By Matt Cracknell

Contemporary criminal justice policy in England and Wales has witnessed various resurgences of political interest in resettlement and the short sentence population. This intermittent attentiveness has been mirrored in the circular re-iterations of policy initiatives ostensibly designed to bring greater continuity to the services that administer ‘through the gate’ work. These efforts include the ‘seamless sentence’ of the 1991 Criminal Justice Act; ‘end-to-end offender management’, the creation of The National Offender Management Service (NOMS) and the introduction of custody plus under New Labour; and the current Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) ‘through the gate’ reforms. It is important to analyse these attempts in order to understand why resettlement policy consistently fails to deliver an improved continuity between prisons and probation. This paper argues that resettlement policy has a common thread of issues that inhibit effective resettlement practice. This article will firstly consider the ‘essence’ (Senior and Ward, 2016) of resettlement practice, outlining several key principles that should be central elements for resettlement policy and practice, before providing an overview of these various policy initiatives; examining a common thread of failures in their realisation. This article will then look ahead at the next possible iteration of resettlement policy, ‘offender management in custody’ (OMiC), concluding that despite key changes, this latest policy continues to repeat the errors of past resettlement policy failures.

British Journal of Community Justice ©2021 Vol. 17(2) 86–103 https://doi.org/10.48411/pfz6-ba61

By Prison Reform International and the Thailand Institute of Justice

The Global Prison Trends 2024 report is the 10th edition in this flagship series, offering a detailed overview of the major developments and challenges in prison systems around the world. Published in collaboration with the Thailand Institute of Justice, this edition sheds light on key issues such as prison overcrowding, the mental health crisis in prisons, corruption, and the growing use of digital technologies. It also highlights the significant disparities in prison labour, including variations in access, pay and working conditions.

In addition to identifying these challenges, the 2024 report showcases innovative solutions, including ‘green’ initiatives aimed at promoting rehabilitation and sustainability.

London: Penal Reform International , 52p 2024

By Nixon Randy Sinaga

Indonesia maintains a punitive war on drugs policy model. Various campaigns are conducted to emphasise that drug offences are the most serious crimes. This construction is clearly contrary to international human rights standards. The Human Rights Committee defines the meaning of ‘most serious crime’ through General Comment No. 36 (2018) on Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the right to life (GC/36). Paragraph 35 of GC/36 does not place drug offences as one of the most serious crimes. This further confirms that Indonesia’s war on drugs policy has been built upon an erroneous and unfounded paradigm. Law Number 35 of 2009 concerning Narcotics (Narcotics Law) which is in force until now contains offences that tend to open up extensive interpretations and overlap between one another. The implication of this overlapping offence in the Narcotics Law is the imprisonment of people who use drugs, people who have drug dependency, and people who abuse drugs. The paradigm of the most serious crime built by the government in narcotics cases actually brings problems to the conditions of correctional institutions in Indonesia. The problem is at least evident from the results of an assessment of the characteristics of people incarcerated for drug cases conducted by the Jakarta Regional Office of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights, stating that at the end of 2018, the number of people in prison for drug cases reached 115,289 people or 95% of the total number of people imprisoned for special criminal cases in Indonesia. This figure is much higher than the number of people detained in corruption cases (5,110), illegal logging (890), terrorism (441), and money laundering (165).

London: International Drug Policy Consortium, 2024. 8p.

By Margaret Love & David Schlussel

Background: This report is the first-ever comprehensive national survey of the period of time a person, who is otherwise eligible to expunge or seal a misdemeanor or felony conviction record, must wait before obtaining this relief. Waiting periods are usually established by statute and can range from 0 to 20 years, a period that typically (though by no means invariably) commences after completion of the court-imposed sentence. Also typically, during a waiting period the person must be free from certain forms of involvement with the justice system: from a felony conviction, from any conviction, or from any arrest, again depending on state law. These and other conditions and circumstances may extend (or occasionally shorten) the length of a waiting period in specific cases.

Contents of the Report: Following this introduction, the report consists of two 50 state Tables, one showing the waiting periods applicable to clearing of misdemeanors, and the other showing the waiting periods applicable to clearing of felonies, with states that have no general record clearing listed at the bottom of each table. The Tables are followed by maps showing the geographical distribution of waiting periods for each type of conviction. The maps are followed by an appendix describing in greater detail the laws governing waiting periods in each of the jurisdictions studied.

Summary of 50-state research results:

• The waiting periods for misdemeanor convictions range from a high of 10 or 15 years in Maryland (depending on the nature of the offense) to 0 years in Mississippi (although only first-time offenses are eligible), with most states falling at the lower end of that range. Of the 44 states that authorize clearing of misdemeanor convictions, a near-majority have waiting periods of 3 years or less (19 states) and the vast majority have waiting periods of 5 years or less (35 states).

• The waiting periods for felony convictions range from as high as 10 or 20 years in North Carolina to as low as 0-2 years in California, with most states falling at the lower end of that range. Of the 35 states that authorize clearing of felony convictions, a near-majority have waiting periods of 7 years or less (17 states).

Comment on methodology: This report deals only with waiting periods, and only with those applicable to general record clearing of felony and misdemeanor convictions. Different waiting periods may apply to specialized record-clearing programs such as those that apply to victims of human trafficking, decriminalized offenses (e.g., marijuana), and so-called youthful offender programs. It also does not take account of other eligibility requirements that typically apply that could extend the waiting period, including completion of supervision and/or payment of court debt, or potential extensions related to prior, subsequent, and pending criminal matters. It does not consider provisions allowing the DA to consent to shorten waiting periods.

The Tables are based only on the length of the waiting period specified in statute. Insofar as practicable, the charts account for differences in when the waiting period commences (e.g., upon conviction, upon release from incarceration, upon completion of supervision, upon completion of sentence including payment of court debt). Further information about states in the far righthand column of the Tables may be found in the state-specific write-ups in the Appendix or in the state-specific profiles from CCRC’s Restoration of Rights Project.

Considerations for assessing the efficacy of waiting periods: In assessing how waiting periods affect the efficacy of a particular state’s record clearing system, it is important to consider whether some states with shorter waiting periods authorize clearance of a narrower set of convictions, and, conversely, whether some states with longer periods may authorize clearing of a broader set of convictions. In many if not most cases, other variables (including but not limited to those mentioned in the foregoing paragraph) will have to be brought into play to provide a fair assessment.

The changing concept (and length) of waiting periods: Many waiting periods, notably longer ones, reflect a concept of record clearing via expungement or sealing as “recognition of successful rehabilitation and reason to terminate legal disqualifications and disabilities.”1 In recent years, however, many states have shortened waiting periods in recognition of the constructive role that record clearance plays in facilitating reentry and rehabilitation, reasoning that individuals “need the most assistance immediately after release from prison or termination of sentence.”

Since 2016, thirteen (13) states have reduced their waiting periods, four (4) states more than once. The seven (7) states that have enacted a general conviction sealing authority for the first time since 2018 have generally (though not invariably) provided shorter waiting periods than states with more venerable systems.3 States that have reduced their waiting periods in recent years, or enacted new record-clearing laws for the first time, tend to be geographically and politically diverse. The Tables show that the states with the longest waiting periods in the country are on the East Coast, with all but one in the Mid-Atlantic region.

Waiting periods and public safety: Data on recidivism dating from the 1990s reinforced policy arguments that waiting periods should be long enough to reduce the risk of reoffending after record clearance. But new research on recidivism suggests that shorter waiting periods need not raise public safety concerns. Researchers at the RAND Corporation have raised questions about decades of received truth about the prevalence of reoffending after people leave prison, proposing that the majority of individuals with a conviction do not have a subsequent conviction, and that a person’s likelihood of being convicted again declines rapidly as more time passes. This new research would seem to cast doubt on the legitimacy of concerns that shortening waiting periods necessarily raises public safety concerns. Indeed, to the contrary, it suggests that it may be possible to reconcile the seemingly inconsistent policy goals of facilitating and recognizing rehabilitation through shorter waiting periods.

Arnold, MO: Collateral Consequences Resource Center (CCRC) , 2022 23p.

By JESSICA REICHERT, RYAN MARANVILLE, EVA OTT HILL

Persons reentering the community after prison face many obstacles that have been shown to reduce recidivism, such as securing employment. Like many states, Illinois operates work release centers allowing prisoners nearing the end of their sentence to work in the community and stay in the correctional facility when not working. Although the research is limited, these programs have been shown to be successful at increasing post-release employment, increasing hours worked, and reducing recidivism. We described characteristics of 1,580 participants in Illinois’ four Adult Transition Centers (ATCs) and examined differences in characteristics associated with rearrest and reincarceration. We found age, gender, and ATC facility were associated with rearrest and reincarceration. We found, as well, that recidivism risk, offense type, prior arrests, prior incarcerations, and length of stay were associated with rearrest. We recommend consistently measuring risk and tailoring services to the needs of the participant population.

Chicago: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authorisy 2023. 17p.

By Deanie Anyangwe & Alycia Hardy

According to a 2010 Pew Charitable Trust report, more than 1.1 million men and 120,000 women incarcerated in jails and prisons in the United States have children under the age of 17, and 2.7 million children nationwide have one or both parents incarcerated. As more attention has been paid to the negative consequences of incarceration on families in recent years, different localities have undertaken new efforts to mitigate the impact of the criminal legal systems. Most recently, there have been federal efforts to offer alternatives to incarceration to parents and caregivers. In 2021, the OJJDP began a new grant program titled the Family-Based Alternative Sentencing Program.

In this report, we analyze the landscape for family-based alternative sentencing programs to assess the effectiveness of these programs in meeting their program goals. We specifically focused our analysis on two programs funded by OJJDP’s Families Based Alternative Sentencing Program: Lehigh County, PA and Washtenaw County, MI. Additionally, we conducted an in-depth analysis of a state-funded program in Washington County, Oregon with more longevity to get a better sense of how these programs function over time. As we outline what we have learned from the field, we will be drawing particular attention to the challenges and barriers in planning and implementation, the equity and justice-related implications of these programs, and the nuances in how these programs are functioning. In highlighting the challenges with facilitating these programs, we hope to demonstrate the need for alternatives to incarceration that address immediate needs for caregivers and children, minimize the power of the police state, and support program improvements that increase accessibility and utilization by those targeted for criminalization, all while pushing for a shift away from incarceration altogether and working toward keeping families and communities unified, safe, and well. We offer policymakers, practitioners, and advocates considerations and recommendations for non-coercive alternatives to incarceration that support the autonomy, well-being, and safety of children and families.

Washington DC: CLASP: 2023. 43p.

By Stella Botchway and Seena Fazel

In England and Wales, there has been considerable work over recent years to reduce the numbers of deaths in custody. Currently, there is no standard,internationally agreed definition of a death in custody, which limits compar-isons. In addition, rates of death in custody are often reported per country or region inhabitants, but it would be more useful to report per number of detainees. In this short communication, we present data on deaths in indivi-duals who have been detained in England and Wales between 2016 to 2019. Wealso present a method to calculate rates of death per custodial population in key settings using routine data, allowing for more consistent comparisons across time and different settings. Most deaths in custody between 2016–2019 occurred in prisons (56% of all deaths in custody over 2016–19; Table 1). However, when rates are considered, those detained under the Mental HealthAct had the highest rate of deaths, which ranged from 1103–1334/100,000 per-sons detained. Around one in five deaths were self-inflicted. The data presented highlights the need to maintain focus on improving the physical health and mental health of all those detained in custody, both whilst in detention and after release

THE JOURNAL OF FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY & PSYCHOLOGY2022, VOL. 33, NO. 1, 1–13

By  Benjamin W. Fisher; Catalina Valdez; Abigail J. Beneke

This document presents the research methodology, findings, and discusses implications of a research project that examined the potential impacts of removing school-based law enforcement (SLBE), and how that might shape outcomes related to criminal justice system contact or other racial and ethnic disparities. The research study drew on two secondary data sources: The School Survey on Crime Safety (SSOCS), which is a biennial nationally representative sample of school administrators; and the Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), a biennial census of American public schools. Both data sources were used to construct a two-wave longitudinal dataset that identified schools that did or did not remove SBLE. The researchers used a difference-in-differences approach. The researchers compared changes between schools that did remove versus those that did not remove SBLE, in three measures of criminal justice contact: arrests; referrals to law enforcement; and crimes reported to police. The report presents the research findings, and notes that they were mostly consistent across school racial and ethnic composition. Results indicated that for schools to improve racial and ethnic equity in their use of law enforcement, they should use strategies beyond simply removing police from schools.

Madison, WI: Department of Civil Society and Community Studies School of Human Ecology University of Wisconsin-Madison 2024. 82p.

By Maxim Ananyev, Mikhail Poyker:

Inmates' informal code often ascribes low status to persons perceived as passive homosexuals. We use longitudinal data to investigate whether prison experience contributes to anti-gay beliefs. We find that prison experience prompts a higher level of anti-gay sentiments among males and their families, while no discernible difference exists before incarceration. We find no effect for female ex-prisoners. We confirm that the results are not driven by pre-incarceration trends, changes in trust and social capital, socioeconomic status, mental health, masculinity norms, and other potential alternative explanations. Our study sheds light on the overlooked role of prisons as a significant contributor to the propagation of anti-gay attitudes.

IZA DP No. 17137 Bonn: Institute of Labor Economics, 2024.