By Kathleen C. Grilli, Kevin T. Maass and Charles S. Ray

This publication summarizes the history of Chapter Eight’s development and discusses the two substantive changes made to the elements of an effective compliance and ethics program. It then provides policymakers and researchers a snapshot of corporate sentencing over the last 30 years. Finally, the publication describes Chapter Eight’s impact beyond federal sentencing.

Washington, DC; The United States Sentencing Commission, 2022. 94p.

By Michael Rempel

This research brief summarizes what we know about New York City’s jail population since the COVID-19 outbreak. The data point to a 30 percent reduction in the city’s daily jail population from March 18 to April 29—attributable to urgent efforts to gain people’s release as well as to declining arrests, as people sheltered indoors at the start of the pandemic. Since then, the use of jail re-increased, reversing over half of the prior reductions. If the current trend continues, the jail population will return to its pre-COVID-19 level by mid-February 2021. The COVID-19 era has also seen considerable variations in the jail trends applicable to different subgroups, with the numbers held in pretrial detention progressively rising, even as incarceration has remained low among people convicted and serving sentences of one year or less. After reviewing key emergency release strategies adopted at the outset of the pandemic, this research brief documents overall jail trends and more specific changes in the composition of the jail population from mid-March to the beginning of November 2020.

New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2020. 22p.

ByTodd D. Minton, Zhen Zeng and Laura M. Maruschak

From March to June 2020, about 208,500 inmates received expedited release in response to COVID-19. „ During the pandemic, jail facilities became less crowded, as indicated by the decrease in occupied bed space from 81% at midyear 2019 to 60% at midyear 2020. „ The number of inmates held for a misdemeanor declined about 45% since midyear 2019, outpacing the decline in the number of inmates held for a felony (down 18%). „ The percentage of inmates held for a felony increased from 70% at midyear 2019 to 77% at midyear 2020. „ From March to June 2020, jails conducted 215,360 inmate COVID-19 tests. More than 11% of these tests were positive. „ Jails in counties with confirmed residential COVID-19 infection rates of 1% or more tested nearly 21% of persons admitted to their jails from March to June 2020. „ From March to June 2020, nearly 5% (10,850) of all local jail staff (233,220) tested positive for COVID-19.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs ,Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2021. 28p.

By Kyla Wasserman, Johanna Walter, Beata Luczywek, Hannah Wagner, and Cindy Redcross

This report presents findings from a feasibility evaluation of the Bridges to Pathways (Bridges) program. Bridges was a program for young men in Chicago between the ages of 17 and 21 years who were involved with the criminal or juvenile justice system and lacked a high school credential. The program offered intensive mentoring and case management, as well as the opportunity to earn a high school credential, attend social-emotional learning workshops, and participate in a subsidized internship.

The Bridges evaluation enrolled 480 young people between June 2015 and July 2016. This report provides a detailed description of the Bridges model and how the program providers adapted the model. It also presents findings about whether the program improved young people’s outcomes and decreased criminal activity during the first year after study enrollment. The implementation study concluded that the program succeeded in enrolling a high-risk population, and it focused its services on keeping participants engaged with the program and removing barriers to their participation.

New York: MDRC, 2019. 114p.

By Chloe Anderson Golub, Cindy Redcross and Erin Jacobs Valentine

On January 1, 2017, the State of New Jersey implemented Criminal Justice Reform (CJR), a sweeping set of changes to its pretrial justice system. With CJR, the state shifted from a system that relied heavily on monetary bail to a system based on defendants’ risks of failing to appear for court dates and of being charged with new crimes before their cases were resolved. These risks are assessed using the Public Safety Assessment (PSA), a pretrial risk-assessment tool developed by Arnold Ventures with a team of experts. The PSA uses nine factors from an individual’s criminal history to produce two risk scores: one representing the likelihood of a new crime being committed, and another representing the likelihood of a failure to appear for future court hearings.

The PSA is used at two points in New Jersey’s pretrial process: (1) at the time of arrest, when a police officer must decide whether to seek a complaint-warrant (which will mean booking the person into jail) or issue a complaint-summons (in which case the defendant is given a date to appear in court and released); and (2) at the time of the first court appearance, when judges set release conditions for defendants who were booked into jail on complaint-warrants. (The DMF is also used at this second point.) CJR includes a number of other important components: It all but eliminated the use of monetary bail as a release condition, established the possibility of pretrial detention without bail, established a pretrial monitoring program, and instituted speedy-trial laws that impose time limits for case processing.

This report is one of a planned series on the impacts of New Jersey’s CJR. It describes the effects of the reforms on short-term outcomes, including the number of arrest events (where an “arrest event” is defined as all complaints and charges associated with a person on a given arrest date), complaint charging decisions, release conditions, and initial jail bookings.

New York: MDRC, 2019, 48p.

By Cindy Redcross and Brit Henderson with Luke Miratrix Erin Valentine

Arnold Ventures’ Public Safety Assessment (PSA) is a pretrial risk assessment tool that uses nine factors from a defendant’s history to produce two risk scores: one representing the likelihood of a new crime being committed and another representing the likelihood of a failure to appear for future court hearings. The PSA also notes if there is an elevated risk of a violent crime.

Over 40 jurisdictions across the country have implemented the PSA. Mecklenburg County, North Carolina was one of the first; it began using the PSA in 2014, switching from another risk assessment. This study presents the effects of the PSA and related policy changes in Mecklenburg County. The first report in the series describes the effects of the overall policy reforms on important outcomes. A supplemental second report describes the role of risk-based decision making in the outcomes and describes the effects of the PSA on racial disparities in outcomes and among different subgroups.

Overall, the findings are notable from a public-safety perspective: Mecklenburg County released more defendants and did not see an increase in missed court appointments or new criminal charges while defendants were waiting for their cases to be resolved.

New York: MDRC, 2019. 42p.

By Melanie Skemer, Cindy Redcross, Howard Bloom

On any given day in the United States, nearly half a million people are detained in jail while awaiting the resolution of their criminal cases, many because they cannot afford to pay bail. Bail is meant to ensure that defendants appear for court dates and are not arrested for new charges while they wait for their cases to be resolved. However, research has shown that setting bail as a condition of release can lead to unequal treatment and worse outcomes for defendants who do not have the ability to pay, regardless of the risk they pose. Additionally, systemic racial inequities throughout the criminal justice system mean that communities of color are disproportionately affected by cash bail and pretrial detention.

In 2016, New York City rolled out a citywide program known as Supervised Release (SR). SR offers judges the option of releasing defendants under supervision in lieu of setting bail. Defendants released to SR are required to report to program staff members regularly and are offered reminders of their court dates, case management support services, and voluntary connections to social services. The city developed the SR program to reduce the number of defendants detained in jail because they could not afford to pay bail, while at the same time maintaining court appearance rates and public safety. The findings presented in this report offer strong evidence that SR achieved these overarching goals.

New York: MDRC, 2020.185p.

By Andrea Woods and Portia Allen-Kyle

Every year, millions of people are arrested, required to pay money bail they cannot afford, separated from their families and loved ones, or absent from their jobs--subjected to long periods of incarceration based on the mere accusation of a crime. This all occurs while people are presumed innocent under the law. Black and brown people, their loved ones, and those without the economic resources to thrive suffer the worst harms. The money bail system is in dire need of an overhaul.

New York: American Civil Liberties Union, 2019. 15p.

By the Criminal Justice Policy Program, Harvard Law School

Bail reform presents a historic challenge – and also an opportunity. Bail is historically a tool meant to allow courts to minimize the intrusion on a defendant’s liberty while helping to assure appearance at trial. It is one mechanism available to administer the pretrial process. Yet in courtrooms around the country, judges use the blunt instrument of secured money bail to ensure that certain defendants are detained prior to their trial. Money bail prevents many indigent defendants from leaving jail while their cases are pending. In many jurisdictions, this has led to an indefensible state of affairs: too many people jailed unnecessarily, with their economic status often defining pretrial outcomes. Money bail is often imposed arbitrarily and can result in unjustified inequalities. When pretrial detention depends on whether someone can afford to pay a cash bond, two otherwise similar pretrial defendants will face vastly different outcomes based merely on their wealth…. All of this builds on sustained attention from experts and advocacy groups who have long called for fundamental reform of cash bail.3 As policymakers across the political spectrum seek to end the era of mass incarceration,4 reforming pretrial administration has emerged as a critical way to slow down the flow of people into the criminal justice system. This primer on bail reform seeks to guide policymakers and advocates in identifying reforms and tailoring those reforms to their jurisdiction. In this introductory section, it outlines the basic legal architecture of pretrial decision-making, including constitutional principles that structure how bail may operate. Section II describes some of the critical safeguards that should be in place in jurisdictions that maintain a role for money bail. Where money bail is part of a jurisdiction’s pretrial system, it must be incorporated into a framework that seeks to minimize pretrial detention, ensures that people are not detained because they are too poor to afford a cash bond amount, allows for individualized pretrial determinations, and effectively regulates the commercial bail bond industry.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard Law School, 2016. 40p.

By the National Task Force on Fines, Fees, and Bail Practices

The purpose of this Guide is to provide state court leaders with detailed information on state bail reform efforts. This Guide presents case studies of six states’ recent experiences with bail and pretrial reform efforts: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, and Texas. These six states were selected to present a geographic and politically diverse sample, as well as a variety of approaches to reform. Key members involved in the reform efforts in each state were interviewed, including chief justices, appellate court justices, trial court judges, state court administrators, administrative offices of the courts staff, state legislators, state attorneys general, and executive-branch criminal-justice experts, among others

Fairfax, VA: The Task Force, 2020.78p.

By the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

This report examines current approaches to reforming the pre-trial and bail systems in the U.S. criminal justice system. The report reveals that between 1970 and 2015, there was a 433% increase in the number of individuals who have been detained pre-trial, and pre-trial detainees represent a larger proportion of the total incarcerated population.

Washington, DC: The Commission, 2022. 281p.

By Krystal Rodriguez

On April 1, 2019, New York State passed sweeping criminal justice reform legislation, including discovery reform, requiring prosecutors to disclose their evidence to the defense earlier in case proceedings. The discovery reforms went into effect January 1, 2020, but were amended in April 2020, with an effective date 30 days later. In April 2022, New York State included further amendments to the discovery statute, along with other criminal justice reforms, in the state budget. This document, originally published in 2019 and updated in 2020, incorporates those most recent changes.

The impact of discovery reform—regardless of amendments—rests on how well it is implemented and enforced. Compared to the pre-reform era, accelerated discovery timelines remain in force, even after the April 2022 amendments. If implemented properly, the current law has the potential to shrink case processing times, resulting in shorter jail stays for people held in pretrial detention. By facilitating a defendant’s ability to prepare a defense, the reform may also result in fewer prison or jail sentences and more just outcomes.

New York: The Data Collaborative for Justice (DCJ) at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 2022. 15p.

By Olive Lu, Erica Bond, and Preeti Chauhan

On April 1, 2019, New York State passed extensive legislative reforms (“2020 Criminal Justice Reforms”) aimed at transforming the criminal legal system and its impact on New Yorkers. Amongst other changes, the reforms (which came into effect on January 1, 2020) now require police in New York State to issue desk appearance tickets (commonly referred to as “DATs” or “universal appearance tickets”), rather than make a custodial arrest for many types of criminal charges. In May 2020, DCJ released a research brief examining the use of DATs across New York State in 2018 to provide a baseline against which the future impact of these changes can be measured.

This report uses 2019 data to examine DAT arraignments and associated appearance rates in New York State district and city courts prior to the implementation of the reforms. In addition, the metrics are disaggregated by charge type, by geographic region (New York City, Suburban New York City and Upstate Cities), and by individual courts. Future research from DCJ will examine the actual impact of the 2020 Criminal Justice Reforms on DAT issuance in 2020. DCJ will also examine how DAT issuance and associated appearance rates have been impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic in New York State.

New York: The Data Collaborative for Justice (DCJ) at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 2021. 24p.

By Olive Lu, Erica Bond, Preeti Chauhan and Michael Rempel

For this report, DCJ analyzed how the Original Reforms and the Amended Reforms would have impacted pretrial releases for 2019 criminal cases in New York City. The report provides findings about how pretrial outcomes, including the number and proportion of cases where bail was set, would have changed under the Original and Amended Reforms. It also provides analyses of how outcomes would have differed by borough, by charge types, and by demographics (race/ethnicity, sex, and age).

Future research from DCJ will examine the actual impacts of bail reform on release outcomes in 2020. DCJ will also examine pretrial release outcomes and how they have changed as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, nationwide protests calling for policing and criminal legal system reforms, and rising rates of certain types of violent crime in New York City.

New York: The Data Collaborative for Justice (DCJ) at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 2022. 48p.

By Olive Lu, Erica Bond, and Preeti Chauhan,

In April 2019, New York State passed significant reforms to the laws governing bail, which the state legislature then amended in April 2020 (collectively referred to as the "2020 Bail Reforms"). The first set of reforms (“Original Reforms”),1 which went into effect on January 1, 2020, included restrictions on which charges were eligible for money bail, mandated that people be released on recognizance (ROR)2 unless more restrictive conditions are needed to assure court appearance, required that judges set at least three forms of bail, and take into account an individual's ability to pay when setting money bail. The amendments to the bail reforms (“Amended Reforms”)3 went into effect in July 2020 and moved some charges that had been made ineligible for bail under the Original Reforms into the category of charges where judges have discretion to set bail.4 In September 2019, DCJ released a research brief that examined how the Original Reforms would have impacted the number and proportion of cases resulting in pretrial release without bail had they been in effect in 2018. This report updates DCJ’s prior research brief by using 2019 case data, applying the Original and Amended Reforms, and includes additional analyses on how the reforms would have impacted different types of charges and demographic groups in 2019.

New York: The Data Collaborative for Justice (DCJ) at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, ,2021. 34p.

Edited by Denise Meyerson, Catriona Mackenzie, and Therese MacDermott

This book bridges a scholarly divide between empirical and normative theorizing about procedural justice in the context of relations of power between citizens and the state. Empirical research establishes that people’s understanding of procedural justice is shaped by relational factors. A central premise of this volume is that this research is significant but needs to be complemented by normative theorizing that draws on relational theories of ethics and justice to explain the moral significance of procedures and make normative sense of people’s concerns about relational factors. The chapters in Part 1 provide comprehensive reviews of empirical studies of procedural justice in policing, courts and prisons. Part 2 explores empirical and normative perspectives on procedural justice and legitimacy. Part 3 examines philosophical approaches to procedural justice. Part 4 considers the implications of a relational perspective for the design of procedures in a range of legal contexts.

London; New York: Routledge, 2021. 285p.

By Sarah W. Craun and Alyssa Purdy

There are numerous federal criminal statutes authorizing a sentence of life as the maximum sentence allowed, such as for offenses involving drug trafficking,1 racketeering, 2 and firearms 3 crimes. While convictions under these statutes are common,4 sentences of life imprisonment are rare, accounting for only a small proportion of all federal offenders sentenced during the last six fiscal years. During fiscal years 2016 through 2021, federal judges imposed a sentence of life imprisonment (“life imprisonment sentence”) on 709 offenders. Another 799 offenders received a sentence so long that it had the practical effect of a life sentence (i.e., 470 months or longer) (“de facto life sentence”). Together these two groups of offenders represent only 0.4 percent of the total federal offender population during the last six fiscal years. By comparison, other federally sentenced offenders during this time received a median sentence of imprisonment of 24 months. Due to the infrequency and nature of life imprisonment, such sentences are of heightened interest to policymakers. In February 2015, the United States Sentencing Commission released Life Sentences in the Federal System, examining the application of life sentences by federal courts during fiscal year 2013.5 Using data from fiscal years 2016 through 2021, this report updates and augments the Commission’s previous findings by examining the offenses that led to the life sentences imprisonment imposed, along with offender demographics, criminal histories, and victim-related adjustments

Washington, DC: United States Sentencing Commission , 2022. 40p.

By April A. Christine, Courtney R. Semisch, Charles S. Ray and Amanda Russell

This comprehensive study of robbery offenders sentenced in fiscal year 2021 provides an analysis of the characteristics of robbery offenders, their criminal history, and their sentences imposed. The report also provides analyses on the prevalence of robbery offenses and how they were committed, including who was robbed, what was taken, the use or threatened use of physical force, the use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, and whether any victim was injured or killed during a robbery.

Washington, DC: The United States Sentencing Commission, 2022. 60p.

By Sara Bastomski, Matt Herman, Alison Martin and Sara Friedman

Between April 2021 and February 2022, The Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center conducted an analysis of racial equity across Montana’s criminal justice system in partnership with Montana judicial branch stakeholders. This work identified decision-making points in Montana’s criminal justice system in which there are disparities between American Indian and White people. Key findings include American Indian people are more likely to be incarcerated for felony criminal endangerment and public order offenses relative to comparable White people; American Indian people are incarcerated for longer than similarly situated White people; and American Indian people are more likely to be revoked from probation, conditional release, and parole than comparable White people. Based on these findings, the CSG Justice Center proposed five recommendations to improve racial equity in Montana’s criminal justice system.

New York: Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center, 2022. 49p.

By Rebekah Diller

Increasingly, states are turning to so-called “user fees” and surcharges to underwrite criminal justice costs and close budget gaps. In this report, we focus on Florida, a state that relies so heavily on fees to fund its courts that observers have coined a term for it – “cash register justice.” Since 1996, Florida added more than 20 new categories of financial obligations for criminal defendants and, at the same time, eliminated most exemptions for those who cannot pay. The fee increases have not been accompanied by any evident consideration of their hidden costs: the cumulative impacts on those required to pay, the ways in which the debt can lead to new offenses, and the costs to counties, clerks and courts of collection mechanisms that fail to exempt those unable to pay. This report examines the impact of the Florida Legislature’s decision to levy more user fees on persons accused and convicted of crimes, without providing exemptions for the indigent. Its conclusions are troubling. Florida relies heavily on fees to underwrite its criminal justice system and, at times, uses monies generated by fees to subsidize general revenue. In many cases, the debts are uncollectible; performance standards for court clerks, for example, expect that only 9 percent of fees levied in felony cases will be collected. Yet, aggressive collection practices result in a range of collateral consequences. Missed payments produce more fees. Unpaid costs prompt the suspension of driving privileges (and, relatedly, the ability to get to work).

New York: Brennan Center for Justice, 2019. 48p.