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 Eve Tailor and Dan Jones

  1.1 Background and methodological approach Numerous prisons, charities, and prison education providers deliver peer mentoring schemes relating to education, skills, and work (ESW). Where successful, these schemes are viewed as significant in the delivery of ESW and have been highly praised by His Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) and Ofsted. However, practice is inconsistent and there is limited evidence about which delivery models are most successful. The rationale for undertaking this research was to understand effective practice in ESW peer mentoring in more detail, including the functioning of these schemes. The findings from this study will be used by the HMPPS Prisoner Education Service team to inform ESW peer mentoring policy development. Findings are based on 48 qualitative interviews with mentees, mentors and ESW staff members across 5 male prisons in England in April and May 2023. 1.2 Key Findings A variety of mentoring schemes operate in ESW within men’s prisons. The setting, structure, purpose, and formality of schemes explored in this study vary significantly. For example, formalised schemes had structured mentor/mentee relationships and clear staff oversight. These schemes tended to focus on skill development, such as reading. Less formalised schemes often had flexible and less structured operation, with mentors supporting multiple mentees. These less formalised schemes often involved supporting staff to deliver ESW services. There is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to peer mentoring in ESW, allowing individual sites to tailor their provision to the learners at their site  Some of the enablers of effective practice identified by participants in this study included: • mentors having previous experience as a mentee or mentor in other custodial and non-custodial settings, 1 • approachable mentors helping to facilitate mentee recruitment and effective running of schemes, • privileges and low-risk status enabling greater access to the prison site and recognition of the hard work of mentors. Some of the barriers to effective practice identified by participants in this study included: • regime and restricted movement preventing access to mentoring, • limited awareness from operational staff about the purpose of peer mentoring, •uch

Ministry of Justice Analytical Series London: UK Ministry of Justice, 2024. 41p.

By Stephanie Wylie and Ames Grawert

Every day, judges set bail for thousands of individuals charged with a crime. Bail represents a promise that they will return to court for their next court appearance. In many cases, courts require that this promise be secured by money beyond people’s means. As a result, despite the presumption of innocence, thousands remain behind bars for months or even years until their cases are resolved. Tying pretrial release to one’s ability to pay means that all too often wealth — not public safety, nor the likelihood of returning to court — determines who goes free and who awaits case resolution in jail. Those without the means to post bail in cash can turn to third-party guarantees known as bonds, typically arranged by private bail bond companies that front the cost for a nonrefundable fee that can run into the thousands of dollars — a debilitating sum for many people. This option may not be available for smaller but still unaffordable bail amounts. This system persists despite growing research on the harmful consequences of detention. Even a brief period in jail increases the risk that a person will lose employment and housing. Time in jail also increases the likelihood of future arrests. This pattern could be due to the economic effects of incarceration (such as wage loss) or to disruptions to interpersonal relationships and community ties. The threat of jail may even induce false guilty pleas, as some people would rather face a criminal record than spend additional time in pretrial detention. The bail system contributes to the United States’ high rate of incarceration. An estimated two-thirds of the 750,000 people in the nation’s jails are awaiting resolution of their cases; as such, they are legally innocent. While some are detained because they have been deemed a threat to public safety or for another specific cause, most simply cannot afford to pay bail. The number of people held in pretrial detention has risen sharply over time, multiplying by more than a factor of seven from 1970 to 2021. The average amount of time spent in jail has also increased, from roughly two weeks in 1983 to nearly five weeks in 2021. Over the past two decades, jurisdictions around the country have revised their policies on pretrial release, bail, and detention, drawing on broad and often bipartisan concern about the role of money in determining who goes free and who awaits trial in jail.10 Despite progress, however, political backlash and implementation challenges have stymied reforms. This report highlights recent examples of bail reform and the complicated dynamics that have prevented these policies from living up to their potential. Specifically, the report spotlights five jurisdictions that undertook major changes to bail policies through a variety of mechanisms, including legislation, litigation, and amendments to court rules. Three jurisdictions ultimately rolled reforms back in whole or in part; in the other two, reforms led to unintended increases in pretrial detention. What happened? Lawmakers often made bail reform a scapegoat for rising crime rates, particularly during the Covid-19 pandemic, which coincided with increases in violent crime. But rising crime is by no means limited to 2020, and bail reform has long been a wedge issue. Further, the difficulty of acquiring and studying criminal justice data has made it hard for policymakers to defend or explain the effects of bail reform policies. Finally, judges, prosecutors, and pretrial supervision agencies have sometimes failed to adapt to reforms, leading to confusion and surprising results, such as seemingly paradoxical increases in supervision and detention. Only by understanding the shortcomings of past reform efforts can advocates begin to overcome the challenges inherent to building a more equitable and efficient pretrial justice system

New York: Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, 2024. 22p.

By Pasangi S. Perera,  Vanessa E. Miller, Kate Vinita Fitch,  Monica E. Swilley-Martinez,  David L. Rosen ,  et al.  

Since 2014, Medicaid expansion has been implemented in many states across the US, increasing health care access among vulnerable populations, including formerly incarcerated people who experience higher mortality rates than the general population. OBJECTIVE To examine population-level association of Medicaid expansion with postrelease mortality from all causes, unintentional drug overdoses, opioid overdoses, polydrug overdoses, suicides, and homicides among formerly incarcerated people in Rhode Island (RI), which expanded Medicaid, compared with North Carolina (NC), which did not expand Medicaid during the study period. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A cohort study was conducted using incarceration release data from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2018, linked to death records from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2019, on individuals released from incarceration in RI and NC. Data analysis was performed from August 20, 2022, to February 15, 2024. Participants included those aged 18 years or older who were released from incarceration. Individuals who were temporarily held during ongoing judicial proceedings, died during incarceration, or not released from incarceration during the study period were excluded. EXPOSURE Full Medicaid expansion in RI effective January 1, 2014. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Mortality from all causes, unintentional drug overdoses, unintentional opioid and polydrug overdoses, suicides, and homicides. RESULTS Between 2009 and 2018, 17 824 individuals were released from RI prisons (mean [SD] age, 38.39 [10.85] years; 31 512 [89.1%] male) and 160 861 were released from NC prisons (mean [SD] age, 38.28 [10.84] years; 209 021 [87.5%] male). Compared with NC, people who were formerly incarcerated in RI experienced a sustained decrease of 72 per 100 000 person-years (95% CI, −108 to −36 per 100 000 person-years) in all-cause mortality per quarter after Medicaid expansion. Similar decreases were observed in RI in drug overdose deaths (−172 per 100 000 person-years per 6 months; 95% CI, −226 to −117 per 100 000 person-years), including opioid and polydrug overdoses, and homicide deaths (−23 per 100 000 person-years per year; 95% CI, −50 to 4 per 100 000 person-years) after Medicaid expansion. Suicide mortality did not change after Medicaid expansion. After Medicaid expansion in RI, non-Hispanic White individuals experienced 3 times greater sustained decreases in all-cause mortality than all racially minoritized individuals combined, while non-Hispanic Black individuals did not experience any substantial benefits. There was no modification by sex. Individuals aged 30 years or older experienced greater all-cause mortality reduction after Medicaid expansion than those younger than 30 years.  

JAMA Network Open,  Health Policy September 17, 2024, 12p.

By David Shapiro, Molly Bernstein

Properly understood, the “cruel or unusual” punishment clause of the Michigan Constitution grants every person sentenced to life in prison a meaningful right to obtain release by making a convincing showing of rehabilitation. Today, however, Michigan has among the nation's largest populations of people serving both formal and de facto life sentences without any meaningful possibility of release. Michigan’s current life-sentence regime therefore violates the state constitution.

In 1850, Michigan revised its constitution to prohibit “cruel or unusual punishment” creating a contrast with the conjunctive “cruel and unusual punishments” clause of the federal Eighth Amendment. Under Michigan’s disjunctive prohibition, cruelty standing alone made a punishment “cruel” and thus unlawful. But what made a sentence “cruel”?

Our analysis of sentencing and punishment practices immediately before and after the 1850 constitutional convention sheds light on this question. Michigan abolished capital punishment in 1846, shortly before its 1850 constitutional convention. Life in prison became the punishment for crimes previously punished by death. These life sentences were “without parole” because no system of parole existed at the time. But life sentences—indeed all prison sentences— allowed a meaningful opportunity for release through a different and long-established mechanism: the pardon power. Liberal use of the pardon power was considered necessary to provide a meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on rehabilitation, thereby preventing life sentences from becoming “cruel” and thus unconstitutional. According to accompanying executive statements, mercy (in particular, to prevent death in prison) and rehabilitation were among the primary bases for granting clemency from prison terms.

This historical record shows that, at the time, truly permanent or final, inflexible punishments did not exist. Instead, for sentences both short and long, the necessity and efficacy of incarceration was always subject to review. Significant additional evidence confirms that, originally understood, it was cruel for the state to impose any punishment beyond that necessary to rehabilitate offenders—especially punishments that foreclosed the chance of rehabilitation entirely. For example, debates among delegates at the state’s 1850 constitutional convention reflect a shared understanding that the primary if not exclusive purpose of criminal sanctions was reformation, along with deep skepticism of any punishment that permanently excluded people from civil society. This rejection of permanent prison terms prevailed in Michigan for well over 100 years. Through most of the 20th century, no one in Michigan was sent to prison without a chance of release. Instead, even people technically serving “life without parole” were routinely considered for and awarded release based on rehabilitation. This longstanding practice confirms that permanent prison terms were not just needlessly cruel, but “unusual” to the point of nonexistent.

Yet today, as both executive clemency and parole grants have dwindled, Michigan has among the nation's largest populations of people serving both formal and de facto death-by-incarceration sentences, which we define as a life sentence unaccompanied by a meaningful opportunity to secure release by demonstrating rehabilitation. With a focus on the role of clemency as a meaningful form of sentence review—particularly contemporaneous with the adoption of Michigan’s “cruel or unusual” anti-punishment clause— this article adds to the body of evidence showing that, according to the original meaning of Michigan's constitution, mandating death in prison is cruel and unconstitutional.

Unpublished paper, 2024. 21p.

By Kevin Lapp

On January 6, 2021, an estimated two thousand people broke police lines and breached the U.S. Capitol building in an effort to prevent the certification of the 2020 presidential election results. Over one thousand people have been charged with various crim­­­­­es for their actions that day, from misdemeanor trespassing charges to felony assault with a weapon and seditious conspiracy. Relying on publicly available sources, this article present results from an analysis of the first 514 people to have been sentenced in federal court for crimes committed on January 6. The result is a snapshot of the insurrectionists, the charges they faced, and the punishments federal judges imposed on them.

On demographics, the data suggests that the lawbreaking and political violence of January 6 was not just the work of the usual criminal suspects, so-called right-wing extremists, or residents of former President Trump strongholds. Rather, it was committed by a cohort that more closely resembles mainstream White America. On punishment, the aggregate results are notable for their leniency. The cases were much more likely to result in a conviction for only a misdemeanor than typical federal criminal cases. Prison sentences were imposed much less frequently than usual for federal criminal defendants, and were much shorter in length.

The article also explores the relationships between defendant age and sex, the sentences that judges imposed, and the sex and political party of the President who nominated the sentencing judge. Several intriguing findings raise questions about scholarship on the politics of sentencing. It also examines where individual judges varied in the imposition of incarceration, sometimes in surprising ways, even accounting for the severity of the offense of conviction.

Finally, the article posits three alternative narratives supported by the data. One is a story of preserving political stability and the rule of law through prosecution, threatened by lenient sentencing. Another is judicial corrective to prosecutorial overreach. A third centers the role of politics, demographics, and bias in the administration of criminal justice.

Accepted for publication in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (publication in 2025),

By Amy Pisani, Keely Sinclaira and Sara Rahman

AIM To examine trends in the Aboriginal adult female custodial population between March 2013 and February 2021. METHOD Descriptive analysis of data extracted from a) Corrective Services NSW’s Offender Information Management System (OIMS) for adult females between March 2013 and February 2021; b) Computerised Operational Policing System (COPS) relating to female adult Persons of Interest (POIs) proceeded against between March 2013 and February 2020; and c) NSW Criminal Courts Statistics for adult females between March 2013 and February 2020. This analysis was supplemented by regression analysis using an extract of the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) Re-offending Database (ROD) for adult females. RESULTS The Aboriginal adult female custodial population increased by 28%, from 224 to 287 between March 2013 and February 2021. The increase in Aboriginal females in prison mostly occurred in the four years from March 2013 to February 2017, after which the population stabilised. The overall increase was due to both a rise in the remand population (up 41% or 35 individuals) and the sentenced custody population (up 20% or 28 individuals). Several factors contributed to the increase in Aboriginal women in custody. The number of Aboriginal women proceeded against to court by police increased, particularly for assault, intimidation/stalking, theft, fraud, breaches of violence and non-violence orders, illicit drugs and traffic offences. This resulted in an increased number of Aboriginal women sentenced to imprisonment. In addition, this growth in charges increased the remand population through more Aboriginal women being refused bail. We also note a modest increase in the number of bail breaches and bail revocations, and the average length of time spent in remand. Regression analyses showed that the increase in more serious offending among this group has outweighed reductions in the likelihood of imprisonment after the 2018 sentencing reforms. CONCLUSION The number of Aboriginal women in custody has stabilised in recent years. However, increasing rates of offending continue to exert upwards pressure on the Aboriginal female prison population

(Bureau Brief No. 161). Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. 2022. 20p.

By Ami Pisani

AIM To examine rates of re-offending over 10 years for adults and young people convicted of an offence in NSW in 2010. METHOD Descriptive analysis of data for a cohort of offenders convicted in NSW Criminal Courts in 2010 from the NSW Re-offending Database (ROD). RESULTS Most offenders (55%) found guilty in the NSW criminal courts in the year 2010 were reconvicted of a further offence within 10 years of their reference offence. Re-offending was more common among young people. Among those with a conviction in 2010, 81% of young people and 54% of adults had a subsequent re-conviction within 10 years. Most re-offending occurs relatively quickly with 58% of young people and 31% of adults re-offending within just two years. Irrespective of age, re-offending for any offence was highest for those persons whose reference offence was break and enter. Re-offending for the same offence was highest for young people convicted of assault, theft, and property damage, and adults convicted of theft, breach of violence order, break and enter, and illicit drug offences. The proportion of offenders reoffending for any offence type was highest for young people (81%), males (57%), and Aboriginal offenders (86%). CONCLUSION Re-offending is common among people convicted in court. Males, young people, and Aboriginal offenders are more likely than others to be re-convicted. Re-offenders are often generalists, with re-conviction occurring for a variety of offences.

(Bureau Brief No. 162). Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research , 2022. 8p.

By Sara Rahman

AIM To identify factors which predict commencement and completion of the Mandatory Alcohol Interlock Program (MAIP). METHOD We use a dataset from Transport for NSW after comprising 10,209 Mandatory Alcohol Interlock Orders (MAIOs) with an initial disqualification period ending before 20 April 2019. We also examine a subsample of 2,860 MAIOs (with an expiry date prior to 20 April 2019) where a person commenced MAIP. These records were linked to the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research’s Re-offending Database and MAIP operational data. Logistic regression models were used to identify factors predicting commencement and completion of the program. To assess model performance, we report the Area Under the Curve (AUC) and the percentage correctly predicted. RESULTS Offenders had a decreased likelihood of commencing the program if they were: a) already disqualified at the time of the offence (15 percentage points less likely to start); b) aged 55 years and above (20 percentage points less likely to start the program than 18-24 year olds); c) Aboriginal (12 percentage points less likely than non-Aboriginal offenders and 15 percentage points compared to those with unknown Aboriginality); or d) sentenced to imprisonment at the index contact (15 percentage points less likely to start). Our model has moderate predictive power (AUC=0.68). While the majority of starters completed the program, having an existing disqualification or suspension, a longer interlock period, and having an order extended were all associated with non-completion. Demographic factors, particularly age and Aboriginality, were also significant independent predictors in our model predicting completion, which has acceptable predictive accuracy (AUC=0.70). CONCLUSION Interlock installation can be predicted moderately well by licensing, operational, demographic, and criminal justice information. However, we lack information on other potentially important factors such as risk preferences and the availability of alternative transport. Most of those who commence the interlock program complete it and thus, improving commencement should be a greater priority for policymakers.

(Bureau Brief No. 160). Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research 2022. 17p.

By Don Weatherburn a, Sara Rahman b, Stephanie Todd c, Suzanne Poynton b, Samantha Black c, Tanya Merinda c, Michael F

arrell

The Magistrates Early Referral into Treatment (MERIT) program is a voluntary, pre-plea diversion program for defendants appearing in the New South Wales (NSW), Australia, Local Court who have issues related to their alcohol and other drug (AOD) use.

Methods

Matched treatment and comparison groups were created using propensity score matching. The outcomes examined were AOD-related hospital admissions, AOD-related Emergency Department (ED) admissions, ED admissions (general), hospital admission (general), ambulance callouts, AOD related deaths, and deaths from any cause, as well as reoffending and imprisonment. Differences between outcomes were analysed using Cox regression (health outcomes), negative binomial regression (reoffending) and logistic regression (imprisonment).

Results

Survival times for participants in the MERIT program were significantly shorter for all health outcomes except one (death). At the 12-month mark, MERIT participants offended 21 per cent less frequently than comparison group participants (IRR: 0.793. CI: 0.748–0.841). This gap increased to 27 per cent after 24 months (IRR: 0.870. CI: 0.829–0.912). At the conclusion of criminal proceedings participants in the MERIT program were significantly less likely to receive a prison sentence (OR: 0.728. CI: 0.674–0.787) or to die (OR: 0.674. CI: 0.502–0.904)

Conclusion

The Magistrates’ Early Referral Into Treatment Program appears to be an effective way of reducing the short-term risk of re-offending, imprisonment, and death.

International Journal of Drug Policy, Volume 138, April 2025,15p.

By Lee Ann Slocum, Claire Greene, Beth M. Huebner, Kiley Bednar, Adriano Udani, Robert Boxerman, Sarah Kirk, Konstadina Spanoudakis, Hayden Steingruby, Elizabeth Lyne, Emelyne Lane

Everyone wants to feel safe in their community. Yet, little is known about how people make sense of what community safety looks and feels like to them. Discussions among policymakers and in the media often emphasize crime rates as a key measure of community safety and the criminal legal system as the primary means of achieving this goal. This traditional conceptualization has several negative consequences. First, it often overlooks the perspectives and experiences of people most impacted by violence, high levels of enforcement, and mass incarceration, many of whom are people of color. Second, low crime rates do not necessarily ensure that residents perceive their community is safe. Other factors, such as media coverage and the physical and social environment, also play a role in shaping views of safety. Moreover, not all crime is reported to authorities, and this may be particularly true in areas where residents experience elevated levels of police enforcement activity and have little trust in the police. Third, relying on crime and other criminal legal system data can provide a narrow and skewed conceptualization of safety because they tend to reflect law enforcement priorities, police discretion, and willingness to report crime. Finally, aspects of safety captured by criminal legal system data may not align with community priorities or values. Narrow crime-oriented definitions often fail to recognize that conversations around community safety are highly localized. Allowing communities to define what safety means to them facilitates the development of locally driven priorities for action and interventions, ultimately helping advance the goal of safety for all.

This report explores the meaning of community safety for people who live and work in Missoula County, Montana by documenting local dynamics of crime, the criminal legal system, and conversations around the meaning of community safety. This report is part of a larger project that considers how adult residents of three US counties (Missoula County, Montana, St. Louis County, Missouri; and Mecklenburg County, North Carolina) define and understand community safety. These counties are currently working on interventions around crime and community safety funded, in part, thought the MacArthur Safety and Justice Challenge. The goal of the project was to develop a broad conceptualization of community safety that considers the views of people most impacted by crime and the criminal legal system. The findings are based on data from community surveys, as well as interviews and focus groups. The surveys were designed to capture a diversity of community voices. The interviews and focus groups allowed for a more in-depth examination of the views of criminal legal system actors, system-impacted individuals, and people who work with system-impacted persons, groups whose voices are often omitted in work of this type. Throughout, we draw on the interviews to highlight key findings and bring voice to the people closest to the challenges of building and maintaining safe communities.

Safety and Justice Challenge, 2023. 87p.

By Daniel S. Lawrence, Will Engelhardt, Storm Ervin, Rudy Perez

Before the implementation of the Juvenile Justice Reinvestment Act in December 2019, North Carolina was the last state that still automatically charged 16-to-17-year-olds as adults in its justice system. In March 2014, a group of stakeholders from Durham County—led by then–chief district court judge Marcia Morey—started the Misdemeanor Diversion Program (MDP) to prevent 16-to-17-year-olds from entering the justice system. The program has since expanded to include adults up to 26 years old. The first program of its kind in North Carolina, the MDP gives law enforcement officers in Durham County the discretion to redirect people accused of committing their first misdemeanor offense(s) to community-based services (such as life skills courses, restorative justice efforts, and behavioral health treatment) in lieu of citation or arrest. The purpose was to diminish unnecessary arrests and time in jail and the collateral consequences of being charged with and potentially convicted of a crime. What is particularly unique about this program is that it occurs prearrest and precharge, meaning someone law enforcement officers believe may have committed a crime will not be arrested or charged and will not formally enter the justice system in any way. This impact evaluation, the first conducted for the MDP, found that from March 2014 to February 2020, law enforcement officers in Durham County referred fewer than one-quarter of all people eligible for diversion to the MDP, though when they did, the program had positive impacts. In 2020 and 2021, with support from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation’s Safety and Justice Challenge Research Consortium, the Urban Institute conducted an in-depth impact evaluation of the MDP, the findings of which are detailed in this report. This impact evaluation was one component of Urban’s research on the MDP; Urban also conducted a detailed process evaluation that was described in a July 2021 report, A Process Evaluation of the Misdemeanor Diversion Program in Durham County, North Carolina (Engelhardt et al. 2021). Key Takeaways The data examined in this report cover January 2012 to February 2020 and were collected from North Carolina’s Administrative Office of the Courts, the MDP, the Durham Police Department (DPD), and the Durham County Sheriff’s Office. Box 1 provides five key findings the research team derived from these data. In this report, we assess the following: ◼ MDP enrollment ◼ MDP completion rates    ◼ the MDP’s impact on new arrests, convictions, and jail admissions for program participants ◼ the MDP’s impact on disparities by race and ethnicity, sex, and age ◼ the MDP’s impact on system-level arrests, convictions, and jail admissions Analyses were separated into two population groups—people ages 16 to 17 and people ages 18 to 21—because each group was eligible for the MDP during different periods. These groups were statistically matched to comparison groups through propensity score matching for the analyses that examined new arrests, convictions, and jail admissions. The comparison groups were well balanced with the MDP participant groups (see appendix D) and were pulled from pools of people who were concurrently eligible for the program but did not participate. BOX 1 Five Key Findings ◼ Approximately 77 percent of people eligible for the MDP were not referred to the program while it was operational from March 2014 to February 2020. ◼ Of those who did participate in the program, there was a very high completion rate of 95 percent. ◼ MDP participants had significantly lower rates of rearrests, convictions, or jail admissions than comparison groups within six months, one year, and two years. ◼ Participation in the MDP significantly reduced disparities in new arrests within two years and in new convictions and jail admissions within six months between 16-to-17-year-old Black people and non-Black people, making the differences in the levels of new arrests between these groups much more equivalent than between Black and non-Black people who did not participate in the MDP. ◼ The MDP did not have a larger impact on countywide rates of arrests, convictions, or jail admissions for either of the two age groups we analyzed.

Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2021. 83p.

By Krista R. Mehari, Savannah Morgan, Laura Taylor Stevens, Jasmine N. Coleman, Kaitlyn Schuler, Curtis Graves, Dakota R. B. Lindsey, Phillip N. Smith

This mixed methods study had two aims: (1) to examine the effectiveness of a jail diversion program in reducing recidivism and promoting educational and employment outcomes; and (2) to qualitatively explore mechanisms through which the program was effective. Participants were 17 individuals arrested for drug offenses who participated in an intensive, law enforcement-based jail diversion program, and 17 individuals in a comparison group. Arrests were extracted from police records, and education and employment were extracted from program data. Four intervention participants completed qualitative interviews. Arrest rates in the intervention group decreased significantly postintervention, and arrest rates in the intervention group were numerically lower than those in the comparison group. Participants experienced significant increases in employment and driver's license status. Participants also identified mechanisms through which the program was effective. This jail diversion program shows promise in reducing recidivism and promoting adaptive functioning. Jail diversion programs that include mentorship, peer support, and removal of barriers to success may be particularly effective.

 J Community Psychol. 2024, 23p.

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