p r o g r a m f o c u s national institute of justice

Chicago’sSaferFoundation:

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

DEP

ARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OF

FIC

E OF JUSTICE PRO

GR

AM

S

BJA

N

IJOJJ DP BJS

OV

C

P r o g r a m F o c u s

National Institute of JusticeNational Institute of CorrectionsOffice of Correctional Education

A Road Back forEx-Offenders

2 National Institute of Justice

PROGRAM FOCUS

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ), theNational Institute of Corrections (NIC), andthe U.S. Department of Education’s Officeof Correctional Education (OCE) have co-operated on a number of projects. Thesecontinuing efforts are described below:

This Program Focus, Chicago’s Safer Foun-dation: A Road Back for Ex-Offenders, isone in a series of publications sponsored byNIJ, NIC, and OCE that focus on variousapproaches to offender job training, place-ment, and retention.a

Our agencies partnered nearly 3 years agoto fill an information void in this area.Since then, we have been overwhelmed bythe response from corrections profession-als, policymakers, and industry represen-tatives. We are excited about activitiesunder way and about the potential of otherpartnerships we are exploring.

In fiscal year 1997, NIC’s Office of Cor-rectional Job Training and Placement of-fered two 1-week pilot training sessionsfor offender employment specialists at itsLongmont Training Academy inLongmont, Colorado. Applications forthese training sessions outnumbered thosereceived for any one course in theacademy’s history. Because of the over-whelming demand, NIC will offer threeadditional offender employment specialisttraining sessions at the academy in fiscalyear 1998.

NIC has also recently funded an effort toadapt and modify a software program cur-rently used by the State of Washington’sDepartment of Corrections to meet the com-munity referral needs of released offenders.The goal is to make this software packageavailable to other correctional agencies thatwish to provide community resource refer-

NIJ–NIC–OCE Collaboration on Offender Job Training,Placement, and Retention

ral services to soon-to-be-released offenders.Offender employment specialists who havereviewed the package report that, if success-fully replicated, it would prove to be an in-valuable tool in assisting offenders who arereturning to the community.

Last spring OCE conducted a grant competi-tion focusing on life skills training for of-fenders, including education and workplacereadiness. Awards ranging from $300,000 to$450,000 were made in September 1997 to anumber of correctional agencies, with pro-gram implementation beginning in most sitesimmediately after the grants were awarded.

Our agencies continue to work with the Fed-eral Bureau of Prisons’ Inmate PlacementProgram Branch in identifying State andlocal offender job training and placementprograms that could be accessed by offend-ers released from the Federal system. As aresult of these collaborative efforts, the Bu-reau contracted with a firm to test the feasi-bility of replicating the Project Re-Enter-prise mock job fair concept in its facilities.The first mock job fair was held on April 24,1997, at the Bureau’s Bastrop, Texas, facil-ity and proved to be a great success. A secondProject Re-Enterprise event is planned forthe Federal Prison Camp for Women at Bryan,Texas. The Bureau is also currently explor-ing the possibility of partnering with theSafer Foundation to operate as a resource andex-offender job placement service for Fed-eral offenders returning to Chicago, Illinois.

Finally, we are pleased that the NationalOccupational Information CoordinatingCouncil (NOICC) has joined us in our effortsto explore ways to make its resources avail-able to corrections professionals working inoffender job training, placement, and reten-tion. In July 1997 the Federal Bureau of

Prisons, NIC, and NOICC gave a presen-tation at the national conference of StateOccupational Coordinating Councils inTacoma, Washington, which received avery encouraging response.

Clearly, offender job training, placement,and retention are challenging issues thatwill require our sustained efforts and atten-tion over time. While every effort is beingmade on the Federal level to collaborate andshare resources, we continue to rely onthose of you on the front lines to share withus your knowledge, experience with prom-ising practices, and identification of areasthat need to be addressed. Our staffs con-tinue to revise short- and long-term jointstrategies according to your input.

Jeremy TravisDirectorNational Institute of Justice

Morris ThigpenDirectorNational Institute of Corrections

Richard SmithDirectorOffice of Correctional Education

Notesa. Moses, Marilyn, Project Re-Enterprise:A Texas Program, Program Focus, Wash-ington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,National Institute of Justice, August 1996(NCJ 161448); and the soon-to-be-published Successful Job Placement forEx-Offenders: The Center for EmploymentOpportunities (NCJ 168102), Texas’Project RIO (Re-Integration of Offenders)(NCJ 168637), and The Delaware Depart-ment of Correction Life Skills Program(NCJ 169590).

Program Focus 3

PROGRAM FOCUS

Upon release from prison, many ex-offenders encounter problems in

securing permanent, unsubsidized em-ployment because they lack occupa-tional skills, have little or no job huntingexperience, and find that many employ-ers refuse to hire individuals with crimi-nal records. Ex-offenders who areunemployed or working in poorly paidor temporary jobs often fall back into alife of crime.1 A few jurisdictions havedeveloped programs designed to over-come these barriers, such as Project RIO(Re-Integration of Offenders) andProject Re-Enterprise in Texas and theCenter for Employment Opportunities(CEO) in New York City.2 (See “JobDevelopment Programs for Ex-Offend-ers Have a Long History.”)

Another group, the Safer Foundation,is now the largest community-basedprovider of employment services forex-offenders in the United States, witha professional staff of nearly 200 in 6locations in 2 States and an annualbudget of almost $8.6 million. Themain Safer offices are housed 1 milefrom Chicago’s downtown Loop areain a four-story, 12,000-square-footbrick building.

Chicago’s Safer Foundation:A Road Back for Ex-Offendersby Peter Finn

Deborah had been on welfare all her adult life—when she wasn’t in prison for sellingdrugs. Then she got her first job through an employment specialist at the SaferFoundation, working with a national courier service as a sorter and loader with fullbenefits. “I never realized I could do something like this,” she said.

However, at the end of a year, she returned to report that she needed another jobbecause the company was about to lay off its regular employees in favor oftemporary holiday season help. “I can’t afford to miss a paycheck,” said this long-time welfare recipient who had never earned a paycheck until the previous year.While Deborah had developed sufficient skills to locate a job by herself, shereturned to Safer twice to practice her interviewing skills with her employmentspecialist, to find reassurance that she could do the work, and to receive well-deserved encouragement for seeking honest work to earn a living.

According to Ron Tonn, Safer’s assis-tant vice president for programming,“Our mission isn’t to get ex-offenders ajob but to provide avenues for them tolet go of the criminal life and buy intothe mainstream; getting and keeping ajob is a means to that end.” To demon-strate its commitment to this goal, Saferhas taken the step of considering clientsas having been “placed” only after theyhave remained employed for 30days3—which, Tonn says, suggeststhey may have truly begun to turn theirlives around.

Highlights

Many ex-offenders have never acceptedthe mainstream philosophy of holding afull-time, well-paying job as the way toearn a living. Others who seek such em-ployment cannot find it or, once they arehired, cannot keep it. Founded in 1972,the Safer Foundation in Chicago is thelargest community-based provider of em-ployment services for ex-offenders in theUnited States, with a professional staff ofnearly 200 in 6 locations. Safer helps ex-offenders not only to find good jobs butalso to develop a mindset that helps toensure they will remain employed andsucceed in life.

The Safer Foundation takes several un-usual steps to achieve these goals:

■ Safer reaches many offenders whilethey are still incarcerated in order to beginto change their outlook as early as pos-sible. The foundation runs a private school,the PACE (Programmed Activities forCorrectional Education) Institute, in theCook County Jail, and it operates a workrelease center, the Crossroads Commu-nity Correctional Center, that providesextensive educational and employmentreadiness programming.

■ Safer uses a small-group, peer-basedapproach in its basic education skills pro-grams, developed especially to overcomethe barriers to learning most ex-offendersface.

■ Special case managers, called life-guards, are available to help clients ad-dress transitional problems for 1 year af-ter they have secured employment.

Other special features of the Safer Foun-dation include using satellite offices toexpand its service area and developingcreative fundraising approaches to raisemoney from State governments, privatecorporations, and foundations.

In 1996, Safer helped 1,102 clients to findjobs; nearly 60 percent of these clientswere still employed after 30 days—Safer’sdefinition of placement. Of the 72 partici-pants who completed Safer’s basic educa-tion course for 16- to 21-year-old ex-offenders (out of 84 who initially partici-pated in the course), more than two-thirdsentered school, vocational training, or em-ployment, with 58 percent of those indi-viduals maintaining their placements af-ter 180 days. After 180 days, only oneparticipant who had completed the coursehad been convicted of a new crime.


PROGRAM FOCUS

Concerned about the high percentage ofinmates released from prisons and jailswho do not reintegrate into society andwho eventually fall back into a life ofcrime, Congress, in the Violent CrimeControl and Law Enforcement Act of 1994,ordered the creation of a new office in theU.S. Department of Justice to encourageand support job training and placementprograms in State and local governmentsfor released prisoners and probationers—the National Institute of Corrections’ Of-fice of Correctional Job Training and Place-ment. Similarly, in 1996 the Federal Bu-reau of Prisons created the Inmate Place-ment Program Branch, dedicated to en-hancing Federal inmates’ chances of se-curing employment after release. How-ever, the Federal Government’s attentionto this problem is not new.

Government programs to bring offendersinto the labor market began with the pas-sage of the Manpower Demonstration andTraining Act of 1962 (MDTA) and theEconomic Opportunity Act of 1964. As aresult of this legislation, hundreds of em-ployment and training programs for of-fenders and ex-offenders were created.However, shortcomings in the evaluationmethods used made it difficult to deter-mine if the efforts improved employmentopportunities or reduced recidivism amongex-offenders.

During the 1970s, more controlled experi-ments of ex-offender employment pro-grams were undertaken, in particular, thesupported work demonstrations imple-mented by the Manpower DemonstrationResearch Corporation (MDRC). With oneexception—a study of work crews for un-employed ex-offenders and former heroin

Job Development Programs for Ex-Offenders Have a Long History

addicts that created a lasting effect on em-ployment and earnings, but not on recidi-vism—research results showed that the pro-grams failed to improve participants’ em-ployment or earnings or to reduce recidi-vism. In 1982 when Comprehensive Em-ployment and Training Act (CETA) fundingended, programs for ex-offenders largelydisappeared. Funding grew for manpowerprograms for various disadvantaged popula-tions, primarily through the Job TrainingPartnership Act (JTPA). But a controlledexperiment at 16 JTPA sites failed to findevidence of positive effects on subsequentarrests for out-of-school youths, including asubgroup of youths with arrest records.a

There have been few recent systematic evalu-ations of job placement and developmentprograms for ex-offenders.b However, a 1992study of Project RIO (Re-Integration of Of-fenders), a statewide program run by theTexas Workforce Commission that providesjob placement services to more than 15,000parolees each year, found that after 1 year, 69percent of program participants secured em-ployment compared with only 36 percent ofa group of nonparticipant parolees. Further-more, during the year after release, 48 per-cent of high-risk RIO participants were rear-rested compared with 57 percent ofnonprogram high-risk parolees; 23 percentof RIO participants were reincarcerated com-pared with 38 percent of non-RIO parolees.Although parolees in the study were notassigned randomly to control and treatmentgroups, the two groups of ex-offenders stud-ied had similar demographic characteristicsand risks of reoffending.c

Why so few successes? Perhaps it is becauseearlier programs were not intensive enough;because many offenders suffer from sub-

stance abuse, mental illness, and lack ofaffordable housing; and because inadequateattention was devoted to job readiness asopposed to job placement.d The Safer Foun-dation, like Project RIO, tries to addressthese deficiencies by providing intensiveeducational and life skills services, socialsupport, and job placement assistance. Asa result, the Safer Foundation may have amuch better chance than previous efforts ofeffecting lasting improvement among theex-offenders it serves.

Notesa. Bloom, H., L.O. Orr, G. Cave, S.H.Bell, F. Doolittle, and W. Lin, The Na-tional JTPA Study. Overview: Impacts,Benefits and Costs of Title II–A, Cam-bridge, Massachusetts: Abt Associates Inc.,1994.

b. McDonald, D.C., D.T. Rodda, S.H. Bell,and D.E. Hunt, Transition Services andSupervision for Released Prisoners: Impli-cations of Research Findings for ProgramDevelopment, draft report prepared for theU.S. Department of Justice, National Insti-tute of Justice, Cambridge, Massachusetts:Abt Associates Inc., 1995.

c. Menon, R., C. Blakely, D. Carmichael,and L. Silver, An Evaluation of ProjectRIO Outcomes: An Evaluative Report,College Station, Texas: Texas A&M Uni-versity, Public Policy Resources Labora-tory, July 1992.

d. McDonald, D.C., and D.T. Rodda, “Of-fender Employment and Training Pro-grams: A Review of the Research,” unpub-lished paper, Cambridge, Massachusetts:Abt Associates Inc., 1994.

Program Focus 5

PROGRAM FOCUS

Safer Foundation’sOriginsThe Safer Foundation was established in1972 by two former priests. One of them,Raymond “Bernie” Curran, as manpowerdevelopment and training director of anational trade association in Illinois, re-ceived a U.S. Department of Justice grantto provide vocational training to prisoninmates and to help them enter unionsand private industry after release.

Spying a golden opportunity to furtherhis commitment to social justice,Curran asked the owner of a large

manufacturing company, “If I form anot-for-profit organization to helpinmates get jobs, would you chair it?”When the startled owner eventuallyagreed, Curran moved the grant out ofthe trade association into the newlyformed Safer Foundation. (Curranchose the name Safer to suggest theprogram would reduce crime on thestreets and the term foundation be-cause it sounded respectable.)

Curran and the company owner soonrealized that ex-offenders needed morethan jobs; they needed job readinessskills and support services. As a result,

Curran expanded Safer’s focus to pro-vide basic education, life skills train-ing, support for solving socialproblems, and followup services afterplacement. These features have beenthe cornerstone of Safer’s programsfor more than 25 years.

The ProgramThe Safer Foundation offers a numberof traditional ex-offender services—some of which, as discussed below,incorporate unusual features. Exhibit 1suggests the comprehensiveness ofthese activities.

Site Main Office Ida B. Wells Rock Island Davenport Cook County Jail CrossroadsCommunityCorrectional

Center

Location Chicago Chicago Illinois Iowa Chicago Chicago

Services

Exhibit 1. Safer Foundation Sites and ServicesPostrelease Facilities Secured Residential Sites

• Intake andassessment

• Preemploymenttraining

• HIV-preventioneducation

• Job referral andfollowup

• Support services(e.g., substanceabuse services)

• Youth basic skillsclasses

14 Employmentspecialists

4 Intakecounselors

3 Support servicespecialists

2 Case managers2 Course

facilitators2 Lifeguards1 Prevention

specialist

• Basic skills classes• Job referral and

followup

3 Instructors2 Employment

specialists1 Lifeguard1 Recruiter



1 Employmentspecialist

1 Intake counselor



• Juvenile diversioneducation program

• Court-imposedcommunity servicemonitoring

2 Educationfacilitators

1 Communityservicecoordinator

1 Employmentspecialist

1 Intake counselor1 Lifeguard1 Recruiter

PACE Institute• Basic skills classes• Academic

counseling• Literacy tutoring• Alcoholics

Anonymous/NarcoticsAnonymousmeetings

• Life skills classes• Creative writing

workshops

200 Volunteer tutors9 Instructional

facilitators3 Academic

counselors1 Volunteer

coordinator

• Basic skills classes• Alcoholics

Anonymous/NarcoticsAnonymousmeetings

• Job and educationcounseling

• Seminars• Parenting classes

65 Volunteer seminarfacilitators

12 Counselors1 Lifeguard1 Volunteer

coordinator

Staff


PROGRAM FOCUS

Outreach, intake, andassessmentA wide range of ex-offenders andincarcerated persons are eligible toreceive Safer’s employment, educa-tional, and support services, includingjuvenile and adult probationers andparolees, community corrections resi-dents, and persons in the county jail.

Recruitment has never been a problemat Safer. Word of mouth is one reason.As one client says, “The word on thestreet was that Safer worked. So Idecided to give it a shot.” However,probation and parole officers refermost clients. In addition, residents atthe Crossroads Community Correc-tional Center, the work release pro-gram that Safer runs for the IllinoisDepartment of Correction (DOC), areautomatically referred to Safer. In-mates are also referred from the PACE(Programmed Activities for Correc-tional Education) Institute, Safer’sprivate school in the Cook County Jail.

Based on the circumstances, needs,and wishes of each applicant, intakestaff develop a plan for how the personcan make the best possible use ofSafer’s services. Applicants with mi-nor problems—for example, no socialsecurity card or food money—arereferred by staff to government agen-cies for assistance and then to a Saferemployment specialist. Applicants withserious problems such as homelessnessare referred directly to Safer’s SupportService Unit; if the problem will inter-fere with success on the job—e.g.,substance abuse or mental illness—staff refer the applicants to an appro-priate rehabilitation program,reintegrating them back into Saferupon completion.

Educational offerings“I was surprised when I started basiceducation classes,” one Safer graduatereported, “because they made me feellike I belonged. I started to learn thingsand enjoyed it. In [public] school, therewas all this competition and the teach-ers didn’t care. At Safer, everybodywants you to learn, and both the teach-ers and the other people help eachother . . . . I even got my GED.”

Safer’s primaryeducationalcourse is a 6-week basic skillsprogram offeredat the organiza-tion’s Chicagoheadquarters, attwo of its satel-lite offices, andat its work re-lease facility.(See “SatelliteLocations—Boon or Bane?”)In addition tobasic skills devel-opment, employ-ment specialists drill students on how tocomplete job applications and preparefor interviews. During and after thecourse, employment specialists helpstudents find employment (or, withyounger students, continue their educa-tion) while special case managers, calledlifeguards, follow them for 1 year tohelp them maintain success. (Safer’sbasic skills courses in the CookCounty Jail are discussed in the sectionon the PACE Institute.)

The courses are based on a peer learningmodel developed by Safer in whichstudents help each other in groups of

three to five members supervised byprofessional facilitators. According tostaff, peer learning short-circuits disrup-tive behavior and hostility toward thetraditional classroom. At the same time,it puts this population’s susceptibility topeer influence to positive use. Peerteaching may also promote client self-esteem, as students realize they havesomething of value to offer each other.(See “Safer’s Peer Learning Approach.”)

The basic education course at the mainfacility for youths, known as theYouth Empowerment Program (YEP),is open to 16- to 21-year-old ex-offenders and is designed primarily toprepare students to continue their edu-cation after Safer. Measured by theofficial General Equivalency Diploma(GED) practice test scores, the 72students completing the 6-week YEPcourses offered during 1995–96 im-proved their basic skills test scores byan average of 12.5 percent.

A Safer Foundation counselor presents options to a client attending asubstance abuse prevention program at Safer’s main office.

Ph

oto

by

Po

we

ll P

ho

tog

rap

hy,

In

c.

Program Focus 7

PROGRAM FOCUS

The excerpts below from the SaferFoundation’s Facilitator Training Manualfor the Basic Skills Employability TrainingProgram summarize the major principlesof the peer approach facilitators use.

■ Training activities are peer centered,and participant interaction takes the placeof textbooks and worksheets as the me-dium of instruction. Most class work isdone in ad hoc aggregations of three tofive members. Within these aggregationsthe more proficient members instruct thosewho are less proficient, or members withcomparable abilities work jointly to de-vise solutions to new problem material.Facilitators make frequent but relativelybrief contact with each of these groups toassess progress, diagnose difficulties, an-swer questions, and provide information.

■ Facilitators function as a source of in-formation and performance feedback. Theyare the impetus for activity, but they strive

Safer’s Peer Learning Approach

to avoid becoming the focus of groupattention.

■ An inductive approach toward subjectmatter governs the provision of all training.The direction of training is from the spe-cific case to the general principle. Studentsare not instructed in generalized, abstractrules or formulas, and sample solutions toproblems are seldom demonstrated prior tothe assignment of problems for study. Fa-cilitators are more likely to instruct withquestions than with declarations.

■ Differences between students and fa-cilitators are assertively addressed as vio-lations of agreements between equals, notas the students’ transgression of the facili-tators’ rules.

■ Most discipline problems are alleviatedthrough the active, participatory role ofstudents. When not confined to a passive,spectator role, they are less subject to theboredom that spawns disruptive behavior.

Job placement“After I’d served 2 years in prison, Ihooked up with Mike [an employmentspecialist] because my parole officerreferred me specifically to him. ‘Gotalk to him [Mike], he’ll help you finda job,’ he said. In 2 weeks, Mike gotme a job as a machine presser, and Iwas trained on the job. I couldn’t landone on my own—I filled out applica-tions, but no one would hire me. Mikealso got me into an 8-month weldingcourse, which will begin in 6 months,that I can do while I’m still working.”

It takes about 3 weeks for Safer’s em-ployment specialists to place a client.However, the job market for theprogram’s clients is shrinking becausea growing number of Chicago-areaemployers are hiring through tempo-rary agencies whose referrals are ei-ther contract workers (who do not

receive fringe benefits) or temporaryworkers (who move from company tocompany). In addition, manufacturingand industrial companies have beenrelocating to suburban locations, leav-ing in the city primarily service andtechnical jobs that require a level ofeducation and skills most Safer em-ployment candidates do not have.

Despite this hurdle, 41 percent of the2,688 ex-offenders who participated inSafer’s employment programs in 1996found work with private-sector em-ployers; of these, 59 percent met thefoundation’s definition of placementby remaining on the job for 30 days.How?

The principal explanation for thisachievement is the large pool of satis-fied customers Safer has built over theyears. (See “A Long-Time Safer Em-

ployer Tells His Story.”) According toSteve Epting, Safer’s director of em-ployment services, “Companies thinkof Safer as a free human resource ser-vice. We screen clients, even pickingup their FICA [Federal Insurance Con-tributions Act] statements to verifytheir claims about previous employ-ment, and we offer to test candidatesfor drugs.”4

A 1996 Safer survey found that a sig-nificant majority of Safer employersreported little or no difference betweenqualified job candidates referred bySafer and candidates referred throughtraditional means. In fact, 78 percentof responding employers said theystrongly preferred Safer clients be-cause of their high motivation. Ac-cording to Daniel Coughlin, Safer’sformer executive vice president, this is“because we screen clients carefullybefore sending them for an interview,and then we support them in their tran-sition to the world of work for up toa year.”

Safer’s 30-day definition of jobplacement. Before 1996, Safer satis-fied government funders by requestingreimbursement for clients who re-mained on the job for at least 5 days.However, in 1996 Safer, on its owninitiative, switched to a 30-day bench-mark and asked the State to includethe new tougher performance goal inits contracts. As a result, employmentspecialists and Safer get no credit—orreimbursement—for a client who quitsor is fired before completing 30 dayson the job.

Diane Williams, Safer’s president,says, “While switching to 30 days wasa bold move, we did it because it was


PROGRAM FOCUS

the right thing to do—it represents abetter indicator that Safer is achievingits mission of helping clients to changetheir lives.” Williams adds, “Thechange is also a useful marketingpitch.”

To maintain objectivity, Safer as-signed responsibility for verifying jobplacements to staff reporting to thevice president of administration, whohas no operational responsibility forSafer’s programs and is in charge ofbilling. Employers must verify eachplacement to the billing department bya signed fax or letter, which the billingdepartment confirms in a followupcall.

The new performance goal haschanged the way some employmentspecialists work with clients. As anincentive bonus, Safer’s job develop-ment staff members have the opportu-nity to share in a pool of about$25,000 that is distributed based onthe proportion of official placementsthey make and the starting salariestheir placements earn. As a result em-ployment specialists now pay in-creased attention to preparing andmotivating clients to remain on thejob, and they take a more active role infollowing placements with telephonecalls and site visits to prevent attrition.Developers also work more closelywith intake staff to ensure that clientsare ready for employment and thatthey receive the support services thatwill enable them to keep the job. Inshort, job retention, not placement, hasbecome their principal focus. As oneemployment specialist says, “We haveto think more in terms of quality thanquantity.”

Frank, the plant manager of a privatelyowned furniture manufacturing companythat employs about 60 workers, remembersthe day in 1984 when Mike, a Safer em-ployment specialist, called him unexpect-edly to ask if he would be interested ininterviewing any Safer clients. Frank saidhe would. Since then, he has hired morethan 50 Safer clients, 12 during a single 6-month stretch in 1996, with most employ-ees staying 1 or 2 years.

“Some are good and some aren’t,” Franksays, adding, “they’re as good as what Icould hire off the street. But Mike screensthem carefully.” Frank says if he places anad in the paper, “I could get 15 people andnone are any good; in the meantime, I’vewasted my time filling out all these formson each one. And employment agencies

A Long-Time Safer Employer TellsHis Story

don’t send me good people, either. So Mikesaves me time. And he provides peoplequickly.”

On occasion, Frank has called Mike re-garding an employee who arrives late.“Mike calls right back and takes care of theproblem—he’s rougher on these guys thanI am. After that, the guy comes on time.And Mike comes here to check on them andcalls me to see if I’m having any problems.He came three times in the last 2 weeks.”

The plant pays an hourly wage of $8, risingover time to $12, with full benefits. Frankrecently promoted one client from forkliftoperator to press brake operator, whileanother “excellent guy” in the spray de-partment “could become foreman heresoon.”

FollowupEmployment specialists are respon-sible for visiting companies andschools to check on the progress ofnewly hired or enrolled clients. “Oncewe had four guys who missed fiveclasses at welding school,” Mike, anemployment specialist, recalls. “I tele-phoned the sibling of one, the wife ofanother, the parents of a third, and thecounselor at the work release center ofthe last one to find out what was goingon and to round up support to get themback on track.”

After clients have been on the job orin school for 30 days, lifeguards—specially trained case managers—trackthem for 1 year, offering help withemerging problems that range fromfinding child care to entering sub-stance abuse counseling to resolving

conflicts with employers. In Safer’sbasic skills courses, each participantmeets his or her assigned lifeguardduring the last week of classes to dis-cuss the ex-offender’s immediateplans and to begin to develop a per-sonal relationship. (Safer participantswho receive only job placement assis-tance do not meet their lifeguards untilthey have found a job.) The lifeguardthen either telephones or visits theparticipant at the workplace, school, orhome at least weekly for up to 3 or 4months, depending on the participant’sneed for help, and every 2 to 4 weeksthereafter. Participants may also leavevoice mail messages with their life-guards 24 hours a day for a responsethe following workday. For example,when one participant enrolled inschool was cut off from public assis-tance because she no longer had a

Program Focus 9

PROGRAM FOCUS

permanent address, she called her life-guard for help. The lifeguard learnedthat the woman had fled her boyfriend’shouse, where she had been living, be-cause he was abusing her. The lifeguardthen arranged for the woman to move inwith her sister in another State.

PACE Institute“PACE really motivated me, becausewhen I was transferred from the jail wherePACE is located to State prison, I got myGED. The school inspired me because Ididn’t like reading, writing, and mathwhen I was in regular school, but PACEwas intriguing. With only 10 students inthe classroom, I got a lot of attention fromthe facilitator, and I was able to learnthings from the other students and stillteach them something, too.”

Safer’s PACE (Programmed Activitiesfor Correctional Education) Instituteprovides pretrial detainees and sen-tenced inmates in Chicago’s CookCounty Jail with daytime basic educa-tion and life skills courses, along withevening (and some daytime) one-on-one tutoring. At any given time, PACEserves between 75 and 90 men andabout 40 women in the 10,000-bedjail—the average length of stay in theprogram is 60 days. Each year theschool serves more than 600 men andwomen, and there is a long list of in-mates waiting to enroll.

In 1966 a minister running Bible-studygroups in the jail was troubled that hisstudents could not read and conse-quently were finding it difficult to findwork after release. As a result, he con-vinced then-Cook County sheriff (andfuture Governor), Richard Ogilvie, tosupport the development of the PACE

Institute. Then in 1970, Ray Kroc, thefounder of McDonald’s restaurants,helped build a two-story facility to housePACE so that the classrooms would beinsulated from the hurly-burly of thejail’s cell areas. A Chicago businessexecutive recruited a group of 100 otherbusiness executives to each give $1,000every year for 5 years to support theprogram. When Ogilvie became Gover-nor, he continued to support PACE byproviding the program with a portion ofIllinois’ share of the U.S. Department ofEducation’s adult basic and secondaryeducation funds.

In 1986, PACE Institute merged withSafer, and Safer deeded the facility tothe county for $1. Safer pays for allequipment, from chairs to chalk, but thejail maintains the structure and providessecurity staff. The Illinois State Boardof Education and the Secretary ofState’s Literacy Office reimburse Saferfor PACE’s educational services.

PACE’s nine full-time facilitators leadclasses Monday through Friday from 8a.m. to 2 p.m. PACE relies heavily onone-on-one tutoring to support class-room instruction. One student reports,“I use what I learned in prison to help

other students learn word processing.They get fired up seeing me typing 55words a minute without looking at thekeyboard or the screen; it inspiresthem to think they can do it too.”

Ben Greer, PACE’s director, empha-sizes, “The course work is introduc-tory and motivational, designed to getstudents excited about education sothat when they go to prison or arereleased, they continue their school-ing.” Because students remain in theprogram an average of 60 days, theyeach usually receive about 240 hoursof basic skills training. Furthermore,the 1994 triennial evaluation of PACEby the Illinois State Board of Educationfound that, of 464 students enrolled asof the end of January 1994, the 37 per-cent who were educationally disadvan-taged achieved average reading andmath gains of 1.52 grade levels.

Students also work one on one withmore than 200 volunteer literacy tu-tors, typically two evenings eachweek. According to one student, “I gettutored in the evenings in math inthings like compound interest, geom-etry, and algebra so that I can help theinstructor teach other students duringthe daytime class. I have a brilliantalgebra tutor who wasn’t a collegestudent, but she sure knows her math.”

A PACE program recruiter periodicallyadvertises the program to inmates in thejail’s general population. The recruiterrequests that the jail administrators trans-fer appropriate inmates to the medium-security tier set aside for PACE students.A security officer is present in the class-room and tutoring areas of the PACE tier,although no student has ever assaultedanother student, faculty member, or tutor.

A PACE Institute volunteer in the CookCounty Jail helps an inmate with his readingcomprehension skills.

Photo by Powell Photography, Inc.


PROGRAM FOCUS

Recruiting and trainingPACE’s literacyvolunteers“I had a burly gang member I wastutoring who was as arrogant as theycome—but he was also nervous, be-cause he couldn’t read,” said a lit-eracy volunteer at PACE. “Then heimproved rapidly. During one session,he started to sniffle. I asked him if hehad a cold. ‘No,’ he said, ‘I’m cryingbecause I can read. And now I’ll beable to read to my kids.’”

PACE volunteers must commit to atleast 6 consecutive weeks of tutoring,but most remain for 1 to 2 years. Onevolunteer has participated for 17 years,another for 12. About 60 percent ofPACE volunteers are college studentswho receive course credits for the fieldexperience. PACE’s paid volunteercoordinator matches volunteer exper-tise with student needs. Along withcollege posters, word of mouth hasproved to be the best recruiter.

The volunteer coordinator provideseach volunteer with a 30-page hand-book and a 90-minute orientation. Tipsfor volunteers include, “Don’t alwaysexpect thanks. You may not receiveany show of gratitude from inmates.They may feel it but may not knowhow to express it—or feel embarrassedby it.” A list of Do’s and Don’ts states,“Don’t be conned.” New volunteers areplaced in the same physical area withseasoned volunteers who can observeand advise them. The coordinator alsoobserves volunteers and reviews theirdaily self-evaluation forms. Many vol-unteers have followed the coordinator’srecommendation to obtain certificationas literacy tutors from local literacytraining organizations.

According to Greer, the most commonproblem among new volunteers is that,once they find that their students failto fit the stereotype of the hostile,unmotivated criminal and instead turnout to be polite and interested, thevolunteers think, “This guy is an ex-ception, so I can bend the rules aboutnever giving him my phone number,calling his attorney, or bringing himsome gum.”

Greer says, “We have to remind vol-unteers that these students are sincerebut that some of them can be manipu-lative if they get the opportunity.”

CrossroadsCommunityCorrectional CenterSix-feet one-inch, 210 pounds, and inhis early 20s, Doug came to the Cross-roads Community Correctional Cen-ter, Safer’s work release facility,brimming with anger and a jaded“seen it all, done it all” attitude. Be-fore going to prison for assault andbattery, Doug had been an incorri-gible foster child and an active gangmember. Guided by his Crossroadscase manager, Doug received a GEDin the Safer basic education programin Crossroads and enrolled in a localvocational school to study culinaryarts. Crossroads’ shift supervisor—another former neighborhood youthwho had made good—mentored Doug,helping him keep his hostility in check.After his release, Doug continued hisschooling at the vocational school.However, one day the Crossroadsdirector turned on the television to see“tough, hostile” Doug in tears, beinginterviewed by a reporter. The city

was closing down the vocationalschool, and Doug was lamenting, “I’min my last year before becoming acertified chef, and now I can’t make it.No one understands how far I’ve comeand where I’ve been.” A few dayslater an anonymous donor paid his$4,000 tuition at another school,where Doug graduated near the top ofhis class. Doug is now the head chef inan upscale Chicago restaurant.

With more than 200 beds, the Cross-roads Community Correctional Centeris Illinois’ largest work release center.Safer runs the entire facility, includingsecurity operations, under a contractwith the Illinois Department ofCorrection.

In 1983, DOC, dissatisfied with theexisting not-for-profit operator, askedSafer to take over Crossroads Commu-nity Correctional Center. Safer agreed,but not without some soul searching.Safer staff were not sure that, as mem-bers of a rehabilitation operation, theywanted to enter the corrections busi-ness. Staff were also concerned aboutwhether running the center might leadex-offenders to lump Safer with “theenemy”—the corrections system—andstop coming.

Eventually, staff concluded that, ratherthan becoming jailers, Safer wouldsimply be providing the same types ofservices to securely housed offendersthat it was already offering to peopleon the streets. Furthermore, by provid-ing programming in a correctionalfacility, Safer could both begin towork with offenders at an earlier stageand provide an easier and more certaintransition to postincarceration life.

Program Focus 11

PROGRAM FOCUS

Crossroads does everything otherwork release centers do and more.While Crossroads must follow thestandard DOC security guidelines andmake security its paramount concern,the center’s major purposes are pro-grams and service delivery. Accordingto Rochelle Portee-White, Safer’sassistant vice president of operations,“Crossroads can help a motivated per-son to change attitudinally, education-ally, and occupationally, somethingthat is less difficult to accomplish thanin a typical prison since Safer’s pri-mary objective is service delivery, asopposed to the traditional securitymindset.”5

During orientation week, residentscomplete DOC’s Pre-Start Program,which consists of two State-mandatedparenting classes and nine 90-minuteminicourses on such topics as moneymanagement, job interviewing tech-niques, and stress management. Resi-dents may then seek employment ontheir own or through a Safer employ-ment specialist at the center.

Crossroads offers a basic skills pro-gram that uses the small-group peer

learning approach. Courses run for 6weeks, 6 hours a day, with 3 weeksbetween courses. Eighty-six of theninety-four students in the 1995–96program improved their basic skills testscores by an aver-age of 16 percent;12 students im-proved their scoresby at least 25 per-cent. At any onetime, about 20 resi-dents are attendingthe basic skillscourse; another 20are enrolled inclasses in the com-munity. Residentsflock to the facility’sdozens of seminarsled by a corps of 65community volun-teers. (See “Volun-teer-Led SeminarSeries.”) There is anextra incentive.Safer uses a system

In 1996, Safer developed a series of volun-teer-led discussion groups at Crossroads tohelp prevent idleness and enhance resi-dents’ life skills. An initial $15,000 grantwas used primarily to pay for a portion ofthe salary and training for a new volunteercoordinator, LaMetra Curry.

Curry began the program by distributing asurvey asking residents to identify topicsthey would like to have covered and thenranking their responses. Money manage-ment was first, followed by spiritual pro-grams, parenting skills, GED education, employment training, and goal setting. Currythen recruited volunteers from the commu-nity who could address these topics.

Curry recruits largely from personal con-tacts at local events. Volunteers committhemselves in writing to provide 3 hours oftraining a week for no fewer than 6 months;

Volunteer-Led Seminar Series

The Crossroads Community CorrectionalCenter is housed in a building owned by theSafer Foundation. Rental income from twofloors helps Safer defray the costs of mortgagepayments on the building.

Ph

oto

by

Po

we

ll P

ho

tog

rap

hy,

In

c.

A volunteer seminar leader at the Crossroads Community CorrectionalCenter, himself a former inmate, facilitates a discussion about thedifficulties in transitioning from prison into the outside world and theneed for personal accountability.

Ph

oto

by P

ow

ell P

ho

tog

rap

hy, In

c.

that offers residents more privileges,such as 72-hour weekend passes, if theystay active in the program and do noth-ing to require disciplinary action forstipulated periods of time.

however, volunteers do not deal with is-sues related to their own occupations. Forinstance, a museum director Curry recruitedat a park function discusses motivation, notart. Curry says, “Volunteers like the oppor-tunity to talk about things that are unrelatedto their jobs.” One volunteer reported, “Theguys are actually attentive, and I want tosign up for another 6 months.”

Screened and trained to avoid lecturing, thevolunteers facilitate the groups, encourag-ing participants to share their own knowl-edge and experiences with each other. Mostgroups meet weekly. At the end of everysession, each volunteer fills out a formdescribing what happened, while partici-pants write down what they learned, howthe information or skills will help themafter release, and whether they want an-other session on the topic.


PROGRAM FOCUS

Program EffectivenessAccording to Bernie Curran, Safer’scofounder, “Ninety-two percent ofSafer’s clients are minorities; 70 percenthave a history of untreated substanceabuse; 75 percent are functionally illiter-ate; the majority live in poverty.” De-spite these barriers, Safer has helpedmore than 40,000 participants find jobssince 1972, including 1,102 during thefiscal year ending June 30, 1996. UsingSafer’s placement criterion of 30 days ofcontinuous employment, 59 percent ofthese 1,102 clients qualified officially asplacements.

Excluding the costs of operating theCrossroads Community CorrectionalCenter and the PACE Institute, andother expenses unrelated to job place-ment services, Safer’s cost per partici-pant placed was $1,369; its cost perparticipant placed who remained em-ployed for at least 30 days was $1,956.In addition to its employment services,for the 1995–96 fiscal year Safer pro-vided information and referral servicesto 13,586 clients and educational ser-vices to 996 clients.

Safer has begun to track clients’ workhistories for 10 months after they havefound a job. Among a partial sampleof clients who remained employed 30days, 81 percent were still employed(with the same or another employer)after 2 months, 75 percent after 3months, and 57 percent after 9 months.

In 1996, Safer assigned Ray Auclairthe task of designing and implement-ing a comprehensive process andimpact evaluation. The foundationbelieved it would need convincingevidence that it was reducing recidi-

Below are behavioral objectives Safer is measuring for its Youth Empowerment Program(YEP). The program’s goal was to enroll 85 participants during the year ending June 30,1996. These participants would experience three distinct phases of programming:competency-based remedial training in a job-simulated environment, direct placement,and sequential followup through intervention. Outcome data are limited to program fiscalyear 1995–96.

Education. Daily classes conducted in 7-week cycles.

Objective 1: By June 30, 1996, at least 50 percent of the participants completingthe course will increase their GED readiness by posting a 10-percentincrease in their practice test scores.

Result: Participants enrolled ............ 84 (1 less than planned)

Completed course ....................................... 72 (86%)

Achieved a 12.5-percent increasea...........................45 (63%)

Objective 2: By June 30, 1996, 50 percent of participants achieving a 10-percentincrease will have registered for the GED.

Result: Participants achieving a 12.5-percent increase whoregistered for the GED................................ 39 (87%)

Registrants who obtained their GED .......... 16 (41%)

Employment. Individualized placement activities after classes end.

Objective 1: By June 30, 1996, 60 percent of participants who complete the7-week training cycle will enter school, vocational training, oremployment.

Result: Participants completing ......................................... 72

Number placed............................................ 48 (67%)

Objective 2: By June 30, 1996, at least 90 percent of those placed will maintaintheir placements for 30 days; 50 percent for 90 days; and 25 percentfor 180 days.

Result: 30 days ........................................................ 48 (100%)

90 days .......................................................... 29 (60%)

180 days ........................................................ 28 (58%)

Recidivism. Conviction on a new charge.

Objective 1: By June 30, 1996, at least 60 percent of participants completing theprogram will remain crime free at 30, 90, 180, and 360 days.

Result: 30 days ...................................................... 72 (100%)

90 days ...................................................... 72 (100%)

180 days ...................................................... 71 (99%)

360 days .............................Data still being collected.

Notes

a. The Safer Foundation opted to use the number of participants who achieved a 12.5-percent increase in GED practice test scores as the benchmark to represent the extentto which results exceeded the original objective.

Exhibit 2. Safer Behavioral Objectives and Outcomes

Program Focus 13

PROGRAM FOCUS

vism to continue to attract private-sector donations. Auclair will collectand compare recidivism rates acrosstime and across Safer sites. For theYouth Empowerment Program (YEP),he is comparing results for participantsboth with ex-offenders who are pro-gram clients but not enrolled in YEPand with a group of nonoffenders.Exhibit 2 presents the detailed out-come data Auclair collected as of De-cember 31, 1996. The data show that:

■ More than 60 percent of 72 YEPparticipants who completed the courseachieved at least a 12.5-percent in-crease in their GED practice test scores.

■ Sixty-seven percent of 72 partici-pants who completed the course en-tered school, vocational training, oremployment, with 58 percent of theseindividuals maintaining their place-ments after 180 days.

■ Ninety-nine percent of participantswho entered school, vocational train-ing, or employment had not been con-victed of a new crime after 180 days.6

Fund RaisingSafer has devoted considerable re-sources to securing and expandingprogram funding. Nevertheless, be-cause Safer’s budget remained thesame from 1991 to 1996, its fundinglevel in effect declined when adjustedfor inflation. The reasons that it lostground are not hard to find.

Funding challengesSafer administrators observe that theFederal Government is providing lesspublic demonstration and seed moneythan in the past. In addition, some orga-

nizations that had formerly refused towork with ex-offenders are starting tocompete with Safer for this work.

Further compounding the problem ofsecuring funding in a more competi-tive environment is a requirement tomatch public grants with private con-tributions. This is done primarily forFederal Title XX funds that pay forSafer’s basic skills classes and jobplacement services—a 25-percentlocal match for every Title XX dollarreceived. Yet raising funds from pri-vate companies and foundations is alsobecoming more difficult. “It is not justdemonstration funds that are shrink-ing,” comments Alyson Cooke,Safer’s vice president for develop-ment, “ongoing public and privatedollars are declining precipitously.”

The demands on the private philan-thropic community are increasing.Cooke adds, “Private foundations andcompanies want to know that theirdollars are making a difference—noton your bottom line but in the commu-nity at large.”

Private-sector marketingstrategiesDespite these barriers, Safer has con-sistently raised about 6 percent ofits revenues from private-sectorsources—including corporations,foundations, individuals, and specialevents—ranging from a one-time, $5donation to a 3-year, $1 million grant.The typical foundation or corporatecontribution, however, is $5,000 to$10,000.

Safer’s Sources of Income in Fiscal Year 1996

Source PercentagePublic support ........................................................................................... 88.24%Private support (contributions and grants) .................................................. 6.26%Program service fees* ................................................................................. 1.52%Other income (e.g., investments, rental income) ........................................ 3.98%___________________*Inmates in the Crossroads Community Correctional Center are required by the State tocontribute 20 percent of their net earnings (up to $50 per week) to their room and board.

Safer’s Fiscal Year 1996 Expenses

Function AmountSalaries and employee benefits ........................................................... $6,234,324Consulting and professional fees ........................................................... $163,546Contractual subsistence and allowances ................................................ $622,758Conferences and educational programs ................................................... $31,870Occupancy ............................................................................................. $989,607Office services and equipment .............................................................. $309,239Consumables ........................................................................................... $24,761All other ................................................................................................. $205,629Total ................................................................................................... $8,581,734

Exhibit 3. Safer Budget Figures


PROGRAM FOCUS

Why is Safer effective in obtainingprivate-sector funding? Staff offerseveral guidelines for success:

■ Learn about—and cater to—theneeds of the potential donor. Accordingto Bernie Curran, “You have to under-stand potential donors in terms of whomthey want to give money to and for whatcauses, and then open your pitch with theaspect of your program that fits best withtheir interests or mission.” For severalyears, Safer obtained funding from aprominent private foundation in Iowa.However, the private foundation wasno longer interested in supporting Saferbecause the funder wanted its dollarsused for new, not existing, programs.As a result, Safer administrators, actingon their longstanding interest in expand-ing Safer’s presence in Davenport, Iowa,capitalized on their existing relationshipwith the local juvenile court to convincethe State of Iowa and the private founda-tion to jointly fund a $510,000, 3-yearpilot program to serve youthful offend-ers in the community. (See “SatelliteLocations—Boon or Bane?”)

■ Conduct public relations activities.Carolyn Dennis, Safer’s communica-tions director, prepares public relationsmaterials, such as news releases andbrochures, that help develop a positiveimage of Safer before staff even walkthrough a potential funder’s door. ASafer board of directors subcommitteeis also charged with gaining morepublic recognition for Safer. In 1995the subcommittee, under the leader-ship of a board member with expertisein public relations, orchestrated a bill-board campaign to raise public aware-ness of the foundation and the need tooffer jobs to ex-offenders. Boardmembers worked with a friend at a

prestigious advertising firm to developa billboard slogan, “Jobs Keep Ex-Offenders Ex-Offenders: Give ’Em aJob.” A billboard company donatedbillboards all over Chicago. In 1996,in an effort to encourage companies tocontinue supporting the foundation,Steve Epting, director of employmentservices, and Diane Williams, Safer’spresident, hosted Safer’s first Em-ployer Recognition Luncheon to ac-knowledge business contributors,enable them to meet each other, andprovide them an opportunity to talk inperson with Safer’s entire staff, notjust the employment specialists.

■ Be assertive. “No,” Safer’s staff mem-bers believe, “is just a request for moreinformation.” When staff were trying toput together a $150-a-plate dinner forcorporate officers, a board member toldthem in jest to recruit the Chief Justice asa speaker. Taking the board member athis word—and thinking he meant theU.S., not the Illinois, Supreme Court—a staff member called then-U.S. ChiefJustice Warren Burger’s office and spent3 hours convincing his administrativeassistant that Safer could deliver corpo-rate America if Burger would agree tospeak. Three months later, the assistantcalled back to say that the Chief Justicewould speak. In his 1984 speech, Burgertold the assembled corporate officials,“There should be a Safer in every State.”

■ Network, network, network. “It getsdown to relationships—you have tospend time cultivating, handholding,”says Auclair. In addition to raisingalmost $13,000, Safer’s annual golftournament provides staff members anopportunity to network with politi-cians, private-sector business owners,and individual Safer supporters.

Keys to Success

Talented staffSafer personnel and employers creditthe program’s achievements primarilyto the enthusiasm, dedication, andtalent of the foundation’s staff. Ac-cording to Bernie Curran, “Goodpeople can successfully implement apoor program design if they are pre-pared to change it. ‘Good people’ aregoal oriented but compassionate, andthey can help ex-offenders changetheir mindset about how to behave andthink so they can make it in the worldof work.”

Diane Williams agrees, “Get staff withcompassion and a mission, for whomworking in the program is not just ajob. Staff are more important than themodel. But they also have to be able tobe tough and tell a client, ‘You need toget that comb out of your hair andlook at me when we talk.’” Thesecharacter traits are personified in Will-iams—an individual with a master’sdegree in business administration wholeft a better paying job as marketingdirector at a major corporation afterhaving spent 9 years as a volunteer onSafer’s board and, before that, as aSafer tutor. The longevity of other keySafer staff attests to their commitment:six top managers have been with theprogram for more than 10 years—three of them for at least 20 years.

VolunteersSafer makes extensive use of trained,closely supervised volunteers, en-abling the program to provide servicesand secure expertise it could not other-wise afford: 200 volunteers provideone-on-one literacy tutoring in the

Program Focus 15

PROGRAM FOCUS

The Safer Foundation differs from manysimilar programs in the number of satellitebranches it operates. Although not withoutproblems, these outposts are important forbringing the program to the people who mostneed its services and for serving as feederlocations for the main Chicago facility.

Ida B. WellsSafer runs a small branch office in the Ida B.Wells Public Housing Development on thesouth side of Chicago. Ida B., as it is called,offers classes for youths and adults in additionto job placement assistance.

According to program manager RochelleToyozumi, “The toughest problem at Ida B. isto get the residents to trust the program, be-cause it is initially viewed as part of the system,and they don’t trust the system. Besides, dif-ferent gangs will not meet at the same locationtogether.” As a result, clients are warned, “Whenyou come in here, you’re in the Safer family; ifyou wear gang colors or symbols, flash signs,or talk gang talk, you’re out—immediately.”Nonetheless, the office has become so popularthat some residents with no criminal recordsclaim they are ex-offenders.

Toyozumi feels that being located in a housingproject has its negative side. “Clients enrolledin our Chicago office have to get out of theirparochial neighborhoods just to get to the Saferoffice, whether by subway, bus, or walking.But here, they can join Safer but stay put in theproject and never see what the real world ofwork is like. They’re afraid to venture out evenfive blocks for a job. So they also don’t knowwhere anything is. To force them out of theneighborhood, we had to resort to requiringthem to go get IDs or taking them on field tripsto show them where Safer graduates—theirfriends—go every day to work or school.” Butthe advantage of a satellite office, Toyozumiconcludes, “is that we can reach out to clientsand get them into the program because it’s soclose. Then, once we have them hooked, wecan wean them out of the neighborhood.”

Rock Island andDavenportIn 1978, a satellite office was opened in RockIsland, Illinois, a 3-hour, 170-mile drive from

Satellite Locations—Boon or Bane?Chicago, to provide support services andemployment-related programming. Anothersatellite office was established in Davenport,Iowa, in 1980. Bob Ray, then Governor ofIowa, invited Safer into Davenport, just acrossthe Mississippi River from Rock Island, afterhe became aware that Iowa parolees andprobationers were crossing the State lineseeking Safer’s services in Rock Island. Saferaccepted the invitation.

Satellite Offices:A Mixed BagAccording to Joy Dawson, vice president foradministration, “You need to be careful not toexpand programmatically and geographicallybeyond your ability to manage your activities,or you may self-destruct by trying to do toomuch.” Dawson says, “We have also hadmanagement, operational, and funding diffi-culties in the offsite offices in Davenport andRock Island. Staff felt isolated because of the3-hour drive from Chicago, their clients haddifferent needs than our clients in Chicago,and some locals wondered why an outsideagency was setting up shop in their commu-nity and siphoning off overhead money tosubsidize its out-of-town headquarters.”

As a result, Daniel Coughlin, Safer’s formerexecutive vice president, warns, “You haveto be welcomed into the community wher-ever you set up a satellite office. This meansdeveloping a relationship with the neighbor-hood before you even open your doors. Forexample, establish a local board of directorswith local business representatives and pur-chase some services locally even thoughcentralizing them at the head office is morecost effective and ensures better quality con-trol.” One Safer site buys its letterhead statio-nery and business cards from a local vendorto show that the satellite’s “profits” are notbeing skimmed off for the Chicago office.

Despite these problems and concerns, Saferstaff now feel ready to expand into anotherIllinois work release center (but only in theChicago area) and to replicate its publichousing model in other housing develop-ments in the State.

Cook County Jail as part of the PACEInstitute, while 65 volunteers facilitateseminar groups at the CrossroadsCommunity Correctional Center. Saferalso has 4 different policy and advi-sory boards totaling nearly 50 volun-teers, most from the business sector.“The corporate community is a keyfactor in the short-term, startup, andlong-term viability of this initiative,”Coughlin stresses. “In starting a newprogram, the volunteers from the busi-ness community provide guidance andtechnical assistance in business func-tions, as well as introductions to largeprivate-sector players. These boardmembers also add a great deal of cred-ibility to the entity and its mission—aswell as access to key private and gov-ernmental decisionmakers.” Boardmembers are also active in recruitingother volunteers for Safer.

Collaboration with theIllinois Department ofCorrectionThe Safer Foundation’s relationshipwith the Illinois Department of Cor-rection is an example of a public-pri-vate partnership that works. For 25years State parole officers and countyprobation officers have relied on Saferfor posttrial and postprison services.Safer is viewed as a “one-stop shop”that, in most cases, is able to meet theneeds of the officers and, more impor-tant, their charges, through servicessuch as intake, assessment, support,and job placement. For 5 years thedepartment stationed two parole offic-ers at Safer’s main facility, and theycontinue to do so at a satellite office.The officers’ onsite presence providesthem with rapid referral access andalmost instantaneous responses to


PROGRAM FOCUS

inquiries, as well as a heightened levelof overall trust and communicationbetween the officers and Safer’s staff.

According to Coughlin, “The Depart-ment of Correction is not just a ven-dor; it’s a true partner.” MarjorieBrown, DOC’s deputy director ofcommunity services, uses almost iden-tical words to describe the relation-ship: “Ours is truly a partnership.”

DOC routinely invites Safer staff toattend its training sessions for correc-tional personnel, for example, on tech-niques for addressing the special needsof inmates with infectious diseases.Safer reciprocates with its own unso-licited assistance. For example, Saferdecided to station employment spe-cialists and conduct health awarenessand prevention seminars at Chicago-area community correctional centers inorder to enhance DOC’s own pro-grams in the facilities.

As with any partnership, there are stilloccasional differences between thetwo organizations. But the bottom line,Brown explains, is “We’re workingtogether to achieve the same goal—toprepare Crossroads residents andnewly released inmates to go back intosociety without reoffending.”

Other keys to success“Safer did a lot of things by the seat ofits pants [in its early years],” BernieCurran remembers, because, vicepresident for administration JoyDawson adds, “We didn’t know anybetter.” Some of the lessons Safer haslearned over the years include:

■ Devise and implement programsbased on insightful understanding ofthe lives of former offenders. Think ofthe clients’ interests first. Avoid fadsand quick-fix solutions to complexproblems (e.g., using untested trainingproducts and program tools).

■ Target influential political figures atall levels of local government—city,county, and State. Find out what willmotivate these individuals to fund theprogram. Politicians must be convincedthat supporting the program will en-hance their images (as people dealingforcefully with the crime problem) andwill not harm their careers. Forget thehumanitarian image; marketing di-rected toward politicians should em-phasize cost-containment and saferstreets issues, along with the long-termbenefits of reducing recidivism.

■ Balance serving multiple clients—ex-offenders, State agencies, privatefunders, and employers. For example,while employers consider supportservices essential to retaining their ex-offender employees, Safer has had toshape its grant proposals—and there-fore services—to accommodate thepublic sector’s primary interest in jobplacements, while trying to fund sup-port services from other sources. De-spite this juggling act, the programmust present the commitment that thetrue customers are the employer andthe offender, and that the program’smission is to provide both with equallyhigh quality service.

■ Start each new program componentas a pilot demonstration. The YouthEmpowerment Program began in 1983as an experiment for children whowere not successful in school. When a

program component starts small, it iseasier to work out problems.

■ Place responsibility on clients to dotheir part, because job placement byitself will not solve the reintegrationproblem. As a facilitator at the Ida B.Wells satellite office tells new stu-dents, “We have a lot to do in a littletime, so you have to bring somethingto the table—share your knowledgewith the others.”

■ Focus on continuous improvement.With increased competition for moneyand with other groups offering to pro-vide similar services, the organizationmust always strive to improve and notfeel content. Reflecting this attitude,shortly after becoming president,Diane Williams hired a consultant tohelp Safer develop and implement aformal strategic plan.

Change ThroughInnovationSafer’s ultimate goal is to change themindset of inmates and ex-offenders sothat they buy into the mainstream phi-losophy of holding a regular job andpreferring the noncriminal life. Whilejob placements, support services, andfollowup help form the foundation ofSafer’s efforts to achieve this goal, it isthe program’s innovative features—useof volunteers, peer group instructionalapproach, work release center and in-jail school operations, and focusedfundraising techniques—that contributemost to Safer’s achievements. Thesecomponents provide a knowledge basefor other jurisdictions wanting to repli-cate a comprehensive education andemployment services program.

Program Focus 17

PROGRAM FOCUS

Sources for More Information

The Safer Foundation distributes infor-mation about its programs. Contact:

Carolyn DennisMarketing Communications ManagerSafer Foundation571 West Jackson BoulevardChicago, IL 60661–5701Telephone: 312–922–8489Fax: 312–922–0839

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) isthe principal research, evaluation, and de-velopment agency of the U.S. Departmentof Justice. For information about NIJ’sefforts in corrections, program develop-ment, and corporate partnership develop-ment, contact:

Marilyn MosesProgram ManagerNational Institute of Justice810 Seventh Street N.W.Room 7114Washington, DC 20531Telephone: 202–514–6205Fax: 202–307–6256E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij

NIJ established the National CriminalJustice Reference Service (NCJRS) in1972 to serve as a national and interna-tional clearinghouse for the exchange ofcriminal justice information. For informa-tion about topical searches, bibliographies,custom searches, and other available ser-vices, contact:

NCJRSP.O. Box 6000Rockville, MD 20849–6000Telephone: 800–851–3420 (8:30 a.m. to7 p.m. Eastern time, Monday–Friday)URL: http://www.ncjrs.org

For specific criminal justice questions orrequests via the Internet, send an e-mailmessage to [email protected].

The Office of Correctional Education(OCE) within the U.S. Department ofEducation was created by Congress in

1991 to provide technical assistance, grantfunding, and research data to the correc-tions and correctional education fields. Tospeak with a program specialist or to beplaced on OCE’s mailing list to receivegrant announcements, OCE’s quarterlynewsletter, and other publications,contact:

Richard SmithDirectorOffice of Correctional EducationOffice of Vocational and Adult EducationU.S. Department of Education600 Independence Avenue S.W.MES 4529Washington, DC 20202–7242Telephone: 202–205–5621Fax: 202–205–8793URL: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OVAE/OCE

The National Institute of Corrections’Office of Correctional Job Training andPlacement (OCJTP) was created in1995 to:

■ Cooperate with and coordinate the ef-forts of other Federal agencies in the areasof job training and placement.

■ Collect and disseminate informationon offender job training and placementprograms, accomplishments, and employ-ment outcomes.

■ Provide training to develop staff com-petencies in working with offenders andex-offenders.

■ Provide technical assistance to State andlocal training and employment agencies.

For more information, contact:

John MooreCoordinatorOffice of Correctional Job Training andPlacementNational Institute of Corrections320 First Street N.W.Washington, DC 20534Telephone: 800–995–6423, Ext. 147

The Correctional Education Associa-tion (CEA) is affiliated with the Ameri-can Correctional Association as an inter-national professional organization serv-ing education program needs within thefield of corrections. Membership includesteachers and other community correctionsprogram staff. Members receive quarterlyjournals and newsletters, an annual direc-tory, and a yearbook. Annual conferencesare held in each of CEA’s nine regions andmany of its State chapters. One of theregions hosts an international conferencethat features a variety of substantive work-shops on successful educationalstrategies. For more information, call301–918–1915 or contact:

Alice TracyAssistant DirectorCorrectional Education Association4380 Forbes BoulevardLanham, MD 20706–4322Telephone: 301–918–1912Fax: 301–918–1846

The National Occupational InformationCoordinating Committee (NOICC) andits 56 counterpart State Occupational In-formation Coordinating Committees(SOICCs) are a primary source of infor-mation and training related to individualcareer exploration, choice, preparation,and institutional selection and design ofeducation and training programs. For in-formation about NOICC and the SOICCs,visit the NOICC home page at http://www.noicc.gov or contact:

Burton L. CarlsonCoordinatorState and Interagency Network2100 M Street N.W.Suite 156Washington, DC 20037Telephone: 202–653–5665, Ext. 12Fax: 202–653–2123E-mail: [email protected]


PROGRAM FOCUS

Notes1. Harer, M.D., Recidivism Among

Federal Prison Releasees in 1987:A Preliminary Report, unpublishedpaper, Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Justice, Office ofResearch and Evaluation, FederalBureau of Prisons, March 1994.Anderson, D.B., R.E. Schumacker,and S.L. Anderson, “ReleaseeCharacteristics and Parole,” Jour-nal of Offender Rehabilitation17(1/2) (1991): 133–145.

2. Free copies of Program Focusreports on each of these programsmay be obtained from the NationalCriminal Justice Reference Service(NCJRS). To contact NCJRS, see“Sources for More Information”on page 17.

3. Other programs typically considera client being hired as constitutinga successful placement.

4. Safer’s employment specialistsoccasionally work with compa-nies, clients, and local offices ofthe Illinois State EmploymentService to ensure eligibility forvarious programs. One is the U.S.Department of Labor’s Work Op-portunities Tax Credit (WOTC),which, as successor to the Tar-geted Jobs Tax Credit (TJTC),offers tax credits to employers iftheir operations and the prospec-tive employee’s residence are in adesignated Empowerment Zone.

5. There has been no evaluation ofthe Crossroads Community Cor-rectional Center. The few previousstudies of work release have

shown some positive results(mostly on employment ratherthan recidivism). However, thesestudies did not randomly assignsome inmates to work release andothers to remain in prison, nor didthey otherwise control adequatelyfor preexisting differences be-tween work release inmates andcomparison groups of other in-mates. As a result, it is not pos-sible to attribute the favorableoutcomes for the work releaseinmates to participation in a com-munity corrections program. Twocarefully designed evaluations ofWashington State’s work releaseprogram, sponsored by NIJ andconducted between 1991 and1994, found that the program didnot reduce offender recidivism.However, the program achievedits most important goal—prepar-ing inmates for final release andfacilitating their adjustment to thecommunity. Furthermore, the pro-gram did not cost the State morethan it would have if the releaseeshad remained in prison. SeeTurner, C., and J. Petersilia, WorkRelease: Recidivism and Correc-tions Costs in Washington State,Research in Brief, Washington,D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,National Institute of Justice,December 1996.

6. A master’s degree student atDePaul University in Chicago,Illinois, compared the recidivismrates for 100 participants whocompleted the Safer Foundation’spreemployment program in 1992with the recidivism rates of all9,844 adult felons released by the

Illinois Department of Correction(DOC) in 1989. The student foundan 8-percent recidivism rate forSafer participants compared with a46-percent rate for the comparisongroup. However, the student con-cluded that while “a comparisonof these two figures demonstratedthat the Safer program was signifi-cantly successful in reducing re-cidivism . . . , limiting factorssuggest that this is a questionableconclusion.” The limiting factorswere the small sample size; theSafer group’s self-selection intothe program, which indicated dif-ferent motivation levels comparedwith the comparison group; theuse of self-reports among Saferparticipants for several variables;and a significant time intervaldifference between the 18-monthperiod used for measuring recidi-vism among the Safer samplecompared with a 36-month timeperiod used for the DOC sample.See Kamon, M., “The Safer Foun-dation: Using Employment toInfluence the Recidivism Rate forEx-Offenders,” June 1994.

Program Focus 19

PROGRAM FOCUS

NCJ 167575 June 1998

Findings and conclusions of the re-search reported here are those of theauthor and do not necessarily reflectthe official position or policies of theU.S. Department of Justice.

On the cover: During a basic skillsclass at the Crossroads CommunityCorrectional Center, inmates in peerlearning groups work together as thefacilitator (in the background) circu-lates among the students, checking ontheir work and providing assistance.(Photo by Powell Photography, Inc.)

About This StudyThis Program Focus was prepared by PeterFinn, Senior Research Associate, AbtAssociates Inc. Finn’s forthcoming NIJpublications on offender job training andplacement include Successful JobPlacement for Ex-Offenders: The Centerfor Employment Opportunities; TheOrange County, Florida, Jail Educationaland Vocational Programs; The DelawareDepartment of Correction Life SkillsProgram; and Texas’s Project RIO (Re-Integration of Offenders). This project wassupported by contract number OJP–94–C–007; Marilyn Moses is the Project Monitor.

Quick Access to NIJ Publication News

For news about NIJ’s most recent publications, including solicitations for grant applications,subscribe to JUSTINFO, the bimonthly newsletter sent to you via e-mail. Here’s how:

Or check out the “Publications and Products” section at the NIJ home page: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nijor the “New This Week” section at the Justice Information Center home page:

http://www.ncjrs.org

■ Send an e-mail to [email protected]

■ Leave the subject line blank

■ Type subscribe justinfo your name (e.g., subscribe justinfo Jane Doe) in the body of the message

The National Institute of Justice is a compo-nent of the Office of Justice Programs, whichalso includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance,the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Office ofJuvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,and the Office for Victims of Crime.

The National Institute of Corrections is a com-ponent of the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

The Office of Correctional Education is a di-vision of the Office of Vocational and AdultEducation, U.S. Department of Education.

For the most up-to-date program information,see the agency Web pages:

National Institute of Justice: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij

National Institute of Corrections: http://www.bop.gov/nicpg/nicmain.html

Office of Correctional Education: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OVAE/OCE

p r o g r a m f o c u s national institute of justice

Documents