< Previous20 PERSPECTIVES VOLUME 44, NUMBER 4 enhancements were African American or Latino. All 50 states and the District of Columbia have some form of drug- free school zone law. • Policies that disadvantage poor people: Most jurisdictions inadequately fund their indigent defense programs. While there are many high-quality public defender offices, in far too many cases indigent individuals are represented by public defenders with excessively high caseloads or by assigned counsel with limited experience in criminal defense. Public defenders in Louisiana have recently sued the state, and those in Kansas City, Missouri, have protested their crushing caseloads (Wiltz, 2017). Parole/Post-release supervision: The Sentencing Project reports a declining proportion of the prison population has a sentence that allows for discretionary release on parole, as lawmakers have required courts to shift from indeterminate sentences (in which release requires a discretionary parole deci- sion) to fixed-term sentences (which have set release dates) (Ghandnoosh, 2017). Among sentences that allow for discretionary parole release, the process can be much more chal- lenging for people of color. Some research suggests that parole boards are influenced by an applicant’s race in their decision-making, though more research is needed in this area (Huebner & Bynum, 2008; Morgan & Smith, 2005). Racial bias among correctional offi- cers also shapes parole outcomes. As revealed by a New York Times investigation of New York prisons, comparable in-prison conduct—a major determinant of parole decisions—may result in divergent prison disciplinary records for blacks and Latinos versus whites (Schwirtz, Winerip, & Gebeloff, 2016). Based on an analysis of almost 60,000 disciplinary cases from the state’s prisons, reporters found that disparities in discipline were greatest for infrac- tions that gave discretion to guards, such as disobeying a direct order. Underinvestment and racial disparities also persist in community supervision—with many parole and probation systems offering supervision with little support, and with evi- dence that parole and probation officers are more likely to revoke people of color than 21 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION whites for comparable behavior. For example, the Urban Institute examined probation revoca- tion rates in Dallas County, Texas, Iowa’s Sixth Judicial District, Multnomah County, Oregon, and New York City. Its study revealed that black probationers were revoked at dispropor- tionate rates in all study sites at levels which “raise concerns about the presence of bias to the disadvantage of black probationers” (Breaux, Bernard, Ho, & Janetta, 2017, p. 6). Collateral consequences: Lastly, according to The Sentencing Project’s report, African Americans—particularly black men— are most exposed to the collateral consequenc- es associated with a criminal record. Collat- eral consequences are additional civil state penalties, mandated by statute, that attach to criminal convictions. Examples are ineligibility for public funds (including welfare benefits and student loans), loss of voting rights, and in some cases the loss or restriction of a profes- sional license. In 2010, 8% of all adults in the United States had a felony conviction on their record. Among African American men, the rate was 33%—an astonishing one in three (Shan- non et al., 2017). People with criminal records face a host of obstacles to re-entering society even after they have fully completed their terms of incarceration or community supervision. These include barriers to securing steady em- ployment and housing, accessing the social safety net and federal student aid, and exercis- ing the right to vote. Nearly one-third of U.S. workers hold jobs that require an occupational license, a re- quirement that sometimes bars and often poses cumbersome obstacles for people with criminal records (Quinton, 2017). In sectors that do not require licensing, employers are 50% less likely to call back white job applicants with incarceration histories than comparable appli- cants without prison records (Pager, 2007). Af- rican American job applicants, who are less likely to receive callbacks than whites to begin with, experience an even more pronounced discrimination related to a criminal record. As scholar Devah Pager’s research has revealed, whites with criminal records receive more fa- vorable treatment than blacks without criminal records (Pager, 2007). People with criminal convictions also face discrimination in the private rental market, and those with felony drug convictions face restrictions in accessing 22 PERSPECTIVES VOLUME 44, NUMBER 4 government-assisted housing (Pinard, 2013; Navarro, 2014). The Welfare Reform Act of 1996 im- posed a lifetime denial of cash assistance and food stamps to people convicted in state or federal courts of felony drug offenses, unless states opt out of the ban. Given the dynamics of social class and the accompanying dispa- rate racial effects of the criminal justice system, women and children of color are dispropor- tionately impacted by this exclusionary law (Mauer & McCalmont, 2013). By 2018, only 24 states had fully opted out of the food stamp ban. Another 21 states had done so only in part, and five states continued to fully enforce the ban. An even larger number of states con- tinue to impose a partial or full ban on cash assistance for people with felony drug convic- tions (Hager, 2016). Disenfranchisement patterns have also reflected the dramatic growth and dispro- portionate impact of criminal convictions. A record 6.1 million Americans were forbidden from voting because of their felony record in 2016, rising from 1.2 million in 1976. Felony disenfranchisement rates for voting-age African Americans reached 7.4% in 2016—four times the 1 rate of non-African Americans (1.8%) (Ug- gen, Larson, & Shannon, 2016). In three states (Florida, Kentucky, and Tennessee), more than one in five voting-age African Americans are disenfranchised. (It is noted that Virginia was removed from this ignominious list after its governor issued an executive order to restore voting rights; see Stolberg & Eckholm, 2016). The majority of disenfranchised Americans are living in their communities, having fully com- pleted their sentences or remaining supervised while on probation or parole. Conclusion The need for criminal justice transformation is long overdue, and criminal justice practitioners must stand up and support promising initiatives that can help us reach our goals. Executives Transforming Probation and Parole (EXiT) included a set of excellent recommendations in its Statement on the Future of Probation & Parole in the United States (EXiT, 2020). These deserve our full support. If all 23 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION of these are carried out, they have the potential to have a tremendous transformative impact. • Divert from probation and parole those in- dividuals for whom the purposes of sentenc- ing can be achieved without supervision, prioritizing services and supports above surveillance and supervision. • Eradicate racial disparities in supervision, revocations, and sentencing recommenda- tions. • Establish reasonable probation and parole terms that are not unnecessarily long (gen- erally no longer than 18 months) and are measured by a balance of safety concerns and an individual’s goals. • Allow people on probation to earn time off supervision through good behavior and by achieving certain milestones, like high school graduation, program completion, enrollment in college, and job retention. • Tailor conditions of probation and parole to the needs and goals of each individual. Conditions never should be imposed unless they specifically relate to the person’s of- fense behavior. • Eliminate supervision fees. If fees are lev- ied, they always should be within the per- son’s ability to pay, and the person should have the option of performing reasonable community service as an alternative. • Eliminate incarceration for technical viola- tions and reduce reincarceration for low-lev- el new offenses by those under supervision. I firmly believe that if every locality adopted these recommendations, it would go a long way in vastly improving our criminal justice system. In an evidence-based world, we utilize data-driven decision-making, so we can’t argue away or ignore the facts that significant racial and economic disparities exist in our criminal justice system. The question is: What do we do? The answer is simple. We must act, and we must act NOW! To ignore these issues and not address them in a comprehensive and meaningful way is criminal justice malpractice. As criminal justice practitioners, we need to hold each other accountable as we work to vastly improve the system, creating a culture that values equity, inclusion, and 24 PERSPECTIVES VOLUME 44, NUMBER 4 diversity and provides hope for those who are in our custody and care. If we all commit to achieving this transformation, we can greatly improve our outcomes, with safer communities, fewer victims, and reduced recidivism. Marcus M. Hodges Co-Chair of APPA Diversity Committee Marcus M. Hodges started his career in the Virginia Department of Corrections and has worked passionately in various positions to create environments that produce safer communities. In 2017, he became Associate Director for the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency in Washington DC. He served as President of NAPE from 2014-2018 and assists in facilitating the APPA Leadership Academy. In 2018, he received the Middle Correctional States Association Award for Innovation in Community Corrections. In 2020 he was awarded Probation Executive of the Year from NAPE/Sam Houston State University. Marcus M. Hodges holds a Bachelor of Arts in Sociology/Criminal Justice from Virginia Union University (1992) and a Master of Arts in Criminal Justice from Florida Metropolitan University. The author can be reached at 25 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION References ACLU Foundation of Massachusetts (2014). Black, brown and targeted: A report on Boston Police Department street encounters from 2007-2010. Alexander, Michelle (2010). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. New York, NY: The New Press. Breaux, J., Bernard, K., Ho, H., & Janetta, J. (2017). Responding to Racial Disparities in the Multnomah County’s Probation Revocation Outcomes. Research Report, Urban Institute. Cole, D. (1999). No equal justice: Race and class in the American criminal justice system. New York, NY: The New Press. Crawford, C., Chiricos, T., & Kleck, G. (1998). Race, racial threat, and sentencing of habitual offenders. Criminology, 36(3), 481–512. EXiT: Executives Transforming Probation and Parole (2010, November 13). Statement on the Future of Probation & Parole in the United States. Ghandnoosh, N. (2014). Race and punishment: Racial perceptions of crime and support for punitive policies. Washington, D.C.: The Sentencing Project. Ghandnoosh, N. (2017). Delaying a second chance: The declining prospects for parole on life sentences. Washington, D.C.: The Sentencing Project. Gonnerman, J. (2014, September 29). Before the law: A boy was accused of taking a backpack. The Court took the next three years of his life. The New Yorker. Hager, E. (2016, February 4). Six states where felons can’t get food stamps. The Marshall Harksen, L. (2020, March 5). Family of wrongfully convicted Alabama man hopes newly released movie inspires change. WHNT News 19 (Huntsville, Alabama). 26 PERSPECTIVES VOLUME 44, NUMBER 4 Harris, D. (2012). Hearing on “Ending racial profiling in America,” Testimony of David A. Harris. United States Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights. Huebner, B., & Bynum T. (2008). The role of race and ethnicity in parole decisions. Criminology, 46(4): 907-938; Jones, C. E. (2013). “Give Us Free”: Addressing racial disparities in bail determinations. New York University Journal of Legislation and Public Policy, 16(4), 919–62. Mauer, M., & McCalmont, V. (2013). A lifetime of punishment: The impact of the felony drug ban on welfare benefits. Washington, D.C.: The Sentencing Project. Morgan, K., & Smith, B.L. (2005). Victims, punishment, and parole: The effect of victim participation on parole hearings. Criminology and Public Policy, 4(2), p. 355. Navarro, M. (2014, October 30). Lawsuit says rental complex in Queens excludes ex- offenders. The New York Times. Nellis, A. (2017). Still life America’s increasing use of life and long-term sentences. Washington, D.C.: The Sentencing Project. Pager, D. (2007). Marked: Race, Crime, and Finding Work in an Era of Mass Incarceration. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Peterson, R., & Krivo, L. (2012). Divergent Social World: Neighborhood Crime and the Racial- Spatial Divide. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation Pinard, M. (2013). Criminal records, race and redemption. New York University Journal of Legislation & Public Policy,16: 963-997; Porter, N., & Clemons, T. (2013). Drug-free zone laws: An overview of state policies. Policy Brief. Washington, D.C.: The Sentencing Puzzanchera, C., Slinky, A., & Kang, W. (2017). Easy access to juvenile populations, 1990-2016 Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), Statistical Briefing Book. Quinton, S. (2017, March 8) To help ex- offenders get jobs, some states reconsider licenses. Stateline. Rovner, J. (2016). Racial disparities in youth commitments and arrests. Washington, D.C.: The Sentencing Project. 27 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION Sentencing Project, The. (2018). Report to the United Nations on racial disparities in the U.S. criminal justice system. Washington, D.C.: The Sentencing Project. Available from Schwirtz, M., Winerip, M., & Gebeloff, R. (2016, December 3). The scourge of racial bias in New York State’s prisons. The New York Times. Shannon, S. K. S., Uggen, C., Schnittker,J., Thompson, M., Wakefield, S., & Massoglia, M. (2017, September 11). The growth, scope, and spatial distribution of people with felony records in the United States, 1948–2010. Demography, 54:1795–1818. Sickmund, M., Sladky, T.J., Kang, W., & Puzzanchera, C. (2017) Easy access to the census of juveniles in residential placement. OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book. Starr, S. B., & Rehavi, M. M. (2013). Mandatory sentencing and racial disparity: Assessing the role of prosecutors and the effects of Booker. The Yale Law Journal, 123(2), 2-80. Stolberg, S. G., & Eckholm, E. (2016, April 22). Virginia governor restores voting rights to felons. The New York Times. Uggen, C., Larson, R., & Shannon, S. (2016). 6 million lost voters: State-level estimates of felony disenfranchisement, 2016. Washington, D.C.: The Sentencing Project. Wiltz, T. (2017, November 21). Public defenders fight back against budget cuts, growing caseloads. HuffPost. Zeng, Z. (2018, February). U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Jail Inmates in 2016. 28 PERSPECTIVES VOLUME 44, NUMBER 429 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION Pretrial, Probation, and Parole Supervision Week Restoring Trust, Creating Hope www.appa-net.org/PPP-Supervision-Week | #pppsweek July 18-24, 2021 American Probation and Parole AssociationNext >