COVID-19 and the Reentry Process Post-Incarceration

Steven Keener and Ashley Irving

Abstract: The reentry system for formerly incarcerated individuals is filled with challenges and structural barriers. Early in 2020, those challenges and barriers were considered likely to be exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. This study collected data on state-level policy changes made in an attempt to prevent and mitigate the spread of the COVID-19 virus in state prisons. The data were first analyzed to identify similarities and differences in policy responses across states, and then to determine the potential impact of these policies on the reentry system. After detailing the results from these analyses, policy recommendations are made in order to address short- and long-term issues in the reentry system, with an eye toward how to help returning citizens successfully navigate their return to their community and family. The results of this study can help inform policymakers on how to implement policies that address immediate health and safety concerns while also ensuring returning citizens are given access to the resources needed to help them successfully transition back into society.

I. Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused unprecedented harm among prison populations across the U.S. As of May 4, 2021, there were 396,265 documented positive COVID-19 cases in prisons and 2,575 deaths attributed to COVID-19 among prisoners across the country. Among prison staff, there were 110,699 documented positive COVID-19 cases and 202 deaths attributed to COVID-19 (The Marshall Project 2021). Localities, states, and the federal government responded to this crisis with an array of policy changes that impacted how prisons operate, as well as when individuals in prisons would be released back into the community. It has become immediately clear that the legacy of policy failures that fueled the current mass incarceration crisis is continuing to manifest itself during this current crisis (Hooks and Sawyer 2020). It is important to determine if these policy changes are humane responses to help protect a vulnerable population during the pandemic. Moreover, it is also important to analyze how these policy responses impact returning citizens as they attempt to navigate a community reentry process that is already fraught with challenges and numerous structural barriers.

Barriers and challenges pervaded the reentry process for formerly incarcerated citizens long before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. In fact, an analysis of 30 states found that 83% of state prisoners released in 2005 were rearrested within nine years (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2018). Extremely high rearrest data of this nature are frequently cited as evidence that the U.S. incarceration and reentry systems set returning citizens up for failure. Returning citizens face numerous challenges upon reentry, ranging from securing housing and employment to dealing with the psychological and emotional toll of being labeled a criminal for the remainder of their life (Raphael 2011; Visher and Courtney 2007). For example, the unemployment rate for returning citizens is approximately 5 times higher than the unemployment rate for the general population (Couloute and Kopf 2018). Many of these barriers are embedded in policy and existing systems and structures, resulting in a reentry process that imposes additional psychological and emotional difficulties on individuals.

It is imperative to fully analyze the policy responses to COVID-19 in prisons, particularly in the context of reentry. Given that many existing reentry barriers are a direct result of historical policy decisions, there must be continued focus on all policy changes that could further impact this system. The remainder of this paper details an analysis of the policy changes made in response to the threat of COVID-19 in state prisons and how they may impact the reentry process for returning citizens. The next section reviews the literature on the reentry process for returning citizens, including the various structural barriers that make this process difficult. Special attention is given to how this broken system disproportionately impacts people of color. We then identify the gap in the literature: a need to analyze how state prison policy responses to the COVID-19 pandemic may impact the existing reentry system, and also how individuals’ experiences during the reentry process may change as a result of these new policies. We then address the research gap with a content analysis of policy responses to COVID-19 in state prisons in Mid-Atlantic states. Specifically, we investigate policy responses related to visitation during incarceration, programing in prisons, early release from incarceration, and community supervision upon release. We detail the similarities and differences in these policy responses across Mid-Atlantic states, as well as how these policies could impact the reentry process. Finally, the study concludes with policy recommendations for how best to proceed going forward. 

II. Literature Review

Reentry following a period of incarceration is a challenging process for individuals as they exit the highly structured prison environment and enter the outside world, where they experience considerably more autonomy. Upon release, returning citizens face a variety of challenges resulting from the stigma associated with incarceration while simultaneously attempting to adjust to the new norms and technology that may have changed since the time of their sentencing. These reentry challenges have been further exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and associated policy changes addressing reentry and release. A statement from Virginia Secretary of Public Safety and Homeland Security, Brian Moran, declared, “the COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted, diminished, or entirely eliminated community safety nets including transitional housing options, substance use disorder treatment, mental health service, and employment opportunities,” (Clarke 2020, 4). Existing literature on the difficulties of reentry as well as correctional changes during the COVID-19 pandemic has addressed the barriers to financial stability and employment, housing, and the impact of the requirements set by the criminal justice system post-release. This section reviews this literature, starting with important context on incarceration and its disproportionate impact on people of color.

A. Mass Incarceration and Race

Reentry issues in the U.S. exist within a broader system of mass incarceration, a system that makes the U.S. the world’s leader in incarceration rates, and one that disproportionately punishes people of color. The ‘tough on crime’ era beginning in the 1970s produced legislation at the state and federal levels that fueled the mass incarceration epidemic that has persisted for decades. As of 2020, the U.S. incarcerates 698 individuals per 100,000 residents (Sawyer and Wagner 2020). For comparison, El Salvador had the second highest incarceration rate per capita globally in 2018, at approximately 604 per 100,00 residents (Walmsley 2018). Additionally, people of color are disproportionately represented in the U.S. carceral system. In 2018, approximately 600 per 100,000 Black residents and approximately 400 per 100,000 American Indian or Alaska Native residents were incarcerated in local jails, compared to approximately 200 per 100,000 White residents. That same year, approximately 2,272 per 100,000 Black men and 1,018 per 100,000 Hispanic men were incarcerated in state and federal prisons, compared to approximately 392 per 100,000 White men. For women, approximately 88 per 100,000 Black women and 65 per 100,000 Hispanic women were incarcerated in state and federal prisons, compared to approximately 49 per 100,000 White women (Sawyer 2020). 

In addition to the racial disparities within U.S. jails and prisons, the carceral system is also characterized by the structural racial geography of mass incarceration, which relates to how the geographic location of carceral facilities has contributed to and exacerbates structural racism in the carceral system. Wagner and Kopf (2015) found that, “Blacks are incarcerated at a rate about 5 times higher than Whites, but prisons are disproportionately located in majority-White [non-Latino] areas.” This is largely a result of the prison building boom that occurred during the 1980s and 1990s. During this time, mass prison construction accompanied a growing rate of incarceration; however, the construction largely occurred in predominately White, rural areas that were struggling economically. In fact, this prison building boom in rural America was often heralded as an economic development project in areas desperate for revitalization. The result was a stark dichotomy in which most incarcerated individuals came from urban areas, and were disproportionately people of color, but most prisons were located in predominately White, rural areas (Huling 2002). This mismatch has greatly impacted the ability of facilities to hire staff that reflect the racial makeup of the incarcerated population (Wagner and Kopf 2015), some of whom work on reentry preparation. These building policies also resulted in many individuals being incarcerated far away from their home communities, creating an additional burden for families to attend visitation hours (Rabuy and Kopf 2015). Finally, geographical distance has limited relationship building opportunities between prison facilities and community partners that can aid in the reentry process.  

Since people of color are disproportionately represented within the criminal justice system, they are also disproportionately impacted by a broken reentry system. The widespread prevalence of incarceration in the U.S. means that this analysis has implications for a large portion of the U.S. population. Moreover, since policies regarding incarceration and reentry disproportionately impact people of color, continued analysis of policies relating to these issues is a matter of equity and necessity. The remainder of this section outlines in greater detail specific categories of barriers to reentry that existed before the COVID-19 pandemic and may be exacerbated by it: financial stability, housing, carceral supervision, and other barriers like healthcare and transportation.

B. Financial Stability

One of the most frequently cited challenges during the reentry process is achieving financial stability. Rejoining a community requires more than residing in a particular area; it involves a level of social integration that includes securing a means of subsistence (Western et al. 2018). Financial stability is often associated with an individual’s ability to find stable employment during reentry, but many returning citizens confront barriers to employment as a result of the stigma and stereotypes tied to incarceration. Smith and Young (2017, 481) found that individuals frequently experience “instability and a reduction in economic status” following release and barriers to employment likely contribute to this cited decline. Additionally, individuals face further difficulties when looking for employment due to the gap in work history resulting from their incarceration. This is important to consider along with the stigma that a criminal record carries, which can make securing employment more challenging (Bahr et al. 2005). 

These challenges have likely been made more difficult by the COVID-19 pandemic and policy responses to reentry and release. The aforementioned Secretary Moran of Virginia acknowledged that, “in the best of times, reentry preparation may take months or years, not weeks,” (as cited in Clarke 2020, 4-5). Yet reentry and release processes have been expedited in some circumstances due to the pandemic. 

C. Housing

Alongside financial strain, housing constitutes a major obstacle for many individuals during the reentry process. Existing literature describes barriers to stable housing pre-pandemic and more recent literature explores the economic strain of COVID-19 on housing.

Securing stable housing is a key element for reentry that may positively affect other elements of the reentry process, such as obtaining employment, reestablishing relationships with family, and removing oneself from harmful environments (e.g., for the sake of maintaining sobriety or to avoid recidivating). Despite the importance of stable housing, many returning citizens are released into homelessness or transitional housing; independent housing is rare (Western et al. 2018). A study from New York and Pennsylvania found that approximately 4% to 11% of released individuals reside in homeless shelters at some point within the first two years of release, despite housing being cited as one of the basic elements of social integration during reentry (Western et al. 2018). Part of the reason for this is that many returning citizens have limited access to or do not qualify for housing programs due to the length of their incarceration (Reentry and Housing Coalition n.d.). The stigma of incarceration is also a barrier to finding stable housing, because landlords can filter applicants based on criminal record (Reentry and Housing Coalition n.d.). 

Returning citizens rely heavily on temporary housing, which is particularly concerning during the time of COVID-19. Effective pre-release reentry planning requires more time than has been allotted during the pandemic, likely resulting in a decrease in the percentage of viable home plans for individuals being released (Clarke 2020). Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic itself exacerbated housing accessibility: the inability to pay rent resulting from pandemic-induced financial strain has disproportionately impacted people already facing long-term structural racism and inequity (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities 2021). For example, while 15% of all adult renters reported being behind on rent payments as of mid-March 2021, reported rates were higher among Black renters (22%), Latino renters (20%), and Asian renters (19%) (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities 2021). The economic toll of the pandemic may result in increased homelessness as it becomes more difficult for renters to make consistent payments to their landlord, who may be more likely to turn to eviction. 

D. Carceral Supervision

The criminal justice system maintains oversight and restraint of individuals long beyond their release date and this extended supervision period creates additional barriers to successful reentry. Individuals released on parole often cite a lack of effective assistance from supervisors, such as probation and parole officers. Some also describe probation and parole requirements that are difficult to meet (Crandell-Williams and McEvoy 2016). For example, an individual may be required to attend a supervision meeting scheduled at the same time that they are helping their child with a school related activity. There are a multitude of requirements that individuals must comply with post-release including meetings with parole officers, mental health and/or substance use disorder services, and appointments with social service agencies (Crandell-Williams and McEvoy 2016). Probation and parole requirements also often include the payment of accrued fines and fees associated with an individual’s incarceration (Ruhland 2016). The payment of these often exorbitant debts exacerbates the other challenges presented by the probation and parole process, such as obtaining stable housing and transportation to required appointments. These fines and fees are especially burdensome due to the severe consequences if individuals fail to pay them, including risk of reincarceration (Ruhland 2016). Returning citizens must meet these requirements in addition to seeking employment, securing stable housing, and rebuilding relationships with loved ones. 

Effective reentry planning and services can ease the burden of managing these requirements for returning citizens. However, the availability of these services varies largely across localities. Some states and localities have devoted considerable resources to developing effective reentry services, while other jurisdictions rely on a fragmented model (Listwan et al. 2006). As the COVID-19 pandemic has made reentry increasingly challenging for returning citizens, reentry programs and services are especially imperative. Yet carceral facilities and reentry programs have felt the acute strain imposed by COVID-19. Many reentry programs, already dealing with challenges related to underfunding in a highly segmented system, now face additional funding strain resulting from closures, understaffing, and increased expenses for sanitization and personal protective equipment. Some programs may obtain temporary relief from local grants and emergency funding opportunities, such as the CARES Act in Virginia (U.S. Department of the Treasury 2020). However, a gap remains in consistent long-term funding support for localized programs and services. This is extremely detrimental to the survival of localized reentry programs and the critical services they provide, particularly in this challenging time for returning citizens.

E. Other Reentry Barriers 

Returning to one’s community following incarceration is a difficult process that encompasses numerous, often compounding challenges, creating cyclical barriers to successful reentry, as described above. Related factors that impact successful reentry include returning citizens’ access to transportation, and mental health and substance abuse services, as well as their ability to obtain healthcare coverage. These elements have been cited by the National Alliance on Mental Illness (n.d.) as basic needs that must be secured following release from prison. Yet, due to the often fragmented nature of reentry services, many reentry programs focus solely on the most prominent components of the process: housing and employment. Therefore, returning citizens frequently have to seek other services elsewhere; this can constitute a barrier to services, especially for individuals with limited access to transportation (Vigne et al. 2008). Approximately one in four returning citizens have cited difficulty accessing public transportation as a barrier to receiving services (Vigne et al. 2008). Transportation issues can also hinder returning citizens’ ability to secure employment and housing. During the COVID-19 pandemic, access to transportation has likely worsened, with many public transit services reducing routes and hours of operation. 

Lack of access to healthcare also affects reentry. Often, carceral facilities provide little, and frequently inadequate, substance abuse and mental health services to those incarcerated (Johnson and Beletsky 2020), making access to healthcare services upon reentry particularly crucial. Yet many returning citizens have difficulty obtaining healthcare due to a lack of personal identification or consistent employment with healthcare benefits. Moreover, for those previously covered by Medicaid, the expiration of Medicaid coverage during incarceration can complicate obtaining healthcare (Johnson and Beletsky 2020). Due to COVID-19, obtaining healthcare is now likely an even larger priority for returning citizens than before. 

F. Gap in the Literature

Existing literature predominantly focuses on the general challenges of the reentry process for returning citizens. Research of this nature needs to continue as new barriers, and ways in which existing barriers manifest themselves, in the reentry process continue to be identified. However, a pressing area of research is the multitude of ways that the COVID-19 pandemic is impacting the carceral system. Incarcerated individuals, already a vulnerable population, are particularly vulnerable during the pandemic. Prisons and jails are susceptible to the spread of the COVID-19 virus due to cramped living quarters, the inability to keep incarcerated individuals socially distant, and the constant influx of potentially exposed individuals entering the facilities (The Justice Collaborative n.d.). Demographically, many individuals in prisons also have elevated risk of contracting the virus: the rate of incarcerated individuals who are 55 years old and older increased by approximately 280% from 1999 to 2016 in state and federal prisons and approximately 40% of incarcerated individuals have a chronic health condition, which can exacerbate the severity of COVID-19 (The Justice Collaborative n.d.). Increased attention on how carceral systems are responding to the threat of COVID-19 is needed.  

Policymakers and criminal justice officials have responded to the unique challenges facing prisons during this time with an array of immediate policy changes to how facilities operate and eligibility for early release. The community reentry process has many barriers, and the COVID-19 pandemic is likely to further exacerbate those difficulties. There is a gap in the literature pertaining to the policy responses adopted in prisons as a result of the pandemic as well as how those policy changes may intersect with an already fraught reentry system. The purpose of this research study is to first compare state-level prison policy responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, and then to analyze how these policy responses may impact the reentry process for returning citizens. 

III. Data Description & Methodology

In order to address the gap in the literature, we conducted a qualitative study of policy responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in state prisons. Qualitative research allows for analyzing the meaning of public policy, the context in which policies are implemented, and the processes by which policies will be implemented (Maxwell 2018). For this study, we conducted a content analysis of policy decisions made in response to the risk posed by COVID-19 in prisons in each state in the Mid-Atlantic region: Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. These states were chosen for analysis because they range in population size, include urban, suburban, and rural areas, and vary in terms of political leadership, but exist in close geographical proximity and therefore provide for a good comparison. In 2019, 174,993 individuals were incarcerated in prisons across these states (Carson 2020). Table 1 provides a breakdown of individuals in prison per state, which gives context to the number of individuals impacted by each of the policy decisions detailed in the analysis.

Table 1: Individuals in Prison Per Mid-Atlantic State in 2019

Qualitative data were collected from state government websites, one of the most common platforms used by policymakers to disseminate information to the public regarding policy changes for state prisons. Official press releases provided a good starting point to learn what changes had been made and when; however, they left out details regarding how each policy would be implemented, which incarcerated individuals would be impacted by the policies, and any other stipulations that impacted policy implementation. Therefore, we searched each state’s correctional department website thoroughly to gather all data on each policy change (DEDOC n.d.; MDDPSCS n.d.; NYSDOCCS n.d.; PADOC n.d.; NJDOC n.d.; VADOC n.d.; WVDOC n.d.). 

While a number of policies have been implemented to address the risk of COVID-19 in carceral facilities, this study focused only on state-level policies for prisons that could impact the reentry process. State prisoners represent the majority of incarcerated individuals in the U.S. In fact, approximately 1.29 million of the 2.3 million people confined in the U.S. in 2020 were in state prisons (Sawyer and Wagner 2020). Therefore, state policy changes impact the majority of incarcerated individuals in the country. Similar policy decisions have likely been made in local jails, but these changes can vary across localities and were excluded from the data collection and analysis.

Once identified, a directed content analysis technique was used to determine which policy changes may impact reentry and how. Prior studies that identified how policy changes impact reentry also used a directed content analysis technique. This is important because many of the policies analyzed in this study were not labeled as reentry policies explicitly, but prior literature helped identify how they may impact this part of the system. Policies that have the potential to impact the reentry process were compared across states, allowing us to identify the similarities and differences in state policy changes, as well as how any stipulations within similar policies varied. The policies were then analyzed in order to determine how they might impact the reentry process. 

Before delving into specific policy responses, it is important to first understand the magnitude of the impact of COVID-19 in these states’ prison facilities. Altogether, there have been 29,960 documented positive COVID-19 cases and 247 total deaths attributed to COVID-19 in the prison population across the Mid-Atlantic region as of Jan. 15, 2021, as shown in Table 2 (Marshall Project 2021). These numbers put the results of the analysis into context, underlining the significance of each policy decision. They also help further highlight the unique vulnerabilities prisoners face during the pandemic, as well as the urgent nature of policy responses made to address these vulnerabilities.

Table 2: Total Number of Positive COVID-19 Cases and Deaths Attributed to COVID-19 in Prisons Across Mid-Atlantic States 

IV. Results & Discussion

The analysis revealed four major thematic areas in the policy responses to COVID-19 in prisons across the seven Mid-Atlantic states: changes in visitation, prison programming, early release, and community supervision. The following subsections walk through each of these categories, explain the nature and frequency of changes across these states within each category, identify similarities and differences in policy changes across the states, and then analyze potential externalities of these policy responses with a specific focus on how they could impact the reentry process. 

A. Visitation Changes

In response to COVID-19 health and safety precautions, prisons across the country implemented immediate changes to visitation policies. The Federal Bureau of Prisons initially suspended social visitations, and then eventually reinstated socially distanced, non-contact visitation in federal prisons. All seven Mid-Atlantic states suspended visitation initially in order to prevent visitors from spreading the COVID-19 virus to state prison facilities. The states varied in terms of how they handled visitation for the remainder of 2020. For example, some states reinstated in-person visitation at various times during the year, and then often had to resuspend this traditional mode of visitation after detecting COVID-19 clusters in prisons (DEDOC n.d.; MDDPSCS n.d.; NYSDOCCS n.d.; PADOC n.d.; NJDOC n.d.; VADOC n.d.; WVDOC n.d.). To put this in context, prior to the pandemic, the Federal Bureau of Prisons allowed visitors during a three-hour window on Fridays and a five-hour window on Saturdays (Federal Prison System 2016). Visitation hours, rules, and regulations in state prisons vary across state jurisdictions. 

Three of the seven states (Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia) implemented video visitation statewide using technology like Skype and Zoom. The number of virtual visitations allowed per inmate varied across states. For example, Pennsylvania allowed an inmate in the general population only one video visit per week and one weekend video visit per month. In Maryland, individuals in prison were allowed one 15-minute virtual visit per week (MDDPSCS n.d.; PADOC n.d.; VADOC n.d.).

Four of the seven states did not implement video visitation statewide. In Delaware, the availability of video visitation varied across facilities. Upon further interrogation, only one state-level correctional facility published information about video visitation. This facility indicated that most individuals in prison could have one 15 to 30-minute video visitation weekly. The major statewide change involved phone calls, as the Delaware Department of Corrections gave each incarcerated individual one 5-minute phone call per week free of charge. Incarcerated individuals or their families still had to purchase all other phone calls (DEDOC n.d.). New Jersey also offered video visitation at some, but not all, facilities. New Jersey’s Department of Corrections increased access to telephone calls, JPay Kiosks, and U.S. mail postage free of charge (NJDOC n.d.). New York State’s Department of Corrections and Community Supervision announced that it was working with phone and tablet vendors to offer two free secure messages per week on electronic tablets and one free phone call per week. It also offered five free stamps to individuals in prison for written communication. However, there was no announcement of a virtual visitation program being officially implemented (NYSDOCCS n.d.). Finally, West Virginia’s Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation gave guidance to facilities to increase telephone and video visitation options for individuals in prison, but there was no statewide mandate to implement these modes of visitation (WVDOC n.d.). Table 3 displays the states that implemented each of the aforementioned new visitation policies. 

Table 3: Changes Made to State Prison Visitation and Communication Policies

The documented changes in visitation policies could have a major impact on the reentry process. Visitation, especially when considering the realities of policies like non-contact and strip searches prior to entering the visitation room, is problematic and can be traumatic in its own right. However, lack of visitation can make the complex realities of rebuilding relationships post-incarceration more difficult. This can especially impact parents as they return to the household and attempt to navigate household roles and rebuild relationships with their children, partners, and others in the home. Thus, policy changes made in response to COVID-19 safety concerns could be adding unseen and uninterrogated stressors to the reentry process. 

In response to in-person visitation restrictions, many facilities implemented a video (tele) visitation system. This gave incarcerated individuals the opportunity to see their visitors digitally while talking with them. While clearly an upgrade over no visitation, this policy had issues. For example, private companies commonly implemented the technology and charged the incarcerated individual or their visitors to use it, creating an immediate barrier to visitation. Moreover, some facilities required visitors to travel to the facility in order to use the tele-visitation technology. Given that prisons are typically located in rural areas, while most incarcerated individuals are from urban areas, this could have precluded even virtual visitation for many families. Also, states and facilities imposed tight restrictions on the number and duration of tele-visitation sessions per week. These policies must be assessed within the reality that visitation can be emotional and traumatic for the individual incarcerated and their visitors; they may question if such an emotionally draining experience is worth it if visit length is extremely restricted. Altogether, the individual facilities and states (Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia) that implemented tele-visitation technology when traditional visitation was not safe and in a manner such that families could access the technology for free at home and spend a significant amount of time with their incarcerated loved one took the most equitable approach. 

The affordability barrier in communication is another element of the policy changes that needs careful interrogation. Most states increased the number of free telephone calls, postage, and other elements that facilitate communication with family and friends. This is important because communication, which is always vital for family relationships, is especially critical during the pandemic, a time of great stress both within prisons and outside of them. However, this positive step must also be understood in the context that private companies typically profit off of communication measures like telephone calls within prison settings. Thus, the positive elements of these policy responses typically only exist because of the deeply problematic prison-industrial complex that makes communication in carceral facilities a profitable venture in the first place. 

B. Changes in Prison Programming

Group and individual programming have long been considered essential elements of reentry preparation during incarceration. In fact, states often have policies, like earned credit policies, granting parole consideration to individuals who participate in programming deemed to help improve the likelihood of a successful return to the community. This type of programming includes education classes, employment training, mental health therapy, substance abuse treatment, and individualized reentry planning. Since much of this programming takes place in group settings, states made significant changes to mitigate the potential spread of the COVID-19 virus. Specifically, Delaware and New Jersey suspended all group classes and attempted to provide independent education programs, subject to the availability of instructors (DEDOC n.d.; NJDOC n.d.). West Virginia advised limiting the size of group activities and increasing physical space between individuals in the activities, suspending programs if individuals in programs were closer than they were in living quarters, and finding alternatives to group activities when possible (WVDOC n.d.). These alternatives could include things like individual activities that are comparable to the group activities or implementing group programming via technological tools. The state recommended that if group programming was suspended, alternatives be found to support the mental health of those incarcerated. It also recommended the suspension of work release programs where individuals move in and out of the facility (WVDOC n.d.). Maryland, New York, and Virginia did not specify any statewide alterations to group programming, but individual facilities may have instituted changes (MDDPSCS n.d.; NYSDOCCS n.d.; VADOC n.d.). Pennsylvania was the only Mid-Atlantic state that published a statewide intention to continue group activities, but it included the ability to evaluate individual facilities to adapt this protocol if needed (PADOC n.d.).

The rationale for suspending group-based programming to mitigate the potential spread of the COVID-19 virus was sensible. Group settings without social distancing and personal protective equipment, paired with poor ventilation within carceral facilities, constituted a recipe for viral spread. From a reentry perspective, however, the suspension of group programming is distressing. At the personal level, individuals could not access classes and resources that help them prepare for a successful reentry into their community. This included limited access to education classes, skill building workshops, mental health-related group therapy and activities, and other important services that help prepare the individual for reentry. From a policy perspective, individuals were less able to earn credits and other markings that help them progress toward parole consideration and eventual release.

C. Changes in Early Release

Mid-Atlantic states almost universally turned to early release of incarcerated individuals to mitigate the risk of the COVID-19 virus spreading in jails and prisons. In fact, it was the most consistent and robust policy response initiated that had a direct impact on reentry. Six of the seven Mid-Atlantic states either implemented, or stated they were working on, an early release plan. States varied, however, in the extent to which individuals were granted early release and the qualifications needed to be considered for early release (MDDPSCS n.d.; NYSDOCCS n.d.; PADOC n.d.; NJDOC n.d.; VADOC n.d.; WVDOC n.d.). Delaware was the only state that did not publish a record of releasing individuals early, or a plan to do so (DEDOC n.d.). In fact, the Delaware Department of Corrections pushed back against the American Civil Liberties Union’s (ACLU) effort to release incarcerated individuals early, stating that there was a risk of releasing incarcerated individuals early without proper reentry planning (Anderson 2020). The remaining six Mid-Atlantic states indicated at least some type of progress toward early release plans. 

Of these six Mid-Atlantic states, Maryland took a unique approach in its early release policy. Individuals incarcerated in Maryland were required to be within 120 days of their release date to be considered for early release to community supervision and individuals eligible for home detention were ordered to be immediately considered for transfer to home detention. The policy also ordered the Maryland Parole Commission to accelerate parole consideration for incarcerated individuals 60 years old and above with a good behavioral record while incarcerated, who had an approved home plan, and who were not convicted of a violent crime. Individuals convicted of sexual offenses were not eligible for early community supervision, home detention, or accelerated parole. Additionally, the policy considered individuals’ age, medical needs, and if the release could impact their health or those in the community. Maryland also suspended existing limitations on the credits that incarcerated individuals could accrue toward consideration for early release, thus improving ability to be considered for early release (MDDPSCS n.d.). 

Pennsylvania also issued an order to reduce the prison population in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. To reach this goal, the state worked with the parole board to increase the number of individuals released on parole, reviewing cases where individuals were paroled to a detainer, expediting the release of any individuals with a home plan, and reviewing the cases of state prisoners who had served longer than the terms of their minimum sentence length. The policy also instructed the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections to begin an early release program for vulnerable individuals who were within 12 months of release or within nine months of their minimum eligibility release date. When determining vulnerability, the state considered individuals’ age, pregnancy status, and if individuals had autoimmune disorders or serious chronic medical conditions as defined by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Individuals not eligible for early release included those convicted of a personal injury crime, a violent crime, a firearm related crime or crime using a deadly weapon, a crime involving incest, open lewdness, or internet child pornography, drug offenses committed with firearms, an offense that would result in sex offender registration, an offense relating to drug trafficking, individuals subject to a pending felony or misdemeanor arrest or detainer, individuals convicted of a crime while incarcerated, and individuals who pose a risk to public safety (PADOC n.d.).

New Jersey took a multifaceted approach to early release considerations in response to the pandemic. Individuals 60 years and older, individuals with high-risk medical conditions, individuals who were within three months of completing their sentence, and individuals who had been denied parole within the past year were all eligible for early release. Individuals barred from consideration for early release included individuals convicted of murder, manslaughter, sexual assault, robbery, kidnapping, and aggravated assault, and/or subject to a ‘no early release act’. New Jersey also increased the ability of incarcerated individuals to earn credits toward release if their release date was within one year, but once again excluded individuals convicted of murder, aggravated sexual assault, or sexual offenses. An emergency committee was also established to review each individual’s case and their home situation to determine if release was appropriate and the home environment suitable for home confinement (NJDOC n.d.).

New York made a series of decisions regarding early release considerations. In March 2020, the state quickly ordered the release of individuals being held in local jails for low-level technical parole violations and individuals who did not present a risk to public safety. In May 2020, New York announced the beginning of a process to release individuals incarcerated in prisons who had no more than 90 days left on their sentence, though this excluded individuals convicted of a violent or sexual offense (NYSDOCCS n.d.). 

Virginia also initiated an early release plan to mitigate the spread of the COVID-19 virus for individuals within one year of their original release date. However, a stipulation in the policy gave the director of the Virginia Department of Corrections discretion to determine if an early release was in the best interest of the safety, health, and welfare of the individual incarcerated and other prisoners, as well as the community. Individuals convicted of a Class 1 felony or violent sexual offense were not eligible for consideration. Virginia then established a hierarchy for consideration for early release based on criminal conviction, beginning with non-violent offenses. Individuals also needed a documented and approved home plan, to have a medium or low risk score according to the state-approved risk assessment tool, and to have earned a certain level of ‘good time’ credits before consideration for early release (VADOC n.d.). 

Finally, West Virginia, took a different approach in its early release strategy. In March 2020, West Virginia’s Supreme Court of Appeals asked circuit judges and county magistrates to work with local prosecutors to identify individuals being held pretrial who did not pose a risk to public safety that could be released on recognizance or reduced bond. West Virginia’s Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation decided to release parolees serving short jail terms as a result of parole violations and to release individuals to work-release who were eligible for weekend furloughs as a result of good behavior. Of the six states that implemented some type of early release plan, this plan appeared to result in the smallest group of individuals eligible for consideration for early release (WVDOC n.d.). Table 4 compares the policy changes states made to early release plans. 

Table 4: Features of Early Release Policy Changes

Early release policies are a clear positive step in helping protect the safety and health of individuals incarcerated. They also help the community, since any transmission of COVID-19 in carceral facilities will eventually enter the community given the number of individuals that enter and leave these facilities for work. Also, almost all incarcerated individuals will eventually be released into the community and any attempt to mitigate the spread of the virus will help all community members. It is encouraging that nearly all states in the Mid-Atlantic have implemented an early release protocol. However, the numerous stipulations in these policies prevented a significant number of individuals from actually being released early. The most obvious barriers were stipulations regarding the nature of individuals' convictions, which immediately shrunk the pool of people eligible for consideration. Also, states typically used language that built in discretion for officials to deny early release, even if the individual met the other requirements set. For example, the policies often included language to the effect of individuals being ineligible if they were deemed a safety or health risk to the community, leaving considerable room for subjective interpretation as to who meets those qualifications. Virginia used risk assessment tools to help with this matter. However, research has found these tools to be racially biased (Angwin et al. 2016). Finally, the process of these early release policies warrants consideration. The array of stipulations added to the early release plans means significant bureaucratic effort is needed to identify potential candidates for early release and then assess each individual’s case. This likely significantly reduced the number of individuals actually released early. 

The release of individuals is a positive step for decarceration overall and the lives of the individuals, families, and communities impacted by mass incarceration. However, instituting early release with little to no reentry planning and/or additional funding for community-based reentry programs can cause issues. As highlighted in the literature review, challenges and barriers in the existing reentry system help fuel an extremely high recidivism rate. These issues may be exacerbated if individuals are not prepared for reentry and the community is not ready to help them navigate that process. In fact, states such as Virginia set stipulations like individuals needing a home plan as a condition for early release. However, an adequate reentry system would have helped individuals plan for reentry from the beginning of their incarceration. This flawed reentry system punishes individuals for something outside of their control. 

D. Changes in Community Supervision

Returning citizens remain under carceral supervision long after they leave the prison facility. Typically, an individual has to meet with a probation or parole officer, who sets out a plan that the returning citizen must follow. Elements of these plans can include attending meetings, taking drug tests, and obtaining employment, among other things. Individuals can become a recidivist by violating the terms of their probation or parole, even if that action was not against the law. Additionally, probation and parole offices can provide group and individual programming designed to help individuals in the reentry process. Thus, extended community supervision constitutes a major element of the reentry process.  

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, there was little indication of change among the Mid-Atlantic states in probation and parole standards and punishment for technical violations. Most states indicated that probation and parole officers were instructed to take steps to mitigate the spread of the COVID-19 virus, like wearing personal protective equipment and holding socially distanced or virtual meetings. However, there were no significant policy changes that would reduce the likelihood of individuals being incarcerated for technical violations. 

New Jersey made the most significant change in allowing for individuals on parole to have their parole length reduced and ending supervision for others. The other states indicated changes made for meetings in response to health concerns but no major policy changes regarding relaxation of supervision standards and punishments (NJDOC n.d.). In Delaware, individual probation and parole offices largely had the discretion to decide whether group meetings with contracted treatment providers and in-person individual treatment sessions continued. Individuals were instructed to contact their probation or parole officer to see if sessions were being held and the expectations for attendance at these sessions or other required meetings (DEDOC n.d.). Maryland stated that it is still dedicated to providing community supervision for individuals on probation or parole but gave no indication of any changes (MDDPSCS n.d.). New York initially suspended in-person meetings but intended to maintain contact through various technological modes. Some individual carceral facilities indicated that they resumed in-person meetings with personal protective equipment and social distancing. The state also cancelled parole warrants for individuals who had access to adequate housing (NYSDOCCS n.d.). In Pennsylvania, community supervision officials increased the use of technology for meetings and personal protective equipment for in-person meetings (PADOC n.d.). In Virginia, probation and parole districts started using more electronic intake processes. The state then conducted socially distanced intakes with personal protective equipment when necessary (VADOC n.d.). In West Virginia, there was no clear indication of statewide changes to the community supervision process (WVDOC n.d.).

The overall lack of changes to the community supervision process could have a number of externalities. First, the potential for individuals to be reincarcerated as a result of technical violations, as opposed to committing an actual crime, is likely to increase. The pandemic added economic stressors, impacted public transportation access, increased childcare responsibilities (with schools largely operating remotely), and had an array of other impacts that may make it harder for individuals to make all required in-person meetings. Also, any post-release requirements for obtaining employment are complicated because of the economic recession. Additionally, it is important to note that technical violations can arise from an array of offenses that range in level of seriousness. For example, individuals could be deemed a technical violator for coming into contact with law enforcement, even if it was for non-criminal reasons, violating curfew or failing a drug test, just to name a few. All of these potential violations should be reconsidered in light of COVID-19, especially given that they may result in putting someone back in the carceral system during a pandemic, potentially risking their health and safety.  

Second, if early releases rise and efforts are made to avoid incarceration on the front end, probation and parole officers are likely to be overwhelmed without additional funding and staffing to keep up with the increased caseload. As a result, individuals may be less likely to get the attention they need to help them navigate reentry and may be more likely to get lost in the system. Further, suspending individual and/or group programming may prevent individuals from accessing resources needed to facilitate their reentry. Thus, while state policy changes focused on early release, they put comparatively little attention toward what changes would be needed in actual communities to support returning individuals. 

V. Policy Recommendations

To address the additional barriers to reentry for incarcerated individuals caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, we recommend policymakers focus on decarceration, systemic changes in reentry preparation, restructuring visitation and family reunification, probation and parole, and better addressing the structural barriers to reentry. 

A. Decarceration

Decarceration is a positive policy response to the mass incarceration crisis in the U.S., even before considering its impact on mitigating the spread of the COVID-19 virus. The U.S. continues to lead the world in incarceration, with 2.3 million people incarcerated (Sawyer and Wagner 2020). As such, finding ways to reduce prison populations is necessary and even more imperative in the times of COVID-19. Reducing prison populations is both a sensible response to reduce the potential spread of the virus in communities and a humane response to prevent individuals from becoming infected with the virus while under carceral supervision. 

Addressing mass incarceration in the short- and long-term will require focusing primarily be on local and state-level policies. State prisons house most of the 2.3 million people incarcerated in the U.S. on any given day, which indicates a need to focus on state-level factors driving incarceration. Paired with the release of federal prisoners serving sentences tied to the antiquated, heavily punitive sentencing policies of the 1980s and 1990s and individuals in local jails, state-level policy action is the ideal approach moving forward. Importantly, approximately 74% of individuals in local jails have not been convicted of a crime (Sawyer and Wagner 2020). This makes decarceration even more of an immediate necessity.  

While reducing the population of state prisons is an important step, state officials must also interrogate the thresholds commonly used to determine eligibility for early release. The states in this analysis generally excluded individuals convicted of violent offenses, weapon offenses, and sex offenses, among others, from consideration for early release. These are the typical thresholds, even in the absence of COVID-19. The rationale for such thresholds is largely based on public safety arguments, yet this does not necessarily comport with the evidence. For example, individuals convicted of violent or sexual offenses are among the offenders least likely to reoffend (Alper and Durose 2019). In fact, reforming punitive sentencing policies aimed at incarcerating individuals convicted of violent offenses long beyond the age of typical desistance and addressing increased prosecutorial power and discretion is a primary way to actually attempt to enact decarceration (Pfaff 2017), given that approximately 55% of state prisoners have been convicted of a violent offense (Sawyer and Wagner 2020). 

Beyond the type of conviction, other common qualifications used in state-level early releases ordered in response to COVID-19 warrant attention. For example, states commonly excluded individuals deemed a threat to public safety from consideration. Risk assessment tools exist to facilitate determining who constitutes a threat by providing an ostensibly objective evaluation of the potential risk posed by a given individual; yet of the seven Mid-Atlantic states, only Virginia officially stated that it used a risk assessment tool in its policy. These tools largely draw on data from a carceral system that disproportionately arrests and incarcerates people of color (Angwin et al. 2016). Therefore, it should be expected that the results of these assessments will largely replicate the racial biases already built into the system, potentially biasing the release process. These considerations should force a discussion regarding the reliability of these tools and how they should be used, or not, in conjunction with the discretion of criminal justice officials. 

Another common qualification in states’ early release policies is the requirement that the individual have a safe and viable home plan. In theory, this stipulation appears reasonable:  sending individuals into their communities without a home plan sets them up for failure. For example, individuals may be rearrested for offenses directly related to homelessness, may be forced to return to a housing situation where criminal offending is present, or may have to live in an unsafe situation. Thus, every returning citizen should have a safe and viable home plan. However, this ignores the structural reality that funding suitable housing for returning individuals has never been a priority for policymakers. Individuals need to have direct access to safe and affordable housing when they reenter the community but making this a stipulation for release ends up disadvantaging marginalized individuals in the system and advantaging those who are more privileged. Specifically, the individuals most likely to have a viable home plan are those who have a support system in the community ready to help them during reentry. In contrast, some of the most vulnerable individuals are those attempting to navigate reentry with little to no assistance. By tying early release decisions to having a viable home plan, the system consistently favors those with more established and stable support systems. To increase equity in this process, individuals in need of safe and affordable housing as a contingency for release should receive direct access to it.

Finally, it is important to note that policy discussions related to early release cannot occur in isolation. Instead, they must be paired with discussions regarding how to minimize the influx of individuals into the carceral system. This will take a concerted effort to reform sentencing policies, end policing strategies like the ‘broken windows’ approach that over-criminalize minor infractions and disproportionately target people of color, and transition from an efficiency-based judicial system focused on processing bodies. These types of reforms, when coupled with decarceration efforts, can help alleviate the current mass incarceration crisis. Prisons and jails were always going to be vulnerable to the spread of COVID-19, but the fact that the U.S. is the world’s leader in incarceration has only made that vulnerability worse. 

B. Systemic Changes in Reentry Preparation

Approximately 95% or more of all individuals incarcerated in state prisons will be released and returned to their community (Hughes and Wilson 2021). As such, reentry planning should begin when an individual enters a carceral facility. This preparation can take the form of programming like education, job training, mental health therapy, substance abuse treatment, and parenting resources. Always, it should be individualized, with reentry case managers working to help individuals establish housing, employment, and access to healthcare benefits, and to provide other support tailored to the needs of the individual. Reentry planning also provides an opportunity to proactively link individuals with community organizations that can help with reentry, as opposed to simply handing them a stack of papers with that information buried in it upon release. Currently, reentry preparation exists, but what this preparation looks like and when it begins typically varies across facilities, states, and localities. COVID-19, and the multiple policy changes that followed, clearly exposed this issue. For example, requiring a home plan for early release reveals that not all incarcerated individuals who would otherwise be eligible have fleshed out reentry plans. Moreover, many individuals have been released without adequate preparation for navigating the reentry process. If reentry preparation began immediately upon incarceration, then these types of problems may have been minimized when state and prison officials implemented COVID-19 responses.  

In addition to starting early, reentry preparation must also be improved in substance and reach and move away from its current fragmented nature. Reentry preparation varies drastically across localities, states, and facilities, both in terms of the substantive reentry programming and preparation available to individuals in prison, as well as if programming is available at all. The criminal justice system tends to operate in a localized manner. In reentry, this means that an individual in one facility may have access to substantive education programming, job training, and mental health resources, and may be linked to community reentry resources before they are even released to help assure a smooth transition, while an individual at a different facility may have access to little to no reentry planning and may return to a community with few, if any, community-based supports or resources. Yet despite their different preparation, both individuals are expected to meet societal standards for successful reentry, or face returning to prison. Without examining these structural inequities, it is easy to fall into narratives of personal blame if someone is reincarcerated, explaining their offense as a personal failing, rather than recognizing that this individual may have had to navigate a difficult system with little to no help. As such, there is an urgent need for a reentry system that is both more substantive and comprehensive in helping prepare individuals for reentry and assuring a smooth transition to community-based resources. 

C. Visitation and Family Reunification

An often-overlooked element of reentry is the challenges individuals face when trying to transition back into a family. This is especially difficult for parents, as they reunite with a family that has been forced to operate without them for an extended period of time. Incarceration harms the individuals incarcerated, as well as their children, partners, and extended family members. Repairing these harms is extremely difficult in the best circumstances. Considering that most carceral facilities eliminated face-to-face visitation in response to COVID-19 health and safety protocols, parents will now be returning to family members with whom they have not been able to visit in-person for nearly a year at minimum. It is hard to fully understand what these changes in visitation policy may have done to the parent-child relationship and how hard it will be to repair these harms. While the harms may not yet be fully understood, there should be a concerted effort to provide, expand, and/or improve resources for parents as they return to their families after being incarcerated during the pandemic. 

Helping formerly incarcerated parents overcome challenges presented by COVID-19 prison policies can take various forms. It can begin in prison by offering classes and workshops for incarcerated parents on how to maintain or rebuild relationships with their children. This programming can also help the parent navigate returning back to the household, where a partner may have adjusted to operating without them and tensions may arise when this situation changes again. These parenting resources can extend to the community as well. Some communities have strong parenting resources for formerly incarcerated parents, while other localities have few, if any, or the resources may be difficult to access. Parenting resources can be built into whatever community reentry infrastructure does exist, while also seeking ways to assure such resources are available for more returning parents across varying localities. 

Finally, the visitation changes made in response to COVID-19 health concerns should not become the norm going forward. The growth of tele-visitation technology has helped to keep families connected during the pandemic, but it should not be viewed as a substitute for in-person visitation long-term. Some prison administrators may see advantages in virtual visitations, such as reducing the potential for contraband to be brought into the facility; as such, advocates must remain vigilant and assure that, once it is safe, in-person visitation resumes for those families that want, and can, partake in it. 

D. Probation and Parole

Analysis of recidivism data often misses the role that technical violations play in the recidivism rate. In certain localities, data suggest that over one third of individuals in jails are there as a result of probation or parole violations or detainers (Sawyer et al. 2020). While a long-term study of probation and parole policies and technical violations is needed, there needs to be an immediate focus on how to address technical violations during the pandemic. Given that many states are aiming to accelerate decarceration to reduce the transmission of the virus, there should be a considerable reduction in potential technical violations that could result in reincarnation during this period. In fact, policymakers should consider making technical violations alone insufficient grounds for reincarceration. This policy change will help prevent prison populations from quickly growing again. It also recognizes that technical violations are more likely during the pandemic, when more individuals are being released to communities at a time when normal face-to-face meetings may be suspended, the economic recession may hinder returning citizens’ search for jobs and housing, and access to transportation is limited. 

E. Structural Barriers in Reentry

While this analysis focuses on the impact of COVID-19 policy responses in state prisons, and implications for reentry, it cannot be fully separated from the larger structural barriers that already exist within the reentry system. It is already difficult for returning citizens to access safe and affordable housing, obtain employment, reestablish benefits, access government assistance, access transportation, and navigate all other elements of community reentry (Raphael 2011; Visher and Courtney 2007). Many returning citizens are also returning to families after serving lengthy prison sentences in facilities far away from their homes. These barriers are a direct result of state and federal policies, many of which were passed and implemented during the ‘tough on crime’ era that dominated politics especially beginning in the 1970s. Until these structural barriers are addressed, reentry will continue to be extremely difficult, even after the carceral system returns to some type of normal operations following the pandemic. 

The structural barriers always present in the reentry system have been magnified during the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, decarceration should have been met with resounding applause; however, it was met with immediate fear that returning citizens were being released without adequate reentry preparation. Community organizations tasked with helping individuals and their families navigate reentry do their best but are too often underfunded and overworked. If the reentry system had been adequately funded across localities, and prisons focused on helping individuals prepare for reentry from the outset of their incarceration, decarceration could have been met with more hope and less fear for the individuals thrust into a fragmented system.  

Another element of this flawed reentry system that needs attention is access to healthcare and other basic necessities. Reestablishing healthcare, whether private insurance, Medicaid, or Medicare, must be a top priority. Returning citizens, already a vulnerable population, should not be released into the community without healthcare coverage during a pandemic. The establishment of healthcare coverage can occur pre-release and the individual should be immediately connected to healthcare services once back in the community. Returning citizens also need to be provided basic necessities, such as food, clothing, an identification card, and a phone. Many individuals may be able to access these basic necessities upon release or receive assistance from a community-based reentry organization. However, others may struggle to access some, or all, of these necessities, which are foundational to securing a job, housing, and reintegration into the community. Without these basic necessities, reentry becomes an effort of survival. This is fairly common sense, but it is vital that these basic necessities are not overlooked in programs and planning services that also work to connect individuals to other elements of reentry like housing, employment, and transportation. 

Stimulus funding provides a potential avenue to help address the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on reentry. Funding should be carved out specifically for local nonprofit organizations, community service boards and others that provide reentry services. Stimulus funding allocated for local governments could also be partially allotted to local efforts to help establish safe and affordable housing for returning citizens, help them access basic necessities including items like face masks, provide free transportation for these citizens, and so on. If funding is allocated to prisons, it should be used to help individuals prepare for reentry and connect with resources in the community. Clearly, funding should be dedicated to help prevent the spread of COVID-19 and provide adequate healthcare treatment to those infected within facilities, but this should be paired with a concerted effort to help individuals currently in prison prepare for and then leave these facilities. 

VI. Conclusion

The reentry system was fraught with issues long before the COVID-19 pandemic. With the onset of the pandemic, many of those issues have worsened, and new issues have arisen. Returning citizens are being released during a pandemic and an economic recession, on top of all of the typical reentry challenges that come with having a criminal record and returning to a community and family after an extended absence. Given these realities, it is vital to continue pushing for better reentry resources and policies, while also analyzing all prison policy responses to COVID-19 with an eye toward how they impact reentry.

 There are also a variety of avenues for future research on this topic. For example, quantitative analyses should be conducted over the next few years in order to measure the impact of these policy decisions on recidivism rates. Researchers could consider expanding this analysis to other regions of the country, while integrating all new policy decisions made as the state of the pandemic changes with increased vaccination rates and increased knowledge about the spread, and treatment, of the virus. More qualitative work should also be conducted as much could be learned from in-depth interviews with returning citizens, illuminating their experiences of incarceration and reentry during the pandemic. 

Returning citizens are a vulnerable population and they are being released during a time when reentry is as difficult as it has ever been. Policymakers must work to reform broken reentry policies, fund community organizations that help individuals navigate reentry, and scale up reentry organizations across localities. During this critical time in the nation’s history, this population should not be forgotten and further othered. There should be a concerted effort to ensure returning individuals have access to housing, food, clothing, transportation, healthcare coverage, mental health and substance abuse resources if needed, employment opportunities, and all other necessities. This should be paired with funding organizations that work with these individuals to give them a legitimate opportunity to succeed post-incarceration. This is a matter of human rights and helping individuals and communities that continue to be most hurt by the mass incarceration crisis.