Criminal Justice and
Public Safety Resources

Important Update from the CAAJE President about AB 89

If there was ever a "cluster", AB 89 is it.

I was waiting to hear more info about AB 89 before I sent out a statewide announcement, but time is fleeting so here is what is going on as far as I know. FYI - I am not very good with sugar coating my words, I only know how to tell it like it is. And please, if I have mis-represented any facts, please correct me.

First of all, the bill was suggested by the Chiefs of Police and Assemblyman Sawyer-Jones wrote the bill. He is currently fighting re-election as his district was reconfigured and is now a different population from those that elected him.

Second - the task of implementing AB 89 was originally given to P.O.S.T. , who gave it over to the community colleges, specifically Vice Chancellor Weber, who has since left the Chancellor's office in Feb. She determined that AB 89 only applied to the 41 police academies that are hosted by our community colleges. When I spoke with her at a meeting in Sacramento and mentioned that academy training uses Learning Domains, she was not familiar with what LD's were.

The VC contracted with RTI International, a North Carolina based independent nonprofit research institute "that is dedicated to improving the human condition", to help with the implementation of AB 89. I have thoughts about that - why go outside the state for experts on policing in California when we have plenty of experts within the state of California? Can I say that any louder?

Third - the current interim Vice Chancellor has taken over the task of AB 89, and from what we hear, she is still using the out of state group. AB 89 is structured so that by June 2023 there is a plan in place for the development of this "modern policing degree". So, what is the modern policing degree? It sounds like the Associate Degree for Transfer (AS-T in AJ) to me, which was developed from SB 1440 over 10 years ago.

Fourth - what do we do now? Well, I have been arguing for years that the majority of us that teach AJ are not "training LE". Our Chancellor believes that all AJ programs train LE. If AB 89 is designed for police academies, then my argument that the majority of AJ programs DO NOT TRAIN LE is valid. Therefore, the modern policing degree is not our issue, or should it be? And if so, would certain programs benefit from offering the modern policing degree that are not an academy?

Fifth - I have a colleague that works for the California State Assembly. I was told that when AB 89 was written it was intended for all of the community college AJ programs. Which is another interesting topic: what about those AJ programs that teach LE specific courses already such as Patrol Procedures and Writing for Law Enforcement, etc. but are not an academy under P.O.S.T. Will AB 89 force a change in which courses we teach in our colleges? Will the modern policing degree truly apply to only the academies? What if a college wants to focus on transfer and only offer the AS-T courses and not LE specific training, are they still considered a CTE program? There are too many questions and not enough answers and I believe every college should have the choice to teach what they want.

Let's face it, our discipline is under a microscope at the moment and many of us are suffering from low enrollment due to past issues between LE and the community as well as COVID. Just know that there is a cadre of folks that are ready, willing and able to assist with AB 89: we are just waiting to hear.

Kathy Oborn
CAAJE President

Keynote Speech of Chief (Ret.) Nicholas A. Sensley at the 2021 CAAJE Summit

PDF Version

Speech of Chief (Ret.) Nicholas A. Sensley, BSc., MBA, PhD (Candidate) CEO & President of the Institute for American Police Reform To the California Association of Administration of Justice Educators.Friday, May 21, 2021 Via Zoom Conference.

In June of 2020, I launched the Institute for American Police Reform both in  response to what I believe was a resounding public outcry for police reform AND for  the reform that I believe history has long beckoned in this crucial service.

While the murder of George Floyd was not in itself a rare event in the history of  policing, specifically not so in the interactions of police with people of color in Americaespecially black menit was a catalyzing and particularly impressionable event. Among  other obvious reasons related to the use of force AND the abuse of authority, I believe  that the countenance, the demeanor, and arrogant uniform presence of Derek Chauvin  in the real-time act of the slow murder of Mr. Floyd struck a universal chord of disdain  for those he misrepresented and for those who are sworn to honor human dignity and  life through their service of protection and care. In a powerful and tragic way Chauvin reminded the world that it is well past time that POLICE, the most powerful agents of  government authority personally familiar to the average person everywhere, must  submit to a comprehensive reassessment and revision of practices and of authority.  The resulting outcry reached my understanding as a cry for reform.

II am very happy and exceptionally honored to tell you that the response to launch this Institute was affirmed with a level of solidarity and support that I could not have imagined. Today, less than one year from inception, the Institute for American PoliceReform is a nonpartisan and nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization with 37 of the most outstanding persons I have ever known from the broadest spectrum of society that I never could have predicted. We are now building out the framework of American police reform through comprehensive research and organizational development with current and former:

Police officials, prosecutors, public defenders, judges, civil law attorneys, a US  Inspector General, a US Ambassador, doctors, university & college professors, schoolteachers, researchers, labor & union executives, clergy, community advocates, corporate executives, students, partnerships with 3 of the world’s largest law firms, tech companies, and partnerships with leading justice system reform organizations in  this countryALL WHO BELIEVE THAT POLICE ARE ESSENTIAL. SO IS REFORM.

Reform. Now, that has become quite the word of the century. On a very basic  level it usually means “to amend or improve by changing the form of something or to  remove the faults or abuses of something.” In the context of contemporary  concerns and responses to American policing and American Police Reform, I think it  might be useful for us to discuss what we believe – is not police reform. It seems quite  necessary to approach in this manner precisely because of the outcries for reform in  our contemporary environment of [1] support for police, [2] disdain for police, [3] good  officers, [3] bad officers, and an array of propositions and stances about what reform  means and how it should occur.

Of course, in the measures of it all, I too will be offering you our Institute’s  proposition and stance on what we believe defines police reform. And yet, it is my 
sincere hope that I will reason sufficiently to gain your consensus
. Before I offer my  thoughts on what police reform IS NOT, I want to offer only one qualifier: that societally whatever police reform is, it must be comprehensive and, in some  measures, it may need to be sweeping.

A. police reform is not
 achieved merely through legislative measures – especially those  measures that result in laws that are reactionary and limited in scope and lacking any  evidence that such laws or measures will lead to impactful turning points in the  nature of policing. Notwithstanding that some laws prohibiting or directing the  banning of certain police practices, while they may be warranted and justified, the  passage of such laws in and of itself is not police reform.

B. police reform is not new programs in community policing and crime reduction  strategies aimed at reducing conditions of crime, social disorder, and addressing the 
conditions that give rise to concerns of other public safety issues. Effective  community policing and the collaborative and integrated community relationships  are the outcome of policing grounded in community-centric service with the trust  and approbation of the people. Community-oriented policing is not a program nor is  it reform, it is the very manifestation of policing itself.

C. police reform
 is not “DEFUNDING THE POLICE”. Defunding the police may, in fact, be  useful if it is an outcome of a systematic evaluation of the services and functions of 
policing that has identified funded police responsibilities that are not well served  through a clear mandate and appropriate standards for police roles in the  community. I dare say, you would be hard pressed to find a Chief of Police who  would argue against removing duties and responsibility, and the funding attached to  it, – if the repercussions of failing to address the needed service do not blowback on  the community, on the police department, on the confidence in civic leadership, or “Defunding the police” is not police reform, at best it is budget and  practices analysis; but it is pretty confusing as it is most often referred.

D. police reform is not bribing or incentivizing the police to acquiesce to certain behaviors and practices with additional funding or promises of weaponry and  militarized vehicles and equipment. We know how well that has not worked with the infamous 1997 National Defense Authorization Act, including what is known as “the 1033 program,” that allows the Department of Defense to get rid of excess equipment and firepower by passing it off to local authorities. It has resulted in the rapid growth of the militarization of police officials in the US to the degree that a  police officers in many cities is 2 times more equipped to kill than the average soldier  in Vietnam. The “warrior” mentality has permeated the training and officer safety  constructs of basic police training. In cities and counties in America, if the police are warriors, then they are at war with members of the community. That is a frightening  and dangerous posture, and it has been deadly.

E. police reform is not achieved exclusively through the choices and efforts of the  police. Police officials do not have the right nor the privilege to declare that they will  reform themselves. Police service is an authority granted to, not an authority owned by police officials. Police serve with the consent of the people and they should not be  allowed to serve without it. Now then, we have seen how this reality has been  shockingly interpreted and horrifyingly experimented upon in certain cities where  police where forced to abdicate responsibilities to engage in and to prevent  complete chaos and rampant public destruction and disorder. That is not the means  by which police are reformed. That is a demonstration of why good policing is so  essential.

F. police reformis not merely an issue of the identification and removal of “a few bad”  apples who are ruining it for everyone else. The culture of American policing is  tainted at its core. The only thing perfectly uniform and standardized in practice within policing in the United States is the fervor and solidarity with which police are willing to defend each other, rally under a common flag, and claim that policing is a  necessary and indispensable service that no one outside of those who have served in  this role could possibly understand if they have not done the job itself; therefore, stop picking on us, just comply with what we tell you to do and nobody will get hurt.

G. finally police reform is not easy nor is it a mandate for some departments and not for all. The reform of American policing is not a one-off event. It is not a do it and  done project or program to fix the most intrenched and diversely performed public  service in the country. Are you aware that up until December of 2020, there were 7 states in that had no laws to govern police use of force? There were 17 states that  had no laws to govern police deadly use of force. Remember, the federal  government has no authority to say that police in America shall look like this or that,  serve in this way or that way, and shall be uniformly guided by this or that set of standards and practices. There is not an opportunity for the federalization of nearly  18,000 state, county, and local policing entities. Nor should there be. It is possible,  however, for the 50 states and all United States territories to adopt and to adhere to uniformly predictable and standardized practices, to adopt standardized ethics, canons & codes of conduct, to implement uniform standards of education, training,  discipline, and accountability, to pass uniform laws and policies, and to adopt  uniform standards for entry into and certification and de-certification as a professional peace officer.

, it is possible to actually make policing in the United States a professional service  which I purport that it is not today nor has it ever been in the history of policing in  America. 


Is it because police are heavily oriented toward a militarized stance in communities? Is it because of an ongoing pattern of disproportionate killings of Black Americans? Is it only because police have been the default criminal and civil societal responder when no other social systems and structures have been implemented or supported? Is it because policing has extended too far into authoritative management of civil crises?

Is it because policing has extended too far into authoritative management of civil  crises?

Is it because police need more training and education?

Is it because there is over policing of America that disproportionately focuses on the poor and vulnerable, the marginalized, the socio-economically challenged, and the  communities of color?

Well, actually, yes! But not only for these and more reasons, but also because:

1. Overwhelming public opinion is that policing must be reformed.
2. Police reform has never really been done before. Police have only adapted.
3. Policing in America is a disparate and unpredictable service.
4. Policing in America is non-professionalized critical public service.
5. Among the most powerful interventionalists nations in the world, the United 
States is the only nation with no uniform standard of policing. 
6. Reform must occur in America because it is time!

My colleagues, the Institute for American police reform is a non-partisan organization  providing guidance on policing laws and policies, police accountability and partnerships 
in community, leadership development, and police standards and training development. In our services to communities and governments, our goal is to help ensure immutable  regard for human dignity, inculcate servant leadership, and fortify citizens’ trust in  police service across the United States.

Our work is help form a national consensus on standardized policing practices and enact the reforms necessary to implement that consensus.

As we see it, policing systems reform is directed towards ensuring all forms of policing that manifest at local levels effectively and sustainably protect and serve with absolute  regard for all persons through laws, polices, practices, customs, cultures, behaviors,  and attitudes that reflect no biases toward any person under any circumstances. IAPR has adopted reform policies that propose comprehensive strategies and practices for  making public policing systems work for all and uniformly across the United States. Our guidepost, Five Pillars of Police Reform©, are:

A. Policing Laws and Policies. We believe that uniformity in laws and policies on police conduct will add to consistent and generally accepted adjudication of all police conduct.

B. Police Accountability. Accountability is the core of earning and sustaining trust. Police accountability must be reflected in transparency, honesty, competency, fairness, respectfulness, unbiased and impartial application of the law, and  submission to the law by those who enforce it.

C. Policing Standards, Education and Training. Reform leading to adherence to the best standards and training, and to instinctive and customary peer-to-peer level adherence to the most promising practices possible is crucial to preventing police misconduct.

D. Police Leadership Development. Police service must be led by persons who are  determinedly committed to the highest regard for human dignity and for public care and safety. Police officers must be led and held accountable by persons who inspire a steadfast practice of great and unbiased care for all human beings. 

E. Community Education and Engagement to Support Police Reform. Police reform must be developed through citizen participation in a change process that is compassionate, mindful of history, sensitive to racial and gender identities, ethnicity, and cultural diversities of communities and of the country. Reform must be strategically exhaustive and without regard to sustaining systems simply because they have historically existed.

These pillars are a continuum of reform each on being equally as important as the other and all interrelated and interdependent. 

Milestones Achieved to Date

We have completed comprehensive national research on Police Use of Force and on Police Qualified Immunity to answer two fundamental questions that American citizens have asked: 

-->  "How can American police officers use deadly force in the manners that have so often led to outrage in communities and in the nation?" 
-->  "Why does the system of justice in the United States of America most often  appear to fail in holding municipalities and police officers accountable for  killings of citizens?"

Public release of the findings of the IAPR research is coming soon but you can visit our website at and see who some of us are and explore our  newly released map on the deadly use of force in every state.

Our Vision
Standardized, trustworthy and human dignified policing services in all American states  and territories.


When:  May 21, 2021, Friday
Time:  9:30 a.m. to 2 p.m.
Registration Link:

 Addressing the "Call to Action" - Contemporary Issues in Adjus

Reinvisioning Law Enforcement in America


Defunding the Police
A panel of California Police Chiefs discuss their reorginization vision and how community colleges can prepare their students for employment.

Professional Development
Highly effective teaching techniques in an asynchronous teaching modality.  Open Educational Resources (OER) for ADJUS Faculty and their courses.

Diversity and Inclusion
How the Caring Campus Initiative has created new opportunities for student enrollment, retention, success and completion.

Featured Speakers:

Kathy Oborn - President, CAAJE

Nicholas Sensley - Founder & CEO at the Institute for American Police Reform

Brad Phillips - CEO and President Institute for Evidence Based Change

Join us for the CAAJE Summit on 5/21/21 at 9:30am. Be sure to catch the Police Chief's Roundtable moderated by Dr. Tommy Tunson.

About this Event
As well as an OER presentation by Stephanie Karas, the AJ OER Discipline lead.

Federal Sentencing in 2020

Today the U.S. Sentencing Commission published its 2020 Annual Report and Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics.

Agency Highlights

The Annual Report presents an overview of the Commission's work in FY20—a year that brought unique challenges and opportunities for technological advancement as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

  • COVID-19 significantly impacted how the Commission performs its daily work; however, sustained and strategic investments in technology, automation, and cybersecurity allowed for a quick pivot and continuity of operations culminating in this seasonable publication of the 2020 Sourcebook.
  • The Commission’s website traffic increased by more than 20% for the second year in a row, demonstrating that interest in the Commission's work by sentencing courts, Congress, the Executive Branch, and the general public continues to increase.
  • The Commission launched a new Interactive Data Analyzer--a tool for Congress, judges, litigants, the press, and the general public to easily and independently analyze sentencing data by their state, district or circuit, and refine their inquiry by a specific crime type or time period.
  • COVID-19 forced the Commission to suspend all in-person training and seminars; however, the Commission’s ongoing investments in eLearning allowed its training efforts to continue unabated.
  • The Commission collected, analyzed, and reported data on implementation of the First Step Act of 2018, and continued its recidivism research to help inform Congress and others on how best to protect public safety while targeting scarce prison resources on the most dangerous offenders.

FY20 Fast Facts

The Sourcebook presents information on the 64,565 federal offenders sentenced in FY20—a sentencing caseload that decreased by nearly 12,000 cases from the previous fiscal year.

  • Immigration, drug trafficking, firearms, and fraud crimes together comprised 86% of the federal sentencing caseload in FY20.
  • Immigration was the most common federal crime type sentenced, accounting for 41% of the caseload (up from 38% in FY19).
  • Methamphetamine continued to be the most common drug type in the federal system, and a steadily growing portion of the drug caseload (up from 31% in FY16 and 42% in FY19 to 46% in FY20).
  • Methamphetamine trafficking continued to be the most severely punished federal drug crime (holding steady at an average sentence of 95 months).
  • Average sentences across all other major drug types (crack cocaine, powder cocaine, heroin, and marijuana) decreased.
  • Two-thirds (67%) of drug offenders were convicted of an offense carrying a mandatory minimum penalty, up slightly from the previous year (66%).
  • Three-quarters (74%) of federal offenders were sentenced under the Guidelines Manual in FY20.