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 The Bail Project

Across the United States, nearly half a million people are incarcerated pretrial on any given day, the majority of whom are jailed only because they cannot afford to pay the bail amount set in their case. The disproportionately large jail population in the United States is primarily driven by cash bail: approximately 60% of people in jail can’t pay their bail.1 These are legally innocent people who have not been convicted of the crime they are charged with. Cash bail creates a two-tiered system of justice: one where people with money are able to purchase their pretrial freedom, allowing them to maintain their jobs, contribute to the economy, and care for their families; and, another system for everyone else. The use of cash bail is unfair, affording benefits to people with financial resources, and punishing others. Broadly, the pretrial systems of most American cities, counties, and states reinforce this system of wealth based detention. Cash bail is set at amounts that are often unaffordable and people are punished before a verdict has been reached. If they are jailed pretrial, they are cut off from their lives and communities. Once incarcerated and isolated from their support networks, a person becomes more likely to lose their job, lose custody of their children, experience violence in jail, or find symptoms associated with mental illness worsening.2,3 Jails, which are full of people who are struggling with a mental illness or addiction, have become de facto psychiatric institutions, and although treatment services are more effective in-community, our states and counties have relegated these matters of public health to correctional facilities.4 The impacts of pretrial incarceration are devastating and increase the likelihood that a person will become incarcerated again in the future because they have lost the stability they need to improve their lives and thrive.5 Cash bail and wealth-based detention force these harms upon the most vulnerable people in our communities. A nationwide movement to replace cash bail has gained significant traction, emerging in jurisdictions across the country in response to the inequities, dangers, and unsustainable practices of the current pretrial system. This report, which provides an overview of modern bail and pretrial reforms, stems from that growing movement. Together, these reforms paint a picture of progress – highlighting the diversity of approaches, the momentum driving change, and the challenges that persist in the pursuit of a safer, fairer, and more equitable pretrial system This report primarily focuses on a descriptive analysis of legislative changes due to their enduring impact. However, this analysis also includes court decisions or rulings that substantially altered pretrial practices in a jurisdiction or state. To be included, a reform must have demonstrably shifted a jurisdiction away from wealth-based detention and toward a more equitable pretrial process that reduces unnecessary incarceration. We focused not only on reforms that restricted or minimized the use of cash bail altogether, but also those that: decreased the number of charges eligible for cash bail; prohibited courts from assigning bail amounts that are unaffordable, and/or increased the use of pretrial release without financial conditions. Beyond Bail also contains, where applicable and based on the availability of data, an assessment of the impacts and consequences of the reforms analyzed in this report. These implementation effects are examined through key questions: Did the reform achieve its intended goal? Did the pretrial population decrease following implementation? Did racial and ethnic disparities narrow? A discussion of public safety impacts is provided in the appendix.

Venice, CA : The Bail Project, 2025. 38p.

By Thana Ridha and Sylvie Frigon

For over forty years, William Head on Stage (WHoS) has operated as an inmate-run prison theatre, making it one of Canada’s longest-standing prison arts initiatives. Staging Prison Theatre in Canada: Setting the Spotlight on William Head on Stage delves into the story of WHoS through the voices of the men involved, offering a unique criminological perspective that situates their experiences within the prison context. The analysis explores how WHoS creates an alternative space within the social and emotional realities of incarceration. By unlocking participants’ capacities, skills, and confidence, the initiative fosters a sense of agency and community both inside the prison and beyond. WHoS becomes a space for transformation, offering men opportunities to re-imagine themselves and build meaningful connections. This work underscores the broader significance of arts-based initiatives like WHoS, not only within prisons but also in the fields of criminology, theatre, and community engagement. It offers valuable insights for correctional administrators, criminologists, theatre practitioners, scholars, students, and anyone interested in the intersection of art and rehabilitation.

University of Ottawa Press / Les Presses de l’Université d’Ottawa, 2025. 139p.

By Kieran Edmond James

Based on my extensive interviews with ex-football star Henry Dyer, I explain and contextualise the following events so as to illustrate how discipline and punishment worked in the Western Fiji towns from 1985 up until the present: the imprisonment of Dyer and his escape and recapture during the military coup year of 1987; Dyer’s removal from the captaincy and the Fiji team to play Australia in November 1988, due to his alleged involvement in criminal activities; Dyer jumping the stadium fence to avoid police before a national-league game at Lautoka; and Dyer’s recent release from court with the case dismissed. Also covered is: an Indigenous villager’s theft of money from a Chinese gangster. The main findings are as follows: Even as a criminal, you are still marked as an Indigenous Fijian, via the non-mechanical approach, and hence are always an insider and subject to rehabilitation logic. Loopholes are retained, in the interests of fraternity and the awareness that, in Western Fiji, remote and thinly-populated as it is, people tend to know each other and so justice should be specifically-tailored. The strong Christian foundation of culture means that ex-prisoners will often couch their quest narratives in terms of suffering and redemption.

Imprisonment and Punishment in Fiji and the Links to Narrative Styles and Christian Culture, 18p.

By The Justice Policy Institute

The Justice Policy Institute (JPI) has long opposed the use of solitary confinement and has collaborated with national and local partners to develop strategies to end this harmful practice across all levels of the criminal legal system. The December 2024 killing of Robert Brooks by correctional staff, followed by an unlawful work stoppage that left tens of thousands of incarcerated individuals in dangerous conditions, has brought New York State’s prison system to a crisis point. A Moment of Reckoning highlights significant concerns about violence, accountability, and the treatment of individuals in custody, offering a policy blueprint for meaningful reform. It presents concrete steps to reduce the prison population through expanded release mechanisms and to implement proven violence-prevention strategies, enhancing conditions for both incarcerated individuals and staff. Drawing on successful models from New York and other jurisdictions, this blueprint establishes a framework for creating a safer, more just prison system that upholds dignity and accountability.

Policy Blueprint

Washington, DC: The Justice Policy Institute, 2025. 34p.

By Bruce Western, Jessica Simes, and Kendra Bradner

In a given year, one in five people incarcerated in the U.S. prisons is locked in solitary confinement. We study solitary confinement along three dimensions of penal harm: (1) material deprivation, (2) social isolation, and (3) psychological distress. Data from a longitudinal survey of incarcerated men who are interviewed at baseline in solitary confinement are used to contrast the most extreme form of penal custody with general prison conditions observed at a follow-up interview. Solitary confinement is associated with extreme material deprivation and social isolation that accompanies psychological distress. Distress is greatest for those with histories of mental illness. Inactivity and feelings of dehumanization revealed in qualitative interviews help explain the distress of extreme isolation, lending empirical support to legal arguments that solitary confinement threatens human dignity.

Incarceration Volume 3(1): 1–25, 2021.

By Bruce Western, Jessica Simes, and Kendra Bradner

In a given year, one in five people incarcerated in the U.S. prisons is locked in solitary confinement. We study solitary confinement along three dimensions of penal harm: (1) material deprivation, (2) social isolation, and (3) psychological distress. Data from a longitudinal survey of incarcerated men who are interviewed at baseline in solitary confinement are used to contrast the most extreme form of penal custody with general prison conditions observed at a follow-up interview. Solitary confinement is associated with extreme material deprivation and social isolation that accompanies psychological distress. Distress is greatest for those with histories of mental illness. Inactivity and feelings of dehumanization revealed in qualitative interviews help explain the distress of extreme isolation, lending empirical support to legal arguments that solitary confinement threatens human dignity.

Incarceration Volume 3(1): 1–25, 2021.

By Eric Petterson

The United States of America incarcerates nearly two million people, more than any other country in the world, at a rate of 565 people per 100,000 residents.1 Just fifty years ago, the incarceration rate was ninety-seven imprisoned people per 100,000 residents in the general population.2 The rate of incarceration increased over 500% in fifty years. Many scholars and criminal justice reform advocates cited these statistics while advocating for the need to end the War on Drugs.3 The need for criminal justice reform to address mass incarceration has grown in popularity; however, many people focus on the War on Drugs to the exclusion of other issues in the criminal legal system, even though only twenty percent of the incarcerated population is incarcerated on drug charges.4 In contrast, nearly half of all people imprisoned in prisons and jails are imprisoned for violent offenses.5 Releasing all drug offenders would still not solve America’s overincarceration problem. Since four out of five incarcerated people are behind bars for non-drug related offenses, we must address how America punishes other crimes to end mass incarceration. Too often, states implementing criminal justice reforms exclude violent offenses, focusing instead on people convicted of nonserious, nonviolent, and nonsexual offenses—or “non, non, nons.”6 The staggering number of violent crime incarcerations is not due to the crime-rate, but to the overly long sentences given to people convicted of violent crimes.7 Many crimes defined as “violent” in the criminal legal system do not involve any physical harm, including purse snatching, manufacturing methamphetamine, burglary of an unoccupied dwelling, and stealing drugs.8 Yet violent offense convictions result in severe repercussions, including triggering mandatory minimums and three-strikes laws.9 Addressing “non, non, non”10 offenses is politically easier to do than addressing violent offenses, but both must be addressed to end mass incarceration. This Article will examine America’s unique use of extremely harsh and lengthy prison sentences and how these sentencing policies contributed to the rise of mass incarceration. First, this Article will examine the history of prisons and sentencing policy. It will explore how sentencing policy, “tough on crime” politics, and the mass media contributed to the rise of mass incarceration. Next, this Article will discuss how America’s overreliance on extremely lengthy sentences makes us an outlier to the rest of the world. This Article will examine the literature on incarceration and lengthy sentences, arguing that lengthy sentences are not effective because they do not effectively deter crime, do not promote public safety, do not prevent reoffending, are unnecessary because people age out of crime, and are not favored by crime victims. It will propose reducing the lengths of sentences and shortening sentences based on the good behavior of incarcerated people. Lastly, this Article will propose a political messaging framework to promote criminal justice reforms.

55 St. Mary's L.J. 475 (2024), 37p.

By Janeen Buck Willison, Nkechi Erondu

In 2018, change agents within the Camden County (NJ) Department of Corrections introduced a five-pronged community engagement strategy to reduce the use of jail and improve reentry outcomes for people released from incarceration. Central to this strategy are the County’s NuEntry Opportunity Specialists (NOS), previously incarcerated individuals who serve as credible messengers to people released from incarceration and who work to reduce the stigma of incarceration through community education and outreach. This case study, part of a series highlighting work supported by the Safety and Justice Challenge, describes Camden County’s community engagement strategy and examines its implementation and reported impact. Lessons and recommendations derived from implementation of the county’s community engagement strategy and its sustainability efforts are also discussed.

Washington DC: The Urban Institute, 2022. 23p.

By John Shaffer, Bryce Peterson, KiDeuk Kim, Rochisha Shukla

Cell phones have become a ubiquitous part of society, with more than 97 percent of US adults owning one (Pew Research Center 2021). For prison and jail officials, however, they represent a serious and growing concern. In a recent survey of state correctional agencies, Urban found that most respondents consider cell phones a serious problem for a facility’s overall security and for the safety of incarcerated people, staff, and members of the public (Kim, Peterson, and Shaffer 2023). Corrections officials have employed several technological and nontechnological solutions to address contraband cell phones in their institutions (Peterson et al. 2022; Russo et al. 2022). No one strategy appears to be completely effective at combating contraband cell phones. Most strategies are limited in their ability to prevent cell phone use across an entire facility, while others are difficult to implement or prohibitively expensive (see Peterson et al. 2022). Conversely, signal jamming has received broad support among criminal justice practitioners as a potentially effective and straightforward interdiction strategy. Officials can use signal jamming to prevent people from using cell phones throughout their facilities by compromising a phone’s ability to receive signals or by modifying received signals to be inaccurate or inoperable. A typical application of cell phone jamming involves overwhelming the phone with a higher-power signal, usually a pure signal or random noise, so the phone can no longer function properly. Although many corrections officials are interested in implementing signal jamming in their agencies, the Federal Communications Commission currently prohibits the use of this technology in the United States, as guided by the Communications Act of 1934. Some federal agencies are exempt from the Communications Act and are allowed to implement jamming solutions by requesting and receiving Special Temporary Authority licensing from the Federal Communications Commission. The Federal Bureau of Prisons is among these agencies. No state or local entities are currently allowed to use signal jamming technology. The selective prohibition against jamming has been a source of tension between federal regulators and corrections officials, and federal lawmakers have made efforts (for instance, through the Cellphone Jamming Reform Act of 2022) to revise the Communications Act and allow state correctional agencies to jam cell phones. Despite corrections officials’ interest in jamming and the ongoing discussion around legislative changes, little is known about the use and application of this technology in correctional settings. To address this knowledge gap, the Urban Institute, along with partner organizations (CNA Corporation, Correctional Leaders Association, and American Correctional Association) and subjectmatter experts (John Shaffer and Joe Russo), reviewed current industry practices and interviewed officials with firsthand experience implementing jamming. In summer and fall 2021, we spoke with corrections officials in the United States, New Zealand, and Australia to formulate an understanding of the benefits and challenges of cell phone jamming as a cell phone interdiction strategy.2 This report is a resource for stakeholders and the public on the mechanics of jamming, its potential effectiveness, and the legal and pragmatic considerations involved in its implementation in correctional settings

Washington DC: The Urban Institute, 2023. 18p.

By Katherine LeMasters, Samantha Nall, Cole Jurecka, Betsy Craft, Paul Christine, Ingrid Binswanger & Joshua Barocas

In response to the U.S. overdose crisis, many states have increased criminal penalties for drug possession, particularly fentanyl. This study sought to qualitatively explore diverse community perspectives on increasing criminal legal penalties in Colorado for fentanyl possession (House Bill 22-1326) and the broader role of the criminal legal system in addressing substance use and overdose prevention. We conducted 31 semi-structured interviews in 2023 with community leaders directly working with people who use drugs, individuals with lived experience with drug use and the criminal legal system, and law enforcement throughout Colorado. Interviewees were asked about the perceived impact of House Bill 22-1326 on their communities and agencies. After interviews were complete, we created templated summaries and matrix analyses to conduct rapid qualitative analysis, an action-oriented approach to qualitative data analysis.

Results

Respondents included peer support specialists (n = 7), policymakers (n = 6), community behavioral health/harm reduction providers (n = 6), criminal legal program staff (n = 8), and law enforcement (n = 4), with nine participants from rural counties. Analysis revealed that participants found increasing criminal penalties for fentanyl possession to be misguided: “And the felony [of HB-1326] is such a good example of a policy being led by feelings rather than evidence.” This was in the context of participants’ divergent views on police as conduits to treatment and punishment and perceiving jail as an (in)appropriate response for substance use disorder treatment.

Conclusions

All participants supported policy efforts to prevent fatal fentanyl overdoses, yet, most thought that increased use of police and incarceration as avenues to prevent overdose was misguided. This study highlights a diverse array of community perspectives that can inform policy decisions concerning criminal penalties for fentanyl possession and distribution and can inform policies that affect people who use drugs broadly.

Health & Justice volume 13, Article number: 26 (2025)

By Stephen Koppel, Michael Rempel, Min Xie, Olive Lu, Jeremy Travis, & Preeti Chauhan

Executive Summary The premise of this project is simple: In determining its response to crime and violence, New York City stands at a crossroads. For several decades up until the 2020s, the City saw dramatic crime reductions take place alongside a shrinking criminal legal system— represented by fewer arrests, less reliance on jail and prison, and the expansion of alternatives to incarceration. This period culminated in sweeping reforms to New York State’s bail, discovery, and parole laws that sought to extend the pendulum toward less unnecessary incarceration and greater fairness. Recent years, however, have witnessed a series of dislocations and reversals. A global pandemic disrupted the country’s social and economic fabric, and violent crime increased after years of decline. The 2020 Black Lives Matter protests generated a robust public dialogue about the role of police and the criminal justice system in producing public safety and the need for greater investments in community-based public safety strategies. However, both the reality and perception of rising crime led to increases in low-level enforcement by the New York City Police Department, including more pedestrian street stops, summonses for minor misconduct, and misdemeanor arrests. At the same time, the City is legally mandated to close the violent and decrepit jails on Rikers Island. This requires further reductions in the jail population, for example by expanding mental health services and speeding up case processing, in addition to improving morale, training and oversight of jail staff and expediting construction of modern, humane replacement jails. To provide context for discussions on the best path forward, we sought to ground policy discussions in objective data concerning the City’s trajectory from the 1990s to the present moment. To this end, we released two reports on the same project landing page. Extending two earlier analyses, one report relied on official data sources to track crime, law enforcement activity, decision-making by courts and prosecutors, incarceration, community supervision, and racial disparities. The second report relied on data from the annually administered National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) to provide trends in both reported and unreported victimization. This executive summary presents key findings from both reports. We believe that understanding New York City's crime trends, the experiences of crime victims, and the history of the City's response to crime will shed light on the choices the City faces today. We address several questions, with the resulting main themes and findings summarized below

New York: Data Collaborative for Justice, at John Jay College, 2025. 4p

By Prison Reform Trust

The high level of multiple and often unmet need experienced by many women in the justice system is well documented.1 Many women in prison are victims of more serious crimes than those they are accused of committing.2 The past two decades have seen several key policy developments relating to women’s imprisonment (see Appendix 1). Each of these developments show a trend towards recognising the distinct and specific needs of women in the criminal justice system and call for a reduction in women’s imprisonment. However, the number of women in prison, especially on remand and on short sentences, has remained stubbornly high. Moving beyond this status quo requires bold and creative thinking alongside sustained development and implementation of pre-existing strategies. This briefing sets out key facts and figures relating to women in the criminal justice system and highlights progress to date in implementing an approach which recognises women’s distinct needs.

London: PRT, 2025. 10p.

By Kellyann Bock, Michael Rempel

While it is well-established that a substantial portion of people in NYC jails are designated for mental health services, less is known about when during their incarceration these needs are first identified. This brief examines the prevalence and timing of the “Brad H” flag, assigned to anyone who is diagnosed, screened for, requesting, or receiving mental health services while incarcerated in New York City jails, covering the period from June 2, 2016 to March 24, 2025.

Specifically, we looked at increases in the fraction of the NYC jail population that flag for mental health needs, how long it takes for incarcerated people to receive a Brad H flag, what share of their jail stay people spend designated for mental health services, disparities in flagging by gender, race, and custody level, and how flagging relates to overall length of stay.

New York: Data Collaborative.for Justice, 2025. 9p.

By Margaret Love & David Schlussel

This Report Card supplements our recently published 50-state report, “The Many Roads to Reintegration,” a survey of U.S. laws aimed at restoring rights and opportunities after arrest or conviction. That report includes topical essays covering voting and firearms rights, an array of record relief remedies, and consideration of criminal record in employment and occupational licensing. The “Many Roads” report assigned to each state, D.C., and the federal system a grade for nine different types of restoration laws: (1) loss and restoration of voting rights (2) pardon (3) felony expungement, sealing & set-aside (“felony relief”) (4) misdemeanor expungement, sealing & set-aside (“misdemeanor relief”) (5) non-conviction relief (6) deferred adjudication (7) judicial certificates of relief (8) employment (9) occupational licensing. Using these grades, we produced an overall ranking of the states and D.C.* In this Report Card we provide the grades and rankings in an easily digestible form. We also provide a brief narrative summary of how each state’s law stacks up in the different categories. Our hope is that these summaries will suggest ways in which a state might improve its laws and hence its ranking. An appendix collects all the grades and rankings. Finally, we emphasize once again that our grades are based solely on the text of each state’s law, leaving more nuanced judgments about their actual operation to practitioners, researchers, and the law’s intended beneficiaries. We expect to look more closely at the operation of some of the record relief laws in the near future, and

Washington, DC: Collateral Consequences Resource Center (CCRC), 2020. 61p.

By Prison Reform Trust

The high level of multiple and often unmet need experienced by many women in the justice system is well documented. Many women in prison are victims of more serious crimes than those they are accused of committing. The past two decades have seen several key policy developments relating to women’s imprisonment (see Appendix 1). Each of these developments show a trend towards recognising the distinct and specific needs of women in the criminal justice system and call for a reduction in women’s imprisonment. However, the number of women in prison, especially on remand and on short sentences, has remained stubbornly high. Moving beyond this status quo requires bold and creative thinking alongside sustained development and implementation of pre-existing strategies. This briefing sets out key facts and figures relating to women in the criminal justice system and highlights progress to date in implementing an approach which recognises women’s distinct needs.

London: Prison Reform Trust, 2025. 10p.

By Rocco d’Este

Incarceration is a crucial part of the scholarly analysis of crime, but what happens inside penal institutions largely remains a ‘black box’ (Western, 2021). This paper studies the impact of the new psychoactive substances (NPS) epidemic within prisons. NPS are powerful addictive chemical compounds that mimic the pharmacological effects of conventional drugs of abuse (CDA) but avoid classification as illegal and detection in standard drug tests. To conduct the analysis, I have assembled a novel establishment-by month database of all England and Wales prisons from 2007 to 2018 including information on drugs seizures, random mandatory drug test results, various measures of harm, violence, and causes of death. I first document a large increase in NPS availability and an alarming correlation with the steep rise in harm and violence behind bars. I then evaluate the impact of the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, a supply-side intervention aimed at inhibiting the proliferation of NPS. The analysis exploits cross-prison variation in the initial size of the drug market and shows high-intensity NPS trafficking prisons experienced a sustained but partial reduction in NPS availability, limited substitution toward CDA, and a rise in violence, self-harm, and suicides following the law. Collectively, the findings suggest unwarranted responses to government interventions may be amplified within penal institutions and that new challenges stemming from scientific advances in illegal drugs production should be addressed through systemic interventions that also consider the demand for addictive substances.

IZA DP No. 15248

Bonn: IZA – Institute of Labor Economics , 2022. 60p.