By Marco Castillo, Sera Linardi, Ragan Petrie:

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

IZA DP No. 17522

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

By Bowen Cho

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

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

By Nicholas Shapiro, Terence Keel

The rising number of jail deaths in the United States has left impacted community members, state actors, media, and scholars questioning if these rates are a reflection of the overall declining health of the nation or are due to factors specific to the carceral environment. This fact sheet contributes to this national dialogue through the analysis of autopsies for 58 deaths that occurred in Los Angeles County Jails over a 9-year period. Our study shows that young Black and Latinx men are not dying merely from "natural causes" but from the actions of jail deputies and carceral staff. Our findings support the efforts of community members and lawmakers attempting to reform the cash bail system in Los Angeles County as three quarters of the deaths in our study were individuals held in pre-trial detention. Moreover, our study supports the urgent need to reduce the jail population to expedite the closing of Men’s Central Jail and the potential life saving benefits of jail diversion programs for the people of Los Angeles County. We focus on autopsies because they are fundamental to establishing the causes and manner of death in carceral facilities that have limited public accountability. 

Los Angeles, UCLA Carceral Ecologies Lab, BioCritical Studies Lab, 2022. 9p.

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 Kristin Turney, Naomi F. Sugie, Estéfani Marín, Daniela E. Kaiser

Anticipatory stress—or worries about the future that produce emotional distress—may explain some of the deleterious repercussions of incarceration for health. We use nearly 500 interviews with incarcerated men and their family members to describe anticipatory stress stemming from the stressor of jail incarceration, a commonly experienced but understudied type of confinement distinct from prison incarceration. We identify and explain how jail incarceration involves a powerful confluence of factors that give rise to anticipatory stress about adjudication, family relationships, the well-being of loved ones, and reintegration. We describe three types of anticipatory stress proliferation between incarcerated men and their families. First, anticipatory stress commonly proliferates from incarcerated men to their children's mothers and their own mothers, with anticipatory stress being particularly salient when it involves the possibility of major changes, system irrationality, and powerlessness. Second, family members can experience anticipatory stress regardless of whether their incarcerated loved one reports anticipatory stress, shaped in part by men's extensive criminal legal contact. Third, family members with weak relationships with incarcerated men generally do not experience anticipatory stress despite the anticipatory stress endured by their incarcerated loved ones. This study provides a framework for understanding how other stages of criminal legal contact contribute to health inequalities among incarcerated people and their families.

Criminology, Volume 62, Issue 4, 2024, pages 830-858

By Margaret Colgate Love

The problem of collateral consequences calls to mind Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.’s famous line: “The life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience.” U.S. criminal law itself is not theoretically pure. In the area of civil law, in particular commercial law, dozens of uniform laws are on the books, drafted by experts, many of which, such as the Uniform Commercial Code, have been widely adopted. But in a country where we evaluate criminal justice polices based on a melange of principles - retributivist, utilitarian, economic, religious, pragmatic, intuitive, and emotional - there is and could be no Uniform Penal Code.1 Criminal law is inconsistent across states, and even within states, in its underlying justification or rationale, and the reasons that particular rules or practices exist. The Model Penal Code has been widely influential, but—as designed—states adopted only the pieces they liked, and heavily modified them. Disagreement about how to treat someone who has been arrested or prosecuted after their criminal case is concluded is, if anything, even more intense. The collateral or indirect consequences of their experience may be divided into four main types: Loss of civil rights, limits on personal freedom (such as registration or deportation), dissemination of damaging information, and deprivation of opportunities and benefits, each of which may be justified and criticized for different reasons. Accordingly, criminal law practitioners and scholars disagree about the fundamental nature and purpose of collateral consequences. To the extent the public at large ever thinks about them, they also hold a range of views. There is no consensus about whether collateral consequences in general or particular ones should be understood as further punishment for crime or prophylactic civil regulation, as a reasonable effort to control risk or as an unconstitutional and immoral perpetuation of Jim Crow, or, perhaps, understood in some other way. Advocates, analysts, and lawmakers will never be in a position to argue persuasively “because collateral consequences rest on Principle X, it follows that they should apply in and only in Condition Y, and must be relieved under Circumstance Z.” Yet, the practical problem of collateral consequences looms large. With their massive expansion in recent decades, those who experience collateral consequences firsthand know that they cannot become fully functioning members of the community without finding a way to overcome them. The economic dislocations caused by the Covid-19 pandemic underscore the practical implications of collateral consequences: With individuals desperate for money and opportunity, and businesses hungry for workers, the need for a sensible policy to minimize employer concerns about risk is clear. And while there remains no compelling necessity for all states to have the same penalties for armed robbery or cattle rustling, collateral consequences are a national economic problem affecting whole communities that might justify a federal, or at least a uniform, solution. Fortunately, agreement on underlying principles is not required to agree on particular policies.2 Most Americans agree that people arrested or convicted of crime should not be relegated to a permanent subordinate status regardless of the passage of time, successful efforts at rehabilitation and restitution, and lack of current risk to fellow Americans. Finding ways to restore their legal and social status is a compelling necessity, given the array of collateral consequences adversely affecting tens of millions of Americans, their families and communities, the economy, and public safety itself. To adapt a line from Justice Anthony Kennedy’s 2003 speech on criminal justice to the ABA, too many people are subject to too many collateral consequences for too long. At the same time, substantial majorities likely agree that public safety requires excluding those convicted of recent criminal conduct from situations where they present a clear and present danger of serious harm. Even if it is impossible to identify a s

Washington, DC: Collateral Consequences Resource Center (CCRC) , 2022. 129p.

By Justin D. Strong, Keramet Reiter, Gabriela Gonzalez, Rebecca Tublitz, Dallas Augustine, Melissa Barragan, Kelsie ChesnutI, Pasha Dashtgard, Natalie Pifer, Thomas R. Blair

We examine how solitary confinement correlates with self-reported adverse physical health outcomes, and how such outcomes extend the understanding of the health disparities associated with incarceration. Using a mixed methods approach, we find that solitary confinement is associated not just with mental, but also with physical health problems. Given the disproportionate use of solitary among incarcerated people of color, these symptoms are most likely to affect those populations. Drawing from a random sample of prisoners (n = 106) in long-term solitary confinement in the Washington State Department of Corrections in 2017, we conducted semi-structured, in-depth interviews; Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) assessments; and systematic reviews of medical and disciplinary files for these subjects. We also conducted a paper survey of the entire long-term solitary confinement population (n = 225 respondents) and analyzed administrative data for the entire population of prisoners in the state in 2017 (n = 17,943). Results reflect qualitative content and descriptive statistical analysis. BPRS scores reflect clinically significant somatic concerns in 15% of sample. Objective specification of medical conditions is generally elusive, but that, itself, is a highly informative finding. Using subjective reports, we specify and analyze a range of physical symptoms experienced in solitary confinement: (1) skin irritations and weight fluctuation associated with the restrictive conditions of solitary confinement; (2) un-treated and mis-treated chronic conditions associated with the restrictive policies of solitary confinement; (3) musculoskeletal pain exacerbated by both restrictive conditions and policies. Administrative data analyses reveal disproportionate rates of racial/ethnic minorities in solitary confinement. This analysis raises the stakes for future studies to evaluate comparative prevalence of objective medical diagnoses and potential causal mechanisms for the physical symptoms specified here, and for understanding differential use of solitary confinement and its medically harmful sequelae.

PLoS ONE, 2020, 20 p.

By Laurin Bixby, Stacey Bevan, and Courtney Boen

Disabled people are disproportionately incarcerated and segregated from society through a variety of institutions. Still, the links between disability and incarceration are underexplored, limiting understanding of how carceral institutions punish and contribute to the social exclusion of disabled people. Using data from the 2016 Survey of Prison Inmates, we estimated disability prevalence in state and federal prisons, assessing disparities by race, ethnicity, and sex, and we examined inequities in previous residence in other “punitive” and “therapeutic” institutions. Sixty-six percent of incarcerated people self-reported a disability, with Black, Hispanic, and multiracial disabled men especially overrepresented in prisons. Compared with nondisabled incarcerated people, disabled incarcerated people were more likely to have previously resided in other institutions, such as juvenile detention facilities and psychiatric hospitals. Together, our findings advance the understanding of disability in carceral institutions, highlighting the need for policy interventions redressing the mechanisms contributing to the high incarceration risks of disabled people and the disabling nature of prisons and other carceral institutions.

Health Affairs Vol. 41, NO. 10, 2022, 28 p.

By Keramet Reiter, Joseph Ventura, David Lovell, Dallas Augustine, Melissa Barragan

Objectives. To specify symptoms and measure prevalence of psychological distress among incarcerated people in long-term solitary confinement. Methods. We gathered data via semistructured, in-depth interviews; Brief PsychiatricRating Scale (BPRS) assessments; and systematic reviews of medical and disciplinary filesfor 106 randomly selected people in solitary confinement in the Washington StateDepartment of Corrections in 2017. We performed 1-year follow-up interviews and BPRS assessments with 80 of these incarcerated people, and we present the results of our qualitative content analysis and descriptive statistics.Results. BPRS results showed clinically significant symptoms of depression, anxiety, orguilt among half of our research sample. Administrative data showed disproportionately high rates of serious mental illness and self-harming behavior compared with general prison populations. Interview content analysis revealed additional symptoms, including social isolation, loss of identity, and sensory hypersensitivity.Conclusions. Our coordinated study of rating scale, interview, and administrative data illustrates the public health crisis of solitary confinement. Because 95% or more of all incarcerated people, including those who experienced solitary confinement, are even-tually released, understanding disproportionate psychopathology matters for developing prevention policies and addressing the unique needs of people who have experienced solitary confinement, an extreme element of mass incarceration.

Am J Public Health. 2020, 7 p.

By The Confederation of European Probation.

Probation organisations are dynamic organisations that usually have a tradition of accommodating and assimilating appropriate working methods commonly accepted within the society in which they operate. In a probation context, these working methods broadly aim to support both the essence and goals of probation. We can see evidence of this in the ongoing professional discussions, development projects, and technology being used and incorporated into probation practice. The purpose of these practice recommendations is to support jurisdictions to reflect upon certain issues before developing and using technology, undergoing digitalisation or considering hybrid working models. First, it is recommended for all organisations providing probation services to consider the goals of probation when considering using technology and digitising services. The second recommendation is to consider the essence of probation and the goals of probation when choosing technology or digitalised working processes. In practice, this could mean, for example, that the chosen technology should enhance building a positive and constructive working relationship with the client and facilitating rehabilitation and undertaking change work with the probation client. Another practical positive impact could be that co-work with other stakeholders and service providers becomes more flexible. The third aim of the practice recommendations is to share the benefits and good practices in using technology and digitalisation with members of the Confederation of European Probation (CEP) and other counterparts. The core purpose of these practice recommendations is to highlight the recommendations of the Council of Europe, such as the Probations Rules, Recommendations on community sanctions and measures, Electronic Monitoring and Artificial Intelligence defined, regarding the use of technology and digitalisation in probation. The fourth aspect is that all members of the European Union must consider and comply with the EU Directive on Data Protection and Security (GDPR). 

Utrecht, NETH: CEP Expert Group on Technology , 2024. 33p.

By Margaret Colgate Love

The problem of collateral consequences calls to mind Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.’s famous line: “The life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience.” U.S. criminal law itself is not theoretically pure. In the area of civil law, in particular commercial law, dozens of uniform laws are on the books, drafted by experts, many of which, such as the Uniform Commercial Code, have been widely adopted. But in a country where we evaluate criminal justice policies based on a melange of principles - retributivist, utilitarian, economic, religious, pragmatic, intuitive, and emotional - there is and could be no Uniform Penal Code.1 Criminal law is inconsistent across states, and even within states, in its underlying justification or rationale, and the reasons that particular rules or practices exist. The Model Penal Code has been widely influential, but—as designed—states adopted only the pieces they liked and heavily modified them. Disagreement about how to treat someone who has been arrested or prosecuted after their criminal case is concluded is, if anything, even more intense. The collateral or indirect consequences of their experience may be divided into four main types: Loss of civil rights, limits on personal freedom (such as registration or deportation), dissemination of damaging information, and deprivation of opportunities and benefits, each of which may be justified and criticized for different reasons. Accordingly, criminal law practitioners and scholars disagree about the fundamental nature and purpose of collateral consequences. To the extent the public at large ever thinks about them, they also hold a range of views. There is no consensus about whether collateral consequences in general or particular ones should be understood as further punishment for crime or prophylactic civil regulation, as a reasonable effort to control risk or as an unconstitutional and immoral perpetuation of Jim Crow, or, perhaps, understood in some other way. Advocates, analysts, and lawmakers will never be in a position to argue persuasively “because collateral consequences rest on Principle X, it follows that they should apply in and only in Condition Y, and must be relieved under Circumstance Z.”  Yet, the practical problem of collateral consequences looms large. With their massive expansion in recent decades, those who experience collateral consequences firsthand know that they cannot become fully functioning members of the community without finding a way to overcome them. The economic dislocations caused by the COVID-19 pandemic underscore the practical implications of collateral consequences: With individuals desperate for money and opportunity, and businesses hungry for workers, the need for a sensible policy to minimize employer concerns about risk is clear. And while there remains no compelling necessity for all states to have the same penalties for armed robbery or cattle rustling, collateral consequences are a national economic problem affecting whole communities that might justify a federal, or at least a uniform, solution. Fortunately, agreement on underlying principles is not required to agree on particular policies.2 Most Americans agree that people arrested or convicted of a crime should not be relegated to a permanent subordinate status regardless of the passage of time, successful efforts at rehabilitation and restitution, and lack of current risk to fellow Americans. Finding ways to restore their legal and social status is a compelling necessity, given the array of collateral consequences adversely affecting tens of millions of Americans, their families and communities, the economy, and public safety itself. To adapt a line from Justice Anthony Kennedy’s 2003 speech on criminal justice to the ABA, too many people are subject to too many collateral consequences for too long. At the same time, substantial majority likely agree that public safety requires excluding those convicted of recent criminal conduct from situations where they present a clear and present danger of serious harm. Even if it is impossible to identify a s     

Arnold, MO: Collateral Consequences Resource Center (CCRC) , 2022. 129p.

By Margaret Love

This report deals with a form of relief from the collateral consequences of a criminal conviction that is less far-reaching than expungement or other forms of record clearing but is potentially available to more people at an earlier point in time. These so-called “certificates of relief” do not limit public access to a person’s record, but they may be effective in reducing many conviction-related disadvantages in the workplace, including by providing employers and others with protection against the risk of being sued for negligence. At least as long as expungement and sealing remain unavailable to many people with a felony conviction record, or are available only after lengthy waiting periods, certificates of relief can provide an important addition to a state’s reentry scheme, and serve as a bridge to a more thorough forms of record relief like expungement. We believe that, rather than competing as alternative forms of relief, certificates, and expungement can operate as complementary parts of a structured system of serially available criminal record relief. Yet it appears that certificates have been largely ignored in many states by courts that are empowered to dispense them, as well as by the advocacy community whose clients might benefit from them. State court systems have failed to collect, track, or aggregate basic data like the number of certificate applications, grants, and denials, a failure that makes it almost impossible to evaluate a certificate’s effectiveness in a given state. At the same time, in a promising development, certificates are being used by prison and parole agencies to facilitate reentry for those exiting prison or completing supervision. Given the perceived limits of record clearing as a comprehensive reentry strategy, social science researchers have become interested in studying the effect of laws that aim to increase the positive information about individuals with a criminal record to counter the negative effect of the record itself. This report is intended to support these research efforts by describing the state of the law relating to certificates of relief in the 21 states that now offer them. A follow-up study will look at the state of executive pardoning  

Arnold, MO: Collateral Consequences Resource Center, 2024. 42p.

By Anneliese N. Luck

Jail incarceration remains an overlooked yet crucial component of the U.S. carceral system. Although a growing literature has examined the mortality costs associated with residing in areas with high levels of incarceration, far less is known about how local jails shape this burden at the intersection of race, sex, and age. In this study, I examine the relationship between county-level jail incarceration and age-specific mortality for non-Hispanic Black and White men and women, uniquely leveraging race-specific jail rates to account for the unequal racial distribution of jail exposures. This study finds evidence of positive associations between mortality and jail incarceration: this association peaks in late adulthood (ages 50–64), when increases in jail rates are associated with roughly 3% increases in mortality across all race–sex groups. However, patterns vary at the intersection of race, sex, and age. In particular, I find more marked and consistent penalties among women than among men. Additionally, a distinctly divergent age pattern emerges among Black men, who face insignificant but negative associations at younger ages but steep penalties at older ages—significantly larger among those aged 65 or older relative to their White male and Black female counterparts. Evidence further suggests that the use of race-neutral incarceration measures in prior work may mask the degree of harm associated with carceral contexts, because the jail rate for the total population underestimates the association between jail rates and mortality across nearly all race–age–sex combinations. These findings highlight the need for future ecological research to differentiate between jail and prison incarceration, consider the demographic distribution of incarceration's harms, and incorporate racialized measures of exposure so that we may better capture the magnitude of harm associated with America's carceral state.

Demography (2024) 61 (5): 1455–1482.

By The Justice Policy Institute

Most states have established release mechanisms for the aging population and those in prison who are battling a terminal illness, often referred to as compassionate release. Compassionate release policies typically permit individuals in prison to petition for early release after having served a pre-determined number of years for either health (medical parole) or advanced age (geriatric parole). However, the laws frequently have restrictive eligibility requirements and are applied sparingly, often when an individual is expected to survive only a matter of days or weeks. While Maryland has both medical and geriatric parole options, approval is fleeting. Data are limited but provide a glimpse into their restricted use. Between 2015 and 2020, the Maryland Parole Commission approved 86 medical parole applications and denied 253. Further, the Governor granted nine medical parole requests from individuals serving life sentences and rejected 14 requests. Most notably, the lowest yearly approval rating occurred during the height of the pandemic in 2020 at seven percent. The Justice Reinvestment Act of 2016 expanded geriatric parole eligibility by lowering the age threshold from 65 to 60 years old. However, petitions are rarely approved. Currently, there are about 650 individuals over the age of 60 in Maryland’s prison system who have served at least 15 years. These individuals are eligible to be evaluated for release. But, like in most states, Maryland seldom relies on these compassionate release policies to release the elderly and infirm from prison, despite posing a minimal risk to public safety and a significant cost burden on the state budget. Without substantial reforms to compassionate release in Maryland, the aging population will continue to grow, and the onus will be on the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (DPSCS) to provide the adequate care.

Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute, 2022. 14p.

By U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division;  U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia 

 In September 2022, Lashawn Thompson died alone in a filthy cell in the mental health unit of the Fulton County Jail. Mr. Thompson, who had a history of mental illness and was unhoused, was accused of spitting at a Georgia Tech police officer and arrested on a simple battery charge, then held on an old warrant. Three months after his arrest, Mr. Thompson was found in his cell, slumped over with his head on his toilet. A medical examiner reported that his malnourished body was infested with an “enormous presence of body lice,” and concluded that he was “neglected to death.” There was widespread reporting and outrage about the conditions that led to Mr. Thompson’s death. But there was another death on the mental health unit—several months before Mr. Thompson’s—that never made the news. An unhoused man with serious mental illness was arrested and held in Fulton County Jail’s mental health unit after breaking into a building to seek shelter and warmth. On the mental health unit he stopped taking his medications, and his health declined. He was found unresponsive following a likely seizure and was transported to an outside hospital for care, but never recovered. He died in hospice a month later. Two more people died in the Jail’s mental health unit in the weeks following Mr. Thompson’s death. Both men had serious mental health needs; one had a developmental disability. Both were killed by their cellmates, and both were found with their feet bound. One of them was wrapped up in bedding “like a mummy.” Altogether, these four Black men with serious mental health needs died in the Jail’s mental health unit in under a year. In July 2023, we opened a civil rights investigation into conditions in the Fulton County Jail under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12132, and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, 34 U.S.C. § 12601. Within weeks of opening our investigation, six more Black men had died in the Jail. One person was found unresponsive in his cell after his cellmate strangled him. And days later, tensions in the Jail erupted in violence: within 24 hours, five units in the Jail saw violent assaults, at least seven people were stabbed, and one person was killed. After an extensive investigation, we find reasonable cause to believe that Fulton County and the Fulton County Sheriff’s Office violate the constitutional and statutory rights of people incarcerated in the Fulton County Jail. Fulton County Jail fails to adequately protect incarcerated people from the substantial risk of serious harm from violence, including homicides and  stabbings by other incarcerated people. Serious violence has harmed people with mental health needs and other vulnerable populations. Assaults are carried out with weapons fashioned from Jail fixtures and are made possible by physical deficiencies in the Jail environment, such as unlocked doors. The Jail has long had inadequate practices for reporting and responding appropriately to sexual violence. Poor supervision, poor classification practices, and inattention to the maintenance of the Jail are major contributors to the unacceptable violence. Fulton County Jail deputies and detention officers use force against incarcerated people without adequate justification. This includes a practice of deploying Tasers against incarcerated people without reasonable cause. Understaffing in the facility contributes to the excessive use of force, as do poor policies, training, and the failure of supervisors to identify, correct, and discipline officers. Fulton County Jail living conditions do not meet basic constitutional standards. The Jail has allowed housing areas to fall into a state of serious disrepair, with standing water collecting in living areas, exposed wires, pests poorly controlled, and deficient services for providing clean clothing and sheets. These conditions are dangerous and unsanitary. Meals are served to the incarcerated population in an unsanitary manner and do not meet nutritional standards. As a result, people in the Jail have suffered harms from pest infestation and malnourishment. Medical and mental health care in the Fulton County Jail do not meet constitutional standards. The Jail impedes access to medical and mental health care through a lack of security staff. Medication administration gaps lead to medical and mental health complications and injuries. When medical emergencies occur, the Jail fails to provide appropriate medical care. And although people with mental health needs are overrepresented in the Jail population, the Jail environment exacerbates symptoms of mental illness. The Jail does not adequately protect people from a risk of suicide and does not adequately treat serious mental health needs. Restrictive housing conditions in the Jail pose a substantial risk of harm, including acute mental illness and self-injury, and restrictive housing practices are discriminatory and unlawful. The Jail places people in isolation without adequate monitoring for decompensation. Restrictive housing placement processes discriminate against people with mental health disabilities in violation of the ADA. Jail officers punish people with long terms in restrictive housing without adequate due process protections. Georgia is one of only four states where the juvenile justice system’s jurisdiction ends at 16. There are 17-year-old boys and girls at the Jail, many of whom spend over a year in custody. These children are subjected to violence and excessive force, experience sexual abuse, and are denied adequate mental health care. The Jail’s use of restrictive housing uniquely harms these children because they are psychologically different from adults, making their time in isolation much more damaging, exacerbating the onset of mental illness, increasing the risk of suicide, and causing long-lasting trauma. The Jail also fails to provide special education services to 17-year-old boys and girls who are entitled to them, in violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400–1482. None of these problems are new. And despite widespread awareness of these issues, the unconstitutional and illegal conditions have persisted. Vulnerable populations— including children, those who are gay or transgender, people with medical and mental health needs, and others—often bear the brunt of these conditions. Deaths and other harms have continued. In April 2024, an incarcerated person died in the Jail after being stabbed 20 times. Less than a week later, a man was found dead in his cell, likely hours after his death. The report that follows explains the scope of our investigation and provides background information about the Jail. The report describes the constitutional and statutory violations that we found in the Jail, including the legal framework applied, the unacceptable conditions identified, and the deficient practices that led to the problems. We end by identifying changes that need to be implemented to fix the violations and prevent further harms.       

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 2024. 105p.   

By Tammy Colleen Ayres, Diane Levine, Clare Anderson, Kellie Moss, Dylan Kerrigan, Mellissa Ifill, Estherine Adams, Nelroy Austin, Queenela Cameron, Martin Halliwell, Shammane Jackson, Kevin Pilgrim, Deborah Toner, Kristy Warren

This article reflects on the research process that underpinned the ESRC GCRF project ‘Mental Health, Neurological and Substance Abuse Disorders in Guyana's Jails: 1825 to the present day’. Introducing readers to a transdisciplinary team comprised of academics and practitioners, in what follows we think through how the methods of the research underpinned the production of the data used in this special issue. The article highlights the emotional labor and ethics of care among the team, the benefits of transdisciplinary research, and the mutual reciprocity and learning that took place between academics and prison staff. The goal of the project was to create equitable and ethical partnerships, and this contributed to the success of this research in terms of findings, data, and real-world impact.

The Howard Journal of Crime and JusticeVolume63, Issue4, 2024. December 2024 Pages 363-389

By Marie Hutton and Rachel O’Brien

This report forms part of PRT’s National Lottery Community Fund-funded Building Futures programme that, since 2020, has been exploring the experiences of people serving long-term prison sentences. The programme has defined its long-term cohort to include those men that will spend 10 or more years in prison and eight years or more for women. It is based on a consultation with 133 men and women between the age of 18 and 75, serving their sentences in 38 prisons in the UK. This report aims to: • Understand more about the impact that a range of relationships (and their absence) have on the lives of people serving long sentences. • Explore how a range of factors support or hinder people’s ability to maintain, rebuild and develop supportive relationships. • Develop insights and ideas that inform policy and practice in line with PRT’s vision of a just, humane and effective penal system. This report and its context This report explores the shifting landscape within which this work takes place and that shapes the nature of prison life, including people’s ability to maintain supportive relationships. Alongside increases in the overall prison population, this includes a long-term rise in the number of people serving custodial sentences over 10 years (a trend that looks set to continue). These trends compound pressures on a system that has been overcrowded every year since 1994, and in which staff shortages are endemic. These pressures present significant challenges to those living and working inside, to government, to the prison system and to organisations providing services in prison. The justice system has a duty to treat people with respect due to their inherent dignity and value as human beings, ensuring they are not discriminated against on a range of grounds including ethnicity, sex and age. The contributions of participants included in this report raise significant questions about the extent to which the system is fulfilling these obligations. These issues become more pressing in the context of an aging prison population, where racial disproportionality continues to increase, and where neurodiversity and disability are becoming more prevalent. This report underlines how the prison system - behind the curve, under-resourced and emotionally charged in the public imagination - needs to be enabled to contend with disparate current and future needs. It underlines the importance of ensuring the prison system not only better meets current needs, but is also fit for the future, treating people with dignity (including when dying) and enabling them to live meaningful lives in the constrained circumstances of prison. The contribution that supportive relationships play to this end has been highlighted by  the Farmer reviews of 2017 and 2019 and the measures that have flowed from this. Although long overdue, the government has also acknowledged the need for a strategy for older people in prison. Our conclusions aim to build on these changes. Findings.  Participants provided insights about how prisons operate day-to-day, revealing gaps between policy and practice on the ground, inconsistencies and systemic pressures that undermine good practice. Having no, limited or disrupted relationships outside impacted participants’ progress and motivation and can impact Parole Board decisions about their future, including release. This speaks to evidence around pro-social relationships and the protective factors these can bring. This includes desistance from crime. However, participants emphasised the extent to which the presence of supportive relationships makes prison ‘survivable’ and how these are shaped by age and sentence length. Many described how close bonds help them feel ‘human’, ‘cared for’, giving them ‘hope’. This speaks to arguments about the legitimacy and moral justification of systems of punishment needing to be compatible with reasonable expectations of hope during and after that punishment.6 Participants also spoke about alternate lives continuing outside, with families and friends moving on without them. Many shared their fears for the future as their relationships were stretched to breaking point, they became more detached, as visits dwindled, families changed, loved ones died and children grew up. Some anticipated leaving prison with no friends or family to return to. Others faced the prospect of death in prison, with a lack of family contact in their final years. A consistent theme raised was the prevalence of people who did not have anyone on the outside, received no visits or external support. Many participants expressed empathy for those worse off than them, were supporting others and suggested ideas that could benefit current and future peers. This included changes that would increase availability of ‘partners in progress’ to support frontline staff.   

London: Prison Reform Trust, 2024. 72p. 

By John Eric Humphries, Aurelie Ouss, Kamelia Stavreva, Megan T. Stevenson & Winnie van Dijk

Noncarceral conviction is a common outcome of criminal court cases: for every individual incarcerated, there are approximately three who are recently convicted but not sentenced to prison or jail. We develop an empirical framework for studying the consequences of noncarceral conviction by extending the binary-treatment judge IV framework to settings with multiple treatments. We outline assumptions under which widely-used 2SLS regressions recover margin-specific treatment effects, relate these assumptions to models of judge decision-making, and derive an expression that provides intuition about the direction and magnitude of asymptotic bias when they are not met. Under the identifying assumptions, we find that noncarceral conviction (relative to dismissal) leads to a large and long-lasting increase in recidivism for felony defendants in Virginia. In contrast, incarceration relative to noncarceral conviction leads to a short-run reduction in recidivism, consistent with incapacitation. While the identifying assumptions include a strong restriction on judge decision-making, we argue that any bias resulting from its failure is unlikely to change our qualitative conclusions. Lastly, we introduce an alternative empirical strategy and find that it yields similar estimates. Collectively, these results suggest that noncarceral felony conviction is an important and potentially overlooked driver of recidivism.

 National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper no. 32894 Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2024. 134p.

By John Wooldredge

Academic attention to violence and other forms of in-prison misconduct is on the rise, although most research continues to be framed within now stale perspectives. A broader framework is needed that builds on the more contemporary aspects of these perspectives and incorporates other elements of prison culture and management that potentially influence violent offending and victimization in prison. This article begins with an overview of cumulative knowledge on prison culture to highlight relevant ideas on inmate adaptation to confinement and how violence might manifest from (mal)adaptation. How prison management shapes and reflects culture is also discussed with an emphasis on how prison officers affect inmate safety. A bi-level framework is presented that brings together the piecemeal contributions of research to date to provide a more comprehensive understanding of offending and victimization that should facilitate crime prevention in prison while improving the humanity of the prison experience

Annual Review of Criminology, Vol. 3 (2020), pp. 165–188