Prosecution and Racial Justice: Examining the Impacts of - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Prosecution and Racial Justice: Examining the Impacts of Prosecutorial Discretion Presentation to the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, September 2013 Slide 1

Presentation Outline • Introduction of the Vera Institute of Justice and the Prosecution and Racial Justice Program (PRJ) • Need for research and data on prosecution • PRJ mission, model, and methodology • Examples • Discussion Slide 2 • October 16, 2013

The Vera Institute of Justice The Vera Institute of Justice combines expertise in research, demonstration projects, and technical assistance to help leaders in government and civil society improve the systems people rely on for justice and safety. Vera is an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit center for justice policy and practice, with offices in New York City, Washington, DC, New Orleans and Los Angeles. Our projects and reform initiatives, typically conducted in partnership with local, state, or national officials, are located across the United States and around the world. Slide 3 • October 16, 2013 3

Racial Justice: A Growing Concern Among Criminal Justice Stakeholders Slide 4 • October 16, 2013

Need for Research and Data Lack of data to support prosecutors’ efforts to achieve racial fairness Unavailability of data on prosecution, generally Limited access to prosecutorial files Sensitivity of data Disconnect between researchers and prosecutors Slide 5 • October 16, 2013

An Innovative Approach: The Prosecution and Racial Justice Program Slide 6 • October 16, 2013

PRJ Mission PRJ promotes racial fairness by: 1. Partnering with prosecutors to analyze the impact of their decisions and develop policies to address unwarranted racial and ethnic disparities; 2. Serving as a resource for research, technical assistance, innovation, and policy development in the areas of prosecution and racial justice; and 3. Engaging communities in improving prosecutorial accountability and enhancing public safety. Slide 7 • October 16, 2013

PRJ Mission PRJ promotes racial fairness by: 1. Partnering with prosecutors to analyze the impact of their decisions and develop policies to address unwarranted racial and ethnic disparities; 2. Serving as a resource for research, technical assistance, innovation, and policy development in the areas of prosecution and racial justice; and 3. Engaging communities in improving prosecutorial accountability and enhancing public safety. Slide 8 • October 16, 2013

PRJ Methodology We work collaboratively with prosecutors to: Analyze data about the exercise and impacts of prosecutorial discretion; Assist in developing routine policies and practices that promote fairness, efficiency and professionalism in prosecution; and Provide technical assistance to help prosecutors implement those measures. Slide 9 • October 16, 2013

Our Partner Sites • Mecklenburg County, NC • San Diego, CA • Milwaukee, WI • New York County, NY We will announce two new sites in the near future. Slide 10 • October 16, 2013

Partnership Model: Phase 1 5. Review 3. Study 1. Identify 2. Build 4. Collect and Partner and Partner Partnerships Data Analyze Jurisdiction Data Slide 11 • October 16, 2013 11

Partnership Model: Phase 2 10. Develop 7.Revise 8.Submit the 9.Discuss Policy 6.Draft Report Draft Report Findings Recommend ations Slide 12 • October 16, 2013 12

Partnership Model: Phase 3 11.Provide 12.Evaluate Technical Outcomes Assistance Slide 13 • October 16, 2013 13

PRJ Methodology: Examples Slide 14

PRJ Methodology Look at various discretion points Analyze specific offense categories Use multivariate statistical techniques Slide 15 • October 16, 2013

New York County District Attorney’s Office Slide 16 • October 16, 2013

Manhattan: Research Project Overview Funding : National Institute of Justice; $390K; Jan 2012 – Aug 2013 Solicitation: “ Building and Enhancing Criminal Justice Research- Practitioner Partnership ” Nature of partnership: placement of two researchers at DANY Objective: to examine the impact of defendants’ race on: 1. Case acceptance 2. Pretrial detention 3. Case dismissal 4. Reduced charge offers and custodial sentence offers 5. Sentencing outcomes Hypotheses: informed by previous research and PRJ’s work Data sources: admin data, ADA interviews, and case file reviews Slide 17 • October 16, 2013

Population Data (all cases) 222,542 cases disposed of in 2010-2011 31,716 Whites 103,892 Blacks 74,625 Latinos 9,111 Asians 371 Other Gender: 83% Male Age: average = 34 years old All misdemeanors and a selection of felonies Excluded defendants under 16 years of age Slide 18 • October 16, 2013

Slide 19

Percentage Detained Comparing White, Black, Asian and Latino Defendants Slide 20

Regression Predicting Detention After Arraignment Controlling for Charge Seriousness, Number of Charges, Number of Counts, Age, Gender, Prior Arrest, Prior Prison Sentence, and Defense Counsel Type Slide 21

Percentage of Case Dismissals Comparing White, Black, Asian and Latino Defendants Slide 22

Regression Predicting Case Dismissals Controlling for: Charge Seriousness, Number of Charges, Number of Counts, Age, Gender, Prior Arrest, Prior Prison Sentence, and Defense Counsel Type Slide 23

Percentage of Custodial Offers Comparing White, Black, Asian and Latino Defendants Slide 24

Regression Predicting Custodial Offer Controlling for charge seriousness, number of charges, number of counts, age, gender, prior arrest, prior prison sentence and defense counsel type Slide 25

Percentage of Custodial Sentences Imposed Comparing White, Black, Asian and Latino Defendants Slide 26

Regression Predicting Custodial Sentence Controlling for Charge Seriousness, Number of Charges, Number of Counts, Age, Gender, Prior Arrest, Prior Prison Sentence, Arrest Neighborhood and Defense Counsel Type Slide 27

Mecklenburg County, NC Slide 28 • October 16, 2013

Mecklenburg County, NC • Goal: to develop office processes to identify and address racial disparities in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. To reach that goal, PRJ and MCDA worked together to: • design data analysis protocols that would track prosecutorial decision-making outcomes and identify patterns of disparity at key discretionary points; • help MCDA integrate these analysis protocols into its management process; • develop and implement policies and strategies focusing on racial fairness; and • communicate the district attorney’s efforts to other chief prosecutors interested in learning how to promote racial justice within their offices. Slide 29 • October 16, 2013

Mecklenburg County, NC Focused on drug cases Upgraded management of drug case data from paper files to MekStat Initial statistical findings led to a more rigorous initial screening process for drug cases, resulting in a greater than 10-percent decrease in prosecutions and a corresponding decrease in dismissals later in the process. New procedures allowed prosecutors to identify weak cases at the beginning of the process, saving resources for more meritorious cases. Slide 30 • October 16, 2013

Milwaukee, WI Slide 31 • October 16, 2013

Analysis Plan All closed cases between January 2009 & June 2010 Two discretion points • Initial screening (case issued versus rejected) • Plea offers (custodial versus non-custodial plea offers) Race – “white” compared to “black” defendants Analyzed nine broad offense categories • Person, property, drug, admin./public order, etc. Examined specific offense categories • Differences were found in 3 case categories: resisting and obstructing, prostitution and domestic violence Slide 32 • October 16, 2013

Initial Screening Findings: Domestic Violence 10,455 defendants with domestic violence (DV) cases 91% of DV cases were intra-racial 67% black D & black V ( N =7,056) 24% white D & white V ( N =2,549) 7% black D & white V ( N =717) 1% white D & black V ( N =133) Slide 33 • October 16, 2013

Initial Screening Findings: Domestic Violence 45% 38% 40% 35% 34% 35% White D/Black V 31% 30% 28% 27% 27% 27% White D/White V 26% 23% 25% Black D/Black V 20% 20% 17% Black D/ White V 15% 10% 5% 0% Overall Non-MPD MPD Slide 34 • October 16, 2013

Initial Screening Findings: Domestic Violence 45% 38% 40% 35% 34% 35% White D/Black V 31% 30% 28% 27% 27% 27% White D/White V 26% 23% 25% Black D/Black V 20% 20% 17% Black D/ White V 15% 10% 5% 0% Overall Non-MPD MPD Slide 35 • October 16, 2013

Initial Screening Findings: Domestic Violence There was no significant difference in prosecution by D’s race Cases involving a black V were less likely to be prosecuted than cases involving a white V Cases were most likely to be prosecuted when the D was black and V was white, compared to cases with a white D and black V, which were least likely to be prosecuted. Slide 36 • October 16, 2013

Domestic Violence, Next Steps Training and policy development Enlisting expertise of: • Vera • National experts • Victim advocates • Service providers • Prosecutors • Local law enforcement Slide 37 • October 16, 2013