250 Words And Two Scholarly References

[Community Residential Centers] play a vital role in the criminal justice system. They provide additional sentencing options for the court, protect public safety, provide individualized and intensive service aimed at reducing recidivism, and are cost-effective.

—Bobbie L. Huskey

Community residential programs for criminal offenders have a long history in the United States (Hartmann, Friday, & Minor, 1994; Latessa & Travis, 1992). Until recently, the typical residential community correctional facility was known as a “halfway house,” a transitional residence for criminal offenders (Wilson, 1985).

Community Residential Correctional Programs

community-based correctional facilities community-based treatment centers correctional program

“community residential centers” cost-effective day-reporting centers dual-diagnosed offenders halfway house

humaneness reintegration residential community restitution centers work furlough centers

Key terms

A halfway house is a community-based residential facility for offenders who are either about to be released from an institution or, immediately after release, are in the initial stages of return to society. In the past three decades, some halfway houses have been designed as alternatives to jail or prison incarceration, primarily for probationers. “Halfway” now could mean halfway into, or out of, prison.

Box 11.1 halfway house

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Chapter 11: Community residential Correctional programs302

This chapter places such programs in the larger context of corrections in the community, explaining the historical factors that contributed to the emer- gence of the halfway house movements; models of halfway houses; and their current operations and practices, effectiveness, costs, and futures. We begin with an explanation of the development of the halfway house over time.

hIstorICal DeVelopmeNt of the halfway house IN amerICa The halfway house concept began first in England and Ireland during the early 1800s, advocating transitional residences for criminal offenders. It spread quickly across the ocean; in 1817, the Massachusetts Prison Commission rec- ommended establishing a temporary residence to house destitute offenders after release from prison (Cohn, 1973:2):

The convicts who are discharged are often entirely destitute. The natural prejudice against them is so strong that they find great difficulty in obtaining employment. They are forced to seek shelter in the lowest receptacles; and if they wish to lead a new course of life, are easily persuaded out of it; and perhaps driven by necessity to the commission of fresh crimes. It is intended to afford a temporary shelter in this building, if they choose to accept it, to such discharged convicts as may have conducted themselves well in prison, subject to such regulations as the directors may see fit to provide. They will here have a lodging, rations from the prison at a cheap rate, and … a chance to occupy themselves in their trade, until some opportunity offers of placing themselves there they can gain an honest livelihood in society. A refuge of this kind, to this destitute class, would be found, perhaps, humane and political.

The commission making this recommendation believed that ex-inmates needed an accepting transitional house immediately after release and a sup- portive environment to assist in the process of establishing a law- abiding and independent existence. It was also motivated by the intention to reduce the unacceptably high rate of recidivism among newly released inmates (Seiter & Carlson, 1977). Unfortunately, the Massachusetts legislature feared that ex- prisoners might “contaminate” each other if housed together, neutralizing their newly instilled crime resistance learned in prison.

The concept, however, found fertile ground in other locations and under private sponsorship. In 1845, the Isaac T. Hooper Home in New York City opened under the auspices of the Quakers and today operates as the Women’s Prison Association and Hooper Home, serving female clients.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

303Historical Development of the Halfway House in America

Perhaps the most significant halfway house pro- gram in this earlier era was Hope House, estab- lished by Maud Booth and Ballington Booth in 1896, in New York City. Supported both finan- cially and morally by the Volunteers of America, other Hope Halls opened across the nation (Chicago, San Francisco, New Orleans, etc.). This earlier movement and Hope Halls in particular did not last. Parole was introduced and imple- mented widely in the early 1900s as a means for controlling and helping ex-inmates after release from prison. The belief in likely and malevo- lent contamination from association with other parolees continued. The Great Depression weak- ened financial support for these privately oper- ated homes, already underfunded. Phase I of the development of the halfway house ended shortly thereafter, not to revive until the 1950s.

The rebirth of the halfway house movement resulted, in part, from a growing awareness of the ineffectiveness of institutional corrections. High- recidivism rates were interpreted as indications of ineffectiveness of prison as a venue for rehabili- tation. The growing dissatisfaction with prisons was buttressed by new evi- dence that parolees face problems in the transition from imprisonment to a free society, evidence of the need for supportive services in the transition to community life. In 1954, numerous halfway houses opened in America (such as Crenshaw House in Los Angeles and Dismas House in St. Louis, under the direction of Father Charles Dismas), England, and Canada. Private and reli- gious groups pioneered in both historical and revival phases of development of the halfway house.

Earlier in the revival phase, most houses used individualized treatment, coun- seling, employment referrals, and substance abuse counseling, reflecting the general correctional philosophy found within the prison: the medical model. Persons not yet committed to predatory criminal lifestyles, younger, and more malleable offenders were believed ideal clients for the medical model. Then Attorney General Robert Kennedy suggested in 1961 that federal funds be used to establish publicly operated halfway houses for juvenile and youth- ful offenders, leading to the establishment of the Prisoner Rehabilitation Act of 1965. This legislation authorized the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to establish community-based residences for adult and youthful prerelease offenders, as well as to transfer federal prisoners to privately sponsored halfway houses.

Photo 11.1 A modern halfway house. Courtesy of Connecticut Halfway Houses, Inc.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Chapter 11: Community residential Correctional programs304

In 1968, the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration began to provide substantial funds for establishing nonfederal houses, a thrust that continued until 1980.

Perhaps the most significant event in Phase II was development of the International Halfway House Association (IHHA) in 1964.1 This group, moti- vated by the absence of state and local support for halfway houses, established a voluntary professional organization of halfway house administrators and per- sonnel (Wilson, 1985). IHHA (now known as the International Community Corrections Association) conducted numerous training workshops, spon- sored training programs and conferences, and affiliated with the American Correctional Association.2 The organization grew from 40 programs in 1966 to more than 1800 in 19823 and now holds annual conferences that deal with “what works” in correctional intervention. As a result of these and related efforts, few cities and counties run their own residential treatment centers, and state programs that operate halfway houses usually contract with private- sector, nonprofit halfway houses to provide services.

The attorney general may extend the limits of the place of confinement of a prisoner as to whom there is reasonable cause to believe he will honor this trust, by authorizing him, under prescribed conditions, to

1. visit a specifically designated place for a period not to exceed 30 days and return to the same or another institution or facility. An extension of limits may be granted only to permit a visit to a dying relative, attendance at the funeral of a relative, the obtaining of medical services not otherwise available, the contacting of prospective employees, or for any other compelling reason consistent with the public interest; or

2. work at paid employment or participate in a training program in the community on a voluntary basis while continuing as a prisoner of the institution or facility to which he is committed.

Box 11.2 feDeral prIsoNer rehaBIlItatIoN aCt

1This organization is now known as the International Community Corrections Association; publishes the ICCA Journal; and sponsors local, state, regional, national, and international conferences and training programs concerned with halfway houses and community alternatives. Go to http://www.iccaweb.org/ for more information. 2American Correctional Association, 206 N. Washington Street, Alexandria, VA 22314. http://www.aca.org/ 3The National Institute of Corrections lists more than 1200 programs in its 1989 Directory of Residential Community Corrections Facilities in the United States. The directory does not list all small programs, particularly in rural areas. For more information, go to www.nicic.org.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

305Uses of Halfway Houses

uses of halfway houses Over the past 50 years, as suggested earlier, the numbers, roles, and uses of half- way houses increased considerably. There has been considerable role expansion in residential placements of adult (and juvenile) offenders. For the most part, the increase has been in the services provided to new groups: probationers, the accused awaiting trial, and offenders directly sentenced for treatment, ordered by a judiciary eager to secure services and supervision for offenders. Judges are usually unwilling to incarcerate clients likely to give up criminal behavior if a supportive and facilitating community environment could be provided in which the offenders remediate their needs and improve their functioning. These changes in roles, sentencing alternatives, clients, and use of halfway houses have rendered “halfway house” an obsolete term, one that has been replaced by the more accurate “community corrections residential facility.” Rush (1992) defines such facilities as

A correctional facility from which residents are regularly permitted to depart, unaccompanied by any official, for the purposes of using community resources, such as school or treatment programs, and seeking or holding employment. This definition not only deletes the term “halfway” but also defines a correctional mission for the facility. The definition does not require centers to provide direct services to

Day-reporting Centers These community centers are to which adults and sometimes juveniles report in lieu of incarceration or as a condition of probation. A variety of community or in-house programs may be offered, including individual and group counseling, job readiness training, Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) 12-step programs, drug abuse education, and so on. Participants usually return to their individual homes at night.

restitution Centers These community residential centers are for offenders ordered by the court to make financial payments to victims. Offenders may also be remanded as a condition of probation. The offender must seek and obtain employment, make restitution to victims, reimburse the center for room and board, and set aside any residual earnings for use after release. Center programs usually require curfews, strict alcohol and drug abstinence, and participation in community or in-house programs.

work furlough Centers This type of residential facility is for sentenced offenders released from a correctional institu- tion for work during the day. Residents typically spend nights and weekends in the facility and must participate in available community or in-house programs. Participants are generally charged a per diem fee for services, room, and board.

Box 11.3 types of CommuNIty CeNters

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Chapter 11: Community residential Correctional programs306

clients. Halfway houses are thus subsumed under the larger umbrella term, further reflecting the more diverse populations served, as well as broader correctional mission and such newer programs as day, restitution, and work-release centers.

Another major factor influencing the development and use of community resi- dential centers in the United States has been a shift in the ideology of correc- tions, from rehabilitation to “reintegration,” a term introduced by the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice in 1967.

This correctional philosophy places priority on keeping offenders in the com- munity whenever possible rather than commitment to prison. It also stresses the role of the community in corrections. Thus the new ideology, new devel- opments stressing community placement in local correctional programs, and existing halfway houses contributed to an accelerating expansion of commu- nity correctional residential programs. This thrust was further expanded by three factors:4 (1) widespread correctional acceptance of the reintegration mis- sion, (2) success of the reintegration movement in the mental health field, and (3) the lower costs of halfway houses as compared to prisons.5 Prison over- crowding in the 1980s and early 1990s, resulting from the war on drugs, fur- ther accelerated the shift (Allen, Latessa, & Ponder, 2010).

This is a broad correctional ideology stressing acquisition of legitimate skills and opportunities by criminal offenders, and the creation of supervised opportunities for testing, using, and refin- ing those skills, particularly in community settings.

Box 11.4 reINtegratIoN

Community residential centers (CRCs) are nonconfining residential facilities to adjudicated adults or juveniles or those subject to criminal or juvenile proceedings. They are intended as an alternative for persons not suited to probation or who need a period of readjustment to the community after imprisonment. There are more CRCs providing transitional and extensive services for juveniles than for adults. Some CRCs specialize by client or treatment modality: for example, women, abused women, prerelease federal furloughers, drug-dependent or alcohol abusers, the mentally ill, those identified by the court diagnostic program, or the developmentally disabled.

Box 11.5 CommuNIty resIDeNtIal CeNters

4Allen, Carlson, Parks, and Seiter (1978). 5Halfway houses for juveniles tend to be more cost-effective than detention. Pratt and Winston (1999).

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

307Uses of Halfway Houses

From 1980 through the present, prison inmates have increased dramatically, with well over two million prisoners held in federal or state prisons and local jails (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2009), creating a lack of prison capacity and extensive prison overcrowding. The primary reason for the burgeoning prison population is believed to be the “war on drugs,” reflecting both the conservative emphases on retributive justice and the nation’s unwillingness to address the causes of crime (Allen, 1995). Three major results of this development have been (1) an increase in the number of offenders placed on probation and parole, (2) an increase in the seriousness and dangerousness of offenses of those placed into traditional community-based supervision,6 and (3) a height- ened demand for community residential treatment facilities to provide transi- tional placement for offenders and to respond to such special needs populations as narcotics and drug abusers, offenders driving under the influence of alcohol or other drugs, and mental health clients. Community residential facilities and programs expanded and changed to address these new demands,7 required programs, and heightened supervision levels (Huskey, 1992).

Before addressing programs for these clients, it is necessary to understand the models on which the programs operate. The exact number of halfway houses is unknown, and no government agencies routinely gather information on them. The most recent numbers are shown in Figure 11.1, which shows the num- ber of halfway houses in operation in about 30 states and the federal govern-

6Petersilia, Turner, Kahan, and Peterson (1985). 7Chapple (2000). (www.nicic.org/pubs/2000/period180.pdf).

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Chapter 11: Community residential Correctional programs308

ment between 1997 and 2000 (Camp & Camp, 2000). The number of inmates served in these facilities is presented in Figure 11.2. These data indicate that in 2000, nearly 30,000 inmates were served in just over 50 percent of the states (Camp & Camp, 2000).

Figure 11.1 Halfway houses in operation, 1994–1999. Source: Camp and Camp (1997); and Camp and Camp (2000).

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0 1994 1996 1999

Contracted Operated by State

This includes 30 States and the Federal Government.

Figure 11.2 Inmates located at halfway houses, 1994–1999. Source: Camp and Camp (1997); Camp and Camp (2000).

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0 1994

Contracted Operated by State

This includes 30 States and the Federal Government.

1996 1999

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

309Models of Community Residential Programs

moDels of CommuNIty resIDeNtIal programs It should be remembered that Phase II of the development of community resi- dential programs has been under way for more than 30 years. Thus, models under which halfway houses and related community programs operate have also undergone significant change. We start by examining an earlier model in a less complex environment.

In 1976, Allen, Bowman, Carlson, Parks, and Seiter studied halfway houses and probation. These researchers developed three alternative models of half- way houses, based on referral service. This trichotomy is useful in depicting how halfway houses interface with the criminal justice system, as well as the advantages and services these programs offer to their clients. The trichotomy can be found in Figure 11.3 (Latessa and Allen, 1982).

Figure 11.3 Alternative models of halfway houses. Source: Latessa and Allen (1982).

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Parole or release date

Parole or release date

Parole or release date

Imprisonment

Imprisonment

Imprisonment

Halfway house

Halfway house

Halfway house

Parole

Parole

Parole

A model is a picture or representation showing the parts of a system. Models suggest the ways that segments of the criminal justice system (courts, probation, prisons, etc.) fit together and interrelate. One implication of a model is that change in one part of the system will have an impact on other parts of the system. A simplified demonstration of this is seen when law enforcement agencies increase arrests; judicial personnel, probation officers, and jail facilities face increased workloads.

Box 11.6 moDel

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Chapter 11: Community residential Correctional programs310

Model 1 is the standard and most frequent pattern of referral to halfway house programs. In this model, an inmate granted a conditional release (such as parole, shock probation, or shock parole) enters a halfway house during the initial parole period. This model provides services to parolees who need support during their period of release. The length of residency in the half- way house may be specified before referral but usually is a shared decision to be made collaboratively by the supervision officer, house staff, and cli- ent. Typically, this decision is based on such factors as the resident’s readi- ness to leave the house, employment, savings, and alternative residential plan. After leaving the house, the offender generally continues on parole supervi- sion. This model has been found to reduce recidivism successfully (Bouffard, MacKenzie, & Hickman, 2000).

Model 2 is similar to the first in that inmates’ release plans call for placement in a halfway house as the initial phase of their release process. Unlike the first, however, halfway house residency occurs prior to formal granting of parole and subsequent supervision as a parolee. Typically, these inmates have been sched- uled for a definite release date before moving from the prison to the halfway house. These clients remain inmates, serving the remainder of their sentences in residency at a halfway house. Halfway house residency provides needed and significant services in the prison–community transition. Additional benefits include continuation of jurisdiction by the referring correctional agency, abil- ity to return the inmate to incarceration without formal violation of parole, development of a more positive attitude toward the halfway house by the resi- dent, and less expensive after-care service that can be more legitimately com- pared to imprisonment rather than the costs of parole.8 The U.S. Bureau of Prisons was a leader in initiating this model for using halfway houses9 and continues to use this model on a prerelease basis.10

The third model of halfway house use, also based on the reintegration model of corrections, differs by time of placement into the program. With Model 3, offenders on probation and inmates granted parole are assigned to the

8This question is explored in more detail in Hicks (1987). See also Wilson, G. (1985); Latessa, E., and L. Travis (1992); Latessa and Allen (1982). 9Federal Bureau of Prisons (2001). See also Thevenot, C. (2001). 10Valentine (1991). The Bureau of Prisons underutilizes their contracted bed space, further exacerbating their prison overcrowding problem.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

311Models of Community Residential Programs

community without initially residing in a halfway house. If such clients may be reverting to criminal behavior or encounter unanticipated problems that might be resolved by program services of or a period of residency in a halfway house, the supervising agency may remand the offender to the residential set- ting for a short period. If and when conditions warrant, the client could then be returned to a lower level of supervision. It should be noted here that some residential correctional programs are large and can provide services and pro- grams at many points in the supervision process, as explored later. Model 3 appears to best suggest the organization and practices of multiservice agencies in larger urban settings.

In addition to the models described earlier, halfway houses take on a wide range of functions and services depending on their size, mission, and resources. Figure 11.4 illustrates a continuum of types of programs based on the ser- vices they provide. Some halfway houses provide shelter, food, and minimal counseling and referral services. These programs are considered supportive halfway houses. Examples of these types of programs might include shelters and drop-in centers. Halfway houses that offer a full range of services can be

Source: U.S. Government Accounting Office, 2000.

The goal of BOP’s halfway house program is to provide federal prison inmates a transition back to the communities where they will live upon release from federal custody. In addition to subsistence and housing, BOP guidelines state that halfway house operators are required to offer inmates job counseling, academic and vocational training, family reconciliation services, access to substance abuse programs, postrelease housing referrals, and community adjustment services.

Box 11.7 Bureau of prIsoNs aND halfway houses

Figure 11.4 Types of halfway houses based on services.

INTERVENTIVESUPPORTIVE

Total treatment Minimal services program Specialized staff Minimal staff Long-term stayShort-term

Referral service

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Chapter 11: Community residential Correctional programs312

considered interventive programs. These are pro- grams that offer a full range of treatment services. Most programs fall somewhere in the middle.

It should be obvious that roles of halfway houses as residential probation and aftercare centers within the correctional process are varied in both opera- tion and focus. Although all three models acknowl- edge the need for a residential setting at some point in the transition back to the community, there are various approaches and strategies for meeting these needs. To understand the range of alternatives, we examine a rural community residential treatment center, as well as a larger urban counterpart.

rural CommuNIty programs Rural correctional programs serve a wide range of offenders and are them- selves diverse. Whereas the “Mom and Pop” stereotype possibly typical of the earliest developments of rural community corrections has surely died,11 what has emerged is an increasingly diversified pattern of local programs that solidly reflect the concept of “residential community corrections programs.”12

Community residential correctional programs in rural settings face differing challenges. They are generally smaller than urban programs and have fewer employment opportunities and treatment programs for offenders. Residents are drawn from a small pool of eligible offenders. These programs face and must overcome community suspicion that the center’s existence may attract recalcitrant offenders who will move their base of criminal activities to the local area, the “importation” reaction. Decreased societal tolerance for cer- tain offender types (such as rapists, child molesters, and drug pushers), cou- pled with concerns over public safety and demands for increased supervision,

11This nostalgic view of warm-hearted, older rural Americans trying to help the less successful, down- trodden, and sodden of the Depression years by feeding any who ask, putting transients to work chopping wood or hauling water, and allowing the more needy to sleep in the barn has many adherents. No doubt this pattern of early philanthropic assistance was found in many sites and continues in isolated locales. These “Mom and Pop” programs, often unofficial, were undoubtedly major sources of humanitarian assistance to the needy in some, if not most, of the nation during the early twentieth century, providing “three hots and a cot.” If they exist today, they are an endangered species. 12See the IARCA Journal for a description of some more successful programs in rural America and urban England (Leeds Alternative to Care and Custody Scheme, and Roundabout Group). IARCA Journal, 3 (July, 1990).

Photo 11.2 Substance abuse group. Courtesy of Talbert House, Inc.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Rural Community Programs 313

has great potential to restrict treatment, job and educational placement, access to existing treatment programs, and funding from community sources. Many facilities must work hard to interface with referral sources (probation and parole agencies, for example) and develop liaisons with other services offered by mental health, illegal drug, alcohol, family counseling, and court agencies.

These opportunities and challenges face Hilltop House,13 a 28-bed private, nonprofit agency providing residential services to male offenders and outpa- tient services to delinquents and victims referred from local, state, and federal sources. In its earliest days, this small program would close in the winter and reopen in the spring, housing not more than 12 clients referred from one judi- cial district. It now serves a much wider catchment area, working with six dis- trict court judges.

Hilltop House began to grow in this environment, even though encountering the conservative political swing that demanded longer sentences, less diver- sion, and specialized programs to assist the higher-need clients the justice sys- tem was processing. This demand was met by:

n Developing liaisons with other court referral units and probation officers. n Working with nonincarcerated populations (such as misdemeanant

offenders, persons driving under the influence, self-referred persons with alcohol and other drug abuse problems, youths referred by their parents, and so on).

Community corrections in its rural expression is the remnant of the grassroots folk art of the original concept. Rural programs are generally not larger than 40 beds (a large rural program) and are concerned about the importation of offenders regularly into their community, the meeting of the next payroll, the expense of travel to training as opposed to the cost of training itself. The rural program generally is not faced with the challenge of adequately accessing and implementing brokerages to existing treatment in their community; we are worried about how to create, fund, and perpetuate treatment. Our “community” may be a town of 12,000 serving a catchment area of several hundred miles. Our worries are not typically of gang behavior between “Crips and Bloods.” They may, however, include the American Indian in any of its numerous tribal groups, the rural Hispanic or black, all in the delicately interwoven and overwoven social fabric of the lineages of a rural community. Every individual job truly means the future of our programs. The failure of one client can affect the future political support of our program; a single incident cannot only destroy a program but also the potential efforts of any program to replace it (Berry, 1990:6–7).

Box 11.8 rural CommuNIty CorreCtIoNs

13See Berry (1990).

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Chapter 11: Community residential Correctional programs314

n Developing new service programs in the areas of incest treatment and domestic violence, and urinalysis collection and testing for a county youth home, private schools, social services, employers, individuals, and parents.

n Developing a sexual abuse treatment team, using workers from a number of agencies and providing service to offenders, their nonoffending spouses, victims, and other adults who had been molested as children (AMACs). This multiagency approach was expanded to include juvenile restitution, a program using many volunteers as mediators and providing subsidized employment and monitored restitution payments, as well as group therapy to reconcile victims and their offenders, and develop empathy among juvenile offenders.

Hilltop House appears to serve the specific needs of the community, develop resources to plan and initiate specialized services, and maximize therapeutic gains for clients, victims, and citizens. Individuals who resolve conflicts, per- sonal problems, challenges, development problems, and the impacts of being victimized are more likely to become constructive citizens and lower the crime rate in their community.

metropolItaN resIDeNtIal programs Residential community correctional programs for offenders located in urban areas are more numerous and diverse than those in rural areas. In addition, many of the largest programs make extensive use of existing community ser- vices, especially if these are needed adjuncts to a treatment plan for an indi- vidual client. Treatment generally falls into two categories—individual and group—and most halfway houses conduct detailed intake assessments to determine the needs of their clients. Figure 11.5 shows an example of a halfway house intake form.

Although halfway houses usually offer a range of programs and services, the most common include employment, substance abuse, and cognitive restruc- turing. Employment programming usually includes job readiness training, resume writing and interviewing skills, job placement, and transportation assistance.

Programs for drug abusers might include methadone maintenance, weekly and unscheduled urinalysis, 12-step programming, groups, Alcoholic Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous, and detoxification. It should be noted that, on average, more than 60 percent of all male arrestees tested positive for at least one drug, including alcohol (Drug Use Forecasting, 2000), and about one in four tested positive for a major drug (PCP, heroin, crack, or cocaine). The rate for female jail inmates was even higher than for males; 28 percent tested

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Metropolitan Residential Programs 315

Figure 11.5 Halfway house intake form (form A-2).

GENERAL INFORMATION

1.

(First) (Middle) (Last) Client Name

2. Client T.H. ID # 3. – – Client SS # 4. Admission Status:

(1) New Admission (2) Re-Admission (within fiscal year) (3) Re-Admittance after Escape/Absconding

(within fiscal year) (4) Legal Status Altered

5. / / Date of Birth (mo/day/yr) 6. Sex (1) Male (2) Female 7. Race

(AI) American Indian (OR) Oriental (BL) Black (WH) White (HI) Hispanic (Specify) Other _________

7a. Appalachian (1) Yes (2) No 8. Current Marital Status

(1) Single (4) Married (2) Divorced (5) Separated (3) Widowed (6) Common Law

9. Number of Dependents (financial responsibility other than self)

10. Number of Children 11. Legal Responsibility for Children? (1) Yes (2) No 12. Zip Code of Last Community Address 13. Homeless Before Arrest? (1) Yes (2) No 14. Place to Live When Discharged? (1) Yes (2) No 15. Primary Source of Income (at present)

(1) Public Assistance (5) Family (2) Investments (6) No Income (3) Full-Time Employment (7) Other ___________ (4) Part-Time Employment

15a. Total Income Last Year (Nearest Dollar)

16. Court Costs Owed (Nearest Dollar) 17. Restitution Owed (Nearest Dollar)

CRIMINAL HISTORY

Note: When answering questions 19-30, if the information is not available from the referral source, use client- reported answers.

18. . Ohio Revised Code for which convicted.

19. Number of prior felony convictions (adult/juvenile).

20. Number of prior adult felony commitments in a state or federal institution (when sentenced).

21. Age at admission to institution (or probation) for current offense.

22. Number of offenses (including current offense) committed while under parole/probation supervision.

23. Number of offenses (including current offense) involving drugs/alcohol.

24. Number of prior arrests during the past five years, prior to incarceration.

25. Number of offenses (including current offense) for auto theft.

26. Number of offenses (including current offense) involving serious injury to the victim.

27. Number of offenses (including current offense) involving the use of a weapon.

28. Has this individual been previously convicted for the same offense? (1) Yes (2) No

29. Was the current conviction for multiple crimes? (1) Yes (2) No

30. Was the offender employed at the time of arrest? (1) Yes (2) No

(Continued)

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT HISTORY

31. Years of education attained (last grade completed).

32. Highest diploma/degree received and name major subject area where applicable. (1) None (2) G.E.D. (3) High School (4) College Associate/Major _____________

Bachelor/Major _____________ Master’s/Major _____________ Doctoral/Major _____________

33. Years of vocational training.

34. Certification of vocational training awarded (1) Yes __________________________________ Trade (2) No

Enter 1 for YES 2 for NO for Questions 35-37 35. Physical/Health impairments (e.g., amputee, paraplegic, deaf, blind, serious illness, debilitating

effect of age)

36. Mental capacity impairment (e.g., diagnosed mental retardation, diagnosed borderline MR)

37. Behavioral impairment (e.g., mental and/or emotional condition or disorders that require the treatment of a qualified mental health professional).

38. Number of jobs held in the last 2 years in the community prior to incarceration.

39. Longest stay on the job in the last 2 years in the community (number of months).

CLIENT/STAFF ASSISTANCE ASSESSMENT

Enter 1 for YES 2 for NO for Questions 40-55 40. Does client feel he/she needs assistance while in residency? 41. Does this individual need employment assistance? 42. Does this individual need assistance in academic or vocational

training?

43. Does this individual need assistance in financial management? 44. Does individual need assistance in the area of domestic rela-

tions (e.g., marriage, family, etc.)?

45. Does this individual need assistance in the area of emotional or mental health?

46. Is this individual currently required to take medication for any psychological condition?

47. Does this individual need assistance for a substance abuse (alcohol/drug) problem?

48. Does this individual need assistance with securing suitable liv- ing arrangements?

49. Does this individual need assistance for a learning disability? 50. Has medication ever been prescribed for a psychological condi-

tion (e.g., nerves)?

51. Has client had prior psychiatric hospitalization? 52. Has client ever attempted suicide? 53. Was client ever a victim of child abuse? 54. Was client ever a victim of domestic violence? 55. Was client ever a victim of sexual abuse or incest?

DRUG/ALCOHOL HISTORY

56. # times client had prior drug/alcohol treatment. 57. # months prior outpatient treatment. 58. Successful? (1) Yes (2) No (3) NA 59. # months prior inpatient treatment. 60. Successful? (1) Yes (2) No (3) NA 61. # months prior Halfway House treatment. 62. Successful? (1) Yes (2) No (3) NA

63. Has client participated in a halfway house program before this occasion?

(1) Yes (2) No

64. Longest period of drug/alcohol abstinence in community (months) or (99) No problem

Staff member completing form

_________________________________________________

Date ______________________________ Rev. 061992

Figure 11.5—Cont’d

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Metropolitan Residential Programs 317

positive for opiates compared to 17 percent for males. Alcohol and other drug abuse is a risk factor for many offenders, and such clients have high needs for treatment that community residential correctional facilities can meet.14

In recent years, there has been increased attention to the effectiveness of cognitive behavioral programs. These interventions involve target- ing the antisocial attitudes, values, and beliefs that many offenders hold. Cognitive programming attempts to restructure the thinking of offenders and develop new skills that can be used to improve their problem-solving abilities. Many halfway houses today offer criminal thinking groups and other cognitive interventions aimed at anger and violence reduction, sex- ual behavior, negative peer associations, and improved problem-solving techniques.

Another group of problem offenders are those with both mental illness and substance abuse problems. County community health boards and criminal courts can both use services for these offenders. These offenders are called “dual diagnosed” and pose a special problem for community corrections. Although research indicates that major predictors of recidivism are the same for mentally disordered offenders as nonmentally disordered offenders (Bonta, Law, and

Many community corrections center programs focus on Alcoholics Anonymous as part of the overall abstinence program. This may mean requiring residents to work the 12 steps of AA, demonstrate understanding of the program, design a postrelease plan, chair an AA meeting, and participate in the affairs of the program. The latter might include house chores (vacuum- ing, cleaning restrooms, shoveling snow, cleaning ashtrays, etc.), attending house meetings, remaining sober and clean, working outside the program, and seeking specialized treatment. If the resident’s family unit is not broken, reconciliation counseling may be required. If appro- priate, the resident might be required to participate in meetings of Adult Children of Alcoholics (ACAs) or child sexual abuse and domestic violence programs. When alcohol is the underlying cause of criminal behavior, an individually designed, monitored, and supportive program may reduce criminal activity sharply.

Box 11.9 alCoholICs aND treatmeNt

14Barbara Owen found that alcohol frequently accompanied other drug use among parolees in California, leading to most parole violations. Owen (1991). See also Langworthy and Latessa (1993); and Division of Criminal Justice Office of Research and Statistics (2000).

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Chapter 11: Community residential Correctional programs318

Hanson, 1998; Solicitor General of Canada, 1998), the availability of treat- ment services in the community is often lacking for this special needs group. Peters and Hills (1999:95) state:

Offenders placed under community supervision who have co-occurring mental health and substance abuse disorders are quite diverse in symptom presentation, severity and chronicity of disorders. These individuals often have severe mental health disorders, and simultaneously use different types of drugs, presenting considerable challenges to treatment programs for this population. Many offenders with co-occurring disorders would benefit from specialized treatment services in the community.

Unfortunately, relatively few programs are designed specifically to deal with the dual-diagnosed offender. Most of these programs are located in large urban areas. One such program is the Substance Abuse–Mental Illness (SAMI) program operated by Talbert House in Cincinnati, Ohio. This program has been in operation for more than 10 years and has served well over 500 offend- ers during that period of time.

Many urban communities across the nation face the problem of finding treat- ment opportunities that permit reintegration of high-need offenders, such as

described earlier. Increasingly, these counties are turning to private-sector, for-profit, and nonprofit residential programs for assistance. Figure 11.6 suggests how such residential and community programs can interface with traditional justice agencies in provision of services.

Community residential correctional programs of these types exist across the nation and will increase in number and importance in the coming years. The private sector providing these programs, facil- ities, and centers will grow as cities and counties, facing fiscal and policy crises, accept and intro- duce these programs in their local areas.

JuVeNIles IN resIDeNtIal plaCemeNt Although the population of juveniles in residential placement includes those in secure facilities, the use of group homes, halfway houses, and other forms of residential facilities are common in the juvenile justice system. Recent fig- ures released by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (Sickmund, 2010) indicate a steady decline in the number of youths placed in such facilities between 1998 and 2008. Figure 11.7 shows that the number of juvenile in residential placement peaked in 2000 and has been declining

Photo 11.3 Mental health program. Courtesy of Talbert House, Inc.

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

319Juveniles in Residential Placement

ever since. Some states, such as Missouri, have moved from large juvenile insti- tutions to smaller, residential facilities. Box 11.10 gives an example of some new evidenced-based residential programs for youths that the state of Ohio is developing in conjunction with the University of Cincinnati.

Figure 11.6 A reintegration model. Source: Allen and Simonsen (1995).

Offense

Our website has a team of professional writers who can help you write any of your homework. They will write your papers from scratch. We also have a team of editors just to make sure all papers are of HIGH QUALITY & PLAGIARISM FREE. To make an Order you only need to click Ask A Question and we will direct you to our Order Page at WriteDemy. Then fill Our Order Form with all your assignment instructions. Select your deadline and pay for your paper. You will get it few hours before your set deadline.