GGD-75-70 Federal Guidance Needed If Halfway Houses Are To Be . - Justia

CHAPTER 1INTRODUCTIONMajor studies of the Nation'scorrectionsystems haveemphasized the need for change,One change advocated bymany is a greater use of adult community-basedcorrectionactivitiesin lieu of sending offendersto prison or as atransitionalstep back into the community after being inprison.One type of community-basedcorrectioneffortbeingused more frequentlyis community-basedcorrectioncenters-Respected bluemore commonly known as halfway houses.ribbon commissions have urged the Nation to expand suchefforts.This report discusses their operationin fourStates and uses the term "halfway houses" for such operationsregardlessof size or the sponsors of the projects.We neitheradvocate nor oppose the use of halfwayhouses.The basic purpose of our report is to provide informationon how such projectsare being operated and tomake Federal and State governments more aware of somemeasures that might be undertaken to improve rehabilitationefforts.WHAT ARE HALFWAYHOUSES?All halfway houses have the same basic objective-rehabilitatingoffendersin the community using communityresources*But they differconsiderablyin the types ofoffendersthey serve and in the methods they use.Most houses have some criteriafor admittingoffenders:legal status,age, offense,and number of previousi.e.,convictions.Most, however, exclude persons with historiesof violentbehavior,sexual deviation,or serious mentalproblems.1-

Participantsmay include m custodycase by the courts,--placedon probationtion by the courtsbeforefrom a varietydispositiona few months before--toparole--paroledparole.of theby the courts with the stipulathat they enter a halfway house,--releasedfrom prisontheirfullsentences,be consideredofforto a halfwaywithincompletinga few months,house as a conditionandof theirEach house establishesa program to rehabilitateoffenders.Although the program techniquesdiffer,employmentand counselingare primary rehabilitationprograms.Thehouses also determine whether an offenderis a success or afailurein their program.Each house offersvarious servicesto help rehabilitateoffenders.These services,which may be provided by thehouse or by other sources in the community, usually includeassistancein findingjobs, group and individualcounseling,and medical and dental assistance.The house itselfcan be a former residence,a remodeledstore,a dormitory,or a buildingspecificallydesigned andconstructedas a halfway house.Space requirementsfor individuals,andsuch activitiesas group meetings,recreation,administrationand the general conditionof the house usuallyare subject only to city or State regulationsfor rooming orboarding houses.Halfway houses have not been universallyaccepted bycorrectionpersonnel or the public.Citizenobjectionshave forced some houses to locate in the deterioratingsection of a community or near industrialareas.Also somehouses receive littlesupport from criminaljusticeagencies,especiallyfrom agencies philosophicallyopposed to thismode of treatmentof offenders.2

-The 1973 report on correctionsby the NationalAdvisoryCommission on CriminalJusticeStandards and Goals1 acknowledged that,though a clear majorityof a community maysupport the concept of halfway houses, a proposal to establish such a facilitywill generallydraw substantialopposition from the immediate neighborhood where it is to be located.This conditiondelayed the opening of some of the houseswe reviewed for up to 5 months.Others were forced to abandon their planned locationsand settleelsewhere,and onehouse finallyhad to locate outside the city in a ruralThe oppositioncame mainly from persons who lived,orarea.owned businessesin, the immediate vicinityofthe proposedhouse and who were concerned about public safety and thedevaluationof propertyvalues.,This oppositionusuallydeclined after the houses began operating.HOW IS THE FEDERAL GOVEXNMENTINVOLVED?The Federal Government helps Stateslish and operate halfway houses primarilyas part of LEAA's program.LEAA was establishedSafe Streets Act of 1968,legislationencouraged thenew methods to prevent orcriminaljusticeactivitiesCrime Control Act of 1973,through fiscalyear 1976,intent.and localitiesestabby providing-fundsby the Omnibus Crime Control andas amended (42"U.S.C.3701).Thefunding of projectsthat usedreduce crime or that strengthenedat the community level.Thewhich extended the LEAA programsreemphasized that legislative'The legislationprovidesfor State criminaljusticeplanning agencies (SPAS), responsibleto the Governors,tomanage the Federal funds provided by LEAA. LEAA establishesI1The Commission was funded by the Law Enforcement AssistanceAdministration(LEAA), Department of Justice,in 1971. Membership was drawn from the police,courts,and correctionbranches of State and local governments,from industry,andfrom citizengroups,Most members had working experiencein the criminaljusticearea*3

regulationsand guidelinesto carry out the purposes of theEach SPA must develop a State plan statinghow it willact.try to prevent or reduce crimeand improve the criminaljusticesystem.Each SPA must determine what projectswillbe funded and must seek advice from local or regionalplanThis plan, when apning units in developingits plans.proved by the LEAA Regional Administrator,is the basis forFederal grants to the State,LEAA action funds are awarded as eitherblock or discretionarygrants.Block grants are awarded in totaltoSPAS which in turn determine furtherdistributionto programs and subgrantees.Discretionarygrants are madeaccording to criteria,terms, and conditionsdetermined byLEAA. They can be awarded to specificgroups on the basisof LEAA-approved applicationsand are designed to--advancenational--draw attentionplans, and--givespecialpriorities,to programsimpetusnot emphasizedto reformin Stateand experimentation.SPAS carry out their plans primarilyby awarding fundsto subgrantees,usually other State agencies,local governments, or nonprofitorganizations,to implement specificprojects.All subgrantees must adhere to LEAA and SPA regu. lationsand guidelinesin carryingout theirprojects.Through fiscalyear 1974, LEAA had been appropriatedabout 2,6 billionfor action grants.LEAA had datareadilyavailableonly for fiscalyears 1972-74 pertainingto the amount of funds awarded to community-basedcorrectionprograms, which included halfway houses8 probationand-- parole efforts,etc.The amount awarded for those yearsas of April 1974 was about 73 million,including 43 millionin block grants and 30 millionin discretionaryfunds.Thefour States reviewed had awarded a totalof 1.1 millionoftheir fiscalyear 1973 funds to halfway house projects.4

CHAPTER 2CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE BASIC ISSUESHalfway houses are at a crucialstage of development.They have increased substantiallyin numbers and could become a viable alternativein the correctionsystem for manycriminaloffenders,or they could die out for the lack offunds and public support.If they continue to increase in number and improvethey could reduce the need to place manytheir operations,people in outdated and crowded prisons.However, theyshould not be viewed as a replacementfor all prisons sincethere will always be individualswho are not willingtoaccept the constraintsof halfway house livingor wouldpresent too great a risk to the public safety if placed insuch a facility.LEAA has assisted halfway houses financiallybut hasprovided littleguidance in planning or operatingthem.This stems basicallyfrom the way LEAA has administereditsIt permittedeach State to choose itsblock grant program.own approach for improving criminaljusticewithinbroadFederal guidelines.The States we reviewed,however, did not have wellorganized,planned, or operated systems that would coordinateboth State and locallyoperated houses.This was partlybecause no one agency was responsiblefor coordinatingastatewidesystem,Moreover, LEAA has continuedto all&SPAS to fund halfway houses even if the States do no havecoordinatedcorrectionsystems.,T@is has contributedto thefragmented effortsin some States,The States did not have adequate knowledge about howpublic and privateresources were allocatedto operate anddevelop halfway houses.Such informationis desirablebecause States need to be able to assure the public fiat theycorrectionhave well planned and supervisedcommunity basedsystems that willsafeguard the citizenrywhile providingrehabilitation.5-

If local privategroups can develop and operate halfway houses withoutcoordinatingsuch effortswith a Statecorrectionand rehabilitationstrategy,States cannotassure the public that the offendersin theircorrectionssystems are being properlysupervised.If the administrationof the houses were improved, includingincreased cooperationand coordinationof the jurisdictionsinvolved,the housesmost likelycould provide more servicesto the offendersand serve more offenders.In 1972 a Bureau of Prisons publicationdealing withhalfway houses stated that the real hope for greatereffectivenesslies in system planning,We agree and believethat recent developments indicatethat system planning isprogressing.For example, the 1973 report by the NationalAdvisory Commission on CriminalJusticeStandards and Goals,which had LEAA support, has caused States to begin analyzingtheircorrectionprograms.LEAA could requirethe SPAS to expand the correctionsection of their State plans to adequately describethestandardsfor and coordinationof the projectsit funds.If neitherstandards nor coordinationexists,the SPA shoulddescribethe steps it plans to take to obtain desired action.We recognizethat, because the SPAS' influencewith theStates'criminaljusticesystems varies among the States,some will be more successfulin bringingabout the changesthan others.But SPAS are the primary State groups that. controlmost Federal funds going to the States to preventcrime and improve the criminaljusticesystem.LEAA mustlook to the SPAS, which in most cases are directlyresponsible to the Governors,to fosterimprovements.The SPASmust do a betterjob in addressingissues such as the development of statewidecoordinatedcorrectionsystems.The problem of integratinghalfway houses into coordinated statewidecorrectionprograms involvingboth Stateand locallyoperated facilitiesmay appear to be basicallya State problem.But our review and other nationalstudieshave shown that the problems of rehabilitatingoffendersand protectingthe public'ssafety are national.Therefore,the Federal Government, primarilythrough LEAA,.shouldbemore activein helping the States solve the problems.6

The basis for these conclusionsis presentedin chaptersto3 through 6. Chapter 7 contains our recommendationsbring about needed improvements in the operationof halfwayhouses.7

CHAPTER 3NEED FOR STATEWIDE SYSTEMSTO COORDINATE HOUSESIn its 1973 report the NationalAdvisory Commission onCriminalJustice Standards and Goals stated that communitybased correctionprograms were the most promising means ofaccomplishingchanges in offender behavior that the publicexpects and recommended greater use of such programs,TheCommission, however, stated that such activitieswere notthen part of well organized,planned, or programed systems.This statement was stillaccurate in the four States reviewed.The 1967 Task Force on Correctionscommunity programs and stated:alsoconsidered"It is clear that new community programs must beintegratedinto the main line of corrections,if theyare to succeed and survive * * *.'IThe State Government determinesthe organizationalrelationshipbetween halfway houses and the State'scorrectionssystem,LEAA and SPAS are not authorizedto make policy as tothe course of action a State should take.Their leveragelies in the conditionsthey place on the use of Federal. grant funds and in their recommendationsand encouragementto responsibleState and local officials.To date LEAA hasnot provided effectiveleadership.Halfway houses are becoming acceptableas an alternative to incarcerationor to the minimum supervisionprovided on probationor parole.Thus, it becomes desirableto insure that new housesare (1) locatingin the communities with sufficientoffenderpopulations,(2) locatingin communities that can provide 'adequate employment and other needed servicesto offenders,and (3) serving a segment of the offenderpopulationdifferent from that already served by an ex-isting house unless itcan be shown that the existinghouse cannot handle -thepopulationof such offenders,Also, when two or more houses8

are in the same community, consolidatedadministrationmaybe economical.A consolidationof staffmight also providemore potentialfor staffadvancement,use of specializedstaff,and more full-timeratherthan part-timepositions.Community approval of a locallyoperated halfway houseis generallyessentialif the house is to succeed and reCommunity pressure canceive continuedlocal financing.cause a house to accept only the "cream" of offenderseligible to participatein the house's program.A coordinatedapproach to planning halfway houses could (1) help insurethe continuedfinancingof locallyoperated halfway housesand (2) help the houses meet the statewideoffenderpopulation'sneeds.LEAA GUIDANCELEAA's legislationrequiresthat,before funds can beawarded to a State, LEAA must determine that a State'scomprehensiveplan:--Discusses,among other things,incorporationof innovationsand advanced techniques,includingdescriptionsof general needs and problems;existingsystems: availableresources:organizationalsystemsand administrativemachinery for implementingthethe relationplan: and to the extent appropriate,ship of the plan to other State or local law enforcement and criminaljusticeplans and systems.--Providespermitscombinespect tofor effectiveuse of existingfacilitiesand encourages units of local governmentor provide cooperativearrangementswithservices,facilities,and equipment.andtore-LEAA's Officeof Regional Operations'is responsiblefor developingguidelinesthat the SPAS must follow whendevelopingtheirState plans.This Officealso establishesthe policiesand proceduresfor LEAA regionalofficesto usein reviewingand approving State plans.lIn November 1973 the Officeof Regional Operationswasestablished.It basicallyassumed the responsibilitiespreviouslyassigned to the Officeof CriminalJusticeAssistancewhich was abolishedat that time.9

Since most of LEAA's funds are provided to the Statesas block grants,LEAA has leverage for bringingabout positivechanges through its approval of the States'plans forplanning guidelineshavespending money. But the Office'snot been specificenough regardinghow the State plans mustaddress the completeness of theirStates'correctionsystem or the extent of the steps that should be taken to makeThe States have considerthe system more comprehensive.able discretionregardingthe informationthat must be included in the plans.For example, LEAA's December 1973 planning guidelinesemphasize the need for an SPA to demonstratethat its effortsto improve all aspects of the criminaljusticesystem are coordinated.In addition,the SPA is to assume aleadershipand coordinationrole in its State'slaw enforcementand criminaljusticesystem.The guidelinesstatethat one way the SPA can exercisesuch a role is by developing an overall,long-termplan for criminaljusticeimprovements in the State.LEAA's guidelinesrequirethat,as part of this plan,needed to develop an overallstrategy,the types of researchand informationsystems needed, and the types of noninstitutionalrehabilitationeffortsthat will be undertaken.Theguidelinesdo not, however, requirethe SPA to specifysuchthings for the various components in a system; i.e.,the. correctionsystem encompasses institutions,probation,parole,and other community-basedactivities.Though LEAA's guidelinesprovide the broad frameworkwithinwhich the States can develop specificstrategies,they do not set down in any detailhow specificproblems orissues are to be approached.note that the SPA'sFor example, LEAA's guidelinesplan must discuss such rehabilitativeeffortsas halfwayhouses, but do not specificallydirectthe SPA to discussthe organizationalframework withinwhich such houses operate,the type of offendersserved, the staffingneeded,or the nature of the programs used in the houses.Moreover,the SPA plans reviewed had not developed such informationand there was no indicationthat the informationwas available anywhere in the State.Without such informationit is10

difficultfor an SPA to assume the typecoordinationrole LEAA says it should.telltheirAccordinglywe believeitthe SPAS more specificallyplans should include.ofleadershipis appropriatewhat kind ofandfor LEAA toinformationLEAA has authorizedits regionalofficesto review andapprove the comprehensiveState plans for the States withinThe regionalofficesresponsiblefor Florida,theirregions.and Texas were locatedin Atlanta,Missouri,Pennsylvania,Philadelphia,and Dallas,respectively.Kansas City,We visitedthose officesand found that they had notsupplementedthe basic guidelineson comprehensiveplanswith any additionalrequirementsconcerninghow the Statebelievedit should coordinateall correctionprojectsactivitiesin its State,be they financedby publicor private funds.The regionalofficestaffsinterviewedgenerally were quite vague on how halfwayhouses were, or shouldbe, coordinatedwith the correctionprograms of the Stateor whether any State agency could assume overallresponsibilityfor operatingor administeringall such facilities.The regionalofficesthus could not effectivelypromotethe developmentof statewidecoordinatedcorrectionstrategies or effectivelyuse the leverageavailableto them toimprove State efforts.Each regionalofficehad correctionspecialiststo givetechnicalassistanceto ,was generallyprogrant recipients.If a technicalassistancerequestvided only on request.requiredsignificantresearch,the regionsgenerallyreferredthe requestorto LEAA headquartersstaffwho, inturn,generallyreferredthem to expertconsultants.LEAA financedthe developmentof guidelinesand standards for halfwayhouses and communitytreatmentcentersthrougha contractwith the InternationalHalfway House Associationand publishedthem in May 1973 as a technicalassistancepublicationwith the qualificationthat they didnot necessarilyrepresentthe officialpositionof the Departmentof Justice.11

Only one regionalofficevisitedknew such guidelinesexistedand statedthat it had distrib

// if halfway houses are to be a viable alternative to prison. 37 We made our review pursuant to the Budget and Accounting Act, 1921 (31 U.S.C. 53), and the Accounting Auditing Act . operated halfway houses in Florida, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Halfway houses are community-based correction activities for adult offenders.