By Matt Ford and Roger Grimshaw

This report presents the raw data from a set questions asked to representatives from institutions in a selection of European countries about how the COVID-19 pandemic in prisons in their respective jurisdictions was being managed. The questions were based on a checklist developed by the World Health Organisation (WHO) to help support policy-makers and prison administrators implement the WHO’s interim guidance on preparedness, prevention and control of COVID-19 in prisons and other places of detention. The interim guidance contained measures recommended to prevent the virus entering prisons, to limit its spread in prisons, and to prevent transmission from within prisons to the outside community. It was published on 15 March 2020, and is based on the evidence about COVID-19 available at that time. Whilst prison services will use a variety of sources of guidance to develop their strategies to deal with COVID-19, we have assumed that the WHO guidance is the international standard and therefore is appropriate for international research such as this. The WHO do make clear that their checklist is not exhaustive. The WHO questions formed one module of a larger survey that the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies (from here on in referred to as 'the Centre') circulated to members of the European Prison Observatory, an international coalition of non-governmental organisations and educational institutes, to complete. The survey also contained questions about the prison populations, prison healthcare arrangements, incidence and prevalence of COVID-19 infection in prisons, and emerging problems and responses in prisons as a result of COVID-19.

London: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, 2020/ 39p.

By Saori Toda

In recent years, parole decision-makers have grappled with an intensifying challenge in addressing public concerns. While discussions on the rise of ‘parole populism have emerged, especially in Canada, the United States, Australia, and England and Wales, little is known about the way public concerns influence parole release in Japan. This article engages in a legal-systematic analysis of the intricate relationship between public concerns and Japanese parole decision-making in general and release from life imprisonment in particular. The article argues that, while Japanese selective parole decision-making considering public concerns in secrecy may have partially contributed to political rhetoric encouraging parole, it also poses unique challenges distinct from those in Anglophone jurisdictions. It reveals the value of fostering a transparent and accountable parole decision-making system to promote a more balanced and fair approach to parole in the Japanese context.

Howard J. Crim. Justice.2024;63:98–117.

By Bradley Read

This article suggests that the parole dossier may be working to damage prisoners’ sense of their identity through the creation of a carceral script which describes a person whom they do not recognise as themselves, and which leads to an increased narrative labour. Prisoners struggle, therefore, under that labour to form a post-offence identity with which to navigate a complex process such as parole. As identity, and its repair, appear instrumental to desistance, elements of the process, such as the dossier, could be putting hopes of rehabilitation at risk. Using the analysis of 15 prisoner interviews, this article explores a parole process described as undermining agency. A process where risk assessment is perceived poorly and where ultimately the experience can lead to negative impacts on an already fragile self-identity. In conclusion, this article attempts to offer some solutions, to mitigate the negative effects, with a view to maximising the potential impact of the dossier process on future desistance, through the more meaningful involvement of the prisoner at its centre.

Criminology & Criminal Justice Volume 0: Ahead of Print, 2024.

By James Bonta

The search for ‘what works’ in the assessment and rehabilitation of justice-involved persons dates back at least to the 1960s and an argument can be made that it is even earlier than that. However, it was probably Lipton, Martinson, and Wilks’ (1975) review of the treatment literature that catapulted ‘what works’ to the forefront of correctional research and practice. The story of their review and Robert Martinson’s popularisation of the review is well known. The conclusion from the review was that ‘these data…give us little reason to hope that we have in fact found a sure way of reducing recidivism through rehabilitation’ (Martinson, 1974, p.49). This proclamation was quickly translated into ‘nothing works’ and opened the gates to the ‘get tough’ movement. After all, it was argued, if treatment does not work then our only alternative is to punish law-breakers justly and fairly in the hope that it will deter them from further crime. The view that ‘nothing works’ did not go unchallenged. Ted Palmer (1975) was almost alone in supporting rehabilitation efforts at the time. …

Manchester: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2023. 13p.

By Jesse Jannetta and Marina Duane

Pretrial risk assessments are common tools for guiding pretrial release decisionmaking and have been adopted by many of the local jurisdictions. Risk assessment tools have been advanced as a promising alternative to the use of monetary conditions of release. However, as pretrial risk assessments have become more prevalent, they have also been subject to critiques about their potential for exacerbating inequities in the criminal legal system. This case study, part of a series highlighting work supported by the Safety and Justice Challenge, examines how Charleston County, South Carolina, and Lucas County, Ohio, implemented two different pretrial risk assessments and used them to inform pretrial decisions as part of their efforts to reduce the misuse of their jails.

Washington, DC: Urban Institute Justice Policy Center, 2022. 42p.

By Meghan McCormick, Bright Sarfo and Emily Brennan

Over 5 million American children under the age of 18 years, a disproportionate number of whom are Black or Latino, have had a residential parent jailed or incarcerated. While a number of existing studies identify parental incarceration as a key risk factor for poor child and family outcomes, there is more limited information describing programs that aim to promote positive outcomes for children with parents involved in the criminal justice system. This literature review analyzes published studies about family strengthening programs that seek to maintain and build healthy relationships between parents who are incarcerated and their children. The review is organized by six key areas of programmatic focus that the research team identified based on an initial scan of the literature, consultations with experts and programs in the field, and guidance from the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2021. 61p.