out of place assignment in prison

Time-In-Cell : Isolation and Incarceration

What is solitary confinement, and what has been constitutional law’s relationship to the practices of holding prisoners in isolation? One answer comes from Wilkinson v. Austin , 1 a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case discussing Ohio’s super-maximum security (“supermax”) prison, which opened in 1998 to hold more than five hundred people.

Writing for the unanimous Court in Wilkinson , Justice Kennedy detailed a painful litany of conditions. 2

[A]lmost every aspect of an inmate’s life is controlled and monitored. Inmates must remain in their cells, which measure 7 by 14 feet, for 23 hours per day. A light remains on in the cell at all times . . . and an inmate who attempts to shield the light to sleep is subject to further discipline . . . .

Incarceration [in supermax] is synonymous with extreme isolation. In contrast to any other Ohio prison . . . [the] cells have solid metal doors with metal strips along their sides and bottoms which prevent conversation or communication with other inmates. All meals are taken alone . . . . Opportunities for visitation are rare . . . . It is fair to say [that] inmates are deprived of almost any environmental or sensory stimuli and of almost all human contact . . . . [P]lacement . . . is for an indefinite period of time, limited only by an inmate’s sentence. 3

The specifics were in service of meeting the exacting test that the Court had crafted about when constitutional law has a role to play in protecting prisoners. In an earlier case, Sandin v. Conner , the Supreme Court held that a prisoner could challenge his placement in segregation only if the change worked an “atypical and significant hardship” which, thereby, infringed a prisoner’s liberty interests and triggered due process obligations under the Fourteenth Amendment. 4

In Wilkinson , the Court concluded that placement in Ohio’s supermax qualified as a significant hardship, since “almost all human contact [was] prohibited, even . . . conversation . . . from cell to cell.” 5 Nonetheless, the Court held that Ohio’s procedures sufficed to buffer against “arbitrary decisionmaking.” 6 The approved procedures included an in-person hearing that the prisoner can attend; the provision of a written “brief summary of the factual basis for the classification;” “a rebuttal opportunity” at two levels of internal review (each authorized to reject the placement); “a short statement of reasons;” and another review thirty days after the initial placement. 7 The Wilkinson Court thus required some process but did not discuss whether subjecting individuals to such conditions was itself constitutionally impermissible.

Ten years after Wilkinson , Justice Kennedy returned to the topic of solitary confinement in a 2015 concurrence in Ayala v. Davis . 8 Justice Kennedy noted that Hector Ayala, who had been sentenced to death in 1989, had spent most of “his more than 25 years in custody in ‘administrative segregation’ or, as it is better known, solitary confinement.” 9 If following “the usual pattern,” Mr. Ayala had been held for decades “in a windowless cell no larger than a typical parking spot for 23 hours a day . . . [and] allowed little or no opportunity for conversation or interaction with anyone.” 10

Relying on data collected in the late 1990s, Justice Kennedy observed it was likely that about “25,000 inmates in the United States” were living in such conditions, “many regardless of their conduct in prison.” 11 Justice Kennedy called for more “public inquiry or interest” in prisons. And in a vivid protest, he suggested that when imposing a capital sentence, a judge tell such a defendant that “during the many years you will serve in prison before your execution, the penal system has a solitary confinement regime that will bring you to the edge of madness, perhaps to madness itself.” 12

Justice Kennedy raised the prospect that solitary confinement violated substantive constitutional rights. 13 “[T]he judiciary may be required . . . to determine whether workable alternative systems for long-term confinement exist, and, if so, whether a correctional system should be required to adopt them.” 14 Within a month, Justice Kennedy’s distress was echoed by Justice Breyer, who joined by Justice Ginsburg, condemned the “dehumanizing effect of solitary confinement;” their dissent in Glossip v. Gross argued the unconstitutionality of the death penalty. 15

When these Justices were writing, the question of the constitutionality of profound isolation was en route to the Court in a certiorari petition on behalf of Alfredo Prieto. 16 Under Virginia’s policy that offenders “sentenced to Death will be assigned directly to Death Row,” 17 Prieto was automatically placed in conditions that a federal district court judges described as “eerily reminiscent” 18 of those in Wilkinson v. Austin . Prieto argued that Wilkinson required an individualized determination of the need for such segregation. 19 Over a dissent, the Fourth Circuit rejected that claim: Imprisonment in conditions that the trial court had found to be “dehumanizing” and “undeniably severe” did not rise to a constitutional violation. 20 Former corrections officials and mental health professionals urged the Court to take up the question and detailed the harms of isolation and the alternatives available. 21 But the petition became moot when, on October 1, 2015, Virginia executed Mr. Prieto. 22

Such potential for developments in the law on isolation cannot be understood in isolation, for the legitimacy and legality of solitary confinement is under siege in several quarters. The source of the growing distress comes in part from the chilling description provided in Wilkinson , written as the post-9/11 detention of hundreds of people at Guantánamo Bay made visible the starkness of totalizing control. Detainees there and prisoners in California’s supermax at Pelican Bay mounted protests, including hunger strikes. 23 By 2010, the ACLU’s National Prison Project had launched its “Stop Solitary” campaign, producing reports of horrific conditions for thousands of prisoners held in Texas and in “the box” in New York State. 24 As suicides and violence brought media attention to the suffering and deaths, 25 the Vera Institute worked with prison officials to create alternatives. 26

The Supreme Court has not yet faced Justice Kennedy’s substantive constitutional question, and lower courts have rejected some claims by individuals held for decades in isolation. 27 Yet a few courts have concluded that placement of seriously mentally ill individuals in isolation is unconstitutional. 28 Further, within the past two years, courts have approved settlements in class actions in Arizona, California, and Pennsylvania, each focusing on subsets of detainees such as the seriously mentally ill, juveniles, or individuals with disabilities, and specifying the predicates to and limits on the use of isolation. 29

Legislators have likewise weighed in. In some states, including Colorado and Massachusetts, have imposed limits on isolation for the mentally ill. 30 On the federal level, Senators Chuck Grassley, Richard Durbin, John Cornyn, Sheldon Whitehouse, Mike Lee, Chuck Schumer, Lindsey Graham, Patrick Leahy, and Corey Booker have joined forces to co-sponsor new legislation, a Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act, proposing a sharp curtailment of isolation for the few juveniles in the federal system. 31

The developments in the United States need also to be placed in a transnational context. In the spring of 2015, proposed U.N. provisions (aptly styled the Mandela Rules and drafted with input from U.S. correctional leaders) defined confinement of prisoners for twenty-two hours or more per day for a period exceeding fifteen days to be “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.” 32 The rules call for banning isolation of vulnerable prisoners, limiting isolation’s use to exceptional circumstances, and ensuring visiting opportunities for those in isolation. 33

Yet to look only at pressures from outside prisons is to miss the action within . During the last few years, directors of several state prison systems revamped their policies to constrain the use of isolation. 34 Their national organization, the Association of State Correctional Administrators (ASCA)—whose members are the directors of state and federal prison systems—chartered a special committee on the topic and adopted best practices. 35 In the fall of 2015, ASCA issued a statement that prolonged isolation represents a “grave problem” and called for its reduction or elimination. 36 In January of 2016, the American Correctional Association will hold hearings on its new proposed standards for “restricted housing” that, likewise, reflect prison leaders efforts to set limits on the use of isolation.

To know if this sense of urgency and the many cris de coeur from across the political spectrum will have a transformative effect requires a baseline. The questions are whether the “usual pattern” that Justice Kennedy described (placement in windowless parking-lot size cells for twenty-three hour days) are commonplace; how many people live under such conditions; the criteria for entry and exit; and whether the degrees of isolation vary. Answers come from two reports, Administrative Segregation, Degrees of Isolation, and Incarceration: A National Overview of State and Federal Correctional Policies , published in 2013 , 37 and Time-In-Cell: The ASCA-Liman 2014 National Survey of Administrative Segregation in Prison , released in the fall of 2015, both of which were based on research jointly sponsored by ASCA and Yale Law School’s Liman Project. 38

The goals of the reports were to create a shared understanding of isolation and to enable cross-jurisdictional comparisons on rules and practices. The challenges of doing so came from the array of terms and rules governing what is variously called “administrative confinement,” “administrative segregation,” “close supervision,” “behavior modification,” “departmental segregation,” “enhanced supervision housing” (ESH), “inmate segregation,” “intensive management,” “special management unit” (SMU), “security (or special) housing units” (SHU), “security control,” and “maximum control units.” Such placements are predicated on one of three reasons - discipline, protection, or generic fears that a prisoner will cause harm.

Given this array, we—Liman and ASCA–began by focusing on a subset of the governing rules; in 2012 we asked directors of state and federal corrections systems, to provide their policies on “administrative segregation,” defined as removing a prisoner from general population to spend twenty-two to twenty-three hours a day in a cell for thirty days or more. The resulting 2013 Report, based on responses from forty-seven jurisdictions, taught us that at the formal level of policies, getting into segregation was relatively easy, but few policies focused on getting people out.

The criteria for entry were broad. Many jurisdictions permitted moving a prisoner into segregation if that prisoner posed “a threat” to institutional safety or a danger to “self, staff, or other inmates.” 39 Constraints on decision-making were minimal; the kind of notice provided and what constituted a “hearing” varied substantially. 40 The hopes expressed in 2005 in Wilkinson v. Austin —that minimal due process safeguards would suffice to buffer against arbitrariness—did not appear to be reflected in the policies, which invested prison officials with enormous discretion.

In 2014, the Liman Program and ASCA took the next step by asking prison directors more than 130 questions—this time about the people in restricted housing and the conditions in which they lived. Responses came from forty-six jurisdictions (albeit not all jurisdictions answered all the questions). The result— Time-In-Cell —offers a unique interjurisdictional window into segregation. We summarize some of its findings below.

A basic question is the number of prisoners in isolation. In the 2015 Ayala concurrence, Justice Kennedy cited the figure of 25,000 by relying on research about supermax facilities from the late 1990s. But we tallied 66,000 prisoners in thirty-four jurisdictions in restricted housing in 2014, and those prison systems housed about 73% of the 1.5 million people incarcerated in U.S. prisons. Extrapolating, an estimated 80,000 to 100,000 people were in such segregation in 2014, or about one in every six or seven prisoners. And neither the reports from the 1990s nor ours included people in local jails, juvenile facilities, or in military and immigration detention.

Time-In-Cell also focused on conditions in administrative segregation. While the numbers of people are much higher than the figure Justice Kennedy mentioned in Ayala , the pictures he painted in 2005 and in 2015 are not out-of-date but mirror prisoners’ current experiences. The cells are small, ranging from 45 to 128 square feet, sometimes for two people. In the majority of jurisdictions, prisoners spend twenty-three hours in their cells on weekdays and forty-eight hours straight on weekends. In many of the systems reporting, blacks and Hispanics were over-represented in isolation, when compared to the prison population in general.

Opportunities for social contact, such as out-of-cell time for exercise, visits, and programs, are limited, ranging from three to seven hours a week in many jurisdictions. Phone calls and social visits could be as infrequent as once per month; a few jurisdictions provided more opportunities. The reminder is that what we could chronicle was the potential for social contact and activities. But in most jurisdictions, prisoners’ access to social contact, programs, exercise, as well as what prisoners were allowed to keep in their cells could be limited as sanctions for misbehavior.

Administrative segregation generally had no fixed endpoint. Further, several systems did not keep track of the numbers of continuous days that a person remained in isolation, and in the twenty-four jurisdictions reporting on this question, a substantial number indicated that prisoners were in segregation for more than three years. As to release and reentry, in thirty jurisdictions tracking the numbers in 2013, a total of 4,400 prisoners went directly from the isolation of administrative segregation to release in the community.

Unsurprisingly, the running of administrative segregation units posed many challenges for prison systems, and the problems – coupled with the surge of concerns – have created incentives for change. Some jurisdictions required staff to have additional training and offered flexible schedules, rotations, or provided extra benefits for the assignment. Further, prison directors also cited prisoner and staff wellbeing, pending lawsuits, and costs as reasons to revise their rules. A few directors added that change was important because it “is the right thing to do.”

As noted, the ASCA-Liman Report relies on answers from those who run prisons. In the fall of 2015, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) released a survey drawn from another source—prisoners. 41 Based on responses during 2011-2012 from 91,177 inmates in 233 state and federal prisons and in 357 jails, BJS found that almost 20 percent of those detainees had been held in restricted housing within the prior year. 42 The individuals more likely to have been placed in restricted housing were younger, lesbian, gay, bisexual, or mentally ill, and without a high school diploma. 43 The BJS study found that expansive use of restrictive housing correlated with institutional disorder, such as gang activity and fighting, rather than with calmer environments. 44

Time-In-Cell provides both a window into the pervasive use of isolation and a baseline from which to assess whether the many efforts to limit isolation will have an impact. The practices of isolation have become entrenched in the past forty years; unraveling them will require intensive work. The twin questions on the ground are whether the number of persons held in such settings is diminishing and whether the conditions in which they live are less isolating. And coupled with Wilkinson , Ayala , and Prieto , Time-In-Cell should prompt inquiry into why this form of confinement has not already been understood to be unconstitutional.

Judith Resnik is the Arthur Liman Professor of Law, Sarah Baumgartel is the Senior Liman Fellow in Residence, and Johanna Kalb is a Visiting Associate Professor of Law and the Director of the Liman Program at Yale Law School. All rights reserved. Thanks are due to the Yale Law Journal Forum under the guidance of Michael Clemente; to current and former Yale Law students Corey Guilmette, Devon Porter, Josh Nuni, and Diana Li; to George and Camille Camp, A.T. Wall, Gary Mohr, Rick Raemisch, and Bernie Warner of ASCA; to Denny Curtis, David Fathi, and Hope Metcalf; and to the many other people in and outside prisons working to change conditions of confinement.

Preferred Citation: Judith Resnik, Sarah Baumgartel & Johanna Kalb, Time-In-Cell : Isolation and Incarceration , 125 Yale L.J. F. 212 (2016), http://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/time-in-cell-isolation-and-incarceration.

Volume 133’s Emerging Scholar of the Year: Robyn Powell

Announcing the eighth annual student essay competition, announcing the ylj academic summer grants program, this essay is part of a collection, reactions to time-in-cell.

These essays respond to Time-In-Cell , a report based on research jointly sponsored by the Association of State Correctional Administrators (ASCA) and by the Arthur Liman Public Interest Program at Yale Law School. For more information on the release of the report, please click here .

Only Once I Thought About Suicide

Worse than death, staying alive: reforming solitary confinement in u.s. prisons and jails, the liman report and alternatives to prolonged solitary confinement, time-in-cell : a practitioner’s perspective.

545 U.S. 209 (2005).

Id. at 223-24.

Id. at 214-15.

Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-84 (1995).

Wilkinson , 545 U.S. at 227.

Id. at 224-226.

Davis v. Ayala, 135 S. Ct. 2187, 2208 (2015) (Kennedy, J., concurring). That decision rejected a habeas petitioner’s claim that the exclusion of his lawyer from a hearing about racially prejudiced jury selection violated his constitutional rights.

Id. at 2208-09 (citing Entombed: Isolation in the U.S. Federal Prison System , Amnesty Int’l 2 n.3 (July 2014), http://www.amnestyusa.org/sites/default/files/amr510402014en.pdf [http://perma.cc/CYD4-4DPT]). The Amnesty International report relied on the article by Daniel P. Mears, A Critical Look at Supermax Prisons , Corrections Compendium , Sept.-Oct. 2005, which in turn used research from the late 1990s. See also Daniel P. Mears, Evaluating the Effectiveness of Supermax Prisons , Urb. Inst. 4, app. 74 tbl.1 (Mar. 2006), http://www.urban.org/research/publication/evaluating-effectiveness-supermax-prisons [http://perma.cc/AT77-HPZ2] (including a chart borrowed from Roy D. King that identified states in 1997-1998 that had supermax facilities).

Davis , 135 S. Ct. at 2209.

Id . The constitutional predicates include that such confinement violates the Eighth Amendment by imposing serious harms or denying basic needs to which prison officials were deliberately indifferent. See Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (1991).

During the past few decades, a few lower courts have declined to hold long-term isolation unconstitutional, but the law has been shifting since those rulings. Further, given that Eighth Amendment law is sometimes predicated on the obligation to protect a person’s dignity, see, e.g. , Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 100 (1958), and given Justice Kennedy’s identification of dignity as central to the substantive meaning of due process and to equal protection, see, e.g. , Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 2597 (2015), challenges to isolation can be focused on the deprivations of dignity that solitary confinement imposes. See generally Laura L. Rovner, Dignity and the Eighth Amendment: A New Approach to Challenging Solitary Confinement (Univ. of Denver Sturm Coll. of Law, Working Paper No. 15-55, 2015), http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2675228 [http://perma.cc/K73K-VMQ4]. In addition, statutory claims include violations of the Americans with Disability Act. See Brittany Glidden & Laura Rovner, Requiring the State To Justify Supermax Confinement for Mentally Ill Prisoners: A Disability Discrimination Approach , 90 Denver U. L. Rev. 1 (2012).

Davis , 135 S. Ct. at 2210.

Glossip v. Gross, 135 S. Ct. 2726, 2765 (2015) (Breyer, J., dissenting, joined by Ginsburg, J.).

Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Prieto v. Clarke, 2015 WL 4100302 (2015) (No. 15-31), cert. dismissed , 2015 WL 4105028 (2015).

Va. Dep’t of Corr. Operating Procedure 830.2(D)(7), 460.A, CAJA-941 (2015).

Prieto v. Clarke, 780 F.3d 245, 248 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Prieto v. Clarke, No. 12–1199, 2013 WL 6019215, at *6 (E.D. Va. Nov. 12, 2013), cert. dismissed , 2015 WL 4105028 (2015)).

Prieto , 2015 WL 4100302, at *2.

Id. at 254-55. Judge Wynn, dissenting, rejected the view that “Prieto’s automatic, permanent, and unreviewable placement” was constitutional. Id. at 255-56.

See Brief of Amici Curiae Corrections Experts in Support of Petitioner, Prieto v. Clarke, 2015 WL 4720277, at *7 (2015) (No. 15-31); Brief of Amici Curiae Professors and Practitioners of Psychiatry and Psychology in Support of Petitioner, Prieto v. Clarke, 2015 WL 4720278 (2015) (No. 15-31).

Prieto , 2015 WL 4105028 (dismissing the petition for certiorari); see also Associated Press, Appeals Exhausted, Alfredo Prieto, Serial Killer, Is Executed , N.Y. Times (Oct. 1, 2015), http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/02/us/appeals-exhausted-alfredo-prieto-serial-killer-is-executed.html [http://perma.cc/4VEB-FNZ6].

See Neil A. Lewis, Guantánamo Prisoners Go on Hunger Strike , N.Y. Times (Sept. 18, 2005), http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/18/politics/guantanamo-prisoners-go-on-hunger-strike.html [http://perma.cc/BY7Q-Z56U]; Ian Lovett, Hunger Strike by Inmates Is Latest Challenge to California’s Prison System , N.Y. Times (July 7, 2011), http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/08/us/08hunger.html [http://perma.cc/6PDJ-J6YJ].

See Burke Butler, Matthew Simpson & Rebecca L. Robertson, A Solitary Failure: The Waste, Cost and Harm of Solitary Confinement in Texas , ACLU Texas (2015), http://www.aclutx.org/2015/02/05/a-solitary-failure [http://perma.cc/2LMB-BM99]; Scarlet Kim, Taylor Pendergrass & Helen Zelon, Boxed In: The True Cost of Extreme Isolation in New York’s Prisons , N.Y. Civil Liberties Union (2012), http://www.nyclu.org/files/publications/nyclu_boxedin_FINAL.pdf [http://perma.cc/T2G9-PEXY].

See, e.g. , Kevin Johnson, More Than a Decade After Release, They All Come Back , USA Today (Nov. 4, 2015), http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/11/04/solitary-confinement-prisoners-impact/73830286 [http://perma.cc/G9AS-RM5V]; Michael Schwirtz & Michael Winerip, Kalief Browder, Held at Rikers Island for 3 Years Without Trial, Commits Suicide , N.Y. Times (June 8, 2015), http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/09/nyregion/kalief-browder-held-at-rikers-island-for-3-years-without-trial-commits-suicide.html [http://perma.cc/475A-KXY6]; Erica Goode, Solitary Confinement: Punished for Life , N.Y. Times (Aug. 3, 2015), http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/04/health/solitary-confinement-mental-illness.html [http://perma.cc/WFZ4-D5TT].

Alison Shames, Jessa Wilcox & Ram Subramanian, Solitary Confinement: Common Misconceptions and Emerging Safe Alternatives , Vera Inst. Just. (May 2015), http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/solitary-confinement-misconceptions-safe-alternatives-report.pdf [http://perma.cc/U8T7-B9MB].

See, e.g. , Silverstein v. Bureau of Prisons, 559 F. App’x 739 (10th Cir. 2014).

See Madrid v. Gomez, 889 F. Supp. 1146 (N.D. Cal. 1995); Jones’El v. Berge, 164 F. Supp. 2d 1096 (W.D. Wis. 2001). See generally Elizabeth Alexander, “This Experiment, So Fatal”: Some Initial Thoughts on Strategic Choices in the Campaign Against Solitary Confinement , 5 U.C. Irvine L. Rev. 1 (2015).

Stipulation, Parsons v. Ryan, No. CV 12-00601-PHX-DJH (D. Ariz. Oct. 14, 2014), ECF No. 1185; Settlement Agreement, Ashker v. Gov. of Cal., No. C 09-05796 CW (N.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2015), ECF No. 424-2; Settlement Agreement, Disability Rights Network of Pa. v. Wetzel, No. 1:13-cv-006535-JEJ (M.D. Pa. Jan. 9, 2015), ECF No. 59.

See Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 17-1-113.8(1) (West 2015); Mass. Gen. Laws Ann ch. 127 § 39A(b) (West 2015).

S. 2123, 114th Cong. § 212 (2015).

U.N. Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Mandela Rules), U.N. Econ. & Soc. Comm. on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, 24th Sess., U.N. Doc. E/CN.15/2015/L.6/Rev.1 (May 21, 2015), http://www.unodc.org/documents/commissions/CCPCJ/CCPCJ_Sessions/CCPCJ_24/resolutions/L6_Rev1/ECN152015_L6Rev1_e_V1503585.pdf [http://perma.cc/VTV5-DFT9].

See Erica Goode, After 20 Hours in Solitary, Colorado’s Prisons Chief Wins Praise , N.Y. Times (Mar. 15, 2014), http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/us/after-20-hours-in-solitary-colorados-prisons-chief-wins-praise.html [http://perma.cc/X392-SQ6T] (reporting Colorado’s change to “sending inmates to solitary confinement for specific lengths of time instead of indefinite periods”); Timothy Williams, Prison Officials Join Movement To Curb Solitary Confinement , N.Y. Times (Sept. 2, 2015), http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/03/us/prison-directors-group-calls-for-limiting-solitary-confinement.html [http://perma.cc/3NKH-YVUC] (describing Washington’s success in “reduc[ing] the number of inmates in restrictive housing by developing special placement programs for the mentally ill and by launching a 16-week training program for guards”).

Policy: Resolutions, Legislation & Legal Issues: Administrative Segregation Sub-Committee , Ass’n St. Correctional Admins. ( Jan . 25, 2013) , http://www.asca.net/projects/16/pages/203 [http://perma.cc/QC6N-SY96].

Press Release, Ass’n of State Corr. Admin., New Report on Prisoners in Administrative Segregation Prepared by the Association of State Correctional Administrators and the Arthur Liman Public Interest Program at Yale Law School (Sept. 2, 2015), http://www.asca.net/system/assets/attachments/8895/ASCA%20LIMAN%20Press%20Release%208-28-15.pdf?1441222595 [http://perma.cc/V8TF-BRCG].

Hope Metcalf, Jamelia Morgan, Samuel Oliker-Friedland, Judith Resnik, Julie Spiegel, Haran Tae, Alyssa Roxanne Work & Brian Holbrook, Administrative Segregation, Degrees of Isolation, and Incarceration: A National Overview of State and Federal Correctional Policies (Yale Law Sch., Pub. Law Working Paper No. 301, 2013) [hereinafter Liman Administrative Segregation Policies 2013 Report ], http://ssrn.com/abstract=2286861 [http://perma.cc/DBU3-P48H].

Sarah Baumgartel, Corey Guilmette, Johanna Kalb, Diana Li, Josh Nuni, Devon E. Porter & Judith Resnik, Time-In-Cell: The ASCA-Liman 2014 National Survey of Administrative Segregation in Prison (Yale Law Sch., Pub. Law Working Paper No. 552, 2015) [hereinafter ASCA-Liman Time-In-Cell 2014 ], http://ssrn.com/abstract=2655627 [http://perma.cc/QJ9X-RLSN]. The Liman Project is part of the Arthur Liman Program at Yale Law School. See Arthur Liman Public Interest Program , Yale Law Sch ., http://www.law.yale.edu/centers-workshops/arthur-liman-public-interest-program [http://perma.cc/J7SC-H5ZU].

ASCA-Liman Time-In-Cell 2014 , supra note 38 , at 4-5; see also 2013 Liman Administrative Segregation Policies 2013 Report , supra note 37 , at 5-11.

ASCA-Liman Time-In-Cell 2014 , supra note 38 , at 4-5; see also Liman Administrative Segregation Policies 2013 Report , supra note 37 , at 11-13.

Allen J. Beck, Use of Restrictive Housing in U.S. Prisons and Jails, 2011-12 , Bureau Just. Stat. (Oct. 2015), http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/urhuspj1112.pdf [http://perma.cc/4V2B-YB64].

Id. at 1 & fig.1.

Prison Fellowship

Understanding the Criminal Justice System

Click on Image to Enlarge

What happens when a person is arrested? Although all states have slightly different laws, this flow chart and outline provides a general overview of what typically occurs as a person is processed through the criminal justice system. The three main phases of this journey are: police, courts, and corrections.

When arrested, a person is taken into custody by the police or other law enforcement.

He/she is then taken to jail to undergo the booking process, which includes getting fingerprinted and photographed. No determination of guilt is made at this point since the case is pending. Evidence is forwarded to the district attorney (DA or prosecutor) who will decide whether there is sufficient evidence to present the case to a judge or jury.

After booking, a judge or court commissioner determines if the person is released or detained. There are 3 options:

• The person may be “Released on Recognizance” (ROR)
• The person may be released on bond (also called bail), which is money paid to the court to ensure the person returns for a future court date
• The person may be detained in jail

After the case is assigned to a judge, the first court proceeding is an arraignment.  At the arraignment, a judge or court commissioner reads the formal charges, and explains the defendant’s right to an attorney. The defendant then enters an initial plea.

The judge determines one of four outcomes:

• Charges can be dismissed if there is insufficient evidence; then the person is released
• Person can remain on ROR and the case will continue on to court
• Begin bond process or stay on bond
• Person is detained in jail

When a person has pled not guilty, a date is set for a trial. More evidence/information is gathered by the district attorney as well as the defense attorney.  Witnesses may be interviewed and asked to testify in trial.

The defense attorney and the district attorney may negotiate plea bargaining, which allows the defendant to forego his/her right to trial by jury by entering a guilty plea to a lesser charge (which often means a shorter incarceration period).

A trial is held to determine the defendant’s guilt. Often this is a trial by jury, but some defendants prefer to waive their right to a trial by jury and opt for a bench trial (before the judge only).

If the defendant is found not guilty, he/she is released. However, a defendant who has entered a guilty plea or been found guilty is sentenced to some form of punishment.

For first offenders—and depending on the nature of the crime—a judge may give probation instead of incarceration. Probation includes strict supervision for a specified length of time and the accused must regularly report to an assigned probation officer.

CORRECTIONS

In addition to probation, other alternatives to incarceration include halfway houses, community service programs, treatment programs, and restitution programs.

When a person is sentenced to prison he/she is placed in custody of the Department of Corrections (DOC).

The person is sent to a prison unit that is a classification center. Here, the person is assigned to a minimum, medium, or maximum-security correctional facility.  Then he/she is transported to the prison unit of assignment.

When the person has fulfilled a certain percentage of the prison sentence, he/she may appear before a parole board that evaluates the prisoner’s readiness for release.

Sometimes a prisoner is given a “set off” to wait a few years for parole. Some are denied parole altogether and must serve the maximum sentence in prison.

When the prisoner is released on parole, he/she is assigned to a parole officer responsible for providing supervision and guidance to the parolee now living in the community. If the parolee violates the terms of the parole agreement, he/she is subject to return to prison to complete the original sentence.

A prisoner who has served his/her entire sentence is usually released without any further supervision (unless classified as a sexual offender). However, any fines assessed as part of the sentence must also be paid.

DOWNLOAD THIS RESOURCE

Download this resource. Once downloaded, you can print, save, or share the pages with others.

BECOME AN ADVOCATE!

You can become an advocate for criminal justice that restores. If you share Prison Fellowship®’s vision for a justice system that restores all those impacted by crime and incarceration, we invite you to join our growing network of advocates. Together we can inspire the Church, change the culture, and advance criminal justice reform.

JOIN OUR ONLINE COMMUNITY

Recommended links.

• Ways to Donate
• Inspirational Stories
• Angel Tree Program
• Prison Fellowship Academy
• Justice Reform
• For Families & Friends of Prisoners
• For Churches & Angel Tree Volunteers
• Warden Exchange

JOIN RESTORATION PARTNERS AND WITNESS GOD RESTORE LIVES

Restoration Partners give monthly to bring life-changing prison ministry programs to incarcerated men and women across the country.

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• The Attorney General
• Organizational Chart
• Budget & Performance
• Privacy Program
• Press Releases
• Photo Galleries
• Guidance Documents
• Publications
• Information for Victims in Large Cases
• Justice Manual
• Business and Contracts
• Why Justice ?
• DOJ Vacancies
• Legal Careers at DOJ
• Our Offices

MENU Special Litigation

• Disability Rights
• Corrections
• Children’s Rights in the Juvenile Justice System
• Conduct of Law Enforcement Agencies
• Access to Reproductive Health Clinics / Places of Religious Worship
• Religious Exercise of Institutionalized Persons
• Cases and Matters

Rights Of Persons Confined To Jails And Prisons

The Special Litigation Section works to protect the rights of people who are in prisons and jails run by state or local governments. If we find that a state or local government systematically deprives people in these facilities of their rights, we can act.

We use information from community members affected by civil rights violations to bring and pursue cases. The voice of the community is very important to us. We receive hundreds of reports of potential violations each week. We collect this information and it informs our case selection. We may sometimes use it as evidence in an existing case. However, we cannot bring a case based on every report we receive.

Description of the Laws We Use in Our Corrections Work

The Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA) , 42 U.S.C. § 1997a, allows the Attorney General to review conditions and practices within these institutions. Under CRIPA, we are not authorized to address issues with federal facilities or federal officials. We do not assist with individual problems, and we therefore cannot help you recover money damages or any other personal relief. We also cannot assist in criminal cases, including wrongful convictions, appeals or sentencing.

After a CRIPA investigation, we can act if we identify a systemic pattern or practice that causes harm. Evidence of harm to one individual only - even if that harm is serious - is not enough. If we find systemic problems, we may send the state or local government a letter that describes the problems and what says what steps they must take to fix them. We will try to reach an agreement with the state or local government on how to fix the problems. If we cannot agree, then the Attorney General may file a lawsuit in federal court.

In addition to actions under CRIPA, the Section may use the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 , 42 U.S.C. § 14141 (re-codified at 34 U.S.C. § 12601), to protect the rights of persons in the juvenile justice system.

Results of Our Corrections Work

Tens of thousands of institutionalized persons who were confined in dire, often life-threatening, conditions now receive adequate care and services because of this work. We currently have open CRIPA matters in more than half the states.

Our work includes many different kinds of activity. We speak with community stakeholders. We review and investigate complaints. We file lawsuits in federal court when necessary, and enforce orders we obtain from the courts. We participate in cases brought by private parties. We work closely with nationally renowned experts to provide training and technical assistance.

We work closely with other parts of the Justice Department and other federal agencies that regulate, fund, and provide technical assistance to state and local governments. We work with the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention , the National Institute of Justice , the Bureau of Prisons , the United States Department of Education , the Department of Housing, and the United States Department of Health and Human Services . In addition, our staff serves on the Department's Health Care Fraud Working Group, the Prison Rape Elimination Working Group, and other task forces.

Community Phone Numbers and Email Boxes

The Special Litigation Section has established toll free phone numbers and email boxes to receive information from the community about the following corrections cases and matters.

Fulton County Jail : 844-473-4092, or by email at  [email protected]

Alabama Prisons: 877-419-2366, or by email at [email protected]

Alameda County, CA. (Santa Rita Jail) : 844- 491-4946, or by email at [email protected]

Boyd County, KY. Jail : 877-218-5228

Cumberland, N.J. County Jail : 833-223-1547, or by email at [email protected]

Edna Mahan Correctional Facility for Women, NJ: 833-341-4675, or by email at [email protected]

Georgia Department of Corrections : 844-401-3736, or by email at [email protected]

Hinds County, MS. Jail : 833-591-0296, or by email at [email protected]

Lowell Correctional Inst. and Annex, FL : 833-341-4676, or by email at [email protected]

Mississippi Department of Corrections : 833-591-0288, or by email at [email protected]

San Luis Obispo, CA, County Jail : 844-710-4900, or by email at: [email protected]

For further information, follow the links below:

• Reports to Congress -- annual reports to Congress describing the Section's CRIPA work

Prisoners’ Rights

Learn more here about your right to be protected against discrimination and abuse in prison and what to do if your rights are violated. The law is always evolving. If you have access to a prison law library, it is a good idea to research new developments.

I experienced assault or excessive force in prison

Your rights.

• Prison officials have a legal duty under the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution to refrain from using excessive force and to protect prisoners from assault by other prisoners.
• Officers may not use force maliciously or sadistically with intent to cause harm, but they may use force in good faith efforts to keep order.
•  Prison officials may be violating the Eighth Amendment if they knew about a risk of assault by other prisoners but failed to respond, or if prison conditions or practices create an unreasonable risk of assault (for example, not having enough officers on the unit, not having cell doors that lock properly, etc.).

What to do if you believe that your rights have been violated

• If you have been assaulted by an officer or fellow prisoner, you should file a grievance, and appeal it through all available levels of appeal.  Note that there are usually strict time limits for filing a grievance, so you should do so as soon as possible.
• If you believe you are in immediate danger of assault, you should tell a staff member you trust (mental health worker, teacher, etc.).

Additional resources

• Prison Legal News:   https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/
• Jailhouse Lawyer’s Manual:  https://jlm.law.columbia.edu/files/2017/05/36.-Ch.-24.pdf

I’m facing religious discrimination in prison

• Federal law provides special protections for prisoners’ religious exercise. If a prison policy, rule, or practice significantly impedes your ability to practice your sincerely held religious beliefs, prison officials must show that applying the rule to you furthers an extremely important (in legal terms, “compelling”) governmental interest (e.g., prisoners’ safety or health) and that there is no other reasonable way to go about protecting that interest. If prison officials cannot show this, they must provide a religious accommodation to enable you to practice your faith.
• Depending on your particular circumstances, prison officials may be required to provide you with a religious diet (e.g., halal or kosher meals), worship services, and access to clergy. They also may be required to allow you to have religious texts, wear certain religious clothing, headwear, and jewelry, and maintain religious grooming practices (e.g., wearing a beard or long hair).
• Prison officials cannot impose religious beliefs or practices on you. They cannot punish you for declining to take part in religious activities or events that include religious elements. Prison officials cannot give special preference to members of one faith, or treat prisoners of some religions less favorably than those of others.

What to do if your rights are violated

• You can file a complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice’s Special Litigation Division .
• You can contact the ACLU in your state for more information.
• ACLU – Religious Freedom in Prison
• Department of Justice – Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA)
• Prison Legal News:   www.prisonlegalnews.org
• Jailhouse Lawyer’s Manual:   http://jlm.law.columbia.edu/files/2017/05/39.-Ch.-27.pdf

I'm experiencing discrimination or abuse in prison because I’m transgender

• If you notify prison officials that you are transgender, and/or have been threatened, officials are legally required to act to protect you. When you enter prison, inform staff you are transgender or believe you are at risk — both verbally and in writing.
• The federal Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) requires prisons and jails to make individualized housing placements for all transgender and intersex prisoners, including when assigning them to male or female facilities. A transgender or intersex prisoner’s own views with respect to their own safety must be given serious consideration when making these determinations.
• Many correctional facilities house transgender prisoners in solitary confinement to protect them from violence. PREA says you cannot be segregated against your will for more than 30 days and if you are in protective custody you must have access to programs, privileges, education and work opportunities to the extent possible.
• Prison and jail staff must evaluate you for gender dysphoria within a reasonable time if you request it. Medical treatment for prisoners diagnosed with gender dysphoria should be delivered according to accepted medical standards.
• Blanket bans on specific types of treatments, such as a ban on hormone therapy or gender confirmation surgery, are unconstitutional.
• Staff should generally allow you gender-appropriate clothing and grooming supplies, and allow you to present yourself consistent with your gender identity, or they may be in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
• Strip searches must be conducted professionally and respectfully. A strip search conducted in full view of other prisoners and staff may violate your privacy rights. If there is no emergency, male staff should not strip-search women (including transgender women) and vice versa. Some jails have policies allowing transgender prisoners to choose the gender of the staff to search them.
• Staff cannot conduct strip and pat-down searches solely to assess your genitals.  Staff must be trained to conduct searches of transgender and intersex prisoners in a professional and respectful manner, and in the least intrusive manner possible, consistent with security needs.
• If you request a private shower, PREA requires that officials grant you access.

What to do if you believe your rights might be violated

• Report your concerns or any specific threats to your safety to staff in writing, and also send a copy to the inspector general, the PREA coordinator for the agency with custody over you, and someone outside whom you trust.
• If you are assaulted, file a grievance as soon as possible, though cases of sexual assault may have more flexible time limits on reporting or may have special reporting processes.
• Prisoners who want to file a federal lawsuit about events in jail or prison must first complete the internal appeals process. This means that you need to know the rules of any appeals (or “grievance”) process in your facility, including time limits on filing an appeal after something happens. In most prisons or jails, you will have to file a written complaint on a form that is provided.
• If staff refuse to evaluate you for gender dysphoria or fail to provide you with care, file a grievance and appeal through all levels.
• If you were receiving hormones from a doctor prior to incarceration, have your medical records sent to the medical or health director at your facility.
• If you are placed in protective segregation and do not want to be there, file a grievance and all appeals about your placement. You should also appeal anything that seems unfair about your placement, such as not being able to participate in a hearing, not being told why you were moved to segregation, not being able to participate in programming or obtain a job, or not being told when you can get out.
• If your placement is based on so-called safety concerns and you would feel safer in a women’s facility (as a transgender woman), request such a transfer and file appeals if you do not get one.
• If you are asked to strip down in front of other prisoners and you do not feel comfortable, politely ask to be moved to a separate area.
• If you cannot use a private shower, ask to shower at a different time from other prisoners or in a private area (as the PREA standards require).
• If you do not want to be searched by a staff member of a particular sex, politely ask for a different staff member to search you. In some prisons or jails, you may also be able to get a general order that says you should only be searched by women (if you are a transgender woman).
• Ask for your facility’s official policies related to your circumstances. Sometimes you can find these policies in the prison library.

Black and Pink 614 Columbia Rd. Dorchester, MA 02125 (617) 519-4387 www.blackandpink.org

Just Detention International 3325 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 340 Los Angeles, CA 90010 (213) 384-1400 1900 L St. NW, Suite 601 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 506-3333 www.justdetention.org

National Center for Lesbian Rights 870 Market St., Suite 370 San Francisco, CA 94102 1-800-528-6257 www.nclrights.org

National Center for Transgender Equality 1325 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 903-0112 www.transequality.org

I'm pregnant and in prison

• You have the right to an abortion if you want one, and to refuse an abortion if you do not want one.
• You have the right to prenatal and other medical care for your pregnancy and postpartum care.
• You cannot be forced to pay before you can get the medical care you need.
• You may have the right not to be shackled: many states have laws or policies that prohibit or limit the use of shackles on prisoners who are pregnant, are in labor, or have recently given birth.  Some courts have also said that shackling is unconstitutional.  The ACLU’s anti-shackling briefing paper provides more detailed information.
• You have the right to refuse sterilization or other unwanted birth control after your pregnancy.

What to do if you think your rights have been violated

• If you are not getting the medical care you need, ask other medical or other staff to help you.
• Document everything that happens. Put your request for an abortion or other medical care in writing and keep a copy. Also, keep a list of the people who you’ve spoken to or contacted and write down what they say and the dates and times you spoke to them.
• In addition to your request for medical care, you should also file a grievance (an official complaint) if your medical needs are not met. If your grievance is denied or rejected, file an appeal and pay attention to all the rules and deadlines of the grievance system, which are usually written in the inmate handbook.
• If the prison isn’t providing you the medical care you need, contact your own lawyer, a prisoner legal services organization (if one exists in your state), NARAL, Planned Parenthood, your local ACLU affiliate, or the National Prison Project of the ACLU.

I’m in prison and have a disability

Examples of discrimination against people in prison with disabilities.

• Exclusion from facilities, programs, and services that are accessible to other prisoners.
• Not providing sign language interpreters for a deaf prisoner at disciplinary hearings, classification decisions, medical appointments,, and educational and vocational programs.
• Failure to provide medical devices such as wheelchairs and canes to disabled prisoners.
• Placement in segregation or solitary confinement due to perceived vulnerability or the unavailability of accessible cells in general population.
• Prisoners with disabilities are protected under sections of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. In the prison and jail context, the Rehabilitation Act applies to facilities run by federal agencies (such as the Bureau of Prisons) and to any state or local agency that receives federal funding. The ADA regulates facilities run by state and local agencies, regardless of whether they receive federal funding.
• You are entitled to an equal opportunity to participate in programs and services for which you are qualified.
• You are entitled to be housed at your correct security level, and in a cell with the accessible elements necessary for safe, appropriate housing.
• You are entitled to reasonable modifications to policies and procedures.
• You are entitled to equally effective communication including any necessary auxiliary aids and services such as sign language interpreters, captioning, videophones, readers, Braille, and audio recordings.
• Prison officials are not required to provide accommodations that impose undue financial and administrative burdens or require a fundamental alteration in the nature of the program.
• Prison officials are also allowed to discriminate if the disabled prisoner’s participation would pose significant safety risks or a direct threat to the health or safety of others that cannot be mitigated through reasonable modifications.

What to do if you believe your rights have been violated

• File a formal grievance through your facility’s grievance process and appeal all levels available. If your facility has an ADA Coordinator you may also contact that person and ask him/her to help you with an accommodation for your disability.
• You or your attorney can file a lawsuit explaining how your rights have been violated under the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, or both. You must complete any available grievance procedure and all appeals before filing a lawsuit in federal court.
• To bring a lawsuit under these laws, disabled prisoners must show: (1) that they are disabled within the meaning of the statutes, (2) that they are “qualified” to participate in the program, and (3) that they are excluded from, are not allowed to benefit from, or have been subjected to discrimination in the program because of their disability. Under the Rehabilitation Act, prisoners must also show that the prison officials or the governmental agency named as defendants receive federal funding.
• Depending on the situation, disabled prisoners may file claims for relief under the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel or unusual punishment, in addition to or instead of the ADA or Rehabilitation Act.
• The laws of some states may provide different or greater legal rights than the federal laws. Disabled prisoners should investigate this possibility before bringing suit.
• Every state and U.S. territory has a federally mandated Protection and Advocacy (P&A) organization that works to provide assistance and legal services to individuals with disabilities.  Some of these organizations also work with incarcerated individuals.  For a complete listing of all these organizations by state click here: https://www.ndrn.org/ndrn-member-agencies.html

I want to receive publications in the mail in prison

• Prisoners generally have the right to receive books, magazines, and newspapers by mail, subject to the restrictions described below.
• Prison authorities can generally decide to censor a publication for reasonable goals related to prison safety or security, but cannot reject publications because they disagree with their political viewpoint or for other arbitrary reasons.
• Prisons cannot discriminate against religious publications by arbitrarily subjecting them to rules that do not apply to non-religious publications.
• Prisons and jails may ban material that describes how to build weapons, instructs how to escape, or instructs how to break the law. They can ban magazines that contain nudity and pornography.
• Often prisoners have the right only to receive softcover books and bound periodicals sent directly from a publisher, bookstore, or other commercial source, but sometimes courts have allowed prisoners to receive clippings and copies of articles from friends, family, or other noncommercial sources.
• Prison officials cannot prevent your friends and relatives from buying you books and magazine subscriptions.
• Both you and the sender have the right to be notified if your incoming publication is being censored or rejected.  Prison officials must give enough of a reason for their censorship decision to allow you to challenge that decision.
• When you learn that a publication has been rejected, you should always try to check your institution’s publication policy. If you believe the policy has been violated, you should file a grievance, and appeal it through all available levels of appeal. Note that there are usually strict time limits for filing a grievance, so you should do so as soon as possible.
• Prison Legal News
• Jailhouse Lawyer’s Manual

I want to send and receive mail in prison

• The First Amendment of the Constitution entitles prisoners to send and receive mail, but the prison or jail may inspect and sometimes censor it to protect security, using appropriate procedures.
• Prison officials’ ability to inspect and censor mail depends on whether the mail is privileged or not. Officials may open non-privileged mail, which includes letters from relatives, friends, and businesses, outside your presence. They can read this mail for security or other reasons without probable cause or a warrant.
• Incoming or outgoing non-privileged mail may be censored for legitimate security reasons.  However, mail may not be censored simply because it is critical of prison officials or because prison officials disagree with its content.
• Prisons may not ban mail simply because it contains material downloaded from the Internet. You may not be punished for posting material on the Internet with the help of others outside of prison.
• Clearly marked privileged mail, which includes communications to and from attorneys and legal organizations like the ACLU, gets more protection. Officials may open incoming privileged mail to check it for contraband, but must do so in your presence.  They are not allowed to open outgoing privileged mail.  Privileged mail ordinarily cannot be read unless prison officials obtain a warrant allowing them to do so.
• If your incoming mail is censored, both you and the sender are entitled to notice.  The notice must explain the reasons for the censorship in enough detail to allow you to challenge it.
• If you believe your rights with respect to mail have been violated, you should file a grievance, and appeal it through all available levels of appeal.  Note that there are usually strict time limits for filing a grievance, so you should do so as soon as possible.  You should file a new grievance for each incident; you have a better chance of succeeding in a lawsuit  if you can establish that the prison’s violations of your rights are the result of an ongoing policy or practice, rather than isolated incidents.

Other Know Your Rights Issues

• State Profiles

Advocacy Toolkit

• Fact Sheets

Stay Informed

Get the latest updates:

Can you make a tax-deductible gift to support our work?

The state prison experience: Too much drudgery, not enough opportunity

An underutilized government dataset goes deep into daily life in state prisons — including work assignments, programming, and discipline — revealing lost opportunities for rehabilitation, education, and hope..

by Leah Wang , September 2, 2022

Using data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ 2016 Survey of Prison Inmates , this briefing reveals how prisons fail to implement programs that we know “work” at setting incarcerated people up for success in the future (such as giving people opportunities to earn money , obtain an education , or gain relevant job skills). 1 These failures have far-reaching effects: When people in prison have little to no income, they may accumulate child support debt , suffer without essential commissary items, or be unable to access communication with loved ones, which can impact people on both sides of the bars. Less overall opportunity in prison can mean lowered prospects for employment and finding stable footing upon release.

Prison work is often compulsory, does little to build useful skills, and pays almost nothing

Prison jobs, often called “work assignments,” are the most common “programming” offered in state prisons. 2 Prisons rely on the labor of incarcerated people for food service, laundry, and other tasks that offset operational expenses. (While less common, some prisons also contract with public and private entities, assigning some people to “prison industries” jobs where they do anything from make eyeglasses to fight wildfires.) In general, work assignments are not thoughtfully designed to provide job skills and development: They are intended to keep the prison running and keep “idleness” at bay.

Data note: The last time the data were collected by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) on how many workers are paid was in 2004. But in 2022, six states (Ala., Ark., Fla., Ga., S.C., and Texas) still paid nothing for most or all jobs done by incarcerated people, and together, these states made up 30% of state prison populations nationwide in 2019, suggesting that the percentage of workers who are unpaid has likely not changed much since the 2004 survey.

Employment as we know it outside of the carceral system is typically a consensual relationship between employer and employee, and protected by employment laws; prison work assignments, on the other hand, are often compulsory, and incarcerated workers have few rights and protections compared to non-incarcerated workers. 3 Prison labor is sealed off from standard workplace protections and minimum wage laws by the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which contains an “ exception clause ” allowing slavery or involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime.

If an incarcerated person refuses to work, they often face disciplinary action . Those who do work receive paltry wages — far less than $1 per hour, typically – and even those mere pennies are often deducted to pay for fees, restitution, and child support, or must be saved for basic necessities like medical visits , hygiene items , and phone calls .

According to the national Survey :

• 58% of people in state prisons have a work assignment . Most of these jobs help keep the prison functioning, such as janitorial duties (29% of workers); food preparation (20%); working in a prison library, stockroom, barber shop, or similar (12%); groundskeeping (10%); and jobs doing maintenance, repair, or construction (7.4%). Only about 6% work in “prison industries” jobs, producing goods or services for other state agencies or companies. 4
• Considering the broader context of incarcerated people’s lives before prison, 61% of those who had provided at least half of their household’s income before their arrest reported having a prison work assignment in prison. These individuals are now almost certainly earning significantly less than they did in the outside world. And the remaining 39% of former income-providers who now have no work assignment may be experiencing a dramatic shift from providing for their loved ones to having no income to contribute to their families at all.
• Most (71%) people with a work assignment are required to have one , suggesting that many people are forced to work. While many people in prison want to be productive while behind bars, they lack any control in pursuing relevant, stimulating, and/or safe work assignments. 5
• People in prison who were not forced, but chose to work, said the following reasons were “very important” in their decision: learning new skills (70%), earning money (54%), relieving boredom (51%), or earning good time for earlier release (45%). (Only the 29% of people who chose to work were asked about their motivations.)
• White people in state prisons were slightly more likely than people of other racial and ethnic groups to have a work assignment (63%, compared to 54%-58% for other groups). Previous studies point to racial bias (and gender bias ) in how jobs are assigned to incarcerated people.

The Survey did not ask about wages earned (or even whether respondents earned anything at all), but a recent analysis found that the highest-paid incarcerated people earned over one dollar per hour in “industries” jobs, while the typical state prison job — doing things like laundry, food preparation, or other tasks supporting prison operations — paid only 13 to 52 cents per hour. 6 These unthinkably low wages have remained stagnant since our 2017 deep dive into prison earnings (and even then, we found that some prisons were paying workers less than they had in 2001). Considering the additional blow dealt by inflation, people in prison have virtually no chance of building up financial savings, no matter how hard they work.

State prisons lack educational opportunities, job training, and programming that would help develop skills

Prison work assignments are not the only area where prison policies are inconsistent with what we know would help incarcerated people. In the words of one group of researchers, prison programs that build skills, confidence, and mental health “reduce recidivism by increasing the opportunity cost of committing crimes.” But the staggering length of waiting lists for education and programming at many facilities nationwide tells us not only that incarcerated people want programming, but that there is not nearly enough.

Overall, about two-thirds (68%) of people in state prison have participated in some type of programming, including education (43%); job training (33%); and classes in anger management (35%), parenting (17%), or money management (17%).

According to the Survey :

• Because most work assignments involve menial tasks that are unlikely to help people find skilled work upon release, it seems likely that job training programs would be popular among incarcerated skill-seekers. But the Survey data show that only one-third (33%) of people in state prisons report ever having participated in job training . This lack of widespread job training opportunities may help explain why 29% of incarcerated workers voluntarily chose to take on their work assignments.
• Most of those (58%) who were ever enrolled in job training successfully completed their program, but 1 in 5 (20%) people were prematurely cut off from their program before finishing . 7
• White and Hispanic people were the least likely racial or ethnic groups to participate in job training (29% each, compared to 33%-37% for other groups). This disparity could be explained by the fact that white and Hispanic people had the highest rates of pre-prison employment , which could indicate less need for training.

Offering education in prisons has a known return on investment , leading to well-documented reductions in recidivism and providing the credentials that lead to better jobs. People tend to enter prison with lower-than-average education levels , and were often under-supported and over-disciplined while in school. 8 Yet instead of being able to make up for lost time by enrolling in educational programs, the Survey data reveal that only 43% of people in state prisons have participated in educational programming (even though 62% had not completed high school upon admission) . Participation rates in education are similar among men and women and across age groups, though incarcerated women are more likely to have a high school education than incarcerated men.

Our analysis of the Survey results also found that:

• Among the 57% of people in state prisons who had never participated in educational programming, the reasons they cite for not participating are illuminating: 18% — over 125,000 people — had never been offered the chance . Another 11% said that they weren’t qualified or allowed to attend, and 7.3% said they could not get into an education program or were waitlisted — again pointing to the widespread problem of waitlists for programming in prisons. Some of these same failures to inform people of educational opportunities and get them enrolled applied to job training programs, too.
• White people in state prisons were the least likely to participate in an education program compared to all other racial and ethnic groups. 9 This finding may be related to the relatively higher educational attainment of white people who enter state prison compared to other groups, particularly Black and Hispanic people, and the requirement in some prison systems that people without a high school education must enroll in basic education courses.
• Half (53%) of people without a high school credential reported former or current enrollment in education programs, compared to less than 30% of people with at least a high school diploma – further evidence that high school and college opportunities aren’t equally available in prisons. 10 While high school equivalency (e.g., GED) programs can start to bridge the education gap between incarcerated people and the general public, the lack of higher education opportunities remains a problem, as a high school education alone greatly limits employment prospects . 11

Even minor rule violations in prison can have serious consequences

Prisons have strict rules that govern nearly every aspect of life, and incarcerated people face frequent, excessive, and often arbitrary punishment for alleged violations of those rules. Importantly, discipline systems in prison do not have nearly the same level of due process or transparency that courts do: Correctional officers can hand out “tickets” for suspected rule violations at their discretion, setting off a series of administrative hearings and investigations led by prison staff. People behind bars do not have the right to an attorney (related to the violation), to cross-examine witnesses, or to be judged by a jury of their peers, even when they are accused of an action that would be a crime in the free world. And whether the incarcerated person pleads guilty or not, a hearing committee or higher authority can issue sanctions to almost any degree.

In his 1975 illuminating deep-dive, Prisons: Houses of Darkness , law professor Leonard Orland points out the trap set by unjust systems of prison discipline, which still holds true today:

“Punishment imposed by a prison discipline committee constitutes a most unfair kind of ‘triple jeopardy.’ Typically, the same committee that ordered punitive segregation also has the power to take away statutorily or meritoriously earned ‘good time,’ … Moreover, records of such misconduct are seen by the parole boards and may well be a factor in parole denial. Thus, a finding of prison misconduct may result in three separate losses of freedom for the inmate.”

Our analysis of the Survey data shows that people in state prisons can be harshly punished even for minor, non-violent infractions. This is disproportionately true for women, and in some cases for people of color. Specifically:

• More than half (53%) of people in state prisons had been written up for or found guilty of at least one rule violation in the past year. 12 This is the same percentage of people written up for rule violations in 1986 – although state prisons in 2016 held nearly 800,000 more people than they did 30 years prior, so far more individuals are impacted by prison discipline today. Of respondents who were written up at least once in the 12 months prior to the Survey , about 9% reported receiving a “major” violation, a category that includes assault, rioting, attempted escape, and food strikes.

• Women in prison are more likely to report being written up for a rule violation in the past year than men (58% versus 53%). Of those who were written up at least once, women were more likely to have received a “minor” rule violation than men (70% versus 57%). These data align with research showing that women are more likely to be written up and disciplined for breaking prison rules, and receive disproportionate punishment for minor, subjective infractions like “disrespect.”
• Nearly all people (90%) with a major or minor rule violation in the previous year received some form of disciplinary action . Of those who were disciplined, about half (53%) lost certain “privileges,” like access to the commissary, visitation, or phone calls, even though these things should arguably be considered “essentials,” not “privileges,” in prison. And 1 in 8 (12%) lost sentence-reducing “ good time ” (days credited off one’s sentence for good behavior) that they’d already earned. And, of course, these violations become part of each individual’s disciplinary record, which impacts weighty decisions including parole release. All of these punishments underscore the high stakes of prison discipline.
• One-third (35%) of those who received a disciplinary action for their most recent rule violation were ordered to solitary confinement , an extreme measure that is hardly ever appropriate (and often comes with the losses of other “privileges” mentioned above). This high dependence on solitary confinement is particularly concerning, as the international human rights community considers solitary confinement, as practiced in U.S. prisons, to be torture . 13
• Men (26%) were more likely than women (17%) to receive solitary confinement as a sanction for a rule violation. This finding tracks with national data on the use of “restricted housing,” which includes solitary confinement. Some state prison systems have recently moved to cut down on using solitary for specific populations (for example, Massachusetts eliminated the “restrictive housing unit” at its only women’s prison in 2020). However, women were more likely than men (18% vs. 12%) to be confined to their own cell as punishment, a practice that advocates consider similarly egregious .
• Racial disparities in sanction types were not readily apparent through the Survey data. For example, between 22% and 28% of each racial or ethnic group was sent to solitary confinement as a sanction, and between 1% and 4% of any given group were transferred to another facility as punishment. Nevertheless, research points to alarming racial disparities in how rule violations in state prisons are recorded and disciplined. 14
• The survey data suggest that prisons lean heavily on solitary confinement for infractions that involve no physical harm, such as “verbal assault.” 15 Even respondents who were written up for things falling into the category “other minor violations” ended up in solitary 17% of the time. Even if everyone who was ordered to solitary confinement for their most recent past-year violation served just one day there (and many certainly had much longer stints than that), this amounts to 135,000 days, or 370 years in solitary confinement.

Prison rules and disciplinary procedures are an under-discussed issue that shapes daily prison life. As the Survey findings make clear, just as with work assignments and programming, there is a disconnect when it comes to rule violations between what prisons do in practice and what would actually help people return to their communities with a fair chance at a good life. Solitary confinement, in particular, is incredibly damaging to mental health, even increasing the risk of premature death after release from prison. But any sanctions that disrupt what little support exists for incarcerated people are bound to fail them in the long run.

Conclusion and recommendations

In the name of “justice,” states misguidedly send large numbers of people with low levels of education and income to prison, and then offer them little in the way of economic, professional, or personal growth opportunities to increase the odds of a better future. The Survey data show that incarcerated people are starved for opportunities to earn a real living and find purpose in state prisons. It’s in everyone’s best interest to offer meaningful opportunities to incarcerated people — for one, it costs far less to educate someone compared to locking them up. Putting obvious fiscal considerations aside, disrupting the cycles of struggle, unlawful or violent behaviors, and incarceration will require more compassionate — and less carceral — interventions.

Policymakers must drill down to these aspects of everyday prison life to improve outcomes. Without better opportunity and preparation, the hope to which so many incarcerated people cling throughout their sentences will wane, their cycles of incarceration will continue, and the crisis of mass incarceration will continue to be one of our nation’s greatest failures. Therefore, we recommend that states:

Bring prison employment into modern, real-world context:

• Legally recognize incarcerated workers as employees, affording them workplace protections, the right to unionize, and minimum wages
• In applicable states, end the requirement to work in prison 16
• Ensure that work assignment and job training opportunities align with skills and technologies that are relevant to today’s job market
• Establish policies and accountability measures to ensure work assignments are not allocated in a discriminatory manner

Shift priorities away from monotonous work and punishment, toward opportunity:

• Ensure that all incarcerated people are aware of programming and educational opportunities available to them
• Shift prison budgets away from costly and counterproductive practices like solitary confinement and toward improvements in job training, high-quality higher education , special education , and English as a second language education, and other programs
• Provide people who participate in educational or other prison programs with pay equal to what they would receive for a work assignment 17
• Allow people to complete a program before transferring to a facility that does not offer the same program (at a minimum, require that every effort is made to allow continued participation)
• Ensure that people being released from prison can continue their education or training, instead of having to drop everything and find work immediately to satisfy parole requirements 18

Pull back the curtain on rule violations and prison discipline:

• Acknowledge gender and racial biases in how prison rules are enforced and sanctioned by correctional staff, and work to end excessive and disparate disciplinary practices
• Prohibit the forfeiture of earned good time as a sanction, as “good time” is a strong motivator for good behavior, 19 and an important tool for safely reducing prison populations
• End the use of solitary confinement and other forms of harmful, long-term segregation

You can read more about the demographic, early life, and health-related results from the 2016 Survey of Prison Inmates in two of our latest reports, Beyond the Count: A deep dive into state prison populations , and Chronic Punishment: The unmet health needs of people in state prisons , and our briefings, What the Survey of Prison Inmates tells us about trans people in state prison and Both sides of the bars: How mass incarceration punishes families.  ↩

According to the Survey of Prison Inmates, 58% of people have a work assignment, compared to the next-highest result, 43% of people who have “ever” participated in educational programming.  ↩

Though not explicitly excluded, the courts have interpreted the Fair Labor Standards Act – which provides federal minimum wage, overtime protection, and other standards – to exclude incarcerated workers.  ↩

The largest nationwide prison industries program partnering with private companies is called the Prison Industry Enhancement Certification Program (PIECP), which places incarcerated people into jobs for outside-world employers, where they are paid the “prevailing local wage.” In order to participate in PIECP, corrections departments must promise to “provide worker benefits,” assure voluntary participation, and comply with federal environmental policy. Though these criteria represent a step up from the average prison work assignment, not all state jurisdictions – and relatively few incarcerated people – participate in PIECP. At the end of 2021, just shy of 5,400 people – or 0.4% of people in state and federal prisons – were employed through PIECP. Meanwhile, other prison industries participants are not necessarily guaranteed minimum wage or other protections.  ↩

Audits of state prison work programs have revealed that the skills many incarcerated workers are trained in fall short of being relevant for future job-seekers. For instance, one-third of participants in Louisiana ‘s state prison enterprises program in 2018 were working in industries expected to decrease in the labor market. And in Mississippi , incarcerated workers were being trained in areas for which there were few actual job prospects in that state.  ↩

Raw data from a previous iteration of the Survey of Prison Inmates, conducted in 2004, revealed that only 57% of incarcerated people with work assignments earned any wages for their labor. And according to analysis from the American Civil Liberties Union, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas pay nothing at all in wages to many or all of their incarcerated, non-industry workers.  ↩

About 9.5% of people who stopped participating in job training said that they “were no longer allowed to participate”; 6.4% reported that their job training program stopped running before they could complete it; and 4.3% were transferred to another facility before they could complete their program.  ↩

The Survey data reveal that 40% of people in state prisons (compared to just 15% of all U.S. adults) have a physical or cognitive disability ; in childhood, students with learning disabilities or special education needs are systemically under-supported by a severe shortage of trained personnel and related services, setting them up for failing grades and higher rates of discipline and bullying at school.  ↩

Participation in educational programming by race and ethnicity breaks down to the following: white (34%); multiracial (43%); American Indian/Native American (45%); Hispanic (46%); Black (49%); and Asian/Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (57%).  ↩

This finding tracks with other Bureau of Justice Statistics data showing that the majority (87%) of state and federal U.S. prisons offer high school education, but only half (49%) offered any college courses in 2019.  ↩

Additionally, because the average maximum sentence length in state prison is about 15 years ( according to the Survey ), many people could complete both a high school and a college education during their incarceration.  ↩

This is likely an underestimate, because some prisons did not allow certain people to take the Survey of Prison Inmates – including some who may have been more likely to have been written up for breaking prison rules. According to the survey’s methodology , “Refusals by facilities included prisoners who were deemed by the facility to be a safety or security risk because they were too violent to be interviewed. This group also included prisoners to whom SPI interviewers were not permitted access because they were not housed in the general population.” The methodology also notes that “The majority of these [refusals] were from one state,” though they do not specify which state that was.  ↩

U.N. experts have noted that the U.S.’s use of prolonged solitary confinement is excessive and amounts to psychological torture. As established by the U.N. Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the “Nelson Mandela Rules”), prohibits prolonged solitary confinement (confinement for a period longer than 15 consecutive days), noting that the practice violates the ban on torture and cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or punishment.  ↩

One researcher examined disciplinary records from North Carolina state prisons in 2020, finding that Black and Indigenous incarcerated people received disproportionate numbers of write-ups and sanctions, compared to their white counterparts. And The New York Times examined disciplinary records from state prisons in New York in 2015, finding that Black and Latino men were disciplined at higher rates and sent to solitary confinement more often than white men. The racial disparity persisted even after controlling for offense type and age.  ↩

According to the Survey, over one-third of those written up for “verbal assault” of a correctional officer or incarcerated person were sent to solitary confinement (36% and 35%, respectively).  ↩

Based on the Survey of Prison Inmates data alone, which doesn’t contain state identifiers, we don’t know which states’ prison systems require incarcerated people to work.  ↩

Compensation for participating in education, programming, or even waiting to enter a program is policy in some state prison systems, including Pennsylvania , but is typically set at the lowest pay tier, disincentivizing participation.  ↩

This recommendation may involve providing a basic income upon release , a practice that would have wide-ranging benefits beyond the ability to pursue education.  ↩

As we explain in our 2018 report Eight Keys to Mercy: How to shorten excessive prison sentences , some states are already extremely frugal in granting good time (or don’t grant it at all), and can take away years of earned good time in an instant, when forfeiture should only be for the most serious rule violations.  ↩

Leah Wang is a Research Analyst at the Prison Policy Initiative. ( Other articles | Full bio | Contact )

Related briefings:

• What the Survey of Prison Inmates tells us about trans people in state prison  +
• New opportunity to weigh in on FCC prison phone regulation  +
• Since you asked: How many people aged 55 or older are in prison, by state?  +

2 responses:

Too much drudgery in prison is not good as we see in your data. It just shows that prison is not the solution. Aside from prison there should be programs enough for everybody to learn and to change.

For rule violation it is always more than 50% for the past year. These incarcerated individuals should be treated rightly and be taught the things they need to learn to prepare themselves to work outside. This will give them hope and will keep them on doing good in prison.

Recommended Reading:

Resources, tips, and best practices to help advocates working to end mass incarceration.

50 state incarceration profiles

All of our recent reports about prison/jail growth, racial disparities, and more, re-organized by state.

Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie

The U.S. incarcerates over 1.9 million people, more than any other country. Where are they locked up and why? Read our report.

Shadow Budgets

How mass incarceration steals from the poor to give to the prison

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Workforce Issues in Corrections

The backbone of corrections is its workforce. The corrections sector relies on qualified, trained and dedicated staff for effective, professional operations. But today, correctional administrators, particularly those running prisons and jails, are grappling with severe workforce challenges that directly impact mission performance. Those challenges include staff recruitment, selection and retention, training and agency succession planning.

Hardly a new issue, the ongoing difficulty finding and retaining good staff has intensified to the point where many jurisdictions are now in full crisis mode. [1] For example, Kansas and West Virginia have recently issued state of emergency declarations in response to understaffed institutions. [2] Correctional officer vacancy rates in some prisons approach 50% as of late including two Mississippi institutions. [3] Although community supervision agencies typically fare better, probation and parole officer vacancy rates have been reported as high as 20%. [4] And in some state prisons, annual correctional officer turnover rates as high as 55%, test the system’s essential functionality. [5]

Given the shrinking pool of qualified workers, agencies often compete for candidates, and the sector, for a variety of reasons, appears to be losing the competition for talent.

To address the corrections workforce shortage, the RAND Corporation and the University of Denver (DU) analyzed insights from a work group of agency executives and academics who have researched the correctional workforce. This work, sponsored by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), identified a series of 64 systemic needs, with 13 top-tier needs associated with the following five themes, described in more depth below:

• Clarify the mission of the corrections sector.
• Improve staff competencies.
• Improve staff training.
• Improve work environment and conditions.
• Develop future leaders.

( See Figure 1: Top-Tier Needs )

The work group’s methods and findings, discussed below, suggest that fundamental change is needed to reverse the concerning trends of the past several years.

Nature and Scope of the Problem

Corrections is fundamentally a “people profession,” where interpersonal skills and effective face-to-face interactions are keys to effectiveness. Staff, both within institutions and in community supervision, must protect the public from individuals accused or convicted of crimes. At the same time, staff must prepare those under correctional control for successful, law-abiding lives in the community and support these individuals through the reentry process. The task facing corrections staff, then, is complex. Staff are in a unique position to have a significant impact not only on the lives and prospects of the incarcerated individuals with whom they interact, but also on the larger communities where these individuals reside or where they will return.

These complexities point to the critical importance of building a high-quality correctional workforce. However, attracting and retaining qualified corrections staff has historically been a difficult task, particularly in institutions. [6] Though for many it has proven to be a rewarding career, a variety of factors can deter individuals from entering or remaining in the field of corrections. The work is inherently dangerous, given the characteristics of the population of incarcerated individuals. [7] Beyond the risk of physical injury, there are extraordinary stressors associated with corrections work that can seriously affect the well-being of staff. [8] Beyond risk of injury and actual injury, common stressors are exposure to crisis situations and secondary trauma as well as work overload, overtime demands and role conflict. Moreover, work environments, particularly in institutional settings, can be physically harsh. For example, correctional institutions are often very noisy, many lack air conditioning and most officers work primarily indoors with little access to natural light.

Many corrections agencies operate in a paramilitary structure, which is inflexible by nature. [9] Workloads can be overwhelming because of increasing demands, limited resources and difficulties maintaining sufficient staffing levels. In institutions, mandatory overtime is common. In many states, compensation is simply not competitive with other industries and criminal justice occupations. [10] Finally, the field is challenged by the reality that the public does not consider corrections to be a high-status occupation. [11]

These internal factors have been consistent over time, but recent economic, societal and demographic changes affecting the larger workforce have exacerbated many of these challenges. For example, a record-low unemployment rate combined with a smaller labor force has created an increased competition for talent. [12] Younger employees are more willing to change jobs than their predecessors, and turnover is expensive in both dollars and loss of experience. [13] In order for the corrections sector to perform its important mission, it must critically evaluate current human resources strategies and practices and make necessary adjustments in order to compete for the best talent.

Research Purpose

The joint RAND-DU collaboration, “Building a High-Quality Correctional Workforce: Identifying the Challenges and Needs,” is part of a multiyear research effort, the Priority Criminal Justice Needs Initiative, to identify innovations in technology, policy and practice that benefit the criminal justice sector. 14 In response to the significant workforce challenges discussed above, this work aimed to produce a better understanding of factors contributing to the challenges of the corrections workforce and identify key needs associated with improving outcomes such as recruitment, retention and development of high-quality staff. Findings from this work will help inform NIJ’s research agenda moving forward.

Methodology

The RAND-DU team assembled a group of 13 individuals to participate in a two-day workshop. Participants included correctional agency executives, representatives of correctional associations and academics. Care was taken to include participants with experience and expertise in institutional and community corrections (or both), recognizing that each setting is unique. Before the workshop, participants were provided copies of relevant literature on the correctional workforce as a resource and discussion guide. During the workshop, RAND-DU staff conducted highly structured exercises with the group to help identify and to elicit information about the most pressing problems and to assess how these problems could be addressed. Discussions focused on several major areas relevant to a corrections staff member’s life cycle within an agency: recruitment, selection, onboarding, retention and leadership development. Issues related to staff misconduct were addressed last as it is not a distinct stage of the workforce process; rather it is a behavioral factor that can be influenced by deficiencies elsewhere in the process.

From these discussions, the research team identified a set of discrete “needs” — a term used to describe a specific area to be addressed, tied to either solving a problem or taking advantage of an opportunity for better system performance. This process yielded a total of 64 needs. (See Figure 2)

Needs and Themes

To provide structure to the large set of identified needs, participants ranked each need in terms of expected benefit (relative importance of meeting that need) and probability of success of actually meeting that need. These ratings were multiplied to produce an expected value score, and that score was used to group the needs into top, medium and low tiers.

In the final analysis, 13 of the 64 identified needs were ranked in the top tier and are listed in Figure 1 . The following key themes emerged:

Clarify the mission of the corrections sector

Participants reported that the corrections sector operates in a rapidly changing environment and would benefit from a clear, cohesive and common vision for the future. This vision can help provide a road map for agencies with respect to workforce requirements tied to mission accomplishment. Overall, institutional corrections generally prioritize their custodial or surveillance objectives over their behavioral change objectives. Participants theorized that a shift in orientation might be key to reversing the long-standing difficulties the sector has faced in recruiting talent for corrections officer positions. They called for research to determine whether a shift toward an increased human-services role, along with a corresponding change in the competencies sought would help the sector attract a broader base of new talent.

Improve staff competencies in corrections environments

The corrections sector currently suffers from low levels of professionalism. This condition is most evident in corrections officers. The participants called for the reevaluation of existing, or the creation of new, competency standards for various correctional positions. These competencies should better align with the sector’s vision. With respect to probation and parole officers, greater emphasis should be placed on desired competencies (e.g., ability to deliver evidence-based interventions) as opposed to a particular level of education. Furthermore, agency processes for evaluating staff performance should be focused on these competencies.

Improve staff training

Overall, the participants articulated that the level of funding dedicated to corrections workforce training is insufficient, particularly when compared to other criminal justice professions. To quantify the impact of this disparity, participants called for an assessment of the relationships between funding levels, substandard training and key outcomes. The participants also noted that significant jurisdictional variations in the curricula (content and length) and training modalities yield uneven training across the sector. Therefore, there is a need to assess and validate the training approaches used by the sector and to develop national curriculum standards for correctional education.

Improve work environment and conditions

A number of needs were identified as essential to improving the work experience, which could positively impact recruitment and retention. Workload standards and ratios — coupled with strategies to allow agencies to meet them — are needed to ensure staff can function in a safe environment with adequate discretionary authority to fulfill their responsibilities and without undue stress. The participants noted that younger employees are most attracted to positions that allow them to actively participate in decision-making processes, particularly with respect to issues that directly affect them. The participants recognized that traditional operating structures do not mesh well with this desire; thus, they called for the development of best practices for pushing decision-making authority down to the lowest possible levels.

Develop future leaders

Leadership development is critical to all organizations, but the participants reported that the corrections sector generally does a poor job of preparing staff for supervisory and management roles. The participants called for the creation and promotion of best practices for leadership development. The participants also recommended assessments of the adequacy of training for new supervisors, the development of strategies for improvement and the compilation of best practices for leadership development. Finally, although leadership development resources exist, such as the Correctional Leadership Competencies for the 21st Century report (see Campbell et al., 2006), there is a need for publishers to review and revise these documents in order to maintain their relevance.

Shifting the paradigm

Many correctional agencies are facing a workforce crisis. They struggle to recruit, retain and develop high-quality staff. Although there was consensus among the participants that improved compensation is necessary, this is only a partial solution. Moreover, decisions requiring new resources are essentially beyond an agency’s direct control. Therefore, emphasis should be placed on the needs that these agencies, and the sector as a whole, can influence.

Many of the top-tier needs identified in the RAND-DU report support an argument for a paradigm shift on many levels. For example, the participants argued that a shift in orientation from a punitive/surveillance model to more of a human-services model may attract recruits in larger numbers, mitigating vacancy issues. Such a model may also result in more manageable workloads, a less stressful work environment, and ultimately, better outcomes of incarcerated individuals, which can all help mitigate turnover issues. Although some agencies are beginning to reap benefits from such a shift, empirical data is needed to support the case for widespread change.

According to the participants, as this shift essentially redefines the role of many staff, recruitment and selection strategies will need to change accordingly. Further, changes will be needed to attract younger employees to corrections staff. Additionally, the paramilitary structure of corrections should be reexamined. Where possible, staff should be offered more flexibility as well as input into decisions that affect their work experience.

Finally, the participants argued that in order to build a high-quality workforce, there must be sustained investments in training, nurturing and developing staff with an emphasis on grooming future leaders.

Return to text

[note 1]  Stinchcomb, J.B., McCampbell, S.W. & Layman, E.P. (2006). Future Force: A Guide to Building the 21st Century Community Corrections Workforce, Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice; Stinchcomb, J.B., McCampbell, S.W. & Leip, L. (2009). Recruiting, Retaining, and Developing the 21st Century Jail Workforce, Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice.

[note 2] Peterson, L. (2017). "State of Emergency Declared in W. Va. Jails, Prisons Due to Staffing Level," Charleston; Tidd, J. (2019). "'Please Don't Quit': Kansas Governor Addresses Prison Staff after Emergency Declared," Wichita Eagle, February 14, 2019. 

[note 3] Associated Press. (2019) "MS Prisons 'a pressure cooker,' MDOC Commissioner Warns. Staff Shortage Leads to Lockdown," January 27, 2019. 

[note 4] New Mexico Department of Corrections. (2017). Hearing Brief to Legislative Finance Committee, July 21, 2017.

[note 5] Association of State Correctional Administrators, Survey on Correctional Officer Salary, Vacancy and Turnover. Unpublished.

[note 6] Sumpter, M. (2008). "The Correctional Work Force Faces Challenges in the 21st Century," Corrections Today, August 2008.

[note 7] Ferdik, F.V. & Smith, H.P. (2017). "Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis," National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.

[note 8] Spinaris, C. (2013). "Occupational Exposure to Primary and Secondary Trauma in Corrections." Corrections.com, January 7, 2013. Lewis, K. (2013). "Secondary Trauma," APPA Perspectives, Vol. 37, No. 1.

[note 9] Welch, M. (2011). "Corrections: A Critical Approach" 3rd Edition. Routledge, London & New York.

[note 10] Neuhaus, L. (2017). "Florida Prison Chief: State Losing Corrections Staff to 'Wal-Mart,' Creating Insecurity in System," Florida Politics. March 16, 2017. Grissom, B. (2014). "Prison Officials Seek Ways to Recruit, Retain Officers," Texas Tribune, November 14, 2014. 

[note 11] Vickovic, S.G., Griffin, M.L., & Fradella, H.F. (2013). "Depictions of Correctional Officers in Newspaper Media: An Ethnographic Content Analysis," Criminal Justice Studies, Vol. 26, No.4.

[note 12] Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2019). The Employment Situation Summary, February 2019.

[note 13] Adkins, A. (2016). " Millennials: The Job-Hopping Generation ," Gallup Business Journal, May 12, 2016. 

[note 14] The underlying research is part of NIJ's Priority Criminal Justice Needs Initiative, a program of RAND, the Police Executive Research Forum, RTI International, and the University of Denver. The research was funded by NIJ award 2013-MU-CX-K003, awarded to the RAND Corporation working in partnership with the University of Denver. This article is based on the grantee report " Building a High-Quality Correctional Workforce: Identifying Challenges and Needs " (RAND, 2018). The report contributors were Joe Russo, Dulani Woods, George B. Drake, and Brian A. Jackson.

About the author

Joe Russo is the corrections technology lead at the Justice Technology Information Center, an NIJ program funded through a grant to Leidos Innovations Corporation. Russo is a co-author of the report that is the subject of this article.

Cite this Article

Read more about:.

Sorry, we did not find any matching results.

We frequently add data and we're interested in what would be useful to people. If you have a specific recommendation, you can reach us at [email protected] .

We are in the process of adding data at the state and local level. Sign up on our mailing list here to be the first to know when it is available.

Search tips:

• Check your spelling

• Try other search terms

• Use fewer words

What are prison work programs and how common are they?

Existing prison labor data lacks frequency and depth.

Updated on Thu, September 22, 2022 by the USAFacts Team

Sixty-one percent of prison inmates in the United States have work assignments, according to data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS).

BJS publishes some national data about work programs in prisons, but there is still room for improving this data to be more frequent and cover more topics related to prison labor.

What are prison work programs?

Prison work programs include several ways that prison inmates provide work to the prison, the public, or private companies.

Inmates can work in prison operations, meaning work that supports the operations of the prisons themselves, such as maintenance, food services, and office or administrative work.

Inmates can work in prison industry programs. Prison industries are government-owned businesses [1] that create and sell products made by inmates, such as license plates or facemasks .

Inmates can also be employed in public work programs, in which inmates provide services for the public that would otherwise be funded by government agencies. This includes road repairs or litter cleanup.

Private companies can also employ inmates through the Prison Industry Enhancement Certification Program (PIECP). This program puts inmates into realistic work environments, pays them prevailing wages, and aims to help them develop marketable skills that will help inmates get jobs after being released from prison. There are a total of 37 state PIECP-certified programs and four county programs. These programs involve at least 175 partnerships with private businesses.

How common are prison work programs?

According to the BJS’s Census of State and Federal Adult Correctional Facilities , more than 98% of prisons had work programs in 2019. Work programs are available in all 50 states and in both federal and state prisons.

Prison operations are the most common type of work program [2] , available in about 95% of prisons. Prison industries (such as license plate, wood product, or textiles manufacturing) are available in about half of all prisons.

Every type of work program reported by BJS was more common in public facilities than in private facilities. In 2019, there were 1,079 public prisons and 82 private prisons [3] .

Among public prisons, prison operations and prison industries were more common in federal prisons, while public works and farming or agricultural work were more common in state-run prisons. In 2019, there were 111 federal prisons and 968 state prisons.

The prisons with the largest number of inmates all have work programs [4] . This boosts the share of inmates held in a prison with work programs. In 2019, 99.6% of inmates were in prisons that offered any work program, and 97.7% were in prisons offering prison operation work programs.

How many prisoners participate in prison work programs?

According to the BJS’s Survey of Prison Inmates , 60.9% of inmates have work assignments. The share of prisoners with work assignments varies across demographic groups, with women and those with higher levels of educational attainment being more likely to have work assignments compared with the overall prison population.

Women and more educated inmates participate more in work assignments.

How can government data about prison work programs be improved.

While some data on prison labor is currently available from government sources, this data would be more useful to the public and to policymakers if it were collected more frequently and covered additional topics related to prison labor.

The two primary national datasets with information about prison labor are collected at most every five to seven years. The data from the Survey of Prison Inmates was last collected in 2016, and the Census of State and Federal Correctional Facilities was last conducted in 2019.

Additionally, the data that is covered in these sources does not cover several topics that may be important to the public and policymakers. For example, government data on how much inmates are paid does not currently exist. Some states publish information about inmate compensation, but the type of data provided varies and is difficult to compare across states.

Other topics that could be of interest but are not yet reflected in government data include whether inmates are required to have work assignments, the total economic output created through prison work programs, inmate working conditions, and who benefits from prison labor.

Some of this data is already collected by prisons or reported by states, but this data can be difficult to find and aggregate, the topics aren’t consistent across states, and much of the data is in PDF documents, making it difficult to extract and compile. There is an opportunity for the federal government to create data collection standards and requirements making it easier to collect existing data in one place and in a common format.

Learn more from USAFacts and get the data directly in your inbox by signing up for our newsletter.

Florida and Mississippi’s prison industries are run through private non-profit corporations.

Farming and agricultural work is included in data from the Bureau of Justice statistics, but it is not enumerated on whether it’s treated as support work, prison industry, or private business labor.

According to the Census of State and Federal Adult Correctional Facilities, private prisons include facilities that are under contract to hold prisoners for state correctional authorities or the Federal Bureau of Prisons but are not operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons or state departments of corrections.

Out of prisons that reported whether work programs were available (97.4% of all prisons). Every prison in the top 30% by the number of prisoners had at least one work program.

Explore more of USAFacts

Related articles, what kinds of property crime are on the rise.

Firearm background checks: Explained

The state of domestic terrorism in the US

The latest government data on school shootings

Related data.

1.23 million

Prisoners held in private prisons

Data delivered to your inbox.

Keep up with the latest data and most popular content.

SIGN UP FOR THE NEWSLETTER

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.40(1); 2017 Jun

Prison as Punishment: A Behavior-Analytic Evaluation of Incarceration

Alexis b. apel.

1 Department of Psychology, Eastern Connecticut State University, 83 Windham Street, Willimantic, CT 06226 USA

2 Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA USA

James W. Diller

The USA currently imprisons over 2.2 million people (Glaze and Kaeble, 2014 ). Of those, about 70 % will be rearrested within 3 years of release (Durose, Cooper, & Synder, 2014 ). If prison is viewed as a large-scale intervention, it lacks empirical support of effectiveness. The present paper reviews criminological data related to incarceration and evaluates components of imprisonment in light of behavior-analytic research on punishment. These factors include elements such as the individual’s learning history and aspects of the punisher (e.g., intensity and immediacy). Partnering with other professionals, behavior analysts interested in this area could apply their skills in research and practice to help mitigate a large-scale problem of great social significance.

Nature and Scope of the Issue

Since 2010, between 18 and 27 million crimes have occurred each year in the USA (Truman, 2011 ; Truman & Langton, 2014 ; Truman, Langton, & Planty, 2013 ; Truman & Planty, 2012 ). In 2013, for example, over 6 million violent crimes were reported, including approximately 17,000 murders (Center for Disease Control, 2016 ), 300,000 rapes, 650,000 robberies, and 5 million assaults. The same year saw almost 17 million property crimes, including 3 million burglaries, 650,000 motor vehicle thefts, and almost 13 million other thefts (Truman & Langton, 2014 ). Thus, criminal behavior victimizes millions of citizens of the US annually in ways that challenge community safety and personal quality of life.

In the US criminal justice system, individuals who are found guilty of committing a serious crime typically are sentenced to jail or prison time. This happens with remarkable frequency. The USA currently holds over 2.2 million people in prisons and local jails, 1 for every 110 people in the country (Glaze & Kaeble, 2014 ). The USA imprisons more people than any other nation, resulting in a per-capita rate that is over four times the global average (National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 2006 ). The USA also incarcerates more citizens per crime committed (in the case of homicide and robbery) than any other country except Russia. Schlosser ( 1998 ) noted that most US prisoners are nonviolent offenders who would, in most countries in the world, receive community service or fines, if their behavior was considered criminal at all.

The USA’s overwhelming rate of incarceration has enormous costs. Each person in prison is incarcerated for an average of about 2.5 years (Bonczar, 2011 ). This costs over US$28,000 per year per person, amounting to about US$37 billion annually in services, prison construction, upkeep, and employee costs (Kyckelhahn, 2012 ). In addition to the financial burden, placing individuals in prison creates significant problems for their families. When individuals enter prison, their families suffer from material hardship (e.g., a lack of sufficient food) and financial strain (e.g., inability to pay for housing or other expenses), exacerbating socioeconomic problems that contribute to criminal behavior (Schwartz-Soicher, Geller, & Garfinkel, 2011 ). Families may also have to cope with stigma related to the family member’s imprisonment and a loss of social support from their father, mother, child, or spouse. People with an incarcerated family member are at risk of a number of complications, such as negative health outcomes (Lee, Wildeman, Wang, Matusko, & Jackson, 2014 ) and committing a crime themselves (Van de Rakt, Nieuwbeerta, & Apel, 2009 ). Many communities are also disproportionately affected by mass incarceration, which depletes the labor supply, disrupts social networks, diminishes the purchasing power of families, and exacerbates racial and socioeconomic inequality. Morenoff and Harding ( 2014 ) described how a “feedback loop” is created in poor, urban communities, wherein mass imprisonment undermines the social structure of the community, creating conditions that further promote crime. Thus, imprisonment, as it is currently used, is an issue of great social significance.

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Imprisonment

In the terminology of the legal system, incarceration is referred to as “punishment” (Newman, 1985 ), although this usage entangles two meanings. The first meaning implies societal retribution; in essence, those who have made others suffer are, in the interest of fairness, made to suffer as well. The second meaning implies rehabilitation, or a lessening of odds that the individual will engage in future criminal behavior. It is in this usage that legal punishment is intended to function as operant punishment, a consequence that reduces the probability of occurrence of the behavior on which it is contingent. The purpose of the present article was to evaluate the efficacy of legal punishment, as it is practiced in the USA, as operant punishment.

Given the dramatic rates of incarceration in the USA, if incarceration actually functions as operant punishment, the rate of criminal behavior should be relatively low, but statistics presented above show that is not the case. Following imprisonment, individuals who have been incarcerated are often unsuccessful in transitioning back to public life and are likely to commit future crimes (i.e., recidivate). Indeed, America has an overwhelmingly high recidivism rate. A review of data from 30 states found that 70 % of prisoners released in 2005 were rearrested for a new crime within 3 years, and about 75 % were rearrested for a new crime within 5 years (Durose, Cooper, & Synder, 2014 ). For 50 % of these prisoners, re-arrest led to incarceration within 3 years, and for 55 %, re-arrest led to incarceration within 5 years. Schlosser ( 1998 ) suggested that brief stays in prison followed by re-arrest creates an environment where criminals can learn from each other about how to engage in criminal behavior. Clearly, as typically practiced in the USA, incarceration qualifies as a poor intervention for improving criminal behavior. In the following section, we use the scientific literature on operant punishment to explore factors that may lead to the ineffectiveness of this system.

Behavior-Analytic Punishment and Criminal Justice

Research shows that the effectiveness of punishment-based interventions depends on a variety of factors, the following of which will be discussed in the present section: punishment intensity, punishment probability, punishment immediacy, contemporary reinforcement, and the availability of alternative reinforcement.

Punishment Intensity

The issue of punishment intensity (defined as duration of prison sentence) dominates societal discussions of incarceration effectiveness (e.g., Schlosser, 1998 ). With the emergence of a “war on crime” or a “war on drugs,” longer sentences are typically seen as a tool to enhance deterrence (Schlosser, 1998 ). Some government officials and members of the public have advocated for long prison sentences under the assumption that they will reduce the crime rate, with sentences averaging 81, 51, and 58 months for violent, property, and drug offenses, respectively (Bonczar, 2011 ). Research, however, reveals that longer sentences typically do not have a significant impact on crime rate, especially when compared to the effects of punishment certainty (Dölling, Entorf, Hermann, & Rupp, 2009 ; Nagin, 2013 ). A meta-analysis of 391 studies on the deterrent effect of punishment on criminal behavior found that while lengthy sentences deter some crimes, such as tax evasion and environmental offenses, they have a limited deterrent effect on other crimes, such as assault or rape (Dölling et al., 2009 ). In fact, “the deterrence hypothesis [the assertion that intense punishments decrease the likelihood of crime] is rarely confirmed in the case of more serious offenses” (Dölling et al., 2009 , p. 215). Disconcertingly, most of the crimes which result in prison sentences are the same crimes for which severe punishment has a weak deterrent effect (Carson, 2014 ), adding even more doubt to the notion that longer sentences are an effective method of deterring crime.

Nevertheless, state and federal governments continue to apply lengthy prison sentences as a way of making sure that they are punishing offenders satisfactorily and showing that they are “tough on crime” (Listwan, Sullivan, Agnew, Cullen, & Colvin, 2013 ; MacKenzie, 2013 ; Schlosser, 1998 ), and some even advocate for intentionally harsh conditions during incarceration under the philosophy that they deter offenders from committing future crimes. Thus, the typical prisoner experiences the grim ramifications of “tough on crime” ideology in daily life while incarcerated. According to Ross ( 2012 ), being incarcerated is increasingly “like a death sentence” (p. 1) due to inadequate healthcare, unsanitary living environments, and extreme violence. But, in the research literature, there is no compelling evidence that harsher conditions lead to better outcomes. Listwan et al. ( 2013 ), for example, found that prisoners who experienced more intense conditions (e.g., direct victimization from other inmates and a negative prison environment) had significantly higher rates of re-arrest and incarceration. Quasi-experimental research has also found that more severe prison conditions (as measured by security level) are associated with increased rates of recidivism (a 30 % increase), even when risk levels are matched between groups of prisoners (Gaes & Camp, 2009 ).

Arguably, the most extreme sentence that can be bestowed upon an offender is the death penalty. The death penalty is currently legal in 31 states, with about 3000 individuals held under the penalty of death for at least a year since 2005 and 46 of those actually being executed in 2010 (Snell, 2011 ). Studies of whether the death penalty has a deterrent effect on crime remain largely inconclusive (Chalfin, Haviland, & Raphael, 2013 ). For example, Dezhbakhsh and Shepherd ( 2006 ) compared murder rates both before and after changes in death penalty legislation and determined that, when capital punishment was withdrawn, murder rates increased significantly. When capital punishment was reinstated, the murder rate decreased (although this effect was not as strong as with the removal of the death penalty). Dezhbakhsh and Shepherd concluded that there was strong evidence for a deterrent effect of capital punishment. Offering an opposing view, Kovandzic, Vieraitis, and Boots ( 2009 ) found no support for the deterrent hypothesis based on state panel data from 1977 to 2006. They argued that the death penalty is not a salient threat when potential offenders are contemplating a crime, which largely nullifies any effect that the death penalty could have on the homicide rate. Similarly, in a review of 52 longitudinal, cross-sectional, and panel data studies on the death penalty, Dölling et al. ( 2009 ) ascertained that a majority (70 %) failed to support the deterrent hypothesis. They concluded that the death penalty had little, if any, impact on the crime rate in most studies and that other variables, such as unemployment, contributed to the crime rate to a much greater extent. Yet a minority of studies appeared to support the deterrent hypothesis. Chalfin et al. ( 2013 ) have argued that these mixed results are impossible to interpret because of methodological, statistical, and inferential errors in almost every relevant study. From an evidence-based practice perspective, the critical review of Chalfin et al. revealed no sound evidence for the deterrent effect of capital punishment, and policy decisions should reflect this.

Generally, basic research in behavior analysis research has found that more intense punishers (e.g., higher voltage electric shock) produce a more dramatic and long-lasting decrease in problem behavior compared to less intense punishers (Azrin, Holz, & Hake, 1963 ; Azrin & Holz, 1966 ; Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007 ; Lerman & Vorndran, 2002 ; Lerman & Toole, 2011 ). This body of research also suggests that, once punisher intensity is selected, it is important that the intensity is not repeatedly increased in a quest for a greater degree of behavioral suppression. The efficacy of a punisher is substantially undermined when its intensity is increased gradually over time (e.g., Miller, 1960 ). Thus, a punisher of appropriate intensity should be selected as soon as possible, lest subsequent attempts to increase the punishers’ intensity actually increase the level of problem behavior.

Results of applied behavior analysis research on punishment intensity are less clear. Some studies have found that the intensity of punishment influences response suppression (e.g., Richman, Lindauer, Crosland, McKerchar, & Morse, 2001 ) while others have not (e.g., Cole, Montgomery, Wilson, & Milan, 2000 ; Singh, Dawson, & Manning, 1981 ). Given that punishment intensity does not seem to consistently contribute to its effectiveness (e.g., Lerman & Toole, 2011 ), a focus on other variables is warranted.

Punishment Probability

The probability of a potential offender’s punishment is affected by numerous factors, including the type of crime and the presence and response of law enforcement (Nagin, 2013 ). Overall, however, an offender’s probability of incarceration is relatively low. According to analysis of archival data (Hennessy, Rao, Vilhauer, & Fensterstock, 1999 ), the probability of being incarcerated for homicide is .498. For rape, the probability is .173. For other crimes (e.g., robbery, assault, and motor vehicle theft), the probabilities are even lower (.065, .044, and .01, respectively). Given how unlikely it is that an offender is caught, convicted, and incarcerated, offenders may assume that their criminal behavior will not be consequated. This is especially problematic given the research findings in this area. Most researchers have found a moderate to strong negative correlation between the certainty of imprisonment and the crime rate (Killias, Scheidegger, & Nordenson, 2009 ; Logan, 1972 ; Loughran, Paternoster, Piquero, & Pogarsky, 2011 ; Nagin, 2013 ) and that this relation is much stronger than the one between punishment intensity and crime rate (Dölling et al., 2009 ; Durlauf & Nagin, 2011 ; Logan, 1972 ; Nagin, 2013 ).

To increase the probability that a potential offender will contact punishment, increasing the presence of law enforcement is the most apparent solution (Nagin, 2013 ). Police officers have the ability to reduce crime twofold: by arresting those who engage in crime and by deterring individuals from engaging in crime in the first place. As such, reviews of panel data and interrupted time series studies describing the effects of budget cuts and other crises reveal that higher levels of policing result in lower levels of crime, while breaks in policing lead to surges of criminal activity (Nagin, 2013 ; Shi, 2009 ). Given the fiscal realities in which law enforcement is operating, however, building larger police forces may not be viable.

One alternate tactic with considerable empirical support is “hot spot” policing (United States Department of Justice, 2008 ). “Hot spot” policing is based on the observation that certain areas disproportionately contribute to a region’s crime; one intersection, for example, could account for 50 % of a city’s crime. As part of the strategy, the police force is concentrated in the “hot spots,” creating an extremely high probability of punishment in those areas. Subsequently, potential offenders are deterred from criminal activity, and those who do engage in crime are much more likely to face repercussions. Perhaps surprisingly, the criminal activity reduced as a result of “hot spot” policing does not simply relocate to other areas; in fact, surrounding areas typically experience a decrease in crime as well.

Punishment Immediacy

Research in behavior analysis has found that immediacy is a crucial factor in punishment effectiveness (e.g., Banks & Vogel-Sprott, 1965 ; Solomon, Turner, & Lessac, 1968 ). For offenders, the time between committing a crime, being arrested, and serving a sentence is likely to be extensive. The delay between arrest and sentencing is, on average, almost 9 months (Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 2011 ). Violent offenses average a nearly 9-month delay period, while property and drug offenses average 8 and 9 months, respectively. Behavior analysts might suggest that months of delay between the occurrence of a crime and the punishment would have a detrimental impact on its effectiveness, but the criminological research literature suggests otherwise (but see Tarr, 1978 , for an exception). Multiple authors have found that increasing the speed with which police respond to calls for service has no impact on criminal activity. In a study of police response time in Missouri, the National Institute of Justice ( 1980 ) asserted that a vast majority of crimes are discovered after they have been completed, rendering police response times irrelevant. In cases where police response time is important, citizens often delay too long in reporting a crime, again negating the effects of speedy police arrival. Spelman and Brown ( 1981 ) similarly studied the effects of rapid response to police calls. They confirmed the results of the National Institute of Justice ( 1980 ), finding a minimal impact of swift police response. They estimated that police response times matter in only about 25 % of cases and that police have little control over response time in the other 75 %. The research still supports delay as an important factor in punishment effectiveness (in agreement with behavior analysis), but suggests that law enforcement departments have relatively little power to decrease delays.

Contemporary Reinforcement

From the perspective of a behavior analysis, offenders engage in criminal behavior because there is reinforcement promoting that behavior. While the contingencies sustaining criminal behavior are likely unique for each individual, some consequences, such as the access to goods or money, may function as reinforcers for many people. Social reinforcers also seem to influence the likelihood of criminal behavior occurring. Though some communities and social circles strongly disapprove of criminal behavior, others tolerate or even encourage it (Nagin, 2013 ; Wood, 2007 ). Criminological research has found that a person is much more likely to engage in criminal behavior when peers have positive attitudes about crime and somewhat more likely if peers have committed crimes themselves (Megens & Weerman, 2012 ). Henggeler and Schoenwalder ( 2011 ) suggested that ineffective techniques used in the juvenile justice system (e.g., residential placement) often encourage contact between groups of youth who have engaged in criminal behavior, making peer contagion more likely.

Since all behavior recurs as a result of reinforcement, it is important to examine the contingencies already in place when designing a punishment-based intervention. Reinforcement contingencies that sustain a behavior not only have the potential to interfere with treatment initially but also could continue to support a target behavior, potentially creating a situation in which behavior is concurrently reinforced and punished (Lerman & Vorndran, 2002 ). To deal with that problem, extinction is often used in conjunction with punishment procedures (e.g., Azrin & Holz, 1961 ). In the naturalistic settings in which criminal behaviors occur, extinction might not be possible because for some illegal acts the reinforcers are automatic (e.g., stealing yields money and other preferred commodities). Thus, the strengthening of competing (i.e., noncriminal) responses might be a more effective strategy.

Strength of Competing Responses

Providing alternative reinforcement makes punishment procedures more effective (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007 ; Lerman & Toole, 2011 ). Prisoners face immense obstacles obtaining alternative reinforcement both within confinement and following their release. While in prison, incarcerated individuals suffer from a harsh environment (Ross, 2012 ), limited activities (Seiter & Kadela, 2003 ), and weakened ties with family (i.e., decreased social reinforcement; Lynch & Sabol, 2004 ). Maintaining contact with loved ones, for example, is extremely difficult for offenders (La Vigne, Naser, Brooks, & Castro, 2005 ) as they are often incarcerated far from their homes, making visits with family challenging (cf. Schlosser, 1998 ). Telephone calls to offenders are also expensive, compounding the barriers between an offender and the outside world. This is problematic because family interaction during imprisonment is associated with lower rates of recidivism, and strong family bonds maintained following release help ex-offenders engage in prosocial behavior (Hairston, 1988 ). But with the prison system structured in a way that discourages or prevents familial contact, offenders are deprived of alternative social reinforcement that could potentially help them refrain from criminal acts.

While prisoners in general confinement may have little to no access to the alternative reinforcement of family or recreational activities, offenders in solitary confinement have even less. In the USA, at any given time, about 80,000 prisoners reside in solitary confinement (Browne, Cambier, & Agha, 2011 ), where access to alternative reinforcement is virtually nonexistent. Prisoners typically spend 23 h each day isolated in a cell of 60 to 80 ft 2 (Cloud, Drucker, Browne, & Parsons, 2015 ). Inmates are routinely deprived of natural sunlight and are subjected to harsh fluorescent lighting throughout the night. Cells can be deafeningly loud, or completely silent. Individuals in solitary confinement have little to no human contact or access to treatment or reentry programs. Solitary confinement is sometimes imposed for legitimate reasons: as disciplinary action for an in-prison rule violation or for the safety of the target individual, officers, and other inmates. However, solitary confinement is often doled out arbitrarily (Steinbuch, 2014 ). As there is little regulation on solitary confinement and a prisoner can be placed in solitary confinement without due process (Steinbuch, 2014 ), many individuals remain in solitary confinement for months or years on end (Browne, Cambier, & Agha, 2011 ). This means that these prisoners have no opportunity to engage in adaptive behaviors for prolonged periods of time, which is detrimental to their physical and mental health (Cloud et al., 2015 ). It also means that prisoners might later have severe difficulty adjusting to the free world in which they are not isolated in a small space most of the day. As might be expected, individuals who experience solitary confinement have a higher rate of recidivism than those that do not, perhaps as a result of not having any adaptive behaviors which lead to reinforcement in their repertoire (Steinbuch, 2014 ). The lack of development of alternative behaviors seems to be a limitation of the current criminal justice system that may contribute to its ineffectiveness.

Evidence-Based Mechanisms for Improvement

Based on the behavior analysis and criminology literature reviewed above, it seems that high-probability, moderately severe punishment would be most effective for reducing criminal behavior, especially when coupled with the opportunity to access alternative reinforcement and build prosocial (i.e., noncriminal) behavior. While this may be an empirically supported approach, it is not necessarily the way the criminal justice system presently is structured, as described above. Historically, the evidence-based practice movement had little impact on the criminal justice system, but that is beginning to change (cf. Drake, Aos, & Miller, 2009 ; Henggeler & Schoenwald, 2011 ). In what follows, we describe two interventions that have empirical support.

Token Economies

Most behavior-analytic crime interventions have involved contingency management in the form of token economies (for a review, see Gendreau, Listwan, Kuhns, & Exum, 2014 ). These token economies have most often been used to improve the functioning of prisons, but have not focused on building prisoner skills for life after incarceration. Token economies have been employed to mitigate structural problems that frequently occur in correctional institutions, such as prisoners’ lack of access to reinforcement (Dean & Reppucci, 1974 ), unclear or inconsistent rules, or problem behaviors which occur at an extremely high frequency (Nay, 1974 ). Correctional programs have used token economies to successfully increase the rate of a wide variety of behaviors, such as promptness (Nay, 1974 ), rule compliance (Hobbs & Holt, 1976 ; Nay, 1974 ), interacting with peers (Hobbs & Holt, 1976 ), watching the news (Bassett, Blanchard, & Koshland, 1975 ), chore completion (Comaty, Stasio, & Advokat, 2001 ; Dean & Reppucci, 1974 ; Hobbs & Holt, 1976 ), following the rules of organized sports (Hobbs & Holt, 1976 ), dressing neatly (Comaty et al., 2001 ; Milan & McKee, 1974 ), walking in a straight line (Hobbs & Holt, 1976 ), attending remedial education classes (Bassett et al., 1975 ; Milan & McKee, 1974 ), and passing academic achievement tests (Kandel, Ayllon, & Roberts, 1976 ). Token economies have also been used to decrease inappropriate behavior, such as incidents of violence (Comaty et al., 2001 ; Dean & Reppucci, 1974 ) and intense behavioral episodes (Field, Nash, Handwerk, & Friman, 2004 ).

Although the use of token economies in correctional facilities does have empirical support, much of the research literature is quite old, with over 80 % of it published before 1976 (Gendreau et al., 2014 ). Furthermore, some target behaviors in such studies (e.g., watching the news) may have limited generality to “real-world” behavior. So, while token economies may have improved the day-to-day operations of prisons, research is needed on the extent to which this class of interventions influences post-incarceration behavior.

Post-incarceration Transitions

After being released, prisoners face major challenges in obtaining alternative reinforcement in the form of long-term employment, housing, and constructive social relationships (Raphael, 2011 ; Visher & Travis, 2011 ). Many employers are unwilling to hire former offenders, and individuals who have been incarcerated are likely to be victims of discrimination in the hiring process. The experience of incarceration can reduce a person’s lifetime earnings by 10–20 % and reduce the rate of wage growth by 30 % (Western, 2002 ). Previously incarcerated individuals may also face stigma or hostility from their families or local institutions, preventing them from reintegrating themselves into society. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that, when prisoners return to their previous environments, reinforcers (such as drugs or interactions with friends) that previously supported criminal behavior will likely still be present. As such, ex-offenders are exposed to situations that are conducive to crime (Morenoff & Harding, 2014 ). Without a change in the environment or the acquisition of new ways to access alternative reinforcement, criminal activity is likely to reoccur.

Many prison programs are designed to ease the transition from incarceration to the free world and provide offenders with alternative reinforcement. Numerous evaluations have found that prisoner reentry programs, those that help a prisoner transition into the greater community (both during prison and thereafter), are beneficial to individuals who have been incarcerated (Jensen & Reed, 2006 ; Tripodi, Bledsoe, Kim, & Bender, 2011 ; Vacca, 2004 ; Wright, Zhang, Farabee, & Braatz, 2014 ). Reentry programs can involve a range of services from employment assistance to drug counseling. These services allow prisoners to engage in noncriminal behaviors that earn reinforcement (e.g., working at a post office to earn money for food). According to recent reviews of reentry research, most types of programs show at least some degree of success in reducing the recidivism and revocation rates of individuals that were previously imprisoned. Housing assistance (Wright et al., 2014 ), educational programs (Jensen & Reed, 2006 ; Vacca, 2004 ), vocational programs (Jensen & Reed, 2006 ; Tripodi et al., 2011 ), and drug rehabilitation programs (Tripodi et al., 2011 ) all have successfully kept offenders from being rearrested and reincarcerated.

Unfortunately, only a minority of prisoners are able to access comprehensive reentry programs due to a prevalent “tough on crime” attitude, low levels of funding, and an exploding prison population (Seiter & Kadela, 2003 ). Programs also vary widely in the degree to which they prepare offenders for the outside community. While some programs offer “excellent preparation for the challenges that face offenders… [others] are only a few hours of orientation” (Seiter & Kadela, 2003 , p. 369), while still others simply provide a confusing and lengthy reentry handbook to help prisoners navigate through the free world (Mellow & Christian, 2008 ). In some cases, individuals previously held in an isolation unit are released with a bus ticket and US$200 (Schlosser, 1998 ).

Post-incarceration transitional services constitute an area of potential intervention for behavior analysts. Since behavior analysts have empirically supported techniques to identify skill deficits and effectively teach a wide array of learners, they are well positioned for work in this area. Behavioral skills training, the identification of potent reinforcers, and functional analysis all represent potent technologies that could be used to intervene for individuals transitioning out of prison environments. The community reinforcement approach (CRA; e.g., Myers, Roozen, & Smith, 2011 ), an empirically supported intervention to reduce problem behavior, might provide a good model for this work. The CRA facilitates the rearrangement of consequences so that reinforcement is provided contingent upon engaging in behavior that is not the problem behavior of interest. The main components include a functional analysis of the problem behavior, an allowance for occasional occurrences of problem behavior, goal setting based on the aspects of an individual’s life that give them joy, behavior skills training, relapse prevention, and relationship counseling. The treatment package has been effective in decreasing substance use and improving outcomes related to work and family. While the CRA has been used primarily for substance abuse, it provides a template for how reinforcement for noncriminal behavior might be arranged in a realistic manner as part of transitional services. Additional research exploring the mechanisms and generality of this intervention package is warranted.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Criminal behavior and the current practices associated with imprisonment have high costs for the American society. The available recidivism data suggested that, as it is currently structured, the prison system fails to function as a punisher or teach alternative responses (i.e., noncriminal behavior) for a large proportion of individuals involved in this system. The clarity which behavior-analytic principles might be able to provide when considering issues associated with incarceration and recidivism suggests the potential for action by behavior analysts to help modify the current cultural practices (cf. Biglan, 1995 , 2011 , 2015 ; Glenn, 2004 ). Such an application would be consistent with Baer, Wolf, and Risley’s ( 1968 , 1987 ) goals for applied behavior analysis.

Despite exhibiting a historical interest in selected issues associated with criminal justice (e.g., Fraley, 2013 ; Morris, 1980 ; Nietzel & Himelein, 1987 ), behavior analysts have not systematically engaged with the issue of incarceration, even as the prison system has come to involve progressively larger proportions of the population. Behavior analysts may be capable of devising effective solutions to the challenges faced in the prison system, but before those solutions are likely to be taken seriously, more behavior analysts will have to gain credibility within the broader criminal justice system. Understanding what is already known about the relevant problems is a first step, one that the present article sought to help readers take.

To make contact with the criminal justice field, working with individuals who have had criminal justice involvement might provide an initial starting point. For example, behavior analysts could help identify sources of reinforcement for noncriminal behavior and develop prosocial skills that benefit both individuals and their communities. While practitioners involved in contingency management (e.g., Petry, 2000 ) and community reinforcement (e.g., Myers et al., 2011 ) are already working with these populations to some extent, efforts could be expanded. Working with these individuals provides a fertile ground for clinical innovation, basic, applied, and conceptual research, cross-disciplinary collaboration, and the possibility of novel funding streams for behavior-analytic work.

The present article is a step toward the identification of ways in which behavior analysts might contribute toward solving the problems associated with reducing criminal behavior and recidivism. Fortunately, much of the research from criminology is easily translated into behavioral terms. However, in evaluating the extent to which the field can contribute in this area, the burden of proof rests firmly with the behavior analysts. The development and dissemination of empirically supported behavioral technology to a domain as massive and culturally entrenched as the prison system is a gargantuan task, but one that cannot be ignored if behavior analysis is to achieve the broad social impact that Skinner ( 1953 , 1974 ) saw as its destiny.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Mirari Elcoro and Paula Prentice for their helpful comments on a previous version of this manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or nonhuman animals performed by any of the authors.

• Azrin NH, Holz WC. Punishment during fixed‐interval reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. 1961; 4 (4):343–347. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1961.4-343. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Azrin NH, Holz WC. Punishment. In: Honig WK, editor. Operant behavior: areas of research and application. New York: Meredith Corporation; 1966. pp. 380–447. [ Google Scholar ]
• Azrin NH, Holz WC, Hake DF. Fixed-ratio punishment. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. 1963; 6 (2):141–148. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1963.6-141. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baer DM, Wolf MM, Risley TR. Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1968; 1 (1):91–97. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1968.1-91. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baer DM, Wolf MM, Risley TR. Some still-current dimensions of applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1987; 20 (4):313–327. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1987.20-313. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Banks RK, Vogel-Sprott M. Effect of delayed punishment on an immediately rewarded response in humans. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1965; 70 (4):357–359. doi: 10.1037/h0022233. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bassett JE, Blanchard EB, Koshland E. Applied behavior analysis in a penal setting: targeting free world behaviors. Behavior Therapy. 1975; 6 (5):639–648. doi: 10.1016/S0005-7894(75)80186-9. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Biglan A. Changing cultural practices: a contextualist framework for intervention research. Reno, NV: Context Press; 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
• Biglan A. Corporate externalities: a challenge to the further success of prevention science. Prevention Science. 2011; 12 (1):1–11. doi: 10.1007/s11121-010-0190-5. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Biglan A. The nurture effect: how the science of human behavior can improve our lives and our world. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications; 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bonczar, T. (2011). National corrections reporting program: time served in state prison, by offense, release type, sex, and race. Bureau of Justice Statistics. http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2045 . Accessed 15 Nov 2015.
• Browne A, Cambier A, Agha S. Prisons within prisons: the use of segregation in the United States. Federal Sentencing Reporter. 2011; 24 (1):46–49. doi: 10.1525/fsr.2011.24.1.46. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carson, E. A. (2014). Prisoners in 2013 (report no. NCJ 247282) . Bureau of Justice Statistics. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p13.pdf . Accessed 15 Nov 2015.
• Center for Disease Control. (2016). National violent death reporting system. [Fact sheet] . http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nvdrs_factsheet-a.pdf . Accessed 15 Nov 2015.
• Chalfin A, Haviland A, Raphael S. What do panel studies tell us about a deterrent effect of capital punishment? A critique of the literature. Journal of Quantitative Criminology. 2013; 29 (1):5–43. doi: 10.1007/s10940-012-9168-8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cloud DH, Drucker E, Browne A, Parsons J. Public health and solitary confinement in the United States. American Journal of Public Health. 2015; 105 (1):18–26. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2014.302205. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cole GA, Montgomery RW, Wilson KM, Milan MA. Parametric analysis of overcorrection duration effects: is longer really better than shorter? Behavior Modification. 2000; 24 (3):359–378. doi: 10.1177/0145445500243004. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Comaty JE, Stasio M, Advokat C. Analysis of outcome variables of a token economy system in a state psychiatric hospital: a program evaluation. Research in Developmental Disabilities. 2001; 22 (3):233–253. doi: 10.1016/S0891-4222(01)00070-1. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooper JO, Heron TE, Heward WL. Applied behavior analysis. 2. Upper Saddle River: Merril; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dean CW, Reppucci ND. Juvenile correctional institutions. In: Glaser D, editor. Handbook of criminology. Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Company; 1974. pp. 865–908. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dezhbakhsh H, Shepherd JM. The deterrent effect of capital punishment: evidence from a “judicial experiment” Economic Inquiry. 2006; 44 (3):512–535. doi: 10.1093/ei/cbj032. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dölling D, Entorf H, Hermann D, Rupp T. Is deterrence effective? Results of a meta-analysis of punishment. European Journal on Criminal Policy & Research. 2009; 15 (1/2):201–224. doi: 10.1007/s10610-008-9097-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Drake EK, Aos S, Miller MG. Evidence-based policy options to reduce crime and criminal justice costs: implications in Washington state. Victims and Offenders. 2009; 4 :170–196. doi: 10.1080/15564880802612615. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Durlauf SN, Nagin DS. Imprisonment and crime. Criminology & Public Policy. 2011; 10 (1):13–54. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9133.2010.00680.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Durose, M. R., Cooper, A. D., & Synder, H. N. (2014). Recidivism of prisoners released in 30 states in 2005: patterns from 2005 to 2010 (report no. NCJ 244205) . Bureau of Justice Statistics. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rprts05p0510.pdf . Accessed 15 Nov 2015.
• Field CE, Nash HM, Handwerk ML, Friman PC. A modification of the token economy for nonresponsive youth in family-style residential care. Behavior Modification. 2004; 28 (3):438–457. doi: 10.1177/0145445503258995. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fraley, L. E. (2013). Behaviorological rehabilitation and the criminal justice system . Canton: Applied Behaviorology Consultants.
• Gaes GG, Camp SD. Unintended consequences: experimental evidence for the criminogenic effect of prison security level placement on post-release recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology. 2009; 5 (2):139–162. doi: 10.1007/s11292-009-9070-z. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gendreau P, Listwan SJ, Kuhns JB, Exum ML. Making prisoners accountable: are contingency management programs the answer? Criminal Justice and Behavior. 2014; 41 (9):1079–1102. doi: 10.1177/0093854814540288. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Glaze, L. E., & Kaeble, D. (2014). Correctional populations in the United States, 2013 (report no. NCJ 248479) . Bureau of Justice Statistics. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpus13.pdf . Accessed 15 Nov 2015.
• Glenn SS. Individual behavior, culture, and social change. The Behavior Analyst. 2004; 27 (2):133–151. doi: 10.1007/BF03393175. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hairston CF. Family ties during imprisonment: do they influence future criminal activity? Federal Probation. 1988; 52 (1):48–52. [ Google Scholar ]
• Henggeler SW, Schoenwald SK. Evidence-based interventions for juvenile offenders and juvenile justice policies that support them. Sharing Child and Youth Development Knowledge. 2011; 25 (1):1–20. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hennessy JJ, Rao VP, Vilhauer JS, Fensterstock JN. Crime and punishment: infrequently imposed sanctions may reinforce criminal behavior. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation. 1999; 29 (1/2):65–75. doi: 10.1300/J076v29n01_05. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hobbs TR, Holt MM. The effects of token reinforcement on the behavior of delinquents in cottage settings. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1976; 9 (2):189–198. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1976.9-189. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jensen EL, Reed GE. Adult correctional education programs: an update on current status based on recent studies. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation. 2006; 44 (1):81–98. doi: 10.1300/J076v44n01_05. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kandel HJ, Ayllon T, Roberts MD. Rapid educational rehabilitation for prison inmates. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 1976; 14 (5):323–331. doi: 10.1016/0005-7967(76)90019-X. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Killias M, Scheidegger D, Nordenson P. The effects of increasing the certainty of punishment. European Journal of Criminology. 2009; 6 (5):387–400. doi: 10.1177/1477370809337881. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kovandzic TV, Vieraitis LM, Boots DP. Does the death penalty save lives? Criminology & Public Policy. 2009; 8 (4):803–843. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9133.2009.00596.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kyckelhahn, T. (2012). State corrections expenditures, FY 1982–2010 (report no. NCJ 239672) . Bureau of Justice Statistics. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/scefy8210.pdf . Accessed 15 Nov 2015.
• La Vigne NG, Naser RL, Brooks LE, Castro JL. Examining the effect of incarceration and in-prison family contact on prisoners’ family relationships. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice. 2005; 21 (4):314–335. doi: 10.1177/1043986205281727. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee H, Wildeman C, Wang EA, Matusko N, Jackson JS. A heavy burden: the cardiovascular health consequences of having a family member incarcerated. American Journal of Public Health. 2014; 104 (3):421–427. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301504. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lerman DC, Toole LM. Developing function-based punishment procedures for problem behavior. In: Fisher WW, Piazza CC, Roane HS, editors. Handbook of applied behavior analysis. New York: Guilford; 2011. pp. 348–369. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lerman DC, Vorndran CM. On the status of knowledge for using punishment: implications for treating behavior disorders. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2002; 35 (4):431–464. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2002.35-431. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Listwan SJ, Sullivan CJ, Agnew R, Cullen FT, Colvin M. The pains of imprisonment revisited: the impact of strain on inmate recidivism. Justice Quarterly. 2013; 30 (1):144–168. doi: 10.1080/07418825.2011.597772. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Logan CH. General deterrent effects of imprisonment. Social Forces. 1972; 51 (1):64–73. doi: 10.2307/2576132. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Loughran TA, Paternoster R, Piquero AR, Pogarsky G. On ambiguity in perceptions of risk implications for criminal decision making and deterrence. Criminology. 2011; 49 (4):1029–1061. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.2011.00251.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lynch JP, Sabol WJ. Assessing the effects of mass incarceration on informal social control in communities. Criminology & Public Policy. 2004; 3 (2):267–293. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9133.2004.tb00042.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• MacKenzie D. First do no harm: a look at correctional policies and programs today. Journal of Experimental Criminology. 2013; 9 (1):1–17. doi: 10.1007/s11292-012-9167-7. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Megens KM, Weerman FM. The social transmission of delinquency: effects of peer attitudes and behavior revisited. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency. 2012; 49 (3):420–443. doi: 10.1177/0022427811408432. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mellow J, Christian J. Transitioning offenders to the community: a content analysis of reentry guides. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation. 2008; 47 (4):339–355. doi: 10.1080/10509670801992111. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Milan MA, McKee JM. Behavior modification: principles and applications in corrections. In: Glaser D, editor. Handbook of criminology. Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Company; 1974. pp. 865–908. [ Google Scholar ]
• Miller NE. Learning resistance to pain and fear: effects of overlearning, exposure, and rewarded exposure in context. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1960; 60 (3):137–145. doi: 10.1037/h0043321. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morenoff, J. D., & Harding, D. J. (2014). Incarceration, prisoner reentry, and communities. Annual Review of Sociology , 40 , 411–429. doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-071811-145511. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• Morris EK. Applied behavior analysis for criminal justice practice: some current dimensions. Criminal Justice & Behavior. 1980; 7 (2):131–145. doi: 10.1177/009385488000700201. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Myers RJ, Roozen HG, Smith JE. The community reinforcement approach. Alcohol Research & Health. 2011; 33 (4):380–388. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nagin DS. Deterrence in the twenty-first century. Crime & Justice. 2013; 42 (1):199–263. doi: 10.1086/670398. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• National Council on Crime and Delinquency. (2006). US rates of incarceration: a global perspective. [Fact sheet] . http://www.nccdglobal.org/sites/default/files/publication_pdf/factsheet-us-incarceration.pdf . Accessed 15 Nov 2015.
• National Institute of Justice. (1980). Response time analysis . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
• Nay WR. Comprehensive behavioral treatment in a training school for delinquents. In: Calhoun KS, Adams HE, Mitchell KM, editors. Innovative treatment methods in psychopathology. Athens: Wiley; 1974. pp. 203–243. [ Google Scholar ]
• Newman G. The punishment response. Albany: Harrow and Hetson; 1985. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nietzel MT, Himelein MJ. Crime prevention through social and physical environmental change. The Behavior Analyst. 1987; 10 (1):69–74. doi: 10.1007/BF03392408. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Petry NM. A comprehensive guide to the application of contingency management procedures in clinical settings. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2000; 58 (1–2):9–25. doi: 10.1016/S0376-8716(99)00071-X. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Raphael S. Incarceration and prisoner reentry in the United States. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences. 2011; 635 :192–215. doi: 10.1177/0002716210393321. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Richman DM, Lindauer SE, Crosland KA, McKerchar TL, Morse PS. Functional analysis and treatment of breath holding maintained by nonsocial reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2001; 34 (4):531–534. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2001.34-531. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ross JI. Why a jail or prison sentence is increasingly like a death sentence. Contemporary Justice Review. 2012; 15 (3):309–321. doi: 10.1080/10282580.2012.707427. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schlosser, E. (December, 1998). The prison-industrial complex. The Atlantic Monthly . http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1998/12/the-prison-industrial-complex/304669/ . Accessed 15 Nov 2015.
• Schwartz-Soicher O, Geller A, Garfinkel I. The effect of paternal incarceration on material hardship. Social Service Review. 2011; 85 (3):447–473. doi: 10.1086/661925. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Seiter RP, Kadela KR. Prisoner reentry: what works, what does not, and what is promising. Crime & Delinquency. 2003; 49 (3):360–388. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shi L. The limits of oversight in policing: evidence from the 2001 Cincinnati riots. Journal of Public Economics. 2009; 93 :99–113. doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2008.07.007. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Singh NN, Dawson MJ, Manning PJ. The effects of physical restraint on self-injurious behaviour. Journal of Mental Deficiency Research. 1981; 25 (3):207–216. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Skinner BF. Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan; 1953. [ Google Scholar ]
• Skinner BF. About behaviorism. New York: Knopf; 1974. [ Google Scholar ]
• Snell, T. L. (2011). Capital punishment, 2010—statistical tables (report no. NCJ 236510) . Bureau of Justice Statistics. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cp10st.pdf . Accessed 15 Nov 2015.
• Solomon RL, Turner LH, Lessac MS. Some effects of delay of punishment on resistance to temptation in dogs. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. 1968; 8 (3):233–238. doi: 10.1037/h0025567. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Spelman, W. & Brown, D. K. (1981). Calling the police: citizen reporting of serious crime . National Institute of Justice, Rockville, MD.
• Steinbuch AT. The movement away from solitary confinement in the United States. New England Journal on Criminal & Civil Confinement. 2014; 40 (2):499–533. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tarr DP. Analysis of response delays and arrest rates. Journal of Police Science & Administration. 1978; 6 (4):429–451. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics. (21 February 2001). Time between arrest and sentencing for felons convicted in state courts . http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t5502006.pdf . Accessed 15 Nov 2015.
• Tripodi SJ, Bledsoe SE, Kim JS, Bender K. Effects of correctional-based programs for female inmates: a systematic review. Research on Social Work Practice. 2011; 21 (1):15–31. doi: 10.1177/1049731509352337. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Truman, J. L. (2011). Criminal victimization, 2010 (report no. NCJ 235508) . Bureau of Justice Statistics. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv10.pdf . Accessed 15 Nov 2015.
• Truman, J. L., & Langton, L. (2014). Criminal victimization, 2013 (report no. NCJ 247648) . Bureau of Justice Statistics. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv13.pdf . Accessed 15 Nov 2015.
• Truman, J. L. & Planty, M. (2012). Criminal victimization, 2011 (report no. NCJ 239437) . Bureau of Justice Statistics. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv11.pdf . Accessed 15 Nov 2015.
• Truman, J. L., Langton, L., & Planty, M. (2013). Criminal victimization, 2012 (report no. NCJ 243389) . Bureau of Justice Statistics. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv12.pdf . Accessed 15 Nov 2015.
• United States Department of Justice. (2008). Police enforcement strategies to prevent crime in hot spot areas . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.
• Vacca JS. Educated prisoners are less likely to return to prison. Journal of Correctional Education. 2004; 55 (4):297–305. [ Google Scholar ]
• Van de Rakt M, Nieuwbeerta P, Apel R. Association of criminal convictions between family members: effects of siblings, fathers and mothers. Criminal Behaviour & Mental Health. 2009; 19 (2):94–108. doi: 10.1002/cbm.715. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Visher CA, Travis J. Life on the outside: returning home after incarceration. The Prison Journal. 2011; 91 (3):102S–119S. doi: 10.1177/0032885511415228. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Western B. The impact of incarceration on wage mobility and inequality. American Sociological Review. 2002; 67 (4):526–546. doi: 10.2307/3088944. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wood P. Exploring the positive punishment effect among incarcerated adult offenders. American Journal of Criminal Justice. 2007; 31 (2):8–22. doi: 10.1007/s12103-007-9000-4. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wright BJ, Zhang SX, Farabee D, Braatz R. Prisoner reentry research from 2000 to 2010: results of a narrative review. Criminal Justice Review. 2014; 39 (1):37–57. doi: 10.1177/0734016813501192. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

The Federal Register

The daily journal of the united states government, request access.

Due to aggressive automated scraping of FederalRegister.gov and eCFR.gov, programmatic access to these sites is limited to access to our extensive developer APIs.

If you are human user receiving this message, we can add your IP address to a set of IPs that can access FederalRegister.gov & eCFR.gov; complete the CAPTCHA (bot test) below and click "Request Access". This process will be necessary for each IP address you wish to access the site from, requests are valid for approximately one quarter (three months) after which the process may need to be repeated.

An official website of the United States government.

If you want to request a wider IP range, first request access for your current IP, and then use the "Site Feedback" button found in the lower left-hand side to make the request.

• CDCR Facebook (opens new window)
• CDCR Twitter (opens new window)
• YouTube (opens new window)
• Instagram (opens new window)

Informational

Out of Class Experience for Examination Purposes

Human resources, office of workforce planning, out-of-class experience for examination purposes.

An Out-of-Class (OOC) assignment is an assignment where an employee is performing duties not consistent with the employee’s classification of appointment. An example would be a Correctional Officer performing the duties of a Correctional Sergeant. The employee would perform the full range of duties of the higher classification and the duties must consist of more than 50 percent of the employee’s time. An OOC assignment can be used when there is an organizational need to fill a position temporarily.

Employees can use OOC experience to meet minimum qualifications for examinations. There are two types of OOC experience that will be accepted; paid and non-paid experience. In each case, employees must obtain verification of the OOC experience. A list of what is required to meet the minimum qualifications for examination purposes is listed below:

Paid OOC experience will be accepted if it meets all of the following criteria:

• Must  be  pre-approved  (memorandum  from  the  Personnel  Office  placing  the employee on an OOC assignment).
• The employee performed the OOC duties for the appropriate amount of time per their Memorandum of Understanding.
• An approved Completion of Out-of-Class memorandum completed by the Personnel Office.
• An OOC Assignment memorandum documenting the completion of the OOC duties approved by the Personnel Office

NOTE: A copy of the documents listed above must be submitted with the employee’s application for the examination for which they are applying. OOC experience will not be accepted to meet the minimum qualifications for an exam if these documents are not submitted with the employee’s application.

Non-paid OOC experience will be accepted if it meets all of the following criteria:

• Employee made a written request no later than one year from the last date the OOC duties were performed, consistent with State Personnel Board (SPB) Rule 212.
• The employee performed the OOC duties for 30 consecutive days, consistent with State Personnel Board (SPB) Rule 212.
• An OOC memorandum documenting the completion of the OOC duties for exam purposes approved by the Personnel Office.

NOTE: A copy of the approved OOC memo must be submitted with the employee’s application for the examination for which they are applying. OOC experience will not be accepted to meet the minimum qualifications for an exam if these documents are not submitted with the employee’s application.

It is in the best interest of the employee to ensure that any OOC experience performed is documented by the Personnel Office. Unfortunately, any undocumented OOC experience will not be accepted. If you have questions regarding the OOC process, please contact your Personnel Office.

July 7, 2010

Sample guideline for bottom bunk requests

Since medical providers must be fair and consistent, it is important to differentiate medical need for a low bunk from requests made for non-medical reasons.

A room full of inmates are seen in their bunk beds at Southeastern Correctional Institution Wednesday, April 22, 2009 in Lancaster, Ohio.

AP Photo/Kiichiro Sato

This column was originally posted on Jeff Keller’s blog, Jail Medicine .

This clinical guideline is intended to be used as a template to help clinicians and administrators create their own policies. This sample guideline must be modified to make it applicable to each unique correctional facility. This guideline is not intended to apply to all patients. Practitioners should use their clinical judgement for individual patients.

Occasionally, inmates who have been assigned the top bunk of a bunk bed state that they have a medical condition that requires them to be given the bottom bunk instead. Since medical providers must be fair and consistent, it is important to differentiate medical need for a low bunk from requests made for non-medical reasons such as a desire for convenience or as a sign of increased status.

Medical need

Medical need for a low bunk generally falls into one of two categories:

• Patients who are unable to safely climb onto the top bunk because of physical limitations;
• Patients who have a medical condition that might lead them to fall off the top bunk and injure themselves.

Patients who are unable to safely climb onto the top bunk because of physical limitations include:

• Obesity (BMI >30);
• Advanced age and/or infirmity;
• Late-term pregnancy;
• Permanent physical disabilities, such as amputations, paralysis, or previous strokes;
• Temporary physical disabilities such as a broken bone or recent surgery.

Patients who have a medical condition that might lead them to fall off the top bunk include:

• Seizure disorders that are current and ongoing;
• Conditions causing vertigo or dizziness, such as Meniere’s disease;
• Conditions that impair coordination such as cerebral palsy.

Chronic pain syndromes independent of other conditions such as those listed above generally do not constitute a medical need for a bottom bunk assignment.

Patients who have been successfully using a top bunk generally do not have a medical need for a bottom bunk reassignment unless their medical condition has acutely changed, such as with a traumatic injury. Example. A patient has been using a top bunk for three weeks. Now he comes to medical stating that there are several bottom bunks available in his pod. He would like medical to approve a bunk reassignment for him because of an old leg injury. The fact that he has been using a top bunk for three weeks indicates that this patient does not have a legitimate medical need for a bottom bunk.

Nursing personnel may address routine patient requests for low-bed assignments based on this guideline. If nursing personnel are unsure or have questions, they may refer the patient to a medical practitioner.

Documentation

Security personnel assign bunks, not medical personnel. Medical personnel are being asked if a patient has a medical need for a low bunk assignment. Therefore, medical personnel should document the answer to this question only.

• Incorrect : “Bottom bunk request is not approved.” Correct : “This patient does not have a medical need for a bottom bunk assignment.”
• Incorrect : “Bottom bunk is approved for medical reasons.” (Security staff may elect to place the patient on a single bed, a cot, or a floor “boat” instead of a bottom bunk.) Correct : “This patient should not be assigned a top bunk for medical reasons.”

If a patient does have a legitimate medical need for a low-bunk assignment, consideration should also be paid to the patient’s other housing needs. For example, a low bunk may not actually meet the patient’s needs; the patient may need a hospital bed. Patients who have a medical need for a low-bunk assignment may need to be restricted to a bottom tier so that they will not have to climb stairs. Patients who are inmate workers may need work restrictions. If the medical need for a low-bunk assignment is temporary (such as a broken arm), the bottom-bunk memo should have a time limit.

A guilty verdict? Donald Trump and allies are bracing voters for the worst

WASHINGTON - When former president and 2024 candidate Donald Trump claims that the judicial system wants to put him in jail , he's not just protesting the ongoing hush money trial.

Trump is also bracing voters for the possibility of a guilty verdict.

At political rallies, on social media, and to reporters gathered at the courthouse in New York, Trump's attacks on the trial are designed in part to persuade voters to disregard a bad verdict, according to aides, legal analysts, and a review of his remarks.

"The New York judicial system has been absolutely abused," Trump told reporters Friday. "The whole world is watching."

Trump is accused of improperly influencing the 2016 presidential election by paying hush money to women , seeking to keep them from publicizing sexual liaisons. He has pleaded not guilty.

Prep for the polls: See who is running for president and compare where they stand on key issues in our Voter Guide

Trump targets moderate voters

Trump has not explicitly said he expects a guilty verdict, and occasionally expresses public optimism about the outcome of the trial. "Many good things are going on in the case," the former said Thursday.

But he has spent much more time claiming political bias by the judge , prosecutors and the jury pool, and argues without evidence that his political opponents will do anything to put him behind bars.

Trump and supporters have also predicted that a guilty verdict would be reversed on appeal, a step that would not be necessary if he is acquitted or if there is a hung jury.

Legal experts said Trump has little choice but to brace for a guilty verdict, given how it might affect his campaign against President Joe Biden .

In claiming the trial is unfair, Trump's targets include moderate and independent voters who have long been skeptical of his behavior.

"His base will believe everything he says," said Bradley P. Moss, a Washington, D.C., lawyer who specializes in government transparency issues. "The question is independents."

Trump appeals to New Jersey

Trump's latest effort to brace supporters for bad legal news comes Saturday at a campaign rally in Wildwood, N.J.

This will be Trump's first campaign rally since a May 1 airport event in Freeland, Mich ., where he went on at length about his legal concerns.

While discussing the ongoing New York trial, Trump said "we haven't had a decision here, but the decision here can probably only be one thing, I guess ... 'cause ... this whole thing - it's a rigged deal; it's a rigged deal."

Trump also equated the hush money trial to the major civil cases he has lost, one over bank loan fraud and two others regarding defamation and sexual abuse of writer E. Jean Carroll .

Altogether, civil courts have ordered Trump to pay more than $500 million in damages.

"Hopefully, we'll win all of that stuff easily on appeal," Trump said at one point in Michigan.

'Orchestrating Trump's conviction'

Trump is also trying to discount the New York verdict by citing legal analysts who agree with his criticisms of the case. Some of them say they believe Trump is bound for a guilty verdict because of the way the trial is being conducted by New York Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchan.

In a Truth Social post on May 5, Trump cited comments by former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy that described "how Judge Merchan is orchestrating Trump's conviction."

Trump also attacks the gag order against him , describing it as an attempt to fix the case. Merchan has found Trump in violation of the gag order ten items over attacks on witnesses and court personnel.

In reading out criticisms of the case on Friday, Trump said he has to be careful because of the gag order: "If I mention the wrong word, they'll come out here and they'll take me out to jail some place, because that's the way it is with this judge - he wants to show how tough he is."

Rerun: Trump previously warned of indictments

The political world has seen this kind of courtroom drama previously, back before Trump was first indicted.

In late 2022 and early 2023, Trump braced supporters for the likelihood of indictments, and sought to taint them ahead of time by decrying the investigations as politically motivated.

In June of 2023, three months after the hush money indictment, Trump told a Republican group in New Hampshire that "there could be others coming," and described them as "election interference."

Trump wound up under indictment in four separate criminal cases .

In addition to the New York hush money case, the former president faces trial in South Florida on charges of mishandling classified information, and two cases in Washington, D.C., and Georgia on federal and state charges respectively of trying to steal the 2020 election from Biden.

Trump is seeking to delay the latter three trials to beyond Election Day on Nov. 5. He may succeed, leaving the New York case as his only trial during the election campaign.

Politically, the indictments may have helped Trump , at least with hardcore Republican voters who fueled his drive toward the 2024 presidential nomination.

Polls and primaries also reflected skepticism of Trump from moderate and independent voters, some of whom continued to support former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley even after she dropped out of the race.

Political impact

In the meantime, Trump is preparing for an actual verdict in the New York case - and a political impact that is unknowable.

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University who is often cited by Trump, said the former president's complaints about a "weaponized justice system" are legitimate.

Even if Trump is convicted, Turley said, he has a good chance to have the case reversed on appeal because "the entire case is becoming a dumpster fire."

Turley also said "no one would bet on an acquittal from a New York jury on Trump," but it's possible that jurors will deadlock and be unable to render any verdict.

Trump could legitimately celebrate a hung jury as a victory, he said.

Whatever the merits of the case, Moss said Trump has been treated fairly by the justice system. For example, Moss said that any other defendant would be in jail now for violating gag orders the way Trump has. "If anything," he said, "he's been handled with kid gloves."

Moss also said that, while Trump's base will stick with him no matter what, it's hard to see how a guilty verdict would help him.

"I don't see anything good coming out of this for Trump," Moss said. "The question is how much damage it does."

Contributing: Bart Jansen

• CBSSports.com
• Fanatics Sportsbook
• CBS Sports Home
• Champions League
• Motor Sports
• High School

Football Pick'em

College Pick'em

Fantasy baseball, fantasy football, fantasy basketball, fantasy hockey, franchise games, 24/7 sports news network.

• CBS Sports Golazo Network
• PGA Championship
• UEFA Champions League
• UEFA Europa League
• Italian Serie A
• Watch CBS Sports Network
• TV Shows & Listings

The Early Edge

A Daily SportsLine Betting Podcast

With the First Pick

NFL Draft recap

• Podcasts Home
• The First Cut Golf
• Beyond the Arc
• We Need to Talk Now
• Eye On College Basketball
• NFL Pick Six
• Cover 3 College Football
• Fantasy Football Today
• My Teams Organize / See All Teams Help Account Settings Log Out

Shohei Ohtani gambling scandal: Interpreter Ippei Mizuhara to plead guilty, faces up to 33 years in prison

Mizuhara has agreed to plead guilty to bank fraud and tax fraud.

Ippei Mizuhara, the former interpreter for Dodgers superstar Shohei Ohtani , has agreed to plead guilty in the gambling scandal in which he has been accused of stealing almost $17 million from the baseball player and using it to place illegal bets, the U.S Attorney's Office for the Central District of California announced on May 8.

Mizuhara, described by the Attorney's Office as Ohtani's "de facto manager," will plead guilty to one count of bank fraud and one count of subscribing to a false tax return at an arraignment scheduled for May 14. He faces a maximum sentence of 33 years in prison, five years of supervised release and a fine of $1,250,000.

The 39-year-old former interpreter will be required to pay full restitution to his victims, which includes $16,975,010 to Victim A, Ohtani, and $1,149,400 to the IRS.

"The extent of this defendant's deception and theft is massive," United States Attorney Martin Estrada said in a statement. "He took advantage of his position of trust to take advantage of Mr. Ohtani and fuel a dangerous gambling habit. My office is committed to vindicating victims throughout our community and ensuring that wrongdoers face justice."

Special Agent in Charge Tyler Hatcher, IRS Criminal Investigation, Los Angeles Field Office said in a statement that Mizuhara "exploited his relationship with Mr. Ohtani to bankroll his own irresponsibility."

Mizuhara pleaded not guilty on May 14 in a formality while he negotiates the plea deal with federal prosecutors, according to the Associated Press. He will plead guilty at a later appearance.

News of the fraud that entangled Ohtani broke back in March while the Dodgers were opening the 2024 MLB season in South Korea, and in the ensuing weeks we learned that Ohtani was the victim. Mizuhara racked up tens of millions of dollars in gambling debts to an illegal bookmaker and was funneling the money through casinos. He had been illicitly making withdrawals from Ohtani's bank accounts, including by impersonating Ohtani on the phone with the bank, and having had access to all pertinent passwords and codes.

More, from the press release: 

As part of his job duties, Mizuhara regularly interacted with Ohtani's sports agents and financial advisors – who did not speak Japanese – on behalf of Ohtani, who did not speak English. Although Mizuhara was an employee of the Los Angeles Angels MLB team, for whom Ohtani played from 2018 to 2023, and, later, the Los Angeles Dodgers, for whom Ohtani has played since 2024, Ohtani paid him separately for the additional work of driving him to meetings and interpreting for non-baseball-related activities.

Mizuhara's gambling activities appeared to start in September 2021 and continued through March 2024. According to prosecutors, after going to a Phoenix bank with Ohtani to open a bank account, Mizuhara changed the security protocols on the account so bank employees would call him, rather than Ohtani, with any questions. Mizuhara impersonated Ohtani in calls with bank employees at least 24 times, according to the Attorney's Office.

"When Ohtani's sports agent and financial advisors asked Mizuhara for access to the bank account, Mizuhara lied and said Ohtani did not want them to access the account because it was private," the DOJ said in a press release. "In fact, Mizuhara did not want them to know that he had been stealing from Ohtani and had fraudulently obtained more than $16,975,010 from him."

As well as the millions siphoned out of Ohtani's account to pay off gambling debt, Mizuhara also bought $325,000 worth of baseball cards on eBay and other online resellers in order to flip them and profit himself. In September 2023, Ohtani agreed to pay for Mizuhara's $60,000 dental work and provided him with a check. Instead, according to prosecutors, Mizuhara paid the bill with Ohtani's debit card and deposited the check into his personal account.

Mizuhara also admitted to falsely reporting his taxable income on his IRS tax returns in 2022, resulting in the tax fraud charge. According to the plea deal, Mizuhara falsely claimed he was single when he was in fact married and failed to report additional income of $4,100,000 that year. 

An attorney representing Mizuhara declined to comment when reached by CBS Sports.

Our Latest MLB Stories

Padres 'fully deserving' of boos after Rockies sweep

R.j. anderson • 1 min read.

Astros' Ronel Blanco suspended over sticky stuff

Orioles extend regular-season sweepless streak to 105

Mike axisa • 1 min read.

Machado says Padres not 'playing at our highest level'

Mike axisa • 3 min read.

Ohtani's sleep back on track after gambling scandal

Mike axisa • 2 min read.

MLB DFS picks, May 15, 2024 strategy, lineups, advice

Cbs sports staff • 3 min read, share video.

Ohtani's ex-interpreter Ippei Mizuhara to plead guilty

First-quarter grades: Orioles, Phillies get 'A'

MVP, Cy Young, Rookie of the Year so far

How Chris Sale got his Cy Young stuff back

Why Jo Adell might be for real this time

Orioles extend regular-season sweepless streak

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• Auto Racing
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

What a judge’s gag order on Trump means in his hush money case

The judge overseeing Donald Trump’s New York hush money trial has clarified the gag order pertaining to the ex-president doesn’t prohibit him from testifying on his own behalf.

Donald Trump has been fined $9,000 for repeatedly violating a gag order that barred him from making public statements about witnesses, jurors and some others connected to his New York hush money case.

FILE - Former President Donald Trump speaks outside the courtroom in New York, April 30, 2024. A gag order bars him from making public comments on witnesses, jurors and some others connected to the case. The judge found that Trump repeatedly violated the order and he fined Trump $9,000 and warned that jail could follow if Trump keeps it up. The order doesn’t stop Trump from talking about the allegations against him or commenting on the judge or the elected top prosecutor. And it doesn’t stop him from testifying in court if he chooses. (Justin Lane/Pool Photo via AP, File)

• Copy Link copied

Former President Donald Trump returns to the courtroom following a break in his trial at Manhattan criminal court in New York, on Friday, May 3, 2024. (Charly Triballeau/Pool Photo via AP)

Former President Donald Trump speaks to media as he returns to his trial at the Manhattan Criminal Court, Friday, May 3, 2024, in New York. (Curtis Means/Pool Photo via AP)

Former President Donald Trump speaks to media as he returns to his trial at the Manhattan Criminal Court, Friday, May 3, 2024, in New York. (Charly Triballeau/Pool Photo via AP)

NEW YORK (AP) — Virtually every day of his hush money criminal trial , former President Donald Trump talks about how he can’t talk about the case.

A gag order bars Trump from commenting publicly on witnesses, jurors and some others connected to the matter. The New York judge already has found that Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, repeatedly violated the order, fined him $9,000 and warning that jail could follow if he doesn’t comply.

What to know about Trump’s hush money trial:

• Follow the AP’s live coverage as Trump’s former lawyer returns to the stand.
• A guide to terms used in the Trump trial.
• Trump is the first ex-president on criminal trial. Here’s what to know about the hush money case.
• Trump is facing four criminal indictments, and a civil lawsuit. You can track all of the cases here.

But the order doesn’t stop Trump from talking about the allegations against him or commenting on the judge or the elected top prosecutor. And despite a recent Trump remark, it doesn’t stop him from testifying in court if he chooses .

As he fights the felony charges against him while running for president, Trump has at times stirred confusion about what he can and can’t do in the case. He has pleaded not guilty.

So what does the order do, what doesn’t it and where did it come from?

WHAT IS A GAG ORDER?

Generally speaking, a gag order is a judge’s directive prohibiting someone or people involved in a court case from publicly commenting about some or all aspects of it. In Trump’s case, it’s titled an “Order Restricting Extrajudicial Statements,” with “extrajudicial” meaning outside of court.

Gag orders, particularly in high-profile cases, are intended to prevent information presented outside a courtroom from affecting what happens inside.

Trump also is subject to a gag order in his federal criminal election interference case in Washington. That order limits what he can say about witnesses, lawyers in the case and court staff, though an appeals court freed him to speak about special counsel Jack Smith, who brought the case.

In his recent New York civil fraud trial , Trump was fined a total of $15,000 for comments he made about that judge’s law clerk after a gag order barred participants in the trial from “posting, emailing or speaking publicly” about the court’s staff.

The U.S. Supreme Court has acknowledged that gag orders can pit fair trial rights against free speech rights. The court has struck down some orders that barred the press from reporting on certain cases or court proceedings and rejected as too vague a Nevada court rule that limited what all lawyers could say out of court.

IS TRUMP FIGHTING THE GAG ORDER?

Yes. Before the trial, he asked a state appeals court to postpone the trial while he appeals the gag order , but the court refused. His appeal of the order itself is ongoing.

WHO IS COVERED BY THE GAG ORDER ON TRUMP?

Initially imposed March 26 , the gag order bars Trump from making or directing others to make public statements about any juror and about any “reasonably foreseeable” witness’ participation in the investigation or the trial.

It also bars any statements about lawyers in the case, court staffers, prosecution aides and relatives of all of the above, to the extent that the statements are intended to “materially interfere with, or to cause others to materially interfere with” their work on the case “or with the knowledge that such interference is likely to result.”

The order doesn’t apply to Judge Juan M. Merchan or to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, whose office is bringing the case. It does apply to comments about their family members, however. Merchan added that provision on April 1 after Trump lashed out on social media at the judge’s daughter , a Democratic political consultant, and made a claim about her that was later repudiated by court officials.

Trump is also allowed to talk about his political opponents, as Merchan made clear on Thursday.

The order also doesn’t bar witnesses from commenting on Trump. Michael Cohen, Trump’s ex-lawyer and an expected witness, has routinely attacked his former boss, leading Trump to complain about not being able to respond in kind.

CAN TRUMP TESTIFY?

Yes. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to take the stand in their own defense — or not to .

There was some confusion after Trump said Thursday that because of the gag order, he was “not allowed to testify.” In context, it appeared he was actually referring to his ability to respond to a reporter’s court-hallway question about a witness’ testimony that afternoon.

Trump clarified to reporters Friday that he understood the order wasn’t a bar on testifying. Merchan emphasized the same in court.

“I want to stress, Mr. Trump, you have an absolute right to testify at trial, if that’s what you decide to do after consultation with your attorneys,” Merchan said.

WHY DID TRUMP GET FINED? WHAT CAN’T HE SAY?

Merchan found that Trump violated the gag order with social media posts that laid into Cohen. Among the offending posts: one that asked whether “disgraced attorney and felon Michael Cohen been prosecuted for LYING,” a repost of a New York Post article that described Cohen as a “serial perjurer,” and a Trump post referring to Fox News host Jesse Watters’ claim that liberal activists were lying to infiltrate the jury.

Merchan noted that Trump’s comment on the Watters segment misstated what the host had actually said, making the comment “the words of Defendant himself.”

On the other hand, Merchan declined to sanction Trump for an April 10 post that referred to Cohen and Stormy Daniels, the porn performer who got a $130,000 hush money payment that’s at the heart of the case, as “sleaze bags.”

Trump contended that he was responding to previous comments by Cohen, and the judge said the back-and-forth gave him pause as to whether that post met the bar for a violation.

COULD TRUMP REALLY GO TO TO JAIL OVER THE GAG ORDER?

When Merchan fined Trump $1,000 apiece for nine violations — the maximum fine allowed by law — he wrote that “jail may be a necessary punishment” for some wealthy defendants who won’t be deterred by such a sum.

Merchan added that he “will not tolerate continued willful violations” of the gag order and that, if “necessary and appropriate,” he “will impose an incarceratory punishment,” meaning jail.

It’s unclear what would rise to the level of “necessary and appropriate.”

Defense lawyer Todd Blanche indicated in court Friday that he plans to appeal the judge’s finding this past week that Trump violated the gag order.

Prosecutors have asked Merchan to hold Trump in contempt again and fine him $1,000 for each of four alleged violations from April 22-25. But the prosecution isn’t asking for the former president to be locked up over those comments because they happened before Merchan’s jail warning and because “we’d prefer to minimize disruption to this proceeding,” prosecutor Christopher Conroy said.

• International

May 11, 2024 - Israel-Hamas war

By Sophie Tanno, Amarachi Orie and Elise Hammond

UN agencies to run out of food 'by tomorrow' in southern Gaza

From CNN's Sandi Sidhu

United Nations agencies are likely to run out of food aid soon in southern Gaza -- possibly by tomorrow -- said Georgios Petropoulos, the head of the UN Humanitarian Agency (OCHA) in Gaza.

"The World Food Programme and UNRWA will run out of food for distribution in the south by tomorrow. That means that people will be left only with the aid that has already been distributed in their shelters, in their homes, and on-site. As of today (May 10) we have 12 bakeries supported by humanitarian partners here in South Gaza," Petropoulos said in a post on OCHA's X account on Friday.

Eight of the bakeries had ceased operations due to lack of staff, and four of them are operating at reduced capacity and will be out of stock by Monday, he added. 

The closure of the Rafah Crossing and Kerem Shalom, the border crossing between southern Gaza and Israel, had "severed our access to fuel, supplies, and the movement of humanitarian staff," Petropoulos said in a video message recorded on Friday but posted on Saturday.

Aid agencies have long warned of a spiraling humanitarian crisis in Gaza under Israel’s military assault.

On Sunday, the Israel Defense Forces released a statement saying that "over the last few days, we facilitated the entry of 200,000 liters of fuel through the Kerem Shalom crossing."

The IDF also said "over the last few days" Hamas had fired rockets from Rafah towards the humanitarian aid crossing, but it did not specify exactly when the attacks took place.

MSF transfers last patients from Rafah hospital, "can no longer guarantee their safety"

Doctors Without Borders (MSF) says it has started transferring the last 22 patients from a hospital in Rafah after the Israeli military ordered the immediate evacuation of further neighborhoods in the southern Gaza city. 

"New evacuation orders for parts of #Rafah have forced MSF to begin referring the remaining 22 patients at the Rafah Indonesian Field Hospital to other facilities, as we can no longer guarantee their safety," the medical humanitarian organization posted on X on Saturday.

According to MSF, the Rafah Indonesian Field Hospital is a 60-bed facility that provides post-operative care and has been "seeing about 130 patients a day for dressing changes, physiotherapy, and counseling."

MSF added in a post that it calls "on Israel to halt its offensive, which is making it impossible to provide lifesaving medical assistance and for people to find safety amid this campaign of destruction."

Israel's military on Saturday  ordered  the immediate evacuation of several more neighborhoods in Rafah, where it has been stepping up operations ahead of an anticipated ground offensive.

About  300,000 people  have already fled the city as a result of what the Israeli military calls the “current temporary evacuation” of Rafah, the Israel Defence Forces said.

Hundreds of thousands have fled Rafah ahead of anticipated Israeli offensive. Catch up on the headlines

From CNN staff

Hundreds of thousands of people have fled Rafah after the Israel Defense Forces ordered evacuations. Strikes in the southern Gazan city killed more than a dozen people on Saturday, according to hospital officials.

Many of those leaving Rafah are being told to move to places that are already crowded with displaced people and facing an increasingly dire humanitarian crisis. It comes as Egypt says it will not coordinate with Israel on aid entering Gaza through the Rafah crossing, an official told Egypt's state-run media Al-Qahera News.

Here’s what to know to get up to speed:

• Rafah evacuations: At least 300,000 people have moved away from Rafah as a result of what the Israeli military calls the “current temporary evacuation” from the southernmost Gazan city, the Israel Defense Forces says. The United Nations and humanitarian groups estimate that somewhere between 1.2 and 1.4 million people were living in the Rafah area before the Israeli operation in the eastern part of the city began.
• Strikes in Rafah: At least 15 people were killed in an airstrike and artillery strike in Rafah, according to officials at the Kuwait Hospital, where the bodies were brought on Saturday. Artillery shelling hit the Al-Salam neighborhood in eastern Rafah, while an airstrike hit a building in Al-Hashasheen neighborhood in western Rafah.
• In the north: The Israeli military is carrying out strikes against militants in northern Gaza's Jabalya , spokesperson Daniel Hagari said. Israeli forces dropped leaflets Saturday morning ordering residents in several areas in northern Gaza to evacuate, according to residents. Hagari said the military is targeting militant infrastructure in the Beit Hanoun and Beit Lahya areas. Fleeing Palestinians who've been displaced multiple times told CNN they are scared for their lives and have nowhere safe to go .
• Journalists in Gaza: At least 143 journalists have been killed since October 7 after the death of photojournalist Bahaa Okasha overnight, according to the Government Media Office in Gaza. Many journalists have moved to Rafah as the conflict has ravaged the enclave. Now, like the displaced population, some are saying they have nowhere to go and they are not sure if they can continue their work.
• Stifled recovery operations: The Civil Defense in Gaza said it estimates about 10,000 bodies are trapped under the rubble of destroyed buildings. The group called for more equipment to be allowed to enter Gaza to be used to retrieve the bodies. On Saturday, Gaza's health ministry said 28 people were killed over the past 24 hours, and at least 34,971 people have been killed in Gaza since October 7.
• Hostage killed: The Al Qassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas, claimed that one of the Israeli hostages held in Gaza died more than a month ago. It said Nadav Popplewell , a dual British-Israeli citizen, had died of wounds he sustained after an Israeli airstrike hit the place where he was held. The IDF declined to comment. The UK Foreign Office said it is seeking more information. Protesters in several cities in Israel are calling for the release of hostages ahead of the country’s Memorial Day.
• Ceasefire negotiations: US President Joe Biden said there would be a "ceasefire tomorrow" if Hamas would release the hostages held in Gaza. It comes after Israeli and Hamas negotiating teams left Cairo without a deal earlier this week.
• Humanitarian aid: Egypt is refusing to coordinate with Israel regarding the Rafah crossing because of security concerns, Egypt's state-run media Al-Qahera News said on Saturday, citing a senior official. Egypt has warned Israel that this might halt the flow of humanitarian trucks into Gaza until Israel withdraws its tanks and forces from Rafah, an Egyptian official told CNN on Saturday.

Evacuation orders to "unsafe zones" for civilians in Rafah are "unacceptable," EU Council president says

European Council President Charles Michel said it's "unacceptable" for the Israeli military to issue evacuation orders for civilians in Rafah to "unsafe zones."

“We call on the Israeli government to respect international humanitarian law and urge not to undertake a ground operation in #Rafah,” he said in an X post on Saturday.

Additionally, Michel said humanitarian assistance must get through “fully functioning” crossing points.

The Israel Defense Forces has ordered several more neighborhoods in eastern Rafah to immediately evacuate as the military steps up its operations in the southern Gazan city.

Avichay Adraee, head of the Arab media division of the IDF Spokesperson's Unit, said in a statement on X earlier on Saturday that people in the Rafah and Al-Shaboura camps, and in the neighborhoods of Al-Adari, Al-Jeneina, and parts of Khirbet Al-Adas, should "immediately head to the expanded humanitarian area in Al-Mawasi."

Al-Mawasi is an area that has already been crowded with displaced Palestinians before civilians in Rafah were ordered to move there.

Biden says there would be a "ceasefire tomorrow" if Hamas would release remaining hostages

From CNN's Samantha Waldenberg

US President Joe Biden said there would be a "ceasefire tomorrow" if Hamas would release the hostages held in Gaza.  

"As I’ve said, it’s up to Hamas — if they wanted to do it, we could end it tomorrow. And the ceasefire would begin tomorrow," Biden said at a fundraiser in Seattle on Saturday, according to reporters in the room. 

Families of the five Americans believed to be held hostage in Gaza met with national security adviser Jake Sullivan and Middle East coordinator Brett McGurk on Friday. 

According to a readout of the meeting from representatives for the families, they "expressed their immense frustration with yet another pause, especially after recent hostage videos showed their loved ones disabled, thin, pale, and under apparent duress" to the Biden administration officials. 

Where talks stand: Israeli and Hamas negotiating teams left Cairo without a deal earlier this week.

Hamas militants said Israel's rejection of a ceasefire plan submitted by mediators at negotiations in Cairo sent hostage release talks  back to "square one."  Hamas accused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of hindering the ceasefire talks to use negotiations as a cover to attack the southern Gazan city of Rafah.

Israel has repeatedly refused to agree to a permanent ceasefire in Gaza until Hamas has been defeated, even if all hostages are released. On Tuesday, Netanyahu said that "the Hamas proposal was very far from Israel's core demands."

CNN's Betsy Klein contributed reporting to this post.

Father in northern Gaza describes dangerous conditions as families evacuate: "There is no safe place"

From CNN's Sarah El Sirgany, Kareem Khadder and Mohammed Tawfeeq

Some families in northern Gaza following evacuation orders by the Israeli military on Saturday say they don't know where to go, and describe the dangerous situation in the area.

The IDF ordered residents and displaced people in several neighborhoods there to leave the area immediately and head toward "shelters" west of Gaza City, warning they are in a "dangerous combat zone."

"I don't know where we are going. We've been displaced 7 or 8 times. We and the children are suffering," a father of three, who did not give his name, told CNN. 

The father, who was driving a motorcycle with his young children and belongings, said Israeli forces "dropped leaflets saying they will invade the north."

"We are only moving because of the little ones. I don't care if I would die, but I worry about them," he said, adding that "there is no safe place."

Another man described Friday night as "intense." He said this would be his tenth time being displaced. Artillery is ongoing in the north, he said, adding his family is anticipating death any second.

"We are scared for our lives. I'll go look for a place, pitch a tent. Anything to escape death," he added.

Families of dead hostages call for their remains to be returned to Israel for burials and closure

From CNN's Eugenia Yosef and Mohammed Tawfeeq

The families of dead hostages held in Gaza are calling for a "dignified burial" of their loved ones.

Yael Adar, mother of Tamir Adar, who was abducted on October 7 and whose death was announced in January, said all she wanted was to bring the body of her son back for burial. 

"For 90 days, we fought for his return alive, 90 days of hoping that Tamir would return to us, to the bosom of the family — a hope that vanished with the news that he was no longer alive," Adar said during a protest in Israel ahead of the country's Memorial Day.

"Since then, all we ask is to bring Tamir and all the murdered hostages back for burial, here in the land they loved. To grant Tamir the burial he deserves. To grant us closure, to have a grave where we can be with his memory," she added.

Protesters in several cities across Israel on Saturday have demanded the release of all hostages held in Gaza.

Hagit Chen, mother of Itay Chen, who was killed on October 7 during the Hamas attacks on Israel, said she wanted to bury her son in peace. Chen's remains were taken into Gaza.

"I have been invited to take part in many ceremonies for Israel's Remembrance Day, but the only ceremony that I ought to be in, with my family and with the memory of my own son, is a ceremony that the country has not enabled me to have," Chen said.

Israeli military conducts airstrikes in northern Gaza

From Eugenia Yosef

The Israeli military is carrying out strikes against militants in northern Gaza's Jabalya, spokesperson Daniel Hagari said at a press conference on Saturday.

In video obtained by CNN, explosions are followed by plumes of smoke rising above buildings in a neighborhood east of Jabalya refugee camp with multiple residential buildings.

Hagari said the Israel Defense Forces started a temporary evacuation of the population in the area before beginning the operation. In the afternoon, IDF troops began an operation targeting militant infrastructure in the Beit Hanoun and Beit Lahya areas in northern Gaza, he said.

"In northern Gaza, in the last hour, fighter jets have been striking terrorist targets across Jabalya. This morning, we began a temporary evacuation process of the Jabalya area from this area towards the center of the strip as part of our preparation for a military operation in the area," he said. 

Israeli forces dropped leaflets Saturday morning ordering residents in several areas in northern Gaza to evacuate, according to residents.

Some background: Overnight Friday into Saturday, Israeli airstrikes in the Kasaib neighborhood in northern Gaza's Jabalya refugee camp killed journalist Bahaa Okasha , his wife and 12-year-old son, according to Kamal Adwan Hospital. Three others were killed in a separate airstrike in Jabalya, the hospital said.

Anti-government protests ahead of Israel's Memorial Day demand the release of hostages

Protesters took to the streets of several cities across Israel on Saturday, demanding the release of all hostages held in Gaza ahead of Israel's Memorial Day.

They demanded the resignation of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and for early elections to be held.

Families of hostages held in Gaza also took part in the ongoing anti-government protests, including in Tel Aviv, Caesarea, Rehovot and Haifa. 

Israel is gearing up to mark its Memorial Day starting Sunday evening.

Many waved Israeli flags and held up signs with images of the hostages, calling on the government to bring them home alive.

Please enable JavaScript for a better experience.