By Fred Butcher and Amanda Cissner

This study examined whether the jail reduction strategies implemented in two SJC sites reduced jail populations without increasing crime or sacrificing community safety. Findings suggest that incarceration can be avoided without negatively impacting public safety, with recidivism rates declining after SJC implementation. Further, less time in jail resulted in greater public safety; shorter jail stays were associated with lower recidivism risk.

By Virginia Mantouvalou

This article presents the 2024 Report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Slavery, entitled ‘Contemporary Forms of Slavery as Affecting Currently and Formerly Incarcerated People’, and assesses the regime in England and Wales on the basis of the Rapporteur's recommendations. It suggests that the Report is a welcome development for it sheds light on an issue that is not frequently investigated by human rights bodies and institutions and has the potential to influence the development of national, European and international standards in the field. Against this background, this piece argues that prison labour in England and Wales falls short of the standards set out by the Rapporteur. Working prisoners often lack meaningful work opportunities and are excluded from labour rights that other workers have. The issues raised in the Report should be considered and addressed as a matter of urgency for the United Kingdom to comply with its human rights obligations

By Michael Rempel, Krystal Rodriguez, and Kellyann Bock from the Data Collaborative for Justice at John Jay College, and Yonah Zeitz, gabriel sayegh, and Melanie Dominguez from the Katal Center for Equity, Health, & Justice.

The New York City Council established a legal deadline of August 31, 2027 for closing the jails on Rikers Island and building smaller modern jails in the City’s four large boroughs. The replacement jails, when combined with over 300 secure hospital beds for people with serious medical or mental health conditions, will hold a citywide capacity of about 4,200 people on any given day. However, since reaching a low watermark of 3,809 in April 2020, the City’s daily jail population has grown to nearly 7,000—alongside a ballooning sub-population in need of mental health treatment.  Today, Rikers is the largest mental health facility in New York City and among the largest in the country.5 The goals of the current research and policy brief are threefold: 1. Present updated data about the mental health needs of people held in the NYC jails. 2. Reveal the individuals behind these facts through select case studies. 3. Identify a continuum of safe and effective jail diversion strategies for this population. Latest Facts About Mental Health in NYC Jails Currently, close to 7,000 people are held in the City’s jails, of whom 85% have been detained before trial. Black people make up 58% of the jail population, compared to 23% of the City’s general population. In absolute terms, over twice as many Black people as the next highest racial/ ethnic group are in jail while flagging for mental health. ■ Mental Health Prevalence: Over the same 2020-to-2025 timeframe that saw a significant jail increase, overall, the fraction of the jail population receiving mental health services climbed from 44% to 60%, 6 and the fraction diagnosed with a serious mental illness rose from 17% to 22%. 7 The latest health data also indicates that 25% have an opioid use disorder, 30% have an alcohol use disorder, and 28% are homeless or “likely to be homeless” when released,8 a figure that rises to 42% for those with a serious mental illness.9 ■ Medical Conditions: As of September 2025, 28% of people held in jail were diagnosed with lung disease, 15% with cardiovascular disease, 8% with neurologic disease (e.g., epilepsy or stroke history), 6% with diabetes, 4% with hepatitis B or C, 3% with stage 3+ chronic kidney isease, 3% with HIV/AIDS, and 1% with a malignancy.10 ■ Missed Appointments: In September 2025, there were 15,823 missed medical appointments compared to 3,626 in September 2020.11 A recent monitors’ report indicated that from July to September 2024, people were produced for only 53% of scheduled mental health appointments and 77% of reentry planning appointments.12 ■ Disproportionate Gender Impact: Of close to 500 women jailed at Rikers as of October 2025, 87% have needed mental health services, compared to 58% of men.13 ■ Disproportionate Length of Stay: On average, as of October 31, 2025, people in the latest jail population needing mental health services had been held for 281 days, compared to 212 days for people not needing such services. Controlling for people’s background characteristics, a recent analysis found that flagging for mental health within ten days of jail intake predicted a total length of stay 34 days longer than people who never flagged.

By Nancy G. La Vigne

In an attempt to reduce the high costs of illicit inmate telephone use, a high-security, computerized phone system/or Inmates was introduced on Rikers Island in 1993. A Jew months after implementation, correction officers observed that the system had the beneficial side effect of reducing fights over phone use. This paper confirms the anecdotal evidence, finding that the new phone system reduced both phone costs and inmate violence related to phone use by 50%. There was little evidence of displacement to other forms of violence. These results demonstrate that violent crime may often be precipitated by situational factors and may be prevented by reducing opportunities for disputes.

By The U.S. Government Accountability Office

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), through its components U.S. Border Patrol and Office of Field Operations, detains individuals who unlawfully enter the U.S. at short-term holding facilities. CBP personnel process individuals and determine the next course of action, such as transferring them from custody or removing them from the country. For the past decade, CBP has used contracted medical personnel at facilities along the southwest border to provide health screenings and treatment of basic medical conditions to individuals in custody. 

GAO found that CBP developed policies and guidance for providing medical care to individuals in custody but has not consistently implemented them. For example, CBP requires some populations, such as children, pregnant individuals, and adults who indicated they might have an illness or injury, to receive a basic physical exam known as a medical assessment. Although CBP introduced new guidance and improved the percentage of individuals who received medical assessments, GAO found that some individuals still did not receive assessments, as required. For example, 57 percent of adults with a potential illness or injury and 20 percent of pregnant individuals did not receive medical assessments from August 2023 to August 2024, as required. Without an oversight mechanism to ensure that people in custody receive the required medical assessments, CBP may not be aware of medical needs and cannot ensure it takes the appropriate next steps for any necessary medical care. GAO also found that CBP and contracted medical personnel did not consistently implement additional care requirements for individuals in custody who had serious injuries or illnesses (i.e., those who were medically high-risk). For example, from August 2023 to August 2024, contracted medical personnel did not conduct medical monitoring checks required for medically high-risk adults and children approximately 40 percent of the time. In July 2025, CBP developed new tools to inform its oversight efforts, but did not explain how it will use them to systematically assess whether medically high-risk individuals received their medical monitoring checks on time. Developing and implementing a mechanism to monitor this requirement and others would help CBP better ensure these individuals receive required care, and personnel are monitoring their conditions. CBP did not consistently provide medical records and prescriptions—referred to as medical summary forms—as required, to individuals with medical issues leaving CBP custody. By not providing the medical summary forms, CBP can create challenges with continuity of care. GAO also found CBP’s oversight reports did not include data from facilities that do not have contracted medical personnel. These facilities send individuals to local hospitals or urgent care facilities for medical care, including medical assessments. Without these data, CBP cannot ensure all individuals in custody received required medical assessments to decrease the risk of adverse medical outcomes. Moreover, GAO’s analysis showed that CBP did not consistently manage or oversee its medical services contracts.

By: Arto Arman, Andreas Beerli, Aljosha Henkel, Michel André Maréchal

We study how incarceration experience shapes preferences for criminal justice policies. In collaboration with a newly opened prison, we conducted a randomized field experiment that offered citizens the opportunity to experience up to two days of incarceration, closely replicating the real-life journey of inmates. Providing citizens with a chance to gain firsthand incarceration leads to a significant shift in punitive attitudes, with participants becoming less supportive of harsh criminal justice policies and donating more money to organizations advocating more moderate justice policies. Although individuals overestimated the wellbeing of actual prisoners, the intervention did not alter these beliefs. This suggests that the observed changes in policy preferences are driven more by personal experience than by revised beliefs about the burden of confinement. By randomizing institutional exposure outside the laboratory, our study highlights the causal role of personal experience in the formation of policy preferences.

By Colleen M. Berryessa

Objectives This study examines US popular support for mechanisms that provide early release and “second chances” for individuals serving long-term prison sentences. Methods An experiment using a national sample of US adults (N=836). Results Data showed moderate, consistent levels of general support for using a range of commonly available “second chance” mechanisms that also extended to offenders convicted of both violent and non-violent offenses. Levels of support significantly varied by race, gender, and age. There was significantly more support for using certain mechanisms in response to the trafficking of serious drugs, which was fully mediated by participants’ views on the importance of the cost of incarceration. Conclusions Members of the public appear open and supportive to utilizing “second chance” mechanisms in a variety of contexts. Yet the cost of incarceration to taxpayers appears to particularly motivate increased public interest in using such mechanisms for offenders convicted of the trafficking of serious drugs.

By Taleed El-Sabawi, Shelly Weizman, Regina LaBelle

Civil litigation provides a novel and underutilized source of information about deaths in U.S. jails, particularly when official data are incomplete. This study systematically analyzes verdicts, settlements and judgments to explore patterns in practices linked to preventable mortality in U.S jails. Results: Content analysis of facts alleged in 90 cases filed between 2015 and 2020 revealed thematic patterns related to inadequate or delayed medical care. Alleged facts routinely included observable signs of serious medical need—such as incoherence, convulsions, or pleas for help—followed by failures to provide timely or medically appropriate care. In cases of suicide, allegations commonly describe known mental health conditions, discontinued medication, and lapses in monitoring or suicide prevention protocols. Despite repeated warnings—by the individuals themselves, fellow incarcerated persons, or family members—jail staff frequently failed to act. A small subset of cases resulted in judgments for the defense, often where some care was provided or protocols were followed, even if outcomes were still fatal. Conclusion: These findings suggest that in cases resulting in reported settlements, verdicts or judgments incustody deaths in the U.S. could be prevented through improved intake screening, timely medical monitoring, care coordination, and adherence to established protocols. Litigation records offer important insight into how systemic failures contribute to jail mortality, with implications for policy, public health, and correctional practice.

By Ram Subramanian, Lauren-Brooke Eisen, Josephine Wonsun Hahn, Jinmook Kang, Ava Kaufman, and Brianna Seid

Most Americans don’t know what it’s like inside the United States’ 1,664 state and federal prisons. Yet even those who believe the primary purpose of incarceration is to deter crime or to inflict punishment expect that people returning home from prison should be ready to be productive, law-abiding members of their communities. Indeed, a 2025 Brennan Center poll found that more than 80 percent of likely voters think that formerly incarcerated people deserve a second chance and can be prepared to reenter society through rehabilitative, educational, or vocational programs.

Some correctional leaders are recognizing this and implementing innovative programs to set incarcerated people up for success. These reforms improve conditions for the people who live and work in prisons and, if adopted more widely, could also improve public safety.

But most prisons rarely offer such opportunities. Life behind bars is marked by social and physical isolation and punctuated by violence and brutality. People who have regular contact with U.S. prisons — law enforcement officers, correctional staff, lawyers, academics, nonprofit leaders, volunteers, and of course those who have been incarcerated and their loved ones — have referred to them as “warehouses that degrade and brutalize” and places where people have been “thrown away.” Judges have described the conditions in some U.S. prisons as objectively inhumane, with one saying such conditions have “no place in civilized society.” As of February 2026, the Department of Justice had 43 open investigations into jails, prisons, or entire state correctional systems for constitutional violations relating to physical and sexual violence, sanitation problems, staffing deficiencies, inadequate medical and psychiatric care, overuse of solitary confinement, and crowding.6 And as the Correctional Leaders Association has noted, the people who work in these systems suffer themselves.

By Rosa Gibson

In Alaska, pretrial detainees comprise much of the state’s prison population. Electronic monitoring—made possible by recent bail reforms—provides a pathway to pretrial release for those who cannot afford to pay bail. Using GPS data, the Pretrial Enforcement Division can monitor the location of a releasee’s ankle monitor for supervisory purposes. But when law enforcement seeks warrantless access to that data to investigate crimes other than the one for which a releasee is awaiting trial, that intrusion raises concerns under Alaska’s constitutional right to privacy. This Note argues that the Alaska judiciary, which is best positioned to guard the privacy of pretrial releasees in this area, should treat warrantless searches of this type as per se unreasonable, absent narrow exceptions. This Note posits that a reverse location search of pretrial electronic monitoring data for general investigative purposes constitutes a “search” under both the U.S. and Alaska Constitutions. Through the contextualization of Alaska’s use of electronic monitoring, analysis of the impact of Alaska’s constitutional right to privacy on the search inquiry, and analogy to the constitutionally suspect geofence search, this Note demonstrates that requiring a warrant for this data for investigative purposes is consistent with Alaska’s search-and-seizure jurisprudence. Acknowledging the inherent tradeoffs involved in pretrial release, this Note strives to establish a workable middle ground where law enforcement can access sophisticated tools in the interest of public safety without abandoning the privacy values the Alaskan people have enshrined in their constitution.

By  Beth Colgan and Jordan B. Wood

This Article provides a comprehensive statewide study of a practice by which courts order defendants to pay financial sanctions—fines, costs, and probation fees—by serving terms of incarceration. Though several states authorize these practices, to date, very little is known about the extent to which payment via incarceration occurs and the different ways it is employed. This Article examines the use of the practice in Nebraska, where it is colloquially referred to as “sitting out.” Our study specifically focuses on all misdemeanor cases in Nebraska county courts with judgments (an adjudication of guilt and/or sentencing) during the year 2019.

This study examines the ways in which payment via incarceration is consistent with and diverges from the archetypal “modern debtors’ prison,” in which penalties related to the nonpayment of fines are widespread, imposed against people of limited means and particularly people of color, and which carry the risk that the inherent revenue-generating qualities of financial sanctions will pervert crime policy.

We find that Nebraska’s practices are consistent with that archetype in that payment via incarceration is deeply integrated into the jurisdiction’s legal systems as evident through its widespread use. We discover that courts ordered 10,027 defendants to pay financial sanctions via incarceration in over a quarter of all misdemeanor cases in our dataset, an alarmingly high rate. Those defendants also sat out a notably high amount of financial debt—$2,105,462 in the aggregate. At $150 per day (the rate at which Nebraska credits incarceration against financial debt), the defendants in our study spent a minimum of 14,036 days in Nebraska county jails to pay off fines, costs, and probation fees.

The results of the study are also consistent with a second archetype— that in modern debtors’ prisons, people of limited means, and particularly people of color, are subjected to financial sanctions they have no meaningful ability to pay and punished for their poverty when payment is not forthcoming. Our findings illustrate that many defendants who were subjected to sitting out were convicted for offenses frequently linked to poverty and many were declared indigent by the court for the purposes of appointing counsel. Further, the cases in our database exhibit troubling racial disparities.

Other findings, however, complicate the narrative surrounding modern debtors’ prisons, especially with regard to revenue-generation incentives of government actors. On its face, sitting out appears to undermine the idea that government actors are motivated by revenue generation. Unlike systems in which the debt remains outstanding, when a defendant is ordered to sit out financial sanctions, the debt is paid off by the incarceration. This ensures that revenues are never secured, while leaving the jurisdiction to bear the expense of incarceration. To investigate this issue and track how money moves into and out of government coffers when sitting out is employed, we create an original typology of the various forms of payment via incarceration useful for studying Nebraska’s system and those in other jurisdictions. What we find is geographic diversity in the mechanisms for sitting out that carry different fiscal implications.

After presenting the study’s results, we conclude by discussing the key takeaways of our research, its limitations, and several law and policy implications that open potential avenues for future research.

By James Stone

For incarcerated people litigating pro se, the civil discovery process is vitally important. When imprisoned litigants lack meaningful access to discovery, their cases become swearing contests they are bound to lose, and wrongdoing in prison goes unaddressed. Yet for these same plaintiffs, civil discovery is defunct. The vast majority of incarcerated plaintiffs, including those with promising or meritorious claims, are unable to navigate either to or through litigation’s discovery phase. Part diagnosis and part treatment, this Article is the first to explore in depth how the discovery process—as designed and implemented—fails those pursuing civil-rights claims against their jailers, betraying both a crisis in prison litigation and a failure of our procedural regime.

Relying on both case research and extensive interviews with federal judges, staff attorneys, prison rights lawyers, formerly incarcerated people, and prison officials, the Article chronicles prison discovery’s written and unwritten rules and their failures. It begins with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which map awkwardly or not at all onto prison litigation. It then discusses the much broader amalgam of practical impediments to evidence gathering in prison. These include profound informational asymmetries, resource disparities, and hostility between prison defendants—who create and control much of the evidence relevant to incarcerated people’s claims—and imprisoned plaintiffs.

The Article then scrutinizes the dockets and filings of two hundred recent federal cases arising out of two different prisons in two different districts: Louisiana State Penitentiary in Louisiana and Menard Correctional Center in Illinois. The research reveals startling disparities between the districts’ case-management decisions and cultures, resulting in stark differences in prison litigants’ discovery prospects. Incarcerated litigants’ current chances of evidencing and vindicating claims may be largely contingent on the district in which their prison sits—what some incarcerated people call “justice by jurisdiction.” Arguing that this situation is both untenable and preventable, the Article suggests multiple concrete avenues for reform.

By Brian Elderbroom, Peter Mayer, and Felicity Rose

Key Findings:

• Families with an immediate family member incarcerated spend an average of $4,195 annually to maintain contact and provide support; spouses/co-parents spend the most ($6,225 annually), followed by adult children ($5,470 annually).

• Families spend a total of $5.6 billion annually on commissary deposits, prison accounts, and other direct support for basic necessities and other items their family members might need.

  • Black family members spend $280 per month on direct support compared to $152 per month for white family members.

• On an annual basis, Black family members spend 2.5 times more ($8,005) than white family members ($3,251). 

  • Hispanic family members spend an average of $6,367 annually, and Native American family members spend an average of $6,464 annually.

This mixed-methods report quantifies the financial costs incurred by families when a loved one is incarcerated. Drawing on a nationally representative survey of adults with an immediate family member incarcerated for at least three months, supplemented by focus groups, the study documents both direct out-of-pocket spending and longer-term financial impacts. The central finding is that families pay large, recurring costs to maintain contact and provide for incarcerated loved ones, and they suffer persistent income losses that compound intergenerationally. The authors estimate that families collectively bear an annual financial burden of $348 billion. These costs are not distributed evenly: Black, Hispanic, Native American, and low-income families shoulder a disproportionate share, devoting more of their household resources to supporting incarcerated relatives. All in all, the findings highlight the far-reaching consequences of incarceration on family financial stability and intergenerational economic opportunities.

Author(s): Dante BC Hoek, Ard J Barends, Esther FJC van Ginneken
Focus: This explorative qualitative research on prison violence investigates how, and why, potentially violent situations between incarcerated men occur. Through in-depth interviews with imprisoned and formerly imprisoned men, the research explores the situational circumstances of prison violence.
Conclusion: The article identifies three distinct categories of situations where violence can occur: when incarcerated individuals perceive threats to their (1) status, (2) safety and (3) shared interests (or goals). The findings show how these particular threats impact participants’ interactions and interpretations of situations and subsequent potentially violent behaviour. 

By The Nacro Justice ExChange

Electronic monitoring plays an important role in the criminal justice system, acting as an alternative to prison. Current Government proposals mean that its use is set to increase significantly. In this context, it is important to understand what works and where improvements can be made to ensure that its use supports people’s rehabilitation, and ultimately safer communities. Through our survey and interviews, we heard from people who were positive about the impact of electronic monitoring, including how it had provided accountability and structure. We also heard from people for whom electronic monitoring had put in place barriers to rehabilitation, such as being unable to find and take up work and keep in contact with families, factors well evidenced to reduce the risk of reoffending. This briefing explores these issues in more detail along with problems with the fitting and functioning of tags, and specific challenges some groups face. We urge Government to address these barriers before expanding the use of electronic monitoring to ensure it has the best chance of success

The Better Futures Project Briefing 4

London: Nacro Justice Exchange 2025. 

By Charlie Brooker, et al.

This study presents the first cross-European investigation into occupational stress and morale among probation staff across member jurisdictions of the Confederation of European Probation (CEP). Using a mixed-method design, data were collected from 357 individual probation officers across 20 European countries and organisational directors from 22 jurisdictions during summer 2025. The Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) was used to assess emotional exhaustion, depersonalisation, and personal accomplishment, while a complementary organisational questionnaire examined structural provisions for staff well-being, including primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention measures. Results revealed moderate levels of burnout across the sample, with mean MBI scores of 21.3 (emotional exhaustion), 6.8 (depersonalisation), and 30.7 (personal accomplishment). Approximately one-third of respondents (34%) were engaged, 32% ineffective, 23% overextended or disengaged, and 12% met the criteria for full burnout. Burnout was most prevalent among staff with high caseloads and longer tenure, but demographic variables such as age and gender were not significant predictors. Organisational analyses identified three national clusters—advanced, emerging, and minimal protection—based on the degree of institutionalisation of staff support systems. Jurisdictions such as Austria, the Netherlands, and Norway demonstrated comprehensive, multi-tiered prevention frameworks, while others relied on informal, ad hoc measures. Cross-mapping of individual and organisational data indicated that higher engagement levels corresponded closely with robust institutional prevention systems. The findings affirm that staff morale in probation work is primarily an organisational outcome rather than an individual trait. Sustainable well-being depends on formalised policies for workload governance, confidential support access, and structured reintegration after burnout. The report concludes that embedding well-being within probation systems’ governance and evaluation frameworks is essential for maintaining professional efficacy, reducing turnover, and safeguarding the rehabilitative function of community corrections across Europe.

Utrecht: Confederation of European Probation, 2025. 32p.

By The Criminal Justice Alliance

Recommendations from the Women’s Justice Reimagined partnership and the APPG on Women Affected by the Criminal Justice System.

Key points • Racial disproportionality underpins deep disparities within the criminal justice system. Radical and systemic change is urgently needed to address this. Antiracist practices must be embedded in the criminal justice system. • Black, Asian, racially minoritised, and migrant women face systemic racism and intersectional discrimination throughout the criminal justice system, including over-policing, harsher sentencing, and limited access to support. • Improved, disaggregated, and publicly available data on race and ethnicity in the criminal justice system is needed. It is essential that this data is disaggregated by gender. Data analysis should use an intersectional lens to capture nuanced identities.• The Women’s Justice Board and policy makers must ensure that women with lived experience have a central role in their work. This must include attention to communication, access barriers, and diverse representation. • Many Black, Asian, racially minoritised, and migrant women in the criminal justice system are victim/survivors of violence against women and girls (VAWG), human trafficking, and trauma. This often underpins their offending, however there is inadequate support. A woman-centred model and improved use of protective legislation are needed to address this. • Women’s offending is often linked to socioeconomic factors and support needs. However, these needs are not addressed within the criminal justice system. Sustainable and ring-fenced funding is needed for culturally competent, trauma-informed, and specialist services.

London: Criminal Justice Alliance, 2025. 15p.

By Darren Churchward, Peter Smolej, Gurmukh Panesar, Maika Terashima, Jo Voisey, Hala Elsayed, Lucy Cuppleditch 

Substance Misuse in Prisons and Incentivised Substance Free Living Wings Substance misuse in prisons has been a long-standing issue. Traditional approaches to combat substance misuse in prisons have focussed on deterring prisoners and emphasised the use of punitive sanctions. Incentivised Substance Free Living wings (ISFLs) are prison wings where prisoners agree to abide by a set of requirements, including regular drug tests. Incentives (e.g. additional time out of cell, gym equipment, entertainment equipment) are offered for those residing on the wing. ISFLs aim to create a stable prison environment, which allows for the development of a supportive community in which prisoners live drug-free, and can better engage with treatment programmes and recovery. This study does not represent all ISFLs, but only those considered operationally effective. It focuses on safety and stability outcomes, not substance misuse, as these were viewed as essential foundations for ISFL success.

London: Ministry of Justice, 2025. 53p.

By The Irish Penal Reform Trust

For years now, IPRT has sought to shine a light on an overlooked group of families and children in Irish society – those with a family member in prison. Not only do very many families in this situation face ongoing stigma, but there is also a very real impact on their everyday lives. This report seeks to highlight the challenges these families and children face. What is clear from the research findings is that they regularly struggle to make ends meet and experience high levels of poverty and deprivation, often without access to dedicated or adequate support. We know that parental imprisonment can have an extremely detrimental and disruptive impact on a child or children as well as their partner and wider family. While previously IPRT estimated that more than 5,000 children had a parent in prison daily with over 10,000 children affected each year, with the current record prison overcrowding levels this number is likely to be much higher. In the absence of concrete and up-to-date data, it is much more difficult to identify the scale and type of issues that these families face. It also makes it harder to design and introduce policy solutions or interventions that could make a significant differenceRecent commitments in Young Ireland: The National Policy Framework for Children and Young People 2023-2028 to improve the reliability and accessibility of data on parental imprisonment, improve visiting conditions and put in place a policy as well as prison staff undertaking child-rights training, are all very welcome. The recruitment by the Irish Prison Service (IPS) of a dedicated Family Connections Officer is a step in the right direction. However, the IPS is not solely responsible for families and children impacted by imprisonment. This is a much wider issue that requires a whole-ofgovernment response and commitment. Very many of the children impacted will already be counted in the child poverty statistics as we already know that households headed by single parents experience the highest rates of poverty and deprivation. Yet, the connection is not always made that the reason for someone parenting alone is that their co-parent has been imprisoned and that these families have lost an essential income. At the same time, they are having to adjust to life withouttheir partner. The cost is not only financial; imprisonment takes an emotional toll on a person’s family and affects everyone’s mental health and wellbeing. Lives are turned upside down. This is very clearly seen in the responses from the people who were so generous with their time to share their experience for this report. Usually when a family suffers the loss of a parent, their extended family and community network rally around and support them, ask them how they are and see how they can help. However, the people who took part in this research tell us how they were treated differently – they were ignored, unfriended and no help was forthcoming. This is also evident at an official level – bereaved partners are able to avail of exemptions from some of the more stringent criteria to apply for social welfare support (and rightly so) but the same rules do not apply for families who lose a parent to prison even though they face the same drop in income, the same costs and a similar sense of loss.

Dublin: The Irish Penal Reform Trust (IPRT), 2025. 60p.

The Sentencing Council (UK}

The breach guidelines evaluation looks at seven guidelines covering breaches of court orders by adult offenders: 

• Breach of a community order 

• Breach of a suspended sentence order 

• Breach of a protective order

• Failure to surrender to bail

• Breach of a criminal behaviour order

• Fail to comply with notification requirements

• Breach of a sexual harm prevention order  

The Sentencing Council for England and Wales was set up in 2010 and produces guidelines for use by all members of the judiciary when sentencing after conviction in criminal cases. The Council promotes a clear, fair, and consistent approach to sentencing by issuing sentencing guidelines and explanatory materials. It has a statutory duty to monitor these sentencing guidelines and to draw conclusions from the information obtained (s128 Coroners and Justice Act 2009). In 2018, the Council issued a comprehensive package of guidelines covering 11 types of breach to consolidate and improve guidance for breach of court orders. These guidelines apply to sentences for adult offenders (those aged 18 or over at the time of sentence). Compliance with court orders is important to ensure public confidence in the justice system, and in many cases to protect individuals or the wider public from harm, either from specific types of offending or continuing criminal behaviour. Legislation provides that court orders can be enforced by the courts to ensure appropriate sanctions are imposed where the purpose of the order is undermined by noncompliance, or the ‘breach’ of an order. The development of the breach guidelines followed the implementation in 2017 of the Imposition of community and custodial sentences guideline (‘Imposition’ guideline). This was published in response to an observed trend of decreasing volumes of community orders (COs) and increasing volumes of suspended sentence orders (SSOs), rather than a decrease in volumes of immediate custodial sentences, which was the expected consequence of introducing the suspended sentence provisions in 2005. Evidence considered at the time indicated that a potential reason for this was that, in some cases, suspended sentences were being imposed as a more severe form of community order. The Council therefore considered it necessary to first develop a guideline for the imposition of these sentences. This came into force in February 2017. A package of breach guidelines was then developed to include breach of COs and SSOs, as well as other breaches of court orders to provide comprehensive, consolidated guidance for sentencers in court and a consistent approach to sentencing

London: The Sentencing Council, 2025. 54p.