Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 25, 2024 Mon
Time: 9:08 pm
Time: 9:08 pm
Results for halfway houses
7 results foundAuthor: Center for Behavioral Health Services & Criminal Justice Research Title: Halfway from Prison to the Community: From Current Practice to Best Practice Summary: With the growing emphasis on reentry readiness, federal, state, and local correctional agencies have developed reentry strategies that rely to varying degrees on “halfway” residential facilities, called “residential reentry centers” (RRCs) in this report. Some states (e.g., California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania), in addition 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 practitioners. 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 general, 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. Details: New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Behavioral Health Services & Criminal Justice Research, 2013. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 6, 2013 at: http://cbhs-cjr.rutgers.edu/pdfs/Halfway_house_RRC_Report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://cbhs-cjr.rutgers.edu/pdfs/Halfway_house_RRC_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 128672 Keywords: Halfway HousesPrisoner Reentry (U.S.)PrivatizationResidential Reentry Centers |
Author: Taxman, Faye S. Title: What Works in Residential Reentry Centers Summary: Residential Reentry Centers (RRCs) are designed to facilitate the transition from prison to the community, and many often serve as halfway back facilities for offenders who have difficulties when placed on community supervision. During this transitional period, the RRCs assist offenders in securing housing and employment as well as continuing in appropriate treatment and other programs to address criminogenic needs. Monographs available at this website are: "Executive Overview: What Works in Residential Reentry Centers" by Faye S. Taxman, Jessica Rexroat, Mary Shilton, Amy Mericle, and Jennifer Lerch; "Report 1: What Is the Impact of "Performance Contracting" on Offender Supervision Services?" by Shilton, Rexroat, Taxman, and Mericle; "Report 2: Measuring Performance -The Capacity of Residential Reentry Centers (RRCs) to Collect, Manage, and Analyze Client-Level Data" by Mericle, Shilton, Taxman, and Rexroat; "Report 3: What Organizational Factors Are Related to Improved Outcomes?" by Shilton, Rexroat, Taxman, and Mericle; "Report 4: How Do Staff Hiring, Retention, Management and Attitudes Affect Organizational Climate and Performance in RRCs?" by Rexroat, Shilton, Taxman, and Mericle; "Report 5: What Services Are Provided by RRCs?" by Shilton, Rexroat, Taxman, and Mericle; Report 6: Technical Violation Rates and Rearrest Rates on Federal Probation after Release from an RRC" by Lerch, Taxman, and Mericle; and "Report 7: Site Visits" by Shilton, Rexroat, Taxman, and Mericle. Details: Fairfax, VA: George Mason University, Criminology, Law and Society, 2010. 8 parts; executive summary Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 16, 2014 at: http://www.gmuace.org/research_reentry.html Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.gmuace.org/research_reentry.html Shelf Number: 133728 Keywords: Halfway HousesOffender ReintegrationPrisoner Reentry (U.S.)ProbationersRehabilitation |
Author: American Friends Service Committee Title: Community Cages: Profitizing community corrections and alternatives to incarceration Summary: As states pursue sentencing reform efforts to reduce prison populations and the federal government continues to grapple with comprehensive immigration reform, the private prison industry faces pressure to adapt to a shifting penal landscape that is moving toward alternatives to incarceration. In response to these developments, the private prison industry began rebranding and expanding into subcontracted prisoner health care, forensic mental health treatment, and other "alternative" programming. In 2014, The American Friends Service Committee, Grassroots Leadership, and the Southern Center for Human Rights identified this emerging trend as the Treatment Industrial Complex (TIC). In the present report, we offer an in-depth analysis of the community corrections segment. Community corrections refers to "front-end" alternatives to incarceration, such as probation, home arrest, diversion programs, and "back-end" reentry programs such as parole, halfway houses, and work release centers. Nearly two-thirds of people involved in the criminal justice system are not held in prison or jail, but are instead monitored via community correction programs. At the end of 2014, more than 4.7 million adults were under probation or parole. For prison corporations such as Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and GEO Group, this represents a huge untapped market for privatization. Smaller companies are also springing up to meet the demand for community corrections programs and related services. In this report, we examine four different components of community corrections that are being aggressively privatized: 1. Electronic monitoring through the use of GPS ankle monitors and other mobile surveillance technology 2. Day reporting centers for individuals to "check in" and/or participate in rehabilitative programs and services 3. Intermediate sanctions facilities as an alternative to revocation to prison for technical violations of the terms of probation or parole 4. Residential reentry centers, more commonly known as halfway houses Details: Tucson: American Friends Service Committee, 2016. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 16, 2016 at: https://afscarizona.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/communitycages.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://afscarizona.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/communitycages.pdf Shelf Number: 140316 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity CorrectionsDay ReportingElectronic MonitoringHalfway HousesPrivatization |
Author: Sperber, Kimberly Gentry Title: Factors Influencing Medication-Assisted Treatment in Ohio Halfway Houses and Community-Based Correctional Facilities Summary: Recent years have witnessed an alarming increase in the number of people dependent on opiates. Nationally, opiate overdose is the second leading cause of injury related death, surpassed only by car accidents. In Ohio, accidental overdoses has been the leading cause of death since 2007. In fact, there has been a 472% increase in drug overdose deaths from 1999 to 2013. An increase in opiate dependent people means that community corrections programs are seeing a dramatic increase in admissions of opiate dependent offenders. This is not surprising given that the link between opiate use and crime is well established. The Center for Health and Human Services Research at Talbert House completed a study based on previous National Institutes of Health studies that have examined: (1) barriers to MAT within private and public substance abuse treatment programs and (2) counselor attitudes toward MAT. This study was replicated in halfway houses and Community Based Correctional Facilities (CBCF) across Ohio and assesses attitudes of both treatment and security staff in these programs. All Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections (ODRC)-funded halfway houses and CBCFs were invited to participate in the study. All but two programs elected to participate. Data were collected through two mechanisms. The first was an in-depth structured, face-to-face interview with key staff including Program Directors, Clinical Supervisors, a representative of the medical staff, and at least two clinical/direct service staff. An interview guide was used to gather information on key independent variables within a number of domains. Examples of these domains include organizational structure, organizational resources, dominant treatment philosophy and types of services offered, availability of medical personnel, funding sources, exposure to and understanding of MAT research findings, referral source support for MAT, staff support for MAT, concerns associated with providing MAT to offenders, and client characteristics. A total of 181 staff participated in interviews for this study. The second mechanism was the administration of anonymous surveys to all staff at each facility. These surveys assessed knowledge about MAT, beliefs about the effectiveness and appropriateness of MAT for offenders, and endorsement of myths about MAT. 1876 surveys were distributed, and 910 were returned for a response rate of 49%. Interview and survey questions asked about MAT in general as well as about specific medications (e.g., methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone), where appropriate. Survey items were rated on a Likert scale. Major Findings A total of 49 facilities participated in the study. Interviews with the Program Directors of these facilities demonstrated that 17 of the programs did not allow any access to MAT at the time of the interview while 13 programs directly prescribed addiction medication to clients with opioid disorders, and an additional 19 programs allowed clients to access addiction medications through an external provider during their stay in the facility. Of the 13 programs providing MAT, 62% prescribed oral naltrexone, 46% prescribed injectable naltrexone, and 62% prescribed buprenorphine. No programs prescribed or allowed access to methadone. While many programs had begun to implement various forms of MAT, interview results showed that the programs faced a number of barriers to implementing comprehensive MAT services including: infrastructure, financial, workforce development, and stakeholder support. 63.3% of the facilities did not have access to medically supervised detoxification services for the clients they serve. Response patterns indicated financial barriers to hiring medical staff. Respondents indicated difficulties finding medical staff willing to provide services within correctional programs and with the appropriate experiences for treating a criminal justice population, particularly those with substance use disorders. 83% of the Program Directors agree that the Ohio Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services (OHMAS) is supportive of the use of medications for treating substance abuse in community corrections settings. However, less than 40% of the Program Directors agreed that OHMAS had adequately disseminated information about how to implement MAT in community corrections programs or that OHMAS had offered sufficient training opportunities about using medications to treat substance abuse. The primary method staff use to learn about MAT is having conversations with staff of other substance abuse treatment organizations. Survey data were used to assess staff beliefs about general treatment approaches for clients with addiction disorders, beliefs about MAT for clients with addiction disorders, and beliefs about the outcomes of MAT. Regarding overall treatment philosophy, survey responses demonstrated an overall pattern of clinical staff providing significantly higher ratings on items reflective of cognitive-behavioral and motivational enhancement approaches, and operations staff providing significantly higher ratings on items reflective of 12-step approaches and more confrontational approaches. Regarding concerns with MAT, the consistent pattern was that operational staff were more likely to agree with a series of negative statements, such “Using medications to treat addiction is substituting one drug for another” or “Medications are drugs and you cannot be clean if you are taking drugs.” Operations staff provided a statistically significantly lower endorsement of agreement to the item “I have received adequate information about the effects of using medication-assisted treatment for offender populations.” Operations staff also provided significantly lower ratings of agreement than supervisory and clinical staff on items that reflected benefits of MAT, such as MAT reduces relapse, increases employment, reduces crime, reduces or blocks the effects of opioids, increases family stability, and improves birth outcomes for children born to addicted mothers. On the other hand, they provided significantly higher ratings of agreement to items indicating beliefs about negative outcomes of MAT, such as MAT rewards criminals for being drug users and interferes with the ability to drive a car. In the surveys, we also asked staff about their perceptions of the acceptability and effectiveness of four medications used to treat opioid disorders: buprenorphine, methadone, oral naltrexone, and injectable naltrexone. Since previous studies have found that lack of information about medication effectiveness serves as a barrier to its implementation, we also sought to examine the extent of knowledge diffusion regarding each medication. We operationalized diffusion as a dichotomous variable. This variable was coded based on the response to the item “Based on your knowledge and personal experience, to what extent do you consider each of the following treatment techniques to be effective?” Answering “I don’t know” was coded as a lack of diffusion, while all other ratings were considered as evidence of diffusion. Finally, we sought to identify predictors of knowledge diffusion, endorsements of acceptability, and endorsements of effectiveness. Results are summarized below: 35.1% did not know the effectiveness of buprenorphine, 37.2% did not know the effectiveness of methadone, 55.4% did not know the effectiveness of oral naltrexone, and 44% did not know the effectiveness of injectable naltrexone. This trend is consistent with the amount of time these medications have been in use within the field of community corrections in Ohio. Staff perceived methadone and buprenorphine as less effective than both oral and injectable naltrexone, with the highest rating of effectiveness assigned to injectable naltrexone. Regarding acceptability, the results show the same trend, with staff rating methadone and buprenorphine as less acceptable than both forms of naltrexone. Again, injectable naltrexone received the highest endorsement of acceptability. Operations staff were more likely to provide a “don’t know” response regarding the effectiveness all four medications (see Table 1.). On the other hand, staff who worked in programs that provided access to MAT (rather than directly providing MAT) were more likely to endorse an opinion about all four medications. Staff who agreed that they had received adequate information about the effects of using MAT with offender populations also had an increased likelihood of endorsing an opinion about the effectiveness of all four medications. Staff and agency characteristics did not consistently predict perceived acceptability across the four medications (see Table 2.). Predictors that were somewhat consistent across models included staff beliefs about outcomes of MAT, whether the facility directly provided MAT, and staff concerns about MAT. Specifically, staff who demonstrated a higher level of agreement with positive statements indicating positive outcomes of MAT were significantly more likely to endorse the use of buprenorphine, oral naltrexone, and injectable naltrexone as acceptable. While direct provision of MAT served to increase the probability that staff would rate oral and injectable naltrexone as acceptable, it served to decrease the probability that staff would endorse methadone as acceptable. The only consistent predictor of perceived effectiveness across all four medications was staff beliefs regarding the positive outcomes of MAT (see Table 3.). Higher average ratings on these beliefs resulted in statistically significant increases in the probability that staff would agree that the medication was effective. Details: Columbus, OH: Center for Health & Human Services Research, 2016. 41p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 8, 2016 at: http://www.publicsafety.ohio.gov/links/MAT_CBCFs_Report.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.publicsafety.ohio.gov/links/MAT_CBCFs_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 145616 Keywords: Community-Based CorrectionsDrug Abuse and AddictionDrug Abuse and CrimeDrug OffendersDrug TreatmentHalfway HousesSubstance Abuse Treatment |
Author: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Audit Division Title: Audit of the Federal Bureau of Prisons' Management of Inmate Placements in Residential Reentry Centers and Home Confinement Summary: The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) provides a variety of reentry programming to help incarcerated inmates successfully transition back into society. As part of its release preparation, BOP has the authority to place inmates in residential reentry centers (RRC), also known as halfway houses, and/or home confinement while serving the remainder of their sentences. BOP may determine that an inmate should not be placed into either an RRC or home confinement because, for example, the inmate poses a significant threat to the community. An inmate placed in an RRC and/or home confinement remains in BOP custody. RRCs provide a supervised environment that support inmates in finding employment and housing, completing necessary programming such as drug abuse treatment, participating in counseling, and strengthening ties to family and friends. Home confinement provides similar opportunities, but is used for inmates BOP believes do not need the structure provided by RRCs. Inmates placed in home confinement are monitored and are required to remain at home when not working or participating in release programing and other approved activities. Pursuant to the Second Chance Act of 2007, all federal inmates are eligible for RRC and home confinement placement. However, BOP's placement decisions are supposed to be driven by an individual assessment weighing an inmate's need for reentry services against the risk to the community. Inmates can be placed in RRCs for up to 12 months but can only spend a maximum of 6 months, or 10 percent of the term of imprisonment, whichever is shorter, in home confinement. In fiscal year 2015, the BOP spent $360 million on RRC and home confinement costs and, as of September 2016, BOP reported having 181 RRCs operated by 103 different contractors. The Office of the Inspector General assessed BOP’s RRC and home confinement programs, including its placement policy and practices, program capacity planning and management, and strategic planning and performance management. The audit covers inmates released from BOP custody from October 2013 through April 2016, either directly from BOP institutions, RRCs, or home confinement. Based on our analysis, we found that 94,252 inmates released from BOP custody during the scope of our audit were eligible for placement in an RRC and/or home confinement. BOP placed 79 percent of these eligible inmates into RRCs and/or home confinement - 75 percent were initially placed in RRCs and only 4 percent went directly into home confinement. The remaining 21 percent were released directly from a BOP institution. Our audit found that BOP's RRC and home confinement placement policies and guidance, which are designed to identify individual inmate risks and needs while simultaneously weighing these against the safety of the community and available resources, appear reasonable. In our judgment, the inmate's security level at the time of placement is the best indicator of inmate risk and need for transitional services because it incorporates key recidivism risk factors, as well the inmate's behavior during incarceration. As a result, we analyzed BOP’s RRC and home confinement placement practices based on the exit security level of inmates released from BOP custody during the scope of our audit. Our analysis determined that, contrary to BOP policy, BOP guidance, and relevant research, BOP's RRC and home confinement placement decisions are not based on inmate risk for recidivism or need for transitional services. Rather, we found that BOP is placing the great majority of eligible inmates into RRCs regardless of inmate risk for recidivism or need for transitional services, unless the inmate is deemed not suitable for such placement because the inmate poses a significant threat to the community. As a result, low-risk, low-need inmates are far more likely to be placed in RRCs than high-risk, high-need inmates. Specifically, we found that of the 94,252 inmates released between October 2013 and April 23, 2016, 90 percent of minimum security and 75 percent of low security inmates are placed in RRCs and/or home confinement. However, only 58 percent of high security level inmates were transitioned into the community through RRCs, while 42 percent were released into the community directly from a BOP institution. We recognize this may be a result of the fact that many of the high security inmates were considered a public safety risk. Nonetheless, at the time they would be placed in an RRC, on average these inmates are within 4 months of being released into the community upon completion of their sentence. Thus BOP must weigh the immediate risk of placing high-risk inmates in RRCs against the risk of releasing them back into society directly from BOP institutions without transitional reentry programming. It also appears that BOP is underutilizing direct home confinement placement as an alternative to RRC placement for transitioning low-risk, low-need inmates back into society. This underutilization of direct home confinement placement was evident when we reviewed data on placement of minimum and low security inmates and found that BOP placed only 6 percent of even those lower risk inmates directly into home confinement, despite BOP policy and guidance stating that direct home confinement placement is the preferred placement for low-risk, low-need inmates. This is particularly concerning given that BOP guidance, as well as the research cited in the guidance, indicates that low-risk inmates do not benefit from and may in fact be harmed by RRC placement because, among other things, of their exposure to high-risk offenders in those facilities. Moreover, the underutilization of direct home confinement for low-risk, low need inmates results in fewer RRC resources being available for high-risk, high-need inmates since the RRC inmate population is already at or in excess of BOP’s contracted capacity. In addition, this practice may also further strain high security BOP institutions that are already well above capacity. We found that, from October 2013 through March 2016, the RRC population has remained at about 101 percent of contracted capacity, while the home confinement population averaged nearly 159 percent of contracted monitoring capacity, despite BOP’s apparent underutilization of it as an alternative to RRC placement. The home confinement capacity issues resulted, at least in part, from BOP’s policy to aggressively pursue transitioning inmates from RRCs to home confinement as soon as possible in an effort to increase RRC capacity. This reduces the capacity for direct home confinement placements and, additionally, may result in inmates being transitioned from RRCs to home confinement too early, as evidenced by the fact that 17 percent of inmates were placed back into RRCs for violating home confinement program rules. We also found that BOP lacks adequate performance measures to evaluate the success of its RRC and home confinement programming. Although BOP has RRC and home confinement placement targets, these targets do not measure the effectiveness of RRC and home confinement programs. Additionally, the placement targets – 85 percent from minimum, 75 percent from low, 70 percent from medium, and 65 percent from high security level institutions – appear to encourage institutions to maximize the number of inmates placed in RRCs or home confinement, regardless of transitional need. In fact, the issues we identified with BOP’s current placement practices may be driven, in part, by its RRC and home confinement placement targets. The success of BOP’s RRC and home confinement programs relies on the quality of programming provided by its RRC contractors, all of whom also provide services to and monitor inmates in home confinement. However, we found that BOP’s policy for monitoring its RRC contractors focuses on assessing compliance with the contractual Statements of Work, rather than assessing the quality of services provided by the RRC contractors. Specifically, we did not identify any requirement that RRC contractors or BOP collect, retain, and report any statistics pertaining to RRC or home confinement program performance or success or failure rates. If these measures were available, BOP could then incorporate these figures into its strategic planning, which might assist it in assessing its programs and RRC contractors based on measurable qualitative achievements as opposed to simply trying to meet numerical quotas. Our report makes five recommendations to improve BOP’s management of inmate placements in RRCs and home confinement. Details: Washington, DC: Office of the Inspector General, 2016. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Audit Division 17-01: Accessed December 21, 2016 at: https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2016/a1701.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2016/a1701.pdf Shelf Number: 147774 Keywords: Federal Bureau of PrisonsHalfway HousesHome ConfinementOffender ManagementPrisoner ReentryResidential Facilities |
Author: Growns, Bethany Title: Supported Accommodation Services for People Released from Custody: A systematic review to inform the development of the Rainbow Lodge Program Summary: A 2015 report by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare estimated that there were 51,000 instances of people being released from Australian prisons in 2014 (AIHW, 2015). There is a substantial need for programs that provide support and services to people at this vulnerable time. Securing safe and secure accommodation is one of the most critical challenges that people leaving custody face; however, obtaining housing can be problematic due to interpersonal conflict, lack of family, complex treatment needs and limited finances (Fontaine & Biess, 2012; Graffam & Shinkfield, 2012; Roman & Travis, 2004). Therefore, people recently released from custody may rely on other options, such as supported accommodation programs or homeless shelters (Clark, 2015). These can take many forms, including 'halfway houses', where people live in a house as a group, sometimes following a therapeutic program; or scattered site supported housing programs, where people are provided with their own accommodation (i.e. a house or apartment), while also receiving therapeutic support in the form of home visits and/or participating in other therapeutic activities (e.g. attending a day centre). There is a growing demand within the field of criminal justice for more rigorous research and evaluation of interventions (Wright, Zhang, Farabee, & Braatz, 2014). Demonstrating the effectiveness of criminal justice interventions is critical in developing and producing evidence-based programs that can produce tangible outcomes for individuals. There is some evidence that interventions for people released from prison that include an accommodation component are effective in reducing re-offending and the severity of future re-offending (Seiter & Kadela, 2003; Somers, Rezansoff, Moniruzzaman, Palepu, & Patterson, 2013). A recent narrative review examined the efficacy of a variety of post-release programs, including programs that included a residential component, provided counselling services, vocational training, education or aftercare. Programs that included some kind of a residential component were found to produce the most positive results overall (Wright et al., 2014). Existing reviews have not looked at specific forms of supported accommodation for people released from prison, nor identified elements of supported accommodation services that contribute to positive outcomes. Objectives of this study The Rainbow Lodge Program is a non-profit organisation in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, that provides a responsive, intensive and supportive service to male Corrective Services clients assessed with having high needs, a strong risk of re-offending and homelessness, in order that they effectively re-enter and integrate into the community. This study has been undertaken to: Document the Rainbow Lodge Program; and Identify opportunities for the development of the Rainbow Lodge Program as an evidence-informed service. To these ends, this report includes: A description of the Rainbow Lodge Program, developed in consultation with staff and management of the Program; The results of a systematic review aimed at assessing the evidence on effectiveness of post-release supported accommodation programs similar to Rainbow Lodge, and identifying elements of such programs that contribute to positive client outcomes; and Implications of the findings of the systematic review for the Rainbow Lodge Program. Results of the systematic review The systematic review identified only nine publications meeting the eligibility criteria for inclusion (evaluation of a post-release supported accommodation program similar to the Rainbow Lodge Program). Studies were frequently methodologically flawed, and few consistent findings were evident, with regards to either effectiveness of post-release supported accommodation programs in reducing recidivism, or program characteristics associated with positive participant outcomes. Recommendations for the Rainbow Lodge Program Given the inconclusive findings of the review, it is difficult to identify recommendations for the day-to-day operations or components of the Rainbow Lodge Program. What is clear from the review is that there is a need for methodologically rigorous, comprehensive research on this type of post-release program, particularly outside the United States. Ideally, an outcome evaluation would be undertaken to assess the impact of the Rainbow Lodge Program on recidivism and other outcomes. However, there are important challenges to consider in proposing an outcome evaluation: identification and recruitment of an appropriate comparison group, and recruitment of sufficient numbers of participants to detect any effect that may exist. Given the challenges of undertaking an outcome evaluation (which will require further planning to be overcome), in the short-term, a process evaluation may be a more feasible option for further research on the Rainbow Lodge Program. This could include a retrospective file review, as well as quantitative and qualitative data collection with current residents. In order to enable future research, it is recommended that the Rainbow Lodge Program introduce a “Consent to research” form at program entry. This will allow client assessments to be used in research, and data linkage into the future. Details: Sydney: National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, 2016. 39p. Source: Internet Resource: NDARC Technical Report No. 335: Accessed February 21, 2017 at: https://ndarc.med.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/ndarc/resources/NDARC%20Technical%20Report%20No%20335.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Australia URL: https://ndarc.med.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/ndarc/resources/NDARC%20Technical%20Report%20No%20335.pdf Shelf Number: 141142 Keywords: Community InterventionsHalfway HousesHousingPrisoner ReentryPrisons |
Author: Cantora, Andrea Title: Perceptions of Community Corrections: Understanding how Women's Needs are met in an Evidence-Based/Gender-Responsive Halfway House Summary: This dissertation presents a qualitative study on how women perceive and experience services at an evidence-based, gender-responsive halfway house. The primary focus was to understand how the halfway house helps women address their needs as they prepare to reenter the community. The secondary focus was to understand how the halfway house implements evidence-based principles and gender-responsive strategies. This study analyzed in-depth qualitative interviews with 33 women. Data from these interviews were triangulated with observations of treatment groups and daily interactions, review of program documents, review of participant case files, and informal conversations with staff. Findings suggest that many positive and negative features of the halfway house - including social context, relationships with staff, and program policies - contribute to women's ability to address their needs and prepare for reentry. Findings also draw attention to the influence of external factors including outside resources, social networks, housing availability, the stigma of a criminal record, systemic policies, geographic boundaries, and program length of stay. The interconnections between ecological systems also influence the transitional process and were highlighted in this study. Recommendations for improving community correctional services for women were discussed. Details: New York: City University of New York, 2011. 286p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed June 10, 2017 at: http://search.proquest.com/docview/876931779?pq-origsite=gscholar Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://search.proquest.com/docview/876931779?pq-origsite=gscholar Shelf Number: 146039 Keywords: Community CorrectionsEvidence-Based ProgramsFemale OffendersGender-Specific ProgrammingHalfway Houses |