Policy and Practice Guidance for the Future of Reentry

Introduction

The majority of people entering jails and prisons already face serious challenges—and without the right support, those challenges often grow worse after release. Because most incarcerated people will eventually return to their communities, ensuring successful reentry has become a top priority for state leaders.

With support from programs like the Second Chance Act and collaboration with a wide range of community partners, state leaders have made meaningful progress in reducing recidivism. Recent data shows that state-level reincarceration rates are 23% lower than they were in 2008, underscoring efforts to reduce reliance on incarceration and advance sustainable approaches to public safety. Still, reentry success is about more than reducing rearrest rates. Many reentry supports and services remain fragmented, inequitable, and under-resourced.

To build on past efforts, Reentry 2030 was launched in 2022 as a national initiative to improve and expand fair, effective reentry outcomes for people leaving prison or under community supervision. Reentry 2030 works with state leaders, corrections agencies, service providers, and community organizations to set and pursue bold, public reentry goals.

Successfully addressing the systemic barriers to reentry requires a multifaceted approach. This guide outlines policies and practices that state leaders can champion, fund, or implement to ensure that every person returning to the community has a real opportunity to succeed.

Principle 1: Integrated Coordination Across Courts, Corrections, and Community Supervision

A coordinated justice system is essential for successful reentry.

Reentry outcomes improve when courts, corrections, supervision agencies, and community organizations work together toward shared goals. This principle emphasizes the importance of collaboration, human-centered planning, and systems alignment to promote seamless transitions for people leaving incarceration. The strategies below demonstrate how state leaders can embed this principle into policy and practice.

A. Build capacity for collaboration and improved outcomes.

• Codify a multiagency body or commission to regularly assess—and recommend improvements to—outcomes for the returning population.
  • See North Carolina Joint Reentry Council: A Reentry 2030 statewide network bringing together justice, workforce, and community partners to strengthen reentry coordination and improve outcomes across North Carolina.
  • See Washington Statewide Reentry Council: Brings together statewide leaders from corrections, social services, and community groups to set strategy, monitor progress, and drive accountability for reentry outcomes.
• Develop intergovernmental and community partnerships to ensure a warm handoff for everyone exiting incarceration, including partnerships with grassroots organizations that work closest to the communities served but often struggle to compete with larger organizations for funding.
  • See California Ride Home Program: A community-led initiative that meets people at the prison gates, providing immediate transportation, basic necessities, and support to ease their transition home.
• Create standards to identify and use only those reentry programs that demonstrate effectiveness; evidence-based programs should use sound practices and show positive outcomes.
  • See Delaware Recidivism Blueprint: A comprehensive state plan outlining data-driven strategies to reduce recidivism, improve reentry coordination, and strengthen community-based supports for people returning to the community.
  • See Delaware Department of Correction Reentry Planning Policy: A policy framework ensuring that every person nearing release receives a coordinated reentry plan that links correctional programming with housing, employment, health care, and supervision supports in the community.
  • See Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction Approved Reentry Program Criteria: A set of statewide standards defining evidence-based practices and outcome measures that reentry programs must meet to be certified, ensuring quality, consistency, and accountability across Ohio’s correctional system.
• Develop supervision staff training, policies, and practices that promote coaching and case management, and train staff in trauma-informed and person-centered responsive care that uses best practices to provide consistent but individualized treatment.
  • See Iowa Department of Corrections Staff Competency Matrix: A structured framework outlining the knowledge, skills, and behaviors correctional staff must demonstrate to effectively support rehabilitation, reentry preparation, and person-centered practices across Iowa’s facilities.
• Train judges and court staff on key components of community supervision, such as the Risk-Needs-Responsivity model, case management, reentry planning, and behavior change tools to improve sentencing outcomes and responses to technical violations.
• Track access to and participation in correctional and reentry-related programs, apprenticeships, employment, and resources and adjust approaches as necessary to ensure fairness.
  • See Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Dashboards: Interactive dashboards tracking reentry metrics, program performance, and population outcomes to promote transparency, inform decision-making, and drive continuous improvement within Pennsylvania’s correctional system.

B. Use a human-centered approach to set goals and coordinate across systems.

• Provide every person leaving prison or on supervision with a state identification card, Social Security card, and other vital documents. This can be accomplished by staff meeting with people prior to their release to apply for identification documents or providing opportunities for community-based agencies to assist people with the application processes before release through partnerships.
  • See Alabama House Bill 2 (2021): A law requiring that, before release, certain incarcerated people be provided with a birth certificate, Social Security card, and state-issued identification to ensure essential documentation is in place for reentry.
  • See Florida Statute 944.605: A law requiring the Department of Corrections to arrange for a digitized photograph and provide notice of an incarcerated person’s anticipated release—including to the court, law enforcement, and, when appropriate, victims—and ensure the person is issued an identification card within 60 days before release.
  • See Virginia DMV Connect program: A mobile and onsite outreach initiative where DMV staff visit correctional facilities and reentry service sites to help justice-involved individuals obtain or restore driver’s licenses, state IDs, and vehicle registration before or shortly after release.
• Actively involve each person, starting at intake, in developing a personalized reentry plan that identifies their treatment, program, and service needs using assessment results to guide pre-release preparation and support a successful transition home.
  • See Hawaii Department of Public Safety Comprehensive Reentry Plan: A statewide framework that begins reentry planning at intake, coordinates interagency services, and ensures continuity of care from prison to community.
• Provide transitional services that recognize and address the diverse needs of people returning home, including those who are aging or have learning, intellectual, or developmental disabilities. These services should offer tailored supports, such as accessible case management, health care coordination, and vocational or educational opportunities, to ensure all individuals can understand system requirements, gain meaningful skills, and successfully reintegrate without risk of reincarceration.
• Engage people with firsthand experience in the criminal justice system to provide case management, mentoring, and other reentry support, beginning during incarceration, intensifying during transition into the community, and continuing after release.
  • See California Transitions Clinic: A network of community health clinics with integrated care teams including community health workers with lived experience of incarceration and dedicated to supporting people returning from prison with medical, behavioral health, and social services linkage.
  • See Hawaii Department of Health Forensic Peer Specialist Program: A training and internship program that integrates forensic peer specialists (people with lived experience of incarceration and behavioral health needs) into reentry support, helping bridge the gap between correctional settings and community-based recovery services.
• For people on community supervision, use the lightest approach possible and avoid reporting and programming requirements that impede social reintegration and employment. Provide structured programs that can lead to early termination of supervision for people assessed as having high needs and elevated risk of reoffending.
  • See Georgia SB 105: A law that establishes a clear pathway for early termination of felony probation after three years (if certain conditions are met, like no revocations and paid restitution).
• Ensure that judges have a full picture of a person’s needs, their program participation, and available resources in the community to inform their responses to technical violations, such as alternatives to issuing warrants for missed court appointments. Reentry service providers should offer training on collaborative comprehensive case plans and Risk-Need-Responsivity to judges and other judicial leaders to further highlight the needs of people in reentry.
• Provide incentives for positive behavior on community supervision, including recognition and early termination of community supervision.
  • See Revised Code of Washington 9.94A.717: Establishes procedural guidelines and obligations related to sentencing or supervision, ensuring clarity and consistency in how community custody and related conditions are applied under Washington’s Sentencing Reform Act.

Resources

• Advancing Fairness and Transparency: National Guidelines for Post-Conviction Risk and Needs Assessment, CSG Justice Center
• Changing Systems, Changing Behavior: Five Ways Corrections Agencies Can Work to Reduce Recidivism, CSG Justice Center
• Collaborative Comprehensive Case Plans, CSG Justice Center
• Improving Responses to People with Mental Illnesses: The Essential Elements of Specialized Probation Initiatives, CSG Justice Center
• Practical Considerations Related to Release and Sentencing for Defendants Who Have Behavioral Health Needs: A Judicial Guide, CSG Justice Center
• Staffing for Success: Establishing Core Competencies and Training Supports for Corrections and Community Supervision Staff, CSG Justice Center
• State Identification: Reentry Strategies for State and Local Leaders, CSG Justice Center
• A Ten-Step Guide to Transforming Probation Departments to Reduce Recidivism, CSG Justice Center
• A better path forward for criminal justice: Prisoner reentry, The Brookings Institution
• Providing Identification for Those Released from Incarceration, National Conference of State Legislatures
• Transition from Jails to Community, The National Institute of Corrections

Principle 3: Economic Mobility and Meaningful Employment

The pathway to lasting reintegration begins with economic opportunity.

Employment is one of the strongest predictors of successful reentry, yet people with criminal records face a complex web of legal, structural, and societal barriers that block access to meaningful, stable work. From occupational licensing restrictions to employer biases and overwhelming debt burdens, these barriers not only hinder individual progress but also undermine public safety and workforce development efforts.

This principle outlines strategies to expand access to employment, improve job readiness, engage employers in second-chance hiring, and reduce financial penalties that trap people in cycles of poverty and incarceration. When reentry and workforce development strategies are aligned—and laws, licensing boards, and employers support fair chance practices—states can unlock the potential of returning people and strengthen their communities and economies in the process.

A. Examine collateral consequences in licensing and hiring decisions.

• Review mandatory collateral consequences to determine where they can be removed or converted into discretionary ones, establishing a presumption in favor of hiring or licensing and ensuring robust procedural safeguards that give individuals with criminal records every opportunity to demonstrate their qualifications and job readiness.
  • See Vermont Order of Limited Relief: Allows an individual to petition for an order of limited relief if granting the petition meets certain conditions including if it will help the individual obtain/maintain employment, education, housing, benefits, or occupational licensing.
  • See AL SB 138: Encourages second-chance hiring by granting employers limited immunity from liability when hiring individuals with court-issued orders of relief.
• Limit how long consequences remain in effect, particularly mandatory ones.
  • See California Business and Professions Code Section 480: Permits licensing boards to deny a license based on criminal history only if the crime occurred within the preceding 7 years.
• Review the offenses that trigger each collateral consequence to determine whether they have clear public safety implications in the context of the job at issue and eliminate the triggering offenses that do not.
  • See Wisconsin Fair Employment Act: Requires a licensing agency to justify in writing the denial or revocation of a license based on a conviction.
• Require licensing boards or agencies to provide specific guidance for individualized consideration of applicants with convictions.
• Require licensing boards or agency decision-makers to apply a “direct relationship” test and identify the significant public safety implications that could arise if a convicted person participates in the specific tasks, duties, and obligations of the job or licensed activity at issue. (“Direct relationship” tests occur when decision-makers determine whether the circumstances of the underlying crime(s) are substantially similar to the responsibilities held by the license or job that the candidate has applied to perform.)
  • See Michigan Compiled Laws § 338.42: Legislative policy outlining circumstances in which a licensing board may consider an individual’s criminal history, including if the offense “has a direct and specific relationship.”
• Develop policies that employers and licensing bodies can use to clearly explain how convictions are factored into decision-making in application materials and other resources.

B. Integrate reentry and workforce development strategies.

• Prepare people for employment success by teaching basic technology skills; crafting resumes; offering interview trainings and access to free interview-appropriate clothing; and assembling documentation of all certificates, degrees, and skills acquired prior to release.
  • See Michigan’s Vocational Village: A Department of Corrections–led, campus-style training model that delivers industry-recognized credentials and hands-on workforce training inside prisons, aligning participants with in-demand occupations and connecting them to employment opportunities upon release.
• Create and adapt education, training, apprenticeship, work release, and employment programs that connect people with records to industries offering good, sustainable jobs—especially in sectors with worker shortages and few hiring barriers.
  • See Milwaukee County Integrated Reentry and Employment Strategies Project Summary: Matches returning individuals to tailored job training and services based on assessments to improve employability and reduce recidivism.
• Ensure that people who are incarcerated earn equitable wages for employment while in prison.
  • See Maine’s expanded work-release and fair-wage employment models: Maine’s Department of Corrections offers work-release programs that let eligible residents earn community wages for jobs in the community, with earnings used for room/board, fines, fees, personal expenses, and savings in preparation for reentry. Maine has also implemented remote work opportunities paying industry-standard wages to incarcerated workers with secure oversight and job training.

C. Engage employers in hiring people with criminal records.

• Identify employers willing to hire people with criminal records and engage them in educating other employers and addressing their concerns.
• • See Second Chance Business Coalition (National): Example of a cross-sector coalition comprising private employers committed to promoting second chance hiring within their companies; the website includes tools and resources to successfully implement hiring programs.
• Hold in-person and virtual job fairs in state correctional facilities where prospective employers can speak and share opportunities with people who are incarcerated.
  • See Indiana Hoosier Initiative for Re-Entry: Collaborative, nationally recognized virtual job fair offered in five prisons, featuring several employers who delivered presentations highlighting available positions for hire.

D. Minimize debt accrual.

• Pause child support while parents are incarcerated to avoid the accrual of excessive debt that can be detrimental to successful reentry and impractical to collect. Child support debt averages $20,000–$36,000 for returning parents, which is much higher than average support debt of non-incarcerated low-income parents.
  • See Revised Code of Washington 26.09.320: Legislative policy that outlines abatement and reinstatement of child support based on incarceration.
• Eliminate court-imposed fees for supervision and programming, such as drug testing, treatment programs, and electronic monitoring.
  • See Alameda County, California Ordinance: County ordinance that prohibits assessment of fees for probation services.
• Eliminate interest charges for people with legal financial obligations who are incarcerated.
  • See Washington House Bill E2SHB 1783: Bill that outlaws accrual of interest on non-restitution legal financial obligations; also outlines conditions under which the court may waive or reduce interest on the restitution portion of legal financial obligations.
• End the practice of sending fines and fees debt to private collection agencies.

Resources

• Fair Chance Licensing Project: States Expand Access to In-Demand Jobs, CSG Justice Center
• Integrated Reentry and Employment Strategies: Reducing Recidivism and Promoting Job Readiness, CSG Justice Center
• Reducing Structural Barriers to School and Work for People with Juvenile Records, CSG Justice Center
• Removing Structural Barriers to Employment: A Playbook for Every State, CSG Justice Center
• Self-Assessment for Employment-Focused Reentry Programs: Measuring Fidelity to the Integrated Reentry and Employment Strategies (IRES) Framework, CSG Justice Center
• 50 State Survey: Probation and Parole Fees, Fines & Fees Justice Center
• Providing Another Chance: Resetting Recidivism Risk in Criminal Background Checks, RAND Corporation

Principle 5: Comprehensive Health and Behavioral Health Treatment and Care

People with serious mental illnesses, substance use disorders, and histories of homelessness are often caught at the intersection of behavioral health and the justice system without access to the care, stability, or coordination they need.

Improving outcomes for this population requires more than programmatic solutions; it demands sustained, formalized collaboration across state and local systems. When behavioral health, criminal justice, housing, and health care agencies align their efforts, they can better identify individuals’ needs early, divert people from incarceration, and ensure continuity of care during and after custody.

This section outlines strategies to build infrastructure for effective cross-system partnerships, enhance data sharing and coordination, expand diversion pathways, and strengthen connections to care. Together, these efforts reduce repeated system contact, improve health and safety outcomes, and promote long-term stability for people with complex needs.

A. Strengthen and formalize cross-system collaboration.

• Formalize collaboration between housing, criminal justice, and behavioral health agencies at the state and local levels to improve housing outcomes for people in local criminal justice systems who have serious mental illnesses or substance use disorders, especially those with repeated system contact.
  • See Pima County Housing First Initiative: A pay-for-success reentry housing program that offers transitional and permanent supportive housing paired with case management, health care, and justice-system navigation to reduce recidivism and homelessness.
• Increase availability of and connections to permanent supportive housing for people with serious mental illnesses or substance use disorders who have repeated contact with the justice system.

B. Improve local capacity to collect and share data.

• Facilitate cross-agency information sharing by providing plain language guidance on what information can and can’t be shared—and with whom—and ensuring consistency with federal and state privacy protections.
• Implement universal mental health, substance use, and homelessness screenings at booking with timely follow-up clinical assessment, as needed, to identify people who are experiencing homelessness or have serious mental illnesses or substance use disorders.
  • See The Challenge of Identifying, Diverting, and Treating Justice-Involved People with Mental Illnesses: A review of practices and documents on how screening for mental illness is conducted and data is exchanged across systems; highlights gaps between identified cases and assessments.

C. Increase local diversion as early as possible.

• Support, expand, and improve programs and policies to refer people experiencing symptoms of mental illness or substance use disorders to treatment and stabilization before they are arrested and booked. This includes supporting and broadening law enforcement treatment initiative programs across the state and clarifying the law of arrest and citation to encourage the use of diversion in appropriate circumstances.
• Encourage mental health, drug, and behavioral health courts to adhere to a standard set of best practices by (1) establishing accreditation criteria and (2) giving funding preference to accredited courts.
  • See The Supreme Court of Ohio Specialized Docket Certification: Ohio requires mental health, drug, and behavioral health courts to follow a uniform set of best practices and prioritizes state funding for courts that achieve Specialized Docket Certification.
  • See Georgia Accountability Courts: State-backed problem-solving dockets that combine judicial supervision, treatment, and support services as alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent people with substance use or mental health challenges.

D. Build connections to community care and services.

• Leverage Medicaid to recoup federal matching funds to improve access to health and behavioral health services across the continuum of care, which can be done by applying for Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services waivers to provide pre-release coverage to people who are incarcerated.
• Suspend, rather than terminate, Medicaid enrollment upon a person’s incarceration and establish an automated process to facilitate reinstatement of Medicaid enrollment when the person is released.
  • See Connecticut Medicaid for Formerly Incarcerated Individuals: Connecticut is pursuing a Medicaid Section 1115 “Justice-Involved Reentry” demonstration waiver to allow Medicaid coverage (including behavioral health and medication services) for eligible individuals up to 90 days prior to release and improve care transitions to the community.
• Improve community-based responses to people in crisis (e.g., allocate resources to crisis stabilization units, community responder teams, and mobile crisis and provide crisis intervention team training) and promote coordination of crisis and reentry systems.
• Strengthen the continuity of care for people with complex needs through methods such as the health home model, which integrates delivery of health services, including primary care, mental health care, substance use treatment, and chronic disease management.
  • See Texas Law Enforcement Telecommunication: Runs continuity of care queries, enabling correctional and behavioral health agencies to check whether a person has a history of public mental health contacts at booking.
• Train reentry staff and providers to identify a history of trauma and co-occurring conditions and then provide the appropriate treatment and accommodations.
• Increase remote access to care such as telehealth as a supplement to on-site staff.
• Employ community recovery centers and recovery coaches to engage people exiting correctional facilities or being diverted from incarceration.
  • See Maine Department of Corrections Recovery Coach Program: Trains incarcerated individuals in peer recovery roles to support others’ substance use recovery and bridge the transition to community reentry.

Resources

• Building Capacity to Advance Local System Change for People with Behavioral Health Needs: A Snapshot of State-Led Solutions, CSG Justice Center
• Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinics Can Address Mental Health and Substance Use Needs Across the Criminal Justice System Intercepts, CSG Justice Center
• Choosing the Right Data Strategy for Behavioral Health and Criminal Justice Initiatives, CSG Justice Center
• A Matter of Public Health and Safety: How States Can Support Local Crisis Systems, CSG Justice Center
• Medicaid Basics for Correctional Leaders and Agencies, CSG Justice Center and Center for Health Care Strategies
• Stepping Up Pennsylvania: Findings and Recommendations from the Behavioral Health-Criminal Justice State Policy Scan Project, CSG Justice Center
• Telehealth and Telecommunication Opportunities in the Criminal Justice System, CSG Justice Center
• Trauma-Informed Approaches Across the Sequential Intercept Model, CSG Justice Center
• States Reporting Corrections-Related Medicaid Enrollment Policies in Place for Prisons or Jails, Kaiser Family Foundation
• Traumatic Brain Injury in Prisons and Jails: An Unrecognized Problem, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Principle 7: Access to Relief Mechanisms to Mitigate Barriers

A criminal record—even for a minor or long-past offense—can create lasting barriers to employment, housing, education, and community reintegration.

Relief mechanisms like sealing, expungement, and certificates of relief offer individuals the opportunity to move forward without the weight of a past conviction continuing to limit their potential. However, access to these tools is often narrow, procedurally complex, or prohibitively expensive.

This section highlights policy strategies that states can use to broaden and strengthen their record clearance systems by automating relief where possible, expanding eligibility criteria, reducing procedural hurdles, and ensuring legal clarity around the effects of granted relief. Together, these steps can transform record relief from a legal possibility into a meaningful and accessible second chance.

 A. Expand relief pathways to remove barriers.

• Create or expand long-term relief mechanisms, such as automatic sealing and expungement.
  • See Colorado Senate Bill 22-099 Sealing Criminal Records: Automates sealing of eligible nonviolent offenses, mandates that sealed records be excluded from consumer reports, and expands access to justice relief.
• Expand eligibility relief mechanisms by reducing waiting periods, expanding the list of eligible offenses, and revising limitations based on multiple
• Create or expand effective near-term relief mechanisms, such as certificates of relief, which are judicial orders that convert specified mandatory consequences into discretionary consequences for individuals who have been granted them.
  • See Ohio Revised Code §2953.25 Certificate of Qualification for Employment for Persons Subject to Collateral Sanctions: Enables individuals to petition courts to lift certain employment and licensing barriers, creates a rebuttable presumption of fitness, and offers limited liability protection to employers, provided they are aware of it.
• Limit barriers to access non-automatic relief, such as filing fees, complex petition processes, extensive documentation and hearing requirements, and a lack of knowledge about the availability and effect of relief.
• Ensure that statutes authorizing relief mechanisms are clear about their effects on collateral consequences, explicitly stating that (1) neither mandatory nor discretionary consequences may be imposed based on an offense for which relief has been granted, (2) decision-makers may not inquire about cleared convictions, and (3) people who are granted clearance can freely deny the existence of those convictions if asked about them.

Resources

• Removing Structural Barriers to Employment: A Playbook for Every State, CSG Justice Center
• 50-State Comparison: Expungement, Sealing & Other Record Relief, Collateral Consequences Resource Center
• Advocate’s Guide to Automatic Record Clearance, Code for America