Program Profile: Community-based Residential Programs (Ohio)

This program is designed to reduce recidivism by placing released those convicted of offenses in halfway houses and community-based correctional facilities in Ohio, to provide a range of programming related to chemical dependency, education, employment, and family relationships. The program is rated Promising. Participants in the treatment group had a statistically significant lower number of new arrests and reincarcerations, compared with those in the comparison group, at the 2-year follow up.

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

Program Goals/Program Components

Community-based Residential Programs in Ohio include halfway houses (HWH) and community-based correctional facilities (CBCF). HWHs provide residential services to state parolees who have been released from prison. CBCFs are 4- to 6-month-long programs that take sentenced persons directly from court. The goal of the correctional programs is to reduce recidivism by offering a wide range of programming related to chemical dependency, education, employment, and family relationships. The Ohio CBCFs also provide cognitive behavioral therapy, anger management, life skills, health and wellness, and socialization programming.

Target Population

The target population includes individuals placed in community-based residential programs as part of their parole, post-release control (PRC), transitional control, or probation. In Ohio, parole and PRC are both periods of supervision served by the individuals after their release from prison; transitional control includes the supervision of inmates who would have been formally released under furlough, conditional release, or electronically monitored release.

Program Theory

Cullen’s (2002) “Canadian’s theory of rehabilitation” guides correctional interventions such as the Community-based Residential Programs (Ohio). The theory reflects four principles of correctional interventions: 1) the human service principle, 2) the risk principle, 3) the need principle, and 4) the responsivity principle.

According to the human service principle, reductions in criminal behavior are only possible if some sort of human service is delivered, as punishment alone is not sufficient to change their behavior (Lowenkamp 2004). According to the risk principle, higher-risk individuals should be targeted for treatment while lower-risk cases should only be provided minimal services (Lowenkamp 2004). The need principle expresses that correctional interventions should evaluate and target criminogenic needs, or needs that can change over time (also called dynamic risk factors), which include antisocial attitudes, antisocial friends, antisocial personality, educational or work achievement or status, familial relations, and substance abuse (Andrews and Bonta 1998). The responsivity principle relates to matching modes of service delivery to the learning styles and individual characteristics (anxiety, intelligence, or reading ability) of the people in question. The community-based residential programs in Ohio attempt to follow these principles by providing treatment and human services, targeting those with the highest risks and highest needs, and matching them with appropriate services.

Study 1

Lowenkamp and Latessa (2005) used a quasi-experimental design to determine the effects of 53 community-based residential programs in Ohio on the rates of recidivism of people on parole and probation. The treatment group consisted of people released from a state institution on parole, post-release control (PRC), or transitional control, and placed in a halfway house (HWH); or those sentenced to community-based correctional facilities (CBCF). (Note: in Ohio, parole and PRC are both periods of supervision served by people after their release from prison, whereas transitional control includes the supervision of inmates who would have been formally released under furlough, conditional release, or electronically monitored release).

The treatment group included a total of 7,366 people, including 3,737 placed in a HWH and 3,629 sentenced to CBCF. Only those who were successfully terminated from a correctional program were included in the reported analyses. The comparison group consisted of 5,855 parolees/PRC offenders released from Ohio Correctional Institutions during the same fiscal year, but who were not placed in a HWH or CBCF. The comparison cases were matched with the experimental cases on county of supervision, gender, and numbers of people convicted of sex offenses in each group.

The groups differed significantly on race and gender. The treatment group included significantly more whites (51 percent) than the comparison group (46 percent). The treatment group was 86 percent male and the comparison group was 92 percent male. The treatment group was slightly younger (average age 32) than the comparison group (average age 35), but this was not a significant difference.

The primary outcome of interest was recidivism, which was measured by new arrests, incarceration for new criminal offenses, and incarceration for technical violations. The follow-up period was 2 years after the program termination date (for those in the treatment group) or 2 years after release from prison (for comparison group persons). Multivariate logistic regression models (controlling for group differences) were used to determine the effectiveness of the HWH and CBCF in reducing recidivism. The authors conducted subgroup analyses on risk level.

Subgroup Analysis

Lowenkamp and Latessa (2005) conducted a subgroup analysis that controlled for risk level of offenders (i.e., low, medium, or high risk). Results showed that moderate- and high-risk offenders benefited from participating in community-based residential programs, compared with low-risk offenders. Of the low-risk offenders, those in the comparison group had lower levels of recidivism, compared with the treatment group. Of the high-risk offenders, those in the treatment group had lower levels of recidivism than those in the comparison group. All these differences were statistically significant. These results reflect the following four principles of correctional interventions on which the community-based residential programs are based: 1) the human service principle, 2) the risk principle, 3) the need principle, and 4) the responsivity principle (see Program Theory section).

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

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

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

Adult Reentry Programs

This practice involves correctional programs that focus on the transition of individuals from prison into the community. Reentry programs involve treatment or services that have been initiated while the individual is in custody and a follow-up component after the individual is released. The practice is rated Promising for reducing recidivism.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types

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.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types

Rehabilitation Programs for Adults Convicted of a Crime

This practice includes programs that are designed to reduce recidivism among adults by improving their behaviors, skills, mental health, social functioning, and access to education and employment. They may become participants in rehabilitation programs during multiple points in their involvement with the criminal justice system. This practice is rated Promising for reducing recidivism among adults who have been convicted of an offense.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types

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