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.

By Rachel Cordle and Eleanor Gale

This synthesis provides an overview of evidence on what works to reduce reoffending, updating evidence previously published by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) in 2013 and 2014. 1,2 It revisits some of the same areas as the previous reviews, including more recent evidence and incorporating new areas such as debt and community ties. Given the breadth of different activities and interventions that exist, this summary focuses upon the evidence base for some of the key areas of MoJ policymaking, but it is clearly not exhaustive. Evidence is drawn primarily from a series of Rapid Evidence Assessments (REAs) conducted by academics working in the field of reducing reoffending in 2022. REAs were used to compile sections on: Accommodation, Education, Employment, Finance, Benefits and Debt, and Community Ties. The REAs focused upon the effectiveness of these types of interventions to reduce reoffending but included some additional follow up questions such as features of effective interventions of different types, and for whom they may be most effective. A REA was also commissioned on theories of desistance. For the remaining sections, MoJ analysts conducted internal reviews of recent evidence. When assessing effectiveness, findings from meta-analyses were used where available, as there can be greater confidence in findings drawn from a series of studies than from single evaluations. Studies that included any comparison group were eligible for inclusion, with a focus on evidence drawn from England & Wales (although international studies were eligible for inclusion). Table 1 summarises the overall strength of the meta-analytical evidence base for the effectiveness by intervention type and provides an indication of the scale of the potential reduction in reoffending for some specific intervention approaches (where relevant). Some interventions appear to have potential to deliver larger reductions in reoffending than others, however it is likely the greatest reduction will be achieved where interventions are well-matched to the individual. Where the evidence base is classified as ‘insufficient’, this reflects an evidence gap and does not imply that type of intervention does not work. Table 1 includes only the results of meta-analyses when providing an indication of the potential scale of impact by specific intervention approach. In areas where there are lots of different types of interventions used (such as employment), the meta-analytical evidence base may be weakened by the lack of comparability across studies. In addition, some of the areas covered are more closely linked to reoffending than others. For example, there is evidence that reoffending is lower amongst prison leavers who find employment. In contrast, there is a more nuanced, moderated relationship between mental health and reoffending. Mental health (like physical health) is a foundational area for work with offenders but does not in itself link directly to reoffending. Note also that table 1 reviews only evidence for the potential scale of effectiveness. Readers should refer to the relevant chapter for more detail on the wider evidence base for specific interventions of interest. Evidence gaps common across the different intervention areas include a need for more UK-based evaluation, a need for individual evaluation reports to better capture programme design characteristics that can affect success, and a need for greater understanding of what works best for different groups. It would also be helpful to have more consistency in how outcomes are measured, in order to more reliably compare which interventions have the biggest impacts.

London: Ministry of Justice, 2025. 60p.

By Prison Reform Trust

The high level of multiple and often unmet need experienced by many women in the justice system is well documented. Many women in prison are victims of more serious crimes than those they are accused of committing. The past two decades have seen several key policy developments relating to women’s imprisonment (see Appendix 1). Each of these developments show a trend towards recognising the distinct and specific needs of women in the criminal justice system and call for a reduction in women’s imprisonment. However, the number of women in prison, especially on remand and on short sentences, has remained stubbornly high. Moving beyond this status quo requires bold and creative thinking alongside sustained development and implementation of pre-existing strategies. This briefing sets out key facts and figures relating to women in the criminal justice system and highlights progress to date in implementing an approach which recognises women’s distinct needs.

London: Prison Reform Trust, 2025. 10p.

By Victoria Knight

to understand the kinds of practical steps and activities needed to help support people on probation with digital resources as a means to nourish their desistance journeys. The digitization of the justice sector is complicated, and at times fraught with tensions and anxiety, and it shines a light on important factors like human rights, equality and safety. Slowly evidence is emerging that identifies some of the beneficial outcomes for people on probation – especially where digital resources can help improve human flourishing in different ways. In addition, staff are crucial in the digitization journey and are important brokers in empowering probationers to live a life without crime and reduce their risk of reoffending, now in a digitized world. The paper focuses on digital resources and services for people on probation that can implicitly or explicitly support, initiate and facilitate their desistance.

Academic Insights 2025/03

Manchester, UK: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2025. 15p.

By Andrew Blum

Rise Up Industries emerged from the work of Kairos Prison Ministry in the early 2010s. During an event organized by Kairos at the Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego, Father Greg Boyle of Homeboy Industries5 in Los Angeles challenged Joseph Gilbreath, a Kairos volunteer, to establish something similar in San Diego. In response, Gilbreath, Ross Provenzano, and other Kairos volunteers founded RUI in 2013. The mission statement of RUI reads: Rise Up Industries minimizes gang involvement by providing integrated gang prevention, gang intervention, and post-detention reentry services. RUI describes their longer-term goal for this three-pronged approach as breaking the “intergenerational cycle of gang violence.”  RUI began by launching their 18-month reentry program in 2016, after just over three years of research on the needs in San Diego and the organizations already working on reentry services in San Diego County. According to RUI leadership, they launched the reentry program first in part because alumni of the reentry program could then participate in their gang prevention and intervention efforts. RUI is currently laying the foundation for more robust gang prevention programming through a series of speaking engagements, in which reentry program participants and alumni speak with at-risk and justice-involved youth with the goal of assisting them in making more positive life choices. As part of these efforts, RUI is also developing an MOU with Monarch School. Monarch School is a school in San Diego that educates children impacted by homelessness. Participants in the program will continue to regularly visit the school to speak with the students. RUI’s future plans for its gang prevention and intervention initiatives will be discussed in more detail below. 

San Diego: University of San Diego, Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace and Justice,  2022. 25p.

By David Spencer 

We need more prisons. Amongst the “small stratum of intellectuals, semi-intellectuals and hooligans” who have a “politically motivated contempt for law and order” , it may well be fashionable to suggest otherwise. However, a lack of prison places has led to the Government choosing to release prison inmates earlier than they would otherwise have been. Police officers have been instructed to consider “pausing” arrests due to the lack of prison space. The judiciary have been told to consider prison capacity limits when sentencing those convicted of criminal offences. The most prolific offenders, when convicted of ‘indictable-only’ or ‘eitherway’ offences, are imprisoned on only 46.2% of occasions. A substantial majority of the public, 80% according to recent polling, believe the country should build more prisons. The Labour Party’s 2024 General Election Manifesto said: “Labour recognises that prisons are of national importance and therefore will use all relevant powers to build the prisons so badly needed.” In this report, we outline: 1. The current state of the prison estate and Prison Service: demonstrating that the English and Welsh prison system is in an utterly parlous state and as a result failing across almost every aspect of its core purpose. A wholesale change in leadership and culture across the Prison Service is required. 2. How many more prison places the system requires: recommending a substantial increase in the size of the prison estate with an additional 43,000 prison places (and an additional 10,000 prison cells to eliminate overcrowding) over the next decade. 3. The costs involved: to deliver the substantial increase in the prison estate, we recommend a reallocation of funding from other Government departments, with an increase in public spending on prisons of approximately £6.5bn in capital expenditure and approximately £1.7bn in annual resource expenditure. 4. The necessary changes to the regulatory regime: the Government has announced that it intends for prisons to receive planning permission through the Crown Development Route in order to reduce the amount of time taken for new prisons to receive planning permission. All future prisons should receive planning permission through this route. 5. What type of prisons the Government should deliver: the substantial prison building programme we propose will require an expansion of all types of the male prison estate, with new standards in the design and a shift in the location of the estate to ensure that every prisoner is able to undertake the necessary training, education and rehabilitation we envisage. Building a new generation of prisons is a challenging prospect. A great, or an even greater challenge, will be simultaneously creating a prison system which treats those in the State’s care in such a way that on release prisoners have a greater chance of leading productive lives, without continuing to commit crime. Properly incentivising prisoners towards such an objective is vital – that is why we condemn the current practice of automatic early release for almost all prisoners. We recommend a shift to a system of ‘earned early release’. In addition, the Government should examine previous recommendations in this domain made by Policy Exchange – relating to sentencing reform, prison reform and a bolstering of the entire community sentence regime.8 On additional funding: there is no scope to increase overall government spending. So any increase in funding to finance additional prisons must come from reductions in other sorts of public spending. This paper does not lay out in detail what other spending ought to be cut, but with government spending as a share of GDP at a post-war high, there is ample scope for the level of savings that would be required. Civil service staffing, the benefits bill, overseas aid and the regime for uprating pensions should all be reviewed. This Labour Government has come to believe that it has only a ‘narrow path’ to tread when it comes to law and order. On one side maintaining the confidence of the law-abiding majority; on the other acting in the interests of the ‘stakeholders’ and noisy activists who seek a more ‘progressive’ approach to those who choose to commit crime. This is exactly the kind of challenge that Labour Party strategists will have to navigate amidst its own internal ‘coalition politics’. It is also a debate which readily plays out in the Parliamentary Labour Party. On one side are those MPs, often hailing from the ‘Red Wall’, who understand that only a Labour Party that is “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime” has any chance of retaining and winning support beyond a narrow sliver of ultra-progressives. On the other side are the Labour MPs who have, amongst other activities, vigorously campaigned against joint enterprise laws (which are key in the fight against crime) and claimed that some communities are “over-policed” despite those communities simultaneously being ravaged by knife and gang crime. Labour’s challenge in Government is to show to ordinary working people that it understands that the greatest threats they face come not from State oppression in the form of more prison places, but rather from an insufficiency of law and order – thus empowering the criminals and gangs who wilfully immiserate their lives. Too often Ministers, senior civil servants and the judiciary are insulated from the real-life consequences of their decisions relating to law and order. Many do not live or walk on dangerous and messy streets, or have to live next to those who have made criminality and anti-social behaviour a way of life. If Government wishes to genuinely serve the public – the vast majority of whom are living productive and law-abiding lives – Ministers must recognise that a less permissive environment for crime is required. Central to that is that the minority of people who do commit most crime should be far more likely to be in prison than is currently the case. This report shows Ministers how to deliver on a core element of such a plan     

London: Policy Exchange 2025. 55p.