Representation through Participation: A Multilevel Analysis of Jury Deliberations

Fully participatory jury deliberations figure prominently in the idealized view of the American jury system, where balanced participation among diverse jurors leads to more accurate fact-finding and instills public confidence in the legal system. However, research more than 50 years ago indicated that jury-room interactions are shaped by social status, with upper-class men participating more than their lower-class and female counterparts. The effects of social status on juror participation have been examined only sporadically since then, and rarely with actual jurors. We utilize data from 2,189 criminal jurors serving on 302 juries in four jurisdictions to consider whether—and in what conditions—participation in jury deliberations differs across social groups. Our results indicate the continuing importance of social status in structuring jury-room interactions, but also reveal some surprising patterns with respect to race and gender that depart from earlier research. We also find that contextual factors including location, case characteristics, and faction size shape the relationship between social status and participation. We conclude with a critical discussion of our results and urge other researchers to take into account contextual factors when examining how individual juror characteristics shape what happens inside the jury room

Criminal Record Inaccuracies and the Impact of a Record Education Intervention on Employment-Related Outcomes

Final report submitted for grant.More than 70 million Americans have some form of criminal record, which can limit their access to employment opportunities, eligibility for occupational licensure, and public benefits. The use of criminal background checks in the hiring process has also dramatically increased over the past decade, and there is reason to think that many criminal records are inaccurate. Prior research has not determined the extent of errors on criminal records. We also do not know educating individuals about their records may promote efforts toward record correction and improve employment and other economic outcomes. The present study harnesses a unique opportunity to investigate the accuracy of criminal records and the impact of a record education intervention on job-seeking behaviors, employment opportunities, and economic outcomes for people with criminal records. We focus on class members of the Gonzalez, et al. v. Pritzker class action lawsuit. This group of individuals applied for a job with the 2010 Census, but they were denied employment because of a criminal background check. As part of the lawsuit settlement, class members were offered the choice of one of two remedies: a criminal records intervention that educates them about their criminal record and their related employment rights, or early notice of hiring for the 2020 Census. Individuals who chose the record education intervention are provided with a copy of their criminal record and a training session to review their record and provide information about their rights when applying for jobs or other employment-related opportunities. In addition, all class members in the two remedy groups were invited to participate in the first two waves of the Cornell Criminal Records Panel Survey (CCRPS). We combine data from the panel survey with administrative data from the records training (including actual criminal records) to address two main research questions. First, we ask: What is the prevalence of errors in criminal records of members of this class, and how are these errors distributed across racial/ethnic and sociodemographic groups? Using data from the record education intervention, we describe the errors discovered on participants’ records and how those errors vary across racial/ethnic and socioeconomic groups. Second, we ask: How does understanding one’s criminal record and relevant legal rights affect job- seeking behaviors, employment opportunities, economic attainment, and social engagement? To address this question, we leverage a quasi-experimental design, comparing class members who receive the criminal records intervention to those who opt into early notice of Census 2020 hiring, in order to examine how the criminal records intervention shapes job- seeking and other behaviors.US Department of Labor EO-30278-17-60-5-3

Cornell Project for Record Assistance Questionnaire - A-filers

Questionnaire used by the Cornell Project for Records Assistance, part of the Cornell University ILR School (Industrial and Labor Relations), to collect information about respondents, their work history, their involvement with the criminal justice system, if any, and their choice of remedy under the settlement of the Gonzalez et al v. Pritzker case. The responses were used to inform support and remedy provided to respondents.Funding was provided by Outten & Golden as part of the settlement

Cornell Project for Record Assistance Questionnaire - B-filers

Questionnaire used by the Cornell Project for Records Assistance, part of the Cornell University ILR School (Industrial and Labor Relations), to collect information about respondents, their work history, their involvement with the criminal justice system, if any, and their choice of remedy under the settlement of the Gonzalez et al v. Pritzker case. These respondents had chosen not to receive remedy, information was collected to understand their choice.Funding provided by Outten & Golden as per settlement

Cornell Criminal Records Panel Study Questionnaire Wave 2

Questionnaire used by the Cornell Criminal Records Panel Study. Subjects are members of the class in the law suit against the US Census Bureau. The purpose of this research is to learn more about the errors in background screening and understand how criminal records impact employment opportunities.Department of Labor Grant EO-30278-17-60-5-3

Cornell Project for Records Assistance Questionnaire - with routing

Questionnaire used by the Cornell Project for Records Assistance, part of the Cornell University ILR School (Industrial and Labor Relations), to collect information about respondents, their work history, their involvement with the criminal justice system, if any, and their choice of remedy under the settlement of the Gonzalez et al v. Pritzker case. This version contains routing information.Funding provided by Outten & Golden under the settlement

Gender and Public Talk

This article develops a theory of the gendered character of public talk as a way to account for women's variable participation in the settings that make up the public sphere. Public settings for citizen talk such as radio call-in shows, social networking sites, letters to the editor, and town hall meetings are culturally coded female or male. In feminized settings, where the people who organize public talk are from feminized professions and where the favored modes of talk and action emphasize stereotypically feminine values, women are likely to be as active and influential participants as men. We test this proposition by way of an examination of the organized public deliberative forums in which many Americans today discuss policy issues. We show that women truly are equal participants in these forums. We account for this surprising development by demonstrating the female gendered character of the contemporary field of organized public deliberation. © American Sociological Association 2013