Given the devastating effects of COVID-19 on congregate living settings, many correctional agencies have been forced to expedite the release of incarcerated persons beginning in 2020. This research evaluated the recidivism outcomes of 158 individuals released early from prison in response to the pandemic compared to a similar cohort of standard releases. Cox regression analyses revealed that individuals released early were no more or less likely to be re-arrested or returned to prison for a supervision violation compared to the control sample, but they were significantly less likely to be convicted of a new offense. This research demonstrated that carefully selected low-risk individuals can be released early from prison without compromising public safety.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ.WormithS. J. (2000). Level of service/case management inventory: LS/CMI. Multi-Health Systems.
2.
AustinJ. (1986). Using early release to relieve prison crowding: A dilemma in public policy. Crime & Delinquency, 32(4), 404–502.
3.
BrennanT.DieterichW.EhretB. (2009). Evaluating the predictive validity of the COMPAS risk and needs assessment system. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(1), 21–40.
ClearT. R.AustinJ. (2017). Mass incarceration. In LunaE. (Ed.), Reforming criminal justice: A report of the Academy for Justice on bridging the gap between scholarship and reform (Vol. 4, pp. 55–76). Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, Arizona State University.
Crime and Justice Institute. (2021). How criminal justice systems are responding to COVID-19. Retrieved September 19, 2021, from https://www.cjinstitute.org/corona/
9.
DuweG. (2013). What works with Minnesota prisoners: A summary of the effects of correctional programming on recidivism, employment and cost avoidance. Minnesota Department of Corrections.
10.
DuweG. (2014). The development, validity, and reliability of the Minnesota screening tool assessing recidivism risk (MnSTARR). Criminal Justice Policy Review, 25(5), 579–613.
11.
DuweG. (2015). An outcome evaluation of a prison work release program: Estimating its effects on recidivism, employment, and cost avoidance. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 26(6), 531–554.
12.
DuweG. (2021). Evaluating bias, shrinkage and the home-field advantage: Results from a revalidation of the MnSTARR 2.0. Corrections: Policy, Practice, and Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/23774657.2021.2011802
13.
DuweG.KerschnerD. (2008). Removing a nail from the boot camp coffin: An outcome evaluation of Minnesota’s challenge incarceration program. Crime & Delinquency, 54(4), 614–643.
14.
DuweG.RocqueM. (2019). The predictive performance of the Minnesota screening tool assessing recidivism risk (MnSTARR): An external validation. Minnesota Department of Corrections.
15.
Ekland-OlsonS.KellyW.R.JooH.OlbrichJ.EisenbergM. (1993). Justice under pressure: A comparison of recidivism patterns among four successive parole cohorts (1st ed.). Springer-Verlag.
16.
FreemanK. R.HuC.JannettaJ. (2021). Racial equity and criminal justice risk assessment. Urban Institute.
17.
FrostN. A.ClearT. R. (2009). Understanding mass incarceration as a grand social experiment. In SaratA. (Ed.), Special issue new perspectives on crime and criminal justice. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
18.
HarcourtB. E. (2015). Risk as a proxy for race: The dangers of risk assessment. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 27(4), 237–243.
19.
HughesT. A.WilsonD. J. (2003). Reentry trends in the United States. US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
20.
JooH.Ekland-OlsonS.KellyW. R. (1995). Recidivism among paroled property offenders released during a period of prison reform. Criminology, 33(3), 389–410.
21.
KellyW. R.Ekland-OlsonS. (1991). The response of the criminal justice system to prison overcrowding: Recidivism patterns among four successive parole cohorts. Law & Society Review, 25(3), 601–620.
22.
LynchJ.SabolW. (2001) Prisoner reentry in perspective (Crime Policy Report, Vol. 3). Urban Institute Press.
23.
MillerK. M. (2006). The impact of parental incarceration on children: An emerging need for effective interventions. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 23(4), 472–486.
24.
MintonT. D.ZengZ.MaruschakL. M. (2021). Impact of COVID-19 on the local jail population, January–June 2020. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://copafs.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/icljpjj20.pdf
25.
PagerD.WesternB.SugieN. (2009). Sequencing disadvantage: Barriers to employment facing young black and white men with criminal records. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 623(1), 195–213.
26.
ParkeR.Clarke-StewartK. A. (2002, January). Effects of parental incarceration on young children. National policy conference: From prison to home: The effect of incarceration and reentry on children, families, and communities. Department of Health and Human Services.
27.
PetersiliaJ. (2001). Prisoner reentry: Public safety and reintegration challenges. The Prison Journal, 81(3), 360–375.
PhelpsM. S. (2013). The paradox of probation: Community supervision in the age of mass incarceration. Law & Policy, 35(1–2), 51–80.
30.
RettingerL. J.AndrewsD. A. (2010). General risk and need, gender specificity, and the recidivism of female offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(1), 29–46.
31.
SabolW. J.RosichK.KaneK. M.KirkD. P.DubinG. (2002). The influences of truth-in-sentencing reforms on changes in states’ sentencing practices and prison populations. Urban Institute.
32.
SkeemJ. L.LowenkampC. T. (2016). Risk, race, and recidivism: Predictive bias and disparate impact. Criminology, 54(4), 680–712.
33.
SimsB.O’ConnellJ. (1985). Early release: Prison overcrowding and public safety implications. Office of Financial Management.
34.
StemenD. (2007). Reconsidering incarceration: New directions for reducing crime. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 19(4), 221–233.
35.
TravisJ. (2005). But they all come back: Facing the challenges of prisoner reentry. The Urban Institute.
36.
UggenC.McElrathS. (2014). Parental incarceration: What we know and where we need to go. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 104(3), 597–604.
37.
VincentG. M.ViljoenJ. L. (2020). Racist algorithms or systemic problems? Risk assessments and racial disparities. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 47(12), 1576–1584.
38.
VisherC. A.TravisJ. (2011). Life on the outside: Returning home after incarceration. The Prison Journal, 91(3), 102–119.
39.
WalkerS. (2006). Sense and nonsense about crime and drugs: A policy guide (6th ed.). Wadsworth Publishing Company.
40.
WesternB.WildemanC. (2009). The black family and mass incarceration. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 621(1), 221–242.
41.
WheelockD. (2005). Collateral consequences and racial inequality: Felon status restrictions as a system of disadvantage. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(1), 82–90.
42.
WildemanC.GoldmanA. W.TurneyK. (2018). Parental incarceration and child health in the United States. Epidemiologic Reviews, 40(1), 146–156.
43.
WrightK. A.RoskyJ. W. (2011). Too early is too soon: Lessons from the Montana Department of Corrections early release program. Criminology & Public Policy, 10(4), 881–908.
