Reflection

1-33

Original Article

Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency

Tempering ª The Author(s) 2020 Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions Expectations: DOI: 10.1177/0022427820940739

journals.sagepub.com/home/jrc A Qualitative Study of Prosecutorial Reform

Rebecca Richardson1

and Besiki Luka Kutateladze1

Abstract Objectives: We investigate path dependence and barriers to the acceptance and implementation of reform-minded prosecution, which focuses on reducing unnecessary incarceration, promoting fairness, engaging with the community, and improving accountability in the criminal justice system. Method: Using semistructured interviews with 47 prosecutors in two Flor- ida jurisdictions, both with newly elected state attorneys, we explore reform-minded prosecution priorities and barriers to their effective imple- mentation. Results: Findings suggest that though reform-minded priorities are present in the study prosecutor’s offices, existing prosecutorial norms, case-focused decision-making, policy ambiguities, and communication chal- lenges serve as barriers to their effective implementation. Conclusions: The study highlights the role that line agents play in determining the success of reform-minded prosecution. It also identifies key barriers to reform that

1 Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA

Corresponding Author: Rebecca Richardson, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida International University, 11200 SW 8th Street, MARC 270, Miami, FL 33199, USA. Email: [email protected]

2 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency XX(X)

reform-minded prosecutors must overcome if they are to achieve mean- ingful changes toward greater effectiveness, transparency, and impartiality in prosecution.

Keywords prosecution, courts, criminal justice reform, qualitative research, research methods

The criminal justice system has experienced myriad reforms in recent decades. Judicial sentencing decisions have been scrutinized and deemed grossly inconsistent, triggering the proliferation of sentencing guidelines, mandatory minimums, and other sentencing innovations designed to curb discretion (Ulmer 2012). Police use of force has received even more atten- tion, leading to civilian and government oversight mechanisms (Fyfe 1988). Prosecution, on the other hand, has undergone remarkably little evolution. Its core principles have remained virtually unchanged, as have its relation- ships with other court actors, mechanisms for public accountability, and often case management systems (Forst 2002; Frederick and Stemen 2012).

Now, the status quo in prosecution may be changing. Legal scholars and policy experts note that prosecutorial elections are becoming more publi- cized, and “tough-on-crime” rhetoric has begun taking a backseat to the ideals of decarceration, equality, and community well-being in campaign platforms (Aleem 2015; Balko 2018; Simon 2017; Sklansky 2017). Such changes are reflected in recent waves of prosecutorial campaign promises and are shaping new cohorts of elected prosecutors. A new brand of pro- secution is emerging, one in which prosecutors promote reforms designed to reduce incarceration, promote fairness, focus on the community, and improve prosecutorial and police accountability (Bazelon and Krinsky 2018; Jackson 2019). These ideals may represent a shift in priorities and a new direction for criminal justice and prosecution.

However, the extent to which reform-minded priorities are understood and implemented in the prosecutor’s office is, at present, not well- understood. Historically, criminal justice institutions have exhibited strong path dependence, resisting reforms and maintaining momentum for punitive justice policies (Beckett, Reosti, and Knaphus 2016). Both external and internal factors bolster existing policies and make change increasingly dif- ficult. The literature documenting organizational inertia and barriers to reform in criminal justice agencies is robust (Berman and Fox 2010). With

3 Richardson and Kutateladze

this in mind, it is important to evaluate whether or not, and what kind of, barriers stand in the way of reform-minded prosecution.

Qualitative research affords us a unique opportunity to engage in semi- structured discussions with line prosecutors, where (1) respondents are able to articulate their thought processes without the restraint of a close-ended format, (2) face-to-face interactions allow researchers to gauge emotional responses and better navigate difficult discussion topics, and (3) researchers can ask follow-up questions to clarify previous responses. We asked line prosecutors in two Florida jurisdictions—Tampa and Jacksonville—about the goals and priorities in their offices, individual prosecutor and office success, and areas for reform in the office and criminal justice system. Both jurisdictions in the study have newly elected reform-minded state attorneys, making this work particularly useful for understanding opportunities for and challenges to implementing meaningful reform in prosecution.

Path Dependence in the Criminal Justice System

Perspectives on institutional path dependence provide a useful context for exploring prosecutorial change. Social and political policies tend to follow a self-reinforcing path that, as time progresses, makes changing direction more difficult (Mahoney 2000; Pierson 2000). Positive feedback loops strengthen policies and their supporting institutions and generate a pattern of increasing returns, which progressively raises the social, political, and financial costs of reforms. To our knowledge, prosecutorial policy has not been examined from a path dependence perspective, but sociolegal scholars draw on it to understand the perpetuation of mass incarceration and explain why system-wide criminal justice reforms often fall short of their intended effects (Beckett 2018; Dagan and Teles 2014). Rising fiscal costs, demands for social equality, and bipartisan support for reducing incarcerated popula- tions are driving policy makers, practitioners, and the public at large to reconsider punitive criminal justice policy. However, penal institutions mount formidable defenses against policy change. As a result, scholars such as Beckett et al. (2016:240) note “considerable evidence that the criminal justice zeitgeist is in flux and that meaningful criminal justice reform is under way” while simultaneously observing that institutional processes make reform substantially more difficult.

Many of these institutional processes occur externally to individual crim- inal justice agencies. For example, punitive policies skew political power toward interest groups that promote those policies’ continuation (e.g., Gottschalk 2015; Page 2011; Thorpe 2015). The entrenchment of

4 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency XX(X)

coordination efforts among law enforcement and correctional agencies pro- tects the system from single-agency changes to punishment and surveil- lance strategies (Weaver 2012). Penal ideologies and rationalizations adapt to reflect contemporary discourses without sacrificing traditional punitive- ness as a core objective (Beckett et al. 2016). These external forces amplify organizational inertia and hurdles to policy change within individual crim- inal justice institutions.

Barriers to the Implementation of Criminal Justice Reform

Literature from the management and implementation sciences highlights characteristics of organizational environments that promote path depen- dence and make effective policy change more challenging. Within the organizational context of criminal justice, factors such as chains of com- munication, mechanisms for coordination, centralization, executives’ orien- tation toward change, and use of technology contribute to how easily new innovations are implemented (Allen 2002; Brennan 1999; Darroch and Mazerolle 2013). Prior work likewise demonstrates the potential for the content, clarity, and delivery of policy reforms themselves to impact imple- mentation success. For example, initiatives with too broad or imprecise a scope are susceptible to misapplication, as justice actors interpret them in widely varying ways or fail to understand how they can be incorporated into existing protocols (Cissner and Farole 2009; Taxman and Belenko 2012). Policies that increase practitioners’ workloads lose support or become infeasible in practice (Feeley 1973; Taxman and Gordon 2009).

Equally pertinent to the efficacy of top-down reform is the critical role that individual actors play in implementing organizational policy changes. More than simple “translators” of new policy initiatives, line agents in the justice system maintain a central role in interpreting directives and adapting them to fit the micro-level contexts in which decisions are made (Lynch 1998; Rengifo, Stemen, and Amidon 2017; Rudes 2012). Scholars have taken care to understand the dynamics of these performative environments, noting the profoundly endogenous process in which justice policies are shaped by the very individuals they are intended to govern (Edelman, Uggen, and Erlanger 1999; Verma 2015). The molding of policy directives by supervisors and line agents can be advantageous in bureaucratic systems where executives are far removed from the realities of day-to-day opera- tions, but it can also prove detrimental to the success of reform initiatives.

5 Richardson and Kutateladze

Challenges to the implementation of top-down criminal justice reforms can dramatically weaken their impact (Berman and Fox 2010).

Sitting at the nexus of policy-making and operational activities in their organizations, mid-level supervisors are particularly well-positioned to influence policy through their interpretation of directives, communication with subordinates, and monitoring of implementation (Livian and Burgoyne 1997; Lynch 1998). Expressions of resistance from this management group heavily contour the legitimacy, execution, and underlying logics of new policies. To illustrate, Lynch (1998) found that field parole supervisors subverted new demands by adjusting standard informal policies to meet the technical requirements but not the broader goals of new risk classifica- tion policies. Other ethnographic work on the California parole system similarly identified differences among middle managers’ interpretative frames as an important cause of the failure of statewide parole reform efforts (Rudes 2012). The line agents responsible for directly implementing new reforms likewise have ample opportunity to weaken their efficacy. For example, Viglione, Rudes, and Taxman (2015) observed probation officers responding to the introduction of a risk-needs assessment tool by ‘going through the motions’ without altering underlying decision-making, reduc- ing the utility of the tool. Other researchers have documented judges resist- ing reforms by shifting responsibility to other actors (Clair and Winter 2016), exploiting loopholes and safety valves to move cases outside their purview (Lynch and Omori 2014; Schulhofer and Nagel 1989, 1996), and simply ignoring them (Feeley and Kamin 1996).

We contribute to prior work on path dependence and barriers to criminal justice reform implementation by further considering how the cultural and procedural dynamics of criminal justice organizations each challenge pol- icy change in the prosecutor’s office, a bureaucratic institution with long- standing opacity and organizational inertia. As we explore how prosecutors understand and implement reforms initiated by their newly elected leaders, we highlight the role that line prosecutors play in determining the impact of path dependence and the success of the reform-minded prosecution movement.

Prosecution, Old and New

Prosecutorial policy has remained unified and stable for decades. Tasked with serving as public advocates in an adversarial justice system, prosecu- torial offices have traditionally represented society’s worries about public safety and embodied its tough-on-crime sentiments (Barkow 2009). Many

6 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency XX(X)

prosecutors have maintained a working personality characterized by a conviction psychology: a set of attitudes toward defendants, the judicial system, and the role of the prosecutor that elevate conviction and punish- ment as the most important goals of prosecution (Felkenes 1975; Fisher 1988). Historically, this conviction psychology has been the institutional trademark of prosecution. To illustrate, Alschuler (1968) identified high consistency in prosecutors’ role perceptions, with many perceiving them- selves as administrators tasked with efficient case disposition and advocates aiming to maximize convictions and sentence severity. Jacoby (1980) simi- larly identified paradigms of prosecutorial charging, all of which center on the sufficiency of evidence for achieving conviction. For decades, prose- cutorial candidates have tended to construct very law-and-order platforms to appeal to voters, advertising high-profile trials and hard-nosed approaches to prosecution (Gordon and Huber 2002; Wright 2009).

Now, the United States has seemingly arrived at the precipice of a new era for prosecutors. Calls for smart-on-crime policies have gained bipartisan traction, putting pressure on the criminal justice system to explore alterna- tives to incarceration and increase both precision and consistency in the administration of justice (e.g., Holder 2014). Campaign promises among many newly elected prosecutors reflect these goals (Fairfax 2012; Harris 2009; Simon 2017). Several tough-on-crime incumbents have been ousted by newcomers touting data-informed smart-on-crime reforms (Bazelon and Krinsky 2018; Jackson 2019; Sklansky 2017). We note that these newly elected reform-minded prosecutors often emphasize one or more of four goals: reducing incarceration, fairness in prosecution, focusing on the com- munity, and accountability. While many of these ideas have floated around the criminal justice literature for decades, practitioners in general, and prosecutors in particular, have only recently begun embracing them.

First, prosecutorial rhetoric has increasingly reflected the need to reduce incarceration. Faced with overcrowded correctional systems and the other financial, social, and moral costs of mass incarceration (Clear and Frost 2015; Travis, Western, and Redburn 2014), many reform-minded prosecu- tors advocate for less incarceration and more diversion programs and treat- ment options. For example, Harris County (TX) District Attorney Kim Ogg instituted a marijuana diversion program, and Philadelphia (PA) District Attorney Larry Krasner issued a directive to stop requesting cash bail for many low-level offenses (Brownstein 2018; Sasko 2018). A second hall- mark of the new prosecution strategy is fairness in case processing. An abundance of research suggests that criminal justice processing can affect disproportionately harsh outcomes for certain sociodemographic groups

7 Richardson and Kutateladze

(Mitchell 2005; Spohn 2000; Ulmer 2012). The topic of unwarranted dis- parities has also moved toward the forefront of public discourse about the criminal justice system (Roberts and Stalans 2000), leading prosecutors like Denver (CO) District Attorney Beth McCann and Brooklyn (NY) District Attorney Eric Gonzalez to stress the importance of fair prosecution and addressing inequality (Chammah 2016; Feuer 2016).

Third, prosecutorial reforms have emphasized focusing on the commu- nity and adopting problem-solving approaches to prosecution. Rather than simply processing and ensuring punishment for each case independently, prosecutors seek to reduce and prevent crime through building connections with the communities they serve (Levine 2005). Baltimore City (MD) State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby’s and Henry County (GA) District Attor- ney Darius Pattillo’s campaigns provide clear examples of this theme, frequently emphasizing community outreach, community-based program- ming, and proactive crime prevention efforts (see Fenton 2017; Prince 2017). Finally, prosecutors are placing a renewed emphasis on accountabil- ity. With few checks on their discretion, prosecutors’ offices have long been plagued by issues of both prosecutorial and police misconduct (Sklansky 2018). In response, many reform-minded prosecutors pledge to maintain more transparent administrations by more readily sharing data with the public as well as by examining data themselves and embracing its role as a means of intra- and inter-office oversight. For instance, Nueces County (TX) District Attorney Mark Gonzalez’s campaign focused heavily on increasing transparency and reducing prosecutorial misconduct (Barajas 2017), and Cook County (IL) State’s Attorney Kim Foxx promised both police accountability and greater data openness in order to regain public trust in her office (Schmadeke 2016).

These four themes—reducing incarceration, promoting fair prosecu- tion, focusing on the community, and increasing accountability—emerge in many modern reform-minded elected prosecutors’ platforms and can be used as a framework for organizing the new brand of prosecution. The increasing frequency with which reform-minded prosecutors are voted into office suggests that such platforms enjoy substantial public support (Simon 2017). However, as Sklansky (2018) notes, it is unclear whether this fledg- ling wave of reform will permanently change the fabric of prosecution and meaningfully improve the criminal justice system. Recent news articles and legal scholarship have clearly demonstrated that changes in prosecution are happening. Yet, measuring reform implementation is an empirical under- taking that requires social science intervention to document reform pro- cesses, identify challenges to reform, and provide recommendations to

8 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency XX(X)

improve reform implementation and maximize impact. Social scientists, however, have been slow to examine prosecutorial reform, leaving scholar- ship largely theoretical. This article aims to begin bringing data into pro- secutorial policy discourse.

The Current Study

Shifts in elected prosecutors’ priorities toward ideas such as alternatives to incarceration, fairness, community engagement, and accountability have the potential to meaningfully transform the criminal justice system. Yet, the fulfillment of these reform ideas may depend on understanding and support from line prosecutors, who turn their electeds’ policies into prac- tices. It is line prosecutors and their supervisors who use discretion to make a multitude of decisions across the lifespan of each individual case, from case screening to sentencing recommendation, that have profound influ- ences on the administration of justice (Davis 2007).

In this study, we identify (1) the nature and scope of new prosecutorial priorities and (2) potential barriers to reform-minded prosecution in the offices of two newly elected prosecutors. The benefits of this exploration are twofold. First, it contributes empirical insights about modern reform movements to the criminological literature from within an understudied, well-insulated criminal justice organization: the prosecutors’ office. Sec- ond, characterizing barriers to prosecutorial reform provides potentially valuable information to policy makers and practitioners seeking to promote and implement meaningful change in the field of prosecution.

Data and Method

Data Collection

This investigation is part of a larger research and technical assistance proj- ect on efficiency, effectiveness, and fairness in prosecution.1 The data come from in-person interviews conducted in May–June 2018 with 47 line pro- secutors from the Offices of the State Attorney for the Fourth Judicial Circuit of Florida (Jacksonville) and the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit of Flor- ida (Tampa). Both of these offices have elected prosecutors, a Republican and a Democrat, respectively, who assumed office in January 2017 after running on platforms touting reforms to increase fairness, public safety, transparency, and the use of data (e.g., Chammah 2016; Sklansky 2017). Serving midsize urban jurisdictions, the two offices have comparable num- bers of line staff: the Fourth Circuit’s office has 116 line prosecutors, while

9 Richardson and Kutateladze

the Thirteenth Circuit has 130. For both prosecutorial offices, doing this research was a new exercise, as neither office previously had any experi- ence partnering with researchers or discussing these subjects.

The two offices in this study also share greater structural similarity than most. Each office has approximately 10 trial divisions, each managed by a division chief. Each division is assigned to a particular judge and court- room. Misdemeanor and felony offenses are handled by separate groups of prosecutors and judges. Virtually all cases reach the offices through a referral from law enforcement, and both offices report positive working relationships with local law enforcement, the defense bar, and the judiciary. The biggest difference between the two offices is their early case assess- ment procedure. The Tampa office has a dedicated unit that screens cases and makes filing decisions before handing off the cases to trial attorneys, while Jacksonville trial prosecutors largely screen their own cases.

Respondents in both offices were selected using a stratified random sampling technique. First, we received a complete list of prosecutors employed in each office as of May 2018, organized from most to least senior. Next, we stratified these lists into quartiles to ensure that prosecutors at all levels of the office (particularly at managerial levels) would be rep- resented in the sample. Finally, we randomly selected 25 prosecutors and 15 alternates from across those strata in each office. The 25 selected prosecu- tors were sent an individualized e-mail inviting them to participate in a formal in-person interview and offering them various time slots over a three-day period for the interview. One follow-up e-mail was sent, and prosecutors who declined to participate or did not respond were not con- tacted again. Instead, alternates were e-mailed using the same initial and follow-up e-mail protocol. In Jacksonville, 38 prosecutors were ultimately invited to participate and 25 interviews were completed (response rate ¼ 66 percent). In Tampa, 38 prosecutors were invited to participate and 22 inter- views were completed (response rate ¼ 58 percent).

Interviews were conducted face-to-face in private meeting spaces at the offices and lasted between 40 and 75 minutes. Each interview involved two researchers. Interviews were led by a senior researcher experienced in prosecutorial data and engagement with line prosecutors, while a research assistant typed detailed notes distinguishing direct quotes from summary descriptions. Having two researchers at each interview was deemed neces- sary to avoid overwhelming a single interviewer with engaging in a mean- ingful discussion while taking meticulous notes. A semistructured interview format allowed the tone of the interviews to be conversational, so that respondents could respond directly to our questions but also introduce new

10 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency XX(X)

topics into the interview. To encourage candid responses on controversial topics, the interviews were not audio-recorded.2 At the beginning of each interview, respondents were asked to read a consent statement detailing the purpose of the interview and assuring confidentiality.3 Interview questions were designed to guide discussions in several areas: priorities of the prose- cutors’ office, prosecutorial success, incarceration, racial and ethnic dispa- rities, community engagement, and areas for reform.4

Analytic Strategy

Data were analyzed using NVivo (2015) Version 11. We began the analysis with the intention of identifying office priorities and barriers to the imple- mentation/fulfillment of those priorities. Given that public discourse has already highlighted various tenets of reform-minded prosecution, we used a directed qualitative content analysis (QCA) approach to examine office priorities (Hsieh and Shannon 2005). Directed QCA allowed us to use existing theoretical concepts, in this case, the four tenets of reform- minded prosecution, as the starting framework for identifying office priorities and barriers to their implementation. Four coders first read all interview notes in their entirety and independently conducted line-by-line coding of all data to establish lists of concepts and themes related to our two main areas: new priorities in the offices and challenges associated with the implementation of those new priorities. Interview notes were then reviewed again, and all relevant themes were compiled into a single exhaustive list. In instances where there was initial disagreement about whether a particular theme was present, interview notes were revisited until the group arrived at a consensus. This secondary coding procedure resulted in the refinement of many themes. For example, the initial theme of “prosecutorial discretion as a new priority” was refined to specifically address how discretion is expected to be used (i.e., to achieve case-appropriate outcomes and better reach existing office goals). Basic frequency data were used to clarify the strength of the themes identified.

Because the interviews were part of a larger investigation into prosecu- tion, not all themes identified were relevant for this study (e.g., how to assess efficiency in prosecution). Those themes were removed from the analysis. Themes related to the nature and scope of new priorities were identified, and themes related to policy implementation barriers were orga- nized into broad categories that the research team jointly believed best reflected the types of barriers identified. For instance, we organized (1) missing criteria for what constitutes fair decision-making, (2) line

11 Richardson and Kutateladze

prosecutors’ beliefs that community engagement has no purpose, and (3) a lack of clarity about when community engagement should occur into a single category, “policy ambiguity,” that represents the incomplete articu- lation of aims and implementation strategies for reform-minded priorities.

As the final step in the analysis, quotes that best represented the results were selected to illustrate how prosecutors speak about these themes in their own words. These procedures yielded a rich set of themes that sheds light on how prosecutors understand their offices’ goals and priorities and how both the structure and culture of prosecutor’s offices may hinder the advance- ment of reform-minded prosecutorial priorities.

Participant Characteristics

Study participants were diverse. Respondents were 55 percent (n ¼ 26) non- Hispanic White, 15 percent (n ¼ 7) Black, 19 percent (n ¼ 9) Hispanic, 4 percent (n ¼ 2) Asian, and 6 percent (n ¼ 3) mixed race or other. Compared to the 246 full line staff in the two study offices, White prosecutors were underrepresented, while Black and Hispanic prosecutors were overrepre- sented in the sample.5 Seventy percent (n ¼ 33) were female, also making female prosecutors overrepresented in the sample compared to the two offices’ full line staff. Participants’ ages ranged from 26 to 56, with a mean age of 38.8 years, and they had between 1 and 34 years of prosecution experience, with a mean experience length of 10.2 years. Seventeen percent (n ¼ 8) had previous experience as a defense attorney. Twenty-three per- centage of the sample (n ¼ 11) were serving in managerial positions at the time of the interviews.6

Findings

Priorities in Two Prosecutors’ Offices

We first identify the nature and scope of new prosecutorial priorities in the two offices. As the first substantive question of each interview, respondents were asked, “In your own words, what do you see as the current priorities in your office?” Table 1 provides a list of the most common responses to this question, along with response frequencies.7 Consistent with existing liter- ature on reform-minded prosecution (Bazelon and Krinsky 2018; Jackson 2019), reducing incarceration, fairness, focusing on the community, and increasing accountability all emerged as priorities.

The most common priority described by prosecutors was fairness. It is essential to their elected, they explained, that prosecutors do the right thing

12 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency XX(X)

Table 1. Current Office Priorities as Described by Line Prosecutors.

Priorities Frequency

Fairness 24 Keeping people out of the system 22 Community engagement 18 Greater prosecutorial discretion 14 Public safety 9 Transparent, data-driven decision-making 8

Note: Forty-seven prosecutors were interviewed. Prosecutors could provide more than one priority in response to the question.

and achieve a fair, appropriate outcome in each case. For many prosecutors, fairness manifests as consistency, where similar cases result in similar dis- positions. Office-wide consistency is considered very important, but prose- cutors also use their own past charging and plea offer decisions as a guide for identifying fair outcomes in current cases, as this manager explains:

I try to teach young lawyers not to open a set of facts and give one offer, then open another file that is remarkably similar and give a bigger offer. Con- sistency is the most important thing. Don’t let a defense attorney call you and remind you of a similar case from five years ago when you gave a much better offer.

Keeping people “out of the system” was a second notable priority in the offices. Prosecutors detailed a pressure to divert defendants away from conviction and into rehabilitative programming, send defendants to speci- alty courts, and otherwise keep them out of jail or prison. One prosecutor stated that their elected is expanding the scope of diversion use, to try to divert more offenders, and keep them from coming back. We detected two distinct rationales for why alternatives to conviction and incarceration are important. First, directing low-level defendants away from prosecution and incarceration frees up offices’ resources to prosecute more serious cases. Alternatives to incarceration are a mechanism for reallocating prosecutorial and correctional resources to improve community safety. In contrast, other prosecutors highlighted the benefits of treatment programming as an alter- native, because it provides defendants with an opportunity to rehabilitate and stop recidivating.

Third, prosecutors acknowledge that community engagement is a prior- ity for their reform-minded electeds. Prosecutors are encouraged to

13 Richardson and Kutateladze

participate in activities such as attending community social events, speak- ing in front of community groups, and visiting schools to teach children about the criminal justice system. This is because communities generally distrust law enforcement actors and think of prosecutors as the bad guys. One respondent commented that sometimes they’re more uncomfortable or afraid with us than the police even. Consequently, prosecutors have a tense relationship with many of the communities they serve, and community members are reluctant to report crimes and serve as witnesses for them. In these offices, there is hope that community outreach efforts will build community trust and make residents feel more comfortable talking to and assisting prosecutors. One prosecutor posited:

[Community engagement] would improve effectiveness to make sure the community does not view us as an enemy because they don’t understand the process. This would help in the long run, especially for witness and victim cooperation.

Far fewer prosecutors noted elements of the fourth goal in reform- minded prosecution, accountability, as a priority. Those who did specif- ically referenced prosecutorial transparency, emphasizing the importance of showing people what we do and letting them see inside the office. In describing what transparency looks like, prosecutors mentioned activities such as engaging in social media, releasing periodic bulletins and reports to the public, and communicating with the media in high-profile cases. Interestingly, transparency was perceived as important for the same rea- son that community engagement is encouraged: It builds trust. One pro- secutor opined, Unless you open your doors and let people in and be vulnerable, people will not trust you.

Although the priorities noted in this study generally align with the four reform-minded prosecution goals we have identified, two additional priorities discussed frequently by prosecutors provide nuance to the reform-minded framework in the two offices. First, a nontrivial group of prosecutors felt that rather than introducing new priorities, their electeds were focused on giving line prosecutors more discretion to achieve the same goals. One prosecutor recalled a member of the executive team telling line prosecutors, you have the freedom, make the decision you feel is right. Another described the aim as feeling empowered to use discretion without fear of being fired on the spot. In the context of reform-minded prosecution, this focus on discretion grants line prosecutors more flexibility and thus

14 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency XX(X)

may be the key to achieving other goals such as fairness and reduced incarceration in the two offices.

At the same time, some prosecutors also acknowledged the continued importance of one traditional goal, public safety. This priority was often expressed as a function of violent crime in particular. One attorney said, prosecuting dangerous criminals has always been the focus. Likewise, another stated that the main priority is to incarcerate violent offenders. That’s the first thing that comes to mind, that’s what (Elected) made clear. (Elected) wants us to be focusing on violent offenses, weapons offenses. Overall, while public safety remains a prosecutorial priority, our respon- dents appeared to emphasize changes in office-wide priorities, which placed greater focus on the ideals of fairness and community engagement, among others.

Barriers to Reform-minded Prosecution

Prosecutors in our study thus acknowledged the introduction of new reform- oriented priorities into their offices. However, in describing the priorities established by their newly elected leaders, the prosecutors also highlighted various ways that these priorities were not being fully realized. We observe several distinct dynamics that help to explain how and why reform-minded priorities are hindered in our two study offices. Specifically, new priorities are inconsistent with existing prosecutorial norms, and prosecutors focus exclusively on case-level decisions without considering the overall effects of their decision-making. These misalignments are especially impactful because breakdowns in intra-office communication channels prevent new priorities from reaching line prosecutors, and prosecutors subsequently do not fully understand new priorities or how to achieve them.

Existing prosecutorial role orientations. Reform-minded electeds must first contend with cultural resistance to their new priorities. Traditional norms have shaped and subsequently reinforced activities in the prosecutor’s office for decades, and in many instances, reform priorities stand in direct opposition to how prosecutors have historically thought about their role in the criminal justice system. For example, reform-minded prosecution fre- quently focuses on reducing defendants’ criminal justice involvement through the use of alternatives to prosecution and incarceration (Bazelon and Krinsky 2018; Jackson 2019). However, this pursuit clearly runs coun- ter to the traditional conviction-oriented mindset that prosecutors have long espoused. Line prosecutors in the study did not demonstrate a discernible

15 Richardson and Kutateladze

desire to reduce their office’s incarceration rate; none indicated unequivo- cally that incarceration is sought too often, and many referred to their use of incarceration as appropriate and just about right. While arguing that their office has done a good job identifying defendants who deserve or need incarceration, one prosecutor noted that they are not social workers and that being tough is sometimes required to protect the community.

Further complicating reform-minded prosecutor’ pursuit of reduced incarceration, punishment scholars have commented that reform discourse and practice tend to concentrate on decarceration efforts only for low-level defendants, leaving serious defendants to face traditional harsh and even increasingly harsher criminal justice treatment (Beckett et al. 2016; Seeds 2017). This bifurcation of justice responses to nonserious versus serious crime was easily observed in our study. Indeed, prosecutors interpreted their electeds’ desire to move more defendants out of the system as a push for stricter implementation of existing policies rather than as a push to expand the pool of eligibility for alternative programming. One prosecutor described the new focus as weeding out minor felonies and not imprisoning people for first-time offenses. Few interpreted the directive as an invitation to consider alternatives to prosecution and incarceration for more violent and felony offenses. Instead, for these more serious offenses, they relied on more traditional approaches, seeking convictions and incarceration sen- tences. As discussed earlier, they identified public safety as a continuing important priority in their offices and indicated a resolve to fully prosecute and incarcerate serious crimes. The bifurcation of reform policies— leniency for low-level defendants and punitiveness for serious offenses— diminishes the potential effects of policy change on incarceration rates, as it shrinks the pool of defendants for whom involvement in the system can be reduced and may offset low-level decarceration with longer sentences for serious offenses.

Fairness is another reform-minded priority that may be similarly ham- pered by existing prosecutorial role orientations. In contrast to typical accounts of the prosecutor as a powerful justice actor with unfettered dis- cretion (Davis 2007; Johnson, King, and Spohn 2016), prosecutors in this study often presented themselves as reactive technicians with limited agency. They tended to interpret their roles within the system in relation to other criminal justice entities and share responsibility for case processing outcomes with them. For example, prosecutors often argued that their duty to follow the law forces them to rely on the legislature to determine appro- priate outcomes in each case. They noted that they are frequently forced to contend with sentencing guidelines, mandatory minimum sentences, and

16 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency XX(X)

habitual offender laws that prescribe inflexible, often punitive sentences. One prosecutor felt frustrated by the supremacy of these laws, declaring that the legislature is a mess. Sometimes they tie our hands with mandatory minimums, and sometimes it would help to have options.

Prosecutors noted that deference to judges is a second factor that limits their own impact on both fairness and incarceration rates. Specifically, some respondents suggested that they themselves retain control over screening and charging practices, but punishment outcomes are influenced heavily by judges. Judges have the power to reject plea deals and assign sentences, which makes them the ultimate authority on final dispositions. Tailoring decisions to judges’ individual preferences saves prosecutors the headache of arguing with judges over plea deals and having sentencing recommendations rejected. One prosecutor used this reason to fully dismiss the possibility that their office could ever achieve fairness:

The justice system itself is never going to be fair. I would love a perfect world where you walk in a courtroom and it’d be the same as in another courtroom. But judges are different . . . . You really do walk into a courtroom and adapt to your judge. But in an ideal world the prosecutor would own the courtroom. It’s our decision, we charge the case. The courtroom should be ours. Instead, judges turn us down all the time. So we just go with it. And we adjust our plea offers. Ultimately, we make plea offers so that the system runs, so that we’re not taking a million cases to trial. But the judge does sentencing. It’s hand and hand in the kingdom that way, but the sentencing part is probably why judges wear the crown.

Having rotated through multiple misdemeanor courtrooms, another pro- secutor relayed a story to similarly illustrate judges’ influence on plea offers and sentencing recommendations:

My first judge would never ask for jail time. The only time I could get jail time was if I also asked for participation in Yoga for Time, a yoga program, because the judge is a yogi. And then another judge asks before I’ve said anything, “How much time does the State want?” and then I know the judge wants jail time and I might as well not ask for anything else . . . . A lot depends on the judge.

Criminal justice scholarship has demonstrated the importance of consid- ering interagent dynamics; court community members—most notably judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys—develop norms that assist them

17 Richardson and Kutateladze

in jointly resolving cases (Eisenstein and Jacob 1977; Ulmer 1997). Such norms determine the efficiency and effectiveness of courtrooms and shape individual court actors’ individual case decisions. With their commentary, prosecutors in the study provide additional ammunition for the idea that prosecutors make decisions “in the shadow of the judge” (Lynch 2019:88), situating their case processing decisions within the larger context of the courtroom communities in which they operate and suggesting that they modify their approaches to conform to judicial preferences.

Case-level decision-making. Prosecutors’ singular focus on individual case outcomes constitutes another major cultural barrier to reform-minded pro- secution. As previously noted, prosecutors in the study concentrate on “the right thing” in each case, basing their decisions on the offense and the circumstances unique to each situation. There was a strong normative understanding that the intent should always be to achieve justice for each victim and each defendant in each case. One prosecutor who felt particu- larly passionate about learning the nuances in each case told us, each case is a person’s life, and it affects a bunch of people’s lives . . . I have to know my cases inside and out, get to know the victims and witnesses on a personal level, to do my job.

Considering the overall impact of their decision-making was perceived by prosecutors as a threat to this case-level focus. Many of the prosecutors in our study viewed their offices’ work as an either-or situation, where they could either make decisions best suited for individual cases or work to achieve desirable outcomes in the aggregate. As one prosecutor explained, I think it’s better to assess cases individually. If I had too much data on trends, that might take away from me looking at cases individually, which is what we’re supposed to do. There was widespread reluctance even to know basic office-wide statistics such as filing rates, incarceration rates, and defendants’ racial demographics. A second prosecutor declared, we need to focus more on individual cases, not on the grand scheme. This approach highlights line prosecutors’ assumption that doing the right thing in each case ultimately results in better outcomes on the whole.

Prosecutors’ exclusive case-level focus may prevent them from seeing value in reform-minded priorities, several of which require consideration of broader trends in decision-making. To illustrate, it was difficult for prose- cutors in the study to reconcile their electeds’ focus on reducing incarcera- tion with their own practice of assessing the suitability of incarceration separately in each case. When asked whether incarceration is used too often or too seldom in their offices, some indicated that they do not think about

18 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency XX(X)

incarceration from that perspective. One prosecutor suggested that it is hard to say whether incarceration rates are appropriate, because each case is unique and incarceration should go case by case. Another echoed this sentiment, saying that nothing comes to mind where we use it too much or too little. Once you do the job, you realize how each case has its own nuances.

Community engagement is a second priority that can be hindered by line prosecutors’ narrow focus on individual cases. Moving beyond the tradi- tional use of outreach as a tool for increasing victim and witness coopera- tion, reform-minded electeds advocate for a problem-solving approach to prosecution in which individual prosecutors engage with their communities to reduce and prevent crime. However, prosecutors in the study generally did not mention using engagement as a means of learning about and addres- sing crime problems in their local communities, instead focusing only on its utility as a tool for improving victim and witness cooperation. Correspond- ing with this observation, one prosecutor described their colleagues in the field of prosecution as deluding themselves and a little bit too absorbed in their casework to see the value of community involvement. How will you know how to assist the community you are serving if you are not engaged? this prosecutor asked. Another similarly commented that because prosecu- tors sit in the ivory tower, they often can’t see what the people are doing.

Finally, some aspects of prosecutorial accountability are incompatible with line prosecutors’ case-level emphasis. Although prosecutors in the study recognized the electeds’ desire to increase transparency, for instance, they believed this transparency should focus on positive outcomes in indi- vidual cases rather than serve as a mechanism for accountability. One prosecutor gave the example of highlighting on social media a female defendant who graduated from a drug court program and maintained cus- tody of her child. The prosecutor then said, we have to be transparent but show a distinctly positive face . . . . We have to be able to say “here are specific good things we do.” A majority of prosecutors opposed releasing administrative records or summary statistics that could undermine the nuan- ces of each case and expose the offices to criticism. One questioned whether summary statistics could contribute anything meaningful to decision- making in individual cases: Every case is factually driven. How does a trend affect my job? There was also general skepticism about the objectivity of “data,” with prosecutors rebuffing the idea that summary trends could help keep their offices accountable or contribute meaningfully to decision- making in individual cases. They said that data could be worked and manipulated and made to look like whatever you want them to look like.

19 Richardson and Kutateladze

In fact, our respondents could not recall any positive experiences where research helped them improve their work.

Breakdown in Communication Channels

Existing prosecutorial orientations and a case-level focus generate robust internal defenses against office-wide prosecutorial reform, but the strength of these cultural barriers is bolstered by inconsistencies in the top-to-bottom transmission of new priorities. Reform-minded priorities are not always communicated clearly and concretely to line prosecutors. Electeds share their priorities with office staff through channels such as annual town hall meetings, individual meetings with office supervisors, and e-mail notifica- tions, but these communications mechanisms do not always ensure that line prosecutors receive the proper message. Several prosecutors noted incon- sistency between what electeds say and what line prosecutors hear. One prosecutor referred to the problem as a clog in the drain, where messages filtered down from the elected either become trapped or altered prior to reaching line prosecutors.

In both offices, mid-level managers (division chiefs, unit heads, or the like) are the group that often determines how new priorities are expressed to line prosecutors. They are the lynchpin to the communication chain, man- aging line prosecutors day-to-day, and serving as the main liaison between the electeds’ executive team and line prosecutors. However, respondents noted that mid-level managers are also the group most likely to reject the electeds’ new priorities. Armed with years of prosecutorial experience, many mid-level managers have earned a reputation for safeguarding tradi- tional values and being resistant to change. One prosecutor labeled them old school. Another said, (Elected) is at the top, but the people in the middle are taught to prosecute a certain way.

Mid-level managers are widely understood as having a large impact on the success or failure of large-scale organizational changes and policy implementation (Floyd and Wooldridge 1994; Livian and Burgoyne 1997), and tension between the ideals of the executive team and mid- level management can be highly detrimental to the success of reform prio- rities. Speaking from the perspective of the elected, one prosecutor told us, If you have a division chief that is not in line with the mission, then you will lose. Indeed, prosecutors in the study speculated that differences in philo- sophy are the primary reason for the offices’ communication breakdown: I don’t think the chiefs are always communicating what (Elected) wants. I think sometimes they do things based on their own beliefs. In this portrayal,

20 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency XX(X)

mid-level managers are not merely translating policies into operational tasks. They are intentionally subverting new directives in a way made possible by their position of power within the prosecutorial organization (Rengifo et al. 2017). The depiction is also consistent with other scholars’ observations about organizational resistance: Middle managers facilitate organizational inertia more often through passive refusal to engage in pro-change activities rather than active, overt objection (Balogun 2003; Fenton-O’Creevy 2001). This quiet method of resistance allows them to continue on their current course and prevent change more subtly, with less chance of being detected or rebuked. Indeed, mid-level managers’ decision to stop the transmission of new priorities or reinterpret them is viewed as a form of covert resistance to the new administrations, but prosecutors in the study did not provide any indication that such obstruction is typically reported to the executive team or that it leads to meaningful penalties.8 In this way, managers are able to shape top-down policy directives to accom- modate their own preferences and preexisting practices, largely without censure, effectively promoting path dependence in the office.

Policy Ambiguity

Lastly, many line prosecutors are unable to articulate clear purposes and implementation strategies for reform-minded office priorities. Although a majority of respondents acknowledged a renewed emphasis on fairness in their offices, for example, they also had great difficulty describing what fair decision-making looks like in practice or providing specific criteria for assessing whether individual case decisions are fair. One prosecutor stated that fairness is a nebulous concept. Like what is fair? I know when some things aren’t fair. I feel it. And that’s a dangerous thing, to go by feelings. But sometimes, a lot of the time, I just feel it. This prosecutor’s discussion of feelings as a guiding factor for determining what outcomes are fair under- scores the subjectivity of fairness within the prosecutors’ office. The line prosecutors in our study sought a balance between assuring fair, consistent outcomes and allowing individual prosecutors to exercise their personal judgment, but they did not demonstrate a clear understanding of where the proper balance lay. This prosecutor reflected:

You try and let prosecutors be their own person, and make harsh or lenient sentences that will let them feel comfortable making their own decisions, but at the same time you want consistency across defendants so that one person isn’t given a harsher sentence because of the prosecutor particularly.

21 Richardson and Kutateladze

Community engagement initiatives in the offices also suffered from vague rationales and implementation strategies. First, some prosecutors saw little reason to engage with their communities, suggesting that it was unclear what the office’s push for community outreach was supposed to achieve. Line prosecutors did not see how speaking at a school or partici- pating in a local charity event could translate into more crime reporting and witness cooperation, and they suggested that only people who need to be concerned about how the public views prosecutors’ offices are elected prosecutors who intend to run for reelection. When specifically asked about the ways that working with community groups could improve prosecutors’ work, one prosecutor responded, I don’t know that it changes our work one way or another. Another prosecutor said, that sounds political. It’s only about elections. That is the for the benefit of the State Attorney. I may work with someone at a church, but that doesn’t address kids on the street.

Among those who did embrace community engagement as a priority, many did not understand how community engagement was to be incorpo- rated into their work. The resource constraints endemic to criminal justice agencies shaped what prosecutors believed they were able to achieve (Taxman and Gordon 2009). Time limitations were the clearest problem; heavy caseloads limited the amount of time prosecutors felt they could devote to community engagement. One prosecutor said, I don’t do much community engagement, but I think it’s important. I would love to do more of it if I didn’t have so many other things to do. When asked whether they interacted with their communities in a prosecutorial capacity, another prosecutor simply shared their daily work schedule: I work 50 hours, go home, go running, eat dinner, go to sleep. As a result, prosecutors in the study reported few engagement efforts in their offices, and they spoke about the benefits of engagement speculatively (e.g., community engage- ment would improve effectiveness [underlining added for emphasis]) rather than as realized gains.

This lack of clarity may be due in part to the disruption of communica- tion channels addressed above: When mid-level managers do not agree with a new policy directive, they may send vague, inconsistent, or even no messaging to line prosecutors about how it should be implemented. How- ever, the disorder may also be a symptom of broader difficulties among office policy makers defining the goals, scope, and implementation strate- gies for new reforms. As on-the-ground interpreters of law and policy, mid- level managers and line prosecutors can apply new directives in divergent ways in the absence of clear and concrete guidance (Cissner and Farole 2009; Taxman and Belenko 2012). Reminiscent of the implementation

22 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency XX(X)

processes noted by Rengifo et al. (2017), in this study, there is little evi- dence that the offices undertook extensive policy formalization during the rollout of the new priorities. Prosecutors spoke more about a push to develop and build support for a unified vision in the offices, far less about the establishment of logistical guidelines for carrying out intended reforms. Without a clear understanding of the desired implementation strategies, prosecutors can comfortably fall back on established routines and avoid substantially altering their behavior. Prosecutors in the study offices attached their own meanings and logics to the new policies (e.g., prosecu- tors simply “feel” when outcomes are fair, and community outreach is “political” and “only about elections”) in ways that minimized changes and justified the continuation of existing practices.

Discussion and Conclusion

Recently elected prosecutors are bringing new ways of thinking about what constitutes success and how best to serve their communities (Bazelon and Krinsky 2018; Jackson 2019). Their reform-minded philosophy is grounded in the ideals of reducing incarceration, ensuring fair prosecution, focusing on the community, and increasing accountability. In this study, we inves- tigated how these big-picture priorities are understood and implemented in prosecutor’s offices. We find that line prosecutors do acknowledge many of their electeds’ reform-minded priorities. However, consistent with prior scholarship on path dependence and organizational inertia in the justice system (Beckett et al. 2016; Berman and Fox 2010; Taxman and Belenko 2012), we also find that reform is hampered by various forces within indi- vidual offices.

First, prosecutors find themselves forced to navigate a disconnect between traditional institutional norms and the new roles that reform- minded prosecution requires line agents to adopt. As a result of this uncer- tainty, difficulties accepting responsibility for reforms emerge. For instance, though many newly elected prosecutors push to reduce reliance on jails and prisons (Bazelon and Krinsky 2018), prosecutors in the study maintained that their offices seek jail and prison sentences appropriately. Pragmatically, many saw themselves as having limited agency in ensuring fair dispositions, which are often determined by laws and judicial prefer- ences. While the prosecutorial field may be ripe for substantial reform, a culture change is unlikely to happen overnight. Prior research on organiza- tional inertia has identified numerous forms of resistance that line agents may use to negate the effects of new policies on their day-to-day operations

23 Richardson and Kutateladze

(Clair and Winter 2016; Feeley and Kamin 1996). Elected leaders may be better served by anticipating resistance and promoting ownership among line agents for reforms. Identifying manageable milestones internally can foster accountability, more reasonable expectations, and ultimately more effective criminal justice practice.

Another dynamic that limits the efficacy of prosecutorial reform is offices’ exclusive focus on case-level decision-making. Line prosecutors choose outcomes for each case independently and may discount the cumu- lative effects of their decision-making. The focus on “doing the right thing” in individual cases came across strongly in our interviews. This myopic approach is difficult to reconcile with reform-minded prosecution, which requires the consideration of large-scale trends such as incarceration rates, the distribution of outcomes across defendants and victims, and community crime problems (Bazelon and Krinsky 2018; Sklansky 2017). Prosecutors understood their electeds’ desire to reduce incarceration but maintained that case nuances make incarceration a case-level consideration only. They saw little reason to adopt a problem-solving approach to community engage- ment, and many saw no value in using aggregate data and statistics to inform their work. The success of prosecutorial reform may be dependent on line prosecutors’ ability to adopt multiple perspectives as they process cases. In essence, they must attend to dual-level outcomes: individual case dispositions but also patterns of decision-making, incarceration, disparity, and community impact.

Findings also suggest that communication challenges have prevented many line prosecutors from being able to articulate a clear purpose and implementation strategy for reforms. Overcoming existing norms and orga- nizational inertia in criminal justice agencies is even more difficult without a unified vision and well-defined, concrete goals for new policies under- stood similarly by all line agents (Cissner and Farole 2009; Taxman and Belenko 2012). In this study, prosecutors suggested that messaging from the elected to line staff is inconsistent; mid-level management subvert top- down directives by altering or refusing to communicate new priorities to their subordinates. This form of resistance, while passive, has likely con- tributed to the observed fragmentation among line prosecutors in how pol- icy reforms are understood. Despite widespread agreement that fairness in prosecution is particularly important, prosecutors struggled to provide cri- teria for determining whether case outcomes are fair. Some were unsure why their offices were pushing for more community outreach, while others were unclear about how engagement activities could be incorporated into their regular schedules.

24 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency XX(X)

We suggest that this lack of clarity will constitute a significant challenge to the successful implementation of reform-minded prosecution for two reasons. First, reform-minded prosecution requires the displacement of deeply entrenched prosecutorial norms. The role orientations and decision-making patterns revealed in this study are consistent with tradi- tional conviction-oriented discourses that have dominated the prosecutorial field for decades, and prosecutors are unlikely to replace them without a clear, coherent, and executable vision to fill the void. Second, even among prosecutors who understand and embrace reform-minded priorities, ambi- guity is likely to lead to differences in how policies are translated into actions, leading to numerous renditions of each policy and undermining its effectiveness (Rengifo et al. 2017).

For reform-oriented criminal justice practitioners, this underscores the importance of clearly defining office priorities, identifying specific, con- crete objectives, and then ensuring their transmission down all chains of intra-office communication (Brennan 1999; Darroch and Mazerolle 2013). Offices can dedicate internal resources to educating line agents about the benefits of these priorities, which allows leaders to build support for key reform policies. In making their case for change, reform-minded practi- tioners must remain attentive to the obstacles presented by an institution- wide status quo. Efforts that rely on internal buy-in but do not address existing cultural and pragmatic barriers to change are likely to fail (Berman and Fox 2010).

For scholars seeking to understand criminal justice reform movements, these findings provide additional evidence that intra-office dynamics are an important moderator of change. Although media and legal scholarship cite the election of reform-minded prosecutors as confirmation of a new era in prosecution (Bazelon and Krinsky 2018; Jackson 2019), the impact of the prosecutorial reform movement will ultimately be determined by how well electeds lead their offices in the implementation of reform-minded ideals. Path dependence is multidimensional and likely pervasive in the prosecu- tor’s office. Institutional features ranging from cultural norms and decision- making practices to chains of communication and policy formalization procedures impede reform-minded electeds’ ability to effect internal policy change. The question, then, is whether and how the current momentum for prosecutorial reform in public discourse can produce on-the-ground shifts in attitudes and behavior. Scholars identify progressive district and state attor- neys as powerful agents of criminal justice change (Beckett 2018; Gottschalk 2015; Pfaff 2017), but this study highlights the need for observ- ers to temper their expectations about the success of reforms and more

25 Richardson and Kutateladze

closely consider the influence of organizational culture, structure, and pro- cedure on change in prosecution. Empirical examinations of the prosecu- tor’s office are timely and can aid electeds in their pursuit of successful policy implementation.

The identification of barriers to prosecutorial reform also has meaningful implications for reform success in the broader criminal justice system. Path dependence is not unique to the prosecutors’ office; prior literature has identified similar resistance dynamics in other criminal justice agencies (Clair and Winter 2016; Rengifo et al. 2017). If barriers to reform are consistent across multiple agencies, it may benefit reform-oriented practi- tioners and policy makers to coordinate their efforts and launch initiatives that target these barriers simultaneously across agencies. Moreover, as a key player within the courtroom landscape, prosecutors wield substantial power across various stages of case processing (Davis 2007). Reforms geared toward other parts of the criminal justice system may be ineffective, or at least severely hindered, if prosecutors are unable or unwilling to support them. Overcoming barriers to prosecutorial reform may be essential for effecting meaningful system-wide change.

Of course, we must acknowledge this study’s limitations. First, it was unable to create a fully representative sample of prosecutors. It is possible that prosecutors who declined to participate in the study were hesitant to be even anonymously critical about their administrations, were less receptive to prosecutorial research, or otherwise represented a unique faction of pro- secutors. We also focus on two Florida offices with newly elected, reform- minded leaders, so we recommend caution generalizing the dynamics discussed by our respondents to a more diverse group of offices. Third, we were unable to interview our participants prior to the new administra- tions’ takeover, so we cannot assess how their attitudes have shifted over time. Finally, we cannot link respondents’ perceptions of new priorities with their actual decision-making or with the concrete implementation of those priorities. Although research examining other criminal justice actors finds that attitudes can shape decision-making (Engel and Worden 2003; Steiner, Travis, and Makarios 2011; Vidal and Skeem 2007; Worden 1995), less is known about the impact of prosecutorial attitudes and perceptions on behavior (e.g., Utz 1978).

This study contributes to the field of prosecution and our understanding of the criminal justice system by identifying important internal sources of path dependence that may hinder prosecutorial reform. Findings indicate that institutional forces can muddle and even fully neutralize new reform- minded priorities, and elected prosecutors must remain optimistic while

26 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency XX(X)

thoughtfully devising strategies to counteract these forces if they are to bring about effective change within their offices. We hope this study also highlights the value of forming strategic researcher–prosecutor partner- ships. Limited access to prosecutors has routinely stymied efforts to develop a detailed understanding of how they make decisions in their com- plex roles as both advocates and arbiters of justice (Davis 2007; Frederick and Stemen 2012; Johnson et al. 2016). Although researcher–prosecutor partnerships are rare, opportunities are emerging as more prosecutors embrace reform-minded ideals. Such partnerships hold the key to trans- forming the prosecutorial field by demonstrating the value of research and collaboration. They also advance the prosecutorial literature by yielding more nuanced insights into how prosecutors think about their work and contribute to (or hinder) institutional change.

Authors’ Note

The views expressed in this article are the authors’ alone and do not necessarily represent the position of the MacArthur Foundation.

Acknowledgments

This work would not have been possible without our coinvestigators Ryan Meldrum, Don Stemen, and Elizabeth Webster. We thank Maria Arndt, Dylan Matthews, and Sadhika Soor for their research assistance. We are very grateful to the Offices of the State Attorney for the Fourth and Thirteenth Judicial Circuits of Florida for their partnership and candid commentary on prosecutors’ work.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation under grant G-1706-152065.

ORCID iD

Rebecca Richardson https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8626-8600

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

27 Richardson and Kutateladze

Notes

1. The larger project entails helping prosecutors improve their data collection and analytical capacities and training mid-level management in using data to identify problems, form solutions, and measure change. Our partnerships came about after nearly three years of developing relationships with stakeholders, including funders, policy experts, and legal scholars, who were instrumental in securing buy-in among the electeds. The interviews were conducted with the goal of identifying problems and then working with our partners to improve policy and practice in their offices.

2. The decision not to audio-record interviews was made following consultation with several prosecution scholars and prosecutors. Prosecutors in both offices had expressed concerns over the recording of interviews during initial (preinterview) site visits. Although the presence of a second interviewer may have in some cases discouraged participants’ candor as well, the researchers determined that the sec- ond interviewer was necessary to ensure that high-quality data could be collected. Debriefings after the interviews further ensured the accuracy of researchers’ notes.

3. The consent statement made clear that participation was voluntary, respondents could decline to answer any question or stop the interview at any time, respon- dents’ identities would be kept confidential, and no quotes would be associated with any individual. Respondents were asked to provide their signature acknowl- edging their consent to participate.

4. The interview instrument is available online as a supporting document. 5. In the two study prosecutors’ offices, 77 percent of line staff are non-Hispanic

White, 7 percent are Black, 15 percent are Hispanic, and 1 percent are Asian. Fifty-nine percent are female. In Jacksonville, 86 percent of line staff are non- Hispanic White, 9 percent are Black, 4 percent are Hispanic, and 2 percent are Asian. Fifty percent are female. In Tampa, 69 percent are non-Hispanic White, 6 percent are Black, 25 percent are Hispanic, and there are no Asians. Sixty-six percent are female.

6. Given the stratified sampling technique used to ensure representation from all nonelected levels of the office, age, prosecution experience, and managerial status are likely to be slightly overestimated and overrepresented in the sample, though we are unable to provide exact statistics on age, experience, and manage- rial status for the offices’ full line staff.

7. These frequencies are conservative, as they do not count references to new or current priorities discussed at other points in the semistructured interviews. Given that specific priorities of interest to the researchers and elected were brought up throughout the interviews, we determined that the frequency of responses to the first question in the interview provided the clearest indication of what line prose- cutors considered their electeds’ most important priorities to be.

28 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency XX(X)

8. During informal conversations with the research team during site visits, execu- tive team members shared that they were unsure whether or not new priorities were being communicated to line prosecutors. This provides further indication that the executive team is generally not made aware of specific efforts to subvert top-down communications.

References

Aleem, Zeeshan. 2015. “The Movement to End Mass Incarceration Just Got Its Biggest Endorsement Yet.” Mic, October 21. Retrieved October 11, 2019 (https://mic.com/articles/127120/criminal-justice-reform-progress-bratton-new-

report#.A5dbHrftw). Allen, Rhonda Y. W. 2002. “Assessing the Impediments to Organizational Change:

A View of Community Policing.” Journal of Criminal Justice 30:511-17. Alschuler, Albert W. 1968. “The Prosecutor’s Role in Plea Bargaining.” The Uni-

versity of Chicago Law Review 36:50-112. Balko, Radley. 2018. “There’s Overwhelming Evidence That the Criminal-justice

System is Racist. Here’s the Proof.” Washington Post, September 18. Retrieved October 11, 2019 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2018/ 09/18/theres-overwhelming-evidence-that-the-criminal-justice-system-is-racist-

heres-the-proof/?utm_term¼.6094c91328ef). Balogun, Julia. 2003. “From Blaming the Middle to Harnessing its Potential: Cre-

ating Change Intermediaries.” British Journal of Management 14:69-83. Barajas, Michael. 2017. “Meet Nueces County’s New DA, a Self-Professed ‘Mex-

ican Biker Lawyer Covered in Tattoos’.” Texas Observer, November 6. Retrieved October 11, 2019 (https://www.texasobserver.org/interview-nueces- countys-new-da-self-professed-mexican-biker-lawyer-covered-tattoos/).

Barkow, Rachel E. 2009. “Institutional Design and the Policing of Prosecutors: Lessons from Administrative Law.” Stanford Law Review 61:869-921.

Bazelon, Emily and Miriam Krinsky. 2018. “There’s a Wave of New Prosecutors. And They Mean Justice.” The New York Times, December 11. Retrieved October 11, 2019 (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/11/opinion/how-local-prosecutors- can-reform-their-justice-systems.html?rref¼collection%2Fsectioncollection%2 Fopinion&action¼click&contentCollection¼opinion&region¼rank&modu le¼package&version¼highlights&contentPlacement¼8&pgtype¼sectionfront).

Beckett, Katherine. 2018. “The Politics, Promise, and Peril of Criminal Justice Reform in the Context of Mass Incarceration.” Annual Review of Criminology 1:235-59.

Beckett, Katherine, Anna Reosti, and Emily Knaphus. 2016. “The End of an Era? Understanding the Contradictions of Criminal Justice Reform.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 664:238-59.

29 Richardson and Kutateladze

Berman, Greg and Aubrey Fox. 2010. Trial and Error in Criminal Justice Reform: Learning from Failure. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.

Brennan, Tim. 1999. “Implementing Organizational Change in Criminal Justice: Some Lessons from Classification Systems.” Corrections Management Quarterly 3:11-27.

Brownstein, Ronald. 2018. “Will Texas Follow Houston’s Lead on Drug-policy Reform?” The Atlantic, May 24. Retrieved October 11, 2019 (https://www.thea tlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/05/will-texas-follow-houstons-lead-on-drug-

policy-reform/561035/). Chammah, Maurice. 2016. “These Prosecutors Campaigned for Less Jail Time—

and Won.” The Marshall Project, November 19. Retrieved October 11, 2019 (https://www.themarshallproject.org/2016/11/09/these-prosecutors-cam paigned-for-less-jail-time-and-won).

Cissner, Amanda B. and Donald J. Farole. 2009. Avoiding Failures of Implementa- tion: Lessons from Process Evaluations. New York: Center for Court Innovation.

Clair, Matthew and Alix S. Winter. 2016. “How Judges Think about Racial Dispa- rities: Situational Decision-making in the Criminal Justice System.” Criminol- ogy 54:332-59.

Clear, Todd R. and Natasha A. Frost. 2015. The Punishment Imperative: The Rise and Failure of Mass Incarceration in America. New York: NYU Press.

Dagan, David and Steven M. Teles. 2014. “Locked in? Conservative Reform and the Future of Mass Incarceration.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 651:266-76.

Darroch, Steve and Lorraine Mazerolle. 2013. “Intelligence-led Policing: A Com- parative Analysis of Organizational Factors Influencing Innovation Uptake.” Police Quarterly 16:3-37.

Davis, Angela J. 2007. Arbitrary Justice: The Power of the American Prosecutor. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Edelman, Lauren B., Christopher Uggen, and Howard S. Erlanger. 1999. “The Endogeneity of Legal Regulation: Grievance Procedures as Rational Myth.” American Journal of Sociology 105:406-54.

Eisenstein, James and Herbert Jacob. 1977. Felony Justice: An Organizational Analysis of Criminal Courts. Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Company.

Engel, Robin S. and Robert E. Worden. 2003. “Police Officers’ Attitudes, Behavior, and Supervisory Influences: An Analysis of Problem Solving.” Criminology 41:131-66.

Fairfax, Roger A., Jr. 2012. “The Smart on Crime Prosecutor.” Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 25:905-12.

Feeley, Malcolm M. 1973. “Two Models of the Criminal Justice System: An Orga- nizational Perspective.” Law & Society Review 7:407-25.

Feeley, Malcolm M. and Sam Kamin. 1996. “The Effect of ‘Three Strikes and You’re Out’ on the Courts: Looking Back to See the Future.” Pp. 135-54 in

30 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency XX(X)

Three Strikes and You’re Out: Vengeance as Public Policy, edited by David Shichor and Dale K. Sechrest. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Felkenes, George T. 1975. “The Prosecutor: A Look at Reality.” Southwestern University Law Review 7:98-123.

Fenton, Justin. 2017. “Marilyn Mosby Invests in Youth, Community Engagement Amid Baltimore Violence.” The Baltimore Sun, July 16. Retrieved October 11, 2019 (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-ci- mosby-community-20170713-story.html).

Fenton-O’Creevy, Mark. 2001. “Employee Involvement and the Middle Manager: Saboteur or Scapegoat?” Human Resource Management Journal, 11:24-40.

Feuer, Alan. 2016. “Ken Thompson’s Successor: A ‘Pure District Attorney’ Work- ing under the Radar.” The New York Times, November 28. Retrieved October 11, 2019 (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/28/nyregion/brooklyn-district-attor ney-eric-gonzalez.html?module¼inline).

Fisher, Stanley Z. 1988. “In Search of the Virtuous Prosecutor: A Conceptual Framework.” American Journal of Criminal Law 15:197-261.

Floyd, Steven W. and Bill Wooldridge. 1994. “Dinosaurs or Dynamos? Recognizing Middle Management’s Strategic Role.” Academy of Management Perspectives 8: 47-57.

Forst, Brian. 2002. “Prosecution.” Pp. 509-36 in Crime: Public Policies for Crime Control, 2nd ed., edited by James Q. Wilson and Joan Petersilia. Oakland, CA: ICS Press.

Frederick, Bruce and Don Stemen. 2012. Anatomy of Discretion: An Analysis of Prose- cutorial Decision Making—Summary Report. New York: Vera Institute of Justice.

Fyfe, James J. 1988. “Police Use of Deadly Force: Research and Reform.” Justice Quarterly 5:165-205.

Gordon, Sanford C. and Gregory A. Huber. 2002. “Citizen Oversight and the Elec- toral Incentives of Criminal Prosecutors.” American Journal of Political Science 46: 34-51.

Gottschalk, Marie. 2015. Caught: The Prison State and the Lockdown of American Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Harris, Kamala D. 2009. Smart on Crime: A Career Prosecutor’s Plan to Make us Safer. San Francisco, CA: Chronicle Books.

Holder, Eric. 2014. Attorney General Eric Holder Speaks at the National Associa- tion of Criminal Defense Lawyers 57th Annual Meeting. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Remarks Retrieved October 11, 2019 (https://www.jus tice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-eric-holder-speaks-national-association-

criminal-defense-lawyers-57th). Hsieh, Hsiu-Fang and Sarah E. Shannon. 2005. “Three Approaches to Qualitative

Content Analysis.” Qualitative Health Research 15:1277-88.

31 Richardson and Kutateladze

Jackson, Liane. 2019. “Change Agents: A New Wave of Reform Prosecutors Upends the Status Quo.” ABA Journal, June 1. Retrieved October 11, 2019 (http://www. abajournal.com/magazine/article/change-agents-reform-prosecutors).

Jacoby, Joan E. 1980. The American Prosecutor: A Search for Identity. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Johnson, Brian D., Ryan D. King, and Cassia Spohn. 2016. “Sociolegal Approaches to the Study of Guilty Pleas and Prosecution.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 12:479-95.

Levine, Kay L. 2005. “The New Prosecution.” Wake Forest Law Review 40:1125-214. Livian, Yves-Frédéric and John G. Burgoyne, eds. 1997. Middle Managers in

Europe. London, England: Routledge. Lynch, Mona. 1998. “Waste Managers? The New Penology, Crime Fighting and the

Parole Identity.” Law & Society Review 32:839-70. Lynch, Mona. 2019. “Booker Circumvention: Adjudication Strategies in the

Advisory Sentencing Guidelines Era.” NYU Review of Law and Social Change 43:59-107.

Lynch, Mona and Marisa Omori. 2014. “Legal Change and Sentencing Norms in the Wake of Booker: The Impact of Time and Place on Drug Trafficking Cases in Federal Court.” Law & Society Review 48:411-45.

Mahoney, James. 2000. “Path Dependence in Historical Sociology.” Theory and Society 29(4):507-48.

Mitchell, Ojmarrh. 2005. “A Meta-analysis of Race and Sentencing Research: Explain- ing the Inconsistencies.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 21(4):439-66.

NVivo. 2015. NVivo Qualitative Data Analysis Software, Version 11. Melbourne, Australia: QSR International.

Page, Joshua. 2011. “Prison Officer Unions and the Perpetuation of the Penal Status Quo.” Criminology & Public Policy 10:735-70.

Pfaff, John. 2017. Locked In: The True Causes of Mass Incarceration and How to Achieve Real Reform. New York: Basic Books.

Pierson, Paul. 2000. “Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Pol- itics.” American Political Science Review 94: 251-268.

Prince, Chelsea. 2017. “Darius Patillo to Implement New Programs, Emphasize Efficiency in Term as DA.” Henry Herald, January 16. Retrieved October 11, 2019 (https://www.henryherald.com/news/darius-pattillo-to-implement-new- programs-emphasize-efficiency-in-term/article_008c791f-be16-5ba7-a3e3-

fa8bb55d337f.html). Rengifo, Andres F., Don Stemen, and Ethan Amidon. 2017. “When Policy Comes to

Town: Discourses and Dilemmas of Implementation of a Statewide Reentry Policy in Kansas.” Criminology 55:603-30.

32 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency XX(X)

Roberts, Julian V. and Stalans Loretta J.. 2000. Crime, Criminal Justice, and Public Opinion. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Rudes, Danielle S. 2012. “Framing Organizational Reform: Misalignments and Disputes among Parole and Union Middle Managers.” Law & Policy 34:1-31.

Sasko, Claire. 2018. “DA Krasner Will Drop Cash Bail for Most Non-violent Crimes.” Philadelphia, February 21. Retrieved October 11, 2019 (https:// www.phillymag.com/news/2018/02/21/krasner-cash-bail-reform/).

Schmadeke, Steve. 2016. “Kim Foxx Promises ‘New Path’ of Transparency as Cook County State’s Attorney.” Chicago Tribune, December 1. Retrieved October 11, 2019 (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-kim-foxx-states- attorney-met-20161201-story.html).

Schulhofer, Stephen J. and Ilene H. Nagel. 1989. “Negotiated Pleas under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: The First Fifteen Months.” American Criminal Law Review 27:231-88.

Schulhofer, Stephen J. and Ilene H. Nagel. 1996. “Plea Negotiations under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: Guidelines Circumvention and its Dynamics in the Post-Mistretta Period.” Northwestern University Law Review 91:1284-316.

Seeds, Christopher. 2017. “Bifurcation Nation: American Penal Policy in Late Mass Incarceration.” Punishment & Society 19:590-610.

Simon, Jonathan. 2017. “Beyond Tough on Crime: Towards a Better Politics of Prosecution.” Pp. 250-75 in Prosecutors and Democracy: A Cross-national Study, edited by Maximo Langer and David A. Sklansky. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Sklansky, David A. 2017. “The Changing Political Landscape for Elected Prosecu- tors.” Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 14:647-74.

Sklansky, David A. 2018. “The Problem with Prosecutors.” Annual Review of Criminology 1:451-69.

Spohn, Cassia. 2000. “Thirty Years of Sentencing Reform: The Quest for a Racially Neutral Sentencing Process.” Criminal Justice 3:427-501.

Steiner, Benjamin, Lawrence F. Travis III, and Matthew D. Makarios. 2011. “Understanding Parole Officers’ Responses to Sanctioning Reform.” Crime & Delinquency 57:222-46.

Taxman, Faye S. and Steven Belenko, eds. 2012. Implementing Evidence-based Prac- tices in Community Corrections and Addiction Treatment. New York: Springer.

Taxman, Faye S. and Jill A. Gordon. 2009. “Do Fairness and Equity Matter? An Examination of Organizational Justice among Correctional Officers in Adult Prisons.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 36:695-711.

Thorpe, Rebecca U. 2015. “Perverse Politics: The Persistence of Mass Imprison- ment in the Twenty-first Century.” Perspectives on Politics 13:618-37.

33 Richardson and Kutateladze

Travis, Jeremy, Bruce Western, and F. Stevens Redburn, eds. 2014. The Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Ulmer, Jeffrey T. 1997. Social Worlds of Sentencing: Court Communities under Sentencing Guidelines. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Ulmer, Jeffrey T. 2012. “Recent Developments and New Directions in Sentencing Research.” Justice Quarterly 29:1-40.

Utz, Pamela J. 1978. Settling the Facts: Discretion and Negotiation in Criminal Court. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Verma, Anjuli. 2015. “The Law-before: Legacies and Gaps in Penal Reform.” Law & Society Review 49:847-82.

Vidal, Sarah and Jennifer L. Skeem. 2007. “Effect of Psychopathy, Abuse, and Ethnicity on Juvenile Probation Officers’ Decision-making and Supervision Strategies.” Law and Human Behavior 31:479-98.

Viglione, Jill, Danielle S. Rudes, and Faye S. Taxman. 2015. “Misalignment in Supervision: Implementing Risk/Needs Assessment Instruments in Probation.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 42:263-85.

Weaver, Vesla M. 2012. “The Significance of Policy Failures in Political Develop- ment: The Law Enforcement Assistance Administration and the Growth of the Carceral State.” Pp. 221-54 in Living Legislation: Durability, Change, and the Politics of American Lawmaking, edited by Jeffery A. Jenkins and Eric M. Patashnik. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Worden, Alissa P. 1995. “The Judge’s Role in Plea Bargaining: An Analysis of Judges’ Agreement with Prosecutors’ Sentencing Recommendations.” Justice Quarterly 12:257-78.

Wright, Ronald F. 2009. “How Prosecutor Elections Fail Us.” Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 6:581-610.

Author Biographies

Rebecca Richardson is an assistant professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida International University. Her research interests include courtroom decision-making, social inequality, sociolegal theory, and crim- inal justice policy.

Besiki Luka Kutateladze is an associate professor in the Department of Crimin- ology and Criminal Justice at Florida International University. His research interests include social inequality, racial disparity in the justice system, prosecutorial discre- tion, and performance indicators.