By Alexandra Gannoni and Samantha Bricknell

“The purpose of this paper is to provide a picture of trends and characteristics of Indigenous deaths in prison and police custody in the 25 years since the RCIADIC. A key focus is to describe the circumstances of Indigenous deaths in custody and how these compare with those reported by the RCIADIC and over time."The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (RCIADIC) was established in 1987 in response to growing concern over the deaths of Indigenous people in custody. The RCIADIC (1991) found Indigenous people in custody did not die at a greater rate than non-Indigenous people in custody, but were considerably more likely to be arrested and imprisoned. The RCIADIC (1991) recommended an ongoing program be established by the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) to monitor Indigenous and non-Indigenous deaths in prison, police custody and youth detention. In response, the National Deaths in Custody Program (NDICP) commenced in 1992. Since then, the NDICP has collected comprehensive data on the extent and nature of all deaths in custody in Australia.”

Australian Institute of Criminology. Statistical Bulletin. No. 17. Feb. 2019. 15p.

By Tony Parker

Recidivism and Rehabilitation: The document explores the challenges of rehabilitating repeat offenders, highlighting the cycle of crime and punishment.

Humanity and Understanding: It emphasizes the importance of treating criminals as human beings and understanding their circumstances.

Systemic Failures: The text discusses the inadequacies of the judicial and penal systems in addressing the root causes of criminal behavior.

Personal Struggles: The narrative of Charlie Smith illustrates the personal difficulties and societal rejection faced by habitual offenders.

Faber & Faber, 2013, 176 pages

By The Civil Commitment Working Group

This report is a summary of the responses that people incarcerated at Rushville Treatment and Detention Facility shared in a 2019 survey. It highlights the concerns, safety risks, and abuses that people who are locked up in Rushville shared with us and connects these self-reports with supporting data collected by professionals who study civil commitment. Rushville residents were clear about the following: 1. Civil commitment at Rushville Treatment and Detention Facility is punishment, not treatment. 2. Civil commitment at Rushville disproportionately harms people from marginalized groups, particularly LGBTQ+, Black, multiracial, and Indigenous people. 3. Rushville is a violent place with poor living conditions. 4. Civil commitment at Rushville is a life sentence. Our Recommendations United by our opposition to sexual violence and our commitment to building a world where no one experiences sexual harm, we do not believe it is possible to build that world so long as civil commitment continues to exist. We know that ending sexual harm and closing Rushville will not happen overnight. To that end, we have provided both immediate and long-term proposals directly informed by feedback from people detained at Rushville. End civil commitment • Reallocate resources that are earmarked for expanding Rushville’s capacity or bolstering its punitive and surveilling practices. • Make Rushville voluntary. Fewer people in • Provide education about civil commitment for people serving criminal sentences. • Eliminate the STATIC 99R. • Invest in voluntary, community-based treatment options. More people out • Release people at higher rates. • Create transparent and accessible pathways for accessing conditional release. • Instate therapist-patient confidentiality.

• Invest in voluntary community-based treatment options. Help those inside now • Allow external monitors to survey the facility. • Expand access to the outside world. • Reallocate resources to offer more one-on-one, confidential therapy. What people on the outside can do right now • Send in care packages of food, gender-affirming products, toiletries, and other necessities. • Educate yourself and others about civil commitment. • Challenge stigma surrounding people who have caused sexual harm. • Support or launch transformative justice initiatives in your community.      

Chicago; Rushville, Civil Commitment Working Group Illinois, 2022. 2022. 32p.

By Kelly Lyn Mitchell

This report is one in a series of reports for the Aligning Supervision Conditions with Risk and Needs (ASCRN) project, the goal of which is to reduce probation and parole revocations and reorient community supervision toward promoting success by changing the way probation and parole conditions are imposed. Conditions are requirements that a person on probation or parole must adhere to while serving a period of community supervision. For people on parole, this occurs after the person has served time in prison and is released into the community for a post-prison period of supervision. For people on probation, this period of supervision occurs in the community in lieu of incarceration. The hypothesis for this project was that if probation and parole conditions targeted individuals’ criminogenic needs and were based upon risk level, individuals on supervision would be more successful. However, to move to this form of condition setting, we first needed to understand how conditions were being determined and what role, if any, risk and needs assessments played in the condition-setting process. This report sets forth our findings on the parole condition-setting process utilized by the judges when sentencing a person to probation in Johnson County, Kansas. The report also explores what role, if any, risk and needs assessments play in the condition-setting process. The findings in this report are based primarily on a legal and policy review, and interviews conducted in 2021 with relevant stakeholders who we presumed would have a hand in recommending or imposing probation conditions, including judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, court services probation officers, and community corrections probation officers. From this study, we make the following conclusions. Conclusions 1 Prosecutors appear to be the most influential party in setting probation conditions. The condition-setting process appears to revolve primarily around the plea agreement. Prosecutors seem to have the largest role in determining the conditions of probation because conditions are often included in the plea agreement offer. Defense attorneys bargain to temper the conditions to set their clients up for the best chance for success, or to minimize their chances for failure or future incarceration, but they are already working from the baseline established by prosecutors in the plea offer. Probation officers said they had no role in recommending conditions to the court, and judges indicated that they often accept the terms of the plea agreement when sentencing. 2 1 Probation conditions are not tailored to the risk and needs of the individual. Because prosecutors drive the plea agreement it is fair to say that the information they consider to be most important for setting probation conditions is paramount, and as prosecutors explain, that includes information about the offense as described in police reports, the person’s criminal history, and input   from the victim. Prosecutors do not utilize risk and needs information because 3-4 risk assessments are completed too late in the process, after the plea agreement process has already unfolded. Mechanisms are in place to individualize probation conditions, but conditions appear instead to be fairly standardized based on the conviction offense. The law sets forth required and optional conditions for probation, but judges have full authority to modify conditions. As a result, the standard probation forms used in Johnson County, Kansas, do not mirror the requirements in statute, and people across the system have lost sight of which conditions are required by statute and which are not. Rather than viewing “standard” conditions as the ones that are required to be ordered in every case, system actors understand standard conditions to be conditions that are routinely ordered for specific case types (e.g., the conditions typically ordered in a driving under the influence case). The court’s ability to modify any condition opens the door for conditions to be individualized in each case, and respondents indicated this does happen on occasion (e.g., when the no alcohol condition is modified to allow a person to enter restaurants that serve alcohol). Additionally, the probation order includes a standard probation condition requiring people on probation to comply with the probation case plan and any further written conditions by the probation officer. This also opens the door for individualizing conditions because it gives probation officers discretion to offer services or impose requirements that address a person’s criminogenic needs. But more research would be needed to determine how this condition is used in practice. Thus, the legal framework currently in place allows for individualization of probation conditions, but our interviews indicated that probation conditions tend to be fairly standardized based on the conviction offense rather than the needs of the individual. Judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys lack a feedback mechanism to understand what works in condition setting. Judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys all admitted that they do not know how to judge whether probation is successful because after a person has been sentenced, they primarily only see the failures – that is,  who return to court on a violation. They also stated that they lack specific feedback about whether the probation conditions they recommend or impose relate to success or failure. Thus, probation condition setting in M County, Kansas is a fairly rote process based on the offense rather than the individual needs of the person.

Minneapolis: Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 2024. 42p.

By Ebony Ruhland and Kelly L. Mitchell

  Connecticut is an indeterminate sentencing state, which means that at the time of conviction, the court imposes a maximum sentence, but the parole board makes the determination as to when the person can be released from prison. In Connecticut, anyone who is not statutorily excluded from eligibility3 and who is imprisoned for a definite sentence or total effective sentence of more than two years may be considered for parole. A “definite sentence” simply refers to the maximum sentence imposed by the court. ``Total effective sentence” refers to the total maximum time to be served after adding together the sentences imposed for multiple convictions, taking into account whether the sentences are to be served consecutively (one after the other) or concurrently (at the same time). The Board of Pardons and Parole (BOPP) is responsible for deciding when a person will be released on parole, which is defined as the “conditional release of an individual from confinement . . . prior to expiration of the maximum term or terms of imprisonment” or “the court-ordered period of community supervision following expiration of the maximum term or terms of imprisonment.” The BOPP comprises ten full-time and up to five part-time members. These individuals are appointed by the Governor and can serve for as long as the appointing Governor remains in office. The BOPP has independent decision-making authority over whether to grant or deny parole of individuals who are incarcerated, what conditions of parole should be placed upon individuals who are granted parole, and whether and when to rescind or revoke parole. The Parole Board works in panels of three members. When empaneled for any type of parole hearing, members make decisions based on a majority vote. In deciding whether a person may be released on parole, the BOPP must determine if “there is a reasonable probability that such inmate will live and remain at liberty without violating the law, and . . . [that] such release is not incompatible with the welfare of society.” To frame their decision making process, BOPP members use the Structured Parole Decision Making (SPDM) framework, which allows BOPP members to systematically consider  risk and need factors across seven domains—criminal/parole history; institutional/community behavior; disinhibitors; responsivity; offender change; release plan; and case-specific factors. There are three parole approval processes: traditional parole, parole without a hearing, and special parole.     

Minneapolis: Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 2024. 41p.

By Louise Durand, Eamon Keenan, Deirdre O’Reilly, Kathleen Bennett, Andy O’Hara & Gráinne Cousins 

Background- Pharmacotherapy is essential for the delivery of an equivalent standard of care in prison. Prescribing can be challenging due to the complex health needs of prisoners and the risk of misuse of prescription drugs. This study examines prescribing trends for drugs with potential for misuse (opioids, benzodiazepines, Z-drugs, and gabapentinoids) in Irish prisons and whether trends vary by gender and history of opioid use disorder (OUD). Methods- A repeated cross-sectional study between 2012 and 2020 using electronic prescribing records from the Irish Prison Services, covering all prisons in the Republic of Ireland was carried out. Prescribing rates per 1,000 prison population were calculated. Negative binomial (presenting adjusted rate ratios (ARR) per year and 95% confidence intervals) and joinpoint regressions were used to estimate time trends adjusting for gender, and for gender specific analyses of prescribing trends over time by history of OUD. Results - A total of 10,371 individuals were prescribed opioid agonist treatment (OAT), opioids, benzodiazepines, Z-drugs or gabapentinoids during study period. History of OUD was higher in women, with a median rate of 597 per 1,000 female prisoners, compared to 161 per 1,000 male prisoners. Prescribing time trends, adjusted for gender, showed prescribing rates decreased over time for prescription opioids (ARR 0.82, 95% CI 0.80–0.85), benzodiazepines (ARR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98–0.999), Z-drugs (ARR 0.90, 95% CI 0.88–0.92), but increased for gabapentinoids (ARR 1.07, 95% CI 1.05–1.08). However, prescribing rates declined for each drug class between 2019 and 2020. Women were significantly more likely to be prescribed benzodiazepines, Z-drugs and gabapentinoids relative to men. Gender-specific analyses found that men with OUD, relative to men without, were more likely to be prescribed benzodiazepines (ARR 1.49, 95% CI 1.41–1.58), Z-drugs (ARR 10.09, 95% CI 9.0-11.31), gabapentinoids (ARR 2.81, 95% CI 2.66–2.97). For women, history of OUD was associated with reduced gabapentinoid prescribing (ARR 0.33, 95% CI 0.28–0.39). Conclusions - While the observed reductions in prescription opioid, benzodiazepine and Z-drug prescribing is consistent with guidance for safe prescribing in prisons, the increase in gabapentinoid (primarily pregabalin) prescribing and the high level of prescribing to women is concerning. Our findings suggest targeted interventions may be needed to address prescribing in women, and men with a history of OUD.

BMC Psychiatry, 2023. 12p.

By Trevor L. Brown,  Carter M. Stewart

  The murder of George Floyd, a Black man, by Derek Chauvin, a White Minneapolis, Minnesota, police officer on May 25, 2020, sparked months-long protests about racism and policing across the country and around the globe, including Columbus, Ohio. Captured on video and spread quickly through social media, Floyd’s death galvanized Americans to take to the streets in the midst of a global health pandemic to voice their anger and frustration about the many Black Americans who had been killed by police. The fairness of policing practice as applied to communities of color, particularly Black communities, and more fundamentally, the existence of the police as a legally sanctioned public institution were the clear motivations for the protests. Law enforcement agencies across the country, including the Columbus Police Department, also mobilized to the streets. Their job was to create a space for citizens to peacefully exercise their right to free speech, while simultaneously ensuring the safety of the community. In many protests, police are neutral actors managing the boundaries of the demonstration. In the protests of 2020, protestors saw the police as antagonists, and systematically racist; they were the object of the protest. When police are the focus of the protest, there is a significant increase in the likelihood of direct conflict between protesters and law enforcement personnel. Adhering to best practice in protest management and adapting to evolving protest dynamics become even more important to ensure free speech rights and community safety. This report provides the results of an eight-month research study evaluating how the City of Columbus, Ohio, inclusive of elected officials and the Columbus Division of Police (CPD), managed the protests in Columbus from May 28 through July 19, 2020. The purpose of the research study was three-fold: • document interactions between community members and law enforcement personnel as a part of the protests; • evaluate the City of Columbus’s preparation for and response to the pro tests; and • generate research-informed recommendations about how to improve the performance of the City of Columbus in preparing for and responding to future protests. The study was conducted by an independent research team organized by the John Glenn College of Public Affairs at The Ohio State University. The research team was composed of a lead investigative unit that gathered information, a diverse research advisory board. that provided subject-matter and technical expertise, and a core research group that assembled and synthesized the data, generated findings, and produced recommendations   

Columbus, OH: John Glenn College of Public Affairs, The Ohio State University, 2024. 111p.   

By  The Council for Court Excellence (“CCE”)

  Across the United States, jurisdictions as diverse as New York City and the states of Colorado and Nebraska are eliminating or severely restricting the use of solitary confinement – often referred to as “restrictive housing” or “segregated housing” – in correctional facilities. These changes are being driven by evidence showing both that solitary confinement is ineffective as a correctional management practice, and that it is harmful to the individuals placed in segregation. Here in Washington, D.C. (“D.C.” or “the District”), there is a growing call for the Department of Corrections (“DOC”) to end the use of solitary confinement in the D.C. Jail. Additionally, D.C. is in the process of designing a new correctional facility, creating an urgency to the question of whether it will or should include units designed for solitary confinement. To inform these conversations, the Council for Court Excellence (“CCE”) sought information on the use of the various forms of solitary confinement by DOC through D.C. Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) requests. This brief provides relevant background and context for these incarceration related issues and summaries of the information that DOC did and did not provide in response to the DC-FOIA requests. After more than two years of negotiation related to the DC-FOIA requests, DOC ultimately provided very limited information regarding its use of disciplinary or administrative segregation of people in the D.C. Jail. The data that was provided was incomplete and raised a number of concerns. For example, the average length of stay in segregated housing in Fiscal Year 2021 was 49 days – over three times longer than the United Nations considers the maximum time a person should be held in solitary confinement. And 29 people that year were released directly to the community from segregation; this has been shown to have detrimental impacts, such as homelessness, joblessness, and a greater likelihood of recidivism, as those released may not have had access to programming to help them get the housing, treatment and other services they need. Additionally, many of our requests remained unanswered, leaving much still unknown. For example, CCE was not provided responses related to the use of restraints on people in the jail; the races and ages of people in solitary – both disciplinary and administrative restrictive housing/segregation; the number of pregnant people in segregation; or the number of people in segregation who tried to or succeeded in hurting themselves or completing suicide. In the limited places where DOC did provide relevant numbers for Fiscal Year 2021, they did not provide the comparable data for 2019 and 2020 that was also requested. The findings are detailed in a later section of this brief.  

Washington, DC:  The Council for Court Excellence (“CCE”), 2024. 13p,

By Michael Balfour

The book discusses the use of drama in the rehabilitation of violent male offenders. Itexplores the theoretical territory of criminology and the rehabilitation perspective, aswell as the application of drama with offenders. The document also includes information on the outcomes and evaluation of drama-based rehabilitation programs.

ResearchGate, 2003, 302 pages

MAY CONTAIN MARKUP

By Sheldon Glueck And Eleanor T. Glueck

The book provides a comprehensive analysis of the after-conduct of discharged offenders, focusing on the implications for reforming criminal justice:

● Causal Relations: It emphasizes the importance of understanding the multiple causal factors, both biological and environmental, that influence criminal behavior.

● Predictive Techniques: The document discusses the feasibility of using predictive tables to aid in sentencing and parole decisions.

● Reform Proposals: It suggests reforms for criminal justice based on scientific insights, such as re-designing correctional equipment to address causes rather than symptoms.

● Scientific Insights: Follow-up studies are highlighted as a means to gain scientific insights into the effectiveness of sentencing, treatment, and parole practices.

These key insights aim to shift the focus from punitive measures to a more rehabilitative approach that considers the complex interplay of factors contributing to criminal behavior.

Cambridge University. London 1945. Kraus Reprint Corporation New York 1966. 129p.

By Lela Bond Phillips

"The Lena Baker Story" by Lela Bond Phillips is a compelling account of the life of Lena Baker, a Black woman wrongfully convicted of murder in Georgia in the 1940s. This book delves into the injustices Lena faced as she navigated a racially charged legal system and tells the story of her fight for justice in the face of insurmountable odds. Through meticulous research and poignant storytelling, Lela Bond Phillips sheds light on a forgotten chapter of American history and brings Lena Baker's courageous struggle for truth and dignity to the forefront."

Wings Publishers, 2001, 103 pages

By Curtis Prout and Robert N. Ross

Care and Punishment: The Dilemmas of Prison Medicine delves into the ethical and practical challenges faced by healthcare providers in correctional facilities. Authors Curtis Prout and Robert N. Ross examine the complex intersection of healthcare, criminal justice, and human rights within the confines of prison walls. Through a series of compelling case studies and rigorous analysis, this book sheds light on the dilemmas that arise when medical care interacts with the punitive nature of incarceration. A crucial read for anyone interested in the intersection of medicine and justice, Care and Punishment offers valuable insights into the complexities of providing healthcare in carceral settings.

University of Pittsburgh Press, 1988, 276 pages

Gruesome Spectacles : Botched Executions and America's Death Penalty By Auston Sarat

In "Gruesome Spectacles: Botched Executions and America's Death Penalty," author Auston Sarat meticulously examines the dark history of flawed executions in the United States. Through detailed analysis and compelling narratives, Sarat sheds light on the often overlooked human errors and systemic failures that have plagued the American justice system. This thought-provoking book challenges readers to confront the ethical complexities of capital punishment and its impact on society. Sarat's compelling exploration of botched executions raises crucial questions about the efficacy and morality of the death penalty in contemporary America.

Stanford University Press, 2014 - 273 pages

MICHAEL L. RADELET

"The History of the Death Penalty in Colorado" delves into the complex and controversial practice of capital punishment within the state. Revealing the evolution of laws, cases, and sentiments surrounding the death penalty, this book provides a comprehensive examination of its impact on Colorado's justice system and society. From landmark legal battles to public opinion shifts, this thorough exploration offers valuable insights into a contentious aspect of Colorado's history."

UNIVERSITY PRESS OF COLORADO. Boulder. 2017. 300p.

Victor L. Streib

"The Fairer Death: Executing Women in Ohio" delves into the overlooked history of female executions in the state of Ohio. Through meticulous research and compelling storytelling, this book sheds light on the lives and crimes of these women, exploring the societal attitudes and legal systems that led to their ultimate fate. A thought-provoking examination of gender, justice, and the death penalty, "The Fairer Death" challenges readers to confront uncomfortable truths about our criminal justice system's treatment of women offenders.

Ohio University Press Series. Athens. 2005. 202p.

MAY CONTAIN MARKUP

DANIEL GEROULD

Guillotine: It's Legend and Lore delves into the history, cultural impact, and myths surrounding the infamous device that became the symbol of the French Revolution. This comprehensive book examines the origins of the guillotine, its evolution, and the significant historical events it was associated with. Through meticulous research and captivating storytelling, the author explores the diverse perspectives on the guillotine, shedding light on its enduring legacy in both history and popular culture. Whether you are a history enthusiast or simply curious about this macabre yet fascinating subject, Guillotine: It's Legend and Lore is a compelling read that offers a fresh look at one of history's most notorious inventions.

BLAST BOOKS • NEW YORK. 1992. 332p.

MAY CONTAIN MARKUP

DOMINIQUE MORAN

“The 'punitive tum' has brought about new ways of thinking about geography and the state, and has highlighted spaces of incarceration as a new terrain for exploration by geographers. Carceral geography offers a geographical perspective on incarceration, and this volume accordingly tracks the ideas, practices and engagements that have shaped the development ofthis new and vibrant subdiscipline, and scopes out future research directions. By conveying a sense of the debates, directions, and threads within the field of carceral geography, it traces the inner workings ofthis dynamic field, its synergies with criminology and prison sociology, and its likely future trajectories. Synthesizing existing work in carceral geography, and exploring the future directions it might take, the book develops a notion ofthe 'carceral' as spatial, emplaced, mobile, embodied and affective.”

Ashgate. Surrey, England. 2015. 188p.

MAY CONTAIN MARKUP

Mary Kreiner Ramirez and Steven A. Ramirez

FROM THE PREFACE: “In defiance of any notion of the rule of law, our government failed to prosecute any senior bankers or large banks at any ofthe major financial firms at the center ofthe financial crisis of 2007 to 2009. This book demonstrates that the US government failed to pursue criminal misconduct that justified charges against the financiers at the center ofthe subprime crisis, and that justified dismantling Wall Street's most powerful megabanks under current law. At the outset, however, we must highlight that this book ofnecessity must proceed upon an inadequate factual foundation specifically because the government failed to adequately investigate and prosecute the enormous crimes underlying the financial crisis.”

NEW YORK New York. UNIVERSITY PRESS. 2017. 260p.

By Joe Russo, Samuel Peterson, Michael J. D. Vermeer, Dulani Woods, Brian A. Jackson

Racial and ethnic disparities are pervasive in the U.S. criminal justice system. These disparities often compound as an individual progresses through each stage of the justice system, beginning with police contact and continuing through prosecution and correctional control. Not surprisingly, people of color are overrepresented in the probation and parole population, yet relatively little attention has been paid to disparate treatment and outcomes at this stage.

Probation and parole staff and other system actors exercise considerable discretion in responding to technical violations. Technical violations are instances of noncompliance with the conditions of supervision — such as failing to report to the supervising officer, leaving the jurisdiction without permission, and testing positive on a drug test—that, while not criminal, can lead to severe consequences for justice-involved individuals. The spectrum of responses to technical violations can range from a warning all the way up to a recommendation to revoke supervision. Evidence suggests that technical violations are an important driver of incarceration.

The handling of technical violations may be influenced by a variety of factors, including officer judgment and jurisdictional policy, and there is evidence of racial and ethnic disparities in how they are handled. Ultimately, disparities in the processing of technical violations can exacerbate and perpetuate existing disparities in incarceration and undermine the legitimacy of the justice system. This report presents findings and recommendations from an expert panel that explored challenges and opportunities associated with reducing disparities at the technical violation decision point.

Key Findings

• The lack of evidence on the sources of disparities in community supervision contributes to a lack of known approaches for responding to them.

• The working relationship between an officer and a supervisee is critical to successful outcomes.

• A lack of diversity or cultural sensitivity among officers and supervisee perceptions of justice system illegitimacy can be barriers to forming quality relationships of trust.

• Research is needed to determine the impacts of (1) such factors as the working relationship between and officer and a supervisee, a lack of diversity or cultural sensitivity among officers, and supervisee perceptions of justice system illegitimacy on supervisee violation behaviors, (2) responses to these behaviors, and (3) disparities.

• Supervisees of color often have inequitable access to resources, which can be a barrier to successful completion of supervision and a contributing factor in disparate outcomes.

• Information management tools are needed to increase transparency about and accountability for disparities.

• Jurisdictions would benefit from developing data dashboards to help track, analyze, and display key metrics so that progress may be measured — and corrective actions taken as needed — at the officer and agency levels.

  Recommendations

• Develop best practices for the use of technology to eliminate barriers to compliance. Evaluate pros, cons, and impacts of these approaches on outcomes and disparities.

• Develop best practices and strategies to directly provide resources (e.g., food pantries, clothing, transit vouchers) to disadvantaged supervisees and/or coordinate with community resources to provide these services. Explore the feasibility of monetary assistance for sustenance and/or emergency support.

• Conduct research into supervisee perceptions of the justice system’s legitimacy along racial and ethnic lines and the impact of these perceptions on compliance and outcomes.

• Conduct research to determine whether the use of credible messengers improves relationships with supervisees and to examine the impact of this practice on supervision outcomes.

• Study jurisdictions that have reduced disparities to better understand the dynamics associated with successful outcomes and to develop an evidence base of effective strategies.

• Conduct research to determine the impacts of more-general system reforms (e.g., caps on probation sentences, reductions in the number of technical violations) on disparities in technical violation behaviors, responses, and outcomes.

• Develop management tools (e.g., dashboards) to track disparity metrics, in near real time, at the agency, supervisor, and officer levels to promote transparency and accountability and to identify patterns to be investigated and addressed (e.g., coachable moments for staff, policy or program review).

• Reinforce supervision practices in which staff actively engage in barrier-reduction strategies to "meet supervisees where they are" in terms of appropriate accommodations and service delivery that do not compromise public safety.

Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2023. 32p.

By Giada Girelli, Marcela Jofré, and Ajeng Larasati

Harm Reduction International (HRI) has monitored the use of the death penalty for drug offences worldwide since our first ground-breaking publication on this issue in 2007. This report, our 13th on the subject, continues our work of providing regular updates on legislative, policy and practical developments related to the use of capital punishment for drug offences, a practice which isa clear violation of international human rights and drug control standards.

This year marks the beginning of a new approach to our flagship publication. Every edition of this report will provide key data and updated categories, as well as high-level developments at the national and international level. A deeper analysis of developments and trends will be published in the 2024 edition and on alternate years. The methodology used for both reports remains the same. HRI opposes the death penalty in all cases without exception.

Harm Reduction International, 2024. 22p.