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 Joseph Broadus, Sara Muller-Ravett, Arielle Sherman and Cindy Redcross

This report presents results from a fidelity assessment and implementation analysis of five Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO) replication programs in New York, California, and Oklahoma. Between 2004 and 2010, MDRC conducted a rigorous random assignment evaluation of the original CEO program as part of the Enhanced Services for the Hard-to-Employ Demonstration and Evaluation funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The evaluation found that CEO was effective at reducing recidivism rates — the rates at which participants committed new crimes or were reincarcerated — among important subgroups of its participant population. Based in part on these findings, the CEO program was selected by the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation in 2011 to be part of its Social Innovation Fund and receive funding and technical assistance to expand and replicate the model in various locations across the United States. The findings presented in this report focus on the implementation of CEO’s core elements at the replication sites and provide a description of participants’ experience with the program. One additional goal of this study is to gain a deeper understanding of which aspects of the CEO model may have contributed to the reductions in recidivism found in the initial evaluation of the New York City program.

New York: MDRC, 2016. 114p.

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 Kevin R. Reitz, Edward E. Rhine, Allegra Lukac, and Melanie Griffith

“Indeterminacy” is the product of uncertainty, after a judge has pronounced a prison sentence, about later official decisions that will influence the actual time served by the defendant. The uncertainty extends over many future decisions, such as good-time awards or forfeitures by prison officials and release or release-denial decisions by parole boards. To the extent these later decision patterns are unpredictable, the judge’s sentence is “indeterminate” on the day of sentencing. When prison sentences are highly indeterminate, many months or years of time-to-be-served can be unforeseeable in individual cases. The mechanics of indeterminacy in prison sentencing vary enormously from state to state, and are not well understood. In many states, time-served policy is largely administered at the “back end” of the sentencing system. If prison policy is aimed toward retribution or public safety, it is back-end officials who ultimately choose how best to achieve those goals. This raises critical questions of whether they are well-positioned to be stewards of the public interest, and whether their procedures are adequate to the task. Such questions are especially urgent in a nation with high incarceration rates. In most American jurisdictions, however, back-end decisionmaking about prison-sentence length has low visibility and is unglamorous. Very few people pay serious attention to its workings. From a systemic perspective, indeterminacy can be seen as the field of play in which back-end officials with time-served discretion exercise their powers. The larger the field—the greater the degree of indeterminacy—the greater the whole-system impact of back-end decisions. Indeterminacy builds up cumulative effects over hundreds and thousands of cases. In systems with high degrees of indeterminacy, a substantial amount of control over prison population size is located at the back end of the system. In many states, back-end officials have more to say about prison numbers than sentencing courts. Yet few people are aware of this.

Minneapolis, MN: Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, University of Minnesota, 2022. 145p.

By Ebony Ruhland , Edward E. Rhine , Jason Robey and Kelly Lyn Mitchell

The Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice launched a national survey of releasing authorities in March 2015 to each state, and the U.S. Parole Commission. The importance of the survey was underscored by an endorsement from the Association of Paroling Authorities International (APAI). We are pleased to present the results from this important survey here. This is the first comprehensive survey of parole boards completed in nearly ten years. Its findings provide a rich database for better understanding the policy and practice of paroling authorities. The last survey to be conducted of paroling authorities was in 2007 - 2008. The current report offers an expansion and update of previous surveys. The results summarized throughout the report offer a timely resource for paroling authorities, correctional policy-makers and practitioners, legislators, and those with a public policy interest in sentencing and criminal justice operations. It is our hope that the document and its findings provide key justice system and other stakeholders with an incisive snapshot of the work of paroling authorities across the country in a manner that contributes to a larger conversation about sound and effective parole release and revocation practices.

Minneapolis: Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 2016. 56p.

By Madeline M. Carter, and The Honorable Richard J. Sankovitz

Isaac Newton was among the first modern scientists to recognize that new discoveries depend heavily on science that is already established: “If I have seen further,” he wrote, “it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.”1 Giant strides have been made in the fields of public administration and criminal justice by applying science to practice. Evidence-based decision making asserts that public policy and practice should be informed by the best available research and enhanced through ongoing performance measurement and evaluation. Scientific study has demonstrated that recidivism can be reduced when three key principles are followed: n The risk principle suggests that justice system interventions should be matched to offenders’ risk level, focusing more intensive interventions on moderate and high risk offenders. n The need principle asserts that justice system interventions should target those factors that most significantly influence criminal behavior. n The responsivity principle demonstrates that interventions are most effective when they are based on research-supported models and tailored to the unique characteristics of individual offenders. In this paper, we propose to take this knowledge one step further: to link the duration of probation supervision to the optimal amount of intervention an offender needs in order to reduce risk of reoffense. The proposed “dosage” model of probation suggests that the length of supervision should be determined by the number of hours of intervention necessary to reduce risk, rather than an arbitrarily (or customarily) established amount of time (e.g., 3 years, 5 years). For many offenders, the research shows that correctional intervention is analogous to treating a patient: too little intervention and the patient receives little or no benefit; too much, and the treatment is ineffective or even harmful.2 Given this, we postulate that the length of supervision should depend on how long it takes an offender to achieve the dosage target—the type and amount of intervention that research tells us he or she needs in order to maximize the potential for behavior change and that is necessary in order to minimize risk to the public—rather than a fixed term of supervision.

Silver Spring, MD: Center For Effective Public Policy , 2014. 22p.

By Madeline Carter

In 2011, while working in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on the Evidence-Based Decision Making Initiative, sponsored by the National Institute of Corrections (NIC), the Center for Effective Public Policy (the Center) pioneered the concept of “dosage probation.” In 2012, NIC awarded a cooperative agreement to the Center and its partner The Carey Group to develop a model that would further explore this concept and outline the activities, processes, and objectives that a jurisdiction would carry out at the individual case, agency, and system levels to implement dosage probation as a risk reduction intervention. The model was introduced through the publication of a monograph entitled Dosage Probation: Rethinking the Structure of Probation Sentences (Carter & Sankovitz, 2014). In subsequent years, NIC supported implementation of the model in two pilot sites: Napa County, California, and Washington County, Minnesota. Much has been learned from these pilot efforts.

The dosage probation model suggests that the length of supervision should be determined by the number of hours of intervention necessary to reduce risk as opposed to a standard probation term, such as 3, 4, 5, etc., years. Dosage probation is designed to incentivize behavior change by providing an opportunity for the individual under supervision to receive early termination from probation if they successfully engage in risk reduction interventions tailored to their criminogenic needs, in a “dose” matched to their risk level. This document, the second in a series, provides background information on the dosage probation project; a summary of the literature pertinent to dosage; and information about the dosage pilot sites, including key lessons that emerged from the pilot project. It also lays the foundation for a forthcoming set of resources on this topic: The Dosage Probation Toolkit.

Silver Spring, MD: Center for Effective Public Policy, 2020.

By James Austin

This study examined the extent to which the Prisoner Classification Management (PMC) system improved prison operations and reduced violence between inmates. The PMC system classifies inmates into one of five categories: selective intervention -- situational (SI-S); selective intervention -- treatment (SI-T); casework control (CC); environmental structure (ES); and limit setting (LS). Data were collected from records kept by the Research and Planning Section of Washington's Department of Corrections. Data included inmate characteristics (JU67W.DAT), work assignment records (JU68W.DAT), disciplinary records (JU69W.DAT), assignment records (JU70W.DAT), and housing assignment records (JU71W.DAT). Data were also collected from a long (JUnW.DAT) and short (JU73W.DAT) PMC questionnaire. Checks for out-of-range values revealed that the data are free of detectable coding errors.

San Francisco: National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 1990. 100p.

By Ian O'Donnell

Prisoners, Solitude, and Time by Ian O’Donnell is a major addition to the number of outstanding books on imprisonment already published in the Clarendon Studies in Criminology series. As the title indicates, its focus is on prisoners’ experience of solitary confinement, their handling of time, and the interface between these. Professor O’Donnell brings to bear on these issues a wealth of academic expertise, primarily as a psychologist and historian, as well as experience in penal reform, prison visiting, and as a magistrate. The result is an immaculately written book that is not only scholarly but also thought-provoking, moving, and ultimately inspiring about the potential of human beings to somehow and sometimes transcend even the most cruel and unusual deprivations and pains. Time is of the essence of prison as punishment, captured in the cliché ‘if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime’. Yet the vast criminological literature scarcely focuses on the subjective experience of ‘doing time’.

Oxford, UK; New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. 353p.

By Thomas Mathiesen

A leading text of worldwide renown: available in Norwegian, Danish, English, Swedish, German, Spanish, Italian - and now being translated into Chinese. In this new Third Edition - with its new preface, epilogue and other revisions (plus all the material from earlier editions) - the author expands on the control aspects of prison, the gear change brought about by responses to international terrorism post-September 11 and the London bombings and explains how contemporary events are changing the boundaries of crime and punishment and increasing the risks to civil liberties and the Rule of Law. Thomas Mathiesen also argues for an 'Alternative Public Space' where discussion of serious and fundamental issues of this nature can take place free from the superficial world of knee-jerk reactions from politicians and the entertainment driven needs of the press and media.Part of the "Waterside Press Criminal Policy Series", Prison On Trial distils the arguments for and against imprisonment in a readable, accessible and authoritative way, making Thomas Mathiesen's work a classic for students and other people concerned to understand the real issues. It is as relevant today as when it was first published, arguably more so as policy-making becomes increasingly politicized and true opportunities to influence developments diminish. Mindful of this, Mathiesen recommends an 'alternative public space' where people can engage in valid discussion on the basis of sound information, free from the survival priority of the media, to entertain.

Winchester, UK: Waterside Press, 2006. 215p

Edited by Tom Daems and Luc Robert

This volume explores the role that European institutions have come to play in regulating national prisons systems. The authors introduce and contribute to advancing a new research agenda in international penology (‘Europe in prisons’) which complements the conventional comparative approach (‘prisons in Europe’). The chapters examine the impact – if any – that institutions such as the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the European Court of Human Rights have had on prison policy throughout Europe. With contributions from a wide range of countries such as Albania, Austria, Belgium, Ireland, Norway and Spain, this edited collection offers a wide-ranging and authoritative guide to the effects of European institutions on prison policy.

Cham: Springer International Publishing , 2017. 333p.

By Mark S. Fleisher and Jessie L. Krienert

The Myth of Prison Rape provides a nuanced glimpse into the complex sexual dynamics of the American prison. Drawing on results from the most comprehensive study of inmate sexuality to date, the authors analyze the intricacies of sexuality and sexual violence in daily inmate life. Dynamic case studies and interview excerpts enliven this cultural study of sexuality, safety, and violence in American prisons

Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2009. 219p.

By Elaine Crawley

Prisons are at once extraordinary and ordinary institutions. They are extraordinary in that they are places in which large numbers of strangers are forced to live, in close proximity with each other, often for sustained periods. On entry to the prison, these strangers are stripped, searched and relieved of their personal possessions by other strangers - prison officers acting on behalf of the state. These officers are obliged to regulate prisoners' behaviour and ensure that they do not escape. Once inside, assigned to a cell and dressed in prison clothing, the strangers-nowprisoners are under almost constant surveillance, and instructed as to how they should conduct themselves, what is expected of them, and at what time, throughout the period of their sentences. In old prisons which stand in the centre of towns, all this may take place only yards from where people are freely going about their daily business - shopping, visiting the hairdressers or the pub, taking children to school, walking in the park. Whenever I step into the sunshine after spending the day in one prison or other, I rarely fail to be struck by this thought and by the apparent invisibility of this other world to passers-by. Yet in many respects, prisons are also very ordinary. They are ordinary in that much of prison life, especially long-term prison life, revolves around those mundane matters which concern all of us in our non-prison lives - eating, sleeping, cleaning and tidying, doing the laundry, working (or looking for work), thinking about family and friends, attempting to alleviate boredom. All these concerns occupy prisoners because the prison is where prisoners must live and, as such, the prisoner is a member of what Clemmer (1940) terms the prison 'community'.

Cullompton, Devon, UK: Willan Publishing, 2004. 298p.

By Graham J Towl and David A Crighton

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.

Hook, UK: Waterside Press, 2017. 208p.

Edited by Tim Causer, Margot Finn, and Philip Schofield

Jeremy Bentham and Australia is a collection of scholarship inspired by Bentham’s writings on Australia. These writings are available for the first time in authoritative form in Panopticon versus New South Wales and other writings on Australia, a volume in The Collected Works of Jeremy Bentham published by UCL Press.

In the present collection, a distinguished group of authors reflect on Bentham’s Australian writings, making original contributions to existing debates and setting agendas for future ones. In the first part of the collection, the works are placed in their historical contexts, while the second part provides a critical assessment of the historical accuracy and plausibility of Bentham’s arguments against transportation from the British Isles. In the third part, attention turns to Bentham’s claim that New South Wales had been illegally founded and to the imperial and colonial constitutional ramifications of that claim. Here, authors also discuss Bentham’s work of 1831 in which he supports the establishment of a free colony on the southern coast of Australia. In the final part, authors shed light on the history of Bentham’s panopticon penitentiary scheme, his views on the punishment and reform of criminals and what role, if any, religion had to play in that regard, and discuss apparently panopticon-inspired institutions built in the Australian colonies.

This collection will appeal to readers interested in Bentham’s life and thought, the history of transportation from the British Isles, and of British penal policy more generally, colonial and imperial history, Indigenous history, legal and constitutional history, and religious history.

London: UCL Press, 2022. 425p.

By National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; Committee on Law and Justice; Committee on Evaluating Success Among People Released from Prison; Richard Rosenfeld and Amanda Grigg, Editors

Nearly 600,000 people are released from state and federal prisons annually. Whether these individuals will successfully reintegrate into their communities has been identified as a critical measure of the effectiveness of the criminal legal system. However, evaluating the successful reentry of individuals released from prison is a challenging process, particularly given limitations of currently available data and the complex set of factors that shape reentry experiences.

The Limits of Recidivism: Measuring Success After Prison finds that the current measures of success for individuals released from prison are inadequate. The use of recidivism rates to evaluate post-release success ignores significant research on how and why individuals cease to commit crimes, as well as the important role of structural factors in shaping post-release outcomes. The emphasis on recidivism as the primary metric to evaluate post-release success also ignores progress in other domains essential to the success of individuals returning to communities, including education, health, family, and employment.

In addition, the report highlights the unique and essential insights held by those who have experienced incarceration and proposes that the development and implementation of new measures of post-release success would significantly benefit from active engagement with individuals with this lived experience. Despite significant challenges, the report outlines numerous opportunities to improve the measurement of success among individuals released from prison and the report’s recommendations, if implemented, will contribute to policies that increase the health, safety, and security of formerly incarcerated persons and the communities to which they return.

Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26459.

Edited by Emily A. Wang, Bruce Western, Emily P. Backes, and Julie Schuck

The conditions and characteristics of correctional facilities — overcrowded with rapid population turnover, often in old and poorly ventilated structures, a spatially concentrated pattern of releases and admissions in low-income communities of color, and a health care system that is siloed from community public health — accelerates transmission of the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) responsible for COVID-19. Such conditions increase the risk of coming into contact with the virus for incarcerated people, correctional staff, and their families and communities. Relative to the general public, moreover, incarcerated individuals have a higher prevalence of chronic health conditions such as asthma, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease, making them susceptible to complications should they become infected. Indeed, cumulative COVID-19 case rates among incarcerated people and correctional staff have grown steadily higher than case rates in the general population. Decarcerating Correctional Facilities during COVID-19 offers guidance on efforts to decarcerate, or reduce the incarcerated population, as a response to COIVD-19 pandemic. This report examines best practices for implementing decarceration as a response to the pandemic and the conditions that support safe and successful reentry of those decarcerated.

Washington (DC): National Academies Press ; 2020. 161p.