Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>> ERICA ZIELEWSKI: Öand families. Prior to joining ACF, Earl was Senior Policy Advisor
to Oakland, California mayor Ron Dellums, where he was responsible for helping set policy
and program goals for the city in the areas of workforce, health and urban affairs. He
has also worked with the White House Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships,
on fatherhood initiatives. And before serving in Oakland he had significant state and non-profit
sector experience having served as Associate Secretary for Planning and Evaluation in the
California Health and Human Services Agency, as Associate Director Working Communities
for the Rockefeller Foundation and as Senior Program Officer for the California Endowment,
a private statewide health foundation. Dr. Johnson graduated from American University
in Washington and earned a master of arts in public policy from the University of Chicago,
as well as a PhD in social welfare from the University of California. So with that, I
am going to turn it over to Earl to begin our final plenary.
>> EARL JOHNSON: Good morning. Um, Iím really, uh, pleased to be here. Naomi, thank you for
letting them invite me. Um, I really appreciate it. And I appreciate your courage and guidance
that you give us, um, in the Leadership, uh, ACF. Um, we really need you to continue your
leadership because you give us courage to do a lot of things.
And courage is actually an important thing to talk about today because we have to have
the courage to serve a population that is often, um, a little left behind and to fend
for themselves and, and a lot of times they lose hope. So Iím real excited to be here
today because the people on this, on this platform are the, really are sort of the,
the beginning examples of what we can do using research and using research to inform practice
to move, um, people who are very vulnerable in our, in our world, um, into employment
and back into the mainstream.
And just generally, you know, the United States is, um, you know, the fifth, it holds about
one fifth of the population of United, uh, in the world, but yet, um, it incarcerated
about 27, itís 27% of all the people that are incarcerated in the world. And so we do
have a real big issue here. And just as we think about this issue, you know, about 700,000
men and women are incarcerated and get released every year. Uh, that puts a big strain on
our communities and theyíre, and the strain on the communities actually sort of morphs
into the strain on them to be included.
Um, I had, as Erica described in my opening, in, in my bio that I had the pleasure of working
for Ron Dellums in Oakland and thatís a small city of 256,000 people, but every year we
had close to 3,000 people come back from the prison institutions, of those 3,000 within
the, within three years we had 75% going back into the system. So we really do have a big
challenge here and I hope that you take heart when you listen to these individuals up here
and Iíll introduce them quickly, um, that we really do have to deal with this issue
very soon and forcefully, but with compassion because these are individuals who actually
do want to do well when they get out, they really do have a commitment. Iím lucky enough
to fund a bunch of programs that are dealing with people that are incarcerated, they who
up every day, they try and we have to change their opportunities.
So with that, I want to introduce the panel. Um, my, the first speaker will be Chris Wildeman.
Um, heís from Yale and, uh, he will be speaking, Iím sorry. He will be giving us sort of the
broad overview of how incarceration and criminal justice involvement impacts low income families.
Next, I have the privilege and honor of, uh, working closely with this person, but sheís
also just been an inspiration also to, to me in, in doing some of the work that we do
at OFA. Itís Amy Solomon. Amy serves as a Senior Advisor to the Assistant Attorney General
of the Office of Justice. Um, Amyís just an incredible person and, um, sheís going
to be talking about, uh, federal government and how itís trying to improve reentry opportunities
and outcomes through the federal interagency work, uh, reentry council.
Next, we will have Nancy La Vigne and, and Iím going to have to read this because I
donít Nancy very well. Uh, is the Director of the Justice Policy Center at the Urban
Institute and sheís overseeing a portfolio of research projects spanning a wide array
of crime, justice and policies, public safety topics. Uh, Nancyís been with the Urban Institute
for quite a many years doing this work. Um, her interest in research is on criminal justice
evaluation and prisoner reentry. Um, and sheís going to be presenting findings from the Urban
Instituteís Justice Policy Center on promising strategies to reduce recidivism and promote
better reentry outcomes for ex-offenders.
And last and truly not least is, uh, Nancy Ware and she serves as the Agency Director
of the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia. Uh, Ms.
Ware has more than, and you canít tell this, but three decades of experience in management
and administration of juvenile and adult criminal justice programs on the local, state and national
level. And Ms. Ware will be, uh, discussing her agencyís innovative approaches to better
serve the outcomes of DC ex-offenders. And with that, Iíd like to turn it over to Chris.
[clapping]
>> CHRIS WILDEMAN: Thanks. This is the clicker? Green button. Okay, here we go. Okay, so,
um, first, thanks so much for, for inviting me and for letting me be on this distinguished
panel. I feel very overwhelmed by the other folks on it. So Iím going to start with sort
of a broad overview of research and Iím going to focus on kids rather than focusing on adults
because, um, thatís sort of, when we talk about poverty traps I think thatís sort of
the strong version of what weíre talking about.
So, um, so a poverty trap is, I bet almost everybody in this room could do a better job
of defining than I can because Iím more of a criminal justice person than a poverty person,
so a self-reinforcing mechanism which causes poverty persist, to persist. And if it persists
from generation to generation, the trap begins to reinforce itself if steps are not taken
to break, break the cycle. And so thatís the version of things that Iím going to talk
about today.
Um, and in order to do so Iím going to do three things. So first, Iím going to show
that paternal and maternal imprisonment are common for poor and minority children. Um,
so, so address sort of the social patterning component of it. Um, second, Iím going to
consider how paternal and other imprisonment affect children. And then finally, Iím going
to argue that only paternal imprisonment is a poverty trap and sort of the way weíve
traditionally defined it.
Um, okay, so to get to the social patterning component first. So what Iím going to show
you here is the cumulative risk of paternal imprisonment for black and white children
born in 1978 and 1990. And so what youíll see throughout the course of these slides
is that children born in 1978 are the solid red dots, or the solid dots in the next figure,
and children born in 1990 are the open dots. And so what you see here is that about one
in four African American children born in 1990 could expect to have their father imprisoned
at some point between their birth and their 14th birthday. Um, for white children the
risk for children born that same year is about 3.6%. So at least in terms of racial concentration
we do see that thereís sufficient concentration.
Um, now when we break things down by class within racial educational groups what we see
is a similar sort of pattern. And there are a couple of things that Iíd really like to
emphasize here, one of which all of you Iím sure have already noticed and the other one
I bet few of you have noticed. So the first one is that fully one in two African American
children whose fatherís didnít finish high school can expect to experience their fathersí
imprisonment sometime between their birth and their 14th birthday. So again, this really
shows that sort of extreme concentration that I think we think about with something that
could be an especially important poverty trap. Now the other thing that I want to highlight
here is that for white children of college educated fathers the risk barely increased
at all, which is those two indiscernible blue lines at the bottom in the, in the white figure.
And so itís not just that that itís a risk thatís becoming increasingly prevalent for
poor African American children, itís also something where the other end of this sort
of social class spectrum is experiencing very small increases. And so, again, I think this
is the sort of thing that we think could be especially relevant for social inequality.
Now when we look at the cumulative risk of maternal imprisonment, which is what I have
here, the first thing that youíll notice is that the risks are far lower, right. So
I totally had to change the scale on the figures for these to fit. And so about three and a
half percent of African American children can expect to have their mom imprisoned at
some point. Um, thatís about the same as the risk of paternal imprisonment for whites.
So just to sort of situate that, paternal imprisonment is as often, occurs as often
for whites as maternal imprisonment does for African Americans. And again, you see this
sort of, sort of similar stratification within educational group where about 5% of children,
African American children whose mothers dropped out of high school could expect to experience
imprisonment at some point.
So in terms of the scale, both maternal and paternal imprisonment are heavily concentrated
among the poorest families, but the differences in scale are absolutely massive. So even if
maternal imprisonment is a salient poverty trap in the sense that for individual children
itís very important, itís only paternal imprisonment that should have big effects
on macro level inequality just because itís so much more prevalent.
Now the effects part is what I want to address in the second set of things. So first, and
I think just to sort of reinforce the idea that thereís preexisting disadvantage before
experiencing incarceration, so there are black/white gaps in, um, a host of different child outcomes
if the incarceration rates were zero essentially. And so what you see is pretty big gaps in
a while host of these problems, sort of child homeless, infant mortality and then a while
sort of series of behavioral problems. And again, this is, you know, likely attributable
to severe structural disadvantages these children face beforehand.
But even though there are big sort of gaps even before we see that having a father incarcerated
also increases childrenís problems in a whole host of domains. These are just individual
level effects that Iím talking about. The high estimate of the effects is the darker
bar, the low estimate is the lighter bar. And so what you see, for instance, here is
that having a father imprisoned increases the risk of child homelessness between 50
and 100%. Um, having a father imprisoned increases, um, the level of physically aggressive behavior
sometime between, somewhere between 15 and 30%. And so we see large individual level
effects of paternal imprisonment on children.
And what this means, and I think this is the part where it really sort of ties back to
the poverty trap idea, is that high levels of paternal imprisonment have dramatically
reshaped social inequality for American children. Um, so mass imprisonment has increased, black/white
inequality and the risk of child homeless somewhere in between, um, 38 and 65%. Itís
increased black/white disparities in childrenís internalizing behaviors between 25 and 45%.
Now. If you think about how big the preexisting levels of inequality were those are absolutely
massive effects. And I think because of that Iím going to conclude by arguing that we
can think of, um, paternal imprisonment as a poverty trap.
Now for maternal imprisonment we see a pretty different story. Um, and I apologize for having
numbers instead of figures. Thereís no, um, thereís no particularly delicate way to put
like 20 different numbers into a figure so I just figured Iíd give you numbers for this
one. So what you see here are standardized coefficients where weíre looking at the effects
of maternal incarceration on a whole host of caregiver and teacher reported behavioral
problems, adjusting for a whole series of stuff that Iím happy to go into if people
want to take a little nap, but otherwise Iím going to not talk about too much. So red coefficients
indicate statistically significant effects.
And so what you see here is that for ten of the 11 caregiver reported behavioral problems
that weíre looking at maternal incarceration is associated with no statistically significant
difference in childrenís behavioral problems. And you see a very similar story with teacher
reported behavioral problems. Now I should say, too, that sometimes we have statistically
insignificant coefficients that are large, thatís not the case here. We have statistically
insignificant coefficients that are also quite tiny. Um, a point zero eight standard deviation
shift is pretty small. And so in terms of maternal incarceration it doesnít look like
there are any sort of direct effects of maternal imprisonment on children.
And so what we see here is large micro and macro-level effects of paternal incarceration
on children, but not even direct micro-level effects of maternal incarceration on children.
And because of that the effect it could have on inequality is quite small.
So just to sort of briefly conclude, so in terms of paternal incarceration at least my
read of the evidence is that itís almost certainly a poverty trap in the sense that
itís highly concentrated among the most disadvantaged families. I think the evident for negative
effects at this point is very strong and because of that itís almost certainly fundamentally
transformed American inequality with effects that we wonít fully start to see until the
children and the prison boom come up in age. And so in this regard, I think it calls for
broad shifts in the criminal justice system.
Now for maternal incarceration I think the story is different and some people like this
story, some people donít like this story. So the children of incarcerated mothers are
in a vicious cycle. So there is something really negative thatís going on here. Um,
children of incarcerated mothers have much higher levels of behavioral problems just
descriptively than children who donít and also suffer a whole host of background disadvantages.
But it looks like maternal incarceration itself has little direct effect. Um, and so this
suggests that the criminal justice system itself is not necessarily the driver of their
poverty or their disadvantage. Um, itís actually all of these sort of factors that led to the
criminal justice intervention in the first place. And so in terms of the effects of maternal
incarceration on kids I think these findings call for broader social interventions that
happen before the first point of criminal justice for these children rather than after.
And indeed, my argument would be just the diminishing rates of criminal justice contact
among mothers will probably have a fairly small effect on their children without attempting
to amyl the sort of difficulties that they fact before.
So I want to give everybody else one of my minutes so Iím, so there you go, thanks so
much for your time.
[clapping]
>> AMY SOLOMAN: Good morning everyone. Uh, I want to thank Earl for the framing of this
issue in the midst of a welfare research conference. Um, I really appreciate us being able to talk
about these connections and Iím so pleased to follow Chris because I think that you just
drew out, my brain is still in your presentation, but all of the relationships here, um, between
generations and poverty and the criminal justice system, itís a very helpful and important
framing for us so thank you.
Um, Iím here to talk about the Federal Interagency Reentry Council. I want to quickly point out
that two of the leaders of the staff group, Linda Melgram and Cedric Hendricks are here.
So I just want to acknowledge their presence and the role they play in this work, um, and
next slide please, let you know, uh, what weíre doing here.
This is a picture of the first Reentry Council meeting which Attorney General Holder convened
in January 2011. And for those of you who follow Washington stuff, uh, this is a really
exciting table to be focusing on this issue. At the table is, uh, the secretaries of Labor,
HUD, the VA, the drug czar, the HHS secretary, the ED secretary and the Attorney General
and there are lots of other leaders at this table that you canít see in the pictures.
We now have 20 federal agencies that are working together, uh, very diligently to focus on
this issue. And for those of you who arenít close to this issue you might say why are
they all there? Um, you know, from the justice perspective, we just heard about the childís
perspective, from the justice perspective, 700,000 people, Earl mentioned, coming out
of prisons each year, nine to 12 million people cycling through jails each year, and all of
these individuals are attached, most of them, to families and many of these families are
attached to all the systems, um, that the people at this table represent.
So many of the families are in public housing so itís so important for HUD to be at the
table. Uh, many of them are receiving food assistance so we need USDA there. Uh, many
of them are receiving child support, uh, or TANF assistance, these families, and so we
really need HHS at the table. And so this group is working together based on that recognition
that we are all already working with this population, not just at the justice department,
in prisons, jails and juvenile facilities, but also this population is in the child support
offices, in the unemployment lines, in ERís, the ERís, our homeless shelters, our public
housing, uh, our veterans hospitals, and by working together we think we can have, make
a more concerted effort to change outcomes, not only in terms of recidivism and corrections
costs, but also employment and child welfare, community health and many other outcomes.
So that is what weíre doing working together.
The next slide please. Uh, this is the mission statement that was adopted at the first council
meeting. And Iíll just say that it focuses very broadly on both public safety goals and
family and community wellbeing goals. Next slide. Uh, the group itself at the principles
level has met four times. We just had the last cabinet level meeting last month. And
we also have a staff level group that meets every month and we have many subcommittees
that meet more often. And again, Linda and Cedric are heading some of those subcommittees.
Uh, but the beauty of this I think is that weíre not just meeting to meet, we have some
very tangible goals and weíre also developing relationships, uh, that as we all know are
so important in getting the work done.
So now when we get issues that have to do with health or child support or, uh, employment
issues we know who to reach, how to reach, how to get to the bottom of things and how
to work through these issues, uh, quickly. And weíre seeing that replicated at, uh,
the state level and the local level and, of course, most, many of those initiatives preceded
the federal council, but we hope that you are seeing some of that, um, in your areas,
too, and that youíll say yes when someone reaches out to you to participate in these
conversations.
So the way weíre organizing our work is weíre trying to see where, what the federal levers
are and making a difference. Uh, the first way is in coordinating and leveraging the
federal resources that are already going out from our agencies to the field. The second
way weíre working together is really using the bully pulpit, the voice of our leaders,
uh, public education to bring visibility to this issue and to solutions that can work.
And the third way is to, uh, help remove or navigate the federal barriers, the policy
barriers. So weíre tackling the, uh, barriers, the employment barriers, the housing barriers,
the health barriers, treatment barriers, benefits barriers and weíre trying to make policy
advances in all of these areas where we can.
Next slide please. So Iím just going to, actually, if you can move to the map. So another
slide through. Uh, give one example of how weíre coordinating our resources. Weíve
inventoried and mapped all of the resources coming out from justice, from out Second Chance
grants, from the HHS, uh, healthy family grants, from the Department of Labor, RESCO grants,
and thereís, uh, a live interactive map on the National Reentry Resource Center website
where you can click on your state and see what reentry grants are coming in, uh, to
what agencies, for what purposes, from which agencies. And our hope here is that this will
be a tool just to help connect the dots locally to leverage dollars and efforts the way that
weíre trying to do at the federal level.
And I will note that this website, which is, um, a very good resource for reentry, itís
funded out of Second Chance, itís run by the council of state governments and really
is a one-stop shop for reentry. And I know Nancy La Vigne is going to hit on this, uh,
more in a minute, but it is undergoing changes, itís being revamped. And so if you want to
go to this map, uh, I suggest you go in one week and not today and youíll get, uh, more
current updates. But this is a useful tool that weíre continually updating.
Next slide. So in terms of the bully pulpit, um, weíre really trying to do whatever we
can to raise visibility on this issue. Iím looking at the, uh, square with Secretary
Shinseki from the VA, heís put out a, uh, a DVD thatís in every prison around the country
and most of the jails, trying to urge incarcerated veterans to use the resiliency that they learned,
uh, in the military to get their lives back in order once they get out. Weíre trying
to be very creative, the agencies are, about how we reach our audiences. I also want to
mention an event, uh, thatís coming up June 12th. The White House is sponsoring a Champions
of Change Event, uh, the morning of June 12th, to focus on children of incarcerated. And
this event is going to honor service providers who are working with children of incarcerated
and their families to really lift up their stories, uh, and experiences and successes.
And this will be live streamed that morning at www.whitehouse.gov\live, uh, June 12th
and weíre really excited about that event and some other efforts that are focused on
children of incarcerated.
Next slide. Um, we do have a website with all of our materials that are on the National
Reentry Resource Center and weíve developed a number of what we call, uh, reentry myth
busters. And these are one page fact sheets that aim to, uh, dispel common myths that
are out there and point people to resources that can be helpful. So weíre trying to entangle,
um, if you hit the next slide please, you know, the issues, the policy issues that surround
all of these issues that tough the reentry population and their families, parental rights,
TANF benefits, Medicaid eligibility, um, a number of employment issues, federal bonding,
SNAP benefits, veteran benefits, voting rights, juvenile issues. All of these issues weíre
trying, weíve got 22 of these right now in one page to explain directly to individuals,
to POís, to case workers, probation officers, um, you know, what the, uh, what the policies
are and how to be helpful for their clients and their families.
And just to give you one example of how this started, the common, a common myth out there
is that people with a record canít live in public housing. And our HUD colleagues said
to us, that is not true. HUD policy only bans two very, very narrow categories of, uh, people
with felonies from living in public housing, otherwise there is a lot of discretion at
the local level. So weíve put that out in a myth buster that, um, case workers and individuals
can use and have used to advocate to reunite with their family in public housing when itís
appropriate.
Next slide. So the place that weíre putting most of our time is, uh, not just clarifying
policy, but trying to advance policy. And I think I only have close to, not long left,
okay, so Iím going to just give one example here, but we are tackling housing, barriers
to employment, to education, to benefits. Um, and Iím going to highlight this 38,000,
which is collateral consequences. Uh, this is a broad term. We often think of this direct
consequences of a conviction, prison, jail, probation, fines. Uh, there are a number of
indirect or collateral consequences that are automatically triggered by, uh, a conviction,
certain convictions, and a project that we are funding right now with the American Bar
Association is estimating that theyíre counting about 38,000 statutes and regulations that
have, uh, collateral consequences for people with a felony conviction.
And these have restrictions, they are restrictions on employment and licenses, on voting, on
access to benefits, theyíre additional barriers and punishments that come with these convictions.
And many of them serve public safety, uh, purposes. We know we donít want someone with
a, uh, child abuse conviction to be teaching our kids in a childcare center. But there
are also lots of these that are antiquated, uh, that are really providing barriers to
people who are trying to get back on their feet and support themselves and their families.
An example is, uh, people in prison who may be trained to become barbers but when they
come out some states still have barriers and restrictions on barbers licenses assumed because,
uh, having close contact with sharp objects presumably. But that is an antiquated, um,
example. And so weíre trying to do a number of things in the area of collateral consequences.
Um, next slide please. The Attorney General has written to every State Attorney General
bringing attention to this issue in a database thatís up that will help each state gain
access to see what the barriers are in their state. And heís, uh, heís asked people to
look at their consequences, see which ones have public safety purposes and which ones
could be tailored or eliminated. Perhaps instead of a lifetime ban, uh, for certain convictions
itís a five year ban or a ten year ban. There are some things that can be tailored and weíve
asked every state to take a look. And a number of states are making good progress here. Uh,
just yesterday in the news we saw that the Virginia governor lifted the restrictions
on voting for non-violent felons. That is big progress. It has no public safety consequences
and it allows people who have paid their dues to get back and participate in civic life.
These are the kinds of things weíre looking at.
The Attorney Generalís also asked all of the federal agencies who are participating
in the council to look at our regulations to see where there are unnecessary collateral
consequences. And we are in the middle of a review and if weíre invited back here next
week, uh, next year I hope that weíll be able to report on some very tangible things
that have been, um, done as a result of this review.
Okay, uh, next slide. About half of the collateral consequences do have to do with employment
barriers. If you can click all the way through, thanks. I didnít know it was animated. Uh,
Iím not going to go through all of these bullets, but weíve got a number of myth busters
that touch on both the incentives and the responsibilities of employers when it comes
to addressing, uh, criminal records. We have lots of agencies that have now put forth proactive
guidance, directives, enforcement actions, best practice memos that reach all of our
various audiences about the appropriate use of, uh, considering a criminal record in the
hiring decision. We have a lot more work to do here, but this is a place weíre putting
a lot of our focus.
And finally, last slide, um, this map just represents that all of our federal agencies
we know have regional offices and field offices and weíre doing our best, and Lindaís really
spearheaded this issue, to identify and begin to train and orient our regional and field
staff about the kinds of tools and conversations weíre having at the national level so that
when a council in your state reaches out, uh, to the social security office that they
have some orientation around this and know who the VA or the HHS partners are and can
help connect the dots. So this is an ongoing effort and weíre really trying to train and
orient where we can in all of our agencies.
Um, actually, this is the last slide, this is actually the last slide. Next one please.
I just want to leave with a, uh, optimism. It is a big issue and the poverty trap is
very real, but I feel like for as much as you read about whatís going on in Washington
and all the negative things, in this area weíre finding that there is sincere policy
interest, uh, that there is bi-partisan support, that thereís a lot of cooperation, that there
is tremendous innovation in the field, that there is exciting research under foot and
that thereís a lot of momentum to make a difference. Um, so Iíll look forward to your
questions later. There are some resources that are on, uh, this slide and on the website
if you want direct links to this work. Thank you.
[clapping]
>> NANCY LA VIGNE: Uh, well good morning, everybody. Um, I thought it might be useful
to connect the dots, um, from what youíve heard so far from the previous presenters
to what Iím going to be sharing with you today. So we heard from Earl about the broad
brushstrokes of the problem, uh, the tremendous impact of incarceration, the hundreds, 700,000
people leaving state prisons alone, uh, not to mention the cycling of people in and out
of local jails and the impact that that has on families and communities. Then we heard
from Chris about the devastating impact that incarceration and reentry can have on families
and children and this impact on poverty and some perhaps surprising findings about maternal
incarceration that Iím looking forward to talking to Chris about later because I question
them. And perhaps you do, too. Not to question his research, which is always very, very rigorous.
Um, and then Amy talked about the efforts at the federal level which are just so impressive.
Um, Amy and I had the pleasure of working together in the past, um, for many years,
including at the Urban Institute and before that at the Department of Justice and, um,
never had we hoped to see this level of engagement and leadership from the administration and
all the agencies and all the work theyíre doing.
And so now that brings that, us, uh, to my presentation which is also supported by the
federal, uh, government, um, and thatís the What Works in Reentry Clearinghouse which
is funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, which is part of the Office of Justice programs,
US Department of Justice and, um, that is work that weíre doing in partnership with
the Council of State Governments through the National Reentry Resource Center that Amy
referenced earlier which is a tremendous resource. And even if you were to go to the site today,
um, it wonít be as pretty as next week, but I want to recommend that you check it out.
Tons of great resources, including the clearinghouse that Iím going to share with you today.
So with that, Iíve used up too many of my precious minutes, but letís see if we can
get this going. So what Iíd like to do today is tell you a little bit about the impetus
behind the development of the What Works in Reentry Clearinghouse, describe very briefly
the methodology, I could go, I could spend a half an hour just talking about the methodology
alone, but you know, as Chris said earlier, youíre probably not ready for a nap. Thatís
usually after lunch so. Um, and then I wanted to just tell you some of the findings that
we have on the website. Thereís plenty more on there. Um, just picked a few because I
donít have a lot of time to go through all of them in detail.
But letís start with just, uh, the impetus behind the project, why did we decide to develop
this clearinghouse of information of what works in reentry. Well, quite simply, as Iím
sure many of you know because this has been, uh, something that the federal government
has promoted for a while, this concept of evidence-based practice. And, um, I think
a lot of us in this room understand what we mean when we say evidence-based practice,
but as you kind of get down into the field, um, thereís a lot of belief that thatís
a good idea, thereís a lot of lip service towards engaging in evidence-based practice,
but then thereís a lot of scratching of heads in terms of well what exactly does that mean?
And what we observed is that, um, actually when we started this project, what, three
years ago maybe, three, four, um, there was a lot of, uh, people who are saying we donít
even know what works in reentry. And I was one of the people who said, I think we do,
I think we have a lot of information out there, itís just that itís in this academic journal
and that academic journal and that one and some of them are very difficult to decipher
and nobodyís taken that information and synthesized it much less looked at the research to discern
whether it meets a certain standard of rigor to be taken seriously. And as youíll hear
in a moment, thereís a lot out there that should not be taken seriously unfortunately.
Um, so, you know, our goal was to cull the research on prisoner reentry and as you can
imagine thatís a huge undertaking because reentry is a huge area. Itís housing, itís
substance, uh, abuse treatment, um, itís all kinds of, uh, criminal justice supervision,
itís employment, uh, itís mental health provision, itís all manner of things that,
uh, are typically used to address this very vulnerable population. Um, so we had to cull
all that literature, assess it, um, according to its rigor, screening out those that didnít
meet our criteria, we only looked at studies that specifically looked at populations that
were incarcerated and tracked, uh, their outcomes after release. So any kind of study of an
in prison program that only looked at say number of inmate infractions we would not
include in the study. We were looking at reentry outcomes. Um, and then coded the studies,
as I said, we rated them for rigor, we only included those that met a certain threshold.
Iím happy to talk to folks afterwards about what that threshold is and how we came up
with it. And then synthesize the studies across specific areas of content.
Um, so time permitting I would have walked you through the entire website, but as Amy
also, uh, noted, this is going to chance in look and the feel of it. Um, but I just did
want to make you aware that all this information is available online, searchable, you can search
by topic, you can search by type of population, you can search by I only want to see the most
or the most impactful studies out there so I can identify which programs to invest in
and so forth. So that is there.
Um, so then just for today, I have no idea how much time I have left. I know youíll
tell me when I have five minutes. Okay, I have eight minutes and then I have one of
Chrisís so thatís nine. Excellent. Okay, um, nine minutes. Just wasted 20 seconds of
it asking that question. Uh, but what Iíd like to do is just go through some of the
topics that we looked at. Um, so some comprehensive services. Oh, this is just mental health alone.
So we had a whole host of topics on mental health, uh, treatment programming, uh, case
management, etc., for this population. Of those, Iím just going to cover the ones that
are bolded.
And, uh, so, uh, across, um, comprehensive mental health programs, and these programs
include a variety of mental health and other services, thereís typically targeted to meet
the needs of mentally ill individuals that are being released from incarceration, um,
most of them provided comprehensive case management
and other, uh, whole host of services. And, um, what we found was that, um, only five
studies after calling all the literature and we looked from 1980 to the present, um, met
our criteria for inclusion in the clearinghouse and for that threshold of rigor. But among
those, four out of five had an evidence of an impact on recidivism and that was quite
encouraging. Um, and, you know, some of it, some of the evidence was stronger than others,
but, um, still, um, pretty encouraging. The more discouraging part from a research perspective
was that there was not much attention to any other outcomes other than recidivism. Um,
so weíd like to see some studies looking at outcomes of actual mental health and wellbeing,
um, but those do not exist at that level or rigor.
Um, we also looked at the one study that met our criteria on Medicaid benefits and what
we found is that, uh, enrolling people on Medicaid prior to release did have an impact
on recidivism, although that was, um, mediated by getting access to services, uh, in the
community on the outside. Um, Iím happy to report that whereas we only have this one
study weíre in the process of doing another thatís funded by HHS, by ASPE in partnership
with the National Institute of Corrections and Urban Institute is doing that study. Itís
a randomized control trial where weíre looking to see that impact, uh, more rigorously and
hopefully developing a greater body of evidence on that topic, but thatís obviously going
to be, um, critical, um, when it comes to implementation of the ACA.
Uh, and this is an interesting one, meditation. Uh, lots of studies on meditation, only one
met our criteria. Um, but the one that we did identify had a very high level of rigor
and found very strong evidence of an impact on recidivism. So thatís a whole new area
of research to explore. Um, so this just summarizes the, um, content of mental health, but you
just heard it so Iím moving on because I think I have probably four and a half minutes
left.
Um, Iíll talk a little bit about our employment studies, just looking at specifically at work
release programs, prison industry programs and what we call brand name programs. Um,
so for work release programs these are programs, um, that, uh, while people are still incarcerated,
still under correctional supervision are allowed out usually during the daytime hours to engage
in employment with the idea that, um, they might continue with those jobs after release
or at least develop more hands on skills that can help them on the outside.
Um, here we found more of mixed findings. Um, we had six studies that met the eligibility
criteria of these three found an effect on recidivism, three didnít. Um, surprisingly,
only two actually looked at employment outcomes, these are harder outcomes to track, which
is, I think, what explains that and yet, of course, wouldnít you want to see that when
youíre seeing the impact of employment program. Um, among those one found strong evidence,
one found no evidence. Uh, does this mean that the juryís out in terms of employment,
uh, programs and their effectiveness or work release in particular? I donít think so because
the one big weakness of our effort to cull all this literature is that very, very few
studies have what we call process, um, evaluations that look at implementation rigor. So when
you say a program doesnít work you donít know if it doesnít work because it wasnít
implemented well or it doesnít work because the whole concept was faulty. Um, so thatís
something that we really need more of in our field.
And then finally, in the employment area prison industries programs, thereís lots of good
rigor, rigorous studies in this topic area, many on the federal level and, um, pretty
promising findings when you look across both recidivism and employment outcomes. Uh, and
Iíll just turn to the end of my presentation to talk about two of the brand name programs
weíve recognized. These are programs that are pretty well known, at least in the field
of criminal justice if not beyond. The Center for Employment Opportunities, CEO, um, is,
um, in New York City at, it was established in the 1970ís, itís been spread throughout
the country since. It provides participants with transitional employment and job training.
A lot of also, um, holistic attention case management on all the needs of the released
prisoners as they attempt to reintegrate into the community. And we found some modest evidence
of an effect of that program on recidivism.
And then Project RIO, um, which is, uh, set in Texas. Um, itís changed a lot since this
study, uh, was conducted, but at the time it was conducted it had both an in prison
and a community component and that was found to have a very strong and beneficial, uh,
impact on both recidivism and employment.
Um, so, you know, I could go on thereís a lot more topic areas that are covered in the
clearinghouse. I just wanted to give you some highlights so you had a good sense of the
content and the value of whatís up there. Um, as a researcher I canít conclude without
saying clearly this tells us both what works and that we need a lot more research, we need
many more rigorous evaluations, um, hopefully all conducted by the Urban Institute. That
was a joke. Um, and, um, and importantly an attention to program implementation, to really
understand what weíre evaluating so that we know if itís working or not, why itís
not.
Um, so with that, I want to turn it over to Nancy Ware, who Iíve long admired, um, and
I think itís the perfect opportunity for her to take us from the broad to the federal
to the research to practice and CSOSA is, uh, just one of the most exemplary agencies
in the country when it comes to reentry. So Iíll turn it over to Nancy.
[clapping]
>> NANCY WARE: Good morning. Iím so happy to be able to, uh, bridge the gap, so to speak,
uh, from research to practice because itís such an important gap and, uh, it really makes
a difference to us out there in the trenches that we have researchers looking at this and
helping us to figure out what works and what we need to consider with what works.
I asked Oscar Brown, Jr. to start us off this morning so I hope youíll give me a moment
and just pay attention to this short clip.
>> VIDEO CLIP INTRO: ...for over 50 years, a singer, a playwright and also with Def Poet.
Ladies and gentlemen, please give it up for the windy cityís very own Oscar Brown, Jr.
[clapping]
>> VIDEO CLIP: OSCAR BROWN, JR.: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The Children of Children
by the time theyíre half grown have habits like rabbits and young of their own. The Children
of Children from their mommaís laps hop down to the ground to be taken in traps. The Children
of Children are trapped by dark skins to stay in and play in a game no one wins. The Children
of Children, while still young and sweet, are all damned and programmed for future defeat.
The Children of Children are trapped by adults who fail them then jail them to hide the results.
The Children of Children, unable to cope with systems that twist them and rob them of hope.
The Children of Children of sin and the shame keep pairing and bearing and who do you blame?
The Children of Children cry out every day, they beg you for rescue and what do you say?
[clapping]
>> NANCY WARE: I, uh, thought that that would really give us the context for what weíre
thinking about here today and how important it is to those that we serve in all of our
agencies. And I also want to do a shout out to Linda and to, uh, and to Cedric for the
work that theyíve done. And to Amy and Nancy, um, for the work that theyíve done to keep
this high on a profile of our national, um, uh, agencies and experts around the needs
of people who are reentering society again.
I want to start off by saying a little bit about CSOSA, which weíre affectionately called.
We are Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for C. Weíre a federal agency with
a local, uh, focus. And weíre relatively new. Um, our goals at CSOSA are to decrease
criminal activity, but also the successful supervision, uh, of our clients and their
successful reintegration into society. So philosophically, we have some things that
we really focus on and that is that we really believe in the capacity of people to change.
We believe in the value of partnerships and we believe in fairness. And so our approaches
to help people become stable, to give them structure, to provide them with the supports
that they need and to be treated with compassion and respect.
Itís really important to take a close look at the, uh, context of the folks that weíre
working with. And you heard from Chris, I was so glad that he pointed out the correlations
to poverty with this population. The population that we work with in the District of Columbia
are 90% black, um, average age 38, 78% single. So the context for our work related to poverty
and family stability is very significant.
Youíll see, um, here the needs that weíve identified, we do a very rigorous risk and
needs assessment when someone enters supervision, and what we found is that the correlates with
poverty are very, very discouraging and really challenge our agency. Eighty five percent
have a history of substance abuse, 50% are unemployed, and you heard Chris talk about
the unemployment issues, 39% have less than a high school diploma or GED and thereís
the education piece, 16% have a physical disability, and you heard, um, Nancy and Amy talk a little
bit about some of the challenges that, uh, these federal agencies have to look at around
Medicaid and the need for Medicaid. And 13% have a history of mental illness.
Um, we are looking at a population predominately of probationers, which means that most of
our population, 9,900, are out in the community on probation. We have 33% who are under our,
um, supervised release, either under supervised release or on parole. And their average length
of time on supervision for probationers is two years, for parolees is seven to 11 years
and for those on supervised released is three and a half years. So you can see that, um,
folks coming back have a lot of challenges, theyíre under supervision a long period of
time, many of them, and we have a lot of work that we have to get done for some of them
in a short period of time.
Uh, the extent of family contact that weíve observed with our offenders is that the majority,
or 86% of them, report that theyíve maintained regular contact with family members and of
the family members for those under supervision that they keep contact with most are their
spouse, which was interesting to us because we thought it would be, uh, their mother.
And so weíve been looking at that very closely.
There are other evidences, thereís other evidence of family breakdown that weíve had
to really focus on very carefully. Almost most of those under supervision, uh, have
children, 71% of the women and 61% of the men. However, very few are serving in parental
roles. Theyíre neither a primary caregivers nor living in the same household. And so this,
for us, is very important because we feel that parental involvement is the motivator,
is the driver for success. It can be a protective factor, not only for the children, but also
for the parents. It can motivate them under supervision to want to succeed, it can encourage
them to model more pro social behavior, and Iíll talk more about that, and it can provide
economic stability to the family and the community.
And thatís an important piece because as we see people removed from the community and
going into incarceration it has a direct impact not only on the family structure, but on the
community structure. And thereís a lot of research about that over the years. Uh, particularly
the men being removed who are economic stability, for economic stability to their families,
even if itís criminal economic stability, and women are the nucleus often of the family
structure, as many of you know. So they have a lot of consequences, both to community and
family.
So our interventions include, uh, supervision, specialized supervisions units, treatment
and support and partnerships. Uh, weíve developed a number of, uh, supervision and intervention
strategies because we think itís important to identify our special needs population,
to use specialty units to, uh, supervise in a more responsible manner and to focus on
the changing thinking patterns through our Cognitive Behavioral Intervention interventions.
And we also try to provide stability and support in collaboration with the community because
we think community support is very, very significant in their rehabilitation.
So we have a mental health unit specifically focusing on the mental health and behavioral
health needs of our clients. Uh, they do assessments, uh, diagnoses and they partner with other
mental health providers in the district to make sure that we provide the support that
our, um, those under supervision need and have special conditions for the supervision.
And thereís one good thing thatís happening in the district Iím particularly excited
about that weíre working with the courts on, um, being sure that weíre sensitive to
this population because often times, uh, if you hold them to the same rigor that you hold
others they canít comply with their conditions of supervision. So weíve implemented a substantial
compliance, uh, approach with our mental health court in the District of Columbia and if you
have an interest in that I can talk to you more about that later.
Women, um, is, uh, are a growing number in the criminal justice arena and for that reason
we think itís very important to have gender specific and trauma informed interventions.
Weíre finding that women have various unique needs. Not only are they the nucleus of the
family often and hold the family together, but they have childcare needs, they have,
uh, issues around longstanding trauma and abuse and, um, so weíve put in place a number
of things that focus on victimization and trauma, family reunification and substance
abuse.
The other area that we thought would be particularly interesting to this group is our focus in
domestic violence because partner violence is, uh, a growing issue in the United States.
So we have a special unit that focuses on case management services and provides psychoeducational
and treatment to this population, they include anger management, uh, working on relationship
building, uh, violence reduction and, of course, we refer them for special treatment. And we
work closely with the courts with the population as well because itís important in the District
of Columbia, we feel, unlike many jurisdictions, that, uh, we actually provide interventions
for folks who are identified as, uh, having domestic violence backgrounds.
We also have a special supervision efforts that we put place and this year in particular
we came to the realization that with our young adults under the age of, uh, 25 and under
we werenít having the same success that we were having with our older population. So
we have put in place two campuses in the District of Columbia, the south campus and the north
campus, to address young adults. And we specially trained our staff to provide intervention
for this group because they need unique, uh, interventions as well as our women do. So
we put in place Good Lives Model, which is based, a motivational model based on assets
rather than a deficit model and looks at what motivates an individual to, uh, do the things
that they do and provide alternatives to negative motivations and using that as an approach
within our, uh, case management. And we have expedited interventions, of course, and we
bring in, um, what we think are interventions that are more appropriate for young adults,
including anything from rap groups to, um, uh, folks, other young adults coming in to
talk to them and the like.
We also, of course, focus particularly on substance abuse treatment because, uh, we
find that, uh, along with mental health thatís
really what drives people back into the criminal justice system quite frequently. And 90% of
our clients have a self-reported history of substance abuse. So we try to provide intense
an immediate stabilization. We have a program called the Residential Sanctions Center, Resident
Reentry Sanction Center, which is located in northeast Washington, and, um, itís a
28 day holistic multidisciplinary program that includes assessments and treatment readiness
and behavioral therapy. Um, and itís very unusual for an agency like ours to do this
kind of treatment intervention, but we feel itís so important because we canít continually
see the recycling of folks over and over and over for things like substance abuse, um,
problems.
We also have, uh, a component that focuses on vocational services and, uh, we try to
make sure that we provide them with screening and assessments when they come into the system
so that we can get them funneled into appropriate vocational supported programs like computers,
uh, aide programs, um, occupational training. Uh, we work with the clusters of, um, opportunity
in the District of Columbia around employment and we try very hard to do a lot of outreach,
but employment is one of our biggest challenges for this population. And you heard a little
bit of that discussed earlier. Um, and so for many of our men and women itís really
about a second chance at living a crime free and productive life and this is the only way
that they can reach that goal.
We have educational services as well because as you saw in the earlier slide education
is an area thatís very, very, um, needy for this population. Many of them have been in
special ed all their lives, theyíve graduated into, uh, dropouts and, um, they havenít
had the appropriate education even when theyíve been incarcerated. So there arenít really
many programs in prisons that really address education in the way that they need it, particularly
for those whoíve had a history of special education. So we provide a variety of support
in that area.
Now I really want to talk about another partnership that we have with the DC Superior Court, which
is called our Fathering Court. And this is a very unique, um, uh, partnership because,
uh, we refer men there who have outstanding, um, uh, child support arrears and, uh, they
work through the court with, um, services and case management, um, classes for fathering
an parenting, meditation and mediation services, personal finance management counseling and
job training. Itís a community court model and, um, itís really been a successful model
in the district, but itís small right now and weíd love to expand it much broader than
it is. So any of you would like to fund it let us know. Um, but weíre very, very pleased
with the results.
So Iíve talked a little bit about how important partnerships are, and you heard from Chris
that a lot of the young people that he spoke of have gone through may systems, um, the
foster care system the juvenile justice system and they graduate into the adult criminal
justice system. So weíve taken it upon ourselves to do a better job of cross-agency case management
with those systems in the District of Columbia. Um, DYRS is our juvenile justice system and
Child and Family Services is our foster care system. So together with those two agencies
weíve been focusing on, uh, the common cases that we have across the agency so that we
can avoid intergenerational incarceration and intergenerational involvement in the criminal
justice system.
We also have a lot of partnerships in the community and with our faith-based institutions
and thatís been a huge success for us because what it does is it helps us with family reunification,
uh, grief counseling, tutoring, folks come out and volunteer to mentor our individual
clients. And one of the things thatís really exciting about this particular approach is
that this is the way that we can wrap around those supports that so often men and women
who are incarcerated far away from DC, um, they lose those supports, they lose those
connections with their families and with significant and constructive social supports. So this,
for us, helps us to substitute some of those social networks and social supports for them.
And itís really been, um, a way for us to wrap our arms around our population in a much
more constructive manner.
And then finally, um, and in closing I want to say that for us client stabilization, treatment,
uh, training and employment are the most important pieces, uh, of helping the folks that we serve
to break the cycle of poverty and family breakdown. And so we look forward to continuing to work
with the Reentry Council, which we are a part of, um, to make sure that this population
is not neglected, that we donít assume that if someone has committed a crime that that
means that they have to be, uh, scarred for life and kept as a outsider to our community
forever. They have a lot to contribute and theyíre anxious to contribute. Thank you
very much.
[clapping]
>> EARL JOHNSON: Um, weíll now, okay.
>> QUESTIONER: This is coming from Lisa Stand in Maryland. From the federal efforts of incarceration
and reentry what are the innovations from the Federal Bureau of Prisons that can be
held up as models for states?
>> AMY SOLOMON: Yeah, the Bureau of Prisons is part of the federal, uh, justice department
and part of the Reentry Council. Uh, the part of justice that I represent works with states
and localities so Iím not going to speak to that, but I can tell you that the, the
director is incredibly focused on reentering and has a reentry orientation and has reached
out to his staff and every inmate and every facility, uh, with messages. And there are
a number of things going on. Iíd be happy to get back to you for this person with the
number of pieces.
Uh, let me just say one more thing, that we are about to, in June, put out what weíre
calling Snapshots that talk about what weíve done and what weíre doing in a number of
areas and they include the Bureau of Prisons. So weíll make that public and transparent
very soon.
>> NANCY WARE: And I just wanted to add that most all of our offenders are coming back,
um, from the, uh, uh, Bureau of Prisons. We do not have a local prison system in the District
of Columbia. We rely on the Federal Bureau of Prisons for all of our offenders. So we
have to work very closely with them. And one of the things that weíve implemented recently,
well not so recently, but what weíve implemented over the years is, um, our video conferencing
with all of those institutions as much as we can and weíve moved up to the potential
to video conference in 18 institutions for those who are in prerelease status and about
to return to the District of Columbia. There are a number of other efforts underway, including
looking at folks who are going to come back and have mental health issues from the Bureau
of Prisons that weíre trying to really tighten up and be more responsive to. So weíre working
very closely with them as well.
>> QUESTIONER: And this comes from Katherine Bishop in California. Are there any studies
demonstrating the impact of providing stable housing on recidivism? What about the impact
of affordable housing?
>> NANCY LA VIGNE: All right, so housing wasnít one of the areas that I covered. Um, but,
um, unfortunately thereís not a lot of rigorous studies that can tell us definitively how
housing can impact, uh, reentry. Um, thereís one actually by, um, a colleague of mine,
Jocelyn Fontane, that looked at permanent, uh, supportive housing so people often who,
uh, cycle in an out of jail and have mental health, uh, challenges and so forth and are
chronically homeless. And, uh, her study, which was quite rigorous, found that providing
permanent supportive housing for that population can have a real positive impact.
>> NANCY WARE: And I just want to add that again, bridging the gap from research to practice,
uh, weíve really paid a lot of attention to housing and the impact on our population
and weíre finding that the more immediate provision of housing and employment that we
can provide once a person exits, um, incarceration the more likely their success will be in supervision.
Itís not rigorous.
>> AUDIENCE MEMBER 1: Okay, I have two questions. One is for Christopher and the other one either
of you can answer or it doesnít really matter. Um, Christopher, on your, uh, presentation
you talked about maternal and paternal effects on the children and I was wondering if specifically
for the African American community, but either, um, do you feel that the results didnít show
as much on the maternal because basically on something that, uh, Ms. Nancy touched on,
of the nucleus of the maternal familyís taken over for the most part. Usually the grandmothers
or the aunts and all pretty much took over or will take over whereas we donít see that
as much with the fathers or the paternals. We donít have them taking over because usually
the same situation is happening with them anyway so thereís no one to take over for
them. Do you find that thatís usually the case?
>> CHRIS WILDEMAN: Thanks. Um, yeah, itís a great question. I think the sort of way
weíre thinking about it is that in almost all the families where they experienced maternal
incarceration in the data set that weíre using there were very high levels of sort
of family instability before and as you mentioned, um, grandmothers and aunts and siblings, um,
would, were already shouldering a lot of the sort of childcare burden and, um, because
the women who experience incarceration are so much more select in the sense that they
tend to struggle, as so many more problems than the men who experience incarceration,
the combination of already having some sort of preexisting family arrangement going and
sort of the level, um, behavioral problems the mothers were exhibiting essentially it
just became a wash.
>> AUDIENCE MEMBER 1: Okay. I just I kind of thought that, I just wanted to confirm.
Um, and then the other question that either of you can answer if you would is, um, I have
a specific reason for asking this, uh, when someone is incarcerated for a long period
of time and they return to the reentry and is there any of your programs or anything
that you found in your research that is being done or what happens to the person when they
come back into the reentry, to reenter into society and things have changed so much because
we know that technology change, society changes and they canít cope too well. What is being
done to help them, uh, learn how to use smartphones, learn how to use the new flat screen TVís
versus the analog TVís, learn how to understand that everything looks different, acts different,
moves different so that they donít decide hey it was better for me back in jail where
I was before, I think I want to go back where Iím more familiar or maybe I donít want
to be here anymore? You know, that type of stuff. You know, because thereís more, you
know, you want to try to get them jobs but they canít get jobs if they canít function
with what we have to work in society now. You know what I mean?
>> NANCY WARE: I definitely know what you mean. We see that every day. And so what we
found thatís been very successful is, um, the self-help groups that have grown up in
the District of Columbia, uh, Homecomers, Incorporate, other self-help groups where
a group of men and women who have formally been incarcerated have come back, uh, set
up these organizations to embrace people when they come out of prison and jail and particularly
long-term prison stays where folks are traumatized frankly when they come back and donít understand
all of the changes, not just, um, changes in technology, but even changes in the face
of the city where they used to live, you know. So, um, those have been extremely successful,
very helpful and, uh, those are the folks who understand that transition the best. So
I can share the names of some of those groups or you can talk to Cedric Hendricks over here.
He knows all of the names of those groups if youíre interested.
>> AUDIENCE MEMBER 1: Iím not interested, but I do know some people that have gone through
that and they live in different states and stuff and they have expressed that to me and
I, you know, I say thing to them and try to motivate them, but I think my goodness this
is awful and I try to put myself in their shoes and think, oh my goodness, what would
I do?
>> AMY SOLOMON: I just want to mention on the National Reentry Resource Center website
there are, thereís a section you can look up for people who are returning home and it
has by state directories of where there are service directories that list groups like
the oneís Nancyís talking about. Theyíre not there in every state, um, but at least
it gives, uh, a starting place to make some calls and see where there are some resources.
>> AUDIENCE MEMBER 1: Thank you so much.
>> AUDIENCE MEMBER 2: I have two questions I think it would be most appropriate to go
to Amy Solomon. And, um, I was wondering if there were any laws presently or any future
possibilities of laws that would dictate how far employers can go back to check for criminal
records? Because if someone does, something did, someone did something 15 years ago and
itís still being held against them thatís a lot different than somebody that just did
something a year ago.
>> AMY SOLOMON: That is an excellent question. Um, the Equal Employment Opportunity, uh,
Commission, the EEOC that put out one of the guidanceís, thereís a link in my slides
to this, talks about three factors that every employer needs to consider when making these
decisions. One is, uh, what, how serious the crime was, the conviction was, how long ago,
it occurred in the past and how it relates to the job theyíre applying for. And a lot
of employers arenít aware, uh, that this is the way they should be evaluating people
and their criminal records.
>> AUDIENCE MEMBER 2: But youíre saying theyíre evaluating them, but they can still see that
far back.
>> AMY SOLOMON: Right. Well, the how long, they should have policies in place that have
some rationale behind that. So there is some research thatís been done by Al Blumstein
known as the Redemption Literature, that shows that after some number of years, itís on
average between three and eight, uh, people have the, who have been arrested, have the
same probability of being rearrested as the general public and thereís a lot more specificity
in the research about by type of crime, etc. And we are having exactly those kinds of conversations
as part of the Reentry Council to see what is appropriate and what, uh, what we can do
to work these conversations. Do I know of any laws, uh, that are specific to a length
of time? Uh, no, I donít. I could certainly get back to you if there are some looking
at these databases. But I think thatís the conversation that weíre having right now.
>> AUDIENCE MEMBER 2: Okay. And the other question was, um some of these programs you
talked about, are they only at the felony level or any of them at the misdemeanor level,
for people that have committed crimes at as a misdemeanor?
>> AMY SOLOMON: By programs do you mean reentry programs?
>> AUDIENCE MEMBER 2: Yeah, the ones you were talking about in your presentation.
>> NANCY LA VIGNE: That could have been, uh, mine. I donít, I think that, um, by in large
most of the reentry research is on, uh, people who are incarcerated in state or federal prisons.
So they tend to be felons. Um, however, there are some, uh, studies of sentence populations
in local jails, um, they, those are often misdemeanors.
>> AMY SOLOMON: And I would just add that the Reentry Council issues that weíre talking
about are not only about felony, they are about people with misdemeanors and they even
apply to people who just have an arrest where there was no conviction at all because weíre
finding that, uh, the research says that one out of every three adults has at least one
arrest on their record and a lot of employers donít see what happened to it, if there was
a conviction or if it was dismissed. So we are looking at this issue very broadly for
people who have a record when employers look at it and that might include a very minor
arrest very long ago in the past thatís still being held against them.
>> AUDIENCE MEMBER 2: Okay. Okay, thank you.
>> AUDIENCE MEMBER 3: Hi, thank you for a very helpful panel. Um, Amy, I was really
encouraged and Iím excited to check out the clearinghouse for resources here in DC. My
question is for Nancy. I run a work readiness education program here in DC at Covenant House,
we have a lot of young people in our program, 18 to 24 year olds, a lot of young people
who are coming out of the prison system, and as I listened to the programs that you talked
about I can hear a lot of them that our young people would benefit from. Iím wondering
what your suggestions are for community based organizations as far as helping on our end
to connect young people to those programs and for us to be able to coordinate with whatís
happening in their supervision through CSOSA.
>> NANCY WARE: Wonderful. Iíd love to, uh, connect with Covenant House. Itís been, uh,
an icon in the city for many years. And weíre just really kind of, uh, branching out into
the young adult, uh, population a little bit more this year. And as I said, weíre in a
pilot phase. So, uh, Lisa Rawlings, whoís sitting over here at this table will reach
out to you and you all can connect and share cards and weíll get you hooked in.
>> AUDIENCE MEMBER 3: Fantastic. Thank you.
>> QUESTIONER: This is the last question.
>> AUDIENCE MEMBER: CELESTE RICHIE: Thanks so much. Celeste Richie, I work at the Department
of Labor here in DC. Um, I really wanted to appreciate the way that Nancy started her
presentation. I think that it paired well with the data that we saw from Chris. And
I guess I just wanted to see maybe Amy and others could comment, um, I feel like a lot
of times when we talk about ex offender populations and look at data we talk about certain race
and ethnicity, uh, characteristics, identities being risk factors, but what responsibility
do we have at the federal level to talk about the institutionalized racism that is sort
of feeding this whole system? Um, I feel like itís kind of danced around sometimes so I
was just wondering, you know, with the council, um, if you all could comment on that? Thanks.
>> AMY SOLOMON: I mean itís a very good question. I think the place that weíre addressing this
the most is through the bully pulpit in lots of speeches, for example, the Attorney General,
the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate, others do talk about this connection and how
these are largely communities of color, uh, that are affected by these policies, um, and
by incarceration in the criminal justice system. And so youíre right, we should all be taking
a hard look at this issue and what we could do. And I think that thereís some acknowledgement,
but thereís also some room, uh, to look at it directly.
>> EARL JOHNSON: Great. Thank you, Nancy. Thank you all. Um, can we get a big round
of applause for this panel? That would be great. [clapping] And now I have no idea what
to do. [laughs]
>> ERICA ZIELEWSKI: Thank you, guys, that was a great panel and now we have one last
set of breakout sessions. Donít leave here, go to one of those and we thank everyone again
for coming and hope that you learned something and enjoy the last session. Thank you, guys.
And thank you, guys. It was great.
[clapping]