Coming Home: Providing Supportive Housing and Reducing Recidivism Among Special Needs Parolees

Background and Purpose:

Research indicates that homelessness among previously-incarcerated individuals correlates with recidivism (Zhang, Roberts, & Callanan, 2005; The United States Interagency Council on Homelessness, 2008). Too often, persons find themselves exiting the prison system and immediately facing homelessness. It is estimated that recently paroled persons experience homelessness at a rate of 10% -27% (Law, 2005). A review of parole agents' reports in Michigan's Washtenaw County, a large, urban area, found that in fiscal year 2006, over 42.5% of these returning citizens were homeless at the time of their release. Of those, 49% needed permanent, supportive housing due to a mental or physical illness/disability. The reality that previously-incarcerated persons with special needs are disproportionately represented among both the homeless parolee population and among recidivists is supported by the literature (Osher, Steadman, & Barr, 2003; US Department of Justice, 2007).

A clear relationship exists between high rates of homelessness among Washtenaw County parolees and recidivism rates, which at 76% is significantly above the state average of 48%. Those returning home to Washtenaw County have a more difficult time securing transitional and permanent housing here than in any other county involved in the Michigan Prisoner ReEntry Initiative (MPRI).

With funding from the JEHT/Community Foundation, twenty vouchers were designated for mentally ill and/or physically disabled MPRI participants for a two-year pilot program. The initiative's primary goal is to reduce recidivism among this high-risk population by providing permanent, supportive housing and supportive housing services.

Methods:

Qualitative methods were utilized to evaluate the efficacy of this pilot program. Twenty participants with a mental or physical illness/disability had just been released from prison into the MPRI program. Twenty-five participants were service providers supporting MPRI consumers in the areas of housing, mental health, employment, or parole maintenance.

Six focus groups were held for the two groups to gather feedback about participants' experiences with the MPRI program. Fifteen in-person or phone interviews were also conducted with participants. Interviews solicited feedback about service provision, quality, and associated relationships between providers, parolees, and MPRI administration. The focus groups and interviews were audio recorded and analyzed using a grounded theory approach.

Results:

Results indicate that providing housing and supportive services to parolees with special needs reduces the rate of recidivism, both in terms of parole violations as well as new crimes. Parolees identified housing and social services as the most valuable aspects of the program. Providers reported that establishing community partnerships enhanced service provision and created valuable support networks for parolees.

Conclusions and Implications:

Multi-system cross collaboration aimed at providing intensive community-based services to parolees facilitates re-integration by removing barriers to successful re-entry. By helping parolees obtain housing, build social supports, establish community ties, and address physical and mental health issues, the MPRI program creates proactive safety nets.

Future large-scale research is needed to establish support for this program. Other areas for study include comparing efficacy in rural versus urban communities, using more rigorous designs, creating manualized models, and assessing treatment integrity and fidelity.