arrest can be burdensome, violent, intrusive, and costly for an individual, the arrest itself is not the beginning of the adversarial process. Prosecutors are not an adjunct to the police but instead play a unique role in screening arrests and deciding whether to begin the adversarial process.

Unfortunately, said Natapoff, the misdemeanor declination process does not work as intended. Too often, prosecutors do not screen arrests up front but instead defer to police by filing low-level charges immediately after the arrest. The limited data that exist indicate that misdemeanor declination rates tend to be much lower than felony declination rates—as low as 5 percent in some jurisdictions—which means prosecutors are routinely converting arrests into criminal charges. However, ultimate dismissal rates for misdemeanors are relatively high—between 30–50 percent depending on jurisdiction. This means that a decision to drop a case could have been made right after the arrest, instead being deferred for weeks or months, Natapoff explained. The gap between the initial failure to screen and the ultimate dismissal is expensive. A defendant might be incarcerated for the duration of this gap, and they might lose their job, their benefits, and their immigration status. Most profoundly, she said, these individuals experience the weight and stigma of being a criminal defendant. This process is expensive for the entire criminal justice system because every player has to “gear up” each time a prosecutor files charges. It is also expensive from an equity standpoint—like many discretionary aspects of the criminal justice system, declination appears to be racially disparate. For all these reasons, said Natapoff, declination is an opportunity for “equitable efficiency.”

Stronger screening of misdemeanors up front would keep people out of the criminal justice system, reduce racial disparities, and save an enormous amount of money, Natapoff said. Some prosecutors’ offices are making changes in this area through strong declination policies, data collection, and training of junior prosecutors. When misdemeanor declination is done poorly, stated Natapoff, it ruins the lives of millions of people and costs the system millions of unnecessary dollars. Natapoff expressed hope that this area of prosecution would begin to receive increased attention.

The importance of declination was raised in an earlier workshop session, when a participant asked panelists to briefly identify “the least important thing” prosecutors’ offices do; that is, if these offices had to drop something to assume a new responsibility, what could be dropped? Jamila Hodge responded that declination could free up prosecutors’ time. Misdemeanors are “clogging the system,” and research indicates that prosecuting misdemeanors

is associated with worse outcomes than “doing nothing.” By choosing to decline some misdemeanor cases, prosecutors could have more time to focus on serious crimes and issues that matter to the community, while simultaneously feeling less overworked and burned out.

Methodological and Evidence Gaps

Several speakers spoke about data or methodological gaps in prosecution-related research. Steven Raphael said that while he thinks the research community knows how to analyze data and test for causal effects, there are areas for further inquiry. For example, speakers have noted emphasized the previously mentioned lack of information on plea bargaining and noted that this information could be collected at numerous points (e.g., first offer, final offer, intermediate offer). Even obtaining data about the first offer would provide a great deal of insight, he stated. Data are also needed to describe how prosecutor decisions impact, or are impacted by, other actions at different stages in the criminal justice system. For example, Raphael said, it would be interesting to study whether cases involving use of force have differing rates of declination than other offenses.

Other interesting questions could be answered if more linkages existed between data from prosecutors’ offices and other parts of the criminal justice system, Raphael noted. He described a recent project in which he learned that the California Department of Corrections uses data from the prosecutor’s office, along with the defendant’s sentence, to estimate an expected release date. Finally, said Raphael, more research is needed on the various promising programs that have been implemented. While many of these programs are small, it is important for programs that appear to be effective to undergo sufficiently powered research studies, in various settings and institutional contexts.

Adding his thoughts on data gaps where more research is needed, Ojmarrh Mitchell said that politicization of prosecution has eroded community trust in prosecutors and in the wider criminal justice system. He asked whether communities are aware that data dashboards exist, and whether dashboards impact community trust. He voiced that additional research is needed in these areas to restore trust in prosecutors and the criminal justice system. Patrick Robinson, VSV Leadership, agreed with the importance of performing research to explore who uses dashboards and for what purpose.

which prosecutors do their work—so it is critical to examine the underlying systems and how acceleration might lead to more inequitable results.

In considering the appropriate role of AI in the criminal justice system, Robinson said, it is important to learn from other sectors and borrow relevant models. Tools used in complex sectors ranging from physics to sales could be useful in criminal justice. For example, the healthcare sector has technology that uses algorithms to place information in the appropriate spot in the database based on a staff member’s verbal description of a case. Robinson cautioned that no one recipe or formula exists for successful implementation of AI, but with resilience, curiosity, and open-mindedness, progress can be made. More research on unintended consequences of policies is important, he said, to enable actors to ask the right questions as new AI policies are being developed.

Productivity-enhancing tools currently under development could speed up many prosecutorial functions, said Robinson. He cautioned that new opportunities for some stakeholders could change the behavior of other stakeholders. Furthermore, it is important to evaluate the potential impact of AI and other new technologies on existing racial disparities or other challenges, and to monitor adoption rates and to prevent widespread unintended consequences.

John Chisholm, District Attorney for Milwaukee County, agreed that new technologies may have unintended consequences on the criminal justice system. He noted that an overwhelming amount of information is available from sources including body-worn cameras, civilian video footage, security camera footage, and recorded statements, which can add delays. It is critical to consider both the intended and unintended impacts of new technologies on the system, he said.

While some legitimate concerns exist about certain uses of AI, Mitchell argued, new tools also provide new opportunities. For example, AI can code, clean, and analyze data and run reports to monitor how prosecutors make decisions that impact racial disparities (e.g., the use of criminal history). AI can also monitor and assist with meeting internal benchmarks on case processing times. AI can be valuable for office management and overseeing day-to-day operations, said Mitchell. Another potential use of AI, said Raphael, involves natural language processing programs that can read court comments and create data that might not have been previously available.

principles aiming to reduce the footprint of incarceration; these were in the areas of proportionality, parsimony, citizenship, and social justice. Prosecutors could take a similar approach, Chisholm said, creating principles to guide the practice of prosecution in a public health model. For example, one principle could stipulate that prosecutors develop and implement policies that are informed by data. Many years ago, said Chisholm, a system was envisioned that would include data about an individual’s interactions with the public health system, the school system, the mental health system, and the criminal justice system. These data would be deidentified and shared for research. Much progress has been made on this system, he said, and it will eventually provide a more effective way to study why people are coming into the criminal justice system and how to address their circumstances. Such a system could be used not only to make decisions about defendants but also to offer support and resources to victims, many of whom are facing issues similar to those of defendants.

Prosecutors who implement reforms are taking political risks, said Chisholm. They attract the attention of those who prefer the system remain as it is; prosecutors are actively attacked by governors, legislatures, and dark money groups. “That’s one of the risks you take,” he said, noting that the risk is worthwhile to “do the right thing.”

Moving Forward

Agan asked panelists to reflect on the critical questions that will confront the prosecution space in the next ten years. She listed previously identified areas for further research, including reducing the collateral consequences of incarceration, reducing racial and ethnic disparities, and improving prosecutors’ capacity to build bridges to their communities. Mitchell said that future questions for prosecutors are the same questions they have been struggling with for decades—excess punitiveness, racial disparities, and inconsistent decision making. These challenges are not going away, he said, and in fact may be more difficult to deal with because of the recent politicization of prosecution.

Moving forward, Chisholm said, it will be important for prosecutors to redesign their offices. As an example, he shared the creation of the victim advocate position in the 1970s, as an attempt to increase accountability to the community. Now, he said, every DA’s office in the country has a fairly robust victim advocacy department. Going forward, offices can create dedicated infrastructure for research and data collection to inform policy. Furthermore, it will be

important for offices to gather more input from the community, voluntarily collaborate with partners, and cede some decision-making authority, he said. Prosecutors are tasked to act in the community’s best interest, said Chisholm, with a mind toward identifying people who pose a genuine risk to the community versus those who do not.

The adversarial model of criminal justice is not a particularly flexible one, said Natapoff. To move forward and make changes, creative problem solving will be critical. Change can happen in underappreciated spaces in the criminal justice system; for example, misdemeanor declinations could change the way millions of people are treated. This approach is predicated on transparency, accountability, and public health; in contrast, the adversarial system is weighted toward confidentiality and secrecy. Changing the system will require thinking differently and having new conversations about how to achieve public safety, she said.

Agan noted that most research on reform models and policies is concentrated in big cities, and primarily in places with progressive prosecutors. She asked how research can be performed in smaller communities and communities with different perspectives on the system. One approach for broadening research, said Mitchell, could be a statewide data system to which prosecutors are mandated to report data. While a mandated system would be ideal, Raphael added, the current situation could be improved if the same case management system were used universally, so that researchers could compare and combine data across jurisdictions. Natapoff replied that the criminal justice system is designed to be “profoundly local.” There are thousands of police departments, courts, and prosecutors’ offices in the country; it is unlikely that a centralized data system could ever exist, she argued. While she is not opposed to a centralized data system, such a system would require overhauling the structure of a 300-year-old institution. However, she said, even conversations about transparency and research are themselves a form of progress.

While countrywide variation and discrepancy in the criminal justice system exist, said Robinson, variation can be a powerful tool for improvement because it allows for evaluation and selection of effective approaches. While this process takes time, it moves the criminal justice system in the right direction.

Earlier in the workshop, Kimberly Foxx offered her perspective on the future of prosecution. She urged constituents, researchers, academics, and other stakeholders to speak out about fairness, equity, and inclusiveness, and to insist that prosecutors be held to high standards.

Foxx noted that the medical profession is highly regulated because doctors have the potential to do harm; prosecutors can also do harm through depriving people of their life or liberty. Like physicians, she said, it is important for prosecutors to be held to high standards—including the requirement that their work be grounded in evidence and fairness.

Foxx closed by urging future prosecutors to be “brave” as they work to address unacceptable disparities in the criminal justice system. “When you are brave, you give space for other people to be brave,” said Foxx.

FINAL REFLECTIONS

To close out the workshop, participants and speakers offered their final reflections and thoughts on moving forward.

Pushing the Work Forward

Workshop speakers and participants are already interested in ensuring that the practice of prosecution achieves fairness, equity, and equality, said Preeti Chauhan. However, of the thousands of prosecutors’ offices across the country, many are not undertaking this work because they lack the resources, data, or funding. Structural barriers including a lack of data, inability to share data, or a lack of the legal authority to share data can limit prosecutors’ offices’ ability to partner with researchers, Agan added. Many offices have expressed interest in working with researchers to measure and improve the criminal justice system, she said, but doing so involves identifying existing barriers and developing solutions.

Researchers can play an important role in incentivizing prosecutors to implement evidence-based policies and practices by providing data demonstrating the cost-benefit analysis and effectiveness of practices like declination, Chauhan said. Robust messaging can also help translate research findings so prosecutors can see that declination saves money and increases public safety. Regardless of the evidence, however, prosecutors assume political risk when implementing such changes, said Chauhan.

In the criminal justice world, considerable progress has been made on data availability, access, and quality, said Brian D. Johnson. Twenty years ago, he said, no one had access to such data, and people were not even talking about using data to inform best practices in prosecution. Johnson said he is encouraged by the broad national interest in implementing evidence-based

practices. There is increasing momentum behind the idea that prosecutors can use their power and discretion to impact both individual lives and the criminal justice system, said Johnson. Although effective programs have been identified, moving this work forward will involve scaling up these programs and translating them into new contexts, Marlene Biener said. Furthermore, an examination of sustainability is warranted. While “champions” may work to implement and grow these programs, ensuring that the programs outlive their creators is critical, said Biener.

Opportunities for Further Research

Workshop speakers and participants identified several areas with further research opportunities. For example, said Chauhan, diversion is a promising area for reducing both racial disparities and incarceration. However, as discussed earlier in the workshop (see Chapter 2), some research has found that Black and Brown people are less likely to participate in diversion programs, thus exacerbating disparities, she noted. Additional research could uncover why diversion is not an attractive alternative for some populations, and whether other policies such as declination may be more effective. Research is also needed on the generalizability of early, small programs and the various contexts in which policies might (or might not) work, she said.

Despite significant recent progress, the evidence base for best practices in prosecution is still “pretty thin,” said Johnson. Additional research will necessitate enthusiastic funders willing to put money into this area, he said. Funding will create more research to build an evidence base from which smart, informed decisions can be made; and a stronger evidence base will attract new stakeholders. High-quality, replicable studies that examine multiple diverse jurisdictions and study outcomes over time are critically needed, said Johnson. It is important that outcomes include not just recidivism but also quality-of-life measures such as employment, education, or housing. Biener agreed with the need for additional outcome measures, noting that recidivism is an important measure—but not the only one. Additional longitudinal research could uncover alternative outcomes that may take time to observe, Besiki Kutateladze added. Adam Gamoran noted that collecting alternative outcomes could be made easier by building data linkages between the criminal justice system and other systems (e.g., education). Racial disparities are a persistent problem, he added, and concerted efforts are needed to implement programs and study their impact on disparities. In addition, research on implementation and ways to incentivize more

prosecutors’ offices to implement such programs is necessary, said Chauhan. Gamoran agreed, noting that data availability is not sufficient for driving change—research examining strategies for moving evidence into evidence-based practice is critical for that purpose.

Johnson also noted at the importance of investigating alternative ways of collecting data. For example, administrative data cannot be used to study defendants’ perceptions of procedural justice. One interesting area for research that would require qualitative data collection, said Johnson, would be an exploration of why most defendants plead guilty.

Quoting Foxx’s earlier statement, Agan said, “You cannot fix what you cannot measure.” There are multiple ways of defining success—whether low recidivism, procedural justice, or racial equity—but no matter how success is defined, it must be measured to be addressed, she said.

Translation of Research Findings

One takeaway from the workshop, said Chauhan, was the importance of research-practice partnerships for generating evidence and translating it into practice. It is important for prosecutors working with researchers to be prepared to both see the data and commit to taking action to address it, she said. Partnerships between researchers and prosecutors barely existed a few years ago, Johnson noted, and now there are dozens of examples of collaborations aiming to advance a fairer, more effective system. The benefits of research-practice partnerships go both ways, he noted. Prosecutors provide researchers with context and clarity about terms, which results in improved understanding of data, and researchers provide prosecutors with feedback and actionable information about policies and practices. Some researchers, said Johnson, become disillusioned by their lack of impact; studies are often conducted and published but few people read them and the research may not be implemented. Research-practice partnerships can address this challenge, he said. Kutateladze noted that city colleges and historically Black colleges and universities could be important research partners for prosecutors’ offices. Chauhan agreed, noting that many students at John Jay College of Criminal Justice have been directly impacted by the criminal justice system; there is value in researchers who have this perspective.

While further research is necessary, Biener pointed out that the current evidence base can be put into action. For example, existing evidence shows that declinations can be a powerful tool for reducing incarceration and racial disparities while protecting public safety. The challenge,

she said, is disseminating this research to the approximately 3,000 prosecutors’ offices across the country. A workshop participant agreed that while data gaps exist, research and implementation are an iterative process and can be started immediately. The information and passion needed to solve these complex issues already exist, he said, allowing immediate engagement in the iterative processes of development, implementation, evaluation, and redesign. While some evidence in the criminal justice field is ready for implementation, Matthew Epperson noted, not all evidence is at that point. Multiple forms of evidence exist at various stages, he said, and further research is warranted in many areas. For example, process studies could examine implementation, and qualitative studies could examine experiences of participants in programs that offer alternatives to incarceration.

Working Across the System

It is important for prosecutors’ office staff to think beyond the office, toward interactions with other actors in the system. Decisions made by police shape the cases that reach a prosecutor’s office, and decisions by judges critically impact outcomes for both individuals and the criminal justice system. One key takeaway from the workshop, said Biener, is the importance of building trust among the various actors in the criminal justice system, particularly the community. Procedural justice is an area of particular interest, and opportunities exist to delve more deeply into how processes can impact outcomes. Workshop participants discussed programs that include authentic community engagement and power sharing, said Biener. The workshop also highlighted victims as actors in the criminal justice system who deserve attention. The criminal justice system traditionally views victims as separate from defendants, said Biener, but panelists spoke about the commonalities between the two groups and the heightened risk for victims to become defendants. A central theme of this discussion was the importance of humanizing all actors in the criminal justice system, from victims to defendants to attorneys. Prosecutors make consequential decisions daily, Biener said, and it is important to address burnout and the overall internal climate of the prosecutor’s office. If prosecutors are expected to perform their basic job functions and engage with the community, partner with researchers, and change their practices, it is critical that they feel supported and valued in their work.

The prosecutorial space is rapidly changing, said Epperson. Prosecutors are rethinking their role in the criminal justice system and their place in the community. It is important for

prosecutors to acknowledge both what they can do and what they cannot do, and to relinquish responsibilities or share power in areas that are better suited for other actors. The public health model—which several speakers suggested could be a model for the criminal justice system—is an integrated model with multiple specialized entities working together. A move toward this model would enable prosecutors and other actors to work within and across their roles to impact inequities and disparities and begin to address root causes, said Epperson. Whether in research, policy development, implementation, or evaluation, Agan said, it is critical to include people who have been impacted by the criminal justice system.

In closing, Gamoran recalled an earlier conversation about research-practice partnerships, noting that the workshop clarified for him that the partnerships actually needed are research-practice-community partnerships. It is essential, he said, to bring the community into partnerships to build trust, to fashion a research agenda that truly captures the interests of all parties, and to develop programs that are feasible to implement. Social science researchers sometimes view their job as writing up their findings and “throwing it over the wall” for someone else to catch and run with, he said. However, “it turns out there’s nobody waiting on the other side of the wall.” Research rests on the relationships between the producers and consumers of research and the intermediaries who bring them together, he said. High-quality evidence is critical, said Gamoran, but it is insufficient for moving research into practice—“it’s not about dissemination, it’s about engagement.” Solving the problems identified during the workshop, said Gamoran, “will be easier if we have a partnership with all parties aiming in the same direction.”