By DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE NEW ZEALAND

“…The study includes statistical information to the extent that it is available. The law and administrative procedures are described and where appropriate psychological and sociological factors are discussed. This factual background is essential for informed consideration of the criminal scene. Inevitably interpretations are made and a variety of opinion is offered. It was not the purpose of the Department to produce a colourless official document devoid of all contentious matter. Although there has been a measure of co-ordination, diversity of opinion and spontaneity remain. It would therefore be difficult to agree with everything that is said or suggested.”

Ministry of Justice. New Zealand. 1968. 410p.

BY Lyn Mikel Brown

For some time, reality TV, talk shows, soap-operas, and sitcoms have turned their spotlights on women and girls who thrive on competition and nastiness. Few fairytales lack the evil stepmother, wicked witch, or jealous sister. Even cartoons feature mean and sassy girls who only become sweet and innocent when adults appear. And recently, popular books and magazines have turned their gaze away from ways of positively influencing girls' independence and self-esteem and towards the topic of girls' meanness to other girls. What does this say about the way our culture views girlhood? How much do these portrayals affect the way girls view themselves?

In Girlfighting, psychologist and educator Lyn Mikel Brown scrutinizes the way our culture nurtures and reinforces this sort of meanness in girls. She argues that the old adage “girls will be girls”—gossipy, competitive, cliquish, backstabbing— and the idea that fighting is part of a developmental stage or a rite-of-passage, are not acceptable explanations. Instead, she asserts, girls are discouraged from expressing strong feelings and are pressured to fulfill unrealistic expectations, to be popular, and struggle to find their way in a society that still reinforces gender stereotypes and places greater value on boys. Under such pressure, in their frustration and anger, girls (often unconsciously) find it less risky to take out their fears and anxieties on other girls instead of challenging the ways boys treat them, the way the media represents them, or the way the culture at large supports sexist practices.

Girlfighting traces the changes in girls' thoughts, actions and feelings from childhood into young adulthood, providing the developmental understanding and theoretical explanation often lacking in other conversations. Through interviews with over 400 girls of diverse racial, economic, and geographic backgrounds, Brown chronicles the labyrinthine journey girls take from direct and outspoken children who like and trust other girls, to distrusting and competitive young women. She argues that this familiar pathway can and should be interrupted and provides ways to move beyond girlfighting to build girl allies and to support coalitions among girls.

By allowing the voices of girls to be heard, Brown demonstrates the complex and often contradictory realities girls face, helping us to better understand and critique the socializing forces in their lives and challenging us to rethink the messages we send them.

New York; London: NYU Press, 2003. 259p.

By Cindy D. Ness

In low-income U.S. cities, street fights between teenage girls are common. These fights take place at school, on street corners, or in parks, when one girl provokes another to the point that she must either “step up” or be labeled a “punk.” Typically, when girls engage in violence that is not strictly self-defense, they are labeled “delinquent,” their actions taken as a sign of emotional pathology. However, in Why Girls Fight, Cindy D. Ness demonstrates that in poor urban areas this kind of street fighting is seen as a normal part of girlhood and a necessary way to earn respect among peers, as well as a way for girls to attain a sense of mastery and self-esteem in a social setting where legal opportunities for achievement are not otherwise easily available.
Ness spent almost two years in west and northeast Philadelphia to get a sense of how teenage girls experience inflicting physical harm and the meanings they assign to it. While most existing work on girls’ violence deals exclusively with gangs, Ness sheds new light on the everyday street fighting of urban girls, arguing that different cultural standards associated with race and class influence the relationship that girls have to physical aggression.

New York; London: NYU Press, 2010. 198p.

By Thomas Christoff, Benjamin Carleton, Margarita Parker, Kaitlin Moloney, Alexa Blondin, and Bill Taylor

Traffic enforcement encounters represent one of the most common interactions that the public has with law enforcement, with more than 20 million people pulled over for a traffic stop in the US each year (Baumgartner et al., 2021). Police officers make at least three important decisions during a traffic stop encounter, including whether to initiate a traffic stop, whether to conduct a search of persons or the vehicle, and how the officer will sanction the driver (Schafer et al., 2006). Similarly, traffic enforcement is also one of the primary responsibilities of the Michigan State Police (MSP), with MSP having conducted 287,065 traffic stops in 2022.1 In January of 2021, MSP took proactive steps to begin a partnership with researchers from the School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University (MSU) to understand whether racial/ethnic disparities exist in traffic stop behavior by MSP patrol members. As part of MSP’s partnership with MSU, MSU researchers examined data for MSP traffic stops conducted during the year 2020. Overall, MSU’s analysis found that “African-American drivers experienced significant disparities with respect to MSP traffic stops.” In addition, MSU’s analysis found that “Hispanic drivers were significantly more likely than White drivers to be searched or arrested after traffic stops.” MSU conducted a second round of traffic stop data analysis using MSP data for traffic stops conducted during 2021. In this second round, MSU added a Post-by-Post analysis, which revealed that “a small proportion of MSP posts accounted for the racial and ethnic disparities observed statewide.” The analysis also revealed disparities in traffic stops for African-American drivers in Secure Cities Partnership (SCP) locations. Upon receiving MSU’s initial findings, MSP leadership responded in January 2022 with the unveiling of a multifaceted Five-Point Plan intended to address racial disparities in traffic enforcement. The five points focused on understanding the contributors to disparities in traffic stops and exploring ways in which MSP could effectively reduce such disparities. The point most relevant to this assessment is the first one, which involves the hiring of an independent consulting firm to review MSP policies and make recommendations that will address racial disparities. MSP issued a request for proposals in March 2022 seeking an independent consulting firm to conduct this work, and the CNA Corporation (CNA) was awarded the contract to assess MSP traffic enforcement policies and program initiatives over the course of 18 months, starting in June 2022. CNA’s approach to this assessment focused on the full lifecycle of a trooper, including how MSP recruits and hires its troopers, instructs and trains its troopers, and supervises its troopers. We also considered organizational factors that are relevant to traffic enforcement and equitable policing. To assess MSP’s traffic enforcement policies and program initiatives, we used a variety of sources, including document review, targeted interviews, focus groups, ride-alongs, and quantitative data analysis. This report details the findings and recommendations of this focused assessment and consists of the following five main sections: 1. Methodology and Approach 2. Recruitment and Hiring Policies, Trainings, and Practices 3. Trooper Policies, Trainings, and Practices 4. Supervisor Policies, Trainings, and Practices 5. Organizational Processes and Initiatives   

Arlington VA: CNA, 2023. 95p.

By Robert J. Sampson† and Brian L. Levy

A longstanding tradition of research linking neighborhood disadvantage to higher rates of violence is based on the characteristics of where people reside. This Essay argues that we need to look beyond residential neighborhoods to consider flows of movement throughout the wider metropolis. Our basic premise is that a neighborhood’s well-being depends not only on its own socioeconomic conditions but also on the conditions of neighborhoods that its residents visit and are visited by—connections that form through networks of everyday urban mobility. Based on the analysis of large-scale urban-mobility data, we find that while residents of both advantaged and disadvantaged neighborhoods in Chicago travel far and wide, their relative isolation by race and class persists. Among large U.S. cities, Chicago’s level of racially segregated mobility is the second highest. Consistent with our major premise, we further show that mobility-based socioeconomic disadvantage predicts rates of violence in Chicago’s neighborhoods beyond their residence-based disadvantage and other neighborhood characteristics, including during recent years that witnessed surges in violence and other broad social changes. Racial disparities in mobility-based disadvantage are pronounced—more so than residential neighborhood disadvantage. We discuss implications of these findings for theories of neighborhood effects on crime and criminal justice contact, collective efficacy, and racial inequality

University of Chicago Law Review, U Chi L Rev > Vol. 89 (2022) > Iss. 2

By The Asian Racing Federation Council on Anti-illegal Betting & Related Financial Crime

The purpose of this report is to explain how blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies are being used in the illegal betting industry in Asia. Blockchain and cryptocurrencies have been widely adopted in the betting industry in the form of payments, betting applications built on blockchain technology and to move funds. The emergence of this technology is a threat to legal betting because of the intrinsic features of many cryptocurrencies, such as: facilitating avoidance of anti-money laundering (AML) and know-your-customer (KYC) procedures by betting operators; circumvention by operators of international betting regulatory and licensing requirements; and instantaneous and anonymous cross-border transactions from bettors and operators. All of these features are attractive to bettors and operators in jurisdictions where online betting is illegal and/or restricted. Regulators in many jurisdictions have also been slow to keep up with the growth of blockchain,1 creating loopholes exploited by organised crime. International law enforcement and anti-money laundering bodies have highlighted that blockchain and cryptocurrencies facilitate illicit activities including illegal betting and money laundering. 2 As a measure of the growth of cryptocurrency in betting, Bitcoin is now accepted on at least 127 offshore sports betting websites and 284 online casinos, which is a seven- and 13-fold increase respectively since 2018.3 In addition to Bitcoin, at least 780 offshore websites accept one or more of the five biggest cryptocurrencies,4 and most of these websites accept players from jurisdictions such as Hong Kong (83%), Australia (78%), Japan (92%) and Singapore (82%). 5 Cryptocurrencies further facilitate illegal betting by giving the operators of illegal bookmaking syndicates and related entities such as Macau casino junket operators a means of transferring money without detection in order to offshore the criminal proceeds of their illegal betting operations, settle payments with customers, and pay employees in overseas illegal betting hubs such as the Philippines. For these reasons they have also been enthusiastically adopted by entities linked to the junket industry.

The Asian Racing Federation Council. 2021. 12p.

By KPMG

This report of key findings (the 'Report') has been prepared by KPMG LLP. The Report was commissioned by Philip Morris Limited and Imperial Tobacco Australia Limited, described in this Important Notice and in this Report as together the 'beneficiaries', on the basis set out in a private contract agreed between the beneficiaries and KPMG LLP dated 29 November 2021 . This report has been prepared on the basis of fieldwork carried out between 01 December 2021 and 14 April 2022. The Report has not been updated for subsequent events or circumstances. Information sources, the scope of our work, and scope and source limitations are set out in the footnotes and methodology contained within this Report. The scope of our work, information sources used, and any scope and source limitations were fixed by agreement with the beneficiaries. We have satisfied ourselves, where possible, that the information presented in this Report is consistent with the information sources used, but we have not sought to establish the reliability of the information sources by reference to other evidence. We relied upon and assumed without independent verification, the accuracy and completeness of information available from public and third party sources. This Report is not written for the benefit any other party other than the beneficiaries. In preparing this Report we have not taken into account the interests, needs, or circumstances of any specific party, other than the beneficiaries. This Report is not suitable to be relied on by any party (other than· the beneficiaries), Any person or entity ( other than the beneficiaries) who chooses to rely on this Report (or any part of it) will do so at their own risk. To the fullest extent permitted by law, KPMG LLP does not assume any responsibility and will not accept any liability in respect of this Report other than to the beneficiaries. Without limiting the general statement above, although we have prepared this Report in agreement with the beneficiaries, this Report has not been prepared for the benefit of any other manufacturer of tobacco products nor for any other person or entity who might have ari interest in the matters discussed in this Report, including for example those who work in_ or monitor the tobacco or public health sectors or those who provide goods or services to those who operate in those sectors.

KPMG: 2022. 70p.

By BIS OXFORD ECONOMICS

The consumption of Illicit tobacco has become a substantial problem for Australia in recent years. With illicit tobacco offering higher profit margins than illegal drugs such as cocaine, it presents several significant problems for government and society, including: - depriving the government of tax revenues, reducing its ability to deliver basic services and valuable social programmes; - displacing legal activity within the retail, wholesale and logistics industries; and - corrupting institutions, enabling money laundering, and providing revenues for organised crime, including potentially financing terrorist activities. This study by BIS Oxford Economics, commissioned by British American Tobacco Australia (BATA), provides information on several key issues, namely: - assessment of the value of the legal supply chain; - estimation of the tax and industry; - legal economy losses to illicit operators; and - examination of the harms caused by illicit tobacco trade

Sydney: BIS Oxford Economics, 2021. 43p.

By Saana Rikkilä, Pirjo Jukarainen, Vesa MuttilainenNordic Council of Ministers

Nordic countries are viewed as having low levels of corruption. However, Nordic businesses can be exploited in corruption or money laundering schemes. The KORPEN project (Korruption i samband med näringsverksamhet i Norden) was funded by the Nordic Council of Ministers, coordinated by the Ministry of Justice, Finland and implemented by the Police University College. The project concludes that anti-corruption and anti-money laundering (AML) efforts share the same features and actors but are still rather separated. Some shared methods could be utilised in combatting both crimes. In general, the AML frameworks are more structured, whereas corruption and bribery are not viewed as such a serious issue in the Nordic countries. There are incidents in the Nordic region of interconnected corruption and money laundering. New risk assessment approaches and technology solutions could be of help.

Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers, 2022. 104p.

By Kay Cook, Adrienne Byrt, Rachael Burgin, Terese Edwards, Ashlea Coen, Georgina Dimopoulos

This report draws on post-separation lived experience to demonstrate the ways that the Australian Child Support Scheme can be used and abused to jeopardise the financial safety of recipient parents and their children. This abuse primarily affects women, who continue to carry the burden of unpaid care work in Australia (and internationally) and are overrepresented as victim-survivors of family violence.

In this report, the authors explore the ways that the Child Support Scheme can be used to financially abuse women, and the devastating impacts of this abuse on mothers’ and children’s lives. The findings show that separated mothers endure lasting impacts to their financial security, emotional and mental wellbeing, food security and housing safety through child support-facilitated financial abuse, sometimes long after separation.

Swinburne University of Technology, 2023. 75p.

By Richard Walton, Sophia Falkner and Benjamin Barnard

Research by Policy Exchange finds that fraud and error during the COVID-19 crisis will cost the UK Government in the region of £4.6 billion. The lower bound for the cost of fraud in this crisis is £1.3 billion and the upper bound is £7.9 billion, in light of total projected expenditure of £154.3 billion by the Government (excluding additional expenditure announced in the 8th July 2020 Economic Update). The true value may be closer to the upper bound, due to the higher than usual levels of fraud that normally accompany disaster management.

London: Policy Exchange, 2020. 78p.

By Kaitlyn Sill and Paul A. Haskins.

This article originally appeared in Police Chief and is reposted here with permission from the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

Hate crimes harm whole communities. They are message crimes that tell all members of a group—not just the immediate victims—that they are unwelcome and at risk.

The damage that bias victimization causes multiplies when victims and justice agencies don’t recognize or report hate crimes as such. In addition, in cases for which law enforcement agencies fail to respond to or investigate hate crimes, relationships between law enforcement and affected communities can suffer, and public trust in police can erode.[1]

While it is known that hate crimes are underreported throughout the United States, there is not a clear understanding of exactly why reporting rates are low, to what extent, and what might be done to improve them. An even more elementary question, with no single answer, is: What constitutes a hate crime? Different state statutes and law enforcement agencies have different answers to that question, which further complicates the task of identifying hate crimes and harmonizing hate crime data collection and statistics.

2021 Durham Community Gang Assessment

By Michelle Young

Beginning in 2021, the Durham Gang Reduction Strategy Steering Committee (GRSSC) commissioned an updated community gang assessment for Durham. The GRSSC community gang assessment used the OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model Guide to Assessing Your Community’s Youth Gang Problem (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2009). This report presents five key findings and related recommendations arising from that exercise. Key finding 1: What is the most acute problem related to gangs/violence in Durham and where is it most acute? At least 12 census tracts/neighborhoods in Durham are currently affected by extremely high rates of violent person incidents (aggravated assault and homicide) that are up to 7.5 times higher than Durham’s overall rate per capita of these crimes. Eight of these census tracts have experienced high rates of violence since the last community gang assessment was conducted in Durham. Violence exposure in these areas is exacerbated by extreme poverty and exposure to other social vulnerabilities that have remained mostly unchanged since 2014. Key finding 2: Why are youth in Durham joining gangs? What risk factors locally must be addressed to keep youth out of gangs? Young people in Durham experience an elevated level of exposure to risk factors for gang involvement, including substance use, delinquency, the presence of gangs in their neighborhood and at school, family gang involvement, victimization, and exposure to violence. This level of risk exposure is higher for youth who enter the juvenile justice system and highest for gang involved individuals. Key finding 3: What is keeping young people in gangs? What must be addressed to help gang-involved individuals exit gangs? Research indicates that young people who join gangs become disconnected from mainstream pursuits. Gang involved individuals in Durham have difficulty exiting gangs because of high rates of school dropout, unemployment/underemployment, substance use, gang activity in the neighborhood, and a need to replace the social and emotional needs currently met by their gang. Key finding 4: How is this issue affecting the wider community? What should motivate policymakers to address the problem? People who live and work in Durham experience the gang issue very differently depending on their role and location. In some neighborhoods, gangs are deeply imbedded in the neighborhood’s culture which plays a key role in the decision to join a gang in Durham. Other neighborhoods experience gang issues indirectly. However, surveys across constituency groups indicates that the widespread nature of gang activity and community violence in Durham reduces quality of life for residents across the community. Key finding 5: How well is the current response to gangs working? What should be done differently in the future? All constituency groups that participated in this study described low levels of satisfaction with the current response to gangs and identified specific deficits that have caused this dissatisfaction. These issues include a failure to address the underlying conditions that give rise to gangs, a lack of awareness about the current responses to gangs across constituency groups, lack of information about the results of current strategies, and concerns about criminal justice policies. Recommendations Recommendation 1: Implement intensive, place-based strategies to address underlying social conditions that increase the vulnerability of children and youth in the most violence affected census tracts to gang involvement Recommendation 2: Implement comprehensive, intensive, and neighborhood-based service delivery specifically for gang-involved individuals in the highest violence neighborhoods. Recommendation 3: Because of the elevated level of gang exposure/involvement and youth risk exposure locally, Durham policymakers should expand available gang prevention and intervention programming, localize these services in the most violence/gang affected census tracts, and prioritize these services for children and youth who are at the highest level of risk of involvement in violence and gangs Recommendation 4: More regularly collect and report data that reflects the progress of the community’s gang violence reduction efforts. Recommendation 5: Institute standardized performance measures to track reductions in violence and improve existing criminogenic social conditions at the census tract level and more regularly report the outcomes attained by gang prevention, intervention and desistance strategies to policymakers and the community at the census tract level.

Wake Forest, NC: Michelle Young Consulting, 2022. 257p.

By Ross Deuchar

This article explores the links between gangs, masculinity, religion, spirituality and desistance from an international perspective. It presents insights from life history interviews conducted with a small sample of 17 male reforming gang members in Denmark who had become immersed in a holistic spiritual intervention programme that foregrounded meditation, yoga and dynamic breathing techniques. Engagement with the programme enabled the men to begin to perform broader versions of masculinity, experience improved mental health and well-being and develop a greater commitment to criminal desistance. Links with religious and spiritual engagement are discussed, and policy implications for the UK gang context included.

Youth JusticeVolume 20, Issue 1-2, April-August 2020, Pages 113-127

By William J. Aceves

On the eve of the 1992 Los Angeles uprising, a small group of gang leaders and community activists drafted an agreement to curtail violence in south Los Angeles. Several gangs in Watts accepted the truce and established a cease-fire agreement. By most accounts, the 1992 Watts Gang Treaty succeeded in reducing gang violence in Los Angeles. Local activists attributed the reduction in shootings to the Treaty. Even law enforcement officials grudgingly recognized the Treaty’s contribution to reducing gang violence and a corresponding decrease in homicides. The origins of the Watts Gang Treaty can be traced to gang leaders recognizing that the devastating struggle between rival gangs was analogous to a military conflict—complete with “no-man’s land,” assault weapons, targeted killings, and civilian casualties—and, therefore, it required a diplomatic solution. Seeking inspiration from international conflict resolution efforts, gang members looked to the 1949 Armistice Agreement adopted by Egypt and Israel to end the Arab-Israeli War. The drafters of the Watts Gang Treaty mirrored the key provisions of the Armistice Agreement, including a cease-fire agreement and other confidence-building measures. The drafters then built a social movement to support the Treaty. This Article examines the origins, impact, and legacy of the Watts Gang Treaty. It also pursues a prescriptive agenda. It supports the study of hidden history that runs counter to the common narrative of power and privilege in the United States. Moreover, this Article argues that social movements can achieve meaningful change even in the face of poverty, violence, and structural racism.

Harvard Civil Rights- Civil Liberties Law Review (CR-CL), Vol. 57, 2022. 63p.

By The Council for Court Excellence

What follows is an edited transcript of a virtual public forum held on September 15, 2021, by the Council for Court Excellence (CCE) and the Office of the District of Columbia Auditor (ODCA), highlighting issues presented by the partial legalization of marijuana in the District of Columbia. This event was the last of four forums focused on timely criminal justice issues in the District. Each forum featured a panel of experts, local stakeholders and impacted individuals brought together to address barriers to effective policy, explore whether community needs are being addressed, and review options for action on each forum topic. Here we share the discussion from the fourth forum, “Confusion and Exclusion: Impacts of the Hazy State of D.C. Marijuana Legalization on People with Criminal Records,” focused on marijuana law and policy in D.C., the risks and barriers posed to people with criminal records, and the opportunities to transform our system moving forward. Participants provided thought-provoking commentary, constructive criticisms, and concrete policy proposals. The edited transcript allows readers to consider the nuances of each expert’s perspective and their real-time responses to one another’s ideas. Martin Austermuhle, a reporter and editor with WAMU 88.5 who frequently reports on the cannabis industry and local government, moderated the forum. The discussants included: • Queen Adesuyi, a policy manager at the Drug Policy Alliance; • Corey Barnette, owner and CEO of both District Growers LLC and Kinfolk Dispensary; • The Hon. David Grosso, a partner at Arent Fox LLP, previously served on the D.C. Council as an At-Large Member from 2013-2021 and was an early proponent of marijuana decriminalization; • Emily Gunston, Deputy Attorney General for Legislative Affairs and Policy for the D.C. Office of the Attorney General; and • Crystal Marshall, returning citizen and member of the Community Family Life Services Speakers Bureau. The panelists opened by discussing the history of cannabis law and policy in the District, and the jurisdictional issues presented by Congressional oversight. Each year since 2014, the House of Representatives has included a budget rider forbidding the D.C. Council from enacting any tax or regulatory structure related to recreational marijuana use, which has prevented the District from fully legalizing the sale of cannabis. D.C. is left in limbo: possession and private use of small amounts of marijuana are legal but purchasing and selling marijuana remain illegal. Plus, because the federal government controls D.C.’s pre-trial supervision, probation, parole, and supervised release, people under correctional supervision are still at risk of violating the terms for their supervision for legal use of cannabis. D.C. was one of the first jurisdictions in the United States to legalize medical marijuana use. Given the devastating impact of the “War on Drugs” on Black and Brown individuals, families, and communities, panelists noted that D.C. was at the forefront of social- and racial-justice oriented cannabis laws passed over the last 20 years. Panelists discussed the ways in which the District has prioritized Black and Brown people and communities in the medical cannabis industry including those who are patients and those who own, operate, and staff dispensaries. The discussants agreed that the racial equity goals of marijuana laws—to close wealth gaps among racial groups, to reinvest in those communities of color hit hardest by the “War on Drugs,” and to ultimately end discrimination in enforcement of drug laws more broadly—have not yet been met. Several panelists mentioned the necessity of a tax-and-regulate structure that would enable D.C. to collect proceeds from marijuana sales and, most importantly, reinvest those proceeds in social, educational, employment, and other programs to support members of historically marginalized Black and Brown communities. A particular focus of this discussion was the impact of D.C.’s perplexing marijuana laws on people in the District who have criminal records including marijuana-related charges. The panel described the personal toll that such confusion can take: it can lead those with criminal records to fear any interaction with cannabis, even interactions that are legal in D.C., because of the potential an arrest or conviction poses to their housing, employment, or immigration status. The disproportionately Black and poor District residents with criminal records are also prohibited under the current law from participating in the medical cannabis industry, depriving them of the opportunity to capitalize on economic benefits that other D.C. residents are free to pursue. Panelists also discussed the ways in which the Metropolitan Police Department’s enforcement of the complicated laws can impact crime, safety, and the economy. Participants cited cause for optimism, however, and shared their views on proposed legislation that would change the status of legal cannabis in D.C.: the MORE Act and the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act in Congress, and two bills proposed by Mayor Muriel Bowser and by Chairman Phil Mendelson of the D.C. Council. The panelists agreed that any new law should prioritize investment in Black and Brown communities and preserve the robust medical marijuana industry that has grown in D.C. Specific suggestions included removing the Congressional rider on the D.C. budget; establishing designated “use sites” for those in public housing or other housing that prohibits marijuana use; granting special business licenses to individuals who were directly harmed by the War on Drugs; funding industry training specifically for people with criminal records; and reframing marijuana as a medical and recreational aid, rather than a vice. The bibliography provides further reading on marijuana law and policy, local control of the District’s criminal justice system, the impacts of both on people with criminal records, and other issues discussed throughout the forum. Biographies of the discussants are also included at the end of this report. Finally, a full video of the panel can be found at: https://youtu.be/uFV6SNeuHv0. The transcript in this report has been lightly edited for length and clarity

Washington, DC: Office of the DC Auditor, 2021. 40p.

By John Woodhouse

There is no general prohibition on drinking in the street but certain offences relating to alcohol may be committed in “public places” (this generally means “any place to which the public have access, whether on payment or otherwise” (the Licensing Act 1872 and subsequent Licensing Acts)).

Councils can use public spaces protection orders to restrict the consumption of alcohol in a public space where it is associated with anti-social behaviour. It is an offence to fail to comply with a request to stop drinking or to surrender alcohol in a controlled drinking area.

The police can disperse individuals engaged in anti-social behaviour where alcohol is a factor. It is an offence to fail to comply with a direction to leave an area.

Other offences include being drunk and disorderly in a public place and being drunk in any highway or other public place. This Briefing refers to the law in England and Wales.

Research Briefing. London: UK House of Commons, 2023. 11p.

By Stephen Whitehead, Sarah Page, Hannah Jeffery, and Fiona McCormack

Women who use drugs and alcohol have different needs than men. They face greater stigma, are more likely to carry the trauma of domestic abuse and are more likely to be caring for children. All of this taken together means that they may struggle to achieve recovery in a treatment system where they are outnumbered by men two to one.

This research set out to expand the evidence base on the needs of women who use drugs and alcohol and the ways that those needs are currently being met through a qualitative research project focused on the West Midlands, commissioned by The JABBS Foundation and the Office of the West Midlands Police and Crime Commissioner.

London: Centre for Justice Innovation, 2023. 45p.

By Ashna Arora and Panka Bencsik

In the United States, law enforcement officers serve as first responders to most health crises, allowing them to connect many more individuals to treatment services than other government actors, a fact that has come into increasing focus due to the opioid epidemic. In response, police departments across the country have begun to divert individuals that possess narcotics away from arrest and towards treatment and recovery. Evidence on whether these programs are able to engender meaningful change—initially by increasing participation in substance use treatment, and eventually by reducing the likelihood of continued drug use and criminal justice involvement—remains limited. This paper aims to shed light on the potential of these programs by exploiting the eligibility criteria for and staggered rollout of narcotics arrest diversion in Chicago between 2018 and 2020 using a difference-indifference-in-differences framework. We find that the program reaches individuals with medically diagnosed substance use disorders, increases connections with substance use treatment, and reduces subsequent arrests. We conclude that Chicago’s drug diversion program is able to simultaneously reduce the reach of the criminal justice system, expand the number of individuals with substance use disorders connected with treatment, and improve public safety.

Chicago: University of Chicago, Crime Lab, 2021. 38p.

By Irwin, Véronique; Wang, Ke; Cui, Jiashan; Thompson, Alexandra (Statistician)

From the document: "'Report on Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2022' provides the most recent national indicators on school crime and safety. The information presented in this report serves as a reference for policymakers and practitioners so that they can develop effective programs and policies aimed at violence and school crime prevention. Accurate information about the nature, extent, and scope of the problem being addressed is essential for developing effective programs and policies. This is the 25th edition of Indicators of School Crime and Safety, a joint effort of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). This report provides summary statistics to inform the nation about current aspects of crime and safety in schools. 'Report on Indicators of School Crime and Safety' includes the most recent available data at the time of its development, compiled from a number of statistical data sources supported by the federal government. Such sources include results from the School-Associated Violent Death Surveillance System, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); the National Vital Statistics System, sponsored by CDC; the School Shooting Safety Compendium, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Defense; the Studies of Active Shooter Incidents, sponsored by the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the National Crime Victimization Survey and School Crime Supplement to that survey, sponsored by BJS and NCES, respectively; the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System, sponsored by CDC; the School Survey on Crime and Safety, Fast Response Survey System, ED'Facts', and National Teacher and Principal Survey, all sponsored by NCES; and the Campus Safety and Security Survey, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education. Some of these data are collected annually, while others are collected less frequently."

Washington D.D. National Center For Education Statistics; United States. Bureau Of Justice Statistics. 2023.. 38p.