By Kristen M. Budd, Rachel Didner-Jollie

Only two U.S. states – Maine and Vermont – do not disrupt the voting rights of their citizens who are completing a felony-level prison sentence.1 Incarcerated Mainers and Vermonters retain their right to cast absentee ballots in elections. Because of the states’ unique place in the voting rights landscape, The Sentencing Project examined how their Departments of Corrections facilitate voting. We sought to determine experiences and lessons to share nationally as momentum builds in states, such as Illinois, Maryland, and Oregon, to expand voting rights to people completing a felony-level sentence in prison or jail.2

Voting is one prosocial way to maintain a connection to the community, which is particularly important during incarceration, and it helps to build a positive identity as a community member.3 The right to vote is also an internationally recognized human right.4 While voting is a cornerstone of American democracy, an estimated 1 million citizens cannot vote because they are completing a felony-level sentence in prison.5 Given racial disparities in incarceration, people of color are disproportionately blocked from the ballot box due to voting bans for people with a felony-level conviction.6

This first-of-its-kind research is a culmination of a multi-year inquiry in Maine and Vermont about how voting rights are implemented in prisons. The Sentencing Project sought to answer two interrelated questions:

What are incarcerated residents’ views about voting and the voting process?

What are the facilitators and barriers to implementing voting rights within the Department of Corrections, according to Department of Corrections staff and other stakeholders?7

Past research has found low voter turnout among people incarcerated in these states, despite incarcerated residents retaining their voting rights while completing a felony-level sentence.8 This suggests that, in practice, the absentee ballot voting process may be more complex in correctional settings.9

Our findings are based on 21 interviews with staff from the Maine and Vermont Departments of Corrections and other stakeholders who collaborated with these agencies in voting rights work, as well as our survey of incarcerated Mainers and Vermonters in which 132 incarcerated people participated. This investigation revealed:

Nearly three quarters (73%) of incarcerated survey respondents said that voting during incarceration is important to them.

Almost half (49%) of incarcerated respondents said that they did not know how to vote at their facility.

Facilitators that supported voting within the Departments of Corrections included:

Involvement of the Secretary of State’s Office, non-profit groups, and individual volunteers.

Cooperation from the Departments of Corrections’ administration and staff.

Coordination of in-person voter registration drives to assist incarcerated residents with the voter registration process.

Barriers that hindered voting within the Departments of Corrections included:

Incarcerated residents’ lack of knowledge about their voting rights and how to navigate the multiple-step process to vote absentee.

Limited information about candidates to inform voters and a lack of guidance on voting dates and deadlines.

A lack of staff training on incarcerated residents’ voting rights and how to assist incarcerated residents with voting.

Additional logistical challenges included:

Limited access to the paperwork needed to vote (e.g., registration forms, ballot requests).

Delays caused by prison mail and mail external to the facility.

A lack of person-power or capacity by corrections staff and other stakeholders to conduct voting rights work across all facilities.

Based on these findings, The Sentencing Project recommends providing more equitable access to voting and democracy during imprisonment by:

Establishing on-site polling locations in all correctional facilities that have eligible voters.

Expanding education for incarcerated residents about their voting rights and how to vote using an absentee ballot method.

Training corrections staff on incarcerated residents’ voting rights and on the process of assisting residents who are voting from prison.

Increasing access to candidates and candidate information, including hosting candidate forums within the prison.

Permitting and providing access to official government websites as additional avenues to register to vote, request ballots, track ballots, and learn about state and local ballot initiatives.

Such a vision for voting in prisons is attainable. A movement is already underway to increase access to the ballot in jails.10 Due to the fluidity of jail populations – where an average stay is 32 days – coordinating voting efforts in jails can be even more complex.11 Yet, even with such hurdles, turnout in jails with on-site polling locations has surpassed citywide turnout rates in places like Cook County, Illinois and Washington, DC.12 The successful implementation of jail-based voting demonstrates that prison-based voting is possible. Every eligible American citizen should be able to cast a ballot in elections regardless of conviction or incarceration status. In the words of one incarcerated resident in Maine, “I believe strongly [that] voting is a fundamental right for every American citizen. Being incarcerated does not mean you forfeit that right so I voted in here and will most definitely vote out of here.”

Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2025. 36p.

By Georgia State University, the Crime and Justice Institute, and the Council on Criminal Justice

Over the past 20 years, most American states have adopted a wide range of changes to their criminal sentencing statutes. The goals of the reforms varied. Some targeted certain offenses for greater or lesser penalties. Others aimed to cut correctional costs, expand alternatives to incarceration, and reduce recidivism. Few laws were enacted explicitly to reduce racial and ethnic disparities. Still, many policymakers hoped they would do just that, and the starkly disproportionate incarceration of Black people has been a central component of the national conversation about criminal justice reform.

New York: Council on Criminal Justice, 2024.

By William J. Sabol and Thaddeus L. Jjohnson

Although significant gaps remain, disparities between Black and White people continued to narrow at nearly every stage of the criminal justice process between 2016 and 2020. In some cases, the pace of the decline slowed; in others, the disparity gap closed entirely.

These trends extend patterns from 2000 to 2016 that were identified in CCJ's first report on correctional control by race and sex. Subsequent reports will explore trends in disparity among female populations and by ethnicity, assess trends in multiple states, and seek to identify what, if any, policy changes may have contributed to reductions in racial disparities.

Washington, DC: Council on Criminal Justice, 2022. 36p.

By Akwasi Owusu-Bempah, Maria Jung, Firdaous Sbaï, Andrew S. Wilton, and Fiona Kouyoumdjian

Racially disaggregated incarceration data are an important indicator of population health and well-being, but are lacking in the Canadian context. We aimed to describe incarceration rates and proportions of Black people who experienced incarceration in Ontario, Canada during 2010 using population-based data. We used correctional administrative data for all 45,956 men and 6,357 women released from provincial correctional facilities in Ontario in 2010, including self-reported race data. Using 2006 Ontario Census data on the population size for race and age categories, we calculated and compared incarceration rates and proportions of the population experiencing incarceration by age, sex, and race groups using chi-square tests. In this first Canadian study presenting detailed incarceration rates by race, we found substantial over-representation of Black men in provincial correctional facilities in Ontario. We also found that a large proportion of Black men experience incarceration. In addition to further research, evidence-based action is needed to prevent exposure to criminogenic factors for Black people and to address the inequitable treatment of Black people within the criminal justice system.

Race and JusticeVolume 13, Issue 4, October 2023, Pages 530-54

By Sam Worrall  

  Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities face additional barriers throughout the criminal justice system (CJS); inequalities in mental health and diagnosed conditions, lack of appropriate educational opportunities and no knowledge of systems, among other factors. This report is designed to offer insight into the experiences of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities relating to all stages of the criminal justice system, to help improve knowledge and understanding of how to approach policy and practice for people from these communities. The report draws on primary data collection from surveys, focus groups, and individual interviews. The insight and voices of members of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities provide the key evidence for policy makers, service providers and commissioners working across the criminal justice system, to ensure that the guidance authentically reflects experiences and needs. We found: • Alternatives to custody were not considered for the majority of cases related to Gypsy, Roma and Traveller individuals. • Lack of support throughout the custodial journey for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people and their families. • Lack of accessible and culturally appropriate support provided for mental health needs. • Prison and probation/parole staff did not have the cultural competency required to work with Gypsy, Roma and Traveller individuals. • Lack of resources and staff capacity for delivering equalities requirements for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller prisoners. • Prisoners did not have easy access to culturally appropriate education and/or practical courses and workshops to support them in prison. • Lack of consistency across the prison estate for regular Gypsy, Roma and Traveller forums or meet ups. • Lack of awareness and information about Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities and significant calendar events around prisons. • Lack of consistency across the prison estate, in managing Gypsy, Roma and Traveller prisoner needs. The Ministry of Justice must prioritise its Gypsy, Roma, Traveller Strategy to ensure a level playing field across prisons.

Recommendations • Offer effective alternatives to remand for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller offenders. Instead of holding an individual on remand, the prison system should offer programmes to support diversion, improve mental health, and offer meaningful community service. • Provide effective signposting for individuals at every stage of the criminal justice pathway. From the point of being accused of a crime, through custodial sentence and including post-custody (after prison). Ensure individuals are put in contact with Gypsy, Roma and Traveller-friendly legal support and other organisations who offer support throughout the CJS. Ensure police stations and courts are signposting to trusted organisations. • Offer programmes of support to Gypsy, Roma and Traveller prisoners to support future diversion, and improve mental health. • Ensure individuals receive mental health support at all stages. Develop a consistent model across the criminal justice system, especially in the prison estate, such as pastoral support, and/or a programme of community mentor listeners. Remove barriers that prevent individuals from accessing this support by, for example, allowing pastoral care to be available to those on basic mental health support. • Co-produce accessible resources such as videos for young Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people and their families. • Develop cultural competency training for staff including probation/parole staff across CJS. Explore co-produced options such as Q&A sessions with community members and display boards raising awareness. • Provide specific resources for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities to be available in forums and libraries. • Ensure funding is targeted to increase Equalities teams and ensure those in post are committed to equality across all communities. • Provide culturally appropriate education and additional practical courses for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller prisoners. Offer educational workshops and programmes such as those run by the Shannon Trust, ensuring extra support is in place to encourage young people to enrol. • Hold regular Gypsy, Roma and Traveller forums in prison. Celebrate key community events, create safe spaces, and encourage prisoner interaction and other activities. Raise awareness of the communities to non-community prisoners and prison staff. Co-produce the events programme with community prisoners. • Include regular evaluation and monitoring of all of the above as part of the delivery of the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller strategy for the criminal justice system 

Brighton, East Sussex, UK: Friends, Families and Travellers (FFT), 2025. 57p.

By Coletta A. Youngers

The incarceration of women is growing at alarming rates worldwide and in Latin America it is driven by strict drug laws, with devastating consequences for the women impacted and their families. Their stories unveil contexts of poverty, lack of opportunity, and physical and sexual violence, and also reveal the discrimination of unjust legal systems and societies plagued by stigmatization and patriarchal attitudes. But they are also stories of resilience, as women coming out of prison in Latin America today are organizing and fighting for their human rights and the right to live with dignity.

In response to the growing crisis of women’s incarceration in Latin America, in 2015 organizations, experts and activists created a Working Group on Women, Drug Policies, and Incarceration, led by the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), the International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC), and the Colombian NGO, Centro de Estudios de Derechos, Justicia y Sociedad – Dejusticia. Our objective is to significantly reduce the number of women deprived of liberty in Latin America, providing analysis and public policy recommendations and participating in advocacy initiatives at the international, regional, and national levels.

The purpose of this report is to reflect on almost ten years of collective research and joint advocacy by the working group, its achievements and disappointments, as well as challenges and opportunities for the future.

Washington, DC: Washington Office on Latin America, 2023.. 82p.

by Lois M. Davis, Louis T. Mariano, Melissa M. Labriola, Susan Turner, Andy Bogart, Matt Strawn, Lynn A. Karoly

he California County Resentencing Pilot Program was established to support and evaluate a collaborative approach to exercising prosecutorial discretion in resentencing eligible incarcerated individuals. Nine California counties were selected and were provided funding to implement the three-year pilot program. Participants in the pilot include a county district attorney (DA) office and a county public defender (PD) office and may include a community-based organization in each county pilot site. The evaluation seeks to determine how the pilot is implemented in individual counties, whether the pilot is effective in reducing criminal justice involvement (e.g., time spent in incarceration and recidivism), and whether it is cost-effective.

This report documents evaluation results, focusing on the implementation of the program from September 2022 through July 2023 — the second year of the pilot program. In addition to providing a review of the pilot program and evaluation methods, the authors describe year 2 findings based on stakeholder interviews and analysis of pilot data. Qualitative interviews revealed key strengths and challenges of the pilot in its implementation. Analyses of quantitative data describe the population of individuals considered for resentencing and document the flow of cases from initial consideration through resentencing. These findings shed light on the experiences of the nine counties in implementing the pilot program during year 2.

Key Findings

• Interviews with DA and PD offices indicated overall support for the program but faced key challenges

• The PDs tended to want to play a more proactive role in defining eligibility criteria, identifying cases for consideration, and making recommendations to the courts than what the DAs envisioned.

• Personnel shortages were mentioned by multiple offices as a continuing challenge.

• Only four of the counties were working with a community-based organization.

  The pilot counties each developed their own criteria for identifying cases eligible for resentencing consideration

• Although the inclusion criteria varied somewhat across the pilot counties, overall the criteria focused on such factors as the age of the incarcerated individual, the crime committed, and the length and other details of the sentence.

• Counties indicated use of less strict criteria in this second year of implementation and were embracing flexibility in the cases they were reviewing.

  Analysis of case-level data covering the first 18 months of pilot implementation revealed important data points

• Among the 684 case reviews initiated during the reporting period, 105 cases had been referred to the court for resentencing, the DA offices had decided not to refer 321, and 258 were still under DA review.

• Of 94 cases for which courts have ruled on a resentencing motion, 91 cases have resulted in resentencing. Of the 91 resentenced individuals, 63 have been released from prison.

• Among those cases awaiting a DA decision on whether to proceed with resentencing, 72 percent have been under review more than six months.

Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2023. 95p.