By Anita Mukherjee and Nicholas J. Sanders

Correctional facilities commonly lack climate control, producing a setting absent endogenous responses to hot weather like avoidance, adjustment, and mitigation. We study daily weather variation across the state of Mississippi, and show that high temperatures increase intense violence among the incarcerated. Days with unsafe heat index levels shift both the intensive and extensive margins of violence, raising daily violent interactions by 20%, and the probability of any violence by 18%. Our setting cleanly identifies the effect of heat on violence, and highlights previously unobserved social costs of current facility infrastructure. Rising global temperatures could substantially increase violence absent adjustment.

NBER Working Paper No. 28987, Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2021. 42p.

By The Correctional Association of New York

This report describes the findings from a survey of incarcerated individuals that CANY conducted regarding the New York prison system’s Incarcerated Grievance Program (IGP). Survey responses indicated that people who are incarcerated perceive the IGP to be unclear, unfair, takes too long, and subjects incarcerated people to retaliation after they raise concerns. CANY will soon release a follow-up report that offers recommendations for addressing the problems they identified in this report.

The historical origins of the grievance process in New York State. The grievance program in New York and across the United States has a direct link to the legacy of the Attica uprising in 1971. During the uprising, incarcerated people engaged in negotiations on key complaints. In the aftermath of Attica, the McKay Commission recommended a series of reforms.6, 7, 8 This included “Reform No. 18: Establish an inmate grievance commission comprised of one elected inmate from each company, which is authorized to speak to the administration.”9 The grievance process came into existence in New York State in 1976.10

New York: Correctional Association of New York 2023. 111p.

By Michele Deitch

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

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

By William J. Sabol, and Miranda L. Baumann

Justice reinvestment was introduced in the early 2000s as a means to respond to the massive growth in incarceration in the United States that had occurred during the past three decades by diverting offenders from prison and redirecting a portion of the associated corrections expenditures into communities to build their capacities to manage offenders locally. Over the next 17 years, the concept evolved into a Congressionally funded federal grant program that shifted the focus of reinvestment away from community reinvestment and toward a state-agency practice improvement model that ultimately aimed to improve public safety. A distinct form of justice reinvestment, the Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI), was the dominant practice of justice reinvestment in the United States. It was organized as a public–private partnership that engaged states in bipartisan efforts to enact legislative reforms and other policies to address sentencing and corrections practices and adopt high-performing evidence-based practices (EBPs) that would yield the desired public safety benefits. JRI contributed to legislative reforms and adoption of EBPs, especially in community supervision. The federal JRI effort has not yet provided peer-reviewed, published evidence that it has achieved its objectives.

Annual Review of Criminology, Vol. 3:317-339, 2020.

By: Rongqin Yu, NiklasLångstro, Mats Forsman, Arvid Sjolander, Seena Fazel, Yasmina Molero

Objectives

To examine Differences in recidivism rates between different prisons using two designs— between-individual and within-individual—to account for confounding factors.

Methods

We examined recidivism rates among 37,891 individuals released from 44 Swedish prisons in three security levels, and who were followed from 2006 to 2013. We used longitudinal data from nationwide registers, including all convictions from district courts. First, we applied a between-individual design (Cox proportional hazards regression), comparing reconviction rates between individuals released from prisons within the same security level, while adjusting for a range of individual-level covariates. Second, we applied a within-individual design (stratified Cox proportional hazards regression), comparing rates of reconviction within the same individuals, i.e., we compared rates after release from one prison to the rates in the same individual after release from another prison, thus adjusting for all time-invariant con founders within each individual (e.g. genetics and early environment). We also adjusted for a range of time-varying individual-level covariates.

Results

Results showed differences in the hazard of recidivism between different prisons in between-individual analyses, with hazards ranging from 1.22 (1.05–1.43) to 4.99 (2.44 10.21). Results from within-individual analyses, which further adjusted for all time-invariant confounders, showed minimal differences between prisons, with hazards ranging from 0.95 (0.87–1.05) to 1.05 (0.95–1.16). Only small differences were found when violent and nonviolent crimes were analyzed separately.

Conclusions

The study highlights the importance of research designs that more fully adjust for individual-level confounding factors to avoid over-interpretation of the variability in comparisons across prisons.

PLoS ONE 17(5): e0267941. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267941, 2022.

By Megan Denver, Ben Struhl

The project that is presented in this report aimed to conduct process, impact, and cost-effectiveness evaluations for the Massachusetts Department of Correction (MA DOC) and the Hampden County Sheriff’s Office (HCSO) program. The project was based on three main research questions: (1) which components of the HCSO program are fully and faithfully implemented, and which aspects contain challenges for staff participants and residents? Which parts of HCSO’s model are likely contributing to any detected causal effects? (2) Does the step-down re-entry program improve reintegration preparedness and recidivism relative to the traditional re-entry pathway? And (3), is the jail step-down program cost-effective relative to housing the same people in prison? The paper describes the research design, methods, and analytical and data analysis techniques, and notes the expected applicability of the research for policymakers in different jurisdictions. Appendix A discusses things to consider when developing a step-down program, and Appendix B provides cost estimates excluding statutorily required programs.

Boston, MA: Northeastern University, 2024. 46p.

MAY CONTAIN MARKUP

By Sheldon Glueck And Eleanor T. Glueck

The book provides a comprehensive analysis of the after-conduct of discharged offenders, focusing on the implications for reforming criminal justice:

● Causal Relations: It emphasizes the importance of understanding the multiple causal factors, both biological and environmental, that influence criminal behavior.

● Predictive Techniques: The document discusses the feasibility of using predictive tables to aid in sentencing and parole decisions.

● Reform Proposals: It suggests reforms for criminal justice based on scientific insights, such as re-designing correctional equipment to address causes rather than symptoms.

● Scientific Insights: Follow-up studies are highlighted as a means to gain scientific insights into the effectiveness of sentencing, treatment, and parole practices.

These key insights aim to shift the focus from punitive measures to a more rehabilitative approach that considers the complex interplay of factors contributing to criminal behavior.

Cambridge University. London 1945. Kraus Reprint Corporation New York 1966. 129p.

By Susan McNeeley, Mark Morgan and Matthew W. Logan , et al.

The physiological effects of imprisonment are well-documented and include a heightened risk for various forms of mortality post-release. The incarceration-mortality nexus does not apply equally to all groups, however, and research shows that some demographics (i.e., vulnerable populations) confer a greater likelihood of death. In the current study, we analyze correctional data over a 10-year period (2010-2019; n = 36,716) from Minnesota to assess the extent to which formerly incarcerated military veterans differ from non-veterans in their relative risk of mortality, net of relevant control variables. We also examine whether specific risk factors for post-release mortality differ between these groups. Findings indicate that veteran status is not a significant predictor of all-cause, natural, or unnatural mortality among released offenders, though several notable within-group differences were observed. Policy implications of the current study are discussed in relation to the provision of veteran-centric healthcare services and directions for future research are given.

St. Paul, MN Department of Corrections , 2023. 27p

By United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division and United States Attorney’s Offices, Northern and Southern Districts of Mississippi Civil Divisions

The Department of Justice has reasonable cause to believe that the State of Mississippi and Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) violate the constitutional rights of people incarcerated at Central Mississippi Correctional Facility (Central Mississippi), South Mississippi Correctional Institution (South Mississippi), and Wilkinson County Correctional Facility (Wilkinson).

• MDOC fails to protect incarcerated persons from violence. MDOC does not adequately supervise incarcerated people, control contraband, and investigate incidents of harm and misconduct. These basic safety failures and the poor living conditions inside the facilities promote violence, including sexual assault. Gangs operate in the void left by staff and use violence to control people and traffic contraband.

• Restrictive housing practices create a substantial risk of serious harm. MDOC holds hundreds of people at Central Mississippi and Wilkinson in restrictive housing for prolonged periods in appalling conditions. Restrictive housing units are unsanitary, hazardous, and chaotic, with little supervision. They are breeding grounds for suicide, self-inflicted injury, fires, and assaults.

These violations are systemic problems that have been going on for years. In April 2022, we found conditions at another MDOC facility, Mississippi State Penitentiary (Parchman), violated the Constitution. Many of the conditions we identified at Parchman exist at Central Mississippi, South Mississippi, and Wilkinson. Across all these facilities, MDOC does not have enough staff to supervise the population. The mismatch between the size of the incarcerated population and the number of security staff means that gangs dominate much of prison life, and contraband and violence, including sexual violence, proliferate. Prison officials rely on ineffective and overly harsh restrictive housing practices for control. This Report begins by explaining the methodology and scope of our investigation. It then describes the facilities we investigated. Next, the Report identifies the constitutional violations. We grouped the violations into two sections: failure to protect from violence and substantial risk of serious harm from restrictive housing practices. In each section, we highlight particular incidents of violence, gang activity, and misconduct as examples of the type of incidents that give rise to constitutional violations and to show the severity of the harm. We also examine MDOC’s recent steps to address these concerns and why their efforts fall short. We end by outlining the minimum measures needed to remedy the violations.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 2024. 60p.

MAY CONTAIN MARKUP

BY Gordon Hawkins

The Prison: Policy and Practice delves into the intricate world of correctional facilities, offering a comprehensive overview of the policies governing them and the practices implemented within their walls. This book provides readers with a deep exploration of the evolution of prison systems, the impact of various policies on inmates and staff, and the challenges faced by modern correctional institutions. By examining the intersection of policy and practice, this insightful work sheds light on the complexities of the prison environment and the ongoing debates surrounding criminal justice reform. An essential read for scholars, policymakers, and anyone interested in understanding the role of prisons in contemporary society.

Chicago. University of Chicago Press. 1976. 228p.

By Michelle Butler, Dominic Kelly, Catherine B. McNamee

Purpose: This study investigates whether men who engage in dual harm while imprisoned are disproportionately involved in committing misconduct during a 1-year follow-up period. It also examines whether dual harm is significantly associated with future involvement in misconduct, when other known risk factors for misconduct are considered, and whether this relationship varies depending on the type of misconduct examined.

Methods: Drawing on the administrative records of 430 men who were imprisoned during the 1-year follow-up period, a combination of descriptive statistics and negative binominal regressions was used to analyse the data.

Results: Roughly one-in-four men engaged in dual harm while imprisoned and were responsible for over half of all misconduct incidents recorded during the follow-up period. A significant relationship between dual harm, as well as violence-only harm compared to no harm, and future involvement in misconduct was also observed even when other known risk factors for misconduct were considered but only for violent and disorder-related misconduct, demonstrating this relationship varied by harm history and type of misconduct examined.

Conclusion: These findings address previous gaps in knowledge, advancing our understanding of the relationship between dual harm and misconduct. Possible explanations for why, compared to no-harm history, dual harm as well as violence-only harm was only related to violent and disorder-related misconduct are offered, alongside possible implications of this research for policy and practice.

Legal and Criminological Psychology Volume 29, Issue 1 Feb 2024

Edited by Rui Abrunhosa Gonçalves

This book provides international perspectives on corrections, correctional treatment, and penitentiary laws. Although its focus is on African and South American countries, the information provided can be easily expanded to North America and Europe. The chapters present legal frameworks and applied research on prisons and their potential to deter crime and reduce recidivism rates. The book puts the human rights agenda at the forefront and is a useful resource for those who work in corrections, including prison, education, and probation officers.

London: InTechOpen, 2023. 146p.

By Ryan Shanahan

This report presents the results of a rigorous evaluation of Restoring Promise, which is an initiative that creates prison housing units grounded in human dignity for young adults, ages 18 to 25, that operate with re-trained staff, trained mentors who are older adults serving long- or life-sentences, and developmentally appropriate activities, workshops, and opportunities for young adults. The evaluation reflects two studies: the first is a study of Restoring Promise in partnership with the South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC) and the second is a study of Restoring Promise across five housing units in partnership with three corrections agencies. The first study utilizes a randomized controlled trial (RTC) to understand whether and by how much Restoring Promise reduces young adults’ incidences of violence and misconduct, comparing outcomes for two groups of young adults who applied to live on a Restoring Promise housing unit. The second study of Restoring Promise across the five housing units uses latent class analysis (LCA) to compare responses to the Restoring Promise Prison Culture Survey (PCS) from young adults incarcerated in three different corrections agencies, living across five Restoring Process housing units in Connecticut, South Carolina, and Massachusetts. The process of conducting this research provided insights into running an effective and rigorous RCT in a correctional setting. The finding that changing the prison culture led to a reduction in violence fills a gap in the field and provides evidence to support a new, replicable model for improving safety in correctional settings. Findings showed that the results of the RCT are potentially applicable to all young adults; the approach that Restoring Promise uses has several fundamental components that are consistent across locations; and young adults and staff report similarly positive experiences, regardless of location, due to prison culture changes.

New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2023. 66p.

Edited by Rui Abrunhosa Gonçalves 

This book provides international perspectives on corrections, correctional treatment, and penitentiary laws. Although its focus is on African and South American countries, the information provided can be easily expanded to North America and Europe. The chapters present legal frameworks and applied research on prisons and their potential to deter crime and reduce recidivism rates. The book puts the human rights agenda at the forefront and is a useful resource for those who work in corrections, including prison, education, and probation officers.

London: InTechOpen, 2023. 146p.

 By The HM Chief Inspector of Prisons 

Most prisoners in England and Wales are adult men held in prisons, designated according to different security categories: A, B and C in closed sites, and category D prisoners in open prisons (for definitions see Appendix II). The allocation and management of men in the highest security prisons (category A) is the responsibility of a small number of prisons built to a higher security specification, making escape far more difficult. In March 2023, women and children made up less than 5% of the prison population. The small numbers meant women were held in two categories of prison: closed and open. As none of the establishments holding children and women are built to high security specification, additional measures – under the heading ‘restricted status’ – are imposed to minimise the possibility of escape and protect the public from harm. HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) first formalised the restricted status system for women and children in 2010, and although used sparingly, the system is very much informed by the category A model used for men. We believe it fails to reflect the different capabilities, motivation and resources for women and children’s escape potential, not to mention the very different environments and facilities in which they are held. Our thematic review found weaknesses in the assessment of women and children’s specific risks before deciding to apply extensive additional security measures. Oversight of restricted status prisoners, including decisions to remove additional restrictions, was undertaken by the long-term and high security prisons group director through a category A review board, which also managed category A adult male prisoners. Membership of the board did not, however, include leaders from the youth custody service (YCS) or the women’s estate, which would have added expertise and specialist knowledge and helped to deliver a more effective system, tailored to the specific risks posed by women and children. Some children had previously lived in lower security settings – including secure training centres (STCs) and secure children’s homes (SCHs) – where they had no additional security measures applied, despite meeting the restricted status criteria. When they moved to more secure settings, they were subject to far more restrictions, despite the high levels of supervision in children’s YOIs. There was no justification for such anomalies. ...

London: HM Inspectorate of Prisons, 2023. 30p,