Administrative burden describes the learning costs, psychological costs, and compliance costs people face when attempting to interface with the government, particularly in seeking a benefit. Algorithmic and automated processes offer the potential of reducing administrative burdens, but scant empirical research has determined to what, if any effect. This study uses the case of criminal record expungement in two policy contexts: traditional, court petition-based systems and newly enacted automated systems, to understand if and how administrative burden persists, and whether and how these burdens operate differently in the context of the criminal legal system. Drawing on interviews with 105 expungement-eligible people, we find that while automated expungement schemes shift the burden from petitioner to state to initiate the process, automation inadvertently creates new administrative burdens via failure to notify, partial clearances, and opaque data processes. Furthermore, respondents described how automation failed to provide a sense of confirmation from the state that their sentence was truly completed, rehabilitation had been acknowledged, or that collateral consequences should no longer wield the same power. Overall, we argue that leveraging automation to reduce burdens must include information availability by design; otherwise policy reforms may fail to fully achieve their goals.

Having a criminal record significantly alters a person's life chances, decreasing their opportunities for employment, housing, student loans, voting, public benefits, and more. The collateral consequences of criminal convictions, or the civil restrictions that follow criminal convictions, are well documented. However, because individuals are connected to families and communities, it is impossible to isolate the effects of punishment to only the persons holding criminal records. Instead, the effects of criminal records might be best understood as a set of symbiotic harms, marked by relational and interdependent effects. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with 59 expungement-eligible persons and 69 community representatives, this paper explores the symbiotic harms of lower-level criminal records and explores the potential for automated criminal record clearance to enhance the lived experiences of record holders and their networks.

Research SummarySince 2018, at least 12 U.S. states have introduced policies to expunge certain eligible arrest and criminal conviction records through automated or algorithmic means. Drawing on interviews with governmental representatives and community stakeholders, this paper identifies strategies used to pass this legislation in Pennsylvania and Utah, the first two states to enact automated expungement policies. We frame our findings around three established theoretical frameworks of public policy making-policy entrepreneurship, issue framing, and coalition building-illustrating their combined strategic importance with data gathered from those involved on the ground in the passage and adoption of automated expungement legislation. The findings add depth and nuance to the policy-making literature, along with practical implications for future criminal legal reform initiatives.Policy ImplicationsInterviewees consistently described how key policy entrepreneurs played essential roles in the development, passage, and implementation of automated criminal record expungement by strategically framing the issue of criminal record discrimination around core values shared by conservatives and liberals, such as workforce development. Broad bipartisan coalition building enabled the scale-up of automated expungement policies within states where it has been adopted and has aided diffusion to new states. These findings can inform the approaches taken by advocates of automated expungement and other criminal justice reform initiatives, particularly in conservative or polarized political environments.

In 2012, California's voters passed a ballot initiative that scaled back the state's "Three Strikes" sentencing law and permitted certain individuals who were serving 25-to-life prison terms to petition for resentencing and potentially release. Using analysis of original qualitative interview data supplemented with court administrative records, this study examines how characteristics of courtroom workgroup members; their intergroup dynamics; political, professional, and administrative considerations; and allocated resources were perceived by court officials to facilitate or impede the implementation of this reform in county courts. Availability of staff and budget was associated with a higher proportion of completed case dispositions in the first 2 years of implementation, but resources were not the only factor associated with timely case processing. Courtroom actors' seniority, experience, and professional security facilitated agreement on processes, schedules, and other details. Small, stable, close-knit groups established routine procedures and developed expertise more quickly, but could not always avoid bottlenecks or delays. Less stable workgroups had higher rates of denial of petitions for resentencing. Positions toward Proposition 36 shaped by political, professional, or other priorities were perceived to influence some elected DAs' positions and line prosecutors' behavior, manifesting in cooperation, opposition, or mixed messages.

This chapter highlights a number of flaws with current practices in the measurement of recidivism and offers suggestions for improvements in the measurement, collection, and sharing of data related to the experiences of individuals returning to society from incarceration. Problems with current measures of recidivism include lack of precision, lack of standardization, and possible bias. Multiple, precise, and uniformly defined measures should be used. Measures that focus on reengagement with the criminal justice system are insufficient to gauge a reentering individual’s progress, which is likely to be incremental, will probably involve setbacks, and inevitably spans numerous policy areas. Instead of primarily emphasizing reentering individuals’ risks of recidivating, more attention should be paid to their needs, and to information about access to reentry resources to address those needs. Data sharing between different levels of government and policy domains, between custody and community, and across the public and nonprofit sectors can improve the delivery of resources and services, reducing waste and improving lives. Concerns about privacy and confidentiality, technological limitations, insufficient funding and capacity, and lack of motivation currently impede efforts to share and integrate data. With political will, support, and resources, obstacles to data sharing can be overcome.

A preliminary comparison of California inmate data before and after the implementation of Proposition 36 to reform Three Strikes and You're Out indicates that Proposition 36 reduced some of the racial disparities between Black and white offenders sentenced under Three Strikes.

Record clearance allows some individuals to redesignate or remove certain minor convictions from their criminal records. This interview-based study finds that both men and women seek opportunities for personal gain through record clearance, but women are more motivated by moral and religious influences and concern about reputation. Women are also more likely than men to acknowledge personal flaws, and to desire to replace criminal identities with law-abiding identities. As women redefine their identities, caregiving is especially important as a personal obligation and professional aspiration. Record clearance is particularly compatible with women’s motivations, willingness to change, and personal and professional goals.

Through the process of record clearance, individuals can have certain minor convictions removed from their criminal records or designated as expunged. This study analyzes data gathered from semi-structured interviews with 40 persons with past criminal convictions to examine the expectations of individuals who seek record clearance and the extent to which completion of the process facilitates efforts to reintegrate into society and desist from crime. The analysis finds that record clearance benefits ex-offenders through external effects, such as the reduction of barriers to employment, and internal processes, such as the facilitation of cognitive transformation and the affirmation of a new identity. These benefits accrue from both the outcomes of the record clearance process and from the process itself. Increased availability of inexpensive or free opportunities for expungement can contribute to more successful reintegration of persons with criminal convictions into the workforce, families, and communities. Not only would this improve quality of life for the ex-offenders, but it could also increase public safety and reduce public spending.

This study uses data obtained from the United States Sentencing Commission for fiscal years 2003, 2007, and 2012 to examine racial and ethnic disparities in drug crime sentencing. The authors use linear regression to assess disparities in sentence length between African-American and white offenders and Latino and non-Latino offenders and a binary logistic regression model to assess black/white and Latino/non-Latino disparities in the odds of receiving a sentence below the range stipulated by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. At the national level, the study found significant racial disparities that disadvantage African-American offenders in sentence length and odds of a below-range sentence. The study observed no disparities between African-American and white offenders in California for sentence length in 2003 or 2012, or for below-range odds in any of the three years. Nationally, ethnic disparities that disadvantaged Latino offenders were found in both sentence length and odds of a below-range sentence. In California, Latino offenders tended to receive longer sentences than others in 2003 and 2007 and had lower odds of a sentence below the Guideline range in 2012. The years included in this study bracket the Supreme Court case, United States v. Booker, but we found no clear impact of the case with regard to racial or ethnic disparities in sentencing outcomes.

A hierarchical logistic model is used to analyze data on Three Strikes-eligible offenders in California and the counties in which they are sentenced. The analysis finds that discretion is widely exercised by elected prosecutors and judges in the administration of Three Strikes. Discretion functions as a safety valve and preserves some sentencing proportionality, but may also allow political concerns to influence sentencing decisions. A more conservative political environment is strongly associated with stricter application of the law. Consistent with racial threat theory, eligible felons are more likely to receive Three Strikes sentences in counties with larger Latino populations. However, the size of the black population has no significant effect. Higher unemployment rates are associated with more stringent application of the law. Prosecutorial and judicial discretion benefits offenders unequally. Controlling for legally relevant factors, black offenders are more likely to receive Three Strikes sentences, while younger ones are less likely.

Objectives This article investigates the extent to which contextual and individual factors influence the length of prison sentences in California. Methods The analysis applies a hierarchical linear model to individual and county‐level data. Results Some characteristics of the racial, organizational, and public safety environments are found to influence the length of prison terms. Conclusions The findings support the organizational maintenance perspective and the idea of minority incarceration as a response to a perceived crime threat. Political environment is not found to have a significant effect on sentence lengths, and the findings do not support the racial threat hypothesis. The effects of contextual factors are more modest than those of individual attributes, including legally relevant variables, such as offense severity, prior record, parole status, and three strikes eligibility. African‐American and younger offenders receive longer sentences, but this effect is not found for Latinos. Substantive, methodological, and policy implications are discussed.

The impacts of Three Strikes on crime in California and throughout the United States are analyzed using cross-sectional time series analysis of state-level data from 1986 to 2005. The model measures both deterrence and incapacitation effects, controlling for preexisting crime trends and economic, demographic, and policy factors. Despite limited use outside California, the presence of a Three Strikes law appears to be associated with slightly but significantly faster rates of decline in robbery, burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft nationwide. Three Strikes also is associated with slower declines in murder rates. Although California's law is the broadest and most frequently used Three Strikes policy, it has not produced greater incapacitation effects on crime than other states' far more limited laws. The analyses indicate that the toughest sentencing policy is not necessarily the most effective option.

This paper examines the extent to which racial and ethnic disparities exist in the implementation of California's "Three Strikes and You're Out" law and whether racial and ethnic disparities vary by type of offense. Logistic regression analysis of individual-level data on over 171,000 California prison inmates indicates that African-Americans are more likely than whites and Latinos to receive third-strike sentences, even when legally relevant variables are controlled. The analysis also finds that Latino defendants are significantly less likely to receive third-strike sentences. The results also indicate that the black-white gap is greater for offenses known as "wobblers," which can be filed as either felonies or misdemeanors than for offenses that must always be charged as felonies. Racial disparities are also greater for property and drug offenses than for violent crimes.

E-mail provides many benefits to local elected officials, but its usefulness is limited by certain problems and concerns. Using a survey of 184 elected city and county representatives, this paper discusses the main issues identified by local officials as areas where improvement is desired in e-mail communication. ‘Spam’ is the most frequently cited problem. Complaints also arise regarding the volume, content, clarity, and tone of e-mail correspondence. Concerns about e-mail privacy, ‘public record,’ and open meetings limit e-mail communication. Substantive limitations and procedural constraints may present more formidable obstacles than technological shortcomings.

Using survey data collected from 184 local elected officials, this paper investigates how frequently local political officials use e-mail, and how important they consider e-mail, compared with telephone calls, postal mail, faxes, and meetings. Among all forms of communication, only phone calls are initiated with a similar rate of frequency as e-mail messages. E-mail is rated as important as telephone calls and meetings, and more important than letters and faxes. E-mail is used more heavily by representatives from professional county boards and city councils, but regarded as more important, relative to other communication methods, by members of non-professional city councils. Despite e-mail's limitations, it is a powerful and useful tool for “virtual representatives.”