No abstract

Prior research on the consequences of imprisonment for the family suggest that incarceration of so-called petty offenders is most harmful for families, yet few studies provide a clear description of who is and is not a petty offender and how best to make such distinctions. We compare various ways of categorizing inmates (using preprison family involvement and characteristics related to criminality and child well-being) to better understand heterogeneity in the consequences of paternal incarceration for children. In our analysis, we find that differentiating between "harmful" and "helpful" fathers is rather difficult, and reform efforts that are overly reliant on criminal offense categories may not be the most gainful policy approach in terms of benefit to children. We also describe a small population of children who appear to benefit from paternal incarceration: children of fathers with severe substance abuse problems. the pattern of results suggests that providing alternative interventions to incarceration, rather than no intervention at all, is critical to improving outcomes for all children of incarcerated parents.

In this article, we ask why public defenders remain on the job despite a number of unique and testing work-related challenges. To answer this question, we analyze original data collected through 87 semistructured interviews with public defenders from government, nonprofit, and appointed counsel systems across the United States. Participants explicated a set of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations salient to their decision to remain in public defense: interacting with clients, defending the Constitution, fighting social inequality, pursuing personal values, appreciating camaraderie with colleagues, and earning public sector benefits. We discuss how our findings relate to prior research, identify directions for future studies, and tentatively engage policy implications.

This mixed-method study examined changes implemented in Pennsylvania community corrections agencies during the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic. We surveyed ( N = 54; 83% response rate) and interviewed ( N = 10) county Chiefs of probation and parole regarding changes to agency policies, processes of this change, and expected sustainability. Findings revealed meaningful changes to community corrections policy initiated by the pandemic through new modes of supervision contact —such as “ curbside probation”— and new policies regarding violations of supervision that align with evidence-based principles. The moment’s urgency provided a rare but effective impetus for reform, but perceptions of sustainability varied across Chiefs’ role orientations. Our findings demonstrate how this moment expanded the footprint of evidence-based practice through local criminal justice reform and reveal new insights into capacities for and processes of change.

Monetary sanctions levied on individuals on probation and parole may dramatically influence their ability to reintegrate into the community and to complete their community supervision. Yet very little work has empirically assessed how agencies respond to these obligations. This is critical, given that individuals under community supervision occupy a liminal space: free in the community yet often at risk of violation, rearrest, additional fines, or re-incarceration. In this article, we introduce an approach to the collection and management of monetary sanctions by an adult probation and parole agency in one Pennsylvania county. This specialized department focuses solely on repayment of fines, fees, and costs for a subset of probationers and parolees who have completed all other supervision requirements. We complement the conceptual overview by presenting administrative data on this caseload ( N = 5,811) to describe the population under supervision and assess the factors associated with debt amount, having difficulty with repayment, and being the subject of an enforcement action for non-payment. We conclude with a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of this model compared with historical and other existing models of debt enforcement during community supervision.