By Alycia Castillo, Jemima Abalogu and Lindsey Linder

Today in Texas schools, students at every grade level face disciplinary methods that can land them behind bars. School administrations have implemented punitive “zero tolerance” policies and have increased on-campus policing in response to various incidents over past decades; this has led to negative, unintended consequences and has pushed many students — particularly those most vulnerable — out of the classroom, where they can be subject to criminalization. But as the spotlight has shown more harshly on youth incarceration and the harm to children and their families, measures to reverse the “school-to-prison pipeline” are being piloted and implemented throughout Texas to ensure that, in efforts to create safe schools, we also have safe students who can reach their full potential. The Texas Criminal Justice Coalition talked to school discipline experts and students across the state to learn more about disciplinary practices and restorative justice, which addresses student misbehavior and holds them accountable in a safe, non-court setting, leading to better outcomes for students, victims, schools, and communities. Throughout this report, insights from experts and students shed additional light on the need for alternatives to harsh discipline, and they ultimately provide hope that Texas can reverse the school-to-prison pipeline.

Austin, TX: The Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, 2020. 35p.

By Naila AwanShruti Banerjee

More than 2 million people are incarcerated in prisons or jails each year. This population, which is often ignored and de facto disenfranchised, is disproportionately Black and brown. Black, Indigenous, and Hispanic Americans are 3.5 times, 2.1 times, and 1.08 times, respectively, more likely to be incarcerated in jail than someone who is white. These disparities exist in the prison population as well, with Black and Hispanic Americans being 5.72 times and 3.05 times, respectively, more likely to be incarcerated than someone who is white. The majority of people held in jails, as well as some of those who are held in prisons, remain eligible to vote.

COVID-19 has exposed the cracks in our current democratic system, and advocacy groups have provided recommendations for voting during the pandemic. What groups have largely failed to do, however, is address how we best protect the right to vote for eligible voters being held in prisons and jails. We must not let a pandemic exacerbate the de facto disenfranchisement these individuals face and further restrict the ability of eligible, incarcerated voters to have a say in who and what laws govern them.

New York; Washington, DC: Demos, 2020. 12p.

By Erika Wood and Rachel Bloom

Voting is both a fundamental right and a civic duty. However there remains a significant blanket barrier to the franchise: 5.3 million American citizens are not allowed to vote because of criminal convictions. As many as four million of these people live, work, and raise families in our communities, but because of convictions in their past they are still denied the right to vote.

State laws vary widely on when voting rights are restored. Maine and Vermont do not deny the franchise based on a criminal conviction; even prisoners may vote there. Kentucky and Virginia are the last two states to continue to permanently disenfranchise all people with felony convictions unless they receive individual, discretionary clemency from the governor. The remaining 46 states fall somewhere in between, with the varied state laws forming a patchwork across the country. Some states restore voting rights upon release from prison, others upon completion of probation and parole, and others impose waiting periods or other contingencies and categories before restoring voting rights.

• More.....

  This disenfranchisement by law of millions of American citizens is only half the story. Across the country there is persistent confusion among election officials about their state's felony disenfranchisement policies. Election officials receive little or no training on these laws, and there is little or no coordination or communication between election offices and the criminal justice system. These factors, coupled with complex laws and complicated registration procedures, result in the mass dissemination of inaccurate and misleading information, which in turn leads to the de facto disenfranchisement of untold hundreds of thousands of eligible would-be voters throughout the country

New York: ACLU and Brennan Center for Justice, 2008. 24p.

By The American Civil Liberties Union

Right to Vote, a campaign to end felony disfranchisement, is part of the American Civil Liberties Union's Racial Justice Program. Together with the Voting Rights Project, Right to Vote works with ACLU affiliates throughout the country on legislation, litigation and public education to reform felony disfranchisement policies and practices, and to promote the fundamental, democratic right to vote for all citizens.

Unless you live in Maine or Vermont, where incarcerated citizens may vote, there is important work to do on this issue. One of the greatest barriers to felon enfranchisement is the lack of public awareness of the issue; where awareness exists, the information available is often misleading or inaccurate. Well over five million Americans are legally barred from voting due to a felony conviction (and in six states, a misdemeanor conviction), while millions more are disfranchised due to ignorance, misunderstanding or confusion about disfranchisement law in their states. In this toolkit, you will find the individual pieces that, when combined, will help you launch a successful campaign in your state. Additional information is also available at www.aclu.org/righttovote, including sample bills, public education materials, op-eds and more

New York: American Civil Liberties Union, 2008. 72p.

By Tracy Sohoni

"In this dissertation I [Sohoni] examine the effect of states’ collateral consequence laws in the categories of voting, access to public records, employment, public housing, public assistance, and driver’s licenses. I examine the impact of these laws on state rates of returns to prison, as measured by percent of prison admissions that were people on conditional release when they entered prison, the percent of exits from parole that were considered unsuccessful due returning to incarceration; the percent of exits from parole that were returned to incarceration for a new sentence, and the percent of exits from parole that were returned to incarceration for a technical violation. I also run an additional fixed effects analysis on the effect of restrictions on Temporary Assistance for Needy Children (TANF) over a seven year period." This study is the first one done to address what is known empirically about how certain collateral consequence laws negatively influence the ability of ex-offenders to reenter their communities.

• More.....

  This dissertation is comprised of five chapters: introduction to reentry and the era of mass incarceration, goals and realities of collateral consequence laws, and the current study; collateral consequence laws in the United States—overview, legal challenges and concerns, effects, and collateral consequences and recidivism; data and methods; findings regarding voting, access to records, employment, public housing, public assistance, driver's licenses, the cumulative effect, fixed effects analysis of TANF restrictions, and discussion of results; and conclusions.

Report to the U.S. National Institute of Justice, 2014. 181p.

By Christopher Uggen, Ryan Larson, Sarah Shannon, and Robert Stewart

In the past 25 years, half the states have changed their laws and practices to expand voting access to people with felony convictions. Despite these important reforms, 5.2 million Americans remain disenfranchised, 2.3 percent of the voting age population.

In this presidential election year, the question of voting restrictions, and their disproportionate impact on Black and Brown communities, should receive greater public attention. This report is intended to update and expand our previous work on the scope and distribution of felony disenfranchisement in the United States For the first time, we present estimates of the percentage of the Latinx population disenfranchised due to felony convictions. Although these and other estimates must be interpreted with caution, the numbers presented here represent our best assessment of the state of felony disenfranchisement as of the November 2020 election.

Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2020. 20p.

By Danielle Root and Lee Doyle

In November 2017, men residing in an Allen County, Indiana, jail filed a class-action lawsuit against their local sheriff. The lawsuit alleged that the sheriff had denied the men and others their fundamental right to vote during the 2016 general election while they were being held in jail awaiting trial. According to court filings, jail administrators failed to provide them with information about their voting eligibility. Administrators allegedly also failed to assist them in obtaining absentee ballots and did not provide access to the voting booth on Election Day. Many Americans held in jail while awaiting trial are legally eligible to vote. Each election cycle, however, countless numbers of them are excluded from participating in the democratic process because of structural barriers to voter registration and voting. These individuals—many of whom come from low-income communities and are people of color—are systematically prevented from having their voices heard due to lack of access to voter registration forms, absentee ballots or voting booths, or critical information on voting eligibility. In other words, voting-eligible Americans are routinely being excluded from participating in U.S. democracy due to avoidable obstacles in the voting process.

Center for American Progress, 2018. 9p.

By Nicole Kief

The right to vote is the cornerstone of American democracy. For many Americans, the primary source of information about voter eligibility is the voter registration form. Consequently, the availability of clear, accurate registration forms is critical to ensuring this fundamental right. For the 47 million Americans with criminal records,1 however, it may be risky to rely on voter registration forms to determine whether they may register to vote.The findings that follow reveal that the vast majority of U.S. states—33 plus the District of Columbia—currently use registration forms that provide inaccurate, incomplete or misleading information about whether individuals with criminal records are eligible to vote. The back-story to this problem is the patchwork of state disfranchisement laws that prevent over 5.3 million Americans with criminal records from voting. In 48 states (all but Maine and Vermont) and in the District of Columbia, citizens lose the right to vote upon conviction of a felony; in at least a handful of states, the right is also lost upon conviction of a misdemeanor. All 48 states (and the District of Columbia) also provide mechanisms by which these citizens may seek to regain their voting rights, though some processes are much more viable than others. These mechanisms range from automatic restoration (upon completion of incarceration or sentence) to restoration only after satisfaction of an extensive, onerous and sometimes costly individual application process.

New York: American Civil Liberties Union, 2008. 22p,.

Edited byAmanda Perry, Cynthia McDougall and David P. Farrington

Based on extensive research initiated by the UK Home Office, Reducing Crime offers an objective look at the effectiveness of criminal justice interventions in the reduction of crime. Bringing together information about where, for whom and at what cost these interventions are effective, the book examines alcohol prevention and drug treatment studies; courts, sentencing and police interventions; probation and prison interventions; and situational burglary and housing interventions. In addition to a cost/benefits analysis of each intervention, the book also discusses future research and policy directions.

Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley, 2006. 253p.

By Ben Jarman and Claudia Vince

This report presents the findings of a prisoner consultation carried out by PRT’s Building Futures programme. Around 100 responses were received from people in prison to four questions relating to their progression. The report looks at what is meant by risk reduction and assessment, and progression both in terms of offending behaviour courses and the personal progression of prisoners. It also examines the relationship between risk and progression, and the lack of clarity felt by prisoners. The report identifies missed opportunities for the progression and development of long-term prisoners but makes recommendations to improve the system.

London: Prison Reform Trust, 2022. 76p.

By Illinois Task Force on Children of Incarcerated Parents

Nearly 200,000 children across Illinois have had a parent in jail or in prison, placing significant burdens on the caregivers and families left behind. While the trauma these children experience affects their educational attainment and multiple aspects of their mental and physical health, research shows regular visits not only improve their own outcomes but increase the likelihood that their parents will stay out of the criminal justice system once released. Recognizing the scope of these challenges facing families across Illinois, lawmakers created a Task Force on Children of Incarcerated Parents ("Task Force"), charged with developing recommendations to address these issues. The Task Force met nine times and held over a half dozen listening sessions from August 2019 to December 2020 under the guidance of State Representative Delia Ramirez with staff support from the Lieutenant Governor’s Justice, Equity and Opportunity Initiative and Cabrini Green Legal Aid. The group convened subject matter experts, impacted families, researchers and state agencies to collect and review agency policies, surveys, interviews with law enforcement agencies and input from youth and other community members.

Springfield, IL: Illinois Office of the Lieutenant Governor, 2020. 28p.

By Meghan McCormick, Bright Sarfo and Emily Brennan

Over 5 million American children under the age of 18 years, a disproportionate number of whom are Black or Latino, have had a residential parent jailed or incarcerated. While a number of existing studies identify parental incarceration as a key risk factor for poor child and family outcomes, there is more limited information describing programs that aim to promote positive outcomes for children with parents involved in the criminal justice system. This literature review analyzes published studies about family strengthening programs that seek to maintain and build healthy relationships between parents who are incarcerated and their children. The review is organized by six key areas of programmatic focus that the research team identified based on an initial scan of the literature, consultations with experts and programs in the field, and guidance from the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2021. 61p.

By Jessica Meyerson and Christa Otteson

To incorporate the broad and diverse range of research that speaks to families affected by incarceration, the remainder of this literature review is organized into three sections:  A brief review of the service needs of families affected by incarceration  A review of the most widely agreed upon research-based “practices” related to families affected by incarceration  An inventory of specific evidence-based programs, service models, and curricula that have been used to provide supportive services to incarcerated parents, their children, and their children’s caregivers

Stt. Paul, MN: Wilder Research, 2009. 40p.

By The Council on Crime and Justice

In 2003 the Council on Crime and Justice (CCJ) received funding from the U.S. Department of Justice to study racial disparities in the Minnesota criminal justice system. Seven studies were conducted in total. Some of these studies were aimed at defining racial disparities within the criminal justice system, while others examined the collateral effects of such disparities. The following study fell into the latter category. The purpose of this study was twofold: first to examine the effects of imprisonment on the family relationship from the perspective of the fathers, along with these men’s strengths and struggles during incarceration and reentry into the community; and second to examine the community dynamics and resources within a neighborhood experiencing a high concentration of prison mobility (i.e. residents either leaving for or returning from prison). The Hawthorne neighborhood in North Minneapolis was chosen for our study because of its racial diversity and high prisoner mobility. An analysis of the neighborhood was conducted from the resident’s perspective in order to better understand the physical and social environment to which many previously incarcerated fathers return.

Minneapolis: Council on Crime and Justice, 2006. 81p.

By Amy Dworsky, et al.

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

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

Edited by Julie Poehlmann-Tynan and Danielle H. Dallaire

This Brief focuses on mothers in the U.S. criminal justice system and their children. After decades of mass incarceration, the United States now incarcerates more women than any other country in the world, and the vast majority of incarcerated women are mothers of minor children. The growing involvement of mothers in all forms of the criminal justice system, including arrest, incarceration, reentry, and community supervision, requires a better understanding of how such involvement impacts children and families. This Brief presents six new empirical studies, most of them longitudinal, designed to address gaps in our knowledge base about maternal criminal justice involvement and maternal and child well-being. We apply an intergenerational lifespan developmental perspective and discuss the attachment-related themes of separation, loss, and reunion in the introductory chapter and throughout the volume. In addition, issues related to prevention and intervention, gender-responsive programs, and themes of trauma, addiction, child welfare involvement, low resource environments, and resilience are integrated throughout and highlighted in the concluding chapter. The Brief closes by presenting policy and practice implications of the research for mothers involved in the criminal justice system and their children and families.

Cham: Springer Nature, 2021 167p.

By Sarah Schirmer, Ashley Nellis and Marc Mauer

Mass incarceration has had significant and long-lasting impacts on American society, and particularly on communities of color. There is now a growing awareness that parents who go to prison do not suffer the consequences alone; the children of incarcerated parents often lose contact with their parent and visits are sometimes rare. Children of incarcerated parents are more likely to drop out of school, engage in delinquency, and subsequently be incarcerated themselves.1 In 2007 there were 1.7 million children in America with a parent in prison, more than 70% of whom were children of color. Children of incarcerated parents live in a variety of circumstances. Some were previously in homes of two-parent families, where the non-incarcerated parent can assume primary responsibility for the children. Many children, especially in cases of women’s incarceration, were in single-parent homes and are then cared for by a grandparent or other relative, if not in foster care. And in some cases, due to substance abuse and other factors, incarcerated parents had either not lived with their children or not provided a secure environment for them. Following release from prison both parents and children face challenges in reuniting their families. Parents have to cope with the difficulty of finding employment and stable housing while also reestablishing a relationship with their children.

Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2009. 14p.

By Creasie Finney Hairston

What is it like to grow up with a parent in prison? What are the immediate and long-term effects of parental incarceration on children? How can we best serve the needs of these children and ensure that they receive the support they need to thrive under challenging circumstances? These are questions that still need to be answered. Research that focuses on children whose parents are incarcerated has been quite limited, despite the growing numbers of children who are affected by the imprisonment of their mother or father. Over 1.5 million children in the United States have a parent who is in prison. Several million more have grown up with a parent in prison during some part of their formative years. The children of incarcerated parents have long been an almost invisible population, but in recent years, they have begun to receive attention from public policymakers, traditional social service providers and academic researchers. Some, concerned about the rapidly growing correctional population of more than two million people, fear that these children are at a higher risk to become incarcerated themselves as adults. Others are motivated by a desire to better understand and promote the well-being of children living in challenging life circumstances. This overview is based primarily on research published during the last 20 years, though some earlier works are included. It also draws on several years of consultation on programs and research involving prisoners and their families.

Baltimore: Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2007. 44p.

By Ivan G. Goldman

In America, 2.3 million people—a population about the size of Houston’s, the country’s fourth-largest city—live behind bars. Sick Justice explores the economic, social, and political forces that hijacked the criminal justice system to create this bizarre situation. Presenting frightening true stories of (sometimes wrongfully) incarcerated individuals, Ivan G. Goldman exposes the inept bureaucracies of America’s prisons and shows the real reasons that disproportionate numbers of minorities, the poor, and the mentally ill end up there. Goldman dissects the widespread phenomenon of jailing for profit, the outsized power of prison guards’ unions, California’s exceptionally rigid three-strikes law, the ineffective and never-ending war on drugs, the closing of mental health institutions across the country, and other blunders and avaricious practices that have brought us to this point. Sick Justice tells a big, gripping story that’s long overdue. By illuminating the system’s brutality and greed and the prisoners’ gratuitous suffering, the book aims to be a catalyst for reform, complementing the work of the Innocence Project and mirroring the effects of Michael Harrington’s The Other America: Poverty in the United States (1962), which became the driving force behind the war on poverty.

Washington, DC: Potomac Books, 2013. 256p.

By Mark Dow

American Gulag takes us inside prisons such as the Krome North Service Processing Center in Miami, the Corrections Corporation of Americas Houston Processing Center, and county jails around the country that profit from contracts to hold INS prisoners. It contains disturbing in-depth profiles of detainees, including Emmy Kutesa, a defector from the Ugandan army who was tortured and then escaped to the United States, where he was imprisoned in Queens, and then undertook a hunger strike in protest. To provide a framework for understanding stories like these, Dow gives a brief history of immigration laws and practices in the United States—including the repercussions of September 11 and present-day policies. His book reveals that current immigration detentions are best understood not as a well-intentioned response to terrorism but rather as part of the larger context of INS secrecy and excessive authority.

Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2004. 429p.