by Vanguard Staff
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A two-day workshop convened by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine last September has helped cast new light on the central role prosecutors play in shaping criminal justice outcomes and the growing movement to reimagine their practices in ways that reduce harm and advance equity.
The workshop, titled “Examining Prosecution,” brought together leading researchers, prosecutors, policy experts and community stakeholders to assess the impact of prosecutorial decisions on incarceration, racial disparities and community well-being. Organized by the National Academies’ Committee on Law and Justice, the workshop was held on Sept. 23 and 24, 2024, and emphasized both the need for greater research and the potential of existing alternatives to traditional prosecution. Attendees examined empirical findings from jurisdictions across the country, focusing on declination decisions, diversion programs and the fairness implications of prosecutorial discretion.
From the outset, participants emphasized that prosecutors are among the most powerful actors in the criminal legal system, with discretion over whether to charge individuals, what charges to pursue and how to resolve cases. Preeti Chauhan, professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and chair of the workshop’s planning committee, said this power has often gone unexamined. She noted that research on prosecutors has lagged far behind studies of policing and incarceration, even as prosecutors exert enormous influence over who enters the system and how deeply they become entangled in it. The workshop was an effort to close that gap, she said, and to elevate models that support decarceration and racial equity.
A central topic of discussion was the decision not to prosecute certain low-level offenses. Amanda Agan, a researcher at Cornell University, presented findings from a study conducted in Suffolk County, Massachusetts, where assistant district attorneys varied in their likelihood of declining to prosecute nonviolent misdemeanor charges. Using this variation as a natural experiment, researchers found that individuals who were not prosecuted were significantly less likely to face new criminal charges in the two years that followed. Among first-time defendants, the decline in recidivism was particularly striking, with reductions of 58 percent in overall complaints and 75 percent in new felony complaints. Agan explained that for individuals who avoid the mark of a criminal conviction, the benefits are substantial and enduring, including better chances at securing housing, employment and public benefits. She cautioned that these findings are based on one jurisdiction and a specific case type, but said they point to the need for further research in diverse contexts.
The workshop also examined prosecutor-led diversion programs, which provide alternatives to traditional adjudication. Matthew Epperson, a professor at the University of Chicago, described diversion as a method of using prosecutorial discretion to redirect individuals toward supportive services instead of criminal punishment. Programs vary in design but often include therapy, case management, education and life skills training. According to research discussed at the workshop, diversion programs show promising results in reducing re-arrest rates. Michael Rempel of the Data Collaborative for Justice highlighted a multi-site study funded by the National Institute of Justice that evaluated 16 prosecutor-led diversion programs. Of the six programs studied for impact on recidivism, five saw reductions in rearrests, with three reaching statistical significance.
In San Francisco, research conducted by the California Policy Lab and the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office revealed that individuals referred to felony diversion programs were less likely to be rearrested or reconvicted than those whose cases proceeded through traditional prosecution. The city’s diversion efforts often focus on people with significant prior criminal involvement and high risk of reoffending, making the reductions in recidivism especially notable. A separate randomized controlled trial in San Francisco found that young people who completed a restorative justice program called Make It Right had substantially lower rearrest rates than their peers, with long-term benefits persisting for up to four years.
Another case study presented at the workshop focused on the Pathway to New Beginnings program in Minneapolis, a diversion initiative targeting individuals charged with gross misdemeanor weapons offenses. Participants who completed the program were significantly less likely to be charged or convicted of new violent or gun-related offenses than a comparison group. The program combined intensive therapy and mentoring with community-based support and demonstrated that even individuals with more serious charges could benefit from alternatives to incarceration.
As presenters made clear, racial disparities continue to permeate the criminal justice system at every stage, and prosecutorial decisions are no exception. Ojmarrh Mitchell of the University of California, Irvine, discussed findings from Florida indicating that Black defendants were more likely than white defendants to receive prison sentences and less likely to receive probation, even when controlling for other variables. However, the study also found that jurisdictions led by progressive prosecutors—those who had implemented categorical declination policies, conviction integrity units or reforms to reduce poverty traps—were more likely to dismiss or divert cases and showed fewer disparities in outcomes by race.
Hannah Shaffer of Harvard Law School presented an analysis of North Carolina case data that revealed a shift over time in how prosecutors used their discretion. Between 1995 and 2010, Black defendants were less likely than non-Black defendants to receive charge reductions when those reductions could help them avoid mandatory prison sentences. But from 2014 to 2019, the pattern had reversed, with Black defendants more likely to benefit from such discretionary decisions. Shaffer suggested that this evolution may help explain the modest decline in racial disparities in incarceration rates over the past decade.
While the workshop highlighted numerous promising practices, it also underscored persistent gaps in research and data infrastructure. Participants noted the limited availability of comprehensive, disaggregated data on prosecutorial decision-making and called for expanded efforts to evaluate policies across different geographies and case types. They also emphasized the importance of engaging with impacted communities, improving transparency and building a culture of accountability within prosecutors’ offices.
In the end, the message of the workshop was clear: prosecutorial power can either reinforce or dismantle systems of injustice. As new models gain traction and more offices begin to experiment with evidence-based approaches, researchers and policymakers must work together to ensure that reforms are effective, equitable and sustainable.
The future of prosecution, participants said, depends not only on what prosecutors choose to charge, but also on what they choose not to.
