Consensus Study Report
NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001
This activity was supported by contracts between the National Academy of Sciences and Arnold Ventures (20-05123), Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation No. INV-025407, The Joyce Foundation (SG-20-43354), National Academy of Sciences Cecil and Ida Green Fund, National Academy of Sciences W.K. Kellogg Fund, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (78590), Russell Sage Foundation (2010-28361), and William T. Grant Foundation (201726). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-69337-0
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309- 69337-3
Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/26705
Library of Congress Control Number: 2023930738
This publication is available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu.
Copyright 2023 by the National Academy of Sciences. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and National Academies Press and the graphical logos for each are all trademarks of the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America.
Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Reducing Racial Inequality in Crime and Justice: Science, Practice, and Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26705.
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.
Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task.
Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies.
Rapid Expert Consultations published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are authored by subject-matter experts on narrowly focused topics that can be supported by a body of evidence. The discussions contained in rapid expert consultations are considered those of the authors and do not contain policy recommendations. Rapid expert consultations are reviewed by the institution before release.
For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo.
COMMITTEE ON REDUCING RACIAL INEQUALTIES IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
KHALIL GIBRAN MUHAMMAD (Co-Chair), Harvard Kennedy School
BRUCE WESTERN (Co-Chair), Columbia University
DARYL ATKINSON, Forward Justice
ROBERT D. CRUTCHFIELD, University of Washington
RONALD L. DAVIS, 21CP Solutions, LLC (committee member through 9/22/2021)
HONORABLE BERNICE DONALD, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
FRANCIS (FRANKIE) GUZMAN, National Center for Youth Law
ELIZABETH HINTON, Yale University
NIKKI JONES, University of California, Berkeley
TRACEY MEARES, Yale University
DEREK A. NEAL, University of Chicago
STEVEN RAPHAEL, University of California, Berkeley
NANCY RODRIGUEZ, University of California, Irvine
ADDIE C. ROLNICK, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
ROBERT J. SAMPSON, Harvard University
JEFFREY SEDGWICK, Justice Research and Statistics Association
MARÍA B. VÉLEZ, University of Maryland
Study Staff
YAMROT NEGUSSIE, Study Director
ELLIE GRIMES, Research Associate
DARA SHEFSKA, Communications Specialist (through March 2022)
AARON WARNICK, Communications Specialist (from June 2022)
STACEY SMIT, Program Coordinator
EMILY P. BACKES, Deputy Board Director
NATACHA BLAIN, Senior Board Director
COMMITTEE ON LAW AND JUSTICE
ROBERT D. CRUTCHFIELD (Chair), University of Washington (retired)
SALLY S. SIMPSON (Vice Chair), University of Maryland
ROD K. BRUNSON, University of Maryland
SHAWN D. BUSHWAY, University at Albany
PREETI CHAUHAN, John Jay College of Criminal Justice
KIMBERLÉ W. CRENSHAW, University of California, Los Angeles
MARK S. JOHNSON, Howard University
CYNTHIA LUM, George Mason University
JOHN M. MacDONALD, University of Pennsylvania
KAREN J. MATHIS, American Bar Association (retired), University of Denver
THEODORE A. McKEE, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Philadelphia
SAMUEL L. MYERS, JR., University of Minnesota
EMILY OWENS, University of California, Irvine
CYNTHIA RUDIN, Duke University
WILLIAM J. SABOL, Georgia State University
LINDA A. TEPLIN, Northwestern University Medical School
Study Staff
NATACHA BLAIN, Senior Board Director
EMILY P. BACKES, Deputy Board Director
STACEY SMIT, Program Coordinator
YAMROT NEGUSSIE, Senior Program Officer
ELLIE GRIMES, Research Associate
Acknowledgments
This report would not have been possible without the contributions of many people. First, we thank the sponsors of this study: Arnold Ventures, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, The Joyce Foundation, National Academy of Sciences Cecil and Ida Green Fund, National Academy of Sciences W.K. Kellogg Fund, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Russell Sage Foundation, and William T. Grant Foundation.
Special thanks go to the members of the study committee, who dedicated extensive time, thought, and energy to the project on a compressed timeline under unprecedented conditions during the coronavirus pandemic.
In addition to conducting systematic literature reviews and drawing from its own research and expertise, the committee received input from several outside sources, whose willingness to share their perspectives and experience was essential to the committee’s work. The committee began its work with a series of public information-gathering sessions, where committee members engaged with a diverse set of researchers, practitioners, and representatives directly impacted by the criminal justice system.1 The committee and project staff thank the many speakers and discussants who provided research, data, and testimony to inform the committee’s study process.
The committee and project staff also thank the group of stakeholders and officials who shared their practiced-based expertise: Nicole Banister (National Governors Association), Edwin Bell (National Center
___________________
1 For more information on the committee’s public information-gathering sessions, including agendas and video recordings, see https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/reducing-racial-inequalities-in-the-criminal-justice-system
for State Courts), Michael Buenger (National Center for State Courts), Jae K. Davenport (Virginia Secretary of Public Safety and Homeland Security), Amanda Essex (National Conference of State Legislatures), Elizabeth Glazer ([former] Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice, New York), Kalyn Hill ([former] National Governors Association), David Hureau (University at Albany), Jacquelyn Katuin (Virginia Secretary of Public Safety and Homeland Security), Alison Lawrence (National Conference of State Legislatures), Jeffrey Locke (National Governors Association), Brett Mattson (National Association of Counties), Karhlton Moore (Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services), Anne Teigen (National Conference of State Legislatures), and Andy Wilson (Office of Governor Mike DeWine, OH).
To inform its report, the committee built on a synthesis of research on the social drivers of racial disparities in policing. The committee would like to thank Roland Neil (University of Pennsylvania) for contributing this valuable resource to the committee’s process.
The committee also elicited input from “listening sessions” where perspectives were shared regarding direct work with barriers and innovative solutions to reducing racial inequalities in the criminal justice system. The committee thanks the following individuals: Donald Anthonyson (Families for Freedom), Shelby Chestnut (Transgender Law Center), Currey Cook (Lambda Legal), Christina Gilbert (National Juvenile Defender Center), Annita Lucchesi (Sovereign Bodies Institute), Amber Miller (Yurok Tribal Court), Ravi Ragbir (New Sanctuary Coalition), Paromita Shah (Just Futures Law), Sirine Shebaya (National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild), Jane Shim (Immigrant Defense Project) and, Toni-Michelle Williams (Solutions Not Punishment Collaborative).
This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Amanda Y. Agan (Department of Economics and Program in Criminal Justice, Rutgers University), Phillip Atiba Goff (Department of African American Studies and Center for Policing Equity, Yale University), John M. MacDonald (Department of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania), Theodore A. McKee (United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Philadelphia, PA), Daniel S. Nagin (H.J. Heinz School of Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University), Victor M. Ríos (Department of Sociology, University of California, Santa Barbara), Cassia Spohn (School
of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Arizona State University), Heather A. Thompson (Departments of Afro-American and African Studies and Department of History, University of Michigan), and Jeffery T. Ulmer (Criminal Justice Research Center, Pennsylvania State University).
Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Bradford H. Gray (Urban Institute) and Anne Morrison Piehl (Rutgers University). They were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies.
The committee members were fortunate to have the additional research support from staff in their respective institutions and provide thanks to the following individuals: Teresita Cruz Vital (University of California, Berkeley), Madison Dawkins (The Square One Project), Evie Lopoo (The Square One Project), Toryn Sperry (University of Maryland, College Park), and Caroline J. Zhai Lefever (Yale Law School).
The committee also wishes to extend its gratitude to the staff of the National Academies, in particular to Yamrot Negussie for her expert direction of this study from beginning to end as well as Emily Backes who made critical substantive contributions in the conception, writing, and editing of the report. Ellie Grimes provided essential coordination and research alongside writing support throughout the consensus study process. Stacey Smit provided key administrative and logistical support and ensured the committee process ran efficiently and smoothly. Throughout the project, Natacha Blain, director of the Committee on Law and Justice, provided oversight. From the Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, we thank Kirsten Sampson-Snyder, Douglas Sprunger, and Ron Warnick who shepherded the report through the review process and assisted with its communication and dissemination. Thanks are also due to Dara Shefska for her skilled contributions to the communications of the report and to Abigail Allen and Briana Smith for their fact-checking assistance. We also thank Marc DeFrancis for his skillful editing and Christopher Lao-Scott for providing research and fact-checking assistance.
Khalil Gibran Muhammad, Co-Chair
Bruce Western, Co-Chair
Yamrot Negussie, Study Director
Committee on Reducing Racial Inequalities in the Criminal Justice System
This page intentionally left blank.
Contents
Racial Disparities and Inequality in Criminal Justice
HISTORICAL ROOTS OF RACIAL INEQUALITY IN CRIME AND JUSTICE
Colonial and Antebellum America
The Civil War and Its Aftermath
The Progressive Era to World War II
THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IN THE 21ST CENTURY
2 Racial Disparities in Victimization, Offending, and Involvement with the Criminal Justice System
Property and Nonlethal Violent Crimes
DIFFERENCES IN ARRESTS AND CRIMINAL OFFENDING
INTERACTIONS WITH POLICE OFFICERS
Basic Patterns Regarding Stops, Searches, and Search Outcomes
Hit-Rate Analyses of Stops Involving Searches
Uses of Force and Police-Involved Shootings
Nature of Interactions between Police and the Public
EVIDENCE CONCERNING PUBLIC SAFETY DELIVERY
PLEA BARGAINING, TRIALS, AND SENTENCING
SENTENCING AND CORRECTIONAL TRENDS
3 Social Drivers of Racial Inequalities in Crime and Justice
CONTEMPORARY RACIAL INEQUALITIES
CONCENTRATED DISADVANTAGE AND VIOLENCE
Concentrated Disadvantage and Gun Violence: A Closer Look at Trends
COMPOUNDED ADVERSITIES AND SOCIAL MECHANISMS
4 Criminal Justice Drivers of Racial Inequalities
CONCEPTUALIZING RACIAL INEQUALITY
The Explained versus Unexplained Racial Differences Framework
THE FORMS AND EXPANSION OF RACIAL CRIMINALIZATION
CRIMINAL JUSTICE CONTACT AS CUMULATIVE DISADVANTAGE
Early Exposure to the Criminal Justice System
Racial Differences in Police Contacts
Pretrial Decision Making and Charging
Pretrial Release and Detention
The Consequences of Conviction and Incarceration
Probation, Parole, and Supervision
GUIDING PRINCIPLES TO REDUCE RACIAL INEQUALITY IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
Participation, Accountability, and Transparency
APPLYING A HISTORICAL LENS TO INFORM CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY
6 Community-Driven Safety and Reducing Harm
DEFINING COMMUNITY AND COMMUNITY WELL-BEING
COLLECTIVE EFFICACY AND NEIGHBORHOOD SOCIAL ORGANIZATION
Community-Centered Approaches to Justice
Community-Driven Accountability Efforts
Community-Led Crisis Response Efforts
Community-Led Efforts to Mitigate System Harm
Measuring Community Social Organization and Views on Safety
7 Non-Criminal Policy Approaches to Reduce Racial Inequalities in Crime and Justice
IMPROVING THE MATERIAL WELL-BEING OF COMMUNITIES
Policies and Programs to Address Underinvestment
PUBLIC HEALTH APPROACHES TO VIOLENCE
Firearm Violence and Related Policies
Reducing Harmful Environmental Exposures
Alcohol Outlets and Community Violence
INTERVENTIONS IN OTHER SYSTEMS
Strengthening Families and Protecting Children
Enhancing Opportunities for Youth Learning and Development
Promoting Health and Well-being
8 Criminal Justice System Reforms to Reduce Racial Inequality
INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE AND POLICY
Constitutional Sources of Parsimony
Assessing Decisions and Costs across Levels of Government
Shifting Policy Approaches to Drugs and Violent Crime
Changing the Context of Policing through Oversight and Accountability
Changing the Disposition of Officers
Racial Inequality and Police Deterrence Tactics
HISTORY OF FEDERAL GRANT MAKING FOR CRIME AND PUBLIC SAFETY
Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program
Other Bureau of Justice Assistance Grant Programs
Programs Supporting Juvenile Justice, Crime Victims, and Sex Offense Enforcement
Separate Offices Administering Public Safety Grants
Formula-Funding and Categorical Grants-in-Aid
ENHANCING THE FEDERAL SYSTEM TO ADDRESS RACIAL INEQUALITY IN THE SYSTEM
Further Implications of These Barriers
Illustrative Example: The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
10 Data and Research Opportunities
BUILDING A ROBUST CRIMINAL JUSTICE DATA INFRASTRUCTURE
Integration of Data Systems and Cross-System Linkages
Consistent Reporting of Racial and Ethnic Data
This page intentionally left blank.
Boxes, Figures, and Tables
BOXES
S-2 Guiding Principles to Reduce Racial Inequality in the Criminal Justice System
1-2 Perspectives from Public Information-Gathering Sessions
1-4 The Psychological Science of Bias
3-1 Gun Violence: Different Types and Recent Trends
4-1 Indigenous People and Criminal Jurisdiction
4-2 Sentencing in Federal Court
4-3 Protecting Ties between Incarcerated Parents and Their Children
5-1 Case Study: Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Offenses and Control Act of 1961
6-1 Community-Driven Response: Mutual Aid Programs
7-1 “Greening” Cities: Pennsylvania Horticultural Society (PHS) LandCare Program
7-2 “Ban the Box” Policies: Unintended Consequences
7-3 Transitions Clinic Network
8-1 Focused Deterrence in Boston: Operation Ceasefire
9-1 Allocation of Federal Responsibilities: Human Trafficking
FIGURES
2-2 Rate of homicide offenses by population, 1990–2020
2-10 Clearance rates by race/ethnicity for all murders occurring between 2000 and 2019
2-12 Long-term trends in U.S. and California incarceration rates, 1980–2020
2-13 Long-term violent and property crime trends in California, 1970–2020
2A-5 Traffic stop outcomes by agency type, race, and gender, California
TABLES
2-3 Homicide Rates for Males and Females, by Race (Age-Adjusted), 1990, 2000, 2010, 2015
2-4 Homicides per 100,000 by Race, Gender, and Hispanic Origin, 2019 and 2020 for Select States
2-8 Persons Killed by Police per 100,000, by Region and Race/Ethnicity, 2015–2021
2-11 Parole Populations by Race/Ethnicity, 2001 through 2019
Preface
The history of the U.S. criminal justice system is marked by racial inequality. Across time and space numerous racialized populations from the Indigenous tribes of North America to Central American immigrants at today’s southern U.S. border have been a focus of attention for the nation’s police, courts, and prisons. The most researched among these groups are African Americans, whose enslavement stood as a visible exception to the founding principles of universal liberty, liberal democracy, and natural rights. W.E.B. Du Bois’s (1899) study of Philadelphia’s Seventh Ward at the end of the 19th century was among the earliest studies to link high rates of crime and arrest in Black neighborhoods of the city with structural inequalities and discrimination. Thorsten Sellin (1928) documented the high rates of conviction and prison sentencing among Black defendants in the mid-1920s, and also traced the historic connections of chattel slavery to chain gangs and prison farms in the American South (Sellin, 1976). The high rate of imprisonment among Black Americans has been well documented for the entire 20th century and into the 21st century. As we will see in the following chapters, today’s researchers—like Du Bois a century ago—trace disparate incarceration to conditions of crime, poverty, and segregation and a punitive policy response that flourished under such conditions. Racial disparity in incarceration was a major theme of an earlier National Research Council (NRC) report (NRC, 2014), and shortly before this committee first met, in 2020, the nation had experienced its largest racial justice protests in opposition to police brutality.
Since the 1990s, various members of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s Committee on Law and Justice, which
oversaw this report, have made efforts to support a consensus study on racial inequality in the criminal justice system. While many of these efforts were unsuccessful, the 2014 publication of the NRC report on high rates of incarceration helped build the research case for a more targeted examination of race and racism. The committee was compelled by the urgent need to respond to the disproportionate numbers of police stops, court appearances, and prison and jail admissions among Black, Latino, and Native American people.
Earlier NRC reports had sometimes examined research on racial inequality in the criminal justice system, but they had concentrated on specific stages of criminal processing, and racial inequality was never the main focus. For example, a report in 1983 on sentencing policy made an important and detailed examination of research on racial discrimination in sentencing and incarceration. The report concluded that there was a large racial disparity in imprisonment, but “factors other than racial discrimination in sentencing account for most of the disproportionate representation of blacks in U.S. prisons” (NRC, 1983, p. 13). Another NRC report in 2004, on policing, found that the “class and gender of suspects” have little influence on police behavior, but “more research is needed on the complex interplay of race, ethnicity, and other social factors” (NRC, 2004b, p. 3). In 2018, a National Academies report was published on proactive policing, including a close examination of research on racial bias in hot spot and other proactive policing tactics. The 2018 report described the testimony of a community advocate who asked: “Why aren’t you doing anything to invest in the reasons why this is a hot spot in the first place?” (the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2018, p. 274). The report went on to observe, “The choice of policing as a response to crime problems is in itself a policy decision that has implications for communities.” The charge to the proactive policing committee, however, was not broad enough to consider how policing functions within a broad social system of racial inequalities, inclusive of the criminal justice system, and the greater system’s impact on crime.
The current report should be understood to stand in this line of work by the National Academies on race and the criminal justice system, and as the most comprehensive effort to date. In this study, because of the pioneering efforts of Jeremy Travis and Ruth Peterson, racial inequality is the central focus of the statement of task, and the committee’s charge takes in the whole criminal justice system in relation to a broad consideration of societal factors. The criminal justice system does not operate in a vacuum and never has.
We are asked to review research to explain why there are such large racial inequalities in crime, victimization, and criminal justice involvement, and to offer evidence-based advice on reducing inequality. The topic
is vast and in places we have necessarily traded breadth for depth. In the committee’s perspective, the criminal justice system is a complex interlocking apparatus and part of the challenge of understanding racial inequality involves understanding the operation of the system as a whole. Large crime policy projects, like the War on Drugs and the War on Crime that were mounted in the 1960s and 1970s, involved thousands of agencies including state legislatures, police departments, prosecutors, and prison authorities. Racial inequality is not produced by any one stage of the system but is the combined product of each stage in the sequence.
In addition to institutional complexity, police, courts, and prisons are deeply embedded in a racially unequal society that has denied opportunity to communities of color (e.g., Black, Hispanic/Latino, and Native American communities) and preserved socio-economic advantages for White Americans. Through segregation, unequal public investment, and a political acceptance of enduring and spatially concentrated poverty, White Americans have mostly lived in vastly different social worlds than people of other racial groups. In Black, Latino, and Native American neighborhoods and communities where crime and poverty are more prevalent, the criminal justice system is the dominant response to crime. In White neighborhoods and communities, the public policy approach to safety does not depend chiefly on the threat of arrest and incarceration.
The committee has tried to absorb the lessons of research on racial inequalities in crime and the criminal justice system to propose policies that might reduce both. Criminal justice reform has a fundamentally important role to play in reducing racial inequality. Hundreds of policy initiatives are currently unfolding around the country that aim to reduce the burden of unnecessary or harmful state supervision in Black, Latino, and Native American communities, while also reducing crime. We have tried to learn from some of the most important of these examples in proposing future directions for policy. The committee also studied many of the efforts undertaken through community-led initiatives and social policies that try to build a different kind of safety and well-being that relies less on police and prisons. We have also tried to draw lessons from these examples, while acknowledging the political challenges. The committee acknowledges the importance of the inclusion of lived experience with the criminal justice system throughout this process, which we have integrated through committee perspective, our information-gathering process, and dissemination efforts (see below for artwork created for the report). Finally, we see a critical role for the federal government to seed new initiatives and help promote a paradigm shift that can change the relationship of citizens of color to the American state. Instead of depending mostly on punitive measures by the state to deliver safety, a United States without racial inequality would find safety in greater prospects of opportunity, healthier
communities in which to live, and accountability for harm would involve setting relationships right. In such a world, the criminal justice system might even be deserving of its name. We offer this report in the hope of such an outcome.
Khalil Gibran Muhammad, Co-Chair
Bruce Western, Co-Chair
Committee on Reducing Racial Inequalities in the Criminal Justice System
Title: Untold
Artist: Jemaell Riley
Year: 2022
Artist statement:
I am unfortunate to be one of those cast away by society. The decade removed from my life are the pages of some untold story that most will never know and a story I never wish to relive. This is not unique—in this art is a picture of those lost pages, scattered, full of lives from every community, race, and creed who will struggle to find the meaning of being forgotten.
This page intentionally left blank.
Acronyms and Abbreviations
| BID | Business Improvement Districts |
| BJS | Bureau of Justice Statistics |
| BTB | ban the box |
| Byrne JAG | Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program |
| CAHOOTS | Portland, Oregon’s Crisis Assistance Helping Out on the Streets |
| CCD | Houston’s Crisis Call Diversion |
| CDC | Centers for Disease Control and Prevention |
| CIA | Central Intelligence Agency |
| ECE | early childhood education |
| EMS | emergency medical services |
| FBI | Federal Bureau of Investigation |
| FFPSA | Family First Prevention Services Act |
| IDD | intellectual and developmental disability |
| LAPD | Los Angeles Police Department |
| LEAA | Law Enforcement Assistance Administration |
| LGBQ/GNCT | lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer/gender nonconforming, transgender |
| LGBTQ2S+ | lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, two-spirit, and other identities |
| MTO | The Moving to Opportunity project |
| MTSS | multi-tiered systems of support |
| NCVS | National Crime Victimization Survey |
| NIJ | National Institute of Justice |
| NYPD | New York (City) Police Department |
| OEO | Office of Economic Opportunity |
| OJJDP | Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention |
| OLEA | Office of Law Enforcement Assistance |
| PHS | Pennsylvania Horticultural Society |
| RCT | randomized controlled trials |
| RIPA | Racial Identity and Profiling Act |
| SBI | Sovereign Bodies Institute |
| SRO | school resource officers |
| TCN | Transitions Clinic Network |
| UCR | Uniform Crime Reporting |
