By Nila Bala and Krystin Roehl

In North Carolina, 1.6 million North Carolinians, or close to one in five individuals, have a criminal record. The collateral consequences are significant, blocking access to employment, housing and educational opportunities. These barriers often follow individuals for their entire life, even after they have served their time and paid their debt to society. For example, 90 percent of employers conduct background checks, and since North Carolina is not a ban-the-box state, they are permitted to do so early in the hiring process. This means that even decades-old, minor arrests and convictions show up and cut callback rates for these individuals in half. Expungements (shielding records from public view) are the most effective method to address the stigma faced by justice-involved individuals. While North Carolina’s laws do offer expungement relief in limited circumstances, many eligible individuals do not take advantage of the process, likely because it is difficult, cumbersome and expensive. A “clean slate” bill, which would automate expungements for eligible individuals could change that. In addition, North Carolina has an opportunity to expand expungement relief to more offenses, while maintaining public safety. What’s more, doing so will not only assist directly impacted individuals and their families, but will also enhance our communities and revitalize the local economy.

R STREET SHORTS NO. 85 March 2020

Washington, DC: R Street, 2020. 5p.

By Lars Trautman

Traditional norms hold that a prosecutor’s role effectively ends with the conviction and sentencing of a defendant. After all, that is the point at which the prosecution is complete. Future decisions related to the defendant are generally the province of various correctional officials unless and until the individual becomes a defendant once again. Accordingly, when taken at all, postconviction prosecutorial action is frequently reactive and limited in nature, with the conditions of the correctional facilities, community supervision and reentry systems relegated to a secondary or tertiary concern. Yet, such a system threatens to undercut the prosecutor’s own aims and misses a valuable opportunity to improve the justice system. The source of this prosecutorial reserve is decidedly not because these post-conviction elements of the justice system are working well and do not need additional support. In many cases, they are not. Jails and prisons are frequently the subject of lawsuits and news stories decrying their conditions and, unsurprisingly, recidivism rates for those ultimately released remain relatively high. Likewise, many probation and parole systems are in such a state of disarray that some defendants actually prefer incarceration as the lesser of two evils. A host of literature has similarly documented the travails of those with a criminal record who attempt to enter the workforce, find housing or engage in any number of other basic life activities. At the same time, a steady trickle of exonerees, including a few who actually pleaded guilty, suggests that even the conviction itself is not the ironclad reflection of truth and justice that it is hoped to be. This culture of noninvolvement and aversion to action on post-conviction issues does not stem from an inability to act on the part of prosecutors. In fact, in most jurisdictions, the law requires them to participate in various post-conviction proceedings such as expungement requests, or permits them to in the case of parole hearings. Further, the prosecution power itself grants prosecutors the ability to reach into jails and prisons to potentially curb abuses and even play an active role in community supervision proceedings in many states. Too often, however, prosecutorial engagement in each of these areas is limited narrowly to the necessities of the case at hand with little attention paid to broader issues. In light of this, the present study will delve into how prosecutors can aid themselves and the wider justice system through post-conviction actions. This will include an examination of why they should adopt a more nuanced and often assertive post-conviction role, as well as the actions they can take after the conviction has entered to help achieve these farther reaching goals. Specifically, it will analyze opportunities to act with respect to the conviction itself, conditions of incarceration, community supervision systems, parole hearings, expungement processes and outreach to directly impacted individuals. It will conclude with a reflection on what more concerted prosecutorial post-conviction actions might mean for prosecutors and the justice system as a whole.

R STREET POLICY STUDY NO. 194 February 2020

Washington, DC: R Street, 2020. 6p.

By Nila Bala

According to national estimates, close to one-third of Connecticut residents, or around 1.2 million people, have a criminal record. And for these “Nutmeggers,” a criminal record is a profound barrier to being a part of our community. According to the Council of State Governments Justice Center, records mean they face 559 barriers, codified in Connecticut’s various laws, with two-thirds of these related to work. The collateral consequences of having a record are pervasive and broad, and often undermine public safety. For example, barriers to full employment can increase levels of reoffending. Lack of stable housing can also increase the risks of ending up back in the criminal justice system, with Connecticut’s homeless population lacking stability. In light of this, it is clear that records—sometimes minor and decades old—prevent individuals from fully participating in society. Expungements are one mechanism to restore rights by removing records from public view. They are one of the most effective ways to reduce the bias and stigma those with a criminal record currently face. Unfortunately, the current process individuals have to endure to secure an expungement is complicated, expensive and difficult to understand. However, in the coming legislative session, Connecticut has an opportunity to significantly change the barriers justice-involved individuals face with the passage of a “clean slate” bill. The Clean Slate initiative is a nationwide movement that works toward automatically expunging records and expanding eligibility for expungements.5 By automating expunging of certain offenses after a period of time has passed, a clean slate bill would take the onus off individuals to access what is often a difficult and bureaucratic process. This paper examines the current state of pardon relief in Connecticut, and the potential effect of expanding expungement relief through a clean slate bill. As a similar bill was proposed in the last session, the present study will examine that bill, although plans to propose one in the current session are also in the works. In any event, the overall benefits to individuals, public safety and the economy urge its passage.

R STREET SHORTS NO. 84 February 2020

Washington, DC: R Street, 2020. 4p.

By Nila Bala

C lose to one-third of the population has a criminal record, with Michigan courts churning out nearly 300,000 convictions every year.Even a minor record can present an enormous barrier to employment, housing and educational opportunities. Those with criminal records face unemployment numbers that exceed those during the great depression. Moreover, both public and private housing can be hard to obtain, and the record of one family member can lead to eviction for everyone. Given these vast effects, carrying a criminal record has been equated to a life sentence of poverty. However, expungements or methods to seal records from public view (known as “set-asides” in Michigan) have great potential to ameliorate these effects. Like most states, Michigan has an expungement policy to help ease the barriers reentering individuals face because of their records. But unlike most states, Michigan has a wealth of information and data regarding the current state of set-asides, thanks to a recently published empirical study by J.J. Prescott and Sonja Starr at the University of Michigan Law School. Notably, their study finds that despite the fact that thousands of individuals are eligible for expungements, very few—just 6.5 percent of eligible Michiganders—have received relief. As part of a larger nationwide movement to utilize technology to automatically clear records, a current seven-bill “Clean Slate” package under consideration could change that.6 It would also increase the number of eligible offenses, for example, by including driving and marijuana offenses to the list of crimes that can be set-aside, and by forgiving individuals who have had multiple convictions because of one bad night. The bills have already passed the Michigan House with bipartisan support and are now in the hands of the Senate. Accordingly, this paper examines the current state of set asides and the implications of expanding expungement relief, including to public safety and the economy, and finds that even considering the short-term costs associated with automation, ultimately the benefits outweigh these costs.

R STREET SHORTS NO. 79 November 2019

Washington, DC: R Street, 2019. 4p.

By Jesse Kelley    

Jails and prisons in this country do not adequately prepare incarcerated individuals for successful public lives after their criminal sentence ends. For example, the Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that almost 60 percent of individuals released from prison will be convicted of a new offense within five years of release. Clearly, this system has failed, rather than “corrected,” the individuals, families and communities involved within it. Accordingly, society must consider reforms to the conditions of incarceration. Roughly 95 percent of state prisoners will one day be released. For this reason, how they spend their time behind bars matters not only to those individuals but to their communities as well. The pursuit of higher education is perhaps the most worthwhile use of time for those incarcerated. Educational programing within prisons and jails can change the way individuals serve their period of incarceration and help them to become employable, stable members of society upon release. Efforts to improve postsecondary correctional education have proliferated over the past several years, but  more work is necessary to ensure the effectiveness of these programs. A college degree has become one of the most valuable assets one can attain in the United States. For example, one report found that a bachelor’s degree is worth more than $1 million in lifetime earnings. And in the justice system, one study found that an incarcerated person’s education level is highly correlated with his or her chances of recidivism: The recidivism rate for those with postsecondary education credits was 44 percent lower than those incarcerated within general population who did not participant in higher education programs. But many incarcerated people still do not have the opportunity to seek out higher education while serving a criminal sentence.5 Currently, in North Carolina, community colleges provide more than 90 percent of correctional education programming for incarcerated individuals. While adult education and literacy programs have the largest enrollments, the state requires colleges to offer entire for-credit certificates, diplomas or associate degree programs. According to a program administrator, postsecondary correctional education programs, which are predominantly vocational, awarded more than 6,000 vocational non-credit certificates; 1,458 vocational for-credit certificates; and nearly 100 associate and bachelor’s degrees to incarcerated people in 2006.6For the 2016-2017 fiscal year, the North Carolina Department of Public Safety reported that 673 incarcerated individuals completed requirements to obtain a postsecondary degree, and of those, 33 incarcerated individuals completed the requisite requirements to obtain an Associate of Applied Science diploma.7 However, under current North Carolina statutes, educational funds unfortunately cannot be used to provide postsecondary correctional education for the attainment of Associate of Arts, Associate of Science or Associate of General Education degrees.8 So, although North Carolina correctional facilities and their partnerships with community colleges have successfully instituted some correctional education programs, with more access to postsecondary education, incarcerated individuals could see increased economic potential and thereby make their communities healthier and stronger upon release. 

R STREET SHORTS NO. 71 May 2019 

Washington, R Street, 2019. 4p.

By Nila Bala and Emily Mooney    

For many of America’s prisoners, life after prison can mean perpetual unemployment, as approximately 600,000 return home each year—many without job prospects.  In fact, a study published in 2018 found that almost half of formerly incarcerated individuals reported no earnings within the first three years after release. For those who were able to secure work, earnings were dismal: the median individual earned only $10,090 in the first full calendar year after release. Such data clearly demonstrates that there is a disconnect between the work offered in prisons and meaningful, sustaining employment outside their walls.  This is particularly stark, as the public safety effect of unemployment for the formerly incarcerated is profound. Faced with a life of low wages, high rates of unemployment and the inability to support themselves or their families, about two-thirds of individuals released from prison will be rearrested within three years. By contrast, studies suggest quality employment is an important determinant in decreasing recidivism rates. And most importantly, high quality employment also helps to secure human dignity and keep families together. Currently, prison work too often consists of non-transferable skills that are of little use upon reentry. In light of this, it is time to reimagine what prison work can and should consist of, and the role that private employers can play during the period of incarceration and after a person’s release. Ideally, prison employment could be transformed to mean that individuals are paid prevailing wages, and that they form a strong relationship with a private employer and have an opportunity to continue with that employer after their term of incarceration. This “continuous employment” model is designed such that continuous in-prison to post-release employment with the same employer is not only possible but probable. However, it also is flexible enough to acknowledge that sometimes individuals may need to move away from their current employer or may acquire even better opportunities outside of prison. By definition, reentry is a major life upheaval; almost every element of an individual’s life changes and barriers automatically exist even to the most basic goals such as housing and family reunification. If employees could work both in and out of prison with the same employers, however, multiple benefits would result. For example, an existing relationship with an employer could ease the transition by improving job prospects, which can also help boost the local economy and community. To this end, the present study reviews current practices and proposes a new vision of employment behind bars that can lead to real work opportunities in the private sector that continue upon release. It also discusses barriers and obstacles to such programs and finally concludes with an agenda to better promote continuous employment opportunities. 

R STREET POLICY STUDY NO. 171 April 2019 

Washington, DC: R Street, 2019. 11p.

By Emily Mooney, Jesse Kelley and Nila Bala

Approximately 39,000 individuals are held in Michigan prisons, and the overwhelming majority of these will return to society after their sentence is completed. For this reason, Michigan residents and policymakers must be concerned with their ability to be productive, contributing members of society upon their return. However, research suggests that a lack of education may increasingly limit the employment options of formerly incarcerated individuals and may promote their return to crime. Accordingly, the present brief provides a short history of postsecondary education within prisons and then explains why it is an important part of the solution to this problem, as well as a benefit to society as a whole.

R STREET SHORTS NO. 65 January 2019

Washington, DC: R Street, 2019. 3p.

By Melissa Serafin, Julie Atella, Piere Washington, Sophak Mom

Reentry and community context Within three years of release from state prisons, federal prisons, and local jails, about half of people are reincarcerated and two-thirds are rearrested (Office of the Assistance Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, n.d.). Existing research highlights how challenges to reentry are compounded in rural communities because they are often underserved and under-resourced. Employment, housing, transportation, and limited social and health services are all common barriers for individuals reentering rural communities, and access to reentry programming is often limited (Benavides et al., 2023; Ward et al., 2016; Ward, 2017; Zajac et al., 2014). Additionally, the opioid crisis has significantly impacted rural communities, including those in Maine (Maine Governor’s Office of Policy Innovation and the Future, 2023). The rate of overdose fatalities in Maine increased from 0.3 per 1,000 population in January 2017 to 0.6 in January 2022, and the rate in Waldo County also increased from 0.2 in 2017 (8 total) to 0.5 in 2022 (20 total; Maine Drug Data Hub, 2024). Overdose fatalities most notably increased during the COVID-19 pandemic: the fatality rate in Maine increased 33% between 2019 and 2020, with 83% of deaths in 2020 due to opioids. Without opportunities, resources, and support, people reentering rural communities may experience hopelessness and criminogenic needs contributing to recidivism (Ward, 2017; Pettus-Davis & Kennedy, 2019). The findings from the current project also identified many of these challenges. Limited access to and availability of resources and services like internet, public transportation, health care and insurance, employment options, and affordable housing across counties and the state were stressed as barriers hindering the success of the program. Housing was identified as a particularly significant challenge, and this is compounded by the lack of viable employment options that provide a livable wage. The median cost for a studio efficiency or one-bedroom apartment in Waldo County, Maine in 2023 was $916-$922, and a two bedroom was $1,174 per month (RentData, 2024). According to the Maine Department of Labor (2024), the minimum wage in 2023 was $13.80 per hour in the state. Individuals employed full time, earning minimum wage, and who rent at least a studio efficiency would then be considered “cost-burdened”1 or “severely cost-burdened”2 (Office of Housing and Urban Development, 2014). Rent burden contributes to lacking the means to afford other necessities such as food, clothing, child care and more. Furthermore, the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC, 2024) notes the extreme shortage of rentals that are affordable to households whose incomes are at or below the poverty guideline or 30% of their area median income. In addition to the shortage of affordable housing and within the vicinity of the VOANNE network—within a four-city radius—there were no homeless shelters, nor mental health facilities with detox beds, and only one sober house. While VOANNE provides tents and camp supplies in more dire cases, and connects some participants with temporary transitional housing (including motels), they have access to very few permanent housing supports. Experiencing housing insecurity and homelessness can also negatively impact substance use. For example, efforts to stay awake to protect belongings and avoid violence is associated with developing and worsening substance use disorders (Mehtani et al., 2023). Existing research and findings from the current evaluation indicate that transportation is often a significant challenge for individuals reentering rural communities (Benavides et al., 2023; Ward, 2017; Zajac et al., 2014). While Maine does have some public transportation, rural areas have limited public transportation. Some communities have fixed route bus services that do not operate 24 hours a day and seven days a week, but these may only be in some counties (Eichacker, 2021). Limited public transportation means limited independence upon reentry to get to and from places like the DMV, a job interview, or to work. Additionally, some participants in the current evaluation did not possess driver’s licenses, further limiting their transportation options. This evaluation also identified how lack of phone service and high-speed internet make communication difficult and pose a barrier to building independence and integrating into society. Previous research has also identified these as significant reentry barriers (PettusDavis et al., 2019). Correctional system initiatives In response to the challenges that individuals face while reentering their communities, VOANNE and their partners have implemented several initiatives. Specifically, VOANNE has prioritized building trusting and collaborative partnerships with law enforcement agencies; this evaluation identified the strength of these partnerships. These partnerships facilitate opportunities to strengthen impact, such as the ability to provide services and programming within county jails while individuals are incarcerated. Additionally, postrelease offices and community spaces provide critical support to individuals who are reentering their communities after incarceration, and VOA’s diversion programming allows VOANNE to serve anyone who could benefit from services (e.g., not just individuals who are or have been incarcerated). VOANNE has also been able to expand to providing services in additional counties and correctional facilities over time.

St. Paul, MN: Wilder Research, 2024. 43p.

By Tom Jackson, Rachel Crorken, Sheenik Mills, and Carla Ayrton

This report presents findings from a one-year process evaluation that explored the delivery of unpaid work in England and Wales. The qualitative research design included a total of 102 interviews with: people on probation (25), beneficiaries (6), probation staff (62), and members of the judiciary (9); six focus groups with unpaid work staff; and ethnographic observations of 18 unpaid work projects. The evaluation was designed to assess what works in the delivery of unpaid work following the unification of the probation service and the £93 million investment to aid unpaid work delivery following the Covid-19 pandemic. The main findings from the evaluation are: Identity and purpose of unpaid work • All staff interviewed, believed the purpose of unpaid work is first and foremost a punishment, but it must also have elements of reparation in which people on probation give back to the community. Overall, staff were confident that unpaid work was meeting its aims as a punishment, which they viewed as the time people on probation give up attending their order. Staff also thought that unpaid work met reparative aims by ensuring that work carried out benefits the wider community. • Perceptions on whether unpaid work is rehabilitative were mixed. Staff explained how unpaid work can be rehabilitative for some individuals by providing an opportunity to learn ‘soft’ and practical skills. However, the rehabilitative potential of unpaid work was not applicable to everyone and was dependent on employment status, the type of project, and the individual’s willingness to engage with rehabilitative efforts. People on probation’s experience of unpaid work • People on probation identified relationships with supervisors as an important factor that affected their experience of unpaid work. A good relationship with a supervisor could encourage them to return and attend projects led by the same supervisor. Meaningful projects could increase compliance by encouraging people on probation to return to projects they believed had value. These were usually described as projects that would have benefits for the local community, and/or where people on probation had the opportunity to learn new skills, particularly if they thought these could lead to employment. • Many people on probation brought up communication issues they had with probation practitioners. These communication issues could make completing hours of unpaid work difficult either because their unpaid work hours were not set up in time or because people on probation could not contact probation to discuss issues they had with attending projects, making it hard to rearrange hours. • Many people on probation who were interviewed felt that wearing high-visibility vests, with unpaid work branding, caused them to experience unnecessary stigma and shame which could have negative impacts on their mental health. People on probation and supervisors thought, in particularly public areas, having to wear the branded high-visibility vests could impact compliance

Ministry of Justice Analytical Series

London: Ministry of Justice, 2024. 76p.

By Hannah Miles Merran McAlister Samantha Bricknell

The National Deaths in Custody Program has monitored the extent and nature of deaths occurring in prison, police custody and youth detention in Australia since 1980. The Australian Institute of Criminology has coordinated the program since its establishment in 1992, the result of a recommendation made the previous year by the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. In 2023–24, there were 104 deaths in custody: 76 in prison custody, 27 in police custody or custody-related operations and one in youth detention. In total, there were 24 Indigenous deaths and 80 non-Indigenous deaths in custody. This report contains detailed information on these deaths and compares the findings with longer term trends.

Statistical Report no. 49, Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. 2024. 59p.

By Christi M. Smith

The fact that the United States incarcerates more of its population than the rest of the industrialized world—and that racial and ethnic minorities are overrepresented in inmate populations—is common knowledge. Yet why we continue to over- incarcerate in light of a myriad of other strategies that appropriately respond to crime remains a mystery. Alternatives to incarceration are more cost-effective, efficient and provide better outcomes for accused law violators and communities. Alternatives also save precious law enforcement and judicial resources for more serious and violent offenders. The COVID-19 pandemic presented a unique opportunity for local jail administrators and their counterparts in the judicial process to pursue alternatives, as they were forced to critically analyze the need for pretrial confinement; reconsider length of stay upon conviction; and evaluate the appropriateness of returning to jail for bail, probation or parole violations. In conjunction with experience gained from the past 21 months of the pandemic, existing research demonstrates that it is time to reduce our overreliance on carceral strategies and address the factors that contribute to crime and non-compliance with judicial interventions. These evidence-based strategies can substantially reduce jail populations and the racial and ethnic disparities therein. Key Points: 1. COVID-19 disproportionately challenged local jail administrators who, compared to their state and federal prison counterparts, receive less physical, financial and medical support to manage a dynamic and constantly shifting inmate population that moves in and out of the community. 2. To mitigate viral spread inside of the jail and out into the community, criminal justice professionals worked quickly to reduce inmate populations using a variety of alternatives to incarceration for accused and convicted law violators. These alternatives disproportionately benefited white adults and highlighted the need for targeted strategies to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in the judicial process. 3. Crime rates did not increase during the time that alternatives to incarceration were used, thereby substantiating the benefits of utilizing various alternatives to incarceration to reduce jail populations, as well as racial and ethnic disparities in jail populations. Research indicates that these alternatives are more cost-effective, efficient and fairer than traditional judicial processing

R STREET POLICY STUDY NO. 250 January 2022, 8p.

By Diane Cheng, Arthur Rizer and Nila Bala

Marcus Bullock was 15 years old when he was sentenced to prison. He struggled with his time behind bars—missing his family, feeling disconnected from the outside world and losing hope. After he became depressed, his mother Sylvia promised to keep in touch daily. Her detailed letters and photos curbed Bullock’s loneliness and helped him envision life after prison. In Bullock’s words: “Little did I know, it would be my mom’s letters that saved my life.” Sylvia’s frequent communications gave him the strength to survive his incarceration, start a successful contracting business and launch Flikshop, a company that uses technology to help inmates stay connected with their families and loved ones. Bullock’s story demonstrates the importance of family connections for people who are incarcerated. In 2018, more than two million individuals were incarcerated in jails and prisons across the United States. However, the impact of incarceration is felt by millions more through the children, spouses, siblings, parents and other relatives connected to incarcerated individuals. Recent research suggests that nearly half of adults in the United States have had an immediate family member incarcerated for at least one night in jail or prison. Almost half of the inmates in federal prisons have minor children. Additionally, about one in 25 children (nearly 2.6 million) have a parent in jail or prison. Incarceration separates parents from their children, strains interpersonal relationships, harms mental and physical health and exacts deep financial costs to families. Further, incarceration has a disproportionate effect on communities of color and low income families. For example, Black adults are three times as likely as white adults to have a close family member incarcerated for more than one year. As Bullock’s story shows, positive family connections during incarceration are critical for an inmate’s wellbeing, their likelihood of successful re-entry after time served and the overall strength of their family. Technology can help families stay connected, but the cost, accessibility and quality of current options often pose barriers to meaningful interaction. The COVID-19 pandemic presents further challenges for family connection within correctional facilities, but also an opportunity to improve existing infrastructure via technology. If done right, improvements to both technological and non-technological options for family connection would ultimately benefit incarcerated individuals, their families and their communities at large

R STREET POLICY STUDY NO. 203 September 2020, 13p.

By Kristin Turney, Naomi F. Sugie, Estéfani Marín, Daniela E. Kaiser

Anticipatory stress—or worries about the future that produce emotional distress—may explain some of the deleterious repercussions of incarceration for health. We use nearly 500 interviews with incarcerated men and their family members to describe anticipatory stress stemming from the stressor of jail incarceration, a commonly experienced but understudied type of confinement distinct from prison incarceration. We identify and explain how jail incarceration involves a powerful confluence of factors that give rise to anticipatory stress about adjudication, family relationships, the well-being of loved ones, and reintegration. We describe three types of anticipatory stress proliferation between incarcerated men and their families. First, anticipatory stress commonly proliferates from incarcerated men to their children's mothers and their own mothers, with anticipatory stress being particularly salient when it involves the possibility of major changes, system irrationality, and powerlessness. Second, family members can experience anticipatory stress regardless of whether their incarcerated loved one reports anticipatory stress, shaped in part by men's extensive criminal legal contact. Third, family members with weak relationships with incarcerated men generally do not experience anticipatory stress despite the anticipatory stress endured by their incarcerated loved ones. This study provides a framework for understanding how other stages of criminal legal contact contribute to health inequalities among incarcerated people and their families.

Criminology, Volume 62, Issue 4, 2024, pages 830-858

By Julienne Weegels

In this article, I explore how prison riots, large critical incidents of a collective order, emerge, take place, and alter governance relations in place in the Nicaraguan prison system. Drawing on ethnographic research conducted with prisoners and former prisoners of two Nicaraguan prison facilities, I provide a prisoners’ point of view on the political use of violence in prison, particularly during two large prison riots. While authorities often held that prison conditions combined with the “violent attitudes” of prisoners turned prisons into “powder kegs,” such an interpretation does not allow for an understanding of riots as embedded in prison governance structures and conveniently draws the attention away from underlying issues pertaining to the de facto sharing of power in prison in Nicaragua. I argue that by using what has been termed “creative violence,” prisoners attempt to break through the authorities’ imposed regime of public secrecy and draw attention to these issues, forcing authorities to negotiate. Yet, even if riots then function as a catalyst for changes in co-governance arrangements, they do not appear to be geared at permanently damaging or annihilating the existing arrangements but rather at pressuring the authorities hard enough to make compromises and concessions as to the distribution of power in prison.

International Criminal Justice Review, Volume 30, Issue 1, March 2020, Pages 61-82

By Gustavo Fondevila and Carlos Vilalta‑Perdomo

Using a survey applied to incarcerated populations in Latin American countries, this study aims to examine the factors that determine the existence of violence in prisons and explain why some penitentiaries are more violent than others by studying variables such as inmate age, sentence length, and crime type. A quantitative examination is used to determine the efect of these variables on prison violence (property theft and beatings), and whether it is a result of the living conditions within the prisons. The results indicate that the most overpopulated prisons, with the worst living conditions, have the lowest levels of violence (in Brazil and El Salvador). The lower rates of violence observed in certain Latin American prisons appear to be explained by the existence of criminal governments within penitentiary systems, organized and run by a dominant prison gang

International Criminology, (2024) 4:149–165, 17p.

By James Bargent, et al

Over the last five years, Ecuador has been engulfed in violence and a criminal chaos unprecedented in its modern history. The roots of this security crisis can be traced directly to the country’s prison system and the criminal networks that have evolved inside of it. Shaped by a series of failed reforms and the state’s negligence, corruption, and incapacity, the prisons provided a space for these groups, known in Ecuador simply as “mafias,” to take root and grow. More than that, they also provided an economic base for this growth in the form of multi-million-dollar criminal markets that have turned the prisons into one of the most lucrative criminal economies in Ecuador.

Fueled by these profits, the mafias leveraged the opportunity the prisons provided to make connections to gangs on the streets, facilitating their territorial expansion on the outside, and granting them access to the upper echelons of organized crime, including the booming transnational cocaine trade. Competition to control strategic territories and criminal economies between these mafias have driven soaring murder rates on the streets and a series of prison massacres that have claimed hundreds of lives. These criminal networks have also destabilized the country’s democracy with terror-style tactics and political violence. The security crisis stemming from the prisons has provoked a hard-line response from Ecuador’s government, which declared an “internal armed conflict” with “terrorist” groups and deployed the military to the prisons and the streets. While this has disrupted some mafia operations, there has been little sign of any strategy to tackle the systemic failures that led to their rise. And there are signs that both the mafias and corruption networks are reconstituting and setting the stage for a new cycle of violence and criminal activity. Major Findings

▶ Ecuador’s prisons became the epicenter of organized crime because of years of government failures and half-measures. To begin with, hard-line anti-drug laws filled the prisons beyond capacity. The state’s subsequent struggles to control the overcrowded facilities created vacuums in authority, which were filled by corruption networks and criminal gangs. And, after the construction of a series of “mega-prisons” failed to control the internal chaos, the government slashed the operational budget and dismantled the ministry responsible for running it, providing the catalyst for the total criminal takeover of the system.

▶ The concentration of the population in the mega-prisons increased the profits from internal rackets. This converted the penitentiary system into a multimillion dollar criminal economy based on exploiting the lack of state control and the failure to provide basic services. These markets are run both by gangs and extensive corruption networks, which may work with the gangs or independently. The profits from this economy drove the evolution and expansion of the prison mafias, while providing a powerful incentive for corrupt actors to undermine attempts at reform.

▶ The prison mafias grew quickly by recruiting bands of small-time criminals and youth gangs in the prisons and integrating them into federations of semi-autonomous criminal structures operating both in the prisons and on the streets. The mafia leaders were then able to put these networks at the service of criminal elites. This created a unique role for them, coordinating and connecting the different levels of organized crime.

▶ Through this process, the prison mafias have established themselves as important links in the transnational cocaine supply chain. However, for the most part, they remain at the operational level of trafficking, providing logistical and security services to Mexican, Colombian, European, and individual Ecuadorian drug traffickers.

▶ The ceding of the prisons to the mafias, the growth of the criminal economies that fund them, and the opportunities to access the transnational drug trade led to criminal competition that fuelled high levels of violence inside and outside the prison system that has been difficult to control. The catalyst for this rise in violence was the power vacuum left by the murder of Choneros leader Jorge Luis Zambrano, alias “Rasquiña” or “JL,” who had previously limited competition by integrating numerous criminal interests and powers into a single network held together by his individual authority.

▶ While the military intervention in the prisons in 2024 disrupted the mafia’s capacity to operate freely, the evident lack of mid- and long-term strategies to tackle the systemic issues at the heart of the prison crisis or dismantle the prison business makes it highly likely organized crime and corruption networks will reestablish operations within the prisons. Furthermore, the weakening of leadership ties between the prisons and the streets has accelerated a trend towards the atomization of the mafias, leading to increased territorial disputes and predatory criminal activities outside the prisons, principally affecting Ecuador’s most economically deprived and marginalized communities.

Washington, DC: Insight Crime, 2024. 76p.

By Peter Dawson

No one recognises a good teacher more accurately than a pupil, or a good nurse more gratefully than a patient. And no one understands the differences between a good and a bad prison officer1 better than a prisoner.2 This report, made possible through the generosity of the John Armitage Charitable Trust, seeks to bring the wisdom of prisoners to bear on the central challenge facing prisons of how to create an effective and sustainable prison workforce in England and Wales. Changes in sentencing over the last two decades guarantee that prison officers will in future be caring for people spending a much larger portion of their lives in custody.3 Those prisoners will also be subject to far greater uncertainty about when they may be released and whether they will be permitted to remain in the community when they eventually are. Simultaneously, confidence in traditional operating models for prisons has been undermined by a decade of violence, self-harm and disorder, and the physical withdrawal of staff from face to face contact with prisoners legitimised during the pandemic. In this radically altered context the prison service faces a more profound question about the composition of its future workforce than simply whether it can recruit and retain enough people. We will argue that being a good prison officer is a much more sophisticated and skilful job than the prison service currently reflects in its critical human resource processes. If the prison service is to recruit and retain a workforce that can rise to the multiple challenges that it faces over the next decade and beyond, it must develop a new and explicit vision for the role of the prison officer and the way that role needs to be supported. We will argue that prisoners can help both articulate that vision and in some respects support its delivery. The prison workforce is of course very diverse and many people other than officers are crucial to making prisons work. We have chosen to focus on the prison officer role because, more than any other, it affects the day to day life of the prisoners to whom we have listened, and therefore the families they have left behind and the communities to which most of them will one day return. Developing a vision for the role of the prison officer starts with being clear about purpose within a prison. We hope that what prisoners have had to say on that subject will inform every aspect of the prison service’s approach to its employees, and all its partnerships with the many

London: Prison Reform Trust, 2024. 53p.

By Chloe Anderson, Kyla Wasserman, Brit Henderson, with Erika Lewy

On January 1, 2017, the State of New Jersey implemented Criminal Justice Reform (CJR), a sweeping set of changes to its criminal legal system. With these reforms, the state shifted from a system that relied on money bail to a system that virtually eliminated the use of money bail and uses a risk-assessment tool that informs decision-making by generating scores based on an individual’s assessed risk of failing to appear at future court hearings and committing additional crimes if released. Additionally, CJR granted courts the option to detain people without bail until their cases are disposed, established a pretrial monitoring program, and instituted speedy-trial laws that impose time limits for case processing. The state’s goals were to improve fairness and reduce unnecessary pretrial detention while protecting public safety and ensuring that people continue to show up to their court hearings. While improving racial equity was not an explicit goal of the reforms, racial equity may be affected by reducing pretrial detention and eliminating the use of money bail. With support from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Policies for Action Program, the New Jersey Criminal Justice Reform Advancing Racial Equity (NJ CARE) Study sought to assess racial equity and perceptions of fairness in New Jersey’s criminal legal system after the implementation of the reforms to determine whether the reforms improved racial equity in the state. Furthermore, the study explored whether individuals who were navigating the pretrial system as defendants perceived it as fair. Their experiences and the reforms’ effects on racial disparities reveal valuable lessons about the effects of bail reform efforts on racial equity. The study employed a mixed-methods approach that included quantitative and qualitative methods, as well as participatory elements. The quantitative analysis found that CJR had a net positive impact on some outcomes for both Black people and White people. More people were issued a summons (rather than a warrant) and were immediately released following arrest, and people were released from jail more quickly following an arrest. Yet despite these positive impacts, racial disparities persisted throughout the pretrial system, to varying degrees. For outcomes that had larger disparities before CJR, there was no meaningful reduction in disparities. The largest disparities are seen at the front end of the pretrial system, in arrest rates and initial jail bookings. For the qualitative analysis, interviewees—who had experience navigating the state’s pretrial system as defendants—said that CJR’s elimination of money bail has improved the fairness of the system. Yet they also said the criminal legal system should consider each person’s voice and circumstances, treat each person with respect, be transparent, assign the least restrictive release conditions when possible, and employ diverse staff members. Taken together, the findings suggest that broad bail reform policies can reduce the footprint of criminal legal system involvement, but they may not be a salve for issues of equity broadly and racial disparities specifically. There are several potential approaches to improve racial equity, including programs or processes that reduce people’s initial contact with the legal system, incorporate procedural justice-informed techniques into policing to improve police-community relationships, elevate the voices of individuals who have experience as defendants, enhance the criminal legal system’s transparency and communication, employ the least restrictive conditions of release and offer supportive services, engage prosecutors in reform efforts, and employ a more diverse staff. As a next step, these potential approaches should be rigorously studied.

In a completely equitable society, individuals would not be any more or less likely to experience burdens during their interactions with societal systems just because of their race. However, historically explicit and implicit practices and policies across the United States reinforce racial inequity, and these racial disparities are observed in many social systems, including the criminal legal system.1 Racial disparities in the pretrial system—that is, the period from the point of arrest to a case’s resolution in a verdict, plea deal, or dismissal— have broad equity implications. Spending time in jail—sometimes even just a few days—is associated with a variety of adverse effects on physical and mental health, as well as on social determinants of health like employment, housing, and family ties.2 Jurisdictions across the country have made efforts to reduce their use of pretrial detention and improve perceptions of the system’s fairness through different types of reforms—most notably by reducing their use of money bail or using actuarial risk-assessment tools to guide release decision-making.3 However, relatively little is known about the effects of these reforms.

New York: MDRC , 2024. 87p.

By Louisa Treskon and Anna Kyler

For more than a decade, California has been enacting policy changes that are intended to lower the number of people who are incarcerated in the state. These policy changes include sentencing reforms and new funding streams for programs aimed at addressing underlying causes that can lead to incarceration, such as mental health and substance use disorders. Los Angeles County’s Reentry Intensive Case Management Services (RICMS) program, which began in 2018, is one such program. The RICMS program connects people who have been involved in the criminal legal system to community health workers who work at community-based organizations. Community health workers help people reintegrate into their communities by providing case management and connecting them with supportive services. This brief presents the results of a benefit-cost study of the RICMS program. The RICMS program comes with a cost, mostly borne by the state of California and Los Angeles County, since the program is publicly funded, as are many of the services it refers clients to. However, these costs could be offset by benefits such as reductions in participants’ involvement in the criminal legal system. Benefit-cost analysis provides a tool to compare these costs and benefits, which provides decision makers with a monetary lens through which to assess the potential effects of the program. The study, which is led by MDRC, is part of the Los Angeles County Reentry Integrated Services Project, a multiyear, multistudy evaluation of services that are offered by the Justice, Care and Opportunities Department (JCOD) of Los Angeles County.

New York: MDRC, 2024. 18p.

By Andrzej Uhl, Justin T Pickett

Are public preferences for the type or amount of punishment stable? Instability over short periods would complicate empirical desert by undercutting the value of public preferences as policy guides. Using longitudinal, cross-national survey data from Central Europe, we examined within-person stability in punishment preferences along several dimensions: type, amount, and rank order. Individual-level instability was common; respondents frequently changed their punishment preferences across waves. In the aggregate, public opinion was more stable. Our findings support the ‘qualified public input’ model of policy making—aggregate preferences should provide loose guidance for policymakers, with individual-level instability suggesting the ‘latitude of acceptance’ or ‘zone of acquiescence’. Better-educated respondents exhibited more preference stability, thus greater weight should be given to informed public opinion.

The British Journal of Criminology, 2024, XX, 1–20 pages