Purpose 2007 Policy Primer 2007 Newsletter 80th Legislative Session

Based on practitioners’ clear need for assistance in coordinating, making available, and providing effective re-entry services to criminal justice clients, TCJC makes the following recommendations to the Texas Legislature and organizations that engage in re-entry efforts.

 

 

Below is a chart showing direct program expenditures and administrative costs of each re-entry program funded by the State:

 

 

Note: 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 become and stay law-abiding and productive citizens. 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.

 

 

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. [3]

 

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)

 

·         Information about who TDCJ screens (and who conducts the assessments) in order to determine the incarcerated population’s (a) psychological issues, (b) mental health issues, and/or (c) substance abuse and dependency issues

 

 

 

a.      Texas should ensure the funding and recruitment of qualified and committed staff inside units to provide programmatic services. 

As a recruitment tool, the State should create a student loan reimbursement program for students willing to work in criminal justice services. The fields of education, social work, and counseling should be targeted, and students should be reimbursed in increments after periods of sustained employment while they work in the criminal justice system.

 

It is important that intermittent quality control checks be made to evaluate education, treatment, and employment programs; this will prevent obvious problems with program administration from being overlooked and ultimately undermining the goals of the programs. In addition to performance-tracking technology, the State could also 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.

 

Only with a strong skill set will re-entering men and women have a chance to reclaim their lives, become responsible members of our communities, and support their families.

 

In order to better prepare inmates to re-enter the community – and thus reduce the risk of recidivism – TDCJ offers eligible individuals the opportunity to participate in employment readiness programs at the Windham School District (WSD), which operates within TDCJ’s Correctional Institutional Division. WSD offers assistance with literacy and life skills, provides Career and Technology Education, and includes a Continuing Education Division to offer offenders the opportunity to participate in college courses and Project Re-Integration of Offenders (RIO). [4]

 

In response to H.B. 2837 (effective 2005) – which, among other things, required WSD to develop educational and vocational training programs and evaluate the effectiveness of such training services provided to inmates – WSD conducted a study of the Career and Technology Education programs and their impact on post-release employment:

 

·         From April 1, 2005, to March 31, 2006, 69,883 offenders were released.

 

·         39,817 offenders met the criteria for the study (e.g., they had a Social Security Number, they had not been released on a bench warrant, etc).

 

·         24,841 former offenders (62% of those studied) had a matching income and were considered employed.

 

·         12,204 former offenders (31% of those studied) were still employed on the first anniversary of their initial employment. [5]

 

The State must continue to invest in the recidivism-reduction programs offered at WSD, but it should allocate additional funding to accommodate a larger number of participants interested in following the path to responsibility and success.

 

Based on the participation of formerly incarcerated individuals in the above-mentioned pre-release training programs, as well as in other educational and work-readiness programs, they will be better prepared to meet job readiness and retention criteria, in turn allowing the State to attract and retain the participation of quality employers.

 

c.      Probation and parole departments should offer incentives for officers that assist offenders with finding jobs. 

 

For each supervised parolee/probationer who is found to be employed and kept employed, the State should provide additional funding to the parole or probation department to be used as a financial reward for the officers working directly with them. This will create an incentive for parole and probation officers to actively seek new employers willing to participate in the program and assist in expanding the updated list.

 

The Parole Division’s DRCs provide cognitive intervention, pre-employment assistance, victim impact classes, anger management classes, and substance abuse education. According to TDCJ, DRCs also conduct a regularly scheduled “New Arrival Orientation” where offenders receive additional information regarding community efforts, resources, and services; providers from outreach programs, vocational programs, faith-based programs and educational programs present brief overviews, and offer brochures and contact information for their programs. Approximately 12% of people served by DRCs are there voluntarily, while 88% use services in tandem with parole visits.

 

To begin standardizing a therapeutic culture in DRCs, the Parole Division should provide staff trainings on cultural sensitivity towards stigmatized clients, and it should develop value-based mission statements for DRC staff. These mission statements should have at their foundation an acknowledgment of rehabilitation and the preservation of public safety.

 

The State should also evaluate the current use of funding that, as per the Workforce Investment Act, is allocated towards Project RIO – which provides a link between education, training, and employment during incarceration with employment, training, and education after release. (Essentially, all offenders released to parole supervision are referred to Project RIO services. In other words, Project RIO expands upon WSD services through assessments, referrals, and ongoing training.) Based on the State’s evaluation, it should identify how to enhance funding utilization and, in turn, the quality and provision of services.  

 

 

A large percentage of individuals incarcerated in Texas prisons have a history of substance abuse problems.  The State must promote medical and public health responses to these individuals. For those already within prison walls, a transition plan should be developed to include how each offender will most successfully re-integrate into society, to include in-prison substance abuse treatment participation (see Recommendation 1).

 

For those leaving prison, Texas should improve and make more widely available tailored, coordinated, and effective community-based substance abuse treatment programs. Although federal and state funding for treatment programs outside prison walls began a drastic decline in 2003, the 80^th state Legislature began to address the devastating effects of under-funded programs in Texas by providing funds for alternatives to incarceration. According to TDCJ, program expansions approved by the Legislature will roughly double the number of incarcerated offenders annually when fully operational.

 

However, now and in the future, the State should invest in further strengthening the treatment infrastructure to decrease criminal activity derived from substance abuse addiction. For instance, funding must be increased in efforts to reduce or eliminate current obstacles facing treatment providers and their clients. Enough funding should be allocated so that agencies and programs – especially in historically underserved areas (such as rural areas) – can attract and hire qualified professionals in the field, retain current, experienced practitioners, provide these practitioners with continuing education and other necessities, conduct program evaluations, and minimize the waiting periods and statutory barriers faced by criminal justice clients seeking treatment. Furthermore, Texas must do all that it can to sustain existing treatment programs that work – such as transitional treatment centers and SAFPs.

 

 

Frequently, prisons take the place of mental health centers. According to TDCJ, approximately 5,400 offenders with special needs (mental illness, mental retardation, serious medical or long term care needs) were released from incarceration in fiscal year 2007 alone; they were connected to community resources through a continuity of care program. [6]

 

Also during fiscal year 2007, approximately 1,400 HIV-positive offenders were released, and an estimated 4,500 offenders with Hepatitis C were released. A small number of releasees with other diseases were also released: for example, 16 offenders were released receiving treatment for TB. 

 

The State should ensure that currently incarcerated individuals with special needs are being treated, and that prevention measures are fully enforced so that other inmates will not contract communicable diseases. For exiting individuals who will require mental health and healthcare services, the State should ensure that there is a continuum of care readily available to them – at the very least, exiting individuals should be provided with a comprehensive contact list of providers in local areas that can meet their needs.

 

 

According to TDCJ, that agency 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). 

 

·         Programs are offered at some units which include family participation and target the children of offenders. 

 

·         A new offender telephone authorized by the 80^th Legislature is being implemented that will further enhance offender/family interaction.  

 

·         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 offenders that provide resources in the community (as available) which may be of assistance to the family.

 

·         TDCJ has been working closely with the Department of Family and Protective Services to establish a system to identify offenders who have active (or inactive) cases with child protective services. This will assist the criminal justice and Child Protective Services (CPS) systems as they (a) identify offenders who have active (or inactive) cases with child protective services, and (b) 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.

 

We commend these efforts by TDCJ to encourage family participation in inmates’ lives.  Studies indicate that the majority of incarcerated people return to live with their family members upon release. 

 

However, 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 and after-school programs that address the unique needs of these children.

 

These investments by the State will pay off over the long term when former offenders 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, Child Protective Services, child support programs, and additional state and community programs intended to aid families.

 

 

a.     TDCJ should provide offenders with reasonable records at discharge to facilitate successful re-entry. 

 

Upon release, each offender should be provided verification of his or her work history during incarceration, as well as certification of educational and/or treatment programs completed. Each outgoing offender 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.

 

According to TDCJ, offenders released from TDCJ are provided a bus ticket to their destination. Note: More extensive travel arrangements are made for special needs offenders with conditions requiring assistance. Also, offenders are permitted to travel home with family and friends if they plan to pick up the offender upon release.

 

If an offender is fully discharging his/her sentence upon release, s/he will receive $100 at the gate. However, if s/he is releasing to parole supervision, s/he receives a $50 gate check for necessities, followed by an additional $50 upon reporting to his/her parole officer for the first time. 

 

A bus ticket and $100 do not adequately prepare individuals to successfully find housing and food. TDCJ should provide a county-specific information packet to ex-offenders at the time of their release; this should include 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 offenders to plan their re-entry. This database could utilize existing services such as United Way’s 211 referral service at no cost to the State.

 

 

 

The State should prevent employers from being liable for lawsuits prompted by the criminal or tortuous acts of a non-3g [7] ex-offender employee, with the exception of gross negligence and liability regulated under Labor Code Title 5, Workers’ Compensation. This initiative would encourage additional employers to give the formerly incarcerated an opportunity to re-integrate into the workforce.

 

When people come out of prison, they must find jobs and housing or risk turning to illegal activity to survive. However, Texas has 168 state laws that forbid felons from obtaining jobs – and because Texas law designates 1,941 individual offenses as felonies, Texas has a huge felon population.  In fact, approximately 1 in 11 Texas adults has a felony conviction on his or her record.  Current Texas licensing requirements apply to a significant number of occupations, including air conditioning and refrigeration contractors, electricians, water well drillers, manicurists, and many others.  Former felons cannot currently qualify for many of these licensed positions. 

 

Note: Please see Appendix D for a comprehensive list of jobs that felons cannot access.

 

 

Note: Certificates of Rehabilitation are also referred to as Certificates of Relief from Disabilities or Certificates of Good Conduct. These are state-authorized documents of rehabilitation that allow previously incarcerated people to demonstrate that they have paid their debt to society and have earned the right to have statutory bars lifted and public benefits reinstated. 

 

Through this certification process, the State can promote public safety and civic engagement, as well as the employment of people who have completed their sentences. Arizona, California, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, and Illinois have already enacted legislation to provide individuals with a way to remove barriers to employment or other post-release rights.

 

   

Counties are creating an unfunded mandate to the State by failing to provide housing to former resident ex-offenders – and they are thereby burdening the State with the responsibility of finding them housing. Counties must accept those who are re-integrating into society. If they are not willing to allow placement into housing facilities in the neighborhoods or communities from which the individuals came, then they should have to pay a re-entry infrastructure fee to create comparable facilities that will meet Texas’ public safety needs. 

 

Additionally, county and state governments should engage in public education efforts that inform residents about the importance of religious and non-profit activities geared toward ex-offender re-integration.

 

Bottom line: Counties committed to the re-integration process should receive full financial assistance from the State to operate and construct re-entry facilities and programs.

 

 

a.      Wherever possible, local Texas housing authorities should be directed to utilize federal housing assistance programs to help formerly incarcerated people with finding housing, within the limits of federal law. 

 

Federal Community Development Block Grants and HOME Investment Partnership grants to localities can provide avenues for funding to aid formerly incarcerated individuals when communities support such initiatives.

Tax breaks should reward landlords who give ex-offenders a second chance to successfully re-integrate into society. Within the limitations of federal law, the housing commission should be directed to maximize the availability of low-cost housing options for ex-offenders and those currently under community supervision.

 

Most public housing laws and regulations stipulate a “one-strike” rule that automatically bars anyone with a criminal record (however minor the offense) from eligibility for public housing. Additional housing units would help keep ex-offenders off the street and in sustainable homes where they are less likely to re-offend.

 

This program could provide a small payment to qualified, caring families and individuals throughout Texas who want to house low-risk, low severity former offenders that are eligible for parole but who lack their own housing. This will allow former offenders to experience the family support they may never have had prior to incarceration, and it will provide them transitional housing while they have the chance to seek employment. 

 

Note:Eligibility to become a host should be contingent upon a clean criminal record. Furthermore, families should be allowed prior review and approval of the individuals they take in.

 

Although the following materials are very specific to state needs, they do contain strategies that Texas could employ in its re-entry infrastructure:

 

·         Kansas Offender Risk Reduction and Reentry – this is an information portal for Kansas Offender Risk Reduction and Reentry Services, available at www.dc.state.ks.us/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, confinees 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.

 

·         Connecticut’s 2007 Comprehensive Offender Re-Entry Plan – this is a 112-page report available at www.ct.gov/opm/LIB/opm/CJPPD/CjReentry/ReentryStrategyPlan2007.pdf

 

Connecticut has also been a leading state in pushing for re-entry programs to relieve prison overcrowding.

 

The following projects offer additional strategies that Texas could look to for assistance in improving and strengthening its re-entry policies:

 

·         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 bi-partisan 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.

 

·         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 costs associated with a larger investment in re-entry service provision may be viewed as the greatest difficulty of actualizing survey respondents’ recommendations. 

 

However, the social benefits to be gained by assisting offenders who are amenable to rehabilitation outweigh the budgetary costs. With a greater allocation of state funding towards therapeutic programs, Texas will further its mission to improve public safety by producing more capable, law abiding, and productive citizens.

---