers and Those Who Work with Them
•Criminal-justice-involved Individuals (CJI) can be
difficult to engage during incarceration and difficult to
find after release.
•Prepare providers for intensive recruitment including
consistent contact through placement and jail or prison
in-reach.
•CJI are at a high risk of recidivism during from
identification through the first 90 days of placement.
•Encourage providers to dedicate staff and plan for high
levels of client support during this critical time period.
•CJI may be distrusting of providers and try to
manipulate their services.
•Help providers develop cultural competence and
effective engagement techniques for this population.
•CJI may have undiagnosed or untreated mental and
other health needs.
•Encourage providers to connect with support services
and develop staff for MH assessment.
•CJI may have complicated systems usage.
•Ensure providers are well versed in navigating public
benefits and health systems.
•CJI face specific additional employment barriers.
•Build provider knowledge about reentry employment
strategies.
•CJI may face ongoing criminal justice compliance
requirements.
•Help providers build knowledge about criminal justice
procedures and policies.
•CJI may be ineligible for particular types of
subsidies and funding or may face other restrictions
that interfere with successful placement.
•Help providers build capacity with community outreach
and NIMBY concerns as well as facility with challenging
perceived barriers where possible and appropriate.
The NYC Frequent
Users of Jail & Shelter
Initiative Overview
Initiative Background


The Frequent User Initiative emerged through ongoing
DOC/DHS collaboration to improve discharge planning
services in City jails
Decision to focus on shared population that represents
high needs and high cost:
– People who are chronically homeless and who cycle
frequently and regularly between jails and shelters

Demonstration program intended to:
– Develop and refine an intervention in practice
– Determine whether supportive housing with enhanced
services can break the cycle of homelessness and
incarceration among frequent users
– Provide basis for larger-scale replication
Prior Research on High / Frequent Users





Hopper et. al. (1997) found that long-term homeless persons with
severe mental illness experienced an “institutional circuit” that includes
shelters, jails, ED, detox
Kuhn and Culhane (1998) found that approximately 10% of shelter
users in New York City were ‘episodic’ users of shelter
– These individuals are “more likely to be non-White, and to have
mental health, substance abuse, and medical problems.”
– “Much of the periods they spend outside of shelter may be spent in
hospitals, jails, detoxification centers, or on the street. Indeed, one
could argue that part of the very reason that these individuals do not
become chronically homeless or long-term shelter residents is their
frequent exit to inpatient treatment programs, detoxification services,
or to penal institutions. Nevertheless, these clients often find their
way back to shelters.”
Culhane et. al. (2002) found that homeless persons with serious mental
illness cost $41,000 annually through usage of emergency public
systems
Ford (2005) identified 61 frequent flyers of a FL county jail, of whom
82% were homeless,100% had substance abuse history, and 51% had
a mental health history
Gladwell (2006) described individual who cost roughly $1 million in
public service utilization
New York City’s Frequent Users of Jail and
Shelter
Target population
 Approximately 850 individuals at any point in time that have at
least 4 jail stays and 4 shelter stays over the past five years
 These individuals cycle constantly and persistently with relatively
short stays per episode
 The following figure illustrates an extreme case of jail-shelter
cycling over a two-year period:
Frequent User Case Study
21-Feb-01
9-Mar-01
22-Mar-01
14-Jun-01
18-Jun-01
DHS
DOC
DHS
DOC
DHS
31-Dec-02
3-Feb-01
DOC
2-Aug-02
26-Jan-01
Neither System
DHS
8-Apr-02
15-Jan-01
DOC
DOC
5-Apr-02
1-Jan-01
DHS
DOC
9-Mar-02
DHS
8-Mar-02
DOC
21-Dec-01
DHS
12-Nov-01
DOC
16-Oct-01
DHS
7-Sep-01
DOC
4-Aug-01
DHS
23-Jul-01
DOC
17-Jul-01
DHS
Characteristics & Service Needs of
Jail-Shelter Frequent Users

Believed to have high rates of co-occurring and complex issues:
– Alcohol and substance use (approx. 80%); earlier data matches found high
utilization of crisis drug treatment services (i.e. Medicaid-reimbursed detox)
– Mental health issues (est. 30-50%), including serious mental illnesses (est.
25-40%)



Criminal offenses largely consists of low-level misdemeanors (i.e.
“quality of life” crimes), with minor felony histories
Histories of transience and high level of involvement in multiple
systems and services
Providers report:
– Lack of trust in service providers and inconsistent benefits enrollment
– Comparatively high occurrence of behavioral issues and lower degrees of
independent living skills
– Individuals are difficult to keep in one place and need nearly constant handholding as they navigate systems involvement
Research Suggests that Housing
with Services Can Break the Cycle


Intensive service models such as Assertive Community
Treatment or Intensive Case Management reduce recidivism to
local corrections (Lurigio et. al., 2000; Ventura et. al, 1998;
Hartwell and Orr, 1999; Lamberti et. al, 2004.)
Recidivism and homelessness among persons with serious
mental illness is higher among individuals with social
disadvantage (poverty, lack of education, etc.)
– Suggests that economic supports such as housing and employment
services are as important as mental health treatment and case
management services (Draine et. al., 2002)

Supportive housing significantly reduces involvement in jails
and prisons (along with shelter, hospitals, etc.) among homeless
persons with serious mental illness (Culhane et. al., 2002)
Resources and Models





50 NYCHA Section 8
vouchers (Project Based)
38 NY/NY I and II supportive
housing unit set-asides
12 DHS SRO Support
Subsidy-funded supportive
housing unit set-asides
Supportive services funded
through other existing sources
(e.g. COBRA, HUD)
$650,000 from JEHT
Foundation for service
enhancements
A. 50 Single-site (Congregate)
supportive housing with frontloaded intensive services
B. 50 Scattered-site supportive
housing with front-loaded
intensive services
--------------------------------------------Total: 100 units of supportive
housing with FUSE
Frequent User Services
Enhancements (FUSE)




Supplemental funding to enhance services attached to
unit during first year of tenancy in housing
Uses include client engagement/recruitment, intensive
case management, clinical supervision, and additional
specialty services
Can be used to lower client-to-case manager ratios, or
fund dedicated FUSE service staff to provide intensive
support during first year of housing
Grant from the JEHT Foundation provided FUSE in the
amount of $6,500 per unit
Recruitment/
Placement
Stabilization
Declining
Intensity
Continuing Tenancy
$13,500
$13,500
$13,500
$13,500
$13,500
$13,500
25
26
27
28
29
30
$13,500
$13,500
24
$13,500
21
$13,500
$13,500
20
23
$13,500
19
$13,500
$13,500
18
22
$13,500
17
$13,500
13
$13,500
$13,500
12
16
$13,500
11
$13,500
$13,500
10
15
$13,500
9
$13,500
$6,500
$13,500
8
14
$6,500
$13,500
7
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$6,500
$6,500
$6,500
$6,500
$13,500
$6,500
$2
0,
00
0
6
$1
5,
00
0
$13,500
$6,000
$4,500
$3,000
$1
0,
00
0
5
4
3
2
$1,000
$0
1
$0
$5
,0
00
$2
5,
00
0
Sample FUSE Funding Phase
Chart (12 unit program)
FUSE
Existing (Baseline) Services
In-reach, recruitment, and engagement


Participating providers are responsible for conducting in-reach and
recruitment of frequent user clients
Client recruitment can take place in one of two ways:
– Shelter match-up: Providers conduct in-reach into shelters where
frequent users are found in large numbers, DHS facilitates
coordination with shelter operator/staff
– Jail-based recruitment: Providers participate in routine in-reach
sessions in jail facilities, must be able to attend to temporary housing
needs if housing is not ready upon release



Providers interview clients in jail, shelter, or on-site
Providers conduct or arrange for psychosocial assessment and
completion of housing applications
Providers assist clients with benefits connections and resolution of
eligibility restrictions
Model A: Single-Site with FrontLoaded Intensive Services


Congregate style housing situations range from single room occupancy
and shared apartments to private studios
Providers use service enhancements to:
– Identify clients through jail and shelter in-reach, or from their own programs
– Provide pre-placement stabilization and assistance in completing housing
packets
– Give intensive support and case management during transition and during
the first year following placement after service intensity is reduced to a more
typical level of services



On-site services include mental health services, independent living
skills, and intensive case management
Recreation and support groups provide additional support to
supplement staffing and build community
Existing units allow for expedited placement after initial client interviews
are complete
Model B: Scattered-Site with FrontLoaded Intensive Services


Scatter-site housing situations are market-rate apartments masterleased by the provider; one model uses single rooms in a shared home
Providers use service enhancements to:
– Identify clients through jail and shelter in-reach, or from their own programs
– Assist with Section 8 applications and provide intensive case management
services before placement
– Give intensive support during transitions and throughout a critical time
period following placement
– Provide additional support through peer mentors


Case management services are provided through other agency
programs, generally in close proximity to the housing units
Service enhancement helps reduce caseloads for more intensive case
management before and after placement
Initiative Partners
Administration and Program

NYC DOC and DHS –
oversight, identification of target
population, troubleshooting

CSH – administer service
enhancement funding, assist
with recruitment, oversight,
training and TA

John Jay College – process and
outcomes evaluation

Nine non-profit service
providers – provide direct
housing assistance to 100
individuals
Funding and Policy

NYC Housing Authority –
provide vouchers and
manage approval process

NYC DOHMH and DHS –
funds supportive services
and operating funding for
single-site units

JEHT Foundation – funding
service enhancements

NYC HRA – public
assistance and approvals for
NY/NY I and II units

NYC OMB – oversight,
policy
Monitoring, Oversight, and Evaluation


Monthly meetings with nine providers, DOC, DHS, CSH,
and John Jay
Tracking provider progress in achieving program
benchmarks
– Recruitment
– Placements
– Service contacts


Participation in evaluation is required of participating
providers
Formal program evaluation measures:
– Housing stability/retention
– Reduction in jail and shelter use in days
– Time between returns to jail/shelter
Training and technical assistance


DOC, DHS, and CSH also provide technical
assistance and troubleshooting around client
recruitment, engagement, services delivery,
administration of housing, etc.
CSH is also organizing and funding trainings for
providers around:
– Understanding needs of forensic individuals
(SPECTRM)
– Successfully Housing People with Substance Use
Issues
Early Lessons

“In-reach” and upfront engagement and of
individuals prior to placement is key to successful
placement
– Shift in provider practice required from passive
tenant selection to active recruitment

Clients’ involvement in multiple systems
increases need for cooperation of multiple
agencies, systems, and stakeholders to achieve
success and reduce recidivism
– “Systems” level troubleshooting is key
Reentry Housing
Systems, Programs, and Policy
North Carolina DOC
May 2007
Ryan Moser
Corporation for Supportive Housing
50 Broadway, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
212-986-2966x248