We are always working with partners to ask hard questions about the justice system and develop new ideas for evaluations. Below are some of the questions and designs in our current pipeline:
Citation in lieu of Arrest
The Problem: Nationally, about twelve million people lose their freedom to arrest each year. These arrests have the potential to impact housing and employment outcomes for years to come. They also take officers off the street. A primary justification for arrest, one the United States Supreme Court invokes, is to assure appearance at court proceedings.
The Questions: Is using a citation (like a traffic ticket) in lieu of arrest for certain offenses a solution that can reduce the negative impacts of arrest while preserving court appearance rates and public safety? Is arrest worth the costs, as compared to alternatives?
The Study: With potential to launch in multiple jurisdictions, this evaluation could take one of several forms, including:
1) Individuals identified by law enforcement of committing an offense that is eligible for a permissive citation in lieu of arrest, and who pose no discernible safety risk to themselves or to the officer or to the public, will be assigned by lottery to either arrest or to receive a citation; or
2) Individuals identified by law enforcement of committing an offense that is eligible for a permissive citation in lieu of arrest, and who pose no discernible safety risk to themselves or to the officer or to the public, will be assigned by lottery to either arrest or receipt of citation in lieu of arrest by officer discretion or by random assignment.
What We’ll Learn: If proven effective, using citation could reduce costs and downstream impacts individuals experience due to arrest, while at the same time making more police officers available for other work. This intervention also has the potential to scale nationally.
Eviction Triage
The Problem: Residential displacement can disrupt a host of life activities and undoubtedly takes an emotional toll on tenants and their families. To mitigate those impacts, we need to know more about how tenants find themselves as defendants in summary eviction proceedings, the role that lawyers play in stopping or delaying those proceedings, and whether existing legal solutions address the problems of eviction as we understand them.
The Questions: How well do lawyers allocate the scarce resource of their time? Does legal representation yield improved outcomes for those facing eviction?
The Study: With its field partners, the A2J Lab has designed a double-randomized study. This RCT will investigate (1) how well lawyers make decisions about whom to represent; and (2) whether outcomes with direct representation are measurably different from those where tenants only have access to self-help materials. After staff attorneys conduct intake and make provisional representation decisions, the A2J Lab will randomize each potential client into one of two groups (the first level of randomization). In the first group, the attorney’s decision will be followed; in the second group, another random decision will replace the attorney’s. Among that second group, a computer-based randomizer will “decide” whether the potential client receives an offer of representation or self-help materials (the second level of randomization).
What We’ll Learn: This RCT design will help identify which eviction defendants’ outcomes truly depend on representation, whether those outcomes are continuances, stays of execution, or even possession of the apartment. It also will reveal whether the offer of direct representation increases the probability of success relative to receiving the self-help packet. Considering the larger social impact of eviction, this study will include non-adjudicatory outcomes measures such as the incidence of homelessness, unemployment, and adverse health effects, among other individual welfare consequences.
Legal Services for Domestic Violence Survivors
The Problem: Victims of domestic violence/sexual assault (DV/SA) experience the highest incidence of ancillary civil legal needs: on average, about eighteen per person in one state [this is crucial because the estimate isn’t nationwide, only from Washington State]. Yet the standard of care for civil legal assistance in the DV/SA context lags behind support for criminal prosecution. Compounding the problem is a severe lack of legal services in high-volume matters such as eviction and small-claims suits. The general expectation, therefore, is that DV/SA survivors will navigate the court system alone.
The Questions: Does supporting DV/SA survivors in accessing available civil legal resources improve social outcomes and/or reduce revictimization? If so, could that model be replicated in other jurisdictions? This high-need, vulnerable population is difficult to study; they also have complex needs that demand the best possible allocation of limited resources. Can service providers employ research tools that indicate what really works?
The Study: The A2J Lab has designed an evaluation to determine the impact of a unique resources referral program that assigns a legal navigator to assess survivors’ needs holistically and match them with appropriate resources. Participants will be randomized to one of two conditions: (1) automatic referral to the program; or (2) referral to other services, including direct referral to legal aid providers without the assistance of the program. The program will use a new survey tool to follow up directly with participants.
What We’ll Learn: The study will provide policymakers with concrete data about whether or not the program works and thus whether it is advisable to replicate (and continue to evaluate) the model elsewhere. In addition, by using new digital tools to survey DV/SA survivors, the evaluation will generate valuable data about whether or not online and text-based survey tools are effective ways to communicate with this vulnerable population.
Persistent Low-Level Offenders Diversion Program
Research: A re-emerging movement in the United States supports less frequent and less aggressive use of the hallmarks of the modern criminal justice system: physical arrest, maximal charging, predisposition incarceration, hyper-aggressive plea bargaining, minimum incarceration terms, X-strike laws, lengthy prison sentences, and other “innovations” in criminal justice policy stemming from the 1980s. But, putting aside marijuana legalization, there is less of a movement toward decriminalization of many currently prohibited actions. The following question thus becomes of paramount importance: If we continue to believe that certain conduct should remain illegal, but we do not want to use the criminal justice system to address those incidences of that conduct, what should we do when individuals engage in that conduct, especially repeated engagement?
There is renewed interest in predisposition diversion. The phrase “predisposition diversion” applies to a range of programs that vary by location; by whether they are available before or after charge filing; by whether they include training, addiction reduction measures, financial, housing or clothing support, counseling, or other services; and by whether they include record-clearing. These programs intend to divert participants away from standard criminal justice administration, which creates a criminal record and can include incarceration. Ordinarily, successful completion of a diversion program results in dismissal of the underlying criminal charge. Especially for low-level offenses, diversion programs are appealing to criminal justice stakeholders across the political spectrum.
If they work, diversion programs could benefit many people, particularly those incarcerated predisposition because they cannot pay bail, find an open slot in treatment programs, or identify a permanent residence. Frequently, inability to meet these conditions causes disproportionate impact on minority communities, the impoverished, the homeless, and those in need of specialized treatment. Many researchers, including the present research team, hypothesize that a criminal record limits economic mobility, and those effects disproportionately affect people of color.
If diversion could be a solution for some portion of the population incarcerated predisposition, questions emerge. First, does diversion work, meaning does it favorably affect some or all of recidivism, employment, mental and physical health, or housing security? Diversion is not a new idea, so it is astonishing that there have been only two randomized controlled trials (“RCTs”) in the history of the United States of any adult diversion programs, with neither producing definitive results.[1] Second, what does “diversion” mean in practice? Is it merely diverting from incarceration, or should it consist of diverting to something, particularly treatment, assistance, and/or community-based services? And if diversion to treatment or community-based services can make a difference, what types of programs do justice-involved individuals need to get them to take up those options?
What We’ll Learn: We address these questions via an RCT that evaluates the impact of a diversion program deployed in Toledo, Ohio targeting persistent low-level alleged offenders, defined as those who are repeatedly charged with, and often incarcerated pre- and sometimes post-disposition for, offenses that few in or out of the justice system would consider serious. A particular hope of the architects of this program from the Toledo Municipal Court is that reducing predisposition incarceration might increase economic mobility, reduce total incarceration periods, and cause no increase in risk to the community. The population eligible to participate in the diversion program is disproportionately Black, Hispanic, and Native.
Research Team: We partner with the Toledo Municipal Court in Ohio to field the evaluation.
[1] Sally Hillsman Baker and Susan Sadd, “Diversion of Felony Arrests: An Experiment in Pre-Trial Intervention,” US Dep. Justice, Natl. Inst. Justice (1981) (randomized study of pretrial diversion program in New York City); JAMES F. AUSTIN, NAT’L COUNCIL ON CRIME AND DELINQUENCY, PRETRIAL ADULT DIVERSION: A STUDY AND IMPACT OF PROCESS (1980) (randomized study of a pretrial diversion program in San Pablo, California).
Embedded Legal Services as a Child Welfare and Justice System Primary Prevention Strategy
Research: The law requires certain professionals (“mandated reporters”) to report to local child protective services (“CPS”) agencies what those professionals perceive as potential child abuse or neglect. Because these mandated reporters—for example, physicians or teachers–lack alternatives, they sometimes also refer to CPS cases that they do not have to report, and might prefer not to report if there were an option other than CPS to attempt to address the situation. To reiterate, these optional reports are for cases near the margin – cases for which, if there were another alternative, reporters would not refer to CPS. Mandated reporters inform the A2J Lab that many of these “marginal cases” exist. These marginal cases often share some characteristics of instances of actionable neglect but might more accurately be characterized as resulting from poverty and its associated legal consequences. If so, then the problems could be susceptible to poverty-focused social and legal assistance (such as help with benefits applications, bankruptcy, or domestic violence protection orders) instead of CPS’ more punitive approach.
What We’ll Learn: This project will field a randomized controlled trial (“RCT”) of a program that integrates poverty-focused holistic legal and social work services into medical and educational settings that include mandated reporters. These poverty-focused holistic legal and social programs target marginal cases, again, cases approaching but not on or over the line of a mandated CPS report. The hypothesis is that such poverty-focused services will reduce the frequency with which these marginal cases are reported to CPS. In particular, the hope is that there will be fewer reports to CPS that result in “no-action” determinations, i.e., cases in which CPS investigates (thus imposing harm on the family) but takes no action (thus providing no benefit to the family). Given the national reach of the CPS system, evidence that poverty-focused legal and social services reduce the rate of investigations, especially no-action investigations, would improve the wellbeing of children and families and could revolutionize national CPS reporting policy.
Research Team: We partner with the Carolina Health Advocacy Medicolegal Partnership (“CHAMPS”), housed in the University of South Carolina (“USC”) School of Law, and the Kansas Holistic Defenders, serving Shawnee county, Kansas, to field the evaluation. We partner with Dr. Tricia Stephens, Associate Professor at the Silberman School of Social Work at Hunter College to conduct the evaluation.
Evaluation of Prompt Access to Quality Representation in Kenya and Tunisia
Research: The International Legal Foundation (“ILF”) established prompt access to quality representation programs in two courts in both Tunis and Sousse, Tunisia in 2021 and is in the process of establishing similar programs in two courts in Nairobi, Kenya. In both locations, the number of low- and middle-income individuals not able to afford counsel on their own in misdemeanor and petty offense criminal matters far exceeds the capacity of the ILF offices. Despite a National Legal Aid Act in Kenya and a right to counsel codified in both nations, there are virtually no government-paid lawyers for the accused who cannot afford them. In practice, lawyers are not appointed in misdemeanor or petty offense cases notwithstanding a right to such counsel on paper, principally because those in the system know that counsel is not presently available. Thus, even in Tunisia, where the ILF is established, the present standard of care for the accused is more often than not no counsel.
In addition, while there is some research suggesting that early provision of counsel improves the criminal justice outcomes for the accused, that research (i) is sporadic, (ii) was generated entirely in the United States legal setting, (iii) provides no information at all on whether improvement in criminal justice outcomes translates into better socioeconomic outcomes, and (iv) does not address cost effectiveness.
What We’ll Learn: Using a randomized control trial (“RCT”), we address the question of whether prompt access to quality representation affects legal and social outcomes for defendants in misdemeanors and petty offenses in Nairobi, Kenya and Tunis and Sousse, Tunisia. In the RCT, accused individuals will be randomized either to receive prompt access to quality representation (the “Enhanced Services Group”) or not (the “Status Quo Group”).
Research Team: We will partner with the ILF and local research organizations in the study sites to conduct the evaluation. We will partner with the ILF programs providing prompt access to quality representation in the study locations to field the operation.