We scrape together pennies: fairness and effectiveness of monetary sanctions

ABSTRACT

Monetary sanctions are in every part of the criminal legal system. This paper explores monetary sanctions in community supervision (probation and parole). The findings from a mixed-methods, multiple-state research study illustrate how fines and fees are administered, collected, and enforced within community supervision. Supervision officers have little discretion in the number of fines and fees assessed but have more discretion in collecting the payments and punishing or sanctioning nonpayment. The findings in this paper also elucidate how individuals and their social supports experience having to pay monetary sanctions. The burden of financial sanctions is not felt only by the individual on supervision but also extends to the family. The article concludes with recommendations for improving the use of monetary sanctions within community supervision.

KEYWORDS:

• Monetary sanctions
• community supervisions
• violations
• revocations

Monetary sanctions are ingrained in every part of the criminal legal system (Shannon et al. 2020). They are so entrenched that governments depend on economic sanctions as sources of revenue (Graham and Makowsky 2021). Monetary sanctions are not new to the criminal legal system. However, in recent years, restitution, fines, and the myriad fees have garnered renewed attention thanks in part to the comprehensive work of Dr. Alexes Harris, the Fines and Fees Justice Center (https://finesandfeesjusticecenter.org/articles/in-debt-due-to-your-own-arrest-the-truth-about-fines-fees/), the funding from Arnold Ventures (https://www.arnoldventures.org/stories/fines-and-fees), the Department of Justice findings on Ferguson, Missouri (DOJ 2015) and the countless others who are researching and working on reforms around monetary sanctions across the criminal legal system (A. Harris, Pattillo, and Sykes 2022b; Martin et al. 2018; Pleggenkuhle 2018).

In this paper, I focus on the use of monetary sanctions within community supervision (probation and parole). In this context, monetary sanctions are commonly ordered and included in one’s sentence and conditions. Conditions are court-imposed requirements that individuals much abide by as part of their probation or parole sentence (Doherty 2016). When they are part of conditions, they can become part of the supervision case plan whereby the supervision officer becomes responsible for collecting and enforcing payment of monetary sanctions. Further, individuals could be violated if they do not pay. Violations are when individuals do not comply or follow their supervision conditions (Klingele 2013) Having monetary sanctions as part of their conditions adds a layer of stress that can make completing probation or parole difficult (E. Ruhland 2021). Including them as conditions may also change the focus of community supervision, especially for agencies that need this revenue for their operating budgets. In this current work, I show how monetary sanctions operate in community supervision, including the money owed by individuals and how it is collected and enforced by officers. This work also highlights how monetary sanctions are experienced by the individuals ordered to pay them. Monetary sanctions not only impact the individual under supervision but also their loved ones. When individuals are already experiencing limited incomes and have multiple household and family costs, we can understand how the entire family would feel the added effects of criminal legal monetary sanctions. This article emphasizes how the effects are felt. The paper concludes with some paths forward for future research and for reforms to reduce the burden caused by monetary sanctions.

Probation conditions and supervision

Individuals sentenced to community supervision (probation and parole) have many requirements that they must follow to complete their terms successfully. These are referred to as conditions. Some conditions relate to an individual’s risk and needs and, thus, would help them. These are often known as special conditions. However, many conditions are general and are ordered to everyone under supervision. Hence, they are not connected to the individual’s needs or the conditions related to their criminal conviction. The conditions applied to everyone on supervision are known as standard or general conditions. General conditions could include not associating with known ‘criminals,’ maintaining employment/obtaining a GED, submitting to random drug tests, and paying monetary sanctions (Doherty 2016).

The critical facet of supervision conditions is that they become part of one’s sentence once ordered. These conditions and probation become essentially a contract that the individual on supervision agrees to comply with (Raynor 2018). If this contract is breached, the individual on supervision is considered noncompliant, and they could face consequences or sanctions. The options for sanctions range from a minimal verbal reprimand to the most severe, incarceration to jail or prison. Many individuals are concerned about supervision because one infraction, no matter how small or regardless of whether it is the first violation, could lead to incarceration or the revocation of the community supervision terms (Durnescu 2011). However, community supervision officers have discretion in supervising individuals on their caseloads (Jones and Kerbs 2007; E. Ruhland and Scheibler 2022). Officers may have less discretion when the individual on supervision has committed a new criminal offense or severe violation that threatens community safety or the safety of the individual on supervision or another individual. They may be mandated to respond with a jail or prison sanction (E. Ruhland and Scheibler 2022). Discretion is necessary because the type of violation, its reason, and the individual circumstances all matter and should be considered for determining if a sanction should be given and, if so, what type.

Monetary sanctions conditions

Thus, the primary feature of community supervision is the conditions to which an individual is ordered and how the officers supervise that case, including how they respond to violated conditions. Another aspect of community supervision is that it is localized. The practice of probation and parole is also localized and varies by jurisdiction (Shannon et al. 2020). As a result, practices can vary across and within states. To explore this further, the Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice (Robina Institute) conducted exploratory studies on probation practices and policies in states and counties across the United States. Researchers, including the author of this paper, conducted interviews and focus groups with judges, attorneys, probation officers and administers, and with individuals on supervision to investigate the supervision of probation. A shared finding across states from individuals on probation was that these interviewees did report that following general conditions of probation was onerous but still possible. However, the one general condition that regularly caused the most consternation and emotional pain was the payment of monetary sanctions (Alper and Ruhland 2016).

Monetary sanctions are ordered throughout the criminal legal system, including community supervision (Harris 2016). Monetary sanctions include restitution, fines, and fees. Fines are often assessed by the conviction type and level of severity. The fine is part of the punishment (Martin et al. 2018). The amount of restitution depends on the damages or harms caused to the victim (person or business) (Ruback 2021) and often attempts to address the correctional goals of restoration. There are countless fees, including court costs, supervision fees (probation/parole/electronic monitoring), program/treatment fees, administrative fees, specialty fund fees, surcharges and interests, and late payment fees. The kinds of fees ordered vary significantly across jurisdictions. However, generally, the goals of fees are the same – to recoup the cost of providing the service, which is sometimes referred to as user fees (Harris, Pattillo, & Skyes 2022).

In many cases, fees are merely imposed to generate revenue. This is especially true for specialty fund fees, which go not directly to a service the individual on supervision is using or the victims but to a particular cause or foundation, such as crime stoppers or road development. Aside from revenue generation, fees ordered as supervision conditions lack a clear correctional purpose (Beckett and Harris 2011).

The recurring theme in Robina’s studies (Alper and Ruhland 2016; E. L. Ruhland et al. 2017) regarding the number of fees ordered and the overall hardships of paying monetary sanctions led me to study this issue further. It launched a body of action-orientated research projects that comprehensively investigated the administration of monetary sanctions, the consequences of ordering such payments for both community supervision departments and the individuals required to pay them, and to identify areas of reform based on the findings from this research.

Community corrections fines and fees study

The initial work started while I was at the Robina Institute, which led me to be the principal investigator of a multi-state, mixed-methods study exploring monetary sanctions in probation and parole. The Community Corrections Fines and Fees Study (CCFF), generously funded by Arnold Ventures, included co-investigators leading data collection in each state.¹ The findings for this article are from the CCFF Study and focus on the role of monetary sanctions in community supervision, including how much individuals are assessed and how money is collected.

Further, the findings demonstrate how officers supervise the payment of monetary sanctions, including their discretion in responding to and sanctioning late or nonpayments. Additionally, the findings elucidate how individuals experience emotional, financial, and in some cases, physical strains from the consequences of paying monetary sanctions as a condition of their supervision. Finally, this paper concludes with reform options that can be implemented on micro and macro levels to improve the use of monetary sanctions with community supervision.

Mixed methods were used to generate the findings discussed in this article. (https://ccffstudy.org/publications/), First, I used administrative probation data and survey data of probation staff and officers from Texas. I am only using the administrative data from Texas for a few reasons. First, for brevity, comparing monetary sanctions across states requires more space as the policies and practices differ. Since community supervision policies and practices vary by locale, the data findings are often not an apples-to-apples comparison. Thus, explaining the context of each site is needed to understand the data and its findings fully. Second, Texas is unique as it has many fees and they rely upon the fees to pay a portion of officer salaries and other expenses. Focusing on Texas allows us to view how reliance can impact beliefs and practices among the officers who participated in the survey.

The second primary method I used was qualitative interviews from individuals currently or recently released (within the last year) on probation and parole and qualitative interviews from an individual who served as a support person to the individual on supervision. In the CCFF study, we interviewed 98 individuals who were on or recently released from supervision, and 28 individuals were identified as their support person from across the states in the CCFF, except for Massachusetts. The supportive person was often a family member (parent, spouse, sibling) intimate partner or close friend.

This paper highlight findings from CCFF. The findings illustrate the assessment of monetary sanctions, collections around them, and the overall effects of these monetary sanctions on departments and individuals ordered to pay them.

Assessment of monetary sanctions in probation

The fees assessed per individual can be thousands of dollars. In one of the CCFF’s study sites in Texas, a sample of individuals in three counties were assessed an average of $5,573 in county one, $1,495 in county two, and $2,097 in county three. Fees also comprised the most significant portion of the monetary sanctions individuals assessed (see Table 1). The fees category encompasses all the fees, (e.g., supervision fee, program fees, specialty fees, etc.) that one was ordered to pay as a result of their supervision.

Table 1. Texas total monetary sanctions per individual descriptive statistics.

	County One (N = 102)	County Two (N = 5598)	County Three (N = 1718)
	Mean (S.D.)	Mean (S.D.)	Mean (S.D.)
Total Fines^a Assessed Per Person	$330.39 ($379.11)	–	$547.10 ($534.73)
Total Restitution Assessed Per Person	$1,392.70 ($4,635.42)	$544.29 ($4,396.71)	$406.02 ($2,490.84)
Total Fees Assessed Per Person	$5,573.87 ($3,148.77)	$1,495.27 ($1,836.02)	$2,097.54 ($2,126.29)
Total Amount Assessed Per Person	$7,296.96 ($5,573.24)	$2,035.82 ($5,029.45)	$3,050.66 ($3,650.37)

^aThis information was not available for County Two.

In County One, 50% of the individuals in the sample were identified in the case files as unemployed. In Counties two only 15% of the individuals were unemployed and in county three, 31% were reported as unemployed. However, not surprising individuals experiencing unemployment had greater difficulty paying their monetary sanctions. In County One, if a person had limited income and could not pay their monthly monetary sanctions bill, the departmental policy was to put the money towards the supervision fees first and restitution second. For example, if an individual was ordered to pay $300 monthly, the money was divided to pay their total fees, fines, and restitution. Suppose the individual could only pay $100 that month. The portion of the $100 would first go to what they owe in supervision fees, and then whatever was left would go towards the restitution. So, in this department in County One, supervision fees were prioritized over restitution. This practice also has implications for low-income individuals who have difficulty paying their total balance each month as it takes them longer to pay off their debt than someone with means.

Further, in an online survey of 51 probation officers and directors in all three counties, 93% of the respondents agreed with the statement, ‘Their agency culture involves trying to collect as many fees as possible.’ Aggressive collections are perhaps due partly to the fact that in Texas, probation departments rely on a portion of the supervision fees to fund officer salaries and other departmental costs (King, Petkus, and Ruhland 2022).

Revenue generation

Relying on the fees for operational support is a direct example of how the supervision fee is used to generate revenue to fund agency costs. The idea is that the system’s users (e.g., individuals on community supervision) should bear the burden of paying for some or all the services they use. The question often asked by administrators using this revenue model in Texas is, why should taxpayers be responsible for paying for individuals who have committed crimes? Further, there is a belief among some probation administrators and officers that individuals on supervision will be more invested in probation and its services because the person is paying for it. Nevertheless, one could argue that the government should be responsible for paying for these services because the individual is court-ordered to comply with probation and its services. They have no real choice in the matter (A. Harris, Evans, and Beckett 2010). However, some probation officers interviewed would disagree with this sentiment that individuals on probation have no choice. Some officers believe individuals could ‘choose prison’ rather than following the supervision conditions (E. L. Ruhland 2020).

Even if there is a ‘choice’ between probation and prison, the person has no choice once on probation regarding what department they are in or their probation officer. In a consumer or capitalistic world, we can take our business elsewhere if patrons are unhappy with a service. However, under this carceral system of forced monetary payments for services they must use, individuals under supervision have no recourse to take their business elsewhere. If probation does not provide satisfactory services, the individuals have no option but to continue to pay or face further penal consequences. Because of their carceral citizenship (Miller and Stuart 2017), they are required to make these payments.

Another concern with a model that depends on fees for a portion of the officer’s salaries and other departmental costs is that the system depends on consumers. The consumers are the individuals on supervision, however what happens when cases sentenced by the court to supervision are low? There would be budget implications. Thus, reliance on fees could lead to predatory practice (A. Harris 2020; Page and Soss 2021) or, at the very least, a net-widening effect. Individuals could be sentenced to probation rather than less severe sanctions, such as community service, to help balance budgets. Individuals may also receive longer sentences than needed to help balance the budget.

Officer discretion and authority with monetary sanctions

Legislators often determine monetary sanctions set within the state statutes (E. L. Ruhland et al. 2021). Probation officers have little authority on what monetary sanctions should be ordered and the amount of those orders. In the CCFF survey of probation staff and officers, most officers in Texas reported they had no authority or very little in deciding if individuals on supervision should be charged a fee (79% of survey respondents) and the amount of fees (88% of survey respondents). As noted previously, monetary sanctions are commonly part of the general supervision conditions for individuals on probation. Thus, it is often the probation officers who are charged with collecting and monitoring the payments. In the CCFF study, officers in Texas report greater discretion in their authority around collections than they did in assigning/determining the amounts of fees. While 47% of respondents believed they had no or little authority to determine when money should be collected, slightly more at 53% said they had some or a great deal of authority on this matter. Officers in Texas had the most agreement in their responses to questions on their authority to sanction clients for uncollected fees. Forty-three percent of officers reported they had some authority, and another 25% reported a great deal of authority to decide if uncollected fees became a sanction. Only 32% saw themselves as having no or very little authority to determine a sanction for unpaid fees.

Probation officers can utilize different sanctions to respond to noncompliance with conditions, including not paying or late payments of monetary sanctions (P. M. Harris, Petersen, and Rapoza 2001; E. L. Ruhland et al. 2021; Steiner et al. 2012). One such sanction could be extending the supervision terms² 96% of the Texas CCFF survey respondents stated this was a common action they or their agency would take for unpaid fees. Less common, 35% of the respondents said they or their agency would violate for nonpayment if other conditions violations were also present. Even fewer probation officers and staff respondents said they or their agency send unpaid fees to civil judgment (11% of respondents) or revoke the sentence (8% of respondents). Revoking probation terms solely because of nonpayment or late payments of monetary sanctions is commonly reported by supervision officers as action that do not actually use to respond to nonpayment (E. L. Ruhland 2020). Nevertheless, just because they do not use revocation does not mean that officers do not use the threat of revocation to compel payment. In previous qualitative studies on probation officers, officers reported threatening clients with revocation to encourage or scare them into making payments (E. L. Ruhland 2020; Shannon 2020).

Pressure to pay

Individuals on probation feel this pressure to pay and commonly believe their supervision officer would make good on their threat to revoke. These threats have emotional and further financial tolls on the individuals under supervision. Some worried about what would happen to their children if they became incarcerated. Others went without essential needs like hearing aids or food because the fear of revocation for nonpayment was so omnipresent (E. Ruhland 2021). Over half (56%) of the interviewees across the five states reported that they feared or, at the very least, were concerned about receiving a violation or being incarcerated because of a nonpayment of their monetary sanctions. They hear threats from their supervision officers, as illustrated in this comment by an interview participant,

Well, they threaten all the things: that they can extend your parole if you don’t pay your fees, that you can be violated because it’s a condition of your parole. Those were the two main threats right there: extension of parole or revocation.

The finding of over half of the sample reporting fears of incarceration and from this quote above illustrates that the warning of incarceration and revocation is real for many of those on supervision regardless of whether officers report using it only as a threat.

Over half (52%) of the interviewees reported they had a late or missed payment. Further, sixty percent of the interviewees stated that having to pay monetary sanctions impacted their family or support systems. Some individuals interviewed discussed that their family members and partners were scared that they (the individual on supervision) were going to end up in jail or prison because they could not afford the monetary sanctions. One person said, ‘She [the support person] was even more scared that she was going to lose me if I didn’t pay that … fee.’ Because of the high costs of the monetary sanctions, other individuals had to turn to their family and friends for financial assistance. This assistance strained the family members or other supportive persons’ financial resources and strained personal relationships. One interviewee said,

My mom is dealing with an illness right now, so that kind of – it kind of took a little lump on our relationship cause of the timing and asking her for money if I need it, and she could use it for her medication.

Monetary sanctions policies and practices implemented by the criminal legal system, and in this case, community supervision, does not limit punishment to the individuals involved in the systems. Moreover, these negative and burdensome policies and practices seep into their family and other relationships.

Their families, especially if they have children, may also do without things so that the parent (or family members) can pay the monetary sanctions. Some parents could not buy their children holiday or birthday presents, whereas others struggled to buy school supplies and pay their court-ordered monetary sanctions. Many individuals on supervision do not have the finances for their basic needs and additional correctional costs. One interviewee on supervision said,

We scrape together pennies just to go buy toilet paper, you know … and we both work full-time … we both work forty hours a week … it’s a lot, it’s a lot. It takes a lot.

Another person interviewed on supervision said they are relentlessly just ‘pushing money’ around until, ‘then I honestly stopped paying it [monetary sanctions].’ Despite the concerns over incarceration for failure to pay, some have no other options and cannot pay. However, when individuals bring their financial concerns to supervision officers, sometimes officers will ‘work with them.’ Officers will work with them by encouraging them to pay a little each week, such as five dollars this week and another five dollars next week. However, the individuals on supervision stressed that, at that rate, it would take them several years to pay their debt in full. At that time, they risked extending their probation or parole sentence to pay off the monetary sanctions. Research has shown that the ordering of monetary sanctions is the primary source of stress and anxiety for these individuals (A. Harris and Smith 2022).

Other officers said they worked with clients on their caseload who were finding it difficult to pay by offering to help the client create a budget. Some officers believe that individuals may have the money to pay monetary sanctions but need to learn how to budget. When officers sit down to budget with their clients, expenses, such as buying a pack of cigarettes or gym membership, are challenged as luxuries and could be used instead for their monetary sanctions. Lastly, officers ‘work with clients’ by offering suggestions on additional or odd jobs individuals could take. Officers assist by identifying ways to generate funds, such as encouraging the person to donate plasma (E. Ruhland 2021). For many probation officers, these are all acceptable suggestions and ways to work with the individual on supervision because they are ‘basically financing your freedom’ (E. Ruhland 2021, 11). The interconnection of monetary sanctions payment and the risk of one’s freedom for nonpayment leads to the concept of ‘layaway freedom’ (Pattillo and Kirk 2021). Humans are essentially making monthly layaway payments (no matter how small) on their bodies to prevent incarceration or, at the very least, further sanctions from the criminal legal system.

Since freedom can be in jeopardy, some turn to family members or others to help pay their monetary sanctions. As noted, this may create financial and relationship strains. Family members who may also be having difficulty may feel pressured to provide financial support because they do not want to see their loved one in jail or prison. Some family members even heard messages from probation and parole officers that if their loved one did not pay, their supervision sentence could be revoked. One family member of an individual on supervision said,

If it wasn’t for me several times paying, I’d say they would put him in jail because I was there when his officer told him if he got behind two payments, he would revoke him and put him in jail.

Other family members gave money but then may expect or require other services in return. One family member who gave $50 for court fees to their family member on supervision wanted them to babysit for her in return. Other interviewees on supervision reported doing yard work or household chores in return for financial assistance. Miller (2021) refers to how individuals with criminal records and those on supervision must often rely on family support and, in return, do what the family member needs or requires as an economy of favors.

Some family members and other supports do not have the income to help pay the monetary sanctions of their loved ones. One family member said,

I got to pay my bills too … I do help if I can … but he had to ask last month for the last $80 or whatever, and now he can get on a payment plan … I can’t keep on doing it because I don’t, you now, I don’t have it like that.

This quote above shows the financial strain that monetary sanctions have on family members and partners of the individuals on community supervision. There are also emotional tolls and, for some, an additional burden. One man interviewed had a partner who was under supervision, and he assisted his partner with her fees. He was asked if providing this assistance was a burden. His response,

Definitely. And I know you, you shouldn’t look at it that way when you’re married, but that’s just, just my feelings about it, I guess.

Another person did not see it as a burden but rather an inconvenience. They stated,

I mean, it hasn’t quite necessarily been a burden, it was just I mean, I love her to death, but it was a little bit more of an inconvenience. But it is what it is.

Not every family member or support person found it as burden though. Some had the means to pay, so they felt it was important to help their family member or the person they loved out. Others did not see providing support as burden because as one mother said, ‘she’s my daughter, it still comes down to family, you do what you have to do period.’ However, even if some families did not report it as a burden, there were still emotional or financial costs to assisting with the monetary sanctions. The consequences of monetary sanctions are not isolated to individuals ordered to make payments. Family members and other loved ones feel the abrupt consequences also.

Where do we go from here?

The recommendations to improve the administration and collection of monetary sanctions may be complicated because these financial supports are ingrained into some departments and agencies depend on monetary sanctions for a portion of their operational costs. As noted in this paper, there are several concerns with relying on this type of model. Chiefly, as it pertains to reform, a question often raised by departments with the funding model is – how will we make up this funding if we eliminate user fees? There are ways to answer this question by researching and evaluating the current models. We may find through further studies that probation and the use of monetary sanctions is indeed a net-widener in that people placed on probation do not benefit from this level of supervision or do not need to spend lengthy periods on supervision. If we can reduce probation caseloads, staffing can also be reduced or shifted elsewhere, thus reducing departmental operating costs.

More research is needed to examine what individuals are ordered to pay and how much time is spent on collections by supervision officers and other agency staff. The amount of staff time spent on collections may outweigh any financial benefits the funding accumulates. Cost-benefit studies can be time-consuming and arduous. Nevertheless, these studies are vital to genuinely comprehending if there are financial benefits and expenditures with monetary sanctions in community supervision. With Texas we see wide disparities among the counties in what individuals are assessed, more research is needed investigate why these differences exist.

Each department should do an audit to determine what fees could be eliminated. Some fees may be necessary, but some agencies have over 50 different types of fees that could be ordered for individuals on supervision. An important area to start may be around specialty fund fees that function primarily to generate revenue. When fees are warranted, there should be an ability to pay assessments to determine what the individual on supervision can reasonably pay. Ability to pay assessments must also be administered continuously as people’s income and expenses often change. Individuals should not be ordered payments that are so exorbitant that they would never be able to pay or that would take them several years to pay.

Additionally, the monthly payment amounts should be set at an amount that the individual can pay that does not create additional family and personal hardships. Paying one’s rent and basic needs should always be prioritized. When individuals on supervision do not have the money, waivers should be used as well as identifying alternatives to paying. For example, individuals could also conduct community service instead of paying monetary sanctions. However, this community service should refrain from interfering with the individuals’ work or other responsibilities. Sanctions should not be used when individuals cannot pay their monetary sanctions, and at the very least, punitive sanctions should never be used to sanction people for nonpayment. A further recommendation is that the department may want to avoid connecting monetary sanctions to supervision conditions.

Finally, more studies are being funded to conduct experimental designs to measure the impact of monetary sanctions and supervision success. However, even more studies are needed in this area because of the complexity of how fees are ordered and administered in community supervision. More experimental designs are needed to evaluate how monetary sanction affects the successful completion of supervision, recidivism, wealth creation and social capital, and overall well-being. In the last few years, greater attention has been paid to the issue of monetary sanctions within the criminal legal system. There is much we still need to learn. Yet, at the same time, we need to use the available research findings to begin implementing reforms that seek to reduce the financial and emotional burden of the individuals ordered to pay these monetary sanctions and on their families and support persons.

Acknowledgements

Thank you to Arnold Ventures for funding much of this research. Thank you to Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice (Kelly Mitchell and Kevin Reitz) for setting me on the path to study this important topic. Thank you to Alexes Harris for your mentorship. Thank you to Amber Petkus for assisting in the data collection and analysis and finally thank you to the community supervision departments and most importantly to the individuals on supervision and their support people for sharing their experiences.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Ebony L. Ruhland

Ebony L. Ruhland is an associate professor at the Rutgers University Newark. Her research focuses on how criminal justice policies and practices impact individuals, families, and communities. Dr. Ruhland is currently working on a multi-state research project that is examining fees and fines in community corrections. Through her research, Dr. Ruhland hopes to find ways improve criminal justice and corrections policies to reduce mass incarceration, racial disparities, and collateral consequences. Dr. Ruhland received her Ph.D. from the School of Social Work at the University of Minnesota.

Notes

1. Co-investigators/researchers: Indiana (Miriam Northcutt Bohmert and Michelle Ying) Massachusetts (Shytierra Gatson) Michigan (Meghan O’Neil) Pennsylvania (Jordan M. Hyatt & Nathan Link) Texas (Ebony L. Ruhland and Amber Petkus) Virginia (Julia Lakorunsky and Kelly Mitchell).

2. This was a check all survey question so officers could select multiple responses.