About Justice Beacon Solutions
Why JBS Exists
AI produces signals. Humans exercise authority. What happens between those two moments is rarely documented.
Every call for “responsible AI” in criminal justice contains an implicit assumption: that someone is documenting how humans actually interact with AI outputs. The Department of Justice assumes it. NIST assumes it. The Council on Criminal Justice assumes it.
Nobody is doing it.
Governance failure does not occur at procurement. It occurs at execution, when a human decision-maker encounters an AI-supported output and exercises authority. In most institutions, there is no structured, reviewable record of that interpretive pathway. Justice Beacon Solutions was founded to preserve it.
The Governance Gap
Justice Beacon Solutions focuses on a governance gap that occurs when technology is deployed inside justice institutions. AI systems generate signals. Human staff interpret those signals. Human authority makes the final decision. Most justice systems currently lack structured documentation of how that interpretive process occurs in real operational environments.
See the Governance Gap diagram in the Publication Set.
What We Do
Justice Beacon Solutions focuses on documenting and reconstructing the decision pathway between system alerts and the exercise of human authority within justice environments.
At the center of this work is the concept of Justice Decision Observability™, which examines how system signals (such as monitoring alerts, AI-generated risk scores, behavioral indicators, or surveillance notifications) are interpreted by personnel and translated into operational decisions during critical incidents.
Rather than evaluating the technology itself, the practice focuses on the human–system decision environment where institutional authority is exercised.
What Justice Beacon Does Not Do
Precision about boundaries matters. Justice Beacon Solutions:
- Does not audit technology. Algorithm auditing examines whether AI systems produce biased outputs. JBS documents what humans do with those outputs.
- Does not evaluate software performance. We document implementation behavior, specifically how systems are actually used, not how well they function.
- Does not judge whether a system is effective. JBS documents the human governance layer around AI tools, not the tools themselves.
- Does not investigate or assign fault. JBS produces governance documentation that is descriptive, not evaluative.
Instead, the organization focuses strictly on documenting how human decisions are made around system outputs once those systems are operating in real environments.
How Our Work Is Different
JBS operates at the observation layer. Our methodology is descriptive, not evaluative: we document what is, not what should be. This is a deliberate posture.
Institutions trust JBS because we have no commercial relationship with AI vendors. Legal teams trust JBS because our documentation is descriptive evidence, not advocacy. Vendors trust JBS because we document implementation behavior, not technology performance. Researchers trust JBS because our methodology is transparent and replicable.
This vendor-neutral, descriptive posture is what makes governance documentation defensible. Independence is not a limitation. It is the foundation of the work.
Leadership
Stephanie Fleming, MS, PhD
Founder & Principal
Stephanie Fleming introduced Justice Decision Observability™ as a governance discipline for documenting how institutional authority interacts with automated system outputs in operational justice environments. Her work addresses a structural oversight gap in the governance of AI-supported justice systems.
Fleming's work is grounded in social psychology, criminology, and more than twenty-five years of experience in human services and justice-adjacent systems. Her professional perspective is informed by both academic training and lived experience within the criminal legal system, bringing analytical rigor and operational insight to governance challenges that institutions are only beginning to recognize.
Janna M. Broaddus leads operational governance processes, documentation integrity, and structured oversight coordination at Justice Beacon Solutions. She oversees governance reviews, documentation protocols, and structured reporting used to reconstruct how human decision-makers interpret and act on automated system outputs in real-world justice environments.
Broaddus brings extensive experience working in reentry, recovery-oriented services, and justice-impacted communities. Her background supporting individuals affected by incarceration, substance use, and behavioral health challenges provides direct insight into how institutional design and operational pressures shape decision environments.
Broaddus collaborates on the development and publication of Justice Decision Observability™ framework materials, helping translate governance concepts into operational documentation practices that institutions can implement.
Advisory Board
Troy Richard Carr
Technology & Digital Strategy Advisor
Troy Carr advises Justice Beacon Solutions on digital infrastructure, platform architecture, and AI-native visibility strategy. He is the principal of The Midnight Garden, a technology consultancy serving justice-adjacent and mission-driven organizations.
LinkedInAdditional advisory board members spanning criminal justice administration, defense law, AI governance, and justice-impacted community leadership will be announced in 2026.