Securing housing is one of the most immediate challenges individuals leaving prison face upon their release. Research has shown that the types of living arrangements and neighborhoods to which exiting prisoners return are often related to the likelihood that they will recidivate and return to prison. While many of the formerly incarcerated stay with family members – at least early on, others are confronted by limited housing options. This is especially true for those with mental health or substance abuse problems. Obtaining housing is complicated by a host of factors, including the scarcity of affordable and available housing, legal barriers and regulations, landlords’ prejudices against formerly incarcerated individuals, and strict eligibility requirements for federally subsidized housing.

This section provides an overview and examination of key evaluative research investigating the relationship between housing programs and recidivism reduction. Below, we highlight the results and conclusions of research that met our criteria for methodological rigor, and provide a basis for comparing and discussing effective strategies for overcoming barriers to housing access that have emerged in the reentry field in recent years.
… (more)

Securing housing is one of the most immediate challenges individuals leaving prison face upon their release. Research has shown that the types of living arrangements and neighborhoods to which exiting prisoners return are often related to the likelihood that they will recidivate and return to prison. While many of the formerly incarcerated stay with family members – at least early on, others are confronted by limited housing options. This is especially true for those with mental health or substance abuse problems. Obtaining housing is complicated by a host of factors, including the scarcity of affordable and available housing, legal barriers and regulations, landlords’ prejudices against formerly incarcerated individuals, and strict eligibility requirements for federally subsidized housing.

This section provides an overview and examination of key evaluative research investigating the relationship between housing programs and recidivism reduction. Below, we highlight the results and conclusions of research that met our criteria for methodological rigor, and provide a basis for comparing and discussing effective strategies for overcoming barriers to housing access that have emerged in the reentry field in recent years.

What the Research Says about Housing Programs

From a thorough review of the literature, we identified just three studies of reentry programs involving housing that met our criteria for inclusion in the Clearinghouse. One study was rated as meeting a high level of methodological rigor, while the other two were rated at the basic level of rigor. These latter two studies found no evidence that the halfway house programs evaluated impacted recidivism rates. In one of the studies, halfway houses were compared to electronic monitoring, and no difference in recidivism was found. The other study evaluated the Ridge House program in Nevada, again finding no effect on recidivism.

However, Latessa and Lowenkamp’s study of 37 halfway house programs in Ohio, which met the high standard of rigor, found that halfway houses can have a significant impact on reducing recidivism rates. The effect of the programs on recidivism was largely determined by a participant’s level of risk to recidivate and by the quality of the particular program. While halfway houses were found to reduce recidivism for individuals assessed at a high risk of recidivism (as compared to high-risk individuals in the comparison group), those at a low risk to recidivate actually experienced higher rates of recidivism if placed in a halfway house.

In addition, recidivism impacts varied based on the particular halfway house’s characteristics, including the types of services it offered, the quality of its staff, and whether it used assessment tools. This variety of halfway houses, coupled with the fact that populations of differing risk levels experienced different impacts, could provide a possible explanation for the fact that the other two halfway house studies reviewed did not find effects on recidivism.

Future Areas of Research

Clearly, given that so few studies of reentry housing programs were identified that met the Clearinghouse’s standards for methodological rigor, further high-quality research is needed in this area. Though many studies were identified in our comprehensive literature search, most did not utilize strong research designs, necessitating their exclusion from the Clearinghouse. Many other studies were identified that examined housing programs qualitatively but did not examine quantitative reentry outcomes. In particular, studies examining housing programs that adhere closely to a program model (as documented in a process evaluation) would be helpful in determining which types of housing programs show the most promising results, and for which populations they are the most effective.
(less)