By Grace Y. Li

Prison has been used for diverse purposes and has taken on an array of social meanings, becoming so malleable as to form a permanent fixture of government. Despite the variety of ends toward which imprisonment has been deployed, the practice always relies on one central mechanism: control over the associative lives of the incarcerated. The exercise of this control marks an unalterable, essential feature of prison. Regardless of what other brutalities it entails, imprisonment necessarily means removing people from their homes and communities and limiting their possibilities for relationships with people outside, as well as compelling association with others inside. This Essay presents an analytical framing of incarceration as a tool of associative control.Using the associative lens, the Essay levies a unifying critique of effects of prison that are typically treated in isolation. It also offers a critical comparison of incarceration to its justice system alternatives, which mirror incarceration in their assertion of associative control over people in their custody but diverge in their particular associative goals: they seek to promote social bonds while incarceration seeks to limit them. In this sense, the prison works against the larger goals of the criminal justice system. The Essay argues all these carceral forms engage in associative overreach, but that the associative control is a reformable aspect of “community corrections” but not of prison. In this way, the associational lens informs the debate about prison abolition versus reform: the prison’s associational harms cannot be reformed, and if they are unjustifiable, the prison is too.The prison is instructive as a site of extreme associative control, but the associative lens is more broadly applicable. It can act as a synthesizing frame to understand harms and functions of family regulation, disability, immigration, and more.

 Ohio State Legal Studies Research Paper No. 936,  2025.

By The Justice Policy Institute

As Virginia faces a critical labor shortage and rising incarceration costs, the state also sits on an untapped resource: thousands of incarcerated individuals eligible for federal Pell Grants who are eager to learn, work, and contribute to their communities. Unlocking Virginia’s Workforce makes the economic and moral case for expanding access to higher education in Virginia’s prisons and offers a comprehensive policy blueprint for reform.

This report outlines the high cost inaction, presenting data-driven arguments for how postsecondary education reduces recidivism, strengthens families, and helps meet the state’s urgent workforce needs. It highlights policy gaps and systemic barriers – from outdated technology infrastructure to racial, gender, and geographic inequities – and offers concrete recommendations for Virginia’s elected officials, education institutions, employers, and corrections leaders.

Drawing on lessons from across the country and the lived experience of incarcerated learners, Unlocking Virginia’s Workforce shows how aligning prison education with the state’s economic priorities can reduce public spending, grow the talent pipeline, and build a more inclusive Commonwealth.

Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute, 2025. 59p.

By The Center for Crime and Justice Institute

To understand the scope and the urgency of these challenges in Minnesota, state leaders sought assistance from the Crime and Justice Institute (CJI), funded by Arnold Ventures, to examine aspects of the state’s criminal justice system. This assessment included an examination of past and current prison population trends, prison conditions in the oldest prison facilities, and the costs associated with potential solutions. CJI analyzed publicly available data, performed statutory analysis, and interviewed criminal justice practitioners and stakeholders, including system-impacted individuals, attorneys, legislators, and staff at advocacy organizations.

The United States built its first prison in 1773 in an old copper mine. 1 The nation’s criminal justice system has grown and evolved, yet many facilities that the system continues to rely on were built in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Minnesota is an example of this, with over 2,000 individuals housed in two facilities built more than 100 years ago. 2 Continued use of these facilities is problematic as their structures prohibit the programming necessary for effective rehabilitation, and the conditions within their walls create dangerous safety and health hazards for staff and those incarcerated. 3 Since 1990, Minnesota’s prison population rose steadily until it peaked at over 10,000 people in 2016. The prison population declined during the COVID-19 pandemic, as it did nationally. However, post-pandemic, the population climbed, from 7,300 incarcerated people in 2021 to 8,277 in January 2025. 4,5 As of January 2025, the 109-year-old prison in Stillwater houses more than 1,100 people, and the 135-year-old prison in St. Cloud houses nearly 950 people.6,7 The dangerous conditions within these two facilities present an urgent need to act. Since 2023, there have been major disruptions in operations at both facilities. Individuals in custody refuse to return to their cells, and violent incidents that necessitate lockdowns further create stress and frustration inside the prison gates.8,9,10 This assessment found: • While Minnesota’s prison population and incarceration rate are below the national average, they are rising at a faster pace than the national rate. 11 • Stillwater and St. Cloud house a significant number of incarcerated individuals whom other facilities would have to accommodate if either facility had to shut down. 12 • The conditions at these facilities limit opportunities for programming, education, vocational training, and, thus, the ability for incarcerated individuals to earn credit to receive time off their sentences and to prepare to integrate successfully into their communities. 13,14 • While the recent passage of the Minnesota Rehabilitation and Reinvestment Act (MRRA) and other similar pieces of legislation are expected to reduce the amount of time incarcerated individuals serve in the state and, ultimately, the size of the overall prison system,15 these impacts will not be immediate. As the state waits to see these legislative efforts bear fruit, immediate steps are necessary to improve public safety, reduce recidivism, and improve the safety of the people who live and work in the prison system. This examination, which includes ways other states addressed similar challenges, will enable state leaders to make informed decisions about potential next steps to achieve these goals.

Boston: The Crime and Justice Institute (CJI)2025. 20p.

By Natalie Nanasi

Perpetrators of intimate partner violence are barred by federal law and many states' laws from possessing firearms. While such prohibitions enjoy popular support, they are sporadically and inconsistently enforced, placing the lives of survivors at risk when offenders do not voluntarily comply. Many experts, including this author, have offered legal and policy solutions to increase the likelihood that perpetrators of domestic violence will either willingly relinquish their guns or otherwise be dispossessed of them. But these proposals may have been premature.

This Article is the first to take a step back and inquire why offenders do not surrender their firearms as ordered and what might incentivize them to do so. Understanding the worldviews and lived experiences of those subject to domestic violence gun prohibitions is a critical, and to-date ignored, first step to formulating viable solutions.

The Article is based on original empirical research conducted with perpetrators of intimate partner violence enrolled in a Batterer Intervention Program in Texas. The research reveals a range of novel findings based on both survey responses and in-depth interviews. The data show that most men subject to domestic violence firearm regulations are aware that they are prohibited possessors. They are reluctant to comply with the law, however, due to the atypically high levels of violence--including gun violence--they have experienced in their lifetimes, which has led them to conclude that firearms are necessary to protect themselves and their loved ones from harm. Respondents also identify closely with a stereotypically masculine identity that leads them to associate gun ownership with power and control; have strong (but not necessarily accurate) opinions about the Second Amendment; and are enmeshed in cultures where gun-carrying is the norm.

These insights about the men who are impacted by domestic violence gun regulations can help us promulgate laws and policies that offenders will be more inclined to comply with and are more likely to be enforced and enforceable. And importantly, successfully removing firearms from the hands of abusers can bring us one step closer to ending the epidemic of intimate partner violence gun fatalities in the United States.

36 Yale J. of L. & Feminism 51 (2025)

By BRITTANY L. DEITCH

Beginning in the 1970s, as incarceration rates rose rapidly, states began implementing policies aimed at alleviating the financial burdens of supporting the system of mass incarceration. This Essay takes a macro-level approach by identifying and beginning to grapple with issues arising from the combination of two of these policies. First, states began delegating their duties to private prisons with the hope that for-profit entities could perform those duties at a more modest cost to taxpayers. Second, states enacted pay-to-stay laws, which authorize the state or county to seek reimbursement for the costs of incarceration from the incarcerated person. In taking these steps to mitigate the difficulty of funding mass incarceration, states instead perpetuate the harms of incarceration and create new problems. Ultimately, I argue that there are structural issues with this necro-capitalist system that siphons funds from the incarcerated to enrich private corporations while enabling the state to recede into the background. Moreover, even setting aside the inherent structural problems, this combination of policies counterproductively perpetuates mass incarceration by promoting a cycle of poverty and recidivism

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA JOURNAL OF LAW AND SOCIAL CHANGE Volume 28, Number 1 2024.

By Nicholas Blagden, Luke Vinter, Eve Penford, Jade Mason & Polly Delliere-Moor

The evidence for offending behaviour programmes has expanded over several decades, with a large body of reviews producing well replicated findings attesting to the positive effects of cognitive-behavioural approaches in reducing general reoffending. These approaches aim to help participants recognise patterns of thought and action, while providing alternative perspectives and cognitive skills to help change thinking and behaviour. Related research also indicates that following Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) principles yields the best outcomes. In brief, RNR principles suggest that the intensity of rehabilitation services should be matched to a person’s propensity to reoffend (risk), targeted at psychological characteristics associated with reoffending (need); and, based on a cognitive-behavioural approach, tailored to individual styles of learning (responsivity). In line with such principles, His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) in England and Wales has invested in cognitive-behavioural programmes since the 1990s. Central to this offer since 2008 has been the Thinking Skills Programme (TSP), which is aimed at adult men and women who are assessed as medium and above risk of reoffending. TSP comprises 19 sessions (15 group sessions and 4 individual sessions). It is designed to support reductions in reoffending in four ways as set out below. 1. Developing thinking skills (such as problem solving, flexible thinking, consequential thinking, critical reasoning). 2. Applying these skills to managing personal risk factors. 3. Applying thinking skills to developing personally relevant protective factors. 4. Applying thinking skills to setting pro-social goals that support relapse prevention. This report qualitatively evaluates TSP, focusing on participants’ experiences of the programme and the perceived impact of the prison environment on its effectiveness.

London: Ministry of Justice 2025. 79p.

By Campaign to Close Rikers

The jails on Rikers Island are legally required to close within three years. But closing Rikers is not simply a legal obligation - it is a moral one. “Torture Island,” as it is commonly known by those who’ve survived it, has robbed generations of primarily Black and Brown people of their freedom and their human rights. The deadly conditions at Rikers have claimed far too many lives, including 32 people since Mayor Adams took office. Fortunately, there is a plan in place to close Rikers that was envisioned and fought for by formerly incarcerated people and their family members, with the support of faith leaders, service providers, community organizations, and other allies. This plan was approved and passed by the Mayor and City Council in October 2019, after extensive community input. Now is the time to accelerate this plan, and to maximize every possible strategy to reduce the jail population and limit the number of people exposed to the harm and abuses of Rikers. The Mayor and city agencies must take the lead in urgently executing this plan, and every elected official must leverage their power to support its implementation. Here we outline steps the Mayor, along with the City Council, must take to deliver on the commitment to closing Rikers, from decarceration, to defending the rights of incarcerated people, to divestment & redistribution.

New York: The Campaign, 2024. 14p.

By The HE UTAH INDIGENT DEFENSE COMMISSION

The focus of this report is the structural improvements made to indigent defense services in Juab County as a result of the partnership between state and local stakeholders. These stakeholders include the Utah Indigent Defense Commission (IDC), Juab County Commission and Attorney’s Office, and the Utah County Public Defender’s Office (UTCPD), and local attorneys. The Utah Legislature created the IDC in 2016 to provide meaningful state oversight and ensure Utah’s indigent defense services are constitutionally effective. The IDC collaborates with the state, local governments, indigent defense providers, and other stakeholders to:  provide guidance and standards for systems to ensure and oversee local defense services;  gather and report information about local indigent defense services;  award state funding to local governments to improve local indigent defense services; and  encourage and aid in the regionalization of indigent defense services throughout the state. For calendar year 2017, Juab County was the first recipient of an IDC grant award of $111,800. Actual IDC spending totaled $95,924, allowing the IDC to more accurately budget for a three-year grant renewal with Juab County in 2018. Additionally, identifying this amount helped to set the precedent for the startup and recurring costs of indigent defense improvements for future grant models throughout the state. The data in this report make use of those efforts to measure improvements in a local indigent defense system as a result of state funding from the IDC. The data are compiled from many sources, including narratives submitted by Juab County, as a requirement of the IDC grant award. Additional data come from the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) on appointed case and case-specific information, and Sorenson Impact Center Data Science Team for providing quantitative metrics related to indigent defense statewide.

Salt Lake City, UK: The Commission, 2019. 29p.

By The Utah Commission on Criminal & Juvenile Justice

Decades of research have demonstrated a systemic and nation-wide presence of racial and ethnic disparities in the United States’ criminal justice system. Here we analyze 9,788 felony Pre-Sentence Investigation reports in Utah between 2015 and 2017. By examining the relationship between race-ethnicity and the severity of the pre-sentence recommendation, we find that Hispanics have an increased likelihood of receiving the most severe sentence recommendation in comparison to Whites. Policy implications around findings are discussed which has the potential to reduce current disparities as they occur at the Pre-Sentence Investigation level. The generational costs associated with the system’s inequalities merits policy action on this salient issue.

Salt Lake City, UT: The Commission, 2019. 17p.

By AlexanderTesta, Dylan B. Jackson, Meghan Novisky, Kyle T. Ganson, Jason M. Nagata, and JackTsai

Abstract Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the cognitive functioning of formerly incarcerated older adults compared to their never-incarcerated counterparts, focusing on immediate and delayed verbal recall. Methods: Data are from 2,003 respondents who participated in the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health—Parent Study (AHPS; ages 47–82, mean age 62). AHPS participants were administered word recall memory exercises to the parent respondent from the Rey Auditory-Verbal administered Learning Test, including (a) 90-s (immediate or short-term verbal memory), (b) 60-s recall tests (delayed or longterm verbal memory), and (c) combined word recall on the 90-s and 60-s tests. Results: Adjusting for control variables, respondents who reported prior incarceration had a lower rate of verbal recall on the combined word recall (incidence risk ratio [IRR] = 0.915, 95% confdence interval [CI] = 0.840, 0.997) and immediate word recall (IRR = 0.902, 95% CI = 0.817, 0.996). When restricting the sample to respondents over age 60, prior incarceration was associated with lower combined word recall (IRR = 0.847, 95% CI = 0.752, 0.954), immediate word recall (IRR = 0.857, 95% CI = 0.762, 0.963), and delayed word recall (IRR = 0.834, 95% CI = 0.713, 0.974). Discussion: This study underscores the adverse impact of prior incarceration on cognitive functioning in the older adult population, emphasizing the need for targeted interventions and support for formerly incarcerated older adults. The results reinforce the importance of addressing the long-term consequences of incarceration, especially as individuals enter older adulthood.

The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 2024, 79

By BRONWYN HUNTER, KENDRA BRADNER, and EMILY NAPIER SINGLETARY

The Less Is More: Community Supervision Revocation Reform Act (S.1144A – Benjamin / A.5576A – Forrest) was signed into law in September of 2021. This act transformed the parole system in New York State, and has the potential to generate substantial cost savings that can be (re)invested into communities. The Columbia Justice Lab Probation and Parole Project and Unchained partnered with the Less Is More advocacy coalition, led by Unchained and the Katal Center, to learn: How do community members across New York State want the cost savings from Less Is More to be invested into their communities? Through a series of town hall meetings held virtually across the state, community members shared insight into what resources should be invested in and how such investments should be made. Specifically, community members who participated in the town halls prioritized investments in: ›› housing, ›› behavioral healthcare, ›› employment and vocational training, ›› reentry supports, ›› and community spaces, among other resources. Importantly, town hall attendees emphasized that funds should be invested in a way that: ›› enhances equity, ›› targets people and families who are affected by the criminal legal system, ›› and builds on local community and organizational capacity to meet community needs. There are several pieces of legislation in various stages of the policy process that are consistent with community members needs for investments, and these are identified in sidebars throughout the report.1 Community members who participated in the town halls reiterated what advocates and community members have previously called for – strategies that will invest in New Yorkers so that people can thrive in their communities. Policymakers can respond to these calls by taking action to invest in resources and strategies that move toward equity and justice.

New York: Columbia University, Justice Lab, 2023. 31p.

By Michael Olson

For much of its history, research into crime has focused almost exclusively on the urban environment. Modern criminology and its associated theories were all pioneered in studying large American cities to such an extent that one researcher laments, "the science of criminology ignored rural crime." The lack of scholarly interest stemmed from a belief that massive economic restructuring caused social disorganization, which in turn caused crime. However, this belief had an important corollary - that sort of social disorganization was only possible in urban areas. This line of study ultimately created some "unquestioned assumptions that all rural places have less crime, and more importantly, less variation in factors that are associated or correlated with variations in crime." These assumptions emerged from a popular conception of rurality to be isolated and static. However, close examination reveals that these myths about rural Oklahoma could not be farther from the truth. Rural economies are neither isolated nor static but rather, deal with constant economic restructuring that has served to concentrate poverty in certain rural areas, thereby decreasing community safety.

Oklahoma City: Oklahomans for Criminal Justice Reform (OCJR), 2025. 22p.

By Emma Kaufman

It is tempting to assume that the United States has fifty distinct state prison systems. For a time, that assumption was correct. In the late twentieth century, however, states began to swap prisoners and to outsource punishment to their neighbors. Today, prisoners have no right to be incarcerated in the state where they were convicted, and prison officials may trade prisoners — either for money or for other prisoners — across state lines. Interstate prison transfers raise questions about the scope of states’ authority to punish, the purpose of criminal law, and the possibilities of prison reform. Yet apart from prisoners and their families, few people know that prisoners can be shipped between states. Because information on prisoners is so hard to obtain, scholars, lawyers, lawmakers, and even the judges who impose prison sentences often have no idea where prisoners are held. Drawing on a wide range of primary sources, including data uncovered through open records requests to all fifty states, this Article offers the first comprehensive account of the prisoner trade. It demonstrates that states have far more authority than one might expect to share and sell prisoners. It reveals that certain states rely on transfers to offset the actual and political costs of their prosecution policies. And it critiques the pathologies of interstate punishment, arguing that courts should require consent before a prisoner can be sent outside the polity whose laws he has transgressed

Harvard Law Review, VOLUME 133 APRIL 2020 NUMBER 6

By Penal Reform International

People in prison are among the most vulnerable to suffering from the negative effects of natural hazards. Despite international and national momentum to enhance disaster risk reduction (DRR), its application in prison systems is often not a primary concern. In recent years, people detained and working in prisons have been injured – sometimes fatally – due to damage and destruction caused by natural hazards, exacerbated by inadequate preparations by prison authorities to ensure their safety.

Based on primary research, this guide – the first of its kind – presents practical measures with a human rights-based approach for practitioners and frontline staff working in prison systems.

London: PRI, 2021. 32p.

By David M.N. Garavito, Amelia Courtney Hritz, and John H. Blume

When most incarcerated persons go before the parole board, they hope that the decision whether to release them will be based on their institutional record; put differently, that the board will consider the use of opportunities available in prison, rehabilitation, and likelihood of success outside the carceral environment. However, numerous persons with excellent records and reentry plans are denied parole every year. Why? The actual variables that influence parole board decision making are often a mystery; parole rejections are left unexplained or opaque. Empirical research examining what drives parole outcomes is scarce, yet this research is necessary given the power the parole boards have in determining the actual amount of time served in prison. In this Article, we examined the influence of institutional variables (those related to a person’s behavior while incarcerated) and noninstitutional variables on parole hearing outcomes in South Carolina. We predicted that institutional variables, such as the conviction of additional crimes during incarceration, would predict parole outcomes, but we also predicted that noninstitutional variables which may cue characteristics such as dangerousness (e.g., the nature of the offense), regardless of relevance to a person’s rehabilitation, would also predict parole outcomes. We analyzed the outcomes of all (43,290) parole board hearings from 2006 to 2016 and examined the influence of variables such as a person’s race, biological sex, age at the time of the first offense, time served, conviction of another offense while incarcerated, sex offender status, and number of felonies. Our results confirmed our hypotheses: although institutional variables, such as being convicted of another crime while incarcerated, influenced parole outcomes, several noninstitutional variables, particularly those which may cue dangerousness, were also significant. The most alarming results were those concerning race and biological sex. The parole board was significantly less likely to grant parole to incarcerated men compared to women and to Black people compared to white people. Further, there was a significant interaction between sex and race such that Black men were least likely to be granted parole, whereas white women were the most likely to be granted parole. In addition to the above results, the number of convictions and the severity of the crimes a person was convicted of were associated with significantly lower likelihood of being granted parole. Additional research highlighting the specific roles that noninstitutional variables should play in parole hearings is warranted, if only to root out undesirable effects on a critical aspect of the criminal justice system.

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA JOURNAL OF LAW AND SOCIAL CHANGE Volume 27, Number 2 2024.

By Samantha Plummer and Jaclyn Davis

From July 2019 to May 2021, the Columbia Justice Lab developed and conducted a longitudinal interview study of nearly 300 people facing new criminal charges in New York City. The Rikers Island Longitudinal Study aimed to understand how defendants’ experiences in the pretrial process affected and were affected by their social and economic life conditions. After first interviewing people at court or in jail soon after their initial arraignments, the study re-interviewed them 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months later. This report highlights our key findings. The goals of this report are to: • Share the experiences of defendants who have varying degrees of contact with the criminal legal system in New York City. • Provide organizations that work with court-involved people information to understand the socioeconomic conditions of people going through the criminal courts. • Contribute to a citywide and national discussion about how to safely reduce jail populations. Key Findings Over 100,000 people are prosecuted in the New York City criminal courts every year. While there is excellent research on case processing and jail incarceration, less is known about the social and economic lives of people with court involvement. The Justice Lab’s analysis of over one thousand interviews with 286 defendants, and linked administrative data on criminal histories and social benefits use, shows that: • The sample of criminal defendants faced severe housing insecurity. – In the month before being arrested, about one-third of the sample had spent most nights in unstable housing. – About 20 percent of the sample had spent at least one night in a Department of Homeless Services shelter in the year before and/or after their arrest. • Unstable housing was strongly associated with mental health and substance use issues. – Study respondents with histories of mental illness and addiction were more than twice as likely to be unhoused or in a shelter or other temporary housing when they were arrested. – Half of study respondents without a history of substance use or mental illness had stable housing, compared to under a third of those with histories of mental illness and substance use problems. • Unemployment and precarious employment in the study sample were high and were closely related to housing, health, and substance use problems. – Only 25 percent of respondents in temporary or unstable housing reported employment at the initial interview whereas about 60 percent of individuals in any form of private residence reported employment. – Of the respondents who reported that they were employed at all four interview waves, only 41 percent reported working the same job across the entire study. • Exposure to violence was common, mostly in the form of victimization and witnessing rather than perpetration, and different experiences of violence were closely related. – Men, young people aged 18 to 34, and people with a history of mental illness and drug problems were more likely to report assaulting someone in the year after arraignment. Still, in each of these groups, around 80 percent of respondents reported not engaging in any threats or assaults. – Among respondents who were never attacked or had not witnessed other violence, only about 5 percent said they had attacked someone else, whereas 30 to 40 percent of those who had been attacked or witnessed violence reported attacking someone else. • Emerging adults (ages 18 to 25), who are incarcerated at more than double the rate of the adult population as a whole, faced particular health vulnerabilities. – Emerging adults reported a very low rate of health insurance coverage; a third of emerging adults in the sample were uninsured at their first interview, compared to 13 percent of respondents over age 25. – Three quarters of emerging adults reported some kind of ongoing health issue. Those who reported health conditions were much more likely to be uninsured (37%) than people over age 25 who reported health conditions (9%). • The sample reported a high prevalence of Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs), which were associated with poor health and substance use problems in adulthood. – Childhood adversity was more common in the project sample than in the U.S. population; RILS respondents were much more likely to have been removed from the home by the state, to have been physically or sexually abused, and to have lived with an incarcerated household member. – Respondents who reported four or more ACEs were significantly more likely to report mental health problems – Respondents largely did not receive support from adults to deal with extreme adverse events in childhood; across all ACEs, an average of 28 percent of respondents reported receiving help from an adult. • Criminal court processes were long and unpredictable, and disrupted study respondents’ social and economic well-being. – Ninety-five percent of respondents reported that court involvement disrupted their lives. One sixth of respondents reported losing housing due to their criminal case. – Respondents with mental health problems and living in unstable housing were more likely to have their focal arrests result in conviction

New York: Columbia University, Justice Lab, 2024. 50p.

By John Eric Humphries,, Cécile Macaire,, Aurélie Ouss,, Megan Stevenson,, Winnie van Dijk,

Using newly-linked administrative and commercial data from Virginia spanning 25 years, we study the consequences of incarceration. While previous research has examined labor market outcomes and recidivism, we focus on two of the primary channels through which low-income households build wealth: asset ownership (homes and cars) and human capital formation. To identify causal effects, we use a matched differencein-differences design. In line with much of the literature on the impact of incarceration in the U.S., we find no evidence of scarring effects on labor market outcomes or changes in recidivism beyond the incapacitation period. However, we find that incarceration leads to a persistent reduction in asset accumulation: seven years after sentencing, homeownership has declined by 1.1 percentage points (12.1%) and car ownership by 2.7 percentage points (18.1%). Incarceration also lowers human capital formation, reducing college enrollment by 1.4 percentage points (15.1%).

Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers. 2859.

New Haven, CT: Yale University, 2025. 70p.

By ESPEN WALDERHAUG

he government’s proposal, Drug policy reform – from punishment to help, means that society’s reaction to illicit drugs for personal use will be transferred from the justice sector to the health sector (1). Today, the use and possession of narcotics is penalised with fines and up to six months’ imprisonment or a decision not to bring criminal charges followed by monitoring and drugs testing. This will change if the government gets its way. The police will continue to focus on use and possession, but if you are caught with small amounts of narcotics, this will instead result in a compulsory meeting with the municipal drugs counselling services. Selling drugs will continue to be criminally prosecuted as it is today. The same applies to the storage of large quantities of narcotics, production and import as well as driving under the influence.

The Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association 2020, 3p.

By Vincent Schiraldi

This research brief assesses the impact of a March 27, 2020 announcement from the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS), indicating that it would release up to 1,100 people jailed in county facilities for accusations of technical parole violations in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Infectious disease spreads easily and quickly in congregate settings such as jails and prisons. New York State incarcerates more people for non-criminal, technical parole violations than every state except Illinois, and the first two incarcerated people to die of COVID-19 in the Rikers Island jail complex - Michael Tyson and Raymond Rivera - were held there for technical parole violations for missing appointments and failing a drug program.

The research brief concludes that the state released around three-quarters of those originally anticipated by the NYS Department of Corrections and Community Supervision.

It additionally finds that in the two months since the directive was issued, more than 160 people accused of technical parole violations were newly sent to the Rikers jails. This number appears to be accelerating and is projected to surpass the number of people released by June or early July, 2020.

In response to the limited and waning effect of the March release order, the report recommends immediate steps for both the NYS Department of Corrections and Community Supervision and state policymakers:

Unless an individual poses a demonstrable and imminent public safety risk, all people held in jails and prisons for technical parole violations be released

DOCCS cease issuing new warrants for technical violations until the pandemic subsides

State policymakers should enact legislative reforms such as ending automatic pre-hearing incarceration for people facing technical violations; eliminating incarceration for less serious technical violations; capping incarceration terms for technical violations; and incentivizing parole compliance through grants of “merit time” for following the rules.

The above recommendations comport with best practices in the field, limit exposure to dangerous correctional settings now and in the event of a COVID-19 rebound, and will save considerable resources at the state, city, and county level

New York: Columbia University Justice Lab, 2021.9p.

By Columbia University Justice Lab, et al.

With the closing of Rikers Island, New York City has a unique opportunity to revolutionize the treatment of women and gender-expansive people who are currently at the Rose M. Singer Center on Rikers.

The Prison and Jail Innovation Lab at the University of Texas at Austin, the Center for Justice, and the Columbia University Justice Lab collaborated with the Women’s Community Justice Association and HR&A Advisors on a report detailing the design, model and operations of “The Women’s Center for Justice,” a proposed first-of-its kind gender-responsive, trauma-informed facility. The report calls for New York City and State to come together to transform the Lincoln Correctional site at West 110th Street into a site for women and gender-expansive people. Lincoln, which is owned by the state, is currently not in operation and could easily be converted into a facility for women and gender-expansive individuals. Lincoln is zoned as a correctional facility and would not need to go through a lengthy land-use review process.

The report outlines a groundbreaking “Reentry at Entry” approach and holistic care model that aims to end the cycle of incarceration.

New York: Columbia University Justice Lab, 2022. 38p.