9.6. Halfway Houses 
DAVID CARTER 
Halfway Houses have long been used to control/house offenders. Dating back to the early 1800s from 
England and Ireland, halfway houses began around 1820 in Massachusetts. Initially, they were designed to 
help an offender “get back on their feet,” and were generally funded in benevolent ways by non-profit 
organizations like the Salvation Army. 
Currently, halfway houses are typically used as a stopping point for offenders coming out of prisons but 
have also recently been used as more secure measures of monitoring probationers in lieu of going to prison. 
They are even used as a test measure of parole. With the creation of the IHHA in 1964, halfway houses have 
become an integral part of every state, with mixed but more promising results than ISPs or boot camps. The 
core design of a halfway house is meant to be a place where individuals can get back on their feet, half-way 
out of prison. However, as stated, their uses have evolved, becoming residential, or even partial residential 
places where individuals under correctional control can check-in, find reprieve or assistance, in order to 
rejoin society as a normal functioning member. 
There are some issues regarding the examination of halfway houses. The IHHA break down halfway 
houses into four groups along two dimensions. As discussed, halfway houses were initially funded by 
private non-profit organizations. However, many halfway houses today (in part, due to the IHHA) are both 
privately and federally (and State) funded. Additionally, halfway Houses are also divided into supportive 
and interventive groups. That is, halfway houses that serve only a minimal function (a place to stay while 
reintegrating back into society) are generally labeled supportive.   Interventive halfway houses typically have 
multiple treatment modalities and may have up to 500 beds. However, most halfway houses fall somewhere 
in the middle of these two continuums. 
Halfway House Success 
Because of the variations of halfway houses, researchers find them difficult to assess. For instance, it may 
be difficult to generalize because of the variability. Second, gathering a representative comparison may also 
prove difficult. That is, halfway houses may have increased recidivism, reduced recidivism, or had no effect. 
Although clouded, one could argue that halfway houses are at least useful in the sense that these offenders, 
who received more treatment faired no worse than individuals who needed less treatment. 
As a whole, HWH studies show mixed results. That is, some studies yield reductions in recidivism, while 
some show no difference, and others show almost equal increases. When disaggregated by type, programs 
using the principles of effective interventions, these halfway houses generally have better reductions in 
360