Removing Release Impediments and Reducing Correctional Costs: Evaluation of Washington State’s Housing Voucher Program

Abstract

Homelessness is a persistent problem facing offenders returning to the community from prison. Many offenders were homeless prior to incarceration, and often return to homelessness after release. Additionally, the costs of incarceration have led policy-makers to consider large-scale alternatives to rapidly and effectively reduce correctional costs. The Washington State Department of Corrections’ Housing Voucher Program (HVP) is a reentry program that seeks to divert offenders from homelessness by paying for returning offenders’ rent expenses in private housing for up to three months following their release. The current study provides an impact evaluation and cost assessment of HVP. Findings demonstrate support for the program and indicate dramatic reductions in associated correctional costs.

Keywords:

• community corrections
• parole
• housing
• reentry

Acknowledgments

This publication would not be possible without the contributions of those involved at the Washington State Department of Corrections. Specifically, we are appreciative to David Daniels, Theodore Lewis, Peter Graham, and Teri Herold-Prayer for their provision of data and program expertise.

Notes

1. Wraparound services are those designed to bridge the gap between prison and the community to assist participants with reintegration, which often includes an array of eclectic services addressing offender needs such as: employment, education, cognitive behavioral treatment, and family counseling (Wilson & Davis, 2006).

2. In conjunction with the state legislature.

3. These programs are often referred to as “Good Time” in many states (Petersilia, 2001).

4. It should be noted that all participants have committed a felony and are to be incarcerated by the Washington State DOC. Misdemeanant incarcerations occur at the county level and are not part of the DOC’s jurisdiction. One exception to this division is time served, where an offender who detained prior to trail will accrue time that is put toward their felony incarceration. If the time remaining following the reduction for time served is less than one year, the offender will serve their time in a county jail facility. The HVP program is designed for the higher risk felony population and does not serve misdemeanants sentenced to serve their incarceration at the county level.

5. Supervision levels are established prior to release and mandate the frequency of minimum contacts between the releasee and their community supervision officer.

6. The WADOC began entry of inmate’s pre-release assessments on this date; therefore, only subjects released after this date would have the requisite data needed to complete the propensity score model.

7. A minimum of 30 days as used as this is a known WADOC proxy indicator for housing residency approval restrictions. ERDs are uncommonly delayed for other reasons such as: delayed release planning/investigations, delays in required notification of release to local law enforcement, and those under consideration for civil commitment. These issues are often handled within a few days but sometimes take a few weeks to sort out. The WADOC indicated that all issues beyond residency denials are removed within 30 days. This pattern was confirmed though an investigation of ERD delays following the implementation of the housing voucher program.

8. The full table of descriptives used to create the PSM and examine match diagnostics is provided in Appendix I.

9. A potential instability exists when using new arrests as an outcome measure. Often subjects are arrested (sometimes on multiple counts), only to be released or have several counts dropped from the final arrest charge. To diminish this issue new charges were used.

10. Although participants may receive up to three months of vouchers, those that secure employment to sustain housing costs ameliorate the need for voucher provision, terminating their participation in the program.

11. Recidivist events include measures of any new criminal charge, misdemeanor charges, felony charges, and reincarcerations for new convictions.

12. Community supervision violation events include any technical violation, technical violations that result in a confinement sanction, and violations that result in revocation of community supervision.

13. Six new staff members were hired to support the additional supervision and administrative demands of the program. The average salary was calculated at 55,000 for all members over two years. These costs were incorporated into the estimates provided to support Hypothesis3.

14. Releasees assessed to be low risk were moved to a kiosk system, eliminating their requirement for face-to-face contacts with community supervision officers.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Zachary Hamilton

Zachary K. Hamilton, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice and Criminology at Washington State University. His most recent publications on offender reentry and alternatives to incarceration have appeared in Criminal Justice and Behavior and Offender Rehabilitation. His research interests include corrections, offender reentry, alternatives to incarceration, substance abuse treatment, and quantitative methods.

Alex Kigerl

Alex C. Kigerl, M.S. is a doctoral student and research assistant at Washington State University in the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology. His research interests include corrections, personality theory, and cybercrime with a focus on email spam and digital piracy. His work has appeared in the International Journal of Cyber Criminology and Social Science Computer Review.

Zachary Hays

Zachary R. Hays, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice and Criminology at Washington State University. His primary research interests include policing, criminological theory, quantitative methods, and the intersections of communities, crime, and justice. His work has appeared in Social Problems and the Journal of Crime & Justice.