skip to main content
Washington State Institute for Public Policy
Back Button

Housing assistance with services

Adult Criminal Justice
Benefit-cost methods last updated December 2023.  Literature review updated August 2016.
Open PDF
Housing assistance programs for individuals reentering from incarceration are intended to mitigate the negative impacts of homelessness on the reentry process. These forms of housing are considered voluntary and last a minimum of three months post-release. Housing programs in this analysis are service-enriched, meaning they provide services such as job training, employment, or substance abuse treatment in addition to temporary or transitional housing options.
Housing assistance programs are distinct from community based correctional facilities (e.g., halfway houses) in the following ways: 1) they do not act as a formal model of supervision in the community; 2) participants are not required to participate in the provided treatment and programming services for release; and 3) violation of supervision conditions in these programs is not automatically grounds for parole or probation revocation.
Community based correctional facilities (e.g., halfway houses) and stand-alone housing programs are not included in this analysis; they are analyzed separately. Housing assistance programs without service provision are also excluded from this analysis and analyzed separately.
For an overview of WSIPP's Benefit-Cost Model, please see this guide. The estimates shown are present value, life cycle benefits and costs. All dollars are expressed in the base year chosen for this analysis (2022). The chance the benefits exceed the costs are derived from a Monte Carlo risk analysis. The details on this, as well as the economic discount rates and other relevant parameters are described in our Technical Documentation.
Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant
Benefits to:
Taxpayers $2,336 Benefits minus costs ($12,300)
Participants $0 Benefit to cost ratio $0.10
Others $4,635 Chance the program will produce
Indirect ($5,645) benefits greater than the costs 2%
Total benefits $1,326
Net program cost ($13,626)
Benefits minus cost ($12,300)

Meta-analysis is a statistical method to combine the results from separate studies on a program, policy, or topic in order to estimate its effect on an outcome. WSIPP systematically evaluates all credible evaluations we can locate on each topic. The outcomes measured are the types of program impacts that were measured in the research literature (for example, crime or educational attainment). Treatment N represents the total number of individuals or units in the treatment group across the included studies.

An effect size (ES) is a standard metric that summarizes the degree to which a program or policy affects a measured outcome. If the effect size is positive, the outcome increases. If the effect size is negative, the outcome decreases. See Estimating Program Effects Using Effect Sizes for additional information.

Adjusted effect sizes are used to calculate the benefits from our benefit cost model. WSIPP may adjust effect sizes based on methodological characteristics of the study. For example, we may adjust effect sizes when a study has a weak research design or when the program developer is involved in the research. The magnitude of these adjustments varies depending on the topic area.

WSIPP may also adjust the second ES measurement. Research shows the magnitude of some effect sizes decrease over time. For those effect sizes, we estimate outcome-based adjustments which we apply between the first time ES is estimated and the second time ES is estimated. We also report the unadjusted effect size to show the effect sizes before any adjustments have been made. More details about these adjustments can be found in our Technical Documentation.

Meta-Analysis of Program Effects
Outcomes measured Treatment age No. of effect sizes Treatment N Adjusted effect sizes(ES) and standard errors(SE) used in the benefit - cost analysis Unadjusted effect size (random effects model)
First time ES is estimated Second time ES is estimated
ES SE Age ES SE Age ES p-value
35 4 1143 -0.079 0.057 37 -0.079 0.057 47 -0.116 0.267
1In addition to the outcomes measured in the meta-analysis table, WSIPP measures benefits and costs estimated from other outcomes associated with those reported in the evaluation literature. For example, empirical research demonstrates that high school graduation leads to reduced crime. These associated measures provide a more complete picture of the detailed costs and benefits of the program.

2“Others” includes benefits to people other than taxpayers and participants. Depending on the program, it could include reductions in crime victimization, the economic benefits from a more educated workforce, and the benefits from employer-paid health insurance.

3“Indirect benefits” includes estimates of the net changes in the value of a statistical life and net changes in the deadweight costs of taxation.
Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant
Affected outcome: Resulting benefits:1 Benefits accrue to:
Taxpayers Participants Others2 Indirect3 Total
Crime Criminal justice system $2,336 $0 $4,635 $1,168 $8,139
Program cost Adjustment for deadweight cost of program $0 $0 $0 ($6,813) ($6,813)
Totals $2,336 $0 $4,635 ($5,645) $1,326
Click here to see populations selected
Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant
Annual cost Year dollars Summary
Program costs $11,550 2016 Present value of net program costs (in 2022 dollars) ($13,626)
Comparison costs $0 2016 Cost range (+ or -) 10%
The per-participant costs represent the weighted average of the reported per-participant costs for each program in the meta-analysis. Each program reported a cost per participant that consisted of the cost of housing (either a form of subsidized housing or housing vouchers), the cost of any additional services (e.g., therapy sessions), and miscellaneous costs attributed to each intervention (e.g., cost of staff). Interventions typically last for 12 months, but some programs were substantially shorter in duration. The costs for each of the included programs are from Roman et al. (2007); Corporation for Supportive Housing. (2015). Supportive housing for returning prisoners: The Returning Home Ohio pilot project; and American Bar Association: Criminal Justice Section. (2010). State policy implementation project.
The figures shown are estimates of the costs to implement programs in Washington. The comparison group costs reflect either no treatment or treatment as usual, depending on how effect sizes were calculated in the meta-analysis. The cost range reported above reflects potential variation or uncertainty in the cost estimate; more detail can be found in our Technical Documentation.
Benefits Minus Costs
Benefits by Perspective
Taxpayer Benefits by Source of Value
Benefits Minus Costs Over Time (Cumulative Discounted Dollars)
The graph above illustrates the estimated cumulative net benefits per-participant for the first fifty years beyond the initial investment in the program. We present these cash flows in discounted dollars. If the dollars are negative (bars below $0 line), the cumulative benefits do not outweigh the cost of the program up to that point in time. The program breaks even when the dollars reach $0. At this point, the total benefits to participants, taxpayers, and others, are equal to the cost of the program. If the dollars are above $0, the benefits of the program exceed the initial investment.

Citations Used in the Meta-Analysis

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. Washington, D.C: Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center.

Jacobs, E., & Western, B. (2007). Report on the evaluation of the ComALERT prisoner reentry program. Brooklyn, NY: Kings County District Attorney's Office.

Roman, J., Brooks, L., Lagerson, E., Chalfin, A., & Tereschchenko, B. (2007). Impact and cost benefit analysis of the Maryland Reentry Partnership Initiative. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Wilson, J.A., & Zozula, C. (2012). Risk, recidivism, and (re)habilitation: Another look at project greenlight. Prison Journal, 92(2), 203-230.