Those numbers tell you everything you need to know. They're not "solving mass incarceration" any time soon.
The Last Mile's website (https://thelastmile.org/about/) lists not 100 graduates, but 240 "returned citizens" who have successfully rejoined society, still with a 0% recidivism rate. This article said they only have 100 or so graduates, and the article was published in January of last year.
Assuming the article's graduates are the same thing as the website's returned citizens, that means that The Last Mile has managed to produce about 1.4 times more graduates in the past year than in the entire previous 10 years combined.
Healthy skepticism is healthy, but to dismiss this program's meteoric rise, huge potential, and noble cause without even a cursory attempt to understand them is being intentionally obtuse.
For instance, anyone who might be critical of a US historical policy typically has "no business" here because politics cause ideological flame wars, or some other half baked reasoning.
While it is very encouraging at fostering dialogue on tech, once the dialogue goes against Hacker News's ultimate purpose, to make money, that's where you start to see weird accounts and strangely offensive comments questioning the act of questioning.
Holy shizz, that's a lot. It's as if US laws and prisons aren't there to rehabilitate an individual but to turn him against society for good, making him a returning "customer" so that certain interest groups can keep profiting. But that's just probably my imagination running wild.
The gist of it was that in many (all?) places in the US, a landlord can be sued if they rent to someone who has a criminal record who then went on commit another crime. As a result, few landlords will rent to them. I hang out on real estate forums and have never met anyone who would rent to someone with a criminal record.
Getting a job is a whole other problem.
That's just one example of the challenges they face.
https://www.marketplace.org/2021/02/01/the-afterlife-of-mass...
I can't find it right now, but there's also a TED talk by a former state official (state senator?) who committed a crime and spent a very brief time in prison. It was eye opening to him how he was denied pretty much everything once he got out, and only through his connections was he able to get employment.
Couple that with the fact that the US is the country that imprisons the highest proportion of its own citizens, and it's terrifying.
How does society expect ex-cons to become functioning members again if they're denied housing and employment?
But if you don't hire them, they may be forced to commit other felonies... tragedy of the commons I suppose, just like shopping at Walmart is bad for the community but good for the individual.
It's hard to overcome these effects without legislation, but noone (sane) wants to be in the community that starts it.
> Holy shizz, that's a lot.
As far as I can tell that’s the rearrest rate, and possibly only the rearrest rate for state offenders, which is higher than for federal (it doesn't exactly match any of the sources I've found, but that's what it seems closest to.)
Reconviction (including determination of a parole violation) rates are much lower (somewhere between 50-60% im various sources.
And both are heavily tied to other demographic, offense type, and criminal history factors that I'm going to guess are also very influential in selection for the program, so the the expected recidivism rate for those entering the program—whether measured by rearrest, reconviction, or any other standard—would probably be much lower than the overall criminal population.
> It's as if US laws and prisons aren't there to rehabilitate an individual but to turn him against society for good,
To the extent something like that is a factor, it's almost backwards: US criminal laws are very disproportionately used against people that society has turned against for reasons other than criminality. Now, it's true that the criminal “justice” system isn't rehabilitative, but it's targets not being turned against society further by it wouldn't protect them from being retargeted.
you realize that because they're in prison there's this other thing that prevents them from graduating to a job... namely their prison terms. just so we're clear: that there have only been 100 grads that successfully didn't return to prison doesn't tell you anything about how many finished the program and haven't been released yet.
moreover, a small program with limited funding running in a few prisons not solving mass incarceration isn't anymore surprising than a thumb in a dyke not preventing a flood.
instead you should be saying/asking/imagining: what would the completion and recidivism rate be if this program ran in all prisons. or even better: what would the incarceration rate be if this kind of vocational training were available for free in all poor neighborhoods.
However, is is bloody obvious that if a person cant survive/earn money legally, they will do so illegally - so the system of 'justice' is just an offence to the senses cause it causes more crime.