The halfway house system is the last stop for many ex-convicts before re-entering society, making it a crucial component of the reintegration process that prevents recidivism. However, many halfway houses are run by for-profit companies that cut corners and help send former inmates back to prison.
What’s a halfway house?
A halfway house is a residence for people either serving part of their criminal sentence or transitioning back into society after being released.
Halfway houses give more freedom than prisons but still have rules and restrictions for residents, including treatment programs, work requirements and curfews.
The ideal halfway house focuses on re-entry preparation by training inmates for jobs and treating them for substance addictions.
Local representatives of the Bureau of Prisons make the decisions for which inmates go to halfway houses and how long they spend there. Prisoners with a high risk for recidivism, a lack of support systems and a history of good behavior are more likely to go to a halfway house.
We got some issues
Though there are many halfway houses that are well-managed and do help inmates re-acclimate to society, others are improperly supervised and staffed with unqualified employees.
Numerous halfway houses have had instances of violence, drug use and escapes. These problems have consistently popped up more as states have opted to let for-profit companies run halfway houses to save money.
New Jersey: Escapes, assaults and drug use
New Jersey houses around 4,000 offenders and parolees in its halfway houses, with a total budget for private halfway houses over $100 million. In order to save funds, the state has been shifting its halfway houses under private company management. It costs between $125 and $150 a day to house a prisoner in a state prison, but only $60 to $75 to put the same prisoner in a re-entry facility.
However, the houses have a huge problem with escapes, and former employees have reported drug and alcohol use and crime and violence. Former employees of Robinson Center in New Jersey reported that the residents regularly asked to be returned to the state prison system because they felt safer there. While it sounds crazy to feel safer in prison, it’s not all that surprising when considering that the facility stationed one or two staff members to oversee 170 inmates; robberies and assaults ran rampant.
When Mercer County conducted a surprise drug test at the Robinson Center in 2009, 73 percent of residents tested positive, this despite the need for halfway houses to help treat addiction in order to reduce recidivism.
After a New York Times expose in 2012 revealed the rampant problems in New Jersey’s halfway houses, the state legislature began imposing fines for escapes.
As these fines were being imposed, however, Gov. Chris Christie reduced halfway house oversight by decreasing disclosure requirements and weakening requirements for audits of halfway housing. Christie is a former lobbyist for Community Education Centers, the state’s largest for-profit halfway house company.
Florida turns a blind eye to a broken system
Florida’s primary problem with its halfway houses has been a lack of oversight and regulation. A 2012 report by the Tampa Bay Times revealed that the state was improperly screening those who operate reentry facilities.
One operator, Troy Charles, had an extensive criminal record before opening up a halfway house. Charles had claimed to offer addicts a safe, sober place to get treated, but he was actually taking the residents’ money to purchase drugs. After fatally shooting one of his residents, he returned to jail.
[postquote]
This has been a common occurrence in Florida because state officials do not require re-entry facilities to be licensed, making it impossible to track these incidents. It is not even known how many halfway houses are operating in Florida, such is the comprehensive lack of oversight.
State legislators have tried and failed to increase regulation. A bill introduced by Florida state Sen. Jeff Clemens to regulate halfway houses died in committee in April 2014, and a similar bill had failed the previous year.
Pennsylvania: High recidivism rates
Pennsylvania’s halfway houses have been criticized for their inability to help former inmates stay out of prisons. A 2013 study by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections found that prisoners sent to halfway houses were actually more likely to re-offend than those who were released directly from prison, thus negating any cost savings the house originally offered.
The study actually prompted Pennsylvania to make changes: Private companies are now paid based upon their recidivism rates and can lose state contracts if they fail to meet targets.
Our take
The main themes in problems with halfway houses is the lack of oversight and the discrepancy in motivation between society and the private companies.
The first problem can easily be fixed by introducing legislation to increase government vetting of halfway houses, including meaningful ways to track facility conditions and processes.
The second would ideally be resolved by ending the practice instead of sending former inmates to companies that view them as profit margins as opposed to people in need of rehabilitation and reintegration.
However, assuming state governments don’t have the funds to take the halfway houses under their control, Pennsylvania’s move to financially incentivize lower recidivism rates is the right idea.
If financial pressure is forcing our state governments to use for-profit companies for halfway houses, we must at least find ways to enforce the safety and success rates at these institutions.
Have something to add to this story? Comment below or join the discussion on Facebook.
Header image: Getty
