By Robin Joy

Vermont’s alternatives to the criminal justice system are available pre-charge, postcharge, and post-sentence. However, there has been some question about the extent to which access to alternative programs might be influencing racial disparities in the criminal justice system. To explore this notion, Crime Research Group (CRG) secured funding to examine whether there are disparities in who is served by alternative programs. By triangulating several data sources, researchers were able to describe who was served by Adult Court Diversion from 2015 through 2019, and who was served by the Treatment Courts from 2013-2018. However, several data quality issues impacted researchers’ ability to perform advanced statistical analyses capable of identifying factors that significantly contribute to whether an individual is served by an alternative program. On Measuring Disparities with Administrative Data Using administrative data to model human decision-making presents several challenges. First, because Vermont is a small state, researchers usually run into the issue of low numbers. This is especially true when trying to examine the experiences of marginalized populations within the state. Oftentimes, data on Asian, Indigenous, and Hispanic Vermonters must be excluded from analyses because there are so few people represented in the data that disclosing numbers has the potential to identify specific individuals. As a result, administrative data is not able to describe the experiences of these individuals. Qualitative research, which captures the themes of people’s experiences while masking their identities, is needed to bridge this gap. Second, issues arise when attempting to match data from one dataset to information stored within another dataset. Researchers were unable to match Treatment Court data with Vermont criminal histories because the data was inconsistent or non-existent. Successful diversion participants have their records expunged two years after the case is dismissed by the prosecutor so if no other record is found, an assumption is made that these are first time offenders. Researchers cannot be sure if an individual is a first-time offender, a consideration that is certainly used by prosecutors when determining whether to refer to Court Diversion.

Court Diversion Adult Court Diversion is governed by statute, administered by the Attorney General, and delivered by a network of non-profit organizations. CRG used Adjudication Data and Vermont Criminal Histories to test for disparities in who was referred to diversion; both data sets originate from Court records. Analysis of the data revealed that: x From 2015-2019, there were 6,127 defendants referred to Diversion. Most defendants referred were White (84.9% / 5,204). There were 259 Black defendants, 59 Asian defendants, and 45 Latinx defendants. The race of 530 (8.7%) defendants was either missing, unknown, or not reported. Race is as recorded by law enforcement. x The most common offense committed by those served in Court Diversion was Motor Vehicle offenses that were not DUI or Gross Negligent related (e.g., Driving on a Suspended License). Public order offenses were the second most common. The offenses include Disorderly Conduct, Trespassing, and Violations of Conditions of Release. For these offenses, 7% of all charges for Black and White offenders were referred to Court Diversion. x Statistical tests indicate that the race of the Public Order and Motor Vehicle offenders was associated with whether they entered Court Diversion. However, because of the administrative data issues discussed above (page 2), it was not possible to build a statistical model capable of determining exactly how race is related to the Court Diversion participation. Treatment Courts In Vermont, Treatment Courts operate as special dockets within the criminal court system. The Judiciary operates a Mental Health Docket and a Drug Treatment Docket in Chittenden County, a Drug Treatment Docket in Rutland and Washington Counties and a Regional DUI Docket serving residents in Windsor, Windham and Orange Counites. The dockets function in a team atmosphere to help the participant access treatment and hold them accountable for the underlying criminal offense. Treatment Courts are evidence-based, and several studies have found them to be effective for reducing recidivism (Gennette & Joy, 2019; Joy & Bellas, 2017; NPC Research Team, 2009; Wicklund & Halvorsen, 2014). Analysis of the Docket databases and the Court Adjudication data-based showed that: Between 2013 and 2018, 1,076 people entered Phase 1 of the Treatment Dockets. Chittenden’s combined dockets served 52% of the people, while the newest docket, the DUI Regional Docket, served the fewest with 57 people served. x During the five-year study period, all Treatment Dockets served only 30 black people, and even fewer Asian or Native American persons. x The Rutland docket served 12 (3.8%) people of color and 296 (95%) White people. The most common charge served by the docket was Violations of Conditions of Release (201). The next two most common charges were Retail Theft (196) and Petit Larceny (129), Burglary was the fourth most common charge (104). Black offenders were less likely than white offenders to be referred for property offenses. This indicates there may be some structural reasons or gatekeeping that are keeping Black offenders from being referred. x On the Washington County Treatment Docket, burglary offenses were the most common charge (59 charges, not people a person can have more than one burglary charge on the docket). During the study period there were 25 Black people charged with burglary offenses in Washington county, but none appeared in the Treatment Docket database. This indicates that there may be gatekeeping or structural reasons that result in Black burglary defendants not being referred. x The Southeast Regional DUI Docket served fewer than five people of color between 2013 and 2018. There were 476 White defendants with potentially eligible charges during the study period, there were 8 Black people. One of the program benefits is a shorter incarcerative sentence. Because DUI is not a common crime Black people commit or get sentenced to a correctional facility for, the program will not have the same impact on Black incarceration rates as it does for White incarceration rates. Recommendations:  Vermont policymakers should incorporate racial impact statements when creating criminal justice policies. Racial impact statements are an analysis of the impact the proposed policy would have on marginalized groups. These statements serve as a tool for policy makers to evaluate potential disparities or other collateral consequences that would result from enactment of a particular policy. Typically, racial impact statements are considered prior to the policy’s adoption and implementation. Several states have implemented the use of racial impact statements. Also, additional information should be recorded so that future efforts to analyze disparities using administrative data might be successful. CRG recommends including the following fields in Court Diversion and Treatment Court data collection by the entity best able to capture the information : whether the defendant was offered Diversion, whether the defendant refused Diversion, and any socio-economic or behavioral risk factors that may affect participation in Diversion or Treatment Court These additional fields will provide a clearer picture of why certain offenders are served by Court Diversion and Treatment Court and why others are not.    

Montpelier, VT: Crime Research Group, 2022. 23p.

By Brittany Michelle Friedman, Gabriela Kirk-Werner, and April D. Fernandes

This article examines the repeal of prison pay-to-stay policies in the United States. We process-trace reform efforts in Illinois drawing from novel data retrieved through multiple FOIA requests to state agencies and public records searches. Our analysis reveals how lawmakers who advocated for reforming the shadow carceral state in 2016 and 2019 through repealing prison pay-to-stay repurposed penal logics they had once used punitively in the 1980s and 1990s to enact the same policy—such as protecting taxpayers, fiscal efficiency, and rehabilitation. Our findings advance existing research by suggesting that penal logics are open to interpretation depending on the socioeconomic and historical moment. These contextual factors are also crucial to determining how lawmakers and institutions re-interpret long held penal logics when reforming the shadow carceral state. We argue the ways in which lawmakers strategically operationalize penal logics exemplifies their cultural durability as a resonant means to a political end.

Theoretical CriminologyVolume 28, Issue 4, November 2024, 22p.

 By Roger Grimshaw  

This working paper seeks to clarify the key contexts in which the recent history of indefinite detention for people convicted of crimes should be placed and to suggest ways of interpreting the kinds of evidence and analysis which future inquiries or reviews may wish to consider. Here it is argued that the main contexts are, in order of scope and generality: A. Socio-political structures and state developments B. Operations of the state: law and administration C. Initiatives, reactions and effects at the individual level The paper gives most attention to contexts A and B on the grounds that these contain the sources of the fundamental problems to be resolved, while evidence about C continues to be documented. It is agreed that the recent history of indefinite detention is complex, with several strands that over time have become knotted, hindering lucid and effective solutions. In this paper an attempt has been made to identify some of the most convoluted, and to trace their origins and implications. Inevitably, Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) will loom large, though future work will seek lessons from other jurisdictions and from similar sentences. The act of clarification focuses our minds on what is entailed in challenging the conventional wisdom around political and institutional understandings of indeterminate preventive detention. As we shall see, a cluster of such sentences have emerged from a longstanding political context and sit inside a range of measures and technologies which are embedded in criminal justice as we know it. The account is neither reassuring nor redemptive, but its intention is to present a foundation for a cogent criticism of that history and a prospective agenda for a future alternative.

Working Paper 2  London:  Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, 2025. 14p.

By NACRO

The issues of prisoner healthcare are not new, but in publishing this report including the direct experiences of people who have been through the prison system, we hope to bring these concerns to the forefront of thinking, and engage in collaborative discussions about solutions.

In order to explore the issues with physical healthcare in prison, we carried out a survey of people who have been released from prison and have received support from Nacro with their resettlement journey. We asked people to complete the survey if they had been released from prison in the last five years, although it is important to acknowledge that their survey responses may relate to more historic experiences. 101 people completed the survey between May and October 2024.

This briefing examines:

the physical health of people in prison, and how this is generally worse than people in the community;

the impact of imprisonment on physical health, including the impact of overcrowding and unsanitary conditions, lack of purposeful activity and poor quality diets;

the problems and barriers to accessing healthcare services, including difficulties in accessing treatment and lengthy waiting lists, missed appointments, issues with medication, feeling ‘unseen’, and issues on transfer between prisons and on release.

Nacro Physical Healthcare Survey key findings:

Almost half (43%) said they did not get the treatment they needed from the medical professionals they saw

Three quarters of people (75%) said they were aware of people not able to get the medication they needed whilst in prison and 65% said that they saw people using other people’s medication. 64% said that they knew people who used illegal substances because they couldn’t get the medication they needed

60% said they had a longer period of pain and discomfort because they did not get the treatment they needed, and 12% said that because they did not get the treatment they needed they were then not able to work when they were released from prison

A third of people (34%) who reported they had appointments at a hospital outside prison during their sentence were not able to attend the appointment

One third of people (34%) were aware of people who had resorted to doing dentistry on themselves or others because they were unable to see a dentist

40% waited for a month or longer for a GP appointment, and a further 7% said they never got an appointment

More than one in three (38%) waited longer than three months for a dentist appointment, with a further 24% saying they never got an appointment

Over a third of people (35%) who needed to see an optician said they never got an appointment

Summary of our main recommendations

We set out recommendations at the end of this report which we believe will help people in the

justice system get the support they need with their health. These are grouped as follows:

Tackling the overuse of imprisonment: Policies that aim to reduce overcrowding and reduce our reliance on imprisonment by providing community alternatives must form part of the solution.

Limiting the impact on physical health: We set out recommendations that we believe will help to tackle the fundamentally unhealthy environment of prisons.

Overcoming the barriers to accessing healthcare services: We set out recommendations to address the issues that prevent people from getting the treatment and support they need.

The Better Futures Project Briefing 3

London: NACRO 30p.

By Joseph H. Obegi

Correctional mental health clinicians are sometimes asked to assess disciplinary responsibility, that is, to ascertain whether an inmate is culpable for violating prison rules. This assessment of disciplinary responsibility is akin to insanity determinations in criminal proceedings. In this article, I review the moral, legal, and practical aspects of disciplinary responsibility. I use California’s test of responsibility for prison misconduct, which is similar to the Durham rule, to illustrate some of the dilemmas involved in creating and implementing a test of disciplinary responsibility

When inmates with mental illness violate prison rules, correctional systems must determine when to hold them accountable. The solution that many systems in the United States have adopted, primarily in response to judicial intervention, is to incorporate the input of mental health professionals into the disciplinary process. This clinical input can give the hearing official three important pieces of information1: whether the inmate with mental illness has the capacity to participate meaningfully in the disciplinary hearing; whether or to what extent the inmate is culpable for the alleged misconduct; and, if the inmate is found guilty, what kinds of punishment may be inappropriate because they increase the risk of decompensation. In this article, I am concerned primarily with the second type of input, the assessment of disciplinary responsibility. I examine the moral, legal, and expert views of disciplinary responsibility as well as review research on prison infractions. To illustrate some of the challenges involved in addressing disciplinary responsibility (such as crafting an appropriate test, identifying eligible inmates, and resolving professional dilemmas), I draw on the approach taken by California’s prisons.

Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, Vol. 52, Issue 4, 7p.

Edited by Charles Richmond Henderson, Ph.D.

“The chaplain at Sing Sing testified that in eighteen years he had served under nine different wardens. Under the contract system, in the words of Dr. Theodore W. Dwight, "Convict labor becomes substantially slave labor, with many of its concomitant evils. Its rule is the same; the largest amount of work for the smallest return." The objections to that system may be tersely stated, as follows: ( 1) The farming-out of governmental rights and powers to private parties is contrary to public policy. What the government undertakes to do, it alone should do. The presence of the contractor in the prison leads to divided responsibility. (2) The financial interest of the contractor is a selfish interest. The prison wishes to sell its labor at a high rate; the contractor desires to buy it at the lowest possible price. The state wants a fair division of the profits of the establishment; the contractor cares little whether the state makes or loses money on the deal, if he can enrich himself. (3) The political connections and power of the contractor are often such as to enable him to dictate the selection of the managers and warden of the prison.

The Russell Sage Foundation, 1910, 168 p.

Edited by Charles Richmond Henderson, Ph.D.

INTRODUCTORY IN this volume may be found an account by specialists of the institutions of correction through which the criminal law is enforced. The story is not boastful but critical; the weak places of our establishments are as faithfully disclosed as the high aims of the most enlightened administrators are set forth for apprecia­ tion. Of a national "system'' of prisons nothing is said, for none exists. Most of the book is devoted to reformatories and prisons in the northern states of the Union; one paper is devoted to a de­ scription, explanation and criticism of the agencies of punishment of the southern states, and to an acccount of the worthy and hopeful efforts of wise citizens of those districts to correct abuses and improve methods. The warm climate of the South, the predominance of agriculture, and the presence of millions of negroes are facts which must be considered in forming a judgment about these methods. It is manifest that the fundamental and universal principles of correctional methods must there take a very different direction from that which is most reasonable in the North.

Russell Sage Foundation, 1910, 345p.

By Hanna Hernandez. & Vasiliki Georgoulas-Sherry

Rates of recidivism have been commonly used as a key measure for public safety and in assessing the effectiveness of the criminal justice system – sentencing, jails, prisons, community supervision, treatment and reentry programming. Tracking recidivism can provide necessary information to support successful integration into the community following a prison sentence – which promotes community and public safety. Furthermore, understanding the individuals who are more likely to recidivate, and assessing demographic differences amongst the years can provide even more knowledge for supporting successful reentry. To evaluate long-term recidivism in Washington, the Washington Statistical Analysis Center (SAC) applied for and received the 2021 State Justice Statistics (SJS) grant from Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). Under this grant from BJS, the SAC first drew on publicly available data from the Washington State Department of Corrections (DOC) to evaluate the long-term recidivism trends of incarcerated individuals released from prison (Georgoulas-Sherry & Hernandez, 2024). To expand on the findings, this report utilizes the same cohort to further evaluate the racial and sex similarities and differences in recidivism rates.

Olympia: Washington State Statistical Analysis Center, 2024. 31p.

By William Ash-Houchen, Avery Sorensen, Monica Benton, Kaysea Beck

The Improving People’s Access to Community-based Treatment, Supports and Services (IMPACTS) grant program was established in by the Oregon Legislature through Senate Bill (SB) 973 (2019) in recognition of the shortage of comprehensive community supports and services for individuals with mental health or substance use disorders that lead to their involvement with the criminal justice system, hospitalizations, and institutional placements.1 The Oregon Legislature has appropriated a total of $30 million to the IMPACTS grant program since its inception in 2019. This funding is available to Oregon’s counties and federally recognized tribal governments to increase the availability of community-based supports and services to a target population of individuals with a behavioral health condition and frequent criminal justice system and/or emergency services involvement. Grantees currently represent 11 counties across the state and five federally recognized tribal governments. The overall aim of each program is to reduce the frequency with which persons served by the program are involved with the criminal justice system and rely on emergency healthcare services. Per SB 973, this report will explore several outcomes that have emerged from grantee-reported data, ongoing evaluation efforts, and the potential state government costs avoided due to the high utilizer IMPACTS grant program. It will also briefly highlight the interplay between these high utilizer programs and the recent creation of the Oregon Behavioral Health Deflection Grant Program. Key findings: • Co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders were reported among 54 percent of IMPACTS clients. Participants with co-occurring disorders return for services more often than clients enrolled in IMPACTS without a mental health disorder. • More than one third of IMPACTS clients report one of the following mental health disorders: trauma and stressor related disorders, depression, and/or anxiety. • Among the 74 percent of clients with known substance use disorder, 61 percent reported use of methamphetamine, and 46 percent reported alcohol use. • Those releasing from prison engage in IMPACTS services at a higher rate than those without a recent prison stay history. • Importantly, five IMPACTS programs are operated by federally recognized tribal governments. 29 percent of IMPACTS clients identify as American Indian and Alaskan Native (AIAN). Reported data show that this population returns for services in subsequent months at a significantly higher rate than those who do not identify as AIAN. • Grantees are reporting unique overlap opportunities between IMPACTS and Oregon Behavioral Health Deflection programs, which both deliver services to distinct but related populations. • From July 2023 through June 2024, IMPACTS served a total of 839 people. At the end of June 2024, more than 550 humans were actively enrolled. • The IMPACTS grantees are funded through June 30, 2025, and will not be sustained without further investment from the legislature.

Salem: Oregon Criminal Justice Commission 2025. 42p.

By Patrick F. Hibbard, Michael R. McCart, Jason E. Chapman, & Ashli J. Sheidow

Introduction. This report describes results from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a short-term housing (STH) program for individuals released from prison who are on supervision and without an approved place of residence. Developed by Community Corrections leaders in Oregon, STH aims to provide a brief period of housing to individuals in need following exit from prison, with the goal of easing their reintegration back into the community and reducing their likelihood of recidivism. To control costs, STH emphasizes the provision of housing only and without the other services that are commonly included in more comprehensive reentry programs. STH consists of basic housing (i.e., a hotel room, shared room at a county’s office, or in a home owned by the county) not to exceed thirty (30) days. Housing can be provided to those with felony prison release, as well as those with local control release. STH is a one-time benefit. STH recipients also are provided a one-month voucher for public transportation. Excluded from STH are high-risk individuals (e.g., sex offenders), individuals whose needs would be better met in a recovery housing program (e.g., Oxford House), and those with an active threat to self or others. Recognizing the potential promise of STH, Oregon’s Criminal Justice Commission contracted with the authors of this report to evaluate the model’s impact in a multi-site RCT. The primary target outcome in the RCT was reduced recidivism, defined in accordance with SB 366 Section 1 (2015) (codified in Oregon Revised Statutes [ORS] 423.557). As used in that section, recidivism refers to any arrest, conviction, or incarceration for a new crime within three years of prison release. Study Design. Across three participating counties (“County A,” “County B,” “County C”) in the RCT, the study compared STH to usual community housing (UCH), with randomization at the participant level. Archival arrest, conviction, and incarceration records for approximately 3 years post-randomization were obtained from state databases for 114 RCT participants (County A n = 55; County B n = 8; County C n = 51). Participants were aged 21-65 years (M = 38.7), and 88.6% were male. Race/ethnicity was 84.9% White, 8.7% Latinx, 3.3% Black/African American, and 3.0% Native American. Secondary observational data were obtained for three additional counties (County “D,” County “E,” County “F”) who provided housing to individuals releasing from prison during the same timeframe as the RCT. After pre-processing data for comparability to STH, these data (County D n = 29; County E n = 1; County F n = 54) included individuals aged 18-82 years (M = 36.2), and 86.9% were male. Race/ethnicity for secondary observations was 82.1% White, 7.1% Latinx, 7.1% Black/African American, and 3.6% Native American. STH was expected to yield reduced arrest, conviction, and incarceration recidivism relative to UCH. Data Analysis. For all models, the primary analysis looked at data generated through the RCT. A small sample size, however, may not have produced sufficient power to detect small effect sizes. Thus, supplementary analysis included matched secondary observational data. Arrest, conviction, and incarceration recidivism are compared in 3 ways: The first model tested for a difference in the likelihood of each recidivism outcome. The second tested for a difference in the count of conviction and incarceration. The third tested for a difference in the time to arrest, since count was not available. Each model also included several control variables. Finally, the models included fixed effects for each participating county, as well as the month and year for each individual’s release from prison. When secondary data were added for supplementary analyses, a dichotomous covariate indicated if an observation was from secondary or RCT data sources. Results and Conclusion. STH does not appear to be an effective approach to lowering recidivism. The primary and supplementary analyses returned no evidence of an effect of STH on arrest, conviction, or incarceration recidivism. The failure of this approach might be due to its (a) strict 30-day housing limitation, (b) lack of other services, and/or (c) higher levels of supervision scrutiny. Nevertheless, we caution against concluding from this report that housing is not needed or useful for some individuals releasing from prison. Clearly, housing is a major challenge for a large number of parolees (HUD, 2022), and when counties have the resources to provide a shortterm stay at a hotel or other housing location, doing so seems both compassionate and logical. At the same time, 30 days of housing appears insufficient to meaningfully impact an individual’s reintegration trajectory. Instead, we recommend that Oregon provide its counties (particularly those in lower-resourced areas) with more funding to develop comprehensive reentry programming. Such programming would ideally have the capacity to address multiple reentry challenges (in addition to housing) for longer periods, and in a way that individual needs are addressed along customizable timelines. This recommendation is consistent with prior research showing that programs providing comprehensive services inclusive of housing to individuals releasing from prison tend to be effective at reducing recidivism when implemented with fidelity (Lutze et al., 2014; Miller & Ngugi, 2009).

Salem: Oregon Social Learning Center, 2024. 21p.

By Steven Schmidt, Kristin Turney, & Angie Belen Monreal

Objective. We use the case of housing insecurity to examine how romantic partner incarceration results in increased and prolonged surveillance of women at home. Background. Romantic partner incarceration prompts surveillance from the criminal legal system while simultaneously eroding women's finances, health, and family relationships. Less is known about how these symbiotic harms of romantic partner incarceration enable surveillance beyond the criminal legal system. Method. We use longitudinal interviews with 35 (previously coresident) romantic partners of incarcerated men, showing how incarceration prompts unwanted moves for partners, how women manage housing insecurity following partner incarceration, and how they become embedded into living arrangements where they are monitored, evaluated, and controlled. Results. We identify three primary findings. First, women experiencing housing insecurity after romantic partner incarceration relied heavily on their social ties (and, to a lesser extent, institutional housing providers) while enduring stressful and prolonged housing searches. Second, the homes that women move into expose them to increased surveillance. Women encounter domestic, caregiving, romantic, and financial surveillance. Romantic partner incarceration prompts large changes in surveillance among women who left independent homes, moderate changes in surveillance among women who left comparatively desirable doubled-up homes, and prolonged surveillance among nonmovers. Finally, women respond to surveillance by monitoring burdens on hosts and reframing stays in shared homes as temporary. Conclusion. Taken together, these findings extend prior research on the symbiotic harms of romantic partner incarceration, how women attached to incarcerated men experience surveillance, and how doubled-up families sustain shared homes.

 Journal of Marriage and Family 86(2): 2024., 391–411 pages

By Pavithra Nagarajan, Kristen Parsons, Julia Bowling, Jennifer Ferone, and Neal Palmer

Decades of research point to the benefits of college in prison, including reduced recidivism and improved employment outcomes following release. Even for those who have not yet been released, these programs foster a sense of community and purpose that can also lead to safer prison environments. Many people enter prison undereducated due to systemic disinvestment in education over the past 50 years, particularly in racial minority neighborhoods. All told, about one in three incarcerated adults have less than a high school equivalence (HSE), earned prior to or during incarceration, compared to 14 percent of the general public.

Despite the benefits of college in prison, policies and practices over the past two decades have limited the availability of postsecondary educational programs in prisons, including federal and state tuition grants. To supplement this, in 2017, former Governor Andrew Cuomo, former Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr., the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS), and CUNY ISLG established the College-in-Prison Reentry Initiative (CIP).

A $7.3 million investment, CIP aimed to build a partnership to provide more individuals with the opportunity to achieve a quality education, with the goal of increasing their likelihood of success in the community after release. It had four primary goals:

CIP funded seven colleges and universities to deliver college instruction across 17 prisons in New York from Fall 2017 through Spring 2022. CUNY ISLG conducted a multiyear process evaluation of the Initiative to assess its implementation. This report, the culmination of data reviews, site visits, and interviews with education providers, corrections staff, CIP students, and others, breaks down the successes and challenges the program faces, as well as offers lessons learned for others seeking to implement quality college-in-prison programs.

CUNY Institute for State & Local Governance , 2024. 112p.

By Nick Sibilla

Earning an honest living is one of the best ways to prevent re-offending. But strict occupational licensing requirements make it harder for ex-offenders to find work, thwarting their chances of successful reentry. Along with other “collateral consequences,” like losing the right to vote or the ability to receive government assistance, ex-offenders can be denied a license to work simply because of their criminal record. • This report provides the most up-to-date account of occupational licensing barriers for ex-offenders and will be regularly updated whenever a state

changes its laws. Using 10 distinct criteria, this report grades all 50 states and the District of Columbia on their legal protections for licensing applicants with criminal records. (See Methodology.) • The average state grade is a C-. Nationwide, 6 states—Iowa, Indiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Hampshire, North Carolina—earned a B or better. Reflecting the surge of interest in this issue, five of those six states have reformed their licensing laws since 2015. • Indiana ranked as the best state in the nation for ex-offenders seeking a license to work, earning this report’s only A grade. In contrast, five states—Alabama, Alaska, Nevada, South Dakota, and Vermont—were tied for last, receiving a zero on a 100-point scale for their lack of protections for felons seeking licenses. This report finds that licensing restrictions vary dramatically, with multiple states lacking even the most basic protections for ex-offenders seeking a license to work: • Licensing boards in seven states can generally disqualify applicants based on any felony, even if it is completely unrelated to the license sought. • In 17 states, boards are free to deny licenses without ever considering whether an applicant has been rehabilitated. • Applicants in 33 states can be denied licenses based on an arrest that did not lead to a criminal conviction. In other words, boards can refuse to issue a license even though the applicant is functionally innocent. • In nine states, applicants have no guaranteed right to appeal a board’s decision, and boards are not required to issue their decisions in writing.

Arlington, VA: Institute for Justice, 2020. 117p.

By Kristin Turney, Katelyn Malae, MacKenzie Christensen, & Sarah Halpern-Meekin

Jail incarceration substantially transforms romantic relationships, and incarceration may alter the commitment between partners, thereby undermining or strengthening relationships. In this article, we use in-depth interviews with 85 women connected to incarcerated men (as current or former romantic partners) to explore how women articulate relationship changes that stem from their partner’s jail incarceration, a common but understudied form of contact with the criminal legal system. We identify three interrelated and mutually reinforcing processes, which are shaped by and shape a partner’s commitment to the relationship. First, incarceration produces liminality in the status of the relationship. Second, incarceration fosters women’s sense of independence from their incarcerated partners. Third, incarceration creates space for partners to reevaluate how they prioritize the relationship in their lives. Jail incarceration intervenes in romantic relationships at different points during each relationship, and accordingly, women experience heterogeneity in processes of liminality, independence, and reprioritization. These processes contribute to differential relationship experiences, with some relationships deteriorating during incarceration, others strengthening, and others neither deteriorating nor strengthening. By systematically uncovering these processes linking jail incarceration to romantic relationships, we advance an understanding of how the criminal legal system can shape relationship commitment processes and inequalities among families.

Criminology. 2023;1–28.

By Althea Gibson, Marc Rémond, Peta MacGillivray, Eileen Baldry and Elizabeth Sullivan

The NSW Co-Located Caseworker Program was established to support women in custody who have children involved in the child protection system. Under the program, child protection caseworkers are ‘co-located’ in NSW correctional centres. We undertook a mixed-methods evaluation of the program by analysing data from Corrective Service NSW’s Offender Integrated Management System and conducting 48 semi-structured interviews with stakeholders, including 25 women in custody. We concluded that the program is a well designed and much needed initiative of benefit to women in custody and their children. However, it could be improved by more coordinated case planning between Corrective Services NSW and child protection services and the increased availability of programs to help women in custody achieve their child protection related goals.

Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice no. 709, Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2025. 19p.

By Mardet Homans, Denise M. Allen & Yesenia Mazariegos

The use of Medication Assisted Treatment (MAT), and specifically buprenorphine, to address opioid use disorder (OUD) is considered the gold standard of care in the community (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration (SAMHSA), 2023). However, while support of its use in correctional settings is expanding, and there are national promising practice guidelines, it remains underutilized within jails and prisons in the United States (U.S.) (National Commission on Correctional Healthcare (NCCHC), 2018; Friedmann et al., 2012). The efficacy of MAT to reduce opiate withdrawal, curb cravings, and support positive health, behavioral health, and criminal justice outcomes, including reductions in overdose deaths and recidivism, has gained national attention from criminal justice advocacy groups and policymakers. Jails and correctional agencies have been taken to court over the provision of MAT for incarcerated individuals with OUD. And state and federal courts have ruled denial of MAT for incarcerated individuals with OUD violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (Legislative Analysis and Public Policy Association (LAPPA), n.d.). The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and California Correctional Health Care Services (CCHCS) are at the forefront of providing MAT in a correctional setting under the Integrated Substance Use Disorder Treatment (ISUDT) Program. The ISUDT Program begins at intake into CDCR with a substance use disorder (SUD) screening and assessment and linkage to behavioral interventions and MAT with a targeted focus on preparing CDCR residents for release. This paper seeks to document the provision of MAT in correctional settings since it is expanding rapidly within the U.S. and there is currently not a national inventory of programs or practices. In addition, this paper aims to document best practices and lessons learned from California and other correctional systems that can be used to guide expansion of MAT to justice-involved populations. Contained in the appendix of this report is a comprehensive review of information regarding the current availability of MAT in U.S. jails and prisons.

Key Findings • According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) less than 1% of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) population received MAT in 2021. • Based on a review of publicly available information, it does appear that five states – Alabama, Mississippi, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wyoming offer MAT in their correctional institutions. • A number of states have or are currently piloting MAT in corrections. • Besides California, only 14 states offer comprehensive MAT services at either intake and/or release in a considerable number of its jails and prisons. • Locating details regarding MAT provision on many state and local correctional websites is difficult or is missing altogether. This may present as a barrier to SUD treatment and discourage justice-involved individuals or their families from seeking MAT. • Overall, there is significant variability among states regarding the provision of MAT to incarcerated individuals.

Irvine, CA: Center for Evidence‐Based Corrections University of California, Irvine 2023. 18p.

By James Hess and Susan Turner

California Prison Industry Authority (CALPIA) is a self-supporting training and production program currently operating within the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). CALPIA provides training, certification, and employment to inmates in a variety of different fields. The goods and services produced by CALPIA are sold to the state and other government entities, which provides an economic benefit to the state. In addition to the vocational and economic aspect of the program, one of CALPIA’s missions is to reduce the subsequent recidivism of their inmate participants. In 2021, the Center for Evidence-Based Corrections prepared a report on the recidivism outcomes for individuals who had participated in CALPIA programs for at least six months (Hess and Turner, 2021). That report examined the effect of participation in CALPIA on the recidivism of CDCR inmates by comparing CALPIA participants with at least 6 months in the program and released between August 2014 and July 2018 with inmates who were accepted into the CALPIA program but were released before they could actively participate (i.e., the “Waitlist” group). That report found that participation in CALPIA was associated with reduced offending. CALPIA individuals had lower rates of arrests, conviction, and incarceration during a three-year follow-up than a Waitlist comparison group. Although the sample size for our analysis of Career Technical Education (CTE) was small, participation in this CALPIA program yielded lower recidivism rates than other CALPIA program participation. This report further analyzes the sample of individuals who participated in CALPIA programs by separating the CALPIA programs into thirteen different groups, placing similar programs together. Thus, it is a comparison within CALPIA programs only. The analysis strategy is the same as used in our previous report: we examine arrest, conviction and return to custody calculated at one-, two- and three-year post release for the individuals. Propensity score analyses were used to adjust for baseline differences in the groups. Our findings suggest that the enterprise programs perform about equally well with the exception of CTE, which appears to do slightly better than other enterprises. We also found a positive effect for CTE in our earlier report. Several other programs show patterns of higher or lower recidivism which are suggestive but not conclusive due to lack of statistical significance. We note that small sample sizes, using propensity score analyses, may have limited our ability to detect significant differences.

Irvine, CA: Center for Evidence‐Based Corrections University of California, Irvine 2023. 20p

By Nancy Rodriguez, H. Daniel Butler, Natasha Frost, Melinda Tasca, and Jillian Turanovic

This policy brief presents the findings of our multi-strategy approach, spearheaded by the Prison Violence Consortium, to examine the sources and consequences of prison violence. We capture prison violence using data on guilty violent infractions, violent incident reports, and interviews with incarcerated persons and correctional employees. We offer solution-driven recommendations to policymakers, institutional leaders, prison researchers, and other stakeholders, aiming to enhance prison safety and more effectively address institutional violence nationwide..

Key Findings ● Perpetrators of Violence & Timing: ● Prison violence was concentrated among a small subset of persons, as 10% of the population accounted for more than 50% of guilty violent infractions. ● Personal characteristics related to guilty violent infractions included younger age at admission, lower education, longer sentences, violent criminal histories, gang affiliations, and greater mental health needs. ● Most people (63%) committed guilty violent infractions within 6-12 months of admission, with fewer than 10% remaining violent throughout their incarceration. ● Common Forms & Situational Factors: ● Most violence (71%) occurred between incarcerated persons, while 29% was directed at staff, according to the incident reports. ● The most prevalent form of violence was fights between persons (38%), followed by assaults on persons (26%), assaults on staff (17%), biohazard incidents (13%), and unwitnessed physical altercations (6%). ● Violence most often occured in cells or housing areas (39%) and common areas (e.g., cafeteria and yard) (31%). ● Weapons and contraband were mentioned in 10% of the incident reports.

Irvine, CA: UC Irvine School of Social Ecology, Prison Violence Consortium, 2024. 23p.

Correctional Association of New York

The Correctional Association of New York (CANY) maintains an extraordinarily deep and broad understanding of New York’s state correctional facilities. This understanding allows for nuanced assessment of the greatest challenges DOCCS faces in safely operating institutions that support rehabilitation, public safety, and human dignity. CANY’s vantage also affords the ability to identify examples of good policy and practice, of which there are many within DOCCS. The following recommendations, which take into consideration both persistent challenges and opportunities to scale up examples of excellence, were submitted to DOCCS for a statutory 60-day review period on October 9, 2024—two months to the day before Robert Brooks was fatally assaulted at Marcy Correctional Facility. These recommendations arise from CANY’s unique historical role as the independent oversight entity for state correctional facilities and activities authorized by Correction Law 146(3), which grants the organization authority “to access, visit, inspect, and examine all state correctional facilities with seventy-two hours advance notice to the department.” In FY24, CANY conducted 19 prison monitoring visits; interviewed more than 1,000 incarcerated individuals and more than one hundred state employees who work in these facilities; received hundreds of phone calls, letters, and website inquiries from or on behalf of incarcerated people seeking assistance; distributed thousands of surveys; and published 15 public-facing work products including reports on monitoring visits, dashboards of processed administrative data, data analysis, and legislative testimony. To inform the discussion about prison closures, CANY published a series of tools that allow stakeholders to view staffing levels by facility: Mapping Closures, Capacity, Staffing, and the

CANY, 2025. 7p.