Solutions: Equip Individuals with Personal Responsibility Tools, Inside and Outside of Prison Walls
(2) Improve the quality of in-prison programs for the more than 70,000 individuals being released each year, especially through performance measures.
(1) Mandate that TDCJ create assessment-driven, individualized re-entry plans that span intake and incarceration, and provide funding to implement these plans. In 2007, more than 73,000 individuals entered a prison, state jail, or Substance Abuse Felony Punishment facility (SAFPF) in Texas. Though almost all of these individuals will one day return to our communities, a very small portion of TDCJ’s budget is devoted to re-entry efforts. In fact, in FY 2008, approximately 3.4% of TDCJ’s total budget was directed towards re-entry efforts.[i]
Below is a chart showing direct program expenditures and administrative costs of each re-entry program funded by the State:
|
Re-Entry Initiatives
|
Appropriation
|
Salaries
|
|||
|
Direct Indirect
|
|||||
|
Academic/Vocational
Project RIO
Treatment Services
Substance Abuse
|
$ 2,332,715
$ 3,566,364
$ 15,814,445
$ 75,543,749
|
|
-
3,481,988
13,971,043
5,372,945
|
|
-
-
849,215
326,589
|
|
Total Funding
|
$ 97,257,273
|
|
22,825,976
|
1,175,804
|
|
|
|
23.47%
|
|
1.21%
|
||
Note about chart: Direct salaries are costs associated with providing programmatic services, such as Chaplains, Project RIO Assessment Counselors, Case Managers, Psychologists, and Substance Abuse Counselors. Indirect salaries include central administrative and support costs associated with managing an agency.
Additional funding is needed to ensure that re-entering individuals have the tools to be law-abiding and contributing members of society. However, it is important to note that the re-entry process will be most successful and effective if it begins long before release – during an individual’s intake at the correctional facility.
(a) Strengthen TDCJ’s current intake process. Currently, TDCJ staff use a 6-page intake questionnaire to determine, among other things, incoming individuals’ work experience, vocational skills, military experience, previous criminal activity (including sex offenses), family background (including whether any family members have been in law enforcement or incarcerated), suicide attempts, homosexual experiences, previous in-prison experiences, and substance abuse experiences.[ii]
However, to get the clearest picture of the incarcerated population and best meet the needs of communities to which they will return, other pieces of data – in addition to those collected on the intake form – should be collected, verified, and made easily available to policy-makers and the general public, including the following information:
− Whether incoming individuals’ housing statuses are ascertained (e.g., homeless, living with relatives, independently living, residing in public housing, etc.); and
− Information about who TDCJ screens (and who conducts the assessments) in order to determine the incarcerated population’s psychological issues, mental health issues, and/or substance abuse and dependency issues.
Note: Equally as important as expanding the data currently being collected by TDCJ is the sharing of the data with local re-entry providers. Presently, these providers are burdened with duplicating (and supplementing) TDCJ’s intake process by having to ask all exiting individuals about the same points of information they provided to TDCJ at intake. Collaboration among TDCJ and re-entry providers will more quickly facilitate placement and referral.
An example of an intake form that would best assist initiatives in aiding re-entering individuals is that used by the Tarrant County Reentry Initiative, which – in addition to what TDCJ inquires about (above) – also asks about information in the following categories: Academic, Vocational/Career, Interpersonal, Wellness, Mental Health, Cognitive, Character, Leisure, and Daily Living.
(b) Mandate that all TDCJ inmates will have comprehensive transition planning services and resources during incarceration. The State should ensure that assessments guide each re-entry candidate’s placement into re-entry-focused programs, as based on the individual’s educational and employment abilities, mental health diagnoses and dispositions, history of drug abuse, and family dynamic and history of domestic violence. Each inmate should participate in creating his or her own re-entry plan, which should be guided by this assessment.
For re-entry candidates with healthy family support networks, a strengths-based and family-focused perspective should be used when developing their re-entry plans. Specifically, attention should focus on assets in the areas of education, cognitive ability, social skills, employment potential, and access to community-based (including family) resources. The ultimate goal of rehabilitation should be the strengthening of each re-entry candidate’s pro-social assets (above) and family/social ties through a process that will guide the individual in becoming a positive role model. [Please see the section in Part 3 titled “Fight Drug Addiction and Address Mental Illness Head On” for more on in-prison treatment programs; see the section below titled “Create an Enhanced Employability and Employment Protection Policy” for more on in-prison employment and education programs.]
Note: The title of the TDCJ staff person(s) responsible for writing the re-entry plan with the inmate should be written into statute and include credential requirements and a mandate that these positions be permanently filled.
(2) Improve the quality of in-prison programs for the more than 70,000 individuals being released each year, especially through performance measures. It is important that intermittent quality control checks be made to evaluate programs and services within prison walls; this will prevent obvious problems with program administration from being overlooked and ultimately undermining the goals of the programs to assist re-entry candidates with re-entry needs. In addition to performance-tracking technology, the State could develop a client and staff feedback survey. Staff and client feedback is the simplest method of evaluating programmatic progress and can improve participants’ investment in the process when they know their feedback is valued.
Note: The State should offer incentives for staffers inside prison walls who provide programmatic services. It should create a student loan reimbursement program for students willing to work in prisons in the fields of education, social work, and counseling. Likewise, these students should be reimbursed in increments after periods of sustained employment while they work in the criminal justice system.
(3) Invest in additional post-release substance abuse and mental health treatment programs. Not only must prisons ramp up the availability of treatment programs within prison walls to best address the root causes of crime and re-offending, but the State must couple these in-prison programs with tailored, coordinated, and effective community-based aftercare services to best ensure program and personal success.[iii] Programs within formerly incarcerated individuals’ home communities are especially critical: A survey conducted by the Urban Institute found that formerly incarcerated individuals who reported closer relationships with family members after release were less likely to use drugs and more likely to find work.
(a) Ensure there is a continuum of care readily available for exiting individuals who will require ongoing substance abuse and/or mental health assistance. At the very least, exiting individuals should be provided with a comprehensive contact list of providers in local areas that can meet their needs.
(b) Offer incentives for participants who successfully complete a drug treatment program. Also for those who, as a condition of release, must participate in a substance abuse treatment program, the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles (BPP) should grant early termination of parole or mandatory supervision for individuals who successfully complete the program. This would motivate individuals to not only participate in but make real progress towards substance abuse treatment, in turn allowing parole officers to devote more attention and resources to parolees who pose a high risk of re-offending in the community. Furthermore, early termination has the potential to free up space in already crowded halfway houses that currently have long waiting lists.
Note: All revenue generated from participants’ program fees should be deposited into the state’s general revenue fund to be appropriated only for the administration and provision of substance abuse treatment.
(4) Create program enhancements to support the children of incarcerated parents. According to TDCJ, it already facilitates family connections through a variety of measures:
− TDCJ runs a program that allows for both contact and non-contact visitation (with children not counting towards the limit of two adult visitors per visit).
− A new telephone system authorized by the 80th Legislature was implemented, further enhancing inmate/family interaction.
− Programs are offered at some units which include family participation and target the children of the incarcerated.
− TDCJ has instituted the GO KIDS Initiative (Giving Offenders’ Kids Incentive and Direction to Succeed), which is a directory showing which units have family-friendly programs, as well as an information directory for families of inmates that provide resources in the community which may be of assistance to the family.
− TDCJ has been working with the Department of Family and Protective Services to establish a system to identify individuals who have active (or inactive) cases with Child Protective Services (CPS). This will assist the criminal justice and CPS systems as they identify individuals who have active (or inactive) cases with child protective services, and work more closely on cases that may need additional support and monitoring toward a successful outcome.
− A new visitor tracking system is being developed which would provide additional statistical information regarding visitation.
To better assist families as they strengthen themselves through positive visitations and social service support, the State should invest in the following:
■ An enhancement to visitation environments. Specifically, enhancements to visitation that nurture parent-child bonding should become standardized. “Window visits,” in which visitors are separated from prisoners by glass and converse by telephone, are not appropriate for small children. In facilities such as county jails where these visits are the norm, exceptions should be made for prisoners with children. Furthermore, in facilities where contact visits already take place, visiting rooms should be designed with children’s needs in mind, or separate accommodations should be made for prisoners with children.
■ Mentoring/tutoring programs and counseling services for children of the incarcerated. Given that children of incarcerated parents are more likely than other children to enter the criminal justice system, the State should invest in interventions to support the educational, emotional, psychological, health, and mental health needs of these children in order to improve their outcomes in life. Programs that target these children should be welcomed into the TDCJ visitation environment to facilitate therapeutic family-based support. This programming should ultimately include interventions that span visitation, as well as after-school programs that address the unique needs of these children.
Such investments by the State will pay off over the long term when re-entry candidates and their loved ones are more prepared for the re-entry transition.
Note: These services should be coordinated with services already being provided by Health and Human Services, CPS, child support programs, and additional state and community programs intended to aid families.
(5) Assist formerly incarcerated individuals as they leave incarceration, whether at full discharge of their sentence or when being released onto parole.
(a) Provide exiting individuals with reasonable records at discharge to facilitate successful re-entry. Upon each individual’s release, TDCJ should provide him or her with verification of his or her work history during incarceration, as well as certification of educational and/or treatment programs completed. Each outgoing person should also be provided a driver’s license, identification card, social security card, and birth certificate. This information will facilitate individuals’ ability to obtain employment, housing, and other benefits.
(b) Give exiting individuals the tools to be responsible during the key post-release period. According to TDCJ, individuals released from prison are provided a bus ticket to their destination. Note: More extensive travel arrangements are made for individuals with special needs requiring assistance. Also, exiting individuals are permitted to travel home with family and friends if s/he can be picked up upon release.
If an exiting individual is fully discharging his or her sentence upon release, s/he will receive $100 at the exit gate. However, if s/he is being released to parole supervision, s/he receives a $50 gate check for necessities, followed by an additional $50 upon reporting to his or her parole officer for the first time.
A bus ticket and $100 do not adequately prepare individuals to successfully find housing and food. TDCJ must be provided the necessary staff to identify and connect local services and resources so that exiting individuals can succeed in the communities where they are living or being supervised. Specifically, TDCJ should provide a county-specific information packet to exiting individuals at the time of their release, including the addresses and telephone numbers of workforce offices, viable housing options (both public and private), and contact information for support groups (like churches, peer-to-peer counseling groups, and other charitable institutions).
Ultimately, secured access to a regularly updated electronic database inside the prisons would best provide the information necessary for those planning their re-entry. This database could utilize existing services at no cost to the state - including United Way’s 211 referral service[iv]; TCJC’s own Tools for Re-Entry webpage, which links to a comprehensive, regional listing of services in housing, employment, education, basic needs, and treatment (“Adult Re-Entry Services”);[v] and Restorative Justice Community of Texas’ database of services.[vi]
(6) Establish a statewide Re-Entry/Re-Integration Policy Council outside of the purview of TDCJ. A critical re-entry barrier is the lack of coordination between the TDCJ re-entry practitioners, initiatives, and re-entry service providers. Without communication and collaboration, services fail to reach the individuals that need them most during the crucial stages of re-entry, thereby increasing the likelihood of recidivism and decreasing the likelihood of successful re-integration.[vii]
■ Objectives and Membership: A Re-Entry/Re-Integration Policy Council should be composed of members representing diverse agencies and disciplines with the stated objectives of (a) coordinating re-entry efforts and fostering interagency communication, (b) identifying other best practices and policies with regards to re-integration, and (c) making recommendations to the Governor and other key stakeholders that outline how to effectively, efficiently, and responsibly implement best practices that will reduce recidivism and increase public safety.
For example, the Council could be involved in the identification of re-entry funding priorities so that, in the event that either state or federal dollars become available (described more fully below), the State can determine how best to spend available funds to improve the current system. The Council could also assist in defining the role and verifying the success of Re-entry Transitional Coordinators (requested by TDCJ in their FY 2010-11 legislative appropriations request).
Membership in the Council should be broad-based and include individuals appointed by the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and Speaker of the House; members of the re-entry community (e.g. public, private, and non-profit advocacy sectors, including faith-based re-entry groups); and representation from relevant government entities, including TDCJ (most importantly), but also law enforcement, the Parole Board, TCOOMMI,[viii] the Department of Aging and Disability Services, and the Department of State Health Services.
■ Federal Funding Benefits: Development of this state-level Council would allow Texas to be eligible to apply for much-needed federal grant funding under the Second Chance Act. Note: The Department of Justice administers grant funding to state and local government agencies, as well as non-profit organizations, to assist them in implementing recidivism-reduction re-entry initiatives – including the provision of employment assistance, substance abuse treatment, housing, family programming, mentoring, victims’ support, and other services that can help reduce re-offending and violations of probation and parole. Outside funding of the Council would better ensure that it is institutionalized as a state entity.
Note Additionally: Receipt of grant funds under the Second Chance Act would require the establishment of a re-entry task force to guide the organization in re-entry-related efforts. The law specifies a number of members of each task force, including state or local leaders and representatives from relevant agencies, service providers, non-profit organizations, and other stakeholders. The task force would be charged with examining ways to pool resources and funding streams to promote lower recidivism rates for returning individuals, as well as collecting data and best practices in re-entry from agencies and organizations. The task force may also be charged with developing the re-entry strategic plan, a requirement for all grantees.
(7) Encourage the creation of re-entry offices in municipalities or counties with proportionately high populations of returning individuals (“high stakes communities”). One such office is in Tarrant County, assisting formerly incarcerated individuals and communities in re-integration efforts. The Tarrant County Reentry Initiative began in November, 2005, and included the development of a Reentry Council and a Reentry Coordinator position (the latter filled. Also part of the initiative are various subcommittees: Evidence Based Practices, Housing, Employment/Vocational Development, Mental Health, Substance Abuse, Policy and Law, Faith-Based, Community Support, Transitional Preparation, and Healthcare.
Currently, Tarrant, Dallas, Bexar, and Harris Counties are the state’s top four “high stakes communities.” In Houston alone, 50% of former prisoners return to neighborhoods that account for only 15% of the city’s adult population.[ix] At the very least, Dallas, Bexar, and Harris Counties should be encouraged to follow Tarrant County’s lead in establishing a re-entry office that serves as a point of contact for those re-entering into the community, as well as those who serve them.
Note: This recommendation is not meant to negatively impact or replace current re-entry initiatives throughout the state, such as the Austin/Travis County Re-entry Roundtable or the Community Re-Entry Network in Houston, but instead supplement and assist them in their efforts.[x]
Note Additionally: Once such offices are established, they should be notified by TDCJ as soon as possible about which individuals are soon to be released from correctional facilities into their counties (at least 90 days prior to an individual’s release, when that information is available). Notification will enable the local re-entry office to reach out to individuals prior to release to best facilitate their referral and placement in services immediately upon release (as opposed to beginning the re-entry process after they return to the community). The first few weeks are critical to ensuring that a formerly incarcerated individual will successfully transition back into the community; immediate assistance decreases the likelihood of re-offending.
(8) Follow program models from other states that have successfully implemented re-entry plans. Although the following materials are very specific to particular state needs, they do contain strategies that Texas could employ in its re-entry infrastructure:
− Kansas Offender Risk Reduction and Reentry. In 2007, the State of Kansas enacted a re-entry statute that offers good time credit for inmates, as well as program credit. Although in Texas, individuals in state jail felony facilities are not entitled to good time credit, having the opportunity to receive program credit would afford them an incentive to complete in-prison rehabilitative programs, help to improve their conduct while confined in the facility, and increase the number of persons discharged from a facility – thus freeing up needed prison space.[xi]
− Connecticut’s 2007 Comprehensive Offender Re-Entry Plan. Connecticut has also been a leading state in pushing for re-entry programs to relieve prison overcrowding. Connecticut’s re-entry plan focuses on the collaboration of state agencies to develop a more comprehensive and coordinated continuum of criminal justice services, including supervision programs, behavioral and mental health services, and transitional support programs. Many of these programs are considered to be model programs with an ongoing assessment component to determine effectiveness. Specifically, an annual report monitors whether strategy implementation has assisted the state in maintaining the prison population at or under the current authorized bed capacity.[xii]
The following projects offer additional strategies that Texas could look to for assistance in improving and strengthening its re-entry policies:
− The National Institute of Corrections (Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons) – This Institute provides training, technical assistance, information services, and policy/program development assistance to federal, state, and local corrections agencies. It also offers an excellent library of reports.
− The Re-entry Policy Council (RPC) – This is a national project coordinated by the Council of State Governments’ Justice Center, a national nonprofit organization that serves policy-makers at the local, state, and federal levels from all branches of government. RPC works to generate bipartisan policies for lawmakers and to facilitate coordination and information-sharing among organizations implementing re-entry initiatives, researching trends, communicating about related issues, or funding projects. The Justice Center provides practical, nonpartisan advice and consensus-driven strategies – informed by available evidence – to increase public safety and strengthen communities.
[i] Information received from TDCJ. This figure does not include funding for the Windham School District, which is included in the appropriation for the Texas Education Agency. Nor does it include expenditures for services provided by the Texas Correctional Office on Offenders with Medical or Mental Impairments, halfway house contracts, or release payments.
[ii] Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Intake Questionnaire 2008.
[iii] Re-entry Policy, Substance Abuse Treatment Policy Statement 12: Provide effective substance abuse treatment to anyone in prison or jail who is chemically dependant, (2005), http://reentrypolicy.org.
[iv] 2-1-1, 2-1-1- Call Center Search, http://www.211.org.
[v] Texas Criminal Justice Coalition (TCJC), Tools for Re-Entry, http://www.criminaljusticecoalition.org/tools_for_re_entry/adult_services.
[vi] Restorative Justice Community, National Resource Directory, http://www.rjctexas.org/Directory.htm.
[vii] Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, Practitioners’ Perceptions of Reentry Challenges, (August 2008), 9.
[viii] TCOOMMI is the Texas Correctional Office on Offenders with Medical or Mental Impairments, which provides a formal structure for criminal justice, health and human service, and other affected organizations to communicate and coordinate on policy, legislative, and programmatic issues affecting offenders with special needs. Special needs include offenders with serious mental illnesses, mental retardation, terminal or serious medical conditions, physical disabilities and those who are elderly.
[ix] Presentation by Tony Fabelo, Ph.D., Justice Reinvestment: A Framework to Improve Effectiveness of Justice Policies in Texas, Austin, TX, 33, 34, 2007.
[x] Austin/Travis County Re-entry Roundtable, http://www.caction.org/rrt/index.html. The City of Houston Department of Health and Human Services has developed the Community Re-Entry Network (CRN) for ex-offenders in the Greater Houston area, which provides a network of resources to the communities most impacted by re-entry and recidivism.
[xi] Kansas Department of Corrections, Kansas Offender Risk Reduction and Reentry, http://www.dc.state.ks.us/reentry.
[xii] Office of Policy Management, Criminal Justice Policy and Planning Division, Comprehensive Offender Re-entry Plan – 2007, http://www.ct.gov/opm/LIB/opm/CJPPD/CjReentry/ReentryStrategyPlan2007.pdf.