Edited by Andrea Krizsán

Domestic violence, one of the most prevalent forms of gender-based violence, is a policy ield where spectacular progress took place worldwide in the last decades. Importantly the issue was put on the policy agenda across diferent regions and countries almost invariably by women’s movements (Htun and Weldon 2012). Awareness of domestic violence as a policy issue which needs state intervention has also showed spectacular progress in the last decade or so in most countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Yet, considerable variety emerges in the achieved policy outputs and the extent to which these outputs are gender equality sensitive and serve the interests of women victims/survivors (Krizsan and Popa 2014). his volume asks how this variation can be connected to women’s movements in the region. Is women’s rights advocacy and autonomous women’s organizing an equally important component of progress in countries of this region?

The literature on women’s movements in the region has widely discussed their weakness and dependency on foreign donors, in the context of transition to democracy. Weak capacity to mobilize as well as to generate policy change, vulnerability to the inluence of foreign donor agendas, as well as the wide refusal of the feminist label because of its association with the communist project, were among the reasons for skepticism. he very existence and potential of women’s movements was sometimes questioned (McBride and Mazur 2010, Stetson and Mazur 1995, Jaquette and Wolchik 1998, Rueschemeyer 1993, Einhorn 1993). Even though major progress in policies advancing women’s rights took place in the irst two decades after the transition, two main caveats were attached to this progress. On the one hand, the newly adopted policies were attributed to international influence coming from global and regional human rights instruments as well as conditionality linked to European Union accession, rather than women’s rights activism and women’s movements’ mobilization (Avdeyeva 2007, Miroiu 2004). On the other hand, research has shown that many policies were adopted for window-dressing purposes, their implementation failed, was limited or oppositional to the initial gender equality intents, thus, ultimately minimizing their potential for gender transformation. Indeed, gender policies remained largely disconnected from domestic realities and domestic women’s rights advocacy.

While these trends may apply in general terms to post-communist countries, recent research has challenged the idea of regional homogeneity and is increasingly pointing to diversity in terms of gender equality policy processes and their outputs across the diferent countries of the region (Krizsan et al. 2010). In some countries of the region there is a staggering lack of gender equality progress, while other countries are deinitely faring better, adopting better policies, having more participatory policy processes and as a result are better at implementing gender policies. Furthermore, some gender policy issues are discussed more than others, and some bring more gender equality progress than others. Some gendered issues are discussed in more gendered ways, others in either non-gendered or outright hostile ways. he signiicant variation between countries points to the crucial inluence of domestic factors on gender policy change: most importantly for this volume the signiicance of domestic women’s movements and their interactions with domestic structures.

This volume aims to contribute to the debate on gender policy change in Central and Eastern Europe by placing the emphasis on the importance and relevance of domestic policy dynamics, and primarily domestic women’s rights advocacy vis-a-vis the state for understanding gender equality policy change in various countries of the region. It aims to challenge the general understanding about the weakness and lack of capacity of women’s groups for successfully advocating for policy change, and to highlight various domestic dynamics in diferent countries that have led to gender equality sensitive change and success. Our starting point in the volume is that diverse women’s movements exist in the region, and that they are the main protagonists of policy change in this ield in multiple and diferently eicient ways.

Central European University in 2012-2013.

By: Paula Whitacre, Steven Kendall, and Anne-Marie Mazza

The COVID-19 pandemic raised challenging legal and policy issues—as reflected in numerous, often inconsistent, health-related decisions made in the United States at the national, state, and local level and in COVID-related judicial opinions issued after the onset of the pandemic. The response to the pandemic provides an opportunity to consider whether federal, state, and local governments had the necessary authority to deal with the crisis, how authority was applied, whether there was sufficient clarity as to responsibility, and what should be changed for the future.

On May 30–31, 2024, an ad hoc committee under the auspices of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s Committee on Science, Technology, and Law (CSTL) convened a virtual workshop to examine the allocation of responsibility among levels of government when dealing with a public health crisis; the extent to which federal, state, and local governments have the necessary authority to act; whether there is sufficient clarity as to which levels of government are responsible for particular actions; and lessons that can be learned from the pandemic to inform government responses to pandemics in the future.

The National Academies Press 2024

By: Timothy R. Wyatt and Conner Gwyn Schenck

Background

State departments of transportation have a continuing need to keep abreast of operating practices and legal elements of specific problems in highway law. The NCHRP Legal Research Digest and the Selected Studies in Transportation Law (SSTL) series are intended to keep departments up-to-date on laws that will affect their operations.

Foreword

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many transportation departments and authorities, their contractors, and consultants looked to the force majeure provisions of their contracts to determine what conditions or terms would govern their performances, what risks and obligations would be upheld, and what potential waivers would apply.

NCHRP LRD 93: Pandemics and Contractual Issues addresses the legal impacts that transportation agencies can expect to have as a result of an unusual occurrence when the nature of the occurrence (e.g., a pandemic) is not explicitly identified in contractual force majeure provisions, and the sufficiency or reasonableness of consequences for noncompliance with contract performance levels and with risk transfers.

This digest focuses on typical force majeure provisions and conditions in transportation construction, maintenance, or toll road operation contracts. It also addresses the legal aspects of government-mandated and imposed quarantine and business disruptions caused by the 2020-21 COVID-19 pandemic.

The digest provides a review of:

• Applicable force majeure clauses and the key criteria and circumstances weighed in favor of the conclusion that force majeure applies;

• How performance, time of completion, and financial provisions in the contracts affected the transportation agency and the contractor;

• The defenses or remedies a transportation agency could assert to counter the claim of force majeure legal arguments to make in support of the declaration of force majeure; and

• How the cost of shortfalls is allocated to each side without the force majeure clause.

This digest will be helpful to all involved in the legal obligations of parties to contracts concerning force majeure impacted by pandemics and other unanticipated occurrences, including attorneys representing transportation departments and authorities, their contractors and consultants, policymakers, local, state, and federal personnel, transportation practitioners, decision-makers, and stakeholders.

The National Academies Press 2024

By David Hausman

Prioritization by criminality, in which noncitizens who have been convicted of serious crimes are deported ahead of those with little or no criminal history, is the most consequential principle governing who is deported from the interior of the United States. This Article argues that, intuitive as prioritization by criminality may appear, it is only rarely justifiable. I show, empirically, that the interior immigration-enforcement system is successful at such prioritization. Being convicted of a crime makes deportation at least a hundred times more likely. And I show that center left attempts to reduce deportations over the last decade have sharpened this prioritization: both sanctuary policies and President Obama’s Priority Enforcement Program, which caused the two largest reductions in interior immigration enforcement in the last decade, prioritized deportations by criminality. Because well under one percent of undocumented noncitizens are deported in any given year, some principle for prioritizing deportations is needed (to the extent that deportations continue at all), but criminality should not be the primary principle. First, the crime-control rationales for punishing noncitizens more severely than citizens convicted of the same crime are surprisingly weak. Second, the immigration-policy rationale for prioritization by criminality is strongest among recent entrants to the United States. The longer a noncitizen has lived in the United States, and the stronger his or her ties here, the less deportation resembles a retroactive admission decision and the more it resembles punishment. Finally, the relationship between ties and criminality is asymmetric: there are better arguments for deporting people with weak  ties and no convictions than for deporting people with strong ties and serious convictions. If noncitizens convicted of crimes were mostly recent entrants, then the current prioritization might make sense. But the limited existing evidence on deportees’ ties to the United States suggests that prioritization by criminality leads the government to target people with deep roots in this country. The result is that interior immigration enforcement functions more as a method of social control of long-term noncitizen residents than as a tool of immigration policy. 

THE GEORGETOWN LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 110:973 2022

By: Omair Gill, Mia Bird, Johanna Lacoe, Molly Pickard, Steven Raphael and Alissa Skog

Consecutive sentencing is a practice where people serve sentences for separate convictions sequentially rather than concurrently. We analyze the application of consecutive sentences among all people admitted to California’s prisons since 2015, as well as the population of people incarcerated as of March 2023. KEY FINDINGS: • Frequency. Most prison admissions (56%) are ineligible for consecutive sentencing because they do not involve convictions for multiple offenses. Among admissions with multiple convictions, half (51%) receive consecutive sentences. In total, consecutive sentences are applied to less than a quarter of prison admissions in California (22%). • Contribution to sentence length. Overall, the time added by consecutive sentences increases the average prison sentence of the entire prison population by 8.5 months (roughly 13%). ◦ Among those admitted with consecutive sentences, it increases the average sentence by 35%, or three years (from 8.6 to 11.6 years). ◦ Consecutive sentences typically involve either the full sentence for an additional offense tagged on to the primary sentence or an additional sentence equal to one-third the prescribed sentence for the lesser ofense. While only 20% of consecutive sentences are for full additional prison terms (80% are for one-third terms), full-term sentences account for roughly 70% of the additional sentence years added through consecutive sentences since 2015. • Contributing factors. Among cases with multiple convictions, consecutive sentences are more likely to be applied when criminal cases involve offenses that occurred in multiple counties, the offenses are serious or violent, the most serious offense is a crime against a person, or the individual has prior prison admissions for serious or violent crimes. ◦ Multivariate models show that the likelihood of a consecutive sentence increases with the number of prior prison admissions, number of convictions, and age of the person admitted. People admitted with second- and third-strike enhancements are more likely (by roughly 12 to 18 percentage points) to receive consecutive sentences relative to admissions with multiple convictions without these enhancements ◦ Offenses receiving one-third consecutive sentences are more likely to involve property offenses, weapons offenses, as well as offenses like evading a police officer or identity theft. By contrast, the offenses receiving full-term consecutive sentences often involve crimes against a person, child victims, and various sex offenses. • County variation. The use of consecutive sentences varies across the state. Counties in far Northern California, excluding the coast, as well as those in the Central Valley, are more likely to impose consecutive sentences. Bay Area counties and most counties in Southern California are less likely to impose consecutive sentences. ◦ Average differences across counties in the types of cases resulting in a prison admission do not explain cross-county differences in the use of consecutive sentencing. ◦ American Indian/Alaskan Native and White people are more likely to receive consecutive sentences largely because they tend to be convicted in counties that are more likely to use consecutive sentencing. The opposite is true for Black, Hispanic, and Asian people. .   

Los Angeles: California Policy Lab, 2024. 39p.

Edited by Steven Teutsch, Yasmin Hurd, and Elizabeth Boyle

Over the past several decades, more than half of all U.S. states have legalized cannabis for adult and/or medical use, but it remains illegal at the federal level. The public health consequences of cannabis policy changes have not been comprehensively evaluated. Therefore, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health tasked the National Academies with reviewing cannabis and cannabinoid availability in the U.S., assessing regulatory frameworks for the industry with an emphasis on equity, and describing the strengths and weaknesses of surveillance systems for cannabis. The resulting report finds that there has been limited federal guidance to states regarding protecting public health, which has led to inconsistent protection across the states. The report recommends a strategy to minimize public health harms through stronger federal leadership, a robust research agenda, and more.

Washington DC: National Academies Press, 2024. 340p.

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

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

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

By Mary Catlin, David Wilson, Allison D. Redlich, Talley Bettens, Christian Meissner, Sujeeta Bhatt, Susan Brandon

Background

False confessions are often the product of an interrogation process, and the method by which an interrogation is conducted likely affects both the rate of truthful confessions and false confessions. An optimal interrogation method will maximize the former and minimize the latter.

Objectives

The current study was a partial update and extension of Meissner and colleagues' (2012) prior Campbell systematic review titled Interview and Interrogation Methods and their Effects on True and False Confessions. Our objective was to assess the effects of the interrogation approach on the rates of true and false confessions for criminal (mock) suspects.

Search Methods

PsycINFO, Criminal Justice Abstracts, and 15 other databases were searched starting October 20, 2022, with the final search conducted on May 23, 2023; together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with authors to identify additional studies.

Selection Criteria

All eligible studies experimentally manipulated interrogation approaches (i.e., accusatorial, information-gathering, or direct questioning) were conducted with mock suspects accused of wrongdoing where ground truth was known and included information about confession rates.

Data Collection and Analysis

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Campbell Collaboration for our selection of studies and data collection. However, we developed our own risk of bias items and analyzed our data using network meta-analysis methods. Data were synthesized via random-effects network meta-analysis based on the logged odds ratio.

Main Results

Across the 27 research articles that provided statistical information sufficient to calculate an effect size, 29 individual studies provided a total of 81 effect sizes. Most studies were conducted with college students in the United States. Overall, our risk of bias assessment indicated that authors generally adhered to double-blind procedures and avoided selective reporting of outcomes. Of note, however, it was often unclear how violations of the randomization process were dealt with.

For true confessions, there were 12 studies estimating the effect between accusatorial and direct questioning, five estimating the effect between information-gathering and direct questioning, and another five estimating the effect between accusatorial and information-gathering. Compared to information-gathering, on average, the accusatorial conditions observed fewer true confessions, although not statistically significant (combined OR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.29, 1.05). The largest effects were between information-gathering and direct questioning, with the former producing significantly more true confessions on average (combined OR = 2.43, 95% CI 1.29, 4.59). This model showed good consistency between the direct and indirect effects.

For false confessions, there were 20 studies estimating the effect between accusatorial and direct questioning, 4 studies estimating the effect between information-gathering and direct questioning, and 7 estimating the effect between accusatorial and information-gathering. On average, accusatorial conditions yielded more false confessions than direct questioning (combined OR = 3.03, 95% CI 1.83, 5.02) or information-gathering (combined OR = 4.41, 95% CI 1.77, 10.97), both of which are statistically significant. In contrast, direct questioning and information-gathering had roughly similar rates of false confessions with nonsignificant and small effects that slightly favored information-gathering (combined OR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.27, 1.78). This model showed good consistency between the direct and indirect effects.

For true confessions under a six-node model, most of the direct, indirect, and combined network estimated mean odds ratios were not statistically significant. The only significant effects were for (1) information-gathering versus direct questioning, with the former resulting in more true confessions (combined OR = 2.57, 95% CI 1.38, 4.78); and (2) accusatorial-evidence ploy versus information-gathering with the former resulting in fewer true confessions (combined OR = 0.37, 95% CI 0.16, 0.84).

For false confessions under a six-node model, we found significant effects for (1) accusatorial-evidence ploys versus direct questioning, with the former resulting in more false confessions (combined OR = 2.98, 95% CI 1.59, 5.59); (2) accusatorial-evidence ploys versus information-gathering, with the former resulting in more false confessions (combined OR = 4.47, 95% CI 1.46, 13.68); (3) accusatorial-other versus direct questioning, with the former resulting in more false confessions (combined OR = 3.12, 95% CI 1.37, 7.10); (4) accusatorial-other versus information-gathering, with the former resulting in more false confessions (combined OR = 4.67, 95% CI 1.61, 13.55); and (5) information-gathering versus minimization, with the latter resulting in more false confessions (combined OR = 0.25, 95% CI = 0.08, 0.83). No other combined effects were significant. This model should be interpreted cautiously, however, as the Q statistics raised concerns regarding model consistency.

Author's Conclusions

Overall, results support calls for reforming policies related to interviewing and interrogation practices to prohibit the use of accusatorial approaches and require the adoption of science-based approaches.

Campbell Systematic Reviews Volume 20, Issue 4 December 2024

By MacArthur Foundation

The fair and just treatment of racial and ethnic minorities at all stages of the criminal justice system is of significant importance to communities of color, practitioners, and scholars alike. Central to this discourse is a recognition of the discretionary power that prosecutors wield in shaping the outcomes of criminal cases. This includes, among other things, the decision to file or drop a case, amend the severity and number of charges, and dispose of criminal cases through plea bargaining. This report focuses on the outcomes of prosecutorial decision making in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin. Specifically, it assesses the extent to which racial and ethnic disparities exist across the following five decision points in criminal case processing: (1) Case charging; (2) Charge changes from arrest to charging; (3) Disposition type; (4) Charge changes from charging to disposition; and (5) Sentencing. We encourage the reader to interpret the results while recognizing that criminal case processing can trigger disparate outcomes for racial and ethnic minorities for a number of different reasons. Some of these reasons, such as defense attorney role and judicial discretion, are beyond the immediate control of prosecutors. At the same time, our partners are keenly aware that prosecutors can and should play a vital role in uncovering and addressing racial and ethnic disparities in the criminal justice system, and this report stems from that recognition. The intent of this report is to prompt discussion and raise questions, rather than provide definitive answers. We also want to stress that the findings presented throughout this report cannot be used to support or refute possible racial and ethnic biases. Our methodology simply does not permit that. Rather than serving as an end point, we view this report as a starting point from which to engage in meaningful discussions concerning policies and procedures that can ameliorate racial and ethnic disparities in case outcomes. Furthermore, given that prosecutorial decision making does not operate in a vacuum, certain findings direct attention to ways district attorney’s offices, the defense bar, law enforcement agencies, and the judiciary can galvanize future reform efforts. Even more importantly, continued efforts to engage with minority communities will be critical for increasing public trust in and cooperation with the criminal justice system. This report is part of a series of publications resulting from this partnership. The first report, Prosecutorial Attitudes, Perspectives, and Priorities: Insights from the Inside, was released in December, 2018. The second report, Race, Ethnicity and Prosecution in Hillsborough County, Florida, was released in July, 2019. The final report in the series, focused on prosecutorial performance indicators, will be released near the end of 2019.   

2019. 62p.

By Florida International University and Loyola University Chicago

This project is a groundbreaking partnership between prosecutors and researchers to promote more effective, just, and transparent decision-making in prosecution. It is a bipartisan effort to be smart on crime, to think about new ways to maximize public safety, to enhance fairness, and to create a new system of accountability to the public. It involves four forward-thinking prosecutors in Cook County (IL), Jacksonville (FL), Milwaukee County (WI), and Tampa (FL) working with researchers at Florida International University and Loyola University Chicago to take a new look at prosecutorial performance and decision-making. This partnership is supported by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Improving prosecutorial performance and decision-making is impossible without data. Data takes center stage in the project because it tells prosecutors what problems are the biggest threats to community well-being, and it points to ways to tackle those problems. Data helps measure the overall impact of prosecutors’ work, and it alerts them that a policy or practice needs to be continued or changed. Unfortunately, most prosecutors’ offices cannot collect, analyze, and apply data to these ends. Many offices do not record the data they need. Others are missing the staff and knowledge necessary to analyze their data. Still other offices—probably most—do not have the ability and commitment to use data to guide their decisions and reforms. This project focuses on helping our partner offices and other interested jurisdictions overcome these hurdles. The project has four distinct objectives: What The Project Is About While the project targets performance in our four partner jurisdictions, it also aims to use the knowledge generated from this experiment to advance the field of prosecution nationally. There are more than 2,300 local prosecutors’ offices in the United States, but very few organizations specialize in prosecutorial research and technical assistance. Realistically, most prosecutors’ offices will not receive any direct meaningful assistance. By building sustainable data collection, performance measurement, and communication practices for the four offices, this project provides a set of blueprints that offices across the country can use to make their own internal improvements. We realize there is no one-size-fits-all approach to prosecutorial office management that will meet every office’s needs. Writing a prescription for a patient we have not examined is hard. However, the project provides a model that other offices can use to start thinking about forming local partnerships, improving data capacity, and producing metrics for assessing their own impact. The backdrop for this project is the Safety & Justice Challenge, the MacArthur Foundation initiative to reduce jail misuse and overuse as both a crucial component and a major driver of America’s over-reliance on incarceration. Unnecessary jail incarceration carries significant costs to individuals, families, communities, and society at large. These costs take their greatest toll on low-income people and communities of color. The Safety & Justice Challenge supports local leaders who are dedicated to safely reducing jail populations, improving justice systems, and ultimately strengthening their communities. To expand offices’ data and analytical capacity by assessing case management systems, making better use of existing data, and exploring options for capturing new information without creating additional burdens for prosecutors. To assist prosecutors with tracking their progress toward greater efficiency, effectiveness, and fairness using prosecutorial performance indicators at the office and unit levels (as opposed to the individual prosecutor level). To identify possible racial and ethnic disparities at various stages of case processing across offense categories, and to work with stakeholders to develop specific solutions to reduce them. To establish a practice of using data to measure monthly or quarterly performance and engage with the communities While the project targets performance in our four partner jurisdictions, it also aims to use the knowledge generated from this experiment to advance the field of prosecution nationally. There are more than 2,300 local prosecutors’ offices in the United States, but very few organizations specialize in prosecutorial research and technical assistance. Realistically, most prosecutors’ offices will not receive any direct meaningful assistance. By building sustainable data collection, performance measurement, and communication practices for the four offices, this project provides a set of blueprints that offices across the country can use to make their internal improvements. We realize there is no one-size-fits-all approach to prosecutorial office management that will meet every office’s needs. Prescribing for a patient we have not examined is hard. However, the project provides a model that other offices can use to start thinking about forming local partnerships, improving data capacity, and producing metrics for assessing their impact. The backdrop for this project is the Safety & Justice Challenge, the MacArthur Foundation initiative to reduce jail misuse and overuse as both a crucial component and a major driver of America’s over-reliance on incarceration. Unnecessary jail incarceration carries significant costs to individuals, families, communities, and society at large. These costs take their greatest toll on low-income people and communities of color. The Safety & Justice Challenge supports local leaders who are dedicated to safely reducing jail populations, improving justice systems, and ultimately strengthening their communities. This report presents findings from an assessment of racial and ethnic disparities in prosecution and sentencing in Cook County, Illinois. Multiple decision points are analyzed, including case charging, changes in charge severity from arrest to charging, disposition type, changes in charge severity from charging to conviction, and sentencing. Because the findings vary by decision points and offense categories, each finding should be examined and assessed independently

Miami; Florida International University and Chicago: Loyola University Chicago, 2019. 50p.

By Florida International University and Loyola University Chicago

Diversion is increasingly used by prosecutors in the United States. As an alternative to formal prosecution, diversion programs provide opportunities to avoid conviction, address substance use and mental health needs, and maintain employment and community ties. However, the diversion process can be a source of racial and ethnic disparities. Who gets diverted and who completes diversion successfully has a lot to do with income. Irrespective of skin color, poor individuals are disadvantaged for a variety of reasons, ranging from the quality of legal advice to hefty fees. While we acknowledge that diversion differences can stem from socioeconomic factors, this report focuses specifically on how race and ethnicity influence diversion decisions.

Miami: FIU; Chicago: Loyola University Chicago: 2021. 26p.

By Lee Kovarsky  

The tailwinds might be behind criminal justice reform, but American mercy power remains locked in a sputtering clemency model. Centralized leadership should be braver or the centralized institutions should be streamlined, the arguments go—but what if the more basic mercy problem is centralization itself? In this essay, I explore that question. In so doing, I defend the normative premise that post-conviction mercy is justified, and I address the questions of institutional design and political economy that follow. I ultimately encourage jurisdictions to layer decentralized mercy powers on top of their clemency mechanisms, and for the newer authority to be vested in local prosecutors. I present less a single proposal than a collection of principles for mercy decentralization. Governors and presidents simply cannot deliver the punishment remissions appropriate for an American prison population bloated by a half-century love affair with over-criminalization, mandatory minimums, and recidivism enhancements.  

24 New Criminal L. Rev. 326 (2021)  

By The Texas Sunset Advisory Commission

 As the criminal justice system works through the final lingering effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on court backlogs, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) along with the other adult criminal justice entities subject to this Sunset review — the Board of Pardons and Paroles (BPP), Windham School District, and Correctional Managed Health Care Committee — are once again at a critical point. This Sunset review occurred in the context of TDCJ’s systemwide prison lockdown due to unprecedented levels of contraband and violence and inmate population projections that exceed TDCJ’s operational capacity, raising basic questions about TDCJ’s ability to handle its current and future realities. The state’s criminal justice entities are confronting serious challenges in executing their mission to safely confine, supervise, and provide services for adults convicted of certain crimes in Texas. This Sunset review therefore seeks to best position TDCJ and its counterparts so that they are able to prevent current problems from becoming unmanageable, widespread crises in the coming years. While the sheer size and complexity of Texas’ sprawling prison system is unique, TDCJ faces the same national trend as its peers in other states — hiring people to work in corrections is difficult. The Legislature and TDCJ have long recognized correctional officers, who play a vital frontline role overseeing Sunset seeks to position TDCJ to be able to prevent problems from becoming widespread crises. incarcerated adults, as deserving of additional attention and resources for recruitment and retention. Yet the uncomfortable reality the Sunset review found is some of Texas’ prisons are located in places where hiring sufficient correctional staff is nearly impossible. As that reality is unlikely to change, TDCJ is forced to spend significantly on transporting staff around the state and maintaining facilities that hold thousands of vacant, unusable beds. Furthermore, while difficulty hiring correctional staff isn’t unique to this state, the agency has not done enough to mitigate this problem. Serious and systemic deficiencies in human resources functions, which form the backbone of effective agency operations, contribute to agencywide hiring and retention problems, with more than half of TDCJ divisions at a vacancy rate of at least 20 percent in fiscal year 2023. This staffing crisis extends to parole officers who supervise releasees in Texas communities and several other critical divisions. Ultimately, the Sunset review found TDCJ must concurrently plan for the future to locate or expand facilities in places where the agency can adequately staff them while also greatly improving internal human resources functions and processes to retain existing staff. T he Sunset review also found TDCJ to be in significant need of modernization, as decades-old technology and paper-based and manual processes limit the agency’s ability to effectively and efficiently leverage its $3.9 billion annual budget. But the lack of modernization is not limited to technology. Without better strategic planning and data practices, the agency will continue to reactively lurch from emergency to emergency. Additionally, TDCJ’s approach  to rehabilitation programs, many of which inform BPP’s determination of the potential for an inmate to safely reenter the community, suffer from deficiencies that undermine the Legislature’s significant investment in these programs. To overcome these deficiencies, this review recommends requiring enhanced rehabilitation planning and evaluation to better ensure beneficial program outcomes rather than simply encouraging participation regardless of efficacy. T his Sunset review also took a close look at the parole system — both the processes by which BPP decides whether to grant early release to eligible inmates and the processes by which TDCJ’s parole officers supervise releasees. Given the high stakes of inmates reentering the community and the discretionary nature of making such decisions, BPP voters understandably take a cautious approach. As it has in previous reviews of BPP, Sunset focused on improved fairness, consistency, and transparency of BPP’s decision-making processes. Separately, the review also found the need for more efficient TDCJ parole processes to ease burdens on the often underappreciated parole staff who serve a critical public safety role in Texas communities. T his review did not have findings or recommendations in two key areas: probation and correctional health care. TDCJ’s role in probation is limited to maintaining standards for and providing funding to local Community Supervision and Corrections Departments (CSCDs). Overall, Sunset staff found TDCJ adequately performs this function, and many ideas for changes to probation largely amounted to calls for increased funding. To this end, TDCJ has requested through its 2026-27 Legislative Appropriations Request additional funding to support both CSCD staff salaries and supervision activities. Additionally, this review found the Correctional Managed Health Care Committee’s role, which primarily is to develop a statewide managed healthcare plan, to be functioning adequately. TDCJ works effectively with its contracted partners at the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center and the University of Texas Medical Branch to deliver healthcare services as the Legislature intended. Despite finding considerable areas for improvement across the criminal justice entities under review, Sunset staff determined that Texas continues to benefit from TDCJ’s oversight and management of a system in which a single state agency supports probation and directly provides incarceration and parole supervision. Accordingly, Sunset staff recommends continuing TDCJ for 12 years and aligning its Sunset review to coincide with that of the other criminal justice entities. The following material highlights Sunset staff’s key recommendations for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Board of Pardons and Paroles, Windham School District, and Correctional Managed Health Care Committee. 

Austin, TX: The Commission, 2024. 189p.

By Besiki Luka Kutateladze, R. R. Dunlea, Don Stemen, & Melba Pearson

The prosecutorial discretion to charge and amend charges is vast and rarely studied. While individual prosecutors determine charges based on the statute and the facts of a case, their interest in gaining leverage in plea bargaining, securing conviction, and maintaining a positive relationship with law enforcement may affect charging decisions. In this brief, we examine charge reductions at case filing and post-filing across 12 prosecutorial offices that collect data on both phases of charging decisions. We provide an initial effort to establish office typologies based on the frequency and timing of charge reductions. In general, reducing felonies to misdemeanors at the case screening stage lessens the need for charge reductions at subsequent stages of case processing. Yet several notable exceptions exist: some offices seldom reduce charges, while others do so frequently at both stages of case processing. We hope this brief generates additional discussions—both internally within prosecutorial offices and externally with policy groups and communities—about the benefits and shortcomings of existing charging practices. The prosecutorial discretion to charge and amend charges is vast and rarely studied. While individual prosecutors determine charges based on the statute and the facts of a case, their interest in gaining leverage in plea bargaining, securing conviction, and maintaining a positive relationship with law enforcement may affect charging decisions. In this brief, we examine charge reductions at case filing and post-filing across 12 prosecutorial offices that collect data on both phases of charging decisions. We provide an initial effort to establish office typologies based on the frequency and timing of charge reductions. In general, reducing felonies to misdemeanors at the case screening stage lessens the need for charge reductions at subsequent stages of case processing. Yet several notable exceptions exist: some offices seldom reduce charges, while others do so frequently at both stages of case processing. We hope this brief generates additional discussions—both internally within prosecutorial offices and externally with policy groups and communities—about the benefits and shortcomings of existing charging practices. The prosecutorial discretion to charge and amend charges is vast and rarely studied. While individual prosecutors determine charges based on the statute and the facts of a case, their interest in gaining leverage in plea bargaining, securing conviction, and maintaining a positive relationship with law enforcement may affect charging decisions. In this brief, we examine charge reductions at case filing and post-filing across 12 prosecutorial offices that collect data on both phases of charging decisions. We provide an initial effort to establish office typologies based on the frequency and timing of charge reductions. In general, reducing felonies to misdemeanors at the case screening stage lessens the need for charge reductions at subsequent stages of case processing. Yet several notable exceptions exist: some offices seldom reduce charges, while others do so frequently at both stages of case processing. We hope this brief generates additional discussions—both internally within prosecutorial offices and externally with policy groups and communities—about the benefits and shortcomings of existing charging practices.

Prosecutorial Performance Indicators, 2023. 7p.

By Oli Hutt, Head of Analytics | Greg O’Meara, Analyst

Rising demand and squeezed budgets over the past decade have left the criminal justice system (CJS) struggling to manage day-to-day. Changes to address a specific issue in one agency cascade unintentional negative consequences, creating friction elsewhere which slows cases and reduces the likelihood of successful outcomes. Better modeling of the systemic impact of individual agency choices is required to prevent the system from lurching with every change. The lack of a joined-up accountability structure severely hinders the efficacy of the CJS as a whole. Whilst individual agencies have a common aim, their objectives and resources are often unaligned or even in direct conflict. This impacts on victims, witnesses, and defendants who experience a highly fragmented, frustrating, and stressful process. Cooperation is held back by a lack of basic data sharing. Better standardization and coordination is needed on basics such as data format, transfer, frequency, etc.) and co-design of systems to enable more joined-up working. A duty to share data should be considered as a way to drive greater cooperation across the CJS. Practitioners from across the CJS are clear on what needs to change to make this happen. However, the willingness of agencies to work together is limited- in part because they lack the resources required. There are success stories, but these are typically localized and not embedded. Yet there is cause for hope. Better use of technology can enable better decision-making and improve efficiency and effectiveness; our recommendations are focused on these objectives. Relatively minor investment would deliver targeted solutions e.g.- digital devices in prisons and courts, redaction tools for police and data sharing agreements. By reducing data entry and data error, these would free up police and prison officer time and remove delays in data sharing across the CJS. However, these require the central government to invest to realize the systemic benefit they could deliver. Technology also offers relief to recruitment and morale issues by automating standard processes that are inconsistently applied and time-consuming to learn, and by removing the burden on staff often required to work outside their skill set. Agencies should recruit and retain specialist (particularly technical) staff rather than relying on current staff to cover these needs inefficiently. Longer-term, more fundamental, systemic change is required, including a single accountability structure for the entire CJS; a victim/witness-centric design that maximizes engagement throughout the process and leads to swift and fair outcomes for all through system-wide case management and data sharing. These longer-term requirements should not stop the government from progressing the changes outlined above, and other recommendations that can be implemented immediately at a relatively low cost. The greatest risk facing the criminal justice system is inaction

London: Crest Advisory, 2022. 42p.

By Amanda Kraus, Elizabeth Clelan, Heather Wolters, Patty Kannapel

This study was sponsored by the Office of the Executive Director for Force Resiliency within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to address two taskings from the FY 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA):

1. Establish criteria for determining when to review data indicating that racial, ethnic, and gender (REG) disparities in military justice outcomes may exist and provide guidance for how to conduct that review.

2. Conduct an evaluation to identify the causes of identified REG disparities and take steps to address them.

To address the first tasking, the study team combined emerging best practices from the civilian criminal justice system (CCJS) with a review of the military justice system (MJS) to create guidance for data collection, analysis, and reporting that will allow the services to use administrative data to conduct ongoing assessments of how members of all REG groups are treated within the MJS. To address the second tasking, the team used multivariate statistical techniques to analyze available data with the goal of measuring REG disparities in MJS outcomes, holding constant other relevant factors. This report addresses the first tasking; the second tasking is addressed in a companion report titled, Exploring Racial, Ethnic, and Gender Disparities in the Military Justice System.

GUIDING CONCEPTS

To guide our approach to addressing the NDAA tasking, we drew on four concepts related to justice and bias and considered their implications for data collection and analysis.

DISTRIBUTIVE VERSUS PROCEDURAL JUSTICE

Distributive justice relates to the distribution of outcomes within a community. In the MJS context, distributive justice relates directly to REG outcome disparities and suggests that the services should collect data to determine whether people who are the same except for their REG characteristics experience the same MJS outcomes. Procedural justice relates to the system that generates the outcomes. Procedural justice is defined in terms of the rules of the system and the extent to which they are applied consistently and impartially and communicated clearly. To assess procedural justice in the MJS, it is necessary to collect and analyze data on underlying processes, not just final outcomes. It is possible for procedural injustices to occur without generating outcome disparities, and it is possible for a system to be procedurally fair but to generate different outcomes for members of different REG groups. Thus, on their own, average outcome disparities are not complete indicators of bias. 

INDIVIDUAL VERSUS INSTITUTIONAL BIAS

Generally, bias is defined as prejudice for or against one person or group of people, especially in a way considered to be unfair. To cause MJS outcome disparities, such prejudices must be turned into biased actions, which can occur at the individual or institutional level. In the context of the MJS, individual bias is exercised by individual actors within the system through their individual decision-making discretion. It can be both explicit and implicit. Because individual bias is exercised through discretionary decision-making, finding evidence of it in data calls for identifying places in the system where individual discretion matters most to see if this is where disparities occur. Institutional bias is present when the policies, procedures, and practices that define a system consistently create positive or negative outcomes based an individual’s REG status. It can be intentional or unintentional. To identify the presence of institutional bias in the MJS, it is necessary to collect and analyze data that reflect outcomes that are guided by regulation or policy.

CONCERNS ABOUT BIAS IN THE MJS

Bias in the MJS—both real and perceived—can decrease the effectiveness of the MJS and thereby degrade good order and discipline and reduce warfighting readiness. There are widespread and persistent perceptions that the MJS is biased, and these perceptions exist both inside the military, especially among members of color, and outside the military, among the American public and members of Congress.

The broader social context in which concerns about bias are formed matters. Although the services have their own justice system and control over how that system is implemented, their members are drawn from the American population and public support is necessary for continued recruiting and funding. Thus, concerns about REG bias in the MJS will ebb and flow as they ebb and flow in the national culture and they may arise from within or without.

The quality and presentation of data and data analysis also matter. Over the years, analyses of MJS data have done little to alleviate concerns about bias. Given the persistence of these concerns, it makes sense to create a robust system for data collection, rigorous analysis, and appropriate reporting to enable detailed assessments of MJS outcomes and the policies and practices that produce them.

THE MJS

To identify points in the MJS where institutions and individuals apply discretion, as well as important MJS outcomes to study, we created a chart that maps how a case flows through four phases of the MJS—incident processing, pre-trial/pre-hearing, adjudication and sentencing, and post-trial/post-hearing—and identified key steps in each phase.

A main source of institutional discretion in the MJS lies outside the system. Given that servicemembers can enter the system if they are accused of disobeying a regulation, institutional choices about the nature and design of regulations will affect MJS outcomes. Individual discretion is more likely to be applied within the MJS, at different points by different actors. The most individual discretion rests with commanding officers during the incident processing phase and, in later phases, along the disciplinary path and the summary court-martial branch of the judicial path. Once a case is referred to special or general court-martial, discretion is spread across more people. Actors with significant discretionary power on the judicial path include convening authorities, who are military commanders with little or no legal training, and judge advocates, who are legal professionals serving as military judges and trial and defense counsels.

As a whole, the flowchart highlights the importance of considering the full range of outcomes because movement through the system is determined by the outcome at each successive step along the relevant path. The steps within each phase identify the important outcomes.

ADDRESSING MJS BIAS WITH ADMINISTRATIVE DATA

The primary benefit of using administrative data to measure REG disparities in MJS outcomes is that it creates an evidence-based picture of MJS outcomes that distinguishes between isolated incidents and widespread problems. To generate meaningful measures of these disparities, it is necessary to use multivariate analytical techniques that allow researchers to measure REG outcome disparities while accounting for other factors that affect MJS outcomes. The more relevant other factors that can be included in the model, the more likely it is to hold “all else” equal. If REG disparities still exist after accounting for other factors, it is likely that the outcome differences are directly related to REG. Such a finding does not prove that bias exists, but it takes the other factors off the table. The multivariate techniques we identified range in technical sophistication and resource requirements. Disaggregating raw data by multiple outcomes and factors is the easiest of the four approaches we identified, and it can be done by agency staff. While not as conclusive as approaches that control for multiple factors simultaneously, disaggregation provides a more complete picture than bivariate analysis and helps agency staff make informed decisions about where to focus more technical analyses and scarce analytical resources. Used together and on a regular basis, disaggregation and the more complicated approaches provide the basis for ongoing monitoring of REG outcomes to identify and address disparities before they become persistent or systemic. Existing MJS and other reporting requirements provide a natural schedule for conducting assessments and reporting their results.

Application of valid multivariate techniques requires detailed data. Current Department of Defense guidance directs the services to collect nearly all the desired data elements, so if the guidance is implemented, they should be well positioned to conduct meaningful assessments of MJS outcomes. There are two caveats to this conclusion. First, there may be gaps for information on investigations and disciplinary outcomes. Second, the services may not have the resources to implement the data collection guidance. It may be an unfunded mandate.

Finally, the tasking from the FY 2020 NDAA asked for criteria to determine when to further review data indicating that REG disparities in MJS outcomes may exist. There is no scientific or social consensus about which criterion to use or what level of disparity equates to bias. Therefore, the services should work with internal and external stakeholders to select multiple criteria based on the absolute size of a disparity, its statistical significance, and the number of people it affects.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADDRESS THE NDAA TASKING

We recommend that the services do not conduct detailed assessments of MJS data only in response to disparities measured by bivariate metrics. Instead, assessments should be conducted regularly using the blueprint provided by lessons learned from the CCJS:

Step 1. Work with internal and external stakeholders to identify issues of concern, set priorities, and develop decision-making criteria

Step 2. Create an analysis plan based on the concerns and priorities identified in Step 1

Step 3. Collect data on MJS outcomes (including nonjudicial outcomes) and relevant control variables in easy-to-use electronic records management systems and ensure they are regularly updated

Step 4. Execute the analysis plan from Step 2 using appropriate quantitative and/or qualitative methods

Step 5. Regularly and transparently report assessment results to all the stakeholders as appropriate

Step 6. Make policy decisions about how to address REG outcome disparities based on the established priorities and criteria

Arlington VA: CNA, 2023. 116p

By Amanda Kraus, Elizabeth Clelan, Dan Leeds, Sarah Wilson with Cathy Hiatt, Jared Huff, Dave Reese

Section 540I of the Fiscal Year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (FY 2020 NDAA) required the secretary of defense, in consultation with the secretaries of the military departments and the secretary of homeland security, to:

• Issue guidance that establishes criteria to determine when data indicating possible racial, ethnic, or gender (REG) disparities in the military justice process should be further reviewed and describes how such a review should be conducted.

• Conduct an evaluation to identify the causes of any REG disparities identified in the military justice system (MJS) and take steps to address the identified causes, as appropriate.

The Office of the Executive Director for Force Resiliency within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness asked CNA to provide analytic support to fulfill these requirements. CNA addressed four research questions:

1. What data elements should be tracked, and what disparity indicators should the Department of Defense (DOD) use to monitor trends in MJS outcomes and take appropriate policy actions?

2. How much of the required data currently exist and to what extent are they standardized across the services?

3. Do the existing MJS data reveal any differences in military justice outcomes by REG?

4. Can we identify any specific factors (including bias) that contributed to observed outcome disparities?

The results for the first research question, which support fulfilling the first NDAA requirement, are reported in the document titled, How to Use Administrative Data to Measure and Interpret Racial, Ethnic, and Gender Disparities in Military Justice Outcomes. This report describes how we addressed the remaining three research questions to support fulfilling the second NDAA requirement.

APPROACH

To manage the scope of this effort within the study resources, we limit our analyses to the regular, active duty enlisted forces of each service. To execute the analyses, we constructed multiple datasets for each service, with each dataset comprising records of MJS incidents reported and resolved over the seven years from fiscal year (FY) 2014 through FY 2020. Each incident record includes descriptive features of the incident, including the REG of the accused servicemember. The constructed datasets follow each incident record through various steps in the MJS, but no dataset follows incidents seamlessly from initial reporting to final resolution and they vary in terms of level of detail. Thus, our dataset construction also served as a check on data completeness and allowed us to determine which REG disparities in incident outcomes can currently be tracked for each service.

We then applied quantitative methods (primarily regression analysis) to calculate unconditional and conditional service-specific REG disparity measures for as many MJS outcomes as the data allowed, controlling for other descriptive features of the offender and the incident. Unconditional disparities are measured for the first-observed outcome in each dataset and are based on comparisons between those experiencing the outcome and those in the service’s entire enlisted population. Conditional disparities are measured for outcomes that occur later in the MJS process and are based on comparisons between the servicemembers who experienced the outcome and those who experienced the outcome associated with the previous observed step in the MJS process. For example, for some services, we calculate REG disparities in guilty findings conditional on having completed nonjudicial punishment (NJP) or court-martial (CM) proceedings. This allows us to determine accurately where REG disparities first appear in the MJS and how long they persist.

RESULTS

There are many detailed results presented in the report. Here, we summarize these results by answering the research questions they addressed.

Research question #2: How much of the required data currently exist and to what extent are they standardized across the services?

Most of the MJS data exist and the services generally collect the same data elements, but the ways the data are collected and stored result in data elements and structures that do not always support quantitative analysis and they are not consistent across services. Specifically, despite recent service efforts to improve data collection and storage, the data are still stored in multiple data systems across multiple commands within each service. Thus, it remains cumbersome to follow incidents through the MJS and to prepare the data necessary to compute REG disparities. This, in turn, limits REG disparity analysis for all MJS incidents and creates outcomes that vary by service.

Research question #3: Do the existing MJS data reveal any differences in military justice outcomes by REG?

Our data analysis confirms that there were significant racial and gender disparities in MJS outcomes during the study period.

Across services and outcomes, we found positive racial disparities: in every service, Black enlisted personnel were more likely than White enlisted personnel to be investigated, be involved in NJP in some way, and be involved in CMs in some way, even after controlling for the other factors included in the regression models. Yet, conditional on a case progressing far enough in the MJS to have an adjudicated outcome, Black enlisted personnel were no more likely—and, in many cases, were less likely—than their White counterparts to be found guilty.

In contrast, across services and outcomes, we found negative gender disparities: in every service, female enlisted personnel were less likely than male enlisted personnel to enter the MJS and, conditional on the case progressing to an adjudication point, they were less likely to be found guilty.

Finally, we found few significant ethnic disparities in MJS outcomes. Across services and for most outcomes, Hispanic and non-Hispanic enlisted personnel experienced the modeled outcomes at similar rates.

Research question #4: Can we identify any specific factors (including bias) that contributed to observed outcome disparities?

It is impossible to determine definitively whether bias exists in the MJS solely based on statistical analysis of administrative data records such as those we used in this study. The analysis did, however, allow us to draw two sets of conclusions regarding causes of MJS disparities.

First, controlling for offender-, incident-, and MJS process-related factors did not eliminate REG disparities, and no specific factor emerged as a leading determinant of MJS disparities. Thus, bias remains on the table as a potential cause.

Second, by using the data to show where in the MJS disparities occur, we provide information to help the services decide where to investigate further. Specifically, the largest positive racial disparities were associated with the first-observed outcomes. This suggests that it is important to get more clarity on how and why Black enlisted servicemembers enter the MJS. It would be especially valuable to better understand how outcomes differ depending on whether the initial investigation is conducted by a professional military law enforcement agency (LEA) or by the command and how commanding officers (COs) make their disposition decisions, and to evaluate the relative strengths of cases brought against Black versus White servicemembers.

RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We make the following recommendations to improve data collection and analytical processes.Provide the services with sufficient funding and support to ensure that MJS incident and case data are collected, stored, and made usable for conditional REG disparity analysis at each step in the MJS.For future data assessments, follow the two key steps recommended in the companion document: support service-specific studies and provide the time and structure for effective collaboration between researchers and MJS experts in each service.Continue efforts to collect complete NJP information.Include common case control numbers in all MJS data systems so that datasets associated with different parts of the MJS can be merged and cases can be followed from investigation through initial disposition to final resolution.Populate variables related to offender characteristics, especially REG, by pulling data from authoritative personnel records.Ensure that all relevant dates are populated.Define all data fields to include all potential outcomes or values, including indicators that a variable is not applicable for a given incident or that the incident has not yet proceeded far enough through the MJS for the variable to apply.Use dropdown menus to minimize data error and inconsistency due to hand entry.

RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO REG DISPARITIES

To address the identified MJS outcome disparities, we make the following recommendations that range from specific to general:Seek to address disparities, not bias per se. As reported in the companion document, regardless of their causes, disparities may create perceptions of bias and perceptions of bias have negative effects not only on the effectiveness of the MJS, but also readiness.Begin by studying how outcomes differ depending on whether the initial investigation is conducted by a professional military LEA or by the command, how COs make their disposition decisions, and the relative strengths of cases brought against Black versus White servicemembers.Follow additional steps recommended in the companion document. Specifically, conduct assessments and report results on a regular basis. Do not wait until negative publicity occurs and do not respond only to disparities identified in raw data.Develop procedures and systems for holding leaders accountable for the proper use of discretion across the full range of MJS outcomes. Discretion is a necessary part of law enforcement and justice, but it is also where bias (implicit or explicit) can enter. It is leadership’s job to think more broadly about the role of discretion in the MJS.

Arlington, VA: CNA, 2023. 158p.

By: Catherine H. Augustine, Andrea Phillips, Susannah Faxon-Mills, Abigail Kessler

In this report, the authors describe how implementation of restorative practices in educational settings and a juvenile diversion program run by the National Conflict Resolution Center (NCRC) in San Diego County are working to stem the school-to-prison pipeline. The authors focus on how NCRC is serving as an intermediary organization for youth-focused programs, signs of success, opportunities to improve, and insights for other communities.

RAND Research—Published Sep 30, 2024

By: Stephanie Brooks Holliday, Elizabeth Marsolais, Samantha Matthews

The Los Angeles County Rapid Diversion Program (RDP) is a pretrial mental health diversion program operating in seven courthouses in Los Angeles County, California. Established in 2019 as a faster approach to mental health diversion compared with the traditional approach, RDP allows for the diversion of individuals who have a mental health diagnosis or substance use disorder and certain qualifying misdemeanor or felony charges. Individuals who complete the program have their case dismissed.

In this report, the authors present findings from a formal assessment of program implementation to date. Using a mixed-methods evaluation of program data and interviews with implementation partners and RDP graduates, they explore current program implementation, case outcomes for individuals who participate in RDP, and strengths and areas for improvement. Lessons learned from this evaluation have the potential to inform efforts to scale the program within Los Angeles County and to other counties interested in implementing a similar pretrial diversion program.

RAND—Published Sep. 30, 2024

By Scrutinize

State court judges play a crucial role in upholding constitutional protections that safeguard individuals from abuses such as unlawful stop-and-frisk, coerced interrogations, and warrantless searches. However, judges' interpretations and applications of these rights vary significantly, affecting both individual defendants and the broader community's interactions with law enforcement. This report introduces a new metric for assessing judges: Failure to protect constitutional rights against law enforcement overreach. We analyze appellate decisions to identify cases where trial court judges ruled that officers acted constitutionally in obtaining evidence, but were overturned by higher courts. Using examples from suppression reversals and other sources, we suggest that some suppression reversals not only indicate a pattern of failing to protect constitutional rights, but may also reveal a trial court judge's bias toward law enforcement. Our new analysis enhances transparency in the judicial system, empowers New Yorkers with crucial insights about the judges serving their communities, and provides decision-makers with valuable information.

Key Findings:

1. Ninety-five judges had multiple suppression decisions reversed between 2007 and 2023.

2. Approximately 38% of the reversals (153 cases) were dismissed because of a finding that the trial court judge erred in denying suppression, suggesting that some New Yorkers may have been wrongfully incarcerated due to unconstitutionally obtained evidence.

3. An additional 69 cases were overturned due to judicial errors that limited or prevented constitutional scrutiny of law enforcement actions.

Recommendations:

1. New York's court system should increase transparency by releasing all trial court judges’ suppression rulings along with hearing transcripts.

2. New York’s court system should publish annual reports containing summary data on suppression proceedings, outcomes, and other pertinent information.

New York: Scrutinize, 2024. 24p.