By The Irish Penal Reform Trust

Piecing It Together: Supporting Children and Families with a Family Member in Prison in Ireland assesses progress on a series of recommendations made by IPRT in "Picking up the Pieces" in 2012. These recommendations were made to Government, the Courts and Courts Service, the Irish Prison Service, the Department of Education, and media, among others. While the new report details some pockets of good practice in Ireland, it highlights a number of significant gaps, including: limited national recognition of the rights of children with a family member in prison; the continued lack of any national support services for these children; visiting conditions that are not child-friendly; limited data and research; and stigmatisation of these children and their families. As we approach the tenth anniversary of the 2012 report, IPRT calls for the implementation of these outstanding recommendations, as well as the new recommendations made in this report, by the relevant assigned stakeholders.

The recommendations made in the report are grouped into 7 overarching recommendations:

1. Increase National Recognition of the Rights of Children with a Family Member in Prison

2. Establish a National Support Service for Children and Families with a Family Member in Prison

3. Improve Prison Visiting Procedures and Conditions for Children and Families

4. Enshrine in Law and Practice the Principle of “Prison as a Last Resort” for Primary Caregivers

5. Improve Data Recording on Children Affected by Imprisonment

6. Challenge Stigmatisation of Children and Families with a Family Member in Prison

7. Promote and Facilitate Family Involvement during the Period of Imprisonment

Dublin: Irish Penal Reform Trust, 2021. 60p.

By the Irish Penal Reform Trust

 In recent years there has been increasing recognition of children of imprisoned parents as a specific group of vulnerable and marginalised children with particular needs and of the detrimental impact of parental imprisonment on them. While there has been less focus on the specific impact on children when their mother is sent to prison, several studies have found that, while less common, maternal imprisonment can be significantly more disruptive than paternal imprisonment. This is largely because women are more often the primary caregivers for their dependent children. When fathers are imprisoned, the mother usually continues to care for any children. However, studies have shown that when mothers are sent to prison, the family is more likely to be broken up, with children being placed with other family members or into State care. The impact of maternal imprisonment has wider implications as a result, including on the women themselves, their families, and the broader community. Despite the well-documented impacts of parental, and specifically maternal, imprisonment on children and the clear obligations within the international human rights framework to consider children when their parents or primary caregivers come into conflict with the law, there are very few court systems that actively require courts to consider children at sentencing or when determining pre-trial measures. Additionally, when mothers are sent to prison, there are significant data gaps globally in understanding the numbers of children impacted, and a corresponding lack of effort made to mitigate against the potential negative impacts on them. Where data is collected, it is usually facility-specific with no efforts to collate data nationally or coordinate responses across different agencies. The Irish Prison Service (IPS) and the Probation Service have identified the risks associated with maternal imprisonment, noting that, ‘[t]he outcomes for children whose mothers have experienced prison are of major concern. Children of women prisoners frequently exhibit several behavioral and psychological problems and there is an increased likelihood of them becoming offenders themselves.’ Despite this, there has been very limited examination of the numbers and experiences of mothers imprisoned in Ireland and their children. While the IPS, the Probation Service, and other associated agencies appear to recognize the need to support children of mothers in prison – indeed these agencies have made efforts to develop support programs – concern remains at the lack of attention given, at the point of sentencing, to the caregiving responsibilities of women and the best interests of their children. The findings of this research also point to a lack of national efforts to coordinate amongst different stakeholder agencies to reduce the negative impacts of maternal imprisonment on children

Dublin: Irish Penal Reform Trust, 2023. 52p.

By Faiza Chappell

In the past decade, stakeholder groups have formed across the country to achieve higher-quality postsecondary education in prisons, enhance student outcomes, and push policy changes. This report describes the benefits of emerging stakeholder engagement strategies and trends in stakeholder collaboration. It also serves as a guide to building stakeholder coalitions in the field of postsecondary education in prison. Prison education programs (PEPs) are offered by institutions of higher education and postsecondary vocational institutions that have been approved to operate in a correctional setting. The U.S. Department of Education has requirements that PEPs must follow in order for incarcerated students to access Pell Grants. These requirements include input from a variety of stakeholders to evaluate PEPs and confirm that they are operating in the best interests of the students. After conducting a national scan of existing consortia, the Vera Institute of Justice (Vera) analyzed the information presented in this report from 23 consortia. Vera found that tapping into the expertise of various stakeholders is a crucial element in ensuring high-quality education practices for incarcerated students.

Key Takeaway

Stakeholder groups provide a foundation built on a common mission, with substantive achievable goals and structures for the work to thrive, allowing stakeholders to collaborate effectively. Stakeholder feedback is a critically important practice that should be at the forefront in the expansion of postsecondary education in prison.

New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2024. 28p.

By Benjamin Heller Brian King Will McKeithen Chantal Polinsky 

Since the New York City Council voted in 2019 to close Rikers Island and replace it with four borough-based jails, corrections officers’ perspectives on their work have been largely absent from the conversation, even though they, too, will be impacted by Rikers’ closure. This report addresses that gap. From November 2023 to February 2024, Vera researchers conducted 30 in-depth interviews with 30 current and former corrections officers. Vera found that working at the New York City Department of Correction (DOC) takes an enormous physical and psychological toll on officers, and many of those interviewed reported that they stayed in the role because they felt it was their only path to financial security. There is an urgent need for city leaders to invest in career transition services to help DOC rightsize its workforce without inflicting economic harm on the current correctional workforce. To that end, Vera also spoke with five New York City-based workforce development experts to identify best practices for transitioning corrections officers to new fields. In addition, the interviews make clear that DOC must equip officers who continue working in the jails with the skills and support they need to maintain their own physical and emotional well-being while ensuring the safety of people incarcerated in the borough-based jails. The interviews led Vera researchers to several key findings: • Officers join DOC for the salary, benefits, and pension—and often feel trapped by them. Every officer interviewed said they joined DOC for the salary, benefits, job security, and path to early retirement. The salary, benefits, and pension at DOC allow officers without college degrees a path to financial stability. However, pathways like this are so rare, and career services so inaccessible, that officers routinely feel trapped in the job. • Harmful working conditions take a toll on officers’ physical and mental health. Officers reported poor physical and mental health as a result of the job. They blamed their intense work schedule for bad eating habits, lack of physical activity, poor sleep hygiene, stress, anxiety, trouble attending medical appointments, and difficulty balancing their work and home lives. As a result, nearly every officer said they would not recommend the job to friends or family. • Officers feel unsupported by management. Many officers said that DOC management does not help staff address physical and mental health needs, either proactively or after issues arise. Some of the officers Vera interviewed remarked that they felt like just a number to DOC. More than one said that management pressured them to return to work after injury before they were medically ready. Others recalled situations in which management urged them to ignore symptoms of trauma, depression, or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and return to their posts. • Favoritism determines scheduling, and by extension, well-being. Several interviewees said that a culture of favoritism permeates every aspect of the job—from facility and post placement to overtime assignments, misconduct write-ups, meal relief, and promotions. Participants attributed the problematic culture they experienced to leadership and said that it trickled down through the ranks, lowering morale, eroding camaraderie, and increasing absenteeism. • Officers struggle to identify transferrable skills they develop on the job. Interviewees struggled to identify skills they developed at DOC, with some saying they could not think of any skills that would be useful outside of a security setting. When pressed, most officers said their skills included interpersonal communication and situational awareness. • When they leave DOC, most officers stay in the security sector, though their interests are much more varied. Most participants felt that they were only qualified to go into security-related jobs. The majority of officers said they had colleagues who left DOC to join the New York City Police Department (NYPD) or to move to a different state and work for a different corrections department. When asked about their interests and career ambitions, however, interviewees mentioned film production, library sciences, hospitality, education, personal training, real estate, and more. Often, the barrier to pursuing these alternative career paths was not a lack of motivation, but rather a lack of resources and time. • New Yorkers seeking well-paid careers with low barriers to entry need more options. Corrections is one of too few well-paid career opportunities for New Yorkers without postsecondary degrees. Providing career transition services to current officers will help DOC rightsize its uniform workforce, saving public funds while helping officers find new opportunities that do not place such a burden on their health and home lives. There was a clear consensus among workforce development experts that to facilitate these career transitions, city leaders must fund a program that creates a series of talent profiles, maps them onto new career pathways, and mobilizes robust support to help officers successfully reskill themselves and prepare for the next phases of their careers. Such a program should be a model for future initiatives that engage New Yorkers without postsecondary education—who may struggle to find well-paid jobs—at the start of their career searches to connect them with opportunities that lead to well-paid employment. • Officers who continue working at DOC need better training and support to maintain their health and improve conditions in the jails. Officers who remain working in the jails need more support than they currently receive. When asked how DOC could support them more effectively, officers had many ideas. Improved training, particularly when it comes to interacting with people with mental illness; enhanced access to mental health support; equitable processes for assigning officers to posts and overtime; and ongoing feedback mechanisms that allow leadership to hear directly from officers will all help DOC ensure that it is supporting officers’ physical and mental well-being, which in turn may help improve jail conditions for incarcerated people. Ultimately, investing in career transitions for corrections officers is an opportunity to reduce jail spending and invest in community-based solutions that prevent crime in the first place. It can also improve the lives of corrections officers who work for DOC because they feel they have no other options. In addition, supporting officers who remain at DOC may help keep the traumatic conditions of Rikers Island from taking root in the borough-based jails.   

New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2024. 18p.

By Niloufer Taber, Amanda Nowak, Maurice Smith,   Jennifer Yang, Celia Strumph   

Pell Grant restoration took effect on July 1, 2023, making incarcerated people in the United States eligible for need-based federal postsecondary financial aid for the first time in nearly 30 years. Since the launch of the Second Chance Pell Experimental Sites Initiative (SCP) in 2016, more than 45,000 incarcerated students have enrolled in SCP programs. Today, there are more than 750,000 people in prison eligible to enroll in a postsecondary program. As the landscape of postsecondary education in prison evolves, so does its potential. In this report, the Vera Institute of Justice offers a snapshot of national progress toward implementation using the interconnected domains of quality, equity, and scale through a “balanced scorecard” approach. Drawing on data collected from surveys to SCP colleges and corrections agencies, the report aggregates individual responses to evaluate the adequacy and the system of education offered to incarcerated people. The result is a snapshot of the progress colleges and corrections agencies have made over the first year of this new era of access and opportunity.

‍Key Takeaway: Serving students in prisons requires collaboration and cooperation across a range of stakeholders. Vera assessed quality, equity, and scale through data aggregated at the level of each jurisdiction. The measures in this report are an invitation

New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2024. 64p.

By Sarah Aukamp

Contraband in correctional facilities can create challenges for the safety of incarcerated people, staff, and the general public. However little is known about the factors that affect the types and amounts of contraband entering facilities. To address this gap, researchers from the Urban Institute and CNA Corporation conducted a study of prisons across six states and assessed the risk factors that correlate with the recovery of three types of contraband: drugs, cell phones, and weapons. This summary describes the findings of that study and presents implications for practice. Findings show that factors like a prison’s security level (e.g., maximum, minimum), population (e.g., size, gender), staff composition, and available programming (e.g., substance use treatment) were all correlated with the number of contraband recoveries. Some risk factors were found to be common to all types of contraband, whereas others occurred only with certain types. Understanding the facility-level characteristics that affect types and levels of contraband can inform interdiction efforts, creating safer facilities for all stakeholders.

Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 2024. 4p.

By Lee Kovarsky

Before their executions, condemned people suffered intensely, in solitude, and at great length. But that suffering is not punishment—especially not the suffering on American-style death rows. In this article, I show that American institutions administer pre-execution confinement as nonpunitive detention, and I explain the consequences of that counterintuitive status. A nonpunitive paradigm curbs, at least to some degree, the dehumanization, neglect, and isolation that now dominate life on death row. It is also the doctrinal solution to a longstanding puzzle involving confinement, execution, and the Eighth Amendment. To understand why pre-execution confinement is nonpunitive, readers need a basic understanding of the experience itself. Most death-sentenced people will lead lives marked by some substantial combination of inadequate nutrition, deficient health care, substandard sanitation and ventilation, restricted movement, and excessive isolation. By the time the state executes its condemned prisoners, they will have spent about two decades in such conditions—up from two years in 1960. The state distributes suffering across this prisoner cohort in ways that bear little relationship to criminal blameworthiness. Almost without exception, however, scholarship and decisional law continue to treat confinement before execution as punishment. Virtually everyone makes the punitive assumption, but there are two reasons rooted in penal theory why they should not. First, confinement before execution does not meet consensus criteria for punishment. It is instead suffering collateral to the state’s interest in incapacitating those who face execution. Second, if pre-execution confinement were to be taken seriously as a punitive practice, then it would be normatively unjustified. More specifically, punitive confinement would represent punishment beyond the legally specified maximum (an execution), and it would be distributed across the death-sentenced prisoner cohort arbitrarily. There is a well-developed body of constitutional law capable of absorbing a nonpunitive version of pre-execution confinement. Under that law, when the state detains people primarily to incapacitate them, that detention is regulatory—not punitive. Due process, rather than the Eighth Amendment, constrains regulatory detention. A nonpunitive approach would reduce unnecessary suffering because due process rules more stringently constrain the state’s treatment of its prisoners. Such an approach would also give the U.S. Supreme Court better answers to the difficult Eighth Amendment questions that have vexed the Justices for decades. 

Virginia Law Review [Vol. 109:1429, 2023.

By Lee Kovarsky

There is a widely held belief that to delay executions, American death-row prisoners strategically defer litigation until the eleventh hour. After all, the logic goes, that the incentives for prisoners who face the death penalty differ from those who do not. Noncapital prisoners typically try to move the terminal point of a sentence (release) forward, and capital prisoners typically try to push that point (execution) back. This theory of litigant behavior—what I call the “Strategic Delay Account,” or the “SDA”—underwrites an extraordinarily harsh institutional response. It primes courts to discount real constitutional grievances and to punish participating lawyers, and it spurs legislatures to restrict crucial remedies. In this article, I explain that the SDA inaccurately describes condemned prisoner behavior, both because it assumes a non-existent incentive structure and because it ignores the major structural causes of delayed litigation. First, deferred litigation is risky, and fortune disfavors the bold. Procedural doctrines that operate across post-conviction law strongly incentivize the promptest conceivable presentation of claims. Second, prisoners often omit challenges from early rounds of litigation not because they have done so strategically, but instead because some claims are inherently incapable of being asserted at that time. Third, the volume of end-stage litigation reflects the comprehensive failure of American jurisdictions to provide adequate legal services; condemned prisoners are often functionally unrepresented from the moment early-stage proceedings conclude until the state sets an execution date.

New York University Law Review Issue: Volume 95, Number 5, November 2020

By Bea Halbach-Singh Jack Norton Stephen Jones Jessica Zhang

Over the past 50 years, Kentucky has become one of the most incarcerated places on earth, building a broad system of correctional control that is made up of local jails, state and federal prisons, and a vast array of supervision and monitoring programs. Systems of correctional control have increased in number and scope at the same time as the state has undergone significant economic restructuring. Kentucky’s economy over the last 30 years has shifted away from goods-producing industries—such as manufacturing, construction, and mining—and toward service-providing industries such as health care, social assistance, educational services, and other professional services, with significant differences in how this transformation has played out regionally.1 In the places hardest hit by the decline of manufacturing and coal extraction industries, local governments have attempted to turn their criminal legal systems into revenue generators to fund jail and court operations. Counties have raced to collect per diem fees paid by the Kentucky Department of Corrections (DOC), federal agencies, and other Kentucky counties by building bigger jails to incarcerate people for other authorities. Counties also collect revenues from an elaborate system of jail- and court-related fines and fees collected from criminalized people, who are disproportionately poor. Private companies collect revenues by contracting with county jails, and prisons, Kentucky’s most comprehensive effort to reform the criminal legal system to date—House Bill 463 (HB 463), “The Public Safety and Accountability Act”—passed in 2011. While it proposed to reduce the footprint and cost of Kentucky’s carceral system, it resulted in more criminalization and less health and safety. During a decade in which communities increasingly struggled with drug use, substance use disorders, and overdose deaths and needed real solutions to tackle this public health crisis, Kentucky’s lawmakers continued to pass laws allowing prosecutors and judges to impose harsh penalties for drug-related offenses. By 2020, Kentucky had the nation’s second-highest drug overdose mortality rate.4 Lawmakers also created a web of supervision programs that were intended to divert people charged with drug-related crimes away from jail and prison. In practice, by imposing onerous conditions and associated costs that make it impossible for many people to meet their requirements, these systems have instead become a major driver of re-incarceration. Throughout the writing of this report, Vera Institute of Justice (Vera) researchers spoke with people across the commonwealth who had experienced criminalization.5 Most were recovering from substance use issues. Out of these conversations, a clear picture emerged of the deep connections between poverty and economic decline and the growth of incarceration, supervision, and surveillance across the state. Interviewees shared that stable housing, meaningful work, connections with a larger community (especially other people in recovery), and treatment—instead of correctional surveillance and incarceration—were the most important resources that helped them recover. In their experiences, court-mandated supervision and drug treatment programs carried onerous restrictions on their mobility and autonomy and included unaffordable fines and fees that decreased their ability to support themselves financially. These conditions—combined with the threat of reincarceration in case of relapse—presented obstacles, rather than paths, to recovery for people experiencing substance use issues. Overall, people experiencing poverty and those in need of treatment described a criminal legal system that causes harm in their lives, instead of providing them with the resources that might enable them to survive and thrive.

New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2023. 62p.

Edited by Gregor Feindt, Anke Hilbrenner, and Dittmar Dahlmann   

Sport was an integral part of life in camps during the twentieth century, even in Nazi concentration camps or in the Soviet Gulag. Traditionally perceived as a symbol of equality, play, and peacefulness, sport under such unexpected circumstances irritates most observers, back then and today. This volume studies the irritating fact of sport in penal and internment camps as an important insight into the history of camps. The authors enquire into case studies of sport being played in different forms of camps around the globe and throughout the twentieth century. They challenge our understanding of camps, question the dichotomy of insiders and outsiders, inner-camp hierarchies, and the everyday experience of violence. This fresh perspective complements the existing camp studies and gives way for the subjectivity of camp inmates and their action.

Göttingen : Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, [2018] 283p.

By Catherine Cox and Hilary Marland

"Now regarding the prisoner as a moral patient, the paramount object is to render him as amenable as possible to the reformatory process.... The isolation that depresses the animal nature of the prisoner, and lowers the whole tone of the nervous system, produces a corresponding effect upon the mind... In consequence of the lowering of the vital energies, the brain becomes more feeble, and, therefore, more susceptible. The chaplain can then make the brawny navvy in the cell cry like a child; he can work on his feelings in almost any way he pleases; he can so to speak, photograph his own thoughts, wishes, and opinions, on his patient's mind, and fill his mouth with his own phrases and language"

Cambridge, United Kingdom ; New York, NY : Cambridge University Press, 2022.

By Denise Rodriguez, Keri Richardson, Zoë Thorkildsen, Rodney Monroe, Harold Medlock. Stephen Rickman

In the mid-1800s, more than 40 percent of all slaves arriving in the US entered through Charleston, South Carolina. The city’s history and its role in the slave trade continue to influence the city and its community—most apparently in the 2015 massacre at Mother Emanuel Church. This tragedy served as an example to the nation of how a community can come together to work toward acknowledging and addressing racial tensions and ultimately achieve healing and forgiveness. The Charleston City Council further acknowledged this movement on June 19, 2018, when it issued a two-page resolution as an apology for its role in the slave trade and as a statement toward racial reconciliation. To advance such efforts, in June 2019 the city created a Diversity, Racial Reconciliation and Tolerance manager position. Today, Charleston’s rich history provides context regarding the culture and perspectives of the local community and its relationship with the police. The community's efforts to address systemic racial bias in policing since the early mid-twentieth century provide historical context to the depth of the issues and challenges in developing and maintaining strong relationships between the local law enforcement in the Charleston area and the community. The Charleston Police Department (CPD), which employs 458 sworn police officers and 117 civilians and serves a population of more than 136,000, is increasingly becoming an active community partner in conversations and efforts to address the city’s past and present challenges surrounding race. Efforts to strengthen police-community relationships have been at the forefront of the city’s priorities. The Illumination Project, established in late 2015, “created a unique, community-wide experience for both citizens and police with the purpose of further improving their relationship, grounded in trust and legitimacy.”  The Illumination Project identified many strategies to improve police-community relationships, including the establishment of the Citizen Police Advisory Council. Although these efforts were important steps in strengthening relationships between police and community stakeholders, continued concern about potential racial bias, also brought forth during a Charleston Area Justice Ministry (CAJM) Nehemiah Call to Action Assembly in 2016, led the City Council to vote in favor of an independent audit of the CPD in November of 2017. Further adding to this urgency were the findings from the College of Charleston’s report, The State of Racial Disparities in Charleston County, South Carolina 2000-2015, which noted racial disparities and the linkage to structural racism and economic inequality. The call for an audit also stemmed from growing interest among city officials and the community to address concerns about racial bias in the CPD’s procedures and practices. Subsequently, the City Council, city officials, and community stakeholders worked together to develop a request for proposals, review the proposals, and select an independent auditor. 

In January 2019, the City of Charleston, through a competitive bid, selected the CNA Institute for Public Research (CNA) to conduct a racial bias audit of the CPD.

Goals and Objectives of The Audit

CNA’s audit was designed to accomplish the following:

• Assess, monitor, and assist the CPD, in concert with the community, in uncovering any aspects of implicit bias or systemic and individual racial bias.

• Assess the effect of enforcement operations on historically marginalized and discriminated against populations, particularly those in the African-American community.

• Provide recommendations for reforms that improve community-oriented policing practices, transparency, professionalism, accountability, community inclusion, fairness, effectiveness, and public trust, taking into account national best practices and community expectations.

• Engage the community to understand both the experiences and the expectations of interactions with CPD.

Arlington, VA: CNA, 2019. 136p.

By Zoë Thorkildsen, Emma Wohl, Lily Robin, James R. “Chip” Coldren, Jr.

Correctional officers work in dangerous environments that increase their risk of injury. Their rates of nonfatal injuries are among the highest across all occupations (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2016). In recent decades, technology in correctional settings has advanced significantly, and new equipment and devices to improve correctional officer safety have become increasingly prevalent. However, equipment deployment across facilities varies. In addition, little is known about the specific equipment modalities used in different facilities, the effectiveness of this technology, or how correctional officers and other facility personnel perceive safety equipment. In 2010, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) (2011) surveyed the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and correctional departments in 14 states to document available correctional officer safety equipment, review the policies governing the use of these technologies, and assess perceptions of their effectiveness among correctional officers, management personnel, and union members. The GAO identified a variety of safety equipment types used in federal prisons. Correctional officers working within the secure perimeter of BOP institutions are generally required to carry a radio, body alarm, and keys while on duty. BOP policy also gives correctional officers the option to carry a flashlight, latex or leather gloves, and stab-resistant vests. Handcuffs are also generally optional, unless the correctional officer works in certain posts, such as controlling offender movement. Other types of safety equipment not routinely carried by federal correctional officers include pepper spray, batons, and conducted energy devices. However, the data collection and analysis methods used in the GAO study had two limitations. First, the 14 state departments of corrections the GAO surveyed were selected non-randomly. As such, their findings regarding state facilities are not generalizable. Second, although they sought officials’ opinions about the effectiveness of the safety equipment, the GAO report did not present an objective empirical assessment to substantiate the officials’ views. As described in detail below, CNA’s proposed study builds on the GAO study. We propose conducting a further exploratory study to objectively determine the effectiveness of safety equipment in a sample of correctional facilities, along with a content analysis of policies and procedures related to correctional officer safety equipment. As noted in the 2011 GAO report, the field requires more research on the use and effects of safety equipment by correctional officers. CNA’s study addresses this gap by analyzing safety equipment use in a sample of seven adult correctional facilities in the United States in depth. We provide preliminary evidence about the association between the use of safety equipment and correctional officer safety, as measured by on-the-job assaults and injuries. In addition, we summarize how safety equipment is used situationally, as well as the policies and procedures that guide the use of this equipment across the eight study sites. Our research improves the evidence base
related to safety equipment efficacy and will guide future research and technical assistance opportunities.

Arlington, VA: CNA, 2019. 40p.

By Tara Wheeler, Julia Bergeron-Smith, George Shaler,

The number of criminal cases referred to Maine courts dropped considerably in 2020 and continued to fall in 2021 as well, according to Prosecutorial Data in Maine: Themes and Trends from 2017-2021, a report compiled by the University of Southern Maine’s Maine Statistical Analysis Center (SAC) for the Maine Prosecutors Association (MPA). “Understandably, the pandemic impacted the number of cases referred to Maine courts in 2020,” says Shira Burns, Executive Director for the MPA. “While the number of cases referred to the courts dropped 13% in 2020, this pattern continued into 2021 though the decline was not as dramatic as the previous year,” explains Burns. The report also found that motor vehicle cases are the most common type of case referred for prosecution at 39%. “Over half of motor vehicle cases—or 22% of all cases— were for operating after suspension (OAS) and operating under the influence (OUI),” mentions lead author Tara Wheeler of USM’s Maine Statistical Analysis Center. “In addition, 17% – or 1 in 6 cases referred to the courts – were for property offenses,” offers Wheeler. The report reveals that while most charge types were down in large part because of the declining number of referred cases, the number of violation charges was up. This increase was driven largely by release violations (e.g., cases in which the individual did not follow their conditions of release). Maine district attorneys (DAs) and their teams work together to prosecute individuals and organizations involved in criminal activity and serve victims of crime. However, while the DAs seek to address serious crime and protect and serve Mainers through data-informed decision-making, prosecutorial data (i.e., case data by year) has never been easily accessible even to prosecutors. To address this issue, the MPA partnered with the Maine SAC to establish statewide and district-level baseline figures and trends that could be detailed in an annual report and shared with key stakeholders and the public. Maine has eight prosecutorial districts, covering anywhere from one to four counties, that are each led by a popularly elected district attorney who serves a four-year term. The eight districts’ populations and geographic areas vary greatly, with the largest district having 295,000+ people in an 835 square mile area (District 2 – Cumberland County) and the least populated district having approximately 67,000 people spread out over 6,671 square miles (District 8 – Aroostook County).

 Portland, ME: Catherine Cutler Institute University of Southern Maine , 2023. 103p.

By Vasiliki Georgoulas-Sherry & Hanna Hernandez

Abstract -- In 2019, Washington State passed legislation (Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1109) establishing the Washington State Criminal Sentencing Task Force to “review state sentencing laws … for the purpose of: (a) reducing sentencing implementation complexities and errors; (b) improving the effectiveness of the sentencing system; and (c) promoting and improving public safety” (401). To respond to the legislation, the Washington Statistical Analysis Center (SAC) housed in the Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) applied for and received the 2018 State Justice Statistics (SJS) Grant from Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) to review Washington State’s offender score, and other situational calculations associated to the offender score, on rates of recidivism rates. Background Washington State’s Sentencing Guidelines In 1981, the Washington State Legislature enacted the Sentencing Reform Act (SRA), which established the Sentencing Guidelines Commission (SGC) and directed it to recommend to the Legislature a determinate sentencing system for adult felonies. The principal goal of the new sentencing guidelines system was to ensure that offenders who commit similar crimes and have similar criminal histories receive equivalent sentences; specifically, sentences were to be proportionate and determined by the offender’s criminal record and the offense’s seriousness level. In 1982, the SGC completed the original adult felony sentencing "grid", and, in 1983, the Legislature adopted the SGC’s recommendations into law. The SRA was enacted to help make the criminal justice system more accountable to the public by developing a sentencing system that structures or guides, but does not eliminate, the use of judicial discretion in sentencing adult felony offenders. The SRA took effect for crimes committed on or after July 1, 1984 (prior to this date, sentences imposed for adult felonies in Washington were indeterminate which meant that courts had wide discretion over whether to impose a prison sentence and the length of any sentence or not). Codified in Chapter 9.94A RCW the SRA contains the guidelines and procedures used by the courts to impose sentences for adult felonies. The SGC continues to advise the Legislature on necessary adjustments to the sentencing structure, and the Legislature has made many modifications to Washington State’s sentencing laws. Washington State’s Sentencing Guideline Structure Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 9.94A.510 presents Washington State’s sentencing grid (see Table 1). Under the Washington State’s sentencing grid, the rows signify offense seriousness levels (range of I to XVI) while columns signify offender scores (also known as criminal history score) (denotes a measure of prior conviction history and ranges of 0 to 9 or more). Within each cell on the sentencing grid, a presumptive sentencing range is included (for example, an offense seriousness level of VII and an offender score of a 5 has a presumptive sentence range of 41 to 54 months); the range denotes standard minimum and maximum confinement term that may be imposed for a particular combination of offender score and seriousness level. Higher offender scores and offense seriousness level are associated with longer sentence lengths. It is important to note that not all offenses are ranked. The Offender Score is calculated based on five factors: 1) Number of prior criminal convictions or juvenile dispositions 2) Relationship between any prior offense(s) and the current offense of conviction 3) Presence of other current convictions 4) Community custody status at the time the crime was committed 5) Length of crime-free time between offenses. Additionally, the scoring rules vary depending on the type of offense and circumstances of the current conviction. Some of the situational calculations include but are not limited to multipliers and community supervision points. There are instances that necessitate a scoring alteration in terms of points (such as points associated with juvenile adjudications) and multipliers were introduced in efforts to weight appropriate instances; sentence multipliers add additional time to the sentencing range for the current offense, based on criminal history which preceded the offense under adjudication. This means that the sentencing range is increased based upon the way the offender score is calculated when multipliers are brought into play. A community supervision (i.e., when an offender is sentenced to direct supervision under the jurisdiction of the Washington State Department of Corrections (WA DOC)) point is an additional point added when the current offense is committed while on community custody for a previous offense. While there are other circumstances, this report will only look at the 3 potential impact of multipliers and community supervision points on offender score and, potentially, recidivism. Current Report In 2019, Washington State passed legislation (Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1109) establishing the Washington State Criminal Sentencing Task Force to “review state sentencing laws … for the purpose of: (a) reducing sentencing implementation complexities and errors; (b) improving the effectiveness of the sentencing system; and (c) promoting and improving public safety” (401). To respond to the legislation, the SAC applied for and received the 2018 SJS Grant from BJS to assess and review sentencing guidelines and offender score. Specifically, the current report reviews Washington State’s offender score, and other situational calculations associated to the offender score, on rates of recidivism rates. 

Olympia, WA: Washington State Statistical Analysis Center, 2023. 62p.

By Vasiliki Georgoulas-Sherry,  & Hanna Hernandez

Jail populations continue to be under-evaluated and under-researched. While there is a plethora of research on correctional incarcerated populations, there is a need to better assess jail populations as more people interact with these institutions. To evaluate and research this population, the Washington Statistical Analysis Center (SAC) applied for and received the 2021 State Justice Statistics (SJS) grant from Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). Under this grant from BJS, the SAC will draw on the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC)'s Jail Booking and Reporting System (JBRS) to evaluate the potential demographic disparities by rates of days in jail and by rates of recidivism. Main conclusions: 1. The proportion of jailed individuals who spent an above average number of days in jail during their initial booking was higher for males, higher for individuals who were part of the BIPOC community and decreased with an increased age of 36 years of age and older. 2. On average, male jailed individuals who recidivated had more days in jail for their initial booking. And, on average, non-BIPOC jailed individuals who recidivated had more days in jail for their initial booking than BIPOC jailed individuals who recidivated. 3. The proportion of jailed individuals who spent an above average number of days in jail following recidivism was higher for males, and BIPOC jailed individuals who recidivated had more days in jail following recidivism. Age did not impact the number of days in jail following recidivism.

Olympia, WA: Washington State Statistical Analysis Center, 2022. 21p.

By Emily Lupton Lupez,  Steffie Woolhandler, ; David U. Himmelstein

Growing old and dying inside: improving the experiences of older people serving long prison sentences Dr Jayne Price In partnership with the Building Futures Programme. This report is an uncomfortable read, shining a stark light on the difficulties faced by the increasing number of older people serving long sentences. For me, four issues stand out from the consultation that underpins this report. First, the experiences of the men and women who took part powerfully illustrate the mismatch between the diverse needs of this often-hidden group of people and the rigidity of many prison regimes. These needs cannot be met by the prison system alone but raise important challenges for health and social care commissioners and providers, as well as external partners involved in the provision of purposeful activities. Second, that this activity is critical for many older people serving long sentences. But many find that few opportunities are available to them. For the ageing population future employment is less of a concern, how their time, often decades, can be spent productively and meaningfully in activities suited to their age and length of sentence. The testimonies here suggest that governors should enhance the role that prisoners themselves can play in supporting others. This report suggests that when encouraged effectively, those serving long sentences can help to fill the gaps that currently exist in many parts of the estate. Third, like much of PRT’s Building Futures Programme, this report demonstrates the value of enabling people with lived experience to engage in issues of operational and policy improvement and provides ideas for positive change. It also includes very personal, honest, and desperate reflections about the experience of incarceration. This underlines what we see at Recoop: many older people inside feel they are punished not just through losing their liberty but also through a series of humiliations and deprivations throughout their sentence, which can get harder as they age. Finally, those who participated in this report provide a painful reminder of the need for a national strategy for older prisoners; something promised by the government in 2020 but yet to be published. The pressure on the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) to provide decent, safe, and rehabilitative secure environments is probably as acute as it has ever been, particularly with the current and very real overcrowding challenges. This cannot be achieved without a comprehensive, integrated and estate-wide approach. The long-awaited older prisoner strategy must address the changes required, including ensuring funding and commissioning is in alignment. This requires joint working and commitment from the MoJ, Public Health and NHS England to fulfil their collective responsibilities to address the perfect storm of issues that is painfully illustrated in this report. Without this, it will not be able to deliver what is needed. 

London: Prison Reform Trust, 2024. 52p.

By Howard League for Penal Reform

Sentence inflation: a judicial critique “Overcrowding has had a mesmeric effect on the prison system and has absorbed energy which could have been used in improving prisons. In addition, prisons are expensive and have damaging effects on prisoners. It is therefore important… to reduce the prison population to an unavoidable minimum.” The Woolf Report, 1991 This paper, signed by the four surviving former Lords Chief Justice of England and Wales, and the only surviving President of the Queen’s Bench Division who was also Head of Criminal Justice, raises serious concerns about the state of sentencing law and practice in this country. It urges not merely the new government, but politicians of all parties, to reflect on Lord Woolf’s words above. In 1991 the prison population of England and Wales was just nudging 40,000. Today it stands at over 88,000 – of whom more than 80% are sentenced – and it has been rising steeply. We already have the highest rate of imprisonment per capita in Western Europe, and the Ministry of Justice’s own projections suggest that by March 2028 we face a ‘low’ scenario of 94,600, a ‘high’ scenario of 114,800, and a central estimate of 105,800. This forecast should be treated as unacceptable. There have been two main causes of the steady rise in prison numbers that has taken place since the Second World War. The first is a continuous escalation in the length of sentences imposed for more serious offences. The second is a lack of confidence in the efficacy of non-custodial sentences for less serious offences. These factors might have been offset if imprisonment had proved an occasion for effective rehabilitation, but it has not. Other causes include the increase in the requirement for many prisoners to serve twothirds of the sentence before release, and that licence conditions now apply for the entirety of the sentence. The number of prisoners recalled to prison during this period of supervision has soared. The construction of prison accommodation is unable to keep pace with the demand for prison spaces. The result is severely overcrowded prisons. As the new Prime Minister has made clear, we are close to breaking point. By the Ministry of Justice’s own measure, there are nearly 8,000 more people in prison than can be held in safety and decency. Reports of His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP), including a recent spate of Urgent Notifications of unacceptable prisons, evidence the scope and severity of the challenge. HMIP reports, along with those of the statutory Independent Monitoring Boards report poor physical conditions in many jails, the absence of meaningful activity for prisoners and diminishing safety across the estate. Population and staffing pressures mean that access to a useful daily regime, one which gives any opportunity for rehabilitation, is severely curtailed for most people in prison. Last year, HMIP found that 42% of those surveyed spent more than 22 hours a day in their cell, and that access to purposeful activity in the library, gym, employment and education was limited. Lack of purposeful activity has been repeatedly highlighted as HMIP’s biggest area of concern. To address the current crisis, the last government pursued a series of emergency measures that included reversing an increase in the sentencing powers of magistrates, releasing prisoners days early and delaying court processes likely to result in imprisonment. The new government has reduced the proportion of a sentence that many prisoners must serve before release on licence. Recent Court of Appeal rulings and statements from the Sentencing Council indicate that judges may have regard to the effect of prison overcrowding when passing sentence. From the outset we should be clear in our understanding that prisons hold many people who have committed very serious offences and who present a real danger to the public. In these cases, a substantial custodial sentence will be necessary and inevitable. However, in England and Wales, sentences for such offending have grown significantly over our time as judges. And this growth has resulted in the inflation of sentences across the board 

London: Howard League for Penal Reform, 2024. 14p.

By Ariel White and Avery Nguyen 

Recent debates about enfranchising incarcerated people raise the question of how many additional votes such policies would generate. Existing research finds very low voter participation among people previously convicted of felonies, but it remains unclear how often people might vote from prison if given the opportunity. We use data from states that allow people to vote while incarcerated for felony crimes to address this question. We merge prison records with the voter file to estimate how many currently incarcerated people are registered and voted in recent elections. Estimates suggest very few (under one in ten) eligible incarcerated voters in Vermont and Maine voted in the most recent congressional election. Given the winning margins in other states’ recent elections, these estimates suggest that enfranchising currently-incarcerated people would likely not have changed these election outcomes. We conclude that debates about enfranchisement should focus on normative issues and not anticipated electoral effects.

Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2020.

By Maxim Ananyev, Mikhail Poyker:

Inmates' informal code regulates their behavior and attitudes. We investigate whether prisons contribute to the spread of these norms to the general population using an exogenous shock of the Soviet amnesty of 1953, which released 1.2 million prisoners. We document the spread of prison norms in localities exposed to the released ex-prisoners. As inmates' code also ascribes low status to persons perceived as passive homosexuals, in the long run, we find effects on anti-LGBTQ+ hate crimes, homophobic slurs on social media, and discriminatory attitudes.

ZA DP No. 17138\ Bonn: Institute of Labor Economics, 2024.