By  Kristin Turney , Amy Gong Liu, and Estéfani Marín

Despite reasons to believe that paternal incarceration has heterogeneous consequences for children, little research explores the processes underlying variation in children’s responses to this adverse event. We use data from the Jail and Family Life Study, an in-depth interview study of incarcerated fathers and their family members (including their children), to understand the heterogeneous processes linking paternal incarceration to children’s well-being. Children commonly reported that their father’s incarceration restructured their lives by altering their emotional and instrumental responsibilities. Within each of these domains, though, children expressed considerable variation in their responses, with some children seamlessly stepping into new responsibilities stemming from paternal incarceration and other children, especially older children who had witnessed their fathers’ frequent entanglements with the criminal legal system, consciously stepping away from these responsibilities. These findings illustrate the range of responses that children have to paternal incarceration, shedding light on processes that have not been observed in survey research

RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences 10(1):132–150. 2024, 29p.

By Naomi Sugie, Kristin Turney, Keramet Reiter, Rebecca Tublitz, Daniela Kaiser, Rebecca Goodsell, Erin Secrist, Ankita Patel, & Monik Jiménez

U.S. prisons were especially susceptible to COVID-19 infection and death; however, data limitations have precluded a national accounting of prison mortality (including but not limited to COVID-19 mortality) during the pandemic. Our analysis of mortality data collected from public records requests (supplemented with publicly available data) from 48 Departments of Corrections provides the most comprehensive understanding to date of in-custody mortality during 2020. We find that total mortality increased by 77% in 2020 relative to 2019, corresponding to 3.4 times the mortality increase in the general population, and that mortality in prisons increased across all age groups (49 and under, 50 to 64, and 65 and older). COVID-19was the primary driver for increases in mortality due to natural causes; some states also experienced substantial increases due to unnatural causes. These findings provide critical information about the pandemic’s toll on some of the country’s most vulnerable individuals while underscoring the need for data transparency and standardized reporting in carceral settings.

Science Advances,  Sugie et al., Sci. Adv. 9, eadj8104, December 2023, 20 p.

By Pavithra Nagarajan, Kristen Parsons, Julia Bowling, Jennifer Ferone, and Neal Palmer

Decades of research point to the benefits of college in prison, including reduced recidivism and improved employment outcomes following release. Even for those who have not yet been released, these programs foster a sense of community and purpose that can also lead to safer prison environments. Many people enter prison undereducated due to systemic disinvestment in education over the past 50 years, particularly in racial minority neighborhoods. All told, about one in three incarcerated adults have less than a high school equivalence (HSE), earned prior to or during incarceration, compared to 14 percent of the general public.

Despite the benefits of college in prison, policies and practices over the past two decades have limited the availability of postsecondary educational programs in prisons, including federal and state tuition grants. To supplement this, in 2017, former Governor Andrew Cuomo, former Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr., the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS), and CUNY ISLG established the College-in-Prison Reentry Initiative (CIP).

A $7.3 million investment, CIP aimed to build a partnership to provide more individuals with the opportunity to achieve a quality education, with the goal of increasing their likelihood of success in the community after release. It had four primary goals:

CIP funded seven colleges and universities to deliver college instruction across 17 prisons in New York from Fall 2017 through Spring 2022. CUNY ISLG conducted a multiyear process evaluation of the Initiative to assess its implementation. This report, the culmination of data reviews, site visits, and interviews with education providers, corrections staff, CIP students, and others, breaks down the successes and challenges the program faces, as well as offers lessons learned for others seeking to implement quality college-in-prison programs.

CUNY Institute for State & Local Governance , 2024. 112p.

By Nick Sibilla

Earning an honest living is one of the best ways to prevent re-offending. But strict occupational licensing requirements make it harder for ex-offenders to find work, thwarting their chances of successful reentry. Along with other “collateral consequences,” like losing the right to vote or the ability to receive government assistance, ex-offenders can be denied a license to work simply because of their criminal record. • This report provides the most up-to-date account of occupational licensing barriers for ex-offenders and will be regularly updated whenever a state

changes its laws. Using 10 distinct criteria, this report grades all 50 states and the District of Columbia on their legal protections for licensing applicants with criminal records. (See Methodology.) • The average state grade is a C-. Nationwide, 6 states—Iowa, Indiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Hampshire, North Carolina—earned a B or better. Reflecting the surge of interest in this issue, five of those six states have reformed their licensing laws since 2015. • Indiana ranked as the best state in the nation for ex-offenders seeking a license to work, earning this report’s only A grade. In contrast, five states—Alabama, Alaska, Nevada, South Dakota, and Vermont—were tied for last, receiving a zero on a 100-point scale for their lack of protections for felons seeking licenses. This report finds that licensing restrictions vary dramatically, with multiple states lacking even the most basic protections for ex-offenders seeking a license to work: • Licensing boards in seven states can generally disqualify applicants based on any felony, even if it is completely unrelated to the license sought. • In 17 states, boards are free to deny licenses without ever considering whether an applicant has been rehabilitated. • Applicants in 33 states can be denied licenses based on an arrest that did not lead to a criminal conviction. In other words, boards can refuse to issue a license even though the applicant is functionally innocent. • In nine states, applicants have no guaranteed right to appeal a board’s decision, and boards are not required to issue their decisions in writing.

Arlington, VA: Institute for Justice, 2020. 117p.

By Kristin Turney, Katelyn Malae, MacKenzie Christensen, & Sarah Halpern-Meekin

Jail incarceration substantially transforms romantic relationships, and incarceration may alter the commitment between partners, thereby undermining or strengthening relationships. In this article, we use in-depth interviews with 85 women connected to incarcerated men (as current or former romantic partners) to explore how women articulate relationship changes that stem from their partner’s jail incarceration, a common but understudied form of contact with the criminal legal system. We identify three interrelated and mutually reinforcing processes, which are shaped by and shape a partner’s commitment to the relationship. First, incarceration produces liminality in the status of the relationship. Second, incarceration fosters women’s sense of independence from their incarcerated partners. Third, incarceration creates space for partners to reevaluate how they prioritize the relationship in their lives. Jail incarceration intervenes in romantic relationships at different points during each relationship, and accordingly, women experience heterogeneity in processes of liminality, independence, and reprioritization. These processes contribute to differential relationship experiences, with some relationships deteriorating during incarceration, others strengthening, and others neither deteriorating nor strengthening. By systematically uncovering these processes linking jail incarceration to romantic relationships, we advance an understanding of how the criminal legal system can shape relationship commitment processes and inequalities among families.

Criminology. 2023;1–28.

By Noreen Wallace, et al.

The implementation of the standard determinate sentence 40 (SDS40) scheme in July 2024 and the subsequent announcement of the Government’s sentencing review have placed at centre stage the ability of the Probation Service to supervise and manage people effectively in the community. To achieve the best results, the Probation Service needs sufficient, well-trained staff to meet those demands. This thematic inspection therefore comes at a timely moment. Since probation services unified in 2021, our inspection reports have routinely described significant shortfalls in the number of probation practitioners, resulting in excessive workloads for many, which have had a negative impact on the quality of work undertaken. Strategic plans have acknowledged the need to recruit practitioners, and this has been undertaken at pace; from the start of the 2021 financial year to the end of the 2023/2024 financial year, over 3,500 trainee probation officers have started training. While wholly commendable and necessary, recruitment at this scale places considerable demands on existing resources and has further depleted the number of practitioners, as staff have been recruited into the management and support roles required for the new recruits. Despite successful recruitment campaigns that have attracted many trainee probation officers and probation services officers, there are still shortages at the frontline, exacerbated by increased attrition rates. The staff group is also not sufficiently diverse, and further work is needed to understand why there are some disproportionate outcomes for certain groups in the recruitment processes. While probation staff can make a huge positive difference to people’s lives, the work is also demanding and, at times, stressful. Probation practitioners have often been operating with high, and in some cases excessively high, workloads, which has undoubtedly had an impact on the quality of work. The success of community supervision depends on skilled practitioners who can build rapport, assess risks, and rehabilitate people on probation. However, we have found that practitioners are not always sufficiently equipped with the necessary skills and knowledge to work with the cases they are allocated. A closer look at the current training arrangements shows that considerable efforts have been made to meet the demands of high new starter numbers. However, there is still room to improve the way that training is delivered, to equip practitioners better with the skills to work effectively with people on probation. The recruitment of trainee probation officers has now rightly moved away from seeking only to attract graduates, and a range of pathways is now available to attract a more diverse workforce. The programme is intense and not all recruits are prepared for the demands it places on them. To maximise the prospect of positive outcomes, it is essential that recruits are tested adequately, to ensure that those who are appointed have the potential and commitment to become competent probation officers. Evaluation of the recruitment and training methods used for each intake is needed to have a better understanding of what produces the most effective outcomes. There is considerable investment in training, and it is vital that this investment is focused on building a stable and committed staff group who want to remain within the Service. Considering the pace of probation training, it is crucial that the support arrangements for newly qualified officers are strengthened to allow them to hone their skills before taking on full caseloads; failing to do this can place pressures on new officers that can be overwhelming and counterproductive to long-term development and retention. HM Prison and Probation Service recognises the reasons why many staff leave; high workloads and the ongoing pressures faced by the Service are common factors. Given the considerable demands of the work, and its impact on public protection, pay is also inevitably an issue. Pay needs to reflect the significant level of risk and responsibility that probation staff hold. Another key issue is the tension between practitioners’ professional priorities and the expectations placed on them by the service. More needs to be done to harmonise these expectations and ensure that practitioners feel proud of the valuable work they do, to change lives and keep communities safe.    The sentencing review that is now under way was triggered by the capacity pressures in the prison system. Increased supervision in the community will inevitably be considered and the public needs to feel confident that community supervision is safe and effective. Well-resourced, trained, and supported probation staff make this possible. Overall, while there are initiatives aimed at improving staff experiences, challenges remain in building a capable and stable workforce. We have made recommendations based on our findings which, if followed, should lead to positive improvements in the recruitment, retention, and training of probation staff

Manchester: HM Inspectorate of Probation January 2025  65p.

By Althea Gibson, Marc Rémond, Peta MacGillivray, Eileen Baldry and Elizabeth Sullivan

The NSW Co-Located Caseworker Program was established to support women in custody who have children involved in the child protection system. Under the program, child protection caseworkers are ‘co-located’ in NSW correctional centres. We undertook a mixed-methods evaluation of the program by analysing data from Corrective Service NSW’s Offender Integrated Management System and conducting 48 semi-structured interviews with stakeholders, including 25 women in custody. We concluded that the program is a well designed and much needed initiative of benefit to women in custody and their children. However, it could be improved by more coordinated case planning between Corrective Services NSW and child protection services and the increased availability of programs to help women in custody achieve their child protection related goals.

Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice no. 709, Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2025. 19p.

By Amnesty International

This report details how people accused of using drugs are subject to arbitrary detention in drug “treatment and rehabilitation” centres, in a continuation of the punitive approach to the Philippines’ “war on drugs”. Based on interviews with 56 people, 26 of whom were accused of using and/or selling drugs, this report investigates human rights violations – such as torture and other ill-treatment, forced or otherwise unreliable confessions, and violations of the right to health – that people endure before, during and after their compulsory stay in drug detention centres. The Philippine government must move away from punitive and harmful responses to drugs. Instead, it must adopt evidenced-based approaches that respect the dignity of all people and put health and human rights at the centre.

London: Amnesty International, 2024. 68p.

By Mardet Homans, Denise M. Allen & Yesenia Mazariegos

The use of Medication Assisted Treatment (MAT), and specifically buprenorphine, to address opioid use disorder (OUD) is considered the gold standard of care in the community (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration (SAMHSA), 2023). However, while support of its use in correctional settings is expanding, and there are national promising practice guidelines, it remains underutilized within jails and prisons in the United States (U.S.) (National Commission on Correctional Healthcare (NCCHC), 2018; Friedmann et al., 2012). The efficacy of MAT to reduce opiate withdrawal, curb cravings, and support positive health, behavioral health, and criminal justice outcomes, including reductions in overdose deaths and recidivism, has gained national attention from criminal justice advocacy groups and policymakers. Jails and correctional agencies have been taken to court over the provision of MAT for incarcerated individuals with OUD. And state and federal courts have ruled denial of MAT for incarcerated individuals with OUD violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (Legislative Analysis and Public Policy Association (LAPPA), n.d.). The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and California Correctional Health Care Services (CCHCS) are at the forefront of providing MAT in a correctional setting under the Integrated Substance Use Disorder Treatment (ISUDT) Program. The ISUDT Program begins at intake into CDCR with a substance use disorder (SUD) screening and assessment and linkage to behavioral interventions and MAT with a targeted focus on preparing CDCR residents for release. This paper seeks to document the provision of MAT in correctional settings since it is expanding rapidly within the U.S. and there is currently not a national inventory of programs or practices. In addition, this paper aims to document best practices and lessons learned from California and other correctional systems that can be used to guide expansion of MAT to justice-involved populations. Contained in the appendix of this report is a comprehensive review of information regarding the current availability of MAT in U.S. jails and prisons.

Key Findings • According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) less than 1% of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) population received MAT in 2021. • Based on a review of publicly available information, it does appear that five states – Alabama, Mississippi, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wyoming offer MAT in their correctional institutions. • A number of states have or are currently piloting MAT in corrections. • Besides California, only 14 states offer comprehensive MAT services at either intake and/or release in a considerable number of its jails and prisons. • Locating details regarding MAT provision on many state and local correctional websites is difficult or is missing altogether. This may present as a barrier to SUD treatment and discourage justice-involved individuals or their families from seeking MAT. • Overall, there is significant variability among states regarding the provision of MAT to incarcerated individuals.

Irvine, CA: Center for Evidence‐Based Corrections University of California, Irvine 2023. 18p.

By James Hess and Susan Turner

California Prison Industry Authority (CALPIA) is a self-supporting training and production program currently operating within the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). CALPIA provides training, certification, and employment to inmates in a variety of different fields. The goods and services produced by CALPIA are sold to the state and other government entities, which provides an economic benefit to the state. In addition to the vocational and economic aspect of the program, one of CALPIA’s missions is to reduce the subsequent recidivism of their inmate participants. In 2021, the Center for Evidence-Based Corrections prepared a report on the recidivism outcomes for individuals who had participated in CALPIA programs for at least six months (Hess and Turner, 2021). That report examined the effect of participation in CALPIA on the recidivism of CDCR inmates by comparing CALPIA participants with at least 6 months in the program and released between August 2014 and July 2018 with inmates who were accepted into the CALPIA program but were released before they could actively participate (i.e., the “Waitlist” group). That report found that participation in CALPIA was associated with reduced offending. CALPIA individuals had lower rates of arrests, conviction, and incarceration during a three-year follow-up than a Waitlist comparison group. Although the sample size for our analysis of Career Technical Education (CTE) was small, participation in this CALPIA program yielded lower recidivism rates than other CALPIA program participation. This report further analyzes the sample of individuals who participated in CALPIA programs by separating the CALPIA programs into thirteen different groups, placing similar programs together. Thus, it is a comparison within CALPIA programs only. The analysis strategy is the same as used in our previous report: we examine arrest, conviction and return to custody calculated at one-, two- and three-year post release for the individuals. Propensity score analyses were used to adjust for baseline differences in the groups. Our findings suggest that the enterprise programs perform about equally well with the exception of CTE, which appears to do slightly better than other enterprises. We also found a positive effect for CTE in our earlier report. Several other programs show patterns of higher or lower recidivism which are suggestive but not conclusive due to lack of statistical significance. We note that small sample sizes, using propensity score analyses, may have limited our ability to detect significant differences.

Irvine, CA: Center for Evidence‐Based Corrections University of California, Irvine 2023. 20p

By H. Daniel Butler, Natasha Frost, Nancy Rodriguez, Melinda Tasca, and Jillian Turanovic

Prison violence is a persistent problem for institutional corrections and the rehabilitation of incarcerated individuals. Estimates suggest that one in three men and one in four women in prison experience physical violence, while over half of correctional staff express fear of serious injury or death while on the job. However, these statistics are likely underreported due to limited data sources and challenges in data collection and reporting. As a result, the true prevalence of prison violence remains uncertain. In response to this pressing issue, with support of Arnold Ventures, the Prison Violence Consortium was established to better understand the scale, scope, and consequences of prison violence. The Consortium brought together researchers and practitioners from seven state correctional systems: Arizona, Colorado, Massachusetts, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Through a multi-strategy approach, we collected and analyzed data from a variety of sources, including official records, self-reported data, and interviews from incarcerated persons and correctional staff. A key finding from our work is that, much like the “dark figure of crime” in general society, there is a substantial “dark figure” of prison violence. This discovery underscores that the current practices of documenting and examining prison violence are insufficient, as the majority of prison violence is not reported. Without a national comprehensive strategy to improve the accuracy of how we measure prison violence, efforts to reduce it will be inconsistent and likely ineffective.

Irvine, CA: UC Irvine School of Social Ecology, 2024. 12p.

By Nancy Rodriguez, H. Daniel Butler, Natasha Frost, Melinda Tasca, and Jillian Turanovic

This policy brief presents the findings of our multi-strategy approach, spearheaded by the Prison Violence Consortium, to examine the sources and consequences of prison violence. We capture prison violence using data on guilty violent infractions, violent incident reports, and interviews with incarcerated persons and correctional employees. We offer solution-driven recommendations to policymakers, institutional leaders, prison researchers, and other stakeholders, aiming to enhance prison safety and more effectively address institutional violence nationwide..

Key Findings ● Perpetrators of Violence & Timing: ● Prison violence was concentrated among a small subset of persons, as 10% of the population accounted for more than 50% of guilty violent infractions. ● Personal characteristics related to guilty violent infractions included younger age at admission, lower education, longer sentences, violent criminal histories, gang affiliations, and greater mental health needs. ● Most people (63%) committed guilty violent infractions within 6-12 months of admission, with fewer than 10% remaining violent throughout their incarceration. ● Common Forms & Situational Factors: ● Most violence (71%) occurred between incarcerated persons, while 29% was directed at staff, according to the incident reports. ● The most prevalent form of violence was fights between persons (38%), followed by assaults on persons (26%), assaults on staff (17%), biohazard incidents (13%), and unwitnessed physical altercations (6%). ● Violence most often occured in cells or housing areas (39%) and common areas (e.g., cafeteria and yard) (31%). ● Weapons and contraband were mentioned in 10% of the incident reports.

Irvine, CA: UC Irvine School of Social Ecology, Prison Violence Consortium, 2024. 23p.

Correctional Association of New York

The Correctional Association of New York (CANY) maintains an extraordinarily deep and broad understanding of New York’s state correctional facilities. This understanding allows for nuanced assessment of the greatest challenges DOCCS faces in safely operating institutions that support rehabilitation, public safety, and human dignity. CANY’s vantage also affords the ability to identify examples of good policy and practice, of which there are many within DOCCS. The following recommendations, which take into consideration both persistent challenges and opportunities to scale up examples of excellence, were submitted to DOCCS for a statutory 60-day review period on October 9, 2024—two months to the day before Robert Brooks was fatally assaulted at Marcy Correctional Facility. These recommendations arise from CANY’s unique historical role as the independent oversight entity for state correctional facilities and activities authorized by Correction Law 146(3), which grants the organization authority “to access, visit, inspect, and examine all state correctional facilities with seventy-two hours advance notice to the department.” In FY24, CANY conducted 19 prison monitoring visits; interviewed more than 1,000 incarcerated individuals and more than one hundred state employees who work in these facilities; received hundreds of phone calls, letters, and website inquiries from or on behalf of incarcerated people seeking assistance; distributed thousands of surveys; and published 15 public-facing work products including reports on monitoring visits, dashboards of processed administrative data, data analysis, and legislative testimony. To inform the discussion about prison closures, CANY published a series of tools that allow stakeholders to view staffing levels by facility: Mapping Closures, Capacity, Staffing, and the

CANY, 2025. 7p.

By Jayne Price

This report forms part of PRT’s National Lottery Community Fund funded Building Futures Programme that, since 2020, has been exploring the experiences of people serving long-term prison sentences. The programme has defined its long-term cohort to include those men that will spend 10 or more years in prison and eight years or more for women. Based on consultation with 121 men and women aged 50 and over serving these sentences in 39 prisons in the UK, it provides insights into the age-specific experiences of this cohort. It aims to influence positive changes that would provide a more humane prison experience that recognises the distinct needs of this group. The prison population is ageing (around 17% of people inside are aged 50 and over). By July 2025 it is projected that the population aged 50 years and over will increase from 14,193 (November 2022) to 14,800. This shift is being driven by increased longevity amongst the general population as well as specific patterns of crime and sentencing. These trends are compounding pressures on a system that has been overcrowded every year since 1994 and where staff shortages continue to dog the system. These trends present significant challenges to the government, the prison system, those who live and work within it, and those responsible for providing services, including health and social care. These challenges include meeting human rights and equalities duties, such as the right to dignity and family life, and the right not to be discriminated against due to protected characteristics (including age and disability). These concerns have helped to drive an increase in research on the experience of older people in prison. For example, in 2020 the House of Commons Justice Committee published the findings of its inquiry into the ageing prison population. It found poor coordination between prisons, local authorities and social care providers; high levels of inconsistency in reasonable adjustments to meet the needs of those with disabilities; and a shortage of activities tailored for and accessible to older people in prison. The committee called for a national strategy for older prisoners, concluding that: “The greater needs of older prisoners and the challenges many prisons face in meeting these warrants a specific policy for the cohort.” PRT was one of many organisations to welcome the government’s commitment to produce such a strategy and its announcement in October 2020 that a steering group had begun to work on priorities that would include measures to ensure that older people in prison: • Are held in the most appropriate environments. • Can access a purposeful regime within prison. • Can access health and social care services equivalent to those within the community. • Are prepared for their release and resettled effectively. Findings The Older Offender Strategy is yet to be published. For this reason, our proposals are incorporated under our central recommendation that, as a matter of urgency, the government should publish a draft national strategy for rapid consultation and final publication before the end of the parliamentary year. These proposals are based on our consultation, and this report aims to ensure that the experiences, needs and ideas of older people with lived experience of prison can contribute to this positive change. Below we summarise key themes identified by participants. • Sentencing and adapting to prison life. For many participants, having already ‘lived a life’ minimised the feeling of ‘missing out’ and provided a sense of emotional maturity, which made adapting to the sentence easier than if it had happened at an earlier life-stage. However, this could also exacerbate people’s sense of loss. Having had independence, with the ability to make choices and have ‘normal’ responsibilities, the loss of autonomy was hard to accept. There were few opportunities to grieve this previous life, and respondents felt themselves becoming deskilled, disconnected, and institutionalised. • Relationships outside. Participants spoke about alternate lives continuing outside, with families and friends moving on without them. They talked about how having limited relationships with people on the outside impacted their motivation for leaving prison, and compounded feelings of loneliness and disconnection. Many had or expected to experience bereavements of loved ones whilst inside or have been/will be ‘deserted’ by family members unwilling to maintain their relationship. Some will leave prison with no friends or family to return to. Others are faced with the prospect of their own death in prison. • Purposeful activity. Many participants felt that education, behavioural programmes, and other activities were focused on the needs of younger people and/or were difficult to access. They reported few opportunities to engage with programmes aimed at the older prisoner cohort, and a high number of activities were based on employment, which was not always relevant to this group. Some wanted more opportunities to use the skills they had as a way of using their time purposefully, including peer mentoring or teaching roles that could benefit others. • Relationships inside. Despite the desire to provide support to younger prisoners, participants reported that the relationship between different age groups in prison could sometimes be strained. Older prisoners spoke of favouring a quieter, calmer environment, and being more compliant. The risk of elderly prisoners becoming vulnerable to intimidation and humiliation around their age-related health needs was also raised. • Health and wellbeing. Participants spoke about the importance of dignity around growing old in prison, particularly in relation to health and social care. For example, some shared instances of being unnecessarily cuffed when attending hospital visits. As participants age, the importance of these issues grows. From menopause to mobility-restricting conditions, participants faced a multitude of health concerns and faced barriers in getting the healthcare they required. They felt that their diet, physical space and day-to-day lifestyles (often sedentary and isolated) accelerated the onset of frailty and worsened health outcomes.

London: Prison Reform Trust, 2024. 52p.

By Claudia Vince and Emily Evison

Progression refers to the processes through which people in prison move through the system towards release. This includes engaging in formal programmes and interventions to reduce their risk levels, as well as spending time in different prison spaces, including lower security conditions. Often, progression and risk as concepts are conflated and many prisoners report feeling confused by what is being asked of them. For those serving long sentences, their route to freedom is determined by sentence progression. Therefore, progression is a key concern for people serving long and indeterminate prison sentences. Our previous work has highlighted some challenges faced by long-sentenced prisoners in the male estate, including how prisoners often feel confused and uncertain about how they are meant to progress, and to make positive, productive use of their time. Many prisoners we consulted with noted they spent years – and sometimes decades – feeling stagnant and stuck in the system, unable to engage in meaningful personal development.1 For women serving long sentences, opportunities for meaningful progression are consistently reported as a major concern. A lack of specialist spaces for long-termers, issues surrounding what programmes are available in each prison, and a lack of tailored support from staff mean many women are at a loss in how to progress through their sentence. Our third Invisible Women briefing will focus on the lived reality of how it feels as a woman to serve a long prison sentence, paying attention to the ways the prison service does – and does not – equip women to progress through their sentence towards release. The briefing is the result of long-term consultation work with our Building Futures Working Groups in HMPs Send and Bronzefield, ad hoc groups in HMP New Hall, responses to consultation questions from women in our Building Futures Network, and consultation with a woman now living in the community

London: Prison Reform Trust, 2024. 20p.

By Prison Reform Trust

With the advent of the 21st century, there has been increased emphasis on the ‘movement for public and service user involvement in human service education and research’, which constitutes ‘the knowledge base of the services and practitioners we may all need to turn to at particular times in our lives for help and support’ (Beresford & McLaughlin 2020). Terminology such as ‘service users’, ‘experts by experience’, and ‘people with lived experience’ are somewhat broad and contested (see Livingstone & Cooper 2004; Repper & Breeze 2007; McLaughlin 2009), and seek to describe individuals and groups who have first-hand experience of or have been in contact with a range of services (typically but not exclusively provided by the public sector) and have amassed expertise related to the impact of these services. This includes sectors such as physical and mental health, social care, education, as well as criminal justice, in particular prisons and probation. Inclusion of the perspectives of service users in the fields related to social work, health and mental health services increasingly constitutes embedded practice. The following report: • Provides a rationale for engaging service users in prison officer training. • Summarises key literature on what makes a high performing prison officer, with emphasis on the areas where the perceptions of staff, prisoners, policy makers and experts without lived experienced overlap. • Explores examples of service user involvement with staff training from the literature.

Literature searches were conducted using GoogleScholar and idiscover. While there has been a marked increase in literature related to service user involvement in research and evaluation practices, there remains a distinct deficiency in literature related to their involvement in the recruitment and assessment of staff. This is especially acute in the field of criminal justice, in which service users continue to complain of paternalistic or distrusting attitudes and tokenistic attempts at inclusion outside of programmes related to peer mentoring (Buck et al. 2020). Academic literature analysing service user involvement tends to approach the topic from the perspective of the experience of service user participation in research. Methods employed tend to be qualitative in nature, focus on storytelling, focus groups and interviews, with small samples, or take an autobiographic or semi-biographic approach. Outside the academic literature, the focus tends to be on positioning statements, statements of purpose, and advice and toolkits. Considering the absence of pertinent literature, this review draws on grey literature, including publications, studies, and reports in the fields of mental health and social care to demonstrate that a) meaningful inclusion of service users in staff recruitment and evaluation is possible, and b) that there are several methods pertinent to this area of research that exist within the broader literature

London: Prison Reform Trust, 2024, 45p.

By Eli Miller, Bryan D. Martin, and Chad M. Topaz

During the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, Mayor Bill de Blasio ordered the release of individuals incarcerated in New York City jails who were at high risk of contracting the disease and at low risk of committing criminal reoffense. Using public information, we construct and analyze a database of nearly 350,000 incarceration episodes in the city jail system from 2014—2020, paying special attention to what happened during the week of March 23—29, 2020, immediately following the mayor’s order. In concordance with de Blasio’s stated policy, we find that being discharged during this focus week is associated with a lower probability of readmission as compared to being discharged during the same calendar week in previous years. Furthermore, comparing the individuals discharged during the focus week of 2020 to those discharged during the same calendar week in previous years, we find that the former group was, on average, slightly older than the latter group, although the difference is not large. Additionally, the individuals in the former group had spent substantially longer in jail than those in the latter group. With the release of long-serving individuals demonstrated to be feasible, we also examine how the jail population would have looked over the past six years had caps in incarceration been in place. With a cap of one year, the system would experience a 15% decrease in incarceration. With a cap of 100 days, the reduction would be over 50%. Because our results are only as accurate as New York City’s public-facing jail data, we discuss numerous challenges with this data and suggest improvements related to the incarcerated individual’s age, gender, race, and more. Finally, we discuss the policy implications of our work, highlight some opportunities and challenges posed by incarceration caps, and suggest key areas for reform. One such reform might involve identifying and discharging low-risk individuals sooner in general, which might be feasible given the de Blasio administration’s actions during the early stages of COVID-19.

PLoS ONE 17(1): 2022, 20p.

By Andrew Blum and Alfredo Malaret Baldo

The problem is as old as the justice system itself—how to reduce the chance that an individual reoffends

after they commit an offense and become involved with the justice system. This challenge of reducing

recidivism remains critical. According to the Prison Policy Initiative, there are over 120,000 individuals in

state prisons in California. Another 380,000 cycle through jails in California every year. In 2021, roughly

25,000 individuals were released from prison in California. This is the scope of the challenge. In San

Diego County, a wide variety of agencies and organizations are working to address the recidivism

challenge. In addition, although there is no way to measure this accurately, there is a willingness across

the spectrum to experiment with new approaches and solutions. This report focuses on one area of

relatively new and promising approaches—those that elevate the talent and expertise of individuals with

“lived experience” with the justice system. Support for lived experience approaches is growing both

nationally and in San Diego. Beyond the rising number of lived experience initiatives, this type of work in

San Diego has become largely normalized. There is broad agreement that lived experience work should

be part of the portfolio used to reduce recidivism, with clear demand from stakeholders involved in

reentry, including law enforcement officials, service providers, community members, and, crucially,

justice-involved individuals. Given the growing prevalence of and support for lived experience approaches

in San Diego, it is important to create a deeper understanding of how to increase the impact of these

approaches. Toward that end, this report identifies strengths of lived experience approaches to amplify,

challenges of lived experience approaches to mitigate, and lessons from lived experience approaches

that can be applied more broadly. Based on a review of the research and dozens of conversations held

with stakeholders in San Diego, we identified the following strengths of lived experience app roaches: —

They can engage successfully with justice-involved individuals; — They can provide a model of success;

— They are skilled navigators of the social service and justice systems; — They bring a long-term

approach to their work; and — They have specific expertise that helps them help others. To amplify these

strengths, we suggest: (a) deploy lived experience practitioners during acute situations, (b) leverage lived

experience practitioners not only within programs but also as navigators across programs, (c) build

flexibility into programs that include lived experience practitioners, (d) encourage lived experience

practitioners to role model success without being directive, and (e) continue efforts to normalize lived

experience approaches. We also identified challenges of lived experience approaches, particularly

related to scaling the approaches more widely. These include: — The personalistic nature of many lived

experience initiatives; — The difficulty of finding, vetting, hiring, and training sufficient lived experience

practitioners; — The toll the immersive nature of the work takes on practitioners; and — The potential

reputational risks lived experience approaches present to individuals, organizations, and agencies. To

mitigate these challenges, we recommend (a) creating training and certification programs for lived

experience practitioners, (b) developing standards of practice, (c) creating organizational capacity -

building initiatives for lived experience organizations, (d) pairing lived experience with non-lived-

experience practitioners, (e) treating lived experience individuals as professional staff, and (f) developing

a lived experience advocacy coalition. Furthermore, seeking a broader impact, we identified five key

lessons from lived experience approaches that are transferable and can be applied by those without lived

experience who are designing and implementing initiatives to prevent recidivism. The lessons are: 1.

Create supportive spaces for justice-involved individuals to work through challenges; 2. Design programs

with flexibility so support can be tailored to individuals; 3. Ease navigation of services and improve

coordination among providers; 4. Engage justice-involved individuals with consistency and long-term

vision; and 5. Commit to providing trauma-informed care. We conclude this report by noting the

longstanding good practice in the social services field to design initiatives with the input of those impacted

by them. The key lessons identified from lived experience practitioners can be viewed in this way. They

provide insight on how to design more effective recidivism reduction initiatives based on the experience

and expertise of those who previously lived the challenges the initiatives are designed to address.

San Diego: University of San Diego, Kroc School Institute for Peace and Justice, 2023. 31p..

By Marco Castillo, Sera Linardi, Ragan Petrie:

Many previously incarcerated individuals are rearrested following release from prison. We investigate whether encouragement to use reentry support services reduces rearrest. Field experiment participants are offered a monetary incentive to complete different dosages of visits, either three or five, to a support service provider. The incentive groups increased visits, and one extra visit reduces rearrests three years after study enrollment by six percentage points. The results are driven by Black participants who are more likely to take up treatment and benefit the most from visits. The study speaks to the importance of considering first-stage heterogeneity and heterogeneous treatment effects.

IZA DP No. 17522

Bonn: IZA – Institute of Labor Economics, 2024. 46p.