By Kelley, L., Vignati, J., Wilkens-Earle, B., Grey, O., & Haberlen DeWolf, M.

Georgia’s juvenile justice system is at a crucial juncture, facing both significant challenges and promising opportunities for reform. This extensive analysis offers a comprehensive overview of the system’s structure, key partners, recent reforms, and ongoing issues. It aims to inform policymakers, advocates, and community leaders about the current state of juvenile justice in Georgia and guide efforts to improve outcomes for justice-involved youth. The landscape of juvenile justice in Georgia is intricate and unique. The state operates a functionally bifurcated system, with stateadministered “dependent” courts and locally operated “independent” courts, resulting in a patchwork of practices and policies across the state. This bifurcation poses challenges in standardizing approaches and collecting comprehensive data. According to its fiscal year (FY) 2023 annual report, the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) supervised more than 9,000 youth daily, with secure facilities admitting more than 7,000 individuals and maintaining an average daily population of 1,051. However, these figures only partially tell the story. One of the most pressing issues confronting juvenile systems across the country is the overrepresentation of Black youth in the juvenile justice process. In Georgia, this overrepresentation is significant and increases as Black youth move through every stage of the juvenile justice process. This disparity indicates deeper systemic problems that require urgent attention and targeted interventions. The analysis also reveals troubling trends in behavioral health among justice-involved youth. In FY 2023, 65% of youth in long-term confinement and 48% in short-term detention were on the mental health caseload, underscoring the critical need for enhanced behavioral health services within the juvenile justice system and local communities. The intersection of education and juvenile justice presents another area for improvement. There are significant racial disparities in academic achievement, school discipline, and dropout rates. Zero-tolerance policies and the presence of law enforcement in schools may contribute to the “school-to-prison pipeline,” pushing students, particularly students of color, into the juvenile justice system for behaviors that would be better addressed within the home and community. Family and community factors play a crucial role in youth outcomes as well. Poverty, adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), and lack of community resources are identified as risk factors for juvenile justice involvement. The analysis found that 18% of children in Georgia have experienced two or more ACEs, with higher rates among Black and Hispanic children, highlighting the need for traumainformed approaches and community-based interventions across the state. The report also addresses issues surrounding focus populations within the juvenile justice system. Georgia remains one of just four states that process 17-year-olds in the adult criminal justice system, a practice widely criticized by juvenile justice advocates. Additionally, the treatment of youth charged with serious, violent felonies (Senate Bill 440 cases) and those sentenced to life without parole raises questions about age-appropriate responses to even the most severe offenses. Data collection and information sharing also pose a challenge. The lack of a comprehensive statewide data system impedes effective analysis and decision-making. Cross-agency information sharing is limited in Georgia, particularly for youth involved in multiple systems, making the provision of coordinated, holistic care difficult. Workforce challenges within the juvenile justice system present another hurdle, particularly in secure facilities. DJJ faces substantial retention and recruitment difficulties, especially for juvenile correctional officers. High turnover rates and staffing shortages impact quality of care and safety, potentially undermining rehabilitation efforts. However, with great challenge comes great opportunity. This report proposes a series of recommendations to address these multifaceted issues, including expanding community-based alternatives to detention and incarceration, enhancing behavioral health services, addressing racial and ethnic disparities, improving data systems, strengthening inter-agency collaboration, and investing in workforce development. Additionally, this report recommends raising the age of juvenile court jurisdiction and considering policy reform related to serious offenders, implementing a comprehensive plan for CHINS cases, and studying the impact of juvenile fines and fees.

Atlanta, GA : Voices for Georgia’s Children, 2025. 170p.

By Melissa M. Labriola; Jessie Coe; Isaac M. Opper; Danielle Sobol; Amy Mahler

This research report presents an evaluation of Neighborhood Courts, a restorative justice diversion program run by the District Attorney in San Francisco. Results indicate that the program reduces recidivism (although this result is statistically insignificant). Neighborhood Courts is built on a restorative justice framework with the use of restorative justice hearings and directives that are assigned to the defendant, all to achieve four primary goals: 1) efficient case resolution; 2) community-driven solutions; reduced burden on criminal courts; and 4) reduced recidivism. This report uses information collected from program staff and participant interviews and surveys, administrative data, and observations of programs to describe how the program is implemented, identify key program facilitators and barriers, illustrate participant experiences, determine whether the model is effective in reducing risk factors for criminal legal involvement (e.g., recidivism), and whether it is cost-effective. This report should be of interest to entities across the U.S. interested in diversion programs.

Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2023. 37p.

By Patrick Armstrong

This policy framework outlines policy recommendations developed as part of a Justice Reinvestment Initiative effort in Kansas from 2020 to 2022 in collaboration with the Kansas Criminal Justice Reform Commission. Analysis conducted throughout the project resulted in numerous policy and practice recommendations to improve community supervision, victim services, behavioral health supports, employment opportunities, and housing for people in the criminal justice system. These recommendations were advanced to the Commission, and some were introduced to the legislature during the 2021 session. Some of these bills, in addition to new ones, were also considered in the 2022 session. Recommendations related to improving supervision by focusing resources where they can be most effective, expanding prosecutor diversions, and extending the existence of the Commission culminated in legislation that was signed into law in May 2021. Recommendations focused on improving specialty court programs, allowing people to petition to be removed from a drug offenses registry, and ensuring that people on supervision are supervised by only one entity were signed into law in April 2022.

New York: The Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2022. 16p.

By Diarmuid Griffin

Existing research on life imprisonment focuses on interrogating the sentence from a human rights perspective, exploring lived experiences, and examining release processes. There are few studies that analyse the judicial practice of imposing life imprisonment. This article examines judicial rationales in imposing and upholding discretionary sentences of life imprisonment in Ireland, from 1987 to 2022. The findings indicate that it is selectively imposed (primarily for sexual or homicide offences). Sentence selection is frequently influenced by the multiplicity of offending, the exceptional nature of the crime(s) and the vulnerability of the victim(s). Factors such as the risk of reoffending and previous criminal history also appeared to influence sentence outcomes. The indeterminate nature of the sentence was viewed as beneficial in addressing concerns relating to public protection. Author: Diarmuid Griffin

IRISH JUDICIAL STUDIES JOURNAL , 2024. 18p.

By The Sentencing Council for England and Wales

The Sentencing Council for England and Wales was set up in 2010 and produces guidelines for use by all members of the judiciary when sentencing after conviction in criminal cases. The Council promotes a clear, fair, and consistent approach to sentencing by issuing sentencing guidelines and explanatory materials. It has a statutory duty to monitor these sentencing guidelines and to draw conclusions from the information obtained (s129 Coroners and Justice Act 2009). On 1 October 2018, the Council published the intimidatory offences guidelines, which are a package of five guidelines covering 11 offences, including harassment and stalking offences. The five guidelines are for use in all courts and apply to all adult offenders (those aged 18 or over at the time of sentence). The guidelines came into force on 1 October 2018 and cover: • a combined guideline covering the offences of harassment, stalking and racially or religiously aggravated harassment/stalking • a combined guideline covering the offences of harassment (putting people in fear of violence), stalking (involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress), and racially or religiously aggravated harassment (putting people in fear of violence)/stalking (involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress) • threats to kill • disclosing private sexual images • controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship The Council developed guidelines to replace the Magistrates’ Court Sentencing Guidelines (MCSG) for harassment, harassment (putting people in fear of violence), racially or religiously aggravated harassment, racially or religiously aggravated harassment (putting people in fear of violence) and threats to kill, to provide more detailed guidance as these guidelines were only applicable to the magistrates’ courts. Additionally, the package introduced new guidelines for stalking, stalking (involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress), racially or religiously aggravated stalking, and racially or religiously aggravated stalking (involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress), as there were no guidelines previously covering these offences. The guidelines also covered the newer offences of disclosing private sexual images and controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship which were introduced in 2015. The aims of the guidelines are to ensure that all sentences are proportionate to the offence committed and in relation to other offences.

London: Sentencing Council for England and Wales, 2025. 93p.

By Beatrix Immenkamp with Greta Baltikauskaite, Graphics: Samy Chahri

The European arrest warrant (EAW) is a judicial decision issued by a Member State with a view to the arrest and surrender by another Member State of a requested person for the purposes of a criminal prosecution or a custodial sentence. Between 2005 and 2022, some 231 005 EAWs were issued, and 69 688 persons were surrendered. The functioning of the EAW system – as set out in this infographic – requires a high level of trust between the judicial authorities of the issuing and the executing Member State, which has at times generated challenges and tensions. In the internal security strategy published on 1 April 2025, the Commission stated that it would 'assess the need to further strengthen' the EAW.

Brussels: EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service, 2025. 2p.

By Kierra B. Jones Evelyn F. McCoy Natalie Lima Rod Martinez

Prosecutor-led diversion programs are growing in popularity in many jurisdictions across the country and offer a unique opportunity for prosecutors to address the impact prosecutorial decisions have in perpetuating mass incarceration and an opportunity to reduce local jail populations. Diversion programs can both hold people accused of wrong-doing accountable, while reducing the deleterious effects of incarceration. This case study, part of a series highlighting work supported by the Safety and Justice Challenge, examines how Milwaukee County, Wisconsin developed and implemented prosecutor-led diversion strategies to reduce the local jail population.

Washington DC: The Urban Institute, 2022.36p.

By Evelyn F. McCoy, Azhar Gulaid, Nkechi Erondu, Janeen Buck Willison

Increased rates of pretrial detention have driven overall growth in the jail population nationwide and carry significant individual and systemic impacts for people of color, who are disproportionately affected by pretrial policies. Targeting rates of failure to appear in court in local jurisdictions is key to reducing pretrial jail populations, especially because failure to appear can result in bench warrants and ultimately detention. This case study, part of a series highlighting work supported by the Safety and Justice Challenge Innovation Fund, examines the experiences of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, and Hennepin County, Minnesota, which implemented strategies to reduce rates of failure to appear in court and to reduce their respective jails’ pretrial populations.

Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 2021. 22p

by Marina Duane, Jennifer Yahner, Erica Henderson, Malore Dusenbery, and Natalie Gilbert

At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, in a community with high rates of opioid addiction, a jail in one county in rural Massachusetts showed that treating addiction for people cycling in and out of incarceration can be done better (Partners for a Healthier Community Inc. 2015). In 2020, the Franklin County Sheriff’s Office (FCSO) capitalized on its previously built infrastructure and system partners to offer all three federally approved medications for opioid use disorders (MOUDs) and provide therapeutic counseling remotely to incarcerated people as a critical component of treatment. While the majority of jails in the United States do not offer MOUDs as an option to start or continue treatment during incarceration, the FCSO was able to continue offering all three medications (buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone) during the pandemic and to meet diverse clinical needs of people coming into their jail. The FCSO also continued offering individual and group counseling via telehealth throughout the pandemic and shifted to a mix of telehealth and in-person services in 2022. understand what facilitated or hindered its successful application and how clients (that is, incarcerated people) and the professionals supporting them perceived the effects. Our findings fill a critical gap in knowledge about whether counseling can be effectively delivered via telehealth in correctional settings. We hope this brief provides useful knowledge to other jails across the country on how to shift to a treatment philosophy. In addition, we hope it gives other localities some ideas on how to create an infrastructure that is conducive to treating opioid use disorders (OUDs) with the dignity and prowess required to address the complexities of the unaddressed mental health needs that often accompany addiction. The results of this study are promising, as illustrated in the following highlights:  Over a decade ago, FCSO leadership set a vision and a strategy to become a nationally recognized facility that prioritizes high-quality behavioral health treatment rather than simply “warehousing” people. Such transformation took time, but our findings suggest that at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, most FCSO staff recognized their important role in curbing high rates of opioid addiction in Franklin County. Staff made significant strides in expanding behavioral health treatment and therapeutic counseling as its critical component.  By 2020, the FCSO was offering all three modalities of federally approved medications to treat opioid use disorders as continuation and induction options. While most jails in the United States still do not offer any MOUD treatment, FCSO provides a range of options to meet the complex needs of people with OUD diagnoses wherever they are in the recovery stage.  Our evaluation demonstrates ways in which the FCSO was able to provide high-quality one-onone counseling remotely at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, out of 31 surveyed clients, 90 percent reported a strong bond with their counselor, also known as therapeutic alliance, and 84 percent rated the quality of telehealth counseling as “good” or “excellent.” Furthermore, 87 percent of respondents said that counseling via telehealth helped them more effectively deal with problems in their lives, including addiction.  Although some FCSO behavioral health staff we interviewed reported it was challenging to do trauma work in jail with people struggling with addiction and who often get released quickly, overall, staff praised the FCSO’s decision to offer high-quality counseling and maximize clients’ time in therapy to address important mental health needs.

Washington, DC: The Urban Institute 2023. 17p.

By Leigh Courtney, Barbara Pierce, Ashlin Oglesby-Neal , Susan Nembhard

Many states have enacted comprehensive justice system reforms to reduce incarceration and community supervision in order to focus funding more on people at higher risk of reoffending and invest in strategies to achieve better outcomes for people and communities. Many policy reforms have been spurred by significant growth in the number of people on community supervision. According to a 2018 Pew Charitable Trusts chartbook, probation and parole populations nationwide grew 239 percent from 1980 to 2016 (Horowitz, Utada, and Fuhrmann 2018). Notably, community supervision populations peaked in 2007 and then fell 11 percent between 2007 and 2016. 1 To date, research on the impact of states’ community supervision policy changes has not kept pace with the rate at which they have been enacted, leaving policymakers and practitioners with a knowledge gap on which reforms have made a difference and why. The Urban Institute and the Crime and Justice Institute (CJI) assessed policies reforming probation sentencing in two states, Louisiana and Georgia, to understand their impact on people who are supervised and on outcomes including revocation and successful completion. Reforming probation sentencing is one way to ensure scarce resources are prioritized for supporting and monitoring people when their risk of failing supervision is highest, not for long periods after this risk has declined. Research has shown that supervision is most effective when it focuses on people who are at higher risk of reoffending and that recidivism rates drop precipitously after the first year of supervision (Alper, Durose, and Markman 2018; Andrews and Bonta 2010). A statutory reduction of the length of probation supervision terms can be a direct way to reduce the number of people under community supervision. When implemented consistently, probation sentencing reform may yield more reliable reductions of the supervised population than reforms that depend heavily on changing supervision practices. And by limiting how long supervision resources can be expended on people at low risk of failure, these reforms can yield significant gains in cost savings and community safety. In contrast to other community supervision reforms (such as earned discharge policies) that require people to incrementally earn time off potentially lengthy sentences at the back ends of their terms, probation sentencing reform establishes upper limits that apply uniformly to entire categories of people at the front ends of their terms. Despite these potential benefits, wholesale reductions of probation sentence lengths are uncommon. States’ strategies for reducing probation sentences have varied: some have shortened all probation sentences for certain offenses by reducing the maximum probation sentences allowed for those offenses, whereas others have simply granted judges the flexibility to impose shorter sentences than the maximums. Meanwhile, some states have used creative strategies to establish a presumption of shorter probation terms without changing sentencing requirements. These strategies blend front-end reductions of sentences with mechanisms similar to earned discharge policies that enable early release, but they also grant courts and supervising agencies discretion to extend those sentences at the back end because of noncompliance with supervision terms. For this reason, any assessment of the impact of probation sentencing reforms must consider the details of how they have been implemented and the extent to which discretion is allowed. Urban and CJI assessed implementation and analyzed outcomes of different approaches in Louisiana and Georgia. In 2017, Louisiana’s Senate Bill 139 eliminated the one-year minimum for all probation sentences and reduced the maximum sentence for felony probation from five to three years for a first, second, or third conviction for a nonviolent, non-capital felony. Approximately 89 percent of new probation starts in 2018–19 were for nonsex, nonviolent offenses. The policy allows judges to extend probation terms up to five years for people who do not comply with supervision conditions. The law affects everyone sentenced to probation as of November 2017. Also passed in 2017, Georgia’s Senate Bill 174 established two mechanisms for reducing probation sentence lengths. First, it requires that a probation sentence for any first-time felony conviction with a straight probation sentence (with no prison time) include a behavioral incentive date (BID) of three years or less, at which point the Georgia Department of Community Supervision (DCS) must file a petition to terminate probation if the person has not been arrested for anything other than a nonserious traffic offense during their probation term, has complied with the conditions of supervision, and has paid all restitution owed. About a third of the felony probation population from July 2017 to December 2020 was eligible for BIDs.2 Second, it makes early termination of probation available to anyone convicted of certain nonviolent felony offenses who has been sentenced to three years or more and who has not previously had their supervision revoked. The law requires DCS to file a petition for early termination for anyone who has completed three years of supervision and has not been arrested for anything other than a non-serious traffic offense, has complied with the conditions of supervision, and has paid all restitution. Courts may accept or reject BID petitions and early termination petitions at ends of their terms, probation sentencing reform establishes upper limits that apply uniformly to entire categories of people at the front ends of their terms. Despite these potential benefits, wholesale reductions of probation sentence lengths are uncommon. States’ strategies for reducing probation sentences have varied: some have shortened all probation sentences for certain offenses by reducing the maximum probation sentences allowed for those offenses, whereas others have simply granted judges the flexibility to impose shorter sentences than the maximums. Meanwhile, some states have used creative strategies to establish a presumption of shorter probation terms without changing sentencing requirements. These strategies blend frontend reductions of sentences with mechanisms similar to earned discharge policies that enable early release, but they also grant courts and supervising agencies discretion to extend those sentences at the back end because of noncompliance with supervision terms. For this reason, any assessment of the impact of probation sentencing reforms must consider the details of how they have been implemented and the extent to which discretion is allowed. Urban and CJI assessed implementation and analyzed outcomes of different approaches in Louisiana and Georgia. In 2017, Louisiana’s Senate Bill 139 eliminated the one-year minimum for all probation sentences and reduced the maximum sentence for felony probation from five to three years for a first, second, or third conviction for a nonviolent, non-capital felony. Approximately 89 percent of new probation starts in 2018–19 were for nonsex, nonviolent offenses. The policy allows judges to extend probation terms up to five years for people who do not comply with supervision conditions. The law affects everyone sentenced to probation as of November 2017. Also passed in 2017, Georgia’s Senate Bill 174 established two mechanisms for reducing probation sentence lengths. First, it requires that a probation sentence for any first-time felony conviction with a straight probation sentence (with no prison time) include a behavioral incentive date (BID) of three years or less, at which point the Georgia Department of Community Supervision (DCS) must file a petition to terminate probation if the person has not been arrested for anything other than a non-serious traffic offense during their probation term, has complied with the conditions of supervision, and has paid all restitution owed. About a third of the felony probation population from July 2017 to December 2020 was eligible for BIDs.2 Second, it makes early termination of probation available to anyone convicted of certain nonviolent felony offenses who has been sentenced to three years or more and who has not previously had their supervision revoked. The law requires DCS to file a petition for early termination for anyone who has completed three years of supervision and has not been arrested for anything other than a nonserious traffic offense, has complied with the conditions of supervision, and has paid all restitution. Courts may accept or reject BID petitions and early termination petitions at

Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 2022. 40p.

By Brian Elderbroom, Leah Sakala, and Ammar Khalid

Utah adopted criminal justice reform legislation (H.B. 348) in 2015 to curb prison population growth and invest in behavioral health treatment, including reclassifying first and second drug possession convictions from felonies to misdemeanors. Our analysis finds that Utah successfully reduced the number of felony drug possession convictions, with a 71 percent drop between 2014 and 2018. Additionally, people spent a combined 105,011 fewer days in prison for drug possession in the two years following reform than in the two years before. Furthermore, reconviction and imprisonment rates for people with drug possession convictions were low prior to the policy reform and remained unchanged afterwards. However, Utah’s prison population is again growing, arrests for drug possession are rising despite declining arrests overall, and prison admissions for possession with intent to distribute offenses are increasing. This brief offers recommendations that Utah policymakers can consider to build on prior reforms, address additional prison population growth, and continue to invest in more effective public safety solutions.

Washington DC: The Urban Institute, 2020. 19p.

By Shamena Anwar, Patrick Bayer, Randi Hjalmarsson, Matthew L. Mizel

Virginia law states that any motorist pulled over for driving 20 miles per hour (mph) or more over the speed limit or driving in excess of 80 mph at any speed limit (or 85 mph as of July 2020) is eligible for a reckless driving citation, which is a Class 1 misdemeanor violation. However, both law enforcement officers and the courts can use discretion to reduce the misdemeanor charge to a simple traffic infraction. In this report, researchers use data on speeding violations in 18 Virginia counties over a nine-year period to examine whether there are racial disparities in who benefits from this discretion and why these racial disparities might exist.

Key Findings

Law enforcement and the courts are afforded significant discretion in misdemeanor cases

When Virginia officers pull over a motorist for speeding in the reckless range, they can either charge the motorist with a misdemeanor or downgrade the charge to an infraction. Officers in this sample downgraded the charge to an infraction 58 percent of the time.

At the court stage, the court can convict the motorist of the misdemeanor charge, amend the charge downward (typically to an infraction), or dismiss the charge entirely. In this sample, the courts amended or dismissed these misdemeanor speeding charges 42 percent of the time.

Penalties for a misdemeanor conviction are significantly higher than penalties for an infraction

A misdemeanor conviction results in a criminal record, higher fines and fees, and a worse driving record, all of which can have important impacts on an individual's life.

Black motorists were more likely to be convicted of a misdemeanor

Among motorists cited for speeding in a range that qualified for a misdemeanor, 36 percent of Black motorists were convicted of a misdemeanor, compared with 19 percent of White motorists.

Racial disparities were present at both the law enforcement and court stages of the process. Compared with White motorists, Black motorists both were more likely to be charged with a misdemeanor by law enforcement and, conditional on being charged, were more likely to be convicted by the courts.

The county in which a motorist was cited explained almost half of the racial disparity in whom law enforcement charged with a misdemeanor.

About four-fifths of the racial disparity in whom the court convicted of a misdemeanor could be explained by observable case characteristics, such as whether the motorist attended the court hearing and whether a defense attorney was present.

Recommendations

One potential way to remove the option for disparate treatment, and to ensure that motorists in different counties are policed in the same way, would be to move to a statewide system of automated speed enforcement, in which cameras are set up to identify and send citations to speeding vehicles. The misdemeanor speed threshold could be set so that the overall level of enforcement is similar to current levels (in which a majority of motorists' potential misdemeanor charges are discounted), but the criteria would apply to all motorists across the state in the same way regardless of race or location.

A large percentage of the racial disparities at the court stage occurred because of racial differences in who attended the court hearing. If this pattern is caused by racial differences in being aware that court attendance is required, the citation issued to motorists could be restructured to make the next steps in the process clearer, and text message reminders for upcoming court dates could be sent to motorists.

Many jurisdictions have started to develop online platforms so that court hearings for traffic violations can occur remotely. Such platforms might result in a more standardized process, which might lessen the importance of attorneys — another driver of the overall racial disparity observed at the court stage. Furthermore, these platforms could hide the race of the motorist from the judge, potentially reducing judges' ability to engage in disparate treatment.

Santa Monica, RAND, 2021. 73p.

BY THE PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE

Key Takeaways Archival research conducted for this report demonstrated that racial disparities observed in Philadelphia’s criminal court system are rooted in severe historical injustices and wealth inequality. For over a century, Black Philadelphians have been overrepresented in arrests and criminal charges, relative to their representation in the City’s broader population. Disparities have not been resolved and in many cases have been worsened by federal, state, and local laws and policies. Combining publicly-available datasets reveals that markers of systemic disinvestment such as poverty, unemployment, litter, health problems, and eviction are concentrated in formerly red-lined neighborhoods where residents are predominantly Black and Latinx. From 2015 to 2022, Black defendants were charged at disproportionately higher rates relative to other groups in seven of the eight most common criminal charge categories. Even when accounting for prior criminal record and illegal firearm charges, Black and Latinx individuals who are convicted of aggravated assault or burglary are more likely to be sentenced to incarceration than white individuals convicted of the same crime. Latinx individuals convicted of possessing drugs with intent to distribute (PWID) are more likely to be sentenced to incarceration than Black or white defendants, even when they have no prior record or illegal firearm charges. While this administration’s policies have helped to reduce disparities in supervision and probationary sentences, large racial disproportionalities remain in Philadelphia’s court system. Justice agencies and social institutions must work together to fix the structural racism that creates disparities across systems 

Philadelphia: The District Attorney's Office, 2023. 68p.

by Terry Huang, Katarzyna Wyka, Maria Khan,

The US incarcerates more people than any country in the world. Driven by racial bias in policing policies, practices and sentencing, as well as biases toward individuals of lower socio-economic background, minority groups are disproportionately exposed to police contact and incarceration. People who have a history of incarceration face elevated risk of adverse health outcomes prior to incarceration, and incarceration is likely a determinant of the racial/ethnicity disparity in health. There is strong evidence showing that criminal legal system involvement (CLI) plays a role in cardiovascular disease (CVD) and STI/HIV exposure. CLI also appears to be associated with other chronic conditions such as diabetes22, and adverse pregnancy outcomes such as miscarriage. In addition, there is evidence CLI increases exposure to violence, including homicide and suicide. Given the intersection of incarceration and a myriad of health risks, there is a critical need to develop public health programs for people released from incarceration focused on client-centered goals to best protect health and wellbeing, and promote social integration, upon return to the community. The New York City Health Justice Network (NYC HJN), an innovative health service delivery program for individuals returning from incarceration, was developed and implemented by the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH), with criminal justice reform funding from the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office (DANY) Criminal Justice Investment Initiative (CJII). NYC HJN sought to provide individuals recently released from incarceration with peer support from community health workers (CHW) with lived experience of successful reentry from the criminal legal system and access to integrated primary care and social services. As an intersectoral strategy to improve community health and well-being, NYC HJN aimed to reduce the likelihood of further contact with the criminal legal system. NYC HJN addressed a wide range of client health needs, including support with health insurance, primary care, dental care, mental and behavioral health, and social service needs such as assistance with employment, housing, food security, obtaining vital documents (e.g., identification), and legal support. CHWs provided social and emotional support and served as critical advocates to help clients navigate the healthcare system as well as a wide range of social service organizations deemed critical to successful community reentry. The NYC HJN program served people released from both prison and jail. Those served generally represented the incarcerated population in NYC. This final evaluation report aims to examine the association of NYC HJN program participation with criminal legal system re-involvement outcomes, including re-arrests, conviction/reconviction and reincarceration at 6- and 12- months post program start. For the purpose of this evaluation, a sample of HJN clients who enrolled in the program between 2020-2022 were recruited and consented into the study. Using administrative data from criminal justice agencies in New York, HJN clients were compared to a sample of controls matched on age, sex, time spent incarcerated during the last jail or prison stay, top charge for the last incarceration, and frequency of incarceration in the past 5 years. For the final analysis, 203 HJN clients were matched against 339 individuals serving as controls. Bivariate results showed that HJN clients had a lower average number of re-arrests at 6-months compared to controls, as shown in Figure 1 below. This trend was present up to 12 months after program start. Other outcomes such as rates of conviction/reconviction and reincarceration were lower among HJN program participation relative to controls but were not statistically significantly different between the two groups. After adjusting for covariates, there were no significant differences in any of the outcomes at 6- or 12-months between HJN clients and controls, except for the lower mean number of re-arrests in the HJN group. The lack of statistical significance among other variables should be interpreted with caution, as the results may have been affected by the small sample size and relative short duration of the study.

New York: NYU-CUNY Prevention Research Center , 2025. 45p.

By Alejandra Garcia, Taylor DeClerck, Amber Moe, Sarah Blanco, Karen Otis, Danielle Pugh

TIPS Lab was born out of the need to address trauma in criminal courts—an urgent need shown by statistics on the prevalence of violence and victimization in the United States. For defendants in criminal courts, the prevalence of trauma is estimated at twice the rate as that of the general population,1 and for female, transgender, and juvenile defendants, experiences of victimization are nearly ubiquitous.2 Trauma can lead to justice system involvement through several mechanisms: substance use spurred by trauma, which can lead to arrest and prosecution for drug-related crimes; coercion to engage in criminal activity by an abusive partner or exploiter; trauma symptoms such as emotional dysregulation, hypervigilance to threat, and angry outbursts that increase risk for engaging in violent behavior and arrest; and utilization of violence as a survival strategy and learned behavior.3 Involvement in the system itself, including arrests, arraignments, and jail stays, are also opportunities for re-traumatization. Individuals who have experienced trauma within the criminal court system may exhibit symptoms such as flashbacks, overwhelming emotional and physiological responses, numbing, and dissociation. These symptoms can impact their well-being and hinder their ability to participate in the legal process. Trauma within the criminal legal system can manifest as attempts to gain a sense of control and safety; difficulty with attention, concentration, and memory; guardedness; and difficulty trusting court practitioners. When trauma is left unaddressed, defendants can cycle through the system, experiencing repeated arrests and prosecutions. Additionally, criminal court practitioners may have had their own traumatic experiences and can also be traumatized, or re-traumatized, which can affect their well-being and effectiveness as a practitioner.4 Practitioners can implement the recommendations in this blueprint to address trauma in order to enhance the consistency and effectiveness of criminal court practice, resulting in processes that are less stressful, calmer, and more comfortable for all court users

New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2025. 64p.

By UK Ministry of Justice

In the summer of 2024, capacity pressures brought the prison system dangerously close to collapse. The adult prison population, estimated to be over 87,000 as of April 2025,1 currently exceeds the capacity the system is designed to accommodate and is projected to increase. To address these capacity challenges, successive governments have been forced to adopt emergency measures to free up spaces, including reducing the release point for some prisoners from 50% of their sentence to 40% (SDS40).2 These measures cannot resolve the capacity crisis in the long term nor fortify the effective running of our prisons. Commissioned by the Ministry of Justice in October 2024, this Independent Sentencing Review (“the Review”) was given the task of a comprehensive re-evaluation of our sentencing framework, to ensure the country is never again in a position where it has more prisoners than prison places, and the government is forced to rely on the emergency release of prisoners. This Review also welcomes the opportunity to think more imaginatively about how we sentence and use custody, holding the view that our current system, regardless of prison capacity pressures, requires considerable reform to rehabilitate offenders more successfully, reduce reoffending and support victims. The purposes of sentencing, as set out in legislation, are punishment, reduction of crime, reparation, rehabilitation and public protection. The Review’s Part 1 report History and Trends in Sentencing found that over the last two decades, sentencing has focused disproportionately on punishment with a view from politicians and the media that “the only form of punishment that counts is imprisonment.”3 Punishment is an important aim of the criminal justice system and prison plays a vital role in delivering punishment. However, too often political decision-making has been based on an approach that punishment is all that matters, with political parties lacking appropriate focus on the most effective ways to reduce crime. This is demonstrated by the high levels of reoffending, suggesting that the current approach is failing to achieve rehabilitation and address the root causes of offending. Overall, proven reoffending rates for adult offenders have fluctuated between

Recommendations

There are nine detailed chapters in the review, each with accompanying recommendations – a total of 48 in all. I summarise the nine chapter headings and overall recommendation for each below.

Revisiting the statutory purposes of sentencing – recommends amending the statutory purposes of sentencing to emphasise the importance of protecting victims and reducing crime.

Strengthening alternatives to custody in the community – recommends revising the sentencing framework to ensure sentencers can take full advantage of the flexibility of community sentencing, including financial penalties and ancillary orders.

Reducing reliance on custody – the expected recommendation to legislate to ensure short custodial sentences are only used in exceptional circumstances.

Incentivising progression from custody to community – prisoners can be released earlier through “earned progression” defined as rewarding compliance with prison rules.

Taking a victim-centred approach – recommendations to improve public awareness and information on sentencing, more transparency about sentence lengths and better support to victims.

Targeted approach to different groups – recommendations aimed at prolific offenders, women, drug and alcohol offenders, older offenders, Foreign National Offenders and sex offenders.

The role of the probation service – more investment in the service itself and funding for Third Sector and community organisations.

The role of technology – rapid roll out of technology in offender supervision, improved data sharing and explore use of advanced AI.

A sustainable prison system – longer term recommendations including an external advisory body and transparency around the impact of new legislation on prison capacity.

London: UK Ministry of Justice, 2025. 192p.

By Roland Neil and Beau Kilmer

As policymakers and criminal justice agencies review how they have addressed problems related to illegal drugs over the past decade, it is useful to examine relevant data and policy changes from this period. This paper first analyzes trends in multiple criminal justice indicators related to drugs, focusing primarily on the period from 2010 onward. It then highlights a handful of noteworthy policy changes that have been implemented, accelerated, or in some cases reversed during the ongoing overdose crisis. Finally, it presents some key findings from the analysis and offers some recommendations to policymakers and criminal justice practitioners. KEY FINDINGS Trends in criminal justice indicators ■ From 2010 to 2019, drug offenses accounted for 12%-16% of all reported arrests nationwide, making them the largest category of arrests during that period. ■ Data from the Uniform Crime Reporting system show a decline in drug possession arrests from 2010 to 2019, primarily driven by a reduction in cannabis-related arrests. When excluding cannabis, drug possession arrests increased, largely due to the “Other − dangerous nonnarcotic drugs” category, which includes methamphetamine. ■ More recent trends are harder to track due to changes in how the Federal Bureau of Investigation collects and reports arrest data. However, our analysis of data from 17 states with reliable National Incident-Based Reporting System coverage suggests that drug arrests—even excluding cannabis— generally declined from 2017 to 2022. ■ While caution is advised when interpreting drug seizure data for insights into law enforcement or drug seller behavior, the data show a sharp increase in fentanyl seizures and a noticeable decrease in heroin seizures. Methamphetamine seizures surged for much of the period but appear to have reversed in recent years. ■ As with most offense types, more individuals convicted of drug offenses are supervised in the community (e.g., via probation or parole) than incarcerated. ■ The number of individuals on probation or parole for drug offenses dropped by approximately 22% and 15%, respectively, between 2011 and 2021. However, due to incomplete data on offense types, these figures are rough estimates. ■ The federal and state prison populations for individuals serving sentences for drug offenses have also declined substantially over the past decade. Notably, the most significant drop in state prison populations was among Black individuals, whose numbers decreased by more than 50% between 2010 and 2019. ■ There are limited data on drug prices over the past decade, though one study found that the purity-adjusted price of fentanyl powder in the lower-wholesale market dropped significantly from 2016 to 2021, despite the sharp increase in seizures. Changes in drug policies and practices ■ A growing number of jurisdictions have implemented police-led diversion or deflection programs aimed at facilitating treatment and reducing arrests and criminal justice consequences. However, the evidence base for these emerging programs remains thin. ■ At the same time, there has also been an increase in the application of drug-induced homicide laws and Good Samaritan laws. While both Oregon and Washington have relaxed their drug possession laws in recent years—Oregon through a ballot initiative and Washington via a court decision—both states’ legislatures later passed laws recriminalizing possession. ■ Carrying naloxone to respond to overdoses is now a common practice among U.S. police. Though less common, some law enforcement agencies have also made efforts to follow up with individuals who have overdosed. RECOMMENDATIONS ■ Improve data infrastructure: Although data collection on drug-specific arrests has improved significantly, major gaps remain in many criminal justice indicators related to drugs, particularly regarding jail admissions, the role of drugs in probation and parole revocations, and drug prices (especially purity-adjusted prices). Data infrastructure and access should be improved to enable comprehensive analysis and informed policymaking. ■ Refrain from using drug-induced homicide laws: Jurisdictions should avoid enacting or applying drug-induced homicide laws, as there is no empirical evidence supporting their effectiveness and they run counter to what we know about how deterrence works. These laws may also deter individuals from calling authorities during an overdose. ■ Pilot and evaluate police-led diversion and deflection programs: Police-led diversion and deflection programs should be piloted and rigorously evaluated. We must also recognize that the success of these programs will likely vary depending on the outcomes measured (e.g., overdose deaths versus rearrests) and the availability and quality of services in the community. ■ Consider context and evidence when evaluating alternatives to criminal penalties for drug possession: The liberalization of drug possession laws in Oregon and Washington coincided with a surge in fentanyl use. In Oregon, the substance use disorder treatment infrastructure was already weak and there were serious implementation issues related to the rollout of Measure 110. While drug possession arrests have clearly declined, many other outcomes remain uncertain and lack consensus. Jurisdictions exploring alternatives to criminalizing possession should consider the experiences of Oregon and Washington, the emerging research on these policies, and evidence from other countries on decriminalization. ■ Reconsider how criminal justice resources are allocated: In areas heavily affected by fentanyl, law enforcement agencies currently focused on supply-reduction efforts—in the hope that such efforts will increase fentanyl prices and thus curb consumption in the long run—may want to consider reallocating some of these resources to other strategies. Depending on the jurisdiction, these can include addressing open-air drug markets that create disorder and trauma in neighborhoods, partnering with service organizations to pilot diversion and deflection programs, training and equipping officers to respond to overdoses, and combating the violence, corruption, and money laundering tied to illegal drug markets. While the evidence base for some alternative approaches to traditional drug law enforcement remains limited, this sometimes reflects their novelty rather than their potential. Meanwhile, current efforts are not often grounded in evidence-based best practices. Given the severity of the overdose crisis and the widespread and increasingly entrenched presence of fentanyl in much of the country, policymakers and criminal justice practitioners must think outside the box. Experimenting with promising new approaches, even when evidence is scarce or unavailable, is urgently needed to improve upon the status quo. As these models are implemented, it is crucial to rigorously evaluate them to determine what works and establish best practices for law enforcement’s response to fentanyl and the overdose crisis.

Washington, DC: Foreign Policy at Brookings, 2024. 41p.

By Tanya Mehra, Merlina Herbach, Iwa Maulana

According to UNSC 1373(2001), States should bring alleged terrorists to justice, reflecting the seriousness of the crimes they have committed, which forms a vital aspect of an effective counterterrorism strategy. Consequently, States need to ensure that any person who participates in the financing, planning, preparation, or perpetration of terrorist acts or in supporting terrorist acts is brought to justice. States must similarly ensure that such terrorist acts are established as serious criminal offences under domestic law and that the punishment duly reflects the seriousness of such terrorist acts. When committed during armed conflict, some terrorist acts can constitute war crimes, and where terrorist acts are conducted as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population, they can constitute crimes against humanity. In some situations, terrorist acts may also constitute genocide if they are committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. While several terrorist groups such as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), Boko Horam, Taliban, or the Maute Group are engaged in an armed conflict, one conflict stands out: the conflict in Syria and Iraq. The rise of ISIS resulted in an unprecedented flow of foreigners who travelled to the conflict zone. In response, several United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs), in particular 2178(2014) and 2396(2017), oblige States to take measures to prevent such travel and criminalise a range of activities related thereto. Several international independent organisations have documented how ISIS committed attacks against civilians, in particular minorities, pillaged houses, in addition to multiple crimes other crimes such as murder, persecution, enslavement, sexual slavery, and rape. Several of these crimes amount to so-called core international crimes, namely war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide. Hence, in recent years, several countries have started to prosecute members of ISIS for both terrorist offences and core international crimes. Examples include the prosecution for the war crime of pillaging, where members of a terrorist organisation occupied an estate after the original inhabitants were forced to flee, or for the war crime of outrage upon personal dignity for posting a picture of a mutilated body with degrading comments on social media. By prosecuting terroristrelated acts as core international crimes, perpetrators are being held accountable for the full range of crimes they have committed. This may lead to high(er) sentences and provide justice to victims. Ultimately, prosecuting terrorist-related offences with linkages to core international crimes can strengthen efforts to end impunity. Indonesia has seen a considerable number of its citizens travel to Syria and Iraq to join ISIS and other organisations and, like many other countries, is concerned with the security risks that are involved but also how to adopt effective prosecution, rehabilitation, and reintegration approaches. This report looks at the challenges and opportunities to prosecute alleged terrorists for both terrorism and core international crimes in Indonesia. This report reflects the findings of the project ‘Interlinkages Indonesia’ which was conducted by the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism – The Hague (ICCT) together with the Indonesian Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Terrorisme (BNPT) from 15 June 2023 to 31 March 2025. During this project, two workshops, a closed-door expert meeting ,and a public panel were held. This report reflects the main findings on how cumulative charging for terrorism and core international crimes can be implemented in Indonesia for the so-called foreign terrorist fighters (FTFs), especially in light of the new Indonesian criminal code that will enter into force on 1 January 2026. This report provides a short overview of the status quo concerning Indonesian foreign terrorist fighters and the approach taken thus on prosecuting those that have returned. After discussing some of the legal, institutional, and evidentiary challenges, this report provides an overview of the opportunities for Indonesia to adopt cumulative charging for terrorist offences and core international crimes.

The Hague: The International Centre for Counter-Terrorism (ICCT) , 2025. 30p.

By The UK Comptroller and Auditor General

Family justice is concerned with keeping children safe and helping families resolve disputes. It includes cases on protecting children, who children live with and how they spend time with their family, as well as divorce, adoption and associated financial arrangements. In this report we will use the term family justice to refer to government activity on these cases. Family justice is distinct from civil and criminal justice. Family justice cases account for around one in seven cases heard in family, civil or criminal courts. Family justice uses shared assets, such as courtrooms, and shared staff. In this report we focus on the two categories of family justice cases that involve legal disputes over children: ‘public law’ and ‘private law’. Public law cases are brought by local authorities to protect a child from harm. Private law cases involve parental disputes, such as the living or contact arrangements for their child. These two types of cases are among the most costly and time-consuming family court cases as they can involve vulnerable children, substance misuse and domestic abuse. In 2024, there were 15,980 new public law cases and 51,473 new private law cases. Family justice involves the judiciary and several central government organisations and public bodies working together. The Department for Education (DfE) and the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) are the lead policy departments for public law and private law, respectively. Local authorities are statutorily responsible for safeguarding children and social work. HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) is responsible for administration of the courts and judges and magistrates hear the cases. The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) and its equivalent in Wales, Cafcass Cymru, advise the courts on what is safe for children and in their best interests. Independent solicitors and barristers represent families at court and may be funded by legal aid. The way a case is managed differs between public law and private law (Figure 2) but broadly involves: • working with families to improve care or provide support to resolve issues before court; • if the child’s safety is at risk or a solution cannot be found, an application is made to the court; • assessments are made, evidence is collected and court hearings held; and • the magistrate or judge will decide on the best course of action and make a court order. These can vary from taking the child into local authority care to setting parental contact. Scope 5 This report reviews the government’s approach to improving how public law and private law cases are managed, with a specific focus on improving family justice services for children. This report covers England and Wales. The main government bodies we have audited are MoJ, DfE, HMCTS and Cafcass in England. Cafcass Cymru is a devolved service, delivered and funded by the Welsh Government, and is therefore outside the scope of this report. We do not audit the judiciary, which is constitutionally independent of the executive branches of government. Therefore, although we are aware of judicial-led improvement work, we have not evaluated this work in our audit. We have focused on the family courts process from where a case is brought to court onwards, and have not audited the work of local authorities. We have not audited the quality of children’s services or the outcomes of cases. Timeliness of family courts 6 Family courts have a backlog of cases but have recovered better than criminal courts after the COVID-19 pandemic. In December 2024, there were 47,662 outstanding cases; 10,121 in public law and 37,541 in private law. Unlike in Crown Courts where the outstanding caseload has continued to rise following the pandemic, the outstanding caseload in family courts has reduced by 18,081 (28%) from a peak of 65,743 cases in August 2021. This is partly because family court demand has fallen over the period. Also, MoJ increased funding and sitting days for family courts in 2020-21 to help reduce the outstanding caseload. Both the backlog and funding have since reduced; HMCTS expenditure on family courts was 17% lower than in 2021-22 in 2023-24 prices (£368 million in 2020-21; £307 million in 2023-24). The government has not set out how it assesses the appropriate capacity to manage the caseload most efficiently (paragraphs 1.6, 1.7, 2.21, Figure 4 and Figure 5). Children and families are still waiting too long to have their cases resolved. A statutory time limit was introduced in 2014, for most public law cases to be resolved within 26 weeks. However, the average time taken has consistently been longer and there is no limit to the number of extensions that can be given. In 2024, a public law case lasted 36 weeks on average. There is no timeliness target for private law, and in 2024 a case took 41 weeks on average. There is significant regional and local variation in timeliness. For example, in December 2024, public law cases lasted on average 29 weeks longer in London (53 weeks) than in Wales (24 weeks) and private law cases lasted on average 52 weeks longer (70 weeks in London and 18 weeks in Wales). In December 2024, there were over 4,000 children involved in public and private law proceedings that have remained open for more than 100 weeks. The proportion of children waiting over a year for a public law case increased from 0.7% in January 2017 to 12% in December 2024 (paragraphs 1.8 to 1.10 and Figure 6). (Continued)

London; The UK National Audit Office (NAO) , 2025. 57p.

By LINDSAY GRAEF, SANDRA G. MAYSON, AURÉLIE OUSS & MEGAN T. STEVENSON

This Article aims to reorient the conversation around “failure-to-appear” (FTA) in criminal court. Recent policy and scholarship have addressed FTA mostly as a problem of criminal defendants in connection with questions about how bail systems should operate. But ten years of data from Philadelphia reveal a striking fact: it is not defendants who most frequently fail to appear but rather the other parties necessary for a criminal proceeding—witnesses and lawyers. Between 2010 and 2020, an essential witness or private attorney failed to appear for at least one hearing in 53% of all cases, compared to a 19% FTA rate for defendants. Police officers, victims, other witnesses, and private attorneys each failed to appear at rates substantially higher than defendants. In short: FTA is a systemic phenomenon.

The systemic nature of FTA calls into question the extreme asymmetry between the treatment of defendant and non-defendant FTA. Bail reform has generated intense debates about when cash bail, detention, and other pretrial interventions are warranted to ensure defendants’ appearance. Given that witnesses and lawyers also have a legal duty to appear, the systemic nature of FTA requires more comprehensive thinking about how best to get people to court and when restrictions on liberty are appropriate.

Systemic FTA also has systemic consequences, because when essential witnesses don’t show, cases are dismissed or withdrawn. FTA thus serves a regulatory function by providing a check on the nature and volume of criminal adjudications. Sometimes this function seems beneficial, as when witness FTA carries information about the strength or worth of the case, but other times it seems like a problem. The sheer volume of police officer FTA creates an impression of arbitrariness, dysfunction, and disrespect. Other aspects of this regulatory dynamic are more ambiguous. For instance, victim FTA rates are so persistently high that many appear to be effectively “opting out” of the criminal proceeding. Does this tell us that certain classes of harm are better dealt with outside of the criminal legal process? Or are we, as a society, losing something valuable when cases are dismissed due to victim or witness nonappearance? More generally, when is witness FTA a problem and when is it a healthy check on the system? This Article aims to draw attention to systemic FTA as an important feature of contemporary U.S. criminal legal systems, identify the core questions that it raises, and lay a path for future research.

172 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1 (2024)., 60p.