A New Billion Dollar Jail Will Leave Hawai’i Worse Off

At the request of the Hawai’i-based Reimagining Safety Coalition, the Prison Policy Initiative examined the state’s plans for a new jail and found serious issues.

by Regan Huston, February 27, 2025

On Thursday, the Hawai’i-based Reimagining Public Safety Coalition released a new analysis by the Prison Policy Initiative that closely examined plans to build a new correctional facility to replace the current O’ahu Community Correctional Center (OCCC). The memo found serious flaws with the proposed construction that would undermine public safety, exacerbate racial disparities, and worsen existing staffing problems.

The 17-page memo argues three key points:

1. Pretrial incarceration is overused in Hawai’i, causing harm to the public. A growing body of research shows that using jails to incarcerate people pretrial not only undermines the presumption of innocence, but also causes lasting harm to public safety and public health.
2. Jail expansion would exacerbate existing racial disparities in Hawaii’s criminal legal system. Hawaii’s criminal legal system disproportionately affects Native Hawaiians and other non-white minority groups. Building a new, nearly billion-dollar jail not only risks entrenching existing harmful criminal legal system practices, but also uses money that is desperately needed to improve the lives of Native Hawaiians and others in the community.
3. Building a new jail is unlikely to decrease the harms caused by pretrial incarceration, and is likely to make existing staffing problems worse.When new facilities are built without a change in the personnel delivering services inside, existing harms persist. Moreover, many of the harms caused by jailing are a result of the very fact of being removed from family and community, regardless of the conditions inside.

The memo also points out that the current plan for the jail ignores straightforward measures that could be used to reduce Hawaii’s jail population, many of which are actually cited in the Forecast Report, including:

• Changing how it deals with technical violations of probation. In January 2025, 21% of OCCC’s population were there for technical violations, such as missing appointments or not notifying a probation officer of a change of address — things that are not crimes in any other context. This is a huge percentage in comparison to other municipalities.
• Decreasing the pretrial population of its jails by implementing bail reform. As of July 2024, 61.7% of the people detained at OCCC were pretrial detainees who have not been convicted of a crime. Many of these people are there simply because they’re too poor to pay their bail.

The memo explains that with ample opportunities to lower its jail population, Hawai’i is in a strong position to decrease the number of jail beds it needs. Decarceration is the solution that is most likely to promote public health and well-being, manage staffing problems, and provide a better justice system for Hawai’i residents.

Is your community seeking to build a new jail or expand the capacity of its existing facility? We’re happy to help you push back on their arguments (drop us a line to tell us about your fight). There is no need to wait, though. We have created a how-to-guide with tips for pushing back on “jail needs assessments” that local leaders put together to justify the construction and provide strategies for pushing back on false or misleading arguments they’re making.

Federal prison rules push for “financial responsibility” while impoverishing people

Proposed changes to the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program by the Bureau of Prisons risk pushing incarcerated people and their families further into poverty

by Danielle Squillante, February 20, 2025

This week, along with the National Consumer Law Center and expert Stephen Raher, we submitted comments on the federal Bureau of Prisons’ updated proposed rules for its Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (IFRP). These rules, which we first wrote about when they were proposed in 2023, are purported to be aimed at ultra-wealthy people in federal prisons who amassed unusually large amounts of money in their commissary accounts while failing to pay legal fees and restitution. However, they’re written so broadly that they’d make the lives of the vast majority of incarcerated people and their loved ones, who are generally poorer and from disadvantaged backgrounds, much more difficult and threaten their success after their release from prison.

The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has adjusted the rules since they were first introduced to make them slightly less punishing, but they still would have a devastating effect on incarcerated people and their families. Under these rules, the BOP would:

• Garnish 10% of wages earned by incarcerated people, which can be as low as $0.12 per hour.
• Take half of the money in an incarcerated person’s commissary account that is in excess of $250 as a one-time seizure of funds at their initial classification meeting.
• Through a series of complex and legally dubious formulas, seize a portion of the money that incarcerated people receive from their families and friends, making it even more difficult for incarcerated people to meet their basic needs behind bars.

Although the Bureau addressed some of the more egregious elements of the rules as initially drafted, the proposed changes to the IFRP are a misguided response to the false concerns that incarcerated people are hoarding money in their commissary accounts while refusing to pay legal debts. The Bureau reviewed data on commissary accounts and found that as of December 2024, only 2% of commissary accounts had balances greater than $5,000 while approximately 77% of commissary account balances were $249.99 or less. The overwhelming majority of people incarcerated in federal prisons are struggling to afford basic necessities — not living a life of luxury behind bars.

Proposed changes to the IFRP further burden incarcerated people and their families

People incarcerated in state and federal prisons were, before they went to prison, some of the poorest people in the country — and incarceration only pushes them further into poverty. In federal prisons, incarcerated people who are working earn between $0.12-$1.15 per hour. These meager wages don’t begin to cover the range of costs associated with being incarcerated, which include commissary, communication costs, and medical co-pays, to name a few. Most people, whether they have a work assignment or not, rely on outside support to meet their basic needs.

The rules ignore how frequently incarcerated people rely on items purchased from commissary to meet a range of needs throughout the entirety of their sentence. Almost everything in prison has a price tag, even for people who are considered indigent, and products are often marked up to prices far above what someone outside of the prison walls pays. Additionally, because prison meals are typically poorly portioned and of low quality, incarcerated people often rely on commissary to supplement their diet. They also rely on it for basic writing materials, basic hygiene items, clothing and shoes, religious items, and electronic devices such as fans. These additional expenses were not factored into the Bureau’s thinking on these rules but constitute a considerable cost to incarcerated people.

The proposed changes to the IFRP are particularly concerning now that the Bureau of Prisons has ended its pandemic-related phone policy of providing 500 minutes of free phone calls to incarcerated people. As of January, phone calls cost $0.06 per minute, while video calls usually cost $0.16 per minute. Although some people are eligible for free phone calls up to 300 minutes if participating in First Step Act-related programming, other families of incarcerated people will have to manage this added expense to remain connected to their loved ones.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 57% of people incarcerated in federal prisons have one or more dependent children. The incarceration of a parent or caregiver results in the potential loss of family income while creating additional costs for the family to manage — often making it difficult for families to meet their basic needs. Numerous family members of incarcerated people submitted public comments stating how difficult it would be for them to shoulder additional costs as they are already struggling financially. The proposed rules will further burden incarcerated people and their families — but they don’t have to.

An alternative approach that meets the Bureau’s goals

Rather than adopting these new rules, in our letter, we recommend an alternative approach that accomplishes the goals of the program without further burdening incarcerated people and their families. Key provisions of our recommendations include:

• Protect incarcerated people who have commissary account balances that are less than the federal poverty level from having their money seized.
• Shield incarcerated workers from having their wages garnished unless and until they earn at least the federal minimum wage.
• Exempt incarcerated people from IFRP participation for at least two years prior to reentry, given the numerous costs associated with transitioning back into the community.

The overwhelming majority of people in federal prisons and their support systems on the outside are struggling to meet their basic needs. The updated proposed changes to the IFRP are less severe than the slash-and-burn approach to debt collection they initially took, but they would still push incarcerated people and their families deeper into poverty. We urge the Bureau of Prisons to consider our alternatives to their proposal.

New guide and upcoming webinar: Challenging myths about recidivism

by Wanda Bertram, February 13, 2025

Decision-makers often cite worries about recidivism as a primary reason to oppose criminal legal system reforms. These worries are caused by both the concept of the “revolving door” of incarceration and by politicians’ fears that a single violent recidivism event will hurt them politically. The realities of recidivism, though, are complex, and the more advocates know about the facts of how many people return to prison and what those numbers mean, the better equipped they can be to help politicians make informed decisions about policy.

Earlier this month, we released a new guide to recidivism statistics and their history, and how advocates for decarceration can challenge the way these flawed statistics are used to undermine their efforts. The new guide covers:

• The history of the “Willie Horton Effect,” why the power of political backlash against reform is overhyped, and how advocates should respond when lawmakers are swayed by isolated stories of recidivism.
• The different types of recidivism metrics and what they mean, how and why to be cautious about commonly-cited statistics, and the role of “technical” probation and parole violations and minor offenses in driving recidivism.
• Recidivism statistics related to people convicted of violent/sexual offenses, in the context of common arguments for “carving out” these individuals from criminal legal reforms.
• How advocates can push lawmakers to consider other metrics of post-release success besides recidivism, focusing on a person’s quality of life and contributions to their community.

We’ll also be hosting a webinar at 1 PM EST on Wednesday, March 19, where our policy and advocacy team, Sarah Staudt and Emmett Sanders, will discuss pushing back against unproductive and inaccurate uses of recidivism stories and statistics. Advocates, journalists, and members of the public are invited to attend.

Register here

This guide is part of our ever-expanding Advocacy Toolkit, a series of resources for criminal legal reform advocates based on our own research and advocacy.

Prison Policy Initiative testifies in support of creating a right to visitation for people in Colorado’s prisons

by Sarah Staudt, February 6, 2025

Yesterday, Prison Policy Initiative’s Advocacy Director, Sarah Staudt, testified in the House Judiciary Committee in the Colorado Legislature to support a bill that would guarantee visitation rights to people in Colorado prisons.

HB25-1013, sponsored by Representatives Regina English and Jennifer Bacon, would make visitation a right, not a privilege, for people in Colorado prisons. While the Department of Corrections would maintain the ability to restrict visitation for safety reasons, visitation would no longer be able to be taken away for disciplinary reasons, like as punishment for refusing work within the prison.

At the request of Together Colorado, we provided testimony about the wealth of research that shows that visitation is vital for helping incarcerated people maintain their mental health, reintegrate into society, and avoid returning to the criminal legal system.

Visitation has numerous benefits for incarcerated people, including decreasing recidivism; people who experience visitation were 25% less likely to be rearrested within two years of release from prison. Visitation also improves the likelihood of employment after release. Incarcerated people who had family visitation had odds of finding employment almost 2 times higher than those who were not visited by family. Lastly, visitation helps incarcerated people cope with the inherent stressors of incarceration, decreasing mental health issues.

Visitation is also a key tool in decreasing the harm that incarceration causes to children and families beyond prison walls. Nationwide, half of people in prison are parents to minor children, including 80% of all incarcerated women. Incarceration of a parent is a stressor for children that affects overall wellbeing, family dynamics, poor school performance, and a heightened risk of eventual involvement in the criminal legal system. Visitation with family has been shown to lessen these negative outcomes.

Prison Policy Initiative is proud to support HB25-1013, and hopes that it can serve as a model for legislatures around the country to improve access to visitation for incarcerated people.

Resource spotlight: Handbook on health and punishment tackles carceral health, featuring original analysis from Prison Policy Initiative

by Leah Wang, December 20, 2024

At the Prison Policy Initiative, we are often cited in academic articles and advocacy materials, but for the first time, we’ve published our own standalone chapter in an academic collection of critical essays and original research. The American Society of Criminology’s (ASC) Division on Corrections and Sentencing, one of several professional groups within ASC, has just published the ninth volume of its Handbook, with a theme of contemporary issues in health and punishment.¹ This 800-page behemoth is a goldmine for people interested in how the criminal legal system intersects and interacts with physical, mental, and public health. Our own chapter offers “An Overview of Health and Access to Healthcare for People in State Prisons.”

Many other divisions of ASC publish an academic journal as a contribution to the field, but this division’s Handbook is a unique product that curates the very best in recent scholarship — including critical policy recommendations. The editors of this particular volume also sought insights from people with lived experience, practitioners, policy advocates, and scientists, in addition to the impressive lineup of academic researchers.

Our contribution to this edition of the Handbook is based on our original analysis of a national survey of people in state prisons, summarized in our 2022 report Chronic Punishment: The unmet health needs of people in state prisons. But the chapter goes further than that, explaining how people in prison access healthcare and the barriers they face, and providing an overview of our work on the flawed Medicaid and Medicare policies that exclude and punish system-impacted people. (We are pleased to report that since we wrote the chapter, there have been a few wins for system-impacted people regarding Medicaid and Medicare.)² We conclude with recommendations to drastically increase access to healthcare services, acknowledge specific areas of need, and above all, move people out of prisons and jails permanently.

The interdisciplinary topics of health and punishment allowed the Handbook’s other authors to showcase their expertise on gender, aging, public health policy, social determinants of health, environmental justice, and more. As a result, the Handbook is an invaluable resource for readers from a wide range of fields, from criminal justice to public health, sociology, medicine, ethics, law, and policy. In the words of Dr. Homer Venters, who wrote one of the Handbook’s closing chapters, this volume offers “a sober understanding of the deep and systemic failures in our national system of mass incarceration.”

We’re delighted to be in the literary company of professors, practitioners, and advocates whose work we admire and rely on as we examine the far-reaching impacts of mass incarceration. You can learn more about the Division or the Handbook here.

Here’s what’s on our data wishlist for 2025

Criminal legal system data is important to understanding how the system operates, but it’s highly limited, inaccessible, outdated, and fractured across thousands of jurisdictions. We spotlight some of the most persistent data gaps we came across in 2024.

by Brian Nam-Sonenstein and Wendy Sawyer, December 19, 2024

At the Prison Policy Initiative, we often hear from journalists, advocates, and others looking for basic information about the criminal legal system. Unfortunately, too often we find ourselves unable to help because rudimentary facts about the system are hard to come by: a lot of things are simply not tracked, and the data that do exist are often limited, inaccessibly formatted, fractured across thousands of jurisdictions, and/or severely outdated.

So, this year, we began collecting some of the data gaps we’ve encountered in the course of our work, which we’ve compiled into a Data Wishlist. We’re publishing the wishlist for two reasons: 1) to highlight just how much basic information is missing in the criminal legal space, and 2) to encourage agencies, researchers, and others to compile and publish these data sets and fill these gaps, chipping away at the information black box around so many aspects of mass incarceration. As you will see, many of the gaps identified in our list would answer exceedingly simple questions about the system, how it functions, and who does (and does not) get punished. This list is by no means a comprehensive survey of criminal legal system data gaps, but we hope it helps people understand just how poor the data environment is and encourages people to chase down this information.

Do you have research, or are you planning to do research, that answers any of these questions? Reach out and let us know through our contact page.

Community supervision

Technical violation data

Data we’re looking for: What percentage of all annual arrests are for supervision violations?

Why it matters: We’ve written on several occasions about how technical violations contribute to unnecessary jailing.¹ These violations contribute to crowding in jails and prisons, forcing people into traumatizing, burdensome interactions with the criminal legal system for acts that are not technically crimes at all. We know that, at the most recent count, at least 128,000 people were incarcerated for technical violations of probation and parole. While the FBI tracks arrests across many types of crimes, arrests for supervision violations are notably absent. “What proportion of arrests each year are for supervision violations” is an exceedingly basic question that we are sadly unable to answer without these data.

Pretrial supervision data

Data we’re looking for: How many people are under pretrial supervision of any kind?

Why it matters: Pretrial supervision has gained popularity as an ‘alternative to incarceration,’ but we’ve repeatedly covered how it functions as a pipeline to incarceration. This includes pretrial electronic monitoring — a faulty technology that further embeds systemic injustices in communities of color, creates new avenues of harm, and does remarkably little to increase court compliance or public safety. As pretrial supervision spreads across jurisdictions and takes many forms, it’s important that we have a better picture of how many people are being monitored under those various forms and, over time, to see which forms of supervision are becoming more (or less) common, or result in better (or worse) individual outcomes.

Conviction-based public registries and community supervision

Data we’re looking for: How many people are exclusively on registries as a form of supervision?

Why it matters: We’ve previously pointed out how the available data do not allow us to break apart those on registries from those still serving a sentence, making it difficult to get an accurate picture of how many people are being monitored outside of formal community supervision like probation and parole. Given the well-documented harms of registration, the variety of crimes that require registration, and the failures of registration to increase safety, it’s essential that we improve our understanding of the size and scope of this population.

Offense, sentencing, and conviction data

Conviction status for people on electronic monitoring

Data we’re looking for: What are the conviction statuses (e.g., pretrial vs. sentenced) for people on electronic monitoring?

Why it matters: As mentioned above, we’ve covered the problems with looking to electronic monitoring as an “alternative” to incarceration. According to the Vera Institute for Justice, approximately 254,700 adults were under some form of electronic monitoring in 2021, but we don’t know how many people were on electronic monitoring for pretrial supervision or how many were sentenced to it after being convicted of a crime. Currently, these data are spotty and strewn across local and state jurisdictions, which makes it hard to see the full picture of how many people are under surveillance, by whom, and where – and to hold officials accountable.

Offense data, by conviction status and demographics, for people in local jails

Data we’re looking for: What charges are people in local jails being held on? How do they vary by conviction status and demographic characteristics like state of residence, sex, race, and age?

Why it matters: Most people in local jails have not been convicted, but are detained on bail while awaiting trial. Knowing the charges for which they’re being held helps us evaluate how local jurisdictions are using jails, as well as how many people could be safely released. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) last collected these data at the national level in 2002, which we have had to rely on for the past two decades. The next iteration of that survey is currently underway, but it will likely be at least 2026 before BJS publishes the results. The Jail Data Initiative offers an alternative source for this data, but because jails include different information on their rosters, there are limitations to what we can do with it. The BJS is uniquely positioned to collect this information and should do so more than once every two decades.

Women’s offenses related to intimate partner violence

Data we’re looking for: How many women convicted of homicides committed offenses in the context of intimate partner violence?

Why it matters: We’ve tried to illuminate women’s unique pathways to, and experiences of, incarceration. Some research suggests that significant portions of the population of incarcerated women have been incarcerated for defending themselves against or in response to living with abusive partners. Further research into this area would help us get a handle on how many women convicted of homicides were living in the context of intimate partner violence.

Felony and misdemeanor sentencing by state (and nationally)

Data we’re looking for: What are the mean and/or median felony prison or jail sentences in each state (or nationally)? And what do misdemeanor sentences look like on the state or national level?

Why it matters: National felony sentencing data hasn’t been compiled since at least 2009, and more recent data published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics are based only on people who have been released. Ideally, data on felony sentencing that aren’t limited to carceral sentences (i.e., include probation, fines, or other requirements) would help us get a better sense of trends in felony sentencing. Simply put: we don’t really know, on an aggregate level, how judges are responding to felony convictions. Meanwhile, we know practically nothing about misdemeanor sentencing but would like answers to basic questions, such as how many people are released with “time served” from pretrial detention, how many are incarcerated (and for how long), how many receive intermediate sanctions such as community service or fines, and how many receive community supervision (and for how long)?

Updated sentencing outcomes for convictions internationally

Data we’re looking for: What do sentencing outcomes for convictions look like globally, and how do they compare to those in the United States?

Why it matters: Through our States of Incarceration series, we’ve tried contextualizing the U.S.’s reliance on mass incarceration by comparing it to that of other nations, but data are limited. We could improve this picture if we had up-to-date information on sentencing outcomes in other nations. New data haven’t been released since the early 2000’s.

Good time credit application

Data we’re looking for: At the state level, how have “good time” or earned time sentence credits been applied and how often are they applied incorrectly, leading people to spend more time locked up than they should?

Why it matters: We’ve noted that good time credits are a potentially powerful tool for decarceration and an important mechanism for shortening prison sentences. Misapplied good time is therefore a serious obstacle to release. In this 2023 article from Kentucky, Jason Riley reports that people with good time credits have been held long after their release dates because the credits were misapplied. The underlying data here are from a state audit. This information should be publicly available, and we should have it for every state, but we don’t.

U.S. Marshals conviction and sex data

Data we’re looking for: How many people in U.S. Marshals custody have been convicted, and how does that data break down by sex?

Why it matters: We know tragically little about people in custody of the U.S. Marshals. Currently, we only have the percentage of people in jail who were female and held for the Marshals at the time of the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ 2002 publication of the Survey of Inmates in Local Jails. These data are not just old – they’re also self-reported and therefore not consistent with the more recent administrative data available about people in Marshals’ custody. Additionally, it’s unclear how many people in Marshals’ custody have even been convicted or not. Their website says they house over 63,000 “pre-sentenced” people in various jurisdictions, but the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ 2019 Census of Jails shows a conviction rate of 35% for those held in local jails. We’d like answers to these very simple questions.

Family policing and youth detention data

Referrals by race and ethnicity for the child welfare system

Data we’re looking for: How do referrals to the child welfare system (often referred to by advocates as the family policing system) break down by race/ethnicity?

Why it matters: We’ve written about how the family policing system operates as an extension of the carceral state, but a glaring omission in the available data pertains to the race and ethnicity of children referred to the system. As with all criminal legal system data, this information is crucial to understanding patterns of practice in enforcement — who gets targeted for family policing and who does not?

Youth who are parents in detention

Data we’re looking for: How many youth in juvenile detention are pregnant or have children?

Why it matters: We’ve covered the traumatic consequences of mass incarceration on children and incarcerated parents, and while there’s information on parents in the adult system, we haven’t seen as much on parents in youth confinement. There’s data from the 2003 Survey of Youth in Residential Placement, but it’s extremely outdated. This 2018 article mentions that “approximately one third of female juvenile offenders have ever been pregnant,” and “male adolescents involved with the juvenile justice and foster care systems are also at high risk for getting someone pregnant, with 18% to 31% reporting that they have fathered a child.” But for the most part, we don’t really have any idea of how many kids in youth confinement are also struggling with parenthood while incarcerated.

The flow of youth through confinement facilities

Data we’re looking for: How many youth exit residential placement facilities each year, and how many of them receive aftercare or reentry services?

Why it matters: We’ve written before about how many of the problems plaguing the adult criminal legal system are mirrored in the juvenile justice system. And we know that in the adult context, there aren’t enough reentry services to meet the need – but is the same true for youth? The most recent data we know of were collected in 1999, but much has changed since then. Without the relevant data, it’s difficult to tell how many youth today who are at risk of further criminal legal system involvement are getting the support they need.

Incarceration experience and conditions

Healthcare quality

Data we’re looking for: What is the quality of healthcare in jails and prisons?

Why it matters: While we know that criminalized populations tend to be sicker and have more serious healthcare needs than the general population, we know practically nothing about the quality of healthcare in jails and prisons, other than that it’s bad. Additionally, much of the data we do have lacks the perspectives and experience of the patients: incarcerated people. A basic evaluation of the state of healthcare delivery in jails and prisons is an entry-level need in the corrections space.

Healthcare outcomes in corrections compared to the community

Data we’re looking for: How do healthcare outcomes in prisons and jails compare to the rest of their state?

Why it matters: Similarly, there’s little research available attempting to compare healthcare outcomes in community versus carceral settings. It’s difficult to gauge the extent to which poor healthcare outcomes have to do with the provision of care in punitive settings compared to in the community.

Mortality among states with privatized healthcare

Data we’re looking for: How do mortality rates compare between states with different kinds of healthcare delivery?

Why it matters: While most jails and prisons in the U.S. have privatized medical services, there’s very little research available comparing mortality outcomes between different healthcare delivery models. Having this data could help improve our understanding of whether there’s a distinction between public and private healthcare delivery. This information would be a tiny step forward in evaluating basic outcomes of different correctional healthcare delivery models.

Perspectives of incarcerated people on understaffing

Data we’re looking for: How do incarcerated people experience understaffing? Where do they feel it most acutely, and what do they think should be done about it?

Why it matters: “Understaffing” is the scapegoat for virtually all crises in corrections today, but notoriously absent from analyses are the perspectives of incarcerated people on the subject as well as calls for decarceration as a solution. There have been some efforts to incorporate their perspectives in examining understaffing, but we think there should be much more research and reporting to this end.

Strip search data, broken down by geography and including historical data

Data we’re looking for: How many strip searches are happening in state prisons, and which states do not require tracking this information?

Why it matters: Strip searches are used routinely in jails and prisons, including around visitation, as a general contraband and drug interdiction strategy. These searches have profoundly harmful and counterproductive effects, and create opportunities for acts of sexual violence by corrections officers. Without basic data on strip searches, it’s impossible to know the frequency with which they’re practiced and whether they’re more common in the U.S. compared to other countries.

Economics and financial exploitation

Relative costs for jail, prison, work release, house arrest, probation, and treatment/counseling

Data we’re looking for: What are the costs for incarcerating someone in a jail or prison compared to placement in work release, house arrest, probation, and treatment/counseling, and how do these vary across states or regions?

Why it matters: We have very little sense of how the costs of incarceration compare to things like work release, house arrest, and probation, let alone responses like treatment/counseling or other non-punitive measures. Having this comparative economic data could help shed light on how our society spends money – and what it does (or doesn’t) get in return on that investment.

Jail-level inmate welfare fund data

Data we’re looking for: How many jail jurisdictions have “Inmate Welfare Funds,” and what are their cash balances?

Why it matters: Earlier this year, we published a detailed report on Inmate Welfare Funds (IWFs) – special prison and jail accounts that are funded with money from phone calls, commissary purchases, and other fees. IWFs are intended to benefit the incarcerated population but are often used as slush funds for corrections departments. While we were able to collect IWF policies for all 50 state prison systems, a much heavier lift is to collect and organize these policies for jail systems. Additionally, it would be helpful to have a sense of IWF balances and cash flows in state prison and local jail systems. Having these data would help greatly expand our window into IWFs, how they are designed, how they function, and their exploitative power over incarcerated people and their families.

Pre- and post-incarceration data

Labor force participation for formerly incarcerated people

Data we’re looking for: What percentage of the U.S. labor force is formerly incarcerated?

Why it matters: This past Labor Day, we chronicled ten ways in which mass incarceration is an engine of economic inequality, including using criminalization as a means to discipline and contain labor movements. While we have some data on the experience of trying to obtain work and working after incarceration, we don’t know what proportion of the labor force is made up of formerly incarcerated people. (We would also love to be able to update our research on the unemployment rate of formerly incarcerated individuals, but to our knowledge, no comparable national data have been collected since 2008.)

Updated pre-incarceration incomes of people in prison and jail

Data we’re looking for: How much did incarcerated people earn before they went to prison or jail?

Why it matters: Evidence that incarcerated people are typically much poorer than non-incarcerated people — even before they are arrested — helps show the injustice of a criminal legal system that treats people differently based on their wealth. For example, many people in local jails are there simply because they can’t afford money bail, and people who can’t afford private attorneys may be assigned public defenders with unmanageable caseloads who can’t spend the same time on their cases. Yet the Bureau of Justice Statistics has not published income data since its surveys in 2002 (for jails) and 2004 (for prisons).² We have had some success using the National Survey of Drug Use and Health to get income data about people recently arrested and booked into jails, as well as people recently on probation and parole, but a more targeted sample of people with current criminal legal system involvement would be better.

12 of our most important reports, briefings, and wins from 2024

From a deep dive into exploitative “Inmate Welfare Funds” to a major phone justice victory, here are some of the highlights of our work from 2024.

by Regan Huston, December 18, 2024

2024 was a busy year for the Prison Policy Initiative. We exposed how prisons and jails are exploiting incarcerated people and their families for millions of dollars each year, highlighted how cruel abortion restrictions affect women throughout the carceral system, saw a major victory for phone justice, and so much more. We curated some of our most important pieces from the last 12 months.

Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie

This year was the tenth anniversary of our flagship report, Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie. It provides the most comprehensive view of how many people are locked up in the U.S., in what kinds of facilities, and why. In addition to showing that more than 1.9 million people are behind bars on any given day in the U.S., it uses 34 visualizations of criminal legal system data to bust 10 of the most persistent myths about prisons, jails, crime, and more.

Recognizing that women in the U.S. experience a dramatically different criminal legal system than men do, but data on their experiences is difficult to find and put into context, we released a new edition of Women’s Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie. This report fills this gap with richly-annotated data visualizations about women behind bars.

States of Incarceration: The Global Context 2024

The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate of any independent democracy on earth — worse, every single state incarcerates more people per capita than most nations. In the global context, even “progressive” U.S. states like New York and Massachusetts appear as extreme as Louisiana and Mississippi in their use of prisons and jails.

Our report examines the incarceration rates of every U.S. state and territory alongside those of the other nations of the world. Looking at each state in the global context reveals that, in every part of the country, incarceration is out of step with the rest of the world.

Shadow Budgets: How mass incarceration steals from the poor to give to the prison

Prisons and jails generate billions of dollars each year by charging incarcerated people and their communities steep prices for phone calls, video calls, e-messaging, money transfers, and commissary purchases. A lot of that money goes back to corrections agencies in the form of kickbacks. But what happens to it from there?

Our report analyzes how prisons and jails funnel money from incarcerated people and their families into “Inmate Welfare Funds” — and then use it to cover the costs of incarceration.

An investigative report in Dauphin County, Pa., found that only a small fraction of welfare fund expenditures from 2019 to 2023 directly benefitted people incarcerated in the jail. While few jail and prison policies explicitly outline what qualifies as an appropriate use of funds, our breakdown above generally follows the logic of a Montana audit that attempts to parse appropriate, questionable,and inappropriate expenditures.

One Size Fits None: How ‘standard conditions’ of probation set people up to fail

More than 1 in 10 people admitted to state prisons every year have committed no new crime, but have simply broken one or more of the many conditions, or rules, of their probation. Our report provides one of the most comprehensive 50-state compilations of “standard” conditions of probation to date, shining a light on the burdensome rules that govern the lives of nearly 3 million people and that doom many to inevitable further punishments.

Two years after the end of Roe v. Wade, most women on probation and parole have to ask permission to travel for abortion care

To understand how the overturn of Roe impacts women under the U.S.’ massive system of community supervision, we examined standard supervision conditions in each state, along with the number of women who must comply with them. We found that the one-two punch of abortion and supervision restrictions impacts an estimated 4 out of 5 women(82%) on probation or parole nationwide. That means that for the vast majority of people under community supervision, the ability to seek abortion care out-of-state is left not to the pregnant person, but to the discretion of a correctional authority, typically their probation or parole officer.

Donald Trump can still be president, but he could be barred from being a bartender, care salesman — or real estate developer

Donald Trump’s legal proceedings would not have stopped him from being president and most likely won’t create many obstacles that a billionaire can’t handle. But there are still more than 19 million people in the US with felony convictions that face hiring discrimination for ordinary jobs every single day. In this briefing, we explain how states can end removed barriers that prevent people with felony convictions from securing good jobs.

10 ways that mass incarceration is an engine of economic injustice

In this briefing, we compile ten examples of how mass incarceration blocks progress toward economic justice. We argue that our massive system of criminalization is not an isolated issue, nor is it someone else’s problem; it is an engine of inequality that traps people in poverty, weakens worker power, and undermines political organizing toward a more prosperous future for the vast majority of people.

The U.S. incarceration rate has closely tracked the rise in the share of national income held by the wealthiest 1% of Americans. For most of the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, the top 1% held about 10% of the total national income while the U.S. imprisoned about 100 people per 100,000. By the 2000s, the share held by the top 1% had doubled to around 20% while the incarceration rate grew to five times the historical norm.

Since you asked: How many women and men are released from each state’s prisons and jails every year?

Journalists, advocates, and other users of our website reach out frequently to ask if we know the total number of people released from prisons and jails in their state each year. Many are trying to fight for more resources for people returning home and want to know how these numbers break down by sex. While these are numbers you might expect would be easy to find, they aren’t published regularly in annual reports on prison and jail populations by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). To make this information more accessible, we’ve drilled down into the most recent data available to show how many men and women are released from prisons and jails each year.

Addicted to punishment: Jails and prisons punish drug use far more than they treat it

Jails and prisons are often described as de facto mental health and substance abuse treatment providers, and corrections officials increasingly frame their missions around offering healthcare. But the reality is quite the opposite: people with serious health needs are warehoused with severely inadequate healthcare and limited treatment options. This briefing builds on our past work about the unmet health needs of incarcerated people and the endless cycle of arrest for people who use drugs by compiling data on treatment availability versus drug-related punishment in jails and prisons across the country. We find that despite the lofty rhetoric, corrections officials punish people who use drugs far more than they provide them with healthcare.

Based on 2019 data from the National Survey of Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) from SAMHSA, approximately 8% of people over the age of 12 met the criteria for a substance use disorder, and 41% of people who had been arrested in the last year met the criteria for a substance use disorder. In 2016 (the most recent year for which the Bureau of Justice Statistics published national prison data), 47% of people in state and federal prisons met the criteria for a substance use disorder in the 12 months prior to their most recent prison admission.

FCC votes to slash prison and jail calling rates and ban corporate kickbacks

The Federal Communications Commission voted to implement several new regulations on phone and video calling services in prisons and jails. As required by the 2022 Martha Wright-Reed Fair and Just Communications Act, the FCC laid out new price caps that prisons, jails, and their telecom providers must abide by, significantly lowering the existing caps which were set in 2021. The agency also made a number of long-sought reforms that will bring critical relief to families of incarcerated people and reduce incentives for bad policy in prisons and jails.

Minnesota ends prison gerrymandering

This year, Minnesota joined the rapidly growing list of states that have taken action against prison gerrymandering. The measure requires state and local governments to count incarcerated people at their home addresses when drawing new political districts during their redistricting process. This is a huge win and yet another reason for the Census Bureau to finally change how it counts incarcerated people and end prison gerrymandering nationwide.

Prison Policy Initiative support helps Fulton County advocates stop massive jail expansion

At the request of the Georgia-based Community Over Cages Coalition, the Prison Policy Initiative examined the proposal for a new jail and found serious shortcomings. In a 17-page memo, we explained how the overuse of pretrial incarceration hurts communities, the feasibility study the county commissioned failed to consider alternatives to new jail construction, and it also ignored that a massive new jail would exacerbate existing staffing issues. Less than one month after the release of our findings, the Fulton County Board of Commissioners voted to scrap its $2 billion plan, marking a major victory for advocates.

If your community is considering building a new jail or expanding the capacity of its existing facility, we may be able to help you push back. Drop us a line to tell us about your fight.

This collection of work only scratches the surface of what we accomplished in 2024 — and our work is far from over. Next year, we’ll continue to expose the ways that mass incarceration harms people on both sides of the bars and highlight solutions that keep communities safe without expanding prisons, jails, and the carceral system.