Abstract

In 2006, the Corporation for Supportive Housing launched its Returning Home Initiative (RHI) with two goals: 1) to establish permanent supportive housing as an essential reentry component for formerly incarcerated persons with histories of homelessness, mental illness, and chronic health conditions; and 2) to promote local and national policy changes to integrate the corrections, housing, mental health, and human service systems. The Urban Institute assessed the process of system change stimulated by the RHI activities in three communities that received significant RHI investment and other jurisdictions. In addition, the report identifies challenges and lessons learned from the RHI to date.

Introduction

In 2001, the Corporation for Supportive Housing began exploring how to promote supportive housing for individuals returning to the community from incarceration. Supportive housing for the reentry population is designed for individuals with chronic health challenges who were homeless upon entry to prison or jail or at risk of homelessness upon release. In general, supportive housing is the combination of permanent affordable housing and supportive services aimed at helping residents maintain housing stability. Typically, supportive housing services include coordinated case management, health and mental health services, substance abuse treatment and recovery, vocational and employment services, tenant advocacy, and training in money management and life skills. Research has shown that individuals with histories of incarceration, homelessness, mental illnesses, or other disabilities often cycle through the criminal justice and homelessness systems multiple times and may also frequently use crisis health and mental health services (Burt and Anderson 2005; Hall, Burt, Roman, and Fontaine 2009; Metraux and Culhane 2004). Given the success of supportive housing models in increasing the residential stability of persons with homeless and mental health histories (Burt and Anderson 2005; Culhane, Metraux, and Hadley 2002; Culhane, Parker, Poppe, Gross, and Sykes 2007), expanding these programs to target those released from incarceration may be a way to break the costly cycle of incarceration, homelessness, and emergency service utilization.

The Corporation for Supportive Housing (CSH) designated a staff person from their New York City Office whose primary responsibility was to develop a reentry supportive housing initiative nationwide. After using small grants to strategize and support the development of a larger initiative, CSH launched its Returning Home Initiative with a $6 million grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and additional support from the Open Society Institute, the Conrad N. Hilton and JEHT Foundations in the spring of 2006. The Returning Home Initiative (RHI) has two goals. First, it is dedicated to establishing permanent supportive housing (PSH) as an essential component of reintegrating formerly incarcerated persons with histories of disabilities and housing instability into their communities. Second, it is dedicated to initiating and implementing public policy changes that strengthen the integration and coordination of the corrections, housing, mental health, and human service systems. As part of the first goal, the RHI seeks to: 1) develop successful supportive housing models tailored to formerly incarcerated persons; 2) facilitate the placement of 1,000 formerly incarcerated persons into supportive housing units; and 3) document decreased recidivism rates of the formerly incarcerated persons who live in supportive housing compared to a similar group of formerly incarcerated persons who do not receive supportive housing. To initiate and implement public policy changes as part of the second goal, the RHI engages local and national stakeholders, such as supportive housing providers, public administrators, and elected officials, through an array of activities.

The initial geographic focus of the RHI was the nation's three largest cities— New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago. Recently, CSH has expanded its efforts to several other states, including Connecticut, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, and Washington as well as the District of Columbia. In November 2006, CSH asked the Urban Institute (UI) to assess the process of system change stimulated by the RHI activities in New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago, the three communities that received the most significant RHI investment. This report summarizes the influence of the RHI activities in these three communities based on three site visits to each city between 2007 and 2009 and ongoing conversations with the RHI program manager in each site who leads and coordinates the RHI activities. It focuses on changes in system functioning and interagency collaboration that have come about, at least in part, through the facilitation and encouragement of the RHI program manager and other CSH staff funded with the RHI resources. In addition, this report highlights the RHI activities taking place in some of the other jurisdictions listed above. Using this information, the report identifies challenges and lessons learned from the RHI to date and provides a summary of the influence of the RHI activities on system change.

System change is an evolving, iterative process that can take years. System change is especially challenging in the case of reentry housing since many corrections departments have had limited responsibility for what happens outside the prison or jail facility for decades. While corrections departments have historically funded temporary or transitional housing (e.g., halfway houses), long-term housing solutions have not been part of their suite of services. Given this history, a corrections department that works with public systems to provide supportive housing is undertaking a major shift in its operating paradigm that may also lead to changes in how its resources are allocated. Such changes take time to work out. Yet, facilitating these changes is a critical way that the RHI intends to meet its goals. It seeks to improve financial integration and policy coordination among corrections, housing, and human service agencies, document cost savings to participating corrections and other systems, and demonstrate on a national scale the power of supportive housing as a solution to the complex needs of formerly incarcerated persons with chronic health and mental health issues.