What the "studies" and "correlations" below don't tell you is the living conditions and what's available to those who must use food stamps to obtain their food; that is why some people become overweight on the program.
I'm no dietician, but I can tell you a few important things that happen to large numbers of folks who must use food stamps:
Often folks are limited by lack of feasible transportation to the "shopping options" available in their immediate area. This includes "convenience" marts, gas stations, and little mom and pop neighborhood grocery stores. Anyone who has purchased food in any of these places knows choice is limited and the cost is higher than your average Kroger, Safeway or...shudder...Walmart.
Starches and sugars are cheaper than meats and veggies.
Poverty sucks and food is comforting.
So our researchers can study all they want, and they can find correlations where they look, but a very simple rule about data is: garbage in, garbage out. About the same can be said for the diets of so many who must use foodstamps because they lack choice and opportunity most of us take for granted.
If you're looking for the real reason, it helps to understand the lives of the people you're studying.
Do Food Stamps Make Poor People Fat?
Posted: 11/13/2013 9:24 am EST | Updated: 11/13/2013 4:21 pm EST
Arthur Delaney
WASHINGTON -- Food stamps contribute significantly to an obesity problem in south Texas, according to a recent story in the Washington Post.
The piece, by reporter Eli Saslow, examines a Texas county in which 40 percent of residents receive nutrition assistance, meaning they eat cheap food, resulting in "rates of diabetes and obesity that double the national average," Saslow writes. His big question: "Has the massive growth of a government feeding program solved a problem, or created one?"
Researchers have also wondered whether the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program fattens its 47 million enrollees, but they have not found overwhelming evidence that it does.
"In fact, a growing body of research suggests a protective effect of SNAP participation on obesity risk," the Food Research and Action Center, a liberal advocacy group opposed to cutting food stamps, found in a report, most recently updated in January, that cited more than a dozen separate research efforts.
One study, for example, found that poor people in Massachusetts receiving benefits for six months had lower body mass indexes than people receiving benefits for shorter periods of time. A study in New York City found food insecurity increased body mass only in women not receiving food assistance. (People can still be "food insecure," meaning they lack access to food at all times because of limited resources, even if they receive food stamps.) And a national study found that food-insecure adults over age 54 receiving benefits were less likely to be overweight than non-beneficiaries.
Several studies have found a correlation between SNAP participation and increased body mass among adult women, however. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's 2008 review of available research found that while use of food stamps didn't increase obesity among children, adult men, or the elderly, studies showed adult women were 2 to 5 percent more likely to become obese if they received food stamps for more than a year.
The Food Research and Action Center has said those studies are flawed, pointing out, among other things, that food insecurity among women in general is particularly associated with obesity. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, low-income women are more likely to be overweight than their higher-income counterparts, while the opposite is true for men. Obesity is less common among both men and women who have college degrees.
Saslow's story focused on a diabetic mother of five in McAllen, Texas, named Blanca Salas, who has been receiving food stamps for nearly a decade. She says it's exhausting to try to find and cook healthy food in a landscape dotted with dollar stores and dollar menus and not much else.
"As her health worsened, she had started shopping mostly for foods she knew [her children] would eat and prepare themselves," Saslow wrote. "She was a single mother with little money and less energy, she reasoned; it was more important to provide enough than it was to worry about what, exactly, she was providing."
Congress is in the midst of a debate over whether to cut food stamps, with Republicans in the House of Representatives seeking to reduce enrollment by 3.8 million. Few have argued that the program's link to the nation's obesity problem, however murky, is a reason to reduce benefits. Rather, the focus has been on the cost of the program and concerns that it coddles lazy Americans who should be spending more hours on the job.
"Bowering" to scathing public response from a variety of sources and stories (not to mention emails and calls from all around the country), Representative Bower (D-HI) is looking to change the discussion.
It bears pointing out however, that Mr. Bower is wrong on so many levels here I don't really know where to begin.
“If I see shopping carts that I can’t identify, I will destroy them so they can’t be pushed on the streets.”
I believe that is considered vandalism, sir and I think you are breaking the law. Worse, you have done so on television.
“I want to do something practical that will really clean up the streets.”
Then learn about why people experience homelessness, support your local service providers and outreach workers, invite the 100,000 Homes Campaign to help your city, and do something that's actually practical instead of destructive, stigmatizing, and bordering on hate crimes against the homeless.
“If someone is sleeping at night on the bus stop, I don’t do
anything, but if they are sleeping during the day, I’ll walk up and say,
‘Get your ass moving.’”
Your actions sir, apprear to me to be morally reprehensible. Have you ever attempted to sleep on any city street? If not, you should consider yourself very fortunate and thankful, Mr. Bower, because the violence perpetrated against the homeless while sleeping shocks the conscience.
Perhaps if you knew about individuals like Tara Cole, a Nashville, TN woman who was pushed into a river while wrapped in her sleeping bag one night by two young men who were drunk and "looking for some fun;" or the man who sound asleep was shot in the face and neck repeatedly with a paintball gun by a gang of teens; or the "suspicious" bus shelter fire that killed 62 year old Harley Lawrence as he slept; or the three homeless men who were all stabbed multiple times and died as they slept alone, you'd understand why some people who are homeless doze off during the daytime.
It's my understanding, Rep. Bower, that Hawaii has one of the highest populations of people experiencing homelessness in the country. There are plenty of evidence-based and promising practices that have been developed to help ameliorate homelessness; you can find some great information on how to accomplish this at the SAMHSA Homelessness Resource Center and you can even get free technical support and assistance to implement, execute and maintain fidelity to the models here.
I would think that as a Representative of "the people" of the great state of Hawaii, you'd be running, not walking, to supports like this, given the amount of homelessness in your community. That you don't reflects poorly on your ability to legislate and govern in your state. A little time spent researching the causes and conditions of homelessness would also clearly benefit you, and you can begin with some very good, honest, and frankly eye-opening information about homelessness here,here, and here.
There's a great new guidebook for Public Housing Authorities to end homelessness as well, and I highly recommend you peruse it. I also recommend a Google search on the challenges related to homelessness; something I recommend you do sooner, rather than later, because you sir, are not helping the problem with your actions.
In fact, your behavior is contributing both to the stereotypes about homelessness and perpetuating violence against those experiencing homelessness, and it hasn't stopped simply because you've "retired" your sledgehammer. In fact, it appears your priorities are skewed, given your recent statement that ”Now that the issue of shopping carts is on our minds...the question is are we going to move forward and try to
solve it or just let it become status quo.”
I would think that you'd be more concerned about the human suffering and misery of those who must endure living homeless in your community, sir. My hope would be that these individuals would take precedence over the shopping carts outside of their store zones in your city. In fact, I'll wager that if you actually addressed the real and very large problem of homelessness in Hawaii, instead of trying to send those individuals out of your state with a one way plane ticket and burdening other communities with a situation you're apparently unwilling to resolve yourself, the issue of abandoned shopping carts would disappear pretty quickly.
You now have the resources and the knowledge; you are freed from your previous ignorance regarding the causes and challenges of - and solutions to - homelessness.
The real question now is whether you will act upon your new knowledge and actually do something that ends homelessness in your community.
Hawaii State
Rep. Tom Bower (D! wtf?) Sledgehammers Homeless People’s Possessions
Five-term
Hawaiian Representative Tom Brower (D-WTF?) has waged his own war on
the homeless in his state. He has taken the streets with a sledgehammer
in search for homeless people in hopes to destroy any possession they
may have. Brower says he’s “disgusted” with homeless people in his state
and informed the Honolulu Star-Advertiser about his own ideology in
enforcing “justice.”
“If I see shopping carts that I can’t identify, I will destroy them so they can’t be pushed on the streets.”
Brower claims that since he began this new campaign, he has destroyed
an estimated 30 shopping carts with a sledgehammer in the last two
weeks.
“I want to do something practical that will really clean up the streets,” he explained to Hawaii News Now.
As if destroying homeless’ possessions wasn’t enough to ‘clean up the
streets’, Brower has made it a priority to interrupt these people that
he finds sleeping and tell them to get up and sleep somewhere else.
“If someone is sleeping at night on the bus stop, I don’t do
anything, but if they are sleeping during the day, I’ll walk up and say,
‘Get your ass moving,’” he said.
Apparently Brower finds homeless people insignificant and unworthy of
any self-respect to owning and protecting their possessions. Clearly if
Brower were to raid middle-class homes and smashed their possessions,
someone would indeed wake him up and say ‘Get your ass moving’…out of
office that is.
Homelessness is a complex, overwhelming problem, and cities all over
America appear determined to solve it by abusing homeless people until
they go away. Brower has frightened the homeless, but has not done much
to actually help them. Hawaii currently maintains the highest homeless
rate in the country, but instead of providing shelters or more services
to help these people, lawmakers approved $100,000 to offer one-way
flights out of Hawaii to any of the state’s estimated 17,000 homeless
persons.
It is very sad that in this country, the default solution is to
devise endlessly creative ways to punish the homeless for being
homeless.
I struggled to provide some personal perspective to this and about all I can come up with is one big sigh of frustration. I'm outraged and pained every time I hear someone tell me how badly the cuts in foodstamps have impacted them. I can not believe that there are actually people - my neighbors, community members, friends, relatives - who actually support actions like this.
And I experience a hopelessness that we have any power to fight back against what seems like a relentless, continuous, whack a mole battle with Goliaths, who, every time we defeat or stop them in one place, arise in another with a more insidious, frightful and damaging attack in another.
It's like screaming into a windstorm and I can see how people just get worn down, discouraged, despondent, and lose all hope...
The quote below sums up perhaps best both the ridiculousness and the impact of this monstrosity hidden under the most benign proposal name, the Farm Bill, in one tight, ugly paragraph:
The nonsensical arrangement being proposed in the House Republicans’
farm bill is an especially egregious version of this process. It takes
real money, money that is necessary for bare survival, from the poorest
Americans, and gives it to a small group of the undeserving rich, in
return for their campaign contributions and political support. There is
no economic justification: The bill actually distorts our economy by
promoting the kind of production we don’t need and shrinking the
consumption of those with the smallest incomes. There is no moral
justification either: It actually increases misery and precariousness of
daily life for millions of Americans.
The arrogance, hubris and sheer meanness of some is just goddam breathtaking...
By JOSEPH E. STIGLITZ
American food policy has long been rife with head-scratching illogic.
We spend billions every year on farm subsidies, many of which help
wealthy commercial operations to plant more crops than we need. The glut
depresses world crop prices, harming farmers in developing countries.
Meanwhile, millions of Americans live tenuously close to hunger, which
is barely kept at bay by a food stamp program that gives most
beneficiaries just a little more than $4 a day.
So it’s almost too absurd to believe that House Republicans are
asking for a farm bill that would make all of these problems worse. For
the putative purpose of balancing the country’s books, the measures that
the House Republican caucus is pushing for in negotiations with the
Senate, as Congress attempts to pass a long-stalled extension of the
farm bill, would cut back the meager aid to our country’s most
vulnerable and use the proceeds to continue fattening up a small number
of wealthy American farmers.
The House has proposed cutting food stamp benefits by $40 billion
over 10 years — that’s on top of $5 billion in cuts that already came
into effect this month with the expiration of increases to the food
stamp program that were included in the 2009 stimulus law. Meanwhile,
House Republicans appear satisfied to allow farm subsidies, which
totaled some $14.9 billion last year, to continue apace. Republican
proposals would shift government assistance from direct payments — paid
at a set rate to farmers every year to encourage them to keep growing
particular crops, regardless of market fluctuations — to crop insurance
premium subsidies. But this is unlikely to be any cheaper. Worse, unlike
direct payments, the insurance premium subsidies carry no income limit
for the farmers who would receive this form of largess.
The proposal is a perfect example of how growing inequality has been
fed by what economists call rent-seeking. As small numbers of Americans
have grown extremely wealthy, their political power has also ballooned
to a disproportionate size. Small, powerful interests — in this case,
wealthy commercial farmers — help create market-skewing public policies
that benefit only themselves, appropriating a larger slice of the
nation’s economic pie. Their larger slice means everyone else gets a
smaller one — the pie doesn’t get any bigger — though the rent-seekers
are usually adept at taking little enough from individual Americans that
they are hardly aware of the loss. While the money that they’ve picked
from each individual American’s pocket is small, the aggregate is huge
for the rent-seeker. And this in turn deepens inequality.
(Credit: Javier Jaén)
The nonsensical arrangement being proposed in the House Republicans’
farm bill is an especially egregious version of this process. It takes
real money, money that is necessary for bare survival, from the poorest
Americans, and gives it to a small group of the undeserving rich, in
return for their campaign contributions and political support. There is
no economic justification: The bill actually distorts our economy by
promoting the kind of production we don’t need and shrinking the
consumption of those with the smallest incomes. There is no moral
justification either: It actually increases misery and precariousness of
daily life for millions of Americans.
FARM subsidies were much more sensible when they began eight decades
ago, in 1933, at a time when more than 40 percent of Americans lived in
rural areas. Farm incomes had fallen by about a half in the first three
years of the Great Depression. In that context, the subsidies were an
anti-poverty program.
Now, though, the farm subsidies serve a quite different purpose. From
1995 to 2012, 1 percent of farms received about $1.5 million each,
which is more than a quarter of all subsidies, according to the
Environmental Working Group. Some three-quarters of the subsidies went
to just 10 percent of farms. These farms received an average of more
than $30,000 a year — about 20 times the amount received by the average
individual beneficiary last year from the federal Supplemental Nutrition
Assistant Program, or SNAP, commonly called food stamps.
Today, food stamps are one of the main support beams in our
anti-poverty efforts. More than 80 percent of the 45 million or so
Americans who participated in SNAP in 2011, the last year for which
there is comprehensive data from the United States Department of
Agriculture, had gross household incomes below the poverty level. (Since
then, the total number of participants has expanded to nearly 48
million.) Even with that support, many of them experience food
insecurity, that is, they had trouble putting food on the table at some
point during the year.
Historically, food stamp programs and agricultural subsidies have
been tied together. The two may seem strange bedfellows, but there is a
rationale: There is a need to address both sides of the economics of
food — production and consumption. Having a bounteous supply within a
country does not ensure that the citizens of that country are well fed.
The radical imbalance between farm subsidies to the wealthy and
nutritional assistance to the neediest — an imbalance that the farm bill
proposals would directly promote — is a painful testament to this
established economic fact.
The Nobel Prize winning economist Amartya Sen has reminded us that
even famines are not necessarily caused by a lack of supply, but by a
failure to get the food that exists to the people who need it. This was
true in the Bengal famine of 1943 and in the Irish potato famine a
century earlier: Ireland, controlled by its British masters, was
exporting food even as its citizens died of starvation.
A similar dynamic is playing out in the United States. American
farmers are heralded as among the most efficient in the world. Our
country is the largest producer and exporter of corn and soybeans, to
name just two of its biggest crops. And yet millions of Americans still
suffer from hunger, and millions more would, were it not for the vital
programs that government provides to prevent hunger and malnutrition —
the programs that the Republicans are now seeking to cut back.
Taking from the poor to subsidize the rich.
And there is an extra layer of irony to America’s food policies:
While they encourage overproduction, they pay little attention to the
quality and diversity of foods our farms produce. The heavy
subsidization of corn, for instance, means that many unhealthful foods
are relatively cheap. So grocery shopping on a tight budget often means
choosing foods that are not nutritious. This is part of the reason that
Americans face the paradox of hunger out of proportion to their wealth,
along with some of the world’s highest obesity rates, and a high
incidence of Type 2 diabetes. Poor Americans are especially at risk for
obesity.
A few years ago, I was in India, a country of 1.2 billion, in which
tens of millions face hunger on a daily basis, when a front-page
headline blared that one in seven Americans
faced food insecurity because they couldn’t afford the basic
necessities of life. Indian friends I met that day and in the following
week were puzzled by this news: How could it be that in the richest
country of the world there was still hunger?
Their puzzlement was understandable: Hunger in this rich land is
unnecessary. What my Indian friends didn’t understand is that 15 percent
of Americans — and 22 percent of America’s children — live in poverty.
Someone working full time (2,080 hours a year) at the minimum wage of
$7.25 would earn about $15,000 a year, far less than the poverty
threshold for a family of four ($23,492 in 2012), and even less than the
poverty level of a family of three.
This grim picture is a result of political decisions made in
Washington that have helped create an economic system in which the
undereducated must work exceptionally hard simply to remain in poverty.
This is not how America is supposed to work. In his famous 1941 “four
freedoms” speech, Franklin D. Roosevelt enunciated the principle that
all Americans should have certain basic economic rights, including
“freedom from want.” These ideas were later embraced by the
international community in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
which also enshrined the right to adequate food. But while the United
States was instrumental in advocating for these basic economic human
rights on the international scene — and getting them adopted — America’s
performance back home has been disappointing.
It is, of course, no surprise that with the high level of poverty
millions of Americans have had to turn to the government to meet the
basic necessities of life. And those numbers increased drastically with
the onset of the Great Recession. The number of Americans on food stamps
went up by more than 80 percent between 2007 and 2013.
To say that most of these Americans are technically poor only begins
to get at the depth of their need. In 2012, for example, two in five
SNAP recipients had gross incomes that were less than half of the
poverty line. The amount they get from the program is very small — $4.39
a day per recipient. This is hardly enough to survive on, but it makes
an enormous difference in the lives of those who get it: The Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that SNAP lifted four million Americans out of poverty in 2010.
Given the inadequacies of the existing programs to combat hunger and
poor nutrition, and given the magnitude of poverty in the aftermath of
the Great Recession, one might have thought that the natural response of
our political leaders would be to expand programs enhancing food
security. But the members of the Republican caucus in the House of
Representatives see things differently. They seem to want to blame the
victims — the poor who have been provided an inadequate public education
and so lack marketable skills, and those who earnestly seek work, but
can’t find any, because of an economic system that has stalled, with
almost one out of seven Americans who would like to find full-time
employment still unable to obtain it. Far from alleviating the impacts
of these problems, the Republicans’ proposal would reinforce privation
and inequalities.
And the calamitous effects of the Republicans’ proposal will reach even beyond our borders.
Viewed from a larger perspective, the farming subsidies, combined
with the cutbacks in food stamps, increase global poverty and hunger.
This is because, with American consumption diminished from what it
otherwise would be and production increased, food exports will
inevitably increase. Greater exports drive down global prices, hurting
poor farmers around the world. Agriculture is the main source of
livelihood for the 70 percent of the world’s poor living in rural areas,
who overwhelmingly reside in developing countries.
The adoption of the House Republicans’ plan will reverberate in our
economy through several channels. One is simply that poor families with
diminished resources will tamp down growth. More pernicious is that the
Republicans’ farm bill would deepen inequality — and not just through
the immediate giveaways to wealthy farmers and corresponding cuts to the
poor. Children with poor nutrition — whether they are hungry or ill
because of bad diets — do not learn as well as those who are better fed.
By cutting back on food stamps, we are ensuring the perpetuation of
inequality, and at that, one of its worst manifestations: the inequality
of opportunity. When it comes to opportunity, America is doing an
alarmingly bad job, as I’ve written before in this series.
We are endangering our future because there will be a large coterie of
people at the bottom who will not live up to their potential, who will
not be able to make the contribution that they could have made, to the
prosperity of the country as a whole.
All of this exposes the Republicans’ argument in favor of these food
policies — a concern for our future, particularly the impact of the
national debt on our children — as a dishonest and deeply cynical
pretense. Not only has the intellectual undergirding of debt fetishism
been knocked out (with the debunking of work by the Harvard economists
Carmen M. Reinhart and Kenneth S. Rogoff that tied slowed growth to
debt-to-G.D.P. ratios above 90 percent). The Republicans’ farm bill also
clearly harms both America’s children and the world’s in a variety of
ways.
For these proposals to become law would be a moral and economic failure for the country.
In a 2012 survey on drug use in the
U.S. by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration,
669,000 respondents said they use heroin, up from 620,000 in 2011 and
373,000 in 2007. The report, issued in September of this year, also
showed that 156,000 people 12 or older reported using heroin for the
first time in 2012, a number on par with recent years, but up from 2003
(92,000 first-time users) and 2006 (90,000).
***********
“It’s unrealistic
to think the police are going to solve the drug problem in America.” Torrington Police Chief Michael
Maniago
**********
“I hate it; I hate that because somebody has a problem that
they’re looked down upon and I hate that it’s something people think
that they enjoy when they have no idea the amount of suffering that
these people are going through.” Jeffrey Stevens
Jeffrey, let me be one of many to say "I feel ya." I started using drugs on my 13th birthday. At 27, I was shooting cocaine and heroin daily while trying to cope with poverty, personal failures, family trauma, and a shitty hand I kept dealing to myself while trying to escape, succeed, and live. I partied hard because we're always chasing that first "rush" and we never really catch it. In the process, I've "fallen out" three times I can remember clearly; and each time I miraculously came to, I was shocked to see the looks on the faces of the people around me.
The first time my first wife found me; I had injected some black tar at my kitchen bar counter, slumped over in a nod in the barstool, and apparently my dogs whined and whimpered at my feet in a way that alerted her to my situation. When I came to, she, the neighbor and two paramedics were standing over me trying to get me to go to the hospital. I refused of course, as I knew what had happened, but do you know that when they left, I fixed again. That is the depravity that accompanies the disease of addiction, my friend. The second time, I only remember being viciously and repeatedly slapped by my lady, and as my consciousness rose from the black, I realized she was crying hysterically and begging me not to leave her. I've never seen anyone so sad, fearful, angry, and overjoyed at the same time. Although the emotional trauma I inflicted on my partner when I overdosed the second time haunts me now, the third time was truly the worst. I was so gowed I don't even recall where I ODed at; but I woke up in an ambulance when the medic pushed some IV Narcan too fast and yanked me from a deep gow right into severe withdrawal.
Two things about that incident I remember like they were this morning; I saw my reflection in the glass cabinets lining the ambulance and I was bluer than a damned blueberry Jeff, a blue no one should ever see on themselves, my friend - the blue of imminent death. The second thing I remember is telling the medics how pissed off I was for "bringing me back." I clearly remember - and can still feel the utter despair I was experiencing at the time - telling them "you should have let me go." I owe my life to those paramedics today and thank the Gods they were able to resuscitate me, but it took another decade before I realized they'd done me a favor. Through it all, I have done things so scandalous and treacherous that I'm frankly thankful my memories of most of that time - more than half my life - are blurry or just....gone.
I couldn't look at myself in the mirror for 20 years, and my battle with addiction continues to this day, some 27 years later. Today, I celebrate 14 years in Recovery, but even that has been challenging because of my initial love id, and then total dependence on, opiates.
I tell you this not to instill a sense of hopelessness, far from it. I share my story just like you're doing, as ours are stories of a recovery against all odds. For you, Jeffrey, and for all our brothers and sisters who are struggling with similar stories, you may hold onto my strength and fellowship when you are down and lonely. You can lean on my and countless others' shoulders when people who know nothing about the disease of addiction say hurtful, painful, degrading, disgusting things about you. You can believe and keep the hope that it can get better and you can overcome, because I, and many others, have been able to escape the ravages of the disease, against often seemingly insurmountable odds. This is a lifelong fight Jeffrey, but you dont have to battle it by yourself. You've got the support, the Agape love, the understanding and the strength of millions of us who've traveled a very similar road and arrived in recovery. We're battered and bruised, to be sure, but we're alive, and we're grateful for the chance to set things right in our lives and the vast majority of us would do anything to support those trying to recover.
So the next time you're down, feeling alone and dealing with the trauma, pain, and lure of addiction, know that all around the country and the world, we are extending our collective hand to you to join us.
You are never alone in your struggle.
In heroin’s grip: Overdose deaths expose Torrington’s struggle with addiction
File image of heroin.courtesy of Torrington Police Department
Jeffrey Stevens plunged the needle into his arm, nodding off as the
heroin filtered through his blood. His breathing became so faint, a
friend feared the worst when she discovered him later, slumped over in a
car in Waterbury.
He should have died that night a few months ago. Stevens knows
this, but said luck was on his side, like so many nights before. His
friend, a nurse, administered CPR, saving him. After waking up inside a
car, he was startled to see his friend crying.
“I was almost there. I almost finished the job. I was almost
finally dead,” said Stevens. “That’s really what I wanted at that
point.”
Stevens, 27, is from Thomaston, a town small enough that most
people know of the drug addiction he’s dealt with, which means most
people think of him as a junkie. He’s been kicked out of some
restaurants in his hometown because managers said they “don’t serve
junkies.” He recently moved back to Thomaston after spending some time
in Phoenix, and he has family in nearby Torrington.
According to police, there were three suspected heroin-related
deaths in Torrington over the weekend of Nov. 2-3. On Nov. 6, a possible
fatal heroin overdose was reported in Winsted. In early September,
three Litchfield County residents died of suspected heroin overdoses in a
five-day period from Sept. 3 to 7. The victims ranged in age from 19 to
62, with varied backgrounds and from different socioeconomic classes.
Since the start of 2013, there have been nine suspected
heroin-related deaths in Torrington. In 2012, five heroin-related deaths
were reported. From 2008 to 2011, there were 11 heroin-related deaths
reported in the city.
The number of deaths tied to heroin use also are up in Litchfield
County, with 19 deaths reported this year. In 2012, 11 deaths were
reported, up from four the previous year.
There have been four heroin-related deaths in New Milford this
year; two each in Harwinton, Terryville and Woodbury; and one in
Winsted.
Campion Ambulance serves about 160,000 people in Litchfield and
New Haven counties, including Torrington. The city-contracted ambulance
company responded to 20 heroin-related deaths since October 2012. All
told, they’ve responded to 271 calls for suspected drug overdoses, said
Fred Rosa, Campion Ambulance regional manager.
“There’s definitely been a rise in heroin use,” Rosa said. “It was never as prevalent as it was now.”
The apparent rise in heroin use also is impacted by a suspected
“bad batch” of the drug. State officials in October warned that a mix of
heroin and clenbuterol, a veterinary drug not approved for human use,
could be in the local heroin supply. The mixture could be
life-threatening.
Deaths, use on the rise
In a 2012 survey on drug use in the
U.S. by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration,
669,000 respondents said they use heroin, up from 620,000 in 2011 and
373,000 in 2007. The report, issued in September of this year, also
showed that 156,000 people 12 or older reported using heroin for the
first time in 2012, a number on par with recent years, but up from 2003
(92,000 first-time users) and 2006 (90,000).
Experts have put forward several reasons for the increase in
heroin use, including availability and cost. Officials also are seeing
heroin being used as a substitute for the abuse of now-harder-to-obtain
prescription drugs.
Dr. Robert Heimer, a professor of epidemiology at the Yale School
of Public Health, has studied fatal overdoses from heroin or
pharmaceutical narcotic painkillers and drug addiction in Connecticut.
He said the state is seeing a transition of opioid abuse being an urban
problem to a suburban and rural problem.
“If you have access to it, it is very cheap and very pure,” Heimer said.
He said nine deaths in Torrington this year is a large enough
issue that some kind of opioid prevention program is appropriate in the
city. He has worked with programs in Fairfield and New Haven counties,
as well as Hartford.
Education programs about overdoses are “the first and most
immediate response” the city can take. Providing better access to drug
treatment also is essential.
“Neither one by itself will alleviate the problem,” Heimer said,
adding that the coming expansion of a Hartford Dispensary methadone
clinic to a site on Kennedy Drive in Torrington is a “very good step,
but they also need to roll out an overdose prevention program.”
Escalating dependency
Daniel Gardner IV died Sept. 6 of a
suspected drug overdose after police say he mixed a lethal dose of
heroin and cocaine. A gifted car dealer, he worked at Torrington Honda,
where he met his wife, Lauren, whose family owned the dealership. The
couple had a 3-year-old son, and Gardner was serious about turning
around his life.
“He just had the gift of gab,” Caitlin Gardner said of her brother.
But Daniel also was cursed by “demons.” He inherited his father’s
taste for whiskey. At 14, he began experimenting with marijuana as a
way to cope with an absentee father.
Bouncing in and out of rehab, Daniel Gardner seemingly had
finally escaped the clutches of alcohol addiction, and was sober for
eight years before relapsing in 2011. The family was devastated, and
Caitlin Gardner pried her brother for answers.
“I was just trying to get into his head and ask him, ‘Why? Can
you please try to explain to me what you’re going through?’” she said.
Soon after, feeling isolated and burdened by shame, Daniel
Gardner began mixing alcohol with prescription pills. That progressed to
heroin, a common route for users searching for cheaper, more readily
available alternatives to prescription painkillers.
Combating the problem
“Torrington’s drug problem is typical
for any city the size of Torrington, but there are other things that
lend itself to Torrington’s issue,” said Torrington Police Chief Michael
Maniago, a 34-year member of the force who worked for seven years on
the department’s narcotics unit.
While the overall level of drug activity police are seeing is not unusual for Torrington, the number of overdose deaths is.
“As far as that goes, yes, we have not had this many that I can remember,” Maniago said, calling it “unacceptable.”
Maniago said the worst drug-related issue the city had
experienced occurred during his time at the narcotics unit in the late
1980s and early ’90s during the crack cocaine epidemic.
He said rehabilitation programs, community support for people
with addiction and public policy must supplement law enforcement
tactics.
“It’s not just a police problem,” said Maniago. “It’s unrealistic
to think the police are going to solve the drug problem in America.”
Efforts to curb heroin use and arrests most likely will require
combined work from state and federal authorities, Maniago said, and
cooperation with other local agencies, as well. He said he’s spoken with
area police chiefs and they agree heroin use is an issue.
“When resources are diminished to fight crime, it makes it very
difficult. I’m not saying that’s an excuse, what I’m saying is that
narcotics work especially is a resource-driven aspect of law
enforcement,” said Maniago. “You need people, you need equipment, time,
money, to do all the work that is necessary.”
Mary Kate Mason of the state Department of Mental Health and
Addiction Services said her agency has seen a steady uptick in the
number of heroin patients admitted into its drug rehabilitation program.
Nearly a quarter of the 63,000 patients her agency served for substance
abuse last year identified heroin as their primary problem.
The number of heroin patients admitted to the program in 2010
jumped from about 12,000 to nearly 16,000 in 2012. That figure, Mason
said, doesn’t take into account others who get treatment for heroin
addiction under private insurance plans since the department works only
with uninsured or under-insured clients.
From $20 to $7
Today, Jeffrey Stevens is in recovery,
attempting to live a life of sobriety for what he said is the “100th
time.” He’s been using the drug on and off since he was 18 and has been
arrested several times as a result of his addiction.
“Even when I get high now, it’s not even getting high, it’s just
suppressing emotions,” said Stevens. He’s made it as long as four months
before relapsing. This latest attempt at sobriety is motivated by his
last overdose, which he said made him realize he had to make a decision
about either ending his life or doing whatever it takes to stop using.
After completing a 30-day rehabilitation program, Stevens joined a
12-step program to help with substance abuse. He said it’s busy, almost
like a full-time job, to make sure he stays on a path toward sobriety.
The first time he ingested heroin, Stevens said he was already
suffering from alcoholism and using prescription pills to help him sleep
as he tried to stop drinking. As the cost of prescriptions rose, he
found an alternative.
“The prescriptions became so expensive,” Stevens said. “A bag of
heroin, frankly, I mean it’s $7 in Waterbury. It’s enough to kill you,
obviously.”
When he first started using the drug in 2004, a bag of heroin
less than an inch wide cost $20. The drug is now a lot cheaper, he said,
and a lot stronger. He said he started using the drug by snorting it.
After that no longer had the same effect, he began using a needle.
“When I was snorting it, the first six months, I actually got a
lot of praise, because I had stopped drinking and people didn’t know
that I was doing that,” Stevens said. “They had no idea I was doing
heroin.”
As his addiction grew and his use increased, he began losing
weight, going from about 145 to 115 pounds. At one point, he said he was
consuming 20 bags a day.
“Heroin totally took my life, it took everything from me,”
Stevens said. “I’m lucky to be alive, but it has taken everything from
me and destroyed my family, destroyed me, destroyed everything.”
Access to treatment
The issue of heroin use in Torrington was
brought to the public’s attention in September of last year, when the
Hartford Dispensary attempted to open a methadone clinic called the
Torrington Health and Recovery Center.
The center’s zoning application was denied by the city’s Planning
and Zoning Commission in November 2012, which cited a lack of adequate
parking and close proximity to a child care facility. Public disapproval
of the idea included a petition against the clinic, signed by
then-Mayor Ryan Bingham. Opponents feared the clinic would bring
out-of-town addicts to Torrington.
The city settled with the dispensary for $110,000 in July, after
the company filed a federal lawsuit alleging discrimination. Part of the
settlement included the commission approving a new location at 140
Commercial Blvd. on May 22.
Speaking out
Stevens decided to speak out about his battle
with addiction because he doesn’t like how people addicted to drugs such
as heroin are seen in such negative light. What most people don’t
understand, Stevens said, is that, after a certain point, using no
longer is a choice.
“People look down at these people and there is such a stigma on
heroin and crack cocaine that as soon as you’re labeled one of those
things, people don’t look at you, they don’t talk to you,” said Stevens.
“If there’s one thing that I want everybody to know is that these
people are not bad people.”
He said he knows plenty of people who have recovered and help
their community in a positive manner. He said some of the most
charismatic, loving people he’s ever met were people who were addicted
to narcotics.
“I hate it; I hate that because somebody has a problem that
they’re looked down upon and I hate that it’s something people think
that they enjoy when they have no idea the amount of suffering that
these people are going through,” said Stevens.
In rehab centers especially, it’s easy to get clean for 30 days,
he said, but once users are back out in the real world, it can be
difficult to deal with the reality a person tried to escape in the first
place. So many simply go back to using their drug of choice. He said
Connecticut is better than other states he’s visited as far as helping
heroin addicts.
Currently, Stevens enjoys hiking, skiing, snowboarding and
traveling as hobbies. He nearly completed a bachelor’s degree while
studying accounting. He might study medicine, he said, but doesn’t have
plans to return to school at this time. He wants to focus on simply
being alive.
A lifelong fight
It’s not always easy for family members to
identify symptoms of potential drug use because users mask or often
show few or no signs, depending on how often they’re abusing, according
to Susan Wolfe, a drug treatment expert with the state Department of
Mental Health and Addiction Services.
“It may not be obvious to other people,” she said.
Wolfe has a doctorate in clinical psychology from the University
of Alabama Birmingham and has worked with thousands of patients over 28
years. She cautioned against making blanket statements about heroin
addiction, saying rehabilitation and recovery largely is
“individualized” and requires users to make a lifelong commitment toward
getting clean.
Wolfe said heroin, a rapid-acting drug, is highly addictive
because it excites the brain’s reward pathways, resulting in a “rush of
euphoria.”
“The way that your brain works is if you repeatedly use a
substance, what happens with any type of learning is that there are
basically pathways that are established,” she said. Once those pathways
are established, Wolfe said, an individual must create new ones because
“you can’t undo a pathway you already started.”
Wolfe pointed to some classic signs of potential heroin abuse:
increased tolerance, needing higher doses of a substance to achieve the
same high; withdrawal, cravings and preoccupation. Wolfe said heroin
users are at “high risk” for overdoses after a period of abstinence
because the body’s tolerance decreases.
“If they’re away for a week, and they go back to using, using the
same amount they were using before the break is now too much for them,”
she said.
Users who mix substances, such as alcohol and other opioids, or
have preexisting medical conditions, also are at heightened risk for
overdose, Wolfe said. Mason stressed those are only a handful of
possible scenarios.
“There’s not a safety mechanism that’s going to say, ‘This is a safe amount, this is an unsafe amount,’” she said.
Reach Esteban L. Hernandez at 860-489-3121 ext. 328. Reach Isaac Avilucea at 860-489-3121 ext. 324.
“We’re hoping we’ll see fathers and mothers reunited with their
children, or parents who are reunited with their children and
grandchildren and need their support because they’re aging parents.” Nora Reissig
This is a hugely important step in the right direction for helping those with convictions begin the rebuilding process of their lives.
Make no mistake, there will be challenges and failures. The recidivism rate is high for those of us convicted of felonies and incarcerated, because there are so many restrictions and requirements placed upon those returning into society.
My own release is a good example here, and I'll point out on the front end that I'm probably not your "typical" inmate; I was a low level offender whose crime was cultivating the debbil's weed, I had a place to go "home" immediately upon my release, a decent start to my education and was working on completing my Bachelor's degree. I also had a job waiting for me when I returned, and I had people who stood by me the entire time I was down. I was committed to breaking the cycle of poverty and addiction, even though I was still in active use through the entire prison experience and long after my parole ended. In fact, the strongest heroin I've ever done in my life arrived via a package to one of my "cellies" about 10 days before I was to be released; it was so potent that it killed a man in the cell below me 4 days before I went home.
I exited the gate in Folsom, California with less than $60. I lived 170 miles away, and no bus or taxi service was available to get me back home. I had to report to my Parole officer within 48 hours of my release, and he was in Sacramento, CA, a 300 mile round trip from my home and no public transportation to get me there and back. It was only because I had family and friends who supported me with a loan and a ride that I didn't violate parole within the first 48 hours of my release.
Most folks exiting the penitentiary don't have it nearly as good or as easy as I did, and I came perilously close to violating my parole less than 2 days after I was released.
The odds are stacked against offenders who've done their time. In fact, one of the most prevalent decisions many of my downed brothers made was to "flatten" their time inside so upon release they didn't have the hassle of parole or probation to deal with. Many of these men were originally committed to a new start but had been tripped up by "failure to comply" with parole conditions because they'd been unable to secure a job within the required timeframe, ended up homeless, and/or couldn't get to their parole officer on time for a check in.
These seem like bullshit reasons to violate a man, but parole is no joke and they don't show a lot of leniency. In addition, once you're on parole, you have no "rights" and a violation comes quickly and easily at the hands of the officer and a small panel of corrections folks who are unwilling - for many reasons - to cut a guy a break, no matter what the circumstances. You really can't blame them.
There were some very bad people alongside me while I was down and many of them were almost hopelessly locked into the situation they found themselves in, because they were so stigmatized and blocked from the traditional routes out of poverty and ex-offender status.
This isn't a another plea for leniency for those of us who've done the time for doing the crime. It's about thinking how best to ensure a person can make a fresh start upon release if he or she has a mind to reform. It's about holding them strictly accountable but also putting the right knowledge, tools, and resources at their disposal so they have more of a choice - and a chance - at returning to their communities able to make the necessary changes in their life that will lift them out of their past.
Providing an individual access to affordable housing upon release from prison is an important step in the right direction.
The New York City Housing Authority
will ease its ban on recently released prisoners and allow some of them
to live in public housing as part of a pilot program set to start next
month.
Public housing nationwide has been off-limits to many people with
criminal records and, in New York, residents can be barred for up to six
years depending on the nature of their offenses. But two years ago the
federal Department of Housing and Urban Development began urging public
housing agencies to relax admission policies in an effort to help people
released from prison reunite with their families.
The New York City Housing Authority, landlord to more than 400,000
residents, will be one of the first public housing agencies in the
nation to test lifting the restrictions. The program will, over the
two-year pilot period, place 150 former inmates in public housing and
provide social services to help them find jobs and meet other
requirements.
“We’re hoping we’ll see fathers and mothers reunited with their
children, or parents who are reunited with their children and
grandchildren and need their support because they’re aging parents,”
said Nora Reissig, the director of family services for the Housing
Authority.
Research shows that housing and family support, especially during the
critical first months after prisoners are released, increase their
chances of success in re-entering society and not returning to crime.
But they face hurdles when trying to rent apartments, advocacy groups
say, and for many the preferred or only option is to return to their
former homes or to live with family members.
Only those released within the previous 18 months, or those about to be
released, will be eligible. Some of the participants are expected to be
former public housing residents who are returning home. Others will be
people who did not live in public housing but have a relative currently
living in a Housing Authority building.
The change in policy is also meant to help the city tackle homelessness.
Officials with the city’s Department of Homeless Services, which will
defray the program’s cost of about $700,000, says its shelters house 484
adults who were released from prison in the last 18 months. The
department’s deputy commissioner for adult services, Douglas C. James,
said 100 of the program’s 150 participants are expected to come from the
shelters.
Opening up options would also help residents who are already housing
recent ex-convicts and who face eviction if the violations are
uncovered. New York housing officials said they did not keep figures on
how many unauthorized tenants came from prisons but said that the New
York State Division of Parole lists about 1,500 parolees with a
public-housing project in the city as their address.
John B. Rhea, chairman of the Housing Authority, said a change in policy
would allow some of these residents to get “out of the shadows.”
“As the largest provider of housing in New York, we feel it’s important to be part of the solution,” Mr. Rhea said.
Only a few cities, like New Orleans, are changing admission rules to
accommodate former prisoners in public housing or the Section 8 rental
assistance program, said Margaret diZerega, director of the family
justice program with the Vera Institute of Justice, a policy and research organization. The Vera Institute helped design the demonstration project in New York.
But Ms. diZerega said New York’s approach may hold the best potential
for replication because of the social services included.
“The service component is one that will give housing authorities more
confidence to maybe take a chance on people they previously excluded,”
she said.
Housing officials in New York and elsewhere must still comply with HUD’s
lifetime bans on some registered sex offenders and on people convicted
of methamphetamine production on federally subsidized property. To be
eligible in New York, candidates would have to be related to the
apartment’s leaseholder, including by domestic partnership. They must
agree to work with case managers to find employment, blend into the
household and undergo drug treatment or attend addiction support groups
if necessary before the placement becomes permanent.
The program, in the works since 2010, counts on the support of the New
York Police Department and the New York State Department of Corrections
and Community Supervision, as well as tenant leaders. About 19 percent
of offenders released from New York State prisons last year listed
shelters as their first known address, state corrections officials said.
Reginald H. Bowman, who is the president of a citywide council of public
housing residents, said he expected mixed reactions to the program in
housing projects. But he supported it, he said, because “in reality,
whether these people return to public housing or not, they’re still
going to return to their neighborhoods and it would be better for them
to have monitoring and support systems than to have them released with
no safety net.”
"The government would mail every American over the age of 21 a check each month. That’s it. Everyone is free to do what they like with it."
The kneejerk reaction I suspect is/will be that giving everyone over 21 a check for $995/mo (poverty line is $11,945 divided by 12 mos = $995.41) would immediately make a nation full of slothy, television junkies who lacked incentive to do much more than load another rock onto the crack pipe, chug another 40, or bust out a bong and wake n bake. I think that assumption is anything but accurate...
Giving All Americans a Basic Income Would End Poverty
A simple idea for eliminating poverty is garnering greater attention in recent weeks: automatically have the government give every adult a basic income.
The Atlantic's Matt Bruenig and Elizabeth Stoker brought up the idea a few weeks ago when they contemplated cutting poverty in half, and Annie Lowrey revisited it in today's issue of the New York Times Magazine.
Real wages have been stagnant in America for decades now and income inequality has grown immensely. In the aftermath of the Great Recession, it’s only gotten worse. The Census Bureau reported in September that the 15 percent of Americans (46.5 million) live below the poverty line. Government benefits like food stamps and TANF help lift some of them above the line, but millions still live below it.
So here's what you need to know about it.
How would it work?
It’s exactly how it sounds. The government would mail every American over the age of 21 a check each month. That’s it. Everyone is free to do what they like with it.
How would it be funded?
In 2012, there were 179 million Americans between the ages of 21 and 65 (when Social Security would kick in). The poverty line was $11,945. Thus, giving each working-age American a basic income equal to the poverty line would cost $2.14 trillion. For some comparison, U.S. GDP was almost $16 trillion in 2012 and the defense budget was $700 billion.
But a minimum income would also allow us to eliminate every government benefit as well. Get rid of SNAP, TANF, housing vouchers, the Earned Income tax credit and many others. Get rid of them all. A 2012 Congressional Research Service report found that the federal government spends approximately $750 billion each year on benefits for low-income Americans and that rises to a clean trillion when you factor in state programs. Eliminate all of those and the net figure comes out to $1.2 trillion needed to pay for a universal basic income, still a hefty sum.
That doesn’t mean there aren’t ways to pay for it. The CBO found that a carbon tax would bring in nearly $100 billion a year for instance. Revenue would also increase automatically since everyone would have a basic income on which to pay taxes. The government could also offer a basic income of $6,000 a year instead of up to the poverty line. Funding a basic income for all working-age adults would not be easy and would require a substantial increase in the size of government, but it's not impossible either.
What are the benefits of a basic income?
The clear one is that no American would live below the poverty line. The U.S. has been waging the War on Poverty for a generation now and still nearly 50 million Americans are below the line. This would end that war with a decisive victory.
There are knock on effects as well. Americans would have greater leverage to demand higher wages and better working conditions from their employer thanks to the increased income security. Families could allow one parent to take time off to raise their kids. Eliminating the numerous different government welfare programs would also lead to efficiency gains as adults would simply receive their check in the mail and not have to waste time filling out paperwork at numerous different offices.
What are the drawbacks of a basic income?
Economists have long shuddered at the thought of a basic income, because it strongly disincentives work. However, a basic income is just that: basic. Most adults would continue to work to earn extra money. The employment effects would not be non-existent and there may be an increase in part-time work. As Lowrey points out, different studies have found the disincentive effects on work are not as strong as economists feared.
Are there any real world examples?
Perhaps in the near future. Switzerland’s citizens will soon vote on a referendum to give each working-age adult in Switzerland a basic income of $2,800 (2,500 francs) per month. Supporters of the initiative unloaded a dump truck of eight million coins, one for every Swiss citizen, after they successfully gained 125,000 signatures and triggered the referendum. Other countries have experimented with basic income in small areas, but none has done so throughout an entire country as Switzerland is considering. If the referendum passes, economists will certainly watch intently to see its effects.
Does it have a chance in Congress?
No. Congress can't even keep the government open or pass a budget, much less revamp our entire benefits program into a basic income. However, there is some bipartisan agreement in academic circles on the idea of a basic income. The American Enterprise Institute's Charles Murray has written a book on the subject, and liberals have long dreamed of a guaranteed basic income. Nevertheless, it will not be coming to the U.S. anytime soon.
Longtime readers here (amazing to me that I've been writing in this damned blog for over 5 years now), friends, and family know that I've been in methadone maintenance treatment(MMT) for the past 14 years. For the two decades prior to my entry into MMT, I was a hardcore poly drug abuser with an intense affinity for heroin and cocaine. I'll spare you all the misery and horror stories in this post, mainly because they leak out periodically elsewhere in this blog and whenever I have to go there, I have to then deal with the guilt, misery and pain I caused myself and so many others.
Suffice it to say, I spent so long as a treacherous, gowwed asshole that it became who I was, internally and externally.
The slippery slope of nefarious behavior is paved with people like me.
But there was a time...when I was someone else.
That someone else loved others and found joy in simple things; rainy days in front of a fireplace with a good book; rocking on a porch with a panoramic riot of fall colors holding my breathless attention for hours at a time. Walking with my dogs, riding dirt bikes, playing cards and games with my family members, enjoying and excelling in sports and collecting baseball cards, and fishing....I was a fishing maniac. Music -usually loud, headbanging rock n roll - started my day every day; got me up, awake and ready to squeeze the balls of this world in a visegrip hold and take the day by storm.
All that went away when I found heroin. It began slipping away on the junk-highway; the first time I ingested a Percodan I made a left turn, stomped the pedal and roared off into oblivion. Every sip of Tussenex or dose of Vicodin, Percodan, Demoral, Morphine or Diluadid pushed that pedal harder towards the floor. By the time I graduated to Heroin I was on a slow motion rocket and the world whipped by so fast in my drug induced haze that 30 goddam years passed before the 54 year old man at the wheel realized he was on the real highway to hell.
So I slammed on the brakes about a year ago.
But the ride didn't stop "just like that." The brakes, conditioned for decades with the lubricant of addiction, weren't as responsive as one would like in this high-end sports car, and the vehicle itself had long ago begun rusting and coming apart at the seams, leaving a trail of broken parts scattered all over the road.
A year later however, the ride has slowed to a walker's pace, and I'm close to parking this fucking nightmare machine in the garage forever.
I know this because things that used to mean so much to me but had disappeared when Morpheus claimed me are returning.
It's a slow renewal of the old, but it is happening: the ability to read for more than a few minutes without nodding off; the need for powerhouse, wake the dead jams in the early morning; the mind that holds a thought for more than 15 seconds; an interest in fishing, sports, games and music again; a connection to my partner and my family that I've not felt for years....decades....
I'm rediscovering who I am, what normal is, and the things I used to enjoy. It's all so familiar, yet so new. And the man emerging from the 30 year ride with eyes that can see again... he's a much different man.
He's a man that I can look at in the mirror and be okay with. I kinda like this guy; he seems to be growing on me, and I think others, too; sorta like a fungus, perhaps, but a good fungus, nonetheless.
There's still a stretch of highway in front of me, for sure, but the world outside is clear and I'm able to roll down the window, smell the flowers and read the road signs.
It is glorious, new, exciting, exhilarating....
And almost normal, for the first time in 30 years.
"...much can be done to debunk employment myths about former
prisoners. One is that former prisoners turn down jobs they think are “beneath” them. Our research
indicates that over two-thirds of those who found employment –
primarily in food service, sanitation, and construction– are highly
satisfied with their jobs, enjoy their work, get along well with their
coworkers, and feel their jobs will lead to better opportunities."
First, let me provide one huge "Thank You" to the corporate team at Target that allowed common sense to prevail and in the process will provide hope, employment, and recovery from the impact of the criminal justice system for thousands of our brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, friends and neighbors. I cannot express my gratitude enough for this gigantic step forward and I hope other employers take note and emulate Target's foresight and commitment to our communities. I want to address the quoted paragraph above briefly because "debunking" myths is definitely something done regularly in this blog. Contrary to stigmatized, skewed, and incredibly inaccurate belief, those of us with criminal convictions in recovery and/or committed to rebuilding our lives can make superb employees. Why? Because we have to fight ten times as hard for the jobs we are able to land, regardless of already paying our debt to society through the criminal justice system. A study by the Pew Center on the States in 2011 found that more than
four out of 10 adult Americans return to prison within three years of
their release. Recidivism is complex, but having spent most of my adult life around people who had criminal convictions, I learned - and frankly experienced firsthand as well - that one of the big reasons so many return to the pen is because while they were down, they were warehoused in overpopulated prisons without access to education, job and life skills training, or drug and mental health treatment. Many of the individuals I knew with convictions came from impoverished communities and families, lacked education beyond middle or high school, and had little or no chance or hope of improving their conditions, so resorted to criminal activity for survival and/or to feed addictions that arose from the sense of hopelessness and frustration that comes with poverty and a lack of opportunity. Being warehoused with others in similar circumstances did little to improve their own and fed the frustration and hopelessness, now exacerbated with the weight of a criminal conviction further dimming any chance at success in the future.
Upon release, they are booted out the gate with a pittance, required to comply with incredibly difficult parole conditions, and carry the stink of a criminal stigma so vile and pungent that there is little chance for the average felon to make good on a commitment to change. Few opportunities for employment or training, an advanced education is often out of reach...for most there is little or no opportunity to pull themselves out of poverty, to prove to others they've been rehabilitated, and the crushing weight of failure and hopelessness provides the final links in a chain that anchors the individual to a prison bunk.
One thing you can count on however, is that when you put anyone's back against an unmovable wall and strip away all the traditional routes to overcome a challenge or barrier, s/he will do things to survive that can defy the rational person's understanding. We often wonder "what could have driven him or her to make those decisions?" Hopelessness and a lack of ability to see a viable, appropriate way out of a very bad situation creates a mentality that can rationalize the justification for almost any behavior.
Even those with strong family and community support experience serious difficulties upon release. So when we're lucky enough to land a job - especially one that pays enough for us to survive, we know someone has personally made an exception for us, and allowed us an opportunity to "make good" on our commitment to rehabilitation. There may be "no honor among thieves" but you should know there is epic honor among rehabilitated convicted felons who land a job and can begin to get on with a life again. The vast majority of us are fiercely committed to our employers, will stay late, go the extra mile, and you'll rarely hear us bitching or complaining about our working conditions. We want to be paid a livable wage, that is true, but that is only because we know that without the livable wage, there is little opportunity for us to ever rebuild - or live - a normal life. I don't have any empirical data at the moment to support what I'm about to say (although I'm going to research it), but I'd wager that given what we know about the horrors of the criminal justice system in general, once we've overcome all the barriers and obstacles thrown in front of us after we're released from the miserable conditions within the Greybar hotel, we're pretty damned adamant that we're not going back. There isn't a two bit ripoff that ever affords fair and just compensation to the day to day misery of being locked up, and most of us wouldn't go back even if we knew we had a million dollar payoff awaiting us after our time was served. About the only exception to this is when life on the outside is worse than it is on the inside, and poverty, lack of opportunity and ostracism in one's community can without a doubt make life so intolerable on the outside that it is almost a relief to return to prison. Most of us who've been properly convicted of a crime we committed don't expect to get a break and live by the adage, "if you're gonna do the crime, you better be prepared to do the time." This isn't a plea for leniency.
This is a request to provide a real opportunity for a man or woman who has paid their full debt to society, and in spite of the challenges, barriers and obstacles those with criminal convictions face, continues to persevere and work to "get it right." So if you're an employer, the next time you have an application from a person with a criminal record in front of you, I hope you'll consider the full circumstances. I think my own employers over the past 15 years would back me up on every word I've said here, and the proof, as they say, is in the pudding.
With holiday hiring upon us, job prospects for the hard to employ are looking up – if only on a temporary basis. But for the 65 million Americans with criminal records, even a temporary job is often out of reach.
That’s why the Target Corporation’s removal of criminal history
questions from its employment applications is such promising news. While
many state and local governments have decided to “ban the box”
on job applications asking applicants if they’ve ever been convicted of
a crime, Target represents one of the most prominent companies to do
so.
The fact that the big box store offers entry-level jobs makes the decision even more meaningful for the 650,000 prisoners released each year in search of gainful employment.
Our research
shows that former prisoners with jobs are less likely to go back to
prison than those who remain jobless. But by checking a box on a job
application, the odds are good that their application will end up in the
trash bin.
Make no mistake: employers who choose to ban the box are not foregoing criminal background checks altogether. The vast majority of employers conduct background checks on prospective employees as a matter of course.
The problem with the box is that is doesn’t let applicants explain
what their crimes were, how long ago they were committed, and what they
may have learned from their incarceration experience. Removing the box
allows qualified applicants to advance to the interview stage, rather
than be rejected outright.
With any luck, Target’s decision, no doubt prompted by legislation to be enacted in 2014
in its home state of Minnesota, will lead others to follow suit. In the
meantime, much can be done to debunk employment myths about former
prisoners.
One is that former prisoners turn down jobs they think are “beneath” them. Our research
indicates that over two-thirds of those who found employment –
primarily in food service, sanitation, and construction– are highly
satisfied with their jobs, enjoy their work, get along well with their
coworkers, and feel their jobs will lead to better opportunities.
Given the opportunity, the formerly incarcerated can be productive
workers, holding jobs that citizens without records might not want. Such
opportunities would benefit former prisoners and their families, and
would help contain costly prison population growth while increasing
public safety. Target image from Flickr user Fan of Retail http://www.flickr.com/photos/fanofretail/
