Halfway houses (HWHs) are a common intervention for substance-abusing offenders. Facilities utilized to provide treatment for correctional populations are typically privately managed, often leading to variations in amounts and types of services and treatments. This study examines recidivism outcomes of substance-abusing offenders receiving halfway house interventions within New Jersey. Pre-intervention assessment characteristics are matched for participants with propensity score analysis. Using frailty models, this study found participants had a lower propensity to have their parole revoked than non-participants. Policy implications are made regarding further halfway house improvement to increase its role as a successful community reentry program.
AllenH.CarlsonE.ParksE.SeiterR. P. (1978). Halfway houses: Program models. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
2.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). New Providence, NJ: LexisNexis Group.
3.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ.HogeR. D. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 19-52.
4.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ.WormithJ. S. (2011). The Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model: Does adding the good lives model contribute to effective crime prevention?Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 735-755.
5.
AndrewsD. A.DowdenC. (2006). Risk principle of case classification in correctional treatment: A meta-analytic investigation. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 50, 88-100.
6.
AustinP. C. (2008). A critical appraisal of propensity-score matching in the medical literature between 1996 and 2003. Statistics in Medicine, 27, 2037-2049.
7.
BahrS. J.HarrisL.FisherJ. K.ArmstrongA. H. (2010). Successful reentry: What differentiates successful and unsuccessful parolees. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54, 667-692.
8.
BarnoskiR. (2004). Outcome evaluation of Washington State’s research-based programs for juvenile offenders (Document No. 04-01-1201). Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
9.
ButzinC. A.O’ConnellD. J.MartinS. S.InciardiJ. A. (2006). Effect of drug treatment during work release on new arrests and incarcerations. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 557-565.
10.
ButzinC. A.ScarpettiF. R.NielsenA. L.MartinS. S.InciardiJ. A. (1999). Measuring the impact of drug treatment: Beyond relapse and recidivism. Corrections Management Quarterly, 3(4), 1-7.
11.
FarabeeD.PrendergastM.AnglinM. D. (1998). The effectiveness of coerced treatment for drug-abusing offenders. Federal Probation, 62, 3-10.
12.
GendreauP.GogginC.SmithP. (2001). Implementation guidelines for correctional programs in the “real world.” In BernfeldG. A.FarringtonD. P.LeschiedA. W. (Eds.), Offender rehabilitation and practice: Implementing and evaluating effective programs (pp. 247-268). New York, NY: John Wiley.
13.
GuoS.FraserM. W. (2010). Propensity score analysis: Statistical methods and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
14.
HamiltonZ. K. (2011). Treatment matching for substance abusing offenders: An assessment of responsivity. El Paso, TX: LFB Scholarly Publishing.
15.
HartmannD. J.FridayP. C.MinorK. I. (1994). Residential probation: A seven-year follow-up study of halfway house discharges. Journal of Criminal Justice, 22, 503-515.
16.
InciardiJ. A.MartinS. S.ButzinC. A.HooperR. M.HarrisonL. D. (1997). An effective model of prison-based treatment for drug-involved offenders. Journal of Drug Issues, 27, 261-278.
17.
JamesN. (2011). Offender reentry: Correctional statistics, reintegration into the community, and recidivism (CRS Report RL34287). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
18.
KrebsC. P.StromK. J.KoetseW. H.LattimoreP. K. (2009). The impact of residential and nonresidential drug treatment on recidivism among drug-involved probationers. Crime & Delinquency, 55, 442-471.
19.
LatessaE. J.AllenH. E. (1982). Halfway house and parole: A national assessment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 10, 153-163.
20.
LatessaE. J.TravisJ. (1991). Halfway house or probation: A comparison of alternative dispositions. Journal of Crime & Justice, 14, 53-75.
21.
LowenkampC. T.LatessaE. J. (2002). Evaluation of Ohio’s community based correctional facilities and halfway house programs: Final Report (Evaluation No. 56350044). Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati, Division of Criminal Justice, Center for Criminal Justice Research.
22.
LowenkampC. T.LatessaE. J. (2005). Developing successful: Reentry programs, lessons learned from the “what works” research. Corrections Today, 67(2), 72-77.
23.
LowenkampC. T.LatessaE. J.HolsingerA. M. (2006). The risk principle in action: What have we learned from 13,676 offenders and 97 correctional programs. Crime & Delinquency, 52, 77-94.
24.
LowenkampC. T.LatessaE. J.SmithP. (2006). Does correctional program quality really matter? The impact of adhering to the principles of effective intervention. Criminology & Public Policy, 5, 575-594.
25.
MacKenzieD. L. (2000). Evidence based corrections: Identifying what works. Crime & Delinquency, 46, 457-471.
26.
MakariosM.SperberK. G.LatessaE. J. (2014). Treatment dosage and the risk principle: A refinement and extension. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 53, 334-350.
27.
MarionN. (2002). Effectiveness of community-based correctional programs: A case study. The Prison Journal, 82, 478-497.
28.
MaruschakL. M.ParksE. (2012). Probation and parole in the United States, 2011 (NCJ 239686). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
29.
McKayJ. R.DonovanD. M.McLellanT.KrupskiA.HanstenM.StarkK. D.. . .CecereJ. (2002). Evaluation of full vs. partial continuum of care in the treatment of publicly funded substance abusers in Washington state. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 28, 307-338.
30.
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2012). Principles of drug addiction treatment: A research-based guide (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Service.
31.
OstermannM. (2009). An analysis of New Jersey’s day reporting center and halfway back programs: Embracing the rehabilitative ideal through evidence based practices. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 48, 139-153.
32.
PearsonF. S.PrendergastM. L.PodusD.VazanP.GreenwellL.HamiltonZ. (2012). Meta-analyses of seven of the National Institute on Drug Abuse’s principles of drug addiction treatment. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 43, 1-11.
33.
PelissierB.WallaceS.O’NeilJ. A.GaesG. G.CampS.RhodesW.SaylorW. (2001). Federal prison residential drug treatment reduces substance use and arrests after release. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 27, 315-337.
34.
PetersiliaJ. (2003). When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
35.
PrendergastM. L.PearsonF. S.PodusD.HamiltonZ. K.GreenwellL. (2013). The Andrew’s’ principles of risk, needs, and responsivity as applied in drug treatment programs: Meta-analysis of crime and drug use outcome. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 9, 275-300.
36.
RhodesW.PelisserB.GaesG.SaylorW.CampS.WallaceS. (2001). Alternative solutions to the problem of selection bias in an analysis of federal residential drug treatment programs. Evaluation Review, 25, 331-369.
37.
RiceM. E.HarrisG. T. (2005). Comparing effect sizes in follow-up studies: ROC area, Cohen’s d and r. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 615-620.
38.
RosenbaumP. R.RubinD. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70, 41-55.
39.
RosenbaumP. R.RubinD. B. (1985). Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. The American Statistician, 39, 33-38.
40.
SeiterR. P.CarlsonE. W.BowmanH. H.GrandfieldJ. J.BeranN. J. (1977). Halfway houses. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
41.
SeiterR. P.KadelaK. R. (2003). Prisoner reentry: What works, what does not, and what is promising. Crime & Delinquency, 49, 360-388.
42.
ShadishW. R.CookT. D.CampbellD. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
43.
SobelM. E. (2005). Discussion: “The scientific model of causality.”Sociological Methodology, 35, 99-133.
44.
SperberK. G.LatessaE. J.MakariosM. D. (2013). Examining the interaction between level of risk and dosage of treatment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40, 338-348.
45.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration. (2012). Results from the 2011 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of national findings. Rockville, MD: Author.
46.
WheelerD. P.PattersonG. (2008). Prisoner reentry. Health & Social Work, 33, 145-147.
47.
WodahlE. J.OgleR.HeckC. (2011). Revocation trends: A threat to the legitimacy of community-based corrections. The Prison Journal, 91, 207-226.
