By Eva Knutz, Thomas Markussen, Linda Kjær Minke

The focal point of this article is the design of a game-based tool for dialogue (‘Dads’ Round’) developed in collaboration with the Danish Prison and Probation Service for a Parenting Program. The tool is unique insofar as it includes stories collected from prisoners’ children about their troubled relationship with their fathers. By Evaluating the tool through interviews with incarcerated fathers, we demonstrate how they work together as peers to assess how such a tool works to help assume parenting roles during incarceration. Through the fathers statements, the stories they share and their collaborative scaffolding, we are able to identify the tool’s potential effect on parenting practices as well as pinpoint strengths and weaknesses of the tool. Our study suggests that new notions of parenting and doing family must be carefully considered in the design of parenting programmes.

Howard Journal of Crime and Justice Volume 62, Issue 4. 2023

By Saori Toda

In recent years, parole decision-makers have grappled with an intensifying challenge in addressing public concerns. While discussions on the rise of ‘parole populism have emerged, especially in Canada, the United States, Australia, and England and Wales, little is known about the way public concerns influence parole release in Japan. This article engages in a legal-systematic analysis of the intricate relationship between public concerns and Japanese parole decision-making in general and release from life imprisonment in particular. The article argues that, while Japanese selective parole decision-making considering public concerns in secrecy may have partially contributed to political rhetoric encouraging parole, it also poses unique challenges distinct from those in Anglophone jurisdictions. It reveals the value of fostering a transparent and accountable parole decision-making system to promote a more balanced and fair approach to parole in the Japanese context.

Howard J. Crim. Justice.2024;63:98–117.

By Dorina Damsa

The Nordics have employed discourses of gender equality and women’s rights and a welfare-oriented approach to punishment as integral parts of inclusive welfare states and their ‘goodness’. Drawing on ethnographic fieldwork with non-citizen women at Vestre Prison in Denmark, this article suggests that the will to punish and banish prevails over the state’s commitment to women's rights and protection. Rather than being an inherent feature of incarceration, the pain experienced by non-citizen women in prison is a ‘political statement’(Bosworth, 2023). Employing precarisation, incarceration, and deportation to govern unwanted non-citizens and (re)produce the borders of membership, the Danish state also reproduces the conditions for gendered harm. Bordered penalty, this article concludes, is gendered.

Howard J. Crim. Justice. 2024;63:43–61

By Eric G. Lambert, Monica Solinas-Saunders, Nancy L. Hogan

This study examined the influence of job demands (role ambiguity, role conflict, role overload and dangerousness) and job resources (job variety, supervisor structure and training views) on employee perceptions of procedural justice, general perceptions of distributive justice, and specific perceptions of distributive justice. Using a sample of 160 employees at a high-security prison, the regression analyses found that only demands of role conflict was inversely correlated with procedural justice and both distributive justice measures. Role ambiguity was inversely related to procedural but was not related to either dimension of distributive justice. Furthermore, dangerousness was inversely associated with distributive justice (both general and specific), but it was not correlated with procedural justice. Among the job resources, job variety was positively associated with procedural and both distributive justice measures. Supervisor structure was predictive of procedural but not distributive justice. Role overload, and training views had non-significant relationships with all the justice measures.

The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice Volume 63, Issue 1, 2024

By Stuart Ross, Mark Wood, Ron Baird and Kajsa Lundberg

The COVID-19 pandemic required corrections agencies to rapidly adapt their service delivery models to minimise person-to-person contact. Digital service delivery played a key role in the process. This shift to remote service delivery highlighted the opportunities and benefits offered by digital service delivery technologies, as well as their risks and drawbacks.

This paper draws on the results of a scoping review of digital developments in corrections. It examines the impact of the shift to digital platforms on the way that activities and services were delivered and on the way that these digital solutions were shaped by a range of technology and resourcing factors. It also explores the impact of the shift to virtual modes of communication and service delivery on service providers and service users.

Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice no. 677. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. 2023. 16p.

By Tom O’Grady and Gemma Buckland

The Better Justice Partnership has set out to transform the penal system. But to state the obvious, it is politicians and their advisers who enact reforms. If we want to influence their choices, we must first understand them. This report is an attempt to see the world of criminal justice reform through their eyes. We explain their worldview from first principles. We show when and where they share the common assumptions of the criminal justice reform sector, and how they differ. We also discuss what they think is politically feasible, and why they sometimes resist changes that reformers see as common sense. Armed with this knowledge, we then outline how the Better Justice Partnership should go about achieving its aims of a more effective and humane penal system in England and Wales. The central message of this report is that if it wants to be more impactful, the criminal justice charity sector needs to become more politically savvy. Policymakers view the sector as politically naïve. They think that campaign groups are too quick to point out problems yet too slow to suggest feasible solutions. Sometimes they feel misunderstood, wishing that reformers would show greater awareness of the constraints under which they operate. In their opinion criminal justice is a uniquely difficult area of government to work in, and the political peril faced by those in the Ministry of Justice is not recognised. This lack of understanding matters. If reformers had a better grasp of the constraints under which politicians act, they could have more influence on them. Our interviewees clearly believe that the penal system in England and Wales is in a deep crisis, with radical reforms needed. When deciding what changes to make, they share many of the end goals of the sector. They all want a much greater focus on rehabilitation. Where they arguably differ is that their core goal is to balance punishment with rehabilitation. Both must go together in their view, and much else that they do flows from this basic assumption. What stops politicians and their advisers from attempting bold reforms? They do not view public opinion as an insurmountable barrier. In fact they think that in the right circumstances, the public could be persuaded to take a less punitive path. So they lack neither knowledge about what should change, nor a belief that the public would stand in its way. But they view reforms as exceptionally hazardous, and say that there can be little political incentive to enact them. The risks are high and the rewards potentially very low. The Better Justice Partnership, therefore, could focus its efforts not so much on educating politicians and the public on what needs to change, but rather on persuading politicians that it is worth their while – and not too risky – to make those changes in the first place. That they feel afraid of trying to make changes is crucial in understanding why some changes that seem obvious to penal reformers are viewed as anathema by politicians. Disagreements are as much about what can be done as what should be done. We identified several key barriers to reform. Fear of the media response is uppermost in politicians’ minds. They also perceive a lack of interest in justice from colleagues, and the unique career risks run by anyone entering the Ministry of Justice, as crucial. In their view the Treasury stands in the way of change too, perhaps more so than in any area of government. Above all, any strategy that Better Justice creates will need to give politicians a clear incentive to tread what they perceive as being an exceptionally hazardous path. Our participants made many suggestions for change, which we outline in detail at the end of this report. These included ways to frame reforms (for instance, as saving money) that would make them more politically palatable. They argued for gradual policy changes that slowly build confidence with the media and the public; slower change in the near term may achieve much faster changes in the long run. More progressive reforms could also be wrapped up in other changes, such as better police funding or support for victims, that make the public feel safer and show that politicians have their interests at heart. And their dual focus on punishment and rehabilitation means that they view smart tagging and visible community payback schemes as obvious, and politically viable, reform strategies.

London: NACRO, 2024. 40p.

By NACRO (UK)

This briefing examines: the level and range of mental health problems in prison and how people in prison who have mental health problems are identified; the impact that the prison environment can have on people’s mental health; the support currently available in prison and the impact all this can have on people’s ability to turn their lives around on release. We propose solutions which aim to ensure that everyone has access to the right support whilst they are in prison and on release. Improving the mental health of people in contact with the criminal justice system is an essential step to reducing reoffending and ensuring people can rebuild their lives in the community when they are released. In addition to providing the right treatment and support, we must ensure that prisons are not the cause of mental health problems, nor should they contribute to a deterioration in someone’s mental health, either because of a poor prison environment or a lack of treatment and support when it’s needed. The quotes used throughout this briefing come from people with lived experience of the justice system that have been supported by Nacro. Summary of our main recommendations We set out recommendations at the end of this report which we believe will help people in the justice system get the support they need for good mental health. These are grouped as follows: The beginning of the criminal justice journey: Our recommendations focus on keeping people out of prison where they would be better supported and rehabilitated in the community. During a prison sentence: These recommendations concentrate on improved screening and training to identify mental health needs; improved support provision and improved relationships with staff; improving the prison regime to ensure purposeful activity and time out of cell and improve safety; and embedding a more trauma-informed approach. Transfer and transition into the community: Here we focus on the need to improve timely transfers to secure mental health facilities, and embed and evaluate the RECONNECT care after custody service.

London: NACRO, 2024. 28p.

By Abby Ballou

It is widely held that providing postsecondary education programs to incarcerated individuals will improve postrelease labor market outcomes. Little research evidence exists, however, to support this view. To test the effect of postsecondary carceral education credentials on employer perceptions of hireability, the current study uses a factorial design to survey a sample of employers nationwide (N = 2,538). Employers were presented with résumés of fictional applicants applying to a job as a customer service representative at a large call center. The résumés randomized education credentials earned while incarcerated. Results indicate that employers were significantly more willing to interview applicants with postsecondary education credentials relative to applicants with only a General Educational Development (GED) diploma. Although Black applicants who had earned a sub-baccalaureate certificate saw improvements in hireability relative to GED holders, Black applicants who had earned a bachelor's degree did not. In contrast, White applicants benefited both from sub-baccalaureate certificates and bachelor's degrees. Results from a mediation analysis suggest that these credentials signal important information to employers about applicant attributes and that improved perceptions of applicant ability and likelihood to reoffend drive the overall effect. Implications for future research and policy are explored.

First published: 04 March 2024 https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12364

MAY CONTAIN MARKUP

ROBERT B. EDGERTON

World Wide Torture is a thought-provoking exploration of the dark and harrowing reality of torture practices across the globe. This groundbreaking documentary delves into the sinister depths of human cruelty, shedding light on the experiences of victims and the perpetrators behind these heinous acts. Through powerful storytelling and impactful visuals, World Wide Torture challenges viewers to confront the uncomfortable truths about torture and its widespread presence in today's world. This compelling film offers a sobering reminder of the urgent need to address this grave violation of human rights.

LEWISTON. EDWIN MELLEN PRESS. 2007. 125p.

MAY CONTAIN MARKUP

J. M. Bernstein

In "TORTURE AND DIGNITY: An Essay on Moral Injury," the author delves into the complex and often harrowing intersection of torture and human dignity. Through a thought-provoking exploration, the essay navigates the profound effects of torture on individuals and societies, shedding light on the enduring moral injuries inflicted in the process. By examining the fundamental questions of ethics, humanity, and resilience in the face of extreme adversity, this essay offers a poignant reflection on the fragile yet resilient nature of human dignity in the most challenging of circumstances.

Chicago. University of Chicago Press. 2015. 382p.

By Michael F. TenEyck, Sarah A. El Sayed, Clay M. Driscoll and Krysta N. Knox

Racial inequality in arrest is a social problem that has challenged the United States for as long as police records have been kept. Prior work documents the extent of the disparity and observational studies have attempted to sort out the mechanisms that explain why the disparity exists. Building on the “constructivist” perspective of race, the current study draws on data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health) to assess the degree to which race and skin color explain the observed racial disparity in criminal justice contact and arrest. Results revealed that controlling for criminal behavior and a host of covariates, neither race nor skin color increased the likelihood of police contact. Race, however, was predictive of an increase in the odds of arrest—with Black respondents being 92% more likely to experience arrest than White respondents—and this relationship remained controlling for the effects of skin color, police contact, and prior criminal behavior. These findings suggest that the “race effect” may be due to unobserved biases not related to skin color.

Racial inequality in outcomes related to criminal justice contact and processing is a longstanding topic of concern. Recent evidence suggests that while White individuals are more likely to experience police contact, racial/ethnic minorities are disproportionately arrested when contacted (Beck, 2021; Harrell & Davis, 2020). Additionally, changes in policing techniques have led to increases in police contact and arrests. During the early to mid-2000s, nearly 90 percent of police stops did not result in arrests whereas recent data indicates that now only 65% of police stops do not result in arrests (Novak & Gilbreath, 2023). Findings like this have raised many questions among social scientists. One such question draws attention to the potential sources of the inequality. Is it that criminal justice professionals act discriminatorily? Is it that racial minorities are overinvolved in criminal behavior? Or is the answer more complicated?

In the present study, we build on recent developments from epidemiology and sociology which conceptualizes race in the “constructivist” framework (Barnes, 2018; Sen & Wasow, 2016), meaning the term “race” is defined by more than just skin color. In the constructivist tradition, race captures various aspects of one's life including culture, ancestry, and socioeconomic opportunities. This framework conceptualizes race as a composite measure, such that statistically adjusting for its constituent parts will help to unpack the race effect. In this way, race is examined with more depth and moves past simply categorizing race by groups.

This provided the motivation for analyzing the impact, if any, of skin color on initial contact by police and adulthood arrest. While only briefly touched upon within the criminological literature (Alcalá & Montoya, 2018; Finkeldey & Demuth, 2021; Kizer, 2017), colorism—or the differential treatment of individuals based on the color of their skin—has been shown to offer lighter-skinned citizens more advantages and privileges than darker-skinned citizens (Dixon & Telles, 2017; Monk, 2014; Ryabov, 2016). If skin color has an impact and statistically adjusting for skin color reduces the effect of racial classification on arrest, then we can begin to better understand the “race effect” on the arrest. This is an important endeavor for at least two reasons. First, if skin color, even after adjusting for race, is a predictor of criminal justice processing, then this finding would support arguments that racial biases play a role in criminal justice contact. Second, if skin color is not found to predict criminal justice processing after adjusting for race, it would suggest that other components of the race variable are the mechanisms of action causing racial inequalities.

We believe this is both a timely and broadly important research focus given the increasing scrutiny placed on American criminal justice professionals, especially police officers, and the racial inequality narratives that increasingly dominate colloquial conversation (Trinkner et al., 2019). The findings from this study could help shape the national narrative by identifying the potential sources in need of intervention to reduce the prevalence of inequalities in criminal justice outcomes and aid in criminal justice reforms. But first, the following section will review the available literature that speaks to the association between race and contact with the criminal justice system, the impact of race and skin color on police contact and arrest, and then end with a theoretical framework for the current study

Race and Justice Volume 0: Ahead of Print, 2024

By Bradley Read

This article suggests that the parole dossier may be working to damage prisoners’ sense of their identity through the creation of a carceral script which describes a person whom they do not recognise as themselves, and which leads to an increased narrative labour. Prisoners struggle, therefore, under that labour to form a post-offence identity with which to navigate a complex process such as parole. As identity, and its repair, appear instrumental to desistance, elements of the process, such as the dossier, could be putting hopes of rehabilitation at risk. Using the analysis of 15 prisoner interviews, this article explores a parole process described as undermining agency. A process where risk assessment is perceived poorly and where ultimately the experience can lead to negative impacts on an already fragile self-identity. In conclusion, this article attempts to offer some solutions, to mitigate the negative effects, with a view to maximising the potential impact of the dossier process on future desistance, through the more meaningful involvement of the prisoner at its centre.

Criminology & Criminal Justice Volume 0: Ahead of Print, 2024.

By Michelle Butler, Dominic Kelly, Catherine B. McNamee

Purpose: This study investigates whether men who engage in dual harm while imprisoned are disproportionately involved in committing misconduct during a 1-year follow-up period. It also examines whether dual harm is significantly associated with future involvement in misconduct, when other known risk factors for misconduct are considered, and whether this relationship varies depending on the type of misconduct examined.

Methods: Drawing on the administrative records of 430 men who were imprisoned during the 1-year follow-up period, a combination of descriptive statistics and negative binominal regressions was used to analyse the data.

Results: Roughly one-in-four men engaged in dual harm while imprisoned and were responsible for over half of all misconduct incidents recorded during the follow-up period. A significant relationship between dual harm, as well as violence-only harm compared to no harm, and future involvement in misconduct was also observed even when other known risk factors for misconduct were considered but only for violent and disorder-related misconduct, demonstrating this relationship varied by harm history and type of misconduct examined.

Conclusion: These findings address previous gaps in knowledge, advancing our understanding of the relationship between dual harm and misconduct. Possible explanations for why, compared to no-harm history, dual harm as well as violence-only harm was only related to violent and disorder-related misconduct are offered, alongside possible implications of this research for policy and practice.

Legal and Criminological Psychology Volume 29, Issue 1 Feb 2024

By Sara Wakefield, Lars Højsgaard Andersen

Using unique Danish register data that allow for comparisons across both conviction and incarceration status, this article analyzes the association between pretrial detention and work, family attachment, and recidivism. We find that pretrial detention may impose unique social costs, apart from conviction or additional punishments. Most notably, men who are detained pretrial experience poorer labor market trajectories than men who are convicted of a crime (but not incarcerated). Importantly, this result holds even for men who are detained pretrial but who are not convicted of the crime. Consistent with prior research, we also find that pretrial detention is unrelated to later family formation but might disrupt pre-existing household arrangements. Finally, the associations between pretrial detention and work and family life are not counterbalanced by reductions in recidivism.

Sociological Science 7: 342-366. 2020.

By U.S. Government Accountability Office; Gretta L. Goodwin

Why GAO Did This Study - DOJ’s BOP is responsible for confining individuals in safe, humane, and appropriately secure conditions. In certain circumstances, such as alleged or substantiated violence, BOP can move individuals to restrictive housing, and generally isolate them in cells for up to 23 hours per day. As of October 2023, BOP continued to house about 8 percent of its population (about 12,000 individuals) in these settings. Strengthening management of federal prisons was added to GAO’s high-risk list earlier this year. Among its objectives, GAO was asked to examine the extent to which BOP (1) addressed recommendations from two prior restrictive housing studies; and (2) leveraged facility information to ensure restrictive housing policy compliance and enhance operations. GAO analyzed BOP policies and data; interviewed BOP officials; and conducted non-generalizable interviews with staff and incarcerated individuals at five BOP facilities— selected to cover a range of restrictive housing unit types. What GAO Recommends - GAO is making eight recommendations to BOP, including that it assign responsibility and establish time frames for recommendation implementation and identify the cause of racial disparity in SMU placements. BOP concurred with the eight recommendations but raised related concerns; GAO discusses these in the report.

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2024. 79p.

By Matthew J. Iaconetti, Tracey Kyckelhahn, and Amanda Kerbel,

This report provides in-depth information on federal firearms offenders sentenced under the primary firearms guideline, §2K2.1. The Commission has published reports on various aspects of firearms offenses, including reports on armed career criminals, mandatory minimum penalties, and firearms offenders’ recidivism rates. The Commission’s prior research shows that firearms offenders are generally younger, have more extensive criminal history, and are more likely to commit a new crime than other offenders. The Commission’s previous research also shows that firearms offenders are more likely than other offenders to engage in violent criminal behavior. This publication continues the Commission’s work and provides detailed information about offenders sentenced under §2K2.1.

Washington, DC: United States Sentencing Commission, 2022. 46p.

By the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General

The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is responsible for developing sound correctional practices and adhering to its policies that ensure the safety and security of federal inmates in its care. High-profile inmate deaths at BOP institutions, such as the homicide of James “Whitey” Bulger in 2018 and the suicide of Jeffrey Epstein in 2019, brought national focus to the BOP’s operational and management challenges, and U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) investigations of these deaths identified serious BOP job performance and management failures. Additionally, Congress and prisoner advocacy groups have expressed concerns about the BOP’s efforts to prevent inmate deaths, particularly following several inmate homicides at U.S. Penitentiary (USP) Hazelton and USP Thomson. The OIG initiated this evaluation to assess the circumstances surrounding deaths among inmates at BOP institutions that occurred from fiscal year (FY) 2014 through FY 2021 and to evaluate how the BOP seeks to prevent future deaths. We analyzed the frequency and pattern of deaths among BOP inmates in four categories: (1) suicide, (2) homicide, (3) accident, and (4) those resulting from unknown factors. We also identified potential management deficiencies and systemic issues related to those deaths, including the prevalence of long-standing operational challenges highlighted in prior OIG work. Recommendations We make 12 recommendations to assist the BOP in addressing risk factors that contribute to inmate deaths

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, 2024. 111p.

By Nazgol Ghandnoosh, Emma Stammen and Connie Budaci

In San Joaquin County, California in 2010, 19-year-old Emmanuel Mendoza helped lure a robbery victim to a location where a masked accomplice waited with a firearm. When a struggle with the victim over the firearm ensued, Mendoza’s accomplice fired a fatal shot. Although Mendoza did not have a weapon and the killing had not been planned, he was convicted of felony murder with special circumstances, and automatically sentenced to life without parole (LWOP). In prison, he ended his gang affiliation and mentored others to do the same, earned a GED and associate degree, embraced his faith, and has been an active father to his three children. “I understand that at the end of the day someone lost their life,” Mendoza says. “Our plan that night wasn’t to kill anyone. I can’t take it back. But I also feel that it was a huge injustice to not be given an attempt at freedom.” Murder typically refers to an intentional killing. But “felony murder” laws hold people like Mendoza liable for murder if they participated in a felony, such as a robbery, that resulted in someone’s death. These laws impose sentences associated with murder on people who neither intended to kill nor anticipated a death, and even on those who did not participate in the killing. As such, they violate the principle of proportional sentencing, which is supposed to punish crimes based on their severity. These excessively punitive outcomes violate widely shared perceptions of justice. With one in seven people in U.S. prisons serving a life sentence, ending mass incarceration requires bold action to reduce extreme prison terms such as those prescribed for felony murder. These laws run counter to public safety, fiscal responsibility, and justice. Although other countries have largely rejected the felony murder doctrine, 48 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal government still use these laws. The only two states that do not have felony murder laws are Hawaii and Kentucky. Seven other states require some proof of intentionality regarding the killing to consider it murder, though the use of a gun—or mere knowledge of a co-defendant’s gun use—satisfies this requirement in some jurisdictions. In any case, all felony murder laws use the underlying felony to either a) treat as murder a killing that would not have otherwise been considered murder, or b) increase the gradation of murder, such as from second to first degree.

Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2022. 36p.

By Aimee Brinn, John Preston, Rosina Costello, Tyler Opoku, Emily Sampson, Ian Elliott and Annie Sorbie

The Thinking Skills Programme (TSP) is an accredited offending behaviour programme designed and delivered by His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS). TSP is suitable for adult men and women assessed to be at medium and above risk of reoffending. TSP is the highest volume accredited programme delivered in custody.

The TSP is designed to reduce general reoffending by supporting improvements in four ways:

• 1. Developing thinking skills (such as problem solving, flexible thinking, consequential thinking, critical reasoning)

• 2. Applying these skills to managing personal risk factors

• 3. Applying thinking skills to developing personally relevant protective factors

• 4. Applying thinking skills to setting pro-social goals that support relapse prevention.

The programme format comprises 19 sessions (15 group sessions and 4 individual sessions, resulting in around 38 hours of contact time (dose).

The Evaluation

The aim of this evaluation is to assess the impact of TSP delivered in prison on proven general reoffending within a two-year follow-up period.

The analysis involved a treatment group of 20,293 adults (18,555 males, 1,738 females) who participated in the TSP programme between 2010 and 2019 and this was compared to a matched comparison group of 375,647 adults (345,084 males, 30,563 females) who did not participate in the programme. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to ensure comparable treatment and comparison groups. The evaluation used the largest number of PSM matching variables for a HMPPS accredited programme evaluation to date.

The evaluation also has a large sample size which means it is likely to be representative of the population of TSP participants. A larger sample generates more precise results and increases the power of statistical testing. This increases the likelihood of finding a statistically significant finding (i.e., not due to chance) even if the difference between the treatment group and the matched comparison group is small. All adults in this study were released from prison between 2010 and 2020.

The impact of TSP was evaluated against three proven general reoffending metrics over a two-year follow up period:

• 1. Binary measure of reoffending (reoffending rate) – did they re-offend?

• 2. Frequency of re-offences committed – How many re-offences over the two-year period?

• 3. Time to first re-offence

Males and females were analysed separately due to the known differences in reoffending behaviour. Headline results include all participants in the programme, separated by gender. Analyses were conducted to investigate the potentially differential effect of TSP participation on distinct subgroups and to provide information on how differences in TSP delivery may impact on its effectiveness. It was not always possible to conduct sub-analyses due to small sample sizes.

Four key sub-analyses (more details are in ‘Explanation of sub-analyses’) were identified as potentially important moderators of TSP effectiveness:

• Suitability for TSP (ideally suitable and not ideally suitable)

• Completion of TSP (completed and not completed)

• Programme integrity using the HMPPS 2016-2019 Interventions Integrity Framework (broadly maintained and compromised)

• Risk of reoffending prior to TSP (Offender Group Reconviction Score (OGRS): low, medium, or high risk of reoffending).

Additional sub-analyses were conducted to provide further context and explanation of results included:

• Index offence group (acquisitive offences, sexual offences, and OVP (OASys Violence Predictor) offences – based on grouping of Home Office offence codes)

• Exclusivity of TSP (participation in TSP only and in one or more other accredited programmes)

• Ethnic group (‘Asian and Asian British’, ‘Black, Black British, Caribbean, and African’, ‘mixed and multiple ethnic groups’, and ‘White’, as per Office for National Statistics aggregate categories)

• Learning Disabilities and Challenges (LDC) (more likely to present with characteristics associated with LDC and less likely to present with characteristics associated with LDC)

• Age (18-25, 26-30, 31-49 and 50+)

London: Ministry of Justice, 2023. 92p.

By David H. Cloud, Ilana R. Garcia-Grossman,  Andrea Armstrong, and Brie Williams

Mass incarceration is a socio-structural driver of profound health inequalities in the United States. The political and economic forces underpinning mass incarceration are deeply rooted in centuries of the enslavement of people of African descent and the genocide and displacement of Indigenous people and is inextricably connected to labor exploitation, racial discrimination, the criminalization of immigration, and behavioral health problems such as mental illness and substance use disorders. This article focuses on major public health crises and advances in state and federal prisons and discusses a range of practical strategies for health scholars, practitioners, and activists to promote the health and dignity of incarcerated people. It begins by summarizing the historical and sociostructural factors that have led to mass incarceration in the United States. It then describes the ways in which prison conditions create or worsen chronic, communicable, and behavioral health conditions, while highlighting priority areas for public health research and intervention to improve the health of incarcerated people, including decarceral solutions that can profoundly minimize—and perhaps one day help abolish—the use of prisons.   

United States, Annual Review Public Health. 2023, 29pg