By Kellyann Bock, Michael Rempel

While it is well-established that a substantial portion of people in NYC jails are designated for mental health services, less is known about when during their incarceration these needs are first identified. This brief examines the prevalence and timing of the “Brad H” flag, assigned to anyone who is diagnosed, screened for, requesting, or receiving mental health services while incarcerated in New York City jails, covering the period from June 2, 2016 to March 24, 2025.

Specifically, we looked at increases in the fraction of the NYC jail population that flag for mental health needs, how long it takes for incarcerated people to receive a Brad H flag, what share of their jail stay people spend designated for mental health services, disparities in flagging by gender, race, and custody level, and how flagging relates to overall length of stay.

New York: Data Collaborative.for Justice, 2025. 9p.

By Margaret Love & David Schlussel

This Report Card supplements our recently published 50-state report, “The Many Roads to Reintegration,” a survey of U.S. laws aimed at restoring rights and opportunities after arrest or conviction. That report includes topical essays covering voting and firearms rights, an array of record relief remedies, and consideration of criminal record in employment and occupational licensing. The “Many Roads” report assigned to each state, D.C., and the federal system a grade for nine different types of restoration laws: (1) loss and restoration of voting rights (2) pardon (3) felony expungement, sealing & set-aside (“felony relief”) (4) misdemeanor expungement, sealing & set-aside (“misdemeanor relief”) (5) non-conviction relief (6) deferred adjudication (7) judicial certificates of relief (8) employment (9) occupational licensing. Using these grades, we produced an overall ranking of the states and D.C.* In this Report Card we provide the grades and rankings in an easily digestible form. We also provide a brief narrative summary of how each state’s law stacks up in the different categories. Our hope is that these summaries will suggest ways in which a state might improve its laws and hence its ranking. An appendix collects all the grades and rankings. Finally, we emphasize once again that our grades are based solely on the text of each state’s law, leaving more nuanced judgments about their actual operation to practitioners, researchers, and the law’s intended beneficiaries. We expect to look more closely at the operation of some of the record relief laws in the near future, and

Washington, DC: Collateral Consequences Resource Center (CCRC), 2020. 61p.

By Prison Reform Trust

The high level of multiple and often unmet need experienced by many women in the justice system is well documented. Many women in prison are victims of more serious crimes than those they are accused of committing. The past two decades have seen several key policy developments relating to women’s imprisonment (see Appendix 1). Each of these developments show a trend towards recognising the distinct and specific needs of women in the criminal justice system and call for a reduction in women’s imprisonment. However, the number of women in prison, especially on remand and on short sentences, has remained stubbornly high. Moving beyond this status quo requires bold and creative thinking alongside sustained development and implementation of pre-existing strategies. This briefing sets out key facts and figures relating to women in the criminal justice system and highlights progress to date in implementing an approach which recognises women’s distinct needs.

London: Prison Reform Trust, 2025. 10p.

By Rocco d’Este

Incarceration is a crucial part of the scholarly analysis of crime, but what happens inside penal institutions largely remains a ‘black box’ (Western, 2021). This paper studies the impact of the new psychoactive substances (NPS) epidemic within prisons. NPS are powerful addictive chemical compounds that mimic the pharmacological effects of conventional drugs of abuse (CDA) but avoid classification as illegal and detection in standard drug tests. To conduct the analysis, I have assembled a novel establishment-by month database of all England and Wales prisons from 2007 to 2018 including information on drugs seizures, random mandatory drug test results, various measures of harm, violence, and causes of death. I first document a large increase in NPS availability and an alarming correlation with the steep rise in harm and violence behind bars. I then evaluate the impact of the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, a supply-side intervention aimed at inhibiting the proliferation of NPS. The analysis exploits cross-prison variation in the initial size of the drug market and shows high-intensity NPS trafficking prisons experienced a sustained but partial reduction in NPS availability, limited substitution toward CDA, and a rise in violence, self-harm, and suicides following the law. Collectively, the findings suggest unwarranted responses to government interventions may be amplified within penal institutions and that new challenges stemming from scientific advances in illegal drugs production should be addressed through systemic interventions that also consider the demand for addictive substances.

IZA DP No. 15248

Bonn: IZA – Institute of Labor Economics , 2022. 60p.

By Laura M. Maruschak

This statistical brief presents findings on maternal healthcare and pregnancy prevalence and outcomes for persons in the custody of state or federal correctional authorities in the United States. It reports statistics on (1) pregnancy testing and positive tests among female admissions; (2) pregnancy prevalence and outcomes by type; (3) pregnancy-related training for staff, emergency transportation protocols, and medical services provided to pregnant and postpartum women; (4) accommodations and support services for pregnant and postpartum women; and (5) provision of and participation in nursery or residential programs in which mothers reside with their children. Findings in this report are based on data from the maternal health supplement to the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ annual National Prisoner Statistics collection (NPS-MatHealth).1 The NPS-MatHealth was administered for the first time in 2024 and collected 2023 data on maternal health in correctional settings from the departments of corrections of the 50 states and the Federal Bureau of Prisons (FBOP). For information on the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations directive and the feasibility study that led to and informed the NPS-MatHealth, see Data on Maternal Health and Pregnancy Outcomes from Prisons and Jails: Results from a Feasibility Study (NCJ 307326, BJS, January 2024). Pregnancy testing and positive tests among female admissions „ In the 47 jurisdictions that reported pregnancy testing data, 88% of female admissions were tested for pregnancy during 2023 (table 1). „ Among female admissions tested in the 46 jurisdictions that reported the number of admissions who tested positive, 2% tested positive. Pregnancy prevalence in custody and outcomes of pregnancies by type „ On December 31, 2023, 49 jurisdictions reported housing a total of 328 pregnant women, accounting for 0.5% of all the women in the custody of those jurisdictions. „ Sixty percent of pregnant women in the custody of state and federal correctional authorities were white, 20% were black, 9% were Hispanic, 4% were American Indian or Alaska Native, and 2% were Asian, Native Hawaiian, or Other Pacific Islander (table 2). „ Between January 1, 2023 and December 31, 2023, 727 pregnancy outcomes—including live births, miscarriages, and abortions—were reported in 49 jurisdictions (table 3). „ Live births (665) accounted for 91% of the pregnancy outcomes reported, miscarriages (47) accounted for 6%, and abortions (15) accounted for 2%

Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2025. 10p.

By Lauren Kuhli and Carolyn Sufrin

The majority of people incarcerated in U.S. women’s jails and prisons are younger than 45; most of them are parents, and some will be pregnant behind bars. The ways that institutions of incarceration manage their reproductive bodies rely on overlapping legal, cultural, social, historical, and racialized foundations that allow reproductive oppressions to flourish behind bars. Yet, as we argue in this article, these dynamics of incarcerated reproduction manifest far beyond prison and jail walls, through criminalizing and restrictive discourses that devalue the reproductive wellbeing of marginalized people. We analyze the legal, clinical, and socio-political dimensions of carceral control of reproduction and reproductive health care in U.S. prisons and jails, including abortion access, prenatal and postpartum care, childbirth, and parenting. We describe violations of constitutional and clinical standards of reproductive care behind bars, showing how these reproductive coercions are grounded in historical legacies of slavery and the ongoing reproductive control of black and other marginalized bodies. This article makes the case that understanding reproduction behind bars and its legacies of racialized reproductive oppressions reveals the carceral dynamics of reproduction that are foundational to U.S. society.

Harvard Law Review, v. 14, 2020, 50p.

By Ana Mourão https://orcid.org/0009-0002-0556-080ana13mourao@gmail.com, Marta Sousa https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3258-9932, […], and Olga Cunha

Individuals who have served prison sentences face challenges in reintegrating into society, with recidivism often used as the primary indicator of reintegration success. This systematic review analyzed 38 studies with adult participants who had served a sentence or were in the last year of prison, identifying criteria for successful reintegration after release and risk and protective factors. Success factors cover intrapersonal (health, drug abstinence), interpersonal (social support, community involvement), institutional (institutional and community support), and community domains (employment and housing). Protective factors include emotional stability, family and community support, education, employment, financial stability, and access to health and social services. Risk factors include drug use, health problems, difficulties with family and social adjustment, job and financial instability, low education, housing instability, and discrimination. The findings underscore that reintegration is a complex and multifaceted process, requiring targeted programs to reduce recidivism and stigma and promote effective reintegration into society.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 201X, Vol. XX, No. X, Month 2025, 1–27

By Megan Schwartz

When people leave prison or jail, they need to find stable housing and a way to earn money, among other necessities. The extent to which they are able to accomplish these goals substantially impacts how likely they are to return to prison or jail.1 Unfortunately, formerly incarcerated people face major challenges that the general population does not. A confluence of factors—including discrimination, restricted access to public benefits, compounding debt, and significant time spent out of the general job market—hinders returning citizens’ efforts to secure stable housing and employment, pay their bills, and maintain good physical and mental health upon their release. As a result, people leaving prison or jail often need immediate financial assistance.2 For decades, most states have made a practice of giving returning citizens a small amount of money, called “gate money,” to cover the cost of transportation and other immediate needs. Most states have offered between 10 and 50 dollars—enough to last from a few hours to a few days.3 But recently, due to increased advocacy around the efficacy of cash stimulus as a component of reentry support in places such as New York State and Washington State, many legislatures have considered increasing the dollar amount of their cash assistance and offering this kind of support more widely. The Returning Citizens Stimulus (RCS) program—funded by philanthropy, implemented in 28 cities across the United States, and administered by the Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO)— was a pilot program for this larger-scale reentry cash support. Designed to provide meaningful cash assistance to returning citizens during the months after their release from prison or jail, the RCS program aimed to help people quickly reach stability in their lives outside of prison and reduce recidivism as a result. It represents the largest-scale conditional cash transfer reentry program to date and an evolution of the burgeoning interest among practitioners and policymakers in cash assistance as reentry support. MDRC was contracted by CEO to conduct a two-part evaluation of the RCS program. This brief presents findings from the second part of the evaluation, a recidivism impact study; it is the first-ever study known to the author to estimate the effect of a large-scale program of this kind on recidivism outcomes. Because incarcerating people is expensive, knowing a program’s impact on recidivism can help practitioners and policymakers weigh the costs and benefits of the program. This study was geographically limited to two counties in California: Los Angeles and Alameda. As such, results may not be generalizable to other program sites. Results from this analysis include the following: • In the first six months after being released from prison, people who participated in the RCS program had, on average, fewer parole violations than a similar group of recently incarcerated individuals. Participants were also less likely to violate parole by committing violent infractions such as assault and battery; • In the first year after being released, participants in the RCS program committed fewer parole violations (both overall and for violent offenses) than their nonparticipant counterparts in the comparison group. Program participation was limited to three months, generally shortly after release, and thus, the program appears to reduce recidivism among participants beyond the period when participants were receiving the cash stimulus; and • The RCS program may have been effective at reducing reincarceration among program participants in the 18-, 24-, and 30-month follow-up periods. However, for methodological reasons explained in the Technical Supplement accompanying this brief, further study is needed to assess the reliability of this estimated effect.

New York: MDRC, 2025. 15p.

By Colette Marcellin and Evelyn F. McCoy 

Sexual violence in US correctional facilities is a long-standing problem that has gained increased attention in recent years. Many advocacy, human rights, and research organizations have called for action on this issue for decades, and in 2003, Congress took federal action by passing the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA). PREA requires nationwide data collection and research about sexual violence in federal, state, and local correctional facilities, and established the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission to develop national standards for addressing this issue. Despite PREA’s enactment, PREA standards established in 2012, and growing national discourse about sexual violence in correctional facilities, many challenges persist. As of 2017, 31 states had not yet fully complied with the established PREA standards. Further, survivors of sexual violence, people with behavioral health needs, and people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and/or queer (LGBTQ+) continue to disproportionately experience sexual violence in correctional facilities. Research about PREA’s impact and outcomes, survivors’ experiences with PREA reporting and investigation processes, and experiences with victim services is limited and should specifically examine the experiences of survivors with marginalized identities. Further research on this issue is needed and must incorporate strong protections for participating incarcerated people and participatory approaches that center their experiences and expertise.
Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2021. 17p.

By Rochisha Shukla, Will Engelhardt, Krista White, Sam Tecotzky

The Urban Institute’s Justice and Safety Division conducted a 22-month, mixed-methods evaluation of the Ready to Work (RTW) program operated by Bridge House, a nonprofit organization with the mission to “respect and empower people who are experiencing homelessness.” The program “combines three elements—paid work in a Ready to Work social enterprise, dormitory housing at a Ready to Work House, and case management support,” which RTW refers to as its “three-legged stool” approach. Using RTW programmatic data, administrative data from the Colorado Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) and the Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC) on key outcomes, and data collected through stakeholder interviews, focus groups, program observations, and document reviews, Urban addressed the following objectives: (1) estimate the impact of program participation on housing, employment, and criminal justice outcomes; (2) identify the factors that appear to be associated with successful outcomes; (3) determine why and in what ways the program is able and/or unable to achieve its goals; (4) identify whether program activities have been implemented as intended; (5) calculate Ready to Work’s financial return on investment; and (6) recommend program improvements. Key Findings: The Overall Impact of the Program  Program graduates had a significantly lower likelihood of experiencing housing instability within 6 to 36 months after program completion compared with program dropouts and non-enrollees.  The impact of program completion on postprogram incarceration was not statistically significant; however, the results were in the expected direction, with program graduates showing a slightly lower rate of incarceration compared with the control groups across all follow-up periods.  Five percent of program graduates reported being employed at intake, and 64 percent reported having employment at or after program completion, a statistically significant increase. Additional analyses show that the odds of employment at or after program completion were lower among people who had been incarcerated.  The study also finds evidence of potential protective effects of the program, as participants who completed the program and who therefore engaged with it longer experienced improved housing stability and reduced incarceration compared with their matched controls during the program and immediately after completion. These effects may be associated with a sense of security or stability that comes with being enrolled in a structured program and early engagement with program services, like in-program housing and employment, mental health and substance use treatment, and vocational and educational assistance.  People who dropped out of the program showed consistently worse housing and incarceration outcomes compared with program graduates and non-enrollees. Descriptive statistics on pre-program factors and qualitative findings show that people who dropped out had significantly different needs than the other groups. Additionally, unmeasured effects, such as motivation to complete the program, could further explain the disparities between the groups.

Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2025. 77p.

By Travis Reginal, Jesse Jannetta, Sam Hoppe

This case study explores how Lake County, Illinois, and the City and County of San Francisco, with support from the Safety and Justice Challenge (SJC)—an initiative funded by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation to reduce overincarceration and disparities in jail populations—integrated equity into their efforts to reduce local jail populations. By examining the relationship between equity and decarceration, we provide actionable insights for jurisdictions aiming to address the root causes of incarceration disparities. The case study shows how these sites reevaluated and reshaped practices to tackle systemic inequities, offering a roadmap for reducing the overrepresentation of marginalized groups in the criminal legal system.

WHY THIS MATTERS

In the ongoing pursuit of criminal legal system reform, equity has emerged as a crucial lens for reshaping policies and practices. Systemic inequities—evidenced by racial and ethnic disparities in arrests, detention, and incarceration—remain pervasive. For example, Black people are jailed at nearly 3.5 times the rate of White people, and Native Americans at more than 2 times the rate. These disparities reflect both historical structural inequities, such as segregation, and unequal application of law enforcement practices.

With SJC support, jurisdictions have sought to reduce jail populations and eliminate racial inequities in them. While these decarceration efforts have reduced jail populations overall, many sites still struggle to address disparities, as reductions have often disproportionately benefited White people.

This case study underscores why prioritizing equity is essential for justice reform, offering actionable insights to help policymakers, practitioners, and advocates align decarceration goals with equity objectives. By addressing the root causes of disparities, jurisdictions can advance more effective, humane, and equitable approaches to justice.

WHAT WE FOUND

Drawing on stakeholders’ perceptions of their SJC efforts in Lake County and San Francisco, we highlight key lessons from their initiatives to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in local jails. These insights are intended to inform other jurisdictions as they navigate the challenges and opportunities of integrating equity into their justice reform strategies.

Lessons other jurisdictions might find informative for reducing racial and ethnic disparities in their jails include the following:

• Data play a pivotal role in efforts toward equity. Both sites demonstrated the importance of robust data analysis in identifying disparities and informing reforms. For instance, San Francisco used data to pinpoint drug-related offenses as a key driver of its jail population. However, data alone are insufficient—strategies to engage stakeholders who are not persuaded by data are also necessary.

• Institutionalizing equity work is a multilayered process. Sustaining progress requires embedding equity efforts into organizational structures. Both sites faced challenges owing to staff turnover and a lack of continuity plans, which slowed momentum. Creating dedicated equity-focused roles and ensuring succession planning are critical to maintaining long-term impact.

• Cross-system partnerships are needed to reduce disparities. Racial disparities are driven by inequities across systems like housing, education, and health care. Both sites highlighted the need for coordinated efforts across these sectors to address systemic barriers and promote equity effectively.

• Community engagement continues to be a challenging area for government. Both sites identified opportunities to improve how they engage with the community and raise awareness of their SJC work. Deciding when and how to involve the community meaningfully is critical for building trust and securing buy-in. It is equally important to provide supports and structures that enable community members—particularly those with lived experience—to participate effectively in partnerships with system actors and agencies. Additionally, balancing power dynamics between stakeholders requires careful planning, such as using a toolkit to manage relationships and foster equitable collaboration.

HOW WE DID IT

To develop this case study, we drew on three primary data sources: semistructured interviews with 17 stakeholders from Lake County and San Francisco (conducted between March 2023 and January 2024), analysis of SJC progress reports and public documents, and jail population trend data from the Institute for State and Local Governance. Interviewees represented a range of justice agencies and community partners, sharing insights on equity-focused reforms, challenges, and successes. We analyzed the interviews using NVivo qualitative software, applying a codebook developed to identify trends and themes related to local reform efforts and equity strategies.

Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2025. 45p.

By Evelyn F. McCoy, Azhar Gulaid

This study aimed to understand the state of reproductive health care access and quality in a jail in California after early stages of the implementation of Assembly Bill 732 (A.B. 732). A.B. 732 was passed in September 2020 with the goal of increasing reproductive health care access and quality for incarcerated people and pregnant incarcerated people in state prisons and county jails.

WHY THIS MATTERS

People in jail—especially women, nonbinary people, and transgender people—have specific and significant reproductive health needs. Most people in jail are in their peak reproductive years, have histories of physical and/or sexual violence, and enter jail with more significant reproductive health care needs than the general population. Incarcerated people are more likely than the general population to have STIs, human immunodeficiency virus, and viral hepatitis, as well as higher rates of cervical and breast cancer and irregular menstrual cycles. Unsanitary conditions in jail, coupled with limited access to reproductive health care, can worsen health outcomes for people in jail. Despite this, reproductive health and health care for incarcerated people, as well as policies implemented to improve these areas, are understudied and overlooked.

WHAT WE FOUND

Study participants experience significant delays between requesting services and delivery of services, and have even experienced nonresponsiveness after multiple medical requests.Study participants face significant challenges in the delivery and quality of care, including having medical staff who are inexperienced with basic medical procedures such as blood draws, having inconveniently timed procedures, and getting little to no follow-up or information after procedures.Study participants noted that they have experienced dismissiveness from medical staff, have needed to exaggerate requests as emergencies to receive care, and have even experienced mistreatment and punishment from staff.Most study participants shared that they have never received general information about reproductive health care or services and do not know what is available to them.Half of study participants shared that they do not feel comfortable or safe receiving services from jail medical staff. Discomfort comes from private medical information being discussed in jail common spaces and officers being present at medical appointments, including procedures that require undressing.Nearly a third of study participants have experienced bias or pressure from staff about reproductive decisions.Our study also identified findings in the following areas, as detailed in the report:preventive caremenstruation supportcontraceptive care and abortionpregnancy and postpartum carereentry preparation and parenting classes

HOW WE DID IT

We conducted semi-structured, individual, in-person interviews with 34 incarcerated people in a women’s jail in California to learn about their experiences accessing and receiving reproductive health care since A.B. 732 was passed.Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2024. 83p.

By Richard Wright, William J. Sabol

Thaddeus L. Johnson

The roughly 175,000 convicted robbers currently serving time in the U.S. eventually will be released. Over half of them will have been there before. Locked up as mostly young men and women, they will return to the communities they left behind, possessing little more than a criminal record and the clothes on their back. Many will find themselves owing supervision fees to the state; almost all will face legal barriers to employment, decent housing, political participation, and other sources of social inclusion. What can the criminal justice system—a system designed to prevent and deter lawbreaking— realistically do to keep them from returning to prison? This Article explores that question by drawing on published accounts from a sample of 86 individuals actively involved in committing armed robberies, many of whom have returned to crime after being released from prison. The emphasis throughout is on the ways in which pervasive social exclusion, both a cause and a consequence of their lawbreaking, challenges our ability to “reintegrate” such offenders who in reality were not integrated to begin with.

103 Marq. L. Rev. 1179 (2020)

By Elliott Young

McNeil Island prison was the first federal penitentiary in the U.S. West from its founding in 1875 through the 1930s. Thousands of immigrants were imprisoned there for violations of immigration laws, and also for drug and alcohol charges. It was at McNeil Island that in the late 1880s scores of Chinese were sentenced to six months hard labor for merely being present in the country without authorization, an offense that was not (and still is not) a criminal offense. This article reveals that the overlap between immigration and criminal law, known as crimmigration, began at the dawn of immigration enforcement.

Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 88, Number 1, pps. 48–85. ISSN 0030-8684, electronic ISSN 1533-8584 © 2019

By Faride Perez Aucar

In 2020, the world experienced an unprecedented global health crisis with the spread of COVID-19 and historic uprisings for racial justice in the aftermath of the state-sanctioned murders of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor. The pandemic illuminated extreme health inequities and the many harms of incarceration, when prisons, jails, and detention centers largely failed to protect incarcerated people from illness and death. The racial justice uprisings highlighted a long history of anti-Black racism and terror in the country. They also invigorated movements towards racial justice and helped elevate long-standing calls to abolish the prison industrial complex, defund the police, and invest in communities most impacted by mass incarceration and structural racism. In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, immediately restricting access to abortion across the nation and sparking further efforts to criminalize and block access to reproductive health care. Simultaneously, conservative policymakers, fueled by misinformation and fear, began to increase “Reproductive justice is ‘the human right to own our bodies and control our future, the human right to have children, the human right to not have children, and the human right to parent the children we have in safe and sustainable communities.’” —SisterSong attacks on transgender people, introducing and passing unprecedented numbers of policies across the nation that threaten and harm the ability of transgender, nonbinary, and queer people to live authentically and with dignity and safety. The incoming Trump administration appears poised to launch additional federal-level attacks on both reproductive health care access and the LGBTQ+ community. These rising threats to bodily autonomy call for a recommitment to reproductive justice as a framework and a goal. As defined by SisterSong, reproductive justice is “the human right to own our bodies and control our future, the human right to have children, the human right to not have children, and the human right to parent the children we have in safe and sustainable communities.” The reproductive justice movement and framework have always demanded that we look beyond access to abortion and contraception and firmly ground our analysis in racial justice and the right to bodily autonomy for all—including people who are incarcerated and/or disproportionately impacted by criminalization. In alignment with abolitionist movements, reproductive justice advocates have long held that incarceration in and of itself is a reproductive injustice and an affront to the right of bodily autonomy. Against a national backdrop of anti-abortion extremism culminating in the fall of Roe v. Wade and the proliferation of attacks on reproductive health care across the country, reproductive justice advocates in California have worked in recent years to expand access to care and protections for incarcerated people with major success. Nationally, women constitute the largest growing segment in the incarcerated state prison population, entering at twice the pace of men. In California, since 1980, the number of women in jail has increased by 210%, and the number of women in prison has increased by 433%, translating to about 25% of the total prison and jail population. Women make up a significant subpopulation of the incarcerated population in California: Approximately 5,793 women were incarcerated in state prisons as of 2017, and about 9,443 were incarcerated in jails as of 2015. Just over 1% of California’s prison population—or 1,617 incarcerated people—identify as nonbinary, intersex, or transgender, according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).8 According to a survey of nonbinary, transgender, and intersex individuals in California women’s prisons conducted by the California Office of the Inspector General, 24.4% of respondents identified as nonbinary, 51.2% identified as transgender, and 4.8% identified as intersex.9 Nearly all California carceral facilities continue to place transgender people, along with nonbinary and two-spirit people,10 in sex-segregated facilities based on their genital anatomy rather than their gender identity, gender expression, or where they feel most safe—despite state laws intended to change this.

San Francisco: ACLU of Northern California, 2025. 50p.

By Victoria Knight

to understand the kinds of practical steps and activities needed to help support people on probation with digital resources as a means to nourish their desistance journeys. The digitization of the justice sector is complicated, and at times fraught with tensions and anxiety, and it shines a light on important factors like human rights, equality and safety. Slowly evidence is emerging that identifies some of the beneficial outcomes for people on probation – especially where digital resources can help improve human flourishing in different ways. In addition, staff are crucial in the digitization journey and are important brokers in empowering probationers to live a life without crime and reduce their risk of reoffending, now in a digitized world. The paper focuses on digital resources and services for people on probation that can implicitly or explicitly support, initiate and facilitate their desistance.

Academic Insights 2025/03

Manchester, UK: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2025. 15p.

By Andrew Blum

Rise Up Industries emerged from the work of Kairos Prison Ministry in the early 2010s. During an event organized by Kairos at the Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego, Father Greg Boyle of Homeboy Industries5 in Los Angeles challenged Joseph Gilbreath, a Kairos volunteer, to establish something similar in San Diego. In response, Gilbreath, Ross Provenzano, and other Kairos volunteers founded RUI in 2013. The mission statement of RUI reads: Rise Up Industries minimizes gang involvement by providing integrated gang prevention, gang intervention, and post-detention reentry services. RUI describes their longer-term goal for this three-pronged approach as breaking the “intergenerational cycle of gang violence.”  RUI began by launching their 18-month reentry program in 2016, after just over three years of research on the needs in San Diego and the organizations already working on reentry services in San Diego County. According to RUI leadership, they launched the reentry program first in part because alumni of the reentry program could then participate in their gang prevention and intervention efforts. RUI is currently laying the foundation for more robust gang prevention programming through a series of speaking engagements, in which reentry program participants and alumni speak with at-risk and justice-involved youth with the goal of assisting them in making more positive life choices. As part of these efforts, RUI is also developing an MOU with Monarch School. Monarch School is a school in San Diego that educates children impacted by homelessness. Participants in the program will continue to regularly visit the school to speak with the students. RUI’s future plans for its gang prevention and intervention initiatives will be discussed in more detail below. 

San Diego: University of San Diego, Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace and Justice,  2022. 25p.

By David Spencer 

We need more prisons. Amongst the “small stratum of intellectuals, semi-intellectuals and hooligans” who have a “politically motivated contempt for law and order” , it may well be fashionable to suggest otherwise. However, a lack of prison places has led to the Government choosing to release prison inmates earlier than they would otherwise have been. Police officers have been instructed to consider “pausing” arrests due to the lack of prison space. The judiciary have been told to consider prison capacity limits when sentencing those convicted of criminal offences. The most prolific offenders, when convicted of ‘indictable-only’ or ‘eitherway’ offences, are imprisoned on only 46.2% of occasions. A substantial majority of the public, 80% according to recent polling, believe the country should build more prisons. The Labour Party’s 2024 General Election Manifesto said: “Labour recognises that prisons are of national importance and therefore will use all relevant powers to build the prisons so badly needed.” In this report, we outline: 1. The current state of the prison estate and Prison Service: demonstrating that the English and Welsh prison system is in an utterly parlous state and as a result failing across almost every aspect of its core purpose. A wholesale change in leadership and culture across the Prison Service is required. 2. How many more prison places the system requires: recommending a substantial increase in the size of the prison estate with an additional 43,000 prison places (and an additional 10,000 prison cells to eliminate overcrowding) over the next decade. 3. The costs involved: to deliver the substantial increase in the prison estate, we recommend a reallocation of funding from other Government departments, with an increase in public spending on prisons of approximately £6.5bn in capital expenditure and approximately £1.7bn in annual resource expenditure. 4. The necessary changes to the regulatory regime: the Government has announced that it intends for prisons to receive planning permission through the Crown Development Route in order to reduce the amount of time taken for new prisons to receive planning permission. All future prisons should receive planning permission through this route. 5. What type of prisons the Government should deliver: the substantial prison building programme we propose will require an expansion of all types of the male prison estate, with new standards in the design and a shift in the location of the estate to ensure that every prisoner is able to undertake the necessary training, education and rehabilitation we envisage. Building a new generation of prisons is a challenging prospect. A great, or an even greater challenge, will be simultaneously creating a prison system which treats those in the State’s care in such a way that on release prisoners have a greater chance of leading productive lives, without continuing to commit crime. Properly incentivising prisoners towards such an objective is vital – that is why we condemn the current practice of automatic early release for almost all prisoners. We recommend a shift to a system of ‘earned early release’. In addition, the Government should examine previous recommendations in this domain made by Policy Exchange – relating to sentencing reform, prison reform and a bolstering of the entire community sentence regime.8 On additional funding: there is no scope to increase overall government spending. So any increase in funding to finance additional prisons must come from reductions in other sorts of public spending. This paper does not lay out in detail what other spending ought to be cut, but with government spending as a share of GDP at a post-war high, there is ample scope for the level of savings that would be required. Civil service staffing, the benefits bill, overseas aid and the regime for uprating pensions should all be reviewed. This Labour Government has come to believe that it has only a ‘narrow path’ to tread when it comes to law and order. On one side maintaining the confidence of the law-abiding majority; on the other acting in the interests of the ‘stakeholders’ and noisy activists who seek a more ‘progressive’ approach to those who choose to commit crime. This is exactly the kind of challenge that Labour Party strategists will have to navigate amidst its own internal ‘coalition politics’. It is also a debate which readily plays out in the Parliamentary Labour Party. On one side are those MPs, often hailing from the ‘Red Wall’, who understand that only a Labour Party that is “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime” has any chance of retaining and winning support beyond a narrow sliver of ultra-progressives. On the other side are the Labour MPs who have, amongst other activities, vigorously campaigned against joint enterprise laws (which are key in the fight against crime) and claimed that some communities are “over-policed” despite those communities simultaneously being ravaged by knife and gang crime. Labour’s challenge in Government is to show to ordinary working people that it understands that the greatest threats they face come not from State oppression in the form of more prison places, but rather from an insufficiency of law and order – thus empowering the criminals and gangs who wilfully immiserate their lives. Too often Ministers, senior civil servants and the judiciary are insulated from the real-life consequences of their decisions relating to law and order. Many do not live or walk on dangerous and messy streets, or have to live next to those who have made criminality and anti-social behaviour a way of life. If Government wishes to genuinely serve the public – the vast majority of whom are living productive and law-abiding lives – Ministers must recognise that a less permissive environment for crime is required. Central to that is that the minority of people who do commit most crime should be far more likely to be in prison than is currently the case. This report shows Ministers how to deliver on a core element of such a plan     

London: Policy Exchange 2025. 55p.

By Kristen M. Zgoba, Rusty Reeves, Anthony Tamburello and Lisa Debilio

The relative contributions of mental illness and substance use disorders to criminal recidivism have important clinical and policy implications. This study reviewed 36 months of postrelease data for nearly 10,000 New Jersey state inmates released in 2013 to ascertain the rearrest rate of those diagnosed with mental illness, substance use disorders, both, or neither. We also examined whether certain characteristics suggestive of higher risk of psychiatric decompensation were associated with higher rates of rearrest. Released inmates who were diagnosed with a substance use disorder (without a mental illness) while incarcerated had the highest rate of rearrest upon release, followed by inmates diagnosed with both mental illness and substance use disorder together, inmates with neither a substance use disorder nor a mental illness, and lastly by inmates diagnosed with mental illness alone. These differences were statistically significant only between inmates with substance use disorders and those without a substance use disorder. Among those with a diagnosed mental disorder, there were no statistically significant differences in recidivism based on diagnosis or based on prescription of antipsychotic medication, injectable antipsychotic medication, or involuntary antipsychotic medication. These results support correctional institutions assertively addressing substance use disorders, especially for individuals returning to the community.

Approximately 2.2 million people, or nearly 1 percent of the United States population, were incarcerated in jails or prisons at the end of 2016.1 The vast majority of these individuals, nearly 97 percent, are expected to eventually return to the community.2 More than two thirds (68%) of persons released from prison will be rearrested within the first three years of release, and 83 percent will be returned to the criminal justice system within nine years of release.3 The societal and financial costs of incarceration and recidivism are burdensome.4 Thus, measuring and reducing recidivism is a high priority for most departments of corrections.5

Research indicates that former inmates with mental illness recidivate at a rate similar to undifferentiated offenders, though inmates with substance use disorders recidivate at a higher rate than undifferentiated offenders. Inmates with both mental illness and substance use disorder recidivate at an even higher rate. Additionally, persons with serious mental illness, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, tend to have higher recidivism rates than those with other psychiatric disorders. The matter is complex, however, because other criminogenic factors, such as hostility, impulsivity, and antisocial attitudes and peers, may better account for crime among both those with and without mental illness diagnoses. Moreover, the effort to disentangle mental illness, substance abuse, and other criminogenic factors in the relationship to crime is nothing new. Most famously, the MacArthur Violence Risk Assessment Study, conducted between 1992 and 1995, explored the relationship between mental illness and violence, and the implications of that study continued to be debated for years after the conclusion of the study.19

Evidence suggests that better engagement in treatment for persons with mental illness on reentry does reduce the risk of committing a serious crime. Participation in mental health court reduces the risk of violent offending for justice-involved individuals with mental illness.20 Mela and Depiang reported that clozapine delayed the time to reoffending for former inmates prescribed an antipsychotic medication.21 More broadly, routine outpatient treatment, including medication, reduces the likelihood of arrest among persons with severe mental illness.

Notwithstanding the study by Mela and Depiang, little research has been done to consider the effects on recidivism of being prescribed an antipsychotic medication in prison, being prescribed injectable antipsychotic medication, or being prescribed medication involuntarily during incarceration. In the Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE), nearly 75 percent of the patients discontinued their medications during the 18 months of the study. CATIE confirmed what psychiatrists already knew: that nonadherence with antipsychotic medication is the norm rather than the exception. In turn, such disengagement from treatment may contribute to incarceration among those diagnosed with severe mental illness.25 Supporting this concern, a prospective study from the United Kingdom reported a higher rate of violence in released prisoners with untreated schizophrenia. There is no reason to suspect that offenders with mental illness prescribed antipsychotic medication are any more likely to take their medication upon release than other individuals with mental illness in the community. Thus, the prescription of antipsychotic medication itself in prison may predict criminal recidivism.

Research suggests that long-acting injectable antipsychotic medications reduce nonadherence and hospital recidivism.27 In our experience, however, an inmate patient for whom long-acting injectable or involuntary antipsychotic medications are prescribed may represent an even greater risk of crime upon release than those for whom voluntary oral antipsychotic medications are prescribed in prison. In the New Jersey Department of Corrections (NJDOC), patients are usually prescribed long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication due to histories of nonadherence with oral medication, and these patients also often have histories of dangerousness associated with mental illness. Furthermore, inmate patients prone to nonadherence are often prescribed the medication involuntarily (on a long-term, non-emergency basis). Thus, we suspected that upon leaving prison, patients who had been prescribed injectable or involuntary treatment would stop taking their medications in the community, become symptomatic, and pose an increased risk for criminal recidivism.

In this study, consistent with the scientific literature, we hypothesized that the three-year recidivism rate of offenders with a mental illness, but not a substance use disorder, would be similar to the rate of offenders with neither problem; that the three-year recidivism rate of offenders with a substance use disorder would be higher than the rates of offenders without a substance use disorder, and of those with a mental illness alone; and that the three-year recidivism rate of offenders with both a mental illness and a substance use disorder would be higher than any of the other three groups. Among the group of offenders diagnosed with mental disorders, we hypothesized that, relative to other offenders with an identified mental illness, three-year recidivism rates would be higher among those with a psychotic disorder or a mood disorder diagnosis, those prescribed an antipsychotic medication upon release, those prescribed a long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication upon release, and those prescribed involuntary medication upon release.

Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online February 2020, 7p.

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

This report presents findings from the three years of the California County Resentencing Pilot Program, which was established to support and evaluate a collaborative approach to exercising prosecutorial discretion in resentencing. Nine California counties were selected and were provided with funding to implement the prosecutor-initiated resentencing (PIR) three-year pilot program. In each pilot county, participants in the pilot were to include a county district attorney (DA) office and a county public defender (PD) office and may have included a community-based organization.

RAND, a nonprofit research organization, was selected by the California State Legislature as the independent evaluator of the pilot program. The pilot term was September 1, 2021, through September 1, 2024; the evaluation term was September 1, 2021, through January 31, 2025. The evaluation in this report comprises three components: a descriptive and outcomes analysis of data collected by DA offices and supplemented by data from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, a qualitative implementation assessment, and a cost study to estimate the resources required to implement the pilot activities. Subsequent reports will present the recidivism outcomes.

Key Findings

PIR filled a gap in sentencing policies by focusing on crimes against persons.

The program was not a single intervention at the county level but rather a set of different types of interventions by the nine pilot counties and was implemented in the context of other resentencing legislation.

Each county developed its own eligibility criteria for resentencing consideration. The criteria focused on such factors as the age of the inmate, the crime committed, and the length and other details of the sentence.

Factors that facilitated implementation include a history of collaboration between the DA and PD, leadership support, positive political climate, adequate resources, close coordination with the courts, and the use of stipulation.

Factors that hindered implementation include a less-supportive political context, differing views between DAs and PDs, inclusion of more-serious and more-complex cases, staffing shortages, and the complexity of reentry planning.

Among 1,146 case reviews initiated during the reporting period, 240 cases were referred to the court for resentencing; the DA offices decided not to refer 710 cases that they had reviewed; and 196 cases were still under DA review or were deferred for future review.

Of the 233 cases for which courts had ruled on a resentencing motion, 227 resulted in resentencing, and 174 of those individuals have been released from prison.

Resources for pilot-related activities were primarily for personnel.

Total expenditures for the six counties most actively engaged in the pilot reached nearly $28 million over the three years.

Recommendations

There is a need to clarify the respective roles of DAs and PDs and for an accountability mechanism to encourage them to work more closely together.

There need to be more-realistic time frames for the resentencing process, including the number of cases reviewed and length of time for DA review of cases to serve as benchmarks for counties to meet.

Eligibility criteria should be revisited and possibly streamlined, in addition to some standardization of what factors should be considered in the review of cases and decisions of whether to recommend to the court for resentencing.

A more formal arrangement between California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the counties is needed to tackle the complexity of resentencing under PIR and improve access to clients and documentation.

Training is needed for the DA and PD staff, especially in such areas as the overall PIR initiative, case reviews, and offender central file analysis.

Key factors that helped streamline the resentencing process were the use of stipulation and having a dedicated court assigned to PIR cases. In the future, counties implementing PIR might consider using these two mechanisms.

Funding agencies could consider allocating the community-based organization contract funding to the PDs to implement and varying the size of the funding according to the size of the incarcerated population in a county.

Reentry planning requires further examination.

Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2025.