By Jane Mitchell

In today's polarized political climate, criminal justice reform remains one of the few issues that spans partisan divides. Voices from across the political spectrum agree: the United States needs a new approach to incarceration. Our current system of mass incarceration is costly, ineffective, and inequitable. It perpetuates intergenerational cycles of crime and poverty and pushes communities deeper into destitution.

This Article proposes a radically new approach. It presents a diversionary alternative-to-prison model for people facing serious felony charges — the majority of the prison population today. The approach calls on courts to divert felony offenders away from prison toward 501c3-run campuses. Instead of going to prison, offenders live and learn at a residential campus for one to three years. While there, they engage in a holistic, evidence-based program targeting their individual needs. In exchange for completing the program, participants have their prison sentences suspended and records expunged. Participants return home with the skills, mindsets, and support networks needed to succeed in modern society. Critically, government agencies hold campuses accountable for outcomes using an administrative structure similar to that used by high-performing urban charter schools — incentivizing stakeholders to reduce recidivism and alleviate poverty.

After laying out the model on paper, this Article presents a case study of The Reset Foundation ("Reset"), a non-profit organization I launched to pilot the model in the San Francisco Bay Area from 2013 to 2018. Reset's experience suggests the model is a potentially powerful one for diverting felony offenders away from prison toward better life outcomes: with its first cohort of ten students, Reset eliminated ninety years of prison time. The case study simultaneously shows the complexities and challenges of implementing a model as comprehensive and systemic as this. To increase the chances of successful adoption, the public sector should instigate this work, not the non-profit sector, with significant support from local communities.

Kentucky Law Review, Volume 113, No. 2 (2025), 63p.

By Marco Castillo∗ Sera Linardi† Ragan Petrie‡

Many previously incarcerated individuals are rearrested in the months and years 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 compared to the control group, with those in the 3-visit treatment completing the most. Intent-to-treat effects on rearrest are null in the full sample, but Black participants who complete 3-4 visits are 21.8 percentage points less likely to be rearrested.

Unpublished paper, 2024. , 44p.

By the Independent Rikers Commission

. In October 2023, City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams re-appointed the Independent Rikers Commission, which was first established in 2016 by then-Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito. Our renewed mission: to re-examine and refresh the plan to close the jail complex on Rikers Island, given the post-COVID-19 world and the New York City law that mandates Rikers close entirely by August 31, 2027. After adding new members to broaden our Commission’s base of expertise and representation, we undertook over a year of research, analysis, and consultations. This report provides our unanimous conclusions and recommendations.

New York: The Commission, 2025; 114p.

Final Report RAND Europe with research support from Rosie Meek, Kirsty Hudson, Sarah Senker and Charlotte Scott

RAND Europe was commissioned by the Ministry of Justice in 2022 to conduct a study exploring the lived experiences of two interventions in prisons in England and Wales: drug testing regimens and incentivised substance free living (ISFL) wings. Mandatory drug testing is routinely conducted in prisons to monitor drug trends, deter drug consumption (through sanctions), and identify individuals in need of further support. ISFLs are dedicated wings for prisoners who want to live in a drug-free environment, whether that be free from the consumption of drugs, the violence related to drugs, or the culture of drug use. Drug testing regimens and ISFLs feed into the delivery of His Majesty’s Prisons and Probation Service’s (HMPPS) drug policy for prisons, which is guided by three key aims: restrict supply, reduce demand and build recovery. This study aimed to understand how drug testing regimens are delivered, experienced, and perceived. Findings will shape the ISFL model by understanding the lived experience of staff and prisoners both on existing ISFL wings and elsewhere in the prison. Findings from this report will also be used to inform the design of a randomised controlled trial and process evaluation on ISFLs and a larger qualitative piece of work on implementation of drug testing. Data collection consisted of interviews and focus groups with prisoners, interviews with prison staff, and observations of drug testing suites and ISFL wings. Fieldwork took place in March and April 2023 in three prisons: a category C men’s prison in the North of England; a category B/C men’s prison in Wales; and a closed women’s prison in the South of England. Key findings on drug testing regimens Drug testing regimens appear to be designed with limited consideration of the variation and uniqueness of each prison and its population. The research identified practical limitations for prisoners on remand or serving short sentences in accessing support services. Female prisoners experienced the process of being tested as degrading due to the different way that they provide a sample in comparison to men. The illicit use of prescription medication, sourced through the prison’s medication hatch and traded among prisoners, was reported to be prevalent in all three sites. There was no immediate way for prison staff to know whether a positive result was the result of misuse or legitimate prescription use. The process for confirming this, via medical records, was described as lengthy and, at times, inappropriately punitive to prisoners legitimately taking prescription medication. Several staff and prisoners commented that the regimens were testing for substances that were widely understood not to be consumed in the sites. Drug testing regimens were not always seen to be effective as a therapeutic tool to support prisoners or address underlying needs that drive drug use. Generally, prisoners were either indifferent to, or supportive of, drug testing itself. The punitive responses to positive drug tests were felt to do little to deter drug use, in the absence of support being offered. Most participants, particularly in the men’s prisons, felt that drug testing was currently ineffective at deterring drug use in part due to inconsistent implementation. Additionally, for some at the South of England prison the ‘benefit’ of taking drugs to help deal with mental health issues and prison life, outweighed the ‘cost’ of getting caught. Key findings on ISFL wings There were mixed perceptions about the value of ISFL across the prison population. In the North of England and Welsh prisons, staff and prisoners were generally positive about the operation of the ISFL and attributed this to a calm atmosphere, positive and supportive relationships with staff and other prisoners, extended time out of cells and additional support services to help prisoners address their mental health needs. At the South of England prison, the ISFL was struggling to differentiate itself from other wings which staff and prisoners attributed to a lack of incentives specific to the ISFL. ISFLs were described by both staff and prisoners as having ‘a bad rep’ and creating ‘ill feeling’ among prisoners on other wings. This was put down to jealousy and resentment about the additional privileges and a perception that prisoners on ISFLs were colluding with management. ISFL referral processes differed significantly in implementation across the three prisons. All three wings used some form of referral criteria for recruiting participants. However, how referral worked in practice seemed ad hoc, informal and varied from site to site. The process for being able to reside on the wing was also unclear to many prisoners. Approaches to dealing with positive drug test results from ISFL residents also differed across the sites. In the North of England prison, a ‘two strikes’ approach to excluding prisoners from the wing appeared to be implemented consistently, while in the Welsh prison there was more flexibility for prisoners who volunteered information that they had used drugs. In the South of England prison no such penalty was applied. Talking therapies and purposeful activities were important in supporting recovery. The peer-led component of therapies and the opportunities to build supportive relationships with other residents through additional time out of cells and in shared spaces was felt to be effective in helping prisoners to understand the drivers of their drug use and how to address their mental health needs. The importance of a stable, safe environment and providing activities tailored to the needs of the population was highlighted by interviewees. Many believed that an ISFL should primarily be a settled environment where prisoners can access help to support their needs, and that a mix of prisoners, with and without histories of drug use, was beneficial in creating this environment. However, the environment in the ISFL at the South of England prison was described as ‘disruptive’ as it included prisoners who had not chosen to be on the ISFL, and other wings were described as offering a more therapeutic, communal environment. At this prison, staff also reported that the incentives on offer were typically more popular in a male, rather than female, prison (e.g., gym weights or pool tables) and female prisoners described different motivations for taking drugs. Findings underlined that the types of drugs consumed, reasons for drug consumption, and mental health and other needs vary by sex.

London: Ministry of Justice, 2024. 106p.

By Niloufer Taber and Asha Muralidharan

The Second Chance Pell Experimental Sites Initiative (SCP), launched by the U.S. Department of Education (ED) in 2015, provides need-based Pell Grants to people in state and federal prisons. The initiative examines whether expanding access to financial aid increases incarcerated adults’ participation in postsecondary educational opportunities. This program gives invited colleges the opportunity to provide credentialed college education programs within state and federal prisons using federal aid for incarcerated students who qualify. In 2016, ED invited 67 colleges in 28 states, and in 2020, it expanded SCP to include a total of 130 colleges from 42 states and Washington, DC. In 2022, SCP expanded again to include a total of 200 colleges in 48 states, Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico.1 The Vera Institute of Justice (Vera) provides technical assistance to the participating colleges and corrections departments to ensure that the programs provide highquality postsecondary education in prison and after release. This report summarizes the first six years of the experiment and primarily focuses on information from the 2021–2022 financial aid year, using survey responses from 75 participating colleges with enrolled students funded through SCP during this period.2

New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2023. 14p.

By Katy Swaine Williams

This small study confirms that undertaking education, employment and other purposeful activity in prison is of fundamental importance for young women (aged 18–24) during their imprisonment and after their release. While in prison, having access to the right opportunities can offer satisfaction and a sense of pride and achievement; it can provide a distraction from worries and a valuable sense of purpose. Physical activity, including use of the gym, and purposeful social interaction are particularly valued. Education, employment and other purposeful activities for young women in prison can also help young women to envisage a positive future after their release and offer a practical stepping stone towards further study, employment, or simply development of a hobby that is beneficial to their wellbeing. Conversely, where young women in prison are denied opportunities for education or employment which they value, or indeed other purposeful or socially interactive activity, this is likely to be severely detrimental. The histories of several young women who took part in this study included childhood trauma, domestic abuse – including coercive control – and exploitation, which had had a direct impact on their engagement with education. Some of the young women identified lack of access to mental health assessment and support as a key barrier to their engagement in activities and overall wellbeing, and a cloud over their present and future. Some complained they could not access education and work opportunities in prison until they had undertaken their Maths and English Level 1, which felt to them like an arbitrary barrier. Several women found inactivity and excessive time in their cell very difficult to cope with and wanted more opportunities for purposeful activity and social interaction, including through team sports. Others described the satisfaction they gained from purposeful activity in prison, including work. Each of the participants described past achievements in education, employment and family life of which they were proud, and aspirations for the future as well as worries and fears. Through this study we aim to help inform improvements to ensure that every young woman can experience the benefits of education, employment and other purposeful activity while in prison. We hope it will also be of interest to education providers in the community. We urge the Ministry of Justice to renew its efforts to develop a Young Women’s Strategy, to do so through co-production with young women, and to include a distinct focus on education, employment and other purposeful activity. The aim should be to develop tailored support which is gender-specific, age-specific, and is accessible to all young women – including Black, minority ethnic and migrant young women. This work should draw on learning from youth offending teams and the children’s secure estate, and widely held knowledge of the specific needs and characteristics of girls and young women. It should include universal provision of maturity assessments as well as assessments of Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND), provision of necessary support to meet identified needs, and investment in a wider range of education, employment and other purposeful activity in prison, including team sports. Staff delivering education and work opportunities will need to be highly skilled in order to engage young women and support their development. Barriers to participation should be removed, including through timely mental health assessments and delivery of therapeutic support where needed. Probation services should review their approach to supporting young women into formal learning and employment in prison and post-release. Progress must be measured through publication of data and insights from young women. Our recommendations are set out in full at the end of the report

London: Prisoner's Education Trust, 2024. 38p.

By George Pro , Ricky Camplain and,Charles H. Lea III

Racial discrimination and racial identity may compete to influence incarceration risk. We estimated the predicted days incarcerated in a national US sample of Black, Latino/Latina, and American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) individuals.

Methods

We used the 2012–2013 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions-III (n = 14,728) to identify individual incarceration history. We used zero-inflated Poisson regression to predict the number of days incarcerated across racial discrimination and racial identity scores.

Results

Racial discrimination and identity varied between races/ethnicities, such that racial discrimination exposure was highest among Hispanic individuals, while racial identity was highest among Black individuals. Racial discrimination was positively associated with days incarcerated among Black individuals (β = 0.070, p<0.0001) and AI/AN individuals (β = 0.174, p<0.000). Racial identity was negatively associated with days incarcerated among Black individuals (β = -0.147, p<0.0001). The predicted number of days incarcerated was highest among Black individuals (130 days) with high discrimination scores.

Conclusion

Racial discrimination and racial identity were associated with days incarcerated, and the association varied by racial/ethnic sub-group. Informed by these findings, we suggest that intervention strategies targeting incarceration prevention should be tailored to the unique experiences of racial/ethnic minoritized individuals at the greatest risk. Policies aimed at reversing mass incarceration should consider how carceral systems fit within the wider contexts of historical racism, discrimination, and structural determinants of health.

PLoS ONE 17, 2022, 11p.

By Jessica L Adler and Weiwei Chen

In 2019, there were approximately ten million admissions to more than 3,000 US jails-facilities that had become increasingly deadly in the prior decades. Between 2000 and 2019, jail mortality rose by approximately 11 percent. Although incarceration is widely viewed as a health hazard, relationships between jail conditions and jail deaths are understudied. Using data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and Reuters journalists, we assessed mortality rates and conditions in approximately 450 US jails in the period 2008-19. During those years, certain facility characteristics were related to mortality. For example, high turnover rates and high populations were associated with higher death rates. Greater proportions of non-Hispanic Black people in jail populations were associated with more deaths due to illness, and the presence of larger shares of non-US citizens was associated with lower overall mortality rates. Our findings suggest that heavy reliance on incarceration and the prevalence of broad health disparities escalate jail mortality.

Health Aff (Millwood). 2023, 16p.

By Audrey Macklin

The human right to leave any country protects an intrinsic interest in free movement and is also a vital pre-condition to seeking asylum. The right to leave attracts little academic interest, but it is quietly being eroded. Exit restrictions in States of origin or transit have become an instrument of extraterritorial migration control for European Union Member States seeking to prevent the arrival of unwanted migrants. This article first explores the revival of exit restrictions, focusing on agreements between European destination States and select African States of departure. It argues that the adoption of exit restrictions from one State to prevent entry to another creates the paradox of seamless borders, where regulation of exit and entry are harmonized and fused to serve the singular objective of preventing entry to the destination State. The article further argues that the political and discursive coupling of anti-smuggling and search-and-rescue regimes occlude the rightsviolating character of exit restrictions and enables breach of the right to leave to hide in plain sight. Additionally, current approaches to jurisdiction and State responsibility in regional and international courts render the prospect of destination State liability uncertain in circumstances where the destination State does not exercise legal and physical control over enforcement. The article draws on ‘crimmigration’ and border criminology literature to identify the common element of carcerality that connects confinement of migrants to the territory of departure States with migrant detention inside the territory. Beyond lamenting the erosion of exit rights, the article concludes by querying whether the erosion of the right to leave is symptomatic of a larger trend toward the regulation of mobility itself.

International and Comparative Law Quarterly. 2024;73(4):891-929.

By Julia Burchett, Anne Weyembergh, Marta Ramat (English)

Background Prisons and life inside prisons are often kept out of the public’s sight. Nonetheless, the persistent shortcomings affecting European prisons have gained the ever increasing attention of the European Court of Human Rights and, subsequently, of the Court of Justice of the European Union. In particular, the persistent degrading prison conditions in many EU Member States have recently shown their relevance for the EU legal order. Indeed, not only are they in breach of the rights guaranteed by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, but they also proved a serious obstacle to the smooth functioning of mutual recognition, the cornerstone of judicial cooperation in criminal matters. After numerous calls to action by the European Parliament, on 8 December 2022 the European Commission launched the first instrument laying down common minimum (although non-binding) standards in the field of material detention conditions. The pressing fundamental rights concerns stemming from degrading prison conditions, their detrimental effects on mutual recognition and the recent adoption of an EU Recommendation make the issue of prison conditions particularly topical and worth examining from an EU-law perspective. Aim This study aims to provide the European Parliament with background information and policy recommendations concerning prisons and detention conditions in the European Union, on the basis of European and national regulations, legislation, policies and practices. It should provide a picture of the situation in the EU, based on a range of relevant sources, and assess the initiatives taken at EU level to support effective compliance with existing European standards. The result of this research should bring forth policy inputs and options for the future direction of the EU’s work in this field. Key findings From the first pages, the study attempts to provide an overview of the wide range of problems faced by Member States in relation to detention conditions. In this regard, it became clear during the course of the study that this latter notion should be understood in a broad way, including material detention conditions stricto sensu but also other related issues having a significantimpact on life in detention (e.g. the excessive use and length of pre-trial detention). While this research has identified particularly acute problems affecting many EU countries, this should not overshadow the wide range of issues identified at EU level, the severity of which varies from country to country. As it was not possible to carry out a comprehensive review of all detention issues, the study then focused in depth on two key issues that have gained importance at EU level, namely prison overcrowding and prison radicalisation. Although the scale of the phenomenon of prison overcrowding is widely reported, the lack of common measurement indicators has been identified as an important gap which does not allow for accurate cross-national comparison With regard to prison radicalisation, which is a relatively new issue compared to prison overcrowding, the study found that the challenges posed by radicalisation in prison are receiving considerable attention at EU level. Among the important concerns highlighted by the study are the specific (and usually more restrictive) conditions of detention that apply to this category of detainees. This issue has caught the attention of prison oversight bodies both at European and national levels in view of their potential impact on fundamental rights and has become highly visible in some Member States as illustrated by the case of Belgium and France. Shifting the focus on the cross-border context, the study has sought to assess the concrete impact of poor detention conditions on several mutual recognition instruments involving a deprivation of liberty measure, namely the Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European arrest warrant and the Framework Decision 2008/909 on the transfer of prisoners. In this respect, it was found that considerations of detention conditions do not come into play in the same way in these two instruments. By way of comparison, while the Framework Decision on the transfer of prisoner has led to a very limited body of case-law, the tensions between the principle of mutual recognition and the lack of mutual trust in the detention conditions have become particularly conspicuous in several major preliminary rulings involving the use of the EAW. Moreover, research has shown a greater alignment between the case law of the CJEU and the ECtHR when the issue of prison conditions arises in EAW cases. This is considered beneficial to ensure coherence between the legal systems of the EU and the CoE, but also to avoid messy and inconsistent (non) application of EU law as a result of conflicting obligations deriving from the two jurisdictions. Regarding the concrete implications of the CJEU case-law, the study found that the Court’s jurisprudence had an undeniable effect on EAW proceedings with a varying impact on the practice of national authorities, whether in terms of impact on mutual trust or in terms of the parameters used to assess the real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment resulting from detention conditions in the issuing Member State. While some experts assert that the CJEU’s case-law tends to be increasingly assimilated by practitioners and that many countries develop practices compliant with the Court’s requirements, several remaining difficulties were pinpointed. In addition, despite the fact that many tools are available to help practitioners interpret and apply the case-law of the CJEU, the study identified several areas where EU support could be improved. Among the key findings of the study, it is worth noting the lack of effective implementation of international and European standards governing crucial aspects of detention conditions (e.g. cell-space, access to health care, sanitary conditions, prison monitoring, etc.). This was highlighted in several parts of the study and is widely corroborated by empirical research, by the reports of European and national prison monitoring bodies, but also by the judgments of the ECtHR. Although matters of detention are the responsibility of Member States (in addition to the fact that many standards on prison conditions exist through the CoE and the ECtHR),there seems to be a broad consensus on the need for EU action to secure a higher degree of compliance with these standards. In this respect, the study identified the recent European Commission’s Recommendation ‘on procedural rights of suspects and accused persons subject to pre-trial detention and on material detention conditions’ as a step forward, as it is the first EU instrument (although non-binding) laying down common minimum standards in the two areas concerned. However, its concrete impact remains difficult to gauge and only time will tell if this Recommendation leads to a more effective and convergent application of European standards. The study has also identified several advantages in considering the adoption of EU minimum standards through a legislative instrument. For the sake of completeness, the analysis was extended to alternative measures to detention which, although not intrinsically related to detention conditions, are advocated as an important lever to regulate the flow of incarceration. In a purely domestic context, the study highlighted the wide variety of legal cultures and practices that coexist at EU level as regards both alternatives to pretrial and post-trial detention. Several good practices and possible hurdles to their use were identified. As a general observation, the study found that, although an essential lever for reducing the use of imprisonment, alternative measures are not sufficient on their own to tackle the problem of poor conditions of detention. In order to produce effective results, alternative measures must be accompanied by coherent penal policies, taking into consideration all relevant criminal law measures that have an impact on the flow of imprisonment. In a cross-border context, the study identified a general lack of awareness of several mutual recognition instruments that could be used as alternatives to the EAW to avoid an unnecessary deprivation of liberty measure, namely the Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA (on the European Supervision Order), the Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA (on probation measures and alternative sanctions) and the Directive 2014/41/EU (on the European Investigation Order). The lack of knowledge about these instruments is widely recognized by scholars, and concern not only judges and prosecutors, but also defence lawyers.

European Parliament, Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs Directorate-General for Internal Policies, 2023. 122p.

By Angela Smeth Sarah Cram & Tara Beauchamp

Over the last several years, the Correctional Service of Canada’s (CSC) Research Branch has contributed to research regarding federally incarcerated radicalized offenders. CSC defines a ‘radicalized offender’ as “an ideologically motivated offender who commits, aspires or conspires to commit, or promotes violent acts in order to achieve ideological objectives” (CSC, 2012). This literature review was conducted to explore the best practices of correctional interventions for radicalized offenders in jurisdictions across the world. Risk assessments, population management strategies, interventions, reintegration programs, and staff training were reviewed. The findings of this literature review aim to support and assess CSC initiatives related to the management of radicalized offenders and staff training initiatives. Overall, there is no universal risk assessment for radicalized offenders as correctional services have developed their own assessments based on operational considerations specific to their offender population. The majority of jurisdictions use a structured professional judgement approach to risk assessments, which include explicit guidelines for which factors should be considered, but the combination of those factors and the overall evaluation of risk are left up to the professional judgment of the assessor. The reliability and validity of these risk assessments is debated due to the relatively low number of radicalized offenders in many jurisdictions and the diversity of the radicalized offender population. Generally, there are five population management strategies used: separation, isolation, concentration, integration, and dispersal. Management strategies are chosen based on a variety of factors, such as available resources and number of radicalized offenders, among others. Some jurisdictions choose a management strategy on a case-by-case basis or based on the offender’s extremist affiliation, beliefs, and ideologies, whereas others have implemented only one strategy for all radicalized offenders. Interventions are usually aimed at deradicalization or disengagement. Deradicalization focuses on the radicalized offender’s beliefs and ideology, whereas disengagement targets the offender’s behaviour and actions. However, there is not a one-size-fits-all approach to intervention services for radicalized offenders. Instead, correctional programming should be tailored for local contexts. Information regarding reintegration programs was limited. It appears there are only a few jurisdictions that have reintegration programs specifically for radicalized offenders. In general, these programs focus on the radicalized offender establishing prosocial connections, gaining employment, and, when applicable, they are encouraged to continue their education. Staff training for most jurisdictions focus on signs of radicalization occurring within the institution and the methods for reporting. Training in some jurisdictions also include education about Islam to increase staff knowledge and awareness so they are able to distinguish between Muslim teachings and extremist ideologies. Several correctional services provide training to all staff, whereas others only train staff who interact with radicalized offenders. Overall, the review of the literature identified common themes that highlighted the importance of employing a tailored, individualized approach to case management, as well as a holistic and multidisciplinary approach, which are currently offered by CSC.

2023 Nº R-463

Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada, 2023. 48p.

By Bruce Western

A large social science research literature examines the effects of prisons on crime and socioeconomic inequality, but the penal institution itself is often a black box overlooked in the analysis of its effects. This paper examines prisons and their role in rehabilitative programs and as venues for violence, health and healthcare, and extreme isolation through solitary confinement. Research shows that incarcerated people are participating less today than in the 1980s in prison programs, and they face high risks of violence, disease, and isolation. Prison conditions suggest the mechanisms that impair adjustment to community life after release provide a more complete account of the costs of incarceration and indicate the performance of prisons as moral institutions that bear a responsibility for humane and decent treatment.

Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 35, Number 4—Fall 2021—Pages 1–27

By  Catriona Connell , Mary Birken, Hannah Carver, Tamara Brown, and Jessica Greenhalgh

Abstract Background People released from prison experience complex health challenges in addition to challenges resettling into the community. Consequently, employment rates are low. Participating in good quality employment can support good health and is protective against future reofending. Multiple interventions are provided to support people into employment on release. The efectiveness of interventions for improving employment outcomes has not previously been evaluated in a meta-analysis. Aim Our objective was to examine the efectiveness of interventions to improve employment following release from prison. Method We searched seven databases and three trial registries for peer reviewed randomised controlled trials (RCTs), published since 2010, that included adults and measured an employment outcome(s). We conducted meta-analysis using random efects models with sub-group and sensitivity analyses. We appraised bias risk per outcome, and incorporated this into an assessment of the certainty estimates for each outcome. A group of people with experience of imprisonment met with us throughout the project to inform our search strategy and interpretation of results. Results We included 12 RCTs (2,875 participants) which were all conducted in the USA. Few outcomes were of low risk of bias. Intervention participants were 2.5 times more likely to work at least one day (95% CI:1.82–3.43) and worked more days over 12 months (MD=59.07, 95% CI:15.83–102.32) compared to controls. There was no efect on average employment status or employment at study end. There is moderate certainty in these estimates. Conclusion Interventions can improve some employment outcomes for people released from prison. More evidence is required to establish efective interventions for sustaining quality employment, particularly outside the USA, and which consider outcomes for diferent groups of people released, such as women or those with health or substance use needs

  Health & Justice (2023) 11:17

By Sarah Jensen, PhD/JD Justice System Partners Shannon Magnuson,

Using administrative data from the Multnomah County Jail and interviews with people across the Multnomah County criminal legal system, including judges, attorneys, and law enforcement, and interviews with Multnomah County community members, including individuals incarcerated during the COVID-19 pandemic, this study aimed to identify the emergency strategies selected and implemented to reduce the jail population, the impact of those strategies on jail trends and jail bookings for violence-related charges, and perceptions of safety during this time for criminal legal system stakeholders and community members.

Key Findings include:

Participation in the SJC, and the collaboration it facilitates, allowed local stakeholders in Multnomah to act swiftly to implement emergency jail reduction strategies.

Though the County implemented a few new strategies, they mainly relied on making small changes to existing SJC strategies, including expanding eligibility criteria for existing pretrial reforms, allowing for a substantial decrease in the number of jail bookings during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Contrary to the narrative that reforms lead to increases in crime, the significant jail reductions achieved during the pandemic in Multnomah did not lead to increases in crime.

Three out of every 4 of the individuals with a history of jail bookings in the pre-pandemic period did not experience a new jail booking for any reason after March 2020.

Bookings for violence-related charges did not increase, including for individuals who had a history of violence prior to the pandemic.

Though Multnomah County staff and community members reported feeling unsafe during the pandemic, it was attributed to a combination of COVID-19, limited local police presence, the militarized federal police presence during the protests, and social disorder, visible drug use, and property damage from the protests rather than person crimes or crimes with weapons.

By Meghan A. Novisky, Jennifer Tostlebe, David Pyrooz , Jose Antonio Sanchez

The purpose of this study was to examine how the COVID-19 pandemic changed U.S. prison operations and influenced the daily work of prison staff.

Methods

In collaboration with the National Institute of Corrections, we administered a survey to 31 state correctional agencies in April 2021 and conducted five focus groups with 62 correctional staff.

Results

Using a framework of bounded rationality, we find that daily operations were strained, particularly in the areas of staffing, implementing public health policy efforts, and sustaining correctional programming. While prison systems and staff were under-prepared to respond to the pandemic, they attempted to address complex problems with the limited resources they had.

Conclusions

Results underscore a need in corrections for prioritizing further developments and reviews of collaborative policies and practices for managing crisis situations. Seeking avenues for leveraging technological innovations to improve operations and facilitate enhanced communication are especially warranted. Finally, meaningful reductions in the prison population, changes in physical infrastructure, and expansions of hiring and retention initiatives are critical for positioning prisons to manage future emergencies.

Health & Justice volume 11, Article number: 51 (2023), 20p

By Caroline Mary Parker and Julienne Weegels

The punitive turn in crime control has radically altered the shape and meaning of citizenship across the Americas. Imprisonment, compulsory drug rehabilitation, and alternative forms of penal control have multiplied, circumscribing citizens’ options for social and political participation while also leading to striking new modes of social, political, and economic membership across the region. While criminalization is ordinarily viewed as something that threatens ‘full’ citizenship, this special collection explores the new and differentiated kinds of political, economic, and social belonging being devised by the region’s criminalized men and women. In paying close attention to how penal power and its subversion articulate with existing stratifications of citizenship, we illuminate how distinct kinds of carceral citizenship are emerging in various locales across Latin America and the Caribbean. In this article, we also introduce the other contributions to this Special Collection.

EUROPEAN REVIEW OF LATIN AMERICAN AND CARIBBEAN STUDIES REVISTA EUROPEA DE ESTUDIOS LATINOAMERICANOS Y DEL CARIBE DOI:CEDLA - ISSN 0924-0608, eISSN 1879-4750. No. 116 (2023): July-December, pp. 69-85

By Risë Haneberg, Tony Fabelo,  Fred Osher, and Michael Thompson 

Stepping Up is a national initiative reducing over-incarceration of people with mental illnesses. Stepping Up provides counties with a framework that allows each community to select the right evidence-based policies and practices for them, based on their data and unique local circumstances. This new edition of "Reducing the Number of People with Mental Illnesses in Jail: Six Questions County Leaders Need to Ask" advances the original Stepping Up framework published in 2017 by embedding a racial equity lens and uplifting the voices of people with lived experience. It provides six guiding questions for county leaders, offers tips gleaned from counties across the country that answered the call to action, and addresses ongoing challenges.

New York: The Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2024. 17p.

By Megan Pfeiffer

Parental incarceration impacts all members of a family unit, including parents who are incarcerated, their children, and the parents, legal guardians, or caregivers who aren't incarcerated. Implementing evidence-based programs and practices tailored to support parents who are incarcerated and their families is crucial for addressing their complex needs, mitigating the negative consequences of incarceration, and promoting positive outcomes for families. This brief discusses examples of evidence-based and promising programs and practices from the field that support different needs of parents who are incarcerated, their children, and their families.

New York: The Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2024. 16p.

By Erin Thorvaldson and Kendric Holder

To address various criminal justice challenges, from 2014 to 2015, Alabama partnered with The Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center to employ a Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI) approach and analyze the state’s criminal justice data, interview stakeholders from across the criminal justice system, and work with policymakers to develop data-driven policy options designed to reduce prison overcrowding and increase public safety. As a result of this work, Alabama leaders enacted Act 2015-185 in May 2015, which aimed to strengthen community-based supervision, divert people convicted of the lowest-level drug and property offenses from prison to Community Corrections Programs, and ensure supervision for everyone upon release from prison to reduce recidivism. This brief explores how Alabama has addressed its JRI goals since enacting this legislation.

New York: The Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2024. 5p.

By Shawn Rogers and Sarah Wurzburg

Too often, people reentering the community from incarceration experience fatal overdoses, with studies showing that they are at a highest risk of an overdose or even death during the first 48 hours after release. This is typically related to a decrease in tolerance while in prison or jail, so their body is more vulnerable to overdosing even when using at the same amount they did before they were incarcerated. This risk is highest among people using opioids. Fortunately, there are evidence-based practices that can be implemented to support safe and successful transitions. This guide outlines four best practices that reentry professionals can implement to reduce overdose risk during reentry.

New York: The Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2024. 16p.