Where will I sleep tomorrow? Housing, homelessness, and the returning prisoner

Abstract

This year, over 630,000 prisoners will be released from state and federal prisons across the country—more than four times as many as were released in 1980. In this article, we examine the scope of the prisoner reentry issue—what is known about the intersection of housing, homelessness, and reentry and about the barriers returning prisoners face in securing safe and affordable housing.Although the housing challenges are formidable, progress is being made on numerous fronts. We seek to frame the dynamics of the reentry housing discussion by highlighting the promising strategies that are emerging. These strategies, taken to scale, could help create a very different national policy on prisoner reentry. Ultimately, effective reentry strategies have the potential not only to reduce re‐arrest and increase public safety, but also to reduce homelessness.

Full text

This article was downloaded by: [Temple University Libraries]
On: 05 September 2011, At: 18:48
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Housing Policy Debate
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rhpd20
Where will I sleep tomorrow? Housing,
homelessness, and the returning
prisoner
Caterina Gouvis Roman a & Jeremy Travis b
a Senior Research Associate in the Justice Policy Center, The
Urban Institute
b President of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City
University of New York
Available online: 31 Mar 2010
To cite this article: Caterina Gouvis Roman & Jeremy Travis (2006): Where will I sleep tomorrow?
Housing, homelessness, and the returning prisoner, Housing Policy Debate, 17:2, 389-418
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2006.9521574
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-
conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any
representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The
accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified
with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,
proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising
directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Where Will I Sleep Tomorrow?
Housing, Homelessness, and the
Returning Prisoner
Caterina Gouvis Roman
The Urban Institute
Jeremy Travis
City University of New York
Abstract
This year, over 630,000 prisoners will be released from state and federal
prisons across the country—more than four times as many as were released in
1980. In this article, we examine the scope of the prisoner reentry issue—what
is known about the intersection of housing, homelessness, and reentry and
about the barriers returning prisoners face in securing safe and affordable
housing.
Although the housing challenges are formidable, progress is being made on
numerous fronts. We seek to frame the dynamics of the reentry housing discus-
sion by highlighting the promising strategies that are emerging. These strate-
gies, taken to scale, could help create a very different national policy on
prisoner reentry. Ultimately, effective reentry strategies have the potential not
only to reduce re-arrest and increase public safety, but also to reduce home-
lessness.
Keywords: Crime; Homelessness; Urban policy
Introduction
Every prisoner facing discharge from a correctional institution must
answer the question: “Where will I sleep tomorrow?” For many returning pris-
oners, the answer to that question is the family home. But reunions with fami-
lies are not always possible—or are only temporary—sometimes due to the
dictates of the criminal justice system and other times because of housing poli-
cies or family dynamics. For those who cannot return to the home of family or
friends, the question of housing becomes considerably more complex. For
some, the final answer to the question is a homeless shelter or the street. Diffi-
culty in securing appropriate and affordable housing complicates the reentry
389
HOUSING POLICY DEBATE VOLUME 17 ISSUE 2
© 2006 FANNIE MAE FOUNDATION. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 18:48 05 September 2011

process, further reducing already limited chances for successful community
reintegration.
Reentry is the process of leaving prison and returning to society. With the
exception of those who die in prison, all prisoners will at some point return to
the community. This year, over 630,000 prisoners will be released from state
and federal prisons across the country—more than four times as many as were
released in 1980. In this article, we examine the scope of one critical dimension
of the prisoner reentry issue1: namely, the intersection of housing, homeless-
ness, and reentry and the barriers returning prisoners face in securing safe and
affordable housing. We also seek to frame the current dynamics of the reentry
housing discussion by highlighting the promising practices that are emerging
across the country.
With regard to reentry in general, some jurisdictions have begun to tackle
the issue through nontraditional methods—by broadening the reentry perspec-
tive to include partners outside of the criminal justice arena. These jurisdictions
have articulated a common ground of policy interests and redefined the term
“stakeholder” to include housing and homeless assistance agencies, commu-
nity and faith-based agencies, local residents, and private businesses. These
strategies, taken to scale, could help create a very different national policy on
prisoner reentry. The challenges and obstacles are formidable, but progress in
surmounting those obstacles is being made on numerous fronts. Recognizing
that housing is a key ingredient for successful prisoner reentry is the first step
on the path to developing broad support for coordinated reentry housing
mechanisms.
Prisoner reentry—The scope of the issue
Over the past generation, the United States has placed greater reliance on
incarceration as a response to crime. As a result, far more people have spent
time behind bars, some in prison and some in jail, than ever before. The record
level of movement in and out of the country’s prisons and jails has far-reach-
ing consequences for the individual prisoners themselves, their families, and the
communities to which they return (Hagan and Dinovitzer 2001; Petersilia
2003; Travis, Solomon, and Waul 2001).
During the past 20 years, the United States has experienced a massive
increase in incarceration. The total prison population increased from 330,000
FANNIE MAE FOUNDATION
390 Caterina Gouvis Roman and Jeremy Travis
1This article focuses on those leaving prison, as opposed to jail. People in prison (under
the jurisdiction of federal or state authorities) have been convicted of crimes for which the
sentence is, at minimum, one year. In almost all states, inmates sentenced to less than a year are
held in city and county jails.
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 18:48 05 September 2011

in 1980 to nearly 1.4 million in 1999 (Lynch and Sabol 2001). At the end of
2002, 1 in every 1,656 women and 1 in every 110 men were incarcerated in a
state or federal prison (Harrison and Beck 2002). The demographic character-
istics of the prisoners who are being released mirror the characteristics of those
who are incarcerated. Table 1 provides selected demographic characteristics for
prisoners released on parole.2At the end of 2004, most prisoners who were
released on parole were male (88 percent); 40 percent were white, 41 percent
were black, and 18 percent were Hispanic (Glaze and Palla 2005). The largest
percentage of parolees had been convicted of a drug offense (38 percent). As
shown in figure 1, drug offenders have comprised an increasing percentage of
prison releases since 1985 (Hughes, Wilson, and Beck 2001).
At the end of 2004, five states (California, Illinois, New York, Pennsylva-
nia, and Texas) accounted for just under half of all parolees in the country
(Glaze and Palla 2005). Table 2 displays the number of persons on parole in
2004 for these five states. Further, within states, a large proportion of released
HOUSING POLICY DEBATE
Housing, Homelessness, and the Returning Prisoner 391
Table 1. A Profile of Parolees, 2004
Percentage
Gender
Male 88
Female 12
Race/Hispanic origin
White* 40
Black* 41
Hispanic 18
American Indian/Alaska Native* 1
Asian/Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander* 1
Type of Offense
Violent 24
Property 26
Drug 38
Other 12
Source: Glaze and Palla (2005).
Note: Total may not equal 100 percent because of rounding.
*Excludes persons of Hispanic origin.
2Parole is a period of conditional supervised release following a prison term. Prisoners may
be released to parole either by a parole board or by mandatory conditional release. However,
roughly 20 percent of returning prisoners complete their entire sentence in prison and, as a
result, are not under parole supervision after they are released.
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 18:48 05 September 2011

xx
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
■■
■
■■
■
■
■■
■
■
■
■
■
■
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲▲
▲▲
▲
▲▲▲
▲
•••
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
prisoners return to a small number of disadvantaged communities. The Urban
Institute’s Returning Home study, a large, multiple-wave study designed to
provide detailed information on the characteristics and experiences of return-
ing prisoners in four states (Maryland, Illinois, Ohio, and Texas) has examined
the concentrations of returning prisoners within cities and neighborhoods.
FANNIE MAE FOUNDATION
392 Caterina Gouvis Roman and Jeremy Travis
Figure 1. Percentage of Releases from State Prison, by Most Serious Offense,
1985 to 1999
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Source: Hughes, Wilson, and Beck 2001.
Property
Violent
Drug
Public Order
Table 2. States with the Largest Numbers Supervised on Parole, 2004
State Number Supervised Percentage of Total
California 110,261 14.4
Texas 102,072 13.3
Pennsylvania 77,175 10.1
New York 54,524 7.1
Illinois 34,277 4.5
Total 345,309 49.4
Source: Compiled from Glaze and Palla (2005).
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 18:48 05 September 2011

1. In Maryland, 59 percent of those released from state prison returned to the
city of Baltimore, and 30 percent of those returned to just 6 of its 55
communities (La Vigne and Kachnowski 2003).
2. In Illinois, 51 percent of state prisoners returned to Chicago, and of those,
34 percent returned to just 6 of its 77 communities (La Vigne et al. 2003).
3. In Ohio, 22 percent returned to Cuyahoga County. Of those, 79 percent
returned to Cleveland, and 28 percent of those returned to 5 of Cleveland’s
36 communities (LaVigne and Thomson 2003).
4. In Texas, 23 percent of state prisoners returned to Houston, and 25 percent
of those are concentrated in 5 of the city’s 185 ZIP codes (Watson et al.
2004).
These neighborhoods generally have above-average rates of unemploy-
ment, female-headed households, and families living in poverty (LaVigne et al.
2003; LaVigne and Thomson 2003; LaVigne, Visher, and Castro 2004).
Conversations with community residents, reentry policy makers and practi-
tioners, and returning prisoners indicate that many communities are unpre-
pared and lack needed services for this population (Visher and Farrell 2005).
Compared with those released in the 1990s, prisoners released today have
generally been in prison for longer periods of time, and fewer of them have
participated in education and drug treatment programs (Hagan and Coleman
2001; Lynch and Sabol 2001). Many will return to prison within three years of
their release. In the largest recidivism study ever conducted, the Bureau of
Justice Statistics (BJS) examined 38,000 prisoners (projected to represent
270,000) released from prisons in 15 states in 1994 and found that 67.5
percent were arrested for a new crime (either a felony or a serious misde-
meanor) within three years of their release (Langan and Levin 2002). The study
also found that most recidivism (two-thirds of all re-arrests) occurs within the
first year after release.
A number of issues can complicate the reentry process and create obstacles
to securing housing. A large number of returning prisoners have HIV or AIDS
or other illnesses such as hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and tuberculosis (National
GAINS Center 1999; Roberts, Kennedy, and Hammett 2002). Although
national numbers on the prevalence of HIV among returning prisoners are not
tabulated, the National Commission on Correctional Health Care (NCCHC)
estimated that 98,000 to 145,000 inmates with HIV were released from pris-
ons and jails in 1996, representing 13.1 to 19.3 percent of all persons with HIV
in the United States (2002). Ex-prisoners also have high rates of substance
abuse and mental illness (Beck and Maruschak 2001). Estimates of the
HOUSING POLICY DEBATE
Housing, Homelessness, and the Returning Prisoner 393
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 18:48 05 September 2011

substance abuse problems of returning prisoners, which derive from numbers
gathered for the incarcerated population, range from 55 to 84 percent
(Hughes, Wilson, and Beck 2001; Mumola 1999).
Findings from the Returning Home study show the extent of drug use
within a few months of release from prison: 16 percent, 23 percent, and 33
percent of those released in Illinois, Ohio, and Texas, respectively, reported ille-
gal drug use soon after release (Visher 2006). With regard to mental illness,
NCCHC estimates that 8 to 16 percent of the prison population has at least
one serious mental disorder (2002).3In addition, women face unique barriers
in securing safe and affordable housing when they return home (Ritchie 2000).
Surveys estimate that about 65 percent of women in state prison have children
under the age of 18 (Mumola 2000). These women often must find a home not
only for themselves, but also for their children.
Reentry and homelessness
According to a number of different studies that examine the demographics
of prisoners, the population coming in and out of America’s prisons has high
rates of homelessness. A BJS study (Hughes, Wilson, and Beck 2001) found
that 12 percent of those state prisoners who expected to be released to the
community at the end of 1999 reported being homeless at the time of their
arrest. Another BJS study found that in 1998, 9 percent of state prison inmates
reported living on the street or in a shelter in the 12 months prior to arrest
(Ditton 1999). A California study reported that in 1997, 10 percent of that
state’s parolees were homeless. In urban areas such as San Francisco and Los
Angeles, an estimated 30 to 50 percent of all parolees are homeless (California
Department of Corrections 1997). A 1999 Urban Institute three-site study of
400 returning prisoners with histories of drug abuse found that 32 percent had
been homeless for a month or more at least once in their lifetimes, and 18
percent reported that they were homeless for at least a month in the year after
they were released from prison (Rossman et al. 1999).
New attempts at matching parole client names and identification numbers
to homeless shelter rolls also indicate that large numbers of parolees rely on
shelter systems—though the numbers may underestimate the true extent of the
overlap because of missing information. For example, New York reported that
at any given time, about 800 parolees, representing roughly 3 percent of the
city parole caseload, are in the city shelter system (Riley 2003). Findings from
FANNIE MAE FOUNDATION
394 Caterina Gouvis Roman and Jeremy Travis
3Like other public health statistics on the returning prisoner population, the number of
inmates with mental illnesses pending release is not known, although states do report prevalence
rates on mental illness in correctional populations.
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 18:48 05 September 2011

a recent study examining the intersection of corrections services and shelter use
suggest that prisoners who were homeless at some time in their life were more
likely to be homeless after a state prison incarceration than those who had
never experienced homelessness (Metraux and Culhane 2004). Specifically,
released prisoners with a history of shelter use were almost five times as likely
to have had a shelter stay after they left prison. The same study also found that
54 percent of those who were released from New York state prisons and
entered homeless shelters later did so within the first 30 days. The Illinois
Returning Home study found that 5 percent of respondents slept at a shelter
their first night out of prison (La Vigne, Visher, and Castro 2004).
In short, about 10 percent of the population coming into prisons has
recently been homeless, and at least the same percentage of those who leave
prisons end up homeless, at least for some period of time. Those with a history
of mental illness are even more likely to be homeless. The BJS study examining
homelessness before incarceration found that the level of homelessness for
inmates who were mentally ill was 20 percent (Ditton 1999). The Metraux and
Culhane study of New York parolees (2004) found that individuals with links
to the mental health system had considerably higher proportions of shelter
stays after release than those without such links.
Research also indicates that parole violation and re-arrest may be more
likely among those prisoners who have no place to go when they are released
or who have difficulty finding a permanent residence. An exploratory study by
the Vera Institute of Justice, which followed 49 individuals released from New
York State prisons and city jails, found that those individuals living in tempo-
rary shelters upon release had more difficulty resisting drugs and finding jobs.
Furthermore, 38 percent of the people who reported in the study’s prerelease
interviews that they were going to live in a shelter absconded from parole
supervision, compared with only 5 percent of those who reported that they
were not going to a shelter (Nelson, Deess, and Allen 1999). A study examin-
ing Georgia parolees found that the likelihood of arrest increased 25 percent
each time parolees changed addresses (Meredith et al. 2003). The Illinois
Returning Home study found that returning prisoners view housing as a key
component—perhaps even the most important component—of successful
community reintegration (La Vigne, Visher, and Castro 2004).4
Studies of homeless individuals and families also suggest a relationship
between homelessness and time spent in prison or jail. A synthesis of 60
research studies on homelessness conducted in the 1980s found that on aver-
HOUSING POLICY DEBATE
Housing, Homelessness, and the Returning Prisoner 395
4The study found that housing and family support were the most frequently cited reasons
related to staying out of prison.
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 18:48 05 September 2011

age, 18 percent of the homeless population had served time in prison for a
felony conviction, and about a third had been jailed for misdemeanor charges
(Shlay and Rossi 1992). According to the 1996 National Survey of Homeless
Assistance Providers and Clients, 49 percent of homeless adults reportedly
spent five or more days in a city or county jail, 4 percent had spent time in a
military lock-up, and 18 percent had been incarcerated in a state or federal
prison (Burt et al. 1999).
Housing options for returning prisoners
For a majority of returning prisoners, the first home after release is with a
family member, a close friend, or a significant other. The Vera Institute of
Justice study found that 40 of the 49 offenders followed after their release from
prison (82 percent) were living with a relative or with their spouse or partner
in the month right after they were released (Nelson, Deess, and Allen 1999). In
the Urban Institute’s Illinois, Maryland, Ohio, and Texas Returning Home
studies, 62 percent, 49 percent, 48 percent, and 53 percent of respondents,
respectively, interviewed about two months after their release from prison,
reported that they slept at a family member’s home (including a spouse or part-
ner) their first night out of prison. At the time of the interview, the over-
whelming majority (88 percent in Illinois and 80 percent in Maryland, Ohio,
and Texas) were living with a family member (La Vigne et al. 2003; Visher, La
Vigne, and Travis 2004).
For some returning prisoners, residing in the home of a family member,
friend, or significant other is not an option because of interpersonal conflict,
the reluctance of family members to welcome a violent individual back into
their lives, or the lack of an immediate family. In some cases, additional legal
restrictions further limit housing options. Conditions of parole may prohibit
returning prisoners from residing with a family member or close friend if that
person has a criminal record. According to a 1988 survey of conditions placed
on former prisoners under parole supervision, 31 of the 51 responding parole
agencies (61 percent) reported that they prohibited parolees from associating
with anyone who had a criminal record (Rhine, Smith, and Jackson 1991).
Even those who are able to move in with family may not find residential stabil-
ity. The Illinois Returning Home study found that 20 percent of those who
moved within two years after their release from prison did so because of
conflict with family members (LaVigne and Parthasarathy 2005).
Returning prisoners with nowhere to go often end up in shelters, which are
short-term facilities that typically do not help clients search for permanent
housing. Others leaving prison may return to or look for federally subsidized
FANNIE MAE FOUNDATION
396 Caterina Gouvis Roman and Jeremy Travis
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 18:48 05 September 2011

housing through the Housing Choice Voucher Program (formerly called
Section 8) or the federal public housing program. However, with the exception
of a few studies, little is known about the numbers of formerly incarcerated
individuals residing in federally subsidized housing. Moreover, returning pris-
oners may be barred from subsidized housing because of federal laws or local
admissions policies barring persons who have been convicted of certain types
of offenses, such as drug or sex offenses, from subsidized housing. The Illinois
Returning Home study found that 8.8 percent of respondents who participated
in all four waves of the study reported living in public housing or Section 8
housing two months after their release. Between one and two years after
release, a slightly larger percentage—10.4 percent—reported living in public
housing or Section 8 housing (La Vigne and Parthasarathy 2005).
Another recent study (Venkatesh 2002) suggests that a substantial number
of public housing residents have family members or significant others with a
recent criminal history. Venkatesh (2002) found that 4 in 10 residents of the
Robert Taylor Homes, a public housing development in Chicago, report or
expect the return of an inmate from jail or prison in the next two years. Nearly
half (43 percent) of the families expecting a household member to leave prison
in the next nine months reported that they did not want that person to live in
their household again. However, these families did not plan to prevent the
returning prisoner from residing in the apartment even though more than half
(56 percent) predicted that he or she would once again be involved in some
form of illegal activity.
In addition to this study, Popkin, Cunningham, and Woodley (2003) found
that returning prisoners may come to rely on public housing as their only
option to avoid homelessness. Their study examined the characteristics and
needs of public housing residents living in the Ida B. Wells community, a large
Chicago housing project being demolished to make way for a new, mixed-
income community. At the time of the study (late 2002 and early 2003), Wells
housing, though largely boarded up and abandoned, was home to a thriving
drug market. Popkin, Cunningham, and Woodley (2003) surveyed the popula-
tion living at Wells during demolition; interviewed all squatters living in vacant
units, hallways, and other areas; and conducted in-depth interviews with resi-
dents and squatters. Four percent of the 294 squatters interviewed had
returned to Wells from prison; another 5 percent left their former living
arrangements after police raids (suggesting involvement in illegal activity).
Problems with drug addiction forced another 8 percent out of their former
homes. These squatters reported that they had nowhere to go and no services
available to help them. When asked where they would go when all of the build-
ings were demolished, 32 percent responded that they did not know, and 30
HOUSING POLICY DEBATE
Housing, Homelessness, and the Returning Prisoner 397
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 18:48 05 September 2011

percent reported that they would go to another Chicago Housing Authority
building.
For those returning prisoners who cannot live with family or are prohib-
ited from subsidized housing, the options are few. Remaining options include
the private market; transitional facilities such as corrections-based housing,
also known as halfway houses; service-enriched transitional and phased-
permanent housing; and more permanent options such as homeless assistance
supportive housing and special-needs housing.5With the exception of the
private market and corrections-based transitional facilities, these types of hous-
ing are most often partially or wholly funded by the U.S. Department of Hous-
ing and Urban Development (HUD) and specifically designed to support
disadvantaged populations.
Supportive or service-enhanced housing programs offer a range of services
in addition to housing, including family counseling, case management, medical
services, substance abuse counseling, socialization skills groups, anger manage-
ment, vocational training, and assistance with obtaining vital documents such
as Social Security cards and birth certificates. Little is known about the use of
service-enriched transitional, permanent supportive housing, and other HUD-
supported special-needs housing by returning prisoners. Obtaining reliable
data on the numbers of returning prisoners using such options would require
states to systematically track them or researchers to develop large multistate
housing-focused studies that survey released prisoners. However, in-person and
self-administered surveys are often fraught with issues because they require
prisoners to understand the subtle differences among corrections-based transi-
tional housing, HUD-subsidized transitional and permanent supportive hous-
ing, and special-needs housing.
The Corporation for Supportive Housing (CSH) reports that permanent
supportive housing has not traditionally been designed for ex-offenders, let
alone those exiting prison (Black and Cho 2004). Although some jurisdictions
have used supportive housing and special-needs housing specifically to target
returning prisoners or ex-offenders, the majority serve these populations simply
because they are homeless or at risk of becoming so (Black and Cho 2004).
FANNIE MAE FOUNDATION
398 Caterina Gouvis Roman and Jeremy Travis
5Service-enhanced housing includes transitional (i.e., fixed length of stay) or phased-
permanent housing and is coupled with a variety of support services to help clients achieve self-
sufficiency. In most cases, clients do not have occupancy agreements or leases. Phased-permanent
refers to a new housing model where residents have month-to-month occupancy agreements (not
leases) and therefore have some rights of tenancy. Phased-permanent housing is intended to be
short term, with the goal of helping residents move on to more permanent forms of housing.
Supportive housing is permanent housing that provides units to lease-holding tenants; social
service provision is an integral component of the operation.
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 18:48 05 September 2011

Not surprisingly, returning prisoners often face insurmountable obstacles
when they try to access the private rental market, as well as the transitional and
permanent housing options discussed earlier. We look at these obstacles next.
The obstacles to housing for returning prisoners
Today, housing is out of reach for many people, not only those with crim-
inal records. A study by the National Low Income Housing Coalition reports
that the national housing wage for 2005 was $15.78, or $32,822 a year, almost
three times the federal minimum wage (2005). The national housing wage
represents the amount a full-time worker must earn to be able to afford the rent
for a modest two-bedroom home while paying no more than 30 percent of
income for housing. Nationally, a family with two adults working full-time at
minimum wage would make $21,424, much less than is needed to afford a
two-bedroom apartment at the average fair market rent. In many metropolitan
areas where returning prisoners are concentrated, local fair market rents are
considerably higher than the national figures (National Low Income Housing
Coalition 2005). Many urban areas are witnessing increasingly tight rental
markets, with a severely limited number of units available for low-income
households, particularly in neighborhoods accessible by public transportation.
But cost is not the only obstacle. Criminal justice and housing policies and
practices often create insurmountable barriers. In addition, community oppo-
sition and fragmentation of the nation’s service systems—often less tangible,
but just as formidable—pose barriers to housing for those leaving prison.
Criminal justice policy and practices
The agencies of the criminal justice system traditionally seek to connect
prisoners to housing, yet these efforts are fraught with problems and limita-
tions. Such efforts include implementing prerelease programming, requiring a
verified address to be released, and using transitional centers (halfway houses).
Many obstacles stem from the way the correctional system structures priorities.
Not surprisingly, the correctional system emphasizes public safety and institu-
tional security while prisoners are incarcerated.
Historically, preparation for release has not been a priority—and it
becomes less so in times of drastic budget cuts and overcrowding. Analysis of
1997 national survey data for state inmates reveals that only 13 percent of
soon-to-be-released inmates reported participating in prerelease programs
(Lynch and Sabol 2001). And, most likely, an even smaller percentage receives
housing-related assistance (e.g., counseling, search assistance, referrals to local
housing providers, vouchers for rent, renter education, etc.) within these
HOUSING POLICY DEBATE
Housing, Homelessness, and the Returning Prisoner 399
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 18:48 05 September 2011

programs. The Illinois Returning Home study, examining those clients who
responded that they “did not have a place to live lined up” upon release, found
that only 21 percent participated in prerelease programs. Of those who did,
almost half (45 percent) reported that finding a place to live was not covered
in the program. In addition, for those who discussed finding housing in their
program, only 39 percent received housing referral information (Visher 2006).
These numbers were similar in the Returning Home studies in Texas and Ohio
and suggest that housing-related services, including linkages to postrelease
housing assistance, are rarely a standard part of the prerelease suite of services.
A central obstacle to increasing the types of housing assistance provided as
part of prerelease programming is that many correctional facilities are located
far from the areas where most prisoners intend to return, making it difficult to
connect them to the available housing market. Having a prerelease facility in a
centralized urban area near where many prisoners return—though practical in
terms of benefiting prisoners—requires shifting resources or developing new
capital to establish the facility. New facilities are difficult to develop, usually
due to land and building costs and community opposition.
In addition to a general dearth of prerelease programs, changes in sentenc-
ing structures no longer require prisoners to supply an address that can be veri-
fied by the parole board before they can be released. Moreover, today only
one-quarter of returning prisoners are released by parole boards (Travis and
Lawrence 2002). Although most community supervision officers still require
parolees to maintain a verifiable address, they have already been released.
Further, roughly 20 percent of returning prisoners are not under any type of
supervision when they are released (Travis and Lawrence 2002). Basically, they
are on their own; they do not have the benefit of any assistance from commu-
nity corrections agents—nor do they have government pressure to maintain
housing. Some of those who are released on parole may be required to enter a
correctional halfway house. Halfway houses can provide the support needed to
transition to more permanent housing. However, the use of halfway houses by
state corrections systems is limited. It is estimated that less than one-half of 1
percent of all inmates released in 1999 were released through halfway houses
(American Correctional Association 2000). In Texas, the state with the highest
incarceration rate in the country, few beds are available in halfway houses. For
instance, in Dallas County, there was one bed for every 44 prisoners released
in 2001. In Bexar County (San Antonio area), there was one bed for every 75
prisoners released in 2001(Watson et al. 2004). The Returning Home studies
found that only a very small percentage of released prisoners (ranging from 5
percent to 10 percent) in each study site reported that they slept at a halfway
house or transitional facility their first night out (Visher 2006).
FANNIE MAE FOUNDATION
400 Caterina Gouvis Roman and Jeremy Travis
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 18:48 05 September 2011

In addition to barriers at the state level, federal policies can also complicate
the reentry process. In December 2002, a new barrier to the use of halfway
houses was created by a U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) opinion altering
how the Federal Bureau of Prisons can use halfway houses. (See DOJ 2002 for
a summary of the opinion.) The opinion was meant to close a federal loophole
that allowed those convicted of white collar offenses to bypass prison alto-
gether and, instead, to spend their sentences in less restrictive community facil-
ities. On February 14, 2005, the Bureau of Prisons codified the ruling in the
Code of Federal Regulations (28 CFR 570.21).6
The ruling—basically stating that community confinement does not equal
imprisonment—affects all federal prisoners (and all District of Columbia pris-
oners) who could be released to halfway houses near the end of their sentences.
The opinion stipulates that halfway houses can be used for only 10 percent of
the total sentence. The DOJ opinion has implications for community reinte-
gration by lessening the potential positive impact of existing transitional
resources. The clients of halfway houses generally spend their time in the
community-based setting obtaining jobs and finding a permanent place to live.
As a result of the ruling, many inmates are now residing in transitional facili-
ties for very short periods, such as three to six weeks. Further, because the
December 2002 ruling was implemented retroactively, the Bureau of Prisons
immediately began to transfer prisoners out of halfway houses and back into
prisons (Sady and Deffebach 2005).
Housing policies and practices
For returning prisoners, the barriers arising from housing policies and
practices generally fall into two categories: (1) the scarcity of the housing stock
and (2) formal and informal regulations and prejudices that restrict tenancy.
The scarcity of the housing stock creates barriers for all low-income
persons seeking affordable housing. Low-income individuals and families
frequently turn to federally subsidized housing. However, the demand for such
housing greatly surpasses the supply (Millennial Housing Commission 2002).
HOUSING POLICY DEBATE
Housing, Homelessness, and the Returning Prisoner 401
6Generally, a court must defer to an agency when a rule such as this one is put forth, unless
it is deemed to be “arbitrary and capricious.” Because of this deference, it is often difficult for a
court to find sufficient grounds to strike down an agency rule. However, as of January 2005, one
District Court has ruled that the DOJ opinion is arbitrary and capricious because the Bureau of
Prisons did not take certain factors into account in exercising discretion (Drew v. Menifee, 2005
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3243 S.D.N.Y February 25, 2005). Another case seeking to overturn the rule
on behalf on an inmate was argued in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in the summer of 2005.
As of January 2006, no decision had been made. See WylieLaw (2003) for updates on the ruling
and associated court cases.
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 18:48 05 September 2011

Waiting lists for housing are typically long, and families with children get
first consideration. According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition
(2005), between 1996 and 1998, a family’s average time on a waiting list for
federally subsidized public housing rose from 22 months to 33 months, a 50
percent increase. In some large cities, the waiting period is substantially longer.
In New York City, for instance, the wait is almost 8 years (National Low
Income Housing Coalition 2005), and no new applicants have been enrolled
since 1994.
Waiting lists are also long in many suburbs. The Housing Opportunities
Commission of Montgomery County (MD) announced in the spring of 2005
that the waiting lists for the Housing Choice Voucher and public housing
programs would not open to new applicants in 2005, marking the first time in
more than a decade that neither list had opened. When the waiting list for the
Housing Choice Voucher program opened in August 2006, more than 15,000
people applied within a five-day period. Although Montgomery County
administers 5,300 vouchers, only about 300 vouchers will be available through
the end of 2006 (Otto 2006). There are currently 10,000 families on the
voucher waiting list and nearly 7,000 waiting for public housing (Housing
Opportunities Commission 2005).
Certain legislative barriers also limit returning prisoners’ chances of living
in federally subsidized housing. HUD’s “one strike and you’re out” policy gives
public housing authorities (PHAs) the power both to deny admission and to
terminate the lease of people with a history of criminal behavior or use of drugs
or alcohol. The Clinton administration enacted this regulation in response to
calls for action to combat high levels of crime in public housing.
More specifically, each PHA exercises substantial discretion in determining
local admissions practices. However, housing managers are required to deny
admission to convicted sex offenders, those who have ever been convicted of
the production of methamphetamine on public housing premises, and anyone
who has been evicted from public housing within the previous three years
because of illegal drug activity or alcohol abuse. With regard to evictions, the
same one-strike policy, upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, encourages PHAs
to include in leases a provision that a tenant can be evicted if he or she, any
member of the household, or any guest engages in drug-related criminal activ-
ity on or off the premises. Although those who are denied housing or are
evicted are allowed an official appeal to the PHA, many are unaware of this
right (Bradley et al. 2001).
The regulations in place are not automatic bans on applicants with a crim-
inal history. The regulations also authorize the PHA to consider “evidence of
rehabilitation” or, for those with a history of drug or alcohol use, whether the
FANNIE MAE FOUNDATION
402 Caterina Gouvis Roman and Jeremy Travis
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 18:48 05 September 2011

applicant “is participating in or has successfully completed a supervised drug
or alcohol rehabilitation program, or has otherwise been rehabilitated success-
fully” (24 CFR §960.203). One-strike policies are often used to deny housing
to people who have been arrested for, but not convicted of, drug-related activ-
ity (Fleischer et al. 2001; Legal Action Center 2004).
In 1997, HUD conducted a survey of the nation’s PHAs to see whether the
one-strike regulations were being used. Slightly over half (56.9 percent) of the
nation’s 3,190 PHAs responded to the survey, and about 75 percent said that
they were using the one-strike initiatives in their communities.7In the six-
month period before the policy took effect, these PHAs denied admission to
9,835 people because of their criminal or drug-related activities. In the six
months after implementation, the number nearly doubled as 19,405 applica-
tions were rejected on one-strike grounds. That year, PHAs denied admission
to a total of 45,079 individuals, meaning that the one-strike ban provided the
basis for 43 percent of all rejections (HUD 1997).
According to the same study, the number of evictions from public housing
also increased. In the six-month period before the policy took effect, respond-
ing PHAs had carried out 2,698 evictions for criminal or drug-related activi-
ties. In the next six months, 3,794 people were evicted on those grounds—a 40
percent increase. Several PHAs took advantage of the HUD survey to register
their objections to the policy, reporting that many law-abiding residents were
being evicted because of the criminal behavior of their children or grandchil-
dren (HUD 1997).
The Legal Action Center’s more recent review (2004) of how PHAs have
implemented these policies found that in 47 states, PHAs make individualized
decisions about an applicant’s eligibility, considering the person’s entire crimi-
nal record, as well as evidence of rehabilitation. PHAs in 3 states flatly ban
applicants with a range of criminal records. A Human Rights Watch (2004)
study that gathered information on one-strike policies from 42 PHAs found
that they typically reject applicants convicted of felonies within five years of the
application.
In addition to the one-strike policy, HUD’s formal definition of “homeless”
creates barriers for many jurisdictions seeking to use McKinney Homeless
Assistance Act programs to house returning prisoners. These programs include
(1) the Supportive Housing Program, (2) the Shelter Plus Care Program, and
(3) the Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation SRO Program. Essentially, returning
prisoners cannot use these McKinney programs as their first housing option
after release. Individuals must be homeless for a period of time (usually at least
HOUSING POLICY DEBATE
Housing, Homelessness, and the Returning Prisoner 403
7Four hundred fifty-three respondents reported that they had not implemented the policy.
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 18:48 05 September 2011

24 hours) before they are eligible for McKinney programs. However, there
have been some recent modifications to the definition based on residence
before incarceration, and, as a result, some jurisdictions are housing returning
prisoners in programs receiving McKinney funds.
Community obstacles
In addition to the criminal justice system and housing policies and prac-
tices, communities can act as obstacles to the creation or expansion of commu-
nity-based residential housing dedicated to or used by formerly incarcerated
people. Even in jurisdictions that have money to build or operate facilities,
community opposition, known as NIMBY (“not in my backyard”), can stop
the siting of community-based facilities. Residents may fear for their safety as
well as subsequent negative effects on property values (Lake 1993). NIMBY
occurs in all types of communities, not just affluent or middle-class ones:
Disadvantaged communities often have concerns about concentrating individ-
uals with criminal histories in already distressed areas.
Local government frequently plays a part in NIMBY issues because zoning
and land use laws can impose procedural requirements or restrictions that
create numerous hurdles for organizations hoping to develop community-
based facilities. A 1997 study by the National Law Center on Homelessness
and Poverty polled 89 organizations that ran transitional housing programs
(none of them dedicated to ex-offenders) and found that 41 percent had expe-
rienced NIMBY opposition from either neighbors or their local governments.
The most common reasons for this opposition were anticipated loss of prop-
erty values (64 percent) and a potential increase in crime (61 percent). Other
motivations behind NIMBY include worries about possible increases in disor-
der and traffic (Galster et al. 2002). A panel of experts at a 2003 roundtable
discussion on prisoner reentry and housing concluded that NIMBY opposition
was one of the most intractable housing-related barriers facing returning pris-
oners today (Roman and Travis 2004).
Fragmentation across systems
As a nation, we have adopted many criminal justice and housing policies
and practices that often create overwhelming obstacles for people trying to
reestablish themselves after incarceration. In addition to these challenges, there
are subtle and often intangible obstacles that result from fragmentation across
and within service systems. A significant issue is the lack of a single agency or
organization responsible for ensuring that individuals exiting prison find safe
and affordable housing. Given the reality that multiple agencies across a vari-
FANNIE MAE FOUNDATION
404 Caterina Gouvis Roman and Jeremy Travis
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 18:48 05 September 2011

ety of systems (e.g., corrections, affordable housing, homeless assistance,
mental health, substance abuse treatment, etc.) may provide services to return-
ing prisoners at various points in the reentry trajectory, instituting collabora-
tive procedures or programs is inherently difficult. Provision of services often
depends on people’s supervision status and service needs, further complicating
which organization will take ownership of a particular person’s housing needs.
The release practices of corrections agencies are typically disconnected
from the housing and homeless services systems and the neighborhoods to
which prisoners return. Whether inside or outside prison, collaboration
between corrections or community corrections and housing providers is rare.
As noted earlier, although inmates nearing release may have discussed housing
options with correctional counselors, very few receive specific referral infor-
mation. Correctional facilities are often located far from the neighborhoods to
which prisoners return, making it difficult to collaborate with housing part-
ners, let alone connect prisoners with local housing resources.
Simply operating prerelease centers in urban areas does not guarantee
success in providing direct housing assistance. Neither correctional counselors
nor community supervision officers are trained to be specialists in neighbor-
hood services. Even parole officers may not be familiar with their clients’ neigh-
borhoods. In most jurisdictions, parole offices are centralized and not
neighborhood based, making it less likely that officers will learn about avail-
able neighborhood services that could benefit their clients.
It is not only the lack of familiarity with the world of housing options and
services on the part of corrections personnel that creates obstacles to housing
returning prisoners. Housing service providers may not be equipped to handle
the additional needs that returning prisoners typically present. According to a
survey of 45 housing providers in the District of Columbia, the overwhelming
majority indicated that the inability of many returning prisoners to find jobs to
pay the rent was the primary barrier to securing housing (Roman 2005).
Moreover, there is fragmentation even within the nation’s housing system.
At the federal level, housing services are provided under 23 programs operated
by four federal agencies (U.S. General Accounting Office 1999). Further, unlike
the case with corrections, a substantial number of nongovernment providers
assume responsibility for providing housing, shelter, and social services to
homeless people or those at risk of becoming homeless. And to complicate an
already fragmented system, coupling supportive services with housing often
involves accessing additional types of funding through different programs and
different agencies. State and local housing program directors, often facing tight
budgets and waiting lists for beds, are likely to believe that providing housing
to returning prisoners, particularly those still under criminal justice supervi-
HOUSING POLICY DEBATE
Housing, Homelessness, and the Returning Prisoner 405
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 18:48 05 September 2011

sion, is the responsibility of the corrections system. A related issue is that multi-
ple fragmented programs can create a confusing and burdensome process for
state and local officials seeking to use federal resources for housing. The
complex administrative process may deter jurisdictions from developing an
adequate system of supportive housing or service-enriched transitional housing
to serve those who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless—let alone
those returning from prison. Often, creativity and dedication are needed to
piece together a variety of funding sources to develop and manage transitional
service-enriched or supportive housing programs.
Emerging policies and programs shaping housing
opportunities for returning prisoners
Despite the abundant obstacles, many communities are rising to meet the
housing-related challenges of prisoner reentry in a variety of ways that include
new federal and state legislation, the development of innovative programming,
the creation of new funding streams and the targeting of existing streams, and
the formation of collaborative partnerships. The efforts listed next are indica-
tive of an emerging focus on housing for returning prisoners.
Legislation
1. The U.S. Congress introduced a reentry bill known as the Second Chance
Act of 2005 in both the House (H.R.1704, April) and the Senate (S.1934,
October). This bill has a number of provisions designed to increase a
returning prisoner’s access to a variety of services. Provisions related to
housing include authorizing money for states to provide postrelease and
transitional housing and establishing an interagency task force on federal
reentry programs and activities. The task force would be responsible for
issuing a report and recommendations to Congress on barriers to reentry—
in particular, admissions policies and practices in federal housing
programs. In July 2006, the bill passed the House of Representatives Judi-
ciary Committee and next will go to the House floor for consideration.
2. In 2001, the Florida legislature created a new Bureau of Transition Services
within the Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC). With this change,
FDOC is required to designate 400 beds in nonsecure community-based
facilities for transition assistance for inmates nearing their date of release.
FDOC must provide substance abuse transitional housing assistance that
also emphasizes job placement and gainful employment for participants.
FANNIE MAE FOUNDATION
406 Caterina Gouvis Roman and Jeremy Travis
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 18:48 05 September 2011

New programming
1. In 2003, the Massachusetts Department of Correction (DOC) established
the Reentry Housing Program to serve all 17 DOC institutions throughout
the Commonwealth. The program uses five mobile housing specialists to
serve soon-to-be-released inmates who are at risk of being homeless. The
housing specialists complement the work of correctional case managers
within the prisons, creating a two-tiered system, and work with DOC
counselors to identify housing needs and help with securing housing before
an inmate’s release. The housing specialists also help secure other nonhous-
ing services such as mental health, substance abuse, education, and
employment services.
2. The Rhode Island Department of Corrections and the Tennessee Depart-
ment of Corrections implemented reentry transition planning services that
include linking released prisoners to transitional housing through pre- and
postrelease case management. Rhode Island’s COMPASS project (Chal-
lenging Offenders to Maintain Positive Associations and Social Stability)
places 200 participants each year in the program, and Tennessee’s Bridges
program has the capacity to serve roughly 300 people in the two-year
program.
New funding streams and grants for programs
and technical assistance
1. The 2003 multi-agency federal reentry effort, called the Serious and
Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI), provides new and expanded
opportunities to correctional systems committed to strengthening the rein-
tegration of returning prisoners into the community. In addition to reduc-
ing recidivism, the programs are designed to improve the employment,
housing, and health outcomes of the released prisoners who participate.
SVORI is providing over $100 million for reentry services to 69 grantees
around the country.
2. In November 2005, the U.S. Department in Labor awarded nearly $20
million in grants to 30 faith- and community-based organizations to
provide prisoner reentry services. Known as the President’s Prisoner Reen-
try Initiative, the grants focus on employment, but transitional housing is
also considered a key component. Grant funds can be used to provide
housing services or vouchers to partially subsidize transitional housing.
3. DOJ and HUD jointly funded the Public Housing Safety Initiative in fiscal
years 2004 and 2005. This initiative funds a variety of crime prevention
HOUSING POLICY DEBATE
Housing, Homelessness, and the Returning Prisoner 407
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 18:48 05 September 2011

strategies at 46 public and federally assisted housing sites. A number of
sites have included reentry projects in their strategies.
4. On the state level, there has been movement to create funding streams
dedicated to the development and operation of transitional service-
enriched housing targeting people with substance abuse problems and/or
those with mental illness. One example is the New York State Office of
Mental Health’s SRO Housing for Adults with Serious and Persistent
Mental Illness Who Can Be Characterized as Having High Service Needs
Program, which was created to provide service-enriched housing for this
population. People who are incarcerated in jails and prisons are eligible for
the program.
5. In 1999, the California state legislature enacted Assembly Bill 34,8provid-
ing $10 million for services to individuals who are homeless and mentally
ill and individuals who are mentally ill and at risk of incarceration in Los
Angeles, Sacramento, and Stanislaus Counties. On the basis of the early
results demonstrated by this program, the legislature, through Assembly
Bill 2034 (AB 2034), provided an additional $55 million in 2000 to
expand these services to include 31 more counties and 40 additional
providers throughout the state. In Los Angeles, most AB 2034 consumers
enter the program from jail. In general, the program funds housing and
housing support services that include the use of housing specialists, tempo-
rary and long-term rent subsidies, problem-solving help for landlords, the
provision of temporary or transitional housing, and the master leasing of
buildings or apartments within buildings and subleases to consumers.
Some counties are getting involved in developing or operating permanent
supportive housing. AB 2034 programs use a “whatever it takes”
approach to meet a variety of needs.
Evaluation results show that AB 2034 programs have been successful in
enhancing residential stability and increasing successful community integration
and, as a result, are cutting state costs (Burt and Anderson 2005; Mayberg
2003). Findings also indicate that the programs that serve the most challeng-
ing clients (those with longer histories of homelessness and incarceration)
produce housing outcomes similar to programs serving less challenging clients
(Burt and Anderson 2005).
The California and New York programs benefit returning prisoners even
though such status is not the key targeting characteristic for entry. It is impor-
FANNIE MAE FOUNDATION
408 Caterina Gouvis Roman and Jeremy Travis
8The full legislation is listed under California W.I.C. §5806, 5814, 5814.5, and 5802.
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 18:48 05 September 2011

tant to note that research has shown that housing needs and models used (e.g.,
transitional, permanent supportive housing, etc.) vary both by client mental
health status and by type of criminal justice system contact (prison reentry, jail
reentry, or diversion) (Roman, McBride, and Osborne 2005). In other words,
returning prisoners with mental illness might benefit most from permanent
supportive housing, while returning prisoners without mental illness might
benefit most simply from short-term transitional housing. However, to date,
little evaluation research has shed light on best practices for providing housing
to persons who have mental illness and who have had contact with the crimi-
nal justice system (Roman 2006).
Existing funding streams for new populations
1. Some states and local jurisdictions are using McKinney funds for programs
that serve returning prisoners. In 1995, the Maryland Housing Authority
received over $5 million in Shelter Plus Care funds to provide housing for
jail releasees who are homeless and seriously mentally ill. This rental assis-
tance can also be used for state parolees who are homeless or in danger of
parole revocation (National GAINS Center 2004).
2. In addition to using targeted homeless housing funds, some organizations
have been successful in obtaining special-needs funding to house returning
prisoners. Federal Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS
(HOPWA) funding has been particularly useful in supporting housing for
previously incarcerated persons. Often, these agencies define eligibility for
housing funds based on a person’s disability or health profile, rather than
on homeless status. New York City, Baltimore, and Seattle have used
HOPWA funds to develop programming targeted to ex-offenders living
with HIV/AIDS (CSH 2002). In addition to HOPWA, Ryan White CARE
Act Title I funds have been used in projects targeting ex-offenders with
HIV/AIDS.
New partnerships creating new resources
The National Governor’s Association’s (NGA’s) Prisoner Reentry Policy
Academy is working with seven states (Georgia, Idaho, Massachusetts, Michi-
gan, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Virginia) to help governors and other state
policy makers develop and implement effective prisoner reentry strategies that
reduce costly recidivism rates. Each state has assembled an interdisciplinary
team composed of five to seven representatives from governors’ offices and key
state agencies, such as corrections, housing, public safety, health and human
services, welfare, and workforce. The NGA is expanding the Prisoner Reentry
HOUSING POLICY DEBATE
Housing, Homelessness, and the Returning Prisoner 409
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 18:48 05 September 2011

Policy Academy to add additional states and select state-local partnerships.
(See NGA 2006 for more information.)
1. The Re-Entry Policy Council (RPC), established by the Council of State
Governments (CSG), developed a comprehensive compendium9of biparti-
san policy statements and evidence-based reforms to improve prisoner
reentry. CSG is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that provides a plat-
form for cooperation and collaboration among all elected and appointed
state government officials by creating opportunities for legislators and staff
to share ideas and experiences. RPC consists of over 100 diverse members,
including state lawmakers; criminal justice policy makers and practition-
ers; workforce development and employment services officials; housing
providers and housing system officials; representatives of health, mental
health, and substance abuse treatment systems; victims advocates; people
who have been incarcerated and their families; faith-based organizations;
and researchers. Housing is one of the key focus areas of the report, and
RPC has convened a housing advisory group to help develop three project
elements: outreach and education, a resource kit, and site-specific techni-
cal assistance.
2. Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Ohio have joined together to
create the Midwest Re-Entry Housing Initiative, a joint venture of public
and nonprofit agencies to create 500 units of affordable, service-supported,
community-based housing for people returning from correctional settings
or criminal justice custody. The initiative is aiming to place the housing,
both new projects and existing units, into service or development by 2007
(Daniel Cain, personal communication, July 20, 2005, and April 28,
2006).
3. The Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC) and the State of Nevada
partnered with a private real estate company to develop and build Casa
Grande, a 400-bed transitional housing facility for nonviolent state
inmates nearing the end of their sentence. Casa Grande, financed and
owned by the private developer, is leased to NDOC, which will buy back
the facility over a 30-year period. Clients living there use the funds they
earn from jobs to pay $16.35 a day toward operating costs. The facility,
which resembles a college dormitory complex, opened in December 2005
(Dana Serrata, personal communication, March 6, 2006).
FANNIE MAE FOUNDATION
410 Caterina Gouvis Roman and Jeremy Travis
9The 600-page document can be found at RPC 2006.
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 18:48 05 September 2011

4. Private foundations and government agencies are funding intermediaries to
assist local communities with reentry efforts. The Local Initiatives Support
Corporation (LISC), an organization that supports community develop-
ment corporations (CDCs), is developing methods to more actively engage
the CDC community in the issues that former prisoners face. LISC has also
developed a free training curriculum tailored to PHAs, property managers,
CDCs, law enforcement, and social service providers to promote safe and
stable housing and increase housing accessibility for recently released pris-
oners (LISC 2006). CSH, a national financial and technical assistance
intermediary, has received funding from a variety of sources to educate
policy makers about supportive housing, design social service programs,
and provide technical and financial assistance to criminal justice and hous-
ing nonprofits seeking to develop supportive housing for former prisoners
(Richard Cho, personal communication, July 20, 2005). In 2006, CSH
received a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to generate
reentry-focused permanent supportive housing options in Chicago, New
York City, and Los Angeles (Susan Augustus, personal communication,
March 28, 2006). The Enterprise Foundation, a housing intermediary,
created the Baltimore Reentry Partnership, an innovative collaboration
between community organizations and the Maryland Department of
Public Safety and Correctional Services (Roman, Jenkins, and Wolff 2006).
5. AIDS Housing of Washington developed a training resource for commu-
nity organizations as a starting point for planning and improving postre-
lease housing and related services to support the transition of returning
prisoners (Hals 2005).
Defining a common ground of policy interests
These new and existing opportunities are only a few of the many reentry
housing efforts occurring around the country. They do not involve just pour-
ing money into existing programs or developing new stand-alone programs.
Conversations with state and local officials make it clear that the numerous
obstacles to reentry housing have spurred some agencies and organizations to
think outside the box and develop strategies that bring together historically
disparate stakeholders. Across the country we see evidence of a growing
number of corrections agencies working with homeless assistance organiza-
tions to create seamless transitions for returning prisoners. These are significant
changes that are slowly creating a more effective reentry process. The down-
side is that these types of programs and partnerships are few and far between
HOUSING POLICY DEBATE
Housing, Homelessness, and the Returning Prisoner 411
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 18:48 05 September 2011

and often originate from unique circumstances that may not be replicable in
other communities.
We often hear from corrections administrators that investments made by
corrections systems in community-based strategies benefit the community but
not the systems, which may balk at expenditures for community-based and
prerelease programming when public safety is defined narrowly. But given the
increasing numbers of releases and the high rate of recidivism, corrections
systems can no longer afford to accept a narrow definition of public safety.
What if we knew that former prisoners who became homeless had the highest
risk of committing new crimes? Hopefully, community services, regardless of
who paid for them, would be prioritized for these individuals. Although we do
not have the national-level data to measure this risk, we know from a number
of studies that the risk of re-arrest and reincarceration is high for those who are
homeless or do not have a stable residence (Meredith et al. 2003; Metraux and
Culhane 2004). From another body of research, we know that transitional and
supportive housing can be effective in reducing residential instability as well as
reincarceration (Allen and Seiter 1976; Beck 1979; Culhane, Metraux, and
Hadley 2002; Dowell, Klein, and Krichmar 1985; Lowenkamp and Latessa
2002).
If the corrections profession is committed to reducing recidivism, this goal
could be accomplished through thoughtful change to in-prison and prerelease
programming, as well as the development of comprehensive and coordinated
community-based reentry programming for those who face significant barri-
ers—in particular housing-related barriers—upon release. If done creatively,
new or expanded programming would result in significant savings in future
corrections budgets. As it stands now, a Bureau of Justice Statistics survey
found that 56 percent of state inmates who were in prison in 1997 and
expected to be released by the end of 1999 had been in prison on a previous
occasion and 27 percent had been on parole at the time of their arrest and
return to prison (Hughes, Wilson, and Beck 2001).
Housing and criminal justice practitioners alike agree that the criminal
justice system could be a significant force in creating the momentum for
changes that would reduce the multiple barriers to housing for returning pris-
oners (RPC 2004; Roman and Travis 2004; Travis 2005). It is unrealistic to
expect housing systems to carry the burden for supporting improved housing
options for returning prisoners. But housing agencies and homeless assistance
organizations—government agencies and nonprofits alike—have a wealth of
knowledge about effective housing strategies and services from which correc-
tions agencies could benefit. These strategies and services involve more than
simply referring returning prisoners to existing housing. Hence, the policy
FANNIE MAE FOUNDATION
412 Caterina Gouvis Roman and Jeremy Travis
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 18:48 05 September 2011

discussion must occur in the larger collaborative framework of action toward
effective housing solutions that include how to best finance, develop, and
manage housing for returning prisoners. These new, coordinated efforts
between corrections and housing agencies not only have enormous potential
for mitigating the stumbling blocks returning prisoners face, they also help
build a foundation for the systems change necessary for effective reentry solu-
tions on a broad scale.
Authors
Caterina Gouvis Roman is a Senior Research Associate in the Justice Policy Center at The
Urban Institute. Jeremy Travis is President of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice at the
City University of New York.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily
represent the official position or policies of The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
References
Allen, Harry E., and Richard P. Seiter. 1976. The Effectiveness of Halfway Houses: A Reap-
praisal of a Reappraisal. Chitty’s Law Journal 24:196–200.
American Correctional Association. 2000. Vital Statistics in Corrections. Lanham, MD.
Beck, Allen J., and Laura M. Maruschak. 2001. Mental Health Treatment in State Prisons,
2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Beck, James L. 1979. An Evaluation of Federal Community Treatment Centers. Federal
Probation 45:153–60.
Black, Kendall, and Richard Cho. 2004. New Beginnings: The Need for Supportive Hous-
ing for Previously Incarcerated People. New York: Common Ground Community and
Corporation for Supportive Housing.
Bradley, Katharine H., Noel C. Richardson, R. B. Michael Oliver, and Elspeth M. Slayter.
2001. No Place like Home: Housing and the Ex-Prisoner. Boston: Community Resources
for Justice.
Burt, Martha R., and Jacquelyn Anderson. 2005. AB2034 Program Experiences in Hous-
ing Homeless People with Serious Mental Illness. Oakland, CA: Corporation for Support-
ive Housing. World Wide Web page <http://www.csh.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.view
Page&pageID=3621> (accessed January 25, 2006).
Burt, Martha R., Laudan Y. Aron, Toby Douglas, Jesse Valente, Edgar Lee, and Britta Iwen.
1999. Homelessness: Programs and the People They Serve. Findings from the National
Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers and Clients. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development.
California Department of Corrections. 1997. Prevention Parolee Failure Program: An Eval-
uation. Sacramento.
HOUSING POLICY DEBATE
Housing, Homelessness, and the Returning Prisoner 413
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 18:48 05 September 2011

Corporation for Supportive Housing. 2002. Project Financing Issues for Reentry Support-
ive Housing. World Wide Web page <http://www.csh.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.view
Page&PageID=420> (accessed December 23).
Culhane, Dennis P., Stephen Metraux, and Trevor Hadley. 2002. Public Service Reductions
Associated with Placement of Homeless Persons with Severe Mental Illness in Supportive
Housing. Housing Policy Debate 13(1):107–63.
Ditton, Paula M. 1999. Mental Health and Treatment of Inmates and Probationers. Bureau
of Justice Statistics Special Report NCJ 174463. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Dowell, David A., Cecelia Klein, and Cheryl Krichmar. 1985. Evaluation of a Halfway
House. Journal of Criminal Justice 13(3):217–26.
Fleischer, Wendy, Juliane Dressner, Nina Herzog, and Alison Hong. 2001. Keeping the Door
Open: A Guide for Employment Programs Serving People with Drug Problems. Part III:
For Programs in Public Housing. New York: Corporation for Supportive Housing.
Galster, George, Katherine Pettit, Anna Santiago, and Peter Tatian. 2002. The Impact of
Supportive Housing on Neighborhood Crime Rates. Journal of Urban Affairs 24(3):
289–315.
Glaze, Lauren E., and Seri Palla. 2005. Probation and Parole in the United States, 2004.
Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin NCJ 210676. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Hagan, John, and Juleigh P. Coleman. 2001. Returning Captives of the American War on
Drugs: Issues of Community and Family Reentry. Crime and Delinquency 47(3):352–67.
Hagan, John, and Ronit Dinovitzer. 2001. Collateral Consequences of Imprisonment for
Children, Communities, and Prisoners. In Prisons, ed. Michael Tonry and Joan Petersilia,
121–62. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hals, Kristina. 2005. From Locked Up to Locked Out: Creating and Implementing Post-
Release Housing for Ex-Prisoners. A Training Resource for Community Organizations.
Seattle: AIDS Housing of Washington.
Harrison, Paige M., and Allen J. Beck. 2002. Prisoners in 2002. Bureau of Justice Statistics
Bulletin NCJ 200248. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Statistics.
Housing Opportunities Commission. 2005. HOC Announces Waiting Lists Will Not Open
in 2005 [press release]. May 6. World Wide Web page <http://www.hocmc.org/News/wait
list2005.htm> (accessed June 1).
Hughes, Timothy A., Doris James Wilson, and Allen J. Beck. 2001. Trends in State Parole,
1990–2000. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report NCJ 184735. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Human Rights Watch. 2004. No Second Chance: People with Criminal Records Denied
Access to Public Housing. New York.
FANNIE MAE FOUNDATION
414 Caterina Gouvis Roman and Jeremy Travis
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 18:48 05 September 2011

La Vigne, Nancy, and Vera Kachnowski. 2003. A Portrait of Prisoner Reentry in Maryland.
Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
La Vigne, Nancy, Cynthia Mamalian, Jeremy Travis, and Christy Visher. 2003. A Portrait
of Prisoner Reentry in Illinois. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
La Vigne, Nancy, and Barbara Parthasarathy. 2005. Residential Mobility Illinois Policy
Brief: Returning Home. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
La Vigne, Nancy, and Gillian L. Thomson. 2003. A Portrait of Prisoner Reentry in Ohio.
Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
La Vigne, Nancy G., Christy Visher, and Jennifer Castro. 2004. Chicago Prisoners’ Experi-
ences Returning Home. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Lake, Robert W. 1993. Rethinking NIMBY. Journal of the American Planning Association
59(1):87–93.
Langan, Patrick A., and David J. Levin. 2002. Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994.
Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report NCJ 193427. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Legal Action Center. 2004. After Prison: Roadblocks to Reentry. A Report on State Legal
Barriers Facing People with Criminal Records. New York.
Local Initiatives Support Corporation. 2006. Reentry and Special Needs. World Wide Web
page <http://www.lisc.org/section/areas/sec1/safety/reentry> (accessed July 20).
Lowenkamp, Christopher, and Edward J. Latessa. 2002. Halfway House and Community-
Based Facility Evaluation. Cincinnati: University of Cincinnati, Division of Criminal Justice,
Center for Criminal Justice Research.
Lynch, James P., and William J. Sabol. 2001. Prisoner Reentry in Perspective. Urban Insti-
tute Crime Policy Report. Volume 3, September.
Mayberg, Stephen W. 2003. Effectiveness of Integrated Services for Homeless Adults with
Serious Mental Illness: A Report to the Legislature. Sacramento, CA: California Department
of Mental Health.
Meredith, Tammy, John Speir, Sharon Johnson, and Heather Hull. 2003. Enhancing Parole
Decision-Making through the Automation of Risk Assessment. Atlanta: Applied Research
Services, Inc.
Metraux, Stephen, and Dennis P. Culhane. 2004. Homeless Shelter Use and Reincarceration
Following Prison Release: Assessing the Risk. Criminology and Public Policy 3(2):139–60.
Millennial Housing Commission. 2002. Meeting our Nation’s Housing Challenges: Report
of the Bipartisan Millennial Housing Commission Appointed by the Congress of the United
States. Washington, DC.
Mumola, Christopher J. 1999. Substance Abuse and Treatment, State and Federal Prison-
ers, 1997. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report NCJ 172871. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
HOUSING POLICY DEBATE
Housing, Homelessness, and the Returning Prisoner 415
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 18:48 05 September 2011

Mumola, Christopher J. 2000. Incarcerated Parents and Their Children. Bureau of Justice
Statistics Special Report NCJ 182335. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau
of Justice Statistics.
National Commission on Correctional Health Care. 2002. The Health Status of Soon-to-
Be-Released Inmates: A Report to Congress. Volume 1. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
National GAINS Center. 1999. The Courage to Change: A Guide for Communities to
Create Integrated Services for People with Co-Occurring Disorders in the Justice System.
Delmar, NY.
National GAINS Center. 2004. The Maryland Experience: Creative Funding and Cutting-
Edge Programs Serve People with Co-Occurring Disorders in Contact with the Criminal
Justice System. World Wide Web page <http://gainscenter.samhsa.gov/pdfs/Women/Mary
landExperience.pdf> (accessed January 15, 2006).
National Governors Association. 2006. Front and Center: NGA Invites States to Apply for
Prisoner Reentry Academy. World Wide Web page <http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/
menuitem.9123e83a1f6786440ddcbeeb501010a0/?vgnextoid=e5aa5031c119b010Vgn
VCM1000001a01010aRCRD&vgnextchannel=4b18f074f0d9ff00VgnVCM1000001a010
10aRCRD> (accessed June 6).
National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty. 1997. Access Delayed. Access Denied.
Washington, DC.
National Low Income Housing Coalition. 2005. Out of Reach 2005. Washington, DC.
World Wide Web page <http://www.nlihc.org/oor2005> (accessed March 10, 2006).
Nelson, Marta, Perry Deess, and Charlotte Allen. 1999. The First Month Out: Post-Incar-
ceration Experiences in New York City. New York: Vera Institute of Justice.
Otto, Mary. 2006. Rental Aid Outstripped by Demand in Region. Washington Post, August
19, p. B1.
Petersilia, Joan. 2003. When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry. Oxford,
England: Oxford University Press.
Popkin, Susan J., Mary K. Cunningham, and William T. Woodley. 2003. Residents at Risk:
A Profile of Ida B. Wells and Madden Park. Report prepared for the Ford Foundation.
Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Re-Entry Policy Council. 2004. Report of the Re-Entry Policy Council: Charting a Safe and
Successful Return of Prisoners to the Community. New York: Re-Entry Policy Council and
Council of State Governments (Lexington, KY).
Re-Entry Policy Council. 2006. Wide Web page <http://www.reentrypolicy.org> (accessed
January 5).
Rhine, Edward, William Smith, and Ronald Jackson. 1991. Paroling Authorities: Recent
History and Current Practice. Waldorf, MD: St. Mary’s.
FANNIE MAE FOUNDATION
416 Caterina Gouvis Roman and Jeremy Travis
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 18:48 05 September 2011

Riley, John. 2003. Freed into Limbo: Laws, Lack of Preparation Leave Ex-Cons Struggling
to Stay Straight. Newsday, August 3, p. A3.
Ritchie, Beth. 2000. Issues Incarcerated Women Face When They Return to Their Commu-
nities. Presented at the Urban Institute Reentry Roundtable, Washington, DC. October.
Roberts, Cheryl, Sophia Kennedy, and Theodore M. Hammett. 2002. Linkages between In-
Prison and Community-Based Health Services. Presented at the Urban Institute Reentry
Roundtable on Public Health Dimensions of Reentry: Addressing the Health Needs and
Risks of Returning Prisoners and Their Families, Los Angeles. December.
Roman, Caterina Gouvis. 2005. Unpublished survey results. Urban Institute.
Roman, Caterina Gouvis. 2006. Principles and Practice in Housing for Persons with Mental
Illness Who Have Had Contact with the Justice System. National GAINS Center Fact Sheet.
Delmar, NY: National GAINS Center. Forthcoming.
Roman, Caterina Gouvis, Susan Jenkins, and Ashley Wolff. 2006. Understanding Commu-
nity Justice Partnerships: Testing a Conceptual Framework and Foundations for Measure-
ment. Final Report to the National Institute of Justice. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Roman, Caterina Gouvis, Elizabeth Cincotta McBride, and Jenny W. L. Osborne. 2005.
Principles and Practice in Housing for Persons with Mental Illness Who Have Had Contact
with the Justice System. Discussion paper prepared for the National GAINS Center. Wash-
ington, DC: Urban Institute.
Roman, Caterina Gouvis, and Jeremy Travis. 2004. Taking Stock: Housing, Homelessness,
and Prisoner Reentry. Final Report to the Fannie Mae Foundation. Washington, DC: Urban
Institute.
Rossman, Shelli B., Sanjeev Sridharan, Caterina Gouvis, Janeen Buck, and Elaine Morley.
1999. Impact of the Opportunity to Succeed: OPTS Aftercare Program for Substance-Abus-
ing Felons. Comprehensive Final Report. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Sady, Stephen R., and Lynn Deffebach. 2005. Anticipating BOP Issues at Sentencing and
Representing Imprisoned Clients. Federal Public Defender, District of Oregon. June. World
Wide Web page <http://home.gci.net/~fpda/Library/represent.2005B.wpd.pdf> (accessed
March 10, 2006).
Shlay, Anne B., and Peter H. Rossi. 1992. Social Science Research and Contemporary Stud-
ies of Homelessness. Annual Review of Sociology 18:129–60.
Travis, Jeremy. 2005. But They All Come Back: Facing the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry.
Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
Travis Jeremy, and Sarah Lawrence. 2002. Beyond the Prison Gates: The State of Parole in
America. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Travis, Jeremy, Amy L. Solomon, and Michelle Waul. 2001. From Prison to Home: The
Dimensions and Consequences of Prisoner Reentry. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
HOUSING POLICY DEBATE
Housing, Homelessness, and the Returning Prisoner 417
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 18:48 05 September 2011

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 1997. Meeting the Challenge: Public
Housing Authorities Respond to the “One Strike and You’re Out” Initiative. Washington,
DC: Office of Public and Indian Housing.
U.S. Department of Justice. 2002. 2002 Memoranda and Opinions. World Wide Web page
<http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/2002opinions.htm> (accessed January 5, 2006).
U.S. General Accounting Office. 1999. Homeless: Coordination and Evaluation of Pro-
grams Are Essential. GAO/RCED–99–49. Washington, DC.
Venkatesh, Sudhir. 2002. The Robert Taylor Homes Relocation Study. New York: Columbia
University, Center for Urban Research and Policy.
Visher, Christy. 2006. Special Analysis of Data Collected for the Illinois, Ohio, and Texas
Returning Home Projects. Urban Institute.
Visher, Christy, and Jill Farrell. 2005. Chicago Communities and Prisoner Reentry. Wash-
ington, DC: Urban Institute.
Visher, Christy, Nancy La Vigne, and Jeremy Travis. 2004. Returning Home: Understand-
ing the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry. Maryland Pilot Study: Findings from Baltimore.
Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Watson, Jamie, Amy L. Solomon, Nancy G. La Vigne, and Jeremy Travis (with Meagan
Funches and Barbara Parthasarathy). 2004. A Portrait of Prisoner Reentry in Texas. Wash-
ington, DC: Urban Institute.
WylieLaw. 2003. Lawyers for the Rest of Us. World Wide Web page <http://www.wylie
law.com> (accessed January 5, 2006).
FANNIE MAE FOUNDATION
418 Caterina Gouvis Roman and Jeremy Travis
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 18:48 05 September 2011