By Mackenzie Buday and Ashley Nellis

Private prisons incarcerated 99,754 American residents in 2020, representing 8% of the total state and federal prison population. Since 2000, the number of people housed in private prisons has increased 14%. Harmful crime policies of the 1980s and beyond fueled a rapid expansion in the nation’s prison population. The resulting burden on the public sector led to the modern emergence of for-profit prisons in many states and the federal system. Of the 1.2 million people in federal and state prisons, 8%, or 99,754 people, were in private prisons as of year-end 2020.

Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2022. 3p.

By The Independent Commission on New York City Criminal Justice and Incarceration Reform and Columbia University Justice Lab

New York State sends more people to prison for parole rules violations than any other state in the country. In 2019, 40 percent of the people sent to New York prisons were incarcerated not for a new felony conviction, but for parole violations such as not reporting to a parole officer, living at an unapproved residence, missing curfew, or failing drug or alcohol tests. Black and Latinx people are significantly more likely than white people to be incarcerated for parole violations. The fiscal impact on New York state and local taxpayers is enormous. In 2019, New York’s state and local governments collectively spent $683 million to incarcerate people on parole for rules violations, without evidence that this massive expenditure of resources meaningfully contributed to public safety. New York State spent $319 million in 2019 to incarcerate people for parole rule violations in state prisons. New York counties—excluding the five counties in New York City—collectively spent more than $91 million to jail people who were accused of technical violations ƒ New York City spent $273 million to jail people accused of technical violations

New York: Columbia University, Justice Lab, 2021. 23p.

By Caitlin Curry

Scholars have sought to understand the problem of racial disproportionality in U.S. imprisonment rates for over four decades, but current research has yet to identify the specific correctional mechanisms that exacerbate racial differences in incarceration (Garland, 2013). The rate of parole revocations increased markedly in the 1990s and 2000s, contributing to the growth in imprisonment in the US. Likewise, some research also finds that the likelihood of parole revocation varies by race, but we know little about the effect of parole revocations on imprisonment disparity (Huebner and Bynum, 2008). This study uses a sample of 24 states over a twenty year period (1990-2009) to test the hypothesis that parole revocation admissions contribute to disparity in imprisonment by race. Specifically, this study employs multilevel modeling to assess the extent to which parole revocations account for race differences in prisons admissions, when controlling for individual characteristics as well as state structural factors and policies

Fayetteville, AR: University of Arkansas at Fayetteville, 2016. 76p.

By The Independent Commission on New York City Criminal Justice and Incarceration Reform

Over the past few years, New York City has significantly lowered the number of people held in its jails. Recent legislative reforms to pretrial laws promise further reductions. But one population in City jails has resisted these trends and poses a major barrier to closing the jails on Rikers Island: people accused of violations of community supervision, commonly referred to as parole. On any given day, 20 percent of the New York City jail population is made up of people accused of parole violations. 89 percent are people of color. Approximately 600 people are accused of non-criminal “technical” parole violations, such as being late for curfew, testing positive for drugs, or missing an appointment with a parole officer. Another 900 people are charged with new criminal offenses but are ineligible for bail or pretrial release, no matter how low-level the offense, because parole authorities have also issued a warrant. Jailing so many people on parole warrants does little for public safety and is counterproductive to the success of people who are reentering society from prison. It is also incredibly expensive: applying figures from the New York City Comptroller, the City spends more than $400 million per year to incarcerate people accused of parole violations. These problems are not limited to Rikers. On any given day, more than 1,000 people are held in other jails across the state solely because they are accused of technical parole violations. And almost 40 percent of the people sent to state prison each year in New York are not incarcerated for new criminal convictions, but rather for these technical parole violations.

Independent Commission on New York City Criminal Justice and Incarceration Reform, 2019. 22p.

By Vincent Schiraldi and Jennifer Arzu

As state and city leaders agree that the jail complex on Rikers Island should be closed, efforts have increased at the state and city level to reduce the New York City jail population (New York City Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice 2017a; Cuomo 2018). The population of New York City’s jails dipped below 9,000 recently for the first time in 35 years, even as crime in the city has continued to decline, allowing the City to announce the closure of one of Rikers Island’s nine jails (New York City Office of the Mayor 2017; Schiraldi 2018). But as the number of persons incarcerated pretrial for misdemeanors, non-violent and violent felonies, as well as the city sentenced population, have declined by double-digits over the past four years, only one population in the jail has increased, also by double digits: persons held in city jails for state parole violations (New York City Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice 2017b; New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services 2018). This brief will examine this issue in greater detail, focusing primarily on the impact it is having on the New York City jail population at this critical time. We will conclude with recommendations to reduce unnecessary incarceration of persons on parole and to shrink the overall parole population by incentivizing good behavior on parole, referring whenever possible to other jurisdictions that have successfully enacted parole reforms.

New York: Columbia University, Justice Lab, 2018. 14p.

By Kendra Bradner and Vincent Schiraldi

The scope and conditions of parole supervision in New York have profound impacts for people serving supervision sentences. Numerous conditions are a constraint on their liberty, serve as trip wires to incarceration, and can disrupt the process of community reintegration needed for successful reentry after leaving prison. Parole supervision also fuels mass incarceration everywhere, but particularly in New York, as New York sends more people back to prison for non-criminal, technical parole violations than any state except Illinois (Kaeble 2018, Appendix Table 7). Six times as many people are reincarcerated in state prisons for technical violations – such as missing an appointment, being out past curfew, or testing positive for alcohol – as are reincarcerated for a new criminal conviction (Commission 2019). Moreover, people held on parole violations are now the only population increasing in New York City jails, threatening plans to close the notorious Rikers Island jails complex (Schiraldi and Arzu 2018; Commission 2019). Together, incarceration for technical violations cost New York State and localities over $600 million annually (The Council of State Governments 2019; NYC Independent Budget Office 2019; NYS Bar Association 2019).

New York: Columbia University, Justice Lab, 2020. 24p.

By The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA): Linda Montanari, Luis Royuela, Ines Hasselberg and Liesbeth Vandam

This European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) Insights report provides a comprehensive overview of the current knowledge and latest developments in the field of drug use and prison in the 30 countries reporting to the EMCDDA up to the end of 2020: the 27 EU Member States, Norway, Turkey and the United Kingdom. It also identifies important gaps in our knowledge, challenges for better provision of interventions and implications for policy and practice. The report provides an overview of the current situation in the field of drugs and prison in the following areas: drug use and drug-related problems among the prison population; the availability of drug-related services in prison; the evidence available for effective interventions in the prison setting; drug supply and supply reduction interventions; and future challenges relating to prison and drugs.

People in prison report high levels of lifetime prevalence of substance use before imprisonment and increased levels of consumption, especially of heroin, cocaine and amphetamines, compared with the general population. Although many people will stop injecting drugs when they enter prison, for those that continue, the use and reuse of contaminated equipment is not uncommon, contributing to an increased risk of transmission of infectious diseases in these settings.

Lisbon: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), 2022. 124p.

By The Southern Poverty Law Center

The detention of immigrants has skyrocketed in the United States. On a given day in August 2019, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) held over 55,000 people in detention – a massive increase from five years ago when ICE held fewer than 30,000 people. Unsurprisingly, the United States has the largest immigration incarceration system in the world. What’s more, the federal government spends more on immigration enforcement than for all principal federal law enforcement agencies combined, according to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General. As of April 2019, Florida had the sixth-largest population of people detained by ICE in the United States, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University. On a daily basis, ICE currently detains more than 2,000 noncitizens in the state, mostly in South Florida, which is home to four immigration prisons: Krome Service Processing Center (Krome), owned by ICE; Broward Transitional Center (Broward), operated by GEO Group, a Boca Raton-based for-profit prison corporation; and two county jails, Glades County Detention Center (Glades) and Monroe County Detention Center (Monroe). Despite the fact that immigrants are detained on civil violations, their detention is indistinguishable from the conditions found in jails or prisons where people are serving criminal sentences. The nation’s immigration detention centers are little more than immigrant prisons, where detained people endure harsh – even dangerous – conditions. And reports of recent deaths have only heightened concerns.

Montgomery, AL: Southern Poverty Law Center, 2017. 104p.

By The American Civil Liberties Union

Today, the United States has just 5% of the world’s population but nearly 25% of the world’s prisoners. But it has not always been this way. Thanks to the “War on Drugs,” irrationally harsh sentencing regimes, and a refusal to consider evidence-based alternatives, the U.S. prison population grew by more than 700% between 1970 and 2009—far outpacing both population growth and crime rates.1 In the past decade, the growing criminalization of immigration has further contributed to this mass incarceration crisis. According to the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) now refers more cases for federal criminal prosecution than the FBI.2 Nationwide, more than half of all federal criminal prosecutions initiated in fiscal year 2013 were for unlawfully crossing the border into the United States—an act that has traditionally been treated as a civil offense resulting in deportation, rather than as a criminal act resulting in incarceration in a federal prison.3 This is dramatically changing who enters the federal prison system.4 The tipping point came in 2009, when more people entered federal prison for immigration offenses than for violent, weapons, and property offenses combined—and the number has continued to rise each year since.5 The criminalization of immigration also enriches the private prison industry. Once prosecuted, noncitizen federal prisoners are mostly segregated into thirteen “Criminal Alien Requirement” (CAR) prisons. The CAR prisons are unusual in three respects: they are some of the only

New York: ACLU,, 2014. 104p.

By Southern Poverty Law Center, National Immigration Project Of The National Lawyers Guild. And Adelante Alabama Worker Center

The findings of this study demonstrate that the immigrant detention system is already rife with civil rights violations and poor conditions that call into question the DHS's commitment to the due process rights and safety of detainees. Many of these detainees have lived here for years; others recently fled violence in their home countries to seek refuge in the United States.This report is the result of a seven-month investigation of six detention centers in the South, a region where tens of thousands of people are locked up for months, sometimes even years, as they await hearings or deportation.operated by private companies and three by county sheriffs. All are paid by the DHS on a per diem basis. The report is based on tours of each facility and more than 300 in-person interviews with detainees. They represent more than 5 percent of the average daily population of the detention centers studied. From facility to facility, their stories are remarkably similar accounts of abuse, neglect and rights denied – symptoms of an immigrant detention system where the failures of the nation's immigration system intersect with the failures of its prison system

Southern Poverty Law Center National Immigration Project Of The National Lawyers Guild Adelante Alabama Worker Center. 116P.

By Jessica Feierman with Naomi Goldstein, Emily Haney-Caron, Jaymes Fairfax Columbo

This report documents how and when youth and families face fines, fees and restitution and the economic and legal consequences for failure to pay. The report identifies promising practices, as well as legislative remedies that could be replicated across the country and highlights jurisdictions which have recently stopped imposing court costs, fees, and fines in the juvenile system. These findings and recommendations are based on a review of state laws as well as a national survey of lawyers, adults with previous juvenile justice involvement, and families in 41 states.

Philadelphia: Juvenile Law Center, 2016. 40p.

By Hanna Love, Samantha Harvell, Chloe Warnberg and Julia Durnan

This brief examines how former youth prisons can be repurposed into new, sustainable assets for neighborhood revitalization, job creation, and social services. Drawing from qualitative interviews with stakeholders involved in youth prison repurposing efforts across the country, it highlights innovative examples of repurposing in six communities and provides an overview of lessons learned and key considerations for transforming former youth prisons. Findings indicate that although youth prison repurposing is not without its challenges, it offers a unique opportunity to leverage unused state land to inspire lasting investments within communities and produce tangible benefits for residents both socially and economically.

Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 2018. 24p.

By James Austin, Kelly Dedel Johnson and Maria Gregoriou

In 1997, the Bureau of Justice Assistance funded a nationwide study of juveniles in adult correctional facilities to help policymakers and criminal justice practitioners form an effective response to this critical issue. Juveniles in Adult Prisons and Jails: A National Assessment is the product of that study. This report begins to answer important questions about this vulnerable population: What is the extent of juvenile confinement in federal, state, and local facilities? What types of facilities are used to house juvenile offenders? What happens to juveniles in the adult system? Are juveniles in adult facilities educated, treated for substance abuse, and taught skills that will help them find a job after their incarceration? Are prisons and jails protecting young offenders from physical, sexual, and psychological abuse? What are the alternative strategies for housing offenders sentenced to long terms in adult facilities?

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2000. 135p.

By National Council for Behavioral Health and Vital Strategies

This toolkit provides correctional administrators and health care providers recommendations and tools for implementing medication-assisted treatment (MAT) in correctional settings. It provides examples from the field that can be widely applied and adapted for programs that serve justice-involved individuals. It was developed by the National Council for Behavioral Health, Vital Strategies, and faculty from Johns Hopkins University, with support from CDC and Bloomberg Philanthropies.

2020. 312p.

By David Redemske

While there are numerous built environmental models for prisoner health care, little has been done to assess the models to see if a particular location for care better serves the inmate population’s health needs over other locations. “Mass incarceration” has been used to describe the recent dramatic expansion of the criminal justice system in the United States. Underserved communities with minimal access to healthcare services disproportionately bear the burden of mass incarceration. This huge influx into the prison population of those who have received little or no medical care throughout the course of their lives, along with a court ruling mandating a constitutional level of care for prisoners, has resulted in a greater demand for healthcare services for this population. The purpose of this literature review is to shed light on the challenging healthcare process, the best environments for prison inmates to receive care, and to generate recommendations for the future.

Omaha, NE: HDR, 2018. 198p.

By Laura M. Maruschak and Marcus Berzofsky

In 2011–12, half of state and federal prisoners and local jail inmates reported ever having a chronic condition (figure 1). Chronic conditions include cancer, high blood pressure, stroke-related problems, diabetes, heart-related problems, kidney-related problems, arthritis, asthma, and cirrhosis of the liver. Twenty-one percent of prisoners and 14% of jail inmates reported ever having an infectious disease, including tuberculosis, hepatitis B and C, and other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). About 1% of prisoners and jail inmates who had been tested for HIV reported being HIV positive.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics 2016. 23p.

Edited by Lars Møller, Heino Stöver, Ralf Jürgens, Alex Gatherer and Haik Nikogosian

Based on the experience of many countries in Europe and the advice of experts, this guide outlines some of the steps prison systems should take to reduce the public health risks from compulsory detention in often unhealthy situations, to care for prisoners in need and to promote the health of prisoners and staff. This especially requires that everyone working in prisons understand well how imprisonment affects health and the health needs of prisoners and that evidence-based prison health services can be provided for everyone needing treatment, care and prevention in prison. Other essential elements are being aware of and accepting internationally recommended standards for prison health; providing professional care with the same adherence to professional ethics as in other health services; and, while seeing individual needs as the central feature of the care provided, promoting a whole-prison approach to the care and promoting the health and well-being of those in custody.

Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2007. 198p.

By Kristin M. Tennyson, Ross Thomas, Tessa Guiton and Alyssa Purdy

This report is the fifth in a series continuing the Commission’s study of the recidivism of federal offenders released in 2010. In this report, the Commission provides an analysis of data on the recidivism of federal offenders who participated in Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) drug abuse treatment while incarcerated. The study examines whether completion of drug programs offered by the BOP impacted recidivism among a cohort of federal offenders who were released from prison in calendar year 2010. The report combines data regularly collected by the Commission, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) criminal history records, and data on program completion and participation provided by the BOP.

Washington, DC; United States Sentencing Commission, 2022. 76p.

By Kristin M. Tennyson, Ross Thomas, Alyssa Purdy and Tessa Guiton,

This report is the sixth in a series continuing the Commission’s study of the recidivism of federal offenders released in 2010. In this report, the Commission provides an analysis of data on the recidivism of federal offenders who participated in Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) vocational programs while incarcerated. The study examines whether completion of vocational programs offered by the BOP impacted recidivism among a cohort of federal offenders who were released from prison in calendar year 2010. The report combines data regularly collected by the Commission, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) criminal history records, and data on program completion and participation provided by the BOP.

Washington, DC: United States Sentencing Commission, 2022. 80p.

By Kim Steven Hunt and Robert Dumville

This report provides a broad overview of key findings from the United States Sentencing Commission’s study of recidivism of federal offenders. The Commission studied offenders who were either released from federal prison after serving a sentence of imprisonment or placed on a term of probation in 2005. Nearly half (49.3%) of such offenders were rearrested within eight years for either a new crime or for some other violation of the condition of their probation or release conditions. This report discusses the Commission’s recidivism research project and provides many additional findings from that project. In the future, the Commission will release additional publications discussing specific topics concerning recidivism of federal offenders.

Washington, DC; The United States Sentencing Commission, 2016. 61p.