By E. Ferguson, H. De La Cerda, and P. Guerin 

This report reviews the impact of preventive detention motions on the Failure to Appear (FTA) and New Criminal Activity (NCA) rate for individuals in Bernalillo County charged with felony crimes and for which the Public Safety Assessment (PSA) was administered and used in the pretrial release decision making process from the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC). This report contains several sections. Following this introduction, we include a brief description of the sample of court cases used in this review. Next, we discuss PSA recommendations and crime types, the PSA and pretrial detention motions, pretrial detention motions and FTA and NCA rates, and NCA and charge levels. 

Highlights: • A Pre-Trial Detention motion was more likely to be granted for cases with more restrictive PSA recommendations. • Preventive Detention Motions were not associated with failure to appear to court or new criminal activity. • As PSA recommendation categories became more restrictive FTA rates and NCA rates increased. • The most serious charge for BCMC cases were violent (35%), property (30%), and drug (27%). • ROR release recommendations accounted for 32.7% of violent charges recommendations. RORs had an FTA rate of 8.5% and an NCA rate of 8.3%. • PSA recommendation categories were not evenly distributed between violent and non-violent charges. • Preventive detention motions have been filed for all PSA recommendation categories, including 18.7% with a ROR. • Higher FTA and NCA rates were associated with drug offenses, property offenses and public order offenses. • Overall, the new criminal activity rate was less than 20% and was primarily for charges of a lower or equivalent level as the assessed case. 

Albuquerque: University of New Mexico, Institute for Social Research , 2020. 16p.

By Robin Joy

Vermont’s alternatives to the criminal justice system are available pre-charge, postcharge, and post-sentence. However, there has been some question about the extent to which access to alternative programs might be influencing racial disparities in the criminal justice system. To explore this notion, Crime Research Group (CRG) secured funding to examine whether there are disparities in who is served by alternative programs. By triangulating several data sources, researchers were able to describe who was served by Adult Court Diversion from 2015 through 2019, and who was served by the Treatment Courts from 2013-2018. However, several data quality issues impacted researchers’ ability to perform advanced statistical analyses capable of identifying factors that significantly contribute to whether an individual is served by an alternative program. On Measuring Disparities with Administrative Data Using administrative data to model human decision-making presents several challenges. First, because Vermont is a small state, researchers usually run into the issue of low numbers. This is especially true when trying to examine the experiences of marginalized populations within the state. Oftentimes, data on Asian, Indigenous, and Hispanic Vermonters must be excluded from analyses because there are so few people represented in the data that disclosing numbers has the potential to identify specific individuals. As a result, administrative data is not able to describe the experiences of these individuals. Qualitative research, which captures the themes of people’s experiences while masking their identities, is needed to bridge this gap. Second, issues arise when attempting to match data from one dataset to information stored within another dataset. Researchers were unable to match Treatment Court data with Vermont criminal histories because the data was inconsistent or non-existent. Successful diversion participants have their records expunged two years after the case is dismissed by the prosecutor so if no other record is found, an assumption is made that these are first time offenders. Researchers cannot be sure if an individual is a first-time offender, a consideration that is certainly used by prosecutors when determining whether to refer to Court Diversion.

Court Diversion Adult Court Diversion is governed by statute, administered by the Attorney General, and delivered by a network of non-profit organizations. CRG used Adjudication Data and Vermont Criminal Histories to test for disparities in who was referred to diversion; both data sets originate from Court records. Analysis of the data revealed that: x From 2015-2019, there were 6,127 defendants referred to Diversion. Most defendants referred were White (84.9% / 5,204). There were 259 Black defendants, 59 Asian defendants, and 45 Latinx defendants. The race of 530 (8.7%) defendants was either missing, unknown, or not reported. Race is as recorded by law enforcement. x The most common offense committed by those served in Court Diversion was Motor Vehicle offenses that were not DUI or Gross Negligent related (e.g., Driving on a Suspended License). Public order offenses were the second most common. The offenses include Disorderly Conduct, Trespassing, and Violations of Conditions of Release. For these offenses, 7% of all charges for Black and White offenders were referred to Court Diversion. x Statistical tests indicate that the race of the Public Order and Motor Vehicle offenders was associated with whether they entered Court Diversion. However, because of the administrative data issues discussed above (page 2), it was not possible to build a statistical model capable of determining exactly how race is related to the Court Diversion participation. Treatment Courts In Vermont, Treatment Courts operate as special dockets within the criminal court system. The Judiciary operates a Mental Health Docket and a Drug Treatment Docket in Chittenden County, a Drug Treatment Docket in Rutland and Washington Counties and a Regional DUI Docket serving residents in Windsor, Windham and Orange Counites. The dockets function in a team atmosphere to help the participant access treatment and hold them accountable for the underlying criminal offense. Treatment Courts are evidence-based, and several studies have found them to be effective for reducing recidivism (Gennette & Joy, 2019; Joy & Bellas, 2017; NPC Research Team, 2009; Wicklund & Halvorsen, 2014). Analysis of the Docket databases and the Court Adjudication data-based showed that: Between 2013 and 2018, 1,076 people entered Phase 1 of the Treatment Dockets. Chittenden’s combined dockets served 52% of the people, while the newest docket, the DUI Regional Docket, served the fewest with 57 people served. x During the five-year study period, all Treatment Dockets served only 30 black people, and even fewer Asian or Native American persons. x The Rutland docket served 12 (3.8%) people of color and 296 (95%) White people. The most common charge served by the docket was Violations of Conditions of Release (201). The next two most common charges were Retail Theft (196) and Petit Larceny (129), Burglary was the fourth most common charge (104). Black offenders were less likely than white offenders to be referred for property offenses. This indicates there may be some structural reasons or gatekeeping that are keeping Black offenders from being referred. x On the Washington County Treatment Docket, burglary offenses were the most common charge (59 charges, not people a person can have more than one burglary charge on the docket). During the study period there were 25 Black people charged with burglary offenses in Washington county, but none appeared in the Treatment Docket database. This indicates that there may be gatekeeping or structural reasons that result in Black burglary defendants not being referred. x The Southeast Regional DUI Docket served fewer than five people of color between 2013 and 2018. There were 476 White defendants with potentially eligible charges during the study period, there were 8 Black people. One of the program benefits is a shorter incarcerative sentence. Because DUI is not a common crime Black people commit or get sentenced to a correctional facility for, the program will not have the same impact on Black incarceration rates as it does for White incarceration rates. Recommendations:  Vermont policymakers should incorporate racial impact statements when creating criminal justice policies. Racial impact statements are an analysis of the impact the proposed policy would have on marginalized groups. These statements serve as a tool for policy makers to evaluate potential disparities or other collateral consequences that would result from enactment of a particular policy. Typically, racial impact statements are considered prior to the policy’s adoption and implementation. Several states have implemented the use of racial impact statements. Also, additional information should be recorded so that future efforts to analyze disparities using administrative data might be successful. CRG recommends including the following fields in Court Diversion and Treatment Court data collection by the entity best able to capture the information : whether the defendant was offered Diversion, whether the defendant refused Diversion, and any socio-economic or behavioral risk factors that may affect participation in Diversion or Treatment Court These additional fields will provide a clearer picture of why certain offenders are served by Court Diversion and Treatment Court and why others are not.    

Montpelier, VT: Crime Research Group, 2022. 23p.

By Megan A. Novak

In 2013, the Vermont Department of Corrections (DOC) began planning for significant changes in the way it delivered programs. The DOC adopted the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) Eight Evidence-Based Principles and developed the Risk Intervention Services (RIS) model with these principles as the foundation, specifically focusing on Principles 1 through 6— assess risk, enhance intrinsic motivation, target interventions, use cognitive behavioral approach, provide positive reinforcement, and provide ongoing support. All services and curricula administered in the DOC are now placed under the Program Services Director. New initiatives were put in place, staff were trained, the priority target population was identified, and implementation began in 2018. Now is the time to address Principle 7 (measure the relevant processes and practices) and Principle 8 (provide measurement feedback/using data to guide actions). To our knowledge, Vermont’s RIS model is the only one of its kind operating nationally that integrates clinical programming, education, and vocational training. As with any innovation, many changes have been made throughout implementation. The following process evaluation will first document how the new integrated programming model was conceptualized and planned. Then, the remainder of the report will describe the roles and responsibilities of RIS staff, services and curricula provided, the implementation process, and issues that have arisen throughout RIS implementation.   

Montpelier, VT: Crime Research Group, 2023. 56p.

By Robin Joy

In 2016, four of the Department of Corrections facilities began offering Risk Intervention Services-- an innovative suite of services including behavioral programming curricula, educational courses, and workforce development. Risk and other assessments at prison intake determine who is eligible to participate in RIS and identify which services should be administered. Methods and Objective: This study explores the impact of RIS participation for individuals who received behavioral programming services between 2016 and 2019. RIS participation data for 731 individuals was matched into Vermont Crime Information Center data to examine RIS participation’s impact on recidivism. Researchers considered RIS’s impact using the statutory definition of recidivism, as well as academic conceptualizations of recidivism. Key Findings: Using three different definitions/measures of recidivism, the study found RIS participants to have a recidivism rate of 14% (modified statutory definition), 27% (running recidivism rate), and 23% (three-year recidivism rate. These recidivism rates are lower than the 89.96% recidivism rate for high risk/high need Diversion participants found in a 2019 study. Using the three-year recidivism rate for any new conviction, analysis found no statistical correlation between an individual’s risk score and subsequent conviction. This suggests RIS is having a positive impact on participants' recidivism rate. Notably, RIS participants with a domestic violence conviction (90) had a three-year conviction rate of 21%. This was lower than the rate of recidivism in a 2011 study which found a recidivism rate of 37% for those with prior history of domestic violence conviction. Limitations During the study period (2016-2019), the DOC was not consistently or uniformly collecting data on all Risk Intervention Services. As such, this study was limited to exploring the impact of behavioral programming services on recidivism and did not investigate the impact of corrections education or workforce development services. Further, data on those who were eligible but declined and those whose sentences were too short to participate was not available. Therefore, the study was not able to investigate if the program was serving marginalized people equitably. Recommendations: The DOC Risk Intervention Services model appears promising. The DOC should consider creating an administrative control group of people who did not receive services when the assessment tools were validated. Because these individuals did not receive the service, they can provide a benchmark recidivism rate for comparing RIS recidivism rates. Future studies should use a three-year recidivism rate and focus only on new convictions rather than furlough violations and readmissions. This will make it easier to compare rates across years and programs and give a more holistic understanding of a person's behavior after programming is complete.  

 Montpelier, VT: Crime Research Group, 2023. 22p

By Robin Joy

This research brief contains a preliminary analysis on the use of Conditions of Release in Vermont Criminal Division and charges of Violations of Conditions of Release if a violation of 13 V.S.A. 7559(e). The purpose of this brief is to inform stakeholders on the following questions: • Who gets conditions of release? • What are the conditions? • Who violates conditions of release? CRG invites inquiries and discussions as we move forward with our research. Several data sources were used in this analysis. The Adjudication Database maintained by CRG was used to answer questions about county use of conditions versus released on own recognizance. The Judiciary created a data set for CRG that gave information on what conditions were imposed on people from March 2021- March 2022. CRG acquired the criminal histories (rap sheets) of people in the data set the judiciary provided to understand more about violations, criminal pasts, and current cases of the people on conditions.

Montpelier VT: Crime Research Group, 2024. 7p.

By  Jisha Menon  

This article explores the relationship between the law and personhood, dispossession and dignity. It asks: How might we move beyond a conception of dignity as the bounded property of the liberal, autonomous agent, toward a more capacious understanding of dignity, as the affective relationality between persons? How does the negative force of the death penalty radiate beyond the condemned and exert its power over their loved ones, family, and even the staff of the prison? What might it mean lose one’s autonomy, a word that derives from the law (nomos) over the self (autos), in the face of the state’s management of life and death? Exploring the moral and legal staging of the death penalty in Chinonye Chukwu’s Clemency (2019) and Boo Junfeng’s Apprentice (2016) this article examines conceptions of personhood when “civility” meets capital punishment.

Law, Culture and the HumanitiesOnlineFirst, © The Author(s) 2025, 17p.

By Rachel López and Geoff Dancy

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court grappled with an issue of first impression in this country, but one familiar to other jurisdictions around the world—that is, whether a former head of state should be immune from prosecution for his criminal acts while in office. Those who argue in favor of criminal accountability, at home and abroad, often trumpet the democratic benefits of punishing state officials. Such justifications have also been consecrated in law, finding their way into judicial decisions as a basis for overturning amnesty laws. But is there any evidence to support these claims? Can a government really punish its way to a more democratic future?

Using empirical evidence from other countries that have prosecuted state officials for their crimes over the last three decades, this study sheds light on the possible effects of these prosecutions on democratic institutions and behaviors. First, it examines an in-depth case study of Guatemala, a country where this issue recently came to the fore, to develop a set of hypotheses about the democratic effects of punishing state officials. To determine whether the lessons gleaned from Guatemala are more generalizable, it tests these hypotheses using the most extensive global data set of prosecutions of government officials in domestic courts, which specifically focuses on human rights prosecutions.

Interestingly, the findings reveal a paradox. While criminal prosecutions of state officials for human rights violations are associated with some pro-democracy outcomes, like increased civil society activism and pro-democratic mobilization, they are also associated with greater political polarization and anti-system backlash. By contrast, they appear to have little effect on democratic institutions. Considering this data, a central takeaway is that the democratic effect of prosecuting political leaders tends to rest with the people. Whether punishing them helps to ensure a more democratic future depends more on how the populace responds—negatively or positively—than on the limited institutional effects resulting from punishment.

2025, 68p.

By Simon D. Venema https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2623-2964 s.d.venema@rug.nl, Petrick Glasbergen, […], and René Veenstra

Various programmes have been implemented in prisons to strengthen parental involvement and parent–child relationships during imprisonment. In-depth insights into such programmes are limited. This qualitative study compared the experiences of two groups of imprisoned fathers in the Netherlands: fathers who participated in a family approach programme (N = 10) and fathers in a comparison group (N = 29). Based on a thematic analysis, four key differences were identified between the family approach group and the comparison group. Fathers in the family approach group: (1) described more positive engagement activities in direct father–child interactions, (2) reflected more positively on their fathering role during imprisonment, (3) structurally included participation in the family approach programme in their narratives of how imprisonment affected father–child relationship quality, and (4) more often expressed feelings of uncertainty and caution when discussing family life after imprisonment. The findings of this study are informative for the mechanisms behind prison-based parenting and family relationship programmes and illustrate the potential of these programmes to alleviate the unintended negative impact of imprisonment on parental involvement and family relationships. Based on these findings, recommendations for further research and practice are provided.

European Journal of Criminology 2024, Vol. 21(4) 533–555 pages

By Megan Davey, Julia Yates & David McAlonan

The Electronic Monitoring (EM) as a Licence Variation (LV) project commenced as a pilot on 8 August 2022 in one probation region of England and Wales, which increased to five probation regions on 28 March 2023. The project allows probation practitioners in participating probation regions to vary a prison leaver’s licence by imposing electronically monitored conditions, where they believe that it would be beneficial to do so. This can take the form of Global Positioning System (GPS) location monitoring or Radio Frequency (RF) curfew monitoring. The EM as LV tool is intended for use on a discretionary basis by probation practitioners as a response to an escalation of risk or as an alternative to recall, as is the case with other licence variations, so as to support the successful completion of the licence period. Moreover, EM as LV should only be used as an alternative to recall when the recall threshold is met and the risk is assessed by probation as manageable in the community with additional licence conditions. The purpose of this process evaluation is to assess how the discretionary use of EM as LV has contributed to the management of people on probation in the community by HM Prisons and Probation Service (HMPPS) across the five participating probation regions. The evaluation is also intended to help identify any improvements that could be made as part of any future roll out of the intervention to further probation regions. This report summarises the findings of the process evaluation led by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ). It explores stakeholders’ views and experiences of the EM as LV project to understand how it has been operating, its perceived effects and its observed limitations. The process evaluation fieldwork was carried out during summer 2023. 1.1 Key findings  between go-live in early August 2022 and the end of December 2023. The EM as LV data were also matched to management information (MI) recorded by the Probation Service using unique identifiers so as to obtain estimates of a set of protected characteristics and other variables, which were subject to missing values and potential data input errors. Comparisons were provided with respect to all prison leavers released on an adult licence over the same time period, where relevant. The qualitative data regarding stakeholders’ perceptions were obtained using primarily interviews that were conducted among police officers, probation practitioners, EM service provider staff and people on probation who were enrolled in the EM as LV project. The main limitation was that the views expressed by respondents were only representative of those individuals who chose to participate. In particular, the number of people on probation who responded was small. 

Ministry of Justice Analytical Series: London: Ministry of Justice, 2025. 83p.  

By Brittany Michelle Friedman, Gabriela Kirk-Werner, and April D. Fernandes

This article examines the repeal of prison pay-to-stay policies in the United States. We process-trace reform efforts in Illinois drawing from novel data retrieved through multiple FOIA requests to state agencies and public records searches. Our analysis reveals how lawmakers who advocated for reforming the shadow carceral state in 2016 and 2019 through repealing prison pay-to-stay repurposed penal logics they had once used punitively in the 1980s and 1990s to enact the same policy—such as protecting taxpayers, fiscal efficiency, and rehabilitation. Our findings advance existing research by suggesting that penal logics are open to interpretation depending on the socioeconomic and historical moment. These contextual factors are also crucial to determining how lawmakers and institutions re-interpret long held penal logics when reforming the shadow carceral state. We argue the ways in which lawmakers strategically operationalize penal logics exemplifies their cultural durability as a resonant means to a political end.

Theoretical CriminologyVolume 28, Issue 4, November 2024, 22p.

By Susan McNeeley

Prior research shows employment is an important component of desistance, but there is mixed evidence regarding the effectiveness of prison-based education programs. Therefore, this study examines whether participation in vocational education programs while incarcerated improves recidivism and post-release employment outcomes. Observable selection bias was reduced by using propensity score matching to create similar treatment and comparison groups. Before matching, it appeared that people who completed vocational programs fared better on several measures of recidivism and post-release employment. However, after matching, there were no differences in any outcome between those who obtained vocational certificates and the matched comparison group. In addition, the study controls for the timing of release to examine whether recidivism and employment outcomes varied during the COVID-19 pandemic. The results showed lower rates of rearrest, supervised release revocation, and post-release employment during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is important for future research to control for release from prison during the COVID19 pandemic, as failure to do so may introduce a significant historical threat to validity. It is possible that rather than directly affecting recidivism or employment, vocational education programs may have helped motivated individuals who were already likely to succeed meet their career goals. The results demonstrate the importance of accounting for selection bias in evaluations of education and employment programs. It is recommended that career-focused educational programs incorporate the risk-needs-responsivity model and the continuum of care principle, build relationships with community employers, and assist with practical barriers to employment.

St. Paul: Minnesota Department of Corrections, 2023. 24p.

By CFE Research and Revolving Doors

Intensive Supervision Courts (ISCs) are a problem-solving approach that diverts offenders with complex needs away from short custodial sentences and into enhanced communitybased sentences which aim to address underlying issues linked to offending. The ISC pilot is testing a model of community sentence management between probation and the courts, for certain individuals who receive a high-end Community Order (CO), or Suspended Sentence Order (SSO). Orders managed under the ISC comprise both rehabilitative and punitive measures, are delivered by a multi-agency team and are overseen by a single judge who can apply incentives to reward engagement and sanction those who are non-compliant. Key partners include the judiciary, court staff, probation, treatment providers, police, local authority, and women’s services. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) fund the pilot; most of the funding is allocated to dedicated ISC probation resource, the addition of a court co-ordinator role, and a dedicated “privilege and enabler” fund to support and recognise compliance. Privileges are intended to be flexible and creative in order to be individualised to the person on the ISC. The pilot currently comprises two substance misuse (SM) courts in Liverpool and Teesside Crown Courts, and a women’s ISC in Birmingham Magistrates’ Court, and is set to run between June 2023 and December 2024. A third SM court operating in Bristol Crown Court launched in June 2024 after this report was written. This is the interim report of an independent process evaluation of the pilot. It covers the implementation period of the pilot covering elements of best practice, challenges and early findings. It draws on evidence gathered through a survey of pilot staff and stakeholders, in-depth interviews with staff, stakeholders, and individuals on the ISC, observations of ISCs and related activities, and analysis of monitoring data. This report refers to ‘ISC orders’ and ‘individuals on the ISC’ for succinctness. These terms are used to describe those with COs or SSOs that are being managed through the ISC pilot model.

Ministry of Justice Analytical Series 2024

London: UK Ministry of Justice 2024. 90p.

By Cheryl Yates

In October 2019, the Iowa Department of Human Rights Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning (CJJP) was awarded Statistical Analysis Center (SAC) funding through the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), to conduct a longitudinal evaluation of sex offenders serving special sentences in Iowa. The purpose was to evaluate the effectiveness of the special sentence policy and the extent to which it reduced recidivism long-term. The special sentence was enacted in 2005 to mandate extended monitoring of sex offenders in the community for a duration of 10 years or life, depending on the crime. An initial study was conducted by CJJP in 2014 for the former Sex Offender Research Council (SORC). The 2014 study compared recidivism rates of Iowa sex-offenders who were supervised on special sentence to a cohort of sex-offenders who were supervised before the special sentence was enacted. The results showed lower rates of new convictions for sex offenses among those on the special sentence within a three-year tracking period, but higher prison return rates for technical violations presumably a result of the increased monitoring in the community.1 The current study will use a longer, nine-year recidivism tracking period to track the same cohorts studied in 2014. The purpose is to examine whether the special sentence cohort continues to have lower sex offense recidivism rates and higher prison returns over a nine-year tracking. The evaluation questions investigated in this report include the following:  Is the low likelihood of sexual reoffending sustained longer-term?  Does special sentence monitoring continue to result in more technical violations and time incarcerated for sex offenders on the special sentence compared to the pre-special sentence cohort?  What are the estimated costs and what resources might be needed in the future to sustain this intensive supervision?  What is the expected forecasted growth of offenders serving a special sentence in the community and those who are in the prison population? As outlined in the SAC grant proposal, multiple indicators of recidivism will be examined, including any conviction, felony conviction only, sex conviction, felony sex conviction, and revocation (prison return due to technical violation or new conviction). The study will also examine the demographics of sex offenders, their convicting offense, risk levels, and treatment participation; the number of offenders on the special sentence and forecasted; and costs of the special sentence and alternatives.

Iowa Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning (CJJP) , 2021. 52p.

 By Roger Grimshaw  

This working paper seeks to clarify the key contexts in which the recent history of indefinite detention for people convicted of crimes should be placed and to suggest ways of interpreting the kinds of evidence and analysis which future inquiries or reviews may wish to consider. Here it is argued that the main contexts are, in order of scope and generality: A. Socio-political structures and state developments B. Operations of the state: law and administration C. Initiatives, reactions and effects at the individual level The paper gives most attention to contexts A and B on the grounds that these contain the sources of the fundamental problems to be resolved, while evidence about C continues to be documented. It is agreed that the recent history of indefinite detention is complex, with several strands that over time have become knotted, hindering lucid and effective solutions. In this paper an attempt has been made to identify some of the most convoluted, and to trace their origins and implications. Inevitably, Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) will loom large, though future work will seek lessons from other jurisdictions and from similar sentences. The act of clarification focuses our minds on what is entailed in challenging the conventional wisdom around political and institutional understandings of indeterminate preventive detention. As we shall see, a cluster of such sentences have emerged from a longstanding political context and sit inside a range of measures and technologies which are embedded in criminal justice as we know it. The account is neither reassuring nor redemptive, but its intention is to present a foundation for a cogent criticism of that history and a prospective agenda for a future alternative.

Working Paper 2  London:  Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, 2025. 14p.

By Michael Rocque, Grant Duwe, Valerie A. Clark

Identity or self-concept has long been theorized to explain rule-violating behavior. Life-course criminology scholarship has incorporated identity as a core concept explaining desistance or disengagement from crime over time. Individuals who transform their identities from anti to prosocial or who are ready to move away from their past selves are more likely to desist from crime. However, the role of identity, particularly the forms of identity that have been theorized to influence desistance, has been understudied with respect to prison behavior. Understanding the ways in which identity relates to prison misconduct may help inform prison programming as well as theoretical perspectives drawing on the concept. The purpose of this study is to explore how various forms of identity are related to future prison misconduct, controlling for past misconduct and a host of other theoretical variables, in Minnesota prisons. The results indicate that two forms of identity, replacement self and cognitive transformation, are related to general misconduct but not violent misconduct in survival models. For general misconduct, both forms of identity are associated with a reduction in the risk of new convictions. Implications for theory and practice are discussed

St. Paul: Minnesota Department of Corrections, 2025. 31p.

By Rosa Loureiro-Revilla

Overcrowding, limited resources, and systemic corruption hinder Peru’s ability to manage its prisons, where mobile phone smuggling thrives. Addressing these issues requires investment in modern technology, robust staff training, and better pay to reduce bribery risks. Comprehensive policies, including alternatives to incarceration for minor offences, can improve governance and curb illicit practices that undermine state control.

Bergen, Norway: U4 is part of the Chr. Michelsen Institute (CMI), 2024. 18p.

By NACRO

The issues of prisoner healthcare are not new, but in publishing this report including the direct experiences of people who have been through the prison system, we hope to bring these concerns to the forefront of thinking, and engage in collaborative discussions about solutions.

In order to explore the issues with physical healthcare in prison, we carried out a survey of people who have been released from prison and have received support from Nacro with their resettlement journey. We asked people to complete the survey if they had been released from prison in the last five years, although it is important to acknowledge that their survey responses may relate to more historic experiences. 101 people completed the survey between May and October 2024.

This briefing examines:

the physical health of people in prison, and how this is generally worse than people in the community;

the impact of imprisonment on physical health, including the impact of overcrowding and unsanitary conditions, lack of purposeful activity and poor quality diets;

the problems and barriers to accessing healthcare services, including difficulties in accessing treatment and lengthy waiting lists, missed appointments, issues with medication, feeling ‘unseen’, and issues on transfer between prisons and on release.

Nacro Physical Healthcare Survey key findings:

Almost half (43%) said they did not get the treatment they needed from the medical professionals they saw

Three quarters of people (75%) said they were aware of people not able to get the medication they needed whilst in prison and 65% said that they saw people using other people’s medication. 64% said that they knew people who used illegal substances because they couldn’t get the medication they needed

60% said they had a longer period of pain and discomfort because they did not get the treatment they needed, and 12% said that because they did not get the treatment they needed they were then not able to work when they were released from prison

A third of people (34%) who reported they had appointments at a hospital outside prison during their sentence were not able to attend the appointment

One third of people (34%) were aware of people who had resorted to doing dentistry on themselves or others because they were unable to see a dentist

40% waited for a month or longer for a GP appointment, and a further 7% said they never got an appointment

More than one in three (38%) waited longer than three months for a dentist appointment, with a further 24% saying they never got an appointment

Over a third of people (35%) who needed to see an optician said they never got an appointment

Summary of our main recommendations

We set out recommendations at the end of this report which we believe will help people in the

justice system get the support they need with their health. These are grouped as follows:

Tackling the overuse of imprisonment: Policies that aim to reduce overcrowding and reduce our reliance on imprisonment by providing community alternatives must form part of the solution.

Limiting the impact on physical health: We set out recommendations that we believe will help to tackle the fundamentally unhealthy environment of prisons.

Overcoming the barriers to accessing healthcare services: We set out recommendations to address the issues that prevent people from getting the treatment and support they need.

The Better Futures Project Briefing 3

London: NACRO 30p.

By Joseph H. Obegi

Correctional mental health clinicians are sometimes asked to assess disciplinary responsibility, that is, to ascertain whether an inmate is culpable for violating prison rules. This assessment of disciplinary responsibility is akin to insanity determinations in criminal proceedings. In this article, I review the moral, legal, and practical aspects of disciplinary responsibility. I use California’s test of responsibility for prison misconduct, which is similar to the Durham rule, to illustrate some of the dilemmas involved in creating and implementing a test of disciplinary responsibility

When inmates with mental illness violate prison rules, correctional systems must determine when to hold them accountable. The solution that many systems in the United States have adopted, primarily in response to judicial intervention, is to incorporate the input of mental health professionals into the disciplinary process. This clinical input can give the hearing official three important pieces of information1: whether the inmate with mental illness has the capacity to participate meaningfully in the disciplinary hearing; whether or to what extent the inmate is culpable for the alleged misconduct; and, if the inmate is found guilty, what kinds of punishment may be inappropriate because they increase the risk of decompensation. In this article, I am concerned primarily with the second type of input, the assessment of disciplinary responsibility. I examine the moral, legal, and expert views of disciplinary responsibility as well as review research on prison infractions. To illustrate some of the challenges involved in addressing disciplinary responsibility (such as crafting an appropriate test, identifying eligible inmates, and resolving professional dilemmas), I draw on the approach taken by California’s prisons.

Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, Vol. 52, Issue 4, 7p.

By Travis J. Meyersa , Alexander Testaa , and Kevin A. Wrightb

Purpose: The use of segregation continues to be at the forefront of debates on the most effective way to address violence in prisons. Concern over the negative impact of these placements has prompted correctional administrators to employ alternative strategies to reduce their segregated populations and address serious misconduct. Few studies, however, have explored the impact that these strategies have on future behavioral outcomes. To address this gap, the current study explores the effectiveness of a disciplinary segregation program reserved for those who engage in violent misconduct during their incarceration. Methods: This study employs a quasi-experimental research design to estimate the treatment effects of placement in a disciplinary segregation program on subsequent levels of institutional misconduct during a one-year follow-up. Results: Placement in the disciplinary segregation program had no effect on subsequent levels of serious in-prison misconduct amongst participants when compared to their matched counterparts. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that scholars and practitioners should work to build a response to in-prison violence that starts with what is known about the causes of violence and what effectively modifies attitudes and behaviors. Future research should include rigorous measures of both program process and implementation to better identify effective forms of intervention.

American Journal of Criminal Justice, 2021, 41p.

By Elena Larrauri

This article deals with the right to make requests and complaints (RCs) inside Spanish prisons. It discusses the European Prison Rules and the principles set forward by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), examining how the Spanish system respects these. It then introduces the RCs system in Spain. Through research carried out in four prisons, interviews with the directors and with 21 inmates and taking as an example one prison, we were able to discover that the number of requests in one year is 55,000. This result reveals the formalised character of Spanish prisons and raises the question as to how to respond to RCs inside prison. The last part of the article draws on interviews with three Penitentiary Judges and discusses their role in reviewing RCs. In our analysis of 626 of the final decisions we found that 98.6% were denied. Finally, the article provides some explanations for this result and questions whether judges can be said to provide an effective remedy in such cases.

Howard J. Crim. Justice. 2025;64:107–122.