by Marina Duane, Megan Russo, Matthew Williams

Women are the fastest-growing population in America’s correctional facilities. Researchers estimate that the number of incarcerated women has increased between 750 and 900 percent over the past four decades (The Sentencing Project 2019).1 In response, many jails are working to better assess justice-involved women’s risks and needs, improve their conditions of confinement and service delivery, and support community reentry. This case study belongs to a series highlighting work supported by the Safety and Justice Challenge’s Innovation Fund. It describes Project Safe Release, a pilot implemented in Cumberland County, Maine, to better identify the needs of women entering the Cumberland County Jail, understand their victimization histories, and connect them to appropriate services before and after release. It also outlines Project Safe Release’s inception, evolution, and implementation (including key policies and processes); examines early outcomes and implementation challenges; and shows how other localities can better coordinate services for women released on pretrial supervision

Washington DC: The Urban Institute, 2020. 27p.

By Vincent Schiraldi

This research brief assesses the impact of a March 27, 2020 announcement from the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS), indicating that it would release up to 1,100 people jailed in county facilities for accusations of technical parole violations in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Infectious disease spreads easily and quickly in congregate settings such as jails and prisons. New York State incarcerates more people for non-criminal, technical parole violations than every state except Illinois, and the first two incarcerated people to die of COVID-19 in the Rikers Island jail complex - Michael Tyson and Raymond Rivera - were held there for technical parole violations for missing appointments and failing a drug program.

The research brief concludes that the state released around three-quarters of those originally anticipated by the NYS Department of Corrections and Community Supervision.

It additionally finds that in the two months since the directive was issued, more than 160 people accused of technical parole violations were newly sent to the Rikers jails. This number appears to be accelerating and is projected to surpass the number of people released by June or early July, 2020.

In response to the limited and waning effect of the March release order, the report recommends immediate steps for both the NYS Department of Corrections and Community Supervision and state policymakers:

Unless an individual poses a demonstrable and imminent public safety risk, all people held in jails and prisons for technical parole violations be released

DOCCS cease issuing new warrants for technical violations until the pandemic subsides

State policymakers should enact legislative reforms such as ending automatic pre-hearing incarceration for people facing technical violations; eliminating incarceration for less serious technical violations; capping incarceration terms for technical violations; and incentivizing parole compliance through grants of “merit time” for following the rules.

The above recommendations comport with best practices in the field, limit exposure to dangerous correctional settings now and in the event of a COVID-19 rebound, and will save considerable resources at the state, city, and county level

New York: Columbia University Justice Lab, 2021.9p.

By Richard Wright, William J. Sabol

Thaddeus L. Johnson

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

103 Marq. L. Rev. 1179 (2020)

By Elliott Young

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

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

By Victoria Knight

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

Academic Insights 2025/03

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

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

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

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

Key Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resources for pilot-related activities were primarily for personnel.

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

Recommendations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reentry planning requires further examination.

Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2025.

By Elina Treyger, Maya Buenaventura, Ian Mitch, Laura Bellows, John S. Hollywood

Between 2020 and 2024, increasing volumes of aliens sought entry at the southwest U.S. border without valid entry documents. Several policies adopted since 2020 have sought to incentivize aliens — particularly those who have intentions of seeking asylum — to present themselves at ports of entry (POEs) and disincentivize crossing unlawfully between POEs. These trends and policies raise a question of the capacity of U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP's) Office of Field Operations (OFO) to process such aliens and unaccompanied alien children (UACs) through POEs. A congressional request sought an analysis that could shed light on whether and how well OFO would be able to process increased volumes and the resources it would need to do so. This report is the result of that analysis.

Key Findings

There are multiple pathways for processing likely asylum seekers and UACs through POEs. This is a function of several factors, such as whether the alien arrives with a CBP One appointment; whether they are a member of a family unit, a UAC, or a single adult; whether derogatory information is discovered about the alien; and detention facility capacity.

OFO's capacity to process this population varies across time and POEs and is constrained by a mix of individual case characteristics; staffing; infrastructure and equipment; capacity; the capacity of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; and operational demands.

The authors infer that OFO's effective monthly capacity to process likely asylum seekers and UACs in a safe, humane, and orderly manner at the level of resources present as of May 2023 is around 47,000–48,000 aliens.

Substantially increasing OFO processing capacity such that all or most likely asylum seekers and UACs (based on levels observed between October 2022 and February 2024) are processed at POEs would be extremely challenging at best.

Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2025. 209p.

By Megan Grabenauer; Nichole Bynum

This report describes a project seeking to provide timely, evidence-based intelligence on criminal justice populations regarding growing rates of drug use and patterns of fentanyl and fentanyl-related compounds use; it presents a summary of goals and objectives, research questions, project design and methods, results, and applicability to criminal justice; and appendices include Hair Classification Descriptions, LC-MS/MS Method, Results of Fentanyl-Related Compounds and Other Compounds, and Most Common Drugs Detected in Oral Fluid Confirmation Testing and in Hair Confirmation Testing.

Abstract

This summary report discusses the research methods and results of a project that aimed to provide timely, evidence-based intelligence on growing rates of drug use and patterns of use of fentanyl and fentanyl-related compounds among incarcerated populations. The project is a response to the US opioid epidemic that has resulted in an increase in law enforcement drug seizures and opioid overdose deaths, which has led to court-ordered mandatory drug testing (COMDT) of hair samples. The testing is routinely done at large commercial laboratories but does not typically include testing for fentanyl or fentanyl-related compounds. The report describes the two project phases, which focus on determining the prevalence of fentanyl and a selection of fentanyl-related compounds in hair specimens submitted for COMDT over six months, and Phase II, which involved a retrospective analysis of COMDT data from a five-year period. The report presents actionable information from several, geographically diverse US jurisdictions, and represents the first large-scale drug prevalence study in a COMDT population

 Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International, 2024. 24p.

By Jesse Jannetta,

, Travis Reginal, Daniel Lawrence, Caitlin Flood, Emily LaGratta

Procedural justice, a framework for authority figures to treat people with fairness and respect, can improve probation supervision and core supervision outcomes. With support from Arnold Ventures, the Urban Institute, the American Probation and Parole Association (APPA), the Center for Court Innovation (CCI), and LaGratta Consulting partnered on an effort to develop and pilot a new procedural justice training curriculum—the Evaluation of Procedural Justice in Probation—outlining new tools and practices for probation officers. Analyses of interactions between supervising officers and people under supervision, survey responses regarding perceptions of supervision, and analyses of administrative data provided mixed findings, with some preliminary indications that participating in the procedural justice training may make probation officers’ treatment of people under supervision fairer and more respectful and improve supervision outcomes. However, the conclusions that can be drawn from even those results supportive of intervention impact are subject to significant limitations, given the nonexperimental nature of the design and the small number of observations in some of the data collected.

Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2021. 46p.

By Matthew Millings, Lol Burke, Harry Annison, Nicola Carr, Gwen Robinson & Eleanor Surridge.

This article presents findings from a major longitudinal research project of probation in England and Wales, arguing that the process of its ‘unification’ (re-nationalisation) continues to be a painful process whose end state remains elusive. Having previously articulated how practitioners experienced unification as ‘painful but necessary’, here, using the imagery of a journey, we argue that the speed and direction of travel have encountered a more perilous trajectory than expected as high workloads and staffing challenges have persisted. Second, we argue that enduring challenges in bedding in new working practices – and building the confidence of new and existing colleagues to deliver them – have acted as ‘hazards’ that have needed careful navigation. Third, we argue that staff experience a sense of individual and collective operational vulnerability, in the face of the relentless demands placed upon them. In conclusion, we identify a series of forks in the road that prompt profound questions about the delivery of probation services now and in the future.

Probation Journal 1–18 © The Author(s) 2025  

By Michelle Kirby

  The Family Violence Education Program is Connecticut’s pretrial program that gives eligible defendants the chance to attend programs that provide education about family violence instead of going to trial. Any defendant who wants to take part in the program must submit an application to the court. If the court grants the defendant’s application, he or she must take part in nine, 90- minute sessions of a psycho-educational class that is focused on reducing any future family violence. If the defendant completes this program successfully and follows any other conditions set by the court while he or she is taking part in the program, the court will dismiss the charges against the defendant. Classes are offered all over the state by judicial branch-contracted community providers  

OLR Research Report, Hartford:   Connecticut General Assembly ,  Office of Legislative Research , 2023. 4p.

By Jacquelyn Sicilia

Domestic violence has plagued society for years. However, until 1994, domestic violence was not federally criminalized. Today, domestic violence affects over ten million Americans per year. Because of the criminal justice system’s slow reaction to domestic violence, how the criminal justice system handles domestic violence cases is far from ideal. Pretrial release in domestic violence cases is one area of domestic violence that is ripe for research, guidance, and change. Pretrial release brings to light a unique balance; defendants are presumed to be innocent, but at the same time, the fact of arrest may point to an ongoing risk of harm to victims if defendants are released pre-trial. With little known about which pretrial conditions are successful in non-domestic violence cases, the answer of how to strike the necessary balance is even more challenging. This Note examines the different approaches states use to assign pretrial release conditions to domestic-violence defendants who are granted pretrial release and proposes a model statute to address—and effectively account for—the risk of re-abuse and the rights of criminal defendants in pretrial release.

66 St. Louis U. L.J. (2022)., 37p.

By Cassondra Warney, Ellen Whelan-Wuest, Madeleine Dardeau

This policy framework outlines policy options developed as part of a Justice Reinvestment Initiative effort in Vermont in 2019 in collaboration with Vermont’s Justice Reinvestment II Working Group. Many of the policies were reflected in legislation signed into law in 2020. The aim of these policies was to improve post-release supervision, achieve a more equitable criminal justice system, increase data collection and analysis, and, ultimately, reduce recidivism.

New York: The Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2022. 17p.

By Michelle Butler,, Catherine B. McName, Dominic Kelly

Despite its impact on imprisonment, no quantitative study has examined the factors related to people's status on prison incentive schemes. This study addresses this gap by using administrative data to explore the factors related to the status of 405 men on a prison incentive scheme. Results revealed that those who had a prior history of passing prison drug tests at time 1, and spent more time imprisoned during the follow-up period, were more likely to be on the highest level of the scheme one year later at time 2. In contrast, those who had a history of past involvement in misconduct, referrals for serious self-harm/attempted suicide in prison, not taken a prison drug test, property offences, and greater periods of custody at time  were more likely to be on the lower levels of the scheme at time . The potential implications for theory, policy, and practice are discussed.

  European Journal of Criminology 2024, Vol. 21(6) 887–907 

By Michelle Butler https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6983-6215michelle.butler@qub.ac.uk, Catherine B. McNamee, and  Dominic Kelly

The present study uses a prospective longitudinal research design to examine whether previously identified risk factors for prison interpersonal violence can predict violent prison misconduct in Northern Ireland (NI). Administrative data drawn from the records of 429 adult males imprisoned on November 22, 2017 were used to predict involvement in violent prison misconduct during a 1-year follow-up period. The results revealed that only a small number of previously identified risk factors were found to be significant in the NI context. Nationality, neighborhood deprivation, history of addiction, submission of prison complaints, past involvement in prison misconduct, and number of incarcerations emerged as significant, while religion, head injury/epilepsy, property offences, and prison visits were significant at the marginal level. Given the variation in risk factors identified as significant in the NI context compared to previous research, it is argued that cultural context matters when attempting to generalize the risk factors for prison interpersonal violence from one jurisdiction to another. These results offer some support for the importation theory, although it should be noted that the inclusion of prison environmental factors was limited due to the nature of the data. It is argued that specialist services and supports should be provided to address the factors contributing to interpersonal prison violence, including interventions to improve feelings of fairness, identify and treat underlying medical issues, as well as support visitation.

Journal of Interpersonal Violence 2022, Vol. 37(15-16)

By Johann Koehler https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1305-891 j.koehler@lse.ac.uand Friedrich Lösel

We synthesize 53 meta-analyses on the effectiveness of correctional treatment applied to a wide variety of offender groups delivered in either custodial or community-based settings. Those meta-analyses revealed positive overall effects on reoffending of correctional treatment delivered in both settings. However, the treatment setting is also associated with complex moderator effects. With respect to effect size, for most groups, community-based correctional treatment is associated with statistically significant larger reductions in reoffending than treatments delivered in custodial settings. With respect to effect precision, custodial treatments report more consistent effects on reoffending than community-based treatments. The findings extend and develop the insight that treatment flexibility, such as is found among community-based treatments, can optimize program effectiveness. Likewise, the opportunities for monitoring and treatment fidelity that custodial settings enable can homogenize outcomes. Nonetheless, the promising results observed among treatments delivered both inside and outside institutional settings implicate a complex policy tradeoff between prioritizing strong performance and consistent effects.

European Journal of Criminology 2025, Vol. 22(1) 3–29 , 2024    

By Amanda Wilson

Centering the perspectives and lived experiences of incarcerated persons, this article considers the ways food is used as a tool and site of contestation and possibility within federal prisons in Canada. Focusing specifcally on the implementation of and resistance to the Food Services Modernization Initiative, I explore food as “contested terrain” within carceral systems, making visible a range of tactics of resistance employed by incarcerated persons, from testimonials and ofcial complaints to direct collective action. In analyzing these actions and narratives, I refect on the importance of both food justice and prisoner justice to transforming carceral food systems and call for greater acknowledgment of carceral food systems within food movement discourses and campaigns.  

  Critical Criminology (2023) 31:83–104

By  Netanel Dagan and Shmuel Baron

Criminologists have criticized the gap between retributive theory and prison realities. In this study, we drew on qualitative findings from the Supreme Court judges of Israel to explore how judicial decision-makers construct the relationship between their retributive theory and their vision of prison life. We found that these judges perceived prison to be a disproportionate and cruel punishment. In responding to prison excessiveness, these judges constructed a “veil of ignorance” between the phases of sentencing and imprisonment by (a) re-theorizing retribution; (b) closing the gap between sentencing and prison, and (c) neutralizing responsibility. The findings shed light on the judiciary’s epistemology of prisons and its meaning for their retributive theory. In conclusion, the boundaries of retributive scholarship should be expanded to include more fully the problematic meaning of prison cruelties for judges’ philosophies and consciousness.

Critical Criminology, 2025, 18p.