Christopher Zoukis's Blog

By Christopher Zoukis

On December 6, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Gamble v. United States, raising the issue of whether sometimes defendants can face separate trials, and possibly conviction and sentencing, for the same violation in both state and federal courts, despite the Constitution’s provision against double jeopardy.

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides, among other things, no person shall “for the same offense… be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” Terance Gamble, currently serving time in an Alabama prison, claims he’s been sentenced by both state and federal courts for the same act, which he argues ought to be forbidden as double jeopardy.

In 2008, Gamble was convicted by an Alabama court of a felony, second-degree robbery. In 2015, when a police officer stopped Gamble’s car for a faulty headlight, a vehicle search found marijuana and a loaded 9-millimeter handgun. Both Alabama and federal law forbid felons to possess firearms.

First, Alabama brought charges against Gamble under state law; after pleading guilty, he drew a one-year prison sentence. Next, federal prosecutors charged him with violating the federal law; Gamble unsuccessfully tried to have the federal charge dismissed, but was sentenced to 46 months’ imprisonment, 34 months more than the state-imposed sentence. He’s taken his appeal to the Supreme Court, trying to have the federal sentence overturned as an unconstitutional violation of the double-jeopardy provision.

Under current law, federal prosecution for an offense also violating state law isn’t seen as a double-jeopardy violation, due to the so-called “dual-sovereign” exception. Even though being a felon in possession of a firearm is the same offense, this doctrine runs, having it criminalized in two distinct jurisdictions empowers either or both to prosecute it.

Asking for the “dual sovereign” exception to be eliminated, Gamble’s legal team argue it’s inconsistent with double jeopardy’s language, intent, and roots in English law. Worse, by allowing duplicative prosecutions, it encourages government over-prosecution.

Gamble’s Supreme Court appeal has drawn significant attention, with “friend of court” briefs opposing him filed by the Department of Justice and 36 states (arguing the exception to double jeopardy has been a useful part of American law for at least 170 years), and by multiple groups arguing that overturning the exception could handicap federal courts in fighting offenses which local officials might be reluctant to address.

The Supreme Court has only infrequently written on the “dual sovereign” exception. It made an early appearance in 1922, in a unanimous decision (United States v. Lanza) which allowed federal prosecution of a bootlegger near Seattle who had earlier been fined under a state law outlawing liquor sales.

In 1959, the Court upheld the exception in two cases, but two years ago, a 6-2 decision (Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle) disallowed a Puerto Rican weapons and ammunition trafficking prosecution against a defendant who had faced similar federal charges, finding both courts essentially drew their authority from a single source. In dissenting, Justices Breyer and Sotomayor criticized the exception, and two more Justices (Ginsburg and Thomas) suggested it was time to re-examine it.

Despite this record, and the fact at least four Justices approved taking Gamble’s appeal, Supreme Court observers of the recent oral argument believe it unlikely the Court will overturn the long-established “dual-sovereign” exception.

Christopher Zoukis is the author of Federal Prison Handbook: The Definitive Guide to Surviving the Federal Bureau of Prisons, (Middle Street Publishing, 2017), and College for Convicts: The Case for Higher Education in American Prisons (McFarland & Co., 2014). He regularly contributes to New York Daily News, Prison Legal News and Criminal Legal News. He can be found online at ChristopherZoukis.com, PrisonEducation.com and PrisonerResource.com.

By Christopher Zoukis

Shortly before resigning his post, as requested by President Trump, ex-Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued guidelines for the Department of Justice (DOJ) to follow when seeking consent decrees with police departments or other units of state or local government. The likely result will be to keep DOJ out of investigations of state and local law enforcement, at least until the new rule is scrapped or revised by a different administration.

On November 7, Sessions sent a seven-page memo to all DOJ litigators, criminal and civil, spelling out new restrictions on how they could employ consent decrees to settle cases brought against police departments or other units of state or local governments.

The seven-page memo began by cautioning DOJ lawyers that consent decrees should be only be used with caution and when approved by DOJ higher-ups. It added such orders generally should not impose obligations for longer than three years and should include a “sunset” provision explicitly phasing out the decree after the compliance deadline. The memo also contains measures it says are needed to assure monitors control costs and are free of conflicts of interest.

Further, the memo advised, DOJ should directly enforce compliance with ant settlement agreements it does enter, rather than delegate that task to a monitor. If that cannot be done, the memo says, it may show that the agreement is too expansive or infringes local accountability.

During Session’s time running DOJ, the agency ended investigations of police in Chicago and Louisiana, opposed a deal the Illinois Attorney General reached with the Chicago police department, and in the memo harshly criticized a consent decree DOJ had entered with the Baltimore police department.

Advocates of DOJ action aimed at state and local law enforcement agencies thought to engage in civil rights violations or abusive treatment lost no time in attacking Session’s memo. The head of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights said Session’s memo was “designed to restrict” consent decrees and would create “increasingly higher roadblocks” that would render them “rare and ineffective.” That statement came from Vanita Gupta, a former head of DOJ’s Civil Rights Division under Obama.

But the most sustained attack came about a week later, when the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, an advisory body with bipartisan presidential and Congressional appointments, issued a staff-prepared 200-page briefing report, Police Use of Force: An Examination of Modern Policing Practices.

Besides deciding based on studying available statistics, that fairly little reliable data exists on police use of force, to say nothing of how often it is or is not justified. The report’s majority also recommended a variety of policy steps, including that DOJ, should “return to vigorous enforcement of constitutional policing,” making greater use of consent decrees and reinstating DOJ’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS).

Two of the panel’s eight commissioners dissented strongly from many of the report’s conclusions, and one took no part. The U.S. Civil Rights Commission’s chairperson who presided over the report’s adoption and was one of the affirmative votes for it was Catherine Lhamon, who for the last few years of the Obama administration, served as head of the Department of Education’s Civil Rights Division.

Christopher Zoukis is the author of Federal Prison Handbook: The Definitive Guide to Surviving the Federal Bureau of Prisons, (Middle Street Publishing, 2017), and College for Convicts: The Case for Higher Education in American Prisons (McFarland & Co., 2014). He regularly contributes to New York Daily News, Prison Legal News and Criminal Legal News. He can be found online at ChristopherZoukis.com, PrisonEducation.com and PrisonerResource.com.

By Middle Street Publishing Staff

It is with great pride that we announce the release of incarcerated author Christopher Zoukis from federal prison. From the beginning, Chris has been our ideological leader and often the driving force behind what Middle Street Publishing does and aspires towards. We are thrilled that he is joining us outside of prison walls today. This is a great day!

While many of you already know about Chris’ journey, we’d like to share our take. Chris came into contact with the criminal justice system at the age of 18, when he was a senior in high school. A series of poor choices led to a brief period of criminal conduct, which culminated in a sentence of state probation, which he violated. Chris went to state prison, and on his final day, the feds picked him up. He would spend the next 10 years in federal prison.

During his time in prison, Chris changed everything about himself and his life. While he went to prison as a drug addicted 20-year-old, in prison he grew up, matured, and set himself on a new path. Not only did he earn his high school diploma and bachelors degree, he will soon also earn his Masters of Business Administration from Adams State University. From high school drop-out to MBA graduate, we couldn’t be more proud.

During his time in prison, Chris wrote extensively on prison education and criminal justice topics. He published College for Convicts: The Case for Higher Education in American Prisons, Prison Education Guide, and Federal Prison Handbook, contributed articles to Huffington Post, Criminal Legal News, Prison Legal News, Journal of Prisoners on Prisons, and others, and acted as a media commentator on prison matters. In the past few years, Chris has been quoted by USA Today and The Washington Post. We’re very much looking forward to seeing what he can manage without all of the barriers and obstacles of incarceration in his way.

Now that Chris is out, he has shared that he’s planning on working in two arenas. He has accepted a job with the Law Offices of Brandon Sample as the office Marketing Director, and he’s also opening the Zoukis Consulting Group, a federal prison consulting firm. He will also be taking the reins here at Middle Street Publishing. We’re sure that he’s going to do great at all three. This will be a new era for MSP, one we’re very much looking forward to being a part of.

If you would like to get in contact with Chris, please email him. In the coming weeks, he’ll be getting on his feet and getting into the swing of things.

And that’s it. We just wanted to share the great news of the day. Chris is free!

By Christopher Zoukis

The Prison Entrepreneur Program (PEP), a Texas-based non-profit formed in 2004, assists inmates convicted of felonies to prepare for life after prison by developing skills and character, finding post-release employment, and eventually making a success with their own businesses.

The group’s current CEO Bryan Kelley is a program graduate. Nearly finished serving a 20-year sentence for murder (for what he describes as a drug deal gone bad), Kelley had been approved for release on parole but asked authorities if he could remain behind bars for nine more months to participate in PEP.

He describes that decision as “a no-brainer,” since the nine months would bring him not just valuable training, but also access to a support network beyond what he could get even from a graduate school, making the extra time in prison a small price to pay, compared to the nearly 20 years he’d already been incarcerated.

Inmates wanting to join PEP are screened with a 10-page questionnaire and interviews. The program offers a demanding nine-month program that draws on business executives who volunteer as mentors and instructors in business and financial subjects.

During the program, participants learn to develop and present business plans, gain skills equipping them to find employment quickly after release or prepare them to launch their own enterprises.

PEP begun after a female venture capitalist during a prison visit was impressed by the high level of interest in the business world she found inmates had, as well as the street-smart business sense. As Kelley recounts it, inmates’ previous experience had given them understanding not only of such business fundamentals as profits and collections, but also more sophisticated concepts like supply chains, risk management, and marketing.

During the program’s first three months, PEP participants are advised by executives who volunteer on skill-building exercises, then move on to understanding and devising business plans and acquiring knowledge of business methods and personal skills such as public speaking.

Equipped with PEP training, current program graduates typically find employment within 17 days of gaining their release, at an average hourly rate of $12.70. During the 14 years, PEP has been in existence, its graduates have started over 360 businesses, at least five of whose annual revenues reach $1 million.

Today, according to Kelley, PEP graduates have about a 7.5% recidivism rate, compared to the rates elsewhere of 60% and up.

Over the past 14 years, about 18 percent of PEP graduates have started around 360 businesses, and Kelley said five of the businesses have annual revenues of more than $1 million each. The business training has helped other graduates to land jobs.

Kelley said currently, released PEP participants typically find employment within about 17 days at an average rate of $12.60 an hour. The Texas program, now in three men’s and one women’s prison, aims to enroll 1,200 inmates this year, and estimates between 500 and 600 of them will graduate.

PEP finds training and employment help graduates avoid re-offending; only about 7.5% of its graduates are charged with another crime within three years, compared with recidivism rates elsewhere ranging at 60% or higher. The program has received inquiries from other states interested in adopting the program. That expansion could begin as early as next year.

Christopher Zoukis is the author of Federal Prison Handbook: The Definitive Guide to Surviving the Federal Bureau of Prisons, (Middle Street Publishing, 2017), and College for Convicts: The Case for Higher Education in American Prisons (McFarland & Co., 2014). He regularly contributes to New York Daily News, Prison Legal News and Criminal Legal News. He can be found online at ChristopherZoukis.com, PrisonEducation.com and PrisonerResource.com.

By Christopher Zoukis

“I made a mistake when I was 17 years old, and I recognize that someone lost their life. I didn’t pull the trigger, but I was there. There’s no snapping my finger and getting them to come back. I know what death means.” That was a powerful statement Edward Sanders made during a recent lecture at the University of Michigan. Sanders was a passenger during a drive-by shooting. As an accessory to the crime, he was handed a life sentence for first-degree murder. Forty-two years later, a Supreme Court ruling gave him a second chance. Now, at 60, the former lifer has plenty to say about prison education behind bars – and what needs to change.

Although he was a teen and nearly a legal adult when he was sentenced, at the time, at 17 Sanders had the equivalent of a grade three education. Once behind bars, he decided to pursue higher education seriously.

However, it was not an easy path.

Inmates that were not serving life sentences were prioritized over lifers. To get into a class, Sanders had to wait and see if someone more qualified had dropped out or didn’t show up. When that happened, Sanders would swoop in and take the spot.

Despite the obstacles, Sanders worked hard at his education and eventually obtained a bachelor’s degree in behavioral science and an associate degree in paralegal studies.

Being a lifer, however, continued to haunt his career aspirations. Convicted felons seldom obtain viable law careers, even after parole. Once again, Sanders took a look at his options and chose the best path forward: working with his fellow inmates. After parole, however, his job search and qualifications earned him a spot at McDonald’s. He would later find work in an attorney’s office.

True to form, Sanders is not letting his time in prison or the limitations that come with being a paroled lifer slow him down. The paralegal is a strong advocate for prison education and draws attention to the barriers that hold inmates back.

For example, he feels a ban on typewriters and offline computers for research in prison are counterproductive. During his lecture at the University of Michigan, he said, “Even though it’s called corrections, there is a bias to keep you illiterate, to keep you at a remedial level, and it takes a village to get former inmates back into society.” He also supports Gov. Rick Snyder’s decision to ban a checkbox on job applications that would out former offenders as they apply for work.

Although it was a long and winding road filled with one frustration after another and one roadblock after another, Sanders was able to go from a third-grade education to obtaining two degrees. He used his training to become a “jailhouse lawyer,” helping his fellow inmates with their cases. Once released, his education enabled him re-integrate back into society. Not only is he contributing to society, but he also works hard to bring attention to the necessity of education behind bars. He is living proof that prison education works – even for lifers.

Christopher Zoukis is the author of Federal Prison Handbook: The Definitive Guide to Surviving the Federal Bureau of Prisons, (Middle Street Publishing, 2017), and College for Convicts: The Case for Higher Education in American Prisons (McFarland & Co., 2014). He regularly contributes to New York Daily News, Prison Legal News and Criminal Legal News. He can be found online at ChristopherZoukis.com, PrisonEducation.com and PrisonerResource.com.

By: Christopher Zoukis

What are you doing at age 36? Or, what do you plan to do by age 36? Buy a house perhaps? Be climbing the corporate ladder in your career? Starting a family or getting your startup off the ground? Most people look forward to doing those things in their 30s, but for more than 33,000 Americans, this is a pipe dream.

As of August 2018, using available statistics, the Federal Bureau of Prisons reported that out of the 18-65 year-olds incarcerated in federal prisons, more than 33,000 of them are 36 – the highest age range represented.

There is a big push for prison education, and that means more and more incarcerated persons are getting access to a GED and college education. However, to round out their skills, financial literacy is essential. At 36, the non-incarnated population is typically juggling a household budget and a growing salary. When one’s formal and informal education is stunted by a stay in prison, care must be taken to include “soft” skills like financial literary to prisoners before they are released, if the offender is expected to be rehabilitated and on par with his or her peers.

“We have found that inmates too often do not have fundamental knowledge, skills or experience to face the complex financial realities of life. Upon re-entry into society, too often they repeat poor financial decisions that helped put them on the path to incarceration,” said John Wetzel, Pennsylvania secretary of corrections and Robin L. Wiessmann, Pennsylvania secretary of banking and securities.

To combat this problem, Corrections opened a dialogue in 2016 with the Pennsylvania State Agency Financial Exchange (PA $AFE).

PA $AFE is a group of 20+ state agencies working together to provide financial education for consumers. Corrections began working with the organization to provide financial education as part of a re-entry strategy.

Although the program is in its early stages, both inmates and Corrections report positive feedback so far.

The program will be measured against four attainable outcomes:

to see if those that received financial education in prison have a lower recidivism rate against those that did not
to see if past-offenders that are back in society and had financial literacy training are more successfully employed than those that did not
to see if the released offenders are more motivated to use financial tools such as a bank account and are more willing to engage in entrepreneurship
to see how satisfied the staff and inmates are with the overall program results.
According to Fortune, two-thirds of Americans can’t pass a financial literacy test, and that’s with the added benefit of being not incarcerated and having ready access to financial tools and education. One can only imagine how the prison population would fare in this regard.

Without knowing the ins and outs of budgeting, understanding how debt works and learning the importance of balancing a checking account and building up a savings account, your ability to enjoy life is compromised. Working toward financial literacy does not mean having a substantial disposable income. It implies, no matter what stage you are in your financial life, you can recognize the money you have and how to make it work for you, or you realize where the gaps in the budget are and what needs to be done to fill them.

Prison education is not complete without financial literacy – a skill all Americans need.

Christopher Zoukis is the author of Federal Prison Handbook: The Definitive Guide to Surviving the Federal Bureau of Prisons, (Middle Street Publishing, 2017), and College for Convicts: The Case for Higher Education in American Prisons (McFarland & Co., 2014). He regularly contributes to New York Daily News, Prison Legal News and Criminal Legal News. He can be found online at ChristopherZoukis.com, PrisonEducation.com and PrisonerResource.com.

By Christopher Zoukis

After considering for years whether to revise its criminal procedure rules to broaden defendants’ access to information that will be used to prosecute them, the Virginia Supreme Court has decided to expand defendants’ pre-trial access to prosecutors’ evidence.

An order issued September 5 by the top state court will require state prosecutors (known locally as commonwealth’s attorneys) to let criminal defendant review witness statements and police reports intended to be part of the prosecution case.

Before the change, since such evidence was explicitly exempted from pre-trial discovery, commonwealth’s attorneys were under no legal obligation to share such evidence with defendants or their lawyers. Independently, each prosecution office was left free to decide whether it would or would not provide that information, there was no consistent statewide practice, although prosecutors have previously estimated about two-thirds of them furnish access to such data (adding that smaller or more rural offices are less likely to do so).

The new rule will allow defendants and defense legal teams to review, but not to copy, the material. Also, prosecutors will also have to provide defendants and their lawyers with a list of witnesses expected to testify at a trial or sentencing hearing; for the protection of the witnesses, their addresses or other identifying data could be withheld at the request of either side, if a judge approves.

Another change made by the high court order deals with expert witnesses. Prosecutors who plan to use expert witnesses will be required to disclose their experts’ identities and qualifications, as well as outline their expected testimony. That has long been required in civil trials in the state, but was not previously the rule for criminal trials. And for the first time, the new order will require defendants to provide prosecutors with a list of defense witnesses.

The new order will not take effect until July, in order to give the state legislature, which adjourned in mid-March, time to consider whether to decide if it wants to provide state prosecutors with additional funding, to offset the increased costs of complying with the new order or for processing footage from police body-cameras.

Some task forces and commissions have been studying Virginia’s discovery procedures for several decades. In 2015, a state task force made recommendations very similar to those in the new order, but the Virginia Supreme Court refused to adopt them, with little explanation. At that time, Virginia was one of only eight states which did not require prosecutors to furnish defendants with a witness list. In 2004, the American Bar Association ranked Virginia dead last among the states in the procedural protections provided to criminal defendants.

In an interview with the Washington Post, the Virginia Supreme Court’s chief justice called the changes in the new order “long overdue,” and noted that the state legislature had tried, but failed, in its two most recent sessions to resolve the issue. Instead, a 13-member task force of the state bar association tackled the issue, taking comments from all sides and coming up with the proposal adopted by the top state court.

Christopher Zoukis is the author of Federal Prison Handbook: The Definitive Guide to Surviving the Federal Bureau of Prisons, (Middle Street Publishing, 2017), and College for Convicts: The Case for Higher Education in American Prisons (McFarland & Co., 2014). He regularly contributes to New York Daily News, Prison Legal News and Criminal Legal News. He can be found online at ChristopherZoukis.com, PrisonEducation.com and PrisonerResource.com.

It started out as the Cheshire Reformatory in 1909. The goal of the Reformatory was to keep male prisoners aged 16-24 out of the adult prison population. The Reformatory evolved over the years, and now it’s Connecticut’s Cheshire Correctional Institution, where male adult offenders carry out long sentences.

It’s a level four facility and includes both protective custody and restrictive housing. There’s a fair bit of history in the 25-acre complex too. It’s been said that the cells of the north block were repurposed from New York’s famous Sing Sing prison.

That’s not the only historical aspect of the intuition. This year marked an exciting milestone for the Centre of Prison Education (CPE) – for the first time, incarcerated offenders doing time in maximum security graduated from a prison education program with associate degrees. Cheshire Correction Intuition hosted the grad.

Wesleyan University’s Center for Prison Education and Middlesex Community College collaborated to offer university courses to inmates in Cheshire Correctional Institution. Students from Wesleyan volunteer to help the inmates both in study halls at the prison, or on the school campus by providing research and project assistance. No slack is given for the inmates; they are expected to study and complete assignments as though they were on the Wesleyan campus.

The first graduating class from Cheshire Correctional Intuition smiled proudly on August 1, 2018, as Pomp and Circumstance played. They wore graduation gowns and mortarboards. Family members were there for support. Even though it took place in a maximum security prison, the ceremony was as impactful on the grads and the guests as any other graduation.

One of the speakers at the event was Wesleyan President Michael Roth ’78. Roth had been a college president for 18 years and is well versed in commencement speeches. He usually read from a script, but this time, he said, “Walking into Cheshire today, seeing the graduates—there is no script. You are making history of the best kind, that allows other people to build on your accomplishments. Our thanks to those students, faculty, and staff at Wesleyan who envisioned this day, who saw that incarceration should not be the end of the line, but an opportunity to change your lives.”

Several of the graduates also spoke during the ceremony, noting the positive impact education had on their lives. Inmate and graduate James Davis III said, “Wesleyan introduced me to a new kind of judgment. In CPE, we’re being judged, but with our permission…. We thank all of you who judge us as we are, not as we were.”

The Center for Prison Education has been in operation since 2009. Its mandate is to extend Wesleyan’s campus courses into Connecticut prisons to help create “scholars and citizens who will be assets to their families and communities before and after release.”
From launching in 2009 to the first graduates with associate degrees in 2018, it’s been a long and winding road; but, for the inmates, professors, volunteers and everyone involved, it’s been a road worth traveling.

Christopher Zoukis is the author of Federal Prison Handbook: The Definitive Guide to Surviving the Federal Bureau of Prisons, (Middle Street Publishing, 2017), and College for Convicts: The Case for Higher Education in American Prisons (McFarland & Co., 2014). He regularly contributes to New York Daily News, Prison Legal News and Criminal Legal News. He can be found online at ChristopherZoukis.com, PrisonEducation.com and PrisonerResource.com.

By Christopher Zoukis

On August 9, President Trump sat down with governors and state attorneys general to discuss prison reform and prisoner education. The majority of America’s prison population is held in state-run facilities and given that America has the highest incarceration rates in the world – the meeting was an important step in addressing these issues.

Or was it?

Trump’s bill, the Formerly Incarcerated Re-enter Society Transformed Safely Transitioning Every Person Act, aka, the First Step Act, would see $250 million spent over five years for vocational, educational, and rehabilitation programs in the federal prison system. Additionally, inmates that participate in the program may earn credits for early release, or to transition to halfway homes or house arrest.

The benefits of the bill are easy to identify. Prison education programs cut recidivism dramatically and return a healthy $4-$5 for every dollar spent. The First Step Act would go a long way in saving taxpayer dollars and employing offenders with useable job skills upon release – skills that could lead to gainful employment, increased confidence, entrepreneurship, and healthier communities. Additionally, the idea of moving offenders participating in the program to halfway homes or house arrest could provide some much-need ease in the burgeoning, overcrowded prison system.

So what’s the pushback?

Not everyone is happy about the First Step Act. Critics decry that it only addresses federal prisons, leaving out other prison systems that are plagued with the same problems seen at the government institutions. And what about the long and harsh sentences for minor infractions, not to mention mandatory minimum sentencing? And what about the racial issues that see more people of color sent to jail?

Okay, hold on now.

President Trump is a polarizing figure – nobody is arguing that. His supporters appear to be waning, and he has made several blunders that have not endeared him to the masses; but, the man is actively trying to work on prison reform, and while the First Step Act is not going to change the broken prison system radically – it’s a step in the right direction.

It is vitally important to remember that prison education programs of any kind are hugely beneficial to the prisoner, their families, and the communities in which they are released. It’s also important to remember that the American prison system didn’t break overnight, and it’s many problems are not limited to a couple of easy-to-fix factors. The problems with our prisons are rooted in everything from racism to income inequality to corporate greed to that good old school-to-prison-pipeline, to name just a few. One single bill will never be able to tackle of all of that efficiently.

Fixing the prison problem is going to take time – decades – and the only way to do it is one step at a time, one reform at a time, one bill at a time. The First Step Act? Well, it’s a pretty good first step, provided more steps follow.

Perhaps some of the pushback is rooted in the growing dislike for the President. That’s understandable. He’s done some very “interesting” things. However, no leader in history has ever managed to get it all right, or entirely wrong. Love him or loathe him, if he’s willing to engage in positive prison reform, that’s a good thing. Now let’s sit back and watch to see if the First Step Act is one of many steps forward. I certainly hope it is.

Christopher Zoukis is the author of Federal Prison Handbook: The Definitive Guide to Surviving the Federal Bureau of Prisons, (Middle Street Publishing, 2017), and College for Convicts: The Case for Higher Education in American Prisons (McFarland & Co., 2014). He regularly contributes to New York Daily News, Prison Legal News and Criminal Legal News. He can be found online at ChristopherZoukis.com, PrisonEducation.com and PrisonerResource.com.

By Christopher Zoukis

The Prison Policy Initiative, a non-profit advocacy group, recently released a study examining how state prison commissaries operate. One observation made in the report: commissaries often exploit incarcerated persons, by shifting the costs of incarceration from the state to inmates and their families. The central problem, according to the report, isn’t the prices commissaries charge, or that in some cases the profits accrue to private businesses, but rather that necessary expenses are foisted on to inmates and their families.

The study examined in depth the prison commissary systems of three states: Illinois, Massachusetts, and Washington. Those states were chosen because their data was easier to come by, but the study also says they present a good cross-section of state systems of varying sizes and types of management.

What they had in common, according to the study, were inmates spent more than previously thought, with most of their spending going for food and hygiene products. Even in state-run commissary systems, private contractors can take advantage of the system to profit, which the authors claim blurs distinctions between state and private control. Further, commissary prices amount to a “significant financial burden” for the incarcerated, even when those prices are comparable to those of non-prison vendors.

On average, inmates in the three states spent $947 per year, and the type of commissary management did not affect that figure; individual spending did not vary greatly in Illinois ($1,121), where commissaries are state-run, and Massachusetts ($1,207), which contracts its commissaries to a private firm. Washington, with another state-run system, did have significantly lower individual spending ($513), but this apparently stemmed from different policies by its corrections department on what property inmates may have.

The leading categories of purchases were ready food, including the ever-popular ramen noodles, topping the list at an average $277 yearly per person, followed by snack items ($191), and beverages ($117). The most-bought non-food category, hygiene and health products ($89) narrowly edged out another food category, ingredients ($88).

Where does the money for commissary purchases come from? While some inmates may have income from work in prison, pay can be as low as $1 per day. While these scant earnings are likely to be spent in the commissary, the study concludes most commissary purchases are paid for through funds transferred into inmate accounts by family members. Inmates without that income source probably use the commissary little or not at all; Washington’s commissaries reserve certain brands of necessities, like soap and toothpaste, for “indigent” inmates.

How reasonable are prison commissary prices? A comparison of prices for items sold in the three states’ commissaries with the same or comparable items sold in non-prison locations finds commissary prices are close to, or in some cases, even lower than prices elsewhere.

But the study notes one large and growing discrepancy: digital services, such as messaging, games, money transfers, release cards and the like, which are generally far more expensive in prisons than elsewhere, less transparent in their pricing and management, and harder for prison commissaries to supervise vendors. The report recommends policymakers be on guard against commissary price-gouging in such fast-growing and richly priced services.

Christopher Zoukis is the author of Federal Prison Handbook: The Definitive Guide to Surviving the Federal Bureau of Prisons, (Middle Street Publishing, 2017), and College for Convicts: The Case for Higher Education in American Prisons (McFarland & Co., 2014). He regularly contributes to New York Daily News, Prison Legal News and Criminal Legal News. He can be found online at ChristopherZoukis.com, PrisonEducation.com and PrisonerResource.com.