By Julia Burchett, Anne Weyembergh, Marta Ramat (English)

Background Prisons and life inside prisons are often kept out of the public’s sight. Nonetheless, the persistent shortcomings affecting European prisons have gained the ever increasing attention of the European Court of Human Rights and, subsequently, of the Court of Justice of the European Union. In particular, the persistent degrading prison conditions in many EU Member States have recently shown their relevance for the EU legal order. Indeed, not only are they in breach of the rights guaranteed by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, but they also proved a serious obstacle to the smooth functioning of mutual recognition, the cornerstone of judicial cooperation in criminal matters. After numerous calls to action by the European Parliament, on 8 December 2022 the European Commission launched the first instrument laying down common minimum (although non-binding) standards in the field of material detention conditions. The pressing fundamental rights concerns stemming from degrading prison conditions, their detrimental effects on mutual recognition and the recent adoption of an EU Recommendation make the issue of prison conditions particularly topical and worth examining from an EU-law perspective. Aim This study aims to provide the European Parliament with background information and policy recommendations concerning prisons and detention conditions in the European Union, on the basis of European and national regulations, legislation, policies and practices. It should provide a picture of the situation in the EU, based on a range of relevant sources, and assess the initiatives taken at EU level to support effective compliance with existing European standards. The result of this research should bring forth policy inputs and options for the future direction of the EU’s work in this field. Key findings From the first pages, the study attempts to provide an overview of the wide range of problems faced by Member States in relation to detention conditions. In this regard, it became clear during the course of the study that this latter notion should be understood in a broad way, including material detention conditions stricto sensu but also other related issues having a significantimpact on life in detention (e.g. the excessive use and length of pre-trial detention). While this research has identified particularly acute problems affecting many EU countries, this should not overshadow the wide range of issues identified at EU level, the severity of which varies from country to country. As it was not possible to carry out a comprehensive review of all detention issues, the study then focused in depth on two key issues that have gained importance at EU level, namely prison overcrowding and prison radicalisation. Although the scale of the phenomenon of prison overcrowding is widely reported, the lack of common measurement indicators has been identified as an important gap which does not allow for accurate cross-national comparison With regard to prison radicalisation, which is a relatively new issue compared to prison overcrowding, the study found that the challenges posed by radicalisation in prison are receiving considerable attention at EU level. Among the important concerns highlighted by the study are the specific (and usually more restrictive) conditions of detention that apply to this category of detainees. This issue has caught the attention of prison oversight bodies both at European and national levels in view of their potential impact on fundamental rights and has become highly visible in some Member States as illustrated by the case of Belgium and France. Shifting the focus on the cross-border context, the study has sought to assess the concrete impact of poor detention conditions on several mutual recognition instruments involving a deprivation of liberty measure, namely the Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European arrest warrant and the Framework Decision 2008/909 on the transfer of prisoners. In this respect, it was found that considerations of detention conditions do not come into play in the same way in these two instruments. By way of comparison, while the Framework Decision on the transfer of prisoner has led to a very limited body of case-law, the tensions between the principle of mutual recognition and the lack of mutual trust in the detention conditions have become particularly conspicuous in several major preliminary rulings involving the use of the EAW. Moreover, research has shown a greater alignment between the case law of the CJEU and the ECtHR when the issue of prison conditions arises in EAW cases. This is considered beneficial to ensure coherence between the legal systems of the EU and the CoE, but also to avoid messy and inconsistent (non) application of EU law as a result of conflicting obligations deriving from the two jurisdictions. Regarding the concrete implications of the CJEU case-law, the study found that the Court’s jurisprudence had an undeniable effect on EAW proceedings with a varying impact on the practice of national authorities, whether in terms of impact on mutual trust or in terms of the parameters used to assess the real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment resulting from detention conditions in the issuing Member State. While some experts assert that the CJEU’s case-law tends to be increasingly assimilated by practitioners and that many countries develop practices compliant with the Court’s requirements, several remaining difficulties were pinpointed. In addition, despite the fact that many tools are available to help practitioners interpret and apply the case-law of the CJEU, the study identified several areas where EU support could be improved. Among the key findings of the study, it is worth noting the lack of effective implementation of international and European standards governing crucial aspects of detention conditions (e.g. cell-space, access to health care, sanitary conditions, prison monitoring, etc.). This was highlighted in several parts of the study and is widely corroborated by empirical research, by the reports of European and national prison monitoring bodies, but also by the judgments of the ECtHR. Although matters of detention are the responsibility of Member States (in addition to the fact that many standards on prison conditions exist through the CoE and the ECtHR),there seems to be a broad consensus on the need for EU action to secure a higher degree of compliance with these standards. In this respect, the study identified the recent European Commission’s Recommendation ‘on procedural rights of suspects and accused persons subject to pre-trial detention and on material detention conditions’ as a step forward, as it is the first EU instrument (although non-binding) laying down common minimum standards in the two areas concerned. However, its concrete impact remains difficult to gauge and only time will tell if this Recommendation leads to a more effective and convergent application of European standards. The study has also identified several advantages in considering the adoption of EU minimum standards through a legislative instrument. For the sake of completeness, the analysis was extended to alternative measures to detention which, although not intrinsically related to detention conditions, are advocated as an important lever to regulate the flow of incarceration. In a purely domestic context, the study highlighted the wide variety of legal cultures and practices that coexist at EU level as regards both alternatives to pretrial and post-trial detention. Several good practices and possible hurdles to their use were identified. As a general observation, the study found that, although an essential lever for reducing the use of imprisonment, alternative measures are not sufficient on their own to tackle the problem of poor conditions of detention. In order to produce effective results, alternative measures must be accompanied by coherent penal policies, taking into consideration all relevant criminal law measures that have an impact on the flow of imprisonment. In a cross-border context, the study identified a general lack of awareness of several mutual recognition instruments that could be used as alternatives to the EAW to avoid an unnecessary deprivation of liberty measure, namely the Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA (on the European Supervision Order), the Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA (on probation measures and alternative sanctions) and the Directive 2014/41/EU (on the European Investigation Order). The lack of knowledge about these instruments is widely recognized by scholars, and concern not only judges and prosecutors, but also defence lawyers.

European Parliament, Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs Directorate-General for Internal Policies, 2023. 122p.

By Angela Smeth Sarah Cram & Tara Beauchamp

Over the last several years, the Correctional Service of Canada’s (CSC) Research Branch has contributed to research regarding federally incarcerated radicalized offenders. CSC defines a ‘radicalized offender’ as “an ideologically motivated offender who commits, aspires or conspires to commit, or promotes violent acts in order to achieve ideological objectives” (CSC, 2012). This literature review was conducted to explore the best practices of correctional interventions for radicalized offenders in jurisdictions across the world. Risk assessments, population management strategies, interventions, reintegration programs, and staff training were reviewed. The findings of this literature review aim to support and assess CSC initiatives related to the management of radicalized offenders and staff training initiatives. Overall, there is no universal risk assessment for radicalized offenders as correctional services have developed their own assessments based on operational considerations specific to their offender population. The majority of jurisdictions use a structured professional judgement approach to risk assessments, which include explicit guidelines for which factors should be considered, but the combination of those factors and the overall evaluation of risk are left up to the professional judgment of the assessor. The reliability and validity of these risk assessments is debated due to the relatively low number of radicalized offenders in many jurisdictions and the diversity of the radicalized offender population. Generally, there are five population management strategies used: separation, isolation, concentration, integration, and dispersal. Management strategies are chosen based on a variety of factors, such as available resources and number of radicalized offenders, among others. Some jurisdictions choose a management strategy on a case-by-case basis or based on the offender’s extremist affiliation, beliefs, and ideologies, whereas others have implemented only one strategy for all radicalized offenders. Interventions are usually aimed at deradicalization or disengagement. Deradicalization focuses on the radicalized offender’s beliefs and ideology, whereas disengagement targets the offender’s behaviour and actions. However, there is not a one-size-fits-all approach to intervention services for radicalized offenders. Instead, correctional programming should be tailored for local contexts. Information regarding reintegration programs was limited. It appears there are only a few jurisdictions that have reintegration programs specifically for radicalized offenders. In general, these programs focus on the radicalized offender establishing prosocial connections, gaining employment, and, when applicable, they are encouraged to continue their education. Staff training for most jurisdictions focus on signs of radicalization occurring within the institution and the methods for reporting. Training in some jurisdictions also include education about Islam to increase staff knowledge and awareness so they are able to distinguish between Muslim teachings and extremist ideologies. Several correctional services provide training to all staff, whereas others only train staff who interact with radicalized offenders. Overall, the review of the literature identified common themes that highlighted the importance of employing a tailored, individualized approach to case management, as well as a holistic and multidisciplinary approach, which are currently offered by CSC.

2023 Nº R-463

Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada, 2023. 48p.

By Bruce Western

A large social science research literature examines the effects of prisons on crime and socioeconomic inequality, but the penal institution itself is often a black box overlooked in the analysis of its effects. This paper examines prisons and their role in rehabilitative programs and as venues for violence, health and healthcare, and extreme isolation through solitary confinement. Research shows that incarcerated people are participating less today than in the 1980s in prison programs, and they face high risks of violence, disease, and isolation. Prison conditions suggest the mechanisms that impair adjustment to community life after release provide a more complete account of the costs of incarceration and indicate the performance of prisons as moral institutions that bear a responsibility for humane and decent treatment.

Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 35, Number 4—Fall 2021—Pages 1–27

By  Catriona Connell , Mary Birken, Hannah Carver, Tamara Brown, and Jessica Greenhalgh

Abstract Background People released from prison experience complex health challenges in addition to challenges resettling into the community. Consequently, employment rates are low. Participating in good quality employment can support good health and is protective against future reofending. Multiple interventions are provided to support people into employment on release. The efectiveness of interventions for improving employment outcomes has not previously been evaluated in a meta-analysis. Aim Our objective was to examine the efectiveness of interventions to improve employment following release from prison. Method We searched seven databases and three trial registries for peer reviewed randomised controlled trials (RCTs), published since 2010, that included adults and measured an employment outcome(s). We conducted meta-analysis using random efects models with sub-group and sensitivity analyses. We appraised bias risk per outcome, and incorporated this into an assessment of the certainty estimates for each outcome. A group of people with experience of imprisonment met with us throughout the project to inform our search strategy and interpretation of results. Results We included 12 RCTs (2,875 participants) which were all conducted in the USA. Few outcomes were of low risk of bias. Intervention participants were 2.5 times more likely to work at least one day (95% CI:1.82–3.43) and worked more days over 12 months (MD=59.07, 95% CI:15.83–102.32) compared to controls. There was no efect on average employment status or employment at study end. There is moderate certainty in these estimates. Conclusion Interventions can improve some employment outcomes for people released from prison. More evidence is required to establish efective interventions for sustaining quality employment, particularly outside the USA, and which consider outcomes for diferent groups of people released, such as women or those with health or substance use needs

  Health & Justice (2023) 11:17

By Sarah Jensen, PhD/JD Justice System Partners Shannon Magnuson,

Using administrative data from the Multnomah County Jail and interviews with people across the Multnomah County criminal legal system, including judges, attorneys, and law enforcement, and interviews with Multnomah County community members, including individuals incarcerated during the COVID-19 pandemic, this study aimed to identify the emergency strategies selected and implemented to reduce the jail population, the impact of those strategies on jail trends and jail bookings for violence-related charges, and perceptions of safety during this time for criminal legal system stakeholders and community members.

Key Findings include:

Participation in the SJC, and the collaboration it facilitates, allowed local stakeholders in Multnomah to act swiftly to implement emergency jail reduction strategies.

Though the County implemented a few new strategies, they mainly relied on making small changes to existing SJC strategies, including expanding eligibility criteria for existing pretrial reforms, allowing for a substantial decrease in the number of jail bookings during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Contrary to the narrative that reforms lead to increases in crime, the significant jail reductions achieved during the pandemic in Multnomah did not lead to increases in crime.

Three out of every 4 of the individuals with a history of jail bookings in the pre-pandemic period did not experience a new jail booking for any reason after March 2020.

Bookings for violence-related charges did not increase, including for individuals who had a history of violence prior to the pandemic.

Though Multnomah County staff and community members reported feeling unsafe during the pandemic, it was attributed to a combination of COVID-19, limited local police presence, the militarized federal police presence during the protests, and social disorder, visible drug use, and property damage from the protests rather than person crimes or crimes with weapons.

By Meghan A. Novisky, Jennifer Tostlebe, David Pyrooz , Jose Antonio Sanchez

The purpose of this study was to examine how the COVID-19 pandemic changed U.S. prison operations and influenced the daily work of prison staff.

Methods

In collaboration with the National Institute of Corrections, we administered a survey to 31 state correctional agencies in April 2021 and conducted five focus groups with 62 correctional staff.

Results

Using a framework of bounded rationality, we find that daily operations were strained, particularly in the areas of staffing, implementing public health policy efforts, and sustaining correctional programming. While prison systems and staff were under-prepared to respond to the pandemic, they attempted to address complex problems with the limited resources they had.

Conclusions

Results underscore a need in corrections for prioritizing further developments and reviews of collaborative policies and practices for managing crisis situations. Seeking avenues for leveraging technological innovations to improve operations and facilitate enhanced communication are especially warranted. Finally, meaningful reductions in the prison population, changes in physical infrastructure, and expansions of hiring and retention initiatives are critical for positioning prisons to manage future emergencies.

Health & Justice volume 11, Article number: 51 (2023), 20p

By Caroline Mary Parker and Julienne Weegels

The punitive turn in crime control has radically altered the shape and meaning of citizenship across the Americas. Imprisonment, compulsory drug rehabilitation, and alternative forms of penal control have multiplied, circumscribing citizens’ options for social and political participation while also leading to striking new modes of social, political, and economic membership across the region. While criminalization is ordinarily viewed as something that threatens ‘full’ citizenship, this special collection explores the new and differentiated kinds of political, economic, and social belonging being devised by the region’s criminalized men and women. In paying close attention to how penal power and its subversion articulate with existing stratifications of citizenship, we illuminate how distinct kinds of carceral citizenship are emerging in various locales across Latin America and the Caribbean. In this article, we also introduce the other contributions to this Special Collection.

EUROPEAN REVIEW OF LATIN AMERICAN AND CARIBBEAN STUDIES REVISTA EUROPEA DE ESTUDIOS LATINOAMERICANOS Y DEL CARIBE DOI:CEDLA - ISSN 0924-0608, eISSN 1879-4750. No. 116 (2023): July-December, pp. 69-85

By Risë Haneberg, Tony Fabelo,  Fred Osher, and Michael Thompson 

Stepping Up is a national initiative reducing over-incarceration of people with mental illnesses. Stepping Up provides counties with a framework that allows each community to select the right evidence-based policies and practices for them, based on their data and unique local circumstances. This new edition of "Reducing the Number of People with Mental Illnesses in Jail: Six Questions County Leaders Need to Ask" advances the original Stepping Up framework published in 2017 by embedding a racial equity lens and uplifting the voices of people with lived experience. It provides six guiding questions for county leaders, offers tips gleaned from counties across the country that answered the call to action, and addresses ongoing challenges.

New York: The Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2024. 17p.

By Megan Pfeiffer

Parental incarceration impacts all members of a family unit, including parents who are incarcerated, their children, and the parents, legal guardians, or caregivers who aren't incarcerated. Implementing evidence-based programs and practices tailored to support parents who are incarcerated and their families is crucial for addressing their complex needs, mitigating the negative consequences of incarceration, and promoting positive outcomes for families. This brief discusses examples of evidence-based and promising programs and practices from the field that support different needs of parents who are incarcerated, their children, and their families.

New York: The Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2024. 16p.

By Erin Thorvaldson and Kendric Holder

To address various criminal justice challenges, from 2014 to 2015, Alabama partnered with The Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center to employ a Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI) approach and analyze the state’s criminal justice data, interview stakeholders from across the criminal justice system, and work with policymakers to develop data-driven policy options designed to reduce prison overcrowding and increase public safety. As a result of this work, Alabama leaders enacted Act 2015-185 in May 2015, which aimed to strengthen community-based supervision, divert people convicted of the lowest-level drug and property offenses from prison to Community Corrections Programs, and ensure supervision for everyone upon release from prison to reduce recidivism. This brief explores how Alabama has addressed its JRI goals since enacting this legislation.

New York: The Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2024. 5p.

By Shawn Rogers and Sarah Wurzburg

Too often, people reentering the community from incarceration experience fatal overdoses, with studies showing that they are at a highest risk of an overdose or even death during the first 48 hours after release. This is typically related to a decrease in tolerance while in prison or jail, so their body is more vulnerable to overdosing even when using at the same amount they did before they were incarcerated. This risk is highest among people using opioids. Fortunately, there are evidence-based practices that can be implemented to support safe and successful transitions. This guide outlines four best practices that reentry professionals can implement to reduce overdose risk during reentry.

New York: The Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2024. 16p.

By Bridget Degnan  

Starting January 1, 2025, new Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) requirements will change how correctional systems provide healthcare to young people who are incarcerated. These changes, mandated by the 2018 Substance Use-Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment for Patients and Communities (SUPPORT) Act and the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, present significant opportunities for juvenile and adult correctional facilities nationwide. Correctional leaders should prepare now to ensure their systems are ready to meet the demands of these new laws. This includes overhauling processes for Medicaid enrollment and coordinating with Medicaid agencies and community-based providers to support improved transitions for young people who are reentering their communities. Young people who maintain Medicaid and CHIP coverage during incarceration and who can access pre-release health care services are more likely to experience reduced recidivism, improved reentry outcomes, and a better chance for a stable, healthy future. In this explainer, we’ll explore the new federal laws and outline the key steps correctional leaders can take to prepare. Photo by SHVETS production via Pexels.

New York: The Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2025. 10p.

By Felicia Lopez Wright

Research points to an overrepresentation of youth with behavioral health needs in the justice system, with nearly 70 percent having a diagnosable mental health disorder. Because of this, youth and young adults who have had contact with the justice system, have been diverted from the justice system, or are reentering the community from correctional facilities are often at an increased risk of experiencing a crisis. In addition to their increased risk for crisis, this population also has unique and specific crisis stabilization needs when compared to those of adults due to pre-existing and untreated trauma, witnessing violence or being victimized during incarceration, or lack of developmentally appropriate treatment and services that address their behavioral health needs during placement and after release.

In fiscal year 2022, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), a component of the Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs, launched the Second Chance Act Improving Adult and Juvenile Crisis Stabilization and Community Reentry (SCA CSCR) grant to help communities improve efforts to address youth and young adult crises and reduce the overrepresentation of youth with behavioral health needs in the justice system. SCA CSCR provides funding to government and community-based entities to deliver clinical and recovery support services that establish treatment, suicide prevention, and continuity of recovery in the community for youth with mental illnesses, substance use disorders, or co-occurring disorders upon their release from a detention or correctional facility, or who have current or prior involvement with the justice system. It also provides training and technical assistance to grantees and the field at large to advance work in this domain.

This brief, developed with support from BJA, provides justice professionals who are responsible for youth and young adult case planning with best practice guidance on how to engage, collaborate, and partner with the systems that can address reentry needs and prevent crises that may lead to future justice system involvement. This guidance is drawn from both relevant research and lessons learned from BJA-funded programs focused on reentry and crisis stabilization among youth and young adults.

New York: The Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2024. 7p

By Kelsie Chesnut, Celia Strumph, Faiza Chappell, Ari Kotler, John Bae

A person’s conviction history should never be a barrier to housing. Housing provides a foundation to engage in opportunities such as education and employment, making it a critical piece of one’s life, especially after release from incarceration. Formerly incarcerated people point to housing as one of the most important factors in helping them stay out of prison after release. Despite research finding that a conviction history does not predict a person’s housing success, some landlords fear that people with conviction histories will pose a threat to safety and property. The barriers to housing that people with conviction histories face place emotional and financial strain on families and destabilize communities. Because people leaving incarceration are regularly denied access to safe and affordable housing due to their conviction histories, they often rely on their families as the primary source of stable housing after release. But they are four to seven times more likely to be unemployed compared to members of the general public, so they often can’t make enough money to contribute to the household. As a result, people leaving incarceration often face homelessness and housing instability. Approximately one-third of formerly incarcerated people lack stable housing after release. People who experience homelessness have frequent interactions with police, who arrest them for misdemeanors often associated with homelessness, such as sleeping in public spaces and trespassing, reinforcing a cycle of homelessness and incarceration. Moreover, housing restrictions based on landlords’ reluctance to accept tenants with conviction histories also force people who are otherwise qualified for housing to resort to more precarious housing settings such as shelters, placing undue stress on systems and agencies that are already overburdened and have limited resources. People will continue to face barriers absent protections that end housing discrimination for people with conviction histories. To ensure that people are able to access housing after criminal legal system involvement, the Vera Institute of Justice (Vera) is advancing policy changes in several states, building on emerging lessons from the field. This research brief sheds light on how the passage of fair chance housing laws has impacted communities in Cook County (Illinois), New Jersey, and Washington, DC. Vera interviewed policy advocates, housing providers, enforcement agencies, policymakers, and other stakeholders to determine if people’s ability to secure housing has changed, the impact on housing provider operations, and the factors required to ensure that policies work.

New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2025. 17p.

By Kelsie Chesnut, Ruth Delaney, Eurielle Kiki, Niloufer Taber

On average, more than 1,000 people are released from state and federal prison every day, totaling 448,400 in 2022 alone.6 Each will need to secure housing, employment, and other essentials. Increasing access to good jobs among people who are formerly incarcerated will speed successful reintegration into society, reducing crime, bolstering local economies, and increasing tax revenues. Postsecondary education plays a crucial role in securing employment in today’s labor landscape. This trend has persisted for decades and shows no signs of changing soon, as underscored by projections from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. These show an annual average of 4.7 million job openings over the next decade, most of which will be concentrated in the health care and social assistance fields; professional, scientific, and technical services; and the transportation and warehousing sectors.7 Entry-level education requirements within these openings will range from some college to a bachelor’s degree.8 Most jobs now require some level of postsecondary education, and by 2031, 72 percent of all jobs in the United States will require education and training beyond high school.9 But just having the necessary level of education may not be enough. Approximately one-third of adults in the United States possess some form of a conviction history— including arrest records or charges without convictions—which often pose barriers to employment.10 Addressing this issue is essential for companies to remain competitive and for the overall health of the U.S. economy to thrive. Those with a history of incarceration see reduced wages and earnings. Studies reveal that past incarceration can lead to an 11 percent reduction in subsequent wages, a decrease of nine weeks in annual employment, and a staggering 40 percent decline in yearly earnings.11 This effect is disproportionately felt by formerly incarcerated Black and Latino men, who experience earnings losses of 44 percent and 41 percent, respectively, equating to an estimated earnings reduction of nearly $179,000 by age 48.12 Access to postsecondary education in prisons has the potential to substantially improve employment rates for people who are formerly incarcerated throughout the United States. On average, people returning home after completing a postsecondary education program while incarcerated can anticipate a nearly 10 percent increase in employment rates compared to those who do not complete a postsecondary education program.13 Low levels of educational attainment are common among incarcerated people, especially Black men.14 The statistics are stark: the incarceration rate for young Black men with low levels of education increased by 22 points in the two decades following 1980.15 By 2004, 34 percent of young Black male high school dropouts were incarcerated daily, a rate 40 times higher than the national average.16 Additionally, imprisonment has become prevalent for Black male dropouts born since the mid-1960s, with 60 to 70 percent experiencing incarceration.17 Despite this, the majority of people (58 percent) who are incarcerated do not complete an education program while in prison.18 Among those who do earn a new educational credential, the majority completed a high school or GED program.19 Only 9 percent of incarcerated people completed a postsecondary program while in prison in 2014.20 However, low enrollment does not reflect low interest: in 2014, 70 percent of people in prison expressed a desire to enroll in an academic program.21 The problem lies in access. Most existing programs are funded through the federal Second Chance Pell program, described in detail in this section, which most recently served a maximum of 20,299 incarcerated students over the 2022–2023 fiscal year.22 People who enroll in college in prison and who engage in careers after release have a lower likelihood of recidivating and a greater likelihood of earning living wages compared to their counterparts who did not.23 Entering a career, rather than transitional or shortterm employment, plays a role in this success. 24 However, finding stable employment post-release is one of the biggest challenges faced by people leaving prison.25 Enrolling in postsecondary programs could increase employment rates among formerly incarcerated people across the United States by nearly 10 percent, according to one estimate.26 An increase in employment rates translates into an increase in earnings for formerly incarcerated people and their families. One estimate placed the increase of the combined wages earned by all formerly incarcerated people at more than $45 million during the first year back in their communities.27 At the same time, the impact of lowered rates of rearrest and/or reconviction could decrease state reincarceration spending by as much as $365 million per year.28 One promising opportunity to reverse this trend took effect on July 1, 2023: the reinstatement of federal Pell Grant eligibility to incarcerated people after nearly 30 years of exclusion. Pell Grants are need-based federal financial aid that can be used to pay for eligible postsecondary education.29 Under the new law and regulations, postsecondary institutions must ensure the credentials they offer in prison are free of licensure barriers for people with convictions.30 These measures aim to prevent student enrollment in programs that would lead to jobs prohibited by state or federal law due to prior convictions.31 However, the restrictions in place are complex and vary widely from state to state. For example, estimates indicate that more than 1,100 occupations face state regulations through licensure, certification, and registration, yet fewer than 60 occupations are regulated by more than half the states, raising concerns about quality and consistency across jurisdictions.32 And although this offers a baseline of protection against inaccessible jobs and careers, a further step those planning Pell-eligible programs could take is to ensure the credential track leads to a “good job.” Study Overview The study was guided by three research questions: › Which occupations in each state are expected to grow in the future and pay a living wage upon entry? › Which of these jobs typically requires some form of postsecondary education? › Which of these good jobs are open to people with felony convictions? To answer the first two questions, Vera drew on available data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to identify the occupations that could be classified as good jobs. Vera considered occupations to be good jobs if they were projected to grow in each state and the District of Columbia through 2030, paid a living wage at the 10th percentile of the occupation’s pay range as a proxy for entry-level wages, and required a postsecondary credential for entry or advancement.33 Vera made the decision to require that good jobs pay a living wage upon entry—rather than to consider the median income—to account for the position of workers who are formerly incarcerated, who have historically been paid reduced wages compared to their counterparts for a variety of reasons, such as being willing to work for less due to the pressures and challenges they face finding a job; having limited work histories prior to reentry; entering a new field opened to them by participation in education; or, once employed, being subject to stigma that hinders career advancement. However, this criterion resulted in the exclusion of many critical professions, such as educators and social workers, as these professions did not typically pay a living wage for one adult and no children upon entry. This is indicative of a broader labor issue outside of the scope of this study related to how the U.S. economy is structured and the prevalence of low wages overall. (See “Appendix A: Methodology” on page 21.) Vera’s living wage analysis originally included two household structures: one adult and no children; and one adult and two children. Upon analysis, virtually no occupations met the living wage for one adult and two children upon entry. This has a potentially disparate impact on women, who are more likely than men to be sole caregivers to children both generally and upon release from incarceration.34 Regarding the requirement for postsecondary education, Vera included occupations that required a postsecondary nondegree award, an associate’s degree, or a bachelor’s degree. Postsecondary nondegree awards are obtained through programs that lead to a certificate or other award, but not a degree. Some examples of a postsecondary nondegree award include nursing assistants, emergency medical technicians, paramedics, and hairstylists. From this pool of eligible occupations in each state, Vera then identified the top occupations legally accessible to people with felony conviction histories.36 Using data from the National Inventory of Collateral Consequences of Conviction, Vera cross-referenced those good jobs against any legal or regulatory barriers that limit or prevent entry to identify which are accessible to people with felony convictions.37 (See “Appendix A: Methodology” on page 21.) Although legal restrictions may vary based on the severity of conviction, Vera’s analysis is limited to any felony conviction. Findings are aggregated nationally and presented at the jurisdiction level in Appendix B on page 31. Applicable legal restrictions were applied at the time of analysis, but are subject to change.

Brooklyn, NY: Vera Institute of Justice, 2025. 155p.

By Sarah Riley, Jacob Kang-Brown, Jessica Zhang, Jim Parsons, and Lauren Williams

It is widely recognized, if underappreciated, that incarceration physically separates people from their loved ones and communities. But there is far less attention paid to the intentional disappearance of incarcerated people from government statistics; this pernicious exclusion has profound ripple effects. Employment statistics are one key instance. Every month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) releases an official employment report. This report details changes in average hourly earnings, industry-specific employment trends, and fluctuations in unemployment rates across racial groups. Each of these statistics disregards everyone in jail or prison, a population disproportionately made up of Black people and low-wage workers.3 These metrics matter. They provide a key frame for understanding economic opportunity and racial equity in the United States.

Brooklyn, NY: Vera Institute of Justice, 2025. 13p.

By Matthew Millings, Lol Burke, Harry Annison, Nicola Carr, Gwen Robinson & Eleanor Surridge.

This article presents findings from a major longitudinal research project of probation in England and Wales, arguing that the process of its ‘unification’ (re-nationalisation) continues to be a painful process whose end state remains elusive. Having previously articulated how practitioners experienced unification as ‘painful but necessary’, here, using the imagery of a journey, we argue that the speed and direction of travel have encountered a more perilous trajectory than expected as high workloads and staffing challenges have persisted. Second, we argue that enduring challenges in bedding in new working practices – and building the confidence of new and existing colleagues to deliver them – have acted as ‘hazards’ that have needed careful navigation. Third, we argue that staff experience a sense of individual and collective operational vulnerability, in the face of the relentless demands placed upon them. In conclusion, we identify a series of forks in the road that prompt profound questions about the delivery of probation services now and in the future.

Probation Journal 1–18 © The Author(s) 2025  

By Michelle Kirby

  The Family Violence Education Program is Connecticut’s pretrial program that gives eligible defendants the chance to attend programs that provide education about family violence instead of going to trial. Any defendant who wants to take part in the program must submit an application to the court. If the court grants the defendant’s application, he or she must take part in nine, 90- minute sessions of a psycho-educational class that is focused on reducing any future family violence. If the defendant completes this program successfully and follows any other conditions set by the court while he or she is taking part in the program, the court will dismiss the charges against the defendant. Classes are offered all over the state by judicial branch-contracted community providers  

OLR Research Report, Hartford:   Connecticut General Assembly ,  Office of Legislative Research , 2023. 4p.

By Jacquelyn Sicilia

Domestic violence has plagued society for years. However, until 1994, domestic violence was not federally criminalized. Today, domestic violence affects over ten million Americans per year. Because of the criminal justice system’s slow reaction to domestic violence, how the criminal justice system handles domestic violence cases is far from ideal. Pretrial release in domestic violence cases is one area of domestic violence that is ripe for research, guidance, and change. Pretrial release brings to light a unique balance; defendants are presumed to be innocent, but at the same time, the fact of arrest may point to an ongoing risk of harm to victims if defendants are released pre-trial. With little known about which pretrial conditions are successful in non-domestic violence cases, the answer of how to strike the necessary balance is even more challenging. This Note examines the different approaches states use to assign pretrial release conditions to domestic-violence defendants who are granted pretrial release and proposes a model statute to address—and effectively account for—the risk of re-abuse and the rights of criminal defendants in pretrial release.

66 St. Louis U. L.J. (2022)., 37p.