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.

By Lois M. Davis, Louis T. Mariano, Melissa M. Labriola, Susan Turner, Andy Bogart, Matt Strawn, Lynn A. Karoly

This report presents findings from the three years of the California County Resentencing Pilot Program, which was established to support and evaluate a collaborative approach to exercising prosecutorial discretion in resentencing. Nine California counties were selected and were provided with funding to implement the prosecutor-initiated resentencing (PIR) three-year pilot program. In each pilot county, participants in the pilot were to include a county district attorney (DA) office and a county public defender (PD) office and may have included a community-based organization.

RAND, a nonprofit research organization, was selected by the California State Legislature as the independent evaluator of the pilot program. The pilot term was September 1, 2021, through September 1, 2024; the evaluation term was September 1, 2021, through January 31, 2025. The evaluation in this report comprises three components: a descriptive and outcomes analysis of data collected by DA offices and supplemented by data from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, a qualitative implementation assessment, and a cost study to estimate the resources required to implement the pilot activities. Subsequent reports will present the recidivism outcomes.

Key Findings

PIR filled a gap in sentencing policies by focusing on crimes against persons.

The program was not a single intervention at the county level but rather a set of different types of interventions by the nine pilot counties and was implemented in the context of other resentencing legislation.

Each county developed its own eligibility criteria for resentencing consideration. The criteria focused on such factors as the age of the inmate, the crime committed, and the length and other details of the sentence.

Factors that facilitated implementation include a history of collaboration between the DA and PD, leadership support, positive political climate, adequate resources, close coordination with the courts, and the use of stipulation.

Factors that hindered implementation include a less-supportive political context, differing views between DAs and PDs, inclusion of more-serious and more-complex cases, staffing shortages, and the complexity of reentry planning.

Among 1,146 case reviews initiated during the reporting period, 240 cases were referred to the court for resentencing; the DA offices decided not to refer 710 cases that they had reviewed; and 196 cases were still under DA review or were deferred for future review.

Of the 233 cases for which courts had ruled on a resentencing motion, 227 resulted in resentencing, and 174 of those individuals have been released from prison.

Resources for pilot-related activities were primarily for personnel.

Total expenditures for the six counties most actively engaged in the pilot reached nearly $28 million over the three years.

Recommendations

There is a need to clarify the respective roles of DAs and PDs and for an accountability mechanism to encourage them to work more closely together.

There need to be more-realistic time frames for the resentencing process, including the number of cases reviewed and length of time for DA review of cases to serve as benchmarks for counties to meet.

Eligibility criteria should be revisited and possibly streamlined, in addition to some standardization of what factors should be considered in the review of cases and decisions of whether to recommend to the court for resentencing.

A more formal arrangement between California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the counties is needed to tackle the complexity of resentencing under PIR and improve access to clients and documentation.

Training is needed for the DA and PD staff, especially in such areas as the overall PIR initiative, case reviews, and offender central file analysis.

Key factors that helped streamline the resentencing process were the use of stipulation and having a dedicated court assigned to PIR cases. In the future, counties implementing PIR might consider using these two mechanisms.

Funding agencies could consider allocating the community-based organization contract funding to the PDs to implement and varying the size of the funding according to the size of the incarcerated population in a county.

Reentry planning requires further examination.

Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2025.

By The  Utah Commission on Criminal & Juvenile Justice

  This report evaluates the characteristics and outcomes of individuals under AP&P supervision that are classified as habitual offenders, as defined by SB213. Evaluation Scope & Criteria: Assesses individuals under AP&P supervision classified as habitual offenders per Senate Bill 213 (SB213) that started probation and parole between 2019 and 2024. Offense Type & Supervision Challenges: Most were convicted of property or drug-related crimes and frequently violated supervision due to substance use. Prison Returns & Risk Factors: Many returns occur early, with higher-risk individuals returning more frequently.  Policy Recommendations: Early intervention, tailored supervision, expanded treatment access, and comprehensive services can reduce recidivism, improve rehabilitation, and generate cost savings. 

Salt Lake City: The Commision, 2025. 27p.

By Jane Mitchell

In today's polarized political climate, criminal justice reform remains one of the few issues that spans partisan divides. Voices from across the political spectrum agree: the United States needs a new approach to incarceration. Our current system of mass incarceration is costly, ineffective, and inequitable. It perpetuates intergenerational cycles of crime and poverty and pushes communities deeper into destitution.

This Article proposes a radically new approach. It presents a diversionary alternative-to-prison model for people facing serious felony charges — the majority of the prison population today. The approach calls on courts to divert felony offenders away from prison toward 501c3-run campuses. Instead of going to prison, offenders live and learn at a residential campus for one to three years. While there, they engage in a holistic, evidence-based program targeting their individual needs. In exchange for completing the program, participants have their prison sentences suspended and records expunged. Participants return home with the skills, mindsets, and support networks needed to succeed in modern society. Critically, government agencies hold campuses accountable for outcomes using an administrative structure similar to that used by high-performing urban charter schools — incentivizing stakeholders to reduce recidivism and alleviate poverty.

After laying out the model on paper, this Article presents a case study of The Reset Foundation ("Reset"), a non-profit organization I launched to pilot the model in the San Francisco Bay Area from 2013 to 2018. Reset's experience suggests the model is a potentially powerful one for diverting felony offenders away from prison toward better life outcomes: with its first cohort of ten students, Reset eliminated ninety years of prison time. The case study simultaneously shows the complexities and challenges of implementing a model as comprehensive and systemic as this. To increase the chances of successful adoption, the public sector should instigate this work, not the non-profit sector, with significant support from local communities.

Kentucky Law Review, Volume 113, No. 2 (2025), 63p.

By Marco Castillo∗ Sera Linardi† Ragan Petrie‡

Many previously incarcerated individuals are rearrested in the months and years following release from prison. We investigate whether encouragement to use reentry support services reduces rearrest. Field experiment participants are offered a monetary incentive to complete different dosages of visits, either three or five, to a support service provider. The incentive groups increased visits compared to the control group, with those in the 3-visit treatment completing the most. Intent-to-treat effects on rearrest are null in the full sample, but Black participants who complete 3-4 visits are 21.8 percentage points less likely to be rearrested.

Unpublished paper, 2024. , 44p.

By George Pro , Ricky Camplain and,Charles H. Lea III

Racial discrimination and racial identity may compete to influence incarceration risk. We estimated the predicted days incarcerated in a national US sample of Black, Latino/Latina, and American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) individuals.

Methods

We used the 2012–2013 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions-III (n = 14,728) to identify individual incarceration history. We used zero-inflated Poisson regression to predict the number of days incarcerated across racial discrimination and racial identity scores.

Results

Racial discrimination and identity varied between races/ethnicities, such that racial discrimination exposure was highest among Hispanic individuals, while racial identity was highest among Black individuals. Racial discrimination was positively associated with days incarcerated among Black individuals (β = 0.070, p<0.0001) and AI/AN individuals (β = 0.174, p<0.000). Racial identity was negatively associated with days incarcerated among Black individuals (β = -0.147, p<0.0001). The predicted number of days incarcerated was highest among Black individuals (130 days) with high discrimination scores.

Conclusion

Racial discrimination and racial identity were associated with days incarcerated, and the association varied by racial/ethnic sub-group. Informed by these findings, we suggest that intervention strategies targeting incarceration prevention should be tailored to the unique experiences of racial/ethnic minoritized individuals at the greatest risk. Policies aimed at reversing mass incarceration should consider how carceral systems fit within the wider contexts of historical racism, discrimination, and structural determinants of health.

PLoS ONE 17, 2022, 11p.

By Matthew Millings, Lol Burke, Harry Annison, Nicola Carr, Gwen Robinson & Eleanor Surridge.

This article presents findings from a major longitudinal research project of probation in England and Wales, arguing that the process of its ‘unification’ (re-nationalisation) continues to be a painful process whose end state remains elusive. Having previously articulated how practitioners experienced unification as ‘painful but necessary’, here, using the imagery of a journey, we argue that the speed and direction of travel have encountered a more perilous trajectory than expected as high workloads and staffing challenges have persisted. Second, we argue that enduring challenges in bedding in new working practices – and building the confidence of new and existing colleagues to deliver them – have acted as ‘hazards’ that have needed careful navigation. Third, we argue that staff experience a sense of individual and collective operational vulnerability, in the face of the relentless demands placed upon them. In conclusion, we identify a series of forks in the road that prompt profound questions about the delivery of probation services now and in the future.

Probation Journal 1–18 © The Author(s) 2025  

By Marco Castillo, Sera Linardi, Ragan Petrie

Many previously incarcerated individuals are rearrested following release from prison. We investigate whether encouragement to use reentry support services reduces rearrest. Field experiment participants are offered a monetary incentive to complete different dosages of visits, either three or five, to a support service provider. The incentive groups increased visits, and one extra visit reduces rearrests three years after study enrollment by six percentage points. The results are driven by Black participants who are more likely to take up treatment and benefit the most from visits. The study speaks to the importance of considering first-stage heterogeneity and heterogeneous treatment effects.

Munich : Munich Society for the Promotion of Economic Research - CESifo GmbH

Munich Society for the Promotion of Economic Research - CESifo, 2024. 46p.

By Robin Joy

Vermont’s alternatives to the criminal justice system are available pre-charge, postcharge, and post-sentence. However, there has been some question about the extent to which access to alternative programs might be influencing racial disparities in the criminal justice system. To explore this notion, Crime Research Group (CRG) secured funding to examine whether there are disparities in who is served by alternative programs. By triangulating several data sources, researchers were able to describe who was served by Adult Court Diversion from 2015 through 2019, and who was served by the Treatment Courts from 2013-2018. However, several data quality issues impacted researchers’ ability to perform advanced statistical analyses capable of identifying factors that significantly contribute to whether an individual is served by an alternative program. On Measuring Disparities with Administrative Data Using administrative data to model human decision-making presents several challenges. First, because Vermont is a small state, researchers usually run into the issue of low numbers. This is especially true when trying to examine the experiences of marginalized populations within the state. Oftentimes, data on Asian, Indigenous, and Hispanic Vermonters must be excluded from analyses because there are so few people represented in the data that disclosing numbers has the potential to identify specific individuals. As a result, administrative data is not able to describe the experiences of these individuals. Qualitative research, which captures the themes of people’s experiences while masking their identities, is needed to bridge this gap. Second, issues arise when attempting to match data from one dataset to information stored within another dataset. Researchers were unable to match Treatment Court data with Vermont criminal histories because the data was inconsistent or non-existent. Successful diversion participants have their records expunged two years after the case is dismissed by the prosecutor so if no other record is found, an assumption is made that these are first time offenders. Researchers cannot be sure if an individual is a first-time offender, a consideration that is certainly used by prosecutors when determining whether to refer to Court Diversion.

Court Diversion Adult Court Diversion is governed by statute, administered by the Attorney General, and delivered by a network of non-profit organizations. CRG used Adjudication Data and Vermont Criminal Histories to test for disparities in who was referred to diversion; both data sets originate from Court records. Analysis of the data revealed that: x From 2015-2019, there were 6,127 defendants referred to Diversion. Most defendants referred were White (84.9% / 5,204). There were 259 Black defendants, 59 Asian defendants, and 45 Latinx defendants. The race of 530 (8.7%) defendants was either missing, unknown, or not reported. Race is as recorded by law enforcement. x The most common offense committed by those served in Court Diversion was Motor Vehicle offenses that were not DUI or Gross Negligent related (e.g., Driving on a Suspended License). Public order offenses were the second most common. The offenses include Disorderly Conduct, Trespassing, and Violations of Conditions of Release. For these offenses, 7% of all charges for Black and White offenders were referred to Court Diversion. x Statistical tests indicate that the race of the Public Order and Motor Vehicle offenders was associated with whether they entered Court Diversion. However, because of the administrative data issues discussed above (page 2), it was not possible to build a statistical model capable of determining exactly how race is related to the Court Diversion participation. Treatment Courts In Vermont, Treatment Courts operate as special dockets within the criminal court system. The Judiciary operates a Mental Health Docket and a Drug Treatment Docket in Chittenden County, a Drug Treatment Docket in Rutland and Washington Counties and a Regional DUI Docket serving residents in Windsor, Windham and Orange Counites. The dockets function in a team atmosphere to help the participant access treatment and hold them accountable for the underlying criminal offense. Treatment Courts are evidence-based, and several studies have found them to be effective for reducing recidivism (Gennette & Joy, 2019; Joy & Bellas, 2017; NPC Research Team, 2009; Wicklund & Halvorsen, 2014). Analysis of the Docket databases and the Court Adjudication data-based showed that: Between 2013 and 2018, 1,076 people entered Phase 1 of the Treatment Dockets. Chittenden’s combined dockets served 52% of the people, while the newest docket, the DUI Regional Docket, served the fewest with 57 people served. x During the five-year study period, all Treatment Dockets served only 30 black people, and even fewer Asian or Native American persons. x The Rutland docket served 12 (3.8%) people of color and 296 (95%) White people. The most common charge served by the docket was Violations of Conditions of Release (201). The next two most common charges were Retail Theft (196) and Petit Larceny (129), Burglary was the fourth most common charge (104). Black offenders were less likely than white offenders to be referred for property offenses. This indicates there may be some structural reasons or gatekeeping that are keeping Black offenders from being referred. x On the Washington County Treatment Docket, burglary offenses were the most common charge (59 charges, not people a person can have more than one burglary charge on the docket). During the study period there were 25 Black people charged with burglary offenses in Washington county, but none appeared in the Treatment Docket database. This indicates that there may be gatekeeping or structural reasons that result in Black burglary defendants not being referred. x The Southeast Regional DUI Docket served fewer than five people of color between 2013 and 2018. There were 476 White defendants with potentially eligible charges during the study period, there were 8 Black people. One of the program benefits is a shorter incarcerative sentence. Because DUI is not a common crime Black people commit or get sentenced to a correctional facility for, the program will not have the same impact on Black incarceration rates as it does for White incarceration rates. Recommendations:  Vermont policymakers should incorporate racial impact statements when creating criminal justice policies. Racial impact statements are an analysis of the impact the proposed policy would have on marginalized groups. These statements serve as a tool for policy makers to evaluate potential disparities or other collateral consequences that would result from enactment of a particular policy. Typically, racial impact statements are considered prior to the policy’s adoption and implementation. Several states have implemented the use of racial impact statements. Also, additional information should be recorded so that future efforts to analyze disparities using administrative data might be successful. CRG recommends including the following fields in Court Diversion and Treatment Court data collection by the entity best able to capture the information : whether the defendant was offered Diversion, whether the defendant refused Diversion, and any socio-economic or behavioral risk factors that may affect participation in Diversion or Treatment Court These additional fields will provide a clearer picture of why certain offenders are served by Court Diversion and Treatment Court and why others are not.    

Montpelier, VT: Crime Research Group, 2022. 23p.

By Rachel López and Geoff Dancy

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court grappled with an issue of first impression in this country, but one familiar to other jurisdictions around the world—that is, whether a former head of state should be immune from prosecution for his criminal acts while in office. Those who argue in favor of criminal accountability, at home and abroad, often trumpet the democratic benefits of punishing state officials. Such justifications have also been consecrated in law, finding their way into judicial decisions as a basis for overturning amnesty laws. But is there any evidence to support these claims? Can a government really punish its way to a more democratic future?

Using empirical evidence from other countries that have prosecuted state officials for their crimes over the last three decades, this study sheds light on the possible effects of these prosecutions on democratic institutions and behaviors. First, it examines an in-depth case study of Guatemala, a country where this issue recently came to the fore, to develop a set of hypotheses about the democratic effects of punishing state officials. To determine whether the lessons gleaned from Guatemala are more generalizable, it tests these hypotheses using the most extensive global data set of prosecutions of government officials in domestic courts, which specifically focuses on human rights prosecutions.

Interestingly, the findings reveal a paradox. While criminal prosecutions of state officials for human rights violations are associated with some pro-democracy outcomes, like increased civil society activism and pro-democratic mobilization, they are also associated with greater political polarization and anti-system backlash. By contrast, they appear to have little effect on democratic institutions. Considering this data, a central takeaway is that the democratic effect of prosecuting political leaders tends to rest with the people. Whether punishing them helps to ensure a more democratic future depends more on how the populace responds—negatively or positively—than on the limited institutional effects resulting from punishment.

2025, 68p.

By Megan Davey, Julia Yates & David McAlonan

The Electronic Monitoring (EM) as a Licence Variation (LV) project commenced as a pilot on 8 August 2022 in one probation region of England and Wales, which increased to five probation regions on 28 March 2023. The project allows probation practitioners in participating probation regions to vary a prison leaver’s licence by imposing electronically monitored conditions, where they believe that it would be beneficial to do so. This can take the form of Global Positioning System (GPS) location monitoring or Radio Frequency (RF) curfew monitoring. The EM as LV tool is intended for use on a discretionary basis by probation practitioners as a response to an escalation of risk or as an alternative to recall, as is the case with other licence variations, so as to support the successful completion of the licence period. Moreover, EM as LV should only be used as an alternative to recall when the recall threshold is met and the risk is assessed by probation as manageable in the community with additional licence conditions. The purpose of this process evaluation is to assess how the discretionary use of EM as LV has contributed to the management of people on probation in the community by HM Prisons and Probation Service (HMPPS) across the five participating probation regions. The evaluation is also intended to help identify any improvements that could be made as part of any future roll out of the intervention to further probation regions. This report summarises the findings of the process evaluation led by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ). It explores stakeholders’ views and experiences of the EM as LV project to understand how it has been operating, its perceived effects and its observed limitations. The process evaluation fieldwork was carried out during summer 2023. 1.1 Key findings  between go-live in early August 2022 and the end of December 2023. The EM as LV data were also matched to management information (MI) recorded by the Probation Service using unique identifiers so as to obtain estimates of a set of protected characteristics and other variables, which were subject to missing values and potential data input errors. Comparisons were provided with respect to all prison leavers released on an adult licence over the same time period, where relevant. The qualitative data regarding stakeholders’ perceptions were obtained using primarily interviews that were conducted among police officers, probation practitioners, EM service provider staff and people on probation who were enrolled in the EM as LV project. The main limitation was that the views expressed by respondents were only representative of those individuals who chose to participate. In particular, the number of people on probation who responded was small. 

Ministry of Justice Analytical Series: London: Ministry of Justice, 2025. 83p.  

By Brittany Michelle Friedman, Gabriela Kirk-Werner, and April D. Fernandes

This article examines the repeal of prison pay-to-stay policies in the United States. We process-trace reform efforts in Illinois drawing from novel data retrieved through multiple FOIA requests to state agencies and public records searches. Our analysis reveals how lawmakers who advocated for reforming the shadow carceral state in 2016 and 2019 through repealing prison pay-to-stay repurposed penal logics they had once used punitively in the 1980s and 1990s to enact the same policy—such as protecting taxpayers, fiscal efficiency, and rehabilitation. Our findings advance existing research by suggesting that penal logics are open to interpretation depending on the socioeconomic and historical moment. These contextual factors are also crucial to determining how lawmakers and institutions re-interpret long held penal logics when reforming the shadow carceral state. We argue the ways in which lawmakers strategically operationalize penal logics exemplifies their cultural durability as a resonant means to a political end.

Theoretical CriminologyVolume 28, Issue 4, November 2024, 22p.

By CFE Research and Revolving Doors

Intensive Supervision Courts (ISCs) are a problem-solving approach that diverts offenders with complex needs away from short custodial sentences and into enhanced communitybased sentences which aim to address underlying issues linked to offending. The ISC pilot is testing a model of community sentence management between probation and the courts, for certain individuals who receive a high-end Community Order (CO), or Suspended Sentence Order (SSO). Orders managed under the ISC comprise both rehabilitative and punitive measures, are delivered by a multi-agency team and are overseen by a single judge who can apply incentives to reward engagement and sanction those who are non-compliant. Key partners include the judiciary, court staff, probation, treatment providers, police, local authority, and women’s services. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) fund the pilot; most of the funding is allocated to dedicated ISC probation resource, the addition of a court co-ordinator role, and a dedicated “privilege and enabler” fund to support and recognise compliance. Privileges are intended to be flexible and creative in order to be individualised to the person on the ISC. The pilot currently comprises two substance misuse (SM) courts in Liverpool and Teesside Crown Courts, and a women’s ISC in Birmingham Magistrates’ Court, and is set to run between June 2023 and December 2024. A third SM court operating in Bristol Crown Court launched in June 2024 after this report was written. This is the interim report of an independent process evaluation of the pilot. It covers the implementation period of the pilot covering elements of best practice, challenges and early findings. It draws on evidence gathered through a survey of pilot staff and stakeholders, in-depth interviews with staff, stakeholders, and individuals on the ISC, observations of ISCs and related activities, and analysis of monitoring data. This report refers to ‘ISC orders’ and ‘individuals on the ISC’ for succinctness. These terms are used to describe those with COs or SSOs that are being managed through the ISC pilot model.

Ministry of Justice Analytical Series 2024

London: UK Ministry of Justice 2024. 90p.

 By Roger Grimshaw  

This working paper seeks to clarify the key contexts in which the recent history of indefinite detention for people convicted of crimes should be placed and to suggest ways of interpreting the kinds of evidence and analysis which future inquiries or reviews may wish to consider. Here it is argued that the main contexts are, in order of scope and generality: A. Socio-political structures and state developments B. Operations of the state: law and administration C. Initiatives, reactions and effects at the individual level The paper gives most attention to contexts A and B on the grounds that these contain the sources of the fundamental problems to be resolved, while evidence about C continues to be documented. It is agreed that the recent history of indefinite detention is complex, with several strands that over time have become knotted, hindering lucid and effective solutions. In this paper an attempt has been made to identify some of the most convoluted, and to trace their origins and implications. Inevitably, Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) will loom large, though future work will seek lessons from other jurisdictions and from similar sentences. The act of clarification focuses our minds on what is entailed in challenging the conventional wisdom around political and institutional understandings of indeterminate preventive detention. As we shall see, a cluster of such sentences have emerged from a longstanding political context and sit inside a range of measures and technologies which are embedded in criminal justice as we know it. The account is neither reassuring nor redemptive, but its intention is to present a foundation for a cogent criticism of that history and a prospective agenda for a future alternative.

Working Paper 2  London:  Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, 2025. 14p.