By Marion Vannier and Ashley Nellis

This paper considers the pains of life-sentence imprisonment through the novel vantage point of old age understood as a process. Our prison populations are getting older and the use of life sentences is dramatically increasing. Yet, research, campaigning, law and policy have not addressed the long-term consequences of imposing life sentences on prisoners who will age. Whilst far from exhaustive, our study draws on studies in gerontology, health policy and penology. We rely on shared analysis of collected official data from the US and the UK to highlight how the expansion and growth of life sentences on the one hand, and the dramatic aging of the prison population, on the other, are intertwined and need to be considered together. This article emphasizes the urgency of taking a holistic approach to penal severity, one that includes analyses of scale, lived experiences, as well as of law and politics, to uncover the multiple forms of marginalization elderly prisoners are exposed to. Aging is a phenomenon we will all experience, yet, in the context of imprisonment, we argue that old age is a ‘prison problem’ rather than a ‘prisoner problem,’, urging research and policy to depart from the conventional and reductive view of the older prisoner as one in need of transformation and treatment or as being inherently criminal

Punishment & Society 1–22 © The Author(s) 2023

By Ashley Nellis

Before America’s era of mass incarceration took hold in the early 1970s, the number of individuals in prison was less than 200,000. Today, it’s 1.4 million; and more than 200,000 people are serving life sentences – one out of every seven in prison. More people are sentenced to life in prison in America than there were people in prison serving any sentence in 1970. Nearly five times the number of people are now serving life sentences in the United States as were in 1984, a rate of growth that has outpaced even the sharp expansion of the overall prison population during this period. The now commonplace use of life imprisonment contradicts research on effective public safety strategies, exacerbates already extreme racial injustices in the criminal justice system, and exemplifies the egregious consequences of mass incarceration. In 2020, The Sentencing Project obtained official corrections data from all states and the Federal Bureau of Prisons to produce our 5th national census on life imprisonment.

Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2021. 46p.

By Justin Helepololei

This dissertation draws on ethnographic research conducted with prison abolitionists and criminal justice reform activists in Western Massachusetts - a context in which the sheriffs who operate county jails see themselves as reformers. I use the concept of a “progressive jail assemblage” to analyze the varied actors and logics that sustain incarceration locally, focusing especially on the use of care discourses and practices. I consider how progressive jailing puts prison abolitionists in the position of being against some forms of care. At the same time, abolitionists have put forth competing notions of care, ones they see as building a world in which prisons and jails would not exist. Informed by interviews with formerly incarcerated organizers who navigate this assemblage, I argue that both tendencies have the potential to reinforce the hierarchies that sustain incarceration, but they also have the potential to create openings for undoing the world as it exists.

Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts, 2023. 265p.

y Léon Digard and Elizabeth Swavola

Approximately two-thirds of the more than 740,000 people held in locally run jails across the United States have not been convicted of a crime—they are presumed innocent and simply waiting for their day in court.a This “pretrial population” has grown significantly over time—increasing 433 percent between 1970 and 2015, from 82,922 people to 441,790.b People held in pretrial detention accounted for an increasing proportion of the total jail population over the same time period: 53 percent in 1970 and 64 percent in 2015.c This growth is in large part due to the increased use of monetary bail. Historically, the purpose of bail was to facilitate the release of people from jail pending trial, with conditions set to ensure their appearance in court. Over time, however, those conditions have shifted away from no requirement that money be paid—or a requirement that money be paid only when people failed to appear in court—to upfront payment of cash bail and bail bonds issued by for-profit companies. Pretrial detention has far-reaching negative consequences. This brief presents information on the way that pretrial detention is currently used and summarizes research on its impacts.

New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2019. 17p.

The Monitoring Team is issuing this Special Report to advise the Court and the Parties of the continued imminent risk of harm to incarcerated individuals and staff in the New York City jails. The first few months of 2022 have revealed the jails remain unstable and unsafe for both inmates and staff. The volatility and instability in the jails is due, in no small part, to unacceptable levels of fear of harm by detainees and staff alike. Despite initial hopes that the Second Remedial Order (dkt. 398), entered in September 2021, would help the Department gain traction toward initiating reform on the most immediate issues, the Department’s attempts to implement the required remedial steps have faltered and, in some instances, regressed. These failures suggest an even more discouraging picture about the prospect for material improvements to the jails’ conditions. Furthermore, the Department’s staffing crisis continues and the New York City Mayor’s Emergency Executive Order, first issued on September 15, 2021, and still in effect (through multiple extensions) as of the filing of this report, acknowledges that, among other things, “excessive staff absenteeism among correction officers and supervising officers has contributed to a rise in unrest and disorder.” The Monitoring Team’s staffing analysis, discussed in detail below, reveals that the Department’s staff management and deployment practices are so dysfunctional that if left unaddressed, sustainable and material advancement of systemic reform will remain elusive, if not impossible, to attain. …

New York: The Independent Monitoring Team, 2022. 78p.

By Michael LaForest

Nearly three-fourths of incarcerated individuals are released under parole supervision in the United States. However, relatively little is known about the effects of supervised release. In this work, I first investigate the effects of early release from prison using the quasi-random assignment of interviewers to parole hearings in Pennsylvania. I find that, at the margin of release, individuals initially paroled experience higher rates of post-release recidivism than individuals released at a later date. Second, I separately identify the effects of the three major components of parole supervision – (1) supervision intensity, (2) special conditions such as curfew or placement in a halfway house, and (3) the assigned parole officer who manages supervision – by leveraging three separate quasi-random assignment mechanisms in Pennsylvania. Along most margins, I find that increased supervision leads to additional parole violations with little effect on future arrests or employment.

Draft Paper, 2022. 41p.

By Varun Bhadha, Matthew Clauson, Jeanmarie Elican, Fatima Khan, Kendall Lawrenz, Brooke Pemberton, Rebecca Ringler, Jordan Schaer, Mikayla Sherman, and Sarah Wohlsdorf

The use of surveillance technology to tag and track people on pretrial release, probation and parole is on the rise. The COVID-19 crisis in prisons and jails, bail reform efforts and bipartisan support for curbing mass incarceration accelerated interest in purported alternatives to incarceration. As a result, the use electronic monitoring devices, including GPS-equipped ankle monitors, went up dramatically. Thanks to the leadership of community organizers and advocates, the harmful and racialized nature of this type of carceral surveillance has been exposed. This report seeks to add to those efforts by examining the specific policies, procedures, contracts and rules that govern the use of electronic monitoring of people on probation, parole and pretrial release.4 Drawing on over 247 records from 101 agencies across 44 states and the District of Columbia, this report focuses on the operation of electronic monitoring and reveals the degree to which monitoring impacts all aspects of everyday life and undermines the ability of people to survive and thrive. In particular, this report focuses on the specific rules and policies governing people on monitors and how they restrict movement, limit privacy, undermine family and social relationships, jeopardize financial security and result in repeated loss of freedom….

Washington DC: George Washington University Law School, 2021. 54p.

By Nicola Carr

The Council of Europe recently issued Guidelines Regarding Recruitment, Selection, Education, Training and Professional Development of Prison and Probation Staff, in recognition of the need to provide a set of standards that will apply to all Council of Europe Member States. The guidelines were developed by the Council for Penological Cooperation (PC-CP) and approved by the European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC) in April 2019. The guidelines outline a number of key principles relating to the recruitment, education and training, and professional development of prison and probation staff. In some countries prison and probation staff are employed by the same agency, and there are some areas of the guidelines that pertain to both. The guidelines also set out the educational entry standards that should apply for probation staff working directly with suspects and offenders (this echoes the terminology used in the European Rules on Community Sanctions and Measures), and some of the core areas that should be covered in subsequent training. …

Academic Insights 2020/02 . Manchester: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2020. 12p.

By James Bonta

The search for ‘what works’ in the assessment and rehabilitation of justice-involved persons dates back at least to the 1960s and an argument can be made that it is even earlier than that. However, it was probably Lipton, Martinson, and Wilks’ (1975) review of the treatment literature that catapulted ‘what works’ to the forefront of correctional research and practice. The story of their review and Robert Martinson’s popularisation of the review is well known. The conclusion from the review was that ‘these data…give us little reason to hope that we have in fact found a sure way of reducing recidivism through rehabilitation’ (Martinson, 1974, p.49). This proclamation was quickly translated into ‘nothing works’ and opened the gates to the ‘get tough’ movement. After all, it was argued, if treatment does not work then our only alternative is to punish law-breakers justly and fairly in the hope that it will deter them from further crime. The view that ‘nothing works’ did not go unchallenged. Ted Palmer (1975) was almost alone in supporting rehabilitation efforts at the time. …

Manchester: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2023. 13p.

By The Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administration Columbian College of Arts & Sciences George Washington University

JPI partnered with graduate students from George Washington University’s Trachtenberg School of Public Policy & Public Administration to explore the landscape of transitional housing for individuals returning home after long prison terms. Returning Citizens: Promising practices and recommendations for the District of Columbia presents the research and findings of the team, who explored challenges with reentry, best practices in transitional housing, and recommendations for a holistic community approach to support the transition from prison to the community. Washington, DC leaders need to take action to improve reentry services, and this report provides several actionable recommendations to make the journey home more accessible and sustainable.

Washington DC: Justice Policy Institute, 2022. 89p.

By Justice Policy Institute

Virginia is at a crossroads entering the 2022 legislative session. Progressive reforms, including abolishing the death penalty and broadening appeal rights, were a focal point of the last several years, but were primarily partisan with the support of only three Republicans. In 2022, control of Virginia will split, with the House of Delegates and Executive Branch controlled by Republicans, and the Senate of Virginia slightly leaning Democrat. While this poses a challenge for legislative activity, it provides an opportunity to step back and explore the critical issues faced by Virginia’s adult criminal justice system. The number of people in Virginia’s prison system, which declined for the first time in 2009 after four decades of growth, has plateaued in recent years. Virginia’s system remains plagued with dysfunction that disproportionately impacts communities of color and keeps people locked up for extremely long sentences. These practices have resulted in a costly system. In 2014, the Justice Policy Institute reported that Virginia spent $1.064 billion to run itsprison system, and even with a population decrease, the 2020 budget increased 25 percent to $1.34 billion. However, this is only part of the story. The toll of mass incarceration in Virginia has fallen disproportionately on the shoulders of its Black and Brown citizens, with devastating consequences. This is particularly pronounced among those persons serving extreme prison sentences.

Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute, 2022. 16p.

By Avik Chatterjee; Michelle Weitz; Alexandra Savinkina, et al

Key Points - Question: Is provision of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) during incarceration associated with fewer overdose deaths? Findings: This economic evaluation of a model of the natural history of OUD in Massachusetts found that a strategy offering buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone during incarceration was associated with 192 fewer overdose deaths (a 1.8% reduction) and was less costly than a naltrexone-only strategy averting 95 overdose deaths (a 0.9% reduction). The 3-MOUD strategy was also cost-effective at $7252 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Meaning These findings suggest that offering 3 MOUDs during incarceration is a life-saving, cost-effective intervention

JAMA Network Open. 2023;6(4):e237036. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.7036

By Jacqueline Beard

Sentences of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP sentences) were available for courts to impose from 2005 to 2012. They were designed to detain offenders who posed a significant risk of causing serious harm to the public through further serious offences in prison until they no longer posed such a risk. IPP sentences are indeterminate as opposed to fixed-term sentences. They have a minimum term that must be served in custody, sometimes called a ‘tariff’ that must be served before a prisoner can be considered for release by the Parole Board. The prisoner can then only be released once the Parole Board is satisfied the prisoner no longer needs to be confined for the safety of the public. Release is never automatic, and prisoners can be detained indefinitely if the Parole Board decides it is not safe to release them. When released, a person serving an IPP sentence will be on licence, subject to conditions. Breaching the conditions of the licence may result in the person being recalled to prison. If recalled, a person must remain in prison until the Parole Board is satisfied that custody is no longer necessary for public protection. The licence will be in force indefinitely until its termination. People serving an IPP sentence are eligible to have termination of their licence considered by the Parole Board ten years after their first release.

London: House of Commons Library, 2023. 22p.

By Jennifer Peirce, Madeline Bailey, and Shahd Elbushra

These two research briefs summarize analysis of county jail bookings in seven rural Georgia counties (2019–2020) and five rural Washington counties (2015–2021). In both Georgia and Washington, jail incarceration rates are higher in rural counties than in urban and suburban counties. The briefs, created in partnership with the University of Georgia and Washington State University, demonstrate that jails in these rural counties are primarily holding people for minor charges. Vera calls on local actors to use citation in lieu of arrest and automatic pretrial release policies, as well as to strengthen pretrial services and avoid using jail as a penalty for failing to appear in court or for technical probation violations. The majority of jail admissions in rural counties in both Georgia and Washington were for nonviolent charges, including driving with a suspended license, penalties related to navigating criminal legal system rules (like failure to appear in court), and probation violations.

DOWNLOAD: Punitive policies are driving jail incarceration in rural Georgia

Punitive policies are driving jail incarceration in rural Georgia

DOWNLOAD: Rural Washington State Needs Criminal Legal System Reform

By Melvin Washington II

For decades, the United States has responded to social issues like mental health and substance use crises, chronic homelessness, and ongoing cycles of interpersonal violence with jail. This has disrupted the lives of millions of people—disproportionately harming Black and Indigenous people—without improving public safety. There’s a better way. Communities can instead invest in agencies and organizations that address these issues outside the criminal legal system. The proven solutions highlighted in this multimedia report look beyond jails to promote safe and thriving communities.

More than 3,000 jail facilities operate in the United States. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, those jails processed about 10 million bookings annually. Some people stayed for hours and others for months. Overall, the number of people in jail has grown exponentially over the past 40 years—from about 220,000 in 1983 to more than 750,000 in 2019. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, some jurisdictions took emergency actions to prevent the virus’s spread among incarcerated people and jail staff, which cut jail populations by an estimated 24 percent during the first half of 2020. However, these changes proved temporary; by June 2020, national jail populations were already rising. By the end of 2020, the population had rebounded by more than 50,000 people.

New York Vera Institute of Justice, 2021. 28p.

By Marta Nelson, Samuel Feineh and Maris Mapolski

One hundred years from now, we may look back at the United States’s overreliance on punishment and its progeny—mass incarceration—with the kind of abhorrence that we now hold for internment camps for Japanese Americans and Jim Crow laws. Or, if we never curb our reliance on jails and prisons for public safety, we may be in the same place then as we are today….This report posits that maintaining our system of mass incarceration will not bring people in the United States the safety and justice they deserve, while dismantling it in favor of a narrowly tailored sentencing response to unlawful behavior can produce more safety, repair harm, and reduce incarceration by close to 80 percent, according to modeling on the federal system. In this report, the Vera Institute of Justice (Vera) addresses a main driver of mass incarceration: our sentencing system, or what happens to people after they have gone through the criminal legal system and are convicted of a crime

New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2023. 81p.

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

  The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) initiated this limited-scope review after certain operational issues became so serious at U.S. Penitentiary (USP) Atlanta and Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) New York that, in 2021, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) significantly limited operations at the former and closed the latter. The DOJ OIG sought to assess how critical issues at BOP institutions are identified, communicated to BOP Executive Staff, and remediated. At the outset of our limited-scope review, then BOP Executive Staff told us they had been largely aware of the long-standing operational issues at USP Atlanta and MCC New York and expressed confidence in the BOP’s existing mechanisms to communicate information about operational issues. However, they also described four foundational, enterprise-wide challenges that they said limited their ability to remedy institution operational issues, specifically: • weaknesses in the BOP’s internal audit function, • delays in the BOP’s employee discipline process, • inadequacy of BOP assessments of institution staffing level needs, and • the BOP’s inability to address its aging infrastructure. In light of then BOP Executive Staff’s prior awareness of the USP Atlanta and MCC New York operational issues, we modified the scope of this review following these initial meetings to focus on these four causes and the scope of the challenges, their effects on institutional operations, and the Executive Staff’s efforts to remedy them.  

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, 2023. 42p.

By The Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights & Urban Affairs 

Hundreds of people held in the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) Special Management Unit (SMU) endured years of unconstitutional and abusive conditions. Those abuses were particularly extreme during the more than three years the program was located in the United States Penitentiary in Thomson, Illinois (Thomson). Over the past 18 months, more than 40 lawyers and legal staff members from the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, Latham & Watkins LLP, Uptown People’s Law Center, and Levy Firestone Muse LLP, investigated the conditions in the SMU at Thomson. During that investigation we collected accounts of extreme physical and psychological abuse from more than 120 people. We also witnessed firsthand abusive and obstructive staff behavior, and saw with our own eyes injuries inflicted by Thomson employees. Guards regularly placed individuals in dangerous four-point restraints for hours, sometimes days, and often without food, water, or access to a toilet. Many individuals reported being beaten and sexually assaulted while in restraints. Guards fastened the restraints so tightly that they caused scars on individuals’ wrists, ankles, and stomachs. This happened so frequently that the resulting scars became known as a “Thomson Tattoo.” In addition to physical abuse, guards subjected people in the SMU to psychological trauma through the use of extended solitary confinement, referred to by the BOP euphemistically as “restrictive housing.”1 In the SMU, solitary confinement involved locking two people in a cell for up to 23 hours a day, a practice known as double-cell solitary confinement…

Washington, DC: Author, 2023. 29p.

By Jessica Reichert  

The use of drug testing is pervasive in community supervision requiring probationers to regularly submit to urine drug testing. Positive drug tests may result in sanctions, technical violations, probation revocations, and even prison sentences. However, experts in addiction medicine recommend testing be used to support recovery rather than to exact punishment. This article reviews the literature on drug testing offering information on efficacy, best practices, and limitations. Recommendations for drug testing include improved communication between probation officers and treatment providers and clients, as well as utilizing specialized probation.
Chicago: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority 2022. 11p.

By F. Ann Carson and  Melissa Nadel 

This report provides details on the effects of COVID-19 on state and federal prisons from March 2020 to February 2021. The report presents data related to COVID-19 tests, infections, deaths and vaccinations. It also provides statistics on admissions to and releases, including expedited releases, from state and federal prisons during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Washington, DC:  U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2022. 45p.