Beyond legal evidence: An interview with Judge Veronica Galván on evaluating judicial programs

From an early age, Judge Veronica Galván understood the profound influence the judicial system could have on individuals and families. That realization eventually led her to the King County Superior Court, where she remains committed to ensuring courts are both, fair and effective. In 2024, Judge Galván was one of the 56 policymakers and practitioners who participated in J-PAL’s Evaluating Social Programs course, an immersive training that equips participants with resources and knowledge to engage with randomized evaluations of social programs. In this interview with J-PAL North America, Judge Galván shares her experience using and generating evidence, and how she believes randomized evaluations can help identify effective solutions to the judicial system's challenges.
 

In your view, what role do evidence and evidence generation play in improving the judicial system? 

I think evidence plays several roles. First, there’s the traditional sense of evidence—what is presented in court and considered when making a decision? From this perspective, evidence is the foundation of judicial decision-making, and its quality is absolutely critical. In a trial, when an expert witness presents an opinion, I must consider: what is the basis of this opinion? How was it measured? Is it reliable and relevant? These factors help determine whether the evidence should even be presented to a jury. Having a firm grasp of how evidence is presented and assessed strengthens the integrity of the judicial process at every level.

Second, evidence shapes how we make decisions, particularly in areas like sentencing and court-offered programs. I work in juvenile justice, where we offer a variety of programs including pretrial diversion initiatives, employment support, and family intervention programs. Measuring their effectiveness is essential, but equally important is clearly defining what success looks like in this context. We have to ask: does this program work? If not, is it worth piloting? How do we measure it? How long will it take to see meaningful results? These are critical questions that guide our approach. I’m fortunate to work in an extraordinarily innovative court—many of our programs are the first of their kind. However, launching new initiatives also means developing reliable ways to measure their impact, and understanding how social scientists create those measurements is key.
 

How can evidence and evaluations address key challenges in the judicial system?

I believe there’s an excellent opportunity to use evidence and evaluations to answer critical questions in the judicial system, and we should be continuously exploring this. Back in the 1990s, when I was a prosecutor, I was part of a special unit focused on domestic violence cases. We wanted attorneys who truly understood the complexities of domestic violence, so we provided training on key issues related to this problem to help them prosecute these cases more effectively and successfully.  For example, something as seemingly innocuous as sending flowers to a victim’s mother’s house could, in reality, be frightening if the sender wasn’t supposed to know the victim’s location. Through education and training, we helped attorneys become better at addressing these areas with jurors. 

When examining issues like gender-based violence, data and evidence play critical roles in understanding whether observed effects are truly causal or merely correlated. More broadly, having an evidence-based approach helps guide decision-making. The ability to step back and ask, what is our goal? Is what we’re doing actually working? allows us to challenge outdated assumptions and, when necessary, explore new and innovative solutions.

Beyond specific initiatives, evidence is crucial in shaping systemic change. Within the judiciary, we constantly examine evidence-based techniques, particularly in sentencing and sentencing guidelines. We ask ourselves: what does imprisonment actually achieve? What outcomes are we seeking? There is a fine line between punishment and retribution, just as there is a fine line between believing in rehabilitation and merely reinforcing past practices without scrutiny. By analyzing historical data from policies and practices implemented, we can assess their long-term impacts, including the disproportionate effects some have had, particularly on communities of color.

Evidence also helps us advocate for and identify policy changes needed internally. For instance, at the Washington State Administrative Office of the Courts, we developed a dashboard to track how judges rule. While a dashboard alone isn’t a perfect measure, it allows us to analyze random samples of decisions and​​ identify patterns—such as significant differences in sentencing based on race or gender. As judicial officers, there is much we can measure internally, and by recognizing these trends, we can focus our efforts on addressing systemic issues—not just those tied to individual behavior, but also broader patterns within the bench itself.
 

Over your more than twenty years in the judicial system, what have been the biggest challenges and barriers you've encountered when evaluating existing or new interventions?

I work in a system that is inherently resistant to change. It relies on precedent—using past decisions to inform present ones and predict future ones—which, by design, makes significant change difficult. So, I think that this scenario forces you to look at numbers even harder. I believe that, while numbers themselves don’t lie, they can be misinterpreted or manipulated, making it essential to ask the right questions: how did we get here? Is this a causation issue or simply a correlation? What factors are actually driving these results?

It is easy to look at raw numbers and assume they point to a clear cause. But when you dig deeper, you often find that what seems like the cause is just one piece of a much more complex picture. Sometimes, we focus on the wrong factor simply because it's the most visible one.

Take crime rates, for instance, you might conclude that people in Philadelphia are more likely to commit criminal offenses than those in Minneapolis. But when you examine the broader context, you realize that geography is not the determining factor—other underlying causes drive criminogenic behavior. Recognizing that the first explanation isn’t always the right one—and being willing to peel back the layers to find the real causes is incredibly powerful when evaluating interventions in the judicial system.
 

How can randomized evaluations help you tackle the challenges currently facing the judicial system?

I think they’re already making a difference. We’re actively working on incorporating randomized evaluations into some of the programs we run for juveniles. A key discussion has been about the scope of these evaluations, particularly given our small number of participants. We’ve considered whether expanding evaluations statewide would be more effective and, just as importantly, how to control for external factors that could influence our results. For example, how do we account for spillover effects—when individuals in the control group hear about interventions—or when someone in our comparison group gains access to the intervention? 

I’m proud to say that my Court is highly innovative, often pioneering programs that don’t exist elsewhere. But with innovation comes the need for rigorous evaluation. We have to measure our programs effectively to make informed adjustments or start over if something isn't working.  Understanding the principles of randomized evaluations has been incredibly valuable in helping us refine our approach and ensuring the programs we try to establish are effective.
 

You participated in J-PAL’s 2024 capacity-building course on evaluating social programs. What were your main takeaways? 

The course gave me a new lens for evaluating evidence and a stronger foundation for questioning its quality, the reliability of measurements, and the validity of the conclusions drawn from them. I also gained a deeper appreciation for the importance of sample size and scope in determining an evaluation’s reliability. The course was incredibly helpful in understanding the process from the ground up—how a program begins, whether the original research question was actually answered within the context of the data collected, and how to assess the strength of that data.

It provided another tool in my toolbox—another way to examine and question the evidence. Whether in my administrative role, where I engage with policy decisions, or in the courtroom, where I assess the weight of evidence in trials, J-PAL’s training has strengthened my ability to analyze information critically. Any tools that help judicial officers make more informed determinations about the evidence before us are invaluable, and this course certainly provided that.
 

J-PAL North America is committed to equipping jurisdictions with the resources needed to create a culture of evidence and data use in decision-making, ensuring programs are best positioned to improve lives.

In partnership with Arnold Ventures, J-PAL North America is launching a new initiative focused on criminal justice reform and community safety — Initiative for Effective US Crime Policy (IECP) — to promote an equitable and more effective criminal legal system. If you’re interested in learning more about this initiative, please contact [email protected].