This article addresses social work’s place in the movement to “defund the police.” We argue that social work’s collaboration with police and use of policing constitutes carceral social work. In defining carceral social work, we specify the ways in which coercive and punitive practices are used to manage Black, Indigenous, other people of color, and poor communities across four social work arenas – gender-based violence, child welfare, schools, and health and mental health. To inform anti-carceral social work, we provide examples of interventions in these arenas that dismantle police collaborations and point to life-affirming, community-centered, and mutual aid alternatives.

The relationships between housing circumstances and recidivism are well established among people released from prison. Despite probation being far more common than prison or parole, we know little about living situations, homelessness, and residential instability among people on probation, and we know even less regarding how these housing circumstances may affect their risk of recidivism. Using a unique dataset of 2,453 people on probation and longitudinal analyses, this study finds that housing insecurity is common and is associated with an increased risk of recidivism among people on probation, above and beyond an array of other recidivism risk factors. Furthermore, we find housing effects are particularly strong for relatively low risk people and for relatively low-severity offenses (i.e., property crimes, minor crimes, and revocations). Interventions that increase housing access for people on probation may reduce recidivism, especially for those who are relatively low risk and low-level reoffending.

Scholars have found that family support is an important facilitator of successful reentry from prison to the community. At the same time, they have argued that owing court-ordered fines or fees, also called legal financial obligations (LFOs), can act as an additional barrier to reentry, especially for parents. There remains a need to test how LFOs impact the financial support formerly incarcerated parents receive from their families. The current study responds to this gap by employing logistic regression analyses of the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI) data to test whether owing court fees is associated with formerly incarcerated fathers’ (1) perceptions of available financial support from family and (2) receipt of financial support from family. We find that owing court fees is not associated with perceptions of available financial support. However, owing court fees has a positive, statistically significant association with receiving financial support from family during the first three months after prison release. This relationship remains after accounting for whether the person owes child support or sees their children monthly. Our results suggest that LFOs may create a greater need for financial support among formerly incarcerated fathers, making the financial challenges of reentry a consequence not just for those who were incarcerated but for their loved ones as well.

Reducing criminal legal system involvement requires an understanding of the factors that promote repeat offending (i. e., recidivism), and the dissemination of relevant interventions to those most likely to benefit. A growing body of research has established common recidivism risk factors for persons with serious psychiatric disorder diagnoses. However, research to date has not examined the degree to which these risks apply to those with serious psychiatric disorders with and without co-occurring substance use disorders. To clarify what risk and need factors are greatest and for whom, this cross-sectional study drew from an original dataset containing data on 14 social and economic, psychological, and criminal risk areas for a cohort of people on probation (n = 4,809). Linear regression models indicated that, compared to those without a serious psychiatric disorder, people on probation with a serious psychiatric disorder are at greater risk in a minority of areas and those areas are mostly social and economic in nature. Meanwhile, those withco-occurring disorders are at relatively high risk across almost all areas. The results from this study suggest that justice involved persons with serious psychiatric disorders will benefit from interventions that increase social support and economic well-being and that interventions that broadly reduce risk among people with co-occurring serious psychiatric and substance use disorders will likely yield meaningful reductions in system involvement. Ultimately, understanding and intervening upon risk for recidivism among persons with serious psychiatric disorders requires differentiating between those with and without co-occurring substance use disorders.