By Jason A. Higgins

The United States has both the largest, most expensive, and most powerful military and the largest, most expensive, and most punitive carceral system in the history of the world. Since the American War in Vietnam, hundreds of thousands of veterans have been incarcerated after their military service.

Identifying the previously unrecognized connections between American wars and mass incarceration, Prisoners after War reaches across lines of race, class, and gender to record the untold history of incarcerated veterans over the past six decades. Having conducted dozens of oral history interviews, Jason A. Higgins traces the lifelong effects of war, inequality, disability, and mental illness, and explores why hundreds of thousands of veterans, from Vietnam to Afghanistan, were caught up in the carceral system. This original study tells an intergenerational history of state-sanctioned violence, punishment, and inequality, but its pages also resonate with stories of survival and redemption, revealing future possibilities for reform and reparative justice.

Amherst; Boston: University of Massachusetts Press, 2024.

By Eric Petterson

The United States of America incarcerates nearly two million people, more than any other country in the world, at a rate of 565 people per 100,000 residents.1 Just fifty years ago, the incarceration rate was ninety-seven imprisoned people per 100,000 residents in the general population.2 The rate of incarceration increased over 500% in fifty years. Many scholars and criminal justice reform advocates cited these statistics while advocating for the need to end the War on Drugs.3 The need for criminal justice reform to address mass incarceration has grown in popularity; however, many people focus on the War on Drugs to the exclusion of other issues in the criminal legal system, even though only twenty percent of the incarcerated population is incarcerated on drug charges.4 In contrast, nearly half of all people imprisoned in prisons and jails are imprisoned for violent offenses.5 Releasing all drug offenders would still not solve America’s overincarceration problem. Since four out of five incarcerated people are behind bars for non-drug related offenses, we must address how America punishes other crimes to end mass incarceration. Too often, states implementing criminal justice reforms exclude violent offenses, focusing instead on people convicted of nonserious, nonviolent, and nonsexual offenses—or “non, non, nons.”6 The staggering number of violent crime incarcerations is not due to the crime-rate, but to the overly long sentences given to people convicted of violent crimes.7 Many crimes defined as “violent” in the criminal legal system do not involve any physical harm, including purse snatching, manufacturing methamphetamine, burglary of an unoccupied dwelling, and stealing drugs.8 Yet violent offense convictions result in severe repercussions, including triggering mandatory minimums and three-strikes laws.9 Addressing “non, non, non”10 offenses is politically easier to do than addressing violent offenses, but both must be addressed to end mass incarceration. This Article will examine America’s unique use of extremely harsh and lengthy prison sentences and how these sentencing policies contributed to the rise of mass incarceration. First, this Article will examine the history of prisons and sentencing policy. It will explore how sentencing policy, “tough on crime” politics, and the mass media contributed to the rise of mass incarceration. Next, this Article will discuss how America’s overreliance on extremely lengthy sentences makes us an outlier to the rest of the world. This Article will examine the literature on incarceration and lengthy sentences, arguing that lengthy sentences are not effective because they do not effectively deter crime, do not promote public safety, do not prevent reoffending, are unnecessary because people age out of crime, and are not favored by crime victims. It will propose reducing the lengths of sentences and shortening sentences based on the good behavior of incarcerated people. Lastly, this Article will propose a political messaging framework to promote criminal justice reforms.

55 St. Mary's L.J. 475 (2024), 37p.

By Janeen Buck Willison, Nkechi Erondu

In 2018, change agents within the Camden County (NJ) Department of Corrections introduced a five-pronged community engagement strategy to reduce the use of jail and improve reentry outcomes for people released from incarceration. Central to this strategy are the County’s NuEntry Opportunity Specialists (NOS), previously incarcerated individuals who serve as credible messengers to people released from incarceration and who work to reduce the stigma of incarceration through community education and outreach. This case study, part of a series highlighting work supported by the Safety and Justice Challenge, describes Camden County’s community engagement strategy and examines its implementation and reported impact. Lessons and recommendations derived from implementation of the county’s community engagement strategy and its sustainability efforts are also discussed.

Washington DC: The Urban Institute, 2022. 23p.

By John Shaffer, Bryce Peterson, KiDeuk Kim, Rochisha Shukla

Cell phones have become a ubiquitous part of society, with more than 97 percent of US adults owning one (Pew Research Center 2021). For prison and jail officials, however, they represent a serious and growing concern. In a recent survey of state correctional agencies, Urban found that most respondents consider cell phones a serious problem for a facility’s overall security and for the safety of incarcerated people, staff, and members of the public (Kim, Peterson, and Shaffer 2023). Corrections officials have employed several technological and nontechnological solutions to address contraband cell phones in their institutions (Peterson et al. 2022; Russo et al. 2022). No one strategy appears to be completely effective at combating contraband cell phones. Most strategies are limited in their ability to prevent cell phone use across an entire facility, while others are difficult to implement or prohibitively expensive (see Peterson et al. 2022). Conversely, signal jamming has received broad support among criminal justice practitioners as a potentially effective and straightforward interdiction strategy. Officials can use signal jamming to prevent people from using cell phones throughout their facilities by compromising a phone’s ability to receive signals or by modifying received signals to be inaccurate or inoperable. A typical application of cell phone jamming involves overwhelming the phone with a higher-power signal, usually a pure signal or random noise, so the phone can no longer function properly. Although many corrections officials are interested in implementing signal jamming in their agencies, the Federal Communications Commission currently prohibits the use of this technology in the United States, as guided by the Communications Act of 1934. Some federal agencies are exempt from the Communications Act and are allowed to implement jamming solutions by requesting and receiving Special Temporary Authority licensing from the Federal Communications Commission. The Federal Bureau of Prisons is among these agencies. No state or local entities are currently allowed to use signal jamming technology. The selective prohibition against jamming has been a source of tension between federal regulators and corrections officials, and federal lawmakers have made efforts (for instance, through the Cellphone Jamming Reform Act of 2022) to revise the Communications Act and allow state correctional agencies to jam cell phones. Despite corrections officials’ interest in jamming and the ongoing discussion around legislative changes, little is known about the use and application of this technology in correctional settings. To address this knowledge gap, the Urban Institute, along with partner organizations (CNA Corporation, Correctional Leaders Association, and American Correctional Association) and subjectmatter experts (John Shaffer and Joe Russo), reviewed current industry practices and interviewed officials with firsthand experience implementing jamming. In summer and fall 2021, we spoke with corrections officials in the United States, New Zealand, and Australia to formulate an understanding of the benefits and challenges of cell phone jamming as a cell phone interdiction strategy.2 This report is a resource for stakeholders and the public on the mechanics of jamming, its potential effectiveness, and the legal and pragmatic considerations involved in its implementation in correctional settings

Washington DC: The Urban Institute, 2023. 18p.

By Vincent Schiraldi

This research brief assesses the impact of a March 27, 2020 announcement from the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS), indicating that it would release up to 1,100 people jailed in county facilities for accusations of technical parole violations in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Infectious disease spreads easily and quickly in congregate settings such as jails and prisons. New York State incarcerates more people for non-criminal, technical parole violations than every state except Illinois, and the first two incarcerated people to die of COVID-19 in the Rikers Island jail complex - Michael Tyson and Raymond Rivera - were held there for technical parole violations for missing appointments and failing a drug program.

The research brief concludes that the state released around three-quarters of those originally anticipated by the NYS Department of Corrections and Community Supervision.

It additionally finds that in the two months since the directive was issued, more than 160 people accused of technical parole violations were newly sent to the Rikers jails. This number appears to be accelerating and is projected to surpass the number of people released by June or early July, 2020.

In response to the limited and waning effect of the March release order, the report recommends immediate steps for both the NYS Department of Corrections and Community Supervision and state policymakers:

Unless an individual poses a demonstrable and imminent public safety risk, all people held in jails and prisons for technical parole violations be released

DOCCS cease issuing new warrants for technical violations until the pandemic subsides

State policymakers should enact legislative reforms such as ending automatic pre-hearing incarceration for people facing technical violations; eliminating incarceration for less serious technical violations; capping incarceration terms for technical violations; and incentivizing parole compliance through grants of “merit time” for following the rules.

The above recommendations comport with best practices in the field, limit exposure to dangerous correctional settings now and in the event of a COVID-19 rebound, and will save considerable resources at the state, city, and county level

New York: Columbia University Justice Lab, 2021.9p.

By Columbia University Justice Lab, et al.

With the closing of Rikers Island, New York City has a unique opportunity to revolutionize the treatment of women and gender-expansive people who are currently at the Rose M. Singer Center on Rikers.

The Prison and Jail Innovation Lab at the University of Texas at Austin, the Center for Justice, and the Columbia University Justice Lab collaborated with the Women’s Community Justice Association and HR&A Advisors on a report detailing the design, model and operations of “The Women’s Center for Justice,” a proposed first-of-its kind gender-responsive, trauma-informed facility. The report calls for New York City and State to come together to transform the Lincoln Correctional site at West 110th Street into a site for women and gender-expansive people. Lincoln, which is owned by the state, is currently not in operation and could easily be converted into a facility for women and gender-expansive individuals. Lincoln is zoned as a correctional facility and would not need to go through a lengthy land-use review process.

The report outlines a groundbreaking “Reentry at Entry” approach and holistic care model that aims to end the cycle of incarceration.

New York: Columbia University Justice Lab, 2022. 38p.

By Stephen Koppel, Michael Rempel, Min Xie, Olive Lu, Jeremy Travis, & Preeti Chauhan

Executive Summary The premise of this project is simple: In determining its response to crime and violence, New York City stands at a crossroads. For several decades up until the 2020s, the City saw dramatic crime reductions take place alongside a shrinking criminal legal system— represented by fewer arrests, less reliance on jail and prison, and the expansion of alternatives to incarceration. This period culminated in sweeping reforms to New York State’s bail, discovery, and parole laws that sought to extend the pendulum toward less unnecessary incarceration and greater fairness. Recent years, however, have witnessed a series of dislocations and reversals. A global pandemic disrupted the country’s social and economic fabric, and violent crime increased after years of decline. The 2020 Black Lives Matter protests generated a robust public dialogue about the role of police and the criminal justice system in producing public safety and the need for greater investments in community-based public safety strategies. However, both the reality and perception of rising crime led to increases in low-level enforcement by the New York City Police Department, including more pedestrian street stops, summonses for minor misconduct, and misdemeanor arrests. At the same time, the City is legally mandated to close the violent and decrepit jails on Rikers Island. This requires further reductions in the jail population, for example by expanding mental health services and speeding up case processing, in addition to improving morale, training and oversight of jail staff and expediting construction of modern, humane replacement jails. To provide context for discussions on the best path forward, we sought to ground policy discussions in objective data concerning the City’s trajectory from the 1990s to the present moment. To this end, we released two reports on the same project landing page. Extending two earlier analyses, one report relied on official data sources to track crime, law enforcement activity, decision-making by courts and prosecutors, incarceration, community supervision, and racial disparities. The second report relied on data from the annually administered National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) to provide trends in both reported and unreported victimization. This executive summary presents key findings from both reports. We believe that understanding New York City's crime trends, the experiences of crime victims, and the history of the City's response to crime will shed light on the choices the City faces today. We address several questions, with the resulting main themes and findings summarized below

New York: Data Collaborative for Justice, at John Jay College, 2025. 4p

By Dr Philip Howard, Andrew Craik, Lu Han and Christopher Spaull

This study examines whether particular past offences are more frequent amongst criminals who ‘escalated’ to very serious offending than other repeat offenders, controlling for broader reoffending risk. Escalation to sexual and nonsexual homicide are studied, and to serious sexual assault (SSA) for those with and without prior sexual offending. Prior serious violence is associated with all homicide escalation, and coercive sexual behaviour with sexual homicide and SSA. Some violent offences are associated with SSA for those without sexual history. Additional analyses cover escalation to adult and child SSA offending, and adult nonsexual homicide of female partners, male strangers and male family/acquaintances.

Ministry of Justice Analytical Series

London: Ministry of Justice, 2023 130p.

By Rachel Cordle and Eleanor Gale

This synthesis provides an overview of evidence on what works to reduce reoffending, updating evidence previously published by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) in 2013 and 2014. 1,2 It revisits some of the same areas as the previous reviews, including more recent evidence and incorporating new areas such as debt and community ties. Given the breadth of different activities and interventions that exist, this summary focuses upon the evidence base for some of the key areas of MoJ policymaking, but it is clearly not exhaustive. Evidence is drawn primarily from a series of Rapid Evidence Assessments (REAs) conducted by academics working in the field of reducing reoffending in 2022. REAs were used to compile sections on: Accommodation, Education, Employment, Finance, Benefits and Debt, and Community Ties. The REAs focused upon the effectiveness of these types of interventions to reduce reoffending but included some additional follow up questions such as features of effective interventions of different types, and for whom they may be most effective. A REA was also commissioned on theories of desistance. For the remaining sections, MoJ analysts conducted internal reviews of recent evidence. When assessing effectiveness, findings from meta-analyses were used where available, as there can be greater confidence in findings drawn from a series of studies than from single evaluations. Studies that included any comparison group were eligible for inclusion, with a focus on evidence drawn from England & Wales (although international studies were eligible for inclusion). Table 1 summarises the overall strength of the meta-analytical evidence base for the effectiveness by intervention type and provides an indication of the scale of the potential reduction in reoffending for some specific intervention approaches (where relevant). Some interventions appear to have potential to deliver larger reductions in reoffending than others, however it is likely the greatest reduction will be achieved where interventions are well-matched to the individual. Where the evidence base is classified as ‘insufficient’, this reflects an evidence gap and does not imply that type of intervention does not work. Table 1 includes only the results of meta-analyses when providing an indication of the potential scale of impact by specific intervention approach. In areas where there are lots of different types of interventions used (such as employment), the meta-analytical evidence base may be weakened by the lack of comparability across studies. In addition, some of the areas covered are more closely linked to reoffending than others. For example, there is evidence that reoffending is lower amongst prison leavers who find employment. In contrast, there is a more nuanced, moderated relationship between mental health and reoffending. Mental health (like physical health) is a foundational area for work with offenders but does not in itself link directly to reoffending. Note also that table 1 reviews only evidence for the potential scale of effectiveness. Readers should refer to the relevant chapter for more detail on the wider evidence base for specific interventions of interest. Evidence gaps common across the different intervention areas include a need for more UK-based evaluation, a need for individual evaluation reports to better capture programme design characteristics that can affect success, and a need for greater understanding of what works best for different groups. It would also be helpful to have more consistency in how outcomes are measured, in order to more reliably compare which interventions have the biggest impacts.

London: Ministry of Justice, 2025. 60p.

By Prison Reform Trust

The high level of multiple and often unmet need experienced by many women in the justice system is well documented.1 Many women in prison are victims of more serious crimes than those they are accused of committing.2 The past two decades have seen several key policy developments relating to women’s imprisonment (see Appendix 1). Each of these developments show a trend towards recognising the distinct and specific needs of women in the criminal justice system and call for a reduction in women’s imprisonment. However, the number of women in prison, especially on remand and on short sentences, has remained stubbornly high. Moving beyond this status quo requires bold and creative thinking alongside sustained development and implementation of pre-existing strategies. This briefing sets out key facts and figures relating to women in the criminal justice system and highlights progress to date in implementing an approach which recognises women’s distinct needs.

London: PRT, 2025. 10p.

By Kellyann Bock, Michael Rempel

While it is well-established that a substantial portion of people in NYC jails are designated for mental health services, less is known about when during their incarceration these needs are first identified. This brief examines the prevalence and timing of the “Brad H” flag, assigned to anyone who is diagnosed, screened for, requesting, or receiving mental health services while incarcerated in New York City jails, covering the period from June 2, 2016 to March 24, 2025.

Specifically, we looked at increases in the fraction of the NYC jail population that flag for mental health needs, how long it takes for incarcerated people to receive a Brad H flag, what share of their jail stay people spend designated for mental health services, disparities in flagging by gender, race, and custody level, and how flagging relates to overall length of stay.

New York: Data Collaborative.for Justice, 2025. 9p.

By Margaret Love & David Schlussel

This Report Card supplements our recently published 50-state report, “The Many Roads to Reintegration,” a survey of U.S. laws aimed at restoring rights and opportunities after arrest or conviction. That report includes topical essays covering voting and firearms rights, an array of record relief remedies, and consideration of criminal record in employment and occupational licensing. The “Many Roads” report assigned to each state, D.C., and the federal system a grade for nine different types of restoration laws: (1) loss and restoration of voting rights (2) pardon (3) felony expungement, sealing & set-aside (“felony relief”) (4) misdemeanor expungement, sealing & set-aside (“misdemeanor relief”) (5) non-conviction relief (6) deferred adjudication (7) judicial certificates of relief (8) employment (9) occupational licensing. Using these grades, we produced an overall ranking of the states and D.C.* In this Report Card we provide the grades and rankings in an easily digestible form. We also provide a brief narrative summary of how each state’s law stacks up in the different categories. Our hope is that these summaries will suggest ways in which a state might improve its laws and hence its ranking. An appendix collects all the grades and rankings. Finally, we emphasize once again that our grades are based solely on the text of each state’s law, leaving more nuanced judgments about their actual operation to practitioners, researchers, and the law’s intended beneficiaries. We expect to look more closely at the operation of some of the record relief laws in the near future, and

Washington, DC: Collateral Consequences Resource Center (CCRC), 2020. 61p.

By Prison Reform Trust

The high level of multiple and often unmet need experienced by many women in the justice system is well documented. Many women in prison are victims of more serious crimes than those they are accused of committing. The past two decades have seen several key policy developments relating to women’s imprisonment (see Appendix 1). Each of these developments show a trend towards recognising the distinct and specific needs of women in the criminal justice system and call for a reduction in women’s imprisonment. However, the number of women in prison, especially on remand and on short sentences, has remained stubbornly high. Moving beyond this status quo requires bold and creative thinking alongside sustained development and implementation of pre-existing strategies. This briefing sets out key facts and figures relating to women in the criminal justice system and highlights progress to date in implementing an approach which recognises women’s distinct needs.

London: Prison Reform Trust, 2025. 10p.

By Rocco d’Este

Incarceration is a crucial part of the scholarly analysis of crime, but what happens inside penal institutions largely remains a ‘black box’ (Western, 2021). This paper studies the impact of the new psychoactive substances (NPS) epidemic within prisons. NPS are powerful addictive chemical compounds that mimic the pharmacological effects of conventional drugs of abuse (CDA) but avoid classification as illegal and detection in standard drug tests. To conduct the analysis, I have assembled a novel establishment-by month database of all England and Wales prisons from 2007 to 2018 including information on drugs seizures, random mandatory drug test results, various measures of harm, violence, and causes of death. I first document a large increase in NPS availability and an alarming correlation with the steep rise in harm and violence behind bars. I then evaluate the impact of the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, a supply-side intervention aimed at inhibiting the proliferation of NPS. The analysis exploits cross-prison variation in the initial size of the drug market and shows high-intensity NPS trafficking prisons experienced a sustained but partial reduction in NPS availability, limited substitution toward CDA, and a rise in violence, self-harm, and suicides following the law. Collectively, the findings suggest unwarranted responses to government interventions may be amplified within penal institutions and that new challenges stemming from scientific advances in illegal drugs production should be addressed through systemic interventions that also consider the demand for addictive substances.

IZA DP No. 15248

Bonn: IZA – Institute of Labor Economics , 2022. 60p.

By Laura M. Maruschak

This statistical brief presents findings on maternal healthcare and pregnancy prevalence and outcomes for persons in the custody of state or federal correctional authorities in the United States. It reports statistics on (1) pregnancy testing and positive tests among female admissions; (2) pregnancy prevalence and outcomes by type; (3) pregnancy-related training for staff, emergency transportation protocols, and medical services provided to pregnant and postpartum women; (4) accommodations and support services for pregnant and postpartum women; and (5) provision of and participation in nursery or residential programs in which mothers reside with their children. Findings in this report are based on data from the maternal health supplement to the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ annual National Prisoner Statistics collection (NPS-MatHealth).1 The NPS-MatHealth was administered for the first time in 2024 and collected 2023 data on maternal health in correctional settings from the departments of corrections of the 50 states and the Federal Bureau of Prisons (FBOP). For information on the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations directive and the feasibility study that led to and informed the NPS-MatHealth, see Data on Maternal Health and Pregnancy Outcomes from Prisons and Jails: Results from a Feasibility Study (NCJ 307326, BJS, January 2024). Pregnancy testing and positive tests among female admissions „ In the 47 jurisdictions that reported pregnancy testing data, 88% of female admissions were tested for pregnancy during 2023 (table 1). „ Among female admissions tested in the 46 jurisdictions that reported the number of admissions who tested positive, 2% tested positive. Pregnancy prevalence in custody and outcomes of pregnancies by type „ On December 31, 2023, 49 jurisdictions reported housing a total of 328 pregnant women, accounting for 0.5% of all the women in the custody of those jurisdictions. „ Sixty percent of pregnant women in the custody of state and federal correctional authorities were white, 20% were black, 9% were Hispanic, 4% were American Indian or Alaska Native, and 2% were Asian, Native Hawaiian, or Other Pacific Islander (table 2). „ Between January 1, 2023 and December 31, 2023, 727 pregnancy outcomes—including live births, miscarriages, and abortions—were reported in 49 jurisdictions (table 3). „ Live births (665) accounted for 91% of the pregnancy outcomes reported, miscarriages (47) accounted for 6%, and abortions (15) accounted for 2%

Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2025. 10p.

By Lauren Kuhli and Carolyn Sufrin

The majority of people incarcerated in U.S. women’s jails and prisons are younger than 45; most of them are parents, and some will be pregnant behind bars. The ways that institutions of incarceration manage their reproductive bodies rely on overlapping legal, cultural, social, historical, and racialized foundations that allow reproductive oppressions to flourish behind bars. Yet, as we argue in this article, these dynamics of incarcerated reproduction manifest far beyond prison and jail walls, through criminalizing and restrictive discourses that devalue the reproductive wellbeing of marginalized people. We analyze the legal, clinical, and socio-political dimensions of carceral control of reproduction and reproductive health care in U.S. prisons and jails, including abortion access, prenatal and postpartum care, childbirth, and parenting. We describe violations of constitutional and clinical standards of reproductive care behind bars, showing how these reproductive coercions are grounded in historical legacies of slavery and the ongoing reproductive control of black and other marginalized bodies. This article makes the case that understanding reproduction behind bars and its legacies of racialized reproductive oppressions reveals the carceral dynamics of reproduction that are foundational to U.S. society.

Harvard Law Review, v. 14, 2020, 50p.

By Ana Mourão https://orcid.org/0009-0002-0556-080ana13mourao@gmail.com, Marta Sousa https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3258-9932, […], and Olga Cunha

Individuals who have served prison sentences face challenges in reintegrating into society, with recidivism often used as the primary indicator of reintegration success. This systematic review analyzed 38 studies with adult participants who had served a sentence or were in the last year of prison, identifying criteria for successful reintegration after release and risk and protective factors. Success factors cover intrapersonal (health, drug abstinence), interpersonal (social support, community involvement), institutional (institutional and community support), and community domains (employment and housing). Protective factors include emotional stability, family and community support, education, employment, financial stability, and access to health and social services. Risk factors include drug use, health problems, difficulties with family and social adjustment, job and financial instability, low education, housing instability, and discrimination. The findings underscore that reintegration is a complex and multifaceted process, requiring targeted programs to reduce recidivism and stigma and promote effective reintegration into society.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 201X, Vol. XX, No. X, Month 2025, 1–27

By Megan Schwartz

When people leave prison or jail, they need to find stable housing and a way to earn money, among other necessities. The extent to which they are able to accomplish these goals substantially impacts how likely they are to return to prison or jail.1 Unfortunately, formerly incarcerated people face major challenges that the general population does not. A confluence of factors—including discrimination, restricted access to public benefits, compounding debt, and significant time spent out of the general job market—hinders returning citizens’ efforts to secure stable housing and employment, pay their bills, and maintain good physical and mental health upon their release. As a result, people leaving prison or jail often need immediate financial assistance.2 For decades, most states have made a practice of giving returning citizens a small amount of money, called “gate money,” to cover the cost of transportation and other immediate needs. Most states have offered between 10 and 50 dollars—enough to last from a few hours to a few days.3 But recently, due to increased advocacy around the efficacy of cash stimulus as a component of reentry support in places such as New York State and Washington State, many legislatures have considered increasing the dollar amount of their cash assistance and offering this kind of support more widely. The Returning Citizens Stimulus (RCS) program—funded by philanthropy, implemented in 28 cities across the United States, and administered by the Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO)— was a pilot program for this larger-scale reentry cash support. Designed to provide meaningful cash assistance to returning citizens during the months after their release from prison or jail, the RCS program aimed to help people quickly reach stability in their lives outside of prison and reduce recidivism as a result. It represents the largest-scale conditional cash transfer reentry program to date and an evolution of the burgeoning interest among practitioners and policymakers in cash assistance as reentry support. MDRC was contracted by CEO to conduct a two-part evaluation of the RCS program. This brief presents findings from the second part of the evaluation, a recidivism impact study; it is the first-ever study known to the author to estimate the effect of a large-scale program of this kind on recidivism outcomes. Because incarcerating people is expensive, knowing a program’s impact on recidivism can help practitioners and policymakers weigh the costs and benefits of the program. This study was geographically limited to two counties in California: Los Angeles and Alameda. As such, results may not be generalizable to other program sites. Results from this analysis include the following: • In the first six months after being released from prison, people who participated in the RCS program had, on average, fewer parole violations than a similar group of recently incarcerated individuals. Participants were also less likely to violate parole by committing violent infractions such as assault and battery; • In the first year after being released, participants in the RCS program committed fewer parole violations (both overall and for violent offenses) than their nonparticipant counterparts in the comparison group. Program participation was limited to three months, generally shortly after release, and thus, the program appears to reduce recidivism among participants beyond the period when participants were receiving the cash stimulus; and • The RCS program may have been effective at reducing reincarceration among program participants in the 18-, 24-, and 30-month follow-up periods. However, for methodological reasons explained in the Technical Supplement accompanying this brief, further study is needed to assess the reliability of this estimated effect.

New York: MDRC, 2025. 15p.

By Colette Marcellin and Evelyn F. McCoy 

Sexual violence in US correctional facilities is a long-standing problem that has gained increased attention in recent years. Many advocacy, human rights, and research organizations have called for action on this issue for decades, and in 2003, Congress took federal action by passing the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA). PREA requires nationwide data collection and research about sexual violence in federal, state, and local correctional facilities, and established the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission to develop national standards for addressing this issue. Despite PREA’s enactment, PREA standards established in 2012, and growing national discourse about sexual violence in correctional facilities, many challenges persist. As of 2017, 31 states had not yet fully complied with the established PREA standards. Further, survivors of sexual violence, people with behavioral health needs, and people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and/or queer (LGBTQ+) continue to disproportionately experience sexual violence in correctional facilities. Research about PREA’s impact and outcomes, survivors’ experiences with PREA reporting and investigation processes, and experiences with victim services is limited and should specifically examine the experiences of survivors with marginalized identities. Further research on this issue is needed and must incorporate strong protections for participating incarcerated people and participatory approaches that center their experiences and expertise.
Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2021. 17p.

By Rochisha Shukla, Will Engelhardt, Krista White, Sam Tecotzky

The Urban Institute’s Justice and Safety Division conducted a 22-month, mixed-methods evaluation of the Ready to Work (RTW) program operated by Bridge House, a nonprofit organization with the mission to “respect and empower people who are experiencing homelessness.” The program “combines three elements—paid work in a Ready to Work social enterprise, dormitory housing at a Ready to Work House, and case management support,” which RTW refers to as its “three-legged stool” approach. Using RTW programmatic data, administrative data from the Colorado Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) and the Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC) on key outcomes, and data collected through stakeholder interviews, focus groups, program observations, and document reviews, Urban addressed the following objectives: (1) estimate the impact of program participation on housing, employment, and criminal justice outcomes; (2) identify the factors that appear to be associated with successful outcomes; (3) determine why and in what ways the program is able and/or unable to achieve its goals; (4) identify whether program activities have been implemented as intended; (5) calculate Ready to Work’s financial return on investment; and (6) recommend program improvements. Key Findings: The Overall Impact of the Program  Program graduates had a significantly lower likelihood of experiencing housing instability within 6 to 36 months after program completion compared with program dropouts and non-enrollees.  The impact of program completion on postprogram incarceration was not statistically significant; however, the results were in the expected direction, with program graduates showing a slightly lower rate of incarceration compared with the control groups across all follow-up periods.  Five percent of program graduates reported being employed at intake, and 64 percent reported having employment at or after program completion, a statistically significant increase. Additional analyses show that the odds of employment at or after program completion were lower among people who had been incarcerated.  The study also finds evidence of potential protective effects of the program, as participants who completed the program and who therefore engaged with it longer experienced improved housing stability and reduced incarceration compared with their matched controls during the program and immediately after completion. These effects may be associated with a sense of security or stability that comes with being enrolled in a structured program and early engagement with program services, like in-program housing and employment, mental health and substance use treatment, and vocational and educational assistance.  People who dropped out of the program showed consistently worse housing and incarceration outcomes compared with program graduates and non-enrollees. Descriptive statistics on pre-program factors and qualitative findings show that people who dropped out had significantly different needs than the other groups. Additionally, unmeasured effects, such as motivation to complete the program, could further explain the disparities between the groups.

Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2025. 77p.