A2J Lab Director and Professor Jim Greiner sat down with five A2J Lab staff members to discuss "Mother Up", a DC guaranteed income pre-pilot program with Mothers Outreach Network for Black mothers with recent CFSA involvement. The privately funded program explored how feasible it would be to conduct a larger study on the subject of guaranteed income, but this episode of Proof Over Precedent looks into why the Lab got involved with the program, how we gathered and analyzed data to apply to future evidence-leading studies, and what we're seeing with results so far.

The Empower Parents with Resources Study is the largest randomized control trial of the effect of unrestricted cash gifts on child maltreatment in the United States. Researchers aim to find out if a reduction in financial stress equals a reduction in child welfare involvement. In this week's Proof Over Precedent episode, HLS J.D. candidate Julia Saltzman interviews researcher William Schneider, who explains the broad impact the study may have on families, caseworkers, and child welfare policy.

If poverty can sometimes appear as neglect within a family, would better social and legal support help prevent unnecessary child welfare involvement? An Access to Justice Lab ongoing randomized controlled trial aims to find out. This episode gives a research partner's point of view to the trial.

In this week's Proof Over Precedent episode, HLS J.D. candidate Strong Ma discusses how public perceptions of fairness influence the adoption of AI and algorithms in medicine and law, two industries with varying levels of support and trust in AI. The podcast includes interviews with HLS Professors Jim Greiner and Jon Hanson weighing in on AI's strengths and shortcomings in law, particularly as it compares to human decision making.

Is ending cash bail a path to a fairer justice system? California attempted this route in 2018 with its SB10, which would have ended cash bail statewide and replaced it with pretrial risk assessment. The effort could potentially have avoided a two-tiered, wealth-based system, but it fell short with voters. This "Student Voices" episode of Proof Over Precedent dives into the debate over cash bail, what went wrong with the SB 10 campaign, and lessons for future bail reform efforts.

This episode of Proof Over Precedent looks at predictive modeling research that could be used alongside policy research to answer the question, "What can we do to increase the number of criminal records cleared?" Researchers examined existing data on automatic record sealing in Pennsylvania and petition-based expungements in Kansas and adjusted criteria that could contribute to more effective record clearing. In the process, they made surprising discoveries on the state and future of criminal record clearances.

In this episode of Proof Over Precedent, the criminal record clearing process gets a close-up examination. Researchers and a former field partner at Kansas Legal Services discuss an expungement study in Kansas that reveals the numerous, and sometimes prohibitive and illogical, steps it takes for an individual to clear a record – a task made exponentially more difficult and less likely to succeed without the aid of legal representation.

Expungement appears to have all the signs of promising policy including better job and housing outcomes for individuals whose criminal records have been cleared; low recidivism rates; and subsequently better societal outcomes. Where it falls short, researchers in a Michigan study found, is with accessibility and uptake. This episode of "Proof Over Precedent" looks at the findings and dives into the challenges of studying expungement and the areas where the record-clearing process could be improved.

This episode of "Proof Over Precedent" brings together IRB Director Shannon Sewards and A2J Lab Faculty Director and podcast host Jim Greiner to talk about the complexity of ethical research involving incarcerated individuals and the balance between maintaining those ethical standards and advancing social and behavioral research. The discussion also delves into the differences between protections for biomedical research and those for behavioral research.

When it comes to consumer protection, signing off on the fine print may equate to signing off certain legal rights and agreeing not to sue a company in court but rather to use arbitration. Does the process actually matter? Several studies find variances in consumer financial relief and win rates, along with potential incentives in mandatory arbitration that could discredit the integrity of the process. The latest "Proof Over Precedent" episode calls for new research to address the shortcomings of existing studies and to provide definitive findings on mandatory arbitration's impact on consumers.