By  Alabama Appleseed Center for Law & Justice

The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP) provides additional funding to law enforcement agencies implementing programs to deter dangerous driving. As a condition, agencies must report the number of traffic stop warnings and tickets issued to the state’s STEP grant administrator. Agencies risk reduced funding if found to be not “productive” by issuing a sufficient amount of citations. Police departments in Alabama use these federal grants to drive economic sanctions by paying patrol officers overtime to be “productive” and rewarding the “most active” officers with more overtime at the end of the year; those found to be not “productive” face suspension from the program in some departments. Using municipal budgets and audits, legal records of those ticketed and arrested over court debt, and federal and state grant data, this report examines the incentives that drive policing decisions in Alabama and highlights how traffic stops–primarily regulatory and economic stops–harm low-wealth people. The report also includes personal accounts of individuals who faced court debt and provides recommendations for law enforcement, courts, and lawmakers.

Key Findings:

68 percent of law enforcement agencies statewide that received STEP funding issued more warnings to speeders than to drivers with car insurance violations —who instead received tickets.Cleburne County adds an additional $30 fee to the base of their fines for planning, designing, constructing, furnishing, equipping, and financing a county jail.Findings from two municipal budgets showed revenue from fines and fees is volatile.In 2021, the Anniston Police Department was twice as likely to issue tickets for an insurance violation than a warning when compared to those stopped for speeding.  Drivers who miss enough payments or court appearances are issued a suspended driver’s license and an order for arrest.

Recommendations:

Alabama police departments should look into how the prioritization of moving violations over equipment and regulatory stops by the Fayetteville Police Department in North Carolina has reduced traffic fatalities, injuries, and racial disparities.Courts should hold ability to pay hearings before ordering an arrest or placing a person on payment plans.Lawmakers should require publicly available reporting on all traffic stops.

Alabama Appleseed Center for Law & Justice, 2023. 36p.

By Lindsey Linder

For the past 30 years, the number of women incarcerated in America has grown exponentially, increasing at nearly twice the rate of men’s incarceration. With only five percent of the world’s female population, the United States accounts for nearly 30 percent of the world’s incarcerated women. Texas has contributed greatly to this surge in incarcerated women, with one of the top 10 highest female incarceration rates in the country. Regarding growth over time, female incarceration in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ, the state’ corrections system) increased 908 percent from 1980– 2016, compared to an increase in the male population of 396 percent. In other words, female incarceration in Texas has increased at more than twice the rate of male incarceration over the past 40 years. Alarmingly, a more recent spike in system-involved women has occurred as Texas has lowered its population in TDCJ, and Texas now incarcerates more women by sheer number than any other state. From 2009– 2018, Texas reduced its men’s prison population by 10,179 while backfilling its prisons with 122 women.6 As of 2018, women incarcerated in TDCJ numbered 12,076, representing 8.3 percent of the incarcerated population, up from 7.7 percent in 2009. Additionally, the number of women serving 10 years or more in Texas increased over 50 percent from 2005 to 2014. And the rise in female incarceration is not exclusive to prisons. The number of women in Texas jails awaiting trial has grown 48 percent since 2011, even as the number of female arrests in Texas has decreased 20 percent over that time period.10 The issues facing incarcerated women are complex, as are the underlying causes of their incarceration. However, because women comprise only a small portion of the overall incarcerated population, their needs are largely disregarded in larger justice reform conversations. One of the predominant obstacles to reform has been the lack of data on who these women are and how they become entangled in the system. To help bridge this gap, the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition (TCJC) launched the “Justice for Women” campaign in March 2018, starting with a two-part report series on women in Texas’ justice system  These two reports, which incorporated the results of our survey of more than 430 women incarcerated in Texas prisons, explored the concerning increase in the number of justice system-involved women in Texas and examined the unique issues they face prior to and during incarceration. TCJC accompanied the reports with a webpage dedicated to women’s justice, which includes stories of women impacted by Texas’ justice system—stories that have been critical to reform  

Austin: Texas Criminal Justice Coalition 2020. 28p.

By  Aayushma Bastola, Research & Data Fellow; Morgan Grizzle,, et al.

While in 2023 many other urban jurisdictions around the country began to see drops in homicides and other serious violent crime that had spiked postpandemic, the District of Columbia saw rates of violent crimes, like homicide and carjackings, continue to climb.1 That summer, D.C. lawmakers passed emergency legislation with provisions related to law enforcement and the prosecution and sentencing of crimes. In March 2024 the District passed permanent legislation, the Secure DC Omnibus Amendment Act of 2024 (“SECURE DC”), which included changes to D.C. law that had been part of prior expired emergency legislation as well as several new provisions.2 Given the importance of the public’s community safety concerns and the significance of SECURE DC policy changes, this year’s D.C. Criminal Legal System Overview is different from prior editions. This report highlights several aspects of SECURE DC and provides data analyses that can be used as a baseline with which to benchmark changes in crime and incarceration that may be related to the law’s provisions. This Overview also offers data to provide an overview of the District’s criminal legal landscape and to identify who is most impacted by D.C.’s legal systems. For example, this report highlights the growing costs of incarceration and policing in D.C. — reaching over $1 billion for the first time — and the disproportionate number of Black people who are justice-involved, including as victims of crime, in the District. Finally, this report will show that there have been some encouraging changes in terms of public safety from preliminary data for the first half of 2024, including both before and after the passage of SECURE DC. This is the fourth report in which the Council for Court Excellence (CCE) has offered a snapshot of the District’s criminal legal systems. As with past reports, CCE hopes readers find this information useful as we all work to create a safer, healthier, thriving D.C.  

Washington, DC: Council for Court Excellence , 2024. 40,p.

By The Center for Justice Innovation

Within the context of a national movement toward criminal legal system reform— including the use of alternatives-to incarceration (ATIs) for non-violent and drug cases—legal responses to crimes of violence still largely involve incarceration. Few jurisdictions apply alternatives to address violent crime, instead continuing to rely on carceral approaches, despite evidence pointing to the overall negative effects. The current study explores alternative responses to crimes of violence outside of incarceration. Specifically, this document presents 

  Specifically, this document presents findings from five in-depth case studies. In it, we highlight some of the unique approaches to responding to violent crime implemented in each site, in hopes that they may prove instructive for other jurisdictions seeking to explore or further develop alternative approaches to crimes of violence. The featured approaches are implemented at various stages of the criminal legal system process—from after charging and the initial appearance, to pretrial and plea, to post-plea, pre- sentencing, to post-conviction and sentencing. We explore a pretrial  supervision program, restorative justice programs, pretrial diversion programs, specialty courts, and post-conviction resentencing initiatives. Each study also includes specific recommendations made by those in the featured site and based on the information learned from the featured site. The companion piece, A New Approach: Alternative Prosecutorial Responses to Violent Crime, presents a comprehensive summary of study findings, along with resultant recommendations for policy and practice. 

New York: Center for Justice Innovation. 2024, 41pg

By Elizabeth Neuland

On May 4, 2021, New York became the 20th state to restore the right to vote to individuals upon release from custody, regardless of parole status. In a time when the United States government is trying to protect voting rights through the “For the People Act” and “The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act,”  and while some states are seeing radical legislation proposed that would potentially suppress the right to vote, New York needs to abolish the antiquated practice of felony disenfranchisement and guarantee the right to vote to all eligible New Yorkers regardless of incarceration status. The practice of felony disenfranchisement does not align with the values and core curriculum of the programs being provided by the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”) within state correctional facilities. The overview statement for program services reads, “DOCCS offers an extensive array of programs and services for incarcerated individuals to assist them in redirecting their lives and becoming productive, law-abiding members  of society.” Although the word “rehabilitation” is absent, this statement essentially summarizes what rehabilitation is. The argument to abolish felony disenfranchisement is highlighted by the vast rehabilitation efforts taken by DOCCS, through numerous employment and vocational programs, temporary release programs, and educational opportunities. Felony disenfranchisement stands in stark opposition to rehabilitation because it alienates individuals from the very communities to which DOCCS is taking great measures to help them to return In addition to rehabilitation, restoring the right to vote to all eligible New Yorkers regardless of incarceration status would raise the level of accountability for state politicians, lawmakers, and DOCCS itself. It is no secret that correctional facilities can be dangerous places, due to both interpersonal violence and acts of self-inflicted harm, including suicide. Accountability should apply to those that are the guardians of a vulnerable population. In Parts I and II, this Comment provides a brief overview of international and national practices of felony disenfranchisement to see where New York fits into the landscape. Part III concentrates on New York State. Its legislation affecting disenfranchisement and the number of individuals incarcerated are discussed to highlight how many people are affected by felony disenfranchisement. The argument to fully abolish felony disenfranchisement is made through discussions of rehabilitation and accountability. Lastly, this Comment describes how all New York citizens could be enfranchised.  

 City University of New York Law Review. 2022, 25pg