![Sample our Health and Social Care journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5938/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Health-Social-Care.jpg"})
Abstract
Individualized case management services that identify and provide support for treatment, housing, and employment may improve opportunities for success for those housed in community residential facilities (CRFs) upon release, particularly when evaluated against the goals of reducing the length of stay in the CRF and reducing the rate of return to prison among a targeted parole population with severe mental health needs and moderate-to-high criminogenic risk. Following an experimental design with random assignment design, this study evaluated 349 participants who were eligible for specialized case management services while housed and released from a CRF between January 2018 and June 2019. Findings reveal that participants who received specialized service referrals significantly decreased their length of stay in the CRF compared to the control group. Successful program completion was further related to a reduced length of stay and a significant reduction in the likelihood of returning to prison.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 Community residential facilities are also commonly known as halfway houses.
2 Prior to starting the study, ethical approval was obtained for all protocols from the local institutional review board (IRB-2020-122).
3 A total of 34 individuals across the program (22 individuals) and control (12 individuals) groups declined or revoked consent for participation across the lifespan of the study resulting in differential final sample sizes by group. There were no significant differences noted between those who revoked consent and those who remained in the study.
4 Differences in rates of completion were stable between the two facilities. At Facility A, 81 of their 85 program participants (95.29%) completed their stay compared to 77 of the 96 control group participants (80.21%). The difference across groups was statistically significant (x2 = 9.25, p < 0.01). At Facility B, 77 of their 84 program participants (91.67%) completed their stay compared to 63 of the 84 control group participants (75.00%). Again, this difference was statistically significant (x2 = 8.40, p < 0.01). However, the rate of difference in completion of stay between program and control groups was not significantly different between sites for those enrolled in the program group (x2 = 0.703, p = 0.402) or in the control group (x2 = 0.914, p < 0.339).
5 This type of model specifies a functional form for the influences of the independent variables without assuming a predetermined structural form for the baseline hazard rate. This type of model accommodates the non-constant hazard rates over time while allowing for the examination of covariate effects on the event of interest in a flexible and robust manner.
6 Hazard rate refers to the probability of survival, or in other words the probability of obtaining permanent housing or successfully completing the program. Increased hazard rates at the participants’ arrival represent the increased probability of reaching the end point (successful completion/permanent housing) first. This suggests that expected completions during a given day are higher for participants at their initial point of arrival. As the hazard rate declines, the days in the CRF are increased, and successful completion rates decrease.
7 Due to the small numbers of participants in the “Other Race” category as used in the previous models, these models included a dichotomized race/ethnicity variable where all Non-White participants are included in the reference category.
8 Among the final sample, only a total of 20 individuals were reincarcerated, with 15 from the program group and 5 from the control group. Among those who returned to prison from the program group, sixty percent (60%) did not successfully complete the program. These results should further be interpreted with caution due to the variable and limited amount of time individuals may have been in the community after completion of their stay in the transitional facility. Among the 298 individuals who completed their stay, there was an average of 265 days between when participants left the facility and the end of the data collection period, with a range of 0 to 541 days. A greater percentage of participants in the control group had not completed their stay in the transitional center prior to the end of the study period, therefore over-representing program participants among those who could be reincarcerated.
9 Among those who completed the program, the response rate for those who completed the survey was 65 percent. The Human Service Specialists found that tracking participant data and distributing the evaluation surveys was difficult due to the fast rate in which participants came in to and left the program. To alleviate this issue, the Human Service Specialists began working with parole to distribute and return the surveys, which led to an increased and consistent response rate.