Abstract
Critical time intervention (CTI) is a time-limited intervention originally designed to provide the continuity of support for homeless and mentally ill people released from an institution to community living. This study offers theoretical foundations for adopting CTI in the field of criminal justice. Through the lens of CTI, this study examines the needs of prisoners returning to the community, discusses the challenges faced by reentry practitioners in offering support and assistance to ex-prisoners in the community, and provides specific suggestions. This study uses focus groups and individual interviews to assess the needs, obstacles, and opportunities ex-prisoners have or face in the community, as perceived by returning prisoners and practitioners, which leads to a more in-depth understanding of the prisoner reentry process.
Keywords
Over the past 3 decades, there has been an unprecedented increase in U.S. prison populations. Almost 2.2 million prisoners are currently held in jails and prisons, and most of them will eventually return to society (Walmsley, 2018). Most ex-prisoners today are undereducated, lack job skills, and struggle with drug abuse and mental illness (Gunnison & Helfgott, 2013; Petersilia, 2003). Additionally, they tend to be homeless without family and community support.
In the context of mass imprisonment and prison overcrowding, prisoners are offered less assistance and thus are ill-prepared for release (Petersilia, 2003; Western, 2018). Prisoners often return to the community without the above risk factors having been appropriately addressed during incarceration. In 2017, 622,377 prisoners were released from state and federal prisons to the community (Bronson & Carson, 2019). However, a large percentage of ex-prisoners returned to the prison as a result of new crimes and parole violations (Alper et al., 2018; Durose et al., 2014; Langan & Levin, 2002). Due to the high rates of recidivism, reentry has been a critical issue for policy makers and practitioners.
There has been notable attention to the topic of helping ex-offenders who have served their time and are released back into society (Bohmert et al., 2018; Denney et al., 2014; Garland et al., 2011). Researchers have sought to understand how ex-prisoners perceive their reentry experiences and perceptions (Gunnison & Helfgott, 2013; Western, 2018). There has also been scholarly attention to what makes reentry effective and the role of reentry programs in reducing recidivism (Mears & Cochran, 2015). It is imperative to find ways to care for ex-prisoners who lack the necessities of life and are exposed to related adversities.
In 2016, 870,500 offenders were on parole (Kaeble, 2018). As the number of returning prisoners has increased, the workload for parole officers has also increased. Parole officers have large caseloads that restrict their ability to provide supervision and assistance for successful reentry. Many local governments have partnered with private organizations to care for ex-prisoners and assist them in transitioning from prison to the community (The United States Conference of Mayors, 2009). It is important to examine whether and/or how private reentry programs can contribute to prisoner reentry when the parole system is already overstretched.
This study contributes to the literature in three important ways. First, despite the prevalence of private reentry programs, few studies were conducted to examine their roles in the reentry process of ex-prisoners. This study discusses the effectiveness of a private reentry program and various challenges in providing reentry services to ex-prisoners. Second, prior studies examined the needs and challenges of prisoner reentry, as perceived by either ex-prisoners or reentry officers. None of them discussed whether there is a similarity or discrepancy in the perceptions of prisoner reentry between ex-prisoners and reentry officers. This study examines the perceived obstacles and opportunities for released prisoners inherent in the reentry process from the standpoint of both ex-prisoners and staff in a private reentry program. The triangulation of both perspectives leads to a greater understanding of the prisoner reentry process than either of them alone. Third, this study expands on prior research by examining the role of a private reentry program through the lens of critical time intervention (CTI). While CTI has been successfully used in the field of public health, it is rarely used for prisoner reentry. This study discusses CTI as a theoretical framework to understand the role of a private reentry program in facilitating an ex-prisoner’s reintegration into the community.
Literature Review
Prisoner Reentry
A substantial amount of research has been conducted to examine the topic of prisoner reentry. Much of the literature has focused on examining ex-prisoners’ perceptions of the reentry process using qualitative, case study methods (Bohmert et al., 2018; Denney et al., 2014; Garland et al., 2011; Gunnison & Helfgott, 2013; Luther et al., 2011). There is a well-established understanding of what needs and obstacles returning prisoners have or confront upon release. The factors that hinder prisoner reentry include unstable housing, poor education, unemployment, substance abuse, mental illness, psychological adjustment, stigmatization, family reunification, to mention but a few (Gunnison & Helfgott, 2013; Gunnison et al., 2015; Nelson et al., 1999; Petersilia, 2003; Richie, 2001; Solomon et al., 2001; Western, 2018). In addition, some studies explored criminal justice practitioners’ perceptions of the needs and challenges of ex-offenders in the transition from prison to community living (Brown, 2004; Graffam et al., 2004; Gunnison & Helfgott, 2007; Gunnison & Helfgott, 2011; Gunnison & Helfgott, 2013; Gunnison et al., 2015; The United States Conference of Mayors, 2009). Practitioners identified the common needs and challenges of reentry, as perceived by ex-prisoners.
Practitioners and scholars are making efforts to promote the reentry process of ex-prisoners. Prior studies examined the effectiveness of reentry programs on recidivism using quantitative, experimental research methods. Overall, they demonstrated favorable evidence to reentry groups over control groups in reducing recidivism (Austin, 2001; Dowell et al., 1985; Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2005; Ostermann, 2009; Routh & Hamilton, 2015; Seiter & Kadela, 2003). Offenders who participated in halfway house programs are less likely than nonparticipants to experience parole revocations and commit new crimes. When halfway houses are implemented based on the risk–need–responsivity model, they are more effective in easing prisoner reentry and reducing recidivism (Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2005). The literature has consistently found a positive effect of halfway houses on parole success and recidivism in quasi-experimental studies (Costanza et al., 2015; Garrett, 1985; Lutze et al., 2014; Roman & Travis, 2004; Wong et al., 2019). Using a sample of 577 parolees in a northeastern state, Costanza et al. (2015) examined the effect of halfway houses on parole discharge and recidivism. Successful halfway house participation significantly decreased the probability of unsuccessful parole discharge and recidivism (i.e., new arrests). In addition, Wong et al. (2019) conducted a meta-analytic review of nine studies. Overall, halfway houses were effective in reducing the recidivism of ex-prisoners. Given that there have been increases in the number of prisoners returning to the community, and in postprison recidivism, it is imperative to continue identifying which programs work for prisoner reentry and which do not (Petersilia, 2003). It is still an open question about the most effective types of halfway houses.
CTI
National and state statistics on recidivism rates are high. Recidivism studies have consistently found that about 41%–44% of all ex-prisoners who were arrested within 3 years of release were arrested within the first 6 months (Durose et al., 2014; Hughes et al., 2001; Langan & Levin, 2002; Pew Center on the States, 2011). The first 6 months after release is the critical period when most recidivism takes place, which provides important implications for reconsidering how reentry resources should be coordinated (Petersilia, 2003). Given the probability of returning to prison is highest immediately after release, it is imperative to frontload intensive treatment and surveillance in the first 6 months.
CTI is an evidence-based practice originally designed to help those who are homeless and mentally ill in New York City (Susser et al., 1997). Its goal is to provide the continuity of care for those who are released from an institutional to community living. Since CTI can be used in a variety of forms for people with different types of needs, it is imperative to identify its basic elements to reduce possible misapplications and achieve the anticipated outcomes.
CTI is a time-limited, 9-month intervention, entailing three stages of support. The first stage, accommodation/transition, occurs during the first 3 months of the intervention. It provides intensive support and coordinates the resources available for the transfer of care to community providers. Examples of such assistance include offering counsel and support and accompanying clients to appointments with community providers. The second stage, tryout, lasts for 4–7 months. It focuses on testing whether the network of community services, which is set up in Stage 1, works as planned. At this stage, community providers would have taken primary responsibility in offering support. CTI workers observe how network plans operate and help to modify the plans, if necessary. The third stage, termination, begins once the network of support is established during Stage 2. It is devoted to transitioning full responsibility and duty to community providers who will offer long-term support to clients. CTI workers reaffirm the established network of community resources, assist in the development of plans for long-term support, and hold meetings to celebrate transfer of care to community providers.
There has been a considerable body of literature that examines the effectiveness of CTI for homeless people with mental illness. Using experimental research designs, prior studies examined the effectiveness of CTI to reduce homelessness among persons with mental illness (de Vet et al., 2017; Dixon et al., 2009; Herman et al., 2007; Jones et al., 2003; Kasprow & Rosenheck, 2007; Lennon et al., 2005; Susser et al., 1997). The literature has consistently found that CTI is effective in reducing homeless among those who are mentally ill and promoting continuity of care after psychiatric inpatient hospitalization.
While CTI has been successfully used for many years in the field of public health, it has not yet been widely used by criminal justice practitioners. Within the authors’ knowledge, only one article provided a possible format of CTI for released prisoners with mental illness and a conceptual framework to examine its effectiveness in the prisoner reentry process (Draine & Herman, 2007). There has been scant literature as to whether CTI is effective in promoting the reentry of prisoners to the community.
Use of Transitional Home of Buffalo (THB) as a “Promising” Reentry Program
This study area is located in Buffalo, NY. Buffalo is a mid-sized city with a population of more than 250,000. It is known as a rust belt city due to the demise of manufacturing industries, population loss, and urban blight. Buffalo has high rates of local unemployment, poverty, and vacancy. It is also one of the most racially segregated cities in the nation. The stresses and strains of returning offenders in the study area are great, but these communities can rarely provide assistance for their reentry. Ex-prisoners may have less opportunities for housing, employment, and other reentry services and thus face more difficulty transitioning back into the community. The likelihood of returning to prison for new crimes and parole violations may be high in such poverty- and crime-ridden communities.
THB (pseudonym) is a nonprofit private reentry program in Buffalo, New York, that provides a variety of services for those returning from prison to the community under supervision of the New York State (NYS) Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS). Clients can be referred to the program almost exclusively via the NYS DOCCS. They are subject to an intake assessment of their mental health, substance abuse, institutional misconduct, and parole violations. All types of offenders, with the exception of sex and arson offenders, can be eligible for placement within the program. It is a residential facility with 24 beds, and released prisoners can stay for up to 120 days. If housing and family support are not available, THB can be a good alternative to assist returning prisoners in their transition to the community. THB offers released prisoners stable housing and various reentry services during the critical time of transition from prison to the community. It also facilitates the engagement of clients with social support networks and helps them maintain long-term stable ties with family and community members.
Developmental Perspectives of THB’s Roles and Its Clients
THB can contribute to clients’ transition from a criminal trajectory to a law-abiding one. According to the developmental and life-course perspective, offenders can desist from crimes due to the occurrence of life events (Sampson & Laub, 1993). Sampson and Laub (1993) report that life events or turning points, such as military service, marriage, and employment, are key to shaping one’s desire to away from criminality. Although military service and marriage opportunities for clients are out of reach for THB, clients can be referred to community resources for employment (job training and skills building), higher education, and medical care. These linkages with conventional people and institutions form quality networks for clients.
Intensive programming and support would help address clients’ risk factors, restore their social capital, and in turn decrease the risk of recidivism during the critical time of transition from prison to community. Social capital refers to a set of pro-social networks and resources that enable individuals to function effectively in the community (Bourdieu, 1986); 120 days may not be enough to develop clients’ social capital for successful reentry and thus change their criminal trajectory, but THB serves as a transitional stage for clients’ long-term reintegration into their communities. It is important to examine whether this program successfully linked clients to quality social networks for long term postrelease success. No research has been done about its effectiveness in aiding prisoners returning to the community.
This study can contribute to the literature in three important ways. First, it aims to understand the role of a nonprofit private reentry program in a shrinking city such as Buffalo through the lens of CTI. As a promising reentry model, CTI has been rarely used to assist returning prisoners in their transition from prison to the community. Also, much of the literature has examined the experiences of returning prisoners or the effectiveness of reentry programs, mostly in large urban areas, such as Baltimore (Visher et al., 2004), Chicago (La Vigne et al., 2004), Boston (Brooks et al., 2005; Western, 2018), and Washington DC (Solomon et al., 2001). Few studies were conducted in small metropolitan or rural areas (Garland et al., 2011; Wodahl, 2006). It is thus necessary to examine prisoner reentry experiences in various geographic and historical settings using the model of CTI. There can be geographic variation in reentry experiences and outcomes.
Second, this study examines the needs and obstacles ex-prisoners may have or face during the reentry process, as perceived by both ex-prisoners and reentry officers. Prior studies have examined perceptions of “public” reentry or parole officers or ex-prisoners regarding the needs and challenges faced by returning prisoners (Brown, 2004; Gunnison & Helfgott, 2007; Gunnison et al., 2015). What is missing in the literature is research on “private” reentry officers and ex-prisoners’ perspectives on the needs and challenges of reentry into society. It is imperative to look at the prisoner reentry process from multiple perspectives, helping address various barriers to reentry and thus reduce high recidivism rates among ex-prisoners.
This study explores the key research questions:
Additionally, this study examines whether there is a discrepancy in the perceptions of service quality and prisoner reentry between clients and staff in a nonprofit private reentry program.
Method
Sample
Table 1 reports the key demographic characteristics of participants. There is a total of 19 participants: 11 clients, six staffers, and two volunteers. Most clients are in middle or late adulthood (63.6%), male (100%), non-White (63.6%), never married (63.6%), and with at least a high school diploma (100%). The average length of prison time served by clients was 9.82 years with a range of 3–35 (SD = 9.94), and the types of crime for which they serve time in prison are violent crimes, such as assault, robbery, and murder; 72.7% of clients had a criminal record prior to their placement in prison. In addition, most staff are relatively young between the ages of 18 and 34 (66.6%), female (83.3%), White (66.7%), never married (66.7%), and with some college experience or higher (66.7%). The average length of staff’s working experience in the program was 33.5 months with a range of 3–96 (SD = 31.13). All volunteers are 55 years or older, female, White, married, and with a graduate degree.
Demographic Information for Participants.
Procedures for Data Collection and Analysis
The authors used both focus groups and individual interviews to obtain a broad and deep understanding of the experiences of returning prisoners and the roles of THB in the reentry process. The authors obtained institutional review board approval at their academic institution. Focus groups are useful to generate a wide range of information in an interactive group setting, while individual interviews are effective in soliciting disclosures of sensitive information. The combination of focus groups and individual interviews, plus staff and client data, helped enhance data richness and achieve a more comprehensive understanding of the reentry process.
Data collection took place between the late winter 2019 and early winter 2020. In 2019–2020, the authors conducted six email interviews and an in-person interview with the senior administrator to understand the structure and operation of THB. The in-person interview length was about 2 hr. Some of the data used in the analysis were compiled from the agency documents. Agency documents provided data on the three phases of THB.
In January 2020, the authors conducted focus groups with clients and staff in the facility of THB. They ran about 2 hr each. The authors conducted separate meetings, since each discussion might have been affected by the presence of another group. The program manager recruited participants via email and/or in-person. There were six staff and 11 clients for each focus group. In addition, the authors conducted additional follow-up (email and in-person) interviews with the program manager for clarification. The in-person interview length was about 1 hr. Finally, two volunteers were interviewed over the phone regarding the topic of community support for prisoner reentry. Each interview was about 25 min in length.
Participants were given about 20 min to complete an informed consent and a different set of questionnaires depending on their status. The questionnaires include both close- and open-ended items. Using the questionnaires as an interview guide, the authors began asking open-ended questions about the needs and obstacles of ex-prisoners and the role of THB in the reentry process. As needed, the authors used probing and prompting questions to mine deeper into topics. Key focus group questions that were commonly addressed to both clients and staff are listed in Table 2: Q1 = prison experience; Q2 = program effectiveness; Q3 = staff supervision style; Q4 = staff level of understanding; Q5 = staff as resource; Q6 = role of staff with criminal history; Q7 = satisfaction with community providers; Q8 = conflicts with community providers; Q9 = parole discretion; Q10 = community support.
Participants’ Perceptions of Prisoner Reentry.
With participant consent, the authors digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim all the group and individual interviews for analysis. All transcriptions were produced by a professional service (i.e., REV). The authors also took detailed notes and transcribed those notes after each interview. Participation was voluntary without any coercion, deception, and/or undue influence. The authors provided enough information about the research and obtained informed consent from all participants. Pseudonyms are used to protect their identities.
The authors reviewed all the data (transcripts, notes, agency documents, and others) to find any patterns in participants’ perceptions of the reentry process (for the procedures of qualitative research, see Richards, 2005). There was a series of recurring key words: needs, obstacles, a lack of programming in prison, gradual transition, reentry, CTI, parole violations, program discharges, parole revocations, recidivism, mandatory drug testing, treatment mandates, a lack of staff and resources, a lack of communication with parole officers, parole discretion, community misunderstanding, and NIMBY (Not In My Backyard). Finally, the authors identified six main themes within the key words: (1) needs of and obstacles to prisoner reentry, (2) use of CTI for prisoner reentry, (3) measuring intervention success, (4) lack of funding and resources, (5) lack of community understanding and support, and (6) lack of coordinated reentry efforts with the parole agency.
Supplementary Analyses Using t Tests
Given that qualitative research is often criticized for its potential bias of subjectivity (Maxfield & Babbie, 2015), t tests are used as a complement to the qualitative approach. Using the t tests, this study examines whether there is any significant difference in the perceptions of reentry process between clients and staff. If the test is significant at the .05 level, the means for the two groups do significantly differ; clients and staff have different views on each of the items regarding the reentry process. The use of t tests can reduce, to some degree, the problem of biased interpretations made by researchers and corroborate the findings obtained from the qualitative approach. The triangulation of qualitative and quantitative methods provides a more complete understanding of the prisoner reentry process than either of them alone (for the concept of triangulation, see Richards, 2005; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998).
Findings
Needs of and Obstacles to Prisoner Reentry
All participants (clients and staff) were asked about the needs and obstacles ex-prisoners have or face during the reentry process. Consistent with prior research, both groups identified the following needs of returning prisoners: meeting paroles mandates, programming and treatment, basic supplies (i.e., driver’s license, birth certificate, social security card, cell phone, medication, transportation, and work clothes), income, employment, education, psychological adjustment in the community, structure in daily life, life skills, positive social networks, and community support and resources. All participants noted that these needs should be monitored and addressed in every phase of THB, but a lack of resources to meet such needs often become an obstacle to successful reentry into the community.
As seen in Table 2, the above needs were often unaddressed during incarceration, and prisoners are rarely prepared for reentry. The item mean of clients (M = 2.45) is slightly higher than that of staff (M = 2.17). Staff are more likely than clients to believe that ex-prisoners were unprepared for reentry during incarceration. However, the difference is nonsignificant.
Both clients and staff noted that prerelease programming is often minimal and provided too late in prison to have a significant effect on reducing recidivism. Prerelease programming consists of only classroom instruction over a period of several weeks immediately prior to release. The topic of prerelease instruction entails how to create a resume, fill out an application for employment, and fulfill parole mandates. The information given in such a short period of time, prior to a prisoner’s release, is often outdated and not enough to address the underlying problems that drive criminal behaviors. Prisoners are also unable to absorb and retain new skills and information due to emotional “gate pains” (Petersilia, 2003). It is imperative to offer a wide range of prerelease programs earlier and more intensively during incarceration. The senior administrator noted in his/her interview that: You [prisoners] have three phases inside prison. Phase one is your welcome to prison. It’s pretty short. You literally go through like a workshop during the day, um, for about two weeks and it’s led by inmate facilitators…Then the bulk of your sentence is phase two. That’s going through your programs, working all of that stuff. Phase three is supposed to prep you for re-entry. Phase three is also facilitated by inmate facilitators, um, who had been incarcerated for a very long time, but they’re going to tell you what you need to know when we get out…I really think if from the beginning of one’s incarceration stage one, you know, you’re growing in that first phase…it starts there and all the way through should be connected in building, not after decades of incarceration, six weeks before you’re getting out, you go through this lame attempt at re-entry that’s giving you false information and then you’re being cut loose and sent out into the world…it’s overwhelming.
Both clients and staff noted that the primary needs of prisoner reentry in the first 30 days at THB are identified as: meeting parole mandates, undergoing programming and treatment, and receiving basic supplies. Meeting parole mandates is a bottom-line issue for clients on parole when there are competing needs. If clients violate any of the parole conditions, they will be at risk of returning to the prison. Given most clients have mental health and/or substance abuse problems, it is also critical to provide medication and treatment immediately upon release. Treatment compliance is one of the parole requirements as well. Finally, clients need basic supplies, such as identification documents, working clothing, and transportation, which are important to fulfill all parole mandates and other needs. It is important to inform clients of the information and resources to meet their basic needs in the first 30 days at THB.
Although some needs do not require immediate attention, they become a priority in the later phase of the intervention. Most participants 1 identified housing as crucial in promoting successful reentry to the community. Since it is difficult to secure an apartment of their own, clients often end up living with family, with friends, or in shelters. However, these living arrangements are temporary.
The next frequently identified needs entail income, employment, programming and treatment, psychological adjustment in the community, and structure in daily life. Obtaining employment often takes priority over other needs in the later phase of the intervention. While employment is a source of income to pay for life’s necessities, such as housing, food, transportation, and clothing, it also provides clients a sense of structure and control in their life. However, obtainment of employment is often implausible for various reasons, such as a lack of education, vocational training, and/or stable housing. Clients are often not able to work due to their physical disabilities. In addition, most clients experience psychological adjustment difficulties due to loneliness, stigmatization, and discrimination as they interact with community members for employment. Furthermore, given the chronic nature of mental illness and substance abuse, they need continued treatment and counseling. It is important to note that clients are more likely than staff to emphasize the importance of community support and resources and offender motivation for reentry. One client noted that: I think motivation for re-entry is very important for the guys just coming out. If the guys are not motivated, it doesn’t make any difference.
Offenders are involved in various interventions across the criminal justice process (Abadinsky, 2009). Interventions offered in prison, halfway houses, and the community should be built on one another and closely integrated in the reentry process. THB serves as a bridge between prison and community care at a critical time during the prisoner reentry process. Prisoners would then be able to make a transition to the community in a gradual, closely supervised process. One client noted that “taking little steps help them achieve…if they take big steps, they fall.” Since the intervention of THB is time limited, it is important to identify high-priority needs across each phase of the reentry process. Reentry services should be prioritized and provided in a timely manner.
CTI for Prisoner Reentry: Three Phases of THB
The foundation of THB rests on components found in a CTI model, which has been successfully used in the public health field over the past 30 years. THB uses three phases to support transitions from prison to the community: stabilization (1 month), habilitation (2 months), and reentry (1 month). Clients move to the next phase based on their adjustment and performance and receive different types of treatment and care. Before the first phase, new clients go through move-in procedures within the first 72 hr of their arrival to the facility. They are given a facility tour and welcome kit, are informed of housing restrictions, and sign the program contract. All participants (staff and clients) were asked to identify any reentry support at each phase that had helped clients’ transition from prison to the community.
The first phase, stabilization, focuses on helping clients to build a daily schedule and/or routine and engage with community providers for programming and treatment. Clients are required to develop their reentry plan, which includes goals and action plans. Clients also submit applications for entitlement benefits as a source of income (i.e., Social Security Disability, Supplemental Security Income, veterans’ disability compensation, and/or other public assistance) and to obtain all government identification (i.e., a driver’s license, a birth certificate, and/or a social security card). It is also important to help clients to meet any initial mandate of parole. Clients are linked to appropriate community resources for substance abuse, mental illness, anger management, and domestic violence. Finally, clients attend at least two case management sessions per week, focus groups, and in-house programming (i.e., Alcoholics or Narcotics Anonymous meetings and recreational activities).
The second phase, habilitation, focuses on helping clients to settle into day-to-day community life. Clients maintain the established network of community resources by fulfilling appointments with community providers. Staff evaluate a system of community links and adjust them as necessary, especially when there are any conflicts between clients and community providers. Clients begin building long-term goals for reentry, which include securing housing, obtaining a job, pursuing higher education, and/or seeking family reunification. Finally, clients attend at least one case management session per week, focus groups, and in-house programming.
The third phase, reentry, focuses on helping clients to build discharge plans for long-term postrelease success. Clients must attend weekly case management sessions to develop an exit plan. If necessary, last-minute adjustments are made to a system of community links for the continuum of care. At this phase, clients would have successfully obtained employment, secured suitable community housing, and/or been linked to higher education. Clients are also encouraged to facilitate focus groups and mentor newer clients.
In sum, the first 6 months outside of prison is generally a critical period during which most ex-prisoners are rearrested and return to prison. It is thus important to provide the most intensive supervision and services for ex-prisoners at each step of their transition to the community. While its three-phase system guides a reentry process of ex-prisoners, THB offers stable housing, reentry services, companionship, and other necessities. Five of the six staff members reported that they are well-acquainted with the three phases of THB and integrate them into their daily practice.
Challenges in Offering CTI
Intervention integrity is essential for successful implementation of CTI. It is defined as the degree to which an intervention is implemented as originally designed. This section discusses whether THB delivers CTI in a manner consistent with its prescribed mission and procedures. There are four challenges in offering CTI in the community: measuring intervention success, lack of funding and resources, lack of community understanding and support, and lack of coordinated reentry efforts between the parole agency and THB.
Measuring intervention success
Most prior studies used recidivism (parole violation, rearrest, reconviction, and reincarceration) as a measure of reentry success. Due to a lack of staff and resources, THB has not kept track of recidivism. Although recidivism is important and attracts more attention from the public, policy makers, and practitioners, it overlooks the process of how certain programs are implemented, as planned. If clients successfully participate in all treatment and programming without any program and parole violations and are satisfied with the reentry assistance, then reentry programs can be successful from the standpoint of both practitioners and ex-prisoners.
Unsuccessful discharges can be used to measure the effectiveness of THB. There are two routes to program discharges: program violations and parole revocations. First, 29% of clients (2016–2018) were unsuccessfully terminated from THB for program violations. Most unsuccessful discharges are due to drug distribution in the house, excessive drug use, threatening behavior, or combinations of the above. THB staff noted that most unsuccessful discharges occurred during Phase 2. There were two reasons. First, as clients become more comfortable being in the community and lose their initial motivation for reentry, they are likely to engage in drug use and threatening behavior against staff and other clients. During this phase, they meet up with old deviant friends and are reintegrated back into the lifestyles that lead to their imprisonment. Second, due to the use of a three-strikes rule at THB, clients are not likely to be unsuccessfully discharged until they are accused of the third rule violation. Within the three strikes disciplinary system, most unsuccessful program discharges happen in Phase 2. However, staff can terminate clients from the program for the first rule violation when the overuse of drugs derails the reentry process of other clients and when clients engage in serious threatening behavior.
Staff noted that age at prison release and length of sentence are important predictors of unsuccessful discharge from THB. Older clients with longer prison experience are less likely than younger counterparts to be unsuccessfully discharged from THB. This finding is consistent with the findings of prior research (Costanza et al., 2015). It is important to identify who can benefit most from the program and direct more resources to them. THB may consider developing tools of risk assessment and classification for the intake process. Developing risk assessment and classification provides critical information for supervision and treatment of ex-prisoners. Staff can make sound decisions about specific offenders on which to focus more attention or resources, contributing offender rehabilitation and community protection.
The number of unsuccessful discharges for program violations substantially increased from 19% in 2016 to 35% in 2018. The issue in question is whether the increase in the number of unsuccessful program discharges resulted from changes in client behavior or, instead, was due to changes in policy and practice toward program violations. Program violations are composites of clients’ behavior and staff’ decisions about how to respond to them. The senior administrator noted in the email correspondence: In January of 2016, we implemented our new program model and clearer definitions of what constituted a program violation. Prior to having a program model and a set of goals, we simply operated as a facility with beds. There were no clear, consistent expectations for clients nor partners such as DOCCS parole. As we moved along, we became a bit more strict [sic] in enforcing program violations and advocating for a client’s removal if it stood to risk the success of those around them. I believe the numbers increase as we continue to move away from simply a place with a bed, to more of a focused program.
In this particular case, unsuccessful program discharges and parole revocations may not be a useful measure of success to evaluate the effectiveness of THB. The increase in the number of unsuccessful program discharges and the decrease in the number of parole revocations are more attributable to the change in THB’s policy and practice toward program violations. It is difficult to interpret the high discharge and low revocation rates as a failure or success of THB to provide reentry services for clients.
Besides the measures of recidivism and program discharge, other performance outcomes are also important, but rarely used in the literature, to measure the effectiveness of reentry programs. Examples of performance outcome measures include securing stable housing, job obtainment, educational achievement, completion of treatment, and client satisfaction. For example, ex-prisoners’ adjustment to the programming and their satisfaction can be an important outcome measure of reentry success. As seen in Table 2, most clients and staff agreed or strongly agreed that THB has offered a wide range of reentry services and contributed to prisoner reentry. None of the participants disagreed with its contribution to prisoner reentry. Clients (M = 4.27) are more likely than staff (M = 3.67) to have a favorable perception of THB’s contribution to prisoner reentry. Although the mean difference is not statistically significant, clients tended to benefit from the intervention more than staff expected.
Despite deficiencies in the objective evidence (recidivism, parole revocations, and program discharges), interviews from clients and staff demonstrate that clients had a high degree of satisfaction with the overall quality of services offered by THB, such as housing conditions, focus groups, recreational activities, and case management. When clients were asked to express their outlook on the reentry to the community, whether it is positive or negative, all clients had a positive or at least a neutral outlook on reentry to the community.
Given the original CTI intervention is a 9-month program, 4 months is too short an amount of time to address the needs of ex-prisoners (i.e., stable housing, employment, education, and treatment) that require long-term planning and commitment. The DOCCS stipulates that clients can stay in THB for 120 days. Staff and clients noted that expanding the maximum length of stay would be desirable especially for ex-prisoners who are homeless and mentally ill. One client noted that: I think maybe a six-month window would be a little better for me. Like four months is kind of cramming everything in a short period of time. Having a little bit more time to get prepared for independence after the fact is, was really important.
A lack of funding and resources
THB provides emotional and instrumental support to help ex-prisoners at each step of their transition. The basic components of CTI entail individualized case management, community outreach for treatment and programming, and small caseloads. The issue in question is whether the intervention was appropriately implemented as planned at THB.
Individualized case management is one of the most important components of CTI. Staff should coordinate community resources to provide clients with quality reentry services that are customized according to an individual’s needs. In addition, one client noted that it sometimes took a couple of weeks to get a meeting with the case manager to fill out a health care job application; it is also important to have specialized workers in each area of job, housing, and medical treatment.
In the interviews with staff, a lack of staff and resources was identified as one of the challenges in offering CTI to clients. As one staff member reported: I would cut the residents that quantity of residents [sic] probably in half, maybe into a separate house with a whole separate way. Show off stuff to clients for sure. Um, we have 24 guys in the house and we typically have one to two staff members who are on at any given time. Right now, we don’t have a separate case manager. So, um, I am both the program manager and then Susan [pseudonym] and I are splitting the case management duties, which is a whole other complete separate job…I feel like a case manager to client ratio that’s most helpful is about 12 to one and we have about double that.
Maintaining a low staff-to-client ratio is integral to the provision of personalized case management for all clients. Currently, THB has 12 full-time workers. The staff-to-client ratio is 1:24 or 2:24, depending on staff availability and time of day. Although there is no universal staff-to-client ratio that is applicable across all halfway houses, staff believe that the staff-to-client ratio should at least be 1:12 at all times to ensure improved quality of services for reentry. Thus, staff can “monitor [clients] effectively, coach clients on daily living activities, follow up on room cleanliness and chore completion.” Inadequate staffing levels may increase the work stress of staff and reduce their job satisfaction, eventually leading to high staff turnover and low reentry service quality.
A lack of staff and resources can influence staff’s attitudes toward their jobs. Staff perceived themselves not only as a caseworker who assists clients with their day-to-day needs but also as a surveillance officer who enforces compliance with rules and laws. Their work exists on a continuum from casework to surveillance and cannot be easily categorized as either role. Three of the six staff noted they practice the role of surveillance during most of their work time; the other half practice the role of casework (M = 1.50). Clients perceived that the staff are somewhat casework oriented in daily interactions with clients (M = 1.40). No significant difference was found between the perceptions of staff and clients regarding the supervision styles of staff. Staff noted that they become more surveillance-oriented due to a lack of staff and do not have enough resources to do the kind of casework they believe is helpful for prisoner reentry. All staff experienced stress and strain from conflicting roles between casework and surveillance to meet the needs of both clients and THB.
There is a need to investigate the relationship between staff’s work attitude and social distance with clients. Prior research suggested that if staff are more supervision orientated, they become more socially distant from clients. Both clients and staff noted that staff understand the needs and challenges of reentry into society. Although the mean difference is not statistically significant, staff (M = 4.17) are more likely than clients (M = 3.6) to believe that they understand the circumstances which ex-prisoners face upon release. It was further reported that it is necessary to hire ex-prisoners who have similar socioeconomic backgrounds to clients as assistants in the reentry process (for clients, M = 3.64; for staff, M = 3.83). Clients tend to trust someone who has been through the same experiences. The difference is not significant.
In addition, staff (M = 4.17) are more likely than clients (M = 3.18) to believe that clients seek guidance and assistance from staff for their personal or reentry concerns. There is a significant discrepancy between the perceptions of staff and clients regarding the role of staff as a resource in the reentry process. Staff tend to perceive themselves as a resource in the reentry process more than clients think so. It is important to establish good communication and rapport with clients and ensure that they understand staff’s willingness to assist them in transitioning to the community. Clients can successfully complete supervision when they have positive social interactions with staff.
All participants were asked about their experiences in the service delivery of community providers. There is a perceived disconnect between the needs of clients and program availability. Many community providers offer various types of treatment to address the needs of clients, such as substance abuse, mental health, and/or domestic violence. Although there is no significant mean difference, staff (M = 2.5) were less satisfied than clients (M = 3.00) with the quality of service delivery of community providers and considered it to be below standard. In addition, staff (M = 3.17) are more likely than clients (M = 1.91) to believe that there are tensions and conflicts between clients and community providers. There is a significant mean difference in the perception of the relationship between clients and community providers.
The above disparities in the perceptions of the service delivery of community providers may result from the nature of staff’s work to connect clients with appropriate community resources for reentry. Staff often found few resources are available to address the needs of clients. It is also difficult for clients to attend appointments with community providers due to conflicting schedules between client work and treatment. If treatment is part of parole mandates, clients had to quit their jobs. Staff may see these issues as administrative challenges they confront in providing reentry services for clients. It is thus important to implement various in-house programming to make it easier for clients to fulfill their parole mandates.
A lack of community understanding and support
Community involvement is important to assist ex-prisoners in reentering the community (Bohmert et al., 2018). Volunteers have provided both instrumental and expressive support, which help clients develop a sense of belonging and deal with difficulties in psychological adjustment to the community (e.g., hopelessness, loneliness, stigmatization, and identity shift from prisoners to citizens). Clients can develop quality social networks with community members, which are characterized by expectations, obligations, responsibilities, and supports, among law-abiding people.
In the interviews, the common types of instrumental support from volunteers are identified as: finding housing, finding jobs, providing transportation, and/or providing material goods and foods. The typical types of emotional support from volunteers include being a positive role model, providing advice, friendship, and special outing, and/or helping with drug abuse. Most volunteers participate in THB through various nonprofit organizations (churches).
In addition, all participants were asked whether residents in the vicinity support THB’s efforts to reintroduce clients into the community. Both clients and staff took a somewhat neutral position regarding neighbors’ support in the reentry process (for clients, M = 3.10; for staff, M = 3.17). There is no significant difference between two means. In the interview, clients noted that they did not have any opportunities to interact with neighbors. Staff reported that the neighbors have not been actively involved in helping clients in THB. However, they have provided support in a more passive form. If clients got into trouble for any misbehavior, the neighbors would contact THB rather than calling the police.
In the interviews, staff identified a lack of community understanding and support as a challenge in offering reentry services to ex-prisoners. With the Second Chance Act grant, THB has had the opportunity to provide reentry services for individuals who are released from the county jail. The Second Chance Act of 2007 authorized funding and resources to government and nonprofit agencies to promote the successful reentry of ex-prisoners into the community (U.S. Department of Justice, 2020). When THB located the site for a new housing facility, there was strong NIMBY opposition among community residents, and eventually its housing plan was nullified. One staff noted that: Not in my backyard sort of thing…the reasons that they [community residents] gave were completely divorced from reality. They were saying, “Oh, we don’t want it.” The town hall meeting, they were saying [sic], “Oh, we don’t want murderers and rapists to live here.” Neither people who have murder charges, nor rape charges were coming out of the County jail.
In addition, the presence of halfway houses may decrease the market prices of homes and other properties. Furthermore, there may be civic pride concerns. Residents are concerned that their community can be stigmatized due to its relevance to ex-prisoners and correctional facilities, and its reputation can be at risk. Although many residents are favorable to the concept of halfway houses as an alternative to incarceration for both philosophical and financial reasons, they would not actually want to have one in their neighborhood for the above reasons (Abadinsky, 2009). Interviews with volunteers demonstrated that there can be spatial variation in the extent of NIMBY opposition. The respondent who lives in the minority-dominated inner city is more favorable to the placement of halfway houses in her neighborhood, compared to the respondent who lives in the white-dominated suburban area. One volunteer stated that: I already live in a neighborhood that has a lot of people who probably have been in prison at one time or another. And I live in the city…I live in an area that has considerable number of homeless people walking the streets…I live near a place that is a refuge for people who are on the streets…I see these people all the time…am I upset that they might live next door to me? Not at all.
A lack of coordinated reentry efforts between the parole agency and THB
In 1977, Meyer & Rowan coined the term “decoupling” (also known as loose coupling) to explain the disconnect between “form” and “function” of an organization. Form is how institutional practices are supposed to be. “Function,” in contrast, is how those mandates actually look (practiced) within the institution. With THB, this separation between prescribed requirements and actual praxis centers on one key item: funding from DOCCS.
The organizational pressures that DOCCS places on reentry programs, including THB, is known by scholars as isomorphism. DiMaggio and Powell’s (1983) influential publication on organizational behavior stated that isomorphism is “a constraining process that forces one unit in a population to resemble other units that face the same set of environmental conditions” (p. 149). Isomorphism, therefore, seeks homogeneity across an institutional field (Scott, 2007). This process of conformity provides institutions with scripts or templates to follow that signals their legitimacy among other institutions in a field. With legitimacy comes resources, institutional survival, and stability.
DiMaggio and Powell (1983) identified three forms of isomorphism: mimetic, normative, and coercive. Mimetic is when an organization copies or mirrors successful practices of others. Normative is driven by professionals in the field, often with credentials to underscore claims and standardize practices, via training, workshops, and other expertise-driven initiatives. Coercive involves pressure from “regulatory structures,” including government agencies and the law (Deflem, 2008, p.150; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Powell, 2007).
Coercive is the dominant isomorphic relationship between THB and DOCCS. It should be noted that though well-intended, these ritualized scripts that derive from isomorphism can “divorce” an institution from its true mission (Boutcher, 2009; Edelman, 1992). With approximately half of the operating budget derived from DOCCS, THB staff reported that they adhere to DOCCS mandates that negatively impact the mission and work of the reentry program. Respondents identified four key areas where decoupling occurred: drug testing, treatment mandates, parole discretion, and case conferencing.
First, parole requires THB to conduct “mandatory drug testing” that has no consequence on parole status. As the senior administrator stated: …we have to pay to purchase [sic] drug tests and we have to administer drug tests on a monthly basis to everybody in the house that don’t hold up or count towards anything for anyone [i.e., A “dirty tox” cannot be utilized as a violation of parole, as officers did not administer the drug test.]. But parole makes us do it.
Second, clients are required to participate in treatment programs, upon their release from prison (e.g., anger management, domestic violence, drug intervention), as prescribed by parole officers. These mandatory programs are facilitated by a select few organizations across the County that often conflict with clients’ work-day schedules. Since these treatment programs are not flexible, it is very challenging for clients to attend their programs in terms of the scheduled time and day. Therefore, clients are “forced to quit (employment opportunities), which spirals into all sorts of things” (e.g., relapse into criminal behavior). Furthermore, some clients do not need the “mandates” that parole officers have prescribed. They have not used drugs in decades, yet they are required to enlist in a narcotics program that serves no benefit to their current needs. One staff member elaborated their point of mandatory treatment programming by stating “…99% of the time parole officer’s boss’ boss’, boss is saying we have to check this box, so we are covered.” This additional “layer of hoops,” as several THB staff acknowledged, illustrates the level of disconnect DOCCS seemingly has with clients. That is, individual needs are secondary to DOCCS protocol. Nonetheless, given the ever-present funding concerns that could arise, THB “works with what they have” and motivate clients to accomplish treatment programs in a timely manner, as one staff member noted.
Third, discretionary decision making by parole officers can be a source of decoupling, which negatively influence the mission and work of THB. Both staff and clients noted that parole officers exercise broad discretion in determining whether and how to supervise parolees. Their decisions were reported as subjective and inconsistent, which can cause THB to deviate from its mission of providing fair treatment in the reentry process. Compared to clients (M = 3.27), staff (M = 4.17) are more likely to think that parole officers exercise too much discretion, which hinders the reentry of ex-prisoners. The perceptions on the discretion of parole officers did not statistically differ between clients and staff.
Fourth is the lack of mandatory case conferencing between THB and parole officers, with regard to each client. Staff noted that case conferencing with parole officers is a significant formal process that would reduce organizational decoupling. Case conferencing fosters important conversations about each client’s needs, which would strengthen the organization’s mission of successful reentry into society. Currently, as identified by staff, parole officers are not held accountable for case conferencing. This is despite, according to two respondents, “Written into the contract” between DOCCS and THB, is the requirement of case conferencing about clients.
This disconnect with the case conferencing requirement was most concerning to the administration. Parole officers often would intentionally not provide a full and detailed profile of potential clients’ needs, limitations, and criminal history. When pressed by the authors why this occurs, the response was that THB is used as a last resort when parole officers do not have any housing options to place parolees. If full disclosure of all parolees’ needs and histories was in place, as the staff reported, several past and current residents would not have been accepted into THB. They noted that THB is seen as “warehouse” of sorts for parolees and not viewed as a partner with DOCCS.
A recent case of an individual who had limited physical mobility was used as an example of the ongoing disconnect with information between parole officers and THB. The individual (parolee) required accommodations for an oversize wheelchair, along with other accessibility needs, which were not communicated in detail to THB by parole officers. The staff did not understand the breadth of the client’s needs until he arrived for intake at THB. Compounding the incident was that the same client was recently arrested for stealing items at a prior facility, for an ongoing drug problem. The administration noted that the parole officers likely knew that revealing the entire accessibility needs of the client, alone, would have prohibited the intake, not to mention the recent and ongoing criminal activities. Nonetheless, this and other incidents have become “the norm” for THB. In the interviews, staff noted that the lack of contractual dialogue between DOCCS and THB is a disservice to all parties, most importantly the clients. Much of the above concerns between parole officers and THB could be resolved by adherence to the contractual conference mandate between both entities.
Discussions and Conclusions
This study explored the needs, obstacles, and successes embedded in the reentry process, as perceived by clients and staff in a nonprofit private reentry program, through the lens of CTI. This study used focus groups and individual interviews, and such combination allows a more comprehensive understanding of the challenging reentry process, which is not usually allowed in a quantitative study of recidivism. Quantitative methods (t tests) were also used to improve validation of study outcomes through cross verification.
Consistent with the existing literature (Brown, 2004; Garland et al., 2011; Gunnison & Helfgott, 2007; Gunnison & Helfgott, 2011; Gunnison et al., 2015; Petersilia, 2003), “private” parolees and reentry officers have similar perspectives on the needs and challenges of prisoner reentry. THB offers not only various basic necessities of housing, food, clothing, and programming but also emotional support to deal with the stresses, strains, and pressures of community readjustment. All participants expressed a high degree of satisfaction with the reentry services given to clients in THB, which may corroborate the positive effects of halfway houses on postrelease success that were found in the quantitative studies (Costanza et al., 2015; Garrett, 1985; Lutze et al., 2014; Wong et al., 2019). However, there are several administrative challenges in offering CTI to ex-prisoners, such as a lack of measures of intervention success, a lack of funding and resources, a lack of community understanding and support, and a lack of coordinated reentry efforts between the parole agency and THB. Given these challenges are common among many reentry programs, it is important to help practitioners identify and address ongoing problems for successful prisoner reentry (Mears & Cochran, 2015).
There are several limitations to the study and corresponding implications for research. As an exploratory study, this research helped develop a preliminary understanding about a CTI model and its challenges in aiding ex-prisoners who return to the community. This case study research design allowed for an in-depth understanding regarding its staff and clients’ perceptions of CTI and prisoner reentry. Given the present study used a small sample of clients (n = 11), officers (n = 6), and volunteers (n = 2) from one city, the scope of study outcomes is limited to the case at hand. In addition, little scholarly attention was paid to whether the perceptions of CTI vary among individuals with different demographic characteristics. The focus of this study was to compare the perceptions of prison reentry between clients and staff. Future research should examine why certain types of individuals benefit more from CTI and/or perceive it more positively.
The NIMBY phenomenon was one of the important themes that emerged in this study. The placement of a halfway house generated community opposition, confirming the findings of prior studies (Abadinsky, 2009; Roman & Travis, 2004). Community perceptions also differed depending on the location of residence (inner cities vs. suburbs). Further research should examine whether the opposition to halfway houses is affected by residents’ demographic characteristics (e.g., age, gender, and education) and personal values (e.g., social welfare, safety, retribution, and political orientation). It would be also beneficial to explore whether the effects of residents’ demographic characteristics on the opposition to halfway houses are mediated by their personal values.
The overall perceived effects of CTI are positive in this study, but no information is available to assess its impact on the recidivism of clients. Since CTI is a relatively new intervention model, little quantitative research has been done on its effectiveness in reducing recidivism. The issue in question is whether offenders who participate in a CTI program are less likely than nonparticipants to experience parole revocations and commit new crimes. Given that it is difficult to discern the effects of a reentry program on recidivism from other confounding variables, researchers should use advanced matching and research methods to reduce potential threats to internal validity. All test subjects should be matched on a variety of relevant covariates, such as sentence length, offense type, age, race, marital status, and education level, all of which allow for making a valid comparison.
This study demonstrated a perceived disconnect between staff and parole officers in the prisoner reentry process. They may have different views on the operation of a reentry program—who should be eligible, how to be monitored, and how to deal with rule violations (for the information on a conflict of interest among multiple stakeholders, see Maxfield & Babbie, 2015). A lack of communication and coordination between staff and parole officers led to an occurrence of decoupling between formal policies and actual practices at THB. This study has just presented reentry officers’ story, and it is only a side of the story about decoupling. In this study, no data are available to discuss how parole officers differ from staff in regard to their perceptions of prisoner reentry and how parole policies and practices lead to a separation of formal policies from daily practices at THB.
Additional research opportunity centers on evaluating organizational decoupling from multiple points of view, which will fill an important gap in the literature. Future research should conduct in-depth interviews with staff, clients, and correctional personnel (e.g., parole officers and management) to investigate where the disconnects exist in services for clients. Organizational decoupling often results from a conflict of interest and views among various multiple stakeholders involved in the reentry process. This understanding of decoupling will aid in, what Hallett (2010) identified as recoupling, which is the tight connection between an organization’s purpose and practice. Aligned with this study’s findings, a significant step toward coupling previously decoupled policies and practices in a reentry program is the institutionalization of case conferencing between staff and parole officers. Case conferencing offers a broader understanding of clients’ past and needs, which could have important implications with prescribing resources for a successful transition back into society.
An interesting finding is that there was a difference between the senior administrator and one staff member in the perceptions of the in-house drug testing policy prescribed by DOCCS. Although the differences in opinion on in-house drug testing is not necessarily a matter of decoupling, with regard to institutional practice, there was a disconnect on the functionality of DOCCS’ mandate. Specifically, the senior administrator was more vocal in opposing the in-house drug testing policy. Although the staff member acknowledged the negative aspect of the in-house drug policy, they viewed it as a chance to find out about the clients’ drug problems and encourage them to abstain from drugs. Future research should examine whether years of experience or the position within an agency influences staff’s perceptions on prisoner reentry.
Given the reentry intervention is time limited, it is thus important to define and measure success in small steps for prisoner reentry. Prisoners are expected to address their underlying needs in manageable steps rather than address them all at once. The senior administrator noted in the interview that: Personally, I define it less by recidivism as I recognize it took a lifetime to bring the person to today, and more often than not, you cannot undo it all the first go around. For me, it is looking at the whole and tracking what positive, stabilizing and/or new tools we offered the individual that defines success. It is vital to recognize the small wins that allow an individual to start off farther along than the last time upon release.
Footnotes
Authors’ Note
The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in the article exclusively belong to the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any agency or organization.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
