Building Bridges: From Conviction to Employment - A Proposal to Reinvest Corrections Savings in an Employment Initiative, CSG, 2003
Download original document:
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
Building Bridges: From Conviction to Employment A Proposal to Reinvest Corrections Savings in an Employment Initiative Submitted to: Representative William Dyson Chair, Appropriations Committee Connecticut General Assembly Herbert Welte Hall Central Connecticut State University New Britain, CT Council of State Governments Criminal Justice Programs January 15, 2003 The Council of State Governments (CSG) is a non-profit, non-partisan organization that serves all elected and appointed officials in the three branches of state government. Founded in 1933, CSG is unique in both its regional structure and its constituency-which includes state legislators, judges, and executive branch officials. The organization is funded largely through state government dues. Points of view, recommendations, or findings stated in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the Council of State Governments. Building Bridges: From Conviction to Employment 2 Table of Contents Proposed policy options.............................................................................................................................. 4 James Austin, Ph.D., George Washington University Michael Jacobson, Ph.D., John Jay School of Criminal Justice Supporting charts and tables......................................................................................................................10 James Austin, Ph.D., George Washington University Maps...........................................................................................................................................................24 Eric Cadora, Open Society Institute Biographies of presenters.......................................................................................................................... 33 Building Bridges: From Conviction to Employment 3 PROPOSED POLICY OPTIONS To: Rep. William Dyson, Chair, Appropriations Committee From: James Austin, Ph.D. Michael Jacobson, Ph.D. Date: January 8, 2003 Re: Conference Regarding the Employment of Ex-Offenders We appreciate your invitation to participate in the landmark conference you will convene on January 15 regarding the employment of ex-offenders. We know of few, if any, jurisdictions in the U.S. in which key policymakers at your level (together with your staff and the various state government officials serving on the planning committee) have invested such considerable time and resources in this critically important issue. To prepare our presentations, we requested extensive data files from the Department of Corrections, the Court Support Services Division, and other government organizations. We are grateful to the officials at these agencies, who spent considerable time fulfilling our requests for these data. Based on the data we received and analyzed, and as per your request, we have developed several options for you and other state officials to review. In developing these options, we considered the current context of an initiative to employ ex-offenders in Connecticut. Despite some of the lowest crime rates in decades, the inmate census is at an all time high and continues to grow. In turn, the number of people who have been incarcerated, return to the community, and seek jobs increases steadily. Providing this swelling segment of the population with the services—such as life skills, job training, and job placement—that will translate into employment will require the allocation of additional resources. Of course, it is unrealistic to think that such resources can be made available for new or expanded programs when the state (like nearly every state) faces such a severe budget crisis. Every government agency and nonprofit organization receiving state funds is bracing itself for significant cuts in funding and potential layoffs. Given this situation, we have organized the options we prepared under six headings: 1) new prison population management strategies; 2) cost savings; 3) reinvestment of some of the savings in an employment initiative; 4) development of a program model for a particular community; 5) additional resources for the initiative; and 6) obstacles to the employment of an ex-offender. These options are presented here with only the briefest of explanations. Each, in its own right, is complicated, and we would be happy to discuss the implications of each in greater detail. To discuss these options and their implications for Connecticut with considerable insight, however, would require more than just the short review we conducted of the data files. Before providing that degree of analysis, we would request additional data, conversations with various policymakers and practitioners, and case studies. Building Bridges: From Conviction to Employment 4 Furthermore, we recognize that at least some of these options may not be appropriate for Connecticut. After all, every state is distinct, and simply analyzing data files does not begin to enable us to appreciate fully either the unique organization of the Connecticut’s criminal justice system or the history of previous attempts to experiment with some of the ideas presented here. 1. New Prison Population Management Strategies Like states across the country, Connecticut’s prison population has increased dramatically over the last two decades. Today, the state’s prison system continues to grow, despite a crime rate that has declined steadily since 1990 and despite a fluctuating number of admissions. Several aspects of the prison population present state officials opportunities to decrease the prison population without compromising public safety: the very limited size of the parole population; the relatively small percentage of the prison population charged or convicted with a violent crime (30 percent); and the nearly 25 percent of prison beds occupied by probation violators. Implementing any one or more of the following options could enable the Department of Corrections to reduce significantly the state’s inmate population. a. Require all prisoners with sentences greater than two years to serve no more than 85 percent of their sentence unless they are special management problems. Bed Savings: 1,100 released prisoners with sentences greater than two years who were released via “time served” x 9.2 mos = 843 beds. b. Reduce, on average, the amount of time paroled prisoners are incarcerated beyond their parole eligibility date from nine to five months (or a net savings of 4 months). Bed Savings: 1,377 prisoners released to parole per year x 4 mos. = 459 beds c. Reduce the number of probation technical violation admissions by 25 percent. Bed Savings: 1,820 admissions x 25% x 13 mos = 488 beds d. Reduce, on average, the length of stay for the remaining technical probation violators by three months. Bed Savings: 1,820 admissions x 75% x 3 mos = 341 beds e. Release 25 percent of the prisoners with sentences under two years who are not being released via Transitional Supervision or Community Release who are now serving 6-7 months. Bed Savings: (4,466 time served releases x 25% x 3 mos = 279 beds Building Bridges: From Conviction to Employment 5 f. The other major action that could be taken that would have further and independent effects on the prison population would be to reduce the 1,700 persons being returned to the DOC from Transitional Supervision, Community Release, and from parole as technical violators and to reduce their current lengths of stay. Divert 25% of each type of violator from prison. Bed Savings: (700 parole violators x 25% x 10 mos = 146 beds) + (975 transitional supervision/community release violators x 25% x 6 mos = 122 beds) Although implementation of any of the above options is certainly feasible, each depends in part on extensive coordination with the courts, corrections, and parole. In addition, implementation of many of these options requires the reallocation of some resources to create community-based programs for the increased numbers of probationers and parolees. 2. Cost Savings Generated by the New Strategies The Department of Corrections’ Web site states that the average cost of incarcerating someone is about $75/day. Nevertheless, in most cases, DOC officials will not, in fact, be able to recoup 100 percent of this cost for each bed per day saved. As the chart below indicates, however, with a more conservative estimate of $50/day for each bed saved, exercising any one or more of the options still could generate considerable savings. Bed Savings 843 Cost Savings (In millions) $15.4 M b. Parolees released, on average, no later than 5 months after their parole eligibility date 459 $ 8.4 M c. Reduce probation technical violation admissions, average, by 25% 488 $ 8.9 M d. Reduce, on average, the LOS of probation technical violators by three months 341 $ 6.2 M e. Release short term sentenced prisoners after having served 50% of the sentence 279 $ 5.1 M f. Reduce transitional supervision/community and parole technical violations 268 $ 4.9 M 2,678 $ 48.9 M Option a. 85 Percent Release Restriction Totals Building Bridges: From Conviction to Employment 6 3. Reinvestment of Some of the Savings in an Employment Initiative Options such as those above present policymakers looking for ways to balance the budget with ways to cut costs without reducing services to the community or laying off state employees. Accordingly, if state officials exercise any of the above options, they would no doubt return a certain percentage of the savings generated to the general fund. At the same time, state officials should also keep in mind the importance of investing some of these resources in improving community safety and in ensuring the successful transition of the ex-offenders to the community. For example, as indicated earlier in this paper, implementation of some of these options will require the expansion of alternative to incarceration programs. Some of the savings will need to be applied to these efforts. The quality and availability of employment and job placement services will also have a significant impact on the extent to which probationers and parolees succeed in the community. In New York State, for example, 83 percent of all probationers and parolees who violate the conditions of their release and are returned to prison were unemployed. State officials seeking to ensure that at least a portion of the savings generated through one of the new population management strategies described in this paper are protected for an employment initiative for ex-offenders have at least three options: a. 4. Move the savings "off budget" into a newly created economic development corporation or other authority. b. Create a budget line or code in the central budget (or miscellaneous budget) c. Appropriate funds directly to a state agency and charge officials there (possibly in collaboration with other agency officials and community leaders) with the administration of the initiative. Development of an Employment Services Program Model for a Community to which a Large Percentage of Ex-Prisoners Return Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analyses of the neighborhoods in which probationers live (and in which inmates cite as their address when they were incarcerated) reflect that the majority of people with criminal records in the state hail from a few major urban areas in the state: Hartford, New Haven, Bridgeport, Waterbury, and Stamford. GIS analysis also illustrates that, within these urban areas, probationers and inmates are concentrated in particular communities. Two other findings are relevant. These analyses demonstrate that probation caseloads are sufficiently concentrated in a limited number of small neighborhood areas to allow for caseload re-assignment according to probationer place of residence. Second, comparison of Department of Labor data with criminal justice data show that the populations served by each of these government agencies overlap substantially within these same small neighborhoods. It is also highly likely that a GIS analysis of Department of Social Service (DSS) data would show Building Bridges: From Conviction to Employment 7 that populations receiving TANF and other government needs-based program services also overlap substantially with criminal justice and Dept. of Labor populations. States, local governments, and nonprofit organizations across the country have developed a number of program models, which vary in scope, to facilitate the employment of people released from prison or jail. Among the key issues that successful programs address include: x x x Subsidized community service and transitional employment beginning on the day of release; Employment skills training and job placement linked to outreach and pre-arranged agreements with specific employers; Family strengths based counseling to involve the family or other intimates in helping the individual ex-offender overcome substance abuse and other barriers to employment. Two basic options exist for policymakers considering program models for an initiative to employ people released from prison. a. Develop a low-cost initiative that will have some impact on the employment prospects of an offender. This type of program model would include one week of life-skills training, which addresses topics such as interviewing skills. It also includes, for between three and six months, one day per week of job development and job placement until the person obtains employment. Operation of such a program typically costs about $2,000 per participant. b. Develop a medium-cost initiative that will have a significant impact on the employment prospects of an ex-offender. This type of program model also provides one week of life-skills training, but, in addition, includes 3-4 months of paid, supported work at minimum wage and one day a week of job training and job placement. Operation of this type of program averages around $5,000 per participant. Of course, there are considerable variations of each of these basic models; some programs include intensive housing elements, support for fathers, or other components. In addition, the costs described above can be somewhat misleading. For example, the additional expense of operating the medium cost initiative is often at least partially offset by the savings it generates: providing the state or city with free employees or reducing welfare rolls are two such examples. Building Bridges: From Conviction to Employment 8 5. Additional Investments to Support the Employment Initiative The community selected as the pilot site, which will almost certainly already suffer from high unemployment rates, will likely have limited job opportunities even for people without criminal records. To develop and maintain job opportunities for that population and the moredifficult-to-employ ex-offender, state officials will need to transform the savings generated from the population management initiative into a larger pool of resources. The following describes three options for Connecticut state officials to leverage the funds made available to the employment initiative so that they have a far greater impact. 6. a. Leverage funds set aside for the initiative by investing in community development financial institutions that will place investments in small businesses, job creation and general community development targeted to low-income neighborhoods and/or criminal justice populations b. Match resources made available through the population management strategy with funds available through federal “pass through” grant programs such as the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) c. Capitalize on tax incentives established to assist employers hire people without jobs or receiving public assistance Obstacles to Employment Unique to People with Criminal Records a. Conduct an inventory of state statutes and regulations that prohibit the employment of people with criminal records b. Modify those laws and regulations that employers and criminal justice officials alike agree unnecessarily impede the employment of people with criminal records c. Provide a mechanism (e.g., certificate of rehabilitation) that enables certain categories of people with criminal records to demonstrate to employers and others that they have successfully completed their obligations under the criminal justice system Building Bridges: From Conviction to Employment 9 SUPPORTING CHARTS AND TABLES James Austin, Ph.D., George Washington University Major Crime and Correctional Trends in Connecticut 1. Connecticut’s crime rate has been steadily declining since 1990 – similar to the reduction reported for the nation and other states. 2. One major reason for the decline in the crime rate has been an associated decline in the “at-risk” population. 3. Connecticut has substantially lower crime rates and prison incarceration rates than other states. 4. Among the northeastern states, Connecticut has the highest incarceration rate. 5. Connecticut’s overall disparity in incarceration rates between whites, blacks and Hispanic is among the highest in the U.S. 6. The incarceration rate for whites is among the lowest in the nation, while the black incarceration rate is above the national average. The Hispanic rate is twice that of the national average. 7. For those sentenced to prison for a year a more for crimes of violence, the state has the nation’s longest length of stay and the highest proportion of prison sentences served. 8. The parole board "grant rate" is relatively high compared to other states (65-70 percent). 9. The size of the parole population, while increasing, is one of the lowest in the U.S. 10. The Connecticut prison system is continuing to increase in size despite a fluctuating number of admissions. The major increases are within the sentenced population, which is being caused by longer lengths of stay. The un-sentenced population is relatively stable Building Bridges: From Conviction to Employment 10 11. A major reason for the increased length of stay for sentenced felons is directly related to the abolition of good-time policies by the legislature. 12. Of the 31,766 admissions to the DOC in 2002, nearly 4,000 were listed as probation violators, approximately 385 were Community Release violators, approximately 660 were technical parole violators, and another 590 were technical violators of Transition Supervision. In total, about 5,600 (or 18%) of all admissions are technical violations of some form of community supervision. 13. There are a minimum of 2,250 prisoners who are there for violating either the terms of probation or conditional discharge (Community Release, Transition Supervision, or Parole.) 14. Prisoners who are paroled and released via parole are incarcerated an average of nine months beyond their Parole Eligibility date. 15. Over 6,500 prisoners are 35 years or older and over 40 percent of the sentenced population is in the lower custody levels of I (9 percent) or II (32 percent). 16. Given that only 30 percent of the prison population has been convicted or charged with a violent crime, and that the largest other “offense categories” are drug distribution (17%), probation violation (14%), drug possession (6%), and theft/larceny (6%), it would appear that there is a significant portion of the prison population that could be managed in the community without jeopardizing public safety. Building Bridges: From Conviction to Employment 11 TABLE 1 COMPARISON BETWEEN UNITED STATES AND CONNECTICUT ON KEY POPULATION, CRIME AND CORRECTIONS INDICATORS Total Population (7/1/01) 1 Change in Population 1-year change (7/1/00-7/1/01) 10-year change (7/1/91-7/1/01) UCR Part 1 Reported Crime Rates (2001) 2 Total Violent Property Change in Total Reported Crime Rate 1-year change (2000-2001) 10-year change (1991-2001) Total Inmates (2001) 3 1-year change (2000-2001) 6-year change (1995-2001) Average annual change (1995-2001) Incarceration Rate (Rate per 100,000 inhabitants)4 United States 284,796,887 Connecticut 3,425,074 0.9% 12.9% 0.4% 4.1% 4,160.5 504.4 3,618.3 3,117.9 335.5 2,782.4 0.9% -29.5% -3.6% -41.9% 1,406,031 1.1% 24.7% 3.8% 470 19,196 4.6% 29.7% 4.8% 387 Inmates by Offense Type (State Prisons Only 2000)5 Violent 49% 29% Property 20% 12% Drug 21% 23% Other 10% 33% * Other offense types consist of probation violation, criminal attempt, immigration charges and other status offenses. 1 U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. Population estimates for July 1, 2001. Uniform Crime Reports, Crime in the United States, Federal Bureau of Investigation. 3 Prisoners in 2001, Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin (July 2002). Figures represent prisoners under state or federal correctional authorities. 4 Prisoners in 2001, Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin (July 2002). Rate represents prisoners under state or federal correctional authorities. 5 Prisoners in 2001, Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin (July 2002). Connecticut data provided by CTDOC 2 Building Bridges: From Conviction to Employment 12 TABLE 2 CONNECTICUT DOC INMATE POPULATION BY TOWN OF RESIDENCE JULY 2002 Town of Residence N=19,216 % Non-Connecticut 1,672 8.7% Bridgeport 2,364 12.3% 346 1.8% Hartford 2,729 14.2% Meriden 461 2.4% New Britain 749 3.9% New Haven 2,882 15.0% New London 307 1.6% Norwalk 346 1.8% Stamford 500 2.6% 1,326 6.9% 307 1.6% 5,227 27.2% East Hartford Waterbury West Haven Other Building Bridges: From Conviction to Employment 13 TABLE 3 CONNECTICUT ADMISSIONS POPULATION BY OFFENSE 2002 Offense VIOLENCE N % 4,952 16% Murder/Manslaughter 172 1% Sex 497 2% 3,411 10% 872 3% 5,725 19% Drug Possession 2,380 8% Drug Distribution 3,345 11% 4,475 14% Theft/Larceny 2,414 8% Burglary/Other 2,061 6% 16,624 51% 641 2% DWI & Related 2,405 8% Probation Violation 3,998 12% Other Non-Violent 9,580 29% 31,776 100.0% Assault Robbery DRUGS PROPERTY OTHER OFFENSES Weapons TOTAL Source: CT DOC produced data files Building Bridges: From Conviction to Employment 14 TABLE 4 CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS CROSS TAB OF ADMIT TYPES WITH LEGAL STATUS 2002 Admit Type New Admits New Admits-Other New Admits-Civil Parole-Return Parole Viol-Tech Return Other Return from Trans/Com Readmission-Other Readmission-Sentence Readmission Continued Return with New Charge Readmission Parcom/Cuscom Total Legal Status Sentenced>2 Sentenced<2 Unyear year sentenced 436 2,280 5,929 184 200 511 25 60 1,040 7 7 68 529 42 60 60 34 8 487 693 130 41 22 80 706 3,051 171 1,975 3,484 7,620 270 61 60 3 2 37 4,723 9,936 15,714 Federal 111 606 80 14 69 8 12 383 20 75 7 8 1,393 Total 8,756 1,501 1,205 96 700 110 1,322 526 3,948 13,154 398 50 31,766 Source: CT DOC produced data files Building Bridges: From Conviction to Employment 15 TABLE 5 CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS CROSSTABULATION OF RELEASE TYPES WITH LEGAL STATUS 2002 Release Type Discharge to Court Discharge to Feds Discharge to Immigration Fine Paid Time Served Escape Death Parole to Feds Other Release Release to Community Release to Parcom Release to Re-entry Furlough Released to Supervised Parole Transfer to Trans Supv Un-sentenced Discharge on Bond Total Sentenced>2 year 319 1 3 2 1,677 92 34 16 906 1,102 51 69 1,110 306 395 6,083 Legal Status Sentenced<2 Unyear sentenced 845 6,195 1 9 3 11 26 136 5,488 766 59 4 11 12 857 428 1 29 33 604 495 8,880 990 8 3 22 26 5,689 13,871 Federal 109 381 824 14 1 1 45 3 1 158 1 14 1,552 Total 7,468 392 841 164 7,945 156 57 17 2,798 1,533 60 102 1,323 937 6,593 30,386 Source: CT DOC produced data files Building Bridges: From Conviction to Employment 16 TABLE 6 CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS INCARCERATED POPULATION BY OFFENSE DECEMBER 2002 Offense Violent Murder/Manslaughter Sex Assault Robbery Drug Drug Possession Drug Distribution Property Other Property Theft/Larceny Burglary Fraud Weapons DWI & Related Failure to Appear Purge/Civil Commitment Probation Violation Other Non-Violent Lifer Total N 5,749 1,186 950 2,157 1,456 4,453 1,193 3,260 2,288 98 1,103 964 123 460 534 329 31 2,641 2,740 139 19,364 % 29.7% 6.1% 4.9% 11.1% 7.5% 23.0% 6.2% 16.8% 11.8% 0.5% 5.7% 5.0% 0.6% 2.4% 2.8% 1.7% 0.2% 13.6% 14.1% 0.7% 100.0% Source: CT DOC produced data files Building Bridges: From Conviction to Employment 17 Building Bridges: From Conviction to Employment 18 Inmates 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000 1991 1,701 1,709 1990 112 8,500 140 7,285 455 9,589 501 10,814 1992 1,712 147 8,691 472 11,022 1993 1,954 180 9,133 502 11,769 Total Male Accused Total Female Accused Male Sentenced Female Sentenced 1994 2,227 239 11,049 610 14,125 1995 2,602 247 11,266 774 Year 1996 2,679 274 11,229 785 14,889 14,967 1997 3,068 301 11,362 857 15,588 1998 3,172 367 11,618 752 15,909 1999 3,010 283 12,673 810 16,776 Historical Inmate Population by Gender 2000 2,774 321 13,445 919 2001 3,077 393 13,376 854 17,459 17,700 2002 3,587 441 13,897 948 18,873 Building Bridges: From Conviction to Employment 19 Inmates 1990 1,849 7,740 9,589 st 1991 1,813 9,001 10,814 st 1992 1,859 9,163 11,022 *Data for Jan. 1 vs. July 1 1,000 3,000 5,000 7,000 9,000 11,000 13,000 15,000 17,000 19,000 1993 2,134 11,659 1994 2,466 9,635 11,769 14,125 1995 2,849 3,369 1998 3,539 12,370 15,909 12,219 1997 Year 1996 2,953 12,014 14,967 12,040 14,889 15,588 1999 3,293 13,483 16,776 2000 3,095 2001 3,470 Total Sentenced Total Accused 4,028 2002 Total Incarcerated 14,845 18,873 14,230 17,700 14,364 17,459 Historical Inmate Population by Legal Status (1990-2003*) 2003* 3,628 15,220 19,216 Building Bridges: From Conviction to Employment 20 Grant Rate 65.0% 66.0% 67.0% 68.0% 69.0% 70.0% 71.0% 72.0% 73.0% 74.0% 75.0% AR 73.6% Hearing Full 68.0% CONNECTICUT DOC GRANT RATE BY HEARING TYPE Series1 Building Bridges: From Conviction to Employment 21 Population 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 3,500,000 4,000,000 Year 90 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 000 001 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 19 At-Risk Population (20-34) Total Population 05 20 CONNECTICUT POPULATION VS. AT RISK POPULATION (HISTORICAL & PROJECTED) 10 20 Building Bridges: From Conviction to Employment 22 No. of Inmates 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 1990 6,379 9,589 15,968 1991 6,587 1992 5,699 1993 4,640 1994 1,704 1995 1,205 Year 1996 1,215 1997 1,608 1998 1,593 1999 1,656 2002 1,401 2001 1,336 2000 1,702 Total Community Inmates Total Incarcerated Total Supervised 18,873 20,529 17,700 19,101 17,459 18,795 16,776 18,478 15,909 17,517 15,588 17,181 14,967 16,182 14,889 16,094 14,125 15,829 11,769 16,409 11,022 16,721 10,814 17,401 Historical Supervised Population Building Bridges: From Conviction to Employment 23 15,000 16,000 17,000 18,000 19,000 20,000 21,000 2000 17,305 2001 17,137 2003 Base Forecast 2002 Actual 17,999 2004 18,855 19,226 Alternative Forecast 18,671 19,216 Actual and Projected Inmate Population 2005 18,646 19,782 2006 18,320 20,338 Building Bridges: From Conviction to Employment Bridgeport Waterbury New Haven Hartford Persons Sentenced and Admitted to Prison Connecticut Towns, 2002 MAPS Eric Cadora, Open Society Institute 24 Building Bridges: From Conviction to Employment 25 Yale & Central Business District New Haven Neighborhoods, 2002 Race and Single Parent Households Federal Empowerment Zone Building Bridges: From Conviction to Employment 26 Dwight Hill Newhallville Persons Sentenced and Admitted to Prison New Haven Neighborhoods, 2002 Dixwell Building Bridges: From Conviction to Employment 27 New Haven Neighborhoods, 2002 Prison Expenditures Probation Violations = $6.2 million Total Admissions = $19.8 million Hill Building Bridges: From Conviction to Employment 28 New Haven Neighborhoods, 2002 Persons on Probation Hill 3% of New Haven Neighborhoods are Home to 18% of Probationers Building Bridges: From Conviction to Employment 29 Hill 142 Level (2) Probationers Assigned to 22 Probation Officers New Haven Probation Office Level (2) Supervision Officer Caseload: 93 cases New Haven Neighborhoods and the Hill Community Probation Caseload Distribution Example Probationers, Unemployment Insurance Claimants, and TFA Recipients Probationers Neighborhoods Probationers per 1000 233.3 30.1 - 51.8 20.1 - 30.0 10.1 - 20.0 0.0 - 10.0 UI Claimants TFA Recipients Neighborhoods Neighborhoods TFA Recipients per 1000 UI Claimants per 1000 100.1 - 183.3 334 70.1 - 100.0 50.1 - 80.0 50.1 - 70.0 30.1 - 50.0 30.1 - 50.0 10.1 - 30.0 1.3 - 30.0 0.0 - 10.0 Building Bridges: From Conviction to Employment 30 Building Bridges: From Conviction to Employment 31 New Haven Neighborhoods, 2002 Employment Agencies and Banks Building Bridges: From Conviction to Employment 32 New Haven Neighborhoods, 2002 Non-Profit Organizations and Faith-Based Institutions BIOGRAPHIES OF PRESENTERS James Austin Director, Institute on Crime, Justice, and Corrections, George Washington University Dr. James Austin is the director of the Institute on Crime, Justice, and Corrections at the George Washington University in Washington, D.C. Prior to joining the GWU, he was the Executive Vice President of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency where he was employed for 20 years. He began his career in corrections in 1970 when he was employed by the Illinois Department of Corrections as a correctional sociologist at the Joliet and Stateville prisons. Dr. Austin was named by the American Correctional Association as its 1991 recipient of the Peter P. Lejin's Research Award. In 1999 he received the Western Society of Criminology Paul Tappin award for outstanding contributions in the field of criminology. Since 2000, he has served as the Chair of American Society of Criminology National Policy Committee. Dr. Austin has authored numerous publications including three books. His most recent book, It's About Time: America's Imprisonment Binge, was first published in 1996 (co-authored with Dr. John Irwin). The third edition was published this spring. Each year the ICJC is awarded approximately $1.5 million in research contracts from federal and state correctional agencies. Many State departments of correction, including those in Texas, Georgia, and California, have sought Dr. Austin's assistance in analyzing their prison population. Dr. Austin has also directed studies in 25 states that entail projections of correctional populations based on current and proposed sentencing reforms. In addition, the ICJC has recently conducted national evaluations of "Three Strikes and You're Out" laws, the privatization of prisons, juveniles in adult corrections, and prison classification systems. In 1999 Dr. Austin was designated by the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division to serve as the Federal Monitor to oversee major reforms in the Georgia juvenile correctional system. Building Bridges: From Conviction to Employment 33 Michael P. Jacobson Professor, John Jay College of Criminal Justice Dr. Michael P. Jacobson teaches at the City University of New York Graduate Center and the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in the Department of Law, Police Science, and Criminal Justice Administration. He has also served on the Graduate Faculty of the Wagner School of Public Administration at New York University, where he taught courses on public policy analysis and governmental budgeting. He has a Ph.D in Sociology from the CUNY Grad Center. Dr. Jacobson retired from government administration in 1997. He had been appointed Correction Commissioner in 1996 by Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, after serving as Acting Correction Commissioner beginning in January 1995. While Acting Correction Commissioner, he continued to serve as Commissioner of the New York City Probation Department, having been appointed to that position in 1992. Prior to his appointment as Probation Commissioner, he served as Deputy Budget Director at the City’s Office of Management and Budget, where he worked for seven years. He previously served as Deputy Director of the Mayor’s Arson Strike Force for five years, where he helped plan and coordinate the City’s anti-arson strategies. For two decades, Dr. Jacobson has specialized in the field of criminal justice, particularly in the areas of financial issues, technology initiatives, multi-agency operations and victims’ rights. He also is a member of the Vera Institute of Justice Board of Trustees. Building Bridges: From Conviction to Employment 34