Topic: COVID

Some nationwide statistics around domestic violence and child abuse have, perhaps surprisingly, gone down since the Coronavirus pandemic took hold, but they only mask a deadly underlying trend: The silencing of victims until it’s often too late.

In New York City, for example, we’ve been working with Safe Horizon, the largest domestic violence and victims’ services organization in the country, serving more than 250,000 children, adults and families. Since the pandemic took hold, they have seen a decrease in domestic violence hotline calls and in the use of domestic violence shelters, as well as decreased child abuse reports. But just because those numbers are down, it doesn’t mean that there is less violence and abuse happening.

Victims are less likely to call for help during the crisis because they’re trapped in their homes with their abusers, without the necessary privacy. In the past, they might have gone to the public library to make those calls or use those online chat services, but the libraries are closed. And when domestic violence victims might have gone to shelters in the past, concerns about the spread of the virus—particularly in New York City, the epicenter of the pandemic—are leading more people to say that they will “take their chances” at home, with their abusers, with potentially deadly results.

Likewise, child abuse reports are down. But we’re also seeing the lethality of child abuse cases spike disturbingly across the country. Police and child protective services aren’t seeing children, so they’re not able to report abuse. It means abusers are only showing up at emergency rooms when they’ve caused injuries so bad that they’re forced to get medical help for their victims.

One forensic interviewer in Virginia used to see dozens of children a week, she told the Washington Post, after they had been referred through conventional reporting channels. Now, she sees very few, and lies awake at night worrying about “the children that we’re not seeing.” At another children’s medical center in Texas, there have been three child deaths from severe abuse since mid-March, when the center typically sees four to six deaths a year, according to the Post’s excellent reporting on this issue.

As a technical assistance provider for the Safety and Justice Challenge, my organization specializes in helping jurisdictions around the country center the experience of victims in their efforts to reduce jail populations. We connect sites with experts and best practices, train and educate on trauma and victimization in incarcerated populations, and on victim-centered principles, to ensure that victims’ experiences are centered in criminal legal work.

We explored some of the ways jurisdictions are using technology to speed up the granting of restraining orders by remote technology at a recent webinar in partnership with the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, for example. And we also encourage anyone concerned about the issues raised in this blog to contact our VictimConnect Hotline at 1-855-4VICTIM.

Jurisdictions across the country are doing a lot to ensure that victims’ needs are met with remote technology. But efforts to help vulnerable families are also complicated by underlying inequities.

Just as poorer households have suffered without access to the computers and Internet needed to get online for schooling, so, too, are they more likely to be without the technology and space to communicate privately as they seek help for abuse. Where teachers used to look for in-person signs of abuse like falling asleep in class, or stealing food, there are also fewer opportunities to do so in an online world. It’s impossible for teachers to see facial bruises if a child’s webcam isn’t working, for example, and that’s assuming that the child has been able to log on for classes, at all.

The resources are there to help, but we all need to begin with considering victims’ voices more intentionally. The biggest questions on the minds of those in our criminal justice systems around the country right now should be: “Who’s voice am I not hearing? Whose face am I not seeing?”

We can help folks to hear and see those victims before it’s too late.

–Renee Williams is the Executive Director of the National Center for Victims of Crime. 

Contrary to what fearmongers would have you believe, the Coronavirus has shown that crime doesn’t rise when jail and prison populations go down. This was well known even before COVID-19 caused cities to rethink their criminal justice policies.

The current COVID-19 crisis provides a real-time blueprint on how to vastly streamline our criminal justice system. Removing misdemeanor and traffic violations from the criminal code would reduce the number of arrests, jail bookings and court filings by at least 50%. Expediting the disposition of criminal charges for those jailed will reduce the jail and prison populations. And we now know that crime rates will be reduced as we shrink the $300 billion criminal justice system footprint.

The press has focused on a few isolated surges in shootings but in fact, a new study by Thomas Abt and Richard Rosenfeld shows that American homicide rates declined dramatically in April and May based on data from 64 U.S. cities: Homicide rates declined by 21.5 percent in April and 9.9 percent in May compared with the previous three-year average for those months. We’ve also seen abrupt drops in theft and burglaries since the Coronavirus took hold, and that’s against a backdrop of crime rates already dropping by over 50% since 1995.

The crime drop has also produced an arrest drop, and that’s been compounded as law enforcement has decided not to pay as much attention to misdemeanor crimes. Those arrests have dropped dramatically, producing reduced jail bookings and fewer people in jail.

As we talk about reducing the footprint and cost of police agencies (over $140 billion a year), the number one thing for us to learn is that we don’t need to physically arrest people for a misdemeanor crime. Instead, police should give them a field citation, with the exception of domestic violence and DUI charges. And police shouldn’t be doing routine traffic stops for the sole purpose of raising money for more policing. As an alternative, we should maximize use of cameras, and develop a corps of traffic officers who aren’t armed with guns but with tablets. If they catch you speeding, they take a picture of your license plate, and then send you the picture and a bill. That’s all.

The big challenge we’re now facing is people’s court appearances being delayed because the criminal courts have been shut down, or are working at a slower pace. Courts need to expedite the processing of cases for those folks who are still in jail. Defenders and prosecutors will have to change their old business practices of delaying sentencing until they get a deal they like. In particular, needless and lengthy court continuances need to be eliminated.

Courts may also need to declare a one-time amnesty for those who fail to appear over coming months on misdemeanor and traffic citations issued during the Coronavirus crisis. Otherwise, there’ll be a sizable backup of failure-to-appear warrants which will clog the courts, increase jail bookings, and do nothing to improve public safety.

—Dr. Austin has over twenty-five years of experience in correctional planning and research. He is the former director of the Institute on Crime, Justice and Corrections at George Washington University in Washington, DC. 

In an effort to prevent the spread of COVID-19, criminal justice system players across the country are engaging in new or broadened management strategies.

Many jails are releasing individuals who are medically at-risk, and reducing jail bookings for non-violent and low-level offenders where possible. Likewise, court systems have settled some cases with guilty pleas, and released people who are being held on non-violent and low-level offenses. Police have also begun or increased issuing summonses in lieu of arrest for such offenses.

These are, of course, positive steps. This is particularly promising as many of the changes being instituted now have long been suggested by those seeking to bring about justice system reform while maintaining public safety.

However, many affected individuals are those with mental illness or other behavioral health challenges, and it is crucial that we do not simply send them back into the community without ensuring they have access to adequate treatment, services and support.

Behavioral health issues have not yet featured loudly enough within the flurry of COVID-19 news coverage focused on jails and prisons. Even amidst a national health crisis, we urge real thoughtfulness concerning the needs of this vulnerable population.

We agree that people with behavioral health challenges should indeed be among the high-risk jail populations currently being prioritized for release. But people with mental health needs and substance use disorders face increased challenges amidst a global pandemic, including not being able to meet with their service providers.

For those struggling with addiction, social isolation can contribute to relapse. Add to that the anxiety of being released from jail into uncertain housing or medical circumstances. We risk setting people up to fail without adequate support.

Put simply, addiction and mental illness do not care about the coronavirus outbreak. Consistency in care is more important than ever during this time of stress and uncertainty. Potentially releasing individuals to housing uncertainty and homelessness further calls for thoughtful release planning to reduce the impact on stressed homeless care networks and the wellbeing of each individual.

Justice systems are called upon to truly collaborate with community-based service providers to allow for creativity in care and flexibility in ridged policies. Communities are prioritizing services, triaging caseloads, using technology, removing barriers, and embracing new partners, including harm-reduction services.

The phrase “Divert to what?” has a new urgency during this challenging time. Community services must be funded, be accessible, and have capacity. One potential opportunity from the current crisis is that diversion and justice system management measures put in place now, out of necessity, have the potential to prove their longer-term value.

One potential opportunity from the current crisis is that diversion and justice system management measures put in place now, out of necessity, have the potential to prove their longer-term value.

We encourage justice stakeholders to examine and articulate their criteria to divert or release, and to track relevant data and outcomes to further our collective understanding of how public safety can be maintained through public health strategies.

We urge all stakeholders working to contain and control the coronavirus within their justice systems to consider the long-term impact of crisis-driven decision-making on people with behavioral health needs.

Let us remember that weaknesses in our systems of care for people with behavioral health challenges do not end when a person walks through a jail door, whatever the circumstances of their release. We urge communities to continue to work together constructively to address these challenges, long after the current crisis.

In the past month, the COVID-19 crisis has collided with another American epidemic: mass incarceration. The results have been nothing short of disastrous. Eight of the top ten largest outbreaks in America are in correctional facilities, according to data on COVID-19 hotspots compiled by the New York Times. Over 14,000 incarcerated people have tested positive in state and federal prisons, and countless more infections have likely gone undetected due to lack of testing. Tragically, COVID-19 continues to spread behind bars, since inadequate healthcare and overcrowded, unsanitary conditions have turned correctional facilities into a “petri dish” for the virus.

To protect incarcerated individuals and corrections officers alike, some jurisdictions are taking promising steps to reduce correctional populations, including granting early release to some incarcerated individuals. Jurisdictions must pair these crucial early release efforts with reforms aimed at keeping people from entering jails and prisons in the first place – starting with modifications to policing practices.

Police are the gatekeepers to the criminal justice system, and as first responders, they are vulnerable to the spread of COVID-19. As of late April, nearly 4,900 New York Police Department officers had tested positive for the coronavirus, and 37 officers had tragically lost their lives. And in Detroit, over 1,000 officers – roughly 35 percent of the Detroit Police Department – have spent time in quarantine since the outbreak began. To protect officers and residents alike, jurisdictions must ensure that policing practices are in line with the latest public health guidelines for physical distancing and other health precautions.

Policing for the 21^st Century

By rethinking policing practices, city officials can curtail jail admissions – and critically, can help safeguard law enforcement officers and the communities they serve. Police departments are making critical changes, like minimizing police stops and custodial arrests, in response to the spread of the pandemic. These urgent reforms are also aligned with 21^st century policing principles, according to Ron Davis, the former head of the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services at the U.S. Department of Justice.

“Police must now apply the public health model of “do no harm first” in making decisions, from arrests to uses of force,” said Mr. Davis in an interview with the Center for American Progress.  “Making arrests must transition from being a common tool used by law enforcement to becoming literally a tool of last resort.”

It’s also not true that incorporating physical distancing or making other changes to policing practices will jeopardize public safety, Mr. Davis said.

“The police alone cannot make a community safe. And we have learned over the years that simply adding more police does not equate to more public safety. It takes an entire community working with the police to sustain long-term public safety,” he said. “So, as we decrease the physical footprint of law enforcement in the community, it doesn’t automatically mean that public safety is compromised or that crime is going to go up.”

Instead, cities must also invest in holistic strategies for preventing and reducing crime, from youth engagement to mental health services to diversion programming. “In short,” Mr. Davis explains, “we must reimagine policing so that it relies less on physical interventions and more on community partnerships.”

Recommendations for policing during the COVID-19 pandemic

With these goals in mind, the Center for American Progress released the following recommended policy changes that police departments are adopting to protect officers and prevent the further spread of COVID-19 behind bars and within the community:

1. Drastically reduce the number of police stops and custodial arrests. Law enforcement agencies must decrease enforcement actions for lower-level offenses, focusing instead on the most serious cases. Custodial arrests should be reserved only for the small subset of individuals who pose a clear risk to public safety. Several jurisdictions have taken already steps to limit custodial arrests, including Washington, D.C., where Metropolitan Police Department Chief Peter Newsham has expanded the types of offenses that are eligible for citation and release. Likewise, the Philadelphia Police Department postponed arrests for many categories of non-violent crimes, including all narcotics offenses, burglary, prostitution, vandalism, and others.
2. Limit the amount of calls for service that officers respond to in person. Police departments must limit officers’ exposure to the virus by reducing in-person responses for nonemergency issues. Officers should respond in-person only when there is an imminent threat to public safety or in instances where investigation or evidence collection cannot be delayed. In cities like Syracuse, NY, for example, law enforcement has temporarily shifted protocols for responding to calls for service to emphasize online and over-the-phone incident reporting.
3. Prioritize responding to and preventing domestic violence. Even during the pandemic, not everyone is safer at home – including survivors and those at risk of domestic violence. Law enforcement agencies need to train officers to recognize the warning signs and understand the increased risk of intimate partner violence in the context of the current crisis. Agencies should prominently feature hotline numbers and other resources from local service providers alongside all public guidance related to COVID-19. In Minnesota, the state Department of Public Safety instructed local law enforcement agencies that residents who are not safe in their homes must be allowed to relocate, without risking a violation of the governor’s executive order. Likewise, the city of Chicago has partnered with ride-sharing services provide free rides for those who contact the Illinois Domestic Violence Hotline, helping to ensure that those who need to relocate are able to do so.
4. Obtain and distribute personal protective equipment (PPE) to every officer to use while on duty. Law enforcement agencies must provide officers with personal protective equipment to protect their health and prevent additional spread of the virus. In cities such as Austin, Texas, and Philadelphia, for example, police officers are required to wear face masks while on duty. Agencies must also provide access to COVID-19 testing and trainings on personal safety precautions, such as physical distancing, sanitizing procedures, and recognizing the symptoms of COVID-19. In addition to providing PPE kits to patrol officers, the Los Angeles Police Department provided guidance for officers on using this equipment and maintaining safe interactions with the public.
5. Consider contracting with local hotels to allow officers to isolate. Jurisdictions may need to provide safe lodging for first responders, who are at heightened risk of exposure to COVID-19 and may be required to distance themselves from their household and colleagues. The city of Seattle, for example, contracted an entire hotel to provide accommodations for first responders and other essential city employees, including police, firefighters, emergency medical services (EMS), and transportation workers.

If you could go to a courthouse right now, the sound you would hear is not just the same eerie silence echoing elsewhere in society, from empty stores to unused playgrounds. It is the sound of the gears of justice grinding to a halt as jurisdictions scramble to avoid the worst of the COVID-19 pandemic. Emergency measures that keep people out of courthouses, however, raise questions of what process is “due” in times of crisis and how the criminal justice process will be altered if and when normalcy returns.

With its people-centered practices and typically close quarters, the justice system is especially vulnerable to the coronavirus, and courts across the country have postponed proceedings and restricted public access to facilities in response. Jury trials have been deferred, initial appearances delayed and correctional facilities placed on lockdown.

Individual modifications to regular business may seem minor or innocuous, but even relatively short procedural freezes raise immediate due process concerns. Elongating the period between an arrest and a first appearance extends the time for which individuals sit in jail cells without judicial oversight or the chance to challenge either the allegations or the detention. At the other end of the process, the cancellation of jury trials may be a logical means of social distancing, but it similarly reduces a critical constitutional right into a paper tiger.

Defendants are not the only ones caught in this disturbing state of limbo. Prosecutors are also paralyzed by the inability to try defendants or otherwise pull many of the levers of justice. Likewise, victims and witnesses must wait even longer to gain closure and end their involvement with the justice system.

Since delaying normal operations creates issues this troubling, solutions must work to reduce the stressors that create delays wherever possible. In practical terms, this means using each decisional chokepoint—from arrest and charging decisions to pretrial release and sentencing—to shrink the system. This will keep many low-risk individuals out of the system entirely and free up scarce court capacity for those who are left.

Thankfully, local leaders are already taking these kinds of steps. Police departments everywhere should consider following the lead of the Portland Police Bureau, which in agreement with the Multnomah County District Attorney’s Office started issuing citations for misdemeanors more frequently rather than taking people to jail. Likewise, prosecutors could take a cue from the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office, which is working with the Public Defender’s Office to identify detained individuals who can be safely released.

In addition to serving as short-term Band-Aids, these strategies will ultimately help the justice system recover from the COVID-19 pandemic. Few jurisdictions can afford case backlogs accruing to already packed dockets or additional detainees in crowded jails. As such, these ad hoc measures represent the best chance many jurisdictions will have to avoid the impossibly high caseloads that deferring cases for any meaningful period of time will create.

Beyond weathering the potential surge of cases once the justice system lifts its finger off the pause button, such policies will help dictate the future course of criminal justice reform as the public and policymakers judge the results in the coming months. Places that see crime rates drop or remain static will have momentum on their side should they wish to make these temporary measures permanent. On the other hand, those in which crime of any sort rises can expect tough-on-crime voices to argue for a return to the incarceration-heavy policies of yesteryear.

But the criminal justice community must force policymakers and the public to look deeper than this simple equation, in which less crime means a strategy is retained and more crime results in it being discarded. Crime rates are a particularly rough way to measure results under normal conditions. And after a global pandemic that shatters routines and shakes up society at large, results will be even more difficult to interpret.

Sifting through the data and educating stakeholders on its meaning will be an arduous task. But it’s the only way to save worthwhile programs that were unable to withstand the substantial headwinds of the pandemic. It is also the best way to transform more successful impromptu reforms into long-lasting change and ensure they reach their fullest potential.

Obviously, the immediate concern right now is saving lives and preserving public safety. But jurisdictions should not allow these imperatives to obscure other essential elements of our justice system. As local leaders have demonstrated throughout the country, justice and public safety need not be mutually exclusive. The right innovations can help mitigate the pandemic’s destruction while setting up the justice system to operate more fairly and effectively for years to come.

—Lars Trautman is a senior fellow of Criminal Justice and Civil Liberties at the R Street Institute and a former assistant district attorney