Free Illinois Home Lease Agreement Doc by opy65040


More Info
									      Returning Home
         Ending the Cycle of
Homelessness & Incarceration
 Through Supportive Housing

                        John Fallon
        Program Manager- Re-Entry
 Corporation for Supportive Housing
                      April 23, 2007
What’s the Problem?

       Thousands of people with chronic health
        conditions cycle in and out of jail, prison, mental
        health institutions, detox, emergency rooms,
        shelter and the streets.

       Recidivism rates for this group are extremely high

       This group is largely ill-served by these crisis
        systems of care.
What’s the Problem?

       There is an immense public cost for these poor

       This group needs support that is comprehensive
        to succeed.

       Housing, mental health, employment and other
        components are inter-dependent, but the systems
        that provide them are separate.
How Big is the Problem?

     Right now, across the nation,
     2,200,000 people are locked up
       in county, federal, and state
How Big is the Problem?

The United States also has the highest incarceration rate at 737 per 100,000
people, compared to nearest country Russia's 611 per 100,000
The United States has 5 percent of the world's population and 25 percent of the
world's incarcerated population. We rank first in the world in locking up our fellow
citizens," said Ethan Nadelmann of the Drug Policy Alliance,

US                2,200,000            296,400,000      737
China             1,548,498          1,308,700,000      118
Russia              869,814            142,300,000      611

Source- International Centre for Prison Studies at King's College London Oct 2006
How big is this problem?

      Nationally, there will be 672,000 releases from
       state and federal prisons this year
      That is 1,840 a day
      This does not include jails. More than 4 times as
       many released from there
      10% are homeless upon entry. 22% MI (NAEH,
      16% are MI per DOJ (1999)
      6% male SMI, 12% female SMI (Linda Teplin,
      Half of all inmates report MI symptoms
Why do we care?

     In 1982, we spent as a nation less than 36 billion
      dollars on law enforcement costs (prison, jail,
      courts, supervision)
     In 2003, we spent 185.5 billion dollars (417%
      increase, or 7.7% a year) – (Local, State, Federal)
     This would support 10.3 million units of supportive
      housing for a year
Why do you care in Ohio?

     In 2003, you spent $2,279,090,000 from the state
      system on corrections.
     This would support 126,616 units of supportive
      housing in Ohio at $18,000
     This is real money that could be invested
     This does not include your local police and courts
      or federal costs- so just a 1/3 of costs if same as
      rest of country
Incarceration Rate

   State Correctional      Rate of
    Populations as      Incarcerati                Held      Released
         of 2004               on                  in Jail    in 2004
                         (per 1000)

        Ohio               559         44,976     19,853     28,170

  Total Sentenced          738        1,512,823 747,529      672,202
Ohio Dept of Rehab & Corrections

   The Department of Rehabilitation and Correction currently has
    32 institutions confining approximately 46,000 inmates. Three
    of those institutions house female inmates -- the Ohio
    Reformatory for Women, the Franklin Pre-Release Center, and
    the Northeast Pre-Release Center. The Corrections Medical
    Center serves as a medical hospital for both genders. The
    Oakwood Correctional Facility houses both male and female
    inmates in need of intensive psychiatric treatment. The
    remaining institutions house male inmates of varying security
    levels. Ohio's first "supermax" prison, the Ohio State
    Penitentiary, opened in Youngstown in April, 1998. Ohio also
    has two boot camps, one for each gender, aimed at young,
    first-time, non-violent offenders.
    The State of Ohio also has two privately-operated prisons: The
    North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility in Grafton and the
    Lake Erie Correctional Institution in Conneaut.
Corrections has become the primary
national mental health system

     Deinstitutionalization
     More rigid criteria for civil commitment
     Lack of adequate housing
     Difficulty in gaining access to community based
     Attitude of society in general
MH & Corrections Nationally

                            1970      1976      1980            1986            1990          1998       2000              2004
Persons Receiving
Treatment in the State
Hospitals                  413,066   222,202   156,482        119,033           98,789       63,525      54,826         49,000
Persons Receiving
Treatment in the Private
Hospitals                   14,295    16,091    17,157          30,201          44,871       33,635
Persons Receiving
Psych Care in Gen
Hosp                        22,394    28,706    29,384          45,808          53,479       54,266
Persons in Custody in
Jail                                           183,988        274,444          405,320      592,462    621,149         713,990
Persons in Custody in
Prison                     196,429   262,083   319,598        526,436          743,382 1,224,469      1,316,333     1,421,911

                                                                    National Mental Health Treatment- 1998

                                                                             Persons Receiving
                                                                              Treatment in the
                                                                              State Hospitals         Persons Receiving Treatment
                                                                                   19%                in the State Hospitals
                                                10% of Persons in
                                                                                                      Persons Receiving Treatment
                                                Custody in Prison                Persons Receiving    in the Private Hospitals
                                                      37%                         Treatment in the    Persons Receiving Psych Care
                                                                                  Private Hospitals   in Gen Hosp
                                                                                                      10% of Persons in Custody in
                                    Mental Health and Correctional Trends Since 1970



                                                                                            Persons Receiving Treatment in the State
Number in Institution

                                                                                            Persons Receiving Treatment in the Private
                                                                                            Persons Receiving Psych Care in Gen
                                                                                            Persons in Custody in Jail
                                                                                            Persons in Custody in Prison



                                    1970   1976   1980   1986   1990   1998   2000   2004
      National Mental Health Treatment- 1970


                                      Persons Receiving Treatment
                                      in the State Hospitals
                                      Persons Receiving Treatment
                                      in the Private Hospitals
                                      Persons Receiving Psych
                                      Care in Gen Hosp
                                      10% of Persons in Custody in

      National Mental Health Treatment- 2004

                                       Persons Receiving Treatment
                                       in the State Hospitals
                        10%            Persons Receiving Treatment
41%                                    in the Private Hospitals
                                       Persons Receiving Psych
                                       Care in Gen Hosp
                                       10% of Persons in Custody in
                        15%            Jail
                                       10% of Persons in Custody in

Ohio Department of Mental Health

      Approximately 1100 persons in Ohio who have a diagnosis of
       serious mental illness and/or emotional disturbances are
       recovering daily on an inpatient basis through the four product
       lines in the BHOs. Approximately 50 percent are in a forensic
       legal status. IBHS CSNs provide outpatient services to 1600
       clients during the year to assist in their ongoing recovery.
       Working in collaboration with county boards and community
       agencies, expert services built on evidence-based best
       practices are provided through the IBHS. Services focus on
       maximizing the potential for recovery so that persons with
       mental illness will be successful and satisfied in their preferred
       community roles with the level of support needed and wanted.
       The IBHS employs approximately 2,500 staff in the BHOs to
       support its mission.
    Number of Ohio Governmental Beds with
   Persons with Severe and Persistant Mental
           Illness- 93% CJ Involved
                                            ,State Civil Hospital Beds
                                                     7% ,550
                                                                         State Forensic Hospital
                 Jail and Lock-Up SMI
                                                                             Beds, 550, 7%
                Population- 1985- 26%

                                                            State DOC SMI
                                                         Population, 4600, 60%

State Civil Hospital Beds State Forensic Hospital Beds State DOC SMI Population Jails and Lock-Ups- SMI
Why we need to increase services for
the MI repeat offender population

      We are paying for these folks now through
                emergency services
           and have been for a long time.

       Here are long-term institution costs and
      averages for just two of the Thresholds jail
                project members….
The cost of non-treatment

    Client 1: 21 years
     – 3,758 days of hospital time
     – 399 days of jail time (six years is all we have)
     – Does not include private hospitals, court or
The cost of non-treatment

Client 1 Math: 21 Years
  3,758 hospital days * $400 a day   = $1,503,200
  399 Jail Days * $70 a day          = $   27,930
        TOTALS                       = $1,531,130
        Annual Total                 = $   72,910
The cost of non-treatment

Why this is all-important from a policy

     Client 2: 30 Years
      – 3,958 days of hospital time
      – 561 days of jail time
      – Does not include private hospitals, VA, court,
        or arrests
The cost of non-treatment

Client 2 Math: 30 Years
   3,958 hospital days * $400 a day = $1,583,200
   561 jail days * $70 a day       =$    39,270
         TOTALS                    = $1,622,470
         Annual Total              =$    54,082
The cost of non-treatment

Institution costs while in Thresholds program

    Institution time, Client 1: 4 Years
            – 14 days in jail * $70 per day = $980.00

    Institution time, Client 2: 3 Years    $   0.00
The cost of non-treatment

    These programs are cost effective and if the most
     recidivistic clients are selected, society is already
     paying these costs
    The problem is the costs are in several places
     (OMH, county, department of corrections)
    Our task as policy makers is to recognize existing
     costs and redistribute current expenditures in a way
     that better serves the clients and the community
    Our current system is not optimized
An Exciting Social Experiment

      The President said we
         want to eliminate
     homelessness in 10 years.
NY/NY: Background

    Agreement between NY State and NY City
    Funds capital, operating, and service costs for
     3,600 supportive housing units in NYC
    Placement recipients must have an SMI
     diagnosis & a record of homelessness
    Data available on 4,679 NY/NY placement
     records between 1989-97
Research Question

 How do NY/NY housing placements affect the use
       City shelters
       State psychiatric hospitals
       State Medicaid services
       City hospitals (HHC)
       Veterans Administration hospitals
       State prisons
       City jails
Data Sources

    NY/NY Housing Placements: 1989-97
    Single Shelter Users and Stays: 1987-99
    State Hospital Users & Stays: 1990-96
    Municipal Hospital Users & Stays (non-Medicaid): 1989-96
    Medicaid-Reimbursed Inpatient Hospital Stays: 1993-97
    Medicaid-Reimbursed Outpatient Visits: 1993-97
    Veterans Hospital Stays: 1992-99
    State Criminal Justice Prison Use & Convictions: 1987-97
    City Jail Use: 1987-99
Research Method #1

            Pre-Post Analysis

          2 Years       2 Years

         Pre-NY/NY     Post-NY/NY
         Placement     Placement
Research Methods #2

        4,679        Control
      Persons w/      Pool
      Placement     (observations
                    from services
                                       Matched Pair Case-
                       system)         Control Design

   Pre-Match          Matched
    Matched On:
                    Best Match on:
                    Pre Intervention
   Race; Sex; Age    Services Use
    SA & MH Use
The Cost of Homelessness

                        Mean Days Used (2-     Per Diem   Annualized
    Service Provider     year pre-NY/NY)         Cost       Cost
NYC DHS – Shelter                      137          $68          $4,658
NYS OMH – Hospital                     57.3       $437          $12,520
NYC HHC – Hospital                     16.5       $755           $6,229
Medicaid – Hospital                    35.3       $657          $11,596
Medicaid – Outpatient          62.2 (visits)        $84          $2,612
VA – Hospital                           7.8       $467           $1,821
NYS DCJS – Prison                       9.3         $79            $367
NYC DOC – Jail                           10       $129             $645
Total                                                           $40,449
NY/NY Savings

Per Housing Unit Per Year
                  Service           Annualized Savings per
                                         NY/NY Unit
   DHS Shelter                              $3,779
   OMH Hospital                             $8,260
   HHC Hospital                             $1,771
   Medicaid – Inpatient                     $3,787
   Medicaid - Outpatient                   ($2,657)
   VA Hospital                              $595
   NYS Prison                               $418
   NYC Jail                                 $328
                            Total          $16,282
Supportive Housing is Proven Means of
Reducing Homelessness & Recidivism

    Combines affordable housing with
     comprehensive service supports (case
     management, ADL, health and behavioral health,
     substance abuse, employment, etc.)
    Proven to reduces rates of public system
     utilization, including jail and prison
    Can be better integrated with criminal justice
     supervision to expand sanction options and
     reduce technical violations
CSH’s Mission

CSH helps communities create
permanent housing with services to
prevent and end homelessness.
The Corporation for Supportive

      Three Core Lines of Business:
       – Project Specific Assistance
       – Capacity Building
       – Policy and Systems Change
      Resources
Why Do People Become Homeless?

      Poverty
      Poor health
      Mental illness
      Drug use
      Multiple evictions
      Past abuse, domestic violence
      Little education
      Unemployed / Underemployed
      Children with behavioral problems
Priced Out of Housing

     In 2002, for the first time ever, the national average rent for an
      efficiency or 1-bedroom exceeded the income of a person with a
      disability receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI).

     In 2002, there was not one single housing market in the country
      where a person with a disability receiving SSI benefits could
      afford to rent a modest efficiency or 1-bedroom unit

     Because of their extreme poverty, the 3.5 million non-elderly
      people with disabilities receiving SSI benefits cannot afford
      decent housing anywhere in the country without some type of
      housing assistance

         Source: Technical Assistance Collaborative, Priced Out in
What Happens Without Stable
Housing? People end up in…

        Shelters and Transitional Housing
        Welfare, Emergency Assistance
        Child Protection, Out-of-Home Placement
        Poor School Performance
        Emergency Rooms and Hospitals
        Chemical Dependency Treatment
        State Regional Treatment Centers
        Detox, Jail, Prison
But there is a solution …

   Supportive Housing breaks the cycle of
     homelessness, especially for those
    people who have been homeless and
        also deal with mental illness.
What Is Supportive Housing?

A cost-effective combination of
permanent, affordable housing
with services that helps people
live more stable, productive lives.
Who is Supportive Housing for?

             People who are homeless or
             at-risk for homelessness
             - and -
             face persistent obstacles
             to maintaining housing,
             such as mental health issues,
             substance use issues,
             other chronic medical issues,
             and other challenges.
Who lives in Supportive Housing?

   People with long histories of homelessness

   Long-term poverty coupled with persistent health problems,
    including mental illness, substance abuse and HIV/AIDS

   Those with repeated engagements with temporary,
    institutional settings and crisis care services

   Histories of trauma, abuse and violence

   Single adults, families and unaccompanied youth
Features of
Permanent Supportive Housing

   Permanent Rental Housing
       Each resident holds lease on his/her own unit
       Resident can stay as long as he/she pays rent and
        complies with terms of lease (no arbitrary or
        artificial time limits imposed).

       Tenants usually pay no more than 30% of income
        for rent.
Features of
Permanent Supportive Housing

   Flexible Services
       Participation in a “program” is not a condition of
       Services are designed project by project for the
        target population and the housing setting
       Services are flexible and responsive to individual

   Cost Effective
       Costs no more,and often much less, than the cost
        of homelessness and produces better outcomes
        than the expensive system of crisis care
Supportive Housing Types

    Apartment buildings exclusively housing
     formerly homeless individuals and/or families.
    Rent subsidized apartments leased in open
    Apartment buildings with mixed income
     households, including the formerly homeless.
    Long-term set aside of units within privately
     owned buildings.
    Services integrated within existing affordable
     housing developments.
    Single family homes, including shared housing
PSH can be cost effective when
targeted for Corrections

      Focusing on housing is important for corrections
       to reduce recidivism and reduce future crimes
      It also improves people’s lives
      Permanent Supportive Housing is to be targeted
       only to the highest most chronic users
       – Severe mental illness
       – Co-occurring substance use
       – Severe chronic and difficult to control physical
      “80% of problems caused by 20%of users” is an
       old management saying
      Central to plan to end homelessness
It takes an educated public to invest in
permanent supportive housing

     Despite it being cost-effective over-all, there is not a simple
     funding stream:

      Financing Supportive Housing: Adequate, flexible funding
     is not readily available, and assembling multiple financing
     sources delays development and increases costs.
      Developing Supportive Housing: NIMBYism, regulatory
     hurdles and myths about homelessness can delay or derail a
      Sustaining Supportive Housing: Long-term success
     requires quality partnerships and high caliber sponsors
Funding to Develop Permanent
Supportive Housing

      Capital
       – Bricks and Sticks
       – One time funds
      Operating
       – Funding to support building operations
       – Typically a Subsidy
      Supportive Services
       – Grants to fund staff salaries
A Proposed Model for Financing
“Re-entry” Supportive Housing

   The Current Funding Model

      Capital
       – Existing affordable and supportive housing development
         sources (Housing Trust Funds, HOME, bond financing)
      Operating
       – Other operating subsidy/rental assistance stream to “take-
         out” bridge subsidy (McKinney, Sec 8)
      Social services
       – Existing service streams from human service systems
         (mental health, substance abuse, TANF, Medicaid, etc.)
A Proposed Model for Financing
“Re-entry” Supportive Housing

   The Proposed Funding Model
      Capital
       – Existing affordable and supportive housing development
         sources (Housing Trust Funds, HOME, bond financing)
      Operating
       – Criminal justice funding “bridge” rental assistance
       – Other operating subsidy/rental assistance stream to “take-
         out” bridge subsidy (McKinney, Sec 8)
      Social services
       – Criminal justice funding for supplemental or stand-alone
       – Existing service streams from human service systems
         (mental health, substance abuse, TANF, Medicaid, etc.)
What would the housing look
like or how would it be different?

      First rule- Have it fit into the neighborhood
      Balance the need for specialized services with
       the need to have it fit in
      Make it a home with services and not a program
      Help people to live and integrate into the
      Encourage your house to enhance the
       neighborhood and participate in the
      Block clubs, picnics for your neighborhoods
What would the housing look
like or how would it be different?

   Like other permanent housing but incorporates
    Case management and Counseling Linked with a

      continuum of services beginning inside the
      correctional facility
    Prison and jail-based transition planning services

      provided in coordination with reentry
    Blend with parole- Use Law Enforcement

      Positively and Collaboratively
A Range of Services to Support
Tenants in Their Goals

     A broad array of services is available:
      – Mental health and substance use
        management and recovery
      – Vocational and employment
      – Money management & benefits advocacy
      – Coordinated support / case management
      – Life skills
      – Community building and tenant advocacy
      – Medical and wellness
      – Parenting and child custody supports
      – Educational and psychological support
        and other family services
Adapting Supportive Housing for
Criminal-Justice Involved People

    Flexible service intensity with higher service intensity
     initially (first 30-120 days after release), but declining as
     individual becomes stabilized and reintegrated

    Use of “continuum” model to maximize tenant choice and
     use of resources

    Locating with emergency housing units to enhance client

    Space for family reunification and non-custodial parents
Adapting Supportive Housing for
Criminal-Justice Involved People

    Dedicated or set-aside units for referrals from prison/jail

    Targeted “in-reach” and engagement in prisons/jails to
     facilitate transition from incarceration to housing

    Broader eligibility and minimal entry criteria (clean-time
     requirements, benefits and entitlements in place, etc.)
Expanding Post-Incarceration

  Begins with addressing gaps/barriers by type:

     Attitudes/Relational- relationship building, public
      education and outreach, set asides
     Statutory/Regulatory-Seek reforms where
     Funding/Resources-Explore new housing
      development financing strategies, non-capital
Addressing Community

     Project financing, sponsor reputation, and
      outreach/education to community members and
      local government officials.
     Sponsor working to inspire support.
     Seek financing options that minimize any formal
      approval requirements.
     Avoid sites near institutions serving “vulnerable”
      populations (schools, daycares, etc.) or primarily
      residential areas.
Managing Risk by Addition
rather than Subtraction

      There will always be risk. Managing risk can be
       done by subtraction of risk
      In the special needs population, it may be easier
       and certainly more effective to deal with what
       leads to the crime through prevention.
      Ensuring that a person has medication,
       entitlements, adequate housing, and a support
       group often leads to a future free of the need for
       law enforcement services.
How do you start a program in
your state?

      Focus on people who are inappropriately or overly
       incarcerated or institutionalized:
       – Parole violators
       – Frequent flyers
      Determine cost associated with preventable prison/jail 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)
St. Andrews Court

   Located in Chicago, Illinois
   42 units of permanent supportive
   New construction.
   Serves single male offenders who are
   Partnered with Lakefront Supportive
    Housing, an experienced supportive
    housing developer
   Operated by St. Leonard’s Ministries
   Fannie Mae Maxwell Award Winning
   Recidivism rates decrease from 50% to
    20% for participants in their programs.
Sanctuary Place

                     63 SRO Units
                     6 3-bedroom
                     For women who
                      are formerly
                      incarcerated and
                      have a history of
                      domestic abuse,
                      substance abuse
                      or mental illness
The Fortune Society’s
Fortune Academy (“The Castle”)
New York City

   Targeted tenancy: Formerly incarcerated men
    and women
   Model: Single-site supportive housing (41 units)
    and shelter (18 beds)
   Funding:
    –   $8 million to purchase and rehab the building
    –   Used low income and historic tax credits
    –   Annual operating budget of $1.8 million
    –   HUD S+C, HOPWA and other state and federal funding
The Fortune Academy
Rowan Trees- Chicago, IL
                            45 units: 6 one-bedroom units
                           that are handicap accessible
                           and 39 efficiency studios
                           Target- SMI Dual Diagnosis

                           Service Provider Thresholds
Grais House- Chicago, IL

                            The 44-unit
                           residence gut-
                           building provides
                           housing and on-
                           site supportive
                           services for
                           individuals with
                           psychiatric and
                           substance use

                           Target- SMI Dual

                           Service Provider
Sanctuary Place SRO – 320 foot
studio apartments
Public Housing and Criminal Justice

      Public Housing needs to take its share of the Returning
       Home Population as should every community
      A local PHA must prohibit or terminate admission for four
      Lifetime registrants under a State sex offender registration
      Individuals convicted of criminal activity related to
       methamphetamine manufacture or production on the
      Individuals currently using illegal drugs.
      Individuals for whom reasonable cause exists to believe
       abuse or pattern of illegal drug or alcohol abuse threatens
       the health and safety of other residents.
Public Housing and Criminal Justice
    Most individuals with criminal records are not automatically
     prohibited from living in federally assisted housing. In many
     instances local PHAs are granted broad discretion in making their
     decision. A local PHA may do the following:
    Reconsider applicants that were previously denied admission.
    Allow a person who has successfully completed a supervised drug
     rehabilitation program to access public housing.
    Determine when reasonable cause exists to believe illegal drug or
     alcohol abuse or a pattern of abuse may threaten the health and
     safety of other residents.
    Decide whether to evict based on activities occurring a reasonable
     time before an admission decision.
    Determine whether a household member is involved in drug-
     related criminal activity, violent activity, or other criminal activity
     that may threaten the health, safety, and right to peaceful
     enjoyment of the premises.
     Returning Home

       New York, Chicago,
          Los Angeles

Ohio, New Jersey, Minnesota, Rhode
         Island, Michigan
Central Premise of Returning Home

    Placing this group of people in supportive housing will

    improve life outcomes for the tenants, more efficiently

   utilize public resources, and likely create cost savings in

              crisis systems like jail and shelter.
Returning Home Highlights

    Begun in Spring of 2006, and largely funded
     through grant from Robert Wood Johnson

    Primary focus on Los Angeles, Chicago, and New
     York City

    Additional work in Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio,
     Rhode Island, and Minnesota

    $2.4 million to be re-granted to partners “on the
    Goal is to create at least 1,000 units of permanent
     supportive housing in three years- 400 in Illinois

    Advisory Board includes Assistant IDOC
     Commissioner Deanne Benos and Judge Biebel
     from Cook County.
Returning Home Key Strategies

   Assisting state and local government in identifying the
    population with high recidivism rates that could benefit
    from supportive housing.

   Collaborating with government agencies and partner
    organizations to change public policy and promote more
    effective and efficient programs to serve ex-offenders.

   Providing technical assistance to developers and
    providers who create supportive housing for ex-offenders.
Returning Home Key Strategies

   Conducting a comprehensive evaluation to document
    expected cost savings.

   Convening key leaders from various fields to share
    lessons learned and best practices.

   Collaborating with various stakeholders to attract additional
    philanthropic and government investments.

   Developing models for reinvestment of criminal justice
    resources into supportive housing.
Returning Home Goals and Outcomes

    Creating 1,000 units of critically needed supportive
     housing for ex-offenders

    Improving financial integration and policy coordination
     among corrections, housing, and human service

    Developing successful supportive housing models
     tailored to ex-offenders
Returning Home Goals and Outcomes

    Documenting decreased recidivism rates for ex-
     offenders living in supportive housing

    Demonstrating cost savings in participating correctional

    Demonstrating on a national scale the power of
     supportive housing as a solution to the complex needs of
     ex-offenders with chronic health and mental health

       Los Angeles
         New York
New York City

 Frequent Users Service Enhancement (FUSE) program
   Pilot program to increase collaboration between the Department of
    Homeless Services and the Department of Corrections.
   Serves 100 frequent users of both systems.
   More than 3,500 frequent users have been identified.
   Targeted outreach underway to engage them and place them in
    supportive housing.
   A network of providers created to engage and house the frequent
   Multiple sources of financing, including Section 8 rental subsidies
    and NYC Mental Health services.
   Investment from the JEHT Foundation for a “service enhancement.”
   Through evaluation, FUSE hopes to demonstrate cost effectiveness
    and replace foundation funding with DOC resources.
Los Angeles

$1.5 Million Pilot Program with the LA County Sheriff’s Department

   Direct investment to support the integration of
    corrections, housing, and human services
   Trained social workers to do jail “in-reach” to identify
    inmates with serious mental illness who could benefit
    from supportive housing
   Create a network of supportive housing providers to
    collaborate with corrections staff to place the target
    population into supportive housing upon release
   Provide time-limited rent subsidies for each inmate in the
    program to provide short-term stability.
Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation & Corrections

      Pilot program funded by the Ohio Department of
       Rehabilitation and Corrections.

      $1Million in FY 2007, with commitments for the next two

      CSH working to create a network of supportive housing
       providers to work with people on parole leaving the state

      Evaluation planned to assess the cost-effectiveness of the
Evaluation of Returning Home

       CSH has retained to the Urban Institute to lead evaluation
        of Returning Home

       Chicago/Cook County identified as site for National
        Institute of Justice grant proposal
       Ohio will likely also use Urban Instutue
       Cost/Impact evaluation
         – recidivism rates
         – housing stability
         – utilization of mental health and other crisis systems

       Systems Change Evaluation
   Thanks for your Interest and Attention to this
   You can make a difference by making your
    –   Safer in the long run
    –   Saving money over repeated institutionalization
    –   Improving lives
    –   Doing the right thing
Examples of Resources
Available on CSH Website

      “A Guide to Reentry Supportive Housing: A Three Part
       Primer for Non-Profit Supportive Housing Developers,
       Social Service Providers, and Their Government
      “New Beginnings: The Need for Supportive Housing for
       Previously Incarcerated People”.
      “Preventing Homelessness through Discharge Planning”.
      “Reentry Policy Council Report”
      Link to HUD Resource
Useful Resources

   National Institute for Corrections
     – ABT- Transition from Prison to Community
   US Department of Justice
   GAINS Center- Technical Institute on Co-Occuring
    MISA Disorders- Jails- 800-311-4246, Hank Steadman
   Corporation for Supportive Housing (
   SAMHSA- 800-729-6686
     – Best Approach to Re-Entry
     – Continuity of Offender Treatment
   Bazelon Center for MH Law- 202-467-5730
Useful Resources

   American Jail Association / American Correctional
   Urban Institute- Policy and Profile Papers on Prison
    Re-entry Issues
   Human Rights Watch-
   Center for Mental Health and Criminal Justice
   TAPA Center / National Alliance to End
   Criminal Justice / Mental Health Consensus Project-
For more information, contact:

   John Fallon
   Program Manager, Re-Entry
   “Returning Home Initiative”
   Corporation for Supportive Housing
   203 N. Wabash, Suite 410
   Chicago, IL 60601

   T 312.332.6690 x21
   C 773.719.4601

To top