By: Independent Monitoring Boards

Property – having your own possessions that are important to you – is vital to those who are living in the constraints of a prison environment, deprived of their liberty, with little connection to the outside world.

The national scale of loss and damage to prisoners’ property shown by IMBs monitoring in adult prisons and YOIs, and the detrimental impact this has on these men, women and children’s quality of life, is unacceptable.

Property loss and damages severely harmed prisoners’ mental health and wellbeing, causing huge amounts of distress. It also undermined their safety, dignity and humanity, physical health, and prospects for progression and release.

Many of these losses have been unforgivable: a disabled prisoner living without his prosthetic limb for over a year; critical evidence for a prisoner’s sentencing missing; the irreplaceable letters from prisoners’ loved ones who have died while they’ve been inside misplaced.

The causes of lost property have been well-documented. Over many, many years almost all IMBs in adult prisons and YOIs have repeatedly told ministers and the Prison Service that they need to get a grip and have made recommendations about how to do so. In the latest tranche of annual reports alone, nearly 60 IMBs asked 75 property related questions to governors and directors, the service and ministers.

In September 2022, the Prison Service implemented a new policy framework with the aim of addressing the main problems continually identified by IMBs nationally in recent years and improving prisoner outcomes. During its development, and even now, IMBs receive assurances that the framework is doing just that. Two years later, however, the wider findings of the IMB suggest there is little to no evidence the framework has made any difference.

As the causes of property loss have been so well evidenced by local IMBs over the years, this thematic monitoring report focuses much less on the process and system failures (although there are many) and far more on the poor outcomes for prisoners. It also highlights good practice in prisons and YOIs that has helped to prevent or resolve property loss. Although these effective local initiatives aren’t a substitute for national solutions, these examples show that it can be done, and this is not an inevitable, intractable problem.

It is my hope as National Chair that this is the last time IMBs will have to set out these recurring issues and the scale of this problem, and that the new government will finally overhaul property processes and systems and invest in much-needed immediate and long-term resolutions, including a national digital tracking system. This will also be a significant investment in staff time, prison safety, improving prisoners’ lives, their mental health and wellbeing, and their perceptions of staff, fair treatment and the system overall.

Independent Monitoring Boards (IMBs) monitor and report on the conditions and treatment of those detained in every prison in England and Wales, as well as every immigration detention facility across the UK.

This report provides an overview of outcomes for men and women in adult prisons and children and young people in young offender institutions (YOIs), whose property has been lost or damaged.

It is based on analysis of:

• 71 survey responses from 64 IMBs monitoring in adult prisons and YOIs completed in early 2024 (see Annex 1).

• 106 Boards’ latest published annual reports, published until 31 July 2024.

• Property applications (a written or verbal representation to Boards)

• consisting of:

  • Data on the number of property applications received in the above annual reports.

  • 1732 property-related applications received via the 0800 free phone line between April 2020 and July 2023.

London: The Independent Monitoring Boards, 2024. 21p

By: Dr. Mike Lauder

On 17 July 2002, David Blunkett announced a White Paper, Justice for All (Home Office, 2002). He stated: “In protecting the public, we are placing emphasis on dealing with dangerous, violent and sexual offenders. Those not sentenced to lie imprisonment but who are nevertheless a danger to society will remiain custody until they are considered safe for release. An indeterminate sentence will ensure that they will only be released under strict supervision when they are no longer assessed to be a threat to the public”. (HC Deb, 17 July 2002, c287).

The Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentence was introduced under the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The IPP sentence was abolished in 2012 but this action was not retrospective. By June 2024, there were still 2,734 IPP prisoners (1,132 unreleased and 1,602 recalled) and, of those unreleased, 99 percent had served time beyond their tariff (Ministry of Justice, 2024).

There are now some who believe that keeping this cohort of people in prison is uniquely cruel as there is evidence that to do so might create unwarranted psychological harm (Grimshaw, 2022). Members of Parliament now recognise that the IPP system is fundamentally flawed. What was devised to be a social good has, some would argue, become one that creates harm (Justice Committee, 2022).

The aim of this working paper is to describe the role that may have been played by the flaws inherent within the ‘Perfect World Paradigm’ when it is used to make public policy.

Centre for Crime and Justice Studies’ working paper series; London: Center for Crime and Justice Studies, 2024

By Benjamin Heller

New York City already has a plan to close Rikers Island by 2027 and replace it with a smaller, more humane borough-based jail system. City leader now have a unique opportunitiy to rightsize the Department of Correction: recalibrating its budget and reshaping its workforce to meet the needs of a signficantly smalled jail system and unlocking millions of dollars in savings that could be reinvested in commnites. As the transition to a borough-based jail system draws nearer, DOC needs a blueprint to right size and reinvent itself rather than simply export the current dysfunction on Rikers Island to new location. Ultimately, New York City’s leaders must create this blueprint now to provide DOC and other relevant agencies with adequate time and guidance to phase in new policies and practices before the completion of the borough-based jail system.

New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2022

By: Rongqin Yu, NiklasLångstro, Mats Forsman, Arvid Sjolander, Seena Fazel, Yasmina Molero

Objectives

To examine Differences in recidivism rates between different prisons using two designs— between-individual and within-individual—to account for confounding factors.

Methods

We examined recidivism rates among 37,891 individuals released from 44 Swedish prisons in three security levels, and who were followed from 2006 to 2013. We used longitudinal data from nationwide registers, including all convictions from district courts. First, we applied a between-individual design (Cox proportional hazards regression), comparing reconviction rates between individuals released from prisons within the same security level, while adjusting for a range of individual-level covariates. Second, we applied a within-individual design (stratified Cox proportional hazards regression), comparing rates of reconviction within the same individuals, i.e., we compared rates after release from one prison to the rates in the same individual after release from another prison, thus adjusting for all time-invariant con founders within each individual (e.g. genetics and early environment). We also adjusted for a range of time-varying individual-level covariates.

Results

Results showed differences in the hazard of recidivism between different prisons in between-individual analyses, with hazards ranging from 1.22 (1.05–1.43) to 4.99 (2.44 10.21). Results from within-individual analyses, which further adjusted for all time-invariant confounders, showed minimal differences between prisons, with hazards ranging from 0.95 (0.87–1.05) to 1.05 (0.95–1.16). Only small differences were found when violent and nonviolent crimes were analyzed separately.

Conclusions

The study highlights the importance of research designs that more fully adjust for individual-level confounding factors to avoid over-interpretation of the variability in comparisons across prisons.

PLoS ONE 17(5): e0267941. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267941, 2022.

By Megan Denver, Ben Struhl

The project that is presented in this report aimed to conduct process, impact, and cost-effectiveness evaluations for the Massachusetts Department of Correction (MA DOC) and the Hampden County Sheriff’s Office (HCSO) program. The project was based on three main research questions: (1) which components of the HCSO program are fully and faithfully implemented, and which aspects contain challenges for staff participants and residents? Which parts of HCSO’s model are likely contributing to any detected causal effects? (2) Does the step-down re-entry program improve reintegration preparedness and recidivism relative to the traditional re-entry pathway? And (3), is the jail step-down program cost-effective relative to housing the same people in prison? The paper describes the research design, methods, and analytical and data analysis techniques, and notes the expected applicability of the research for policymakers in different jurisdictions. Appendix A discusses things to consider when developing a step-down program, and Appendix B provides cost estimates excluding statutorily required programs.

Boston, MA: Northeastern University, 2024. 46p.

By Rosie Chalam-Judge, Eleanor Martin

Community Sentence Treatment Requirements (CSTRs), comprising of Alcohol Treatment requirements (ATRs), Drug Rehabilitation Requirements (DRRs), and Mental Health Treatment Requirements (MHTRs), aim to address health needs of individuals on a community sentence and ultimately reduce reoffending.

While there is existing evidence indicating that in some circumstances alcohol, drug, and mental health treatment can have some positive effects on reoffending outcomes, research related to CSTRs is limited. To expand the evidence, MoJ have been working in partnership with HMPPS, DHSC and NHS England to deliver a programme of analytical work to robustly assess the effectiveness of CSTRs, including the Better Outcomes Through Linked Data (BOLD) programme. The BOLD substance misuse team carried out a project exploring pathways between probation and drug and alcohol treatment services and are undertaking further analysis to continue the investigation of the potential attrition between sentencing and accessing treatment services.

This impact evaluation aimed to compare justice outcomes of those sentenced with a CSTR against two comparison groups: those sentenced to community sentences without a CSTR and those sentenced to short custodial sentences. The analysis explored the rate of successful completion of community sentences and proven reoffending measures, including reoffending rate, frequency of reoffending, days to first reoffence, reoffending resulting in custody rate and frequency of reoffending resulting in custody.

There are differences in the characteristics of individuals who are sentenced with each type of CSTR and those who are not. To account for this, a statistical technique called propensity score matching (PSM) was used. This method aimed to create matched control groups of individuals who did not receive a CSTR but were as similar as possible to the groups of individuals who were sentenced to each type of CSTR, so any differences detected between the groups were likely due to whether they received a CSTR sentence or not. While over a hundred variables were included in the analysis, there may be unobserved characteristics not captured, or not captured accurately, in the data available which could influence CSTR sentencing and reoffending outcomes. This is a consideration for any PSM analysis. The analysis also only compared individuals sentenced with and without an ATR, DRR, or MHTR – data were not available on whether they attended, engaged with, or completed treatment. More detail can be found in the methodology section.

This analysis used 2018 sentencing data to allow sufficient time to measure outcomes and to avoid the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Recent investments and initiatives have since been implemented to improve and expand the CSTR provision, therefore this evaluation forms a baseline measure of their impact.

Main findings

Justice outcomes of those sentenced with each type of CSTR and the matched control groups were compared and tested for significance. The matched control groups are referred to as those on a community sentence without a CSTR and those released from a short custodial sentence. These groups are matched to have similar characteristics to each CSTR group, including reported drug misuse, alcohol misuse, and mental health issues. The results were largely positive for ATR and MHTR recipients, with mixed results for DRR recipients. Reoffending rates and other statistically significant results are included in this summary, see section 4 for the full results. Due to rounding, the differences between some figures may appear to not sum exactly.

Successful community sentence completion rate

• The data indicated 67% of ATR recipients, 41% of DRR recipients and 78% of MHTR recipients successfully completed their community sentence. This means they served their sentence term without early termination, for example due to a breach or further offence. It was not possible to accurately match individuals in the treatment groups (ATR, DRR, and MHTR recipients) with individuals who did not receive a CSTR to compare sentence completion outcomes, due to availability issues with the data

Reoffending outcomes for alcohol treatment requirement (ATR) recipients compared with individuals sentenced without a CSTR

• Reoffending rates were very similar between ATR recipients and recipients of a community sentence without a CSTR (42% and 40% respectively) and ATR recipients and short custodial sentence recipients (45% for both). There were no statistically significant differences, therefore this analysis did not provide evidence to indicate that receiving an ATR impacted the reoffending rate compared with recipients of community sentences without a CSTR or short custodial sentences.

• ATR recipients, when compared to those on a community sentence without a CSTR, took 12.42 more days on average to reoffend (118.93 days for ATR recipients and 106.51 days for community sentence recipient on average) and were less likely to reoffend and receive a custodial sentence by 4 percentage points (33% and 38% of those who reoffended, respectively) – these were statistically significant results.

• Compared with those released from a short custodial sentence, ATR recipients reoffended slightly less frequently with 0.26 fewer reoffences on average (1.73 reoffences on average for ATR recipients and 1.99 for short custodial sentence recipients) and took 12.07 more days on average to reoffend (118.32 days for ATR recipients and 106.25 for short custodial sentence recipients on average). They were less likely to reoffend and receive a custodial sentence by 5 percentage points (34% of ATR recipients who reoffended and 39% of short custodial sentence recipients who reoffended) and were convicted an average of 0.54 fewer reoffences resulting in a custodial sentence (1.57 reoffences for ATR recipients and 2.12 for short custodial sentence recipients on average) – these were statistically significant results.

Reoffending outcomes for drug rehabilitation requirement (DRR) recipients compared with individuals sentenced without a CSTR

• For DRR recipients, there was no statistically significant difference between reoffending rates (63% for both DRR recipients and recipients of a community sentence without a CSTR, 64% for both DRR and short custodial sentence recipients), therefore this analysis did not indicate that receiving a DRR sentence impacted the reoffending rate compared with recipients on a community sentence without a CSTR or short custodial sentences.

• Compared with recipients of a community sentence without a CSTR, DRR recipients reoffended slightly more frequently with 0.18 more reoffences on average (3.55 reoffences for DRR recipients and 3.37 reoffences for recipients of a community sentence without a CSTR, on average), and took on average 4.33 fewer days to reoffend (86.64 days for DRR recipients and 90.97 days for recipients of a community sentence without a CSTR, on average). Although small, these were statistically significant differences.

• DRR recipients, when compared with short custodial sentence recipients, reoffended less frequently with 0.38 fewer reoffences on average (3.56 reoffences for DRR recipients and 3.93 reoffences for short custodial sentence recipients, on average) and took 12.28 fewer days on average to reoffend (86.66 days for DRR recipients and 98.93 days for short custodial sentence recipients, on average). They were less likely to reoffend and receive a custodial sentence by 6 percentage points (47% of DRR recipients and 53% of short custodial sentence recipients), and were convicted of fewer reoffences resulting in a custodial sentence with 0.58 fewer reoffences on average (3.20 reoffences for DRR recipients and 3.78 reoffences for short custodial sentence recipients, on average) – these were statistically significant results.

• These results could be due to multiple reasons, including delay or difficulty in accessing treatment, and increased supervision by the Probation Service of DRR sentences compared with community sentences potentially providing more opportunities for reoffences to be detected. These are discussed further in the discussion and conclusion section.

Reoffending outcomes for mental health treatment requirement (MHTR) recipients compared with individuals sentenced without a CSTR

• This analysis indicates MHTR recipients had a lower reoffending rate than those on a community sentence without a CSTR by 8 percentage points (27% for MHTR recipients and 34% for recipients of a community sentence without a CSTR) and short custodial sentence recipients by 9 percentage points (27% MHTR recipients and 36% short custodial sentence recipients). These were statistically significant differences.

• Compared with short custodial sentence recipients, MHTR recipients reoffended less frequently with 0.53 fewer reoffences on average (1.01 reoffences for MHTR recipients and 1.54 reoffences for short custodial sentence recipients, on average), were less likely to reoffend and receive a custodial sentence by 17 percentage points (28% of MHTR recipients and 45% of short custodial sentence recipients) and were convicted of fewer reoffences resulting in custodial sentence with 0.69 fewer reoffences on average (1.39 reoffences resulting in a custodial sentence for MHTR recipients and 2.08 reoffences for short custodial sentence recipients, on average) – statistically significant results.

Conclusion

These findings indicate being sentenced with an ATR, DRR, or MHTR had a positive effect on reoffending outcomes compared with short custodial sentences, which is in line with previous research findings. However, the results report mixed effects of CSTRs on reoffending outcomes compared with community sentences without CSTRs. Further research would be needed to understand the reasons behind these findings. There are some key considerations when considering the implications of the results:

• As CSTRs may involve closer and more intensive supervision from probation and clinical staff than those on a community sentence without a CSTR, some of which receive little formal oversight, it may be that reoffences are more likely to be detected for those sentenced with a CSTR. This may diminish the ability to detect reoffending benefits of CSTRs, if present.

• Delay in accessing or commencing treatment may also influence reoffending outcomes, as previous research has demonstrated engagement in drug and alcohol misuse treatment can reduce reoffending (see section 2.2) and an analysis of pathways into treatment for ATR and DRR recipients found there can be long delays before attending treatment.

• Only reoffending within one year of sentence (or release for short custodial sentence recipients) was included and the effects on offending behaviour of CSTR sentencing may take longer to become apparent. CSTR sentencing and treatment may also have impacts that were not measured in this analysis, for example on health, employability, and social support. Overall, the findings of this impact evaluation demonstrate why additional CSTR investment and development in CSTRs has been pursued in recent years, and therefore it is recommended this analysis is repeated in 2026/27 to assess whether the impact of CSTR sentencing has changed over time. The data used have limitations and there are caveats that should be considered, for example the quality or type of treatment received by those sentenced with a CSTR is not consistent – see sections 3.4 and 3.5 for more information.

Ministry of Justice Analytical Series; London: Ministry of Justice, 2024. 80p.

By Frederic G. Reamer

Probation practitioners sometimes face moral uncertainty in their work that requires skilled judgment. These decisions may entail vexing questions about the limits of probationers’ privacy, informed consent protocols, paternalism, compliance with allegedly draconian policies, allocation of limited resources, and whistle-blowing, among others. Especially since the early 1980s, practitioners have been introduced to a wide range of conceptually rich ethical decision-making protocols. Practitioners’ increasingly nuanced grasp of ethical issues reflects the broader expansion of ethics education in the professions generally, including medicine, nursing, psychology, mental health counseling, and marriage and family therapy, among others (Banks, 2012; Barsky, 2019; Council on Social Work Education, 2022; Martin, Vaught and Solomon, 2017; Reamer, 2018a). Core competences related to professional ethics typically address practitioners’ ability to:

• make ethical decisions by applying relevant standards, relevant laws and regulations, and models for ethical decision-making

• cope with moral ambiguity

• use reflection and self-regulation to manage personal values and maintain professionalism

• demonstrate professional demeanor in behaviour, appearance, and communication (oral, written, and electronic)

• use technology ethically and appropriately to facilitate practice outcomes

• use supervision and consultation to guide professional judgment and behaviour.

These core competencies, which are especially relevant to probation, focus primarily on practitioners’ grasp and application of key concepts and decision-making protocols. They also highlight the importance of practitioners’ humility and ‘reflective practice’ when managing ethical issues (Dewayne, 2006; Kaushik, 2017). This Academic Insights paper will explore these concepts further, highlighting the potential benefits for probation practice.

Academic Insights 2023/03; Manchester, UK: HM Inspectorate of Probation 2023. 15p.

By Matthew Cracknell

Introduced under the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms, the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014 created a period of post-sentence supervision (PSS) after licence for individuals serving short custodial sentences. This empirical study features on the ground views and perspectives of practitioners and service users of PSS in one case-study area. Findings from this research suggest a number of issues and ambiguities with the enactment of the sentence. These include ambiguities regarding the correct use of enforcement procedures; the antagonistic relationship between third sector and Community Rehabilitation Company staff, primarily centred around transferring cases and concerns over the use of ‘light touch’ supervision and uncertainties over what the rehabilitative aims of this sentence mean in practice. These issues led to practitioners questioning the legitimacy of the third sector organisation involved in the management of PSS, while service users experienced PSS as a frustrating ‘pass-the-parcel’ experience, where resettlement support was constantly stalled and restarted at each juncture of the sentence. Before briefly discussing the potential future of PSS under the next iteration of probation policy, this article concludes by arguing that there is emerging evidence of a commonality of failures occurring at every juncture of the short sentence, undermining resettlement prospects for the long-neglected short sentence population.

Probation Journal Volume 67, Issue 4, December 2020, Pages 340-357

By Matt Cracknell

In 2021, 47,014 people were released from prison in England and Wales (Ministry of Justice, 2022), demonstrating the extent to which resettlement work is a core part of probation practice. However, the practitioners tasked to work with these individuals are often asked to fulfill a range of antagonistic and contradictory aims and approaches to resettlement (Canton, 2022) that can include:

• aftercare

• treatment

• the continuation of punishment

• risk management.

Indeed, there have been various policy and practice initiatives regarding how best to support people as they leave custody dating back to the birth of the modern prison in the early 19th century (Crow, 2006). These ambiguities reinforce concerns outlined by Maruna (2006) – that resettlement lacks an underlying theory or narrative for how it is supposed to work.

The uncertainty regarding how best to support people leaving custody is mirrored in ambiguities in the terminology used to describe this practice, with a set of interchangeable terms such as resettlement, re-entry, reintegration, and rehabilitation often used. However, there are a number of scholars who feel that the prefix ‘re’ for these terms is inappropriate and does not sufficiently capture the reality that many people leaving prison are perennially disadvantaged and had not previously been integrated or settled in society (Carlen and Tombs, 2006). In England and Wales, resettlement is the common terminology in official policy language, replacing the previous terms of ‘aftercare’ or ‘throughcare’, and is used to describe the process of leaving prison and returning to society. However, linked to its originations in official policy language, resettlement is also commonly used to refer to any prison and/or probation intervention used to address practical issues and criminogenic factors in order to reduce reoffending (Rubio Arnal, 2021).

Despite the longstanding ‘intractable problem’ (Crow, 2006: 3) in providing effective resettlement, there is a substantial evidence base that demonstrates how best to support people as they leave prison and transition back into the community. This Academic Insights paper will draw upon this literature in order to outline what best practice in this area might look like, outlining six key principles of effective resettlement support. The paper will then turn to outlining some potential barriers that need to be addressed in order to realise this approach, setting out the implications for resettlement policy.

Academic Insights 2023/01 ; Manchester, UK: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2023. 13p.

By Matt Cracknell

Contemporary criminal justice policy in England and Wales has witnessed various resurgences of political interest in resettlement and the short sentence population. This intermittent attentiveness has been mirrored in the circular re-iterations of policy initiatives ostensibly designed to bring greater continuity to the services that administer ‘through the gate’ work. These efforts include the ‘seamless sentence’ of the 1991 Criminal Justice Act; ‘end-to-end offender management’, the creation of The National Offender Management Service (NOMS) and the introduction of custody plus under New Labour; and the current Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) ‘through the gate’ reforms. It is important to analyse these attempts in order to understand why resettlement policy consistently fails to deliver an improved continuity between prisons and probation. This paper argues that resettlement policy has a common thread of issues that inhibit effective resettlement practice. This article will firstly consider the ‘essence’ (Senior and Ward, 2016) of resettlement practice, outlining several key principles that should be central elements for resettlement policy and practice, before providing an overview of these various policy initiatives; examining a common thread of failures in their realisation. This article will then look ahead at the next possible iteration of resettlement policy, ‘offender management in custody’ (OMiC), concluding that despite key changes, this latest policy continues to repeat the errors of past resettlement policy failures.

British Journal of Community Justice ©2021 Vol. 17(2) 86–103 https://doi.org/10.48411/pfz6-ba61

By Prison Reform International and the Thailand Institute of Justice

The Global Prison Trends 2024 report is the 10th edition in this flagship series, offering a detailed overview of the major developments and challenges in prison systems around the world. Published in collaboration with the Thailand Institute of Justice, this edition sheds light on key issues such as prison overcrowding, the mental health crisis in prisons, corruption, and the growing use of digital technologies. It also highlights the significant disparities in prison labour, including variations in access, pay and working conditions.

In addition to identifying these challenges, the 2024 report showcases innovative solutions, including ‘green’ initiatives aimed at promoting rehabilitation and sustainability.

London: Penal Reform International , 52p 2024

By Nixon Randy Sinaga

Indonesia maintains a punitive war on drugs policy model. Various campaigns are conducted to emphasise that drug offences are the most serious crimes. This construction is clearly contrary to international human rights standards. The Human Rights Committee defines the meaning of ‘most serious crime’ through General Comment No. 36 (2018) on Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the right to life (GC/36). Paragraph 35 of GC/36 does not place drug offences as one of the most serious crimes. This further confirms that Indonesia’s war on drugs policy has been built upon an erroneous and unfounded paradigm. Law Number 35 of 2009 concerning Narcotics (Narcotics Law) which is in force until now contains offences that tend to open up extensive interpretations and overlap between one another. The implication of this overlapping offence in the Narcotics Law is the imprisonment of people who use drugs, people who have drug dependency, and people who abuse drugs. The paradigm of the most serious crime built by the government in narcotics cases actually brings problems to the conditions of correctional institutions in Indonesia. The problem is at least evident from the results of an assessment of the characteristics of people incarcerated for drug cases conducted by the Jakarta Regional Office of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights, stating that at the end of 2018, the number of people in prison for drug cases reached 115,289 people or 95% of the total number of people imprisoned for special criminal cases in Indonesia. This figure is much higher than the number of people detained in corruption cases (5,110), illegal logging (890), terrorism (441), and money laundering (165).

London: International Drug Policy Consortium, 2024. 8p.

By Margaret Love & David Schlussel

Background: This report is the first-ever comprehensive national survey of the period of time a person, who is otherwise eligible to expunge or seal a misdemeanor or felony conviction record, must wait before obtaining this relief. Waiting periods are usually established by statute and can range from 0 to 20 years, a period that typically (though by no means invariably) commences after completion of the court-imposed sentence. Also typically, during a waiting period the person must be free from certain forms of involvement with the justice system: from a felony conviction, from any conviction, or from any arrest, again depending on state law. These and other conditions and circumstances may extend (or occasionally shorten) the length of a waiting period in specific cases.

Contents of the Report: Following this introduction, the report consists of two 50 state Tables, one showing the waiting periods applicable to clearing of misdemeanors, and the other showing the waiting periods applicable to clearing of felonies, with states that have no general record clearing listed at the bottom of each table. The Tables are followed by maps showing the geographical distribution of waiting periods for each type of conviction. The maps are followed by an appendix describing in greater detail the laws governing waiting periods in each of the jurisdictions studied.

Summary of 50-state research results:

• The waiting periods for misdemeanor convictions range from a high of 10 or 15 years in Maryland (depending on the nature of the offense) to 0 years in Mississippi (although only first-time offenses are eligible), with most states falling at the lower end of that range. Of the 44 states that authorize clearing of misdemeanor convictions, a near-majority have waiting periods of 3 years or less (19 states) and the vast majority have waiting periods of 5 years or less (35 states).

• The waiting periods for felony convictions range from as high as 10 or 20 years in North Carolina to as low as 0-2 years in California, with most states falling at the lower end of that range. Of the 35 states that authorize clearing of felony convictions, a near-majority have waiting periods of 7 years or less (17 states).

Comment on methodology: This report deals only with waiting periods, and only with those applicable to general record clearing of felony and misdemeanor convictions. Different waiting periods may apply to specialized record-clearing programs such as those that apply to victims of human trafficking, decriminalized offenses (e.g., marijuana), and so-called youthful offender programs. It also does not take account of other eligibility requirements that typically apply that could extend the waiting period, including completion of supervision and/or payment of court debt, or potential extensions related to prior, subsequent, and pending criminal matters. It does not consider provisions allowing the DA to consent to shorten waiting periods.

The Tables are based only on the length of the waiting period specified in statute. Insofar as practicable, the charts account for differences in when the waiting period commences (e.g., upon conviction, upon release from incarceration, upon completion of supervision, upon completion of sentence including payment of court debt). Further information about states in the far righthand column of the Tables may be found in the state-specific write-ups in the Appendix or in the state-specific profiles from CCRC’s Restoration of Rights Project.

Considerations for assessing the efficacy of waiting periods: In assessing how waiting periods affect the efficacy of a particular state’s record clearing system, it is important to consider whether some states with shorter waiting periods authorize clearance of a narrower set of convictions, and, conversely, whether some states with longer periods may authorize clearing of a broader set of convictions. In many if not most cases, other variables (including but not limited to those mentioned in the foregoing paragraph) will have to be brought into play to provide a fair assessment.

The changing concept (and length) of waiting periods: Many waiting periods, notably longer ones, reflect a concept of record clearing via expungement or sealing as “recognition of successful rehabilitation and reason to terminate legal disqualifications and disabilities.”1 In recent years, however, many states have shortened waiting periods in recognition of the constructive role that record clearance plays in facilitating reentry and rehabilitation, reasoning that individuals “need the most assistance immediately after release from prison or termination of sentence.”

Since 2016, thirteen (13) states have reduced their waiting periods, four (4) states more than once. The seven (7) states that have enacted a general conviction sealing authority for the first time since 2018 have generally (though not invariably) provided shorter waiting periods than states with more venerable systems.3 States that have reduced their waiting periods in recent years, or enacted new record-clearing laws for the first time, tend to be geographically and politically diverse. The Tables show that the states with the longest waiting periods in the country are on the East Coast, with all but one in the Mid-Atlantic region.

Waiting periods and public safety: Data on recidivism dating from the 1990s reinforced policy arguments that waiting periods should be long enough to reduce the risk of reoffending after record clearance. But new research on recidivism suggests that shorter waiting periods need not raise public safety concerns. Researchers at the RAND Corporation have raised questions about decades of received truth about the prevalence of reoffending after people leave prison, proposing that the majority of individuals with a conviction do not have a subsequent conviction, and that a person’s likelihood of being convicted again declines rapidly as more time passes. This new research would seem to cast doubt on the legitimacy of concerns that shortening waiting periods necessarily raises public safety concerns. Indeed, to the contrary, it suggests that it may be possible to reconcile the seemingly inconsistent policy goals of facilitating and recognizing rehabilitation through shorter waiting periods.

Arnold, MO: Collateral Consequences Resource Center (CCRC) , 2022 23p.

By JESSICA REICHERT, RYAN MARANVILLE, EVA OTT HILL

Persons reentering the community after prison face many obstacles that have been shown to reduce recidivism, such as securing employment. Like many states, Illinois operates work release centers allowing prisoners nearing the end of their sentence to work in the community and stay in the correctional facility when not working. Although the research is limited, these programs have been shown to be successful at increasing post-release employment, increasing hours worked, and reducing recidivism. We described characteristics of 1,580 participants in Illinois’ four Adult Transition Centers (ATCs) and examined differences in characteristics associated with rearrest and reincarceration. We found age, gender, and ATC facility were associated with rearrest and reincarceration. We found, as well, that recidivism risk, offense type, prior arrests, prior incarcerations, and length of stay were associated with rearrest. We recommend consistently measuring risk and tailoring services to the needs of the participant population.

Chicago: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authorisy 2023. 17p.

By Deanie Anyangwe & Alycia Hardy

According to a 2010 Pew Charitable Trust report, more than 1.1 million men and 120,000 women incarcerated in jails and prisons in the United States have children under the age of 17, and 2.7 million children nationwide have one or both parents incarcerated. As more attention has been paid to the negative consequences of incarceration on families in recent years, different localities have undertaken new efforts to mitigate the impact of the criminal legal systems. Most recently, there have been federal efforts to offer alternatives to incarceration to parents and caregivers. In 2021, the OJJDP began a new grant program titled the Family-Based Alternative Sentencing Program.

In this report, we analyze the landscape for family-based alternative sentencing programs to assess the effectiveness of these programs in meeting their program goals. We specifically focused our analysis on two programs funded by OJJDP’s Families Based Alternative Sentencing Program: Lehigh County, PA and Washtenaw County, MI. Additionally, we conducted an in-depth analysis of a state-funded program in Washington County, Oregon with more longevity to get a better sense of how these programs function over time. As we outline what we have learned from the field, we will be drawing particular attention to the challenges and barriers in planning and implementation, the equity and justice-related implications of these programs, and the nuances in how these programs are functioning. In highlighting the challenges with facilitating these programs, we hope to demonstrate the need for alternatives to incarceration that address immediate needs for caregivers and children, minimize the power of the police state, and support program improvements that increase accessibility and utilization by those targeted for criminalization, all while pushing for a shift away from incarceration altogether and working toward keeping families and communities unified, safe, and well. We offer policymakers, practitioners, and advocates considerations and recommendations for non-coercive alternatives to incarceration that support the autonomy, well-being, and safety of children and families.

Washington DC: CLASP: 2023. 43p.

By Stella Botchway and Seena Fazel

In England and Wales, there has been considerable work over recent years to reduce the numbers of deaths in custody. Currently, there is no standard,internationally agreed definition of a death in custody, which limits compar-isons. In addition, rates of death in custody are often reported per country or region inhabitants, but it would be more useful to report per number of detainees. In this short communication, we present data on deaths in indivi-duals who have been detained in England and Wales between 2016 to 2019. Wealso present a method to calculate rates of death per custodial population in key settings using routine data, allowing for more consistent comparisons across time and different settings. Most deaths in custody between 2016–2019 occurred in prisons (56% of all deaths in custody over 2016–19; Table 1). However, when rates are considered, those detained under the Mental HealthAct had the highest rate of deaths, which ranged from 1103–1334/100,000 per-sons detained. Around one in five deaths were self-inflicted. The data presented highlights the need to maintain focus on improving the physical health and mental health of all those detained in custody, both whilst in detention and after release

THE JOURNAL OF FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY & PSYCHOLOGY2022, VOL. 33, NO. 1, 1–13

By  Benjamin W. Fisher; Catalina Valdez; Abigail J. Beneke

This document presents the research methodology, findings, and discusses implications of a research project that examined the potential impacts of removing school-based law enforcement (SLBE), and how that might shape outcomes related to criminal justice system contact or other racial and ethnic disparities. The research study drew on two secondary data sources: The School Survey on Crime Safety (SSOCS), which is a biennial nationally representative sample of school administrators; and the Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), a biennial census of American public schools. Both data sources were used to construct a two-wave longitudinal dataset that identified schools that did or did not remove SBLE. The researchers used a difference-in-differences approach. The researchers compared changes between schools that did remove versus those that did not remove SBLE, in three measures of criminal justice contact: arrests; referrals to law enforcement; and crimes reported to police. The report presents the research findings, and notes that they were mostly consistent across school racial and ethnic composition. Results indicated that for schools to improve racial and ethnic equity in their use of law enforcement, they should use strategies beyond simply removing police from schools.

Madison, WI: Department of Civil Society and Community Studies School of Human Ecology University of Wisconsin-Madison 2024. 82p.

By Maxim Ananyev, Mikhail Poyker:

Inmates' informal code often ascribes low status to persons perceived as passive homosexuals. We use longitudinal data to investigate whether prison experience contributes to anti-gay beliefs. We find that prison experience prompts a higher level of anti-gay sentiments among males and their families, while no discernible difference exists before incarceration. We find no effect for female ex-prisoners. We confirm that the results are not driven by pre-incarceration trends, changes in trust and social capital, socioeconomic status, mental health, masculinity norms, and other potential alternative explanations. Our study sheds light on the overlooked role of prisons as a significant contributor to the propagation of anti-gay attitudes.

IZA DP No. 17137 Bonn: Institute of Labor Economics, 2024.