Homelessness and Housing Insecurity Among Former Prisoners Claire W. Herbert, Jeffrey D. Morenoff, an d David J. Har ding

The United States has experienced dramatic increases in both incarceration rates and the population of in- securely housed or homeless persons since the 1980s. These marginalized populations have strong overlaps, with many people being poor, minority, and from an urban area. That a relationship between homelessness, housing insecurity, and incarceration exists is clear, but the extent and nature of this relationship is not yet adequately understood. We use longitudinal, administrative data on Michigan parolees released in 2003 to examine returning prisoners’ experiences with housing insecurity and homelessness. Our analysis finds rel- atively low rates of outright homelessness among former prisoners, but very high rates of housing insecurity, much of which is linked to features of community supervision, such as intermediate sanctions, returns to prison, and absconding. We identify risk factors for housing insecurity, including mental illness, substance use, prior incarceration, and homelessness, as well as protective “buffers” against insecurity and homeless- ness, including earnings and social supports.

Keywords: reentry, homelessness, housing instability, intermediate sanctions

The United States has experienced dramatic in- Wright, Rubin, and Devine 1998). By 2001, an- creases in both incarceration rates and the other 36.9 million U.S. households had experi- homeless population since the 1980s, the latter enced forms of housing insecurity, such as owing in part to the severe decline in affordable spending over 30 percent of household income housing (Blau 1992; Burt 1992; Jencks 1994; on housing or living in poor-quality housing or

Claire W. Herbert is a doctoral student at the University of Michigan. Jeffrey D. Morenoff is associate professor of sociology and associate research professor in the Population Studies Center and Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan. David J. Harding is associate professor of sociology at the University of California, Berkeley.

This research was funded by the University of Michigan Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy, the National Poverty Center at the University of Michigan, the Russell Sage Foundation, the National Institute of Justice (2008-IJ- CX-0018), the National Science Foundation (SES-1061018, SES-1060708), and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver Na- tional Institute of Child Health and Human Development (1R21HD060160 01A1), as well as by a center grant to the Population Studies Center at the University of Michigan from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R24 HD041028). We thank Paulette Hatchett, our collaborator at the Michigan Department of Corrections, for facilitating access to the data and for advice on the research design; and Steve Heeringa and Zeina Mneimneh, for advice on the sample design. Charley Chilcote, Brenda Hurless, Bianca Espinoza, Andrea Garber, Jessica Wyse, Jonah Siegal, Jay Borchert, Amy Cooter, Jane Rochmes, Jon Tshiamala, Katie Harwood, Elizabeth Sinclair, Carmen Gutierrez, Joanna Wu, Clara Rucker, Michelle Hartzog, Tyrell Connor, Madie Lupei, Elena Kaltsas, Brandon Cory, and Elizabeth Johnston provided excellent research assistance. Direct correspondence to: Claire W. Herbert at clairewh​@­umich​.edu, Department of Sociology, University of Michigan, 500 S. State St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109; Jeffrey D. Morenoff atmorenoff ​@­umich.edu, University of Michigan, 500 S. State St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109; and David J. Harding at dharding​@­berkeley.edu, Department of Sociology, University of California, Berkeley, 462 Barrows Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720. homelessness and housing insecurity 45 in overcrowded conditions (National Low In- (Geller and Curtis 2011), as well as an elevated come Housing Coalition 2004). Recent counts risk of recidivism for returning prisoners who estimate that 665,000 persons are homeless on do not receive housing and wraparound ser- any given night, and that approximately 1.6 mil- vices upon their release (Lutze et al. 2013). lion Americans use shelters or transitional There are still many important gaps in the housing over the course of a year (U.S. Depart- research on prisoner reentry and housing insta- ment of Housing and Urban Development bility. First, there are no estimates of the fre- 2010). Meanwhile, the United States now incar- quency of various forms of residential instabil- cerates nearly 1 percent of its population at any ity and homelessness based on representative given time, while an additional 2 percent serve samples of former prisoners, and no studies time on probation and parole (Wakefield and have considered residential instability and Uggen 2010). homelessness together as part of a spectrum of Beyond the confluence of these two trends, insecure housing using long-term prospective, there are strong reasons to expect a connection longitudinal data. Second, there has been no between incarceration and homelessness. First, prior research on the role of the criminal justice both the formerly incarcerated and the inse- system in housing individuals recently released curely housed or homeless are disproportion- from prison and in generating residential insta- ately poor minorities from urban areas (Lee, Ty- bility through forced residential moves. ler, and Wright 2010; National Low Income In this article, we use prospective, longitu- Housing Coalition 2004; Wakefield and Uggen dinal data on a cohort of prisoners released on 2010). There are also more direct connections parole in Michigan in 2003 to examine their between returning from prison and the risk of experiences with housing insecurity and housing instability. Formerly incarcerated per- homelessness. The first part of our analysis sons face a unique set of obstacles to finding asks two questions: How often do former pris- and maintaining secure and stable housing, in- oners experience homelessness and housing cluding prejudice and discrimination against insecurity both immediately after release and those with a criminal record, legal barriers, and over time? And what forms of homelessness hurdles stemming from the direct involvement and housing insecurity are most common of the criminal justice system in their lives. among former prisoners? Our analysis reveals Housing insecurity and homelessness have im- the prevalence and forms of housing insecu- portant consequences for returning prisoners, rity and homelessness among the reentry pop- and some researchers have argued that secure ulation. We are able to compare the relative housing is their most pressing and immediate prevalence and timing of different forms of ad- short-term need (Lutze, Rosky, and Hamilton verse housing situations that returning prison- 2013; Metraux and Culhane 2004; Roman and ers face. Our analysis details the range of un- Travis 2006); moreover, parole officials cite stable housing situations experienced by this housing as the biggest need for parolees (Pe- population, including living on the streets or tersilia 2003, 8). Stable housing may be the in shelters or other temporary housing; living foundation upon which other aspects of suc- in institutional settings; experiencing high cessful reentry rely (Bradley et al. 2001): it can rates of mobility; and absconding (aka being be difficult for returning prisoners to find and “on the run”) (Goffman 2014). maintain stable employment, maintain family The second part of our analysis looks at connections, receive physical and mental health the characteristics and experiences of former care, and avoid substance use without stable prisoners to determine which are predictive housing (Lutze, Rosky, and Hamilton 2013). of homelessness and housing insecurity. We Despite these links between prisoner reen- examine preprison, prison, and postprison try and homelessness, only a few studies have characteristics and experiences, such as de- specifically examined housing insecurity and mographics, preprison residence type, incar- homelessness among for