By Ian K. Belton, Mandeep K. Dhami

Personal mitigating factors (PMFs) such as good character, remorse and addressing addiction help sentencers evaluate an offender's past, present and future behavior. We analyzed data from the 2011–2014 Crown Court Sentencing Surveys in England and Wales to examine the relationship between these PMFs and custodial sentences passed on assault and burglary offenses, controlling for other sentencing relevant factors. Beyond revealing the distribution and co-occurrence of the three PMFs, it was found that good character, remorse and addressing addiction all had a significant mitigating effect. The effects of addressing addiction were the strongest of the three across both offense types, while good character had a stronger effect on burglary than assault. In addition, some mitigating factors appear to be underweighted when they occur together. We consider the implications of these findings for sentencing policy and practice.

Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, Volume21, Issue1, March 2024, Pages 208-239

By Ebony L. Ruhland, Amber A. Petkus, Nathan W. Link, Jordan M. Hyatt, Bryan Holmes, and Symone Pate

Abstract:

The assessment and collection of monetary sanctions (fines, fees, and restitution) have become a common element of the U.S. criminal justice system, especially in community corrections. Although the application of monetary sanctions is often dictated by state-level legislation, court rules, and agency policy, little research has sought to organize and systematically examine a set of these policies to compare them across several community corrections contexts more broadly. As such, this study fills a gap in the literature by using thematic content analysis to examine legislative policies governing the use of monetary sanctions in six states from across the United States. Laws and policies regarding the assessment, waiver, and collection of monetary sanctions utilized by agencies of varying size and jurisdictional scope were considered to identify common themes. We conclude with a discussion of whether the policies and laws examined align with rehabilitative and punitive goals of community supervision and highlight emerging opportunities for research and policy reform.

Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 37(1), 108-127.

By Rafael A. Mangual 

After enacting a sweeping bail reform, New York lawmakers have drawn the ire of constituents who are troubled by the many stories of repeat and serious offenders—some with violent criminal histories—being returned to the street following their arrests. In the state’s biggest city, the public’s growing concerns are buttressed by brow-raising, if preliminary, crime data, amplifying calls for amending or repealing the bail reform. The operative provisions of New York’s bail reform severely limit judicial discretion in pretrial release decisions, increasing the number of pretrial defendants who are being released, often without conditions and without allowing judges to consider the risk that a defendant poses to the public. New York is now the only state that does not allow judges to consider public safety in any pretrial release decisions. This brief begins with an overview of New York’s pre-2020 bail law and the reforms that took effect on January 1. It then highlights the reform’s shortfalls and ends by proposing three changes intended to address the public’s legitimate safety concerns while preserving the spirit of the reform effort and addressing some of the inequities and inefficiencies inherent in a system that is heavily reliant on the use of monetary pretrial release conditions. The proposed changes include: • Empowering judges to assess the public safety risk posed by pretrial defendants, and setting out a process that allows them to detain dangerous or chronic offenders; • Allowing judges to revoke or amend release decisions in response to a pretrial defendant’s rearrest; and • In the intermediate term, setting aside additional funds or diverting existing funds to reduce the time a defendant stands to spend in jail if remanded to pretrial detention.  

New York: Manhattan Institute, 2020. 14p.

By Julius Yam 

Authoritarianism has significant implications for how judges should discharge their duties. How should judges committed to constitutionalism conduct themselves when under authoritarian pressure? To answer this question,the article proposes a two-step adjudicative framework, documents a variety of judicial strategies, and proposes how principles and strategies can and should be incorporated into the framework in different scenarios. The first step of the adjudicative framework involves judges identifying the ‘formal legal position’ while blindfolding themselves to extra-legal factors (such as potential authoritarian backlash). In the second step, depending on the level of risk incurred by maintaining the formal legal position, judges should lift the blindfold to check whether, and if so how, the formal legal position should be supplemented with or adjusted by judicial strategies. Through this analysis, the article offers a guide to judicial reasoning under authoritarianism 

Modern Law Review Limited.(2023) 00(0) MLR 

By Sarah Lageson & Robert Stewart

Criminal records are routinely used by employers and other institutional decision-makers who rely on their presumed fidelity to evaluate applicants. We analyze criminal records for a sample of 101 people, comparing official state reports, two sources of private-sector background checks (one regulated and one unregulated by federal law), and qualitative interviews. Based on our analysis, private-sector background checks are laden with false-positive and false-negative errors: 60 percent and 50 percent of participants had at least one false-positive error on their regulated and unregulated background checks, and nearly all (90 percent and 92 percent of participants, respectively) had at least one false-negative error. We define specific problems with private-sector criminal records: mismatched data that create false negatives, missing case dispositions that create incomplete and misleading criminal records, and incorrect data that create false positives. Accompanying qualitative interviews show how errors in background checks limit access to social opportunities ranging from employment to education to housing and violate basic principles of fairness in the legal system.

United States, Criminology. 2024, 30pg

By Criminal Justice Joint Inspectorates: UK

In this report, the Criminal Justice Joint Inspectorates focus on recruitment and retention in the agencies that they inspect. The report draws on evidence from inspections conducted by each of the individual inspectorates, both jointly and singly, of the police, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), the Probation and Youth Offending Services and the Prison Service. It sets out the findings from this work, as well as cross-cutting themes. It concludes by highlighting signs of progress as well as ongoing risks to the criminal justice system.

United Kingdom, CJJI. 2024, 19pg

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, racketeering, and firearms crimes. While convictions under these statutes are common, sentences of life imprisonment are rare, accounting for only a small proportion of all federal offenders sentenced.  In February 2015, the Commission released Life Sentences in the Federal Criminal Justice System, examining the application of life sentences by federal courts during fiscal year 2013. 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 Vera M. Kachnowski, Christine Kitchens, and Data Cassandra Syckes,

The report entitled Weighing the Impact of Simple Possession of Marijuana: Trends and Sentencing in the Federal System updates a 2016 Commission study and examines sentences for simple possession of marijuana offenses in two respects. Part One of the report assesses trends in federal sentencings for simple possession of marijuana since fiscal year 2014. The report then describes the demographic characteristics, criminal history, and sentencing outcomes of federal offenders sentenced for marijuana possession in the last five fiscal years and compares them to federal offenders sentenced for possession of other drug types. Part Two of the report examines how prior sentences for simple possession of marijuana (under both federal and state law) affect criminal history calculations under the federal sentencing guidelines for new federal offenses. The report identifies how many federal offenders sentenced in fiscal year 2021—for any crime type—received criminal history points under Chapter Four of the Guidelines Manual for prior marijuana possession sentences. The report then assesses the impact of such points on those offenders’ criminal history category, one of the two components used to establish the sentencing guideline range.

Washington, DC: United States Sentencing Commission, 2023. 46p

By The New York State Bar Association

The Task Force analyzed the newly-enacted New York State Josef Neumann Hate Crimes Domestic Terrorism Act (the “Neumann Act”), New York Penal Law § 485, which recognizes mass killings motivated by hate as acts of terrorism by creating two terrorism offenses: domestic acts of terrorism motivated by hate in the first and second degrees. The Neumann Act also amends the definition of “specified offense” in the hate crimes statute to include terrorism crimes and establishes a Domestic Terrorism Task Force comprised of members of New York government and law enforcement.

The Task Force also considered possible additional legislation to address hate crimes. First, the Task Force recommends further study of two possible changes to criminal statutes—it considered but ultimately rejected an amendment to the definition of “civilian population” in current terrorism statutes, and recommends consideration of a proposal to align New York’s definition of “material support or resources” with the federal definition. Second, the Task Force considered possible methods of addressing a rise in low-level hate-motivated offenses—it recommends further study of the proposal to attend mandatory counselling or training, and rejects the possibility of adding a rebuttable presumption of intent to § 485. Third, the Task Force recommends further study of possible civil causes of action for hate crimes and domestic terrorism, including expanded causes of action under New York State civil rights law, and amendments to New York Not-for-Profit Law, Business Corporation Law, and Limited Liability Law to prevent recovery of property from entities that provide support to terrorist causes. Fourth, the Task Force recommends an increase in law enforcement resources to prosecute hate crimes, including making hate crimes a designated offense to facilitate wiretaps and additional training of law enforcement on hate crime issues. Finally, the Task Force notes a surge in anti-Asian and anti-Semitic hate crimes amid the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as a rise in hate-motivated attacks associated with COVID-19 via online platforms. These attacks and incidents highlight the urgent need for law enforcement and lawmakers to take action to curb hate crimes.

Albany: The Bar Association, 2020/ 41p.

By The New York State Bar Association

"Hate crimes . . . leave deep scars not only on the victims, but on our larger community. They weaken the sense that we are one people with common values and a common future. They tear us apart when we should be moving closer together. They are acts of violence against America itself. . . ." President Clinton made the foregoing speech 16 years ago. Today, the situation has only worsened with antisemitic hate crimes spiking on the heels of years of increased anti-Asian hate crimes. In October 2023, the FBI released data that shows hate crimes in the U.S. at their highest since data collection began in 1991. The Anti-Defamation League reported 2,000 antisemitic incidents in the U.S. through July 2023 and a 337% uptick in incidents after Hamas' October 7th attack on Israel. Similarly, from 2020–21, anti-Asian hate crimes spiked 339%. Almost daily, the headlines are filled with stories like the gunfire in front of an Albany synagogue in December 2023. Despite these dire statistics and reports, bar associations have not systematically studied this problem, a void which led NYSBA President Richard Lewis to convene this task force to examine the problem of hate crimes with a focus on those directed at the Asian American and Jewish communities. As President Lewis stated: “Antisemitic and anti-Asian bias in America is overt and disturbing, and it is increasing exponentially…We have launched this task force because we are at a crossroads, and left unchecked, we can only expect that crimes against these two vulnerable groups will continue to spiral out of control.” The task force has been grappling with the scourge of hate crimes, which present a clear and present danger to many, but most strikingly to New Yorkers. The members of our task force worked hard to put these recommendations together in the last several months. We held dozens of meetings, scoured the available literature, and met with prominent officials in the law enforcement and educational sectors. The dedication and talent of the task force has enabled us to put together the concrete recommendations contained in this report. Like bar associations, society as a whole has devoted insufficient attention to hate crimes despite the gravity of the problem. As a result, the statutory framework governing hate crimes contains gaps in the definition of hate crimes and in the coverage of the hate crime statute – deficiencies that are addressed in our report. Equally problematic are the mechanisms for reporting hate crimes, including the lack of a requirement that law enforcement in New York report hate crimes to a central state authority.

Our report follows the commendable work of the 2020 NYSBA task force on Domestic Terrorism and Hate Crimes. This groundbreaking report was focused on federal laws addressing acts of domestic terrorism.3 Not long after its publication, the wave of hate crimes against Asian Americans and the spike in antisemitic hate crimes ensued, necessitating our task force and this report. This report begins with analyses of antisemitic and anti-Asian hate crimes, including the history of antisemitism and anti-Asian hate – two forms of bias that have deep and disturbing roots. Far from a new phenomenon, antisemitism is as old as civilization itself. And anti-Asian hate crimes in the U.S. span the history of our country. See pages 9-10 below. Our report focuses on the recent waves of hate crimes ignited by exogenous catalysts: the COVID-19 pandemic in the case of anti-Asian hate crimes and the Hamas attacks of October 2023 in the case of antisemitic hate crimes. Our report addresses the disturbing increases in the rates of hate crimes during these recent troubled times.

Albany: The Bar Association 2024. 47p.

By Ian K. Belton and Mandeep K. Dhami

Personal mitigating factors (PMFs) such as good character, remorse and addressing addiction help sentencers evaluate an offender’s past, present and future behavior. We analyzed data from the 2011–2014 Crown Court Sentencing Surveys in England and Wales to examine the relationship between these PMFs and custodial sentences passed on assault and burglary offenses, controlling for other sentencing relevant factors. Beyond revealing the distribution and co-occurrence of the three PMFs, it was found that good character, remorse and addressing addiction all had a significant mitigating effect. The effects of addressing addiction were the strongest of the three across both offense types, while good character had a stronger effect on burglary than assault. In addition, some mitigating factors appear to be underweighted when they occur together. We consider the implications of these findings for sentencing policy and practice.

J Empir Leg Stud. 2024;1–32.

By Clare Anderson & Martin Halliwell

This article considers the intersecting geographical, social, medical and political frameworks necessary to construct an understanding of mental health in Guyanese prisons, historically and in the present day. Taking an interdisciplinary approach to integrate archives, modern records and interviews, it looks first at colonial and independent state management of mental health impacts with respect to sentencing, incarceration and rehabilitation. It moves on to reflect on recent efforts to provide co-ordinated policies and practices at national level to tackle more effectively moderate to severe mental health conditions. Here it shows that, as in the colonial period, prisoners and prison officials are typically neglected. Overall, our appreciation of the importance of what we term the coloniality of incarceration and public health enables us to deepen an understanding of the development and ongoing significance of approaches to mental ill health in the modern state, following Guyana's independence from colonial rule in 1966.

United States, The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice. 2022, 19pg

By Paul Heaton

Today we know much more about the effects of pretrial detention than we did even five years ago. Multiple empirical studies have emerged that shed new light on the far-reaching impacts of bail decisions made at the earliest stages of the criminal adjudication process.1 This new evidence calls into question longstanding approaches to managing pretrial risk that provide limited due process protection and emphasize cash bail. Making appropriate decisions about who to release pretrial and under what conditions requires an understanding of the impacts of particular bail requirements. For example, for a given defendant, how would their risk of failure to appear (“FTA”) or future criminal activity change if they were subjected to condition A (which might include preventative detention) versus condition B (which might include an alternative to detention, such as text message reminders of scheduled court appearances)? Armed with such information, decisionmakers could appropriately balance society’s dual interest in preserving public safety and holding the accused accountable with defendants’ liberty interests. However, until recently, the actual evidence necessary to analyze the trade-off described above has been virtually nonexistent, leading judges and magistrates to rely on a combination of personal experience (possibly including conscious or unconscious bias), heuristics, and local norms in formulating their bail decisions. One reason it has been so difficult to develop good evidence of the effects of pretrial detention is because the bail system, when operating as intended, sorts defendants in a manner that limits the value of the outcome data it produces for demonstrating whether and how bail conditions matter. In general,  because bail conditions are typically assigned based on perceived defendant risk, if we observe elevated violation rates for defendants with condition A versus condition B, it is difficult to determine empirically whether this reflects an adverse causal effect of condition A or simply the fact that those assigned condition A were different from those assigned condition B to begin with. For example, proponents of cash bail often cite low FTA rates among those released with assistance from commercial bonding agents and argue from such statistics that private bondsmen are a necessary component of the system to manage nonappearance risk.2 However, comparing FTA rates for those with and without commercial sureties is misleading. To maximize profits, commercial operations have an incentive to accept only clients who are at low risk of nonappearance in the same way that an auto insurer would make money by identifying and then insuring only the safest drivers.3 Thus, low FTA rates might simply reflect defendant sorting and tell policymakers little about commercial sureties’ effectiveness. The new generation of pretrial detention studies addresses this difficulty and provides a much stronger footing on which to base legal decisions and criminal justice policy. Recent studies improve upon past work in at least three respects. First, they make use of large administrative datasets, typically involving the near universe of criminal offenses within a particular jurisdiction, allowing researchers to describe the functioning of the criminal justice system as a whole rather than generalizing from a few specific incidents or cases. Second, they carefully consider the problem of differentiating correlation from causation, making use of natural experiments to measure the causal effects of detention and resolving the sorting problem described above. Finally, they consider a broader range of outcomes, focusing not just on the resolution of the case at hand, but on long-term ramifications, such as future criminal activity, earnings, and unemployment. The takeaway from this new generation of studies is that pretrial detention has substantial downstream effects on both the operation of the criminal justice system and on defendants themselves, causally increasing the likelihood of a conviction, the severity of the sentence, and, in some jurisdictions, defendants’ likelihood of future contact with the criminal justice system. Detention also reduces future employment and access to social safety nets. This growing evidence of pretrial detention’s high costs should give impetus to reform efforts that increase due process protections to ensure detention is limited to only those situations where it is truly necessary and identify alternatives to detention that can better promote court appearance and public safety.   

United States, North Carolina Law Review. 2020, 11pg

By Elise White, Basaime Spate, Javonte Alexander, and Rachel Swaner

Our study of more than 100 young gun-carriers in Crown Heights, Brooklyn identifies fear—for their own lives and for their loved ones—as the overwhelming factor behind their decision to carry. In-depth interviews were conducted by researchers with personal connections to the young people’s social networks, opening up levels of trust and honesty rarely found in prior research.

Predominantly young Black men, ages 15 to 24, these gun-carriers talked about experiencing, witnessing, and being threatened with violence at shocking rates. Very few had access to long-term, stable jobs, with most relying on the underground economy to make ends meet. Afraid and distrustful of police, and with few other means to ensure their safety, many young people turned to gun-carrying for self-preservation. For most youth, fear for their own lives and the lives of their families outweighed concerns about going to jail.

The study identifies four types of young gun-carriers in Brooklyn:

• Those who carry for protection due to generalized fear, and are ambivalent about using guns

• Those who carry for image, to intimidate or impress others

• Those who carry defensively as part of street hustles that expose them to danger

• Shooters, who are willing to go on the offensive

These findings highlight the need to meet young gun-carriers where they are, recognizing gangs, crews, and street networks as the main sources of identity, loyalty, and decision-making for many young people. Our recommendations point the way towards a collaborative approach to safety—one that offers an alternative to law enforcement, creates spaces for healing, and respects young gun-carriers’ allegiance to their street networks.

New York: Center for Justice Innovation, 2023. 72p.

By Meressa Kahsu Dessu, Dawit Yohannes and Charles T Hunt

Most contemporary multidimensional peace operations prioritise the protection of civilians (PoC) as one of their primary mandates. This is expected as current conflicts and crises are increasingly marked by high civilian casualties, emanating not least from the deliberate targeting of civilians and the blurred distinction between combatants and non-combatants. As a key element of multidimensional peace operations, the United Nations (UN) Police have assumed diverse roles in implementing the mandate of such missions. Key decision-making entities such as the UN Security Council (UNSC) have increasingly acknowledged such roles. This can be illustrated by the UNSC’s resolution that recognises the police’s ‘invaluable contribution to peacekeeping, post-conflict peacebuilding, security, the rule of law, and the creation of a basis for development.’1 However, the evolving roles of the police have not matched with studies on its effectiveness in mandate implementation, particularly in PoC. 

 This monograph contributes to debates around the role and effectiveness of policing in PoC based on the lessons from the UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS). The study combines two overarching debates: the effectiveness of peace operations and the role of policing in PoC. While the mission was established in 2011, this monograph pays particular attention since 2014, following the prioritisation of the PoC mandate. The analysis broadly focuses on the effectiveness of different structures of mission headquarters and Field Offices, with a special emphasis on policing at PoC Sites. As one of its key findings, the study recognises the mixed record of the UNMISS police in fulfilling the mission’s PoC mandate. The police component played key roles in supporting the mission to prevent protection challenges from worsening in the face of recurrent crime, violence and conflicts  

Monograph 211. Pretoria: Institute for Security Studies, 2023.   66p.

By  Libor Duˇsek and Christian Traxler

This paper studies how swiftness and delay of punishment affect behavior. We leverage rich data on the enforcement of speed limits by automated speed cameras. The data allow us to track cars’ driving histories over time as well as the exact time when tickets are sent, delivered, and paid. To identify the effect of swift or delayed tickets on payment and driving outcomes, we exploit two sources of (quasi-)experimental variation: (1) at the start of the speed camera systems, administrative issues caused large delays in the time between an offense and the sending of a ticket; (2) in cooperation with the authority, we later introduced a protocol that randomized the sequence at which tickets were processed. We get two sets of results. First, we find significantly negative effects of delays on payment compliance. Relative to tickets sent within 4 weeks after an offense, the rate of timely paid fines drops by 7 to 9% when a ticket is delayed by four or more weeks. We also find evidence that very swift tickets, which are sent within the first day after an offense, increase timely payments. These findings are in line with the expectations of academic economists and criminologists, which we elicited in a survey. Our second set of results shows that tickets cause a strong, immediate, and persistent drop in speeding. However, we do not detect any differential effect from swift or delayed tickets. This conflicts with widely held beliefs about the benefits of swift punishment, which are also mirrored in the responses to our survey.

 CESifo Working Paper No. 10906, 2024

By The Welsh Parliament Equality and Social Justice Committee

Women who commit crime are generally some of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged in society, often with multiple and complex needs. Women now make up around 5 per cent of the prison population, estimated to be twice as many as twenty years ago.

Wales, The Committee. 2023, 56pg

By Nisha Waller and Naima Sakande

In England and Wales, the requirement for a unanimous jury verdict in criminal cases was abolished in 1967, marking a significant departure from a centuries-old legal tradition. Majority verdicts are now common practice, yet no research to date explores the origins of this sudden change to the jury system. In contrast, recent research in the US uncovered a connection between the conception of majority verdicts in Louisiana and Jim Crow era law-making, finding that majority verdicts were strategically introduced to suppress the black juror vote and facilitate quicker convictions to fuel free prison labour. The US Supreme Court later outlawed majority verdicts in a case known as Ramos v. Louisiana, amid recognition of their racist origins. Adopting the critical epistemological position guiding the US research, we consider how race and class underpinned the decision to introduce majority verdicts in England and Wales. Drawing on Home Office files and other archival materials, we find that an increase in eligible jurors from different racial and class backgrounds led to a perceived decline in the ‘calibre’ of jurors – reflective of wider public anxieties about Commonwealth immigration, Black Power and white disenfranchisement. We conclude that a desire to dilute the influence of ‘coloured’ migrants on juries contributed to the introduction of majority verdicts in England and Wales.

Race & Class, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/03063968231212992 Online First, 2024.

By Ross Miller, Paul Heaton, Haley Sturges

Presumptive field tests for illicit substances have become an integral part of policing. Inexpensive and fast, these tests have become a tool of choice for law enforcement agencies. Unfortunately, they are notoriously imprecise and are known to produce “false positives,” where innocuous legal substances (e.g., baking soda) provide the same result as an illegal substance (e.g., cocaine) and leading to frequent wrongful arrests and wrongful convictions. Although originally developed as a preliminary-only testing method due to their unreliability, these tests have become de facto and inaccurate determinants of guilt or innocence in thousands of cases, causing considerable negative and undeserved consequences for thousands upon thousands of Americans. In the modern U.S. criminal legal “system of pleas, not...of trials” (Lafler v. Cooper, 2012) where 95% of cases are resolved by plea bargain, the unreliability of these tests undermines public trust in the justice system and creates a liability risk for jurisdictions that rely on them. This research report provides the first-ever comprehensive analysis of presumptive drug field test usage across law enforcement agencies in the United States. Utilizing a nationwide survey of agencies, the report offers national estimates on the frequency of test usage, finding that each year approximately 773,000 drug-related arrests involve the use of presumptive tests. Using the survey data and national estimates of drug arrests, this report examines the impact of the tests on wrongful arrests, racial disparities in their use, and their subsequent impact on drug possession prosecutions and dispositions.

 2023. 68p.

By Akhi Johnson, Stephen Roberts, Erin Ross, et al. 

The reform prosecution movement faces a critical moment. With the nationwide uptick in violent crime, reform prosecutors face unprecedented attacks: legislation to limit their discretion, politicians seeking to remove them from office, and demands for recall elections. The movement has weathered the storm, but reform prosecutors need continued support in pursuing agendas aligned with the communities that elected them, and the Vera Institute of Justice (Vera) is well positioned to help them do so. In 2017, Vera launched the Reshaping Prosecution initiative in response to a wave of reform prosecutors winning office across the country. Reform prosecutors ran campaigns promising a systemic approach to pursuing justice, and Reshaping Prosecution sought to help them transform those promises into measurable policy changes. Vera piloted an engagement with St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kimberly Gardner and her office from 2017 to 2019 that contributed to significant gains for the city. Gleaning lessons learned from that pilot, Vera launched a request for proposal process to select new partners. Vera selected each office based on a vetting process that included the district attorney’s demonstrated commitment to pursuing reforms, community support for reform efforts, sufficient staff capacity to work with the Vera team, and adequate data systems to allow an analysis of office practices. After receiving 14 applications, Vera selected six partners: Boulder County, Colorado; Contra Costa County, California; DeKalb County, Georgia; Ingham County, Michigan; Ramsey County, Minnesota; and Suffolk County, Massachusetts. This report describes Vera’s partnerships with each jurisdiction to take a systemic approach to justice by examining racial disparities and collaborating with the offices and their communities to develop solutions. These partnerships faced significant challenges, beginning with the pandemic, which halted work in the early stages; the racial justice movement in the summer of 2020 and its unique impacts on each jurisdiction; and pushback from opponents of change.   

New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2023. 40p.