Halfway Houses and Recidivism



Abstract

This research paper summarizes research on the utility of halfway houses in facilitating the successful reentry of former prisoners, emphasizing that not all halfway houses are effective in preventing recidivism. Halfway houses that work have qualified staff who use such evidence-based practices as needs assessments and tailored, wraparound services. Halfway houses are most effective for medium- and high-risk prisoners. Halfway Houses and Recidivism

Introduction

Another way to ease crowded prisons while providing close community supervision is to move inmates to halfway houses during their transition from institutionalization to freedom. Halfway houses have become an integral element in the correctional process and have two primary purposes. First, the punitive component provides a restrictive community-based setting for direct court commitments, intermittent commitments, and selected parole/probation violators who are usually sentenced for less than one year of imprisonment. Except for employment, the offender is generally restricted to the halfway house facility. In this component, the goal is not directed toward increasing family and community ties, but is strictly punitive in nature. The second purpose for halfway houses is to provide reintegration and transitional services for offenders who are at the end of their institutional sentence. Individuals placed in halfway houses for this purpose are given less structure and are encouraged to participate in family activities and reestablish family ties. Early recidivism studies of halfway house releases (Setter, 1978) found that aggregated recidivism data alone did not yield a statistically significant difference between federal offenders released through halfway houses and those who were not. However, some types of federal offenders seem to benefit more than others from such programs (Setter, 1978). Highrisk offenders show a relatively improved recidivism rate. In addition, according to some research, inmates referred to a halfway house have more stable employment records during the first months after release as shown by the days employed.

Discussion

It can be seen that, the path to successful reentry is rarely smooth. People exiting prison face tremendous challenges to leading sober and law-abiding lives on the outside. Few have housing or a job lined up, and many struggle with substance abuse, physical health problems, and mental illness (La Vigne, Shollenberger, and Debus 2009; La Vigne, Visher, and Castro 2004; Mallik-Kane and Visher 2008; Visher and Courtney 2007; Visher et al. 2005). While they may have received treatment, training, or assistance behind bars, far too often prisoners are released without the support and services critical to their successful reintegration (La Vigne et al. 2009; La Vigne, et al. 2004; Mallik-Kane and Visher 2008; Visher et al. 2005).

Prisoners returning home to the District face the additional challenge of having been incarcerated hundreds of miles away from their families and potential employers (Roman and Kane 2006). They return home in need of health care, drug treatment, jobs, and importantly, safe and affordable shelter (Hall et al. 2009; Roman and Kane 2006). That's where halfway houses come in. When designed and operated well, halfway houses can serve as a secure and supportive way station, easing what would ...