Across California, local psychiatric inpatient treatment capacity has declined significantly; counties have dramatically expanded jail capacity; and state prisons have been forced to alter their use of solitary confinement because of a landmark settlement. In this dissertation, I study the impacts of these important events and trends. I use quantitative methods and rich data assembled from a variety of public but infrequently examined sources.

First, I study the consequences of losing inpatient psychiatric treatment capacity on both jail incarceration and the prevalence of mental illness among the jail incarcerated. I use multilevel models and a quasi-experimental synthetic control group research design. I find that a county losing all local psychiatric treatment capacity leads to higher rates of jail bookings and significantly increased prevalence of mental illness in jail.

Second, I examine the impact of jail expansion on jail incarceration and overcrowding using a difference-in-difference research design. I find that additional jail capacity causes increased jail bookings, total average daily population (ADP), and misdemeanor ADP but decreased early releases. The effect of additional jail capacity grows larger over time the longer the jail expansion is open, and the effect varies substantially between counties.

Third, I investigate how solitary confinement use evolves in response to legal challenges and how solitary confinement use impacts rates of violence in prisons. I document that the landmark case Ashker v. Governor of California led to a meaningful reduction in solitary confinement use, but that the practice has persisted and is still frequently used by prisons. Additionally, I find that solitary confinement use is not associated with the safety of prisoners but may be weakly associated with rates of recorded violence against prison staff.

Scholars of marriage and family recognize the changing social importance of family relationships in contemporary American society. Due to the acceleration of these changes in the second half of the 20th century and into the 21st century, the meanings and boundaries of “family” are being called into question now more than ever. Much of the discussion derives from a monogamous perspective, that is, either a heterosexual, or a gay or lesbian couple. This framework does not include another family form gaining popularity, which is the families of polyamorists. How do polyamorists—who may be involved in two or more simultaneous, romantic relationships—approach family-building? Furthermore, how do they operate and navigate treacherous and often hostile legal territory in their family-building endeavors?

Drawing on two sets of in-depth interviews with 31 polyamorists, I find that their family-building behaviors do not look radically different from traditional, monogamous families. They often create family units similar to the nuclear family by delineating the degree of commitment to each of their partners. To do this, polyamorists implement hierarchies by choosing one individual to be their “primary” or “nesting” partner, retaining others as “secondary” or “tertiary” partnerships. These hierarchies can be deliberate or applied inadvertently through decisions about social and/or legal responsibilities—an approach I call an “unintentional hierarchy.” However, intriguingly, this behavior differs from the polyamorist ideology of egalitarianism, a model they aspire for across all their relationships.

Applying a feminist theoretical perspective, this research examines this paradox by exploring the role of law in the family lives of polyamorists. To understand how polyamorists experience interactions with socio-legal institutions in their families and how they may or may not resist, avoid, or implement legal ideas, I examine the role of what socio-legal scholars call “legal consciousness.” Legal consciousness is an interpretive approach to studying the law that developed among socio-legal scholars to explain how the law sustains its hegemonic power. I argue that the inconsistencies found within the families of polyamorists are also mirrored in their experiences of the law. Polyamorists deride the state for acting as a source of control in their family lives while simultaneously seeking state protections for their families. These conflicting relationships between polyamorists, the law, and legality help explain the prevalence of hierarchies within the family lives of polyamorists. Moreover, this research continues the work of socio-legal scholars to underscore the ways that legal ideas and discourse shape the behaviors of marginalized populations, which has implications for the nature of legal consciousness and the way we understand the reproduction of law's legitimacy and power. This research contributes to the sociology of families as well as the legal consciousness literature by expanding our understanding of how non-traditional families are created and how they utilize but are also constrained by the law.

This report presents the findings of a research project on bias crime in Sacramento, California. The project was a collaboration between UCD Sociology Professor Ryken Grattet and four undergraduate sociology majors at UCD. The report describes the characteristics of bias crime in Sacramento and compares bias crime in the city with the State of California as a whole. The data presented in the report come from the Sacramento Police Department and the California Department of Justice. The report also contains a methodological discussion of the weaknesses of these data sources.