1. COLLATERALCONSEQUENCES Chris Uggen University of Minnesota With Sarah Shannon and Suzy McElrath

2. consequences of consequences • social facts and social choices • numbers and pictures • justice and public safety • opportunity • “America’s Criminal Class” • defined by punishment and relation between individual and state, not offending • “ex-prison” v. “ex-felon” v. “low-level” distinction • consequences have consequences • political and civic life • work and markets • personal and community health

3. Part I VISUALIZING PUNISHMENT (W/ SARAH SHANNON)

4. 1. PrisonersIncarceration in global perspective

5. 2. “felons” • current: 4.2 million • current prison, parole, felony probation, convicted felony jail population • 1.8% of adult voting age population • 5.0% of African American adults (decline) • ex: 16.2 million • 6.9% of adults • 18.2% of African American adults • total: 20.4 million in 2010 • 8.7% of adult population • 23% of African American adults • 33%+ of African American adult males

6. growth of felons and ex-felons, 1948-2010

7. 1980 ex-felons

8. 2010 ex-felons

9. 1980 African American ex-felons

10. 2010 African American ex-felons

11. 2010 African American “current” felons

12. Part IICOLLATERAL SANCTIONS AS DIRTY BOMBS

13. Socioeconomic Occupational licensure (character+) Public employment Pell grants (drug) Public assistance (drug) Driver’s licenses (drug) Family Public housing (drug; sex) Parental rights Divorce Civic Voting Juror Military Internet record Deportation collateral consequences(Ewald & Uggen 2012)

14. “dirty bomb” analogy • Weapons of mass disruption • Conventional punishment, plus a small amount of radioactive material • Induces fear and panic, contaminates broadly, and necessitates massive cleanup • Pare back egregious (e.g., lifetime bans) • Like addressing radiation sickness, but not water contamination or building safety • Padilla v. Kentucky (2010); integral, not “collateral” • Utopian • impose at sentencing on individual, crime-specific basis • retain “checklist”

15. how many are disenfranchised?

16. who is disenfranchised?

17. where are the disenfranchised?

18. the picture in 1980

19. 2010 cartogram

20. African American Disenfranchisement, 1980

21. African American Disenfranchisement, 2010

22. reforms 1997-2010 • 9 states repealed or scaled back lifetime bans • 2 states (Connecticut and Rhode Island) extended voting rights to persons under probation or parole supervision • 8 states eased restoration process after completion of sentence ---------------------------------------------- • 800,000 citizens regained voting rights

23. in Oregon, voting probationers and parolees have significantly lower recidivism rates

24. Part III CommunitySpillover

25. effects on elections • Potential impact of 5.85 million disenfranchised: • 7 U.S. Senate seats [VA, TX, KY, FL, GA, KY, FL +/- WY] • 2 Presidential elections • Shifts debate on other issues

26. public assistance bans (with Thompson and Western)

29. deportation (with King and Massoglia)

30. criminal deportation & unemployment

31. health effects • Prison effects on community health depend on prison care • public health benefit where prisons are testing and treating (TB, syphilis) • continuity of care after release • Spillover effects on community • diminished access to care • less access to specialists • reduced physician trust • less satisfaction with care

32. Part IV Clean up low-level garbage cases

33. low-level arrestannual arrest v. imprisonment rate per 1000, Minnesota 2007

35. our moment • proliferation of low-level “records” • big change in dissemination and use • at least half of employers routinely checking • do employers really care about 3-year old disorderly conduct arrests? • Yes – run screaming from any negative signal • No – too commonplace and/or honesty effect • should we “ban the box”? • threshold (arrest v. conviction) • severity (misdemeanor v. felony) • duration (7 years v. life)

36. callbacks by race and record

37. modest but measurable • low-level arrest w/o charge or conviction • employers attend to the lowest-level records: 4% difference; not disqualifying • personal contact swamps other predictors • expungement as partial relief • burdensome and costly process • real utopia? • introducing record at “finalist” stage (MN) • avoiding records in first place; new social welfare and community service institutions

38. arrest and feeling on time (MN 30-year-olds)

40. Part V “CONSEQUENCING” SMARTER

41. easier said than done • Focused and effective response to crime • Reserve prison beds for those who need to be in prison, when they need to be in prison • Reduce the scope and number of unnecessary collateral sanctions • Redirect low-level offenses away from criminal justice system • Reintegration • from prison, to community corrections, to taxpaying citizen in good standing

44. supplemental

45. pragmatic note • JQ Wilson critique • When social scientists were asked for advice by national policy-making bodies they could not respond with suggestions derived from and supported by their scholarly work. • getting our hands dirty • need knowledge and sophistication about how the criminal justice system actually works: health impact • capacity to imagine and enact alternatives • identifying real models • Documentation is fine, but… we need clear-headed, rigorous, viable answers

46. growth of people “on paper”