July 1, 2026: On July 1, 2026 at 1 p.m. EST, join the Prison Policy Initiative and guests Jodi Hocking, Executive Director of Return Strong Nevada, and Taj Mahon-Haft PhD, Director of The Humanization Project, as they discuss the importance of family connections, highlight the ways they are under attack, and share strategies to help families fight back.
In January 2021, Gerald Kowalczyk, a disabled man experiencing homelessness, found a credit card on the ground in San Mateo, California. He attempted to use the credit card to buy a $7 hamburger, then had a change of heart, asked for a refund, and when the manager refused, left without the hamburger. He was arrested shortly afterwards and charged with identity theft and petty theft. California law would generally not have allowed Mr. Kowalczyk to be detained pretrial on such minor, non-violent charges. But the judge, like too many prosecutors and judges, set an astronomical $75,000 bond in the case, stranding Mr. Kowalczyk in jail for six months before he pled guilty.
On April 30, 2026, the California Supreme Court expanded on a previous case, In re Humphrey, and ruled that Mr. Kowalczyk’s detention was unconstitutional under the California State Constitution because detaining people using unaffordable cash bails is the exact same thing as detaining them without bail, something that can only be done in limited circumstances with rigorous due process protections. Because of this case, unaffordable bail is now never an option in the California courts — if they use monetary bail, courts must set bail at a level that an accused person can pay.
The opinion and concurrence state in no uncertain terms what pretrial reform advocates have been saying for years:
Using money to decide who goes to jail and who goes free is a lawless system that puts the opinions of judges and prosecutors above the will of legislatures and the public.
Money bail privileges the rich and leaves everyone else stranded in jail.
The overuse of pretrial jailing does more harm than good and destabilizes the very communities prosecutors and judges claim to be protecting.
In re Kowalczyk could free tens of thousands of people every year in California, if appropriately implemented. Even though this case can’t be used as binding precedent in other states because its legal basis is specific to the California State Constitution, the court’s reasoning gives excellent examples of how to make these important arguments resonate with policymakers.
When prosecutors and judges use money bail to detain people, they are imposing their own judgements instead of following the law
“Courts cannot use artificially high or objectively unattainable bail as an end run to effectuate pretrial detention where such detention is not authorized under [the California Constitution].” — Majority opinion, p. 32
The debate around cash bail centers around a lesson from Civics 101: separation of powers. Legislatures decide what the law is. Judges then apply that law to individual cases. The Constitution separates these roles because legislatures are best suited to make policy decisions, like the decisions about what charges and situations should and should not make someone eligible for pretrial detention, and how those decisions should be made. Judges ensure that these legislative decisions are carried out in the cases before them.
California, like many states, has a list of offenses that are eligible for pretrial detention (a list that excludes misdemeanors and low-level felonies like the ones Mr. Kowalczyk was arrested for). The state constitution then imposes a series of due process protections to make sure that decisions are made fairly.
Does money bail ever make sense?
The court did make one big misstep, based on the empirical data. It allowed money bail to continue to be used so long as it is “reasonably attainable” by the accused person. But in a rational pretrial system, money bail has no place at all. The research shows that money bails do not successfully change court appearance rates or reduce re-arrest rates. Instead, they drain money from communities — mostly Black and Brown communities — without providing any public safety benefit.
The opinion in Kowalczyk makes clear that when judges — often at the request of prosecutors — use unaffordable cash bail to detain people, they are ignoring these constitutional rules and imposing their own judgments instead. Before this decision, when a judge set an unaffordable bail to detain someone, they didn’t have to go through the due process steps set out by the state constitution, because technically, the person wasn’t being detained. In theory, they could pay money to get out. In practice, however, detaining an unhoused person on a $75,000 bail is the same as saying he can’t be released at all — and that’s exactly what the California Supreme Court recognized in this case.
The takeaway: Advocates throughout the country should look at what their laws and constitutions actually say about who can be detained pretrial, determine whether they think those laws are fair or need to be changed, and then close the loophole of allowing judges and prosecutors to use unaffordable cash bail to ignore the law.
Using money to determine who goes to jail is illogical and unsafe
“A system in which a person’s right to liberty turns on financial resources compromises public safety and raises equal protection and due process concerns.” — Groban concurrence, p. 8
Even if decisionmakers think that pretrial detention of some people is necessary to keep communities safe (more on that below), when judges set unaffordable money bails it produces a fundamentally unfair and illogical system.
First, money bail does nothing to guarantee that a rich person who poses a real threat to the public will actually stay in custody. Conversely, everyday people who do not pose a risk are stuck in jail simply because they can’t afford to pay.
Second, a money bail system provides no meaningful due process protections. There is no requirement that there be sufficient evidence that someone is guilty, no requirement that a prosecutor prove that the person poses a public safety risk, and no examination of whether alternatives other than jail would be appropriate. Instead, the judge simply sets a monetary amount and the person is detained if they can’t pay it. This heightens the risk that innocent or non-dangerous people spend time in jail and encourages hasty, unthinking judicial decision-making that can put communities at risk. Notably, when Illinois eliminated monetary bail in 2023, the length of detention hearings increased dramatically, and judges considered more factors when making their decisions.
The takeaway: Advocates throughout the country should remove money from playing any role in their pretrial release systems, since it doesn’t have any bearing on safety.
The overuse of pretrial detention is actively harmful and doesn’t keep communities safe
“Many people who are detained are never convicted of any crime; a substantial proportion of detainees is never even charged with one. Many others accept unfavorable plea offers, with potentially devastating repercussions for their employment, education, housing, access to public benefits, immigration status, and family stability. And some, forced to choose between remaining detained or pleading guilty to an offense they did not commit, choose to plead guilty to secure their release.” — Groban concurrence, p. 9
Pretrial release should always be the default in the justice system. When someone is first arrested, they have not been proven guilty of a crime, and many people later have their cases dismissed, plead guilty to less serious charges, or are found not guilty. Estimates in some jurisdictions suggest that more than 50% of arrests end without a conviction. Nonetheless, nationwide, over 75% of people in jail custody are pretrial. This huge number of unconvicted individuals in jails makes them less safe environments by contributing to overcrowding.
Pretrial jailing harms people in custody in a number of ways. People detained pretrial are more likely to:
Jurisdictions that have reduced the use of pretrial jailing have not seen any rise in crime. There is simply no evidence-based reason to continue the extremely high levels of pretrial detention that currently exist in the United States.
The takeaway: Advocates around the country should pursue laws that minimize the use of pretrial detention, seek to shrink jail populations, and provide robust due process protections to make sure that people are only behind bars if they truly pose a danger to others or are likely to willfully flee prosecution.
In re Kowalczyk has the potential to free tens of thousands of Californians each year as they are released on their own recognizance — or on money bail levels they can actually afford to pay — instead of being held in custody because they’re poor. The next step for California is implementation. Unfortunately, without rigorous efforts to require courts to follow a ruling like this, it could have little impact, as happened after the In re Humphrey decision. But the reasoning in this case can provide a roadmap for people in other states interested in creating just, fair, and rational pretrial systems.
Through dozens of publications each year, we compile a lot of data. This data is incredibly valuable to advocates, lawmakers, and journalists pushing for change in America’s criminal legal system. But so much information can also be overwhelming.
We just launched a new website feature that puts the most sought-after facts about the criminal legal system at your fingertips. The new “Key Statistics” boxes on our Issue pages highlight some of our most requested data points, organized by topic.
These Key Statistics boxes are the newest addition to our Issue pages, which compile all of our reports, data visualizations, and other resources related to the areas of our work that readers ask about most often:
Looking for a statistic that isn’t on those pages? It may be in one of our reports, or in our searchable Research Library, which holds over 4,000 publications. We’ve also made many of the data sources we use available for download via our Data Toolbox. Readers looking for other information about the criminal legal system can also reach us via our contact page.
Here at the Prison Policy Initiative, almost everything we write is accompanied by clear and powerful visualizations that convey the harms of mass criminalization and incarceration. When new data are available, some of our most-referenced charts merit an update. We also occasionally pull together charts at the request of advocates working on specific projects, and share them when we think they may be of use to others. (Get in touch with us if you think our Advocacy department can be of help.)
Below, we are sharing some of these new and updated charts. Where applicable, we have updated the same data in downloadable spreadsheets in our Data Toolbox. Note that we also catalog our visualizations in a handy Visuals Database, where you can explore our charts by topic and link to each chart easily in your own work.
Seeing state, local and federal correctional populations all together
State prisons and local jails are where the majority of incarcerated people are locked up, and state and local policies are what keep so many behind bars. As these charts show, prison and jail populations have rebounded after the pandemic temporarily stalled admissions and accelerated releases — highlighting a serious need for policies that will permanently reduce prison populations. For high-impact state policy ideas, even in times of turmoil, see our guide to winnable criminal justice reforms.
The disproportionate growth in women’s incarceration
For almost fifty years, women’s prison populations have grown at a faster clip compared to men’s. The pandemic demonstrated that significant decarceration is possible, but a few years later, jail and prison population rebounds have again been faster for women. As we’ve explained elsewhere, the incarceration of women largely takes place in local jails, which offer fewer services than prisons and struggle to provide proper health care, and where most women have not even been convicted of a crime. Fortunately, advocates and lawmakers are paying increasing attention to the unique harms and burdens for women impacted by the criminal legal system. For more information and context, see our reports, Women’s Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie, and States of Women’s Incarceration: The Global Context.
Racial disparities persist behind bars
As updated data show, incarceration continues to harm Black and Native people at wildly disproportionate rates compared to other racial and ethnic groups. Of course, these disparities often begin at earlier stages of the criminal legal system, like policing, pretrial detention, and opportunities for diversion.
See our Racial Justice page for more reports, briefings, research, and visualizations focused on the intersection of race and incarceration.
The mass punishment system extends to probation and parole
Looking only at the 2 million people behind bars obscures the fact that millions more people are under the thumb of the correctional system, on probation or parole. As of 2023, there are about 3 million people on probation and 536,000 people on parole who live under these poorly-designed “alternatives” to incarceration.
People ensnared in the “mass punishment” system are in poorer overall health; as the second slide shows, those behind bars or under community supervision report much higher rates of serious psychological distress. Visit our Probation and Parole issue page to find out more about mass punishment at the national and state levels.
If you find our datasets and charts useful in your work, let us know about it.
Upon coming home from prison, people face the same — and rising — costs of living as the rest of us. But they have to bear additional costs imposed by the criminal legal system as well, all while navigating additional and unique barriers to employment. The resulting financial insecurity makes it harder to succeed at reentry. Cash assistance (often called “guaranteed income”) makes reentry easier by providing people with a monetary safety net, helping them get jobs, housing, and food, and fulfill any remaining court or parole obligations.
In this piece, we explain how guaranteed income reduces recidivism and results in taxpayer savings. We highlight the work of the Just Income program in Alachua County (Gainesville), Florida as a concrete example that demonstrates cash assistance with no strings attached is a smart policy choice for supporting people in reentry.
Formerly incarcerated people face serious financial challenges upon release
There are nearly 2 million people incarcerated in the U.S. at any given time, but because of the enormous churn in and out of facilities, about 8 million people leave jail and prison every year. In other words, millions of people are faced with the daunting challenge of getting back on their feet after incarceration has upended their lives.
One Florida organization is working to help people succeed in reentry — and with over 150,000 Florida residents behind bars and 687,000 returning home each year, there is a lot of need for support. In Alachua County, Community Spring is addressing those needs directly through a guaranteed income program for recently-released people, providing direct financial support that recipients could use to address their most pressing needs.
Community Spring’s Just Income program gives formerly incarcerated people who reside in Alachua County $800 per month for a year with no strings attached. This allows recipients to put the money where it’s needed most at any given time.
Recipients are randomly selected from among those who meet the broad eligibility criteria. To qualify, they must simply have been released from a prison or jail or have started probation in the previous year. To confirm that the program is indeed a good use of funds, the program started as a pilot where researchers conducted a study that compared outcomes for individuals who received the income and a control group of formerly incarcerated people who did not. The pilot participants who received assistance were given $1,000 in the first month and then $600 for the following 11 months. The results showed recidivism fell, and self-sufficiency and mental health improved, all resulting in net savings for taxpayers.
Providing guaranteed income to formerly incarcerated individuals shows great results
Just Income’s pilot study showed that guaranteed income improved probation compliance and reduced recidivism rates.
It’s not hard to see why the pilot produced these results when Florida law requires “probation fees of at least $40 per month, while eliminating exemptions from prosecution and public defense fees for indigent defendants,” according to Just Income’s study report. The findings were consistent with interviews conducted with the participants, who expressed that the guaranteed income program saved them from having to turn to crimes of survival or other criminalized activities to cover basic needs.
Guaranteed Income creates taxpayer savings and increased self-sufficiency
One common misconception about cash assistance in general, and guaranteed income in particular, is that it creates a disincentive to work. But guaranteed income programs actually help people find suitable and sustainable work that leads to more stable employment.
Results from the pilot showed that the guaranteed income payments actually improved participants’ self-sufficiency by strengthening their ability to obtain employment and cover their own basic living expenses.
This makes sense when one considers how guaranteed income programs make people less desperate for money to cover basic needs. Not only does that remove economic incentives that can lead to recidivism, but it also allows people in reentry to find work in a hostile job market. Not being desperate to take the very first job available may make it easier for people to find well-paid, sustainable employment.
The impact of the Just Income program extended beyond the single person receiving the payment. Recipients were able to pitch in for household expenses, cover food costs, and help others in need. This means that guaranteed income not only benefits people in reentry, but their larger communities as well. Even though the cash assistance doesn’t come close to covering all expenses, letting people choose to share some of that money with family and community gives formerly incarcerated people the ability to strengthen social ties through giving back.
The study’s participants also “credited the stability provided by the Just Income program for improving their mental well-being.” Participants who received assistance experienced reduced stress, felt like they mattered more, and had higher hopes for the future. They expressed that these improvements led to “an interruption in the downward spiral of poverty, stress, substance use, and recidivism.”
These benefits not only help individuals directly impacted by incarceration and their immediate communities, but all Florida residents through significant tax savings. Florida spends over $41,000 annually to incarcerate a single person. During the study period, participants received $7,600 over 12 months. For every 100 people in the study, those payments led to 12 fewer people being reincarcerated. By conservative estimate, that averages out to a net gain for taxpayers of over $13,000 per person in the program.
Guaranteed income is a proven tool that should be used across the country
Community Spring’s Just Income program should be replicated across the country. Guaranteed income for people in reentry is a smart policy move, and Community Spring even provides consulting to those who want to start their own program for people in reentry. A key factor of their program’s success is that the payments are completely unrestricted, which enables them to maximize efficiency by allowing people to pick new uses for the funds as new challenges crop up.
There have only been a handful of other guaranteed income programs focusing on justice-involved people so far. Just Income is unique among them because it was accompanied by a rigorous academic study. Even though the other programs weren’t subject to the same level of scrutiny, they did gather some data and (of course) anecdotes, which showed the same general benefits of guaranteed income for people in reentry.
These early pilots of guaranteed income programs show promise in helping people succeed in reentry. In fact, Just Income has kept going beyond their first pilot, turning into a recurring program providing people with unconditional payments of $800 a month for one year. They are now helping other organizations to replicate this type of program.
More organizations and governments should copy these programs; guaranteed income is an efficient way to help people succeed in reentry, reducing recidivism and quickly paying for itself. Everyone deserves a fair shot at reintegrating into society, securing high-quality employment, and contributing to their communities. Just a little money every month can be the first step in achieving that goal.
The U.S. keeps millions of people on probation and parole every day. Rather than serving as an alternative to incarceration, supervision is often a tripwire to harsher punishments.
April 7, 2026
In many states, the number of people on probation or other forms of “community supervision” far outstrips the number of people behind bars. In a new report, Punishment Beyond Prisons 2026: Incarceration and supervision by state, the Prison Policy Initiative offers a state-by-state look at the correctional population that goes beyond prison and jail walls — while illuminating how probation and parole supervision often lead to incarceration.
From notorious “tough on crime” states like Georgia to “progressive” states like Minnesota and Rhode Island, the report shows how supervision — mainly, probation — has elevated correctional control from rare to commonplace:
If the number of people on probation and parole nationwide were its own state, it would be roughly the size of Connecticut, more populous than 21 states and D.C.
In 20 states, over two-thirds of people under correctional control are on probation or parole, rather than behind bars.
There are nearly as many people on parole — supervision after release from prison — as there are in the nation’s 3,000-plus local jails.
“Looking only at incarceration obscures the fact that millions more people are under the thumb of the correctional system, forced to comply with a litany of rules every day or face reincarceration,” said report author Leah Wang. “As lawmakers ponder how to reduce prison populations, they should look at these supervision systems, which are often a tripwire to harsher punishments.”
Punishment Beyond Prisons 2026 also includes:
An overview of incarceration and supervision populations over time, with a warning that despite pandemic-fueled downturns, many states are actually at or near peak probation populations.
A sidebar highlighting another punished population: the over 800,000 people required to be listed on public registries for sex offense convictions, despite abundant evidence that these registries do not improve public safety.
A section about people on supervision held behind bars for non-criminal rule violations, showing that these violations send more people on probation and parole to prison than do new criminal offenses.
The report highlights how certain states have enacted reforms that reduce supervision for people who do not need it. Virginia and Florida, for example, have passed laws allowing people to earn time off their probation sentences through education, employment and other achievements, while Pennsylvania now uses an individualized approach to setting probation conditions and allows for early termination of supervision.
“Supervision sentences, particularly probation sentences, are too long and keep people under correctional control far past the point where it benefits them,” said Wang. “Just as with this country’s bloated incarceration system, probation and parole can and should be drastically reduced while preserving public safety.”
We analyzed data about formal complaints made by incarcerated people regarding medical care in federal prisons and can only conclude that grievance systems are designed to thwart nearly every one.
When incarcerated people face abuse and mistreatment, they can typically file a formal complaint with jail or prison administrators. In federal prisons, the system for resolving these complaints is known as the “Administrative Remedy Program,” but it’s more commonly referred to as a “grievance system” in state prisons and local jails. Grievance systems are supposed to provide incarcerated people with a way to challenge issues they face behind bars — such as inadequate medical care, harassment by corrections officers, or unsanitary living conditions — and (hopefully) receive some kind of relief. In practice, however, incarcerated people who turn to grievance systems are forced to run a gauntlet of rules and regulations just to be heard, and very rarely succeed. This is especially true when it comes to medical complaints: our analysis of a decade of data from the Data Liberation Project finds that, between 2014 and 2024, a startling 98% of medical grievances were rejected for reasons ranging from the bureaucratic (such as using the wrong size sheet of paper) to the substantive (actually being denied on the merits of the complaint). Less than 1% of medical cases ended in a grant of relief.
A functioning grievance system is an important lifeline for incarcerated people, who have very little leverage to affect their circumstances. It’s especially important for health-related matters, given that incarcerated people suffer from illness and disease at rates far exceeding that of the general public, and their access to medical care is highly constrained and notoriously awful. But in the end, a system does what it is designed to do, not what it is intended to do, and the federal grievance system rejects nearly every medical complaint filed by incarcerated people, often for vague or trivial reasons.
In this briefing, we examine the statuses of nearly 66,000 medical grievances from across the Bureau of Prisons to determine what kinds of medical complaints are most common in the federal system and how incarcerated people fare in their pursuit of relief.
The federal prison grievance system is designed to shut down complaints
Major segments of the U.S. population struggle to obtain basic medical care, but incarcerated people face especially challenging barriers and limitations such as the inability to choose doctors, get second opinions, or continue treatments prescribed prior to their incarceration. Conditions are so bad on the inside that since 2000, roughly half of all state prison systems have been court-ordered to improve mental and medical healthcare.
Our analysis of a decade of data from the Data Liberation Project finds that, between 2014 and 2024, a startling 98% of medical grievances were rejected for reasons ranging from the bureaucratic (such as using the wrong size sheet of paper) to the substantive (actually being denied on the merits of the complaint). Less than 1% of medical cases ended in a grant of relief. See Appendix A for more information.
The sheer volume of correctional healthcare lawsuits reflects how ineffective prison grievance systems are for incarcerated people. After all, grievance systems should help people address their concerns so that neither side has to engage in costly, time-consuming litigation. Instead, grievance systems gatekeep actual opportunities for accountability in the courts.
The federal Bureau of Prisons’ grievance system, in the simplest terms, works like this:
Informal resolution: An incarcerated person must first attempt to resolve their complaint informally by speaking directly to the person with whom they have an issue. As one might imagine, this first hurdle can easily dissuade people from pursuing their complaint for fear of retaliation — especially when that person works for the prison.
Formal resolution: If they can’t informally resolve the issue, an incarcerated person can file a formal complaint with the warden, who is supposed to investigate and respond. To do this, the incarcerated person must overcome tedious administrative hurdles for their complaint to even be considered, including adhering to short deadlines1 and specific requirements like using the correct paper size, attaching the right number of copies, or using the right form (of which there are many).
Appeals: If the warden denies the grievance or fails to resolve it, the incarcerated person can first appeal to the regional office and, if denied or unresolved again, can appeal to the central office.
Lawsuits: Due to restrictions imposed under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, this administrative system must be completely exhausted before an incarcerated person can file a lawsuit in court to compel relief.
So, how far do complaints about medical care make it through this system? Our analysis of federal medical grievance data 2 provides a snapshot (as of May 2024) of the statuses of nearly 66,000 complaints filed between January 2014 and January 2024. 3 At the time the data were exported, nearly one-third (32%) of all medical complaints had been rejected because they were “improperly filed” according to one administrative rule or another; another 51% had been closed upon appeal for administrative reasons. In particular, the dental and mental health grievance categories had the highest rates of these rejections: 78% of dental and 83% of mental health grievances were tossed out for administrative reasons, including cases that had reached the appeals stage.
The data snapshot reveals that just 14% of all medical grievances over the decade made it past these administrative tests only to be denied on the actual merits of the complaint. Here, again, mental health and dental-related categories had the highest percentage (20%) of cases denied relief. Remarkably and disturbingly, zero grievances pertaining to pregnancy, abortion, or childcare in this decade-long dataset were granted relief. Meanwhile, the categories of “other forced medical treatment” and “forced psychotropic medication” had zero cases that were even accepted for consideration.
Contrast this with the victories: Only 1% of cases over the decade had a status indicating they were granted relief. This amounts to a grand total of just 940 cases out of 65,712. While the dataset doesn’t include details on those outcomes, relief is typically specific to the grievance. For example, if a person files a grievance because they were denied a particular medication, they might seek relief in the form of access to that medication.
As one might expect, the most common grievance subjects match what we know about commonstructural issues with prison healthcare. In terms of raw numbers, the following grievance subjects had the highest numbers of complaints and subsequent denials of relief:
Grievance subjects with the highest number of cases
in which the prison denied relief
To see all case outcomes for each subject, see Appendix B.
Subject category
Percentage of all medical grievances
Percentage of cases in this category that were denied relief
Cases denied relief
Delayed or lack of access to medical care
33%
10%
2,242
Improper or inadequate medical care
17%
14%
1,568
Prescription medication
12%
18%
1,389
Alternatively, we can look at grievance subjects that had the highest proportion of cases in which the prison denied relief. Here, again, we see subjects that match some of the most notorious problems in prison healthcare:
Grievance subjects with the highest proportion of cases
in which the prison denied relief
To see all case outcomes for each subject, see Appendix B.
Subject category
Percentage of cases in this category that were denied relief
Non-medication prescriptions (e.g., walking aids or medical necessity mattresses)
24%
642
Tedious paperwork issues are a leading reason for rejected grievances
As the data show, federal prisons don’t reject most grievances on the merits. Instead, most are rejected because incarcerated people fail to navigate administrative rules for submitting complaints, so their grievances are never actually judged on their merits.
Why are so many complaints rejected on technicalities? Put simply, many of the rules and requirements that govern the grievance process are difficult for incarcerated people to meet. Prison officials control the time and movement of incarcerated people, which can hinder their ability to access the necessary forms and submit complaints to the right person in a timely manner. They also restrict the type and amount of property people can keep in their cells, including writing tools and materials they would need to fill out grievance forms. Add to this the typically lower levels of educational attainment and literacy among incarcerated people compared to the general population, and it becomes obvious that the various confusingly-named forms, rules about single-subject complaints, prohibitions on third-party assistance,4 and other highly specific rules work to thwart most grievances before they’re ever considered on their merits. Other requirements, like requiring attempted informal resolutions as a first step, may sound reasonable in the abstract but can quickly dissuade incarcerated people who might fear retaliation for speaking up, especially in abusive situations. On top of all of this, those filing medical grievances are dealing with unresolved medical issues as they fight to receive basic dignified care.
In the dataset,5 each case can have up to five reasons explaining why it was rejected and/or closed. We tabulated the most common reasons for rejection given across cases to find that:
2 in 5 reasons for rejection pertained to various paperwork issues (such as failing to provide a copy of a particular form, using the wrong size paper, illegible writing or different wordings across forms, failing to write separate appeals for each incident report, or the grievance was filed to the wrong place/person).
1 in 10 reasons claimed the complainant failed to first exhaust all other, informal avenues for resolution.
1 in 12 (8%) reasons pointed to a failure to adhere to time limits for initial complaints and appeals.
The remaining reasons were a mix of withdrawn complaints, repetitive filings, rejections for subjects that are not appealable or “not sensitive issues,” or because the complaint allegedly contained “obscene language.”
Are grievance systems designed to solve problems, or deter lawsuits?
In theory, grievance procedures are an important tool for incarcerated people to pursue fair treatment and defend themselves in a system designed to disempower them. This power is particularly important in the context of medical care, where needs are widespread and urgent, and where failure to meet them can lead to injury, illness, and death. In practice, however, the grievance system is a black hole, a time-waster, and a deterrent to complaining at all. It’s a long and winding maze of rules and technicalities that must be cleared before an incarcerated person can get their complaint to a setting that might actually force a change: the courts.
As we explain in our report, Cut-rate Care, prison healthcare often functions in a similar way, denying and delaying care until the incarcerated person either (1) becomes so frustrated that they give up, (2) pursues their complaint all the way to an improbable success in the courts, or (3) is released or dies. With nearly 100% of medical grievances rejected or denied, it’s hard not to see the federal grievance system as a process designed to block or discourage complaints and lawsuits rather than a meaningful path for relief, protection, or accountability.
At minimum, prison grievance systems should be operated independently, not run by prison administrators,6 and incarcerated individuals’ complaints should carry more weight, be easier to file, and lead to more meaningful and rapidly-delivered relief than they currently do.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP)’s Administrative Remedy Program “allow[s] an inmate to seek formal review of an issue relating to any aspect of his/her own confinement.” BOP tracks those complaints through SENTRY, the agency’s “primary mission support database.”
In October 2022, the Data Liberation Project filed a request to BOP, seeking a copy of all database records stored in SENTRY’s “Administrative Remedy System module.” Through a series of phone calls and emails, BOP indicated that the agency did not have the capacity to export the complete set of requested records, but was able to export a substantial subset of data-points for each case. BOP provided those records to the Data Liberation Project on June 10, 2024.
The raw dataset contains 1,783,999 complaint and appeal filings covering the time period between January 2000 and May 2024. It contains grievances about a range of issues, such as living conditions and work arrangements, in addition to the medical complaints we analyzed.
The dataset provided by the Bureau of Prisons is best understood as a snapshot of case statuses at the time the data were pulled to fulfill the Data Liberation Project’s request. Grievances moving through the federal system are fluid and subject to change. The dataset only provides the most recent status for each case, which eliminates many duplicate records but also prevents us from seeing a historical view of how cases made their journey through the system. Furthermore, some cases may be incompletely represented — for example, if a case’s initial filing(s) were submitted prior to the start date of the dataset and later appealed, only the appeal would appear in the dataset.
Additionally, a given complaint can have multiple entries in the dataset, for example when someone’s case is rejected on a technicality and must be resubmitted. To analyze the data, we deduplicated these cases to isolate entries with the most recent case status update and narrowed the time series to between the years 2014 and 2024.
The data are organized on two levels:
Primary subjects are the general topic (for example, Dental Care).
Secondary subjects are a narrower subset of the primary subject (for example, Dental appliances).
We tabulated the number of cases for each primary and secondary subject and their statuses. There are five case statuses:
Accepted: Grievance was properly filed and will move toward resolution.
Rejected: Grievance was improperly filed or the process was not properly exhausted at lower levels; it’s rejected without consideration of the merits.
Closed – Denied: Requested relief was denied on the merits.
Closed – Granted: Requested relief was granted on the merits.
Closed – Other: The case was closed on appeal.
In addition to case subject categories and statuses, the dataset provides “reason codes” that provide the Bureau of Prisons’ reasoning for particular statuses. Each case can have up to five reason codes. Some entries had blank fields for their reason codes, while others had codes that were too opaque to be meaningful (for example, “see remarks,” “information/explanation only,” and “resubmit appeal”). For our analysis, we aggregated all reason codes across cases and discarded these vague codes to isolate only those that shed some light on the reasoning behind particular decisions.
Appendix C: Reasons given for rejecting federal medical grievances (2014–2024)
Reason for rejection
Number of times reason appeared
Percent of all reasons given
Request or appeal denied substantially in full.
18,295
24%
You did not attempt informal resolution prior to submission of administrative remedy, or you did not provide the necessary evidence of your attempt at informal resolution.
6,926
9%
You did not provide a copy of your institution administrative remedy request (BP-9), or a receipt, or you did not provide a verified photocopy.
5,795
8%
You must first file a BP-9 request through the institution for the warden’s review and response before filing an appeal at this level.
4,457
6%
Withdrawn at inmate’s request.
4,444
6%
You submitted your request or appeal to the wrong level or wrong office.
3,749
5%
Concur with rationale of regional office and/or institution for rejection. Follow directions provided on prior rejection notices.
2,599
3%
Your appeal is untimely. Regional appeals must be received within 20 days of the warden’s or CCM’s response. This time limit includes mail time.
2,479
3%
Your request is untimely. Institution and CCC requests must be received within 20 days of the event complained about.
2,359
3%
All four pages of your (BP-9) (BP-10) (BP-11) form must be legible and worded the same. Photocopies of the form will not be accepted.
2,305
3%
The issue you raise is not a sensitive issue. Your request/appeal is not being returned to you in accordance with policy.
2,131
3%
You may only submit up to one letter-size (8 1/2″ x 11″) continuation page.
2,026
3%
Provide staff verification stating reason untimely filing was not your fault.
1,999
3%
You must provide more specific information about your request/appeal so that it may be considered.
1,984
3%
You did not submit your request or appeal on the proper form (BP-9, BP-10, BP-11).
1,790
2%
You did not sign your request or appeal.
1,610
2%
You are appealing more than one incident report (incident number) on a single appeal form. You must file a separate appeal for each incident report (incident number) you wish to appeal.
1,369
2%
You did not submit the proper number of continuation pages. You must submit one copy at the warden’s level; two copies at the regional director’s level; and three copies at the central office level.
1,303
2%
You did not submit your request through your counselor, or other authorized person.
1,227
2%
You did not provide a copy of the regional appeal, or a receipt, or you did not provide a verified photocopy.
1,166
2%
Tequest or appeal denied as repetitive of previous filing.
931
1%
You did not submit a complete set (4 carbonized copies) of the request or appeal form.
902
1%
Request or appeal granted substantially in full.
859
1%
You did not submit the correct number of copies of the attachments (new documentation not considered by lower levels). 2 at institution; 3 at region; and 4 at central office.
612
1%
Your appeal is untimely. Central office appeals must be received within 30 days of the regional director’s response. This time limit includes mail time.
598
1%
Request or appeal partially granted.
537
1%
Your appeal of the rejection is untimely. Resubmissions are due within: 5 days (institution); 10 days (CCM or regional office); 15 days (central office). Submit staff memo on BOP letterhead stating reason untimely filing wasn’t your fault.
407
1%
Your issue is not appealable to the BOP. You must use the grievance procedures at your facility.
374
0%
Other
342
0%
Request or appeal is moot.
138
0%
You did not provide a copy of the attachment(s) to your institution administrative remedy request (BP-9).
115
0%
Your request contains gratuitous obscene or abusive language.
101
0%
Due to your allegations, your appeal is being forwarded to another department for review; however, your appeal was retained in accordance with policy.
79
0%
You may request staff assistance in preparing your request or appeal in english.
38
0%
Request or appeal previously granted.
14
0%
You did not provide a copy of the DHO report; or you did not otherwise identify the charges and date of the DHO action you are appealing.
14
0%
You did not provide a copy of the attachment(s) to your regional appeal.
In the federal system, the timeframes for incarcerated peoples’ filings and appeals are as follows:
Initial filing: 20 days from incident
Regional appeal: 20 days from warden’s response
Central office appeal: 20 days from regional response
There is one exception in the federal system, which is sexual abuse. According to policy, grievances pertaining to such conduct can be filed at any time after it occurs (though other time limits remain in place). ↩
See the appendices for a full accounting of federal medical grievances ↩
It’s important to note that these figures are specific to the moment the data was pulled by the Bureau of Prisons on behalf of the Data Liberation Project. Given the fluid nature of prison grievance systems, a specific complaint can have different statuses at different points in time. For example, a medical grievance could initially have a status of “rejected” due to a paperwork issue, but later have a status of “approved” once the complainant updated and refiled their grievance. This is what we mean when we say the data provided is only a “snapshot” — our analysis reflects case statuses as they were captured at the moment the federal Bureau of Prisons exported their database. See the methodology for more information. ↩
Unlike many other prison systems, the BOP does allow third party support in the preparation of grievances. ↩
See Appendix C for a full accounting of reason codes for rejecting federal medical grievances. ↩
In the federal system, the grievance system is operated by prison administrators at various levels. Grievance systems in state prisons, however, are operated in a variety of ways. In New York, for example, grievances are reviewed by a committee that includes incarcerated people and staff. Regardless, having people who work for the prison judge complaints against other people who work for the prison is a conflict of interest. ↩
On March 18, 2026, the Prison Policy Initiative submitted written testimony in the Connecticut Legislature in support of SB 503, “An Act concerning the sentencing of and parole eligibility for individuals whose offense was committed when such individual was under the age of twenty-six years.”
This bill extends important parole eligibility and sentencing provisions that apply to people who were under 21 at the time of their offense to people who were under 26, reflecting scientific research that shows that brain development continues during people’s early 20s.
If you are a criminal legal system reform advocate or legislator who would like to talk to our Advocacy department about providing testimony for a bill, please reach out to us using our contact form.
Prison Policy Initiative is excited to announce that Alpha Jalloh will join us as our first Creator-in-Residence.
With more Americans turning to social video content for their news and information, the Prison Policy Initiative created this residency to empower and support creators producing videos that expose the harms of the carceral system. For the next four months, Alpha will produce videos that break down complex problems in the U.S. criminal legal system, with the Prison Policy Initiative providing data and research support.
Alpha is a filmmaker, educator, and policy-focused storyteller whose work explores incarceration, surveillance, and structural inequality. Formerly incarcerated, he is an alumnus of the Yale Prison Education Initiative and now a double major in Political Science and American Studies at Yale University, Class of 2029, while serving as president of the Yale Undergraduate Prison Project. Previously, he was a Justice Through Code Fellow at Columbia University and an Education Fellow with the Bard Prison Initiative, and he worked as a career specialist at a New Haven nonprofit supporting people navigating reentry and employment.
Videos will be published as collaborative posts on both his and the Prison Policy Initiative social media accounts. Be sure to follow Alpha on Instagram and TikTok. And also follow Prison Policy Initiative on Instagram and TikTok.
SB 497 would change Connecticut law to allow people on probation to access Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits even if they have a probation violation.
On March 17, 2026, the Prison Policy Initiative submitted written testimony in the Connecticut Legislature in support of SB 497, “An Act Protecting Food Security for Veterans and Others and Mitigating Federal Cuts to Nutritional Assistance”. In particular, our testimony focused on improving a section of Connecticut law that denies Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits to people who have probation violations.
This bill removes the requirement that someone be “satisfactorily” serving a sentence of probation in order to receive nutrition assistance. It also requires that SNAP application forms to remove references to probation violations, so that people are not deterred from applying for benefits because they are afraid their probation status will exclude them.
If you are a criminal legal system reform advocate or legislator who would like to talk to our Advocacy department about providing testimony for a bill, please reach out to us using our contact form.
The increase in the number of people behind bars since last year's report is almost entirely attributable to immigration enforcement.
March 11, 2026
The number of people held in ICE detention on any given day grew 58% between 2025 and 2026, increasing the total number of people behind bars in the U.S., a new report shows. The latest edition of the Prison Policy Initiative’s report Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie — which pieces together the most recent data on different confinement systems to provide the big-picture view of incarceration in this country — shows that the rise in immigration detention has driven up overall incarceration numbers.
Key findings from this year’s report include:
Across all federal agencies for which data are available, including the federal Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. Marshals Service, and the Office of Refugee Resettlement (which holds unaccompanied migrant children), the number of people behind bars for immigration reasons increased 32% since last year.
The number of people detained by ICE grew by 25,200 (58%) since last year, remaining near record-high levels.
In 2024 (the most recent year for which data are available), people held under local jurisdiction in city, county, and regional jails fell by 17,000.
Nearly 10,000 fewer people were incarcerated for federal crimes in 2026 compared to 2025, reflecting changes in federal law enforcement priorities and clemency actions under the second Trump administration.
“Even as we see the number of people in prisons and jails hold relatively steady, immigration detention has exploded,” said report co-author Wendy Sawyer. “What’s more, the number of facilities holding people for ICE grew by 65 percent in the last year. President Trump’s cruel and wasteful policies of mass detention are not only driving up the number of incarcerated people; they are expanding the carceral landscape in this country.”
As in every edition of this report, 2026’s Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie includes sections putting incarceration numbers in important context:
A “myth-busting” section addressing ten common misconceptions about mass incarceration and crime, including the impacts of immigration and criminal justice reform on crime and the footprint of the “war on drugs”;
Sections taking a closer look at specific sections of the “pie” chart, and explaining how even low-level offenses can spiral into time spent behind bars;
A section “zooming out” to show that when systems of community-based punishment — mainly, probation and parole — are included, the total number of people under correctional control grows to over 5 million.
Insights about the fiscal costs of mass incarceration, which now total $445 billion per year.
July 1, 2026: On July 1, 2026 at 1 p.m. EST, join the Prison Policy Initiative and guests Jodi Hocking, Executive Director of Return Strong Nevada, and Taj Mahon-Haft PhD, Director of The Humanization Project, as they discuss the importance of family connections, highlight the ways they are under attack, and share strategies to help families fight back.
