By Steve Olson and Karen M. Anderson

The United States is home to 4.4 percent of the world’s population, yet it has 21.3 percent of the world’s individuals experiencing incarceration (Walmsley, 2015). Though the total is down from its peak in 2008, in 2016, 1.5 million people were in prison and 630,000 were in jails—a seven-fold increase since the 1970s. The high rate of incarceration in the United States is a major contributor to the nation’s health inequities. African Americans are more than three times as likely to be incarcerated as whites, and incarceration rates are also elevated for Hispanics, Native Americans, and other population groups compared with the general population. In addition, people who are incarcerated differ from the general U.S. population in terms of poverty levels, geographic origins, gender, and a wide range of health indicators. Health equity, then, intersects with incarceration, reentry, and community health. To examine the connection between incarceration and health inequities, the Roundtable on the Promotion of Health Equity held a workshop on June 6, 2018, titled The Effects of Incarceration and Reentry on Community Health and Well-Being. As part of its commitment to hold workshops in parts of the United States that are particularly affected by the issues being discussed, the roundtable held the workshop at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, which has one of the highest rates of incarceration of any major American city. It is important to note that the programs and models that are described in this Proceedings of a Workshop are all Philadelphia based, as this is where the workshop took place. As Antonia Villarruel, Margaret Bond Simon Dean of Nursing at the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing and chair of the roundtable, said in her opening remarks, holding the workshop at the University of Pennsylvania “represents the university’s commitment, as well as the school’s commitment, to working with vulnerable populations, health equity, and social justice.” Winston Wong of Kaiser Permanente also emphasized the place-based nature of the roundtable’s work. “We look at people and we look at communities,” he said. “We look at how individuals who are part of the fabric of our communities are impacted. And we look at assets as much as we look at barriers and obstacles.”

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. The Effects of Incarceration and Reentry on Community Health and Well-Being: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

By Ye In (Jane) Hwang , Nabila Chowdhury,  Colman O’Driscoll , Stephen Allnutt,  Tony Butler 

This report responds to an urgent need to enhance the management of violence among individuals with psychosis in Australia. It reviews treatment pathways, emphasising community-based care over incarceration. The Mental Health Review Tribunals (MHRTs) play a vital role in treatment oversight for those with psychosis in Australia and worldwide who are at risk of violence, with community treatment orders (CTOs) identified as effective harm prevention strategies. An exploratory study analysed data from 141,302 individuals diagnosed with psychosis in New South Wales from 2001 to 2021, revealing that 26.8 percent had MHRT contact due to violence risk, with 14.2 percent placed on CTOs. Marginalised groups were notably under-represented in MHRT interactions. Findings show higher health service use and offending behaviour among those in contact with the MHRT, highlighting the need for focused research on CTO effectiveness and equitable service access. The report advocates for a multidisciplinary approach between health and justice sectors to improve outcomes for this population.

Report to the Criminology Research Advisory Council Grant: CRG 32/21–22 Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2025. 40.

Edited by Steven Teutsch, Yasmin Hurd, and Elizabeth Boyle

Over the past several decades, more than half of all U.S. states have legalized cannabis for adult and/or medical use, but it remains illegal at the federal level. The public health consequences of cannabis policy changes have not been comprehensively evaluated. Therefore, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health tasked the National Academies with reviewing cannabis and cannabinoid availability in the U.S., assessing regulatory frameworks for the industry with an emphasis on equity, and describing the strengths and weaknesses of surveillance systems for cannabis. The resulting report finds that there has been limited federal guidance to states regarding protecting public health, which has led to inconsistent protection across the states. The report recommends a strategy to minimize public health harms through stronger federal leadership, a robust research agenda, and more.

Washington DC: National Academies Press, 2024. 340p.