By The Pennsylvania Council of Children, Youth and Family Services

  There are limited service and placement options for youth who commit serious offenses in the community. The Pennsylvania juvenile justice system, specifically detention, continues to experience long waitlists related to workforce shortages in services, among other factors, for youth entering the system. The total number of licensed agencies in Pennsylvania for secure detention is 13, however, only 6 of these facilities offer open access to all counties, resulting in significant unmet placement needs within the system (JCJC, 2023). Detention is a small part of the larger juvenile justice system. The purpose of detention is to provide temporary, secure, and safe custody to youth who are involved in the juvenile justice system process. In Pennsylvania, secure detention beds are used only after less restrictive alternatives have been considered and rejected. The Juvenile Act and Pennsylvania Rules of Juvenile Court Procedure authorize the secure detention of juveniles for brief periods of time and for very limited purposes. Detention services are utilized when other methods of service delivery cannot ensure community safety. A 2023 report by the Pennsylvania Juvenile Court Judges Commission (JCJC) calculated the average and median length of stay in detention placements to be 27 and 14 days, respectively, in 2022

Camp Hill, PA: PPennsylvania Council of Children, Youth and Family Services ,

2024. 14p.ennsylvania Council of Children, Youth & Family Services  

2024. 15p.

Harry Rositzke

THE KGB: THE EYES OF RUSSIA delves deep into the history and operations of one of the most notorious intelligence agencies in the world. Through meticulous research and firsthand accounts, this book uncovers the secretive world of the KGB, revealing its inner workings, espionage tactics, and impact on global affairs. A gripping and informative read for anyone interested in Cold War history and the shadowy realm of international espionage.

DOUBLEDAY & COMPANY, INC. GARDEN CITY, NEW YORK. 1981. 292p.

MAY CONTAIN MARKUP

R. M. DOUGLAS

"FEMINIST FREIKORPS: The British Voluntary Women Police, 1914-1940" delves into the history of the women who volunteered in law enforcement during a crucial period. Exploring their motivations, struggles, and impact, this book sheds light on a lesser-known aspect of feminism and policing in the early 20th century. Through meticulous research and compelling narratives, readers are invited to discover the untold stories of these pioneering women who challenged societal norms and paved the way for future generations in law enforcement."

London. Praeger. 1999. 188p.

MAY CONTAIN MARKUP

STANLEY H. PALMER

PREFACE: This book seeks to right an imbalance and recognize a contribution. The imbalance is the result of two decades of scholarship on English popular protest; the contribution, that of Ireland to British police history. Thanks to pioneering work in the 1960s by Eric Hobsbawm, George Rudé, and Edward Palmer Thompson, work that has been ably continued by succeeding generations of graduate students, historians have made a quantum leap in our knowledge of the motivations and aims, composition and tactics, of crowds and protesters in Georgian and carly Victorian England. By contrast, we still know little about the other side of the confrontation, the forces of order. The result has been an emerging, indeed a growing imbalance in our knowledge about crowds and the authorities. ..”

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS. CAMBRIDGE NEW YORK NEW ROCHELLE MELBOURNE SYDNEY. 1988. 840p.

MAY CONTAIN MARKUP

By CHARLES A. RUUD and SERGEI A. STEPANOV

From Introduction: Fontanka 16 takes a fresh look at the feared Russian tsarist secret police, the Okhranka, during the period of the imperial regime leading up to the Revolution of r917. It is a fascinating account of the development of a secret police organization that was deeply rooted in tsarist Russia but provided a model for Soviet police organizations.

McGill-Queen's University Press Montreal &e Kingston • London • Ithaca. 1999. 409p.

MAY CONTAIN MARKUP

By Bruce Smith

PREFACE: “This volume is a study of American state police forces —of the police bodies maintained by Pennsylvania, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Texas, West Virginia; Michigan, New Jersey, Colorado, Maryland, Delaware, and also the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It is concerned primarily with the organization, administrative methods, and statutory powers of those forces. It deals with the position of the police in state administration, their jurisdiction, the powers delegated to the administrative head, the direction, control, compensation and welfare of the rank and file, the distribution of patrol units and the patrol methods which are employed, eriminal investigation, identification and crime prevention.

THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF PUBLIO ADMINISTRATION. .1 925, 295p.

MAY CONTAIN MARKUP

By International Bolshevik Tendency

FROM THE PREFACE: The case ofMumiaAbu-Jamal, America's best-known political prisoner, starkly illuminates the brutal reality ofracist capitalist justice in a country that advertises itself as the citadel of "freedom." It is an extremely complicated case, and while the main elements are now known, pieces of the puzzle are still missing and ambiguities remain. In the following text, we attempt to outline both the essential elements of the case and the legal/political issues it poses.

Bolshevik Publications. 2004. New York. NY. 94p.

By Joanna R. Lampe

Federal law generally prohibits the production, distribution, and possession of marijuana for both medical
and recreational purposes. In April 2024, news outlets reported that the Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA) planned to change the status of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) by moving
it from Schedule I to the less restrictive Schedule III. Such a move would relax some controls over
marijuana but would not immediately legalize medical or recreational use of marijuana under the CSA.
Notwithstanding the strict federal control of marijuana, in recent years, many states have repealed state
law criminal prohibitions on some marijuana-related activities, and medical and recreational cannabis
businesses now operate openly in some parts of the United States.
In response to the disparity between state and federal law, Congress has enacted appropriations legislation
prohibiting the Department of Justice (DOJ) from expending appropriated funds to prevent states from
implementing their own medical marijuana laws. Federal courts have interpreted the appropriations rider
to prohibit DOJ from bringing criminal drug prosecutions against certain persons and entities involved in
the state-legal medical marijuana industry, but they have differed as to the scope of conduct the rider
shields from prosecution.
This Legal Sidebar first outlines the legal status of marijuana under federal and state law. It then discusses
the medical marijuana appropriations rider and analyzes how federal courts have interpreted the
provision. The Sidebar closes with key considerations for Congress related to the appropriations rider and
the disparity between federal and state marijuana policy more generally.
Federal and State Marijuana Regulation
The plant Cannabis sativa L. and products derived from that plant have a number of uses and may be
subject to several overlapping legal regimes. In recent years, a significant divide has developed between
federal and state marijuana laws. On the federal side, the CSA imposes stringent regulations on the
cannabis plant and many of its derivatives. Activities involving controlled substances not authorized
under the CSA are federal crimes that may give rise to large fines and significant prison sentences.
Unless an exception applies, the CSA classifies cannabis and its derivatives as marijuana. Congress
classified marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance when it enacted the CSA, reflecting a legislative

Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2024. 5p.

By Megan Comfort, Jenn Rineer, Elizabeth Tibaduiza, and Monica Sheppard

The “pretrial process” refers to the events that happen between the time that one is suspected by law enforcement of violating the law and the time that charges are dismissed, the case is otherwise resolved, or the trial process begins. During the pretrial period, people are considered innocent under the law. The U.S. Supreme Court1 has stated, “In our society, liberty is the norm, and detention prior to trial or without trial is the carefully limited exception.” The only two constitutionally valid reasons for holding someone in jail during the pretrial period are (1) to prevent flight or (2) to prevent harm to people in the community. Judges make decisions every day about whether to detain or release people going through the pretrial process, as well as about what conditions of release may be needed to help people succeed. Pretrial release assessments are designed to inform their decisions. Unlike assessments that involve a clinician or other professional drawing on their subjective expertise to make a recommendation, actuarial pretrial release assessmentsa rely on mathematical processes. Using large data sets with information about people who previously went through the pretrial process, researchers identify factors related to appearing for court hearings and not being arrested again if released. The researchers then create a sequence of instructions for a computer to follow (called an algorithm) that uses these factors to calculate an estimated likelihood that a person will appear in court and remain arrest free while their case is being resolved. This calculation—referred to as a “score”—is provided to the judge as information to consider when making decisions about pretrial release. A person’s score is also often provided as information to other courtroom actors, such as prosecutors, defense attorneys, and pretrial services officers. When thinking about actuarial pretrial release assessments, it is important to understand the history of the criminal legal system in the United States, which is deeply rooted in the legacy of slavery. Read Race and the Criminal Justice System2 by the Equal Justice Initiative to learn more. No actuarial pretrial release assessment tool or instrument is considered standard. Numerous assessments have been developed, and they vary in terms of the factors and instructions entered in the algorithm. Some use factors that are available through criminal legal system records, such as whether someone has been arrested before or has previously missed a court date. Others include factors like whether someone has a job, is enrolled in a substance use treatment program, or has a place to live. This information is usually obtained by talking with the person who has been arrested. At the time of this writing, pretrial release assessments use algorithms that are created by humans as opposed to ones that are generated by machine learning or artificial intelligence (AI). It is possible that future assessments will rely on AI, which would raise a different set of issues to consider. The use of actuarial pretrial release assessments is growing across the United States. Often, they are an element of broader system change aimed at reducing or eliminating the use of cash bonds, which require people to post money to be released from jail. Judges may consider the actuarial pretrial release assessment score when deciding what conditions of release—for instance, electronic monitoring or mandatory check-ins with pretrial services—are appropriate for a person. In systems that retain money bond as a potential release condition, assessments are sometimes used to inform decisions about bond amounts, but the impact on release is lessened if people remain in jail because they cannot afford to pay their way out. Judges may also use the score as part of their decision about whether to keep someone in jail or release them while their case is pending

APPR Research Brief, April 2024. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International, 2024. 5p.

By Harry Annison, Kate Paradine

In this article we sketch a vision that might guide academic and third sector collaboration. We do so by drawing on a project that involved collaboration with a range of stakeholders, in order to stimulate ongoing discussion about how academics and the third sector might work together to seek positive change. Our findings show that there are keenly felt challenges, but also a sense of resilient optimism. A key finding among our stakeholders was a sense that there is an absence of an overarching shared vision, which was experienced by many of our respondents as consequential. Therefore, in the spirit of constructive provocation we set out such a vision, which was collaboratively developed with our respondents: opening a dialogue, rather than providing a conclusive position.

Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, May 2024 (early view)

Edited by Murdoch Watney

The chapters in this volume focus on the future of law and related disciplines: human rights and access to medical care, corruption and money laundering in state procurement, counterfeit medical products, IPR waiver on COVID-19 vaccines, emergency powers, freedom of expression, prison healthcare, the impact on labour law, access to courts and digital court processes, access to education and the impact on insurance law are but a few possible topics which are addressed.

Johannesburg, UJ Press, 2022. 288p.

By American Bar Association Working Group on Building Public Trust in the American Justice System

Released in June 2020, this Report provides a comprehensive overview of the role private companies play throughout the criminal justice system and how the use of these private companies impacts low-income individuals moving through the system. The Report summarizes research done by other entities, academics, journalists, and activists on specific aspects of privatization. The organization of the report tracks the sequence of a typical accused individual's experiences in the criminal justice system following arrest, demonstrating how costs compound as the individual moves through the system.

The Report acknowledges that courts and other government entities sometimes need to import expertise they lack, but it urges governments to recognize how low-income individuals too often can be relentlessly ensnared in the criminal justice system, not because they engage in ongoing criminal activity, but because they cannot pay the debts imposed by the system itself. Too often, by hiring private companies to handle what were previously governmental functions in the criminal justice system, government agencies exacerbate the cycle of mandatory fees, nonpayment, and consequent additional fees. Far too frequently, government authorities allow private companies to operate in the criminal justice system with little or no oversight and to charge fees untethered to actual costs.

The Report urges the ABA to adopt specific policy on the privatization of services in the criminal justice system, as well as to promote the policies, already in existence, calling for careful limitations on fines and fees.

Chicago: ABA, 2020. 36p.

By The Philadelphia District Attorney's Office, Data Lab

The Conviction Integrity Unit (“CIU”) was established in 2018 by District Attorney Larry Krasner. The CIU’s predecessor, the Conviction Review Unit (“CRU”), which was established in 2014, had operated for a number of years with only a small staff and a narrow mandate. The CRU only reviewed claims of actual innocence, and rarely undertook investigations into whether new evidence existed that could prove those claims. Cases where the defendant had confessed were largely excluded from consideration, as if false confessions (which occur in a quarter of DNA exonerations nationally) were always reliable. Today, the CIU is an independent unit within the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office, reporting directly to the District Attorney, and involved in one out of every ten homicide exonerations in the country. When District Attorney Krasner transformed the unit from the CRU to the CIU, he immediately tasked it with a broader mandate: not only to review past convictions for credible claims of actual innocence but also to review claims of wrongful conviction and secondarily to consider sentencing inequities. Early in his first term, District Attorney Krasner merged the CIU with the Office’s Special Investigations Unit (“SIU”). The two units share a common focus on investigating official misconduct, and their cases frequently overlap. However, as the CIU and SIU personnel have grown and expanded their caseloads, the units were separated in the summer of 2020 to better accommodate each unit’s mission

The CIU’s mission is to ensure that justice is served by prosecutors at the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office and to remedy the Office’s wrongful convictions. Pennsylvania prosecutors have limited post-con viction discretion in general and they have no legal authority to set aside convictions in the interest of justice. Since CIU prosecutors cannot unilaterally dismiss an existing conviction or free anyone we believe to be wrongfully incarcerated, the CIU makes a recommendation to the court that the petitioner be granted a new trial whenever its independent investigation leads it to conclude that a conviction lacks integrity. If warranted, the CIU will move to withdraw the charges against the petitioner or reduce the charges so that an equitable sentence can be imposed. In cases that are ultimately withdrawn or dismissed, the CIU will investigate and prosecute the actual perpetrator where feasible. However, given the inherent difficulties involved in investigating decades-old crimes where the original investigation was either botched or inadequate, identifying the real perpetrator and bringing that person to justice may be impossible. To date, the Philadelphia Police Department has declined to re-open and re-investigate old cases following exonerations. For example, Walter Ogrod was exonerated of a 1988 murder in 2020. While investigating the case, the CIU identified two alternate suspects. As of almost a year after Ogrod’s exoneration, however, police had not even begun the process of re-opening the underlying murder case. Additionally, the CIU believes that conviction integrity is more than simply fixing past mistakes and exposing misconduct. It also requires policies and processes to prevent future injustices. With this aim, the CIU helps craft office-wide policies and trainings designed to reduce the number of future wrongful convictions.

This report encompasses exonerations, commutations, and sentencing adjustments from January 1, 2018 through June 15, 2021. This report includes data on cases submitted to the CIU, active investigations, cases declined or closed, and cases awaiting review that are accurate as of May 31, 2021. Experts who have opined on the issue of best practices for conviction integrity units agree that in order to increase public understanding of and trust in such units, offices should publish annual reports detailing the results of their conviction and case reviews and actions taken. This report is the first report issued by the CIU under District Attorney Krasner and is a first-term report, rather than an annual report. Although annual reports were contemplated, they were postponed as a result of multiple factors ,including lack of resources, internal technology deficits, case load, and the COVID-19 pandemic.

Philadelphia District Attorney's Office, Data Lab. 2021. 47p.

By Kuc, Oktawian

Recent decades have brought international and municipal courts much closer together and induced meaningful cooperation. This holds true also for the International Court of Justice and domestic judicial institutions as they engage actively in an inter-judicial dialogue, particularly on the normative level. Due to the impact of globalisation and internationalisation, the World Court has expanded its jurisprudence to also accommodate references and analysis of external judicial organs and their pronouncements. Likewise, ICJ decisions are referred to and consulted by municipal courts as authoritative statements of international norms or assistance in fact determination. This monograph examines this inter-judicial dialogue in a comprehensive manner by identifying and analysing all its aspects as evidenced in respective jurisprudence. Surprisingly, the mutual conversation in judicial decisions between the World Court and national judicial institutions has drawn little attention from international legal scholarship, and the book is designed to fill this lacuna.

New York; London: Routledge, 2022.

By Stephen Koppel & Anna Stenkam

The purpose of this study is to assess racial and neighborhood disparities in the issuance of civil summonses by the New York City Police Department (NYPD). The report serves as a companion to a parallel study of criminal summonses.

Key Findings

Overall Civil Summons Trends

• Spike in Civil Summonses in 2022: The NYPD issued 27,673 civil summonses in 2022 – nearly four times the total in 2021. By comparison, criminal summonses also increased from 2021 to 2022, though by a much lesser magnitude (up 62%).

• Predominance of Public Consumption of Alcohol: The most common offense was open container of alcohol in public, making up more than four out of five civil summonses (83%) in 2022.

• Mainly Low Fines: In 2022, citywide civil summonses accounted for $443,879 in fines, with the most common amount being for $25 or less (84%).

Racial Disparities

• Disproportionate Issuance to Hispanic People: Hispanic people received over half (53%) of civil summonses in 2022, while making up 29% of NYC’s population.

• Declining Racial Disparities Since 2019: In 2022, police issued civil summonses at a rate 1.9 times higher for Black than white people, compared to 3.8 times higher in 2019. The Hispanic-white disparity fell slightly from 4.0 to 3.6. By contrast, racial disparities in criminal summons issuance had grown since 2019.

• Growing and Disparate Failure-to-Appear Rates: Failure to appear (FTA) means the individual neither paid the fine online prior to their schedule hearing date nor appeared in-person. From 2019 to 2022, failure-to-appear (FTA) rates grew from 48% to 54% overall. In 2022, FTA rates were 64% for Black, 57% for Hispanic, and 31% for white people.

Neighborhood and Income Disparities

• Disproportionate Summonses in Low-Income Neighborhoods: In 2022, the NYPD issued one-third (34%) of civil summonses in zip codes within the bottom quintile of household median incomes in the City.

• Greater Racial Disparities in Affluent Areas: While the NYPD issued fewer summonses overall in higher-income neighborhoods, among people receiving a summons, racial disparities were largest in the most affluent neighborhoods (top income quintile) – where Hispanic and Black people were 7.5 times and 5.5 times, respectively, more likely than white people to receive a summons.

This study points to growing police enforcement of minor misconduct in 2022, a change that is ostensibly at odds with the goals of police reform. While civil summonses rose alongside criminal ones, racial disparities decreased compared to 2019. However, disparities in criminal summonses increased over the same period, highlighting distinct policing approaches to each summons type.

New York: Data Collaborative for Justice at John Jay College, 2024. 20p.

By Anna Stenkamp & Michael Rempel

The purpose of this study is to assess recent trends in criminal summons practices by the New York City Police Department (NYPD), including if and how they disproportionately impact low income and/or Black and Brown communities. 

Key Findings

Overall Summons Trends:

• Steep Decline Until 2022: Criminal summonses plummeted by 90% from 2013 to 2022 (from 375,707 to 36,621). However, for the first time in a decade, criminal summonses increased by 62% in the most recent year from 2021 to 2022 (from 22,603 to 36,621).

• Most Summonses Issued in Bronx and Brooklyn: The Bronx and Brooklyn emerged as hotspots for summonses, with over 60% issued in these boroughs from 2020 to 2022. The Bronx alone accounted for 30% across these years, despite Bronx residents comprising only 17% of NYC’s population.

• Few Convictions: In 2022, just 9% of criminal summonses ended in a conviction. (Straight dismissals accounted for 63%, with 28% receiving an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal.) With less than one out of ten cases disposed as guilty, criminal summonses largely do not involve formal accountability but, rather, a “process is punishment” effect, including lost time, income or other challenges from people having to appear in court.

Racial and Socioeconomic Disparities:

• Widening Racial Disparities: From 2020 to 2022, the NYPD issued over 85% of criminal summonses to Black or Hispanic people, who combine for 52% of NYC’s population. Relative to their numbers in the general population, police issued summonses at a rate 8.9 times higher for Black than white people in 2020, increasing to 11.4 times higher in 2022.

• Income Disparities: The NYPD issued over 60% of summonses to people living in zip codes that fell below the median household income. Further, within communities of every income bracket, the NYPD disproportionately issued criminal summonses to their Black and Hispanic residents. For example, in zip codes with a median household income below $35,000, police issued 97% of summonses to Black and Hispanic people, though they made up just 44% of the population. And in affluent zip codes with a household income over $100,000, police issued 73% of summonses to Black and Hispanic people, though they comprise 24% of the population.

Neighborhood Disparities:

• Disparities Based on Zip Code: Residents of 40 (22%) of the City’s 178 zip codes accounted for over half of criminal summonses in 2022. Thirty-four of these 40 zip codes (85%) were majority or plurality Black or Hispanic.

• Racial Disparities Within Zip Codes: Across all 178 zip codes, 89% had a larger proportion of summonses issued to Black residents and 67% had a larger proportion issued to Hispanic residents than their respective shares of the zip code’s general population. Thus, NYC police are both disproportionately issuing summonses in predominantly Black and Hispanic neighborhoods; and within virtually all neighborhoods citywide, police are disproportionately issuing summonses to Black and Hispanic residents.

The disproportionate issuance of summonses targeting Black and Hispanic communities highlights systemic biases that perpetuate inequality within the criminal justice system. Addressing these disparities is crucial to fostering a fair and equitable approach to law enforcement, ensuring justice for all residents of New York City.

New York: Data Collaborative for Justice at John Jay College, 2024. 45p.

By Stephen Koppel & Michael Rempel

As part of New York City’s Police Reform and Reinvention Collaborative Plan, this study assesses overall trends and racial disparities from 2013 to 2022 in four law enforcement practices: pedestrian stops, desk appearance tickets, arrests, and prosecutions by district attorneys.

Key Findings

Pedestrian Stops

• Steep Decline in Stops Until 2022: From 2013 to 2021, the total number of stops fell by 92%. Then 2022 saw a 69% increase—the largest one-year increase in the past decade.

• Changing Borough Composition: Stops fell sharply in all boroughs since 2013. The decline was greatest in Queens and Brooklyn and smallest in the Bronx. From 2013 to 2022, the share of stops in Queens fell from 24% to 16%, but climbed from 13% to 30% in the Bronx, despite making up 17% of the City’s 2022 population.

• Widening Racial Disparities: Black and Hispanic people made up 88% of people stopped in 2022. Compared to white people, police stopped Black people at a rate 7.5 times higher in 2013, a disparity that grew to 11.8 times higher in 2022; and police stopped Hispanic people at a rate 3.5 times higher than white people in 2013, growing to 5.1 times higher in 2022.

• Increasing Arrest (“Hit”) Rates Until 2022: In 2013, just 8% of stops led to arrest. As police made fewer stops over the following years, the proportion that resulted in arrest rose: peaking at 38% in 2021, before falling to 33% in 2022. Stops led to an arrest for 32% of Hispanic and 33% of Black people in 2022 compared to 38% of white people.

Desk Appearance Tickets (DATs)

• Rising DAT Issuance Since 2019: The DAT issuance rate declined in the years leading up to reform (from 29% in 2013 to 20% in 2019), before rising by 23 percentage points from 2019-2021. However, DAT issuance fell from 43% in 2021 to 29% in 2022, in part reflecting May 2022 rollbacks to reforms that initially went into effect in 2020.

• Declining Racial Disparities: In 2013, white people were 10 percentage points more likely to receive a DAT compared to Black people and 6 percentage points more likely compared to Hispanic people. By 2022, the Black-white gap narrowed to 6 percentage points, while the Hispanic-white gap was eliminated.

Arrests

• Fewer Arrests: From 2013 to 2022, the annual number of misdemeanor arrests fell by two-thirds (from 296,956 to 102,537). This included a sharp 75% drop from 2013 to 2020, followed by 13% and 23% respective increases in 2021 and 2022.

• Similar Racial Disparities: In 2022, Black people were 6.1 times more likely than white people to be arrested for a misdemeanor, while Hispanic people were 3.9 times more likely. These disparities are comparable to a decade ago.

• Decline in Youth Arrests but Rising Disparities: In 2022, youth under the age of 25 accounted for 18% of misdemeanor arrests, down from 34% in 2013. Racial disparities widened, with Black and Hispanic youth 8.3 and 4.7 times (respectively) more likely to be arrested on a misdemeanor than white youth in 2022.

Prosecutions

• Misdemeanor prosecutions mirrored misdemeanor arrest trends, declining by two-thirds from 2013 to 2022.

New York: Data Collaborative for Justice at John Jay College, 2024. 58p.

By Olive Lu and Michael Rempel

This report addresses the extent to which reforms to the use of Desk Appearance Tickets (DATs), enacted in New York State in January 2020, led more people charged with low-level offenses to avoid pre-arraignment detention.

A previous DCJ report established pre-reform baselines by examining statewide DAT issuance and arraignment appearance rates for DATs in 2019.

Key Findings:

Rising DAT Issuance Post-Reform but Continued Inconsistent Practices

• Among charges made ineligible for custodial arrest, statewide DAT issuance increased from 38% in 2019 to 58% in 2021, followed by a decline to 50% in 2022 (in part reflecting rollbacks to the reforms put into effect May 2022).

• Upstate courts saw the largest increase in DAT issuance from 2019 to 2021 (from 29% to 59%) while Suburban NYC had the highest DAT issuance rate throughout the study period (above 70%). DAT issuance in NYC post-reform was unexpectedly low, with 45% receiving a DAT in the peak 2021 year.

• DAT rates among eight charge categories (including petit larceny, drug possession, criminal mischief, and criminal trespass) also varied widely by region.

Relative Stability in Warrant Issuance

• The statewide warrant issuance rate for failing to appear at a scheduled DAT arraignment increased from 10% in 2019 to 17% in 2022, with large fluctuations in 2020 due to pandemic-related impediments.

• Warrant rates in Suburban NYC and Upstate remained stable over the study period while NYC alone explained nearly all of the statewide increase.

Racial Disparities Persist but Shrinking in Some Places

• Statewide, Black people were consistently less likely than white people to be issued a DAT on similar charges.

• The Black-white disparity in DAT issuance decreased over the study period in NYC (from a 12 to 7 percentage-point difference) and disappeared in Suburban NYC.

• The Hispanic-white disparity decreased in Suburban NYC and disappeared in NYC.

New York: Data Collaborative for Justice at John Jay College, 2024. 34p.

By René Ropac 

This study estimated the impact of New York’s bail reform on recidivism in the State’s suburban and upstate regions. We compared re-arrest rates for people who had bail set or were remanded at arraignment in the first half of 2019 (before bail reform) with similar people who were released without bail in the first half of 2020 (after bail reform).

Key Findings:

Estimated Impact of Eliminating Bail and Detention in Select Cases 

• Overall, the results indicate that eliminating bail for select misdemeanor and nonviolent felony charges led to little change in recidivism.

  • Over two years, we found no changes in overall re-arrest and felony re-arrest; a slight increase in firearm re-arrest (2.7% vs. 2.0%); and a slight increase in violent felony re-arrest (9.5% vs. 8.1%) that became statistically insignificant when extending the follow-up period to 30 months.

Estimated Impact of Reducing the Use of Bail in Cases Remaining Legally Eligible 

• Across two research designs, releasing people who remained eligible for bail was associated with a 1 percentage-point increase in firearm re-arrest over two years, though the difference became statistically insignificant when extending the follow-up period to 30 months. Spanning measures of overall, felony, and violent felony re-arrest, no results showed that releasing people increased recidivism across both research designs; but, conversely, no results from either design pointed to reduced recidivism.

How did Pretrial Release Impact Different Subgroups? 

• The elimination of money bail increased recidivism for people charged with nonviolent felonies, with recent criminal history, and with a recent violent felony arrest, while it decreased recidivism for people charged with misdemeanors and people with no recent criminal history.

• The reduced use of bail for legally eligible cases tended to increase recidivism among people charged with violent felonies and people with a recent arrest. The starkest and most consistent recidivism increases across both research designs were among people with a recent prior violent felony arrest and among people currently charged with VFOs who had a recent criminal history.

Study Results in Context

In contrast to the results from the current study, the findings published in March 2023 for New York City were generally more favorable to bail reform, finding an overall recidivism reduction for cases subject to mandatory release and no effect in either direction for bail eligible cases. However, the subgroup results from the two studies draw a consistent picture. Across all of New York State, bail reform tended to reduce recidivism for people facing less serious charges and with limited or no recent criminal history, but tended to increase recidivism for people facing more serious charges and with recent criminal histories.

New York: Data Collaborative for Justice at John Jay College, 2024. 40p.

By Kath Murray, Susan McVie, Ben Matthews, Victoria Gorton

Since the 1960s, Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) have become a widely used sanction in the United Kingdom, used to deal with various low-level offences. More recently, the sanction came to prominence as the mechanism chosen to enforce the Coronavirus Health Regulations. This article critically examines the decision to employ FPNs in this context, and the implications in respect of inequality and inequity. We show that the decision was at odds with contemporaneous policing trends, and, drawing on new research evidence, argue that the Regulations stretched FPNs beyond their intended use, creating inequalities in enforcement and inequitable punishment effects. Our findings raise policy questions about the impact of the Health Regulations and what actions should be taken in the event of future pandemics.

academic.oup.com/bjc/advance-article/doi/10.1093/bjc/azae016/7645325

The British Journal of Criminology, azae016