Honor America’s Newest Veterans With Jobs

June 15, 2009

When armed conflicts began in Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003, America promised that those serving in battle would not be neglected as were those who served in Vietnam two generations ago. Sadly, limited social services and shoddy treatment rule as thousands of returning members of the military are discarded after leaving active duty. Even after the parades of Memorial Day fade away, America should remember how much it owes to its service members and reward them for their selflessness by helping them secure jobs in addition to other benefits.

While it may appear counter-intuitive to propose a job creation program for veterans while the economy is in a deep recession, the federal stimulus package offers a solution. Governors may set aside a portion of the discretionary funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) to fund a job placement program for specialized populations including disabled veterans and recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), commonly known as welfare, under the Workforce Investment Act (WIA).

About 7.1 million people have served in the Gulf War since 2001, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs, of which 52% are with the Reserve or National Guard and 48% are on active duty. In total, there are about 23.8 million living U.S. veterans who served during both war and peacetime.

Unfortunately, the number of veterans moving into the ranks of the unemployed is growing. There were 28,435 newly discharged veterans claiming unemployment insurance benefits for the week ending May 16, an increase of 181% over the prior year, according to the U.S. Department of Labor.

While there has been no national study of employment trends among newly returning veterans, a remarkable study conducted by Central Connecticut State University and the Connecticut Department of Veterans’ Affairs revealed that employers may be reluctant to hire veterans because of misconceptions about their disabilities.

One way to honor our veterans is to provide them with jobs in addition to other benefits. In fact, employment might well be the best and most effective means of aiding people as they re-enter the civilian workforce.

Since January 2009, America Works has operated a unique job placement program for veterans receiving food stamps with funding from the Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Office of Veterans Affairs and the New York City Human Resources Administration. In addition to aiding veterans, this program simultaneously reduces their reliance on New York’s overburdened social services. 

America Works prepares them for the job market (providing them with targeted training as well as a resume, appropriate clothing, and car fare), then sends them out on appropriately selected job interviews. This program is open to newly returning vets as well as those who served at any other time in the past. 

Based on our experience with Vietnam veterans, we know that many people who leave active duty disappear from the public’s view only to end up unemployed and homeless. Is not one measure of a country’s worth its treatment of those who have served, suffered, and survived their ordeals?

We should live by the words of Pres. John F. Kennedy, who said, “As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them.”

Advertisements

Work and Reducing Recidivism: What Do We Know?

April 14, 2009

Originally Posted On The California Progressive Report

Date: April 14, 2009, http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2009/04/work_and_reduci.html

When Dr. Lee Bowes, the CEO of America Works, and I asked that question nine years ago, we were surprised to find that we knew precious little. This question came about because we believe work is a powerful tool in rehabilitation and we were considering mounting a program for ex-offenders to test its impact.

We consulted experts and think tanks, but it was upon meeting with Professor John Diulio at the University of Pennsylvania that we decided to initiate a program. He said, ”Where welfare-to-work was when you started America Works in 1984, that’s where prison-to-work is now — practically nowhere.“ He encouraged us to start our program because of the success of our welfare-to-work programs.

Since then in New York, Oakland, Newark and Baltimore, we have placed over 25.000 ex-offenders into private-sector jobs. Take Oakland as an example: At the one year mark, the recidivism rate among our participants is 6% while the state’s is 38%.

Similar results are found in our other cities. In Newark, NJ, for instance, our recidivism rate is 2.5%. While this is very encouraging, it is by no means definitive. Self-selection of the candidates might well have skewed the results.

Therefore, America Works — with the initiation of The Manhattan Institute — has begun a control/experimental study in New York. Funded by The Smith Richardson Foundation and researched by Public Private Ventures, in two years a study determining the impact of work on recidivism will publish its findings.

The potential impact on parole reform and the rest of the criminal justice system could be staggering. As an example, if the study finds that for $5,000 we can keep someone from returning to an approximate $40,000 a year bed in a prison, the cost savings to states could be substantial. Moreover, the reduction in crime and fighting parole violations would also be significant.

In a report published in 2001, Work as a Turning Point for Criminal Offenders, Christopher Uggen and Jeremy Staff reviewed studies conducted on the role of employment in reducing recidivism. They found that “high-quality work can further reduce rates of recidivism for adult workers.” Furthermore, they summarized their research as follows: “We can reach the following provisional conclusion: Post-release employment and training programs, especially those providing jobs of moderate or high quality, are particularly promising for reducing recidivism among older and drug-involved offenders. We are hesitant to conclude, however, that work programs are as beneficial for younger offenders…We suggest further experimentation (perhaps involving pre-employment skills or work habits training) for younger offenders in the correctional population.” That is exactly what America Works is doing by participating in a study determining the impact of work on the recidivism rate.

Unfortunately, the report by Uggen and staff was not one advocates could take to the policy bank and use as a catalyst to reform our parole policies. Currently, there is just not enough hard evidence to support massive new public expenditures for parolee-to-work programs. On the other side, many argue that studies showed little or no impact of work on the recidivism rate. Further, as with our data to date at America Works, there were few control/experimental studies to fully justify a finding that work alone reduces the recidivism rate. Lastly, not one of the studies instituted a control for either the design of the treatment, or the quality of the programs that delivered the training and work.

In my 45 years in this field, the major drawback of the research by organizations like MDRC or Mathmatica, (the premiere research outfits in the social sciences on work) was their failure to study the capacities of the deliverers of the programs. It would be as if two cars, a Porche and a Volkswagen, were pitted against each other in a race with no attention to their relative capacities.

I have been mystified at the consideration given to the socioeconomic and psychic variables of the parolees, but so little to the quality of those supposedly offering the training and work. In a forthcoming article, I will address the fact that many vendors are paid to run a program, not paid for their results; thus, that is the main reason why so many fail in reducing the recidivism rate. If you pay for performance, you get results and accountability with those results. If you pay for a program without demanding a performance contract, you get a wide range of results from failure to success.

We know from empirical evidence that putting a parolee to work is a major factor in preventing recurring crime. Soon we will have the hard research evidence that proves this is the case. Finally, I predict the research will publish results stating that the way to reduce recidivism is to establish a program based on a performance contract in which the program is only paid when the offenders get jobs and remain employed.

Peter Cove is the Founder of America Works, a national company securing work for offenders, veterans and other hard to place workers.


From Jail To A Job

April 8, 2009

Originally Printed In The NY Post

April 8, 2009

By Peter Cove

THE Legislature’s revamping of the Rockefeller drug laws will quickly lead to retrials — and likely to freedom — for thousands of drug criminals. Many criminal-justice experts warn of a substantial uptick in crime.

But there’s a way to minimize this. The answer lies with Mayors Bloomberg in New York City, Cory Booker in Newark and Ronald Dellums in Oakland through their Measure Y program.

The answer is not the “shovel ready” but failed programs of the past: The standard combination of parole and various social and drug-treatment programs has long produced a 70 percent re-incarceration rate within three years after release.

What makes the mayors’ re-entry program successful?

Look at the one America Works has been operating for the past three years. Upon release from prison, the formerly incarcerated are referred to America Works for direct employment. We provide them with a resume and appropriate clothing (and car fare) — and then send them straight out on job interviews.

After a month in the program, most individuals get hired. The companies get good workers, the workers get good jobs — and the government gets reduced costs for criminal justice.

In these innovative programs’ first year of operation in Oakland, for instance, the recidivism rate is less than 6 percent — when 39 percent of California prisoners released each year return to prison.

Now, it costs California $47,000 a year to house one prisoner — versus a one-time fee of only $4,000 to get a person a job, which is paid only when they keep the job for six months.

Consider: If 20,000 prisoners violate their parole and get sent back to prison, each, it would cost the state $940 million to house them for a year. However, if every released prisoner were put into this program costing only $80 million, California would save about $860 million the first year — all the cash it would have spent to keep the prisoner in jail for the rest of his sentence. The total savings add up to about $3.1 billion.

These programs succeed because felons leaving jail or just on probation are “captured” immediately and enrolled in activities that both prepare them for work and keep them off the streets. These work strategies are effective, and benefit society because they get the people into work very quickly, while employing social services to assist in retention and success. As with welfare reform, “work first” works best.

Prison-to-work programs can help cut New York’s recidivism rate while reducing public costs, by helping people returning home to lead productive and law-abiding lives.

This is a responsible, proven strategy to deal with newly released prisoners. In this time of fiscal crisis, will lawmakers take heed? Will they show the wisdom to match their rethinking of the drug laws with rethinking of rehabilitation?

All they need to do is look to the cities with the answers.

Peter Cove founded America Works, a com pany that gets ex-offenders and other hard-to- place workers jobs.


What Welfare Reform Teaches Us About Reforming Parole

April 6, 2009

peter_cove.jpgPeter Cove
Founder, America Works

Originally Posted On:  The California Progressive Report 4/6/09

Link: http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2009/04/what_welfare_re.html

Does anyone dispute the fact that welfare caseloads fell by 60% over the last 12 years in large part because work requirements became mandatory?

Prior to the reform of welfare by Congress in 1996, entitlement to cash assistance was a right for single mothers and little was expected in return. With the passage of the welfare reform bill, equal participation in the workforce from the recipients of welfare was required. Work was introduced as the reciprocal responsibility for welfare benefits. This established a quid pro quo in welfare, which changed the game from a handout to a workout.

This change resulted in many unintended consequences having residual benefits for the children, the mothers, and the private sector. Studies have shown that the benefits far outnumbered the costs for the children whose mothers went to work. Furthermore, when working, mothers also suffered from less mental illness and depression with their self-esteem, as well, as their family income increasing.

The private sector experienced an influx of previously discarded workers willing to take vacant jobs and move up in companies that were ready to accept them. More importantly, previously dependent receivers of government assistance were now paying taxes.

As the requirement for work reshaped welfare, might it do the same for parole? The question is this: might parole be improved by mandating the same type of work requirements introduced into welfare? Few would argue that parole works well. With over 70% of prisoners released returning to prison in 3 years in California, there clearly is something amiss in the parole system. Revamping parole from its losing game, to one where work becomes the central policy for re-entry may well be the ticket to successful reform.

Such a proposal was made last year in a groundbreaking paper for The Brookings Institute written By Professor Larry Mead of NYU. In it, Professor Mead argues that to reduce recidivism the correction system must become more accountable for how its turns out its clients. The notion is for parole to become work centered, with participation in the workforce determinate of continued freedom for the parolee. Surprisingly, of those returning to prison, 67% are due to technical violations of their parole. A technical violation means, they have in some way run afoul of their parole requirements. They might have gone to another state for a day. They might have forgotten or purposely missed a meeting with their parole officer. Nonetheless, these people have not committed any new crimes. In other words, they have in the plain interpretation of the law violated their parole conditions. But, only in rare instances have they become enough of a risk to the public to warrant re-incarceration.

By requiring parolees enter the workforce as a condition of freedom the role of the parole officer would change as did that of the case manager in welfare. Prior to welfare reform, the case manager was primarily responsible for enforcing rules as to who was eligible for grants. Often, they would encourage welfare mothers to have more children in order to increase their take-home income. Sadly, case managers seldom encouraged welfare recipients to work. Their responsibilities were, in a way prior to welfare reform, no different from those of parole officers today.

They both monitor conformity to regulations. But what if parole officers saw their job as helping returning felons enter the workforce? What if showing up to work was the measure of good compliance rather than arriving at the parole officer’s office on time; a time, by the way, that almost always conflicts with keeping a full time job?

Studies have shown, the therapeutic value of work, as well as, the income earned is enormous. By reforming parolee, there would be re-incarceration for criminal offenses, but technical violations would be reduced to work violations. The benefit to society would be a precipitously drop in recidivism. In an article to come, I will look at the connection between the drop in recidivism to employment.

Peter Cove is the Founder of America Works, a national company securing work for offenders, veterans and other hard to place workers.


Prison Spending Outpaces All But Medicaid

March 5, 2009

By SOLOMON MOORE

 Published: March 2, 2009 , The New York Times

One in every 31 adults, or 7.3 million Americans, is in prison, on parole or probation, at a cost to the states of $47 billion in 2008, according to a new study.

Criminal correction spending is outpacing budget growth in education, transportation and public assistance, based on state and federal data. Only Medicaid spending grew faster than state corrections spending, which quadrupled in the past two decades, according to the report Monday by the Pew Center on the States, the first breakdown of spending in confinement and supervision in the past seven years.

The increases in the number of people in some form of correctional control occurred as crime rates declined by about 25 percent in the past two decades.

As states face huge budget shortfalls, prisons, which hold 1.5 million adults, are driving the spending increases.

States have shown a preference for prison spending even though it is cheaper to monitor convicts in community programs, including probation and parole, which require offenders to report to law enforcement officers. A survey of 34 states found that states spent an average of $29,000 a year on prisoners, compared with $1,250 on probationers and $2,750 on parolees. The study found that despite more spending on prisons, recidivism rates remained largely unchanged.

Pew researchers say that as states trim services like education and health care, prison budgets are growing. Those priorities are misguided, the study says.

“States are looking to make cuts that will have long-term harmful effects,” said Sue Urahn, managing director of the Pew Center on the States. “Corrections is one area they can cut and still have good or better outcomes than what they are doing now.”

Brian Walsh, a senior research fellow at the conservative-leaning Heritage Foundation, agreed that focusing on probation and parole could reduce recidivism and keep crime rates low in the long run. But Mr. Walsh said tougher penalties for crimes had driven the crime rate down in the first place.

“The reality is that one of the reasons crime rates are so low is because we changed our federal and state systems in the past two decades to make sure that people who commit crimes, especially violent crimes, actually have to serve significant sentences,” he said.

Over all, two-thirds of offenders, or about 5.1 million people in 2008, were on probation or parole. The study found that states were not increasing their spending for community supervision in proportion to their growing caseloads. About $9 out of $10 spent on corrections goes to prison financing (that includes money spent to house 780,000 people in local jails).

One in 11 African-Americans, or 9.2 percent, are under correctional control, compared with one in 27 Latinos (3.7 percent) and one in 45 whites (2.2 percent). Only one out of 89 women is behind bars or monitored, compared with one out of 18 men.

Georgia had 1 in 13 adults under some form of punishment; Idaho, 1 in 18; the District of Columbia, 1 in 21; Texas, 1 in 22; Massachusetts, 1 in 24; and Ohio, 1 in 25.

Peter Greenwood, the executive director of the Association for the Advancement of Evidence Based Practice, a group that favors rehabilitative approaches, said states started spending more on prisons in the 1980s during the last big crime wave.

“Basically, when we made these investments, public safety and crime was the No. 1 concern of voters, so politicians were passing all kinds of laws to increase sentences,” Mr. Greenwood said.

President Bill Clinton signed legislation to increase federal sentences, he said.

“Now, crime is down,” Mr. Greenwood said, “but we’re living with that legacy: the bricks and mortar and the politicians who feel like they have to talk tough every time they talk about crime.”

Mr. Greenwood said prisons and jails, along with their powerful prison guard unions, service contracts, and high-profile sheriffs and police chiefs, were in a much better position to protect their interests than were parole and probation officers.

“Traditionally, probation and parole is at the bottom of the totem pole,” he said. “They’re just happy every time they don’t lose a third of their budget.”


Curbing The Cost Of Crime

February 27, 2009

Curbing the Cost of Crime

peter_cove.jpgPeter Cove
Founder, America Works

Originally Posted On: California Progressive Report 2/27/09

Link: http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2009/02/curbing_the_cos.html

California is embarking on the biggest prisoner release comparative only to the 1963 movie, The Great Escape. Unless overturned on appeal, California is under court order to release approximately 57,000 prisoners (one third of the total population) over the next few years. How will California’s policy makers deal with this and reduce the recidivism rate at the same time? Failed programs of the past, ineffective parole, a plethora of social and drug treatment programs and a continuation of a 70% re-incarceration rate within 3 years after release are not the answer. The answer lies in a successful reentry program in Oakland.

In response to rising crime and violence, Oakland voters passed the Violence Prevention and Public Safety Act of 2004 (Measure Y). Measure Y is a 10-year initiative designed to facilitate community policing, foster violence prevention, improve fire and paramedic service, and initiate new programs to move parolees and probationers into jobs. The rest of California can learn from Oakland’s experience that quick attachment to the labor market reduces the recidivism rate. Here are some results.

The innovative program by America Works costs only $4,000 to get a person a job, which is paid only when the parolee keeps the job for 6 months. In the first year of operation, the recidivism rate is only 6%. Compare this to the fact that each year 39% of prisoners released statewide return to prison. For example, if you took 20,000 prisoners incarcerated for one year, then released, and 39% violated their parole and returned to prison for another year, it would cost California over $1 billion just for incarceration (not parole, probation, court fees etc.).

However, if all 20,000 prisoners upon release from prison were put into the Oakland program, and only 6% were re-incarcerated, it would cost California only $123.2 million. Thus, by using this program, California could save a whopping $877.6 million for every 20,000 prisoners. Now imagine the cost savings if direct job placement and retention was provided to all 156,000 California State prisoners.

Similar results are being replicated in New York City and Newark, NJ where America Works, is operating prisoner to work programs for Mayors Bloomberg and Booker. These programs succeed because felons leaving jail or on probation were ‘captured’ immediately and enrolled in activities that both prepare them for work and keep them off the streets. These work strategies are effective, and benefits society because they get the people into work very quickly, while employing social services to assist in retention. As with welfare reform, work first works best. Social services must be employed to support work first, not precede it.

Prison to work programs will result in California reducing the recidivism rate, by helping people returning home to lead productive and law-abiding lives, while at the same time reducing public costs. During this time of economic and fiscal crises, will lawmakers take heed? This may be just the opportunity for California’s legislators to rethink public expenditures for reducing crime; just look to Oakland for answers.

Peter Cove is Founder of America Works, a company that gets ex-offenders and other hard to place workers jobs.

Posted on February 27, 2009


February 26, 2009