By Ashley Nellis, and Celeste Barry.

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

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

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

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

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Substance Use & Misuse Volume 60, 2025 - Issue 2

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

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

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

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

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

Ministry of Justice Analytical Series

London: Ministry of Justice, 2024. 76p.

By Nila Bala and Krystin Roehl

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

R STREET SHORTS NO. 85 March 2020

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

By Lars Trautman

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

R STREET POLICY STUDY NO. 194 February 2020

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

By Jesse Kelley    

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

R STREET SHORTS NO. 71 May 2019 

Washington, R Street, 2019. 4p.

By Nila Bala and Emily Mooney    

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

R STREET POLICY STUDY NO. 171 April 2019 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ministry of Justice Analytical Series

London: Ministry of Justice, 2024. 76p.

By James René Jolin, ; Benjamin A. Barsky, ; Carrie G. Wade; et alMeredith B. Rosenthal, PhD3,5

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

JAMA Health Forum. 2024;5(8):e242640. doi:10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.2640

By Michele Deitch

This in-depth article provides comprehensive background information about the nature, value, and history of correctional oversight; documents the shifting landscape and increasing momentum around the oversight issue over the last decade; highlights key distinctions between prison and jail oversight; and provides a comprehensive assessment of the state of prison and jail oversight in the U.S. today. The article includes tables listing and categorizing every correctional oversight body in the United States as of 2020.

American Journal of Criminal Law 47, no. 2 (2020): 207–74.

By Kayla Freemon  

An estimated 5.4% of individuals in United States jails are in private facilities. While our knowledge about jail experiences and private prisons has grown in recent years, little is known about the private jail experience. Jail stays are often assumed to be a less severe punishment; however, transient and diverse populations and limited investments in treatment and programming suggest jails may be particularly unsafe. The current study uses the 2011–12 National Inmate Survey to compare how individuals perceive and experience safety while incarcerated in public and private jails. A quasi-experimental approach is taken using propensity scores to match individuals in private jails to those in public facilities based on demographics, past experiences, and incarceration measures. The findings suggest that individuals in private jails perceived these facilities as less safe compared to their public counterparts. Respondents in private jails reported higher levels of gang activity in their facility, more had belongings stolen while detained, and fewer individuals believed the facility was adequately staffed or that corrections officers ended fights quickly. This study highlights harms experienced in both public and private jails and underscores a need for more research on the private jail experience.

Journal of Criminal Justice Volume 90, January–February 2024, 102134

By Stephen Raher

The growth of public expense associated with mass incarceration has led many carceral systems to push certain costs onto the people who are under correctional supervision. In the case of prisons and jails, this frequently takes the form of charges associated with telecommunications, food, basic supplies, and access to information. The operation of these fee-based businesses (referred to here as “prison retail”) is typically outsourced to a private firm. In recent years, the dominant prison retail companies have consolidated into a handful of companies, mostly owned by private equity firms. This paper explores the practices of prison retailers and discusses potential consumer-law implications. After an overview of the prison retail industry and a detailed discussion of unfair practices, the paper looks at some potential legal protections that may apply under current law. These protections, however, prove to be scattered and often illusory due to mandatory arbitration provisions and prohibitions on class adjudication. The paper therefore concludes with recommendations on a variety of steps that state, local, and federal governments can take to address the problems inherent in the current model.

17 Hastings Race & Poverty L.J. 3 (2020).

By  Madeline M. Carter

In a new report titled Sustaining the EBDM Model: The Indiana Story, the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) reveals how, as part of a multi-phase pilot study, Grant County, Indiana, realized numerous breakthroughs in community supervision, data collection, and pretrial services by applying EBDM. Steering the county was a policy team comprising local stakeholders who worked closely with NIC to develop a set of realistic, attainable goals. They included:

• Restructuring caseloads to optimize supervision for people at the highest risk to reoffend

• Revising the probation violations process to expand alternatives to revocation

• Enhancing data collection
  
  Based on those goals, Grant County was able to attain the following wins:

• 42% decrease in people on probation being convicted of a misdemeanor

• 26% reduction in people on probation being convicted of a felony

• 19% reduction in new referrals to supervision, leaving more time to implement behavioral interventions with people at the highest risk to reoffend

Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Corrections, 2022. 41p.

By Matthew Cracknell

As part of the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms, 70 ‘local’ prisons in England and Wales were re-designated as resettlement prisons, in order to provide additional through-the-gate support to individuals serving short sentences. Drawing on staff and prisoner interviews in one case study resettlement prison, this article considers what challenges were involved with implementing a resettlement culture in a local prison. Findings first outline factors inhibiting the resettlement status of the prison; these include a tension between attempts to implement a more expansive resettlement remit into the prison, while also fulfilling more long-standing core institutional duties; the size and churn of the prison population; wide-scale apathy caused by change fatigue; and government austerity policies which caused significant difficulties in the day-to-day staffing of the prison. This article then turns to practitioner responses to the re-designation, finding that practitioners interpreted resettlement in two limited ways: top-down managerial attempts to instil a wider resettlement culture into the prison, and resistance from prison officers who felt unwilling or unable to expand their roles beyond custodial and security concerns. This article concludes by outlining how this set of inter-related barriers frustrated staff and prisoners alike, eroding a sense of hope and purpose and impeding true cultural change.

Criminology & Criminal JusticeVolume   23, Issue 2, April 2023, Pages 165-182

By Jeffrey R. Baker

This article is a study of Reinhold Niebuhr’s Christian Realism, a progressive school of social ethics rooted in Christian theology, and its critical evaluation of American mass incarceration. Christian Realism seeks justice in society under law, formed by love as its fundamental organizing principle. It acknowledges a world with endemic structural injustices and social immorality, but it finds temperate hope in the human potential for love, redemption, and generosity. Christian Realism reckons that any institution committed to justice must inevitably compromise to achieve incremental progress toward good. But it projects steady, hopeful progress toward justice, even as systems calibrate themselves to stave off the worse effects of human nature. On this tricky ground, Christian Realism wrestles with individual morality within flawed systems, the universal struggle to act morally when social realities drive people to self-interest and antagonism. Christian Realism issues a call to evaluate society’s injustices, then to implement steps that approach justice, without regard for dogma or party. Niebuhr acknowledges that people will break the law and harm others and that society must protect itself from violence and disorder. He recognizes that every choice requires grueling negotiations between liberty and coercion, freedom and order. In this thicket, Christian Realism takes the side of the oppressed, excluded, and impoverished against entrenched powers, because a just society will provide equal opportunity for all life, rooted in an abiding love among neighbors. Evaluating the American criminal legal system, Christian Realism critiques and condemns mass incarceration and the ascendant preference for violent retribution. The society that sustains mass incarceration fails on three fronts, at least. First, mass incarceration is maximally coercive, signaling a failure of stable, fair means for confronting conflict in society. Second, the entrenched interests of mass incarceration impose corrupting pressures on individual officers and judges invested with discretion, limiting their ability to exert moral force within an unjust system. Third, economic powers have captured the carceral system to advance business interests to the detriment of human dignity, equal opportunity, and love, calcifying the criminal justice system and suppressing movements for reform. Retribution and incarceration are policy choices. A jurisprudence of love that grounds the law in human dignity opens the way for serious alternatives for measured punishment, public safety, therapeutic rehabilitation, community restoration, and social redemption. These may include polices of restorative and therapeutic justice; constructive reentry programs; shorter sentences; decriminalization; reformed plea bargaining; increased investment in education; or other novel ideas to address the forces that drive people to do harm, to treat people justly when they cause harm, and to advance restoration and redemption for the sake of a just society. Christian Realism tests every policy against its commitments to justice and love and its real consequences in the world, even when compromising for incremental, sustainable progress. Thus, Christian Realism welcomes experiments to meet the needs of a just society – order through minimal coercion, fair and stable mechanisms for addressing conflict, the empowerment of the poor and disenfranchised, and laws founded in love. 

Georgia Criminal Law Review (forthcoming 2025)

By Felix Owusu

The Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office (SCDAO) has taken steps to limit its use of criminal sanctions for individuals charged with nonviolent offenses, including identifying 15 common charges that arraigning Assistant District Attorneys (line ADAs) should presumptively decline to prosecute (DTP) or divert when possible. These changes, driven by policies introduced by District Attorney (DA) Rachael Rollins after her inauguration in January 2019, reflect mounting evidence that relying on policing, criminal adjudication, and incarceration to address non-violent offenses is costly, exacerbates racial disparities, and is often ineffective at improving public safety. Others are concerned, however, that increasing leniency for even minor offenses will embolden people who commit crimes and lead to more serious misconduct. Below I attempt to analyze the impact of these policy changes on case adjudication as well as future offending behavior for those whose cases were impacted. I primarily rely on administrative data from the SCDAO’s internal case management database as well as criminal records from the Department of Criminal Justice Information Services (DCJIS). Using an event study design, I find that after DA Rollins' inauguration, prosecution rates declined by roughly 5 percentage points on average for cases consisting of charges included in the declination and diversion policy (DTP list cases) and nearly 10 percentage points for cases involving nonviolent misdemeanors more generally. These average decreases mask substantial heterogeneity by offense category and defendant race. Prosecution rates declined substantially less for cases involving Black defendants, and decreases in prosecution rates were concentrated among a subset of DTP list offenses like driving with a suspended license. Consistent with the scope of the policy, prosecution rates for cases involving felonies or violent offenses were not similarly impacted. I also explore the impact of the declination and diversion policy on reoffending using a difference-in-differences design to account for unobserved factors that could impact recidivism throughout the policy's implementation. Consistent with past research, I find that the introduction of the declination and diversion policy was associated with small (although statistically indistinguishable from zero) decreases in overall reoffending and violent reoffending.  

Boston:The Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, 2022. 

By Sandra Susan Smith

As a growing number of jurisdictions across the country have attempted to implement bail reforms, debates have intensified about the relationship between such reforms and crime, including and perhaps especially violent crime. Similar debates, for instance, have raged in New York, where the backlash against bail reform caused the state legislature to roll back key elements just three months after implementation. In recent weeks, New York Governor Kathy Hochul has proposed further rollbacks to the law to address continued concerns that bail reform has contributed to spikes in the state’s violent crime rate. Although largely driven by politics, these debates raise an important and timely set of empirical questions: What role does pretrial detention/release play in producing, or threatening, public safety? Does pretrial release incentivize crime and drive-up crime rates, including violent crime, as many in law enforcement have claimed? Or, all things considered, is pretrial detention the greater risk to public safety? This discussion paper is an effort to synthesize the evidence on this question. Before doing so, however, I specify the conceptualizations of public safety that I deploy throughout. I then draw from academic and policy research on the costs and benefits to public safety of pretrial detention/release, distinguishing evidence from studies of the impacts of releases resulting from routine pretrial practices, from bail reform, and from responses to the Covid-19 pandemic. No matter the cause of pretrial release, the evidence seems clear: Overall, pretrial detention is a far greater threat to public safety than pretrial release. Not only does detention increase the risk that even low-risk individuals might reoffend (or be rearrested), but detention also initiates a series of collateral consequences downstream that are difficult for many to overcome.

Arnold Ventures Public Safety Series, July 2022. 14p.

By The Washington State Office of the Corrections Ombuds Solitary Confinement Research Team (OCO-SCRT). . Research Team:  Angee Schrader OCO-SCRT Project Lead Senior Corrections Ombuds - Investigations E.V. Webb, M.E.S. OCO-SCRT Thematic Analysis Lead Assistant Corrections Ombuds - Investigations Elisabeth Kingsbury, J.D. OCO Deputy Director Heather Bates OCO Public Records & Contract Manager Madison Vinson, J.D. OCO Assistant Corrections Ombuds - Policy Sara Appleton OCO Quality Assurance & Training Manager Zachary Kinneman

Civilian oversight of corrections brings an independent set of eyes and, if done correctly, the values of integrity, respect, collaboration, equity, and courage to bear witness to the ways in which the norms and cultures of carceral systems are rooted in secrecy, a lack of transparency, and rules and regulations. The Washington State Office of the Corrections Ombuds (OCO) is the only civilian oversight of the Washington State corrections system established in state government with the authority and responsibility to investigate actions or inactions of the Washington Department of Corrections (WADOC). The OCO routinely monitors places that are among the most opaque public institutions in our state – the state’s corrections facilities (prisons and reentry centers). In addition to monitoring prisons and reentry centers, the OCO, in its capacity as the statewide prison oversight mechanism, responds to the governor and legislature’s concerns about conditions of confinement and the inherent dangers of living and working inside corrections facilities. Advocates of eradicating the use of solitary confinement in WADOC have waged a multi-year campaign requesting greater attention be paid to what happens to people living and working inside prisons in the state of Washington. Some elected officials have demanded greater accountability and transparency from the WADOC about the use of solitary confinement. Multiple bills calling for a reduction in solitary confinement have been introduced in the state legislature in recent years; however, none have passed out of the legislature. At the end of the 2023 legislative session, seeing that once again, a bill requiring the WADOC: to reduce the use of solitary confinement would not pass out of the legislature, a request was made of the OCO to write a report answering a short list of specific questions about the WADOC ‘s historical and current use of solitary confinement. This report, Solitary Confinement: Part II, looks deeply at the experiences, perspectives, and opinions of a sampling of people who have lived in solitary confinement in WADOC prisons with the goal of providing additional context to the data discussed in Part I. The final release, Solitary Confinement: Part III, will piece together Part I and Part II in a discussion of opportunities for further administrative policy changes and legislative solutions. Solitary Confinement: Part II highlights the voices and experiences of a sample of 13 individuals who have spent extensive time in solitary confinement while incarcerated in the state of Washington. This report also provides key terms, photographs, and further context for public understanding of solitary confinement in Washington State prisons. The goal is to provide greater transparency around the conditions and experiences of people living in solitary.