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 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 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.

By John J. Dilulio, Jr.

FROM THE COVER: The American prison, in conventional wisdom, 1s doomed to be filthy, violent, and unproductive. It is a breeding ground for crime rather than a punishment for it, an institution where lawless inmates and abusive guards confront each other in riots that erupt in response to oppressive conditions. Now, John J. Dilulio, Jr., already considered one of the most original thinkers about prisons in a generation, challenges all these accepted notions about incarceration. Dilulio argues that-far from necessarily being hellish traps for society's refuse-prisons must and can be safe and humane, despite overcrowding, budget limitations, and racial polarization. The key is good government.

The Free Press. London. NY. 1987. 357p.

By Julian V Roberts, Gabrielle Watson, Rhys Hester

Members of racial, ethnic, and Indigenous minorities have long accounted for disproportionate percentages of prison admissions in Western nations and of prison populations. The minorities affected vary between countries. Discriminatory or differential treatment by criminal justice officials from policing through to parole is part of the problem. Much media and professional attention focuses on sentencing, where the decision-making is most public. An emerging body of research identifies sentencing as a cause—or, at the very least, an amplifier—of minority over-incarceration. Solutions aiming to reduce it have been implemented, with varying but modest degrees of success, in the United States, England and Wales, Canada, and Aotearoa New Zealand. Progress toward reducing minority over-incarceration has been slow. Most US sentencing commissions have failed to determine the extent to which their guidelines contribute to the problem. The Sentencing Council of England and Wales has taken the limited step of warning judges about racial disparities, without suggesting remedial steps to be taken. Courts in Canada and Aotearoa New Zealand have taken more activist approaches, mitigating sentences when offenders adduce evidence of discrimination or abuse by criminal justice officials.

Crime and Justice, Volume 52. 2023

By Michele Cadigan and Gabriela Kirk

Research on court-imposed monetary sanctions has not yet fully examined the impact that processes used to manage court debt have on individuals’ lives. Drawing from both interviews and ethnographic data in Illinois and Washington State, we examine how the court’s management of justice-related debt affect labor market experiences. We conceptualize these managerial practices as procedural pressure points or mechanisms embedded within these processes that strain individuals’ ability to access and maintain stable employment. We find that, as a result, courts undermine their own goal of recouping costs and trap individuals in a cycle of court surveillance.

RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences March 2020, 6 (1) 113-131; DOI: https://doi.org/10.7758/RSF.202

By Johann D. Gaebler ,Phoebe Barghouty,Sarah Vicol,Cheryl Phillips,Sharad Goel

In almost every state, courts can jail those who fail to pay fines, fees, and other court debts—even those resulting from traffic or other non-criminal violations. While debtors’ prisons for private debts have been widely illegal in the United States for more than 150 years, the effect of courts aggressively pursuing unpaid fines and fees is that many Americans are nevertheless jailed for unpaid debts. However, heterogeneous, incomplete, and siloed records have made it difficult to understand the scope of debt imprisonment practices. We culled data from millions of records collected through hundreds of public records requests to county jails to produce a first-of-its-kind dataset documenting imprisonment for court debts in three U.S. states. Using these data, we present novel order-of-magnitude estimates of the prevalence of debt imprisonment, finding that between 2005 and 2018, around 38,000 residents of Texas and around 8,000 residents of Wisconsin were jailed each year for failure to pay (FTP), with the median individual spending one day in jail in both Texas and Wisconsin. Drawing on additional data on FTP warrants from Oklahoma, we also find that unpaid fines and fees leading to debt imprisonment most commonly come from traffic offenses, for which a typical Oklahoma court debtor owes around $250, or $500 if a warrant was issued for their arrest.

PLoS One. 2023; 18(9): e0290397.

By Colleen Chien, Alexandra George, Srihari Shekhar, and Robert Apel

As states pass reforms to reduce the size of their prison populations, the number of Americans physically incarcerated has declined. However, the number of people whose employment and related opportunities are limited due to their criminal records continues to grow. Another sanction that curtails economic opportunity is the loss of one’s driver’s license for reasons unrelated to driving. While many states have “second chance” laws on the books that provide, e.g. expungement or driver’s license restoration, a growing body of research has documented large “second chance gaps” between eligibility and delivery of relief due to the poor administration of second chance relief. This paper is a first attempt to measure the cost of these “paper prisons” of limited economic opportunity due to expungable records and restorable licenses, in terms of annual lost earnings. Analyzing the literature, we estimate the annual earnings loss associated with misdemeanor and felony convictions to be $5,100 and $6,400, respectively, and that of a suspended license to be $12,700.

We use Texas as a case study for comparing the cost (in terms of lost earnings) of the state’s “paper prisons” – living with sealable records or restorable licenses – with the cost of its physical prisons. In Texas, individuals with criminal convictions may seal their records after a waiting period. But analyzing administrative data, we find that approximately 95% of people eligible for relief have not accessed it. This leaves 670,000 people in the “second chance sealing gap” eligible for but not accessing second chance relief, translating into an annual earnings loss of about $3.5 billion. Similarly, people that have lost driver’s licenses are entitled to get their licenses restored under the law (in the form of “occupational driver’s licenses,” or “ODLs”) in order to drive to work or school. But using a similar approach, we find that about 80% of the people that appear eligible for restored driver’s licenses in Texas have not received them. This translates into about 430,000 people who needlessly lack licenses and a lower-bounds earnings loss of about $5.5 billion. Based on these figures, we find the cumulative annual earnings loss associated with Texas’s “paper prisons” of limited economic opportunity due to lost but restorable licenses and convictions records eligible for sealing to be comparable with, and likely more than, the yearly cost to Texas of managing its physical prisons of around $3.6 billion.

64 ARIZ. L. REV. 675 (2022). Santa Clara Univ. Legal Studies Research Paper

By Nino C. Monea

ABSTRACT In 1776, only two states offered constitutional protections against imprisoning people for debt. Today, forty-one states do. This Article traces that history. It begins by examining how debtors’ prisons operated in early America, and then divides analysis between three phases of state constitutional activity. In so doing, it looks at the arguments that won over states to protect debtors, the state constitutional conventions that enacted protections, and the failure of the federal government to address the issue. The Article concludes by noting that despite the success of adopting constitutional protections, courts have allowed debtors’ prisons to resurge in modern times.

DREXEL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 14:1, 2022.

By Lindsay Bass-Patel and Angie Weis Gammell

Courts across the country, including those in North Carolina, impose financial obligations on people when they are convicted of a crime or infraction. These court imposed financial obligations include fines, a form of financial punishment, and fees, which fund government services. North Carolina has increased its reliance on fines and fees as a revenue source over the past 20 years. 1 This practice harms many North Carolinians and is also an inefficient financial strategy for the state. In the past decade, other states have begun to reevaluate their use of fines and fees. North Carolina can find guidance from states like Louisiana, which has eliminated fees for juveniles, and Georgia, which has enacted guidelines to determine a person’s ability to pay before imposing fines or fees. Fines and fees disproportionately impact poor people and people of color, and in so doing, burden them with paying for government services that support all members of society. North Carolina courts often impose fines and fees without considering a person’s ability to pay them. When a person does not have the financial means to pay, they face difficult, perilous choices. These choices result in some people paying fines or fees rather than buying groceries or medicine; some people losing their driver’s license for not paying the fines or fees; and some people being taken to jail for failing to pay even when the original infraction had no risk of jail time. 2 Furthermore, fines and fees are an unreliable and ineffective revenue source. The time and resources spent trying to collect court fines and fees can cost more than the money collected. 3 The North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts (“AOC”) does not publicly share information on the total amount of fines and fees imposed or outstanding. Instead, the publicly shared financial data shows the amount people pay to the Clerks of Superior Court. According to this information, the state recouped $204.9 million in fiscal year 2020-2021 from fines and fees in criminal cases, which constituted only 0.3% of the state’s revenue for that year. 4 North Carolina must examine its use of fines and fees, including the harm it has on residents, their families, and their communities; eliminate fees; and reduce fines imposed in criminal court.

Durham, NC: Wilson Center for Science and Justice at Duke Law, 2023. 36p.

By Ammar Khalid, Rochisha Shukla, Arielle Jackson, and Andreea Matei

Pima County, Arizona, has implemented multiple reforms to address probation-related drivers of jail incarceration through its participation in the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation’s Safety and Justice Challenge, including strengthening transitional housing support intended to provide short-term housing options for people experiencing housing instability. The Urban Institute conducted a study, in partnership with the Pima County Adult Probation Department, to describe probation pathways to jail incarceration and system-level trends, as well as the effects of providing transitional housing support to people on probation, particularly in terms of jail use.

WHY THIS MATTERS

Many jurisdictions across the country have implemented strategies to reduce jail incarceration for people on probation because probation violations contribute significantly to rising jail populations in the United States: 33 percent of all people incarcerated in jails were arrested while on probation, and 27 percent of the people in jails for probation violations were incarcerated for technical violations alone. Housing instability can heighten the risk of criminal legal system involvement, particularly for people on probation.

WHAT WE FOUND

Our main takeaways include the following:

Roughly 10 percent of all jail bookings in Pima County were due to probation violations, representing an overall low share of jail admissions. However, average length of stay for people in jail for probation violations was considerably longer at 66 days, nearly three times as long as that for the pretrial population (25 days) and five times as long as that for the sentenced population (13 days).

Probation violations resulting in jail incarceration represented 16 percent of all terminated probation cases and were largely driven by technical violations, which include absconding charges.

There were some observable racial and ethnic disparities in jail use as a formal probation revocation petition outcome. Native American and Hispanic people had higher odds—by 97 percent and 46 percent, respectively—of being revoked to jail compared with white people. Black people were 24 percent more likely to receive coterminous outcomes compared with white people.

Between January 2020 and June 2022, 331 people received financial assistance to access transitional housing. The number of people receiving assistance increased over time and the probation department prioritized people with higher risk and needs when making decisions about funding for transitional housing.

The odds of a probation termination to jail were not significantly different for people who received funding for transitional housing and those who did not. These null effects, however, could owe to the small number of people served and the limited data available on people who received transitional housing support. Interviewed stakeholders, though, perceived this support for people on probation to be a crucial stabilizing force and extremely meaningful to their well-being.

Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2023. 63p.

By Erin Harbinson, Kelly Lyn Mitchell, Courtney Hougham, and Danette Buskovick

This report details a collaboration between the Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice (the Robina Institute) and Hennepin County Department of Community Corrections and Rehabilitation (DOCCR) to examine whether probation conditions are aligned with evidence-based practices in corrections, specifically the risk-needs-responsivity (RNR) principles (i.e., Andrews, Bonta, & Hoge, 1990) for community supervision, and to explore the effect of alignment on supervision outcomes. This project was conceived in order to test whether there is a need to bridge the sentencing process with the RNR principles followed by DOCCR. Research suggests that in order to reduce re-offending, probation conditions should reflect RNR principles and that over-supervising low risk individuals can increase recidivism (Lowenkamp, Latessa, & Holsinger, 2006). But because sentencing often occurs before the risk assessment has been completed, the probation conditions imposed at sentencing may not relate to the probationer’s risk and needs, or may require a higher degree of contact and intervention by the corrections department than suggested by the probationer’s risk to reoffend. Since Hennepin prepares a presentence investigation (PSI) for some cases and administers a pre-screener for others, this practice provides a natural “experiment” to explore how assessment might influence conditions. The project explored the relationship between the sentencing process and RNR principles by asking the following three questions: 1. How well do the risk/needs of offenders align with probation conditions? 2. Does the timing of assessment impact this alignment? 3. Are supervision outcomes improved when conditions are aligned with risk/needs? Key Findings The key findings from this study were as follows: • Most people on probation were assigned a similar number of conditions and similar types of conditions; there was not much variation. • The average number of probation conditions assigned to people on probation increases with risk, but only slightly. This increase ranged from less than one condition to one condition per increase in risk level. • People who received a PSI have on average approximately 5 more conditions assigned at each risk level when compared to people who did not receive a PSI. • A majority of the supervision conditions people were assigned did not target their criminogenic needs. Ø However, most people who had identified needs in the drugs and alcohol domain were assigned probation conditions that aligned with that need, though alignment was better when a PSI was conducted before sentencing Ø The majority of people who had identified needs in the family/marital, leisure and recreation, companions (criminal vs. anticriminal), and antisocial pattern were not assigned probation conditions that align with those needs. Ø When a PSI was not administered, the majority of people who had identified needs in pro-criminal attitudes and orientation were not assigned probation conditions that align with that need; when a PSI was administered, a more substantial proportion of individuals with this need were assigned such a condition. Ø When there is better alignment between needs and supervision conditions, it appears to be associated with the administration of a PSI, and to be driven by the assignment of conditions to address the domains for alcohol and drugs, education and employment, and pro-criminal attitude and orientation. • Improved alignment of supervision conditions with risk and needs did not significantly reduce the likelihood of reconviction one year out, however, more research is needed on measuring alignment since this non-significant finding might be due to the small variation in the number of conditions by risk level.

Minneapolis: Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice University of Minnesota Law School 2020. 36p.

Kelly Lyn Mitchel, Erin Harbinson and Julia Laskoruns

This report examines the role of prosecutors in the Ramsey County Attorney’s Office in influencing the contours of felony probation sentences. The main target of this study was to determine how prosecutors view and influence the length of probation, but the study also included an examination of the other key components of a felony probation sentence, namely the probation type (stay of imposition versus stay of execution) and conditions of probation, as well as the role of prosecutors in the probation violation process.

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice. 2020. 49p.

By Dafna Gozani, Laura Ridolfi and Snna Wong

Probation is the most common court ordered outcome imposed on youth in juvenile court in California. Too often, youth are placed on probation for an unspecified amount of time, while under the microscope of overly burdensome and confusing probation conditions. Youth needlessly spending years on probation limits their potential and wastes precious resources. This report provides key data and explores the harmful outcomes of excessive probation programs, highlights promising approaches, and provides policy recommendations.

Oakland, CA: National Center for Youth Law and W. Haywood Burns Institute, 2021. 15p.

By Kathryn Bird and Melena Ward

Probation services in England and Wales are delivered through the Probation Service, which is responsible for protecting the public and reducing reoffending, both by delivering and enforcing the punishments and orders of the court and by supporting rehabilitation through empowering people on probation to reform their lives. The Probation Service is a statutory criminal justice agency and is part of Her Majesty’s Prisons and Probation Service (HMPPS) working together to supervise adult individuals at all levels of risk. People under the age of 18 who are serving sentences in the community are supervised by Youth Offending Teams, which are coordinated by local government authorities and overseen by the Youth Justice Board (a non-departmental public body). The Probation Service’s operations are divided into twelve Probation Regions (eleven in England and one in Wales), each of which is overseen by a Regional Probation Director (RPD) who works closely with other local and national partners to deliver effective supervision and can commission rehabilitative services from external voluntary and private sector providers.

Utrecht: CEP, Confederation of European Probation 2021. 54p.

By Gerald Gaes and Julia Laskorunsky

This study examines the response of the Colorado Board of Parole to the COVID-19 pandemic.

To mitigate the spread of the virus within correctional facilities, it increased the parole grant rate, expedited case review, and utilized special needs and fast-track parole programs for non-routine releases. This response provided an opportunity to evaluate the Board’s decision-making processes and to investigate the role of early release mechanisms in reducing prison populations.

Several factors expedited early release including: pressure from the governor and legislature; board member’s sense of responsibility to safely release as many individuals as possible; and the availability of early release authority. Our findings show that to release more people, the Board slightly changed its release standards, placing less emphasis on risk scores but continuing to heavily emphasize readiness for release. The Board reverted to its previous release patterns a few months into the pandemic, highlighting the difficulty of reducing prison populations through back-end mechanisms.

Special needs and fast-track parole were the mechanisms used to promote early release. Special needs parole releases are typically people who have severe medical problems, long sentences, and serious commitment offenses. Targeting them in Colorado substantially decreased time served. The fast-track releases were mostly low risk people with shorter than average sentences. Targeting them had no effect on reducing time served. This demonstrates that early release mechanisms that target “safe bets” – that is, individuals who would have been released quickly through routine mechanisms are not an effective way to reduce prison populations.

We also discuss the importance of grant rate standards, suggesting that jurisdictions establish empirically based ranges contingent on risk and readiness composition of the release population. Future research should investigate how much parole grant rates can be increased without compromising public safety.

This study was conducted as part of a larger project which examined how state prison systems responded to the COVID-19 pandemic. It was generously supported and funded by Arnold Ventures. While we hope the findings from this study are useful to the parole board and funding partners, the views and opinions expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of Arnold Ventures.

St. Paul, MN: Robina Institute,,,,2023. 29p.

By Karin D. Martin, Bryan L. Sykes, Sarah Shannon, Frank Edwards, and Alexes Harris

This review assesses the current state of knowledge about monetary sanctions, e.g., fines, fees, surcharges, restitution, and any other financial liability related to contact with systems of justice, which are used more widely than prison, jail, probation, or parole in the United States. The review describes the most important consequences of the punishment of monetary sanctions in the United States, which include a significant capacity for exacerbating economic inequality by race, prolonged contact and involvement with the criminal justice system, driver’s license suspension, voting restrictions, damaged credit, and incarceration. Given the lack of consistent laws and policies that govern monetary sanctions, jurisdictions vary greatly in their imposition, enforcement, and collection practices of fines, fees, court costs, and restitution. A review of federally collected data on monetary sanctions reveals that a lack of consistent and exhaustive measures of monetary sanctions presents a unique problem for tracking both the prevalence and amount of legal financial obligations (LFOs) over time. We conclude with promising directions for future research and policy on monetary sanctions.

Annu. Rev. Criminol. 2018. 1:471–95