Category: Christ, Crime and Punishment

Sunshine Laws and the Black Box of American Prisons

In theory, the United States has long embraced the idea that democracy depends on public access to government information. At the federal level, the Freedom of Information Act created a formal pathway for requesting records. In every state, some version of a public records law, open meetings law, or “sunshine law” is supposed to let the public see how government power is exercised. But prisons expose the limits of that promise. Few state institutions exercise more power over daily human life than prisons and jails, yet few are more difficult to examine from the outside. Families, journalists, researchers, lawyers, and advocates often find that the closer they get to questions about medical neglect, solitary confinement, use of force, staffing failures, or deaths in custody, the more the system closes ranks.

This tension sits at the center of any serious discussion about prison conditions in the United States. Sunshine laws are designed to make government visible. Prisons are often structured to remain opaque. The result is a constant struggle over records, inspections, grievance data, disciplinary reports, surveillance footage, contracts, and even basic statistics. The public may assume that if abuse is serious enough, the facts will eventually come out. In practice, information about prison conditions is often delayed, redacted, fragmented, prohibitively expensive to obtain, or withheld outright under broad claims of security, privacy, or administrative burden. Even when records are released, they may arrive months or years too late to prevent harm. That gap between the ideal of transparency and the reality of incarceration is one of the defining accountability problems in American public life.

What Sunshine Laws Are Supposed to Do

“Sunshine laws” is a broad label for the rules that require government openness. They usually include two related ideas: the right to access government records and the right to observe certain government meetings. At the federal level, FOIA applies to federal agencies. At the state level, public records laws differ sharply from one jurisdiction to another. Some states have relatively strong disclosure requirements, short deadlines, and meaningful appeal mechanisms. Others have broad exemptions, weak enforcement, and long delays. Recent reporting and transparency guidance continue to emphasize that all 50 states have some form of open records law, but the strength of those laws varies dramatically, creating a patchwork rather than a uniform national standard [1][2]. In ordinary civic life, sunshine laws help citizens inspect budgets, contracts, policy memos, emails, meeting minutes, and enforcement records. They are meant to deter misconduct by making secrecy harder. But in the prison context, open records requests often collide with agencies that are institutionally resistant to outside scrutiny. Corrections departments routinely argue that disclosure could compromise safety, reveal security procedures, invade privacy, or burden staff. Some of those concerns are legitimate in limited circumstances. Many are also used expansively, turning narrow exemptions into broad shields against public oversight. That is why prison transparency often depends not only on the text of a sunshine law, but on whether requesters have the time, money, and legal support to fight denials.

Why Prisons Are So Hard to See Clearly

Prisons are closed institutions by design. They are physically isolated, highly bureaucratic, and controlled by agencies that manage movement, communication, and information at every level. The people with the most direct knowledge of conditions inside are incarcerated people and correctional staff, but each faces pressures’ that can suppress what becomes public. Incarcerated people may fear retaliation for filing grievances or speaking to reporters. Staff may be constrained by institutional loyalty, labor concerns, or fear of discipline. Families are often dependent on sporadic phone calls, letters, or visits. Journalists usually cannot enter freely, and researchers may face lengthy approval processes or be denied access entirely. When an institution is both coercive and insulated, independent fact-finding becomes unusually difficult.

The problem is compounded by fragmentation. Information about prison conditions is rarely stored in one clean, public archive. Medical records may be held by a private contractor, Staffing data by the corrections department, Death investigations may involve internal affairs units, county coroners, state inspectors general, or local prosecutors. Video footage may be retained under separate policies with short deletion windows. Use-of-force incidents may generate incident reports, witness statements, body camera or fixed camera files, disciplinary findings, and lawsuit records, all governed by different rules. By the time a requester figures out who has what, some of the most important evidence may already be gone.

A Patchwork of Laws, Exemptions, and Delay

One of the biggest barriers to understanding prison conditions is that there is no single transparency regime. Federal prisons are subject to federal law, while state prisons and local jails are governed primarily by state and local rules. That means nearly identical requests can produce completely different outcomes depending on where a facility is located and how aggressively an agency interprets its exemptions. Recent analyses of detention-related records requests have shown that the same kinds of documents may be released in one jurisdiction and withheld in another, not because the public interest differs, but because the legal framework does [3][4].

Agencies often rely on a familiar set of justifications: security exemptions, law-enforcement exemptions, ongoing investigation exemptions, personal privacy protections, and vague claims that records do not exist in the form requested. Some departments demand high copying or processing fees. Others delay so long that the requester is forced to sue or abandon the effort. The Marshall Project recently described public records battles in which agencies stalled for years or quoted costs of thousands of dollars before handing over information, underscoring how formal access rights can be undermined in practice [5].

Delays are especially damaging in the prison context because conditions can change quickly and evidence can disappear. If a family is trying to understand a relative’s death, if a reporter is investigating an outbreak, or if advocates are tracking lockdowns and medical neglect, information delivered a year later is not the same as meaningful transparency. Records may also be incomplete or inaccurate. Missing pages, heavy redactions, inconsistent coding, and contradictory incident descriptions can make it nearly impossible to reconstruct what actually happened. In that sense, opacity is not just about outright refusal. It is also about producing information in forms that are technically compliant but substantively unhelpful.

The Information the Public Most Needs Is Often the Hardest to Get

Some of the most important records concern death, illness, injury, and grievance systems. How many people died in custody last year? How many suicides were preceded by warning signs? How long were people waiting for specialist care? How many grievances alleged staff assault, denial of medication, exposure to extreme heat, or retaliation? These are not abstract management questions. They are core indicators of whether a government institution is meeting minimal constitutional and human obligations. Yet these data are often difficult to access in timely, usable form. Recent state legislative trends have focused on requiring more public reporting about deaths in custody and creating new oversight structures precisely because this information has historically been so hard to obtain [6][7].

Other categories are equally revealing and equally contested: the use of solitary confinement, frequency of lockdowns, staff vacancy rates, incidents involving chemical agents, and allegations of sexual abuse or excessive force. These records tell the public whether harsh conditions are exceptional or routine. But corrections agencies often resist publishing them in standardized formats. A recent resource from The Remedy Project, drawing on nearly 25 years of federal grievance data obtained through FOIA, demonstrates both the scale of public interest and the extraordinary effort required to make such information visible. According to that project, the data includes 1.78 million grievance-related records from the federal administrative remedy system, a reminder that crucial insight into prison conditions may exist for years before the public can actually see it [8][9].

Why Transparency Matters Beyond Curiosity

Transparency about prison conditions is not a niche concern for criminal justice specialists. Prisons are publicly funded institutions that exercise state power in its most coercive form. Taxpayers fund them. Legislators regulate them. Courts review them. Communities absorb the consequences when people are released from facilities marked by violence, neglect, untreated illness, or chronic isolation. Without reliable information, oversight becomes performative. Public debate shrinks to slogans. Agencies can claim that conditions are improving without producing evidence, and lawmakers can avoid difficult reforms by pleading ignorance.

Transparency also matters because the alternatives are weak. Litigation can expose abusive conditions, but lawsuits are slow, expensive, and narrow. Courts usually address specific claims after harm has already occurred. Scholars and advocates have long argued that the United States relies too heavily on litigation as a substitute for ordinary, independent oversight of prisons. Recent commentary on prison oversight has emphasized how unusual that is compared with other public institutions and how many states still lack external, independent prison oversight bodies altogether [10].

Signs of Progress, but Not Yet a Culture of Openness

There are signs of movement. At the federal level, the Brennan Center for Justice has explained that the 2024 Federal Prison Oversight Act created new mechanisms for regular inspections and public reporting in the federal system. The law responds to years of reporting and official findings about preventable deaths, sexual abuse, staffing failures, and deteriorating facilities. The U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General has likewise continued to identify chronic problems in the Federal Bureau of Prisons, including staffing shortages, infrastructure failures, healthcare deficiencies, contraband, and sexual abuse by staff. These developments matter because they recognize a basic truth: Conditions inside prisons do not improve reliably when agencies are left to monitor themselves [11][12][13].

At the state level, lawmakers in several jurisdictions have begun requiring more disclosure around deaths in custody, inspections, and ombudsman oversight. But the broader picture remains uneven. New reporting mandates in one state do nothing for families in another. A dashboard created by an advocacy group may illuminate federal grievance trends, while a neighboring county jail still provides almost no public information beyond population counts. Reform is happening, but it is additive and piecemeal, not systemic. The culture of corrections administration in much of the country still treats outside scrutiny as a threat rather than a public obligation.

What Meaningful Transparency Would Actually Require

If the United States is serious about transparency in corrections, it cannot rely exclusively on individual records requests. Meaningful openness requires proactive disclosure: routine publication of deaths in custody, serious injury reports, staffing levels, lockdown frequency, grievance categories, inspection findings, contracts with private vendors, and outcomes of substantiated misconduct investigations. It also requires standard definitions and machine-readable formats so that the public can compare facilities over time. Data that exists only in scattered PDFs, delayed spreadsheets, or heavily redacted narrative files does not create real accountability.

Just as important, sunshine laws alone are not enough without independent oversight bodies that can inspect facilities, interview incarcerated people confidentially, review records without agency permission, and publish findings publicly. Open-records rights help after the fact. Oversight bodies can identify problems while they are ongoing. The two approaches should reinforce each other. One gives the public tools to ask questions; the other creates institutions with the authority and expertise to keep asking them even when the public is not watching closely.

The American Correctional Association’s Potential Role

The American Correctional Association plays a significant role in this discussion because it is one of the best-known accrediting bodies in corrections. Through its Commission on Accreditation for Corrections, the association sets standards for prisons, jails, community corrections, and related services, and it describes accreditation as a process for verifying compliance with national correctional standards. According to the association, those standards are intended to improve safety, sanitation, staff training, record maintenance, data management, and the overall operation of correctional facilities [14][15][16]. In theory, that makes ACA accreditation relevant to many of the very deficiencies that drive public demands for sunshine laws in the first place.

If used rigorously, accreditation could help address some of the structural weaknesses identified in this article before they become scandals or litigation. Standards that require better recordkeeping, clearer policies, staff training, health and safety procedures, sanitation practices, incident review, and quality assurance can create a more disciplined internal compliance culture. In that sense, an accrediting body could serve as a preventive mechanism rather than merely a symbolic one. It could push facilities to document deaths, use-of-force incidents, medical practices, grievance handling, and environmental conditions more consistently, making it harder for serious failures to remain invisible. Strong accreditation could also complement sunshine laws by improving the quality, consistency, and retention of the records that outside requesters later seek.

At the same time, accreditation is not the same thing as transparency, and it is not a substitute for independent public oversight. That distinction matters. Critics have argued for years that ACA accreditation can become too deferential to the institutions it evaluates, especially when accreditation is treated as evidence that a facility is operating well despite persistent reports of abuse or neglect. Recent reporting and public criticism have highlighted allegations that the process can function more like a compliance exercise than a searching external review, particularly when agencies have advance notice, pay accreditation fees, and remain deeply involved in the production of the very materials being assessed [17][18]. If accreditation is to reduce the need for sunshine-law battles, it must be credible, probing, and willing to identify deficiencies publicly rather than merely certify formal compliance.

In the best case, the American Correctional Association could help narrow the gap between internal management and public accountability. It could do that by strengthening standards related to documentation, medical quality, grievance systems, use-of-force review, staffing, and humane conditions of confinement, while also making accreditation findings more transparent and easier for the public to understand. But unless accreditation is paired with genuine independence and public visibility, it will only partially address the underlying problem. Sunshine laws are still necessary because the public needs a way to test official claims, not simply rely on them.  The ACA acts as both an industry trade association and accrediting body.  Its history is an important part of American corrections for both good and bad. In terms of our discussion regarding transparency about the ACAs role in the corrections industry I would refer you the Wikipedia entry about the American Correctional Association for more information.

Conclusion

Sunshine laws are rooted in a simple democratic premise: government should not be allowed to operate in darkness. But when it comes to prisons in the United States, darkness is not an accident. It is often built into the institution through physical isolation, legal fragmentation, bureaucratic delay, and a longstanding culture of secrecy. That is why obtaining reliable information about prison conditions remains so difficult even when public records laws formally exist. The question is not only whether the law allows a request to be filed. The real question is whether the public can get timely, usable, comparable information before harm is buried by process.

For journalists, researchers, advocates, lawmakers, and families, the struggle for prison transparency is ultimately a struggle over whether incarceration will remain a black box. A society that claims to value the rule of law cannot treat its most coercive institutions as exempt from ordinary public scrutiny. Stronger sunshine laws, narrower exemptions, lower costs, faster response times, proactive publication, and independent correctional oversight will not solve every abuse behind bars. But without them, the public will continue to learn about prison conditions only after scandal, tragedy, or litigation forces a narrow beam of light through a door that was never meant to open.

References

  1. National Conference of State Legislatures. “Public Records Law and State Legislatures.” Updated April 16, 2025.
  2. National Freedom of Information Coalition. “State Freedom of Information Laws.” Accessed May 12, 2026.
  3. Prison Policy Initiative. “A Guide to Public Records Requests for Advocates Seeking Reform of the Criminal Legal System.” Accessed May 12, 2026.
  4. National Immigrant Justice Center. “State & Local Records Requests.” 2022.
  5. The Marshall Project. “Public Records Shed Light on the Justice System — But It Can Be a Battle to Get Them.” March 12, 2026.
  6. National Conference of State Legislatures. “Trends in Corrections Data and Transparency.” Updated July 22, 2025.
  7. Project On Government Oversight. “How States Are (and Aren’t) Collecting Death-In-Custody Data.” November 19, 2024.
  8. The Remedy Project. “The Remedy Project Launches Data Dashboard Tracking Conditions and Complaints in Federal Prisons.” April 29, 2025.
  9. Data Liberation Project. “Federal Inmate Complaints.” First published July 9, 2024.
  10. Prison Policy Initiative. “Research Spotlight: PrisonOversight.org Equips the Fight for Accountability in Jails and Prisons.” March 25, 2024.
  11. Brennan Center for Justice. “The Federal Prison Oversight Act, Explained.” September 9, 2025.
  12. Congress.gov. “Federal Prison Oversight Act,” Public Law 118–71, July 25, 2024.
  13. U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General. “Reports – Federal Bureau of Prisons.” Accessed May 12, 2026.
  14. American Correctional Association. “Standards.” Accessed May 12, 2026.
  15. American Correctional Association. “Frequently Asked Questions.” Accessed May 12, 2026.
  16. American Correctional Association. “Commission on Accreditation for Corrections.” Accessed May 12, 2026.
  17. The Appeal. “Nonprofit Prison Accreditor Perpetuates Abuse and Neglect, Senators Say.” February 29, 2024.
  18. Prison Legal News. “Federal Watchdog Slams BOP for Sham Accreditations.” July 1, 2024.

Locked Down: How Prison Lockdowns Undermine Mental Health and Rehabilitation in U.S. Prisons

Lockdowns are supposed to keep prisons safe. Too often, they function as mass isolation: damaging mental health, stalling rehabilitation, and deepening a humanitarian crisis.

During my 8 years of incarceration, I experienced numerous lockdown events.  It could be due to a fight in the yard or chow hall, an outbreak of an infectious disease like Norovirus, or a security sweep for weapons and contraband.  It might last for a few hours to a few days.  A security sweep might result in my property being tossed like a fruit salad onto my bed and my body strip searched, but that was the extent of my inconvenience. My few delayed meals or a sack lunch, a few missed shifts as a school tutor, canceled medical or library callouts, even a few missed visits do not begin to compare to what is happening now across the country.  Lockdowns were just part of the prison experience, but that all changed with Covid-19.

My wife is a Medical Assistant and was hired during Covid to work in the state prison near our house.  During the pandemic everything changed.  Just like out in the world, prisons went into complete lockdown.  No prisoner movement.  What necessary minimal services like medical came to the housing units.  All offsite prisoner transport stopped. No visits, no school or programing, no yard, weight pit of gym callouts, no church services or outside volunteers.  Prisoners were not allowed to interact with other people from outside their housing units. The routine upon which prison is built was stopped completely.  In most prisons this condition lasted not for a couple of months, but for over a year.  In a previous blog post entitled Anti-Social Distancing I wrote about the devastating effects that the pandemic had on prisoners.  The ripple effects of that time still reverberate in prisons.

In many U.S. prisons, “lockdown” no longer describes a rare emergency response to a riot or a narrowly targeted security incident. It has become a recurring operational mode: housing units sealed, movement halted, yard and dayroom time canceled, phones restricted, visits suspended, and education, treatment, and job assignments paused—sometimes for days, weeks, or even months. Reporting in recent years has documented extended lockdowns tied not only to violence but also to chronic understaffing and overcrowding, raising a stark question: When a prison can’t run its basic schedule safely, are we still operating a rehabilitative institution or merely warehousing human beings behind steel doors? [1]

What a Prison Lockdown Actually Means

Lockdowns vary by facility, custody level, and the event that triggered them. But in practice, a lockdown is a temporary suspension of normal movement and routines—often applied to an entire housing unit or whole prison—so staff can regain control, search for contraband, respond to violence, manage a shortage of officers, or contain disease outbreaks. Some lockdowns allow limited “controlled movement” (brief showers, medication lines, or staggered recreation). Others are near-total confinement to cell, with meals delivered to doors, minimal human contact, and sharply reduced access to healthcare, law library, religious services, and family contact.

Even when it is not formally “solitary confinement,” a prolonged lockdown can replicate many of the same risk factors: sensory deprivation, social isolation, loss of autonomy, and the collapse of predictable routines that help people regulate stress. That overlap matters because research on restrictive housing and solitary confinement consistently links extreme isolation to psychological deterioration, self-harm, and elevated suicide risk.

Mental Health: Why Lockdowns Hurt So Much

People enter prisons with high rates of mental illness and trauma histories, and many facilities already struggle to meet their clinical needs. The Prison Policy Initiative’s research library summarizes how common mental health diagnoses are in custody and how gaps in treatment persist. In that environment, lockdowns act like gasoline on a smoldering fire: they intensify stressors while simultaneously cutting off the very support: structured activity, social contact, counseling, movement, sunlight, and exercise that can keep symptoms from spiraling. [10]

  • Loss of routine and control: Predictability is a core mental-health stabilizer. Lockdowns replace schedules with uncertainty—When will the door open? Will medication be on time? Will family calls work today?
  • Isolation and conflict: Confinement increases loneliness and rumination, but it can also increase tension with cellmates in cramped spaces, producing hypervigilance and sleep disruption.
  • Reduced physical activity: Yard closures and canceled recreation remove one of the most accessible mood regulators.
  • Disrupted healthcare access: Even brief interruptions in psychiatric care, counseling, and medication continuity can trigger withdrawal, relapse, or acute crises.
  • Family separation: Suspended visitation and restricted phone access remove a major buffer against despair—especially for parents.

We should be careful with language: lockdowns and solitary confinement are not identical. Still, a large body of evidence on solitary confinement provides a warning label for prolonged, near-total lockdown conditions. A major systematic review and meta-analysis in Frontiers in Psychiatry found solitary confinement was associated with adverse psychological effects and higher risks of self-harm and mortality, especially suicide. When whole housing units are kept in conditions that approximate isolation, it is reasonable to expect similar patterns—particularly among people with preexisting mental illness. [3]

Lockdowns also leave residue. After weeks of enforced inactivity, people may emerge dysregulated—more irritable, less trusting, and more prone to impulsive behavior. That dysregulation can feed a vicious loop: tension increases, violence increases, administrators respond with more lockdown, and the psychological and social environment degrades further. Meanwhile, the skills needed for successful reentry: emotion regulation, conflict resolution, consistent participation in treatment—are precisely the skills lockdowns erode.

Rehabilitation: Lockdowns Don’t Just Pause Programs—They Break Them

Education classes, vocational training, substance use treatment groups, cognitive behavioral programs, faith-based services, work assignments, and reentry planning often depend on predictable movement and staff availability. Lockdowns disrupt all of it. Even “temporary” cancellations can have outsized effects because correctional programming is built on momentum: attendance requirements, sequential curricula, waitlists, and limited seats. Miss enough sessions, and a person can lose their spot—then wait months to re-enroll, if they can at all.

This isn’t a minor inconvenience. Research syntheses and policy reviews consistently find that prison programming, especially education and job training, can reduce recidivism and improve post-release employment. RAND’s work on correctional education summarizes evidence that educating incarcerated people improves post-release outcomes, and federal reviews describe programming as a key lever for reducing reoffending. When lockdowns suspend programming, they effectively suspend one of the few tools’ prisons have to make future communities safer. [8] [9]

Lockdowns also damage the human infrastructure of rehabilitation: relationships. Family visitation is often suspended, and calls may be limited or unreliable. Staff may interact with incarcerated people primarily through orders and door slots. Over time, this can shift the culture from “managed community” toward “permanent crisis mode.” Recent accounts describe facilities held in extended lockdown conditions because agencies lack enough staff to safely run normal schedules—an operational failure with deep human costs.

Are Lockdowns Increasing? What U.S. Data Shows—and What It Doesn’t

If you’re looking for a single national dataset that tracks the frequency and duration of prison lockdowns across all U.S. state and federal facilities over decades, you’ll quickly hit a wall: lockdowns are not consistently defined, measured, or publicly reported across jurisdictions. National statistical agencies such as the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) produce detailed annual reports on prison and jail populations, admissions, staffing, and mortality, but “lockdown-days per facility per year” is not a standard published metric. The Prison Policy Initiative even maintains resources explaining that many commonly requested criminal-justice datasets simply don’t exist in unified form—lockdowns being a prime example. [10] Here is one of the few examples from the Illinois Department of Corrections.

Example of lockdown data from the Illinois Department of Corrections for FY2020 to FY2025 showing the marked recent increase in lockdowns.

Still, we can responsibly analyze lockdown trends by triangulating from: (1) periods when lockdowns were system-wide (notably the COVID-19 era), (2) staffing and overcrowding indicators that predict operational lockdowns, and (3) investigative reporting and oversight findings documenting prolonged, non-emergency lockdown use. Note that throughout this article I have specifically included a series of images related to two state prisons in Wisconsin that made the news due to public protests regarding prolonged lockdowns and prison conditions.

1) The COVID-19 Shock: Lockdown as Public-Health Control

From March 2020 through early 2021, many prisons entered “modified operations” that resembled extended lockdowns: movement restrictions, suspended visitation, reduced programming, and quarantine/isolation practices. BJS documented the broader system impacts of the pandemic in prisons—including testing, infections, deaths, and major shifts in admissions and releases—showing how deeply COVID-19 altered daily operations behind bars. [4] Refer to my post Speech-less to read about the devastating effect that Covid-19 had on those incarcerated at that time.

Federal oversight also highlighted the mental-health danger of pandemic isolation. In a capstone review of the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ COVID-19 response, the DOJ Office of the Inspector General reported that the BOP told investigators that seven incarcerated people died by suicide from March 2020 through April 2021 while housed in single-cell confinement in quarantine units related to COVID-19—an alarming signal of how extreme isolation can interact with crisis stress. The OIG also described staffing shortages and morale challenges during the pandemic. [5]

At the time the BOP published facility-level COVID-19 statistics, which helped document disease burden and operational strain. That reporting was quickly ended even before the pandemic was declared over and the information was never translated into a standardized national ledger of lockdown frequency and duration.

2) The Staffing Squeeze: Lockdown as a Substitute for Adequate Operations

Outside of pandemic emergencies, one of the most commonly cited drivers of extended lockdowns is understaffing. When there aren’t enough officers to safely escort people to chow, yard, school, or the clinic, prisons cut movement. In its analysis of the national staffing crisis, the Prison Policy Initiative argues that understaffing becomes a self-reinforcing loop: fewer staff leads to more restrictive conditions and fewer services; conditions worsen; violence rises; staff burnout increases; recruitment becomes harder; and lockdown becomes routine. [2]

Data-driven reporting has underscored how severe the staffing decline has been. The Marshall Project reported that state correctional workforces dropped sharply after 2019, reaching the lowest mark in more than two decades in 2022, while many state prison populations began rebounding—creating a mismatch between staffing capacity and operational demands. In that context, lockdown becomes a predictable management response rather than an exceptional security measure. [6]

Stateline’s national reporting similarly describes prolonged lockdowns, sometimes lasting weeks or months—linked to understaffing and overcrowding, not disciplinary need. The key trend described is not necessarily “more lockdown events,” but longer lockdowns and more frequent reliance on lockdown-like restrictions as a default operating posture. [1]

Talib Akbar speaks during an Oct. 10, 2023, protest at the Wisconsin State Capitol in Madison, Wis. WISDOM, a statewide faith-based social justice organization, organized the protest. Akbar was incarcerated for 20 years before his release in 2013 and spent at least 10 stints in solitary confinement, including a stretch lasting nearly a year. WISDOM and partner organizations called on the short-staffed Wisconsin Department of Corrections to lift restrictions on prisoner movement, reduce the prison population and invest in community-based programs that aid prisoner rehabilitation. (Meryl Hubbard / Wisconsin Watch)

3) Security Threats: Contraband, Drugs, Phones, and Violence

Lockdowns are also frequently used after violent incidents, when administrators suspect weapons, or when contraband flows overwhelm routine searches. A National Institute of Justice summary of a RAND-facilitated workshop on correctional security threats ranked insufficient staffing as the top concern among experts, with contraband (drugs, weapons, cellphones) generating the largest number of priority needs. Each of these threats can precipitate facility-wide shakedowns and movement freezes, especially when an agency lacks the personnel and technology to target responses precisely. [7]

So, are lockdowns increasing? We cannot prove a clean nationwide time-series increase in lockdown frequency and duration because the U.S. lacks standardized, publicly reported lockdown metrics across prisons. But multiple converging indicators suggest a real shift toward more extended lockdown conditions since 2020: pandemic-era modified operations, followed by persistent staffing shortages and overcrowding pressures that make normal programming schedules difficult to sustain. The lived reality described by oversight bodies and national reporting is consistent with longer and more routine restrictions—even if the number of discrete “lockdown events” is not measured uniformly.

Underlying Causes: Why Lockdowns Keep Spreading

  • Chronic understaffing and burnout: When posts go unfilled and overtime becomes constant, prisons cannot safely move large groups. Lockdown becomes the operational workaround. [1] [2] [6]
  • Overcrowding and facility design: Crowded units, dorm settings, and aging infrastructure make it harder to separate conflicts, quarantine illness, or run staggered movement without enormous staffing. [1]
  • Contraband markets and violence cycles: Illicit phones, drugs (including opioids), and weapons drive shakedowns and retaliatory violence, often followed by facility-wide lockdown. [7]
  • Policy incentives that favor control over care: It is administratively easier to cancel activities than to build staffing, training, clinical capacity, and targeted security approaches.
  • Unmet mental health and substance use needs: When treatment access is thin, crises escalate; crises prompt lockdowns; lockdowns worsen mental health; and the cycle continues. [3] [10]
Protesters call on the short-staffed Wisconsin Department of Corrections to improve prisoner conditions and lift restrictions on prisoners’ movement during a protest at the Wisconsin State Capitol on Oct. 10, 2023, in Madison, Wis. Meryl Hubbard/Wisconsin Watch

What Can Be Done: A Humane, Evidence-Based Path Out of the Lockdown Spiral

Calling this a “humanitarian crisis” is not hyperbole: prolonged, population-wide confinement in stressful environments predictably harms mental health and sabotages rehabilitation. The good news is that the solutions are not mysterious. They require political will, operational discipline, and transparency.

  1. Measure lockdowns—then publish the numbers. States and the federal system should track at minimum: lockdown start/end times, scope (unit vs. facility), reason codes, services suspended, and out-of-cell hours provided. Without data, the public can’t distinguish emergency necessity from routine deprivation. (The current lack of standardized lockdown metrics is a central barrier to trend analysis.) [10]
  2. Set enforceable limits and minimum conditions. Even during lockdowns, people should receive daily out-of-cell time, access to showers, medical and mental health care, and meaningful communication with counsel and family, with clear exceptions only for immediate, documented threats.
  3. Stabilize staffing—but don’t pretend hiring alone can solve mass incarceration. The staffing crisis is real, but it is tightly linked to the scale of incarceration. Breaking the cycle means improving working conditions (training, safety, schedules, pay) while also reducing the incarcerated population so staffing ratios are feasible. [2] [6]
  4. Protect program continuity as a public-safety priority. If education and treatment reduce recidivism, then suspending them for long periods should be treated as a risk to community safety. Build “lockdown-resilient” programming: cell-front coursework, tablet-based learning (where feasible), small-group controlled movement, and make-up sessions that prevent people from losing their place in sequenced programs. [8] [9]
  5. Expand mental health support during and after lockdown periods. Lockdowns are predictable stress spikes. Facilities should implement surge mental-health checks, peer-support access, and rapid referral pathways during restrictions, especially for people with known risk factors for self-harm. The evidence linking extreme isolation to self-harm and suicide risk makes this essential. [3] [5]
  6. Modernize contraband control without collective punishment. Targeted searches, intelligence-led investigations, and technologies aimed at drones and illicit phones can reduce the perceived need for sweeping lockdowns—while still addressing the very real threats highlighted by correctional security experts. [7]
  7. Strengthen independent oversight. Prolonged lockdowns should trigger automatic external review: documentation of necessity, timeline for restoration of normal operations, and a plan for services. Oversight findings during COVID-19 show why independent scrutiny matters. [4] [5]

Conclusion: Safety Without Humanity Isn’t Safety

Lockdowns will always exist in some form; prisons are volatile places, and emergencies happen. The crisis is the normalization of lockdown as routine management, whether driven by pandemic protocols, staffing collapse, overcrowding, contraband economies, or a deeper policy choice to prioritize control over care. The mental-health consequences are predictable, and the rehabilitation costs are measurable in missed education, stalled treatment, and weakened family ties.

Because the United States does not systematically publish lockdown frequency and duration data across jurisdictions, we can’t chart a definitive national curve the way we can for incarceration rates or admissions. But the available evidence strongly suggests the experience of lockdown has intensified since 2020; first through widespread pandemic restrictions documented by BJS and federal oversight, then through persistent staffing and capacity failures that keep prisons from operating normally. Treating this as a humanitarian crisis starts with telling the truth in numbers: track lockdown-days, publish them, and make “days of life” behind bars a metric of accountability alongside safety. [4] [5] [1] [2] [10]

Endnotes

  1. Stateline. Amanda Hernández (December 3, 2024). “State prisons turn to extended lockdowns amid staffing shortages, overcrowding.”
  2. Prison Policy Initiative. Brian Nam-Sonenstein & Emmett Sanders (December 9, 2024). “Why jails and prisons can’t recruit their way out of the understaffing crisis.”
  3. Luigi, M., Dellazizzo, L., Giguère, C.-É., Goulet, M.-H., & Dumais, A. (2020). “Shedding Light on ‘the Hole’: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Adverse Psychological Effects and Mortality Following Solitary Confinement in Correctional Settings.” Frontiers in Psychiatry, 11:840.
  4. U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Carson, E. Ann; Nadel, Melissa; & Gaes, Gerry (August 2022; published August 25, 2022). Impact of COVID-19 on State and Federal Prisons, March 2020–February 2021 (NCJ 304500).
  5. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General (March 2023). Capstone Review of the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ Response to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic (Report 23-054).
  6. The Marshall Project. Shannon Heffernan & Weihua Li (January 10, 2024). “New Data Shows How Dire the Prison Staffing Shortage Really Is.”
  7. National Institute of Justice (April 6, 2020). “Experts Identify Priority Needs for Addressing Correctional Agency Security Threats.”
  8. RAND Corporation. Davis, L. M., Bozick, R., Steele, J. L., Saunders, J., & Miles, J. N. V. (2013). Evaluating the Effectiveness of Correctional Education: A Meta-Analysis of Programs That Provide Education to Incarcerated Adults (RR-266).
  9. Office of Justice Programs / Federal Probation. Byrne, J. M. (2020/2022). “The Effectiveness of Prison Programming: A Review of the Research Literature Examining the Impact of Federal, State, and Local Inmate Programming on Post-Release Recidivism.”
  10. Prison Policy Initiative. “Data toolbox” (includes guidance and a list of commonly requested data that doesn’t exist in unified form).

Hurts, Hang-Ups, and Habits: An Introduction to Celebrate Recovery

Celebrate Recovery (often called “CR”) is more than a weekly meeting—it’s a Christ-centered pathway for healing, discipleship, and restored relationships. Whether the struggle is addiction, anger, trauma, codependency, or the long aftermath of incarceration, CR offers a safe place to tell the truth and take the next right step—together.

While I was incarcerated one of the programs offered by the chaplain was an introductory course on Celebrate Recovery.  There was an AA program at the prison, and I knew a lot of guys who attended because they always had a coffee urn, but CR was different.  I had recently read Rick Warren’s Purpose Driven Life book and was looking for concrete information on healing. The old expression says “Time heals all wounds,” but mine weren’t.  I was in pain; my hurt wasn’t going away.  I was looking for a faith-based program that could provide me with an actionable process to systematically address my brokenness and guide me toward healing.

In this post, we’ll explain what Celebrate Recovery is, what a typical meeting looks like, and why the same CR principles that help people in church communities can also bring real hope behind bars through Celebrate Recovery Inside (CRI), the prison and jail extension of the ministry.

What is Celebrate Recovery?

Celebrate Recovery is a Christ-centered, 12-step recovery program designed to help people find freedom and healing from life’s “hurts, habits, and hang-ups.” It pairs a proven recovery framework (the 12 Steps) with Scripture and eight principles inspired by the Beatitudes (Matthew 5), emphasizing honesty, surrender, confession, growth, accountability, forgiveness, and service.

Celebrate Recovery began in 1991 at Saddleback Church (Lake Forest, California) with a vision for a recovery ministry where people could openly talk about Jesus Christ as their Higher Power; where the church could become a safe place for ongoing healing, not just a place to “have it all together.” What started as a single meeting has since grown into thousands of groups in churches and ministries across the U.S. and beyond.

Who is Celebrate Recovery for?

One of the most common misunderstandings about CR is that it’s only for alcohol or drugs. It’s for anyone who recognizes a pattern that’s hurting their relationship with God, others, and themselves. People often come to CR for things like:

  • Substance use and addiction (alcohol, drugs)
  • Compulsive behaviors (pornography, gambling, overspending, food issues)
  • Anger, control, perfectionism, people-pleasing
  • Codependency and unhealthy relationships
  • Grief, trauma, abuse, family dysfunction
  • Shame, anxiety, depression, and the isolating behaviors that often come with them

Celebrate Recovery in a prison or jail context: Celebrate Recovery Inside (CRI)

Celebrate Recovery Inside (often shortened to CRI) is the prison and jail extension of Celebrate Recovery.  It brings the same Christ-centered recovery pathway into correctional facilities. Many churches describe CRI as a natural “bridge” between the institution and the community, because when someone is released, they can often find a Celebrate Recovery meeting close to home and continue the journey with support rather than isolation.

Organizations that work in corrections note that CRI can address a wide range of life-controlling issues: alcohol and drug addiction, gambling, overeating, and more by dealing thoughtfully with the underlying hurts, hang-ups, and habits that often sit beneath the surface. Prison Fellowship, for example, partners with Celebrate Recovery to bring CR into incarcerated settings as part of larger life-transformation efforts, helping men and women grow spiritually and pursue freedom and new patterns of living.

Depending on the facility, CRI is often run as a structured series. The U.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons’ volunteer listings describe Celebrate Recovery Inside as a 25-week Christ-centered recovery program with three core components—worship, step study, and open share groups—recommended weekly for about 90 minutes per session, using participant guides that walk-through lessons, questions, group guidelines, and the CR principles and steps.

What’s different “on the inside” (and why structure matters)

Recovery groups inside a facility operate within clear institutional boundaries and that structure can support growth. Many CRI ministries emphasize the same small-group guidelines used in community CR (sharing your own experience, no crosstalk, no fixing, confidentiality), while also honoring facility safety requirements and the reality that confidentiality has limits if someone threatens harm to self or others.

Why CRI matters: hope, accountability, and a reentry bridge

One theme that shows up repeatedly in CRI descriptions is identity: instead of being defined by an inmate number, an offense, or an addiction, participants are invited to be defined by what Christ can do in a life surrendered to Him. Prison Fellowship highlights how Celebrate Recovery Inside can help participants begin the process of making amends and strengthening relationships, including family relationships—while learning to live differently. Local church partners also emphasize that CRI can create a practical transition back into the community because CR groups exist in so many towns and cities.

For churches and ministries, CRI also creates a meaningful way to serve.  Trained volunteers partner with chaplains and facility leadership to show up consistently, model healthy boundaries, and speak hope. And because CR uses a shared language (principles, steps, sponsor/accountability, daily inventory), it can continue after release—when temptation, stress, and old environments often hit hardest.

What happens at a typical Celebrate Recovery night?

While every church is a little different, most CR ministries follow a consistent rhythm designed to be welcoming to newcomers and safe for honest sharing. Many locations offer a “general meeting night” that includes worship, teaching or testimony, and then small groups. Some also include a meal or fellowship time, childcare (when available), and a clear welcome moment that helps new attendees feel oriented without pressure.

1) Large Group

The large group hour commonly includes prayer, worship music, reading the CR principles/steps, and either a lesson or a personal testimony. Some groups also include a chip ceremony to celebrate milestones.

2) Open Share Small Groups

After large group, participants typically break into gender-specific open share groups (often also organized by issue area). This is where people share what’s really going on—without being interrupted, “fixed,” or judged. Confidentiality is a core expectation, and groups use guidelines to keep sharing safe and respectful.

3) Step Studies (deeper work during the week)

Many people eventually join a Step Study—a smaller, closed group (usually meeting on another night) that works through CR materials more deeply. Step Studies are where participants slow down, process their story, practice new tools, and build consistent accountability.

The heart of CR: 8 Principles and 12 Steps

CR is built on two complementary tracks: the 12 Steps (adapted to be explicitly Christ-centered) and eight recovery principles rooted in Jesus’ teaching in the Beatitudes. Together, they offer a structured path that moves from denial to honesty, from isolation to community, and from broken patterns to new life.

Celebrate Recovery describes this journey not only as recovery, but as a road that leads to salvation and discipleship—a practical, day-by-day way to learn surrender, obedience, honesty, and dependence on Jesus. In other words: it’s spiritual formation with traction, especially for people who have tried “willpower” and found it isn’t enough.

In many CR materials, each principle is paired with a Beatitude, and each step is paired with Scripture—helping participants see that recovery isn’t a side project to faith; it is part of learning to live the new life Christ offers.

  1. Realize I’m not God; I admit I’m powerless and my life has become unmanageable.
  2. Believe God exists, I matter to Him, and He has power to help me recover.
  3. Choose to commit my life and will to Christ’s care and control.
  4. Examine myself honestly and face the truth about my past and my patterns.
  5. Confess my hurts, hang-ups, and habits to God and to someone I trust.
  6. Submit to the changes God wants to make and ask Him to remove my defects of character.
  7. Make amends by forgiving others and taking responsibility for my harm when it won’t cause further injury.
  8. Give back by continuing to grow daily and sharing hope with others.

Celebrate Recovery vs. Alcoholics Anonymous (AA): what’s the difference?

Celebrate Recovery and Alcoholics Anonymous have a lot in common: both are peer-led, group-based recovery communities that use a 12-step framework and emphasize honesty, accountability, and helping others. The differences matter, though—especially for someone that is deciding where to start (or what to recommend to a friend or family member).

CategoryAlcoholics Anonymous (AA)Celebrate Recovery (CR)
Primary focusAlcohol addiction and sobriety support specifically.“Hurts, habits, and hang-ups” (a wider range of struggles, including addictions, compulsions, relational patterns, and trauma-related issues).
Spiritual languageRefers to “God as we understood Him” and a “Power greater than ourselves,” leaving room for different faith backgrounds.Explicitly Christ-centered and Bible-based; the steps are written to name Jesus Christ and Scripture as the foundation.
Core frameworkThe 12 Steps and 12 Traditions, as practiced in AA meetings worldwide.The 12 Steps (Christ-centered wording) plus 8 Recovery Principles rooted in Jesus’ teaching in the Beatitudes.
MaterialsAA literature (including the “Big Book”) is commonly used alongside meetings.CR curriculum and participant guides/step-study materials are commonly used, especially in Step Studies and CR Inside contexts.
Meeting typesVaries by group (open, closed, speaker, discussion, etc.), generally centered on sobriety and step work.Often includes worship + lesson/testimony + gender-specific open share groups; many ministries also offer closed Step Studies for deeper work.

Both AA and Celebrate Recovery have helped countless people take steps toward freedom. If you’re looking for a Christ-explicit environment with worship and a broad focus beyond alcohol, Celebrate Recovery may be a strong fit. If you’re looking for a sobriety-specific fellowship with flexible spiritual language and frequent meeting availability in many communities, AA may be a strong fit. In many cases, people benefit from participating in both while also receiving pastoral care, counseling, or clinical treatment as needed.

What to expect if you’re new

Walking into any recovery space for the first time can feel intimidating. Here are a few things that are typically true at most Celebrate Recovery meetings:

  • You can come as you are. You don’t need to have the “right words,” and you don’t have to share on your first night.
  • It’s okay to pass. In open share groups, people are usually invited—but never forced—to speak.
  • Confidentiality matters. The goal is to create a safe place where honesty is possible.
  • No one is there to “fix” you. Sharing is about telling your own story and listening with respect, not giving advice.
  • It’s peer support, not clinical counseling. Many people also benefit from pastors, licensed counselors, medical care, or treatment programs alongside CR.

An invitation: you don’t have to do this alone

At its core, Celebrate Recovery is a place where people stop pretending, start telling the truth, and learn how to walk—one day at a time in the healing power of Jesus Christ. If you’re carrying hurts you can’t outthink, a habit you can’t break, or a hang-up you can’t hide anymore, CR offers something many of us desperately need: community, clarity, and the next right step.

How you can engage with Celebrate Recovery

There are a few simple ways you can take the next step whether you’re seeking help, walking alongside someone who is, or sensing a call to serve people impacted by incarceration.

  • Visit a meeting. Consider attending a local Celebrate Recovery gathering to observe the format and see if it’s a fit for you. You can simply listen and learn.
  • Commit to the process. If you’re ready for deeper change, ask about a Step Study—consistent, guided work in a smaller group.
  • Support a returning citizen. Reentry is a vulnerable season. Encouragement, rides, accountability, and a welcoming church community can make a huge difference.
  • Serve “on the inside.” If you have a heart for jail/prison ministry, explore opportunities to volunteer in approved programs like Celebrate Recovery Inside, in partnership with chaplains and facility staff.
  • Pray and partner. Pray for healing, protection, and perseverance for participants and leaders—and consider how your church or small group could come alongside this work.

If you’re curious, consider visiting a local meeting as a quiet first step. You can simply listen, take in the format, and decide what you want to do next. If you’ve been impacted by incarceration—personally or through someone you love—remember that healing often includes both internal work (new patterns, new identity, new habits) and community support (people who will walk with you when life gets loud). Healing rarely happens in isolation—and you’re allowed to start small.

No matter your story, Jesus is not intimidated by it. Celebrate Recovery simply gives us a place to bring what’s true into the light—so grace can do what it does best: restore what’s been broken and teach us how to live free.

For more information about Celebrate Recovery or where you can find a meeting visit their website at https://celebraterecovery.com/.

If you are interested in learning more about the prison based Celebrate Recovery Inside program, I would recommend checking out the CRI Newsletter Facebook Page at https://www.facebook.com/CRInsideNews.

Why “Ban the Box” Is Not Enough

“Ban the Box” laws were created to stop employers from using a checkmark on an application as a shortcut for exclusion. By delaying questions about criminal history until later in the hiring process—often after an interview or even after a conditional offer—these policies aim to ensure candidates are first evaluated on skills and experience. But delaying the question is not the same as limiting how criminal history is used. In practice, many applicants are still screened out once background checks occur, often through broad, risk-averse policies that treat any record as disqualifying. And for some people—especially those affected by ongoing civil restrictions like sex offense registration—there may be no real “fresh start” because the punishment never truly ends. In short, Ban the Box is a helpful first step, but it is not enough to stop background checks from becoming a quiet, permanent barrier to employment.

Delaying the Question Does Not Change the Outcome

Most Ban the Box policies focus on timing: employers cannot ask about convictions on the initial application and must wait until later to run a background check. The federal government’s Fair Chance to Compete for Jobs Act of 2019 follows this same logic by generally prohibiting federal agencies (and contractors acting on their behalf) from requesting criminal history information until after a conditional offer.1

However, the practical reality is that many employers simply move the “no” to a later stage. A conditional offer can be rescinded quickly once a screening report arrives, sometimes without any meaningful opportunity for the applicant to explain context, show rehabilitation, or point out inaccuracies. When a company’s policy is essentially “any record = unacceptable risk,” the box is gone but the barrier remains. Ban the Box can reduce early automatic rejection, yet it often leaves untouched the deeper problem: background checks are frequently used as an all-purpose tool to manage liability fears rather than as a targeted way to evaluate job-related risk.

Broad Background-Check Screens Still Exclude Qualified People

Even when employers wait to ask, the way they use the information can still be unfair and overly broad. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has warned that criminal-record exclusions may violate Title VII when they create unjustified disparate impact. The EEOC’s guidance encourages employers to use “targeted” exclusions tied to the job and to consider the “Green factors”—the nature and gravity of the offense, the time that has passed, and the nature of the job—often paired with an individualized assessment.2

But guidance is not the same as practice. Many employers still rely on blanket policies, vendor “risk scores,” or rigid lookback rules that do not match the actual duties of the role. This creates a system where someone can be excluded for a decades-old offense, for an arrest that did not lead to conviction, or for conduct that has little relationship to the work. If Ban the Box is the only reform, it may only delay the moment a broad screen is applied.

Ban the Box Can Shift Discrimination Instead of Reducing It

Another reason Ban the Box is not enough is that removing information early can sometimes encourage employers to guess. In a large field experiment, researchers found that when employers could not ask about records at the application stage, the gap in callbacks between White and Black applicants grew substantially at employers that changed their applications in response to Ban the Box.3 A review of the evidence has similarly raised concerns that Ban the Box can reduce opportunities for young Black and Latino men when employers engage in “statistical discrimination.”4

This does not mean Ban the Box should be abandoned; it means the policy must be paired with rules that structure how background information is evaluated and with strong anti-discrimination enforcement. Otherwise, the reform can unintentionally move bias earlier in the process, before a candidate ever gets the chance to be seen as an individual.

The Background-Check System Itself Is Error-Prone and Hard to Challenge

Ban the Box also does little to address the mechanics of the background-check industry. Many employers purchase “consumer reports” from third-party screening companies, and those reports can contain incomplete dispositions, mismatches, or other errors. When an employer plans to take adverse action based on a report, the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) requires procedural steps, including giving the applicant a copy of the report and a summary of rights before making a final decision.5

NOTICE TO CONSUMER REGARDING PUBLIC RECORD INFORMATION

DISA Global Solutions <noreply@clairiti.com> Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 12:29PM

To: XXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXXXX

Dear Consumer:

The purpose of this email is to notify you that DISA Global Solutions (“DISA”) is reporting public record information about you that may be averse to the following company:

TRIGO Group
XXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX, XX XXXXX
(XXX) XXX-XXXX

Please note: if the above listed company requested the report for employment purposes, it certified to DISA that it is using such public record information to determine your eligibility for employment, promotion, reassignment, and/or retention.

THIS EMAIL IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. DISA IS NOT INVOLVED IN ANY EMPLOYMENT-RELATED DECISION. THE COMPANY LISTED ABOVE IS NOT TAKING ANY ADVERSE ACTION AGAINST YOU AT THIS TIME.

If you would like a copy of your consumer report when it is completed and if you have not already requested a copy, you may do so by emailing screening.support@disa.com.

Yet those protections often do not feel like due process. A candidate may have only days to respond, may not know how to obtain court documentation, and may be facing multiple employers who all rely on the same flawed data. Meanwhile, the employer’s incentive is to fill the job quickly. As a result, even when the law requires notice, the practical effect can be fast rejection based on information that is outdated, misleading, or not the candidate’s record at all.

“Civil” Punishment Can Last Forever, Making Employment Exclusion Permanent

Ban the Box is also limited because it focuses mainly on criminal-history questions, not the broader ecosystem of collateral consequences that follow people long after they have completed their sentences. Sex offender registration is a powerful example. The U.S. Supreme Court has characterized some registration schemes as civil and nonpunitive, allowing them to apply retroactively and—in some cases—to last for decades or for life. In Smith v. Doe, the Court upheld Alaska’s registration law against an ex post facto challenge on the grounds that it was nonpunitive.6

When a consequence is labeled “civil,” it can avoid the ordinary idea that punishment should end. For registrants, there may be no meaningful statute of limitations on the stigma and restrictions that follow a conviction: public databases, ongoing reporting rules, and in some jurisdictions limits on where a person can live or work. Employers often treat registry status as a bright-line disqualifier, regardless of how long ago the offense occurred, what the person has done since, or whether the job has any connection to the underlying conduct. In that environment, removing a checkbox on an application does not create a fair chance—it simply delays an exclusion that is built into the structure of public labeling.

What Real Fair-Chance Hiring Requires

If the goal is to reduce lifetime exclusion and make employment decisions more accurate and job-related, Ban the Box must be paired with stronger protections. Reforms that move beyond timing include:

  • Job-related limits on disqualification: require employers to show that excluding someone is job-related and consistent with business necessity, using the nature of the offense, time passed, and nature of the job (the EEOC “Green factors”).2
  • Individualized assessment before rescinding an offer: require a documented review of the person’s circumstances and evidence of rehabilitation instead of blanket bans.2
  • Meaningful notice and a chance to respond: strengthen the practical enforcement of pre-adverse action procedures so applicants can correct errors and provide context before the final decision.5
  • Limits on the use of non-conviction information: restrict reliance on arrests that did not lead to conviction and require final disposition information where records are used.
  • Clear lookback limits: bar consideration of older convictions for most jobs unless directly relevant, recognizing that risk changes over time.
  • Pathways to relief: expand expungement, sealing, and certificates of rehabilitation so that completion of a sentence can actually lead to restored opportunity.
  • Registry reform where registration functions as perpetual punishment: provide realistic mechanisms for termination of registration duties and ensure that employment restrictions are narrowly tailored rather than automatic for life, consistent with the principle that civil regulation should not become endless exclusion.6

Conclusion

Ban the Box recognizes a real problem: early criminal-history questions invite stigma-based exclusion before a person’s qualifications are even considered. But it is not enough because it leaves employers free to disqualify candidates later through broad background-check screens, error-prone reporting, and policies driven by fear of liability rather than job-related evidence. It can even shift discrimination into less visible forms. Most importantly, it does not confront the reality that some “civil” consequences—like sex offense registration—can operate as punishment without an end date, turning the promise of a second chance into a permanent denial of work. A true fair-chance system must do more than remove a checkbox: it must set standards for how criminal history is evaluated, ensure accurate information and meaningful due process, and provide real pathways for people to move beyond their past.256

Notes

1. Fair Chance to Compete for Jobs Act of 2019 (also known as the “Fair Chance Act”), summary and text resources available via Congress.gov (S.387, 116th Cong.).

2. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (No. 915.002, Apr. 25, 2012).

3. Amanda Agan & Sonja Starr, “Ban the Box, Criminal Records, and Racial Discrimination: A Field Experiment,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 133, no. 1 (2018): 191–235.

4. Christina Stacy & Mychal Cohen, Ban the Box and Racial Discrimination: A Review of the Evidence and Policy Recommendations (Urban Institute, Feb. 2017).

5. Federal Trade Commission, “Using Consumer Reports: What Employers Need to Know” (guidance on Fair Credit Reporting Act compliance for employment decisions).

6. Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003) (holding Alaska’s sex offender registration act was nonpunitive for ex post facto purposes).

April Is Second Chance Month: Why It Matters More Than Ever

Every April, communities across the United States pause to recognize a powerful truth: No one should be defined forever by their worst mistake. April is Second Chance Month, a nationwide effort to raise awareness of the barriers facing people with criminal records and to promote policies and practices that support successful reentry, restoration, and community safety.

A Movement Rooted in Dignity and Opportunity

Second Chance Month was founded in 2017 by Prison Fellowship, the nation’s largest Christian nonprofit serving currently and formerly incarcerated people and their families. The initiative highlights a sobering reality: nearly 1 in 3 American adults has a criminal record, and many face lifelong obstacles long after completing their sentence. These barriers now numbering close to 44,000 legal restrictions nationwide, can limit access to employment, housing, education, and even basic civic participation.

Over the years, Second Chance Month has grown into a broad, bipartisan movement. Presidential proclamations have been issued consistently since 2018, and the United States Senate has repeatedly passed resolutions recognizing April as Second Chance Month. By 2025, 27 states joined more than 1,100 Churches, Employers, and Community partners in formally recognizing the month and calling attention to the need for meaningful second chances.

Why Second Chances Are a Public Safety Issue

Reentry is often framed as charity or social service, but research and experience show it is a core public safety strategy. Nearly 95% of incarcerated people will eventually return home, with approximately 600,000 people released from state and federal prisons each year, along with millions more from local jails.

The period immediately following release is especially critical. When individuals lack stable housing, health care, employment, or community support, the risk of recidivism increases—not just harming individuals and families, but entire communities.

Organizations like the Crime and Justice Institute (CJI) emphasize that the most effective reentry efforts align multiple systems from day one:

  • Housing and employment
  • Behavioral health care
  • Community supervision
  • Family and community supports

When these systems work together, beginning before and continuing through the early months after release; public safety improves, costs decrease, and people have a genuine opportunity to rebuild their lives.

A Personal Story Behind the Statistics

While the numbers are compelling, the heart of Second Chance Month lies in individual lives.

In a powerful reflection shared during Second Chance Month, Michelle Cirocco, a nonprofit executive and formerly incarcerated woman, describes the reaction she often receives when she shares her past: surprise. Despite her professional success, people struggle to reconcile her accomplishments with her history of incarceration.

Her message is clear: she is not the exception. She represents what happens when opportunity meets accountability, support, and belief in human potential. Millions of others, she reminds us, are still waiting for that same chance—not to be extraordinary, but simply to be seen as human.

Second Chance Month challenges the damaging assumption that people behind bars are a permanent “other.” Instead, it calls us to recognize what has always been true: People are more than the worst thing they have done.

Faith, Forgiveness, and Restoration

For many faith communities, Second Chance Month is deeply rooted in spiritual principles of Redemption, Mercy, and Reconciliation. Churches across the country observe Second Chance Sunday in April, offering prayer and support for people impacted by crime and incarceration.

Moving From Awareness to Action

As leaders from across Christian traditions have emphasized, there is no theological basis for stripping someone of dignity after they have paid their debt. Restoration of Individuals, Families, and Communities is both a moral calling and a practical necessity.

Second Chance Month is about more than recognition—it is a call to action.

Policymakers are encouraged to:

  • Sustain funding for evidence-based reentry programs
  • Promote cross-agency coordination

Practitioners are urged to:

  • Focus resources on the critical early months after release
  • Use data-informed, individualized approaches

Funders and partners are called to:

  • Invest in systemwide solutions, not isolated programs
  • Support scaling what works

And Communities including employers, churches, and civic leaders can play a transformative role by offering opportunity instead of judgment.

Michigan’s Success Story

In 2018 Michigan governor Rick Snyder declared April 2018 to be Second Chance Month.  Since that time Michigan has made progress and is addressing the needs of returning citizens in statistically meaningful and tangible ways. Recidivism rates have been reduced significantly as the Michigan Department of Corrections has increased its focus on Housing and Employment, Behavioral health care, Community supervision, and Family and Community support through its Offender Success Reentry Services program. Offender Success, formerly known as the Michigan Prisoner Re-Entry Initiative, is a public-private partnership that relies on unprecedented collaboration and teamwork between state agencies, human service providers, the faith-based community and private companies who share a vested interest in safer communities and opportunities for all.

Offender Success is a public safety program based on 20 years of research on what works to help returning citizens succeed. By providing needed support, resources and tools, we create safer communities, a better economy and increased quality of life for returning citizens and their families. Offender Success is a hand-up, not a hand-out.

Evidence-Based Programs

Research has shown that evidence-based cognitive programming helps reduce future risk. Programs include Violence Prevention Programming and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. OS Staff develop and monitor these programs, while also ensuring that prisoners are properly placed in these programs based on their parole board jurisdiction date. OS also works with counties throughout the state to provide evidence-based support to probationers through Community Corrections

The Offender Success Administration is housed within the MDOC’s Executive Office and has staff at prisons throughout the state.  Staff members include educators, school staff, institutional parole agents, specialists, and analysts who oversee various programs within the prisons and contracted services in the community.  The goal of this diverse group of professionals is to foster change and success for those in prison, as well as those on parole or probation.

There are four Major Areas of Focus: Evidence-based Programs, Education, In-Reach, and Community Supports for Parolees.

Education

Michigan is a national leader in correctional education and operates a school at each prison. Schools teach academic (high school equivalency), special education, and career and technical education programs. The MDOC also operates three Vocational Villages, which are the most immersive prison vocational programs in the nation, training students in high-demand trades. The MDOC also partners with a variety of colleges and universities that provide post-secondary classes and degrees to those in prison. 

In-Reach

Serving as the bridge between incarceration and the community, In-Reach is utilized by the parole board to provide a more focused opportunity to plan for reentry with the support of dedicated staff.

Community Supports for Parolees

Part of ensuring public safety and personal success is providing necessary supports, such as stable housing, basic supplies, or assistance finding or maintaining a job. The MDOC contracts with 10 regional administrative agencies that provide this assistance and more to eligible parolees throughout the state. Offender Success also oversees a mentoring program for those who are on parole, connecting them with those that have successfully gone through the criminal justice system as a positive peer support.

A Chapter, Not the Whole Book

Second Chance Month reminds us that a past mistake should be a chapter in someone’s story, not the end of it. When we remove unnecessary barriers, align systems, and choose dignity over stigma, we don’t just help individuals succeed. We build safer, stronger, and more compassionate communities for everyone. Let’s commit to seeing the person behind the record and to unlocking second chances that truly last.

The Valley of Dry Bones

A Call to the Church to Stand with Returning Citizens

Few images in scripture are as haunting—and as hopeful—as Ezekiel’s vision of the Valley of Dry Bones. A prophet stands in a wasteland littered with bones, remnants of lives that once held promise. God asks him a question that feels almost cruel in its obviousness: “Can these bones live?”-Ezekiel 37:3 It’s a question that echoes today in a place Ezekiel never saw but would have understood intuitively: the modern prison.

Prisons, like Ezekiel’s valley, are full of people society has written off as “too far gone,” “beyond repair,” or “better forgotten.” Yet the dry bones vision is not a story about death—it’s a story about what can happen when we refuse to accept that death is the final word. Below is why this ancient metaphor resonates so deeply with the realities of incarceration.

🦴 1. Dry Bones Represent Lives Stripped Down to Their Lowest Point

In Ezekiel’s vision, the bones are not just dead—they are very dry, long abandoned, beyond any natural hope of restoration. In prison, people often describe feeling the same way:

  • Stripped of identity
  • Cut off from community
  • Reduced to a number
  • Disconnected from purpose
  • Forgotten by society

Many incarcerated people talk about feeling like they’ve been placed in a valley where nothing grows. Their past mistakes overshadow their humanity. Their future feels predetermined. Their present feels suspended. The dryness is not just physical confinement—it’s emotional, relational, and spiritual desolation.

🌬️ 2. The Question “Can These Bones Live?” Mirrors Society’s Doubt About Redemption

When God asks Ezekiel whether the bones can live, the prophet doesn’t say yes or no. He says, “Only you know.” That’s the tension we live with today.

  • We debate whether people can truly change.
  • We argue about punishment versus rehabilitation.
  • We question whether someone who has done harm deserves another chance.

The valley forces us to confront our assumptions about human potential. Prisons force us to confront them too. The question is not whether transformation is possible—it’s whether we believe it is.

🧩 3. Restoration Begins With Being Spoken To, Not Spoken About

In the vision, the bones begin to come together only after Ezekiel speaks directly to them. Not about them. Not around them. To them. This is a profound detail. People in prison are often spoken about—by courts, by media, by policymakers—but rarely spoken to in ways that affirm their humanity or potential. Change begins when someone:

  • Calls a person by their name.
  • Sees their story beyond their crime.
  • Speaks hope into a place defined by despair.
  • Treats them as capable of growth.

Words alone don’t fix everything, but they can spark the first movement of bones coming together.

💨 4. The Breath of Life Represents What Prisons Cannot Provide Alone

In Ezekiel’s vision, the bones come together, flesh appears, skin covers them—but they are still lifeless until the breath enters them. This breath symbolizes:

  • Purpose
  • Dignity
  • Connection
  • Hope
  • A future

Prisons can enforce structure, routine, and discipline. But they cannot breathe life into a person. That requires:

  • Community
  • Education
  • Mentorship
  • Healing
  • Opportunity
  • Belief

The breath comes from outside the system—through relationships, programs, and the willingness of society to see incarcerated people as more than their worst moment.

🌱 5. The Valley Becomes an Army of the Restored, Not the Perfect

When the bones rise, they don’t become an army of flawless saints. They become an army of people who were once written off. That’s the heart of the analogy:

  • The vision is not about perfection.
  • It’s about restoration.

Many people leave prison determined to rebuild their lives, reconnect with family, contribute to their communities, and break cycles of harm. But they face barriers that often feel as impossible as resurrecting dry bones:

  • Stigma
  • Employment discrimination
  • Housing restrictions
  • Lack of support
  • Trauma
  • Chronic health issues
  • Aging behind bars

Yet, like the bones in the valley, many rise anyway—slowly, painfully, but powerfully.

🔥 6. The Valley Teaches Us That Transformation Is Collective, Not Individual

Ezekiel doesn’t resurrect the bones alone. The bones don’t resurrect themselves. The breath doesn’t come from within the bones. Transformation is a collaborative act. Likewise, prison reform, reentry success, and personal transformation require:

  • Community investment
  • Policy change
  • Compassionate leadership
  • Restorative justice
  • Support networks
  • Public imagination

The valley becomes a place of life only when multiple forces work together.

🌄 7. The Valley Is Not the End of the Story

The Valley of Dry Bones is not a story about death—it’s a story about what happens when we refuse to let death, despair, or desolation have the final word. Prisons can feel like valleys of dry bones. But the vision reminds us:

  • No one is beyond restoration.
  • No life is too fractured to be rebuilt.
  • No story is too broken to be rewritten.
  • No valley is too barren for hope to grow.

The question “Can these bones live?” is not a test of the bones. It’s a test of our imagination, our compassion, and our willingness to believe in the possibility of transformation. And if Ezekiel’s vision teaches us anything, it’s this:

Dry bones can rise. But only if we dare to see life where others see only death.

⚖️ 8. The Valley: What Returning Citizens Face

Ezekiel describes the bones as “very dry.” That’s not just death—it’s abandonment. Many returning citizens experience the same:

  • No ID
  • No housing
  • No job
  • No community
  • No sense of belonging
  • Nationally, many states see 40–60% of people return to prison within three years and 82% are rearrested within 10 years, showing how long incarceration impacts behavior and opportunity[1].

The valley is deep. These rates reflect not just individual choices but systemic barriers to reintegration. Based on the latest statistics, the state of Michigan is a bright spot.

Michigan’s recidivism rate is just 21%—the lowest in state history

79% of people on parole do not return to prison. Michigan’s success is not magic. It’s ministry in motion—practical supports that mirror the heart of the Gospel.

🌬️ 9. When God Says “Prophesy to These Bones”

In Ezekiel 37, God doesn’t tell the prophet to walk away. He tells him to speak life. Michigan’s reentry model does exactly that:

  • Helping people get state IDs and driver’s licenses.
  • Providing transitional housing.
  • Offering skilled trades training and post‑secondary education.
  • Connecting people to peer recovery coaches.
  • Supporting them before and after release.

These are not just programs—they are acts of restoration. They are the modern equivalent of Ezekiel speaking to the bones.

💨 10. The Breath: What Programs Alone Cannot Give

In the vision, the bones come together, flesh appears, skin covers them—but there is no breath until God sends it. Reentry programs can:

  • Train
  • House
  • Supervise
  • Prepare

But they cannot breathe hope, belonging, or identity into a person. That is where the Church becomes essential. The Church is uniquely equipped to offer:

  • Community
  • Purpose
  • Spiritual grounding
  • Mentorship
  • Love without condition

These are the things that turn structure into life.

📉 11. Reality Check: Not All Programs Work

The U.S. Department of Labor’s evaluation—shows the limits of fragmented reentry efforts:

  • 72% of participants received education or training.
  • 43% received occupational skills training.
  • Only 2.3% received on‑the‑job training — the most effective form of workforce preparation.
  • Participants were 5.1 percentage points more likely to be convicted of a new crime than the comparison group.
  • They were 4.1 percentage points less likely to be employed.
  • They earned $693 less on average in later quarters.

Why? Because partial support produces partial transformation. Programs that lack depth, continuity, and real‑world connection often fail to deliver lasting change, especially for individuals with serious prior justice involvement[5].

Bones rattled—but they didn’t rise. This is why the Church’s role is not optional. It is the missing breath.

What Churches Can Do: Five Actions That Bring Life to the Valley

These are practical, doable, deeply biblical steps.

✝️ 1. Become a “Second Chance” Church

Many formerly incarcerated people have a very difficult time finding a church that will allow them to worship with their congregation.  They are turned away because there is no plan in place to address the “security challenges” that some parolees might pose based on fear, misinformation and prejudice. Returning citizens are a class of the “least of these” that require special handling and care for the church accommodate them.  The plan should include how to:

  • Publicly welcome returning citizens.
  • Train greeters and volunteers.
  • Preach on restoration, not retribution.

A church’s posture can be the difference between someone rising or returning to the valley.

🏠 2. Support Housing Stability

Housing insecurity is nearly three times more common than homelessness alone[3]. Formerly incarcerated individuals often face:

  • Disqualification from public housing
    • Discrimination by landlords
    • Lack of savings or credit

This instability undermines health, employment, and family reunification. How the church can help:

  • Partner with transitional housing programs.
  • Offer rental assistance.
  • Create host‑home networks.
  • Adopt a returning citizen as a congregation.

Stable housing is one of the strongest predictors of successful reentry.

💼 3. Create Employment Pathways

Unemployment among formerly incarcerated people is 27%, higher than any national rate in modern history[2]. Those who do find work earn 50–60% less than the general population[2]. Stigma, lack of credentials, and legal restrictions all contribute to this economic exclusion. How the church can help:

  • Hire returning citizens for church roles.
  • Partner with local employers.
  • Offer resume workshops and interview coaching.
  • Provide transportation to work.

Work is hope. Work is resurrection.

🤝 4. Build Mentorship and Discipleship Teams

Programs in prison like Keryx work because they include aspects of revival, peer led small group accountability, Spiritual engagement and service.  Freedom Dreamers and others have created similar programs to provide these necessary functions to returning citizens and the church can help by offering more opportunities in every community.

  • One‑on‑one mentorship.
  • Small groups for returning citizens.
  • Peer support led by formerly incarcerated members.

People rise when someone walks with them.

🙏 5. Advocate for Justice and Restoration

The church can provide a strong voice of reason and compassion in public discourse by:

  • Supporting ID access, housing reform, and fair‑chance hiring.
  • Partnering with MDOC and local reentry coalitions.
  • Educating your congregation about the realities of reentry.

Advocacy is prophecy in action.

Conclusion: The Church as the Breath in the Valley

The path after prison is steep and full of obstacles. But with:

  • Stable housing
  • Fair employment opportunities
  • Access to education
  • Community support
  • Policy reform

…success becomes not just possible, but sustainable. We must stop asking whether people can succeed after prison—and start asking whether we’ve given them a fair chance too.

Ezekiel watched as the bones rose—not because they were perfect, but because God breathed life into them. The Church is called to be that breath today. Michigan’s success shows what happens when a community invests in restoration. The US Department of Labor’s findings show what happens when support is fragmented. The valley is real. But so is the God who raises the dead. And He invites His people to stand in the valley and speak life.

Here are several faith-based programs in Michigan actively supporting returning citizens on parole or probation. Notably, Michigan’s low recidivism rate (21%) is linked to strong community partnerships—including churches and ministries offering housing, mentorship, and job support.

🙌 Faith-Based Reentry Programs in Michigan

1. Good News Ministries (Detroit)

  • Focus: Transitional housing, spiritual mentorship, job readiness
  • Services: Bible studies, recovery support, employment coaching
  • Website: goodnewsdetroit.org

2. Celebration Fellowship (Ionia & Muskegon)

  • Focus: In-prison worship and post-release discipleship
  • Partners: Christian Reformed Church, MDOC
  • Unique Feature: Operates inside prisons and continues support after release
  • Website: celebrationfellowship.org

3. Crossroads Prison Ministries (Grand Rapids)

  • Focus: Bible correspondence courses, mentorship
  • Reach: Serves incarcerated and returning citizens nationwide
  • Website: cpministries.org

4. The Isaiah House (Detroit)

  • Focus: Faith-based transitional housing for men on parole
  • Services: Recovery support, spiritual formation, job placement
  • Affiliation: Catholic Charities of Southeast Michigan
  • Website: ccsem.org

5. Nation Outside (Statewide, faith-rooted)

  • Focus: Advocacy and peer-led support for formerly incarcerated people
  • Faith Connection: Founded by justice-impacted Christians; partners with churches
  • Website: nationoutside.org

6. Prison Fellowship (National, active in Michigan)

  • Focus: Angel Tree, in-prison ministry, reentry support
  • Michigan Presence: Works with MDOC and local churches
  • Website: prisonfellowship.org

Michigan’s Offender Success network is a statewide reentry initiative run by the Department of Corrections (MDOC) that provides housing, employment, health, and mentoring support to parolees and probationers. It’s a key reason Michigan’s recidivism rate is just 21%—among the lowest in the nation.

🛠️ What Is Offender Success?

Offender Success (OS) is Michigan’s comprehensive reentry system designed to help individuals succeed after incarceration. It operates before and after release, with staff embedded in prisons and communities statewide.

🔑 Four Major Areas of Focus

AreaDescription
Evidence-Based ProgramsCognitive behavioral therapy, violence prevention, and other risk-reduction programs tailored to parole eligibility.
EducationHigh school equivalency, special education, career/technical training, and college degrees. Includes Vocational Villages—immersive trade schools inside prisons.
In-ReachDedicated staff help parolees plan for reentry before release, bridging prison and community.
Community SupportsHousing, job placement, health services, mentoring, and basic supplies provided through regional agencies and local partners.

🏠 Services Available to Returning Citizens

Eligible parolees and probationers may receive:

  • Residential Stability: Transitional housing, rental assistance, landlord partnerships
  • Job Placement Assistance: Resume help, employer connections, transportation support
  • Health & Behavioral Health: Referrals to providers, recovery coaching, peer support
  • Social Supports: Clothing, food, vital documents, mentoring, faith-based connections

🤝 Faith-Based Partnerships

Offender Success actively collaborates with:

  • Churches and ministries offering housing, mentorship, and spiritual support
  • Local advisory councils that include faith leaders
  • Community coordinators who connect parolees to faith-based services

Faith organizations can join the network by contacting their regional Offender Success coordinator or attending local advisory meetings.

📍 How to Get Involved

  • Churches can offer space, volunteers, or mentorship
  • Service providers can join local advisory councils
  • Returning citizens should speak with their parole agent to access services
  • Families can call 2-1-1 or use the Calvin University/MDOC Resource Map (Returning Citizen Services) to find local help

📚 Footnotes

  1. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 30 States (2021) ↩ ↩
  2. Prison Policy Initiative, Out of Prison & Out of Work (2020) ↩ ↩
  3. Urban Institute, Housing Challenges After Incarceration (2022) ↩
  4. RAND Corporation, Evaluation of Reentry Programs (2023) ↩ ↩
  5. U.S. Department of Labor, Reentry Employment Opportunities Study (2024) ↩

Digging Deeper

Are Michigan’s reentry efforts actually more successful than the rest of the U.S.?

To be fair in the treatment of the data that I referenced in this blog entry, I have included the following assessment to highlight the differences in how the data was reported. It is difficult when combining data sources to ensure that the comparisons are accurate unless the definitions of key terms and methods of data collection and reporting are the same. The Michigan Department of Corrections, the US Department of Labor and the Bureau of Justice Statistics are not all using the same definitions so any comparisons must be understood to be more representative of magnitude than an exact arithmetic interpretation. The data is simple a useful tool to draw attention to the success rate of programs that are working better than programs in other states.

High‑level comparison

DimensionMichiganRest of U.S. (typical)
3‑year return to prison~21% returned to prison (≈2 in 10)Roughly 2–3x higher in many states (often 40–60%+)
TrendHistoric low, declining over last decadeGenerally flat or modestly declining, still high overall
FramingState explicitly credits reentry supports (IDs, housing, education, jobs)Reentry often fragmented, uneven by state and county
ProgrammingStatewide, coordinated through MDOC with budget lines for reentryPatchwork of state, county, nonprofit, and federal grants
Evidence qualityAdministrative recidivism data, descriptive but not causalMix of BJS stats + scattered program evaluations, few rigorous

1. Recidivism outcomes: Michigan vs national picture

Michigan’s Department of Corrections reports a 21.0% recidivism rate, defined as people who return to prison within three years of parole—its lowest rate on record and a 79% “success rate” for those paroled in 2021.

Nationally, federal studies typically find that around two‑thirds of people released from state prisons are rearrested within three years, and a substantial share are reconvicted or returned to prison. Even allowing for definitional differences (rearrest vs return to prison), Michigan is clearly performing much better than the national norm on basic recidivism metrics.

Key point: Michigan is not just slightly better—it’s in a different tier of recidivism performance.

2. What Michigan is actually doing differently

Michigan’s own reporting repeatedly links lower recidivism to “full circle” reentry support, not just to tougher supervision. Core elements include:

  • IDs and licenses: Help obtaining state IDs or driver’s licenses before or shortly after release—critical for work, housing, and services.
  • Housing supports: Investment in transitional housing and help finding stable placements.
  • Employment & training:
    • Job placement assistance and employment services.
    • 14 skilled trades programs operating inside prisons.
    • 12 post‑secondary education programs, with thousands of graduates.
  • Recovery & behavioral health: Funding for peer recovery coaches and recovery resources.
  • Continuity of care: Emphasis on support during incarceration and on parole, not just at the gate.

This is closer to a statewide reentry ecosystem than a loose collection of programs.

3. How that contrasts with much of the U.S.

In many other states, reentry looks more like:

  • Higher baseline recidivism (often 40–60%+ return to prison within 3 years).
  • Fragmented services—short‑term grants, county‑level programs, and nonprofits with limited capacity.
  • Weak housing infrastructure—very few dedicated transitional beds, long waitlists, and strict exclusions.
  • Limited in‑prison education—far fewer post‑secondary options and trades seats per capita.
  • Minimal ID/benefits preparation—people leave without IDs, health coverage, or a clear plan.

So, while Michigan is not perfect, its combination of IDs + housing + education + employment + recovery is more comprehensive than what many states offer.

4. Caveats when comparing Michigan to “the rest of the U.S.”

Raw comparisons can mislead. Important caveats:

  • Different definitions: Michigan’s 21% is “return to prison within 3 years of parole,” not “any rearrest.” Other states or federal stats often use rearrest, which is always higher.
  • Population differences: Michigan’s prison population has declined to its lowest level since 1991, which may mean more selective incarceration and parole practices.
  • Policy context: States differ in sentencing laws, parole practices, and community supervision intensity—all of which affect measured recidivism.
  • No randomized evidence at the state level: Michigan’s data show strong association, not definitive proof that reentry programs caused the lower rate.

So: Michigan looks genuinely strong, but we should treat it as a promising model, not a controlled experiment.

5. Reframing “success” beyond recidivism

  1. Michigan is outperforming national recidivism norms, with about 1 in 5 returning to prison vs much higher rates elsewhere.
  2. The state has institutionalized reentry supports (IDs, housing, education, trades, recovery) in a way many states have not.
  3. The direction of change (historic low, downward trend) matters as much as the level.
  4. True success should also track:
    • Stable employment
    • Stable housing
    • Health and recovery
    • Family reunificaiton
    • Long-term desistance, not just 3-year returns.

OLD SCHOOL

While in prison I met a lot of men that required assistance in the form of wheelchairs, walkers or canes to get around. Most of these had chronic, debilitating conditions requiring daily trips to medical to receive restricted medications and frequent offsite medical appointments. Life behind bars is tough and there isn’t any sympathy or relief from the extra challenges of getting around in a large prison compound. Come rain or shine med line callouts meant waiting outside in long lines to receive medications.  Wheelchair bound inmates were assigned a wheelchair pusher to assist them with getting to appointments and meals. (Whether they showed up to do their jobs is another story.) Those with walkers or canes were on their own.

Going out of the facility for transfers or medical appointment meant belly chains and wrist & leg shackles regardless of whether you might be considered a flight risk.  I had to go to the prison hospital in Jackson several times for doctor’s appointments and witnessed first-hand the pain and suffering that the sickest, frailest inmates endured to receive health care. In many ways I was blessed and fortunate to avoid illness or injury that resulted in permanent disability. For some it was a never-ending nightmare.  In prison inmates have no control of their situation, and access to medical services doesn’t guarantee treatment. 

I knew several inmates who had suffered medical emergencies like strokes or heart attacks.  Some I knew had received traumatic injuries in fights or sports.  One guy I met was suffering from liver failure and after completing his sentence with the MDOC was being held on a detainer from another state.  He was looking forward to going to Ohio because there he would be eligible for a liver transplant. Prisoners in the MDOC are not allowed on the waiting lists for organ transplants. Most of the handicapped inmates I knew didn’t arrive in prison that way. I have watched a bunkie go from being an able-bodied lifer working in the kitchen to being wheelchair bound in a matter of weeks because of a change of medication ordered, not by his doctor but by a bureaucrat because there was a cheaper but less effective COPD medication available. Having life threatening conditions may not necessarily mean that you will receive treatment or that it might be changed to a lower cost, less effective treatment with devastating effects.

Much of how prisons operate today is based on systems developed over 100 years.  Change is always slow in coming to large systems designed around a single concept-  Inmates are in prison in order to “protect” the public.  Prison sentences have grown longer in the last 50 years in response to public outcries and political rhetoric. Social and medical science have had little impact on these often secretive and deliberately cruel institutions.  Lawsuits have had more impact on changes in prison policy and procedure than enlightened public opinion or governmental policy.  “Tough on crime” legislation increased sentence guidelines and in very few cases have they been reduced, regardless of the nearly universal agreement of researchers that it hasn’t achieved the desire effect.  That the human and financial costs to society are far higher than the return on investment.

Going to jail and prison are very stressful events. In my mid 40’s when I was arrested, I did not have gray hair.  By the time I completed my sentence in my early 50’s my hair was turning gray. Incarceration means more than just losing your freedom, it is a complete loss of control.  You no longer have a say about what happens to you. Isolation, confinement, poor nutrition, sleep deprivation, and violence all play a role in breaking you down mentally, physically and spiritually, Hours turn into days. Days turn into months. Months turn into years. Everything you once had is lost. The present is dark and scary.  The future is so far away that it is unknowable. In Prison time moves slowly but inmates age faster than on the outside.

While in prison I walked the track, even ran and worked out in the weight pit some.  There were sport leagues for softball, basketball and volleyball.  We got out of our cells and cubes as often as we could to get fresh air and exercise.  I read books from the library in order to allow my mind to visit far away places, study new ideas or work on my self improvement and spirituality. I looked forward to weekly calls home and wrote letters and created my own greeting cards. I participated in any available programming offered that I thought would look good to the parole board. But while all those things did help with the daily stresses of life behind bars, it wasn’t enough.

Prison food is legendarily awful.  Most people lose a lot of weight while in jail and prison because of the inadequate portions and poor nutritional quality.  Supplementing caloric intake from the store is expensive and the options are not healthy, mostly carbs and sugar. While I was at Mid-Michigan Correctional in St. Louis, MI, I even had to contend with polluted drinking water.  Reports of cancers, kidney failure and other health issues that did not exist in individuals before going there have been reported, due to exposure to contaminated well water that the prison used. There have been lawsuits brought against the MDOC for food and water, but there has been little if any positive change.

That being said there are a few items worth mentioning regarding legislative changes both recent and proposed here in Michigan, that are reflective of the conclusions drawn by researchers both in the US and internationally regarding the effects that incarceration has on individuals serving time.  With the help of AI I have compiled the following overview regarding the effect that prison has on the aging of those incarcerated.  To put this in context.  Prison populations in Michigan and across the nation have risen dramatically since the 1980s because of longer prison sentences that legislatures enacted.  Now many of those incarcerated are serving indeterminate sentences that we refer to as basketball scores.  Sentences that amount to life without the possibility of parole by another name.

Accelerated Aging in Prison: Michigan in National and International Context

A substantial body of medical, gerontological, and social science research demonstrates that incarceration is associated with accelerated aging. Each year spent incarcerated is associated with an estimated two‑year reduction in life expectancy. Incarcerated individuals experience earlier onset of chronic disease, functional impairment, cognitive decline, and reduced life expectancy compared to the general population. As a result, people in prison are often considered physiologically 10–15 years older than their chronological age. ¹ ²

This phenomenon has direct relevance for Michigan, where a growing share of the prison population is older and medically complex, and where recent policy reforms acknowledge—though only partially address—the implications of aging behind bars.

Health and Aging in Prison

Across U.S. and international studies, incarcerated adults show:

  • Earlier onset of geriatric conditions, including mobility limitations, sensory impairment, incontinence, and cognitive decline. ³
  • High levels of multimorbidity at younger ages than seen in the general population. ⁴
  • Elevated mortality risk and reduced life expectancy associated with time spent incarcerated. ⁵

Researchers consistently identify several drivers: cumulative life-course disadvantage prior to incarceration; chronic stress, deprivation, and loss of autonomy during imprisonment; delayed or inadequate healthcare; and prison environments designed for younger, able-bodied populations. ² ³

Michigan’s Policy Response

Michigan has explicitly recognized the challenges posed by an aging prison population and has enacted limited reforms.

Medically Frail Parole (Senate Bill 599, Public Act 111 of 2024):

  • Expanded eligibility for parole is based on serious medical conditions, terminal illness, or severe functional impairment.
  • Permits release to any parole-board–approved placement, including private homes or hospice care, rather than only licensed medical facilities.
  • Retains restrictive criteria focused on medical severity, low assessed risk, and minimal threat to public safety. ⁶ ⁷

Proposed Second Look Sentencing:

  • Would allow judicial review of long sentences after substantial time served.
  • Remains under consideration and has not yet been enacted. ⁸

Assessment:

Michigan’s approach reflects a narrow, medicalized model. While SB 599 improves access to compassionate release for the most seriously ill individuals, the state largely continues to manage aging inside prison rather than broadly reassessing long sentences for older adults. I knew several inmates who tried to apply for compassionate release due to the diagnosis of terminal diseases.  Only one received his compassionate release, but still died in prison before he could be released.

Comparison with Other U.S. States

State approaches to aging in prison vary considerably:

  • More expansive models (e.g., California, New York):
    • Provide “elder parole” or age-plus–time-served eligibility.
    • Do not require terminal illness or profound disability. ⁹ ¹⁰
  • Restrictive models (including Michigan historically):
    • Rely primarily on medical or compassionate release with narrow eligibility and low utilization. ⁷

Michigan’s position:

Recent reforms move Michigan away from the most restrictive end of the spectrum, but it remains closer to “medically frail only” systems than to states that treat advanced age and lengthy incarceration itself as grounds for sentence review. One issue that I am aware of is that while there is a process in place to make the determination of whether or not compassionate release is warranted there was no timeframe required to make the determination, which allows MDOC staff responsible for making the determination to sit on the paperwork until it becomes a moot point.

Michigan does not have “good time” or any other behavior-based system to shorten sentences to less than the Earliest Release Date.  Therefore, it is not possible to go before the parole board for consideration of mitigating factors that could be taken into account in determining whether an inmate would pose a risk if paroled back into the community. Much has been said about “aging out of crime” research that shows that as people age, they tend to take fewer risks and are less likely to commit crimes in their 30s than when they were in their teens or 20s. So, for those that received long sentences based on sentencing guidelines may actually become less of a threat to society as they mature.  This was acknowledged in the “juvenile life without possibility of parole” controversy where courts were ordered to resentance juvenile lifers taking their prison records into account.

Prison is a dangerous place and being older can make an inmate a target for theft, exploitation, extortion and violence. This can be especially true for older or handicapped inmates serving time for sex offenses. Sex offenders are seen as the lowest of the low and are singled out for abuse for no other reason.  While sex offenses are by definition violent crimes, that doesn’t mean that the perpetrator is a violent person capable of defending themselves from gang members.  Most inmates are in General Population where both violent and non-violent offenders are housed together.  It isn’t possible to segregate inmate populations based on which ones are serious about going home and those that are only there on “vacation.” The violence in prison follows the same age related curve as in society. Having been assaulted twice I know how that can affect a person. Prison is no place for the weak and defenseless but there are too many there that are just that. People to weak to pose a threat to society but are unable to be considered for any type of “unfitness for prison” designation as some other countries have.

International Comparison (United Kingdom and Europe)

International research and policy frameworks generally adopt a different orientation:

  • Aging in prison is framed primarily as a human rights and dignity issue, not solely a healthcare problem. ¹¹
  • Release decisions often focus on whether continued detention is compatible with frailty, severe disability, or cognitive impairment, rather than on diagnosis alone. ¹²
  • Greater reliance on shorter sentences, non-custodial sanctions, and compassionate release reduces the number of people aging in custody. ¹¹
  • Universal or integrated healthcare systems facilitate continuity of care following release. ¹³

Compared with these models, Michigan—like most U.S. states—places greater emphasis on managing aging within prison rather than structurally limiting long-term incarceration of older adults.

Comparative Approaches to Aging and Release from Prison

DimensionMichigan (MDOC & State Law)Other U.S. StatesInternational Models (UK / Europe)
Primary mechanism for older or infirm prisonersMedically frail parole under SB 599 (Public Act 111 of 2024); proposed but unenacted Second Look Sentencing¹²Mix of medical parole, geriatric/elder parole, resentencing, and executive clemency; scope varies widely by state³⁴Compassionate or medical release combined with generally shorter sentences and broader use of non‑custodial sanctions⁵⁶
Trigger for releaseSerious or terminal medical condition, severe functional impairment, dementia, minimal public‑safety risk¹Often age plus time served (e.g., 50–65 years old with 10–25+ years served), sometimes without terminal illness requirement³⁷Terminal illness, severe disability, or determination that continued detention is incompatible with dignity or human‑rights standards⁵⁸
Placement after releaseAny parole‑board–approved placement, including private homes or hospice (expanded by SB 599)¹Some states require placement in licensed medical facilities; others allow home or community placement³Typically home, hospice, or community care settings, often integrated with national health systems⁶⁹
Definition of eligibilityNarrow and medicalized: diagnosis‑ and impairment‑based; age alone is insufficient¹²Highly variable; some states recognize “geriatric” status by age, others rely almost exclusively on medical criteria³⁴Often framed as “unfitness for imprisonment” or disproportionate punishment, rather than age or diagnosis alone⁵⁸
Overall policy orientationIncremental and restrictive; focuses on releasing only the sickest individuals while most age and die in prison¹²Patchwork system: ranges from expansive elder‑parole frameworks to rarely used medical release mechanisms³⁴Greater emphasis on proportionality, dignity, and limiting long‑term incarceration of frail or elderly people⁵⁶

Key Takeaways

  • Research consensus: Prisons are aging-accelerating environments.
  • Michigan: Acknowledges accelerated aging but relies on narrow, medically driven release mechanisms.
  • Other U.S. states: Offer a patchwork ranging from restrictive medical parole to broader elder-parole systems.
  • International models: Emphasize proportionality, dignity, and reduced reliance on incarceration for older and frail individuals.

Bottom line:
Michigan has made incremental progress but compared with more expansive U.S. reforms and international approaches, it continues to prioritize selective medical release over broader reassessment of long sentences and the appropriateness of incarcerating older adults.

The research also shows that the effects of aging in prison are not easily mitigated after parole.  These are life expectancy shortening, quality of life issues that are the unintended consequences of incarceration.  In a society solely focused on retribution rather than rehabilitation and reconciliation there needs to be more discussion, not based on emotions but rather on scientific evidence to guide decision making.  There needs to be less of a proscribed one-size-fits-all approach to sentencing guidelines and more of an individual evaluation of whether or not a person is still considered a threat to society.  Give the parole and clemency boards the ability to determine if the time spent in prison has resulted in meaningful and measurable reform.  Provide more structural support during parole to ensure the successful reintegration back into society.  All of these things together would reduce prison populations and minimize this aging effect, thereby reducing long term costs associated with incarceration and medical care.

Footnotes

  1. Berg, M. T. et al., Losing Years Doing Time: Incarceration Exposure and Accelerated Biological Aging, Journal of Health and Social Behavior (2021).
  2. Doherty, E. E. et al., Examining the Relationship Between Incarceration and Healthy Aging, Journal of Developmental and Life‑Course Criminology (2025).
  3. Prison Policy Initiative, Graying Prisons: States Face Challenges of an Aging Inmate Population (2018).
  4. American College of Physicians, Health Care Implications of the Rapidly Aging Incarcerated Population.
  5. ACLU & Prison and Jail Innovation Lab, Trapped in Time: The Silent Crisis of Elderly Incarceration (2025).
  6. Michigan Legislature, Senate Bill 599 (Public Act 111 of 2024).
  7. Michigan Allows More Releases for Medically Frail Prisoners, Prison Legal News (2025).
  8. WCMU Public Media, reporting on proposed Second Look Sentencing legislation.
  9. National Conference of State Legislatures, analysis of elder parole statutes (cited in The Marshall Project, 2026).
  10. Davis Vanguard, Debate Grows Over Elder Parole Bill in New York (2026).
  11. Prison Reform Trust, Growing Old in Prison (UK).
  12. UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, submissions on older persons deprived of liberty.
  13. Gavin, P. et al., Healthcare and Social Care Needs of Older Prisoners in England and Wales, Social Sciences (2025).

Table Footnotes

  1. Michigan Legislature, Senate Bill 599 (Public Act 111 of 2024), amending medically frail parole eligibility.
  2. Michigan Allows More Releases for Medically Frail Prisoners, Prison Legal News (2025).
  3. National Conference of State Legislatures, surveys of elder‑parole and geriatric‑release statutes (cited in The Marshall Project, 2026).
  4. How States Are Grappling With an Aging Prison Population, The Marshall Project (2026).
  5. Prison Reform Trust, Growing Old in Prison (UK).
  6. Gavin et al., Healthcare and Social Care Needs of Older Prisoners in England and Wales, Social Sciences (2025).
  7. Davis Vanguard, Debate Grows Over Elder Parole Bill in New York (2026).
  8. UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, submissions on older persons deprived of liberty and compatibility of detention with human‑rights standards.
  9. Penal Reform International, Global Prison Trends and European prison‑health integration analyses.

What’s in a name?

William Shakespeare asked that question in Romeo & Juliet. “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” Juliet was not allowed to associate with Romeo because he was a Montague. If he had any other name, it would have been fine. She was complaining that his name is meaningless. If the rose had any other name, it would still be the same. So, with Romeo- he would still be the same beautiful young man even if he had a different name.1

Our name is how we are identified from birth.  It represents us conceptually to others.  Hearing someone’s name that we know often brings their face, personality, or character to mind.  We can remember conversations, funny anecdotes, or life encounters that inform our opinion of who they are. When we hear a stranger’s name it is just a name until we have information to associate with it.  Information may come in the form of gossip passed along from another person, social media viewed online, or news reports. 

Back in the day before the internet, employers would review applications and resumes to screen for potential job candidates.  Calls or letters would be sent to verify employment history.  References would be contacted to gain information necessary to inform the hiring process.  Businesses routinely run background checks on job candidates and active employees to determine if they should be disqualified from employment opportunities. Once I was fingerprinted because the FBI had to check to ensure that I did not have any mafia connections when I applied to work as the lab manager at a landfill.

Modern hiring practices have changed significantly because of the potential of litigation regarding the release of information that could be considered negative regarding a former employee.  Your previous employer will now only confirm that an individual worked for the company.  To get information, many employers have turned to third party companies that collect massive amounts of information about individuals from a wide variety of companies and government agencies that have commoditized their vast databases.  Information about credit worthiness, social media posts, along with court filings and criminal convictions are available instantaneously. 

I was recently fired from a job after 6½ years because of a change in hiring policy.  When I was first hired the policy was that you could not have a criminal conviction in the last 7 years.  A new change to the policy specified that you could not have certain specific convictions period. My employer knew who I was based on years of interaction- a hardworking, intelligent, dedicated, and loyal employee. Yet based on a single entry in a background check I was dismissed without any opportunity to explain.

The issue with computer data has always been “Garbage In, Garbage Out”.  The information is only as good as the source.  While it may be useful in this age of information overload to get information in small, overly simplified bites, context is everything, as it is in life.  When we spend our lives with a person, we will have a much better image of who they are than if we only read the sensationalized headlines about what might be the worst day in someone’s life.  And yet it is those snapshots, those life events presented without context by which our society makes life altering decisions about other people.

Case in point is SORNA, the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act.  In 1994 the Wetterling Act established baseline standards for states to register sex offenders.  Megan’s Law in 1996 mandated public disclosure of information about registered sex offenders and required states to maintain a website containing registry information.  The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which includes SORNA, created a new baseline of sex offender registration and notification standards.2 The registering and tracking sex offenders went from being a tool useful to law enforcement to a modern-day Scarlet Letter.  It is the public shaming, disenfranchising and discrimination of people who, in addition to many serving long jail/prison sentences, now face additional civil penalties including restrictions on where they can live and who they can live with.

In July of 2025 President Trump signed an executive order entitled “Ending Crime and Disorder on America’s Streets”.3  In Section 3 the order zeroes in on registrants who are homeless, instructing the Department of Justice to “substantially implement and comply with” the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) for individuals with no fixed address. It calls for mapping and monitoring the locations of homeless sex offenders, effectively treating poverty as a risk factor warranting heightened surveillance.

The order goes even further. If a homeless individual is arrested for a federal crime, they may be evaluated under 18 U.S.C. § 4248, a statute that allows for indefinite civil commitment of individuals deemed “sexually dangerous”—even after they’ve completed their sentence. That’s not rehabilitation. That’s preemptive detention.

This isn’t about protecting the public or preventing new offenses. It’s about maintaining a narrative that portrays registrants as permanent threats, regardless of evidence. And it comes at the expense of people who are already marginalized—those struggling with mental illness, addiction, or simply trying to survive without stable housing in a system designed to push them out.

Supporters of the executive order may argue it’s a step toward restoring order. However, safety rooted in fear and endless punishment is not justice; it’s containment. What this order reveals isn’t reform, but the further cementing of a system that punishes for life, with no offramp, no redemption, and no demonstrated public benefit.4

In the Old Testament King Solomon wrote in Proverbs 22:1 “A good name is more desirable than great riches; to be esteemed is better than silver or gold.” This verse emphasizes the importance of a good reputation and the value of being respected over material wealth.  It suggests that a good name reflects one’s character and integrity, which are more enduring and impactful than material possessions.5  This is a lesson that anyone who has been to prison learns the hard way. Not everyone that gets convicted is a “hardened” criminal.  And once your good name is gone, it is impossible to get it back.

Many people that I met in prison were there because of one bad choice that was not in line with who they are, how they were living or their belief system.  The downfall of Adam and Eve in Genesis chapter 3 was that they believed the lies of the Satan and ate of the forbidden fruit.  Romans 3:23 says that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Yet the Bible is a narrative on redemption.  In both the Old and New Testaments God used people that went to prison to do great things. I have a tee shirt that says, “All my role models went to prison: Joseph, Paul, Peter, John, Daniel and Jesus.”  God used ordinary people, fallen people, people who sinned.  He redeemed them, he changed them, and he used them for His glory.

In our society we have lost this prospective.  Forgiveness has been replaced by Condemnation.  Restoration has been replaced by Punishment. Redemption has been replaced by Damnation. There were two other people crucified on Golgotha with Jesus. Their choices are the same ones that we must all make.  Either we choose to believe or we choose to reject the promise of eternal life.  Yet it is the crowd surrounding the condemned that were jeering, hostile and calloused to the barbarous, gruesome execution taking place. These people are the true face of evil.

“There but for the grace of God go I” is an old proverbial phrase used to express empathetic compassion and a sense of good fortune realized by avoiding hardship. An early version was ascribed to the preacher John Bradford who died in 1555. 6  The Keryx volunteers that go into prisons say the same thing.  There isn’t much that separates them from those in prison, just that they did not get caught.  What our society needs today is more John Bradford’s and more Keryx volunteers.  Men and Women of faith that acknowledge the saving grace of Jesus, not just in their own lives but in the lives of others.  People that get involved, get to know people for who they are, not a stereotype or a caricature. 

End Notes
1          ‘What’s In A Name’: Phrase Meaning & History✔️

2          Legislative History of Federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification | Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking

3          Ending Crime and Disorder on America’s Streets – The White House

4          Trump’s Executive Order Confirms the Registry Machine Isn’t Going Anywhere – Women Against Registry

5          What does Proverbs 22:1 mean? | BibleRef.com

6          Quote Origin: There But For the Grace of God, Go I – Quote Investigator®

Second Chances

There has been much said about whether or not those convicted of committing a crime should be given a second chance.  A wide variety of voices in our culture have made their opinions perfectly clear.  “Tough On Crime” was a political approach that emphasizes strict enforcement of laws and harsher penalties for offenders, often associated with policies aimed at reducing crime rates through increased policing and incarceration. This strategy has been a significant part of political discourse, particularly in the United States, and has seen a resurgence in recent years among various political leaders. But does it really work? 

The Southern Poverty Law Center reports that Mandatory minimums effectively shift the power of sentencing from judges to prosecutors, resulting in less objective and more politicized outcomes. Although they are largely used for drug and other nonviolent crimes, mandatory minimum sentences can apply to a wide range of offenses. When mandatory minimums are in effect, the ultimate sentence will be based on the specific offense charged. This means that prosecutors have enormous, unchecked power because by choosing which charges to bring, they are also selecting the sentence the person will receive if convicted. This results in an imbalance of power and a high risk of unfair outcomes. For example, regardless of guilt, the threat of specific charges that carry stiff mandatory minimums may encourage people to plead guilty to a different crime with lower penalties. Furthermore, the exploitation of mandatory minimums effectively prevents judges from considering the totality of the circumstances when determining an appropriate sentence after a person has been found guilty of a crime. Historically, one of the roles of judges was to adjudicate an appropriate punishment. Usurping the judges’ role is especially problematic considering 98% of federal convictions are the result of guilty pleas over which prosecutors completely control the terms; very few people resolve their case with a trial.

A primary rationale behind mandatory minimum sentences was to deter crime. Today, the average federal sentence for people convicted of a mandatory minimum offense is 151 months; when the mandatory minimum is for drug offenses, it is 138 months.  Contrary to the notion that these sentences will have a deterrent effect, ample research demonstrates that mandatory minimums do not decrease crime and, in fact, they likely generate more crime. Ample research concludes that imprisoning people not only does not lessen the likelihood that people will reoffend, but it can actually increase it. This may be for a multitude of reasons: Prisons are a place of trauma, people released from prison face stigma and economic hurdles, and people may struggle to return to families and communities after being away for so long. A policy of seeking harsh sentences will not improve public safety, but it will certainly destroy communities.1

There’s a growing movement to replace the tough on crime approach with a more evidence-based, data-driven, and compassionate approach to criminal justice. This “Smart On Crime” approach seeks to reduce the number of people behind bars, while still protecting public safety, by focusing on evidence-based policies that have been proven to be effective at reducing crime and recidivism.

One of the key components of the smart on crime approach is a focus on rehabilitation and reentry. This means investing in education, job training, and mental health and substance abuse treatment programs to help people who’ve been incarcerated successfully reintegrate into society and avoid reoffending. By investing in these programs, we can reduce the number of people who end up back in prison, while also improving public safety.2

Recidivism is the tendency of a convicted criminal to repeat or reoffend a crime after already receiving punishment or serving their sentence. The term is often used in conjunction with substance abuse as a synonym for “relapse” but is specifically used for criminal behavior. The United States has some of the highest recidivism rates in the world. According to the National Institute of Justice, almost 44% of criminals released, returned before the first year out of prison. In 2005, about 68% of 405,000 released prisoners were arrested for a new crime within three years, and 77% were arrested within five years.

Factors contributing to recidivism include a person’s social environment and community, their circumstances before incarceration, events during their incarceration, and one of the main reasons, difficulty adjusting back into normal life. Many of these individuals have trouble reconnecting with family and finding a job to support themselves. Incarceration rates in the U.S. began increasing dramatically in the 1990s. The U.S. has the highest prison population of any country, comprising 25% of the world’s prisoners. Prisons are overcrowded, and inmates are forced to live in inhumane conditions, even those who are innocent and awaiting trial.

The United States justice system places its efforts on getting criminals off the streets by locking them up but fails to fix the issue of preventing these people from reoffending afterward. This is why many believe that the U.S. prison system is greatly flawed. Recidivism affects everyone: the offender, their family, the victim of the crime, law enforcement, and the community overall. Crime can affect anyone in any community. If a previously incarcerated person is released only to repeat an offense or act out a new crime, there will be new victims. Furthermore, taxpayers are impacted by the economic cost of crime and incarceration as the average per-inmate cost of incarceration in the U.S. is $31,286 per year.

Steps can be taken during incarceration to decrease recidivism. First is assessing the risks for reoffending and the criminogenic needs that contributed to breaking the law, such as a lack of self-control or antisocial peer group. The second is to assess their individual motivators, followed by choosing the appropriate treatment program. The fourth step is to implement evidence-based programming that emphasizes cognitive-behavioral strategies, coupled with positive reinforcement that can help them recognize and feel good about positive behavior. Lastly, the formerly incarcerated need ongoing support from a good peer group, as repeat offenders who were in gang culture have the greatest challenge to stay away from that behavior.3

The Second Chance Act, officially known as H.R. 1593, was enacted on April 9, 2008. Its aim was to improve the reintegration of formerly incarcerated individuals into society. The Act provided federal grants to state and local governments and nonprofit organizations to support reentry programs.

Goals of the Act

Reduce Recidivism: The Act focuses on lowering the rates of reoffending among released individuals.

Enhance Public Safety: By supporting successful reintegration, the Act aims to improve community safety.

Support Services: It provides funding for various services, including:

  • Employment assistance
  • Substance abuse treatment
  • Housing support
  • Family programming
  • Mentoring services

Nationally

Since its passage in 2008, the Second Chance Act has invested $1.2 billion, infusing state and local efforts to improve outcomes for people leaving prison and jail with unprecedented resources and energy. Over the past 15 years, the Bureau of Justice Assistance and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention have awarded funding to 1,123 Second Chance Act grantees to improve reentry outcomes for individuals, families, and communities.1 And critically, the Second Chance Act-funded National Reentry Resource Center has built up a connective tissue across local, state, Tribal, and federal reentry initiatives, convening the many disparate actors who contribute to reentry success.

The result? A reentry landscape that would have been unrecognizable before the Second Chance Act’s passage. State and local correctional agencies across the country now enthusiastically agree that ensuring reentry success is core to their missions. And they are not alone: state agencies that work on everything from housing and mental health to education and transportation now agree that they too have a role to play in determining outcomes for people leaving prison or jail.

Community-based organizations, many led or staffed by people who were once justice involved themselves, are contributing passion and creativity, standing up innovative programs to connect people with housing, jobs, education, treatment, and more. Researchers have built a rich body of evidence about what works to reduce criminal justice involvement and improve reentry outcomes, allowing the National Reentry Resource Center to create and disseminate toolkits and frameworks to support jurisdictions to scale up effective approaches. And private corporations that once saw criminal justice involvement as fatal to a candidate’s job application are now using their platforms to champion second chance employment as both a moral and business imperative.

The efforts of these key stakeholders are bigger, bolder, and better coordinated than ever, and they are producing results. Recidivism has declined significantly in states across the country, saving governments money, keeping neighborhoods safer, and allowing people to leave their justice involvement behind in favor of rich and meaningful lives in their communities.4

Closer to home

Michigan currently has a recidivism rate measured at 21.0%, the lowest rate on state record. The rate measures those who are three years from their parole date and records how many individuals have reoffended and returned to prison within that timeframe. The latest report shows a 79.0% success rate of those paroled not returning to prison.

MDOC has undertaken numerous evidence-based programs to continue reducing the state’s recidivism rate including supporting access to vital documents, housing, and recovery resources; job placement assistance; and effective supervision and care while individuals are incarcerated and on parole.

Prison educational programs have been seeing significant success with thousands of graduates since their inception. There are now 14 skilled trades programs and 12 post-secondary education programs operating in correctional facilities across the state, with additional programs expected to be added next year.

“This report shows that when we provide a full circle support system to those reentering our communities, they are less likely to return,” Director Heidi E. Washington said. “I am proud of our dedicated MDOC staff, and appreciate the support of our partners, all of whom help motivate and lift up those we are welcoming back into our communities. With increased support for reentry programing, we are very likely to see the state recidivism rate continue to decline.”

This report connects directly with a recently released MDOC prison population report which showed the lowest prison population since 1991, with 32,778 incarcerated individuals statewide, down from a peak of 51,554 individuals in 2007, illustrating success in rehabilitating offenders.5

Why this matters today

The Second Chance Act is up for reauthorization again this year.  It has not attracted much public attention with all the other actions taking place in Washington that have overshadowed this crucial piece of legislation. The Second Chance Reauthorization Act of 2025 (H.R. 3552/S. 1843) aims to enhance rehabilitation efforts for individuals transitioning from incarceration back into their communities.

Key Provisions

Grant Programs

  • Reauthorization: Extends grant programs for five additional years.
  • Support Services: Provides funding for reentry services, including housing, employment training, and addiction treatment.

Focus Areas

  • Substance Use Treatment: Enhances services for individuals with substance use disorders, including peer recovery and case management.
  • Transitional Housing: Expands allowable uses for supportive housing services for those reentering society.

Impact and Importance

  • Recidivism Reduction: Research indicates that effective reentry programs can reduce recidivism rates by 23% since 2008.
  • Community Safety: By supporting successful reintegration, the Act aims to improve public safety and reduce the burden on the criminal justice system.

The Senate passed the Act on October 9, 2025, as part of the National Defense Authorization Act, and it is now awaiting consideration in the House of Representatives.  Tell your Representatives to pass this bill and see it enacted in law so that the progress made in reducing recidivism and US prison populations will continue.

Find Your Representative | house.gov

End Notes

1 https://www.splcenter.org/resources/guides/trump-tough-on-crime-memo-faq/

2 Why the Tough on Crime Approach is Failing and What We Can Do About It – LAMA

3 Recidivism Rates by State 2025

4 50 States, 1 Goal: Examining State-Level Recidivism Trends in the Second Chance Act Era – CSG Justice Center

Testimony

In April of 2025 I was given the opportunity to give my testimony to a group of Keryx volunteers preparing for a Keryx Weekend Spiritual Retreat at Mid-Michigan Correctional Facility.  Prior to Covid they were able to conduct these retreats twice a year.  After Covid it took several years to even begin having weekly groupings with outside volunteers.  Currently they are only allowed to have one weekend retreat per year.  Covid had a significant impact on the Keryx ministry as it did on so many other faith-based ministries.  The need to recruit and train new volunteers means that about one third of the men for the upcoming weekend had never been involved previously.  In preparation for the Keryx Weekend the volunteers gather for three weekend training events.  One of the highlights of this training is that the Rector for the weekend will invite a former inmate who was part of Keryx to come and speak to the group about the impact that Keryx has on the participant’s lives both in prison and after release.  This testimony allows the ministry volunteers to understand how vitally important and life changing these weekends can be for the inmates who attend.

“My name is Tim and I sat at the table of Timothy here in St. Louis level 1 at Keryx 9.”

“I am here to give my testimony and to speak specifically about the Impact that Keryx can have on those who attend a weekend and get involved in regular Keryx meetings while serving time and after they are paroled back into their communities.”

“I grew up in a Christian home and regularly attended church my whole life.  I attended Spring Arbor College and earned a BA in Chemistry and Biology in 1986.  I did a Master’s program in Environmental Studies at Michigan Technological University. Education is a major indicator of whether or not a person is likely to go to prison.“

“After graduation I took a job working for an engineering firm and got married to a college sweetheart.  One of my job assignments was to perform asbestos air monitoring behind the walls of the old prison in Jackson in the intake unit. For a week, every day I was escorted thru the cell block and locked in the attic.  We were chaperoned by a guard and took our breaks on the yard.  I told myself after that experience that I would never see the inside of a prison again.  In less than 2 years I was headhunted by an Environmental Laboratory in Ann Arbor.  We moved there and started a family.  Having a stable family life and work environments is another indicator of whether or not someone might go to prison.“

“We attended the local Free Methodist church near where we lived in Ypsilanti. I was involved in couples and men’s groups.  For 20 years I was a sound man running AV for the church. I was elected to the church board, served as a trustee and on the Pastor’s cabinet. Having deep social and spiritual connections is yet another indicator of whether or not someone might go to prison.“

“In 2008 I defied the odds and was sentenced to serve 8-12 years in the MDOC.  While waiting in the Washtenaw County jail for sentencing, I was served with divorce papers for our 20th anniversary and had my parental rights terminated for my 17-year-old daughter.  I spent the first 5 ½ years of my sentence in Jackson at Cotton Correctional.  I started in level 4 and worked my way down to level 1.  While I was serving time I worked as a tutor in the GED program.  I attended the Protestant church services on Sunday’s.  There isn’t a Keryx program at Cotton. I worked on my spiritual growth by reading all of the books by Chrsitian authors I could get my hands on and memorizing scripture. But my spiritual life was dry, it felt like my prayer’s were going unanswered.”

“The only outside contacts I had were my parents.  They faithfully supported me and encouraged me.  They came every month almost without exception for 8 years.  It was from them that I learned about the earthly manifestation of unconditional love.”

“I was jumped by a gang member in a hit, because another member had gotten caught breaking into my bunkie’s locker. They thought I was a snitch. While I was being attacked in the bathroom, the gang was ransacking my locker.  God intervened and a CO passing by the bathroom stopped the attack.  I was taken into protective custody and transferred to St. Louise level 1.  The COs recovered most of my earthly possessions, which fit into a footlocker and a duffle bag.  When I went to the property room, the CO told me that the power cord had been cut on my TV.  Normally that would mean that they wouldn’t give you back the TV, but the CO surprised me by saying that they were going to repair it.  I was able to pick it up the next day after they had put a new cord on it. No one on the inside that I spoke to said they had never heard of that happening before.”

“I had seen a posting in my housing unit for a Keryx weekend and sent a kite to the chaplain’s office.  I had heard from some of my church brothers in the housing unit that this was a great opportunity.  I was again attending Sunday service and Tuesday night Bible study, but it wasn’t meeting my needs by just having access to a worship service, Bible study and spiritual reading material.  I was again jumped by two gang members on the yard at the direction of my gang leader bunkie, because he thought I had snitched on his spud juice storage location.  In prison, everything is always someone else’s fault, that getting caught couldn’t possibly be because of anything you did, because you’re slick and the COs couldn’t possibly find out without someone telling.  This was regardless of the fact that anyone walking by our cube could smell it from 20 feet away.”

“Instead of being rode out, I was moved from the west side to the east side of the prison.  I again meet church brothers who encouraged me to apply when the next Keryx weekend was posted.  I got accepted and that weekend changed my life.  I had reached the point after being jumped twice in less than a year where I was losing hope.  I felt like my prayers were hitting the ceiling.  My hope for release at my ERD seemed slim based on what the parole board was doing to the guys I knew that had seen the board and been denied. The future looked bleak and my faith was beginning to crumble. The idea of having family, meaningful employment, community and spiritual connections was a fading dream that I didn’t believe I would ever have after I eventually got paroled.”

“Keryx changed that.  I found community and spiritual connection.  I served on three Keryx weekends.  I was a soundman for two and had the privilege of serving in the prayer room for my last.  The outside volunteers that I met treated me like a person and not a number. Their faithfulness in showing up every week for grouping meant more than I can possibly express.  That includes a number of you here in this room.  It is because of Keryx that I regained the spiritual fire that had once burned in me.  In Keryx I found likeminded brother’s in Christ, who encouraged me as I encouraged them.  My prayer’s now reached heaven and answers began to rain down.”

“I was paroled at my ERD.  I was a prodigal son who was welcomed home and given the family credit card.  I served most of my parole as care giver to my mother.  She’s had two knees, two hips, a shoulder and an ankle replaced, so far. I was able to attend my parent’s church and got to taste again the spiritual and community relationships that had come to mean so much to me in Keryx.  My first job working outside of the house was working as a dishwasher at a restaurant where half the staff was wearing a GPS tether. After parole, I began the process of looking for real, meaningful employment. I had the experience of having an application ripped out of my hands before I could even complete it, because of an instant background check.  The lady said she was sorry for my wasting their time.”

“I did find a job where the criminal background check was only focused on the last 7 years, and I got hired.  I started at the bottom as a media blaster cleaning metal engine parts.  That was 5 ½ years ago.  Now I am one of two regional project managers for a quality inspection company overseeing projects all over southeast Michigan.”

“In the last two weeks of my parole I met an old friend who’s father had just passed away.  She and her mother came to church to see friends and to say “thank you” for all the support the church had been providing to them as they mourned.  Leanne and I have been married for four years now.  A Keryx volunteer and pastor named David officiated our backyard wedding during Covid-19.”

“I had written to Wayne, care of the Keryx mailing address after I had been released.  He couldn’t reply to me obviously, but he did pass my contact information to David, who reached out to me about this new ministry that was starting in the Detroit area.  It was there that I met Scott.  Freedom Dreamers has a small group component.  When Covid-19 shut down society, Scott, myself and another brother DJ who had served time, grouped on line with visits from other Freedom Dreamer and Keryx brothers.”

“Scott and his wife became closes friends and my wife helped care for her from time to time during her illness, and was one of the last people to be with her before she lost consciousness and passed.”

“Jesus promised life and not just life, but abundant life.  There was a time before Keryx where my faith wasn’t strong enough to believe that.  A time when everything that I had worked so hard for was taken from me.  A dark place where I didn’t think that I would ever see the light of day again. But Keryx was that light shining in the darkness.  Keryx outside volunteers became the hands and feet of Jesus, bringing more than donuts and songs.  Keryx lead me to service with Freedom Dreamers.  Keryx helped me find my voice.  I have published a blog with over 100,00 words called Christ, Crime and Punishment at www.ccpministries.org, where I reflect on my time in prison, the correction system, societies impressions of crime and punishment and the Christians place in the criminal justice system.”

“I believe that without Keryx I would not have been able to endure prison, like Job endured Satan’s testing.  My life after prison has been richer and more fulfilling than I could have ever dreamed.  I came out of the fiery furnace like Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego praising God and not smelling even like smoke.  I survived the Lion’s den like Daniel.  I have experienced Peter’s forgiveness and Paul’s enlightenment.”

“That doesn’t mean that my life hasn’t been without difficulties or pain.  My daughter has chosen not have a relationship with me.  At the holiday’s I learned thru a prayer by my father when he thanked God for his children, grandchildren and great grand child, that I had become a grandfather.  I don’t even know my grandson’s name and will probably never get to know him.  But I trust in, cling to and rely on God to provide for me, and that everything rests in God’s hand and His perfect timing.  Just like when God brought you and your ministry into my life.”

Sharing my testimony not only brought tears to my eyes, but to many men in the room.  For now, it is as close as I can get to participating in Keryx as an outside volunteer. But my hope and prayer is that someday I will be blessed with the opportunity to go inside the walls and minister to my brothers through this powerful ministry that is impacting so many in such miraculous ways.