Photo by Ryunosuke Kikuno on Unsplash
Mariah J. Robles
University of New Haven
High recidivism rates in the United States highlight the challenges of successful reentry. Research shows that reentry is a complex, multi-stage process shaped by life before, during, and after incarceration (Durnescu, 2018; Ortiz & Jackey, 2019; Visher & Travis, 2003). Although the Second Chance Act and expungement efforts have provided some support, more targeted solutions that address each stage of reentry are needed. This paper recommends that halfway houses adopt a three-stage continuum of care model (Inciardi, Lockwood, & Martin, 1994), incorporate digital learning programs to build essential technology skills (Zivanai & Mahlangu, 2022), and establish a system of positive employment credentials, such as character reference letters, for program completion (Denver & DeWitt, 2021). These combined strategies aim to reduce recidivism by addressing both personal development and structural barriers.
Recidivism in the United States
The United States has an incarcerated population upwards of 1.8 million (Kang-Brown & Zhang, 2024). A major contributor to this number is how often people return to prison after being released. A 2021 report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that 66% of people released in 2008 were rearrested within three years, and 82% were rearrested within ten years (Antenangeli & Durose, 2021). While the findings highlight that recidivism is likely to occur soon after release, the ten-year statistics demonstrate that reentry challenges can be long-lasting and complex (ibid.). In fact, scholars have proposed that the reentry process occurs across four key stages: “(a) life prior to prison, (b) life in prison, (c) the moment of release and immediately after prison, (d) life during the months and years following release” (Visher & Travis, 2003, p. 94). Each stage provides a critical context for understanding an individual’s likelihood of desisting from or persisting in criminal behavior.
For many justice-involved individuals, incarceration becomes a revolving door, with each legal system encounter compounding disadvantages that increase the risk of recidivism. Barriers such as limited employment opportunities due to background checks, housing insecurity, complying with mandatory reporting, and addressing basic education needs often complicate successful reintegration (Graffam et al., 2004). As a result, many criminal record-holders return home facing structural and individual-level barriers to their success.
Beyond personal struggles, recidivism also imposes significant financial and social costs. Taxpayers fund the high costs of incarceration, while families and communities endure the emotional and generational impacts. Children of incarcerated parents face an increased risk of future justice involvement, mental health issues, and aggressive behaviors (Aaron & Dallaire, 2010; Geller et al., 2012; Jones et al., 2024). Moreover, modern technological advancements present a new set of barriers for individuals with lengthy sentences who may find applying for jobs online or navigating electronic communications difficult (Zivanai & Mahlangu, 2022). Together, these challenges deepen the social and economic consequences of incarceration and recidivism.
For these reasons, the various stages of the reentry process have been closely examined to answer the question “What works?”in breaking the cycle of justice system involvement and reducing recidivism (Durnescu, 2018; Inciardi et al., 1997; Martinson, 1974; Ndrecka, 2014; Ortiz & Jackey, 2019). Over time, it has become clear that the reentry process is shaped by complex, interrelated factors, meaning that there is no one-size-fits-all solution for reducing recidivism. In response, policymakers have implemented reentry-focused legislation and initiatives aimed at supporting the needs of returning citizens. Early efforts such as the Second Chance Act (SCA) and additional legislative actions have contributed significantly to modern reentry policy and programming.
Legislation and Programs
The Second Chance Act (SCA), passed with bipartisan support in April 2008, was designed to reduce recidivism by strengthening reentry support at the state and local levels (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2023; O’Hear, 2007). The Serious and Violent Offender Initiative (SVORI) preceded the SCA with a similar vision of investing financial resources in collaborative efforts between institutional and community-based agencies aimed at reducing recidivism (Lattimore et al., 2004). Since the SCA’s enactment, more than $600 million in grants have supported over 845 programs across the country, extending its impact to over 163,000 justice-involved individuals (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2023). The SCA represents a meaningful shift toward funding evidence-based practices aimed at addressing the many barriers recordholders face upon release.
In addition to the large-scale programs implemented through the SCA and SVORI, starting around 2018, many states have started passing laws to expunge criminal records, referred to as “Clean State” laws (Clean Slate Initiative, n.d.). However, expungement policies have not always been supported. Early scholars referred to the expungement of criminal records as “record manipulation” (Kogon & Loughery, 1970, p. 391). Other scholars have criticized expungement as an incomplete solution, suggesting that it fosters dishonesty and does not truly offer the necessary rehabilitative services needed for reentry success (Franklin & Johnsen, 1981, p. 744). Recent research has begun to consider the digital footprint of criminal records, showing how Google searches can pull up records that legislative efforts have tried to erase (Capuder, 2020). On top of that, Capuder (2020) argues that restitution fees for expungement can create a “poverty trap,” making it harder for recordholders to access expungement (p. 516).
Recent research highlights a shift in public opinion towards supporting expungement of criminal records (Burton et al., 2021). Using a nationally representative sample of 1,000 American adults, Burton and colleagues (2021) found that public support for expungement tends to follow an “informal risk principle” (p. 139). This concept refers to the public’s tendency to judge recordholders’ risk based on perceived rehabilitation, such as a clean record over time or community involvement (ibid.). Positive credentials can also mitigate criminal record stigma primarily by increasing perceived trustworthiness of recordholders, with reference letters playing a strong role in transferring trust from a credible source to the applicant (Denver & DeWitt, 2021). These initiatives represent key components of broader reentry efforts.
Halfway House Research
Among the programs supported through the Second Chance Act (SCA) are halfway houses, which operate in two forms: “halfway-into-prisons” or “halfway-out-of-prison” models (Caputo, 2004). Both models are based on the same framework, albeit at different stages within the four stages identified by Visher and Travis (2003). “Halfway-in” programs serve as a form of community corrections for individuals sentenced to a halfway house instead of prison. “Halfway-out” programs are more common and are generally granted to incarcerated individuals with good time credits and approximately 6 months remaining of their sentence (Caputo, 2004; Ndrecka, 2014). Halfway-out programs will be the focus of this brief, as they allow incarcerated individuals to serve the remainder of their sentence in the community and jumpstart the reentry process.
Halfway houses provide 24-hour supervision while allowing residents to leave for work, education, or other approved responsibilities (Caputo, 2004). They offer structure and rehabilitative resources, such as employment support and therapy, to help stabilize returning citizens (Nielsen & Scarpetti, 1995). To address the various stages of reentry, many halfway houses follow a three-stage continuum of care model (Duwe & King, 2013), an evidence-based approach designed to support reentry across multiple stages. This model includes: (1) in-prison therapeutic communities (TCs), (2) transitional work-release TCs, and (3) after care in the community (Duwe & King, 2013). Moreover, recognizing that time is one of the key factors that inmates have in abundance (Inciardi, Lockwood, & Martin, 1994), the implementation of a three-stage model that begins in prison allows incarcerated individuals to invest more time into their rehabilitation early on.
Scholars have previously identified the benefits of halfway houses: they offer a more humane, cost-efficient alternative to incarceration; promote gradual reintegration; and are often based on evidence-based practices (Caputo, 2004; Ndrecka, 2014; Ortiz & Jackey, 2019). However, some scholars argue that halfway houses reflect a shift in the structure of punishment rather than true reform, or one that redistributes the carceral state rather than dismantles it (Miller, 2014; Ortiz & Jackey, 2019). This process, referred to as carceral devolution (Miller, 2014), transfers rehabilitative responsibilities from prisons to community-based organizations, nonprofits, and transitional housing programs. Drawing from Foucault’s concept of the carceral network, critics argue that halfway houses extend surveillance and moral discipline into everyday life, disproportionately monitoring marginalized groups and reinforcing hierarchies of race and class (Miller, 2014; Miller & Stuart, 2017). The privatization and for-profit operation of halfway houses also place increased financial burdens on residents (Ortiz & Jackey, 2019). Although halfway houses have faced considerable criticism, programs such as the Delaware Crest Outreach Center represent a halfway house model that other programs potentially can follow.
Crest Outreach Center: What Works?
The Delaware Crest Outreach Center is a therapeutic community (TC) work-release program implemented in 1988 (Hooper et al., 1993). Crest is considered the second stage in the continuum of care treatment model; however, within Crest itself, there are five treatment phases (Inciardi, Lockwood, & Martin, 1994). Crest is unique because it “represented the first attempt, anywhere in the world, at developing a correctional work release program built on a therapeutic community model” (Martin et al., 1999, p. 299). Thus, it makes sense to use Crest as a guide for halfway house programming. The first phase of the continuum of care model within the Crest framework includes an in-prison therapeutic community (TC), known as KEY, where participants are separated from the general prison population to reshape socialization patterns and initiate the reentry process (Hooper et al., 1993).
The second phase is the work-release TC, or the Crest Outreach Program, which pursues multiple goals. The primary goals of Crest are to facilitate a drug-free and crime-free life (Nielsen & Scarpetti, 1995, p. 250). The work-release aspect supports this goal by helping participants gain employment and establish structure (Inciardi, Lockwood, & Martin, 1994; Nielsen & Scarpetti, 1995). This includes skills such as job interview preparation and resume workshops but does not include the evolving aspect of the digital age, as Crest was implemented several decades ago. This is a shortcoming of Crest, and something to be considered as society continues to evolve into a digital space.
The secondary goals of Crest include building self-esteem, developing pro-social values, strengthening family relationships, and addressing addiction, all of which contribute to desistance from crime (Nielsen & Scarpetti, 1995, p. 250). A key component of the program is its mentorship model, where senior Crest participants mentor newer members, encouraging accountability, alignment with program values, and personal growth (Nielsen & Scarpetti, 1995, p. 252). This peer-led approach, coupled with the various therapeutic interventions within Crest, creates an environment based on accountability, opportunity, and growth (Inciardi, Lockwood, & Martin, 1994). This second stage within the larger three-stage continuum of care model helps bridge the gap between incarceration and community reintegration.
The final phase of the three-stage model is the aftercare component, where participants are provided with continued treatment services as they fully reintegrate into the community, outside of Crest (Inciardi, Martin, & Surratt, 2000). The aftercare component provides a space for participants to seek assistance with issues faced within the community, should they arise. Program evaluations of Crest lend support to its effectiveness in reducing relapse and recidivism (Inciardi et al., 1997; Nielsen, Scarpitti, & Inciardi, 1996).
While much of the research on Crest is from the 1990s and early 2000s, it remains one of the most documented examples of a therapeutic community work-release model. It is also worth discussing because it was the first of its kind to be implemented anywhere in the world (Martin et al., 1999, p. 299). The continuum of care model remains the strongest aspect of KEY and Crest. It seems fruitful to address reentry as a process, addressed in incremental stages, rather than a singular event. The advantages of this model include early intervention, consistency across stages of reentry, and long-term support (Inciardi, Martin, & Surratt, 2000).
Recommendation 1: Follow a Three-Stage Continuum of Care Model
There is much empirical support for the three-stage continuum of care model (Inciardi et al., 1997; McKneely, 2023; Ndrecka, 2014; Nielsen, Scarpitti, & Inciardi, 1996; Ortiz & Jackey, 2019), with formerly incarcerated individuals voicing that they hope for such a model to guide their reentry (Ortiz & Jackey, 2019). Similarly, McKneely (2023) highlights how following the multi-stage model is essential in modern reentry programming. One challenge to the implementation of this model is the significant resources required for its operation. Facility availability, staff recruitment, client selection, standards of treatment versus corrections, and program aftercare are crucial yet difficult to establish immediately, as seen throughout the implementation of KEY and Crest (Inciardi et al., 1992; Inciardi & Lockwood, 1994) Without careful design, programs risk carceral devolution effects that Miller (2014) discussed.
Recommendation 2: Implement Digital Learning Advancement Programs
Incorporating a digital learning advancement component into halfway houses could significantly ease the reentry process while also improving participants’ job skills. As technology and artificial intelligence continue to advance, it may be increasingly difficult to secure stable employment without basic computer or technology skills. Teaching program participants how to navigate computers and communication online (i.e., email etiquette) could be fruitful, especially as basic needs such as healthcare services, education, social services, and job searches are increasingly accessed online (Zivani & Mahlangu, 2022). Integrating digital learning programs, however, necessitates funding and access to such technologies, a significant limitation of this recommendation.
Recommendation 3: Provide Positive Employment Credentials
Establishing a formal system of positive employment credentials, such as letters of recommendation for individuals who complete the program, both incentivizes program completion and improves employability (Denver & DeWitt, 2023). This approach also addresses earlier concerns about expungement encouraging “record manipulation” (Kogon & Loughery, 1970, p. 391). Rather than erasing the criminal record, it allows trusted figures to formally recognize the steps individuals have made toward improving their future, thus influencing the “informal risk” perceived by employers (Burton et al., 2021, p. 139). This may also increase participants’ self-esteem by encouraging acceptance of past mistakes and recognizing their tenacity in rewriting the script, or trajectory, of their lives. One possible risk of positive credentials is that they may become generic, fill-in-the-blank references, rather than individualized accounts of progress. There is also the possibility that factors such as offense type or stage of reentry may influence employers’ decisions more heavily than letters of recommendation (Denver & DeWitt, 2023).
Program Recommendations
Based upon the reviewed research, it is recommended that halfway houses adopt a three-stage continuum of care model and adapt to the technological advancements of today’s environment. Formerly incarcerated individuals believe a three-stage model is fruitful to their reentry (Ortiz & Jackey, 2019), and there is empirical support for their effectiveness (Inciardi, Lockwood, & Martin, 1994). Addressing reentry through the different stages identified by Visher and Travis (2003) may serve as a reminder of program goals despite the unique challenges each stage brings. Moreover, developing digital skills is becoming increasingly important for securing employment, especially for individuals whose limited job prospects may be overtaken by artificial intelligence. Additionally, formalizing a process of letters of recommendation for program completion could be highly beneficial. Similar to references provided for college students, these letters would communicate what each participant can contribute to a company based on their lived experiences, allowing employers to see beyond a criminal record and gain a better understanding of their character.
References
Aaron, L., & Dallaire, D. H. (2010). Parental incarceration and multiple risk experiences: Effects on family dynamics and children’s delinquency. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 1471-1484.
This study examines the impact of parental incarceration on children’s delinquency while controlling for contextual risk factors and family processes. Using a sample of children 10-14 years old, hierarchical linear regression analyses reveal that parental incarceration has adverse effects on both family dynamics and children’s behavior.
Antenangeli, L., & Durose, M. R. (2021, September). Recidivism of prisoners released in 24 states in 2008: A 10-year follow-up period (2008-2018) (NCJ 256094). Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/recidivism-prisoners-released-24-states-2008-10-year-follow-period-2008-2018
Summarizes recidivism statistics on state prisoners across 24 states. Individuals were released in 2008 and followed to 2018.
Burton, A. L., Cullen, F. T., Pickett, J. T., Burton Jr, V. S., & Thielo, A. J. (2021). Beyond the eternal criminal record: Public support for expungement. Criminology & Public Policy, 20(1), 123-151.
Explores public attitudes toward the expungement of criminal records using a national sample of 1,000 American adults. Findings reveal that Americans support expungement when the perceived risk to public safety is low, reflecting an “informal risk principle” (p. 139).
Bureau of Justice Assistance. (2023, November). Second Chance Act Fact Sheet: Fiscal Years 2009-2022 [Fact Sheet]. Retrieved from https://bja.ojp.gov/doc/archive_sca-fact-sheet-fy2009-2022.pdf
This fact sheet highlights the financial investments and significant impact of the Second Chance Act from fiscal years 2009-2022.
Capuder, K. E. (2020). Can a person’s “slate” ever really be” cleaned”? The modern-day implications of Pennsylvania’s clean slate act. John’s Law Review, 94, 501.
This research note outlines the challenges of Pennsylvania’s clean slate act and proposes solutions to such challenges.
Caputo, G. A. (2004). Intermediate sanctions in corrections (No. 4). University of North Texas Press.
This book provides a detailed overview of the two primary types of halfway houses and their role as intermediate sanctions. It describes the general operation and key purposes of halfway houses.
Clean Slate Initiative. (n.d.). Clean Slate in the States. Retrieved May 12, 2025, from https://www.cleanslateinitiative.org/states
This website details the Clean Slate Laws, which states have enacted them, and what they aim to do.
Denver, M., & DeWitt, S. E. (2023). “[It’s] what you do after the mistake that counts”: Positive employment credentials, criminal record stigma, and potential pathways of mediation. Criminology, 61(1), 5-39.
Mediation analyses and coding of open-ended responses were used to assess the varying effects of positive credentials on hiring decisions for recordholders (n = 3,476). Results indicate that trustworthiness is the most influential in reducing stigma towards recordholders. This work highlights the importance of credentials that convey character to potential employers.
Durnescu, I. (2018). The five stages of prisoner reentry: Toward a process theory. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(8), 2195-2215.
This ethnographic study details the reentry experiences of 58 Roma and Romanian individuals. It identifies five different stages of the reentry process and the participants’ perspectives throughout each stage.
Duwe, G., & King, M. (2013). Can faith-based correctional programs work? An outcome evaluation of the InnerChange Freedom Initiative in Minnesota. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 57(7), 813-841.
This evaluation of InnerChange Freedom Initiative provided support for the continuum of care model.
Franklin, M. A., & Johnsen, D. (1981). Expunging criminal records: concealment and dishonesty in an open society. Hofstra Law Review, 9(3), 733-774.
This article critiques the practice of expunging criminal records, highlighting that it involves dishonesty and secrecy, which hinders societal acceptance of recordholders.
Geller, A., Cooper, C. E., Garfinkel, I., Schwartz-Soicher, O., & Mincy, R. B. (2012). Beyond absenteeism: Father incarceration and child development. Demography, 49, 49-76.
Examines the impact of paternal incarceration on child development using a nationally representative sample from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study (n = 3,000). Their findings suggest that children of incarcerated fathers experience increased aggressive behaviors and attention problems.
Graffam, J., Shinkfield, A., Lavelle, B., & McPherson, W. (2004). Variables affecting successful reintegration as perceived by offenders and professionals. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 40(1/2), 147-171.
Using semi-structured interviews with offenders and criminal justice professionals, their qualitative work uncovered and contextualized the existing barriers within six key domains that formerly incarcerated individuals face during reentry.
Hooper, R. M., Lockwood, D., & Inciardi, J. A. (1993). Treatment techniques in corrections-based therapeutic communities. The Prison Journal, 73(3), 290-306.
This article provides insight into the theoretical foundations and services offered within the KEY program and Crest Outreach Center. It highlights the importance of the continuum of care model in establishing long-term effects on reentry.
Inciardi, J., & Lockwood, D. (1994). When worlds collide: Establishing CREST outreach center. Drug abuse treatment: The implementation of innovative approaches. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 63-78.
This chapter provides an inside look at the challenges faced during the implementation of the Crest program. Such openness is crucial to this brief so that future programming efforts can learn from past mistakes.
Inciardi, J. A., Lockwood, D., & Martin, S. S. (1994). Therapeutic communities in corrections and work release: Some clinical and policy considerations. NIDA Research Monograph, 144, 259-259.
This chapter thoroughly discusses the continuum of care model and the five treatment phases within the Crest Outreach Center. Crest is part of a three-stage continuum of care model, but within the program itself there are five-phases.
Inciardi, J. A., Martin, S. S., Butzin, C. A., Hooper, R. M., & Harrison, L. D. (1997). An effective model of prison-based treatment for drug-involved offenders. Journal of Drug Issues, 27(2), 261-278.
This article specifically examines relapse and recidivism outcomes at 18-months for Crest participants who received one, two, or all three stages of treatment in the continuum of care model. The results support the effectiveness of a continuum of care model, with participants who progressed through all three stages showing significantly lower rates of relapse and recidivism compared to those who received less treatment.
Inciardi, J. A., Martin, S. S., Lockwood, D., Hooper, R. M., & Wald, B. M. (1992). Obstacles to the implementation and evaluation of drug treatment programs in correctional settings: Reviewing the Delaware KEY experience. NIDA Research Monograph, 118, 176-176.
This chapter highlights key issues during the implementation of KEY, ranging from but not limited to challenges with funding, communication, and resource availability.
Jones, A., Buntman, F., Ishizawa, H., & Lese, K. (2024). The mental health consequences of parental incarceration: Evidence from a nationally representative longitudinal study of adolescents through adulthood in the United States. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 49(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-022-09689-2
Using longitudinal data from the Add Health study, the researchers highlight the long-term and generational impacts of parental incarceration on children’s mental health.
Kang-Brown, J., & Zhang, J. (2024, October). People in Jail and Prison in 2024. Vera Institute of Justice.
This datasheet conveyed statistics for the incarcerated population as of Spring 2024.
Kogon, B., & Loughery, D. L. Jr. (1970). Sealing and expungement of criminal records – the big lie. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 61(3), 378-392.
This article argues that expungement of criminal records leaves several unresolved issues regarding the reentry process, and greater efforts should be allocated towards true rehabilitative approaches.
Lattimore, P. K., Brumbaugh, S., Visher, C., Lindquist, C., Winterfield, L., Salas, M., & Zweig, J. (2004). National portrait of SVORI. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
This multi-site evaluation of SVORI provides detailed insights into the programs implemented across all 50 states.
Martin, S. S., Butzin, C. A., Saum, C. A., & Inciardi, J. A. (1999). Three-year outcomes of therapeutic community treatment for drug-involved offenders in Delaware: From prison to work release to aftercare. The Prison Journal, 79(3), 294-320.
This work examined the effectiveness of Crest and the use of services (I.e., program participation, program completion, and aftercare) on relapse and recidivism. Logistic regression analyses revealed that participants who had the full three-stage model had lower relapse and recidivism compared to those with only the first or second stage model.
Martinson, R. (1974). What works? Questions and answers about prison reform. The Public Interest, 35, 22-54.
This seminal work gained popularity for Martinson’s conclusion that “nothing works” in reducing recidivism.
Miller, R. J. (2014). Devolving the carceral state: Race, prisoner reentry, and the micro-politics of urban poverty management. Punishment & Society, 16(3), 305-335.
This ethnographic study of prisoner reentry programs in Chicago argues that halfway houses extend Foucault’s concept of the carceral network into the community, through a process defined as carceral devolution.
Miller, R. J., & Stuart, F. (2017). Carceral citizenship: Race, rights and responsibility in the age of mass supervision. Theoretical Criminology, 21(4), 532-548.
This article examined how halfway houses emphasize personal agency and change, while failing to address structural barriers to desistance. The authors argued that this inconsistency places disproportionate responsibility on individuals and reinforces race- and class-based inequalities.
Ndrecka, M. (2014). The impact of reentry programs on recidivism: A meta-analysis. University of Cincinnati.
This meta-analysis evaluates the effectiveness of reentry programs in reducing recidivism and identifies which types of programs are most associated with recidivism. Of interest to the current work are the findings that programs beginning during incarceration and following a therapeutic community model reduce recidivism the most.
Nielsen, A. L., & Scarpitti, F. R. (1995). Argot use in a therapeutic community. Deviant Behavior, 16(3), 245-267.
This process evaluation of the Crest Outreach Center examines the treatments offered within the program and explores how the use of argot contributes to desistance among participants.
Nielsen, A. L., Scarpitti, F. R., & Inciardi, J. A. (1996). Integrating the therapeutic community and work release for drug-involved offenders: The CREST program. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 13(4), 349-358.
This article examines the effectiveness of Crest in reducing relapse and recidivism rates for a sample of drug-involved adult offenders. Follow-up data collected at 6- and 18-month indicate that Crest participants had lower relapse and recidivism rates compared to the control group.
O’Hear, M. M. (2007). The second chance act and the future of reentry reform. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 20(1), 75-83.
Provides a review of the second chance act and its anticipated impact on prisoner reentry.
Ortiz, J. M., & Jackey, H. (2019). The system is not broken, it is intentional: The prisoner reentry industry as deliberate structural violence. The Prison Journal, 99(4), 484-503.
This article provided insight into the reentry process from the perspective of formerly incarcerated individuals and reentry service providers. It highlighted common barriers across different stages of reentry. Of particular interest was the discussion of for-profit halfway houses and formerly incarcerated individuals’ request for the continuum of care model.
Visher, C. A., & Travis, J. (2003). Transitions from prison to community: Understanding individual pathways. Annual Review of Sociology, 29(1), 89-113.
This article identifies four key stages of the reentry process and calls for future research to use multilevel analyses of longitudinal data to better understand the complexities of reentry.
Zivanai, E., & Mahlangu, G. (2022). Digital prison rehabilitation and successful re-entry into a digital society: A systematic literature review on the new reality on prison rehabilitation, Cogent Social Sciences, 8(1), https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2022.2116809
This systematic review of the literature on digital prison rehabilitation argues that developing digital skills is crucial for preparing incarcerated individuals’ return to a digitized society.