By Teresa García Castro

As Latin American countries continue to grapple with worsening prison conditions, overcrowding, and the potentially devastating impact of COVID-19 in such prisons, a new report found an alarming absence of standards and public policies to protect an often-overlooked population: trans women deprived of liberty. The report—the first-ever regional study of its kind—underscores the urgent need to release as many people behind bars as possible before COVID-19 enters the region’s crumbling prison infrastructure. Drawing on a participatory research process led by formerly incarcerated trans women, the study, Trans Women Deprived of Liberty: Invisible Stories Behind Bars, is the result of a collaboration between nine human rights and advocacy organizations: Almas Cautivas, Casa de las Muñecas Tiresias, Casa Hogar Paola Buenrostro, the Corpora en Libertad Network, Dejusticia, Equis: Justice for Women, the International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC), the Prison Ombudsman’s National Office in Argentina, and the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA). The report describes the failures of Latin American governments to implement basic measures to protect trans women deprived of liberty from violence and abuse. As a result, trans women are subjected to discrimination, stigmatization, and criminalization at every stage of interaction with the criminal justice system, the report found. As Latin American countries continue to grapple with worsening prison conditions, overcrowding, and the potentially devastating impact of COVID-19 in such prisons, a new report found an alarming absence of standards and public policies to protect an often-overlooked population: trans women deprived of liberty. The report—the first-ever regional study of its kind—underscores the urgent need to release as many people behind bars as possible before COVID-19 enters the region’s crumbling prison infrastructure.

• More.....

  Drawing on a participatory research process led by formerly incarcerated trans women, the study, Trans Women Deprived of Liberty: Invisible Stories Behind Bars, is the result of a collaboration between nine human rights and advocacy organizations: Almas Cautivas, Casa de las Muñecas Tiresias, Casa Hogar Paola Buenrostro, the Corpora en Libertad Network, Dejusticia, Equis: Justice for Women, the International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC), the Prison Ombudsman’s National Office in Argentina, and the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA). The report describes the failures of Latin American governments to implement basic measures to protect trans women deprived of liberty from violence and abuse. As a result, trans women are subjected to discrimination, stigmatization, and criminalization at every stage of interaction with the criminal justice system, the report found.

Washington, DC: Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), 2020. 26p.

By Teresa García Castro

COVID-19 has shed light on the need for governments across the Americas to take steps to address prison overcrowding, given the high risk of deadly outbreaks in places of detention where social distancing and other sanitary measures are difficult to achieve. In this context, some governments have promoted decarceration measures and alternatives to incarceration including house arrest—that is, court-ordered detention of a person in their place of residence—as a way to reduce overcrowding. When implemented effectively, house arrest is meant to be a less restrictive form of confinement and to help those deprived of liberty reintegrate back into their communities and avoid landing back in prison. But as detailed in a new report, Imprisoned at Home: Women under House Arrest in Latin America, imposing strict house arrest without guaranteeing fundamental human rights, particularly for people in low-income situations, can make house arrest just as punitive as incarceration. House arrest should not simply replace one form of incarceration for another. Governments across the Americas should guarantee that people subjected to this measure have their rights protected. If you’re placed under house arrest but aren’t given the option to remain employed or seek emergency medical help when you need it, those are unacceptable conditions. Authorities must ensure that those under house arrest receive the support they need to provide for their families and reintegrate into their communities.

Washington, DC: Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), 2020. 20p.

By Coletta A. Youngers, Teresa García Castro, and Maria (Kiki) Manzur

Women’s incarceration in Latin America has increased dramatically over the last two decades. Not only have the sheer numbers increased, but the percentage of females in the overall prison population has also risen, and the rate of the ongoing increase in the size of the female prison population is alarming. Moreover, the number of women being put behind bars is growing much faster than the number of men. These trends cannot be explained by growth of the overall female population, or simply by the increase in the total number of prisoners. Rather, the driving force behind the data is the adoption of punitive drug laws that disproportionately affect women. In the majority of Latin American countries, drug-related crimes are the main cause of female incarceration. For instance, available data shows that in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, and Venezuela, drug-related offenses are the most common offense for female prisoners. In sheer numbers, more men than women are incarcerated for drug-related offenses in Latin American countries. But the percentage of women imprisoned for that offense is almost always higher than the percentage of men. Data compiled by WOLA shows that in Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Panama and Peru, the proportion of women prisoners who are incarcerated for drug offenses is at least 30% higher than in the case of men imprisoned in those countries. The excessive use of pretrial detention is a primary factor contributing to the over-incarceration of women for drug offenses in Latin America. Research shows that more women than men are in pretrial detention for drug offenses in almost all of the countries studied.

• More.....

  The incarceration of these women does nothing to disrupt drug markets or thwart the drug trade, as they are primarily engaged in high-risk but low-ranking jobs and are easily replaced, while those running criminal enterprises rarely end up behind bars. Yet the consequences of incarceration for these women, their families and their communities can be devastating. The COVID-19 pandemic—and its disproportionate impact on people in prison—gives even greater urgency to implementing reforms to dramatically reduce the number of women behind bars. The report concludes with a plea to adopt recommendations for developing and implementing gender-sensitive drug and prison-related policies rooted in human rights and public health—policies that also take into account the intersectionalities and multiple vulnerabilities of women in situations of poverty or extreme poverty; those who are LGBTI+, Afro-descendent, foreign women, or indigenous; and women who are pregnant and/or have children.

Washington, DC: Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), 2020. 33p.

By The U.S. Office of the Inspector General

As of September 2016, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) incarcerated 10,567 sentenced female inmates, representing 7 percent of the total BOP sentenced inmate population of 146,084. Though female inmates compose a small percentage of the nationwide incarcerated population, correctional officials have recognized that in some areas female and male inmates have different needs and BOP has adopted genderresponsive programs and policies that account for these needs. As a continuation of prior U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) reviews examining BOP’s management of certain subpopulations of inmates, including aging inmates and inmates with mental illness in restrictive housing, OIG initiated this review of BOP’s management of female inmates, specifically BOP’s efforts and capacity to ensure that BOP-wide policies, programs, and decisions adequately address the distinctive needs of women. Our decision to initiate this review was also informed by members of Congress and public interest groups recently raising concerns about what they consider to be deficiencies in BOP’s current management of female inmates.

Washington, DC: U.S. Office of the Inspector General, 2018. 60p.

By The U.S. Civil Rights Commission

This report examines the state of federal civil rights protections for incarcerated women to explore women’s experiences while incarcerated. It covers a range of issues incarcerated women face, including access to healthcare, prevention of sexual assault, discipline and segregated housing, parental rights, and availability of programming. The report provides examples of prison administrations seeking to address these issues and it evaluates the response of the federal government. The Commission’s research includes examination of high rates of a history of trauma reported by incarcerated women, as well as policies responsive to this trauma. The report also offers recommendations to Congress and the executive branch.

Washington, DC: The Commission, 2020. 292p.

By Ashley Nellis

Nationwide one of every 15 women in prison — over 6,600 women — are serving a sentence of life with parole, life without parole, or a virtual life sentence of 50 years or more. The nearly 2,000 women serving life-without-parole sentences can expect to die in prison. Death sentences are permitted by 27 states and the federal government, and currently 52 women sit on death row. This report presents new data on the prevalence of both of these extreme sentences imposed on women.

Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2021. 17p.

By The Sentencing Project

Over the past quarter century, there has been a profound change in the involvement of women within the criminal justice system. This is the result of more expansive law enforcement efforts, stiffer drug sentencing laws, and post-conviction barriers to reentry that uniquely affect women. The female incarcerated population stands nearly five times higher than in 1980. Over half (58%) of imprisoned women in state prisons have a child under the age of 18.1 Between 1980 and 2020, the number of incarcerated women increased by more than 475%, rising from a total of 26,326 in 1980 to 152,854 in 2020. The total count in 2020 represents a 30% reduction from the prior year—a substantial but insufficient downsizing in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which some states began to reverse in 2021.

Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2022. 6p.

By Theodore Greenfelder; Dana L. Haynie ; Derek A. Kreager; Sara Wakefield; Sam Nur; Julia Dillavou

This study extends a previous study, the Prison Inmate Networks Study (PINS), which focused on the social organization within a men’s prison unit. These two studies enable gender comparisons that reveal potential differences and similarities in prison social structure and health in men’s and women’s prisons. The current project involving women’s prisons was conducted in three phases. Phase 1 involved the design and implementation of a network and health survey administered to residents in three women’s units in a minimum-security prison and a maximum-security prison. This was done to determine the informal social structures within the prison units and prisoners’ positions within those structures. Phase 2 identified and recruited Phase 1 participants who were release-eligible within 1 year of the baseline survey. These women were administered semi-structured interviews prior to release to determine their future concerns and expectations regarding reentry, with a focus on mothers’ plans and expectations for child reunification. Phase 3 interviewed paroled prisoners and their children 1 year after release to determine the status of their family reunification and well-being. Thus far, this study’s findings reveal the complexity of women’s prison social systems, with implications for correctional policy. There was a more fluid social system in the women’s prisons than in the men’s prisons, which requires daily attention from correctional staff and prisoners. Prison pseudo-families were present to provide support and caring behaviors. Although analyses of pre-release and post-release interviews are ongoing, important lessons are reported on the data-collection process.

Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Justice, 2021. 55p.

By The Committee for Economic Development of Australia

This collaborative paper has been produced with contributions from experts, stakeholders and CEDA members. CEDA’s objective in publishing this paper is to encourage constructive debate and discussion on a matter of national economic importance. Justice is a critical institution underpinning economic and social development. Providing access to world-class justice and rehabilitation can help both the victims and perpetrators of crime, while minimising its associated economic and fiscal costs. This paper provides a foundational framework outlining the clear need to reform the imprisonment of women in Australia. It seeks to highlight the key issues and emphasise the urgent need to reduce rates of female imprisonment through a nationally consistent approach. This will help to improve workforce participation and life outcomes, while also reducing wasteful government spending at a time of urgent budget repair. This report does not seek to detail all the complexities of the issue of the incarceration of women.

Melbourne VIC ; Committee for Economic Development of Australia, 2022. 52p.

By Amy Dworsky, et al.

This brief describes the results of a project undertaken by a team of researchers from the University of Chicago’s School of Social Service Administration and Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago. The purpose of the project was to inform the development and implementation of gender responsive policies and practices that will address the needs of incarcerated mothers in the Illinois Department of Corrections and reduce the impact of incarceration on their children.

Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago and the University of Chicago’s School of Social Service Administration, 2020. 38p.

Edited by Shlomo Giora Shoham, Ori Beck and Martin Kett

The first comparative study of this increasingly integral social subject, International Handbook of Penology and Criminal Justice provides a comprehensive and balanced review of the philosophy and practicality of punishment. Drawn from the expertise of scholars and researchers from around the world, this book covers the theory, practice, history, and empirical evidence surrounding crime prevention, identification, retribution, and incarceration. It analyzes the efficacy of both traditional methods and thinking as well as novel concepts and approaches. The book evaluates arguments regarding the world-wide abolition of capitol punishment from moral, utilitarian, and practical positions. It examines non-incarcerative and alternative punishments such as financial restoration and restrictions of liberty, as well as the positive effects of Victim Offender Mediation. It also considers several methods aimed at achieving measurable crime prevention including identifying at-risk juveniles and minimizing crimes of opportunity, as well as the pros and cons of employing the coercive power of police. Further essays consider subjects such as international policing, the roles of prosecution and defense attorneys, current discretionary sentencing practices, and the role and treatment of victims. The volume concludes with two chapters of case studies that provide a "hands-on" feel for the interplay of the concepts discussed.

Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2008. 802p.

By Denise Johnston and Megan Sullivan

Parental Incarceration makes available personal stories by adults who have had the childhood experience of parental incarceration. These stories help readers better understand the complex circumstances that influence these children’s health and development, as well as their high risk for intergenerational crime and incarceration. Denise Johnston examines her own children’s experience of her incarceration within the context of what the research and her 30 years of practice with prisoners and their children has taught her, arguing that it is imperative to attempt to understand parental incarceration within a developmental framework. Megan Sullivan, a scholar in the Humanities, examines the effects of her father’s incarceration on her family, and underscores the importance of the reentry process for families.

The impact of the experience of parental incarceration has garnered attention by researchers, but to date attention has been focused on the period when parents are actually in jail or prison. This work goes beyond that to examine the developmental impact of children’s experiences that extend long beyond that timeframe. A valuable resource for students in corrections, human services, social work, counseling, and related courses, as well as practitioners, program/agency administrators, policymakers, advocates, and others involved with families of the incarcerated, this book is testimony that the consequences of mass incarceration reach far beyond just the offender.

New York: Routledge, 2016. 219p.

By Erin Jacobs Valentine

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

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

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

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

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

New York: MDRC, 2012. 78p.

By Charles Gordon

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

London. Fisher Unwin.1902. 186 pages.

By Charles Gordon

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

London. Fisher Unwin.1902. 186 pages.

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

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

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

By Gerald G. Gaes and Julia Laskorunsky

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

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

By Kaleena J. Burkes , Edward E. Rhine , Jason Robey and Ebony Ruhland

This report provides a comparative analysis of releasing authority chairs' views of the issues and challenges confronting them at two points in time: 1988 and 2015. Drawing from two surveys, one conducted during the tenure of an ACA Parole Task Force that functioned from 1986-1988, along with The Continuing Leverage of Releasing Authorities: Findings from a National Survey included above, this publication highlights both change and constancy relative to a wide range of comparative markers including, but not limited to, structured decision tools, prison crowding, and risk aversion, and the myriad factors considered in granting or denying parole.

Minneapolis: Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, University of Minnesota. 2017. 38p.

Edited by Madeline M. Carter

The manner in which jurisdictions respond to parole and probation violations should be thoughtful and deliberate. Although each case requires individual decision-making, the response to a given violation should be consistent with policy developed by that jurisdiction. Agency violation policies should be built around such considerations as assessment of risk posed by the offender, case processing requirements, local resource availability, and outcomes desired by the agency for certain types of violations. Agency violation policies guide line staff in making supervisory decisions and assist decision-makers in reaching consistent and equitable dispositions. During the past decade, the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) helped 29 jurisdictions address violation issues by providing onsite technical assistance. Many other jurisdictions have expressed interest in receiving such support. Among the lessons learned is that goals, resources, and values differ from one place to another. It is vital that jurisdictions work through a process leading to informed policy options that meet their particular needs. This handbook is built around what we have learned about how agencies effectively address violations policy. Expanding on information and examples from the 29 jurisdictions, this document is designed to lead agency policy teams through a series of activities to help them develop their own set of violation policies. This is a difficult initiative for agencies to take on; however, it is important and essential work, and the resulting agency policy is worth the commitment. I urge agency administrators to use the materials in this handbook to develop probation and parole violation policies that best conform to the needs and resources of their jurisdictions.

Silver Spring, MD: Center for Effective Public Policy, 2001. 105p.

By Peggy B. Burke

For probation and parole to be effective sanctions, reasonable controls must be placed on offenders. They take the form of either general or special conditions of supervision. Probation and parole officers, courts, and parole boards have always responded to violation of conditions of supervision in good faith, but the responses were often inconsistent and not guided by agency policy or sanctioning philosophy. The typical decision was either to return the offender to supervision with little or no change or to revoke supervision and incarcerate the offender--and nothing in between. In some jurisdictions, more admissions to prisons annually are for probation and parole violations than for all new offenses committed. The National Institute of Corrections has for several years assisted agencies in developing a system of explicit, policy-driven responses to violations of probation and parole. Each jurisdiction has taken a somewhat different approach to problems it identified. This report shares some of what was learned concerning the violation process, potential impact of changes, and some of the tools developed to introduce more policy-driven consistency in responses.

Silver Spring, MD: Center for Effective Public Policy 1997. 53p.