By Jason A. Higgins

The United States has both the largest, most expensive, and most powerful military and the largest, most expensive, and most punitive carceral system in the history of the world. Since the American War in Vietnam, hundreds of thousands of veterans have been incarcerated after their military service.

Identifying the previously unrecognized connections between American wars and mass incarceration, Prisoners after War reaches across lines of race, class, and gender to record the untold history of incarcerated veterans over the past six decades. Having conducted dozens of oral history interviews, Jason A. Higgins traces the lifelong effects of war, inequality, disability, and mental illness, and explores why hundreds of thousands of veterans, from Vietnam to Afghanistan, were caught up in the carceral system. This original study tells an intergenerational history of state-sanctioned violence, punishment, and inequality, but its pages also resonate with stories of survival and redemption, revealing future possibilities for reform and reparative justice.

Amherst; Boston: University of Massachusetts Press, 2024.

By Eric Petterson

The United States of America incarcerates nearly two million people, more than any other country in the world, at a rate of 565 people per 100,000 residents.1 Just fifty years ago, the incarceration rate was ninety-seven imprisoned people per 100,000 residents in the general population.2 The rate of incarceration increased over 500% in fifty years. Many scholars and criminal justice reform advocates cited these statistics while advocating for the need to end the War on Drugs.3 The need for criminal justice reform to address mass incarceration has grown in popularity; however, many people focus on the War on Drugs to the exclusion of other issues in the criminal legal system, even though only twenty percent of the incarcerated population is incarcerated on drug charges.4 In contrast, nearly half of all people imprisoned in prisons and jails are imprisoned for violent offenses.5 Releasing all drug offenders would still not solve America’s overincarceration problem. Since four out of five incarcerated people are behind bars for non-drug related offenses, we must address how America punishes other crimes to end mass incarceration. Too often, states implementing criminal justice reforms exclude violent offenses, focusing instead on people convicted of nonserious, nonviolent, and nonsexual offenses—or “non, non, nons.”6 The staggering number of violent crime incarcerations is not due to the crime-rate, but to the overly long sentences given to people convicted of violent crimes.7 Many crimes defined as “violent” in the criminal legal system do not involve any physical harm, including purse snatching, manufacturing methamphetamine, burglary of an unoccupied dwelling, and stealing drugs.8 Yet violent offense convictions result in severe repercussions, including triggering mandatory minimums and three-strikes laws.9 Addressing “non, non, non”10 offenses is politically easier to do than addressing violent offenses, but both must be addressed to end mass incarceration. This Article will examine America’s unique use of extremely harsh and lengthy prison sentences and how these sentencing policies contributed to the rise of mass incarceration. First, this Article will examine the history of prisons and sentencing policy. It will explore how sentencing policy, “tough on crime” politics, and the mass media contributed to the rise of mass incarceration. Next, this Article will discuss how America’s overreliance on extremely lengthy sentences makes us an outlier to the rest of the world. This Article will examine the literature on incarceration and lengthy sentences, arguing that lengthy sentences are not effective because they do not effectively deter crime, do not promote public safety, do not prevent reoffending, are unnecessary because people age out of crime, and are not favored by crime victims. It will propose reducing the lengths of sentences and shortening sentences based on the good behavior of incarcerated people. Lastly, this Article will propose a political messaging framework to promote criminal justice reforms.

55 St. Mary's L.J. 475 (2024), 37p.

By Janeen Buck Willison, Nkechi Erondu

In 2018, change agents within the Camden County (NJ) Department of Corrections introduced a five-pronged community engagement strategy to reduce the use of jail and improve reentry outcomes for people released from incarceration. Central to this strategy are the County’s NuEntry Opportunity Specialists (NOS), previously incarcerated individuals who serve as credible messengers to people released from incarceration and who work to reduce the stigma of incarceration through community education and outreach. This case study, part of a series highlighting work supported by the Safety and Justice Challenge, describes Camden County’s community engagement strategy and examines its implementation and reported impact. Lessons and recommendations derived from implementation of the county’s community engagement strategy and its sustainability efforts are also discussed.

Washington DC: The Urban Institute, 2022. 23p.

By John Shaffer, Bryce Peterson, KiDeuk Kim, Rochisha Shukla

Cell phones have become a ubiquitous part of society, with more than 97 percent of US adults owning one (Pew Research Center 2021). For prison and jail officials, however, they represent a serious and growing concern. In a recent survey of state correctional agencies, Urban found that most respondents consider cell phones a serious problem for a facility’s overall security and for the safety of incarcerated people, staff, and members of the public (Kim, Peterson, and Shaffer 2023). Corrections officials have employed several technological and nontechnological solutions to address contraband cell phones in their institutions (Peterson et al. 2022; Russo et al. 2022). No one strategy appears to be completely effective at combating contraband cell phones. Most strategies are limited in their ability to prevent cell phone use across an entire facility, while others are difficult to implement or prohibitively expensive (see Peterson et al. 2022). Conversely, signal jamming has received broad support among criminal justice practitioners as a potentially effective and straightforward interdiction strategy. Officials can use signal jamming to prevent people from using cell phones throughout their facilities by compromising a phone’s ability to receive signals or by modifying received signals to be inaccurate or inoperable. A typical application of cell phone jamming involves overwhelming the phone with a higher-power signal, usually a pure signal or random noise, so the phone can no longer function properly. Although many corrections officials are interested in implementing signal jamming in their agencies, the Federal Communications Commission currently prohibits the use of this technology in the United States, as guided by the Communications Act of 1934. Some federal agencies are exempt from the Communications Act and are allowed to implement jamming solutions by requesting and receiving Special Temporary Authority licensing from the Federal Communications Commission. The Federal Bureau of Prisons is among these agencies. No state or local entities are currently allowed to use signal jamming technology. The selective prohibition against jamming has been a source of tension between federal regulators and corrections officials, and federal lawmakers have made efforts (for instance, through the Cellphone Jamming Reform Act of 2022) to revise the Communications Act and allow state correctional agencies to jam cell phones. Despite corrections officials’ interest in jamming and the ongoing discussion around legislative changes, little is known about the use and application of this technology in correctional settings. To address this knowledge gap, the Urban Institute, along with partner organizations (CNA Corporation, Correctional Leaders Association, and American Correctional Association) and subjectmatter experts (John Shaffer and Joe Russo), reviewed current industry practices and interviewed officials with firsthand experience implementing jamming. In summer and fall 2021, we spoke with corrections officials in the United States, New Zealand, and Australia to formulate an understanding of the benefits and challenges of cell phone jamming as a cell phone interdiction strategy.2 This report is a resource for stakeholders and the public on the mechanics of jamming, its potential effectiveness, and the legal and pragmatic considerations involved in its implementation in correctional settings

Washington DC: The Urban Institute, 2023. 18p.

by Marina Duane, Megan Russo, Matthew Williams

Women are the fastest-growing population in America’s correctional facilities. Researchers estimate that the number of incarcerated women has increased between 750 and 900 percent over the past four decades (The Sentencing Project 2019).1 In response, many jails are working to better assess justice-involved women’s risks and needs, improve their conditions of confinement and service delivery, and support community reentry. This case study belongs to a series highlighting work supported by the Safety and Justice Challenge’s Innovation Fund. It describes Project Safe Release, a pilot implemented in Cumberland County, Maine, to better identify the needs of women entering the Cumberland County Jail, understand their victimization histories, and connect them to appropriate services before and after release. It also outlines Project Safe Release’s inception, evolution, and implementation (including key policies and processes); examines early outcomes and implementation challenges; and shows how other localities can better coordinate services for women released on pretrial supervision

Washington DC: The Urban Institute, 2020. 27p.

By Vincent Schiraldi

This research brief assesses the impact of a March 27, 2020 announcement from the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS), indicating that it would release up to 1,100 people jailed in county facilities for accusations of technical parole violations in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Infectious disease spreads easily and quickly in congregate settings such as jails and prisons. New York State incarcerates more people for non-criminal, technical parole violations than every state except Illinois, and the first two incarcerated people to die of COVID-19 in the Rikers Island jail complex - Michael Tyson and Raymond Rivera - were held there for technical parole violations for missing appointments and failing a drug program.

The research brief concludes that the state released around three-quarters of those originally anticipated by the NYS Department of Corrections and Community Supervision.

It additionally finds that in the two months since the directive was issued, more than 160 people accused of technical parole violations were newly sent to the Rikers jails. This number appears to be accelerating and is projected to surpass the number of people released by June or early July, 2020.

In response to the limited and waning effect of the March release order, the report recommends immediate steps for both the NYS Department of Corrections and Community Supervision and state policymakers:

Unless an individual poses a demonstrable and imminent public safety risk, all people held in jails and prisons for technical parole violations be released

DOCCS cease issuing new warrants for technical violations until the pandemic subsides

State policymakers should enact legislative reforms such as ending automatic pre-hearing incarceration for people facing technical violations; eliminating incarceration for less serious technical violations; capping incarceration terms for technical violations; and incentivizing parole compliance through grants of “merit time” for following the rules.

The above recommendations comport with best practices in the field, limit exposure to dangerous correctional settings now and in the event of a COVID-19 rebound, and will save considerable resources at the state, city, and county level

New York: Columbia University Justice Lab, 2021.9p.

By Tyler Nims, Kendra Bradner, Johnna Margalotti, Zachary Katznelson, and Vincent Schiraldi

New York State sends more people to prison for parole rules violations than any other state in the country. In 2019, 40 percent of the people sent to New York prisons were incarcerated not for a new felony conviction, but for parole violations such as not reporting to a parole officer, living at an unapproved residence, missing curfew, or failing drug or alcohol tests. Black and Latinx people are significantly more likely than white people to be incarcerated for parole violations. The fiscal impact on New York state and local taxpayers is enormous. In 2019, New York’s state and local governments collectively spent $683 million to incarcerate people on parole for rules violations, without evidence that this massive expenditure of resources meaningfully contributed to public safety. ƒ New York State spent $319 million in 2019 to incarcerate people for parole rule violations in state prisons ƒ New York counties—excluding the five counties in New York City—collectively spent more than $91 million to jail people who were accused of technical violations ƒ New York City spent $273 million to jail people accused of technical violations There is a growing nationwide consensus that incarcerating people for parole rules violations does little for public safety and is often counterproductive. Rather than continuing to devote extensive public resources to incarcerating people for parole violations, policymakers should: ƒ Reduce the number of persons reincarcerated for technical parole violations in New York and incentivize compliance with supervision ƒ Reinvest correctional savings into services and opportunities that support successful reentry from state prisons to communities, and ƒ Involve communities that are heavily impacted by parole supervision in designing and operating services, supports and opportunities in their own neighborhoods New York State lawmakers have an opportunity to enact meaningful parole reform. There is a diverse coalition calling for parole reform, including district attorneys, sheriffs, the State and New York City Bar Associations, grassroots organizations, formerly incarcerated people, and justice reformers. The Less Is More parole reform bill— which is supported by nearly 240 organizations across the state as well as law enforcement officials—would significantly reduce the number of people on parole who are reincarcerated at the state and county levels.

New York: Columbia University Justice Lab, 2021 23p.

By Columbia University Justice Lab, et al.

With the closing of Rikers Island, New York City has a unique opportunity to revolutionize the treatment of women and gender-expansive people who are currently at the Rose M. Singer Center on Rikers.

The Prison and Jail Innovation Lab at the University of Texas at Austin, the Center for Justice, and the Columbia University Justice Lab collaborated with the Women’s Community Justice Association and HR&A Advisors on a report detailing the design, model and operations of “The Women’s Center for Justice,” a proposed first-of-its kind gender-responsive, trauma-informed facility. The report calls for New York City and State to come together to transform the Lincoln Correctional site at West 110th Street into a site for women and gender-expansive people. Lincoln, which is owned by the state, is currently not in operation and could easily be converted into a facility for women and gender-expansive individuals. Lincoln is zoned as a correctional facility and would not need to go through a lengthy land-use review process.

The report outlines a groundbreaking “Reentry at Entry” approach and holistic care model that aims to end the cycle of incarceration.

New York: Columbia University Justice Lab, 2022. 38p.

By Katherine LeMasters, Samantha Nall, Cole Jurecka, Betsy Craft, Paul Christine, Ingrid Binswanger & Joshua Barocas

In response to the U.S. overdose crisis, many states have increased criminal penalties for drug possession, particularly fentanyl. This study sought to qualitatively explore diverse community perspectives on increasing criminal legal penalties in Colorado for fentanyl possession (House Bill 22-1326) and the broader role of the criminal legal system in addressing substance use and overdose prevention. We conducted 31 semi-structured interviews in 2023 with community leaders directly working with people who use drugs, individuals with lived experience with drug use and the criminal legal system, and law enforcement throughout Colorado. Interviewees were asked about the perceived impact of House Bill 22-1326 on their communities and agencies. After interviews were complete, we created templated summaries and matrix analyses to conduct rapid qualitative analysis, an action-oriented approach to qualitative data analysis.

Results

Respondents included peer support specialists (n = 7), policymakers (n = 6), community behavioral health/harm reduction providers (n = 6), criminal legal program staff (n = 8), and law enforcement (n = 4), with nine participants from rural counties. Analysis revealed that participants found increasing criminal penalties for fentanyl possession to be misguided: “And the felony [of HB-1326] is such a good example of a policy being led by feelings rather than evidence.” This was in the context of participants’ divergent views on police as conduits to treatment and punishment and perceiving jail as an (in)appropriate response for substance use disorder treatment.

Conclusions

All participants supported policy efforts to prevent fatal fentanyl overdoses, yet, most thought that increased use of police and incarceration as avenues to prevent overdose was misguided. This study highlights a diverse array of community perspectives that can inform policy decisions concerning criminal penalties for fentanyl possession and distribution and can inform policies that affect people who use drugs broadly.

Health & Justice volume 13, Article number: 26 (2025)

By Stephen Koppel, Michael Rempel, Min Xie, Olive Lu, Jeremy Travis, & Preeti Chauhan

Executive Summary The premise of this project is simple: In determining its response to crime and violence, New York City stands at a crossroads. For several decades up until the 2020s, the City saw dramatic crime reductions take place alongside a shrinking criminal legal system— represented by fewer arrests, less reliance on jail and prison, and the expansion of alternatives to incarceration. This period culminated in sweeping reforms to New York State’s bail, discovery, and parole laws that sought to extend the pendulum toward less unnecessary incarceration and greater fairness. Recent years, however, have witnessed a series of dislocations and reversals. A global pandemic disrupted the country’s social and economic fabric, and violent crime increased after years of decline. The 2020 Black Lives Matter protests generated a robust public dialogue about the role of police and the criminal justice system in producing public safety and the need for greater investments in community-based public safety strategies. However, both the reality and perception of rising crime led to increases in low-level enforcement by the New York City Police Department, including more pedestrian street stops, summonses for minor misconduct, and misdemeanor arrests. At the same time, the City is legally mandated to close the violent and decrepit jails on Rikers Island. This requires further reductions in the jail population, for example by expanding mental health services and speeding up case processing, in addition to improving morale, training and oversight of jail staff and expediting construction of modern, humane replacement jails. To provide context for discussions on the best path forward, we sought to ground policy discussions in objective data concerning the City’s trajectory from the 1990s to the present moment. To this end, we released two reports on the same project landing page. Extending two earlier analyses, one report relied on official data sources to track crime, law enforcement activity, decision-making by courts and prosecutors, incarceration, community supervision, and racial disparities. The second report relied on data from the annually administered National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) to provide trends in both reported and unreported victimization. This executive summary presents key findings from both reports. We believe that understanding New York City's crime trends, the experiences of crime victims, and the history of the City's response to crime will shed light on the choices the City faces today. We address several questions, with the resulting main themes and findings summarized below

New York: Data Collaborative for Justice, at John Jay College, 2025. 4p

By Sabrina C. Pearce

The number of people sentenced to life in prison has drastically increased over the last five decades. Of the 194,803 people serving life sentences in 2024, nearly half of them, 97,160 people, were serving parole-eligible sentences. A parole-eligible life sentence is also referred to as life with parole (LWP) or life with the possibility of parole (LWPoP). Parole is the conditional release of an incarcerated individual after spending a portion of their sentence in prison. Its purpose at inception was to serve as a bridge between an incarcerated person and their community, balancing the needs of the individual and the needs of the community, with the aim toward reintegration.

To be eligible for parole, a person sentenced to life must serve a required minimum sentence or reach their “parole eligibility date.” The minimum parole eligibility date is the earliest point at which an incarcerated individual may be considered for parole, minus any time credits earned. Once the required minimum sentence is served, these individuals may re-enter society upon the approval of a paroling authority, most often a parole board. But as this report shows, over the past 50 years legislators across the country have raised the minimum sentence required for parole eligibility, delaying release of millions and significantly transforming the meaning of a life sentence.

In addition, governors have appointed parole commissioners who are reluctant to grant parole. As a result of both factors, newly paroled life-sentenced individuals have served longer prison terms than those in years past. Furthermore, even fewer people are receiving parole hearings in recent years as political, public, and media pressures to adopt more punitive practices continue to rise. The result: increased prison terms and prolonged punishment.

Longer prison sentences are costly and divert important investments away from effective measures to prevent crime and incarceration, such as mental health support, healthcare services, jobs, education, and other resources that produce healthier and safer communities. Lengthy periods of delay can lead to disillusionment and diminish the hope and well-being of those incarcerated as well as their supportive loved ones and communities as they longingly await the day of release. Timeliness in parole hearings is crucial as parole delays interfere with an incarcerated person’s ability to preserve family, friends, community, and other ties, which may present challenges for successful reintegration upon release.

Through in-depth profiles of five states and the experiences of two individuals, this report illustrates the trend toward increasing wait times for initial parole hearings, subsequent rehearings, and sometimes the elimination of parole eligibility entirely for individuals serving parole- eligible life sentences.

Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2025. 24p.

By Dr Philip Howard, Andrew Craik, Lu Han and Christopher Spaull

This study examines whether particular past offences are more frequent amongst criminals who ‘escalated’ to very serious offending than other repeat offenders, controlling for broader reoffending risk. Escalation to sexual and nonsexual homicide are studied, and to serious sexual assault (SSA) for those with and without prior sexual offending. Prior serious violence is associated with all homicide escalation, and coercive sexual behaviour with sexual homicide and SSA. Some violent offences are associated with SSA for those without sexual history. Additional analyses cover escalation to adult and child SSA offending, and adult nonsexual homicide of female partners, male strangers and male family/acquaintances.

Ministry of Justice Analytical Series

London: Ministry of Justice, 2023 130p.

By Rachel Cordle and Eleanor Gale

This synthesis provides an overview of evidence on what works to reduce reoffending, updating evidence previously published by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) in 2013 and 2014. 1,2 It revisits some of the same areas as the previous reviews, including more recent evidence and incorporating new areas such as debt and community ties. Given the breadth of different activities and interventions that exist, this summary focuses upon the evidence base for some of the key areas of MoJ policymaking, but it is clearly not exhaustive. Evidence is drawn primarily from a series of Rapid Evidence Assessments (REAs) conducted by academics working in the field of reducing reoffending in 2022. REAs were used to compile sections on: Accommodation, Education, Employment, Finance, Benefits and Debt, and Community Ties. The REAs focused upon the effectiveness of these types of interventions to reduce reoffending but included some additional follow up questions such as features of effective interventions of different types, and for whom they may be most effective. A REA was also commissioned on theories of desistance. For the remaining sections, MoJ analysts conducted internal reviews of recent evidence. When assessing effectiveness, findings from meta-analyses were used where available, as there can be greater confidence in findings drawn from a series of studies than from single evaluations. Studies that included any comparison group were eligible for inclusion, with a focus on evidence drawn from England & Wales (although international studies were eligible for inclusion). Table 1 summarises the overall strength of the meta-analytical evidence base for the effectiveness by intervention type and provides an indication of the scale of the potential reduction in reoffending for some specific intervention approaches (where relevant). Some interventions appear to have potential to deliver larger reductions in reoffending than others, however it is likely the greatest reduction will be achieved where interventions are well-matched to the individual. Where the evidence base is classified as ‘insufficient’, this reflects an evidence gap and does not imply that type of intervention does not work. Table 1 includes only the results of meta-analyses when providing an indication of the potential scale of impact by specific intervention approach. In areas where there are lots of different types of interventions used (such as employment), the meta-analytical evidence base may be weakened by the lack of comparability across studies. In addition, some of the areas covered are more closely linked to reoffending than others. For example, there is evidence that reoffending is lower amongst prison leavers who find employment. In contrast, there is a more nuanced, moderated relationship between mental health and reoffending. Mental health (like physical health) is a foundational area for work with offenders but does not in itself link directly to reoffending. Note also that table 1 reviews only evidence for the potential scale of effectiveness. Readers should refer to the relevant chapter for more detail on the wider evidence base for specific interventions of interest. Evidence gaps common across the different intervention areas include a need for more UK-based evaluation, a need for individual evaluation reports to better capture programme design characteristics that can affect success, and a need for greater understanding of what works best for different groups. It would also be helpful to have more consistency in how outcomes are measured, in order to more reliably compare which interventions have the biggest impacts.

London: Ministry of Justice, 2025. 60p.

By Prison Reform Trust

The high level of multiple and often unmet need experienced by many women in the justice system is well documented.1 Many women in prison are victims of more serious crimes than those they are accused of committing.2 The past two decades have seen several key policy developments relating to women’s imprisonment (see Appendix 1). Each of these developments show a trend towards recognising the distinct and specific needs of women in the criminal justice system and call for a reduction in women’s imprisonment. However, the number of women in prison, especially on remand and on short sentences, has remained stubbornly high. Moving beyond this status quo requires bold and creative thinking alongside sustained development and implementation of pre-existing strategies. This briefing sets out key facts and figures relating to women in the criminal justice system and highlights progress to date in implementing an approach which recognises women’s distinct needs.

London: PRT, 2025. 10p.

By Kellyann Bock, Michael Rempel

While it is well-established that a substantial portion of people in NYC jails are designated for mental health services, less is known about when during their incarceration these needs are first identified. This brief examines the prevalence and timing of the “Brad H” flag, assigned to anyone who is diagnosed, screened for, requesting, or receiving mental health services while incarcerated in New York City jails, covering the period from June 2, 2016 to March 24, 2025.

Specifically, we looked at increases in the fraction of the NYC jail population that flag for mental health needs, how long it takes for incarcerated people to receive a Brad H flag, what share of their jail stay people spend designated for mental health services, disparities in flagging by gender, race, and custody level, and how flagging relates to overall length of stay.

New York: Data Collaborative.for Justice, 2025. 9p.

By Margaret Love & David Schlussel

This Report Card supplements our recently published 50-state report, “The Many Roads to Reintegration,” a survey of U.S. laws aimed at restoring rights and opportunities after arrest or conviction. That report includes topical essays covering voting and firearms rights, an array of record relief remedies, and consideration of criminal record in employment and occupational licensing. The “Many Roads” report assigned to each state, D.C., and the federal system a grade for nine different types of restoration laws: (1) loss and restoration of voting rights (2) pardon (3) felony expungement, sealing & set-aside (“felony relief”) (4) misdemeanor expungement, sealing & set-aside (“misdemeanor relief”) (5) non-conviction relief (6) deferred adjudication (7) judicial certificates of relief (8) employment (9) occupational licensing. Using these grades, we produced an overall ranking of the states and D.C.* In this Report Card we provide the grades and rankings in an easily digestible form. We also provide a brief narrative summary of how each state’s law stacks up in the different categories. Our hope is that these summaries will suggest ways in which a state might improve its laws and hence its ranking. An appendix collects all the grades and rankings. Finally, we emphasize once again that our grades are based solely on the text of each state’s law, leaving more nuanced judgments about their actual operation to practitioners, researchers, and the law’s intended beneficiaries. We expect to look more closely at the operation of some of the record relief laws in the near future, and

Washington, DC: Collateral Consequences Resource Center (CCRC), 2020. 61p.

By Prison Reform Trust

The high level of multiple and often unmet need experienced by many women in the justice system is well documented. Many women in prison are victims of more serious crimes than those they are accused of committing. The past two decades have seen several key policy developments relating to women’s imprisonment (see Appendix 1). Each of these developments show a trend towards recognising the distinct and specific needs of women in the criminal justice system and call for a reduction in women’s imprisonment. However, the number of women in prison, especially on remand and on short sentences, has remained stubbornly high. Moving beyond this status quo requires bold and creative thinking alongside sustained development and implementation of pre-existing strategies. This briefing sets out key facts and figures relating to women in the criminal justice system and highlights progress to date in implementing an approach which recognises women’s distinct needs.

London: Prison Reform Trust, 2025. 10p.

By Rocco d’Este

Incarceration is a crucial part of the scholarly analysis of crime, but what happens inside penal institutions largely remains a ‘black box’ (Western, 2021). This paper studies the impact of the new psychoactive substances (NPS) epidemic within prisons. NPS are powerful addictive chemical compounds that mimic the pharmacological effects of conventional drugs of abuse (CDA) but avoid classification as illegal and detection in standard drug tests. To conduct the analysis, I have assembled a novel establishment-by month database of all England and Wales prisons from 2007 to 2018 including information on drugs seizures, random mandatory drug test results, various measures of harm, violence, and causes of death. I first document a large increase in NPS availability and an alarming correlation with the steep rise in harm and violence behind bars. I then evaluate the impact of the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, a supply-side intervention aimed at inhibiting the proliferation of NPS. The analysis exploits cross-prison variation in the initial size of the drug market and shows high-intensity NPS trafficking prisons experienced a sustained but partial reduction in NPS availability, limited substitution toward CDA, and a rise in violence, self-harm, and suicides following the law. Collectively, the findings suggest unwarranted responses to government interventions may be amplified within penal institutions and that new challenges stemming from scientific advances in illegal drugs production should be addressed through systemic interventions that also consider the demand for addictive substances.

IZA DP No. 15248

Bonn: IZA – Institute of Labor Economics , 2022. 60p.

By Laura M. Maruschak

This statistical brief presents findings on maternal healthcare and pregnancy prevalence and outcomes for persons in the custody of state or federal correctional authorities in the United States. It reports statistics on (1) pregnancy testing and positive tests among female admissions; (2) pregnancy prevalence and outcomes by type; (3) pregnancy-related training for staff, emergency transportation protocols, and medical services provided to pregnant and postpartum women; (4) accommodations and support services for pregnant and postpartum women; and (5) provision of and participation in nursery or residential programs in which mothers reside with their children. Findings in this report are based on data from the maternal health supplement to the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ annual National Prisoner Statistics collection (NPS-MatHealth).1 The NPS-MatHealth was administered for the first time in 2024 and collected 2023 data on maternal health in correctional settings from the departments of corrections of the 50 states and the Federal Bureau of Prisons (FBOP). For information on the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations directive and the feasibility study that led to and informed the NPS-MatHealth, see Data on Maternal Health and Pregnancy Outcomes from Prisons and Jails: Results from a Feasibility Study (NCJ 307326, BJS, January 2024). Pregnancy testing and positive tests among female admissions „ In the 47 jurisdictions that reported pregnancy testing data, 88% of female admissions were tested for pregnancy during 2023 (table 1). „ Among female admissions tested in the 46 jurisdictions that reported the number of admissions who tested positive, 2% tested positive. Pregnancy prevalence in custody and outcomes of pregnancies by type „ On December 31, 2023, 49 jurisdictions reported housing a total of 328 pregnant women, accounting for 0.5% of all the women in the custody of those jurisdictions. „ Sixty percent of pregnant women in the custody of state and federal correctional authorities were white, 20% were black, 9% were Hispanic, 4% were American Indian or Alaska Native, and 2% were Asian, Native Hawaiian, or Other Pacific Islander (table 2). „ Between January 1, 2023 and December 31, 2023, 727 pregnancy outcomes—including live births, miscarriages, and abortions—were reported in 49 jurisdictions (table 3). „ Live births (665) accounted for 91% of the pregnancy outcomes reported, miscarriages (47) accounted for 6%, and abortions (15) accounted for 2%

Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2025. 10p.

By Lauren Kuhli and Carolyn Sufrin

The majority of people incarcerated in U.S. women’s jails and prisons are younger than 45; most of them are parents, and some will be pregnant behind bars. The ways that institutions of incarceration manage their reproductive bodies rely on overlapping legal, cultural, social, historical, and racialized foundations that allow reproductive oppressions to flourish behind bars. Yet, as we argue in this article, these dynamics of incarcerated reproduction manifest far beyond prison and jail walls, through criminalizing and restrictive discourses that devalue the reproductive wellbeing of marginalized people. We analyze the legal, clinical, and socio-political dimensions of carceral control of reproduction and reproductive health care in U.S. prisons and jails, including abortion access, prenatal and postpartum care, childbirth, and parenting. We describe violations of constitutional and clinical standards of reproductive care behind bars, showing how these reproductive coercions are grounded in historical legacies of slavery and the ongoing reproductive control of black and other marginalized bodies. This article makes the case that understanding reproduction behind bars and its legacies of racialized reproductive oppressions reveals the carceral dynamics of reproduction that are foundational to U.S. society.

Harvard Law Review, v. 14, 2020, 50p.