By Doug Pyper, Georgina Sturge, Harriet Samuel 

Suicides in prisons in England and Wales In 2023, provisional statistics show that there were 93 suicides in prison custody in England and Wales. This represented a rate of 10.8 suicides per 10,000 prison population, a rise on the 2022 figure of 9.4. Over the past twenty years, the lowest rate of suicides per 10,000 prisoners was around 7 in 2008-2012 and the highest was 15 in 2016. The suicide rate rose between 2012 and 2016 but has declined overall since. Over the same period, the proportion of prison deaths attributed to suicide has declined by 28 percentage points: down from 58% of all deaths in 2002 to 30% in 2023 The rate of suicides among male prisoners is higher than that in the male general population. An Office for National Statistics study of deaths between   

London: UK Parliament, House of Commons Library, 2024. 11p.

By Evarn J. Ooi

Aim

We investigate the impact of the Practice Guide for Intervention (PGI) on re-offending among high-risk parolees in New South Wales (NSW).

 Method

Introduced in June 2016, PGI was a major component of the ‘Enhanced Community Supervision’ reform and led to a dramatic overhaul in the delivery of supervision services. Using a difference-in-differences (DiD) strategy, we compare re-offending behaviour between offenders released from prison on parole and those released unconditionally before and after the introduction of PGI. PGI is compulsory for offenders released on parole with a Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) score of medium or above, and consequently, the sample is limited to offenders with these LSI-R scores. Re-offending is measured as the probability of committing a new and proven offence within 12 months of release from prison. The pre-PGI period includes offenders released from prison between June and December 2014. There are two post-PGI periods. The first post-PGI period includes offenders released between June and December 2016, which coincides with the first six months after PGI was introduced in NSW. The second post-PGI period includes offenders released between June and December 2017, when the use of PGI across NSW was approaching its historical peak.

 Results

A comparison of the trends in the re-offending rate before the introduction of PGI confirms that prisoners released unconditionally form a natural comparison group for parolees. The DiD estimates reveal a 2 to 3 percentage point reduction in the likelihood of re-offending among parolees compared with those released unconditionally after the introduction of PGI. However, the estimates are not statistically significant.

Conclusion

The results suggest that the introduction of PGI did not have a statistically significant impact on re-offending rates of high-risk parolees.

(Crime and Justice Bulletin No. 228).  Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. 2020. 26p.

By Sarah L. Desmarais, Brandon Morrissey, Lisa Callahan, Samantha A. Zottola, Jen Elder, Kristin Lupfer, Elan C. Hope, & Richard A. Van Dorn

Although most jail admissions represent the only contact a person will have with the criminal legal system, there is a small group of people who experience more frequent jail contact and who represent a disproportionate number of both jail admissions and expenditures.1,2 People with frequent jail contact experience complex, interconnected social, economic, and behavioral health needs that may exacerbate (or be exacerbated by) their frequent jail contact. This group also experiences frequent contact with other services in the community, such as emergency rooms, homeless shelters, and treatment facilities. Strategies to implement services that meet complex needs and address structural barriers are critical to meaningfully and sustainably reduce system involvement among the population of people who experience frequent jail contact. Effective change for people with frequent jail contact must proceed simultaneously on a systemic, policy level and on the individual 1 services level. The population discussed in this policy brief typically has complicated behavioral and medical health needs, extensive criminal legal encounters, and significant social deficits such as poverty, isolation, and elevated risk of being unhoused. Many of their needs can be addressed with intensive, person-centered treatment in a coordinated continuum of care. The success of community-based solutions is supported by three foundational elements: 1. A systemwide examination of structural barriers and opportunities, 2. A focus on policies to effectively implement and support evidence-based interventions, and 3. A re-envisioning of how the behavioral health and criminal legal systems can coordinate trauma-informed responses for people with frequent jail contact. In this policy brief, we provide nine policy recommendations to help communities address the needs of people experiencing frequent jail contact toward the goal of reducing future contact. These policy recommendations are based on a review of existing research on people with frequent jail contact,3 consideration of the findings of a 2-year mixed-methods study focused on understanding the population of people with frequent jail contact in three U.S. counties,4 and consultation with experts, community partners, and people with lived experience. The nine policy recommendations are: 1. Create a Data Sharing Ecosystem 2. Establish Formal, Jurisdiction-Specific Definitions 3. Use Validated Behavioral Health Screening Tools 4. Implement Psychiatric Advanced Directives 5. Facilitate Jail In-Reach Programs 6. Increase Peer Support Programs 7. Improve Access to Housing 8. Increase Utilization of Community-Based Services 9. Center and Evaluate Efforts for Racial Equity
 

New York: Safety and Justice Challenge Research Consortium, which is managed by the CUNY Institute for State and Local Governance. 2023. 9p.

By The Howard League for Penal Reform

Young adults aged 18-25 are a distinct group who are still maturing as their brains continue to develop. They are overrepresented in the prison population in England and Wales, and in particular in the remand population where they make up 20 per cent of the population compared to around eight per cent in the general population. • The need for a distinct approach for young adults has been recognised in some parts of the criminal justice system. However, the focus tends to be on convicted young adults who are being or have been sentenced. More attention must be paid to young adults who are awaiting trial or sentencing. • Young adults are subject to the provisions set out in the Bail Act 1976, which apply to all adults. The framework on bail and remand should be amended to align with the recently strengthened tests on remand for children. A child cannot be remanded to custody if it is not ‘very likely’ that they will receive a custodial sentence for the offence for which they appear before the court. Where a child has a history of breach or offending whilst on bail they cannot be remanded to custody unless the breach or offending is ‘relevant in all the circumstances of the case’ and is ‘recent and significant’. There is a statutory duty on the court to consider a child’s best interests and welfare. These provisions, which aim to ensure that remand to custody is a last resort, do not apply to young adults. Turning 18 should not be a cliff edge. • The Crown Prosecution Service and judiciary should incorporate a greater recognition of maturity into relevant guidance to ensure that a distinct approach is taken to young adults from the outset. • Young adults should not be remanded without a court report which considers the impact on them of being remanded. If a young adult is to be remanded, sufficient time should be given to explaining remand decisions in court and young adults should be provided with a copy of the reasons for remand in writing. Data on the reasons for remand decisions should be published and disaggregated by age, ethnicity, religion and gender. • Remand is used disproportionately against Black, Brown and racially minoritised young adults. In June 2023, 26 per cent of remanded 18-20-year-olds and 18 per cent of remanded 21–25-year-olds were Black, compared to less than six per cent and five per cent respectively in the general population. Data on the number of people on remand should continue to be published and be disaggregated by age, ethnicity and religion. • Custodial time limits should only be extended in exceptional circumstances. Consideration should be given to the impact of an extended period of time in custody on a young adult in light of their age and ongoing maturational development, before time limits are extended. Data on the length of time people are held on remand should be published and should be disaggregated by age, ethnicity, religion and gender.  • Young adults benefit from lawyers who specialise in working with that age group and understand their specific needs. More should be done to support and encourage all young adults at risk of remand to have specialist legal representation. • Remanded young adults should have access to resettlement support in custody and more should be done to ensure the availability of good quality accommodation that meets young adults’ needs. • All prisons and courts should have a bail information service with bail information officers who are trained in and understand the specific needs of young adults. • Young adults who are remanded should be allocated a probation officer and keyworker in prison. • Young adults should have access to a meaningful daily regime, which includes education and employment, physical exercise and contact with family and friends. Unconvicted prisoners should have the number of visits they are legally entitled to. • Young adults should be supported to submit complaints, including escalating them to the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman as needed, and complaints should be responded to in a timely manner, in accordance with the national complaints policy. • Specialist mental health provision should be available to remanded young adults. • More must be done to identify careexperienced remanded young adults, including increased training for staff in prison on leaving care rights. Every prison holding remanded young adults should have a leaving care co-ordinator. Introduction - In Autumn 2022 the Howard League launched a project, supported by the Barrow Cadbury Trust, to better understand the experiences of remanded young adults. The project builds on previous work by the Howard League looking at the specific needs of young adults, including the role of maturity in the sentencing of young adults (Howard League, 2017), sentencing principles for young adults (Howard League, 2019a and b), and issues facing young adults in prison during Covid (Howard League, 2020). The project follows on from an earlier scoping study about young adults on remand supported by the Barrow Cadbury Trust (Allen, 2021). That study found that there are strong arguments for developing a strategy to make remand arrangements better reflect the developing maturity of young adults. This briefing includes the experiences, voices and lessons to be learned from a group of remanded young adults aged 18-20 in a male Category B prison. It is informed by discussions with criminal justice professionals who work with remanded young adults in England and Wales and the Howard League’s work representing individual young adults across the prison estate through its specialist legal advice service. 

London: Howard League for Penal Reform,   2023. 13p.

By Hilde Tubex, John Rynne and Harry Blagg

This article reports on research undertaken in Western Australia and the Northern Territory to develop effective throughcare strategies for Indigenous people leaving prison. The findings are based on interviews with Indigenous men and women in communities, with and without lived experience of prison, and local service providers. The interviews demonstrate that a thorough exit plan from prison is essential. However, for throughcare strategies to be effective, they should acknowledge the context of Indigenous involvement in the criminal justice system and the ongoing consequences of colonisation. The paper discusses the main areas that need to be addressed during imprisonment and after release, which form the basis of recommendations. Effective throughcare strategies must involve Indigenous people and the broader community, to break the cycle of offending and reoffending and address the over-representation of Indigenous people in prison. 

Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice no. 585. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. 2020. 14p.

By Charles Fain Lehman

In 2019, then-mayor Bill de Blasio introduced, and the New York City Council approved, plans to close the jail complex on Rikers Island and replace it with four jails in Manhattan, Brooklyn, the Bronx, and Queens. Construction on these borough-based jails is expected to be completed in 2027, at which time the city is expected to shutter Rikers entirely. In doing so, it will replace a system with a maximum capacity of nearly 15,000 beds with one that can hold just 3,300 detainees on a given day. That capacity is, by any measure, extremely small, representing a daily population seldom seen on Rikers since its opening a century ago. Even after more than half a decade of deliberate incarceration, the jail’s daily population today sits between 5,500 and 6,000, far greater than the borough-based jails’ allotment. Can New York City operate a jail system with just 3,300 beds without either: a) dangerous, likely illegal, overcrowding? or b) making the city less safe? This report argues that the answer is no. To reach this conclusion, it recounts how the 3,300-bed figure was arrived at, which had more to do with politics than with any reasonable projection of required capacity. It then details the research on the effects of pretrial detention, investigates who is currently on Rikers and who could safely be released, and estimates the relationship between crime rates and jail population. The bottom line: under almost no conceivable scenario can the city expect to safely and sustainably reduce the daily jail population to 3,300—never mind, to reduce it below that figure. Given the city’s commitment to closing Rikers, this report concludes by looking at potential sources of alternative capacity, including refurbishing or repurchasing closed jails; constructing small additional borough jails; and “boarding out” detainees to Long Island and Westchester County. These solutions could buy additional capacity for the system but not enough to provide adequate and safe housing for even the current, much-reduced population. In light of this, the report briefly revisits the case for keeping some of Rikers open  In 2019, then-mayor Bill de Blasio introduced, and the New York City Council approved, plans to close the jail complex on Rikers Island and replace it with four jails in Manhattan, Brook lyn, the Bronx, and Queens. Construction on these borough-based jails is expected to be completed in 2027, at which time the city is expected to shutter Rikers entirely. In so doing, it will replace a system with a maximum capacity of nearly 15,000 beds with one that can hold just 3,300 detainees on a given day. That capacity is, by any measure, extremely small, representing a daily population rarely seen on Rikers since its opening a century ago. Even after more than half a decade of deliberate incarceration, the jail’s daily population today sits between 5,500 and 6,000, far greater than the borough-based jails’ allotment. Can New York City operate a jail system with just 3,300 beds without either: a) dangerous, likely illegal, overcrowding? or b) making the city less safe? This report argues that the answer is no. To reach this conclusion, it recounts how the 3,300-bed figure was arrived at, which had more to do with politics than with any reasonable projection of required capacity. It then details the research on the effects of pretrial detention, investigates who is currently on Rikers and who could safely be released, and estimates the relationship between crime rates and jail population. The bottom line: under almost no conceivable scenario can the city expect to safely and sustainably reduce the daily jail population to 3,300—never mind, to reduce it below that figure. Given the city’s commitment to closing Rikers, this report concludes by looking at potential sources of alternative capacity, including refurbishing or repurchasing closed jails; constructing small additional borough jails; and “boarding out” detainees to Long Island and Westchester County. These solutions could buy additional capacity for the system but not enough to provide adequate and safe housing for even the current, much-reduced population. In light of this, the report briefly revisits the case for keeping some of Rikers open 

New York: The Manhattan Institute, 2022. 34p.

By Martha Newson, Linus Peitz, Jack Cunliffe & Harvey Whitehouse 

As incarceration rates rise globally, the need to reduce re-offending grows increasingly urgent. We investigate whether positive group bonds can improve behaviours among incarcerated people via a unique soccer-based prison intervention, the Twinning Project. We analyse the effects of participation compared to a control group (study 1, n = 676, n = 1,874 control cases) and longitudinal patterns of social cohesion underlying these effects (study 2, n = 388) in the United Kingdom. We also explore desistance from crime after release (study 3, n = 249) in the United Kingdom and the United States. As law-abiding behaviour also requires a supportive receiving community, we assessed factors influencing willingness to employ formerly incarcerated people in online samples in the United Kingdom and the United States (studies 4–9, n = 1,797). Results indicate that social bonding relates to both improved behaviour within the prison and increased willingness of receiving communities to support reintegration efforts. Harnessing the power of group identities both within prison and receiving communities can help to address the global incarceration crisis.

Nature Human Behaviour (2024)

By Hanna Hernandez,  & Vasiliki Georgoulas-Sherry    

Rates of recidivism have been commonly used as a key measure for public safety and in assessing the effectiveness of the criminal justice system – sentencing, jails, prisons, community supervision, treatment, and reentry programming. There is continued interest in tracking recidivism rates beyond a three-year follow-up. Tracking long-term recidivism can provide information for supporting incarcerated individuals and promoting their success in reintegrating into the community following a prison sentence. To evaluate long-term recidivism rates in Washington, the Washington Statistical Analysis Center (SAC) applied for and received the 2021 State Justice Statistics (SJS) grant from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). Under this grant from BJS, the SAC will draw on publicly available data from the Washington State Department of Corrections (WADOC) to evaluate the long-term recidivism trends of incarcerated individuals released from prison. Background Across the U.S., individuals are being incarcerated in jails and prisons, as many as 11 million times each year. While over 50% of the nation’s incarcerated population is housed in prisons, a little under a third (27%) are housed in local jails, and about a fifth (17%) are housed in juvenile facilities, federal facilities, territorial prisons or other detention facilities (Loeffler et al., 2022; Western et al., 2022). While these rates of incarceration showcase issues surrounding overall mass incarceration, these statistics do not highlight the consistent and pervasive changes within the prison populations. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), in 2019, the U.S. incarceration rate decreased to the lowest rate since 1995. However, despite this rate in decline, the U.S. still incarcerates a bigger percentage of its population compared to any other country. Most recently, 2022 has shown a 2% increase in population as compared to the 2021 rates – this increase made the 1% decline reported in 2021 non-existent, and most historically, highlighted the first increase in rates in both federal and state prison populations within the last decade; it is important to note COVID-19 impacts might have significantly reduced this population (Martyn et al., 2022; Nowotny et al., 2021). According to the BJS (2023), “at yearend 2022, an estimated 32% of sentenced state and federal prisoners were black; 31% were white; 23% were Hispanic; 2% were American Indian or Alaska Native; and 1% were Asian, Native Hawaiian, or Other Pacific Islander” (5). Similarly, pandemic impacts might have significantly impacted these findings – for example, as pretrial populations were almost back to full pre-pandemic populations – more than two-thirds of this population had not been convicted of a crime. Another reason could be due to many jurisdictions reducing their use of prison incarceration.

Olympia, WA:  Washington State Statistical Analysis Center, 2024. 33p.

By Hanna Hernandez, M.A. & Vasiliki Georgoulas-Sherry

Rates of recidivism have been commonly used as a key measure for public safety and in assessing the effectiveness of the criminal justice system – sentencing, jails, prisons, community supervision, treatment, and reentry programming. Tracking recidivism can provide necessary information to support successful integration into the community following a prison sentence – which promotes community and public safety. Furthermore, understanding the individuals who are more likely to recidivate, and assessing demographic differences over the years can provide even more knowledge for supporting successful reentry. To evaluate long-term recidivism in Washington, the Washington Statistical Analysis Center (SAC) applied for and received the 2021 State Justice Statistics (SJS) grant from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). Under this grant from BJS, the SAC first drew on publicly available data from the Washington State Department of Corrections (DOC) to evaluate the long-term recidivism trends of incarcerated individuals released from prison (Georgoulas-Sherry & Hernandez, 2024). To expand on the findings, this report utilizes the same cohort to further evaluate the racial and sex similarities and differences in recidivism rates. 

Olympia, WA:  Washington State Statistical Analysis Center, 2024. 31p.

By the John Howard Association (Illinois)

Regular communication with the outside world is vital to people in custody. Methods of communication such as phones, mail, video visits, and email via tablets allow incarcerated people to stay in touch with loved ones, access information related to their legal rights, and prepare for their lives after prison. Therefore, prisons must provide reliable methods of communication to those in custody.

Chicago: The John Howard Association, 2024. 33p.

By The John Howard Association (Illinois)

Ensuring the safe and secure operation of Illinois prisons is a critical state function, yet the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) is facing a chronic staffing shortage that jeopardizes the health, safety, and well-being of staff and incarcerated people. High staff turnover and unfilled vacancies have profound implications for nearly all aspects of life for people living and working in the state’s prisons. Incarcerated people are spending untold hours locked down with restricted access to programming, outside supports, and recreation; medical and mental health care needs are going unmet; staff are overworked and burned out; and safety and security are critically compromised. These conditions cannot be sustained. Addressing this crisis is imperative to affirming the humanity of everyone living and working in Illinois prisons. The purpose of this report is to document the nature and scope of staffing shortages in Illinois’ prisons, detail the harm to incarcerated people and staff, and make recommendations for urgent and vital action to address the identified challenges  

Chicago: John Howard Association, 2024. 35p.

By The Irish Penal Reform Trust

Piecing It Together: Supporting Children and Families with a Family Member in Prison in Ireland assesses progress on a series of recommendations made by IPRT in "Picking up the Pieces" in 2012. These recommendations were made to Government, the Courts and Courts Service, the Irish Prison Service, the Department of Education, and media, among others. While the new report details some pockets of good practice in Ireland, it highlights a number of significant gaps, including: limited national recognition of the rights of children with a family member in prison; the continued lack of any national support services for these children; visiting conditions that are not child-friendly; limited data and research; and stigmatisation of these children and their families. As we approach the tenth anniversary of the 2012 report, IPRT calls for the implementation of these outstanding recommendations, as well as the new recommendations made in this report, by the relevant assigned stakeholders.

The recommendations made in the report are grouped into 7 overarching recommendations:

1. Increase National Recognition of the Rights of Children with a Family Member in Prison

2. Establish a National Support Service for Children and Families with a Family Member in Prison

3. Improve Prison Visiting Procedures and Conditions for Children and Families

4. Enshrine in Law and Practice the Principle of “Prison as a Last Resort” for Primary Caregivers

5. Improve Data Recording on Children Affected by Imprisonment

6. Challenge Stigmatisation of Children and Families with a Family Member in Prison

7. Promote and Facilitate Family Involvement during the Period of Imprisonment

Dublin: Irish Penal Reform Trust, 2021. 60p.

By the Irish Penal Reform Trust

 In recent years there has been increasing recognition of children of imprisoned parents as a specific group of vulnerable and marginalised children with particular needs and of the detrimental impact of parental imprisonment on them. While there has been less focus on the specific impact on children when their mother is sent to prison, several studies have found that, while less common, maternal imprisonment can be significantly more disruptive than paternal imprisonment. This is largely because women are more often the primary caregivers for their dependent children. When fathers are imprisoned, the mother usually continues to care for any children. However, studies have shown that when mothers are sent to prison, the family is more likely to be broken up, with children being placed with other family members or into State care. The impact of maternal imprisonment has wider implications as a result, including on the women themselves, their families, and the broader community. Despite the well-documented impacts of parental, and specifically maternal, imprisonment on children and the clear obligations within the international human rights framework to consider children when their parents or primary caregivers come into conflict with the law, there are very few court systems that actively require courts to consider children at sentencing or when determining pre-trial measures. Additionally, when mothers are sent to prison, there are significant data gaps globally in understanding the numbers of children impacted, and a corresponding lack of effort made to mitigate against the potential negative impacts on them. Where data is collected, it is usually facility-specific with no efforts to collate data nationally or coordinate responses across different agencies. The Irish Prison Service (IPS) and the Probation Service have identified the risks associated with maternal imprisonment, noting that, ‘[t]he outcomes for children whose mothers have experienced prison are of major concern. Children of women prisoners frequently exhibit several behavioral and psychological problems and there is an increased likelihood of them becoming offenders themselves.’ Despite this, there has been very limited examination of the numbers and experiences of mothers imprisoned in Ireland and their children. While the IPS, the Probation Service, and other associated agencies appear to recognize the need to support children of mothers in prison – indeed these agencies have made efforts to develop support programs – concern remains at the lack of attention given, at the point of sentencing, to the caregiving responsibilities of women and the best interests of their children. The findings of this research also point to a lack of national efforts to coordinate amongst different stakeholder agencies to reduce the negative impacts of maternal imprisonment on children

Dublin: Irish Penal Reform Trust, 2023. 52p.

By Faiza Chappell

In the past decade, stakeholder groups have formed across the country to achieve higher-quality postsecondary education in prisons, enhance student outcomes, and push policy changes. This report describes the benefits of emerging stakeholder engagement strategies and trends in stakeholder collaboration. It also serves as a guide to building stakeholder coalitions in the field of postsecondary education in prison. Prison education programs (PEPs) are offered by institutions of higher education and postsecondary vocational institutions that have been approved to operate in a correctional setting. The U.S. Department of Education has requirements that PEPs must follow in order for incarcerated students to access Pell Grants. These requirements include input from a variety of stakeholders to evaluate PEPs and confirm that they are operating in the best interests of the students. After conducting a national scan of existing consortia, the Vera Institute of Justice (Vera) analyzed the information presented in this report from 23 consortia. Vera found that tapping into the expertise of various stakeholders is a crucial element in ensuring high-quality education practices for incarcerated students.

Key Takeaway

Stakeholder groups provide a foundation built on a common mission, with substantive achievable goals and structures for the work to thrive, allowing stakeholders to collaborate effectively. Stakeholder feedback is a critically important practice that should be at the forefront in the expansion of postsecondary education in prison.

New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2024. 28p.

By Benjamin Heller Brian King Will McKeithen Chantal Polinsky 

Since the New York City Council voted in 2019 to close Rikers Island and replace it with four borough-based jails, corrections officers’ perspectives on their work have been largely absent from the conversation, even though they, too, will be impacted by Rikers’ closure. This report addresses that gap. From November 2023 to February 2024, Vera researchers conducted 30 in-depth interviews with 30 current and former corrections officers. Vera found that working at the New York City Department of Correction (DOC) takes an enormous physical and psychological toll on officers, and many of those interviewed reported that they stayed in the role because they felt it was their only path to financial security. There is an urgent need for city leaders to invest in career transition services to help DOC rightsize its workforce without inflicting economic harm on the current correctional workforce. To that end, Vera also spoke with five New York City-based workforce development experts to identify best practices for transitioning corrections officers to new fields. In addition, the interviews make clear that DOC must equip officers who continue working in the jails with the skills and support they need to maintain their own physical and emotional well-being while ensuring the safety of people incarcerated in the borough-based jails. The interviews led Vera researchers to several key findings: • Officers join DOC for the salary, benefits, and pension—and often feel trapped by them. Every officer interviewed said they joined DOC for the salary, benefits, job security, and path to early retirement. The salary, benefits, and pension at DOC allow officers without college degrees a path to financial stability. However, pathways like this are so rare, and career services so inaccessible, that officers routinely feel trapped in the job. • Harmful working conditions take a toll on officers’ physical and mental health. Officers reported poor physical and mental health as a result of the job. They blamed their intense work schedule for bad eating habits, lack of physical activity, poor sleep hygiene, stress, anxiety, trouble attending medical appointments, and difficulty balancing their work and home lives. As a result, nearly every officer said they would not recommend the job to friends or family. • Officers feel unsupported by management. Many officers said that DOC management does not help staff address physical and mental health needs, either proactively or after issues arise. Some of the officers Vera interviewed remarked that they felt like just a number to DOC. More than one said that management pressured them to return to work after injury before they were medically ready. Others recalled situations in which management urged them to ignore symptoms of trauma, depression, or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and return to their posts. • Favoritism determines scheduling, and by extension, well-being. Several interviewees said that a culture of favoritism permeates every aspect of the job—from facility and post placement to overtime assignments, misconduct write-ups, meal relief, and promotions. Participants attributed the problematic culture they experienced to leadership and said that it trickled down through the ranks, lowering morale, eroding camaraderie, and increasing absenteeism. • Officers struggle to identify transferrable skills they develop on the job. Interviewees struggled to identify skills they developed at DOC, with some saying they could not think of any skills that would be useful outside of a security setting. When pressed, most officers said their skills included interpersonal communication and situational awareness. • When they leave DOC, most officers stay in the security sector, though their interests are much more varied. Most participants felt that they were only qualified to go into security-related jobs. The majority of officers said they had colleagues who left DOC to join the New York City Police Department (NYPD) or to move to a different state and work for a different corrections department. When asked about their interests and career ambitions, however, interviewees mentioned film production, library sciences, hospitality, education, personal training, real estate, and more. Often, the barrier to pursuing these alternative career paths was not a lack of motivation, but rather a lack of resources and time. • New Yorkers seeking well-paid careers with low barriers to entry need more options. Corrections is one of too few well-paid career opportunities for New Yorkers without postsecondary degrees. Providing career transition services to current officers will help DOC rightsize its uniform workforce, saving public funds while helping officers find new opportunities that do not place such a burden on their health and home lives. There was a clear consensus among workforce development experts that to facilitate these career transitions, city leaders must fund a program that creates a series of talent profiles, maps them onto new career pathways, and mobilizes robust support to help officers successfully reskill themselves and prepare for the next phases of their careers. Such a program should be a model for future initiatives that engage New Yorkers without postsecondary education—who may struggle to find well-paid jobs—at the start of their career searches to connect them with opportunities that lead to well-paid employment. • Officers who continue working at DOC need better training and support to maintain their health and improve conditions in the jails. Officers who remain working in the jails need more support than they currently receive. When asked how DOC could support them more effectively, officers had many ideas. Improved training, particularly when it comes to interacting with people with mental illness; enhanced access to mental health support; equitable processes for assigning officers to posts and overtime; and ongoing feedback mechanisms that allow leadership to hear directly from officers will all help DOC ensure that it is supporting officers’ physical and mental well-being, which in turn may help improve jail conditions for incarcerated people. Ultimately, investing in career transitions for corrections officers is an opportunity to reduce jail spending and invest in community-based solutions that prevent crime in the first place. It can also improve the lives of corrections officers who work for DOC because they feel they have no other options. In addition, supporting officers who remain at DOC may help keep the traumatic conditions of Rikers Island from taking root in the borough-based jails.   

New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2024. 18p.

By Niloufer Taber, Amanda Nowak, Maurice Smith,   Jennifer Yang, Celia Strumph   

Pell Grant restoration took effect on July 1, 2023, making incarcerated people in the United States eligible for need-based federal postsecondary financial aid for the first time in nearly 30 years. Since the launch of the Second Chance Pell Experimental Sites Initiative (SCP) in 2016, more than 45,000 incarcerated students have enrolled in SCP programs. Today, there are more than 750,000 people in prison eligible to enroll in a postsecondary program. As the landscape of postsecondary education in prison evolves, so does its potential. In this report, the Vera Institute of Justice offers a snapshot of national progress toward implementation using the interconnected domains of quality, equity, and scale through a “balanced scorecard” approach. Drawing on data collected from surveys to SCP colleges and corrections agencies, the report aggregates individual responses to evaluate the adequacy and the system of education offered to incarcerated people. The result is a snapshot of the progress colleges and corrections agencies have made over the first year of this new era of access and opportunity.

‍Key Takeaway: Serving students in prisons requires collaboration and cooperation across a range of stakeholders. Vera assessed quality, equity, and scale through data aggregated at the level of each jurisdiction. The measures in this report are an invitation

New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2024. 64p.

By Sarah Aukamp

Contraband in correctional facilities can create challenges for the safety of incarcerated people, staff, and the general public. However little is known about the factors that affect the types and amounts of contraband entering facilities. To address this gap, researchers from the Urban Institute and CNA Corporation conducted a study of prisons across six states and assessed the risk factors that correlate with the recovery of three types of contraband: drugs, cell phones, and weapons. This summary describes the findings of that study and presents implications for practice. Findings show that factors like a prison’s security level (e.g., maximum, minimum), population (e.g., size, gender), staff composition, and available programming (e.g., substance use treatment) were all correlated with the number of contraband recoveries. Some risk factors were found to be common to all types of contraband, whereas others occurred only with certain types. Understanding the facility-level characteristics that affect types and levels of contraband can inform interdiction efforts, creating safer facilities for all stakeholders.

Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 2024. 4p.

By Lee Kovarsky

Before their executions, condemned people suffered intensely, in solitude, and at great length. But that suffering is not punishment—especially not the suffering on American-style death rows. In this article, I show that American institutions administer pre-execution confinement as nonpunitive detention, and I explain the consequences of that counterintuitive status. A nonpunitive paradigm curbs, at least to some degree, the dehumanization, neglect, and isolation that now dominate life on death row. It is also the doctrinal solution to a longstanding puzzle involving confinement, execution, and the Eighth Amendment. To understand why pre-execution confinement is nonpunitive, readers need a basic understanding of the experience itself. Most death-sentenced people will lead lives marked by some substantial combination of inadequate nutrition, deficient health care, substandard sanitation and ventilation, restricted movement, and excessive isolation. By the time the state executes its condemned prisoners, they will have spent about two decades in such conditions—up from two years in 1960. The state distributes suffering across this prisoner cohort in ways that bear little relationship to criminal blameworthiness. Almost without exception, however, scholarship and decisional law continue to treat confinement before execution as punishment. Virtually everyone makes the punitive assumption, but there are two reasons rooted in penal theory why they should not. First, confinement before execution does not meet consensus criteria for punishment. It is instead suffering collateral to the state’s interest in incapacitating those who face execution. Second, if pre-execution confinement were to be taken seriously as a punitive practice, then it would be normatively unjustified. More specifically, punitive confinement would represent punishment beyond the legally specified maximum (an execution), and it would be distributed across the death-sentenced prisoner cohort arbitrarily. There is a well-developed body of constitutional law capable of absorbing a nonpunitive version of pre-execution confinement. Under that law, when the state detains people primarily to incapacitate them, that detention is regulatory—not punitive. Due process, rather than the Eighth Amendment, constrains regulatory detention. A nonpunitive approach would reduce unnecessary suffering because due process rules more stringently constrain the state’s treatment of its prisoners. Such an approach would also give the U.S. Supreme Court better answers to the difficult Eighth Amendment questions that have vexed the Justices for decades. 

Virginia Law Review [Vol. 109:1429, 2023.

By Lee Kovarsky

There is a widely held belief that to delay executions, American death-row prisoners strategically defer litigation until the eleventh hour. After all, the logic goes, that the incentives for prisoners who face the death penalty differ from those who do not. Noncapital prisoners typically try to move the terminal point of a sentence (release) forward, and capital prisoners typically try to push that point (execution) back. This theory of litigant behavior—what I call the “Strategic Delay Account,” or the “SDA”—underwrites an extraordinarily harsh institutional response. It primes courts to discount real constitutional grievances and to punish participating lawyers, and it spurs legislatures to restrict crucial remedies. In this article, I explain that the SDA inaccurately describes condemned prisoner behavior, both because it assumes a non-existent incentive structure and because it ignores the major structural causes of delayed litigation. First, deferred litigation is risky, and fortune disfavors the bold. Procedural doctrines that operate across post-conviction law strongly incentivize the promptest conceivable presentation of claims. Second, prisoners often omit challenges from early rounds of litigation not because they have done so strategically, but instead because some claims are inherently incapable of being asserted at that time. Third, the volume of end-stage litigation reflects the comprehensive failure of American jurisdictions to provide adequate legal services; condemned prisoners are often functionally unrepresented from the moment early-stage proceedings conclude until the state sets an execution date.

New York University Law Review Issue: Volume 95, Number 5, November 2020

By Bea Halbach-Singh Jack Norton Stephen Jones Jessica Zhang

Over the past 50 years, Kentucky has become one of the most incarcerated places on earth, building a broad system of correctional control that is made up of local jails, state and federal prisons, and a vast array of supervision and monitoring programs. Systems of correctional control have increased in number and scope at the same time as the state has undergone significant economic restructuring. Kentucky’s economy over the last 30 years has shifted away from goods-producing industries—such as manufacturing, construction, and mining—and toward service-providing industries such as health care, social assistance, educational services, and other professional services, with significant differences in how this transformation has played out regionally.1 In the places hardest hit by the decline of manufacturing and coal extraction industries, local governments have attempted to turn their criminal legal systems into revenue generators to fund jail and court operations. Counties have raced to collect per diem fees paid by the Kentucky Department of Corrections (DOC), federal agencies, and other Kentucky counties by building bigger jails to incarcerate people for other authorities. Counties also collect revenues from an elaborate system of jail- and court-related fines and fees collected from criminalized people, who are disproportionately poor. Private companies collect revenues by contracting with county jails, and prisons, Kentucky’s most comprehensive effort to reform the criminal legal system to date—House Bill 463 (HB 463), “The Public Safety and Accountability Act”—passed in 2011. While it proposed to reduce the footprint and cost of Kentucky’s carceral system, it resulted in more criminalization and less health and safety. During a decade in which communities increasingly struggled with drug use, substance use disorders, and overdose deaths and needed real solutions to tackle this public health crisis, Kentucky’s lawmakers continued to pass laws allowing prosecutors and judges to impose harsh penalties for drug-related offenses. By 2020, Kentucky had the nation’s second-highest drug overdose mortality rate.4 Lawmakers also created a web of supervision programs that were intended to divert people charged with drug-related crimes away from jail and prison. In practice, by imposing onerous conditions and associated costs that make it impossible for many people to meet their requirements, these systems have instead become a major driver of re-incarceration. Throughout the writing of this report, Vera Institute of Justice (Vera) researchers spoke with people across the commonwealth who had experienced criminalization.5 Most were recovering from substance use issues. Out of these conversations, a clear picture emerged of the deep connections between poverty and economic decline and the growth of incarceration, supervision, and surveillance across the state. Interviewees shared that stable housing, meaningful work, connections with a larger community (especially other people in recovery), and treatment—instead of correctional surveillance and incarceration—were the most important resources that helped them recover. In their experiences, court-mandated supervision and drug treatment programs carried onerous restrictions on their mobility and autonomy and included unaffordable fines and fees that decreased their ability to support themselves financially. These conditions—combined with the threat of reincarceration in case of relapse—presented obstacles, rather than paths, to recovery for people experiencing substance use issues. Overall, people experiencing poverty and those in need of treatment described a criminal legal system that causes harm in their lives, instead of providing them with the resources that might enable them to survive and thrive.

New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2023. 62p.