Post #273
900 words; 4 minutes to read
Summary: A review of research finds that halfway houses do not reduce recidivism.
Halfway houses are facilities where people released from prison on parole may be required to live for months or even years when paroled from prison. In Canada these houses are usually run by non-profit organizations under contract with the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC). CSC sets the rules of halfway houses, and the Parole Board of Canada determines how long a person has to stay in one.
In theory, halfway houses are a reasonable idea. Instead of keeping people in prison, we give them an opportunity to live in the community but under close supervision. They can provide additional supports for key challenges that make life hard for released prisoners, such as obtaining necessary documents, finding housing and employment, and reconnecting with family. All of this should help people reintegrate into society, and thus reduce recidivism. Many released prisoners do not have a home to return to, or a job or income, so a setting like this could be really useful.
Does the model work? A recent article by Canadian researchers reports findings of a review of research. The researchers were able to find, after a careful search, nine studies of halfway houses which met their rigorous selection criteria. All the studies involved some people who were in halfway houses and other similar people who did not stay in them. Five studies were fairly large, with at least 1000 people. All used arrest, conviction or further incarceration as their outcome measures.
No evidence of a positive effect
The results of the studies were consistent across all three criteria – there was no significant difference on any of the three outcomes between those who did stay in halfway houses and those who did not.
As the researchers put it, ‘Findings from the current analysis suggest that halfway houses implemented after release from incarceration… have a null effect on criminal recidivism for adults on parole. Specifically, the mean pooled effects for the arrest, conviction, and incarceration recidivism analyses suggest that formerly incarcerated individuals who transition into the community via back-end halfway houses are no more or less likely to recidivate compared to those who are released on standard parole.’
The reasons for this finding are not evident. The researchers give several possible, and sometimes competing, explanations. One possibility is that those required to live in halfway houses may be systematically different from those who do not – for example being thought to be at higher risk of reoffending. Another possibility is that the increased supervision of those in the houses could result in more violations and criminal charges.
Challenges in comparing programs
Another common problem in studies like this that seek to compare the effectiveness of programs is that the programs may in practice be quite different from each other. The authors point out that ‘there is little available evidence in terms of indicators of successful practice and/or evidence-based program components.’ If halfway houses vary a lot in what they do both to support and supervise released prisoners, one could not expect to find a common effect. Without clear standards of practice or descriptions of programs, these kinds of program comparisons tell us much less.
It is also possible that halfway houses in Canada are not really effective in helping former prisoners. For example, a person in a halfway house is living with other released criminals instead of living with his or her own family – who could be much more supportive. Because of their focus on risk and security, halfway houses are often seen by prisoners as negative rather than positive settings. Halfway houses also impose many rules that one would not have to meet in other settings, such as curfews or prohibitions on alcohol, which if violated could lead to further criminal charges even where a person was making a sincere effort to change.
Another reason the effects of halfway houses are harder to gauge is that, as shown by data from the National Parole Board, very few people in Canada commit a crime while on parole. About 90% of Canadian parolees successfully complete day parole, which is the halfway house stage of parole, and only a handful of several thousand are charged with a serious crime during that period. Nearly 90% complete their full parole successfully, which typically involves many months after their halfway house stay. Yet most are required to live in a halfway house for at least a few months, even those with the lowest risk. Perhaps the real story is that many more prisoners could be released a lot earlier with little or no risk to public safety; rather than being too generous in releasing people, we are actually too cautious, with high costs both to the prisoners and their families, and to the society that has to pay the huge expense of keeping someone in prison unnecessarily.
Conclusion
Do halfway houses make a contribution to public safety? This study tells us that we do not know. There is no evidence that they reduce recidivism, but then there even less evidence in favour of keeping so many people in prison for so long yet we continue to do so. Halfway houses, like prisons and so many other aspects of the criminal justice system, are widely accepted as playing a helpful role in public safety even without much supporting evidence.
About this blog: The John Howard Canada blog is intended to support greater public understanding of criminal justice issues. Blog content does not necessarily represent the views of John Howard Canada. All blog material may be reproduced freely for any non-profit purpose as long as the source is acknowledged. We welcome comments (moderated).
Back