Voices of Returning Citizens: A Qualitative Study of a Supportive Housing Program for Ex-Offenders in a Rural Community
| Author | Katherine Ely,Edward I. Bowman |
| Published date | 01 September 2020 |
| Date | 01 September 2020 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0032885520939273 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2020
Article
The Prison Journal
2020, Vol. 100(4) 423 –446
Voices of Returning
© 2020 SAGE Publications
Article reuse guidelines:
Citizens: A Qualitative
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885520939273
DOI: 10.1177/0032885520939273
journals.sagepub.com/home/tpj
Study of a Supportive
Housing Program for
Ex-Offenders in a Rural
Community
Edward I. Bowman1 and Katherine Ely1
Abstract
Stable housing is a critical need for offenders at reentry and an urgent need for
offenders returning to rural communities. Stable housing provides a foundation
for life changes impacting recidivism and desistance. For rural jail populations,
there are unique challenges in securing stable postrelease housing. In this
qualitative study, we explore the impact of a supportive housing program
through interviews with ex-offenders. The study examines how changes
related to stable housing affect life course trajectories and transform social
relationships. The research adds to the literature through narrative accounts
of the importance of supportive housing for rural offender reentry.
Keywords
rural jail reentry, supportive housing, narrative accounts
Introduction
The importance of stable housing during reentry cannot be overstated.
Housing is recognized as a primary need during reentry and is a foundation
for successful reintegration.
1Lock Haven University, PA, USA
Corresponding Author:
Edward I. Bowman, Department of Criminal Justice, Lock Haven University, 301 W. Church
Street, Lock Haven, PA 17745, USA.
Email: ebowman@lockhaven.edu
424
The Prison Journal 100(4)
Conversely, failure to maintain stable housing can lead to further criminal
involvement. Although most offenders returning to their community rely on
family, friends, or a significant other for housing, some will end up homeless.
Regardless of whether offenders are returning to their community from prison
or jail, they are more likely to have experienced a period of homelessness
prior to arrest and are more likely to experience a period of homelessness
upon release when compared with the general population (see Schlager,
2013, p. 52). Notably, homeless individuals are more likely to be justice-
involved. Finally, the relationship between housing and crime, although com-
plex, increases the risk of homelessness by eroding family and communal
ties, employment opportunities, and access to public housing (Metraux &
Culhane, 2006).
In response to issues of homelessness, crime, and jail reentry, one rural
county in Pennsylvania created a supportive housing program in which local
offenders were transitioned from jail into stable housing. The Justice Bridge
Housing Program (JBHP) was designed as a supportive housing program1for
eligible offenders transitioning from jail into the community. Offenders were
provided with rental assistance from the housing authority, and once released,
the agency would help subsidize rent and employment with the offender
toward achieving self-sufficiency. This study documents the experiences of
offenders placed in the JBHP at the time of release. Importantly, the experi-
ences of offenders in a supportive housing program are explored in the con-
text of jail reentry in a rural community. Several studies have documented
housing as a unique challenge for offenders returning to rural communities.
Other studies have explored the burden offenders place on public housing
systems as well as the strain on family or friends. This analysis explores
housing’s transformative qualities on offenders as they reintegrate into a rural
community. Furthermore, this research documents that housing instability is
a critical factor in prior criminal behavior, with stable housing offering oppor-
tunities to overcome a criminal past.
Home
In the epilogue to Evicted, Matthew Desmond (2016) writes that “home is the
center of life . . . the wellspring of personhood . . . encompassing not just
shelter but warmth, safety, family—the womb” (p. 293). In the Wizard of Oz,
Dorothy laments, “There is no place like home,” and we are probably famil-
iar with the proverb, “Home is where the heart is.” When it comes to the
American experience, home has a practical and symbolic meaning; home as
both a shelter and an expression or manifestation of self (Doyle, 1992).
Perhaps more importantly, a stable home contributes to psychological and
Bowman and Ely
425
community stability. It is the location where social relationships are formed,
“where meals are shared, quiet habits formed, dreams confessed, traditions
created” (Desmond, 2016, p. 294).
While most would agree that a home or housing is foundational to our
safety and well-being, obtaining stable housing for many offenders is a daunt-
ing challenge. Typically, offenders face a combination of individual, social,
and economic obstacles or outright barriers to housing stability (Fontaine &
Biess, 2012; Lutze et al., 2013). Individual factors include poor work histo-
ries, low educational achievement, mental and physical illness, and substance
abuse (Fontaine, 2013; Fontaine & Biess, 2012; Greenberg & Rosenheck,
2008; Hammett et al., 2001). In addition, offenders often faces significant
financial barriers, including limited credit or rental history and low financial
resources (Gunnison & Helfgott, 2011). Substantial social barriers also con-
tribute to housing instability for offenders and are found in the “not in my
backyard” or NIMBY literature (Garland et al., 2011; John Jay College of
Criminal Justice & The Fortune Society, 2011). Despite growing support for
supportive housing programs for offenders (see Metraux et al., 2008), there is
an overriding concern from community members for their personal safety
(i.e., victimization) and “pure, unrequited fear” about having residents who
are offenders living in their community (John Jay College of Criminal Justice
& The Fortune Society, 2011, p. 5). Living with family members can also be
difficult due to strained relationships, poverty, or criminality in the family of
origin (Fontaine & Biess, 2012; Martinez & Christian, 2009; Schlager, 2013).
Finally, economic barriers are the most frequently cited community member
concern for the impact offenders might have on property values (Dear, 1992).
There is growing public interest in supportive housing for offenders
(Metraux et al., 2008) as well as greater receptiveness among policymakers
to support programs that contribute to successful offender reintegration
(Lutze et al., 2013). Moreover, supportive housing reduces recidivism, makes
neighborhoods safer, promotes family re-unification, and is more humane
and cost-effective than re-incarceration (Rodriguez & Brown, 2003; Seiter &
Kadela, 2003). Homelessness and residential stability are considered critical
and primary challenge facing offenders and their chance to achieve success-
ful community reintegration (Gunnison & Helfgott, 2011; Lutze et al., 2013;
Schlager, 2013).
Homelessness in Rural Communities
Obtaining permanent or stable housing is a “daunting challenge” (Bradley
et al., 2001), and for offenders re-entering rural communities, the challenge of
securing stable housing is unique (see Wodahl, 2006). Unlike urban
426
The Prison Journal 100(4)
populations, rural homelessness is not as recognizable or visible and therefore
not given the same attention, resources, or funding as that of homelessness in
urban areas (National Health Care for the Homeless Council [NHCHC], 2013;
White, 2015). In addition, patterns of homelessness in rural communities
include individuals living in a limited number of shelters, doubling up with
family or friends, and inhabiting substandard housing, vehicles, outdoor loca-
tions, and abandoned buildings (NHCHC, 2013, p. 2). The rural homeless are
also more “dispersed,” creating unique challenges to service access and deliv-
ery. According to the NHCHC (2013), barriers inhibiting access and provision
of services across rural settings include the following: limited shelter beds, lack
of affordable housing, large service areas, lack of public transportation and
outreach, and individual reluctance to seek government assistance (p. 2).
Offenders returning to rural communities often face unique challenges for
securing housing due to a lack of economic opportunities, persistent poverty,
and diminished funding for housing rehabilitation (White, 2015). Finally, rural
offender economic obstacles to reentry include a shortage of affordable hous-
ing and inadequate financial resources to pay a security deposit and first
month’s rent (Fontaine & Biess, 2012; Geller & Curtis, 2011).
Supportive Housing Challenges in Pennsylvania’s
Rural Communities
In Pennsylvania, there is a critical need to examine the availability of hous-
ing for offenders re-entering rural communities. According to the Center for
Rural Pennsylvania, 48 of 67 counties (72%) in Pennsylvania are defined as
rural by the Center from Rural Pennsylvania.2 In terms of reentry, trends
indicate there were approximately 9,408 prison inmates released to
Pennsylvania’s rural counties in 2018, while an estimated 56,281 jail inmates
were released to a rural community (see Zajac et al., 2014). By comparison,
86% of the offenders in Pennsylvania are released from a local jail to a rural
community, while 14% are released from prison. Based on previous research
(Fontaine, 2013; Wodahl, 2006), some of these offenders will...
To continue reading
Request your trial