The United States Sentencing Commission has recently published a report on the recidivism of federal offenders who were sentenced for violent and non-violent offenses and released from incarceration or sentenced to a term of probation in 2010. In that report, the commission also observed that federal offenders who were sentenced for a robbery offense stood out among other violent offenders in terms of their rates of recidivism. Robbery offenders comprised the largest group of offenders with a violent instant federal offense and recidivated at a higher rate than other violent offenders (63.3% rearrest rate for robbery offenders compared to 57.3% for all other violent instant offenders). This report builds upon the commission’s observations regarding the high recidivism rates among federal robbery offenders by providing for the first time a comprehensive study of robbery offenders sentenced in Fiscal Year 2021. Combining data the commission regularly collects with data from a special data collection project, this report provides an analysis of the characteristics of robbery offenders, their criminal history, and their sentences imposed. The report finds that during fiscal years 2012 to 2021, the proportion of robbery offenders increased from 1.9% to 2.3% of the federal caseload. Additionally, more than one-third (39.2%) of robbery offenders with prior convictions had at least one prior conviction for robbery, compared to 15.8% of other violent offenders. This report also provides analyses on the prevalence of robbery offenses and how they were committed, including who was robbed, what was taken, the use or threatened use of physical force, the use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, and whether any victim was injured or killed during a robbery.

Will the Chevron deference—where courts defer to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes—make it to its fortieth birthday in 2024? Commentators predicted the framework might fall in the Supreme Court’s recently concluded term. But the Supreme Court remained quiet on the case, as it has done repeatedly in recent years. This silence could be temporary, however, as the Supreme Court may soon decide to hear some cases that tee up the issue. This paper discusses two big statutory interpretation cases from the past term where the Supreme Court could have relied on or rejected Chevron, examining how they fit into recent Supreme Court patterns in this area. The authors then turn to the potential implications for agency regulation by exploring agency practices. The Supreme Court could reject Chevron deference (or limit it even further) in the years to come. Indeed, at the end of the past term, the Supreme Court kept two cert petitions which could again provide opportunities to take aim at the doctrine: Aposhian v. Garland and Buffington v. McDonough. In the first, which the Supreme Court initially distributed for consideration last November, the petitioners ask the Supreme Court to bar Chevron deference in criminal cases; in the second, the petitioners argue that Chevron deference would be inappropriate “without first considering the pro-veteran canon of construction.”

federal government began to make non-routine releases from prison in order to reduce prison populations to allow for social distancing in prison facilities. This report is aimed at describing where such prison releases occurred, the legal mechanisms used to achieve these releases, and the factors within jurisdictions that made non-routine prison releases more or less likely to occur. The report seeks not to examine the national response to the pandemic, but to better understand when and how extraordinary measures may be used to effect prison release, and to determine whether there are lessons from this experience that can be applied to reducing the effects of mass incarceration. The report estimates that a total of 80,658 people were released from prisons in 35 jurisdictions due to COVID-related policies, which was equivalent to about 5-1/2% of the total state and federal prison population in 2019. The legal mechanisms used most frequently to release people from prison during the pandemic were parole, compassionate release, home confinement, commutation, and good time or earned time credits. Type of crime, COVID health risk, and time left to serve on one’s sentence were the criteria most frequently used—either alone or in combination—to determine eligibility for release due to COVID-related policies. Most release groups required that a person had to have been convicted of a non-violent offense. The report concludes that while some jurisdictions were able to release a sizeable number of people due to the pandemic, the people released tended to be individuals that were close to being released anyway.

Discharging individuals from jails and prisons who may be poorly equipped for independent living—such as those with a history of chronic health conditions, including serious mental illness—is likely to reinforce a pattern of homelessness and recidivism. Permanent supportive housing (PSH)—which combines a long-term housing subsidy with supportive services—has been proposed as a mechanism to intervene directly on this relationship between housing and health. In Los Angeles County, jail has become a default housing and services provider to unhoused individuals with serious mental health issues. In 2017, the county initiated the Just in Reach Pay for Success project, which provided PSH as an alternative to jail for individuals with a history of homelessness and chronic behavioral or physical health conditions. This report assesses whether the project led to changes in use of several county services, including justice, health, and homeless services. The report finds that the program was associated with significant reductions in use of county jail, probation, homelessness, and inpatient physical and mental health services and significant increased use of outpatient mental health services relative to a comparison group. Additionally, the report finds that the program achieved high one year housing stability rates of 82%.

The Education-to-Workforce Indicator Framework is a framework that establishes a common set of metrics and data equity principles for assessing and addressing disparities along the pre-K-to-workforce continuum. The framework was built through iterative input from experts in research, policy, and practice at the local, state, and federal levels; cross-walking leading frameworks; and synthesizing the current evidence base. Key components of the framework include: (1) Data equity principles: Principles to support ethical and safe data use across the data life cycle; (2) Essential questions: Questions every Education-to-Workforce Indicator Framework data system should be equipped to answer; (3) Indicators: Indicators that matter most along the Education-to-Workforce Indicator Framework continuum for states and localities to measure; (4) Disaggregates: Key student characteristics to inform data disaggregation and assess disparities; and (5) Evidence-based practices: Illustrative practices shown to move the needle on key outcomes.

As federal, state, and local governments marshal unprecedented resources to support the recovery from the disruption and harm inflicted by the COVID-19 pandemic, there is a significant and growing interest in the community school strategy. Community schools, which have been defined as a strategy for organizing the resources of the community around student success, are an opportunity for educational renewal and reimagining and are only possible through having the necessary technical assistance resources. This report asks what are the current challenges, best practices, and emerging trends in community schools? How are technical assistance, capacity development, and onboarding for new employees in community schools currently provided? And, what type of technical assistance, coaching, and learning do education practitioners want and need? The challenges that participants identified were staffing shortages and absences due to COVID-19, lack of model clarity, difficulties achieving collaborative leadership and overcoming deficit mindsets, barriers to equity, and imperfect data systems and practices. Strategies to address these challenges included developing a common language for all stakeholders, creating advisory and steering committees, and utilizing continuous improvement for collaborative problem-solving. As the community school landscape expands, community school technical assistance providers would do well to offer support and guidance in a variety of contexts and modalities.

Preparing graduates to be strong applicants in a competitive job market has become an increasingly important goal for university administrators, faculty, and staff. Expanding apprenticeship to nontraditional industries and occupations has been a key focus of the workforce system for nearly a decade. Many industries, including information technology, are grappling with the consequences of economic inequality and the responsibility to be more equitable and inclusive in their hiring and operations. Amid these trends and forces, a consortium of South Carolina historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs), the Urban Institute, and businesses forged an innovative collaboration. The HBCU consortium developed and launched a degree-based apprenticeship program in secure software development. The program will empower students to gain meaningful paid work experience while they advance toward a degree, link employers to a diverse and often-overlooked pool of promising talent, and serve as an example throughout the workforce and education systems for bridging the gap between the classroom and workplace. This playbook is for postsecondary institutions that want to replicate this consortium model and launch degree-based apprenticeships that create rewarding opportunities for students.

Each year, more than 150 million U.S. households file their income taxes; what if they could simultaneously register to vote or update their voter registration? While the immediate prospects are dim for federal legislation to improve voter access, states can take action to allow their citizens to register to vote while they are filing their state income tax returns. Implementing such a policy would reduce the paperwork burden imposed on the citizenry while helping to ensure the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the state voter registration rolls. This report assesses the effectiveness of using state income tax data for the purpose of automatic voter registration or re-registration, focusing on the level of match between each state’s standard individual income tax form and its voter registration requirements. For each element of the voter registration application, this report identifies which states already collect the required data at tax filing and proposes revisions to income tax data collection that would bring the voter registration and tax filing procedures into closer alignment. The report also examines which states are best positioned to use state tax data as a part of automatic voter registration or re-registration procedures. To allow already-registered voters to update their registration, these changes are small and achievable. Twenty-three states already collect most of the data they would need, and eight states collect nearly all of the required information. To implement full-scale registration would require a larger change; to accommodate new registrations, the most efficient approach would likely be a separate “Schedule VR” voter registration form included with the standard tax form.

At the onset of the COVID pandemic, the U.S. economy suddenly and swiftly lost 20 million jobs. Over the next two years, the economy has been on the recovery path. The authors assess the labor market two years into the COVID crisis. The authors show that early employment dynamics were almost entirely driven by temporary layoffs and later recalls. Taking these into account, the authors show that the labor market remained surprisingly tight throughout the crisis, despite the dramatic job losses. By spring, 2022, the labor market had largely recovered and was characterized by extremely tight markets and a slightly depressed employment-to-population ratio driven largely by retirements. Finally, findings show surprisingly little evidence of excess reallocation, despite predictions that COVID would dramatically and permanently change the way we live and work. The authors note they did find evidence that employment has reallocated somewhat away from low-skilled service jobs, and, in light of the job vacancy patterns, conclude that worker preferences or changes in job amenities are driving this shift. In addition, the retirements paved the way for movements up the job ladder, making low-skilled customer-facing jobs even less desirable.

Medical surges—i.e., influxes of patients that exceed a hospital's normal operating capacity—put enormous strain on a hospital's ability to care for patients. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of hospitals' abilities to evaluate and care for an increased volume of patients exceeding normal operating capacity, known as medical surge. The U.S. Government Accountability Office reviewed eight hospitals, all of which reported multiple challenges related to staff, supplies, space, or information. These are critical components for an effective medical surge response, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). All eight hospitals reported staffing challenges, such as a lack of staff to care for the increase in sick patients or staff becoming ill and unable to work, affecting hospital services. Hospitals took steps to address these challenges, such as supplementing staffing levels where possible or training staff on proper personal protective equipment use to prevent infection. Health care coalitions—groups of health care and response organizations in a defined geographic location supported by HHS funding—aided hospitals. This report describes (1) medical surge challenges selected hospitals faced in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic and how health care coalitions have supported their efforts, and (2) selected HHS programs and activities underway to support medical surge readiness.

This brief reports findings from an analysis of patterns of data use by state Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) agencies and is aimed at understanding what characterizes exemplary data use. Drawing on data from a national needs assessment of TANF agencies, the research team created a measure of data use and identified three categories of data use: basic, advanced, and exemplary. The team’s definition of exemplary data use thus includes the ability to use data and produce analytic findings that can inform program improvement. Data collected must be more than descriptive (as in reporting aggregate counts). They should be evaluative, answering key questions of program design and management. Exemplary data use also includes being transparent and forthcoming with data and findings by sharing results publicly—be it through internal channels or external partnerships. The findings highlight the importance of collaboration and communication, both internally and externally, around data and how it is used. The research team found that exemplary data users were less likely to report new data systems and that technical and data infrastructure (in particular, the age of a state’s primary TANF data system) appeared to have no relationship with the quality of analytic data use. The brief also includes practices and strategies to foster exemplary data use, such as cultivating useful partnerships with other state agencies and external partners to complement internal agency capacity.

Several studies were conducted to estimate the average incubation period of COVID-19; however, the incubation period of COVID-19 caused by different SARS-CoV-2 variants is not well described. This research aims to systematically assess the incubation period of COVID-19 and the incubation periods of COVID-19 caused by different SARS-CoV-2 variants in published studies. The authors used a meta-analysis following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline to review a total of 142 studies with 8,112 patients. The results indicated the pooled incubation period was 6.57 days (95% CI, 6.26-6.88) and ranged from 1.80 to 18.87 days. Additionally, the incubation periods of COVID-19 caused by the Alpha, Beta, Delta, and Omicron variants were 5.00, 4.50, 4.41, and 3.42 days, respectively. The findings of this study suggest that SARS-CoV-2 has evolved and mutated continuously throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, producing variants with different enhanced transmission and virulence. Identifying the incubation period of different variants is a key factor in determining the isolation period.