By Ying Shi and Maria Zhu

Well-documented racial disparities in rates of exclusionary discipline may arise from differences in hard-to-observe student behavior or bias, in which treatment for the same behavior varies by student race or ethnicity. We provide evidence for the presence of bias using statewide administrative data that contain rich details on individual disciplinary infractions. Two complementary empirical strategies identify bias in suspension outcomes. The first uses within-incident variation in disciplinary outcomes across White and under-represented minority students. The second employs individual fixed effects to examine how consequences vary for students across incidents based on the race of the other student involved in the incident. Both approaches find that Black students are suspended for longer than Hispanic or White students, while there is no evidence of Hispanic-White disparities. The similarity of findings across approaches and the ability of individual fixed effect models to account for unobserved characteristics common across disciplinary incidents provide support that remaining racial disparities are likely not driven by behavior.

Bonn, Germany: IZA – Institute of Labor Economics, 2021. 38p.

By DLA Piper

In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic was declared. Overnight, prisons became a key public health concern for governments. Prisons – particularly overcrowded facilities and those with poor sanitation, hygiene and ventilation – are known to act as a source of infection, amplification and spread of infectious diseases. Urgent action was required to limit the transmission of COVID-19 to prisoners, staff and the broader community. Recognizing the challenge and potential serious health risks, governments globally took swift action to decongest their prison systems through releasing prisoners and limiting new admissions. This report analyses the approach to decongesting prison systems adopted by governments in 53 jurisdictions across Asia Pacific, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, North and Central America. The results of those 53 jurisdictional analyses have been summarized into key findings set out in Part 2 of this report and in an infographic at Annexure A.

London: DLA Piper, 2020. 52p.

By Penal Reform International

As the COVID-19 pandemic affects more people in an ever increasing list of countries, PRI has published a briefing note, Coronavirus: Healthcare and human rights of people in prison. With the fast-evolving situation, there is legitimate concern at a further spread of the virus to places of detention. The difficulties in containing a large outbreak in detention facilities are clear. People in prison and the personnel who work with them are in close proximity and in many cases in overcrowded, cramped conditions with little fresh air. People in detention also have common demographic characteristics with generally poorer health than the rest of the population, often with underlying health conditions. Hygiene standards are often below that found in the community and sometimes security or infrastructural factors reduce opportunities to wash hands or access to hand sanitizer – the key prevention measures recommended by the World Health Organization.

Our briefing outlines the key measures that criminal justice systems, including prisons and courts, have taken to prevent the spread of COVID-19 – and the impact of these in light of the UN Nelson Mandela Rules and other key standards. Action needs to be taken now and immediately, given the risk people in prison are exposed to, including prison staff. Such action should be guided by international standards and the values of: Do no harm, equality, transparency, humanity.

London: Penal Reform International, 2020. 13p

By Kelly Lyn Mitchell, Julia Laskorunsky, Natalie Bielenberg, Lucy Chin and Madison Wadsworth

In response to the global pandemic in 2020, states and the federal government began to make non-routine releases from prison in order to reduce prison populations to allow for social distancing in prison facilities. This report is aimed at describing where such prison releases occurred, the legal mechanisms used to achieve these releases, and the factors within jurisdictions that made non-routine prison releases more or less likely to occur. We write this report, not to examine the national response to the pandemic, but to better understand when and how extraordinary measures may be used to effect prison release, and to determine whether there are lessons from this experience that can be applied to reducing the effects of mass incarceration. All but three Democratic-led jurisdictions (21 of 24) made COVID-related prison releases while only about half of Republic-led jurisdictions (14 of 27) did so (Table 4). » Nearly all of the jurisdictions (7 of 8) with the largest COVID-related releases—those greater than 10% of the 2019 prison population—were indeterminate in structure.

Minneapolis: Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, University of Minnesota Law School. 2022. 86p.

By Helen Fair and Jessica Jacobson

When the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 a global pandemic on 11 March 2020, there was immediate concern about the potential health impacts on prisoners and prison staff. Concern focused on the close proximity in which prisoners live, particularly in overcrowded systems; the prevalence of underlying health conditions which affect many of those in custody; and the porous nature of prison walls and boundaries, presenting a risk of infection spreading from prisons to local communities. In the wake of the declaration of the pandemic, penal reformers and human rights organizations around the world called for measures to be taken to reduce the numbers of people in prison, particularly in overcrowded systems, and to contain the risks of infection spreading. This report examines the population management and infection control measures (excluding direct health interventions) taken by prison systems in a diverse group of ten countries spanning all five continents: Kenya, South Africa, Brazil, the USA (and more specifically, New York State), India, Thailand, England and Wales, Hungary, the Netherlands, and Australia (more specifically, New South Wales). The report is produced under the banner of ICPR’s international, comparative project, ‘Understanding and reducing the use of imprisonment in ten countries’, launched in 2017.

London: Institute for Crime & Justice Policy Research, 33p.

By Alexander Söderholm

The disruption caused by COVID-19 has exposed the health inequities faced by marginalised communities globally, particularly those deprived of their liberty in prison settings. As a result of the extreme risks posed by COVID-19 to these individuals, international organisations, civil society organisations (CSOs), and community advocates have called for urgent criminal justice system and prison reforms. Calls have been made to address chronic overcrowding in prisons, the suspension of arrests and incarceration of people for minor or non-violent offences, and the urgent roll-out of life-saving health and harm reduction measures for people who use drugs in custodial facilities and the community. While it is the state’s legal obligation to provide adequate care to people deprived of their liberty, COVID-19 has shed light on how many states have reneged on this responsibility. As aptly expressed by a group of researchers, ‘we cannot forget that prison health is public health by definition’. While many states heeded the call to release people in prison, few have taken substantial steps toward addressing the structural issues exposed by COVID-19 within their criminal justice systems. Meanwhile, others have not fulfilled their promises to carry out measures such as early release programmes to reduce overcrowding in prisons. As such, the briefing paper seeks to shed light on the experiences of people involved with the criminal justice system prior to, during and after incarceration, with a focus on four case study countries: Colombia, Ireland, Indonesia and Kenya.

London: International Drug Policy Consortium, 2021. 25p.

By Erin Jacobs Valentine

More than 1.6 million people are incarcerated in prisons in the United States, and around 700,000 are released from prison each year. Those released from prison often face daunting obstacles as they seek to reintegrate into their communities, and rates of recidivism are high. Many experts believe that stable employment is critical to a successful transition from prison to the community.

The Joyce Foundation’s Transitional Jobs Reentry Demonstration (TJRD), also funded by the JEHT Foundation and the U.S. Department of Labor, tested employment programs for former prisoners in Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee, and St. Paul, using a rigorous random assignment design. MDRC led the evaluation, along with the Urban Institute and the University of Michigan. The project focused on transitional jobs programs that provide temporary subsidized jobs, support services, and job placement help. Transitional jobs are seen as a promising model for former prisoners and for other disadvantaged groups.

In 2007-2008, more than 1,800 men who had recently been released from prison were assigned, at random, to a transitional jobs program or to a program providing basic job search assistance but no subsidized jobs. The research team tracked both groups using state data on employment and recidivism. Because of the random assignment design, one can be confident that significant differences that emerged between the groups are attributable to the services each group received.

This is the final report in the TJRD project. It assesses how the transitional jobs programs affected employment and recidivism during the two years after people entered the study.More than 1.6 million people are incarcerated in prisons in the United States, and around 700,000 are released from prison each year. Those released from prison often face daunting obstacles as they seek to reintegrate into their communities, and rates of recidivism are high. Many experts believe that stable employment is critical to a successful transition from prison to the community.

This is the final report in the TJRD project. It assesses how the transitional jobs programs affected employment and recidivism during the two years after people entered the study.

New York: MDRC, 2012. 78p.

By Andrew Wiegand, Jesse Sussell, Erin Jacobs Valentine and Brit Henderson

The Reintegration of Ex-Offenders (RExO) project began in 2005 as a joint initiative of the Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration (ETA), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and several other federal agencies. RExO aimed to capitalize on the strengths of faith-based and community organizations (FBCOs) and their ability to serve prisoners seeking to reenter their communities following the completion of their sentences. In June 2009, ETA contracted with Social Policy Research Associates (SPR) and its subcontractors MDRC and NORC at the University of Chicago to conduct an impact evaluation of 24 RExO grantees.

The programs funded under RExO primarily provided three main types of services: mentoring, which most often took the form of group mentoring, but also included one-on-one mentoring and other activities; employment services, including work readiness training, job training, job placement, job clubs, transitional employment, and post-placement follow-up; and case management and supportive services.

This report summarizes the impacts of the RExO program on offender outcomes in four areas: service receipt, labor market success, recidivism, and other outcomes. Using a random assignment (RA) design, the evaluation created two essentially equivalent groups: a program group that was eligible to enroll in RExO and a control group that was prevented from enrolling in RExO but could enroll in other services.

Oakland, CA: Social Policy Research Associates, 2015. 163p

By Erin Jacobs Valentine, Louisa Treskon and Cindy Redcross

Despite an increasing emphasis on reentry services for individuals leaving prison, recidivism rates remain high, and policymakers are searching for ways to help parolees make more successful transitions from prison. One strategy is to incorporate interventions into the parole supervision process. This paper presents findings from the Changing Attitudes and Motivation in Parolees (CHAMPS) study, which examined the implementation of a pilot of one parole-based intervention, known as the Next Generation of Parole Supervision (NG).

NG is intended to improve parolee outcomes by enhancing parole officers’ knowledge and the strategies they use during their regular supervision meetings with parolees. Building on existing literature about best practices in parole supervision, the NG curriculum focuses on desistance — a process through which individuals who have been involved in crime change their self-perceived identity and cease participating in crime — and helps parole officers to use parolee-centered conversations to identify and reinforce a parolee’s strengths and to identify potential stabilizing and destabilizing influences in the individual’s life..

New York: MDRC, 2018. 45p.

By Quentin Liger and Mirja Guhteil

This study, commissioned by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the LIBE Committee, provides an analysis of the distinctive features of racism, xenophobia and racial discrimination in the EU and selected EU Member States. It further examines various forms of racism, xenophobia and racial discrimination,their target groups and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The study assesses anti-racism policies and legislation to determine effectiveness of the national and EU legislation and measures envisaged in the EU Anti-racism Action Plan on eradicatation of racism, xenophobia and racial discrimination. The study identifies gaps that need to be filled and provides recommendations on how to create engagement at all levels to achieve meaningful change and equality.

Brussels: European Parliament, 2022. 248p.

By Charles Gordon

“This gate hath of long time been a gaol, or prison, for felons and trespassers, as appareth by records in the reign of King John, and of other kings; amongst the which I find one testifying that, in the year 1218, the third year of King Henry III, the king written to the sheriffs of London, commanding them to repair the old gate of Newgate for the safe keeping of his prisoners,….”

London. Fisher Unwin.1902. 186 pages.

By Charles Gordon

“This gate hath of long time been a gaol, or prison, for felons and trespassers, as appareth by records in the reign of King John, and of other kings; amongst the which I find one testifying that, in the year 1218, the third year of King Henry III, the king written to the sheriffs of London, commanding them to repair the old gate of Newgate for the safe keeping of his prisoners,….”

London. Fisher Unwin.1902. 186 pages.

By Lindsey E. Smith, Nadia S. Mozaffar, Jessica Feierman, Lea Parker, Amanda NeMoyer, Naomi E. Goldstein, Jonathan M. Hall Spence, Matthew C. Thompson and Vendarryl L. Jenkins

This report outlines the history of restitution; surveys youth restitution laws in all 56 states and territories; draws on research across fields to outline the harmful impact of restitution on youth, victims, and communities; and proposes key considerations for reimagining restitution.

Philadelphia, PA: Juvenile Law Center, 2022. 48p.

By Christine Tartaro and David Lester

Police and corrections personnel must always be mindful of the possibility that those in their custody may attempt suicide or commit an act of self-mutilation. Persons housed in prisons, jails, and police lockups tend to be at a higher risk for such destructive behavior than members of the general population. Reasons for this can be found by examining the mental health, substance abuse, and physical/sexual abuse histories of inmates in addition to deficits in their coping skills and the stress and uncertainty generated by incarceration.

This book explores several topics pertaining to suicide and deliberate self-harm in the corrections setting, including who tends to commit these acts; where, when, and how these incidents occur; screening mechanisms; the role of environmental stimuli in facilitating or preventing acts of self harm; interpersonal relations among inmates and between inmates and staff; and the role of the courts in setting and ruling on suicide prevention policies. The authors discuss the role of prevention techniques that offer a balance between strict opportunity-reduction and softer motivation-reduction strategies. The book also includes suggestions for diversion programs that can keep mentally ill inmates out of prisons and jails and transition planning programs to better prepare outgoing inmates for their re-entry into the community.

Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2009. 238p.

By Graham J Towl , David A Crighton , Toby Harris

The definitive guide from two leading authors central to developments in the field. An invaluable book which covers everything from theoretical and community research to precisely what is known about prisoners and the risk of their committing suicide. Covers the Harris Review and Government Response to it as well as the stance of politicians, reform groups and other leading experts on what in 2017 is an escalating problem for UK prisons. Contains analysis and data from over 30 years, bringing together key knowledge and information at a critical time of concern and attention.

Sherfield on Loddon,: Waterside Press , 2017. 208p.

By Alison Liebling

The suicide rate in prisons in England and Wales is 40 per 100,000—four times that of the general population. How can this rate be explained? Recent prison suicides have aroused much public concern and media attention, yet there has been very little research examining their true cause or nature. Previous studies have tended to rely exclusively on official statistics and prison records, and have had little effect on formulating policy and practice. Suicides in Prison is the first major study in this area to draw directly on the experiences of both prisoners and staff. The interviews conducted by the author help to cast new light on the circumstances which can lead to suicide or attempted suicide. The book provides further evidence to support the growing recognition that suicide is not an exclusively psychiatric problem. The coping mechanisms and social support given to the people involved can play a crucial role. Alison Liebling also shows how serious difficulties in the management of prisoners at risk of suicide may be exacerbated by problems of communication between departments, and that prison officers may lack the necessary training to play a potentially major role in suicide prevention. Most importantly, if staff perceptions and attitudes are not addressed, any attempt to improve procedures may well be ineffective. Suicides in Prison will be of interest to probation officers, social workers and prison staff and governors as well as those studying penology. It traces the recent history of the problem and provides the first major theoretical discussion of the nature and causes of suicide in prison.

London: Routledge, 1992. 288p.

By Lindsay M. Hayes

While suicide is recognized as a critical problem within the jail environment, the issue of prison suicide has not received comparable attention. Until recently, it has been assumed that suicide, although a problem for jail inmates as they face the initial crisis of incarceration, is not a significant problem for inmates who advance to prison to serve out their sentences. This assumption, however, has not been supported in the literature. Although the rate of suicide in prisons is far lower than in jails, it remains disproportionately higher than in the general population.

Windsor Mill, MD: National Center on Institutions and Alternatives, Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Corrections, 1995. 116p.

By Kristin M. Tennyson, Lindsey Jeralds and Julie Zibulsky

Congress requires courts to consider several factors when determining the appropriate sentence to be imposed in federal cases, among them the “history and characteristics of the defendant.” The sentencing guidelines also specifically authorize judges to consider an offender’s age when determining whether to depart from the federal sentencing guidelines. In this report, the Commission presents information on relatively small number of offenders who were aged 50 or older at the time they were sentenced in the federal system. In particular, the report examines older federal offenders who were sentenced in fiscal year 2021 and the crimes they committed, then assesses whether age was given a special consideration at sentencing. This report specifically focuses on three issues that could impact the sentencing of older offenders: age and infirmity, life expectancy, and the risk of recidivism. Congress requires courts to consider several factors when determining the appropriate sentence to be imposed in federal cases, among them the “history and characteristics of the defendant.” The sentencing guidelines also specifically authorize judges to consider an offender’s age when determining whether to depart from the federal sentencing guidelines. In this report, the Commission presents information on relatively small number of offenders who were aged 50 or older at the time they were sentenced in the federal system. In particular, the report examines older federal offenders who were sentenced in fiscal year 2021 and the crimes they committed, then assesses whether age was given a special consideration at sentencing. This report specifically focuses on three issues that could impact the sentencing of older offenders: age and infirmity, life expectancy, and the risk of recidivism.

Washington, DC: The United States Sentencing Commission 2022. 68p.

By Gerald G. Gaes and Julia Laskorunsky

For most individuals who receive a prison sentence, the amount of time they will serve in prison is somewhat unpredictable because of officials’ discretionary capacity to exercise “back-end” release powers, including parole and good time and earned time credit. These back-end decisions influence how long someone ultimately spends in prison and, over time, can have a substantial impact on prison population size (Gaes and Laskorunsky, 2022). This project examines how back-end powers of prison release discretion operate within the Colorado prison system. Reitz, Griffith, and Rhine (2022) categorize the Colorado prison release system as one of high indeterminacy; meaning that for almost all incarcerated individuals, back-end authorities such as the Colorado State Board of Parole and the Department of Corrections (DOC) are given substantially more discretion over total time served than the front-end judicial authorities who issue prison sentences. To determine how these powers of discretion interact to govern prison stay length, we assessed temporal patterns in the release decisions of the Colorado State Board of Parole and the decisions of the DOC in awarding and withholding good-time and earned-time credits.

Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University; Minneapolis, MN: and Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, University of Minnesota, 2022. 50p.

By Kelly Lyn Mitchell, Julia Laskorunsky, Natalie Bielenberg ,Lucy Chin and Madison Wadsworth

In response to the global pandemic in 2020, states and the federal government began to make non-routine releases from prison in order to reduce prison populations to allow for social distancing in prison facilities. This report is aimed at describing where such prison releases occurred, the legal mechanisms used to achieve these releases, and the factors within jurisdictions that made non-routine prison releases more or less likely to occur. We write this report, not to examine the national response to the pandemic, but to better understand when and how extraordinary measures may be used to effect prison release, and to determine whether there are lessons from this experience that can be applied to reducing the effects of mass incarceration.

Minneapolis, MN: Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, University of Minnesota, 2022 , 86p.