Prison's alternative housing chief out
The Allegheny County Jail's administrator of alternative housing for inmates left the county payroll on Tuesday.
The departure of Ruth J. Howze, whose official title was administrator of reintegration and alternative housing, was all Allegheny County spokeswoman Amie M. Downs would confirm because it is a “personnel” issue.
Downs would not say whether Howze had been fired or voluntarily left her position. No replacement has been named, Downs said.
Neither Howze nor Warden Orlando Harper could be reached for comment.
Downs would not say whether Howze's leaving was related to a decision the Allegheny County Common Pleas Court judges made in May to take over the assignment of jail inmates because of concerns about some of them being placed in alternative housing such as halfway houses.
The order was signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Manning.
Howze, whose annual salary was $64,903, was hired as administrator of alternative housing and the jail's collaborative coordinator, a countywide effort to assist inmates with successful returns to the community and to their families.
She was responsible for all inmates who are released to community corrections/work release and facilitating the county reintegration initiatives to improve public safety and reduce recidivism, according to the Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections' annual report filed in the months following her hiring in 2006.
The report stated that Howze had worked in the field of human services for more than 20 years, primarily in the area of those with special needs such as convicts, those with behavioral health issues and HIV or AIDS.
Michael Hasch is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-320-7820 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.