Practice Profile: Halfway Houses

This practice comprises community-based correctional programs that use community supervision and intermediate sanctions to improve the likelihood of successful reintegration of returning individuals and promote community safety. The practice is rated Promising for reducing recidivism of people who transitioned back into the community through halfway houses.

Practice Goals

Halfway houses are community-based correctional programs that use community supervision and intermediate sanctions. While there is no singular definition of a halfway house, it usually refers to temporary housing, provided in a community-based residential facility, which uses around-the-clock supervision and offers services to assist with the transition from incarceration to the community (Wong et al. 2018). The goal of halfway houses is to provide services and basic necessities to people returning from incarceration, to improve the likelihood of their successful reintegration and promote community safety.

Practice Components

A number of characteristics are common to most halfway houses, including 1) constant supervision and daily contact between staff and returning individuals; 2) a requirement for participants to abide by rules (such as curfews and drug testing); and 3) access to employment, education, life skills training, and additional services as needed (such as substance use treatment and counseling). However, the degree to which these services are provided (i.e., frequency, duration, and intensity) vary substantially among halfway house programs.

Halfway houses also differ based on the timepoint in the criminal justice system process. A halfway house can be characterized as "halfway in" or "front end" when it is used as an alternative to incarceration, to divert people from jail or prison. Alternatively, a halfway house can be characterized as "halfway out" or "back end" when it is used to aid in the process of reintegration from incarceration into the community (Caputo 2004).

Practice Theory

Halfway houses seek to offset criminogenic risk factors for recidivism, including unemployment, homelessness, and substance and illicit drug use, by facilitating exposure to protective factors such as networks of social support, education, employment, stable housing, and involvement in self-improvement programs (Latessa 1991). Such programs are intended to assist with successful transition back into the community and also create the potential for lasting social bonds.

Wong and colleagues (2018) conducted additional tests in the meta-analysis (called moderator analysis) to see whether five moderator variables impacted the mean effect size and improved the recidivism outcome. Using a fixed effects model, they examined the mean effect sizes for 1) the publication year (1990 to 2009 versus 2010 to 2017), 2) publication type (peer reviewed versus not peer reviewed), 3) research design rigor (moderately strong versus moderate), 4) sample size (fewer than 1,000 versus greater than 1,000), and 5) sample’s predominant ethnicity (white/mixed versus primarily minority). Analysis suggested a statistically significant between groups’ heterogeneity for all five of the moderator variables, which means that the effect size produced by these groups differed significantly from one another and were important factors in predicting the magnitude of the halfway house treatment effect on recidivism. Specifically, positive program effects on recidivism were associated with programs having the following characteristics: 1) the study publication date was between 1990 and2009, 2) the study was not peer reviewed, 3) the research design was either moderately strong or moderate, 4) the sample size was either fewer or more than 1,000, and 5) the sample’s predominant ethnicity was white/mixed. Negative program effects on recidivism were associated with programs that were published between 2010 and 2015, were peer- reviewed studies, and the study sample ethnicity was predominantly minority. Given the substantial heterogeneity shown among the nine halfway house program evaluations included in this meta-analysis, the authors also compared subgroups of effects sizes for the recidivism outcomes (arrest, conviction, and incarceration). They found a statistically significant treatment impact for arrest and incarceration, but not for conviction.

These sources were used in the development of the practice profile:

These sources were used in the development of the practice profile:

Caputo, Gail A. 2004. Intermediate Sanctions in Corrections. No. 4. Denton, TX: University of North Texas Press.

Latessa, Edward J., and Lawrence F. Travis III. 1991. "Halfway House or Probation: A Comparison of Alternative Dispositions." Journal of Crime and Justice 14(1):53–75.

Lipsey, Mark W., and David B. Wilson. 2001. Practical Meta-Analysis. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Sherman, Lawrence W., Denise C. Gottfredson, Doris L. MacKenzie, John Eck, Peter Reuter, and Shawn D. Bushway. 1998. Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising. Research in Brief. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this practice:

New Jersey Halfway Back Program

Community-based Residential Programs (Ohio)

Why might a practice's outcome ratings differ from the ratings of specific programs encompassed by that practice?