By  Benjamin W. Fisher; Catalina Valdez; Abigail J. Beneke

This document presents the research methodology, findings, and discusses implications of a research project that examined the potential impacts of removing school-based law enforcement (SLBE), and how that might shape outcomes related to criminal justice system contact or other racial and ethnic disparities. The research study drew on two secondary data sources: The School Survey on Crime Safety (SSOCS), which is a biennial nationally representative sample of school administrators; and the Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), a biennial census of American public schools. Both data sources were used to construct a two-wave longitudinal dataset that identified schools that did or did not remove SBLE. The researchers used a difference-in-differences approach. The researchers compared changes between schools that did remove versus those that did not remove SBLE, in three measures of criminal justice contact: arrests; referrals to law enforcement; and crimes reported to police. The report presents the research findings, and notes that they were mostly consistent across school racial and ethnic composition. Results indicated that for schools to improve racial and ethnic equity in their use of law enforcement, they should use strategies beyond simply removing police from schools.

Madison, WI: Department of Civil Society and Community Studies School of Human Ecology University of Wisconsin-Madison 2024. 82p.

By U.S. National Institute of Justice

In a complex system, like a hospital system or a criminal justice system, an unexpected, negative occurrence or outcome is rarely the result of a single act, event, or slip-up. More likely the bad outcome is a sentinel event — a significant negative outcome that indicates fundamental weaknesses in the system and which is likely the result of multiple factors. A systematic review of the sentinel event can identify system gaps and opportunities that improve the system and reduce the risk of future bad events. For this reason, the fields of aviation, medicine, and the military conduct a Sentinel Event Review (SER) to assess the processes that resulted in the sentinel event. A SER seeks to identify systemic opportunities for improving processes. NIJ has made investments over the years in applying the SER process in the criminal justice field. The implementation of SER in criminal justice has involved the review of negative outcomes along with “near misses” and even successful outcomes to better understand the specific conditions contributing to negative outcomes. This report discusses the application of the SER process to the Successful Transition and Reentry Together (START) program in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, the first SER in the federal criminal justice system. The SER of START reviewed four cases of individuals who participated in the program. The reviews took reentry failure as their sentinel event, although two of the four cases were successes that the SER team defined as “near misses.

Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, 2024. 72p.

By Tom O’Grady and Gemma Buckland

The Better Justice Partnership has set out to transform the penal system. But to state the obvious, it is politicians and their advisers who enact reforms. If we want to influence their choices, we must first understand them. This report is an attempt to see the world of criminal justice reform through their eyes. We explain their worldview from first principles. We show when and where they share the common assumptions of the criminal justice reform sector, and how they differ. We also discuss what they think is politically feasible, and why they sometimes resist changes that reformers see as common sense. Armed with this knowledge, we then outline how the Better Justice Partnership should go about achieving its aims of a more effective and humane penal system in England and Wales. The central message of this report is that if it wants to be more impactful, the criminal justice charity sector needs to become more politically savvy. Policymakers view the sector as politically naïve. They think that campaign groups are too quick to point out problems yet too slow to suggest feasible solutions. Sometimes they feel misunderstood, wishing that reformers would show greater awareness of the constraints under which they operate. In their opinion criminal justice is a uniquely difficult area of government to work in, and the political peril faced by those in the Ministry of Justice is not recognised. This lack of understanding matters. If reformers had a better grasp of the constraints under which politicians act, they could have more influence on them. Our interviewees clearly believe that the penal system in England and Wales is in a deep crisis, with radical reforms needed. When deciding what changes to make, they share many of the end goals of the sector. They all want a much greater focus on rehabilitation. Where they arguably differ is that their core goal is to balance punishment with rehabilitation. Both must go together in their view, and much else that they do flows from this basic assumption. What stops politicians and their advisers from attempting bold reforms? They do not view public opinion as an insurmountable barrier. In fact they think that in the right circumstances, the public could be persuaded to take a less punitive path. So they lack neither knowledge about what should change, nor a belief that the public would stand in its way. But they view reforms as exceptionally hazardous, and say that there can be little political incentive to enact them. The risks are high and the rewards potentially very low. The Better Justice Partnership, therefore, could focus its efforts not so much on educating politicians and the public on what needs to change, but rather on persuading politicians that it is worth their while – and not too risky – to make those changes in the first place. That they feel afraid of trying to make changes is crucial in understanding why some changes that seem obvious to penal reformers are viewed as anathema by politicians. Disagreements are as much about what can be done as what should be done. We identified several key barriers to reform. Fear of the media response is uppermost in politicians’ minds. They also perceive a lack of interest in justice from colleagues, and the unique career risks run by anyone entering the Ministry of Justice, as crucial. In their view the Treasury stands in the way of change too, perhaps more so than in any area of government. Above all, any strategy that Better Justice creates will need to give politicians a clear incentive to tread what they perceive as being an exceptionally hazardous path. Our participants made many suggestions for change, which we outline in detail at the end of this report. These included ways to frame reforms (for instance, as saving money) that would make them more politically palatable. They argued for gradual policy changes that slowly build confidence with the media and the public; slower change in the near term may achieve much faster changes in the long run. More progressive reforms could also be wrapped up in other changes, such as better police funding or support for victims, that make the public feel safer and show that politicians have their interests at heart. And their dual focus on punishment and rehabilitation means that they view smart tagging and visible community payback schemes as obvious, and politically viable, reform strategies.

London: NACRO, 2024. 40p.

By NACRO (UK)

This briefing examines: the level and range of mental health problems in prison and how people in prison who have mental health problems are identified; the impact that the prison environment can have on people’s mental health; the support currently available in prison and the impact all this can have on people’s ability to turn their lives around on release. We propose solutions which aim to ensure that everyone has access to the right support whilst they are in prison and on release. Improving the mental health of people in contact with the criminal justice system is an essential step to reducing reoffending and ensuring people can rebuild their lives in the community when they are released. In addition to providing the right treatment and support, we must ensure that prisons are not the cause of mental health problems, nor should they contribute to a deterioration in someone’s mental health, either because of a poor prison environment or a lack of treatment and support when it’s needed. The quotes used throughout this briefing come from people with lived experience of the justice system that have been supported by Nacro. Summary of our main recommendations We set out recommendations at the end of this report which we believe will help people in the justice system get the support they need for good mental health. These are grouped as follows: The beginning of the criminal justice journey: Our recommendations focus on keeping people out of prison where they would be better supported and rehabilitated in the community. During a prison sentence: These recommendations concentrate on improved screening and training to identify mental health needs; improved support provision and improved relationships with staff; improving the prison regime to ensure purposeful activity and time out of cell and improve safety; and embedding a more trauma-informed approach. Transfer and transition into the community: Here we focus on the need to improve timely transfers to secure mental health facilities, and embed and evaluate the RECONNECT care after custody service.

London: NACRO, 2024. 28p.

MAY CONTAIN MARKUP

EDITED BY Hyman Gross and Andrew von Hirsch

Sentencing, edited by Hyman Gross and Andrew von Hirsch, is a comprehensive collection of essays exploring various aspects of sentencing practices. This edited volume delves into the complexities of sentencing theory, policy, and reform, offering diverse perspectives from leading experts in the field. Whether you are a legal scholar, practitioner, or student, this book provides valuable insights into the challenges and debates surrounding sentencing in modern criminal justice systems.

New York / Oxford OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS. 1981. 401p.

MAY CONTAIN MARKUP

EDITED BY TARA HERIVEL AND PAUL WRIGHT

"Prison Nation: The Warehousing of America's Poor" offers a compelling examination of the intersecting issues of poverty and incarceration in the United States. Through meticulous research and incisive analysis, this book sheds light on the troubling reality of how the most vulnerable members of society are disproportionately affected by the criminal justice system. Blending personal narratives with stark statistics, the author navigates the complex web of policies and practices that perpetuate a cycle of poverty and imprisonment. An urgent call to action, "Prison Nation" challenges readers to confront the deep-rooted inequalities that plague the American justice system and to advocate for meaningful change.

Routledge. NEW YORK AND LONDON. 2003. 333p.

MAY CONTAIN MARKUP

By NORVAL MORRIS, MICHAEL TONRY

Across the country prisons are jammed to capacity and, in extreme cases, barges and mobile homes are used to stem the overflow. Probation officers in some cities have caseloads of 200 and more--hardly a manageable number of offenders to track and supervise. And with about one million people in prison and jail, and two and a half million on probation, it is clear we are experiencing a crisis in our penal system. In Between Prison and Probation, Norval Morris and Michael Tonry, two of the nation's leading criminologists, offer an important and timely strategy for alleviating these problems. They argue that our overwhelmed corrections system cannot cope with the flow of convicted offenders because the two extremes of punishment--imprisonment and probation--are both used excessively, with a near-vacuum of useful punishments in between. Morris and Tonry propose instead a comprehensive program that relies on a range of punishment including fines and other financial sanctions, community service, house arrest, intensive probation, closely supervised treatment programs for drugs, alcohol and mental illness, and electronic monitoring of movement. Used in rational combinations, these "intermediate" punishments would better serve the community than our present polarized choice. Serious consideration of these punishments has been hindered by the widespread perception that they are therapeutic rather than punitive. The reality, however, Morris and Tonry argue, "is that the American criminal justice system is both too severe and too lenient--almost randomly." Systematically implemented and rigorously enforced, intermediate punishments can "better and more economically serve the community, the victim, and the criminal than the prison terms and probation orders they supplant." Between Prison and Probation goes beyond mere advocacy of an increasing use of intermediate punishments; the book also addresses the difficult task of fitting these punishments into a comprehensive, fair and community-protective sentencing system.

Oxford University Press, Sep 12, 1991, 294 pages

By John Clegg, Sebastian Spitz, Adaner Usmani, and Annalena Wolcke

The literature on the prevalence and causes of punishment has been dominated by research into the United States. Yet most of the world's prisoners live elsewhere, and the United States is no longer the country with the world's highest incarceration rate. This article considers what we know about the prevalence and causes of incarceration around the world. We focus on three features of incarceration: its level, inequality, and severity. Existing comparative research offers many insights, but we identify methodological and theoretical shortcomings. Quantitative scholars are still content to draw causal inferences from correlations, partly because (like qualitative scholars) they are often limited to studying the present and the developed world. More data will allow better inferences. We close by defending the goal of building precise and generalizable theories of punishment.

Annual Review of Criminology, Volume 7, Page 211 - 231

By Nazgol Ghandnoosh, Celeste Barry, and Luke Trinka

As noted in the first installment of this One in Five series, scholars have declared a “generational shift” in the lifetime likelihood of imprisonment for Black men, from a staggering one in three for those born in 1981 to a still troubling one in five for Black men born in 2001. The United States experienced a 25% decline in its prison population between 2009, its peak year, and 2021. While all major racial and ethnic groups experienced decarceration, the Black prison population has downsized the most. But with the prison population in 2021 nearly six times as large as 50 years ago and Black Americans still imprisoned at five times the rate of whites, the crisis of mass incarceration and its racial injustice remain undeniable What’s more, the progress made so far is at risk of stalling or being reversed. This third installment of the One in Five6 series examines three key causes of racial inequality from within the criminal legal system. While the consequences of these policies and issues continue to perpetuate racial and ethnic disparities, at least 50 jurisdictions around the country—including states, the federal government, and localities—have initiated promising reforms to lessen their impact.

Washington DC: The Sentencing Project, 2023. 34p 

By Agenda Alliance

This briefing forms part of the Young Women’s Justice Project (YWJP), run in partnership by Agenda Alliance and the Alliance for Youth Justice (AYJ) and funded by Lloyds Bank Foundation for England and Wales. This project has provided a national platform to make the case for gender-responsive support for girls and young women aged 17-25 in contact with the criminal justice system, exemplified by our report “We’ve Not Given Up” published in March 2022.1 This supplementary briefing, “A Call to Action: Responding to Young Women’s Needs”, provides actionable recommendations to deliver change for girls and young women either in contact with – or at-risk of contact with – the criminal justice system. We have expanded upon the rich evidence base of the YWJP by convening a stakeholder discussion with women’s centres, youth/ justice practitioners, specialist “by-and-for” services,2 and young women with lived experience of the justice system, further complemented by additional desk-based research and examples of good practice.3 This research outlines specific steps to develop age- and gender-responsive support for young women, and is intended as a vital resource for funders, commissioners, practitioners, service providers, and decisionmakers to inform their practice and build sector understanding of how existing issues can be addressed.  

London: Agenda Alliance 2023. 41p.