By Katy Swaine Williams

This small study confirms that undertaking education, employment and other purposeful activity in prison is of fundamental importance for young women (aged 18–24) during their imprisonment and after their release. While in prison, having access to the right opportunities can offer satisfaction and a sense of pride and achievement; it can provide a distraction from worries and a valuable sense of purpose. Physical activity, including use of the gym, and purposeful social interaction are particularly valued. Education, employment and other purposeful activities for young women in prison can also help young women to envisage a positive future after their release and offer a practical stepping stone towards further study, employment, or simply development of a hobby that is beneficial to their wellbeing. Conversely, where young women in prison are denied opportunities for education or employment which they value, or indeed other purposeful or socially interactive activity, this is likely to be severely detrimental. The histories of several young women who took part in this study included childhood trauma, domestic abuse – including coercive control – and exploitation, which had had a direct impact on their engagement with education. Some of the young women identified lack of access to mental health assessment and support as a key barrier to their engagement in activities and overall wellbeing, and a cloud over their present and future. Some complained they could not access education and work opportunities in prison until they had undertaken their Maths and English Level 1, which felt to them like an arbitrary barrier. Several women found inactivity and excessive time in their cell very difficult to cope with and wanted more opportunities for purposeful activity and social interaction, including through team sports. Others described the satisfaction they gained from purposeful activity in prison, including work. Each of the participants described past achievements in education, employment and family life of which they were proud, and aspirations for the future as well as worries and fears. Through this study we aim to help inform improvements to ensure that every young woman can experience the benefits of education, employment and other purposeful activity while in prison. We hope it will also be of interest to education providers in the community. We urge the Ministry of Justice to renew its efforts to develop a Young Women’s Strategy, to do so through co-production with young women, and to include a distinct focus on education, employment and other purposeful activity. The aim should be to develop tailored support which is gender-specific, age-specific, and is accessible to all young women – including Black, minority ethnic and migrant young women. This work should draw on learning from youth offending teams and the children’s secure estate, and widely held knowledge of the specific needs and characteristics of girls and young women. It should include universal provision of maturity assessments as well as assessments of Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND), provision of necessary support to meet identified needs, and investment in a wider range of education, employment and other purposeful activity in prison, including team sports. Staff delivering education and work opportunities will need to be highly skilled in order to engage young women and support their development. Barriers to participation should be removed, including through timely mental health assessments and delivery of therapeutic support where needed. Probation services should review their approach to supporting young women into formal learning and employment in prison and post-release. Progress must be measured through publication of data and insights from young women. Our recommendations are set out in full at the end of the report

London: Prisoner's Education Trust, 2024. 38p.

By George Pro , Ricky Camplain and,Charles H. Lea III

Racial discrimination and racial identity may compete to influence incarceration risk. We estimated the predicted days incarcerated in a national US sample of Black, Latino/Latina, and American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) individuals.

Methods

We used the 2012–2013 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions-III (n = 14,728) to identify individual incarceration history. We used zero-inflated Poisson regression to predict the number of days incarcerated across racial discrimination and racial identity scores.

Results

Racial discrimination and identity varied between races/ethnicities, such that racial discrimination exposure was highest among Hispanic individuals, while racial identity was highest among Black individuals. Racial discrimination was positively associated with days incarcerated among Black individuals (β = 0.070, p<0.0001) and AI/AN individuals (β = 0.174, p<0.000). Racial identity was negatively associated with days incarcerated among Black individuals (β = -0.147, p<0.0001). The predicted number of days incarcerated was highest among Black individuals (130 days) with high discrimination scores.

Conclusion

Racial discrimination and racial identity were associated with days incarcerated, and the association varied by racial/ethnic sub-group. Informed by these findings, we suggest that intervention strategies targeting incarceration prevention should be tailored to the unique experiences of racial/ethnic minoritized individuals at the greatest risk. Policies aimed at reversing mass incarceration should consider how carceral systems fit within the wider contexts of historical racism, discrimination, and structural determinants of health.

PLoS ONE 17, 2022, 11p.

By Jessica L Adler and Weiwei Chen

In 2019, there were approximately ten million admissions to more than 3,000 US jails-facilities that had become increasingly deadly in the prior decades. Between 2000 and 2019, jail mortality rose by approximately 11 percent. Although incarceration is widely viewed as a health hazard, relationships between jail conditions and jail deaths are understudied. Using data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and Reuters journalists, we assessed mortality rates and conditions in approximately 450 US jails in the period 2008-19. During those years, certain facility characteristics were related to mortality. For example, high turnover rates and high populations were associated with higher death rates. Greater proportions of non-Hispanic Black people in jail populations were associated with more deaths due to illness, and the presence of larger shares of non-US citizens was associated with lower overall mortality rates. Our findings suggest that heavy reliance on incarceration and the prevalence of broad health disparities escalate jail mortality.

Health Aff (Millwood). 2023, 16p.

By Audrey Macklin

The human right to leave any country protects an intrinsic interest in free movement and is also a vital pre-condition to seeking asylum. The right to leave attracts little academic interest, but it is quietly being eroded. Exit restrictions in States of origin or transit have become an instrument of extraterritorial migration control for European Union Member States seeking to prevent the arrival of unwanted migrants. This article first explores the revival of exit restrictions, focusing on agreements between European destination States and select African States of departure. It argues that the adoption of exit restrictions from one State to prevent entry to another creates the paradox of seamless borders, where regulation of exit and entry are harmonized and fused to serve the singular objective of preventing entry to the destination State. The article further argues that the political and discursive coupling of anti-smuggling and search-and-rescue regimes occlude the rightsviolating character of exit restrictions and enables breach of the right to leave to hide in plain sight. Additionally, current approaches to jurisdiction and State responsibility in regional and international courts render the prospect of destination State liability uncertain in circumstances where the destination State does not exercise legal and physical control over enforcement. The article draws on ‘crimmigration’ and border criminology literature to identify the common element of carcerality that connects confinement of migrants to the territory of departure States with migrant detention inside the territory. Beyond lamenting the erosion of exit rights, the article concludes by querying whether the erosion of the right to leave is symptomatic of a larger trend toward the regulation of mobility itself.

International and Comparative Law Quarterly. 2024;73(4):891-929.

By Julia Burchett, Anne Weyembergh, Marta Ramat (English)

Background Prisons and life inside prisons are often kept out of the public’s sight. Nonetheless, the persistent shortcomings affecting European prisons have gained the ever increasing attention of the European Court of Human Rights and, subsequently, of the Court of Justice of the European Union. In particular, the persistent degrading prison conditions in many EU Member States have recently shown their relevance for the EU legal order. Indeed, not only are they in breach of the rights guaranteed by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, but they also proved a serious obstacle to the smooth functioning of mutual recognition, the cornerstone of judicial cooperation in criminal matters. After numerous calls to action by the European Parliament, on 8 December 2022 the European Commission launched the first instrument laying down common minimum (although non-binding) standards in the field of material detention conditions. The pressing fundamental rights concerns stemming from degrading prison conditions, their detrimental effects on mutual recognition and the recent adoption of an EU Recommendation make the issue of prison conditions particularly topical and worth examining from an EU-law perspective. Aim This study aims to provide the European Parliament with background information and policy recommendations concerning prisons and detention conditions in the European Union, on the basis of European and national regulations, legislation, policies and practices. It should provide a picture of the situation in the EU, based on a range of relevant sources, and assess the initiatives taken at EU level to support effective compliance with existing European standards. The result of this research should bring forth policy inputs and options for the future direction of the EU’s work in this field. Key findings From the first pages, the study attempts to provide an overview of the wide range of problems faced by Member States in relation to detention conditions. In this regard, it became clear during the course of the study that this latter notion should be understood in a broad way, including material detention conditions stricto sensu but also other related issues having a significantimpact on life in detention (e.g. the excessive use and length of pre-trial detention). While this research has identified particularly acute problems affecting many EU countries, this should not overshadow the wide range of issues identified at EU level, the severity of which varies from country to country. As it was not possible to carry out a comprehensive review of all detention issues, the study then focused in depth on two key issues that have gained importance at EU level, namely prison overcrowding and prison radicalisation. Although the scale of the phenomenon of prison overcrowding is widely reported, the lack of common measurement indicators has been identified as an important gap which does not allow for accurate cross-national comparison With regard to prison radicalisation, which is a relatively new issue compared to prison overcrowding, the study found that the challenges posed by radicalisation in prison are receiving considerable attention at EU level. Among the important concerns highlighted by the study are the specific (and usually more restrictive) conditions of detention that apply to this category of detainees. This issue has caught the attention of prison oversight bodies both at European and national levels in view of their potential impact on fundamental rights and has become highly visible in some Member States as illustrated by the case of Belgium and France. Shifting the focus on the cross-border context, the study has sought to assess the concrete impact of poor detention conditions on several mutual recognition instruments involving a deprivation of liberty measure, namely the Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European arrest warrant and the Framework Decision 2008/909 on the transfer of prisoners. In this respect, it was found that considerations of detention conditions do not come into play in the same way in these two instruments. By way of comparison, while the Framework Decision on the transfer of prisoner has led to a very limited body of case-law, the tensions between the principle of mutual recognition and the lack of mutual trust in the detention conditions have become particularly conspicuous in several major preliminary rulings involving the use of the EAW. Moreover, research has shown a greater alignment between the case law of the CJEU and the ECtHR when the issue of prison conditions arises in EAW cases. This is considered beneficial to ensure coherence between the legal systems of the EU and the CoE, but also to avoid messy and inconsistent (non) application of EU law as a result of conflicting obligations deriving from the two jurisdictions. Regarding the concrete implications of the CJEU case-law, the study found that the Court’s jurisprudence had an undeniable effect on EAW proceedings with a varying impact on the practice of national authorities, whether in terms of impact on mutual trust or in terms of the parameters used to assess the real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment resulting from detention conditions in the issuing Member State. While some experts assert that the CJEU’s case-law tends to be increasingly assimilated by practitioners and that many countries develop practices compliant with the Court’s requirements, several remaining difficulties were pinpointed. In addition, despite the fact that many tools are available to help practitioners interpret and apply the case-law of the CJEU, the study identified several areas where EU support could be improved. Among the key findings of the study, it is worth noting the lack of effective implementation of international and European standards governing crucial aspects of detention conditions (e.g. cell-space, access to health care, sanitary conditions, prison monitoring, etc.). This was highlighted in several parts of the study and is widely corroborated by empirical research, by the reports of European and national prison monitoring bodies, but also by the judgments of the ECtHR. Although matters of detention are the responsibility of Member States (in addition to the fact that many standards on prison conditions exist through the CoE and the ECtHR),there seems to be a broad consensus on the need for EU action to secure a higher degree of compliance with these standards. In this respect, the study identified the recent European Commission’s Recommendation ‘on procedural rights of suspects and accused persons subject to pre-trial detention and on material detention conditions’ as a step forward, as it is the first EU instrument (although non-binding) laying down common minimum standards in the two areas concerned. However, its concrete impact remains difficult to gauge and only time will tell if this Recommendation leads to a more effective and convergent application of European standards. The study has also identified several advantages in considering the adoption of EU minimum standards through a legislative instrument. For the sake of completeness, the analysis was extended to alternative measures to detention which, although not intrinsically related to detention conditions, are advocated as an important lever to regulate the flow of incarceration. In a purely domestic context, the study highlighted the wide variety of legal cultures and practices that coexist at EU level as regards both alternatives to pretrial and post-trial detention. Several good practices and possible hurdles to their use were identified. As a general observation, the study found that, although an essential lever for reducing the use of imprisonment, alternative measures are not sufficient on their own to tackle the problem of poor conditions of detention. In order to produce effective results, alternative measures must be accompanied by coherent penal policies, taking into consideration all relevant criminal law measures that have an impact on the flow of imprisonment. In a cross-border context, the study identified a general lack of awareness of several mutual recognition instruments that could be used as alternatives to the EAW to avoid an unnecessary deprivation of liberty measure, namely the Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA (on the European Supervision Order), the Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA (on probation measures and alternative sanctions) and the Directive 2014/41/EU (on the European Investigation Order). The lack of knowledge about these instruments is widely recognized by scholars, and concern not only judges and prosecutors, but also defence lawyers.

European Parliament, Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs Directorate-General for Internal Policies, 2023. 122p.

By Angela Smeth Sarah Cram & Tara Beauchamp

Over the last several years, the Correctional Service of Canada’s (CSC) Research Branch has contributed to research regarding federally incarcerated radicalized offenders. CSC defines a ‘radicalized offender’ as “an ideologically motivated offender who commits, aspires or conspires to commit, or promotes violent acts in order to achieve ideological objectives” (CSC, 2012). This literature review was conducted to explore the best practices of correctional interventions for radicalized offenders in jurisdictions across the world. Risk assessments, population management strategies, interventions, reintegration programs, and staff training were reviewed. The findings of this literature review aim to support and assess CSC initiatives related to the management of radicalized offenders and staff training initiatives. Overall, there is no universal risk assessment for radicalized offenders as correctional services have developed their own assessments based on operational considerations specific to their offender population. The majority of jurisdictions use a structured professional judgement approach to risk assessments, which include explicit guidelines for which factors should be considered, but the combination of those factors and the overall evaluation of risk are left up to the professional judgment of the assessor. The reliability and validity of these risk assessments is debated due to the relatively low number of radicalized offenders in many jurisdictions and the diversity of the radicalized offender population. Generally, there are five population management strategies used: separation, isolation, concentration, integration, and dispersal. Management strategies are chosen based on a variety of factors, such as available resources and number of radicalized offenders, among others. Some jurisdictions choose a management strategy on a case-by-case basis or based on the offender’s extremist affiliation, beliefs, and ideologies, whereas others have implemented only one strategy for all radicalized offenders. Interventions are usually aimed at deradicalization or disengagement. Deradicalization focuses on the radicalized offender’s beliefs and ideology, whereas disengagement targets the offender’s behaviour and actions. However, there is not a one-size-fits-all approach to intervention services for radicalized offenders. Instead, correctional programming should be tailored for local contexts. Information regarding reintegration programs was limited. It appears there are only a few jurisdictions that have reintegration programs specifically for radicalized offenders. In general, these programs focus on the radicalized offender establishing prosocial connections, gaining employment, and, when applicable, they are encouraged to continue their education. Staff training for most jurisdictions focus on signs of radicalization occurring within the institution and the methods for reporting. Training in some jurisdictions also include education about Islam to increase staff knowledge and awareness so they are able to distinguish between Muslim teachings and extremist ideologies. Several correctional services provide training to all staff, whereas others only train staff who interact with radicalized offenders. Overall, the review of the literature identified common themes that highlighted the importance of employing a tailored, individualized approach to case management, as well as a holistic and multidisciplinary approach, which are currently offered by CSC.

2023 Nº R-463

Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada, 2023. 48p.

By Bruce Western

A large social science research literature examines the effects of prisons on crime and socioeconomic inequality, but the penal institution itself is often a black box overlooked in the analysis of its effects. This paper examines prisons and their role in rehabilitative programs and as venues for violence, health and healthcare, and extreme isolation through solitary confinement. Research shows that incarcerated people are participating less today than in the 1980s in prison programs, and they face high risks of violence, disease, and isolation. Prison conditions suggest the mechanisms that impair adjustment to community life after release provide a more complete account of the costs of incarceration and indicate the performance of prisons as moral institutions that bear a responsibility for humane and decent treatment.

Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 35, Number 4—Fall 2021—Pages 1–27

By  Catriona Connell , Mary Birken, Hannah Carver, Tamara Brown, and Jessica Greenhalgh

Abstract Background People released from prison experience complex health challenges in addition to challenges resettling into the community. Consequently, employment rates are low. Participating in good quality employment can support good health and is protective against future reofending. Multiple interventions are provided to support people into employment on release. The efectiveness of interventions for improving employment outcomes has not previously been evaluated in a meta-analysis. Aim Our objective was to examine the efectiveness of interventions to improve employment following release from prison. Method We searched seven databases and three trial registries for peer reviewed randomised controlled trials (RCTs), published since 2010, that included adults and measured an employment outcome(s). We conducted meta-analysis using random efects models with sub-group and sensitivity analyses. We appraised bias risk per outcome, and incorporated this into an assessment of the certainty estimates for each outcome. A group of people with experience of imprisonment met with us throughout the project to inform our search strategy and interpretation of results. Results We included 12 RCTs (2,875 participants) which were all conducted in the USA. Few outcomes were of low risk of bias. Intervention participants were 2.5 times more likely to work at least one day (95% CI:1.82–3.43) and worked more days over 12 months (MD=59.07, 95% CI:15.83–102.32) compared to controls. There was no efect on average employment status or employment at study end. There is moderate certainty in these estimates. Conclusion Interventions can improve some employment outcomes for people released from prison. More evidence is required to establish efective interventions for sustaining quality employment, particularly outside the USA, and which consider outcomes for diferent groups of people released, such as women or those with health or substance use needs

  Health & Justice (2023) 11:17

By Sarah Jensen, PhD/JD Justice System Partners Shannon Magnuson,

Using administrative data from the Multnomah County Jail and interviews with people across the Multnomah County criminal legal system, including judges, attorneys, and law enforcement, and interviews with Multnomah County community members, including individuals incarcerated during the COVID-19 pandemic, this study aimed to identify the emergency strategies selected and implemented to reduce the jail population, the impact of those strategies on jail trends and jail bookings for violence-related charges, and perceptions of safety during this time for criminal legal system stakeholders and community members.

Key Findings include:

Participation in the SJC, and the collaboration it facilitates, allowed local stakeholders in Multnomah to act swiftly to implement emergency jail reduction strategies.

Though the County implemented a few new strategies, they mainly relied on making small changes to existing SJC strategies, including expanding eligibility criteria for existing pretrial reforms, allowing for a substantial decrease in the number of jail bookings during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Contrary to the narrative that reforms lead to increases in crime, the significant jail reductions achieved during the pandemic in Multnomah did not lead to increases in crime.

Three out of every 4 of the individuals with a history of jail bookings in the pre-pandemic period did not experience a new jail booking for any reason after March 2020.

Bookings for violence-related charges did not increase, including for individuals who had a history of violence prior to the pandemic.

Though Multnomah County staff and community members reported feeling unsafe during the pandemic, it was attributed to a combination of COVID-19, limited local police presence, the militarized federal police presence during the protests, and social disorder, visible drug use, and property damage from the protests rather than person crimes or crimes with weapons.

By Meghan A. Novisky, Jennifer Tostlebe, David Pyrooz , Jose Antonio Sanchez

The purpose of this study was to examine how the COVID-19 pandemic changed U.S. prison operations and influenced the daily work of prison staff.

Methods

In collaboration with the National Institute of Corrections, we administered a survey to 31 state correctional agencies in April 2021 and conducted five focus groups with 62 correctional staff.

Results

Using a framework of bounded rationality, we find that daily operations were strained, particularly in the areas of staffing, implementing public health policy efforts, and sustaining correctional programming. While prison systems and staff were under-prepared to respond to the pandemic, they attempted to address complex problems with the limited resources they had.

Conclusions

Results underscore a need in corrections for prioritizing further developments and reviews of collaborative policies and practices for managing crisis situations. Seeking avenues for leveraging technological innovations to improve operations and facilitate enhanced communication are especially warranted. Finally, meaningful reductions in the prison population, changes in physical infrastructure, and expansions of hiring and retention initiatives are critical for positioning prisons to manage future emergencies.

Health & Justice volume 11, Article number: 51 (2023), 20p

By Caroline Mary Parker and Julienne Weegels

The punitive turn in crime control has radically altered the shape and meaning of citizenship across the Americas. Imprisonment, compulsory drug rehabilitation, and alternative forms of penal control have multiplied, circumscribing citizens’ options for social and political participation while also leading to striking new modes of social, political, and economic membership across the region. While criminalization is ordinarily viewed as something that threatens ‘full’ citizenship, this special collection explores the new and differentiated kinds of political, economic, and social belonging being devised by the region’s criminalized men and women. In paying close attention to how penal power and its subversion articulate with existing stratifications of citizenship, we illuminate how distinct kinds of carceral citizenship are emerging in various locales across Latin America and the Caribbean. In this article, we also introduce the other contributions to this Special Collection.

EUROPEAN REVIEW OF LATIN AMERICAN AND CARIBBEAN STUDIES REVISTA EUROPEA DE ESTUDIOS LATINOAMERICANOS Y DEL CARIBE DOI:CEDLA - ISSN 0924-0608, eISSN 1879-4750. No. 116 (2023): July-December, pp. 69-85

By Risë Haneberg, Tony Fabelo,  Fred Osher, and Michael Thompson 

Stepping Up is a national initiative reducing over-incarceration of people with mental illnesses. Stepping Up provides counties with a framework that allows each community to select the right evidence-based policies and practices for them, based on their data and unique local circumstances. This new edition of "Reducing the Number of People with Mental Illnesses in Jail: Six Questions County Leaders Need to Ask" advances the original Stepping Up framework published in 2017 by embedding a racial equity lens and uplifting the voices of people with lived experience. It provides six guiding questions for county leaders, offers tips gleaned from counties across the country that answered the call to action, and addresses ongoing challenges.

New York: The Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2024. 17p.

By Megan Pfeiffer

Parental incarceration impacts all members of a family unit, including parents who are incarcerated, their children, and the parents, legal guardians, or caregivers who aren't incarcerated. Implementing evidence-based programs and practices tailored to support parents who are incarcerated and their families is crucial for addressing their complex needs, mitigating the negative consequences of incarceration, and promoting positive outcomes for families. This brief discusses examples of evidence-based and promising programs and practices from the field that support different needs of parents who are incarcerated, their children, and their families.

New York: The Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2024. 16p.

By Erin Thorvaldson and Kendric Holder

To address various criminal justice challenges, from 2014 to 2015, Alabama partnered with The Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center to employ a Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI) approach and analyze the state’s criminal justice data, interview stakeholders from across the criminal justice system, and work with policymakers to develop data-driven policy options designed to reduce prison overcrowding and increase public safety. As a result of this work, Alabama leaders enacted Act 2015-185 in May 2015, which aimed to strengthen community-based supervision, divert people convicted of the lowest-level drug and property offenses from prison to Community Corrections Programs, and ensure supervision for everyone upon release from prison to reduce recidivism. This brief explores how Alabama has addressed its JRI goals since enacting this legislation.

New York: The Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2024. 5p.

By Shawn Rogers and Sarah Wurzburg

Too often, people reentering the community from incarceration experience fatal overdoses, with studies showing that they are at a highest risk of an overdose or even death during the first 48 hours after release. This is typically related to a decrease in tolerance while in prison or jail, so their body is more vulnerable to overdosing even when using at the same amount they did before they were incarcerated. This risk is highest among people using opioids. Fortunately, there are evidence-based practices that can be implemented to support safe and successful transitions. This guide outlines four best practices that reentry professionals can implement to reduce overdose risk during reentry.

New York: The Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2024. 16p.

By Bridget Degnan  

Starting January 1, 2025, new Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) requirements will change how correctional systems provide healthcare to young people who are incarcerated. These changes, mandated by the 2018 Substance Use-Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment for Patients and Communities (SUPPORT) Act and the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, present significant opportunities for juvenile and adult correctional facilities nationwide. Correctional leaders should prepare now to ensure their systems are ready to meet the demands of these new laws. This includes overhauling processes for Medicaid enrollment and coordinating with Medicaid agencies and community-based providers to support improved transitions for young people who are reentering their communities. Young people who maintain Medicaid and CHIP coverage during incarceration and who can access pre-release health care services are more likely to experience reduced recidivism, improved reentry outcomes, and a better chance for a stable, healthy future. In this explainer, we’ll explore the new federal laws and outline the key steps correctional leaders can take to prepare. Photo by SHVETS production via Pexels.

New York: The Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2025. 10p.

By Felicia Lopez Wright

Research points to an overrepresentation of youth with behavioral health needs in the justice system, with nearly 70 percent having a diagnosable mental health disorder. Because of this, youth and young adults who have had contact with the justice system, have been diverted from the justice system, or are reentering the community from correctional facilities are often at an increased risk of experiencing a crisis. In addition to their increased risk for crisis, this population also has unique and specific crisis stabilization needs when compared to those of adults due to pre-existing and untreated trauma, witnessing violence or being victimized during incarceration, or lack of developmentally appropriate treatment and services that address their behavioral health needs during placement and after release.

In fiscal year 2022, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), a component of the Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs, launched the Second Chance Act Improving Adult and Juvenile Crisis Stabilization and Community Reentry (SCA CSCR) grant to help communities improve efforts to address youth and young adult crises and reduce the overrepresentation of youth with behavioral health needs in the justice system. SCA CSCR provides funding to government and community-based entities to deliver clinical and recovery support services that establish treatment, suicide prevention, and continuity of recovery in the community for youth with mental illnesses, substance use disorders, or co-occurring disorders upon their release from a detention or correctional facility, or who have current or prior involvement with the justice system. It also provides training and technical assistance to grantees and the field at large to advance work in this domain.

This brief, developed with support from BJA, provides justice professionals who are responsible for youth and young adult case planning with best practice guidance on how to engage, collaborate, and partner with the systems that can address reentry needs and prevent crises that may lead to future justice system involvement. This guidance is drawn from both relevant research and lessons learned from BJA-funded programs focused on reentry and crisis stabilization among youth and young adults.

New York: The Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2024. 7p

By Ryan Maranville, Emilee Gree, and Jessica Reichert

Illinois’ prison work release centers, called Adult Transition Centers (ATCs), connect incarcerated people to vocational opportunities to support successful community reentry. As part of a larger process and outcome evaluation of Illinois ATCs, we conducted 16 interviews with Illinois Department of Corrections administrators and ATC program staff to understand their perceptions about ATC operations and purpose as well as their perspectives on ATC effectiveness, strengths, and weaknesses. Participants noted that ATCs offer individualized behavioral health treatment, build educational and vocational skills, and provide promising employment prospects upon release. Interviewees believed they fostered positive relationships with work release participants, contributing to their success. However, interviewees believed the effectiveness of work release programs may be reduced when participation is relatively short and community-based social support services are insufficient. Relevant research and some considerations of our findings are discussed.

Chicago: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, 2025. 29p.

By Tamara Ryan and Cole Anderson   

Upon release, formerly incarcerated people often have few resources to get by while they are seeking employment. They struggle to find work because of criminal stigma, low education levels, and work history gaps. Supporting formerly incarcerated individuals upon their re-entry helps ensure they can take part in the activities needed for employment, such as resume preparation and learning job search skills. One key to improving the likelihood of employment post-incarceration is to ensure returning citizens have adequate financial resources and support to address their immediate needs and allow a focus on gaining employment. Moving more formerly incarcerated people into the workforce presents a massive opportunity for the state. Not having these individuals in the workforce is a lost opportunity for both employers and the state and increases the likelihood they will return to prison or will be rearrested, adding to the cost burden for the state. Key Findings • Formerly incarcerated people are 24% less likely to return to prison when they have acquired new skills and maintained employment during incarceration. • An estimated 6,000 individuals are released from Colorado prisons annually, a number that is roughly equivalent to 20% of the new entrants that are added to the state workforce each year. This number is also 1.5 times larger than Cherry Creek High School, the largest high school in the Denver area. • Breakthrough, a Colorado nonprofit that works with formerly incarcerated individuals, has helped those citizens achieve a 94% employment rate after their release. If Breakthrough’s results could be replicated for all applicable individuals exiting prison, 2,400 more individuals would be employed among each annual prison release cohort. Together those 2,400 individuals would contribute to GDP growth totaling more than $1 billion and a $650 million increase in personal income.  • Colorado’s current 3-year recidivism rate is 28%. Reducing that rate to Breakthrough’s 6% rate would save the state an estimated $55 million annually in recidivism-related costs, realized after the three-year recidivism measurement period. • Inmates working in Colorado’s prisons earn just dollars per day.i Marginally increasing the income inmates can earn while working in prison and on work release programs could help reduce the financial burden to the state through decreased public benefit use and lower recidivism rates. • There is a strong connection between employment and lasting economic benefits for formerly incarcerated individuals. • Colorado currently lacks any data to capture the outcomes, particularly the employment and earnings outcomes, of former inmates. This deficit makes it difficult to gauge the success of post-release programs. • Over the 5-year period prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, more than half of those who recidivated went back to prison because of technical violations such as possessing a firearm or failing to report to a parole officer, not commission of new crimes.  Employment for Returning Citizens Employment is a critical component of successful re-entry into the community after release from incarceration. A study by the Institute of Politics at the John F. Kennedy School of Government found a lack of employment was one of the most significant risk factors affecting successful re-entry.ii Researchers also found community organizations that offer returning citizens assistance with employment were most successful when they provided a holistic approach that included both training and job placement and emphasized high quality jobs with upward mobility potential. Positive benefits of employment include decreased reliance on state assistance, increased self-esteem, a more positive sense of identity, and a life made more stable because of income. Employers also benefit from successful reentry. Hiring formerly incarcerated individuals expands hiring pools at a time when businesses report difficulty finding talent, provides evidence of nondiscriminatory hiring practices, and creates potential tax credit and free bonding service opportunities. Additionally, employers could reduce training costs by hiring individuals who received training while incarcerated. Unfortunately, research shows a felony conviction or incarceration makes individuals significantly less employable. After release, finding a job can take six months or more.iii Providing resources for released individuals to get and keep a job decreases the risk of recidivism because it ensures these citizens are meeting the requirements of parole, contributing to their households, paying off fines or making restitution, and forming the prosocial connections that discourage re-offending. National data shows more than 27% of formerly incarcerated people are unemployed, a number that is higher than the U.S. unemployment rate at any time in history, including the Great Depression. Unemployment is worse for women than men, particularly for formerly incarcerated black women, whose unemployment rate is 43.6%.iv There is a clear connection between unemployment and likelihood to engage in crime. One study found that, among unemployed men in their 30s, more than half had been arrested or convicted of a crime. Additionally, it is important to remember the unemployment rate only measures people who are actively looking for work and does not include discouraged workers who have stopped looking for jobs. When these individuals are included in the calculation, the jobless rate reaches closer to 60%.

Greenwood Village, CO: Common Sense Institute, 2025. 18p.

By U.K. Parliament. House of Commons. Committee of Public Accounts

The Ministry of Justice’s (MoJ’s) and HM Prison and Probation Service’s (HMPPS’s) failure to increase prison capacity in line with demand has led to a prison estate in crisis. Their plans to deliver 20,000 additional prison places in England and Wales by the mid–2020s have been delayed by approximately five years until 2031, and will cost at least £4.2 billion more than planned. MoJ’s and HMPPS’s original plans were unrealistic and they did not work effectively with others in Government to address delivery risks. As at September 2024, HMPPS had delivered just 6,518 additional places, and its plans to deliver the remaining 14,000 are still subject to significant risk. The Lord Chancellor, in her December 2024 announcement of MoJ’s 10–year prison capacity strategy, emphasised the continued need for prison places, as it projected the prison population to increase by an average of 3,000 annually over the coming years. As a result of poor planning and delays, the adult male prison estate was operating at 98.0% to 99.7% occupancy between October 2022 and August 2024 and remains alarmingly full. Overcrowding is endemic, staff are overburdened, and access to services and purposeful activity is poor. The current prison system has had to focus on ensuring there are sufficient places to house prisoners. While the efforts of HMPPS staff to avert disaster are admirable, this state of crisis undermines their efforts to rehabilitate prisoners and reduce reoffending. It also represents poor value for money for the taxpayer, with MoJ and HMPPS unable to make sufficient progress on maintaining existing cells, and needing to rent police cells due to a lack of capacity. MoJ and HMPPS have relied on the early release of prisoners to prevent total gridlock in the criminal justice system. Despite releasing thousands of prisoners early, MoJ still forecasts it will run out of capacity by early 2026. It is relying on the ongoing independent Sentencing Review to prevent this. However, any decisions to divert more people from prison will likely increase pressures on other parts of the system, particularly the Probation Service, which already has issues with staff shortages and high caseloads. This Committee has recently reported on the Crown Court backlog, which is significantly delaying access to justice. Courts and prisons cannot be viewed in isolation: creating sufficient capacity in prisons is vital to enabling a reduction in the courts backlog, and in turn if the courts backlog is reduced this will decrease the number of people on remand. If prisons continue to operate at near–full capacity, this will exacerbate the backlog and stymie efforts to improve efficiency in the justice system.  

London: House of Commons, 2025. 27p.