Supportive Housing
A Tool for Re-entry Planning
& A Public Safety Intervention
Conference on Ending Homelessness
March 16, 2010
Outline

Overview of CSH and Supportive Housing

Intersection between Incarceration, Homelessness

Returning Home Initiative

On the Ground Examples
Corporation for Supportive Housing
Our Mission
CSH helps communities create
permanent housing with services to
prevent and end homelessness.
CSH Products and Services
 Program and system design
 Program implementation
 Project specific technical assistance
 Financial products, including lending and grant making
 Policy design, reform and systems change
 Research / evaluation design and guidance
 Training and capacity building
 Resource tools
Accomplishments
Since inception in 1991, CSH has:




Raised over $221 million from foundations, corporations, and
government contracts to expand supportive housing nationwide.
Leveraged $6.15 billion in federal, state, and local public and private
sector financing.
Committed over $200 million in targeted technical assistance, loans
and grants to support the creation of 35,000 units of affordable and
supportive housing.
The units in operation have ended homelessness for at least 26,000
adults and children.
What Is Supportive
Housing?
Supportive Housing is…
A cost-effective combination of
permanent, affordable housing with
services that help people live more stable,
productive lives.
Supportive Housing Is…
Permanent affordable housing with combined supports
for independent living
 Housing is permanent, meaning each tenant may stay as long as he or
she pays rent and complies with terms of lease or rental agreement
 Housing is affordable, meaning each tenant pays no more than 30% to
50% of household income
 Tenants have access to an array of support services that are intended
to support housing stability, recovery and resiliency, but participation in
support services is not a requirement for tenancy
 May be site-based or scattered site
 Options available for adults who are single, those who choose to share
housing, and families with children
Supportive Housing is for People Who:




Without housing, cannot access and make effective use
of treatment and supportive services - And without
supportive services, cannot get and keep housing –
even if they can afford it
Are being discharged or transitioning from institutions:
including jails, prisons, hospitals, treatment programs,
and foster care without a home to return to
Cycle through institutional and emergency systems and
are at risk of long-term homelessness
Have not achieved success with transitional programs
The Intersection Between
Homelessness &
Incarceration
Lavelle’s Story
Lavelle has been arrested more than
150 times, largely for quality of Life
crimes He suffers from schizophrenia,
depression, and drug addiction,
spending most of the lazy 12 years on
the streets, in shelter, or in jail.
The Link Between Homelessness & Incarceration
Of people exiting incarceration….




Three out of four have a substance abuse problem
More than 10 percent of those coming in and out of jail and
prison are homeless in the months prior to incarceration.
An estimated 42% of inmates in state prisons and 49% in
local jails were found to have both mental health and
substance use issues.
More than one in three jail inmates report some physical or
mental disability.
The Link Between Homelessness & Incarceration

A study in NYC documented the interrelationships between
shelter use and re-incarceration.
– 11% entered NYC homeless shelters, of this group, 33% returned to
prison within 2 years
– Survival analysis showed ‘time since release’ and ‘residential
instability’ were the most salient risk factors for shelter use
– Shelter use increased the risk of recidivism.

A study of releasees from New York State Prison and New York
City Jails and found that those who went to shelter were 7x
more likely to violate parole as those who were discharged to
family or housing.
Homelessness and Recidivism

Metraux and Culhane (2004) documented the interrelationships
between shelter use and re-incarceration among 48,424 persons
released from NYS prisons to NYC.
– 11.4% entered NYC homeless shelters, of this group, 32.8% returned to
prison within 2 years
– Survival analysis showed ‘time since release’ and ‘residential instability’
were the most salient risk factors for shelter use
– Shelter use increased the risk of recidivism.

Meredith et. al. (2003) documented an increase in prison recidivism in
GA due to residential instability
– With each move, the likelihood of rearrest increased by 25%

Nelson, Deess and Allen (1999) studied releasees from New York
State Prison and New York City Jails and found that those who went to
shelter were 7x more likely to violate parole as those who were
discharged to family or housing.
Mapping Complex Systems Involvement
Prison
Heavy
Users of
Prison/Jail
Jail
Mental
Illness
Homeless
Parolees
Substance
Abuse
FUSE
Homelessness
The “Million Dollar Murray”
Phenomenon

Gladwell (2006) described “Million Dollar Murray” who cost
roughly $1 million in public service utilization (jails, detox,
emergency rooms)
Richard is an actual case study from Chicago, Illinois

42 years old and has a combined 21 years of homelessness

3,758 days in a mental health/hospital setting during that time

399 days in jail (This includes only 6 years of available data)
The Cost of Richard B.’s Homelessness

3758 State Hospital Days @ $400 a day

399 Jail Days $70 a day

TOTAL

Average Annual Cost for Richard
$1,503,200
$ 27,930
$1,531,130
$ 72,910
Barriers & Strategies
for Accessing
Supportive Housing
for the Target Population
Lavelle’s Story
Lavelle’s criminal history, limited
income, and medical conditions made
obtain, much less sustaining housing a
very difficult problem.
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
High Need
Individuals with disabilities such as serious mental
illness and chronic health and substance abuse
issues who will need longer-term services
The Link Between Homelessness & Incarceration
Barriers to Housing




Restrictions on Housing: Statutory, Administrative and
Otherwise
Lack of (or non-existent) linkages between jail and the
community, including housing developers and landlords
Inappropriate and/or insufficient resources and support at
release
Broader shortage of affordable housing
Strategies for Accessing Housing

Linkages from Incarceration to the Community
– Advance Discharge Planning
– Benefits and Housing Application and Enrollment
– Prison and Jail “In-reach” Collaborations
– Correctional and Community Health Linkages
Strategies for Accessing Housing

Publicly-Funded Housing
– Administered by local public housing authorities
– Section 8, public housing
– HUD/Federal criteria
– Annual administrative plans (local discretion determines much
of the access for people with criminal records)
Strategies for Accessing Housing

Private Market/Private Landlords
– The Need to Mitigate Risk (real & perceived)
– Identifying and Cultivating Network
– Connections to Community Organizations
– Rent Loss Reserve Funds
Strategies for Accessing Housing

Dedicated Housing & Supportive Housing
– Set-asides in affordable and supportive housing
– Single site buildings - Dedicated
– Scattered-site/Master Leasing
Returning Home
An initiative to integrate systems
and end the cycle of incarceration
and homelessness.
Central Premise of Returning Home
Thousands of people with chronic health conditions cycle
in and out of incarceration and homelessness, and they
are ill-served by these crisis systems at great public
expense and with limited positive human outcomes.
Placing these people in supportive housing will improve
life outcomes for the tenants, more efficiently utilize
public resources, and likely create cost avoidance in
crisis systems like corrections and shelter.
AND……….
Central Premise of Returning Home
Supportive housing plays a critical role in comprehensive
re-entry and/or diversion efforts as a proven intervention
for people being diverted from jail or exiting incarceration
with high needs and histories of homelessness.
Key Assumptions of Returning Home
Housing and supportive housing provide the stability
necessary to enable other programs and services
(employment, training, peer mentoring, etc.) to succeed.

The great majority exiting incarceration do not need supportive
housing; but those that do are often among the most likely to
recidivate, and place a disproportionate burden on corrections
systems

Re-entry Supportive Housing: Key Components
1. Data Matching and Analysis
2. Inter-agency Collaboration
3. Program Design with Broad Support & Participation
Re-entry Supportive Housing: Key Components
4. Prison “In-reach” & Community Linkages
5. Investments from Array of Agencies (with philanthropic
support)
6. Development of Network of Supportive Housing Providers
Supportive Housing Works
1.
According to a study of Denver’s Road Home Housing First effort, people
placed into supportive housing had a 76% reduction in days spent
incarcerated. Significant reductions were also reported in emergency room
visits, detox, psychiatric care, and shelter use.
2.
A study of supportive housing in the State of Maine found a 62% reduction in
incarceration for people placed into supportive housing.
3.
In Seattle, studies of supportive housing at 1811 Eastlake demonstrate:
– 52% reduction in jail bookings
– 45% reductions in days spent in jail
4.
After six months of New York City’s supportive housing reentry program:
– 89% of tenants remained stably housed.
– 100% of tenants avoided return to shelter.
– 89% of tenants avoided return to jail.
Supportive Housing Reduces
Criminal Justice Involvement

Culhane, Metraux & Hadley’s (2002) cost-benefit study of
NY/NY I supportive housing found that placement into
supportive housing found that:
– The number of persons incarcerated in state prisons
decreased by 57%, while actually rising for the control group
– The number of state prison episodes fell by 63% (from 93 to
34), while also rising for the control group
– The number of state prison days used decreased by nearly
73%, while increasing among the control group
– The number of persons incarcerated in jails decreased by
30%, with only a 5% decrease for the control group
– The number of jail days used decreased by 40%, compared
with no significant decrease for the control group
Lavelle’s Story
Lavelle found a safe permanent place
to live, linked to the supports he
needed to stabilize and get his life back
together. “I have three children and six
grandchildren. At one point I could not
even knock on my family’s door. Now
that they have opened up their door to
me, I learned how to be a grandfather.”
On-the-Ground
Examples
State of Ohio
State of California
City of New York
Re-entry Projects
State of Ohio/ODRC Pilot

ODRC-led pilot focused on placing up to 100 people
with mental illness exiting prison into supportive
housing

$3.9 Million investment over three years

Targeted prison in-reach programs

CSH coordination SH provider network

Engagement of mental health and housing agencies
State of California - PROMISE





$4 million appropriated by legislature in 2007 to support re-entry
supportive housing pilot. $10 million in Governor’s FY09 Budget.
Ongoing discussions with CDCR on program design & RFP
Focused on people exiting prison with serious mental illness and
at high risk of homelessness.
PROMISE would create linkages between CDCR and
community-based providers
PROMSIE would leverage of other county and state funding
City of New York





Frequent Users Service Enhancement (FUSE) pilot program
serving 200 “frequent users”
Rigorous data integration efforts to identify “frequent flyers”
Collaboration between homeless services, corrections, mental
health and housing authority.
Targeted in-reach and outreach to engage them and place them
in supportive housing. A network of providers created to engage
and house the frequent users.
Rigorous evaluation by Columbia University
Chicago
St. Andrew’s Court

42 units of supportive housing, 30 for homeless exoffenders with disabilities and 12 for parolees.
 Includes integrated financing from HUD McKinney
Homeless grants, Low-income Housing Tax Credits, IL
Dept. of Human Services, IL Dept. of Corrections, and
others.
 Conducts “in-reach” into correctional facilities to
provide a smooth transition into supportive housing.
 Delivers tailored, comprehensive support services to all
residents, including mental health, substance abuse,
and employment services.
New York City
The Bridge’s Iyana House





18 units of permanent supportive housing for women
released from state prison on parole with SMI and histories
of homelessness
Building and property is master-leased from a private
developer who “turn-keyed” the project
The Bridge conducts in-reach at Bedford Hills Correctional
Facility to identify and engage tenants
Intensive 24/7 services include case management, weekly
groups, peer counseling, and a “bonding period” where
clients are re-acclimatized to community
Project is funded by the New York State Office of Mental
Health, and HUD McKinney-Vento Supportive Housing
Program
Contact Info:
Kimberly Black
kimberly.black@csh.org
202-588-1114