By Kevin R. Reitz and Edward F. Rhine

Decisions tied to parole release, supervision, and revocation are major determinants of the ebb and flow of prison populations across two-thirds of US states. We argue that parole release, as an institution, has been an underacknowledged force in American incarceration and reincarceration policy and an important contributor to the nation's buildup to mass incarceration. In paroling states, no court or state agency holds greater power than parole boards over time actually served by the majority of offenders sent to prison. We examine the leverage exercised by parole boards through their discretionary release decisions and their powers to sanction violators of parole conditions. We note the state-by-state diversity and complexity associated with parole-release decisions and the absence of successful state systems that might serve as a model for other jurisdictions. We highlight the procedural shortfalls universally associated with parole decision-making. We discuss the long reach of parole supervision and the pains it imposes on those subject to its jurisdiction, including the substantial financial burdens levied on parolees. We then turn to the prospects for parole reform and outline a comprehensive blueprint for improving parole release in America.

Annual Review of CriminologyVol. 3:281-29, 2020.

By Edward E. Rhine, Kelly Lyn Mitchell, and Kevin R. Reitz

Paroling authorities play an important, if often unrecognized role, in American prison policies. Discretionary parole processes decide the actual release dates for most individuals subject to confinement in 34 states. Additional leverage over time served is exercised through parole boards’ revocation and re-release authority. The degree of discretion these back-end officials exert over the dosage of incarceration is vast, sometimes more than that held by sentencing courts.

Any comprehensive program to change American prison policy must focus to a significant degree on prison-release discretion, where it exists, and its relationship to time served. During the buildup to mass incarceration, many parole boards became increasingly reluctant to grant release to eligible prisoners. Today, if it were possible to reverse this upward driver of prison populations, parole boards could be important contributors to a new evidence-based status quo of lower prison rates in many states. Reasonable objectives of reform include policy-driven increases in the likelihood of parole release, and more rational decision making overall about time served.

This report describes twelve “levers of change,” each associated with potential reforms in the realm of discretionary parole release. The reforms are called “change levers” because, once a lever is pulled, it is designed to impact prison populations by altering parole grant rates and durations of time served. The report identifies 12 areas of innovation that, to some degree, have already been tried by a number of states. In most cases, from a distance, it is impossible to evaluate the quality of each state’s implementation of one or more change levers, or the results that have been achieved. But the fact that states have begun to experiment in specific areas shows that there is an appetite for reform. In addition, actual experimentation indicates that some of the groundwork has been laid for evaluation, improvement, and dissemination of promising ideas to many additional states.

Some levers have become embedded in the decision protocols of parole boards over the past 20 years and more, while others have emerged only recently. One of the goals of this report is to demonstrate how combining the levers is key to reform. This report maps the terrain of the 12 identified change levers, to the degree permitted by available information. The map shows a huge amount of state-by-state variation, even without hands-on study of each system. The report further classifies individual levers based on the number of jurisdictions in which they have been identified, and their potential impact on states’ prison populations.

St. Paul, MN: Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 2022. 36p.

By Brittany C. Cunningham; Daniel S. Lawrence; Michael D. White; Bryce E. Peterson; James R. Coldren, Jr.; Jennifer Lafferty; Keri Richardson

his final research report presents an evaluation of body-worn cameras (BWCs) in the Loudoun County, Virginia, Adult Detention Center. The goal of this study was to conduct a rigorous process and impact evaluation of BWCs in a correctional setting to inform researchers and practitioners about the implementation and potential impacts of BWCs on critical correctional outcomes. To achieve this goal, the study team implemented a 12-month, clustered, randomized controlled trial, and collected data using a mixed-method design. Primary data sources included the following: surveys of deputies; interviews of jail leaders, deputies, and external jail stakeholders; a focus group with deputies who serve on the Special Weapons and Tactics team; observations of jail operations and BWC trainings; review and analysis of jail administrative data, including response to resistance (RTR) events and resident injuries; and review and analysis of data collected from stationary cameras and BWC footage. Research findings suggested that BWCs have potential for improving the safety and security of correctional facilities by reducing RTR events and preventing injuries to incarcerated residents. However, findings from deputy surveys raised questions about the potential impact of BWCs on deputy-resident relations. The study also addressed one of the primary points of contention about implementing BWCs in correctional environments: that they are superfluous to the existing network of stationary cameras. This study found limitations with both types of cameras, as well as areas where they can complement one another to help overcome those limitations. The study team made several recommendations for policy and disseminated the research through both academic and practitioner conferences and publications.

Alexandria, VA: CNA Analysis & Solutions, 2023. 26p

By Ashley Nellis, Ph.D. and Liz Komar

In 2018, Congress passed and then-President Donald Trump signed into law the bipartisan First Step Act, a sweeping criminal justice reform bill designed to promote rehabilitation, lower recidivism, and reduce excessive sentences in the federal prison system. Lawmakers and advocates across both political parties supported the bill as a necessary step to address some of the punitive excesses of the 1980s and 1990s.

The First Step Act includes a range of sentencing reforms which made the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 retroactive,I enhanced judicial discretion, created earned time credits, increased good time credits, reduced certain mandatory minimum sentences, and expanded the safety valve that allows persons with minor prior convictions to serve less time than previously mandated.

The First Step Act also seeks to expand opportunities for people in federal prisons to participate in rehabilitative programming to support their success after release. The law aims to produce lower odds of recidivism by incentivizing incarcerated individuals to engage in rigorous, evidence-based rehabilitation and education programming. In exchange and based on a favorable assessment of risk to the community, they may earn an earlier opportunity for release to community corrections.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) reports promising results thus far. The recidivism rate among people who have benefitted from the law is considerably lower than those who were released from prison without benefit of the law. Among the nearly 30,000 individuals whose release has been expedited by the First Step Act, nearly nine in every 10 have not been rearrested or reincarcerated. This 12% recidivism rate lies in stark contrast to the more typical 45% recidivism rate among people released from federal prison.

Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2023. 9p.

By Natasa Mavronicola

This open access book theorises and concretises the idea of ‘absolute rights’ in human rights law with a focus on Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It unpacks how we might understand what an ‘absolute right’ in human rights law is and draws out how such a right’s delimitation may remain faithful to its absolute character. From these starting points, it considers how, as a matter of principle, the right not to be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment enshrined in Article 3 ECHR is, and ought, to be substantively delimited by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Focusing on the wrongs at issue, this analysis touches both on the core of the right and on what some might consider to lie at the right’s ‘fringes’: from the aggravated wrong of torture to the severity assessment delineating inhumanity and degradation; the justified use of force and its implications for absoluteness; the delimitation of positive obligations to protect from ill-treatment; and the duty not to expel persons to places where they face a real risk of torture, inhumanity or degradation. Few legal standards carry the simultaneous significance and contestation surrounding this right. This book seeks to contribute fruitfully to efforts to counter a proliferation of attempts to dispute, circumvent or dilute the absolute character of the right not to be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and to offer the groundwork for transparently and coherently (re)interpreting the right’s contours in line with its absolute character. Winner of the 2022 SLS Peter Birks Prize for Outstanding Legal Scholarship.

London: Bloomsbury/Hart, 2022. 221p.

By Tammy Ayres, Ruth Hatcher and Emma Palmer

The Drug Recovery Prison (DRP) at HMP Holme House began in 2017 as a three-year pilot, jointly funded by NHS England (NHSE) and MOJ/HMPPS. The DRP aimed to address the supply of and demand for alcohol and illegal substances, improve treatment outcomes, and support ongoing recovery. The DRP process evaluation, jointly commissioned by MOJ and NHSE, aimed to understand how the pilot had been implemented, providing evidence on the roll out and capturing the perceptions and experiences of staff and prisoners.

Ministry of Justice Analytical Series, 2023. London: Ministry of Justice, 2023. 107p.

Edited by Bev Clucas, Gerry Johnstone, and Tony Ward

Not so long ago, the only respectable question for philosophical, legal, and political scholars to ask about torture was how to ensure its effective legal prohibition. Recently, however, some leading lawyers and legal theorists have challenged those who are absolutely opposed to torture, arguing that, in some circumstances, torture may be morally permissible or even required. This has provoked a range of responses, from outraged dismissal to cautious concessions that the law has to adjust to new realities. This volume contains writings by some of the leading contributors to these debates. Distinctively, it supplements the discussion about the morality of torture - and the morality of discussing torture - with essays which provide important legal, sociological, and historical analyses of this appalling human practice and of the attempts to control it. With an international and interdisciplinary authorship, Torture: Moral Absolutes and Ambiguities will be essential reading for legal and political theorists, philosophers, sociologists, historians, and indeed anybody interested in serious and informed thinking about this most disturbing phenomenon.

Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, 2009. 215p/

By Penal Reform International and the University of Nottingham

Mortality rates are up to 50% higher in prison than in the community, linked to a wide range of causes and contributing factors which raise serious concerns for human rights, public health, and prison management. Yet, information on who is dying in prison and why, including disaggregated data, remains a key problem in understanding and reducing deaths in prisons.

This briefing is a call to action for the international community and national actors to strengthen their approach to deaths in prisons, to take pro-active measures to prevent loss of life and, when deaths do occur, to respond appropriately and conduct robust investigations in line with international human rights standards to identify any systemic concerns and prevent future harm.

Published in partnership with the University of Nottingham, it is based on research conducted as part of the prisonDEATH initiative and survey responses to a call for input from PRI from a variety of stakeholders in 25 countries covering all regions, as well as 19 prison administrations facilitated by EuroPris. Aimed to inspire action, it includes some recommendations to guide human rights-based responses to prevent premature or avoidable deaths in prison.

London: PRI, 2022. 16p.

By Prison Reform International and the University of Nottingham

nvestigating deaths in prisons is an essential part of a state’s human rights responsibilities, including the obligation to guarantee the right to life and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Investigations of deaths in prisons provide crucial evidence to find out what went wrong, provide redress to families, improve prison management and ultimately prevent future deaths.

This guide by PRI and the University of Nottingham provides prison authorities, policy makers, law enforcement officials, and families of persons deprived of liberty guidance and analysis on the basic features of human rights-based investigations into deaths in prison. It sets out key international and regional jurisprudence and includes recommendations to assist in designing and implementing an effective investigation system, as well as promising practices to inspire authorities to develop and implement reforms.

London: PRI, 2023. 26p.

By Nathan W. Link, Kathleen Powell, Jordan M. Hyatt, and Ebony L. Ruhland

Monetary sanctions levied on individuals on probation and parole may dramatically influence their ability to reintegrate into the community and to complete their community supervision. Yet very little work has empirically assessed how agencies respond to these obligations. This is critical, given that individuals under community supervision occupy a liminal space: free in the community yet often at risk of violation, rearrest, additional fines, or re-incarceration. In this article, we introduce an approach to the collection and management of monetary sanctions by an adult probation and parole agency in one Pennsylvania county. This specialized department focuses solely on repayment of fines, fees, and costs for a subset of probationers and parolees who have completed all other supervision requirements. We complement the conceptual overview by presenting administrative data on this caseload (N = 5,811) to describe the population under supervision and assess the factors associated with debt amount, having difficulty with repayment, and being the subject of an enforcement action for non-payment. We conclude with a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of this model compared with historical and other existing models of debt enforcement during community supervision.

Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, Volume 37, Issue 1, February 2021, Pages 128-147

By Annie Harper, Callie Ginapp, Tommaso Bardelli, Alyssa Grimshaw & Marissa Justen & Alaa Mohamedali & Isaiah Thomas & Lisa Puglisi

People involved with the criminal justice system in the United States are disproportionately low-income and indebted. The experience of incarceration intensifies financial hardship, including through worsening debt. Little is known about how people who are incarcerated and their families are impacted by debt and how it affects their reentry experience. We conducted a scoping review to identify what is known about the debt burden on those who have been incarcerated and their families and how this impacts their lives. We searched 14 databases from 1990 to 2019 for all original research addressing financial debt held by those incarcerated in the United States, and screened articles for relevance and extracted data from pertinent studies. These 31 studies selected for inclusion showed that this population is heavily burdened by debt that was accumulated in three general categories: debt directly from criminal justice involvement such as LFOs, pre-existing debt that compounded during incarceration, and debts accrued during reentry for everyday survival. Debt was generally shown to have a negative effect on financial well-being, reentry, family structure, and mental health. Debts from LFOs and child support are very common among the justice-involved population and are largely unpayable. Other forms of debt likely to burden this population remain largely understudied. Extensive reform is necessary to lessen the burden of debt on the criminal justice population in order to improve reentry outcomes and quality of life.

American Journal of Criminal Justice (2021) 46:250–278

By Emily D. Buehler

This report describes substantiated incidents of inmate sexual victimization by another inmate or by staff. It presents data on the incidents of sexual victimization, such as location and time of day. It also provides characteristics of the victims and perpetrators of the victimization. The report details services provided to the victim and consequences for the perpetrator. In part, it fulfills BJS’s mandates under the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA; P.L. 108–79).

Highlights

• During 2016–18:

• Half of both inmate-on-inmate and staff-on-inmate sexual victimization incidents occurred in an area not under video surveillance.

• There were 2,886 victims of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization and 2,496 victims of staff-on-inmate sexual victimization in adult correctional facilities.

• About 25% of victims of inmate-on-inmate nonconsensual sexual acts and 43% of victims of abusive sexual contact were female.

• The victim was given a medical examination in 61% of inmate-on-inmate nonconsensual sexual act incidents and in 36% of abusive sexual contact incidents

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2023. 36p.

By The United States Sentencing Commission

This report updates and expands upon the Commission's 2012 Report to the Congress: Federal Child Pornography Offenses. In this report, the Commission provides data from fiscal year 2019 regarding:

• the content of the offender’s child pornography collection and nature of the offender’s collecting behavior;

• the offender’s degree of involvement with other offenders, particularly in an internet community devoted to child pornography and child sexual exploitation; and

• the offender’s engagement in sexually abusive or exploitative conduct in addition to the child pornography offense.

The report also examines the evolution of technology since the 2012 Child Pornography Report its continued impact on offender conduct and the widespread applicability of sentencing enhancements. Lastly, it provides a recidivism analysis of non-production offenders.

Washington, DC: USSC, 2021. 94p.

By The Independent Monitoring Boards

Independent Monitoring Boards (IMBs) monitor and report on the conditions and treatment of those detained in every prison in England and Wales. The government recently rejected the Justice Select Committee’s recommendation for a resentencing exercise to take place for anyone serving an IPP sentence. IMBs submitted current findings on the impact of this decision, and the sentence itself, on IPP prisoners’ wellbeing. This briefing summarises findings from 24 IMBs submitted between 17 February and 9 March 2023 and references two 2021-22 annual reports from IMBs at HMPs Hewell and Moorland, which conducted surveys with IPP prisoners. Key findings The findings indicated: • Serious safety implications were heightened by the recent announcement, with assessment, care in custody and teamwork (ACCT) documents being opened for several IPP prisoners. Three apparently self-inflicted deaths of IPP prisoners occurred in three prisons in the four weeks following the announcement. • IPP prisoners had increased feelings of hopelessness and frustration following the announcement, which IMBs noted could act as a catalyst for poor mental health, violence and disruptive behaviour. • Variable and often inadequate staff engagement both pre- and post-announcement, with some prisoners only learning of the decision through a letter. • Progression pathways were poor and unclear to prisoners, which meant many prisoners questioned whether they would ever be released following the announcement. Some prisoners were being held in inappropriate establishments, often without access to required courses. The increasing difficulty of transferring to open conditions has left some prisoners ‘institutionalised’. • Insufficient preparation for parole hearings and for release, with reports of inadequate care plans and ‘through the gate’ provision. This lack of provision contributed to recall: for example, some prisoners were recalled only because of issues arising from the loss of accommodation.

London: Independent Monitoring Boards, 2023. 6p.

By Ben Jarman and Claudia Vince

This report presents the findings of a prisoner consultation carried out by PRT’s Building Futures programme. Around 100 responses were received from people in prison to four questions relating to their progression.

The report looks at what is meant by risk reduction and assessment, and progression both in terms of offending behaviour courses and the personal progression of prisoners. It also examines the relationship between risk and progression, and the lack of clarity felt by prisoners.

The report identifies missed opportunities for the progression and development of long-term prisoners but makes recommendations to improve the system.

London: Prison Reform Trust, 2022. 76p.

By Jill Curran, Brendan Saloner, Tyler N.A. Winkelman, et al

Question: How commonly are medications for chronic conditions used in jails and state prisons compared with community settings in the US? Findings In this cross-sectional descriptive study of incarcerated and non-incarcerated populations in the US from 2018 to 2020, use of prescription medications for chronic conditions was consistently lower in jails and state prisons compared with community settings. After adjusting for disease prevalence, the relative disparity was 2.9-fold for diabetes, 5.5-fold for asthma, 2.4-fold for hypertension, 1.9-fold for hepatitis B or C, 3.0-fold for human immunodeficiency virus, 4.1-fold for depression, and 4.1-fold for severe mental illness. Meaning This analysis suggests that prescription medications for chronic conditions may be substantially underused in jails and state prisons in the US relative to the non-incarcerated population, after accounting for the differential burden of disease in these settings.

JAMA Health Forum. 2023;4(4):e230482. doi:10.1001/jamahealthforum.2023.0482

By Terry Schuster, Kristin King

During a summer marked by record-setting heat waves, the state of New Jersey housed roughly 3,500 people in prison housing units with no air conditioning. About 3,000 correctional police officers were also assigned to these non-temperature-controlled spaces. On July and August site visits, the Office of the Corrections Ombudsperson measured temperatures in 80 percent of the state’s populated housing units and conducted brief interviews with incarcerated individuals and staff. Temperatures inside individual prison cells were as high as 88 degrees Fahrenheit during the July site visit and 94 degrees during the August visit. People in state prisons described temperatures in their living spaces as “unbearable,” “beyond hot,” and “like Hell.” The Ombuds office heard reports of people engaging in assaultive behavior in order to be transferred to air-conditioned disciplinary housing assignments. The office also heard reports from staff and labor leaders that high heat increased irritability and slowed responses to prison security incidents. Three prisons—Bayside State Prison, East Jersey State Prison, and Garden State Correctional Facility— account for more than three-quarters of the state’s non-air-conditioned prison beds. Another three prisons, including the two largest facilities, are fully air-conditioned. And the remaining three state prisons have a mix of temperature-controlled and non-temperature-controlled housing units. Because people detained in prison facilities cannot leave of their own accord and have limited control over their movement, possessions, and environment, the state assumes a responsibility for their humane treatment, including a responsibility to protect them from potential harms associated with extended exposure to heat and cold. Department of Corrections executive and facility leaders have taken proactive and reactive steps to mitigate the heat and have worked closely with the Office of the Corrections Ombudsperson to address areas of concern. They should be applauded for their efforts, utilizing the resources they have, to reduce the risks of heat stroke and other heat-related illnesses and security risks. These risks, however, will continue to surface each summer absent state appropriations for major building repairs.

Trenton: New Jersey Office of the Corrections Ombudsperson, 2022. 14p.

By Amanda Chan and Anna Nathanson

Prison food is poor quality. The regulations which govern prison food are subpar and unenforceable by prisoners, due in large part to Sandin v. Conner and the Prison Litigation Reform Act. This Article aims to draw attention to the dire food conditions in prisons, explain the lax federal administrative law that permits these conditions, highlight the role of Sandin v. Conner and the Prison Litigation Reform Act in curtailing prisoners’ rights, and criticize the role of the private entity American Correctional Association in enabling mass neglect of prison food. The authors recommend that the Prison Litigation Reform Act be repealed, that Sandin v. Conner be overturned, and that Food Service Manual standards be improved to provide prisoners with more calories, more options, and more variety. Prisoners will be better positioned to enforce food rights in the courts under the recommended regime.

29 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 1009 (2021),

By Leslie Soble, Kathryn Stroud, and Marika Weinstein,

A person sentenced to prison in the United States serves three years on average. That’s more than 3,000 meals behind bars (far more for people serving longer sentences), all typically high in salt, sugar, and refined carbohydrates and low in essential nutrients—a diet that for decades everyone else has been advised to avoid. The food itself and the conditions under which it is served are harmful to physical and mental health and can erode self-esteem, with immediate and long-term impacts. The damaging and degrading prison food experience is a symptom of a larger systemic malady: our dependence on a dehumanizing criminal justice system to address harm. Like every other aspect of mass incarceration, this is an issue of racial and economic injustice: Lower-income communities of color, where affordable healthy food is scarce, disproportionately lose members to prison and then struggle to support them when they return home in worse health. In this way, prisons function as out-of-sight food deserts, perpetuating patterns of poor health in communities that already experience profound inequities. This six-part report, the first national investigation of its kind, explores these and other troubling trends in prison food. Resulting from 18 months of fact-finding by Impact Justice, our report centers the perspectives of people who have been incarcerated while also examining food service policies and practices that affect 1.3 million people incarcerated in state prisons nationwide. The report also highlights some promising emerging efforts in a handful of prisons where nourishing food is becoming a priority, illuminating the potential for change. The broadening awareness that access to good food is a fundamental human right has spawned urban farms, mobile farmers’ markets, and land co-ops, revitalized school lunch, and more. This report makes clear that the growing food justice movement must incorporate the millions of people inside prison walls, and shows how diverse stakeholders can work together in common purpose.

Oakland, CA: Impact Justice, 2020. 137p.

By Wendy Sawyer and Peter Wagner

Can it really be true that most people in jail are legally innocent? How much of mass incarceration is a result of the war on drugs, or the profit motives of private prisons? How has the COVID-19 pandemic changed decisions about how people are punished when they break the law? These essential questions are harder to answer than you might expect. The various government agencies involved in the criminal legal system collect a lot of data, but very little is designed to help policymakers or the public understand what’s going on. As public support for criminal justice reform continues to build — and as the pandemic raises the stakes higher — it’s more important than ever that we get the facts straight and understand the big picture. Further complicating matters is the fact that the U.S. doesn’t have one “criminal justice system;” instead, we have thousands of federal, state, local, and tribal systems. Together, these systems hold almost 2 million people in 1,566 state prisons, 102 federal prisons, 2,850 local jails, 1,510 juvenile correctional facilities, 186 immigration detention facilities, and 82 Indian country jails, as well as in military prisons, civil commitment centers, state psychiatric hospitals, and prisons in the U.S. territories. This report offers some much-needed clarity by piecing together the data about this country’s disparate systems of confinement. It provides a detailed look at where and why people are locked up in the U.S., and dispels some modern myths to focus attention on the real drivers of mass incarceration and overlooked issues that call for reform.

Easthampton, MA: Prison Policy Initiative, 2022. 58p.