Content uploaded by Laurie Crawford
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Laurie Crawford on Oct 31, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Transitional Housing
EVIDENCE BRIEF
Transitional housing is primarily provided as social assistance. There is some
evidence that providing transitional housing to offenders exiting prison can reduce
reoffending, particularly among serious violent offenders.
OVERVIEW
• Transitional Housing involves providing short-
term housing for people who are homeless,
who may have particular needs, and often
also transitioning back into the community
(e.g. from a prison or mental health facility).
• In the Justice sector the most common
example of Transitional Housing is for
offenders leaving prison, although it may also
be provided to people with community
sentences who have accommodation needs.
• The primary focus of Transitional Housing is
to help people who need it, rather than to
reduce crime. For some ex-prisoners
Transitional Housing may also be aimed at
managing high needs and reoffending risk.
• There is some evidence that providing
accommodation to offenders exiting prison
can reduce reoffending, particularly when
provided alongside other reintegrative
services.
• Transitional Housing reduces crime among
serious violent offenders, but the evidence is
less clear for less serious offenders.
• Evidence suggests that Transitional Housing
may also reduce offending for people with
mental illness who are homeless.
• More stable housing is associated with
reduced recidivism. Permanent housing
interventions will likely have a greater impact
on reoffending than transitional housing
interventions.
EVIDENCE BRIEF SUMMARY
Evidence rating:
Fair
Unit cost:
Approximately $6k to
$8k per individual for
each stay, up to three
months.
Effect size (number
needed to treat):
For every 19 serious
offenders receiving
transitional housing,
one less will reoffend.
Current NZ spend:
$3.5m (Corrections)
$354 million (MSD)
Unmet demand:
Approximately 650
people exiting prison
per year are homeless i
Full unmet demand is
unknown but likely to be
in the thousands.
Transitional Housing: Evidence Brief – August 2017. PAGE 2 of 9
WHAT IS TRANSITIONAL
HOUSING?
Transitional Housing is a broad term that has
been applied to different programme models. It
involves providing short-term housing. “In its
common and traditional form, Transitional
Housing is time-limited housing… in single units
or congregate settings provided with intensive
services that are… aimed to help participants
transition into permanent housing.”
ii
People who receive Transitional Housing are
usually homeless or facing homelessness. They
may be leaving an institution that provided
accommodation such as a prison, a mental
health facility, military service, or state care.
In the justice sector, internationally and locally,
Transitional Housing can be provided to people
leaving prison or to people with community
sentences who have accommodation needs.
Both Corrections and the Ministry for Social
Development (MSD) make a distinction between
emergency housing and transitional housing.
Both are short-term, although emergency
housing lasts for a shorter period than
transitional housing. Both have been included in
this brief as they are conceptually similar in the
research literature.
Programmes that provide Transitional Housing
usually also provide a range of other services
depending on the programme design. They may
support the person to gain employment, manage
their finances, overcome drug addiction, and,
most frequently, gain more long-term housing.
DOES TRANSITIONAL HOUSING
REDUCE CRIME?
Housing is important for successful reintegration
when prisoners are released, both in New
Zealand and internationally
iii
.
International evidence
In the US, Miller & Ngugi
iv
conducted two meta-
analyses on the impact of housing supports; one
with homeless people with mental illness and
the other with ex-offenders. For those with
mental illness they found 9 programmes
investigated across 5 studies, two of which
measured the impact of social housing on crime.
They found that for the 3,466 people who
received social housing crime reduced by 5% for
homeless people with mental illness
v
.
Among ex-offenders the authors found that only
one robust study examined Transitional Housing
specifically
vi
. Miller and Ngugi widened their
scope to studies of re-entry programmes that
included housing, and conducted a meta-
analysis with the resulting 7 randomised control
trials. They found that the re-entry programmes
with housing supports were not related to
recidivism for the general population of ex-
offenders, but for serious, violent ex-offenders
these programmes reduced reoffending by
15%
vii
.
Only one study examined the impact of
exclusively providing housing to offenders. They
found that providing substance-free Transitional
Housing reduced substance use over time;
however they could not find a relationship
between housing provision and recidivism
viii
. The
small sample size and limited one-year follow-up
period may have prevented the authors from
finding any effect on recidivism.
Zhang, Roberts, and Callanan
ix
measured 12
month re-incarceration rates for parolees who
either received or did not receive one or more of
6 reintegration programmes, one of which was
therapeutic transitional housing. The authors
found that all programmes reduced recidivism.
However parolees who participated in
transitional housing had the lowest re-
incarceration rate at 15.5%, compared with other
programmes with re-incarceration rates between
26.5% and 40.4%
x
.
Transitional Housing: Evidence Brief – August 2017. PAGE 3 of 9
No statistical analysis was performed to
conclusively show that it was the housing aspect
of this intervention that made the difference.
This is also the case for other studies
xi
.
Because this research often does not separate
housing support from other kinds of reintegration
support, it is difficult to determine whether
housing support alone reduced re-incarceration
rates
xii
.
Another limitation of this research is that control
groups in transitional housing studies may not
be sufficiently similar to treatment groups. That
is, participants who do not receive transitional
housing may be more resilient and able to house
themselves than those who receive transitional
housing.
New Zealand evidence
There is no New Zealand evidence on the
effectiveness of Transitional Housing
specifically. Robust studies based in New
Zealand would improve the evidence rating for
Transitional Housing.
Corrections have conducted evaluations on two
of their reintegrative services: Release to Work
and Out of Gate. Overall, the evidence suggests
that these reintegrative services have a positive
impact on reoffending (see the Reintegration
Services evidence brief for more information).
However, neither of these programmes includes
a Transitional Housing component.
MSD is currently in the process of evaluating
their emergency housing funding model.
WHAT MAKES TRANSITIONAL
HOUSING EFFECTIVE?
The reasons that transitional housing may
reduce crime are similar to the reasons that
reintegrative services may reduce crime.
Social control theories
xiii
are based on the idea
that individuals are less likely to engage in
criminal behaviour when their bond to society is
strong. These theories hypothesise that
transitional housing can reduce reoffending
through building a commitment to conventional
society.
One commentator suggested that because
transitional housing helps ex-prisoners to regain
long-term housing, this in turn facilitates social
attachment
xiv
.
Furthermore housing may be a pre-requisite for
gaining and maintaining employment, which also
reduces recidivism by increasing social control
xv
.
Another useful perspective is “relapse
prevention”, which proposes that relapse into an
undesirable pattern of (formerly habitual)
behaviour, such as criminal offending, is more
likely to occur when the individual faces high
levels of stress, such as homelessness, lack of
income, and absence of social support. Housing
can reduce stress and enable people to deal
with stressors more effectively
xvi
.
Transitional Housing: Evidence Brief – August 2017. PAGE 4 of 9
WHEN IS TRANSITIONAL
HOUSING MOST EFFECTIVE?
Little research has examined when Transitional
Housing reduces crime most effectively,
although some important elements are known.
Longer term housing is more effective
One study found that longer lengths of stay in
Transitional Housing were associated with
reduced substance use
xvii
.
To be most effective, Transitional Housing
should be provided in a way that enables
offenders to maintain or gain stable, long-term
housing
xviii
.
There is international evidence that transience
increases recidivism rates
xix
. US studies have
found increases in risk of offending between
25% and 70% with each change of address
xx
.
Other studies have found that not moving house,
or only moving once, reduced the likelihood of
return to prison
xxi
.
Long-term housing provision is likely to be a
more effective option
xxii
, however where this is
not possible transitional housing can ensure
people have housing in the mean time.
Housing serious, violent offenders
One study reported that Transitional Housing
receipt reduced crime the most for serious
violent offenders
xxiii
.
Helpful accommodation support
The support provided alongside any housing
initiative can impact on the likelihood of return to
prison. Housing may be just one aspect of many
that need to be addressed for successful
prisoner reintegration
xxiv
. In one study
accommodation support that the recipients
evaluated as being useful reduced the likelihood
of reincarceration
xxv
. Some research has found
that transitional housing participants who
achieve programme goals are less likely to
return to prison
xxvi
.
WHAT OTHER BENEFITS DOES
TRANSITIONAL HOUSING
HAVE?
Health and behavioural outcomes
Transitional Housing may reduce substance use
and stress among offenders when they are
released from prison
xxvii
. One study comparing
Transitional Housing with an entry requirement
of sobriety to Transitional Housing that did not
require sobriety found only a small difference in
health outcomes between the two; both social
housing programmes improved health
outcomes
xxviii
.
Other outcomes such as employment,
earnings and benefit receipt
Transitional Housing is usually accompanied by
a raft of other services including support to gain
skills and employment. The impact of
Transitional Housing on employment has not
been evaluated.
Transitional Housing: Evidence Brief – August 2017. PAGE 5 of 9
CURRENT INVESTMENT IN NEW
ZEALAND
Corrections
Corrections have a number of contracts with
community providers that involve Transitional
Housing to up to 750 offenders each year.
These include emergency accommodation for
high-risk offenders who have no accommodation
after leaving prison (or for whom existing
accommodation arrangements have broken
down) and supported accommodation.
Supported accommodation involves provision of
3-months long housing with casework support to
address other reintegrative needs and to locate
long-term accommodation options.
Ministry of Social Development
The Ministry of Social Development (MSD)
provides housing support across the housing
spectrum; from short term emergency housing to
social housing. Emergency and transitional
housing is provided on a case-by-case basis.
Some of transitional housing places MSD
provides are dedicated places for perpetrators of
family violence with a Police Safety Order in
place. This allows police to remove a suspected
perpetrator of family violence from the family
home for up to five days.
MSD is also implementing Housing First in
Auckland. This more long-term housing
response that targets chronic homelessness,
specifically for people who have been homeless
for a year or more. The initiative focuses on
moving people into housing first and then
provides support to address the issues
underpinning their homelessness. MSD has
funded a two year trial in Auckland for 472
Housing First places and received funding in
Budget 16 to deliver a 500 place expansion of
Housing First to high needs regions.
In Budget 2017 MSD received funding for a trial
called ‘Creating Positive Pathways for People
with a Corrections History’ to purchase 250
additional social housing places for ex-prisoners
with housing needs. The trial will provide them
with access to stable accommodation and
support services following completion of a
Corrections reintegration programme.
The role of Housing New Zealand
Housing New Zealand Provides tenancy and
property management services for social
housing tenants. Their March managed stock
report indicated that they have 15 transitional
houses, provided for 12-24 weeks, and 344
emergency houses, provided for up to 12
weeks
xxix
.
Much of their housing is inappropriate for ex-
prisoners, who usually require small units
xxx
.
EVIDENCE RATING AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Each Evidence Brief provides an evidence rating
between Harmful and Strong.
Harmful
Robust evidence that intervention
increases crime
Poor
Robust evidence that intervention
tends to have no effect
Inconclusive
Conflicting evidence that
intervention can reduce crime
Fair
Some evidence that intervention
can reduce crime
Promising
Robust international or local
evidence that intervention tends to
reduce crime
Strong
Robust international and local
evidence that intervention tends to
reduce crime
According to the standard criteria for all
Evidence Briefs
xxxi
, the appropriate evidence
rating for Transitional Housing is Fair.
Transitional Housing: Evidence Brief – August 2017. PAGE 6 of 9
As per the standard definitions of evidence
strength outlined in our methodology, the
interpretation of this evidence rating is that:
• There is some evidence that social housing
can reduce crime.
• It is unclear whether social housing will
generate return even if implemented well.
• May benefit from trial approaches with a
research and development focus.
• Robust evaluation needed to confirm
interventions are delivering a positive return
and to aid in detailed service design.
Further research, particularly a randomised
controlled trial in New Zealand, may improve the
evidence rating for social housing.
First edition completed: June 2017
Primary author: Laura Crawford
FIND OUT MORE
Go to the website
www.justice.govt.nz/justice-sector/what-works-
to-reduce-crime/
Email
whatworks@justice.govt.nz
Recommended reading
Miller, M., & Ngugi, I. (2009). Impacts of housing
supports: Persons with mental illness and ex-
offenders. Olympia: Washington State Institute
for Public.
O’Leary, C. (2013). The role of stable
accommodation in reducing recidivism: what
does the evidence tell us? Safer Communities,
12(1), 5-12.
Citations
i
State Services Commission, the Treasury, and the
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2014
ii
Tsai, Kasprow, Quarles, & Hoff, 2016
iii
Johnston, 2016; Baldry, McDonnell, Maplestone, &
Peeters, 2006; O’Leary, 2013; LeBel, 2017
iv
Miller & Ngugi, 2009
v
ibid.
vi
Worcel, Burrus, & Finigan, 2009
vii
Miller & Ngugi, 2009
viii
Worcel, Burrus, & Finigan, 2009
ix
Zhang, Roberts, and Callanan, 2006
x
ibid.
xi
Braga, Piehl, & Hureau, 2009
xii
O’Leary, 2013
xiii
Sampson & Laub, 1993; Hirschi, 1969
xiv
Baldry, McDonnell, Maplestone, & Peeters, 2003
xv
Rodriguez & Brown, 2003
xvi
O’Brien, 2001
xvii
Worcel, Burrus, & Finigan, 2009
xviii
Johnston, 2016
xix
Social Exclusion Unit, 2002; Broner, Lang, &
Behler, 2009
xx
Makarios, Steiner, & Travis III, 2010; Meredith,
2007
xxi
Baldry, McDonnell, Maplestone, & Peeters, 2003
xxii
O’Leary, 2013
xxiii
Miller & Ngugi, 2009
xxiv
LeBel, 2017
xxv
Baldry, McDonnell, Maplestone, & Peeters, 2003
xxvi
Zhang, Roberts, & Callanan, 2006
xxvii
Worcel, Burrus, & Finigan, 2009
xxviii
Tsai, Rosenheck, Kasprow, & McGuire, 2012
xxix
Housing New Zealand, 2017
xxx
State Services Commission, the Treasury, and the
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2014
xxxi
Available at www.justice.govt.nz/justice-
sector/what-works-to-reduce-crime/
Transitional Housing: Evidence Brief – August 2017. PAGE 7 of 9
References
Baldry, E., McDonnell, D., Maplestone, P., &
Peeters, M. (2003). Ex-prisoners and
accommodation: what bearing do
different forms of social housing have on
social reintegration? Australian Housing
and Urban Research Institute.
Baldry, E., McDonnell, D., Maplestone, P., &
Peeters, M. (2006). Ex-Prisoners,
Homelessness and the State in Australia.
The Australian and New Zealand Journal
of Criminology, 39, 1-14.
Braga, A. A., Piehl, A. M., & Hureau, D. (2009).
Controlling violent offenders released
into the community: An evaluation of the
Boston reentry initiative. Journal of
Research in Crime and Delinquency,
46(4), 411-436.
Broner, N., Lang, M., & Behler, S. A. (2009). The
Effect of Homelessness, Housing Type,
Functioning, and Community
Reintegration Supports on Mental Health
Court Completion and Recidivism.
Journal of Dual Diagnosis, 5(3-4), 323-
356. doi:10.1080/15504260903358801
Fontaine, J., Gilchrist-Scott, D., Roman, J.,
Taxy, S., & Roman, C. (2012).
Supportive Housing for Returning
Prisoners: Outcomes and Impacts of the
Returning Home—Ohio Pilot Project.
Ohio: The Urban Institiute. Retrieved
from
http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/pu
blication/25716/412632-Supportive-
Housing-for-Returning-Prisoners-
Outcomes-and-Impacts-of-the-Returning-
Home-Ohio-Pilot-Project.PDF
Freedman, M., & Owens, E. G. (2011). Low-
income housing development and crime.
Journal of Urban Economics, 70, 115-
131.
Friedman, D. (2010). Social impact of poor
housing. London: Ecotec.
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of Delinquency.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Holzman, H. R. (1996). Criminological research
on public housing: Toward a better
understanding of people, places, and
spaces. Crime and Delinquency, 2, 107-
126.
Housing New Zealand. (2017, March 31).
Property by number of bedrooms.
Housing New Zealand. Retrieved June
15, 2017, from
http://www.hnzc.co.nz/publications/housi
ng-statistics/
Johnston, A. (2016). Beyond the Prison Gate:
Reoffending and Reintegration in
Aotearoa New Zealand. Manukau: The
Salvation Army Social Policy and
Parliamentary Unit. Retrieved from
www.salvationarmy.org.nz/PrisonGate
Kling, J. R., Ludwig, J., & Katz, L. F. (2005).
Neighbourhood effects on crime for
female and male youth: Evidence from a
randomized housing voucher
experiment. The Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 120(1), 87-130. Retrieved
from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/25098732
LeBel, T. P. (2017). Housing as the Tip of the
Iceberg in Successfully Navigating
Prisoner Reentry. Criminology and Public
Policy, 6(3), 18. doi:10.1111/1745-
9133.12313
Ludwig, J., Duncan, G. J., & Hirschfield, P.
(2001, May). Urban poverty and juvenile
crime: Evidence from a randomized
housing-mobility study. The Quarterly
Journal of Economics, 116(2), 655-679.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1162/00335530151
144122
Lutze, F. E., Rosky, J. W., & Hamilton, Z. K.
(2014). A Multisite Outcome Evaluation
of Washington State’s Reentry Housing
Program for High Risk Offenders.
Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 41(4),
471–491.
doi:10.1177/0093854813510164
Makarios, M., Steiner, B., & Travis III, L. F.
(2010). Examining the predictors of
recidivism among men and women
released from prison in Ohio. Criminal
Justice and Behaviour, 37(12), 1377-
1391. doi:10.1177/0093854810382876
Matka, E. (1997). Public Housing and Crime in
Sydney. Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime
Statistics and Research.
Transitional Housing: Evidence Brief – August 2017. PAGE 8 of 9
Meredith, T. (2007). Developing and
implementing automated risk
assessments in parole. Justice and
Policy Research, 9, 1-24.
Miller, M., & Ngugi, I. (2009). Impacts of housing
supports: Persons with mental illness
and ex-offenders. Olympia: Washington
State Institute for Public.
Ministry of Justice. (2013). Transforming
Rehabilitation: A summary of evidence
on reducing reoffending. London:
Ministry of Justice. Retrieved from
http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/res
earch-and-analysis/moj
O’Brien, P. (2001). “Just like baking a cake”:
Women describe the necessary
ingredients for successful reentry after
incarceration. Families in Society:
Journal of Contemporary Human
Services, 82, 287–295.
O’Leary, C. (2013). The role of stable
accommodation in reducing recidivism:
what does the evidence tell us? Safer
Communities, 12 (1), 5-12.
Popkin, S. J., Rich, M. J., Hendey, L., Hayes, C.,
Parilla, J., & Galster, G. (2012). Public
Housing Transformation and Crime:
Making the Case for Responsible
Relocation. Cityscape, 14(3), 137-160.
Retrieved from
http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/urbstud
_frp/8
Rodriguez, N., & Brown, B. (2003). Preventing
Homelessness Among People Leaving
Prison. New York: Vera Institute of
Justice. Retrieved from
storage.googleapis.com/veraweb-
assets/downloads/Publications/preventin
g-homelessness-among-people-
leavingprison/legacy_downloads/IIB_Ho
melessness.pdf
Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in
the Making: Pathways and Turning
Points through Life. Mass.: Harvard
University Press.
Social Exclusion Unit. (2002). Reducing re-
offending by ex-prisoners. London: Office
of the Deputy Prime Minister.
Social Investment Unit. (2017). Social housing
technical report: Measuring the fiscal
impact of social housing services.
Wellington: Social Investment Unit.
State Services Commission, the Treasury, and
the Department of the Prime Minister and
Cabinet. (2014). Performance
Improvement Framework Follow-up
Review: Department of Corrections.
Wellington: Author. Retrieved from
www.corrections.govt.nz
Tsai, J., Kasprow, W. J., Quarles, J. L., & Hoff,
R. A. (2016). A 20-Site Comparison of
Transition-in-Place Versus Traditional
Transitional Housing Programs.
Administration and Policy in Mental
Health. doi:10.1007/s10488-016-0756-z
Tsai, J., Rosenheck, R. A., Kasprow, W. J., &
McGuire, J. F. (2012). Sobriety as an
admission criterion for transitional
housing: A multi-site comparison of
programs with a sobriety requirement to
programs with no sobriety requirement.
Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 125,
223-229.
doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2012.02.016
Weatherburn, D., Lind, B., & Ku, S. (1999).
'Hotbeds of crime?' Crime and public
housing in urban Sydney. Crime &
Delinquency, 45(2), 256-271.
Worcel, S. D., Burrus, S. W., & Finigan, M. W.
(2009). A study of substance-free
transitional housing and community
corrections in Washington County,
Oregon. Portland, OR: NPC Research.
Zhang, S. X., Roberts, R. E., & Callanan, V. J.
(2006). Preventing parolees from
returning to prison through community-
based reintegration. Crime &
Delinquency, 52(4), 551-571.
doi:10.1177/0011128705282594
Transitional Housing: Evidence Brief – August 2017. PAGE 9 of 9
SUMMARY OF EFFECT SIZES FROM META-ANALYSES
Meta-
analysis
Treatment
type/population
Outcome
measure
Reported
average
effect size
(d)
Number of
estimates meta-
analysis based
on
Percentage point
reduction in offending
(assuming 50%
untreated recidivism)
Number needed
to treat
(assuming 50%
untreated
recidivism)
Miller & Ngugi
(2009)
Persons with
mental illness
Crime
-0.038
2
0.02
58
Serious violent
ex-offenders
Crime
-0.115
4
0.05
19
* Statistically significant at a 95% threshold
OR=Odds ratio
d=Cohen’s d or variant (standardised mean difference)
Φ=phi coefficient (variant of correlation coefficient)
NA=Not applicable (no positive impact from treatment or non-offending measure)
NNT=Number needed to treat
NS: Not significant
NR: Significance not reported
RR: Risk Ratio