Examining the Interaction of Race and Probationer Noncompliance on Sanctioning Decisions

• Author: Danielle M. Romain,Amber E. Krushas
• Date: 01 April 2022
• Published date: 01 April 2022
• DOI: 10.1177/2153368719873022
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Examining the Interaction

of Race and Probationer

Noncompliance on

Sanctioning Decisions

Danielle M. Romain

1

and Amber E. Krushas

1

Abstract

Much of the prior literature on racial disparity has focused on sentencing decisions,

with recent studies examining possible interactions between defendant race and

legally relevant factors. Many defendants serve their sentences within the community,

yet less is known about decision-making when probationers are noncompliant with

the conditions of their sentence. Rooted in the focal concerns perspective and con-

gruence to stereotypes framework, this study examines whether noncompliance

issues are moderated by probationer race in predicting the likelihood of a jail sanction.

A sample of 302 review hearings from domestic violence courts was included for

analysis. Results demonstrate that several noncompliance issues influenced sanc-

tioning, independent of race; no significant interactions were found. Implications for

probation decision-making are discussed.

Keywords

probation, focal concerns, race, judicial decision-making, stereotype congruence

A considerable amount of the literature on judicial decision-making has focused on

sentencing (Baumer, 2013; Spohn, 2000; J. T. Ulmer, 2012; Zatz, 2000). Throughout

this research, studies have examined the influence of both legal and extralegal factors,

and their interactions, on decision-making (e.g., Clair & Winter, 2016; Spohn, 1999;

J. Ulmer, Painter-Davis, & Tinik, 2016). Fewer studies have examined judicial

decision-making postsentencing (e.g., Gould, Pate, & Sarver, 2011; Gray, Fields, &

1

Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, Milwaukee, USA

Corresponding Author:

Danielle M. Romain, Department of Criminal Justice, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, PO Box 786,

1139 Enderis Hall, Milwaukee, WI 53201, USA.

Email: dmromain@uwm.edu

Race and Justice

ªThe Author(s) 2019

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/2153368719873022

journals.sagepub.com/home/raj

2022, Vol. 12(2) 231–\ 251

Maxwell, 2001; Rodriguez & Webb, 2007; Steinmetz & Henderson, 2015), yet almost

60%of offenders were sentenced to community supervision in 2016 (Kaeble &

Cowhig, 2018). Half of these probationers did not successfully complete their sen-

tence, 42%of which were revoked due to noncompliance. While some studies have

examined factors that influence noncompliance, few have examined whether different

types of noncompliance and individual factors (i.e., race/ethnicity and gender)

influence sanctioning and revocation decisions (see Ray & Dollar, 2013; Steinmetz &

Henderson, 2015; Tapia & Harris, 2006). Further, none have examined whether race

moderates the influence of noncompliance on the decision to sanction or revoke

probationers, yet there is a growing body of sentencing literature that demonstrates

that legally relevant factors such as prior record and offense severity may be mod-

erated by race in sentencing decisions (e.g., Hauser & Peck, 2017; J. T. Ulmer &

Laskorunsky, 2016).

Additionally, the literature examining judicial decision-making throughout non-

traditional courts is even more scant (e.g., Ray & Dollar, 2013), and none to date have

examined domestic violence probation reviews. Given that over 200 domestic vio-

lence courts exist in the United States, understanding whether the processing of these

offenders is similar or different to traditional courts and other problem-solving courts

is critical (Labriola, Bradley, O’Sullivan, Rempel, & Moore, 2010; see also J. T.

Ulmer, 2012). With the expanse of defendant information and forms of sanctioning

available to judges throughout such courts, the discretion they hold is vast (Griffin,

Steadman, & Petrila, 2002; Ray & Dollar, 2013). With such discretion, opportunities

for disparity arise. Court officials may perceive certain offenders as being more

culpable and less amenable to rehabilitation than others, whether due to fitting

existing stereotypes or demeanor (Albonetti, 1991; Bridges & Steen, 1998; Jones &

Kaplan, 2003; J. T. Ulmer & Laskorunsky, 2016).

This study examines the interaction of race and probationer noncompliance on

sanctioning decisions in probation review hearings in three midwestern domestic

violence courts in 2016. A total of 302 hearings were observed to determine what

factors influence sanctioning for noncompliance. Utilizing stereotype congruence and

the focal concerns perspective, we examine whether probationers who fit existing

racialized stereotypes of the “dangerous” and “blameworthy” offender are more likely

to be sanctioned for noncompliance (Steffensmeier, Ulmer, & Kramer, 1998; J. T.

Ulmer & Laskorunsky, 2016). If noncompliance factors are moderated by race, judges

and other key probation personnel would benefit from greater awareness of their own

attributions and stereotypes when reviewing cases throughout the probation process.

Review of the Literature

Focal Concerns and Fitting Stereotypes

The focal concerns perspective has been a dominant theoretical perspective in

examining judicial decision-making over the past 20 years. This framework states that

judges are guided by three overarching focal concerns when processing defendants at

232

Race and Justice 12(2)