By Michele Deitch

This in-depth article provides comprehensive background information about the nature, value, and history of correctional oversight; documents the shifting landscape and increasing momentum around the oversight issue over the last decade; highlights key distinctions between prison and jail oversight; and provides a comprehensive assessment of the state of prison and jail oversight in the U.S. today. The article includes tables listing and categorizing every correctional oversight body in the United States as of 2020.

American Journal of Criminal Law 47, no. 2 (2020): 207–74.

By: Mauricio Stegemann Dieter and Renato Rocha

This book introduces the ‘Southern criminology’ movement; explores its theoretical, methodological, and philosophical tools; offers analytical accounts on the development of criminological thoughts in marginalised regions; and showcases the cutting edge of criminological research from Southern settings.

Southernising Criminology is structured into three parts. The first part provides theoretical and methodological insights into how criminology can be Southernised, including renowned social scientists who share concerns for the need to reconceptualise the centre, the periphery, and their relations. The second part brings the reader up-to-date with the state of criminological research in different parts of the world and how far this landscape has changed when introducing Southern perspectives. The third part shows first-hand examples of how Southern criminology is done, with its challenges and transformative potential for criminological knowledge. Bringing together contributions from leading scholars working across the five continents and drawing on issues such as state criminality, violent crime, criminal justice practices, and state and non-state punishment, this book offers a critical 44account of the problems of metropolitan thinking, colonial and imperial power relations, and Western ethnocentric approaches to criminology. It offers a nuanced and grounded reflection on how things are being done differently and why that is important.

An accessible and compelling read, this book will appeal to students and scholars of criminology, sociology, politics, and policy makers from around the world who are interested in the field of criminology and are aware of the urgent need for it to be decolonised and democratised.

Southernising Criminology, April 2024

By: Emil E Jonescu, Talia Uylaki, and Sonja Duric

The purpose of this paper is to draw attention to gaps in existing research and design for neurodiverse people and their quality of life. In particular, this paper focuses on custodial typologies (their philosophical position, and design evolution) as facilities designed to detain either sentenced or unsentenced people, over the short or long term.

Historically, criminality was regarded as an illness and treated through segregation, and to varied degrees, crime, morality, mental health, and religion were deemed inextricably connected. Therefore, prisons, mental institutions, hospitals, and ecclesiastical architecture share philosophical and historical infrastructure. Concurrent evolutionary threads of 'new' solutions, philosophies, and architecture particular to confinement were formed through discourse among social reformers. However, prisons have largely overlooked the needs of neurodivergent individuals.

Neurodiversity refers to the natural variation of human brains and includes individuals who have been diagnosed with conditions such as autism spectrum disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and other developmental or intellectual disabilities. Neurodivergent individuals often have unique needs that must be considered in the design and operation of custodial facilities.

Accordingly, this research first undertook a scoping review of online databases and literature to examine, evaluate, and extend on existing peer-reviewed published scholarly literature related to theories, carceral frameworks, and criminality, with a focus on the intersection of neurodiversity and the justice system. The study specifically sought recent and relevant crime and punishment studies.

Secondly, the study conducted a meta-synthesis on an accumulated pool of existing international studies and identified areas of contemporary research, existing gaps, and potential areas of future research for neurodivergent individuals. The findings of this review highlight a general lack spatial research and gaps in existing literature that recognises the complexity of the police ‘lockup’ (a short-term custodial facility for un-sentenced detainees) and its critical function in the criminal justice system, in comparison to other custodial settings that have been studied and have evolved.

Lastly, in examining the extant literature on custodial facilities the study advocates for increased contemporary initiatives and a shift in attitudes that recognise the distinct functions performed by disparate institutions that necessitate different accommodation structures and a distinct functional form. This includes considerations for the unique needs of neurodivergent individuals that are overrepresented in such institutional settings.

X-Potential, V.02 (4), Australia: Hames Sharley.

By Jon Collins

No-one disputes the importance of prison education. But does it help people turn away from crime and live personally fulfilling lives? And what are the key elements which make for ‘good’ prison education.

In this evidence review, Jon Collins, Chief Executive of Prisoners’ Education Trust (PET), looks at:

• The educational needs of people in prison

• The current state of prison education

• The evidence base for the effectiveness of prison education

• Critical success factors for high quality prison education.

Mildenhall Suffolk UK: Clinks, 2024. 21p.

By Sharon Dolovich

In their welcome new article, Justin Driver and Emma Kaufman offer a provocative take on American prison law: that it is “fundamentally incoherent.” They base this conclusion on the Supreme Court’s repeated tendency to assert contradictory factual premises about prisoners and prison life. In one case, as the authors show, the Court will characterize prisons as violent and in another as “uncomfortable but mundane”; sometimes the Court describes prisoners as illiterate, at other times as strategic and effective litigators; and so on. If ever one imagined this area of the law to have a stable factual foundation, Driver and Kaufman’s dexterous excavation of the Court’s “selective empiricism” puts that notion firmly to rest. But viewed through a broader lens, the Court’s prison law jurisprudence proves anything but incoherent. For all the factual switchbacks Driver and Kaufman identify, there is an unmistakable consistency in the overall orientation of the field: it is consistently and predictably prostate, highly deferential to prison officials’ decision-making, and largely insensitive to the harms people experience while incarcerated. These features represent the practical manifestation of the divergent normative inclinations the Supreme Court routinely displays toward the parties in prison law cases. It is hardly a secret that American carceral institutions routinely burden prisoners’ fundamental liberties and fail to provide even minimally safe and healthy living conditions. Yet with prison law’s moral center of gravity tilting so far in the direction of defendants, plaintiffs bringing constitutional claims in federal court can expect to win only in the most extreme cases, leaving the prison environment largely free of judicial regulation. In this essay, I explore the mechanisms by which, despite what is known about the reality on the ground in American prisons, courts hearing constitutional challenges brought by prisoners so persistently find in favor of the state. In particular, I zero in on two components of the judicial process in this context: the construction of defendant-friendly doctrinal standards for deciding prisoners’ claims and the deferential posture with which federal courts tend to approach defendants’ assertions in individual cases. As to the doctrine, especially during the Rehnquist Court, the Supreme Court systematically deployed a set of maneuvers — which I have elsewhere termed canons of evasion — to construct doctrinal standards for prison law cases that strongly incline courts to rule in favor of the state. In Part I, by way of illustration, I map the deployment of these various mechanisms in two especially consequential cases, Whitley v. Albers and Turner v. Safley, and show how their use operates to create a doctrinal environment decidedly unfavorable to prisoners’ claims

135 Harvard Law Review Forum 302 (2022).

By: Dr. Mike Lauder

On 17 July 2002, David Blunkett announced a White Paper, Justice for All (Home Office, 2002). He stated: “In protecting the public, we are placing emphasis on dealing with dangerous, violent and sexual offenders. Those not sentenced to lie imprisonment but who are nevertheless a danger to society will remiain custody until they are considered safe for release. An indeterminate sentence will ensure that they will only be released under strict supervision when they are no longer assessed to be a threat to the public”. (HC Deb, 17 July 2002, c287).

The Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentence was introduced under the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The IPP sentence was abolished in 2012 but this action was not retrospective. By June 2024, there were still 2,734 IPP prisoners (1,132 unreleased and 1,602 recalled) and, of those unreleased, 99 percent had served time beyond their tariff (Ministry of Justice, 2024).

There are now some who believe that keeping this cohort of people in prison is uniquely cruel as there is evidence that to do so might create unwarranted psychological harm (Grimshaw, 2022). Members of Parliament now recognise that the IPP system is fundamentally flawed. What was devised to be a social good has, some would argue, become one that creates harm (Justice Committee, 2022).

The aim of this working paper is to describe the role that may have been played by the flaws inherent within the ‘Perfect World Paradigm’ when it is used to make public policy.

Centre for Crime and Justice Studies’ working paper series; London: Center for Crime and Justice Studies, 2024

By: Rongqin Yu, NiklasLångstro, Mats Forsman, Arvid Sjolander, Seena Fazel, Yasmina Molero

Objectives

To examine Differences in recidivism rates between different prisons using two designs— between-individual and within-individual—to account for confounding factors.

Methods

We examined recidivism rates among 37,891 individuals released from 44 Swedish prisons in three security levels, and who were followed from 2006 to 2013. We used longitudinal data from nationwide registers, including all convictions from district courts. First, we applied a between-individual design (Cox proportional hazards regression), comparing reconviction rates between individuals released from prisons within the same security level, while adjusting for a range of individual-level covariates. Second, we applied a within-individual design (stratified Cox proportional hazards regression), comparing rates of reconviction within the same individuals, i.e., we compared rates after release from one prison to the rates in the same individual after release from another prison, thus adjusting for all time-invariant con founders within each individual (e.g. genetics and early environment). We also adjusted for a range of time-varying individual-level covariates.

Results

Results showed differences in the hazard of recidivism between different prisons in between-individual analyses, with hazards ranging from 1.22 (1.05–1.43) to 4.99 (2.44 10.21). Results from within-individual analyses, which further adjusted for all time-invariant confounders, showed minimal differences between prisons, with hazards ranging from 0.95 (0.87–1.05) to 1.05 (0.95–1.16). Only small differences were found when violent and nonviolent crimes were analyzed separately.

Conclusions

The study highlights the importance of research designs that more fully adjust for individual-level confounding factors to avoid over-interpretation of the variability in comparisons across prisons.

PLoS ONE 17(5): e0267941. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267941, 2022.

By Frederic G. Reamer

Probation practitioners sometimes face moral uncertainty in their work that requires skilled judgment. These decisions may entail vexing questions about the limits of probationers’ privacy, informed consent protocols, paternalism, compliance with allegedly draconian policies, allocation of limited resources, and whistle-blowing, among others. Especially since the early 1980s, practitioners have been introduced to a wide range of conceptually rich ethical decision-making protocols. Practitioners’ increasingly nuanced grasp of ethical issues reflects the broader expansion of ethics education in the professions generally, including medicine, nursing, psychology, mental health counseling, and marriage and family therapy, among others (Banks, 2012; Barsky, 2019; Council on Social Work Education, 2022; Martin, Vaught and Solomon, 2017; Reamer, 2018a). Core competences related to professional ethics typically address practitioners’ ability to:

• make ethical decisions by applying relevant standards, relevant laws and regulations, and models for ethical decision-making

• cope with moral ambiguity

• use reflection and self-regulation to manage personal values and maintain professionalism

• demonstrate professional demeanor in behaviour, appearance, and communication (oral, written, and electronic)

• use technology ethically and appropriately to facilitate practice outcomes

• use supervision and consultation to guide professional judgment and behaviour.

These core competencies, which are especially relevant to probation, focus primarily on practitioners’ grasp and application of key concepts and decision-making protocols. They also highlight the importance of practitioners’ humility and ‘reflective practice’ when managing ethical issues (Dewayne, 2006; Kaushik, 2017). This Academic Insights paper will explore these concepts further, highlighting the potential benefits for probation practice.

Academic Insights 2023/03; Manchester, UK: HM Inspectorate of Probation 2023. 15p.

By Matt Cracknell

In 2021, 47,014 people were released from prison in England and Wales (Ministry of Justice, 2022), demonstrating the extent to which resettlement work is a core part of probation practice. However, the practitioners tasked to work with these individuals are often asked to fulfill a range of antagonistic and contradictory aims and approaches to resettlement (Canton, 2022) that can include:

• aftercare

• treatment

• the continuation of punishment

• risk management.

Indeed, there have been various policy and practice initiatives regarding how best to support people as they leave custody dating back to the birth of the modern prison in the early 19th century (Crow, 2006). These ambiguities reinforce concerns outlined by Maruna (2006) – that resettlement lacks an underlying theory or narrative for how it is supposed to work.

The uncertainty regarding how best to support people leaving custody is mirrored in ambiguities in the terminology used to describe this practice, with a set of interchangeable terms such as resettlement, re-entry, reintegration, and rehabilitation often used. However, there are a number of scholars who feel that the prefix ‘re’ for these terms is inappropriate and does not sufficiently capture the reality that many people leaving prison are perennially disadvantaged and had not previously been integrated or settled in society (Carlen and Tombs, 2006). In England and Wales, resettlement is the common terminology in official policy language, replacing the previous terms of ‘aftercare’ or ‘throughcare’, and is used to describe the process of leaving prison and returning to society. However, linked to its originations in official policy language, resettlement is also commonly used to refer to any prison and/or probation intervention used to address practical issues and criminogenic factors in order to reduce reoffending (Rubio Arnal, 2021).

Despite the longstanding ‘intractable problem’ (Crow, 2006: 3) in providing effective resettlement, there is a substantial evidence base that demonstrates how best to support people as they leave prison and transition back into the community. This Academic Insights paper will draw upon this literature in order to outline what best practice in this area might look like, outlining six key principles of effective resettlement support. The paper will then turn to outlining some potential barriers that need to be addressed in order to realise this approach, setting out the implications for resettlement policy.

Academic Insights 2023/01 ; Manchester, UK: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2023. 13p.

By Prison Reform International and the Thailand Institute of Justice

The Global Prison Trends 2024 report is the 10th edition in this flagship series, offering a detailed overview of the major developments and challenges in prison systems around the world. Published in collaboration with the Thailand Institute of Justice, this edition sheds light on key issues such as prison overcrowding, the mental health crisis in prisons, corruption, and the growing use of digital technologies. It also highlights the significant disparities in prison labour, including variations in access, pay and working conditions.

In addition to identifying these challenges, the 2024 report showcases innovative solutions, including ‘green’ initiatives aimed at promoting rehabilitation and sustainability.

London: Penal Reform International , 52p 2024

By Nixon Randy Sinaga

Indonesia maintains a punitive war on drugs policy model. Various campaigns are conducted to emphasise that drug offences are the most serious crimes. This construction is clearly contrary to international human rights standards. The Human Rights Committee defines the meaning of ‘most serious crime’ through General Comment No. 36 (2018) on Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the right to life (GC/36). Paragraph 35 of GC/36 does not place drug offences as one of the most serious crimes. This further confirms that Indonesia’s war on drugs policy has been built upon an erroneous and unfounded paradigm. Law Number 35 of 2009 concerning Narcotics (Narcotics Law) which is in force until now contains offences that tend to open up extensive interpretations and overlap between one another. The implication of this overlapping offence in the Narcotics Law is the imprisonment of people who use drugs, people who have drug dependency, and people who abuse drugs. The paradigm of the most serious crime built by the government in narcotics cases actually brings problems to the conditions of correctional institutions in Indonesia. The problem is at least evident from the results of an assessment of the characteristics of people incarcerated for drug cases conducted by the Jakarta Regional Office of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights, stating that at the end of 2018, the number of people in prison for drug cases reached 115,289 people or 95% of the total number of people imprisoned for special criminal cases in Indonesia. This figure is much higher than the number of people detained in corruption cases (5,110), illegal logging (890), terrorism (441), and money laundering (165).

London: International Drug Policy Consortium, 2024. 8p.

By Scottish Government, Justice Directorate

In November 2019, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice commissioned an independent review into the response to deaths in prison custody. The Independent Review of the Response to Deaths in Prison Custody was published in November 2021.

In early 2022, it was decided to bring in an external chair to oversee the implementation of the recommendations. I took up the role in April 2022, forming the Deaths in Prison Custody Action Group soon afterwards.

My first priority was to engage with families who had direct experience of losing a loved one through death in prison custody. A Family Reference Group was formed, which included some families who had contributed to the original Review. The membership has changed and increased over time with four more families joining the Group who were bereaved by the death of a loved one in prison after the Review was published in November 2021.

Families involved in this work are generously sharing their experiences in the hope that the response to the death of a relative in prison is improved for other families in the future. They share a desire to help improve the understanding of factors leading to deaths in prison in order to reduce and prevent more deaths.

The Review recognised the importance of data and analysis, with part of the key recommendation being that an independent body should produce and publish reports analysing data on deaths in custody, identifying trends and systemic issues.

Two important recommendations are aimed at understanding causes of deaths in prison and identifying trends with a view to preventing future deaths. Recommendation 1.1 states that leaders of national oversight bodies should work together with families to support the development of a new single framework on preventing deaths in custody. Recommendation 3.4 asks for a comprehensive review into the main causes of all deaths in prison custody.

I introduced an Understanding and Preventing Deaths in Prison Working Group, which sits under the Deaths in Prison Custody Action Group, to take these recommendations forward.

The Scottish Prison Service publishes data on its website, including date of admission; date of death; age; gender; ethnic group; legal status, and medical cause of death (from 2019 onwards). There has been no published analysis or identification of trends by the Scottish Prison Service or the Scottish Government, despite the data having been publicly available since 2012.

Whilst long overdue, this paper is welcome and presents a high level analysis of the data published by the Scottish Prison Service on deaths in prison between 2012 and 2022. Overall the analysis shows that there has been an increase in the number of deaths in prison over that period. It is the first in a series of reports that will be produced over the coming year. The next stage will be work with the National Records of Scotland to examine causes of deaths in prison in more detail, and to make comparisons with trends in the general population.

I will be particularly interested to see the age distribution of the prison population compared with the general population, and what analysis might tell us about the prevalence of suicide amongst young people in prison.

The healthcare provision across the prison estate and the efficiency of resources to escort people in prison to access medical appointments/treatment will also be an area of interest for future analysis.

This paper represents a start to the important work of improving the data, evidence, and analysis around prison deaths with a view to identifying factors and causes, and to prevent future deaths.

Two important recommendations are aimed at understanding causes of deaths in prison and identifying trends with a view to preventing future deaths. Recommendation 1.1 states that leaders of national oversight bodies should work together with families to support the development of a new single framework on preventing deaths in custody. Recommendation 3.4 asks for a comprehensive review into the main causes of all deaths in prison custody.

I introduced an Understanding and Preventing Deaths in Prison Working Group, which sits under the Deaths in Prison Custody Action Group, to take these recommendations forward.

The Scottish Prison Service publishes data on its website, including date of admission; date of death; age; gender; ethnic group; legal status, and medical cause of death (from 2019 onwards). There has been no published analysis or identification of trends by the Scottish Prison Service or the Scottish Government, despite the data having been publicly available since 2012.

Whilst long overdue, this paper is welcome and presents a high level analysis of the data published by the Scottish Prison Service on deaths in prison between 2012 and 2022. Overall the analysis shows that there has been an increase in the number of deaths in prison over that period. It is the first in a series of reports that will be produced over the coming year. The next stage will be work with the National Records of Scotland to examine causes of deaths in prison in more detail, and to make comparisons with trends in the general population.

I will be particularly interested to see the age distribution of the prison population compared with the general population, and what analysis might tell us about the prevalence of suicide amongst young people in prison.

The healthcare provision across the prison estate and the efficiency of resources to escort people in prison to access medical appointments/treatment will also be an area of interest for future analysis.

This paper represents a start to the important work of improving the data, evidence, and analysis around prison deaths with a view to identifying factors and causes, and to prevent future deaths.

2023. 36p.

By Magnus Lofstrom and Brandon Martin, with research support from Sean Cremin

Key Takeaways: Since a 2009 federal court order to reduce prison overcrowding, California has been at the forefront of reforms aimed at reducing incarceration. One critical reform, Proposition 47—passed by voters in 2014— continues to be at the center of policy discussions. Under Prop 47, prison and jail populations plummeted as did arrests for drug and property crimes after certain offenses were reclassified from felonies to misdemeanors. Furthermore, lower prison populations and expenditures have led to $800 million so far in savings that provided funding for treatment and diversion programs. But Prop 47 may not be the most important change to the criminal justice system in recent years; the pandemic brought challenges that have had lasting impacts on incarceration and enforcement. Driven by larcenies, property crime jumped after Prop 47 compared to the nation and comparison states; with no further deviations until 2021, partly driven by commercial burglaries. Violent crime also diverged over the last decade, with the sharpest deviation at the start of the pandemic. Two years after Prop 47, California’s clearance rate—or reported crimes that lead to an arrest and referral to prosecution—for property crime dropped 3 percent. It then dropped 7 percent in 2022, signaling that a person is half as likely to be apprehended for property crime today, compared to 2014. The clearance rate for violent crime has remained relatively stable for two decades. Jail and prison populations have dropped by a total of 30 percent, but the impact on crime has been modest and limited. With Prop 47, only a rise in auto thefts (3.9%) and car break-ins (3.7%) is tied to lower incarceration; with the pandemic, it was a rise in auto thefts (1.6%) and commercial burglaries (2.1%). After Prop 47, lower clearance rates for larceny (theft without force or threat of force) led to a modest rise in property crime, with more burglaries (2.9%), auto thefts (1.7%), and larcenies (1.1%). After the pandemic, lower larceny clearance rates led to a rise in car accessory thefts (7.3%) and car break-ins (3.9%); burglary clearance rates also dropped, raising commercial burglaries (3.2%). No evidence suggests that changes in drug arrests after Prop 47 or after the pandemic led to any increases in crime. Due to data limitations, we were not able to assess whether Prop 47 or the pandemic led to any changes in substance use and addiction. Focusing on retail theft, fewer cleared property crimes after both Prop 47 and the pandemic led to a rise in commercial burglaries; a drop in the jail population post-pandemic is also tied to a rise in commercial burglaries. Evidence is clearer that retail theft increased due to pandemic responses by the criminal justice system, and the increases were of greater magnitude than increases due to Prop 47. This report builds on our previous research and is the culmination of a year-long effort to examine the impact of Proposition 47 as the reform approaches its 10th anniversary, as well as the impact of the pandemic-related criminal justice responses; it is not an analysis of recently enacted or proposed legislation or upcoming ballot initiatives such as Proposition 36. Determining the factors that can reverse falling rates for cleared property crimes—and in turn raise the likelihood of being apprehended—should be a top priority for California’s policymakers. Legislators also should seek evidence-based alternatives to incarceration, which shows limited success with preventing crime. Understanding these factors and alternatives is vital to developing criminal justice policies, especially as research consistently finds that increasing the likelihood of being apprehended is a more effective strategy for preventing crime than harsher penalties or longer sentences.

San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California, 2024. 35p.

By: Heather Harris and Sean Cremin

California’s prison population decreased dramatically during the pandemic. ⊲ The prison population fell sharply during the first year of the pandemic: between March 2020 and February 2021, it dropped 23%, from 123,100 to 94,600. ⊲ California’s prison population now stands at its lowest point in more than thirty years. After increasing nearly eightfold between 1977 and 2006 to peak at over 173,000, the prison population has since declined. In 2023, the population stood at nearly 94,200; it was just above 97,300 in 1990. ⊲ California’s imprisonment rate—the share of adults in state prisons—stood at 309 per 100K in 2023. Imprisonment rates vary by gender, race, and age in California. ⊲ In December 2023, men made up 96% of California’s prisoners—up 0.5 percentage points from 2019. The female population fell more sharply amid the pandemic than the male population—31% relative to 24%. As a result, the male-female disparity in imprisonment rates grew from 22:1 in 2019 to 25:1 in 2023. ⊲ At 46%, Latinos are the most prevalent racial/ethnic group in California prisons. Black, white, and people of other races are 28%, 20%, and 6%, respectively. ⊲ Black people and Latino men are overrepresented among prisoners. Black men and women are 28% and 23% of prisoners, while both make up just 6% of the state’s adults. Similarly, Latino men are 46% of prisoners, but just 38% of adult Californians. By contrast, Latino women account for about 37% of both populations. ⊲ While imprisonment rates for Californians of all ages fell amid the pandemic, younger adults saw the sharpest declines. In 2023, Californians aged 18 to 24 were imprisoned at less than half the 2019 rate (121 vs. 248 per 100K), and imprisonment rates for those age 25 to 34 fell 35%, from 746 per 100K in 2019 to 480 per 100K in 2023. The highest rate in 2023 rate was among 35- to 44-year-olds (545

Most people in California prisons have been convicted of violent crimes that can carry long sentences. ⊲ Half of people in California prisons in 2023 were convicted of homicide or assault—up from 45% in 2019. Another 17% were convicted of sex crimes. About 18% were convicted of robbery or burglary—down 4 percentage points from 2019. Just 3% were imprisoned for drug crimes. ⊲ More than 3 in 10 people in California prisons are serving sentences of life or life without parole—a 5 percentage point increase since before the pandemic. The average sentence for people serving non-life terms is five years; on average, people are released after they have served 60% of their sentences. ⊲ California prisons currently house 20 women and 616 men who have been sentenced to death. Though Californians continue to receive death sentences, the state has not executed anyone since 2006, and the governor suspended executions in 2019. Prisons across the state are less overcrowded now than they were before the pandemic. ⊲ Most California prisons operate within the systemwide limit of 137.5% of design capacity that was mandated by the United States Supreme Court in 2010. At the end of 2023, the overall population stood at 117.6% of design capacity and 23 of the 32 currently operating prisons were below the systemwide limit. ⊲ The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) has closed three prisons since 2021 and will close another in 2025. The legislature abolished for-profit prisons in 2020; as of 2023, the state no longer leases any prison facility from a private company. According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the state could close five more prisons. The CDCR’s budget has been rising while its share of the state budget has declined. ⊲ The average cost of imprisoning a person for one year has risen almost 50% since the onset of the pandemic, from $91,000 in 2019 to $133,000 in 2024. Security, operations, and administration account for about 60% of that cost. ⊲ The prison system is funded by a substantial—but decreasing—portion of the state budget. From 2019 to 2023, CDCR’s share of the state General Fund declined from 8.6% to 6.5%, even as its budget grew from $12.8 to $14.8 billion. This year, CDCR faces its first projected budget decrease (of $600 million) in 12 years. ⊲ More than half of the CDCR budget—54%—goes to operations and prisoner health care consumes 28%. Only 4% supports rehabilitative programs.

San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California, 2024. 2p.

By Lulit Shewan

An exploitative labor economy exists within the confines of this nation’s prisons. This is a fundamental pillar of the criminal justice system, yet it is largely concealed from public view. In the United States, all state and federal prisons allow some form of involuntary labor as part of various correctional work programs. Even when prison labor is ostensibly voluntary, the combination of meager pay (often less than $1/hour) and the presence of harsh alternatives creates an inherently exploitative system that depends on the labor of those behind bars and perpetuates a cycle of exploitation and marginalization. Prison labor amplifies deep-seated issues within the criminal justice system and casts a stark light on the intersection of labor rights, social justice, and the ethics of incarceration

The Exploitative Prison Labor Economy

Incarcerated men and women toil in workshops, kitchens, and fields, producing goods and services that reach far beyond their confinement. From manufacturing furniture and processing food to fighting fires and working in call centers, their labor fuels supply chains, corporate profits, and consumer markets. Yet these workers remain invisible, their contributions often overlooked or dismissed. The commodification of their labor perpetuates a cycle of vulnerability, where meager wages and limited rights prevail. In the intricate tapestry of the prison industrial complex, we confront a profound challenge that transcends temporary reforms. The only holistic and ethical approach calls for a paradigm shift, a reimagining of justice itself. Within this context, we fiercely advocate for granting incarcerated individuals fundamental rights: the right to choose voluntary work and earn fair wages, and the freedom to join unions. These rights are not concessions; they are affirmations of human dignity and agency, and are necessary to improving the material conditions of incarcerated people.

Washington, DC: CLASP, 2024. 6p.

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 Maxim Ananyev, Mikhail Poyker:

Inmates' informal code often ascribes low status to persons perceived as passive homosexuals. We use longitudinal data to investigate whether prison experience contributes to anti-gay beliefs. We find that prison experience prompts a higher level of anti-gay sentiments among males and their families, while no discernible difference exists before incarceration. We find no effect for female ex-prisoners. We confirm that the results are not driven by pre-incarceration trends, changes in trust and social capital, socioeconomic status, mental health, masculinity norms, and other potential alternative explanations. Our study sheds light on the overlooked role of prisons as a significant contributor to the propagation of anti-gay attitudes.

IZA DP No. 17137 Bonn: Institute of Labor Economics, 2024. 

By Jacob Schuman

Community supervision is a major form of criminal punishment and a major driver of mass incarceration.  Over 3.5 million people in the United States are serving terms of probation, parole, or supervised release, and revocations account for nearly half of all prison admissions.  Although supervision is intended to prevent crime and promote reentry, it can also interfere with the defendant’s reintegration by imposing onerous restrictions as well as punishment for non-criminal technical violations.  Probation officers also carry heavy caseloads, which forces them to spend more time on enforcing conditions and less on providing support.

Fortunately, the criminal justice system also includes a mechanism to solve these problems: early termination of community supervision.  From the beginning, the law has always provided a way for the government to cut short a defendant’s term of supervision if they could demonstrate that they had reformed themselves.  Recently, judges, correctional officials, and activists have called to increase rates of early termination in order to save resources, ease the reentry process, and encourage rehabilitation.  Yet despite all this attention from the field, there are no law-review articles on terminating supervision early.

In this Article, I provide the first comprehensive analysis of early termination of community supervision.  First, I recount the long history of early termination, from the invention of probation and parole in the 1800s to the Safer Supervision Act of 2023.  Next, I identify and critique recent legal changes that have made it harder for federal criminal defendants to win early termination of supervised release.  Finally, I propose the first empirically based sentencing guideline on terminating supervision early, which I recommend in most cases after 18 to 36 months.  If community supervision drives mass incarceration, then early termination offers a potential tool for criminal justice reform. American Criminal Law Review, Forthcoming,  2024.

By Solitary Watch, American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana; Jesuit Social Research Institute/Loyola University New Orleans

The use of solitary confinement in the state of Louisiana has penetrated the broader public consciousness largely through the story of the Angola 3. Over the past decade, the harrowing saga of three African American men—all likely innocent of the prison murders that were used to justify confining them in solitary for up to 43 years—sparked media attention and public outcry as the ultimate expression of harsh, racist, Southern injustice. But there is another story to be told about solitary confinement in Louisiana. Like the story of the Angola 3, it is deeply rooted in the history of racial subjugation and captivity in the South, which begins with slavery and stretches through convict leasing and Jim Crow to the modern era of mass incarceration. However, it extends far beyond the lives of just three men. This is the story of a prison system where, on any given day, nearly one in five people is being held in isolation, placed there by prison staff, often for minor rule violations or “administrative” reasons. When it conducted a full count in the fall of 2017, the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (LADOC) reported that 19 percent of the men in its state prisons—2,709 in all—had been in solitary confinement for more than two weeks. Many had been there for years or even decades. The Vera Institute of Justice, which released its own report on solitary confinement in Louisiana earlier this year, similarly found over 17 percent of the state’s prison population in solitary in 2016. These rates of solitary confinement use were more than double the next highest state’s, and approximately four times the national average. Given that Louisiana also has the second highest incarceration rate in the United States, which leads the world in both incarceration and solitary confinement use, it is clear that Louisiana holds the title of solitary confinement capital of the world. The state has this dishonorable distinction at a time when a growing body of evidence offers proof of the devastating psychological and social harms caused by prolonged solitary confinement, as well as its ineffectiveness as a tool to reduce prison violence. In 2015, when it revised its Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (known as the Mandela Rules), the United Nations acknowledged that solitary confinement of 15 days or more is cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment that often rises to the level of torture. Taken together, these facts indicate that the state of Louisiana is abusing and at times torturing thousands of its citizens for no legitimate purpose whatsoever. The numbers, however, still tell only part of the story. Just as Albert Woodfox’s memoir "Solitary" powerfully conveys what it is like to live for decades in conditions that are designed “to break people,” the words of individuals living in solitary confinement are vital to understanding the reality of what is happening today in Louisiana’s prisons. For this report, we collected information directly from those men and women. The bulk of the report is based on detailed responses from more than 700 lengthy surveys completed by individuals in solitary, whose names and identifying information have been changed to protect their safety and privacy. Their descriptions paint a grim picture of long stretches of time spent in small cells that are often windowless, filthy, and/or subject to extreme temperatures, where they are denied basic human needs such as adequate food and daily exercise, and subject to many forms of abuse as well as to unending idleness and loneliness, resulting in physical and mental deterioration. Since surveys were returned voluntarily, the results cannot be viewed as a comprehensive or representative sampling. Yet with more than 700 responses from all nine of the state’s prisons, which provided personal narratives as well as quantitative data,8 we believe our report complements, builds upon, and adds an even greater sense of urgency to previous recommendations for reform of solitary confinement in Louisiana, including those included in the recent report by the Vera Institute of Justice. At a moment when LADOC has, for the first time, shown willingness to reconsider and reduce its use of solitary confinement, the findings in this report offer vital insights—and illuminate a path toward the sweeping changes that must be made if Louisiana is to create a prison system that succeeds in both advancing public safety and preserving the human rights of incarcerated people. Major findings from this report include the following: • More than 77 percent of respondents said they had been held in solitary confinement for more than a year, and 30 percent said they had been in solitary for more than five years. LADOC has not collected data on duration of time in solitary. Nationally, less than 20 percent of individuals in solitary, on average, have been there for more than one year. The United Nations has called on countries to ban the use of solitary beyond two weeks. • Just over 56 percent of respondents were in Extended Lockdown, which is generally used as punishment for prison rule violations, and which has no maximum duration. This type of segregation violates UN prohibitions on both using isolation for punishment (as opposed to safety) and using it for indefinite periods. • African Americans were over-represented among respondents. This racial disparity is consistent with the Vera Institute’s report, which also found higher percentages of African Americans and lower percentages of whites in solitary than in the general prison population. • More than half of respondents believed their mental health had worsened during their time in solitary. Most others said it had stayed the same or weren’t sure. • Many described psychological problems consistent with research on the negative mental health effects of prolonged solitary confinement. These include anxiety, panic attacks, depression, hopelessness, sensitivity to light and sound, visual and auditory hallucinations, rage, paranoia, and difficulty interacting with others. Some expressed fear that the damage would be permanent, and they would “never be the same again.” • More than one-quarter of respondents reported engaging in self-harm, including cutting and head-banging, while in solitary, while less than 6 percent said they had done so while in general population. More than 66 percent said that they had witnessed others attempting to harm themselves frequently while in solitary. Of those who had harmed themselves, 4 percent said they received counseling in response, while more than 26 percent said they were punished for it. etc.....

New Orleans: Solitary Watch American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana Jesuit Social Research Institute/Loyola University New Orleans. 2019. 135p.

By Pilar Larroulet, Catalina Droppelm, Paloma Del Villar, et al.

The last decades’ increase in female incarceration has translated into an increasing number of women being released from prison. Understanding their characteristics and criminal trajectories can enlighten us regarding the different needs of women upon re-entering society after incarceration. Drawing on data from the Reinserción, Desistimiento y Reincidencia en Mujeres Privadas de Libertad en Chile study, this article identifies different profiles among a cohort of 225 women who were released from prison in Santiago, Chile, and demonstrates that significant heterogeneity exists among them in terms of their criminal trajectories and the intervention needs to support their transition out of prison.

International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 9(1), pp. 112-125. 2020.