Halfway House RRC Report

28
Halfway from Prison to the Community: From Current Practice to Best Practice April 2013

description

We are pleased to share our latest report, “ Halfway from Prison to the Community: From Current Practice to Best Practice .” The Center for Behavioral Health Services & Criminal Justice Research at Rutgers University, with funding from the Langeloth Foundation and the National Institute of Mental Health, convened three roundtables from August to November 2012, to explore a variety of issues related to halfway house models and operations through a dialogue among researchers, policymakers, advocates, and practitioners. The dialogue was guided by a series of commissioned papers prepared by leading experts and presentations by representatives of residential reentry facilities. Discussion focused on topics of operations, effectiveness, and contracting. The report summarizes the main points of the roundtable dialogue, highlighting issues that are central to improving the performance of residential reentry facilities, as well as identifying areas that would benefit from more rigorous evidence and experimentation.

Transcript of Halfway House RRC Report

Page 1: Halfway House RRC Report

Halfway from Prison to the Community:

From Current Practice to Best Practice

April 2013

Page 2: Halfway House RRC Report

Center’s Mission

The Center for Behavioral Health Services & Criminal Justice Research seeks to improve the availability and effectiveness of services for individuals with mental illnesses who are involved with the criminal justice system.

The Center encourages researchers and stakeholders to work together to ensure that people with mental illnesses, with and without co-occurring substance use problems, receive access to evidence-based treatment services, employment and housing opportunities, and public benefits that will increase their prospects for living and thriving in the community.

Established in September 2002 Funded by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health (Grant #P30 MH079920). Center for Behavioral Health Services & Criminal Justice Research 176 Ryders Lane, New Brunswick, NJ 08901 | Tel: 732.932.1225 | Fax: 732.932.1233

To download copies of this report visit our website at www.cbhs-cjr.rutgers.edu

The Roundtable Forum and commissioned papers were funded by a grant from The Jacob & Valeria Langeloth Foundation.

“The world that we left was long gone. The danger was that our ideas had become frozen in time. Prison is a still point in a turning world, and it is very easy to remain in the same place in jail while the world moves on.”

–Nelson Mandela, The Long Walk to Freedom

a

Page 3: Halfway House RRC Report

Halfway from Prison to the Commnity: From Current Practice to Best Practice

c

Table of Contents

Executive Summary .........................................................................................................................................................................i

Guiding Principles for Residential Reentry Centers ........................................................................................................................ i

Improving Performance of Residential Reentry Centers ...............................................................................................................ii

Guiding Principles for Performance-Based Contracting ..............................................................................................................iii

Halfway from Prison to the Community: From Current Practice to Best Practice ..................................................................1

Residential Reentry Facilities in the Middle .................................................................................................................................1

Guiding Principles for Residential Reentry Centers ....................................................................................................................6

Effectiveness of Residential Reentry Centers ................................................................................................................................8

Improving Performance of Residential Reentry Centers .............................................................................................................9

Public Contracting for Services ................................................................................................................................................... 10

Guiding Principles for Performance-based Contracting...........................................................................................................12

Summary and Recommendations ................................................................................................................................................ 14

Halfway House Roundtable Participants .................................................................................................................................... 17

Suggested Readings ....................................................................................................................................................................... 18

“We have to go out there and learn to live all over.”

—Male inmate

Page 4: Halfway House RRC Report
Page 5: Halfway House RRC Report

Halfway from Prison to the Commnity: From Current Practice to Best Practice

i

Executive SummaryWith the growing emphasis on reentry readiness, federal, state, and local correctional agencies have developed reentry strategies that rely to varying degrees on “halfway” residen-tial facilities, called “residential reentry centers” (RRCs) in this report. Some states (e.g., California, Colorado, Con-necticut, Illinois, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania), in addi-tion to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, release a significant proportion of their offenders through RRCs. Indeed, untold millions are spent annually by government agencies on reentry services provided by RRCs. These services are often purchased through contracts between correctional agencies and private providers.

As a whole, little is known about RRCs or the contracting process that funds them. There is no national database for these facilities. For this reason, strikingly little is known about who is providing the services; what these facilities do or are supposed to do; how much is spent on them; how correctional agencies contract for services and monitor performance; how many people they serve; how reentry performance is measured and reported; or whether these reentry intermediaries work in terms of reducing recidivism or lowering correctional costs.

The Center for Behavioral Health Services & Criminal Justice Research at Rutgers University, with funding from the Langeloth Foundation and the National Institute of Mental Health, convened three roundtables from August to November 2012, to explore a variety of issues related to halfway house models and operations through a dialogue among researchers, policymakers, advocates, and practitio-ners. The dialogue was guided by a series of commissioned papers prepared by leading experts and presentations by representatives of RRCs.

This report provides a framework and a set of guidelines for the structure, implementation, and evaluation of RRCs. What was most clear from Roundtable discussions and the review of the research is: the performance of RRCs, in gen-eral, has not reached its potential. The central issue, and the one addressed in this report, is how to move from current practice to best practice.

Guiding Principles for Residential Reentry Centers

Residential reentry centers (RRCs) facilitate the community reintegration of formerly incarcerated persons through the provision of a multiplicity of residential, employment, treat-ment, advocacy, support, and family reunification services that are expected to build the capacities and competencies

necessary for successful community living. As such, it is expected that RRCs will lower rates of recidivism. Private RRCs, in particular, are expected to deliver reentry services more efficiently (i.e., cheaper) and more effectively (i.e., better outcomes) than correctional facilities, yielding cost saving and social benefits to taxpayers.

Roundtable participants identified guiding principles for RRCs, which individually and collectively create the founda-tion for achieving the following overarching goal:

RRCs develop, implement, monitor, and evaluate policies and procedures that build, guide, support, and supervise their clients’ reentry readiness — the ability to pursue pro-social and stable lives in the community where the client is expected to eventually reside, while holding clients account-able to laws and the conditions of their supervision.

Principles of Residential Reentry Centers:

l Reentry Service Mix. RRCs address five major areas of service need: work force engagement, behavioral health and health issues, family/community support, criminal orientations, and offense-specific issues. The service mix of RRCs recognizes the variation in client populations’ need, risk, and responsivity.

l Service Matching Strategy. Case management, treat-ment services, and work force and community engage-ment efforts, as well as community-based and resi-dential privileges, are matched to the client’s profiles, which include risk level, criminogenic and behavioral health needs, placement conditions, and progress towards reentry readiness goals.

l Client Assignment. Clients are assigned to RRCs in ways that reflect the client’s needs and the ability of the RRC and community to respond to these needs. Assignment protocols will likely vary by jurisdiction reflecting state statutes and local code.

Residential reentry centers (RRCs) are com-munity-based residential facilities that provide

structured case management services, including treatment, support, community/

family engagement services, and work opportunities to people incarcerated in

prisons and jails just prior to or after their release. RRCs hold their clients accountable to ensure they abide by all laws and conditions of their release. RRCs aim to prepare their clients

to live prosocially and stably in society.

Page 6: Halfway House RRC Report

Center for Behavioral Health Services & Criminal Justice Research

ii

l Standardized Risk and Needs Assessment and Man-agement Tools. RRCs, prisons/jails, and community correctional agencies use the same or compatible risk/needs/responsivity assessments and case management tools to ensure the efficient management of the transi-tion process, and the continuity of assessment and case management from institutions to RRCs.

l Client-Centered and -Driven Intervention. Upon admission, clients’ needs, risks, and responsivity are addressed in a multi-service reentry case management plan with time-specific goals and objectives, which guides the readiness preparation process and privileges of clients while residing at an RRC.

l Evidence-Driven Intervention. Evidence-based interventions are implemented at all levels of service provision. The research literature is replete with stud-ies that suggest many useful practice- and research-tested approaches for successful reentry programming in corrections. The findings of these studies should be reviewed and adapted for RRCs.

l Service and Engagement Orientation. RRCs use client-level problem-solving techniques to engage clients in the transition process and evidence-based service tools and approaches to achieve reentry readiness and security goals and to protect community safety.

l Staff Relational Style. RRC staff seeks to develop a respectful partnership with the clients beginning with the development of a mutually satisfying reentry plan that is realistic and achievable within the allotted time period. A shared decision-making model guides the process of goal attainment. RRCs develop, implement, and monitor policies and procedures that promote positive, respectful, and empathetic communication, accountability, and engagement strategies between clients and staff. RRC staff is also expected to ensure that clients who are not compliant with the rules are subject to appropriate counseling or disciplinary ac-tion.

l Community Engagement. RRCs partner with commu-nity-based organizations to ensure seamless delivery of services and support between the RRC and the com-munity. This includes co-delivery of services to ensure that positive rapport and trust is established between clients and community providers prior to their release to the community.

l Resource Development. RRCs work with the criminal justice, behavioral and physical health, social services, and employment systems, as well as informal groups (e.g., NA/AA, support groups), families, and faith-

based organizations, to develop and expand the avail-ability of services and support needed to ensure that reentering clients can smoothly transition to a stable placement in the community.

l Impacts of Residential Reentry Centers. RRCs affect the client, family, and community, as well as public service systems (e.g., criminal justice, health, behavior-al health, social service). The performance of RRCs is measured at the client, family, system, and community levels.

Improving Performance of RRCs

Government agencies contracting with RRCs assume, often without evaluation or accountability measures, that services provided by RRCs work — that is, lower recidivism by providing reentry services. Mounting evidence suggests the contrary. Large-scaled independent studies of RRCs in Ohio and Pennsylvania have found that RRC clients were not sig-nificantly less likely to recidivate upon release, compared to offenders who were not released through them; the length of time in a RRC had no impact on rearrest or technical viola-tions; and RRC programs often do not adhere to principles of effective interventions. Experts on RRC performance have repeatedly warned that “having a treatment program does not guarantee positive outcomes.”

Roundtable participants did not think, however, that RRCs should be jettisoned; rather they adhered strongly to the position that correctional agencies should be more informed and prudent buyers of RRC services. At a minimum, this requires the following:

l Establishing performance standards. Measurable and monitored standards of process and outcome perfor-mance are essential. Process standards include areas of program leadership; staff competency, training, and retention; client assessment; service mix and quality; client satisfaction; and quality assurance and improve-ment. Outcome standards include intermediate (e.g., client reentry readiness) and ultimate (e.g., recidivism) outcomes.

l Rating performance. A rating metric is needed to grade RRCs on the basis of measures of performance on process and outcome standards. Quality tiers would be established that rank programs from high to low quality.

l Performance accountability. A system of rewards, interventions, and penalties, tied to performance rat-ings, is needed to ensure appropriate performance and encourage quality improvement.

Page 7: Halfway House RRC Report

Halfway from Prison to the Commnity: From Current Practice to Best Practice

iii

l Continuous monitoring and evaluation. External evaluation is vital and should include monitoring the performance of the programs delivering services and the correctional agencies purchasing the services. A continuous academic-practice partnership is needed to develop performance and auditing standards, as well as methods for conducting program reviews, rigorous-ly assessing and improving performance, and training practice staff in evidence-based practices.

Guiding Principles for Performance-Based Contracting

For the past 30 years, governments at all levels have divested themselves of their service delivery obligations in exchange for roles as service buyers. This trend, referred to as privati-zation, relies on contracts between public sector buyers and private sellers (primarily private, nonprofit agencies). As buyers, states and localities should adopt “good” govern-ment practices when spending millions of tax dollars. Such practices require that government agencies have strategic plans in place before contracting for services; a plan that, at a minimum, defines performance outcomes comprehensive-ly and consistently. Evaluating the contracting process is also a “good” government practice. As such, legislative mandates should name a state oversight agency with responsibility for (a) examining how public contracting shapes market com-petition and (b) establishing protocols for quality assurance, data collection, and evaluation.

To improve performance, reform needs to begin with con-tracting, followed by enforced accountability. Recommenda-tions toward improved performance include:

Recommendation 1: Coordinate and integrate RRCs into a comprehensive reentry strategy. Reentry preparedness begins on day one of incarceration and is continued by RRCs after offenders are transferred there, which is then continued by community-based agencies, when appropriate, after the person is released to the community often under parole or probation.

Recommendation 2: Selection and assignment of offenders for transfer to RRCs must be systematic and rational. It is the responsibility of correctional agencies to clearly define who is eligible for RRCs, and to formally integrate these eligibility criteria with the agency’s overall classification and placement procedures. Formal classification and placement policies must inform and guide practice to ensure that the right clients by offense, risk, and remaining sentence are transferred to RRCs.

Recommendation 3: There is ample evidence of useful prac-tice- and research-tested approaches for successful reentry programming in corrections. The findings of these studies should be reviewed and adapted while RRCs are in the plan-ning stages so that decisions about the design and content of programs can be evidence-based from inception.

Recommendation 4: Create a reentry preparedness checklist to be used by correctional agencies and their surrogates that measures key skills and resources expected upon release, as well as monitors the progress of individuals towards these goals. Standards based on this checklist should be estab-lished that indicate when a person has met the minimum necessary conditions for community release.

Recommendation 5: Rely on research evidence to guide the selection of assessment tools, service programming, staff training and protocols, and assignment of clients to RRCs. Professionalizing the RRC industry must begin with the incorporation of science into the process of assigning clients to these services and the production and distribution of these services.

Recommendation 6: Develop prudent and informed contracting strategies and procedures at the federal, state, and local levels of government. Professionalized contract-ing is essential for privatization to work. The collective effect of all contracts within an industry must be systemati-cally monitored and evaluated. Each contract must include performance standards, ratings, and accountability, along with risk sharing. A government oversight agency, such as the Office of the Comptroller, should be required to evalu-ate contract performance at least every three years, with findings reported to the appropriate legislative committee. Part of this evaluation should include whether and how the correctional agency promotes market competition to ensure that private markets function to achieve efficiency and qual-ity performance.

Recommendation 7: Performance-based contracting should be the norm. Contracting for outputs or outcomes is the best way to ensure the government receives value for its reentry dollar. When value is not provided, risk sharing ar-rangements are needed to provide guidance for remediation (e.g., warning with assistance), financial penalties for further non-compliance, followed by termination if non-compliance is persistent.

Recommendation 8: Until contracting failures are cor-rected, selective contracting with private, nonprofit RRCs is reasonable. As long as contracts imperfectly specify and incompletely monitor performance because of the nature of reentry services and the heterogeneity of clients’ needs, and while services are inadequately funded because of fiscal

Page 8: Halfway House RRC Report

Center for Behavioral Health Services & Criminal Justice Research

iv

constraints, there remains a risk of potential exploitation by RRCs more responsive to financial incentives.

Recommendation 9: The general public and local com-munities have the right to know about the performance of RRCs. Keeping the general public informed ensures value is purchased with public funding, while informing local communities serves to build trust, the glue that sustains interagency collaborations and enduring connections within those localities.

Recommendation 10: Correctional agencies should forge enduring partnerships with higher education to evaluate their policies and practices, train their staffs, archive and analyze their data, and conduct research on best practices. Universities have the capacity to study effectiveness and per-formance and can work with correctional agencies to secure funding for research and training to improve and expand ca-pacity. Innovation and information are central to efficiency and effectiveness.

Recommendation 11: Research on RRCs is in its infancy. Areas of research in greatest need are: (1) Profile Analysis — How many RRCs are in operation? What are their owner-ship forms? How big and specialized are they? Who do they serve? What is the average length of stay? What services do they provide? (2) Effectiveness Evaluation (compared to parole supervision only) — Do RRCs work, for whom, and under what conditions? Are recidivism rates lowered? (3) Cost-Effectiveness Research — What alternatives are most cost-effective for low, medium, and high risk offender

groups? (4) Production Research — What is the optimal size for an RRC? Are specialized RRCs effective in terms of recovery and reentry? Is there a trade-off between recov-ery and reentry preparedness when specialized RRCs are regionalized? What combinations of programs produce the greatest yield in terms of reentry readiness and recidivism reduction? (5) Incentive Research —What combination of incentives/disincentives produces the best outcome perfor-mance for clients of RRCs?

Residential reentry centers, individually and collectively, have the ability to respond to the heterogeneous needs of people transitioning from carceral settings to the commu-nity. The central issue is how to move from current practice to best practice. In some cases, legislative reform is needed before research evidence can be implemented into practice (e.g., releasing low risk people directly to the community, limiting contracting to private, nonprofit RRCs). In other cases, more systemic change is needed in terms of how government does business. The success of privatization depends critically on the contracting expertise of govern-ment agencies and their willingness and ability to measure, monitor, and require performance accountability. A more performance-based orientation to contracting for reentry services is essential. To ensure performance, both parties of the contract must be evaluated objectively and routinely, with consequences and readjustments as needed. The public sector must adopt purchasing practices that produce measurable value. Only then will privatization and reentry initiatives serve the interests of society.

A Call for Help …

Sorry I have to remain anonymous due to fear of retaliation.

I am very intrigued by your research and insight into the halfway house system. Being a “resident” at such a facility is nothing in which it is cracked up to be. Being incarcerated is never fun in any capacity however there are some serious issues in these specific facilities that I am hoping led by your efforts will change.

The concept and idea of the programs is fantastic yet the conditions and way in which some of these places are run and handled can be damaging. Please respond back if any of this interests you and perhaps we can converse via email.

Thanks for caring about the misguided.

— An Anonymous Email to the Center

a

Page 9: Halfway House RRC Report

Halfway from Prison to the Commnity: From Current Practice to Best Practice

1

Halfway from Prison to the Community: From Current Practice to Best PracticePeople leave carceral settings through different avenues. Some complete their sentences and return to the com-munity without supervision or assistance (i.e., they “max out”). Others complete a (small) portion of their sentence in the community under parole or probation supervision, while still others enter the community indirectly through an intermediary facility, often called a “halfway house” to reflect its midpoint position between prison or jail and the community. These so-called halfway houses have become an integral component of reentry planning for some correc-tional agencies. Their responsibilities range but can include assessment, treatment (e.g., drug and alcohol), reentry skill building, and instrumental assistance (e.g., vocational train-ing, job placement, service engagement, and identification procurement).

With a growing emphasis on reentry readiness, federal, state, and local correctional agencies have developed reentry strategies that rely to varying degrees on halfway residen-tial facilities. How much reliance is unknown. There is no national database for these facilities, nor are there reports on the number of people they serve. From a review of state and federal correctional agency websites, it appears that a majority of incarcerated people are released directly to the community from prison. Yet there is considerable interstate variation. Some states (e.g., California, Colorado, Connecti-cut, Illinois, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania), in addition to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, release a significant propor-tion of their offenders through intermediary facilities. Strik-ingly little is known, however, about who is providing the services; what these facilities do or are supposed to do; how much is spent on them; how correctional agencies contract for services and monitor performance; how reentry perfor-mance is measured and reported; and whether these reentry intermediaries work.

The Center for Behavioral Health Services & Criminal Justice Research at Rutgers University, with funding from the Langeloth Foundation and the National Institute of Mental Health, convened three roundtables from August to November 2012, to explore a variety of issues related to halfway house models and operations through a dialogue

among researchers, policymakers, advocates, and practitio-ners. The dialogue was guided by a series of commissioned papers prepared by leading experts and presentations by representatives of residential reentry facilities. Discussions focused on topics of operations, effectiveness, and contract-ing. This report summarizes the main points of the roundta-ble dialogue, highlighting issues that are central to improv-ing the performance of halfway residential facilities, as well as identifying areas that would benefit from more rigorous evidence and experimentation.

Residential Reentry Facilities in the Middle

Definition. Halfway residential facilities operate in the middle of the criminal justice continuum between prison/jail and the community and have been referred to by dif-ferent names and ascribed different functions. Some of the common terms used to refer to these facilities are halfway houses, work release centers, pre-release centers, halfway back centers, residential treatment centers, and transitional programs or centers. Sometimes the names imply special-ization. For example, work release centers focus primarily on employability and employment, whereas treatment centers emphasize treatment for chronic behavioral health problems. Variation within the industry is more com-mon than commonality.1 The capacity of these facilities can vary from ten to more than a thousand beds, their intervention periods from days to months, and their client populations can include a medley of people released from state or federal prisons or local jails, people under commu-nity supervision, and probation/parole violators.

The elasticity of these facilities makes defining (as well as studying) them challenging. For this reason, we narrowed our focus to community-based residential centers whose typical residents are people reentering the community after an extended period of incarceration in either prison or jail. These residential reentry centers (RRCs) are primarily funded by state or federal departments of corrections or by county governments to facilitate the community reintegra-tion of formerly incarcerated persons through the provi-sion of a multiplicity of residential, employment, treatment, advocacy, support, and family reunification services that are expected to build the capacities and competencies nec-essary for successful community living.

1 Latessa, E. J. & Travis, L. F. (1992). Residential community correctional programs. In J. Byrne, A. Lurigio, & J. Petersilia (Eds.), Smart sentencing: The emergence of intermediate sanctions (pp. 166-181). Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications, Inc.

Page 10: Halfway House RRC Report

Center for Behavioral Health Services & Criminal Justice Research

2

Residential reentry centers (RRCs) are com-munity-based residential facilities that provide

structured case management services, including treatment, support, community/

family engagement services, and work opportunities to people incarcerated in

prisons and jails just prior to or after their release. RRCs hold their clients accountable to ensure they abide by all laws and conditions of their release. RRCs aim to prepare their clients

to live prosocially and stably in society.

Our definition of RRCs includes only facilities that:

l are located in the community and provide temporary housing;

l admit people returning to the community after a pe-riod of incarceration;

l provide structured case management services and a menu of reentry services;

l adhere to principles of personal accountability; and

l seek to enhance and promote reentry readiness.

How many RRCs across the country fit this definition is unknown in part because information about RRCs is not routinely provided by correctional agencies and in part because there is no centralized or standardized effort to document the number, size, and characteristics of RRCs and their clients, unlike hospitals, nursing homes, or dental practices. A national survey of RRCs is an important first step towards understanding the industry, its contours, and performance.

Clientele. Clients of RRCs are referred from the courts, jails, and state and federal prisons. They arrive, often after years of incarceration, with residential and employment needs, along with multiple, interacting health and behav-ioral health problems and criminogenic tendencies that re-quire specialized services.2 The needs of clients with devel-opmental disabilities, mental illnesses, and substance abuse disorders are particularly noteworthy. People with mental health and developmental disabilities, often with co-occur-ring substance abuse problems, are referred to as “special needs groups,” and are entering RRCs in record numbers,

with needs that require coordination and integration with community-based services. In addition to needing stable, affordable housing, they require comprehensive behavioral health and support services to help them manage their behavioral health problems and avoid future involvement in criminal activity.3

RRCs can be particularly effective transitional settings for special needs groups. Being domiciled is the first step to-ward a meaningful and productive life for released offenders with chronic developmental and mental health problems, af-fording a safe and therapeutic environment to prepare them for greater independence, higher levels of functioning, and lower levels of impairment. Clients with developmental and mental health problems often experience cognitive deficits that can interfere with their abilities to navigate the compli-cated systems of care and avenues for obtaining entitlements that underwrite community-based programming and ser-vices. Hence, with comprehensive case management in one setting, RRCs can offer service access and brokerage that is responsive to the reentry population with developmental and mental health challenges.

Research has not yet suggested an evidence-based resi-dential reentry model for handling the complex problems of special needs groups on the path to reintegration. Basic questions about the setting, structure, and client composi-tion of RRCs for special needs groups should be examined through research and evaluation. For example, should special needs groups be served in the same facility as general needs groups or participate in the same programming and interventions? Should housing arrangements be mixed or segregated if both special and general needs groups are living in the same facilities? What adjustments in the rules, social configurations, and schedules of facility services work best for special needs groups? These are examples of questions that should be explored in process and outcome evaluations of RRCs.

Location. Roundtable participants discussed at length the appropriate location, size, specialization, and clientele mix of RRCs and agreed unanimously that RRCs should be located in communities close to where their clients will eventually reside, to public transportation (if available), and to employment options, and far away from illegal activi-ties and distractions. Concentrating RRCs in industrial warehouse areas of major cities was not seen as optimal, but often as a practical necessity, given local zoning laws and

2 Petersilia, J. (2003). When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.3 Wolff, N. (2005). Community reintegration of prisoners with mental illness: A social investment perspective. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 28(1), 43-58.

Page 11: Halfway House RRC Report

Halfway from Prison to the Commnity: From Current Practice to Best Practice

3

community resistance. This location pattern, however, was viewed as undesirable and mutable. Agencies contracting for RRC services could more effectively use their buying power to geographically decentralize the placement of RRCs across the state by having the dollars “follow the client.” The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, for example, is using spatial mapping software to identify the mismatch between the location of RRCs and the home locations of released offenders in an effort to build RRC capacity where demand is insufficiently met.

Cost and Size. The failure of buyers, particularly state departments of corrections, to strategically purchase RRC capacity was seen as a missed opportunity to efficiently use public sector funding to achieve the goals of reen-try stabilization. Building RRC capacity closer to where formerly incarcerated people will eventually reside has two advantages. First, it builds local capacity to respond to the proximal and distal needs of the people who will eventually reside there more or less permanently. Second, it makes it easier to draw on local support (including family) and to build treatment and employment bridges that will stabilize community placement upon planned release from the RRC. Correctional agencies need to think and act more strategi-cally when buying reentry services in an effort to shape the local service delivery system in ways that achieve efficiency, effectiveness, and safety.

The optimal size of RRCs also received considerable atten-tion. This discussion was driven more by educated opinion than empirical evidence, as there is no research indicating how big or small a facility needs to be to achieve econo-mies of scale. Estimating optimal facility size is challenged by the natural variation among RRCs in terms of the breadth and depth of their product lines and client mixes. That said, at the extreme, there was strong sentiment that residential facilities with several hundred beds (in some cases, nearly a 1,000) surrounded by razor wire were more like prisons than an RRC. Based on the size distribution of RRCs in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and the federal system, RRCs were expected to range in size from 10 to 200 beds.

Client Specialization. Some RRCs specialize in provid-ing problem-specific services for special populations, for example: sex offenders, offenders with mental illnesses or substance abuse problems. Whether RRCs should have specialized or mixed client populations was discussed. Re-search strongly shows that moderate to high risk/need of-fenders should not be housed or supervised with low risk/need offenders if recidivism rates are to be minimized, ar-guing for segregation on the basis of clients’ risk/need level. More pointedly, research evidence indicates that low risk/need offenders should not be housed in RRCs as there are more cost-effective alternatives such as global positioning system (GPS) monitoring and transitional houses (that only provide housing) with parole supervision. For example, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction has implemented policies that will no longer assign low-risk offenders to their RRCs or community-based correctional facilities. More cost-effective alternatives for low risk/need offenders, however, may be prohibited under state sentenc-ing laws; laws that force inefficiencies on the correctional system and inadvertently increase rates of recidivism. Legislative change, as observed in Ohio and Pennsylvania, is often key to improving the effectiveness of RRCs.

The discussion on the promotion of problem-specific RRCs was mixed. Prisons and jails, for safety and clinical reasons, often segregate offenders vulnerable to victimiza-tion because of their special needs (e.g., mental illness or developmental disability) or offenses (e.g., sexual offenses). Women and men are also confined to separate prisons or divisions of jail. This practice was considered appropri-ate when transferred to RRCs, and exemplar programs were discussed (see pages 4 and 5). To date, however, the effectiveness of problem-specific RRCs has not been demonstrated and warrants examination. Nonetheless, this practice is consistent with safety regulations within cor-rectional settings.

Although it may be clinically advisable to implement problem-specific RRCs, their overall efficiency is not self-evident. Concentrating a large number of people with a particular problem in one or two specialized but regionalized facilities can facilitate recovery from chronic behavioral health problems but it can also isolate these individuals from the communities where they have support and will eventually live. Roundtable participants argued for smaller-scale, problem-based programs within larger facili-ties (those with 100 to 200 beds) that were more geographi-cally dispersed in order to enhance safety, recovery, and reentry readiness.

There was also a concern that concentrating services for a particular problem in one or two specialized RRCs can create service monopolies that weaken the bargaining posi-

It is not uncommon for people to be released to RRCs located 30 to 100 miles from their

home locations. While at the RRC, they may secure jobs and treatment services in these areas but once released from the RRC, they return to their home communities where they

have no jobs or connections to treatment services but have family and perhaps

parenting responsibilities.

Page 12: Halfway House RRC Report

Center for Behavioral Health Services & Criminal Justice Research

4

tion of correctional agencies. Maintaining a competitive purchasing environment was seen as essential for secur-ing best value for the public sector dollar. For this reason alone, having a diversified portfolio of specialized service programs within RRCs was deemed superior to a small number of large specialized RRCs. Again, the issues of ef-ficiency and effectiveness were viewed as important enough to warrant rigorous empirical investigation.

For some correctional agencies, RRCs play a central role in preparing people leaving carceral settings for successful community living. Reentry following incarceration in-volves coordinating an array of services, having case man-

agement that dynamically matches the needs of individuals to available assistance, as well as making arrangements for reintegrating offenders into employment opportuni-ties, networks of social support, and norms of prosocial behavior. These are challenging tasks for RRCs, and involve a delicate balancing of individual autonomy and com-munity safety. Organizationally, there is little evidence guiding the optimal size, regional distribution, and service specialization of RRCs. As such, a practice of moderation is advisable. We do know, however, that performance is enhanced by segregating clients by risk level and focusing RRC capacity on medium to high risk clients.

The Next Door in Chattanooga, Tennessee is dedicated to helping women suc-cessfully reenter the community after incarceration. It currently provides transitional services to 30 women who are parole-recommended, minimum-level offenders with a conviction from an East Tennessee county. Programming consists of two tracks of

a cognitive-based curriculum: recovery and traditional, and includes reentry planning, life skills, workforce devel-opment, financial and case management, family reunification, physical fitness, and recovery skills development. Operating since March, 2011, The Next Door prepares “women for productive citizenship and independent living free from drug and alcohol abuse.”

Its parent organization, The Next Door, Inc., a non-profit organization, contracts with the Tennessee DOC and Bureau of Prisons, and involves other stakeholders—the Board of Parole and Department of Mental Health.

There is limited evidence on effectiveness, given its recent inception. The program achieved an 87 percent gradu-ation rate of the 109 participants—13 percent discharged for disciplinary reasons; and the remainder completing their sentence (44 percent) or paroling out (43 percent). Of the parolees, 4.5 percent have had parole revoked, 2.1 percent because of new charges. During the program, there was 39 percent employment of those eligible, with 36 percent maintaining that employment until release. There has been no reoffending among its graduates to date.

For further details, contact: Linda Leathers, Chief Executive Officer, The Next Door, P.O. Box 23336, Nashville, TN 37202, Tel.: (615) 516-9342, E-Mail: [email protected].

Volunteers of America Delaware Valley‘s Program for Returning Offenders with Mental Illness Safely and Effectively (PROMISE) in Camden, New Jersey, commenced in 2006. Currently, it serves 70 parolees with mental illnesses transitioning out of prison. The program offers reentry housing; ensures timely psychiatric, medical, vision, dental care, and case management services; oversees medication compliance; facilitates family reunification; and pro-vides linkages for benefits, identification, peer mentorship, recreational activities, and other appropriate treatment. Other services, such as transitional housing and permanent supportive housing are provided, as a continuum of care, post discharge.

Funding partners for PROMISE include the Corporation for Supporting Housing and the Housing Mortgage and Finance Agency under the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs. Other stakeholders involved include the New Jersey Department of Corrections, Health, State Parole Board, and Division of Mental Health Services.

Evidence of effectiveness is not clear, as no recidivism or post-discharge outcomes are available. To date, PROM-ISE has served 303 clients, with 138 positive discharges and 105 individuals living in supportive housing.

For further details, contact: Patricia McKernan, L.S.W., Chief Operating Officer, Volunteers of America Delaware Valley, 235 White Horse Pike, Collingswood, NJ 08107, Tel.: (856) 854-4660, E-Mail: [email protected].

Page 13: Halfway House RRC Report

Halfway from Prison to the Commnity: From Current Practice to Best Practice

5

The Montgomery County Department of Cor-rection and Rehabilitation (DOCR) Pre-Release and Reentry Services (PRRS) Division in Rockville, Maryland provides residential and non-residential reentry services to those who are (a) convicted, sentenced, within 12 months of release, and have been incarcerated in its county correctional system or (b) in state or federal custody and within 6 months of release who are returning locally. The 174-bed facility additionally serves 45 home-confinement clients via electronic monitoring, case management, and its mobile field team. It also contracts with the Maryland State Division of Cor-rection and federal Bureau of Prisons for PRRS.

Screening focuses less on offense type, and more on the person being manageable and the experi-ence meaningful, and over 95 percent of those screened are approved for admission. Key com-ponents include voluntary application and careful screening; application of research and cost-benefit advantages of a structured program; utilization of incentives; and explicit expectations of account-ability and responsibility.

The PRRS served over 607 clients last year and 81 percent successfully completed the program. Approximately 59 percent of clients are employed during the program, with 71 percent engaged in work release activities. Overall, 87 percent were re-leased with employment, 95 percent with housing, and productivity and engagement levels included $1.25 million in gross income made by residents.

For further details, contact: Chief Stefan LoBuglio, PRRS, DOCR, Pre-Release Center, 11651 Nebel Street, Rockville, MD 20852, Tel.: (240) 773-4262, E-Mail: [email protected].

Talbert House, a nonprofit network of social servic-es, opened its first halfway house in 1965. Currently, it has five halfway houses with 364 beds serving 1163 people in 2012. Their clients include those in Ohio or federal prisons, or on parole or probation. Of the 1189 discharged in 2012, 70.6% successfully completed the program.

Organizationally, intake and assignment are central-ized and standard, with emphasis on programming and employment. Onsite services include alcohol/drug, criminality, employment, and primary care. Mental health services are provided via referral. Services are documented and tracked in automated clinical records and programming accommodates work schedules. Universal curricula include correc-tive thinking, strategies for self-improvement and change, and skill building.

Talbert House contracts with Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) regarding in-carcerated and paroled individuals, county/municipal probation offices for probationers, and the Bureau of Prisons for federal prisoners. It partners with ODRC, Ohio Community Corrections Association, the Uni-versity of Cincinnati, and the local community.

Talbert House assesses effectiveness using con-tinuous quality improvement to evaluate process, outcome, and fidelity components, and providing correctional program checklist assessments, litera-ture and focus reviews, dosage studies, and impact reports. Effectiveness evidence shows a reduction in antisocial thinking among program completers, employment within 21 days of assessment, and full-time employment upon discharge. To date, the percentage of clients with linkages for alcohol/drug treatment, mental health, or primary care services upon discharge is 61.7 percent.

For further details, contact: Dr. Kimberly Sperber, Chief Research Officer, Talbert House, 2600 Victory Parkway, Cincinnati, OH 45206-1711, Tel.: (513) 751-7747, E-Mail: [email protected].

Page 14: Halfway House RRC Report

Center for Behavioral Health Services & Criminal Justice Research

6

Guiding Principles for RRCs

Roundtable participants identified guiding principles for RRCs, which individually and collectively create the founda-tion for achieving the following overarching goal:

RRCs develop, implement, monitor, and evaluate poli-cies and procedures that build, guide, support, and supervise their clients’ reentry readiness — the ability to pursue prosocial and stable lives in the community where the client is expected to eventually reside, while holding clients accountable to laws and the conditions of their supervision.

Principles of Residential Reentry Centers:

l Reentry Service Mix. RRCs address five major areas of service need: work force engagement, behavioral health and health issues, family/community support, criminal orientations, and offense-specific issues (i.e. sex offender, driving while intoxicated, white collar crime). The service mix of RRCs recognizes the variation in client populations’ need, risk, and responsivity.

l Service Matching Strategy. Case management, treatment services, and work force and commu-nity engagement efforts, as well as community-based and residential privileges, are matched to the client’s profiles, which include risk level, criminogenic and behavioral health needs, place-ment conditions, and progress towards reentry readiness goals.

l Client Assignment. Clients are assigned to RRCs in ways that reflect the client’s needs and the ability of the RRC and community to respond to these needs. Assignment protocols will likely vary by jurisdiction reflecting state statutes and local code.

l Standardized Risk and Needs Assessment and Management Tools. RRCs, prisons/jails, and community correctional agencies use the same or compatible risk/needs/responsivity assessments and case management tools to ensure the efficient management of the transition process, and the continuity of assessment and case management from institutions to RRCs.

l Client-Centered and -Driven Intervention. Upon admission, clients’ needs, risks, and responsiv-ity are addressed in a multi-service reentry case management plan with time-specific goals and

objectives, which guides the readiness preparation process and privileges of clients while residing at an RRC.

l Evidence-Driven Intervention. Evidence-based interventions are implemented at all levels of service provision. The research literature is replete with studies that suggest many useful practice- and research-tested approaches for successful reentry programming in corrections. The findings of these studies should be reviewed and adapted for RRCs.

l Service and Engagement Orientation. RRCs use client-level problem-solving techniques to engage clients in the transition process and evidence-based service tools and approaches to achieve reentry readiness and security goals and to protect community safety.

l Staff Relational Style. RRC staff seeks to develop a respectful partnership with the clients beginning with the development of a mutually satisfying reentry plan that is realistic and achievable within the allotted time period. A shared decision-mak-ing model guides the process of goal attainment. RRCs develop, implement, and monitor policies and procedures that promote positive, respectful, and empathetic communication, accountability, and engagement strategies between clients and staff. RRC staff is also expected to ensure that clients who are not compliant with the rules are subject to appropriate counseling or disciplinary action.

l Community Engagement. RRCs partner with community-based organizations to ensure seam-less delivery of services and support between the RRC and the community. This includes co-delivery of services to ensure that positive rap-port and trust is established between clients and community providers prior to their release to the community.

l Resource Development. RRCs work with the criminal justice, behavioral and physical health, social services, and employment systems, as well as informal groups (e.g., NA/AA, support groups), families, and faith-based organizations, to de-velop and expand the availability of services and support needed to ensure that reentering clients can smoothly transition to a stable placement in the community.

Page 15: Halfway House RRC Report

Halfway from Prison to the Commnity: From Current Practice to Best Practice

7

l Impacts of Residential Reentry Centers. RRCs affect the client, family, and community, as well as public service systems (e.g., criminal justice, health, behavioral health, social service). The performance of RRCs is measured at the client, family, system, and community levels.

These guiding principles provide a framework for institu-tional behavior that can be translated into measurable and achievable performance standards. Of course, congruence

with these principles is not always easy to assess or quantify. Consequently, translating them into practice has implica-tions for the ways in which performance ought to be mea-sured contractually, as well as for the sort of organizations that receive state contracts but cannot be held to measurable aspects of performance. Figure 1 illustrates more generally how RRCs fit into a comprehensive reentry strategy that begins with incarceration and ends with placement in the community.

Jail Assessment Case Management Transition Plan

Step 1: Assessment Step 2: Reentry Plan Step 3: Intervention

Information Referrals Formal services Informal support Work opportunities Accountability

Active CaseManagement

Reentry Readiness/Accountability

Performance Outcomes

Client Family Community Service System Criminal Justice System

RRC

Community

Prison Assessment Case Management Skill Development Transition Plan

Figure 1: Model of an Integrated Reentry Strategy

Page 16: Halfway House RRC Report

Center for Behavioral Health Services & Criminal Justice Research

8

Effectiveness of RRCs

Every year untold millions of tax dollars are spent to pur-chase services from RRCs. These dollars are expected to buy assistance that will help people leaving carceral settings obtain employment and stable housing, as well as address problem behaviors that limit their ability to refrain from criminal activity. How effective RRCs are in reducing recidi-vism and promoting prosocial living is less easily measured than their financial costs.

Indeed, very little is known about the effectiveness of RRCs. Research on RRCs is scanty in part because of their hetero-geneity and in part because of methodological challenges as-sociated with defining comparison groups and obtaining the necessary data for comparative analyses. Only three large scale outcome studies of RRCs have included comparison groups; they were statewide studies conducted in Ohio and Pennsylvania. The findings of these studies are mixed.

Ohio. In Ohio, some RRCs were found to reduce recidivism among participants compared to their counterparts released directly to the community under parole supervision. In a study conducted in 2002 (37 private, non profit RRCs, bed capacity ranging from 12 to 212 and 15 locally-operated community-based correctional facilities, bed capacity rang-ing from 25 to 200), low-risk offenders showed an average increase in recidivism of four percent, whereas high-risk of-fenders (i.e., those with a higher probability of reoffending) programs showed a reduction in recidivism of eight percent. Based on this evidence, the authors concluded that intensive correctional services provided by RRCs should be reserved for high-risk offenders. A relationship was also found between program characteristics and integrity, and program effectiveness. The poorest quality programs increased re-cidivism rates by 19 percent and the best programs reduced recidivism by 22 percent. Variation in the administration of RRCs was a leading factor in their poor performance.4

A more methodologically sophisticated follow-up study was conducted in 2010.5 Consistent with the 2002 study, the overall effects of RRCs on recidivism were minimal and exhibited considerable variation among risk levels and programs. Overall, recidivism increased by three percent for low-risk offenders and decreased by 14 percent for high-risk

offenders. This study also found that program leadership, staff characteristics, client assessment, treatment services, and quality assurance were significant correlates of recidi-vism performance. Not surprisingly, well-designed, well-run residential programs were found to be more effective in reducing recidivism, while poorly designed, poorly imple-mented programs were found not only to be less effective but, in some cases, actually harmful.

Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (PADOC) commissioned an evaluation of its residential reentry centers (41 RRCs (contracted providers) and 13 community correction centers (PADOC operated)) in 2009. This study used the same methodology as the 2002 Ohio study and was conducted by the same team of investigators. The findings, however, were vastly different. Indeed, there were few positive results. Overall, the failure rates (measured in terms of technical violations, arrests, and re-incarcera-tion) were higher for the RRC groups than the comparison group under parole supervision only. Most shocking was the finding that treatment effects for any recidivism were nega-tive across all residential facilities. Program quality across facilities was also found to be sub-optimal. In Ohio, almost 30 percent of programs were scored in the effective or higher rating range, while in Pennsylvania, only 1 of the 54 programs was rated as effective. More pointedly, 53 (94.5%) of the residential facilities providing reentry services to incarcerated persons were rated as needs improvement or ineffective. Areas of most significant weakness were offender assessment, treatment characteristics, and quality assurance.6

This evidence suggests at least two types of variation within the industry. The first is variation in performance across RRCs suggesting there is considerable room for improve-ment among less successful programs. The second is varia-tion across clients indicating a need for targeting and match-ing RRC capacities to the needs of particular clients. Taken together, with the relatively low average quality produced by RRCs, state purchasers of RRC services have an opportu-nity and a responsibility to assume a more proactive role in improving services through more strategic contracting with RRCs to secure value for the public dollar.

4 Lowenkamp, C. T., & Latessa, E. J. (2005). Increasing the effectiveness of correctional programming through the risk principle: Identifying offend-ers for residential placement. Criminology and Public Policy, 4(2), 263-290. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9133.2005.00021.x5 Latessa, E. J., Brusman Lovins, L., & Smith, P. (2010). Follow-up evaluation of Ohio’s community based correctional facility and halfway house pro-grams—outcome study. Technical Report. Center for Criminal Justice Research, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH.6 Latessa, E., Lowenkamp, C., & Bechtel, K. (2009). Community corrections centers, parolees, and recidivism: An investigation into the characteristics of effective reentry programs in Pennsylvania. University of Cincinnati, Center for Criminal Justice Research.

Page 17: Halfway House RRC Report

Halfway from Prison to the Commnity: From Current Practice to Best Practice

9

Improving Performance of RRCs

Some states (e.g., Colorado, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania) and the federal government have historically purchased residential reentry services from local governments and the private sector. These government agencies assumed, often without evaluation or accountability measures, that these services worked – that is, lowered recidivism by provid-ing reentry services. Yet, mounting evidence suggests the contrary. Roundtable participants did not think, however, that RRCs should be jettisoned; rather they adhered strongly to the position that correctional agencies should be more in-formed and prudent buyers of RRC services. At a minimum, this requires the following:

l Establishing performance standards. Measurable and monitored standards of process and outcome perfor-mance are essential. Process standards include areas of program leadership; staff competency, training, and retention; client assessment; service mix and quality; client satisfaction; and quality assurance and improve-ment. Outcome standards include intermediate (e.g., client reentry readiness) and ultimate (e.g., recidivism) outcomes. See Figure 2 for a mapping of inputs to outputs to outcomes.

l Rating performance. A rating metric is needed to grade RRCs on the basis of measures of performance on process and outcome standards. Quality tiers would be established that rank programs from high to low quality.

l Performance accountability. A system of rewards, interventions, and penalties, tied to performance rat-ings, is needed to ensure appropriate performance and encourage quality improvement.

l Continuous monitoring and evaluation. External evaluation is vital and should include monitoring the performance of the programs delivering services and the correctional agencies purchasing the services. A continuous academic-practice partnership is needed to develop performance and auditing standards, as well as methods for conducting program reviews, rigorous-ly assessing and improving performance, and training practice staff in evidence-based practices.

A model of this systematic approach to performance is found in Ohio (see page 10). Ohio’s ability to improve the performance of RRCs was recently enhanced by legislative reform that requires all offenders to be assessed with a stan-dardized and objective assessment tool and that limits RRC clientele to higher risk offenders.

Inputs Staff Facilities Equipment Clients

ProductionProcess Supervision Program/Counseling Testing Employment Facility Maintenance Data Management Reporting Monitoring

ProcessOutputs Security Safety Treatment Compliance Quality

ProcessOutcomes

Client-basedOutputs ID Health Work Housing Safety

ClientReentryReadinessOutcomes

UltimateOutcomes Prosocial Living Recidivisim

Figure 2: Logic Model of RRC Interventions

Page 18: Halfway House RRC Report

Center for Behavioral Health Services & Criminal Justice Research

10

Integrated System of Performance Oversight: The Case of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC)

l Establishing performance standards. Program quality is measured using the Evidence-Based Correctional Program Checklist (CPC) and the Core Correctional Practices section of the Program Assessment Inven-tory-2000. These instruments measure program capacity and content along the domains of: program leader-ship and development, staff characteristics, offender assessment, service treatment, and evaluation.

l Rating performance. ODRC uses data on program performance to grade residential facilities on an A to F scale, with A indicating highest quality and F, lowest quality.

l Performance accountability. Based on the 2010 evaluation, several of the poorest performing RRCs were not awarded new contracts and one public facility was closed down, and another 15 residential facilities were redesigned in collaboration with the University of Cincinnati’s Corrections Institute. Redesigns included four phases: program design/model development; training; implementation and coaching; and quality assurance.

l Continuous evaluation. The ODRC has a strong and enduring partnership with the University of Cincinnati’s Corrections Institute (UCCI). The UCCI researchers, in collaboration with ODRC staff, develop auditing stan-dards, collect and archive data, conduct program evaluations and analyses, and provide training.

New legislation has enhanced performance and efficiency by requiring all offenders be assessed with a stan-dardized and objective risk assessment tool and only allowing higher risk offenders to be placed in residential programs.

Public Contracting for Services

For the past 30 years, governments at all levels have divested themselves of their service delivery obligations in exchange for roles as service buyers.7 This trend, referred to as priva-tization, relies on contracts between public sector buyers and private sellers (primarily private, nonprofit providers). Private sector agencies are expected to deliver services more efficiently (i.e., cheaper) and more effectively than those in the public sector, yielding cost saving and quality enhanc-ing advantages to tax payers.8 Whether this expectation is actualized depends on the details within the contracts. The true potential and risks of privatization depend less on ex-pectations and more on balancing the mix of incentives and accountability mechanisms for contracted services.

For decades, governments have been buying public ser-vices from the private market. These services are purchased through two general types of contracting. The first type is compliance-based contracting that focuses on inputs or process — how something is to be done, while the second is performance-based contracting that emphasizes results

7 Henig, J. R. (1989). Privatization in the United States: Theory and practice. Political Science Quarterly. 104(4), 649-670.8 Savas, E. S. (1987). Privatization: The key to better government. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House. 9 See: Office of Management and Budget. (2012). Best practices for performance-based contracting. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/procurement_guide_pbsc; and Berk & Associates. (April, 2011). IDEA: Results-based contracting. Retrieved from http://www.sao.wa.gov/EN/Audits/SGPR/Documents/Contracting_Full_Report.pdf10 Berk & Associates. (April, 2011). IDEA: Results-based contracting. Retrieved from http://www.sao.wa.gov/EN/Audits/SGPR/Documents/ Contracting_Full_Report.pdf

or outcomes. The federal government and some states (e.g., Florida, Maine, Washington) have introduced performance- based standards into public contracts, with increasing reli-ance on performance-based contracting for services.9 In is-suing Executive Order 10-07 on November 29, 2010, which requires all new Washington State contracts for services meet performance-based contracting standards, Governor Christine Gregoire said, “Performance contracts are just what they sound like — they identify what we as a state are buying and make payment contingent on the contractor delivering those results. Performance contracts focus on the job to be done, and they ensure it gets done.” 10

Compliance-Based. Contracts with RRCs have traditionally been compliance-based, specifying how services are to be produced and emphasizing the “inputs” shown in Figure 2 (e.g., credentials of staff, building architecture, compliance with fire codes). In such cases, RRCs could provide services that fully comply with contracts specified by the state agency without producing outcomes (e.g., reentry readiness, re-duced recidivism) that are valued by taxpayers because these outcomes are not specified in contracts written by the state

Page 19: Halfway House RRC Report

Halfway from Prison to the Commnity: From Current Practice to Best Practice

11

11 See Planning and Learning Technologies, Inc. (2006). Literature review on performance-based contracting and quality assurance. Retrieved from http://www.uky.edu/SocialWork/qicpcw/documents/QICPCWPBCLiteratureReview.pdf.12 Lowenkamp, C. T., Latessa, E. J., & Holsinger, A. M. (2006). The risk principle in action: What have we learned from 13,676 offenders and 97 correctional programs? Crime and Delinquency, 51(1), 77-93. doi:10.1177/001112870528174713 Hansmann, H. (1987). Economic theories of the nonprofit sector. In W. W. Powell (Ed.), The nonprofit sector (pp. 27-42). New Haven: Yale University Press.14 Schlesinger, M. J. (2012). Names and norms: Ownership form and the organization of reentry in criminal justice system. Manuscript prepared for the Roundtable on Halfway House Reform.

agency. Since “value” is not part of the contract, it falls out-side the purview of accountability. Under compliance-based contracting, private providers, without well-structured and intentional contract monitoring, could produce low quality and ineffective services without consequences, and possibly without detection.

Performance-Based. Performance-based contracting focuses attention on outputs or outcomes produced by the services provided by RRCs, particularly client reentry readi-ness outputs (e.g., employment, housing, personal identi-fication, treatment engagement) and outcomes (e.g., stable employment, safe and stable housing, treatment compliance) and ultimate outcomes (e.g., recidivism). Performance-based contracts focus on the job to be done, and they ensure it gets done. When outcome performance is measured, monitored, and accountable through contracting language, value is produced with intention.11

Contracting discussions of the Roundtable coalesced around three fundamental issues. The first issue centers on the behavior of the purchasers of RRC services — particularly federal, state, and local correctional agencies. Whether the purchasing practices of correctional agencies were guided by well-defined, performance-based strategies was debated. Here the discussion focused on the extent to which correc-tional agencies had an integrated reentry plan that ensured (1) reentry readiness began in prison or jail and continued seamlessly through RRCs as shown in Figure 1; (2) incarcer-ated people were responsibly transitioned and assigned to RRCs; (3) RRCs had sufficient time with clients to achieve expected performance; and (4) accountability standards ap-plied to all parties involved in preparing incarcerated people for community reentry. Overall, Roundtable participants thought that correctional agencies did not effectively use RRCs as part of a deliberate strategy for reentry. Without a clearly articulated and reasoned strategy directed towards reentry readiness outcomes, contracting was not expected to achieve its potential. Strategic planning on the front end was seen as essential for contracting to be effective.

The second issue concerns contract failure, which arises when it is difficult to assess the quality or quantity of an output or outcome produced by a provider. In the case of reentry, some outcomes are easy to measure (e.g., recidi-vism, employment), whereas others are more difficult (e.g., stability, engagement, personal autonomy). Even when metrics can be reliably measured, it might be difficult to ap-

propriately “risk-adjust” for subtle differences in the capacity of clients to sustain prosocial roles in the community.12 Accountability becomes equally difficult to operationalize when measurement problems exist. Only when all rel-evant outcomes can be reliably measured, or when process measures can be closely linked with hard-to-measure dimensions of the outcome, is it relatively easy to effectively implement performance-based contracting.

The third issue is closely related to the second and con-cerns the ownership form of private sector providers. It is customary in some states for public sector contracts to be limited to private, nonprofit providers, excluding for-profit providers. Other states — particularly in the South and West — contract with for-profit agencies for at least some reentry services. Others (e.g., Ohio, California) also contract with local government agencies to provide reentry services.

Nonprofits. Many states favor nonprofits on the grounds that they are more “trustworthy” as contracted provid-ers because they are less sensitive to financial incentives. Compared to their for-profit counterparts, nonprofits are expected to be less responsive to financial incentives because they are not allowed to financially gain (i.e., accrue profits or inflate the salaries of their executives) from the process of producing or delivering services. In addition, for-profits, unlike their nonprofit counterparts, need to aggressively seek out opportunities to maximize revenues to satisfy investors’ expectations. Taken together, for-profits are incen-tivized to exploit difficulties in measuring and monitoring performance. And, as such, to maximize profits, they are more likely to deliver low quality products at high quality prices — without detection. Nonprofits, by contrast, have no such internal motivation to exploit their informational advantage over the government contractor.13

The evidence on actual performance is mixed, although on balance, it favors limiting contracts to nonprofit service providers for two reasons. First, past research on RRCs and comparable social services suggests that ownership form does generate cost and quality differentials but their direc-tion and magnitude depends on service complexity. When services are simple (e.g., a transportation service), for-profits have been found to produce services at a lower average cost than their nonprofit counterparts. This cost differential, however, generally disappears or reverses when services are more complicated. Nonprofits, however, consistently produce higher quality services than for-profits, with the gap increasing when quality is more difficult to measure.14

Page 20: Halfway House RRC Report

Center for Behavioral Health Services & Criminal Justice Research

12

Reentry services are more complex than simple, for several reasons. First, clients of RRCs vary greatly in their service needs, co-morbidities, work skills, criminogenic risks, and level of social support — with corresponding variation in risks of recidivism. When contracted agencies are paid based on performance (e.g., recidivism), they have an incen-tive to select low-risk clients and to invest resources into clients who have the highest yield in terms of reduced crimi-nal behavior — not necessarily those that reduce the greatest harm of recidivism to the community. “Cream skimming” (taking only profitable clients) and “dumping” (transferring less profitable clients) are behaviors most commonly associ-ated with for-profits.

Second, reentry is facilitated by an array of ancillary services that might be considered peripheral to the contract and thus insufficiently funded. With varying need for support services, an under-funded system of RRC contracting will inevitably focus resources on “core” services (e.g., treatment, job placement) that are used by average clients, providing more limited resources for “ancillary” services (e.g., family reunification, mentoring). These latter services can be es-sential for successful reentry, yet may not be sustained by profit-maximizing agencies. Research suggests that services deemed more ancillary are considerably less likely to be of-fered by for-profit than nonprofit venues for either substance abuse or mental health care, in part because nonprofits are better able to mobilize community resources (donations and volunteers) to support these under-funded activities.15

Other evidence favoring contracts with nonprofits involves the impact of reentry services on local communities and local service systems. Several of our guiding principles for effective reentry services involve community impact and engagement, and there is consistent evidence that nonprofits are more attentive to these matters than are for-profit pro-viders of similar services, even when they are not required to do so by contract provisions.

In light of the evidence, continuing the practice of selective contracting with nonprofit RRCs is warranted. Were it pos-sible to fully specify outcomes, carefully monitor perfor-mance, and adequately fund all needed services, ownership form would be largely irrelevant, at least with respect to minimizing recidivism and ensuring that communities can safely absorb re-entrants. However, in reality, contracts will be imperfectly specified and incompletely monitored be-cause of the nature of reentry services and the heterogeneity of client need, while services will be inadequately funded because of growing fiscal constraints.

A final contracting issue relates to risk sharing. Perfor-mance-based contracting focuses on outputs, quality, and

outcomes of service provision and ties some portion of the provider’s payment and/or contract renewal to achieving expected performance. By tying performance to payment, the contract aligns the provider’s financial interests to the government agency’s objectives. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways. The government agency could with-hold a portion of the provider’s payment and release that payment only if a specified performance goal is satisfied, or not re-award a contract if the performance goal is unmet. Conversely, the government agency could reward a provider with an incentive payment, if the target goal is exceeded. By using financial incentives or disincentives, providers benefit when the public buyer benefits and vice versa, the provider loses something of value (money) when the public buyer does not receive value. Performance-based contracts for RRCs would specify the outputs or outcomes expected to enhance reentry readiness and public safety, and RRCs would benefit financially if they met or exceeded specific performance expectations and would lose financially if they failed to meet expectations.

Guiding Principles for Performance-based Contracting

Roundtable participants noted that correctional agencies contracting for RRC services were not effectively or strategi-cally using their buying power. Privatization does not ensure effectiveness. Privatization works when contracts drive performance, and contracts drive performance when they are carefully structured, efficiently monitored, and include risk sharing. More to the point, privatization fails when con-tracts are poorly designed, poorly monitored, and involve no risk sharing. No successful business could afford to write poorly designed contracts, however, a business can succeed if it contracts with a government agency that writes poorly designed and monitored contracts.

Contracting reform is critical to improving the performance of RRCs and the efficiency of public sector spending. The five guiding principles for performance-based contracting include:

l Performance Goals. The goals of RRCs are specific to reentry readiness and accountability, and include treatment engagement and completion; education; employment; housing; family and community engage-ment; and rule compliance. RRCs are required to monitor client-, family-, system-, and community-level outcomes to document achievement of goals.

l Performance Standards. Performance requirements include service and supervision standards that are:

15 Schlesinger, M. J. (2012). Names and norms: Ownership form and the organization of reentry in criminal justice system. Manuscript prepared for the Roundtable on Halfway House Reform.

Page 21: Halfway House RRC Report

Halfway from Prison to the Commnity: From Current Practice to Best Practice

13

n Specific to the characteristics of clients, the time available to engage clients, and the informa-tion provided about clients prior to admission to RRCs; and

n Adjusted to reflect risk levels (e.g., low, medium, high), different length of stays (e.g., less than week, a month, less than three months, more than six months), and levels of historical information or identification (e.g., no prior case management plan, no personal identification, no medical re-cords).

l Practice Guidelines. To guide practice, guidelines must specify:

n The type, level, and content of services to be pro-vided by the RRC to clients with different reentry needs/risk/responsivity, states of readiness, and lengths of stay;

n The process to be used to identify the need for and delivery of services; and

n The process and outcome measures that pertain to the RRC’s mix of clients and service provision.

l Performance Measurement. Practice guidelines are translated into outcome-based performance standards that are tied to specific performance measures.

l Performance Accountability. Payment is tied to performance:

n The effectiveness of a service provider is measured by its ability to meet or exceed service and super-vision performance standards.

n Incentives and disincentives, tied to benchmarks of client success, are used to improve the perfor-mance of RRCs.

n Contract renewal is contingent on achieving per-formance effectiveness.

The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, in response to the findings from the 2009 effectiveness evaluation, initiated performance-based contracting that includes performance standards, metrics, and accountability.

Model of Performance-based Contracting: The Case of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (PADOC)

The PADOC introduced performance metrics and risk sharing into its procurement bids for reentry services from RRCs.

l Performance goal. The primary goal of RRCs is to reduce recidivism. According to the bid invitation, “Recidivism is a critical measure of the effectiveness of the Community Corrections Program in promoting successful reentry and im-proving public safety.” This goal is achieved through the delivery of key services that reflect evidence-based practice and PADOC policies.

l Performance standards. Within the bid invitation are numeric performance metrics for services (e.g., program completion and audits), security (e.g., escapes, absconders), operations, employment, and recidivism (facilities are expected to maintain or exceed a baseline rate of recidivism).

l Performance guidelines. RRCs are required, according to the bid language, to assess clients and develop treatment plans that reflect assessed needs in areas that include basic life skills, mental health, AIDS, substance abuse, stress, anger, emotional literacy, trauma recovery, criminal thinking, job readiness, adaptive life skills, education, computer literacy, parenting, and community reintegration and coordination. All programming must be consistent with PADOC policy and, when available, consistent with evidence-based practice. Guidance is also provided on continuity of care: “selected contractor(s) must develop an individualized, detailed reentry plan for every offender which ensures conti-nuity of services will continue in the offender’s home community.”

l Performance measurement. The PADOC specified numeric standards in the invitation. For example, target per-formance for program completion is 85 percent and is measured quarterly. Selected contractors are expected to “develop a scorecard which includes the [specified] performance metrics” that can be “reviewed quarterly or on an as needed basis.”

l Performance accountability. Accountability is measured, monitored, and actionable. Performance metrics must be met or exceeded to remain in “good standing,” and standing is monitored by the PADOC and the Pennsylvania Bu-reau of Parole and Probation. After a 60-day grace period to “ramp up” services, performance will be measured and facilities not in compliance will be first warned and required to “develop [a] corrective action.” If not corrected within a quarter, monetary damages are assessed, and may lead to contract revision or termination. Similarly, “facilities dem-onstrating recidivism rates above the baseline recidivism range will receive a warning which if not corrected, the [PA]DOC may elect to declare the contractor in default of the contract and terminate the contract for cause.” Contractors reducing the facility recidivism rate below baseline will receive “a 1.0% price increase in their per diem rate for the subsequent one year period of the contract.”

Page 22: Halfway House RRC Report

Center for Behavioral Health Services & Criminal Justice Research

14

Summary and RecommendationsRRCs can be a linchpin for successfully integrating people into the community after incarceration. At present, a mix of public, private, nonprofit, and for-profit RRCs are used to facilitate the reentry of persons leaving prisons and jails. With fiscal pressures on correctional agencies, the practice of contracting with RRCs can be expected to continue and expand. The question is not whether RRCs will provide these services, but whether these services will produce value in terms of reentry readiness and public safety. Enhancing the value of these services is possible but success depends critically on the contracting expertise of government agen-cies and their willingness and ability to measure, monitor, and require performance accountability.

States should adopt “good” government practices when spending millions of tax dollars. As such, states should not contract without a strategic plan. At a minimum, this would include defining performance outcomes comprehen-sively and consistently with reentry readiness; identifying and balancing cost and effectiveness outcomes; embracing guiding principles regarding risk measurement, risk assign-ment, target efficiency, reliance on evidence-based practices, relational style, and community engagement; strategically assigning clients in ways that provided sufficient time to achieve performance goals; and monitoring how incarcer-ated persons are transitioned and assigned to RRCs. In evaluating the contracting process, a state oversight agency should examine how public contracting shapes market com-petition, and establish protocols for quality assurance, data collection, and evaluation.

Contract performance or failure hinges on government and private sector behavior. A solidly written contract from the onset will guide, monitor, correct, and reward private sector performance. Simply shifting service responsibility through unspecified contracts to the private sector is a recipe for ineffectiveness and waste. Large-scaled independent studies of RRCs in Ohio and Pennsylvania have found that RRC clients were not significantly less likely to recidivate upon re-lease, compared to offenders who were not released through them; the length of time in a RRC had no impact on rearrest or technical violations; and RRC programs often do not ad-

here to principles of effective interventions. Experts on RRC performance have repeatedly warned that “having a treat-ment program does not guarantee positive outcomes.”16 To improve performance, reform needs to begin with contract-ing, followed by enforced accountability. Recommendations toward improved performance include:

Recommendation 1: Coordinate and integrate RRCs into a comprehensive reentry strategy. Reentry preparedness begins on day one of incarceration and is continued by RRCs after offenders are transferred there, which is then continued by community-based agencies, when appropriate, after the person is released to the community often under parole or probation. Reentry is a long sequential process that should be guided continuously by consistent assessment and through comprehensive case management and evidence-based programming. The focus of intervention over time is on skill enhancement, treatment, work, family, prosocial and stable living — outcomes that benefit from repetitive prac-tice under different conditions and in different settings.

Recommendation 2: Selection and assignment of offenders for transfer to RRCs must be systematic and rational. It is the responsibility of correctional agencies to clearly define who is eligible for RRCs, and to formally integrate these eligibility criteria with the agency’s overall classification and placement procedures. Formal classification and placement policies must inform and guide practice to ensure that the right clients by offense, risk, and remaining sentence are transferred to RRCs.

Recommendation 3: There is ample evidence of useful prac-tice- and research-tested approaches for successful reentry programming in corrections. The findings of these studies should be reviewed and adapted while RRCs are in the plan-ning stages so that decisions about the design and content of programs can be evidence-based from inception.

Recommendation 4: Create a reentry preparedness checklist to be used by correctional agencies and their surrogates that measures key skills and resources expected upon release, as well as monitors the progress of individuals towards these goals. Standards based on this checklist should be estab-lished that indicate when a person has met the minimum necessary conditions for community release.

16 Lerch, J., Taxman, F., & Mericle, J. (2010). Report 6: What works in residential reentry centers, (p. 9). Retreieved from http://www.gmuace.org/documents/publications/2010/Monograph%206.pdf . Latessa, E.J., Lowenkamp, C.T., & Bechtel, K. (2009). Community corrections centers, parolees, and recidivism: An investigation into the characteristics of effective reentry programs in Pennsylvania. Retrieved from http://www.uc.edu/ccjr/Reports/ProjectReports/PA_ReentryFinal_report.pdf

Page 23: Halfway House RRC Report

Halfway from Prison to the Commnity: From Current Practice to Best Practice

15

Recommendation 5: Rely on research evidence to guide the selection of assessment tools, service programming, staff training and protocols, and assignment of clients to RRCs. Professionalizing the RRC industry must begin with the incorporation of science into the process of assigning clients to these services and the production and distribution of these services.

Recommendation 6: Develop prudent and informed contracting strategies and procedures at the federal, state, and local levels of government. Professionalized contract-ing is essential for privatization to work. Each contract must include performance standards, ratings, and accountability, along with risk sharing. The collective effect of public con-tracting on the RRC market must be systematically moni-tored and evaluated. To ensure that professional contracting standards for performance are met, a government oversight agency, such as the Office of the Comptroller, should be required to evaluate practices by the correctional agencies at least every three years, with findings reported to the appro-priate legislative committee. Part of this evaluation should include whether and how the correctional agency promotes market competition to ensure that private markets function to achieve efficiency and quality performance.

Recommendation 7: Performance-based contracting should be the norm. Contracting for outputs or outcomes is the best way to ensure the government receives value for its reentry dollar. When value is not provided, risk sharing ar-rangements are needed to provide guidance for remediation (e.g., warning with assistance), financial penalties for further non-compliance, followed by termination if non-compliance is persistent.

Recommendation 8: Until contracting failures are cor-rected, selective contracting with private, nonprofit RRCs is reasonable. As long as contracts imperfectly specify and incompletely monitor performance because of the nature of reentry services and the heterogeneity of clients’ needs, and while services are inadequately funded because of fiscal constraints, there remains a risk of potential exploitation by RRCs more responsive to financial incentives.

Recommendation 9: The general public and local com-munities have the right to know about the performance of RRCs. Keeping the general public informed ensures value is purchased with public funding, while informing local communities serves to build trust, the glue that sustains interagency collaborations and enduring connections within those localities. At a minimum, the reentry preparedness checklist data at the point of release from prison/jail and RRC should be reported on the website of the correctional

agency. Information provided would include the percentage of people released from prison/jail completing education, treatment, skill building, and family reunification services, as well as the percentage of people released from RRCs who were fully employed for at least one month, had stable housing, completed treatment programs, were connected to community-based providers for chronic medical condi-tions, and so forth. Statistics on absconders and escapes also would be reported. These data would be updated quarterly.

Recommendation 10: Correctional agencies should forge enduring partnerships with higher education to evaluate their policies and practices, train their staffs, archive and analyze their data, and conduct research on best practices. Universities have the capacity to study effectiveness and per-formance and can work with correctional agencies to secure funding for research and training to improve and expand ca-pacity. Innovation and information are central to efficiency and effectiveness.

Recommendation 11: Research on RRCs is in its infancy. Areas of research in greatest need are: (1) Profile Analysis — How many RRCs are in operation? What are their owner-ship forms? How big and specialized are they? Who do they serve? What is the average length of stay? What services do they provide? (2) Effectiveness Evaluation (compared to parole supervision only) — Do RRCs work, for whom, and under what conditions? Are recidivism rates lowered? (3) Cost-Effectiveness Research — What alternatives are most cost-effective for low, medium, and high risk offender groups? (4) Production Research — What is the optimal size for an RRC? Are specialized RRCs effective in terms of recovery and reentry? Is there a trade-off between recov-ery and reentry preparedness when specialized RRCs are regionalized? What combinations of programs produce the greatest yield in terms of reentry readiness and recidivism reduction? (5) Incentive Research — What combination of incentives/disincentives produces the best outcome perfor-mance for clients of RRCs?

This report provides a framework and a set of guidelines for the structure, implementation, and evaluation of RRCs. What was most clear from Roundtable discussions and the review of existing research is that the performance of RRCs, in general, has not reached its potential. Undeniably, RRCs, individually and collectively, have the ability to respond to the heterogeneous needs of people transitioning from carceral settings to the community. Moreover, there is an abundance of practice evidence available to guide RRCs in the development of best practices in terms of delivering services and engaging clients.

Page 24: Halfway House RRC Report

Center for Behavioral Health Services & Criminal Justice Research

16

The central issue, however, is how to move from current practice to best practice. In some cases, legislative reform is needed before research evidence can be implemented into practice (e.g., releasing low risk people directly to the com-munity, limiting contracting to private, nonprofit RRCs). In other cases, more systemic change is needed in terms of how government does business. Each year, government agencies contract for services costing billions of dollars. Getting value through these contracts requires focusing strategically on the “job to be done … and ensur[ing] it gets done.”17

17 Berk & Associates. (April, 2011). IDEA: Results-based contracting. Retrieved from http://www.sao.wa.gov/EN/Audits/SGPR/Documents/ Contracting_Full_Report.pdf

A more performance-based orientation to contracting for services provided by RRCs focuses attention on outcomes that are essential to reentry readiness and public safety, and monitors performance to ensure accountability. To ensure performance, both parties of the contract must be evaluated objectively and routinely, with consequences and readjust-ments as needed. The public sector must adopt purchasing practices that produce measurable value. Only then will privatization and reentry serve the interests of society.

Page 25: Halfway House RRC Report

Halfway from Prison to the Commnity: From Current Practice to Best Practice

17

Marlene Beckman, J.D. Senior Policy Advisor U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs

Barbara Buono, J.D. Senator, State of NJ Senate

Jamie Fellner, J.D. Senior Advisor, U.S. Program Human Rights Watch

Robert M. Gordon, M.P.P., M.B.A. Senator, State of NJ Senate Chair, Legislative Oversight

Jim Griffin Communications Director NJ State Senator Barbara Buono

Albert J. Grudzinskas, Jr., J.D. Clinicial Associate Professor of Psychiatry Coordinator of Law & Psychiatry for Legal Studies University of Massachusetts Medical School

John J. Larivee, M.A., M.B.A. Chief Executive Officer Community Resources for Justice

Edward Latessa, Ph.D. Professor and Director School of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati

Stefan LoBuglio, Ed.D. Chief, Pre-Release and Reentry Services Division Montgomery County Department of Correction & Rehabilitation

Arthur J. Lurigio, Ph.D. Professor and Faculty Scholar Associate Dean for Faculty, College of Arts and Sciences Director, Center for the Advancement of Research, Training and Education Loyola University Chicago

Charles Mainor, B.S. Assemblyman, State of NJ General Assembly Assembly Law and Public Safety Chair

Jennifer Mancuso, B.A. Chief of Staff, NJ State Senator Robert M. Gordon

Ronald L. Rice, M.A. Senator, State of NJ Senate Chair, Legislative Black Caucus

Mark Schlesinger, Ph.D. Professor of Health Policy Yale University School of Public Health

Faye S. Taxman, Ph.D. Professor and Director Center for Advancing Correctional Excellence George Mason University

John E. Wetzel, B.A. Secretary, Department of Corrections Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Courtney Wicks, B.S. Former Chief of Staff NJ State Assemblyman Charles Mainor

Reginald Wilkinson, Ed.D. President & CEO Ohio College Access Network Former Director, OH Dept. of Rehab. & Correction

Nancy Wolff, Ph.D. Professor and Director Center for Behavioral Health Services & Criminal Justice Research Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

Talia Young, M.P.A. Former Senior Project Specialist U.S. Senator Frank R. Lautenberg

Halfway House Roundtable Participants

Page 26: Halfway House RRC Report

Center for Behavioral Health Services & Criminal Justice Research

18

Suggested ReadingsFederal Interagency Reentry Council. (May, 2011). Reentry in brief. Retrieved from www.nationalreentryresourcecenter.org/.../0000/.../Reentry_Brief.pdf

Latessa, E. J. (2010). Cutting recidivism: What works, what doesn’t. Retrieved from http://www.the-slammer.org/carousel/cutting-recidivism-what-works-what-doesn%E2%80%99t

Lerch, J., Taxman, F. S., & Mericle, A. (2010). Report 6: Technical violation rates and rearrest rates on federal probation after release from an RRC: What works in residential reentry centers. Retrieved from www.iccaweb.org/documents/Monograph6.pdf

Lind, K. (2012). Stopping the revolving door: Reform of community corrections in Wisconsin. Retrieved from www.wpri.org/Reports/Volume22/Vol22No5/Vol22No5.html8

Lowenkamp, C. T., & Latessa, E. J. (2005). Increasing the effectiveness of correctional programming through the risk principle: Identifying offenders for residential placement. Criminology and Public Policy, 4(2), 501-528.

Lowenkamp, D. T., Latessa, E. J., & Holsinger, A. M. (2006). The risk principle in action: What have we learned from 13,676 of-fenders and 97 correctional programs? Crime & Delinquency, 52(1), 77-93.

Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. (2013). Recidivism report, 2013. Retrieved from http://ccjs.umd.edu/sites/ccjs.umd.edu/files/PA%20DOC%20Recidivism%20Report%20final.pdf

Planning and Learning Technologies. (2006). Literature review on performance-based contracting and quality assurance. Retrieved from www.uky.edu/SocialWork/.../QICPCWPBCLiteratureReview.pdf

Taxman, F. S., Rexroat, J., Shilton, M., Mericle, A., & Lerch, J. (2010). Executive summary: What works in residential reentry centers? Retrieved from www.iccaweb.org/documents/OverviewDocument.pdf

Wetzel, J. (2012). Optimizing the role of community corrections centers in reentry. Corrections Today, April. Retrieved from www.readperiodicals.com/201204/2699238961.html

Wolff, N., & Shi, J. (2010). Reentry readiness of men and women leaving New Jersey prisons. Retrieved from www.cbhs-cjr.rutgers.edu/pdfs/Reentry_Readiness_Report.pdf

Related newspaper articles/columns

Jackson, H. (2012, July 2). Lautenberg wants federal probe of halfway houses. The Record. Retrieved from http://www.northjersey.com/news/Lautenberg_wants_federal_probe_of_halfway_houses.html

Klugman, P. (2012, June 12). Prisons, privatization, patronage. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/22/opinion/krugman-prisons-privatization-patronage.html

Page 27: Halfway House RRC Report
Page 28: Halfway House RRC Report