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 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 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 Doug Pyper, Georgina Sturge, Harriet Samuel 

Suicides in prisons in England and Wales In 2023, provisional statistics show that there were 93 suicides in prison custody in England and Wales. This represented a rate of 10.8 suicides per 10,000 prison population, a rise on the 2022 figure of 9.4. Over the past twenty years, the lowest rate of suicides per 10,000 prisoners was around 7 in 2008-2012 and the highest was 15 in 2016. The suicide rate rose between 2012 and 2016 but has declined overall since. Over the same period, the proportion of prison deaths attributed to suicide has declined by 28 percentage points: down from 58% of all deaths in 2002 to 30% in 2023 The rate of suicides among male prisoners is higher than that in the male general population. An Office for National Statistics study of deaths between   

London: UK Parliament, House of Commons Library, 2024. 11p.

By The Howard League for Penal Reform

Young adults aged 18-25 are a distinct group who are still maturing as their brains continue to develop. They are overrepresented in the prison population in England and Wales, and in particular in the remand population where they make up 20 per cent of the population compared to around eight per cent in the general population. • The need for a distinct approach for young adults has been recognised in some parts of the criminal justice system. However, the focus tends to be on convicted young adults who are being or have been sentenced. More attention must be paid to young adults who are awaiting trial or sentencing. • Young adults are subject to the provisions set out in the Bail Act 1976, which apply to all adults. The framework on bail and remand should be amended to align with the recently strengthened tests on remand for children. A child cannot be remanded to custody if it is not ‘very likely’ that they will receive a custodial sentence for the offence for which they appear before the court. Where a child has a history of breach or offending whilst on bail they cannot be remanded to custody unless the breach or offending is ‘relevant in all the circumstances of the case’ and is ‘recent and significant’. There is a statutory duty on the court to consider a child’s best interests and welfare. These provisions, which aim to ensure that remand to custody is a last resort, do not apply to young adults. Turning 18 should not be a cliff edge. • The Crown Prosecution Service and judiciary should incorporate a greater recognition of maturity into relevant guidance to ensure that a distinct approach is taken to young adults from the outset. • Young adults should not be remanded without a court report which considers the impact on them of being remanded. If a young adult is to be remanded, sufficient time should be given to explaining remand decisions in court and young adults should be provided with a copy of the reasons for remand in writing. Data on the reasons for remand decisions should be published and disaggregated by age, ethnicity, religion and gender. • Remand is used disproportionately against Black, Brown and racially minoritised young adults. In June 2023, 26 per cent of remanded 18-20-year-olds and 18 per cent of remanded 21–25-year-olds were Black, compared to less than six per cent and five per cent respectively in the general population. Data on the number of people on remand should continue to be published and be disaggregated by age, ethnicity and religion. • Custodial time limits should only be extended in exceptional circumstances. Consideration should be given to the impact of an extended period of time in custody on a young adult in light of their age and ongoing maturational development, before time limits are extended. Data on the length of time people are held on remand should be published and should be disaggregated by age, ethnicity, religion and gender.  • Young adults benefit from lawyers who specialise in working with that age group and understand their specific needs. More should be done to support and encourage all young adults at risk of remand to have specialist legal representation. • Remanded young adults should have access to resettlement support in custody and more should be done to ensure the availability of good quality accommodation that meets young adults’ needs. • All prisons and courts should have a bail information service with bail information officers who are trained in and understand the specific needs of young adults. • Young adults who are remanded should be allocated a probation officer and keyworker in prison. • Young adults should have access to a meaningful daily regime, which includes education and employment, physical exercise and contact with family and friends. Unconvicted prisoners should have the number of visits they are legally entitled to. • Young adults should be supported to submit complaints, including escalating them to the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman as needed, and complaints should be responded to in a timely manner, in accordance with the national complaints policy. • Specialist mental health provision should be available to remanded young adults. • More must be done to identify careexperienced remanded young adults, including increased training for staff in prison on leaving care rights. Every prison holding remanded young adults should have a leaving care co-ordinator. Introduction - In Autumn 2022 the Howard League launched a project, supported by the Barrow Cadbury Trust, to better understand the experiences of remanded young adults. The project builds on previous work by the Howard League looking at the specific needs of young adults, including the role of maturity in the sentencing of young adults (Howard League, 2017), sentencing principles for young adults (Howard League, 2019a and b), and issues facing young adults in prison during Covid (Howard League, 2020). The project follows on from an earlier scoping study about young adults on remand supported by the Barrow Cadbury Trust (Allen, 2021). That study found that there are strong arguments for developing a strategy to make remand arrangements better reflect the developing maturity of young adults. This briefing includes the experiences, voices and lessons to be learned from a group of remanded young adults aged 18-20 in a male Category B prison. It is informed by discussions with criminal justice professionals who work with remanded young adults in England and Wales and the Howard League’s work representing individual young adults across the prison estate through its specialist legal advice service. 

London: Howard League for Penal Reform,   2023. 13p.

By Hilde Tubex, John Rynne and Harry Blagg

This article reports on research undertaken in Western Australia and the Northern Territory to develop effective throughcare strategies for Indigenous people leaving prison. The findings are based on interviews with Indigenous men and women in communities, with and without lived experience of prison, and local service providers. The interviews demonstrate that a thorough exit plan from prison is essential. However, for throughcare strategies to be effective, they should acknowledge the context of Indigenous involvement in the criminal justice system and the ongoing consequences of colonisation. The paper discusses the main areas that need to be addressed during imprisonment and after release, which form the basis of recommendations. Effective throughcare strategies must involve Indigenous people and the broader community, to break the cycle of offending and reoffending and address the over-representation of Indigenous people in prison. 

Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice no. 585. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. 2020. 14p.

By Hanna Hernandez,  & Vasiliki Georgoulas-Sherry    

Rates of recidivism have been commonly used as a key measure for public safety and in assessing the effectiveness of the criminal justice system – sentencing, jails, prisons, community supervision, treatment, and reentry programming. There is continued interest in tracking recidivism rates beyond a three-year follow-up. Tracking long-term recidivism can provide information for supporting incarcerated individuals and promoting their success in reintegrating into the community following a prison sentence. To evaluate long-term recidivism rates in Washington, the Washington Statistical Analysis Center (SAC) applied for and received the 2021 State Justice Statistics (SJS) grant from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). Under this grant from BJS, the SAC will draw on publicly available data from the Washington State Department of Corrections (WADOC) to evaluate the long-term recidivism trends of incarcerated individuals released from prison. Background Across the U.S., individuals are being incarcerated in jails and prisons, as many as 11 million times each year. While over 50% of the nation’s incarcerated population is housed in prisons, a little under a third (27%) are housed in local jails, and about a fifth (17%) are housed in juvenile facilities, federal facilities, territorial prisons or other detention facilities (Loeffler et al., 2022; Western et al., 2022). While these rates of incarceration showcase issues surrounding overall mass incarceration, these statistics do not highlight the consistent and pervasive changes within the prison populations. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), in 2019, the U.S. incarceration rate decreased to the lowest rate since 1995. However, despite this rate in decline, the U.S. still incarcerates a bigger percentage of its population compared to any other country. Most recently, 2022 has shown a 2% increase in population as compared to the 2021 rates – this increase made the 1% decline reported in 2021 non-existent, and most historically, highlighted the first increase in rates in both federal and state prison populations within the last decade; it is important to note COVID-19 impacts might have significantly reduced this population (Martyn et al., 2022; Nowotny et al., 2021). According to the BJS (2023), “at yearend 2022, an estimated 32% of sentenced state and federal prisoners were black; 31% were white; 23% were Hispanic; 2% were American Indian or Alaska Native; and 1% were Asian, Native Hawaiian, or Other Pacific Islander” (5). Similarly, pandemic impacts might have significantly impacted these findings – for example, as pretrial populations were almost back to full pre-pandemic populations – more than two-thirds of this population had not been convicted of a crime. Another reason could be due to many jurisdictions reducing their use of prison incarceration.

Olympia, WA:  Washington State Statistical Analysis Center, 2024. 33p.

By Hanna Hernandez, M.A. & Vasiliki Georgoulas-Sherry

Rates of recidivism have been commonly used as a key measure for public safety and in assessing the effectiveness of the criminal justice system – sentencing, jails, prisons, community supervision, treatment, and reentry programming. Tracking recidivism can provide necessary information to support successful integration into the community following a prison sentence – which promotes community and public safety. Furthermore, understanding the individuals who are more likely to recidivate, and assessing demographic differences over the years can provide even more knowledge for supporting successful reentry. To evaluate long-term recidivism in Washington, the Washington Statistical Analysis Center (SAC) applied for and received the 2021 State Justice Statistics (SJS) grant from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). Under this grant from BJS, the SAC first drew on publicly available data from the Washington State Department of Corrections (DOC) to evaluate the long-term recidivism trends of incarcerated individuals released from prison (Georgoulas-Sherry & Hernandez, 2024). To expand on the findings, this report utilizes the same cohort to further evaluate the racial and sex similarities and differences in recidivism rates. 

Olympia, WA:  Washington State Statistical Analysis Center, 2024. 31p.

By Human Impact Partners

This report — informed by public health research alongside interviews and survey responses from people currently and formerly incarcerated in women’s prisons — exposes the catastrophic health harms of incarceration in women’s prisons and provides evidence in support of investments in health-promoting social determinants of health instead of incarceration.

From Crisis to Care outlines how incarceration worsens health via multiple pathways: 

• Medical neglect — including failure to provide medical examinations, stopping needed prescriptions, and long delays in treatment — is common in prison.

• Alongside the violence of the criminal legal system itself, people incarcerated in women’s prisons also experience and witness high rates of interpersonal physical, emotional, and sexual trauma and violence.

• Environmental conditions in prisons seriously endanger the health of incarcerated people, by exposing them to infectious diseases, extreme heat and cold, inadequate food, foodborne illness, mold, toxic drinking water, and more.

• The use of solitary confinement can lead to increased psychological distress, anxiety, depression, PTSD, paranoia, agitation, sleep deprivation, and prescription of sedative medications, alongside physical ailments.

• Separating people from their families and communities has destructive and far-reaching consequences that harm health.

The state of California invests $405 million a year in its women’s prisons. Instead of perpetuating a system that overwhelmingly works against public health, the state has the opportunity to invest that money in health-promoting support systems that people can access in their communities. These public safety investments would not only support reentry after incarceration, but they would also help to prevent harm from occurring in the first place, creating the conditions that would make women’s prisons obsolete.

Oakland, CA: Human Impact Partners, 2023. 41p.

By Emily Widra

More than 1 in 10 people admitted to state prisons every year have committed no new crime, but have simply broken one or more of the many conditions, or rules, of their probation. All of this unnecessary incarceration is the predictable result of widely-adopted probation conditions that are so vaguely defined, so burdensome, and so rigidly applied that they actually broaden the scope of what counts as “recidivism.” Through these conditions, courts and probation authorities create punishable offenses that go far beyond criminal law, setting people up to fail. And because the vast majority of people under correctional control are on probation — 2.9 million people, 1 far surpassing the 1.9 million people incarcerated — these trap-like conditions make probation a major driver of mass incarceration, not the “alternative” it’s supposed to be. Shrinking the massive probation system — and the number of people incarcerated from community supervision — is central to ending mass incarceration. Doing so requires challenging existing “standard conditions” that (a) are often in conflict with one another, (b) exacerbate the challenges people on probation are already facing, and (c) empower probation officers — rather than courts — to make subjective decisions that can lead to revocation and incarceration. Examining these conditions clarifies why probation often functions as an on ramp to incarceration instead of an alternative, and can help advocates and policymakers reorient probation systems away from incarceration. Unfortunately, standard probation conditions are often difficult to locate and parse, vary between jurisdictions, and use complicated and unclear language, so to aid in this effort, we collected and analyzed the standard conditions for 76 jurisdictions across all 50 states and Washington, D.C., creating one of the most comprehensive compilations of these rules to date. 

Northampton, MA: Prion Policy Initiative, 2024. 

By The Irish Penal Reform Trust

Piecing It Together: Supporting Children and Families with a Family Member in Prison in Ireland assesses progress on a series of recommendations made by IPRT in "Picking up the Pieces" in 2012. These recommendations were made to Government, the Courts and Courts Service, the Irish Prison Service, the Department of Education, and media, among others. While the new report details some pockets of good practice in Ireland, it highlights a number of significant gaps, including: limited national recognition of the rights of children with a family member in prison; the continued lack of any national support services for these children; visiting conditions that are not child-friendly; limited data and research; and stigmatisation of these children and their families. As we approach the tenth anniversary of the 2012 report, IPRT calls for the implementation of these outstanding recommendations, as well as the new recommendations made in this report, by the relevant assigned stakeholders.

The recommendations made in the report are grouped into 7 overarching recommendations:

1. Increase National Recognition of the Rights of Children with a Family Member in Prison

2. Establish a National Support Service for Children and Families with a Family Member in Prison

3. Improve Prison Visiting Procedures and Conditions for Children and Families

4. Enshrine in Law and Practice the Principle of “Prison as a Last Resort” for Primary Caregivers

5. Improve Data Recording on Children Affected by Imprisonment

6. Challenge Stigmatisation of Children and Families with a Family Member in Prison

7. Promote and Facilitate Family Involvement during the Period of Imprisonment

Dublin: Irish Penal Reform Trust, 2021. 60p.

By the Irish Penal Reform Trust

 In recent years there has been increasing recognition of children of imprisoned parents as a specific group of vulnerable and marginalised children with particular needs and of the detrimental impact of parental imprisonment on them. While there has been less focus on the specific impact on children when their mother is sent to prison, several studies have found that, while less common, maternal imprisonment can be significantly more disruptive than paternal imprisonment. This is largely because women are more often the primary caregivers for their dependent children. When fathers are imprisoned, the mother usually continues to care for any children. However, studies have shown that when mothers are sent to prison, the family is more likely to be broken up, with children being placed with other family members or into State care. The impact of maternal imprisonment has wider implications as a result, including on the women themselves, their families, and the broader community. Despite the well-documented impacts of parental, and specifically maternal, imprisonment on children and the clear obligations within the international human rights framework to consider children when their parents or primary caregivers come into conflict with the law, there are very few court systems that actively require courts to consider children at sentencing or when determining pre-trial measures. Additionally, when mothers are sent to prison, there are significant data gaps globally in understanding the numbers of children impacted, and a corresponding lack of effort made to mitigate against the potential negative impacts on them. Where data is collected, it is usually facility-specific with no efforts to collate data nationally or coordinate responses across different agencies. The Irish Prison Service (IPS) and the Probation Service have identified the risks associated with maternal imprisonment, noting that, ‘[t]he outcomes for children whose mothers have experienced prison are of major concern. Children of women prisoners frequently exhibit several behavioral and psychological problems and there is an increased likelihood of them becoming offenders themselves.’ Despite this, there has been very limited examination of the numbers and experiences of mothers imprisoned in Ireland and their children. While the IPS, the Probation Service, and other associated agencies appear to recognize the need to support children of mothers in prison – indeed these agencies have made efforts to develop support programs – concern remains at the lack of attention given, at the point of sentencing, to the caregiving responsibilities of women and the best interests of their children. The findings of this research also point to a lack of national efforts to coordinate amongst different stakeholder agencies to reduce the negative impacts of maternal imprisonment on children

Dublin: Irish Penal Reform Trust, 2023. 52p.

By Faiza Chappell

In the past decade, stakeholder groups have formed across the country to achieve higher-quality postsecondary education in prisons, enhance student outcomes, and push policy changes. This report describes the benefits of emerging stakeholder engagement strategies and trends in stakeholder collaboration. It also serves as a guide to building stakeholder coalitions in the field of postsecondary education in prison. Prison education programs (PEPs) are offered by institutions of higher education and postsecondary vocational institutions that have been approved to operate in a correctional setting. The U.S. Department of Education has requirements that PEPs must follow in order for incarcerated students to access Pell Grants. These requirements include input from a variety of stakeholders to evaluate PEPs and confirm that they are operating in the best interests of the students. After conducting a national scan of existing consortia, the Vera Institute of Justice (Vera) analyzed the information presented in this report from 23 consortia. Vera found that tapping into the expertise of various stakeholders is a crucial element in ensuring high-quality education practices for incarcerated students.

Key Takeaway

Stakeholder groups provide a foundation built on a common mission, with substantive achievable goals and structures for the work to thrive, allowing stakeholders to collaborate effectively. Stakeholder feedback is a critically important practice that should be at the forefront in the expansion of postsecondary education in prison.

New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2024. 28p.

By Niloufer Taber, Amanda Nowak, Maurice Smith,   Jennifer Yang, Celia Strumph   

Pell Grant restoration took effect on July 1, 2023, making incarcerated people in the United States eligible for need-based federal postsecondary financial aid for the first time in nearly 30 years. Since the launch of the Second Chance Pell Experimental Sites Initiative (SCP) in 2016, more than 45,000 incarcerated students have enrolled in SCP programs. Today, there are more than 750,000 people in prison eligible to enroll in a postsecondary program. As the landscape of postsecondary education in prison evolves, so does its potential. In this report, the Vera Institute of Justice offers a snapshot of national progress toward implementation using the interconnected domains of quality, equity, and scale through a “balanced scorecard” approach. Drawing on data collected from surveys to SCP colleges and corrections agencies, the report aggregates individual responses to evaluate the adequacy and the system of education offered to incarcerated people. The result is a snapshot of the progress colleges and corrections agencies have made over the first year of this new era of access and opportunity.

‍Key Takeaway: Serving students in prisons requires collaboration and cooperation across a range of stakeholders. Vera assessed quality, equity, and scale through data aggregated at the level of each jurisdiction. The measures in this report are an invitation

New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2024. 64p.

By Lewis Mudge

 In April 2021, a transitional military council headed by Mahamat Idriss Déby took control of Chad following the death of his father, late President Idriss Déby Itno. This triggered demonstrations, including by civil society and opposition party members, to demand a return to civilian rule. The authorities violently cracked down on such protests which culminated on October 20, 2022, when thousands of people demonstrated against an extension of the transitional government by two years. On this day, remembered as “black Thursday,” security forces fired live ammunition at protesters, killing and injuring scores. Hundreds more were detained and transferred to Koro Toro, a high security detention facility managed by the government and located about 600 kilometers north of N’Djamena, the country’s capital, in the desert. Some detainees died en route to Koro Toro, others died in the prison. In “Worse than hell”: Death and Torture at Chad’s Koro Toro Prison, Human Rights Watch documents the serious human rights violations experienced by protesters during their transit from N’Djamena to Koro Toro and in the prison itself. Based on interviews with survivors and witnesses as well as on satellite imagery, it exposes abuses that former detainees, including children, detained in connection to the October 20 protests, faced from the start of their detention until their release. These include forced labor, torture and inhuman treatment and denial of medical treatment, sometimes leading to deaths in custody, as well as arbitrary detention and unfair trials. The report provides insight into the deplorable – and unlawful – prison conditions and management at Koro Toro prison and makes recommendations to Chad and its partners for redress.  

New York: Human Rights Watch, 2024.  98p.

By Mia Bird, Mia, Alissa Skog and Molly Pickard

 The California prison system is designed to house and provide rehabilitative services to people sentenced to prison for felony offenses. Although most people in prison are serving multi-year sentences, 39.6% of people released during the past ten years spent one year or less in prison custody. The proportion of people released after these short stays (of one year or less) increased from about one-third of all releases in 2014 to about one-half in 2023. In 2020 and 2023, the Committee on Revision of the Penal Code recommended that short prison stays of one year or less be served in county jails. This recommendation was designed to build on California’s Public Safety Realignment Act from 2011 which required people convicted of less serious felony offenses to serve their sentence in county jail instead of prison. The Legislature has not yet adopted this recommendation, but given the State’s focus on reducing prison system costs while maintaining public safety, it remains a policy option. In this fact sheet, we explore how the number and share of people released after short stays has changed over time in California. We also explore the demographic, offense, sentencing, and county characteristics of people who have short stays in prison. To do so, we draw on data from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) for the years 2014 through 2023. KEY FINDINGS Short stays have increased as a share of all releases since 2014. Over the past decade, 39.6% of all people released from prison had stays of one year or less. However, the proportion of those with short stays increased over this period from 36.3% of all releases in 2014 to 49.5% of all releases in 2023 (Figure 1). During this period, 15.4% of people released had very short stays of six months or less. The share of people released with very short stays also increased, from 13.4% in 2014 to 21.2% in 2023. This increase in short stays was concentrated in the period following the COVID-19 pandemic. During the first year of the pandemic, people may have spent more time in jail before they were convicted, sentenced, and transferred to prison. This was due to delays in court processing and suspensions of prison transfers. In addition, public health releases to reduce the spread of COVID-19 may have also led to shorter stays in prison.1 The share of people released from short stays continued to increase in 2022 and 2023. It remains to be seen whether this trend will continue in 2024.   

Los Angeles: California Policy Lab, 2024. 7p.

By Sian Galsworthy

In 2019 Joseph McCann was sentenced to 33 life sentences for committing violent and sexual offences whilst subject to supervision by the National Probation Service (NPS), following his release from prison on license earlier that year. The subsequent Serious Further Offence (SFO) report prompted an independent review from His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation (HMIP) which put forward several recommendations for change, to ensure the probation service could safely and effectively protect the public. This report presents the findings from an evaluation of His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) Complex Cases pilot within the East of England Probation Region. Complex Cases have been defined as cases that meet six of eight specified criteria, which deem them complex and challenging for Probation Practitioners (PP) to manage. The pilot process consisted of triaging those cases that met six of the eight pre-determined criteria. If the practitioner required further support with their case following triage, the case was then referred to and heard at a multi-disciplinary panel which consisted primarily of senior members of Probation and Prison staff who could advise on how to best manage the case. The pilot formed part of the commitment to address the recommendation (8) put forward in the Joseph McCann HMIP report which was to: “Ensure probation staff have adequate time to become familiar with complex cases for which they assume responsibility” (HMIP, 2020) This evaluation has explored the views and experiences of those who have participated in the Complex Cases pilot, to identify how its development and subsequent roll out has been perceived so far, and if there is any early/indicative learning which can be identified for future scale-up of the pilot. The pilot commenced in the Summer of 2021, it is still active and expanding across the pilot Probation Region.   The objectives of this evaluation were: 1. To explore what has been successful about the initial roll out of the Complex Cases Pilot 2. To explore which aspects of the Complex Cases Pilot require improvement 3. To explore the effects of the Complex Cases Pilot on Probation Practitioners sense of confidence in managing the complexities of the case and practice/case management

His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service , 2024. 60p.

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 Anna Anderson

This National Consumer Law Center (NCLC) report provides an overview of the carceral medical debt problem and policy recommendations and solutions to address the issue. The report provides background on the nature of the carceral medical debt, including the complex healthcare needs of people who are incarcerated, what fees are assessed and why, how these fees impact health outcomes and lead to medical debt, how carceral medical debt affects families and reentry, and private equity and for-profit contractors’ roles in this problem. The report includes an extensive review of the common sources of medical debt and how these debts are collected. It details recent policy victories in the effort to eliminate carceral medical debt, as well as some troubling setbacks. The report concludes with consumer-focused policy reforms to address medical debt related to incarceration.

Boston: National Consumer Law Center, 2024. 46p.