Work Release as a Transition: Positioning Success Via the Halfway House

Routh, Douglas; Hamilton, Zachary

doi:10.1080/10509674.2015.1024909

Cited by 11 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Outcome: Rearrest Hamilton and Campbell (2014) No difference between groups Lowenkamp and Latessa (2002) No difference between groups Lowenkamp, Latessa, and Smith (2006) No difference between groups Willison, Roman, Wolff, Correa, and Knight ( 2010 Greater odds in intervention participants Outcome: Reconviction Hamilton and Campbell (2014) No difference between groups Routh and Hamilton (2015) No difference between groups Lower in intervention participants a Outcome: Reincarceration Hamilton and Campbell (2014) No difference between groups Higher in intervention participants a Lowenkamp and Latessa (2002) Lower in intervention participants Lowenkamp, Latessa, and Smith (2006) Higher in intervention participants Routh and Hamilton (2015) No difference between groups Outcome: Parole revocation Hamilton and Campbell (2014) Lower in intervention participants Routh and Hamilton (2015) Lower in intervention participants Outcome: Any return to jail Hamilton and Campbell (2014) Lower in intervention participants Routh and Hamilton (2015) Lower in intervention participants a No statistical testing was undertaken; results based on raw percentages.…”

Section: Study Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Four studies reported re-arrest outcomes for study participants. In three of these, there was no difference in re-arrest between program participants and comparison participants (Hamilton & Campbell, 2014;Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2002;Routh & Hamilton, 2015). In the fourth study to examine arrest outcomes (Willison et al, 2010), three separate arrest measures were presented: prevalence, incidence, and time to arrest.…”

Section: Study Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Three studies reported re-conviction outcomes for study participants. Two of these studies found no difference in time until re-conviction between program participants and comparison participants (Hamilton & Campbell, 2014;Routh & Hamilton, 2015). The third study examined two re-conviction outcomes in a 2-year follow-up period: new felony convictions and any new conviction .…”

Section: Study Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The characteristics of each study are shown in Table 1. The included publications fell into two categories-six studies that included a matched sample (Hamilton & Campbell, 2014;Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2002;Lowenkamp, Latessa, & Smith, 2006;Routh & Hamilton, 2015) and three studies that used an unmatched comparison sample (Bell et al, 2013;Clark, 2015;Zhang, Roberts, & Callanan, 2006). Participants in all the studies were people who had recently been released from custody and were either released to supported accommodation or, in the case of comparison samples, were housed elsewhere.…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of the nine studies, seven were rated as being of moderate methodological quality (Clark, 2015;Hamilton & Campbell, 2014;Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2002;Lowenkamp et al, 2006;Routh & Hamilton, 2015;Zhang et al, 2006), and two as weak (Bell et al, 2013;Willison, Roman, Wolff, Correa, & Knight, 2010). No studies were randomised controlled trials.…”

Section: Risk Of Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

A Systematic Review of Supported Accommodation Programs for People Released From Custody

Growns

Kinner

Conroy

et al. 2017

Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the challenges that people recently released from custody face is securing housing. Many individuals rely on supported accommodation programs for housing in the immediate post-release period. However, the value of supported accommodation programs in producing positive criminal justice and health outcomes for people released from custody has not been widely examined. This article reviews the current literature on supported accommodation programs and the elements of these services that contribute to positive outcomes for individuals released from custody. We focused on programs that provided temporary, transitional group residences for adults recently released from a correctional setting. The systematic review identified only nine publications that met the inclusion criteria. Studies were frequently at high risk of bias and few consistent findings emerged about either effectiveness of accommodation programs or program characteristics associated with participant outcomes. Methodologically rigorous research is needed to determine the effectiveness of post-release supported accommodation programs.

show abstract

Section: Study Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Risk Of Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A Systematic Review of Supported Accommodation Programs for People Released From Custody

Growns

Kinner

Conroy

et al. 2017

Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Expanding the focus of correctional evaluations beyond recidivism: the impact of halfway houses on public safety

Han

2018

J Exp Criminol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Associations Between Supported Accommodation and Health and Re-offending Outcomes: a Retrospective Data Linkage Study

Gibbs,

Colledge-Frisby,

Farnbach

et al. 2024

J Urban Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Following release from prison, housing and health issues form a complex and mutually reinforcing dynamic, increasing reincarceration risk. Supported accommodation aims to mitigate these post-release challenges. We describe the impact of attending Rainbow Lodge (RL), a post-release supported accommodation service for men in Sydney, Australia, on criminal justice and emergency health outcomes. Our retrospective cohort study using linked administrative data includes 415 individuals referred to RL between January 2015 and October 2020. Outcomes of interest were rates of criminal charges, emergency department (ED) presentations and ambulance attendance; and time to first reincarceration, criminal charge, ED presentation and ambulance attendance. The exposure of interest was attending RL; covariates included demographic characteristics, release year and prior criminal justice and emergency health contact. Those who attended RL (n = 170, 41%) more commonly identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander (52% vs 41%; p = 0.025). There was strong evidence that attending RL reduced the incidence criminal charges (adjusted rate ratio [ARR] = 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.340.86; p = 0.009). Absolute rates indicate a weak protective effect of RL attendance on ED presentation and ambulance attendance; however, adjusted analyses indicated no evidence of an association between attending RL and rates of ED presentations (ARR = 0.88; 95% CI = 0.65–1.21), or ambulance attendance (ARR = 0.82; 95% CI = 0.57–1.18). There was no evidence of an association between attending RL and time to first reincarceration, charge, ED presentation or ambulance attendance. Greater detail about reasons for emergency health service contact and other self-report outcome measures may better inform how supported accommodation is meeting its intended aims.

show abstract

Work Release as a Transition: Positioning Success Via the Halfway House

Cited by 11 publications

References 32 publications

A Systematic Review of Supported Accommodation Programs for People Released From Custody

A Systematic Review of Supported Accommodation Programs for People Released From Custody

Expanding the focus of correctional evaluations beyond recidivism: the impact of halfway houses on public safety

Associations Between Supported Accommodation and Health and Re-offending Outcomes: a Retrospective Data Linkage Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About