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

Prison violence is a persistent problem for institutional corrections and the rehabilitation of incarcerated individuals. Estimates suggest that one in three men and one in four women in prison experience physical violence, while over half of correctional staff express fear of serious injury or death while on the job. However, these statistics are likely underreported due to limited data sources and challenges in data collection and reporting. As a result, the true prevalence of prison violence remains uncertain. In response to this pressing issue, with support of Arnold Ventures, the Prison Violence Consortium was established to better understand the scale, scope, and consequences of prison violence. The Consortium brought together researchers and practitioners from seven state correctional systems: Arizona, Colorado, Massachusetts, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Through a multi-strategy approach, we collected and analyzed data from a variety of sources, including official records, self-reported data, and interviews from incarcerated persons and correctional staff. A key finding from our work is that, much like the “dark figure of crime” in general society, there is a substantial “dark figure” of prison violence. This discovery underscores that the current practices of documenting and examining prison violence are insufficient, as the majority of prison violence is not reported. Without a national comprehensive strategy to improve the accuracy of how we measure prison violence, efforts to reduce it will be inconsistent and likely ineffective.

Irvine, CA: UC Irvine School of Social Ecology, 2024. 12p.

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.

By Andrew Blum and Alfredo Malaret Baldo

The problem is as old as the justice system itself—how to reduce the chance that an individual reoffends

after they commit an offense and become involved with the justice system. This challenge of reducing

recidivism remains critical. According to the Prison Policy Initiative, there are over 120,000 individuals in

state prisons in California. Another 380,000 cycle through jails in California every year. In 2021, roughly

25,000 individuals were released from prison in California. This is the scope of the challenge. In San

Diego County, a wide variety of agencies and organizations are working to address the recidivism

challenge. In addition, although there is no way to measure this accurately, there is a willingness across

the spectrum to experiment with new approaches and solutions. This report focuses on one area of

relatively new and promising approaches—those that elevate the talent and expertise of individuals with

“lived experience” with the justice system. Support for lived experience approaches is growing both

nationally and in San Diego. Beyond the rising number of lived experience initiatives, this type of work in

San Diego has become largely normalized. There is broad agreement that lived experience work should

be part of the portfolio used to reduce recidivism, with clear demand from stakeholders involved in

reentry, including law enforcement officials, service providers, community members, and, crucially,

justice-involved individuals. Given the growing prevalence of and support for lived experience approaches

in San Diego, it is important to create a deeper understanding of how to increase the impact of these

approaches. Toward that end, this report identifies strengths of lived experience approaches to amplify,

challenges of lived experience approaches to mitigate, and lessons from lived experience approaches

that can be applied more broadly. Based on a review of the research and dozens of conversations held

with stakeholders in San Diego, we identified the following strengths of lived experience app roaches: —

They can engage successfully with justice-involved individuals; — They can provide a model of success;

— They are skilled navigators of the social service and justice systems; — They bring a long-term

approach to their work; and — They have specific expertise that helps them help others. To amplify these

strengths, we suggest: (a) deploy lived experience practitioners during acute situations, (b) leverage lived

experience practitioners not only within programs but also as navigators across programs, (c) build

flexibility into programs that include lived experience practitioners, (d) encourage lived experience

practitioners to role model success without being directive, and (e) continue efforts to normalize lived

experience approaches. We also identified challenges of lived experience approaches, particularly

related to scaling the approaches more widely. These include: — The personalistic nature of many lived

experience initiatives; — The difficulty of finding, vetting, hiring, and training sufficient lived experience

practitioners; — The toll the immersive nature of the work takes on practitioners; and — The potential

reputational risks lived experience approaches present to individuals, organizations, and agencies. To

mitigate these challenges, we recommend (a) creating training and certification programs for lived

experience practitioners, (b) developing standards of practice, (c) creating organizational capacity -

building initiatives for lived experience organizations, (d) pairing lived experience with non-lived-

experience practitioners, (e) treating lived experience individuals as professional staff, and (f) developing

a lived experience advocacy coalition. Furthermore, seeking a broader impact, we identified five key

lessons from lived experience approaches that are transferable and can be applied by those without lived

experience who are designing and implementing initiatives to prevent recidivism. The lessons are: 1.

Create supportive spaces for justice-involved individuals to work through challenges; 2. Design programs

with flexibility so support can be tailored to individuals; 3. Ease navigation of services and improve

coordination among providers; 4. Engage justice-involved individuals with consistency and long-term

vision; and 5. Commit to providing trauma-informed care. We conclude this report by noting the

longstanding good practice in the social services field to design initiatives with the input of those impacted

by them. The key lessons identified from lived experience practitioners can be viewed in this way. They

provide insight on how to design more effective recidivism reduction initiatives based on the experience

and expertise of those who previously lived the challenges the initiatives are designed to address.

San Diego: University of San Diego, Kroc School Institute for Peace and Justice, 2023. 31p..

By Marco Castillo, Sera Linardi, Ragan Petrie:

Many previously incarcerated individuals are rearrested following release from prison. We investigate whether encouragement to use reentry support services reduces rearrest. Field experiment participants are offered a monetary incentive to complete different dosages of visits, either three or five, to a support service provider. The incentive groups increased visits, and one extra visit reduces rearrests three years after study enrollment by six percentage points. The results are driven by Black participants who are more likely to take up treatment and benefit the most from visits. The study speaks to the importance of considering first-stage heterogeneity and heterogeneous treatment effects.

IZA DP No. 17522

Bonn: IZA – Institute of Labor Economics, 2024. 46p.

By Ashley Nellis, and Celeste Barry.

In the United States, the federal government and every state enforces sentencing laws that incarcerate people for lengths that will exceed, or likely exceed, the span of a person’s natural life. In 2024, almost 200,000 people, or one in six people in prison, were serving life sentences. The criminal legal system’s dependence on life sentences disregards research showing that extreme sentences are not an effective public safety solution.

This report represents The Sentencing Project’s sixth national census of people serving life sentences, which includes life with the possibility of parole; life without the possibility of parole; and virtual life sentences (sentences reaching 50 years or longer). The report finds more people were serving life without parole (LWOP) in 2024 than ever before: 56,245 people were serving this “death by incarceration” sentence, a 68% increase since 2003. While the total number of people serving life sentences decreased 4% from 2020 to 2024, this decline trails the 13% downsizing of the total prison population. Moreover, nearly half the states had more people serving a life sentence in 2024 than in 2020. The large number of people serving life sentences raises critical questions about moral, financial, and justice-related consequences that must be addressed by the nation as well as the states. We believe the findings and recommendations documented in this report will contribute to better criminal legal policy decisions and a more humane and effective criminal legal system. KEY NATIONAL FINDINGS • One in six people in U.S. prisons is serving a life sentence (16% of the prison population, or 194,803 people)—a proportion that has reached an all-time high even as crime rates are near record lows. • The United States makes up roughly 4% of the world population but holds an estimated 40% of the world’s life-sentenced population, including 83% of persons serving LWOP. • More people are serving life without parole in 2024 than ever: 56,245 people, a 68% increase since 2003. • Despite a 13% decline in the total reported prison population from 2020 to 2024, the total number of people serving life sentences decreased by only 4%. • Nearly half of people serving life sentences are Black, and racial disparities are the greatest with respect to people sentenced

to life without parole. • A total of 97,160 people are serving sentences of life with parole. • Life sentences reaching 50 years or more, referred to as “virtual life sentences,” account for 41,398 people in prison. • Persons aged 55 and older account for nearly two-fifths of people serving life. • One in every 11 women in prison is serving a life sentence. • Almost 70,000 individuals serving life were under 25—youth and “emerging adults”—at the time of their offense. Among these, nearly one-third have no opportunity for parole. • Racial disparities in life imprisonment are higher among those who were under 25 at the time of their offense compared to those who were 25 and older.

Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2025. 38p.

By Torbjørn Lien Kjær, Peter Hindersson, Jacob Rong Bentzen, Hanne Høegh Rasmussen, Torben Breindahl

Background

Drug use in Danish prisons has previously not been investigated in detail using confirmatory, laboratory analysis. The objective of the present quality study, initiated by the Danish Prison and Probation Service, was to i) evaluate the performance of an initial, on-site drug screening strategy; ii) gain insights into emerging drug trends; and iii) suggest evidence-based strategies for future drug testing.

Methods

Over a two-year period, routine urine samples (n = 1952 from 710 inmates) from three Danish prisons were subjected to comprehensive drug testing. Immunoassay screening was conducted on-site. A parallel sample aliquot was forwarded to laboratory analysis by confirmatory methods: High-performance liquid chromatography and tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) and gas chromatography and mass spectrometry (GC-MS) targeting 56 drugs-of-abuse/medical drugs, 26 key metabolites, 41 new psychoactive substances (NPS), including specific biomarkers for heroin, crack cocaine, or ethanol (a total of 123 target analytes/sample).

Results

The on-site immunoassay method showed a sensitivity from 66 to 100%; specificity was above 98%; accuracy was above 95%. Laboratory analysis detected compounds not screened for including tramadol, oxycodone, buprenorphine, ketamine, MDMA, 4-fluoroamphetamine, and GHB. The prevalence of drug use was in the order: cannabis > ethanol > cocaine > benzodiazepines > amphetamine.

Conclusion

The performance of the immunoassay was found acceptable; however, the screening program was inadequate for detecting other significant substances. Based on these findings, a broader screening method will be implemented in future at Danish Prisons to minimize false negative results. The data did not indicate a trend of using NPS in Danish prisons.

Substance Use & Misuse Volume 60, 2025 - Issue 2

By Melissa Serafin, Julie Atella, Piere Washington, Sophak Mom

Reentry and community context Within three years of release from state prisons, federal prisons, and local jails, about half of people are reincarcerated and two-thirds are rearrested (Office of the Assistance Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, n.d.). Existing research highlights how challenges to reentry are compounded in rural communities because they are often underserved and under-resourced. Employment, housing, transportation, and limited social and health services are all common barriers for individuals reentering rural communities, and access to reentry programming is often limited (Benavides et al., 2023; Ward et al., 2016; Ward, 2017; Zajac et al., 2014). Additionally, the opioid crisis has significantly impacted rural communities, including those in Maine (Maine Governor’s Office of Policy Innovation and the Future, 2023). The rate of overdose fatalities in Maine increased from 0.3 per 1,000 population in January 2017 to 0.6 in January 2022, and the rate in Waldo County also increased from 0.2 in 2017 (8 total) to 0.5 in 2022 (20 total; Maine Drug Data Hub, 2024). Overdose fatalities most notably increased during the COVID-19 pandemic: the fatality rate in Maine increased 33% between 2019 and 2020, with 83% of deaths in 2020 due to opioids. Without opportunities, resources, and support, people reentering rural communities may experience hopelessness and criminogenic needs contributing to recidivism (Ward, 2017; Pettus-Davis & Kennedy, 2019). The findings from the current project also identified many of these challenges. Limited access to and availability of resources and services like internet, public transportation, health care and insurance, employment options, and affordable housing across counties and the state were stressed as barriers hindering the success of the program. Housing was identified as a particularly significant challenge, and this is compounded by the lack of viable employment options that provide a livable wage. The median cost for a studio efficiency or one-bedroom apartment in Waldo County, Maine in 2023 was $916-$922, and a two bedroom was $1,174 per month (RentData, 2024). According to the Maine Department of Labor (2024), the minimum wage in 2023 was $13.80 per hour in the state. Individuals employed full time, earning minimum wage, and who rent at least a studio efficiency would then be considered “cost-burdened”1 or “severely cost-burdened”2 (Office of Housing and Urban Development, 2014). Rent burden contributes to lacking the means to afford other necessities such as food, clothing, child care and more. Furthermore, the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC, 2024) notes the extreme shortage of rentals that are affordable to households whose incomes are at or below the poverty guideline or 30% of their area median income. In addition to the shortage of affordable housing and within the vicinity of the VOANNE network—within a four-city radius—there were no homeless shelters, nor mental health facilities with detox beds, and only one sober house. While VOANNE provides tents and camp supplies in more dire cases, and connects some participants with temporary transitional housing (including motels), they have access to very few permanent housing supports. Experiencing housing insecurity and homelessness can also negatively impact substance use. For example, efforts to stay awake to protect belongings and avoid violence is associated with developing and worsening substance use disorders (Mehtani et al., 2023). Existing research and findings from the current evaluation indicate that transportation is often a significant challenge for individuals reentering rural communities (Benavides et al., 2023; Ward, 2017; Zajac et al., 2014). While Maine does have some public transportation, rural areas have limited public transportation. Some communities have fixed route bus services that do not operate 24 hours a day and seven days a week, but these may only be in some counties (Eichacker, 2021). Limited public transportation means limited independence upon reentry to get to and from places like the DMV, a job interview, or to work. Additionally, some participants in the current evaluation did not possess driver’s licenses, further limiting their transportation options. This evaluation also identified how lack of phone service and high-speed internet make communication difficult and pose a barrier to building independence and integrating into society. Previous research has also identified these as significant reentry barriers (PettusDavis et al., 2019). Correctional system initiatives In response to the challenges that individuals face while reentering their communities, VOANNE and their partners have implemented several initiatives. Specifically, VOANNE has prioritized building trusting and collaborative partnerships with law enforcement agencies; this evaluation identified the strength of these partnerships. These partnerships facilitate opportunities to strengthen impact, such as the ability to provide services and programming within county jails while individuals are incarcerated. Additionally, postrelease offices and community spaces provide critical support to individuals who are reentering their communities after incarceration, and VOA’s diversion programming allows VOANNE to serve anyone who could benefit from services (e.g., not just individuals who are or have been incarcerated). VOANNE has also been able to expand to providing services in additional counties and correctional facilities over time.

St. Paul, MN: Wilder Research, 2024. 43p.

By Tom Jackson, Rachel Crorken, Sheenik Mills, and Carla Ayrton

This report presents findings from a one-year process evaluation that explored the delivery of unpaid work in England and Wales. The qualitative research design included a total of 102 interviews with: people on probation (25), beneficiaries (6), probation staff (62), and members of the judiciary (9); six focus groups with unpaid work staff; and ethnographic observations of 18 unpaid work projects. The evaluation was designed to assess what works in the delivery of unpaid work following the unification of the probation service and the £93 million investment to aid unpaid work delivery following the Covid-19 pandemic. The main findings from the evaluation are: Identity and purpose of unpaid work • All staff interviewed, believed the purpose of unpaid work is first and foremost a punishment, but it must also have elements of reparation in which people on probation give back to the community. Overall, staff were confident that unpaid work was meeting its aims as a punishment, which they viewed as the time people on probation give up attending their order. Staff also thought that unpaid work met reparative aims by ensuring that work carried out benefits the wider community. • Perceptions on whether unpaid work is rehabilitative were mixed. Staff explained how unpaid work can be rehabilitative for some individuals by providing an opportunity to learn ‘soft’ and practical skills. However, the rehabilitative potential of unpaid work was not applicable to everyone and was dependent on employment status, the type of project, and the individual’s willingness to engage with rehabilitative efforts. People on probation’s experience of unpaid work • People on probation identified relationships with supervisors as an important factor that affected their experience of unpaid work. A good relationship with a supervisor could encourage them to return and attend projects led by the same supervisor. Meaningful projects could increase compliance by encouraging people on probation to return to projects they believed had value. These were usually described as projects that would have benefits for the local community, and/or where people on probation had the opportunity to learn new skills, particularly if they thought these could lead to employment. • Many people on probation brought up communication issues they had with probation practitioners. These communication issues could make completing hours of unpaid work difficult either because their unpaid work hours were not set up in time or because people on probation could not contact probation to discuss issues they had with attending projects, making it hard to rearrange hours. • Many people on probation who were interviewed felt that wearing high-visibility vests, with unpaid work branding, caused them to experience unnecessary stigma and shame which could have negative impacts on their mental health. People on probation and supervisors thought, in particularly public areas, having to wear the branded high-visibility vests could impact compliance

Ministry of Justice Analytical Series

London: Ministry of Justice, 2024. 76p.

By Bowen Cho

In this report, we invite readers to explore the historical, racialized, disablist, and political economic contexts of mass incarceration, including the ways that incarceration has expanded beyond prisons, jails, and correctional supervision in the 21st century. As well, publics often think of incarceration narrowly, such that they make invisible the containment of Disabled people in institutional and extra-carceral systems. This report is in part a corrective and counterpoint to policy papers on disability and criminal legal reform published by non-disability advocacy and mental health advocacy organizations in recent years. Because the ideologies of eugenics, ableism, and disablism are thriving in the 21st century, disability is often used as a rhetorical frame arguing for the restriction of carceralism for certain groups and its expansion for others. Mass incarceration in the 21st century includes physical confinement, but also accounts for the rapidly expanding, technocratic industries of e-carceration and psychotropic incarceration. Our conceptions of physical confinement must go beyond prisons and jails, and include detention centers, psychiatric hospitals, nursing homes, and residential treatment facilities. One cannot replace the other. Recognition of incarcerated people must similarly be expanded to include detained immigrants, people under electronic monitoring and surveillance, and people experiencing involuntary psychiatric commitment. Black people and Indigenous people continue to be disproportionately impacted by policing and carceralism, particularly in the increased criminalization of poverty, houselessness, and mental illness, and the ways that these statuses intersect with racism and disablism.

Berkeley, CA: Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF) , 2024. 120p.

By Carmen Johnson et al and the UCLA BioCritical Studies Lab

The BioCritical Studies Lab analyzed a sample of 180 deaths in 10 city and county detention centers in Maryland between 2008 and 2019. These detention centers are distinct from state correctional facilities in that they primarily confine persons who are awaiting trial or arraignment. Our study sample reflects only deaths self-reported by these 10 city and county detention centers to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) during this time period. Our sample represents only a portion of all in-custody deaths known to have taken place throughout Maryland during the study period. Our analysis produced five key findings: - First, the detention centers with the most instances of in-custody death in our study sample are situated in jurisdictions with both high rates of poverty and large numbers of Black residents. The confluence of these two factors is strongly correlated to in-custody death. - Second, the average age of in-custody deaths officially designated as “natural” is substantially lower than life expectancy among the non-jailed population, possibly indicating the widespread misclassification of deaths attributable to violence and/or negligence as “natural” by the Maryland Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. - Third, over 80% of the deaths in our sample took place while the decedent was awaiting trial, meaning they had not been convicted of any crime at the time of death. - Fourth, about half of the decedents included in our sample died within 10 days of their admission to the detention center, and more than one sixth died less than two days after their admission, suggesting that even short stays in detention present a significant risk of premature death. - And fifth, there currently exist high barriers preventing public access to key information regarding deaths in Maryland detention centers that place comprehensive study of this social problem out of reach. We conclude by making several recommendations as to how policymakers might address the problems described in this report, including systematically reducing jail populations through the elimination of pretrial detention, establishing an explicit mandate for the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner to investigate all instances of in-custody death, and codifying new standards for publicly reporting information about in-custody deaths when they occur.  

Los Angeles; BioCritical Studies Lab, Institute for Society and Genetics, University of California – Los Angeles.  2023. 26p.

By David Olson, Don Stemen, & Patrick Griffin 

Loyola University Chicago’s Center for Criminal Justice, through the support of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, collaborated with the Illinois Department of Corrections’ Planning and Research Unit to examine the number, characteristics, and circumstances of individuals on Mandatory Supervised Release (MSR, or “parole”) who violated conditions of their release and were returned to prison (i.e., “technical violators”). Over the past two decades, between 20% and 30% of all admissions to the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) have been individuals returned to prison as MSR technical violators. Given the substantial impact of these technical violations on overall prison admissions in Illinois, this report examines the characteristics and circumstances that led to those returns to prison during state fiscal year (SFY) 2020 (July 2019 through June 2020). Specifically, the Loyola team analyzed detailed information for all those returned to prison due to technical MSR violations during SFY 2020 (N=5,052), and compared it to findings from similar research that was conducted with a one-month sample of technical MSR violator admissions in 2010 (see https://spac.illinois.gov/publications/researchreports/msr-violators). What Did We Find? 1) The rate of technical violation admissions to IDOC has been relatively stable over the past decade, whether measured as a percent of admissions or as a percent of IDOC exits returned to prison within 3 years of release. Over the past two decades, technical violators have accounted for somewhere between 20% and 30% of all admissions to prison; similarly, between 20% and 30% of all of those returned to prison within 3 years of their release during this period have been returned as technical violators. 2) Although technical violators account for 20% to 30% of all admissions to IDOC, they tend to stay in prison for a shorter period of time than court-sentenced individuals. Over the past two decades they have accounted for a smaller proportion - between 7% and 12% - of the IDOC population. 3) Although the proportion of admissions accounted for by technical violators has remained relatively consistent over the past decade, the number of admissions for technical violations has decreased, consistent with the overall decrease in admissions to prison. During the 10-year period from 2010 to 2019 (pre-COVID), total admissions to prison fell 39%, with a 38% decrease seen in admissions for technical violations and a 40% decrease in court sentences. 4) Although previous research found wide fluctuations from month to month in the number of technical violators returned to prison during the 2001 to 2011 period, often due to politically-driven crackdowns, the only substantial change in admissions during the past decade occurred when COVID-19 dramatically reduced arrests and admissions to prison in Illinois. 5) Of those individuals returned to prison due to technical violations in SFY 2020, most (58%) were returned, at least in part, because of an arrest while on MSR, often for a violent crime or firearm possession offense. 6) One out of every 5 people (20%) “returned” to prison for technical violations in SFY 2020 did not have an approved place to live, and so were not in fact released at all (referred to as “gate violators” by IDOC). Most (84%) of those returned as gate violators had been serving prison sentences for sex offenses, a population that historically has challenges finding approved housing upon release from prison. 7) COVID-19 dramatically reduced the number of admissions to IDOC for technical violations and resulted in a shift in the nature of technical violations that resulted in admission to prison. While the percent of prison admissions accounted for by technical violations did not change between SFY 2011 and the portion of SFY 2020 that preceded the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, a smaller portion of those admitted in the pre-COVID part of SFY 2020 were for non-arrest violations and a larger share of admissions involved new arrest charge(s), particularly for violent and firearm possession offenses. 

Loyola Chicago Center for Criminal Justice, 2023. 11p.

By Nila Bala and Krystin Roehl

In North Carolina, 1.6 million North Carolinians, or close to one in five individuals, have a criminal record. The collateral consequences are significant, blocking access to employment, housing and educational opportunities. These barriers often follow individuals for their entire life, even after they have served their time and paid their debt to society. For example, 90 percent of employers conduct background checks, and since North Carolina is not a ban-the-box state, they are permitted to do so early in the hiring process. This means that even decades-old, minor arrests and convictions show up and cut callback rates for these individuals in half. Expungements (shielding records from public view) are the most effective method to address the stigma faced by justice-involved individuals. While North Carolina’s laws do offer expungement relief in limited circumstances, many eligible individuals do not take advantage of the process, likely because it is difficult, cumbersome and expensive. A “clean slate” bill, which would automate expungements for eligible individuals could change that. In addition, North Carolina has an opportunity to expand expungement relief to more offenses, while maintaining public safety. What’s more, doing so will not only assist directly impacted individuals and their families, but will also enhance our communities and revitalize the local economy.

R STREET SHORTS NO. 85 March 2020

Washington, DC: R Street, 2020. 5p.

By Lars Trautman

Traditional norms hold that a prosecutor’s role effectively ends with the conviction and sentencing of a defendant. After all, that is the point at which the prosecution is complete. Future decisions related to the defendant are generally the province of various correctional officials unless and until the individual becomes a defendant once again. Accordingly, when taken at all, postconviction prosecutorial action is frequently reactive and limited in nature, with the conditions of the correctional facilities, community supervision and reentry systems relegated to a secondary or tertiary concern. Yet, such a system threatens to undercut the prosecutor’s own aims and misses a valuable opportunity to improve the justice system. The source of this prosecutorial reserve is decidedly not because these post-conviction elements of the justice system are working well and do not need additional support. In many cases, they are not. Jails and prisons are frequently the subject of lawsuits and news stories decrying their conditions and, unsurprisingly, recidivism rates for those ultimately released remain relatively high. Likewise, many probation and parole systems are in such a state of disarray that some defendants actually prefer incarceration as the lesser of two evils. A host of literature has similarly documented the travails of those with a criminal record who attempt to enter the workforce, find housing or engage in any number of other basic life activities. At the same time, a steady trickle of exonerees, including a few who actually pleaded guilty, suggests that even the conviction itself is not the ironclad reflection of truth and justice that it is hoped to be. This culture of noninvolvement and aversion to action on post-conviction issues does not stem from an inability to act on the part of prosecutors. In fact, in most jurisdictions, the law requires them to participate in various post-conviction proceedings such as expungement requests, or permits them to in the case of parole hearings. Further, the prosecution power itself grants prosecutors the ability to reach into jails and prisons to potentially curb abuses and even play an active role in community supervision proceedings in many states. Too often, however, prosecutorial engagement in each of these areas is limited narrowly to the necessities of the case at hand with little attention paid to broader issues. In light of this, the present study will delve into how prosecutors can aid themselves and the wider justice system through post-conviction actions. This will include an examination of why they should adopt a more nuanced and often assertive post-conviction role, as well as the actions they can take after the conviction has entered to help achieve these farther reaching goals. Specifically, it will analyze opportunities to act with respect to the conviction itself, conditions of incarceration, community supervision systems, parole hearings, expungement processes and outreach to directly impacted individuals. It will conclude with a reflection on what more concerted prosecutorial post-conviction actions might mean for prosecutors and the justice system as a whole.

R STREET POLICY STUDY NO. 194 February 2020

Washington, DC: R Street, 2020. 6p.

By Nila Bala

C lose to one-third of the population has a criminal record, with Michigan courts churning out nearly 300,000 convictions every year.Even a minor record can present an enormous barrier to employment, housing and educational opportunities. Those with criminal records face unemployment numbers that exceed those during the great depression. Moreover, both public and private housing can be hard to obtain, and the record of one family member can lead to eviction for everyone. Given these vast effects, carrying a criminal record has been equated to a life sentence of poverty. However, expungements or methods to seal records from public view (known as “set-asides” in Michigan) have great potential to ameliorate these effects. Like most states, Michigan has an expungement policy to help ease the barriers reentering individuals face because of their records. But unlike most states, Michigan has a wealth of information and data regarding the current state of set-asides, thanks to a recently published empirical study by J.J. Prescott and Sonja Starr at the University of Michigan Law School. Notably, their study finds that despite the fact that thousands of individuals are eligible for expungements, very few—just 6.5 percent of eligible Michiganders—have received relief. As part of a larger nationwide movement to utilize technology to automatically clear records, a current seven-bill “Clean Slate” package under consideration could change that.6 It would also increase the number of eligible offenses, for example, by including driving and marijuana offenses to the list of crimes that can be set-aside, and by forgiving individuals who have had multiple convictions because of one bad night. The bills have already passed the Michigan House with bipartisan support and are now in the hands of the Senate. Accordingly, this paper examines the current state of set asides and the implications of expanding expungement relief, including to public safety and the economy, and finds that even considering the short-term costs associated with automation, ultimately the benefits outweigh these costs.

R STREET SHORTS NO. 79 November 2019

Washington, DC: R Street, 2019. 4p.

By Jesse Kelley    

Jails and prisons in this country do not adequately prepare incarcerated individuals for successful public lives after their criminal sentence ends. For example, the Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that almost 60 percent of individuals released from prison will be convicted of a new offense within five years of release. Clearly, this system has failed, rather than “corrected,” the individuals, families and communities involved within it. Accordingly, society must consider reforms to the conditions of incarceration. Roughly 95 percent of state prisoners will one day be released. For this reason, how they spend their time behind bars matters not only to those individuals but to their communities as well. The pursuit of higher education is perhaps the most worthwhile use of time for those incarcerated. Educational programing within prisons and jails can change the way individuals serve their period of incarceration and help them to become employable, stable members of society upon release. Efforts to improve postsecondary correctional education have proliferated over the past several years, but  more work is necessary to ensure the effectiveness of these programs. A college degree has become one of the most valuable assets one can attain in the United States. For example, one report found that a bachelor’s degree is worth more than $1 million in lifetime earnings. And in the justice system, one study found that an incarcerated person’s education level is highly correlated with his or her chances of recidivism: The recidivism rate for those with postsecondary education credits was 44 percent lower than those incarcerated within general population who did not participant in higher education programs. But many incarcerated people still do not have the opportunity to seek out higher education while serving a criminal sentence.5 Currently, in North Carolina, community colleges provide more than 90 percent of correctional education programming for incarcerated individuals. While adult education and literacy programs have the largest enrollments, the state requires colleges to offer entire for-credit certificates, diplomas or associate degree programs. According to a program administrator, postsecondary correctional education programs, which are predominantly vocational, awarded more than 6,000 vocational non-credit certificates; 1,458 vocational for-credit certificates; and nearly 100 associate and bachelor’s degrees to incarcerated people in 2006.6For the 2016-2017 fiscal year, the North Carolina Department of Public Safety reported that 673 incarcerated individuals completed requirements to obtain a postsecondary degree, and of those, 33 incarcerated individuals completed the requisite requirements to obtain an Associate of Applied Science diploma.7 However, under current North Carolina statutes, educational funds unfortunately cannot be used to provide postsecondary correctional education for the attainment of Associate of Arts, Associate of Science or Associate of General Education degrees.8 So, although North Carolina correctional facilities and their partnerships with community colleges have successfully instituted some correctional education programs, with more access to postsecondary education, incarcerated individuals could see increased economic potential and thereby make their communities healthier and stronger upon release. 

R STREET SHORTS NO. 71 May 2019 

Washington, R Street, 2019. 4p.

By Nila Bala and Emily Mooney    

For many of America’s prisoners, life after prison can mean perpetual unemployment, as approximately 600,000 return home each year—many without job prospects.  In fact, a study published in 2018 found that almost half of formerly incarcerated individuals reported no earnings within the first three years after release. For those who were able to secure work, earnings were dismal: the median individual earned only $10,090 in the first full calendar year after release. Such data clearly demonstrates that there is a disconnect between the work offered in prisons and meaningful, sustaining employment outside their walls.  This is particularly stark, as the public safety effect of unemployment for the formerly incarcerated is profound. Faced with a life of low wages, high rates of unemployment and the inability to support themselves or their families, about two-thirds of individuals released from prison will be rearrested within three years. By contrast, studies suggest quality employment is an important determinant in decreasing recidivism rates. And most importantly, high quality employment also helps to secure human dignity and keep families together. Currently, prison work too often consists of non-transferable skills that are of little use upon reentry. In light of this, it is time to reimagine what prison work can and should consist of, and the role that private employers can play during the period of incarceration and after a person’s release. Ideally, prison employment could be transformed to mean that individuals are paid prevailing wages, and that they form a strong relationship with a private employer and have an opportunity to continue with that employer after their term of incarceration. This “continuous employment” model is designed such that continuous in-prison to post-release employment with the same employer is not only possible but probable. However, it also is flexible enough to acknowledge that sometimes individuals may need to move away from their current employer or may acquire even better opportunities outside of prison. By definition, reentry is a major life upheaval; almost every element of an individual’s life changes and barriers automatically exist even to the most basic goals such as housing and family reunification. If employees could work both in and out of prison with the same employers, however, multiple benefits would result. For example, an existing relationship with an employer could ease the transition by improving job prospects, which can also help boost the local economy and community. To this end, the present study reviews current practices and proposes a new vision of employment behind bars that can lead to real work opportunities in the private sector that continue upon release. It also discusses barriers and obstacles to such programs and finally concludes with an agenda to better promote continuous employment opportunities. 

R STREET POLICY STUDY NO. 171 April 2019 

Washington, DC: R Street, 2019. 11p.

By Emily Mooney, Jesse Kelley and Nila Bala

Approximately 39,000 individuals are held in Michigan prisons, and the overwhelming majority of these will return to society after their sentence is completed. For this reason, Michigan residents and policymakers must be concerned with their ability to be productive, contributing members of society upon their return. However, research suggests that a lack of education may increasingly limit the employment options of formerly incarcerated individuals and may promote their return to crime. Accordingly, the present brief provides a short history of postsecondary education within prisons and then explains why it is an important part of the solution to this problem, as well as a benefit to society as a whole.

R STREET SHORTS NO. 65 January 2019

Washington, DC: R Street, 2019. 3p.

By Hannah Miles Merran McAlister Samantha Bricknell

The National Deaths in Custody Program has monitored the extent and nature of deaths occurring in prison, police custody and youth detention in Australia since 1980. The Australian Institute of Criminology has coordinated the program since its establishment in 1992, the result of a recommendation made the previous year by the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. In 2023–24, there were 104 deaths in custody: 76 in prison custody, 27 in police custody or custody-related operations and one in youth detention. In total, there were 24 Indigenous deaths and 80 non-Indigenous deaths in custody. This report contains detailed information on these deaths and compares the findings with longer term trends.

Statistical Report no. 49, Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. 2024. 59p.

By James René Jolin, Benjamin A. Barsky, Carrie G. Wade

By expanding health insurance to millions of people in the US, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) may have important health, economic, and social welfare implications for people with criminal legal involvement—a population with disproportionately high morbidity and mortality rates. OBJECTIVE To scope the literature for studies assessing the association of any provision of the ACA with 5 types of outcomes, including insurance coverage rates, access to care, health outcomes, costs of care, and social welfare outcomes among people with criminal legal involvement. EVIDENCE REVIEW - The literature search included results from PubMed, CINAHL Complete, APA Psycinfo, Embase, Social Science Database, and Web of Science and was conducted to include articles from January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2023. Only original empirical studies were included, but there were no restrictions on study design. FINDINGS Of the 3538 studies initially identified for potential inclusion, the final sample included 19 studies. These 19 studies differed substantially in their definition of criminal legal involvement and units of analysis. The studies also varied with respect to study design, but difference-in-differences methods were used in 10 of the included studies. With respect to outcomes, 100 unique outcomes were identified across the 19 studies, with at least 1 in all 5 outcome categories determined prior to the literature search. Health insurance coverage and access to care were the most frequently studied outcomes. Results for the other 3 outcome categories were mixed, potentially due to heterogeneous definitions of populations, interventions, and outcomes and to limitations in the availability of individual-level datasets that link incarceration data with health-related data. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE- In this scoping review, the ACA was associated with an increase in insurance coverage and a decrease in recidivism rates among people with criminal legal involvement. Future research and data collection are needed to understand more fully health and nonhealth outcomes among people with criminal legal involvement related to the ACA and other health insurance policies—as well as the mechanisms underlying these relationships.

JAMA Health Forum, 2024, 10 p.