By The HALTSolitary Campaign & Mental Health

New York State prisons had an epidemic of suicides in 2024, with the widespread use of solitary
confinement in violation of the HALT Solitary Confinement Law contributing significantly to this
crisis. According to data provided by the New York State Office of Mental Health (OMH) and
published by the Correctional Association of New York, 25 people died by suicide in 2024. The
number of people who died was more than double the previous year, the highest number since
at least 2000, more than triple the rate of deaths by suicide annually in New York prisons from
2000 to 2023, and more than four times the rate of deaths by suicide in prisons across the
country.

Looking at the locations where these deaths occurred reveals that a vastly disproportionate
number of deaths by suicide took place in solitary confinement. The Department of Corrections
and Community Supervision (DOCCS) has been systematically violating the HALT Solitary
Confinement Law. Among other violations, DOCCS has been locking people who have mental
health needs in solitary in violation of the law’s explicit ban on such confinement. DOCCS has
also been operating so-called alternatives to solitary – including Residential Rehabilitation Units
(RRUs) and Residential Mental Health Units (RMHUs) – as solitary by another name by denying
people the out-of-cell time and group programming required by the law.
These violations have caused devastating harm and death, as the recently released data
shows. In 2024, at least nine of the 25 people who died by suicide, or 36%, were in official
isolation units – namely three people in Special Housing Units (SHUs), three people in RRUs,
and three people in RMHUs. Given that these units hold a relatively small percentage of people
in DOCCS prisons, the rates of death by suicide among people in one of these isolation settings
are vastly disproportionate compared to the rates of death by suicide among people in
non-isolation settings.

Specifically, people died by suicide in isolation units at a rate more than seven times higher than
people in non-isolation settings, including nearly 23 times higher in SHU, three times higher in
RRU, and nearly 32 times higher in RMHU than in non-isolation settings.
Looking at self-harm more broadly, over 60% of self-harm incidents took place in isolation
settings, including SHU, RRU, and RMHU, as well as the Behavioral Health Unit/Therapeutic
Behavioral Unit (BHU/TBU), Residential Crisis Treatment Program (RCTP), and protective
custody. These isolation units had rates of self-harm over 15 times the rates of self-harm in
non-isolation settings, with the rates in SHU 19 times higher than in non-isolation settings, rates
in the RMHU 35 times higher than in non-isolation settings, rates in the BHU/TBU 316 times
higher than in non-isolation settings, rates in the combined disciplinary Residential Mental
Health Treatment Units (RMHTUs) of nearly 50 times higher than in non-isolation settings, and
rates in the RCTP 162 times higher than in non-isolation settings.

By Gillian Slee

Research on reentry has documented how material hardship, network dynamics, and carceral governance impede reintegration after prison, but existing scholarship has left underdeveloped other instances in which adverse outcomes stem from the institution's socioemotional dynamics and people's practical and emotional responses to bureaucratic indignities. Drawing on more than 2 years of ethnographic fieldwork with people on parole in Philadelphia, this study analyzes three sources of adversity that occur because reentry institutions’ or actors’ practices are incompatible with the behaviors and needs of system-involved people. I demonstrate how unrecognized vulnerability, discretion's benefits and drawbacks, and risk-escalating rules contribute to adverse outcomes—withdrawal and rule-breaking—that sometimes lead to reincarceration. In failing to account for aspects of human agency and dignity, such as the ability to provide for oneself and to advance personal and familial well-being, parole guidelines often prompted withdrawal and subversion.

By ALISSA SKOG AND JOHANNA LACOE

 Research series examining second look policies in California The five policy briefs and overview report in this series describe the characteristics and recidivism rates of individuals affected by second look policies in California. Committee on Revision of the Penal Code Before Proposition 47, California prosecutors had discretion to charge certain low-level drug possession and property theft offenses under $950 as either misdemeanors or as felonies. In response to growing concerns about incarceration rates, the cost of incarceration, and the long-term impact of felony convictions for lower-level offenses, voters passed Prop 47 in 2014. The measure reclassified specific drug and property offenses as misdemeanors, reducing associated penalties. It also allowed individuals already serving sentences in prison or county jail for those offenses to petition for resentencing. This brief examines who was resentenced under Prop 47, the offenses for which they were originally convicted, and their recidivism rates following release. It focuses only on people who were serving a prison sentence at the time of resentencing, not people who were serving a jail sentence. Key findings • More than 4,700 people in prison were resentenced under Prop 47, and half were in custody for a felony drug offense. Of the 4,723 people resentenced, 47% had a felony drug offense as their primary offense, 38% had a property offense, and 15% were incarcerated for a more serious offense, but had a subordinate property or drug offense resentenced — while their sentence for the more serious offense remained unchanged. • People resentenced under Prop 47 often had multiple prior bookings and served short prison terms. Nearly 50% had three or more prior prison admissions, and almost half had been in prison for less than one year at the time of release. • Three years after release, 57% of people resentenced under Prop 47 were convicted of a new offense, and the majority of new convictions were for misdemeanors. That rate is higher than the 42% reconviction rate for everyone released from CDCR in fiscal year 2018–19. Most new convictions were for misdemeanors (38%) or non-violent, non-serious felonies (14%). Fewer than 5% had a first reconviction within three years for a serious or violent felony, and 8% had their first post-release prison admission for a serious or violent felony (these rates differ because a person's first reconviction may be a less serious offense than the one that led to their first prison admission). 

By ALISSA SKOG AND JOHANNA LACOE 

California’s Three Strikes sentencing law lengthens prison sentences based on an individual’s prior convictions, specifically adding a “strike” for each prior “serious” or “violent” felony. Under the original law, a person with two prior strikes who was convicted of any third felony — regardless of whether it was serious or violent — faced a mandatory sentence of 25 years to life. This approach led to lengthy sentences for individuals whose third offense was neither serious nor violent, prompting concern about fairness and over-incarceration. In response, voters passed Proposition 36 in 2012, which generally limits the 25-years-to-life sentence to cases in which the third felony is also serious or violent. Although Prop 36 did not change the rule that a second strike results in a doubled sentence, it created a resentencing pathway for people serving third-strike life sentences for non-serious, non-violent offenses. Individuals that met the new criteria could petition the court for a reduced sentence, helping align past sentences with current sentencing standards. This brief examines who was resentenced under Prop 36, the offenses for which they were originally convicted, and their recidivism rates following release. Key findings • More than 2,200 people were resentenced and released earlier due to changes in California’s ThreeStrikes sentencing. There were 2,217 people incarcerated in California’s prisons for a non-serious, non-violent third-strike that were released earlier after Prop 36 prohibited the application of a 25-year-to-life sentence for these offenses and allowed people already incarcerated with this sentence to apply for resentencing. • People released under Prop 36 were largely Black and aged 50 or older at the time of release. Almost half (46%) of those released under Prop 36 were Black — compared to approximately 6% of California’s resident population and 24% of people released from prison in fiscal year 2018-19. Over two-thirds were 50 years old or older at release and 59% spent more than 15 years in prison. • Three-year recidivism rates for people released due to Prop 36 resentencing were lower than the total release population. Twenty-five percent of people released under Prop 36 were convicted of a new offense within three years, and nearly two-thirds of those convictions were for misdemeanors. In comparison, 42% of total releases were convicted of a new offense within three years, and 26% were misdemeanors.

By ALISSA SKOG AND JOHANNA LACOE 

Research series examining second look policies in California The five policy briefs and overview report in this series describe the characteristics and recidivism rates of individuals affected by second look policies in California. Committee on Revision of the Penal Code Criminal justice system reforms — especially those revising sentencing laws — often have applied only to new cases. This means that individuals who were already sentenced under outdated laws will not benefit from the reforms. Prior to 2018, California law allowed a three-year sentence enhancement for anyone with a prior conviction for possession of a controlled substance who was later convicted of another drug offense. Senate Bill 180 (2018) repealed this enhancement except in cases involving minors. Similarly, Penal Code § 667.5(b) allowed a one-year enhancement for any prior prison or felony jail term. But, in 2020, Senate Bill 136 went into effect, restricting this enhancement to only be applied in cases where the individual had prior convictions for sexually violent offenses. However, neither SB 180 nor SB 136 applied retroactively — meaning thousands of people remained incarcerated under enhancements no longer active in the state. To address this gap, Senate Bill 483 (effective 2022) authorized courts to resentence individuals serving time for enhancements repealed under SB 180 and SB 136. The goal of this bill, which was based on a recommendation from the Committee on Revision of the Penal Code, was to bring past sentences in line with current sentencing standards and reduce unnecessary incarceration. This brief examines who was resentenced under SB 483, the offenses for which they were originally convicted, and the recidivism rates for people who have been released. Key findings • More than 3,000 people have been resentenced under SB 483. Most of those resentenced (92%) had a oneyear prior prison enhancement. As of December 2024, just over one-third had been released from prison. • People resentenced under SB 483 were largely Black or Hispanic and in their early 30s at the time of their offense. Black and Hispanic individuals made up 75% of those resentenced under SB 483, at 38% and 37%, respectively, with a median offense age of 31 across all racial and ethnic groups. • The median sentence reduction after resentencing under SB 483 was approximately two years. • People resentenced under SB 483 had typically spent a long time in prison. The median time in prison was slightly less than 13 years, and nearly twothirds had served at least 10 years. • Early recidivism rates were slightly lower than the general release population. Among the 356 individuals with one year of post-release data, 18% were convicted of a new offense, compared to 21% of people released from prison in fiscal year 2018–19. Eight percent had a new felony conviction and 10% had a new misdemeanor 

• The median sentence reduction after resentencing under SB 483 was approximately two years. • People resentenced under SB 483 had typically spent a long time in prison. The median time in prison was slightly less than 13 years, and nearly twothirds had served at least 10 years. • Early recidivism rates were slightly lower than the general release population. Among the 356 individuals with one year of post-release data, 18% were convicted of a new offense, compared to 21% of people released from prison in fiscal year 2018–19. Eight percent had a new felony conviction and 10% had a new misdemeanor

By ALISSA SKOG AND JOHANNA LACOE 

Research series examining second look policies in California The five policy briefs and overview report in this series describe the characteristics and recidivism rates of individuals affected by second look policies in California. Committee on Revision of the Penal Code In 2018, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) implemented a new process to identify and refer incarcerated people for resentencing under Penal Code § 1172.1 (then codified as § 1170(d)). This initiative aimed to reduce sentencing disparities and recognize rehabilitation during incarceration. Though prosecutors and courts can also initiate resentencing under this law, this data is not tracked statewide and not included in this analysis. Under this process, CDCR can recommend that a person’s sentence be recalled and modified based on specific criteria: changes in sentencing laws, exceptional conduct while incarcerated, or requests from law enforcement or judicial officials. Staff from CDCR's case records department typically refer people due to legal changes affecting their sentence, while CDCR staff who have direct knowledge of a person’s conduct may request that a warden evaluate the case for an exceptional conduct recommendation. All referrals are reviewed by the CDCR Secretary, who decides whether to forward them to the sentencing court for possible resentencing. This brief examines CDCR-initiated resentencing referrals, the individuals resentenced, the offenses for which they were originally convicted, and their recidivism rates following release. Key findings • Since 2018, the CDCR Secretary has referred more than 2,200 people for resentencing More than half of these referrals occurred within the first two years of the policy going into effect. • However, fewer than half of those referred by the CDCR Secretary were granted resentencing. As of December 2024, 47% of individuals referred by the Secretary had been resentenced, while 786 cases were denied. • Most people were resentenced based on changes in sentencing laws. Among those released, 84% were resentenced due to changes in the law, while 16% were resentenced for demonstrating exceptional conduct during incarceration.• Women made up a larger share of those resentenced for exceptional conduct compared to their share of the incarcerated population. Women made up 17% of exceptional-conduct resentencings, which is more than twice their share of total releases (7%) and triple their share (5%) under sentencing-law resentencings. • New conviction rates were low among those resentenced and released. Within one year, 4% of people released through CDCR-initiated resentencing were convicted of a new offense, compared to 21% of total releases. Three-year rates are similarly lower, though we can only show three-year outcomes for 39% of these individuals. • Only five people resentenced for exceptional conduct were convicted of a new offense within three years. Of the 93 people resentenced for exceptional conduct who can be observed three years post release, none were convicted of a new serious or violent felony during that time.

By ALISSA SKOG AND JOHANNA LACOE 

Over the past 13 years, California has implemented numerous criminal justice reforms aimed at reducing prison sentences, limiting the use of sentencing enhancements, and shrinking the state’s prison population . Many of these reforms include “second look” provisions, allowing courts to review older sentences in light of new policies, and where appropriate, apply new laws retroactively . The efforts reflect a broader shift toward proportional sentencing, rehabilitation, and more equitable sentences . California’s resentencing policies are wide-ranging, affecting individuals serving sentences for both low-level, non-violent offenses and violent felony convictions with lengthy terms . To date, approximately 11,900 people have been resentenced under these laws . This research provides the first in-depth look at who is affected by these reforms and their recidivism rates . In this report and a series of accompanying policy briefs, we examine five of the most prominent resentencing policies enacted between 2012 and 2022 (Figure 1) . We present the number of people released from California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) custody under each reform, their demographic and case characteristics, and their recidivism rates . For context, we also provide summary statistics and recidivism rates for all individuals released from CDCR custody in fiscal year 2018–19 

by U.K. HM Chief Inspector of Prisons

This report into the quality of work and training in prisons makes depressing reading. Although we found some effective provision delivered by dedicated, creative staff, it was only available to a small minority of prisoners. Too often, prisoners were leaving prison having gained few skills which would make a difference in helping them to avoid reoffending. The lack of adequate purposeful activity provided to prisoners has been a criticism by the Inspectorate of Prisons since its founding in 1982, but since the pandemic things have got even worse. Despite attempts to promote a renewed focus on purposeful activity, we find prisoners are locked in their cells for longer than ever. Evening association, time in the gym and communal dining, which were once common, have become rarities. In the last three years our inspection scores for purposeful activity have been terrible; 94 of the 104 closed prisons we have inspected have been rated ‘poor’ or ‘not sufficiently good’. Only in open prisons do we regularly see prisoners involved in the sorts of training or education that will help them to resettle successfully when they are released. This report shows that in many jails there are simply not enough activity spaces for the population. This has been compounded by overcrowding and the failure by the prison service to maintain buildings which are often dilapidated or, in some cases, out of use. Even where there are sufficient spaces, attendance is atrocious. In the prisons we visited for this thematic report it was at an average of 67% – a level that would get any school or college closed down. Regime curtailments, security lockdowns or staff and prisoner indifference mean that many prisoners do not go to their allocated activities or arrive so late that it is hardly worth going at all. For instructors and teachers, low attendance is incredibly demoralising and not knowing who, if anyone, is going to turn up may in part explain why recruiting or retaining these staff is so difficult. Many of the workshops or classrooms I visit on inspection have only a handful of prisoners in them and often they seem to be drinking tea or playing cards rather than working.The working day in prisons is nothing like that on the outside, with even full-time workers often spending no more than five hours off the wing. Many are underemployed in wing work that bears little relation to any work in the community. The prison service has a comical definition of full- and part-time activity, which means that in jails we visit a prisoner who works for as little as 18 hours a week can be considered to be in full-time work. Part of the reason for poor attendance is that prisoners are not motivated by the work placements or courses on offer, or they do not get allocated to activities that will teach them the skills or help them to acquire the qualifications that they actually need. The positive initiatives we did find, such as training courses directly linked to employment opportunities, were limited in scope, and at other sites we visited uncertainty around funding had resulted in valuable courses being closed.Without adequate investment, prison leaders will have limited ability to make a meaningful impact on prisoners’ prospects on release. The prison service has a duty to protect the public by keeping those who the courts have sent to prison locked up, but there is also an obligation to protect the public by making prisoners less likely to reoffend when they are released. This report shows the failure of our prisons to fulfil this responsibility. With twothirds of prisoners not in work or training six months after release, there is little doubt that many have left jail and returned to criminality, causing mayhem in their communities and creating more victims of crime. Too many prisoners are spending their time in jail lying on their beds watching daytime television, often under the influence of drugs. Until leaders in the prison service take the provision of high-quality education and training more seriously, it is hard to see how appallingly high reoffending rates can be reduced.

By Gillian Buck, Philippa Tomczak

 Prison regulators across scales hold potential to illuminate harms of imprisonment and influence alternatives, yet criminologists rarely engage with these mechanisms. We analyse prisoners’ participatory roles in the ‘transformative’ Corston Report (2007) and The Corston Report 10 Years On, using actor-network-theory to guide document analysis. Corston called for a radically different, woman-centred approach to criminal justice, but women’s voices were often peripheral, or they were constructed as ‘pathetic’. There is unrealised potential for regulatory efforts to network imprisoned women and their families with other regulators, deepening understanding of problems connected to prisons, for broader social benefit.

The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 64(3), 405-414.

By Talitha Brown, Maria Adams, Daniel McCarthy, Erin Power, Vicki Harman, Jon Garland

This paper aims to explore how staff members in women’s prisons understand their role in relation to the food practices. Given the budgetary restrictions, staff shortages and overall concerns around the quality of food in prison, there is a critical gap in engaging with these staff perspectives which urgently needs addressing. Drawing on a qualitative study conducted in four women’s prisons in England, this paper will explore the food practices in prison from a range of staff (n = 10). The paper focuses on the following themes: (i) understanding the different ways in which staff navigate structural issues in serving food practices; (ii) examining how staff manage the expectations of women in prison around food; (iii) analysing how they link food practices to notion of normality; and (iv) exploring the ways in which staff navigate the debates on whether food should be seen as a form of punishment or rehabilitation.

The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice. 

By Byun, W., Stevenson, K., & Loyo, M.

Pay-to-stay fees, also referred to as costs of incarceration, cost of care, cost of support, or room and board, are the costs charged to individuals for their incarceration. They may be automatically deducted from an individual’s wages or prison account, but often accumulate or are collected as debt after the conclusion of their sentence. Using an in-depth literature review, discussions with researchers, and interviews with people impacted by pay-to-stay fees, this report examines the imposition of room and board and medical fees at the state level during a period of incarceration. The authors conclude that pay-to-stay fees impose excessive financial burdens on individuals and their families, are a barrier to accessing basic goods and services, hinder successful reentry, and are ineffective fiscal policy. The authors urge state and local governments to ban the imposition of these fees.

Key findings:

48 states and Washington D.C. allow for the imposition of at least one category of pay-to-stay fees (adult room & board, adult medical, youth room & board, and youth medical).

California and Illinois have repealed fees for all categories.

26 states allow for both room & board and medical fees for both adults and youth who are incarcerated.

Among states that allow medical co-pays, the fee ranges from $.50 to $13.55 per visit.

15 states prohibit the denial of medical service for adults for lack of ability to pay.

A number of states allow for the direct garnishing of an individual’s resources to pay pay-to-stay fees.

12 states authorize the use of criminal prosecution for accured or unpaid fees for at least one category.

New York: Campaign Zero, 2025. 33p.

Chairman: Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd

This report, produced by an expert working group led by a former Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, presents considered proposals aimed at protecting the public while ending the long-running IPP scandal for good.

Convened by the Howard League and chaired by Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the group spent months exploring ways to end the detention of people serving indeterminate sentences of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP).The report puts forward six recommendations – including an important change to the Parole Board test, which would require the Parole Board to give people on IPP sentences a certain release date, within a two-year window, and to set out what action is required to achieve that safely.

London: Howard League for Penal Reform, 2025. 26p.

By Kirsty Deacon

Key Findings  There has been significant progress made by prisons in relation to their work with and for families of people in prison.  All the participants in this research were passionate about their work with families and the importance of this.  There are many examples of good practice in relation to families across the prison estate, but not always opportunities to make sure this learning is shared or replicated.  While there was a general awareness of the Family Strategy and a recognition of elements distilled into operational documents it was seen as most, or solely, important for Family Contact Officers.  There were felt to be some discrepancies between the rhetoric of the Scottish Prison Service and their Family Strategy and the practice in relation to families in some prisons.  The Family Contact Officer role could be seen as simply a “stepping stone” for promotion or perceived as less valued than residential officers.  While there were examples of families being treated with dignity and respect this was not felt to be consistent across all staff.  There were examples of broad definitions of family being used, and flexibility in accommodating this, but there was not always a consistent approach across all prisons.  Families were viewed predominantly in terms of the role they can play in the reduction of reoffending, but also in terms of their own needs and rights as individuals.  The system the prison officers worked in could sometimes constrain their ability to work in rights-based ways. A distinction between roles focused on care and control and a perceived over-emphasis on the latter were mentioned.  Covid 19 has offered opportunities to change the ways in which families are able to engage with people in prison and the prison itself. The technological introductions were all welcomed and it was felt they should continue in some way.  There has been a significant impact on family relationships from lengthy periods of separation and a lack of meaningful contact, as well as the effects of isolation on those in prison during the pandemic. This is likely to continue to have an impact on prisoners, their families, and their relationships for some time.  The inherent nature of the criminal justice system and the high prison population in Scotland will constrain how much the Scottish Prison Service can achieve in relation to working with families.

Glasgow: Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research, 2022. 46p.

By Sophie Martens and Ben Crewe

While there is abundant literature on prison violence, much less has been written about how safety is perceived and conceived in prison. Even less is known about how these feelings of safety and their respective predictors may vary between prison systems. This study illustrates what predicts feelings of safety and how prisoners define and experience safety in two jurisdictions, Norway and England & Wales. The research employs a mixed-methods approach, using data from surveys (N = 984) and interviews (N = 199) from a major comparative penological project. It finds that while prisoners in Norway generally reported feeling safer than prisoners in England & Wales, the quantitative predictors of safety did not vary by jurisdiction. From a qualitative perspective, however, it was observed that prisoners in England & Wales held a more limited definition of safety (bounded safety) in which they accepted a constant need for vigilance, whereas prisoners in Norway showed more trust in their environment. This finding suggests that feelings of safety in prison may be (at least partly) context-dependent, which raises important questions regarding the much-debated ‘safety paradox’ in prison, and forms a relevant insight for future comparative work.

The British Journal of Criminology, Volume 65, Issue 3, May 2025, Pages 541–558,

By Kate Gooch

Although imprisonment for debt was abolished in England and Wales more than 50 years ago, a new debtor's prison has emerged. Debt within prison is now a significant problem, re-defining social relationships, and contributing to a rise in disorder, distress, harmful and criminal behaviour. Yet, engagement in the illicit economy, and the problem and consequences of indebtedness, has received relatively little academic attention. Based on ethnographic and qualitative research conducted in 10 prisons, this article seeks to correct this omission and expand the literature on illegal markets, prisoner safety, and prisoner society. It explores the functions and appeal of the illicit economy, the ways in which prisoner become indebted to each, and with what consequences.

Theoretical Criminology, 0(0)

By Marcella Alsan and Crystal Yang

The U.S. has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, with over seven million admissions to jails each year. Incarcerated individuals are the only group in the U.S. that have a constitutional right to receiving "reasonably adequate" health care. Yet, there is little oversight and funding for health care in jails, where illness and mortality are rampant. In this study, we randomize the offer of health care accreditation to 44 jails across the U.S. Surveys of staff indicate that accreditation improves coordination between health and custody staff. We also find that accreditation improves quality standards and reduces mortality among the incarcerated, which is three times higher among control facilities than official estimates suggest. These health gains are realized alongside suggestive reductions in six-month recidivism, such that accreditation is highly cost effective.

NBER Working Paper 33357

Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2025. 54p.

By The LOUISIANA LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR

We evaluated the treatment of women incarcerated in Louisiana’s state and local correctional facilities. We conducted this audit in response to House Concurrent Resolution 104 of the 2023 Regular Session, 1 which requested that the legislative auditor audit whether state and local correctional facilities are following state law regarding the treatment of pregnant incarcerated females, and the general healthcare and treatment of all incarcerated females. According to a report issued by the National Conference for State Legislatures (NCSL) in 2022,2 even though there are still more men than women involved in our nation’s justice systems, the rate of growth of the women’s population has vastly increased, and between 1980 and 2019 the number of incarcerated women (in both jails and prisons) increased by more than 700%. According to this report, state and local government systems and facilities are predominately designed to handle men. Louisiana’s Incarcerated Female Population. Incarcerated females in Louisiana are housed in both state and local correctional facilities. The Department of Public Safety and Corrections (DPS&C), Division of Correction Services (DOC) oversees the custody and care of females (state offenders) serving a prison sentence for a felony conviction. DOC oversees one female correctional facility— Louisiana Correctional Institute for Women (LCIW). Out of the 64 parishes, 47 have local correctional facilities (local jails) that house females who are pre-trial or are serving sentences for non-felony convictions and usually a term of less than one year. In addition, some local jails house state offenders on behalf of DOC for a daily per diem of $26.39 per state offender. As of July 2024, there were 3,519 incarcerated females, with 1,582 being state offenders under DOC’s supervision. The purpose of this audit was to evaluate the treatment and care of incarcerated females in Louisiana. As of July 2024, 3,519 women were incarcerated in Louisiana. Of this number, 1,582 were state offenders under the supervision of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections (DPS&C), Division of Correction Services (DOC). The remaining 1,937 were local offenders housed in local jails. DOC oversees the state’s only correctional facility for females – the Louisiana Correctional Institute for Women (LCIW). LCIW’s capacity currently is 450. As a result, 1,132 female state offenders are housed in local jails on behalf of DOC at a cost of $26.39 per day per individual. Overall, we found that local jails lack sufficient procedures to comply with state laws related to the treatment of incarcerated women in Louisiana. Additionally, while LCIW generally provides sufficient access to basic medical and educational services for incarcerated women, similar access in local jails varies. We also found that incarcerated men in local jails receive more developmental opportunities than women. Specifically, we found that none of Louisiana’s local jails, which house 87.2% of incarcerated women in Louisiana, have sufficient, written procedures encompassing all requirements in state law regarding female incarceration. In addition, although prohibited in state law, at least three jails indicated leg irons were used on pregnant or birthing women housed in their facilities. Local jails also did not always sufficiently document the use of restraints for pregnant women and did not always advise pregnant women in writing of their rights related to the use of restraints. We found as well that Louisiana’s local jails do not sufficiently address the healthcare needs of incarcerated women during and following pregnancy or provide preventive health screenings to all women. We also found that local jails could better protect the dignity of incarcerated women by ensuring sufficient access to hygiene supplies and activities such as showering, as well as increased privacy during different states of undress. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, educational and vocational programming, recreational time, and visitation during incarceration can improve reentry outcomes. However, we found that access to these opportunities varies across correctional facilities, with female offenders often having less access than male offenders. In addition, LCIW is working to complete the construction of a new facility designed to house approximately 950 female state offenders, which is double its current capacity. LCIW expects that the new facility will be operational by late summer of 2025. The report contains our findings and recommendations. I hope this report will benefit you in your legislative decision-making process.

Baton Rouge, LA: LOUISIANA LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR, 2025. 47p.

By A. I. Schaap, A. C. Molewijk, M. M. Stolper

We present a study about an ethics support instrument, Moral Case Deliberation (MCD), which is used to support and further professionalize Dutch prison staff. MCD can facilitate prison staff in dealing with moral dilemmas from practice. We present an embedded mixed-methods study on the experienced outcomes of 16 teams participating in both single and in series of MCD sessions. Prison staff and MCD facilitators completed evaluation forms (n=871 by staf, and n=122 by facilitators) after participating in a single MCD session (n=131). Staff filled out another evaluation form (n=149) after participating in a series of 10 MCD sessions. Our multilevel quantitative analyses show overall positive outcomes, with significant differences between professional disciplines. Prison staff, e.g., reported a better understanding of the discussed moral dilemma and the related perspectives of colleagues. The qualitative thematic content analysis of the experienced outcomes of single MCD sessions resulted in 8 outcome categories, e.g., improved moral awareness, awareness of responsibilities and limitations in decision-making, and feeling empowered to address issues. The experienced outcomes of MCD provide some insights in the process of fostering moral learning of prison staff; staf gained moral awareness, and improved their perspective-taking and the ability to better control their frustrations and emotions. Further research should focus on studying the impact of MCD on moral decision-making in the day-to-day practice of prison staff and on what the organization can learn from the MCD sessions.

European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research (2025) 31:173–192

By Riley Doyle Evans∗ & Stefen R. Short

Prisons and jails are “total institutions.”1 Incarcerated people, to a large extent, depend on correctional agencies for their basic welfare and have limited power to resist harmful conditions and practices.2 While incarcerated people and their advocates have historically turned to the courts to remedy dangerous and inhumane conditions,3 increasingly, state legislatures have become important sites of intervention,4 especially to address profoundly harmful conditions that courts have, nonetheless, held pass constitutional and statutory muster.5 Solitary confinement is one example. Since the 1960s and 1970s, litigation has percolated through the federal courts challenging the use of solitary confinement both as applied to vulnerable groups and more broadly.6 In these lawsuits, incarcerated people have typically advanced claims under the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause7 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act.8 Courts have construed these sources of rights as limited and narrow, and as a result, these lawsuits have proven unavailing as tools to eliminate solitary confinement wholesale9 — even for vulnerable groups.10 And although Justice Kennedy, citing the “terrible price” that prolonged solitary confinement exacts on human beings, all but invited a constitutional challenge to that practice,11 courts have largely upheld its use on non-vulnerable groups.12 To be sure, litigation played a role in reducing the harm attendant to the use of solitary confinement as a penological tool. Federal court litigation over decades has indeed mitigated some of the most deplorable conditions in solitary confinement units,13 established limited protections for certain vulnerable people,14 and secured procedural protections.15 Given the limited nature of these successes — and because the core practice of solitary confinement continues to exist — anti-solitary litigators have begun to pair litigation approaches with legislative campaigns.16 Litigators, seeking to secure through the state and local legislatures what they have failed to secure through the courts, have joined incarcerated and formerly incarcerated leaders and other community advocates.17 In recent years, state and local legislatures have begun to respond to these efforts by attempting to reform solitary confinement through legislative oversight — including hearings and investigations — and, at times, legislation.

Harvard Law Review, VOLUME 138ISSUE 7MAY 2025

By The U.K. Parliament. HOUSE OF LORDS Justice and Home Affairs Committee

We have the highest imprisonment rate in Western Europe and it is only increasing. There are over 87,000 people in prison in England and Wales. This is almost double the prison population in 1993.1 The prison population is expected to exceed 100,000 by 2029.2 80 per cent of offending is reoffending. The economic and social cost of reoffending is estimated to be around £18 billion a year and is a major contributor to the size of the prison population. Our prisons are currently operating in a state of crisis. They are overcrowded, often in bad and unsanitary condition, and face issues such as a shortage of funds, gangs operating with impunity, drones undermining security, an alarming availability of drugs and over-stretched, demoralised staff. We know that access to purposeful and productive activities makes prisons safer and reduces reoffending on release. However, the current situation in our prisons hinders the provision of these activities, preventing prisoners from seeking support with mental health problems and addiction, or securing training and education opportunities that can prepare them for life outside. There is urgent need for wider prison reform, not least to reduce reoffending. The Government is addressing some of the most urgent problems, and other Parliamentary Committees are scrutinising these actions. We have focused on the leadership, governance and staffing of prisons. The Government must give a clear lead to ensure that prisons fulfil their primary purpose of preparing offenders for their release—in the hope that they will be able to lead stable and meaningful lives in future and not reoffend. What we found • A lack of clarity about the purpose of prisons; • Lack of public understanding about prisons; • Limited autonomy for prison governors; • A wholly inadequate prison staff recruitment procedure; • Poor staff assessment and training arrangements; • Siloed working, with a lack of effective cross-agency collaboration within His Majesty’s Prison and probation Service (HMPPS) and with external partners; • Insufficient ‘purposeful activity’ designed to reduce re-offending; • A sense of complacency and inadequate accountability arrangements throughout the prison service. Reviewed in totality, HMPPS is inflexible, and overly bureaucratic. Whether it is fit for purpose remains to be proven.

London: U.K. Parliament, 2025. 107p.