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 Marco Castillo∗ Sera Linardi† Ragan Petrie‡

Many previously incarcerated individuals are rearrested in the months and years following release from prison. We investigate whether encouragement to use reentry support services reduces rearrest. Field experiment participants are offered a monetary incentive to complete different dosages of visits, either three or five, to a support service provider. The incentive groups increased visits compared to the control group, with those in the 3-visit treatment completing the most. Intent-to-treat effects on rearrest are null in the full sample, but Black participants who complete 3-4 visits are 21.8 percentage points less likely to be rearrested.

Unpublished paper, 2024. , 44p.

By Megan Pfeiffer

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

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

By Michelle S. Manno, Ann Bickerton, Bret Barden, Niko Leiva, Megan Schwartz

Evidence for coordinated reentry—or the coordination of services from multiple community provid­ers—shows that it is a promising approach to supporting people with mental health needs or substance use disorders who are released from correctional facilities. One such program is the Reentry Intensive Case Management Services (RICMS) program. Through a network of 29 community-based providers located across Los Angeles County, the RICMS program links individuals with prior criminal legal system involvement to community health workers—most of whom have lived experience with the criminal legal system, housing instability, or mental health issues. For about one year, the community health workers provide care coordination and help clients navigate the many services and other forms of support available to them.

This report presents findings from the RICMS evaluation, which is part of the Los Angeles County Reentry Integrated Services Project (LA CRISP), a multiyear, multistudy evaluation of services offered by the Los Angeles County Reentry Division that is led by MDRC. The RICMS evaluation includes a process study and outcomes study of the RICMS program that are based on analyses of administrative records and management information system data for people who enrolled in the program between April 2018 and March 2021; a survey of program staff members and man­agers from April 2022; and semistructured interviews with program managers, staff members, and participants that were conducted between June 2019 and August 2022. The study used a nonexperimental approach to compare the health and criminal legal system outcomes of individuals who enrolled and participated in the RICMS program with those of individuals in a matched comparison group who enrolled but did not participate in the program. In the absence of a random­ized controlled trial, this exploratory quasi-experimental analysis provides some initial information about the differences in outcomes that could be due to participation in the program.

Overall, the results suggest that the RICMS approach to coordinated, community-based reentry is promising and could improve the life experiences of program participants, especially by reducing their future contact with the criminal legal system.

New York: MDRC, 2023. 103p.

By Niko Leiva, Osvaldo Avila

As an alternative to incarceration, in 2018 Los Angeles County launched the Reentry Intensive Case Management Services (RICMS) program. The RICMS program coordinates the services of multiple community-based service providers throughout LA County. It links people who have been involved with the criminal legal system to commu­nity health workers, many of whom have personal experience with incarceration, sub­stance use disorders and addiction, and other issues RICMS clients face. These commu­nity health workers provide case management services and mentorship, and help clients navigate the many services and other forms of support available to them.

MDRC evaluated the implementation of the RICMS program and found that the program is a promising approach to improving the lives of its clients, particu­larly by reducing their future contact with the criminal legal system. As part of the evaluation, in 2021 and 2022 an MDRC research team conducted semistructured interviews with RICMS community health workers and clients to learn more about how services are delivered and about the experiences of RICMS clients. This brief presents the stories and experiences they shared.

New York: MDRC, 2023. 10p.

By Gabriel Weinberger, Raul Armenta, and Elisa Nicolett

In the United States there are approximately 3.7 million people under community supervision—also known as probation or parole. People under community supervision often need supportive services, such as behavioral health (to deal with mental health and substance use disorders), education, employment, housing, and transportation services. Such services are usually provided by local governments or community-based organizations, which play a pivotal role in helping people under supervision to avoid contact with the criminal legal system. Probation officers typically provide referrals for services, though research suggests that a low percentage of people under community supervision end up receiving services. Studies have also shown that those affected by the criminal legal system, including those under community supervision, live in marginalized and under-funded communities, and lack adequate access to services. As a result, researchers, practitioners, and advocates have worked to develop programs that increase the supply of available services and lead to greater cooperation with social services providers in the community to connect people to services. Recent innovations within probation departments (about 80 percent of people under community supervision are on probation and they are the focus of this brief) have incorporated a “community hub” model where multiple service providers are located in the same places as probation offices to facilitate access to services for clients and to raise officers’ awareness of those services. This brief describes an MDRC study of a community hub model in Los Angeles (LA) County, the Developing Opportunities and Offering Reentry Solutions Community Reentry Center (better known as “DOORS”). DOORS was established inside a building where probation officers also work. The DOORS model is intended to provide probation officers with the opportunity to connect adults on probation to service providers located within the same building with the goal of reducing future involvement in the criminal legal system. However, within eight months of opening, the COVID-19 pandemic forced DOORS to shift to a hybrid model where services were provided both in person and virtually. Since study data collection ended, DOORS has expanded in LA County as a hybrid model that is not always co-located in a probation building.

New York: MDRC.2025. 20p.