Return to Nowhere: The Revolving Door Between Incarceration and

PB One Size Fails All: Return to Nowhere One Size Fails All: Return to Nowhere 1

ONE SIZE FAILS ALL

REPORT SERIES

RETURN TO NOWHERE

The Revolving Door Between Incarceration and Homelessness

FEBRUARY 2019

2 One Size Fails All: Return to Nowhere One Size Fails All: Return to Nowhere 3

This series explores the failures of Texas’ criminal justice system to adequately address the needs

of undervalued and marginalized populations, including teenagers and young adults, people with

substance use and mental health issues, the LGBTQ community, people without stable housing

supports, and people with intellectual/developmental disabilities (I/DD). Not only are these

populations failed by the justice system, but Texas families and communities are harmed as more

people are driven into incarceration, and taxpayers are left to foot the bill for unsuccessful policies

and practices. We urge you to join us in calling for reforms that will create healthy, safe, thriving Texas

communities.

The Texas Criminal Justice Coalition advances solutions and builds coalitions to reduce mass

incarceration and foster safer Texas communities.

Criminal Justice Coalition. “Return to Nowhere: The Revolving Door Between Incarceration and Homelessness” is available

from the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition at www.TexasCJC.org.

2 One Size Fails All: Return to Nowhere One Size Fails All: Return to Nowhere 3

ONE SIZE FAILS ALL REPORT SERIES

RETURN TO NOWHERE

The Revolving Door Between

Incarceration and Homelessness

Bailey Gray,

Policy Associate

Doug Smith,

Senior Policy Analyst

Contributor:

Allison Franklin,

Peer Policy Fellow

4 One Size Fails All: Return to Nowhere One Size Fails All: Return to Nowhere 1

Acknowledgments

The Texas Criminal Justice Coalition is deeply appreciative of the following organizations and individuals, who provided

critical information and expertise during the production of this report.

Bexar County Department of Behavioral and Mental Health: Gilbert Gonzales

City of Baltimore, Mayor's Office of Human Services: Hannah Roberts

Downtown Austin Community Court: Pete Valdez

El Paso Coalition for the Homeless: Camille Castillo

Ending Community Homelessness Coalition (ECHO), Austin

Homeless Outreach Street Team (HOST), Austin

Houston Coalition for the Homeless: Ana Rausch, Eva Thibaudeau

Integral Care, Travis County: Tracy Abzug, Lauren Dreyer, Mallory Hakes

Judge Guy Herman Center for Mental Health Crisis Care, Travis County

NAMI Texas: Greg Hansch

South Alamo Regional Alliance for the Homeless: Bill Hubbard

Sunrise Community Church, Austin: Mark Hilbelink

Texans Care for Children: Kate Murphy

Texas Homeless Network

Travis County Sheriff's Office: Daniel Smith

Trinity Center, Austin

***Our Homeless Neighbors***

4 One Size Fails All: Return to Nowhere One Size Fails All: Return to Nowhere 1

Introduction

Shortly aer 9:00 a.m. on most weekdays, a van from the Travis

County State Jail pulls into an alleyway between two homeless

shelters in Austin.

Several men get out of the van holding their life’s

possessions. e van pulls away, and the men are free. ey have no

homes, no jobs, and only the clothes on their backs. Hundreds of

homeless individuals surround the buildings waiting for services.

e alley where the van drops the men is known for open-air drug

use, a tragic consequence of chronic underfunding of substance use

services.

Travis County State Jail sta have made no appointments with local

social services for the men. ose with mental illness or chronic

disease were released with only a few weeks of medication, and they

will have to act quickly to obtain indigent health care. ey will have

to compete with hundreds of other homeless individuals to nd a

bed in a shelter, which must enlist a lottery system to decide who

will remain warm and dry during the night. Most of the men will be

rearrested soon aer release.

is is a normal routine in Austin and other Texas cities. People who

are homeless are far more likely to be arrested, and those who are

arrested are extremely likely to be released back into homelessness.

is report examines the undeniable link between homelessness and

criminal justice system involvement, and the factors that contribute

to both. It oers recommendations to end this chronic pattern—a

pattern that wastes lives and squanders resources that could be better

used to address the factors leading to homelessness.

Another Form of

Incarceraon

“Being homeless is not just

about being deprived of a

roof over your head; it is

about being deprived of a

sense of belonging, a place

within a community, full

parcipaon with a voice

in society. There can be no

doubt that a life dened by

those three bleak words

‘no xed address’ is a life

deprived of the most basic

entlements that most

cizens take so much for

granted. Whether that

homelessness takes the

form of being forced to

sleep on streets and in

doorways and in public

parks; or being placed in

emergency accommodaon

with all the uncertainty

that entails…homelessness

removes so many of the acts

of discreon that dene

freedom.”

Michael D. Higgins,

President of Ireland

2 One Size Fails All: Return to Nowhere One Size Fails All: Return to Nowhere 3

Homelessness and the Justice System

Homelessness and justice system involvement are inextricably linked: People

experiencing homelessness are 11 times more likely to face incarceration when

compared to the general population,

and formerly incarcerated individuals

are almost 10 times more likely to be homeless than the general public.

In fact,

the rate of homelessness among adult state and federal prison inmates is four to six

times the annual rate of homelessness in the general population.

A study conducted with data from a Bureau of Justice Statistics Survey of Inmates

in Local Jails found that 15.3 percent of the U.S. jail population comprised

individuals who had been homeless anytime in the year prior to arrest.

According to the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, nearly 50,000 people

a year enter homeless shelters directly following release from correctional

facilities.

In the United States, individuals and families qualify as homeless under four

federally dened categories: (1) literally homeless, (2) in imminent risk of

homelessness, (3) homeless under federal statutes, and (4) eeing or attempting to

ee domestic violence.

According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development, 408,150 households, or 553,742 individuals, fell into one of these

categories in 2017.

As of January 2018 in Texas, 25,310 individuals qualied as homeless under

these criteria.

Recent data for Austin and greater Travis County, captured on

January 27, 2018, showed a total of 2,147 unsheltered and sheltered individuals

experiencing homelessness.

Race /

Ethnicity

Proporon of

Texas Populaon

Proporon of

Homeless Populaon

White

42% 28.5%

Lano/Hispanic

39.4% 28.2%

Black

12.7% 38.2%

African Americans in Texas are disproportionately impacted by homelessness

—a disturbing trend linked with the overincarceration of people of color in Texas.

While Black individuals comprise only 12.7 percent of the Texas population,

they represent 38.2 percent of the homeless population,

indicating that Black

individuals are overrepresented in the homeless population by three times

their proportion of the Texas population. is rate of disproportionality

exceeds even the overrepresentation of Black individuals in the Texas prison

system. Black individuals comprise 33% of the Texas prison population,

a rate of

disproportionality 2.67 times their share of the Texas population.

Texas Homeless Populaon by Race/Ethnicity

2 One Size Fails All: Return to Nowhere One Size Fails All: Return to Nowhere 3

e rate of homelessness among all

individuals is likely far greater than

current measurement methods can

estimate. Most homeless population

studies are conducted through point-in-

time counts, currently the only national

measure that captures both sheltered and

unsheltered individuals.

ese data do

not include individuals double bunking

or sleeping in public spaces that are not

easily observable. Furthermore, patients

in hospital settings and mental health

or substance abuse treatment centers

are excluded. For the purpose of this

report, individuals who will enter or

reenter a homeless designation upon

release from jail or prison are the most

important variable le out of point-in-

time counts.

Determining the extent to which

homeless individuals enter or leave the

criminal justice system is a challenge.

An open records request to determine

the proportion of Travis County Central

Booking inmates who identied as

homeless was inconclusive, as the Travis

County Sheri ’s Oce database is

incomplete due to faulty or missing information pertaining to this population.

For example, an incarcerated individual may give a false address or refuse to

disclose housing information. is is not uncommon when people are paroled

from Texas correctional facilities. e Texas Department of Criminal Justice

(TDCJ) will not release someone to parole who does not have a veriable address.

Yet, there are only 1,950 state-funded halfway house beds

available to the nearly

37,000 people approved for parole or mandatory supervision release from TDCJ

each year;

a signicant percentage of these individuals will be homeless upon

release. Alternatively, people may provide the address of a jail or emergency shelter

as their current address, which in turn will designate them as “housed.”

e scope of the relationship between homelessness and the criminal justice

system cannot be fully understood without reliable data. But even with the limited

data available, there are inadequate resources and infrastructures in place to serve

the homeless. For those experiencing housing insecurity, waitlists are a major

obstacle: ere are waitlists for emergency shelters, housing options, and case

management opportunities. For many, this results in continuous interactions with

the justice system—a revolving door between incarceration and homelessness.

People at High Risk of Homelessness: U.S. vs. Texas

United States Texas

• 11,094,000 low-income

households in the United

States pay more than half

their income for rent — a

20 percent increase since

2007.

• Of these households, 65

percent live in poverty

and are at greater risk of

becoming homeless.

• For every assisted

household in the U.S.,

twice as many low-

income households are

homeless or pay more

than half their income

for rent and do not

receive any federal rental

assistance due to limited

funding.

Source: United States Fact

Sheet: Federal Rental Assistance

(Washington, D.C.: Center on

Budget and Policy Priories,

2017).

• 841,000 low-income

households in Texas pay

more than half their

income for rent — a 25

percent increase since

2007.

• Of these households, 69

percent live in poverty

and are at greater risk of

becoming homeless.

• For every assisted

household in Texas, three

mes as many low-income

households are homeless

or pay more than half their

income for rent and do

not receive any federal

assistance due to limited

funding.

Source: Texas Fact Sheet: Federal

Rental Assistance (Washington,

D.C.: Center on Budget and

Policy Priories, 2017).

4 One Size Fails All: Return to Nowhere One Size Fails All: Return to Nowhere 5

Upon Entry into the Justice System:

Characteristics and Circumstances

A 2018 report by the Prison Policy Initiative found that rates of

homelessness are especially high among specic demographics, including

individuals who have been incarcerated more than once, individuals

recently released from prison, individuals of color, and women.

Individuals who frequently come into contact with crisis systems,

including shelters, hospitals, and jails, are likely to also experience negative

social determinants of health, which may include poverty, housing

insecurity, unemployment, and social isolation.

Certain demographics that have been associated with both

homelessness and the risk of criminal justice system involvement

include being male, single, of poor economic standing, of an ethnic

minority, and of low education.

Additionally, certain characteristics

such as mental illness, substance use, and lack of employment create

unique challenges that make it dicult for this population to escape the

pattern.

Mental Health Conditions

A national survey of people incarcerated in U.S. adult state and federal

prisons found that those who were homeless at the time of arrest were

more likely to suer from mental health and/or substance use conditions

when compared to their non-homeless counterparts.

In fact, prior to

incarceration, 40 percent of those who were homeless reported use of

mental health services or medications for a mental illness, a proportion

twice that of non-homeless incarcerated individuals.

According to the Ending Community Homelessness Coalition (ECHO),

44 percent of Travis County’s homeless population reported experiencing

mental health issues in 2017. As of June 26, 2018, 689 Travis County

Central Booking inmates were coded as having a psychiatric condition;

nearly 36 percent were homeless at the time of arrest.

Furthermore, 56 percent of Travis County’s homeless population in

2017 reported experiencing trauma and/or abuse in their lifetimes, and

29 percent reported having experienced domestic violence.

Exposure

to trauma is especially prevalent among people with mental illness,

oen leading to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, which decreases health

functioning and increases psychiatric complications.

According to the

above-mentioned national survey, people with mental illness who were

homeless prior to incarceration are two times more likely to have been

exposed to trauma, specically sexual and physical abuse, compared to

those who were not homeless prior to incarceration.

People with mental

illness are also far more likely to be exposed to trauma while incarcerated,

Greg Hansch,

Public Policy

Director for the

Naonal Alliance

on Mental

Illness (NAMI)

Texas, believes

homelessness is

oen the result of

a mental-illness-

to-homelessness

pipeline.

According to

NAMI, two million

individuals with

mental illness are

booked into U.S.

jails each year. Of

those individuals,

nearly 15 percent

of men and 30

percent of women

have a serious

mental health

condion.

4 One Size Fails All: Return to Nowhere One Size Fails All: Return to Nowhere 5

particularly sexual abuse,

creating a vicious cycle of cascading physical and

mental health issues that neither correctional institutions nor homeless service

providers are adequately equipped to handle.

Substance Use

e rate of substance abuse for jail inmates was found to be 2.4 to 3.7 times higher

than the general population’s rate of abuse. While mental illness and substance use

are both indicators of an increased risk of homelessness, substance use is arguably

more telling.

Some studies have demonstrated that alcohol and drug use are the

primary factors driving homeless individuals with mental illness into the criminal

justice system, many of whom are using drugs and alcohol to self-medicate

untreated mental illness.

A study analyzing individuals in the San Francisco County Jail system found that

78 percent of incarcerated people who were homeless at the time of arrest were

signicantly more likely to receive a psychiatric diagnosis and a diagnosis of a co-

occurring substance-related disorder; and 78 percent of those with a severe mental

illness also had a co-occurring substance use disorder compared to 69 percent of

those with a severe mental illness who were not homeless.

ere is also a strong

association between one’s history of imprisonment and substance use. Per another

San Francisco study, 93.1 percent of homeless and marginally homeless individuals

with a history of imprisonment reported drug use during their lifetime.

According to ECHO’s 2017 Needs and Gaps Report, 60 percent of Travis County’s

homeless population reported having had an issue with drugs and alcohol at some

point in their lifetime, and 17 percent reported consuming drugs and/or alcohol

every day, or almost every day, for the past month.

6 One Size Fails All: Return to Nowhere One Size Fails All: Return to Nowhere 7

Employment and Income

Adults in poverty make up approximately 11 percent of the population, yet

they are three times more likely to be arrested than adults above the poverty

line. Furthermore, individuals with incomes less than 150 percent of the federal

poverty guidelines are about four times more likely to be charged with a felony

than the average person, and 15 times more likely to be charged with a felony than

those with incomes higher than 150 percent of the federal poverty guidelines. At

least a third of the U.S. inmate population falls under the poverty threshold at

the time of arrest, making them more likely to be charged with a felony and more

susceptible to homelessness upon their release,

especially given the challenges of

nding stable housing with a felony record.

Researchers have found that being employed at the time of arrest reduces

the odds by half of becoming homeless following release.

An income

provides not only a suitable place to live but also the ability to pay tickets and

nes for misdemeanor oenses, which are commonly levied on the homeless

population. ese oenses include Class C misdemeanors that criminalize acts

of homelessness, including panhandling, camping, sitting and/or lying in public

spaces, loitering, or sleeping in a vehicle.

e inability to pay nes and legal debts

can lead to the arrest and jailing of individuals for nonviolent oenses—commonly

known as debtors’ prisons.

According to ECHO’s 2017 Needs and Gaps Report, 67 percent of Travis

County’s homeless population reported they cannot access employment or

do not have earned income, and 36 percent reported having unresolved legal

issues, which could result in incarceration or legal nes.

Currently, in order

to aord the fair market rent for a two-bedroom home, Texas households must

6 One Size Fails All: Return to Nowhere One Size Fails All: Return to Nowhere 7

earn $19.32 an hour, working 40 hours a week for 52 weeks a year, to avoid

putting more than 30 percent of their income towards rent (the generally accepted

standard for aordable rent). In Travis County, in order to aord the fair market

rent for a two-bedroom home, residents must earn $24.06 an hour, working 40

hours a week for 52 weeks a year, to avoid putting more than 30 percent of their

income towards rent.

Criminalization of Homelessness

For the homeless population, the majority of justice system interactions are for

nonviolent oenses that should not lead to incarceration. Homeless men and

women are frequently arrested for minor crimes that are a direct result of their

housing status, including Class C misdemeanor oenses such as panhandling,

camping, sitting and/or lying in public spaces, loitering, sleeping in a vehicle,

burglary of a vehicle, breaking and entering, trespassing, and shopliing. ese

acts are oen attempts to acquire shelter, food, or medical assistance as a means of

survival. Beginning in 2010, an ongoing national survey has found that the main

oenses for which homeless individuals are cited and arrested include sleeping in

public, sitting and/or lying down, and loitering.

A Bureau of Justice Statistics local jail survey revealed that incarcerated individuals

who had experienced an episode of homelessness or were actively homeless at the

time of arrest were signicantly more likely to be incarcerated for a property crime

than for a violent crime.

Survey data derived from adult state and federal prisons

echoed the same nding: those who were homeless prior to incarceration were

signicantly more likely than others to be incarcerated for a property crime, not a

drug-related or violent crime.

One study in Austin found that homeless men comprised 4 percent of all

arrests for violent oenses and less than 10 percent of arrests for all violent and

property crimes. Yet, these very men accounted for roughly 40 percent of all

arrests involving minor oenses such as drug-related oenses, city ordinances,

trespassing, and disorderly conduct. is data exposed an arrest rate for homeless

men nearly ve times that of the rate for men in the general population. However,

the majority of all arrests, minor or not, were for oenses in which there was no

reported victim.

ose in support of homeless ordinances view them as a means to protect the

public interest. However, homeless ordinances are ineective, expensive,

and a violation of one’s civil and human rights.

For those directly aected,

in the words of one individual with lived experience, “Laws that criminalize

homelessness are policies of entrapment; we may have rights given by God, but we

do not have any statutorily speaking.”

A 2017 audit by the City of Austin found that from fall 2013 to fall 2016, law

enforcement issued 18,000 citations for panhandling, camping, and sitting or lying

in unauthorized areas. According to the Downtown Austin Community Court

8 One Size Fails All: Return to Nowhere One Size Fails All: Return to Nowhere 9

(DACC), in 90 percent of these cases, individuals failed to appear in court and/or

pay the associated nes, resulting in arrest warrants for nearly 72 percent.

ese

warrants impede employment and housing opportunities, further increasing the

chances that these individuals will experience—or continue experiencing—poverty,

homelessness, and incarceration.

Homeless Ordinances Naonwide: A Review from 2011 to 2014

Camping in Public

34% of cies prohibit city-wide

A 60% increase

Camping in Parcular Public Places

34% of cies prohibit city-wide

A 60% increase

Begging in Public

24% of cies prohibit city-wide

A 25% increase

Begging in Parcular Public Places

76% of cies prohibit city-wide

A 20% increase

Loitering in Public

33% of cies prohibit city-wide

A 35% increase

Sing or Lying Down in Parcular Public

Places

53% of cies prohibit city-wide

A 43% increase

Sleeping in Vehicles

43% of cies prohibit city-wide

A 119% increase

Source: No Safe Place: The Criminalizaon

of Homelessness in U.S. Cies (Washington,

D.C.: The Naonal Center on Homelessness &

Poverty, 2014).

Formerly incarcerated individuals experiencing homelessness are particularly

vulnerable to continued justice system involvement. For instance, they are at

high risk of reincarceration for failure to abide by the conditions of probation

or parole due to lack of transportation, inability to maintain a stable address,

lost or stolen property such as cell phones, and diculty meeting regularly with

supervision ocers. e transition from incarceration to stability for homeless

individuals is exacerbated by a lack of identication, social security cards, and

birth certicates, making it extremely dicult to nd stable employment or access

public assistance.

Formerly incarcerated homeless individuals who are arrested due to homeless

ordinances have particular diculty aording bail and are typically ineligible for

personal recognizance bonds due to their criminal records. ese individuals

also may have a decient support system due to decreased community and family

ties and stigmatization from law enforcement personnel and the public. Pete

Valdez, court administrator for DACC, believes opportunities must be created

for the public to disprove the negative perception the community has of its

homeless population, and law enforcement should act as a negotiating tool to help

individuals avoid incarceration at all costs.

8 One Size Fails All: Return to Nowhere One Size Fails All: Return to Nowhere 9

Upon Release from Jail or Prison:

Challenges and Considerations

Upon release from incarceration, homeless individuals experience obstacles to

employment, housing, medical treatment, and nancial security, all of which

impact their mental and physical well-being. A criminal record, the disclosure of

criminal convictions on employment applications, criminal background checks

for employment and housing, and the loss of a driver’s license as a result of unpaid

nes or certain convictions are all obstacles to equal opportunity.

Lack of education creates an additional barrier to reentry. Nearly 70 percent of the

U.S. incarcerated population is functioning at the lowest literacy rates, and only

32 percent of those in state prisons received a high school diploma.

Currently,

it is estimated that roughly 80 percent of Travis County’s Del Valle Correctional

Complex population lacks a high school diploma.

Typically, a formerly homeless individual will be released back into homelessness

following incarceration, but oen these individuals are released into unfamiliar

settings or circumstances. ose who were released back into homelessness

describe the reentry process as “horric.”

ese individuals face a myriad of

challenges and persistent risk factors common to incarceration and homelessness,

including medical, social, and behavioral health conditions. Poverty also has been

found to have a signicant eect on one’s cognitive functioning, which impacts

decision-making, priorities, and associations.

10 One Size Fails All: Return to Nowhere One Size Fails All: Return to Nowhere 11

Similarly, individuals experiencing housing insecurity and homelessness are

exposed to mental distress simply trying to meet their basic needs for safety,

shelter, and food. It is traumatic to have to answer daily such basic questions

as “where will I sleep tonight” and “when will I be able to eat again.” It is not

surprising that people living in homelessness have extreme diculty achieving

stability. Gilbert Gonzales, director of Bexar County Department of Behavioral

and Mental Health, believes these challenges are most profound for the mentally

ill, as the stigma of their incarceration compounds the stigma associated with

mental health issues.

Barriers to housing and shelter are immense. e United States has lost roughly

13 percent of its low-income housing since 2001, a shortage felt most by those on

the cusp of homelessness who must compete for the remaining aordable units.

In Austin and greater Travis County, the fastest growing metropolitan area in the

country with an average of 151 new residents each day, the barriers are amplied.

As more and more residents ood the housing market, viable options for

formerly incarcerated homeless individuals are challenging to locate.

Under federal law, only two types of applicants must be barred from federally

subsidized housing programs: those found to have manufactured or produced

methamphetamine on the premises, and those convicted of a sex oense in need

of lifetime registration requirements. But other applicants may be barred from

housing, and public housing authorities—the local administrators of federal

housing programs—have broad discretion when it comes to applicants with

criminal convictions. Many public housing authorities use overly restrictive

policies when determining applicant eligibility, with some prohibiting anyone with

even a minor criminal record from receiving assistance.

is leaves homeless

individuals with a criminal conviction with even fewer feasible housing options.

10 One Size Fails All: Return to Nowhere One Size Fails All: Return to Nowhere 11

Release to Nowhere: Three Days of Terrifying Freedom

Being released from state jail or prison is a day most people ancipate with excitement. Others,

especially people who face homelessness, are gripped by fear and anxiety about where they will go

and how they will survive once released. Allison recounts the story of one woman being released from

state jail:

“She was scared to get out. She had just done six months on a felony prostuon charge. Her pimp

had taken her to a dierent city to ‘hit licks’ (commit the) and she was arrested. He didn’t bond her

out or put any money on her commissary account. On her day of release from state jail, the Texas

Department of Criminal Jusce dropped her o at the bus staon with a cket back to the county

where she was arrested, not her hometown.

When she got o the bus, she had no money, no clothes, no food, no place to go. She went to the

shelter and it was rst-come-rst-serve and had no beds. She immediately went to ‘turn a trick’ just

to meet her basic needs. She said that she couldn’t stand to sleep with strangers for money without

geng high and found all the wrong people rather quickly: ‘They all hang around the bus staon,

it’s all right there.’ She was ‘free’ for only three days before being arrested again for prostuon and

possession of a controlled substance less than a gram. She returned to state jail, only to be released

again to the same situaon.”

It is not uncommon for an individual to be released from a correctional facility

into a metropolitan or rural area that they have limited knowledge about.

is makes it dicult to nd a place to sleep, resources, or medical care. In an

interview, one individual with lived experience encouraged his peers to look to

other homeless individuals for help: “You’ll get more resource information from

the streets than you will from the system.”

Information may include where to

nd a safe and legal place to sleep, a warm meal, clothing, identication recovery

assistance, case management opportunities, safe storage for personal documents,

and/or coordinated entry stations. Making this type of information available

would better prepare individuals for a successful reintegration upon release from

incarceration.

Release to Nowhere

Nearly 25,000 people are discharged from Texas prisons and state jails each year.

Unlike parole, where individuals must have an approved housing plan prior to

release, people who discharge their sentences are no longer under court or parole

supervision. Many, especially those who were homeless at the time of arrest, will

be released directly into homelessness.

12 One Size Fails All: Return to Nowhere One Size Fails All: Return to Nowhere 13

Recommendations

A Collaborative Approach to Addressing Homelessness and

Improving Stability

e incarceration of our nation’s homeless population is costly and disruptive. e

U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness estimates that chronic homelessness

costs the public anywhere from $30,000 to $50,000 per homeless person per year

when crisis system interactions are taken into consideration.

Eva ibaudeau,

vice president of programs for the Houston Coalition for the Homeless, believes

that incarceration, when it occurs, should be about rehabilitation, and that we

should continue to invest in reentry and housing support following incarceration.

But overall, criminalizing homelessness is costlier to taxpayers than alternative

courses of action that divert individuals from incarceration altogether.

e allocation of resources into a multidisciplinary approach has the potential to

yield societal benets over and above long-term cost savings, including increased

sense of community, public safety, and reduced suering for those stuck in

the cycle of repeated homelessness and criminal justice system involvement.

Researchers at Portland State University found that for every dollar invested in

helping individuals who were homeless and involved in the justice system, $13

in savings in crime and justice system costs resulted.

Despite up-front and

ongoing operational costs for the comprehensive programming needed, helping our

homeless population is much less expensive than the alternative.

Participants at a national Police Executive Research Forum conference

acknowledged that availability of services and assistance for the homeless in the

community attracts more homeless individuals to their jurisdictions; this reveals a

dire need for help among homeless individuals, while also increasing pressure on

local police departments and partner agencies.

But homelessness is not solely the

problem of the local police department, the housing authority, or homeless service

providers. Homelessness is a public health problem shared by all—and, as such,

it necessitates a multidisciplinary collaborative approach to solving it.

An optimal system is an interconnected, collaborative, treatment-based,

information-sharing, supportive system of care that tracks outcome

measures and responds to all aspects throughout a person’s lifetime. e

most comprehensive picture will be gained only through data collection and

shared metrics across workforce, housing, criminal justice, social service, and

other systems. is will enable a thorough tracking of individuals’ needs and

service usage, in turn allowing a true analysis of their outcomes and informing

resource investments. Similarly, the inclusion of measures pertaining to mortality,

hospitalization, suicide, substance abuse, and mental health issues can esh out the

full picture of a person’s needs—and larger community and state needs.

12 One Size Fails All: Return to Nowhere One Size Fails All: Return to Nowhere 13

is multidisciplinary approach will demand increased capacity on all fronts—

not only for data sharing systems, but for additional programs and services that

address the primary drivers of homelessness and justice system involvement:

substance use and mental illness. Recovery supports should include certied peer

specialists, case management, shelter beds, and outreach and diversion teams.

Every year in Travis County, 7,000 people experience homelessness.

e need

for services is great, but the current capacity is lacking. For example, DACC has

an innovative, successful approach to case management, but they currently have a

waitlist of 120 people.

is is an issue throughout Texas that we must address – so

as to ultimately see fewer jail bed days and signicant, associated cost savings.

Also in need of addressing: e City of Austin’s iTeam reports that not all agencies

have access to the same data in Texas’ Homeless Management Information System

(HMIS), and agencies are using two to three other databases to track their data in

addition to the HMIS.

Further, jails and prisons do not have access to the HMIS,

and it is impossible to determine how many people enter or leave correctional

institutions without a place to live.

Data sharing would allow us to measure how pervasive criminal records are

for the homeless and the extent to which individuals are cycling in and out

of local and state correctional facilities. It would also allow us to track shelter

stays and service provision, both prior to incarceration and upon release. Again,

this information will allow state and local ocials to determine where best to (re)

allocate resources to improve people’s outcomes, increase eciency, and boost

community health and safety.

In addition to embracing a collaborative approach to this multidisciplinary problem,

the following recommendations can help end the cycle of homelessness and criminal

justice system involvement.

1. Local ocials should eliminate ordinances that over-criminalize the

homeless.

Texas cities should immediately review and eliminate harmful ordinances

that unfairly target homeless individuals, including panhandling, camping,

sitting and/or lying in public spaces, loitering, and sleeping in a vehicle.

e ne for violating such an ordinance can create an insurmountable

nancial burden, while arrests result in homeless individuals spending

time in jail—further impeding their ability to obtain housing and

employment.

2. Local ocials should reduce restrictions on alternative housing for

parolees.

Alternative housing is a transitional living option for individuals leaving

a correctional facility on parole. Current restrictions determine who may

be an alternative housing provider, as well as where the facilities may be

14 One Size Fails All: Return to Nowhere One Size Fails All: Return to Nowhere 15

located. For example, Houston passed an ordinance in 2018 that imposed

new regulations and inspections to improve the safety conditions of such

facilities, but it also required that they be located at least 1,000 feet from

parks, schools, day cares, and other reentry housing, which will force

parolees out of the city center and further from needed supports.

e stigma that makes transitional housing undesirable must be changed;

isolation is not the answer. Where we house recently released individuals

has a direct impact on their ability to create positive change in their

own lives. Without proper access to a bus stop, it is dicult for one to

apply for housing and employment, reach service providers who assist with

identication recovery and benet restoration, or meet the requirements

of their parole. Relaxing alternative housing restrictions will generate more

opportunities for recently released individuals to take responsibility in

becoming independent, self-sustaining members of society.

3. Local and state ocials should increase community-based, wrap-

around housing options with a Housing First orientation.

Supportive housing, under a Housing First approach, is more than just

providing a roof over someone’s head. A Housing First approach provides

wrap-around services such as case management, medication management,

social support, and peer services. e implementation and provision of

services to homeless individuals is most successful when it incorporates

those with lived experience; we should not over-professionalize service

provision and neglect the point of view of those who have actually

experienced homelessness and incarceration.

Programs using a Housing First approach have housing retention rates

ranging from 85 to 90 percent among individuals experiencing chronic

homelessness, co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders,

and repeated incarceration and interaction with the criminal justice

system.

While “treatment rst” models have recidivism rates of roughly

50 percent, “Housing First” models have rates between 12 and 14 percent.

4. The State should automatically restore benets to people who have

been incarcerated, and correctional facilities should provide benet

enrollment assistance prior to release from incarceration.

As individuals enter the criminal justice system, they are screened with

mental and behavioral health assessments. ey should also be screened

for eligibility and current enrollment for benets including Supplemental

Security Income (SSI), Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI),

Medicaid, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Temporary

Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and veteran’s benets.

Incarceration may result in the suspension and/or termination of certain

benets. For example, SSI benets are suspended for individuals who are

14 One Size Fails All: Return to Nowhere One Size Fails All: Return to Nowhere 15

incarcerated for longer than a full calendar month, and they are terminated

aer 12 months of incarceration. SSDI benets, on the other hand, are

suspended if recipients are convicted of a crime and incarcerated for

more than 30 consecutive days, but are not terminated aer 12 months

of incarceration.

In terms of Medicaid coverage, states vary in their

consideration of incarceration. As of July 2016, 16 states plus Washington,

DC, suspended Medicaid for the duration of incarceration; 15 states

suspended Medicaid for a specic period of time; and 19 terminated

coverage altogether.

Texas suspends coverage for 30 days, aer which

benets are terminated.

Initiating benet enrollment prior to release

through application assistance can ease the transition back into the

community.

All criminal justice facilities in Texas should take advantage of

programs that help people experiencing homelessness enroll in or

restore benets. ose experiencing homelessness are oen eligible for

benets, but they either are not enrolled or require assistance with the

application process. ese individuals may lack transportation, a mailing

address, and/or access to a computer with internet access. Due to these

challenges, many experiencing homelessness do not complete their

application, experience longer processing times, or receive denials. Also

problematic, a new application does not guarantee that benets will be

reinstated aer being terminated as a result of incarceration. In Texas,

the success rate for initial SSI/SSDI applications is 67 percent. When

homeless individuals submit a traditional application without assistance,

the approval rate falls to 28 percent.

SSI/SSDI Outreach, Access, and

Recovery (SOAR) is crucial in helping individuals compile the forms

and documentation needed for an application to be approved. As of

2015, criminal justice facilities in 20 states used SOAR specialists to help

individuals experiencing or at risk of homelessness complete applications.

5. Correctional facilities should reduce inappropriate discharges from

incarceration.

Inappropriate discharges occur when an individual is released from a

correctional facility without proper knowledge of where to receive services.

Oen, discharges occur in the middle of the night, and the individual

is unaware of the public transportation in place, medication continuity

instructions, and other vital information. Discharges in evening hours are

a public safety concern, especially for individuals at risk of destabilizing o

their medications.

16 One Size Fails All: Return to Nowhere One Size Fails All: Return to Nowhere 17

6. The State and correctional facilities should augment reentry

supports to ensure people leaving incarceration are on the most

successful path.

To reduce homelessness among people leaving connement, reentry

preparation should begin early, and it must include processes for

determining whether someone was experiencing homelessness prior

to incarceration and the likelihood that they will return to those

circumstances upon release. It should also have the capacity to evaluate

the social support networks in place, legal considerations, and obstacles

to successful reintegration and personal well-being. Most importantly,

correctional institutions should have access to community-based housing

resources to ensure that no one is released from jail, state jail, or prison

without a temporary housing placement.

For people specically discharged from state jail or prison without parole

supervision, reentry preparation is especially important. ese individuals

are not required to have a housing plan, and they are not eligible for one

of the few state-funded beds at residential reentry centers. is lack of

reentry support for the nearly 30,000 people discharging state jail or prison

sentences in Texas each year greatly increases their odds of re-arrest –

especially among people who are homeless at the time of release.

e State should establish and fund partnerships with nonprot

agencies that provide peer support, housing support, recovery support,

and vocational training to people discharging state jail or prison

sentences. ese nonprots could provide reentry planning, assistance

nding temporary housing upon release, and peer navigation where people

with lived experience of incarceration and successful reentry can help

newly released individuals achieve similar success.

16 One Size Fails All: Return to Nowhere One Size Fails All: Return to Nowhere 17

Endnotes

1. TCJC sta learned that a van from a local jail or prison

regularly dropped o people released that day in the alleyway

between the Salvation Army and the Austin Resource Center

for the Homeless in Travis County. Aer numerous calls and

interviews, we learned that the van came from Travis County

State Jail, and an interview with state jail sta conrmed

that this is the drop-o routine for those who are homeless

(December 14, 2018).

2. Legislative Budget Board, Statewide Criminal and Juvenile

Justice Recidivism and Revocation (January 2017).

3. National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, Housing

Not Handcus: Ending the Criminalization of Homelessness in

U.S. Cities (Washington, D.C.), 19.

4. National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, Housing

Not Handcus: Ending the Criminalization of Homelessness in

U.S. Cities (Washington, D.C.), 19.

5. Lucius Couloute, Nowhere to Go: Homelessness Among

Formerly Incarcerated People (Prison Policy Initiative, August

2018) https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/housing.html.

6. Greg A. Greenberg and Robert A. Rosenheck, “Homelessness

in the State and Federal Prison Population,” Criminal

Behaviour and Mental Health 18, no. 2 (March 2008): 88–103.

7. Greg A. Greenberg and Robert A. Rosenheck, “Jail

Incarceration, Homelessness, and Mental Health: A National

Study,” Psychiatric Services 59, no. 2 (February 2008): 170–177.

8. United States Interagency Council on Homelessness,

Connecting People Returning from Incarceration with Housing

and Homelessness Assistance (Washington, D.C.: March 2016),

9. Community Planning and Development, U.S. Department of

Housing and Urban Development, Homelessness Assistance,

https://www.hud.gov/program_oces/comm_planning/

homeless.

10. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD

2017 Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance Programs

Homeless Populations and Subpopulations (Washington, D.C.:

2017), 1.

11. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD

2018 Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance Programs

Homeless Populations and Subpopulations: Texas (Washington,

D.C.: 2018), 1, https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/

reportmanagement/published/CoC_PopSub_State_TX_2018.

pdf.

12. Ending Community Homelessness Coalition, Homelessness in

Austin/Travis County: 2018 Annual Count Results and Plan to

End Homelessness (Austin: 2018), 1.

13. United States Census Bureau, Quick Facts Texas, https://www.

census.gov/quickfacts/tx.

14. HUD, HUD 2018 Continuum, 1.

15. Texas Department of Criminal Justice, FY 2017 Statistical

Report, p. 1, http://www.tdcj.texas.gov/documents/Statistical_

Report_FY2017.pdf.

16. National Alliance to End Homelessness, Resources, What Is a

Point-in-Time Count? https://endhomelessness.org/resource/

what-is-a-point-in-time-count/.

17. National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, Don’t Count

on It: How the HUD Point-in-Time Count Underestimates the

Homelessness Crisis in America (Washington, D.C.: 2017), 6.

18. Travis County Central Booking, open records request, July

18, 2018.

19. Legislative Budget Board, General Appropriations Act for the

2018–19 Biennium, 85th Texas Legislature Regular Session,

2017, V-8, http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/Documents/GAA/

General_Appropriations_Act_2018-2019.pdf.

20. Texas Board of Pardons and Parole, Annual Statistical Report,

FY 2017, 5, 9, http://www.tdcj.texas.gov/bpp/publications/

FY%202017%20AnnualStatistical%20Report.pdf.

21. Couloute, Nowhere to Go.

22. Corporation for Supportive Housing, On the Ground Floor:

Housing First Frequent Users of Health Systems Initiative

(February 2017), https://d155kunxf1aozz.cloudfront.net/wp-

content/uploads/2017/02/CSH-Virtual-Roundtable_HRSA.

pdf.

23. Greenberg and Rosenheck, “Jail Incarceration,” 170.

24. Greenberg and Rosenheck, “Jail Incarceration,” 176.

25. Greenberg and Rosenheck, “Homelessness,” 95.

26. Danny Smith, director of Inmate Mental Health, Counseling,

and Education Services, email, June 26, 2018.

27. Ending Community Homelessness Coalition, Homelessness

in Austin/Travis County: Current Needs and Gaps Report

[DRAFT] (Austin, TX: 2017), 8.

28. Grubaugh, A., et. al, “Trauma Exposure and Posttraumatic

Stress Disorder in Adults with Severe Mental Illness,” Clinical

Psychology Review, 31, (2011), p. 884.

29. Greenberg and Rosenheck, “Jail Incarceration,” 173.

See also: Greenberg and Rosenheck, “Homelessness,” 95.

30. Crisanti, Annette & Frueh, Christopher, “Risk of Trauma

Exposure Among People with Mental Illness in Jails and

Prisons: What Do We Really Know?” Current Opinion on

Psychiatry, (2011) 24, 431.

31. Greg A. Greenberg and Rosenheck, “Jail Incarceration,” 176.

32. Andrew M. Fox, Philip Mulvey, Charles Max Katz, and

Michael Shafer, “Untangling the Relationship Between Mental

Health and Homelessness Among a Sample of Arrestees,”

Crime and Delinquency 62, no. 5 (May 2016): 592–613.

33. Dale E. McNiel, Renee L. Binder, and Jo C. Robinson,

“Incarceration Associated with Homelessness, Mental

Disorder, and Co-Occurring Substance Abuse,” Psychiatric

Services 56, no. 7 (July 2005): 840–846.

34. Margot B. Kushel, Judith A. Hahn, Jennifer L. Evans, David

R. Bangsberg, and Andrew R. Moss, “Revolving Doors:

Imprisonment Among the Homeless and Marginally Housed

Population,” American Journal of Public Health 95, no. 10

(2005): 1747–1752.

35. Ending Community Homelessness Coalition, Homelessness, 8.

36. Erica J. Hashimoto, “Class Matters,” Journal of Criminal Law

and Criminology 101, no. 1 (2013).

37. Greenberg and Rosenheck, “Jail Incarceration,” 175.

38. e National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, No

Safe Place: e Criminalization of Homelessness in U.S. Cities

(Washington, D.C.: 2014), 7.

39. Racial Justice Program, “Debtors’ Prisons,” American Civil

Liberties Union, 2018, https://www.aclu.org/issues/racial-

justice/race-and-criminal-justice/debtors-prisons.

40. Ending Community Homelessness Coalition, Homelessness,

41. Andrew Aurand, Dan Emmanuel, Diane Yentel, Ellen Errico,

Jared Gaby-Biegel, and Emma Kerr, Out of Reach: e High

Cost of Housing (Washington, D.C.: National Low-Income

Housing Coalition, 2018), 228.

42. Western Regional Advocacy Project, National Civil Rights

Outreach Fact Sheet (San Francisco, CA: 2015), 1.

18 One Size Fails All: Return to Nowhere One Size Fails All: Return to Nowhere 19

43. Greenberg and Rosenheck, “Jail Incarceration,” 175.

44. Greenberg and Rosenheck, “Homelessness,” 98.

45. David A. Snow, Susan G. Baker, and Leon Anderson,

“Criminality and Homeless Men: An Empirical Assessment,”

Social Problems 36, no. 5 (Dec. 1989): 536.

46. Housing Not Handcus, 22.

47. Unidentied individual with lived experience, interview, June

27, 2018.

48. Oce of the City Auditor, Homelessness Assistance Audit

Series: City Policies Related to Homelessness (Austin, TX: City

of Austin, 2017), 4, https://www.austinmonitor.com/wp-

content/uploads/2017/11/homeless-audit.pdf.

49. Pete Valdez, interview, June 6, 2018.

50. Hannah Roberts and Joe Spielberger, Journey to Jobs:

Understanding and Eliminating Barriers Imposed on

Homeless Jobseekers, e Journey Home, http://www.

journeyhomebaltimore.org/journey-to-jobs/.