California’s adult prison population bulges out of the state’s 33 adult institutions, which are at almost 200 percent capacity.  Approximately 175,000 individuals are housed in California prisons, and the rate of incarceration in the state, like that of the rest of the nation, is not dropping.  At this point, California stakeholders are all too aware of the urgency of instituting some kind of change to ensure that the cramped prison conditions are alleviated while public safety is respected.  In fact, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) is presently engaged in extensive litigation in federal court, in which District Court Judge Thelton Henderson is threatening to place the California prison system into a federal receivership, as he did to the prison health care system in October 2005 [1].  Should the overcrowding continue, consequences such as triple-bunking, use of gymnasiums as sleeping areas and limited prisoner movement and programming could be found in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

California is the most populous state in the U.S.  It also has the greatest number of prisoners, though its total rate of incarceration is below the national average.  As of mid 2005, California incarcerated approximately 682 individuals per 100,000, while the United States as a whole puts 738 people into jail or prison for every 100,000 of its residents [2].  Its prison population, however, sits slightly above the national average; California imprisons 456 people per 100,000 into its 33 state prisons.  The rate for the nation as a whole is 432 per 100,000.

California’s 2006 budget includes approximately $9 billion for corrections.  Despite the enormous cost, few California prisoners participate in relevant treatment programs compared to other states [3]. Overcrowding also places severe restrictions on prisoner movement, limiting inmate access to available rehabilitative or educational programs.  Complicating the matter further, though 21 percent of California prisoners are classified as minimum risk and the majority are medium risk, those classifications are disregarded through administrative override in a quarter of housing assignments due to the population pressure [4].  Inmates may be moved to higher-security facilities despite classification scores that indicate the level of security is unnecessary.  Inmates in high-security settings have less opportunity to participate in work or treatment programs.

Meanwhile, California’s parole system flounders under a 67 percent recidivism rate, or double the rate of the nation.  Virtually all California prisoners will be placed on a three-year period of parole upon release from prison.  While the CDCR is attempting to initiate an assessment project that will begin in the early days of a prisoner’s sentence, identify relevant treatment needs and better prepare them for release by providing all departing inmates with a plan and description of available services in the area of their parole, the project has been slow to start.  Most inmates receive nothing more than a bus ticket, $200, and an address for their local parole center where they must appear for an initial face-to-face meeting with their assigned parole agent.  In spite of the fact that more than 65 percent of parolees are classified as requiring low parole supervision, 67 percent of all parolees in California return to prison on parole violations within the three years of their parole term.

Thus, California’s whirlpool correctional system perpetuates itself with a seemingly endless commitment to cycling people in and out of the system with no effective effort to change the inmates or the system in which they are caught, a system that neither benefits the inmates nor the communities they endlessly cycle through.  Unless changes are made to interrupt this whirlpool, California’s corrections systems will be removed from state administration or, worse, conditions inside prisons will result in eruptions of mass violence.

There is no question that reentering society after a period of confinement is a difficult endeavor.  Studies of California parole and parolees demonstrate the challenges facing reentering individuals: parolees suffer a systemic discrimination when it comes to accessing stable housing, employment, and education due to laws and regulations prohibiting employers, housing agencies and financial aid lenders to engage with ex-offenders.

In the last several years, reentry has become a buzzword used by corrections stakeholders and government officials to describe an old proposition that community groups have pursued for years.  This recognition of the importance of the reentry process is appreciated by these groups, who find themselves positioned to describe their programs’ successes and challenges, their modalities and the features they believe form the foundation of safe reentry.  Along with the recognition, these community groups hope that increased funding of reentry projects will allow them to expand and improve their programs to reach more reentering individuals in their communities.

Since 1992, the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice has operated one of these programs, appropriately named the Supportive Living Program (SLP).  Initially started with six beds for men and four beds for women, the SLP was forced early on to abandon its female beds due to early contract requirements limiting access to the program to people just released from prison.  Female inmates from a northern California prison were not being released often enough to keep the beds full.  Since the early days, the program has expanded to two facilities housing 16 men.  The participants may be at any point of their parole, from immediate prison release to the tail end of their three-year term.

SLP is the a member of the Bay Area Parole Service Network, a collaborative project funded by the CDCR to reduce the number of parolees returned to prison for parole violations.  The brainchild of Abu Qadir Al-Amin, Associate Director of CJCJ and the Director of the program, SLP provides substance and alcohol abuse treatment in a residential setting that demands strict accountability and self-reliance of its participants.  The SLP model responds to the consequences of lengthy and numerous prison stays.  The over-institutionalization of drug addicted individuals for related offenses leads to an over-dependence on external systems, which enables unhealthy individuals to proceed through life without accepting responsibility for creating their own livelihoods.

Mr. Al-Amin experienced the challenges of reentry first hand, and over the years, many of the case managers staffing the residential program have also been ex-offenders.  Staff of SLP are clinically trained and licensed in drug and alcohol counseling, but their understanding of the dangers and effects of substance abuse often predates their training.  While the completion of a prison sentence, parole term or drug treatment is not a requirement of employment, the experiential empathy of the staff complements the model utilized by the program to educate its residents on drug and alcohol dependence.  The program uses social model recovery principles, focusing on learning through experience and self-reliance.  The shared experiences of both program participants and staff increases the development of trust, confidence and support among the residents as they see firsthand a future they may access if they claim the opportunity to do so.

The SLP houses individuals for a period up to six months, but the program may be extended should the individual, staff and parole agent agree that continued participation would be beneficial.  The average length of stay is approximately 120 days.  Upon completion of the program, most individuals will generally exit the residence with employment and stable housing.  Mr. Al-Amin emphasizes to every client that the length of stay in treatment is a main determinant in acquiring successful outcomes.  Indeed, among the nine clients whose length of stay surpassed three months in the last six months of 2006, eight individuals successfully completed the program or left with satisfactory progress [5].  Of the various programs available in San Francisco, SLP is recognized by its funder as the program that achieves the longest length of stay among its residents.

The work required of all participants begins at the moment they meet with SLP staff for acceptance.  The individual may be coming straight from prison, or may be facing a parole violation, and through a recommendation of a parole agent, be seeking an alternative to yet another prison sentence.  Potential residents are informed that their participation will require rigorous introspection, cooperation and independence.  As the program is completely voluntary, many referrals opt to forego the opportunity in favor of incarceration because it is known that a prison sentence is easier than engaging in a lengthy process to change a lifestyle.

Upon entry to the program, a new resident is assessed to develop an individual case plan that will guide the client from the first day through the day of transition.  The assessment form requires information about drug use, offending history, housing, family and community support, vocational skills, educational background, and health issues.  SLP accepts former offenders from all backgrounds, prohibiting only those with histories of sex offending, arson or extreme violence.  When the assessment is complete, and the SLP staff has completed its in-depth initial interview, the client and case manager develop a case plan.  On many occasions, the parole agent and client’s family will also contribute to the treatment plan, thus expanding the circle of support that a client will enjoy as he works through his treatment.

Residents of SLP are required to attend mandatory group counseling sessions three times per week.  Daily counseling is also performed by case managers who use the time to explore job opportunities, vocational training, health or legal needs or additional outside drug treatment.  In some cases, residents access additional substance abuse counseling through collaborating partners to ensure that they do not succumb to their addictions.  The principle enveloping each component of SLP treatment is peer support.  Mr. Al-Amin emphasizes that the life change his clients undergo is dependent on participation in the entire process: “It is not just the group counseling, or the individual counseling, or the peer support.  It is the process of learning to maneuver among and through each of these parts that changes a man.”  The process in the program imitates the process that each resident in SLP must pursue to gain the tools to cope with society on the outside.

The movement of SLP clients is closely supervised and monitored.  While still subject to all conditions imposed by their parole agent, they are still at liberty in the community.  To fulfill their treatment plan, SLP participants seek work, housing, education, vocational skills and health care during their stay.  A general curfew of 6 pm is in place because, as Mr. Al-Amin says, “men should come home after a long day at work or looking for a job.”  Other rules of SLP are not unlike those in any communal setting: no substance abuse, no violence, no threats, no stealing, no visitors without permission and presence of staff, no loud music, no sexual activity.  Residents are expected to attend all meetings, respect each other’s rights and share responsibility for cleaning, cooking and maintaining the house.

As residents gain employment, SLP encourages them to put aside as much money as possible to facilitate their housing search when the time comes.  In the past, SLP maintained savings accounts for the residents, but Mr. Al-Amin felt the service contravened the goal of self-reliance:  “Residents should learn to become responsible for their personal funds; it means more when they watch their money grow as they perform legitimate work.”

Between July 2005 and July 2006, SLP served 133 clients. Nineteen individuals remained in the program for a total of 10 days or less.  These clients generally leave because the program was an inappropriate referral or only used as a transition for a parolee waiting for another program or housing opportunity. Of the remaining 114, 60 percent completed the program successfully by fulfilling the goals of their case plan or making satisfactory progress toward their fulfillment. Of clients surveyed, 83 percent felt satisfied with the services they were accessing through SLP.

In the past, graduates of SLP had participated in an alumni organization to continue the peer support established in the program.  SLP residents are now encouraged to form their own networks to last beyond their participation in SLP.  Mr. Al-Amin is quick to add, however, that the staff of SLP enjoys hearing updates from its graduates, and is proud to have shared in the experience of growth most of his clients undergo.

When asked to describe some of the hardest cases, Mr. Al-Amin responds: “Every man is a challenge.  We are all different, and we require different things.  I’ve seen men enter the program in handcuffs, still high and scared of success.  I’ve seen those same men five or ten years later clean, owning a house, holding a good job.  I give these men an opportunity, and when they take it and run, they are the ones responsible for their success.”

In Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s proposed 2007/08 budget, the administration is seeking to utilize local reentry programs more effectively, and to improve collaboration between CDCR and local communities in the reentry process [6].  As the Governor considers options in implementing better reentry services, community programs like SLP hope that the administration will look to proven programs to guide the necessary reform.  Reentry planning should begin on the first day of confinement, and the resulting plan should accompany an inmate throughout the duration of his or her sentence, and back to the community.  In addition, the state should lead its population by example in recognizing the value and importance of assisting the transition of former offenders back into their communities.  As California has aptly demonstrated, neglecting the needs of individuals returning to society will only exacerbate the various social problems that lead to offensive behavior in the first place.  The Supportive Living Program exemplifies a model the state should utilize to ensure that the formerly incarcerated can become self-reliant, responsible and successful in their communities.

- - - - -
Megan Doyle Corcoran is a San Francisco social justice attorney. She has worked with reentering individuals and communities impacted by disproportionate rates of incarceration throughout her career.  She is active on the San Francisco Safe Communities Reentry Council.