By Joe Russo, Samuel Peterson, Michael J. D. Vermeer, Dulani Woods, Brian A. Jackson

Racial and ethnic disparities are pervasive in the U.S. criminal justice system. These disparities often compound as an individual progresses through each stage of the justice system, beginning with police contact and continuing through prosecution and correctional control. Not surprisingly, people of color are overrepresented in the probation and parole population, yet relatively little attention has been paid to disparate treatment and outcomes at this stage.

Probation and parole staff and other system actors exercise considerable discretion in responding to technical violations. Technical violations are instances of noncompliance with the conditions of supervision — such as failing to report to the supervising officer, leaving the jurisdiction without permission, and testing positive on a drug test—that, while not criminal, can lead to severe consequences for justice-involved individuals. The spectrum of responses to technical violations can range from a warning all the way up to a recommendation to revoke supervision. Evidence suggests that technical violations are an important driver of incarceration.

The handling of technical violations may be influenced by a variety of factors, including officer judgment and jurisdictional policy, and there is evidence of racial and ethnic disparities in how they are handled. Ultimately, disparities in the processing of technical violations can exacerbate and perpetuate existing disparities in incarceration and undermine the legitimacy of the justice system. This report presents findings and recommendations from an expert panel that explored challenges and opportunities associated with reducing disparities at the technical violation decision point.

Key Findings

• The lack of evidence on the sources of disparities in community supervision contributes to a lack of known approaches for responding to them.

• The working relationship between an officer and a supervisee is critical to successful outcomes.

• A lack of diversity or cultural sensitivity among officers and supervisee perceptions of justice system illegitimacy can be barriers to forming quality relationships of trust.

• Research is needed to determine the impacts of (1) such factors as the working relationship between and officer and a supervisee, a lack of diversity or cultural sensitivity among officers, and supervisee perceptions of justice system illegitimacy on supervisee violation behaviors, (2) responses to these behaviors, and (3) disparities.

• Supervisees of color often have inequitable access to resources, which can be a barrier to successful completion of supervision and a contributing factor in disparate outcomes.

• Information management tools are needed to increase transparency about and accountability for disparities.

• Jurisdictions would benefit from developing data dashboards to help track, analyze, and display key metrics so that progress may be measured — and corrective actions taken as needed — at the officer and agency levels.

  Recommendations

• Develop best practices for the use of technology to eliminate barriers to compliance. Evaluate pros, cons, and impacts of these approaches on outcomes and disparities.

• Develop best practices and strategies to directly provide resources (e.g., food pantries, clothing, transit vouchers) to disadvantaged supervisees and/or coordinate with community resources to provide these services. Explore the feasibility of monetary assistance for sustenance and/or emergency support.

• Conduct research into supervisee perceptions of the justice system’s legitimacy along racial and ethnic lines and the impact of these perceptions on compliance and outcomes.

• Conduct research to determine whether the use of credible messengers improves relationships with supervisees and to examine the impact of this practice on supervision outcomes.

• Study jurisdictions that have reduced disparities to better understand the dynamics associated with successful outcomes and to develop an evidence base of effective strategies.

• Conduct research to determine the impacts of more-general system reforms (e.g., caps on probation sentences, reductions in the number of technical violations) on disparities in technical violation behaviors, responses, and outcomes.

• Develop management tools (e.g., dashboards) to track disparity metrics, in near real time, at the agency, supervisor, and officer levels to promote transparency and accountability and to identify patterns to be investigated and addressed (e.g., coachable moments for staff, policy or program review).

• Reinforce supervision practices in which staff actively engage in barrier-reduction strategies to "meet supervisees where they are" in terms of appropriate accommodations and service delivery that do not compromise public safety.

Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2023. 32p.

by Lucy Slade

Despite court fines being the most used sentence in the English and Welsh criminal justice system, it is rare that they feature in the discussion of justice reform engaged in by policymakers, academics and the third sector. To shine a light on this important, but under examined, area of our justice system, the Centre has undertaken a research project looking specifically what is the impact of their use. It is the first of its kind to look at what ought to happen— and what actually does. As part of this project, we have reviewed the literature of court fines and financial impositions in the criminal courts of England and Wales. This is accompanied by our report, which brings together the findings of our review of publicly available data, and qualitative interviews with people in low-incomes who have received a fine.

London: Centre for Justice Innovation, 2024. 11p.

by Lucy Slade and Stephen Whitehead

Almost everyone who is convicted in a court in England and Wales leaves with a bill to pay. Yet there is a striking gap in our knowledge on the most common sentencing outcome handed down by our courts: the court fine. A new report by the Centre for Justice Innovation published today (16 May 2024) seeks to address this knowledge gap. The report is called: “Where the hell am I going to get that money from?” The impact of court fines on people on low incomes.

The research, specifically conducted during this cost of living crisis, suggest that the impacts of getting a court fine are often highly disproportionate: while better off people experience only minor hardships, such as forgoing a holiday,for a significant number of those on the lowest incomes paying their court fine pushed them deeper towards unmanageable debt, destitution and significant levels of anxiety and mental anguish.

The research highlights that, contrary to the sentencing objectives of the court fine, the financial impact of fines and charges are not experienced equally by people with different levels of means. The research also found major gaps on the data collected, especially on the socio-economic status of those who are fined, meaning there is not a clear picture of who gets fined, who pays and who doesn’t (and why).

The research. The research is a comprehensive study based on a wide range of sources including interviews with 56 people with experience of fines who live on a low income; a literature review; analysis of public data on court fines; and of Citizens Advice data for clients who faced fine arrears between 2019 and 2023; and focus groups with 14 magistrates.

Findings from the data review:

• Men received the majority of fines (2,534,714, 64%), with women receiving 944,547 (24%), and a further 474,557 fines issued where sex was not recorded (12%). This is in keeping with the preponderance of men in the sentencing and the criminal justice caseload more generally.

• Women were proportionally more likely to receive fines than men (85% compared with 73%), in part, because they are more likely to commit the less serious offences, which result in a fine.

• Of the ten offences for which fines are most often issued, women receive the majority of fines for only one of these, TV licence evasion, where they represent three quarters of people whose gender is recorded.

Key findings

Almost everyone who is convicted of a crime in a court in England and Wales leaves with a bill to pay. Over 75% of people convicted each year are sentenced to a fine. Yet while many of the offences for which fines are given are deemed “minor,” the research suggests that, for people on low incomes, the impact of fines is anything but.

• A large number of the offences for which court fines are imposed are strongly linked to people’s pre-existing poverty, such as TV licence evasion.

• Many of the 56 interviewees reported that the financial burdens placed on them by the court had pushed them further into debt, with some pushed into destitution and into further offending to pay off the court fine.

• For some, the financial burdens took a severe toll on their mental and physical health, particularly where they faced prolonged payment periods in a never-ending cycle of payments.

• While fine amount

  • are meant to be determined by an individual’s financial circumstances, this system did not seem to work effectively in practice.

  • The imposition of other non means-tested financial charges alongside the fine, such as prosecution costs, often pushed the total amount owed to the court up from something affordable to an amount that felt impossible to pay in the time allowed.

  • Court fine enforcement action (which is subject to less regulation than commercial credit recovery), particularly the threat of bailiffs, added further financial and wellbeing strains, especially for those already struggling to make insufficient household budgets last.

  • Magistrates suggested that they often felt their hands were tied, leaving them to sentence people on low incomes to fines, the magistrates knew they could not pay.

  • Many interviewees felt that a fine was, in theory, an appropriate punishment for the offence they committed, but the confusing processes of the current system often meant that the total amount they eventually needed to pay was seen as excessive

London: The Centre for Justice Innovation, 2024, 41p.

By  Sandhya Kajeepeta

After four decades of growth, the size of the U.S. incarcerated population has been declining for the past decade, and racial disparities were beginning to shrink. The start of the COVID-19 pandemic triggered immediate calls for decarceration (i.e., reducing the number of people incarcerated), given the high risk of the virus spreading in congregate settings like jails and prisons and subsequent, inevitable spread to the neighboring community. Although the majority of incarcerated people were left behind bars to face potential illness and death, the U.S. incarcerated population experienced its largest recorded one-year population reduction in U.S. history. This large-scale decarceration undoubtedly saved lives and will have long-term benefits for those who were diverted out of jails and prisons, as well as their families and communities. However, not all benefited from the decarceration equally: racial disparities in jail and prison worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic, and Black people represented a larger percentage of the incarcerated population as it declined. In this brief, we examine the drivers of pandemic-related decarceration, interrogate its impacts on racial disparities, and draw lessons to inform policy recommendations for racially equitable decarceration.

New York: NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Thurgood Marshall Institute, 2023. 21p.

By Lindsay Bass-Patel and Angie Weis Gammell

Courts across the country, including those in North Carolina, impose financial obligations on people when they are convicted of a crime or infraction. These court imposed financial obligations include fines, a form of financial punishment, and fees, which fund government services. North Carolina has increased its reliance on fines and fees as a revenue source over the past 20 years. 1 This practice harms many North Carolinians and is also an inefficient financial strategy for the state. In the past decade, other states have begun to reevaluate their use of fines and fees. North Carolina can find guidance from states like Louisiana, which has eliminated fees for juveniles, and Georgia, which has enacted guidelines to determine a person’s ability to pay before imposing fines or fees. Fines and fees disproportionately impact poor people and people of color, and in so doing, burden them with paying for government services that support all members of society. North Carolina courts often impose fines and fees without considering a person’s ability to pay them. When a person does not have the financial means to pay, they face difficult, perilous choices. These choices result in some people paying fines or fees rather than buying groceries or medicine; some people losing their driver’s license for not paying the fines or fees; and some people being taken to jail for failing to pay even when the original infraction had no risk of jail time. 2 Furthermore, fines and fees are an unreliable and ineffective revenue source. The time and resources spent trying to collect court fines and fees can cost more than the money collected. 3 The North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts (“AOC”) does not publicly share information on the total amount of fines and fees imposed or outstanding. Instead, the publicly shared financial data shows the amount people pay to the Clerks of Superior Court. According to this information, the state recouped $204.9 million in fiscal year 2020-2021 from fines and fees in criminal cases, which constituted only 0.3% of the state’s revenue for that year. 4 North Carolina must examine its use of fines and fees, including the harm it has on residents, their families, and their communities; eliminate fees; and reduce fines imposed in criminal court.

Durham, NC: Wilson Center for Science and Justice at Duke Law, 2023. 36p.

By Karin D. Martin, Bryan L. Sykes, Sarah Shannon, Frank Edwards, and Alexes Harris

This review assesses the current state of knowledge about monetary sanctions, e.g., fines, fees, surcharges, restitution, and any other financial liability related to contact with systems of justice, which are used more widely than prison, jail, probation, or parole in the United States. The review describes the most important consequences of the punishment of monetary sanctions in the United States, which include a significant capacity for exacerbating economic inequality by race, prolonged contact and involvement with the criminal justice system, driver’s license suspension, voting restrictions, damaged credit, and incarceration. Given the lack of consistent laws and policies that govern monetary sanctions, jurisdictions vary greatly in their imposition, enforcement, and collection practices of fines, fees, court costs, and restitution. A review of federally collected data on monetary sanctions reveals that a lack of consistent and exhaustive measures of monetary sanctions presents a unique problem for tracking both the prevalence and amount of legal financial obligations (LFOs) over time. We conclude with promising directions for future research and policy on monetary sanctions.

Annu. Rev. Criminol. 2018. 1:471–95

By Briana Jones & Laura Goren

Virginia can be a place where every young person has the support and resources to reach their full potential and where young people who get into trouble are helped to get back on the right track. Unfortunately, currently in Virginia, the youth court system frequently imposes fines and fees on troubled young people and their families, placing additional barriers in their path. This creates long-standing harm for children who enter the system and their families, with Black teenagers most often being swept into the youth criminal legal system and therefore facing the greatest financial and family harms. Analyses of these economic and social impacts of fines and fees on Black and Brown teenagers highlight the pressing challenges these children and their families can face and offer alternative measures that could better help youth who encounter the juvenile justice system.

Richmond, VA: The Commonwealth Institute, 2022. 6p

By Daniel A. Pizarro

Neoliberalism alters U.S. carceral practices to extract revenue from marginalized communities. The criminal-legal system made monetary sanctions (e.g., cash bail, traffic fines, probation fees) a common practice that affects the millions of people who cycle through the system. I argue that criminal-legal debt extends punishment outside of carceral structures and creates a “revolving door” effect in which poor, racialized communities are subjected to constant incarceration. Domestic violence cases in Atlanta are a prime example of this phenomenon and illustrates the ways in which incarceration aids neoliberalism. The over policing of minority communities, and by extension the imposition of monetary sanctions, in metro-Atlanta serves to generate revenue and gentrify those neighborhoods. Through a prison abolitionist lens, this research explores the impact of criminal-legal debt in metro-Atlanta through autoethnography, interviews, and online participant observation of court. (Thesis)

Atlanta: Georgia State University, 2023. 161p.

By Nicholas Goldrosen, Christian Michael Smith, Maria-Veronica Ciocanel, Rebecca Santorella, Shilad Sen, Shawn Bushway, Chad M. Topaz

Substantial race-based disparities exist in federal criminal sentencing. We analyze 380,000 recent (2006–2019) sentences in the JUSTFAIR database and show that these disparities are large and vary considerably across judges. Judges assign White defendants sentences 13% shorter than Black defendants' and 19% shorter than Hispanic defendants' sentences, on average, conditional on case characteristics and district. Judges one standard deviation above average in their estimated Black-White disparity give Black defendants sentences 39% conditionally longer than White defendants' sentences, vis-à-vis average disparity of 13%. Judges one standard deviation above average in their estimated Hispanic-White disparity give Hispanic defendants sentences 49% conditionally longer than White defendants' sentences, compared to the average disparity of 19%.

Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, Volume 179, Issue 1, pages 92–113 (March 2023)

By Anita Knudsen, Lenny Roth

Key points • Overrepresentation of Aboriginal people in the NSW criminal justice system continues to worsen. Almost one third of people in prison in NSW are Aboriginal. The increase in imprisonment has been most acute in remand, with almost 40% of Aboriginal people in prison on remand. • Record high numbers of people in prison, and growing awareness of the social and economic costs of prison, have intensified public discussions about alternatives to prison. • The main framework for reducing Aboriginal incarceration nationally and in NSW is the National Agreement on Closing the Gap, which includes a target to reduce the incarceration rate of Aboriginal people by at least 15% by 2031. • The NSW Closing the Gap Implementation Plan 2022–2024 emphasises the need for Aboriginal leadership, expertise and participation in strategies to reduce incarceration. These measures will take different times to mature and scale. • An important consideration identified by stakeholders is the need to consider how criminal justice legislation and policy contributes to increased numbers of Aboriginal people in prison and overrepresentation at every stage of the criminal justice process. • Inquiries and research have proposed a range of actions across prevention, early intervention, diversion from the criminal justice system, non-custodial sentencing options and post-release support specific to Aboriginal people.

Sydney: State of New South Wales through the Parliament of New South Wales, 2023. 44p,

By Clarence Okoh & Isabel Coronado

Community supervision, or community corrections, refers to a court-ordered period of correctional supervision served outside of a correctional facility. Some policymakers insist that “community supervision” is a viable path to combat mass incarceration. However, mounting evidence makes clear that “mass supervision” is not a solution; instead, it is a leading driver of mass criminalization, especially in Black communities and other communities of color. Mass supervision’s broad range of economic, legal, and social disadvantages trap millions of individuals in cycles of carceral predation and second-class citizenship. To address this crisis, policymakers must envision an entirely new paradigm to support the needs of individuals returning home from correctional facilities. This paradigm must break cycles of correctional punishment while insisting on systemic redress and repair for communities that have carried the heaviest burdens of mass criminalization.

This report offers insights to help policymakers create that new paradigm. For this report, we interviewed over two dozen community advocates, practitioners, and systems-impacted individuals concentrated in three states–Arizona, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin–to understand better how state community supervision systems impede or support economic opportunity, with a particular focus on parole supervision.

What emerged from those conversations was a consensus about the need for a new legal and policy paradigm that we term “community repair.” Community repair offers an entirely different relationship between the state and systems-impacted individuals. Community repair is an anti-carceral policy approach that advocates for removing corrections and law enforcement from the reentry process altogether—recognizing that public investments in meeting basic needs such as employment, housing, and health care hold the most significant promise in disrupting mass supervision and incarceration. This framework goes further by insisting that the state must address present harms and redress the multigenerational harms of mass supervision on families and communities impacted by the criminal legal system.

Based on our conversations with stakeholders and an extensive scan of policy developments at the state and national levels, we offer recommendations for harm reduction and systems transformation of community supervision.

Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy - CLASP, 2022. 28p.

By Beth M. Huebner, Lee Ann Slocum, Andrea Giuffre, Kimberly Kras, and Bobby Boxerman

This project focuses on the St. Louis County Jail which is managed by the Department of Justice Services and serves as the central detention facility for the region. St. Louis County, Missouri provides an ideal location to study the jail-probation nexus. St. Louis County is a large and diverse community. Sixty-eight percent of the population is white and 25% Black, with a small (less than 3%) Hispanic and Latinx population. The county poverty rate of 9.7% is slightly lower than the national average. The Missouri Department of Corrections (MoDOC) is a centralized system, and the St Louis County offices supervise 2,481 clients on probation. The data used in this report include administrative data from the years 2010-2020 that were provided by Justice Services. The process and outcome analyses are also informed by data collected from qualitative interviews with individuals on probation (n=47) and local criminal justice stakeholders (n=17).

Safety & Justice Challenge, 2023. 13p.

By Chad M. Topaz, Shaoyang Ning, Maria-Veronica Ciocanel & Shawn Bushway

Race-based inequity in federal criminal sentencing is widely acknowledged, and yet our understanding of it is far from complete. Inequity may arise from several sources, including direct bias of courtroom actors and structural bias that produces racially disparate impacts. Irrespective of these sources, inequity may also originate from different loci within the federal system. We bring together the questions of the sources and loci of inequity. The purpose of our study is to quantify race-based disparate impact and differential treatment at the national level and at the level of individual federal judicial districts. We analyze over one-half million sentencing records publicly available from the United States Sentencing Commission database, spanning the years 2006 to 2020. At the system-wide level, Black and Hispanic defendants receive average sentences that are approximately 19 months longer and 5 months longer, respectively. Demographic factors and sentencing guideline elements account for nearly 17 of the 19 months for Black defendants and all five of the months for Hispanic defendants, demonstrating the disparate impact of the system at the national level. At the individual district level, even after controlling for each district’s unique demographics and implementation of sentencing factors, 14 districts show significant differences for minoritized defendants as compared to white ones. These unexplained differences are evidence of possible differential treatment by judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys.

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume 10, Article number: 366 (2023)

By Nazgol Ghandnoosh

One in five Black men born in 2001 is likely to experience imprisonment within their lifetime, a decline from one in three for those born in 1981. Pushback from policymakers threatens further progress in reducing racial inequity in incarceration

Following a massive, four-decade-long buildup of incarceration disproportionately impacting people of color, a growing reform movement has made important inroads. The 21st century has witnessed progress both in reducing the U.S. prison population and its racial and ethnic disparities. The total prison population has declined by 25% after reaching its peak level in 2009.1 While all major racial and ethnic groups experienced decarceration, the Black prison population has downsized the most. The number of imprisoned Black Americans decreased 39% since its peak in 2002.2 Despite this progress, imprisonment levels remain too high nationwide, particularly for Black Americans.

Reforms to drug law enforcement and to sentencing for drug and property offenses, particularly those impacting urban areas which are disproportionately home to communities of color, have fueled decarceration and narrowed racial disparities.3 These trends have led scholars to declare a “generational shift” in the lifetime likelihood of imprisonment for Black men.4This risk has fallen from a staggering one in three for those born in 1981 to a still troubling one in five for Black men born in 2001.5 Black women have experienced the sharpest decline in their imprisonment rate, falling by 70% between 2000 and 2021.6

But nine years after national protests catapulted the Black Lives Matter movement following the police killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri and three years after a national racial reckoning triggered by Minneapolis police officers killing George Floyd, progress in reducing racial disparity in the criminal legal system is incomplete and at risk of stalling or being reversed.

The United States remains fully in the era of mass incarceration. The 25% decline in the total prison population since 2009 follows a nearly 700% buildup in imprisonment since 1972.7 The prison population in 2021 was nearly six times as large as 50 years ago, before the era of mass incarceration, and in 2022 the prison population expanded.8 The prison and jail incarceration rate in the United States remains between five and eight times that of France, Canada, and Germany and imprisonment rates in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Oklahoma are nearly 50% above the national average.9 The reluctance to fully correct sentencing excesses, particularly for violent crimes as supported by criminological evidence, prolongs the harm and futility of mass incarceration.10

Racial equity in incarceration remains elusive. The lifetime likelihood of imprisonment among Black men born in 2001, although decreased, remains four times that of their white counterparts.5 Black women’s rate of imprisonment in 2021 was 1.6 times the rate of white women.12 These disparities are even more pronounced in certain states, and among those serving the longest sentences.13 In 2021, American Indian and Latinx people were imprisoned at 4.2 times and 2.4 times the rate of whites, respectively.14 Fully uprooting these racial and ethnic disparities requires both curbing disparities produced by the criminal legal system and addressing the conditions of socioeconomic inequality that contribute to higher rates of certain violent and property crimes among people of color.

Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2023. 16p.

By The Crime and Justice Institute

In 2015, the Oklahoma County Detention Center (OCDC) was facing an overcrowding crisis.i This was compounded by a deteriorating facility, high incidences of violence within the jail, several high-profile lawsuits, and an overall lack of public trust in the county’s justice system. The Greater Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce (Chamber) in collaboration with community leaders created the Oklahoma County Criminal Justice Reform Task Force (Task Force) to assess the county’s criminal justice system and make recommendations to safely reduce the jail population and create a more effective justice system. The assessment, conducted by the Vera Institute of Justice, culminated in six recommendations for the county to responsibly reduce the jail’s population and promote public safety. These included the following, as well as several sub-recommendations within each broader category: Executive Summary In August 2022, the Oklahoma County Criminal Justice Advisory Council (CJAC) requested a follow-up study to identify what recommendations the county has and has not fully implemented as well as what further improvements in the system are necessary to achieve the Task Force’s goals. To conduct this analysis, CJAC sought assistance from the Crime and Justice Institute (CJI), which analyzed data from the OCDC, reviewed state statutes and agency policies, and interviewed numerous system stakeholders. The result of this assessment included seven findings about the county’s criminal justice system identified within this report. Overall, the county has achieved its primary goal of reducing its population to address overcrowding, as the population is down 46 percent since its peak in 2015. Despite this success, the analysis yielded three main challenges that persist in the county’s criminal justice system that will require the county’s attention to resolve. First, while the overall jail population has decreased since 2015, including the total number of individuals detained pretrial, the ratio of sentenced individuals to pretrial individuals has remained steady. Looking at the composition of this population, a measurable number of individuals are being held for low-level offenses or violations such as traffic offenses. Second, Oklahoma has made significant progress in establishing diversion programs 1. Create oversight and accountability mechanisms for the local justice system; 2. Reduce jail admissions for municipal violations and low-level misdemeanors; 3. Create a fair and efficient pretrial release process that safely reduces unnecessary pretrial incarceration; 4. Identify and address district court case processing delays that increase jail admissions and length of stay; 5. Expand meaningful diversion program options, focusing on those with mental illness and substance use disorder; and 6. Reduce the impact of justice system fines and fees as a driver of jail growth and recidivism. by creating partnerships in the community to move individuals to treatment and supervision instead of custodial settings. However, procedural hurdles continue to delay the assessment and placement of individuals in noncustodial settings leading to increased length of stays for individuals in jail longer than 48 hours. And third, a closer examination of the jail data shows that while admissions overall have decreased, the percentage of Black individuals admitted to OCDC has increased. Although the overall population has declined, white admissions have declined at a faster rate than Black admissions (50% v 37%), increasing the overrepresentation of Black individuals admitted to the jail. In sum, Oklahoma County made measurable progress since 2016 in addressing the jail population crisis at the time. This progress was driven by a combination of leaders in county government and the criminal justice system and was supported by community-based stakeholders who contributed greatly to components of the implementation plan. The county’s interest in assessing how effective its efforts have been as well as understanding areas that remain problematic is commendable and the next steps toward expanding the progress made will require similar commitment from leaders and partners throughout the system.

Boston: Crime and Justice Institute, 2023. 37p.

By Michelle S. Phelps

Between 1980 and 2007, probation rates in the United States skyrocketed alongside imprisonment rates; since 2007, both forms of criminal justice control have declined in use. Although a large literature in criminology and related fields has explored the causes and consequences of mass incarceration, very little research has explored the parallel rise of mass probation. This review takes stock of our knowledge of probation in the United States. In the first section, I trace the expansion of probation historically, across states, and for specific demographic groups. I then summarize the characteristics of adults on probation today and what we know about probation revocation. Lastly, I review the nascent literature on the causal effects of probation for individuals, families, neighborhoods, and society. I end by discussing a plan for research and the growing movement to blunt the harms of mass supervision.

Annual Review of Criminology, Annu. Rev. Criminol. 2020. 3:261–79

By Susan McNeeley, Valerie Clark and Grant Duwe

Individuals released from prison have an elevated risk of premature death, especially during the first few weeks after release. Furthermore, these consequences of incarceration may be exacerbated by racial and ethnic disparities. This study examined three types of post-release mortality – all-cause mortality, natural deaths, and unnatural deaths which include accidents, suicides, and homicides – among individuals released from Minnesota state prisons in order to identify characteristics and experiences that place individuals at risk. In addition, we conducted race-specific models examining these types of mortality among White, Black, and Native American releasees. The results of Cox regression models showed, first, that several personal characteristics were related to risk of death. Black, Asian, and Latino people had lower risk of mortality than White people, while Native American people had higher risk. Those affiliated with security threat groups (STG) had higher risk of death, as did those with more mental and physical health diagnoses and those with higher body mass index (BMI). Second, several aspects of criminal history and incarceration were related to post-release mortality. Sex offenders had lower risk of death, while those incarcerated for driving while intoxicated (DWI) had higher risk. Prison visitation reduced the risk of mortality. Risk of death was higher among those with more prior prison admissions, those incarcerated for supervised release revocations, and those with more discipline convictions – but was lower when individuals were incarcerated for longer periods of time. Third, the circumstances of release were related to risk of death. Individuals released to the Twin Cities Metropolitan area had higher risk of mortality, while those released to community programs had lower risk. Finally, the results also showed that, while many risk or protective factors appeared to be universal, some race-specific risk factors do exist.

St. Paul, Minnesota Department of Corrections, 2023. 43p.

By Ashley Nellis

This report documents the rates of incarceration for white, Black and Latinx Americans in each state, identifies three contributors to racial and ethnic disparities in imprisonment, and provides recommendations for reform.

Washington DC: The Sentencing Project, 2021. 25p.

By Leah Wang, Wendy Sawyer, Tiana Herring, and Emily Widra   

We know how many people are in state prisons, but what do we really know about who they are or how they ended up there? Over 1 million people are confined in state prisons nationwide, primarily serving sentences of anywhere from a year to life. But the walls and restrictions that keep these individuals out of public life also keep them out of the public eye: most of what we know about people in prison comes from the prison system itself. But our analysis of a unique, large-scale survey of incarcerated people provides a richer picture of just who is locked up in state prisons. From the survey data, we gain a deeper understanding of how mass incarceration has been used to warehouse people with marginalized identities and those struggling with poverty, substance use disorders, and housing insecurity, among other serious problems. Incarcerated people are a diverse cross-section of society whose disadvantages and unmet needs often begin early in life, and persist throughout their often lifelong involvement with the criminal legal system. This report is divided into sections: Demographics: Race, ethnicity, age, gender identity, and sexual orientation Employment and housing: Incarcerated people were on unstable footing long before prison Arrested early and often: Age at first arrest, youth confinement, and prior incarceration Disadvantage dating back to childhood: Family, housing, poverty, and education in youth Drug use: An extremely common factor leading up to incarceration.

Northampton, MA: Prison Policy Initiative, 2022. 28p.

By Devah Pager, Rebecca Goldstein, Helen Ho, and Bruce Western 

  Court-related fines and fees are widely levied on criminal defendants who are frequently poor and have little capacity to pay. Such financial obligations may produce a criminalization of poverty, where later court involvement results not from crime but from an inability to meet the financial burdens of the legal process. We test this hypothesis using a randomized controlled trial of court-related fee relief for misdemeanor defendants in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. We find that relief from fees does not affect new criminal charges, convictions, or jail bookings after 12 months. However, control respondents were subject to debt collection efforts at significantly higher rates that involved new warrants, additional court debt, tax refund garnishment, and referral to a private debt collector. Despite significant efforts at debt collection among those in the control group, payments to the court totaled less than 5 percent of outstanding debt. The evidence indicates that court debt charged to indigent defendants neither caused nor deterred new crime, and the government obtained little financial benefit. Yet, fines and fees contributed to a criminalization of low-income defendants, placing them at risk of ongoing court involvement through new warrants and debt collection.

American Sociological Review, Volume 87, Issue 3, 2022.