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 Charles Fain Lehman

In 2019, then-mayor Bill de Blasio introduced, and the New York City Council approved, plans to close the jail complex on Rikers Island and replace it with four jails in Manhattan, Brooklyn, the Bronx, and Queens. Construction on these borough-based jails is expected to be completed in 2027, at which time the city is expected to shutter Rikers entirely. In doing so, it will replace a system with a maximum capacity of nearly 15,000 beds with one that can hold just 3,300 detainees on a given day. That capacity is, by any measure, extremely small, representing a daily population seldom seen on Rikers since its opening a century ago. Even after more than half a decade of deliberate incarceration, the jail’s daily population today sits between 5,500 and 6,000, far greater than the borough-based jails’ allotment. Can New York City operate a jail system with just 3,300 beds without either: a) dangerous, likely illegal, overcrowding? or b) making the city less safe? This report argues that the answer is no. To reach this conclusion, it recounts how the 3,300-bed figure was arrived at, which had more to do with politics than with any reasonable projection of required capacity. It then details the research on the effects of pretrial detention, investigates who is currently on Rikers and who could safely be released, and estimates the relationship between crime rates and jail population. The bottom line: under almost no conceivable scenario can the city expect to safely and sustainably reduce the daily jail population to 3,300—never mind, to reduce it below that figure. Given the city’s commitment to closing Rikers, this report concludes by looking at potential sources of alternative capacity, including refurbishing or repurchasing closed jails; constructing small additional borough jails; and “boarding out” detainees to Long Island and Westchester County. These solutions could buy additional capacity for the system but not enough to provide adequate and safe housing for even the current, much-reduced population. In light of this, the report briefly revisits the case for keeping some of Rikers open  In 2019, then-mayor Bill de Blasio introduced, and the New York City Council approved, plans to close the jail complex on Rikers Island and replace it with four jails in Manhattan, Brook lyn, the Bronx, and Queens. Construction on these borough-based jails is expected to be completed in 2027, at which time the city is expected to shutter Rikers entirely. In so doing, it will replace a system with a maximum capacity of nearly 15,000 beds with one that can hold just 3,300 detainees on a given day. That capacity is, by any measure, extremely small, representing a daily population rarely seen on Rikers since its opening a century ago. Even after more than half a decade of deliberate incarceration, the jail’s daily population today sits between 5,500 and 6,000, far greater than the borough-based jails’ allotment. Can New York City operate a jail system with just 3,300 beds without either: a) dangerous, likely illegal, overcrowding? or b) making the city less safe? This report argues that the answer is no. To reach this conclusion, it recounts how the 3,300-bed figure was arrived at, which had more to do with politics than with any reasonable projection of required capacity. It then details the research on the effects of pretrial detention, investigates who is currently on Rikers and who could safely be released, and estimates the relationship between crime rates and jail population. The bottom line: under almost no conceivable scenario can the city expect to safely and sustainably reduce the daily jail population to 3,300—never mind, to reduce it below that figure. Given the city’s commitment to closing Rikers, this report concludes by looking at potential sources of alternative capacity, including refurbishing or repurchasing closed jails; constructing small additional borough jails; and “boarding out” detainees to Long Island and Westchester County. These solutions could buy additional capacity for the system but not enough to provide adequate and safe housing for even the current, much-reduced population. In light of this, the report briefly revisits the case for keeping some of Rikers open 

New York: The Manhattan Institute, 2022. 34p.

By Sarah Aukamp

Contraband in correctional facilities can create challenges for the safety of incarcerated people, staff, and the general public. However little is known about the factors that affect the types and amounts of contraband entering facilities. To address this gap, researchers from the Urban Institute and CNA Corporation conducted a study of prisons across six states and assessed the risk factors that correlate with the recovery of three types of contraband: drugs, cell phones, and weapons. This summary describes the findings of that study and presents implications for practice. Findings show that factors like a prison’s security level (e.g., maximum, minimum), population (e.g., size, gender), staff composition, and available programming (e.g., substance use treatment) were all correlated with the number of contraband recoveries. Some risk factors were found to be common to all types of contraband, whereas others occurred only with certain types. Understanding the facility-level characteristics that affect types and levels of contraband can inform interdiction efforts, creating safer facilities for all stakeholders.

Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 2024. 4p.

By Sheena Liberator and Maria Jose (MJ) Vides

In March 2020, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (BOS) unanimously adopted the “care first, jails last” vision, a transformative framework for safety grounded in support and services as alternatives to incarceration or bail.1 Three years have passed and people of color, people experiencing homelessness, and those with unmet mental health needs continue to languish in county jails.2 County staff attribute implementation delays to a shortage of community-based behavioral health workers. The Vera Institute of Justice’s (Vera’s) conversations with community-based providers—detailed in this brief—document how the COVID-19 pandemic, long-standing difficulties with contracting, and chronic underinvestment in infrastructure have resulted in the current workforce shortage. To effectively implement a “care first” vision and meet the demand for community-based pretrial services, Vera recommends immediate action steps to remedy ongoing issues with the county’s contracting processes, lower barriers to entry for small providers, and invest in urgent capacity-building and workforce development beginning this budget cycle.  

To effectively implement a “care first” vision and meet the demand for community-based pretrial services, Vera recommends immediate action steps to remedy ongoing issues with the county’s contracting processes, lower barriers to entry for small providers, and invest in urgent capacity-building and workforce development beginning this budget cycle.

Publication Highlights

• Local providers across the spectrum of services and service planning areas are experiencing staffing shortages resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic and competition with Los Angeles County.

• Capacity-building support is needed to strengthen community-based service providers, as are changes to contracting, billing, and reporting procedures.

• To expand capacity, Los Angeles County should, among other things, implement pretrial services by increasing budgetary allocations for community-based service providers and restructuring county contracting processes and technical assistance programs.

To effectively implement a “care first” vision and meet the demand for community-based pretrial services, Vera recommends immediate action steps to remedy ongoing issues with the county’s contracting processes, lower barriers to entry for small providers, and invest in urgent capacity-building and workforce development beginning this budget cycle.

Publication Highlights

• Local providers across the spectrum of services and service planning areas are experiencing staffing shortages resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic and competition with Los Angeles County.

• Capacity-building support is needed to strengthen community-based service providers, as are changes to contracting, billing, and reporting procedures.

• To expand capacity, Los Angeles County should, among other things, implement pretrial services by increasing budgetary allocations for community-based service providers and restructuring county contracting processes and technical assistance programs.To effectively implement a “care first” vision and meet the demand for community-based pretrial services, Vera recommends immediate action steps to remedy ongoing issues with the county’s contracting processes, lower barriers to entry for small providers, and invest in urgent capacity-building and workforce development beginning this budget cycle.

Publication Highlights

• Local providers across the spectrum of services and service planning areas are experiencing staffing shortages resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic and competition with Los Angeles County.

• Capacity-building support is needed to strengthen community-based service providers, as are changes to contracting, billing, and reporting procedures.

• To expand capacity, Los Angeles County should, among other things, implement pretrial services by increasing budgetary allocations for community-based service providers and restructuring county contracting processes and technical assistance programs.

 New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2023. 8p.

By Bea Halbach-Singh Jack Norton Stephen Jones Jessica Zhang

Over the past 50 years, Kentucky has become one of the most incarcerated places on earth, building a broad system of correctional control that is made up of local jails, state and federal prisons, and a vast array of supervision and monitoring programs. Systems of correctional control have increased in number and scope at the same time as the state has undergone significant economic restructuring. Kentucky’s economy over the last 30 years has shifted away from goods-producing industries—such as manufacturing, construction, and mining—and toward service-providing industries such as health care, social assistance, educational services, and other professional services, with significant differences in how this transformation has played out regionally.1 In the places hardest hit by the decline of manufacturing and coal extraction industries, local governments have attempted to turn their criminal legal systems into revenue generators to fund jail and court operations. Counties have raced to collect per diem fees paid by the Kentucky Department of Corrections (DOC), federal agencies, and other Kentucky counties by building bigger jails to incarcerate people for other authorities. Counties also collect revenues from an elaborate system of jail- and court-related fines and fees collected from criminalized people, who are disproportionately poor. Private companies collect revenues by contracting with county jails, and prisons, Kentucky’s most comprehensive effort to reform the criminal legal system to date—House Bill 463 (HB 463), “The Public Safety and Accountability Act”—passed in 2011. While it proposed to reduce the footprint and cost of Kentucky’s carceral system, it resulted in more criminalization and less health and safety. During a decade in which communities increasingly struggled with drug use, substance use disorders, and overdose deaths and needed real solutions to tackle this public health crisis, Kentucky’s lawmakers continued to pass laws allowing prosecutors and judges to impose harsh penalties for drug-related offenses. By 2020, Kentucky had the nation’s second-highest drug overdose mortality rate.4 Lawmakers also created a web of supervision programs that were intended to divert people charged with drug-related crimes away from jail and prison. In practice, by imposing onerous conditions and associated costs that make it impossible for many people to meet their requirements, these systems have instead become a major driver of re-incarceration. Throughout the writing of this report, Vera Institute of Justice (Vera) researchers spoke with people across the commonwealth who had experienced criminalization.5 Most were recovering from substance use issues. Out of these conversations, a clear picture emerged of the deep connections between poverty and economic decline and the growth of incarceration, supervision, and surveillance across the state. Interviewees shared that stable housing, meaningful work, connections with a larger community (especially other people in recovery), and treatment—instead of correctional surveillance and incarceration—were the most important resources that helped them recover. In their experiences, court-mandated supervision and drug treatment programs carried onerous restrictions on their mobility and autonomy and included unaffordable fines and fees that decreased their ability to support themselves financially. These conditions—combined with the threat of reincarceration in case of relapse—presented obstacles, rather than paths, to recovery for people experiencing substance use issues. Overall, people experiencing poverty and those in need of treatment described a criminal legal system that causes harm in their lives, instead of providing them with the resources that might enable them to survive and thrive.

New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2023. 62p.

By Maria Rafael

The United States’ criminal legal system is often described as a two-tiered system that treats people differently based on their social status, wealth, and power.1 In a two-tiered criminal legal system, those with money, social connections, or political influence may receive preferential treatment in the form of lighter sentences, leniency with respect to court-ordered obligations, or even freedom.2 Meanwhile, people without those advantages are likely to face harsher punishments, limited access to legal resources or representation, and even mistreatment from system actors.3 In the context of fines and fees, having the resources to settle court-imposed charges can make the difference between a quick resolution of a case or an extended entanglement with the criminal legal system. Those who struggle to pay their debt extend the length of time of their involvement with and obligations to the courts, which can require regular payments, court appearances, community service, and even incarceration. All of this creates chances for people to fail at meeting these obligations, which can trigger a host of legal and collateral consequences that extend the period of surveillance further still. In short, those without money have far more punitive experiences than those who have the resources to quickly pay off their debts 

New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2024. 37p.

By Tony Parker

Recidivism and Rehabilitation: The document explores the challenges of rehabilitating repeat offenders, highlighting the cycle of crime and punishment.

Humanity and Understanding: It emphasizes the importance of treating criminals as human beings and understanding their circumstances.

Systemic Failures: The text discusses the inadequacies of the judicial and penal systems in addressing the root causes of criminal behavior.

Personal Struggles: The narrative of Charlie Smith illustrates the personal difficulties and societal rejection faced by habitual offenders.

Faber & Faber, 2013, 176 pages

By Vishal Kamat, Samuel Norris and Matthew Pecenco

The criminal justice system affects millions of Americans through criminal convictions and incarceration. In this paper, we introduce a new method for credibly estimating the effects of both conviction and incarceration using randomly assigned judges as instruments for treatment. Misdemeanor convictions, especially for defendants with a shorter criminal record, cause an increase in the number of new offenses committed over the following five years. Incarceration on more serious felony charges, in contrast, reduces recidivism during the period of incapacitation, but has no effect after release. Our method allows the researcher to isolate specific treatment effects of interest as well as estimate the effect of broader policies; we find that courts could reduce crime by dismissing marginal charges against defendants accused of misdemeanors, with larger reductions among first-time defendants and those facing more serious charges.

Written March 2024. SSRN.

By Michele Goodwin

 Nearly sixty years ago, Dr. King penned the illuminating Letter from a Birmingham Jail, marking the persistence of criminal punishment in the lives Black Americans seeking inclusion, equality, and freedom. Symbolically, his confinement both foreshadowed the strange and troubling role incarceration would play in the lives of Black Americans generations to come and illustrated the connective fabric of slavery to his present conditions. The profundity of the letter cannot be ignored, nor the space from which Dr. King wrote it—incarcerated after peacefully protesting to advance civil rights for Black Americans. Decades later, many of the concerns undergirding the impetus for Dr. King’s powerful missive, including voter suppression, persist. Similarly, equality in education remains an unanswered goal and incomplete vision for the civil rights movement. In fact, the modern challenge no longer demands inclusion and desegregation alone—the urgent objectives undergirding  Brown v. Board of Education —but rather sparing Black children from unequal surveillance, punishments, and the “school to prison” pipeline. Yet, equality in voting and education—as crucial as they are—did not comprise nor define the full vision for the civil rights movement or emancipation from enslavement for that matter. The path to substantive civil liberties and civil rights—and freedom in a meaningful sense—included dismantling discrimination in housing, employment, healthcare, food access, and criminal justice forged by lawmakers. 

Boston: Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 2022. 68p.

By Peter Leasure, Douglas A. Berman and Jana Hrdinova

In the current study, we provide an overview of federal law on intermittent confinement, present data on the use of intermittent confinement in the federal system and weekend incarceration in the state system, discuss existing research on intermittent confinement and weekend incarceration, and present results of a survey of federal probation officers on their opinions of intermittent confinement. Overall, the results of the study indicated that intermittent confinement and weekend sentences are rarely used in federal and state systems (relative to traditional incarceration sentences). Additionally, we found that a single federal district (Texas West) accounted for the majority of federal intermittent confinement cases across several years of data. Results of the survey of federal probation officers showed that logistical issues with intermittent confinement and incarceration facility availability may be a cause for low numbers of intermittent confinement sentences. The finding about logistical issues with intermittent confinement was consistent with previous research. Informed by these findings, directions for future research are discussed in detail.

Drug Enforcement and Policy Center. February 2024, 174pg

MAY CONTAIN MARKUP

By Debra Smith

"In Prison" by Debra Smith is a gripping novel that delves into the dark and often overlooked world of incarceration. Through vivid storytelling and compelling characters, Smith takes readers on a raw and emotional journey inside the walls of a prison. The novel sheds light on the complexities of human nature, the harsh realities of life behind bars, and the enduring power of hope and redemption. A thought-provoking and poignant read that will stay with you long after you turn the final page.

Adelaide. GINNINDERRA PRESS. 2008. . 131p.

MAY CONTAIN MARKUP

By JACK HENRY ABBOTT

A visionary book in the repertoire of prison literature. When Normal Mailer was writing The Executioner's Song, he received a letter from Jack Henry Abbott, a convict, in which Abbott offered to educate him in the realities of life in a maximum security prison. This book organizes Abbott's by now classic letters to Mailer, which evoke his infernal vision of the prison nightmare.

NY. Vintage 1982. 221p.

MAY CONTAIN MARKUP

By Tony Parker

In 1970 Tony Parker was permitted by the Home Office to make a series of visits to HMP Grendon Underwood, the UK's first psychiatric prison, there to interview inmates and staff for a study of the institution and its unique community. This book tells of his visits.

Hutchinson, 1970, 222 pages

MAY CONTAIN MARKUP

By Alexis M. Durham III

After 300 years of the American struggle with crime and punishment-related issues, the nation seems less able to deal with them now than at any other time in history. Why have we failed? Is the worst yet to come?In Crisis and Reform, criminology expert Alexis M. Durham III explores the most serious problems currently plaguing America's correctional system, their historical background, and possible solutions.Topics covered include:--Prison Crowding-AIDS in Prison-Difficulties Associated with Older Inmates-Women in Prison-Changing the Offender-Alternatives to Incarceration, including Electronic Monitoring, Intensive Supervision, House Arrest, Community Services, and Day-Reporting Centers-Boot Camps-Prison Privatization-The Death Penalty

Jones & Bartlett Learning, 1994, 377 pages

By Ryan Cotter

This study, the seventh in the recidivism series, examines the relationship between length of incarceration and recidivism. In 2020, the Commission published its initial comprehensive study on length of incarceration and recidivism. In that study, which examined offenders released in 2005, the Commission found that federal offenders receiving sentences of more than 60 months were less likely to recidivate compared to a similar group of offenders receiving shorter sentences. This study replicates the prior analysis, however, it examines a more current cohort of federal offenders released in 2010. This study examines the relationship between length of incarceration and recidivism, specifically exploring three potential relationships that may exist: incarceration as having a deterrent effect, a criminogenic effect, or no effect on recidivism.

Washington, DC: United States Sentencing Commission, 2022. 56p.

Rachel E. Bennett

Should pregnant women be sent to prison? Is prison a place for the birth and care of babies? Can it ever be? This book is the first extensive historical examination of how the modern prison system sought to answer these perennial questions. The book takes the reader through the prison gates to demonstrate that, although a common feature of everyday life in women’s prisons, pregnancy, birth and motherhood were rarely fully considered at policy level. Instead, the experiences of mothers and children were shaped by a myriad of factors including debates about reconciling the management of institutional discipline with the maintenance of health and issues of gender and class. Lamented as an inalienable heritage of woe but also as an opportunity for the closer supervision of mothers, prison births evoked intense debate and required the negotiation of obdurate regimes. The book reveals how oscillating debates about the purpose of prisons shaped the punitive, reformatory and medical treatment of confined mothers. It also challenges scholarly debates about institutional discipline by delving further into the role of prisoners and prison staff in shaping the terms of their incarceration.

Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 2024. 217p.

By Nazgol Ghandnoosh, Emma Stammen and Connie Budaci

In San Joaquin County, California in 2010, 19-year-old Emmanuel Mendoza helped lure a robbery victim to a location where a masked accomplice waited with a firearm. When a struggle with the victim over the firearm ensued, Mendoza’s accomplice fired a fatal shot. Although Mendoza did not have a weapon and the killing had not been planned, he was convicted of felony murder with special circumstances, and automatically sentenced to life without parole (LWOP). In prison, he ended his gang affiliation and mentored others to do the same, earned a GED and associate degree, embraced his faith, and has been an active father to his three children. “I understand that at the end of the day someone lost their life,” Mendoza says. “Our plan that night wasn’t to kill anyone. I can’t take it back. But I also feel that it was a huge injustice to not be given an attempt at freedom.” Murder typically refers to an intentional killing. But “felony murder” laws hold people like Mendoza liable for murder if they participated in a felony, such as a robbery, that resulted in someone’s death. These laws impose sentences associated with murder on people who neither intended to kill nor anticipated a death, and even on those who did not participate in the killing. As such, they violate the principle of proportional sentencing, which is supposed to punish crimes based on their severity. These excessively punitive outcomes violate widely shared perceptions of justice. With one in seven people in U.S. prisons serving a life sentence, ending mass incarceration requires bold action to reduce extreme prison terms such as those prescribed for felony murder. These laws run counter to public safety, fiscal responsibility, and justice. Although other countries have largely rejected the felony murder doctrine, 48 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal government still use these laws. The only two states that do not have felony murder laws are Hawaii and Kentucky. Seven other states require some proof of intentionality regarding the killing to consider it murder, though the use of a gun—or mere knowledge of a co-defendant’s gun use—satisfies this requirement in some jurisdictions. In any case, all felony murder laws use the underlying felony to either a) treat as murder a killing that would not have otherwise been considered murder, or b) increase the gradation of murder, such as from second to first degree.

Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2022. 36p.

By Marie Manikis and Nicholas Doiron

The continuous perpetration of unjustified harms by the carceral state through its use of solitary confinement justifies the creation of a novel process of automatic sentence review. This process is necessary to account for such state-perpetrated harms and communicate censure more accurately. This article proposes the use of a communicative theory of punishment developed in sentencing to characterise and account for the state’s wrongdoing and harms in the context of a sentence that involves solitary confinement. Specifically, it outlines a justification for an automatic review process of the offender’s carceral sentence based on an expanded and relational understanding of censure developed in the literature and proposes a two-step process to implement this review.

(2024) 26:1 Punishment & Society 72-90.

By  Paul H. Robinson and  Jeffrey Seaman

Few claims have won such widespread acceptance in legal academia as the “mass incarceration” narrative: the idea that the rise in America’s prison population over the last half century was fueled largely by the needless and unjust imprisonment of millions of criminal offenders due to punitive changes in sentencing. To many academics and activists, the question is not how accurate the mass incarceration narrative is, but how mass incarceration can be ended. This Article argues the “mass incarceration” narrative is based on a series of myths and, as a result, many proposed reforms are based on a misunderstanding of America’s past and present carceral practices. A more accurate understanding is needed to produce effective reform.The central myth of the mass incarceration narrative is that exceptional and unjustified punitiveness largely explains America’s significant increase in prison population since the 1960s. This explanation overlooks the numerous non-sentencing factors that increased incarceration: a near doubling in U.S. population, higher crime rates, increased justice system effectiveness, deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill, new and tightened criminalizations, worsening criminal offender histories, and more. While this Article makes no attempt at statistical precision, these non-sentencing factors can easily explain most of America’s elevated incarceration compared to the 1960s—a fact in direct conflict with the mass incarceration narrative. Additionally, while some punishments have increased in severity since the 1960s, most of these increases are likely to be seen as moving sentences closer to what the community – and many incarceration reformers – would believe is appropriate and just, as in cases of sexual assault, domestic violence, stalking, human trafficking, firearm offenses, and child pornography, among others.Comparing America’s prison population to foreign countries, as the mass incarceration narrative often does, similarly overlooks the contributions of many of these non-sentencing factors and incorrectly assumes that a higher American per capita incarceration rate always reflects a problem with American, instead of foreign, practice. While America can certainly learn from foreign countries, the reality is that many foreign sentencing practices have sparked chronic and widespread dissatisfaction abroad. It may be that the dispute over incarceration practices is more a dispute between the elites and the community than a dispute between the U.S. and other democracies’ populations.While all decarceration reformers should welcome a clearer picture of America’s incarceration practices, it is hard not to conclude that many mass incarceration myths were created deliberately by those who oppose not only incarceration but punishment generally. For these activists, the mass incarceration narrative is primarily a means toward eliminating punishment, a goal that is difficult to pursue directly because it is so contrary to the views of the general population and even a majority of academia.This Article is not pro-incarceration. It subjects the mass incarceration narrative to much needed scrutiny precisely because reforming incarceration practices is necessary. The criminal justice system should strive to deliver just punishment in the most societally beneficial way, which we believe means increasing the use of non-incarcerative sanctions. The myths of the mass incarceration narrative frequently lead activists to overlook non-incarcerative reforms that deliver just punishment—a tragic failure because such reforms would have much stronger popular support than the anti-punishment or unsophisticated anti-prison reforms now pushed by the mass incarceration narrative.Part I of the Article describes the mass incarceration myths that have become so broadly accepted. Part II reviews the facts of American incarceration practice, which contradict many, if not most, aspects of the narrative. Part III offers our reform proposals, which we believe more accurately address the problems in current incarceration practice. Central to those proposals are the use of creative non-incarcerative sanctions that still deliver punishment proportional to a nuanced assessment of each offender’s moral blameworthiness

U of Penn Law School, Public Law Research Paper No. 24-04

By Rebecca Tublitz

After four decades of explosive growth in the number of people arrested, jailed, and imprisoned in the United States, a growing consensus about the overreach of mass incarceration and unjust systems of punishment has emerged in the 21st century. Seeking to raise national attention to the problem of overuse and misuse of incarceration in local jail systems and to catalyze innovation and reform at the local level, in 2015, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation (MacArthur Foundation) launched the Safety and Justice Challenge (SJC). In its eighth year, the SJC now supports a diverse network of more than 57 cities, counties, and states across the country in developing and implementing decarceration strategies and represents an ambitious effort to generate transformative change in how localities conceive of and use jail incarceration.

Data, measurement, and evaluation has been pivotal in guiding this initiative—for identifying drivers of the jail population, designing innovative decarceration strategies, monitoring progress, and evaluating and understanding performance. CUNY ISLG plays a leading role in these data collection and analysis activities across the SJC, serving as a central liaison between local jurisdictions, external researchers, technical assistance providers, and the MacArthur Foundation.

This report focuses on the role that local data has played in the SJC initiative and CUNY ISLG’s work to develop and support the SJC model of data-driven reform. The report details:

• The collection of data and how data were used by many stakeholders across the initiative;

• The build-out of CUNY ISLG’s data repository;

The development and use of standardized performance measures for reporting site progress towards reducing

• Jail populations and eliminating racial and ethnic disparities; and

• Lessons learned from working with cross-agency administrative data to drive reform and evaluate policy change.

New York: CUNY Institute for State & Local Governance —————— Safety and Justice Challenge. 2024. 36p.