By Nicholas Blagden, Luke Vinter, Eve Penford, Jade Mason & Polly Delliere-Moor

The evidence for offending behaviour programmes has expanded over several decades, with a large body of reviews producing well replicated findings attesting to the positive effects of cognitive-behavioural approaches in reducing general reoffending. These approaches aim to help participants recognise patterns of thought and action, while providing alternative perspectives and cognitive skills to help change thinking and behaviour. Related research also indicates that following Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) principles yields the best outcomes. In brief, RNR principles suggest that the intensity of rehabilitation services should be matched to a person’s propensity to reoffend (risk), targeted at psychological characteristics associated with reoffending (need); and, based on a cognitive-behavioural approach, tailored to individual styles of learning (responsivity). In line with such principles, His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) in England and Wales has invested in cognitive-behavioural programmes since the 1990s. Central to this offer since 2008 has been the Thinking Skills Programme (TSP), which is aimed at adult men and women who are assessed as medium and above risk of reoffending. TSP comprises 19 sessions (15 group sessions and 4 individual sessions). It is designed to support reductions in reoffending in four ways as set out below. 1. Developing thinking skills (such as problem solving, flexible thinking, consequential thinking, critical reasoning). 2. Applying these skills to managing personal risk factors. 3. Applying thinking skills to developing personally relevant protective factors. 4. Applying thinking skills to setting pro-social goals that support relapse prevention. This report qualitatively evaluates TSP, focusing on participants’ experiences of the programme and the perceived impact of the prison environment on its effectiveness.

London: Ministry of Justice 2025. 79p.

By Campaign to Close Rikers

The jails on Rikers Island are legally required to close within three years. But closing Rikers is not simply a legal obligation - it is a moral one. “Torture Island,” as it is commonly known by those who’ve survived it, has robbed generations of primarily Black and Brown people of their freedom and their human rights. The deadly conditions at Rikers have claimed far too many lives, including 32 people since Mayor Adams took office. Fortunately, there is a plan in place to close Rikers that was envisioned and fought for by formerly incarcerated people and their family members, with the support of faith leaders, service providers, community organizations, and other allies. This plan was approved and passed by the Mayor and City Council in October 2019, after extensive community input. Now is the time to accelerate this plan, and to maximize every possible strategy to reduce the jail population and limit the number of people exposed to the harm and abuses of Rikers. The Mayor and city agencies must take the lead in urgently executing this plan, and every elected official must leverage their power to support its implementation. Here we outline steps the Mayor, along with the City Council, must take to deliver on the commitment to closing Rikers, from decarceration, to defending the rights of incarcerated people, to divestment & redistribution.

New York: The Campaign, 2024. 14p.

By The HE UTAH INDIGENT DEFENSE COMMISSION

The focus of this report is the structural improvements made to indigent defense services in Juab County as a result of the partnership between state and local stakeholders. These stakeholders include the Utah Indigent Defense Commission (IDC), Juab County Commission and Attorney’s Office, and the Utah County Public Defender’s Office (UTCPD), and local attorneys. The Utah Legislature created the IDC in 2016 to provide meaningful state oversight and ensure Utah’s indigent defense services are constitutionally effective. The IDC collaborates with the state, local governments, indigent defense providers, and other stakeholders to:  provide guidance and standards for systems to ensure and oversee local defense services;  gather and report information about local indigent defense services;  award state funding to local governments to improve local indigent defense services; and  encourage and aid in the regionalization of indigent defense services throughout the state. For calendar year 2017, Juab County was the first recipient of an IDC grant award of $111,800. Actual IDC spending totaled $95,924, allowing the IDC to more accurately budget for a three-year grant renewal with Juab County in 2018. Additionally, identifying this amount helped to set the precedent for the startup and recurring costs of indigent defense improvements for future grant models throughout the state. The data in this report make use of those efforts to measure improvements in a local indigent defense system as a result of state funding from the IDC. The data are compiled from many sources, including narratives submitted by Juab County, as a requirement of the IDC grant award. Additional data come from the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) on appointed case and case-specific information, and Sorenson Impact Center Data Science Team for providing quantitative metrics related to indigent defense statewide.

Salt Lake City, UK: The Commission, 2019. 29p.

By The Utah Commission on Criminal & Juvenile Justice

Decades of research have demonstrated a systemic and nation-wide presence of racial and ethnic disparities in the United States’ criminal justice system. Here we analyze 9,788 felony Pre-Sentence Investigation reports in Utah between 2015 and 2017. By examining the relationship between race-ethnicity and the severity of the pre-sentence recommendation, we find that Hispanics have an increased likelihood of receiving the most severe sentence recommendation in comparison to Whites. Policy implications around findings are discussed which has the potential to reduce current disparities as they occur at the Pre-Sentence Investigation level. The generational costs associated with the system’s inequalities merits policy action on this salient issue.

Salt Lake City, UT: The Commission, 2019. 17p.

By AlexanderTesta, Dylan B. Jackson, Meghan Novisky, Kyle T. Ganson, Jason M. Nagata, and JackTsai

Abstract Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the cognitive functioning of formerly incarcerated older adults compared to their never-incarcerated counterparts, focusing on immediate and delayed verbal recall. Methods: Data are from 2,003 respondents who participated in the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health—Parent Study (AHPS; ages 47–82, mean age 62). AHPS participants were administered word recall memory exercises to the parent respondent from the Rey Auditory-Verbal administered Learning Test, including (a) 90-s (immediate or short-term verbal memory), (b) 60-s recall tests (delayed or longterm verbal memory), and (c) combined word recall on the 90-s and 60-s tests. Results: Adjusting for control variables, respondents who reported prior incarceration had a lower rate of verbal recall on the combined word recall (incidence risk ratio [IRR] = 0.915, 95% confdence interval [CI] = 0.840, 0.997) and immediate word recall (IRR = 0.902, 95% CI = 0.817, 0.996). When restricting the sample to respondents over age 60, prior incarceration was associated with lower combined word recall (IRR = 0.847, 95% CI = 0.752, 0.954), immediate word recall (IRR = 0.857, 95% CI = 0.762, 0.963), and delayed word recall (IRR = 0.834, 95% CI = 0.713, 0.974). Discussion: This study underscores the adverse impact of prior incarceration on cognitive functioning in the older adult population, emphasizing the need for targeted interventions and support for formerly incarcerated older adults. The results reinforce the importance of addressing the long-term consequences of incarceration, especially as individuals enter older adulthood.

The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 2024, 79

By BRONWYN HUNTER, KENDRA BRADNER, and EMILY NAPIER SINGLETARY

The Less Is More: Community Supervision Revocation Reform Act (S.1144A – Benjamin / A.5576A – Forrest) was signed into law in September of 2021. This act transformed the parole system in New York State, and has the potential to generate substantial cost savings that can be (re)invested into communities. The Columbia Justice Lab Probation and Parole Project and Unchained partnered with the Less Is More advocacy coalition, led by Unchained and the Katal Center, to learn: How do community members across New York State want the cost savings from Less Is More to be invested into their communities? Through a series of town hall meetings held virtually across the state, community members shared insight into what resources should be invested in and how such investments should be made. Specifically, community members who participated in the town halls prioritized investments in: ›› housing, ›› behavioral healthcare, ›› employment and vocational training, ›› reentry supports, ›› and community spaces, among other resources. Importantly, town hall attendees emphasized that funds should be invested in a way that: ›› enhances equity, ›› targets people and families who are affected by the criminal legal system, ›› and builds on local community and organizational capacity to meet community needs. There are several pieces of legislation in various stages of the policy process that are consistent with community members needs for investments, and these are identified in sidebars throughout the report.1 Community members who participated in the town halls reiterated what advocates and community members have previously called for – strategies that will invest in New Yorkers so that people can thrive in their communities. Policymakers can respond to these calls by taking action to invest in resources and strategies that move toward equity and justice.

New York: Columbia University, Justice Lab, 2023. 31p.

By Michael Olson

For much of its history, research into crime has focused almost exclusively on the urban environment. Modern criminology and its associated theories were all pioneered in studying large American cities to such an extent that one researcher laments, "the science of criminology ignored rural crime." The lack of scholarly interest stemmed from a belief that massive economic restructuring caused social disorganization, which in turn caused crime. However, this belief had an important corollary - that sort of social disorganization was only possible in urban areas. This line of study ultimately created some "unquestioned assumptions that all rural places have less crime, and more importantly, less variation in factors that are associated or correlated with variations in crime." These assumptions emerged from a popular conception of rurality to be isolated and static. However, close examination reveals that these myths about rural Oklahoma could not be farther from the truth. Rural economies are neither isolated nor static but rather, deal with constant economic restructuring that has served to concentrate poverty in certain rural areas, thereby decreasing community safety.

Oklahoma City: Oklahomans for Criminal Justice Reform (OCJR), 2025. 22p.

By Emma Kaufman

It is tempting to assume that the United States has fifty distinct state prison systems. For a time, that assumption was correct. In the late twentieth century, however, states began to swap prisoners and to outsource punishment to their neighbors. Today, prisoners have no right to be incarcerated in the state where they were convicted, and prison officials may trade prisoners — either for money or for other prisoners — across state lines. Interstate prison transfers raise questions about the scope of states’ authority to punish, the purpose of criminal law, and the possibilities of prison reform. Yet apart from prisoners and their families, few people know that prisoners can be shipped between states. Because information on prisoners is so hard to obtain, scholars, lawyers, lawmakers, and even the judges who impose prison sentences often have no idea where prisoners are held. Drawing on a wide range of primary sources, including data uncovered through open records requests to all fifty states, this Article offers the first comprehensive account of the prisoner trade. It demonstrates that states have far more authority than one might expect to share and sell prisoners. It reveals that certain states rely on transfers to offset the actual and political costs of their prosecution policies. And it critiques the pathologies of interstate punishment, arguing that courts should require consent before a prisoner can be sent outside the polity whose laws he has transgressed

Harvard Law Review, VOLUME 133 APRIL 2020 NUMBER 6

By Penal Reform International

People in prison are among the most vulnerable to suffering from the negative effects of natural hazards. Despite international and national momentum to enhance disaster risk reduction (DRR), its application in prison systems is often not a primary concern. In recent years, people detained and working in prisons have been injured – sometimes fatally – due to damage and destruction caused by natural hazards, exacerbated by inadequate preparations by prison authorities to ensure their safety.

Based on primary research, this guide – the first of its kind – presents practical measures with a human rights-based approach for practitioners and frontline staff working in prison systems.

London: PRI, 2021. 32p.

By David M.N. Garavito, Amelia Courtney Hritz, and John H. Blume

When most incarcerated persons go before the parole board, they hope that the decision whether to release them will be based on their institutional record; put differently, that the board will consider the use of opportunities available in prison, rehabilitation, and likelihood of success outside the carceral environment. However, numerous persons with excellent records and reentry plans are denied parole every year. Why? The actual variables that influence parole board decision making are often a mystery; parole rejections are left unexplained or opaque. Empirical research examining what drives parole outcomes is scarce, yet this research is necessary given the power the parole boards have in determining the actual amount of time served in prison. In this Article, we examined the influence of institutional variables (those related to a person’s behavior while incarcerated) and noninstitutional variables on parole hearing outcomes in South Carolina. We predicted that institutional variables, such as the conviction of additional crimes during incarceration, would predict parole outcomes, but we also predicted that noninstitutional variables which may cue characteristics such as dangerousness (e.g., the nature of the offense), regardless of relevance to a person’s rehabilitation, would also predict parole outcomes. We analyzed the outcomes of all (43,290) parole board hearings from 2006 to 2016 and examined the influence of variables such as a person’s race, biological sex, age at the time of the first offense, time served, conviction of another offense while incarcerated, sex offender status, and number of felonies. Our results confirmed our hypotheses: although institutional variables, such as being convicted of another crime while incarcerated, influenced parole outcomes, several noninstitutional variables, particularly those which may cue dangerousness, were also significant. The most alarming results were those concerning race and biological sex. The parole board was significantly less likely to grant parole to incarcerated men compared to women and to Black people compared to white people. Further, there was a significant interaction between sex and race such that Black men were least likely to be granted parole, whereas white women were the most likely to be granted parole. In addition to the above results, the number of convictions and the severity of the crimes a person was convicted of were associated with significantly lower likelihood of being granted parole. Additional research highlighting the specific roles that noninstitutional variables should play in parole hearings is warranted, if only to root out undesirable effects on a critical aspect of the criminal justice system.

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA JOURNAL OF LAW AND SOCIAL CHANGE Volume 27, Number 2 2024.

By Samantha Plummer and Jaclyn Davis

From July 2019 to May 2021, the Columbia Justice Lab developed and conducted a longitudinal interview study of nearly 300 people facing new criminal charges in New York City. The Rikers Island Longitudinal Study aimed to understand how defendants’ experiences in the pretrial process affected and were affected by their social and economic life conditions. After first interviewing people at court or in jail soon after their initial arraignments, the study re-interviewed them 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months later. This report highlights our key findings. The goals of this report are to: • Share the experiences of defendants who have varying degrees of contact with the criminal legal system in New York City. • Provide organizations that work with court-involved people information to understand the socioeconomic conditions of people going through the criminal courts. • Contribute to a citywide and national discussion about how to safely reduce jail populations. Key Findings Over 100,000 people are prosecuted in the New York City criminal courts every year. While there is excellent research on case processing and jail incarceration, less is known about the social and economic lives of people with court involvement. The Justice Lab’s analysis of over one thousand interviews with 286 defendants, and linked administrative data on criminal histories and social benefits use, shows that: • The sample of criminal defendants faced severe housing insecurity. – In the month before being arrested, about one-third of the sample had spent most nights in unstable housing. – About 20 percent of the sample had spent at least one night in a Department of Homeless Services shelter in the year before and/or after their arrest. • Unstable housing was strongly associated with mental health and substance use issues. – Study respondents with histories of mental illness and addiction were more than twice as likely to be unhoused or in a shelter or other temporary housing when they were arrested. – Half of study respondents without a history of substance use or mental illness had stable housing, compared to under a third of those with histories of mental illness and substance use problems. • Unemployment and precarious employment in the study sample were high and were closely related to housing, health, and substance use problems. – Only 25 percent of respondents in temporary or unstable housing reported employment at the initial interview whereas about 60 percent of individuals in any form of private residence reported employment. – Of the respondents who reported that they were employed at all four interview waves, only 41 percent reported working the same job across the entire study. • Exposure to violence was common, mostly in the form of victimization and witnessing rather than perpetration, and different experiences of violence were closely related. – Men, young people aged 18 to 34, and people with a history of mental illness and drug problems were more likely to report assaulting someone in the year after arraignment. Still, in each of these groups, around 80 percent of respondents reported not engaging in any threats or assaults. – Among respondents who were never attacked or had not witnessed other violence, only about 5 percent said they had attacked someone else, whereas 30 to 40 percent of those who had been attacked or witnessed violence reported attacking someone else. • Emerging adults (ages 18 to 25), who are incarcerated at more than double the rate of the adult population as a whole, faced particular health vulnerabilities. – Emerging adults reported a very low rate of health insurance coverage; a third of emerging adults in the sample were uninsured at their first interview, compared to 13 percent of respondents over age 25. – Three quarters of emerging adults reported some kind of ongoing health issue. Those who reported health conditions were much more likely to be uninsured (37%) than people over age 25 who reported health conditions (9%). • The sample reported a high prevalence of Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs), which were associated with poor health and substance use problems in adulthood. – Childhood adversity was more common in the project sample than in the U.S. population; RILS respondents were much more likely to have been removed from the home by the state, to have been physically or sexually abused, and to have lived with an incarcerated household member. – Respondents who reported four or more ACEs were significantly more likely to report mental health problems – Respondents largely did not receive support from adults to deal with extreme adverse events in childhood; across all ACEs, an average of 28 percent of respondents reported receiving help from an adult. • Criminal court processes were long and unpredictable, and disrupted study respondents’ social and economic well-being. – Ninety-five percent of respondents reported that court involvement disrupted their lives. One sixth of respondents reported losing housing due to their criminal case. – Respondents with mental health problems and living in unstable housing were more likely to have their focal arrests result in conviction

New York: Columbia University, Justice Lab, 2024. 50p.

By The Bail Project

Across the United States, nearly half a million people are incarcerated pretrial on any given day, the majority of whom are jailed only because they cannot afford to pay the bail amount set in their case. The disproportionately large jail population in the United States is primarily driven by cash bail: approximately 60% of people in jail can’t pay their bail.1 These are legally innocent people who have not been convicted of the crime they are charged with. Cash bail creates a two-tiered system of justice: one where people with money are able to purchase their pretrial freedom, allowing them to maintain their jobs, contribute to the economy, and care for their families; and, another system for everyone else. The use of cash bail is unfair, affording benefits to people with financial resources, and punishing others. Broadly, the pretrial systems of most American cities, counties, and states reinforce this system of wealth based detention. Cash bail is set at amounts that are often unaffordable and people are punished before a verdict has been reached. If they are jailed pretrial, they are cut off from their lives and communities. Once incarcerated and isolated from their support networks, a person becomes more likely to lose their job, lose custody of their children, experience violence in jail, or find symptoms associated with mental illness worsening.2,3 Jails, which are full of people who are struggling with a mental illness or addiction, have become de facto psychiatric institutions, and although treatment services are more effective in-community, our states and counties have relegated these matters of public health to correctional facilities.4 The impacts of pretrial incarceration are devastating and increase the likelihood that a person will become incarcerated again in the future because they have lost the stability they need to improve their lives and thrive.5 Cash bail and wealth-based detention force these harms upon the most vulnerable people in our communities. A nationwide movement to replace cash bail has gained significant traction, emerging in jurisdictions across the country in response to the inequities, dangers, and unsustainable practices of the current pretrial system. This report, which provides an overview of modern bail and pretrial reforms, stems from that growing movement. Together, these reforms paint a picture of progress – highlighting the diversity of approaches, the momentum driving change, and the challenges that persist in the pursuit of a safer, fairer, and more equitable pretrial system This report primarily focuses on a descriptive analysis of legislative changes due to their enduring impact. However, this analysis also includes court decisions or rulings that substantially altered pretrial practices in a jurisdiction or state. To be included, a reform must have demonstrably shifted a jurisdiction away from wealth-based detention and toward a more equitable pretrial process that reduces unnecessary incarceration. We focused not only on reforms that restricted or minimized the use of cash bail altogether, but also those that: decreased the number of charges eligible for cash bail; prohibited courts from assigning bail amounts that are unaffordable, and/or increased the use of pretrial release without financial conditions. Beyond Bail also contains, where applicable and based on the availability of data, an assessment of the impacts and consequences of the reforms analyzed in this report. These implementation effects are examined through key questions: Did the reform achieve its intended goal? Did the pretrial population decrease following implementation? Did racial and ethnic disparities narrow? A discussion of public safety impacts is provided in the appendix.

Venice, CA : The Bail Project, 2025. 38p.

By Thana Ridha and Sylvie Frigon

For over forty years, William Head on Stage (WHoS) has operated as an inmate-run prison theatre, making it one of Canada’s longest-standing prison arts initiatives. Staging Prison Theatre in Canada: Setting the Spotlight on William Head on Stage delves into the story of WHoS through the voices of the men involved, offering a unique criminological perspective that situates their experiences within the prison context. The analysis explores how WHoS creates an alternative space within the social and emotional realities of incarceration. By unlocking participants’ capacities, skills, and confidence, the initiative fosters a sense of agency and community both inside the prison and beyond. WHoS becomes a space for transformation, offering men opportunities to re-imagine themselves and build meaningful connections. This work underscores the broader significance of arts-based initiatives like WHoS, not only within prisons but also in the fields of criminology, theatre, and community engagement. It offers valuable insights for correctional administrators, criminologists, theatre practitioners, scholars, students, and anyone interested in the intersection of art and rehabilitation.

University of Ottawa Press / Les Presses de l’Université d’Ottawa, 2025. 139p.

By John Eric Humphries,, Cécile Macaire,, Aurélie Ouss,, Megan Stevenson,, Winnie van Dijk,

Using newly-linked administrative and commercial data from Virginia spanning 25 years, we study the consequences of incarceration. While previous research has examined labor market outcomes and recidivism, we focus on two of the primary channels through which low-income households build wealth: asset ownership (homes and cars) and human capital formation. To identify causal effects, we use a matched differencein-differences design. In line with much of the literature on the impact of incarceration in the U.S., we find no evidence of scarring effects on labor market outcomes or changes in recidivism beyond the incapacitation period. However, we find that incarceration leads to a persistent reduction in asset accumulation: seven years after sentencing, homeownership has declined by 1.1 percentage points (12.1%) and car ownership by 2.7 percentage points (18.1%). Incarceration also lowers human capital formation, reducing college enrollment by 1.4 percentage points (15.1%).

Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers. 2859.

New Haven, CT: Yale University, 2025. 70p.

By Laura McFeely

In the last decade, the United States has seen a wave of efforts to greatly reduce or eliminate the use of solitary confinement. In the light of growing international recognition that such treatment amounts to torture, these efforts are certainly encouraging and have contributed to a reduction of the number of people held in long-term isolation. But it is worthwhile to examine the extent of these reforms and what solitary confinement now looks like in states that have implemented such changes.

A robust literature exists on the harms of solitary confinement and ideas for reforming or eliminating its use. This paper adds to the literature by evaluating the success of such efforts, several years into this wave, now that there is more data available. It examines two states that have presented themselves as success stories, Massachusetts and Colorado, where the correctional agencies purport to have eliminated long-term solitary confinement. Although its use has been greatly reduced, it persists for some number of incarcerated people—prompting the question of why these agencies are not more forthright about their progress.

This paper uses these two states to illustrate larger trends and concludes by suggesting ways that advocates can ensure that their efforts are maximally successful as the trend of eliminating solitary confinement hopefully continues. It contributes to the scholarship evaluating how our democracy’s branches—judicial, executive, and legislative—can provide meaningful restraints on correctional agencies’ actions in order to protect the people in their custody.

20 Nw. J. L. & Soc. Pol'y. 122 (2024), 37p.

By GHANI-UR-REHMAN, ANWAR GHANI, MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR , SYED HUSNAIN A. NAQVI1, DHANANJAY SINGH

Internet of Vehicles (IoV) is a new emerging concept and is an extended notion of Vehicular Ad-hoc networks (VANETs). In IoV the vehicles (nodes) are connected to the internet and able to transmit information. However, due to resources constraint nature of vehicles, they may not want to cooperate in order to save its own resources such as memory, energy, and buffer, etc. This behavior may lead to poor system performance. IoV needs an efficient solution to motivate the nodes in terms of cooperation to avoid selfish behavior. A novel mechanism Incentive and Punishment Scheme (IPS) has been proposed in this article where vehicles with higher weight and cooperation are elected as Heads during the election process. Vickrey, Clarke, and Groves (VCG) model has been used to scrutinize the weight of these heads. Vehicle participating in the election process can increase its incentives (reputation) by active participation (forwarding data). Vehicles with repeated selfish behavior are punished. The monitoring nodes monitor the performance of their neighbor nodes after the election process. A mathematical model and algorithms has been developed for the election, monitoring and incentive processes. The proposed approach has been simulated through VDTNSim environment to analyze the performance of the proposed IPS. The performance results demonstrate that the proposed schemes outperform the existing schemes in terms of packet delivery ratio, average delivery delay, average cost, and overhead.

IEEE Acess, 2019, 12p.

By Christian B. N. Gade

This article has two objectives, both of which are new. First, it presents a new framework of punishment in nine dimensions, which makes it possible to distinguish sys- tematically between different conceptualizations of the nature of punishment. Second, using the framework, it discusses the relationship between restorative justice and punishment, showing that some cases of restorative jus- tice constitute punishment from the perspectives of some of the punishment positions in the framework but not for others. Thus, according to some positions, restorative jus- tice (mediation, conferences, circles, etc.) is punishment.

Wiley, 2020, 29p.

The state is restricted in the imposition of punishment by the requirements of legality, equality, and the obligation to refrain from infringing certain important human rights. It is important to consider, too, restrictions on the authority re- sponsible for setting the sentence. The imposition of punishment, like the deter- mination of guilt or innocence, is usually understood as a judicial exercise.1 The importance of the judge lies at the heart of procedural fairness, which demands that individuals have the right of access to court in the determination of a crim- inal charge.2 The responsibility of the judge for the imposition of punishment is also of central importance, though, to the characterization of the sentence itself (and not just the manner of its imposition) as lawful or just.

31p.

Edited by Elizabeth T. Gershoff and Shawna J. Lee

The government of Sweden was the first to institute a ban on all physical punishment of children, including by parents, in 1979. Many countries have truly universal legal prohibitions of physical punishment that apply to all parents, caregivers, and teachers. The majority of countries have limited legal prohibitions on physical punishment in certain settings (e.g., child-care centers, schools, juvenile detention centers); however, the current chapter does not consider such partial bans and instead focuses on complete bans on physical punishment. To date, no country has reversed a complete ban on physical punishment.

American Psychological Association, 2020, 12p.

By Masganti Sit

ismilllahirrramanirrahiim. Segala puji bagi Allah yang telah memberikan kami kemampuan untuk menyelesaikan penulisan buku yang berjudul “Kisah Inspiratif Pendidikan Anak dalam Al-Qur’an.” Kami bersyukur dengan segala limpahan rahmat-Nya sehingga memiliki kesempatan menuliskan ide-ide dalam modul ini. Salawat dan salam kepada Rasulullah, Muhammad SAW yang telah dipilih Allah sebagai penyampai Risalah Tauhid kepada umat manusia. Kerinduan kami kepada Allah dan Rasul-Nya mudah-mudahan dapat tertunaikan dengan syafaat beliau di hari akhir, Aamiin. Terima kasih kepada Ketua Prodi Magister Pendidikan Agama Islam Fakultas Ilmu Tarbiayah dan Keguruan Universitas Islam Negeri Sumatera Utara Medan yang telah mempercayai kami menjadi pengasuh mata kuliah Parenting Islami Tahun Akademi 2023-2024. Terima kasih kepada para mahasiswa yang menjadi penulis dalam buku ini

Research Gate July 2024, 209p.