♪ The Council of State governments headquartered in Lexington is a region base form that fosters the exchange of insights and ideas to help state officials shape public policy.

>> I talk with the executive director and CEO David actions about how the nonpartisan organization serves all 3 branches of state government.

That's now on connections.

♪ ♪ Thank you for joining us for connections today.

I'm Renee Shaw, the Council of State governments founded in 1933.

Is headquartered in Lexington and led by David Atkins, a former state lawmaker Adkins, a graduate of the University of Kansas School of Law was a Kansas State senator from 2001 to 2005 and served in the Kansas House from 1993 to 2001.

He joins us today to talk about the work of the csg on a range of public policy issues, particularly the work the organization is doing on criminal justice.

It's a pleasure.

I'm a fan girl.

Hyundai back INS just didn't know it.

Likewise for the pleasure to have you here.

I don't talk about your background because it is.

It's fascinating to know that someone who spent that many dozen years and a state legislature in Kansas is doing this work.

And I just want to ask you some questions about that experience how you feel politics of change over your dozen years and even to now and even how the parties are moving in navigating in this public policy space.

Yeah, >> I went into a I went into politics with very sort of the pragmatism of of a lawyer thinking that my opponents in politics were never going to be my enemy.

What I wanted to do was fight it out on the floor of the House or the Senate.

And when that discussion was over, you went and had lunch and you you tried to work with people across the aisle trying to build coalitions in 1996.

Us as a member of the House, for example, I spearheaded a juvenile justice reform effort that but for maybe 2 people, it had unanimous approval.

A major overhaul of juvenile justice and and that's a matter of building developing some expertise being seen by your colleague says as some and some respect as a result over time at the end of my 12 years, I felt like there had been a shift that.

For the positions you held a public policy issue.

It was no longer to be just a disagreement.

It tended to be more of it.

You are painted is good or evil than that.

Your opponents were your enemies.

And that's why when I had the opportunity to to take this job.

But the Council of State governments really given the opportunity to do the things I loved about the legislature, which was I'm really dig deep into public policy and try to solve problems without all of those Burton's.

Now, KET in mind, I served before there was social media rant.

And when I look at the sacrifices people who are serving today have to make.

You know, just the vitriol that they are forced to deal with through social media and and the way that the public can respond to certain public actions.

It's it's incredible that we still have great people that want to also self-inflicted right?

In some ways.

Yes, and it tends to create a cycle that people who are drawn to >> that kind of attention and notoriety seek out office to perpetuate sort of that that siren song that that doesn't move anything forward, but certainly Creech notoriety and some people confuse unfortunately, their ambitions instead of working to serve the common they work to serve their tribe or or the efforts of polarization.

A 10 to, you know, just Crete that cycle.

That's self-perpetuating ran.

It's it's a it's pretty corrosive to this idea that you could advance the common good.

>> One of the things you just said reminded me of a line.

And Scott Kelly's book called a truth Worth telling.

This is the CBS correspondent who talked about, you know, gone are the days where you could just say, well, that's a bad idea without calling the person a bad person.

And it seems that in the last 10, 15 years we have this completely the fault lines, whether it's partisan or its identity had just become so much more stark and that we are attacking each other in a way that is just beyond our good What happened to having a common set of rules that everybody played by and showing some type of mutual respect, whether you agree with him or not.

>> That's right in and what we try to focus on of the council, state governments is data driven consensus space policy making and what we believe is that if you can agree on the data that create a common vocabulary and on many issues today, people simply can't agree on what the facts are.

And that makes it very difficult to reach a consensus.

I'm one of those people that that is very hesitant to say, oh, it was so much better back then are the good old days because, frankly, just about anything in the good old days headed headed, share of problems, too.

But there was a time when when Congress people in U.S. senators would go to DC they would buy a house.

Their children would go to school.

There.

Their spouses would interact with the spouses of of other members.

It's one of the reasons why when Ted Kennedy passed Orrin Hatch, a conservative senator from Utah, was one of his dearest friends and deliver the eulogy it's almost unthinkable in today's world to have that level of humanity be shared by members in a theory, a collegial body if your congressperson you go to DC now you might go up there on Tuesday morning.

There will be votes, but you'll spend the afternoon calling people to raise money and you'll fly back on Thursday night or maybe Friday to be in the district.

And you you made sure a place in DC with 4, 5, other people, but it's it's not a place where spouses are going to get to know each other.

Children are going to get to know each other and politics is ultimately a people sport.

It's about seeing the humanity and other people and although we can have disagreements you know, we don't need to be disagreeable.

Theirs.

There's a great book by man dripping out now at The New York called High She talks about this level of polarization.

We have now is about high conflict in which no one's really interested in in finding a consensus.

What she says is for democracy to function.

You have to have good conflict.

And one of the the characteristics of that would be to say we might disagree on an issue when something bad happens to you.

Do I feel bad about that or it was the case with the COVID.

When somebody who was a telling people that you need to wear masks or was that the pandemic was there when they would come down with COVID or perhaps even pass away from it.

You people would be chairing this idea that the hypocrisy in the the irony of it all in.

That's where, you know, the tribalism, Trump's that that humanity and it it creates a context in which the space for pluralism consensus.

I mean, our our whole system was designed around this idea that no one faction would predominate, but that factions would have to compromise.

Increasingly with the those who are trying to fight for their interests in that in that sausage maker compromise is a bad word.

Yeah.

>> Henry Clay called it negotiated hurt.

That's right, right.

Everyone has to get a little bit, but nobody seems to sometimes it seems rare.

And and the times when there and I do believe particularly on the state government literal level in Frankfort, theirs.

There is bipartisanship, but it's not on display because it's not as glossy and is headline enticing as when there is division.

And and so to your point about data driven, there have been some issues and particularly when it comes to criminal justice issues in the juvenile justice space, we've we've had conversations even from this Senate chair of the Judiciary Committee about disproportionate minority confinement.

And he has tried to push along legislation that would even allow for the data not just for kids who are in are facing in the criminal justice system.

But across the spectrum, education, social services.

And there's been some conflict about.

We don't really want the data because once you know, once you know better, you have to do better.

That's right, right.

And so when it comes to even on are saying and discovering that data, that seems to be even a pinch point just right there alone.

So how do you get to the solutions if you don't want to even try to get to the facts?

>> And this is one of the places where the Council of State governments is uniquely positioned.

We are an organization of the states themselves.

They pay dues to support us.

And as such they understand we work for them.

We're not going to show up at the statehouse and hold a press conference to say the governor is in cahoots with the the Senate to hide this or hide that.

But, you know, for example, we we several years ago, a report on school in the state of Texas said we're going to give you access to all of our records.

Millions of records of school discipline and what we found in looking at that data was this disproportionate impact that students of color, black and Hispanic students in particular?

What often find their interactions with school discipline to be early are more likely and with an incident of expulsion or suspension, the likelihood that they would penetrate deeply into the juvenile justice system was also much greater.

And so when you start looking at what the roots of this disproportionate confinement or engagement with the juvenile justice system.

Often it starts by essentially criminalizing behavior in school by by having resource officers there that are writing tickets instead of counselors who are trying to adjudicate some sort of restored of situation.

And once once a kid is labeled or engaged with the system, the likelihood that that once their expelled were suspended, bad things happen is is just known.

And so by analyzing that data, we were able to create from, you know, sort of the chaos of data points to find some constellations by which we could guide solutions and we find it very compelling in in our work on Justice reinvestment to go in.

What is Justice reinvestment?

That's a new term.

>> Yes, so.

>> We've been doing it you know, at least 15 years.

But it's where we we We have to be invited into a state.

So the chief justice of the Supreme Court, the speaker, the president of the legislature and the governor have to invite the council state governments to come in.

We will states particular data with regards to everything from probation to parole to number of folks in prison and what we often find again, we are in a position ever to tell a state what they should do, right?

We're going to provide them with options based on their data where they may be able to establish community based programs or re-entry programs that will prevent them from spending the money to build another prison but will protect public safety.

That may mean using risk-assessment tools that have been verified and can be predictive.

It may also mean creating programs at the community level where there are supports for people to be more successful.

One of the great drivers of prison population, for example, or people who are on probation and have their probation revoked a in a revolving door system.

So one of the key elements of what we're trying to accomplish is to reduce that cycle of incarceration because it it's smart for a state to spend money where they can have an impact and interestingly employers across the board, some of the most conservative in some of those liberal interest groups can come together around that kind an initiative saves money in some instances, but protects public safety holds people accountable but recognizes they need second chances.

Right?

>> Well, there has been a big discussion movement and Kentucky in the last I don't know 7 years or so for second chance or restored of justice and that way.

But now we're also hearing because there seems to particularly in the summer much there's a spate of crime that happened violent crime and they seem to happen in a condensed, compressed period of time.

And then there is a reaction to say we need to be tougher on crime, tougher on criminals and less conversation about the environment by which it's kind of stoking those violent incidents.

So does the council take the position of not just looking at the data of the crime statistics, but also saying, well, these are the conditions that are contributing to those spikes in crime.

>> Yeah, we we have a you know, when you when you think about public safety and criminal justice, some people want to think about.

Well, that's just police and sheriffs.

I know that child is that's prisons.

And in fact, you know, what we found is to be successful in the criminal justice spaces.

Policymakers, you have to think about issues like housing.

You have to think about issues that are are deeply ingrained in in racial equity, having employment.

You know, they were there are some states that we discovered where one of the key job training programs, for example, was to train in an incarcerated person to be a barber.

And yet in that state.

A person with a felony conviction couldn't get a license to be a barber.

There are tens of thousands of what we call these collateral consequences of of incarceration or conviction.

We're we've set up these barriers for people to reintegrate into society after they've served their time and be successful.

And so we try to to on both ends of the system, try to figure how can you use, for example, drug courts or mental health court?

How can you train police to intervene in a situation in which someone is in a behavioral health crisis that doesn't need to be criminalized, but because there's no other resources, a bay look at it through the lens of that behavior is threatening.

It's criminal in our jails become our largest mental health institutions.

There are better ways to do that.

But someone coming out of prison if they can have a job, if they can have a photo ID, if they can have a place to stay.

We know that there chance of being successful is much greater.

And we know that to KET them in a prison bed is oftentimes much more than $100,000 a year.

So there are better ways to look at that.

But really, you're absolutely right.

That we all remember the Willie Horton ad in the Dukakis Busch and inevitably there's always a very sensationalized crime that happens in a particular state.

The drives people's public and in fear and in politics leveraging fear for your advantages as as old as the help.

It's those old fear as a motivator.

And so what we try to do is provide.

Policy makers who want to be affective with the political cover of having data and consensus to pursue smart criminal justice policies.

My dad was a highway patrolman, my brother worked as a correctional counselor.

My wife for but for a time was a assistant district attorney.

So this these issues of public safety and criminal justice or personal to >> To get to the point about data and Just talk to us about messaging.

So does the Council of state governments actually say, well, here's how you are persuasive and to your constituency about why this is the right direction for X policy.

>> We do.

And we hear that a lot from folks who who recognize but the date is the data.

The data points in a certain direction.

But they're very, very scared of of entering a campaign and being called soft on crime.

So often what we try to do is is recognize that as as we advance of some of these initiatives we find that we can bring some of the most conservative people and some of the most progressive people who are in favor of these initiatives to a I just had a friend in Connecticut who was, you know, by any measure, very liberal Democrat who was pursuing a criminal justice reform.

And the Republicans in Connecticut were very skeptical and he was able to find through the Justice Center.

The sheriff from Mississippi, Republican who could come up there and say to the Republicans in Connecticut.

Listen, we've tried these ideas.

They actually worked and we're telling you, this isn't a communist plot.

It actually worked for us.

And so we find that by having a consensus based approach.

We tend to have.

But everyone along the spectrum who can check in and provide some political cover for people to to feel like this is a path forward.

That makes sense for everybody.

But it's it's always going to be a risk of its way you end up with a you know, Joe Biden was a big proponent of of criminal legislation in the 90's.

Bill Clinton, the get tough on crime when I was in the Legislature, we we approached a 3 strikes and you're out laws.

What you end up doing is putting people in prison for a long, long time.

They start stacking up.

You're building more prisons and and it, you know it.

It has that this rule feel good, but it doesn't really lead to the kinds of conditions within the community for real justice can take part.

>> So removing maybe the moral from that can be more can be less persuasive enough.

You just use the data and you've got folks from Newt Gingrich to the ACLU on the same side many times when it comes to the criminal justice reform space.

I'm wondering how you parlay that to other issues that feed into the criminal justice such as education, social services.

I mean, can the same is there a template approach to getting people to come to the table and find consensus or is it really an individualized situation?

It >> there?

I think we're pretty good at I think it takes a trusted who respects the stakeholders.

You know, our Justice Center, for example, has an advisory board is comprised of previously incarcerated people from a crime victims.

Advocates public defenders, a district attorneys sheriffs police chiefs legislators, the executive branch officials.

And we take our cues from these experts in the field and if your tone deaf, the worst that, you know in in my view, the worst thing you can be in politics is think that you're the smartest person in the room.

And secondly, to for us to enter a state and see, this is what you all should do.

They can smell that a mile away and and they'll shut you down if you're trying to make your agenda, their agenda.

What we do is we listen to them and tried to develop from that a path forward that they see as their own consensus.

What an exciting projects that we just launched, something called Justice Counts.

And we had dozens of stakeholders helping with this.

But we're indentifying data points that within each state or within each jurisdiction, we actually can created dashboard of of critical data in real time.

That policy makers and those that are administering the system can plug into and know where's my bed count?

What are the trends in my jurisdiction?

And it's really exciting to think of that.

All of these folks could come together and agree on what are the inputs.

And you can imagine that recidivism in the in the safety space is one of the few criteria that most people can agree.

What mistress it is a mean returning to prison.

But other than that definitions become very squishy from one jurisdiction to another.

And as you said, some jurisdictions are not particularly proud of certain data points and don't really want to collect them because if they did, they have to broadcast.

And I'm really proud of this.

This notion that we we had both the trust and the expertise to move a project like that forward.

And it seems I mean, I appreciate it seems very esoteric, but for those practitioners in the field to have that kind of data.

It empowers decision-making that is so much more robust and effective then just trying to rely on and a total evidence might.

>> And because you work with all 3 branches, that's That helps build even a broader and wider consensus.

If you can get buy in from judiciary and executive and legislative branches, I think it then the time we have remaining, I want to talk about an alike should integrity just in following some of your Twitter feed, you know, looking at the conversation about how there seems to be some erosion of public confidence and how secure and safe our elections are.

And we we know the whole back story behind that is the counsel for state governments getting involved in that and trying to restore face and our electoral process and and the local officials who are elected to conduct those fair elections.

We goes right to the heart of our democracy when a B.

>> The idea that we the people select our representatives and they become than the government that makes decisions.

And so we see it as a fundamental issue.

It's it's politically charged right now as a result of President Trump's position that the election was stolen.

So whether it's election integrity or some of the reforms that are going through Congress now, you know, people will attach whatever monikers they want to it.

What I would tell you is that in my experience, local election officials, secretaries of states that in many states are the chief election officer have an incredible commitment to a high level of ethical conduct and integrity.

What I worry about is the, you know, the the backlash that they've had to face on a personal level, people coming to their People making threats, death threats against them.

These are people on the front lines.

These are these are people who through their daily life are the most eloquent expression of what it means to be a patriot.

And we should all come to their aid.

The good news is the data.

The facts are that local and state elections are incredibly sound and accurate.

And with very few the the level of of fraud in the vote is minuscule.

And I think Americans should have great trust in their elections.

But I also believe are in.

You know, the pendulum swings.

So in this moment, this idea that that they have to defend themselves and strategies by which they connect to voters.

Mail will be hold him in good stead.

But I think we can be very proud of the election system.

We have.

And I I do worry that trying to undermine trust in in elections can very well be one of the first steps towards D legitimize ING very core institutions that make our republic work.

We should all be very mindful of that night.

>> And we see some of that in a row, Jen and demise.

And when it comes to that, the 4th estate or the branches of government or science or cetera.

I do want to ask a question since you in a in a general assembly capacity in Kansas about one I often hear from people that will I didn't leave my party.

The party left me.

>> And then 2 minutes can can you even parlay that into your own experience?

And what do you say to people who say we're is divided as we've ever been?

And there is we have reached a point of no return.

>> Yeah, well, you know, my own experience growing up in the 70's in Bob Dole was a hero of he was this larger than life figure that was funny.

And engaging.

He came to my 6th grade class and I remember the day very well.

But he said that he just talked to President Nixon by phone and President Nixon was on Air Force One.

And as a 6th grader, I couldn't imagine that somebody I KET had talked to the President United States on an airplane while he was in my town in the middle of and and so I was a Republican because my parents were Republicans and my grandparents.

and so that that my orientation towards the party affiliation.

I thought it was important for people to have a party affiliation so they could vote in primaries.

And I preach that a lot.

And in civics courses to to young people.

And I suburban District of Kansas City in which public schools were the number one issue and other than the culture wars were relieved at play in Republican today.

The difficulty is both in the Democratic Party.

The Republican Party.

It tends to be that in a primary, your greatest threat is going to come from the far left or the far right.

Which means everyone instead of moving towards the middle has these.

You know, these these polls on them to establish their credentials at the most extremes of the party but over for whatever reason each of the parties that have drifted away from that notion that you have to find the middle and also been a bit there are several things to worry about.

One is yes, we're very polarized and we should be concerned about that.

But I think instead of focusing on polarization, what we need to focus on his isolation, people are isolated with social media.

They're going down rabbit holes that frankly, we all crave connection with community and I think we need to find ways 2 to expand those kinds of interactions within the community and that's a big task.

But it's one that the media shares with public servants that have to engage with people have to meet them where they are and humanize these >> Well, we can talk more and hopefully we'll get another opportunity to talk more about this and other issues.

Thank you so much for being with us.

We really punch later.

Yes.

We hope that you enjoy this program.

You can always go back and watch it again.

Okay to dot org, slash connections or listen to it on a podcast.

It came to Dot Org.

Slash podcast.

Make sure you join us each week night at 6.30, Eastern 5.30, central for Kentucky edition where we inform connect and inspire until I see you again.

Take really good care.

♪ ♪ ♪ >> The teleprompter was very that at any given I don't know >> Yeah, haha.

>> All right.

It's awesome.