By Pablo Marshall, Diego Rochow, Sergio Faúndez

This article analyses the enfranchisement process of the prison population in Chile. Although institutions were reluctant to grant the vote to this group for several years, in 2022, new policies allowed prisoners to suffrage for the first time. The Voto Preso movement, a set of organisations struggling for prisoners’ political participation, played a fundamental role in this transformation. However, incarcerated people's participation in constructing the movement's demands and strategies was scarce. Drawing on eleven interviews with key movement actors, the article sheds light on the main discourses by which it promoted the materialisation of Chilean prisoners’ voting rights. The article also critically scrutinises the consequences of prisoners’ limited inclusion in the Voto Preso movement. Finally, the article discusses how its analytical approach may open new avenues for studying prisoner dis/enfranchisement as a situated boundary issue.

Howard J. Crim. Justice. 2025;64:3–23 pages

Edited by Charles Richmond Henderson, Ph.D.

“The chaplain at Sing Sing testified that in eighteen years he had served under nine different wardens. Under the contract system, in the words of Dr. Theodore W. Dwight, "Convict labor becomes substantially slave labor, with many of its concomitant evils. Its rule is the same; the largest amount of work for the smallest return." The objections to that system may be tersely stated, as follows: ( 1) The farming-out of governmental rights and powers to private parties is contrary to public policy. What the government undertakes to do, it alone should do. The presence of the contractor in the prison leads to divided responsibility. (2) The financial interest of the contractor is a selfish interest. The prison wishes to sell its labor at a high rate; the contractor desires to buy it at the lowest possible price. The state wants a fair division of the profits of the establishment; the contractor cares little whether the state makes or loses money on the deal, if he can enrich himself. (3) The political connections and power of the contractor are often such as to enable him to dictate the selection of the managers and warden of the prison.

The Russell Sage Foundation, 1910, 168 p.

Edited by Charles Richmond Henderson, Ph.D.

INTRODUCTORY IN this volume may be found an account by specialists of the institutions of correction through which the criminal law is enforced. The story is not boastful but critical; the weak places of our establishments are as faithfully disclosed as the high aims of the most enlightened administrators are set forth for apprecia­ tion. Of a national "system'' of prisons nothing is said, for none exists. Most of the book is devoted to reformatories and prisons in the northern states of the Union; one paper is devoted to a de­ scription, explanation and criticism of the agencies of punishment of the southern states, and to an acccount of the worthy and hopeful efforts of wise citizens of those districts to correct abuses and improve methods. The warm climate of the South, the predominance of agriculture, and the presence of millions of negroes are facts which must be considered in forming a judgment about these methods. It is manifest that the fundamental and universal principles of correctional methods must there take a very different direction from that which is most reasonable in the North.

Russell Sage Foundation, 1910, 345p.

By Hanna Hernandez. & Vasiliki Georgoulas-Sherry

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

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

By William Ash-Houchen, Avery Sorensen, Monica Benton, Kaysea Beck

The Improving People’s Access to Community-based Treatment, Supports and Services (IMPACTS) grant program was established in by the Oregon Legislature through Senate Bill (SB) 973 (2019) in recognition of the shortage of comprehensive community supports and services for individuals with mental health or substance use disorders that lead to their involvement with the criminal justice system, hospitalizations, and institutional placements.1 The Oregon Legislature has appropriated a total of $30 million to the IMPACTS grant program since its inception in 2019. This funding is available to Oregon’s counties and federally recognized tribal governments to increase the availability of community-based supports and services to a target population of individuals with a behavioral health condition and frequent criminal justice system and/or emergency services involvement. Grantees currently represent 11 counties across the state and five federally recognized tribal governments. The overall aim of each program is to reduce the frequency with which persons served by the program are involved with the criminal justice system and rely on emergency healthcare services. Per SB 973, this report will explore several outcomes that have emerged from grantee-reported data, ongoing evaluation efforts, and the potential state government costs avoided due to the high utilizer IMPACTS grant program. It will also briefly highlight the interplay between these high utilizer programs and the recent creation of the Oregon Behavioral Health Deflection Grant Program. Key findings: • Co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders were reported among 54 percent of IMPACTS clients. Participants with co-occurring disorders return for services more often than clients enrolled in IMPACTS without a mental health disorder. • More than one third of IMPACTS clients report one of the following mental health disorders: trauma and stressor related disorders, depression, and/or anxiety. • Among the 74 percent of clients with known substance use disorder, 61 percent reported use of methamphetamine, and 46 percent reported alcohol use. • Those releasing from prison engage in IMPACTS services at a higher rate than those without a recent prison stay history. • Importantly, five IMPACTS programs are operated by federally recognized tribal governments. 29 percent of IMPACTS clients identify as American Indian and Alaskan Native (AIAN). Reported data show that this population returns for services in subsequent months at a significantly higher rate than those who do not identify as AIAN. • Grantees are reporting unique overlap opportunities between IMPACTS and Oregon Behavioral Health Deflection programs, which both deliver services to distinct but related populations. • From July 2023 through June 2024, IMPACTS served a total of 839 people. At the end of June 2024, more than 550 humans were actively enrolled. • The IMPACTS grantees are funded through June 30, 2025, and will not be sustained without further investment from the legislature.

Salem: Oregon Criminal Justice Commission 2025. 42p.

By Patrick F. Hibbard, Michael R. McCart, Jason E. Chapman, & Ashli J. Sheidow

Introduction. This report describes results from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a short-term housing (STH) program for individuals released from prison who are on supervision and without an approved place of residence. Developed by Community Corrections leaders in Oregon, STH aims to provide a brief period of housing to individuals in need following exit from prison, with the goal of easing their reintegration back into the community and reducing their likelihood of recidivism. To control costs, STH emphasizes the provision of housing only and without the other services that are commonly included in more comprehensive reentry programs. STH consists of basic housing (i.e., a hotel room, shared room at a county’s office, or in a home owned by the county) not to exceed thirty (30) days. Housing can be provided to those with felony prison release, as well as those with local control release. STH is a one-time benefit. STH recipients also are provided a one-month voucher for public transportation. Excluded from STH are high-risk individuals (e.g., sex offenders), individuals whose needs would be better met in a recovery housing program (e.g., Oxford House), and those with an active threat to self or others. Recognizing the potential promise of STH, Oregon’s Criminal Justice Commission contracted with the authors of this report to evaluate the model’s impact in a multi-site RCT. The primary target outcome in the RCT was reduced recidivism, defined in accordance with SB 366 Section 1 (2015) (codified in Oregon Revised Statutes [ORS] 423.557). As used in that section, recidivism refers to any arrest, conviction, or incarceration for a new crime within three years of prison release. Study Design. Across three participating counties (“County A,” “County B,” “County C”) in the RCT, the study compared STH to usual community housing (UCH), with randomization at the participant level. Archival arrest, conviction, and incarceration records for approximately 3 years post-randomization were obtained from state databases for 114 RCT participants (County A n = 55; County B n = 8; County C n = 51). Participants were aged 21-65 years (M = 38.7), and 88.6% were male. Race/ethnicity was 84.9% White, 8.7% Latinx, 3.3% Black/African American, and 3.0% Native American. Secondary observational data were obtained for three additional counties (County “D,” County “E,” County “F”) who provided housing to individuals releasing from prison during the same timeframe as the RCT. After pre-processing data for comparability to STH, these data (County D n = 29; County E n = 1; County F n = 54) included individuals aged 18-82 years (M = 36.2), and 86.9% were male. Race/ethnicity for secondary observations was 82.1% White, 7.1% Latinx, 7.1% Black/African American, and 3.6% Native American. STH was expected to yield reduced arrest, conviction, and incarceration recidivism relative to UCH. Data Analysis. For all models, the primary analysis looked at data generated through the RCT. A small sample size, however, may not have produced sufficient power to detect small effect sizes. Thus, supplementary analysis included matched secondary observational data. Arrest, conviction, and incarceration recidivism are compared in 3 ways: The first model tested for a difference in the likelihood of each recidivism outcome. The second tested for a difference in the count of conviction and incarceration. The third tested for a difference in the time to arrest, since count was not available. Each model also included several control variables. Finally, the models included fixed effects for each participating county, as well as the month and year for each individual’s release from prison. When secondary data were added for supplementary analyses, a dichotomous covariate indicated if an observation was from secondary or RCT data sources. Results and Conclusion. STH does not appear to be an effective approach to lowering recidivism. The primary and supplementary analyses returned no evidence of an effect of STH on arrest, conviction, or incarceration recidivism. The failure of this approach might be due to its (a) strict 30-day housing limitation, (b) lack of other services, and/or (c) higher levels of supervision scrutiny. Nevertheless, we caution against concluding from this report that housing is not needed or useful for some individuals releasing from prison. Clearly, housing is a major challenge for a large number of parolees (HUD, 2022), and when counties have the resources to provide a shortterm stay at a hotel or other housing location, doing so seems both compassionate and logical. At the same time, 30 days of housing appears insufficient to meaningfully impact an individual’s reintegration trajectory. Instead, we recommend that Oregon provide its counties (particularly those in lower-resourced areas) with more funding to develop comprehensive reentry programming. Such programming would ideally have the capacity to address multiple reentry challenges (in addition to housing) for longer periods, and in a way that individual needs are addressed along customizable timelines. This recommendation is consistent with prior research showing that programs providing comprehensive services inclusive of housing to individuals releasing from prison tend to be effective at reducing recidivism when implemented with fidelity (Lutze et al., 2014; Miller & Ngugi, 2009).

Salem: Oregon Social Learning Center, 2024. 21p.

By Fouzia Awan, Jared Stahl, Alec Bukata, Bergen Sorby, Anna Newberry, Sarah Frahm

Pursuant to Section 133(20), Chapter 376, Laws of 2024, the Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) contracted with Western Washington University’s Center for Economic and Business Research (CEBR) to provide a comprehensive analysis of communication rates for incarcerated individuals across the United States. This report examines the costs associated with various communication methods — including voice calls, video conferencing, email, and text messaging — offered by contracted vendors in each state. Included in the report is an overview of the payments made by each state to their communication vendors, outlining the rate structures applicable to incarcerated individuals and their families over time. Additionally, it presents data on the total amounts paid by families to vendors each fiscal year. The report features a comparative analysis of rate structures over time, alongside historical communication fees. It also aims to forecast market trends from 2024 to 2030, providing insights into expected changes. Furthermore, the report identifies states that offer any form of communication — whether voice, video, email, or text — free of charge to both the initiating and receiving parties. It includes specific dates when these states began offering free communication services. Additionally, the report examines any access limitations for incarcerated individuals to these services once they are provided free of charge, as well as how communication policies have evolved in these states as a result.

Olympia, WA: Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) , 2024. 31p.

By Steven Schmidt, Kristin Turney, & Angie Belen Monreal

Objective. We use the case of housing insecurity to examine how romantic partner incarceration results in increased and prolonged surveillance of women at home. Background. Romantic partner incarceration prompts surveillance from the criminal legal system while simultaneously eroding women's finances, health, and family relationships. Less is known about how these symbiotic harms of romantic partner incarceration enable surveillance beyond the criminal legal system. Method. We use longitudinal interviews with 35 (previously coresident) romantic partners of incarcerated men, showing how incarceration prompts unwanted moves for partners, how women manage housing insecurity following partner incarceration, and how they become embedded into living arrangements where they are monitored, evaluated, and controlled. Results. We identify three primary findings. First, women experiencing housing insecurity after romantic partner incarceration relied heavily on their social ties (and, to a lesser extent, institutional housing providers) while enduring stressful and prolonged housing searches. Second, the homes that women move into expose them to increased surveillance. Women encounter domestic, caregiving, romantic, and financial surveillance. Romantic partner incarceration prompts large changes in surveillance among women who left independent homes, moderate changes in surveillance among women who left comparatively desirable doubled-up homes, and prolonged surveillance among nonmovers. Finally, women respond to surveillance by monitoring burdens on hosts and reframing stays in shared homes as temporary. Conclusion. Taken together, these findings extend prior research on the symbiotic harms of romantic partner incarceration, how women attached to incarcerated men experience surveillance, and how doubled-up families sustain shared homes.

 Journal of Marriage and Family 86(2): 2024., 391–411 pages

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.