The Effect of Housing Circumstances on Recidivism: Evidence From a Sample of People on Probation in San Francisco

• Author: Aaron Gottlieb,Leah A. Jacobs
• DOI: 10.1177/0093854820942285
• Published date: 01 September 2020
• Date: 01 September 2020
• Subject Matter: Articles

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2020, Vol. 47, No. 9, September 2020, 1097 –1115.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820942285

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2020 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

1097

THE EFFECT OF HOUSING CIRCUMSTANCES

ON RECIDIVISM

Evidence From a Sample of People on Probation in

San Francisco

LEAH A. JACOBS

University of Pittsburgh

AARON GOTTLIEB

University of Illinois at Chicago

The relationships between housing circumstances and recidivism are well established among people released from prison.

Despite probation being far more common than prison or parole, we know little about living situations, homelessness, and

residential instability among people on probation, and we know even less regarding how these housing circumstances may

affect their risk of recidivism. Using a unique dataset of 2,453 people on probation and longitudinal analyses, this study finds

that housing insecurity is common and is associated with an increased risk of recidivism among people on probation, above

and beyond an array of other recidivism risk factors. Furthermore, we find housing effects are particularly strong for rela-

tively low risk people and for relatively low-severity offenses (i.e., property crimes, minor crimes, and revocations).

Interventions that increase housing access for people on probation may reduce recidivism, especially for those who are rela-

tively low risk and low-level reoffending.

Keywords: probation; recidivism; risk factors; criminogenic needs; community supervision; reentry

INTRODUCTION

In the United States, probation departments supervise 3.6 million people (Jones, 2018).

Dramatically overshadowing the number of people incarcerated, probation is the largest site

of correctional control. Probation has the potential to become an even larger site of correc-

tional intervention, as states seek to reduce costs (Justice Reinvestment Initiative, 2013).

Although some reformers view expanding probation as a decarceration strategy, extending

corrections in this manner has yet to have such an effect (Phelps, 2013, 2017) In part, proba-

tion’s ability to facilitate decarceration is hindered by recidivism. Estimates suggest that

AUTHORS’ NOTE: We have no known conflicts of interest. Correspondence concerning this article should

be addressed to Leah A. Jacobs, School of Social Work, University of Pittsburgh, 2117 Cathedral of Learning,

4200 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15260; e-mail: leahjacobs@pitt.edu.

942285CJBXXX10.1177/0093854820942285Criminal Justice and BehaviorJacobs, Gottlieb / Housing and recidivism risk

research-article2020

1098 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

40%–65% of people on probation are rearrested (Geerken & Hayes, 1993; Petersilia &

Turner, 1991; Whitehead, 1991).

People on probation have a variety of social and economic needs that may promote

recidivism. Lack of stable housing may be among these needs. Research suggests that hous-

ing instability and homelessness is common and related to recidivism among other justice-

involved groups, such as those released from prison (Clark, 2016; Harding et al., 2016;

Lutze et al., 2014; Steiner et al., 2015). Prior research also suggests that the effect of hous-

ing on recidivism can vary within these groups (see, for example, Harding et al., 2016) and

by reoffense type (see, for example, Clark, 2016; Steiner et al., 2015). To date, however,

relatively little is known about the housing circumstances of people on probation, the rela-

tionship between their housing circumstances and recidivism, or factors that alter the

strength of those relationships.

In this study, we address this gap by describing three housing circumstances—living

situation, homelessness, and residential instability—among people on probation and testing

the relation between these circumstances and recidivism. To understand potential sources of

effect variation, we also test whether the relation between residential circumstances and

recidivism differs by level of criminal risk or reoffense type (i.e., drug, person, property,

and minor crimes, or revocations). First, we contextualize our study of residential circum-

stances and recidivism among people on probation, describing extant research on other

justice-involved groups.

HOUSING CIRCUMSTANCES AMONG THE JUSTICE-INVOLVED

As noted above, securing stable housing is a common challenge for people with

criminal records (Dong et al., 2018a; Evans et al., 2019; Geller & Curtis, 2011;

Herbert et al., 2015; Keene et al., 2018; Petersilia, 2003; Roman & Travis, 2006).

Among people released from prison, best estimates suggest that most exit to live with

parents, nearly one third experience some form of housing instability, and about 10%

experience homelessness in the year following release (Clark, 2016; Geller & Curtis,

2011; Roman & Travis, 2006; Steiner et al., 2015). What limited research has been

conducted with people on probation has found that housing is also a priority issue

among this groups. In a survey of people on probation in Rhode Island (n = 304),

more than 20% reported being homeless (Dong et al., 2018a; see, also, Dong et al.,

2018b). We know of no study to date that has captured living situation or housing

instability among people on probation.

Several factors challenge housing access for the justice involved. In the private market,

housing is difficult for people with a criminal record to obtain because basic prerequisites

are often out of reach (i.e., reference letters from previous landlords and deposits), and

because landlords can explicitly bar potential tenants due to criminal records (Clark, 2016;

Travis et al., 2001). Public housing is also difficult for people with criminal records to

obtain due to long waitlists, challenging bureaucracy, and criminal history exclusions

(Clark, 2016; Geller & Curtis, 2011; Keene et al., 2018; Roman & Travis, 2004). Furthermore,

recent growth in rental prices and wage stagnation (Desmond & Bell, 2015) join the above-

mentioned barriers to constrain access to affordable, stable housing among justice-involved

persons.