By Campaign Zero

This report examines the practice of pay-to-stay fees, which involves charging individuals—both adults and youths—in correctional facilities for costs relating to their incarceration. Pay-to-stay fees not only affect individuals during their time of incarceration but can also result in post-release debt. While the report considers the overarching issues with pay-to-stay fees broadly, it looks more specifically at the imposition of room and board and medical fees at the state level for incarcerated adults and youths serving a sentence. Based on an in-depth literature review, discussions with other researchers, and interviews with people directly impacted by pay-to-stay fees, we argue that these fees are highly problematic for several reasons. Specifically, pay-to-stay fees: Impose excessive financial burdens on incarcerated individuals and their families, many of whom are already economically strained before and during incarceration; Serve as significant barriers to accessing basic goods and services during incarceration, such as medical care; Hinder successful reentry after a person has served their sentence; and Are ineffective fiscal policies that fail to generate significant revenue or meaningfully impact states’ budgets. Despite the lasting harms that pay-to-stay fees pose, these policies are pervasive across the country. Based on our analysis of qualitatively coded state statutes and corrections department policies related to pay-to-stay fees between June 2022 and December 2023, we found that 48 states allow for the imposition of at least one category of pay-to-stay fees 26 states explicitly allow for both room & board and medical fees for both adults and youths who are incarcerated Only the states of California and Illinois have repealed fees for all categories in state correctional facilities Given the widespread prevalence of pay-to-stay fees, we conclude the report by urging correctional systems and state & local governments across the country to explicitly ban the imposition of these fees and work towards dismantling the broader web of legal fines and fees that trap individuals in cycles of incarceration and debt.

Campaign Zero, 2025, 33p.

By Laura McFeely

In the last decade, the United States has seen a wave of efforts to greatly reduce or eliminate the use of solitary confinement. In the light of growing international recognition that such treatment amounts to torture, these efforts are certainly encouraging and have contributed to a reduction of the number of people held in long-term isolation. But it is worthwhile to examine the extent of these reforms and what solitary confinement now looks like in states that have implemented such changes.

A robust literature exists on the harms of solitary confinement and ideas for reforming or eliminating its use. This paper adds to the literature by evaluating the success of such efforts, several years into this wave, now that there is more data available. It examines two states that have presented themselves as success stories, Massachusetts and Colorado, where the correctional agencies purport to have eliminated long-term solitary confinement. Although its use has been greatly reduced, it persists for some number of incarcerated people—prompting the question of why these agencies are not more forthright about their progress.

This paper uses these two states to illustrate larger trends and concludes by suggesting ways that advocates can ensure that their efforts are maximally successful as the trend of eliminating solitary confinement hopefully continues. It contributes to the scholarship evaluating how our democracy’s branches—judicial, executive, and legislative—can provide meaningful restraints on correctional agencies’ actions in order to protect the people in their custody.

20 Nw. J. L. & Soc. Pol'y. 122 (2024), 37p.

By Rocco d’Este

Incarceration is a crucial part of the scholarly analysis of crime, but what happens inside penal institutions largely remains a ‘black box’ (Western, 2021). This paper studies the impact of the new psychoactive substances (NPS) epidemic within prisons. NPS are powerful addictive chemical compounds that mimic the pharmacological effects of conventional drugs of abuse (CDA) but avoid classification as illegal and detection in standard drug tests. To conduct the analysis, I have assembled a novel establishment-by month database of all England and Wales prisons from 2007 to 2018 including information on drugs seizures, random mandatory drug test results, various measures of harm, violence, and causes of death. I first document a large increase in NPS availability and an alarming correlation with the steep rise in harm and violence behind bars. I then evaluate the impact of the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, a supply-side intervention aimed at inhibiting the proliferation of NPS. The analysis exploits cross-prison variation in the initial size of the drug market and shows high-intensity NPS trafficking prisons experienced a sustained but partial reduction in NPS availability, limited substitution toward CDA, and a rise in violence, self-harm, and suicides following the law. Collectively, the findings suggest unwarranted responses to government interventions may be amplified within penal institutions and that new challenges stemming from scientific advances in illegal drugs production should be addressed through systemic interventions that also consider the demand for addictive substances.

IZA DP No. 15248

Bonn: IZA – Institute of Labor Economics , 2022. 60p.