Photo by Tom Rumble on Unsplash
Agnetha Gillbanks
University of New Haven
Prison overcrowding has been an issue in the United States for decades due to the tough-on-crime movement that was dominant in the 1980s (Mauer, 1999). States grappled with housing inmates that were well beyond their capacity, creating conditions that were less than ideal. In the past few years, a different issue has begun to emerge, with an increase in the number of offenders released from prisons. Recent reports estimate that nearly 600,000 offenders return to the community annually (Career Resources, 2024), with the numbers steadily increasing. This has led to new challenges in providing housing for formerly incarcerated individuals (FII). While several programs and policies have been introduced to aid successful reentry, barriers still exist. Therefore, it is important to adopt strategies that address the unique challenges faced by FII’s, offering long term solutions over temporary fixes.
Statement of the Problem
Individuals returning to the community are often unprepared for the challenges they face outside prison like securing employment, building family ties, and accessing healthcare. Among these, stable housing is considered key to successful reentry but is often thwarted due to systemic barriers, legal restrictions, and lack of affordable housing options (Fontaine, 2013). These obstacles not only affect successful reentry but also lead to increased chances of reoffending. According to a report by Alper and colleagues (2018), 42% of offenders were arrested within one year of release with the number rising to 83% by the end of nine years. The lack of stable housing also increases the risk of homelessness among offenders, an issue that was further exacerbated by the Supreme Court ruling in the City of Grants Pass v. Johnson. This decision permitted certain cities to enforce camping bans against individuals experiencing homelessness (Supreme Court of the United States, 2024). Since then, many states have adopted similar laws, leading to the criminalization of the homeless and perpetuating the cycle of incarceration and instability.
Although various programs and policies have been implemented at local, state, and federal levels to improve reentry, systemic barriers restrict access to housing for FII’s. Many existing policies focus on short-term housing solutions, often neglecting the long-term challenges that come from having a criminal record. The current policy recommendation takes into consideration the limitations of existing policies, emphasizing the need for long-term strategies that address individual needs, while reducing the barriers that impede successful reentry.
Pre-Existing Policies
The challenge of securing housing for FII’s is widespread across the United States, with housing options depleting every year (Harati et al., 2025). While the office of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has taken steps to increase the availability of housing options, many of the programs and policies do not apply to FII’s. As a result, these individuals often struggle to obtain stable housing, increasing the likelihood of recidivism.
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Policies
Housing initiatives are most often managed by HUD, whose main aim is to provide fair and equal access to housing. Such initiatives often target low-income families by offering rental subsidies through programs like project-based public housing and Section 8 vouchers (Hughes, 2021). These programs allow eligible candidates to live in public and private housing units, contributing approximately 30% of their monthly income toward rent and utilities, with the remaining cost being covered by the government (Augustine & Kushel, 2022). Despite this, many FII’s face significant challenges in accessing these subsidies, due to restrictive eligibility criteria or administrative discretion.
In addition, housing policies from the 1980s continue to influence current-day efforts. For instance, HUD’s “one strike” policy allowed public housing authorities to reject applicants with a history of drug-related offenses (Stanley-Becker, 2022). Although the Second Chance Act urged HUD to revise these guidelines, individuals convicted of methamphetamine manufacturing and sex offenders remain banned from receiving rental subsidies (Taber et al., 2023). Moreover, under the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990, individuals evicted for drug offenses can be banned from receiving housing subsidies for three years, further hindering access to stable housing (Augustine & Kushel, 2022). Public housing authorities (PHAs) also have broad discretionary power to deny housing to individuals with a criminal history, often with no guidelines, leading to discriminatory decisions (Curtis, 2013).
Given these obstacles, FII’s often turn to family and friends for temporary shelter. However, this is further complicated by restrictive housing policies. In public housing, HUD regulations stipulate that all residents be listed on the lease, and violations such as housing someone with a criminal record without prior approval can result in evictions (Augustine & Kushel, 2022). Additionally, housing arrangements may be restricted by parole and probation guidelines. For example, an FII was prohibited from living with his family because one member owned a firearm as part of their job in security, which was a direct violation of his parole (Beck et al., 2023). This case highlights the barriers that are created by existing policies and parole supervisions that reduce the chances of successful reentry.
Criminal Background Checks
The Fair Housing Act allows landlords to conduct background checks, provided the decisions are fair and safeguard both the community and property (Reentry Coordination Council, 2022). Despite this, FII’s continue to face widespread discrimination in the private housing market. While the Fair Housing Act restricts denying housing based on a criminal record, there are currently no legal protections preventing landlords from conducting background checks or mandating confidentiality of criminal history (Stainbrook & Tibaduiza, 2024). In employment, Ban the Box (BTB) policies exist, which delay background checks until later in the hiring process, providing FII’s a fair chance at being hired (Agan & Starr, 2018). Similar efforts have been made to introduce BTB policies in housing to prevent discrimination, but nothing has come into effect (De La Garza, 2020). Consequently, landlords conduct extensive background checks, denying housing to individuals with a criminal record, irrespective of the factors surrounding the offense (Oyama, 2009).
Beyond criminal background checks, payment stability is another significant concern. A study by Kirk and colleagues (2018) explored the effectiveness of the MOVE program, which relocates offenders far away from their original neighborhood while incentivizing landlords with three months’ rent upfront. However, many landlords were reluctant to agree, due to payments concerns beyond the initial months, preferring long-term guarantees (Kirk et al., 2018). As a result, the program was modified to provide 6 months of rent. This highlights the need for programs and policies that prioritize long-term options to help with successful reentry and housing stability.
Policy Options
Option 1: Voucher Programs to Support Reentry
The United States is currently facing a significant shortage of affordable housing, with approximately 11 million individuals falling into the category of low-income households (Harati et al., 2025). Despite efforts by HUD to address this issue through Section 8 voucher programs, only a portion of households qualify for housing vouchers, with FII’s having little to no chance of securing these options. To address this issue, some states like Washington have implemented voucher programs that cover rent for three months following release (Hamilton et al., 2015). While this initiative resulted in a moderate reduction in recidivism, the results were not significant, likely due to the short duration of support offered. As highlighted by Alper and colleagues (2018), the first year after release is the most crucial, with a large number of individuals recidivating. This highlights the need for continued support during the early stages, to ensure successful reentry.
With this in mind, it is recommended that HUD develop a special voucher program specifically for FII’s. This program would provide full rental coverage for the first six months after release, with individual contributions starting thereafter and capping at 20% of their income. A quota system should be implemented, ensuring that a specific percentage of available housing resources is allocated to FII’s. This would help guarantee that FII’s are not competing with other low-income households to secure housing units. Additionally, the program should also include drug offenders, as they are often disproportionately affected by housing policies.
Advantages:
This program can prove beneficial in multiple ways as it addresses concerns at various levels. To begin with, it has been established that landlords have significant issues with providing housing for FII’s due to a plethora of reasons, one of which is long term stability (Kirk et al., 2018). This program would reduce landowner concerns while increasing the chances of securing housing for individuals with a criminal record. Additionally, the program would also provide housing for family members of FII’ who often belong to low-income households. Living with family members can also strengthen social bonds, which has proved to be effective in reducing recidivism (Cataldi & Cataldi, 2024; Humphrey et al., 2023). The implementation should also be relatively straightforward as a similar program already exists for low-income households.
Disadvantages:
Despite this, the program can face difficulties especially when it comes to gaining public favor. Research has often found that the general public is not supportive of having neighbors who are FII’s for fear of being victimized (Peterson & Holmen, 2024). Additionally, due to the limited availability of housing options (Harati et al., 2025), FII’s may still face issues in securing housing. Finally, this program does not take into consideration wraparound services which are also essential to successful reentry.
Option 2: Ban the Box for Housing
Criminal history checks are a major source of discrimination in the private housing market, with many FII not being considered from the onset (Beck et al., 2023). In a similar vein, FII’s face many barriers when seeking employment due to their criminal background. A study by Pager (2003) found that individuals with a criminal record have lower chances of being employed, with racial disparities further exacerbating the issue. To address this, BTB policies were implemented in many jurisdictions, delaying background checks until the final stages of the hiring process (Agan & Starr, 2016). Based on this, it is recommended that a BTB policy be implemented that prohibit landlords from conducting criminal background checks until the final stages, ideally just before the lease is signed.
In addition, while current HUD guidelines discourage landlords from considering criminal records beyond 5 years, this is often ignored, with many applicants being denied housing based on convictions that occurred over a decade ago (Tran-Leung, 2015). Furthermore, the existing rules provided by HUD are vague, providing landlords broad discretion in determining eligibility. This not only creates inconsistencies but penalizes individuals who have demonstrated long-term rehabilitation.
With this in mind, it is further recommended that HUD reduce the guidelines for criminal background checks to three years. This offers a reasonable amount of time to assess whether an individual is rehabilitated and ready to reintegrate back into society. Moreover, HUD should implement a clear, standardized policy on how criminal records should be used in housing decisions. This would provide guidance for landlords and ensure consistency and fairness in the housing market. While there is no set timeframe to understand when an individual fully desists from crime (Laub & Sampson, 2001) reducing the barriers to reentry can help break the cycle of recidivism.
Advantages:
The implementation of BTB would reduce discrimination and increase consistency in the private housing market. As landowners are prohibited from making decisions until the final stages of the process, it provides FII’s an opportunity to demonstrate their sustainability, while ensuring fair and equal access to housing units.
Disadvantages:
While BTB for housing can prove beneficial for FII’s, there may be significant pushbacks from landowners who are unwilling to rent to individuals without knowing their complete history. Additionally, while this approach may provide FII’s a chance at securing housing, there is a very high possibility that they can be rejected at the final stages once a criminal history check has been conducted. Enforcement of BTB for housing may also pose a challenge as it is impossible to know if landowners are abiding by the guidelines that have been implemented. Finally, while this approach reduces the chance of discrimination against FII’s there is still a risk of other forms of bias such as those against people of color.
Option 3: Prerelease Housing Preparation
Although numerous programs exist to support FII’s, the majority only offer assistance after release (Cook et al., 2015; Kirk et al., 2018). For those who are incarcerated for a short period, reintegration may be manageable. However, for individuals who have served long sentences, release can be a daunting process. They return to a world that is drastically different from the one they left, often having weak family ties and limited support systems. These individuals are frequently overlooked in reentry programs, leaving them vulnerable to recidivism and homelessness.
To address this, policies must aim to support incarcerated individuals well before their release. For example, in Washington, offenders are not released until housing is secured; however, this is counterproductive as it leads to extended periods of incarceration beyond their sentence (Hamilton et al., 2015). Rather than delaying release, a better approach would be to implement pre-planning programs that begin at least 6 months prior to release. These programs would include counseling sessions to evaluate possible housing prospects, allocating case managers to explore employment options, and connecting individuals with local alcohol and substance abuse treatment centers. These tools and resources would help prepare individuals for the challenges they would face while allowing for a smoother transition into the community.
Advantages:
The implementation to this program would drastically reduce the chances of homelessness since most FII’s often face multiple barriers in securing housing. This approach is also different from existing programs as it is more proactive than reactive, ensuring that FII’s have some form of stable housing at least during the initial period of release. Moreover, this is cost effective as it does not provide housing to individuals but puts them in contact with already existing programs or family and friends who can offer some stability during early reentry.
Disadvantages:
One of the major issues with implementation of such programs is coordination challenges. Research has found that while the multi-agency approach can be beneficial, it can also prove extremely challenging (Byrdsong et al., 2016) due to differing opinions among organizations. Moreover, it is impossible for every individual in prison to receive these services and therefore bias can exist when choosing who would be eligible to participate.
Recommendations
The United States has the world’s largest incarceration rate, with McLaughlin and colleagues (2016) estimating that the annual cost of incarceration can reach approximately one trillion a year. These staggering numbers can be attributed to multiple factors such as low socio-economic status and tough on crime policies that disproportionately affect people of color (Gottschalk, 2011). While there are multiple ways to address such issues, it is crucial to address the underlying causes of recidivism, beginning with the most basic needs, particularly housing. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHU, 1948) housing is a primary need and is considered a basic human right. Moreover, as highlighted by research it is also crucial to successful reentry (Fontaine, 2013). Therefore, investing in reentry housing programs can reduce the chances of recidivism can prove beneficial in the long run.
With this in mind, it is recommended that a combination of voucher programs and pre-release housing preparation be implemented to effectively reintegrate individuals into the community and reduce the likelihood of recidivism. The combination of both programs can prove successful as each addresses the limitations of the other. For example, while voucher programs can be beneficial for some individuals, they may not be available to everyone released from prison. Therefore, incorporating pre-release housing would address these limitations to some extent. Pre-release programs would provide an opportunity for individuals to prepare for reentry well before their release. Additionally, wrap-around services would address employment, substance abuse and mental health issues that also increase the likelihood of recidivism, and are important for successful reintegration. This combination can provide a broader range of services while ensuring long-term sustainability and support helping individuals to lead productive lives. Furthermore, these programs would not only prove cost effective but also but also focus on long term stability which is key to successful reentry (Hamilton et al., 2015; Kirk et al., 2018).
The barriers that FII’s face during reentry often feel like a secondary punishment, and it is crucial to understand how a lack of basic needs can exacerbate criminality. Incorporating the recommended policies and programs can be a starting point in offering fair and equal housing. Moreover, this approach can not only reduce recidivism but also safeguard the public from future victimization (Peterson & Holeman, 2023), while reducing the immense costs that exist because of mass incarceration.
References
Agan, A., & Starr, S. (2018). Ban the box, criminal records, and racial discrimination: A field experiment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 133(1), 191-235.
The study investigated the effect of ban the box (BTB) policies using a field experiment. The researchers found that while BTB policies aim to reduce unemployment among black men, they increase the chances of racial discrimination in the employment process.
Alper, M., Durose, M. R., & Markman, J. (2018). 2018 update on prisoner recidivism: A 9-year follow-up period (2005-2014). Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
The report tracked prisoners released in 2005 from 30 states over a 9-year period to understand recidivism patterns. The majority of prisoners were rearrested at least once in the follow up period, with property offenders having the highest rearrest rate.
Augustine, D., & Kushel, M. (2022). Community supervision, housing insecurity, and homelessness. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 701(1), 152-171.
The article examines the relationship between mass incarceration and homelessness, highlighting how individuals under community supervision face barriers to housing, thereby increasing their chances of homelessness.
Beck, E. L., Johnson, N. N., Delgado, S., Helmly, V., McLaren, S. A., Prendergast, A., … & Sabol, W. J. (2023). Addressing Barriers to Housing in Reentry Programs Working to Address a Variety of Needs. Cityscape, 25(2), 13-34.
The study examines access to housing using data from three Second Chance Act programs. It incorporates perspectives from FII’s and program providers through interviews to understand regional differences and barriers to housing stability.
Byrdsong, T. R., Devan, A., & Yamatani, H. (2016). A ground-up model for gun violence reduction: A community-based public health approach. Journal of Evidence-Informed Social Work, 13(1), 76-86.
The article proposes a strategy to reduce gun violence through collaboration among various organizations, with a focus on rehabilitation, prevention and community engagement.
Career Resources, Inc. (2024). State of Reentry Report 2024. https://careerresources.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/2024-State-of-Reentry-Report-002-2.pdf .
This report highlights the need for reentry support services in Connecticut. It uses regional data to understand the efforts and strategies of organizations in providing services to FII’s.
Cataldi, L., & Cataldi, S. (2024). Prison and Love: The Role of Affection and Rehabilitative Actions in Reducing Recidivism and Beyond. Social Sciences, 13(6), 323.
The study examines the role of relationships in reducing recidivism, with results indicating that stable relationships and positive work experiences reduce the chances of recidivism.
Cook, P. J., Kang, S., Braga, A. A., Ludwig, J., & O’Brien, M. E. (2015). An experimental evaluation of a comprehensive employment-oriented prisoner re-entry program. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 31, 355-382.
Using a randomized control trial, the study evaluated a reentry program that combines post release employment and pre-release social services to high-risk offenders. Findings showed that while it increased employment, there was no effect on recidivism.
Curtis, M. A., Garlington, S., & Schottenfeld, L. S. (2013). Alcohol, drug, and criminal history restrictions in public housing. Cityscape, 15(3), 37-52.
The article discusses the need for housing assistance programs for low-income households, especially those with members who have alcohol, drug, and criminal histories. Researchers found that stricter laws were applied than required, highlighting how these inconsistencies reduce efforts to support reentry.
De La Garza, A. (2020). The Never-Ending Grasp of the Prison Walls: Banning the Box on Housing Applications. Scholar, 22, 409.
The article highlights the challenges faced by FII’s in securing housing after release. It further advocates for implementation of BTB policies in housing applications.
Fontaine, J. (2013). Examining housing as a pathway to successful reentry: A demonstration design process. The Urban Institute: Washington, DC, USA.
The paper outlines a 4-phase demonstration design to understand how housing and wraparound services can reduce recidivism and improve reintegration for FII’s. It provides examples of partnerships and funding that are essential for successful reentry.
Gottschalk, M. (2011). The past, present and future of mass incarceration in the United States. Criminology & Public. Policy, 10, 483.
The article discusses the rise of mass incarceration in the United States due to tough on crime policies that were prevalent in the 1970s. It further discusses the consequences of incarceration and the steps to reduce and ultimate end this growing concern.
Hamilton, Z., Kigerl, A., & Hays, Z. (2015). Removing release impediments and reducing correctional costs: Evaluation of Washington State’s housing voucher program. Justice Quarterly, 32(2), 255-287.
The study evaluates a housing voucher program implemented in Washington which covers rent for 3 months post release to prevent homelessness. Results found the program to be effective in reducing homelessness and correctional costs.
Harati, R., Emmanuel, D., Renzi, K., &- Aurand, A. (2025) The Gap: A Shortage of Affordable Rental Homes. National Low-Income Housing Coalition. Washington DC. https://nlihc.org/gap.
The report highlights a shortage of affordable housing for low-income renters, with racial minorities being disproportionality affected.
Hughes, C. C. (2021). A house but not a home: How surveillance in subsidized housing exacerbates poverty and reinforces marginalization. Social Forces, 100(1), 293-315.
The study examines how surveillance in subsidized housing affects low-income black mothers by reinforcing racial stereotypes. The scrutiny mothers face increases the risk of eviction and insecurity.
Humphrey, T., Li, G., & Gibbs Van Brunschot, E. (2024). The Road to Desistance: The Relationship between Formal Institutions of Social Control, Informal Social Bonds, and Intermittency in Offending. Deviant Behavior, 45(5), 656-674.
The study investigates the relationship between social bonds, social control and criminality. Findings showed that relationships and employment reduce the chances of offending.
Kirk, D. S., Barnes, G. C., Hyatt, J. M., & Kearley, B. W. (2018). The impact of residential change and housing stability on recidivism: pilot results from the Maryland Opportunities through Vouchers Experiment (MOVE). Journal of Experimental Criminology, 14, 213-226.
The study evaluates MOVE, which is a program that provides housing for FII’s. Findings showed that providing free housing away from the individuals original neighborhood reduced the chances of rearrest.
Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (2001). Understanding desistance from crime. Crime and Justice, 28, 1-69.
The study discusses the challenges of defining desistance due to unclear measurements and theories. The authors distinguish between complete termination of crime and the ongoing process of desistance which can be influenced by a number of factors.
Mauer, M. (1999). Why are tough on crime policies so popular. Stanford Law & Policy Review, 11, 9.
The article discusses the popularity of the tough on crime policies such as the “Three Strikes and You’re Out” law.
Oyama, R. (2009). Do not (re) enter: the rise of criminal background tenant screening as a violation of the Fair Housing Act. Michigan Journal of Race & Law, 15, 181.
Researchers examine how private housing providers use criminal background checks, creating barriers for individuals with a criminal record.
Pager, D. (2003). The mark of a criminal record. American Journal of Sociology, 108(5), 937-975.
The study uses a randomized control trial to investigate how incarceration affects employment. Results found that having a criminal record reduces the chances of employment, while increasing racial discrimination.
Reentry Coordination Council. (2022). Coordination to reduce barriers to reentry. Lessons learned from COVID-19 and beyond. US Department of Justice.
The report examines the barriers individuals face after release from prison and how these became worse after the COVID pandemic. It outlines agency efforts, stakeholder feedback and future recommendations to reduce reentry barriers.
Stainbrook, K., & Tibaduiza, E. (2024, December 10). Reentry and housing stability: Final report. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. https://aspe.hhs.gov/reports/reentry-housing-stability.
The report examines the barriers in securing stable housing, highlighting factors such as stigma, supervision restrictions, and limited support systems. It also emphasizes the need for long term housing research and more outcome focused studies to guide reentry programs.
Stanley-Becker, T. (2022). Breaking the Cycle of Homelessness and Incarceration: Prisoner Reentry, Racial Justice, & Fair Chance Housing Policy. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Law and Public Affairs, 7(2), 2.
The article examines the Fair Housing laws that aim to reduce homelessness and increase successful reintegration. Seattle is used as an example to explain how stronger laws and affordable housing are required to ensure these goals are met.
Supreme Court of the United States. (2024, June 28). City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson et al. (No. 23–175). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-175_19m2.pdf.
The document presents the Supreme Court’s ruling to ban public camping.
Taber, N., Marin, J. A., & Bae, J. (2023). Public Housing Eligibility for People with Conviction Histories. Cityscape, 25(2), 73-90.
The study examines the percentage of adults excluded from public housing due to criminal background checks. It highlights how this process not only impacts the individual but the family members as well.
Tran-Leung, M. C. (2015). When discretion means denial: A national perspective on criminal records barriers to federally subsidized housing. Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law.
The report examines the criminal record policies of Illinois public housing programs. It emphasizes the need for HUD to develop policies that align with the Second Chances Act, thereby reducing discriminatory practices.
United Nations. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights.