Thursday, May 19, 2022

"Paying for a Clean Record"

The title of this post is the title of this new paper authored by Amy Kimpel and just published in the Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology. Her is its abstract

Prosecutors and courts often charge a premium for the ability to avoid or erase a criminal conviction.  Defendants with means, who tend to be predominantly White, can often pay for a clean record.  But the indigent who are unable to pay, and are disproportionately Black and Brown, are saddled with the stigma of a criminal record.  Diversion and expungement are two popular reforms that were promulgated as ways to reduce the scale of the criminal legal system and mitigate the impact of mass criminalization.  Diversion allows a defendant to earn dismissal of a charge by satisfying conditions set by the prosecutor or court, thereby avoiding conviction.  Expungement seals or erases the defendant’s record of arrest or conviction.  Some diversion and expungement programs are cost-free, but most are not.  Yet a criminal record carries its own costs.  A criminal record can limit where an individual can live, go to school, and whether they receive public benefits.  As 93% of employers conduct background checks on job applicants, the inability to avoid a criminal record can create barriers to employment and the accumulation of wealth.  Costly diversion and expungement programs further calcify race and class divides, contributing to the construction of a permanent underclass.

This Article examines the promises and pitfalls of diversion and expungement as means to combat mass criminalization.  These two mechanisms work in tandem to provide access to a “clean record,” but not enough attention has been paid to the dangers they present due to differential access to clean records based on financial means.  This Article considers legal challenges to the current schemes and explains how requiring defendants to pay for a clean record enables courts and prosecutors to profit from the perpetuation of racial caste.  Ultimately, this Article argues that the impacts of diversion and expungement programs are more modest than reformers claim, and that these programs need to be offered at no cost if they are to succeed in achieving the goal of reducing racial disparities in our criminal courts and in society at large.

May 19, 2022 in Collateral consequences, Race, Class, and Gender, Reentry and community supervision | Permalink | Comments (3)

Tuesday, May 17, 2022

US Sentencing Commission releases notable new report on recidivism rates for federal prisoners completing drug programs

The US Sentencing Commission today released this lengthy new report titled "Recidivism and Federal Bureau of Prisons Programs: Drug Program Participants Released in 2010." This report is the fifth in a series continuing the USSC's detailed examination of recidivism by federal offenders released in 2010.  This USSC webpage provides this brief account of the coverage and findings of the report:

In this report, the Commission provides an analysis of data on the recidivism of federal offenders who participated in Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) drug abuse treatment while incarcerated. The study examines whether completion of drug programs offered by the BOP impacted recidivism among a cohort of federal offenders who were released from prison in calendar year 2010. The report combines data regularly collected by the Commission, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) criminal history records, and data on program completion and participation provided by the BOP.

In this report, Drug Program Participants were offenders who participated in one of the following programs:

  • Residential Drug Abuse Program (RDAP)
    • The first group comprises 8,474 offenders who the BOP marked as eligible to participate in RDAP while serving time in BOP custody.
    • RDAP is the BOP’s “most intensive” drug treatment program and requires that participants receive treatment in a specialized unit that houses only RDAP participants
       
  • Non-Residential Drug Abuse Program (NRDAP)
    • The second group comprises 4,446 offenders who were marked as eligible to participate in NRDAP.
    • NRDAP consists of drug treatment, conducted primarily in a group setting, over the course of 12 to 24 weeks.

    Key Findings

    This study observed a significant reduction in the likelihood of recidivism for offenders who completed the Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program or the Non-Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program.

    • RDAP Completers had lower rates of recidivism, compared to eligible offenders who did not complete or participate in the program. Less than half of RDAP Completers (48.2%) recidivated in the eight-year follow-up period of this study, compared to 68.0 percent of RDAP Eligible Non-Participants.
      • RDAP Completers were 27 percent less likely to recidivate compared to RDAP-Eligible Non-Participants.
      • RDAP Completers had higher post-release rates of drug-related recidivism, compared to RDAP Participants and RDAP Eligible Non-Participants.
    • NRDAP Completers had lower recidivism rates compared to offenders who did not complete or participate in the program. Nearly half (49.9%) of offenders who completed NRDAP recidivated during the study period, compared to over half (54.0%) of NRDAP Eligible Non-Participants.
      • NRDAP Completers were 17 percent less likely to recidivate compared to eligible non-participants and offenders with a history of substance abuse who served at least five months in BOP custody.

May 17, 2022 in Detailed sentencing data, Drug Offense Sentencing, Reentry and community supervision | Permalink | Comments (2)

Friday, May 13, 2022

Split Second Circuit panel debates required procedures for imposing more than a year when revoking supervised release

A helpful reader made sure I did not miss the interesting and lengthy Second Circuit panel discussion in US v. Peguero, No. 20-3798 (2d Cir. May 13, 2022) (available here).  The issue generating lengthy discussion in the case concerns the required procedures for revoking his term of supervised release.  Here is portion of the majority opinion: 

Although the issue was neither raised nor briefed by either party, the dissent asserts that Section 3583(e)(3), which allows a judge to revoke supervised release based upon a finding of new criminal conduct, is unconstitutional.  In particular, the dissent contends that a revocation hearing based on new conduct punishable by more than one year in prison violates a defendant’s right to indictment, right to confront witnesses, right to a jury trial, and right to remain free unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  In support of this proposition, the dissent relies upon the “essential differences” between terms of probation or parole — which the dissent contends do not require such constitutional protections — and supervised release.  We respectfully disagree.

As an initial matter, the dissent’s proposed holding is contrary to our well-settled precedent, from which this panel is not free to deviate.  In addition to the requirement that we adhere to binding precedent, we conclude that the dissent’s approach is unsupported by the Constitution itself in light of the clear and direct connection between a supervised release term (and its accompanying conditions) and the original conviction and sentence.  Moreover, we are unpersuaded by the dissent’s contention that there are distinctive characteristics of a supervised release revocation proceeding, as compared to parole and probation, that would justify the differing constitutional protections the dissent proposes. Finally, we believe that the dissent’s proposed rule would have a drastic and devastating impact on the effective functioning of the criminal justice system.

The dissent by Judge Underhill starts this way:

Carlos Peguero was sentenced to twenty-eight months in federal prison for criminal conduct proscribed by the State of New York.  Peguero was not federally indicted for the felony crime of assault, was denied the right to confront witnesses against him, was never advised of his right to a jury trial, and was found “guilty” by a preponderance of the evidence.  In short, Peguero was imprisoned without being afforded any of the fundamental Constitutional rights that protect citizens from arbitrary imprisonment by the government.

I acknowledge that the district court acted consistently with existing precedent of this Court, and that the majority feels constrained to follow that precedent and to affirm.  Importantly, however, no decision of the Supreme Court or this Court has ever analyzed whether a person on supervised release facing violation charges punishable by more than one year in prison has a right to indictment on those charges.  Nor has either Court ever held that proceedings that require indictment do not constitute a “prosecution” and therefore can be decided without affording the accused his Sixth Amendment rights.  Because this appeal raises Confrontation Clause issues, and because I conclude that Peguero had the right to be indicted for his claimed supervised release violations, I further conclude that he had the right to confront witnesses against him.  In my view, prior decisions allowing a judge to sentence a person to prison for more than a year based on a violation of supervised release without providing such essential Constitutional protections are misguided and based on unsupportable legal fictions.  Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

May 13, 2022 in Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Reentry and community supervision, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (1)

Thursday, May 05, 2022

Important new report explores "The Limits of Recidivism: Measuring Success After Prison"

26459-0309276977-450The quoted portion of this post is the title of this important new report released by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine.  Here is an account of this report from the NAS website:

Nearly 600,000 people are released from state and federal prisons annually. Whether these individuals will successfully reintegrate into their communities has been identified as a critical measure of the effectiveness of the criminal legal system.  However, evaluating the successful reentry of individuals released from prison is a challenging process, particularly given limitations of currently available data and the complex set of factors that shape reentry experiences.

The Limits of Recidivism: Measuring Success After Prison finds that the current measures of success for individuals released from prison are inadequate.  The use of recidivism rates to evaluate post-release success ignores significant research on how and why individuals cease to commit crimes, as well as the important role of structural factors in shaping post-release outcomes.  The emphasis on recidivism as the primary metric to evaluate post-release success also ignores progress in other domains essential to the success of individuals returning to communities, including education, health, family, and employment.

In addition, the report highlights the unique and essential insights held by those who have experienced incarceration and proposes that the development and implementation of new measures of post-release success would significantly benefit from active engagement with individuals with this lived experience.  Despite significant challenges, the report outlines numerous opportunities to improve the measurement of success among individuals released from prison and the report’s recommendations, if implemented, will contribute to policies that increase the health, safety, and security of formerly incarcerated persons and the communities to which they return.

The full report runs a full 200 pages, and this three-page pdf provides highlights.  And this press release also provides this additional overview and more summary details, and here is an excerpt:

Recidivism is an inadequate measurement of success after release from prison, says a new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The report recommends researchers develop supplementary measures that evaluate success across multiple areas of a person’s life after prison — including employment, housing, health, social support, and personal well-being — and that measure interactions with the criminal justice system with more nuance. Federal efforts should be directed to developing national standards for recidivism data and new measurements....

“Our report draws on the expertise of individuals who have experienced reentry, those who work in corrections and reentry services, as well as victims’ advocates and many other communities — and it’s clear that it’s time we recognize the numerous shortcomings of relying exclusively on recidivism data,” said Richard Rosenfeld, Curators’ Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, and chair of the committee that wrote the report. “Better measures could open many doors for better decision-making and policy.”...

Recidivism is also limited in that it is a binary measure, says the report. Decades of research have shown that ceasing criminal activity is a process and may involve setbacks. Recidivism rates fail to capture indicators of progress toward the cessation of criminal activity, such as reductions in the seriousness of criminal activity or increases in time between release and a criminal event. Researchers should supplement recidivism rates with these measures of moving away from crime, the report says.

The report recommends the development of new measures of post-release success that take into account a number of factors in people’s lives after incarceration, including personal well-being, education, employment, housing, family and social supports, health, civic and community engagement, and legal involvement.  In particular, significant efforts — including by federal agencies — should be directed to developing national standards for measuring post-release success.  Creating national standards could make data easier to compare across programs and jurisdictions. Creating a website that contains core measures and data collection instruments could hasten development of these standards, the report says.

Federal agencies, including the National Institute of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Bureau of Justice Assistance, and National Institutes of Health, should convene research panels to assess new measures of post-release success.  These agencies should also solicit grant proposals from researchers and practitioners who work collaboratively with formerly incarcerated people to review new measures.

Researchers should also develop new ways to measure barriers to and facilitators of post-release success, which could help improve understanding of how to best serve those released from prison. Individuals released from prison face a number of significant barriers, such as returning to communities without adequate employment opportunities, or lacking access to mental health counseling, among others — and better measures could enhance our understanding of which community and policy factors make post-release success more or less likely.

May 5, 2022 in Data on sentencing, Detailed sentencing data, Reentry and community supervision | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, May 04, 2022

"Damned if you do, damned if you don't: How formerly incarcerated men navigate the labor market with prison credentials"

The title of this post is the title of this recent article published in Criminology authored by Sadé L. Lindsay.  Here is its abstract:

Although employment is central to successful reentry, formerly incarcerated people struggle to find work because of criminal stigma, poor education, and sparse work histories. Prison credentials are proposed as one solution to alleviate these challenges by signaling criminal desistance and employability.  Evidence regarding their efficacy, however, is inconsistent.  In this article, I develop a novel explanation — the prison credential dilemma — highlighting the numerous and contradictory ways employers may interpret prison credentials as positive and negative signals.

Drawing on 50 qualitative interviews with formerly incarcerated men in Franklin County, Ohio, I examine how the prison credential dilemma and the uncertainty it produces shape their job search strategies and pathways to employment.  I find that participants concealed or obscured institutional affiliations of prison credentials on job applications to signal employability rather than their criminal records.  In job interviews, however, prison credentials were used to divert conversations away from their criminal record toward skills and criminal desistance via the use of redemptive narratives.  Participants also attempted to acquire credentials outside of prison and/or pursued temporary, precarious jobs, aspiring for such physically strenuous and poorly paid work to materialize into stable employment.  This study has implications for prison programming as well as policies and practices aiming to improve reentry outcomes.

May 4, 2022 in Prisons and prisoners, Reentry and community supervision | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sunday, April 24, 2022

"The consequences of Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act for police arrests"

The title of this post is the title of this notable empirical paper that was published earlier this year but came to my attention this weekend.  Here is its abstract:

Background & methods

National protests in the summer of 2020 drew attention to the significant presence of police in marginalized communities.  Recent social movements have called for substantial police reforms, including “defunding the police,” a phrase originating from a larger, historical abolition movement advocating that public investments be redirected away from the criminal justice system and into social services and health care.  Although research has demonstrated the expansive role of police to respond a broad range of social problems and health emergencies, existing research has yet to fully explore the capacity for health insurance policy to influence rates of arrest in the population.  To fill this gap, we examine the potential effect of Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on arrests in 3,035 U.S. counties.  We compare county-level arrests using FBI Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program Data before and after Medicaid expansion in 2014–2016, relative to counties in non-expansion states. We use difference-in-differences (DID) models to estimate the change in arrests following Medicaid expansion for overall arrests, and violent, drug, and low-level arrests.

Results

Police arrests significantly declined following the expansion of Medicaid under the ACA. Medicaid expansion produced a 20–32% negative difference in overall arrests rates in the first three years.  We observe the largest negative differences for drug arrests: we find a 25–41% negative difference in drug arrests in the three years following Medicaid expansion, compared to non-expansion counties.  We observe a 19–29% negative difference in arrests for violence in the three years after Medicaid expansion, and a decrease in low-level arrests between 24–28% in expansion counties compared to non-expansion counties. Our main results for drug arrests are robust to multiple sensitivity analyses, including a state-level model.

Conclusions

Evidence in this paper suggests that expanded Medicaid insurance reduced police arrests, particularly drug-related arrests.  Combined with research showing the harmful health consequences of chronic policing in disadvantaged communities, greater insurance coverage creates new avenues for individuals to seek care, receive treatment, and avoid criminalization.  As police reform is high on the agenda at the local, state, and federal level, our paper supports the perspective that broad health policy reforms can meaningfully reduce contact with the criminal justice system under historic conditions of mass criminalization.

April 24, 2022 in Drug Offense Sentencing, Reentry and community supervision | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, April 18, 2022

"A Welfare Analysis of Medicaid and Crime"

The title of this post is the title of this notable new empirical paper now on SSRN and authored by Erkmen Giray Aslim, Murat Mungan and Han Yu.  Here is its abstract:

We calculate conservative estimates for the marginal value of public funds (MVPF) associated with providing Medicaid to inmates exiting prison.  Our MVPF estimates, which measure the ratio between the benefits associated with the policy (measured in terms of willingness to pay) and its costs net of fiscal externalities, range between 3.44 and 10.61.  A large proportion of the benefits that we account for are related to the reduced future criminal involvement of exiting inmates who receive Medicaid.  Using a difference-in-differences approach, we find that Medicaid expansions reduce the average number of times a released inmate is reimprisoned within a year by about 11.5%.

We use this estimate along with key values reported elsewhere (e.g., victimization costs, data on victimization and incarceration) to calculate specific benefits from the policy. These include reduced criminal harm due to reductions in reoffenses; direct benefits to former inmates from receiving Medicaid; increased employment; and reduced loss of liberty due to fewer future reimprisonments.  Net-costs consist of the cost of providing Medicaid net of changes in the governmental cost of imprisonment; changes in the tax revenue due to increased employment; and changes in spending on other public assistance programs. We interpret our estimates as being conservative, because we err on the side of under-estimating benefits and over-estimating costs when data on specific items are imprecise or incomplete.

Our findings are largely consistent with others in the sparse literature investigating the crime-related welfare impacts of Medicaid access, and suggest that public health insurance programs can deliver sizeable indirect benefits from reduced crime in addition to their direct health-related benefits.

April 18, 2022 in National and State Crime Data, Reentry and community supervision | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, April 01, 2022

A second chance for Prez Biden to follow his proclamation about Second Chance Month with some clemency grants

In this post last year, I highlighted some language from the White House's "Proclamation on Second Chance Month, 2021" while stressing that Prez Biden has one particularly important second chance power, namely his historic constitutional clemency authority.  But, a year later, we are sadly still without a single clemency grant from Prez Biden — we had three from Prez Trump by this point in his term — and yet we do now have another White House second chance proclamation.  Here are some passages (and my added emphasis):

April marks Second Chance Month, when we reaffirm the importance of helping people who were formerly incarcerated reenter society. America is a Nation of second chances, and it is critical that our criminal and juvenile justice systems provide meaningful opportunities for rehabilitation and redemption.  It is also vital that we address both the root causes of crime and the underlying needs of returning citizens using resources devoted to prevention, diversion, reentry, trauma-informed care, culturally-specific services, and social support.  By supporting people who are committed to rectifying their mistakes, redefining themselves, and making meaningful contributions to society, we help reduce recidivism and build safer communities.

Every year, over 640,000 people are released from State and Federal prisons.  More than 70 million Americans have a criminal record that creates significant barriers to employment, economic stability, and successful reentry into society.  Thousands of legal and regulatory restrictions prevent these individuals from accessing employment, housing, voting, education, business licensing, and other basic opportunities.  Because of these barriers, nearly 75 percent of people who were formerly incarcerated are still unemployed a year after being released.

We must rethink the existing criminal justice system and whom we send to prison and for how long; how unaddressed trauma and abuse create pipelines to incarceration; how people are treated while incarcerated; how prepared they are to reenter society once they have served their time; and how the racial inequities that lead to disproportionate numbers of incarcerated people of color and other underserved groups.

My Administration recognizes that making the criminal and juvenile justice systems more equitable, just, and effective requires a holistic approach.  It requires eliminating exceedingly long sentences and mandatory minimums that keep people incarcerated longer than they should be. It requires quality job training and educational opportunities during incarceration. It requires providing formerly incarcerated individuals with opportunities to enter the workforce, reunite with their families, find stable and safe homes, and access health care.  It requires expunging and sealing certain criminal records so that people’s futures are not defined by their past....

NOW, THEREFORE, I, JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR., President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim April 2022 as Second Chance Month.  I call upon all government officials, educators, volunteers, and all the people of the United States to observe the month with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities.

I like the all the sentiments in this proclamation, but Prez Biden has to start "walking the walk" instead of just "talking the talk."  The federal sentencing system has many individuals serving "exceedingly long sentences and mandatory minimums that keep people incarcerated longer than they should be."  As one detailed example, this terrific recent research paper authored by Alex Fraga, who serves as a Senior Research Associate at Ohio State's Drug Enforcement and Policy Center, documents the thousands of persons subject to federal life sentences for drug offenses.   Prez Biden can and should, today and tomorrow and every day he is in office, use his clemency pen to begin the process of "eliminating exceedingly long sentences" in the federal system.  To its credit, this proclamation notes that " racial inequities that lead to disproportionate numbers of incarcerated people of color and other underserved groups."  Dr. Fraga's report highlights this reality in one context, as she details at lengthy just how "racial disparity in the imposition of life or de facto life sentences in the federal system for drug offenses is glaring."  Again, Prez Biden can take direct action to start to remedy these problems with some commutation grants.

Turning to the discussion of re-entry, the proclamation rightly call for more "expunging and sealing [of] certain criminal records so that people’s futures are not defined by their past."  However, in the federal criminal justice system, there is currently no statutory mechanism for expunging or sealing of any federal criminal records, and thus only the pardon power can eliminate a federal criminal record creating "significant barriers to employment, economic stability, and successful reentry into society."  Of course, since millions of Americans labor with federal criminal records, it would be unrealistic to expect Prez Biden or any president to conduct mass pardoning.  But it would still be quite important and impactful, while preaching about second chances, to at least do some pardoning of at least a few who obviously deserve this kind of second chance.  And, to be potentially more effective in this context and others, Prez Biden should be urging Congress to enact federal statutory tools for expungement and record sealing comparable to what exists (and is often getting expanded) in every single state across our great nation.  

I could go on and on, but I will close simply by asserting that it feels a bit like an April Fool's joke for the President to "call upon all government officials, educators, volunteers, and all the people of the United States to observe the [Second Chance] month with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities" when he himself so far has done so little direct second chance work.  Sigh.

Prior related post from last year:

April 1, 2022 in Clemency and Pardons, Reentry and community supervision, Sentences Reconsidered, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (16)

"Releasing Older Prisoners Convicted of Violent Crimes: The Unger Story"

The title of this post is the title of this new article now available via SSRN and authored by Michael Millemann, Jennifer Chapman and Samuel Feder. Here is its abstract:

This article is a retrospective analysis of the significant Maryland decision, Unger v. State, which resulted in one of the most interesting and important unplanned criminal justice experiments in Maryland and national history.  On May 24, 2012, Maryland’s highest court released a decision that shocked the Maryland legal world and gave older life-sentenced Maryland prisoners their first real hope of release in decades.  In Unger v. State, the Maryland Court of Appeals made retroactive a 1980 decision that had invalidated a historic instruction that Maryland judges had given juries in criminal cases for over 150 years.  In that instruction, judges told the lay jurors that they, not the judge, were the ultimate judges of the law, and what the judge said was advisory only. 

A fair reading of the Unger decision was that all prisoners convicted before 1981 were entitled to new trials.  Subsequent decisions confirmed this reading.  Over six years, 200 of these older prisoners impacted by the Unger decision were released on probation.  This article examines the jury-determines-the-law instruction, the Unger decision, and the implementation of Unger, largely through the releases of older prisoners convicted of violent crimes.  In this article, we identify what we believe is important about the Unger story, not just in Maryland but also nationally, including the impact of race in criminal justice, the ability to release older prisoners with appropriate support, and how the lessons learned from the Unger decision can provide a model for reentry programs.

April 1, 2022 in Offender Characteristics, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Reentry and community supervision, Sentences Reconsidered | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, March 29, 2022

Split North Carolina court finds some felon disenfranchisement violates state constitution

As reported in this local article, "North Carolina’s law banning many people with felony records from voting after they get out of prison is unconstitutional, a state court ruled Monday."  Here is more (with a link to the lengthy ruling):

Until now, state law allowed people with felony convictions to vote only once they finish their sentence.  That didn’t only include their prison sentence; it also included probation or parole, which sometimes can last for years after someone is released from prison.

Monday’s ruling, first reported by Carolina Public Press, changes that.  Now — pending a potential appeal of the ruling — people with criminal records can vote once they have rejoined society and are no longer behind bars.  The judges wrote that “if a person otherwise eligible to vote is not in jail or prison for a felony conviction, they may lawfully register and vote in North Carolina."

It wasn’t immediately clear if Republican lawmakers, who have defended the law so far, will appeal again.

The law is unconstitutional for generally violating people’s rights, the judges wrote Monday, but also for being explicitly targeted at Black people. Specifically, they wrote that the law “was enacted with the intent of discriminating against African American people and has a demonstrably disproportionate and discriminatory impact.”...

The News & Observer had previously reported that around 55,000 people might be affected by such a change, after an earlier ruling and subsequent appeal in this same case.  The new standard, that people can vote once they leave prison, is the most common practice nationwide, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.  Two states, Maine and Vermont, let people vote even while in prison.  But most have at least some restrictions, with varying degrees of severity.

The ruling was 2-1 by the panel of three superior court judges assigned to the case. Judge John Dunlow, a Republican from Granville County, dissented.  The two in the majority were Judge Keith Gregory, a Wake County Democrat, and Judge Lisa Bell of Mecklenburg County, who is unaffiliated.

A small part of the law was already struck down just before the 2020 elections, The News & Observer reported, on the basis that in some cases the requirement still functioned similar to a Jim Crow-era poll tax — since some people remained on probation or parole simply for being unable to pay court fines or other costs.

March 29, 2022 in Collateral consequences, Race, Class, and Gender, Reentry and community supervision | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, March 15, 2022

Spotlighting the new widening potential of electronic monitoring

This new Los Angeles Times op-ed authored by Kate Weisburd and Alicia Virani and headlined "The monster of incarceration quietly expands through ankle monitors," spotlights why many are concerned that electronic monitoring and other new supervision tool may expanded rather than reduce our nation's carceral footprint.  I recommend the full piece, and here are excerpts (with links from the original):

In Los Angeles County, the number of people ordered to wear electronic ankle monitors as a condition of pretrial release went up 5,250% in the last six years, according to a recent report by the UCLA Criminal Justice Program. The figure rose from just 24 individuals in 2015 to more than 1,200 in 2021.  This type of carceral surveillance is becoming the “new normal” across the U.S....

It’s widely defended as “better than jail,” but being “better than jail” does not make a criminal justice policy sound — much less humane or legal....  It’s deceptive to even compare jail and ankle monitors as though they are the only two options.  There is a third option: freedom.  In 2015 and before, L.A. judges were unlikely to order electronic monitoring as a condition of release before trial. Judges either set bail, released people on their own recognizance or ordered that people be detained in jail until trial.

Now, judges seem to be defaulting to electronic monitoring, perhaps for people who would — or should — otherwise be free. For people who would otherwise be in jail, monitoring may be preferable.  But for people who are monitored instead of being released on their own recognizance, monitoring reflects a dangerous expansion of the carceral state.

This “E-jail” entails a web of invasive rules and surveillance technologies, such as GPS-equipped ankle monitors, that allow law enforcement to tag, track and analyze the precise locations of people who have not been convicted of any crime....  The difference between E-jails and real jails is a matter of degree, not of kind.  A recent report by researchers at George Washington University School of Law details the myriad ways that monitoring undermines autonomy, dignity, privacy, financial security and social relationships when they are needed most.

Like in jail, people on monitors lose their liberty. In L.A., as elsewhere, people on monitors are forbidden from leaving their house without pre-approval from authorities days in advance.  Like in jail, people on monitors have little privacy and must comply with dozens of strict rules governing every aspect of daily life. Failing to charge the monitoring device, changing a work or school schedule without permission or making an unauthorized trip to the grocery store can land someone back in jail for a technical violation. It is hardly surprising that in L.A. County, technical rule violations, not new criminal offenses, led to more than 90% of the terminations and reincarcerations applied to people on electronic monitors.

 

Ankle monitoring also further entrenches the very racial and economic inequities that bail reform sought to address. In 2021, 84% of people on pretrial electronic monitoring in L.A. County were either Black or Latinx.  And in most places, though not in L.A., people on ankle monitors before trial are required to pay for the device.   These fees are on top of other costs, such as electric bills (to charge the monitor), cellphone bills (to communicate with the monitoring agency) and the cost of care and transportation for family members that is required because people on monitors often cannot leave home....

There is, however, some reason for optimism.  After years of community organizing, L.A. County’s Board of Supervisors recently passed a motion to develop an independent pretrial services agency within a new Justice, Care and Opportunities Department that takes over the role that probation plays in pretrial services.  This new agency has the ability and authority to end the county’s needless reliance on electronic monitoring.  We urge officials to focus on innovative solutions that rely on community-based support rather than punitive and harmful surveillance technology.

March 15, 2022 in Criminal Sentences Alternatives, Reentry and community supervision, Technocorrections, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (8)

Saturday, March 12, 2022

"Card Carrying Sex Offenders"

The title of this post is the title of this new paper authored by Wayne Logan now available via SSRN.  Here is its abstract:

Although it is commonly believed that Americans have never been required to carry and show upon demand personal identification documents, the belief is incorrect.  Over time, select sub-populations have in fact been subject to such a requirement, including free-born and emancipated African-Americans until after the Civil War.  This article examines the targeting of yet another disfavored sub-population: individuals convicted of sex offenses, who are required to register with government authorities.

Today, roughly a dozen states require that registrants obtain and carry identification cards or driver’s licenses signifying their status.  Often, the branding is very overt, such as a stamp of “SEX OFFENDER” or “SEXUAL PREDATOR” in bight colored lettering.  At other times, it is more subtle, such as use of a “U,” denoting that the individual is a “Sexual Deviant.”  The federal government also brands registrants, requiring that their passports display a “unique identifier” stamped in a “conspicuous location.”  The passports must be shown to airport and customs officials, as well others when traveling abroad. With state laws, disclosure is even more pervasive: not only to police, upon demand, but also to myriad other individuals encountered in daily life, such as bank tellers and store clerks.

To date, the laws have faced only a few judicial challenges, which have condoned government branding in principle, yet at times required use of less graphic signifiers.  The decisions, while notable for their reasoning regarding government-compelled speech, have failed to address other significant constitutional concerns, including the First Amendment right of free association, the Fourth Amendment prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination.  As important, courts have ignored the troubling implications of allowing governments to force individuals to publicly self-stigmatize and systematically compel, under threat of criminal sanction, that they be complicit in their own surveillance.  The article frames and illuminates these issues for the important coming important debate regarding the authority of government to target not only individuals convicted of criminal offenses, but anyone it thinks worthy of public stigmatization and monitoring, possibly for their lifetimes.

March 12, 2022 in Collateral consequences, Criminal Sentences Alternatives, Reentry and community supervision, Sex Offender Sentencing | Permalink | Comments (5)

Saturday, March 05, 2022

New Federal Sentencing Reporter double issue explores "Financial Sanctions in Sentencing and Corrections"

I am very pleased to now be able to spotlight the newest Federal Sentencing Reporter issue, which is actually a special double issue devoted to the topic "Financial Sanctions in Sentencing and Corrections: Critical Issues, Innovations, and Opportunities." This amazing issue has nearly two dozen article authored by more than three dozen leading academics and researchers. 

Professors Jordan Hyatt and Nathan Link deserve worlds of credit for putting this amazing issue together, and their "Editors’ Observations"  which introduces the issue is titled "The Cost of Financial Sanctions in Sentencing and Corrections: Avenues for Research, Policy, and Practice." Here is its abstract:  

Financial and monetary obligations, a class of sanctions that includes fines, restitution, and a range of fees, are increasingly recognized as playing a significant role in the operation of the justice system, the lives of the people against whom they are levied, and their communities.  While some financial sanctions play a role in the tailoring of a punishment to the particular individual and the offenses they have been convicted of, others lack this grounding in ideology and serve a more pragmatic- and potentially revenue-driven-goal.  These observations reflect on the current state of research and policy regarding financial sanctions and seek to identify meaningful gaps in the current knowledge base as a foundation for future inquiry.

I highly recommend the full double issue.

March 5, 2022 in Fines, Restitution and Other Economic Sanctions, Purposes of Punishment and Sentencing, Recommended reading, Reentry and community supervision | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, March 03, 2022

Lots of remarkable new CCRC posts highlighting "The Many Roads From Reentry to Reintegration"

Regular readers should recall me highlighting all the great work being done regularly over at the Collateral Consequences Resource Center, and an array of recent postings at CCRC captures all the incredible content connected to its latest publication of a national report surveying various legal mechanisms for restoring rights titled "The Many Roads to Reintegration."   Today's post links to the main publication and sets the context:

We are pleased to publish the March 2022 revision of our national survey of laws restoring rights and opportunities after arrest or conviction, “The Many Roads from Reentry to Reintegration.” Like the earlier report, this report contains a series of essays on various relief mechanisms operating in the states, including legislative restoration of voting and firearms rights, various types of criminal record relief (expungement and sealing, pardon, judicial certificates), and laws limiting consideration of criminal record in fair employment and occupational licensing.

Drawing on material from CCRC’s flagship resource the Restoration of Rights Project, the report grades each state for the scope and efficacy of its laws in nine different relief categories. Based on these grades, it compiles an overall ranking of the states. As described below, most of the states identified as reform leaders in our 2020 report still rank highly, but several new states have joined them. Half a dozen other states made substantial improvements in their ranking by virtue of progressive legislation enacted in 2020 and 2021, in two cases (D.C. and Virginia) rising from the bottom ten to the top 20.

In addition, over the last couple weeks, CCRC has been highlight parts of this report though these individual postings:

Expungement, Sealing & Set-Aside of Convictions: A National Survey

Fair Chance Employment and Occupational Licensure: A National Survey

Executive Pardon: A National Survey

Judicial Diversion and Deferred Adjudication: A National Survey

March 3, 2022 in Collateral consequences, Reentry and community supervision, Sentences Reconsidered, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (1)

Wednesday, February 23, 2022

"Waiting for Relief: A National Survey of Waiting Periods for Record Clearing"

The title of this post is the title of this notable new report by Margaret Love and David Schlussel of the Collateral Consequences Resource Center.  Here is this report's starting portion of its introduction:

Background: This report is the first-ever comprehensive national survey of the period of time a person, who is otherwise eligible to expunge or seal a misdemeanor or felony conviction record, must wait before obtaining this relief. Waiting periods are usually established by statute and can range from 0 to 20 years, a period that typically (though by no means invariably) commences after completion of the court-imposed sentence.  Also typically, during a waiting period the person must be free from certain forms of involvement with the justice system: from a felony conviction, from any conviction, or from any arrest, again depending on state law.  These and other conditions and circumstances may extend (or occasionally shorten) the length of a waiting period in specific cases. 

Contents of the Report: Following this introduction, the report consists of two 50-state Tables, one showing the waiting periods applicable to clearing of misdemeanors, and the other showing the waiting periods applicable to clearing of felonies, with states that have no general record clearing listed at the bottom of each table.  The Tables are followed by maps showing the geographical distribution of waiting periods for each type of conviction.  The maps are followed by an appendix describing in greater detail the laws governing waiting periods in each of the jurisdictions studied.

February 23, 2022 in Collateral consequences, Criminal Sentences Alternatives, Reentry and community supervision, Sentences Reconsidered | Permalink | Comments (1)

Thursday, February 17, 2022

"Criminal Violations"

The title of this post is the title of this notable new article authored by Jacob Schuman and now available via SSRN. Here is its abstract:

Violations of community supervision are major drivers of incarceration.  Four million people are on probation, parole, or supervised release, and one-third of them will eventually be found in violation, sending 350,000 people to prison each year.  To reduce incarceration rates, criminal-justice reformers have called to lower sentences for non-criminal “technical violations” like missed meetings, skipped curfews, etc.

In this Article, I offer the first comprehensive analysis of “criminal violations,” the other half of cases where people violate their supervision by committing new crimes.  Based on an original empirical study of U.S. Sentencing Commission data and an examination of federal caselaw, I make three novel observations.  First, despite the popular focus on technical violations, criminal violations are the primary drivers of punishment via revocation of supervised release, accounting for two-thirds of the total prison time imposed. Second, while technical violations allow the government to punish non-criminal behavior, criminal violations give the government an additional justification for penalizing criminal conduct and an easier alternative to criminal prosecution.  Third, the immigration crime of illegal reentry is the basis for as many as one-third of all felony violations, revealing that supervised release is not just a program of surveillance and support, but also a tool of immigration enforcement.

After describing these observations, I critique the law by arguing that revocation for criminal violations inflicts unfair double punishment and erodes constitutional rights. Revoking supervised release for criminal violations triggers an exception to the ordinary rules of prosecution, which federal law has generalized into a standard practice of government.  When defendants on supervised release commit new crimes, prosecution without revocation is a better and fairer way to punish them.

February 17, 2022 in Data on sentencing, Detailed sentencing data, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Reentry and community supervision, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, February 10, 2022

US Sentencing Commission releases big new report on "Recidivism of Federal Violent Offenders Released in 2010"

As I keep noting in recent years, it is has been great to see the US Sentencing Commission continuing to produce a lot of useful data reports even as its policy work is necessarily on hiatus due to a lack of confirmed Commissioners.  The latest example released today is this 116-page new report titled "Recidivism of Federal Violent Offenders Released in 2010."  This USSC webpage provides an overview of the report along with a bunch of "Key Findings," some of which are reprinted here:

Overview

This report is the third in a series continuing the Commission’s research of the recidivism of federal offenders.  It provides an overview of the recidivism of the 13,883 federal violent offenders released from incarceration or sentenced to a term of probation in 2010, combining data regularly collected by the Commission with data compiled from criminal history records from the Federal Bureau of Investigation.  This report provides an overview of recidivism for these offenders and information on key offender and offense characteristics related to recidivism.  This report also compares recidivism outcomes for federal violent offenders released in 2010 to non-violent offenders in the study group....

Key Findings

  • This study demonstrated substantially greater recidivism among violent federal offenders compared to non-violent federal offenders.
    • The recidivism rates of violent and non-violent offenders released in 2005 and 2010 remained unchanged despite two intervening major developments in the federal criminal justice system — the Supreme Court’s decision in Booker and increased use of evidence-based practices in federal supervision.
    • This finding is consistent with other Commission reports demonstrating higher recidivism among violent offenders...
  • Violent offenders recidivated at a higher rate than non-violent offenders.  Over an eight-year follow-up period, nearly two-thirds (63.8%) of violent offenders released in 2010 were rearrested, compared to more than one-third (38.4%) of non-violent offenders.
  • Violent offenders recidivated more quickly than non-violent offenders.  The median time to rearrest was 16 months for violent offenders and 22 months for non-violent offenders.
  • Among offenders who were rearrested, violent offenders were rearrested for a violent offense at a higher rate than non-violent offenders, 38.9 percent compared to 22.0 percent.
    • Assault was the most common type of rearrest for both violent and non-violent offenders, but a larger proportion of violent offenders (24.9%) than non-violent offenders (15.4%) were rearrested for assault.
  • Age at release is strongly correlated with recidivism for both violent and non-violent offenders. Rearrest rates decrease steadily with each age group for both groups of offenders.  However, violent offenders had higher rearrest rates than non-violent offenders in each age group.  Among offenders aged 60 and older, the oldest group of offenders studied, 25.1 percent of violent offenders were rearrested compared to 11.5 percent of non-violent offenders.
  • Criminal History Category (CHC) is strongly correlated with recidivism for both violent and non-violent offenders. Rearrest rates increase steadily with each CHC for both groups of offenders. However, violent offenders had higher rearrest rates than non-violent offenders in every CHC. Analyzed separately, violent instant offenders (59.9%) and violent prior offenders (64.8%) were rearrested at a higher rate than non-violent offenders (38.4%)....
  • The current recidivism findings for violent and non-violent offenders released in 2010 replicate the Commission’s findings for offenders released in 2005. Nearly two-thirds (63.8%) of violent offenders released in 2010 were rearrested, the same rate for violent offenders released in 2005 (63.8%). More than one-third (38.4%) of non-violent offenders released in 2010 were rearrested, a comparable rate to non-violent offenders released in 2005 (39.8%).

February 10, 2022 in Data on sentencing, Detailed sentencing data, Offender Characteristics, Offense Characteristics, Reentry and community supervision | Permalink | Comments (4)

Wednesday, February 09, 2022

"How 4 States Cut Their Criminal Justice Budgets Without Sacrificing Safety"

The title of this post is the title of this notable new article from the  Winter 2022  edition of State Legislatures magazine produced by the National Conference of State Legislatures.   I recommend this piece in full, and here is how it begins and a few highlights:

About 5% of states’ general fund budgets go to criminal justice — just over $45 billion in fiscal year 2019 — so many lawmakers are determined to make every dollar count.  But that’s not as easy as it might sound.

“The challenge for legislators is to reduce the use of high-cost, low-return policies and shift the savings into programs that have been shown to reduce crime,” says Jake Horowitz, director of The Pew Charitable Trusts’ Public Safety Performance Project.

Lawmakers have a variety of policy options at their disposal, but what actually works? Programs in Louisiana, Michigan, Oregon and Missouri provide some answers.

Louisiana: Reducing Prison Admissions...

Michigan: Shortening Jail Stays...

Oregon: Shoring Up Short-Term Transitional Leave...

Missouri: Reducing Revocations of Community Supervision...

“When people have access to high quality behavioral health services, interactions with law enforcement go down and, in the long term, we see reductions in the number of people in the criminal justice system,” says Alison Lawrence, associate director of NCSL’s Criminal Justice Program.

Corrections research departments are another valuable resource.  Lawmakers looking for effective ways to reduce their criminal justice budgets are finding that public safety and researched-backed corrections policy go hand in hand.  Cutting a research department, Horowitz says, “You might save a fully loaded salary, but then you’re flying blind, and you don’t know what is driving your costs.”

February 9, 2022 in Reentry and community supervision, Scope of Imprisonment, State Sentencing Guidelines | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, February 07, 2022

Celebrating "real" recidivism is essentially nil, and even technical violations stunningly low, for CARES home confinement cohort

Data from the US Sentencing Commission indicates that roughly 1 in 4 persons who serve time in federal prison gets rearrested within the first two years after release (see Table 2 in this 2016 USSC report), though some rearrests are for a violation of supervision conditions rather than a new crime.  Though I dislike when recidivism is broadly defined to included just "technical" violations, these USSC data provide useful and needed context for this Washington Times article headlined "320 federal inmates reoffended while on pandemic-related home confinement."  Here are excerpts (with emphasis added):

More than 300 federal inmates who were transferred to home confinement as a pandemic mitigation strategy reoffended and were sent back to prison, a top federal official said Thursday. Bureau of Prisons Director Michael Carvajal told the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security that substance abuse was the “most common” offense that landed inmates back behind bars.

“About 160 of those 320 were for abuse of alcohol or drugs,” Mr. Carvajal said. “Some of them were escapes – they weren’t where they were supposed to be – most of them were violations of that nature. Some was misconduct, eight of those were new crimes committed, the rest of those were technical violations.”

A bureau spokesperson told The Washington Times that six of the eight new crimes were drug-related, one was for escape with prosecution and one was for smuggling non-citizens....

During Thursday’s hearing, he said the 320 reoffending inmates are among more than 37,000 who were transferred to home confinement since Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES) in March 2020 to address threats posed by the pandemic.

The CARES Act allows the bureau to transfer certain low-level inmates convicted of nonviolent crimes to home confinement if they meet the COVID-19 risk factors identified by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. While some transfers have been put back in prison, others have completed their sentences and 5,485 inmates are still in home confinement.

In other words, it seems that not one single violent crime has been committed by more than 37,000 persons released early to home confinement under the CARES Act authority.  This is an amazing reality to be robustly celebrated, in part because it reveals that our federal system can effectively identify low-risk offenders who can be released early at essentially no risk to public safety.  

This great new Inquest piece by Jessica Morton & Samara Spence, titled "Home Rule: In weighing the future of thousands placed on home confinement during the pandemic, the government should prioritize where they are now: in their communities," places these data in another bit of telling context:

BOP’s own numbers show that people placed on home confinement pursuant to the CARES Act do not need to be returned to prison to prevent them from committing crimes. According to BOP data, only 9 of the 4,879 people placed on home confinement under the CARES Act — that is, less than two-tenths of a percent — have been reincarcerated for new criminal conduct.  By way of comparison, more than 100 BOP employees have been arrested, convicted of, or sentenced for crimes since the beginning of 2019. Given that BOP has 36,739 employees, BOP employees have a 1.5 times higher rate of alleged criminal conduct than the people the agency supervises on CARES Act home confinement, over a roughly similar period.

This Inquest piece should be read in full because it has a number of additional great points beyond the remarkable reality that BOP employees are apparently more of a public safety threat than the CARES home confinement cohort.  But the broader point is that federal experience over the last two years shows that is is possible to decarcerate a certain prison population without posing any real threats to public safety; indeed, done the right way and at the right time it may be possible to have more freedom and less crime.  That is in part the premise driving various elements of the FIRST STEP Act, and the CARES home confinement cohort has, in essense, demonstrated "proof of concept."

Of course, home confinement release with constant risk of reconfinement during a pandemic is not "normal" in any respect and so I do not think it fair to try to extrapolate too far from these encouraging recidivism data.  Nevertheless, whether a fan or a foe of modern criminal justice reform efforts, the impressively good behavior of the CARES home confinement cohort should be something that everyone can celebrate.

February 7, 2022 in Impact of the coronavirus on criminal justice, Prisons and prisoners, Reentry and community supervision | Permalink | Comments (7)

Tuesday, February 01, 2022

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau reports on "Criminal Justice Financial Ecosystem"

This official press release, fully titled "CFPB Report Shows Criminal Justice Financial Ecosystem Exploits Families at Every Stage: Report Finds Products and Services Rife with Burdensome Fees and Lack of Choice," summarizes a notable new publication from the government agency tasked with safeguarding consumer financial products.  Here are excerpts from the press release, which includes a link to the CFPB's new report:

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) today published a review of the financial issues facing people and families who come in contact with the criminal justice system. The report, “Justice-Involved Individuals and the Consumer Financial Marketplace,”  describes an ecosystem rife with burdensome fees and lack of choice, and where families are increasingly being forced to shoulder the costs. It walks through the financial challenges families encounter at every stage of the criminal justice process, and the ways in which providers — often for-profit private companies — are leveraging a lack of consumer choice and their own market dominance to impose hefty fees at families’ expense.

“Many incarcerated individuals and their families pay exorbitant fees for basic financial services,” said CFPB Director Rohit Chopra. “Today’s report describes how private companies undermine the ability for individuals to successfully transition from incarceration.”

Contact with the criminal justice system is extremely common in the United States. In 2019, 2.1 million adults in America were in jail or prison, another 4.4 million were under community supervision (such as probation), and 1 in 3 adults — or 77 million Americans — had a criminal record.  Those figures do not reflect the family members and friends who often provide financial support to people who have been arrested, incarcerated, or released from jail or prison, and who are also affected by shoddy financial products and services entwined in the criminal justice system. The burdens of the criminal justice system — and its financial impacts — fall most heavily on people of color, and women and people with lower incomes of all races and ethnicities.  Surveys have repeatedly found women, and specifically Black women, disproportionately shoulder the costs of staying in touch with loved ones in prison and paying court-related debt for family members, sometimes spending up to a third of their income on such costs and even forgoing basic necessities for themselves.

Today’s report examines the financial burdens that can occur from arrest to incarceration to reentry.  It shows that as soon as families come into contact with the criminal justice system, they are confronted with numerous financial challenges, and that for-profit companies are embedded throughout.  Specifically, the report raises issues about:

  • Burdensome fees: Many local, state, and federal governments impose criminal justice debt on the people who interact with it in the form of fines, fees, and restitution.  The consequences of failing to pay fines and fees can be severe, forcing people to choose between making payments they may struggle to afford and risking arrest, prosecution, detention, or reincarceration.  States are also increasingly using third-party debt collectors to collect criminal justice debt.  These debt collectors can tack on additional fines and fees that, if not paid, can result in incarceration.
  • Lack of consumer choice: For incarcerated people and their families, the choice of financial service providers is limited throughout the criminal justice system. In a normal functioning market, products compete on price and quality, but all too often, government contracts in the criminal justice system mean just one choice for consumers....
  • Shifting financial burdens: Increasingly, governments are shifting the cost of incarceration to people who are incarcerated and their families, forcing individuals to pay for charges related to court operations, a court-appointed public defender, drug testing, prison library use, and probation supervision. People are also charged “pay-to-stay” fees for expenses related to their custody and care, like room and board, or medical copayments. When services are outsourced to private companies, the prices set by those companies are often wildly inflated over typical market costs. 

February 1, 2022 in Fines, Restitution and Other Economic Sanctions, Race, Class, and Gender, Reentry and community supervision | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, January 24, 2022

CCRC releases "From Reentry to Reintegration: Criminal Record Reforms in 2021"

2022_CCRC_Annual-Report_Cover-768x994As detailed at this post over at the website of the Collateral Consequences Resource Center, "each year since 2017, CCRC has issued a report on legislation enacted in the past year that is aimed at reducing the barriers faced by people with a criminal record in the workplace, at the ballot box, and in many other areas of daily life."  True to form, CCRC has now released this 55-page report titled  "From Reentry to Reintegration: Criminal Record Reforms in 2021."  The CCRC post about the report provide this helpful review of the full document (emphasis and links from the original):

The title of this post introduces our annual report on new laws enacted during the past year, and emphasizes the continuum from reentry (for those who go to jail or prison) to the full restoration of rights and status represented by reintegrationRecent research indicates that most people with a conviction never have a second one, and that the likelihood of another conviction declines rapidly as more time passes. The goal of full reintegration is thus both an economic and moral imperative.

In the past year the bipartisan commitment to a reintegration agenda has seemed more than ever grounded in economic imperatives, as pandemic dislocations have brought home the need to support, train, and recruit workers who are essential to rebuilding the businesses that are the lifeblood of the economy.  If there is any one thing that will end unwarranted discrimination against people with a criminal history, it is a recognition that it does not pay.

Our 2021 report highlights key developments in reintegration reforms from the past year. It documents that 40 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal government enacted 152 legislative bills and took a number of additional executive actions to restore rights and opportunities to people with an arrest or conviction history. As in past years, a majority of these new laws involved individual record clearing: All told, an astonishing 36 states enacted 93 separate laws that revise, supplement or limit public access to individual criminal records to reduce or eliminate barriers to opportunity. Most of these laws established or expanded laws authorizing expungement, sealing, or set-aside of convictions or arrest records.  Several states enacted judicial record clearing laws for the very first time, and a number of states authorized “clean slate” automatic clearing.  Executive pardoning was revived in several states where it had been dormant for years.

In addition, many of the new laws enacted general provisions limiting considering of criminal record in economic settings: 17 states enacted 26 new laws regulating employment and occupational licensing, and more than a dozen other states enacted laws facilitating access to housing, education, driver’s licenses, and public benefits.

Finally, civil rights restoration continued to make progress: Four states took steps to restore voting rights upon release from prison, bringing the total in that category to 21 (with another two states and D.C. not disenfranchising at all). Three other states and the federal government took steps to expand awareness of voting eligibility by those in jail or prison or after release, and four states acted to restore eligibility for jury service and public office....

From Reentry to Reintegration, Criminal Record Reforms in 2021 is available here.  It includes our third annual legislative Report Card recognizing the most (and least) productive legislatures in 2021.  The body of the report provides topical discussions of last year’s reform measures, followed by an appendix documenting and summarizing the new laws by jurisdiction. More detailed analysis of each state’s law is available in the CCRC Restoration of Rights Project.

January 24, 2022 in Collateral consequences, Reentry and community supervision, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, January 20, 2022

Due surely to implementation of FIRST STEP earned-time credits, federal prison population drops by nearly 4,000 in one week

As noted in this prior post from last Thursday, the Department of Justice last week officially announced its new rule for "implementing the Time Credits program required by the First Step Act" and began awarding retroactive credits to those who were eligible and had already done the work to earn credits.  In my post, I commented that, with the retroactive application of these credits, it would be interesting to see if the federal prison population (which as of Jan 13 BOP reported at 157,596 "Total Federal Inmates") would start to decline.  

A week later, on the first day that BOP updates here its reports of "Total Federal Inmates," there is a dramatic change in the total federal prison population.  Specifically, this morning BOP reports 153,855 "Total Federal Inmates," a decline of 3,741 persons now federal inmates.  This roughly 2.5% drop in the federal inmate population in one week is surely the result of the implementation of FIRST STEP Act earned-time credits, and it will now be interested to see if there are continued drops in the weeks ahead.  (I suspect there will be as implementation must take more than just a week, though I will be very surprised if there are subsequent drops as large as this one.)

Among the notable parts of this story is that it represents a bi-partisan, multi-Congress, multi-administration achievement many years in the making.  Of course, the formal law making this possible was the FIRST STEP Act which was enacted with overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress in 2018 and which President Trump signed after he helped get to the bill to the finish line.  But, well before that bill was passed, congressional leaders and the Justice Department during the Obama years had started drafting and building consensus around the prison reform elements of the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015 (first discussed here in October 2015).  And now, of course, it is the Justice Department of the Biden Administration that finalized and now implements this important earned-time credits program required by the FIRST STEP Act.   

Prior recent related posts:

January 20, 2022 in FIRST STEP Act and its implementation, Prisons and prisoners, Reentry and community supervision, Scope of Imprisonment, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (6)

Sunday, January 16, 2022

Rounding up some more notable recent criminal justice reads at the start the new year

Though the new year is now just two week old, I have seen more than two weeks worth of interesting reads that I have not had a chance to blog about.   I did a round up last Sunday here, but here are a bunch more pieces worth checking out:

From the Christian Science Monitor, "A step toward better justice: Prying open the ‘black box’ of plea deals"

From the Collateral Consequences Resource Center, "A radical new approach to measuring recidivism risk"

From Governing, "Prison Population Drops as States Revamp Admission Policies: State prisons quickly adjusted policies and procedures when the coronavirus pandemic hit to ensure the health and safety of the incarcerated individuals and staff. If these pandemic changes become permanent, states could save $2.7 billion annually."

From The Hill, "Colorado trucker's case provides pathways to revive pardon power"

From the Los Angeles Times, "California was supposed to clear cannabis convictions. Tens of thousands are still languishing"

From The Marshall Project, "People in the Scandal-Plagued Federal Prison System Reveal What They Need in a New Director: 'This is kind of like AA: To move forward, first you have to admit there’s a problem'."

From NBC News, "The Federal Bureau of Prisons is getting a new leader — and another shot at reforms: A year after taking office, President Joe Biden has disappointed many prisoners and guards who were hoping for big changes. Now he has a chance to do more."

From the Prison Policy Initiative, "New data: The changes in prisons, jails, probation, and parole in the first year of the pandemic: Newly released data from 2020 show the impact of early-pandemic correctional policy choices and what kind of change is possible under pressure.  But the data also show how inadequate, uneven, and unsustained policy changes have been: most have already been reversed."

From the UCLA Law COVID Behind Bars Data Project, "New Report Shows Prison Releases Decreased During The Pandemic, Despite A Drop In Incarceration"

From Washington Monthly, "Critical Race Query: If America is irredeemable, why are racial disparities in the criminal justice system plummeting?"

January 16, 2022 in Prisons and prisoners, Recommended reading, Reentry and community supervision, Scope of Imprisonment, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, January 13, 2022

Thousands of federal prisoners finally to get FIRST STEP Act credits as DOJ implements earned time rules

As reported in this new AP article, headlined "Thousands of federal inmates to be released under 2018 law," this weeks brings some big FIRST STEP Act implementation news, just over three years since President Trump signed the landmark sentencing reform legislation.  Here are the basics:

The Justice Department will begin transferring thousands of inmates out of federal prisons this week as part of a sweeping criminal justice overhaul signed by President Donald Trump more than three years ago.

The department, in a rule being published Thursday in the Federal Register, is spelling out how “time credits” for prisoners will work. The bipartisan law is intended to encourage inmates to participate in programs aimed at reducing recidivism, which could let them out of prison earlier....

While the transfers are expected to begin this week, it isn’t clear how many inmates will be released. The department would only say that “thousands” of inmates are being affected.

Under the law signed in December 2018, inmates are eligible to earn time credits — 10 days to 15 days of credit for every 30 days they participate in prison programs to reduce recidivism. The programs range from anger management and drug treatment to educational, work and social skills classes.

The announcement of a finalized rule being published comes about two months after the department’s inspector general sounded an alarm that the Bureau of Prisons had not applied the earned time credits to about 60,000 federal inmates who had completed the programs. It also comes a week after an announcement that the director of the prison agency, Michael Carvajal, will resign from his position in the face of mounting criticism over his leadership.

The Biden administration has faced increased pressure from both Democratic and Republican lawmakers to do more to put in place additional aspects of the First Step Act, and the bureau has been accused of dragging its feet....

The inmates being released will be sent to supervised release programs, released to home confinement or transferred into the bureau’s residential re-entry centers, commonly known as halfway houses. The law allows inmates to earn time credits back to 2018, when the First Step Act was enacted.

The Justice Department says implementation of the finalized rule will begin this week with inmates whose time credits exceed the days remaining on their sentence, are less than a year from release and have a term of supervised release. Transfers are underway. More are expected in the weeks ahead as officials apply the time credits to inmates’ records.

The rule also changes the bureau’s definition of a “day” of credit. A proposed version in January 2020 said inmates would need to participate for eight hours in certain academic programs or prison jobs to qualify for one day’s worth of credit. But the final version changes the timetable and says the prior standard “was inconsistent with the goals” of the law. Inmates will earn 10 days for every 30 days they participate in programs. Inmates who can remain in lower risk categories will be eligible for an additional five days of credit in each 30-day period.

Advocates say the finalized definition of a “day” will make it easier for a wide array of prison programs to count toward time credits and will mean more people will be eligible for release earlier.

This new Justice Department press release, titled "Justice Department Announces New Rule Implementing Federal Time Credits Program Established by the First Step Act," discusses these developments this way:

Today, the Department of Justice announced that a new rule has been submitted to the Federal Register implementing the Time Credits program required by the First Step Act for persons incarcerated in federal facilities who committed nonviolent offenses.  As part of the implementation process, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has begun transferring eligible inmates out of BOP facilities and into either a supervised release program or into Residential Reentry Centers (RRCs) or home confinement (HC).

“The First Step Act, a critical piece of bipartisan legislation, promised a path to an early return home for eligible incarcerated people who invest their time and energy in programs that reduce recidivism,” said Attorney General Merrick B. Garland.  “Today, the Department of Justice is doing its part to honor this promise, and is pleased to implement this important program.”

The First Step Act of 2018 provides eligible inmates the opportunity to earn 10 to 15 days of time credits for every 30 days of successful participation in Evidence Based Recidivism Reduction Programs and Productive Activities.  The earned credits can be applied toward earlier placement in pre-release custody, such as RRCs and HC.  In addition, at the BOP Director’s discretion, up to 12 months of credit can be applied toward Supervised Release.  Inmates are eligible to earn Time Credits retroactively back to Dec. 21, 2018, the date the First Step Act was enacted, subject to BOP’s determination of eligibility.

Implementation will occur on a rolling basis, beginning with immediate releases for inmates whose Time Credits earned exceed their days remaining to serve, are less than 12 months from release, and have a Supervised Release term.  Some of these transfers have already begun, and many more will take place in the weeks and months ahead as BOP calculates and applies time credits for eligible incarcerated individuals.

The final rule will be published by the Federal Register in the coming weeks and will take immediate effect.  The rule, as it was submitted to the Federal Register, can be viewed here: https://www.bop.gov/inmates/fsa/docs/bop_fsa_rule.pdf

This seems like a very big deal, especially with the retroactive application of credits and the new "day" rule for earning credit, and I will be very interested to see if the federal prison population (which today BOP reports at 157,596 "Total Federal Inmates") starts a move back down after having grown by around 6,000 persons during the first year of the Biden Administration.

January 13, 2022 in FIRST STEP Act and its implementation, Prisons and prisoners, Reentry and community supervision, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (8)

Wednesday, January 12, 2022

US Sentencing Commission issues new report on "Recidivism of Federal Drug Trafficking Offenders Released in 2010"

Cover_recidivism-drugs-2021The US Sentencing Commission today published some more findings from its big eight-year recidivism study of federal offenders released from prison in 2010. This new 144-page report is titled "Recidivism of Federal Drug Trafficking Offenders Released in 2010," and this USSC webpage provides this overview with key findings:

Overview

This report is the third in a series continuing the Commission’s research of the recidivism of federal offenders.  It provides an overview of the recidivism of the 13,783 federal drug trafficking offenders released from incarceration or sentenced to a term of probation in 2010, combining data regularly collected by the Commission with data compiled from criminal history records from the Federal Bureau of Investigation.  This report provides an overview of recidivism for these offenders and information on key offender and offense characteristics related to recidivism. This report also compares recidivism outcomes for federal drug trafficking offenders released in 2010 to drug trafficking offenders released in 2005.

The final study group of 13,783 drug trafficking offenders satisfied the following criteria:

  • United States citizens
  • Re-entered the community during 2010 after discharging their sentence of incarceration or by commencing a term of probation in 2010
  • Not reported dead, escaped, or detained
  • Have valid FBI numbers that could be located in criminal history repositories (in at least one state, the District of Columbia, or federal records)

Key Findings

  • The rearrest rate for drug trafficking offenders released in 2010 was similar to the rate for those released in 2005 despite intervening changes in the criminal justice system: the Supreme Court’s decision in Booker, adjustments to sentencing of crack cocaine offenses, and increased use of evidence-based practices in federal supervision.
  • The rearrest rate for a new offense or an alleged violation of supervision conditions was similar for drug trafficking offenders (47.9%) as compared to all other offenders released in 2010 (50.4%).
  • Of those drug trafficking offenders released in 2010 who were rearrested, the median time from re-entry to the first rearrest was 23 months. By comparison, the median time from re-entry to the first rearrest for all other offenders was 16 months.
  • Crack cocaine trafficking offenders were rearrested at the highest rate (57.8%) of any drug type, while powder cocaine trafficking offenders were rearrested at the lowest rate (41.8%). Rearrest rates for other primary drug types ranged from 42.7 percent to 46.7 percent.
  • Approximately one-third (32.0%) of drug trafficking offenders who were rearrested had drug-related offenses (either drug trafficking, drug possession, or another drug offense) as their most serious new charge at rearrest. Nearly one-fifth (19.9%) were charged with assault at rearrest.
  • Criminal history was strongly correlated with rearrest. Drug trafficking offenders’ rearrest rates ranged from 29.9 percent for offenders with zero criminal history points to 74.9 percent for offenders with 13 or more criminal history points.
  • Age at release into the community also was strongly correlated with likelihood of rearrest. Drug trafficking offenders released prior to age 21 had the highest rearrest rate of 70.1 percent, while drug trafficking offenders who were 60 years or older at the time of release had the lowest rearrest rate of 16.4 percent.
  • Over an eight-year follow-up period, 47.9 percent of drug trafficking offenders in the 2010 release cohort were rearrested compared to 50.0 percent of drug trafficking offenders in the 2005 release cohort.

January 12, 2022 in Drug Offense Sentencing, Offender Characteristics, Reentry and community supervision | Permalink | Comments (1)

Tuesday, December 21, 2021

BJS releases "Employment of Persons Released from Federal Prison in 2010"

The Bureau of Justice Statistics has just released this fascinating new accounting of employment dynamics for over 50,000 persons who were released from federal prison in 2010.  Here is how the report starts to explain its scope:

The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) produced this study to fulfill a congressional mandate in the Fair Chance to Compete for Jobs Act, part of the 2019 Defense Reauthorization Act (P.L. 116-92, Title XI, Subtitle B, Section 1124).  Congress tasked BJS and the U.S. Census Bureau with reporting on post-prison employment of persons released from federal prison. The study population in this report includes 51,500 persons released from the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) whose release records could be linked by the U.S. Census Bureau to employment and wage files from the Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) program.

I cannot readily summarize all the findings from this report, but here are a few passages I found notable:

More than two-thirds (67%) of the study population released from federal prison in 2010 obtained formal employment at any point during the 16 quarters following release. However, the total study population’s employment did not exceed 40% in any of the individual 16 quarters after release. The highest percentage of persons in the study population who were employed occurred in the first full quarter after prison release for whites (46%) and American Indians and Alaska Natives (37%), in quarter 2 for blacks (37%) and Hispanics (34%), and in quarter 5 for Asians and Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders (38%). Males who obtained post-prison employment worked for an average of 9.1 quarters during the 16 quarters following release, while females worked an average of 10.2 quarters....

A third (33%) of persons in the study population were employed 12 quarters prior to their admission to federal prison. This percentage declined in each subsequent quarter, with 18% employed in the last full quarter before admission to prison and 11% employed in the quarter of prison admission....

A higher percentage of persons in the study population who served time in federal prison for drug offenses before their 2010 release were employed during the 16 quarters after release (72%) compared to other offense types, while persons who served time for public order offenses had the lowest (60%).  Seventy percent of persons in the study population who returned to federal prison during the time from their 2010 release to yearend 2014 found employment in at least 1 quarter of the follow-up period, compared to 66% of persons who were not reimprisoned by the BOP....

Persons in the study population worked in a wide range of jobs after prison, but five industrial sectors employed the majority of persons released in 2010: administrative support and waste management and remediation services; accommodation and food services; construction; manufacturing; and retail trade (table 7). Together, these sectors employed 72% of persons in the study population who obtained work in the first quarter after their 2010 prison release, declining to 66% in quarter 16. During each of the 16 quarters after release, the top nine employment sectors accounted for more than 85% of the jobs worked by the employed persons in the study population.

Because I do not see this report including any data about education levels or any in-prison vocational training efforts, I am not sure quite what to make of all these particulars. But the particulars are still quite interesting.

December 21, 2021 in Offender Characteristics, Prisons and prisoners, Reentry and community supervision | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, December 16, 2021

New BJS reports on "Probation and Parole in the United States, 2020" and "Profile of Prison Inmates, 2016"

Earlier this week, the Bureau of Justice Statistics released its latest detailed accounting of US prison populations (discussed here), and today brought two more notable data reports from BJS.  Here is a brief summary (with links) via the email I received this morning from the office of Justice Programs:

The Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics today released Probation and Parole in the United States, 2020.  The report is the 29th in a series that began in 1981. It includes characteristics of the population such as sex, race or ethnicity and most serious offense of adult U.S. residents under correctional supervision in the community. The report details how people move onto and off community supervision, such as completing their term of supervision, being incarcerated, absconding or other unsatisfactory outcomes while in the community.  Findings are based on data from BJS’s 2020 Annual Probation Survey and Annual Parole Survey.

BJS also released Profile of Prison Inmates, 2016.  This report describes the characteristics of state and federal prisoners in 2016, including demographics, education and marital status.  Findings are based on data from BJS’s 2016 Survey of Prison Inmates (SPI), which is conducted periodically and consists of personal interviews with prisoners.  For the first time, the 2016 SPI measured sexual orientation and gender identity, and those estimates are included in this report.  Statistics on prisoners’ offenses, time served, prior criminal history and any housing status prior to imprisonment, including homelessness, are also presented.  The report concludes with a summary of the family background of prisoners while they were growing up and any family members who have ever been incarcerated.

I am hoping in the weeks ahead to find some time to really mine some interesting factoids from all this notable new BJS data. For now I will be content to flag just a few "highlights" from the start of these two new document:

December 16, 2021 in Data on sentencing, Detailed sentencing data, Offender Characteristics, Offense Characteristics, Prisons and prisoners, Reentry and community supervision | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, December 14, 2021

"The Effectiveness of Certificates of Relief: A Correspondence Audit of Hiring Outcomes"

The title of this post is the title of this new article authored by Peter Leasure and Robert J. Kaminski just published in the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies.  Here is its abstract:

Although there are several collateral consequence relief mechanisms that could theoretically be used to improve employment outcomes for those with criminal history, many of these mechanisms are available only for first-time/low-level individuals or possess other requirements that limit their accessibility.  Recognizing these facts, some jurisdictions have created certificates of relief, which are generally more accessible than other relief mechanisms.  The goal of the current study was to test whether one state's (Ohio) certificate could improve hiring outcomes for men with criminal histories comprised of felony theft, felony drug possession, and misdemeanor drug paraphernalia convictions.  This goal was achieved with the use of two field experiments.  Results showed that certificate holders with criminal history received significantly fewer callbacks than those with no criminal record and fared no better than those with an identical criminal record and no certificate.  Further, African-American applicants received significantly fewer callbacks than white applicants in all criminal record categories.

December 14, 2021 in Collateral consequences, Reentry and community supervision | Permalink | Comments (0)

Saturday, December 11, 2021

"Protective State Policies and the Employment of Fathers with Criminal Records"

I just recently saw this recent article, which shares the title of this post, authored by Allison Dwyer Emory and published online via the journal Social Problems.  Here is its abstract:

A criminal record can be a serious impediment to securing stable employment, with negative implications for the economic stability of individuals and their families. State policies intended to address this issue have had mixed results, however.  Using panel data from the Fragile Families study merged with longitudinal data on state-level policies, this study investigates the association between criminal record based employment discrimination policies and the employment of men both with and without criminal records.  These state policies broadly regulate what kinds of records can be legally used for hiring and licensing decisions, but have received little attention in prior research.  Findings indicate that men with criminal records were less likely to be working if they lived in states with more policies in place to regulate the legal use of those records.  Consistent with research linking policies regulating access to records to racial discrimination, black men living in protective states reported this employment penalty even if they did not have criminal records themselves.  Thus, these policies, at best, may fail to disrupt entrenched employment disparities and, at worst, may exacerbate racial discrimination.

December 11, 2021 in Collateral consequences, Race, Class, and Gender, Reentry and community supervision | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, December 08, 2021

"The Effects of College in Prison and Policy Implications"

The title of this post is the title of this notable new piece authored by Matthew G.T. Denney and Robert Tynes newly published in the journal Justice Quarterly. Here is its abstract:

Despite the policy relevance of college-in-prison, the existing research on these programs has important flaws, failing to address selection and self-selection bias.  We address an important policy question: what are the effects of college-in-prison program?  To do this, we provide the largest study published to-date of a single college-in-prison program. 

We analyze the effects of the Bard Prison Initiative (BPI) in New York, a liberal arts program that has offered college courses to incarcerated students since 2001.  By leveraging the BPI admissions process, we employ a design-based approach to infer the causal effect of participation in BPI.  We find a large and significant reduction in recidivism rates.  This reduction is consistent across racial groupings.  Moreover, people with higher levels of participation recidivate at even lower rates.  In light of these findings, we provide policy recommendations that support college-in-prison programs.

December 8, 2021 in National and State Crime Data, Prisons and prisoners, Reentry and community supervision | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, December 02, 2021

"The effects of language on the stigmatization and exclusion of returning citizens: Results from a survey experiment"

The title of this post is the title of this new research by Hilary Jackl just published online via the journal Punishment & Society. Here is its abstract;

Although the use of person-centered language has increased in recent years, its usage remains limited within the field of criminal justice, wherein terms such as ex-offender are frequently used to describe formerly incarcerated individuals.  Research suggests that person-centered language matters for public opinion, but prior work has not examined the effect of language on support for the social reintegration of returning citizens.  The present research experimentally manipulates the effects of the language used to describe individuals released from incarceration and the race of a hypothetical returning citizen on the following outcomes: negative stereotype endorsement, attitudinal social distance, and support for reintegrative initiatives.  I find that person-centered language significantly reduces stigmatization of returning citizens, which ultimately increases support for reintegrative services.  These findings suggest that humanizing changes to criminal justice discourse may have the capacity to shift public opinion and create a social context more conducive to reintegration after incarceration.

December 2, 2021 in Reentry and community supervision | Permalink | Comments (1)

Wednesday, December 01, 2021

US Sentencing Commission issues new report on "Recidivism of Federal Firearms Offenders Released in 2010"

Cover_recidivism-firearms-2021The US Sentencing Commission has this week published some new findings from its big eight-year recidivism study of 32,000+ offenders released in 2010.  This new 98-page report is titled "Recidivism of Federal Firearms Offenders Released in 2010," and this USSC webpage provides this overview with key findings:

Overview

(Published November 30, 2021) This report is the second in a series continuing the Commission’s research of the recidivism of federal offenders. It provides an overview of the recidivism of federal firearms offenders released from incarceration or sentenced to a term of probation in 2010, combining data regularly collected by the Commission with data compiled from criminal history records from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). This report provides an overview of recidivism for these offenders and information on key offender and offense characteristics related to recidivism. This report also compares recidivism outcomes for federal firearms offenders released in 2010 to firearms offenders released in 2005. In the future, the Commission will release additional publications discussing specific topics concerning recidivism of federal offenders.

The final study group of 5,659 firearms offenders satisfied the following criteria:

  • United States citizens
  • Re-entered the community during 2010 after discharging their sentence of incarceration or by commencing a term of probation in 2010
  • Not reported dead, escaped, or detained
  • Have valid FBI numbers that could be located in criminal history repositories (in at least one state, the District of Columbia, or federal records)
  • Sentenced under §2K2.1, sentenced as armed career criminals or career offenders, or convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)

Key Findings

  • This study observed substantial consistency in the recidivism of firearms offenders across the two time periods, 2005 and 2010, despite two intervening major developments in the federal criminal justice system: the Supreme Court’s decision in Booker and increased use of evidence-based practices in federal supervision.
  • Firearms offenders recidivated at a higher rate than all other offenders.  Over two-thirds (69.0%) of firearms offenders were rearrested for a new crime during the eight-year follow-up period compared to less than half of all other offenders (45.1%).
  • Firearms offenders and all other offenders who recidivated were rearrested for similar crimes. Of the firearms offenders who recidivated, assault was the most serious new charge for 25.9 percent of offenders followed by drug trafficking (11.0%). Similarly, of the all other offenders who recidivated, assault was the most common new charge (19.0%) followed by drug trafficking (11.4%).
  • Firearms offenders have higher recidivism rates than all other offenders in every Criminal History Category (CHC). Within most CHCs, this difference was about ten percentage points.
    • In CHC I, 39.7 percent of firearms offenders recidivated compared to 29.6 percent of all other offenders.
    • In CHC VI, 82.8 percent of firearms offenders recidivated compared to 72.9 percent of all other offenders.
  • Firearms offenders recidivated at a higher rate than all other offenders in every age-at-release grouping. Firearms offenders recidivated at over twice the rate of all other offenders among those released after age 59 (31.1% compared to 14.5%).
  • The recidivism rates for firearms and all other offenders were highly similar for both the 2010 release cohort in this report and the 2005 release cohort previously studied. In the 2005 release cohort, 68.1 percent of firearms offenders recidivated compared to 46.3 percent of all other offenders. Similarly, 69.0 percent of firearms offenders in the 2010 release cohort recidivated compared to 45.1 percent of all other offenders.

December 1, 2021 in Data on sentencing, National and State Crime Data, Reentry and community supervision | Permalink | Comments (2)

Sunday, November 28, 2021

Notable accounting of the "utter failure" of Massachusetts new expungement law

The Boston Globe has this great lengthy new piece about Massachusetts expungement practices headlined "‘An utter failure’: Law meant to clear old convictions, including for marijuana possession, helps few." I recommend the full piece, and here is how it starts:

When state legislators passed a criminal justice reform bill in 2018, Massachusetts residents won the ability to clear away certain criminal records — including convictions for marijuana possession and other now-legal activities — that can make it difficult to land a job, rent an apartment, and otherwise move on with life.

But three years later, only a fraction of those who are likely eligible for relief have had their records expunged. Massachusetts Probation Service data suggest that people who were previously arrested for, charged with, or convicted of a crime submitted just 2,186 petitions to expunge their records between January 2019 and July, of which 352 were eventually approved by state judges, or about 16 percent.  And of those 352, probation officials could definitively identify only 17 related to marijuana, a statistic they first began tracking (partially) in January.

While the state could not say exactly how many people are potentially eligible for expungements, advocates insist the pool runs into the tens of thousands.  For example, there were about 68,800 civil or criminal violations for marijuana possession issued in Massachusetts from 2000 through 2013, and 8,000-plus arrests for selling or possessing marijuana each year from 1995 to 2008, according to a Cannabis Control Commission research report and an ACLU analysis.  And cannabis charges are only one of a number of past incidents that can be wiped clean under the law after enough time has passed.

Critics attribute the low numbers of expungements to restrictive eligibility criteria, a lack of outreach to former defendants, disorganized state records, and a lengthy application process that ultimately gives judges wide latitude to reject even seemingly qualified requests with little explanation.

“Our expungement statute has been an utter failure,” said Katy Naples-Mitchell, an attorney at Harvard Law School’s Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice who specializes in criminal justice policies.  “We could be helping people on a much grander scale, but instead we’re seeing this paltry, piecemeal effort — and even that has been almost totally frustrated, in part by a bench that is often a lot less progressive than the legislation it’s charged with carrying out.”

The 2018 law bars the expungement of violent or sexual crimes, and practically any offense committed after the age of 21.  And, importantly, it prohibits anyone with more than one entry on their record from obtaining an expungement, unless the other offenses are motor vehicle violations that resulted in a fine of less than $50.  The only exceptions are special circumstances such as mistaken identity or conduct that is no longer illegal, as with marijuana, which together accounted for just 298 attempted petitions.

It also makes former defendants responsible for learning of the expungement program, determining their eligibility, tracking down the relevant records within the state’s patchwork of police and court filing systems, and submitting them along with a petition to the state probation department.  Probation officials reject the vast majority of expungement petitions they receive (around 79 percent) as ineligible under the law, suggesting there is widespread confusion among applicants about which charges can be cleared.

If an application is cleared by the probation department to go before a judge, the office of the district attorney who originally brought the charges is then given a chance to object.  And even when prosecutors endorse a petition, judges can still reject an expungement request on the grounds it would not be in the “best interests of justice.” Attorneys for former defendants say judges have used that clause to block dozens of otherwise eligible requests.

November 28, 2021 in Collateral consequences, Reentry and community supervision, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (1)

Tuesday, November 16, 2021

"The Secret Success of Federal Probationers"

The title of this post is the headline of this important recent commentary authored by Jacob Schuman over at The Crime Report.  I recommend the full piece, and here are excerpts (with links from the original):

Several times a year, the United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) publishes research reports on the federal criminal justice system.  These reports are part of the Commission’s statutory mandate and provide vital information and analysis to attorneys, scholars and the public.  Over the past 10 years alone, the Supreme Court has cited Commission reports in more than half-a-dozen cases.

Unfortunately, the Commission’s July 2020 report on Federal Probation and Supervised Release Violations contains a major mistake that greatly overstates the dangerousness of federal probationers.  To correct that mistake, I used the Commission’s data to re-run the analysis and found that probationers were more successful than previously reported.

The Commission claimed that approximately one-in-five defendants violated their supervision every year; yet the rate for federal probationers was just one-in-20.  Similarly, the Commission found that nearly half of supervision violators engaged in new felony conduct, but the figure for probation violations was only one-third.

Acknowledging the success of federal probationers is especially important, given current efforts to reduce incarceration and stem COVID-19 transmission by allowing defendants to serve terms of supervision in the community.  If judges are led to believe that probationers are more likely to commit violations, then they may be less willing to impose supervision as an alternative to imprisonment.  The Commission’s error thus not only threatens to taint its own research, but also to mislead the courts to the detriment of criminal defendants and the public.

The Commission deserves credit for publishing the Violations report, which marks the “first time” the agency collected and analyzed data on revocation hearings.  The report includes a publicly accessible database of 108,115 hearings in federal district courts between 2013-2017.  In analyzing this database, the Commission combined defendants sentenced to probation with those sentenced to supervised release, describing them together as “offenders sentenced to supervision.” That was a significant blunder....

Because probation is limited to low-level defendants, whereas supervised release can be imposed in all cases, probationers are likely to have been convicted of less serious crimes and to have shorter criminal records than people on supervised release.  And since criminal history is a strong predictor of recidivism, it stands to reason that this difference may also affect the violation rates of each group of offenders....

The Violations report is roughly accurate when it comes to violations of supervised release, which dominate the database.  In 2019, there were 112,500 people on supervised release, compared to just 14,500 on probation.  Similarly, the Commission found that 95 percent of violations were by people on supervised release, compared to just 5 percent on probation.  The Commission failed to recognize, however, that because the data is overwhelmingly violations of supervised release, its analysis would reflect the behavior of those defendants, while obscuring the outcomes for federal probationers....

I draw three conclusions from these results.  First, judges should not let the findings in the Violations report deter them from imposing probation instead of imprisonment on worthy candidates.  While the report suggests a ~20 percent annual violation rate, of which approximately half were new felonies, the data for federal probationers is more promising.  Federal probationers were 95 percent likely to comply with the terms of their supervision, and when they did misbehave, two-thirds of the time it was for a misdemeanor or technical violation.  The report largely reflects the outcomes for supervised-release violators, and is not accurate as to federal probationers.

Second, Congress should consider expanding probation eligibility.  While the low violation rates for federal probationers in part reflect the limited availability of the sentence, their success also suggests that probation might be expanded without serious risk to the public.  Federal judges have proven their ability to select the strongest candidates for supervision over incarceration, and Congress should give them the discretion to do so in more cases.  Revocation always remains a deterrent to violations – in fact, probationers received harsher sentences than reported by the Commission, perhaps to compensate for the leniency they were originally granted.

Finally, the Sentencing Commission should avoid repeating the same mistake in future research.  Probation and supervised release are not just conceptually distinct sentences, but also as a result of their legal differences apply to different populations in ways that impact empirical analysis.  If the Commission does not separate these populations when it studies federal sentencing data, then the much larger number of defendants on supervised release will overwhelm and conceal the outcomes for defendants on probation.

While I commend the Commission for casting light into this murky corner of the federal criminal justice system, it is important to correct the record on behalf of federal probationers and ensure their success does not remain a secret.

November 16, 2021 in Data on sentencing, Detailed sentencing data, Reentry and community supervision | Permalink | Comments (3)

Friday, November 05, 2021

"Specialization in Criminal Courts: Decision Making, Recidivism, and Re-victimization in Domestic Violence Courts in Tennessee"

The title of this post is the title of this new paper now available via SSRN authored by Aria Golestani, Emily Owens and Kerri Raissian. Here is its abstract:

Local governments increasingly rely on “specialized” or “problem solving” courts as a way to improve the provision of criminal justice.  Using administrative data on misdemeanor DV cases between 2000 and 2006, we exploit the arbitrary courtroom assignment of low-income defendants to evaluate the social impact of specialized domestic violence courts in the General Sessions Court of Metropolitan Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee.  We find that, compared to traditional court, defendants assigned to specialized court are less likely to be convicted, but no more likely to be charged with a future crime 1 to 3 years later.  This offender-focused measure of recidivism masks a potentially important increase in safety.  Police records suggest that victims in cases assigned to specialized court are less likely to be involved in a future domestic incident.  Conditional on future police involvement, these same victims appear to be more willing to cooperate with police and prosecutors.

November 5, 2021 in Criminal Sentences Alternatives, Offender Characteristics, Offense Characteristics, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Reentry and community supervision | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, October 27, 2021

"Pathways to Success on Probation: Lessons Learned from the First Phase of the Reducing Revocations Challenge"

The title of this post is the title of this interesting new research brief from Arnold Ventures and the CUNY Institute for State & Local Governance which is part of the Reducing Revocations Challenge, a national initiative on probation supervision seeking to reduce its impact on mass incarceration. Here is part of the research brief's introduction:

There has been growing agreement among practitioners, policymakers, and the general public that there are far too many people under probation supervision in the United States.  Since 1980, the number of people on probation has increased more than 215 percent, from 1.2 million to 3.5 million in 2018.  Today, approximately one in 57 adults (roughly two percent of the U.S. adult population) is under community supervision on any given day, and unnecessarily long probation terms are required by law in many states around the country.  Indeed, together with parole, probation supervision accounts for the large majority of individuals under correctional control in this country....

Probation was designed to be an alternative to incarceration, yet for many people under supervision it turns out to be a pathway that inevitably leads them there.  Although research has highlighted a range of evidence-based strategies over the years, from graduated responses to risk-needs-responsivity supervision models to reporting kiosks for low-risk individuals, success rates have not improved over time.  We still know very little about how to most effectively manage and support people on probation in a manner that reduces revocations, maximizes success, and works to achieve community safety and well-being.  This is in part because our understanding about the factors, circumstances, and behaviors that drive probation revocations to jail or prison — including the role of technical violations and new criminal activity and what is considered in decisions to violate and/or revoke — remains limited.  We also know very little about how to respond to people on probation in ways that prevent new criminal activity without over-punishing less harmful behaviors or exacerbating racial and ethnic disparities....

With this in mind, in 2019 the CUNY Institute for State & Local Governance (ISLG) launched the Reducing Revocations Challenge (Challenge), a national initiative that aims to increase the success of those on probation by identifying, piloting, and testing promising strategies grounded in a robust analysis and understanding of why revocations occur. With the support of Arnold Ventures, over the past two years, the Challenge has supported research in 10 jurisdictions around the country to explore three key questions about local probation practices:

  1. Who is most likely to have a violation of their probation filed or have their probation revoked?
  2. Which types of noncompliance most often lead to probation revocation?
  3. What factors are driving these outcomes and what are the potential solutions? In each jurisdiction, the work was carried out by an action research team composed of a probation agency and a local research partner.
This brief summarizes the findings from the research work across jurisdictions. It begins with an overview of the Challenge and participating sites.  From there, we present key themes that emerged from the research in two subsections.  The first discusses trends that reaffirm prior learnings or assumptions about supervision revocations, especially with respect to factors and circumstances that influence who has probation violations filed and/or is revoked.  The second highlights new insights that emerged in key areas that have been more difficult to explore in the past despite being critical for enhancing success on supervision.  The brief ends with a discussion of policy and practice implications.

October 27, 2021 in Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Reentry and community supervision, Sentences Reconsidered, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, October 18, 2021

"Towards A New Framework for Achieving Decarceration: A Review of the Research on Social Investments"

The title of this post is the title of this new paper from the Square One Project at Columbia University authored by Laura Hawks, Evangeline Lopoo, Lisa Puglisi and Emily Wang. Here is a portion of the long paper's introduction:

[T]his paper aims to examine the science behind sustainable decarceration — and the extent to which there is scientific support for how community organizations and societal entities can lead decarceration efforts in concert with continued legal reforms to descale facility-based and community corrections populations.  To be sure, academics of disparate ideology have previously studied sections of this road map.  Some support the need for improving correctional programming, including a risk-needs-responsivity model of correctional programming, which aims to optimize resources within correctional systems to rehabilitate those incarcerated.  Others, including Professors Angela Davis and Ruth Wilson Gilmore, conceptually reject reforms within the correctional sector and propose a framework for dismantling the prison industrial complex that emphasizes investments in alternate sectors, prioritizing economic and political liberation of the historically oppressed (Davis 2005; Wilson Gilmore 2007).  With this paper, we intend to add to this latter school of thought by systematically cataloguing community investments detached from the criminal legal system which promote decarceration.  We then highlight what academics have not yet sought to study.  We undertake this study with the belief that decarceration is as worthy of careful study and investment as the prevention of cardiovascular disease and warrants experimentally designed studies at the individual and community level which tests the short and long-term benefits of intervention, dose of intervention, and the costs and benefits to society.

To our knowledge, no review has identified and synthesized the experimental evidence to determine which community investment efforts effectively support ongoing decarceration efforts and which do not.  To fill this gap, we have conducted a scoping review to identify interdisciplinary interventions, detached from the correctional control system, in the domains of education, housing, healthcare, employment, and social support programs that help reduce incarceration by reducing likelihood of becoming involved in the criminal legal system (referred to in this paper as incident incarceration) or repeat involvement in the criminal legal system (referred to in this paper as recidivism).  We centered our review on the following research question:

Which interventions (including social policies) grounded in community investment have been shown to achieve decarceration as measured by reduced incident incarceration or reduced recidivism?

October 18, 2021 in Criminal Sentences Alternatives, Purposes of Punishment and Sentencing, Reentry and community supervision | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, October 05, 2021

"But What Does It Mean? Defining, Measuring, and Analyzing Desistance From Crime in Criminal Justice"

The title of this post is the title of this new NIJ-published chapter authored by Michael Rocque.  Here is part of its executive summary

Research on crime over the course of an individual’s life has increased in the last 30 years both in scope and specificity.  One focus area that has emerged from this work is what scholars call “desistance from crime.”  Generally, desistance is understood to mean the reduction in criminal behavior that occurs after a person reaches adulthood.

But exactly what desistance is remains unclear, as varying definitions and measurement strategies have evolved over time. Early scholarship tended to view desistance as an event — that is, the termination of offending or end of a criminal career.  More recent definitions suggest that desistance is instead a process by which criminality declines over time.  Because inconsistent definitions lead to varying measurement strategies, it is difficult to come to conclusions about desistance.

The overall goal of this white paper is to provide grounded recommendations for policy and practice.  To do that, the paper reviews definitions of desistance used in the literature and then offers an updated, theoretically grounded definition as a foundation for future work: Desistance is “the process by which criminality, or the individual risk for antisocial conduct, declines over the life-course, generally after adolescence.”

The paper discusses how researchers have measured and modeled desistance and explores the implications of these strategies.  Which ways of measuring desistance get closest to the phenomenon of interest?  Which are most likely to advance our understanding of why people exit a criminal life and how we can facilitate that process?  These guiding questions provide a framework for the paper.

Finally, this white paper provides an overview of unresolved issues — such as the choice between surveys and official records, quantitative and qualitative methods, types of samples, and various modeling techniques — and offers detailed recommendations for policymakers, practitioners, and scholars who are seeking to examine and promote desistance from crime.

October 5, 2021 in Data on sentencing, Reentry and community supervision | Permalink | Comments (0)

Saturday, October 02, 2021

"Financial Health and Criminal Justice: The Stories of Justice-Involved Individuals and Their Families"

The title of this post is the title of this notable new report from the Financial Health Network. Here is how its introduction gets started:

The United States has the highest prison and jail population, and the highest incarceration rate, in the world.  In 2020, approximately 2.3 million Americans were incarcerated, and, every year, over 10 million people are arrested or charged with crimes.  While these numbers are staggering in their size, they are made up of individuals — each with a unique and complicated human story, each with a family or social network impacted by their involvement in the criminal justice system.  The consequences of involvement with the U.S. criminal justice system run deep and wide — socially, physically, psychologically, and financially — often lasting well beyond release, and usually impacting more than just the individual arrested or incarcerated.  In addition, the criminal justice system disproportionately impacts people from low-income communities and communities of color.

The Financial Health Network presents a look into some of these lives, with particular focus on how their financial health affects their ability to navigate the criminal justice system, and how that system affects their financial health once they’re able to re-enter society.  In partnership with the University of Southern California’s (USC) Center for Economic and Social Research, we collected stories directly from 36 individuals impacted by this system, and learned how navigating the criminal justice system impacts the financial health of justice-involved individuals and their families.  These individuals and their families must traverse a complex and expensive set of processes, whether they’re managing the initial financial shock of arrest and detainment, juggling associated financial obligations, searching for limited employment opportunities upon release, or handling the added expenses or lost income of having a family member who is incarcerated.  Through all this, these individuals and their families often rely on their social networks to get by.

The following five briefs examine the experiences of individuals and their families as they manage the multiple costs of pretrial, incarceration, and re-entry, as well as the challenges associated with securing income, employment, and accessing financial services upon their release.

October 2, 2021 in Fines, Restitution and Other Economic Sanctions, Offender Characteristics, Reentry and community supervision | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, September 30, 2021

US Sentencing Commission releases big new report on "Recidivism of Federal Offenders Released in 2010"

Cover_2021-recidivism-overviewAs I have said repeatedly over the last three years, it is has been great to see that the US Sentencing Commission can continue to do a lot of needed and important data analysis even as its policy work it necessarily on hiatus due to a lack of confirmed Commissioners.  The latest example was released today in this form of this big new report titled "Recidivism of Federal Offenders Released in 2010."  This USSC webpage provides an overview of the report along with a bunch of "Key Findings," some of which are reprinted below:

Overview

This report is the first in a series continuing the Commission’s research of the recidivism of federal offenders. It provides an overview of the recidivism of federal offenders released from incarceration or sentenced to a term of probation in 2010, combining data regularly collected by the Commission with data compiled from criminal history records from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).  This report provides an overview of recidivism for these offenders and information on key offender and offense characteristics related to recidivism.  This report also compares recidivism outcomes for offenders released in 2010 to federal offenders released in 2005. In the future, the Commission will release additional publications discussing specific topics concerning recidivism of federal offenders. The final study group of 32,135 offenders satisfied the following criteria:

  • United States citizens;
  • Re-entered the community during 2010 after discharging their sentence of incarceration or by commencing a term of probation in 2010;
  • Not reported dead, escaped, or detained;
  • Have valid FBI numbers that could be located in criminal history repositories (in at least one state, the District of Columbia, or federal records).

Key Findings

  • The recidivism rate remained unchanged for federal offenders released in 2010 compared to offenders released in 2005 despite two intervening major developments in the federal criminal justice system: the Supreme Court’s decision in Booker and increased use of evidence-based practices in federal supervision....
  • For offenders who were rearrested, the median time to arrest was 19 months. The largest proportion (18.2%) of offenders were rearrested for the first time during the first year following release. In each subsequent year, fewer offenders were rearrested for the first time than in previous years. Most offenders in the study were rearrested prior to the end of supervision terms....
  • Assault was the most common (20.7%) offense at rearrest.  The second most common offense was drug trafficking (11.3%), followed by: larceny (8.7%), probation, parole, and supervision violations (8.1%), and administration of justice offenses (7.5%).
  • Combined, violent offenses comprised approximately one-third of rearrests; 31.4 percent of offenders were rearrested for assault (20.7%), robbery (4.5%), murder (2.3%), other violent offense (2.3%), or sexual assault (1.6%).
  • Similar to findings in its previous studies, the Commission found age and Criminal History Category (CHC) were strongly associated with rearrests....  Combined, the impact of CHC and age on recidivism was even stronger.  During the eight-year follow-up period, 100 percent of offenders who were younger than 21 at the time of release and in CHC IV, V, and VI (the most serious CHCs) were rearrested.  In contrast, only 9.4 percent of offenders in CHC I (the least serious CHC) who were aged 60 and older at release were rearrested.
  • Offenders sentenced for firearms and robbery offenses had the highest rearrest rates during the eight-year follow-up period, with 70.6 percent and 63.2 percent, respectively.  In contrast, offenders sentenced for fraud, theft, or embezzlement had the lowest rearrest rate (35.5%).

September 30, 2021 in Detailed sentencing data, National and State Crime Data, Offender Characteristics, Reentry and community supervision | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, September 23, 2021

Notable new report spotlights onerous nature of electronic monitoring in US

This new NBC News piece, headlined "Other than prison, electronic monitoring is 'the most restrictive form' of control, research finds" report on this interesting new report from folks at George Washington University Law School, titled "Electronic Prisons: The Operation of Ankle Monitoring in the Criminal Legal System."  Here are excerpts from the press piece:

In the past 18 months, as the judicial system has increasingly used electronic monitoring instead of prisons to monitor inmates through the coronavirus pandemic, newly released data confirm what activists and advocates have long argued: Ankle monitors are onerous, and they often subject wearers to vague rules, like avoiding people of “disreputable character.”  The ankle monitoring business, the research found, is also dominated by four profit-seeking companies, and it ultimately could drive more people back to prison.

The new, comprehensive collection of hundreds of electronic monitoring-related rules, policies and contracts, obtained through public records requests across 44 states, demonstrates that four companies that make millions of dollars a year account for 64 percent of the contracts examined in the study.  The companies — Attenti, BI Inc., Satellite Tracking of People LLC and Sentinel Offender Services LLC, according to the report — also keep location data indefinitely, even after monitoring is completed, which is within the law.  Governments also often require family members or employers to act as agents of the government and report potential violations, putting them in an awkward position in which they must be both supportive and supervisory.

Crucially, wearers must pay both one-time and ongoing fees for the monitors, which can be $25 to over $8,000 a year.  The report argues that such costs “undermine financial security when it is needed most.”  By comparison, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Prisons said in 2018 that it costs just under $100 per day to incarcerate a federal inmate, or over $36,000 a year....

“This is a form of incarceration that happens outside of prison walls,” said Kate Weisburd, an associate professor of law at George Washington University, who led a team of 10 law students that filed and analyzed the trove of documents . “It’s always intended to be a positive alternative to incarceration.  But based on what we found, it’s doing the opposite.  More rules and more surveillance generally leads to higher incarceration.”...

Put another way, people on monitors are subject to a vast number of government rules, which “makes compliance difficult,” according to the report.  Some of the rules are quite vague.  For example, the Alabama Bureau of Pardons and Parole mandates that wearers “shall abandon evil associates and ways,” while the New Mexico Corrections Department says parolees must “maintain acceptable behavior.”...

Weisburd’s research found that because the results are open to interpretation and wearers can be hit with “technical violations” of the rules, “people are more likely to be reincarcerated for minor infractions that previously would have been invisible and ignored.”  In most cases, electronic monitoring is coupled with a form of house arrest — wearers must stay at or near their homes for a certain amount of time. They cannot leave without permission in advance.  But according to the policies and contracts that Weisburd and her team obtained, most agencies do not clearly explain how far in advance such permission must be sought. “Basically, every record we looked at had a negative impact, and by every measure it undermines people’s ability to survive outside of prison,” she said. “Just having to comply with the sheer number of rules, vague and broad rules, it means people are getting dinged more easily.”...

The most recent data from the Pew Charitable Trust, released in 2016, found that about 131,000 people were on monitors during a single day.   Weisburd and her team say in the report that “it is likely that the numbers are higher considering the pressure to release people from incarceration because of the pandemic.”...  The frequency with which such monitoring is assigned varies wildly across the country.  For example, Weisburd’s research shows that over 11,000 people who are on probation are also on monitors in Marion County, Indiana, alone, while the entire state of Florida has less than half that number, at just over 5,400.

Here is the introduction of the 54-page report:

The use of surveillance technology to tag and track people on pretrial release, probation and parole is on the rise.  The COVID-19 crisis in prisons and jails, bail reform efforts and bipartisan support for curbing mass incarceration accelerated interest in purported alternatives to incarceration.  As a result, the use electronic monitoring devices, including GPS-equipped ankle monitors, went up dramatically.

Thanks to the leadership of community organizers and advocates, the harmful and racialized nature of this type of carceral surveillance has been exposed.  This report seeks to add to those efforts by examining the specific policies, procedures, contracts and rules that govern the use of electronic monitoring of people on probation, parole and pretrial release.  Drawing on over 247 records from 101 agencies across 44 states and the District of Columbia, this report focuses on the operation of electronic monitoring and reveals the degree to which monitoring impacts all aspects of everyday life and undermines the ability of people to survive and thrive.  In particular, this report focuses on the specific rules and policies governing people on monitors and how they restrict movement, limit privacy, undermine family and social relationships, jeopardize financial security and result in repeated loss of freedom.  Unlike traditional models of probation and parole, electronic surveillance is more intensive, restrictive and dependent on private surveillance companies that are driven by profit motive.  The findings in this report demonstrate what advocates have long said: Electronic surveillance is not an alternative to incarceration, it’s an alternative form of incarceration.  And like incarceration, the deprivations and restrictions of electronic monitoring further entrench race and class-based subordination.

September 23, 2021 in Criminal Sentences Alternatives, Data on sentencing, Race, Class, and Gender, Reentry and community supervision, Technocorrections | Permalink | Comments (1)

Wednesday, September 08, 2021

BJS releases more notable new recidivism data, examining arrests over 10 years for state prisoners released in 2008

In this post from July, I flagged the Bureau of Justice Statistics' notable new report about the recidivism rates over five years for a set of state prisoners released in 2012. Today BJS released another new "special report" on recidivism, this one titled "Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 24 States in 2008: A 10-Year Follow-Up Period (2008–2018)."  Here is the introduction and "Highlights" from the first page of the report:

Among persons released from state prisons in 2008 across 24 states, 82% were arrested at least once during the 10 years following release.1 The annual arrest percentage declined over time, with 43% of prisoners arrested at least once in Year 1 of their release, 29% arrested in Year 5, and 22% arrested in Year 10.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) used prisoner records from the National Corrections Reporting Program and criminal history data to analyze the post-release offending patterns of former prisoners both within and outside of the state where they were imprisoned.  This report presents findings from BJS’s first study of prisoner recidivism over a 10-year period.  The study randomly sampled about 73,600 released prisoners to represent the approximately 409,300 state prisoners released across 24 states in 2008.  These states provided prisoners’ records and the FBI or state identification numbers that are needed to obtain criminal history data on the released prisoners.

These 24 states were responsible for 69% of all persons released from state prisons that year nationwide.

HIGHLIGHTS:

  • About 66% of prisoners released across 24 states in 2008 were arrested within 3 years, and 82% were arrested within 10 years.

  • The annual arrest percentage among prisoners released in 2008 declined from 43% in Year 1 to 22% in Year 10.

  • About 61% of prisoners released in 2008 returned to prison within 10 years for a parole or probation violation or a new sentence.

  • Sixteen percent of prisoners released in 2008 were arrested within 10 years outside of the state that released them.

  • Ninety percent of prisoners who were age 24 or younger at the time of release in 2008 were arrested within 10 years of release. A smaller percentage of those who were ages 25 to 39 (85%) and age 40 or older (75%) at the time of release were arrested within 10 years of release.

  • Seventy-five percent of drug offenders released from prison in 2008 were arrested for a nondrug crime within 10 years.

  • During the 10-year follow-up period, an estimated 2.2 million arrests occurred among the approximately 409,300 prisoners released in 2008.

A few of many prior recent related posts:

September 8, 2021 in National and State Crime Data, Prisons and prisoners, Reentry and community supervision | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, September 02, 2021

CCJ helpfully details "Recidivism Rates: What You Need to Know"

The Council on Criminal Justice has prepared this terrific new brief about recidivism rates building off the data collected and recently released by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The brief was prepared by Nancy La Vigne and Ernesto Lopez, and I recommend the full online document. Here are some highlights (with links from the original):

The rate at which people return to prison following release is a key measure of the performance of the nation’s criminal justice system, yet national statistics on recidivism are rare.  The federal Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) publishes them only every three years.  This brief summarizes the key takeaways from the most recent report, released in July 2021, and analyzes them in the context of previous findings.

1. The return-to-prison rate has dropped considerably.  People released from state prison in 2012 were much less likely to return to prison than those released in 2005. During the first year following release, 19.9% of the 2012 group returned to prison compared with 30.4% of the 2005 cohort.  The three-year prison return rate — the most commonly used measure — fell from about 50% to 39%. This 11-percentage point reduction persisted through the full five-year tracking period.

2. Rearrest rates remain stubbornly high.  The cumulative five-year rearrest rate of people exiting prison in 2012, at 71%, was six percentage points lower than that of people released in 2005 (77%).  The rate of rearrest for violent offenses was virtually unchanged, while rearrests for property offenses declined by three percentage points, rearrests for drug violations declined by six percentage points, and rearrests for public order offenses declined by four percentage points.

3. Most people are rearrested for public order offenses.  Public order offenses are the most common reason people are rearrested following release, accounting for 58% of 2005 releases who were rearrested and 54% of 2012 releases (Table 9, p. 9; Table 10, p. 10).  Public order is a broad category that includes offenses such as driving under the influence, disorderly conduct, and weapons violations.  The share of rearrests for weapons offenses remained relatively stable between those released in 2005 and 2012 (at 9.1% and 9.4%, respectively), as did rearrests for driving under the influence (from 9.3% to 8.7%)....

6. Criminal activity is not highly specialized.  People released in 2012 who had been serving a prison term for a violent crime were almost as likely to be rearrested for a property crime (28.9%) as a violent crime (32.4%) — Table 11.  Similarly, many people serving time for property crimes (29.6%) were rearrested for violent offenses (51.2%).  This aligns with prior research that suggests that most criminal behavior is not highly specialized and that labeling someone as “violent” or “non-violent” is overly simplistic.

7. Different metrics tell different stories.  Historically, the most common measure of recidivism has been the rate at which people return to prison within three years of release. Because there were long periods of time between national reports over the last few decades, it was commonly though that the three-year state prison recidivism rate was stagnant at about 50%.  That was the return rate of people released in 1994, a finding that wasn’t published until 2002.  It was another dozen years before the next report, in 2014, tracked recidivism of those released in 2005.  More recently, BJS has reported recidivism rates more frequently and has used different measures, including the rearrest rate. While the different measures have their strengths and weaknesses, it is important to compare apples to apples.  In this case, that means distinguishing headlines about rearrest rates that top 70% over a five-year period from three-year re-incarceration rates, which now have fallen below 40%.

September 2, 2021 in National and State Crime Data, Prisons and prisoners, Reentry and community supervision | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, September 01, 2021

"More Community, Less Confinement: A State-by-State Analysis on How Supervision Violations Impacted Prison Populations During the Pandemic"

The title of this post is the title of a great new analysis by the Council of State Governments Justice Center looking at prison populations as impacted by the pandemic and reactions thereto.  This press release provides this overview (and helpful links at the end):

State prison populations shrank by an unprecedented 14 percent in 2020 due to changes spurred by the COVID-19 pandemic, according to new data released today by The Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center.  The study, More Community, Less Confinement, was conducted in partnership with the Correctional Leaders Association (CLA) and with support from Arnold Ventures.
 
Despite the decline in total prison population, supervision violations still drive a substantial share of new admissions — accounting for 42 percent of prison admissions in 2020. This included roughly 98,000 people admitted to prison for technical violations, such as missed curfews or failed drug tests.  The share of the population in prison for supervision violations was 20 percent in 2020, down slightly from 23 percent in 2018.
 
“As these data underscore, during the COVID-19 pandemic, probation and parole agencies made significant changes to the way they do business. These changes protected the health and safety of people in the justice system, including corrections staff,” said Megan Quattlebaum, director of the CSG Justice Center.  “Now, we have a unique and important opportunity to explore which of these policy changes should be retained to maximize success for people serving on community supervision.  Each of the 98,000 people admitted to prison—not for new crimes, but for violating the conditions of their probation or parole — represents 98,000 opportunities to improve public safety while saving states money. When people on probation and parole succeed, it is a win-win-win for them, their communities, and all taxpayers.”
 
In response to the threat of COVID-19, many parts of the criminal justice system halted operations to reduce in-person contact and prevent the spread of the virus.  The CSG Justice Center surveyed corrections leaders in all 50 states to understand the impact of community supervision on state prison populations. The resulting data span 3 years — from 2018 to 2020 — and uncover how the number of people sent to prison for supervision violations changed during and prior to the pandemic. 
 
While some states released people from prisons early to help reduce spread of the virus, the population decline in state prisons was largely driven by a drop in the number of people being admitted to prisons.  Roughly 200,000 fewer people were admitted to prison in 2020 due to changes in offending behaviors, local law enforcement, community supervision, and court operations....
  
Overall, there were roughly 167,000 fewer people in state prisons in 2020. One-third of the total drop (57,000 people) was due to fewer people sitting in prison for supervision violations. In addition, about 73,000 fewer people entered prison for supervision violations in 2020 — a 30 percent drop in a single year.  The cumulative result over this 3-year data collection effort showed that there were 31 percent fewer people in prison for technical supervision violations and 18 percent fewer people in prison for new offense violations, while all other populations (primarily new court commitments) dropped just 12 percent....
 
Learn more:

September 1, 2021 in Data on sentencing, Detailed sentencing data, Prisons and prisoners, Reentry and community supervision, Scope of Imprisonment | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, August 12, 2021

Highlighting the persistent problems from the US's high recidivism rate

Liz Benecchi has this effective new piece at the Harvard Political Review under the headline "Recidivism Imprisons American Progress." I recommend the full piece, and here are excerpts:

Each year, more than 600,000 individuals are released from state and federal prisons. Another nine million are released from local jails.  Within three years of their release, two out of three former prisoners are rearrested and more than 50% are incarcerated again.  This process of previously convicted criminals reoffending and reentering the prison system is known as recidivism.

Recidivism clogs the criminal justice system. Without employment opportunities and bare necessities such as housing, food, or clothing, successful reentry into society seems nearly impossible for former prisoners.

America’s recidivism crisis is far more alarming than any other democratic country in a similar economic bracket.  If prison were teaching the “lessons” corrections workers claim it does, it is concerning that so many of the same prisoners end up back behind bars.  The country’s high recidivism rate alone demonstrates that our prisons are as ineffective as they are inefficient, a sobering reality which calls for a reimagined criminal justice system....

Since the 1960s, the U.S. incarceration rate has more than tripled. Defunding rehabilitation in our justice systems directly correlates with the increase in the incarceration rate.

To put it plainly, unhealthy minds can’t make healthy choices.  The reality is 37% of incarcerated individuals and 44% of those in jail have been diagnosed with a mental health illness.  Yet, 66% of prisoners reported not receiving any form of mental health care during the full length of their incarceration.  With more accessible mental health care and substance abuse recovery for prisoners, they can be properly diagnosed and receive comprehensive treatment.  With these revamped forms of relief and stabilization, the probability that those with mental illness relapse into destructive habits is far more unlikely than if they receive no treatment at all. Our justice system has an obligation to prepare prisoners for a safe and successful reintegration, a process which starts with a healthy mind.

Prisoners who participate in education programs have a 43% lower chance of being reincarcerated than those who do not, and for every dollar spent on prison education, the government saves four to five dollars on the costs of reincarceration. Education can do wonders, and if incarcerated people left the system with degrees and hard educational skills, it would be far less difficult for them to secure and maintain steady jobs. Besides allowing the formerly incarcerated to pursue a job, education — whether that be through adult literacy, GED, or post-secondary programs — inherently shapes one’s decision-making abilities....

When prisoners are released in Norway, they stay out of prison. Norway has one of the lowest recidivism rates in the world at 20%.  The U.S. has one of the highest: 76.6% of prisoners are rearrested within five years.  Among Norway’s prison population that was unemployed prior to their arrests, they saw a 40% increase in their employment rates once released.  The country attributes this to its mission of rehabilitation and reemergence into society through its accepting and empathetic approach....

Today’s recidivism crisis calls for a paradigm shift from prisons as punitive institutions to rehabilitative ones. Implementing the rehabilitating practices of prioritizing mental health care, education, and the process of creating a prison-to-work pipeline would lower the rates of recidivism in the United States. Lower rates of recidivism do not singularly benefit society by reducing the rate of crime but also by reducing prison populations, saving taxpayers’ dollars, and most pertinently, ensuring that prisons are serving their purpose of reform and improvement.

August 12, 2021 in Prisons and prisoners, Purposes of Punishment and Sentencing, Reentry and community supervision | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, August 11, 2021

Notable accounting of rarity of released juvenile lifers getting in trouble again in Michigan

This local story from Michigan, headlined "Crime by ‘juvenile lifers’ after prison ‘very rare,’ state says," provides an interesting overview of how juve lifers have been faring after release in the Wolverine State. Here are the details:

When a shotgun-toting convicted murderer held police at bay for seven hours in Barry County, it prompted Target 8 to check into the records of other “juvenile lifers” released from prison.

Timothy Riddle was 15 years old when he killed an elderly Wayne County woman in 1988 while robbing her home. Riddle served 28 years in a Michigan prison before he was released in 2017, after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled mandatory life sentences for juveniles unconstitutional. His parole ended in early November 2019 and records show his run-ins with police began less than two months later. Since then, he’s been arrested eight times for crimes ranging from shoplifting to larceny and assault.

Riddle was wanted for a series of break-ins Wednesday when Hastings police spotted him and chased him through Barry County. The 48-year-old ultimately barricaded himself for seven hours inside a gas station in the small town of Woodland. He fired a shot inside the store, but police said it appeared he was not trying to hit anyone. No one was injured and Riddle was arrested.

According to the Michigan Department of Corrections, 142 juvenile lifers have been released from prison following resentencing per the U.S. Supreme Court decision. Riddle is the only known arrest. “This is a very rare case,” wrote Chris Gautz, an MDOC spokesperson, in an email exchange with Target 8.

In Michigan, former prisoners are considered recidivists — or repeat offenders — if they end up back in prison within three years of their release. “Most of the (juvenile lifer) releases are too current to be tracked for ‘recidivism,’ (but) overall, this population appears to do well on supervision before discharging from our jurisdiction,” Gautz said.

While MDOC may deem it too early to assess recidivism rates among former juvenile lifers, attorney Deborah Labelle noted the rate would be less than 1%. That’s compared to a 26% recidivism rate among the general prison population.

“Mr. Riddle is the only juvenile lifer that I am aware has even been arrested,” Labelle wrote in an email to Target 8. “(Juvenile lifers’ recidivism) is extraordinarily low,” Labelle said. “There are many who are having spectacular achievements and many more who have reentered and are working and raising families, helping nieces, nephews and siblings, while they build their lives.”

Labelle is an Ann Arbor attorney who fought the state on behalf of hundreds of juvenile lifers in Michigan prisons. So far, the state says 258 people have been resentenced, 142 of whom have since been released from prison.

Labelle spoke of one former juvenile lifer who recently completed college in Arizona and works as a counselor. She said another is working for a prosecutor’s office and applying to law school after getting his master’s in social work....

Even with the many successes, advocates said more resources are needed to help former juvenile lifers make the transition back into society. “What we see time and time again is that people do need one-on-one support,” said Marilena David-Martin of the State Appellate Defender Office. “It’s not easy to come home from prison after serving 40 years and then figure out how to be.”

August 11, 2021 in Assessing Miller and its aftermath, Reentry and community supervision | Permalink | Comments (0)

Saturday, August 07, 2021

A couple of accounts of the persistent and problematic challenges of reentry

In recent days, I have seen a couple of notable new accounts of the trip wires that we have created for persons seeking to reenter the community after prison.  Here are links to the stories and excerpts:

From Daily Beast, "Pot Prisoner Sentenced to Life Before Trump Pardon Is Back in Custody":

In 2010, a federal judge sentenced Tony DeJohn to life plus 10 years on a nonviolent marijuana charge. Because it was DeJohn’s third conviction, the judge was required by law to impose the maximum penalty available. He was just 31 years old.

Eleven years later, DeJohn, who is from Upstate New York but had been locked up in high-security facilities in Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and Colorado, was granted clemency by then-President Donald Trump. He was released from prison on January 20, 2021.

But today, DeJohn is back in federal custody. The now 47-year-old will be spending the next six months in a Pennsylvania halfway house, according to court filings reviewed by The Daily Beast—but not because he broke any new laws.

From the REFORM Alliance, via TWitter:

Daniel B., a father of four from Nebraska, wants to be able to go to his daughter’s softball games, advance in his career, and provide for his family.  But the strict rules of Federal Supervised Release make it difficult for him to succeed as a parent.

Since being released from prison, Daniel obtained a job, married, & became a minister.  He is also serving 10 years of Supervised Release, where the threat of technical violations — like missing curfew, traveling w/o permission, or losing his job—could send him back to prison.

Daniel isn’t alone.  We have far too many people on Federal Supervision, serving terms that are too long. The system is wasteful and even counterproductive to public safety.  Too often, Federal Supervision acts like a trap door to prison instead of a springboard to success.

UPDATE: One more on this topic from this NC Policy Watch blog post titled "Leaving prison? NC’s mind-boggling bureaucracy stands between you, a state-issued ID, and quite possibly your future." Here is an excerpt:

One of the most pervasive challenges for people returning home from incarceration is also one of the least discussed: state-issued ID cards....

Over 22,000 North Carolinians are released from incarceration each year. Thousands of them find themselves unable to acquire a state-issued ID. The process is so convoluted for the re-entry population that it is nearly impossible for many returning residents. Even if these folks returning home do everything right, the path to freedom, to independence, has been so narrowly circumscribed by state bureaucracy that whether someone succeeds or fails is as much a matter of luck as it is of diligence and perseverance.

Yet, officials with the power to streamline this process, to make it at least fair, continue to drag their feet on this issue. For years, advocates and reentry providers have asked the Department of Public Safety and NC Division of Motor Vehicles to collaborate on addressing this issue. Unfortunately, little has come from the process except unsuccessful efforts and more excuses.

August 7, 2021 in Reentry and community supervision | Permalink | Comments (4)

Wednesday, August 04, 2021

"Newspaper Expungement"

The title of this post is the title of this new essay by Brian Murray now available via sSRN. Here is its abstract:

Expungement law has made great strides over the past two decades, with state-level reforms broadening the types of criminal records eligible for expungement.  Further, expungement has been extended beyond arrestees to those who have been convicted, thereby promising to alleviate some of the burdens of reentry.  Nevertheless, expungement remedies only touch officially held information or public data possessed by different branches of government.  This means that private actors, if they possess the information, are beyond the reach of expungement law.  Such actors, whether individuals, background check companies, newspapers, or other firms, enjoy the ability to continue to hold and use such information.  This results in a whack-a-mole problem for the successful expungement petitioner who has achieved the relief that the state allows, only to see its efficacy thwarted by private activity with the same information.

Recently, one private actor, newspapers, has begun to set up processes that resemble formal expungement.  Newspaper editors have responded to the limits of formal expungement by constructing their own procedures for evaluating whether to erase, seal, or alter information that is damaging to the reputation of those who have encountered the criminal justice system.  This development has occurred on the heels of the right to be forgotten movement in Europe, which has gained little traction in the United States.  This Essay contextualizes the phenomenon of newspaper expungement, situating it within a larger legal backdrop, before describing the stated activities and aspirations of some of the newspapers themselves. It concludes by charting how such practices relate to broader critiques and goals of criminal justice reform.

August 4, 2021 in Collateral consequences, Reentry and community supervision | Permalink | Comments (2)

Thursday, July 29, 2021

BJS releases notable new recidivism data for 2012-released state prisoners

The Bureau of Justice Statistics released this notable new report about the recidivism rates over five years for a set of state prisoners released in 2012. The full title of the 34-page report is "Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 34 States in 2012: A 5-Year Follow-Up Period (2012–2017)." Here is the introduction and "Highlights" from the first page of the report:

Among state prisoners released in 2012 across 34 states, 62% were arrested within 3 years, and 71% were arrested within 5 years.  Among prisoners released in 2012 across 21 states with available data on persons returned to prison, 39% had either a parole or probation violation or an arrest for a new offense within 3 years that led to imprisonment, and 46% had a parole or probation violation or an arrest within 5 years that led to imprisonment.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) used prisoner records from the National Corrections Reporting Program and criminal history data to analyze the post-release offending patterns of former prisoners both within and outside of the state where they were imprisoned.  This study randomly sampled about 92,100 released prisoners to represent the approximately 408,300 state prisoners released across 34 states in 2012.  These 34 states were responsible for 79% of all persons released from state prisons that year nationwide.

HIGHLIGHTS

  • About 6 in 10 (62%) prisoners released across 34 states in 2012 were arrested within 3 years, and 7 in 10 (71%) were arrested within 5 years. „
  • Nearly half (46%) of prisoners released in 2012 returned to prison within 5 years for a parole or probation violation or a new sentence. „
  • Eleven percent of prisoners released in 2012 were arrested within 5 years outside of the state that released them. „
  • Eighty-one percent of prisoners age 24 or younger at release in 2012 were arrested within 5 years of release, compared to 74% of those ages 25 to 39 and 61% of those age 40 or older. „
  • During the 5-year follow-up period, an estimated 1.1 million arrests occurred among the approximately 408,300 prisoners released in 2012. „
  • Sixty-two percent of drug offenders released from prison in 2012 were arrested for a nondrug crime within 5 years. „
  • The annual arrest percentage of prisoners released in 2012 declined from 37% in Year 1 to 26% in Year 5. „ Of prisoners released in the 19 states in the 2005, 2008, and 2012 recidivism studies, the percentage arrested within 5 years declined from 77% of 2005 releases, to 75% of 2008 releases, to 71% of 2012 releases.

July 29, 2021 in National and State Crime Data, Reentry and community supervision | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sunday, July 25, 2021

"The Boundary Problem of Rights Restoration"

The title of this post is the title of this new paper authored by Joshua Feinzig now available via SSRN. Here is its abstract:

By conditioning restoration of felons’ political rights on the repayment of legal financial obligations, states have kept millions of potential voters from participating politically — profoundly altering the shape of the American electorate. Courts have universally upheld the practice by treating the conferral of political rights to nonmembers of the political community as an exercise of legislative grace subject to few constraints, while critics argue that the practice conditions political participation on wealth status and is therefore subject to heightened review.

This Essay traces the disagreement back to a first-order question that has gone overlooked by both sides: how should the juridical status of a disenfranchised citizen’s “lost” rights be understood?  The conventional position, which I call “depoliticization,” imagines that a sentence of disenfranchisement casts a citizen outside the democratic community, thereby voiding all prospective constitutional interests predicated on political membership. However, disenfranchisement is better characterized as the subordination — not the wholesale elimination — of a citizen’s constitutional interests in voting or otherwise participating politically, just as incarceration suppresses but does not eliminate a person’s constitutional interest in physical liberty.  It follows that rights restoration is not the conferral of a new statutory benefit to a political outsider, as courts have assumed, but instead marks the endpoint of state-sustained subordination.

Redescribing the disenfranchisement-to-restoration process in this way aligns with the Richardson Court’s reading of Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, resolves a number of doctrinal contradictions, and — most critically for future litigation challenges — sharpens the constitutional symmetry between fee-based restoration and paradigmatic forms of wealth discrimination like poll taxes and debtors’ prisons.  By framing re-enfranchisement as a constitutional default and drawing attention to disenfranchised citizens’ enduring claim to political presence, this account may also be of use in popular restoration efforts currently underway outside the courts.

July 25, 2021 in Collateral consequences, Reentry and community supervision, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (0)