criminal justice reflection essay

• University Libraries
• Criminal Justice Guide for Graduate Students
• Write a Reflective Essay

Criminal Justice Guide for Graduate Students: Write a Reflective Essay

• Introduction
• Select Topic/Find Policy Resources
• Find Articles and Books
• Evaluate Sources
• Find Data/Statistics
• Write a Literature Review
• Write a Thesis
• Use APA Style
• Instructor Teaching and Learning Resources

Writing a Reflective Essay

A reflective essay is a critical examination of a life experience. For students pursuing a Master of Science in Criminal Justice with a Concentration in Theory and Research, a reflective essay means writing about connections between experiences and theoretical concepts learned, and considering future implications. Below are some resources that may help students understand how to write a reflective essay. 

Reflective writing articles and websites

• Scheidegger, A. R. (2020). Incorporating reflective writing into criminal justice courses. Reflective Practice, 21(1), 122-131. If you want to understand WHY reflective essays are powerful learning tools, this essay will explain. In the process of explaining the WHY, the article also helps to demystify HOW to write a reflective essay.
• USC Libraries Research Guides -- Writing a Reflective Paper
• Critical Reflection by University of Waterloo -- Writing and Communication Centre
• The Purpose of Reflection: Why is Reflection Important in the Writing Classroom? by Purdue University Department of English
• A Complete Guide to Writing a Reflective Essay - -Oxbridge Essays

Reflective writing videos

Reflective writing books

• << Previous: Write a Literature Review
• Next: Write a Thesis >>

Additional Links

UNT: Apply now UNT: Schedule a tour UNT: Get more info about the University of North Texas

UNT: Disclaimer | UNT: AA/EOE/ADA | UNT: Privacy | UNT: Electronic Accessibility | UNT: Required Links | UNT: UNT Home

• Mardigian Library
• Subject Guides

CRJ/SOC 467: Drugs, Crime, & Justice

• Write Your Paper and Essay Exams
• Online Library Access
• Find Scholarly Sources
• What is Peer-Review?
• Read & Analyze your Articles
• Select Your Sources
• Use Your Sources
• Avoid Plagiarism
• Write & Cite in APA

Behavioral Sciences and Women's & Gender Studies Librarian

Writing Your Reflection Paper and Essay Exams

Your reflection paper and essay exams should have an introduction, body, and conclusion.

1.  Introduction : summarizes what you will write and puts it into context

• Start the introduction with background that contextualizes the paper's main topic
• End the introduction with a thesis statement, which outlines the main points of the paper and how you will address them

2.  Body : presents the main points of the paper, with each paragraph representing one aspect of the paper's main focus. Prioritize and organize your main points and paragraphs to logically build your arguments to a compelling conclusion. Each paragraph should include a topic sentence, evidence, analysis, and a transition sentence:

• The topic sentence summarizes the paragraph's main idea
• Use evidence from your research sources to support or make the argument for your main ideas
• Analyze your evidence to show how it links to your broader topic
• Include a transition sentence at the end of each paragraph to connect what you discussed in that paragraph with the main idea of the next paragraph

3.  Conclusion : summarizes what you wrote and what you learned

• Restate your thesis from the introduction in different words
• Briefly summarize your main points or arguments and pull them together into your conclusions on your topic
• End with a strong, final statement that ties the whole paper together and makes it clear the paper has come to an end
• No new ideas should be introduced in the conclusion, it should only review and analyze the main points from the body of the paper (with the exception of suggestions for further research)

For more writing help, contact  the Writing Center   and  make an online appointment  to meet with one of their consultants.

• << Previous: Write & Cite in APA
• Last Updated: Apr 26, 2024 8:26 AM
• URL: https://guides.umd.umich.edu/crj467

Call us at 313-593-5559

Chat with us

Text us: 313-486-5399

Email us your question

• 4901 Evergreen Road Dearborn, MI 48128, USA
• Phone: 313-593-5000
• Maps & Directions
• M+Google Mail
• Emergency Information
• UM-Dearborn Connect
• Wolverine Access

CRM 350: Criminal Justice Ethics (ONLINE): Reflection Papers

• Reflection Papers

Be sure and check with your professor regarding the types of resources you may use for this course.  The links provided on this page are considered scholarly sources, but your professor may require peer-reviewed journal articles.  If in doubt, ask your professor for clarification.  

Reflection Paper #1

Morality and law.

The relationship between morality and law is perhaps the fundamental issue in modern Western legal theory. 

Social Contract

Social contract theories hold that a social arrangement—a set of moral norms or political institutions—and its justification consist in agreement on its terms by those who participate in it. 

Morality Versus Law

From encyclopedia of criminal justice ethics.

Laws are enacted by a legislature. Moreover, in a democracy, by virtue of laws passed by the duly elected representatives of the people, laws reflect the will of the citizenry, or at least this is so by the lights of the standard theory of representative democracy.

From Encyclopedia of Diversity and Social Justice

Morality includes the principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

Reflection paper #2

Kohlberg’s stages of moral development, from encyclopedia of educational psychology.

The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. 

Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Reasoning

From gale encyclopedia of children's health: infancy through adolescence.

Kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning is a theory positing six stages of moral development advanced by the American psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg (1927–1987).

Kohlberg, Lawrence: Moral Development Theory

From encyclopedia of criminological theory, kohlberg, lawrence.

Lawrence Kohlberg (1927–87) was a Jewish American psychologist born in Bronxville, New York. Specializing in research on moral education and reasoning, he is best known for his theory about stages of moral development, which first appeared in his 1958 dissertation. 

Reflection paper #3

Los angeles race riots of 1992, from encyclopedia of race and crime, king, rodney (1965-).

Rodney Glen King is an African American male who made national headlines after four White Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officers were unknowingly videotaped using excessive force against him. The videotape was aired by every major television network across America.

Police, Use of Violence/Excessive Force

From encyclopedia of interpersonal violence, police use of force, reflection paper #4, reflection paper #5, jury selection and behavior, from the encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice, jury selection.

In the U.S. criminal legal procedure, the voir dire process of selecting jury members has been the focus of intense scrutiny by those concerned about procedural fairness in the criminal justice system.

The jury selection process is one of the most important components in the American criminal justice system; however, it has been questioned whether court participants receive a fair trial under the present process.

from  Handbook of Forensic Psychology: Resource for Mental Health and Legal Professionals

Jury consultants are often engaged well before trial to evaluate the jury pool, for one of two purposes—either to support remedies for pretrial publicity (such as a change of venue (location) for the trial), or to support a composition challenge (a challenge to the racial/demographic composition of the venire). In effect, the trial consultant is asked to aid with determination of the entire jury venue or venire prior to selection of individual jurors.

Reflection Paper #6

Capital punishment, from encyclopedia of crime and punishment, capital punishment, from 21st century criminology: a reference handbook, reflection paper #7, what happens when you put good people in an evil place : philip zimbardo(1933–), from big ideas simply explained: the psychology book, correctional psychology, from gale encyclopedia of psychology, stanford prison experiment, from dictionary of prisons and punishment.

The Stanford Prison Experiment was conducted in 1971 by a group of Stanford University research psychologists.

Prison Corruption

• << Previous: APA/Zotero
• Last Updated: Mar 21, 2024 8:13 PM
• URL: https://slulibrary.saintleo.edu/c.php?g=1224928

Home — Essay Samples — Law, Crime & Punishment — Crime Prevention & Criminal Justice — Criminal Justice

Essays on Criminal Justice

Criminal justice essay topics and outline examples, essay title 1: reforming the criminal justice system: challenges, progress, and the road ahead.

Thesis Statement: This essay examines the challenges within the criminal justice system, the progress made in recent years, and the ongoing efforts required to reform and ensure a fair and equitable system for all.

• Introduction
• The Criminal Justice System: Structure and Key Components
• Challenges and Injustices: Racial Disparities, Mass Incarceration, and Sentencing
• Reform Movements: Criminal Justice Reform Advocacy and Legislation
• Alternatives to Incarceration: Restorative Justice and Rehabilitation
• Police Reform: Building Trust and Accountability in Law Enforcement
• The Role of Technology: Advancements in Criminal Justice Practices
• Conclusion: Towards a More Just and Equitable Criminal Justice System

Essay Title 2: Criminal Justice and Civil Rights: Analyzing the Intersection, Historical Struggles, and Contemporary Debates

Thesis Statement: This essay explores the intersection of criminal justice and civil rights, tracing historical struggles for equality, and examining contemporary debates regarding policing, incarceration, and civil liberties.

• Civil Rights Movements: Historical Context and Achievements
• Law Enforcement and Civil Rights: Cases of Police Brutality and Protests
• Mass Incarceration: Disproportionate Impact on Communities of Color
• Criminal Justice Reforms: The Role of Advocacy and Grassroots Movements
• The Fourth Amendment: Searches, Seizures, and Privacy Rights
• Contemporary Debates: Balancing Security and Civil Liberties
• Conclusion: Upholding Civil Rights within the Criminal Justice System

Essay Title 3: International Perspectives on Criminal Justice: Comparative Analysis of Legal Systems and Global Challenges

Thesis Statement: This essay provides a comparative analysis of criminal justice systems worldwide, highlighting variations in legal approaches, international cooperation, and shared challenges in addressing transnational crime.

• Legal Systems: Common Law, Civil Law, and Hybrid Systems
• International Law Enforcement: Interpol, UNODC, and Global Cooperation
• Transnational Crime: Cybercrime, Human Trafficking, and Drug Trafficking
• Human Rights and Criminal Justice: International Treaties and Agreements
• Case Studies: Comparative Analysis of Criminal Justice in Selected Countries
• Challenges of Globalization: Addressing Legal and Jurisdictional Issues
• Conclusion: The Quest for Effective Global Criminal Justice Solutions

Most Popular Criminal Justice Essay Topics in 2024

• The Evolution of Cybercrime Laws in the Digital Age
• Reforming the Bail System: Balancing Justice and Fairness
• Racial Bias and Reform in Policing Practices
• The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Criminal Investigations
• Balancing Rights and Health: Public Smoking Ban Dilemmas
• Restorative Justice: Benefits and Challenges in Modern Society
• Drug Decriminalization: Effects on Crime Rates and Public Health
• Epstein Case Controversies: Societal & Justice System Impact
• The Role of Mental Health in the Criminal Justice System
• Privacy Rights vs. Surveillance: Finding the Balance in Criminal Justice

Jeffrey Dahmers Influence on Necrophilia

Reverse sting case study, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Deterrence and Restorative Justice

Wrongful convictions in criminal justice system, racial discrimination in the us criminal justice, the role of the jury system, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Victimology: Concept, Definition, Paradigms and Paradoxes

Problems and reforms needed: how to improve the criminal justice system, corruption in a criminal justice system, the special needs of the criminal justice on mental illness cases, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

The U.s. Criminal Justice System and Its Phases

The criminal justice system in the uk, personal writing: criminal justice career choices, american criminal justice system: the different stages of an arrest, mass incarceration, criminal justice system, and racial inequality in the united states, from toxic friends to criminal justice, intelligence, probation and prisons in criminal justice, accountability of criminal activity by minors, the golden rule of criminal jurisprudence, police brutality in the us: history and ways to improve, the crime of theft through the marxism theory and merton’s strain theory, exclusionary rule in america: pros and cons, why capital punishment should be legalized, revisiting the debate on capital punishment: an ielts perspective, criminal careers: how they are produced, the importance of youth diversion & current conditions of diversion programs in victoria, the effectiveness of rehabilitation vs harsh punishment, dostoevsky’s view of submission, racial bias in the u.s. criminal justice system, difficulties faced by the criminal justice system in responding to sex offenders.

Criminal justice is the delivery of justice to those who have been accused of committing crimes. The criminal justice system is a series of government agencies and institutions.

Law enforcement agencies, usually the police. Courts and accompanying prosecution and defence lawyers. Agencies for detaining and supervising offenders, such as prisons and probation agencies.

Goals of criminal justice include the rehabilitation of offenders, preventing other crimes, and moral support for victims.

Relevant topics

• Juvenile Delinquency
• Juvenile Justice System
• Forensic Science
• Mass Incarceration
• Criminal Behavior
• Criminal Profiling
• Criminology
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Investigation

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Criminal Justice Reflection

The paper discusses crime and crime scenes as depicted in the article “Policing for Homeland Security Policy & Research“ by Willard M. Oliver (2009). It also looks at the different models of policing that have been developed for this purpose. The paper then explains how current criminal justice professionals are addressing the trend presented in the article. It discusses how this has changed over time, and it also looks at the different ways that policing can be used to achieve homeland security goals. The paper concludes by Reflecting on my belief in this trend and how it will affect my future career in criminal justice.

The crime described in these articles is the Pentagon and World Trade Centre September 11 th  terrorist attacks (9/11). Therefore, in the article, terrorism is the crime, while crime scenes are Pentagon and World Trade Centre. The authors discuss how this event has affected the criminal justice field, specifically in policing and homeland security (Oliver, 2009). Furthermore, they argue that the 9/11 attacks have resulted in a greater emphasis on homeland security and increased funding necessitated for police change departments. The new funding measures have led to new practices and policies, particularly in homeland security. Specifically, the authors discuss how police departments have had to adapt their strategies to address the new challenges posed by terrorism (Stemm, 2022). In addition, they discuss how these changes have increased government funding for police departments due to the 9/11 attacks. This has led to changes in departmental practices, such as the militarization of police forces.

Oliver (2009) argues that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were a watershed moment for law enforcement. Prior to that, agencies had been primarily focused on combating crime and enforcing the law. After 9/11, however, agencies were thrust into the role of protecting the nation from future terrorist attacks. This change in focus has had a number of consequences for the field of criminal justice. To begin with, law enforcement agencies have had to invest more resources in homeland security. This has led to an increase in the number of arrests and prosecutions related to terrorism. In addition, law enforcement agencies have had to change their approach to policing. For example, they have had to shift their focus from investigating crimes to preventing them. Secondly, the task of protecting the nation has led to changes in the way law enforcement interacts with the public. For example, law enforcement agencies have been increasingly reluctant to release information about cases. This has led to a lack of transparency in the criminal justice system.

Current Justice System and September 11 th  Attack

Oliver’s (2009) article highlights the trend that homeland security is becoming a greater priority for the police. Criminal justice professionals are addressing concern homeland security concerns, training and education in these areas, and collaboration and coordination amongst various agencies. Second, this tendency is also changing how police are utilized and deployed, with a stronger emphasis on community policing and reactive policing. Criminal justice experts are tackling homeland security by enhancing collaboration between various agencies and teaching cops how to handle such challenges. This will help ensure that the police can respond quickly and effectively to any potential threats. Moreover, criminal justice professionals are also working to increase the cooperation between law enforcement and the community to build trust and ensure that the community can provide feedback on how policing is being conducted. This will help improve policy practices and ensure the police respond effectively to any potential threats.

The increased focus on security has also had a significant impact on the ability of police to fight crime. The increased procedures and rules required of police make it more difficult for them to patrol the streets and track down criminals, and this has led to an increase in the number of crimes committed (Phillips, 2021). Overall, homeland security changes that have taken place in the field of criminal justice due to homeland security policy have significantly impacted the ability of police to do their job effectively. This has led to an increase in the number of crimes that are committed and an increase in the amount of paperwork that is required to investigate cases. This has made it difficult for police to track the progress of investigations, which has led to an increase in the number of unsolved cases.

I believe the trend of increased focus on homeland security will affect my future career in criminal justice in several ways. First, as someone with a strong research interest, this trend will open up new opportunities for me to contribute to the criminal justice field through policy analysis and research. Additionally, this trend will likely increase the demand for criminal justice professionals with expertise in homeland security as the policy implications of these developments will become increasingly important.

Finally, given my weaknesses in areas such as public speaking and writing clear policy proposals, I anticipate that this trend will challenge me to develop new skills to succeed in the challenging field. While the trend of increased focus on homeland security will have a number of significant impacts on my future career in criminal justice, one of the most significant impacts will be on my ability to develop policy proposals that are clear and concise. Overall, I believe that the trend of increased focus on homeland security will positively impact my future criminal justice career, as it will help me develop the skills necessary to be successful in the field.

Oliver, W. M. (2009). Policing for homeland security: Policy & research.  Criminal justice policy review ,  20 (3), 253–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403409337368

Stemm, A. (2022). Necessary or Outdated: Are Post-9/11 Changes to US Police Forces Still Justifiable? https://digitalcommons.wou.edu/honors_theses

Phillips, B. J. (2021). How did 9/11 affect terrorism research? Examining Articles and Authors, 1970–2019.  Terrorism and Political Violence , pp. 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546553.2021.1935889

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Related Essays

International law final paper, the role of an expert in a podcast, psychology as a science, the history of psychiatry and mental disorders, significance of psychometric analysis of undergraduate nursing students using depression, anxiety and stress scale, children’s learning and challenges of english spelling, popular essay topics.

• American Dream
• Artificial Intelligence
• Black Lives Matter
• Bullying Essay
• Career Goals Essay
• Causes of the Civil War
• Child Abusing
• Civil Rights Movement
• Community Service
• Cultural Identity
• Cyber Bullying
• Death Penalty
• Depression Essay
• Domestic Violence
• Freedom of Speech
• Global Warming
• Gun Control
• Human Trafficking
• I Believe Essay
• Immigration
• Importance of Education
• Israel and Palestine Conflict
• Leadership Essay
• Legalizing Marijuanas
• Mental Health
• National Honor Society
• Police Brutality
• Pollution Essay
• Racism Essay
• Romeo and Juliet
• Same Sex Marriages
• Social Media
• The Great Gatsby
• The Yellow Wallpaper
• Time Management
• To Kill a Mockingbird
• Violent Video Games
• What Makes You Unique
• Why I Want to Be a Nurse
• Send us an e-mail

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Reflections on Criminal Justice Reform: Challenges and Opportunities

Pamela k. lattimore.

RTI International, 3040 East Cornwallis Road, Research Triangle Park, NC 27703 USA

Associated Data

Data are cited from a variety of sources. Much of the BJS data cited are available from the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research. The SVORI data and the Second Chance Act AORDP data are also available from NACJD.

Considerable efforts and resources have been expended to enact reforms to the criminal justice system over the last five decades. Concerns about dramatic increases in violent crime beginning in the late Sixties and accelerating into the 1980s led to the “War on Drugs” and the “War on Crime” that included implementation of more punitive policies and dramatic increases in incarceration and community supervision. More recent reform efforts have focused on strategies to reduce the negative impacts of policing, the disparate impacts of pretrial practices, and better strategies for reducing criminal behavior. Renewed interest in strategies and interventions to reduce criminal behavior has coincided with a focus on identifying “what works.” Recent increases in violence have shifted the national dialog from a focus on progressive reforms to reduce reliance on punitive measures and the disparate impact of the legal system on some groups to a focus on increased investment in “tough on crime” criminal justice approaches. This essay offers some reflections on the “Waged Wars” and the efforts to identify “What Works” based on nearly 40 years of work evaluating criminal justice reform efforts.

The last fifty-plus years have seen considerable efforts and resources expended to enact reforms to the criminal justice system. Some of the earliest reforms of this era were driven by dramatic increases in violence leading to more punitive policies. More recently, reform efforts have focused on strategies to reduce the negative impacts of policing, the disparate impacts of pretrial practices, and better strategies for reducing criminal behavior. Renewed interest in strategies and interventions to reduce criminal behavior has coincided with a focus on identifying “what works.” Recent increases in violence have shifted the national dialog about reform. The shift may be due to the disruptions caused by the COVID-19 epidemic or concerns about the United States returning to the escalating rise in violence and homicide in the 1980s and 1990s. Whichever proves true, the current rise of violence, at a minimum, has changed the tenor of policymaker discussions, from a focus on progressive reforms to reduce reliance on punitive measures and the disparate impact of the legal system on some groups to a focus on increased investment in “tough on crime” criminal justice approaches.

It is, then, an interesting time for those concerned about justice in America. Countervailing forces are at play that have generated a consistent call for reform, but with profound differences in views about what reform should entail. The impetus for reform is myriad: Concerns about the deaths of Black Americans by law enforcement agencies and officers who may employ excessive use of force with minorities; pressures to reduce pretrial incarceration that results in crowded jails and detention of those who have not been found guilty; prison incarcerations rates that remain the highest in the Western world; millions of individuals who live under community supervision and the burden of fees and fines that they will never be able to pay; and, in the aftermath of the worst pandemic in more than a century, increasing violence, particularly homicides and gun violence. This last change has led to fear and demands for action from communities under threat, but it exists alongside of other changes that point to the need for progressive changes rather than reversion to, or greater investment in, get-tough policies.

How did we get here? What have we learned from more than 50 years of efforts at reform? How can we do better? In this essay, I offer some reflections based on my nearly 40 years of evaluating criminal justice reform efforts. 1

Part I: Waging “War”

The landscape of criminal justice reform sits at the intersection of criminal behavior and legal system response. Perceptions of crime drive policy responses. Perceptions of those responsible for crime also drive responses. And perceptions of those responses result in demands for change. To establish context for the observations that follow, this section describes trends in crime, the population of justice-involved individuals, and the expenditures supporting the sprawling criminal justice enterprise in the United States since the mid-to-late twentieth century.

But first, my perspective: Over the last nearly 40 years, I have observed justice system reform efforts since working, while a first-year graduate student in 1983, on a National Institute of Justice (NIJ) grant that funded a randomized control trial of what would now be termed a reentry program (Lattimore et al., 1990 ). After graduate school, I spent 10 years at NIJ, where I was exposed to policy making and the relevance of research for both policy and practice. I taught for several years at a university. And, for most of my career, I have been in the trenches at a not-for-profit social science research firm. Throughout my career, I have conducted research and evaluation on a broad array of topics and have spent most of my time contemplating the challenges of reform. I’ve evaluated single programs, large federal initiatives, and efforts by philanthropies to effect reform. I’ve used administrative data to model criminal recidivism to address—to the degree statistical methods allow—various dimensions of recidivism (type, frequency, and seriousness). I’ve developed recidivism models for the practical purpose of assessing risk for those on community supervision and to explore the effects of covariates and interventions on recidivism and other outcomes. I’ve participated in research attempting to understand the shortcomings of and potential biases in justice data and the models that must necessarily use those data. While most of my work has focused on community corrections (e.g., probation and post-release interventions and behavior) and reentry, I have studied jail diversion programs, jail and pretrial reform, and efforts focused on criminal record expungement. These experiences have illuminated for me that punitiveness is built into the American criminal justice system—a punitiveness that traps many people from the time they are first arrested until they die.

Crime and Correctional Population Trends

The 1960s witnessed a dramatic rise in crime in the United States, and led to the so-called “War on Crime,” the “War on Drugs,” and a variety of policy responses, culminating with the passage of the Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-in-Sentencing Act of 1994 (“The 1994 Crime Act”; Pub. L. 103–322). Figure  1 shows the violent crime rate in the United States from 1960 to 1994. 2 In 1960, the violent crime rate in the United States was 161 per 100,000 people; by 1994 the rate had increased more than four-fold to nearly 714 per 100,000. 3 As can be seen, the linear trend was highly explanatory (R-square = 0.96)—however, there were two obvious downturns in the trend line—between 1980 and 1985 and, perhaps, between 1991 and 1994.

US Violent Crime Rate, 1960–1994

Homicides followed a similar pattern. Figure  2 shows the number of homicides each year between 1960 and 1994. In 12 years (1960 to 1972), the number of homicides doubled from 9,100 to 18,670. By 1994, the number had grown to 23,330—but it is worth noting that there were multiple downturns over this period, including a drop of more than 4,000 between 1980 and 1984. These figures show the backdrop to the “War on Drugs” and the “War on Crime” that led reformers to call for more punitive sentencing, including mandatory minimum sentences, “three-strikes laws” that mandated long sentences for repeat offenders, and truth-in-sentencing statutes that required individuals to serve most of their sentences before being eligible for release. This was also the period when the 1966 Bail Reform Act, which sought to reduce pretrial detention through the offer of money bond, was supplanted in 1984 by the Pretrial Reform Act, which once again led to increased reliance on pretrial detention.

United States Murder and Non-negligent Manslaughter Rate, 1960–1994

The 1994 Crime Act, enacted during the Clinton Administration, continued the tough-on-crime era by enabling more incarceration and longer periods of incarceration that resulted in large increases in correctional populations. In particular, the Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-in-Sentencing (VOI/TIS) Incentive Grant Program, funded by the Act, provided $3 billion to states to expand their jail and prisons capacities between FY1996 and FY2001 and to encourage states to eliminate indeterminate sentencing in favor of laws that required individuals to serve at least 85% of their imposed sentences.

Figure  3 shows the dramatic rise in the number of state and federal prisoners prior to passage of the 1994 Crime Act—the number of prisoners more than tripled between 1980 and 1994. 4 The increase in numbers of prisoners was not due to shifts from jail to prison or from probation to prison, given that all correctional populations increased dramatically over this 14-year period—jail populations increased 164% (183,988 to 486,474), probation increased 166% (1,118,097 to 2,981,022), and parole increased 213% (220,438 to 690,371).

State and Federal Prisoners in the US, 1960–1994

So, what happened after passage of the 1994 Crime Act? Fig.  4 shows the violent crime rate from 1960 through 2020. As can be seen, the decrease in the violent crime rate that began prior to passage of the 1994 Crime Act continued. And, notably, it preceded the influx of federal funding to put more police on the streets, build more jails and prisons, and place more individuals into the custody of local, state, and federal correctional agencies. Even with a small increase between 2019 and 2020, the violent crime rate in 2020 was 398.5 per 100,000 individuals, well below its 1991 peak of 758.2. 5

United States Violent Crime Rate (violent crimes per 100,000 population), 1960–2020

Figure  5 shows the US homicide rate from 1960 to 2020. Consistent with the overall violent crime rate, the homicide rate in 2020 remained well below the peak of 10.2 that occurred in 1981. (Rates also may have risen in 2021—as evidenced by reports of large increases in major U.S. cities—but an official report of the 2021 number and rate for the U.S. was not available as of the time of this writing.) The rise in this rate from 2019 to 2020 was more than 27%— worthy of attention and concern. It represents the largest year-over-year increase between 1960 and 2020. However, there have been other years where the rate increased about 10% (1966, 1967, 1968, 2015, and 2016), only then to drop back in subsequent years. Further, it is difficult to determine whether the COVID-19 pandemic, which has caused massive disruptions, is a factor in the increase in homicides or to know whether the homicide rate will abate as the pandemic ebbs. Finally, it bears emphasizing that during this 60-year period there have been years when the homicide rate fell by nearly 10% (e.g., 1996, 1999). From a policy perspective, it seems prudent to be responsive to increases in crime but also not to over-react to one or two years of data—particularly during times of considerable upheaval.

United States Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter Rate, 1960–2020

The growth in correctional populations, including prisoners, that began in the 1970s continued well into the twenty-first century—in other words, long after the crime rate began to abate in 1992. Figure  6 shows the prison population and total correctional population (state and federal prison plus jail, probation, and parole populations summed) between 1980 and 2020. Both trends peaked in 2009 at 1,615,500 prisoners and 7,405,209 incarcerated or on supervision. Year-over-year decreases, however, have been modest (Fig.  7 ), averaging about 1% (ignoring the steep decline between 2019 and 2020). The impact of factors associated with COVID-19, including policy and practice responses, resulted in a 15% decrease in the numbers of state and federal prisoners and a 14% decrease in the total number of adults under correctional control. Based on ongoing projects in pretrial and probation, as well as anecdotal evidence related to court closures and subsequent backlogs, it is reasonable to assume that some, if not most, of the decline in populations in 2020 was due to releases that exceeded new admissions as individuals completed their sentences and delays in court processing reduced new admissions. To the extent that these factors played a role, it is likely that in the immediate near term, we will see numbers rebound to values closer to what prevailed in 2019.

United States Prison and Total Correctional Populations, 1980–2020

Year-over-Year Change in Prison and Total Correctional Populations, 2981–2020

Responding with Toughness (and Dollars)

The increase in crime beginning in the 1960s led to a political demand for a punitive response emphasized by Richard Nixon’s “War on Crime” and “War on Drugs.” In 1970, Congress passed four anticrime bills that revised Federal drug laws and penalties, addressed evidence gathering against organized crime, authorized preventive detention and “no-knock” warrants, and provided $3.5 billion to state and local law enforcement. 6 Subsequent administrations continued these efforts, punctuated by the Crime Act of 1994. As described by the U.S. Department of Justice:

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 … is the largest crime bill in the history of the country and will provide for 100,000 new police officers, $9.7 billion in funding for prisons and $6.1 billion in funding for prevention programs …. The Crime Bill provides $2.6 billion in additional funding for the FBI, DEA, INS, United States Attorneys, and other Justice Department components, as well as the Federal courts and the Treasury Department. 7

Much of the funding went to state and local agencies to encourage the adoption of mandatory minimum sentences, “three strikes” laws, and to hire 100,000 police officers and build prisons and jails. This funding was intended to steer the highly decentralized United States criminal justice “system” towards a more punitive approach to crime; this system encompasses all levels of government (local, state, and federal) and all branches of government (executive, judicial, legislative).

The nation’s crime rate peaked in 1992. So, this “largest crime bill in the history of the country” began a dramatic increase in funding for justice expenditures just as crime had already begun to decline. Figure  8 shows that expenditures increased roughly 50% in real dollars between 1997 and 2017—from $188 billion to more than $300 billion dollars (Buehler,  2021 ). 8 More than half of that increase-—$65.4 billion additional—went to police protection. Roughly $50 billion additional went to the judiciary and corrections.

United States Justice Expenditures, 1997–2017

So, what did these increases buy? Dramatically declining crime rates (Figs. ​ (Figs.4 4 and ​ and5) 5 ) suggest that numbers of crimes also declined. That can be seen in Fig.  9 , which shows offenses known and an estimate of offenses cleared for selected years between 1980 and 2019. 9 In 1991, there were 11,651,612 known property offenses and 1,682,487 known violent offenses—these numbers declined 47% and 34% by 2019.

Offenses Known and Cleared in the US, Selected Years 1980–2019

Declining numbers of crimes and dramatic increases in expenditures on policing and justice system operation would suggest that there should have been improvements in offense clearance rates during this time. This did not happen. Crime clearance rates stayed roughly constant, which means that the numbers of offenses cleared declined by percentages like declines in the number of offenses over this period—49% for property offenses and 33% for violent offenses. More than 750,000 violent offenses and more than 2 million property offenses were cleared in 1991 compared to about 500,000 violent offenses and 1 million property offenses in 2019.

Presently, as violent crime ticks up, we are hearing renewed calls for “tough-on-crime” measures. Some opinion writers have compared 2022 to Nixon’s era. Kevin Boyle noted:

[Nixon] already had his core message set in the early days of his 1968 campaign. In a February speech in New Hampshire, he said: “When a nation with the greatest tradition of the rule of law is torn apart by lawlessness, when a nation which has been the symbol of equality of opportunity is torn apart by racial strife … then I say it’s time for new leadership in the United States of America.” There it is: the fusion of crime, race and fear that Nixon believed would carry him to the presidency. 10

Responding to the recent increase in violent crime, President Joseph Biden proposed the Safer America Plan to provide $37 billion “to support law enforcement and crime prevention.” 11 The Plan includes more than $12 billion in funds for 100,000 additional police officers through the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program. This proposal echoes the “100,000 cops on the street” that was a centerpiece of the 1994 Crime Act, which created the COPS office and program. Unlike the 1994 Crime Act, however, the Safer America Plan does not include funding for prisons and jails. Both the 1994 Crime Act and the Safer America Plan address gun violence, strengthen penalties for drug offenses, and provide support for programs and interventions to make communities safer and to address criminal recidivism.

The previous 50 or 60 years witnessed reforms efforts other than these that largely focused on bolstering the justice system infrastructure. The 1966 Bail Reform Act sought to reduce pretrial detention through the offer of money bond, but subsequently was supplanted by the 1984 Pretrial Reform Act that once again promoted pretrial detention. 12 This century—as jail populations exceeded 700,000, with most held prior to conviction—there has been considerable attention to eliminate money bond, which disproportionately leads to pretrial detention for poor and marginalized individuals (and release for the “well-heeled”). Private philanthropy has led much of this focus on pretrial and bail reform. For example, the MacArthur Foundation has spent several hundred million dollars on their Safety and Justice Challenge since 2015 with a goal of reducing jail populations and eliminating racial and ethnic disparity. 13 The Laura and John Arnold Foundation (LJAF) took a different approach and has invested substantial sums in the development and validation of a pretrial assessment instrument (the Public Safety Assessment or PSA) that provides assessments of the likelihood an individual will fail to appear to court or be arrested for a new crime or new violent crime if released while awaiting trial. 14 Although assessment algorithms have been criticized for lack of transparency and for perpetuating racial bias, the PSA scoring algorithm is publicly available and has not shown evidence of racial bias in a series of local validations conducted by RTI for LJAF. New York and New Jersey are among the states that have attempted to reduce reliance on money bond. However, as violent crime has increased, these efforts have faced considerable pushback.

The bail bonds industry has been a vocal opponent of efforts to reduce or eliminate the use of money bond. This industry is not the only one that profits from the imposition of punishment. As Page and Soss ( 2021 ) recently reported, “Over the past 35 years, public and private actors have turned US criminal justice institutions into a vast network of revenue-generating operations. Today, practices such as fines, fees, forfeitures, prison charges, and bail premiums transfer billions of dollars from oppressed communities to governments and corporations.” Fines, fees, and forfeitures generally profit the governments and agencies that impose them—although supervision fees to private probation services benefit businesses, as do fees for electronic monitoring, and drug testing. The Prison Policy Institute reports that there are more than 4,000 companies that profit from mass incarceration. 15 Court and supervision fees can quickly add up to hundreds or even thousands of dollars, burdening people with crushing debt and the threat of jail if they don’t pay. 16 There can be other consequences as well. After Florida passed a constitutional amendment to restore voting rights to individuals once they had completed their carceral or community sentence, the State specified that the right to vote would not be restored until an individual had paid all outstanding fees and fines. In addition, mistakenly voting with outstanding fees and fines is a felony. 17

Other work to reform pretrial justice includes early provision of defense counsel, and implementation of diversion programs for individuals charged with low-level offenses or who have behavioral health issues. The sixth amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees criminal defendants in the United States a right to counsel. In some jurisdictions (and the Federal court system), this is the responsibility of an office of public defense. In others, private defense counsel is appointed by the Court. Regardless, public defense is widely understood to be poorly funded. As noted by Arnold Ventures, a philanthropy currently working to improve access to defense, “The resulting system is fragmented and underfunded; lacks quality control and oversight; and fails to safeguard the rights of the vast majority of people charged with crimes who are represented by public defenders or indigent counsel.” 18

Mental health problems are prevalent among individuals incarcerated in local jails and prisons. The Bureau of Justice Statistics, in a report by Bronson and Berzofsky ( 2017 ), reported that “prisoners and jail inmates were three to five times as likely to have met the threshold for SPD [serious psychological distress] as adults in the general U.S. population.” Bronson and Berzofsky further reported that 44% of individuals in jail reported being told they had a mental disorder. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration’s GAINS Center has been at the forefront of efforts to implement jail diversion programs for individuals with mental health or substance use disorders and has also played a significant role in the establishment of treatment courts. 19 Crisis Intervention Training (CIT) for law enforcement to improve interaction outcomes between law enforcement and individuals in crisis. The National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) notes that “The lack of mental health crisis services across the U.S. has resulted in law enforcement officers serving as first responders to most crises. A Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) program is an innovative, community-based approach to improve the outcomes of these encounters.” 20 Non-law enforcement responses—such as the CAHOOTS program that was developed in Eugene, Oregon—to certain calls for service are also being tested in multiple communities. 21 Despite multiple efforts to identify appropriate alternatives to jail, individuals with mental health disorders continue to disproportionately fill the nation’s jails.

A Recapitulation

The 1970 crime bills that passed early in Nixon’s presidency set the stage for the infusion of federal dollars that has provided billions of dollars in funding for police and prisons. Between 1970 and 1994, the number of adults in state and federal prisons in the United States increased from less than 200,000 to nearly 1 million. In 2019, that number stood at more than 1.4 million down from its peak in 2009. Another 734,500 individuals were in jail and more than 4.3 million were in the community on probation or parole. Although representing a dramatic decline since these populations peaked about 2009, this still means that more than 6 million adults were under the supervision of federal, state, and local corrections agencies in 2019.

Thus, it is important to recognize that we are at a very different place from the Nixon era. Today, the numbers (and rates) of individuals who are “justice-involved” remain at near record highs. As the progressive efforts of the twenty-first century encounter headwinds, it is worth waving a caution flag as the “remedies” of the twentieth century—more police, “stop and frisk,” increased pretrial detention—are once again being proposed to address violent crime.

Part II: Finding “What Works”

The 1994 Crime Act and subsequent reauthorizations also included funding for a variety of programs, including drug courts, prison drug treatment programs, and other programs focused on facilitating reentry and reducing criminal recidivism. Subsequent legislation authorized other Federal investments that resurrected rehabilitation as a goal of correctional policy. The Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI) provided $100 million (and some limited supplements) to agencies to develop programs that began in prison and continued into the community and were intended to improve outcomes across a range of domains—community reintegration, employment, family, health (including mental health), housing, substance abuse, supervision compliance and, of course, recidivism (see Lattimore et al., 2005b ; Winterfield et al., 2006 ; Lattimore & Visher, 2013 , 2021 ; Visher et al., 2017 ). Congress did not reauthorize SVORI but instead authorized the Prisoner Reentry Initiative (PRI) managed by the U.S. Department of Labor; PRI (now the Reintegration of Ex-Offenders or RExO program) provides funding for employment-focused programs for non-violent offenders. In 2006, a third reentry-focused initiative was funded—the Marriage and Incarceration Initiative was managed by the Department of Health and Human Services and focused on strengthening marriage and families for male correctional populations. In 2008, Congress passed the Second Chance Act (SCA) to provide grants for prison and jail reentry programs. The SCA grant program administered by the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) was reauthorized in 2018; it continues to provide reentry grants to state and local agencies (see Lindquist et al., 2021 ). These initiatives all primarily focused on supporting efforts at the state and local level. The First Step Act of 2018 focused on reforms for the federal prison system. These efforts signified a substantial increase in efforts aimed at determining “what works” to reduce criminal behavior—and provided an opportunity to rebut the “nothing works” in correctional programming that followed the publication of research by Lipton ( 1975 ).

Elsewhere, I have summarized some of the research into Federal initiatives that I have conducted over the years (Lattimore, 2020 ). These studies comprise work in dozens of states, involving thousands of individuals and have included studies of drug treatment, jail diversion, jail and prison reentry, and probation. Some involved evaluation of a substantial Federal investment, such as the multi-site evaluation of SVORI.

These evaluations, as has been largely true of those conducted by others, have produced mixed results. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses focusing on the effectiveness of adult correctional programming have yielded findings of modest or negligible effects (e.g., Aos et al., 2006 ; Bitney et al., 2017 ; Lipsey & Cullen, 2007 ; MacKenzie, 2006 ; Sherman, et al., 1997 ). In an updated inventory of research- and evidence-based adult programming, the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (Wanner, 2018 ) identified a variety of programs for which evidence suggests significant if modest effect sizes. As has been identified by others (e.g., MacKenzie, 2006 ), the most effective programs focused on individual change, including, for example, cognitive behavior therapy (estimated effect size of -0.11). Treatment-oriented intensive supervision programs were found to reduce recidivism by about 15%, while surveillance-oriented intensive supervision was found to have no demonstrated effects. Several types of work and educational programs (correctional industries, basic adult education, prison-based vocational education, and job training and assistance in the community) were found to reduce recidivism between 5 and 22%. Most non-zero treatment effect sizes were between about 5% and 15%. Lipsey and Cullen ( 2007 ) also suggest 14% to 22% reductions in recidivism for adult rehabilitation treatment programs.

Two thoughts about these small effects warrant consideration. The first, of course, is why reducing criminal behavior appears to be so difficult. Second, however, is that, in recognizing the first, perhaps we should adapt more realistic expectations about what can be achieved and acknowledge that even small effects can have a meaningful impact on public safety.

Challenges: Why Is Effective Criminal Justice Reform So Difficult?

One issue with most federal funding streams is “short timelines.” For example, typical of grant programs of this type, SVORI grantees were given three years of funding. During this time, they had to develop a programmatic strategy, establish interagency working arrangements, identify program and service providers, develop a strategy for identifying potential participants, and implement their programs. Three years is a very short time to develop a program that incorporates needs assessment, provides a multiplicity of services and programs within an institution, and creates a path for continuation of services as individuals are released to various communities across a state.

The “short timelines” problem underlies, and contributes to, a variety of other considerations that can plague efforts to identify “what works.” Based on my experiences, these considerations, which I discuss further below, include the following:

• People: Justice-involved individuals have multiple needs and there is an emerging question as to whether addressing these needs is the best path to desistance.
• Programs: Interventions often lack adequate logic models and are poorly implemented.
• Methods: Evaluations frequently are underpowered and unlikely to scale the alpha 0.05 hurdle typically used to identify statistically significant effects.

First, it is important to recognize that justice-involved individuals face serious and complex challenges that are difficult to remedy. Many scholars have highlighted the myriad of challenges faced by individuals returning to the community from prison (e.g., see Petersilia, 2003 ; Travis, 2005 ; Travis & Visher, 2005 ). In interviews conducted with 1,697 men and 357 women who participated in the SVORI multisite evaluation, 95% of women and 94% of men said at the time of prison release that they needed more education. Nearly as many—86% of women and 82% of men—said they needed job training. More than two-thirds indicated that they needed help with their criminal thinking and three-quarters said they needed life skills training. They were somewhat less likely to report needing substance use disorder or mental health treatment but still—at the time of prison release—66% of the women and 37% of the men reported needing substance use treatment and 55% of the women and 22% of the men reported needing mental health treatment.

Half of these individuals had participated in SVORI programs while incarcerated and the proportions reported reflect their self-assessment of need after in-prison receipt of programming. Figure  10 shows the percentages of SVORI and non-SVORI groups who reported receiving a select set of services and programs during their incarceration. Several things standout: (1) The receipt of programs and services during incarceration was much less than the indicated need at the time of release; and (2) SVORI program participants were more likely to report receiving services than the comparison group members who were not in SVORI programs.

Self-reported service receipt during incarceration for SVORI program evaluation participants. Note: * =  p  <  = 0.05. Educ = educational programming, EmplSrv = employment-related services, CrimAtt = programs for criminal attitudes including cognitive behavior therapy, LifeSk = life skills, AODTx = substance abuse treatment, and MHTx = mental health treatment. Sample sizes were SVORI men (863), non-SVORI men (834), SVORI women (153) and non-SVORI women (204).

Source: Lattimore & Visher (2009)

More recently, Lindquist et al. ( 2021 ) completed a seven-site evaluation of Second Chance Act reentry programs that were a mix of jail- and prison-based programs. About half of the study participants reported having received substance use disorder treatment and about one-third reported having received mental health treatment. At release, they reported limited-service receipt. For example, there was no significant difference between receipt of educational programming (23% of SCA program participants compared with 17% for comparison group members). SCA program participants were more likely to report receiving any employment services (60% versus 40%), which included job assistance, employment preparation, trade or job training programs, vocational or technical certifications, and transitional job placement or subsidized employment. SCA program participants were also more likely to report receiving cognitive behavioral services (58% versus 41%). But, again, not all program participants received services despite needing them and some comparison subjects received services.

Limited access to treatment by program participants and some access to treatment by comparison subjects were also observed in a multi-site study of pre- and post-booking jail diversion programs for individuals with co-occurring substance use disorder and serious mental illness (Broner et al., 2004 ; Lattimore et al., 2003 ). Across eight study sites, 971 diverted subjects and 995 non-diverted subjects were included in this evaluation; the research found only modest differences in the receipt of services and treatment at 3- and 12-months follow-up. For example, at the 3-month interview, 26% of both groups reported receiving substance abuse counseling, and at the 12-month interview, 0.7% of those diverted versus no non-diverted participant received two or more substance abuse counseling sessions. At 3 months, 38% of the diverted subjects and 30% of the non-diverted reported mental health counseling versus 41% and 38% at 12 months, respectively.

The service needs expressed by these individuals reflect their lack of education, job experience, vocational skills, and life skills, as well as the substance abuse and mental health issues identified among justice-involved individuals. The intervention response to these needs is reflected in the variety of services prescribed in the typical “reentry program bucket.” These involve the services and programs shown in Fig.  10 , as well as case management and reentry planning to coordinate services with respect to needs.

The identification of needs followed by efforts to meet those needs underlies the Risk-Needs-Responsivity (RNR) approach to addressing justice-involved populations (e.g., Andrews & Bonta, 1994 , 2006 ; Latessa, 2020 ). The RNR approach to addressing criminal behavior is premised on the assumption that if you address identified needs that are correlated with criminal behavior, that behavior will be reduced. In other words, recidivism can be addressed by providing individuals the education and job skills and treatment they need to find gainful employment, reduce substance use, and mitigate symptoms of mental illness. Latessa ( 2020 ) recently discussed the RNR approach, reiterating the importance of assessing individual criminogenic and non-criminogenic needs to improve reentry programs. He also reiterated the importance of focusing resources on those identified as high (or higher) risk by actuarial risk assessment instruments—pointing to important work he conducted with colleagues that found that interventions reduced recidivism among high-risk individuals and increased it among low-risk individuals (Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2002 ; Latessa et al., 2010 ). This approach to reentry programming is reflected in the requirements of most federal grants—like the SVORI and SCA—that require programs to incorporate reentry planning that includes needs assessment and services that address criminogenic and non-criminogenic needs.

As noted, most justice-involved individuals have limited education and few job skills, and many have behavioral health issues, anger management issues, and limited life skills. But if addressing these deficits is the key to successfully rehabilitating large numbers of individuals caught in the carceral and community justice system, the meager results of recent research suggests two possibilities. First, this is the right approach, but poor or incomplete implementation has so far impeded findings of substantial effects (a common conclusion since the Martinson report). Second, alternatively, this approach is wrong (or insufficient), and new thinking about the “what and how” of rehabilitative programming is needed. I address the second idea next and turn to the first idea shortly.

MacKenzie ( 2006 ) and others (e.g., Andrews and Bonta, 2006 ; Andrews et al., 1990 ; Aos et al., 2006 ; Lipsey, 1995 ; Lipsey & Cullen, 2007 ) have stressed that programs focused on individual change have been found to be effective more often than those providing practical services. The SVORI evaluation also found support for this conclusion. Services we classified as “practical” (e.g., case manager, employment services, life skills, needs assessment, reentry planning, and reentry program) were associated with either no or a deleterious impact on arrest chances—although few were statistically different from a null effect. Individual-change services (e.g., anger management, programs for criminal attitudes including cognitive behavior therapy, education, help with personal relationships, and substance abuse treatment) were associated with positive impacts on arrest. The original SVORI evaluation had a follow-up period of about 2 years and findings suggested that the overall impact of SVORI program participation on rearrest and reincarceration were positive but not statistically significant. In contrast to these findings, a longer follow-up that extended at least 56 months showed participation in SVORI programs was associated with longer times to arrest and fewer arrests after release for both men and women. For the men, SVORI program participation was associated with a longer time to reincarceration and fewer reincarcerations, although the latter result was not statistically significant ( p  = 0.18). For the women, the reincarceration results were mixed and not significant.

Support for positive impacts of programs focused on individual change are consistent with theories associated with identity transformation and desistance from criminal activity. Bushway ( 2020 ) has recently discussed two alternative views of desistance, contrasting the implications of desistance either as a process (i.e., the gradual withdrawal from criminal activity) or reflective of an identify shift towards a more prosocial identity. In examining these two ideas, Bushway posits that the second suggests that individuals with a history of a high rate of offending may simply stop (as opposed to reducing the frequency of criminal acts). If individuals do (or can or will) stop, the implication is clear: policies that focus on an individual’s criminal history (e.g., for employment or parole decisions) may fail to recognize that the individual has changed. This change may be evidenced by in-prison good behavior (e.g., completing programs and staying out of trouble) or positive steps following release (e.g., actively seeking meaningful employment or engaging in positive relationships). Tellingly, Bushway ( 2020 ) notes: “Individuals involved in crime get information about how they are perceived by others through their involvement in the criminal justice system. Formal labels of ‘criminal’ are assigned and maintained by the criminal justice system. As a result, identity models are much more consistent theoretically with an empirical approach that revolves around measures of criminal justice involvement rather than criminal offending per se.” He goes on to discuss the relationship of identity-based models of stark breaks and criminal career models. In short, reflecting insights that labeling theorists have long emphasized, the labels the criminal justice system and society place on individuals may impede the desistance process that is the supposed goal of the system.

The second consideration are concerns about program design and implementation—What is the underlying logic model or theory of change? Is there adequate time to develop the program and train staff to implement it appropriately? Is the resulting program implemented with fidelity? The two or three years usually provided to implement complex programs suggest that these goals are unlikely to be met. The “notorious” findings of Martinson (1975) that “nothing works” was more appropriately interpreted as “nothing was implemented.” Unfortunately, nearly 50 years later, we largely observe something similar—not “nothing” but “something” that is far short of what was intended.

As discussed in detail by Taxman (2020), the usual approach to program development and testing skips over important formative steps, doesn’t allow time for pilot testing, and provides little opportunity for staff training or for achievement and maintenance of program fidelity (if there is even a program logic model). From an evaluator’s perspective, this short timeline imposes multiple challenges. An evaluator must identify study participants (and control or comparison subjects), follow them largely while they are in the program, and hope to have at least one year of post-program follow-up—generally without being able to accommodate the impact of likely weak implementation on evaluation power to detect effects.

Thus, it may not be surprising that effects are generally small. However, these small effects may not be negligible from a public safety perspective. In a study of the effects of non-residential drug treatment for a cohort of probationers, Lattimore et al. ( 2005a ) found that treatment reduced the number of probationers with a felony arrest by 23% during the first year and 11% over the first two years. The total number of arrests was also reduced by 17% over 12 months and 14% over 24 months. “Back of the envelope” calculations suggested that if treatment cost $1,000 per individual, it would have been cost effective to provide treatment to all members of the cohort as long as the (average) cost of arrest (and all related criminal justice processing and corrections) exceeds about $6,463.

Another example is to consider that the impact of a treatment effect in the 10% range applied across all prison releases would imply the aversion of many crimes. For example, assuming 750,000 prison releases each year over a five-year period and a 66% rearrest rate within 3 years (and no additional arrests after 3 years), then 3.75 million prisoners will be released over the five years; of these individuals, 2.475 million will be arrested at least once during the three years following release. A 10% reduction in first-time rearrests would mean 247,500 fewer first-time rearrests. To the extent that many offenders are arrested multiple times, this figure represents a lower bound on the number of averted arrests. A similar analysis could be conducted assuming 2,000,000 probation admissions each year and a 39% rearrest rate within 3 years. In this case, there would be 10,000,000 probation admissions that would generate 3.9 million first-time arrests over the three years after admission to probation. A 10% reduction in first-time rearrests would mean 390,000 fewer arrests. In total, therefore, reducing recidivism—as measured by rearrest by 10% for these hypothetical correctional populations—would translate into 637,500 averted arrests. Extrapolating further and assuming that roughly 10% of the arrests were for violent crime and 90% for property crime, and applying the inverse of the crime clearance rates for these two types of crime to generate a “crimes averted” count, we find that a 10% reduction in recidivism for these two populations would translate into 140,110 violent and 3,519,939 property crimes averted. 22 Thus, “modest” improvements in recidivism may provide substantial public benefits—in crimes averted, and lower demands on law enforcement, prosecution, and correctional resources. 23

The third consideration is the adequacy of the evaluation methods we routinely apply to this complex problem of inadequate interventions that are partially and sometimes poorly implemented. At minimum, we need to explicitly recognize the impacts of the following:

• Programs partially implemented and partially treated control conditions.
• Recidivism outcomes conditioned on an intermediate outcome.
• Follow-up periods too short to accommodate short-term failure followed by long-term success.
• Focusing on a binary indicator of recidivism ignores frequency and seriousness of offending.

The impact of partial treatment of both treatment and control groups on effect sizes and the consequential impact on statistical power is seldom discussed—either in initial estimates of needed sample sizes or in subsequent discussions of findings. As shown earlier and is true for most justice evaluations, the control or comparison condition is almost never “nothing.” Instead, it is generally “business as usual” (BAU) that means whatever the current standard of treatment entails. Thus, the treatment group may receive some services that aren’t available to the control group, but in many cases both groups have access to specific services and programs although the treatment group may get priority.

As we saw in Fig.  10 , treatment was reported by some individuals in both the SVORI and non-SVORI groups. Table ​ Table1 1 shows the implications of partial treatment using data from the SVORI evaluation. 24 The percent treated for the SVORI and non-SVORI men are shown in columns three and four. Column 2 presents the effect sizes for four interventions as identified by Wanner ( 2018 ). If we assume that the recidivism rate without treatment is 20%, 25 the observed recidivism rate for the SVORI and non-SVORI men as a result of receiving each treatment is shown in columns four and five. Column six shows that the observed differences in recidivism between the two groups in this “thought experiment” are less than two percent—an effect size that would never be detected with typical correctional program evaluations. 26

Hypothetical treatment effects with incomplete treatment of the treatment group and partial treatment of the comparison group, assuming untreated recidivism rate is 20 percent

* Estimates from Wanner ( 2018 ).

Similar findings emerge when considering the effects on recidivism of interventions such as job training programs that are intended to improve outcomes intermediate to recidivism. Consider the hypothetical impact of a prison job training program on post-release employment and recidivism. The underlying theory of change is that training will increase post-release employment and having a job will reduce recidivism. 27 Suppose the job training program boosts post-release employment by 30% and that, without the program, 50% of released individuals will find a job. A 30% improvement means that 65% of program participants will find employment. Randomly assigning 100 of 200 individuals to receive the program would result in 50 of those in the control group and 65 of those in the treatment group to find employment. (This outcome assumes everyone in the treatment group receives treatment.) Table ​ Table2 2 shows the treatment effect on recidivism under various assumptions about the impact of employment on recidivism. The table assumes a 50% recidivism rate for the unemployed so, e.g., if the effect of a job is to reduce recidivism by 10% employed individuals will have a recidivism rate of 45%. If there is no effect—i.e., recidivism is independent of being employed—we observe 50% failure for both groups and there is no effect on recidivism rates even if the program is successful at increasing employment by 30%. On the other hand, if being employed eliminates recidivism, no one who is employed will be recidivists and 50% of those unemployed will be recidivists—or 25 of the control group and 17.5 of the treated group. The last column in Table ​ Table2 2 shows the conditional effect of job training on recidivism under the various effects of employment on recidivism shown in column 1. The effects shown in the last column are the same regardless of the assumption about the recidivism rate of the unemployed. So, employment must have a very substantial effect on the recidivism rate to result in a large effect on the observed recidivism rate when, as is reasonable to assume, some members of the control group who didn’t have the training will find employment. As before, this finding underscores the need to carefully consider the mechanism affecting recidivism and potential threats to effect sizes and statistical power.

Hypothetical effects of job training on employment and recidivism assuming job training increases employment by 30% and control (untreated) employment is 50%

A third concern is that follow-up periods which typically are 2 years or less may be too short to observe positive impacts of interventions (Lattimore & Visher, 2020). Although this may seem counterintuitive, it is what was observed for the SVORI multisite evaluation. The initial SVORI evaluation focused on the impact of participation with at least 21 months of follow-up following release from prison and showed positive but insignificant differences in rearrests for the SVORI and non-SVORI groups. A subsequent NIJ award provided funding for a long-term (at least 56 months) examination of recidivism for 11 of the 12 adult programs (Visher et al., 2017 ; also see Lattimore et al., 2012 ). In contrast to the findings in the original study, participation in SVORI programs was associated with longer times to arrest and fewer arrests after release for both men and women during the extended follow-up period of at least 56 months. Although untestable post hoc, one plausible hypothesis is that the early period following release is chaotic for many individuals leaving prison and failure is likely. Only after the initial “settling out period” are individuals in a position to take advantage of what was learned during program participation. In any event, these findings suggest the need to conduct more, longer-term evaluations of reentry programs.

A final consideration is the indicator of recidivism used to judge the success of a program. Recidivism, which is a return to criminal behavior, is almost never observed. Instead, researchers and practitioners rely on proxies that are measures of justice system indicators that a crime has occurred—arrest, conviction, and incarceration for new offenses—and, for those on supervision, violation of conditions and revocation of supervision. A recent National Academy of Sciences’ publication ( 2022 ) highlights some of the limitations of recidivism as a measure of post-release outcomes, arguing that indicators of success and measures that allow for the observation of desisting behavior (defined by the panel as a process—not the sharp break advanced by Bushway) should be used instead. These are valid points but certainly in the short run the funders of interventions and those responsible for public safety are unlikely to be willing to ignore new criminal activity as an outcome.

It is worth highlighting, however, some of the limitations of the binary indicator of any new event that is the usual measure adopted by many researchers (e.g., “any new arrest within x years”) and practitioners (e.g., “return to our Department within 3 years”). These simple measures ignore important dimensions of recidivism. These include type of offense (e.g., violent, property, drug), seriousness of offense (e.g., homicide, felony assault, misdemeanor assault), and frequency of offending (equivalent to time to the recidivism event). As a result, a typical recidivism outcome treats as identical minor acts committed, e.g., 20 months following release, and serious crimes committed immediately. Note too that this binary indicator fails in terms of being able to recognize desisting behavior, that is, where time between events increases or the seriousness of the offense decreases. Survival methods and count or event models address the frequency consideration. Competing hazard models allow one to examine differences between a few categories of offending (e.g., violent, property, drug, other). The only approach that appears to have tackled the seriousness dimension is the work by Sherman and colleagues (Sherman et al., 2016 ; also, see www.crim.cam.ac.uk/research/thecambridgecrimeharminde ) who have developed a Crime Harm Index that is based on potential sentences for non-victimless crimes. To date, statistical methods that can accommodate the three dimensions simultaneously do not, to my knowledge, exist. At a minimum, however, researchers should use the methods that are available to fully explore their recidivism outcomes. Logistic regression models are easy to estimate and the results are easily interpretable. But an intervention may be useful if it increases the time to a new offense or reduces the seriousness of new criminal behavior.

The last forty years or so have seen strides at identifying interventions that are promising, but much work remains to be done to find programs that result in substantial, broad-based improvements. Challenges in program development and implementation, partial treatment of treatment groups and control groups, and limited focus on recidivism as a binary indicator of failure were highlighted as some of the issues confronting practitioners and evaluators. 28 There is reason for optimism—if expectations are realistic from both a programmatic and methodological perspective: Identify promising programs, apply best practices of implementation science, calculate reasonable statistical expectations, and build on what has been tried.

Conclusions

In the past several decades, dramatic increases in crime resulted in large-scale legislative changes and expenditures. Correctional populations dramatically increased even as crime rates plunged. In addition, despite large increases in funding to law enforcement and other justice agencies, the number of offenses cleared declined. During this time, there were multiple federal initiatives focused on reducing criminal recidivism. Some, such as the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) programs, focused singularly on reducing drug use, while others focused broadly on addressing the multi-faceted needs of justice-involved individuals.

These changes occurred in a context of a highly decentralized approach to criminal justice, one that creates a myriad of costs and incentives. For example, if a federally funded reentry program reduces crime, the immediate agency beneficiaries are local law enforcement (due to fewer crimes to solve), prosecution (due to fewer crimes to prosecute), and the courts (due to fewer cases to try). That can reduce admissions to prison. But for cost-savings to occur, agencies have to respond to reductions in crime by reducing costs. That tends to run counter to the natural inclination of administrators, especially if it means reducing staffing. And it runs counter to what happened as crime declined over the last roughly 30 years.

We increasingly have research evidence that some programs can reduce recidivism, but many challenges, such as underpowered research designs, sometimes undermines this evidence. Even so, it is important to note that even modest reductions in recidivism imply opportunities to avert substantial numbers of crimes and subsequent criminal justice system processing and costs.

This essay suggests that it is time to embrace the modest improvements in recidivism that have been forthcoming from programs that have been subjected to the most rigorous evaluations. And it suggests that it is time to downsize our expectations for a “silver bullet” and, instead, prepare for a long-term and sustained investment in programming that will improve, refine and augment programs and approaches that “work.” By using “what works” today as the basis for the successful adaptation of multi-faceted programs that address the multiplicity of offender needs, criminal justice policy and practice will develop the tools needed to help a heterogeneous population of prisoners successfully reenter their communities.

Finally, as policymakers grapple with a recent increase in violent crime, it is important to recognize that the “tough-on-crime” responses of the twentieth century led to a 252% increase in the number of citizens under legal system control—including a 312% increase in prison populations—between 1980 and 2000. Correctional populations peaked in 2008 but in 2019 remain 255% above 1980 levels with more than 6.5 million individuals in prisons, jails, or on probation or parole. 29 As the current administration proposes the Safer America Plan, it is important that proper attention be addressed to assure that the result of these expenditures is not to reinvigorate the mass incarceration and mass supervision that followed the adaptation of the as the 1984 Pretrial Reform Act and the Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-in-Sentencing Act of 1994. And it is important that we attend to widespread support for high-quality implementation of programs that have been shown to reduce recidivism.

is a Principal Scientist with RTI International’s Justice Practice Area. She has more than 35 years of experience evaluating interventions, investigating the causes and correlates of criminal behavior, and developing approaches to improve criminal justice operations. She was principal investigator for multi-site, multi-method evaluations including the Multi-Site Evaluation of the Serious and Violent Offender Initiative, the Second Chase Act Adult Offender Reentry Demonstration Program Evaluation, and the HOPE Demonstration Field Experiment. She is principal investigator for research examining pretrial risk assessment, policy, and practice; state-level reforms for adult probation; implementation and impact of criminal record expungement; development and implementation of dynamic risk assessment algorithms for Georgia probation and parole; and the long-term impact of a three-state RCT of the 5-Key Reentry Program Model. She is a past Chair of the American Society of Criminology Division on Corrections and Sentencing, a Fellow of the Academy of Experimental Criminology, and a recipient of the American Correctional Association Peter P. Lejins Researcher Award, the American Society of Criminology Division on Corrections and Sentencing Distinguished Scholar Award, and the Academy of Experimental Criminology Joan McCord Award. Dr. Lattimore has published extensively, has served on the editorial boards of multiple journals, and was the inaugural co-editor of the annual series Handbook on Corrections and Sentencing published by Routledge Press.

Data Availability

1 Some of the ideas presented here were initially explored in Lattimore ( 2020 ) and Lattimore et al. ( 2021 ).

2 Data 1960 to 1984 are FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data; downloaded March 5, 2006; data from 1985 to 2020 are from https://crime-data-explorer.app.cloud.gov/pages/explorer/crime/crime-trend , downloaded July 12, 2022.

3 Violent crime commands the most attention and hence is the focus here, but property crimes are much more prevalent—directly affecting many more individuals. Property crime rates also increased in the 1960s and 1970s. The property crime rate increased from 1,726.3 per 100,000 in 1960 to 4,660.2 in 1994—an 170% increase. The property crime rate peaked in 1980 at 5,353.3 per 100,000—a 210% increase over 1960.

4 Data for 1960 and 1970 prisoners are from Cahalan, M.W. and Parsons, L.A. ( 1986 ). Data from 1980–2014 are from Glaze, L., Minton, T., & West, H. (Date of version: 12/08/ 2009 ) and Kaeble, D., Glaze, L., Tsoutis, A., & Minton, T. ( 2015 ). Data from 2015–2020 are from Kluckow, DSW, & Zeng, Z. (Date of version: 3/31/ 2022 ).

5 As noted in footnote 3, property crime rates also rose between 1960 and 1980—peaking at 5,353.3 per 100,000. With some minor fluctuations, the property crime rate has declined steadily since the 1980s and was 1958.2 per 100,000 in 2020.

6 The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (PL 91–513); the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (PL 91–452); the District of Columbia Court Reorganization and Criminal Procedure Act of 1970 (PL 91–358); and the Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1970.

7 https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/billfs.txt

8 The trend shown in Fig.  9 continued a trend. Between 1982 and 1997, total justice expenditures increased 125% from $84.1 billion to $189.5 billion (2007 dollars), Kyckelhahn, T. ( 2011 ).

9 Data are from the FBI Crime in the United States publications for 1980, 1991, 1995, 2000, 2010 and 2019 https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/ . Numbers of offenses cleared were estimated by multiplying the offenses known by the offense clearance rates reported by the FBI.

10 https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/31/opinion/richard-nixon-america-trump.html

11 https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/08/01/fact-sheet-president-bidens-safer-america-plan-2/

12 For some thoughts on recommendations for reforms for pretrial and sentencing see Lattimore, Spohn, & DeMichele ( 2021 ). This volume also has recommendations for reform across the justice system.

13 Safety and Justice Challenge.

14 https://www.arnoldventures.org/

15 https://www.prisonpolicy.org/research/economics_of_incarceration/

16 For an example of how a minor traffic offense can result in thousands of dollars in fines and fees for extensive terms of private probation see In Small-Town Georgia, A Broken Taillight Can Lead to Spiraling Debt—In These Times.

17 See for example, https://www.propublica.org/article/florida-felonies-voter-fraud

18 https://www.arnoldventures.org/work/public-defense

19 https://www.samhsa.gov/gains-center

20 https://www.nami.org/Advocacy/Crisis-Intervention/Crisis-Intervention-Team-(CIT)-Programs

21 https://www.eugene-or.gov/4508/CAHOOTS

22 In 2005, the Uniform Crime Reports reported 1,197,089 known violent offenses and 8,935,714 known property offenses or a ratio of about 1:9. Clearance rates were 45.5% for violent and 16.3% for property crimes known to police. The estimated total number of arrests for 2005 was 14,094, 186. Thus, the violent and property arrests account for about 72% of all arrests. Of course, these estimates rest on many assumptions—in some cases, these assumptions would imply that we are estimating the lower bound, since each member of our study population is allowed only one arrest while many will have many more than one. On the other hand, to the extent that individuals are arrested who have committed no offenses, the estimates would over represent the impact of a reduction in crime. The goal here was not to generate a precise estimate but to illustrate that a 10% reduction in recidivism translates into substantial reductions in crime.

23 A model-based estimate of the effect of non-residential drug treatment on 134,000 drug-involved individuals admitted to probation in Florida showed treatment reduced arrests by more than 20% (Lattimore et al., 2005a , 2005b ). This analysis was extended to a cost-effectiveness framework in which it was shown that it would be cost effective to spend $1000 treating all drug-involved probations as long as the average cost of an arrest averted (including arrest, and the costs of judicial processing and corrections) is at least $6,463.

where R = recidivism rate for the group, r = recidivism rate in the absence of treatment, T = percentage of group that is treated, and p = the percentage reduction in recidivism due to treatment (the treatment effect). Differences in outcomes are constant with respect to the assumed recidivism rate in the absence of treatment.

25 Differences in outcomes are constant with respect to the assumed recidivism rate without treatment.

26 Lipsey ( 1998 ) discusses the issue of underpowered evaluations.

27 A similar example was presented in Lattimore, Visher, & Steffey ( 2010 ).

28 Although not addressed here because of page limitations additional important methodological considerations include whether a comparison group exists for some interventions such as incarceration (see Lattimore & Visher 2021 for a brief discussion) and, even more challenging, whether replication is even possible given the heterogeneity of context and populations. For an interesting consideration of the implications of the latter for examining the impact of incarceration see Mears, Cochran & Cullen ( 2015 ).

29 Correctional populations dropped dramatically in 2020 as law enforcement and the criminal justice system adapted to COVID-19.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• Andrews, D.A., & Bonta, J. (1994). The psychology of criminal conduct . Anderson.
• Andrews DA, Bonta J. The psychology of criminal conduct. 4. Lexis/Nexis/Matthew Bende; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Andrews DA, Ziner I, Hoge RD, Bonta J, Gendreau P, Cullen FT. Does correctional treatment work: A clinically-relevant and psychologically-informed meta-analysis. Criminology. 1990; 28 :369–404. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1990.tb01330.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aos S, Miller M, Drake E. Evidence-based adult corrections programs: What works and what does not. Washington State Institute for Public Policy; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bitney K, Drake E, Grice J, Hirsch M, Lee S. The effectiveness of reentry programs for incarcerated persons: Findings for the Washington Statewide Reentry Council (Document Number 17–05- 1901) Washington State Institute for Public Policy; 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Broner N, Lattimore PK, Cowell AJ, Schlenger W. Effects of diversion on adults with mental illness co-occurring with substance use: Outcomes from a national multi-site study. Behavior Sciences and the Law. 2004; 22 :519–541. doi: 10.1002/bsl.605. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bronson, J., & Berzofsky, M. (2017). Indicators of mental health problems reported by prisoners and jail inmates, 2011–12. Bureau of Justice Statistics. NCJ 250612.
• Buehler ED. Justice expenditures and employment in the United States, 2017 , available from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service, NCJ-256093. US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics; 2021. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bushway, S. (2020). What if people decide to desist? Implications for policy. (2020). In B. Orrell (Ed.), Rethinking reentry: An AEI working group summary (pp. 7–38). American Enterprise Institute.
• Cahalan MW, Parsons LA. Historical corrections statistics in the United States, 1850–1984 , available from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service, NCJ-10529. US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics; 1986. [ Google Scholar ]
• Glaze, L., Minton, T., & West, H. (2009). Correctional populations in the United States . Date of version: 12/08/09, available from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service. US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
• Kaeble, D., Glaze, L., Tsoutis, A., & Minton, T. (2015). Correctional populations in the United States . Date of version December 2015. Available from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service, NCJ-249513. US Department of Justice.
• Kluckow, D.S.W., & Zeng, Z. (2022). Correctional populations in the United States . Available from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service, NCJ-303184. Date of version: 3/31/2022. US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
• Kyckelhahn, T. (2011 ). Justice expenditures and employment, FY 1982–2007 Statistical tables, Appendix Table 1 . Bureau of Justice Statistics Criminal Justice Expenditure and Employment Extracts Program.
• Latessa EJ. Triaging of services for individuals returning from prison. In: Orrell B, editor. Rethinking reentry: An AEI working group summary. American Enterprise Institute; 2020. pp. 7–38. [ Google Scholar ]
• Latessa, E.J., Lovins, L.B., & Smith, P. (2010). Follow-up evaluation of Ohio’s community-based correctional facility and halfway house programs—Outcome study . University of Cincinnati. https://www.uc.edu/ccjr/reports.html .
• Lattimore PK. Considering reentry program evaluation: Thoughts from the SVORI (and other) evaluations. In: Orrell B, editor. Rethinking reentry: An AEI working group summary. American Enterprise Institute; 2020. pp. 7–38. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lattimore, P. K., Barrick, K., Cowell, A. J., Dawes, D., Steffey, D. M., Tueller, S. J., & Visher, C. (2012). Prisoner reentry services: What worked for SVORI evaluation participants? Prepared for NIJ.
• Lattimore PK, Broner N, Sherman R, Frisman L, Shafer M. A comparison of pre-booking and post-booking diversion programs for mentally ill substance using individuals with justice involvement. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice. 2003; 19 (1):30–64. doi: 10.1177/1043986202239741. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lattimore PK, Krebs CP, Koetse W, Lindquist C, Cowell AJ. Predicting the effect of substance abuse treatment on probationer recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology. 2005; 1 :159–189. doi: 10.1007/s11292-005-1617-z. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lattimore, P.K., Spohn, C., & DeMichele, M. (2021) Reimagining Pretrial and Sentencing. In The Brookings-AEI Working Group on Criminal Justice Reform, A better path forward for criminal justice (pp. 16–27) . Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/multi-chapter-report/a-better-path-forward-for-criminal-justice/ .
• Lattimore PK, Visher C. The impact of prison reentry services on short-term outcomes: Evidence from a multi-site evaluation. Evaluation Review. 2013; 37 :274–313. doi: 10.1177/0193841X13519105. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lattimore, P. K., & Visher, C. A. (2021). Considerations on the multi-site evaluation of the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative. In. P. K. Lattimore, B. M. Huebner, & F. S. Taxman (Eds.), Handbook on moving corrections and sentencing forward: Building on the record (pp. 312–335). Routledge.
• Lattimore PK, Visher CA, Brumbaugh S, Lindquist C, Winterfield L. Implementation of prisoner reentry programs: Findings from the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative multi-site evaluation. Justice Research and Policy. 2005; 7 (2):87–109. doi: 10.3818/JRP.7.2.2005.87. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lattimore PK, Visher C, Steffey DM. Prisoner reentry in the first decade of the 21st century. Victims and Offenders. 2010; 5 :253–267. doi: 10.1080/15564886.2010.485907. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lattimore PK, Witte AD, Baker JR. Experimental assessment of the effect of vocational training on youthful property offenders. Evaluation Review. 1990; 14 :115–133. doi: 10.1177/0193841X9001400201. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lindquist, C., Buck Willison, J., & Lattimore, P. K. (2021). Key findings and implications of the cross-site evaluation of the Bureau of Justice Assistance FY 2011 Second Chance Act Adult Offender Reentry Demonstration Projects. In. P. K. Lattimore, B. M. Huebner, & F. S. Taxman (Eds.), Handbook on moving corrections and sentencing forward: Building on the record (pp. 312–335). Routledge.
• Lipsey MW. What do we learn from 400 research studies on the effectiveness of treatment with juvenile delinquency? In: McGuire J, editor. What works reducing reoffending: Guidelines from research and practice. Wiley; 1995. pp. 63–78. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lipsey, M. W. (1998). Design sensitivity: Statistical power for applied experimental research. In: Bickman Leonard, Rog Debra J. (eds.) Handbook of applied social research methods (pp 39–68). Sage.
• Lipsey MW, Cullen FT. The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation: A review of systematic reviews. Annual Review of Law and Social Science. 2007; 3 :297–320. doi: 10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.3.081806.112833. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lipton, D.S. (1975). The effectiveness of correctional treatment: a survey of treatment evaluation studies. Praeger Publishers.
• Lowenkamp, C.T., & Latessa, E.J. (2002). Evaluation of Ohio’s community-based correctional facilities and halfway house program s. University of Cincinnati. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237720823 .
• MacKenzie D. What works in corrections? Reducing the criminal activities of offenders and delinquents. Cambridge University Press; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mears DP, Cochran JC, Cullen FT. Incarceration heterogeneity and its implications for assessing the effectiveness of imprisonment on recidivism. Criminal Justice Policy Review. 2015; 26 (7):691–712. doi: 10.1177/0887403414528950. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2022). The limits of recidivism: Measuring success after prison . The National Academies Press. 10.17226/26459.
• Page, J., & Soss, J. (2021). Predatory dimensions of criminal justice. Science , 374(6565), 291–294 10.1126/science.abj7782. [ PubMed ]
• Petersilia J. When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry. Oxford University Press; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sherman L, Gottfredson D, MacKenzie D, Eck J, Reuter P, Bushway S. Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising. US Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice; 1997. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sherman, L., Neyroud, P.W. and Neyroud, E., 2016. The Cambridge crime harm index: Measuring total harm from crime based on sentencing guidelines. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice , 10 (3 ), 171–183.
• The Brookings-AEI Working Group on Criminal Justice Reform. (2021). A Better Path Forward for Criminal Justice . Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/multi-chapter-report/a-better-path-forward-for-criminal-justice/ .
• Travis J. But they all come back: Facing the challenges of prisoner Reentry. Urban Institute Press; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Travis, J., & Visher, C., eds. (2005). Prisoner reentry and crime in America . Cambridge University Press.
• Visher C, Lattimore PK, Barrick K, Tueller SJ. Evaluating the long-term effects of prisoner reentry services on recidivism: What types of services matter? Justice Quarterly. 2017; 34 (1):136–165. doi: 10.1080/07418825.2015.1115539. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wanner P. Inventory of evidence-based, research-based, and promising programs for adult corrections (Document Number 18–02-1901) Washington State Institute for Public Policy; 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Winterfield L, Lattimore PK, Steffey DM, Brumbaugh SM, Lindquist CH. The serious and violent offender reentry initiative: Measuring the effects on service delivery. Western Criminology Review. 2006; 7 (2):3–19. [ Google Scholar ]

A better path forward for criminal justice: Conclusion

Subscribe to governance weekly, rashawn ray and rashawn ray senior fellow - governance studies @sociologistray brent orrell brent orrell senior fellow - american enterprise institute @orrellaei.

Below is the conclusion from “A Better Path Forward for Criminal Justice,” a report by the Brookings-AEI Working Group on Criminal Justice Reform. You can access other chapters from the report here .

As we write this report, the high-profile failures of the criminal justice system remain front and center in news coverage and the nation’s public policy agenda. The trial of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin in the killing of George Floyd draws our attention to how police authority continues to be a frequent threat to life and well-being, especially for low-income individuals and people of color. The police killing of Daunte Wright in a Minneapolis suburb further fuels community distrust and racial division in the Twin Cities and around the country.

At the same time, we are seeing a sudden and disturbing spike in criminal activity and violent offenses in our major urban areas. This spike has variously been attributed to social stress related to the pandemic, a declining willingness of police forces (in the wake of the Floyd death and subsequent civil unrest) to risk potentially dangerous confrontations with individuals committing crimes, and a growing unwillingness among prosecutors to try lower-level offenses thus implicitly encouraging worse ones.

As we prepare to exit pandemic conditions, we recommend a strategic pause to gather data that will help us understand why criminal activity has gone up and inform both immediate responses as well as longer-term reform initiatives. There will be a temptation – on both sides – to argue that the recent spike confirms their prior understandings and policy preferences; either that the recent burst of crime can be effectively controlled by a ratcheting up “tough-on-crime” policies and practices or that it is exactly these practices that create the predicate for crime surges by disrupting lives, families, and neighborhoods through excessive reliance on force and incarceration. We should resist both of these views while we strive for a better understanding of the forces driving and shaping patterns of criminal offenses. It is entirely possible, given the unprecedented conditions of the past 12 months, we will find ourselves surprised by what we learn.

As is often the case, we may need an “and” approach rather than an “or” approach. Policies need to address recent rises in crime and overpolicing. This is why our report focuses on the criminal justice as a whole. Policing is the entree to the criminal justice system that sorts people based on race, social class, and place. Most people do not want less policing. They want equitable policing, and equitable treatment once interacting with the criminal justice system, either as a victim or perpetrator.

Research-informed innovation that builds a more flexible and effective toolbox of responses is needed to move us towards the more peaceful, flourishing, and just society that is the shared objective of conservatives and progressives alike.

The sources of criminal activity and public safety challenges are multifaceted while our responses to them are often singular: more and tougher policing, prosecution, and incarceration. Not every public order challenge is a nail in need of a hammer. If we are to honor the dignity of every person and respect the sanctity of human life, we need a more balanced and diversified approach that recognizes confrontation and coercion are not the only, and often not the best, strategies for protecting our communities. Research-informed innovation that builds a more flexible and effective toolbox of responses is needed to move us towards the more peaceful, flourishing, and just society that is the shared objective of conservatives and progressives alike.

The essays in this volume and the recommended supplemental readings provide much food for thought about the major areas of criminal justice reform that should be at the top of the nation’s agenda. The recommendations are varied and informed by differing perspectives on how to better balance the requirements of community safety, civil liberty, policing and procedural protections, and supporting and achieving lasting changes in attitudes, behaviors, and outcomes among justice-involved individuals as befits a nation committed to the idea of rehabilitation and not just retribution. The authors in this volume will continue convening to discuss, debate, and research these complex issues, with a shared goal of identifying ways to improve our country’s criminal justice system. These are deeply interconnected issues requiring a thorough, thoughtful, and comprehensive response rather than an immediate reversion to long-held and -argued views that may fit recent history or current conditions. A nation that incarcerates so many at such a high cost in public resources and wasted human lives can ill-afford to do otherwise.

The Brookings Institution is a nonprofit organization devoted to independent research and policy solutions. Its mission is to conduct high-quality, independent research and, based on that research, to provide innovative, practical recommendations for policymakers and the public. The conclusion and recommendations of any Brookings publication are solely those of its authors, and do not reflect the views of the Institution, its management, or its other scholars.

The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research is a nonpartisan, nonprofit 501(c)(3) educational organization. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors. AEI does not take institutional positions on any issues.

Support for this publication was generously provided by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. The views expressed in this report are those of its authors and do not represent the views of the Foundation, their officers, or employees.

Governance Studies

Richard Lempert

May 15, 2024

Online Only

10:00 am - 11:15 am EDT

The Brookings Institution, Washington DC

10:00 am - 11:30 am EDT

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

United States Drug Enforcement Administration

• Get Updates
• Submit A Tip

DEA Releases 2024 National Drug Threat Assessment

WASHINGTON – Today, DEA Administrator Anne Milgram announced the release of the 2024 National Drug Threat Assessment (NDTA), DEA’s comprehensive strategic assessment of illicit drug threats and trafficking trends endangering the United States.

For more than a decade, DEA’s NDTA has been a trusted resource for law enforcement agencies, policy makers, and prevention and treatment specialists and has been integral in informing policies and laws. It also serves as a critical tool to inform and educate the public.

DEA’s top priority is reducing the supply of deadly drugs in our country and defeating the two cartels responsible for the vast majority of drug trafficking in the United States. The drug poisoning crisis remains a public safety, public health, and national security issue, which requires a new approach.

“The shift from plant-based drugs, like heroin and cocaine, to synthetic, chemical-based drugs, like fentanyl and methamphetamine, has resulted in the most dangerous and deadly drug crisis the United States has ever faced,” said DEA Administrator Anne Milgram. “At the heart of the synthetic drug crisis are the Sinaloa and Jalisco cartels and their associates, who DEA is tracking world-wide. The suppliers, manufacturers, distributors, and money launderers all play a role in the web of deliberate and calculated treachery orchestrated by these cartels. DEA will continue to use all available resources to target these networks and save American lives.”

Drug-related deaths claimed 107,941 American lives in 2022, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Fentanyl and other synthetic opioids are responsible for approximately 70% of lives lost, while methamphetamine and other synthetic stimulants are responsible for approximately 30% of deaths.

Fentanyl is the nation’s greatest and most urgent drug threat. Two milligrams (mg) of fentanyl is considered a potentially fatal dose. Pills tested in DEA laboratories average 2.4 mg of fentanyl, but have ranged from 0.2 mg to as high as 9 mg. The advent of fentanyl mixtures to include other synthetic opioids, such as nitazenes, or the veterinary sedative xylazine have increased the harms associated with fentanyl.   Seizures of fentanyl, in both powder and pill form, are at record levels. Over the past two years seizures of fentanyl powder nearly doubled. DEA seized 13,176 kilograms (29,048 pounds) in 2023. Meanwhile, the more than 79 million fentanyl pills seized by DEA in 2023 is almost triple what was seized in 2021. Last year, 30% of the fentanyl powder seized by DEA contained xylazine. That is up from 25% in 2022.  

Social media platforms and encrypted apps extend the cartels’ reach into every community in the United States and across nearly 50 countries worldwide. Drug traffickers and their associates use technology to advertise and sell their products, collect payment, recruit and train couriers, and deliver drugs to customers without having to meet face-to-face. This new age of digital drug dealing has pushed the peddling of drugs off the streets of America and into our pockets and purses.

The cartels have built mutually profitable partnerships with China-based precursor chemical companies to obtain the necessary ingredients to manufacturer synthetic drugs. They also work in partnership with Chinese money laundering organizations to launder drug proceeds and are increasingly using cryptocurrency.

Nearly all the methamphetamines sold in the United States today is manufactured in Mexico, and it is purer and more potent than in years past. The shift to Mexican-manufactured methamphetamine is evidenced by the dramatic decline in domestic clandestine lab seizures. In 2023, DEA’s El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC) documented 60 domestic methamphetamine clandestine lab seizures, which is a stark comparison to 2004 when 23,700 clandestine methamphetamine labs were seized in the United States.

DEA’s NDTA gathers information from many data sources, such as drug investigations and seizures, drug purity, laboratory analysis, and information on transnational and domestic criminal groups.

It is available DEA.gov to view or download.

• International

The latest on the Idaho student killings investigation

By Aditi Sangal , Adrienne Vogt , Matt Meyer and Melissa Macaya, CNN

We've wrapped up our live coverage for the day. You can read more about the case here , or scroll through the updates below.

Authorities identified the suspect with the help of genetic genealogy, source says

From CNN’s Jean Casarez

The suspect in the murders of four University of Idaho students was identified with the help of genetic genealogy, a source with knowledge of the case tells CNN.

Unknown DNA found in Idaho during the course of the investigation was taken through a DNA public database to find potential matches for family members, the source said. Once potential family matches were found, subsequent investigative work by law enforcement led to the identification of suspect Bryan Kohberger, according to the source.

What we learned today in the Idaho students murder case — and what we still don't know

From CNN staff

Friday brought the most significant news yet in the closely-watched case of four college students who were killed in Moscow, Idaho, in November.

While authorities have now arrested a suspect, many key questions about the events surrounding the killings remain unanswered.

What we learned today:

• A suspect in the killings is now in custody: The man arrested is Bryan Christopher Kohberger, 28, according to a criminal complaint. He was taken into custody Friday in Monroe County, Pennsylvania, the document states.
• The evidence used by investigators: Authorities narrowed their focus to Kohberger after tracing his ownership of a  white Hyundai Elantra  seen in the area of the killings, according to two law enforcement sources. They also said his DNA was matched to genetic material recovered at the off-campus house where the students were stabbed to death. Investigators traced the DNA with the help of genetic genealogy, a source with knowledge of the case told CNN.
• Kohberger was a graduate student at a nearby school: The suspect does not attend the same college as the victims, but just finished his first semester in a PhD program for Washington State University’s Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, the school confirmed.
• What's next for the suspect: Records show Kohberger was arraigned Friday morning in Pennsylvania and has a court hearing on extradition to Idaho on Jan. 3. He could also waive extradition and return voluntarily. Once he is in Idaho, he is expected to make an initial appearance before a magistrate and further hearings will be scheduled.
• Investigators still need help: “This is not the end of this investigation. In fact, this is a new beginning,” Latah County Prosecutor Bill Thompson said during tonight's news conference. Authorities urged anyone with information about the named suspect to come forward and help them fill in the events surrounding the killings.

What we still don't know:

• The suspect's potential motive or connection to the victims : Moscow Police Chief James Fry said the suspect's motive in the attack is still part of the investigation and would not publicly say whether the suspect knew the victims.
• The weapon used in the attack: Authorities have previously said an “edged weapon such as a knife” was used in the killings, but no murder weapon has been found, Fry said Friday.
• Whether a specific tip led to the arrest: The police chief thanked residents for the overwhelming number of tips that poured in for the case, but did not specify when asked whether a specific piece of information led to Friday's arrest.
• How the attack played out: While police have previously outlined limited details about the killings , including that the victims had likely been sleeping and that two additional roommates were unharmed, investigators went no further Friday to establish the narrative of that night's events.

More context: State law limits what information authorities can release before Kohberger makes an initial appearance in Idaho court, Fry told reporters, and that could have to do with the lack of further details. The police chief thanked the public for its patience and acknowledged frustrations with the pace of updates on the case.

School confirms that Idaho killings suspect is a PhD student at Washington State University

Washington State University confirmed that the suspect in the case of four murdered Idaho college students , Bryan Kohberger, attends the school as a graduate student.

In a statement released Friday, a school spokesperson said Kohberger completed his first semester as a PhD student in the school's criminal justice program earlier this month.

University officials also confirmed that the college's police department helped Idaho law enforcement search Kohberger's apartment and office, which are both located on the school's Pullman campus.

CNN had previously reported Kohberger's attendance based on a since-removed school directory.

“On behalf of the WSU Pullman community, I want to offer my sincere thanks to all of the law enforcement agencies that have been working tirelessly to solve this crime,” said Elizabeth Chilton, chancellor of the WSU Pullman campus, in the statement. “This horrific act has shaken everyone in the Palouse region.”

“We also want to extend our deepest sympathies to the families, friends, and Vandal colleagues who were impacted by these murders,” Chilton said. “We will long feel the loss of these young people in the Moscow-Pullman community and hope the announcement today will be a step toward healing.”

Cleanup at the house where Idaho students were killed has been halted by a legal request

From CNN's Elizabeth Joseph

A court request has halted the cleanup process at the home where four college students were killed last month, the Moscow, Idaho, police chief said Friday.

On Thursday, Moscow police said a private company would begin "remediation activities" the next morning, and that the 1122 King Street residence would remain an active crime scene under police authority.

But “the house cleanup has been halted, and that came by a legal request from the court,” chief James Fry told reporters Friday. 

Remediation activities include removing potential biohazards and other harmful substances used to collect evidence, Moscow police explained in a news release earlier this week.

"There is no timeline for completion, but the property will be returned to the property management company when finished,” the department said at the time.

Fry did not offer further details about why the cleanup has been halted.

Here's what comes next for the suspect, according to officials 

Bryan Kohberger, the suspect arrested Friday in connection with the Idaho student killings, had an initial appearance in front of a judge in Pennsylvania and is being held without bond, Latah County Prosecutor Bill Thompson said during tonight's news conference.

“And the warrant from our magistrate judge here also provides for no bond. We understand that he’s scheduled to be back in court in Pennsylvania next Tuesday afternoon and that a public defender has been appointed for him there,” Thompson said.

Once Kohberger is in Idaho, he is expected to make an initial appearance before a magistrate and further hearings will be scheduled.

“This is not the end of this investigation. In fact, this is a new beginning,” Thompson said.

Because Kohberger was arrested in Pennsylvania, he has the opportunity either waive extradition and return to Idaho voluntarily. If he chooses not to return voluntarily, Moscow police will initiate extradition proceedings through the governor’s office, Moscow Police Department Chief James Fry said during the news conference.

“If we do that, it can take a while for him to get here,” he said.

Records show Kohberger was arraigned Friday morning in Pennsylvania and he has a court hearing on extradition Jan. 3.

Moscow resident reacts with relief to arrest in Idaho student murders case

From CNN’s Veronica Miracle

Moscow, Idaho, resident Erin Staheli became emotional while expressing her relief at the news of an arrest in the stabbing deaths of four University of Idaho students.

“It's just been very scary not knowing who's out there,” Staheli told CNN, noting the fear that has permeated the Moscow community for weeks. “I had doubts that the killer would be caught because it's been so long, you know.”

Staheli praised the work of the police agencies and FBI for the arrest.

“I knew that they would, but it's just taking so long and I'm so happy for their families and everybody that's been worried that all the students, everybody that may not have come back to school,” she said.

Police chief says investigators are still searching for a murder weapon and doesn’t share potential motive

Moscow, Idaho, Police Chief James Fry said that investigators are still actively searching for pieces of evidence in the case, including the weapon used to kill the four college students.

Fry also said the suspect's motive in the attack is still part of the investigation and would not publicly say whether suspect Bryan Kohberger knew the victims.

"That's part of the investigation as well; it won't be something that will come out at this point in time," Fry said. "But as we continue the investigation, and as this case goes to trial, that will be brought forth."

The police chief also did not specify whether a specific tip led to Friday's arrest, which occurred in Albrightsville, Pennsylvania.

“All I know is that he lives in in Pennsylvania,” Fry told a reporter when asked about Kohberger’s connection to Pennsylvania. He declined to provide any other detail.

State law limits what information authorities can release before Kohberger makes an initial appearance in Idaho court, Fry told reporters.

University of Idaho president says school will carry on legacy of students who were killed

University of Idaho President Scott Green said he was thankful for both local and national support for the investigation into four slain students.

"While we cannot bring back Maddie, Kaylee and Xana and Ethan, we could carry their legacy in the work that we do. Our students come first and that was proven each and every day of this investigation," he said.

Green expressed gratitude for law enforcement in providing security to the school.

"We never lost faith that this case could be solved and are grateful for the hard work of the Moscow Police Department and their law enforcement partners," he said.

Please enable JavaScript for a better experience.

Hope Hicks gets teary testifying at Trump’s hush money trial

After a week of tabloid-focused testimony, the former aide led the jury through the whirlwind of the 2016 campaign and directly to the Oval Office.

NEW YORK — Hope Hicks, a former top aide to Donald Trump , appeared to break down crying on the witness stand Friday at Trump’s criminal trial, where she described campaign and White House efforts to keep a lid on scandalous stories about his past sex life.

Her time on the stand marked a significant shift in the focus of trial testimony; after days of hearing about tabloid editors and secret deals to stifle or sell celebrity gossip, the jury was led through the whirlwind of the 2016 presidential campaign and directly to the Oval Office.

Prosecutors with the Manhattan district attorney’s office wanted Hicks to show the jury how worried the 2016 Trump campaign was about negative stories about him and women — a key element in Trump’s alleged motive in the hush money case.

Her testimony seemed to accomplish that limited goal, but overall her tenor was respectful and complimentary of Trump, the presumptive GOP nominee for president in the November election; far from an aide turning against her former boss, she came across as a still-loyal and reluctant participant in his prosecution.

Hicks has long been seen as one of Trump’s most loyal aides, following him from his business to the 2016 presidential campaign to the White House. After about two hours on the witness stand in a packed courtroom, she was overcome by emotion as Trump lawyer Emil Bove prepared to cross-examine her.

As Bove began, Hicks slowly turned her face away from Trump, who was sitting at the defense table, and toward the jury. She brought her hand to her nose and started to quietly cry.

“Miss Hicks, do you need a break?” asked New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan .

“Yes,” she said through tears.

Trump hush money trial

With that, the jury was sent out of the courtroom while Hicks collected herself.

Trump had watched Hicks enter the courtroom but did not react much during her time on the stand; at some points he wrote notes and passed them to his lawyers, but mostly he sat impassively at the defense table, listening with his eyes mostly closed.

Hicks appeared nervous at the start of her testimony, but there was no confrontation or revelation that seemed to prompt her emotional moment. It appeared that the attention of the high-profile trial, and being a prosecution witness against her former boss, whom she described in positive terms, became overwhelming as the day wore on.

Hicks told the jury about conversations inside the White House in 2018, as aides dealt with the fallout from news stories about payments made to two women during the 2016 campaign to keep them from going public with allegations about sexual trysts with Trump.

Under questioning from prosecutor Matthew Colangelo, Hicks recounted speaking to Trump after an article appeared in 2018 about a payment to adult-film actress Stormy Daniels. That $130,000 payment was first made by Michael Cohen, then a lawyer for Trump, whom Trump later reimbursed. Those reimbursements, and their categorization as legal costs rather than campaign expenses, are the basis of the 34-count indictment filed against Trump by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D).

After that hush money payment was detailed by the Wall Street Journal, Hicks said, Trump told her that “Michael had paid this woman to protect him from a false allegation, and that Michael felt like it was his job to protect him and that’s what he was doing and he did it out of the kindness of his heart.” Soon after the story came out, Cohen publicly claimed to have made the payment with his own money.

Cohen completed a three-year prison term after pleading guilty to fraud and lying, and has become an outspoken Trump critic . He is expected to be a key witness in the case. Hicks on Friday became the latest of several trial witnesses who have said biting things about Cohen .

Asked if it sounded like Mr. Cohen to make a $130,000 payment “out of the kindness of his heart,” Hicks replied, “I’d say that would be out of character for Michael … I didn’t know Michael to be an especially charitable person or selfless person.”

She said he was “the kind of person who seeks credit.”

At another point, Hicks wryly mentioned that Cohen liked to refer to himself as a “fixer,” yet in her experience, he fixed things “only because he first broke it.”

For prosecutors, the main purpose of Hicks’s testimony seemed to be showing that Trump and his campaign were very concerned about allegations made against him by women.

When it came to the Daniels story, which surfaced publicly while he was in the White House, Hicks said Trump told her that “it was better to be dealing with it now, and it would have been bad to have that story come out before the election.”

As soon as Hicks said that, prosecutors ended their questioning.

Her testimony, while emotional at one moment, did not offer any major revelations or surprises, but it adds to prosecutors’ larger point that Trump was motivated to keep scandalous stories out of the public eye during the election.

But Hicks’s account also made clear that her former boss was concerned about the potential effect of the allegations on his family.

When the Journal published a story in early November 2016 about the National Enquirer buying the rights to a Playboy model’s tale of an affair with Trump — a purchase the tabloid made for the express purpose of keeping the allegation quiet — Hicks said the presidential candidate worried about Melania Trump’s reaction.

In her role as a campaign adviser, Hicks said, she wanted to “blow past it and keep going,” since the election was only days away.

She said Trump was “concerned about the story, he was concerned about how it would be viewed by his wife, and he wanted me to make sure that the newspapers weren’t delivered to their residence that morning.”

By that point, the campaign had already been rocked a month earlier, when The Washington Post revealed the existence of an “Access Hollywood” recording in which Trump bragged about grabbing women’s genitalia.

That story unleashed a political maelstrom, Hicks testified. Prosecutors wanted her testimony in part to show that, after the scandal, Trump and his campaign were desperate to prevent further damaging stories about him and women, and that gave the candidate and his staff a powerful motive to keep Daniels and any other potential accusers quiet.

Hicks said she was “a little stunned” when she was first asked for comment about the “Access Hollywood” tape, and wrote in an email that they should “deny, deny, deny.”

“I had a good sense that this was going to be a massive story and sort of dominate the news cycle for the next several days at least,” she said. “This was a crisis.”

At times in her testimony, Hicks flashed a sense of humor, noting that around the same time as that story, a hurricane hit the East Coast.

“I don’t think anybody remembers where or when that hurricane made landfall,” she said. “It was all Trump, all the time, for the next 36 hours.”

The 11th day of the trial — the first time a former U.S. president has faced criminal charges — began with the judge reassuring Trump that despite being found in contempt of court for repeated violations of his gag order, Trump still had an absolute right to testify in his defense if he wanted to do so later.

“It came to my attention that there may be some misunderstanding regarding the order,” Merchan said, referring to comments Trump made a day earlier in the courthouse hallway. Speaking to reporters, the former president had complained that the judge’s order — which bars him from talking about witnesses, or the families of the judge or the prosecutor — prevented him from testifying. It does not.

Merchan tried to clear up the issue by telling Trump: “You have an absolute right to testify at trial if that’s what you decide to do after consultation with your attorneys.” The gag order, he said, only applies to statements made outside the courtroom, whether in the hallway, in media interviews or on social media.

As Merchan spoke, Trump nodded in agreement.

Trump has flirted publicly with the idea of testifying in his defense, though lawyers usually advise defendants not to do so, because it gives prosecutors a chance to question the person under oath in front of the jury.

Trump has been found in contempt of court for nine statements that violated the judge’s gag order, and Merchan is considering four additional statements that may also be violations.

Later Friday, a court official said Trump has paid the $9,000 in fines he owed for those violations. The payment was made in two installments: one for $2,000 and another for $7,000.

Trump New York hush money case

Former president Donald Trump’s criminal hush money trial is underway in New York. Follow live updates from the trial .

Key witnesses: Several key witnesses, including David Pecker and Stormy Daniels, have taken the stand. Here’s what Daniels said during her testimony . Read full transcripts from the trial .

Gag order: New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan has twice ruled that Trump violated his gag order , which prohibits him from commenting on jurors and witnesses in the case, among others. Here are all of the times Trump has violated the gag order .

The case: The investigation involves a $130,000 payment made to Daniels, an adult-film actress , during the 2016 presidential campaign. It’s one of many ongoing investigations involving Trump . Here are some of the key people in the case .

The charges: Trump is charged with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. Falsifying business records is a felony in New York when there is an “intent to defraud” that includes an intent to “commit another crime or to aid or conceal” another crime. He has pleaded not guilty . Here’s what to know about the charges — and any potential sentence .

Advertisement

Todd Blanche, Who Gambled Gilded Career to Represent Trump, Gets Shot at Cohen

This case is Mr. Blanche’s second criminal trial as a defense lawyer. He seemed to struggle to land a “gotcha” moment on Tuesday while grilling Michael D. Cohen about a dizzying variety of interactions spanning years.

• Share full article

By Michael Wilson

• May 14, 2024 Updated 5:55 p.m. ET

Donald J. Trump’s defense lawyer had waited a day and a half for this moment, to rise and begin the cross-examination of the prosecution’s star witness. Right out of the gate, he tried to set the tone for how the proceedings would unfold.

Did you, Todd Blanche asked Michael D. Cohen, go on TikTok and call me a “crying little shit?”

Soon afterward, there was a sidebar, out of earshot of jurors. According to a transcript, Justice Juan M. Merchan asked Mr. Blanche, “Why are you making this about yourself?” The lawyer protested, but the judge stood firm. “Just don’t make it about yourself,” he said.

That matter dispensed with, Mr. Blanche went on to ask Mr. Cohen about the T-shirts he sells online that show Mr. Trump in a jumpsuit behind bars, and about whether he lied in past interactions with federal prosecutors about, say, the Trump Tower Moscow project. As if trying to keep his cool, Mr. Cohen answered metronomically slowly at times.

Mr. Blanche seem to struggle in his first day of cross-examination to land a “gotcha” moment on Tuesday afternoon, grilling Mr. Cohen about a dizzying variety of past interactions spanning years. This case is only Mr. Blanche’s second criminal trial as a defense lawyer, and one of his few state court engagements.

He sought to portray Mr. Cohen as a stalker bent on revenge against Mr. Trump for turning his back on him — no real surprise, considering that Mr. Cohen’s two books are titled “Disloyal” and “Revenge.”

Watching the proceedings, it could be easily forgotten that just over a year ago, Mr. Blanche was a registered Democrat in New York and a partner at Wall Street’s oldest law firm. But in the months since, he has fallen in behind his new client professionally and, it would seem, personally. He bought a home in Florida near Mar-a-Lago, where he can meet Mr. Trump with little notice, and brought his family to a Trump event on Super Tuesday.

The swift transformation in service of a defendant whom many prominent lawyers have refused to represent surprised those who have worked alongside Mr. Blanche over the years. The former president is known for cycling through lawyers as much as he is for ignoring their bills. And yet Mr. Blanche, 49, hopped off the comfortable career track of a federal prosecutor and white-collar defense lawyer to take his case.

“I have heard from a good number of people in the S.D.N.Y. who have said, ‘Why the heck would Todd do this — why would he ever take this case?’” Elie Honig, a CNN senior legal analyst who worked with Mr. Blanche at the Southern District of New York, said in a recent profile . “My response is, generally, when did we become pearl-clutchers about defense lawyers defending defendants?”

“That’s what the job is and what our system requires,” he added.

Mr. Blanche’s friends call him deeply loyal and committed to the notion that Mr. Trump should not be on trial in the Manhattan case. He is both competitive and, unlike his famous client, soft-spoken.

So he may have been reaching outside of his comfort zone on Tuesday when, in exchange after exchange, he sought to show jurors a glimpse of Mr. Cohen’s unfiltered side, only to be met with the witness’s persistent calm.

“Do you want President Trump to get convicted in this case?” Mr. Blanche asked.

“Sure,” Mr. Cohen responded.

A short while later, Mr. Blanche asked: Had Mr. Cohen called Mr. Trump a “boorish cartoon misogynist” and “Cheeto-dusted cartoon villain?”

Sounds like something I would say, Mr. Cohen responded.

Maggie Haberman , Ben Protess , Jonah E. Bromwich and Alan Feuer contributed reporting.

Michael Wilson , who covers New York City, has been a Times reporter for more than two decades. More about Michael Wilson

Our Coverage of the Trump Hush-Money Trial

News and Analysis

Michael Cohen, Donald Trump’s former fixer, faced a fierce cross-examination  in the trial, as the defense tried to tear down  the prosecution’s key witness.

Over the course of two days of testimony, Cohen has detailed the $130,000 he gave to the porn star Stormy Daniels  to silence her account of a sexual encounter with Trump, and how Trump repaid him  after winning the presidency.

Trump’s trial has become a staging ground  for Republicans, including House Speaker Mike Johnson  and Senator J.D. Vance of Ohio , to prove their fealty to the former president.

More on Trump’s Legal Troubles

Key Inquiries: Trump faces several investigations  at both the state and the federal levels, into matters related to his business and political careers.

Case Tracker:  Keep track of the developments in the criminal cases  involving the former president.

What if Trump Is Convicted?: Could he go to prison ? And will any of the proceedings hinder Trump’s presidential campaign? Here is what we know , and what we don’t know .

Trump on Trial Newsletter: Sign up here  to get the latest news and analysis  on the cases in New York, Florida, Georgia and Washington, D.C.