By Damon M. Petrich, Travis C. Pratt, Cheryl Lero Jonson, and Francis T. Cullen

Beginning in the 1970s, the United States began an experiment in mass imprisonment. Supporters argued that harsh punishments such as imprisonment reduce crime by deterring inmates from reoffending. Skeptics argued that imprisonment may have a criminogenic effect. The skeptics were right. Previous narrative reviews and meta-analyses concluded that the overall effect of imprisonment is null. Based on a much larger meta-analysis of 116 studies, the current analysis shows that custodial sanctions have no effect on reoffending or slightly increase it when compared with the effects of noncustodial sanctions such as probation. This finding is robust regardless of variations in methodological rigor, types of sanctions examined, and sociodemographic characteristics of samples. All sophisticated assessments of the research have independently reached the same conclusion. The null effect of custodial compared with noncustodial sanctions is considered a “criminological fact.” Incarceration cannot be justified on the grounds it affords public safety by decreasing recidivism. Prisons are unlikely to reduce reoffending unless they can be transformed into people-changing institutions on the basis of available evidence on what works organizationally to reform offenders.

Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, Volume 50. 2021

By Christopher Lowenkamp

Using data from over 1 million people booked into a jail in Kentucky between 2009 and 2018, this study investigates the relationship between pretrial detention and failure to appear, rearrest, and sentencing outcomes. The author’s analysis indicates that there is no deterrent effect of pretrial detention, as incarcerating people prior to their trial does not result in better pretrial outcomes in terms of failure to appear or rearrest. The author also concludes that the costs of pretrial detention do not translate to increased public safety.

Kentucky. Arnold Ventures. March 2022. 8p.

By Human Rights Watch

“A Nightmare for Everyone: The Health Care Crisis in Pakistan’s Prisons,” documents widespread deficiencies in prison health care in Pakistan and the consequences for a total prison population of more than 88,000 people. Pakistan has one of the world’s most overcrowded prison systems, with cells designed for a maximum of 3 people holding up to 15. Severe overcrowding has compounded existing health care deficiencies, leaving inmates vulnerable to communicable diseases and unable to get medicines and treatment for even basic health needs, as well as emergencies.

Washington, DC: HRW, 2023. 63p.

By Evelyn F. McCoy, Paige Thompson, Travis Reginal, and Natalie Lima

Jail incarceration continues to be a main driver of the mass incarceration crisis in the United States and to negatively affect individuals, families, and communities. Racial disparities in local jail populations are significant, particularly to the detriment of Black communities. Involvement in the criminal legal system, even when brief, can have severe consequences, including barriers to sustaining employment and securing stable housing, poor physical and mental health stemming from chronic stress and limited access to adequate health care, and disruptions to family relationships and social support networks.

To address these issues, Philadelphia implemented a multipronged reform plan supported by the Safety and Justice Challenge (SJC) to reduce its jail population and associated racial and ethnic disparities. Since 2015, Philadelphia has significantly reduced its jail population through these SJC efforts, which included closing a jail facility, launching a strategy across decision points in the criminal legal system, strengthening collaboration and cross-agency partnerships, launching a formal committee to represent community members’ perspectives, and analyzing data to identify racial and ethnic disparities across decision points. This report describes Philadelphia’s major SJC strategies, documents how it navigated challenges and advanced tangible reform efforts, and explores the perceived impacts of these strategies on its efforts to engage community members, reduce local jail use, and implement system reforms that advance equity. Lessons learned include that it is possible to significantly reduce jail populations in large cities with comprehensive, cross-agency collaboration; that such jail population reductions do not necessarily mean racial and ethnic disparities will also decrease; that reform fatigue is a reality for long-term initiatives like the SJC and can make it difficult for stakeholders to sustain efforts; and that meaningful community engagement is challenging and requires educating stakeholders and community members.

Urban Institute. 2023. 36p.

By Kristen M. Budd, Ph.D. and Niki Monazzam

Twenty-seven states and the federal government incarcerated 96,370 people in private prisons in 2021, representing 8% of the total state and federal prison population. Private for-profit prisons incarcerated 96,370 American residents in 2021, representing 8% of the total state and federal prison population. Since 2000, the number of people housed in private prisons has increased 10%. 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 96,370 people, were in private prisons as of year end 2021.

Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2023. 3p.

By Ashley Nellis

Extreme punishments, including the death penalty and life imprisonment, are a hallmark of the United States’ harsh criminal legal system. Nationwide one of every 15 women in prison — over 6,600 women — are serving a sentence of life with parole, life without parole, or a virtual life sentence of 50 years or more. The nearly 2,000 women serving life-without-parole (LWOP) sentences can expect to die in prison. Death sentences are permitted by 27 states and the federal government, and currently 52 women sit on death row. This report presents new data on the prevalence of both of these extreme sentences imposed on women. Across the U.S. there are nearly 2,000 women serving life-without-parole (LWOP) sentences and another 52 women who have been sentenced to death. The majority have been convicted of homicide. Regarding capital punishment, women are sitting on death row in 15 states. Women are serving LWOP sentences in all but six states. Three quarters of life sentences are concentrated in 12 states and the federal system. It is notable that in all states with a high count of women serving LWOP, there is at least one woman on death row as well. Two exceptions to the overlap are Colorado and Michigan which do not have anyone serving a death sentence because it is not statutorily allowed.

Brooklyn: National Black Women's Justice Initiative, 2021,

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