Category: Uncategorized

Since 2015, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation’s Safety and Justice Challenge (SJC) has worked to safely reduce the nation’s overreliance on jails, creating tangible benefits for individuals, families, and communities. America’s local jails are complex systems, holding over 660,000 people daily, with more than 7.6 million cycling through annually. Transforming these systems requires coordination and collaboration across traditionally adversarial stakeholders who each have their own priorities and professional cultures.

Our new report, “What It Takes to Change the Way America Thinks About and Uses Jails,” highlights distinguishing traits of effective leaders on the front lines of reform. Drawing on ten years of quarterly jail data across 26 SJC communities and interviews with 25 leaders, including 11 national SJC advisors and 14 local leaders, we identified seven essential knowledges, skills, and abilities (KSAs) and five key insights that drive successful system improvement.

To complement the report findings, this blog post explores the influence of individuals on system transformation, directly informed by the reflections and aspirations of impactful leaders.

Finding Common Ground in the Safety and Justice Challenge

For the changemakers, SJC offered a crucial platform to shift long-held professional practices and build trust across boundaries. It created space for stakeholders who did not always agree–including law enforcement, court actors, advocates, community representatives, and others–to find ways to collaboratively focus on reducing unnecessary jail use and improving public safety.

For some, being part of SJC became one of the most energizing and pivotal points of their careers. One interviewee indicated that she had experienced years of frustration trying to make changes within rigid systems, often finding that strategies never fully materialized. However, she found that SJC proved collaboration across systems was possible and could lead to meaningful change for people and their communities. Local reform efforts that at one point felt isolated began to feel connected to something larger–a coordinated effort within a national network of peers working together towards a shared goal.

SJC’s structure helped to make this collaboration possible. In many communities, there were no existing cross-system forums, such as Criminal Justice Coordinating Councils, to bring partners together around common goals. Participating in SJC provided a rare opportunity to help traditionally siloed agencies work together on shared objectives, building trust along the way. Some changemakers described how conversations that previously only happened in formal meetings began to occur more informally as genuine partnership developed and people became more comfortable connecting directly with each other.

Many interviewees reflected that the essence of collaboration altered the way they viewed their own work. The experiences through SJC helped people think more broadly about their role in the justice system, seeing themselves less as a representative of a single agency and more as a contributor to a larger ecosystem.

The SJC network created a supportive community where leaders exchanged strategies, learned from similar challenges in other cities and counties, and gained the validation necessary to sustain long-term reform efforts. It reminded everyone involved that lasting change depends not only on great strategies and strong data, but also on relationships that make progress possible.

Wielding the Magic Wand for Future Changemakers

When asked what they would give to emerging leaders if they had a magic wand, the changemakers revealed a powerful, aspirational vision, granting courage to individual leaders, and commitment from the systems around them.

Many changemakers wished for stronger institutional support that would eliminate the endless battle to justify reform and provide the foundation to consistently take bold action. They imagined agencies and communities that embrace change rather than resist it, making curiosity to new ideas the default setting. Some spoke to the need for institutions to demonstrate bravery by taking calculated risks, absorbing criticism well, and standing firm in the face of opposition so the individuals driving reform do not bear that burden alone.

Others focused on the practical foundations of change, envisioning justice systems with the infrastructure, staffing, and resources needed to deliver meaningful improvements. They would grant emerging leaders facilities designed to promote safety and care with the support necessary to sustain progress. They also would like to see comprehensive data systems, believing strong data infrastructure is a legacy that breaks down silos and facilitates informed decision-making.

Some leaders focused on the tools and perspectives emerging changemakers need in order to navigate complex political and social landscapes, particularly around public perception and inclusion. Many emphasized the importance of honest storytelling, making sure reform is portrayed accurately and not defined or hindered by moments of fear and misinformation.

Beyond policy and practice, changemakers wished for future leaders to hold onto empathy, resilience, and grace – for themselves and for the people they serve.

These wishes for future leaders offer reflection on their personal experiences and a collective vision about the next chapter in system transformation – a vision of courageous institutions, informed communities, strong data and infrastructure, and leaders who approach their work with compassion and conviction.

The Roadmap for Transformation

Altogether, these reflections demonstrate not only what SJC accomplished, but also what it made possible. Across counties and roles, changemakers described how the initiative changed their approach to their work and showed collaboration as not only necessary, but achievable. The relationships, shared learnings, and trust developed through SJC – both within counties and across the nation – proved that progress happens when a network of partners strive toward a common purpose. The hopes expressed for future generations of changemakers are a reminder that change does not end when a grant cycle closes or a program sunsets. It lives on in the skills, values, and connections that people carry on throughout their work.

As the Safety and Justice Challenge comes to a close, the lessons shared here and expressed in more detail in our new report serve as gratitude and guidance for the ongoing transformation supported by the people and partnerships continuing to move it forward.

Here is a link to the report.

Special thanks to the key changemakers, site coordinators, and CUNY ISLG for their participation in this project.

When communities discuss reform of the criminal justice system, attention usually focuses on the actions of patrol officers. Yet, our research for the Safety and Justice Challenge’s Research Consortium highlights that the public safety communications personnel — the dedicated call takers and dispatchers who answer emergency and non-emergency lines — are critical, often-overlooked, initial gatekeepers of justice. Their instantaneous, high-stakes decisions can affect outcomes, including law enforcement response, diversion options, and even the jail population.

What Happens When Someone Calls the Emergency Line?

The process begins when a call enters a Public Safety Answering Point. The call taker, operating with limited and sometimes inaccurate audio information, must make fast, interpretive judgments and decisions, including:

1. Information Gathering and Classification: The call taker must quickly ascertain the location, ask detailed questions, and classify the incident, often translating the caller’s narrative into fixed-choice fields within the computer dispatching system. This classification immediately assigns a priority level and dictates which initial resources are mobilized, such as police, fire, and emergency medical services).
2. Dynamic Resource Adjustment: The situation is fluid; if a simple disturbance call escalates to a serious event, the call taker must reclassify the call, which increases the priority and prompts the dispatcher to mobilize additional resources. The interpretive judgments made by the call taker—classifying the call, prioritizing the response, and deciding what narrative details to include—are acts of professional discretion. This process, known as “dispatch priming,” is crucial because it shapes the mindset, assumptions, and tactics of the responding officer before they arrive on scene, which can critically affect how event play out.
3. Resolution or Referral: Communications personnel ultimately decide if a response is necessary or if the call can be addressed over the phone. Our data showed that in East Baton Rouge Parish, a significant portion of calls (23 percent) were resolved directly by the call taker. However, many administrative or informational calls that do not result in officer deployment are omitted entirely from the dispatching systems, limiting the visibility of their true workload.

Strengths and Pitfalls of Diversion at the Communications Office

As alternatives to incarceration gain traction, the communications office is recognized as a vital point for diversion.

The Strength: Specialized Care and Staff Relief. Call takers frequently acknowledged they would prefer more training so they can better assist callers experiencing mental health crises. Both communications staff and patrol officers widely support integrating specialized behavioral health professionals into these operations. They see this as a way to ensure callers receive better, tailored care, and this collaboration allows police and dispatchers to focus on higher-priority emergencies.

One participant explained the advantage of having specialized staff: “It’s nice that we . . . can redirect to a resource that’s better fitted and well-trained to handle those types of calls… it takes a big burden off of our shoulders where we don’t have the training to do things like that.”

The Challenge: Sustainability. Integration of mental health services into the call taking and dispatch model varies widely even within communities that have experimented with doing so. Having an embedded clinician in the call and dispatch center is also challenging. Such programs are expensive, require that clinicians be trained on call center operations, and necessitate establishing workable protocols detailing the roles and responsibilities of behavioral specialists, communications personnel, and patrol officers. These models also create their own set of staffing pressures. One study site paused its program due to staffing difficulties.

The Unrecognized Front Line: Personnel Experiences

Communications personnel operate in environments characterized by unpredictability and exposure to trauma. They routinely navigate chaotic events, quickly transitioning from slow periods to intense times. The communications personnel might not have any incoming calls and, only moments later, find themselves flooded with dozens of calls describing one or more critical events.

The complexity of their workload goes far beyond serious crime; a substantial portion of calls involve non-criminal issues like traffic incidents, medical emergencies, 911 hang-ups, and general requests for assistance. To manage this environment, call takers require strong “multi-listening” skills, attending simultaneously to distressed callers, nearby colleagues, and radio traffic, all while quickly securing accurate information. They must also maintain composure, as callers often exhibit evidence of anger, frustration (observed in 13 to 16 percent of calls), or panic.

The personnel often feel unseen and excluded from formal recognition as first responders. One participant said they don’t feel that there is always enough acknowledgement of “the things that we hear, the things we have to talk about, the things we put onto the radio.” They handle scenarios few others experience: “Not very many people have been on the phone with someone who’s just been shot or someone who’s wanting to kill themselves or someone who’s just found a loved one dead.”

Yet, despite the emotional toll, many find deep fulfillment in their role, stating: “No matter how hard this job sounds, it’s so rewarding. You feel like a better person because you helped somebody who needed help.”

What Decision-Makers Must Keep in Mind

To leverage public safety communications personnel as effective partners in justice reform, decision-makers must recognize their critical function and provide appropriate support.

They can do this by:

• Formally recognizing communications personnel as first responders.
• Making investments in career-long training, including mandatory training to handle mental health calls effectively.
• Addressing data gaps, including the administrative and informational calls often omitted from computer systems, to truly understand workloads and community service demands.

By supporting these professionals, we don’t just improve efficiency; we ensure better outcomes for everyone who reaches out in crisis.

The American criminal justice system, particularly its network of local jails, profoundly impacts the lives of millions of people. Often overlooked in discussions of incarceration are the unique and exacerbated challenges faced by people with disabilities and Deaf individuals.

A series of recent reports, supported by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation’s Safety and Justice Challenge, sheds critical light on these disparities and calls for new strategies to address them. These reports collectively argue that achieving a more just society requires moving beyond mere compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and toward a human-centered approach rooted in the lived experiences of disabled people.

“Expecting Difference” by Access Living

The first report, “Expecting Difference: Reorienting Disability Strategy for Jail Decarceration,” produced by Access Living, a disability-led organization, argues that current approaches to disability in the criminal justice system are fundamentally flawed. Rather than solely focusing on ADA compliance or viewing disability through a medical lens, which treats disability as a defect, the report champions different approaches known as  social model of disability and disability justice framework.

The social model emphasizes that challenges arises from barriers that make parts of society inaccessible to people with disabilities, not an individual’s impairment. The disability justice framework highlights the value of access, self-determination, and the expectation of difference.

The report spotlights three specific, often under-addressed disability groups disproportionately affected by current jail practices:

• Youth with disabilities, many without a clear diagnosis, face school suspensions at twice the rate of their non-disabled peers and enter juvenile detention at five times the rate of their representation in public schools. They often lack self-advocacy skills, and their school documentation of accessibility needs accommodations are rarely shared with detention staff, leading to unmet needs and increased vulnerability to abuse and loneliness.
• Neurodivergent people, including individuals with autism, ADHD, or acquired brain injuries, experience incarceration as a sensory and cognitive overload and their behaviors are often misinterpreted as aggression or non-compliance, leading to punishment, segregation, or forced medication.
• Individuals needing personal care, though a smaller percentage than the other groups, face severe disruptions to their support systems, are often denied essential medications or assistive devices, and are forced to rely on untrained and sometimes untrustworthy fellow inmates for basic needs like hygiene and mobility, creating immense vulnerability and risk of harm.

The report identifies systemic barriers that span disabilities, including a pervasive lack of disability competency among jail staff, fragmented data systems that fail to track access needs, the use of complex legal language, and inaccessible probation and reentry programs that set disabled people up for failure. Electronic monitoring can further isolate individuals and hinder access to crucial medical appointments.

The report recommends establishing reentry planning from the time the person enters jail, developing self-advocacy programs led by disabled people, coordinating person-centered planning, standardizing how access needs are tracked, ending electronic monitoring, and providing comprehensive disability competency training for all corrections and legal staff.

It also suggests specific interventions for youth, neurodivergent individuals, and people needing personal care. The core message is that decarceration requires a philosophical shift from a compliance-driven medical approach to one that values accessibility and the experiences of disabled people.

“The Overrepresentation of People with Disabilities and Deaf People in Local Criminal Legal Systems” by Activating Change

This report, produced by Activating Change, delves into the historical and systemic factors contributing to the alarming overrepresentation of disabled and Deaf individuals in US jails and prisons. It broadens the understanding of disability beyond a medical condition, viewing it as a characteristic shaped by environmental interaction and acknowledging Deafness as a distinct cultural and linguistic identity.

Historically, people with disabilities faced forced institutionalization in almshouses and asylums due to laws that criminalized their public presence. Later mass deinstitutionalization without adequate community support directly contributed to increased homelessness and incarceration among disabled people. The landmark Olmstead Supreme Court decision affirmed the right to community living, ruling that institutionalizing people with disabilities who can live independently is discrimination and a violation of the ADA; yet many states still fail to comply.

Current data reveal stark disparities: people in jails are four times more likely to have a non-psychiatric disability than the general population, and people in jails are seven times to have cognitive disabilities. While psychiatric disabilities are widely recognized, the report highlights the significant overlap with other disability types, noting that 80 percent of women and 65 percent of men in prison have at least one disability.

The disparities seen in jails are deeply rooted in community inequities, including the school-to-prison pipeline, where students with disabilities are disproportionately suspended and arrested. High rates of poverty and unemployment among disabled people, exacerbated by discriminatory job markets and a lack of affordable, accessible housing, further drive system contact. Disabled individuals, particularly women and people of color, also face significantly higher rates of victimization and violence.

Within the criminal justice system itself, a profound lack of understanding of disabilities by law enforcement leads to increased criminalization of behaviors, misinterpretations (for example, a slow gait can be mistaken for intoxication, a lack of eye contact for deceit), and harsher treatment, including higher rates of force.

Inadequate, delayed, or denied accommodations — from communication aids to assistive devices — is rampant. This violates the ADA and undermining justice. Jails, typically inaccessible and often overcrowded, exacerbate people’s existing conditions, disrupt medication regimens, and expose individuals to neglect, manipulation, and violence from both staff and other incarcerated people. The report concludes that these harsh conditions can coerce guilty pleas, further entrenching individuals in the system.

To address these systemic issues, Activating Change recommends:

• Education and training for all criminal justice staff;
• Making information and processes are available in multiple, accessible formats, including plain language;
• Providing transparent and low-barrier methods for requesting and providing accommodations at every point in the system;
• Apply disability and Deaf equity lenses from the outset in the development of all new reforms, utilizing universal design principles and involving people with lived experience in the planning process;
• Ensure diversion programs are genuinely accessible and beneficial for all disability types, rather than creating narrow, specialized initiatives;
• Form strong partnerships with disability and Deaf organizations and integrate disability status into data collection and program evaluation to track disparities and ensure accountability.

“Reducing the Arrest and Jailing of People with Mental Health Disabilities” by Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law

This report, produced by the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, focuses on the severe overrepresentation of people with mental health disabilities in US jails, estimating that over 44 percent of people in jails have a mental health condition. The report asserts that this is primarily due to a systemic lack of community-based mental health services, rather than criminality, and that carceral settings are inherently harmful environments for treatment, exacerbate conditions, and lead to longer incarceration.

A key insight is the critical role of intersectional identities — such as race, LGBTQ+ status, and homelessness — in compounding stigma and increasing the risk of arrest and harm during police encounters for individuals with mental health disabilities. The reliance on police as first responders for mental health crises, compared to physical health emergencies where trained medical professionals respond, is highlighted as a discriminatory practice that violates the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act by denying equal opportunity to public services. The US Department of Justice has consistently found legal violations in jurisdictions where police are the default responders to mental health emergencies.

To address this, the report proposes a comprehensive “crisis system” that prioritizes mental health-led responses. This system includes three key components:

1. “Someone to Call”: Mental health staff should manage emergency calls (including 911/988), providing phone-based de-escalation, safety planning, and linking callers to community resources. Houston, TX’s Crisis Call Diversion Program exemplifies this, diverting over 62 percent of mental health calls away from first responders and saving millions.
2. “Someone to Come”: For mental health crises requiring an on-site response, mobile behavioral health teams—comprising mental health clinicians, paramedics, or crisis workers and EMTs—should be dispatched instead of police. Denver, CO’s Support Team Assisted Response program, for instance, has responded to over 8,000 calls that would have otherwise involved police, leading to a 34 percent drop in arrests for low-level crime and significant cost savings. Eugene, OR’s CAHOOTS program, largely staffed by people with lived experience, provides crisis intervention and transportation, resolving nearly 20 percent of the city’s 911 calls without police involvement. Albuquerque, NM’s Community Safety Department, which is independent of the police, also deploys behavioral health and community responders, connecting individuals to services and diverting thousands of calls from police.
3. “Somewhere to Go”: For individuals needing off-site stabilization, the report advocates for small, community-based, home-like centers, ideally peer-run, rather than large institutional settings. Milwaukee County, WI’s Mental Health Emergency Center and Pennington County, SD’s Pivot Point serve as examples. They provide immediate assessment and short-term stabilization, linking individuals to longer-term community-based services like Assertive Community Treatment.

Finally, the report stresses breaking the cycle through person-centered, culturally responsive diversion and reentry services that address crucial social issues that impact health, especially housing. Programs in Alameda County, CA (expanding mobile crisis teams and intensive case management) and New York, NY (the Peer Bridger Program supporting transitions from psychiatric hospitals) demonstrate how integrating mental health and social supports can significantly reduce recidivism and foster community integration. Robust investment in such community-based services is essential to reduce incarceration and support individuals with mental health disabilities.

Intersecting Identities: “An Intersectional Approach to Advocacy on Prison and Jail Conditions” by Center for Racial and Disability Justice

The report by a the Center for Racial and Disability Justice at the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law presents intersectionality as a vital analytical framework for understanding and addressing the profound harms of mass incarceration, especially for multiply marginalized individuals. It highlights how overlapping identities — such as race, gender, disability, and socioeconomic status — intensify the negative impacts of pretrial detention and carceral conditions.

The report presents compelling data on incarceration trends, demonstrating significant disparities. Women’s incarceration rates have surged by over 586 percent in the last four decades, often for nonviolent offenses, and they disproportionately experience trauma and psychiatric disabilities like post-traumatic stress disorder. Black individuals are incarcerated at nearly three times their population share. Disabled people are also significantly overrepresented in carceral settings, with 32 percent and 40 percent of people in jail reporting a disability, rates notably higher than the general population. These conditions, including stress, isolation, and violence, can both exacerbate existing disabilities and produce new ones.

The report details challenges within carceral settings through this intersectional lens, although there is a severe lack of comprehensive, intersectional data on conditions of confinement, particularly regarding the impacts of violence, use of force, and solitary confinement on marginalized groups. Solitary confinement, known to increase self-harm and suicidality, disproportionately affects disabled individuals (especially people with psychiatric disabilities), people of color, and LGBTQ+ individuals. Access to adequate medical and mental health treatment in jails is constitutionally mandated but frequently unmet, leading to severe health consequences, even as so-called “mercy bookings” continue for people awaiting psychiatric beds.

The report proposes various models for transformative change:

• Decarceration by reducing reliance on criminal law enforcement and jails by addressing root causes like homelessness and substance dependence through community-based alternatives. It argues that pretrial detention, which disproportionately harms low-income people of color and disabled individuals, neither reduces crime nor ensures court appearances.
• Decriminalization through prosecutors declining to charge minor offenses related to mental health crises or nonviolent drug or property offenses, particularly for vulnerable groups like women and people impacted by the opioid crisis. Ending criminal sanctions for technical parole violations is also crucial, as 20 percent of jail detainees are there for such violations.
• Disability Justice which challenges the criminalization and surveillance of disabled people, emphasizing that “all bodies are unique and essential” and promoting self-determination and the reclamation of stigmatized identities. It fundamentally seeks to disrupt pathways into the criminal justice system driven by disability.
• Abolition by radically reimagining of how society responds to harm, moving beyond punitive systems like prisons and police to invest in “life-giving systems, practices, and institutions” that address root causes rather than perpetuating subordination.

Key actions recommended include promoting comprehensive, disaggregated data collection (including disability-specific data), expanding true alternatives to incarceration, increasing investment in community-based mental health services, improving medical and mental health care within carceral settings, establishing accountability for police violence, ending solitary confinement, supporting robust rehabilitation and reintegration programs, and promoting systemic change that aligns with disability justice principles. The report concludes that effective reform demands an intersectional approach that centers the voices and lived experiences of multiply marginalized individuals to truly transform the criminal justice system.

++++++++

These four reports collectively paint a picture of the profound impact of the criminal justice system on people with disabilities and Deaf individuals. They underscore the urgent need for a paradigm shift — from a narrow, compliance-based approach to one that is human-centered, focused on making the justice system more fair, and deeply informed by intersectionality and lived experience. The reports suggest that true community safety and justice for all can only be achieved by rethinking how America uses its jails and supports its most vulnerable populations.

In the intricate web of the American criminal justice system, the initial appearance – the first time an individual appears before a court after an arrest – often flies under the radar. Yet, this preliminary stage holds profound implications for an individual’s life and the fairness of the entire system.

Shockingly, unlike later stages of prosecution, there is no federal constitutional right to a defense attorney at these critical initial appearances, where charges are presented and crucial pretrial release decisions are frequently made. This responsibility falls upon individual states and local jurisdictions, compelling them to decide whether to provide legal counsel at this foundational point.

Our recent “Findings from Changing the Initial Appearance Process across Three Sites“, produced with support from the Safety and Justice Challenge, sheds light on the transformative potential of prioritizing and enhancing this early stage. Supported by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, which spearheads the Safety and Justice Challenge to reduce over-incarceration and advance equity, this research examines the impact of defense attorney-led programs in Cook County, Illinois; Lucas County, Ohio; and Multnomah County, Oregon. The findings underscore a powerful truth: investing in initial appearances and treating them as meaningful to the process, particularly by ensuring access to defense counsel, improves due process and makes the system more fair for all individuals entering the system.

The absence of legal representation at initial appearances can leave individuals bewildered and at a severe disadvantage. Navigating the complexities of the criminal legal system, understanding the charges, and arguing for pretrial release are daunting tasks, especially within the short timeframe of typically 24 to 36 hours after booking. As a judge from Multnomah County observed, providing defense counsel early “improves their due process – I think it helps improve procedural justice…We encourage our judges to give explanations of their decisions, and to help people understand what’s happening to them.” When defense attorneys are present, they can explain the process, inform individuals of their charges, and begin to gather crucial information relevant to pretrial release decisions, all within a confidential setting. This stands in stark contrast to the often rushed and public information gathering that occurs when an attorney meets their client for the first time in the courtroom at the arraignment hearing.

The positive impacts of treating initial appearances as meaningful extend far beyond individual due process. The report highlights significant positive secondary impacts, including increased rates of pretrial release, less restrictive release conditions, more efficient use of jail bed space, and a fairer system by reducing racial and ethnic disparities.

• By having defense attorneys present and prepared at initial appearances, they can advocate more effectively for the least expensive and least restrictive pretrial release possible. In Multnomah County, the study found that individuals who met with a public defender prior to arraignment were significantly less likely to have bail ordered and received fewer total judicially ordered conditions. In fact, they were 79 percent more likely to receive a less severe pretrial release overall.
• This shift towards presumptive pretrial release, supported by informed defense attorneys, directly contributes to reducing the overreliance on costly and often unnecessary pretrial detention.
• Moreover, the research offers promising evidence that these defense attorney-led strategies can make the system more fair by reducing racial and ethnic disparities in pretrial release outcomes. Black and Brown individuals are disproportionately impacted by the presumption of pretrial detention and often face more restrictive release conditions. However, in Multnomah County, Black and Brown individuals who met with a defense attorney prior to arraignment were statistically less likely to have bail ordered at all compared to their White peers. This suggests that when defense attorneys have more information to present and can build trust with the court, it helps mitigate potential biases in release decisions.

The work of defense attorney agencies in the three studied communities demonstrates that treating initial appearances as a meaningful and important stage yields significant benefits. By providing earlier access to counsel, collecting more information about individuals prior to their hearing, and ensuring representation at this stage, they are moving away from an “assembly-line approach to justice” and towards a system that prioritizes due process and equity.

The lessons learned from Cook, Lucas, and Multnomah counties offer valuable insights for jurisdictions across the nation. Ensuring the presence of defense attorneys at initial appearances is a fundamental step towards a fairer system. However, as the report emphasizes, this presence is most effective when coupled with efforts to gather comprehensive information about the individual before their arraignment. Strategies such as embedding case managers or allowing defense attorneys dedicated time to meet with individuals prior to their arraignment can significantly enhance the quality of representation and lead to more just outcomes.

Ultimately, “Changing the Initial Appearance Process across Three Sites” underscores that the initial encounter with the criminal justice system sets a crucial tone. By prioritizing due process at this stage, we not only uphold fundamental rights but also pave the way for more equitable and effective outcomes, reducing unnecessary incarceration and fostering safer communities. The decision to provide defense counsel at initial appearance is not merely a matter of legal obligation; it is a commitment to justice, fairness, and a more humane criminal legal system.

Jails book and confine more than 10 million people every year in the United States. People incarcerated in jails can experience overcrowding, lack of resources, exposure to violence, and deteriorating physical and mental health.

In response to these harsh conditions and impacts on individuals, practitioners and policymakers have pushed to reduce the size of US jails. As part of this national movement to rethink jails, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation founded the Safety and Justice Challenge to provide support to local communities to tackle the misuse and overuse of jails. With financial and technical assistance support from MacArthur, over 50 cities and counties have implemented innovative strategies to reduce their local jail populations by releasing more individuals on pretrial release and reconsidering the use of jail for new bookings.

However, the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic in 2020 forced cities and counties participating in SJC to reduce their jail populations even more to meet social distancing recommendations. Since COVID-19, data from SJC communities analyzed by the CUNY Institute for State and Local Governments (ISLG) consistently show that decreasing the jail population does not lead to violent crime. Additionally, across SJC cities and counties, most individuals released pretrial were not booked for a new crime, and it was even more rare for an individual to be re-booked for a violent offense. Combined, the data from SJC communities suggests reducing the size of the jails is not only possible but does not lead to a rise in crime broadly or a rise in violent crime, specifically.

This is especially true for Multnomah County, Oregon, which had remarkable declines in their jail population during COVID without a rise in violent crime. Capitalizing on existing SJC relationships, Multnomah County stakeholders implemented some new strategies but mostly relied on expanding the eligibility of existing SJC reforms to quickly reduce their jail population. At the same time, the county experienced decriminalization of drug use and 100 days of social unrest in protest of police brutality and systemic racism which created the destruction of several buildings and businesses. Combined, the decriminalization of drugs and protests increased the visibility of drug use, houselessness, and created a general sense of lawlessness across the county even though crime or violence did not increase. Now, four years after COVID-19 began and two years after of the passage of the decriminalization of drugs, Multnomah County residents are critical of criminal justice reform and pushing for standard criminal justice responses, like the reliance on jail.

A new research study produced by Justice System Partners delved into the experience and data in Multnomah County and made the following findings:

• The Value of the SCJ during COVID-19. Because Multnomah County was already working with SJC when COVID hit, staff had all the infrastructure in place to safely reduce their jail population. The county’s participation in SJC laid the groundwork and framework for stakeholders to meet and collaborate quickly. Although some new approaches were implemented, the county mostly expanded the eligibility of pretrial reforms they had previously implemented as part of SJC. These strategies include citation-in-lieu of arrest and booking; reducing jail admissions for community supervision violations; limiting warrants for recorded court absences; and expediting jail releases with manual review. Using various strategies, county stakeholders reduced the number of bookings throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, and specifically experienced a steady decline in jail bookings across each of the subsequent four time periods.
• Reaffirming evidence on violent crime and using jails effectively. Reducing the reliance on jails did not lead to an escalation of jail bookings for violence broadly. Nor did it lead to an escalation of jail bookings for violence by individuals with a history of violent charges. The individual demographic composition of the jail remained relatively the same throughout the study period. However, the composition of the charges booked into jail changed significantly. Overall, the jail experienced a lower proportion of bookings for low-level and non-violent charges, demonstrating that during the two years following the start of the pandemic in March 2020, stakeholders relied on the jail for booking more serious charges. Bookings for violent charges did not increase during the pandemic, demonstrating that reducing bookings for low-level charges does not lead to an increase in violent charges. The composition of jail bookings shifted during the period of social unrest in the summer and fall of 2020, with a greater proportion of jail bookings associated with behavioral charges (such as disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, and harassment, among others). The jail held fewer people overall and fewer numbers of individuals were booked with a violent offense. However, what was booked was more often for a violent offense. Therefore, the proportion of violence charges in the jail increased, but not necessarily the number of violent charges. This suggests the county began relying on jail predominately for violent offenses charges – a more effective use of its jail.

• Perceptions of safety extend beyond classic definitions of violence. During the study period, community and justice system staff members reported a decrease in perceptions of safety, largely from visibility of drug use and social disorder. Community stakeholders discussed their perceptions of safety differently than justice system staff, echoing earlier Safety and Justice Challenge research on the multifaceted concepts of “safety.” This suggests system staff stakeholders should aim to “frame conversations around community safety instead of public safety.” Perception of public safety is less about classic definitions of violence and more about the discomfort with physical and social disorder. Community members often discussed perception of seeing or experiencing more “violence” during COVID-19, but actually described physical and social disorder including property damage and drug use. In the summer of 2020, community members protested police brutality and the role of the justice system in communities following the murder of George Floyd. Interviews with community members indicate that there is a need for conversations about the term violence, including which individuals and what charges should be characterized as violent. As a field, we must grapple with how people who commit violence and systems that are violent may be interconnected.

• Staff wellness matters for sustainability of reform. COVID-19 brought an emphasis and renewed interest in physical and emotional well-being and health. As we work to heal communities impacted by the justice system, we must also consider the impacts of the system on staff, too. Staff experienced significant workplace trauma from social unrest and still showed compassion for the need to reduce reliance on jails. Staff who experienced harms are still healing yet responsible for sustaining the work. There are significant challenges with tasking the people who experienced workplace trauma to champion reforms without acknowledgment or space for healing.

The experiences and data from Multnomah County during this period serve as valuable guiding principles for other communities looking to navigate the complex terrain of justice reform with equity, efficiency, and humanity.