By The Washington State Office of the Corrections Ombuds Solitary Confinement Research Team (OCO-SCRT).  Angee Schrader, OCO-SCRT Lead Sara Appleton,  Heather Bates,  Zachary Kinneman, Madison Vinson,  E.V. Webb

Solitary Confinement: Part I is the first of three reports on solitary confinement planned for release throughout the coming months. Part I responds to the legislature’s direction to conduct a review of all incarcerated people who had or have been: 1. housed in solitary confinement or any other form of restrictive housing more than 120 days in total, or 2. housed in solitary confinement or any other form of restrictive housing more than 45 consecutive days in Fiscal year 2023 (July 1, 2022-June 30, 2023). Civilian oversight of corrections brings an independent set of eyes and, if done correctly, the values of integrity, respect, collaboration, equity, and courage to bear witness to the ways in which the norms and cultures of carceral systems are rooted in secrecy, a lack of transparency, and rules and regulations. The Washington State Office of the Corrections Ombuds is the only civilian oversight of the Washington state corrections system established in state government with the authority and the responsibility to investigate actions or inactions of the Washington Department of Corrections (WADOC ). The Office of the Corrections Ombuds (OCO) routinely monitors places that are among the most opaque public institutions in our state – the state’s corrections facilities (prisons and reentry centers). In addition to monitoring prisons and reentry centers, the OCO, in its capacity as the statewide prison oversight mechanism, responds to the governor and legislature’s concerns about conditions of confinement and the inherent dangers of living and working inside corrections facilities. Advocates of eradicating the use of solitary confinement in WADOC have waged a multi-year campaign requesting greater attention be paid to what happens to people living and working inside prisons in the state of Washington. Some elected officials have demanded greater accountability and transparency from the WADOC about the use of solitary confinement. Multiple bills calling for a reduction in solitary confinement have been introduced in the state legislature in recent years; however, none have passed out of the legislature. At the end of the 2023 legislative session, seeing that once again, a bill requiring the WADOC to reduce the use of solitary confinement would not pass out of the legislature, a request was made of the Office of the Corrections Ombuds (OCO) to write a report answering a short list of specific questions about the WADOC ’s historical and current use of solitary confinement. This report, Solitary Confinement: Part I, provides a step-by-step answer to the specific questions asked by the Legislature  

Olympia: The Ombudsman, 2024. 421p.

By Doug Pyper, Georgina Sturge, Harriet Samuel 

Suicides in prisons in England and Wales In 2023, provisional statistics show that there were 93 suicides in prison custody in England and Wales. This represented a rate of 10.8 suicides per 10,000 prison population, a rise on the 2022 figure of 9.4. Over the past twenty years, the lowest rate of suicides per 10,000 prisoners was around 7 in 2008-2012 and the highest was 15 in 2016. The suicide rate rose between 2012 and 2016 but has declined overall since. Over the same period, the proportion of prison deaths attributed to suicide has declined by 28 percentage points: down from 58% of all deaths in 2002 to 30% in 2023 The rate of suicides among male prisoners is higher than that in the male general population. An Office for National Statistics study of deaths between   

London: UK Parliament, House of Commons Library, 2024. 11p.

By Evarn J. Ooi

Aim

We investigate the impact of the Practice Guide for Intervention (PGI) on re-offending among high-risk parolees in New South Wales (NSW).

 Method

Introduced in June 2016, PGI was a major component of the ‘Enhanced Community Supervision’ reform and led to a dramatic overhaul in the delivery of supervision services. Using a difference-in-differences (DiD) strategy, we compare re-offending behaviour between offenders released from prison on parole and those released unconditionally before and after the introduction of PGI. PGI is compulsory for offenders released on parole with a Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) score of medium or above, and consequently, the sample is limited to offenders with these LSI-R scores. Re-offending is measured as the probability of committing a new and proven offence within 12 months of release from prison. The pre-PGI period includes offenders released from prison between June and December 2014. There are two post-PGI periods. The first post-PGI period includes offenders released between June and December 2016, which coincides with the first six months after PGI was introduced in NSW. The second post-PGI period includes offenders released between June and December 2017, when the use of PGI across NSW was approaching its historical peak.

 Results

A comparison of the trends in the re-offending rate before the introduction of PGI confirms that prisoners released unconditionally form a natural comparison group for parolees. The DiD estimates reveal a 2 to 3 percentage point reduction in the likelihood of re-offending among parolees compared with those released unconditionally after the introduction of PGI. However, the estimates are not statistically significant.

Conclusion

The results suggest that the introduction of PGI did not have a statistically significant impact on re-offending rates of high-risk parolees.

(Crime and Justice Bulletin No. 228).  Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. 2020. 26p.

By Sarah L. Desmarais, Brandon Morrissey, Lisa Callahan, Samantha A. Zottola, Jen Elder, Kristin Lupfer, Elan C. Hope, & Richard A. Van Dorn

Although most jail admissions represent the only contact a person will have with the criminal legal system, there is a small group of people who experience more frequent jail contact and who represent a disproportionate number of both jail admissions and expenditures.1,2 People with frequent jail contact experience complex, interconnected social, economic, and behavioral health needs that may exacerbate (or be exacerbated by) their frequent jail contact. This group also experiences frequent contact with other services in the community, such as emergency rooms, homeless shelters, and treatment facilities. Strategies to implement services that meet complex needs and address structural barriers are critical to meaningfully and sustainably reduce system involvement among the population of people who experience frequent jail contact. Effective change for people with frequent jail contact must proceed simultaneously on a systemic, policy level and on the individual 1 services level. The population discussed in this policy brief typically has complicated behavioral and medical health needs, extensive criminal legal encounters, and significant social deficits such as poverty, isolation, and elevated risk of being unhoused. Many of their needs can be addressed with intensive, person-centered treatment in a coordinated continuum of care. The success of community-based solutions is supported by three foundational elements: 1. A systemwide examination of structural barriers and opportunities, 2. A focus on policies to effectively implement and support evidence-based interventions, and 3. A re-envisioning of how the behavioral health and criminal legal systems can coordinate trauma-informed responses for people with frequent jail contact. In this policy brief, we provide nine policy recommendations to help communities address the needs of people experiencing frequent jail contact toward the goal of reducing future contact. These policy recommendations are based on a review of existing research on people with frequent jail contact,3 consideration of the findings of a 2-year mixed-methods study focused on understanding the population of people with frequent jail contact in three U.S. counties,4 and consultation with experts, community partners, and people with lived experience. The nine policy recommendations are: 1. Create a Data Sharing Ecosystem 2. Establish Formal, Jurisdiction-Specific Definitions 3. Use Validated Behavioral Health Screening Tools 4. Implement Psychiatric Advanced Directives 5. Facilitate Jail In-Reach Programs 6. Increase Peer Support Programs 7. Improve Access to Housing 8. Increase Utilization of Community-Based Services 9. Center and Evaluate Efforts for Racial Equity
 

New York: Safety and Justice Challenge Research Consortium, which is managed by the CUNY Institute for State and Local Governance. 2023. 9p.

By The Howard League for Penal Reform

Young adults aged 18-25 are a distinct group who are still maturing as their brains continue to develop. They are overrepresented in the prison population in England and Wales, and in particular in the remand population where they make up 20 per cent of the population compared to around eight per cent in the general population. • The need for a distinct approach for young adults has been recognised in some parts of the criminal justice system. However, the focus tends to be on convicted young adults who are being or have been sentenced. More attention must be paid to young adults who are awaiting trial or sentencing. • Young adults are subject to the provisions set out in the Bail Act 1976, which apply to all adults. The framework on bail and remand should be amended to align with the recently strengthened tests on remand for children. A child cannot be remanded to custody if it is not ‘very likely’ that they will receive a custodial sentence for the offence for which they appear before the court. Where a child has a history of breach or offending whilst on bail they cannot be remanded to custody unless the breach or offending is ‘relevant in all the circumstances of the case’ and is ‘recent and significant’. There is a statutory duty on the court to consider a child’s best interests and welfare. These provisions, which aim to ensure that remand to custody is a last resort, do not apply to young adults. Turning 18 should not be a cliff edge. • The Crown Prosecution Service and judiciary should incorporate a greater recognition of maturity into relevant guidance to ensure that a distinct approach is taken to young adults from the outset. • Young adults should not be remanded without a court report which considers the impact on them of being remanded. If a young adult is to be remanded, sufficient time should be given to explaining remand decisions in court and young adults should be provided with a copy of the reasons for remand in writing. Data on the reasons for remand decisions should be published and disaggregated by age, ethnicity, religion and gender. • Remand is used disproportionately against Black, Brown and racially minoritised young adults. In June 2023, 26 per cent of remanded 18-20-year-olds and 18 per cent of remanded 21–25-year-olds were Black, compared to less than six per cent and five per cent respectively in the general population. Data on the number of people on remand should continue to be published and be disaggregated by age, ethnicity and religion. • Custodial time limits should only be extended in exceptional circumstances. Consideration should be given to the impact of an extended period of time in custody on a young adult in light of their age and ongoing maturational development, before time limits are extended. Data on the length of time people are held on remand should be published and should be disaggregated by age, ethnicity, religion and gender.  • Young adults benefit from lawyers who specialise in working with that age group and understand their specific needs. More should be done to support and encourage all young adults at risk of remand to have specialist legal representation. • Remanded young adults should have access to resettlement support in custody and more should be done to ensure the availability of good quality accommodation that meets young adults’ needs. • All prisons and courts should have a bail information service with bail information officers who are trained in and understand the specific needs of young adults. • Young adults who are remanded should be allocated a probation officer and keyworker in prison. • Young adults should have access to a meaningful daily regime, which includes education and employment, physical exercise and contact with family and friends. Unconvicted prisoners should have the number of visits they are legally entitled to. • Young adults should be supported to submit complaints, including escalating them to the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman as needed, and complaints should be responded to in a timely manner, in accordance with the national complaints policy. • Specialist mental health provision should be available to remanded young adults. • More must be done to identify careexperienced remanded young adults, including increased training for staff in prison on leaving care rights. Every prison holding remanded young adults should have a leaving care co-ordinator. Introduction - In Autumn 2022 the Howard League launched a project, supported by the Barrow Cadbury Trust, to better understand the experiences of remanded young adults. The project builds on previous work by the Howard League looking at the specific needs of young adults, including the role of maturity in the sentencing of young adults (Howard League, 2017), sentencing principles for young adults (Howard League, 2019a and b), and issues facing young adults in prison during Covid (Howard League, 2020). The project follows on from an earlier scoping study about young adults on remand supported by the Barrow Cadbury Trust (Allen, 2021). That study found that there are strong arguments for developing a strategy to make remand arrangements better reflect the developing maturity of young adults. This briefing includes the experiences, voices and lessons to be learned from a group of remanded young adults aged 18-20 in a male Category B prison. It is informed by discussions with criminal justice professionals who work with remanded young adults in England and Wales and the Howard League’s work representing individual young adults across the prison estate through its specialist legal advice service. 

London: Howard League for Penal Reform,   2023. 13p.

By Hilde Tubex, John Rynne and Harry Blagg

This article reports on research undertaken in Western Australia and the Northern Territory to develop effective throughcare strategies for Indigenous people leaving prison. The findings are based on interviews with Indigenous men and women in communities, with and without lived experience of prison, and local service providers. The interviews demonstrate that a thorough exit plan from prison is essential. However, for throughcare strategies to be effective, they should acknowledge the context of Indigenous involvement in the criminal justice system and the ongoing consequences of colonisation. The paper discusses the main areas that need to be addressed during imprisonment and after release, which form the basis of recommendations. Effective throughcare strategies must involve Indigenous people and the broader community, to break the cycle of offending and reoffending and address the over-representation of Indigenous people in prison. 

Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice no. 585. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. 2020. 14p.

By Charles Fain Lehman

In 2019, then-mayor Bill de Blasio introduced, and the New York City Council approved, plans to close the jail complex on Rikers Island and replace it with four jails in Manhattan, Brooklyn, the Bronx, and Queens. Construction on these borough-based jails is expected to be completed in 2027, at which time the city is expected to shutter Rikers entirely. In doing so, it will replace a system with a maximum capacity of nearly 15,000 beds with one that can hold just 3,300 detainees on a given day. That capacity is, by any measure, extremely small, representing a daily population seldom seen on Rikers since its opening a century ago. Even after more than half a decade of deliberate incarceration, the jail’s daily population today sits between 5,500 and 6,000, far greater than the borough-based jails’ allotment. Can New York City operate a jail system with just 3,300 beds without either: a) dangerous, likely illegal, overcrowding? or b) making the city less safe? This report argues that the answer is no. To reach this conclusion, it recounts how the 3,300-bed figure was arrived at, which had more to do with politics than with any reasonable projection of required capacity. It then details the research on the effects of pretrial detention, investigates who is currently on Rikers and who could safely be released, and estimates the relationship between crime rates and jail population. The bottom line: under almost no conceivable scenario can the city expect to safely and sustainably reduce the daily jail population to 3,300—never mind, to reduce it below that figure. Given the city’s commitment to closing Rikers, this report concludes by looking at potential sources of alternative capacity, including refurbishing or repurchasing closed jails; constructing small additional borough jails; and “boarding out” detainees to Long Island and Westchester County. These solutions could buy additional capacity for the system but not enough to provide adequate and safe housing for even the current, much-reduced population. In light of this, the report briefly revisits the case for keeping some of Rikers open  In 2019, then-mayor Bill de Blasio introduced, and the New York City Council approved, plans to close the jail complex on Rikers Island and replace it with four jails in Manhattan, Brook lyn, the Bronx, and Queens. Construction on these borough-based jails is expected to be completed in 2027, at which time the city is expected to shutter Rikers entirely. In so doing, it will replace a system with a maximum capacity of nearly 15,000 beds with one that can hold just 3,300 detainees on a given day. That capacity is, by any measure, extremely small, representing a daily population rarely seen on Rikers since its opening a century ago. Even after more than half a decade of deliberate incarceration, the jail’s daily population today sits between 5,500 and 6,000, far greater than the borough-based jails’ allotment. Can New York City operate a jail system with just 3,300 beds without either: a) dangerous, likely illegal, overcrowding? or b) making the city less safe? This report argues that the answer is no. To reach this conclusion, it recounts how the 3,300-bed figure was arrived at, which had more to do with politics than with any reasonable projection of required capacity. It then details the research on the effects of pretrial detention, investigates who is currently on Rikers and who could safely be released, and estimates the relationship between crime rates and jail population. The bottom line: under almost no conceivable scenario can the city expect to safely and sustainably reduce the daily jail population to 3,300—never mind, to reduce it below that figure. Given the city’s commitment to closing Rikers, this report concludes by looking at potential sources of alternative capacity, including refurbishing or repurchasing closed jails; constructing small additional borough jails; and “boarding out” detainees to Long Island and Westchester County. These solutions could buy additional capacity for the system but not enough to provide adequate and safe housing for even the current, much-reduced population. In light of this, the report briefly revisits the case for keeping some of Rikers open 

New York: The Manhattan Institute, 2022. 34p.

By Alex Roth, Sandhya Kajeepeta, and Alex Boldin

Probation—a court-ordered period of supervision in the community for people convicted of criminal charges—has traditionally been viewed as an alternative to incarceration, and sentencing more people to probation rather than prison was long proposed as a solution to the problem of mass incarceration. (See “A brief history of probation” on page 2.) However, as the number of people on probation in the United States has grown massively and probation supervision has become more punitive over the past few decades, more recent reports have focused on how probation is contributing to mass incarceration. These reports explain how increasingly large numbers of people are having their probation supervision revoked and are then being sentenced to incarceration, often for noncompliance with conditions of supervision rather than new criminal charges. Although most of these reports mention both prisons and jails when discussing how probation violations have contributed to mass incarceration, they provide almost no specific information about how such violations affect jail populations. The information about probation’s impact on jails included in some of these reports is often extremely old and sometimes incorrect, propagated from reports that cite previous reports in a sort of game of statistical “telephone.” Meanwhile, other reports simply acknowledge the reality that there is no good national data on how probation contributes to incarceration in local jails. The lack of information about probation’s impact on jail populations is problematic because far more people are admitted to jails than prisons every year and jails are a driving force in mass incarceration generally, and jail populations are also marked by significant racial disparities. This brief will summarize what we do know about probation and how it can contribute to jail populations. It will also present an analysis of data from nine cities and counties participating in the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation’s Safety and Justice Challenge (SJC), a national initiative that seeks to address over-incarceration by changing the way the  United States thinks about and uses jails. The Vera Institute of Justice (Vera) was able to obtain more detailed jail data from these sites than is available at the national level. This analysis offers examples of how probation affects jail incarceration and the kind of data and analysis that is needed at the national level. Finally, this brief will highlight work being done in two SJC sites—St. Louis County, Missouri, and Allegheny County, Pennsylvania— to reduce the number of people on probation in their jails. This brief is intended both to spur greater consideration of the problem of probation’s contribution to jail populations and to suggest ways to address it.  

New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2021. 50p.

By Joshua Grossman, Julian Nyarko, and Sharad Goel

We evaluate the statistical and conceptual foundations of empirical tests for disparate impact. We begin by considering a recent, popular proposal in the economics literature that seeks to assess disparate impact via a comparison of error rates for the majority and the minority groups. Building on past work, we show that this approach suffers from what is colloquially known as “the problem of inframarginality”, in turn putting it in direct conflict with legal understandings of discrimination. We then analyze two alternative proposals that quantify disparate impact either in terms of risk-adjusted disparities or by comparing existing disparities to those under a statistically optimized decision policy. Both approaches have differing, context-specific strengths and weaknesses, and we discuss how they relate to the individual elements in the legal test for disparate impact. We then turn towards assessing the disparate impact of search decisions among approximately 1.5 million police stops recorded across California in 2022 pursuant to its Racial Identity and Profiling Act (RIPA). The results are suggestive of disparate impact against Black and Hispanic drivers for several large law enforcement agencies. We further propose alternative search strategies that more efficiently recover contraband while also exerting fewer racial disparities.

Journal of Law and Empirical AnalysisVolume 1, Issue 1, June 2024

By Martha Newson, Linus Peitz, Jack Cunliffe & Harvey Whitehouse 

As incarceration rates rise globally, the need to reduce re-offending grows increasingly urgent. We investigate whether positive group bonds can improve behaviours among incarcerated people via a unique soccer-based prison intervention, the Twinning Project. We analyse the effects of participation compared to a control group (study 1, n = 676, n = 1,874 control cases) and longitudinal patterns of social cohesion underlying these effects (study 2, n = 388) in the United Kingdom. We also explore desistance from crime after release (study 3, n = 249) in the United Kingdom and the United States. As law-abiding behaviour also requires a supportive receiving community, we assessed factors influencing willingness to employ formerly incarcerated people in online samples in the United Kingdom and the United States (studies 4–9, n = 1,797). Results indicate that social bonding relates to both improved behaviour within the prison and increased willingness of receiving communities to support reintegration efforts. Harnessing the power of group identities both within prison and receiving communities can help to address the global incarceration crisis.

Nature Human Behaviour (2024)

By Hanna Hernandez,  & Vasiliki Georgoulas-Sherry    

Rates of recidivism have been commonly used as a key measure for public safety and in assessing the effectiveness of the criminal justice system – sentencing, jails, prisons, community supervision, treatment, and reentry programming. There is continued interest in tracking recidivism rates beyond a three-year follow-up. Tracking long-term recidivism can provide information for supporting incarcerated individuals and promoting their success in reintegrating into the community following a prison sentence. To evaluate long-term recidivism rates in Washington, the Washington Statistical Analysis Center (SAC) applied for and received the 2021 State Justice Statistics (SJS) grant from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). Under this grant from BJS, the SAC will draw on publicly available data from the Washington State Department of Corrections (WADOC) to evaluate the long-term recidivism trends of incarcerated individuals released from prison. Background Across the U.S., individuals are being incarcerated in jails and prisons, as many as 11 million times each year. While over 50% of the nation’s incarcerated population is housed in prisons, a little under a third (27%) are housed in local jails, and about a fifth (17%) are housed in juvenile facilities, federal facilities, territorial prisons or other detention facilities (Loeffler et al., 2022; Western et al., 2022). While these rates of incarceration showcase issues surrounding overall mass incarceration, these statistics do not highlight the consistent and pervasive changes within the prison populations. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), in 2019, the U.S. incarceration rate decreased to the lowest rate since 1995. However, despite this rate in decline, the U.S. still incarcerates a bigger percentage of its population compared to any other country. Most recently, 2022 has shown a 2% increase in population as compared to the 2021 rates – this increase made the 1% decline reported in 2021 non-existent, and most historically, highlighted the first increase in rates in both federal and state prison populations within the last decade; it is important to note COVID-19 impacts might have significantly reduced this population (Martyn et al., 2022; Nowotny et al., 2021). According to the BJS (2023), “at yearend 2022, an estimated 32% of sentenced state and federal prisoners were black; 31% were white; 23% were Hispanic; 2% were American Indian or Alaska Native; and 1% were Asian, Native Hawaiian, or Other Pacific Islander” (5). Similarly, pandemic impacts might have significantly impacted these findings – for example, as pretrial populations were almost back to full pre-pandemic populations – more than two-thirds of this population had not been convicted of a crime. Another reason could be due to many jurisdictions reducing their use of prison incarceration.

Olympia, WA:  Washington State Statistical Analysis Center, 2024. 33p.

By Hanna Hernandez, M.A. & Vasiliki Georgoulas-Sherry

Rates of recidivism have been commonly used as a key measure for public safety and in assessing the effectiveness of the criminal justice system – sentencing, jails, prisons, community supervision, treatment, and reentry programming. Tracking recidivism can provide necessary information to support successful integration into the community following a prison sentence – which promotes community and public safety. Furthermore, understanding the individuals who are more likely to recidivate, and assessing demographic differences over the years can provide even more knowledge for supporting successful reentry. To evaluate long-term recidivism in Washington, the Washington Statistical Analysis Center (SAC) applied for and received the 2021 State Justice Statistics (SJS) grant from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). Under this grant from BJS, the SAC first drew on publicly available data from the Washington State Department of Corrections (DOC) to evaluate the long-term recidivism trends of incarcerated individuals released from prison (Georgoulas-Sherry & Hernandez, 2024). To expand on the findings, this report utilizes the same cohort to further evaluate the racial and sex similarities and differences in recidivism rates. 

Olympia, WA:  Washington State Statistical Analysis Center, 2024. 31p.

By the John Howard Association (Illinois)

Regular communication with the outside world is vital to people in custody. Methods of communication such as phones, mail, video visits, and email via tablets allow incarcerated people to stay in touch with loved ones, access information related to their legal rights, and prepare for their lives after prison. Therefore, prisons must provide reliable methods of communication to those in custody.

Chicago: The John Howard Association, 2024. 33p.

By The John Howard Association (Illinois)

Ensuring the safe and secure operation of Illinois prisons is a critical state function, yet the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) is facing a chronic staffing shortage that jeopardizes the health, safety, and well-being of staff and incarcerated people. High staff turnover and unfilled vacancies have profound implications for nearly all aspects of life for people living and working in the state’s prisons. Incarcerated people are spending untold hours locked down with restricted access to programming, outside supports, and recreation; medical and mental health care needs are going unmet; staff are overworked and burned out; and safety and security are critically compromised. These conditions cannot be sustained. Addressing this crisis is imperative to affirming the humanity of everyone living and working in Illinois prisons. The purpose of this report is to document the nature and scope of staffing shortages in Illinois’ prisons, detail the harm to incarcerated people and staff, and make recommendations for urgent and vital action to address the identified challenges  

Chicago: John Howard Association, 2024. 35p.

By The John Howard Association of Illinois (JHA, founded in 1901), The Pennsylvania Prison Society (The Society, founded in 1787) and The Correctional Association of New York (CANY

This report documents the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the response in prisons in Illinois, New York, and Pennsylvania – the only three states in the country with non-governmental oversight bodies. It is based on publicly available information as well as information collected directly by these oversight agencies: The John Howard Association of Illinois (JHA, founded in 1901), The Pennsylvania Prison Society (The Society, founded in 1787), and The Correctional Association of New York (CANY, founded in 1844). It provides data unavailable in states lacking similar independent oversight, and it tells a story of very different responses to comparable challenges and a lack of transparency on the details of the crisis and policies developed in response. This report was made possible through the support of Arnold Ventures. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors. (Published December 2021)

The Authors: 2021. 79p.

By Human Impact Partners

This report — informed by public health research alongside interviews and survey responses from people currently and formerly incarcerated in women’s prisons — exposes the catastrophic health harms of incarceration in women’s prisons and provides evidence in support of investments in health-promoting social determinants of health instead of incarceration.

From Crisis to Care outlines how incarceration worsens health via multiple pathways: 

• Medical neglect — including failure to provide medical examinations, stopping needed prescriptions, and long delays in treatment — is common in prison.

• Alongside the violence of the criminal legal system itself, people incarcerated in women’s prisons also experience and witness high rates of interpersonal physical, emotional, and sexual trauma and violence.

• Environmental conditions in prisons seriously endanger the health of incarcerated people, by exposing them to infectious diseases, extreme heat and cold, inadequate food, foodborne illness, mold, toxic drinking water, and more.

• The use of solitary confinement can lead to increased psychological distress, anxiety, depression, PTSD, paranoia, agitation, sleep deprivation, and prescription of sedative medications, alongside physical ailments.

• Separating people from their families and communities has destructive and far-reaching consequences that harm health.

The state of California invests $405 million a year in its women’s prisons. Instead of perpetuating a system that overwhelmingly works against public health, the state has the opportunity to invest that money in health-promoting support systems that people can access in their communities. These public safety investments would not only support reentry after incarceration, but they would also help to prevent harm from occurring in the first place, creating the conditions that would make women’s prisons obsolete.

Oakland, CA: Human Impact Partners, 2023. 41p.

By Emily Widra

More than 1 in 10 people admitted to state prisons every year have committed no new crime, but have simply broken one or more of the many conditions, or rules, of their probation. All of this unnecessary incarceration is the predictable result of widely-adopted probation conditions that are so vaguely defined, so burdensome, and so rigidly applied that they actually broaden the scope of what counts as “recidivism.” Through these conditions, courts and probation authorities create punishable offenses that go far beyond criminal law, setting people up to fail. And because the vast majority of people under correctional control are on probation — 2.9 million people, 1 far surpassing the 1.9 million people incarcerated — these trap-like conditions make probation a major driver of mass incarceration, not the “alternative” it’s supposed to be. Shrinking the massive probation system — and the number of people incarcerated from community supervision — is central to ending mass incarceration. Doing so requires challenging existing “standard conditions” that (a) are often in conflict with one another, (b) exacerbate the challenges people on probation are already facing, and (c) empower probation officers — rather than courts — to make subjective decisions that can lead to revocation and incarceration. Examining these conditions clarifies why probation often functions as an on ramp to incarceration instead of an alternative, and can help advocates and policymakers reorient probation systems away from incarceration. Unfortunately, standard probation conditions are often difficult to locate and parse, vary between jurisdictions, and use complicated and unclear language, so to aid in this effort, we collected and analyzed the standard conditions for 76 jurisdictions across all 50 states and Washington, D.C., creating one of the most comprehensive compilations of these rules to date. 

Northampton, MA: Prion Policy Initiative, 2024. 

By David M. Doyle and consisted of Dr. Avril Brandon, Dr. Joe Garrihy, r. Amina Adanan and Prof. Denis Bracken  The Irish Penal Reform Trust and  h Maynooth University School of Law and Criminology

The Irish Penal Reform Trust launched an independently commissioned exploratory research study on the rights and experiences of foreign national and minority ethnic groups in the Irish penal system on Thursday 27 April 2022. "Sometimes I'm missing the words": The rights, needs, and experiences of foreign national and minority ethnic groups in the Irish penal system were supported by the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (IHREC) under the Human Rights and Equality Grant Scheme 2020-2021. Very little information exists on the needs and lived experiences of minority ethnic and foreign national people in prisons and on probation in Ireland. This report aims to bridge that gap and consider these needs and experiences within the context of relevant policy and law. The report was commissioned by IPRT from the Maynooth University School of Law and Criminology.

The need for reform is outlined in 18 recommendations made in the report.

Findings from the research include: 

• Based on an analysis of the quantitative data provided by the Irish Prison Service (IPS), it was found that foreign nationals may receive longer sentences than Irish nationals for controlled drug offenses and sexual offenses.

• Further analysis, along with interviews from professional stakeholders, established that the IPS data – while including statistics on prisoners’ nationality – was deficient in the areas of ethnicity and religion of the prison population.

• Interview data revealed that there were significant challenges faced by foreign nationals and minority ethnic people in prison concerning access to services, respect for different religious backgrounds, as well as language and communication barriers.

• Experiences of racism at different stages of the criminal justice process had the effect of limiting trust with any part of the penal system.

Dublin: Irish Penal Reform Trust, 2022. 73p.

By The Irish Penal Reform Trust

Piecing It Together: Supporting Children and Families with a Family Member in Prison in Ireland assesses progress on a series of recommendations made by IPRT in "Picking up the Pieces" in 2012. These recommendations were made to Government, the Courts and Courts Service, the Irish Prison Service, the Department of Education, and media, among others. While the new report details some pockets of good practice in Ireland, it highlights a number of significant gaps, including: limited national recognition of the rights of children with a family member in prison; the continued lack of any national support services for these children; visiting conditions that are not child-friendly; limited data and research; and stigmatisation of these children and their families. As we approach the tenth anniversary of the 2012 report, IPRT calls for the implementation of these outstanding recommendations, as well as the new recommendations made in this report, by the relevant assigned stakeholders.

The recommendations made in the report are grouped into 7 overarching recommendations:

1. Increase National Recognition of the Rights of Children with a Family Member in Prison

2. Establish a National Support Service for Children and Families with a Family Member in Prison

3. Improve Prison Visiting Procedures and Conditions for Children and Families

4. Enshrine in Law and Practice the Principle of “Prison as a Last Resort” for Primary Caregivers

5. Improve Data Recording on Children Affected by Imprisonment

6. Challenge Stigmatisation of Children and Families with a Family Member in Prison

7. Promote and Facilitate Family Involvement during the Period of Imprisonment

Dublin: Irish Penal Reform Trust, 2021. 60p.

By the Irish Penal Reform Trust

 In recent years there has been increasing recognition of children of imprisoned parents as a specific group of vulnerable and marginalised children with particular needs and of the detrimental impact of parental imprisonment on them. While there has been less focus on the specific impact on children when their mother is sent to prison, several studies have found that, while less common, maternal imprisonment can be significantly more disruptive than paternal imprisonment. This is largely because women are more often the primary caregivers for their dependent children. When fathers are imprisoned, the mother usually continues to care for any children. However, studies have shown that when mothers are sent to prison, the family is more likely to be broken up, with children being placed with other family members or into State care. The impact of maternal imprisonment has wider implications as a result, including on the women themselves, their families, and the broader community. Despite the well-documented impacts of parental, and specifically maternal, imprisonment on children and the clear obligations within the international human rights framework to consider children when their parents or primary caregivers come into conflict with the law, there are very few court systems that actively require courts to consider children at sentencing or when determining pre-trial measures. Additionally, when mothers are sent to prison, there are significant data gaps globally in understanding the numbers of children impacted, and a corresponding lack of effort made to mitigate against the potential negative impacts on them. Where data is collected, it is usually facility-specific with no efforts to collate data nationally or coordinate responses across different agencies. The Irish Prison Service (IPS) and the Probation Service have identified the risks associated with maternal imprisonment, noting that, ‘[t]he outcomes for children whose mothers have experienced prison are of major concern. Children of women prisoners frequently exhibit several behavioral and psychological problems and there is an increased likelihood of them becoming offenders themselves.’ Despite this, there has been very limited examination of the numbers and experiences of mothers imprisoned in Ireland and their children. While the IPS, the Probation Service, and other associated agencies appear to recognize the need to support children of mothers in prison – indeed these agencies have made efforts to develop support programs – concern remains at the lack of attention given, at the point of sentencing, to the caregiving responsibilities of women and the best interests of their children. The findings of this research also point to a lack of national efforts to coordinate amongst different stakeholder agencies to reduce the negative impacts of maternal imprisonment on children

Dublin: Irish Penal Reform Trust, 2023. 52p.