By The HM Chief Inspector of Prisons

We undertook this thematic because of our concerns about the very high and increasing levels of self-harm in women’s prisons, the paucity of regimes, the difficulties in enabling visits, the lack of training or support for officers and a failure to help women cope. The focus of this report is on what practical support can be offered by officers and leaders, rather than specific health care interventions. The findings are deeply depressing, with individual jails and the prison service not doing enough to understand the needs of this population or take action to make sure that women receive appropriate support. Between 2013 and 2023, rates of self-harm in women’s jails rose from 1,545 to 5,624 per 1,000 prisoners, and this dramatic increase is indicative of the levels of distress among women in prison. In the surveys carried out during our inspections and the fieldwork for this report, women told us what would help them to cope better. Much of what they describe could be readily achieved with more imagination and determination from both governors and the prison service. In this report we describe a vicious cycle whereby officers are spending so much of their time helping women who are suffering acute crises, that they are unable to provide the less intensive support other prisoners need to prevent them from deteriorating. The staffing position in women’s jails is now much healthier than it has been in recent years and many officers we spoke to wanted to provide prisoners with the support they needed. However, they were unable to complete much of the day-to-day work that is essential to maintain safe, respectful and purposeful jails because they lacked the time or capability to do the job effectively. Many prison officers remain inexperienced and the lack of training they receive is a recurring theme in this report. They were doing their best in often very distressing environments, yet only those working in specialist units received clinical supervision. Officers described the toll it took on them, including feeling traumatised by and eventually desensitised to the shockingly high levels of selfharms and mental illness they witnessed. This report also show that there is a failure to offer opportunities for women to stay in contact with their families, particularly children, for whom many were the primary carers. Phone credit was often not available during women’s first, crucial days in prison, visits were too short, video calls were restricted and visitors themselves were given little support, despite having to travel often long distances with young children. Despite their importance, there was a lack of ambition or creativity in helping women maintain good family ties. We see far more impressive support in the best men’s prisons

London: HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, 2025. 47p.

By Prison Reform Trust

Most prisons now offer virtual methods for staying in touch with loved ones, along with expanded provision in self-service, health, wellbeing, and education. This report is based on conversations with prisoners, staff, leaders, service providers, and academic experts, as well as prison visits. It highlights the growing digital culture in prisons and the importance of user experience and human factors in shaping digitisation. Progress has been made in five key areas: family contact, self-services, health and wellbeing, education, and resettlement. While the rollout of technology since the Covid-19 pandemic has been positive, there is room for improvement, and the report provides practical recommendations for further development.

London: Prison Reform Trust, 2025. 36p.

By Anna Skee

The Modern Slavery Act (MSA) 2015 was introduced to strengthen the UK’s response to human trafficking and modern slavery, providing comprehensive tools to identify offenders, secure convictions, and protect victims. However, while the number of victims identified and referred to the National Referral Mechanism2 has continued to increase, prosecution and conviction rates under the Act remain notably low, raising questions about barriers to its implementation. This report examines some of these barriers, drawing on insights from practitioners directly involved in modern slavery cases, as well as academic and grey literature on the subject. The original research informing this report aimed to explore how financial investigations could improve prosecution and conviction rates under the Modern Slavery Act. Fifteen in-depth interviews were conducted with specialists including seven police officers based in English forces, three lawyers, three financial experts, one international cyber-crime expert, and one NGO representative with lived experience of modern slavery. All interviews were anonymised, transcribed, and analysed thematically.

Oxford, UK: The Modern Slavery and Human Rights Policy and Evidence Centre, 2025. 41p.

By Utsha G. Khatri, Jahn K. Hakes,; David Buckler,; et al

IMPORTANCE The US has the highest incarceration rates in the developed world. The harms of incarceration have long-term health implications, including increased mortality. Existing studies of incarceration-related mortality are limited by data sources and design. OBJECTIVE To examine the associations between both individual- and area-level incarceration rates with all-cause and overdose mortality in the US. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This cohort study used data from the Mortality Disparities in American Communities (MDAC) study, linking over 3 million 2008 American Community Survey (ACS) respondents to National Death Index data from the respondents’ 2008 interview date through December 31, 2019, or their date of death, and county incarceration data from the Vera Institute of Justice. The sample included US adults 18 years or older, representing individuals in group quarters such as prisons and jails but excluding those in counties lacking jail incarceration rate data. Data were analyzed from July 5, 2023, to November 10, 2024. EXPOSURE Individual incarceration status at the time of the ACS survey and county jail incarceration rates. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality and overdose mortality, assessed through time-to-event analyses. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate mortality risks, adjusting for individual- and county-level characteristics. ACS survey weights were applied so that the final sample represents the US adult population. RESULTS The study includes a total of 3 255 000 individuals (51.3% female), of whom 45 000 (0.93%) were incarcerated at the time of the 2008 ACS administration. The mean (SD) county jail incarceration rate was 372 (358) per 100 000 people. During the study period, 431 000 individuals (11.6%) died from any cause, and 5500 (0.2%) died from overdoses. Incarcerated individuals had a higher risk of all-cause mortality (hazard rate [HR], 1.39 [95% CI, 1.33-1.45]) and an increased risk of overdose mortality (HR, 3.08 [95% CI, 2.70-3.52]) compared with nonincarcerated individuals. A 10% increase in county jail incarceration rates was associated with 4.6 (95% CI, 3.8-5.5) additional all-cause deaths per 100 000 people. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this cohort study of 3.26 million individuals in the US, results highlighted the dual burden of incarceration on health outcomes. Individuals who were incarcerated faced significantly higher risks of death, particularly from overdoses, and elevated county incarceration rates exacerbated individual-level mortality risks. These findings suggest the need for reforms in criminal justice and public health policies to address these elevated risks and their widespread implications.

JAMA Network Open | Vol. 8, No. 6.2025

By Prison Reform Trust

The high level of multiple and often unmet need experienced by many women in the justice system is well documented.1 Many women in prison are victims of more serious crimes than those they are accused of committing.2 The past two decades have seen several key policy developments relating to women’s imprisonment (see Appendix 1). Each of these developments show a trend towards recognising the distinct and specific needs of women in the criminal justice system and call for a reduction in women’s imprisonment. However, the number of women in prison, especially on remand and on short sentences, has remained stubbornly high. Moving beyond this status quo requires bold and creative thinking alongside sustained development and implementation of pre-existing strategies. This briefing sets out key facts and figures relating to women in the criminal justice system and highlights progress to date in implementing an approach which recognises women’s distinct needs.

London: Prison Reform Trust, 2025. 10p.

By Alissa Fishbane • Shannon McAuliffe • Yiping Li

  Introduction Anthony had every intention of appearing for his court date next month. Then, life got complicated. His sister got into a car accident and spent a few days in the ICU. Anthony had to navigate her stay with the insurance company, while also visiting her and arranging for a rehab facility. He fell behind on his work, sleep, laundry, mail. Although a month ago he could never have imagined forgetting his court date, when the time came, he did. Nationwide, millions of people miss their court date—despite their genuine intent to attend. This issue is so widespread that, in areas across the United States, more people are booked into jail for missing court than any other reason. Yet research shows that a primary driver of nonappearance is that people simply forget or struggle to plan properly for their court date—a problem that reminders solve. This report is a complete guide to setting up an effective court reminder program, thereby preventing missed appearances, reducing warrants, and unlocking massive savings—in both resources and dollars—year after year. The high cost of missed appearances Missed court dates create case backlogs, overburden dockets, waste financial and human resources, and lead to jail overcrowding. We conservatively estimate each missed court date costs the government $1,496 in staff time and other resources. This includes rescheduling hearings, issuing warrants, locating individuals, and possible jail time. Yet this figure likely underestimates the true financial impact on courts, attorneys, law enforcement, and jails, not to mention the burdens placed on those with outstanding warrants.i When this figure is multiplied by the millions of missed court dates each year, the expense to taxpayers comes into dramatic focus. Altogether, missed court dates likely cost local government millions of dollars annually—and tens of millions for many state governments. Recognizing this hefty price tag, courts are increasingly turning to reminders as a cost-effective, proactive solution, rather than relying solely on costly, reactive punitive measures like warrants. It’s a classic case of “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” Why reminders work We are all human, and missing appointments happens to everyone. In fact, doctor appointments are missed at rates similar to, or even higher than, court dates. This is why reminders are accepted and widely used by businesses and governments—and increasingly by courts: they help bridge the gap between intention and action, and they work. They’re practical, effective, and inexpensive. Reminders work because they address the widespread, yet often overlooked, behavioral reasons people miss court. Sometimes people miss court for logistical reasons (no transportation, inflexible work schedules, childcare duties), but many miss for reasons related to poverty and its effect on mental bandwidth, simple forgetfulness when life gets overwhelming, and "present bias"—where people focus more on the immediate costs of attending court (like fear or missing work) than the larger, long-term consequences of missing court, such as warrants and arrest. Court reminders address these issues by helping people remember their court date, understand the consequences of missing court, proactively plan to attend, and reduce their fear or confusion. Moreover, the effectiveness of reminders is well-established and backed by extensive research. Rigorous evaluations consistently show that court reminders reduce nonappearance by 20 to 40%. Studies show they are even more effective for people who have previously missed court. A small initial investment in a reminder system, with minimal per-reminder costs thereafter, will significantly improve appearance rates. This, in turn, will lead to massive savings for governments and taxpayers, while also reducing the negative consequences for individuals who would otherwise miss court. About this guide We designed this resource for those seeking to use proven, cost-effective practices to create or improve a court reminder system, including court administrators, policymakers, IT teams, clerks, judges, legislators, public defenders, district attorneys, pretrial agencies, and others. The goal is to provide a clear roadmap for system stakeholders to understand and implement this low-cost, high-impact solution to increase court appearance rates and improve overall court efficiency. While we focus on the criminal court system (most studies are based on offenses with warrant consequences— felony, misdemeanor, and some traffic cases), the principles outlined here can also be applied in civil or family courts, helping courts achieve better outcomes in all case types. This guide is grounded in evidence, operational best practices, and the science of human behavior. It breaks down the fundamentals of building a successful reminder program into achievable steps and demystifies the process. We’ll show you proven strategies for content and timing, system options for creating and sending reminders, and technology platforms and their basic costs. Plus, we’ll explore crucial elements like collecting contact information and the importance of auto-enrollment for broad and impactful reach. By reading this report, you'll discover how simple changes can dramatically enhance the quality, efficiency, and impact of court operations in your jurisdiction. With these tools at your disposal, you can start boosting court appearances—benefiting the court, its partners and stakeholders, the people attending, and their communities.   

New York: Ideas 42: 2025. 59p.

By Noor Huda Ismail

The release of former Jemaah Islamiyah leader Para Wijayanto in May 2025 has reignited debate over radicalisation, reintegration, and the shifting nature of violent extremism in Indonesia. His transformation underscores not only a generational rift between old and new jihadists but also the underexplored role of masculinity in the radicalisation process. A gendered approach offers vital insights into both the pull of extremist ideologies and the possibilities for sustainable disengagement.

RSIS Commentary

S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), NTU , 2025. 6p.

By Hanna Kim with the guidance of Reginald Moore and the Convict Leasing and Labor Project.

Many Americans learn about the vicious resistance to African American freedom that followed the Civil War and Reconstruction era. Jim Crow laws, lynchings, and the Ku Klux Klan are some of the well-known chapters of racial terrorism in U.S. history. But another effort to reinstitute slavery immediately after the war remains little known—passed over, left unexplained, swept under the rug. As the Civil War devastated the South, the South’s nascent prison system became the testing ground for crafting one of the earliest reincarnations of slavery. Convict leasing, a system in which Southern states leased prisoners to private parties, essentially re-enslaved many African Americans—men, women, and even children—who had been deemed free and equal by the Constitution’s 13th and 14th Amendments. Everyone involved in running this lucrative system profited from exploiting these prisoners, forcing them to work under inhumane conditions for almost no pay. Some people at the time even claimed that the convict leasing system was worse than slavery. Convict leasing helped revitalize the war-ravaged South and turn it into an industrialized stronghold with international reach. This report tells the story about convict leasing in a new way. It visually explains antiquated concepts and complex details, in order to help you understand precisely how convict leasing took advantage of and discriminated against its victims. It provides historical context, diving deep into convict leasing's mechanisms, brutality, and legacy. Ultimately, it seeks to awaken our common humanity and motivate all of us—regardless of race, ethnicity, age, gender, political alliances, or life experiences—to challenge the systemic racism that blinds us, silences us, imprisons us, kills us, forgets us, haunts us. History is not frozen in time, nor is it ever complete or perfect. It is messy, multifaceted, and always changing in relation to who is writing it. History depends on what we decide to remember, together. A local historian and activist named Reginald Moore will introduce you to the discovery of the “Sugar Land 95”—the remains of 95 African Americans who are believed to have labored under the convict leasing system in Sugar Land, Texas. The history of Sugar Land is not only sweet; it is also bitter.

Convict Leasing and Labor Project: 2020. 40p.

By Nicholas Blagden, Luke Vinter, Eve Penford, Jade Mason & Polly Delliere-Moor

The evidence for offending behaviour programmes has expanded over several decades, with a large body of reviews producing well replicated findings attesting to the positive effects of cognitive-behavioural approaches in reducing general reoffending. These approaches aim to help participants recognise patterns of thought and action, while providing alternative perspectives and cognitive skills to help change thinking and behaviour. Related research also indicates that following Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) principles yields the best outcomes. In brief, RNR principles suggest that the intensity of rehabilitation services should be matched to a person’s propensity to reoffend (risk), targeted at psychological characteristics associated with reoffending (need); and, based on a cognitive-behavioural approach, tailored to individual styles of learning (responsivity). In line with such principles, His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) in England and Wales has invested in cognitive-behavioural programmes since the 1990s. Central to this offer since 2008 has been the Thinking Skills Programme (TSP), which is aimed at adult men and women who are assessed as medium and above risk of reoffending. TSP comprises 19 sessions (15 group sessions and 4 individual sessions). It is designed to support reductions in reoffending in four ways as set out below. 1. Developing thinking skills (such as problem solving, flexible thinking, consequential thinking, critical reasoning). 2. Applying these skills to managing personal risk factors. 3. Applying thinking skills to developing personally relevant protective factors. 4. Applying thinking skills to setting pro-social goals that support relapse prevention. This report qualitatively evaluates TSP, focusing on participants’ experiences of the programme and the perceived impact of the prison environment on its effectiveness.

London: Ministry of Justice 2025. 79p.

By Campaign to Close Rikers

The jails on Rikers Island are legally required to close within three years. But closing Rikers is not simply a legal obligation - it is a moral one. “Torture Island,” as it is commonly known by those who’ve survived it, has robbed generations of primarily Black and Brown people of their freedom and their human rights. The deadly conditions at Rikers have claimed far too many lives, including 32 people since Mayor Adams took office. Fortunately, there is a plan in place to close Rikers that was envisioned and fought for by formerly incarcerated people and their family members, with the support of faith leaders, service providers, community organizations, and other allies. This plan was approved and passed by the Mayor and City Council in October 2019, after extensive community input. Now is the time to accelerate this plan, and to maximize every possible strategy to reduce the jail population and limit the number of people exposed to the harm and abuses of Rikers. The Mayor and city agencies must take the lead in urgently executing this plan, and every elected official must leverage their power to support its implementation. Here we outline steps the Mayor, along with the City Council, must take to deliver on the commitment to closing Rikers, from decarceration, to defending the rights of incarcerated people, to divestment & redistribution.

New York: The Campaign, 2024. 14p.

By The HE UTAH INDIGENT DEFENSE COMMISSION

The focus of this report is the structural improvements made to indigent defense services in Juab County as a result of the partnership between state and local stakeholders. These stakeholders include the Utah Indigent Defense Commission (IDC), Juab County Commission and Attorney’s Office, and the Utah County Public Defender’s Office (UTCPD), and local attorneys. The Utah Legislature created the IDC in 2016 to provide meaningful state oversight and ensure Utah’s indigent defense services are constitutionally effective. The IDC collaborates with the state, local governments, indigent defense providers, and other stakeholders to:  provide guidance and standards for systems to ensure and oversee local defense services;  gather and report information about local indigent defense services;  award state funding to local governments to improve local indigent defense services; and  encourage and aid in the regionalization of indigent defense services throughout the state. For calendar year 2017, Juab County was the first recipient of an IDC grant award of $111,800. Actual IDC spending totaled $95,924, allowing the IDC to more accurately budget for a three-year grant renewal with Juab County in 2018. Additionally, identifying this amount helped to set the precedent for the startup and recurring costs of indigent defense improvements for future grant models throughout the state. The data in this report make use of those efforts to measure improvements in a local indigent defense system as a result of state funding from the IDC. The data are compiled from many sources, including narratives submitted by Juab County, as a requirement of the IDC grant award. Additional data come from the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) on appointed case and case-specific information, and Sorenson Impact Center Data Science Team for providing quantitative metrics related to indigent defense statewide.

Salt Lake City, UK: The Commission, 2019. 29p.

By The Utah Commission on Criminal & Juvenile Justice

Decades of research have demonstrated a systemic and nation-wide presence of racial and ethnic disparities in the United States’ criminal justice system. Here we analyze 9,788 felony Pre-Sentence Investigation reports in Utah between 2015 and 2017. By examining the relationship between race-ethnicity and the severity of the pre-sentence recommendation, we find that Hispanics have an increased likelihood of receiving the most severe sentence recommendation in comparison to Whites. Policy implications around findings are discussed which has the potential to reduce current disparities as they occur at the Pre-Sentence Investigation level. The generational costs associated with the system’s inequalities merits policy action on this salient issue.

Salt Lake City, UT: The Commission, 2019. 17p.

By AlexanderTesta, Dylan B. Jackson, Meghan Novisky, Kyle T. Ganson, Jason M. Nagata, and JackTsai

Abstract Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the cognitive functioning of formerly incarcerated older adults compared to their never-incarcerated counterparts, focusing on immediate and delayed verbal recall. Methods: Data are from 2,003 respondents who participated in the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health—Parent Study (AHPS; ages 47–82, mean age 62). AHPS participants were administered word recall memory exercises to the parent respondent from the Rey Auditory-Verbal administered Learning Test, including (a) 90-s (immediate or short-term verbal memory), (b) 60-s recall tests (delayed or longterm verbal memory), and (c) combined word recall on the 90-s and 60-s tests. Results: Adjusting for control variables, respondents who reported prior incarceration had a lower rate of verbal recall on the combined word recall (incidence risk ratio [IRR] = 0.915, 95% confdence interval [CI] = 0.840, 0.997) and immediate word recall (IRR = 0.902, 95% CI = 0.817, 0.996). When restricting the sample to respondents over age 60, prior incarceration was associated with lower combined word recall (IRR = 0.847, 95% CI = 0.752, 0.954), immediate word recall (IRR = 0.857, 95% CI = 0.762, 0.963), and delayed word recall (IRR = 0.834, 95% CI = 0.713, 0.974). Discussion: This study underscores the adverse impact of prior incarceration on cognitive functioning in the older adult population, emphasizing the need for targeted interventions and support for formerly incarcerated older adults. The results reinforce the importance of addressing the long-term consequences of incarceration, especially as individuals enter older adulthood.

The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 2024, 79

By BRONWYN HUNTER, KENDRA BRADNER, and EMILY NAPIER SINGLETARY

The Less Is More: Community Supervision Revocation Reform Act (S.1144A – Benjamin / A.5576A – Forrest) was signed into law in September of 2021. This act transformed the parole system in New York State, and has the potential to generate substantial cost savings that can be (re)invested into communities. The Columbia Justice Lab Probation and Parole Project and Unchained partnered with the Less Is More advocacy coalition, led by Unchained and the Katal Center, to learn: How do community members across New York State want the cost savings from Less Is More to be invested into their communities? Through a series of town hall meetings held virtually across the state, community members shared insight into what resources should be invested in and how such investments should be made. Specifically, community members who participated in the town halls prioritized investments in: ›› housing, ›› behavioral healthcare, ›› employment and vocational training, ›› reentry supports, ›› and community spaces, among other resources. Importantly, town hall attendees emphasized that funds should be invested in a way that: ›› enhances equity, ›› targets people and families who are affected by the criminal legal system, ›› and builds on local community and organizational capacity to meet community needs. There are several pieces of legislation in various stages of the policy process that are consistent with community members needs for investments, and these are identified in sidebars throughout the report.1 Community members who participated in the town halls reiterated what advocates and community members have previously called for – strategies that will invest in New Yorkers so that people can thrive in their communities. Policymakers can respond to these calls by taking action to invest in resources and strategies that move toward equity and justice.

New York: Columbia University, Justice Lab, 2023. 31p.

By Michael Olson

For much of its history, research into crime has focused almost exclusively on the urban environment. Modern criminology and its associated theories were all pioneered in studying large American cities to such an extent that one researcher laments, "the science of criminology ignored rural crime." The lack of scholarly interest stemmed from a belief that massive economic restructuring caused social disorganization, which in turn caused crime. However, this belief had an important corollary - that sort of social disorganization was only possible in urban areas. This line of study ultimately created some "unquestioned assumptions that all rural places have less crime, and more importantly, less variation in factors that are associated or correlated with variations in crime." These assumptions emerged from a popular conception of rurality to be isolated and static. However, close examination reveals that these myths about rural Oklahoma could not be farther from the truth. Rural economies are neither isolated nor static but rather, deal with constant economic restructuring that has served to concentrate poverty in certain rural areas, thereby decreasing community safety.

Oklahoma City: Oklahomans for Criminal Justice Reform (OCJR), 2025. 22p.

By Emma Kaufman

It is tempting to assume that the United States has fifty distinct state prison systems. For a time, that assumption was correct. In the late twentieth century, however, states began to swap prisoners and to outsource punishment to their neighbors. Today, prisoners have no right to be incarcerated in the state where they were convicted, and prison officials may trade prisoners — either for money or for other prisoners — across state lines. Interstate prison transfers raise questions about the scope of states’ authority to punish, the purpose of criminal law, and the possibilities of prison reform. Yet apart from prisoners and their families, few people know that prisoners can be shipped between states. Because information on prisoners is so hard to obtain, scholars, lawyers, lawmakers, and even the judges who impose prison sentences often have no idea where prisoners are held. Drawing on a wide range of primary sources, including data uncovered through open records requests to all fifty states, this Article offers the first comprehensive account of the prisoner trade. It demonstrates that states have far more authority than one might expect to share and sell prisoners. It reveals that certain states rely on transfers to offset the actual and political costs of their prosecution policies. And it critiques the pathologies of interstate punishment, arguing that courts should require consent before a prisoner can be sent outside the polity whose laws he has transgressed

Harvard Law Review, VOLUME 133 APRIL 2020 NUMBER 6

By Penal Reform International

People in prison are among the most vulnerable to suffering from the negative effects of natural hazards. Despite international and national momentum to enhance disaster risk reduction (DRR), its application in prison systems is often not a primary concern. In recent years, people detained and working in prisons have been injured – sometimes fatally – due to damage and destruction caused by natural hazards, exacerbated by inadequate preparations by prison authorities to ensure their safety.

Based on primary research, this guide – the first of its kind – presents practical measures with a human rights-based approach for practitioners and frontline staff working in prison systems.

London: PRI, 2021. 32p.

By David M.N. Garavito, Amelia Courtney Hritz, and John H. Blume

When most incarcerated persons go before the parole board, they hope that the decision whether to release them will be based on their institutional record; put differently, that the board will consider the use of opportunities available in prison, rehabilitation, and likelihood of success outside the carceral environment. However, numerous persons with excellent records and reentry plans are denied parole every year. Why? The actual variables that influence parole board decision making are often a mystery; parole rejections are left unexplained or opaque. Empirical research examining what drives parole outcomes is scarce, yet this research is necessary given the power the parole boards have in determining the actual amount of time served in prison. In this Article, we examined the influence of institutional variables (those related to a person’s behavior while incarcerated) and noninstitutional variables on parole hearing outcomes in South Carolina. We predicted that institutional variables, such as the conviction of additional crimes during incarceration, would predict parole outcomes, but we also predicted that noninstitutional variables which may cue characteristics such as dangerousness (e.g., the nature of the offense), regardless of relevance to a person’s rehabilitation, would also predict parole outcomes. We analyzed the outcomes of all (43,290) parole board hearings from 2006 to 2016 and examined the influence of variables such as a person’s race, biological sex, age at the time of the first offense, time served, conviction of another offense while incarcerated, sex offender status, and number of felonies. Our results confirmed our hypotheses: although institutional variables, such as being convicted of another crime while incarcerated, influenced parole outcomes, several noninstitutional variables, particularly those which may cue dangerousness, were also significant. The most alarming results were those concerning race and biological sex. The parole board was significantly less likely to grant parole to incarcerated men compared to women and to Black people compared to white people. Further, there was a significant interaction between sex and race such that Black men were least likely to be granted parole, whereas white women were the most likely to be granted parole. In addition to the above results, the number of convictions and the severity of the crimes a person was convicted of were associated with significantly lower likelihood of being granted parole. Additional research highlighting the specific roles that noninstitutional variables should play in parole hearings is warranted, if only to root out undesirable effects on a critical aspect of the criminal justice system.

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA JOURNAL OF LAW AND SOCIAL CHANGE Volume 27, Number 2 2024.

By Samantha Plummer and Jaclyn Davis

From July 2019 to May 2021, the Columbia Justice Lab developed and conducted a longitudinal interview study of nearly 300 people facing new criminal charges in New York City. The Rikers Island Longitudinal Study aimed to understand how defendants’ experiences in the pretrial process affected and were affected by their social and economic life conditions. After first interviewing people at court or in jail soon after their initial arraignments, the study re-interviewed them 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months later. This report highlights our key findings. The goals of this report are to: • Share the experiences of defendants who have varying degrees of contact with the criminal legal system in New York City. • Provide organizations that work with court-involved people information to understand the socioeconomic conditions of people going through the criminal courts. • Contribute to a citywide and national discussion about how to safely reduce jail populations. Key Findings Over 100,000 people are prosecuted in the New York City criminal courts every year. While there is excellent research on case processing and jail incarceration, less is known about the social and economic lives of people with court involvement. The Justice Lab’s analysis of over one thousand interviews with 286 defendants, and linked administrative data on criminal histories and social benefits use, shows that: • The sample of criminal defendants faced severe housing insecurity. – In the month before being arrested, about one-third of the sample had spent most nights in unstable housing. – About 20 percent of the sample had spent at least one night in a Department of Homeless Services shelter in the year before and/or after their arrest. • Unstable housing was strongly associated with mental health and substance use issues. – Study respondents with histories of mental illness and addiction were more than twice as likely to be unhoused or in a shelter or other temporary housing when they were arrested. – Half of study respondents without a history of substance use or mental illness had stable housing, compared to under a third of those with histories of mental illness and substance use problems. • Unemployment and precarious employment in the study sample were high and were closely related to housing, health, and substance use problems. – Only 25 percent of respondents in temporary or unstable housing reported employment at the initial interview whereas about 60 percent of individuals in any form of private residence reported employment. – Of the respondents who reported that they were employed at all four interview waves, only 41 percent reported working the same job across the entire study. • Exposure to violence was common, mostly in the form of victimization and witnessing rather than perpetration, and different experiences of violence were closely related. – Men, young people aged 18 to 34, and people with a history of mental illness and drug problems were more likely to report assaulting someone in the year after arraignment. Still, in each of these groups, around 80 percent of respondents reported not engaging in any threats or assaults. – Among respondents who were never attacked or had not witnessed other violence, only about 5 percent said they had attacked someone else, whereas 30 to 40 percent of those who had been attacked or witnessed violence reported attacking someone else. • Emerging adults (ages 18 to 25), who are incarcerated at more than double the rate of the adult population as a whole, faced particular health vulnerabilities. – Emerging adults reported a very low rate of health insurance coverage; a third of emerging adults in the sample were uninsured at their first interview, compared to 13 percent of respondents over age 25. – Three quarters of emerging adults reported some kind of ongoing health issue. Those who reported health conditions were much more likely to be uninsured (37%) than people over age 25 who reported health conditions (9%). • The sample reported a high prevalence of Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs), which were associated with poor health and substance use problems in adulthood. – Childhood adversity was more common in the project sample than in the U.S. population; RILS respondents were much more likely to have been removed from the home by the state, to have been physically or sexually abused, and to have lived with an incarcerated household member. – Respondents who reported four or more ACEs were significantly more likely to report mental health problems – Respondents largely did not receive support from adults to deal with extreme adverse events in childhood; across all ACEs, an average of 28 percent of respondents reported receiving help from an adult. • Criminal court processes were long and unpredictable, and disrupted study respondents’ social and economic well-being. – Ninety-five percent of respondents reported that court involvement disrupted their lives. One sixth of respondents reported losing housing due to their criminal case. – Respondents with mental health problems and living in unstable housing were more likely to have their focal arrests result in conviction

New York: Columbia University, Justice Lab, 2024. 50p.

By The Bail Project

Across the United States, nearly half a million people are incarcerated pretrial on any given day, the majority of whom are jailed only because they cannot afford to pay the bail amount set in their case. The disproportionately large jail population in the United States is primarily driven by cash bail: approximately 60% of people in jail can’t pay their bail.1 These are legally innocent people who have not been convicted of the crime they are charged with. Cash bail creates a two-tiered system of justice: one where people with money are able to purchase their pretrial freedom, allowing them to maintain their jobs, contribute to the economy, and care for their families; and, another system for everyone else. The use of cash bail is unfair, affording benefits to people with financial resources, and punishing others. Broadly, the pretrial systems of most American cities, counties, and states reinforce this system of wealth based detention. Cash bail is set at amounts that are often unaffordable and people are punished before a verdict has been reached. If they are jailed pretrial, they are cut off from their lives and communities. Once incarcerated and isolated from their support networks, a person becomes more likely to lose their job, lose custody of their children, experience violence in jail, or find symptoms associated with mental illness worsening.2,3 Jails, which are full of people who are struggling with a mental illness or addiction, have become de facto psychiatric institutions, and although treatment services are more effective in-community, our states and counties have relegated these matters of public health to correctional facilities.4 The impacts of pretrial incarceration are devastating and increase the likelihood that a person will become incarcerated again in the future because they have lost the stability they need to improve their lives and thrive.5 Cash bail and wealth-based detention force these harms upon the most vulnerable people in our communities. A nationwide movement to replace cash bail has gained significant traction, emerging in jurisdictions across the country in response to the inequities, dangers, and unsustainable practices of the current pretrial system. This report, which provides an overview of modern bail and pretrial reforms, stems from that growing movement. Together, these reforms paint a picture of progress – highlighting the diversity of approaches, the momentum driving change, and the challenges that persist in the pursuit of a safer, fairer, and more equitable pretrial system This report primarily focuses on a descriptive analysis of legislative changes due to their enduring impact. However, this analysis also includes court decisions or rulings that substantially altered pretrial practices in a jurisdiction or state. To be included, a reform must have demonstrably shifted a jurisdiction away from wealth-based detention and toward a more equitable pretrial process that reduces unnecessary incarceration. We focused not only on reforms that restricted or minimized the use of cash bail altogether, but also those that: decreased the number of charges eligible for cash bail; prohibited courts from assigning bail amounts that are unaffordable, and/or increased the use of pretrial release without financial conditions. Beyond Bail also contains, where applicable and based on the availability of data, an assessment of the impacts and consequences of the reforms analyzed in this report. These implementation effects are examined through key questions: Did the reform achieve its intended goal? Did the pretrial population decrease following implementation? Did racial and ethnic disparities narrow? A discussion of public safety impacts is provided in the appendix.

Venice, CA : The Bail Project, 2025. 38p.