Pages: 8

This introduction presents an overview of the key concepts discussed in the subsequent chapters of this book. The book aims to serve as an important resource for scholars and practitioners working to address the needs of marginalized populations. It focuses on a particularly vulnerable and marginalized population—people experiencing homelessness. The book then reviews the homelessness-incarceration nexus and highlight the structural- and individual-level barriers that unhoused individuals face, while noting the paucity of research examining how homeless defendants fare in felony courts. It also provides an in-depth look into how immigration policy can create double punishments for noncitizens who serve in the United States military. The book evaluates the predictive performance of the Modified Positive Achievement Change Tool—a highly utilized youth risk-need assessment—across racial/ethnic subgroups. It then takes a broader approach to the examination of risk assessment instruments for marginalized populations.

Pages: 22

Considerable research assesses how marginalized groups experience disparate outcomes in courts and sentencing processes. One group that largely has been left out of this research is individuals experiencing homelessness. Little to no research focuses specifically on how the unhoused fare relative to domiciled individuals in felony court settings. Yet, limited access to private space paired with societal criminalization of the homeless makes them uniquely positioned to enter the criminal justice system and supports the homeless-incarceration nexus. We hypothesize that homeless individuals experience harsher outcomes throughout case processing due to their lack of economic resources, which constrains their ability to defend against prosecution, and court actors’ perception that they pose a danger to public safety. To investigate these issues, we analyze randomly selected felony cases using a cumulative disadvantage framework that tracked each case from arrest to disposition in Pinellas County (St. Petersburg), Florida. We find that approximately 20% of defendants in our sample were experiencing homelessness at the time of their arrest, and these homeless defendants were more likely to be detained pretrial, which in turn increased their probability of being convicted. We conclude with a discussion of the policy implications of this study.

Pages: 18

More than 35,000 noncitizens currently serve in the United States military, with approximately 8,000 new noncitizens joining every year. Many are promised a path to citizenship as part of the enticement for enlistment. Anecdotal evidence indicates that these often empty promises can have incredibly adverse impacts upon noncitizens who come into contact with the criminal justice system. Recruiting officers and military administration entice military service with this attractive benefit, but sometimes have no plans or processes for actually facilitating the citizenship process. If military personnel who are noncitizens violate the law, they find themselves in a singularly difficult mess. They are prosecuted for their crime by state or federal government; they may be subject to separate punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); and most alarmingly, they are subject to deportation procedures if convicted. None of this amounts to double jeopardy under the law, but it does create a conundrum of inequity that demands attention. This chapter describes the three relevant legal processes—civilian criminal justice, military justice, and immigration/deportation proceedings—and how they interface in the case of noncitizens service members facing civilian criminal charges. The authors consider the individual and societal implications of policies that allow veterans and service members, who rely upon assurances of citizenship, to be subject to deportation. The chapter concludes with policy recommendations for addressing sentencing practices that create a Gordian knot of injustice for noncitizen service members and veterans.

Pages: 21

The U.S. Bureau of Justice Assistance’s Sexual Assault Kit (SAK) Initiative has to date, resulted in nearly 130,000 previously ‘backlogged’ (untested) kits inventoried and close to 70,000 kits tested. Until this initiative, these backlogged kits have languished for decades in evidence storage facilities across the U.S. and, in doing so, allowed suspected rapists to remain free to continue to sexually assault victim-survivors. Unfortunately, these untested kits tell a story of the too-often forgotten sexual assault victim-survivors. These victim-survivors are almost all women and girls (90–95+%) and disproportionally from marginalized populations—specifically Black Indigenous Womxn of Color (BIWOC). These backlogged kits serve as a contemporaneous and physical reminder of a failed criminal justice response to all sexual assault victim-survivors but explicitly for women and girls of color. In this chapter, we focus specifically on what data from the SAK initiative in Cuyahoga County, Ohio (primarily within the city of Cleveland) tells us about patterns of sexual victimization and case outcomes for Black women and girls compared to non-Black women and girls. In doing this, we highlight the disproportionate experiences of sexual violence for Black women and girls, why cases failed to reach prosecution, and how historical patterns of neighborhood disinvestment (e.g., “redlining”) and residential segregation may impact these phenomena. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first scholarly product from data on previously untested kits to specifically explore racial/ethnic differences in the associated sexual assaults. Our findings provide an opportunity to explore the sexual victimization of those whose kits and (more often than not) cases were forgotten about by the criminal justice system.

Pages: 49

For over 30 years juvenile justice agencies have relied on risk assessments to guide decisions regarding diversion, case management, supervision, and placement practices. Despite widespread use, it was not until the 2016 ProPublica “Machine Bias” investigation that risk assessment developers, researchers, and justice agencies were directed to examine the potential for tools to extend systematic biases. By design, prediction models remove idiosyncrasies that can result from the inconsistent use of discretion and improve equitable scoring of youth by classifying risk based on established predictors. However, the items used to create prediction models are difficult to disentangle from cultural and regional biases. With that said, common predictors used, such as prior adjudications, are the result of law enforcement patterns and strategies that are argued to possess their own implicit biases. While many have outlined the implicit biases of the juvenile justice system, the impact of racial bias, as it pertains to juvenile risk assessment, has been largely ignored. Recently, Hamilton and colleagues identified substantial reductions in classification bias when assessment item pools included a greater number of non-static, needs-based items. Several studies have analyzed the overall predictive performance of risk tools across racial/ethnic categories. For example, some suggest that Black youth may tend to score significantly higher than White youth on certain risk items, such as those related to socioeconomic status, family member criminal history, and prior juvenile record. However, further assessment and evaluation is required, providing a greater depth of study by examining item-level variations. Specifically, a thorough evaluation of items and responses is needed to identify sources of bias that could then be removed and/or modified to further disentangle race/ethnicity from risk prediction. As part of a large (N = 241,596), ten-state evaluation of a well-known youth risk-need assessment, we evaluated predictive performance across race/ethnicity subgroups. While unadjusted models convey reduced predictive performance for non-White youth, we outline methods for modifying assessment content, to ameliorate the potential sources bias contained within. Based on these findings we provide policy recommendations for assessment developers and agencies seeking to adopt or modify existing tools.

Pages: 12

There is a growing discourse concerning the burgeoning use of risk assessment and its potential disparate implications for minority populations. The reliance of these actuarial assessments on aggregated criminal record data and propensities, tied to various demographic characteristics including race and ethnicity, has sparked some intense debate from legal and social science scholars alike. Some argue, for example, that pretrial risk assessment instruments will, even if not the intent, exacerbate implicit racial biases in criminal justice processing. Minority populations may suffer further consequences due in part to the historical context in which the data fueling their assessments is derived. In other words, the assessments will reflect past biases in police surveillance, detection, and apprehension. This bias is then further promulgated throughout the system. Further, too often instruments are normed primarily with White male populations, their applicability to minority populations (including Native American populations) and across sex remains tenuous. This chapter discusses the growing use of risk assessment throughout the criminal justice process (i.e., pretrial, jails, prisons, probation, and parole), growing criticisms and caution levied in terms of their potential to perpetuate preexisting biases, the extent to which their validity has been substantiated, and the continued lack of legal accountability and transparency in relation to proprietary instruments.

Pages: 17

Data are limited on incarcerated individuals with disabilities and concerns remain about the quality of care they receive. Further, research suggests this lack of knowledge regarding the experiences of incarcerated individuals with disabilities contributes to inequalities within correctional settings. In this chapter, we examine disability prevalence among populations under correctional supervision. We also examine the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and its relevance to correctional facilities and incarcerated populations with disabilities. We discuss core theoretical frameworks in which disability is situated, including the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) Enabling-Disabling Model, Medical Model of Disability, Expert/Professional Model of Disability, Social Model of Disability, and Rehabilitation Model of Disability. In addition, we apply the risk-need-responsivity (RNR) Model as a treatment Model for responding to this marginalized population and assess its effectiveness for this population. We conclude with an examination of the inequalities individuals with disabilities encounter within correctional facilities, such as rehabilitation programs, medical treatment, and accommodations for independent daily living and barriers to reentry.

Pages: 11

On any given day, one out of 109 U.S. women is under some form of correctional supervision. Of those justice-involved women, 80%–90% have substance use issues, 73% have a mental health disorder, and/or experienced some form of abuse (i.e., physical or sexual) at some point in their life. For women jail residents specifically, they often reenter society with the same needs they had when they entered the system. If women’s needs are not being met in jail, then these unmet needs could be contributing to the high rates of recidivism (40%–53%) women jail residents experience. However, there is limited research on the role of correctional officers in aiding women to obtain access to what they need while incarcerated and for post-release preparation. This study relies on interview data collected from 29 women jail residents in one jail. In this specific setting, only female jail staff are permitted to work with the women jail residents. Thus, they are the only formal resource connection women jail residents have during confinement. These interviews inform how the social relationships between women jail residents and female correctional officers facilitate or inhibit women’s access to appropriate resource essentials during their jail stay and in planning for their reentry process. This study has future implications for not only correctional officer training in delineating their role as less authoritative and more rehabilitative but also for increased resource attainment by women jail residents in the hopes of meeting their needs and reducing recidivism.

Pages: 26

Transgender and gender nonconforming individuals face myriad challenges, indignities, and dangers while incarcerated. Researchers have only recently begun to turn an eye toward issues such as the widespread physical and sexual violence experienced by transgender people held in sex-segregated correctional facilities. Some emerging scholarship also highlights common problems – including discrimination from correctional staff and other residents, denial of necessary medical treatment, and limited access to gender-affirming items (such as gender-appropriate underwear and grooming products) – confronting many incarcerated transgender and gender nonconforming individuals. Though this is a growing area of interest, the experiences of transgender and gender nonconforming individuals in the criminal legal system remain critically understudied. This chapter explores the state of scholarship surrounding the incarceration of transgender and other gender nonconforming individuals, highlighting what little is known, and more importantly what remains unknown, about the realities of life as a transgender or gender nonconforming individual in jail or prison. Additionally, this chapter analyzes the various benefits and drawbacks of correctional strategies premised on increasing the safety and improving the lives of incarcerated transgender and gender nonconforming individuals, including specialized LGBTQ+ housing blocks and widespread use of administrative segregation (i.e., solitary confinement). We rely on both case studies as well as a small number of interviews we conducted with transgender residents in both men’s and women’s prisons, including several we interviewed while they were incarcerated in restricted housing (i.e., solitary confinement) units. Finally, this chapter offers policy recommendations for correctional departments seeking to provide safe, fair, and affirming housing/care for transgender and gender nonconforming individuals.

Pages: 21

Transgender people often enter jails and prisons with histories of trauma and complex sets of criminogenic needs. They require access to evidence-based treatment and programs to address these needs. However, the two most common approaches to housing transgender people either complicate their needs by housing them in general population with people who have the same anatomical sex (i.e., genitalia), thus increasing the risk of assault and associated trauma, or preclude access to treatment and programs by assigning them to segregated housing. The Washoe County Sheriff’s Office in Reno, Nevada is experimenting with an alternative method of treatment and program delivery at the Washoe County Detention Facility. The Virtual Housing Unit Pilot Project is comprised of a randomized control trial of the relative effectiveness of in-person and virtual treatment and programs to reduce recidivism and a qualitative study of the virtual treatment and program access and subsequent justice involvement among transgender people. The results of these two studies will have implications for how treatment and services are made available to transgender people assigned to segregated housing, as well as treatment and program capacity, other people who historically have been unable to access treatment and programs, and how to maintain treatment and programs in circumstances that preclude in-person treatment and program delivery, such as disease outbreaks. This chapter describes the program and provides a framework for assessing its implementation. This framework is vital as research and evaluation on programming for detained and incarcerated transgender people is evolving and rapidly gaining traction.

Pages: 17

The true number of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) inmates in America’s jails and prisons is unknown, but the number can no longer be described as trivial. A Bureau of Justice Statistics study found that 8% of prison inmates and 20% of youth in custody self-identified as non-heterosexual. Institutional safety is arguably a correctional administrator’s highest priority, which is assessed in part by the level of victimization experienced by those in their custody. Studies of the causes and correlates of victimization among incarcerated persons reveal that LGBTQ inmates have much higher rates of victimization than those who are heterosexual and cisgender. Although the Prison Rape Elimination Act and other major policy changes have placed more legal obligations upon correctional administrators regarding the safety and treatment of LGBTQ inmates, this population remains profoundly marginalized. Incarcerated sexual minorities, and especially transgender inmates, continue to be more vulnerable to violent and sexual victimization because intake, assessment, and classification procedures rarely incorporate the unique risks and needs that LGBTQ individuals possess. LGBTQ inmates also face disparities when it comes to healthcare, access to treatment and/or programming, and the use of segregation. Here, we review many of the unique problems faced by LBGTQ inmates across the United States and consider the corresponding challenges these individuals pose relative to those in jail and prison general populations. Upon reviewing the available evidence, we propose several policy changes including altering management styles and programming/service provisions that might better respond to LGBTQ inmates’ unique needs and increase their safety during incarceration.

Pages: 17

Mass incarceration has impacted many groups in the United States. In particular groups of color have been incarcerated at a disproportionately higher rate when compared to persons not of color. This is especially true for Native American populations. They represent the largest group per capita in the U.S. prison system, being incarcerated at a rate almost 40% higher than the national average. Native American men and women are four times and six times more likely to be incarcerated than White men and women, respectively. This also holds true for Native American youths, who account for 1% of the national youth population but represent upward of 70% of youth taken into federal prison. Despite these numbers, media reports and scholarly analysis of Native American populations is limited when compared to other similarly disenfranchised groups. The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the scope and nature of the incarceration experience for Native American and Indigenous populations. It will begin with a general discussion of incarcerated Native American populations, focusing on key statistics and facts regarding this group. The unique challenges Native American populations face while incarcerated will also be highlighted. Issues related to tribal justice and key pieces of legislation related to tribal justice will be discussed. The chapter will conclude with a discussion of policies and potential steps moving forward to address the issues related to overrepresentation of Native Americans in prisons and the juvenile corrections system. Overall, we want to spotlight this marginalized group and discuss the unique challenges and circumstances that are leading to their disproportionate incarceration.

Pages: 15

Although the number of incarcerated individuals has been slowly declining, the consequences of policies enacted to fight the “War on Drugs” and the “War on Crime” of the 1980s and 1990s have not abated. Crucially, “tough on crime” policies have expanded the country’s correctional population, especially evidenced in the incarceration rate of individuals over 55 years of age, which has grown by 400% in the past three decades. In this chapter, we provide an overview of the composition of the incarcerated elderly population, as well as how this population interacts with and experiences the prison environment. Next, we draw on the risk, needs, and responsivity principles, to briefly discuss how the elderly has emerged as a distinct population in state prisons, and how their presence presents significant challenges related to health, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, program involvement, and their low risk to reoffend. The chapter concludes that elderly incarcerated individuals are a low-risk, high-need population that would benefit from targeted rehabilitative and reentry options, including early release.

Pages: 16

COVID-19 outbreaks have occurred in correctional institutions across the world, and many jurisdictions have taken emergency measures, such as the temporary release of some incarcerated individuals, to combat the pandemic. Such emergency measures are necessary and appropriate. However, the pandemic is an opportunity to tackle more long-standing and difficult questions about mass incarcerations and punitive systems in countries such as the United States, England, and Wales, where fair treatment of incarcerated persons is historically low. In this chapter, we show that social and health inequalities, infection control, and minimal access to information and information technology (IT) have plagued prisons for decades behind closed doors and the COVID-19 pandemic has served to highlight these inequalities to the public. Finally, we posit that the pandemic is an opportunity to rethink the purpose of prisons and whether they can be justified for the incarceration of people who are vulnerable by virtue of their poor health, age, or other social injustices. The COVID-19 pandemic crisis provides the impetus to retheorize the purpose of prisons; refocus efforts on institutional correctional practices that are rehabilitative, progressive, and streamlined; and provide foundational footing for praxis. If approached equitably and ethically, such reform could also address the disparate treatment of marginalized populations.