While the promise of second-chance policies is both practical and necessary for building safer, more productive communities, their acceptance remains deeply contested. In Florida, a state that continues to operate within a “tough-on-crime” framework, these efforts are often described not as smart public safety measures, but as “rewarding criminals,” as Gov. Ron DeSantis once noted. Despite this persistent mischaracterization, advocates across the state remain committed to advancing reforms that improve the reentry process and expand real opportunities for Floridians returning home from prison.
Florida’s First Step
For years, Florida has had one of the highest incarceration rates in the nation. Policies like mandatory minimums — laws that require judges to impose a fixed minimum prison sentence regardless of individual circumstances — and minimum sentencing like the 85 percent rule, which mandates that an incarcerated person serve 85 percent of their sentence, significantly contribute to the state’s large incarcerated population. While Florida has embraced some limited reforms, it largely continues to operate within a “tough-on-crime” framework that extends punishment far beyond incarceration. Barriers to employment, housing, and professional licensing remain deeply entrenched, often making it difficult for returning citizens to achieve stability even when they have the skills and qualifications to do so.
Still, as a result of the relentless efforts of advocates, Florida’s lawmakers have occasionally been nudged in the right direction, adopting smart criminal justice reform. In 2019, alongside the national momentum created by the federal First Step Act,[1] Florida attempted to enact its own version, the Florida First Step Act. The proposed legislation mirrored many provisions of its federal namesake. While Florida did pass a criminal justice package, many of the initial provisions were stripped. Ultimately, the Legislature enacted a version that expanded judicial discretion in certain nonviolent drug trafficking cases, allowing courts to move away from mandatory minimums in specific circumstances. Additionally, it allowed incarcerated people to earn time off their sentences by participation in educational and workforce programs.
An additional legislative reform in 2019 brought relief for Floridians with past criminal records who are seeking to obtain a professional license. Florida was ranked among the five states with the most burdensome licensing requirements due to its many barriers that hinder people from procuring a professional license. These burdens are exacerbated for those with a criminal record. Recognizing that finding a job and earning a livable wage can make or break someone’s ability to successfully re-enter their community, and that for years, individuals with criminal records were effectively shut out of entire industries due to blanket disqualifications, the Florida Legislature began taking steps to limit how licensing boards use old or unrelated criminal records to deny people access to professional licenses. The 2019 law helped establish more transparency in what can disqualify someone, and — just as importantly — it gave individuals the ability to find out if they are eligible before spending time and money on training. The measure also opened the door for people to begin the licensing process while still incarcerated, helping close the wide gap between release and employment.
Florida’s Distant Second Step
It was not until six years later that lawmakers advanced another reform aimed at strengthening the bridge from incarceration to employment. The enactment of SB 472 in 2025 allows certain educational and training credits earned during incarceration to count toward occupational licensing requirements. Additionally, it helps reduce costs for re-enrolling in courses that have already been completed while incarcerated, paying out of pocket for tuition, securing reliable transportation to attend classes, and navigating basic requirements like obtaining a valid state or driver’s license. For many people leaving prison without immediate income or financial support, these barriers can delay entry into the workforce for months, if not longer. Time itself becomes a cost, as individuals are forced to restart training pathways instead of building on what they have already accomplished. By recognizing prior learning, SB 472 helps shorten that gap, making it more feasible for returning citizens to transition more quickly into stable, licensed professions.
And yet, even with these policy wins, the broader re-entry ecosystem remains significantly difficult to navigate.
In the Pursuit of a Second Chance
For many people returning home, the barriers to reentry are not only structural, they are personal. They show up in the form of job applications that go unanswered and appear during the search for stable housing, where options are limited and a record can close doors before a conversation even begins. They surface in the effort to reconnect and rebuild trust with family members after years of separation, in which relationships have changed in both subtle and profound ways. They are also felt in the disorientation of reentering a world that has continued to move forward where technology, expectations, and daily life look entirely different from what was once familiar. Together, these challenges underscore that reentry is not a single moment; instead, it is an ongoing process of rebuilding, often without the support systems needed to make that process sustainable.
FPI spoke to a returning citizen to understand the lived experience of someone who is returning from prison. We have changed the respondent’s name, and omitted details about his place of incarceration, and his convictions. To safeguard anonymity, FPI refers to the respondent as John.
The real-life experience of one returning citizen, John, illustrates the challenges to reentry that many face. While incarcerated, he completed a baking class. However, he realized after being released that this training was “useless” because the pathway to employment in that field was unclear and out of reach. The reentry program he was assigned to helped equip him with certain skills, such as helping him learn how to navigate interviews and complete job applications. While useful, those tools did not immediately translate into opportunity. When asked whether he was able to secure employment after his release, his response was an immediate “no.”
John was able to “do good” at his first job post-incarceration due to the support of “a friend of a friend” who provided him transportation to and from work. Since he was still a part of a reentry program, he had financial obligations to the state; John had to pay fees, which further strained an already limited income.
When asked about what lawmakers can do to help address some of the barriers people face when returning home from prisons, John pointed to the crucial need for stronger infrastructure, particularly in the critical first months after release. Still, he acknowledged that his experience could have been far more difficult. Unlike many others, John had a family who welcomed him home and provided a measure of stability. For those without that support, the challenges of reentry are often even more pronounced.
Second Chance Policies as a Reality
Reentry is a long process that is shaped by many challenges; it extends far beyond the release date and the hope of a new beginning. It requires intention, investment, and time. The policies highlighted above, along with the lived experiences behind them, make clear that progress is possible yet very far from complete.
In Florida, where a “tough-on-crime” approach continues to shape much of the policy landscape, the path forward calls for a more balanced vision, one that recognizes that public safety is strengthened, not weakened, when people returning home have real access to employment, housing, and stability. Expanding pathways to occupational licensing, investing in reentry infrastructure, and reducing unnecessary barriers are not just matters of fairness, they are also evidence-based strategies that allow individuals to contribute meaningfully to their communities and to the state’s workforce. Realizing the full promise of second chances will require a sustained commitment from lawmakers to policies that move beyond punishment and toward true reintegration.
