C R I M I N A L J U S T I C E n F a l l 2 0 1 6 2 5Published in Criminal Justice, Volume 31, Number 3, ©2016 by the American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association.

BY SALMA S. SAFIEDINE, JIHAD J. KOMIS, AND CHRISTINE M. KULUMANI

s the United States criminal justice system continues to grow and evolve, the need for appropriate policy regulation to increase efficiency and fairness

becomes more evident. Legislation sets the fundamentals, such as defining the crimes and their punishment; yet often overlooked is the role of criminal justice policy, formal and informal, which serves to integrate law into practice and provide the principles to guide decisions. Policies influence the degree by which an individual goes through the system, and at multiple points throughout that trajectory, race may play a role. (See Ashley Nellis, seNteNciNg Project, the color of justice: rAciAl ANd ethNic disPArity iN stAte PrisoNs 9–10 (2016), http://tinyurl.com/zp7wppf [hereinafter Nellis, color of justice].) In fact, evidence suggests that some individuals are more likely to be detained based on other factors grounded in racially disparate policies, beliefs, and practices than for the crime itself. (Id. at 3.)

Policy has great potential in positively influencing criminal outcomes and criminal justice through favoring alternatives to incarceration and seeking to reduce the odds of recidivism.

The majority of people have contact with the criminal justice system at a local rather than the federal level; therefore, appropriate emphasis can be placed on making reforms to local criminal justice policies and, even more specifically, day-to day practice. (Id. at 3.) However, in the pursuit for neutrality and objectivity, even local policy may not account for identifying factors such as socioeconomics or race, partly because the racial composition or the identity of the community is unknown or misunderstood. (See id.) Also, a policy can be race-neutral or socioeconomically neutral on its face, and still have unintended negative racial and socioeconomic impacts on the individual and, based on large concentrations, the local community at large. (Id.)

For instance, bail-setting assessments may take into account the defendant’s employment status, length of residence in the community, distance from the courthouse, and familial ties and relationships. People of color are more likely to be economically disadvantaged, have unstable employment, and come from disrupted familial ties. (See liNdsey deNvers, BureAu of justice AssistANce, BAil decisioNmAkiNg: reseArch

POLICY REFORM AT THE FOREFRONT OF RACIAL JUSTICEThe Racial Justice Improvement Project

a

2 6 C R I M I N A L J U S T I C E n F a l l 2 0 1 6Published in Criminal Justice, Volume 31, Number 3, ©2016 by the American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association.

summAry (2011), http://tinyurl.com/jm7nb7z.) As a result, Blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans are less likely to be released on their own recognizance. (Research Working Grp., Task Force on Race & the Criminal Justice Sys., Preliminary Report on Race and Washington’s Criminal Justice System, 87 WAsh. l. rev. 1, 29 (2012).) And when individuals charged with the same crime are given different pretrial release determinations, perceptions of fairness erode. Moreover, the collateral consequences that compound these negative impacts feed the systemic problem and further erode public trust in justice, particularly in low-income neighborhoods and communities of color. (Ashley Nellis, judy greeNe & mArc mAuer, seNteNciNg Project, reduciNg rAciAl disPArity iN the crimiNAl justice system: A mANuAl for PrActitioNers ANd PolicymAkers (2008), http://tinyurl.com/z57b3sb.)

DISCRETIONARY DECISIONS IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICYPolicy reform is often the tool to implement positive change in the criminal justice system. Policy is unique with its often built-in discretionary component. Unfortunately, discretion, and the inevitable inconsistency that accompanies discretionary interpretations, is arguably the leading cause of disparity, distrust, and unfairness in the criminal justice system today. (Cynthia Jones, Confronting Race in the Criminal Justice System: The ABA’s Racial Justice Improvement Project, 27 crim. just., no. 2, Summer 2012, at 12.) So then why have discretionary decisions at all? The discretionary decision points along the system’s path are vital to considering the inherent uniqueness in each individual’s contact with the system—purposefully ensuring that not all are treated the same, but remain equal. This flexibility and open interpretation allow for mental health needs assessments, cultural norm considerations, and access to support networks that are unique to the defendant, which cannot be specified in legislation and are easier for trained personnel to identify and evaluate.

However, differing decisions as a result of discretion can begin to morph into unequal treatment, especially when

discretionary decisions are misguided or misinformed, such as in instances where the decision maker is untrained, culturally incompetent, or biased (either explicitly and/or implicitly). Some studies have found that when police officers conduct routine police stops, the officers’ selection of who to stop is more influenced by the racial composition of a neighborhood as opposed to the crime in the area. (Nellis, color of justice, supra, at 10.) The human element of bias, and also cultural heuristics that are consciously or unconsciously taken into account when making discretionary decisions, impacts justice and the equally important perception of fairness.

Discretionary decisions in the system are not short-lived. The various stages within the criminal justice system have a domino connection, where each decision impacts the one that follows it. For instance, a recent study found that defendants detained for the entire pretrial period, as opposed to supervised release or release on their own recognizance, are much more likely to be sentenced to incarceration than those who were offered pretrial release, when controlling for all other variables. (christoPher t. loWeNkAmP et Al., lAurA & johN ArNold fouNd., iNvestigAtiNg the imPAct of PretriAl deteNtioN oN seNteNciNg 10–11 (2013), http://tinyurl.com/hbkvgjp [hereinafter loWeNkAmP, imPAct of PretriAl deteNtioN].) Moreover, defendants who are detained for the whole pretrial period also receive longer sentences than their comparable peers. (Id.) Additionally, those detained pretrial are more likely to plead guilty for reasons other than true guilt of the crime charged. (The Problem, PretriAl justice iNst., www.pretrial.org/the-problem (last visited Sept. 2, 2016).) And low- and medium-risk defendants held pretrial are significantly more likely than their similarly situated peers to commit future crimes years after case disposition. (See christoPher t. loWeNkAmP et Al., lAurA & johN ArNold fouNd., the hiddeN costs of PretriAl deteNtioN 3 (Nov. 2013), http://tinyurl.com/h9d444o [hereinafter loWeNkAmP, costs of PretriAl deteNtioN].)

Discretionary decision points that unfairly impact those involved in the criminal justice system disproportionately affect people of color. (See Nellis, color of justice, supra, at 9–10.) When accounting for differences in charges (but controlling for severity of the offense, prior criminal history, and specific court’s sentencing tendencies), people of color receive harsher punishments. (See seNteNciNg Project, rePort of the seNteNciNg Project to the uNited NAtioNs humAN rights committee regArdiNg rAciAl disPArities iN the uNited stAtes crimiNAl justice system 12 (2013), http://tinyurl.com/jta49a2; see also W. hAyWood BurNs iNst., sAN frANcisco justice reiNvestmeNt iNitiAtive: rAciAl ANd ethNic disPArities ANAlysis for the reeNtry couNcil (2015), http://tinyurl.com/zdqm4uq.) And even when participating in supervised release programming, Blacks have probation or supervised release revoked up to twice as often as their similarly situated white and Hispanic counterparts. (See jesse jANNettA et Al., urBAN iNst., exAmiNiNg rAciAl ANd ethNic disPArities iN ProBAtioN revocAtioN 3–4 (2014), http://tinyurl.com/j8gc4oo.)

To successfully implement positive change, policy reform targeting ways to curtail abuse of discretion and facilitate

SALMA S. SAFIEDINE is an attorney with the law firm of Safiedine Partners Law LLC and has served as the ABA Criminal Justice Section RJIP Project Director since 2012 following her role as the project’s associate director from 2010 to 2012. She is co-chair of the ABA CJS Race and Diversity Committee and editor for the ABA CJS White Collar Crime Committee newsletter. She may be reached at S.Safiedine@Spartnerslaw.com. JIHAD J. KOMIS is a first-year law student at the George Washington University Law School and has worked for the Racial Justice Improvement Project for several years. He can be reached at jkomis@law.gwu.edu. CHRISTINE M. KULUMANI is currently a third-year law student at the George Washington University Law School and a longtime project assistant at the ABA Racial Justice Improvement Project. Christine can be reached at ckulumani@law.gwu.edu.

C R I M I N A L J U S T I C E n F a l l 2 0 1 6 2 7Published in Criminal Justice, Volume 31, Number 3, ©2016 by the American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association.

information to complement discretionary decisions along the system’s path should be of greatest priority. Ways to curtail the negative impacts of discretionary decisions include ensuring decisions go through more than one decision maker, or implementing a process of checks and balances. Decisions should be tracked and evaluated often. Additionally, checklists and objective criteria should be utilized to help guide discretionary decisions. Lastly, training on implicit bias and bias-free decision making can help criminal justice stakeholders mitigate the influence of their implicit and explicit biases.

PRICE FOR JUSTICENotwithstanding discretionary decision points that may keep a defendant out of alternatives to incarceration, when better opportunities do exist—diversion programs, monitored release, or posting bail—many defendants’ circumstances are such that they are unable to avail themselves to these alternatives or choose not to participate based on underlying community distrust with the system. (Developments in the Law: Policing and Profits, 128 hArv. l. rev. 1723, 1726–27 (2015).) Moreover, the availability of financial resources has extensively been shown to influence pretrial determinations and the final disposition of a defendant’s case. (loWeNkAmP, imPAct of PretriAl deteNtioN, supra.) For some, the high costs affiliated with required drug testing, ankle monitoring, transportation to and from meetings with probation officers, and set-up fees means unaffordable/unattainable programs. This exclusion opens the door for a separate set of rules for those who can afford to pay. (See Nellis, color of justice, supra, at 11.)

Blacks comprise a disproportionate share of those living in poverty-stricken neighborhoods across the country. (Id.) Blacks are more likely to have limited access to financial resources, and are more likely to be exposed to additional vulnerabilities such as higher neighborhood crime, elevated unemployment, and higher school drop-out rates. (See id.; Paul Elias, Cash Bail System under Attack as Unconstitutional, WAsh. Post, Dec. 26, 2015, http://tinyurl.com/gmpkxnr.) On average, Black households possess just 6 percent of the wealth of an average white household, and the typical Hispanic household has just 8 percent of the wealth of an average white household. (lAurA sullivAN et Al., iNst. for Assets & soc. Policy, BrANdeis uNiv., the rAciAl WeAlth gAP: Why Policy mAtters (2015), http://tinyurl.com/nattzrh.)

Those who choose not to opt in to these programs—or cannot pay the unreasonable fees to participate—are forced to remain in jail. (See Developments in the Law, supra.) In some instances, waiting over two years in jail for a trial to begin is not uncommon, and a few defendants have even sat in jail for over six years awaiting trial, which comes with incredible costs for those who can afford them the least. (Christopher Ingraham, Why We Spend Billions to Keep Half a Million Unconvicted People behind Bars, WAsh. Post, June 11, 2015, http://tinyurl.com/za5jflj.) Considering the socioeconomic factors that are much more prevalent in neighborhoods of color, the disparate treatment in the criminal justice system caused by socioeconomic factors is more likely to affect people of color and their communities, thus further

compounding the injustice.Moreover, poor defendants detained pretrial due to

financial hardship also face the collateral consequences of detainment that impact their employment and housing. Considering financial strain, familial disrupt, effects on employment, and fear of losing federal benefits, some defendants choose to plead guilty to a lesser charge, in spite of their innocence. (Lorelei Laird, Court Systems Rethink the Use of Financial Bail, Which Some Say Penalizes the Poor, ABA j. (Apr. 1, 2016), http://tinyurl.com/hrqo2sf.) While in custody awaiting trial, defendants cannot work or continue any outside education. (Samuel R. Wiseman, Essay, Pretrial Detention and the Right to Be Monitored, 123 yAle l.j. 1344, 1356 (2014).) This is particularly relevant because those who cannot afford bail are also the most likely to have hourly wage jobs with little flexibility and an employer who is quick to replace them. Without this income, the defendant may not be able to meet pressing financial obligations, which could compound the potential collateral consequences. (See id. at 1356–57.)

Notwithstanding the racial disparity fruit that stems from socioeconomics, other inefficiencies and their negative effects deserve a closer look. The Pretrial Justice Institute estimates that the average cost of keeping an individual detained is approximately 10 times as expensive as supervision programs. (The Problem, supra.) By making the ability to pay a condition of freedom, bail systems needlessly imprison poor defendants. (See id.) Pretrial detainment rates unnecessarily increase, which strains the resources of local criminal justice systems. Limited resources oftentimes exacerbate inefficiency and unfairness. The Department of Justice estimates that local jail populations grew by 19.8 percent between 2000 and 2014; pretrial detainees accounted for 95 percent of that growth. (Id.) Pretrial detention costs taxpayers over $9 billion per year, with costs rising as the pretrial population grows. (See loWeNkAmP, costs of PretriAl deteNtioN, supra.)

Policy reform that attempts to alleviate the influence of factors such as race and socioeconomic status on an individual’s path through the criminal justice system, while simultaneously striving to subdue the effects of ineffective discretionary decision making and implicit bias, is a challenging task. However, there are proven effective alternatives to conditioning justice on the ability to pay and relying too heavily on stakeholder discretion. Effective reforms need to incorporate a holistic approach and involve stakeholders from across the spectrum who can work to incorporate well-developed and vetted risk assessments, which can ensure that judges and magistrates have the necessary information available to better equip their pretrial decision making. Affordable and equally accessible supervision and diversionary programming, rather than automatic detention or bail, can minimize the collateral consequences of detainment while also saving system resources. Diversionary programing, coupled with case management and appropriate ancillary intervention, allows eligible participants to avoid associated stigmas while also developing a foundation for avoiding recidivism. The gate to pretrial supervision, diversion, and supervised release can open through effective policy reform

2 8 C R I M I N A L J U S T I C E n F a l l 2 0 1 6Published in Criminal Justice, Volume 31, Number 3, ©2016 by the American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association.

efforts that create and protect such alternatives.With such disparate outcomes prevalent across the country

and at numerous levels of the system, it is of great concern that criminal justice policy reform is not at the very forefront of our nation’s priorities. However, in light of mainstream and social media outlets emphasizing the recent accounts of police brutality, and the current political climate where bipartisan support has made racial justice and criminal justice reform key parts of parties’ political platforms, public awareness of racial injustice throughout the country is on the rise. (See Christopher Ingraham, Here’s How Much Americans Hate Mandatory Minimum Sentences, WAsh. Post, Oct. 1, 2015, http://tinyurl.com/jto8d95.) In recent years there has been some progress, and the tide of public opinion has begun to turn with the majority of Americans, regardless of race or political affiliation, believing that some form of criminal justice reform is necessary. (See id.) In response to deteriorating conditions and increased public awareness, many organizations have promoted criminal justice reform, and today there are hundreds of organizations working diligently toward reform in nearly all areas of the criminal justice system.

Many agencies such as the Sentencing Project, National Criminal Justice Association, and Pretrial Justice Institute now promote or are actively engaged in criminal justice reform, recognizing the significance of and grievous harm resulting from racial disparities and inefficiencies. Innovative projects, such as Legal Hand located in New York City, have begun to offer free legal information, assistance, and referrals for the less resource-endowed to level the playing field and help curb the collateral consequences that come with entering the criminal justice system. The goal of such projects is to break down the typical barriers between the criminal justice system and marginalized communities.

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION INITIATIVE: THE RACIAL JUSTICE IMPROVEMENT PROJECTThe American Bar Association (ABA) for decades has been at the forefront of advocacy for policy reform in the criminal justice arena and has pursued reforms that aid to lessen racial impacts. More specifically, the ABA’s Criminal Justice Section (CJS) is involved in much of the work being done in the realm of criminal justice reform through organizing, supporting, volunteering, and creating numerous criminal justice reform initiatives on the ground. Recently the CJS embarked on an endeavor that has produced positive evidence-based outcomes from on-the-ground local policy changes with its Racial Justice Improvement Project (RJIP). In 2010, CJS launched the innovative project to bring together key criminal justice stakeholders to effectuate high-impact, low-cost policy reform on a local level. This project has since found great success in establishing cooperative relationships among decision makers in several local jurisdictions and implementing fair, effective, and efficient data-driven policy reforms. Through a grant from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, and with subsequent support from the Public Welfare Foundation and more recently the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, RJIP specifically identifies and reforms policies and practices that produce racial disparities in local systems, through data analysis and pilot programming.

More specifically, RJIP establishes partnerships with officials in state and local criminal justice systems to identify discretionary decision points in the pretrial, trial, and postconviction process where policies and practices have an adverse impact on people of color. RJIP subsequently provides technical assistance and financial support to officials that make up each task force within these jurisdictions to identify the sources of racial disparities and to develop evidence-based policy reforms targeted at correcting these inequities.

At the heart of RJIP is the innovative task force model, which was formulated and subsequently vetted over the course of six years. This task force model facilitates cooperation and communication among the various stakeholders within the criminal justice system. A task force is a small group of individuals that bring together a variety of expertise, experience, and resources for a particular objective. Each RJIP task force is comprised of key local stakeholders with the ability to effect change in their jurisdiction, including the chief of police, the chief prosecutor, the chief public defender, the chief judge, supervisory institutions (i.e., corrections, probation, parole), and a community representative. Not to be overlooked is the significance of the cooperation of and buy-in from these essential stakeholders and their respective constituencies, who may not have ever worked as a unified team. Collaborating allows for varying perspectives and exhaustive conversations, resulting in a mutually agreed upon policy reform in the interest of efficiency and fairness for each of their respective entities.

The task force model is a unique alternative to other meth-ods of criminal justice reform. Often criminal justice reforms are sought through time-consuming and expensive legislative change or impact litigation, or are stalled through uncoop-erative constituencies that classify any change as a burden. Legislative and litigious methods are expensive, time-consum-ing, narrow in scope, unreliable, and oftentimes fail in the face of bureaucracy and politics. The task force model’s focus on policy change and day-to-day practice, while not free from all obstacles, was designed with cost, efficiency, outcomes, and time in mind. By bringing a small group of key stakeholders together who have the power to make change, and working toward common smaller goals that benefit each constituency, this method of policy change allows for deliberation and posi-tive cooperation among criminal justice agencies.

The method of the model is fairly straightforward. Once appropriate criminal justice stakeholders are at the table, the task force members conduct an initial assessment of their jurisdiction and collect baseline data in potential areas of reform. With aid from researchers and evaluators, the team then analyzes this data and utilizes their collective expertise to brainstorm opportunities for improvement and pathways for reform. This use of data is absolutely critical—without proper data, parties can deny the existence of a certain problem or manipulate insufficient data. This data also may help similarly situated jurisdictions contemplating reform in the future. Finally, having conducted a comprehensive initial assessment, the task force can develop the scope of the desired reform, inviting new stakeholders and experts to the task force as necessary depending on the acquired data and subsequent conclusions.

Published in Criminal Justice, Volume 31, Number 3, ©2016 by the American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association.

JURISDICTION ISSUE REFORM OUTCOME

Kings County, New York

Overrepresentation of youth of color in justice system.

• Implemented three iterations of new DAT diversion program offering eligible youth valuable programming.• Allowed successful participants to have case closed and sealed.• Facilitated trainings on cultural and implicit bias and adolescent brain development for judges.

• Over 160 youth had cases dismissed and sealed upon program completion.• Recidivism for program participants only half that of counterparts. Valuable programming offered from Department of Education and Young New Yorkers.• Trainings attended by over 85% of New York City criminal judges and well received.

Montgomery County, Pennsylvania

Disproportionate contact with the criminal justice system for youth of color.

• Expanded eligibility for preexisting Youth Aid Panel (YAP) diversion program, allowing for more participation.• Offered case management to YAP participants to provide more support.• Provided aggression replacement training (ART) for youth.

• 100% diversion program success rate for case-managed participants who appeared at YAP. Developing plans to expand and sustain program.• 48 youth ART participants thus far. Post-test instruments reveal improved skills for dealing with feelings, reduction in physical aggression, and improved skills for dealing with stress.

St. Louis County, Minnesota

Racial bail-setting discrepancies.

• Vetted and modified existing pretrial risk assessment tool.• Implemented checklist for judges to consult during bail setting.• Established the Community Sanctions Program and Intensive Pre-Trial Release Program.• Hosted pretrial best practices trainings for court officials.

• After 33 months of reform, 741 pretrial detainees have been released, resulting in $7.6 million of jail savings.• Creation of Next Steps Program to aid defendants in meeting pretrial conditions successfully and obtaining mental health and drug addiction support.

Dane County, Wisconsin

High number of parents of color charged with excessive corporal punishment.

• Held Keeping Kids Safe Conference in 2014.• Launched enhanced diversion program for parents, offering deferred prosecution agreements.

• Thus far, 25 dismissals, four direct referrals, and two charge reductions.• Increased awareness of alternative parenting approaches.• Increased resources for family reunification.

New Orleans, Louisiana

Low opt-in and completion rates of defendants of color in preexisting diversion program.Inability of sex workers, particularly sex workers of color, to exit cyclic criminal justice pathway.

• Developed and implemented new and more targeted diversion program: Track 1.• Developed Crossroads Diversion Program to offer support and guidance for sex workers.

• Track 1: Fostered opportunities for low-risk offenders, 154 participants as of July 2015, high success rate.• Crossroads: New partnership with Women with a Vision, over 80 graduates thus far receiving support and resources.• On the heels of this success, additional programs created, Adult Post-Plea Diversion and Adult Misdemeanor Diversion, resulting in increased alternatives to detention.

Halifax County, North Carolina

Inequitable pretrial detention and bail determinations.

• Piloted new vetted risk assessment tool available during pretrial decisions.• Conducted pretrial best practices training and implicit bias training for judges and other personnel.

• Developing new program for the identified 15% of total jail population found to be low-risk, disproportionately black, low-level offenders unable to post modest bail.

State of Delaware

Disproportionate probation revocations for probationers of color.

• Modified violation report and automated corrections system to include graduated sanctions.

• Relative rate index for probation violations reduced from +3.90 to +1.18 for Blacks and –3.47 to –0.83 for whites, indicating reduced disparity.

3 0 C R I M I N A L J U S T I C E n F a l l 2 0 1 6Published in Criminal Justice, Volume 31, Number 3, ©2016 by the American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association.

After a narrowed area of reform is chosen, the task force then works with RJIP and experts in the field to develop a reform pilot project. During and following reform, data is collected in accordance with a detailed evaluation plan. This data is used to evaluate the effectiveness of the reform and to help improve or institutionalize the pilot program, when applicable. Such data may also help task forces to prove program effectiveness, gain support and funding, and encourage other nearby or similarly situated jurisdictions to undertake similar endeavors.

Additionally, task forces both host and receive training on topics such as implicit bias, pretrial best practices, and the distinct difficulties of juvenile justice. By supplementing data-driven reform with a more practical and accessible evidence-based or outreach component, the task forces are more easily able to gain the support of other institutions and the public at large. Often, policy changes are not widely known by the community. However, trainings, town halls, and conferences can help to publicize positive changes and reinstill community trust in the criminal justice system.

The task force model is designed to address jurisdictions that are unable to formulate appropriate reform efforts, where reforms are shortsighted or lack essential buy-in from other key stakeholders needed for appropriate implementation and ultimate success. Also the model addresses the lack of communication between criminal justice stakeholders, which often stalls otherwise hopeful reform efforts. The task force model is a viable option for jurisdictions wanting to implement low-cost, high-impact racial justice reform.

In utilizing the task force model, CJS has found great success in criminal justice reform. The chart briefly summarizes the project’s current outcomes in eight distinct jurisdictions. Following the collaboration and promising results in each jurisdiction, RJIP has initiated the next phase of the project and has been securing

the necessary resources and partnerships to ensure all reform efforts can be effectively and efficiently sustained. RJIP has recently partnered with the W.K. Kellogg Foundation and the Public Welfare Foundation to continue its work in other jurisdictions. Additionally, members from the various task forces have been attending national conferences and conventions, presenting on the important and successful work of RJIP in hopes of inviting new stakeholders to the table.

Project staff maintain a project website (http://racialjusticeproject.weebly.com/) that provides information to the public in addition to serving as a central provider of various toolkits on implementing reform to jurisdictions across the country. The RJIP team is continuing efforts to offer valuable and informative training sessions for members of the criminal justice system to promote best practices and provide insight into the leading causes of disparity and inequity. These efforts are made possible by the tireless efforts of a committed and hardworking project staff and the CJS.

Like many important initiatives, the ABA Racial Justice Improvement Project has helped to implement through national policy reform evidence-based practices that work to make criminal justice systems more efficient and fair. The task force model has empowered key stakeholders to improve their communities and seeks to facilitate reforms for jurisdictions desiring change. However, despite the positive work of RJIP and other criminal justice reform-oriented organizations, chronic racial disparities driven by ineffective policies in the criminal justice system go largely unaddressed and/or unacknowledged. (See Nellis, color of justice, supra.) It is the hope that appropriate awareness and continued commitment to positive change can spur rapid, intensive, and ambitious reform that aims for a more fair and efficient system. n