Rebecca Tublitz

Examines how people in prison get labeled as gang members and how that label, along with race, affects who ends up in solitary confinement and for how long. Finds that once someone is tagged as gang-involved, they are much more likely to be placed in isolation and kept there longer, with harsher effects for some racial groups even when behavior is similar.

Looks at how some counties have tried to use jails less and more fairly by studying who gets jailed, how long they stay, and how they’re released. Finds that fewer people—especially those with minor issues—are being jailed, more are released while awaiting trial without paying bail, and stays are shorter, all without increasing crime, though racial disparities remain.

Explains how using research and real data can improve decisions in policing, courts, and corrections instead of relying on tradition or guesswork. Finds that evidence-based approaches can reduce crime and reoffending more effectively and fairly, but they require careful use, ongoing evaluation, and attention to bias and inequality.

Discusses how to think more effectively about criminal justice reform by separating how problems are described from how policies are actually put into practice. Argues that meaningful reform depends on shared agreement about both what the problems are and what success should look like, which is often difficult to achieve.

Examines how prison staff decide who gets placed in solitary confinement and how those decisions are influenced by factors like behavior labels and institutional practices. Finds that classification systems can strongly shape who ends up in restrictive housing, sometimes leading to inconsistent or overly harsh use of isolation depending on how people are labeled.