We’ve started a tracking program to keep an eye on progress on the 65 recommendations of the Mayor’s Housing Affordability and Livability Agenda (HALA) Committee. There are a lot of good ideas and good intentions in the document that aren’t being discussed now because so much of the discussion is about the Grand Bargain, just 1 of the recommendations and perhaps the most problematic. We’re hoping that by pointing out the other elements of HALA we can help draw a distinction between the two (HALA recommendations and the Bargain) and get more support and implementation of some of the good ideas in HALA. Here’s two under the “Increase Tenant Supports” section:

T.1 Increase Access to Housing for People with Criminal Records

An estimated one in every three to four adults in the US has a criminal record which can have a lifelong impact on access to housing. Persons with a criminal record, who are disproportionately lower income and people of color, need fair access to suitable housing options. Studies show that people with stable housing are more likely to successfully reintegrate into society and less likely to reoffend. The City should pursue a combination of local legislation, education, and technical assistance to ensure fair access to Seattle’s housing options for people with criminal records. Any legislation should provide fair access to people with criminal records yet protect property owner’s rights and interests.

T.7 Explore Solutions to Housing for People Exiting Incarceration Most people sentenced to prison in Washington state are required to provide a reasonable and safe release plan that identifies where they will live. Some find that after paying their debt to society, they do not have any release options due to a lack of family or community support, a lack of suitable housing options, or simply a lack of funds to pay for housing. The City should convene stakeholders to explore housing solutions for people leaving incarceration and re-integrating into the community, including incentives for private market housing and additional resources for publicly funded housing.

I wrote about the problem identified in T.7 back in 2014. According to the Department of Corrections:

Most offenders sentenced to prison in Washington State are required to provide a reasonable and safe release plan, including a residential address, to the Department of Corrections, which must be investigated and approved before the offender can be released. Some offenders find themselves without release options due to a lack of family or community support, lack of suitable housing options or simply lack of funds to pay for housing. Offenders in this circumstance remain in custody at an average cost of $3,000⁄month until a release plan is approved, which can take months or, in some cases, years.

But there is a voucher program called the Earned Release Housing Voucher Program that covers the costs of housing for released prisoners for three months. The program has been studied and that study, by Zachary Hamilton, Alex Kigerl & Zachary Hays and published in an article titled, Removing Release Impediments and Reducing Correctional Costs: Evaluation of Washington State’s Housing Voucher Program (Justice Quarterly) found that the program saves money, prevents return visits to prison, and reduces homelessness.

I’ll quote that study again:

The total weighted costs of rent expenses paid out to voucher recipients and administrative and supervision costs of the program for the duration of the study were $2,198,254.80. However, paying such expenses was associated with lower initial incarceration costs via earlier release to the community, amounting to $2,640,875.53 for the [Housing Voucher Program] HVP group and $9,218,643.44 for the comparison group (difference of $6,577,587.91). In addition, recidivism costs were also lower amongst the voucher sample, resulting in $21,296,793.00 worth of new crimes for the HVP group, and $30,248,975.28 worth of new crimes for the comparison group (difference of $8,952,182.28). The amount spent on the voucher program relative to the sum of the two cost differences (early release and recidivism) equates to a cost benefit ratio of 1:7.06, where every dollar invested in paying for an offender’s voucher expenses saved over 7 dollars in other costs through HVP (emphasis is mine).

Here’s another great idea buried in the pages of the HALA recommendations that the City should embrace. And imagine pairing this with Social Impact Bonds (SIB) that I wrote about yesterday. Perhaps private investors could be lined up to take a look at local impact measures in Seattle associated with people coming into the community from jail and expand the voucher program. If there are savings, as the study shows there are, the investors could be paid back from those savings. Perhaps this investment could be a longer extension of the vouchers to 6 or even 9 months while released prisoners build up their savings, get work experience, or perhaps start a training program.

In some ways, this would be among the easier of the recommendations to implement since the EVP program already exists; the City would just have to include an expansion in its plans for Levy funding or other funding proposals. Putting it together with the SIB idea would take more work, but as I’ve said before, Seattle can and should be the city where people can know they can succeed even if they have a record. But we’d have to shift our attention away from all the work being done on Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning — a program that probably won’t work.