Editor’s note: What can U.S. corrections learn from international practice? In this piece, a German correctional officer shares how structured release planning is treated as a core security function — offering a perspective that challenges us to rethink how we manage the transition from custody to community.
By Nils Antkowiak
Release from custody is not the exception in corrections, it is the rule.
In both the United States and Germany, most individuals in custody will eventually return to the community. In contrast to the moment of admission, the timing of release is usually known from the beginning of the sentence, or at least becomes predictable over time, for example when eligibility for early release approaches.
As in many areas of correctional work, success often remains invisible. A well-prepared transition rarely attracts attention. Failure, however, becomes highly visible, sometimes in the form of a rapid reoffending incident that is immediately reported in the media.
Every correctional system faces the same operational reality: release carries risk.
A person moves from a highly structured and closely supervised environment into a setting where institutional control no longer exists. At the same time, institutional support also ends. Control and assistance disappear simultaneously, and often abruptly.
The challenge for correctional leadership is therefore not simply to release individuals from custody, but to manage the transition from institutional structure to personal responsibility. An abrupt break between custody and freedom increases uncertainty for the individual, for the institution, and for public safety.
Preparation for release must begin during custody.
Without early planning and structured transition, individuals may leave custody without stable housing, employment, continued treatment, or the daily routines necessary to function independently. After long periods in a highly regulated environment, some individuals struggle with basic decisions and responsibilities. In such situations, returning to familiar but harmful networks may appear to be the only available option.
When structure disappears: The loss of everyday autonomy
Daily life in custody is shaped by routines, structure and clear rules.
This level of organization is necessary for any correctional facility to function and to maintain safety and order. A highly regulated environment and long periods of incarceration often provide individuals, sometimes for the first time, with a stable daily routine as an alternative to previously unstable or unstructured lifestyles.
At the same time, there is a risk of becoming accustomed to this structured environment.
When everyday decisions are consistently made within institutional routines, the ability to make independent decisions can gradually decline. This can lead to institutionalization, the ability to function effectively in custody but difficulty managing everyday life after release.
Appointments are scheduled, meals are provided, and daily routines are organized in advance. Purchases do not need to be planned, and managing personal finances plays a limited role within the institution. In Germany, the principle of normalization aims to align living conditions in custody with those in the community as far as safety and order allow. Nevertheless, the reality of institutional life remains highly structured.
I have seen situations where individuals who had been incarcerated for many years used one of their first escorted outings to purchase clothing, accompanied by an officer. The task itself was simple, yet the number of choices involved led to visible uncertainty and hesitation. The individual was overwhelmed by decisions that most people outside custody make routinely.
In the community, however, these decisions must suddenly be made independently. Finding housing, securing employment, managing finances, and navigating a highly complex and competitive environment can be challenging even for individuals without prior incarceration. Custody provides time to prepare for these responsibilities, or at least to begin building the foundation for them.
Gradual release through structured increases in freedom
In the German correctional system, individuals are gradually introduced to increasing levels of responsibility through a structured system of graduated freedoms within custody. This staged approach allows staff to prepare individuals for release step by step, rather than moving directly from a closed and highly controlled environment into full freedom.
The system includes several levels of increasing responsibility. Individuals may first leave the facility under escort by two officers, sometimes restrained and sometimes unrestrained, depending on the assessed risk. Later, escorted outings may take place with a single officer or with approved and reliable individuals, such as a spouse or close relatives. In suitable cases, individuals may be transferred to open custody, where they can take up external employment and apply preparation in a less restrictive setting. This may include gradually increasing periods outside the facility, ranging from a few hours to overnight stays with a partner or in their own accommodation.
Decisions about these increases in freedom are not decisions about release. Courts determine whether and when an individual will be released. Correctional leadership determines how custody is carried out. These decisions concern the structure and conditions of imprisonment, the “how” of custody, not the “if.”
Although such decisions are part of daily operational practice, they are never routine. Each decision is based on an individual risk assessment that focuses on the specific level of freedom being considered. Facility leadership is responsible for making a professional prediction about future behavior and for assessing the presence of escape risk and misuse risk in relation to the concrete step under consideration.
In practice, detailed escape plans are rarely discovered. Decisions are therefore typically based on indicators rather than certainty. For example, individuals who voluntarily surrender to begin serving their sentence, fully aware of the consequences, often demonstrate a degree of reliability that weighs against an immediate risk of flight. Other relevant factors may include prior behavior during incarceration, the presence or absence of a stable place of residence and meaningful social ties in the country of incarceration, the existence of hidden financial resources, or the prospect of deportation.
The same principle applies to misuse risk. The assessment must focus on whether there are concrete indications that an individual is likely to use a specific level of freedom for criminal activity or other violations. Available information is carefully evaluated to identify patterns and draw reasonable conclusions. One of the most important indicators is behavior in custody. Repeated rule violations, particularly substance misuse, involvement in the prison subculture, or prior incidents during earlier periods of incarceration, often weigh against granting additional freedom. The nature of the original offense also plays a role, and in certain cases, particularly involving violent or sexual offenses, professional psychological assessments are obtained.
Experience shows a simple but important principle: individuals who are unable to comply with rules in a closely supervised environment will usually find it even more difficult to manage greater levels of freedom.
These decisions are inherently predictive. Even when based on careful evaluation and complete information, outcomes cannot be guaranteed. An individual may abscond or commit an offense while outside the facility. However, the occurrence of a negative outcome does not automatically mean that the original decision was wrong. The purpose of these decisions is not to eliminate risk entirely, but to reduce risk at the time of release.
For facility leadership, these decisions carry significant responsibility. They may attract public attention, media scrutiny, and, in rare cases, legal review. For this reason, decisions must be carefully documented and based on a transparent balancing of all relevant factors, both for and against the individual concerned. Making such decisions requires professional judgment and confidence, particularly in long-term custody, where it is often easier to find reasons to deny additional freedom than to grant it.
At the same time, the realistic prospect of gradually increasing freedom plays an important role in maintaining order and cooperation within the facility. For many individuals, the possibility of progress toward greater responsibility provides motivation to comply with rules and engage constructively in daily routines. If individuals believe that no progress is possible regardless of their behavior, motivation declines, cooperation weakens, and institutional safety may be affected.
Preparation is a continuous process
Preparation for life after release is a continuous process whose foundation is established at admission, not in the final phase of incarceration. A structured assessment of risks and needs is conducted as part of the intake procedure. This assessment is carried out by a multidisciplinary team and translated into an individual reintegration plan.
The content of this plan and its regular review are defined by law, ensuring a continuous process that takes changing circumstances into account. The plan includes ongoing evaluation of eligibility for increasing levels of freedom as well as early coordination with transition management services.
In practice, transition management is integrated well before release. For example, in Hamburg, specialized services support individuals for several months before and after release, assisting with administrative procedures, housing arrangements, and employment planning. The purpose of this coordination is not administrative convenience, but operational stability.
By addressing critical areas early and in a structured manner, correctional facilities create the conditions for an orderly transition from custody to the community. Structured preparation reduces uncertainty and lowers the risk of a chaotic release.
Even without a formal reentry program or the financial resources to establish one, correctional facilities can set the foundation for a safe transition from custody to the community from the very beginning of incarceration.
During the intake process, potential release dates should be identified and clearly documented, including the full sentence completion date and any legally possible date for early release. These dates should be made visible within the facility’s operational systems, and an automatic review should be scheduled approximately six to eight weeks before the anticipated release to determine whether any critical actions are required.
At this stage, staff should also verify which essential documents are already in place, such as valid identification or financial cards, and note expiration dates so that replacement procedures can be initiated early if necessary.
It is equally important to document a planned release address whenever possible. If no address is available at admission, or if the planned address later becomes unavailable, staff can begin early coordination with community organizations or housing providers and place the individual on waiting lists where appropriate. In high-risk situations, identifying temporary accommodation options before release can prevent immediate instability and, where appropriate, assist with basic employment preparation, such as supporting job applications or connecting individuals with potential employers or staffing agencies.
The higher the level of preparation before release, the greater the predictability of the transition on the day of release, including where the individual will go, how basic needs will be covered, and how the first weeks in the community will be stabilized.
For correctional leadership, these actions are not administrative tasks. They are security decisions.
Careful preparation reduces uncertainty, lowers the likelihood of crisis at the moment of release, and directly contributes to public safety.
Managing the transition is a core responsibility
For the vast majority of incarcerated individuals in both the United States and Germany, there will eventually be a moment of release. Managing this transition, and softening the abrupt shift from custody to freedom, is therefore a central responsibility of modern correctional practice.
The German system requires correctional leadership to make continuous predictive decisions, decisions that carry risks both for the institution and for the wider community. These decisions are not without personal responsibility for those who make them. They require professional judgment, careful documentation, and the willingness to accept accountability.
However, avoiding decisions and refusing to grant increasing levels of freedom does not reduce risk. It merely postpones it. When the transition from a controlled custodial environment to unrestricted freedom occurs without preparation, the step becomes larger, more abrupt, and more dangerous for the individual and for the community.
Structured increases in freedom are therefore a security instrument. They serve the interests of the community into which the individual will be released, and they also contribute to safety within the facility itself. When individuals can realistically work toward the next step of responsibility, cooperation improves, stability increases, and daily operations become safer for staff and other incarcerated persons.
Ultimately, not making a decision is itself a decision — and often the riskiest one.
Correctional leadership has the responsibility to use the opportunities available during custody to actively manage the transition to freedom rather than leaving that transition to chance.
About the author
Nils Antkowiak is a senior corrections professional with extensive operational leadership experience in custodial settings, particularly in long-term imprisonment and high-security environments. He previously served as acting prison director and deputy director in several large correctional facilities in Germany and currently holds a senior leadership position in an international detention facility in The Hague. His professional focus includes custody management, institutional safety, and structured transition from custody to the community. Connect with Nils on LinkedIn.