What Influences Public Support of Transitional Housing Facilities for Offenders During Reentry?

• Author: Eric Wodahl,Caryn Saxon,Brett Garland
• Date: 01 February 2017
• Published date: 01 February 2017
• DOI: 10.1177/0887403414564866
• Subject Matter: Articles

Criminal Justice Policy Review

2017, Vol. 28(1) 18 –40

© 2014 SAGE Publications

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0887403414564866

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjp

Article

What Influences Public

Support of Transitional

Housing Facilities for

Offenders During Reentry?

Brett Garland1, Eric Wodahl2, and Caryn Saxon1

Abstract

Transitional housing facilities for released prison inmates have existed in the United

States since the early 1800s and are a promising strategy to aid offender reintegration.

One recurring obstacle to the successful implementation and sustainability of these

facilities is public resistance. Unfortunately, very little is known regarding what

influences public support or opposition specifically for offender-based transitional

housing. The current study examines how support for transitional housing centers

may vary among residents of a Midwestern state based on the proximity of the facility

and the types of offenders living there. The study also examines a range of possible

influences on support, including community factors, family-related considerations,

correctional and political views, and demographic variables. The most consistent

influence on acceptance of transitional housing centers was general support for helping

offenders during reentry. Other variables with more limited effects were an emphasis

on services and programming over monitoring and surveillance during reentry, having

a close family member imprisoned, age, and education level. Implications of these

findings and directions for future research are discussed.

Keywords

prisoner reentry, transitional housing, public attitudes, offender reintegration

1Missouri State University, Springfield, USA

2University of Wyoming, Laramie, USA

Corresponding Author:

Brett Garland, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Missouri State University, 901 S.

National Avenue, Springfield, MO 65897, USA.

Email: BrettGarland@MissouriState.edu

564866CJPXXX10.1177/0887403414564866Criminal Justice Policy ReviewGarland et al.

research-article2014

Garland et al. 19

In 2011, state and federal prisons released 688,384 offenders (Carson & Sabol,

2012). Compared with earlier decades, this statistic is strikingly high, as only

180,000 prisoners were released in 1980 (Lynch & Sabol, 2001). The high volume

of offenders transitioning back into society is alarming at many levels. As many as

two thirds of these released prisoners are expected to be rearrested for a new crime

within 3 years of release, raising significant public safety concerns (Langan &

Levin, 2002). Statistics also indicate that a disproportionately large number of

released prisoners are concentrated in a relatively small number of communities

(Urban Institute, 2006). This is generating excessive burdens on many businesses,

neighborhoods, and families struggling to accommodate a prisoner reentry over-

flow in the affected areas (Clear, 2007; Clear, Rose, & Ryder, 2001; Lynch & Sabol,

2001; Urban Institute, 2006). The influx of returning offenders has been over-

whelming for correctional agencies as well. With the bulk of correctional expendi-

tures being utilized to house and manage a prison population exceeding 1.5 million

inmates (Carson & Sabol, 2012), the budgetary capacity to meet the growing treat-

ment and service needs of offenders during their reintegration is severely strained

(Petersilia, 2001, 2003; Travis, Solomon, & Waul, 2001; Visher, La Vigne, &

Travis, 2004).

Recognizing the risk and implications for public safety and community stability,

criminal justice policymakers, government officials, community agency directors,

scholars, and other interested parties have set forth to identify key obstacles to suc-

cessful post-release adjustment and devise new, or modify existing, programs to

increase the odds of success (Byrne, Taxman, & Young, 2003; Petersilia, 2003;

Schlager, 2013; Seiter & Kadela, 2003). One obstacle routinely noted in the reentry

literature is the failure for some offenders to establish adequate and sustainable pro-

social housing arrangements (Metraux & Culhane, 2004; Roman & Travis, 2004;

Urban Institute, 2006). Most offenders stay with a family member or significant

other immediately following release (Nelson, Deess, & Allen, 1999; Urban Institute,

2006; Visher et al., 2004), although an estimated 10% of releases (approximately

68,000 offenders) are homeless (Roman & Travis, 2004). Recently released offend-

ers who locate housing often change residences as they struggle to gain financial

stability and pay for accommodations providing greater privacy and less burden and

stress to loved ones (Garland, Wodahl, & Mayfield, 2011; O’Brien, 2001; Richie,

2001; Urban Institute, 2006). O’Brien (2001) notes that establishing stable post-

release housing is important because it provides a place for physical and mental

decompression and a base of operations for planning and managing daily life.

Perhaps most important, the inability to obtain adequate post-release housing threat-

ens public safety by increasing the risk of recidivism (Metraux & Culhane, 2004;

Petersilia, 2001; Shlay & Rossi, 1992).

Transitional housing facilities (also called halfway houses and more recently resi-

dential reentry centers) are one mechanism for addressing housing difficulties for

released prisoners. Transitional housing centers are community-based residential

facilities typically operated by nonprofit agencies. In partnership with correctional

agencies and local service providers, transitional housing facilities monitor an offender