By Malore Dusenbery, Joshua Fording, and Jennifer Yahner with Jeanette Hussemann and Robbie Dembo  

Victims of crime can experience serious harm and face significant costs with long-term implications for their economic security and safety. From 2022 to 2024, the Urban Institute and NORC at the University of Chicago conducted a National Study of Victim Compensation Program Trends, Challenges, and Successes, which included evaluations of four state crime victim compensation programs. This brief summarizes our evaluation of Delaware’s victim compensation program to understand its utilization and professionals’ and victim claimants’ perspectives on its ability to meet victims’ needs. We conclude that the Delaware compensation program is well-respected by and connected to providers in the community and provides valuable benefits to victims in a mostly efficient, effective, and responsive way. Program staff and assistance providers noted great improvement in the program’s functioning since it switched from oversight by a board to the current structure that standardizes decision-making by investigative staff. Being located in the state’s Department of Justice allows for efficiency with legal system agencies, though it may increase distrust among some communities. The compensation program recently enacted several major changes to improve its comprehensiveness, efficiency, and accessibility; these included introducing an online application and portal, removing the statutory cap on the number of program staff, and changing the contributory conduct policy. While we saw some effects of these changes in the data, we encourage the program to identify the effects of these changes through ongoing assessment (particularly effects on racial disparities for Black and Hispanic claimants) and to find new areas for improvement. Many disparities in the data related to race and gender are attributable to differences in the crimes experienced and reported by different racial and gender groups, which receive different amounts of compensation. Future research could dive deeper into these findings to better understand these patterns. The professionals interviewed also suggested that further legislative changes be made to law enforcement cooperation requirements to more consistently address differences in denial rates for groups with greater distrust of the legal system. Professionals in the compensation program and providers in the community offered recommendations for improving Delaware’s victim compensation program regarding victim awareness and accessibility, program staffing, compensation coverage, and program funding. A number of additional recommendations focused on policy changes to the compensation program’s coverage. In general, compensation staff and assistance providers we interviewed would like to increase many of the amounts covered in response to rising costs. They would also like to see the program include other costs and crimes, such as mental health benefits for witnesses of homicide or mass casualty events, more coverage for attorneys’ fees and damaged or stolen goods, or mental health care for past trauma triggered by the covered crime. Many of these findings and recommendations align with those emerging nationally in conversations about how to improve victim compensation programs. We are grateful that programs such as Delaware’s remain open to evaluation and eager to understand how to continue expanding and improving their accessibility, responsiveness, and compensation coverage to provide meaningful benefits to victims in need.

Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2024. 23p.

By National Commission on COVID-19 and Criminal Justice.

This report provides criminal justice policymakers and practitioners with a priority agenda to prepare the nation’s criminal justice system for future public health crises. Through its recommendations, the Commission seeks to better balance the roles and responsibilities of the public health and public safety fields. Through its recommendations, the Commission seeks to better balance the roles and responsibilities of the public health and public safety fields. Launched at the end of July, the Commission received multiple reports and extensive testimony from leading national and local experts. Key findings include: + Crime: Property crime and drug offense rates fell from 2019 to 2020, but violent crime increased significantly. In particular, homicide rates increased by 42% during the summer months (June to August) in a sample of more than 20 medium to large cities, and by 34% in the fall (September to October).1 + Prisons: Prison populations have been reduced by about 5% nationally. On average, the COVID-19 mortality rate within prisons (61.8 deaths per 100,000 people in prison) was double the mortality rate for the general population, after adjusting for the gender, age, and race/ethnicity of those incarcerated. There are also substantial differences among states in the rate of prison infections and deaths.2 + Jails: Jail populations fell by 31% in the early weeks of the pandemic but have been slowly climbing toward prior levels since May.3 During the pandemic, the rates at which people have been rebooked on new charges 30, 60, and 180 days after release remain below pre-pandemic rates. Unfortunately, data regarding COVID-related infections and deaths in jails is scarce. + Racial and Ethnic Disparities: The COVID-19 pandemic may have exacerbated some racial and ethnic disparities in the criminal justice system. As jail populations began to fall in March at the onset of the pandemic, there were increases in the proportion of people who were Black, who were booked on felony charges, who were male, and who were 25 or younger. These changes in the population composition persisted even as jail populations began to rise again in early May.4 + Substance Use and Mental Health Disorders: More than 40 states have reported increases in opioid-related fatalities since the onset of the pandemic. Mandatory lockdowns, restrictions on movement, social distancing guidelines, orders limiting access to facilities for nonessential workers, and the absence of in-person treatment have created gaps in the system's ability to identify and monitor the needs and legal 3 requirements of people with substance abuse and mental health disorders, and to intervene when they are in distress.5 + Budgets: State and local governments face daunting budget deficits that will worsen as the pandemic wears on, and unemployment levels remain high. Because criminal justice operations (law enforcement, courts, and corrections) are funded more heavily by state and local governments than most other government functions, revenue shortfalls will disproportionately damage the criminal justice system without effective policy interventions.

Washington, DC: Council on Criminal Justice. 2020, 43pg

By Sandra Susan Smith and Cierra Robson    

In the year following Humphrey, a judicial decision mandating that judges consider both defendants’ ability to pay cash bail and non-monetary release options, San Francisco Sheriff’s Office (SFSO) reported a 308% increase in the number of people court-ordered for pretrial electronic monitoring (EM) – from 178 to 725. Although proponents of pretrial EM have described it as an effective alternative to pretrial incarceration – one that ensures public safety and court appearances – critics contend that it is simply an alternative form of incarceration, with many of jail’s attendant harms. With this debate in mind, we explore people’s recent experiences on pretrial EM in San Francisco – the extent and nature of difficulties program participants face while attempting to meet program obligations, the extent to which and how these difficulties put them at risk for noncompliance, and how threats of noncompliance interact with other major issues that system-involved people face to affect program outcomes. Through in-depth, semi-structured interviews with a convenience sample of 66 people court ordered to participate in pretrial EM between 2018 and 2020, we find that prior struggles, especially with housing insecurity and co-occurring disorders, made it much more difficult to meet program obligations, amplifying risks of noncompliance. Further, conditions of pretrial EM release also created hardships for many, making it even more difficult to find safe, affordable, and stable housing; to protect health and well-being; to secure employment and keep jobs; and to maintain physical, emotional, and psychological connections to loved ones. Indeed, pretrial EM often placed program participants in the untenable position of constantly having to choose between two or more equally awful options, such as program compliance or maintaining employment. These findings have major implications for debates about pretrial EM’s net-widening effects but also the inherent stickiness of the criminal legal system.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Kennedy School. 2022, 53pg

By Melanie Skemer, Emily Brennan

The U.S. jail population has tripled over the last 30 years due to surges in the use of pretrial detention and money bail.  On any given day, nearly 450,000 people in the United States are detained while awaiting the resolution of their criminal charges. Many of these individuals, still legally innocent, are in jail because they cannot afford to pay the bail amount set as a condition of their release. Pretrial detention takes a significant toll on the lives of affected individuals, putting them at increased risk of continued involvement with the criminal legal system as well as of losing their jobs, housing, and child custody.

As a result, jurisdictions across the United States are reforming their pretrial systems to reduce the number of people who are held in pretrial detention—that is, who remain in jail while they await the adjudication of their cases. As part of this effort, many jurisdictions are moving away from money bail as a primary means of encouraging people to return for future court dates. Instead, they are increasingly relying on alternatives such as pretrial supervision, which requires released people to meet regularly with supervision staff members while their cases are pending. Pretrial supervision has traditionally required clients to report for in-person meetings, particularly for those assessed as being at relatively high risk of failing to attend a court hearing or of being rearrested. 

With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, however, many pretrial supervision programs shifted in-person meeting requirements to remote check-ins to protect the health of both clients and staff members. For many jurisdictions, this shift highlighted some of the benefits of remote supervision, which include time savings for clients balancing work, school, caregiving, or other responsibilities, and less resource-intensive administration for supervision providers, potentially generating cost savings. At the same time, some members of the pretrial community questioned whether remote supervision was as effective as in-person interaction at meeting clients’ needs and protecting public safety. As the pandemic waned, it remained unclear whether remote supervision was as effective as in-person or hybrid (a mix of in-person and remote) supervision in achieving the main goals of supervision programs: helping clients make their court appearances and avoid new arrests during the pretrial period.

New York: MDRC. 2024, 37pg