Abstract
The prevailing discourse on crime prevention in the United States has historically been dominated by a carceral logic—a paradigm that equates public safety with the visibility of law enforcement and the incapacitation of offenders. However, a growing convergence of criminological data, economic analysis, and lived experience suggests that this model is fundamentally reactive, addressing the symptoms of social disorder rather than its root causes. This report serves as a comprehensive analysis of "Real Crime Prevention," a concept crystallized by the insights of incarcerated individuals who, when surveyed, identified foundational social stabilizers—affordable housing, vocational training, mental health support, and childcare—as the true mechanisms of desistance. By synthesizing data from The Marshall Project, the RAND Corporation, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, and extensive academic literature, this document constructs an evidence-based framework for a "Social Determinants of Justice" model. The analysis demonstrates that upstream investment in human capital not only reduces recidivism more effectively than punitive measures but also yields a superior return on investment for the taxpayer, transforming the definition of public safety from one of containment to one of community health.
1. Introduction: The Disconnect Between Punishment and Prevention
The concept of "crime prevention" typically evokes images of surveillance, policing, and secure correctional facilities. This "punitive" or "deterrence-based" model operates on the assumption that the threat of incarceration is the primary inhibitor of criminal behavior. However, this assumption is increasingly challenged by the sheer scale and cost of the American penal system, which, despite consuming vast fiscal resources, continues to grapple with high rates of recidivism and community instability.
A contrasting perspective—one rooted in "lived expertise"—offers a radically different definition of prevention. As highlighted by a landmark inquiry conducted by The Marshall Project, when incarcerated individuals were asked what might have prevented their entry into the prison system, their responses did not center on stricter laws or harsher sentences. Instead, they pointed to a deficit of social infrastructure: the absence of affordable housing, the lack of living wages, the unavailability of grief counseling, and the prohibitive cost of education.1 This dissonance between the suppliers of justice (policymakers) and the consumers of justice (incarcerated people) reveals a critical policy gap.
"Real" crime prevention, as the data suggests, is not a singular act of enforcement but a continuous ecosystem of support. It is the stabilization of the human condition through specific, actionable interventions—housing, education, therapy, and family support—that render the survival mechanisms often labeled as "crime" unnecessary. This report analyzes these interventions not merely as social welfare, but as hard security infrastructure. By examining the "Social Determinants of Justice," we find that the most effective anti-crime technologies are not handcuffs or cells, but leases, diplomas, and counseling sessions.
The following sections provide an exhaustive review of the evidence supporting this paradigm shift. We dissect the economic realities of the carceral state versus the therapeutic state, analyze the criminogenic effects of housing instability and poverty, and explore the profound impact of trauma and grief on behavioral health. Ultimately, this report argues that the path to a safer society lies in listening to those who have fallen through the cracks of the current one.
2. The Economic and Social Failure of the Punitive Model
To advocate for a new model of crime prevention, one must first rigorously audit the current "punitive" model. The United States maintains the highest incarceration rate in the world, a policy choice that carries exorbitant fiscal and social price tags. The assumption that mass incarceration correlates linearly with public safety is challenged by data indicating that beyond a certain threshold, the incarceration of community members destabilizes neighborhoods, thereby creating the conditions for further crime.
2.1 The Fiscal Burden of Incarceration
The direct costs of operating the carceral state are staggering and often opaque. According to 2024 data from the Federal Register, the average annual cost to incarcerate a person in the Federal Bureau of Prisons is approximately $44,090, or roughly $120.80 per day.3 However, this federal average masks the extreme costs borne by individual states, particularly those with high costs of living and complex inmate healthcare needs.
In California, for instance, the annual cost per inmate has ballooned to nearly $127,800 as of the 2025-26 budget cycle.4 This figure represents a 161% increase since the 2010-11 fiscal year, driven largely by security expenditures ($52,194 per person) and mandated healthcare improvements ($41,834 per person).4
Table 1: Comparative Annual Incarceration Costs (Selected Jurisdictions)
Crucially, these figures often underrepresent the true burden on taxpayers. A comprehensive analysis by the Vera Institute of Justice indicates that state corrections budgets frequently omit essential line items such as employee benefits, capital costs for facility construction, legal settlements, and inter-agency services (e.g., hospitalization of inmates funded by health departments). The Vera Institute found that the actual cost of prisons is often 13.9% higher than reported in corrections budgets.6 In some states, up to 34% of the total cost of incarceration falls outside the corrections budget entirely, concealing the true price of the punitive model from legislative scrutiny.6
2.2 The Recidivism Trap and the "Churn"
The "return on investment" (ROI) for this massive expenditure is dismally low. The primary metric for the success of a correctional system—recidivism—remains stubbornly high. The punitive environment of modern prisons, often stripped of rehabilitative programming due to budget cuts or "tough-on-crime" philosophies, fails to address the root causes of criminal behavior.7 Instead of rehabilitation, incarceration often functions as a criminogenic environment, severing an individual’s ties to employment, housing, and family, thereby increasing the likelihood of future offending.
This phenomenon creates a "churn" of individuals moving between the community and the prison, transferring the instability of the facility back into the neighborhood. When states aggressively fund prisons at the expense of social services, they may inadvertently increase crime. Research suggests that a 1% decrease in social spending is associated with a corresponding increase in police spending to manage the fallout, particularly in minority communities.9 This allocation reflects a misunderstanding of safety; when cities increase police budgets, it often correlates with a decrease in the funds available for the very interventions—housing, mental health, and youth programs—that prevent crime in the first place.9
The "punitive" model, therefore, functions less as a crime prevention strategy and more as a crime management strategy—one that is fiscally inefficient and socially destructive. The alternative, as suggested by the survey of incarcerated people, is to invest in the social determinants of justice.
3. Housing as a Primary Prevention Mechanism
Housing instability is perhaps the single most significant predictor of contact with the criminal justice system. The relationship is bidirectional and deeply entrenched: homelessness increases the risk of incarceration (often for "survival crimes," trespassing, or status offenses), and incarceration significantly increases the risk of future homelessness, creating a revolving door of instability that is nearly impossible to exit without intervention.
3.1 The Housing-Crime Nexus
Data from the Prison Policy Initiative and HUD highlights the severity of this link. Formerly incarcerated people are 10 to 13 times more likely to experience homelessness than the general public.1 This instability is a direct driver of recidivism. Without a stable address, individuals cannot secure employment, receive consistent medical care, or comply with the strict conditions of parole, leading to technical violations that result in re-incarceration.11
In the 2020 Marshall Project survey, "access to affordable housing" was consistently ranked among the top responses when respondents were asked what could have kept them out of prison.1 This self-reported data corroborates academic findings that housing is not merely a social benefit but a fundamental component of public safety infrastructure. The psychological stress of housing insecurity—the constant "fight or flight" mode required to survive on the street or in transient situations—depletes cognitive resources and increases the likelihood of impulsive, survival-based decision-making that is often criminalized.
Furthermore, discrimination plays a significant role in perpetuating this cycle. 79% of formerly incarcerated people and their families report being denied housing due to a criminal conviction.11 This systemic exclusion effectively bans individuals from the very stability required to remain law-abiding, forcing them back into environments or behaviors that lead to re-arrest.
3.2 The Economics of "Housing First" and Supportive Housing
"Housing First" models, which prioritize providing permanent housing to people experiencing homelessness without preconditions (such as sobriety or employment), have demonstrated profound efficacy in reducing criminal justice involvement. The economic argument for this approach is overwhelming when compared to the costs of the status quo.
A seminal study analyzing the impact of supportive housing in New York City (The Culhane Report) found that placement in such programs significantly reduced time spent in correctional facilities. Before placement, homeless individuals with severe mental illness utilized approximately $40,449 per year in public services (shelters, hospitals, jails). After placement, service use dropped by over $16,000 annually. When the cost of the housing services was factored in, the net cost to the government was negligible ($995 per year), while the social benefit of stability was immense.14
Similarly, in Denver, a supportive housing initiative resulted in a $6,876 reduction in annual per-person costs associated with jail days and emergency services. 57% of the cost of providing the housing was completely offset by the avoidance of these other public expenditures.15
Table 2: Cost Comparison – Housing vs. Institutionalization (Daily Rates)
Source Data: 4
As illustrated in Table 2, providing supportive housing costs approximately 5% of the cost of incarceration in New York City. The policy choice to rely on jails rather than housing to manage the indigent population is largely responsible for the bloated corrections budgets discussed in Section 2.
3.3 The Neighborhood Effect: Debunking the Crime Myth
A common barrier to the expansion of affordable housing is the "NIMBY" (Not In My Back Yard) sentiment, often driven by the fear that low-income housing brings crime. However, rigorous academic research refutes this. A study examining the closure of large public housing developments in Chicago found that dispersing residents did not merely displace crime but was associated with net reductions in violent crime at the city level.17
Furthermore, research from UC Irvine indicates that the development of affordable housing can actually decrease crime and increase property values in surrounding neighborhoods.18 By revitalizing distressed properties and reducing concentrated poverty, affordable housing developments act as stabilizing agents. Econometric analyses of Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) developments confirm a statistically significant negative correlation between qualified census tract status (affordable housing zones) and crime rates at the county level.19 The narrative that housing the poor increases danger is empirically false; rather, housing instability creates danger, and housing stability resolves it.
4. Human Capital: The Role of Vocational Training and Education
If housing provides the physical foundation for stability, economic opportunity provides the structure. Poverty is a structural violence that precipitates criminal activity; when legitimate avenues for economic survival are foreclosed, illegitimate avenues become rational survival strategies. Therefore, economic empowerment—through living wages, vocational training, and accessible higher education—constitutes a central pillar of "real" crime prevention.
4.1 The Poverty-Prison Pipeline
The correlation between poverty and incarceration is absolute. The inability to earn a living wage is a primary stressor cited by incarcerated individuals as a cause of their trajectory into the system.1 When The Marshall Project surveyed incarcerated populations, "living wages" stood alongside housing as a primary factor that would have prevented their imprisonment.1
This economic desperation is often exacerbated by the "collateral consequences" of a criminal record. Individuals with records face significant barriers to employment, often being relegated to the precarious "gig economy" or manual labor sectors that offer no benefits or security. This exclusion traps them in a cycle of poverty and recidivism.11
4.2 The ROI of Vocational Training in Corrections
If poverty drives crime, then employability drives desistance. The research on vocational training within correctional facilities offers some of the strongest evidence for rehabilitative investment.
A landmark meta-analysis by the RAND Corporation found that inmates who participated in correctional education programs had 43% lower odds of returning to prison than those who did not.20 Furthermore, employment rates after release were 13% higher for those who engaged in academic or vocational education. Specifically, those who participated in vocational training were 28% more likely to be employed after release than their peers.20
The fiscal logic here is compelling. The direct cost of providing education ranges from $1,400 to $1,744 per inmate, while the cost of re-incarceration avoided is between $8,700 and $9,700 per inmate.20 Thus, every dollar spent on vocational training saves taxpayers four to five dollars in future incarceration costs.
Table 3: Impact of Prison Education on Recidivism and Employment
Despite this clear evidence, funding for such programs is often the first to be cut during fiscal tightening. This is a strategic error; reducing access to vocational training increases long-term costs by ensuring higher rates of re-offending. Programs like the "Occupational Education Program" (OEP) in the Federal Bureau of Prisons show lower recidivism rates (48.3% vs 54.1%) for completers, though researchers emphasize the need for controlling for selection bias.24 However, even conservative estimates suggest that a decline in recidivism of 7% to 15% is a massive success in terms of public safety and avoided costs.23
4.3 Higher Education and Identity Transformation
Beyond vocational skills, access to "cheaper college classes" (as requested in the Marshall Project image) plays a critical role in "secondary desistance"—the process of changing one's identity from "offender" to "citizen." The RAND meta-analysis confirmed that participation in post-secondary education is even more effective than vocational training in some contexts, as it develops critical thinking, soft skills, and social capital.20
The restoration of Pell Grant eligibility for incarcerated students is a policy alignment with this evidence. By allowing individuals to pursue degrees while incarcerated, the system transforms "dead time" into a period of capital accumulation. The data suggests that for every 1,000 inmates served by prison education, between 70 and 150 fewer will return to prison than otherwise would.23 This is a tangible reduction in future crime victims and police encounters.
5. The "Grief-to-Prison" Pipeline: Trauma, Mental Health, and Support
A nuanced understanding of crime prevention must address the psychological antecedents of offending: trauma and grief. The maxim "hurt people hurt people" is supported by extensive data linking Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) and untreated trauma to incarceration. The request for "grief counseling" in the Marshall Project image is not a soft request for comfort; it is a hard request for behavioral intervention.
5.1 The Prevalence of Trauma in Carceral Populations
Research estimates that up to 95% of incarcerated individuals have experienced at least one traumatic event, with many experiencing cumulative trauma (poly-victimization) prior to their incarceration.26 There is a direct, graded relationship between high ACE scores and violent offending; individuals with four or more ACEs are significantly more likely to be involved in the criminal justice system.27
This trauma often manifests as hypervigilance, aggression, dissociation, and substance abuse—behaviors that are punished by the legal system rather than treated. Young men, in particular, who enter the system with untreated trauma symptoms are highly likely to recidivate if that trauma is not addressed during their sentence or reentry.30 The prison environment itself is often re-traumatizing, characterized by noise, violence, and loss of autonomy, which exacerbates PTSD symptoms and hinders rehabilitation.
5.2 Grief Counseling as a Criminological Intervention
An often-overlooked aspect of prevention is the management of grief. Incarcerated populations experience high rates of "disenfranchised grief"—loss that is not socially acknowledged or publicly mourned (e.g., the loss of freedom, the death of friends to community violence, the separation from children). Studies suggest that the inability to process this grief contributes to behavioral acting out and substance abuse relapse.32
Innovative programs have demonstrated that addressing grief directly can reduce disciplinary infractions and improve institutional safety. For example, a study of a grief support group for incarcerated women that utilized therapy dogs found significant decreases in symptoms of Prolonged Grief Disorder and increased feelings of social support.33 The presence of the therapy animal provided "physical comfort and support not typically permitted in a prison setting," breaking the barrier of touch deprivation and allowing for emotional regulation.33
By providing grief counseling, the system provides a non-pharmacological method for individuals to manage pain. This reduces the reliance on illicit substances to numb emotions, thereby addressing a primary driver of recidivism.32 The Marshall Project respondents identified "grief counseling" as a preventative measure because they recognize that unresolved pain drives the cycle of addiction and violence.
5.3 Mental Health Courts and Diversion
For those whose criminal behavior is driven by acute mental illness, "Mental Health Courts" (MHCs) represent a critical off-ramp from the prison system. These specialized dockets divert offenders into community-based treatment rather than incarceration. Meta-analyses show that MHC participation has a small but positive effect on reducing recidivism (d = -0.20) and a significant effect on reducing jail time.34
However, the ultimate goal of "Real" Crime Prevention is to render MHCs unnecessary by providing robust community mental health care before a police encounter occurs. Programs that provide "Assertive Community Treatment" (ACT) and housing to people with mental illness have been shown to reduce arrests and incarcerations significantly.35 The cost-effectiveness of this is clear: community-based treatment costs a fraction of the $127,000 required to incarcerate a person in California, yet it yields better health and safety outcomes.
6. Decoupling Addiction from Criminality: Drug Prevention and Treatment
The criminal justice system has become the default provider of addiction services in the United States, a role for which it is structurally and philosophically ill-equipped. "Real" crime prevention requires decoupling health issues from criminal consequences and investing in "drug prevention programs" that actually work—as distinct from the "bullshit umbrella programs" critiqued by incarcerated respondents.2
6.1 The Criminalization of Substance Use
Nearly half of all people in state and federal prisons meet the criteria for a substance use disorder.36 The traditional punitive response—incarceration—fails to address the underlying addiction and often exacerbates it. In fact, mortality rates for drug intoxication are rising within prisons, indicating that incarceration is not even effective at enforcing sobriety.36
In contrast, therapeutic interventions offer a far superior success rate. Drug Courts and community-based treatment programs have proven to be more effective and less expensive than incarceration. A study of the Multnomah County Drug Court found that participants were re-arrested less frequently and cost taxpayers $5,071 less per person than those processed through traditional courts.37
Table 4: Comparative Economics of Addiction Interventions
The data indicates that a dollar spent on drug courts saves approximately four dollars in avoided criminal justice costs.38 Furthermore, community-based treatment allows individuals to maintain employment and family ties, which are protective factors against relapse.40
6.2 Evidence-Based Prevention vs. "Just Say No"
The incarcerated respondents to the Marshall Project survey specifically requested "drug prevention programs" that are "proven to work," distinguishing them from traditional, ineffective models. Effective prevention involves early intervention, education, and harm reduction.
Research from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime emphasizes that effective clinical interventions in prison settings (such as Medication-Assisted Treatment like methadone or buprenorphine) reduce mortality and re-incarceration.42 Yet, many prisons deny these evidence-based medications due to stigma or security concerns. "Real" prevention involves treating addiction as a medical condition, providing continuity of care from the community to the facility and back again. This reduces the "revolving door" where individuals are released, relapse immediately due to lowered tolerance, and are re-arrested or die of overdose.40
7. Intergenerational Prevention: Childcare and Early Childhood Development
Crime prevention strategies that begin in adulthood are often too late. The seeds of stability are sown in early childhood. Longitudinal studies confirm that early childhood education and support for parents (such as daycare vouchers) are among the most potent anti-crime measures available to policymakers.
7.1 The "Two-Generation" Approach: Daycare Vouchers
The request for "daycare vouchers" in the Marshall Project image highlights the burden on single parents, particularly mothers, in low-income communities. The lack of affordable childcare prevents parents from working or attending school, perpetuating poverty. It also places stress on the family unit, increasing the risk of neglect or unsupervised time for children.
Research indicates that access to childcare subsidies is directly related to a lower risk of child maltreatment and neglect.43 Since child abuse and neglect are among the strongest predictors of future juvenile delinquency and adult criminality (the "violence of neglect"), subsidizing childcare is effectively an upstream crime prevention strategy. It reduces parental stress, stabilizes the family economy by allowing parents to work, and ensures children are in safe, nurturing environments.44
7.2 The Perry Preschool Project: The Gold Standard
The High/Scope Perry Preschool Project serves as the definitive case study for the link between early education and crime reduction. Beginning in the 1960s, this program provided high-quality preschool education to African American children living in poverty. Decades of follow-up data have revealed startling results: participants were significantly less likely to be arrested, more likely to graduate high school, and more likely to earn higher incomes than the control group.47
The mechanism of action here is the development of non-cognitive skills—self-control, persistence, and social navigation—which are critical for avoiding criminal behavior later in life. The study found that the program reduced female arrest rates significantly and generated a high return on investment through avoided victimization costs and criminal justice expenditures.49
This data confirms that the "real" crime prevention requested by incarcerated people—support for children and families—is scientifically validated. Investments in "Head Start" and similar programs break the intergenerational cycle of poverty and incarceration, providing a return on investment that far exceeds that of police or prisons.50
8. The Voice of the Impacted: Lived Experience as Policy Data
Perhaps the most compelling evidence for what constitutes "real" crime prevention comes from those who have experienced the failure of the current system. The Marshall Project’s 2020 survey of incarcerated people provides a critical "bottom-up" perspective that aligns with the "top-down" academic data.
8.1 The Wisdom of the Incarcerated
When asked "What could have kept you out of prison?", respondents did not cite more police, harsher sentences, or stricter laws. Instead, they cited:
Affordable Housing: The need for a safe, stable place to live.1
Living Wages: The ability to support oneself and one's family without resorting to illicit markets.1
Mentorship and Counseling: Programs like "listen to my dad" classes or veteran counseling.2
Drug and Alcohol Prevention: Actual treatment, not ineffective lectures.2
This alignment between the requested interventions of the incarcerated and the statistical efficacy of those interventions suggests a clear policy roadmap. The subjects of the system know exactly what was missing from their lives that led to their incarceration; ignoring this "lived expertise" results in policy that solves the wrong problems.51
The inclusion of people with lived experience in policy design is not merely a gesture of inclusion; it is a mechanism for efficacy. As noted by the Criminal Justice Alliance, lived experience runs through effective policy work because those closest to the problem are often closest to the solution.51 They can identify the specific barriers—such as the lack of daycare or the specific type of trauma counseling needed—that technocrats might miss.
9. Conclusion: A Holistic Infrastructure of Safety
The analysis of the provided research leads to a singular, irrefutable conclusion: "Real" Crime Prevention is synonymous with Social Justice. The image of crime prevention should not be a police officer or a prison wall, but rather a construction site for affordable housing, a vocational training classroom, a community mental health clinic, and a subsidized daycare center.
The data overwhelmingly supports a shift from Punitive Justice to Restorative and Preventative Justice.
Economically: Prevention is vastly cheaper than incarceration. Supportive housing and treatment programs cost pennies on the dollar compared to prison cells.
Socially: Prevention breaks intergenerational cycles of trauma and poverty, whereas incarceration perpetuates them.
Empirically: Vocational training, education, and housing stability have proven, statistically significant impacts on reducing recidivism, whereas longer prison sentences do not.
To achieve genuine public safety, policy must move upstream. It must address the causes of crime—poverty, homelessness, untreated mental illness, and trauma—rather than merely warehousing the symptoms. The "Real Crime Prevention" model is an infrastructure of care, opportunity, and stability that renders the survival mechanisms of crime unnecessary.
Recommendations for "Real" Prevention Policy
Based on the synthesis of the research snippets and the Marshall Project findings, a "Real Crime Prevention" platform must include:
Universal Access to Supportive Housing: Implementation of Housing First policies to eliminate homelessness-driven recidivism, utilizing cost offsets from reduced jail usage.
Decoupling Mental Health from Justice: Reallocating funds from corrections to community-based health systems to treat mental illness and addiction as medical issues.
Economic Stabilization: Investment in living wage jobs and high-ROI vocational training for at-risk populations and those currently incarcerated.
Trauma-Informed Education: Universal access to early childhood education (like the Perry Preschool model) and trauma-responsive school environments.
Integration of Lived Experience: Mandating the inclusion of justice-impacted individuals in the design and evaluation of public safety policies to ensure relevance and efficacy.
This report confirms that the tools for preventing crime are already available; they simply require the political will to invest in people rather than punishment. By listening to the voices of the incarcerated and following the economic data, society can build a system that prevents crime by promoting human flourishing.
Works cited
Magdalene Serenity House - Fayetteville-ar.gov, accessed December 2, 2025, https://www.fayetteville-ar.gov/DocumentCenter/View/26491/Magdalene-Serenity-House
What Could Have Kept Me Out of Prison | The Marshall Project, accessed December 2, 2025, https://www.themarshallproject.org/2020/10/27/what-could-have-kept-me-out-of-prison
Annual Determination of Average Cost of Incarceration Fee (COIF) - Federal Register, accessed December 2, 2025, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/12/06/2024-28743/annual-determination-of-average-cost-of-incarceration-fee-coif
California's Annual Average Cost to Incarcerate a Person - Legislative Analyst's Office, accessed December 2, 2025, https://www.lao.ca.gov/policyareas/cj/6_cj_inmatecost
The Costs and Harms of Homelessness - Community Solutions, accessed December 2, 2025, https://community.solutions/research-posts/the-costs-and-harms-of-homelessness/
The Price of Prisons: What Incarceration Costs Taxpayers - Vera Institute, accessed December 2, 2025, https://www.vera.org/publications/price-of-prisons-what-incarceration-costs-taxpayers
How California Balances Punishment and Rehabilitation in Criminal Justice Reform, accessed December 2, 2025, https://www.collegesoflaw.edu/blog/2025/01/22/criminal-justice-reform-california-punishment-rehabilitation/
Rehabilitate or punish? - American Psychological Association, accessed December 2, 2025, https://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug03/rehab
Police Budget Increases Are Linked to Local Housing Market Growth and Declines in Social Service Spending, accessed December 2, 2025, https://housingmatters.urban.org/research-summary/police-budget-increases-are-linked-local-housing-market-growth-and-declines-social
Agent-Based Simulation of Police Funding Tradeoffs Through the Lens of Legitimacy and Hardship - JASSS, accessed December 2, 2025, https://www.jasss.org/26/3/12/12.pdf
Experiences of finding housing with a criminal conviction in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, accessed December 2, 2025, https://thehousingcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/It-was-like-repeadtedly-having-a-door-closed-in-my-face-Finding-housing-with-criminal-convictions-in-Cuyahoga-County.pdf
RELEASE: Preventing and Removing Barriers to Housing for People With Criminal Convictions - Center for American Progress, accessed December 2, 2025, https://www.americanprogress.org/press/release-preventing-removing-barriers-housing-people-criminal-convictions/
Preventing and Removing Barriers to Housing Security for People With Criminal Convictions, accessed December 2, 2025, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/preventing-removing-barriers-housing-security-people-criminal-convictions/
Public Service Reductions Associated with Placement of Homeless Persons with Severe Mental Illness in Supportive Housing, accessed December 2, 2025, https://shnny.org/uploads/The_Culhane_Report.pdf
Costs and Offsets of Providing Supportive Housing to Break the Homelessness-Jail Cycle | Urban Institute, accessed December 2, 2025, https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/104499/costs-and-offsets-of-providing-supportive-housing-to-break-the-homelessness-jail-cycle_0.pdf
Advancing Supportive Housing Solutions to Reduce Homelessness for People Impacted by the Criminal Legal System A Report for New York City Leaders Winter 2022, accessed December 2, 2025, https://www.csh.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Cost-Effectiveness-FAQ.pdf
Public Housing, Concentrated Poverty, and Crime - Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, accessed December 2, 2025, https://www.clevelandfed.org/publications/economic-commentary/2014/ec-201419-public-housing-concentrated-poverty-and-crime
Affordable housing decreases crime, increases property values | School of Social Ecology, accessed December 2, 2025, https://socialecology.uci.edu/news/affordable-housing-decreases-crime-increases-property-values
An Econometric Analysis of the Impact of Affordable Housing Policy on Crime Rates, accessed December 2, 2025, https://www.colgate.edu/sites/default/files/2024-05/Nelson%20Honors%20Thesis.pdf
Education and Vocational Training in Prisons Reduces Recidivism, Improves Job Outlook, accessed December 2, 2025, https://www.rand.org/news/press/2013/08/22.html
Evaluating the Effectiveness of Correctional Education: A Meta-Analysis of Programs That Provide Education to Incarcerated Adult - Bureau of Justice Assistance, accessed December 2, 2025, https://bja.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh186/files/Publications/RAND_Correctional-Education-Meta-Analysis.pdf
Justice and Education Departments Announce New Research Showing Prison Education Reduces Recidivism, Saves Money, Improves Employment, accessed December 2, 2025, https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-and-education-departments-announce-new-research-showing-prison-education-reduces
Are Education Programs in Prisons Worth It? - Mackinac Center, accessed December 2, 2025, https://www.mackinac.org/S2023-01
Recidivism and Federal Bureau of Prisons Programs: Vocational Program Participants Released in 2010 | United States Sentencing Commission, accessed December 2, 2025, https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/recidivism-and-federal-bureau-prisons-programs-vocational-program-participants-released-2010
The "Win-Win-Win" of educating incarcerated Texans - Texas 2036, accessed December 2, 2025, https://texas2036.org/posts/the-win-win-win-of-educating-incarcerated-texans/
Traumatic experiences before incarceration in a county jail - Institute for Justice Research and Development, accessed December 2, 2025, https://ijrd.csw.fsu.edu/sites/g/files/upcbnu1766/files/Publications/Traumatic_exp_before_incar_county_jail.pdf
Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and juvenile violent delinquency in multiple successive birth cohorts - Scandinavian University Press, accessed December 2, 2025, https://www.scup.com/doi/10.18261/njc.26.2.3
Adverse Childhood Experiences and Adult Criminality: How Long Must We Live before We Possess Our Own Lives? - NIH, accessed December 2, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3662280/
Trauma and Prospects for Reentry - Annual Reviews, accessed December 2, 2025, https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-criminol-041122-111300
Study protocol paper for the multisite randomized controlled trial of comprehensive trauma informed reentry services for moderate to high-risk young males releasing from state prisons - PMC - NIH, accessed December 2, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9641644/
Trauma Exposures Across the Life Course for Individuals Who Experience Incarceration - Washington University Open Scholarship, accessed December 2, 2025, https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=brown_etds
A Report on Grief and Addiction | Research Update - Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation, accessed December 2, 2025, https://www.hazeldenbettyford.org/research-studies/addiction-research/grief-and-addiction
View of Bereavement behind bars: Grief support groups with and without therapy dogs for incarcerated females, accessed December 2, 2025, https://www.bereavementjournal.org/index.php/bcj/article/view/13/19
Effectiveness of Mental Health Courts in Reducing Recidivism: A Meta-Analysis | Psychiatric Services - Psychiatry Online, accessed December 2, 2025, https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ps.201700107
Legal System Involvement and Costs for Persons in Treatment for Severe Mental Illness and Substance Use Disorders | Psychiatric Services - Psychiatry Online, accessed December 2, 2025, https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/ps.50.5.641
Addicted to punishment: Jails and prisons punish drug use far more than they treat it, accessed December 2, 2025, https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2024/01/30/punishing-drug-use/
Drug Courts May Reap Big Savings for Corrections and Taxpayers, accessed December 2, 2025, https://www.ojp.gov/library/publications/drug-courts-may-reap-big-savings-corrections-and-taxpayers
Drug Courts as an Alternative to Incarceration - Stanford Network on Addiction Policy, accessed December 2, 2025, https://addictionpolicy.stanford.edu/drug-courts-alternative-incarceration
Missouri Substance Abuse Intervention and Treatment Programs, accessed December 2, 2025, https://dmh.mo.gov/sites/dmh/files/media/pdf/2019/08/mosubstanceabuseprograms2013.pdf
Drug use disorders: impact of a public health rather than a criminal justice approach - NIH, accessed December 2, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5428163/
Confronting the Cycle of Addiction | NYCOURTS.GOV, accessed December 2, 2025, https://ww2.nycourts.gov/reports/addictionrecidivism.shtml
FINAL From Coercion to Cohesion: Health and Justice Coordination for people with drug use disorders in contact with the criminal - Unodc, accessed December 2, 2025, https://www.unodc.org/documents/drug-prevention-and-treatment/UNDC_PTRS_From_Coercion_to_Cohesion.pdf
Child Care Subsidy Effects - Casey Family Programs, accessed December 2, 2025, https://www.casey.org/child-care-subsidy-and-maltreatment/
Prevention Services Family Experience Survey 2024 - NYC.gov, accessed December 2, 2025, https://www.nyc.gov/assets/acs/pdf/data-analysis/2024/PreventionSurveyLL17Report.pdf
Early Childhood Education and Care Programs in the United States: Does Access Improve Child Safety? | Social Service Review: Vol 95, No 1 - The University of Chicago Press: Journals, accessed December 2, 2025, https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/713077
(PDF) Assessment of Rates of Child Maltreatment in States With Medicaid Expansion vs States Without Medicaid Expansion - ResearchGate, accessed December 2, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333792520_Assessment_of_Rates_of_Child_Maltreatment_in_States_With_Medicaid_Expansion_vs_States_Without_Medicaid_Expansion
The High/Scope Perry Preschool Project - Office of Justice Programs, accessed December 2, 2025, https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/181725.pdf
Evidence Summary for the Perry Preschool Project - Social Programs that Work, accessed December 2, 2025, https://evidencebasedprograms.org/document/perry-preschool-project-evidence-summary/
Early Childhood Education and Crime - PMC - NIH, accessed December 2, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6344026/
Investing in Children Breaks Cycles of Poverty and Criminal Justice Involvement, accessed December 2, 2025, https://counciloncj.org/investing-in-children-breaks-cycles-of-poverty-and-criminal-justice-involvement/
Lived Experience | Criminal Justice Alliance, accessed December 2, 2025, https://www.criminaljusticealliance.org/systems-change/lived-experience/
Centering Lived Expertise: How to Meaningfully Elevate the Voices of People Directly Impacted by the Criminal Justice and Behavi, accessed December 2, 2025, https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Centering-Lived-Expertise_508.pdf
Involving people with lived experience in criminal justice reform, accessed December 2, 2025, https://cdn.penalreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/PRI_10-point-plan_Lived-experience.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment