By OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE NEBRASKA CORRECTIONAL SYSTEM; Doug Koebernick, Inspector General Zach Pluhacek, Assistant Inspector General

This report by the Office of Inspector General of the Nebraska Correctional System (OIG) explores five areas of interest and/or concern related to mental health services within Nebraska Department of Correctional Services (NDCS) facilities. The findings and recommendations in this report resulted from more than a year of examination of the NDCS mental health system. This work began in early 2024, after NDCS moved to consolidate almost all of its inpatient mental health beds for men from across the system into the Reception and Treatment Center (RTC) in Lincoln. The change – which was directed by NDCS administration, not mental health officials – prompted complaints from patients and their advocates about the living conditions and how this disruption had impacted their mental health. Through interactions with more patients and providers, additional matters came to the OIG’s attention. Although not an exhaustive list, the five topics addressed in this report were selected based on 1) how frequently they were mentioned by people in the system, including patients and staff; 2) the significance of their impact on the system; and 3) their relevance to the Legislature, based on existing statutes and past legislative engagements in this area. These five topics are as follows: 1. Staffing. NDCS mental health services are in a longstanding staffing crisis, which appear more significant than the staffing challenges facing the overall behavioral health industry, including other state-run institutions. However, NDCS appears to be making some progress in this area. 2. Living conditions. The OIG fielded a variety of complaints about the living conditions in NDCS mental health units, including the use of custody restraints, limited out-of-cell time, and quality of facilities. Some of these conditions may be improving with new facilities, management changes and better custody/security staffing, but concerns remain. 3. Restrictive housing for seriously mentally ill individuals. State statute prohibits placing seriously mentally ill people in longer-term restrictive housing. However, NDCS’ interpretation and implementation of statute results in many people with serious mental illnesses being placed in these settings, anyway. 4. Discharge review. State statute also requires NDCS to have “evidence-based criteria” for screening people nearing release who are mentally ill and dangerous and may require civil commitment. However, it is unclear whether an evidence-based tool even exists for such a purpose. 5. Programming for high-risk individuals. There is a general lack of structured, clinical treatment programming available for individuals in high-security settings. NDCS terminated its version of the Violence Reduction Program (VRP), intended for those at high risk for violence, in early 2024 and has yet to identify a replacement. More specific findings are included in each section of this report. The report concludes with a summary of these findings, as well as recommendations for NDCS and the Legislature to consider. The OIG appreciates the efforts of NDCS mental health providers, administrators, and others involved in this area of the correctional system. Although this report provides a broad (and, hopefully, instructive) look at NDCS mental health services, it is not intended to serve as a comprehensive review. It is hoped that these findings and recommendations will help further the Department’s own efforts at improving this system as well as the Legislature’s role in assisting and guiding that process through policy.

By Michael Rempel, Krystal Rodriguez, and Kellyann Bock

As New York City works toward its mandate to close Rikers Island, addressing the mental health needs of people detained in the jail system remains a central challenge—and a defining opportunity for reform. Developed by the Data Collaborative for Justice at John Jay College and the Katal Center for Equity, Health, & Justice, this report brings together the latest mental health data for people held at Rikers, lived-experience insights from directly impacted people, and a 15-point plan to create a more effective and humane path forward.

Grounded in evidence, the report aims to:

1. Present updated data on the nature and scale of mental health needs among people held in the NYC jails.

2. Give a voice to the people behind the numbers through select first-person accounts that highlight systemic gaps and unmet needs.

3. Identify a continuum of safe and effective jail diversion strategies that can reduce the jail population while strengthening care, stability, and long-term public safety.

Taken together, this report offers a roadmap to reduce the number of people with serious mental health needs detained at Rikers and to strengthen NYC’s continuum of care.

By Falcon Correctional & Community Services, Inc

The Wisconsin Department of Corrections (WIDOC) Division of Adult Institutions (DAI) has long served the Wisconsin community with its three stated goals: • WIDOC works to protect the public through the constructive management of those placed in its charge. • WIDOC offers education, programming, and treatment to persons in WIDOC’s care that enables them to be successful upon returning to the community. • WIDOC’s mission is to achieve excellence in correctional practices while fostering safety for victims and communities. The WIDOC Executive Leadership Team sought outside assistance to conduct a comprehensive system-wide assessment of correctional, mental health, and physical health operations and practices, with a particular focus on restrictive housing and organizational culture. The project, initiated through discussions with Secretary Jared Hoy and his executive team, was designed to build upon recent reform efforts and respond to persistent staffing and operational challenges. The study used a multi-method approach that included data requests and analyses, staff interviews, workshops with DAI staff and other key stakeholders, site visits, interviews with incarcerated individuals, and policy reviews. The central objectives of the study were to (1) identify areas of strength that could be expanded upon throughout the department, (2) identify areas requiring improvements, and (3) provide actionable, evidence-based, and sustainable recommendations to achieve both short-term and long-term success. This independent assessment was conducted by an interdisciplinary team of Falcon Correctional and Community Services, Inc. (“Falcon, Inc.” or “Falcon”) experts with expertise in the administration of state prison operations, correctional medical and behavioral health practices, the assessment of criminogenic risk, large-scale system studies, and restrictive housing reform. The purpose of this independent evaluation was to serve as a tool to collectively understand, navigate, and prioritize recommendations for system improvements. Falcon would like to thank everyone at WIDOC for their assistance throughout this study. The time commitment was significant, from responding to data requests, organizing and facilitating site visits, and participating in workshops to providing the information necessary to complete this important project. We also thank you for the important work you do for the individuals in your care, your staff, and the Wisconsin community.Inc. 

By Katalin Parti, Thomas Dearden

Purpose: Historically, cybercrime has been seen as a near exclusively male activity. We were interested to learn whether the relationship between strain and crime holds for both males and females.

Methods: We utilized an online survey instrument to collect data from a national sample of individuals (n=2,121) representing the US population by age, gender, race and ethnicity. We asked offending related questions regarding various cybercrimes. In the current study, we use data from 390 individuals who reported a cybercrime activity within the past 12 months.

Results: We find strong support for prior strains correlating with both specific (e.g., illegal uploading) and general cyber-offending. We further examine whether gender interacts with strain. While general strain theory (GST) correlates with cyber-offending for both males and females, we did find a few important differences. Except for lack of trust in others and receiving unsatisfactory evaluation at school or work, there are different variables responsible for online offending for men and women. Parents’ divorcing, anonymity, and online video gaming increase cybercrime offending in women, whereas falling victim to a crime, breaking up with a significant other, and darkweb activity are correlated with cyber-offending for men.

Conclusion: Although GST functions differently by gender when it comes to engaging in cyber-offending, the theory is indeed gender-specific, as different strain variables are responsible for engaging in cyber-offending in women and men. Components of general strain responsible for cyber-offending need to be further studied concerning gender. According to our results, GST is gender-specific, and these variables need to be further studied.

International Journal of Criminology and Sociology, 13, 211–226

By Arthur MacDonald.

The narrative in Volume 1 asks many pointed questions: What does it mean to be “abnormal”? Who decides? And how have these judgments shaped modern science, education, and criminal justice?

First published in 1893, Arthur MacDonald’s Abnormal Man is one of the earliest American attempts to systematically study human difference through the emerging tools of psychology, anthropology, and criminology. Drawing on international research—from European criminal anthropology to American child-study movements—MacDonald sought to classify the physical, mental, and moral traits considered “aberrant” in his era. His work reflects the hopes and anxieties of a society confronting rapid industrialization, immigration, social change, and new scientific approaches to crime and mental health.

To the modern reader, Abnormal Man reveals both the ambition and the pitfalls of nineteenth-century science. Its pages contain pioneering observations about child development, deviance, and social responsibility, alongside early theories—now discredited—about heredity, physiognomy, and race. What emerges is a vivid and sometimes unsettling portrait of a culture striving to understand human variation without the benefit of modern psychology or ethical safeguards.

The Read-Me.org edition Volume 1 presents Abnormal Man as both a historical artifact and a gateway to critical reflection. It illustrates how scientific thought evolves, how cultural bias can shape research, and how early debates about abnormality laid the groundwork for contemporary approaches to mental health, special education, criminology, and social policy. To make such work, much of it controversial then as it is today, minimally believable, requires extensive documentation. The voluminous Bibliography of Abnormal Man reproduced here in Volume 2, contains all that Macdnald referred to within his detailed exposition. To some, his arguments may seem unsupported, or lacking in evidence. But he left no stone untuned as this amazing bibliographical documentation of all relative contemporary research

A foundational text at the crossroads of science and society, Abnormal Man invites readers to explore the origins of modern debates about deviance, diversity, and the boundaries of the “normal.”

Read-Me.Org Inc. New York-Philadelphia-Australia. 2025. 240p.

By Arthur MacDonald. Introduction by Graeme R. Newman

What does it mean to be “abnormal”? Who decides? And how have these judgments shaped modern science, education, and criminal justice?

First published in 1893, Arthur MacDonald’s Abnormal Man is one of the earliest American attempts to systematically study human difference through the emerging tools of psychology, anthropology, and criminology. Drawing on international research—from European criminal anthropology to American child-study movements—MacDonald sought to classify the physical, mental, and moral traits considered “aberrant” in his era. His work reflects the hopes and anxieties of a society confronting rapid industrialization, immigration, social change, and new scientific approaches to crime and mental health.

To the modern reader, Abnormal Man reveals both the ambition and the pitfalls of nineteenth-century science. Its pages contain pioneering observations about child development, deviance, and social responsibility, alongside early theories—now discredited—about heredity, physiognomy, and race. What emerges is a vivid and sometimes unsettling portrait of a culture striving to understand human variation without the benefit of modern psychology or ethical safeguards.

This new Read-Me.org edition presents Abnormal Man as both a historical artifact and a gateway to critical reflection. It illustrates how scientific thought evolves, how cultural bias can shape research, and how early debates about abnormality laid the groundwork for contemporary approaches to mental health, special education, criminology, and social policy.

A foundational text at the crossroads of science and society, Abnormal Man invites readers to explore the origins of modern debates about deviance, diversity, and the boundaries of the “normal.”

Read-Me.Org Inc. New York-Philadelphia-Australia. 2025. p.193.

By Matthew Bonn, Chelsea Cox, Marilou Gagnon. et al.

The International Guidelines on Human Rights and Drug Policy recommend that States commit to adopting a balanced, integrated, and human rights-based approach to drug policy through a set of foundational human rights principles, obligations arising from human rights standards, and obligations arising from the human rights of particular groups. Following two years of consultation with stakeholders, including people who use drugs, NGOs, legal and human rights experts, UN technical agencies and Member States, the Guidelines “do not invent new rights. Rather, they apply existing human rights law to the legal and policy context of drug control to maximise human rights protections, including in the interpretation and implementation of the drug control conventions.” In respect of the Guidelines and its obligations under UN human rights treaties, Canada must adopt stronger and more specific commitments for a human rights-based, people centered and public health approach.3 This approach must commit to the removal of criminal penalties for simple possession and a comprehensive health-based approach to drug regulation.

Ottawa, ONT: Royal Society of Canada, 2024. 52p.

By Sally C. Curtin,  Betzaida Tejada-Vera, and Brigham A. Bastian

Objectives—This report presents final 2020 data on the 10 leading causes of death in the United States by age, race and Hispanic origin, and sex. Leading causes of infant, neonatal, and post-neonatal death are also presented. This report supplements “Deaths: Final Data for 2020,” the National Center for Health Statistics’ annual report of final mortality statistics. Methods—Data in this report are based on information from all death certificates filed in the 50 states and the District of Columbia in 2020. Causes of death classified by the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD–10) are ranked according to the number of deaths. Cause-of-death statistics are based on the underlying cause of death. Race and Hispanic-origin data are based on the Office of Management and Budget’s 1997 standards for reporting race and Hispanic origin. Results—In 2020, many of the 10 leading causes of death changed rank order due to the emergence of COVID-19 as a leading cause of death in the United States. The 10 leading causes of death in 2020 were, in rank order: Diseases of heart; Malignant neoplasms; COVID-19; Accidents (unintentional injuries); Cerebrovascular diseases; Chronic lower respiratory diseases; Alzheimer disease; Diabetes mellitus; Influenza and pneumonia; and Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis. They accounted for 74.1% of all deaths occurring in the United States. Differences in the rankings are evident by age, race and Hispanic origin, and sex. Leading causes of infant death for 2020 were, in rank order: Congenital malformations, deformations and chromosomal abnormalities; Disorders related to short gestation and low birth weight, not elsewhere classified; Sudden infant death syndrome; Accidents (unintentional injuries); Newborn affected by maternal complications of pregnancy; Newborn affected by complications of placenta, cord and membranes; Bacterial sepsis of newborn; Respiratory distress of newborn; Diseases of the circulatory system; and Neonatal hemorrhage.   

Hyattsville, MD: National Vital Statistics Reports; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2023, 115pg