Robin Olsen Interview - Policy Debate 2020-2021

Robin Olsen is a senior policy associate in the Justice Policy Center at the Urban Institute, where she works on criminal and juvenile justice reform. She is leading a project on examining data availability and improvements to prosecutorial decisionmaking. Olsen’s research interests focus on using data and evidence and collaborative work across stakeholders to improve criminal and juvenile justice system outcomes. I interview Ms. Olsen on the 2020-2021 NSDA Policy Debate Resolution:

"Resolved: The United States federal government should enact substantial criminal justice reform in the United States in one or more of the following: forensic science, policing, sentencing."

While previous experts interviewed on Blazer Briefs have focused on specific policies often related to policing, Ms. Olsen points to broader problems, mainly a lack of transparency and data in criminal justice. She discusses a lack of progress on the federal level and areas for improvement in the following Q&A.

A.J. Camacho: In your opinion, should the United States federal government enact substantial criminal justice reform in the United States in one or more of the following: forensic science, policing, sentencing?

Robin Olsen, Urban Institute: Yes. Criminal justice policy should continually be evaluated and updated to reflect new research and new practice. We continue to learn more about forensic science and federal policy should align with what the research indicates is transparent, good forensic science practice. While most of policing and decisions related to jail and prison terms are made at a local or state jurisdictional level, federal legislation can provide funding, research, and basic thresholds for good practice and policy for local and state actors to follow. I think these are needed for both policing and sentencing practices and policies.

A.J. Camacho: What’s a piece of policy that we should actually pass?

Robin Olsen: Requirements for increased data collection and transparency at all key decision points of the criminal justice system. For example, legislation requiring data be collected and reported about arrests, referrals to prosecutors, cases charged, guilty pleas, and sentences should be collected and reported with key demographic information such as race, age, and gender.

A.J. Camacho: What are some examples in recent history of substantial criminal justice reforms that have both succeeded and others that have widely failed when implemented, and what made these things successful/unsuccessful?

Robin Olsen: The most successful criminal justice reforms that have passed recently have been at the state level rather than the federal level. The factors that made them successful included addressing multiple points at the system that contribute to an outcome that the state wants to change. For example, if a state has discovered it is getting no public safety benefit for long sentences for certain crimes, states can reduce sentence lengths, change parole laws, and allow for early release from supervision in order to reduce the length of time someone is under correctional control.

A.J. Camacho: Are there changes that most industry professionals think should be made? (AKA, what are the “common sense” reforms here?)

Robin Olsen: Some common sense reforms include increased data collection and reporting, reducing the number of people on community supervision, reducing the use of prison for certain offenses (most often drug or property offenses), and reducing the length of time served for other offenses.

Robin Olsen is a senior policy associate in the Justice Policy Center at the Urban Institute.