Humane Exposures on Homelessness, Criminal Justice, Juvenile Justice, At-Risk populations + Women\'s Studies

Alan Waldman | September 13, 2013

D.C. Meeting and NSC Juvenile Justice Report Focus on Cost-saving Alternatives to Youth Incarceration

English: Front of the Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building in Washington DC (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Three members of the National Research Council’s Committee on Assisting Juvenile Justice Reform presented the report’s findings on July 26, 2013. The report stressed that, “To effectively meet the challenges of juvenile offending and reduce recidivism, states and localities must move away from a justice model focused on punishment and instead adopt a model that acknowledges the changes that youthful offenders are undergoing and fosters positive development and accountability.

Dr. Robert L. Johnson, Committee Chair and Director of the Division of Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine at Rutgers University—New Jersey Medical School, said, based on his 40 years working with youth in trouble with the law, that the “juvenile justice system as it now exists does not respect human development and it often makes these kids worse.”

The frontal lobe, which is home to judgment, impulse control, emotions, reasoning and problem-solving is the last part of the brain to mature, usually at about 24 years old. As a result, Dr. Edward Mulvey, Director of the Law and Psychiatry Program at the Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic of the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine said:

Adolescents differ from adults in three important ways: they have trouble regulating their feelings in emotionally charged situations, they have a heightened sensitivity to contextual influences in their environment, such as peer pressure. and they are less able to understand the future implications and impact of their decisions and judgments.

“To support positive development, adolescents need a strong, caring parent or parent figure, positive peers and opportunities for positive decision-making and critical thinking. Interventions that hold offenders accountable for their actions will promote healthy moral development and legal socialization, if youth perceive them to be fair. Conversely, interventions that youthful offenders perceive to be unfair will foster further social disaffection and antisocial behavior.

Gladys Carrion, Commissioner of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services, believes that in many cases, juvenile justice does not have access to important supports found in the mental health, substance abuse treatment, education, developmental disabilities and housing systems—and this needs to change.

During her six years as head of New York State’s Office of Children and Family Services, her agency has closed 21 facilities. It costs her state $262,000 a year to house a child in the juvenile justice system, so the savings have been substantial. Now only the children who pose a risk enter the juvenile justice system. The state has used the savings to fund alternatives to detention, develop improved assessment tools, improve conditions of confinement for those youth in the system and streamline probation. New York has additionally shortened the length of stay in confinement for youth and has hired therapists, psychologists and psychiatrists to work with them..

In another meeting, on September 6, 2013 Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) hosted “States’ Innovations in Juvenile Justice: Investing in Better Outcomes for Our Communities.” Leaders from Connecticut, Texas and Ohio, and federal juvenile justice leaders discussed recent bipartisan reforms that have improved outcomes for kids involved with the juvenile justice system and for youth who are removed from their schools for disciplinary reasons, and who are therefore at risk of becoming involved with the justice system.

Mike Lawlor, Under Secretary for Criminal Justice Policy and Planning in Connecticut, described legislation that greatly reduced the number of youth confined in juvenile justice facilities, developed new community-based supervision and treatment programs and raised the age of juvenile court jurisdiction from 16 to 18.

Texas State Senator John Whitmire detailed a new law prohibiting the use of confinement for youth adjudicated for misdemeanor offenses. He also explained a new incentive program for counties to place youth in local evidence-based programs, rather than in state-operated correctional facilities. Texas redirected $57.8 million that would have been used to house juveniles for misdemeanors in secure facilities into community-based programs.

Linda Teodosio, of the Summit County Juvenile Court in Ohio, explained how the RECLAIM Ohio (Reasoned and Equitable Community and Local Alternatives to the Incarceration of Minors) funding initiative has expanded dispositional options for youth and community-based alternatives while creating financial incentives for counties to keep youth out of confinement. In fiscal year 2012, these county subsidies for juvenile justice programs totaled approximately $47.3 million, serving 600 programs and 110,000 youngsters across Ohio. The funds received through RECLAIM can be used for a vast array of treatment, intervention, diversion and prevention programs, such as treatment, alternative schools, intensive probation, electronic monitoring and residential treatment.

Panelists also focused on significant reforms in their states and at the local level that reduce the impact of harmful school discipline policies which push youth into the juvenile justice system. These reforms include reducing the number of exclusionary policies and school-based referrals to law enforcement. The three featured states have saved millions of dollars from reduced incarceration and cut back on harmful, ineffective policies such as the over-confinement of youth for low-level offenses, while improving outcomes for youth and keeping communities safe.

Senator Murphy stated:

In Connecticut, it costs about $14,000 a year to educate a student, while it costs $270,000 a year to house a child in custody. In a time of tight budgets, it makes absolutely no sense to continue to house as many kids as we do in prisons when it costs about 10% of that amount to keep the kids in school and in communities.

“But we’re moving in the right direction. Over the last decade, 10-15 states have figured out that there are steps to divert kids out of incarceration. By reinvesting funds back into other juvenile justice prevention and intervention practices proven to work, states can realize additional cost savings, reduce recidivism and help youth become productive adults.

RELATED ARTICLES

Category: Humane Exposures |

Alan Waldman | September 5, 2013

One comment

Occupy Madison Fights Homelessness with Little Houses

DDG_0575 (Photo credit: ArtistJ)

In Madison, WI, where 3,000 people a year experience homelessness, Occupy Madison, aided by many groups and businesses, is building tiny, 98-square-foot homes with beds, microwaves, refrigerators, compost toilets, paintings and heating.

For the time being, the homes are being built on wheels, because the city’s current parking regulations forbid trailers from staying at the same location for more than 48 hours, so the houses will be moved every two days until the law is changed. Local churches are offering their parking lots for the new mini-residences, once zoning laws are amended. City Councilwoman Marsha Rummel plans to introduce legislation allowing houses of worship and non-profits to accommodate the homes on their property.

Occupy Madison plans eight more small homes in the next year, and—like other Occupy groups around the country—it wants to create a community for formerly homeless people.

The first home will go to Betty Ybarra and Chris Derrick, who have been homeless and living in a tent for 15 months. They are helping volunteers build the house.

Madison city housing is very expensive, so homeless people are forced into shelters, but once a person’s time runs out at a shelter they return to the streets, where they are subject to police fines.

Project organizer Bruce Wallbaum says:

We are providing a small but a very adequate home. People are fearful of homeless people living in tents, and I think that a house sort of takes away that fear. We anticipate we may have to move two or three homes before either land or the church option becomes available.

“In order to live in one of the new little homes, a homeless person goes through an application process, has to start working in the Occupy Madison Build [OM Build] shop, where they are required to help build the home, and they eventually reach a point where they’re in line to get a tiny home.

Occupy Madison plans to ultimately create an eco-community, with homes in a variety of sizes, including one-bedroom. The first homes weigh about 500 pounds each and cost about $4,000 to make. Donations made to Occupy Madison and Occupy Madison Build will cover rent, utilities and the supplies needed to construct the homes.

While most of the funding for the homes has come from philanthropic donations, the University of Wisconsin–Madison’s engineering department donated a solar electric system for each home, the local fire department gave smoke alarms and a local artist has offered to create unique pieces of art for each home. Donations of scrap wood were so plentiful that the group had to discourage them. It hosted a Pallet Palooza, where volunteers broke down the shipping platforms that are the preferred source of wood siding for the houses.

Word of the tiny homes is spreading fast. After news of homeless people working on the first 98-square-foot house broke in early July, the initiative got its share of attention from local media, WMTV-15, Al Jazeera America and Minneapolis’s MintPress News, which sent the story viral. Several Occupy groups from around the U.S. have contacted Wallbaum to learn how his group runs the program.

About 150 people showed up at a July 30 fundraiser where OM Build raised $17,600. About 15 people have attended each of two workshops to learn a few basic skills needed to construct the houses in the step-by-step system developed at the group’s rented workshop. Already, OM Build fundraising has provided the seed money needed to operate the plan for six months and test its viability.

The concept was a huge hit with 30 leaders of local faith communities who visited the OM Build workshop. Barbara McKinney, associate director of Madison-area Urban Ministry, said:

We walked away feeling that this is a way to move toward addressing homelessness in our community. It’s a proactive, workable solution. The next step is for leaders of individual congregations to bring information about OM Build to their members, with an eye to some eventually hosting a house, if laws are changed to make that possible.

Category: Homelessness | Tags: Al Jazeera America, Chris Derrick, City Council, homelessness, Madison, Occupy Madison, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin-Madison

Alan Waldman | September 3, 2013

No comments

Columbia, Raleigh, Tampa, Portland and Six Other Cities Have Declared War on the Homeless

Homeless (Photo credit: fotografar)

Recently 10 U.S. cities have passed laws banning the homeless from the city center, forcing them into a punitive suburban shelter or jail or threatening jail to those who feed the homeless. More business-controlled, heartless and backward-thinking municipalities are likely to follow.

The list of homeless-hating cities: Columbia SC, Raleigh NC, Portland OR, Philadelphia PA, Kalamazoo MI, Nevada City, CA and Tampa, Orlando and St. Petersburg FL, while Miami is working on a law to criminalize the homeless.

During the 1990s, New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani planned to remove homeless people from shelters if they refused to work. New York City police also started handing out $76 citations to the homeless who “camped in public.”

Los Angeles city officials appropriated homeless people’s property and destroyed it, with no due process, until the courts smacked them silly with a couple of little-known laws called the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.

On Aug. 13, the Columbia SC City Council approved a plan

that effectively makes homelessness illegal in parts of the city. It forces those who sleep outdoors downtown to be sent to a small, prison-like shelter on the outskirts of town. Those people who fail to comply are to be rounded up and forced to leave town or sent to the slammer on a range of public nuisance laws.

Jake Maguire, spokesman for Community Solutions’ “100,000 Homes Campaign” said:

It’s basically a choice between two kinds of incarceration. There’s jail and then there’s the shelter. Once you get to the shelter, 15 miles from downtown, you can’t come and go. You are basically brought to a place where you are expected to stay. If you want to go back downtown, you have to get approval for them to shuttle you back.

To make sure the homeless don’t return, a police officer will be stationed on the road leading to the downtown district to keep them away. The plan has major support from Columbia’s business leaders.

In addition to its cruelty, Columbia’s plan is flawed, because it does not address the causes of homelessness, tackle permanent solutions or accurately weigh the economic impacts of shuttling the homeless to shelters, instead of securing permanent housing. On average, permanent supportive housing―which includes an apartment and services like rehabilitation―costs about $16,000-$18,000 a year, whereas keeping a person at a shelter for a year costs $22,000.

Another flaw in Columbia’s plan is its assumption that all unhoused people have the capacity to make rational choices, even if both alternatives stink. For the one-third of homeless people who have untreated mental illnesses, however, there will be no choice—just the nightmare of arrest and jail without understanding why or how to help themselves.

The homeless can avoid arrest only by either fleeing the area (which is exactly what Columbia would like) or by surrendering themselves to an overcrowded shelter guarded by police who ensure they don’t escape on foot. Columbia has 1,518 homeless, and the distant approved shelter only has 240 beds. Once in the shelter, the only way to leave is by scheduling a ride on a shuttle van to a specific appointment. The only way to stay is by complying with all prescribed services, like mental health treatment. Otherwise, it’s off to the pokey.

Cops will now be assigned to patrol the city center and keep homeless people out. They will be instructed to strictly enforce the city’s “quality of life” laws, including bans on loitering, public urination and other violations. And just to ensure that no one slips through the cracks, the city will set up a hotline so local businesses and residents can report the presence of a homeless person to police.

Think Progress senior reporter Scott Keyes wrote:

The Columbia City Council wants police to arrest every homeless person and encourages residents to report each other just for looking homeless, to ensure the removal of all undesirables from the downtown area.

Fortunately, Columbia Interim Police Chief Ruben Santiago doesn’t believe homelessness is a crime and refuses to round up these unfortunate people.

Wake County NC (which includes Raleigh) currently has 1,150 homeless people, including 176 mentally ill,91 veterans, 68 domestic violence victims, five people with AIDS, three unaccompanied children and 494 unfortunates with substance abuse disorder. Raleigh police have threatened to arrest people who distribute food to the homeless near Moore Square Park (which they have done for the past six years).

In addition to these atrocities, Philadelphia has banned feeding homeless people outdoors to “prevent food-borne illness.” Orlando, FL, went the extra mile, not caring who got caught in its dragnet, by outlawing the providing of food to all groups of people, homeless or not. California’s Nevada City prohibits sleeping anywhere but in a proper building. Kalamazoo MI made sleeping on park benches a criminal offense that goes on the vagrant’s permanent record. St. Petersburg FL rules that people who sleep outside must, when caught, either go to any shelter—and there are lots of good reasons to avoid shelters—or go to jail.
Miami is looking to get on the criminalization bandwagon too. It is working towards a law that would make “homeless people who sat down, made themselves a meal or relieved themselves” criminals.

This summer Portland OR and Tampa FL also initiated steps to boot out their homeless. Portland prohibits “camping” on public property, and quite recently five homeless residents were rounded up and arrested, and the mayor’s office says that’s just the beginning. The Tampa City Council passed a new ordinance in July that would allow police officers to arrest anyone they see sleeping in public or “storing personal property in public.”

Despite the Recession, the U.S. homeless population declined 17% from 2005 to 2012. Both the George W. Bush and Obama administrations conducted major anti-homelessness initiatives, including a $1.5-billion program which President Obama launched with stimulus funds in 2009. But the Sequester could reverse that. Tragically, the Department of Housing and Urban Development says mandated budget cuts from housing and shelter programs could expel 100,000 people this year—nearly one-sixth of the homeless population.

Category: Homelessness | Tags: City Council, Columbia, George W. Bush, homelessness, Los Angeles, Miami, New York City, Tampa City Council

Alan Waldman | August 23, 2013

No comments

Oxytocin, the “Love Hormone,” Shows Signs of Benefitting Incarcerated Women

Oxytocin can benefit incarcerated women by reducing the stress one experiences in uncomfortable circumstances. Humane Exposures founder, writer Susan Madden Lankford, contends that this is a normal “clutching together” of the women who end up in prison open dayroom or patio experiences.

Oxytocin, sometimes called “the love hormone,” has been shown to aid maternal bonding, increase social recognition, raise trust and empathy within groups, affect generosity and inhibit tolerance to opiates, cocaine, alcohol and other addictive drugs, while reducing withdrawal symptoms. It may also be an effective treatment for autism, by reducing repetitive behavior.

Madden observes that women “really bond together in prison units, over their disdain regarding guards and other staff at the facilities, over their physical conditions, over being mothers deprived of their children and so on. Oxytocin is such a strong hormone that women actually do not fear returning to jail, thereby aggravating our recidivism rates in local and state facilities,” she notes. There is evidence that oxytocin may actually aid in increasing women’s health while they are incarcerated.

Dr. Shelley E. Taylor, a research professor at the UCLA Psychology Department, [please link to: has written:

Socioemotional resources, including optimism, mastery, self-esteem and social support have biological and psychological benefits, especially in times of stress. Our research program of the last 25 years has explored these resources and documented their many benefits, and, as such, attests to the powerful ability of the human mind to construe threatening events in ways that are protective of health.

“Our current research assesses whether oxytocin acts roughly as a social thermostat that is responsive to the adequacy of social resources, that prompts affiliative behavior if those resources fall below an adequate level and that reduces biological and psychological stress responses, once positive social contacts are reestablished.

Female rats given oxytocin antagonists after giving birth do not exhibit typical maternal behavior. In contrast, virgin female sheep show maternal behavior toward foreign lambs upon cerebrospinal fluid infusion of oxytocin, which they would not do otherwise.

Taylor adds:

There is some evidence that oxytocin promotes ethnocentric behavior, incorporating the trust and empathy of in-groups with their suspicion and rejection of outsiders. Furthermore, genetic differences in the oxytocin receptor gene have been associated with maladaptive social traits such as aggressive behavior.

Because oxytocin is destroyed in the stomach, it is generally administered by nasal spray. Several female prison medical staff have been experimenting with oxytocin, and the results are favorable so far.

Category: Humane Exposures, Prison, Women's Issues | Tags: incarcerated women, Oxytocin

Alan Waldman | August 16, 2013

No comments

“Models for Change” System Aims at Needed Juvenile Justice Reforms

Behind Bars, Fitzroy, Melbourne (Photo credit: Scott (Double Beard) Savage)

The John D. and Catherine T MacArthur Foundation, which has already funded $150 million in juvenile justice reform research and programs over nearly two decades, just pledged another $15 million to establish a Models for Change Resource Center Partnership.

“Right now there are no go-to places to get the kind of information, resources, toolkits, and access to colleagues who have ‘been there and done that,’ for would-be juvenile justice reform advocates,” said Laurie Garduque, director of justice reform for the MacArthur Foundation. The new Partnership aims to be that place people call when they want to make the kind of policy changes that result in better outcomes for kids and communities, including rehabilitation, treatment in home communities and competent legal defense.

The announcement came at the 2013 summit of the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), an annual gathering of 5,000 state lawmakers, staff, advocates, lobbyists and others. NCSL will be one of several allies that MacArthur will tap to help coordinate and push juvenile justice reforms. The Partnership is expected to be fully operational within 2013.

Garduque says:

The other half of what the Partnership aims to do is to make sure people like legislators, sheriffs and court administrators see MacArthur-researched juvenile justice practices when they get together and discuss their own best practices.

The Partnership will set up four go-to centers in different policy areas: mental health training and care, legal defense, status offense reform and a more general juvenile justice center focused on court-involved youth.

Currently, Models for Change supports a network of government and court officials, legal advocates, educators, community leaders and families who work together in six key areas to ensure that kids who make mistakes are held accountable and are treated fairly throughout the juvenile justice process. It provides research-based tools and techniques to make juvenile justice more fair, effective, rational and developmentally-appropriate.
Models for Change has supported many counties and states in reforming the way they treat kids who have committed crimes. Local officials say that Models for Change has helped them improve public safety and support juveniles, even as they grapple with tight budgets and tough fiscal decisions. The progress that has been seen in Models for Change communities shows that when committed people come together real reform can create lasting change.

The Models for Change juvenile justice system reform initiative is now working comprehensively in four states (Washington. Illinois, Louisiana and Pennsylvania) and is concentrating on the issues of mental health services, juvenile indigent defense and racial and ethnic disparities in an additional 12. The dozen partner states are Maryland, Wisconsin, Kansas, North Carolina, California, Florida, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Connecticut, Colorado, Ohio and Texas. The MacArthur Foundation has committed to spending up to $10 million over five years to support juvenile justice reforms in each of the four core states.

The six key areas Models for Change focuses on are Aftercare, Community-based Alternatives to Incarceration, Evidence-Proven Practices, Juvenile Indigent Defense, Mental Health and Racial/ethnic Fairness.

Aftercare involves post-release services, supervision and support that helps formerly incarcerated youth transition safely and successfully back into the community. Without quality aftercare, the estimated 100,000 youngsters leaving juvenile institutions each year face failure, recidivism and more incarceration. Sadly, quality aftercare is in short supply nationally.

Pennsylvania has selected aftercare as a targeted area of improvement and is working to connect youth with the programs and services they need to adjust and succeed after their residential treatment. The state is integrating treatment plans with aftercare plans to assist young people in overcoming problems, building on strengths and acquiring essential living skills. It is developing educational and employment programs to improve their life chances.

Most young people who violate the law do not need to be formally processed or held in custody. In fact, such measures often do serious damage by disrupting their bonds to their families and communities. Unfortunately, juvenile facilities are filled with low-level youth who could be safely and effectively managed in other settings. Confinement of low-level delinquents is costly for communities and doesn’t serve public safety.

Now more than ever, research is helping to establish approaches and programs that effectively change delinquent behavior, lower recidivism and help young people succeed. Rigorously studied evidence-based programs like Multisystemic Therapy and Family Functional Therapy have been found to produce consistently better results than traditional interventions. Research also supports other programs and services that show promise in improving behavior and emotional functioning. Sadly, many juvenile justice systems struggle to put these proven and scientifically supported approaches into practice.

Young people in trouble with the law have a right to legal counsel, but they often don’t get the timely or adequate representation they need. Many waive their constitutional right to counsel and accept plea offers without fully understanding their actions. Too often, even those who do have lawyers are inadequately represented, because of defenders’ high caseloads, inexperience and/or lack of training and resources. Statewide assessments of the juvenile indigent defense systems in Pennsylvania, Illinois, Louisiana, and Washington have already been conducted, and technical assistance and training have been offered.
Recent research shows that up to 70 percent of youth in the juvenile justice system meet the criteria for at least one mental health disorder, such as major depression, bipolar disorder or anxiety conditions. Many of these youngsters land in the juvenile justice system because their conditions are unrecognized, community services aren’t available or systems aren’t coordinating effectively to put the right support in place. Unfortunately, young people with mental health problems often get worse when they are inappropriately treated or confined without support. Pennsylvania and Washington have chosen mental health as one of their targeted areas for improvement. The MacArthur-funded Partnership Resource Center in the mental health area will be the Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice, based in Albany, NY.

Finally, youth of color are overrepresented at nearly every point of contact with the juvenile justice system—and this finding is disturbingly persistent over time. Youth of color are more likely to be incarcerated and to serve more time than white youth, even when charged with the same category of offense. Reducing disproportionate minority contact with the juvenile justice system is a critical objective for all 16 core and partner Models for Change states.

Category: Humane Exposures, Juvenile Justice | Tags: "The John D. and Catherine T MacArthur Foundation", juvenile justice, Models For Change, reform

Alan Waldman | August 9, 2013

No comments

This Year, the Obama Administration’s “Continuum of Care” Initiative Funded 7,500 Local Programs to Combat Homelessness

On July 321, 2013, U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Shaun Donovan announced a third round of grants for more than 250 homeless housing and service programs in all 50 states, as well as nearly 200 grants to assist with local strategic planning activities provided through HUD’s Continuum of Care Program. Earlier this year, HUD awarded more than $1.5 billion in the first two rounds of grant funding to renew support for more than 7,500 local programs.

This year, HUD challenged local communities to reexamine their response to homelessness and give greater weight to proven strategies, from providing ‘rapid re-housing’ for homeless families to permanent supportive housing for those experiencing chronic homelessness.

The latest $57 million in grants support a wide range of new programs, including creating and implementing systems to make the use of homeless services more efficient and more than 1,900 new permanent supportive housing beds for chronically homeless persons.

The new projects were largely the result of local strategic decisions that resulted in the reallocation of funds from existing renewal projects that were no longer critically needed in favor of creating new programs to help the community achieve the goal of ending homelessness. In addition to offering new permanent supportive housing and rapid re-housing to homeless persons, Continuum of Care also links the homeless to services including job training, health care, mental health counseling, substance abuse treatment and child care.

HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan said:

Today’s grantee programs will join the thousands of local programs that are on the front lines ending homelessness across the nation. As we continue to see a decline in homelessness, investing in programs that are moving homeless families and individuals to permanent housing is as critical as ever, because it’s not only the right thing to do, but it’s smart government and fiscally prudent.

Continuum of Care grants are awarded competitively to local projects to meet the needs of their homeless clients. They fund a wide variety of programs, from street outreach and assessment to transitional and permanent housing for homeless people and families. HUD funds are a critical part of the Obama Administration’s strategic plan to prevent and end homelessness.

In 2010, President Obama and 19 federal agencies and offices that form the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness launched the nation’s first comprehensive strategy to prevent and end homelessness. Opening Doors: Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness puts the country on a path to end veterans’ and chronic homelessness by 2015 and to ending homelessness among children, family and youth by 2020.

According to a 2012 “point in time” estimate, there were 633,782 homeless persons in America on a single night in January of 2012, largely unchanged from the year before. While HUD found significant declines among the long-term homeless and veterans, local communities reported an increase in the number of sheltered and unsheltered families with children.

The Continuum of Care is a set of three competitively-awarded programs, created to address the problems of homelessness in a comprehensive manner with other federal agencies. When HUD publishes a Notice of Funding Availability for Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance in the Federal Register, applicants must submit specific information about a proposed project, along with their Continuum of Care application. Each application must include a certification that the project is consistent with the Consolidated Plan of the jurisdiction where each proposed project is found.

First of the three is the Supportive Housing Program, which helps develop housing and related supportive services for people moving from homelessness to independent living. Program funds help homeless people live in a stable place, increase their skills or income and gain more control over the decisions that affect their lives.

The second, Shelter Plus Care, provides rental assistance that, when combined with social services, provides supportive housing for homeless people with disabilities and their families. The program allows for a variety of housing choices, such as group homes or individual units, coupled with a range of supportive services (funded by other sources). Grantee programs must match the rental assistance with supportive services that are at least equal in value to the amount of HUD’s rental assistance.

The third program is Single Room Occupancy (SRO), which provides Section 8 rental assistance for moderate rehabilitation of buildings with SRO units: single-room dwellings that often do not contain food preparation or sanitary facilities, but which are designed for the use of an individual, A public housing authority makes Section 8 rental assistance payments to the landlords for the homeless people who rent their rehabilitated units.

The state of Virginia has received nearly $1 million in federal grants for new permanent housing and service programs to curb homelessness, through Continuum of Care. Hilliard House, a Richmond shelter for homeless women with children received a $108,864 grant to continue rapidly re-housing residents who remain on the street. The organization will use funds for rental subsidies, financial assistance, supportive services and case management.

Its Executive Director, Ross S. Altenbaugh said:

Across the Greater Richmond area we have definitely gotten aggressive about getting people housed quickly, so I know it’s been a really exciting couple of years in making sure that happens in a more consistent and quicker way.

Over the past three years, Virginia homelessness has dropped by 16%, the number of people in homeless households with children declined by17.3% percent and homeless persons with chronic substance abuse went down by 30%

Category: Homelessness, Humane Exposures |

Alan Waldman | August 3, 2013

No comments

New Jersey’s Integrity House Drug-treatment and Mental Health Facilities Offer an Alternative to Prison, Treatment in County Jail and a Range of Services

Intended for use in Wikiproject User Rehab (two people going together from darkness to light) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Four hundred women and families per year are served by the Newark and Secaucus, NJ-based Integrity House substance abuse and mental health treatment center, which recently added the 30-bed Joan Riddick House residential facility. Named after a beloved staffer who passed away in 2009, Joan Riddick House provides therapy, addiction education, domestic violence and anger management groups, GED test preparation and voluntary spiritual counseling, among other services. Women spend an average of six months in residential treatment

Previously, inpatient women were crammed into a small space above the dining hall in a men’s halfway house, but now the 30 of them have four floors of bunk beds, closets, shared bathrooms and a brightly painted basement converted into room for family visits.

Former New Jersey Governor James McGreevey, who has spent two years working at Integrity House, which serves 2000 people each year, says:

I assist former inmates in helping them on the road to recovery, and in some cases I also help members fill out college applications, so they are able to have promising futures. Hudson County is blessed to have such an extraordinary hard-working team to help others reclaim their lives and realize how important rehabilitation is.

When he’s not leading discussions or counseling former prison inmates, McGreevey tries to empower individuals to make right decisions by helping them identify harmful behaviors and overcome addictive urges.

Founded in 1968, Integrity House is the largest treatment facility funded and licensed by the State of New Jersey. It offers a multitude of state licensed programs, including Adult Residential, Adolescent Residential, Partial Care, Intensive Outpatient, Corrections, Reentry, Aftercare and Post-treatment Housing. It also offers addicts prevention, intervention and educational services. It has three residential campuses and 16 buildings in Essex and Hudson Counties, manned by 220 staff. Forty women (and 40 men) are currently involved in its Hudson County Correctional Center pre-release program.

Integrity House’s support programs include psychiatric evaluation, individual and group counseling, methadone maintenance, education, job readiness and depression screening and treatment. In 2012, 72% of residents were criminal justice referrals, 30% were homeless, 25% had health insurance, 81% had legal problems and 52% had heroin as their drug of choice. Integrity House received $8.6 million last year in government, foundation, donations and special event revenues—up more than 21% over 2011’s level.

Integrity House founder and president Dave Kerr explains:

This is a therapeutic community, which differs from most treatment modalities where a professional counselor treats and advises patients. Here members supervise other members, with more responsibility meted out as it is earned. Advice and pressure from their peers help members get well.

Category: Humane Exposures |

Alan Waldman | July 25, 2013

One comment

Restorative Justice is a Valid Alternative to Much Juvenile Incarceration

An inscription of the Code of Hammurabi. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Restorative Justice, which has been practiced in many cultures for more than 4000 years, is now making inroads in the United States. It seeks to largely replace a collective justice that is tainted by racial discrimination, by billions in corporate profit, by the warehousing of our most vulnerable, by maintaining a school-to-prison pipeline and by the practices of expecting punishment and isolation for all involved when crime occurs. Instead, it is actually rehabilitative.

Restorative justice (sometimes called reparative justice) focuses on the needs of the victims and the offenders, as well as the involved community, instead of satisfying abstract legal principles or punishing the offender. Victims take an active role in the process, while offenders are encouraged to take responsibility for their actions and to repair the harm they’ve done—by apologizing, returning stolen money and/or performing community service.

It considers crime to be an offence against an individual or community, rather than the state. Restorative justice that creates dialogue between victim and offender shows the highest rates of victim satisfaction and offender accountability.

Restorative justice is not a new concept. It was practice in ancient Sumeria around 2060 B.C., requiring offender restitution for violent crimes. From about 1700 B.C., Babylon’s Code of Hammurabi prescribed restitution for property offences. Also in the Old Testament’s Five Books of Moses, restitution was ordered for property crimes. Indigenous tribes around the world practice Restorative Justice, and it is the main juvenile justice model in New Zealand today. A modern example of it with adults is the “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” in post-Apartheid South Africa.

Retributive justice began to replace such systems after the Norman invasion of Britain in 1066 A.D. when William the Conqueror’s son, Henry I, detailed offenses against the “king’s peace.” By the end of the 11th century, crime was no longer regarded as injurious to persons, but rather was seen as an offense against the state. This view, tragically, has persisted since then.

Throughout the U.S., programs are working in the Rehabilitative Justice area, and legislation action is in the works in Massachusetts and Florida. Backed by Congressman Bobby Scott, D-Va., with support from Senator Mary Landrieu, D-La. and Senator James Inhofe, R-Okla., the Youth Promise Act, brought forth by many co-sponsors and led by The Peace Alliance, focuses on dismantling the prison-to-school pipeline by effectively implementing programs and providing education and tools that derive from Restorative Justice principles. It will fund evidence-based violence-prevention and intervention practices, empower local control and community oversight, save taxpayer money and provide measurable data that backs up the successes.

The U.S. is the world’s incarceration leader, imprisoning 754 people per 100,000—2.3 million in total—at a public cost of $63 billion per year. Colorado and Ohio lock up more of their citizens than dictatorships such as Pakistan and Libya, and many more than allies including England (154) Canada (117), Germany (85) and Japan (59). Virginia Senator Jim Webb said, “We are either the most evil people in the world, or there is something fundamentally wrong with our criminal justice system.”

Colorado recently passed a Restorative Justice Pilot Projects law that in four judicial districts sets up a fund for restorative justice with a $10 surcharge on all violations excluding traffic. It focuses on youth diversion and strong data collection, research and education to complement a growing general statistic that proves its efficacy.

In reports from Longmont, CO’s Police Department’s Restorative Justice Programs and the Longmont Community Justice Partnership, Master Police Officer Greg Ruprecht says:

These youth programs show exponential drops in recidivism (at the moment the rate is 10%, compared to 60-70% nationwide) and high participant satisfaction. Perhaps even more poignant is the tens of thousands of dollars per case that is saved from diverting youth from incarceration.

Thousands of prominent public figures, including Michael Moore, Cameron Diaz, Jamie Foxx, Scarlett Johansson, Rev. Al Sharpton, Will Smith, Kerry Washington, Rev Jesse Jackson, John Hamm, Russell Brand, Margaret Cho, Ron Howard, Chris Rock, Mark Wahlberg and Deepak Chopra have signed a letter to President Obama urging criminal justice reform and support for the Youth PROMISE Act (Prison Reduction through Opportunities, Mentoring, Intervention, Support and Education) and other reforms. The letter says, in part:

We believe the time is right to further the work you have done around revising our national policies on the criminal justice system and continue moving from a suppression-based model to one that focuses on intervention and rehabilitation.

“We are proud of your accomplishments around these issues—specifically your leadership on gun control, your investments in “problem solving courts,” your creation of the Federal Interagency Reentry Council, your launching the National Forum on Youth Violence Prevention and your prosecution of a record number of hate crimes in 2011 and 2012.

“We recommend, under the Fair Sentencing Act, extending to all inmates who were subject to 100-to-1 crack-to-powder disparity a chance to have their sentences reduced to those that are more consistent with the magnitude of the offense. We ask your support for the principles of the Justice Safety Valve Act of 2013, which allows judges to set aside mandatory minimum sentences when they deem appropriate.

Restorative justice can be handled in a courtroom or within a community or nonprofit organization. In social justice cases, impoverished victims such as foster children are given the opportunity to describe their future hopes and make concrete plans to transition out of state custody, in a group process with their supporters.

In the community, concerned individuals meet with all parties to assess the experience and impact of the crime. Offenders listen to victims’ experiences, preferably until they are able to empathize with them. Then they speak to how they decided to commit the offense. A plan is made to prevent future occurrences, and for the offender to address the damage to the injured parties. All agree. Community members then hold the offender(s) accountable for adherence to the plan.

In addition to serving as an alternative to civil or criminal trial, restorative justice can be applicable to offenders who are currently incarcerated. This assists with the prisoner’s rehabilitation and eventual reintegration into society. By repairing the harm to the relationships between offenders and victims, and offenders and the community, that resulted from crime, restorative justice seeks to understand and address the circumstances which contributed to the crime, in order prevent recidivism, once the offender is released.

Category: Humane Exposures |

Alan Waldman | July 19, 2013

No comments

“Transformational Campus” Programs Move Homeless from Streets to Multi-service Facilities

Homeless Guy on 6th St. in Austin, TX (Photo credit: Bukowsky18)

In June 2010, San Antonio’s $125 million “Haven for Hope” program opened the largest and most comprehensive “transformational campus” in the U.S. It now has 15 buildings on 37 acres and nearly a half million square feet under roof. More than 80 faith-based, non-profit and government service partners work together to holistically and proactively help the nearly 2,100 residents daily. Robert Marbut was the founding President and CEO.

Haven for Hope provides hundreds of services to homeless people, including medical, dental, vision, substance abuse , mental health and podiatry clinics; classrooms for job and life skills training; and housing, legal, childcare, veterans , case-management and pet-shelter services. It also provides food, exercise, clothing, banking and transportation services. It has safe outdoor mat-sleeping zones for those not yet ready for the program. Of those who have utilized the outdoor sleeping courtyard, 797 have moved to the Transformational Campus and 126 have gone into permanent housing.

Seven hundred people live on campus and work toward jobs, homes and independence. Since the program opened three years ago, there have been 383 job placements, including 100% employment for those in the dental hygienist training program and those completing the first culinary training class. The In-House Recovery Program, which provides housing and support for those with drug and alcohol addictions, has had a 60% success rate, with a total of 240 graduates.

More than 500 individuals have completed various transformation programs and are now living independently. So successful is Haven of Hope that leaders from nearly 200 cities from 44 states have visited the campus, in hopes of implementing similar programs in their communities.

According to its brochure:

The campus is near downtown, close to existing social service facilities. It is funded through a combination of public funds (city, county and federal) as well as private donations. It represents tremendous cost savings, since it is much less expensive to treat the homeless in a center of this kind than it is through publicly funded emergency rooms or other care facilities. Haven of Hope is managed by an independent board, free of political red tape.

“Effective treatment also keeps the homeless out of the legal system and jail, and additional research shows that up to 80% of people who become homeless within a given year can exit homelessness quickly–if they get the assistance they need.

A similar, though somewhat controversial transformational center, is the 500-bed St. Petersburg Safe Harbor program. Robert Marbut, who has studied homelessness in hundreds of cities, was its paid consultant, and Sarasota is contemplating hiring him for a similar approach there.

St. Petersburg’s huge homeless problem became national news when a video of its police officers with box cutters slashing up a makeshift tent city near downtown went viral.

To promote his centers, Marbut has backed panhandling bans, spoken of limiting the frequent public feedings downtown by churches and charities that had become a magnet for the homeless, and supports sending those caught sleeping on sidewalks, having open alcohol containers or relieving themselves in public to Safe Harbor—instead of jail.

Most controversial is the revelation that St. Petersburg—which has seen the homeless population downtown drop from hundreds to only a few dozen—has been giving homeless people bus tickets to other cities. So, while its homeless count has dropped, Sarasota’s has increased.

According to Sarah Snyder, executive director of the Pinellas County Coalition for the Homeless, a group that develops policy and determines how federal grant money is distributed countywide:

I think Safe Harbor is part of the answer, but I don’t think it’s the whole answer. We can’t force people to become better. We can only show them how much better their lives could be if they made some changes.

Category: Humane Exposures | Tags: homelessness, Hope, Pinellas County Florida, Safe Harbor, Saint Petersburg, San Antonio, St. Petersburg, substance abuse

Alan Waldman | July 10, 2013

No comments

Some Programs Help Mothers in Prison Increase Contact With their Children, But Too Many Prisons Have No Such Programs.

Prison Cell (Photo credit: danielkoehlersfotos)

When a mother is arrested, there is no specific public policy or routine process to coordinate what happens to her children, even immediately after childbirth. Many women in prison believe that separation from their children is the most difficult part of their punishment.

Although six percent of women are pregnant when they enter prison, most states make no special arrangements for the care of newborns. Pregnant inmates are often required to be shackled while giving birth, and after delivery mothers and babies are sometimes separated within a few hours. The infant is then sent to live with a family member or is placed in the foster care system.

Extended families usually assume childcare responsibilities, though many states don’t recognize family relations as legitimate foster care and deny them financial support and social services. Ten percent of children with mothers in prison are sent to foster homes, while the majority of these children live with grandparents. The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 will certainly send even more children into foster care in the future, as it allows courts to terminate parental rights if a child is in foster care for 15 months out of any 22-month period.

Dana Simas, spokeswoman for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation says:

Women who give birth in prison usually have to hand over their newborn to a relative or for adoption within 48 hours, or whenever the doctor releases her from the hospital.

That narrow window deprives new mothers of the option of breastfeeding their babies, says Karen van de Laat, the southern California regional director for Get on the Bus, a group that organized a special Mother’s Day visit to a women’s prison for 240 kids this year. She says:

Being able to hug your mom should be a right. Some of these kids would rather live here with their mom than go home. Most of the women in this prison are drug offenders or have been incarcerated for check or welfare fraud.

Nearly 900,000 youngsters in California have a parent in the criminal justice system, comprising nearly ten percent of California’s children.

A child’s chances of delinquency increase dramatically when visits to their incarcerated parents are denied. Kids with incarcerated mothers are more likely to wet their beds, do poorly in school and refuse to eat, studies show. These children often experience financial hardship, the shame and social stigma that prison carries, loss of emotional support and fear for their mother’s safety. Children with imprisoned parents are at increased risk for poor academic performance, truancy, dropping out of school, gang involvement, early pregnancy, drug abuse and delinquency. These at-risk kids are most often overlooked by mainstream children’s advocates.

The female prison population has exploded in the past 20 years, mainly due to mandatory-sentencing laws for drug offenses. Three times the number of women have been put behind bars in the last 10 years, over 75 percent of whom have children. Most of these inmates are young, unmarried women of color with few job skills and significant substance abuse problems.

According to a recent article, children of incarcerated parents differ from their peers in three main ways: inadequate quality of care, mainly due to poverty; lack of family support; and enduring childhood trauma.

Sadly, prisons are most often located in remote rural areas and are inaccessible to families without cars. An incarcerated woman is usually much further away from her home and is therefore much harder to visit, making the separation even more agonizing for both parent and child. Sixty percent of parents in California state prisons are held over 100 miles from their children, making visits impossible for many.

Too little attention has been paid to the plight of children with incarcerated parents, so too little is known about how to assist them. There is no procedure or policy to inquire about dependent children when a mother is arrested. If a child is persistently truant in school, there is no protocol to consider the disruption that maternal imprisonment causes at home. If a child is in the care of family services, too little about their emotional history is explored before they are placed in foster care. So there is a gap in policy and in routine communication between the public agencies established to protect all innocent children.

Fortunately, some states have begun to acknowledge the importance of mother-child relationships by introducing pioneering programs. In a few U.S. cities, the Girl Scouts Beyond Bars program brings mothers and daughters together in jail or prison, two Saturdays each month. Mothers spend supervised time working with their daughters on troop projects, and discuss issues such as avoiding drug abuse, coping with family crises and preventing teenage pregnancy.

Family Foundations, is a community-based residential drug treatment program based in Santa Fe Springs, California, where female inmates live in a converted school building with their children up to the age of six. The Mothers With Infants Together program allows eligible pregnant offenders to reside in a community-based program for two months prior to delivery and three months after delivery, thereby empowering women to participate in prenatal and postnatal programs on childbirth, parenting and family support skills programs.

The Mothers and Children Together program in St. Louis provides cost-free bus rides to prison four times a year for families without transportation. They also organize former inmates and volunteers to lobby at the state capital towards the improvement of visiting opportunities, and they hold support groups for recently released mothers, children and caregivers. New York’s Bedford Hills Correctional Facility opened the nation’s first nursery prison 100 years ago and continues to offer a range of services to inmates and their children, including a well-equipped playroom that is open all year. Run by Catholic Charities, it is designed to teach women parenting and life skills through classes and by allowing them to receive visits from their children as often as possible in a nurturing atmosphere. Only ten percent of women who successfully completed the program returned to prison, in contrast to 52 percent of inmates overall.

Inmates who do not receive child visits are six times more likely to be re-offenders. Simas says:

We encourage visiting and we try to make it as positive an experience as possible. We understand that family relationships are a big contribution to someone’s successful rehabilitation. Unfortunately, they are still incarcerated, so there are safety measures we need to follow, but we try to make it as family-friendly as possible.