By Tammy Felix, David Pyrooz, Meghan Novisky, Jennifer Tostlebe, and Jessica Dockstader

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to pose a substantial problem for our country’s correctional agencies. Since the onset of COVID-19, practical information about effective responses for correctional agencies has been lacking. Correctional leadership has been forced to innovate to keep their staff and populations safe and ensure continuity of operations. Along with the need to make modifications, many state departments of corrections have faced drastically reduced budgets. After two years of these challenges, correctional leaders and staff as well as incarcerated populations have been severely affected. In addition to their normal responsibilities, staff have had to take on additional duties and adjust to major changes in their work environment. The National Institute of Corrections (NIC) recognizes the importance of understanding how correctional systems across the country continue to modify their operations. Studying the outcomes of these modifications is essential to assist the broader correctional system in reaching a new normal. CNA, the Correctional Leaders Association (CLA), and the National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA) worked with NIC to gather and synthesize fact-based, practical information regarding these modifications. CNA, CLA, and NSA, in conjunction with NIC, recruited individuals from jails and prisons from all 50 states to participate in a survey and focus groups to assess the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on their operations. This report focuses on the effect of COVID-19 in state correctional systems, referred to as correctional facilities moving forward, by providing information on the modifications correctional facilities made in response to COVID-19, a summary of effects on operations, a discussion of themes that emerged during the focus groups, and highlights of the innovative responses that correctional facilities have taken. The following are our key findings.

Arlington, VA: CNA. 2023. 51p.

By Elias Neibart

In September 2021, New York Governor Kathy Hochul quietly signed into law the Less Is More: Community Supervision Revocation Reform Act, the state’s fourth major criminal justice reform enacted in the past three years. Less Is More made dramatic changes to the state’s parole system, specifically: Creating a system of earned time credits to incentivize good behavior;Significantly limiting reincarceration for “technical” violations of the terms of parole (i.e., a violation other than committing a new crime), and shortening the length of reincarceration;Limiting the presumption of detention for parole violators, such that technical violators are detained only if they abscond, and criminal violators detained only if a judge rules them at risk of absconding;Raising the burden of proof at revocation hearings and expediting their processing time;Shifting revocation hearings to court rooms and otherwise giving them the trappings of a court proceeding. These changes, supporters argued, were necessary to minimize the unnecessary and counterproductive reincarceration of petty technical violators—the parolee who is on the straight and narrow but who nonetheless finds himself back in prison due to a minor slip-up. In making these changes, however, they also made it harder to detain many serious offenders, including serious criminal violators; evidence from NYC jails show that detention of even violent criminal violators fell in the wake of Less Is More. In addition, it created a greater burden on victThis, we argue, is due to the broad-reaching procedural changes enacted by Less Is More. The lost presumption of detention, heightened evidentiary standards, and constraints placed on the use of technical violations—all of which apply not only to petty technical violators but to more dangerous parolees—have defanged the supervision system. While reforms that reward good behavior and do not over-punish minor violations are desirable, we propose a series of changes to blunt the unintended effects on the more serious offender population. Specifically, we suggest several reforms of the reformims, who are often now involved in revocation hearings in addition to new criminal proceedings.

New York: Manhattan Institute, 2022. 28p.

By Coral Sirdifield, Charlie Brooker, Rebecca Marples

A narrative systematic review was undertaken of the literature concerning the health of people on probation. In this paper, we provide an up-to-date summary of what is known about the most effective ways of providing mental healthcare for people on probation, and what is known about the relationship between different systems and processes of mental healthcare provision, and good mental health outcomes for this population. A total of 5125 papers were identified in the initial electronic searches but after careful double-blind review only four papers related to mental health that met our criteria, although a further 24 background papers and 13 items of grey literature were identified which are reported. None of the included studies was a randomized controlled trial although one was quasi-experimental. Two of the other papers described mental health disorders in approved premises and the other described the impact and learning from an Offender Personality Disorder project. We conclude that the literature is bereft of evidence on how to effectively provide mental healthcare for people on probation.

Forensic Science International: Mind and Law Volume 1, (2020) 100003

By Coral Sirdifield, Charlie Brooker, Rebecca Marples

A narrative systematic review was undertaken of the literature concerning the health of people on probation or parole (community supervision). In this paper, we provide an up-to-date summary of what is known about substance misuse in this context. This includes estimates of the prevalence and complexity of substance misuse in those under community supervision, and studies of the effectiveness of approaches to treating substance misuse and engaging and retaining this population in treatment. A total of 5125 papers were identified in the initial electronic searches, and after careful double-blind review only 31 papers related to this topic met our criteria. In addition, a further 15 background papers were identified which are reported. We conclude that internationally there is a high prevalence and complexity of substance misuse amongst people under community supervision. Despite clear benefits to individuals and the wider society through improved health, and reduced re-offending; it is still difficult to identify the most effective ways of improving health outcomes for this group in relation to substance misuse from the research literature. Further research and investment is needed to support evidence-based commissioning by providing a detailed and up-to-date profile of needs and the most effective ways of addressing them, and sufficient funds to ensure that appropriate treatment is available and its impact can be continually measured. Without this, it will be impossible to truly establish effective referral and treatment pathways providing continuity of care for individuals as they progress through, and exit, the criminal justice pathway.

Forensic Science International: Mind and Law 1 (2020) 100031

By Coral Sirdifield, Charlie Brooker, Rebecca Marples

A narrative systematic review was undertaken of the literature concerning the health of people on probation. In this paper, we provide an up-to-date summary of what is known about suicide and suicidal ideation and probation. This includes estimates of prevalence and possible predictors of suicide and suicidal ideation. Searches were conducted on nine databases from January 2000 to May 2017, key journals from 2000 to September 2017, and the grey literature. A total of 5125 papers were identified in the initial electronic searches but after careful double-blind review only one research paper related to this topic met our criteria, although a further 12 background papers were identified which are reported. We conclude that people on probation are a very high risk group for completed suicide, and factors associated with this include drug overdose, mental health problems, and poor physical health. There is a clear need for high quality partnership working between probation and mental health services, and investment in services, to support appropriate responses to suicide risk.

Forensic Science International: Mind and Law, Volume 1, November 2020,

By Charlie Brooker and Karen Tocque

There is a high prevalence of mental illness in probation including suicide. It is important for probation staff to recognise mental illness and to refer on to an appropriate agency once it is detected. Probation’s staff knowledge about mental illness was therefore examined across Europe in this study using a well validated measure – the Mental Health Literacy Scale (MHLS). Response rates within services and countries varied widely from 0-74%. Scores on the MHLS also varied considerably from 113-138 with an average score of 128. This overall average score is similar to other groups of the population such as university students and the clergy. There was a strong association between knowledge and confidence in working with people with a mental illness. The policy implications of these findings are discussed. It is clear there is a continuing role for CEP in this arena especially in the light of the Council of Europe’s recent White Paper on mental health in probation and in prisons.

Utrecht: Confederation of European Probation, 2023. 33p.

By Marcelo F. Aebi and Yuji Z. Hashimoto

The main findings of the SPACE II 2021 report are presented in a separate booklet (Probation and Prisons in Europe, 2021: Key Findings of the SPACE reports), which includes analyses of the data collected and comparisons with the main results of the SPACE I 2021 report on prison populations. This section only provides a snapshot of the situation regarding the use probation in Europe. ➢ The participation rate in the SPACE II 2021 Survey was satisfactory: 48 out of the 52 countries or administrative entities of the 47 Council of Europe Member States answered the questionnaire. ➢ Probation agencies are usually placed under the authority of the National Ministry of Justice. In ten countries/administrative entities, the Ministry of Justice is neither responsible nor co-responsible for their functioning. ➢ Probation agencies are independent from the Prison Administrations in 26 countries/administrative entities, while in 15 there is a shared prison and probation administration. ➢ 25 of the 48 probation agencies which provided data use the person as the counting unit. Seven probation agencies do not use the person as the counting unit for neither stock nor flow, two do not use the person for flow and 12 use it partially, most often only for the total stock and the total flow. ➢ Stock of probationers: On 31 January 2021, there were 1 773 556 persons under the supervision of the 32 probation agencies that provided data on this item and use the person as the counting unit for their stock. The absolute number of persons on probation is much higher than in 2019 because the Russian Federation provided data for SPACE II 2021 but not for SPACE II 2020. ➢ Flow of entries to probation: During the year 2020, 1 860 352 were placed under the supervision of the 29 probation agencies which provided data on this item and use the person as the counting unit for their flow of entries. ➢ Flow of exits from probation: During the year 2020, 1 700 528 persons ceased to be under the supervision of the 29 probation agencies which provided data on this item and use the person as the counting unit for their flow of exits. ➢ Non-custodial sanctions and measures are seldom used as an alternative to pre-trial detention; only 14% of the probation population on 31 January 2021 corresponds to persons placed under supervision before trial in the 18 probation agencies which provided data on this item and use the person as the counting unit for their stock of probationers. ➢ On 31 January 2021, among the 28 probation agencies which provided figures on female probation clients and use the person as the counting unit, women represented 11% of the total probation population. ➢ Among the 20 probation agencies that provided figures on foreigners and use the person as the counting unit, foreigners represented 13% of the total probation population. ➢ Among the 20 probation agencies that provided figures on minors and use the person as the counting unit, minors represented 4.8% of the total probation population. ➢ Among the 27 probation agencies that provided figures on total stock and total staff and use the person as the counting unit, there are around 38 probationers for each probation staff member, but that ratio varies considerably across countries. ➢ Among the 32 probation agencies that provided figures on total staff and pre-sentence reports, there are around six (6) pre-sentence reports produced for each probation staff member across Europe. ➢ In 40 jurisdictions, probation is used for all of the major categories of criminal offences specified (against persons, against property, drug offences, road traffic offences).

Strasbourg: Council of Europe & University of Lausanne, 2022 . 149p.

By Róisín Mulgrew

The State duty to prevent preventable prisoner deaths is easy to state and substantiate. Yet prisoner death rates are increasing around the world and are often much higher than those in the community. To understand why this is happening, the findings and recommendations of the country reports of international oversight bodies and thematic reports from international rapporteurs are synthesised with contemporary rights-informed penal standards, multi-disciplinary scholarship, non-governmental organization reports and media extracts. On the basis of this knowledge, this reform-oriented article explores the impact of structural, societal and environmental factors on natural and violent prisoner deaths and how these factors operate cumulatively to create dangerous and life-threatening custodial environments. The paper makes recommendations to reaffirm and enumerate the positive obligation to protect prisoners’ lives, develop specialist standards, adopt a broader approach to prison oversight and create a specific United Nations mandate on prisoner rights.

Human Rights Law Review, 2023, 23, 1–25

Prepared by W. Grinton Berry

The Actes and Monuments (full title: Actes and Monuments of these Latter and Perillous Days, Touching Matters of the Church), popularly known as Foxe's Book of Martyrs, is a work of Protestant history and martyrology by Protestant English historian John Foxe, first published in 1563 by John Day. It includes a polemical account of the sufferings of Protestants under the Catholic Church, with particular emphasis on England and Scotland. The book was highly influential in those countries and helped shape lasting popular notions of Catholicism there. The book went through four editions in Foxe's lifetime and a number of later editions and abridgements, including some that specifically reduced the text to a Book of Martyrs. (Wikipedia)

London John Day 1563. NY. Abingdon Press. 1913. 413p.

By Chase Montagnet, Jennifer Peirce, David Pitts

The use of restrictive housing (solitary confinement) in U.S. prisons and the rationales for or against it have been the subject of widespread research and debate. Much less is known, however, about restrictive housing in U.S. jails, due to lack of standardized policies, limited data, and the rapid turnover of people detained. Furthermore, many jails keep the general population in de facto restrictive housing conditions—such as 22 hours or more per day in a cell–because of space limitations without classifying this as solitary confinement. This study provides new, unique insights on the prevalence of restrictive housing in U.S. jails, the disparities in its use, and the conditions of confinement in specific types of housing units, with a 10 focus on restrictive housing units. This data was gathered through a mail-based survey sent to administrators at all jails in the United States.

New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2021. 80p.

By Emily Ryo, Ian Peacock

Hundreds of county jails detain immigrants facing removal proceedings, a civil process. In exchange, local jails receive per diem payments from Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Immigration detention thus presents a striking case of commodification of penal institutions for civil confinement purposes. Yet we know very little about the counties participating in this arrangement and the predictors of their participation over time. Our study offers the first systematic analysis of immigration detention in county jails using new and comprehensive panel data on jails across the United States. First, we find that the number of counties confining immigrant detainees steadily increased between 1983 and 2013, with the largest growth concentrated in small- to medium-sized, rural, and Republican counties located in the South. Second, our regression analyses point to a number of significant predictors of county participation in immigration detention: (a) worsening labor market conditions, combined with growing excess bed space for the criminal inmate population; (b) an increasing Latino population up to a certain 9 threshold level; and (c) increasing Republican Party strength. These findings have important implications for current debates raging across the United States about the proper role of local communities in detaining immigrants.

Law & Society Review, Volume54, Issue1 March 2020 Pages 66-101

By Jay Holder https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6146-0516, Ivan Calaff https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8243-5790, Brett Maricque https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9424-8135, and Van C. Tran 8

Using public housing developments as a strategic site, our research documents a distinct pathway linking disadvantaged context to incarceration—the public-housing-to-prison pipeline. Focusing on New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) housing developments as a case study, we find that incarceration rates in NYCHA tracts are 4.6 times higher than those in non-NYCHA tracts. More strikingly, 94% of NYCHA tracts report rates above the median value for non-NYCHA tracts. Moreover, 17% of New York State’s incarcerated population originated from just 372 NYCHA tracts. Compared with non-NYCHA tracts, NYCHA tracts had higher shares of Black residents and were significantly more disadvantaged. This NYCHA disadvantage in concentrated incarceration is also robust at different spatial scales. Our findings have implications for policies and programs to disrupt community-based pipelines to prison.

PNAS2022 Vol. 119 No. 36

By Bruce Western https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8615-676bruce.west ern @colu mbia.e, Jaclyn Davis https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1910-7222, Flavien Ganter https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6945-6450, and Natalie Smith https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5659-378X

Research on incarceration has focused on prisons, but jail detention is far more common than imprisonment. Jails are local institutions that detain people before trial or incarcerate them for short sentences for low-level offenses. Research from the 1970s and 1980s viewed jails as “managing the rabble,” a small and deeply disadvantaged segment of urban populations that struggled with problems of addiction, mental illness, and homelessness. The 1990s and 2000s marked a period of mass criminalization in which new styles of policing and court processing produced large numbers of criminal cases for minor crimes, concentrated in low-income communities of color. In a period of widespread criminal justice contact for minor offenses, how common is jail incarceration for minority men, particularly in poor neighborhoods? We estimate cumulative risks of jail incarceration with an administrative data file that records all jail admissions and discharges in New York City from 2008 to 2017. Although New York has a low jail incarceration rate, we find that 26.8% of Black men and 16.2% of Latino men, in contrast to only 3% of White men, in New York have been jailed by age 38 y. We also find evidence of high rates of repeated incarceration among Black men and high incarceration risks in high-poverty neighborhoods. Despite the jail’s great reach in New York, we also find that the incarcerated population declined in the study period, producing a large reduction in the prevalence of jail incarceration for Black and Latino men.

PNAS2021 Vol. 118 No. 16

By Kristin Turney and Emma Conner

Although jails are both common and consequential, affecting millions of individuals annually, they are a relatively understudied aspect of the criminal justice system. In this review, we first document the prevalence of jail incarceration, highlighting how jail incarceration has risen in tandem with the more commonly examined prison incarceration. Next, we describe the population of individuals in jail, paying particular attention to the heterogeneous and disadvantaged nature of this population. We document how jail incarceration is measured, demographically and in household surveys, and argue that jail incarceration has lasting and profound consequences for individuals, families, and communities. We conclude the review by suggesting directions for future research. Given the common nature of jail incarceration—in conjunction with the fact that jail incarceration creates, sustains, and perpetuates inequality—a better understanding of the prevalence, correlates, and consequences of jail incarceration is critical for fully understanding the link between the criminal justice system and inequality

Annu. Rev. Criminol. 2019. 2:265–90

By Robert Apel

The interplay of sanctions, perceptions, and crime has special significance in criminology and is central to a long tradition of perceptual deterrence research as well as to more recent scholarship on crime decision-making. This article seeks to review this body of research as it pertains to three basic questions. First, are people’s perceptions of punishment accurate? The evidence indicates that people are generally but imperfectly aware of punishments allowed under the law but are nevertheless sensitive to changes in enforcement, especially of behaviors that are personally relevant. Second, does potential apprehension affect people’s perceived risk and behavior when faced with a criminal opportunity? A highly varied body of literature supports the conclusion that perceptions are sensitive to situational cues and that behavior is sensitive to perceived risk, but these links can be weakened when individuals are in emotionally or socially charged situations. Third, do people revise their risk perceptions in response to crime and punishment experiences? Studies of perceptual change support the contention that people systematically update their perceptions based on their own and others’ experiences with crime and punishment.

Annu. Rev. Criminol. 2022. 5:205–27

By Charles E. Loeffler and Daniel S. Nagin

The US prison population stands at 1.43 million persons, with an additional 740,000 persons in local jails.Nearly all will eventually return to society. This review examines the available evidence on how the experience of incarceration is likely to impact the probability that formerly incarcerated individuals will reoffend. Our focus is on two types of studies, those based on the random assignments of cases to judges, called judge instrumental-variable studies, and those based on discontinuities in sentence severity in sentencing grids, called regression discontinuity studies. Both types of studies are designed to account for selection bias in nonexperimental estimates of the impact of incarceration on reoffending. Most such studies find that the experience of postconviction imprisonment has little impact on the probability of recidivism. A smaller number of studies do, however, find significant effects, both positive and negative. The negative, recidivism-reducing effects are mostly in settings in which rehabilitative programming is emphasized and the positive, criminogenic effects are found in settings in which such programming is not emphasized. The findings of studies of pretrial incarceration are more consistent—most find a deleterious effect on postrelease reoffending. We also conclude that additional work is needed to better understand the heterogeneous effects of incarceration as well as the mechanisms through which incarceration effects, when observed, are 6 generated. For policy, our conclusion of the generally deleterious effect of pretrial detention adds to a larger body of evidence pointing to the social value of limiting its use.

Annu. Rev. Criminol. 2022. 5:133–52

By Joshua Page and Christine S. Scott-Hayward

In this review of scholarship on bail and pretrial justice in the United States, we analyze how the field of bail operates (and why it operates as it does), focusing on its official and unofficial objectives, core assumptions and values, power dynamics, and technologies. The field, we argue, provides extensive opportunities for generating revenue and containing, controlling, and changing defendants and their families. In pursuit of these objectives, actors consistently generate harms that disproportionately affect low-income people of color and amplify social inequalities. We close with an analysis of political struggles over bail, including current and emerging possibilities for both reformist and radical change. In this, we urge scholars toward sustained engagement with people and organizations in criminalized communities, which pushes scholars to reconsider our preconceptions regarding safety, justice, and the potential for systemic change and opens up new avenues for research and public engagement.

Annu. Rev. Criminol. 2022. 5:91–113

By Evangeline Lopoo, Vincent Schiraldi, and Timothy Ittner

Use of probation and parole has declined since its peak in 2007 but still intrudes into the lives of 3.9 million Americans at a scale deemed mass supervision. Originally intended as an alternative to incarceration and a means of rehabilitation for those who have committed crimes, supervision often functions as a tripwire for further criminal legal system contact. This review questions the utility of supervision, as research shows that, in toto, it currently provides neither diversion from incarceration nor rehabilitation. Analysis of national supervision, crime, and carceral data since 1980 reveals that supervision has little effect on future crime and is not a replacement for incarceration. Case studies from California and New York City indicate that concerted efforts to reduce the scope of mass supervision can effectively be achieved through sentencing reform, case diversion, and supervisory/legal system department policy change, among other factors, without increasing crime. Therefore, we suggest extensive downsizing of supervision or experimentation with its abolition and offer actionable steps to enact each possibility.

5 Annual Review of Criminology Vol. 6:23-42 (Volume publication date January 2023)

By Sarah Monaghan, Michael Rempel & Tao Lin Key Findings: 

A Widening Black-White Gap in the Incarceration Rate from 2016 to 2021, when Black people citywide were jailed at a rate 11.6 that of white people. Disparities in Jail Admissions in Every Borough.  Manhattan incarceration rates showed the most startling contrast; in 2016, Black people were jailed at a rate 23 times that of white people, which increased to 29.5 in 2021. 4 High Parole Violation Disparities & Rising Racial Disparities Among Pretrial Admissions.  While disparities were greatest for people admitted on parole violations across all years, there was not a recent shift towards this reality; instead, rising pretrial disparities largely explain the overall increase in racially disproportionate jail incarceration since 2016. Jail Incarceration Concentrated in Mostly Black and Brown Neighborhoods (also, Black People are Disproportionately Incarcerated No Matter Where they Live).  Of the 178 NYC zip codes, 40 (23%) accounted for a vastly disproportionate share (60%) of 2021 jail admissions. In turn, 60% of these 40 zip codes are in Central or South Brooklyn (10) or the Bronx (14). In 163 (92%) of all 178 NYC zip codes, a higher percentage of Black people were admitted to jail than live in the given zip code.

New York City: Data Collaborative for Justice at John Jay College, 2023. 41p.

By Giulio Zanella

I study the causal pathways that link prison work programs to convict rehabilitation, leveraging administrative data from Italy and combining quasi-experimental and structural econometric methods to achieve both a credible identification and the isolation of mechanisms. Due to competing channels, I find that work in unskilled prison jobs impacts convicts on longer or shorter terms differently. Increasing work time by 16 hours per month reduces by between 3 and 10 percentage points the reincarceration rate, within three years of release, of convicts on terms longer than six months – because prison work counteracts the rapid depreciation of earning ability experienced by these convicts. For those on shorter terms, the analogous increase leads instead to a re-incarceration rate that is up to 9 percentage points higher, because of a liquidity effect that weakens deterrence.

Bonn, Germany: IZA – Institute of Labor Economics, 2020. 66p.