Jails That Only Keeps People Locked Up Are Missing Half the Mission

Why correctional safety, rehabilitation, and successful reentry must be treated as interconnected responsibilities—and why government needs to measure whether its investments actually prepare people to return to society.

By Scott Webber, DrPH, MBA, MPA, MPH

I've worked at the New York City Department of Correction for approximately 15 years, overseeing technology procurement, budgeting, and related administrative responsibilities.

My work doesn't involve supervising housing units or directly delivering rehabilitative services. But it has given me a perspective on corrections that I suspect many people outside the profession rarely consider.

A correctional facility is an extraordinarily complicated government operation.

It must provide food, healthcare, sanitation, security, transportation, communications, and essential services every day, regardless of weekends, holidays, emergencies, or budgetary challenges.

People in custody cannot simply choose another service provider when something doesn't work.

And the employees responsible for maintaining these operations must perform their duties in an environment where reliability and safety are paramount.

But there's another reality that deserves equal attention.

Most people entering New York City's jails will eventually return to the community.

That means our responsibilities cannot end with keeping people safely confined.

We should also be asking whether their time in custody leaves them better prepared to live productive, stable, and law-abiding lives after release.

I believe public safety and rehabilitation are too often presented as competing priorities.

They shouldn't be.

Security Is the Foundation, Not the Entire Mission

Any meaningful discussion of correctional reform must begin with safety.

Correction officers deserve a workplace where reasonable precautions protect them from violence.

People in custody deserve safe, humane conditions and access to the services required by law.

Medical professionals, educators, contractors, and other personnel must also be able to perform their responsibilities safely.

Without a reasonably secure environment, rehabilitative programming becomes difficult to deliver.

Classes may be interrupted. Movement may be restricted. Staff may be reassigned. Service providers may encounter operational barriers.

These aren't abstract management problems.

They affect whether people can actually participate in programs intended to help them.

In March 2026, DOC leadership reported an average daily jail population of approximately 7,100 people, alongside a uniformed workforce of roughly 5,600 officers and significant staffing vacancies. The Department described the growing mismatch between population demands and available staffing as a serious operational challenge.

https://www.corrections1.com/jail-management/nyc-correction-chief-backs-responsible-population-cuts-as-staffing-levels-shrink

I believe this illustrates why correctional management requires a comprehensive approach.

We cannot expect security, healthcare, education, and rehabilitation to function independently.

Each depends on the others.

A safer correctional environment creates better conditions for rehabilitation. Effective programming, in turn, may contribute to a more stable institutional environment.

Rehabilitation Must Be More Than Keeping People Occupied

One challenge in government performance management is distinguishing between activities and outcomes.

An agency can report how many classes were offered, how many people attended, and how much money was spent.

Those figures are useful.

But they don't necessarily tell us whether the program accomplished anything meaningful.

Did participants acquire skills?

Did they earn a recognized credential?

Did they improve their educational attainment?

Were they connected to employment, housing, or treatment services after release?

And were those benefits sustained?

I believe correctional programs should be evaluated using the same disciplined approach we apply to other public investments.

That doesn't mean we can reduce every benefit to a financial calculation.

But government should understand what it is purchasing and whether it is achieving the intended results.

For example, a vocational program that teaches participants a marketable skill may provide considerably more long-term value than an activity with no clear connection to education, employment, or personal development.

Recreation and enrichment also have legitimate purposes. Not every program needs to produce an employment credential.

But program objectives should be clearly defined.

Teaching a Skill Is Valuable. Connecting It to a Job Is Better.

One recent initiative illustrates the potential of linking correctional programming to actual employment opportunities.

On March 30, 2026, New York City announced an expansion of the Next Mile NYC commercial driver's license training program to Rikers Island.

The initiative allows eligible participants to begin classroom training while in custody and complete hands-on instruction and licensing requirements after release.

The City announced a $2.9 million expansion intended to serve up to 290 additional participants.

Across the broader program, officials reported that 99 participants had obtained commercial driver's licenses and 64 had secured full-time employment, with an average reported salary of approximately $90,200. These were early program results, not proof of long-term recidivism reduction.

https://www.nyc.gov/mayors-office/news/2026/03/mayor-mamdani-announces-expansion-of--next-mile-nyc--to-rikers-i

I find this model particularly interesting.

It connects training to an identifiable labor-market need.

Participants aren't simply completing a course.

They're working toward a credential that may open a career.

From a government management perspective, that distinction matters.

I would like to see more programs structured around realistic employment opportunities, including skilled trades, logistics, building maintenance, culinary services, and other fields where employers need qualified workers.

Of course, not every individual will be eligible for every occupation.

Licensing restrictions, personal circumstances, and labor-market conditions matter.

But programs should help participants understand those barriers before investing substantial time in training.

Technology Can Expand Opportunity, but Only When It Works

My direct professional involvement in correctional technology has reinforced my appreciation for the role that reliable systems play in everyday operations.

Technology in a correctional environment isn't simply about administrative convenience.

Secure communications, information systems and educational platforms can affect the ability of employees to perform their duties and people in custody to access services.

DOC's tablet program is one example.

The Department describes tablet-based access to educational materials, digital learning resources, legal information, and communications with family members.

https://www.nyc.gov/site/doc/media/tablet-program.page

I believe these capabilities have considerable potential.

Someone in custody may be able to study independently, access educational materials, or maintain appropriate contact with family members.

But providing a device isn't the same as delivering a service.

Equipment must function.

Content must remain available and relevant.

Security controls must be appropriate.

Technical problems must be resolved.

The agency also needs a sustainable plan to maintain the program.

This is where procurement, contract management, and operational accountability become essential.

A technology initiative that looks impressive during implementation can become ineffective if equipment failures, inadequate support, or poorly defined vendor responsibilities undermine availability.

The success of correctional technology should be measured by what people can reliably accomplish with it, not simply how many devices government purchases.

Reentry Planning Should Begin Before Release

Another issue I believe deserves greater attention is the transition from custody back into the community.

Someone leaving jail may need identification, housing, medical care, employment assistance, transportation, or access to public benefits.

These needs are interconnected.

An individual may need identification to begin employment.

Employment may be essential to obtaining stable housing.

Housing instability can complicate participation in treatment or other supportive services.

When those needs are addressed only after release, government may lose valuable time.

The City's Community Justice Reentry Network offers services involving employment, education, housing, behavioral health, and other forms of support for justice-involved New Yorkers. https://criminaljustice.cityofnewyork.us/programs/community-justice-reentry-network/

I believe coordination between correctional facilities and community-based organizations should be central to rehabilitation.

That coordination must respect privacy, legal requirements, and individual circumstances.

But government should avoid forcing people to navigate multiple disconnected systems when appropriate referrals and transition planning could begin earlier.

The objective isn't to eliminate personal responsibility.

It's to give people a realistic opportunity to exercise it successfully.

Procurement Can Influence Rehabilitation Outcomes

In February 2026, DOC announced new partnerships with community-based organizations to provide educational services, trauma-informed care, substance-use services, and transition planning. https://www.nyc.gov/site/doc/media/new-services.page

The contracts used a challenge-based procurement approach, inviting providers to propose solutions to defined needs informed by feedback from people in custody.

As someone who has spent much of his career in government procurement, I find this approach noteworthy.

Traditional solicitations can become overly prescriptive.

Government identifies a problem and then specifies exactly how a contractor must address it.

Sometimes that's appropriate.

But in specialized service areas, capable providers may have experience and ideas that agency personnel haven't fully considered.

A well-structured procurement can establish clear objectives while allowing vendors to propose innovative methods.

However, flexibility must be balanced with accountability.

Contracts should identify deliverables, staffing expectations, reporting requirements, and measurable outcomes.

Government should also evaluate whether providers have the capacity to deliver services consistently within a correctional environment.

A promising proposal means little if the organization cannot implement it.

We Need Better Measures of Success

If I were evaluating rehabilitation investments from a budgeting and management perspective, I would want to understand the entire progression from program availability to long-term outcomes.

How many eligible individuals are offered programming?

How many actually participate?

How many complete a meaningful course or credential?

How many receive continuity of services after release?

And what happens over the following six, twelve, and twenty-four months?

I would also examine employment stability, housing outcomes, treatment engagement and subsequent justice-system involvement, using appropriate privacy protections.

Recidivism is important, but it must be measured carefully.

A new arrest, reconviction, and return to incarceration are different outcomes.

Programs serving individuals with greater needs may also appear less successful unless evaluations account for differences in participant characteristics.

Government should avoid rewarding providers merely for selecting participants who are easiest to serve.

The objective should be improving outcomes for the people who actually need assistance.

Rehabilitation Is Also a Financial Management Question

Correctional services are expensive.

Facilities require staffing, maintenance, food, healthcare, utilities, transportation, and substantial infrastructure investments.

These obligations continue regardless of whether rehabilitative programs are effective.

That creates a legitimate financial question.

If a relatively modest investment in education, treatment, or employment preparation helps reduce future justice-system involvement, what long-term public costs might be avoided?

The answer requires careful analysis.

We shouldn't assume every successful reentry automatically produces an immediate budget reduction.

Correctional costs include substantial fixed expenses that don't disappear when one fewer person is incarcerated.

But sustained reductions in demand may eventually affect staffing requirements, facility utilization, and other expenditures.

The potential benefits also extend to employment, family stability, and community well-being.

I believe those outcomes deserve consideration when evaluating rehabilitation's full value.

The Public Deserves Both Safety and Results

After approximately 15 years at DOC, I've learned that correctional operations involve difficult responsibilities that are not always visible to the public.

Employees must maintain security while supporting essential services in an environment where unexpected problems can arise at any moment.

That work deserves recognition.

But government must also look beyond the immediate operational demands.

We should build systems that protect employees, maintain safe and humane conditions, provide meaningful opportunities for personal development, and support successful transitions back into society.

Those goals are not mutually exclusive.

They are parts of the same public safety mission.

I don't believe rehabilitation should be justified through idealism alone.

It should be supported by evidence, sound management, responsible procurement, and measurable results.

Public safety should not be defined exclusively by what happens inside a jail.

The long-term question is what happens after someone leaves.

A correctional system succeeds not merely when it keeps people safely in custody, but when it helps create the conditions for fewer people to return.

That's a standard worth pursuing.

For the employees who work in our facilities.

For the individuals entrusted to our care.

For the families and communities affected by incarceration.

And for the taxpayers who deserve a correctional system that delivers lasting public value.

The views expressed in this article are my own and do not necessarily represent the positions of the New York City Department of Correction or the City of New York.