By Nicholas Blagden, Luke Vinter, Eve Penford, Jade Mason & Polly Delliere-Moor

The evidence for offending behaviour programmes has expanded over several decades, with a large body of reviews producing well replicated findings attesting to the positive effects of cognitive-behavioural approaches in reducing general reoffending. These approaches aim to help participants recognise patterns of thought and action, while providing alternative perspectives and cognitive skills to help change thinking and behaviour. Related research also indicates that following Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) principles yields the best outcomes. In brief, RNR principles suggest that the intensity of rehabilitation services should be matched to a person’s propensity to reoffend (risk), targeted at psychological characteristics associated with reoffending (need); and, based on a cognitive-behavioural approach, tailored to individual styles of learning (responsivity). In line with such principles, His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) in England and Wales has invested in cognitive-behavioural programmes since the 1990s. Central to this offer since 2008 has been the Thinking Skills Programme (TSP), which is aimed at adult men and women who are assessed as medium and above risk of reoffending. TSP comprises 19 sessions (15 group sessions and 4 individual sessions). It is designed to support reductions in reoffending in four ways as set out below. 1. Developing thinking skills (such as problem solving, flexible thinking, consequential thinking, critical reasoning). 2. Applying these skills to managing personal risk factors. 3. Applying thinking skills to developing personally relevant protective factors. 4. Applying thinking skills to setting pro-social goals that support relapse prevention. This report qualitatively evaluates TSP, focusing on participants’ experiences of the programme and the perceived impact of the prison environment on its effectiveness.

London: Ministry of Justice 2025. 79p.

By Campaign to Close Rikers

The jails on Rikers Island are legally required to close within three years. But closing Rikers is not simply a legal obligation - it is a moral one. “Torture Island,” as it is commonly known by those who’ve survived it, has robbed generations of primarily Black and Brown people of their freedom and their human rights. The deadly conditions at Rikers have claimed far too many lives, including 32 people since Mayor Adams took office. Fortunately, there is a plan in place to close Rikers that was envisioned and fought for by formerly incarcerated people and their family members, with the support of faith leaders, service providers, community organizations, and other allies. This plan was approved and passed by the Mayor and City Council in October 2019, after extensive community input. Now is the time to accelerate this plan, and to maximize every possible strategy to reduce the jail population and limit the number of people exposed to the harm and abuses of Rikers. The Mayor and city agencies must take the lead in urgently executing this plan, and every elected official must leverage their power to support its implementation. Here we outline steps the Mayor, along with the City Council, must take to deliver on the commitment to closing Rikers, from decarceration, to defending the rights of incarcerated people, to divestment & redistribution.

New York: The Campaign, 2024. 14p.

By The HE UTAH INDIGENT DEFENSE COMMISSION

The focus of this report is the structural improvements made to indigent defense services in Juab County as a result of the partnership between state and local stakeholders. These stakeholders include the Utah Indigent Defense Commission (IDC), Juab County Commission and Attorney’s Office, and the Utah County Public Defender’s Office (UTCPD), and local attorneys. The Utah Legislature created the IDC in 2016 to provide meaningful state oversight and ensure Utah’s indigent defense services are constitutionally effective. The IDC collaborates with the state, local governments, indigent defense providers, and other stakeholders to:  provide guidance and standards for systems to ensure and oversee local defense services;  gather and report information about local indigent defense services;  award state funding to local governments to improve local indigent defense services; and  encourage and aid in the regionalization of indigent defense services throughout the state. For calendar year 2017, Juab County was the first recipient of an IDC grant award of $111,800. Actual IDC spending totaled $95,924, allowing the IDC to more accurately budget for a three-year grant renewal with Juab County in 2018. Additionally, identifying this amount helped to set the precedent for the startup and recurring costs of indigent defense improvements for future grant models throughout the state. The data in this report make use of those efforts to measure improvements in a local indigent defense system as a result of state funding from the IDC. The data are compiled from many sources, including narratives submitted by Juab County, as a requirement of the IDC grant award. Additional data come from the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) on appointed case and case-specific information, and Sorenson Impact Center Data Science Team for providing quantitative metrics related to indigent defense statewide.

Salt Lake City, UK: The Commission, 2019. 29p.

By The Utah Commission on Criminal & Juvenile Justice

Decades of research have demonstrated a systemic and nation-wide presence of racial and ethnic disparities in the United States’ criminal justice system. Here we analyze 9,788 felony Pre-Sentence Investigation reports in Utah between 2015 and 2017. By examining the relationship between race-ethnicity and the severity of the pre-sentence recommendation, we find that Hispanics have an increased likelihood of receiving the most severe sentence recommendation in comparison to Whites. Policy implications around findings are discussed which has the potential to reduce current disparities as they occur at the Pre-Sentence Investigation level. The generational costs associated with the system’s inequalities merits policy action on this salient issue.

Salt Lake City, UT: The Commission, 2019. 17p.

By AlexanderTesta, Dylan B. Jackson, Meghan Novisky, Kyle T. Ganson, Jason M. Nagata, and JackTsai

Abstract Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the cognitive functioning of formerly incarcerated older adults compared to their never-incarcerated counterparts, focusing on immediate and delayed verbal recall. Methods: Data are from 2,003 respondents who participated in the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health—Parent Study (AHPS; ages 47–82, mean age 62). AHPS participants were administered word recall memory exercises to the parent respondent from the Rey Auditory-Verbal administered Learning Test, including (a) 90-s (immediate or short-term verbal memory), (b) 60-s recall tests (delayed or longterm verbal memory), and (c) combined word recall on the 90-s and 60-s tests. Results: Adjusting for control variables, respondents who reported prior incarceration had a lower rate of verbal recall on the combined word recall (incidence risk ratio [IRR] = 0.915, 95% confdence interval [CI] = 0.840, 0.997) and immediate word recall (IRR = 0.902, 95% CI = 0.817, 0.996). When restricting the sample to respondents over age 60, prior incarceration was associated with lower combined word recall (IRR = 0.847, 95% CI = 0.752, 0.954), immediate word recall (IRR = 0.857, 95% CI = 0.762, 0.963), and delayed word recall (IRR = 0.834, 95% CI = 0.713, 0.974). Discussion: This study underscores the adverse impact of prior incarceration on cognitive functioning in the older adult population, emphasizing the need for targeted interventions and support for formerly incarcerated older adults. The results reinforce the importance of addressing the long-term consequences of incarceration, especially as individuals enter older adulthood.

The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 2024, 79

By BRONWYN HUNTER, KENDRA BRADNER, and EMILY NAPIER SINGLETARY

The Less Is More: Community Supervision Revocation Reform Act (S.1144A – Benjamin / A.5576A – Forrest) was signed into law in September of 2021. This act transformed the parole system in New York State, and has the potential to generate substantial cost savings that can be (re)invested into communities. The Columbia Justice Lab Probation and Parole Project and Unchained partnered with the Less Is More advocacy coalition, led by Unchained and the Katal Center, to learn: How do community members across New York State want the cost savings from Less Is More to be invested into their communities? Through a series of town hall meetings held virtually across the state, community members shared insight into what resources should be invested in and how such investments should be made. Specifically, community members who participated in the town halls prioritized investments in: ›› housing, ›› behavioral healthcare, ›› employment and vocational training, ›› reentry supports, ›› and community spaces, among other resources. Importantly, town hall attendees emphasized that funds should be invested in a way that: ›› enhances equity, ›› targets people and families who are affected by the criminal legal system, ›› and builds on local community and organizational capacity to meet community needs. There are several pieces of legislation in various stages of the policy process that are consistent with community members needs for investments, and these are identified in sidebars throughout the report.1 Community members who participated in the town halls reiterated what advocates and community members have previously called for – strategies that will invest in New Yorkers so that people can thrive in their communities. Policymakers can respond to these calls by taking action to invest in resources and strategies that move toward equity and justice.

New York: Columbia University, Justice Lab, 2023. 31p.

By Michael Olson

For much of its history, research into crime has focused almost exclusively on the urban environment. Modern criminology and its associated theories were all pioneered in studying large American cities to such an extent that one researcher laments, "the science of criminology ignored rural crime." The lack of scholarly interest stemmed from a belief that massive economic restructuring caused social disorganization, which in turn caused crime. However, this belief had an important corollary - that sort of social disorganization was only possible in urban areas. This line of study ultimately created some "unquestioned assumptions that all rural places have less crime, and more importantly, less variation in factors that are associated or correlated with variations in crime." These assumptions emerged from a popular conception of rurality to be isolated and static. However, close examination reveals that these myths about rural Oklahoma could not be farther from the truth. Rural economies are neither isolated nor static but rather, deal with constant economic restructuring that has served to concentrate poverty in certain rural areas, thereby decreasing community safety.

Oklahoma City: Oklahomans for Criminal Justice Reform (OCJR), 2025. 22p.

By Emma Kaufman

It is tempting to assume that the United States has fifty distinct state prison systems. For a time, that assumption was correct. In the late twentieth century, however, states began to swap prisoners and to outsource punishment to their neighbors. Today, prisoners have no right to be incarcerated in the state where they were convicted, and prison officials may trade prisoners — either for money or for other prisoners — across state lines. Interstate prison transfers raise questions about the scope of states’ authority to punish, the purpose of criminal law, and the possibilities of prison reform. Yet apart from prisoners and their families, few people know that prisoners can be shipped between states. Because information on prisoners is so hard to obtain, scholars, lawyers, lawmakers, and even the judges who impose prison sentences often have no idea where prisoners are held. Drawing on a wide range of primary sources, including data uncovered through open records requests to all fifty states, this Article offers the first comprehensive account of the prisoner trade. It demonstrates that states have far more authority than one might expect to share and sell prisoners. It reveals that certain states rely on transfers to offset the actual and political costs of their prosecution policies. And it critiques the pathologies of interstate punishment, arguing that courts should require consent before a prisoner can be sent outside the polity whose laws he has transgressed

Harvard Law Review, VOLUME 133 APRIL 2020 NUMBER 6

By Penal Reform International

People in prison are among the most vulnerable to suffering from the negative effects of natural hazards. Despite international and national momentum to enhance disaster risk reduction (DRR), its application in prison systems is often not a primary concern. In recent years, people detained and working in prisons have been injured – sometimes fatally – due to damage and destruction caused by natural hazards, exacerbated by inadequate preparations by prison authorities to ensure their safety.

Based on primary research, this guide – the first of its kind – presents practical measures with a human rights-based approach for practitioners and frontline staff working in prison systems.

London: PRI, 2021. 32p.

By David M.N. Garavito, Amelia Courtney Hritz, and John H. Blume

When most incarcerated persons go before the parole board, they hope that the decision whether to release them will be based on their institutional record; put differently, that the board will consider the use of opportunities available in prison, rehabilitation, and likelihood of success outside the carceral environment. However, numerous persons with excellent records and reentry plans are denied parole every year. Why? The actual variables that influence parole board decision making are often a mystery; parole rejections are left unexplained or opaque. Empirical research examining what drives parole outcomes is scarce, yet this research is necessary given the power the parole boards have in determining the actual amount of time served in prison. In this Article, we examined the influence of institutional variables (those related to a person’s behavior while incarcerated) and noninstitutional variables on parole hearing outcomes in South Carolina. We predicted that institutional variables, such as the conviction of additional crimes during incarceration, would predict parole outcomes, but we also predicted that noninstitutional variables which may cue characteristics such as dangerousness (e.g., the nature of the offense), regardless of relevance to a person’s rehabilitation, would also predict parole outcomes. We analyzed the outcomes of all (43,290) parole board hearings from 2006 to 2016 and examined the influence of variables such as a person’s race, biological sex, age at the time of the first offense, time served, conviction of another offense while incarcerated, sex offender status, and number of felonies. Our results confirmed our hypotheses: although institutional variables, such as being convicted of another crime while incarcerated, influenced parole outcomes, several noninstitutional variables, particularly those which may cue dangerousness, were also significant. The most alarming results were those concerning race and biological sex. The parole board was significantly less likely to grant parole to incarcerated men compared to women and to Black people compared to white people. Further, there was a significant interaction between sex and race such that Black men were least likely to be granted parole, whereas white women were the most likely to be granted parole. In addition to the above results, the number of convictions and the severity of the crimes a person was convicted of were associated with significantly lower likelihood of being granted parole. Additional research highlighting the specific roles that noninstitutional variables should play in parole hearings is warranted, if only to root out undesirable effects on a critical aspect of the criminal justice system.

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA JOURNAL OF LAW AND SOCIAL CHANGE Volume 27, Number 2 2024.

By Samantha Plummer and Jaclyn Davis

From July 2019 to May 2021, the Columbia Justice Lab developed and conducted a longitudinal interview study of nearly 300 people facing new criminal charges in New York City. The Rikers Island Longitudinal Study aimed to understand how defendants’ experiences in the pretrial process affected and were affected by their social and economic life conditions. After first interviewing people at court or in jail soon after their initial arraignments, the study re-interviewed them 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months later. This report highlights our key findings. The goals of this report are to: • Share the experiences of defendants who have varying degrees of contact with the criminal legal system in New York City. • Provide organizations that work with court-involved people information to understand the socioeconomic conditions of people going through the criminal courts. • Contribute to a citywide and national discussion about how to safely reduce jail populations. Key Findings Over 100,000 people are prosecuted in the New York City criminal courts every year. While there is excellent research on case processing and jail incarceration, less is known about the social and economic lives of people with court involvement. The Justice Lab’s analysis of over one thousand interviews with 286 defendants, and linked administrative data on criminal histories and social benefits use, shows that: • The sample of criminal defendants faced severe housing insecurity. – In the month before being arrested, about one-third of the sample had spent most nights in unstable housing. – About 20 percent of the sample had spent at least one night in a Department of Homeless Services shelter in the year before and/or after their arrest. • Unstable housing was strongly associated with mental health and substance use issues. – Study respondents with histories of mental illness and addiction were more than twice as likely to be unhoused or in a shelter or other temporary housing when they were arrested. – Half of study respondents without a history of substance use or mental illness had stable housing, compared to under a third of those with histories of mental illness and substance use problems. • Unemployment and precarious employment in the study sample were high and were closely related to housing, health, and substance use problems. – Only 25 percent of respondents in temporary or unstable housing reported employment at the initial interview whereas about 60 percent of individuals in any form of private residence reported employment. – Of the respondents who reported that they were employed at all four interview waves, only 41 percent reported working the same job across the entire study. • Exposure to violence was common, mostly in the form of victimization and witnessing rather than perpetration, and different experiences of violence were closely related. – Men, young people aged 18 to 34, and people with a history of mental illness and drug problems were more likely to report assaulting someone in the year after arraignment. Still, in each of these groups, around 80 percent of respondents reported not engaging in any threats or assaults. – Among respondents who were never attacked or had not witnessed other violence, only about 5 percent said they had attacked someone else, whereas 30 to 40 percent of those who had been attacked or witnessed violence reported attacking someone else. • Emerging adults (ages 18 to 25), who are incarcerated at more than double the rate of the adult population as a whole, faced particular health vulnerabilities. – Emerging adults reported a very low rate of health insurance coverage; a third of emerging adults in the sample were uninsured at their first interview, compared to 13 percent of respondents over age 25. – Three quarters of emerging adults reported some kind of ongoing health issue. Those who reported health conditions were much more likely to be uninsured (37%) than people over age 25 who reported health conditions (9%). • The sample reported a high prevalence of Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs), which were associated with poor health and substance use problems in adulthood. – Childhood adversity was more common in the project sample than in the U.S. population; RILS respondents were much more likely to have been removed from the home by the state, to have been physically or sexually abused, and to have lived with an incarcerated household member. – Respondents who reported four or more ACEs were significantly more likely to report mental health problems – Respondents largely did not receive support from adults to deal with extreme adverse events in childhood; across all ACEs, an average of 28 percent of respondents reported receiving help from an adult. • Criminal court processes were long and unpredictable, and disrupted study respondents’ social and economic well-being. – Ninety-five percent of respondents reported that court involvement disrupted their lives. One sixth of respondents reported losing housing due to their criminal case. – Respondents with mental health problems and living in unstable housing were more likely to have their focal arrests result in conviction

New York: Columbia University, Justice Lab, 2024. 50p.

By Elina Treyger, Maya Buenaventura, Ian Mitch, Laura Bellows, John S. Hollywood

Between 2020 and 2024, increasing volumes of aliens sought entry at the southwest U.S. border without valid entry documents. Several policies adopted since 2020 have sought to incentivize aliens — particularly those who have intentions of seeking asylum — to present themselves at ports of entry (POEs) and disincentivize crossing unlawfully between POEs. These trends and policies raise a question of the capacity of U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP's) Office of Field Operations (OFO) to process such aliens and unaccompanied alien children (UACs) through POEs. A congressional request sought an analysis that could shed light on whether and how well OFO would be able to process increased volumes and the resources it would need to do so. This report is the result of that analysis.

Key Findings

There are multiple pathways for processing likely asylum seekers and UACs through POEs. This is a function of several factors, such as whether the alien arrives with a CBP One appointment; whether they are a member of a family unit, a UAC, or a single adult; whether derogatory information is discovered about the alien; and detention facility capacity.

OFO's capacity to process this population varies across time and POEs and is constrained by a mix of individual case characteristics; staffing; infrastructure and equipment; capacity; the capacity of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; and operational demands.

The authors infer that OFO's effective monthly capacity to process likely asylum seekers and UACs in a safe, humane, and orderly manner at the level of resources present as of May 2023 is around 47,000–48,000 aliens.

Substantially increasing OFO processing capacity such that all or most likely asylum seekers and UACs (based on levels observed between October 2022 and February 2024) are processed at POEs would be extremely challenging at best.

Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2025. 209p.

By William Ash-Houchen, Avery Sorensen, Monica Benton, Kaysea Beck

The Improving People’s Access to Community-based Treatment, Supports and Services (IMPACTS) grant program was established in by the Oregon Legislature through Senate Bill (SB) 973 (2019) in recognition of the shortage of comprehensive community supports and services for individuals with mental health or substance use disorders that lead to their involvement with the criminal justice system, hospitalizations, and institutional placements.1 The Oregon Legislature has appropriated a total of $30 million to the IMPACTS grant program since its inception in 2019. This funding is available to Oregon’s counties and federally recognized tribal governments to increase the availability of community-based supports and services to a target population of individuals with a behavioral health condition and frequent criminal justice system and/or emergency services involvement. Grantees currently represent 11 counties across the state and five federally recognized tribal governments. The overall aim of each program is to reduce the frequency with which persons served by the program are involved with the criminal justice system and rely on emergency healthcare services. Per SB 973, this report will explore several outcomes that have emerged from grantee-reported data, ongoing evaluation efforts, and the potential state government costs avoided due to the high utilizer IMPACTS grant program. It will also briefly highlight the interplay between these high utilizer programs and the recent creation of the Oregon Behavioral Health Deflection Grant Program. Key findings: • Co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders were reported among 54 percent of IMPACTS clients. Participants with co-occurring disorders return for services more often than clients enrolled in IMPACTS without a mental health disorder. • More than one third of IMPACTS clients report one of the following mental health disorders: trauma and stressor related disorders, depression, and/or anxiety. • Among the 74 percent of clients with known substance use disorder, 61 percent reported use of methamphetamine, and 46 percent reported alcohol use. • Those releasing from prison engage in IMPACTS services at a higher rate than those without a recent prison stay history. • Importantly, five IMPACTS programs are operated by federally recognized tribal governments. 29 percent of IMPACTS clients identify as American Indian and Alaskan Native (AIAN). Reported data show that this population returns for services in subsequent months at a significantly higher rate than those who do not identify as AIAN. • Grantees are reporting unique overlap opportunities between IMPACTS and Oregon Behavioral Health Deflection programs, which both deliver services to distinct but related populations. • From July 2023 through June 2024, IMPACTS served a total of 839 people. At the end of June 2024, more than 550 humans were actively enrolled. • The IMPACTS grantees are funded through June 30, 2025, and will not be sustained without further investment from the legislature.

Salem: Oregon Criminal Justice Commission 2025. 42p.

By William J. Sabol, and Miranda L. Baumann

Justice reinvestment was introduced in the early 2000s as a means to respond to the massive growth in incarceration in the United States that had occurred during the past three decades by diverting offenders from prison and redirecting a portion of the associated corrections expenditures into communities to build their capacities to manage offenders locally. Over the next 17 years, the concept evolved into a Congressionally funded federal grant program that shifted the focus of reinvestment away from community reinvestment and toward a state-agency practice improvement model that ultimately aimed to improve public safety. A distinct form of justice reinvestment, the Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI), was the dominant practice of justice reinvestment in the United States. It was organized as a public–private partnership that engaged states in bipartisan efforts to enact legislative reforms and other policies to address sentencing and corrections practices and adopt high-performing evidence-based practices (EBPs) that would yield the desired public safety benefits. JRI contributed to legislative reforms and adoption of EBPs, especially in community supervision. The federal JRI effort has not yet provided peer-reviewed, published evidence that it has achieved its objectives.

Annual Review of Criminology, Vol. 3:317-339, 2020.

By UK Parliament, House of Commons, Justice Committee

This report examines public opinion and understanding of sentencing in England and Wales. We launched our inquiry to explore what the public know about sentencing, how information is accessed and how understanding of sentencing might be improved. As well as examining what the public know about the current approach to sentencing, we also wanted to consider public opinion on sentencing and the extent to which it should inform sentencing policy and practice. As part of this inquiry, we commissioned a public polling exercise. 2,057 adults in England and Wales were asked about their knowledge and views on sentencing. The Committee also worked with Involve, a leading public participation charity, to facilitate a deliberative engagement exercise. 25 adults from England and Wales met over three half-day sessions to discuss the aims of sentencing. The combination of these exercises has provided an invaluable insight into public opinion and understanding of sentencing. In terms of public understanding, both the polling and the public dialogue indicated that a significant portion of the public do not know which bodies are responsible for deciding sentencing policy. Only 22% of respondents to our poll identified that Parliament was responsible for setting the maximum sentence in law for a criminal offence. The participants in the public dialogue indicated that they were unsure which institutions had responsibility for deciding the framework that sentencers apply in individual cases. We are concerned that this can give rise to an accountability gap, whereby the public is unclear as to the Government’s responsibility in relation to sentencing. It is widely recognised that there has been a perceptible hardening of public opinion towards serious crime since the 1990s. Successive governments have increased the maximum sentences for a number of serious offences, often in response to public campaigns arising from individual cases. The polling we commissioned indicated that there is significant public support for increasing the custodial sentences for murder, rape and domestic burglary. For example, 18% of respondents said that the starting point for the most serious rape cases should be a whole life order (the current starting point is 15 years), and 33% said the starting point for the most serious cases of domestic burglary should be a 10-year custodial sentence (the current starting point is three years custody). One of the most striking findings from both the polling and the public dialogue was that one of the most important purposes of sentencing should be to provide justice for the victim. 56% of respondents to our poll ranked “ensuring the victim had secured justice” as one of their top three factors that should influence a sentence. In the public dialogue, there was a consensus that “providing justice for victims” should be a purpose of sentencing, and almost half placed it second in order of priority behind protecting the public. Accordingly, we recommend that the Government should review the statutory purposes of sentencing to consider whether greater emphasis should be placed on achieving justice for the victims of crime and their families. Our overall conclusion is that there is a need for national debate on sentencing. Our inquiry has highlighted that the public debate on sentencing is stuck in a dysfunctional and reactive cycle. There needs to be greater public knowledge and understanding of current sentencing practice, of evidence on the effectiveness of different sentencing options, and the resource implications of sentences in order to improve the quality of public discourse on sentencing. It is incumbent on all policymakers and opinion-shapers to play a role in shaping a more constructive debate and to seek greater consensus on the issues. This Government, and its successors, need to think carefully about how to engage with public opinion on sentencing. There are important choices to be made about how to ascertain public opinion and the extent to which policy should be responsive to public pressure. In our view, the Government should seek to actively engage the public on sentencing policy but should do so in a structured and methodologically rigorous fashion. It should ensure that both traditional polling and deliberative methods are used, and that such exercises occur at regular intervals. Finally, policy proposals on sentencing should be subject to independent evaluation, so that the resourcing implications are evaluated before they are enacted. We recommend that the Government establish an independent advisory panel on sentencing to consider proposed changes to sentencing policy and to provide advice to ministers.

Tenth Report of Session 2022–23 Report, together with formal minutes relating to the report . London: House of Commons, 2023. 71p.

By M. Camello, M., R. Shute, & J.D. Ropero-Miller

Individuals on community supervision are often required to abstain from alcohol and drug use and are typically subjected to substance use monitoring to verify sobriety, as a condition of their supervision. Providing reliable, timely, and cost- effective monitoring of alcohol and drug use for persons on community supervision as a condition of their release is a serious challenge given high-volume caseloads and concerns with public safety. This technology brief highlights technologies and solutions used to monitor alcohol and drug use for persons on community supervision. This is the third document in a four-part series on technologies to support the monitoring and supervision of individuals on pretrial release, probation, and parole (i.e., community supervision).

Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International. 2023. 22p.

By Richard Walton

Prisons exist to keep the public safe by depriving the most serious offenders of their liberty, and to enable them to become law-abiding citizens. In recent years, those priorities increasingly have been neglected by the Ministry of Justice and Her Majesty’s Prisons and Probation Service. The collective rights of the vast majority of the public have been overlooked, without noticeable benefit to those who have been sentenced to prison. The case of Usman Khan, who launched an Islamist terror attack in central London in November, despite being released on supposedly strict licence conditions, illustrates the inherent risks of an approach that appears to set poorly researched offender rehabilitation programmes above the safety of ordinary citizens. This is especially true in the context of extremist offenders, who are ideologically motivated and more difficult, sometimes impossible, to rehabilitate. Khan, previously convicted for involvement in a plot to bomb the London Stock Exchange, hoodwinked his supervisors, who allowed him to travel to the heart of the capital, with fatal consequences for two young people and their families. This should not have happened: the process that led to it has to be re-examined. It is clear that a reordering of priorities for ministers, officials, police and probation officers is urgently required. The alleged terrorist attack at HMP Whitemoor, which is said to have featured replica suicide vests, is further evidence that the most dangerous offenders are not being monitored effectively and in the public interest – even within a Category A prison. This report sets out some of the organisational changes that would help to achieve the necessary change.The recommendation for the Home Office to reabsorb Her Majesty’s Prisons and Probation Service (HMPPS) is persuasive. The Ministry of Justice, formed in 2007, has proven to be institutionally flawed and a cultural timidity still persists among officials around the management of terrorist offenders. The 13-year experiment, which removed prisons from the purview of the Home Office, has failed and should be brought to a close. It would make far more sense – in operational and strategic terms – for the Home Secretary, who has ministerial responsibility for domestic security, policing and public safety, to be once again accountable for the management of all prisoners, with the assistance of an able and knowledgeable Prisons Minister. A Home Office structured along traditional lines would also be in a stronger position to direct information-sharing and more carefully assess the risks to public safety posed by prisoners – notably terrorist offenders – on their release. A revamped Home Office must review how prisoner behaviour is evaluated, as well as the schemes designed to deradicalise terrorist offenders and rehabilitate other dangerous offenders. As the report explains, there has been little empirical study into the effectiveness of schemes designed to challenge extremist world views. Specialist training is vital here, and the use of the best psychological and neurological techniques to assess risk and danger. This is not work for the generalist: as Usman Khan’s case shows, those who are ideologically motivated of Islamist extremism are capable of hiding their true intent for long periods in order to carry out devastating acts of violence. Finally, legislating to prevent seriously dangerous convicted terrorists and possibly some other dangerous offenders from being released early into the community on licence is an idea that deserves serious consideration (and properly informed debate in both Houses of Parliament). It is likely to gain public support but judges must be persuaded of its legal integrity too. As the Government explores these legislative changes and structural changes in the round, it must ensure that public safety is paramount.

London: PolIcy Exchange, 2020. 28p.

By Jacqueline Beard

Sentences of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP sentences) were available for courts to impose from 2005 to 2012. They were designed to detain offenders who posed a significant risk of causing serious harm to the public through further serious offences in prison until they no longer posed such a risk. IPP sentences are indeterminate as opposed to fixed-term sentences. They have a minimum term that must be served in custody, sometimes called a ‘tariff’ that must be served before a prisoner can be considered for release by the Parole Board. The prisoner can then only be released once the Parole Board is satisfied the prisoner no longer needs to be confined for the safety of the public. Release is never automatic, and prisoners can be detained indefinitely if the Parole Board decides it is not safe to release them. When released, a person serving an IPP sentence will be on licence, subject to conditions. Breaching the conditions of the licence may result in the person being recalled to prison. If recalled, a person must remain in prison until the Parole Board is satisfied that custody is no longer necessary for public protection. The licence will be in force indefinitely until its termination. People serving an IPP sentence are eligible to have termination of their licence considered by the Parole Board ten years after their first release.

London: House of Commons Library, 2023. 22p.

By Anna Harvey, Orion Taylor and Andrea Wang

This report, updating the September 2020 Impact Report on COVID-19, Jails, and Public Safety, draws on a sample of approximately 19 million daily individual-level jail records collected by New York University's Public Safety Lab between Jan. 1, 2020 and Oct. 22, 2020. We explore how bookings, releases, and rebooking rates changed during the pandemic, relative to the pre-pandemic period. + Jail populations in the sample decreased by an average of 31% over the six weeks following the March 16 issuance of the White House "Coronavirus Guidelines for America," which expired on April 30. Jail populations then increased and have since recovered half of these decreases, despite explosive COVID-19 case growth in many of the counties in the sample. Counties with higher countywide COVID-19 case growth between March 1 and Oct. 22 have not seen larger reductions in jail populations. The decreases in jail populations after the issuance of the White House Guidelines on March 16, and the lack of responsiveness of jail populations to local COVID prevalence after those guidelines expired, suggest the importance of clear policy directives for reducing disease transmission risk within county jails. + Jail bookings dropped sharply in mid-March and remain on average 36% below pre-pandemic levels. As bookings declined, the characteristics of those booked into jails shifted. Those booked into jails between mid-March and late October were booked on more charges on average, were more likely to be booked on felony charges, and were less likely to be booked on lesser charges like…..

• More.....

  failure to appear, than those booked into jails prior to this period. + Although jail bookings dropped after mid-March, those booked into jails were detained for longer periods of time. Average detention duration increased sharply after mid-March, doubling from about 15 to 30 days, and remains nearly twice as high as the pre-pandemic average detention duration. This increase has offset reductions in admissions, and contributed to rebounding jail populations observed since mid-March. + Parallel to trends in daily bookings, daily releases dropped sharply in mid-March and remain approximately 40% below baseline levels. Those released from jails between mid-March and late October had been booked on more charges on average, were more likely to have been booked on felony charges, and were less likely to have been booked on lesser charges such as failure to appear, than those released from jails prior to mid-March.  The rate at which those released from detention are rebooked into jail following release is one possible measure of the public safety risk of jail releases. To date, 30-, 60-, 90-, and 180-day rebooking rates among those released during the pandemic have remained 13% - 33% below pre-pandemic rebooking rates. To the extent that rebooking rates measure the average public safety risk of releasing individuals from jail, this risk remains lower now than prior to the pandemic. + While the proportion of Black individuals among daily jail admissions did not change appreciably during the pandemic, the proportion of Black people among those released from jails during the pandemic decreased by approximately 5% relative to the pre-pandemic period. As a result, the proportion of jail populations composed of Black individuals rose during the pandemic.   

Washington, D.C.: Council on Criminal Justice, December 2020. 27p.