The Anatomy of Advocacy, Part 1: How “Tough on Crime” Politics Reshaped Justice in New York

In the mid-1990s, New York was gripped by “tough on crime” politics. Headlines were filled with fear, politicians raced to outdo each other on punitive policies, and communities—especially Black and brown communities—bore the brunt. But behind the slogans and soundbites, laws were quietly reshaped in ways that would keep people incarcerated longer and under state supervision for life. One of the most consequential was Governor George Pataki’s push to eliminate parole for “violent offenders.”

In 1995, Pataki entered office promising to restore the death penalty and end parole for people convicted of so-called Index crimes. Within his first month, Executive Order Number 5 ended work release for this group, gutting a key reentry tool.

Though the legislature blocked his attempt to abolish parole outright, Pataki directed the parole board to deny release to people convicted of Index crimes, causing release rates to collapse to nearly zero. In 1998, his signature victory came: Jenna’s Law, requiring determinate sentences for Index crimes.

While not retroactive, the law carried a hidden penalty—a rider eliminating the three-year discharge from parole (Executive Law 259-j) for Class A-1 felonies, including murder and kidnapping. For many with the lowest recidivism rates in the state, this meant lifetime supervision.

This was the backdrop for an extraordinary grassroots fight—one led not by political insiders, but by the very people directly impacted.

The Anatomy of Advocacy, Part 2: Birth of the Ad Hoc Committee on Lifetime Parole

Every advocacy campaign starts with a spark—an injustice so glaring it demands action. For the people sentenced to lifetime parole under Pataki’s policy changes, that spark came when their parole officers told them, plainly: you will never be discharged. That’s when the organizing began.

The Ad Hoc Committee on Lifetime Parole formed to take on the fight. Comprised of people living under lifetime supervision, they began by mapping out possible strategies:

• Litigation – A challenge under the U.S. Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause. But court battles are long, expensive, and uncertain.
• Media Campaign – Modeled after the “Drop the Rock” campaign, but too risky for their circumstances given potential media distortion.
• Legislative Advocacy – The most viable path: return to the Legislature to change the law.

The Anatomy of Advocacy, Part 3: Strategy in Action – How They Won the Fight

Successful advocacy is rarely about one big move—it’s about hundreds of small, strategic steps. The Ad Hoc Committee on Lifetime Parole executed a meticulous plan:

• Research – Partnered with John Jay College of Criminal Justice (quantitative) and the CUNY Graduate Center (qualitative).
• Bill Drafting – A Columbia Law School professor drafted the new Executive Law 259-j.
• Political Engagement – Secured Senate Bill 6731, sponsored by Senators Volker, Maltese, and Montgomery; Assembly sponsorship from Members Aubry and Lentol.
• Legal Direction – Guided by a public interest law firm on meetings and timing.
• Coalition Building – Aligned with New Yorkers Against the Death Penalty, Osborne Association, Prisoner Reentry Institute, Citizens Against Recidivism.
• Insider Support – Endorsements from Parole Chairs George Alexander, Robert Dennison, Edward Hammock, and Ramon Rodriguez.

The Victory – On July 21, 2008, Governor David Paterson signed the bill into law as Chapter 310 of the Laws of 2008. By October 2008, many members were officially discharged from parole, in full satisfaction of their sentences.

The Anatomy of Advocacy, Part 4: Lessons Learned from a Winning Campaign

Victories like the 2008 repeal of lifetime parole for Class A-1 felonies aren’t accidents—they’re the product of strategy, discipline, and persistence. The Ad Hoc Committee’s campaign offers a blueprint:

1. Anchor in Research – Data builds credibility.
2. Control the Narrative – Choose messaging channels you control.
3. Build Unlikely Alliances – Bipartisan sponsorship was essential.
4. Engage Multiple Stakeholders – Legislators, faith leaders, community organizations, and agency insiders together create change.
5. Work Inside and Outside the System – Legislative advocacy + grassroots mobilization is a winning formula.

The takeaway: no matter how entrenched a policy seems, it can be undone with persistence, strategy, and collective will.

Participatory Research: A How‑To Blueprint

Why this matters: When those most impacted by the criminal legal system become designers, data collectors, and authors of research, the result is deeper truth—and policy that listens.
This blueprint draws on the Incorporating Lived Expertise into Research white paper (May 2025) and our campaign’s scholarship to offer a practical, ethical, and power‑building approach.

Pillars from the 2025 White Paper

1. Co‑Design the Questions — Start by asking communities what needs to be known to make change. Center measures of thriving (housing, stability, family ties, civic life), not just “recidivism.”
2. Share Ownership — Define data governance up front (consent, access, storage). Peer researchers should shape analysis and interpretation—not just collection.
3. Policy‑Ready Framing — Translate findings into testimony, legislative memos, and coalition briefs. Build a dissemination plan before you field a single survey.

The Blueprint (Step‑by‑Step)

1. Build the Table — Form a community advisory team (impacted people, CBOs/faith organizations, allied scholars). Set values: transparency, reciprocity, non‑extraction.
2. Co‑Design Methods — Mix qualitative and quantitative: life‑history interviews, focus groups, administrative data linkages, cost analyses. Validate instruments with the advisory group.
3. Train Peer Researchers — Interviewing skills, trauma‑aware practice, privacy/ethics, note‑taking, and coding. Budget for stipends and ongoing support.
4. Co‑Analysis & Member Checks — Host analysis circles; test emergent themes with participants. Invite critique and document how feedback shaped results.
5. Advocacy Integration — Timeline research milestones to legislative calendars and media moments. Prepare one‑pagers, infographics, and scripts for hearings.
6. Return the Knowledge — Release findings first to participants and communities. Offer teach‑ins, digital toolkits, and data summaries in plain language.

Ethics & Care

• Do no harm — Minimize risk, honor anonymity preferences, allow withdrawal without penalty.
• Fair compensation — Pay lived experts and peer researchers for their labor.
• Credit & Authorship — Co‑author reports and presentations; cite community collaborators as a norm.

From Evidence to Impact

Participatory research amplified the parole reform movement because it blended data with lived expertise:
quantitative analyses (release patterns, cost models) alongside qualitative narratives (reentry strengths, barriers), framed for policy action.
This is how research becomes a lever for justice.

Research as Resistance: Building Knowledge Together in the Fight for Parole Justice

Note: The following reflection is part of our ongoing series on justice, research, and reform.
As a member of the research team, I saw firsthand how scholarship—conducted with directly impacted people—can shift policy, narrative, and law.

When Evidence Meets Lived Experience

When the Ad Hoc Committee on Lifetime Parole organized, we didn’t just raise our voices—we brought evidence.
From the start, we understood that stories alone, while powerful, could be dismissed. But research, conducted with directly impacted people and not just about them, carried undeniable weight.
It became a cornerstone of our advocacy, demonstrating to lawmakers and the public that long‑term imprisonment was neither necessary for public safety nor justifiable as endless punishment.

Early Foundations (2006–2007)

In 2006, our team presented “Public safety/public interest: Experiences of people who have served long terms in prison released to the community” at the American Society of Criminology in Los Angeles.
By March 2007, at John Jay College’s Off the Witness Stand conference, we shared “To parole or not to parole: Using science to inform parole decisions for people who have been convicted of violent crimes.”

Peer‑Reviewed Anchor (2013)

These studies culminated in “How much punishment is enough? Designing participatory research on parole policies for persons convicted of violent crimes” in the Journal of Social Issues (2013).
See John Jay College •
Taylor & Francis Online •
ResearchGate.

Extending the Frame (2017–2022)

• Boudin (2017), “Hope, Illusion and Imagination.” Law review article that cites and builds on our JSI piece to reframe punishment and parole.
• DeVeaux (2022), “Not just by rates of recidivism.” Taylor & Francis study centering how NYC Black men define success after prison—work, relationships, mentoring, and civic life.

From Research to Practice (2025)

Our latest internal framework, “Incorporating Lived Expertise into Research” (May 2025), distills what we’ve learned about designing, governing, and sharing research with the people most impacted.
It’s not just a method—it’s a stance: research is resistance.

What’s Next: The Participatory Playbook

Next up, I’ll share a practical guide to participatory research for organizers, advocates, and scholars—how to structure partnerships, protect participants, co‑analyze data, and translate findings into policy.
If you care about justice, you can help produce the knowledge that movements need.

Calls to action:

• Subscribe for the final installment: Participatory Research: A How‑To Blueprint (coming soon).

• Share this post with a colleague in policy, academia, or community organizing.

• If you’re part of an organization seeking to adopt a lived‑expertise model, reach out—we’d love to collaborate.