By Andrew Blum and Alfredo Malaret Baldo

The problem is as old as the justice system itself—how to reduce the chance that an individual reoffends

after they commit an offense and become involved with the justice system. This challenge of reducing

recidivism remains critical. According to the Prison Policy Initiative, there are over 120,000 individuals in

state prisons in California. Another 380,000 cycle through jails in California every year. In 2021, roughly

25,000 individuals were released from prison in California. This is the scope of the challenge. In San

Diego County, a wide variety of agencies and organizations are working to address the recidivism

challenge. In addition, although there is no way to measure this accurately, there is a willingness across

the spectrum to experiment with new approaches and solutions. This report focuses on one area of

relatively new and promising approaches—those that elevate the talent and expertise of individuals with

“lived experience” with the justice system. Support for lived experience approaches is growing both

nationally and in San Diego. Beyond the rising number of lived experience initiatives, this type of work in

San Diego has become largely normalized. There is broad agreement that lived experience work should

be part of the portfolio used to reduce recidivism, with clear demand from stakeholders involved in

reentry, including law enforcement officials, service providers, community members, and, crucially,

justice-involved individuals. Given the growing prevalence of and support for lived experience approaches

in San Diego, it is important to create a deeper understanding of how to increase the impact of these

approaches. Toward that end, this report identifies strengths of lived experience approaches to amplify,

challenges of lived experience approaches to mitigate, and lessons from lived experience approaches

that can be applied more broadly. Based on a review of the research and dozens of conversations held

with stakeholders in San Diego, we identified the following strengths of lived experience app roaches: —

They can engage successfully with justice-involved individuals; — They can provide a model of success;

— They are skilled navigators of the social service and justice systems; — They bring a long-term

approach to their work; and — They have specific expertise that helps them help others. To amplify these

strengths, we suggest: (a) deploy lived experience practitioners during acute situations, (b) leverage lived

experience practitioners not only within programs but also as navigators across programs, (c) build

flexibility into programs that include lived experience practitioners, (d) encourage lived experience

practitioners to role model success without being directive, and (e) continue efforts to normalize lived

experience approaches. We also identified challenges of lived experience approaches, particularly

related to scaling the approaches more widely. These include: — The personalistic nature of many lived

experience initiatives; — The difficulty of finding, vetting, hiring, and training sufficient lived experience

practitioners; — The toll the immersive nature of the work takes on practitioners; and — The potential

reputational risks lived experience approaches present to individuals, organizations, and agencies. To

mitigate these challenges, we recommend (a) creating training and certification programs for lived

experience practitioners, (b) developing standards of practice, (c) creating organizational capacity -

building initiatives for lived experience organizations, (d) pairing lived experience with non-lived-

experience practitioners, (e) treating lived experience individuals as professional staff, and (f) developing

a lived experience advocacy coalition. Furthermore, seeking a broader impact, we identified five key

lessons from lived experience approaches that are transferable and can be applied by those without lived

experience who are designing and implementing initiatives to prevent recidivism. The lessons are: 1.

Create supportive spaces for justice-involved individuals to work through challenges; 2. Design programs

with flexibility so support can be tailored to individuals; 3. Ease navigation of services and improve

coordination among providers; 4. Engage justice-involved individuals with consistency and long-term

vision; and 5. Commit to providing trauma-informed care. We conclude this report by noting the

longstanding good practice in the social services field to design initiatives with the input of those impacted

by them. The key lessons identified from lived experience practitioners can be viewed in this way. They

provide insight on how to design more effective recidivism reduction initiatives based on the experience

and expertise of those who previously lived the challenges the initiatives are designed to address.

San Diego: University of San Diego, Kroc School Institute for Peace and Justice, 2023. 31p..

By Ashley Nellis, and Celeste Barry.

In the United States, the federal government and every state enforces sentencing laws that incarcerate people for lengths that will exceed, or likely exceed, the span of a person’s natural life. In 2024, almost 200,000 people, or one in six people in prison, were serving life sentences. The criminal legal system’s dependence on life sentences disregards research showing that extreme sentences are not an effective public safety solution.

This report represents The Sentencing Project’s sixth national census of people serving life sentences, which includes life with the possibility of parole; life without the possibility of parole; and virtual life sentences (sentences reaching 50 years or longer). The report finds more people were serving life without parole (LWOP) in 2024 than ever before: 56,245 people were serving this “death by incarceration” sentence, a 68% increase since 2003. While the total number of people serving life sentences decreased 4% from 2020 to 2024, this decline trails the 13% downsizing of the total prison population. Moreover, nearly half the states had more people serving a life sentence in 2024 than in 2020. The large number of people serving life sentences raises critical questions about moral, financial, and justice-related consequences that must be addressed by the nation as well as the states. We believe the findings and recommendations documented in this report will contribute to better criminal legal policy decisions and a more humane and effective criminal legal system. KEY NATIONAL FINDINGS • One in six people in U.S. prisons is serving a life sentence (16% of the prison population, or 194,803 people)—a proportion that has reached an all-time high even as crime rates are near record lows. • The United States makes up roughly 4% of the world population but holds an estimated 40% of the world’s life-sentenced population, including 83% of persons serving LWOP. • More people are serving life without parole in 2024 than ever: 56,245 people, a 68% increase since 2003. • Despite a 13% decline in the total reported prison population from 2020 to 2024, the total number of people serving life sentences decreased by only 4%. • Nearly half of people serving life sentences are Black, and racial disparities are the greatest with respect to people sentenced

to life without parole. • A total of 97,160 people are serving sentences of life with parole. • Life sentences reaching 50 years or more, referred to as “virtual life sentences,” account for 41,398 people in prison. • Persons aged 55 and older account for nearly two-fifths of people serving life. • One in every 11 women in prison is serving a life sentence. • Almost 70,000 individuals serving life were under 25—youth and “emerging adults”—at the time of their offense. Among these, nearly one-third have no opportunity for parole. • Racial disparities in life imprisonment are higher among those who were under 25 at the time of their offense compared to those who were 25 and older.

Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2025. 38p.

By Tom Jackson, Rachel Crorken, Sheenik Mills, and Carla Ayrton

This report presents findings from a one-year process evaluation that explored the delivery of unpaid work in England and Wales. The qualitative research design included a total of 102 interviews with: people on probation (25), beneficiaries (6), probation staff (62), and members of the judiciary (9); six focus groups with unpaid work staff; and ethnographic observations of 18 unpaid work projects. The evaluation was designed to assess what works in the delivery of unpaid work following the unification of the probation service and the £93 million investment to aid unpaid work delivery following the Covid-19 pandemic. The main findings from the evaluation are: Identity and purpose of unpaid work • All staff interviewed, believed the purpose of unpaid work is first and foremost a punishment, but it must also have elements of reparation in which people on probation give back to the community. Overall, staff were confident that unpaid work was meeting its aims as a punishment, which they viewed as the time people on probation give up attending their order. Staff also thought that unpaid work met reparative aims by ensuring that work carried out benefits the wider community. • Perceptions on whether unpaid work is rehabilitative were mixed. Staff explained how unpaid work can be rehabilitative for some individuals by providing an opportunity to learn ‘soft’ and practical skills. However, the rehabilitative potential of unpaid work was not applicable to everyone and was dependent on employment status, the type of project, and the individual’s willingness to engage with rehabilitative efforts. People on probation’s experience of unpaid work • People on probation identified relationships with supervisors as an important factor that affected their experience of unpaid work. A good relationship with a supervisor could encourage them to return and attend projects led by the same supervisor. Meaningful projects could increase compliance by encouraging people on probation to return to projects they believed had value. These were usually described as projects that would have benefits for the local community, and/or where people on probation had the opportunity to learn new skills, particularly if they thought these could lead to employment. • Many people on probation brought up communication issues they had with probation practitioners. These communication issues could make completing hours of unpaid work difficult either because their unpaid work hours were not set up in time or because people on probation could not contact probation to discuss issues they had with attending projects, making it hard to rearrange hours. • Many people on probation who were interviewed felt that wearing high-visibility vests, with unpaid work branding, caused them to experience unnecessary stigma and shame which could have negative impacts on their mental health. People on probation and supervisors thought, in particularly public areas, having to wear the branded high-visibility vests could impact compliance

Ministry of Justice Analytical Series

London: Ministry of Justice, 2024. 76p.

By Pasangi S. Perera, Vanessa E. Miller,; Kate Vinita Fitch, et al

Since 2014, Medicaid expansion has been implemented in many states across the US, increasing health care access among vulnerable populations, including formerly incarcerated people who experience higher mortality rates than the general population. OBJECTIVE To examine population-level association of Medicaid expansion with postrelease mortality from all causes, unintentional drug overdoses, opioid overdoses, polydrug overdoses, suicides, and homicides among formerly incarcerated people in Rhode Island (RI), which expanded Medicaid, compared with North Carolina (NC), which did not expand Medicaid during the study period. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A cohort study was conducted using incarceration release data from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2018, linked to death records from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2019, on individuals released from incarceration in RI and NC. Data analysis was performed from August 20, 2022, to February 15, 2024. Participants included those aged 18 years or older who were released from incarceration. Individuals who were temporarily held during ongoing judicial proceedings, died during incarceration, or not released from incarceration during the study period were excluded. EXPOSURE Full Medicaid expansion in RI effective January 1, 2014. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Mortality from all causes, unintentional drug overdoses, unintentional opioid and polydrug overdoses, suicides, and homicides. RESULTS Between 2009 and 2018, 17 824 individuals were released from RI prisons (mean [SD] age, 38.39 [10.85] years; 31 512 [89.1%] male) and 160 861 were released from NC prisons (mean [SD] age, 38.28 [10.84] years; 209 021 [87.5%] male). Compared with NC, people who were formerly incarcerated in RI experienced a sustained decrease of 72 per 100 000 person-years (95% CI, −108 to −36 per 100 000 person-years) in all-cause mortality per quarter after Medicaid expansion. Similar decreases were observed in RI in drug overdose deaths (−172 per 100 000 person-years per 6 months; 95% CI, −226 to −117 per 100 000 person-years), including opioid and polydrug overdoses, and homicide deaths (−23 per 100 000 person-years per year; 95% CI, −50 to 4 per 100 000 person-years) after Medicaid expansion. Suicide mortality did not change after Medicaid expansion. After Medicaid expansion in RI, non-Hispanic White individuals experienced 3 times greater sustained decreases in all-cause mortality than all racially minoritized individuals combined, while non-Hispanic Black individuals did not experience any substantial benefits. There was no modification by sex. Individuals aged 30 years or older experienced greater all-cause mortality reduction after Medicaid expansion than those younger than 30 years.

JAMA Netw Open. 2024, 12 p.

By Carmen Johnson et al and the UCLA BioCritical Studies Lab

The BioCritical Studies Lab analyzed a sample of 180 deaths in 10 city and county detention centers in Maryland between 2008 and 2019. These detention centers are distinct from state correctional facilities in that they primarily confine persons who are awaiting trial or arraignment. Our study sample reflects only deaths self-reported by these 10 city and county detention centers to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) during this time period. Our sample represents only a portion of all in-custody deaths known to have taken place throughout Maryland during the study period. Our analysis produced five key findings: - First, the detention centers with the most instances of in-custody death in our study sample are situated in jurisdictions with both high rates of poverty and large numbers of Black residents. The confluence of these two factors is strongly correlated to in-custody death. - Second, the average age of in-custody deaths officially designated as “natural” is substantially lower than life expectancy among the non-jailed population, possibly indicating the widespread misclassification of deaths attributable to violence and/or negligence as “natural” by the Maryland Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. - Third, over 80% of the deaths in our sample took place while the decedent was awaiting trial, meaning they had not been convicted of any crime at the time of death. - Fourth, about half of the decedents included in our sample died within 10 days of their admission to the detention center, and more than one sixth died less than two days after their admission, suggesting that even short stays in detention present a significant risk of premature death. - And fifth, there currently exist high barriers preventing public access to key information regarding deaths in Maryland detention centers that place comprehensive study of this social problem out of reach. We conclude by making several recommendations as to how policymakers might address the problems described in this report, including systematically reducing jail populations through the elimination of pretrial detention, establishing an explicit mandate for the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner to investigate all instances of in-custody death, and codifying new standards for publicly reporting information about in-custody deaths when they occur.  

Los Angeles; BioCritical Studies Lab, Institute for Society and Genetics, University of California – Los Angeles.  2023. 26p.

By Emily Mooney, Jesse Kelley and Nila Bala

Approximately 39,000 individuals are held in Michigan prisons, and the overwhelming majority of these will return to society after their sentence is completed. For this reason, Michigan residents and policymakers must be concerned with their ability to be productive, contributing members of society upon their return. However, research suggests that a lack of education may increasingly limit the employment options of formerly incarcerated individuals and may promote their return to crime. Accordingly, the present brief provides a short history of postsecondary education within prisons and then explains why it is an important part of the solution to this problem, as well as a benefit to society as a whole.

R STREET SHORTS NO. 65 January 2019

Washington, DC: R Street, 2019. 3p.

By Melissa Serafin, Julie Atella, Piere Washington, Sophak Mom

Reentry and community context Within three years of release from state prisons, federal prisons, and local jails, about half of people are reincarcerated and two-thirds are rearrested (Office of the Assistance Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, n.d.). Existing research highlights how challenges to reentry are compounded in rural communities because they are often underserved and under-resourced. Employment, housing, transportation, and limited social and health services are all common barriers for individuals reentering rural communities, and access to reentry programming is often limited (Benavides et al., 2023; Ward et al., 2016; Ward, 2017; Zajac et al., 2014). Additionally, the opioid crisis has significantly impacted rural communities, including those in Maine (Maine Governor’s Office of Policy Innovation and the Future, 2023). The rate of overdose fatalities in Maine increased from 0.3 per 1,000 population in January 2017 to 0.6 in January 2022, and the rate in Waldo County also increased from 0.2 in 2017 (8 total) to 0.5 in 2022 (20 total; Maine Drug Data Hub, 2024). Overdose fatalities most notably increased during the COVID-19 pandemic: the fatality rate in Maine increased 33% between 2019 and 2020, with 83% of deaths in 2020 due to opioids. Without opportunities, resources, and support, people reentering rural communities may experience hopelessness and criminogenic needs contributing to recidivism (Ward, 2017; Pettus-Davis & Kennedy, 2019). The findings from the current project also identified many of these challenges. Limited access to and availability of resources and services like internet, public transportation, health care and insurance, employment options, and affordable housing across counties and the state were stressed as barriers hindering the success of the program. Housing was identified as a particularly significant challenge, and this is compounded by the lack of viable employment options that provide a livable wage. The median cost for a studio efficiency or one-bedroom apartment in Waldo County, Maine in 2023 was $916-$922, and a two bedroom was $1,174 per month (RentData, 2024). According to the Maine Department of Labor (2024), the minimum wage in 2023 was $13.80 per hour in the state. Individuals employed full time, earning minimum wage, and who rent at least a studio efficiency would then be considered “cost-burdened”1 or “severely cost-burdened”2 (Office of Housing and Urban Development, 2014). Rent burden contributes to lacking the means to afford other necessities such as food, clothing, child care and more. Furthermore, the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC, 2024) notes the extreme shortage of rentals that are affordable to households whose incomes are at or below the poverty guideline or 30% of their area median income. In addition to the shortage of affordable housing and within the vicinity of the VOANNE network—within a four-city radius—there were no homeless shelters, nor mental health facilities with detox beds, and only one sober house. While VOANNE provides tents and camp supplies in more dire cases, and connects some participants with temporary transitional housing (including motels), they have access to very few permanent housing supports. Experiencing housing insecurity and homelessness can also negatively impact substance use. For example, efforts to stay awake to protect belongings and avoid violence is associated with developing and worsening substance use disorders (Mehtani et al., 2023). Existing research and findings from the current evaluation indicate that transportation is often a significant challenge for individuals reentering rural communities (Benavides et al., 2023; Ward, 2017; Zajac et al., 2014). While Maine does have some public transportation, rural areas have limited public transportation. Some communities have fixed route bus services that do not operate 24 hours a day and seven days a week, but these may only be in some counties (Eichacker, 2021). Limited public transportation means limited independence upon reentry to get to and from places like the DMV, a job interview, or to work. Additionally, some participants in the current evaluation did not possess driver’s licenses, further limiting their transportation options. This evaluation also identified how lack of phone service and high-speed internet make communication difficult and pose a barrier to building independence and integrating into society. Previous research has also identified these as significant reentry barriers (PettusDavis et al., 2019). Correctional system initiatives In response to the challenges that individuals face while reentering their communities, VOANNE and their partners have implemented several initiatives. Specifically, VOANNE has prioritized building trusting and collaborative partnerships with law enforcement agencies; this evaluation identified the strength of these partnerships. These partnerships facilitate opportunities to strengthen impact, such as the ability to provide services and programming within county jails while individuals are incarcerated. Additionally, postrelease offices and community spaces provide critical support to individuals who are reentering their communities after incarceration, and VOA’s diversion programming allows VOANNE to serve anyone who could benefit from services (e.g., not just individuals who are or have been incarcerated). VOANNE has also been able to expand to providing services in additional counties and correctional facilities over time.

St. Paul, MN: Wilder Research, 2024. 43p.

By Tom Jackson, Rachel Crorken, Sheenik Mills, and Carla Ayrton

This report presents findings from a one-year process evaluation that explored the delivery of unpaid work in England and Wales. The qualitative research design included a total of 102 interviews with: people on probation (25), beneficiaries (6), probation staff (62), and members of the judiciary (9); six focus groups with unpaid work staff; and ethnographic observations of 18 unpaid work projects. The evaluation was designed to assess what works in the delivery of unpaid work following the unification of the probation service and the £93 million investment to aid unpaid work delivery following the Covid-19 pandemic. The main findings from the evaluation are: Identity and purpose of unpaid work • All staff interviewed, believed the purpose of unpaid work is first and foremost a punishment, but it must also have elements of reparation in which people on probation give back to the community. Overall, staff were confident that unpaid work was meeting its aims as a punishment, which they viewed as the time people on probation give up attending their order. Staff also thought that unpaid work met reparative aims by ensuring that work carried out benefits the wider community. • Perceptions on whether unpaid work is rehabilitative were mixed. Staff explained how unpaid work can be rehabilitative for some individuals by providing an opportunity to learn ‘soft’ and practical skills. However, the rehabilitative potential of unpaid work was not applicable to everyone and was dependent on employment status, the type of project, and the individual’s willingness to engage with rehabilitative efforts. People on probation’s experience of unpaid work • People on probation identified relationships with supervisors as an important factor that affected their experience of unpaid work. A good relationship with a supervisor could encourage them to return and attend projects led by the same supervisor. Meaningful projects could increase compliance by encouraging people on probation to return to projects they believed had value. These were usually described as projects that would have benefits for the local community, and/or where people on probation had the opportunity to learn new skills, particularly if they thought these could lead to employment. • Many people on probation brought up communication issues they had with probation practitioners. These communication issues could make completing hours of unpaid work difficult either because their unpaid work hours were not set up in time or because people on probation could not contact probation to discuss issues they had with attending projects, making it hard to rearrange hours. • Many people on probation who were interviewed felt that wearing high-visibility vests, with unpaid work branding, caused them to experience unnecessary stigma and shame which could have negative impacts on their mental health. People on probation and supervisors thought, in particularly public areas, having to wear the branded high-visibility vests could impact compliance

Ministry of Justice Analytical Series

London: Ministry of Justice, 2024. 76p.

By Christi M. Smith

The fact that the United States incarcerates more of its population than the rest of the industrialized world—and that racial and ethnic minorities are overrepresented in inmate populations—is common knowledge. Yet why we continue to over- incarcerate in light of a myriad of other strategies that appropriately respond to crime remains a mystery. Alternatives to incarceration are more cost-effective, efficient and provide better outcomes for accused law violators and communities. Alternatives also save precious law enforcement and judicial resources for more serious and violent offenders. The COVID-19 pandemic presented a unique opportunity for local jail administrators and their counterparts in the judicial process to pursue alternatives, as they were forced to critically analyze the need for pretrial confinement; reconsider length of stay upon conviction; and evaluate the appropriateness of returning to jail for bail, probation or parole violations. In conjunction with experience gained from the past 21 months of the pandemic, existing research demonstrates that it is time to reduce our overreliance on carceral strategies and address the factors that contribute to crime and non-compliance with judicial interventions. These evidence-based strategies can substantially reduce jail populations and the racial and ethnic disparities therein. Key Points: 1. COVID-19 disproportionately challenged local jail administrators who, compared to their state and federal prison counterparts, receive less physical, financial and medical support to manage a dynamic and constantly shifting inmate population that moves in and out of the community. 2. To mitigate viral spread inside of the jail and out into the community, criminal justice professionals worked quickly to reduce inmate populations using a variety of alternatives to incarceration for accused and convicted law violators. These alternatives disproportionately benefited white adults and highlighted the need for targeted strategies to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in the judicial process. 3. Crime rates did not increase during the time that alternatives to incarceration were used, thereby substantiating the benefits of utilizing various alternatives to incarceration to reduce jail populations, as well as racial and ethnic disparities in jail populations. Research indicates that these alternatives are more cost-effective, efficient and fairer than traditional judicial processing

R STREET POLICY STUDY NO. 250 January 2022, 8p.

By Chloe Anderson, Kyla Wasserman, Brit Henderson, with Erika Lewy

On January 1, 2017, the State of New Jersey implemented Criminal Justice Reform (CJR), a sweeping set of changes to its criminal legal system. With these reforms, the state shifted from a system that relied on money bail to a system that virtually eliminated the use of money bail and uses a risk-assessment tool that informs decision-making by generating scores based on an individual’s assessed risk of failing to appear at future court hearings and committing additional crimes if released. Additionally, CJR granted courts the option to detain people without bail until their cases are disposed, established a pretrial monitoring program, and instituted speedy-trial laws that impose time limits for case processing. The state’s goals were to improve fairness and reduce unnecessary pretrial detention while protecting public safety and ensuring that people continue to show up to their court hearings. While improving racial equity was not an explicit goal of the reforms, racial equity may be affected by reducing pretrial detention and eliminating the use of money bail. With support from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Policies for Action Program, the New Jersey Criminal Justice Reform Advancing Racial Equity (NJ CARE) Study sought to assess racial equity and perceptions of fairness in New Jersey’s criminal legal system after the implementation of the reforms to determine whether the reforms improved racial equity in the state. Furthermore, the study explored whether individuals who were navigating the pretrial system as defendants perceived it as fair. Their experiences and the reforms’ effects on racial disparities reveal valuable lessons about the effects of bail reform efforts on racial equity. The study employed a mixed-methods approach that included quantitative and qualitative methods, as well as participatory elements. The quantitative analysis found that CJR had a net positive impact on some outcomes for both Black people and White people. More people were issued a summons (rather than a warrant) and were immediately released following arrest, and people were released from jail more quickly following an arrest. Yet despite these positive impacts, racial disparities persisted throughout the pretrial system, to varying degrees. For outcomes that had larger disparities before CJR, there was no meaningful reduction in disparities. The largest disparities are seen at the front end of the pretrial system, in arrest rates and initial jail bookings. For the qualitative analysis, interviewees—who had experience navigating the state’s pretrial system as defendants—said that CJR’s elimination of money bail has improved the fairness of the system. Yet they also said the criminal legal system should consider each person’s voice and circumstances, treat each person with respect, be transparent, assign the least restrictive release conditions when possible, and employ diverse staff members. Taken together, the findings suggest that broad bail reform policies can reduce the footprint of criminal legal system involvement, but they may not be a salve for issues of equity broadly and racial disparities specifically. There are several potential approaches to improve racial equity, including programs or processes that reduce people’s initial contact with the legal system, incorporate procedural justice-informed techniques into policing to improve police-community relationships, elevate the voices of individuals who have experience as defendants, enhance the criminal legal system’s transparency and communication, employ the least restrictive conditions of release and offer supportive services, engage prosecutors in reform efforts, and employ a more diverse staff. As a next step, these potential approaches should be rigorously studied.

In a completely equitable society, individuals would not be any more or less likely to experience burdens during their interactions with societal systems just because of their race. However, historically explicit and implicit practices and policies across the United States reinforce racial inequity, and these racial disparities are observed in many social systems, including the criminal legal system.1 Racial disparities in the pretrial system—that is, the period from the point of arrest to a case’s resolution in a verdict, plea deal, or dismissal— have broad equity implications. Spending time in jail—sometimes even just a few days—is associated with a variety of adverse effects on physical and mental health, as well as on social determinants of health like employment, housing, and family ties.2 Jurisdictions across the country have made efforts to reduce their use of pretrial detention and improve perceptions of the system’s fairness through different types of reforms—most notably by reducing their use of money bail or using actuarial risk-assessment tools to guide release decision-making.3 However, relatively little is known about the effects of these reforms.

New York: MDRC , 2024. 87p.

By Louisa Treskon and Anna Kyler

For more than a decade, California has been enacting policy changes that are intended to lower the number of people who are incarcerated in the state. These policy changes include sentencing reforms and new funding streams for programs aimed at addressing underlying causes that can lead to incarceration, such as mental health and substance use disorders. Los Angeles County’s Reentry Intensive Case Management Services (RICMS) program, which began in 2018, is one such program. The RICMS program connects people who have been involved in the criminal legal system to community health workers who work at community-based organizations. Community health workers help people reintegrate into their communities by providing case management and connecting them with supportive services. This brief presents the results of a benefit-cost study of the RICMS program. The RICMS program comes with a cost, mostly borne by the state of California and Los Angeles County, since the program is publicly funded, as are many of the services it refers clients to. However, these costs could be offset by benefits such as reductions in participants’ involvement in the criminal legal system. Benefit-cost analysis provides a tool to compare these costs and benefits, which provides decision makers with a monetary lens through which to assess the potential effects of the program. The study, which is led by MDRC, is part of the Los Angeles County Reentry Integrated Services Project, a multiyear, multistudy evaluation of services that are offered by the Justice, Care and Opportunities Department (JCOD) of Los Angeles County.

New York: MDRC, 2024. 18p.

By The Global Commission on Drug Policy

The Global Commission on Drug Policy’s report, Beyond Punishment: From Criminal Justice Responses to Drug Policy Reform, exposes how punitive drug policies have driven mass incarceration and grave human rights violations. In 2023 alone, over 3.1 million people were arrested for drug-related offenses, with 20% of the global prison population detained for such crimes - nearly half for simple possession.

The report underscores the devastating consequences of prohibitionist policies, including over one million overdose deaths in the U.S. in the past two decades and 40,000 in Canada in just eight years. It also highlights systemic inequities, such as Indigenous peoples in Canada being six times more likely to face drug-related arrests than white counterparts. Furthermore, the report illustrates the disproportionate burdens on women and children, deepening cycles of poverty and marginalization.

It examines the broad spectrum of criminal justice responses to drug offenses, ranging from stop-and-search practices that disproportionately target marginalized communities to extreme measures like the death penalty and enforced treatment. These approaches often violate human rights, perpetuate stigma, and fail to address the root causes of substance use.

Offering a roadmap for reform, the report advocates for evidence-based strategies, including harm reduction measures (e.g., Overdose Prevention Centers, naloxone distribution, and safer supply programs), decriminalization and the legal regulation of drug markets. These approaches not only save lives but also reduce societal harms, foster dignity, and promote health and equity.

Geneva: Global Commission on Drug Policy, 2024. 56p.

By Johanna Higgs and Manith Chhoeng

In 2020, Amnesty International released a report detailing serious abuses against people held in drug rehabilitation centers and prisons in Cambodia, highlighting the severe overcrowding caused by the anti-drug campaign that began in 2017. As of March 2020, Cambodia’s prisons had an estimated capacity of 26,593, but the number of people held exceeded 38,990. Four years later, Cambodia’s Ministry of Interior reported that, as of March 2024, 45,122 people were imprisoned, with 21,644 (48%) held for drug offenses and 2,214 being minors. The General Department of Prisons' response to overcrowding has been to request the construction of new drug rehabilitation centers and prisons.

International standards, such as the United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders (the Bangkok Rules), the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures (the Tokyo Rules), and the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Mandela Rules), call for detention to be used only as a last resort and promote non-custodial measures, particularly for women and children. Organizations working in Cambodia, like IDPC partner This Life (TLC), aim to address these challenges through programs that improve outcomes for at-risk youth and families. These initiatives align with international standards, advocating for alternatives to incarceration and providing support services.

While Cambodia’s Drug Control Law (2012) gives prosecutors and courts discretion to divert drug offenders from imprisonment in favor of "voluntary" treatment programs, it has not been effectively implemented to reduce detention or imprisonment. TLC offers programs that provide vocational training and family support to juveniles in conflict with the law, aiming to reduce recidivism and promote reintegration. The organization also engages with government ministries, law enforcement, and community leaders to create holistic solutions that strengthen Cambodia's justice system and support vulnerable populations.

There are alternative measures in place for children. The Juvenile Justice Law of Cambodia, promulgated on July 14, 2016, aims to protect the rights of children in conflict with the law, supporting their rehabilitation and reintegration into society. It also provides alternatives to detention, such as diversion, probation, community service, and mediation. This law is seen as a milestone in promoting and protecting children's rights in Cambodia, aligning with the Convention on the Rights of the Child and other international standards. Non-governmental organizations like This Life are committed to evidence-based interventions that promote human rights, reduce inequality, and create opportunities for marginalized communities. Their work complements the goals of the Juvenile Justice Law by focusing on the rehabilitation and reintegration of youth in conflict with the law.

Amnesty International, 2024. 18p

By Margaret Colgate Love

The problem of collateral consequences calls to mind Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.’s famous line: “The life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience.” U.S. criminal law itself is not theoretically pure. In the area of civil law, in particular commercial law, dozens of uniform laws are on the books, drafted by experts, many of which, such as the Uniform Commercial Code, have been widely adopted. But in a country where we evaluate criminal justice polices based on a melange of principles - retributivist, utilitarian, economic, religious, pragmatic, intuitive, and emotional - there is and could be no Uniform Penal Code.1 Criminal law is inconsistent across states, and even within states, in its underlying justification or rationale, and the reasons that particular rules or practices exist. The Model Penal Code has been widely influential, but—as designed—states adopted only the pieces they liked, and heavily modified them. Disagreement about how to treat someone who has been arrested or prosecuted after their criminal case is concluded is, if anything, even more intense. The collateral or indirect consequences of their experience may be divided into four main types: Loss of civil rights, limits on personal freedom (such as registration or deportation), dissemination of damaging information, and deprivation of opportunities and benefits, each of which may be justified and criticized for different reasons. Accordingly, criminal law practitioners and scholars disagree about the fundamental nature and purpose of collateral consequences. To the extent the public at large ever thinks about them, they also hold a range of views. There is no consensus about whether collateral consequences in general or particular ones should be understood as further punishment for crime or prophylactic civil regulation, as a reasonable effort to control risk or as an unconstitutional and immoral perpetuation of Jim Crow, or, perhaps, understood in some other way. Advocates, analysts, and lawmakers will never be in a position to argue persuasively “because collateral consequences rest on Principle X, it follows that they should apply in and only in Condition Y, and must be relieved under Circumstance Z.” Yet, the practical problem of collateral consequences looms large. With their massive expansion in recent decades, those who experience collateral consequences firsthand know that they cannot become fully functioning members of the community without finding a way to overcome them. The economic dislocations caused by the Covid-19 pandemic underscore the practical implications of collateral consequences: With individuals desperate for money and opportunity, and businesses hungry for workers, the need for a sensible policy to minimize employer concerns about risk is clear. And while there remains no compelling necessity for all states to have the same penalties for armed robbery or cattle rustling, collateral consequences are a national economic problem affecting whole communities that might justify a federal, or at least a uniform, solution. Fortunately, agreement on underlying principles is not required to agree on particular policies.2 Most Americans agree that people arrested or convicted of crime should not be relegated to a permanent subordinate status regardless of the passage of time, successful efforts at rehabilitation and restitution, and lack of current risk to fellow Americans. Finding ways to restore their legal and social status is a compelling necessity, given the array of collateral consequences adversely affecting tens of millions of Americans, their families and communities, the economy, and public safety itself. To adapt a line from Justice Anthony Kennedy’s 2003 speech on criminal justice to the ABA, too many people are subject to too many collateral consequences for too long. At the same time, substantial majorities likely agree that public safety requires excluding those convicted of recent criminal conduct from situations where they present a clear and present danger of serious harm. Even if it is impossible to identify a s

Washington, DC: Collateral Consequences Resource Center (CCRC) , 2022. 129p.

By Margaret Love & Rob Poggenklass

At the beginning of each year since 2017, CCRC has issued a report on legislative enactments in the year just ended, new laws aimed at reducing the barriers faced by people with a criminal record in the workplace, at the ballot box, and in many other areas of daily life. These annual reports document the steady progress of what our 2020 report characterized as “a full-fledged law reform movement” aimed at restoring rights and dignity to individuals who have successfully navigated the criminal law system. In the three years between 2019 and 2021, more than 400 new record reforms were enacted. Many states enacted new laws every year, and all but two states enacted at least one significant new law during this period. A full appreciation of the scope of this movement can be gained by reviewing the detailed 50-state charts and state-by-state profiles in our Restoration of Rights Project. The modern law reform movement reflected in our annual reports is bipartisan, grounded in and inspired by the circumstance that almost a third of adults in the United States now have a criminal record, entangling them in a web of legal restrictions and discrimination that permanently excludes them from full participation in the community. It reflects a public recognition that the “internal exile” of such a significant portion of society is not only unsafe and unfair, but it is also profoundly inefficient. We are pleased to present our report on new laws enacted in 2022, titled The Frontiers of Dignity: Clean Slate and Other Criminal Record Reforms in 2022. While this report shows that the legislative momentum gathering since 2018 slowed somewhat in the past year, there has still been progress, with more new laws enacted this year than in 2018 when the current reform movement took off in earnest.

Washington, DC: Collateral Consequences Resource Center, 2023. 43p.

Written by: Mirko Bagaric and Morgan Begg

Australia is experiencing both an incarceration crisis and an unprecedented worker shortage. Sensible criminal justice reform can address the excessive burden on Australia’s prison system while also filling persistent job vacancies in the economy.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, there are currently close to 450,000 jobs vacancies across the economy, which is double the number of job vacancies prior to covid-19. And close to one in four businesses have stated they cannot find the workers they need.

In terms of incarceration, Australia’s incarceration rate has increased by 240 per cent since the mid-1980s. This is three times our population growth rate. This is much higher than other commonwealth countries with similar legal systems, such as Britain and Canada, and more than double European countries such as Germany, The Netherlands, and Sweden.

The total cost to the Australian taxpayer of imprisoning roughly 42,000 prisoners is now nearly $4.5 billion annually. Over-incarceration imposes an additional cost on Australians by depriving our labour force of healthy, working age men and women who could otherwise be productive members of society.

Approximately 42 per cent of prisoners have not committed sexual or violent offences. Not imprisoning these low-risk non-violent offenders would support, and most likely enhance, their rehabilitation. It has been firmly established that many employers are prepared to employ people who have prior convictions for non-violent and non-sexual offences, and when they do employ such people they are invariably pleased with their decision.

If Australian governments reformed sentencing so that non-violent low-risk offenders were not detained at taxpayer expense, but rather were put to work in industries which urgently need workers, this could deliver substantial benefits to taxpayers without compromising community safety.

If this reform had been implemented in 2021-22 as many as 14,000 young and healthy adults could have been added to the workforce, which would have improved government budgets by $1.95 billion in reduced incarceration costs and increased income tax revenue. If this reform had been implemented between 2016-17 and 2021-22, total budgetary savings would have been in the order of $10.4 billion in reduced incarceration costs for state governments and additional income tax revenue for the federal government.

Diverting low-risk non-violent offenders from prison and giving them the opportunity to work would enhance their lives and prospects, promote community safety, improve the economy through increased productivity, and reduce net government spending and debt.

Melbourne: Institute of Public Affairs, 2023. 20p.

By The Council of State Governments Justice Center

This report highlights the significant progress made in reducing recidivism across the country over the past 15 years. Since its passage in 2008, the Second Chance Act has invested in state and local efforts to improve outcomes for people leaving prison and jail, with a total of nearly 1,200 grantees from 48 states and 3 territories administering programs that have served more than 400,000 people.

For the past 15 years, federal, state, local, and Tribal governments, as well as community-based organizations across the country, have been focused on reducing recidivism like never before. This report answers three critical questions:

What progress has been made?

• State-level reincarceration rates are 23 percent lower since 2008.

• Fewer returns to custody mean that more people can rejoin their families and contribute in their communities. States are achieving these rates with changes in policy and by increasing opportunities and resources to support employment and connections to behavioral health care and housing.

How much could states save by reducing recidivism further?

• Despite the progress made, states will spend an estimated $8 billion on reincarceration costs for people who exited prison in 2022.

• Scaling effective policies and reentry models can reduce the economic and human costs of recidivism, while creating meaningful opportunities for returning people to contribute to the workforce and their families and communities.

Are states ready to expand their efforts?

• In the past year, leaders in Missouri, Alabama, North Carolina, and Nebraska have set bold goals for reducing recidivism and improving reentry outcomes further by 2030.

• The goals include increasing access to treatment, mental health services, and medical care; improving individuals’ economic independence by ensuring they are better prepared for work and have access to employment; and increasing access to stable housing.

New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2024.