By Steven Schmidt, Kristin Turney, & Angie Belen Monreal

Objective. We use the case of housing insecurity to examine how romantic partner incarceration results in increased and prolonged surveillance of women at home. Background. Romantic partner incarceration prompts surveillance from the criminal legal system while simultaneously eroding women's finances, health, and family relationships. Less is known about how these symbiotic harms of romantic partner incarceration enable surveillance beyond the criminal legal system. Method. We use longitudinal interviews with 35 (previously coresident) romantic partners of incarcerated men, showing how incarceration prompts unwanted moves for partners, how women manage housing insecurity following partner incarceration, and how they become embedded into living arrangements where they are monitored, evaluated, and controlled. Results. We identify three primary findings. First, women experiencing housing insecurity after romantic partner incarceration relied heavily on their social ties (and, to a lesser extent, institutional housing providers) while enduring stressful and prolonged housing searches. Second, the homes that women move into expose them to increased surveillance. Women encounter domestic, caregiving, romantic, and financial surveillance. Romantic partner incarceration prompts large changes in surveillance among women who left independent homes, moderate changes in surveillance among women who left comparatively desirable doubled-up homes, and prolonged surveillance among nonmovers. Finally, women respond to surveillance by monitoring burdens on hosts and reframing stays in shared homes as temporary. Conclusion. Taken together, these findings extend prior research on the symbiotic harms of romantic partner incarceration, how women attached to incarcerated men experience surveillance, and how doubled-up families sustain shared homes.

 Journal of Marriage and Family 86(2): 2024., 391–411 pages

By  Kristin Turney , Amy Gong Liu, and Estéfani Marín

Despite reasons to believe that paternal incarceration has heterogeneous consequences for children, little research explores the processes underlying variation in children’s responses to this adverse event. We use data from the Jail and Family Life Study, an in-depth interview study of incarcerated fathers and their family members (including their children), to understand the heterogeneous processes linking paternal incarceration to children’s well-being. Children commonly reported that their father’s incarceration restructured their lives by altering their emotional and instrumental responsibilities. Within each of these domains, though, children expressed considerable variation in their responses, with some children seamlessly stepping into new responsibilities stemming from paternal incarceration and other children, especially older children who had witnessed their fathers’ frequent entanglements with the criminal legal system, consciously stepping away from these responsibilities. These findings illustrate the range of responses that children have to paternal incarceration, shedding light on processes that have not been observed in survey research

RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences 10(1):132–150. 2024, 29p.

By Naomi Sugie, Kristin Turney, Keramet Reiter, Rebecca Tublitz, Daniela Kaiser, Rebecca Goodsell, Erin Secrist, Ankita Patel, & Monik Jiménez

U.S. prisons were especially susceptible to COVID-19 infection and death; however, data limitations have precluded a national accounting of prison mortality (including but not limited to COVID-19 mortality) during the pandemic. Our analysis of mortality data collected from public records requests (supplemented with publicly available data) from 48 Departments of Corrections provides the most comprehensive understanding to date of in-custody mortality during 2020. We find that total mortality increased by 77% in 2020 relative to 2019, corresponding to 3.4 times the mortality increase in the general population, and that mortality in prisons increased across all age groups (49 and under, 50 to 64, and 65 and older). COVID-19was the primary driver for increases in mortality due to natural causes; some states also experienced substantial increases due to unnatural causes. These findings provide critical information about the pandemic’s toll on some of the country’s most vulnerable individuals while underscoring the need for data transparency and standardized reporting in carceral settings.

Science Advances,  Sugie et al., Sci. Adv. 9, eadj8104, December 2023, 20 p.

By Pavithra Nagarajan, Kristen Parsons, Julia Bowling, Jennifer Ferone, and Neal Palmer

Decades of research point to the benefits of college in prison, including reduced recidivism and improved employment outcomes following release. Even for those who have not yet been released, these programs foster a sense of community and purpose that can also lead to safer prison environments. Many people enter prison undereducated due to systemic disinvestment in education over the past 50 years, particularly in racial minority neighborhoods. All told, about one in three incarcerated adults have less than a high school equivalence (HSE), earned prior to or during incarceration, compared to 14 percent of the general public.

Despite the benefits of college in prison, policies and practices over the past two decades have limited the availability of postsecondary educational programs in prisons, including federal and state tuition grants. To supplement this, in 2017, former Governor Andrew Cuomo, former Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr., the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS), and CUNY ISLG established the College-in-Prison Reentry Initiative (CIP).

A $7.3 million investment, CIP aimed to build a partnership to provide more individuals with the opportunity to achieve a quality education, with the goal of increasing their likelihood of success in the community after release. It had four primary goals:

CIP funded seven colleges and universities to deliver college instruction across 17 prisons in New York from Fall 2017 through Spring 2022. CUNY ISLG conducted a multiyear process evaluation of the Initiative to assess its implementation. This report, the culmination of data reviews, site visits, and interviews with education providers, corrections staff, CIP students, and others, breaks down the successes and challenges the program faces, as well as offers lessons learned for others seeking to implement quality college-in-prison programs.

CUNY Institute for State & Local Governance , 2024. 112p.

By Nick Sibilla

Earning an honest living is one of the best ways to prevent re-offending. But strict occupational licensing requirements make it harder for ex-offenders to find work, thwarting their chances of successful reentry. Along with other “collateral consequences,” like losing the right to vote or the ability to receive government assistance, ex-offenders can be denied a license to work simply because of their criminal record. • This report provides the most up-to-date account of occupational licensing barriers for ex-offenders and will be regularly updated whenever a state

changes its laws. Using 10 distinct criteria, this report grades all 50 states and the District of Columbia on their legal protections for licensing applicants with criminal records. (See Methodology.) • The average state grade is a C-. Nationwide, 6 states—Iowa, Indiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Hampshire, North Carolina—earned a B or better. Reflecting the surge of interest in this issue, five of those six states have reformed their licensing laws since 2015. • Indiana ranked as the best state in the nation for ex-offenders seeking a license to work, earning this report’s only A grade. In contrast, five states—Alabama, Alaska, Nevada, South Dakota, and Vermont—were tied for last, receiving a zero on a 100-point scale for their lack of protections for felons seeking licenses. This report finds that licensing restrictions vary dramatically, with multiple states lacking even the most basic protections for ex-offenders seeking a license to work: • Licensing boards in seven states can generally disqualify applicants based on any felony, even if it is completely unrelated to the license sought. • In 17 states, boards are free to deny licenses without ever considering whether an applicant has been rehabilitated. • Applicants in 33 states can be denied licenses based on an arrest that did not lead to a criminal conviction. In other words, boards can refuse to issue a license even though the applicant is functionally innocent. • In nine states, applicants have no guaranteed right to appeal a board’s decision, and boards are not required to issue their decisions in writing.

Arlington, VA: Institute for Justice, 2020. 117p.

By Kristin Turney, Katelyn Malae, MacKenzie Christensen, & Sarah Halpern-Meekin

Jail incarceration substantially transforms romantic relationships, and incarceration may alter the commitment between partners, thereby undermining or strengthening relationships. In this article, we use in-depth interviews with 85 women connected to incarcerated men (as current or former romantic partners) to explore how women articulate relationship changes that stem from their partner’s jail incarceration, a common but understudied form of contact with the criminal legal system. We identify three interrelated and mutually reinforcing processes, which are shaped by and shape a partner’s commitment to the relationship. First, incarceration produces liminality in the status of the relationship. Second, incarceration fosters women’s sense of independence from their incarcerated partners. Third, incarceration creates space for partners to reevaluate how they prioritize the relationship in their lives. Jail incarceration intervenes in romantic relationships at different points during each relationship, and accordingly, women experience heterogeneity in processes of liminality, independence, and reprioritization. These processes contribute to differential relationship experiences, with some relationships deteriorating during incarceration, others strengthening, and others neither deteriorating nor strengthening. By systematically uncovering these processes linking jail incarceration to romantic relationships, we advance an understanding of how the criminal legal system can shape relationship commitment processes and inequalities among families.

Criminology. 2023;1–28.

By H. Daniel Butler, Natasha Frost, Nancy Rodriguez, Melinda Tasca, and Jillian Turanovic

Prison violence is a persistent problem for institutional corrections and the rehabilitation of incarcerated individuals. Estimates suggest that one in three men and one in four women in prison experience physical violence, while over half of correctional staff express fear of serious injury or death while on the job. However, these statistics are likely underreported due to limited data sources and challenges in data collection and reporting. As a result, the true prevalence of prison violence remains uncertain. In response to this pressing issue, with support of Arnold Ventures, the Prison Violence Consortium was established to better understand the scale, scope, and consequences of prison violence. The Consortium brought together researchers and practitioners from seven state correctional systems: Arizona, Colorado, Massachusetts, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Through a multi-strategy approach, we collected and analyzed data from a variety of sources, including official records, self-reported data, and interviews from incarcerated persons and correctional staff. A key finding from our work is that, much like the “dark figure of crime” in general society, there is a substantial “dark figure” of prison violence. This discovery underscores that the current practices of documenting and examining prison violence are insufficient, as the majority of prison violence is not reported. Without a national comprehensive strategy to improve the accuracy of how we measure prison violence, efforts to reduce it will be inconsistent and likely ineffective.

Irvine, CA: UC Irvine School of Social Ecology, 2024. 12p.

By Nancy Rodriguez, H. Daniel Butler, Natasha Frost, Melinda Tasca, and Jillian Turanovic

This policy brief presents the findings of our multi-strategy approach, spearheaded by the Prison Violence Consortium, to examine the sources and consequences of prison violence. We capture prison violence using data on guilty violent infractions, violent incident reports, and interviews with incarcerated persons and correctional employees. We offer solution-driven recommendations to policymakers, institutional leaders, prison researchers, and other stakeholders, aiming to enhance prison safety and more effectively address institutional violence nationwide..

Key Findings ● Perpetrators of Violence & Timing: ● Prison violence was concentrated among a small subset of persons, as 10% of the population accounted for more than 50% of guilty violent infractions. ● Personal characteristics related to guilty violent infractions included younger age at admission, lower education, longer sentences, violent criminal histories, gang affiliations, and greater mental health needs. ● Most people (63%) committed guilty violent infractions within 6-12 months of admission, with fewer than 10% remaining violent throughout their incarceration. ● Common Forms & Situational Factors: ● Most violence (71%) occurred between incarcerated persons, while 29% was directed at staff, according to the incident reports. ● The most prevalent form of violence was fights between persons (38%), followed by assaults on persons (26%), assaults on staff (17%), biohazard incidents (13%), and unwitnessed physical altercations (6%). ● Violence most often occured in cells or housing areas (39%) and common areas (e.g., cafeteria and yard) (31%). ● Weapons and contraband were mentioned in 10% of the incident reports.

Irvine, CA: UC Irvine School of Social Ecology, Prison Violence Consortium, 2024. 23p.

Correctional Association of New York

The Correctional Association of New York (CANY) maintains an extraordinarily deep and broad understanding of New York’s state correctional facilities. This understanding allows for nuanced assessment of the greatest challenges DOCCS faces in safely operating institutions that support rehabilitation, public safety, and human dignity. CANY’s vantage also affords the ability to identify examples of good policy and practice, of which there are many within DOCCS. The following recommendations, which take into consideration both persistent challenges and opportunities to scale up examples of excellence, were submitted to DOCCS for a statutory 60-day review period on October 9, 2024—two months to the day before Robert Brooks was fatally assaulted at Marcy Correctional Facility. These recommendations arise from CANY’s unique historical role as the independent oversight entity for state correctional facilities and activities authorized by Correction Law 146(3), which grants the organization authority “to access, visit, inspect, and examine all state correctional facilities with seventy-two hours advance notice to the department.” In FY24, CANY conducted 19 prison monitoring visits; interviewed more than 1,000 incarcerated individuals and more than one hundred state employees who work in these facilities; received hundreds of phone calls, letters, and website inquiries from or on behalf of incarcerated people seeking assistance; distributed thousands of surveys; and published 15 public-facing work products including reports on monitoring visits, dashboards of processed administrative data, data analysis, and legislative testimony. To inform the discussion about prison closures, CANY published a series of tools that allow stakeholders to view staffing levels by facility: Mapping Closures, Capacity, Staffing, and the

CANY, 2025. 7p.

By Andrew Blum and Alfredo Malaret Baldo

The problem is as old as the justice system itself—how to reduce the chance that an individual reoffends

after they commit an offense and become involved with the justice system. This challenge of reducing

recidivism remains critical. According to the Prison Policy Initiative, there are over 120,000 individuals in

state prisons in California. Another 380,000 cycle through jails in California every year. In 2021, roughly

25,000 individuals were released from prison in California. This is the scope of the challenge. In San

Diego County, a wide variety of agencies and organizations are working to address the recidivism

challenge. In addition, although there is no way to measure this accurately, there is a willingness across

the spectrum to experiment with new approaches and solutions. This report focuses on one area of

relatively new and promising approaches—those that elevate the talent and expertise of individuals with

“lived experience” with the justice system. Support for lived experience approaches is growing both

nationally and in San Diego. Beyond the rising number of lived experience initiatives, this type of work in

San Diego has become largely normalized. There is broad agreement that lived experience work should

be part of the portfolio used to reduce recidivism, with clear demand from stakeholders involved in

reentry, including law enforcement officials, service providers, community members, and, crucially,

justice-involved individuals. Given the growing prevalence of and support for lived experience approaches

in San Diego, it is important to create a deeper understanding of how to increase the impact of these

approaches. Toward that end, this report identifies strengths of lived experience approaches to amplify,

challenges of lived experience approaches to mitigate, and lessons from lived experience approaches

that can be applied more broadly. Based on a review of the research and dozens of conversations held

with stakeholders in San Diego, we identified the following strengths of lived experience app roaches: —

They can engage successfully with justice-involved individuals; — They can provide a model of success;

— They are skilled navigators of the social service and justice systems; — They bring a long-term

approach to their work; and — They have specific expertise that helps them help others. To amplify these

strengths, we suggest: (a) deploy lived experience practitioners during acute situations, (b) leverage lived

experience practitioners not only within programs but also as navigators across programs, (c) build

flexibility into programs that include lived experience practitioners, (d) encourage lived experience

practitioners to role model success without being directive, and (e) continue efforts to normalize lived

experience approaches. We also identified challenges of lived experience approaches, particularly

related to scaling the approaches more widely. These include: — The personalistic nature of many lived

experience initiatives; — The difficulty of finding, vetting, hiring, and training sufficient lived experience

practitioners; — The toll the immersive nature of the work takes on practitioners; and — The potential

reputational risks lived experience approaches present to individuals, organizations, and agencies. To

mitigate these challenges, we recommend (a) creating training and certification programs for lived

experience practitioners, (b) developing standards of practice, (c) creating organizational capacity -

building initiatives for lived experience organizations, (d) pairing lived experience with non-lived-

experience practitioners, (e) treating lived experience individuals as professional staff, and (f) developing

a lived experience advocacy coalition. Furthermore, seeking a broader impact, we identified five key

lessons from lived experience approaches that are transferable and can be applied by those without lived

experience who are designing and implementing initiatives to prevent recidivism. The lessons are: 1.

Create supportive spaces for justice-involved individuals to work through challenges; 2. Design programs

with flexibility so support can be tailored to individuals; 3. Ease navigation of services and improve

coordination among providers; 4. Engage justice-involved individuals with consistency and long-term

vision; and 5. Commit to providing trauma-informed care. We conclude this report by noting the

longstanding good practice in the social services field to design initiatives with the input of those impacted

by them. The key lessons identified from lived experience practitioners can be viewed in this way. They

provide insight on how to design more effective recidivism reduction initiatives based on the experience

and expertise of those who previously lived the challenges the initiatives are designed to address.

San Diego: University of San Diego, Kroc School Institute for Peace and Justice, 2023. 31p..

By Marco Castillo, Sera Linardi, Ragan Petrie:

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

IZA DP No. 17522

Bonn: IZA – Institute of Labor Economics, 2024. 46p.

By Ashley Nellis, and Celeste Barry.

In the United States, the federal government and every state enforces sentencing laws that incarcerate people for lengths that will exceed, or likely exceed, the span of a person’s natural life. In 2024, almost 200,000 people, or one in six people in prison, were serving life sentences. The criminal legal system’s dependence on life sentences disregards research showing that extreme sentences are not an effective public safety solution.

This report represents The Sentencing Project’s sixth national census of people serving life sentences, which includes life with the possibility of parole; life without the possibility of parole; and virtual life sentences (sentences reaching 50 years or longer). The report finds more people were serving life without parole (LWOP) in 2024 than ever before: 56,245 people were serving this “death by incarceration” sentence, a 68% increase since 2003. While the total number of people serving life sentences decreased 4% from 2020 to 2024, this decline trails the 13% downsizing of the total prison population. Moreover, nearly half the states had more people serving a life sentence in 2024 than in 2020. The large number of people serving life sentences raises critical questions about moral, financial, and justice-related consequences that must be addressed by the nation as well as the states. We believe the findings and recommendations documented in this report will contribute to better criminal legal policy decisions and a more humane and effective criminal legal system. KEY NATIONAL FINDINGS • One in six people in U.S. prisons is serving a life sentence (16% of the prison population, or 194,803 people)—a proportion that has reached an all-time high even as crime rates are near record lows. • The United States makes up roughly 4% of the world population but holds an estimated 40% of the world’s life-sentenced population, including 83% of persons serving LWOP. • More people are serving life without parole in 2024 than ever: 56,245 people, a 68% increase since 2003. • Despite a 13% decline in the total reported prison population from 2020 to 2024, the total number of people serving life sentences decreased by only 4%. • Nearly half of people serving life sentences are Black, and racial disparities are the greatest with respect to people sentenced

to life without parole. • A total of 97,160 people are serving sentences of life with parole. • Life sentences reaching 50 years or more, referred to as “virtual life sentences,” account for 41,398 people in prison. • Persons aged 55 and older account for nearly two-fifths of people serving life. • One in every 11 women in prison is serving a life sentence. • Almost 70,000 individuals serving life were under 25—youth and “emerging adults”—at the time of their offense. Among these, nearly one-third have no opportunity for parole. • Racial disparities in life imprisonment are higher among those who were under 25 at the time of their offense compared to those who were 25 and older.

Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2025. 38p.

By Torbjørn Lien Kjær, Peter Hindersson, Jacob Rong Bentzen, Hanne Høegh Rasmussen, Torben Breindahl

Background

Drug use in Danish prisons has previously not been investigated in detail using confirmatory, laboratory analysis. The objective of the present quality study, initiated by the Danish Prison and Probation Service, was to i) evaluate the performance of an initial, on-site drug screening strategy; ii) gain insights into emerging drug trends; and iii) suggest evidence-based strategies for future drug testing.

Methods

Over a two-year period, routine urine samples (n = 1952 from 710 inmates) from three Danish prisons were subjected to comprehensive drug testing. Immunoassay screening was conducted on-site. A parallel sample aliquot was forwarded to laboratory analysis by confirmatory methods: High-performance liquid chromatography and tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) and gas chromatography and mass spectrometry (GC-MS) targeting 56 drugs-of-abuse/medical drugs, 26 key metabolites, 41 new psychoactive substances (NPS), including specific biomarkers for heroin, crack cocaine, or ethanol (a total of 123 target analytes/sample).

Results

The on-site immunoassay method showed a sensitivity from 66 to 100%; specificity was above 98%; accuracy was above 95%. Laboratory analysis detected compounds not screened for including tramadol, oxycodone, buprenorphine, ketamine, MDMA, 4-fluoroamphetamine, and GHB. The prevalence of drug use was in the order: cannabis > ethanol > cocaine > benzodiazepines > amphetamine.

Conclusion

The performance of the immunoassay was found acceptable; however, the screening program was inadequate for detecting other significant substances. Based on these findings, a broader screening method will be implemented in future at Danish Prisons to minimize false negative results. The data did not indicate a trend of using NPS in Danish prisons.

Substance Use & Misuse Volume 60, 2025 - Issue 2

By Melissa Serafin, Julie Atella, Piere Washington, Sophak Mom

Reentry and community context Within three years of release from state prisons, federal prisons, and local jails, about half of people are reincarcerated and two-thirds are rearrested (Office of the Assistance Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, n.d.). Existing research highlights how challenges to reentry are compounded in rural communities because they are often underserved and under-resourced. Employment, housing, transportation, and limited social and health services are all common barriers for individuals reentering rural communities, and access to reentry programming is often limited (Benavides et al., 2023; Ward et al., 2016; Ward, 2017; Zajac et al., 2014). Additionally, the opioid crisis has significantly impacted rural communities, including those in Maine (Maine Governor’s Office of Policy Innovation and the Future, 2023). The rate of overdose fatalities in Maine increased from 0.3 per 1,000 population in January 2017 to 0.6 in January 2022, and the rate in Waldo County also increased from 0.2 in 2017 (8 total) to 0.5 in 2022 (20 total; Maine Drug Data Hub, 2024). Overdose fatalities most notably increased during the COVID-19 pandemic: the fatality rate in Maine increased 33% between 2019 and 2020, with 83% of deaths in 2020 due to opioids. Without opportunities, resources, and support, people reentering rural communities may experience hopelessness and criminogenic needs contributing to recidivism (Ward, 2017; Pettus-Davis & Kennedy, 2019). The findings from the current project also identified many of these challenges. Limited access to and availability of resources and services like internet, public transportation, health care and insurance, employment options, and affordable housing across counties and the state were stressed as barriers hindering the success of the program. Housing was identified as a particularly significant challenge, and this is compounded by the lack of viable employment options that provide a livable wage. The median cost for a studio efficiency or one-bedroom apartment in Waldo County, Maine in 2023 was $916-$922, and a two bedroom was $1,174 per month (RentData, 2024). According to the Maine Department of Labor (2024), the minimum wage in 2023 was $13.80 per hour in the state. Individuals employed full time, earning minimum wage, and who rent at least a studio efficiency would then be considered “cost-burdened”1 or “severely cost-burdened”2 (Office of Housing and Urban Development, 2014). Rent burden contributes to lacking the means to afford other necessities such as food, clothing, child care and more. Furthermore, the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC, 2024) notes the extreme shortage of rentals that are affordable to households whose incomes are at or below the poverty guideline or 30% of their area median income. In addition to the shortage of affordable housing and within the vicinity of the VOANNE network—within a four-city radius—there were no homeless shelters, nor mental health facilities with detox beds, and only one sober house. While VOANNE provides tents and camp supplies in more dire cases, and connects some participants with temporary transitional housing (including motels), they have access to very few permanent housing supports. Experiencing housing insecurity and homelessness can also negatively impact substance use. For example, efforts to stay awake to protect belongings and avoid violence is associated with developing and worsening substance use disorders (Mehtani et al., 2023). Existing research and findings from the current evaluation indicate that transportation is often a significant challenge for individuals reentering rural communities (Benavides et al., 2023; Ward, 2017; Zajac et al., 2014). While Maine does have some public transportation, rural areas have limited public transportation. Some communities have fixed route bus services that do not operate 24 hours a day and seven days a week, but these may only be in some counties (Eichacker, 2021). Limited public transportation means limited independence upon reentry to get to and from places like the DMV, a job interview, or to work. Additionally, some participants in the current evaluation did not possess driver’s licenses, further limiting their transportation options. This evaluation also identified how lack of phone service and high-speed internet make communication difficult and pose a barrier to building independence and integrating into society. Previous research has also identified these as significant reentry barriers (PettusDavis et al., 2019). Correctional system initiatives In response to the challenges that individuals face while reentering their communities, VOANNE and their partners have implemented several initiatives. Specifically, VOANNE has prioritized building trusting and collaborative partnerships with law enforcement agencies; this evaluation identified the strength of these partnerships. These partnerships facilitate opportunities to strengthen impact, such as the ability to provide services and programming within county jails while individuals are incarcerated. Additionally, postrelease offices and community spaces provide critical support to individuals who are reentering their communities after incarceration, and VOA’s diversion programming allows VOANNE to serve anyone who could benefit from services (e.g., not just individuals who are or have been incarcerated). VOANNE has also been able to expand to providing services in additional counties and correctional facilities over time.

St. Paul, MN: Wilder Research, 2024. 43p.

By Tom Jackson, Rachel Crorken, Sheenik Mills, and Carla Ayrton

This report presents findings from a one-year process evaluation that explored the delivery of unpaid work in England and Wales. The qualitative research design included a total of 102 interviews with: people on probation (25), beneficiaries (6), probation staff (62), and members of the judiciary (9); six focus groups with unpaid work staff; and ethnographic observations of 18 unpaid work projects. The evaluation was designed to assess what works in the delivery of unpaid work following the unification of the probation service and the £93 million investment to aid unpaid work delivery following the Covid-19 pandemic. The main findings from the evaluation are: Identity and purpose of unpaid work • All staff interviewed, believed the purpose of unpaid work is first and foremost a punishment, but it must also have elements of reparation in which people on probation give back to the community. Overall, staff were confident that unpaid work was meeting its aims as a punishment, which they viewed as the time people on probation give up attending their order. Staff also thought that unpaid work met reparative aims by ensuring that work carried out benefits the wider community. • Perceptions on whether unpaid work is rehabilitative were mixed. Staff explained how unpaid work can be rehabilitative for some individuals by providing an opportunity to learn ‘soft’ and practical skills. However, the rehabilitative potential of unpaid work was not applicable to everyone and was dependent on employment status, the type of project, and the individual’s willingness to engage with rehabilitative efforts. People on probation’s experience of unpaid work • People on probation identified relationships with supervisors as an important factor that affected their experience of unpaid work. A good relationship with a supervisor could encourage them to return and attend projects led by the same supervisor. Meaningful projects could increase compliance by encouraging people on probation to return to projects they believed had value. These were usually described as projects that would have benefits for the local community, and/or where people on probation had the opportunity to learn new skills, particularly if they thought these could lead to employment. • Many people on probation brought up communication issues they had with probation practitioners. These communication issues could make completing hours of unpaid work difficult either because their unpaid work hours were not set up in time or because people on probation could not contact probation to discuss issues they had with attending projects, making it hard to rearrange hours. • Many people on probation who were interviewed felt that wearing high-visibility vests, with unpaid work branding, caused them to experience unnecessary stigma and shame which could have negative impacts on their mental health. People on probation and supervisors thought, in particularly public areas, having to wear the branded high-visibility vests could impact compliance

Ministry of Justice Analytical Series

London: Ministry of Justice, 2024. 76p.

By Bowen Cho

In this report, we invite readers to explore the historical, racialized, disablist, and political economic contexts of mass incarceration, including the ways that incarceration has expanded beyond prisons, jails, and correctional supervision in the 21st century. As well, publics often think of incarceration narrowly, such that they make invisible the containment of Disabled people in institutional and extra-carceral systems. This report is in part a corrective and counterpoint to policy papers on disability and criminal legal reform published by non-disability advocacy and mental health advocacy organizations in recent years. Because the ideologies of eugenics, ableism, and disablism are thriving in the 21st century, disability is often used as a rhetorical frame arguing for the restriction of carceralism for certain groups and its expansion for others. Mass incarceration in the 21st century includes physical confinement, but also accounts for the rapidly expanding, technocratic industries of e-carceration and psychotropic incarceration. Our conceptions of physical confinement must go beyond prisons and jails, and include detention centers, psychiatric hospitals, nursing homes, and residential treatment facilities. One cannot replace the other. Recognition of incarcerated people must similarly be expanded to include detained immigrants, people under electronic monitoring and surveillance, and people experiencing involuntary psychiatric commitment. Black people and Indigenous people continue to be disproportionately impacted by policing and carceralism, particularly in the increased criminalization of poverty, houselessness, and mental illness, and the ways that these statuses intersect with racism and disablism.

Berkeley, CA: Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF) , 2024. 120p.

By Carmen Johnson et al and the UCLA BioCritical Studies Lab

The BioCritical Studies Lab analyzed a sample of 180 deaths in 10 city and county detention centers in Maryland between 2008 and 2019. These detention centers are distinct from state correctional facilities in that they primarily confine persons who are awaiting trial or arraignment. Our study sample reflects only deaths self-reported by these 10 city and county detention centers to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) during this time period. Our sample represents only a portion of all in-custody deaths known to have taken place throughout Maryland during the study period. Our analysis produced five key findings: - First, the detention centers with the most instances of in-custody death in our study sample are situated in jurisdictions with both high rates of poverty and large numbers of Black residents. The confluence of these two factors is strongly correlated to in-custody death. - Second, the average age of in-custody deaths officially designated as “natural” is substantially lower than life expectancy among the non-jailed population, possibly indicating the widespread misclassification of deaths attributable to violence and/or negligence as “natural” by the Maryland Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. - Third, over 80% of the deaths in our sample took place while the decedent was awaiting trial, meaning they had not been convicted of any crime at the time of death. - Fourth, about half of the decedents included in our sample died within 10 days of their admission to the detention center, and more than one sixth died less than two days after their admission, suggesting that even short stays in detention present a significant risk of premature death. - And fifth, there currently exist high barriers preventing public access to key information regarding deaths in Maryland detention centers that place comprehensive study of this social problem out of reach. We conclude by making several recommendations as to how policymakers might address the problems described in this report, including systematically reducing jail populations through the elimination of pretrial detention, establishing an explicit mandate for the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner to investigate all instances of in-custody death, and codifying new standards for publicly reporting information about in-custody deaths when they occur.  

Los Angeles; BioCritical Studies Lab, Institute for Society and Genetics, University of California – Los Angeles.  2023. 26p.

By David Olson, Don Stemen, & Patrick Griffin 

Loyola University Chicago’s Center for Criminal Justice, through the support of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, collaborated with the Illinois Department of Corrections’ Planning and Research Unit to examine the number, characteristics, and circumstances of individuals on Mandatory Supervised Release (MSR, or “parole”) who violated conditions of their release and were returned to prison (i.e., “technical violators”). Over the past two decades, between 20% and 30% of all admissions to the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) have been individuals returned to prison as MSR technical violators. Given the substantial impact of these technical violations on overall prison admissions in Illinois, this report examines the characteristics and circumstances that led to those returns to prison during state fiscal year (SFY) 2020 (July 2019 through June 2020). Specifically, the Loyola team analyzed detailed information for all those returned to prison due to technical MSR violations during SFY 2020 (N=5,052), and compared it to findings from similar research that was conducted with a one-month sample of technical MSR violator admissions in 2010 (see https://spac.illinois.gov/publications/researchreports/msr-violators). What Did We Find? 1) The rate of technical violation admissions to IDOC has been relatively stable over the past decade, whether measured as a percent of admissions or as a percent of IDOC exits returned to prison within 3 years of release. Over the past two decades, technical violators have accounted for somewhere between 20% and 30% of all admissions to prison; similarly, between 20% and 30% of all of those returned to prison within 3 years of their release during this period have been returned as technical violators. 2) Although technical violators account for 20% to 30% of all admissions to IDOC, they tend to stay in prison for a shorter period of time than court-sentenced individuals. Over the past two decades they have accounted for a smaller proportion - between 7% and 12% - of the IDOC population. 3) Although the proportion of admissions accounted for by technical violators has remained relatively consistent over the past decade, the number of admissions for technical violations has decreased, consistent with the overall decrease in admissions to prison. During the 10-year period from 2010 to 2019 (pre-COVID), total admissions to prison fell 39%, with a 38% decrease seen in admissions for technical violations and a 40% decrease in court sentences. 4) Although previous research found wide fluctuations from month to month in the number of technical violators returned to prison during the 2001 to 2011 period, often due to politically-driven crackdowns, the only substantial change in admissions during the past decade occurred when COVID-19 dramatically reduced arrests and admissions to prison in Illinois. 5) Of those individuals returned to prison due to technical violations in SFY 2020, most (58%) were returned, at least in part, because of an arrest while on MSR, often for a violent crime or firearm possession offense. 6) One out of every 5 people (20%) “returned” to prison for technical violations in SFY 2020 did not have an approved place to live, and so were not in fact released at all (referred to as “gate violators” by IDOC). Most (84%) of those returned as gate violators had been serving prison sentences for sex offenses, a population that historically has challenges finding approved housing upon release from prison. 7) COVID-19 dramatically reduced the number of admissions to IDOC for technical violations and resulted in a shift in the nature of technical violations that resulted in admission to prison. While the percent of prison admissions accounted for by technical violations did not change between SFY 2011 and the portion of SFY 2020 that preceded the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, a smaller portion of those admitted in the pre-COVID part of SFY 2020 were for non-arrest violations and a larger share of admissions involved new arrest charge(s), particularly for violent and firearm possession offenses. 

Loyola Chicago Center for Criminal Justice, 2023. 11p.

By Nila Bala and Krystin Roehl

In North Carolina, 1.6 million North Carolinians, or close to one in five individuals, have a criminal record. The collateral consequences are significant, blocking access to employment, housing and educational opportunities. These barriers often follow individuals for their entire life, even after they have served their time and paid their debt to society. For example, 90 percent of employers conduct background checks, and since North Carolina is not a ban-the-box state, they are permitted to do so early in the hiring process. This means that even decades-old, minor arrests and convictions show up and cut callback rates for these individuals in half. Expungements (shielding records from public view) are the most effective method to address the stigma faced by justice-involved individuals. While North Carolina’s laws do offer expungement relief in limited circumstances, many eligible individuals do not take advantage of the process, likely because it is difficult, cumbersome and expensive. A “clean slate” bill, which would automate expungements for eligible individuals could change that. In addition, North Carolina has an opportunity to expand expungement relief to more offenses, while maintaining public safety. What’s more, doing so will not only assist directly impacted individuals and their families, but will also enhance our communities and revitalize the local economy.

R STREET SHORTS NO. 85 March 2020

Washington, DC: R Street, 2020. 5p.