Rhonda Shipley, Research Fellow Sagamore Institute

October 1, 2010

IMPACT OF TRANSITIONAL JOBS A Study of Ex-Offenders In Indianapolis

Ninety individuals recently released from incarceration were employed in a transitional jobs program in a social enterprise operated by Workforce, Inc. This study suggests that the opportunity to secure immediate employment upon release from incarceration in a service rich environment as provided by the social enterprise positively impacts relationships with family, management of child support obligations, adherence to stipulations of release, and recidivism.

1

IMPACT OF TRANSITIONAL JOBS A Study of Ex-Offenders In Indianapolis

In 2008, Workforce, Inc. (WFI) was awarded a federal grant , Job Opportunities for Low Income Individuals (JOLI), to serve 48 persons*

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

re-entering the community from prison. WFI was to provide transitional employment via Remaking Our Resources, its social enterprise – a business with a social mission. Sagamore Institute was to evaluate the success of the program in (1) helping individuals progress from transitional jobs to fulltime employment in the private sector, (2) helping ex-offenders reconnect with their families and children, (3) helping ex-offenders manage child support obligations and release stipulations, and ultimately, (4) impacting recidivism.

WFI created 53 recycling jobs through the JOLI grant initiative and has continued to maintain those jobs beyond the end of the grant funding. The 53 jobs served 90 persons enrolled in the JOLI-funded Remaking Our Resources program. Of the 90 persons enrolled in Remaking Our Resources:

• 47 completed the program (worked in the transitional jobs program for 6 months or secured permanent full-time employment prior to the 6 month mark)

• At the conclusion of the program, 33 program completers had secured permanent full-time employment with 25 of them achieving or on track to achieve 6 months retention

• 28 were terminated for cause, quit, or left the program for other reasons†

• 8 were remanded to the Indiana Department of Correction for committing a new crime

• 7 were remanded to the Indiana Department of Correction for a technical rule violation • 38 of the 70 enrolled in a basic skills improvement program earned eligibility for National

Career Readiness Certification • $428,940 was earned in wages, an average of $4766 per participant • $63,540 was paid in taxes, an average of $706 per participant • 24 had children for whom they had child support responsibilities • $31,130 in child support was paid, an average of $1297 per non-custodial parent • 3 non-custodial parents had a total debt of $8,433 of child support arrearage forgiven that

accumulated while they were incarcerated: 2 owed funds to the state and one to the custodial parent

• 6 had child support payments modified to a lower amount based on their current earnings, ranging from $25 to $100 less per week, an average lowering of nearly $79 per week

This study suggests that the opportunity to secure immediate employment upon release from incarceration in a service rich environment as provided by the social enterprise:

*Although the JOLI grant initiative was to serve 48 individuals, WFI was able to serve 90 individuals in the program. † The employment status of the 28 non-completers is not known as individual Unemployment Insurance reports were not available.

2

(1) has a positive impact on non-custodial parents relationships with their children – Approximately three-fourths of the non-custodial parents with in-state children report seeing or speaking with their child(ren) at least once per week and a third state that their relationships with their children and the custodial parent improved during their time in the transitional jobs program.

(2) can help non-custodial parents manage their child support obligations – All non-custodial parents kept current on child support orders during program participation. Additionally, as noted above, some were able to secure modifications of their child support orders and/or forgiveness of arrearages owed to the state.

(3) has the potential to reduce recidivism – Marion County's recidivism rate for 2009 is 52.8 percent. Therefore, in a random cohort of 90 ex-offenders in Marion County, one would expect 47 or more to be returned to prison within three years. In this study cohort, 15 have been returned to prison, a 16.7 percent recidivism rate.

(4) helps ex-offenders adhere to their stipulations of release – In Marion County in 2009, 73 percent of those returned to prison were for technical rule violations. In a random cohort of 90 ex-offenders in Marion County, one would expect 34 or more to be returned to prison for technical rule violations based on the 2009 recidivism rate of 52.8 percent. In the study cohort, 7 returned to prison for technical rule violations. These 7 represent less than 47 percent of the 15 ex-offenders in this cohort who were returned to prison, and less than 8 percent of the total cohort.

Lastly, a number of known corrections-related issues were noteworthy during the study of this cohort of ex-offenders:

• Persons transitioning from prison have an overwhelming need for the opportunity to work. • The personal financial obligations of those leaving incarceration are overwhelming. • The compounding effect of technical rules violations is out of control. • School failures are feeding the criminal justice system. • Provisions of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 are having the unintended consequence of

further damaging fragile family relationships.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT United States prison and jail populations have grown to their highest levels in history. From 1982-2007 the number of people incarcerated in prisons and jails rose by more than 374 percent.1 Between 2000 and 2008, six states expanded their prison populations by more than 40 percent –Indiana is one of them (at 41 percent).2

Equally disturbing is the fact that the nationwide total of adults on parole and probation has increased dramatically in the last 25 years, from 1.6 million to 5 million. In Indiana, 1 in 35 adults is under criminal justice supervision in the community, a growth of 356 percent between 1982 and 2007. Combined with the jail and prison populations, 1 in 26 Hoosier adults is under some kind of correctional control – putting Indiana in the highest fifth of all states.

3 Moreover, these numbers are not spread evenly throughout the state. Most major metropolitan areas have pockets from which a high number of individuals are incarcerated and, subsequently, supervised in the community. In Detroit, for example,

3

Table 1 Indiana Recidivism

Marion County

DOC Avg.

2009 52.8% 38.4% 2008 50.1% 37.4% 2007 49.2% 37.8% 2006 47.1% 38.6% 2005 48.6% 39.2%

where the correctional control rate is 1 in 25, in an area surrounding Brewer Park the rate is 1 in 16 adults and 1 in 7 adult males. In Marion County (Indianapolis), where the incarceration rate is nearly double that of the rest of the state, one would expect the correctional control rate to be even higher than those in Detroit. Research has revealed costly side effects of a high concentration of people in the corrections system to these communities, including family and neighborhood destabilization, depressed wages, and even increased AIDS infection rates.4

Marion County’s annual prison incarceration rate is 1080 convictions per 100,000 people, nearly double the state’s average of 610 per 100,000.

5 Researchers have determined that the wide net cast by incarcerating increasingly larger numbers of individuals has diminishing returns – as the number of incarcerated individuals increases, there is not the expected corresponding decline in crime. Society is absorbing the dramatic cost of incarceration without receiving the benefit of increased public safety. Moreover, evidence is mounting that a tipping point exists where additional incarceration actually increases crime. A 2006 study suggests that the tipping point is within a range of 325 to 430 inmates per 100,000 residents. At 1080 inmates per 100,000 residents, Marion County is at least three times higher than the tipping point and nearly ten times higher than the 111 inmates per 100,000 residents at which diminishing returns makes the value of additional incarceration questionable.6

In 2009, 5668 adults with felony offenses were released from incarceration in Indiana’s state correctional facilities to Marion County, which accounts for more than 29 percent of all adults remanded to the Indiana Department of Correction (IDOC).

7 The Indianapolis Private Industry Council reports that ex-offenders are the second largest group of new labor force participants annually – more than double high school drop outs and graduates combined.8

Marion County has one of the highest recidivism rates, and it continues to increase as the state’s average has for the most part been decreasing. (See Table 1.) Contributing to the high recidivism rate is an extraordinary percentage of Technical Rule Violation (TRV) returns. In fact, in 2009 Marion County returned to prison 73 percent of probationers and parolees due to TRVs not because of the commission of a new crime.

9

Challenges of Reentry

(See Table 2.)

The preponderance of offenders is addicted, unskilled, undereducated and/or high school dropouts. Further, upon release many are faced with thousands of dollars in back child support, court fees, restitution, and other financial obligations that they have little hope of ever being able to meet. Studies suggest that there is no

greater predictor for successful offender reentry than connection with family and community;10

yet, most offenders lose all contact with their families and community support during incarceration. High child support arrearages, coupled with other financial obligations associated with release from incarceration, and the difficulty of securing employment paying a livable wage, too often start a chain of events that drive the non-custodial parent into the underground economy. By turning to the underground economy, these individuals often avoid paying support and acquire funds to meet financial stipulations of release, thereby reducing their risk of returning to prison.

Table 2 TRV Returns in Marion County

Total Returns # TRV % TRV

2009 1462 1067 73% 2008 1676 1189 71% 2007 1402 978 70% 2006 1436 861 60%

4

Issues Related to Child Support One of the most often disregarded systemic barriers to successful offender reintegration is child support. More than half of the current 2.2 million inmate population in the United States is a parent to at least one minor child, and many studies suggest that about 25 percent of these parents are part of the child support enforcement system.11 Incarceration does not end the financial obligation of child support. No state automatically modifies a child support order when a parent enters prison, and historically few inmates undertake the lengthy and cumbersome task of petitioning for a modification. Increasingly more obligors involved with the criminal justice system, with their historically higher arrearages and lower compliance rates, have negatively affected the performance of the child support program. This was recognized as an issue to be addressed in the current Administration for Children and Families' National Child Support Enforcement Strategic Plan. 12

For those with child support orders that were not modified in prison, child support arrears are likely to have grown to alarming levels. Nationally, the average child support debt upon release from prison is $20,000 or more.

13 Based on the national statistics mentioned earlier, it is estimated that more than 7000 parents incarcerated in Indiana state prisons have open child support cases. In Indiana, child support regulations and practices often impede efforts toward responsible parenthood for those who have been incarcerated, primarily because high arrearages accumulate while the non-custodial parent is in prison. Until the landmark Indiana Supreme Court’s decision in Lambert v. Lambert (2007),14 incarceration in Indiana was considered voluntary unemployment so child support orders could not be modified when a non-custodial parent was incarcerated. Moreover, pre-incarceration income or imputed income was used to set orders, leading to exceedingly high arrearages accumulated during incarceration that released offenders had no hope of paying. A 1999-2003 local study of 450 non-custodial parents of children receiving TANF found the average arrearage was $18,000.15

Like other released offenders, non-custodial parents have a variety of fees and other financial obligations as stipulations of release (parole and probation mandates). Child support, for which orders can be set at any amount and earned wages garnished at up to 65 percent

In the Lambert decision, the Indiana Supreme Court noted: “To the extent that an order fails to take into account the real financial capacity of a jailed parent, the system fails the child by making it statistically more likely that the child will be deprived of adequate support over the long term.”

16, coupled with these other financial obligations, often exceed what the non-custodial parent actually earns. Sociological research focused on the effects of child support obligations and incarceration on the behavior of non-custodial parents generally concludes that the existence of unsustainable support orders leads to greater failure of non-custodial parents to pay their support obligations as the methods employed to collect support and arrearages serve as a disincentive to seek legitimate gainful employment. 17 High maximum garnishment rates and other enforcement mechanisms may discourage employment, especially in low income populations which tend to view employment as elastic in nature. When combined with the difficulty faced by ex-offenders in obtaining employment, there is a strong incentive to seek work in the "underground economy" where it is difficult for authorities and custodial parents to track earnings and collect payments. The child support

I’m afraid I’m responsible for much of the crime in Marion County because I’m forced to place orders on these men that they cannot hope to pay. – Carol Terzo Master Commissioner IV-D Court May 2007

5

issue has become yet another barrier to successful reentry and, as Master Commissioner Terzo points out, likely leads to increased crime.

Issues Related to Criminal Justice User Fees The obligation to support one’s children through the payment of child support is to take precedence over other financial obligations. However, persons coming out of incarceration typically have user fees owed to the criminal justice system which, in practice, take precedence over child support. In the Indiana criminal justice system, which relies heavily on user fees for operating expenses,18

For each action that results in a felony or misdemeanor conviction, the defendant is charged a criminal costs fee of $120 (IC 33-37-4-1). A total of nineteen other fees – many of which are offense related – may be charged. A sample of these fees appears in Table 3.

nonpayment of user fees can result in violation of the terms of release.

In Marion County, fees in addition to those outlined in IC 33-37-4-1 are automatically charged whenever an individual is placed on probation. When a person is not placed on probation, the fees and costs are imposed under the Probation Court or Probation Order unless the sentencing Judge specifically modifies the order.19

Additional user fees, in the form of program and service fees, are charged by criminal justice agencies. These fees are much more difficult to define. These include fees for work release ($105/week) or electronic monitoring (up to $85 per week), required treatment such as substance abuse or anger management (up to $25/session), required drug testing (up to $15 per test, required multiple times per month irrespective of substance use history), and others. Although probation and parole officials maintain that individuals are not sent back to prison simply for being poor, threats of being sent back to prison and other tactics

are used by parole and probation officers in order to secure payment of user fees. Ironically, a common tactic for work release facilities is refusing to release an offender to go to work if his/her check does not cover the facility fee. Early in this study, it happened frequently – daily three or four of every twenty participants would not be allowed to come to work for owing money. Participants report that they were told they could be released to go to work when someone paid the money due to the facility. By the conclusion of the study, the incidence of three to four times a day had decreased to

(See Table 4.) In the event that all of these specific fees (or any other court ordered fees) are not paid, the Court may enter judgment against the individual and seek appropriate steps to collect the judgment owed.

Table 3 Indiana Criminal Court Fees

Fee Amount Marijuana Eradication Program $300 Drug Abuse, Prosecution, Interdiction and Correction $200-$1000

Alcohol and Drug Countermeasures $200

Child Abuse Prevention $100 Sexual Assault Victims Assistance $250-$1000

Domestic Violence Prevention and Treatment $50

Deferred Prosecution $120

Table 4 Marion County Probation Fees Fee Amount

Administrative Fee $100

Probation User Fee $25-$100 initial fee $15-$30 monthly

Alcohol and Drug Service Fee Up to $400 Court Costs $120 Restitution Actual cost

Public Defender Reimbursement

Actual cost imposed after judicial determination of ability to pay

Safe School fee $200-$1000 Child Abuse Prevention fee $100 Drug Interdiction fee $200-$1000 Alcohol Countermeasures fee $200 Domestic Violence fee $50

6

three or four times per month. While this is an improvement, it is still an odd "punishment" to prevent participants from earning wages when they do not have sufficient funds to cover fees.

Issues Related to Employment Finding stable employment is widely recognized as playing a central role in desistance from crime.20 Sustainable employment reduces the likelihood of an individual reoffending by between one-third and a half.21 Research by IDOC indicates that regardless of other variables known to impact recidivism (e.g., educational attainment), if a person can earn more than $5000 within the first 6 months after release recidivism drops by 34-39 percent.22 (See Table 5. "Employed" in this study was defined as earnings of at least $5000 in the first six months after release.) Nonetheless, the difficulty of ex-

offenders finding employment and working in low paying jobs is well documented.23 Ex-offenders are barred from up to 800 different occupations across the United States.24 Indiana ranks 38th out of 50 states with respect to legal barriers facing people with criminal records. On a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being the most barriers, employment rated 9.25 A recent study by Indiana University-Purdue University

Indianapolis suggests that up to 70 percent of private-sector employers refuse to hire ex-felons, irrespective of the nature of the underlying crime or its relevance to the workplace in question.26

It is not difficult to understand, then, why ex-offenders fall into the ranks of discouraged workers who no longer even look for work and who are not reflected in official unemployment estimates. According to the US Department of Labor, the number of discouraged workers rose to 717,000 in the first quarter of 2009, a 70-percent increase from the first quarter of 2008. Relative to their share of the labor force, young people, African Americans, and, to a lesser extent, Hispanics and men were over-represented among discouraged workers in the first quarter of 2009.

27 Because for a number of years the United States has experienced a faster growth in the number of discouraged minority workers (4.3 percent higher) compared to all discouraged workers (2.3 percent higher),28

A Social Enterprise – Remaking Our Resources

one must assume that this gap continues to widen for ex-offenders who are disproportionately young African American men.

Workforce, Inc. operates as a social enterprise29

Social enterprises produce real products/services for real customers, compete in the marketplace, pay a competitive wage, and increase market share through extraordinary customer service. They differ from enterprises run solely for financial gain because of the complementary focus on social objectives

– a business with a social mission. Their stated mission is two-fold: 1) become the recycling hub of Marion County and 2) help those returning from prison have immediate, legitimate earnings combined with a broad array of social supports. One program operated by WFI, Remaking Our Resources, provides transitional jobs for recently released offenders in the emerging electronic waste recycling industry. This program seeks to keep as much electronic waste as possible out of landfills and recover the waste in a way it can be re-used in industry. WFI was the first recycler in the state to complete the stringent registration process for e-waste recycling developed by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management. The City of Indianapolis contracts with WFI to handle electronic waste collected at "Tox Drop" events and the state sends a portion of its end of life electronics to WFI. (The rest of the state's end of life electronics is sent to the Federal Correctional Institution in Elkton, Ohio, where it is handled by the for profit company UniCor.)

Table 5 2005 IDOC Recidivism

Education Employed Not Employed

College 17.3% 26.3% GED/HS 23.3% 38.4% No GED/HS 28.5% 44.7%

7

and employment of disadvantaged workers. Two major differences between WFI’s social enterprise and a typical business are:

• The vast majority of their workforce is “transitional.” They work at WFI in preparation for competitive employment elsewhere and the work experience includes job readiness and specific skills training, educational development, and job search/job development services.

• Employee Assistance Program (EAP) services are much more comprehensive. WFI monitors parole/probation mandates; provides assistance with food and uniforms, driver’s license renewal and transportation to job interviews and other appointments; provides legal representation in child support court; encourages interaction with children; and provides assistance in finding housing and transportation.

Transitional jobs are typically short-term, partially subsidized jobs that combine real work, skill development, and support services to help workers overcome barriers to employment. Transitional jobs programs have proven effective in turning low-skilled, hard to employ welfare recipients into wage earners. Studies of a number of transitional jobs programs serving ex-offenders, welfare recipients, and other hard to serve populations have documented their successes in helping participants move into unsubsidized employment.30 A 2006 study using focus groups of employers and union representatives concluded that the completion of a transitional employment program after release helps alleviate some employer concerns and foster better connections between employers seeking to hire and ex-offenders seeking to work. Employers did not want to be the first to employ a recently released offender; rather, they were more comfortable considering someone who had already established a positive track record after release. Completion of transitional employment was described by some as “evidence of rehabilitation.”31 By the fall of 2010, the Joyce Foundation will release its report on the Transitional Jobs Reentry Demonstration, the largest and most rigorous evaluations of employment programs for former prisoners since the 1970s. The Joyce Foundation has awarded funds to WFI to assist with the dissemination of their findings, which are projected to provide "the strongest and most reliable kind of evidence to inform the design of policies and programs for former prisoners."32

Remaking Our Resources began in January 2006 and exclusively serves offenders leaving incarceration. Participants, referred primarily through community corrections, parole, and probation, are virtually unemployable in the private sector. WFI estimates that approximately 65 percent of their participants since program inception have no legitimate work history (defined as never having earned Social Security and Unemployment quarters). A program of transitional employment is their best, and perhaps only, chance for securing employment paying a livable wage in the mainstream economy.

Participants are employed in the transitional jobs program for up to six months during which time WFI ensures they gain marketable job skills related to small tools, material handling (including hazardous materials), problem-solving, loading and unloading trucks and pallets, and forklift safety. The WFI program stresses the importance of building a credible work history, learning to come to work each day on time, working with others, and adjusting to a work regimen. They call this “developing the work muscle,” – for many, a skill necessary to acquire after a period of incarceration. WFI also focuses on developing the social capital of participants by helping them learn how to positively interact – and encouraging them to do so – with community projects and their leaders, politicians and political appointees, judges, probation officers, and child support officials. This helps break down the ex-offender stereotype in the broader community.

8

A typical day involves six to seven hours of paid work and one to two hours of release time for participation in activities that address specific barriers to successful reentry, such as basic education classes, job training, drug/alcohol or other treatment, and scheduled appointments (i.e., court appearances, meetings with probation officers). Ongoing assistance is provided to find steady employment at sustainable wages and follow-up is provided once participants are employed in the community. WFI tracks participants for six months after program exit and continues to provide career services and work supports to promote work attachment.

RESEARCH OVERVIEW The evaluation tracks 90 individuals hired by WFI between March 2008 and December 2009 and follows each individual for six months after program completion to assess his/her work progress from transitional job to a private sector job and ultimately the ability to re-connect with family and community. Quantitative and qualitative assessment of the following factors is included: 1. Number of participants who complete the transitional job program and secure full-time

employment in the mainstream economy. 2. For those with child support orders and arrearages, the ability to work out child support

modifications, establish regular support payments, and re-connect with their child(ren) and custodial parent (if desired).

3. Number of participants who develop work readiness skills and become eligible for National Career Readiness Certification.

4. Number of participants who do not return to prison.

Methods Basic data collection efforts are used to develop a description of the participants served by Remaking Our Resources. Data collected includes:

• Demographic, criminal justice, and child support characteristics. • Length of stay in transitional job

o Wages earned o Taxes paid

• Number transitioning successfully to private sector employment o Employment sector o Starting wage o Number attaining six month retention

• Number paying child support o Total child support amount paid per client o Average amount paid per client o Ability to obtain support modification.

• Type of supportive services needed by participants • Average expenditures per person for supportive services • Number earning eligibility for National Career Readiness Certification

Surveys and personal interviews with selected participants are used to determine how/if participation in Remaking Our Resources affects participants' relationships with their children and the custodial parents. Interviews with WFI staff members are conducted to obtain their individual perspectives on the successes, challenges, and problems encountered during the project.

9

Results Demographics Remaking Our Resources enrolled 90 participants between March 2008 and December 2009, 89 male and 1 female. Fourteen of the ninety had been incarcerated in jail; the remainder in prison. Although it appears that WFI serves a disproportionate number of African Americans compared to the number of African Americans in IDOC custody33 (Table 6), the percentage of African Americans in Marion County is higher than all but one other county in the state. Moreover, more than one third of all WFI participants were incarcerated on drug charges, and according to Marion County Public Safety Director Mark Renner, in 2008 African Americans accounted for more than 90 percent of all major felony drug cases in Marion County.34

Nearly a third of the participants do not have a high school diploma or General Education Diploma, (GED; passage of the General Education Development test in five subjects; Table 7). The Indiana

Department of Correction reports that approximately two- thirds of released offenders have at least a high school diploma or GED,

35 consistent with the participants in this program. High school dropouts are 3.5 times more likely to be arrested and 8 times more likely to be incarcerated.36 For African American males not graduating from high school, 60 percent spend time in prison by their mid-30s and 72 percent are unemployed.37 Indianapolis Public

Schools (IPS) struggles with one of the highest dropout rates in the country. Study results released in 2009 by Editorial Project in Education identifies IPS as having the worst graduation rate (30.5 percent) in the 50 largest cities in the nation for the class of 2005 – a staggering 69.5 percent of students in IPS did not graduate from high school. 38 The IPS self-report of 2009 graduation rates at the three high schools that serve the area targeted by Remaking Our Resources have low overall graduation rates, and the graduation rate of males – 98.9 percent of those served by WFI – is even lower, as illustrated in Table 8.39

Criminal Justice Characteristics

Because the sample size is small, it is of no significant value to compare participants to offenders in IDOC custody with respect to type and level of offense and number of times incarcerated. However, in order to offer a full picture of the individuals served by WFI, this information is presented in Tables 9-11 below. Due to difficulty securing information on the fourteen participants referred from jail, information on the level and type of offense and the number of times incarcerated is not available for many of those participants.

Table 6 Race

WFI DOC African American 68% 38% White 29% 57% Hispanic 2% 4.4% Native American 1% 0.2%

Table 7 Education

Did Not Graduate 31% GED 41% HS Diploma 15% Post Secondary 13%

Table 8 2009 Graduation Rate

High School General Males Emmerich Manual 44.4% 35.2% Arsenal Technical 46.5% 38.3% Broad Ripple Magnet 59.0% 47.7%

10

*Some information on participants referred from jails is not available.

Child Support Characteristics Of the 90 participants, 24 have a total of 50 children for whom they have child support responsibilities, and 100 percent of them are paying child support. The total amount of support paid during participation in the program is $31,130 with a range from $24 to $4074, and an average amount of $1297 paid per participant. Since child support orders set up automatically by the Department of Child Services Child Support Division and payments are deducted directly from paychecks, it can be stated with confidence that all program participants make regular child support payments to fulfill their orders.

Participants with child support orders are advised that they might be able to secure support modifications because of the way support was determined prior to Lambert v. Lambert (2007). Seven of 24 participants who sought support modifications successfully had their child support orders modified based on their current incomes. The other seventeen would likely have had their child support orders modified as well, but this did not happen for a variety of reasons. One returned to prison, one died, and three failed to provided the attorney with needed information. More importantly, though, with only a six month window in which to secure the modification – the length of time from program entry to end – and until May 2009 having the assistance of only one attorney working pro bono as he could to assist in representing the non-custodial parents, most of the participants were unable to get their cases on the court docket. A single unexpected time lag or system flaw was enough to prevent completion of the legal process. Between May and December when the assistance of additional attorneys was secured through Indiana Legal Services, five of the participants had their orders modified.

As a result of another project in which WFI is involved,40

participants are also advised that if they successfully complete the program, the arrearage owed to the state that accrued during incarceration may be forgiven. Two had their arrearages forgiven: one was $840 and the other was estimated to be just under $3000 (the order waiving the arrearage did not state the amount). Additionally, one participant had $4,443.44 of arrearage owed to the custodial parent forgiven by the parent.

Table 9 Most Recent Offense

Drug 33% Murder 1% Person 25% Property 19% Sex Offense 6% Traffic Violation 4% Weapon 3% Arson 1% Disorderly Cond. 1% Forgery 1% Resisting Arrest 1% Unknown* 5%

Table 10 Felony Level

A 12% B 21% C 32% D 22% Murder 1% Misdemeanor 6% Unknown* 6%

Table 11 Times Incarcerated 4+ 3% 3 11% 2 27% 1 40% Unknown* 19%

11

Table 12 Remaking Our Resources

March 2008 – September 2010 Status Number Percentage Total Number of Participants 90 Completed TJ 47 52% Employed 33 37% In Job Search 14 16% Did Not Complete TJ 43 48% Rearrested for New Crime 8 9% Re-incarcerated for TRV 7 8% Terminated for Cause 13 14% Quit/Dropped Out 12 13% Moved/Other 3 3%

Transitional Jobs and Employment Data Most participants have stayed for the duration of their six-month transitional job, with an average length of stay of 5.08 months. Forty-seven participants completed the transitional jobs program. The other 43 participants were terminated for cause, dropped out, moved from the area, or were rearrested for technical rules violations or committing a new crime as delineated in Table 12. More than 70 percent of the 47 transitional jobs program completers have transitioned into permanent jobs, which include positions in retail, construction, manufacturing, recycling, nonprofit, and general labor. Of those, 19 (58 percent) have achieved six month retention in their employment and another 6 (18 percent) are still on track to do so. The other 14 program completers timed out of their transitional jobs experience and are in active job search assisted by WFI staff. While enrolled in the transitional jobs program, participants have earned an average of $4766 and paid an average of $706 in taxes.

Supportive Services WFI provides supportive services to program participants through an Employee Assistance Program (EAP) that operates under the mantra of "Work – Responsibility – Reward." WFI is committed to the principle that work and responsibility create their own rewards and thus emphasizes this principle with participants by rewarding behaviors WFI wishes to encourage. A total of $32, 414 was spent on various supportive services for the 90 program participants, an average of $360 per person. Approximately 95 percent of these funds were spent on transportation (generally bus passes), attorney fees, rental assistance, and work clothing. Additional supportive services without dollar values attached are provided as well, such as clothing appropriate for interviews or court appearances from a men's clothing closet; food provided through various charitable organizations; and access to leisure activities, especially those that participants can do with their children like tickets to sporting events, the Indianapolis Children's Museum, the Indianapolis Zoo, the Indiana State Fair and the like.

Equally important are less easily defined services provided under the auspices of EAP that, depending on the circumstance, might be called advising, relationship building, mentoring, problem-solving assistance, or a myriad of names – including cheerleader. These are typically one-on-one sessions with the EAP representative or other staff member in which participants share barriers or challenges, goals, dreams, frustrations, hurts, anger, joys, and virtually every emotion around any situation one could name. For example, often the WFI staff member serves as a sounding board and, as warranted, implements a natural problem solving model from which the participant is encouraged to look beyond symptoms to root causes, think through various scenarios and possible/expected outcomes, and develop his/her own response to the issue at hand. At other times the staff member is a cheerleader who offers encouragement and celebrates the victories. It is this kind of attention to and valuing of individuals that prompts notes such as the one below from a probation officer:

[WFI participant] just came in for his appointment and could not stop talking about how much he likes his job. He likes the hard work; he likes doing the events, he likes the free lunches on

12

Table 13 KeyTrain™ Participation Enrolled 70 Did not finish WFI program 9 Eligible for Certification 38 Not eligible for Certification 32 Not Enrolled 20 Not allowed due to conviction 3 Not in program long enough to enroll 5 Other 12

event days; he feels that everyone there genuinely cares about him, he feels recognized for his hard work, and he likes the relationships he is building with his coworkers. I am so proud of him and I told him and he said, “I am proud of myself.”

National Career Readiness Certification A National Career Readiness Certificate gives specific information about a person's ability to perform common tasks that all employers require. The WorkKeys® Assessment System is a comprehensive, nationally recognized system for measuring, communicating and improving the common skills required for success in the workplace, mastery of which can lead to the awarding of a National Career Readiness Certificate. KeyTrain™ is a self directed computerized system for improving the basic skills measured by the WorkKeys® Assessment System. Using KeyTrain, participants can assess their potential WorkKeys score, review topics in each WorkKeys skill area, and practice problems similar to those on an actual WorkKeys assessment.

WFI has a KeyTrain™ license and most participants are required to work on skills development during their weekly development time. Some ex-offenders are not allowed to access the internet because of the nature of their felonies. Others find their development time is too filled with counseling, classes, court appearances, drug tests and other activities required by correctional supervision to devote enough time to KeyTrain™ for it to be meaningful. A few left the program before enrolling in KeyTrain™. Of the 61 participants enrolled in KeyTrain™ and completing the Remaking Our Resources program, 62 percent are eligible for National Career Readiness Certification. (See Table 13.)

KeyTrain™ is a useful tool even for those who are not eligible for certification, because WFI uses the KeyTrain™ results to show potential employers that an individual is capable of learning. Seventeen of the 32 who failed to progress to a level for certification eligibility showed measurable gain in skills, an average gain of 18 percent, from 41 percent to 59 percent. One participant raised his test score from 14 percent at intake to 71 percent at discharge and three others raised their scores nearly 30 percent.

Qualitative Results Part of the evaluation process includes separate interviews and surveys with participants. Questions address how the transitional job program has affected the participant's relationship with his children and with the custodial parent. The evaluator made efforts to interview the children and custodial parent of participants' children to assess their perspectives of the impact of the jobs program, but had so little success that information is not included in this evaluation. Some of the questions asked concern the family’s TANF benefit and the impact of newly received child support on the household. Custodial parents were unwilling to speak with the evaluator, presumably at least in part because of fear around the issue of TANF benefits. The privatization of TANF services in Indiana that began in 2007 has resulted in a multitude of problems, including lost documents, delays in benefit approval, and severed eligibility for Medicaid and food stamps. The problems have been so severe that in October 2009, Governor Mitch Daniels canceled a 10-year, $1.34 billion contract with the private provider. Custodial parents are afraid to reveal anything about their family’s TANF benefits, child support, or household income for fear that benefits will be cut, intercepted, or even severed.

13

One of the key questions posed was the extent to which non-custodial parents have visitation and/or contact with their children. The 24 non-custodial parents with child support obligations report a total of 50 children. Slightly more than half spoke with their child(ren) on a weekly basis. Nearly a third report never seeing or speaking with their child(ren) because they live out of state and the noncustodial parent does not know how to reach them.

When asked about the impact of their participation in the program, some had encouraging responses.

• 20 percent of the respondents said that contact with their children had increased since starting work at WFI:

o “We talk on the phone a lot because she has her own phone now.” o “We are talking everyday from 6-6:30 pm and see each other many times

through the week.” o “I did not see them at all before WFI.”

• 20 percent of the respondents said that WFI has had a positive impact on their relationship

with the custodial parent: o “She lets me see and be with them – to be a dad – because she sees me trying

now.” o “Relationship is getting better because I’m not drinking. She supports me

getting straight and being in the halfway house. She is trusting me more.” Personal conversations between the evaluator and program participants reveal a high degree of satisfaction with the program. Overall, individuals express a strong desire to secure full-time work, to become productive citizens, to get reconnected with their child(ren), and to be responsible parents. In addition, they express a high level of confidence and trust in the staff of WFI and appreciate the staff’s work in helping them become grounded in the community. As an example, on April 12, 2010 during a routine call by a WFI staff member to a participant's probation officer, the WFI staff member asked the officer how the program was working out for that specific probationer. The reply:

Excellent! He needs the job badly, not as much for the money, but for the structure and foundation it will give him and the productive way to spend hours of his day. I have seen such self-esteem building in my other clients who are working there; it has been amazing. No matter what happens to them for the rest of their lives, they will at least have this one positive work experience to carry with them. The sense of pride and accomplishment it instills is worth so much more than the monetary benefits of working. I wish there were more programs like it! And, all the clients I have working there right now have made comments about how “nice” the management staff is and one person even told me the staff genuinely seems to care about the people who work there. They appreciate being treated with respect and not like criminals.

Analysis The analysis begins with some general observations around a number of known corrections-related issues as reflected in the study of this cohort of ex-offenders and ends with discussion of a number of ongoing local challenges that demand attention.

Persons transitioning from prison have an overwhelming need for the opportunity to work. Neither WFI nor the evaluator was prepared for the overwhelming response to the opportunity for persons reentering from prison to secure transitional jobs employment opportunities. Since March 2008, WFI estimates that more than 300 individuals have been turned away, most of whom meet all requirements for the Remaking Our Resources program. These are individuals who have heard of the

14

program “on the street” and the number does not include referrals to the program by partnering agencies.

In addition to the walk-ins noted above, the success of WFI participants in meeting the mandates of release and securing employment as a result of their participation in the transitional jobs program has resulted in contracts with both Marion County Probation, Duvall Residential Center (men's work release), and Liberty Hall (women's work release) to serve their clients. Probation has hundreds of referrals at the ready when WFI has room to take new participants. The evaluator asked this question of Marion Superior Court Deputy Chief Probation Officer, Debra Farmer-Bunch: "If WFI could take all probationers you could send, how many would you refer today?" Her answer: "5000,"41

The personal financial obligations of those leaving incarceration are overwhelming.

which is fully half of all those currently on probation.

Criminal justice user fees often take most if not all of the weekly paycheck of clients served by WFI leaving little or no money for daily living or payment of other debts. WFI has not developed a non-intrusive way to collect information on user fees paid by its participants so this statement is supported by evidence that is largely anecdotal and by offender self-reporting. However, other evidence points to its likely validity. For example, in FY 2005, Marion County Community Corrections served 4711 offenders and collected an average of $739 in fees per person on average net income of $1327 per person. Approximately 56 percent of offenders' net wages were paid out in user fees. Another $57/person average was collected from offender income for child support and "other". The average weekly net income for the 90 Remaking Our Resources participants is $173.11.42

As described in the previous section entitled Issues Related to Criminal Justice User Fees, the Indiana criminal justice system relies heavily on user fees for operating expenses, the nonpayment of which can result in violation of the terms of release. Although parole and probation officials state that individuals are never re-incarcerated for being unable to pay these fees, WFI participants clearly believe otherwise as revealed by both participants and WFI staff in numerous informal conversations with the evaluator.

If an average of 56 percent of these funds were paid out in user fees, the average WFI participant would take home (assuming no child support obligation) approximately $76 for a full week of work.

A common punishment for a work release resident not being able to make the weekly payment to the work release facility is the resident not being allowed to go to work or, according to WFI participants, being unable to secure passes out of the facility to look for work. On one occasion when a work release facility refused to allow a Remaking Our Resources participant to attend his child support court hearing, the participant was told by facility staff they were doing him a favor because the court

would impose a child support order and that would reduce the amount of money he could pay to the facility which would cause other problems for him. As a result of not attending the hearing, the court issued a warrant for the participant's arrest and WFI had to secure an attorney to file a petition with the court to lift the warrant (which was granted) and demand the participant's release for a subsequent hearing so the support order could be established.

We need to decide who we are afraid of and who we are mad at – lock up those we fear and do something different with those who anger us. – Thomas Mott Osborne American Prison Reformer

15

Child support is another common financial obligation for those leaving incarceration, but as noted earlier, existence of unsustainable support orders leads to greater failure of non-custodial parents to pay their support obligations. Steven's case is such an example. Steven's child support orders for his five minor children total $138 per week, which was approximately 73 percent of his weekly average net income of $188.65. (Steven's other financial obligations included work release at $105 per week and periodic drug tests at $10 each.) While employed in the transitional jobs program, the court sought to raise weekly support on three of the children to $100 per week, which would have increased his weekly child support to just under $400. WFI staff was able to help Steven maintain the current order despite being contested by the custodial parent.

Non-payment of child support is likely to result in further incarceration. The experience of Kevin is one example. His child support order is for $60 per week, plus he has an arrearage of approximately $5000 that accumulated while he was incarcerated. Kevin is a registered sex offender and has not been able to find work since his TJ program ended in March 2009. During his July appearance in child support court, because he had a letter from WFI stating that they were assisting Kevin with his job search, the judge gave him until mid September to secure employment or otherwise come up with money for child support or he would go back to jail for 90 days. As of late August, Kevin had not been able to secure even a single job interview.

The result of these competing financial obligations is simply that the children are shortchanged. Money that is duly owed to the custodial parent for the benefit of the children continues unpaid. Moreover, the system as it currently operates, often impedes the ability of non-custodial parents to serve a parenting role in their children’s lives. Custodial parents frequently “punish” the non-custodial parent’s lack of child support payment with restrictions on visitation. When asked for an example of this, the EAP representative at WFI said:

Dejuan is a perfect example of this situation. The mother would hold out visitation if his child support was late or missing. Since working at WFI he was able to make nine months of steady child support payments and was able to have some of his arrearage removed...[now] he spends every weekend with his children.43

Gregg Keesling, president of WFI, reports several conversations with custodial parents of participants' children who say to him, "Working is no good – I don’t get this money. If he wants to be a man and see his child, he knows what he has to do.” Keesling relates whatever the precise words the custodial parents use, they clearly mean that the noncustodial parents needs to go back to selling drugs which provides greater income for the family. Out of curiosity, an informal poll of WFI participants by this evaluator asked, “What percentage of people that you know sell drugs or resort to other illegal activity in order to pay their user fees?” The responses ranged from 50 percent to 80 percent, and everyone knew someone who fit into that category.

The compounding effect of technical rules violations is out of control. In 2008, Marion County conservatively spent $69 million to send 1380 people who did not commit a crime to prison – people on parole or probation who violated technical rules, such as missing meetings with their probation/probation officers, drinking alcohol or, as noted above, not paying user fees. These 1380 technical rule violations (TRVs) accounted for 70 percent of all probationers returned to prison. Every one of the 1380 had not only served his/her time but had been deemed worthy of release back to society.

16

Further, many more probationers are charged with a TRV than are returned to prison. Assuming that a new offense triggers a probation revocation 100 percent of the time, 4570 violations were filed for a TRV as opposed to a new offense. Therefore, only 12.1 percent of all TRVs filed in the first quarter of 2009 resulted in probation revocation.44

Judge Doe gave Mr. Smith the full term of his executed sentence for a probation violation, 3.5 years. Even the probation department was only recommending 1.5 years. Smith’s probation violations were for drug screens positive for THC and he was arrested for possession of marijuana. He served 15 days for the marijuana charge so that was over. Smith explained to the judge that he knew he had a real problem with marijuana and he had paid money to be enrolled in a program at Gallahue to help. He said that if he were incarcerated he would lose the money he paid. I told the judge that he had a job and child support obligations to one child and his girlfriend was having his child in about 3 weeks. I said no one would benefit by putting Smith in jail. Judge Doe said that Smith was before her on August 27, 2009 and put on "strict probation" and told if he violated he would get his full sentence. She said she warned Smith and now he was given the maximum.

(See Table 14.) The 4016 individuals whose probation was not revoked were released back to the community because a court determined that what they did was not sufficient to warrant returning them to prison. The result, however, was that each technical rule violator spent a number of days in jail or locked within the work release facility. The result: most who were working in places other than WFI lost their jobs. An unquantified amount of taxpayer dollars was spent in court, jail, probation, lost wages, and related costs. Given that even short-lived re-arrests often result in loss of stable employment, there is a direct relationship between the disproportionate number of technical rule violations and the lack of child support provided by non-custodial fathers who are working to turn their lives around. To illustrate an even more serious consequence of technical rules violations, below is an excerpt from a report by a WFI attorney that represents the rule rather than the exception. All names have been changed.

This is the second time that Judge Doe has given the full executed sentence for a non-violent offender who violates probation. She gave Mr. Jones 3 years executed for failing a drug test. It doesn't matter what I say in court or what the violator says. Both Smith and Jones admitted the violations thinking the court would show some leniency, but there was none. In the future we will consider denying the violation and make the prosecutor prove his case, because we can't do much worse than what we are doing now.

I thought we were making some progress in convincing the judiciary that filling the prisons with non-violent, drug related probation violators is counter-productive both financially and from a policy standpoint. The problem I see is that we have no alternatives to suggest for the probation violators. The judges say they gave the violators previous chances and the violators knew the consequences if they violated and so the judges must enforce what they say or there would be no force and effect to what they say. Even with that, it is insane to continue this way. The State of Indiana will now pay to imprison Smith, he will not be paying child support to his one child so the mother will go on TANF at a further expense to the State, and his new child and mother will also likely go on TANF at a further expense to the State. Everybody loses.

In addition I will now have to file something with the Paternity Court to let them know Smith is in prison so that when he misses his December 4 hearing on child support they will not issue a warrant for his arrest for when he gets released in a year or two.

Table 14 2009 – First Quarter Probation Statistics Total Violations Filed 5413 TRV Violations Filed (est.) 4570 Total Revocations 1397 New Offense 843 TRV 554

17

Without doubt, like Judge Doe, most judges believe they are doing the right thing for public safety, but the result is likely just the opposite. American Probation and Parole Association president, Carl Wicklund, says, "Parole sets people up for failure." He calls the current approach to supervising ex-offenders "tail em, nail-em, jail-em" and scoffs at the idea that most parole supervision methods are "tests" to see if ex-offenders can make it in the outside world, saying the term is too mild. "I would call them an obstacle course," he says.45

School failures are feeding the criminal justice system.

One Remaking Our Resources participant shared that during his second hearing in court the judge told him that she was surprised and pleased that he was doing so well because she purposely put barriers in his path knowing that he would fail. This was validated by a WFI staff member present in court that day.

It is so well known that school failure feeds the criminal justice system that a term has been coined for it – school-to-prison pipeline. Over the last decade, the punitive tools and approaches used in the criminal justice system have seeped into the educational system. The result has been that children are removed from mainstream educational environments and too often find that the path is a one way street into the juvenile, and eventually the criminal, justice system, where prison is the end of the road. The school-to-prison pipeline encompasses the growing use of zero-tolerance discipline, school-based arrests, disciplinary alternative schools, and secured detention that marginalizes the most at-risk youth. Historical inequities, such as segregated education, concentrated poverty, and racial disparities in law enforcement, are all believed to feed the pipeline. For many the school-to-prison pipeline is one of the most urgent challenges in education today.

Provisions of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 are having the unintended consequence of further damaging fragile family relationships. In HUD v. Rucker (2002), the United States Supreme Court unanimously upheld the provisions of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 commonly referred to as "One Strike and You're Out." This decision allows public housing tenants to be evicted because of criminal or drug-related activity by any household member or guest even when that activity takes place outside the apartment and without the tenant's knowledge. Arrest can trigger the eviction process and even if the offending party is found innocent, the eviction case can still move forward, and typically does.

Moreover, in 1996, the Clinton administration strengthened the relevant provisions of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 by creating incentives for public housing authorities to pursue One-Strike evictions: HUD includes assessment of One-Strike evictions in the performance

I have become increasingly aware how the various arms of the criminal justice system interact with various agencies such as child support and public housing and how they unintentionally impede rather than support successful integration. I don’t think the general public understands the obstacles that ex-prisoners face, yet we know that we all benefit from successful integration. – David Siler, LCSW, Executive Director Catholic Charities & Family Ministries Archdiocese of Indianapolis

If we take the tail-them, nail-them, jail-them approach, it's just going to be a revolving door. Think of what it does to the families of offenders if they're getting pulled off the street all the time and how destructive that is to the family's financial well-being.

– Carl Wicklund, President American Probation and Parole Association

18

evaluation ratings that are used in determining funding levels and the degree of federal oversight for public housing authorities. The Clinton administration also extended the reach of the law by changing the statutory language from crimes committed "on or near the premises" to crimes committed "on or off the premises."

Participants in Remaking Our Resources relate story after story about how they are stopped from visiting their children and other relatives in public housing. Released offenders with family connections have much better odds of successful re-entry than those with estranged or no family. Many participants expressed that their mother or a mother-figure in their life – grandmother, aunt, sister – was a stabilizing influence especially during those first few months out after release.

One participant spent seventeen days in jail after being stopped leaving the public housing where he had been visiting his children. He was pulled over for what the police describe as a routine check of suspicious individuals and was jailed when the officer smelled alcohol on his breath. Although a breathalyzer test measured his blood alcohol at 0.02, having even a single alcoholic beverage is a violation of release stipulation for any person.

Another participant was fully stopped at a stop sign when a police officer motioned to him. He waited for the officer to come up to his car. When the participant asked why the officer stopped him, the officer replied that he had nice rims and wondered what he was doing near a public housing complex. After establishing that the participant was going there to visit his mother, the participant was given a citation for sitting at the stop sign too long. When he objected saying he was waiting for the officer as he had been instructed, the officer told him that he had better be careful or he would see to it that his mother was thrown out of her apartment.

Another participant reported that he never goes to visit his children at their home because a couple of years earlier the custodial parent was evicted from her Section 8 subsidized apartment without investigation because of an anonymous report that the participant was living in the apartment with her. He was never confronted on the premises, always visited at reasonable hours, did not keep clothing or other personal items in the apartment, and was not involved in any criminal activity during that time. He confided to the evaluator that he did stay overnight "a couple of times", but that he and the custodial parent were planning on marrying as soon as he was freed from work release the following month.

Such threats are not idle. Such broad policy interpretations that allow, and even incentivize, such evictions construct even greater barriers to family formation and family support that is so highly correlated with successful reentry.

Ongoing Challenges – Child Support In April 2006, a bi-partisan group of policymakers met to make recommendations on prioritizing inmates' financial obligations. Noting federal law prioritizes child support payments over other obligations to the state the group came to a clear consensus that child support (and victim restitution) should be of primary importance, while payment of other financial obligations such as court fines, supervision fees and surcharges used to fund court systems should not compromise an individual's ability to make payments toward child support or restitution.46 In Indiana, payment of child support is seldom among the top priorities. To illustrate, in FY 2005, Marion County Community Corrections

19

served 4711 offenders and collected an average of $739 in fees per person on average net income of $1327 per person.

As a result Lambert v. Lambert, an Indiana Supreme Court decision in early 2007, incarceration can no longer be considered voluntary unemployment and persons remanded to state correctional facilities are allowed to petition the court for an appropriate reduction of child support during incarceration. No longer should anyone remanded to prison in Indiana have child support arrearage accumulate while incarcerated. However, significant challenges have to be overcome to make this a reality:

• Identifying offenders with child support obligations upon remand so that they can be made aware of their right to request modification.

• Convincing remanded offenders of the importance in requesting modification. • Providing a way for offenders to request modification that does not require legal

representation. • Making the process to request modification easy for both offenders and for IDOC staff.

A protocol to begin to address these challenges was established through a HHS Child Support Enforcement Special Improvement Project (SIP) grant received by the Sagamore Institute in 2007. Working closely with a WFI, Indiana Child Support Division, Indiana Department of Correction, and the Indiana Judicial Center, Tom Forman of Indiana Legal Services developed a packet of information for distribution to every person with minor children remanded to the Indiana DOC. This packet of material explains why the offender should seek modification and how to do that. IDOC staff have been trained to assist offenders in completing the information as well as on how to explain the importance of seeking the modification. Since the start of the project, IDOC staff are informing every remanded offender of this right during intake and distributing an average of 200 packets monthly that include a form and instructions on how to seek modification. While it is estimated that half of those eligible to seek modification still refuse the packets, the fact that half of those entering incarceration are choosing to seek modification is a positive sign. Further, the SIP program has been instrumental in changing the culture of the child support system in Indiana. Prior to the SIP grant award, most prosecutors and judges viewed the Lambert decision negatively and because Lambert did not define "minimum child support order", many judges kept intact the Indiana minimum of $42 per week for those who were incarcerated. (In contrast, other judges set orders as low as $1 per week.) After the 2010 Indiana State Child Support Conference, Geneva Bishop, Program Manager for OCSE Region V told the evaluator that she has personally witnessed the transformation of prosecutors and judges as well as the child support collection system in Indiana, and as she spoke with conference attendees, it was clear that WFI and the SIP project were in large part responsible for this shift.47

Overall, the judiciary has embraced the spirit of Lambert; however, some are still seeking ways to mitigate its effects through the letter of the law. For example, each county judiciary has its own form on which to request child support modification. The more generic form that is provided to offenders in their packet of material continues to be rejected by judges in some counties.

A challenge related to Lambert is the difficulty in finding out the amount of arrearage that is available to be waived. Instead of a central repository for such information, the prosecutor has some of the information and the state has some of the information. In a typical case, there is a 4 to 6 week time lag from when the attorney first files the petition until a court date is secured. Once the attorney secures a judgment that the amount can be waived, another hearing is set to allow the prosecutor time to find

20

out what the amount is to be waived. It takes approximately two months after the prosecutor makes a request to the state to gather that information.

Moreover, once the information has been obtained, clear discrepancies often exist. An example is the case of Mr. Brown. The mother of Brown’s children received TANF since 2002 and Brown was incarcerated from June 2006 to September 2008. The report secured by the prosecutor showed that Brown’s arrearage was nearly $12,000 but that only $100 was owed to the State for repayment of TANF benefits. When challenged on this amount, the prosecutor agreed to request a “paper copy” of the report for examination. A request for such a report takes 60-90 days. Later it was determined that all but $100 of the child support arrearage had been assigned to reimburse Medicaid, although no one in state child support or Medicaid has been able to explain how or why that happened. Unfortunately, this was not an isolated incident.

The state's child support database was to be used to identify offenders with child support obligations and the status of those obligations at the time of initial interview for the Remaking Our Resources program. Although the protocol was put in place, staff changes in the child support office and the difficulty of actually securing information that has components stored in different locations accessible to different users has proven challenging at best. An example is that different data bases house the child support owed to repay TANF and that owed to repay Medicaid. However, now that a way to actually obtain the information has been identified, the next step is to be able to access the information in a matter of days as opposed to months.

Yet another challenge is securing more attorneys so that a case can be assigned to an attorney when someone first enters the transitional jobs program. Indiana Legal Services has assigned two attorneys to assist with this work for a few hours per month. This is in addition to one independent attorney who has provided services since program inception. It is estimated that each case takes an average of ten or more hours, including hearings. This evaluator believes that the primary issue preventing all the participants in this study from successfully having their incarceration arrearage waived is there were not enough attorneys to handle the load. The JOLI grant did not allow federal funds to be used for legal services, and WFI, a small nonprofit with limited funds, does not have the significant funds that would be necessary to pay for such services.

Ongoing Challenges – Criminal Justice User Fees The challenges related to criminal justice user fees is two-fold: 1) the criminal justice system is largely funded through user fees charged to those least able to pay them, and 2) competing agencies struggle for the limited amount of available user fees and sometimes resort to scare tactics to collect. User fees fall into two categories: program and service. Program fees typically include fees for supervision and programs that include room and board such as work release. Service fees include fees for pre-sentence investigation, health services, mental health, drug use testing, community service, restitution surcharge, and similar services. Program fees are far more effective in raising revenues that service fees.48

Indiana is one of two states in which probation administration is decentralized as opposed to a statewide system. In Indiana, probation is run by the county court system; therefore, fees and probation rules are determined and enforced locally, making it difficult to collect data and fully understand the impact of program and service fees on the population. Additionally, it is important to understand that Indiana does more split sentencing – remanding a person to jail or prison to be

21

followed by a period of probation – than virtually any other state. Perhaps because Indiana is not a Truth in Sentencing state, many probationers are not on probation in lieu of prison, but as a stipulation after release from prison. This means that Indiana is putting an even greater percentage of ex-offenders back into the community who are required to pay probation fees, increasing the likelihood of failure to pay and further driving up technical rule violations.

The National Institute of Justice publication Recovering Correctional Costs Through Offender Fees, reports on a survey sent to 111 court-based probation agencies in Indiana in which 32 responded. None of the largest counties responded, so the survey is over-representative of smaller counties; moreover, the information presented in the study is now 20 years old. Nonetheless, such descriptive information has value to this discussion. Some 31 of the 32 responding Indiana counties collect user fees. In Indiana, correctional fee collections equaled about 27 percent of the agencies' operating budgets.

In California, the other state with decentralized probation administration, only half of the responding agencies collected user fees, mostly service fees, and those equaled about 4 percent of those agencies' budget. Because Indiana places a particularly strong emphasis on the collection of program fees as opposed to service fees, this likely accounts for the high percentage of probation agency budgets that are supported via user fees. The two states also differ in terms of opposing financial obligations on offenders. In California, restitution is the most common financial obligation with fees being second. In Indiana, that is reversed.

Sanctions used to enforce the payment of fees varies by county; however, in the survey discussed above, 6 of the 26 counties that responded to questions on enforcement of user fee payment use confinement as a method to enforce payment. Moreover, extending supervision and increasing the payment obligation – both of which compound the problem of ex-offenders having few funds available to pay user fees – are commonly used. (See Table 15.)

Ongoing Challenges – Employment WFI staff seeks to remove the community barriers facing formerly incarcerated individuals by developing job opportunities with employers who are willing to hire from the ranks of WFI because of the quality of their workers. WFI welcomes the opportunity for an employee to move to a more permanent job because it indicates that employees they have developed are valued by the community at large. Moreover, that movement then creates a position opening which WFI fills with another otherwise unemployable ex-offender with the expectation that he/she too, will develop into a worker worthy of being hired by another employer.

Lance Collins, a local businessman who volunteers at WFI two or three days a week helping participants with job interview and job search skills, wrote these words to colleagues, "I am emailing you to ask you to consider helping locate employers who will hire people with a criminal record. ... While I realize there is a risk in hiring an ex offender, there is also a great opportunity to acquire talent that is hungry and willing to go above and beyond. Having spent numerous hours with these people, I can tell you first hand that there are some incredibly talented people who simply need a chance to compete." Such spokespersons – individuals with direct experience working with ex-offenders and close ties to the business community – are welcomed by WFI and similar programs.

Table 15 Sanctions Used to Enforce Fee Payment

Sanction CA N=10

IN N=26

Community Service 2 10 Increase Payments 2 6 Extend Supervision 3 19 Confinement 1 11 Other 4 3

Table 15 Sanctions Used to Enforce Fee Payment

Sanction CA N=10

IN N=26

None 3 6 Reprimand 7 18 Community Service 2 10 Increase Payments 2 6 Extend Supervision 3 19 Confinement 1 11 Other 4 3

22

Indiana has recognized that state laws and policies are a contributing factor to the numerous obstacles to employment of ex-offenders. In a June 7, 2010 memo to all state agency heads, Governor Mitch Daniels announced that the Greater Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce, in cooperation with the Annie E. Casey Foundation, will be working with state agencies to inventory and review restrictions in hiring ex-offenders that exist within their agencies. The goal is to assess whether each restriction is tailored to protect public safety as intended or if they "unduly close doors of employment opportunity and work against the goal of successful reintegration."49

CONCLUSIONS

It is hoped that this fresh look at employment restrictions will provide the impetus for change in Indiana.

All social enterprises must balance the inherent conflicts that arise between the business need for efficiency and the demands of enough time to ensure that the social mission of a project is maintained. WFI’s major challenge mirrors that reported by other social enterprises – the implementation of a traditional business that effectively balances on-site case management and employee assistance services with bottom line business results in enterprises that provide environments for human growth. WFI’s program model encompasses the integration of jobs with housing and support services essential for personal development and productive community building. This is new territory, both for the business world and for the workforce development and human service fields. WFI cannot short-change the customer of their products; they must be able to deliver on time and to specifications.

However, as importantly, social enterprises need to ensure that the work they provide leads to real skill development while providing a wide array of support and services that help persons effectively reintegrate into a productive life style. Each side pulls at the other, but WFI continues to work to find a balance between the two.

23

ENDNOTES 1 Pew Center on the States (March 2009). One in 31: The Long Reach of American Corrections.

Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts. 2 Greene, J., & Mauer, M. (March 2010). Downscaling Prisons: Lessons from Four States. The Sentencing

Project: Washington, DC. Available: www.sentencingproject.org/detail/publication.cfm?publication_id=295&id=156.

3 Pew Center on the States. op. cit. 4 Pew Center on the States. op. cit. 5 Garner, A. Indiana Department of Correction, Planning and Research Division. Personal

communication (August 26, 2010). 6 Liedka, R.V., Piehl, A.M., & Useem, B. (2006). The Crime-Control Effect of Incarceration: Does Scale

Matter? Criminology and Public Policy, 5 (2). 7 Releases by County of Commitment: 2009. Indiana Department of Correction. Available:

www.in.gov/idoc/2376.htm. 8 2008 Indianapolis Private Industry Council State of the Workforce. Available:

www.ipic.org/workforce2008/images/State_2008.pdf. 9 Garner, A. Indiana Department of Correction, Planning and Research Division. Personal

communication (April 26, 2010). 10 Maintaining family connections when a family member goes to prison: An examination of state policies

on mail, visiting, and telephone access. (November 1998.) Florida House of Representatives Justice Council Committee on Corrections.

11 Pearson, J. (Winter 2004.) Building Debt While Doing Time: Child Support and Incarceration. Judges Journal, 43 (1); Re-Entry Policy Council. (2004). Report of the Re-Entry Policy Council: Charting the Safe and Successful Return of Prisoners to the Community. American Bar Association; CLASP. (no date). Every Door Closed: Facts about Parents with Criminal Records. Fact Sheet No. 1 of 8.

12 US Department of Health and Human Services. National Child Support Enforcement Strategic Plan 2005-2009. Available: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2004/Strategic_Plan_FY2005-2009.pdf

13 US Department of Health and Human Services. (2006.) Incarceration, Reentry and Child Support Issues.

14 Lambert v. Lambert, No. 32S01-0604-CV-136, 2007 IN Supreme Court. 15 US Department of Labor Welfare to Work program operated by Keys to Work from 1999-2003. 16 Consumer Credit Protection Act. 15 U.S.C. 1673(b). 17 Bartfeld, J. & Meyer, D. (2003). Child support compliance among discretionary and nondiscretionary

obligators. Soc. Serv. Rev. 77: 347; Holzer H.J. & Offner, P. (Winter 2004). The puzzle of Black male unemployment. Publ Int, 74. Holzer, H., Offner, P., & Sorensen, E. (2004). Declining employment among young black less-educated men: The role of incarceration and child support. Urban Institute. Available: www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=411035; I-Fen Lin. (2000). Perceived fairness and compliance with child support obligations. J. Marriage & Fam. 62:388.

18 According to Honorable Judge Jose Salinas, Marion Superior Court 14, Drug Treatment Court, Marion County collects an average of $900 per probationer. With 12,000 probationers annually, that is approximately $12.6 million a year in probation fees to run the court and various other components of the criminal justice system.

19 Marion Superior Court Criminal Rules. LR49-CR00-115. FEES. 20 Farrall, S. (2002). Rethinking What Works with Offenders: Probation, Social Context and Desistance

from Crime. Devon: Willan Publishing; Laub, J.H., and Sampson, R.J. (2001). Understanding Desistance from Crime , Crime and Justice 28(1):1-69; Uggen, C. (2000). Work as a Turning Point in the Life Course of Criminals: A Duration Model of Age, Employment, and Recidivism , American Sociological Review 65(4):529-546; Visher, C.A., and Travis, J. (2003.) Transitions from Prison to Community: Understanding Individual Pathways , Annual Review of Sociology 29: 89-113.

24

21 Local Government Association (2005). Going Straight: Reducing Re-offending in local communities.

London. LGA. 22 Nally, J., Lockwood, S., & Taiping, H. (2008). Indiana Department of Correction. The impact of

employment and education on recidivism. Available: www.in.gov/idoc/files/Impact_of_Education_and_Employment_on_Recidivism.pdf.

23 Holzer, H., Raphael, S., & Stoll, M. Employment Barriers Facing Ex-Offenders. The Urban Institute Reentry Roundtable Discussion Paper. Retrieved online April 14, 2010 from www.waynerawlins.com/downloads/Employment%20Barriers.pdf; Fahey, J., Roberts, C., & Engel, L. (October 31, 2006). Employment of Ex-Offenders: Employer Perspectives. Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety. Retrieved online April 13, 2010 from www.crjustice.org/cji/ex_offenders_employers_12-15-06.pdf;

24 Bushway, S.D., & Sweeten, G. (Nov. 2007). Abolish Lifetime Bans for Ex-Felons. Criminology & Public Policy 6 (4). 697-706.

25 Legal Action Center. (2004). After Prison: Roadblocks to Reentry. Available: http://lac.org/roadblocks-to-reentry.

26 Kennedy, S., & Garcia, C. (2006). Research Report and Preliminary Recommendations: Ex-Offender Transitional Employment Project Workforce, Inc. IUPUI, School of Public and Environmental Affairs. Unpublished manuscript.

27 Ranks of Discouraged Workers and Others Marginally Attached to the Labor Force Rise During Recession. (April 2009). Issues in Labor Statistics. US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

28 Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 2004. 29 Social enterprises are social mission driven organizations which apply market-based strategies to

achieve a social purpose. The movement includes both non-profits that use business models to pursue their mission and for-profits whose primary purposes are social. Their aim – to accomplish targets that are social and or environmental as well as financial – is often referred to as the triple bottom line [People, Planet, Profit]. Many commercial businesses would consider themselves to have social objectives, but social enterprises are distinctive because their social or environmental purpose remains central to their operation. Rather than maximizing shareholder value, the main aim of social enterprises is to generate profit to further their social and or environmental goals. Retrieved online April 14, 2010 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_enterprise.

30 Bloom, D., Rich, S., Recross, C., Jacobs, E., Yahner, J., & Pindus, N. (Oct. 2009). Alternative Welfare-to-Work Strategies for the Hard-to-Employ: Testing Transitional Jobs and Pre-Employment Services in Philadelphia. MDRC; New Evidence for the Efficacy of Transitional Jobs for TANF Recipients and Formerly Incarcerated. (April 2009). National Transitional Jobs Network; Miller, C., Huston, A.C., Duncan, G.J., McLoyd, V.C. & Weisner, T.S. (July 2008). New Hope for the Working Poor: Effects After Eight Years for Families and Children. MDRC; 2004 Comparison Study: An Evaluation that Compares Outcomes for a Multi-Site Transitional Jobs Program with Random Samples of Participants in the Minnesota Family Investment Program (Minnesota's TANF Program) . (Sept. 2004). Lifetrack Resources. EnSearch, Inc. : St. Paul, Minnesota. Available: www.heartlandalliance.org/ntjn/evaluations-of-the-tj-model.html

31 Fahey, J., Roberts, C., & Engel, L. op.cit. 32 Bloom, D. (July 2009). The Joyce Foundation's Transitional Jobs Reentry Demonstration: Testing

Strategies to Help Former Prisoners Find and Keep Jobs and Stay Out of Prison. 33 Fact Card: July 2009. Indiana Department of Correction. Retrieved online April 4, 2010 from

http://www.in.gov/idoc/2376.htm. 34 Keesling, G. Personal communication. (March 30, 2009). 35 Education Division. Indiana Department of Correction. Retrieved online April 4, 2010 from

www.in.gov/idoc/2319.htm. 36 Lambert, E.M. (December 4, 2009). Dropout Prevention: The First Step in Delinquency Prevention.

Presentation at MAINE RISING Juvenile Justice Summit. Available: http://muskie.usm.maine.edu/justiceresearch/JuvenileJusticeTaskForce/Materials.html

25

37 Eckholm, E. (March 20, 2006). Plight Deepens for Black Men, Studies Warn. New York Times.

Available: www.nytimes.com/2006/03/20/national/20blackmen.html?_r=1 38 Swanson, C. (2009). Cities in crisis 2009: Closing the graduation gap. Bethesda, MD: Editorial Projects

in Education Research Center. http://www.americaspromise.org/Our-Work/Dropout-Prevention/~/media/Files/Our%20Work/Dropout%20Prevention/Cities%20in%20Crisis/Cities_In_Crisis_Report_2009.ashx.

39 Indiana Department of Education. (2009). Indiana k-12 Education Data: Marion County. Retrieved on line on April 16, 2010 from http://mustang.doe.state.in.us/SEARCH/s3.cfm.

40 US Department of Health and Human Services. Child Support Enforcement Special Improvement Project grant received by the Sagamore Institute for Policy Research in 2007.

41 Farmer, D. Deputy Chief Probation Officer, Adult Division, Marion Superior Court. Personal communication (April 13, 2010).

42 Although 35 hours per week of paid work is allowed, participants average between 31 and 34 hours because the 5 hours per week of flex time is often not enough for them to meet all the mandates of their parole/probation supervision.

43 Cabrera, L. Personal communication (October 26, 2009). 44 Farmer, D. Deputy Chief Probation Officer, Adult Division, Marion Superior Court. 2009 Marion

Superior Court YTD Probation Discharges. Personal communication (June 3, 2009). 45 Virella, K. (December 3, 2000). Trapped by the System: Parole in America. Retrieved online April 13,

2010 at www.alternet.org/story/10163. 46 Imas, R. & McLean, R. (June/July 2006). Paying Debts to Society. Council of State Governments.

State News, p. 34. 47 Bishop, G. Personal communication (June 4, 2010). 48 Parent, D. (1990). Recovering Correctional Costs Through Offender Fees. Rockville, MD: US

Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. 49 Daniels, M. (June 7, 2010). Memo to State of Indiana Agency Heads: The Obstacles of Employment of

Ex-Offenders.