In general, have RCCFs been successful in lowering recidivism rates in the United States? Be sure to fully explain your answer

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

As with other community-based programs, the effectiveness of halfway house programs cannot be readily compared because wide variation exists in the quality of programs and in the types of offenders admitted. Effectiveness has typically been measured by examining the program success or failure rates or by comparing recidivism rates of halfway house residents with those of a matched sample of probationers or parolees. Latessa and Travis (1992) found that RCCF residents had more treatment needs than regular probationers or parolees, and as a result, RCCF clients received more treatment intervention. RCCF clients who completed treatment programs performed better with more structured supervision than under regular probation supervision, so it is likely that treatment participation might have been the critical difference. Clients who were younger, used drugs and alcohol, had more extensive prior criminal histories, lacked employment and educational skills, and had fewer community ties were more likely to fail in residential community corrections facilities than individuals without substance abuse problems with a less extensive criminal history (Hartmann, Friday, & Minor, 1994). Although variables that predict a greater likelihood of success or failure can be identified, the more important question to be asked is how beneficial is it to have high-risk offenders in residential community corrections programs? Researchers found that low-risk parolees outperformed low-risk RCCF clients—in other words, low-risk RCCF clients had higher recidivism rates than parolees. The exact opposite results occurred for high-risk individuals—high-risk RCCF clients were more successful than high-risk parolees, suggesting that RCCFs are effective with high-risk offenders, and not as effective with low-risk offenders (Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2005).