By Christi M. Smith

Since 2018, nearly half of states have either passed clean slate automated record-sealing laws, adopted legislation to expunge cannabis convictions, or initiated campaigns to seal certain criminal records. These efforts acknowledge the perpetual, often lifelong barriers that people with publicly available criminal records face. The collateral consequences of a record, even for people who have been arrested but not convicted, make it exceedingly difficult to obtain and maintain basic life stability. For the one in three adults with a criminal record, this often means a lifetime of poverty and negative generational outcomes for dependents.

When people are unable to establish stability or advance in life because of records-based discrimination, the public also suffers negative effects. Being unemployed, underemployed, or employed “off the books” means less money cycling back into the community and reduced tax revenue. This translates to an $87 billion per year loss to the national economy. The social cost of cyclical incarceration and increased likelihood of homelessness among this population is an estimated $1.2 trillion annually. And without legitimate opportunities to provide for oneself and one’s family—combined with a lack of affordable products—people may be disincentivized to remain law-abiding. This can result in increased crime and escalating product costs as stores attempt to reduce retail theft. Our streets are less safe when people who have paid their debt to society and remained law-abiding continue to be excluded from the basic resources they need to survive.

Explainer, Washington, DC: R Street, 2024. 2p.

By Lisel Petis

This paper responds to municipalities' concerns about the increase in visible homelessness and its perceived impact on community safety. The overlap between the criminal justice system and homelessness is well-documented, but debates on how to best address these issues remain divisive. Many stakeholders entrenched in their viewpoints, often overlooking the complexity of homelessness and the need for a multifaceted approach. However, the reality is that singular solutions have proven insufficient. We must combine strategies and offer multiple options to address the diverse needs of different individuals. Arrest and jail should always be a last resort for addressing homelessness, as criminalizing survival behaviors only perpetuates the cycle of homelessness and incarceration. This approach is costly, can be harmful, and fails to address the underlying causes of homelessness. To break this cycle, it is crucial to find better solutions, some of which we explore in this piece. Key conclusions: • Immediate Actions: Providing jobs—such as trash cleanup in an encampment— to homeless individuals, managing public spaces, and offering safe parking lots for those living in vehicles can prove impactful. Additionally, involuntary hospitalization and scattered sites programs can offer immediate support to those needing urgent assistance. Homeless outreach teams can also play a crucial role by building trust, offering immediate assistance, and connecting individuals to essential services, ultimately reducing reliance on emergency services and jails. • Long-Term Strategies: Expanding transportation and housing options is critical for reducing homelessness, as doing so provides greater access to jobs and shelter. Innovative solutions like using vacant hotels for immediate housing, employing community courts for rehabilitative justice, creating “one-stop shops” for essential services, and using shelter-finder apps can help stabilize individuals and connect them to necessary resources. • Early Intervention: Providing financial training and support equips individuals with the skills to manage money effectively and plan for major life events, which can help prevent one setback from snowballing into homelessness. Predictive analytics can identify at-risk individuals before eviction, enabling targeted early intervention to stabilize their housing situation. Expanding supportive housing and improving access to mental health and substance use treatment are crucial for those transitioning from incarceration or facing behavioral health challenges. Efforts like the Clean Slate Initiative and the creation of “third places” help reintegrate individuals into society and build community-support networks.

R Street Policy Study No. 311 Washington, DC: R Street, 2024 23p.

By Christi M. Smith

One in three Americans, roughly 70 to 100 million, have a criminal record that limits their earning capacity and options for suitable housing, as well as makes it more challenging to remain law-abiding. These records are often not the result of serious or violent crime, but rather due to the ever-widening net of “tough-on-crime” legislation that criminalizes poverty, substance use and mental illness. Socioeconomic and behavioral health issues combined with the collateral consequences of an arrest or criminal record make it nearly impossible for individuals to secure or maintain minimum standards of social stability. Absent legitimate opportunities to provide for themselves and their families, some may feel compelled to resort to crime to mitigate stress and account for their most basic needs. This situation subjects law-abiding members of the community to additional crime and escalating product costs associated with increased security-related expenses. Taxpayers also incur the ballooning expense of funding low-level law violator involvement in the justice system and bear the burden of the social costs of record-based discrimination, including a rise in homelessness, a lack of generational mobility and the need for various forms of public assistance. Record-based discrimination is extremely costly to taxpayers and the overall economy, resulting in an estimated $78-$87 billion loss in the national gross domestic product. While the majority of states offer some form of petition-based record sealing, fewer than 10 percent of eligible individuals pursue the option, owing to the cost and complexity of the process. Clean Slate legislation bridges the gap between eligibility and opportunity by automating the process of sealing old records at no cost to the individual. Public safety carve-outs that exclude certain convictions from eligibility; provide access to the records under speci昀椀c and limited circumstances; and include provisions for employer immunity reduce the risk of sealing records from community access. When these records are not available to the general public, the collateral consequences of arrest or conviction no longer present a pervasive barrier to the resources people need to fully reintegrate into the community. Armed with the ability to provide for oneself and thrive in mainstream society, individuals are less likely to return to crime and be琀琀er equipped to contribute to the overall economy. Clean Slate legisla琀椀on is the pathway to prosperity for all Americans. It is a model policy with bipar琀椀san, bicameral and public support. Free, automatic record clearing is smart public policy that reduces recidivism, increases public safety and stimulates the economy. Key Points: 1. Individuals with prior arrests or convictions records experience a host of collateral consequences that limit their access to stable housing, employment, education, food and financial assistance. These barriers unduly burden the individual, their families and communities long after the initial sentence has been served and the debt to society has been repaid. 2. The majority of states offer petition-based record sealing to remove these records from public view, though fewer than 10 percent of eligible individuals take advantage of this opportunity owing to the complexities and costs associated therewith. 3. Individuals who have demonstrated the ability to remain law-abiding in the years following the completion of their sentence are no more likely to reoffend than their counterparts without criminal histories. Automatic record sealing through Clean Slate legislation prioritizes public safety and ends the cycle of punishment in perpetuity for eligible people by allowing them to fully reintegrate into their communities and contribute to the overall economy.

R Street Policy Study No. 279, Washington, DC: R Street, 2023. 19p.

By Lisel Petis

Law enforcement agencies across the country, regardless of state or jurisdiction population size, are facing challenges on a daily basis, including exhaustion and frustration from dealing with “frequent flyers” and “repeat callers;” continued stress and pressure caused by agency staffing shortages and negative public sentiment; and increased rates of community mental health and substance abuse issues leading to potentially dangerous outcomes. In response, some conservative areas have found a way to better support their local law enforcement and the communities they serve through pre-arrest diversion programs. Pre-arrest diversion models—such as Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD), co-responder and community responder—have become some of the most successful trends in criminal justice. These programs already exist across the nation and have proven efficient and effective in diverting low-level offenders from the criminal justice system. By looking at the execution of LEAD in Laramie County, Wyo., Behavioral Health Connect (BHCON) in El Paso County, Colo. and Community Assistance and Life Liaison (CALL) in St. Petersburg, Fla., other jurisdictions can understand how pre-arrest diversion reduces calls for service, saves police officers’ time and decreases jail populations. Furthermore, these districts serve as an example that allows us to explore how to successfully implement a diversion program and navigate potential challenges.

Key Points: 1. Conservative jurisdictions are turning to novel prearrest diversion models to help with staffing shortages, court backlogs and “frequent flyers” who are often suffering from mental health or addiction issues. 2. Pre-arrest diversion models—such as LEAD, corresponder or community responder—prioritizes police time, court resources and jail space for serious offenses and violent crimes while also repairing law enforcement’s relationship with the community, connecting individuals with services and reducing recidivism. 3. Communities can better support their local law enforcement and overcome concerns of logistics, safety and funding when implementing their own diversion programs.

R STREET POLICY STUDY NO. 252 March 2022, 12p

CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, US. Department of Justice

• Tulsa Race Massacre: Violent attack on Black community of Greenwood, Oklahoma, May 31-June 1, 1921.
• Massive Destruction: 10,000 white Tulsans destroyed homes, businesses; hundreds of Black residents killed.
• Law Enforcement’s Role: Deputized white residents participated in violence, looting, and arson.
• Failure of Justice: Authorities failed to help survivors; legal attempts for reparations were unsuccessful.
• Historical Reckoning: DOJ review acknowledges massacre’s impact, despite expired statutes of limitations.
• Legal Analysis: Modern laws could have prosecuted hate crimes, but were unavailable in 1921.
• Insurance Denials: Black residents denied compensation due to “riot clause” in policies.
• Federal Investigation: DOJ’s Cold Case Unit reviewed the events under the Emmett Till Act.
• Government’s Role: White officials obstructed rebuilding efforts, imposed restrictive fire codes.
• Survivors’ Plight: Left without resources, faced systemic racism and state-sanctioned brutality.
• Historical Documentation: Review includes survivor accounts, primary materials, and past investigations.
• Confrontation Trigger: Arrest of Dick Rowland and sensationalized newspaper article incited violence.
• Continued Efforts: Work to ensure future generations understand the massacre’s magnitude continues.

CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, US. Department of Justice. 2025. 126p

By Sigurd S. Arntzen, Jon H. Fiva, Rune J. Sørensen

This paper assesses the effectiveness of democratic systems in preventing individuals with criminal backgrounds from holding political office. Unlike many countries, Norway has no legal restrictions against felons running for office. We analyze local election candidates from 2003 to 2019, paired with administrative records of criminal offenses. We demonstrate that individuals with criminal records are systematically penalized at every stage of their political careers. Candidates are less likely to have criminal records than the general population, with elected officials less likely to have criminal backgrounds than their unelected peers, and mayors being the most lawful. Through a series of counterfactual exercises, we demonstrate that the most significant reduction in criminal involvement occurs at the nomination stage, especially within established local party organizations.

CESifo, Munich, 2024, 49 p.

By Unity Consulting Scotland

Over the course of the past few years PCS has consistently heard from our members about the workload pressures facing them in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) and the Scottish Courts and Tribunal Service (SCTS). The growing understanding of the issues facing staff led PCS to commission UNITY Consulting Scotland to conduct research into the experiences of the COPFS and SCTS workforces. This report is based on the voices and viewpoints of workers in COPFS and SCTS. The views of the workers who took part in this research confirm what we already knew about the challenges they are facing and the impact this is having on them and the delivery of justice. They must be listened to and changes must be made to improve their working environment.

Edinburgh: Unity Consulting, 2024. 132p.

By Sean Garcia-Leys, Meigan Thompson, Christyn Richardson

Gang allegations made by law enforcement agents frequently prevent undocumented immigrants from gaining legal status for which they would be otherwise eligible. These allegations, made without any of the hallmarks of due process, also increase the likelihood an undocumented immigrant will be prioritized for deportation or held in immigration detention. Policy makers, elected officials, and even the law enforcement agents who make these gang allegations are often unaware of the immigration effects of these allegations. This report documents the findings of the UC Irvine School of Law Immigrant Rights Clinic (IRC) based on the IRC’s legal representation of affected immigrants, collaboration with community organizations and other legal service providers, interviews with law enforcement agents, and review of scholarly literature. First, the IRC found that gang allegations have a high risk of error as they are primarily made based on the subjective beliefs of law enforcement agents in the field and are usually made without any connection to a specific crime. This high risk of error is corroborated by the fact that these allegations are overwhelmingly made against African-Americans and Latinos. Second, the IRC learned that these allegations are stored in computer databases that are networked to other agencies, including Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Third, the IRC learned that these allegations negatively affect the eligibility of undocumented immigrants for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and other forms of immigration relief. Fourth, the IRC learned that gang allegations also affect the treatment of immigrants held in immigration detention. Considering these findings, the IRC recommends that law enforcement agencies be required to: (1) provide notice to every person who law enforcement agents document as a gang member, (2) improve existing notice practices, and (3) offer neutral review hearings where people erroneously documented as gang members may contest that documentation. By providing these basic hallmarks of due process to those law enforcement agents suspect of gang membership, the risk of unintended immigration harms to people erroneously documented as gang members can be greatly reduced.  

Irvine, CA: UCI School of Law Immigrant Rights Clinic , 2016. 30p.

By Kate Weisburd

In virtually all areas of law, the home is the ultimate constitutionally protected area, at least in theory. In practice, a range of modern institutions that target private life—from public housing to child welfare—have turned the home into a routinely surveilled space. Indeed, for the 4.5 million people on criminal court supervision, their home is their prison, or what I call a “carceral home.” Often in the name of decarceration, prison walls are replaced with restrictive rules that govern every aspect of private life and invasive surveillance technology that continuously records intimate information. While prisons have always been treated in the law as sites of punishment and diminished privacy, homes have not. Yet in the carceral home people have little privacy in the place where they presumptively should have the most. If progressive state interventions are to continue, some amount of home surveillance is surely inevitable. But these trends raise a critical, underexplored question: When the home is carceral, what is, or should be, left of the home as a protected area? This Article addresses that question. Descriptively, it draws on a fifty-state analysis of court supervision rules to reveal the extent of targeted invasions of intimate life in the name of rehabilitation or an alternative to prison, rendering the home a highly surveilled space. Normatively, it argues that allowing this state of affairs with no corresponding adaptations in legal doctrine is untenable. With the home no longer sacred and no limiting principle to take its place, millions of people are left with no meaningful protection from government surveillance, even (or especially) in their home. Left unchecked, the carceral home further entrenches the precise racial, economic, disability, and gender inequities that often inspire reform efforts. Instead, as this Article recommends, privacy and security must be recognized as positive entitlements separate from physical homes

103 B.U. L. Rev. 1879 (2023

By Besiki Luka Kutateladze 

Goals & objectives The goal of this study is to enhance public safety and community well-being through effective identification, investigation, and prosecution of antiLGBTQ hate crimes in Miami. This important goal was achieved by examining: victimization experiences, victim and offender characteristics, crime reporting outcomes, victimization consequences, case processing, as well as the criminal justice system’s challenges and opportunities for reform. The project focuses on the hate crime victimization within Miami’s Latine community. Research questions What is the prevalence of the anti-LGBTQ hate crime victimization? What are the victim and offender demographic characteristics? What are the barriers for crime reporting and for victim cooperation with law enforcement? What are the predictors of crime reporting? What are the consequences of victimization? How does the criminal justice system identify, process, and dispose of hate crimes? What are the challenges for reporting and case processing? What type of evidence is used by law enforcement for determining the hate motivation? What are the opportunities for reforming police and prosecutorial capacity for tackling hate crimes? Research design The study employs a mixed-methods design using quantitative and qualitative data from victim interviews, case file reviews, and practitioner interviews. 400 LGBTQ individuals who have been victims of a crime have been interviewed using a three-stage venue-based sampling. Furthermore, all hate crimes disposed of by the Miami-Dade State Attorney’s Office between June 2005 and July 2019 (n = 23) were reviewed to collect data on specific offenses, case processing, and disposition outcomes. Finally, 10 semi-structured in-depth interviews were carried out with prosecutors, police detectives, and service providers to assess the practitioners’ perceptions of the problem and opportunities for reforming the system. Applicability of the research The research yielded significant recommendations for law enforcement, the LGBTQ advocacy groups, and the research and academic community. The findings help police and prosecutors develop more effective internal policies and practices for identifying and investigating hate crimes, processing them accordingly, and providing assistance to crime victims. This increased awareness will likely bolster confidence in the justice system, and have significant justice and public safety implications through increased reporting and cooperation with police and prosecutors.  

Miami: Florida International University, 2020.   157p.