POLICY
REFORM AT THE
FOREFRONT OF
RACIAL JUSTICE
The Racial Justice Improvement Project
a
BY SALMA S. SAFIEDINE, JIHAD J. KOMIS, AND CHRISTINE M. KULUMANI
s the United States criminal justice system continues
to grow and evolve, the need for appropriate policy
regulation to increase efficiency and fairness
becomes more evident. Legislation sets the fundamentals,
such as defining the crimes and their punishment; yet often
overlooked is the role of criminal justice policy, formal and
informal, which serves to integrate law into practice and
provide the principles to guide decisions. Policies influence
the degree by which an individual goes through the system,
and at multiple points throughout that trajectory, race may
play a role. (See A shley N ellis , S entencing P roject , T he
C olor of J ustice : R acial and E thnic D isparity in S tate
Prisons 9–10 (2016), http://tinyurl.com/zp7wppf [hereinafter
N ellis , C olor of J ustice ].) In fact, evidence suggests that
some individuals are more likely to be detained based on
other factors grounded in racially disparate policies, beliefs,
and practices than for the crime itself. (Id. at 3.)
Policy has great potential in positively influencing criminal
outcomes and criminal justice through favoring alternatives
to incarceration and seeking to reduce the odds of recidivism.
The majority of people have contact with the criminal justice
system at a local rather than the federal level; therefore,
appropriate emphasis can be placed on making reforms to
local criminal justice policies and, even more specifically,
day-to day practice. (Id. at 3.) However, in the pursuit for
neutrality and objectivity, even local policy may not account
for identifying factors such as socioeconomics or race,
partly because the racial composition or the identity of the
community is unknown or misunderstood. (See id.) Also,
a policy can be race-neutral or socioeconomically neutral
on its face, and still have unintended negative racial and
socioeconomic impacts on the individual and, based on large
concentrations, the local community at large. (Id.)
For instance, bail-setting assessments may take into account
the defendant’s employment status, length of residence in
the community, distance from the courthouse, and familial
ties and relationships. People of color are more likely to be
economically disadvantaged, have unstable employment, and
come from disrupted familial ties. (See L indsey D envers ,
Bureau of Justice Assistance, Bail Decisionmaking: Research
CRIMINAL JUSTICE n Fall 2016 Published in Criminal Justice, Volume 31, Number 3, ©2016 by the American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be copied
or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association.
25
S ummary (2011), http://tinyurl.com/jm7nb7z.) As a result,
Blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans are less likely to be
released on their own recognizance. (Research Working Grp.,
Task Force on Race & the Criminal Justice Sys., Preliminary
Report on Race and Washington’s Criminal Justice System, 87
Wash . L. R ev . 1, 29 (2012).) And when individuals charged
with the same crime are given different pretrial release
determinations, perceptions of fairness erode. Moreover,
the collateral consequences that compound these negative
impacts feed the systemic problem and further erode public
trust in justice, particularly in low-income neighborhoods and
communities of color. (Ashley Nellis, Judy Greene & Marc
M auer , S entencing P roject , R educing R acial D isparity in
the C riminal J ustice S ystem : A M anual for P ractitioners
and P olicymakers (2008), http://tinyurl.com/z57b3sb.)
DISCRETIONARY DECISIONS IN CRIMINAL
JUSTICE POLICY
Policy reform is often the tool to implement positive change
in the criminal justice system. Policy is unique with its
often built-in discretionary component. Unfortunately,
discretion, and the inevitable inconsistency that accompanies
discretionary interpretations, is arguably the leading
cause of disparity, distrust, and unfairness in the criminal
justice system today. (Cynthia Jones, Confronting Race
in the Criminal Justice System: The ABA’s Racial Justice
Improvement Project, 27 C rim . J ust ., no. 2, Summer 2012,
at 12.) So then why have discretionary decisions at all? The
discretionary decision points along the system’s path are vital
to considering the inherent uniqueness in each individual’s
contact with the system—purposefully ensuring that not all
are treated the same, but remain equal. This flexibility and
open interpretation allow for mental health needs assessments,
cultural norm considerations, and access to support networks
that are unique to the defendant, which cannot be specified
in legislation and are easier for trained personnel to identify
and evaluate.
However, differing decisions as a result of discretion can
begin to morph into unequal treatment, especially when
SALMA S. SAFIEDINE is an attorney with the law firm
of Safiedine Partners Law LLC and has served as the ABA
Criminal Justice Section RJIP Project Director since 2012
following her role as the project’s associate director from
2010 to 2012. She is co-chair of the ABA CJS Race and
Diversity Committee and editor for the ABA CJS White
Collar Crime Committee newsletter. She may be reached
at [email protected]. JIHAD J. KOMIS
is a first‑year law student at the George Washington
University Law School and has worked for the Racial Justice
Improvement Project for several years. He can be reached
at [email protected]. CHRISTINE M. KULUMANI is
currently a third‑year law student at the George Washington
University Law School and a longtime project assistant at
the ABA Racial Justice Improvement Project. Christine can
be reached at [email protected].
26
discretionary decisions are misguided or misinformed, such as
in instances where the decision maker is untrained, culturally
incompetent, or biased (either explicitly and/or implicitly).
Some studies have found that when police officers conduct
routine police stops, the officers’ selection of who to stop is
more influenced by the racial composition of a neighborhood
as opposed to the crime in the area. (Nellis, Color of Justice,
supra, at 10.) The human element of bias, and also cultural
heuristics that are consciously or unconsciously taken into
account when making discretionary decisions, impacts justice
and the equally important perception of fairness.
Discretionary decisions in the system are not short-lived.
The various stages within the criminal justice system have
a domino connection, where each decision impacts the
one that follows it. For instance, a recent study found that
defendants detained for the entire pretrial period, as opposed
to supervised release or release on their own recognizance,
are much more likely to be sentenced to incarceration than
those who were offered pretrial release, when controlling for
all other variables. (Christopher T. Lowenkamp et al., Laura
& John Arnold Found., Investigating the Impact of Pretrial
D etention on S entencing 10–11 (2013), http://tinyurl.
com/hbkvgjp [hereinafter L owenkamp , I mpact of P retrial
D etention].) Moreover, defendants who are detained for the
whole pretrial period also receive longer sentences than their
comparable peers. (Id.) Additionally, those detained pretrial
are more likely to plead guilty for reasons other than true
guilt of the crime charged. (The Problem, P retrial J ustice
I nst ., www.pretrial.org/the-problem (last visited Sept. 2,
2016).) And low‑ and medium-risk defendants held pretrial
are significantly more likely than their similarly situated peers
to commit future crimes years after case disposition. (See
C hristopher T. L owenkamp et al ., L aura & J ohn A rnold
F ound ., T he H idden C osts of P retrial D etention 3 (Nov.
2013), http://tinyurl.com/h9d444o [hereinafter L owenkamp,
Costs of P retrial D etention].)
Discretionary decision points that unfairly impact those
involved in the criminal justice system disproportionately
affect people of color. (See N ellis , Color of Justice, supra,
at 9–10.) When accounting for differences in charges (but
controlling for severity of the offense, prior criminal history,
and specific court’s sentencing tendencies), people of color
receive harsher punishments. (See S entencing P roject ,
R eport of the S entencing P roject to the U nited N ations
H uman R ights C ommittee regarding R acial D isparities
in the U nited S tates C riminal J ustice S ystem 12 (2013),
http://tinyurl.com/jta49a2; see also W. Haywood Burns Inst.,
S an F rancisco J ustice R einvestment I nitiative : Racial and
Ethnic Disparities Analysis for the Reentry Council (2015),
http://tinyurl.com/zdqm4uq.) And even when participating
in supervised release programming, Blacks have probation
or supervised release revoked up to twice as often as their
similarly situated white and Hispanic counterparts. (See Jesse
J annetta et al., U rban Inst., Examining Racial and Ethnic
Disparities in Probation Revocation 3–4 (2014), http://tinyurl.
com/j8gc4oo.)
To successfully implement positive change, policy reform
targeting ways to curtail abuse of discretion and facilitate
CRIMINAL JUSTICE n Fall 2016
Published in Criminal Justice, Volume 31, Number 3, ©2016 by the American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be copied
or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association.
information to complement discretionary decisions along the
system’s path should be of greatest priority. Ways to curtail
the negative impacts of discretionary decisions include
ensuring decisions go through more than one decision
maker, or implementing a process of checks and balances.
Decisions should be tracked and evaluated often. Additionally,
checklists and objective criteria should be utilized to help
guide discretionary decisions. Lastly, training on implicit
bias and bias-free decision making can help criminal justice
stakeholders mitigate the influence of their implicit and
explicit biases.
PRICE FOR JUSTICE
Notwithstanding discretionary decision points that may
keep a defendant out of alternatives to incarceration, when
better opportunities do exist—diversion programs, monitored
release, or posting bail—many defendants’ circumstances
are such that they are unable to avail themselves to these
alternatives or choose not to participate based on underlying
community distrust with the system. (Developments in the
Law: Policing and Profits, 128 Harv. L. Rev. 1723, 1726–27
(2015).) Moreover, the availability of financial resources has
extensively been shown to influence pretrial determinations
and the final disposition of a defendant’s case. (Lowenkamp,
I mpact of P retrial D etention , supra.) For some, the high
costs affiliated with required drug testing, ankle monitoring,
transportation to and from meetings with probation officers,
and set-up fees means unaffordable/unattainable programs.
This exclusion opens the door for a separate set of rules for
those who can afford to pay. (See N ellis , Color of Justice,
supra, at 11.)
Blacks comprise a disproportionate share of those living
in poverty-stricken neighborhoods across the country. (Id.)
Blacks are more likely to have limited access to financial
resources, and are more likely to be exposed to additional
vulnerabilities such as higher neighborhood crime, elevated
unemployment, and higher school drop-out rates. (See id.;
Paul Elias, Cash Bail System under Attack as Unconstitutional,
Wash. Post, Dec. 26, 2015, http://tinyurl.com/gmpkxnr.) On
average, Black households possess just 6 percent of the wealth
of an average white household, and the typical Hispanic
household has just 8 percent of the wealth of an average
white household. (Laura Sullivan et al., Inst. for Assets &
S oc. P olicy , Brandeis U niv ., T he R acial Wealth G ap : Why
P olicy M atters (2015), http://tinyurl.com/nattzrh.)
Those who choose not to opt in to these programs—or cannot
pay the unreasonable fees to participate—are forced to remain in
jail. (See Developments in the Law, supra.) In some instances,
waiting over two years in jail for a trial to begin is not uncommon,
and a few defendants have even sat in jail for over six years
awaiting trial, which comes with incredible costs for those who
can afford them the least. (Christopher Ingraham, Why We Spend
Billions to Keep Half a Million Unconvicted People behind Bars,
Wash. Post, June 11, 2015, http://tinyurl.com/za5jflj.) Considering
the socioeconomic factors that are much more prevalent in
neighborhoods of color, the disparate treatment in the criminal
justice system caused by socioeconomic factors is more likely
to affect people of color and their communities, thus further
compounding the injustice.
Moreover, poor defendants detained pretrial due to
financial hardship also face the collateral consequences
of detainment that impact their employment and housing.
Considering financial strain, familial disrupt, effects on
employment, and fear of losing federal benefits, some
defendants choose to plead guilty to a lesser charge, in spite
of their innocence. (Lorelei Laird, Court Systems Rethink the
Use of Financial Bail, Which Some Say Penalizes the Poor,
ABA J. (Apr. 1, 2016), http://tinyurl.com/hrqo2sf.) While in
custody awaiting trial, defendants cannot work or continue
any outside education. (Samuel R. Wiseman, Essay, Pretrial
Detention and the Right to Be Monitored, 123 Yale L.J. 1344,
1356 (2014).) This is particularly relevant because those who
cannot afford bail are also the most likely to have hourly wage
jobs with little flexibility and an employer who is quick to
replace them. Without this income, the defendant may not
be able to meet pressing financial obligations, which could
compound the potential collateral consequences. (See id. at
1356–57.)
Notwithstanding the racial disparity fruit that stems from
socioeconomics, other inefficiencies and their negative effects
deserve a closer look. The Pretrial Justice Institute estimates
that the average cost of keeping an individual detained is
approximately 10 times as expensive as supervision programs.
(The Problem, supra.) By making the ability to pay a condition
of freedom, bail systems needlessly imprison poor defendants.
(See id.) Pretrial detainment rates unnecessarily increase,
which strains the resources of local criminal justice systems.
Limited resources oftentimes exacerbate inefficiency and
unfairness. The Department of Justice estimates that local jail
populations grew by 19.8 percent between 2000 and 2014;
pretrial detainees accounted for 95 percent of that growth.
(Id.) Pretrial detention costs taxpayers over $9 billion per
year, with costs rising as the pretrial population grows. (See
Lowenkamp, Costs of P retrial D etention, supra.)
Policy reform that attempts to alleviate the influence
of factors such as race and socioeconomic status on an
individual’s path through the criminal justice system,
while simultaneously striving to subdue the effects of
ineffective discretionary decision making and implicit bias,
is a challenging task. However, there are proven effective
alternatives to conditioning justice on the ability to pay
and relying too heavily on stakeholder discretion. Effective
reforms need to incorporate a holistic approach and involve
stakeholders from across the spectrum who can work to
incorporate well-developed and vetted risk assessments, which
can ensure that judges and magistrates have the necessary
information available to better equip their pretrial decision
making. Affordable and equally accessible supervision and
diversionary programming, rather than automatic detention or
bail, can minimize the collateral consequences of detainment
while also saving system resources. Diversionary programing,
coupled with case management and appropriate ancillary
intervention, allows eligible participants to avoid associated
stigmas while also developing a foundation for avoiding
recidivism. The gate to pretrial supervision, diversion, and
supervised release can open through effective policy reform
CRIMINAL JUSTICE n Fall 2016 Published in Criminal Justice, Volume 31, Number 3, ©2016 by the American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be copied
or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association.
27
efforts that create and protect such alternatives.
With such disparate outcomes prevalent across the country
and at numerous levels of the system, it is of great concern
that criminal justice policy reform is not at the very forefront
of our nation’s priorities. However, in light of mainstream and
social media outlets emphasizing the recent accounts of police
brutality, and the current political climate where bipartisan
support has made racial justice and criminal justice reform
key parts of parties’ political platforms, public awareness of
racial injustice throughout the country is on the rise. (See
Christopher Ingraham, Here’s How Much Americans Hate
Mandatory Minimum Sentences, W ash . P ost , Oct. 1, 2015,
http://tinyurl.com/jto8d95.) In recent years there has been
some progress, and the tide of public opinion has begun to turn
with the majority of Americans, regardless of race or political
affiliation, believing that some form of criminal justice reform
is necessary. (See id.) In response to deteriorating conditions
and increased public awareness, many organizations have
promoted criminal justice reform, and today there are
hundreds of organizations working diligently toward reform
in nearly all areas of the criminal justice system.
Many agencies such as the Sentencing Project, National
Criminal Justice Association, and Pretrial Justice Institute now
promote or are actively engaged in criminal justice reform,
recognizing the significance of and grievous harm resulting
from racial disparities and inefficiencies. Innovative projects,
such as Legal Hand located in New York City, have begun
to offer free legal information, assistance, and referrals for
the less resource-endowed to level the playing field and help
curb the collateral consequences that come with entering the
criminal justice system. The goal of such projects is to break
down the typical barriers between the criminal justice system
and marginalized communities.
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION INITIATIVE: THE
RACIAL JUSTICE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
The American Bar Association (ABA) for decades has been
at the forefront of advocacy for policy reform in the criminal
justice arena and has pursued reforms that aid to lessen racial
impacts. More specifically, the ABA’s Criminal Justice Section
(CJS) is involved in much of the work being done in the realm
of criminal justice reform through organizing, supporting,
volunteering, and creating numerous criminal justice reform
initiatives on the ground. Recently the CJS embarked on an
endeavor that has produced positive evidence-based outcomes
from on-the-ground local policy changes with its Racial
Justice Improvement Project (RJIP). In 2010, CJS launched
the innovative project to bring together key criminal justice
stakeholders to effectuate high-impact, low-cost policy reform
on a local level. This project has since found great success in
establishing cooperative relationships among decision makers
in several local jurisdictions and implementing fair, effective,
and efficient data-driven policy reforms. Through a grant from
the Bureau of Justice Assistance, and with subsequent support
from the Public Welfare Foundation and more recently the
W.K. Kellogg Foundation, RJIP specifically identifies and
reforms policies and practices that produce racial disparities
in local systems, through data analysis and pilot programming.
28
More specifically, RJIP establishes partnerships with
officials in state and local criminal justice systems to
identify discretionary decision points in the pretrial, trial, and
postconviction process where policies and practices have an
adverse impact on people of color. RJIP subsequently provides
technical assistance and financial support to officials that
make up each task force within these jurisdictions to identify
the sources of racial disparities and to develop evidencebased policy reforms targeted at correcting these inequities.
At the heart of RJIP is the innovative task force model,
which was formulated and subsequently vetted over the course
of six years. This task force model facilitates cooperation
and communication among the various stakeholders within
the criminal justice system. A task force is a small group
of individuals that bring together a variety of expertise,
experience, and resources for a particular objective. Each
RJIP task force is comprised of key local stakeholders with
the ability to effect change in their jurisdiction, including the
chief of police, the chief prosecutor, the chief public defender,
the chief judge, supervisory institutions (i.e., corrections,
probation, parole), and a community representative. Not to
be overlooked is the significance of the cooperation of and
buy-in from these essential stakeholders and their respective
constituencies, who may not have ever worked as a unified
team. Collaborating allows for varying perspectives and
exhaustive conversations, resulting in a mutually agreed upon
policy reform in the interest of efficiency and fairness for
each of their respective entities.
The task force model is a unique alternative to other methods of criminal justice reform. Often criminal justice reforms
are sought through time-consuming and expensive legislative
change or impact litigation, or are stalled through uncooperative constituencies that classify any change as a burden.
Legislative and litigious methods are expensive, time-consuming, narrow in scope, unreliable, and oftentimes fail in the face
of bureaucracy and politics. The task force model’s focus on
policy change and day-to-day practice, while not free from all
obstacles, was designed with cost, efficiency, outcomes, and
time in mind. By bringing a small group of key stakeholders
together who have the power to make change, and working
toward common smaller goals that benefit each constituency,
this method of policy change allows for deliberation and positive cooperation among criminal justice agencies.
The method of the model is fairly straightforward. Once
appropriate criminal justice stakeholders are at the table, the task
force members conduct an initial assessment of their jurisdiction
and collect baseline data in potential areas of reform. With aid
from researchers and evaluators, the team then analyzes this data
and utilizes their collective expertise to brainstorm opportunities
for improvement and pathways for reform. This use of data is
absolutely critical—without proper data, parties can deny the
existence of a certain problem or manipulate insufficient data. This
data also may help similarly situated jurisdictions contemplating
reform in the future. Finally, having conducted a comprehensive
initial assessment, the task force can develop the scope of the
desired reform, inviting new stakeholders and experts to the
task force as necessary depending on the acquired data and
subsequent conclusions.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE n Fall 2016
Published in Criminal Justice, Volume 31, Number 3, ©2016 by the American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be copied
or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association.
JURISDICTION
ISSUE
REFORM
OUTCOME
Kings County,
New York
Overrepresentation of
youth of color in justice
system.
• Implemented three iterations of new
DAT diversion program offering eligible
youth valuable programming.
• Allowed successful participants to have
case closed and sealed.
• Facilitated trainings on cultural
and implicit bias and adolescent brain
development for judges.
• Over 160 youth had cases dismissed and
sealed upon program completion.
• Recidivism for program participants
only half that of counterparts. Valuable
programming offered from Department of
Education and Young New Yorkers.
• Trainings attended by over 85% of
New York City criminal judges and well
received.
Montgomery
County,
Pennsylvania
Disproportionate contact
with the criminal justice
system for youth of color.
• Expanded eligibility for preexisting
Youth Aid Panel (YAP) diversion program,
allowing for more participation.
• Offered case management to YAP
participants to provide more support.
• Provided aggression replacement
training (ART) for youth.
• 100% diversion program success
rate for case-managed participants who
appeared at YAP. Developing plans to
expand and sustain program.
• 48 youth ART participants thus far. Posttest instruments reveal improved skills for
dealing with feelings, reduction in physical
aggression, and improved skills for dealing
with stress.
St. Louis
County,
Minnesota
Racial bail-setting
discrepancies.
• Vetted and modified existing pretrial risk
assessment tool.
• Implemented checklist for judges to
consult during bail setting.
• Established the Community Sanctions
Program and Intensive Pre-Trial Release
Program.
• Hosted pretrial best practices trainings
for court officials.
• After 33 months of reform, 741 pretrial
detainees have been released, resulting in
$7.6 million of jail savings.
• Creation of Next Steps Program to aid
defendants in meeting pretrial conditions
successfully and obtaining mental health
and drug addiction support.
Dane County,
Wisconsin
High number of parents
of color charged with
excessive corporal
punishment.
• Held Keeping Kids Safe Conference in
2014.
• Launched enhanced diversion program
for parents, offering deferred prosecution
agreements.
• Thus far, 25 dismissals, four direct
referrals, and two charge reductions.
• Increased awareness of alternative
parenting approaches.
• Increased resources for family
reunification.
New Orleans,
Louisiana
Low opt-in and completion
rates of defendants of color
in preexisting diversion
program.
Inability of sex workers,
particularly sex workers
of color, to exit cyclic
criminal justice pathway.
• Developed and implemented new and
more targeted diversion program: Track 1.
• Developed Crossroads Diversion
Program to offer support and guidance for
sex workers.
• Track 1: Fostered opportunities for lowrisk offenders, 154 participants as of July
2015, high success rate.
• Crossroads: New partnership with
Women with a Vision, over 80 graduates
thus far receiving support and resources.
• On the heels of this success, additional
programs created, Adult Post-Plea
Diversion and Adult Misdemeanor
Diversion, resulting in increased
alternatives to detention.
Halifax County,
North Carolina
Inequitable pretrial
detention and bail
determinations.
• Piloted new vetted risk assessment
tool available during pretrial decisions.
• Conducted pretrial best practices
training and implicit bias training for
judges and other personnel.
• Developing new program for the
identified 15% of total jail population
found to be low-risk, disproportionately
black, low-level offenders unable to post
modest bail.
State of
Delaware
Disproportionate
probation revocations for
probationers of color.
• Modified violation report and automated • Relative rate index for probation
corrections system to include graduated
violations reduced from +3.90 to +1.18
sanctions.
for Blacks and –3.47 to –0.83 for whites,
indicating reduced disparity.
Published in Criminal Justice, Volume 31, Number 3, ©2016 by the American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be copied
or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association.
After a narrowed area of reform is chosen, the task force
then works with RJIP and experts in the field to develop
a reform pilot project. During and following reform, data
is collected in accordance with a detailed evaluation plan.
This data is used to evaluate the effectiveness of the reform
and to help improve or institutionalize the pilot program,
when applicable. Such data may also help task forces to
prove program effectiveness, gain support and funding, and
encourage other nearby or similarly situated jurisdictions to
undertake similar endeavors.
Additionally, task forces both host and receive training
on topics such as implicit bias, pretrial best practices, and
the distinct difficulties of juvenile justice. By supplementing
data-driven reform with a more practical and accessible
evidence-based or outreach component, the task forces are
more easily able to gain the support of other institutions and
the public at large. Often, policy changes are not widely
known by the community. However, trainings, town halls, and
conferences can help to publicize positive changes and reinstill
community trust in the criminal justice system.
The task force model is designed to address jurisdictions that are
unable to formulate appropriate reform efforts, where reforms are
shortsighted or lack essential buy-in from other key stakeholders
needed for appropriate implementation and ultimate success. Also
the model addresses the lack of communication between criminal
justice stakeholders, which often stalls otherwise hopeful reform
efforts. The task force model is a viable option for jurisdictions
wanting to implement low-cost, high-impact racial justice reform.
In utilizing the task force model, CJS has found great success in
criminal justice reform. The chart briefly summarizes the project’s
current outcomes in eight distinct jurisdictions. Following the
collaboration and promising results in each jurisdiction, RJIP
has initiated the next phase of the project and has been securing
30
the necessary resources and partnerships to ensure all reform
efforts can be effectively and efficiently sustained. RJIP
has recently partnered with the W.K. Kellogg Foundation
and the Public Welfare Foundation to continue its work in
other jurisdictions. Additionally, members from the various
task forces have been attending national conferences and
conventions, presenting on the important and successful work
of RJIP in hopes of inviting new stakeholders to the table.
Project staff maintain a project website (http://
racialjusticeproject.weebly.com/) that provides information
to the public in addition to serving as a central provider of
various toolkits on implementing reform to jurisdictions
across the country. The RJIP team is continuing efforts to offer
valuable and informative training sessions for members of the
criminal justice system to promote best practices and provide
insight into the leading causes of disparity and inequity. These
efforts are made possible by the tireless efforts of a committed
and hardworking project staff and the CJS.
Like many important initiatives, the ABA Racial Justice
Improvement Project has helped to implement through
national policy reform evidence-based practices that work
to make criminal justice systems more efficient and fair.
The task force model has empowered key stakeholders to
improve their communities and seeks to facilitate reforms
for jurisdictions desiring change. However, despite the
positive work of RJIP and other criminal justice reformoriented organizations, chronic racial disparities driven by
ineffective policies in the criminal justice system go largely
unaddressed and/or unacknowledged. (See N ellis , C olor of
Justice, supra.) It is the hope that appropriate awareness and
continued commitment to positive change can spur rapid,
intensive, and ambitious reform that aims for a more fair and
efficient system. n
CRIMINAL JUSTICE n Fall 2016
Published in Criminal Justice, Volume 31, Number 3, ©2016 by the American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be copied
or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association.