By Graham J Towl , David A Crighton , Toby Harris

The definitive guide from two leading authors central to developments in the field. An invaluable book which covers everything from theoretical and community research to precisely what is known about prisoners and the risk of their committing suicide. Covers the Harris Review and Government Response to it as well as the stance of politicians, reform groups and other leading experts on what in 2017 is an escalating problem for UK prisons. Contains analysis and data from over 30 years, bringing together key knowledge and information at a critical time of concern and attention.

Sherfield on Loddon,: Waterside Press , 2017. 208p.

By Alison Liebling

The suicide rate in prisons in England and Wales is 40 per 100,000—four times that of the general population. How can this rate be explained? Recent prison suicides have aroused much public concern and media attention, yet there has been very little research examining their true cause or nature. Previous studies have tended to rely exclusively on official statistics and prison records, and have had little effect on formulating policy and practice. Suicides in Prison is the first major study in this area to draw directly on the experiences of both prisoners and staff. The interviews conducted by the author help to cast new light on the circumstances which can lead to suicide or attempted suicide. The book provides further evidence to support the growing recognition that suicide is not an exclusively psychiatric problem. The coping mechanisms and social support given to the people involved can play a crucial role. Alison Liebling also shows how serious difficulties in the management of prisoners at risk of suicide may be exacerbated by problems of communication between departments, and that prison officers may lack the necessary training to play a potentially major role in suicide prevention. Most importantly, if staff perceptions and attitudes are not addressed, any attempt to improve procedures may well be ineffective. Suicides in Prison will be of interest to probation officers, social workers and prison staff and governors as well as those studying penology. It traces the recent history of the problem and provides the first major theoretical discussion of the nature and causes of suicide in prison.

London: Routledge, 1992. 288p.

By Lindsay M. Hayes

While suicide is recognized as a critical problem within the jail environment, the issue of prison suicide has not received comparable attention. Until recently, it has been assumed that suicide, although a problem for jail inmates as they face the initial crisis of incarceration, is not a significant problem for inmates who advance to prison to serve out their sentences. This assumption, however, has not been supported in the literature. Although the rate of suicide in prisons is far lower than in jails, it remains disproportionately higher than in the general population.

Windsor Mill, MD: National Center on Institutions and Alternatives, Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Corrections, 1995. 116p.

By Kristin M. Tennyson, Lindsey Jeralds and Julie Zibulsky

Congress requires courts to consider several factors when determining the appropriate sentence to be imposed in federal cases, among them the “history and characteristics of the defendant.” The sentencing guidelines also specifically authorize judges to consider an offender’s age when determining whether to depart from the federal sentencing guidelines. In this report, the Commission presents information on relatively small number of offenders who were aged 50 or older at the time they were sentenced in the federal system. In particular, the report examines older federal offenders who were sentenced in fiscal year 2021 and the crimes they committed, then assesses whether age was given a special consideration at sentencing. This report specifically focuses on three issues that could impact the sentencing of older offenders: age and infirmity, life expectancy, and the risk of recidivism. Congress requires courts to consider several factors when determining the appropriate sentence to be imposed in federal cases, among them the “history and characteristics of the defendant.” The sentencing guidelines also specifically authorize judges to consider an offender’s age when determining whether to depart from the federal sentencing guidelines. In this report, the Commission presents information on relatively small number of offenders who were aged 50 or older at the time they were sentenced in the federal system. In particular, the report examines older federal offenders who were sentenced in fiscal year 2021 and the crimes they committed, then assesses whether age was given a special consideration at sentencing. This report specifically focuses on three issues that could impact the sentencing of older offenders: age and infirmity, life expectancy, and the risk of recidivism.

Washington, DC: The United States Sentencing Commission 2022. 68p.

By Kevin R. Reitz, Edward E. Rhine, Allegra Lukac, and Melanie Griffith

“Indeterminacy” is the product of uncertainty, after a judge has pronounced a prison sentence, about later official decisions that will influence the actual time served by the defendant. The uncertainty extends over many future decisions, such as good-time awards or forfeitures by prison officials and release or release-denial decisions by parole boards. To the extent these later decision patterns are unpredictable, the judge’s sentence is “indeterminate” on the day of sentencing. When prison sentences are highly indeterminate, many months or years of time-to-be-served can be unforeseeable in individual cases. The mechanics of indeterminacy in prison sentencing vary enormously from state to state, and are not well understood. In many states, time-served policy is largely administered at the “back end” of the sentencing system. If prison policy is aimed toward retribution or public safety, it is back-end officials who ultimately choose how best to achieve those goals. This raises critical questions of whether they are well-positioned to be stewards of the public interest, and whether their procedures are adequate to the task. Such questions are especially urgent in a nation with high incarceration rates. In most American jurisdictions, however, back-end decisionmaking about prison-sentence length has low visibility and is unglamorous. Very few people pay serious attention to its workings. From a systemic perspective, indeterminacy can be seen as the field of play in which back-end officials with time-served discretion exercise their powers. The larger the field—the greater the degree of indeterminacy—the greater the whole-system impact of back-end decisions. Indeterminacy builds up cumulative effects over hundreds and thousands of cases. In systems with high degrees of indeterminacy, a substantial amount of control over prison population size is located at the back end of the system. In many states, back-end officials have more to say about prison numbers than sentencing courts. Yet few people are aware of this.

Minneapolis, MN: Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, University of Minnesota, 2022. 145p.

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 Kelly Lyn Mitchell, Julia Laskorunsky, Natalie Bielenberg ,Lucy Chin and Madison Wadsworth

In response to the global pandemic in 2020, states and the federal government began to make non-routine releases from prison in order to reduce prison populations to allow for social distancing in prison facilities. This report is aimed at describing where such prison releases occurred, the legal mechanisms used to achieve these releases, and the factors within jurisdictions that made non-routine prison releases more or less likely to occur. We write this report, not to examine the national response to the pandemic, but to better understand when and how extraordinary measures may be used to effect prison release, and to determine whether there are lessons from this experience that can be applied to reducing the effects of mass incarceration.

Minneapolis, MN: Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, University of Minnesota, 2022 , 86p.

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.

By Ebony Ruhland , Edward E. Rhine , Jason Robey and Kelly Lyn Mitchell

The Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice launched a national survey of releasing authorities in March 2015 to each state, and the U.S. Parole Commission. The importance of the survey was underscored by an endorsement from the Association of Paroling Authorities International (APAI). We are pleased to present the results from this important survey here. This is the first comprehensive survey of parole boards completed in nearly ten years. Its findings provide a rich database for better understanding the policy and practice of paroling authorities. The last survey to be conducted of paroling authorities was in 2007 - 2008. The current report offers an expansion and update of previous surveys. The results summarized throughout the report offer a timely resource for paroling authorities, correctional policy-makers and practitioners, legislators, and those with a public policy interest in sentencing and criminal justice operations. It is our hope that the document and its findings provide key justice system and other stakeholders with an incisive snapshot of the work of paroling authorities across the country in a manner that contributes to a larger conversation about sound and effective parole release and revocation practices.

Minneapolis: Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 2016. 56p.

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.

By Madeline M. Carter, and The Honorable Richard J. Sankovitz

Isaac Newton was among the first modern scientists to recognize that new discoveries depend heavily on science that is already established: “If I have seen further,” he wrote, “it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.”1 Giant strides have been made in the fields of public administration and criminal justice by applying science to practice. Evidence-based decision making asserts that public policy and practice should be informed by the best available research and enhanced through ongoing performance measurement and evaluation. Scientific study has demonstrated that recidivism can be reduced when three key principles are followed: n The risk principle suggests that justice system interventions should be matched to offenders’ risk level, focusing more intensive interventions on moderate and high risk offenders. n The need principle asserts that justice system interventions should target those factors that most significantly influence criminal behavior. n The responsivity principle demonstrates that interventions are most effective when they are based on research-supported models and tailored to the unique characteristics of individual offenders. In this paper, we propose to take this knowledge one step further: to link the duration of probation supervision to the optimal amount of intervention an offender needs in order to reduce risk of reoffense. The proposed “dosage” model of probation suggests that the length of supervision should be determined by the number of hours of intervention necessary to reduce risk, rather than an arbitrarily (or customarily) established amount of time (e.g., 3 years, 5 years). For many offenders, the research shows that correctional intervention is analogous to treating a patient: too little intervention and the patient receives little or no benefit; too much, and the treatment is ineffective or even harmful.2 Given this, we postulate that the length of supervision should depend on how long it takes an offender to achieve the dosage target—the type and amount of intervention that research tells us he or she needs in order to maximize the potential for behavior change and that is necessary in order to minimize risk to the public—rather than a fixed term of supervision.

Silver Spring, MD: Center For Effective Public Policy , 2014. 22p.

By Madeline Carter

In 2011, while working in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on the Evidence-Based Decision Making Initiative, sponsored by the National Institute of Corrections (NIC), the Center for Effective Public Policy (the Center) pioneered the concept of “dosage probation.” In 2012, NIC awarded a cooperative agreement to the Center and its partner The Carey Group to develop a model that would further explore this concept and outline the activities, processes, and objectives that a jurisdiction would carry out at the individual case, agency, and system levels to implement dosage probation as a risk reduction intervention. The model was introduced through the publication of a monograph entitled Dosage Probation: Rethinking the Structure of Probation Sentences (Carter & Sankovitz, 2014). In subsequent years, NIC supported implementation of the model in two pilot sites: Napa County, California, and Washington County, Minnesota. Much has been learned from these pilot efforts.

The dosage probation model suggests that the length of supervision should be determined by the number of hours of intervention necessary to reduce risk as opposed to a standard probation term, such as 3, 4, 5, etc., years. Dosage probation is designed to incentivize behavior change by providing an opportunity for the individual under supervision to receive early termination from probation if they successfully engage in risk reduction interventions tailored to their criminogenic needs, in a “dose” matched to their risk level. This document, the second in a series, provides background information on the dosage probation project; a summary of the literature pertinent to dosage; and information about the dosage pilot sites, including key lessons that emerged from the pilot project. It also lays the foundation for a forthcoming set of resources on this topic: The Dosage Probation Toolkit.

Silver Spring, MD: Center for Effective Public Policy, 2020.

By George M. Camp and Camille G. Camp

The study obtained data from a literature search; a survey of the 50 State prison systems, the District of Columbia, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons; structured onsite interviews in 9 jurisdictions; and document analysis. Data on the extent of prison gangs encompass the aggregate number of prison gangs in the Nation, the number of gangs in each State, and the number of gang members. A review of the history of prison gangs in the United States traces their beginning to Washington State in 1950 and then describes their development in other regions and States. A discussion of the nature of prison gangs focuses on their general structure and operation, including initiation requirements, leadership characteristics, gang member relationships with nongang inmates, and gang activities within prisons. Some prison gang problems identified are drug trafficking, intimidation of nongang inmates, strong-arm extortion, violence, conflicts between gangs, and contracted inmate murders. The study found that no prison system methodically identifies, tracks, and maintains ongoing intelligence on prison gangs. Data also indicate the frequency with which corrections systems use each of 13 identified strategies for countering prison gangs and their activities. Major recommendations include (1) the development of a policy position on prison gangs and procedures for detecting early signs of gang activity, (2) the construction of smaller prison facilities, (3) the establishment of prison gang task forces, and (4) a systematic debriefing of former gang members to obtain useful information. The report also recommends that prison systems share with one another models of gang control that have and have not worked in their jurisdictions. Appendixes contain extensive information and tabular data. A 48-item bibliography is included.

South Salem, NY: Criminal Justice Institute, 1985. 220p.

By Southern Poverty Law Center

Within the Ronald Reagan Federal Building and United States Courthouse here is a courtroom called the “Nuremberg room” for its resemblance to the famous chamber in which 22 leaders of the Third Reich were tried in 1945 and 1946 for crimes against humanity.

Both halls of justice have three-tiered docks where multiple high-profile defendants are shackled to anchors in the floor by chains hidden from view behind tables and podiums. Like the docks in Germany’s Palace of Justice 60 years ago, the docks in Santa Ana this year have filled with self-avowed Nazis, Aryan warriors, and followers of Hitler.

But the Nazis standing accused in California are Nazis of a wholly different strain than Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal defendants like Hermann Goering and Rudolf Hess. They are white supremacist pimps, drug dealers and backstabbing shower-stall killers, glorified thugs with swastika tattoos. They covet power and oversee a criminal empire, but they are motivated less by furthering their die-hard racist ideology than satisfying their crude greed. They are the leaders of the Aryan Brotherhood (AB), the most notorious, powerful, and violent prison gang in America. Also known as the Brand or the Rock — a reference to the Shamrock tattoos AB members favor in addition to Nazi insignia — the gang in recent years has established criminal networks outside prison walls in cities, small towns, and suburbs across the country.

Atlanta, GA: Southern Poverty Law Center,

By International Crisis Group

Indonesia, like many countries where Islamic jihadi cells have been uncovered, has been experimenting over the last three years with “deradicalisation” programs. While the term is poorly defined and means different things to different people, at its most basic it involves the process of persuading extremists to abandon the use of violence. It can also refer to the process of creating an environment that discourages the growth of radical movements by addressing the basic issues fuelling them, but in general, the broader the definition, the less focused the program created around it. Experience suggests that deradicalisation efforts in Indonesia, however creative, cannot be evaluated in isolation and they are likely to founder unless incorporated into a broader program of prison reform. One Indonesian initiative, focused on prisoners involved in terrorism, has won praise for its success in persuading about two dozen members of Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) and a few members of other jihadi organisations to cooperate with the police. Key elements are getting to know individual prisoners and responding to their specific concerns, often relating to economic needs of their families, as well as constant communication and attention. One premise is that if through kindness, police can change the jihadi assumption that government officials are by definition thoghut (antiIslamic), the prisoners may begin to question other deeplyheld tenets.

Brussels, Belgium: International Crisis Group, 2007. 29p.

By Greg Hannah, Lindsay Clutterbuck and Jennifer Rubin

This study is the result of internally funded RAND Corporation research. It seeks to provide a preliminary overview of the challenges posed by radicalized and extremist prisoners, and to explore the potential for the radicalization of young European Muslims in the prison environment. The study draws on the body of existing prison theory literature, historical case examples and contemporary open sources. It draws a number of conclusions about the potential in prison for extremist activity, including radicalization, and highlights a number of areas where further research and action may be desirable.

Cambridge, UK: RAND Europe, 2008. 86p.

By James McGuire

The occurrence of violent assault in prison is a challenging problem. This Analytical Summary reports the findings of a rapid evidence assessment (REA) into the causes of physically violent assaults by male adult prisoners. The REA reviewed 97 research studies published since 1st January 2000. Key findings • Most of the published research is focused on imported characteristics – the personal characteristics of men who are violent in prison – and attempts to predict who they will be. Imported characteristics associated with prison violence include youth, history of earlier violence in prison or with violent convictions, membership of gangs, low self-control, anger, temper, mental health problems, and antisocial attitudes and personality. • The prison environment also plays a considerable role in how prisoners behave. Physically poor conditions, highly controlling regimes, or by contrast circumstances in which rules are unevenly applied or not adhered to or where prisoners do not experience staff decisions as fair or legitimate, can each heighten tensions and induce stresses potentially giving rise to conflict and assault. • Perhaps surprisingly, evidence that crowding in and of itself was a direct cause of violence was fairly weak. Research suggested that the effects of crowding are mediated through staff-prisoner interactions and that the crucial factor in maintaining order is the availability and the skills of unit staff. • Some features of prison activity make violence less likely. Places within a prison where prisoners are engaged in purposeful activities they consider valuable, such as workshops and education, are less prone to be sites of aggression. Violence is more likely to occur in places that offer less purpose, have fewer formal ground-rules, and lower staff oversight, such as cells. • A policy designed to reduce violence could be oriented towards situational control aspects of day-to-day prison management. That would require staff training in the use of styles and patterns of interaction that wield authority alongside instilling respect.

London: HM Prison and Probation Service, 2018. 9p.

By James Austin

This study examined the extent to which the Prisoner Classification Management (PMC) system improved prison operations and reduced violence between inmates. The PMC system classifies inmates into one of five categories: selective intervention -- situational (SI-S); selective intervention -- treatment (SI-T); casework control (CC); environmental structure (ES); and limit setting (LS). Data were collected from records kept by the Research and Planning Section of Washington's Department of Corrections. Data included inmate characteristics (JU67W.DAT), work assignment records (JU68W.DAT), disciplinary records (JU69W.DAT), assignment records (JU70W.DAT), and housing assignment records (JU71W.DAT). Data were also collected from a long (JUnW.DAT) and short (JU73W.DAT) PMC questionnaire. Checks for out-of-range values revealed that the data are free of detectable coding errors.

San Francisco: National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 1990. 100p.

By Ian O'Donnell

Prisoners, Solitude, and Time by Ian O’Donnell is a major addition to the number of outstanding books on imprisonment already published in the Clarendon Studies in Criminology series. As the title indicates, its focus is on prisoners’ experience of solitary confinement, their handling of time, and the interface between these. Professor O’Donnell brings to bear on these issues a wealth of academic expertise, primarily as a psychologist and historian, as well as experience in penal reform, prison visiting, and as a magistrate. The result is an immaculately written book that is not only scholarly but also thought-provoking, moving, and ultimately inspiring about the potential of human beings to somehow and sometimes transcend even the most cruel and unusual deprivations and pains. Time is of the essence of prison as punishment, captured in the cliché ‘if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime’. Yet the vast criminological literature scarcely focuses on the subjective experience of ‘doing time’.

Oxford, UK; New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. 353p.