By Isis Misdary

Three separate but closely related factors have together produced this nation’s epidemic of mass incarceration. First, the enforcement of criminal law has become wholly dominated by a caste of repeat players. The chasm between this grouping and outsiders has become far more important than the prosecution-defense duality ostensibly dominating the system. Second, the system’s design and policies have become dominated by central authorities sealed in a “tough-on-crime” echo chamber. This leaves local communities largely powerless to check the devastation being visited upon them. And third, the system has ruthlessly suppressed the individuality of those facing charges. They are rarely seen, almost never heard, ignored if they try to contextualize events giving rise to the charges, and punished severely if they attempt to assert their rights, much less their innocence. Robbed of all that makes them human, their fates arouse little sympathy. Devastated communities have mounted various responses to mass incarceration. None is more exciting than the participatory defense movement. This movement seeks to involve the person facing charges as well as that person’s family and community. Together, they meet with defense counsel, gather evidence for the case, and in mitigation, prepare videos or other testimonials to influence charging and plea-bargaining decisions and undertake other efforts to support the person facing charges. Through the movement’s work on individual cases, families and communities have spotted issues within the criminal systems and the criminal laws close to home that must change, that must end. Case by case, they have started to challenge, change, and end them. Yet, for all its promise, participatory defense may face considerable challenges going forward in these areas. As a relatively new movement, it must continue to resolve significant design challenges and overcome formidable institutional and attitudinal buttresses the current system has erected.

25 Nev. L.J. 325 (2025), 92p.

By John Burns

This Note traces the evolution of bail from its origins to modern commercial bail, highlighting how the system has disproportionately affected low-income defendants. In 2023, Illinois became the first state to eliminate cash bail with the enactment of the Pretrial Fairness Act, which attempted to remedy longstanding inequities. The Note situates Illinois’s approach between New Jersey’s successful risk-based reform and California’s oversimplified and harmful “zero bail” experiment. While Illinois’s reform represents a meaningful step toward fairness, this Note argues that its reliance on a categorical approach and its limited use of pretrial assessments may unintentionally undermisne its effectiveness. The Note concludes that Illinois must go further by expanding judicial discretion and mandating the use of risk assessment tools.

Washington University Journal of Law & Policy [Vol. 78, 2025. 29p.

By Andrew Willinger and Eric Ruben

Legal scholarship is overly abstract and theoretical, making it unhelpful to judges and lawyers. That, at least, is the common critique from the bench. When it comes to the Second Amendment, however, a different pattern has emerged: judges consistently cite law review articles and look to the academy for guidance. Most recently, in United States v. Rahimi, some Justices went further, implicitly inviting more scholarly work to help the Court answer open questions raised by its novel methodological approach to the Second Amendment. This Article explores this aberrant trend.

We raise several explanations for the distinctive scholarly role in Second Amendment jurisprudence, including the Amendment's unique aspects as well as the role of legal movements in facilitating the Amendment's development. Faced with a lack of judicial precedent on both the right to keep and bear arms and originalism-in-practice, law review articles often can be more helpful than past opinions. Beyond scholarship's utility in a new area of law, we suggest that a related phenomenon-the gun rights and conservative legal movements' trifold success at facilitating the rise of the individual Second Amendment right, popularizing originalism as a methodology, and elevating originalist judges to the bench-is an important part of the story. For a half century, organizations focused on achieving both a robust right to bear arms and a conservative vision of the Constitution have become more prominent and have closely associated with both scholars and judges. If, in the usual telling, judges look askance at scholarship, this specific area of law might present an exception since it has been a joint project from the beginning.

The Article concludes that the judge-scholar collaboration that has characterized Second Amendment case law is likely to continue. Moreover, it could have ramifications far beyond the right to keep and bear arms, including for other rights that may be on the cusp of transformation and for other legal movements seeking to emulate the strategies that ushered in modern Second Amendment law.

78 SMU Law Review __ (forthcoming), Duke Law School Public Law & Legal Theory Series No. 2025-26, SMU Dedman School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 696,

By Benjamin Eidelson, Deborah Hellman,

Universities are facing an unprecedented wave of claims that they have violated their obligations to Jewish students under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. These charges center on an equally unprecedented wave of anti-Israel activity on college campuses, much of which is alleged to cross the line into antisemitism. This essay, forthcoming in the Harvard Law Review Forum, provides one of the first systematic analyses of these exceptionally high-stakes claims about Title VI.

Our analysis reveals that the Title VI claims face formidable hurdles, including some that have received surprisingly little attention thus far. Most fundamentally, Title VI’s omission of “religion” as a protected characteristic means that Jewishness is protected under the statute only insofar as it constitutes a “race” or (less likely) a “national origin.” Under existing law, however, discrimination based on the cultural practices or viewpoints that may be associated with such an immutable characteristic—as Zionism might be associated with Jewishness—is ordinarily not cognizable as discrimination based on the protected characteristic itself. Moreover, if “hostile environment” liability can be founded on offensive conduct that does not constitute covered disparate treatment in its own right, this is likely possible only pursuant to a disparate impact theory that the Trump Administration has denounced and that the Supreme Court has rejected for private suits. Any notion of harassment based on conduct’s “objective offensiveness” would also need to account for distinctive features of the university setting that likely preclude liability for much of the protest activity that has loomed large in recent public discussions of Jewish students’ experiences on campus.

Although specific facts matter and not all of the issues are clear-cut, we thus conclude that appeals to Title VI in this area are much weaker than has been widely appreciated. Of course, this does not mean that campus antisemitism is acceptable. But it does mean that, for the most part, universities have both the right and the responsibility to balance their competing commitments in this area—including commitments to both inclusion and freedom of expression—using their own considered judgment.

Harvard Public Law Working Paper 25-13

Forthcoming, Harvard Law Review Forum (June 2025)

By David Abrams and Priyanka Goonetilleke

Each year, millions of Americans rely on public defenders to fulfill their Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Despite being the linchpin of the criminal justice system, public defense remains both underfunded and understudied. This article provides empirical analysis to contribute to a critical question: How should public defender systems be structured?

Criminal justice advocates, scholars, and the American Bar Association strongly favor vertical representation in public defense. Under this model, a single public defender represents a defendant throughout their case, from initial appearance through sentencing. The alternative approach—horizontal representation—operates like an assembly line: Different attorneys handle each stage of a case, from preliminary hearings to pretrial conferences to trials. The preference for vertical representation stems from the intuitive belief that continuity of representation improves outcomes for defendants. However, no prior empirical work has tested this assumption.

Using a natural experiment created by the Defender Association of Philadelphia’s transition from a fully horizontal representation system to a partially vertical one, we find no evidence that increasing attorney continuity improves defendant outcomes.

These findings have significant implications for how public defender offices should allocate their scarce resources. While vertical representation is considered by many as the ideal, our results cast doubt on whether the additional resources and logistical challenges relative to horizontal representation are justified given the current reality of underfunded public defense. As jurisdictions nationwide grapple with a chronic lack of resources for public defense, this article provides crucial empirical evidence to inform decisions about how best to uphold defendants’ Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

.100 New York University Law Review No. 5 (forthcoming), Northwestern Law & Econ Research Paper No. 25-05, Northwestern Public Law Research Paper No. 25-22, U of Penn, Inst for Law & Econ Research Paper No. 25-10,

By Vitalie Jitariuc

The achievement of the tasks of the criminal process, which relate to the identification and punishment of persons who have committed criminal acts, is inextricably linked to the restoration of the truth in criminal cases. Only on the basis of comprehensive and thorough investigations of all aspects of socially dangerous acts can we determine the role of each person involved in the crime and establish with sufficient certainty the circumstances in which the crime was committed.

Reaserch Gate, 2024, 256p.

By C. HANNAH,* S. TADEPALLI AND P. GOPALAKRISHNAN

The practice of urban planning and building design largely follow traditional methods while transforming the structure and quality of life in the built environment. The process of managing cities requires updates and integration of new technologies and research efforts. In this context, development of smart, sustainable, energy efficient, healthy, safe and secure built environment is a priority that is shaping modern cities all over the world. Though management of Indian cities tries to address these issues to a certain extent, it can be said that, as compared to many developed countries, aspects of safety and security have not been the top priority of our planners and designers. Research on Environmental Criminology and Environmental Psychology clearly indicates the important role and benefits of crime prevention through appropriate design of the built environment. In this context, this paper highlights the role of crime prevention strategies and the relevance of environmental criminology in current building practices for addressing security concerns in India.

Creative Space, Vol. 2, No. 2,, January 2015, pp. 141–156

By Joan E. Durrant, PhD

One of Britain’s colonial legacies is the common law defence available to adults who corporally punish children. Canada inherited this defence, which became codified in 1892 as Section 43 of the Criminal Code. The aim of this Special Issue is to examine Canada's law alongside those of other former members of the British Empire that have abolished their defences - Ireland, Scotland and Wales. The first three papers in this issue will place Canada's law within its global, historical and colonial contexts. The next three papers tell the stories of how Ireland, Scotland and Wales overcame the same challenges faced in Canada to ultimately provide equal protection for children.

Department of Community Health Sciences

Max Rady College of Medicine, 7p,

By Jess Hickman, Mei Yang, Andy Tisdel, Charlie Riccardelli, Ashley Neufeld, and Amanda Coscia.

When a person facing criminal charges fails to appear for a court hearing, no one benefits. Courts must reschedule hearings and often issue warrants, consuming time and resources. Meanwhile, people who miss court may face additional charges, fees, and even jail time. Jurisdictions across the country have explored interventions such as court date notifications to improve appearance rates, but failures to appear continue to present a challenge. Part of the problem is that the underlying causes are unclear. Research suggests that people miss court for reasons like forgetting the date or not receiving notice.1 Others miss hearings due to a lack of transportation or conflicts with life responsibilities, including employment or providing dependent care. Courts need hard data on why people miss court. However, relatively few studies have systematically investigated this question, leaving courts without the information needed to make policy decisions. To fill this research gap, the Crime and Justice Institute (CJI), with funding from Arnold Ventures, partnered with Jefferson County, KY (Louisville) and Salt Lake County, UT (Salt Lake City) to survey people who were arrested on a failure to appear warrant.

Boston: Crime and Justice Institute, 2025. 7p.

By Anouschka Rajah, Conleth Burns

Recent events have propelled the criminal justice system to the forefront of public debate. The controversial early release of thousands of prisoners to ease overcrowding was one of Labour’s first acts in government. The Stockport attack, the 2024 summer riots, the media storm over ‘two-tier’ justice, David Gauke’s independent review of sentencing – all have contributed to a new and intense scrutiny of the UK’s approach to crime and punishment. The backdrop to these events is a justice system in crisis, of which the overcrowding of our prisons is only one symptom. As this report shows, victim and wider public confidence has collapsed; voters are deeply frustrated with the status quo and now rank criminal justice alongside the NHS, immigration, and the economy as a top priority for reform. The Common Ground Justice Project, which commissioned this research, aims to find a new way forward for the justice system which can command broad public support. In the context of a noisy, polarised debate, we’re starting by listening: to voters across the country, to victims, perpetrators and communities most affected by crime. To that end, More in Common conducted national polling and focus groups to better understand public attitudes to criminal justice through the lens of their British Seven Segments model. What emerges is a public ready for change, with views more complex than the popular framing of ‘tough’ vs ‘soft’ justice. While there are key differences between segments, most people are not at the extremes. They want a better balance: enforcing punishment while also improving accountability and proportionality and ensuring people who commit crime make a contribution to society rather than being a burden on the taxpayer. This is the emerging common ground that can point towards a different future: delivering a real sense of justice for victims, safer streets, and restoring public confidence – even national pride – in the British justice system. What might such a future look like? While the public shows little enthusiasm for costly prison expansion, many struggle to imagine credible alternatives. Yet our findings show that when people are presented with concrete examples of new approaches that speak to core values, they respond with openness. The will for change is clear – but to harness it, we need greater efforts to identify new ways forward that feel tangible, achievable, and properly resourced. We also found that the public segment whose views on criminal justice differ most sharply from the rest of the country (Progressive Activists) is significantly overrepresented in policy and communication roles across the public and charity sectors. For those advocating change or shaping justice policy, we hope this report underscores the importance of not only following the evidence of what works, but also speaking to the values of the British public whose trust in the system is essential. The report is just the first step, but an important one, of our journey to improve understanding of attitudes on criminal justice and light the way to a justice system that better serves victims and wider society

UK: Common Ground Justice, 2025. 41p.

By Kamrun Nahar Koly ,Jobaida Saba,Trisha Mallick,Fahmida Rashid,Juliet Watson,Barbara Barbosa Neves

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a recognised global public health concern, substantially impacting women's well-being. While there is growing research on how IPV victim-survivors seek mental health support in the Global North, it remains understudied in the Global South, particularly for those residing in slums in low-income countries like Bangladesh. Through interviews and group discussions with different stakeholders, this study explored the mental healthcare-seeking behaviour of victim-survivors of IPV residing in urban slums, barriers to service utilisation, and recommendations to strengthen care pathways. Stakeholders perceived IPV as normalised in slums, indicating sociocultural norms and interpersonal causes as significant contributors to mental health issues and events of IPV. Seeking healthcare and moral support for IPV from local dispensaries and informal sources was common; however, IPV victim-survivors had no knowledge about mental-health-related services. Low mental health literacy and lack of financial support prevented them from seeking the necessary care. Social stigma regarding accessing mental healthcare, coupled with the absence of professional service providers and community-based services, represent critical systemic challenges. Recommendations included promoting community-level awareness of IPV and mental health issues, increasing mental healthcare services, training health workers, and fostering positive masculinities in community-based interventions. Stakeholders emphasised the need to adopt culturally relevant interventions for tackling IPV and improving mental healthcare pathways, especially for the low-income population of Bangladesh

. PLOS Glob Public Health 5(5),

By Gemma Morgan, Debbie Jones, Charlotte Walker, Gayle Prideaux, Emma Jones

While the concept of co-production is becoming embedded in mental health and social care, the criminal justice system (CJS) has been slower in embracing this approach. In this article, we draw on the findings of a process evaluation of the Include UK Hub – a co-produced service for people with offending histories in Swansea, UK and, in doing so, introduce the DEVICES principles of co-production. The DEVICES is derived from the empirical evaluation data and includes the following principles – Development, Empathy, Voices, Individual, Change, Empowerment, and Spaces. These principles will appeal globally to practitioners and policymakers looking to meaningfully utilise co-production to develop services and support for people in the criminal justice system.

The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 64, 162–180. 2025.

By Claire Fitzpatrick, Katie Hunter, Jo Staines, Julie Shaw

This article focuses on rarely heard judicial perspectives, and the little explored challenges facing care-experienced girls and women in court. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with judges and magistrates, it reveals how the court process may be a disempowering and inadequate process for both the powerful and the powerless. Using the four elements of procedural justice as a lens to explore this – voice, trust, neutrality and respect – we highlight the immense challenges of achieving these goals for those with histories of being stigmatised and marginalised. In searching for solutions, the concept of ‘judicial rehabilitation’ enables consideration of how we might rehabilitate our systems and imagine a more hopeful approach to justice.

The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 64, 145–161, 2025.

By Ammar Khalid Will Engelhardt Ashlin Oglesby-Neal Arielle Jackson Olivia Stuart Andreea Matei

Mississippi’s prison population grew more than 400 percent between 1980 and 2013, 1 and in 2013 it was projected to increase by nearly 2,000 people over the next 10 years at a cost of $266 million (Pew 2014). In response, Mississippi leaders began exploring options for prioritizing prison space to get a better public-safety return on state correctional spending (Warnberg and Olsen 2019). Part of this response was to implement, via the state’s Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI) process, front-end reforms to drug policy and practice starting in 2014 to divert people from the criminal justice system when possible and to connect people to treatment when appropriate. In this report, we examine the implementation and outcomes of those reforms. In 2013, state leaders requested assistance through JRI, an initiative funded by the US Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance that is a “data-driven approach to managing criminal justice populations and investing savings in strategies to reduce recidivism and improve public safety” (Harvell et al. 2021, iii). With technical assistance from The Pew Charitable Trusts and the Crime and Justice Institute, the state convened a task force, the Corrections and Criminal Justice Task Force, to examine the drivers of incarceration and recommend ways to curb corrections costs and improve public safety. In 2014, then-governor Phil Bryant signed House Bill (H.B.) 585 into law. Among other reforms, the legislation included several front-end provisions to reduce prison admissions for drug offenses, including expanding the use of drug courts, expanding the use of non-adjudicated probation, introducing a tiered structure to the controlled substance statute, and modifying the penalties for simple drug possession. More specifically, the bill increased judicial discretion to permit judges to order drug court for people convicted of commercial drug offenses (excluding trafficking and driving under the influence). It diversified and strengthened specialty courts by reinvesting $10.85 million of averted prison spending in accountability courts (Pew 2014). H.B. 585 revised statutes pertaining to drug and property offenses and established presumptive parole for some property crimes. And it established a tiered controlled-substance statute to differentiate between higher- and lower-level commercial drug offenses (other than possession and trafficking). This report focuses on the outcomes of, and stakeholders' perceptions on, the implementation of H.B. 585’s front-end drug policy reforms in Mississippi. Using data from the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC), publicly available resources on the state (such as the annual reports of the MDOC and the Mississippi Administrative Office of Courts), and interviews with stakeholders in the state, the Urban Institute sought to answer the following research questions: 1. How frequently did justice system actors use front-end interventions and options for people who entered the Mississippi justice system for drug-related offenses before and after H.B. 585 went into effect? 2. How frequently were people sentenced to community supervision and incarceration for drug-related offenses before and after H.B. 585? 3. Did responses to supervision violations for people with drug-related offenses change after H.B. 585? 4. Did recidivism rates for people with drug-related offenses change after H.B. 585? Key Findings - Below, we summarize key findings on the implementation and outcomes of drug-related reforms following H.B. 585. Impacts on drug-related arrests and court programs and practices included the following:  From 2013 to 2019, drug-related arrests in Mississippi largely stayed stable.  Besides 2018, participation in drug courts was higher in the post-reform period, though implementation of drug court procedures and policies varied across districts because of judicial discretion and limited accountability from the Administrative Office of Courts. Impacts on drug-related sentencing included the following:  Overall, the number of annual felony drug sentences trended down from 2010 to 2021.  There was a slight shift away from incarceration-based sentences postreform, though they still accounted for just over half of all drug-related sentences.  Postreform, drug possession sentences accounted for a larger share of all drug-related sentences than possession with intent to distribute and commercial drug offenses.  Although judicial discretion actually became more limited because of the JRI reforms, probation sentence lengths associated with drug convictions remained stable postreform. Prison sentences, however, tended to get longer. Impacts on total incarceration included the following:  From 2014 to 2019, the share of people in prison who had a primary drug offense fell from around 25 percent to 20 percent.  The decline in the share of people in prison serving drug-related sentences was driven by a decline in the number of Black people serving primary drug terms under the MDOC’s jurisdiction (the number of white people serving such terms stayed relatively stable). Impacts on revocations and recidivism included the following:  The revocation rates for people on postrelease probation decreased marginally in the years immediately after H.B. 585, ranging from 14 to 17 percent from 2015 to 2017.  Recidivism rates for people leaving incarceration declined consistently after 2013, though they were still generally higher than the recidivism rates for people beginning probation or post-release supervision terms.  For people on probation or post-release probation, recidivism rates were low but increased slightly from 2014 to 2017 (among people starting probation sentences, the share of people sentenced for new felony offenses within three years increased from around 4 percent to 7 percent during this period). Impacts on racial and ethnic disparities included the following:  The share of Black people sentenced for drug offenses a year fell consistently from 2013 to 2018, from around 55 percent to 40 percent. The racial composition of people sentenced for these offenses stayed stable after 2018 and was in line with that of the state’s adult population.  For Black people, possession with intent to distribute and commercial drug offenses accounted for greater shares of all drug-related offenses associated with sentences in the post-reform period than white people.  Compared with white people, Black people received incarceration-based sentences for drug offenses at higher rates during the study period, partly because a larger share of Black people was being sentenced for more serious drug offenses. Impacts that stakeholders perceived COVID-19 to have on reform implementation included the following:  The COVID-19 pandemic gave drug courts the opportunity to conduct proceedings virtually, providing participants the opportunity to continue receiving services.  According to stakeholders we interviewed, although arrests and admissions initially fell during the height of the pandemic, this has since leveled off.  COVID-19 caused people in the criminal legal system struggling with substance use disorders to feel isolated and made completing drug court programs challenging.

Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2023. 50p.

By Travis Reginal, Rod Martinez, Natalie Lima, and Janeen Buck WIllison

Strategies that both engage community residents and criminal legal system stakeholders and build relationships between those groups are essential to advancing practical and impactful justice reform. The MacArthur Foundation’s Safety and Justice Challenge (SJC) initiative to reduce the use of jails prioritized authentic engagement with community members across its grantees to build trust, enhance problem solving, and promote mutual accountability for justice reform. This report explores the concepts of community and community engagement and examines the community engagement strategies of three SJC sites and those strategies’ impacts (as perceived by stakeholders) on the sites’ efforts to engage community members, reduce jail use, and advance other system reforms. We also discuss common themes in the sites’ experiences implementing those strategies and recommendations for other communities. Communities across the nation are wrestling with how to identify and implement effective reforms that reduce structural inequities in the criminal legal system, promote community safety, and right-size operations of the criminal legal system to achieve more equitable outcomes and increased safety. Research suggests the most inspired solutions to such intractable problems come from collaborative partnerships between policymakers, criminal legal system leaders, and community members (Viswanathan et al. 2004, as cited in NIH 2011). Defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as “the process of working collaboratively with and through groups of people affiliated by geographic proximity, special interest, or similar situations to address issues affecting the well-being of those people” (1997, 9), community engagement offers the transformative potential to “change the way problems are solved and resources invested” because policy and practice recommendations are informed by the experiences and perspectives of impacted communities (Nexus Community Partners 2015, 1). How community engagement occurs varies by place and issue. In addition, what constitutes “community” is context specific. Likewise, “engagement” exists on a continuum characterized by increasing levels of communication, trust, and power sharing: outreach, which is more consultative in nature, anchors one end of the continuum while collaborative partnerships and shared leadership in which the “community” has final or coequal decisionmaking responsibility, caps the other end (CDC 2011). Many SJC sites have struggled with community engagement because of the strained relationships between the criminal legal system and communities that have historically been criminalized by that system or alienated by civic leaders. Yet some sites have made marked progress. This report, which is part of a series of case studies (box 1) highlighting the work of the SJC initiative, examines the community engagement strategies developed and implemented by three SJC communities: Buncombe County, North Carolina; Cook County, Illinois; and New Orleans. It documents how these sites navigated the types of challenges mentioned above and advanced tangible reform efforts; it also explores perceived impacts of these strategies on the sites’ efforts to engage community members, reduce local jail use, and implement system reforms that advance equity. We begin the report with a brief overview of community engagement, its potential for meaningful reform efforts, and its role in the SJC. We then describe the three SJC communities and their community engagement strategies, including their structures and objectives. Then, we explore the sites’ successes and challenges and common themes in the implementation of their strategies. We conclude by reflecting on the perceived impacts of the strategies and offering recommendations for other communities interested in pursuing authentic community engagement.

Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2023. 41p.

By Lisa Clemans-Cope

Oregon’s Drug Addiction Treatment and Recovery Act, also known as Measure 110, decriminalized possession of small amounts of drugs for personal use and increased funding for substance use disorder treatment, harm reduction, and social services. As of early 2023, it is premature to assess the effectiveness of the Drug Addiction Treatment and Recovery Act, as the necessary systems are still being established to connect people who use drugs with assessment, treatment, harm reduction, and supportive services (Good, Leichtling, and Pustejovsky 2023; Oregon Health Authority 2023). This brief first summarizes the existing evidence on early implementation of the law, which aims to address substance use and substance use disorders from a health perspective rather than the traditional criminal legal perspective. In summary:  Most of the funding, $270 million for services and treatment, was delayed for almost 18 months and not allocated until June to September of 2022, creating enormous implementation challenges (Good, Leichtling, and Pustejovsky 2023). Only $33 million was awarded in 2021 (RTI 2022; Good, Leichtling, and Pustejovsky 2023).  No scientifically rigorous evaluations of the effects of this law have been published, but some initial descriptive findings offer insight. Oregon Criminal Justice data analysis shows a 4,000 decrease in felony and misdemeanor arrests for personal drug possession after the Drug Addiction Treatment and Recovery Act was enacted, compared to 2019 levels (Good, Leichtling, and Pustejovsky 2023; Oregon State Police 2023). Another study found that the rise in 911 calls following the implementation of the law in Oregon in February 2021 was comparable in both Portland and Seattle during the same period, and thus may be attributable to factors other than the new law (RTI 2022).  Evaluating the law’s full impact will take time, considering past underfunding of services and treatment programs and the need for new infrastructure. The new law in Oregon aims to improve substance use treatment infrastructure to address the state’s low rate of people receiving needed treatment(SAMHSA 2023). Doubling the current treatment system has been found necessary to meet the demand for services (Lenahan et al. 2022). Yet some lawmakers are already communicating intentions to shift funding of related services to the state police (Health Justice Recovery Alliance 2022).  Improving the quality, accessibility, and appeal of evidence-based interventions is a key challenge and the scope of the investment needed in services and treatment systems in Oregon is vast. The brief then describes the rationale and research evidence on three topics currently debated in the legislature and the media regarding early implementation of the Drug Addiction Treatment and Recovery Act: 1. Overco

Washington, DC; Urban Institute, 2023. 21p.

By Marina Duane, Meredith Dank, Andrea Hughes, Storm Ervin, Emily Tiry, Libby Doyle

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, 1 in 4 women and 1 in 10 men experience intimate partner violence in their lifetimes (Smith et al. 2018). In 2019, nearly 1.2 million incidents of domestic violence (DV) were reported nationwide (Morgan and Truman 2020). In 2021 in New York City, 93,753 calls were made to the New York City Domestic Violence Hotline, and the New York City Police Department responded to 113,059 domestic intimate partner violence incidents (ENDGBV 2021a). These experiences can have wide-reaching consequences for survivors and their families. Financial hardship can make achieving and maintaining physical and psychological safety especially challenging, as survivors may not have the means to support themselves and their children. To maintain control and minimize survivors’ ability to leave the relationships, abusive partners often use tactics that prevent survivors from accessing employment, finances, and other economic opportunities (Adams 2011). And people who do leave abusive partners may not have had opportunities to gain the experience, skills, and education necessary to be competitive in the workforce, which can make it difficult for them to obtain living-wage employment and financial security (Adams 2011). Moreover, low socioeconomic status, unemployment, and previous exposure to violence are risk factors for experiencing domestic violence (Renner and Whitney 2012; Schafer, Caetano, and Cunradi 2004). Accordingly, economic empowerment is vital if survivors are to recover from domestic violence and maintain safety and wellbeing for themselves and their families

Washington DC:Urban Institute, 2023. 77p.

By Kelley, L., Vignati, J., Wilkens-Earle, B., Grey, O., & Haberlen DeWolf, M.

Georgia’s juvenile justice system is at a crucial juncture, facing both significant challenges and promising opportunities for reform. This extensive analysis offers a comprehensive overview of the system’s structure, key partners, recent reforms, and ongoing issues. It aims to inform policymakers, advocates, and community leaders about the current state of juvenile justice in Georgia and guide efforts to improve outcomes for justice-involved youth. The landscape of juvenile justice in Georgia is intricate and unique. The state operates a functionally bifurcated system, with stateadministered “dependent” courts and locally operated “independent” courts, resulting in a patchwork of practices and policies across the state. This bifurcation poses challenges in standardizing approaches and collecting comprehensive data. According to its fiscal year (FY) 2023 annual report, the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) supervised more than 9,000 youth daily, with secure facilities admitting more than 7,000 individuals and maintaining an average daily population of 1,051. However, these figures only partially tell the story. One of the most pressing issues confronting juvenile systems across the country is the overrepresentation of Black youth in the juvenile justice process. In Georgia, this overrepresentation is significant and increases as Black youth move through every stage of the juvenile justice process. This disparity indicates deeper systemic problems that require urgent attention and targeted interventions. The analysis also reveals troubling trends in behavioral health among justice-involved youth. In FY 2023, 65% of youth in long-term confinement and 48% in short-term detention were on the mental health caseload, underscoring the critical need for enhanced behavioral health services within the juvenile justice system and local communities. The intersection of education and juvenile justice presents another area for improvement. There are significant racial disparities in academic achievement, school discipline, and dropout rates. Zero-tolerance policies and the presence of law enforcement in schools may contribute to the “school-to-prison pipeline,” pushing students, particularly students of color, into the juvenile justice system for behaviors that would be better addressed within the home and community. Family and community factors play a crucial role in youth outcomes as well. Poverty, adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), and lack of community resources are identified as risk factors for juvenile justice involvement. The analysis found that 18% of children in Georgia have experienced two or more ACEs, with higher rates among Black and Hispanic children, highlighting the need for traumainformed approaches and community-based interventions across the state. The report also addresses issues surrounding focus populations within the juvenile justice system. Georgia remains one of just four states that process 17-year-olds in the adult criminal justice system, a practice widely criticized by juvenile justice advocates. Additionally, the treatment of youth charged with serious, violent felonies (Senate Bill 440 cases) and those sentenced to life without parole raises questions about age-appropriate responses to even the most severe offenses. Data collection and information sharing also pose a challenge. The lack of a comprehensive statewide data system impedes effective analysis and decision-making. Cross-agency information sharing is limited in Georgia, particularly for youth involved in multiple systems, making the provision of coordinated, holistic care difficult. Workforce challenges within the juvenile justice system present another hurdle, particularly in secure facilities. DJJ faces substantial retention and recruitment difficulties, especially for juvenile correctional officers. High turnover rates and staffing shortages impact quality of care and safety, potentially undermining rehabilitation efforts. However, with great challenge comes great opportunity. This report proposes a series of recommendations to address these multifaceted issues, including expanding community-based alternatives to detention and incarceration, enhancing behavioral health services, addressing racial and ethnic disparities, improving data systems, strengthening inter-agency collaboration, and investing in workforce development. Additionally, this report recommends raising the age of juvenile court jurisdiction and considering policy reform related to serious offenders, implementing a comprehensive plan for CHINS cases, and studying the impact of juvenile fines and fees.

Atlanta, GA : Voices for Georgia’s Children, 2025. 170p.

By Melissa M. Labriola; Jessie Coe; Isaac M. Opper; Danielle Sobol; Amy Mahler

This research report presents an evaluation of Neighborhood Courts, a restorative justice diversion program run by the District Attorney in San Francisco. Results indicate that the program reduces recidivism (although this result is statistically insignificant). Neighborhood Courts is built on a restorative justice framework with the use of restorative justice hearings and directives that are assigned to the defendant, all to achieve four primary goals: 1) efficient case resolution; 2) community-driven solutions; reduced burden on criminal courts; and 4) reduced recidivism. This report uses information collected from program staff and participant interviews and surveys, administrative data, and observations of programs to describe how the program is implemented, identify key program facilitators and barriers, illustrate participant experiences, determine whether the model is effective in reducing risk factors for criminal legal involvement (e.g., recidivism), and whether it is cost-effective. This report should be of interest to entities across the U.S. interested in diversion programs.

Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2023. 37p.

By Patrick Armstrong

This policy framework outlines policy recommendations developed as part of a Justice Reinvestment Initiative effort in Kansas from 2020 to 2022 in collaboration with the Kansas Criminal Justice Reform Commission. Analysis conducted throughout the project resulted in numerous policy and practice recommendations to improve community supervision, victim services, behavioral health supports, employment opportunities, and housing for people in the criminal justice system. These recommendations were advanced to the Commission, and some were introduced to the legislature during the 2021 session. Some of these bills, in addition to new ones, were also considered in the 2022 session. Recommendations related to improving supervision by focusing resources where they can be most effective, expanding prosecutor diversions, and extending the existence of the Commission culminated in legislation that was signed into law in May 2021. Recommendations focused on improving specialty court programs, allowing people to petition to be removed from a drug offenses registry, and ensuring that people on supervision are supervised by only one entity were signed into law in April 2022.

New York: The Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2022. 16p.