By: Food Matters

The World Health Organisation has emphasised the importance of seeing prisons as whole food systems. In this paper, Food Matters highlights numerous opportunities for food to play a broader role in prison life. In January 2023, Food Matters organised a roundtable workshop to discuss the issue of food in prisons, involving experts from the voluntary sector, academia, and individuals with lived prison experience. The central theme was the significant role of food in prisons and its impact on the lives of those held in them. We coupled the findings from this workshop with a review of related policy and literature in an interim paper which was shared with key stakeholders, including His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS), His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons, the Care Quality Commission, the Independent Monitoring Board, Clinks and other voluntary sector organisations. This paper explores the crucial role of food in shaping prisoners' identities and relationships and its potential to have positive impacts in prisons, including fostering relationships; promoting education, exercise and meaningful activities; enhancing cultural understanding improving physical and mental health; enhancing safety; and reducing reoffending. Food Matters has concluded that food should move from being a functional aspect of prisons to become a focal point for various activities and improvements to prison regimes. Key findings and considerations include: Opportunities for building on existing initiatives: Positive initiatives related to food and nutrition have been undertaken in prisons by voluntary sector organisations, supported by HMPPS and/or individual governors and more recently by HMPPS itself in promoting self-production initiatives and creating healthy recipes. However, limited resources and short-term funding have hindered the sustainability and longterm impact of these efforts. There is potential for collectively sharing best practices and building an evidence base for food and growing-related initiatives across prisons. Opportunities for greater transparency over food quality, standards, and sustainability following strengthened government commitments to adopting sustainable food procurement, the introduction of new nutritional guidance for public catering, and requirements for data reporting on food procurement and waste. More broadly, there is potential for widespread adoption of mainstream public health initiatives in prisons, including accreditation schemes for caterers and food suppliers. There is also scope for enhanced independent inspection and parliamentary oversight to encourage more creative approaches to be taken, building on a thematic review that explored the role of food in connection, comfort, and mental health support in prisons. Opportunities for HMPPS to adopt a strategic approach to developing food-related initiatives, integrated within a range of policies and practices such as rehabilitation, learning and skills development, family ties, and well-being and ensure that opportunities for self-catering, communal dining, and sustainable food production are maximized in redevelopment and new building projects.

Brighton , UK: Food Matters, 2024. 42p.

By: Mandy Spears

A companion report looks at historical trends in Tennessee’s incarcerated and corrections populations. Two additional reports will focus on community supervision, prison releases, and recidivism as well as pre-trial incarceration.

Key Takeaways:

• Funded almost entirely by state revenues, the Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC) is consistently among the state’s six largest state revenue expenses.

• Incarceration costs make up over 80% of TDOC spending.

• Since FY 1995, TDOC spending increased by an average of 4.1% per year — the same as growth in overall state revenue spending.

• TDOC houses 27% of state prisoners in local jails to manage overcrowding in state facilities, a factor in slowing the growth of the department’s budget.

Nashville, TN: The Sycamore Institute, 2019. 7p.

By Rebecca Tublitz

After four decades of explosive growth in the number of people arrested, jailed, and imprisoned in the United States, a growing consensus about the overreach of mass incarceration and unjust systems of punishment has emerged in the 21st century. Seeking to raise national attention to the problem of overuse and misuse of incarceration in local jail systems and to catalyze innovation and reform at the local level, in 2015, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation (MacArthur Foundation) launched the Safety and Justice Challenge (SJC). In its eighth year, the SJC now supports a diverse network of more than 57 cities, counties, and states across the country in developing and implementing decarceration strategies and represents an ambitious effort to generate transformative change in how localities conceive of and use jail incarceration.

Data, measurement, and evaluation has been pivotal in guiding this initiative—for identifying drivers of the jail population, designing innovative decarceration strategies, monitoring progress, and evaluating and understanding performance. CUNY ISLG plays a leading role in these data collection and analysis activities across the SJC, serving as a central liaison between local jurisdictions, external researchers, technical assistance providers, and the MacArthur Foundation.

This report focuses on the role that local data has played in the SJC initiative and CUNY ISLG’s work to develop and support the SJC model of data-driven reform. The report details:

• The collection of data and how data were used by many stakeholders across the initiative;

• The build-out of CUNY ISLG’s data repository;

The development and use of standardized performance measures for reporting site progress towards reducing

• Jail populations and eliminating racial and ethnic disparities; and

• Lessons learned from working with cross-agency administrative data to drive reform and evaluate policy change.

New York: CUNY Institute for State & Local Governance —————— Safety and Justice Challenge. 2024. 36p.

By: Nacro

This is the first in a series of briefings that will examine the practical steps that can be taken to support people in contact with the criminal justice system to create better futures. The series will include practical and cost-effective steps to help prisons better prepare people for release, and provide them with the skills, training, knowledge and support they’ll need to thrive and create better lives on the outside. This briefing looks at work and wages in prison and the impact those can have on people’s ability to turn their lives around on release. It’s particularly important right now because of the cost of living crisis. We know that, for many, prison wages are all they have to get by on in prison. Wages are used to buy phone credit to keep in touch with friends and family, to buy the basic things they need, and to save for release. We want to propose a better, fairer, system that ensures that everyone can work to support themselves both during their time in prison, and on release. We believe it is a false economy to create what is for many an environment of poverty in prison, as it can lead to bullying and violence, and ultimately means that Government has to spend more on the basics for people in prison and on release as they are unable to provide them for themselves. Our solutions are set out in full below, but we believe that the main things to focus on are: Developing skills and earning qualifications: Making sure that work and education opportunities are available to everyone in prison, focusing on ensuring that people can develop the skills and qualifications that they will need on release. Jobs should be linked to qualifications and skills and based on a comprehensive understanding of the local job market so that training is preparing people for work in industries where there are employment shortages. Improved use of ROTL: It needs to become the norm that all people in prison who are eligible have genuine opportunities to be released during the day to enable them to work in the community and earn a real wage. A real working day: People should be provided with a working pattern that, as far as is possible, mimics the working day on the outside, and prison regimes and staffing profiles should prioritise this. This provides people, who are able to, in prison with the experience of working full time. It would also make setting up workshops etc in prison a more attractive proposition for outside employers who would then see that their investment would be returned in the productivity of their workforce, rather than trying to make contracts work where there is limited productive time in the working day. Fair pay so people can pay for the things they need: Establish a national pay scale for people in prison, reviewing current wages to ensure that people in prison have sufficient funds to buy the things that they need, keep in touch with friends and family and save for release Fair prices so people can pay for the things they need: In addition to establishing a national pay scale for people in prison, we must also ensure that the items that they can buy, and the phone calls that they make, are priced fairly and in line with prices in the community. Saving for release: With a national payscale and increased wages, a portion of prison wages should be saved in a ringfenced Resettlement Fund. Needs-based and administered independently, this fund would be available to people in the run up to release and post-release to support with their transition to the community. It should be flexible to be able to support with things such as a rent deposit or to fund the completion of a qualification started in prison. This fund should be considered when reviewing prison wages to ensure people are able to buy the things they need and contribute to the Fund. Priority for the best jobs in preparation for release: Introduce a system so that towards the end of an individual’s prison term they have priority for the higher paid roles with automatic saving of a portion of that wage in the resettlement fund referred to above. People should have a fair chance of getting the better paid jobs by ensuring they have every opportunity to gain enhanced status. This would help to prepare people for work once released as the higher paid jobs in prison are often the ones with more responsibility and accountability

London: Nacro, 2023. 16p.

By Independent Monitoring Boards (IMBs)

Independent Monitoring Boards (IMBs) monitor and report on the conditions and treatment of those detained in every prison in England and Wales. They have specific powers and responsibilities in order to effectively monitor the conditions and treatment of those in CSUs. Boards are notified when a prisoner is segregated, can speak to prisoners in CSUs in private, are invited to attend segregation review boards (SRBs), and can access and review all records.

This report provides an overview of outcomes for men in closed adult prisons with mental health needs who are being held in CSUs. It is based on:

• A survey completed by IMBs at over 30 closed adult men’s prisons in England for four weeks during late Autumn 2022

• A follow-up survey six months later in Spring 2023 was completed by IMBs who had previously identified segregated prisoners waiting for transfers to more appropriate secure settings.

• Findings from IMBs’ most recent annual reports.

• Several IMBs’ recent correspondence to ministers, senior HMPPS officials, and healthcare bodies raising serious concerns over the care of prisoners with mental health needs in CSUs.

Key findings

• In recent years, almost all IMBs monitoring in prisons holding adult men have repeatedly raised concerns over CSUs not being a suitable or appropriate place for prisoners with mental health needs.

• Prisoners with mental health needs were often held for prolonged and long-term periods in CSUs. IMBs found that this was mostly due to:

  • Men struggling to cope or refusing to reintegrate back onto the residential wings (referred to as ‘normal location’)

  • Lack of capacity in prison healthcare units or prisons with specialist functions

  • Delays in referral, assessment, and transfer to a secure hospital

  • There being no alternative, often because of a lack of diagnosis or men not having met the threshold for admission to a secure hospital.

• Although most IMBs understood why CSUs were deemed the most appropriate place for these men to be held out of the limited locations available in prisons, there were still widespread concerns that CSUs were the only alternative for those who were acutely unwell and in need of specialist care.

• For men who were already struggling with their mental health, their well-being and behavior often deteriorated further while being segregated for prolonged periods.

• Prisoners with mental health needs were often moved between different CSUs, healthcare units, or were returned to wings for short periods which made it harder to track the cumulative time some prisoners spent segregated.

IMBs, 2024. 18p.

By John Clegg, Sebastian Spitz, Adaner Usmani, and Annalena Wolcke

The literature on the prevalence and causes of punishment has been dominated by research into the United States. Yet most of the world's prisoners live elsewhere, and the United States is no longer the country with the world's highest incarceration rate. This article considers what we know about the prevalence and causes of incarceration around the world. We focus on three features of incarceration: its level, inequality, and severity. Existing comparative research offers many insights, but we identify methodological and theoretical shortcomings. Quantitative scholars are still content to draw causal inferences from correlations, partly because (like qualitative scholars) they are often limited to studying the present and the developed world. More data will allow better inferences. We close by defending the goal of building precise and generalizable theories of punishment.

Annual Review of Criminology, Volume 7, Page 211 - 231

By Nazgol Ghandnoosh, Celeste Barry, and Luke Trinka

As noted in the first installment of this One in Five series, scholars have declared a “generational shift” in the lifetime likelihood of imprisonment for Black men, from a staggering one in three for those born in 1981 to a still troubling one in five for Black men born in 2001. The United States experienced a 25% decline in its prison population between 2009, its peak year, and 2021. While all major racial and ethnic groups experienced decarceration, the Black prison population has downsized the most. But with the prison population in 2021 nearly six times as large as 50 years ago and Black Americans still imprisoned at five times the rate of whites, the crisis of mass incarceration and its racial injustice remain undeniable What’s more, the progress made so far is at risk of stalling or being reversed. This third installment of the One in Five6 series examines three key causes of racial inequality from within the criminal legal system. While the consequences of these policies and issues continue to perpetuate racial and ethnic disparities, at least 50 jurisdictions around the country—including states, the federal government, and localities—have initiated promising reforms to lessen their impact.

Washington DC: The Sentencing Project, 2023. 34p 

By The Agenda for Youth Justice

This report is about girls and young women aged 17 to 25 years old in contact with the criminal justice system. In particular, it highlights the experiences of Black, Asian and minoritised young women, and young women with experience of the care system as both groups are overrepresented in the criminal justice system. 1 For a list of organisations and individuals Agenda and the Alliance for Youth Justice have engaged with over the course of the Young Women’s Justice Project, see Appendix 1. This is the final report of the Young Women’s Justice Project, run by Agenda and the Alliance for Youth Justice since January 2020. Based on new research, it builds on the work of the Young Women’s Justice Project literature review and two briefing papers produced during the project, with a focus on young women’s experiences of the transition from the youth to adult justice system, and young women in the criminal justice system’s experiences of violence, abuse and exploitation. 

London: Alliance for Youth Justice.2022. 68p.

By Agenda Alliance

This briefing forms part of the Young Women’s Justice Project (YWJP), run in partnership by Agenda Alliance and the Alliance for Youth Justice (AYJ) and funded by Lloyds Bank Foundation for England and Wales. This project has provided a national platform to make the case for gender-responsive support for girls and young women aged 17-25 in contact with the criminal justice system, exemplified by our report “We’ve Not Given Up” published in March 2022.1 This supplementary briefing, “A Call to Action: Responding to Young Women’s Needs”, provides actionable recommendations to deliver change for girls and young women either in contact with – or at-risk of contact with – the criminal justice system. We have expanded upon the rich evidence base of the YWJP by convening a stakeholder discussion with women’s centres, youth/ justice practitioners, specialist “by-and-for” services,2 and young women with lived experience of the justice system, further complemented by additional desk-based research and examples of good practice.3 This research outlines specific steps to develop age- and gender-responsive support for young women, and is intended as a vital resource for funders, commissioners, practitioners, service providers, and decisionmakers to inform their practice and build sector understanding of how existing issues can be addressed.  

London: Agenda Alliance 2023. 41p.

Michael L. Walker

Marshaling ethnographic data from a county jail, this study introduces “autonomy”—a novel concept and measurement of the degree to which an actor's exchange initiations are regulated by other exchange relations. This study rearticulates mutual dependence arguments about the social order of penological living in terms of social exchange theory and offers several innovations: 1) the structural forms of exchange relations in a penal housing unit stratify “carceral autonomy” across members of a social order; 2) diminished carceral autonomy contributes to the buildup of “exchange frustration”—the mixture of discontent and sadness experienced when goals cannot be achieved due the structure of an exchange network; 3) deprivations, inefficacies, and imported cultural standards contribute to what is exchanged and with whom in a penological setting; 4) caretaking in penological housing units is as much about maintaining social order through a form of generalized exchange as it is about network members helping each other; and 5) the emotional landscape of penological living can be mapped, in part, by examining the distribution of carceral autonomy and exchange frustration.

Criminology, Volume 61, Issue 4 November 2023, Pages 1022-1044

By Matthew Ohara

Reflecting on INQUEST’s groundbreaking work, this report outlines how it has remained true to its roots; working alongside bereaved people, exposing the violence and neglect of the state and its institutions and failing systems of investigation and accountability. Without INQUEST this would go unchallenged.

United Kingdom, London. INQUEST. 2023. 72pg

By Matt Cracknell

The Offender Rehabilitation Act (ORA) 2014 has extended post-release supervision to all individuals serving short sentences in England and Wales – a cohort who previously faced neglect within the criminal justice system. This empirical study uses a case study approach to explore the resettlement experiences of individuals subject to this new legislation, understanding how individuals circulate and re-cycle between a range of services and agencies in the community, further illuminating upon the reality of repeat ‘revolving door’ imprisonment. Drawing upon Cohen's ‘net widening’ analogy, this article posits that collectively the array of services involved in an individual's resettlement form a ‘resettlement net’, which segregates individuals in the community through control and surveillance functions, extending the carceral boundary of the prison firmly into the community. Welfare-orientated organisations become compelled to ‘braid’ welfare responses alongside penal functions in order to operate within the resettlement net. This article also explores some of the difficulties that individuals experience as they navigate the resettlement net, including informal forms of exclusion, and the wear and tear of the net, which undermines the rhetoric of care envisioned by this legislation, and drives individuals deeper into the mesh of carceral control.

United Kingdom, Middlesex University. Punishment and Society, Volume 25, Issue 1. 2021, 18pg

By Nicola Carr

The crisis in prisons in England and Wales has been brought sharply into focus. On 16 October 2023, the Justice Secretary announced measures aimed at reducing pressure on the prisons, caused in part by a record high of 88,225 people in custody (Chalk, 2023). As if this is not cause enough for concern, forecasts indicate that the population is due to rise even higher in the coming years with predictions that by March 2027 the population may rise to anywhere between 93,100 and 106,300 people (MoJ, 2023). It is clear from the Ministry's explanation of its forecasts the government's own policies (as well as the post-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) backlog of cases in the courts) are a central driver of prison population growth. In recent decades, almost every government policy relating to crime and justice has ratcheted up systemic pressure resulting in more people spending longer in prison. This includes longer sentences for certain offences and changes to mechanisms for prisoner release. Not to mention of course the people who remain imprisoned under the egregious Indeterminate Public Protection (IPP) sentence, which although abolished in 2012, has still left approximately 3000 people languishing in prison. While the Conservative party has been in power for over 12 years, this punitive policy direction has a longer lineage, IPPs were introduced in 2003 by a Labour Home Secretary, who has since regretted the injustice.

United Kingdom, Probation Journal Volume 70, Issue 4. 2023, 4pg

By Lucy Lang Inspector General

The myriad manifestations of systemic racism in the complex web of social systems throughout New York State and America writ large are well-documented. Criminal justice systems in particular are rife with racial inequities at every stage, from initial contact to arrest, trial, and sentence, and through re-entry and beyond, which are themselves inextricably connected to devastating racial disparities in inter-related and surrounding systems including, for example, education, housing, and public health. In December 2016, The New York Times1 reported on a specific alarming instance of such disparities—those in the allocation of behavioral infraction tickets2 and the attendant punishment by the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) to incarcerated individuals in the year 2015.3 Following publication of the New York Times findings, the then governor directed that the New York State Inspector General “investigate the allegations of racial disparities in discipline in State prisons” and recommend solutions.4 After an initial review, the Inspector General recommended that DOCCS engage the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) 5 , a federal agency that is part of the U.S. Department of Justice, to complete a comprehensive assessment based on their extensive national expertise. The Inspector General oversaw that process and the implementation of the accepted recommendations. Over the following half-dozen years, with the cooperation of DOCCS, the Inspector General continued to monitor these trends to determine whether the NIC recommendations had the desired impact, to observe the impact of additional measures implemented by DOCCS to identify and address possible racial bias in its facilities, programs, and disciplinary actions, and  to gather more comprehensive data in hopes of conclusively identifying the root causes of the observed disparities. As part of that effort, the Inspector General conducted its own comprehensive analysis of data maintained by DOCCS on the discipline of incarcerated individuals. This analysis expanded upon the methodology used by the Times6 by covering a broader period (2015-2020), using an alternate method of tallying of incarcerated populations7, and including reports of rule violations, which are known as Misbehavior Reports, that were ultimately dismissed. 8 In addition, the Inspector General retained a professor who is an expert in statistics to review and comment on its analysis.

United States, New York State Office of the Inspector General. 2022, 175pg

By: Matt Davis, Desiree L. Fox, Ciara D. Hansen,, Ann M. Miller

Native people are disproportionately incarcerated in the United States. Several factors contribute: a history of federal oppression and efforts to erode Native culture, a series of federal laws that rejected tribal justice systems in place long before European contact, historical trauma that has a lasting impact on the physical and mental well-being of Native people, a complicated jurisdictional structure that pulls Native people further into justice involvement, and a deficiency of representation for the accused in tribal courts. Although people accused of crime in tribal courts are afforded the right to counsel, tribal governments are not constitutionally required to provide appointed counsel for the indigent. As a result, there are uncounseled convictions in tribal courts used against Native people in state and federal systems.

There are 574 federally recognized tribal governments in the United States, each with its own culture, sovereign government, justice system, and historical relationship with the United States government. For this reason, interventions meant to address over-incarceration of Native people should start at the tribal level. Tribes could impact disparity on a national level by providing supportive and restorative services for those involved in their own justice systems. Tribes could impact disparities by providing public defender services, in particular, holistic public defense that employs a restorative approach. A holistic model of public defense addresses the issues that contribute to people’s involvement in the criminal justice system and the collateral consequences to criminal charges and convictions. Providing services that address underlying needs results in improved life outcomes that predictably result in less criminal justice involvement. This article highlights the Tribal Defenders Office (TDO) for the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes that has implemented holistic defense in a tribal setting.

Initially modeled after the Bronx Defenders, the Tribal Defenders holistic defense practice aligns with tribal values by going beyond the criminal case to view the accused as a whole person with a range of legal and social support needs that if left unmet will continue to push them back into the criminal justice system. Over the years, the Tribal Defenders’ team has worked to integrate into the community, listen to feedback from clients and the community, and refine the program accordingly. Through twelve years of integrated practice, TDO staff learned several lessons that have shaped their success: services come first, invest in culturally relevant research and services, listen to clients and the community, and adhere to cultural safety.

Although the article promotes holistic defense to the indigent as a solution to inequities facing justice-involved Native people, it also highlights other promising practices. Tribal systems have access to national organizations that support their efforts to address criminal justice challenges. There are tribal courts, victim services, probation departments, and reentry programs that have taken traditional, restorative principles and applied them in innovative ways to promote healing, wellness, and community safety.

United States, Safety & Justice Challenge. 2023. 23pg

By Michelle S. Phelps, H. N. Dickens, De Andre’ T. Beadle

Advocates for reform have highlighted violations of probation and parole conditions as a key driver of mass incarceration. As a 2019 Council of State Governments report declared, supervision violations are “filling prisons and burdening budgets.” Yet few scholarly accounts estimate the precise role of technical violations in fueling prison populations during the prison boom. Using national surveys of state prison populations from 1979 to 2016, the authors document that most incarcerated persons are behind bars for new sentences. On average, just one in eight people in state prisons on any given day has been locked up for a technical violation of community supervision alone. Thus, strategies to substantially reduce prison populations must look to new criminal offenses and sentence length.

United States, Socius Sociological Research for a Dynamic World. 2023, 3pg

By Jacqueline Beard

In March 2020 the Justice Secretary told the Justice Committee that the pressure on prisons in England and Wales due to coronavirus was acute.“a potential hotbed for viral transmission”, stating that “they are overcrowded, understaffed and often dirty”.2 The Head of the Prison Governors Association told the Guardian: 1 The Chair of the Justice Committee described prisons as a combination of prison overcrowding, prisoner lockdown and staff shortages as a result of prison workers needing to isolate themselves meant that the system was facing unprecedented pressure.3 The physical health of the prison population, across a broad range of conditions, is much poorer than that of the general population.4 The proportion of prisoners aged over 50 increased from 7% in 2002 to 16% in March 2019.5 Living conditions across much of the prison estate are poor. As at February 2020, 60% (70) of prison establishments were crowded.6 These 70 prisons accommodated around 60,000 prisoners or 71% of the total prison population. On 27 April 2020 the Justice Secretary said that the numbers of coronavirus cases and deaths in prisons were lower than had been originally predicted and that “while we are not out of woods”, prisons were coping and dealing well with the threat of covid-19. 7  A press release from the Ministry of Justice on the 28 April 2020 said that “jails are successfully limiting deaths and the transmission of the virus within the estate”.8 As of 12 May, 404 cases had been confirmed amongst prisoners. 21 prisoners and 7 members of prison staff had died.9  Public Health England (PHE) reported on 24 April 2020 that data it had collected “suggests that the ‘explosive outbreaks’ of COVID19 which were feared at the beginning of the pandemic wave are not being seen. Instead, there is evidence of containment of outbreak”.10 PHE’s report stated that because access to testing for prisoners has been limited and variable, the number of confirmed cases reported “does not represent the true burden of infection in the prison system”. It states that in addition to the 304 laboratory-confirmed cases in prisoners in England and Wales (at the time the report was written) data showed there had been also over 1,783 possible/probable cases. 

London, House of Commons Library. 2020. 10pg

By Emily Richards

Welcome to the first edition of The Cheal report - Understanding prisoners abroad. This report, compiled using the data that Prisoners Abroad has access to, aims to bring together important insights into the number and characteristics of British people that are detained in prisons overseas, their family and friends, and those that return to the UK. This inaugural report is named after one of Prisoners Abroad’s founders, Chris Cheal. Chris had been in prison in the 1970’s when he was visited by Joe Parham on behalf of the drugs charity Release. A few years later, after his release, Chris and Joe, along with Craig Feehan, decided to “start something new”, which went on to become Prisoners Abroad. When the charity started in 1978, it was not possible for a person to request to transfer to serve their sentence in the UK. Chris worked hard with a group of lawyers to draft a Bill for Parliament that led to the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentences which made such transfers possible. The tremendous impact of Chris’ work is still being felt today and, over 45 years later, we hope he would be proud of what Prisoners Abroad has become. In what we hope will be an annual publication, we look at how the numbers and characteristics are changing over time, and identify trends and challenges, across three key groups of people: (1) People in prison overseas, (2) Families and friends, and (3) People returning to the UK. The number of people we supported last year saw a gradual increase during the year and we expect numbers to continue to rise. Of the 1,170 people in prison overseas that we supported, significant numbers face isolation. Of those in non-English speaking countries, almost three-quarters do not speak the language of the country where they are imprisoned. Six in every ten people (61%) in prisons overseas do not receive any visits, 59% were not resident in the country of their detention prior to their arrest, and nearly a third (31%) do not receive any money or financial support from anyone outside the prison. 35% of people said they were not able to take part in any activities (e.g. education, sport) and only 29% said they had some form of work opportunity in the prison where they were detained. British people are facing acute health issues too. 38% of people in prison overseas reported to us that they had physical health issues, 24% had mental health issues, and 13% had substance abuse issues. We suspect these are an under-estimate as some people will be reluctant to tell us through prison communications, and we know that a significant number of people are experiencing a combination of these - for example, 105 clients report both physical and mental health issues, and 64 clients report experiencing all three. Of those returning to the UK, an increasing proportion are returning with health issues, with 35% reporting substance abuse issues (compared to 35% two years ago) and 47% reporting mental health issues (compared to 30% two years ago). In this first edition, all of the data we have drawn on is what we have collected. As part of our strategic objective to ensure that all British citizens in prisons overseas are aware of what we do and are able to access our support, we are looking at what more can be done to better understand the total number of British citizens in prison overseas and where they are, and we hope that in the next edition there will be more data of this type.

United Kingdom, Prisoners Abroad. 2023, 20 pg

By James Hess

The California Prison Industry Authority (CALPIA) is a self-supporting training and production program currently operating within the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). CALPIA provides training, certification and employment to inmates in a variety of different fields. The goods and services produced by CALPIA are sold to the state and other government entities, which provides an economic benefit to the state. In addition to the vocational and economic aspect of the program, one of CALPIA’s missions is to reduce the subsequent recidivism of their inmate participants. This research examines the effect of participation in CALPIA on the recidivism of CDCR inmates released into the community. 

Irvine, California, School of Social Ecology. 2021, 40pg

By Brian Bailey

FROM THE COVER: From the appointment of the infamous Jack Ketch in 1663 to the abolition of the death penalty in 1969, England saw three-hundred years of hanging for a multitude of crimes from stealing a loaf of bread to murder. Public hangings drew vast crowds and the hangman himself became an almost mythical figure of fascinated revulsion. Certainly the men who undertook this gruesome duty were an unusual breed. At first they were often recruited from the same prisons as their victims, and perhaps unsurprisingly they ended up, like John Price, 'dancing the Tyburn jig' at the end of the same rope.

Barnes and Noble. NY. 1989. 230p.