The release decision-making process is crucial to the criminal justice system and should be intentional and deliberate. Reentry decisions should consider factors such as the inmate’s risk, needs and responsivity (RNR) principles and community safety concerns. There has been some attention surrounding the utilization of halfway houses but, additional assessment and review is needed to understand the current state of halfway house utilization and make transformational changes that supports successful reentry outcomes in halfway houses. The questions to explore are simple and complex. For example, what and how is criteria (risk assessments, protective factors, etc.) used in the decision-making process from prison to halfway house; how are case managers planning for halfway house release with their residents; what does the “hand-off” from prisons officials to halfway house organizations entail; how are the community, business, education and other public or non-profit entities involved in this release process to halfway house and; what is the continuum of support/care provided during their reentry/transition period at half-way houses (e.g., employment, life skills, mental health, substance use). These are some of the broad questions this work seeks to answer.

One notable dynamic to explore in the decision-making processes involves the tension between discretionary authority and standardized procedures. Multiple sources highlight that release decisions involve "discretionary judgment", and key actors like wardens, community corrections managers, and case managers are the final decision makers. How each of these actors makes decisions varies, leaving the possibility of subjective judgment in the process. Simultaneously, there are explicit legal mandates, state statutes, and zoning requirements that outline specific criteria, timelines, and procedures for release to halfway houses.

While policies and assessment tools aim for consistency, fairness, and evidence-based decision making, the space where discretion exists can lead to variations in which individuals are being considered for release. This human factor introduces the potential for inconsistencies in eligibility determinations, or deviations from the policy and program criteria/design or inconsistent application of policy and procedures. This points to the dilemma between discretionary release practices versus standardized releasing decision-making.

Therefore, a process evaluation created should be conducted to understand currently how discretion is applied within defined policy parameters. Dynamics to understand include: are policies consistently applied across different unit teams, case managers, or community corrections boards; are there informal norms or unwritten rules that influence decisions more than formal policy; what are the perceived trade-offs between strict adherence to policy and the flexibility needed for individualized case management?

The primary objective is to systematically examine the current decision-making point governing the process of prison residents release to halfway houses. This process evaluation should aim to illuminate the operational realities and challenges in order for NIC to discern how those underlying factors can be changed and improved upon. By focusing on the “why” and “how” of this decision point, we will better understand halfway house placement implementation.

Please note, this is NOT a funding opportunity to plan, establish, revise, fund, staff or build a halfway house in any community.