By Margaret Love & David Schlussel

Background: This report is the first-ever comprehensive national survey of the period of time a person, who is otherwise eligible to expunge or seal a misdemeanor or felony conviction record, must wait before obtaining this relief. Waiting periods are usually established by statute and can range from 0 to 20 years, a period that typically (though by no means invariably) commences after completion of the court-imposed sentence. Also typically, during a waiting period the person must be free from certain forms of involvement with the justice system: from a felony conviction, from any conviction, or from any arrest, again depending on state law. These and other conditions and circumstances may extend (or occasionally shorten) the length of a waiting period in specific cases.

Contents of the Report: Following this introduction, the report consists of two 50 state Tables, one showing the waiting periods applicable to clearing of misdemeanors, and the other showing the waiting periods applicable to clearing of felonies, with states that have no general record clearing listed at the bottom of each table. The Tables are followed by maps showing the geographical distribution of waiting periods for each type of conviction. The maps are followed by an appendix describing in greater detail the laws governing waiting periods in each of the jurisdictions studied.

Summary of 50-state research results:

• The waiting periods for misdemeanor convictions range from a high of 10 or 15 years in Maryland (depending on the nature of the offense) to 0 years in Mississippi (although only first-time offenses are eligible), with most states falling at the lower end of that range. Of the 44 states that authorize clearing of misdemeanor convictions, a near-majority have waiting periods of 3 years or less (19 states) and the vast majority have waiting periods of 5 years or less (35 states).

• The waiting periods for felony convictions range from as high as 10 or 20 years in North Carolina to as low as 0-2 years in California, with most states falling at the lower end of that range. Of the 35 states that authorize clearing of felony convictions, a near-majority have waiting periods of 7 years or less (17 states).

Comment on methodology: This report deals only with waiting periods, and only with those applicable to general record clearing of felony and misdemeanor convictions. Different waiting periods may apply to specialized record-clearing programs such as those that apply to victims of human trafficking, decriminalized offenses (e.g., marijuana), and so-called youthful offender programs. It also does not take account of other eligibility requirements that typically apply that could extend the waiting period, including completion of supervision and/or payment of court debt, or potential extensions related to prior, subsequent, and pending criminal matters. It does not consider provisions allowing the DA to consent to shorten waiting periods.

The Tables are based only on the length of the waiting period specified in statute. Insofar as practicable, the charts account for differences in when the waiting period commences (e.g., upon conviction, upon release from incarceration, upon completion of supervision, upon completion of sentence including payment of court debt). Further information about states in the far righthand column of the Tables may be found in the state-specific write-ups in the Appendix or in the state-specific profiles from CCRC’s Restoration of Rights Project.

Considerations for assessing the efficacy of waiting periods: In assessing how waiting periods affect the efficacy of a particular state’s record clearing system, it is important to consider whether some states with shorter waiting periods authorize clearance of a narrower set of convictions, and, conversely, whether some states with longer periods may authorize clearing of a broader set of convictions. In many if not most cases, other variables (including but not limited to those mentioned in the foregoing paragraph) will have to be brought into play to provide a fair assessment.

The changing concept (and length) of waiting periods: Many waiting periods, notably longer ones, reflect a concept of record clearing via expungement or sealing as “recognition of successful rehabilitation and reason to terminate legal disqualifications and disabilities.”1 In recent years, however, many states have shortened waiting periods in recognition of the constructive role that record clearance plays in facilitating reentry and rehabilitation, reasoning that individuals “need the most assistance immediately after release from prison or termination of sentence.”

Since 2016, thirteen (13) states have reduced their waiting periods, four (4) states more than once. The seven (7) states that have enacted a general conviction sealing authority for the first time since 2018 have generally (though not invariably) provided shorter waiting periods than states with more venerable systems.3 States that have reduced their waiting periods in recent years, or enacted new record-clearing laws for the first time, tend to be geographically and politically diverse. The Tables show that the states with the longest waiting periods in the country are on the East Coast, with all but one in the Mid-Atlantic region.

Waiting periods and public safety: Data on recidivism dating from the 1990s reinforced policy arguments that waiting periods should be long enough to reduce the risk of reoffending after record clearance. But new research on recidivism suggests that shorter waiting periods need not raise public safety concerns. Researchers at the RAND Corporation have raised questions about decades of received truth about the prevalence of reoffending after people leave prison, proposing that the majority of individuals with a conviction do not have a subsequent conviction, and that a person’s likelihood of being convicted again declines rapidly as more time passes. This new research would seem to cast doubt on the legitimacy of concerns that shortening waiting periods necessarily raises public safety concerns. Indeed, to the contrary, it suggests that it may be possible to reconcile the seemingly inconsistent policy goals of facilitating and recognizing rehabilitation through shorter waiting periods.

Arnold, MO: Collateral Consequences Resource Center (CCRC) , 2022 23p.

By Caroline Cohn, Margaret Love, et al. - National Consumer Law Center, Inc. and Collateral Consequences Resource Center

For the nearly one-third of adults in the U.S. with a record of arrest or conviction, their record is not simply part of their past but a continuing condition that impacts nearly every aspect of their life. Their record makes it hard to get a job and support a family, secure a place to live, contribute to the community, and participate fully in civic affairs.

In recent years, most states have passed laws aimed at restoring economic opportunity, personal freedoms, and human dignity to millions of these individuals by providing a path to clear their record. But for too many, this relief remains out of reach because of monetary barriers, including not only the cost of applying for record clearing but also the requirement in many jurisdictions that applicants satisfy debt incurred as part of the underlying criminal case before they can have their record cleared. This can be a high bar: the total amount of fines and fees can run to thousands of dollars for even minor infractions and can be considerably higher for felonies.

People prevented from clearing their record because they cannot afford to pay are usually those most in need of relief. And, perversely, because a record significantly impairs economic opportunity, having an open record makes it harder to pay off fines and fees and therefore harder to qualify for record clearing. This burden falls especially heavily on Black and Brown communities, which are more likely to have high concentrations of both criminal records and poverty because of structural racism in criminal law enforcement and in the economy. Ability-to pay tests and similar waiver approaches to reduce or eliminate monetary barriers to record clearing have been shown to be poor safeguards in many contexts.

FINDINGS: NATIONWIDE SURVEY OF COURT DEBT AS A BARRIER TO CLEARING A CONVICTION RECORD

This report explores the extent to which restricting access to record clearing based on outstanding criminal fines, fees, costs, and restitution—collectively known as “court debt”—may prevent poor and low-income people from getting a second chance. After surveying research on the importance of record clearing and the mushrooming financial burdens imposed on criminal defendants, it analyzes the extent to which outstanding court debt is a barrier to record clearing under the laws of each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal system. Our study focuses in particular on generally applicable statutory authorities for clearing adult criminal convictions; it excludes record-clearing authorities available for other categories of records (e.g., non-conviction records) or for specific categories of individuals (e.g., victims of human trafficking).

We found considerable variation and complexity in how jurisdictions treat outstanding court debt in the context of conviction record clearing. We identified six general categories into which jurisdictions fall, and we analyzed the specific details of each jurisdiction’s law.* The map below shows how we categorized each state, with a legend describing in general terms the criteria for inclusion in each category.

Our research revealed the following:

• In almost every jurisdiction, outstanding court debt is a barrier to record clearing in at least some cases, either rendering a person entirely ineligible for record relief or making it difficult for them to qualify for this relief.

• At the same time, however, only 6 of the 50 states require payment of all court debt in order to qualify for record clearing—evidence that most state policymakers do not think that all court debt should have to be paid off for an individual to benefit from record clearing.

• While some of the states that have enacted automatic record-clearing laws do not restrict eligibility based on outstanding court debt, others do, such that making record-clearing automatic does not necessarily obviate this monetary barrier.

• In many states it is difficult to determine the relevance of outstanding court debt in the record-clearing context, and even more difficult to predict whether a person with outstanding court debt will be successful in obtaining relief. This uncertainty makes it difficult both to understand eligibility for record clearing and to successfully navigate the application process, and it creates the potential for inconsistencies in how the law is applied and who obtains relief.

Although this report focuses on how court debt operates as a barrier to record clearing for those without the means to pay, it also describes the variety of filing and administrative fees that often must be paid to apply for record clearing. The high cost of application also creates a barrier to a fresh start

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on our research, we offer the following recommendations:

1. Court debt should never be a barrier to record clearing: Qualification for record clearance should not be conditioned on payment of court debt, and outstanding court debt should not be a basis for denying relief, regardless of whether record clearing is petition-based or automatic.

2. Application-related costs, including filing fees, should never be a barrier to record clearing: States should adopt automatic record-clearing processes that do not require individuals to incur costs to have their records cleared. States with petition-based record clearing should not require people seeking relief to pay any filing fees or other costs to submit a petition or to obtain or effectuate relief.

3. Jurisdictions should collect and report data on monetary barriers to record clearing: Jurisdictions where record clearing may be denied on the basis of outstanding court debt should collect and report data reflecting the impact of these barriers on record clearing. Jurisdictions should also collect data reflecting the impact of filing fees and other application-related costs on obtaining relief

National Consumer Law Center, Inc. and Collateral Consequences Resource Center 2022. 62p.

By Margaret Love & Nick Sibilla

At the beginning of each year since 2017, CCRC has issued a report on legislative enactments in the year just ended, describing and evaluating new laws aimed at reducing the barriers faced by people with a criminal record in the workplace, at the ballot box, and in many other areas of daily life. These annual reports have documented the steady progress of what our report three years ago characterized as “a full-fledged law reform movement” aimed at restoring rights and dignity to individuals who have successfully navigated the criminal law system. This modern law reform movement is grounded in and inspired by the circumstance that almost a third of adults in the United States now have a criminal record, which entangles them in a web of legal restrictions and discrimination that consigns them to a permanent second-class citizenship. It reflects a public recognition that the “internal exile” of such a significant portion of society is not only unsafe and unfair, but it is also profoundly inefficient. Last year we reported that the legislative momentum had slowed somewhat, and this year it has slowed still further. Only a handful of states enacted significant new laws in 2023, most in the form of new record-clearing schemes. We attribute this slowdown in part to how much has been accomplished in legislatures across the country in the past seven years in dealing with the basic rights of those who have successfully navigated the criminal law system. For example, more than half the states now allow people with a felony conviction to vote unless they are actually incarcerated. And, almost every state has taken some steps to ensure that employers and licensing agencies do not discriminate against people with a criminal history. Most states have also taken steps to limit public access to some criminal records. It is especially gratifying that just since we published our Model Law on Non-Conviction Records in 2019, a dozen states have adopted its recommendation that records of dismissed charges be automatically expunged. It remains to be seen whether the coming year will mark a return to the torrid pace set by legislatures across the country between 2018 and 2022, when more than 500 new record reforms were enacted by all but two states. Last year’s report borrowed its title (“The Frontiers of Dignity”) from the Basic Law adopted by the Federal Republic of Germany after World War II, which declared that “Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of state authority.” The report’s introduction noted that most European countries incorporate this foundational premise, as well as a concern for individual privacy, into their treatment of criminal records, by making them largely unavailable to the public and by limiting how they are used to deny rights and opportunities. In part because American legal systems are not similarly grounded in respect for dignity and privacy, our progress toward a fair and efficient criminal records policy has been slow and uneven. Yet it has been steady, animated in recent years both by a concern for racial justice and by economic self-interest. This report, like our past annual reports, attempts to capture this steady progress toward recognizing the worth and dignity of the millions of Americans whose past includes a record of arrest or conviction.

Arnold, MO: Collateral Consequences Resource Center 2024. 25p.

By JESSICA REICHERT, RYAN MARANVILLE, EVA OTT HILL

Persons reentering the community after prison face many obstacles that have been shown to reduce recidivism, such as securing employment. Like many states, Illinois operates work release centers allowing prisoners nearing the end of their sentence to work in the community and stay in the correctional facility when not working. Although the research is limited, these programs have been shown to be successful at increasing post-release employment, increasing hours worked, and reducing recidivism. We described characteristics of 1,580 participants in Illinois’ four Adult Transition Centers (ATCs) and examined differences in characteristics associated with rearrest and reincarceration. We found age, gender, and ATC facility were associated with rearrest and reincarceration. We found, as well, that recidivism risk, offense type, prior arrests, prior incarcerations, and length of stay were associated with rearrest. We recommend consistently measuring risk and tailoring services to the needs of the participant population.

Chicago: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authorisy 2023. 17p.

By Jessica Reichert, Ryan Maranville, Eva Ott Hill

Introduction

In 2022, over 16,000 persons exited prison in Illinois (Illinois Department of Corrections, n.d. b). Employment is a major factor in successful community reintegration after prison release. Not only is it important to formerly incarcerated individuals, families, and their communities it is also associated with lower rates of recidivism (Berger-Gross, 2022; Flatt & Jacobs, 2018; Nally, et al., 2014; Yang, 2017). However, formerly incarcerated persons face many barriers to employment, such as stigma by employers; restrictions or prohibition to some jobs because of criminal records; lack of or gaps in work experience; and deficits in human capital, such as inadequate education, training, or vocational skills (Pogrebin et al., 2014). These barriers keep the formerly incarcerated from being competitive in the labor market. Even years after release, these individuals consistently have low rates of employment (Looney & Turner, 2018). The jobs that are available are often low-skill, seasonal, temporary, and part-time. They provide low wages and limited, or no, benefits. While most individuals struggle to obtain employment post-release, certain groups are at a greater disadvantage because of race and gender (Pew Charitable Trusts, 2010; Western and Sirois, 2019). Both race and gender affect earnings and employment (Carson, et al., 2021; Couloute & Kopf, 2018). Prison and community reentry programs can help increase individuals’ probability of post-release employment. However, such programs are not sufficiently available to serve all who need them.

In order to examine employment following release from Illinois prisons, ICJIA collaborated with the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) and the Illinois Department of Employment Security (IDES). We sought to answer the following main research questions:

• What types of employment did formerly incarcerated individuals obtain after release?

• What were the employment and wage trends of individuals released from prison in recent years?

• What were the characteristics of those who obtained and did not obtain employment?

• What individual characteristics and employment sector impacted length of employment and earnings?

Methodology

We matched individual IDOC state prison data to IDES state employment data. This research was approved by the ICJIA Institutional Review Board. Our sample was made up of 4,430 persons who exited prison in 2018, and we tracked their employment through 2021. Most of the individuals in the sample were Black males with an average age of 37.

We ran descriptive statistics, t-tests, and linear regressions to examine employment patterns and outcomes. The data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics, Version 23.0. We performed independent sample t-tests for those who were employed to examine differences in mean length of employment and mean wages based on industry. We performed linear regression to examine differences in sample characteristics and length of employment and wages following prison release.

Study limitations include the absence of some variables of interest, such as vocational program participation and education levels of releasees. We also were unable to know whether individuals had non-taxed or out-of-state employment or if they were unable to work due to jail stays, disability, or death. Finally, the COVID-19 pandemic had an impact on employment during two of the years that we examined (2020 and 2021). This impact means our trends will vary from previous or subsequent years of data.

Discussion of Key Findings

Formerly Incarcerated Had High Unemployment

Following release from prison people in the sample had a relatively high unemployment rate of 45.5%. This rate was higher than both the state rate and rates found in prior studies (Couloute & Kopf, 2018; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, n.d.-a). A possible explanation is that COVID-19 affected rates of employment/unemployment in the United States beginning in early 2020 (U.S. Department of Labor Statistics, 2021). At present, however, the United States is experiencing a lower unemployment rate than when COVID-19 took hold in 2020 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2023). This increased demand for workers could potentially benefit the formerly incarcerated. As prior research has indicated, ex-prisoners and their employment have been sensitive to labor market conditions and job availability upon release (Schnepel, 2018; Yang, 2017).

Individuals Had Relatively Low Earnings Post-Release

The average income for those employed in our sample was $8,998 annually, which is lower than the 2021 individual federal poverty level (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, n.d. b). Low earnings for formerly incarcerated persons have been found in prior studies (Looney & Turner, 2018; Western, 2018). In our sample, the hourly rate, as calculated by our team, was $10.42 per hour, which was lower than the state of Illinois rate of $11 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, n.d.-c). Other researchers have also found low hourly rates (Visher et al., 2008). In addition, findings from prior studies have led researchers to conclude that employment is vital to meet basic needs and to lower recidivism for the formerly incarcerated (Flatt & Jacobs, 2018; Nally, et al., 2014; Yang, 2017). Coupled with such findings our evidence indicates a need for increased in-prison educational and vocational programming along with a reduction in socially held stigma and unnecessary background checks (Finlay, 2009).

Persons who Were Black Experienced Lower Employment and Wages Than Those of Other Races

In our study a higher proportion of Black persons than persons of other races were unemployed. They also had lower wages after release. Such disparities have been found in prior literature (Pew Charitable Trusts, 2010; Western and Sirois, 2019). Prior literature also has indicated that challenges to employment following prison were greater for Black persons (Pager et al., 2009; Wheelock & Uggen, 2005; Western & Sirois, 2019) due in part to a lack of employment opportunities (Clear et al., 2003; Morenoff & Harding, 2014; Roberts, 2004; Sampson & Loeffler, 2010). Therefore, there is a need for investment in prisoner reentry and support services (Reichert, 2019; Travis et al., 2001; Visher & Farrell, 2005).

Women Worked More but Earned Lower Wages

Following prison, women in our sample were slightly more likely to be employed than men, but they earned less. This finding is consistent with prior research into women’s employment after incarceration (Carson, et al., 2021; Couloute & Kopf, 2018). Researchers have found, for example, that formerly incarcerated women and men encountered similar barriers to post-release employment, such as a lack of education and job skills and overall limited career opportunities. However, in this study, women had very different experiences and responsibilities both prior to incarceration and after release. Women had much higher rates of prior physical or emotional abuse, which can create obstacles to employment and contribute to their having to live in poverty. In addition, since formerly incarcerated women were more likely than men to be primary caretakers for minor children, they faced this additional obstacle to post-release employment (Seville, 2008). As one government report advised, women should be supported to find employment, learn skills, and gain other supports, such as childcare (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2020). For women in the IDOC system only one work release center is available. This center has demonstrated success in improving employment outcomes for women post-release, thereby suggesting the need for and feasibility of its potential expansion (Jung & LaLonde, 2019).

More Employment and Higher Pay in Certain Sectors

The Bureau of Labor Statistics categorizes work into two supersectors: service providing and goods-producing. Of the people in our sample who were employed, over 91% were employed in the service providing supersector as opposed to 32% in the goods-producing supersector. (Some persons worked more than one job across supersectors during the time period studied.) Of those working in the service providing supersector, the largest proportion - over one-third - worked in the “administrative support and waste management and remediation services” sector. During the COVID-19 pandemic, however, this sector had a sharp decline, which may have affected, or continue to affect, formerly incarcerated workers (U.S. Department of Labor Statistics, 2021). Although typically offering low wages, jobs in this sector can be attained by those with limited skills; and employees in this sector are projected to remain in demand (Illinois Department of Employment Security, n.d.). Overall, the overarching service providing supersector employed a large majority of our sample but those who worked in the goods-producing supersector worked longer and had higher wages. Goods-producing industries include agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting; mining; construction; and manufacturing. The highest earnings for our sample were in educational services followed by manufacturing, construction, management, and wholesale trade. Again, considering current low unemployment and high demand for workers within the goods-producing fields, employers may be extra willing to hire formerly incarcerated persons (James, 2023). Job training prior to or after release can help the formerly incarcerated obtain promotions and higher wages (James, 2023) and could orient them towards sectors which demonstrate a willingness to both hire and pay well.

IDOC Supportive Programs were Associated with Better Employment Outcomes

We found that participants in IDOC Kewanee Life Skills Re-Entry Center and Illinois work release centers were more likely to have longer employment and higher wages post-release. Prior research on similar work release programs has revealed positive outcomes for participants, such as increased employment and hours worked. This finding suggests that these programs are viable substitutes for traditional correctional programming and ought to be expanded if resources allow (Duwe, 2013; Jung, 2014; Visher et al., 2004). Further research should be conducted to best determine their potential for aiding in successful reentry.

Conclusion

Our sample of 4,430 persons released from IDOC in 2018 had high unemployment and low earnings when tracked through 2021. We found additional employment and wage disparities for Black persons and women. The largest proportion of workers, nearly one-third, worked in administrative support and waste management and remediation services. Those working in the education sector made the highest wages. Those who worked in goods-producing industries rather than service industries had higher wages and longer lengths of employment. Based on our findings, the state as well as local communities should invest in reentry support. Fortunately, the state is experiencing low unemployment and a demand for workers, so this may be a timely opportunity to assist formerly incarcerated individuals with job attainment. Jobs will help them pay for basic expenses for themselves and their families as well as reduce recidivism and taxpayer costs.

Chicago: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority. 2023. 38p.

By Tara Wheeler, Julia Bergeron-Smith, George Shaler,

The number of criminal cases referred to Maine courts dropped considerably in 2020 and continued to fall in 2021 as well, according to Prosecutorial Data in Maine: Themes and Trends from 2017-2021, a report compiled by the University of Southern Maine’s Maine Statistical Analysis Center (SAC) for the Maine Prosecutors Association (MPA). “Understandably, the pandemic impacted the number of cases referred to Maine courts in 2020,” says Shira Burns, Executive Director for the MPA. “While the number of cases referred to the courts dropped 13% in 2020, this pattern continued into 2021 though the decline was not as dramatic as the previous year,” explains Burns. The report also found that motor vehicle cases are the most common type of case referred for prosecution at 39%. “Over half of motor vehicle cases—or 22% of all cases— were for operating after suspension (OAS) and operating under the influence (OUI),” mentions lead author Tara Wheeler of USM’s Maine Statistical Analysis Center. “In addition, 17% – or 1 in 6 cases referred to the courts – were for property offenses,” offers Wheeler. The report reveals that while most charge types were down in large part because of the declining number of referred cases, the number of violation charges was up. This increase was driven largely by release violations (e.g., cases in which the individual did not follow their conditions of release). Maine district attorneys (DAs) and their teams work together to prosecute individuals and organizations involved in criminal activity and serve victims of crime. However, while the DAs seek to address serious crime and protect and serve Mainers through data-informed decision-making, prosecutorial data (i.e., case data by year) has never been easily accessible even to prosecutors. To address this issue, the MPA partnered with the Maine SAC to establish statewide and district-level baseline figures and trends that could be detailed in an annual report and shared with key stakeholders and the public. Maine has eight prosecutorial districts, covering anywhere from one to four counties, that are each led by a popularly elected district attorney who serves a four-year term. The eight districts’ populations and geographic areas vary greatly, with the largest district having 295,000+ people in an 835 square mile area (District 2 – Cumberland County) and the least populated district having approximately 67,000 people spread out over 6,671 square miles (District 8 – Aroostook County).

 Portland, ME: Catherine Cutler Institute University of Southern Maine , 2023. 103p.

 By Kourtnie Rodgers, Thomas Strauss 

In response to a critical need of the clients they serve, Twin Falls County Adult Misdemeanor Probation began a program to offer vouchers for clients with financial need in 2007. Vouchers are paid for with funding from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program and can be used for required pieces of probation including drug testing, substance abuse treatment, and assessments. The goal of providing these vouchers is to reduce the burden of fees for clients who cannot afford to pay for their required conditions and ultimately to reduce recidivism of drug- and/or alcohol-related offenses. Clients are also able to access treatment providers that they may otherwise not be able to afford. This evaluation presents the Idaho Statistical Analysis Center’s (ISAC) review of the program through data collected by Twin Falls County Adult Misdemeanor Probation between October 2018 and September 2021. 

Meridian, ID: Idaho Statistical Analysis Center, 2022. 19p.

By Scottish Government, Justice Directorate

In November 2019, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice commissioned an independent review into the response to deaths in prison custody. The Independent Review of the Response to Deaths in Prison Custody was published in November 2021.

In early 2022, it was decided to bring in an external chair to oversee the implementation of the recommendations. I took up the role in April 2022, forming the Deaths in Prison Custody Action Group soon afterwards.

My first priority was to engage with families who had direct experience of losing a loved one through death in prison custody. A Family Reference Group was formed, which included some families who had contributed to the original Review. The membership has changed and increased over time with four more families joining the Group who were bereaved by the death of a loved one in prison after the Review was published in November 2021.

Families involved in this work are generously sharing their experiences in the hope that the response to the death of a relative in prison is improved for other families in the future. They share a desire to help improve the understanding of factors leading to deaths in prison in order to reduce and prevent more deaths.

The Review recognised the importance of data and analysis, with part of the key recommendation being that an independent body should produce and publish reports analysing data on deaths in custody, identifying trends and systemic issues.

Two important recommendations are aimed at understanding causes of deaths in prison and identifying trends with a view to preventing future deaths. Recommendation 1.1 states that leaders of national oversight bodies should work together with families to support the development of a new single framework on preventing deaths in custody. Recommendation 3.4 asks for a comprehensive review into the main causes of all deaths in prison custody.

I introduced an Understanding and Preventing Deaths in Prison Working Group, which sits under the Deaths in Prison Custody Action Group, to take these recommendations forward.

The Scottish Prison Service publishes data on its website, including date of admission; date of death; age; gender; ethnic group; legal status, and medical cause of death (from 2019 onwards). There has been no published analysis or identification of trends by the Scottish Prison Service or the Scottish Government, despite the data having been publicly available since 2012.

Whilst long overdue, this paper is welcome and presents a high level analysis of the data published by the Scottish Prison Service on deaths in prison between 2012 and 2022. Overall the analysis shows that there has been an increase in the number of deaths in prison over that period. It is the first in a series of reports that will be produced over the coming year. The next stage will be work with the National Records of Scotland to examine causes of deaths in prison in more detail, and to make comparisons with trends in the general population.

I will be particularly interested to see the age distribution of the prison population compared with the general population, and what analysis might tell us about the prevalence of suicide amongst young people in prison.

The healthcare provision across the prison estate and the efficiency of resources to escort people in prison to access medical appointments/treatment will also be an area of interest for future analysis.

This paper represents a start to the important work of improving the data, evidence, and analysis around prison deaths with a view to identifying factors and causes, and to prevent future deaths.

Two important recommendations are aimed at understanding causes of deaths in prison and identifying trends with a view to preventing future deaths. Recommendation 1.1 states that leaders of national oversight bodies should work together with families to support the development of a new single framework on preventing deaths in custody. Recommendation 3.4 asks for a comprehensive review into the main causes of all deaths in prison custody.

I introduced an Understanding and Preventing Deaths in Prison Working Group, which sits under the Deaths in Prison Custody Action Group, to take these recommendations forward.

The Scottish Prison Service publishes data on its website, including date of admission; date of death; age; gender; ethnic group; legal status, and medical cause of death (from 2019 onwards). There has been no published analysis or identification of trends by the Scottish Prison Service or the Scottish Government, despite the data having been publicly available since 2012.

Whilst long overdue, this paper is welcome and presents a high level analysis of the data published by the Scottish Prison Service on deaths in prison between 2012 and 2022. Overall the analysis shows that there has been an increase in the number of deaths in prison over that period. It is the first in a series of reports that will be produced over the coming year. The next stage will be work with the National Records of Scotland to examine causes of deaths in prison in more detail, and to make comparisons with trends in the general population.

I will be particularly interested to see the age distribution of the prison population compared with the general population, and what analysis might tell us about the prevalence of suicide amongst young people in prison.

The healthcare provision across the prison estate and the efficiency of resources to escort people in prison to access medical appointments/treatment will also be an area of interest for future analysis.

This paper represents a start to the important work of improving the data, evidence, and analysis around prison deaths with a view to identifying factors and causes, and to prevent future deaths.

2023. 36p.

By Magnus Lofstrom and Brandon Martin, with research support from Sean Cremin

Key Takeaways: Since a 2009 federal court order to reduce prison overcrowding, California has been at the forefront of reforms aimed at reducing incarceration. One critical reform, Proposition 47—passed by voters in 2014— continues to be at the center of policy discussions. Under Prop 47, prison and jail populations plummeted as did arrests for drug and property crimes after certain offenses were reclassified from felonies to misdemeanors. Furthermore, lower prison populations and expenditures have led to $800 million so far in savings that provided funding for treatment and diversion programs. But Prop 47 may not be the most important change to the criminal justice system in recent years; the pandemic brought challenges that have had lasting impacts on incarceration and enforcement. Driven by larcenies, property crime jumped after Prop 47 compared to the nation and comparison states; with no further deviations until 2021, partly driven by commercial burglaries. Violent crime also diverged over the last decade, with the sharpest deviation at the start of the pandemic. Two years after Prop 47, California’s clearance rate—or reported crimes that lead to an arrest and referral to prosecution—for property crime dropped 3 percent. It then dropped 7 percent in 2022, signaling that a person is half as likely to be apprehended for property crime today, compared to 2014. The clearance rate for violent crime has remained relatively stable for two decades. Jail and prison populations have dropped by a total of 30 percent, but the impact on crime has been modest and limited. With Prop 47, only a rise in auto thefts (3.9%) and car break-ins (3.7%) is tied to lower incarceration; with the pandemic, it was a rise in auto thefts (1.6%) and commercial burglaries (2.1%). After Prop 47, lower clearance rates for larceny (theft without force or threat of force) led to a modest rise in property crime, with more burglaries (2.9%), auto thefts (1.7%), and larcenies (1.1%). After the pandemic, lower larceny clearance rates led to a rise in car accessory thefts (7.3%) and car break-ins (3.9%); burglary clearance rates also dropped, raising commercial burglaries (3.2%). No evidence suggests that changes in drug arrests after Prop 47 or after the pandemic led to any increases in crime. Due to data limitations, we were not able to assess whether Prop 47 or the pandemic led to any changes in substance use and addiction. Focusing on retail theft, fewer cleared property crimes after both Prop 47 and the pandemic led to a rise in commercial burglaries; a drop in the jail population post-pandemic is also tied to a rise in commercial burglaries. Evidence is clearer that retail theft increased due to pandemic responses by the criminal justice system, and the increases were of greater magnitude than increases due to Prop 47. This report builds on our previous research and is the culmination of a year-long effort to examine the impact of Proposition 47 as the reform approaches its 10th anniversary, as well as the impact of the pandemic-related criminal justice responses; it is not an analysis of recently enacted or proposed legislation or upcoming ballot initiatives such as Proposition 36. Determining the factors that can reverse falling rates for cleared property crimes—and in turn raise the likelihood of being apprehended—should be a top priority for California’s policymakers. Legislators also should seek evidence-based alternatives to incarceration, which shows limited success with preventing crime. Understanding these factors and alternatives is vital to developing criminal justice policies, especially as research consistently finds that increasing the likelihood of being apprehended is a more effective strategy for preventing crime than harsher penalties or longer sentences.

San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California, 2024. 35p.

By Vasiliki Georgoulas-Sherry & Hanna Hernandez

Abstract -- In 2019, Washington State passed legislation (Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1109) establishing the Washington State Criminal Sentencing Task Force to “review state sentencing laws … for the purpose of: (a) reducing sentencing implementation complexities and errors; (b) improving the effectiveness of the sentencing system; and (c) promoting and improving public safety” (401). To respond to the legislation, the Washington Statistical Analysis Center (SAC) housed in the Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) applied for and received the 2018 State Justice Statistics (SJS) Grant from Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) to review Washington State’s offender score, and other situational calculations associated to the offender score, on rates of recidivism rates. Background Washington State’s Sentencing Guidelines In 1981, the Washington State Legislature enacted the Sentencing Reform Act (SRA), which established the Sentencing Guidelines Commission (SGC) and directed it to recommend to the Legislature a determinate sentencing system for adult felonies. The principal goal of the new sentencing guidelines system was to ensure that offenders who commit similar crimes and have similar criminal histories receive equivalent sentences; specifically, sentences were to be proportionate and determined by the offender’s criminal record and the offense’s seriousness level. In 1982, the SGC completed the original adult felony sentencing "grid", and, in 1983, the Legislature adopted the SGC’s recommendations into law. The SRA was enacted to help make the criminal justice system more accountable to the public by developing a sentencing system that structures or guides, but does not eliminate, the use of judicial discretion in sentencing adult felony offenders. The SRA took effect for crimes committed on or after July 1, 1984 (prior to this date, sentences imposed for adult felonies in Washington were indeterminate which meant that courts had wide discretion over whether to impose a prison sentence and the length of any sentence or not). Codified in Chapter 9.94A RCW the SRA contains the guidelines and procedures used by the courts to impose sentences for adult felonies. The SGC continues to advise the Legislature on necessary adjustments to the sentencing structure, and the Legislature has made many modifications to Washington State’s sentencing laws. Washington State’s Sentencing Guideline Structure Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 9.94A.510 presents Washington State’s sentencing grid (see Table 1). Under the Washington State’s sentencing grid, the rows signify offense seriousness levels (range of I to XVI) while columns signify offender scores (also known as criminal history score) (denotes a measure of prior conviction history and ranges of 0 to 9 or more). Within each cell on the sentencing grid, a presumptive sentencing range is included (for example, an offense seriousness level of VII and an offender score of a 5 has a presumptive sentence range of 41 to 54 months); the range denotes standard minimum and maximum confinement term that may be imposed for a particular combination of offender score and seriousness level. Higher offender scores and offense seriousness level are associated with longer sentence lengths. It is important to note that not all offenses are ranked. The Offender Score is calculated based on five factors: 1) Number of prior criminal convictions or juvenile dispositions 2) Relationship between any prior offense(s) and the current offense of conviction 3) Presence of other current convictions 4) Community custody status at the time the crime was committed 5) Length of crime-free time between offenses. Additionally, the scoring rules vary depending on the type of offense and circumstances of the current conviction. Some of the situational calculations include but are not limited to multipliers and community supervision points. There are instances that necessitate a scoring alteration in terms of points (such as points associated with juvenile adjudications) and multipliers were introduced in efforts to weight appropriate instances; sentence multipliers add additional time to the sentencing range for the current offense, based on criminal history which preceded the offense under adjudication. This means that the sentencing range is increased based upon the way the offender score is calculated when multipliers are brought into play. A community supervision (i.e., when an offender is sentenced to direct supervision under the jurisdiction of the Washington State Department of Corrections (WA DOC)) point is an additional point added when the current offense is committed while on community custody for a previous offense. While there are other circumstances, this report will only look at the 3 potential impact of multipliers and community supervision points on offender score and, potentially, recidivism. Current Report In 2019, Washington State passed legislation (Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1109) establishing the Washington State Criminal Sentencing Task Force to “review state sentencing laws … for the purpose of: (a) reducing sentencing implementation complexities and errors; (b) improving the effectiveness of the sentencing system; and (c) promoting and improving public safety” (401). To respond to the legislation, the SAC applied for and received the 2018 SJS Grant from BJS to assess and review sentencing guidelines and offender score. Specifically, the current report reviews Washington State’s offender score, and other situational calculations associated to the offender score, on rates of recidivism rates. 

Olympia, WA: Washington State Statistical Analysis Center, 2023. 62p.

By Vasiliki Georgoulas-Sherry,  & Hanna Hernandez

Jail populations continue to be under-evaluated and under-researched. While there is a plethora of research on correctional incarcerated populations, there is a need to better assess jail populations as more people interact with these institutions. To evaluate and research this population, the Washington Statistical Analysis Center (SAC) applied for and received the 2021 State Justice Statistics (SJS) grant from Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). Under this grant from BJS, the SAC will draw on the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC)'s Jail Booking and Reporting System (JBRS) to evaluate the potential demographic disparities by rates of days in jail and by rates of recidivism. Main conclusions: 1. The proportion of jailed individuals who spent an above average number of days in jail during their initial booking was higher for males, higher for individuals who were part of the BIPOC community and decreased with an increased age of 36 years of age and older. 2. On average, male jailed individuals who recidivated had more days in jail for their initial booking. And, on average, non-BIPOC jailed individuals who recidivated had more days in jail for their initial booking than BIPOC jailed individuals who recidivated. 3. The proportion of jailed individuals who spent an above average number of days in jail following recidivism was higher for males, and BIPOC jailed individuals who recidivated had more days in jail following recidivism. Age did not impact the number of days in jail following recidivism.

Olympia, WA: Washington State Statistical Analysis Center, 2022. 21p.

By Shamena Anwar, John Engberg, Isaac M. Opper, Leah Dion

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) methods to aid with decision making in the criminal justice system has widely expanded in recent years with the increased use of risk assessments. Nowhere has this shift been more dramatic than in the widespread adoption of AI-enabled risk assessment tools to aid in pretrial detention decisions. Despite the promise of pretrial risk assessment tools, the ways in which these tools have been implemented has limited potential progress. The vast majority of jurisdictions that have implemented these tools have essentially provided these risk assessment recommendations to judges in an advisory manner and generally cannot require judges to follow the recommendations when making their pretrial release decisions. Studies indicate that judges frequently ignore the recommendations of the risk assessment instrument; as a result, the adoption of these risk assessment tools has not had much impact on reducing the use of monetary bail and pretrial detention. In this report, the authors investigate the factors that are predictive of whether judges follow risk assessment recommendations and identify the impacts to pretrial detention, public safety, and racial disparities when judges follow the recommendations more often.

Key Findings

• There is wide variation in the extent to which judges follow the recommendations of the pretrial risk assessment when release is recommended. Fifteen percent of judges follow the recommendations less than 40 percent of the time; 22 percent follow the recommendations more than 70 percent of the time.

• When judges deviate from a risk assessment recommendation, they often do so because they penalize certain factors—such as criminal history and charge grade—more than the risk assessment does. The area that a judge represents, their prior occupation, and their age are all factors that are predictive of whether a judge will follow the risk assessment recommendation. However, half of the variation in the rates at which judges follow the recommendations is not explained by any factors that the authors observed about the judge.

• Although judges who follow the risk assessment recommendations at a high rate release more than three times the number of defendants than do judges who follow the recommendations at a low rate, the recidivism rate for defendants assigned to judges in the former group is no different from the recidivism rate for those assigned to judges in the latter group.

• Racial disparities in pretrial detention rates decline as the rate at which judges follow the pretrial risk assessment recommendations increases.

• If judges who follow the risk assessment recommendations at a low rate followed the recommendations more often, more individuals could be released, racial disparities would decline, and there would be no impact on public safety.

2024. 32p.

By Prisoners’ Education Trust 

This briefing makes 10 recommendations to the new ministerial team at the Ministry of Justice on how to improve prison education, ensuring that people in prison can access education provision that meets their needs and helps them to thrive on release. The briefing focuses on education provision in adult prisons and on changes that can be made at a national level. As education is a devolved issue, it primarily covers issues related to provision in England and not in Wales.

Among the recommendations for the new ministerial team are:

• Making it clear to everyone in the prison system that education is a priority for the new government

• Increasing funding for prison education to meet the needs of learners

• Reviewing the upcoming prison education contracts to consider whether they are fit for purpose

The briefing also addresses access to digital technology and the internet, support for teachers, and meeting the diverse needs of people in prison – as well as taking a longer-term view of the prison education delivery model. The need for urgent action on prison education is clear. The majority of people who arrive in prison have literacy and numeracy levels below those expected of somebody leaving primary school. Despite this, nearly half of Ofsted inspections of prisons find education provision to be inadequate. Ofsted’s most recent annual report noted that “the overall effectiveness of education, skills and work provision in prisons is poor and continues to decline”, while HM Chief Inspector of Prisons Charlie Taylor has described prison education as “nowhere near good enough”. At present, not only is prison education not of good enough quality, but not enough people can access it. The number of people who participated in a course in prison last year was 37% lower than a decade ago, while the number participating in a functional skills course — the fundamental English, Maths and ICT skills that people need for their working and personal lives — has fallen by 27% since 2014–15.

London: Prisoners, Education Trust, 2024.   40p.

By Emily Lupton Lupez,  Steffie Woolhandler, ; David U. Himmelstein

Growing old and dying inside: improving the experiences of older people serving long prison sentences Dr Jayne Price In partnership with the Building Futures Programme. This report is an uncomfortable read, shining a stark light on the difficulties faced by the increasing number of older people serving long sentences. For me, four issues stand out from the consultation that underpins this report. First, the experiences of the men and women who took part powerfully illustrate the mismatch between the diverse needs of this often-hidden group of people and the rigidity of many prison regimes. These needs cannot be met by the prison system alone but raise important challenges for health and social care commissioners and providers, as well as external partners involved in the provision of purposeful activities. Second, that this activity is critical for many older people serving long sentences. But many find that few opportunities are available to them. For the ageing population future employment is less of a concern, how their time, often decades, can be spent productively and meaningfully in activities suited to their age and length of sentence. The testimonies here suggest that governors should enhance the role that prisoners themselves can play in supporting others. This report suggests that when encouraged effectively, those serving long sentences can help to fill the gaps that currently exist in many parts of the estate. Third, like much of PRT’s Building Futures Programme, this report demonstrates the value of enabling people with lived experience to engage in issues of operational and policy improvement and provides ideas for positive change. It also includes very personal, honest, and desperate reflections about the experience of incarceration. This underlines what we see at Recoop: many older people inside feel they are punished not just through losing their liberty but also through a series of humiliations and deprivations throughout their sentence, which can get harder as they age. Finally, those who participated in this report provide a painful reminder of the need for a national strategy for older prisoners; something promised by the government in 2020 but yet to be published. The pressure on the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) to provide decent, safe, and rehabilitative secure environments is probably as acute as it has ever been, particularly with the current and very real overcrowding challenges. This cannot be achieved without a comprehensive, integrated and estate-wide approach. The long-awaited older prisoner strategy must address the changes required, including ensuring funding and commissioning is in alignment. This requires joint working and commitment from the MoJ, Public Health and NHS England to fulfil their collective responsibilities to address the perfect storm of issues that is painfully illustrated in this report. Without this, it will not be able to deliver what is needed. 

London: Prison Reform Trust, 2024. 52p.

By Howard League for Penal Reform

Sentence inflation: a judicial critique “Overcrowding has had a mesmeric effect on the prison system and has absorbed energy which could have been used in improving prisons. In addition, prisons are expensive and have damaging effects on prisoners. It is therefore important… to reduce the prison population to an unavoidable minimum.” The Woolf Report, 1991 This paper, signed by the four surviving former Lords Chief Justice of England and Wales, and the only surviving President of the Queen’s Bench Division who was also Head of Criminal Justice, raises serious concerns about the state of sentencing law and practice in this country. It urges not merely the new government, but politicians of all parties, to reflect on Lord Woolf’s words above. In 1991 the prison population of England and Wales was just nudging 40,000. Today it stands at over 88,000 – of whom more than 80% are sentenced – and it has been rising steeply. We already have the highest rate of imprisonment per capita in Western Europe, and the Ministry of Justice’s own projections suggest that by March 2028 we face a ‘low’ scenario of 94,600, a ‘high’ scenario of 114,800, and a central estimate of 105,800. This forecast should be treated as unacceptable. There have been two main causes of the steady rise in prison numbers that has taken place since the Second World War. The first is a continuous escalation in the length of sentences imposed for more serious offences. The second is a lack of confidence in the efficacy of non-custodial sentences for less serious offences. These factors might have been offset if imprisonment had proved an occasion for effective rehabilitation, but it has not. Other causes include the increase in the requirement for many prisoners to serve twothirds of the sentence before release, and that licence conditions now apply for the entirety of the sentence. The number of prisoners recalled to prison during this period of supervision has soared. The construction of prison accommodation is unable to keep pace with the demand for prison spaces. The result is severely overcrowded prisons. As the new Prime Minister has made clear, we are close to breaking point. By the Ministry of Justice’s own measure, there are nearly 8,000 more people in prison than can be held in safety and decency. Reports of His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP), including a recent spate of Urgent Notifications of unacceptable prisons, evidence the scope and severity of the challenge. HMIP reports, along with those of the statutory Independent Monitoring Boards report poor physical conditions in many jails, the absence of meaningful activity for prisoners and diminishing safety across the estate. Population and staffing pressures mean that access to a useful daily regime, one which gives any opportunity for rehabilitation, is severely curtailed for most people in prison. Last year, HMIP found that 42% of those surveyed spent more than 22 hours a day in their cell, and that access to purposeful activity in the library, gym, employment and education was limited. Lack of purposeful activity has been repeatedly highlighted as HMIP’s biggest area of concern. To address the current crisis, the last government pursued a series of emergency measures that included reversing an increase in the sentencing powers of magistrates, releasing prisoners days early and delaying court processes likely to result in imprisonment. The new government has reduced the proportion of a sentence that many prisoners must serve before release on licence. Recent Court of Appeal rulings and statements from the Sentencing Council indicate that judges may have regard to the effect of prison overcrowding when passing sentence. From the outset we should be clear in our understanding that prisons hold many people who have committed very serious offences and who present a real danger to the public. In these cases, a substantial custodial sentence will be necessary and inevitable. However, in England and Wales, sentences for such offending have grown significantly over our time as judges. And this growth has resulted in the inflation of sentences across the board 

London: Howard League for Penal Reform, 2024. 14p.

By Ariel White and Avery Nguyen 

Recent debates about enfranchising incarcerated people raise the question of how many additional votes such policies would generate. Existing research finds very low voter participation among people previously convicted of felonies, but it remains unclear how often people might vote from prison if given the opportunity. We use data from states that allow people to vote while incarcerated for felony crimes to address this question. We merge prison records with the voter file to estimate how many currently incarcerated people are registered and voted in recent elections. Estimates suggest very few (under one in ten) eligible incarcerated voters in Vermont and Maine voted in the most recent congressional election. Given the winning margins in other states’ recent elections, these estimates suggest that enfranchising currently-incarcerated people would likely not have changed these election outcomes. We conclude that debates about enfranchisement should focus on normative issues and not anticipated electoral effects.

Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2020.

By: Heather Harris and Sean Cremin

California’s prison population decreased dramatically during the pandemic. ⊲ The prison population fell sharply during the first year of the pandemic: between March 2020 and February 2021, it dropped 23%, from 123,100 to 94,600. ⊲ California’s prison population now stands at its lowest point in more than thirty years. After increasing nearly eightfold between 1977 and 2006 to peak at over 173,000, the prison population has since declined. In 2023, the population stood at nearly 94,200; it was just above 97,300 in 1990. ⊲ California’s imprisonment rate—the share of adults in state prisons—stood at 309 per 100K in 2023. Imprisonment rates vary by gender, race, and age in California. ⊲ In December 2023, men made up 96% of California’s prisoners—up 0.5 percentage points from 2019. The female population fell more sharply amid the pandemic than the male population—31% relative to 24%. As a result, the male-female disparity in imprisonment rates grew from 22:1 in 2019 to 25:1 in 2023. ⊲ At 46%, Latinos are the most prevalent racial/ethnic group in California prisons. Black, white, and people of other races are 28%, 20%, and 6%, respectively. ⊲ Black people and Latino men are overrepresented among prisoners. Black men and women are 28% and 23% of prisoners, while both make up just 6% of the state’s adults. Similarly, Latino men are 46% of prisoners, but just 38% of adult Californians. By contrast, Latino women account for about 37% of both populations. ⊲ While imprisonment rates for Californians of all ages fell amid the pandemic, younger adults saw the sharpest declines. In 2023, Californians aged 18 to 24 were imprisoned at less than half the 2019 rate (121 vs. 248 per 100K), and imprisonment rates for those age 25 to 34 fell 35%, from 746 per 100K in 2019 to 480 per 100K in 2023. The highest rate in 2023 rate was among 35- to 44-year-olds (545

Most people in California prisons have been convicted of violent crimes that can carry long sentences. ⊲ Half of people in California prisons in 2023 were convicted of homicide or assault—up from 45% in 2019. Another 17% were convicted of sex crimes. About 18% were convicted of robbery or burglary—down 4 percentage points from 2019. Just 3% were imprisoned for drug crimes. ⊲ More than 3 in 10 people in California prisons are serving sentences of life or life without parole—a 5 percentage point increase since before the pandemic. The average sentence for people serving non-life terms is five years; on average, people are released after they have served 60% of their sentences. ⊲ California prisons currently house 20 women and 616 men who have been sentenced to death. Though Californians continue to receive death sentences, the state has not executed anyone since 2006, and the governor suspended executions in 2019. Prisons across the state are less overcrowded now than they were before the pandemic. ⊲ Most California prisons operate within the systemwide limit of 137.5% of design capacity that was mandated by the United States Supreme Court in 2010. At the end of 2023, the overall population stood at 117.6% of design capacity and 23 of the 32 currently operating prisons were below the systemwide limit. ⊲ The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) has closed three prisons since 2021 and will close another in 2025. The legislature abolished for-profit prisons in 2020; as of 2023, the state no longer leases any prison facility from a private company. According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the state could close five more prisons. The CDCR’s budget has been rising while its share of the state budget has declined. ⊲ The average cost of imprisoning a person for one year has risen almost 50% since the onset of the pandemic, from $91,000 in 2019 to $133,000 in 2024. Security, operations, and administration account for about 60% of that cost. ⊲ The prison system is funded by a substantial—but decreasing—portion of the state budget. From 2019 to 2023, CDCR’s share of the state General Fund declined from 8.6% to 6.5%, even as its budget grew from $12.8 to $14.8 billion. This year, CDCR faces its first projected budget decrease (of $600 million) in 12 years. ⊲ More than half of the CDCR budget—54%—goes to operations and prisoner health care consumes 28%. Only 4% supports rehabilitative programs.

San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California, 2024. 2p.

By Matt Ford and Roger Grimshaw

This report presents the raw data from a set questions asked to representatives from institutions in a selection of European countries about how the COVID-19 pandemic in prisons in their respective jurisdictions was being managed. The questions were based on a checklist developed by the World Health Organisation (WHO) to help support policy-makers and prison administrators implement the WHO’s interim guidance on preparedness, prevention and control of COVID-19 in prisons and other places of detention. The interim guidance contained measures recommended to prevent the virus entering prisons, to limit its spread in prisons, and to prevent transmission from within prisons to the outside community. It was published on 15 March 2020, and is based on the evidence about COVID-19 available at that time. Whilst prison services will use a variety of sources of guidance to develop their strategies to deal with COVID-19, we have assumed that the WHO guidance is the international standard and therefore is appropriate for international research such as this. The WHO do make clear that their checklist is not exhaustive. The WHO questions formed one module of a larger survey that the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies (from here on in referred to as 'the Centre') circulated to members of the European Prison Observatory, an international coalition of non-governmental organisations and educational institutes, to complete. The survey also contained questions about the prison populations, prison healthcare arrangements, incidence and prevalence of COVID-19 infection in prisons, and emerging problems and responses in prisons as a result of COVID-19.

London: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, 2020/ 39p.

By The Howard League for Penal Reform

Over the half-century that we have been involved in the law, custodial sentence lengths have approximately doubled and the same is true of prison numbers. The connection between the two is obvious. Over time, the growing prison population has outstripped safe and decent accommodation. As a consequence, prison overcrowding prevents the rehabilitation that should take place to reduce reoffending. There is nothing that justifies this doubling of sentence lengths. Government legislation relating to sentencing has consistently provided that imprisonment should only be imposed if there is no suitable alternative punishment, and that imprisonment should be for the minimum period commensurate with the crime. The law dictates this. The problem is that there is no objective measure for deciding what term of imprisonment is commensurate with a particular offence. Nor have governments always been content to leave it to the judges to decide the appropriate sentence. Instead they have intervened piecemeal, by securing legislation to impose minimum sentences where crimes, typically murder, are committed in specified circumstances that are seen as aggravating the offence. The result of such interventions has been to raise the level of sentences imposed across the board, as judges, with guidance from the Sentencing Council, seek to maintain a consistent scale of punishment. The only purposes of sentencing which are served by longer sentences are punishment and, in some instances, the protection of the public. But punishment does not stop reoffending and is expensive. It currently costs about £50,000 to imprison an adult for a year.

London: The Howard League for Penal Reform, 2024. 14p.

By Darrel Thompson and Ashley Burnside

Individuals with prior felony convictions, incarcerated or not, often face “collateral consequences,” which are significant barriers imposed in addition to their sentences that can range from being denied employment to losing voting rights. Some states subject people with a drug-related felony conviction to restrictions or complete bans on food assistance under SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly food stamps), cash assistance through TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), or both. This practice began in 1996 under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA). The act imposes a lifetime ban on SNAP and TANF for those with a previous drug felony conviction, whether they have completed their time in jail or prison or received a lighter sentence due to the nonviolent and/or low-level nature of the offense. States, however, can opt to remove or modify the ban. And all states and the District of Columbia except for one, South Carolina, have either modified or removed the ban for at least one program, recognizing that it is not an effective crime deterrent, fails to address substance use disorders, and impedes reconnecting formerly incarcerated people to their families and communities. Successful reentry into society from the criminal justice system requires being able to meet basic needs such as food, health care, and housing as well as access to employment and training services. Some individuals may also need child care and/or mental health and substance use disorder treatment. Denying access to basic needs programs makes it harder for people with convictions to get back on their feet. Such exclusions are racist: they are grounded in stereotypes about who receives public assistance, and they are especially punitive for Black and Latinx communities due to the War on Drugs’ uneven enforcement of drug laws and targeting of communities of color with low incomes. This has resulted in the conviction and incarceration of disproportionate numbers of Black and Latinx people, especially Black men.1 According to the Sentencing Project, one in three Black males born in 2001 will be imprisoned at some point in their lives, compared to one in six Latinx men and one in 17 white men.2 When considering educational attainment, young men of color without a high school diploma, especially Black men, are most at risk of incarceration. In 2010, for instance, nearly one-third of Black males ages 25 to 29 who dropped out of high school were incarcerated or institutionalized.3 For women, incarceration rates have risen exponentially in recent years. While fewer women than men are incarcerated, the total number of women who have been arrested has increased by 25 percent over the past 35 years, while decreasing by 33 percent for men.4 Women, moreover, are more likely than men to be convicted of a drug offense: 26 percent of incarcerated women were convicted of a drug offense in 2018, compared to 13 percent of men, according to the Sentencing Project.5

Washington DC: CLASP, 2022. 9p.