By Sarah L. Desmarais, Brandon Morrissey, Lisa Callahan, Samantha A. Zottola, Jen Elder, Kristin Lupfer, Elan C. Hope, & Richard A. Van Dorn

Although most jail admissions represent the only contact a person will have with the criminal legal system, there is a small group of people who experience more frequent jail contact and who represent a disproportionate number of both jail admissions and expenditures.1,2 People with frequent jail contact experience complex, interconnected social, economic, and behavioral health needs that may exacerbate (or be exacerbated by) their frequent jail contact. This group also experiences frequent contact with other services in the community, such as emergency rooms, homeless shelters, and treatment facilities. Strategies to implement services that meet complex needs and address structural barriers are critical to meaningfully and sustainably reduce system involvement among the population of people who experience frequent jail contact. Effective change for people with frequent jail contact must proceed simultaneously on a systemic, policy level and on the individual 1 services level. The population discussed in this policy brief typically has complicated behavioral and medical health needs, extensive criminal legal encounters, and significant social deficits such as poverty, isolation, and elevated risk of being unhoused. Many of their needs can be addressed with intensive, person-centered treatment in a coordinated continuum of care. The success of community-based solutions is supported by three foundational elements: 1. A systemwide examination of structural barriers and opportunities, 2. A focus on policies to effectively implement and support evidence-based interventions, and 3. A re-envisioning of how the behavioral health and criminal legal systems can coordinate trauma-informed responses for people with frequent jail contact. In this policy brief, we provide nine policy recommendations to help communities address the needs of people experiencing frequent jail contact toward the goal of reducing future contact. These policy recommendations are based on a review of existing research on people with frequent jail contact,3 consideration of the findings of a 2-year mixed-methods study focused on understanding the population of people with frequent jail contact in three U.S. counties,4 and consultation with experts, community partners, and people with lived experience. The nine policy recommendations are: 1. Create a Data Sharing Ecosystem 2. Establish Formal, Jurisdiction-Specific Definitions 3. Use Validated Behavioral Health Screening Tools 4. Implement Psychiatric Advanced Directives 5. Facilitate Jail In-Reach Programs 6. Increase Peer Support Programs 7. Improve Access to Housing 8. Increase Utilization of Community-Based Services 9. Center and Evaluate Efforts for Racial Equity
 

New York: Safety and Justice Challenge Research Consortium, which is managed by the CUNY Institute for State and Local Governance. 2023. 9p.

By: Scrutinize and The Center on Race, Inequality, and the Law at NYU School of Law.

Increased focus on state judiciaries has significant potential to improve the criminal legal system. Recognizing the need for evaluation metrics for judges, this report pioneers a data-driven, evidence-based approach to assessing the judiciary. We analyze written appellate decisions to quantify individual trial court judges' decisions and impacts. This methodology transforms complex judicial texts into accessible data, creating metrics of judicial performance for use by policymakers and the public. This report introduces ‘excessive sentence findings’ as a method to assess individual judges’ decisions and their impact. In New York, appellate courts review sentences for excessiveness and can reduce them in the “interest of justice,” a rare and clear signal—from highly respected institutional actors—that a lower court judge made an exceptionally troubling choice. We identify lower court judges with sentences reduced by appellate courts for being excessive and calculate the total number of years reduced from those sentences. The study reveals patterns of repeated excessive sentencing by several specific judges, raising questions about judicial accountability in New York.

Key Findings:

• Sixty-five lower court judges were found to have engaged in excessive sentencing more than once between 2007 and 2023.

• The 12 judges with five or more most excessive sentence findings had their sentences reduced by a total of 1,246 years.

• Two judges had a total of 39 excessive sentence findings between them, with the appellate court reducing a total of 684.5 years from the sentences they imposed.

Recommendations:

• New York’s court system should increase its transparency by releasing detailed, judge-level sentencing data.

• New York’s court system should publish annual reports summarizing excessive sentence findings and detailing the judges involved, the legal arguments made, and the appeal outcomes.

New York: The Authors, 2024. 32p.

By Maria Rafael

The United States’ criminal legal system is often described as a two-tiered system that treats people differently based on their social status, wealth, and power.1 In a two-tiered criminal legal system, those with money, social connections, or political influence may receive preferential treatment in the form of lighter sentences, leniency with respect to court-ordered obligations, or even freedom.2 Meanwhile, people without those advantages are likely to face harsher punishments, limited access to legal resources or representation, and even mistreatment from system actors.3 In the context of fines and fees, having the resources to settle court-imposed charges can make the difference between a quick resolution of a case or an extended entanglement with the criminal legal system. Those who struggle to pay their debt extend the length of time of their involvement with and obligations to the courts, which can require regular payments, court appearances, community service, and even incarceration. All of this creates chances for people to fail at meeting these obligations, which can trigger a host of legal and collateral consequences that extend the period of surveillance further still. In short, those without money have far more punitive experiences than those who have the resources to quickly pay off their debts 

New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2024. 37p.