By Scott Peyton

The probation and parole division is tasked with collecting monies ordered by courts and/or dictated by Louisiana statute. Collection practices should focus on victim restitution with less emphasis placed on the collection of monies that have little bearing on public safety.

KEY POINTS

• Community supervision is costly, often for reasons unrelated to supervision or the offense committed.

• The ability to pay determination as recommended by the Justice Reinvestment Initiative reforms has been delayed for nearly five years.

• Community supervision should focus on the collection of victim restitution over other legal financial obligations.

• The 10% collection fee that is added to victim restitution should be eliminated to allow for increased monies to victims.

Austin, TX: Right On Crime, 2023, 12p,

By Scott Peyton

The entry points for community supervision in Louisiana are complex and diverse and are the result of years of legislative and policy changes.

KEY POINTS:

• A thorough review of the Probation and Parole budget is recommended to identify opportunities for increased efficiency and to maintain the effectiveness and impact of community supervision. 

• The Louisiana legislature should review and update current Louisiana Department of Corrections policies concerning Earned Compliance Credits to conform with American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) model legislation. 

• To ensure consistency across the state, and to assess the effectiveness of the violation/revocation process, probation and parole should report quarterly revocation data by district office and officer.

• Special and general conditions of supervision should only include conditions directly related to public safety and should be tailored to the specific needs of the probationer. 

• Expand and fund partnerships with non-profit organizations.

Austin, TX: Right On Crime, 2024. 28p.

By Amy Smith

Over the past four decades, the rate of incarceration in the United States has skyrocketed to unprecedented heights, both historically and in comparison to that of other developed nations. At far higher rates than the general population, those in or entering U.S. jails and prisons are prone to many health problems. This is a problem not just for them, but also for the communities from which they come and to which, in nearly all cases, they will return.

Health and Incarceration is the summary of a workshop jointly sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences(NAS) Committee on Law and Justice and the Institute of Medicine(IOM) Board on Health and Select Populations in December 2012. Academics, practitioners, state officials, and nongovernmental organization representatives from the fields of healthcare, prisoner advocacy, and corrections reviewed what is known about these health issues and what appear to be the best opportunities to improve healthcare for those who are now or will be incarcerated. The workshop was designed as a roundtable with brief presentations from 16 experts and time for group discussion. Health and Incarceration reviews what is known about the health of incarcerated individuals, the healthcare they receive, and effects of incarceration on public health. This report identifies opportunities to improve healthcare for these populations and provides a platform for visions of how the world of incarceration health can be a better place.

Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2013. Health and Incarceration: A Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press

By National Research Council

After decades of stability from the 1920s to the early 1970s, the rate of imprisonment in the United States more than quadrupled during the last four decades. The U.S. penal population of 2.2 million adults is by far the largest in the world. Just under one-quarter of the world's prisoners are held in American prisons. The U.S. rate of incarceration, with nearly 1 out of every 100 adults in prison or jail, is 5 to 10 times higher than the rates in Western Europe and other democracies. The U.S. prison population is largely drawn from the most disadvantaged part of the nation's population: mostly men under age 40, disproportionately minority, and poorly educated. Prisoners often carry additional deficits of drug and alcohol addictions, mental and physical illnesses, and lack of work preparation or experience. The growth of incarceration in the United States during four decades has prompted numerous critiques and a growing body of scientific knowledge about what prompted the rise and what its consequences have been for the people imprisoned, their families and communities, and for U.S. society.

The Growth of Incarceration in the United States examines research and analysis of the dramatic rise of incarceration rates and its affects. This study makes the case that the United States has gone far past the point where the numbers of people in prison can be justified by social benefits and has reached a level where these high rates of incarceration themselves constitute a source of injustice and social harm.

The Growth of Incarceration in the United States recommends changes in sentencing policy, prison policy, and social policy to reduce the nation's reliance on incarceration. The report also identifies important research questions that must be answered to provide a firmer basis for policy. The study assesses the evidence and its implications for public policy to inform an extensive and thoughtful public debate about and reconsideration of policies.

National Research Council. 2014. The Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

By the National Research Council

Eyewitness identifications play an important role in the investigation and prosecution of crimes, but they have also led to erroneous convictions. In the fall of 2013, the Laura and John Arnold Foundation called upon the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to assess the state of research on eyewitness identification and, when appropriate, make recommendations. In response to this request, the NAS appointed an ad hoc study committee that we have been privileged to co-chair. The committee’s review analyzed relevant published and unpublished research, external submissions, and presentations made by various experts and interested parties. The research examined fell into two general categories: (1) basic research on vision and memory and (2) applied research directed at the specific problem of eyewitness identification. Basic research has progressed for many decades, is of high quality, and is largely definitive. Research of this category identifies principled and insurmountable limits of vision and memory that inevitably affect eyewitness accounts, bear on conclusions regarding accuracy, and provide a broad foundation for the committee’s recommendations. Through its review, the committee came to recognize that applied eyewitness identification research has identified key variables affecting the accuracy of eyewitness identifications. This research has been instrumental in informing law enforcement, the bar, and the judiciary of the frailties of eyewitness identification testimony. Such past research has appropriately identified the variables that may affect an individual’s ability to make an accurate identification. However, given the complex nature of eyewitness identification, the practical difficulties it poses for experimental research, and the still ongoing evolution of statistical procedures in the field of eyewitness identification research, there remains at the time of this review substantial uncertainty about the effect and the interplay of these variables on eyewitness identification. Nonetheless, a range of practices has been validated by scientific methods and research and represents a starting place for efforts to improve eyewitness identification procedures. In this report, the committee offers recommendations on how law enforcement and the courts may increase the accuracy and utility of eyewitness identifications. In addition, the committee identifies areas for future research and for collaboration between the scientific and law enforcement communities. We are indebted to those who addressed the committee and to those who submitted materials to the committee, and we are particularly indebted to the members of the committee. These individuals devoted untold hours to the review of materials, meetings, conference calls, analyses, and report writing. This report is very much the result of the enormous contributions of an engaged community of scholars and practitioners who reached their findings and recommendations after many vigorous and thoughtful discussions. We also would like to thank the project staff, Karolina Konarzewska, Steven Kendall, Arlene Lee, and Anne-Marie Mazza, and editor Susanna Carey for their dedication to the project and to the work of the committee.

National Research Council. 2014. Identifying the Culprit: Assessing Eyewitness Identification. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

By Holly Rhodes

The Committee on Law and Justice of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine convened a workshop in April 2018 to examine how the criminal justice system affects the fundamental status of people as members of society and to consider next steps for research, practice, and policy for the field. Ruth Peterson (Ohio State University), chair of the workshop planning committee, stated that the goal of the workshop was to find common ground to work toward a criminal justice system that avoids social exclusion through consequences “so severe or lasting as to violate one's fundamental status as a member of society.” Instead, she said, the system should reflect the principles of citizenship and social justice with a “fair distribution of rights, resources and opportunities.” Robert Crutchfield (University of Washington), member of the planning committee, added that the workshop was specifically designed to explore the reasons for the disparate experiences of individuals involved with the criminal justice system by race, ethnicity, and gender, the mechanisms that cause them to persist, and what can be done through policy and practice to minimize those differences. Participants—including researchers, policy makers, and advocates for victims and offenders—discussed issues in five areas: the role of criminal justice in social exclusion; patterns of inequality in criminal justice; collateral sanctions of the criminal justice system; special concerns for youth and young adult populations; and next steps for research, policy, and practice.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. The Criminal Justice System and Social Exclusion: Race, Ethnicity, and Gender: Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

By Bruce Western, Khalil Gibran Muhammad, Yamrot Negussie, and Emily Backes

A large research literature has documented substantial racial and ethnic disparities at each stage of the criminal justice process. Black American, Latino, and Native American people have all been found to experience relatively high rates of arrest, pretrial detention, incarceration, and community supervision compared to White people. At the same time, community violence poses a significant risk to health and well-being for disadvantaged communities. Researchers have wrestled with the complex relationship between racial disparities in crime and disparities in criminal justice involvement. Racial inequality can drive disparities in both crime and system involvement; racial differences in criminal victimization, offending, and incarceration can further exacerbate racial inequality in socioeconomic life. In 2020, the Committee on Law and Justice of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine convened an expert ad hoc committee to review and assess the scientific evidence on how racial inequalities in criminal justice might be reduced through public policy. The Committee on Reducing Racial Inequalities in the Criminal Justice System was assembled to carry out this study and produce a consensus report. The committee reviewed and synthesized a diverse body of evidence from a variety of disciplines, including criminology, sociology, law, economics, psychology, history, and public policy, and it gathered public testimony from a variety of community participants in the course of three public workshops. Box S-1 includes key definitions and terminology derived from these efforts. This report builds on the work of researchers, practitioners, policy makers, and community representatives who have been working to address racial inequality in the criminal justice system for decades. It was prepared in the contemporary context of a global pandemic, the police killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and other Black Americans, and subsequent protests against racial injustice. Moreover, gun violence—often concentrated in low-income Black communities—increased sharply in 2020 and 2021, posing an additional threat to racial equity. The current moment is thus marked by opportunity and urgency. The report offers an account of the research evidence that can inform the public conversation and the policy discussion over reducing racial inequality in the criminal justice system and advancing racial equity. Given the complexity and deep historical roots of contemporary racial inequality in the United States, the committee has considered both policy reforms to the criminal justice system and policy reforms that address social, economic, and environmental conditions that give rise to inequalities in crime and justice. Criminal justice reforms that can reduce the scale of police stops and prison admissions, the duration of long sentences, and the duration and intensity of community supervision are likely to produce large absolute reductions in criminal justice involvement in minority communities. However, the criminal justice system does not operate in a vacuum, and reductions of criminal justice inequalities also depend in part on social and economic policy. Criminal justice reform can be buttressed by reducing the socioeconomic disadvantages that disproportionately increase the risks of criminal justice contact among the residents of low-income communities, who are disproportionately Black, Latino, or Native American. Given this context, the report considers both criminal justice reforms and alternative strategies that lie outside the criminal justice system for reducing violence and other crime. The committee also found significant limitations in the available data and research evidence and offers recommendations for their development that might also help in overcoming racial inequality.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Reducing Racial Inequality in Crime and Justice: Science, Practice, and Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press

By Jolanta Zajančkauskienė (Volume editor) Rima Ažubalytė (Volume editor) Fedosiuk Oleg (Volume editor)

This book explores the pursuit of coherence in criminal justice, addressing how criminal laws and practices can become more rational and aligned with human rights principles. It examines key criminal justice principles like legality, proportionality, and presumption of innocence, aiming to adapt them to modern societal and technological challenges. The work highlights the growing influence of international conventions and European courts on national legal systems, emphasizing the need for thoughtful implementation of transnational precedents. While focused on Lithuanian criminal justice, topics like human trafficking, drug possession, and electronic evidence are relevant across Europe, offering insights for legal researchers globally.

Bern: Peter Lang International Academic Publishers, 2025. 

By Arie Freiberg

Michael Tonry’s life and work are an exception to American exceptionalism. His lifelong concern with American parochialism and antipathy to its punitiveness, racism, and historical lawlessness have led him to look beyond its borders for explanations of such a dysfunctional sentencing regime and the means of reforming it. This article examines his interest in and contributions to comparative sentencing research and reform, his articulation of fundamental principles of justice, and his vision of an ideal sentencing system. It identifies some future directions for comparative sentencing research by extending his ideas and methods beyond the Global North.

Crim Law Forum 36, 251–268 (2025).

By Eleni Manis, Fatima Ladha, Nina Loshkajian, Aiden McKay, and Corinne Worthington

Though data is essential to understanding public safety, police data is rarely reliable.

Surveillance technology distorts crime statistics, giving the illusion that crime is concentrated in predominantly BIPOC and low-income neighborhoods that are already over-policed.

Independent audits and data verification can help produce a more accurate picture of what crime looks like and where it happens.

By Alison Siegler & William Admussen 

For decades, it was virtually impossible for a criminal defendant to challenge racial discrimination by the police or prosecutors. This was because in United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (1996), the Supreme Court set an insurmountable standard for obtaining discovery in support of a selective prosecution claim. Equating the roles of prosecutors and law enforcement officers, lower courts applied this same standard to claims alleging racial discrimination by the police. This high standard led courts to deny discovery and stifle potentially meritorious claims. Recently, criminal defendants have initiated a wave of challenges to “fake stash house” operations, in which federal law enforcement agencies like the ATF and the DEA approach people—overwhelmingly people of color—and induce them to rob a nonexistent drug stash house. Defense attorneys have argued that these practices constitute racially selective law enforcement and that Armstrong’s strict standard should not apply to the police. Three federal courts of appeals responded by recognizing that the differences between prosecutors and law enforcement officers merit lowering the discovery standard for defendants alleging racial discrimination by the police. This Article is the first to describe and defend this important development in equal protection jurisprudence. We argue that other courts should similarly craft a lower discovery standard.

Recognizing that federal courts hear only a fraction of race discrimination claims, this Article embraces the spirit of federalism and proposes an innovative state-level solution: a state court rule lowering the insuperable discovery standard to which most states still cling. This Article draws on a recent Washington state court rule aimed at preventing racial discrimination in jury selection to propose that state courts adopt a similar rule setting a new discovery standard for racially selective law enforcement claims. Such a rule would ensure that state-level equal protection claims are not blocked at the discovery stage, thus enabling courts to adjudicate those claims on the merits.

115 Northwestern University Law Review 987 (2021)

By Dennis D. Hirsch,  Jared Ott, Angie Westover-Munoz, and Chris Yaluma

Federal and state criminal justice systems use algorithmic risk assessment tools extensively. Much of the existing scholarship on this topic engages in normative and technical analyses of these tools, or seeks to identify best practices for tool design and use. Far less work has been done on how courts and other criminal justice actors perceive and utilize these tools on the ground. This is an important gap. Judges’ and other criminal justice actors’ attitudes towards, and implementation of, algorithmic risk assessment tools profoundly affect how these tools impact defendants, incarceration rates, and the broader criminal justice system. Those who would understand, and potentially seek to improve, the courts’ use of these tools would benefit from more information on how judges actually think about and employ them. This article begins to fill in this picture. The authors surveyed Ohio Courts of Common Pleas judges and staff, and interviewed judges and other key stakeholders, to learn how they view and use algorithmic risk assessment tools. The article describes how Ohio Common Pleas Courts implement algorithmic risk assessment tools and how judges view and utilize the tools and the risk scores they generate. It then compares Ohio practice in this area to the best practices identified in the literature and, on this basis, recommends how the Ohio Courts of Common Pleas—and, by implication, other state and federal court systems—can better align their use of algorithmic risk assessment tools with core criminal justice values.

Legal Studies Research Paper No. 939, 2925

By Pew Charitable Trusts

Community supervision, most commonly probation and parole, is a key component of correctional systems in every state and involves more people than are serving prison or jail sentences. At the end of 2020, almost 3.9 million Americans—or 1 in 66 adults—were on probation or parole in the U.S., compared with nearly 1.8 million in jails and state and federal prisons. Community supervision also presents a different set of challenges for policymakers and for the people affected by it than does incarceration. Individuals on probation and parole must earn a living, pay for housing, and care for their families, all while also attending to their own behavioral health needs. And, often, they must manage these responsibilities within the constraints of restrictive supervision rules. Failure to comply with these requirements can mean a return to incarceration, a process that in many states is a leading driver of prison admissions. To address the unique challenges of supervision systems, policymakers and other stakeholders need a greater understanding of policies that effectively support behavior change and manage probation populations. The Pew Charitable Trusts set out to help meet that need by reviewing state statutes affecting probation systems in all 50 states—which collectively supervise roughly four times as many people as do parole systems—and identified the extent to which states have adopted five key policies to help strengthen and shrink those systems. This review can provide a path for states and agencies seeking to improve their systems; offer better returns on public safety investments; and help lawmakers, practitioners, and advocates move their states toward a more evidence-based approach to community supervision. For each policy, Pew’s team established criteria—generally ranging from no adoption to the most efficient approach as demonstrated by research and current practices in the field—and used those to show each state’s existing strategy for addressing critical probation issues. For more information, see the policy descriptions, methodology (Appendix A), and list of state statutes (Appendix B). The five policies are part of a larger, comprehensive menu of supervision reforms that Pew and Arnold Ventures released in 2020, “Policy Reforms Can Strengthen Community Supervision: A Framework to Improve Probation and Parole.” That framework sought to be broad enough to account for the many differences in probation and parole systems throughout the country, such as that they may operate at a local, county, or state level, and, from state to state, can fall under the authority of the executive or judicial branch.5 But regardless of how a system operates, research suggests that these five policies can help states achieve key community supervision reform goals, including cutting the supervision population so that resources can be prioritized for higher-risk individuals, reducing instances of incarceration for technical revocations, and enabling mobility and employment 

Philadelphia: Pew Charitable Trusts, 2022. 16p.

By Gabriel Weinberger

The nation's reliance on incarceration appears to have reached a peak a few years ago and there is a movement towards a major de-carceration initiative that will be driven by local jurisdictions. Current research must be focused on learning from the early wave of de-carceration experiments, which are mostly associated to drug-related crimes, to provide implications for future policymaking.

This dissertation deals with the implementation, at the local level, of various major changes to California's criminal justice system. These changes include liberalization of marijuana policies, Public Safety Realignment, and Proposition 47. The theme behind these changes has been a change in how the criminal justice system sanctions drug use. This dissertation explores an important question from each policy that can guide future policy. The first chapter explores whether localities that allowed for regulated dispensaries that sell medical marijuana to operate experienced an increase in crime rates. The second chapter describes how Public Safety Realignment changed the landscape for how social services are provided through the criminal justice system, detailing the effect on counties by using Los Angeles as a case study. Finally, the third chapter uses Los Angeles as a case study to answer whether community supervision is an adequate mechanism for engaging individuals with substance use disorder treatment.

Overall, the dissertation suggests that there may be collateral consequences from more liberal policies but that these can be addressed outside of the scope of the criminal justice system. In the context of regulating the supply of marijuana, a formerly illicit drug in California, I find that it did not result in a wave of higher crime rates. Finally, a major implication from this dissertation is that further work is required to serve the population that is affected by policies that reduce the use of incarceration for drug-related crimes. Local governments need to continue to address low-level crime caused by problematic drug use by improving their systems for providing social services without settling for using the lever of the criminal justice system.

Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2019. 126p.

May Contain Markup

By Raymond T. Nimmer

Problem Identification: The document highlights the extensive issue of arrests for public drunkenness and vagrancy, which disproportionately affect skid row men and strain the criminal justice system.

Current Approaches: It discusses the effectiveness of current criminal justice approaches in addressing the needs of skid row men,often leading to a "revolving door" of arrests without meaningful intervention.

Alternative Solutions: The document explores alternative programs in cities like St. Louis and Washington, D.C., focusing on detoxification and social services rather than criminalization.

Research and Analysis: It provides a comparative analysis of traditional criminal justice systems and alternative programs,emphasizing the need for policy changes to improve outcomes for skidrow men.

Chicago American Bar Foundation , 1971, 202 pages