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 Kelsie Chesnut, Celia Strumph, Faiza Chappell, Ari Kotler, John Bae

A person’s conviction history should never be a barrier to housing. Housing provides a foundation to engage in opportunities such as education and employment, making it a critical piece of one’s life, especially after release from incarceration. Formerly incarcerated people point to housing as one of the most important factors in helping them stay out of prison after release. Despite research finding that a conviction history does not predict a person’s housing success, some landlords fear that people with conviction histories will pose a threat to safety and property. The barriers to housing that people with conviction histories face place emotional and financial strain on families and destabilize communities. Because people leaving incarceration are regularly denied access to safe and affordable housing due to their conviction histories, they often rely on their families as the primary source of stable housing after release. But they are four to seven times more likely to be unemployed compared to members of the general public, so they often can’t make enough money to contribute to the household. As a result, people leaving incarceration often face homelessness and housing instability. Approximately one-third of formerly incarcerated people lack stable housing after release. People who experience homelessness have frequent interactions with police, who arrest them for misdemeanors often associated with homelessness, such as sleeping in public spaces and trespassing, reinforcing a cycle of homelessness and incarceration. Moreover, housing restrictions based on landlords’ reluctance to accept tenants with conviction histories also force people who are otherwise qualified for housing to resort to more precarious housing settings such as shelters, placing undue stress on systems and agencies that are already overburdened and have limited resources. People will continue to face barriers absent protections that end housing discrimination for people with conviction histories. To ensure that people are able to access housing after criminal legal system involvement, the Vera Institute of Justice (Vera) is advancing policy changes in several states, building on emerging lessons from the field. This research brief sheds light on how the passage of fair chance housing laws has impacted communities in Cook County (Illinois), New Jersey, and Washington, DC. Vera interviewed policy advocates, housing providers, enforcement agencies, policymakers, and other stakeholders to determine if people’s ability to secure housing has changed, the impact on housing provider operations, and the factors required to ensure that policies work.

New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2025. 17p.

By Kelsie Chesnut, Ruth Delaney, Eurielle Kiki, Niloufer Taber

On average, more than 1,000 people are released from state and federal prison every day, totaling 448,400 in 2022 alone.6 Each will need to secure housing, employment, and other essentials. Increasing access to good jobs among people who are formerly incarcerated will speed successful reintegration into society, reducing crime, bolstering local economies, and increasing tax revenues. Postsecondary education plays a crucial role in securing employment in today’s labor landscape. This trend has persisted for decades and shows no signs of changing soon, as underscored by projections from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. These show an annual average of 4.7 million job openings over the next decade, most of which will be concentrated in the health care and social assistance fields; professional, scientific, and technical services; and the transportation and warehousing sectors.7 Entry-level education requirements within these openings will range from some college to a bachelor’s degree.8 Most jobs now require some level of postsecondary education, and by 2031, 72 percent of all jobs in the United States will require education and training beyond high school.9 But just having the necessary level of education may not be enough. Approximately one-third of adults in the United States possess some form of a conviction history— including arrest records or charges without convictions—which often pose barriers to employment.10 Addressing this issue is essential for companies to remain competitive and for the overall health of the U.S. economy to thrive. Those with a history of incarceration see reduced wages and earnings. Studies reveal that past incarceration can lead to an 11 percent reduction in subsequent wages, a decrease of nine weeks in annual employment, and a staggering 40 percent decline in yearly earnings.11 This effect is disproportionately felt by formerly incarcerated Black and Latino men, who experience earnings losses of 44 percent and 41 percent, respectively, equating to an estimated earnings reduction of nearly $179,000 by age 48.12 Access to postsecondary education in prisons has the potential to substantially improve employment rates for people who are formerly incarcerated throughout the United States. On average, people returning home after completing a postsecondary education program while incarcerated can anticipate a nearly 10 percent increase in employment rates compared to those who do not complete a postsecondary education program.13 Low levels of educational attainment are common among incarcerated people, especially Black men.14 The statistics are stark: the incarceration rate for young Black men with low levels of education increased by 22 points in the two decades following 1980.15 By 2004, 34 percent of young Black male high school dropouts were incarcerated daily, a rate 40 times higher than the national average.16 Additionally, imprisonment has become prevalent for Black male dropouts born since the mid-1960s, with 60 to 70 percent experiencing incarceration.17 Despite this, the majority of people (58 percent) who are incarcerated do not complete an education program while in prison.18 Among those who do earn a new educational credential, the majority completed a high school or GED program.19 Only 9 percent of incarcerated people completed a postsecondary program while in prison in 2014.20 However, low enrollment does not reflect low interest: in 2014, 70 percent of people in prison expressed a desire to enroll in an academic program.21 The problem lies in access. Most existing programs are funded through the federal Second Chance Pell program, described in detail in this section, which most recently served a maximum of 20,299 incarcerated students over the 2022–2023 fiscal year.22 People who enroll in college in prison and who engage in careers after release have a lower likelihood of recidivating and a greater likelihood of earning living wages compared to their counterparts who did not.23 Entering a career, rather than transitional or shortterm employment, plays a role in this success. 24 However, finding stable employment post-release is one of the biggest challenges faced by people leaving prison.25 Enrolling in postsecondary programs could increase employment rates among formerly incarcerated people across the United States by nearly 10 percent, according to one estimate.26 An increase in employment rates translates into an increase in earnings for formerly incarcerated people and their families. One estimate placed the increase of the combined wages earned by all formerly incarcerated people at more than $45 million during the first year back in their communities.27 At the same time, the impact of lowered rates of rearrest and/or reconviction could decrease state reincarceration spending by as much as $365 million per year.28 One promising opportunity to reverse this trend took effect on July 1, 2023: the reinstatement of federal Pell Grant eligibility to incarcerated people after nearly 30 years of exclusion. Pell Grants are need-based federal financial aid that can be used to pay for eligible postsecondary education.29 Under the new law and regulations, postsecondary institutions must ensure the credentials they offer in prison are free of licensure barriers for people with convictions.30 These measures aim to prevent student enrollment in programs that would lead to jobs prohibited by state or federal law due to prior convictions.31 However, the restrictions in place are complex and vary widely from state to state. For example, estimates indicate that more than 1,100 occupations face state regulations through licensure, certification, and registration, yet fewer than 60 occupations are regulated by more than half the states, raising concerns about quality and consistency across jurisdictions.32 And although this offers a baseline of protection against inaccessible jobs and careers, a further step those planning Pell-eligible programs could take is to ensure the credential track leads to a “good job.” Study Overview The study was guided by three research questions: › Which occupations in each state are expected to grow in the future and pay a living wage upon entry? › Which of these jobs typically requires some form of postsecondary education? › Which of these good jobs are open to people with felony convictions? To answer the first two questions, Vera drew on available data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to identify the occupations that could be classified as good jobs. Vera considered occupations to be good jobs if they were projected to grow in each state and the District of Columbia through 2030, paid a living wage at the 10th percentile of the occupation’s pay range as a proxy for entry-level wages, and required a postsecondary credential for entry or advancement.33 Vera made the decision to require that good jobs pay a living wage upon entry—rather than to consider the median income—to account for the position of workers who are formerly incarcerated, who have historically been paid reduced wages compared to their counterparts for a variety of reasons, such as being willing to work for less due to the pressures and challenges they face finding a job; having limited work histories prior to reentry; entering a new field opened to them by participation in education; or, once employed, being subject to stigma that hinders career advancement. However, this criterion resulted in the exclusion of many critical professions, such as educators and social workers, as these professions did not typically pay a living wage for one adult and no children upon entry. This is indicative of a broader labor issue outside of the scope of this study related to how the U.S. economy is structured and the prevalence of low wages overall. (See “Appendix A: Methodology” on page 21.) Vera’s living wage analysis originally included two household structures: one adult and no children; and one adult and two children. Upon analysis, virtually no occupations met the living wage for one adult and two children upon entry. This has a potentially disparate impact on women, who are more likely than men to be sole caregivers to children both generally and upon release from incarceration.34 Regarding the requirement for postsecondary education, Vera included occupations that required a postsecondary nondegree award, an associate’s degree, or a bachelor’s degree. Postsecondary nondegree awards are obtained through programs that lead to a certificate or other award, but not a degree. Some examples of a postsecondary nondegree award include nursing assistants, emergency medical technicians, paramedics, and hairstylists. From this pool of eligible occupations in each state, Vera then identified the top occupations legally accessible to people with felony conviction histories.36 Using data from the National Inventory of Collateral Consequences of Conviction, Vera cross-referenced those good jobs against any legal or regulatory barriers that limit or prevent entry to identify which are accessible to people with felony convictions.37 (See “Appendix A: Methodology” on page 21.) Although legal restrictions may vary based on the severity of conviction, Vera’s analysis is limited to any felony conviction. Findings are aggregated nationally and presented at the jurisdiction level in Appendix B on page 31. Applicable legal restrictions were applied at the time of analysis, but are subject to change.

Brooklyn, NY: Vera Institute of Justice, 2025. 155p.

By Sarah Riley, Jacob Kang-Brown, Jessica Zhang, Jim Parsons, and Lauren Williams

It is widely recognized, if underappreciated, that incarceration physically separates people from their loved ones and communities. But there is far less attention paid to the intentional disappearance of incarcerated people from government statistics; this pernicious exclusion has profound ripple effects. Employment statistics are one key instance. Every month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) releases an official employment report. This report details changes in average hourly earnings, industry-specific employment trends, and fluctuations in unemployment rates across racial groups. Each of these statistics disregards everyone in jail or prison, a population disproportionately made up of Black people and low-wage workers.3 These metrics matter. They provide a key frame for understanding economic opportunity and racial equity in the United States.

Brooklyn, NY: Vera Institute of Justice, 2025. 13p.

By Matthew Millings, Lol Burke, Harry Annison, Nicola Carr, Gwen Robinson & Eleanor Surridge.

This article presents findings from a major longitudinal research project of probation in England and Wales, arguing that the process of its ‘unification’ (re-nationalisation) continues to be a painful process whose end state remains elusive. Having previously articulated how practitioners experienced unification as ‘painful but necessary’, here, using the imagery of a journey, we argue that the speed and direction of travel have encountered a more perilous trajectory than expected as high workloads and staffing challenges have persisted. Second, we argue that enduring challenges in bedding in new working practices – and building the confidence of new and existing colleagues to deliver them – have acted as ‘hazards’ that have needed careful navigation. Third, we argue that staff experience a sense of individual and collective operational vulnerability, in the face of the relentless demands placed upon them. In conclusion, we identify a series of forks in the road that prompt profound questions about the delivery of probation services now and in the future.

Probation Journal 1–18 © The Author(s) 2025  

By Michelle Kirby

  The Family Violence Education Program is Connecticut’s pretrial program that gives eligible defendants the chance to attend programs that provide education about family violence instead of going to trial. Any defendant who wants to take part in the program must submit an application to the court. If the court grants the defendant’s application, he or she must take part in nine, 90- minute sessions of a psycho-educational class that is focused on reducing any future family violence. If the defendant completes this program successfully and follows any other conditions set by the court while he or she is taking part in the program, the court will dismiss the charges against the defendant. Classes are offered all over the state by judicial branch-contracted community providers  

OLR Research Report, Hartford:   Connecticut General Assembly ,  Office of Legislative Research , 2023. 4p.

By Jacquelyn Sicilia

Domestic violence has plagued society for years. However, until 1994, domestic violence was not federally criminalized. Today, domestic violence affects over ten million Americans per year. Because of the criminal justice system’s slow reaction to domestic violence, how the criminal justice system handles domestic violence cases is far from ideal. Pretrial release in domestic violence cases is one area of domestic violence that is ripe for research, guidance, and change. Pretrial release brings to light a unique balance; defendants are presumed to be innocent, but at the same time, the fact of arrest may point to an ongoing risk of harm to victims if defendants are released pre-trial. With little known about which pretrial conditions are successful in non-domestic violence cases, the answer of how to strike the necessary balance is even more challenging. This Note examines the different approaches states use to assign pretrial release conditions to domestic-violence defendants who are granted pretrial release and proposes a model statute to address—and effectively account for—the risk of re-abuse and the rights of criminal defendants in pretrial release.

66 St. Louis U. L.J. (2022)., 37p.

By Cassondra Warney, Ellen Whelan-Wuest, Madeleine Dardeau

This policy framework outlines policy options developed as part of a Justice Reinvestment Initiative effort in Vermont in 2019 in collaboration with Vermont’s Justice Reinvestment II Working Group. Many of the policies were reflected in legislation signed into law in 2020. The aim of these policies was to improve post-release supervision, achieve a more equitable criminal justice system, increase data collection and analysis, and, ultimately, reduce recidivism.

New York: The Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2022. 17p.

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 Michelle Butler,, Catherine B. McName, Dominic Kelly

Despite its impact on imprisonment, no quantitative study has examined the factors related to people's status on prison incentive schemes. This study addresses this gap by using administrative data to explore the factors related to the status of 405 men on a prison incentive scheme. Results revealed that those who had a prior history of passing prison drug tests at time 1, and spent more time imprisoned during the follow-up period, were more likely to be on the highest level of the scheme one year later at time 2. In contrast, those who had a history of past involvement in misconduct, referrals for serious self-harm/attempted suicide in prison, not taken a prison drug test, property offences, and greater periods of custody at time  were more likely to be on the lower levels of the scheme at time . The potential implications for theory, policy, and practice are discussed.

  European Journal of Criminology 2024, Vol. 21(6) 887–907 

By Johann Koehler https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1305-891 j.koehler@lse.ac.uand Friedrich Lösel

We synthesize 53 meta-analyses on the effectiveness of correctional treatment applied to a wide variety of offender groups delivered in either custodial or community-based settings. Those meta-analyses revealed positive overall effects on reoffending of correctional treatment delivered in both settings. However, the treatment setting is also associated with complex moderator effects. With respect to effect size, for most groups, community-based correctional treatment is associated with statistically significant larger reductions in reoffending than treatments delivered in custodial settings. With respect to effect precision, custodial treatments report more consistent effects on reoffending than community-based treatments. The findings extend and develop the insight that treatment flexibility, such as is found among community-based treatments, can optimize program effectiveness. Likewise, the opportunities for monitoring and treatment fidelity that custodial settings enable can homogenize outcomes. Nonetheless, the promising results observed among treatments delivered both inside and outside institutional settings implicate a complex policy tradeoff between prioritizing strong performance and consistent effects.

European Journal of Criminology 2025, Vol. 22(1) 3–29 , 2024    

By Amanda Wilson

Centering the perspectives and lived experiences of incarcerated persons, this article considers the ways food is used as a tool and site of contestation and possibility within federal prisons in Canada. Focusing specifcally on the implementation of and resistance to the Food Services Modernization Initiative, I explore food as “contested terrain” within carceral systems, making visible a range of tactics of resistance employed by incarcerated persons, from testimonials and ofcial complaints to direct collective action. In analyzing these actions and narratives, I refect on the importance of both food justice and prisoner justice to transforming carceral food systems and call for greater acknowledgment of carceral food systems within food movement discourses and campaigns.  

  Critical Criminology (2023) 31:83–104

By Ben Stickle, Steven Sprick Schuster

Recent expansions in prison school offerings and the re-introduction of the Second Chance Pell Grant have heightened the need for a better understanding of the effectiveness of prison education programs on policy-relevant outcomes. We estimate the effects of various forms of prison education on recidivism, post-release employment, and post-release wages. Using a sample of 152 estimates drawn from 79 papers, we conducted a meta-analysis to estimate the effect of four forms of prison education (adult basic education, secondary, vocational, and college). We find that prison education decreases recidivism and increases post-release employment and wages. The largest effects are experienced by prisoners participating in vocational or college education programs. We also calculate the economic returns on educational investment for prisons and prisoners. We find that each form of education yields large, positive returns due primarily to the high costs of incarceration and, therefore, high benefits to crime avoidance. The returns vary across education types, with vocational education having the highest return per dollar spent ($3.05) and college having the highest positive impact per student participating ($16,908).

American Journal of Criminal Justice, Volume 48, pages 1263–1294, (2023):

By Zarek Khan

This article is based on interview data (N = 16) collected in a medium security men’s English prison (HMP Wandsworth). It begins with an introduction of the Incentives and Earned Privileges scheme and outlines the amendments to Incentives and Earned Privileges that have transformed prisoners’ requirements for progression during their sentence. As the article demonstrates, the policy alteration increases the need for prisoners to be visibly compliant by staff in order to advance through the scheme; it is no longer sufficient to be invisibly compliant. To this end, I present a typology of visibility that illustrates prisoner compliance and outcomes to the Incentives and Earned Privileges scheme. The article situates the revisions made to Incentives and Earned Privileges against the backdrop of neoliberal informed penal politics. The article concludes by summarising the key theoretical and practical implications of the study.

Criminology & Criminal Justice 2022, Vol. 22(1) 97–114 , 2020  

By Joseph Hennessy

Mass incarceration is a uniquely American phenomenon. With roots in chattel slavery, modern mass incarceration truly exploded in the latter half of the 20th Century. As Reagan-era politicians advocated for fiscal conservatism on the one hand and heavy-handed responses to crime on the other, private prison pioneers saw an opportunity to derive profit from society’s most vulnerable. Today, private prisons house as much as half of some states’ total prison population, and private prison corporations have demonstrated an insatiable desire to expand their reach. This Note explores the unique social vulnerability of privately incarcerated people through a statutory and judicial lens. It highlights the unique burdens placed on private prisoners that put them at greater risk of personal harm and civil rights violations than their publicly incarcerated counterparts. This Note attempts to incentivize corporate officers of private prisons to maintain safer prisons by imputing to them criminal liability for their subordinates’ crimes. It does so by advocating for the prosecution of unscrupulous corporate officers via the responsible corporate officer doctrine in the 9th Circuit, which has been particularly receptive to expansions of that doctrine.

33 J. L. & Pol'y 203 (2024), 31p.

By Tasseli McKay and William A. “Sandy” Darity Jr.

  A rich empirical literature documents the consequences of mass incarceration for the wealth, health, and safety of Black Americans. Yet it often frames such consequences as a regrettable artifact of racially disproportionate criminal legal system contact, rather than situating the impetus and functioning of the criminal legal system in the wider context of White political and economic domination. Revisiting a quarter century of mass incarceration research through a stratification economics lens, we highlight how mass incarceration shapes Black–White competition for education, employment, and financial resources and contributes to Black–White disparities in well-being. Highlighting persistent research gaps, we propose a research agenda to better understand how mass incarceration contributes to systematic White advantage. To address mass incarceration’s consequences and transform  it arose, we call for legislative and judicial intervention to remedy White hyper-enfranchisement and reparations to eliminate the Black–White wealth gap. 

Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 2024. 20:11.1–11.22 

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.