South Suburban Cook County:
Offender Reentry HousingCollaborative Report
Proposed Ford Heights Project
September 15, 2009
Submitted To:
The Corporation for Supportive Housing
Submitted By:
South Suburban Cook County Planning Group
Core Principles forReentry Collaborative
In May of 2008, the governor’s office released a report entitled “Inside Out: A Plan to Reduce Recidivism and Improve Public Safety.” To support the housing recommendations in the Governor’s Reentry Report the Corporation for Supportive Housing (CSH) partnered with the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) and the Illinois Division of Mental Health in releasing fourteen (14) planning grants within ten (10) target areas to assist communities in assessing the need for reentry housing and supportive services in their area.
South Suburban Cook County Collaborative Report 1
- Planning for services prior to release from an institution is essential for communities and that building capacity of the community is necessary to plan for the safe return of our former community members.
- Multiple strategies and partnerships need to be deployed as no one strategy can help all individuals and families who are homeless.
- As a result of this planning process, all area agencies from multiple systems will work together as partners to ensure successful, long-term outcomes for individuals returning from correctional facilities. This working together includes planning, identification of current services and housing, strengths and weakness, and the development of future goals for growth and development of housing, services, and integration. Some of the systems included and reviewed in our partnership will need to include: mental health, substance abuse, county corrections, state corrections, housing, homeless emergency systems, and health care.
- Services need to be designed and delivered in a manner that is accessible to people who are disadvantaged or marginalized.
- We believe that all individuals and families should have permanent, safe, affordable housing with necessary supportive service
- Poor integration of systems or lack of resources often results in people becoming homeless or returning to Correctional facilities unnecessarily.
- Individuals may become homeless as a result of their disability and ex-offender status
- Any collaborative planning needs to include the expertise representation by people who are homeless or impacted by law enforcement and the lack of community services to ensure that any new services or housing meets the needs of the intended targeted services.
- Active Outreach of people who are labeled “difficult to reach” needs to be deployed.
- There needs to be a commitment to the creation of permanent supportive housing with financial resources allocated with this in mind. Quick fixes and reactions to crisis have not been sufficient or effective in solving long term problems. Collaboration will allow communities to tap into resources at the federal, state, and local levels to reinvest money into the prevention of future expenditures o incarceration and unnecessary expensive emergency services paid for at the local level. Our community needs to explore these options
South Suburban Cook County Collaborative Report 1
South Suburban Cook County:
Offender Reentry Housing Collaborative Report
Table of Contents
- Acknowledgements and Partners
- Collaboration Efforts
- South Suburban Cook County Background Information
- Data Table
- SWOT Analysis
- Statement of Needs
- Challenges and Problems Identified by Work Group
- Recommendations from Work Group
- Program Plans
- Job Description
Acknowledgments
We wish to acknowledge the contributions to this project by the following participants in local planning group.
South Suburban Cook County Planning Group
Tom Driscoll, Deputy Supervisor, Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office
Honorable Judge Brian Flaherty, Sixth Municipal District, Cook County
Patricia Houlihan, Addictions Counselor, Cook County Circuit Court
Kevin Jesse, Adult Probation Supervisor, Cook County
Al Rider, Public Defender’s Office, Cook County
Connie Jordon, Public Defender’s Office, Cook County
Mark Kammerer, Director of Treatment Programs, Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office
Laraine Kross, Adult Probation Officer, Cook County
The Honorable Marjorie Laws, Presiding Judge, Sixth Municipal District, Cook County
April Mohn, Assistant Public Defender, Cook County Public Defender’s Office
The Honorable Doug Simpson, Judge, Sixth Municipal District, Cook County
Sue Stanger, Drug Court Supervisor, Sixth Municipal District, Cook County
Betty Harris, Co-Pastor, Cornerstone House of God
James Harris, Bishop, Cornerstone House of God
Shedrick Hawkins, Elder, Cornerstone House of God
Brenda Tobuch, Casework Manager, Illinois Department of Human Services
Harold Errington, Executive Director, Bethel Human Resources
Lenoris Perkins, Program Director, Bethel Human Resources
Dion Graham, Case Manager, TASC, Inc.
Mack McGhee, Administrator, TASC, Inc.
Ingra Cooper, Community Affairs Director, Family Christian Health Center
Cornell Hudson, Board Member Ford Heights Community Service Organization
Terry Johnson, Vice President, South Suburban Council on Alcoholism and Substance Abuse
Jodyne Scholl, Daytime Coordinator, South Suburban PADS
Karen Vrdolyak, Director of Development, Restoration Ministries
Tim Moore, Associate Clinical Director, Grand Prairie Services
Catherine Watkins, Supervisor of Support Services, Grand Prairie Services
Lisa M. Labiak, VP, Development & Corporate Communication, Grand Prairie Services
II. South Suburban Cook County Collaboration Efforts
Grand Prairie Services convened a group of community stakeholders including representation from the justice system, ex-offenders, corrections, homeless prevention organizations, primary healthcare services, and human service providers including mental health and substance abuse providers. The group met several times to identify a permanent supportive housing project within the South Suburban Cook County region. During our meetings, two projects were identified for support.
Both projects identified are within municipalities of South Suburban Cook County as identified in the Governor’s report. Ford Heights has been recognized as one of the poorest communities in the nation. Harvey also represents a lower socio-economic status than it more affluent neighboring communities such as Olympia Fields and Flossmoor.
III. South Suburban Cook County Background Information
South Suburban Cook County
(Information taken from
Cook County is the second most populous county in the United States after Los Angeles County. According to 2008 US Census Bureau estimates, the county has 5,294,664 residents, which is larger than the populations of 29 individual U.S. states, the combined populations of the six smallest US states, and home to 43.3% of Illinois residents. There are over 130 incorporated municipalities in Cook County, the largest of which is the county seat, Chicago, which makes up approximately 54% of the population of the county. Cook County was created on January 15, 1831 and the current County Board president is Todd Stroger. The Circuit Court of Cook County, which files more than 1.2 million cases every year, the Cook County Department of Corrections, which is the largest single-site jail in the nation, and the Cook County Juvenile Detention Center, the first juvenile center in the nation and one of the largest in the nation, are solely the responsibility of Cook County government.
The Bureau of Health Services administers the county's public health services and is the second largest public health system in the nation. Three hospitals are part of this system: John H. Stroger, Jr. Hospital of Cook County, Provident Hospital, and Oak Forest Hospital of Cook County, along with over 30 hospitals.
Cook County is divided into thirty different townships. South Suburban Cook County contains the four townships of Bloom, Bremen, Rich and Thornton. Within these four townships are 32 municipalities including Harvey, Ford Heights (formerly known as East Chicago Heights) and Chicago Heights. According to adult parole population data, as of March 2008, these four townships have seen the release of 1,327 parolees. Of those parolees, 475 are from Chicago Heights, Ford Heights and Harvey. The remaining 852 are from the immediate surrounding municipalities. Given the geographic area of each municipality (Chicago Heights-9.6sqm, Ford Heights-1.8sqm, Harvey-6.2sqm) and their geographic relationship to one another (Chicago Heights and Ford Heights share a common border and US postal zip code) for purposes of this report, Chicago Heights and Ford Heights will be considered as one service area.
IV. Comparison of Chicago/Ford Heights and Harvey
The following table shows some comparison data between Chicago/Ford Heights and Harvey identified in March 2008. The data that was compared was population, unemployment rates, number of adult IDOC paroles, and individuals living below the poverty rate. Following the data table below is a SWOT Analysis that further compares Chicago/Ford Heights and Harvey.
Chicago/Ford Heights Harvey
Population: 34,600 30,000
Adult IDOC parolees: 242 233
Individuals living below poverty rate:7,396 6,418
Unemployment Rate 30.1% 16.3%
SWOT Analysis
This SWOT analysis will compare the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) facing communities in South Suburban Cook County, Illinois. The main community’s included in this analysis are Chicago Heights, Ford Heights and Harvey and the SWOT areas apply to both permanent supportive housing projects. Our recommendations will be included in the final plan submitted to CSH.
STRENGTHS:
Both projects have made significant progress toward completion
Excellent accessibility to public transportation
Access to federally qualified health centers for primary healthcare
Access to several hospital systems
Broad-based Continuum of Supportive Services
Transitional housing
Nonprofit agencies with housing experience
WEAKNESSES:
Area contains excessive number of foreclosures
Lack of identified housing/transitional housing for offenders
Continuum of Care funding is already maximized
Lack of employment opportunities for ex-offenders
OPPORTUNITIES:
48 Transitional beds currently exist as sustainable referral source for project
Ongoing commitment and collaborations of community stakeholders
These projects create an opportunity to improve community stability
THREATS:
Increase in limited Correctional Employment Services
Neighborhood resistance
Unstable funding
Housing that prohibits criminal background
Government restrictions for funding or rental subsidy for ex-offenders
Possible funding reductions for supportive service
V. Statement of Needs
(Information taken from
The national unemployment rate in January of 2009 stood at 8.1% and may go higher in the coming months. Portions of South Suburban Cook County have traditionally had significantly higher unemployment numbers than other areas of Cook County. The decline of the steel industry hurt the economy of the area and other nearby communities.Wisconsin Steel closed in 1980. U. S. Steel South Works closed in 1992. Republic Steel closed down several parts of their operation as well.Many people lost their jobs, and the resident labor force changed.
In Ford Heights, as of the census of 2000, there were 3,456 people, 984 households, and 779 families residing in the village. The population density was 1,954.9 people per square mile (753.9/km²). There were 1,019 housing units at an average density of 576.4/sqmi (222.3/km²). The racial makeup of the village was 1.77% White, 95.89% African American, 0.06% Native American, 0.12% Asian, 1.16% from other races, and 1.01% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 2.52% of the population.
There were 984 households out of which 48.6% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 21.5% were married couples living together, 49.3% had a female householder with no husband present, and 20.8% were non-families. 18.8% of all households were made up of individuals and 4.7% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 3.51 and the average family size was 3.98.
In the village the population was spread out with 45.3% under the age of 18, 11.2% from 18 to 24, 22.7% from 25 to 44, 14.0% from 45 to 64, and 6.8% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 21 years. For every 100 females there were 86.7 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 70.1 males.
The median income for a household in the village was $17,500, and the median income for a family was $16,706. Males had a median income of $28,750 versus $20,243 for females. The per capita income for the village was $8,938. About 45.1% of families and 49.0% of the population were below the poverty line, including 62.0% of those under age 18 and 29.1% of those age 65 or over. This is one of the highest rates in an urban area in the United States.
In Chicago Heights, as of the census of 2005, there were 31,373 people, 10,703 households, and 7,823 families in the city. The population density was 3,424.4 people per square mile (1,322.3/km²). There were 11,444 housing units at an average density of 1,195.7/sqmi (461.7/km²). The racial makeup was 45.02% White, 37.90% African American, 0.45% Native American, 0.44% Asian, 0.04% Pacific Islander, 13.46% from other races, and 2.70% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 23.77% of the population.
There were 10,703 households out of which 38.1% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 45.0% were married couples living together, 22.3% had a female householder with no husband present, and 26.9% were non-families. 22.9% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.7% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 3.00 and the average family size was 3.53.
The population was spread out with 31.6% under the age of 18, 10.2% from 18 to 24, 28.0% from 25 to 44, 18.3% from 45 to 64, and 11.8% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 31 years. For every 100 females there were 94.8 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 89.7 males.
The median income for a household in the city was $36,958, and the median income for a family was $42,681. Males had a median income of $34,207 versus $26,276 for females. The per capita income for the city was $14,963. About 13.7% of families and 17.5% of the population were below the poverty line, including 24.5% of those under age 18 and 9.9% of those age 65 or over.
In Harvey, as of the census of 2000, there were 30,000 people, 8,990 households, and 6,760 families residing in the city. The population density was 4,842.2 people per square mile (1,868.2/km²). There were 10,158 housing units at an average density of 1,639.6/sqmi (632.6/km²).
The racial makeup of the city was 79.57% African American, 10.02% White, 0.26% Native American, 0.38% Asian, 0.05% Pacific Islander, 7.94% from other races, and 1.78% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 12.78% of the population. There were 8,990 households out of which 39.1% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 36.4% were married couples living together, 31.8% had a female householder with no husband present, and 24.8% were non-families. 20.7% of all households were made up of individuals and 7.1% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 3.30 and the average family size was 3.80.
In the city the population was spread out with 35.1% under the age of 18, 10.8% from 18 to 24, 26.7% from 25 to 44, 18.8% from 45 to 64, and 8.6% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 28 years. For every 100 females there were 92.2 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 86.0 males.
The median income for a household in the city was $31,958, and the median income for a family was $35,378. Males had a median income of $30,610 versus $25,248 for females. The per capita income for the city was $12,336. About 20.3% of families and 21.7% of the population were below the poverty line, including 27.8% of those under age 18 and 17.6% of those age 65 or over.
VI. Challenges/Problems Identified By Work Group
The following points represent the insights of the working committee that hasbeen meeting over the past several months in South Suburban Cook County. These comments represent their thoughts on the challenges to homeless offenders and their recommendations on how to address them.
1)There will always be resistance in communities over providing services to convicted offenders. No one wants them in a group living situation (halfway house) or living next door to them.
2)Elected officials often express serious reservations about reentry services as they do not want to attract this type of person to their communities.
3)Many ex-offenders cite their recent incarceration as the primary reason for their homelessness. Many had homes before they went to jail, but did not have a home when released and lacked the resources to secure a home/apartment.
4)Lack of financial resources when released into the community on parole.
5)Lack of employment opportunities.
VIII. Recommendations from Work Group
1)A full-time case manager should be hired to act as a liaison with community agencies and he/she would be responsible to report to the new combined CSH committee representing the Ford Heights and Harvey projects.
2)Existing housing in the community which is provided by HUD and IDOC needs to be expanded.
3)Landlords must own and maintain safe and affordable housing.
4)IDOC should make a concerted effort to identify inmates who are at risk of homelessness several months prior to their parole. The offender’s prison counselor should coordinate pre-release planning with the Community Reentry Case Manager, the use of the website reentryillinois.net, and with their parole officer which should help ensure their subsequent success on parole.
5)Supportive services i.e., mental health counseling, substance abuse treatment, drug testing, employment counseling, contact with parole/probation officers,are needed for a successful reintegration into the community. Access to services and coordination should be a major component of this supportive housing program and will help ensure the offender’s success.