This report details findings from the first randomized controlled trial (RCT) regarding intake processes in a local prosecutor’s office in the United States. Evidence from the study shows that promptly reviewing low-level cases and removing those lacking legal sufficiency can significantly reduce the negative impacts of the criminal justice system, provide victims with faster case resolution, and save valuable taxpayer dollars—all without negatively impacting public safety. Over an 18-month period, two part-time screening attorneys cleared 224 cases from the Solicitor's docket, affecting 221 arrestees and saving the state nearly $400,000 in costs associated with jail beds, defense attorneys, and court time.

Additionally, arrestees whose cases were removed by the screening attorney were no more likely to be rearrested than those whose cases were not.

The experiment stems from Justice Innovation Lab's ongoing partnership with the Ninth Circuit Solicitor's Office (SOL9) and support from the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) and Arnold Ventures. Working with SOL9, Justice Innovation Lab (JIL) previously analyzed racial disproportionalities within the office and authored a follow-up report explaining how a screening process might improve case resolution speed and reduce racial differences in time-to-disposition. This report is the culmination of that effort, providing the results of an 18-month RCT and additional six-month data collection period. The Ninth Circuit's redesign of its internal case processing demonstrates how a data-informed, systems-thinking approach can lead to effective policy making. This is a pivotal and laudable achievement in considered policy change and evaluation.

Why Early Case Screening Matters

The criminal justice system affects thousands of lives daily, yet we know surprisingly little about what works in prosecution. Though there is extensive research on what drives crime, and there are many groups that study the impact of prison and sentencing, there is little analytical research with regard to prosecution. This is a massive gap in social policy—while there is an evidential understanding of what drives crime, there is almost no rigorous analysis of society's primary choice of treatment: prosecution. The dearth of research has driven ideological stances in policy making, which in turn has limited innovation in the justice system.

Read the full article about early case screening at Justice Innovation Lab.