Race and Revocation

Mitigating the Effect of a Criminal Record at Sentencing

“…Furthermore, given that one of our key independent variables involves children, which previous research has found contributes in different ways to the sentencing of men and women (e.g., Bickle & Peterson, 1991; Daly, 1987; Stacey & Spohn, 2006), we think that partitioning by sex is justifiable. Also, following the findings of previous research (e.g., Hartley et al, 2007; Kautt & Spohn, 2002; Spohn & Holleran, 2000; Tapia & Harris, 2006), which shows that employment status interacts with the race/ethnicity of the offender, we disaggregate our sample by our three race/ethnicity categories in Step 3 of the analysis. Where appropriate, we test for the equality of coefficients by calculating z scores (Brame, Paternoster, Mazerolle, & Piquero, 1998).…”

“…Similarly, Tapia and Harris (2006) revealed that unemployment increased the probability of probation revocation. When they considered variation on account of race and sex, Tapia and Harris found that even Black males who were working were significantly more likely to have probation revoked than employed White males (see also Chiricos & Bales, 1991).…”

“You Know Baseball? 3 Strikes”: Understanding Racial Disparity with Mixed Methods for Probation Review Hearings

“…Examinations of revocation decisions are more common within the literature. Most studies have found that Black probationers were more likely to be revoked, in part due to more frequent technical violations and new crimes (Gould et al 2011;Steinmetz and Henderson 2016;Tapia and Harris 2006). Some studies have also found Hispanic probationers were more likely to be revoked (Steinmetz and Henderson 2016;Tapia and Harris 2006) and more likely to be adjudicated (i.e., unsuccessful deferred adjudication-having one's judgment withheld until demonstrates serving probation satisfactorily) than successfully complete probation compared to their White counterparts (Steinmetz and Henderson 2016).…”

“…Much of the research on racial disparity in the court process has focused on sentencing (e.g., Feldmeyer and Ulmer 2011;Ulmer et al 2016) and pretrial release (e.g., Freiburger and Hilinski 2010;Wooldredge 2012). Fewer studies have examined decisions made postconviction at probation review hearings (e.g., Tapia and Harris 2006) or in non-traditional courts, which have grown in popularity in the recent past (e.g., Arabia et al 2008;Ray and Dollar 2013;Snedker et al 2017). In these settings, judges often have more information provided to them about the defendant, few restrictions curbing their discretion, and a variety of possible sanctions (i.e., punishment) for non-compliant behavior (e.g., verbal reprimand, increased supervision, jail).…”

“…Racial disparity in probation decision-making has been a growing concern in the literature. Some studies have examined whether there are racial differences in recidivism and technical violations (e.g., Iratzoqui and Metcalfe 2017;Rodriguez and Webb 2007), while fewer studies have examined racial disparity in revocation decisions (e.g., Gould et al 2011;Steinmetz and Henderson 2016;Tapia and Harris 2006), and fewer still examined disparity in termination (i.e., failure to successfully complete the program, e.g., Ray and Dollar 2013) or sanctioning for non-compliance (i.e., technical violations) within problem-solving courts. Yet, these decisions involve more information provided to judges and great discretion.…”