CrimeSolutions.gov

Additional Resources:

Program Profile: Community-based Residential Programs (Ohio)

Evidence Rating: Promising - One study Promising - One study

Date: This profile was posted on February 29, 2016

Program Summary

The programs include halfway houses and community-based correctional facilities in Ohio. The goal of the community-based correctional programs is to reduce recidivism by offering a wide range of programming related to chemical dependency, education, employment, and family relationships. The program is rated Promising. Offenders in community-based residential programs were less likely to recidivate (measured by new arrests and re-incarcerations) than those not in the programs.

Program Description

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 offenders 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 offenders 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 offenders 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 offenders’ behavior (Lowenkamp 2004). According to the risk principle, higher-risk offenders 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 offenders. The community-based residential programs in Ohio attempt to follow these principles by providing treatment and human services to offenders, targeting offenders with the highest risks and highest needs, and matching offenders with appropriate services.

Evaluation Outcomes

top border
Study 1
Overall, Lowenkamp and Latessa (2005) found that after controlling for group differences, the offenders placed in halfway houses (HWH) and community-based correctional facilities (CBCF) were significantly less likely to recidivate, compared with offenders not placed in such facilities.
 
Any Incarceration
The treatment group was significantly less likely to be reincarcerated than the comparison group.
 
Incarceration for New Offense
The treatment group was significantly less likely to be reincarcerated for a new offense than the comparison group.
 
Incarceration for Technical Violation
The treatment group was significantly less likely to be reincarcerated for a technical violation than the comparison group.
 
New Arrest
The treatment group was significantly less likely to be reincarcerated for a new arrest than the comparison group.
bottom border

Evaluation Methodology

top border
Study 1
Lowenkamp and Latessa (2005) used a quasi-experimental design to determine the effects of 53 community-based residential programs in Ohio on parolees’ and probationers’ recidivism rates. The experimental group consisted of offenders released from a state institution on parole, post-release control (PRC), or transitional control, and placed in a halfway house (HWH); or offenders sentenced to community-based correctional facilities (CBCF). (Note: in Ohio, parole and PRC are both periods of supervision served by offenders 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 experimental group included a total of 7,366 offenders, including 3,737 placed in a HWH and 3,629 sentenced to CBCF. Only offenders 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 sex offenders 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 offenders in the experimental group) or 2 years after release from prison (for comparison group offenders). Multivariate logistic regression models (controlling for group differences) were used to determine the effectiveness of the HWH and CBCF in reducing recidivism.
 
bottom border

Cost

top border
There is no cost information available for this program.
bottom border

Implementation Information

top border
Lowenkamp and Latessa (2005) conducted an analysis that controlled for risk of offenders (i.e., low risk, medium risk, or high risk). The analysis showed that moderate- and high-risk offenders benefited from participating in community-based residential programs more so than low-risk offenders. The results showed that of the low-risk offenders, those in the comparison group had lower levels of recidivism than their counterparts in the treatment group; out of the high-risk offenders, those in the experimental group had lower levels of recidivism than those in the comparison group. These results reflect the four principles of correctional interventions that the community-based residential programs are based on (the human service principle, the risk principle, the need principle, and the responsivity principle, described above).
bottom border

Evidence-Base (Studies Reviewed)

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

Study 1
Lowenkamp, Christoper T., and Edward J. Latessa. 2005. “Increasing the Effectiveness of Correctional Programming through the Risk Principle: Identifying Offenders for Residential Placement.” Criminology & Public Policy 4(2):263–90.
bottom border

Additional References

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

Cullen, Francis T. 2002. “Rehabiliation and Treatment Programs.” In Wilson and Petersilia (eds.). Crime and Public Policy 2nd Edition. San Francisco, Calif.: ICS Press.

Latessa, Edward J., Lori Brusman Lovins, and Paula Smith. 2010. Follow-up Evaluation of Ohio’s Community Based Correctional Facility and Halfway House Programs–Outcome Study: Final Report. Cincinnati, Ohio: University of Cincinnati, Division of Criminal Justice.

Lowenkamp, Christoper T. 2004. “Correctional Program Integrity and Treatment Effectiveness: A Multi-site, Program-level Analysis.” Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences 65(2):706-A.

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Bureau of Community Sanctions. 2015. “Bureau of Community Sanctions Overview.” Accessed January 5, 2015.
bottom border

Related Practices

top border
Following are CrimeSolutions.gov-rated practices that are related to this program:

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:
Promising - One Meta-Analysis Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types
bottom border


Program Snapshot

Age: 17 - 36

Gender: Both

Race/Ethnicity: Black, Hispanic, White

Setting (Delivery): Residential (group home, shelter care, nonsecure), Correctional, Other Community Setting

Program Type: Aftercare/Reentry, Alternatives to Incarceration, Cognitive Behavioral Treatment, Day/Evening Treatment, Group Home, Probation/Parole Services, Residential Treatment Center

Current Program Status: Active

Researcher:
Edward Latessa
University of Cincinnati, School of Criminal Justice
2160 McMicken Circle
Cincinnati OH 45221
Email