Community Reentry from
Prison: Opportunities and Challenges
By Ron Honberg, J.D.,
national director for Policy and Legal Affairs
Source NAMI ADVOCATE
Spring/Summer 2004
In his 2004 State of the Union Address, President George W. Bush proposed a four-year, $300 million reentry initiative for prisoners returning to their communities. The goal of this initiative prisoners with job training and placement services, transitional housing, mentoring, and other services designed to help them successfully reenter their communities and prevent recidivism. “America is the land of the second chance,” President Bush stated, “and when the gates of the prison open, the path ahead should lead to a better life.”
Unfortunately, for too many people with serious mental illnesses, release from prison does not lead to a better life. On the contrary, individuals with these illnesses are frequently released from jails or prisons without medications, housing, benefits, or other necessary services. Is it any surprise that recidivism (re-offence) rates among offenders with serious mental illnesses are extremely high?
The current renewed focus on reentry is a positive development. Jails and prisons are overcrowded, and states can no longer afford the costs of incarcerating so many people. Significant resources are expended on services for inmates with serious mental illnesses, many of whom have co-occurring substance abuse disorders.
The shortage of appropriate community-based services and supports for people with serious mental illnesses across the country has reached epidemic proportions. These services are particularly lacking for individuals reentering the community after serving prison sentences. And the existence of a psychiatric diagnosis, coupled with a criminal record, represents a double stigma that may, in and of itself, preclude people from services that would otherwise be available.
There is mounting evidence that corrections officials’ lack of faith in the ability of mental health systems to provide services is leading to longer prison sentences for people with mental illnesses. For example, a 2000 study in Pennsylvania revealed that a significantly higher proportion of individuals with serious mental illnesses serve longer prison sentences that individuals convicted of comparable crimes who do not have serious mental illness. And , in a national survey, state directors of parole and probation identified inadequate services for people with mental illnesses (particularly housing and substance abuse treatment) as the most lacking community resources for parolees.
Despite this, some state and local jurisdictions are developing innovative programs to provide reentry services to individuals with serious mental illnesses. For example, Ohio has established two pilot Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) programs in Hamilton and Cayahoga Counties for individuals with serious mental illnesses after their release from prison. These services are largely funded by the Ohio Department of Corrections and supplemented with additional funding through local alcohol, drug addiction, and mental health boards.
Following are some particularly difficult hurdles that must be overcome in providing effective reentry services for individuals with serious mental illnesses.
· Failure to Initiate Services Prior to
Release from Prison
Transition planning and services
coordination should begin well before release from prison. Unfortunately, this
frequently does not happen. Corrections, mental health, Social Security,
housing and other key systems frequently do not collaborate effectively in
coordinating and providing reentry services.
However, signs of progress are beginning to emerge. A number of states are developing programs and procedures for pre-release transition planning and service linkages for individuals with serious mental illnesses after discharge from prison. For example, the Massachusetts Forensic Transition Team program, established in 1998, provides prison inmates who have mental illnesses with pre-release assessments, planning, and post-release services and supports, including intensive case management services. Data collected on this program show lower recidivism rates for individuals who have participated.
· Obtaining Housing
Supportive housing is the cornerstone of successful reentry into society. Unfortunately, transitional and permanent housing options are in short supply in most communities across the country. This is particularly problematic for individuals with serious mental illnesses who have prison records, since many Some state or local jurisdictions are trying to address this problem. For existing housing programs are loathe to serve people with criminal records.
example, the State of Pennsylvania has created a program to help female prison inmates with the most serious mental illnesses transition back in their communities. Services provided by this program include transitional housing for a limited (30-to-60 day) period while more permanent housing is secured.
· Obtaining SSI and Medicaid
Imprisonment for more than a year results in the loss of federal and most state benefits. Therefore, a critical aspect of effective reentry services must be to help people obtain or re-obtain these benefits as quickly as possible after discharge. Some state corrections agencies have entered into cooperative agreements with Social Security Administration (SSA) field offices and state Medicaid agencies to facilitate benefit applications while people are still incarcerated. If your state has not entered into agreements of this nature, advocacy efforts should be undertaken to ensure that it does.
· Shortage of Specialized Parole Officers
Most prisoners, including those with serious mental illnesses, are released under some form of community supervision. Parole officers often have huge caseloads, and they are under great pressure to protect public safety and prevent further crime. Thus, these officers may respond to any violation of the conditions of release by recommending re-incarceration. For parolees with serious mental illneses, violations of parole may be caused by symptoms of the illness by the unrealistic nature of the conditions of parole.
Some states have created positions for specialized parole and probation officers with specific training and knowledge about mental illness and how to effectively respond to people with these illnesses. Typically, their caseloads are smaller than average because the individuals they serve require more intensive services and supports. For example, the Connecticut Board of Parole has established a “Special Management Unit” to serve parolees with special needs, including those with serious mental illnesses. Parole officers working in this unit interact and coordinate intensively with mental health service providers and maintain caseloads of no more than 25 people.
Conclusion
Community reentry is difficult for all released prisoners, and particularly difficult for individuals with serious mental illnesses. People with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and other serious mental illnesses who are released from prisons are frequently set up to fail by not being provided with the services and supports they need. Service models have emerged with proven effectiveness in helping facilitate successful community reentry. In time of budgets deficits, these services are a good investment for the entire community.
For more information, contact:
The Alliance for the Mentally Ill
NAMI of Greater Chicago
1536 West Chicago Avenue
Chicago, IL 60622
(312)563-0445
Fax 312-563-0467
www.namigc.org