By Jesús Gorrín,  José Morales-Arilla , Bernardo Ricca

This paper documents how violence resulting from the Mexican Drug War hindered local export growth. Focusing on exports allows us to abstract from demand factors and measure effects on the local capacity to supply foreign markets. We compare exports of the same product to the same country, but facing differential exposure to violence after a close electoral outcome. Firms exogenously exposed to the Drug War experienced lower export growth. Violence eroded the local capacity to attract capital investment, disproportionately hampering large exporters and capital-intensive activities

2021. 60p.

By Ania Moroz and Tamar Dinisman

“Looking back now, I wouldn’t have gone to the police, because it is one of the hardest things you can ever do in your whole life. I can’t even sum up in words what it does to you mentally and physically. You can be the world’s strongest person ever in the world, but going to court can break you. It’s awful.” Victim-survivor It is estimated that 1 in 4 women and 1 in 18 men have been subjected to some form of sexual violence since the age of 16 and that 1 in 6 children have been sexually abused.1 The majority of victim-survivors will not report the offence to the police. Of those who do report it, a very low proportion will receive a charge and have their case go to court. The number of victim-survivors of sexual violence who give evidence in trial is not openly available. Nevertheless, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) data shows that in the year ending June 2023, 11,506 defendants were proceeded against for sexual offences2 and, in 2022–23, 3,004 defendants were charged with rape-related offences.3 This report focuses on the experience of sexual violence victim-survivors where the defendant has been charged and their case has gone through the court process. It focuses on the three main stages of this experience – before, during and after giving evidence – and highlights the main challenges victim-survivors face at each stage. This report also makes recommendations for changes in policy and practice to address these challenges. To meet the aims of the research, a multimethod approach, combining qualitative and quantitative methods, was used. These include: 12 semi-structured interviews with victim survivors; focus groups and interviews with Victim Support sexual violence practitioners; and Victim Support sexual violence cases analysis.

Cardiff: Victim Support, 2024. 63p.  

By Ania Moroz and Tamar Dinisman 

“Looking back now, I wouldn’t have gone to the police, because it is one of the hardest things you can ever do in your whole life. I can’t even sum up in words what it does to you mentally and physically. You can be the world’s strongest person ever in the world, but going to court can break you. It’s awful.” Victim-survivor It is estimated that 1 in 4 women and 1 in 18 men have been subjected to some form of sexual violence since the age of 16 and that 1 in 6 children have been sexually abused.1 The majority of victim-survivors will not report the offense to the police. Of those who do report it, a very low proportion will receive a charge and have their case go to court. The number of victim-survivors of sexual violence who give evidence in the trial is not openly available. Nevertheless, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) data shows that in the year ending June 2023, 11,506 defendants were proceeded against for sexual offences2, and, in 2022–23, 3,004 defendants were charged with rape-related offenses.3 This report focuses on the experience of sexual violence victim-survivors where the defendant has been charged and their case has gone through the court process. It focuses on the three main stages of this experience – before, during, and after giving evidence – and highlights the main challenges victim-survivors face at each stage. This report also makes recommendations for changes in policy and practice to address these challenges. To meet the aims of the research, a multimethod approach, combining qualitative and quantitative methods, was used. These include 12 semi-structured interviews with victim-survivors; focus groups and interviews with Victim Support sexual violence practitioners; and Victim Support sexual violence cases analysis.

Cardiff::Victim Support, 2024.   

By Malore Dusenbery, Josh Fording, Jennifer Yahner, Jeanette Hussemann, Robbie Dembo

Victim compensation programs provide financial assistance to cover out-of-pocket expenses associated with the financial, physical, and psychological burdens of victimization. From 2022 to 2024, the Urban Institute and NORC at the University of Chicago conducted a National Study of Victim Compensation Program Trends, Challenges, and Successes, which included evaluations of four state crime victim compensation programs. This brief summarizes our evaluation of West Virginia’s victim compensation program to understand its utilization and perspectives on its ability to meet victims’ needs.We conclude that the West Virginia compensation program is connected to providers in the community and provides valuable benefits to victims in a mostly efficient, effective, and comprehensive way. Its being located in the legislature allows for independence and strong legislative support, but perhaps less connection to providers. It benefits from adequate funding and wants to ensure that continues and is not affected by external changes. Program staff and assistance providers note great improvement in awareness of the program since staffing an outreach coordinator. The number of staff and staff retention, however, continue to be a challenge for the program.Our analysis found some disparities in the data related to race and gender, which may be partially attributable to differences in the crimes experienced and reported by gender and by racial group and coverage by the state’s Medicaid system. Future research could dive deeper into these findings to better understand these patterns and the role the compensation program can play in improving access and success for diverse groups.Many of these findings and recommendations align with those emerging nationally in conversations about how to improve victim compensation programs. We are grateful that programs such as West Virginia’s remain open to evaluation and eager to understand how to continue expanding and improving their accessibility, responsiveness, and coverage to provide meaningful benefits to victims.

Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 2024. 21p.

By Yanwen Wang, Jacquelyn Gilbreath , Lynne Mock

While drug crime-related criminal legal system and victim costs reached $113 billion across the United States in 2007, just $14.6 billion was spent on treating substance use disorder (National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2014). Due, in part, to drug crimes, many U.S. citizens are under correctional supervision, with 1 in 66 adults being on probation or parole in 2020 (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2021). In Illinois, 67,587 individuals were on probation in 2020 (Administrative Offices of the Illinois Courts, 2021) and 26,426 were on parole (Illinois Department of Corrections, 2020). The supervision population rate of substance use is estimated to be two to three times higher than that of the general population, with nearly half of the people under community supervision having a substance use disorder (PEW Charitable Trusts, 2018). The Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority’s Adult Redeploy Illinois (ARI) program was established by the Crime Reduction Act of 2009 to provide financial incentives to local jurisdictions for programs that divert justice-involved individuals from state prisons by providing community-based supervision and individualized services. While researchers have evaluated ARI, models used in some jurisdictions (DeLong & Reichert, 2016; Kroner, et al., 2021; Mock et al., 2017; Reichert et al., 2016), research on ARI client outcomes related to the impact of drug testing is limited. The research goals for this study included: • Quantitatively examining all local ARI program drug test data, including tested drugs, drug test frequencies, and drug test results. • Systematically examining how ARI drug testing contributes to the possibility of revocation including other factors such as age, sex, and race. • Proposing recommendations for better program practice to reduce the rate of revocation. This study sought to answer the following research questions: 1. How is drug testing being practiced and observed in ARI in terms of its frequency, pass rates, and tested drugs? 2. Does drug testing have a significant impact on ARI participant outcomes when controlling for demographic variables? The study included 53,159 records of 1,055 individuals collected from October 3, 2011, to June 20, 2019. The median number of drug tests per individual was 19, and the median of the average days between drug tests was 10 days. The most frequently tested drugs also had the highest positive results: heroin (32%), marijuana/THC (30%), cocaine/crack (14%), alcohol (10%), and other opiates (8%). Logistic regression analyses were used to determine what demographic, drug testing, and criminal justice variables predicted program outcomes of completion or revocation. Among the demographic variables, only age predicted program outcomes. Neither sex nor race emerged as significant program outcome predictors. Drug test positivity rates predicted revocation, as well as drug test frequency (number of times an individual was tested) and average number of days between the drug tests. i Overall, the average drug positivity rate was 29% and most tests were passed with no drug found. Most successful clients who were older women at medium to medium-high recidivism risk and whom tested monthly with lower test positivity rates. Those most likely to experience program revocation were younger men who tested several times per month with higher test positivity rates during their program tenure. Graphing the programs by test positivity, number of tests, and frequency of tests suggests that individuals enrolled in some programs had higher test positivity rates (>50%) and were subject to less frequent drug tests than other programs. This study focuses on drug test outcomes, however, it also would be worth exploring data on drug testing rewards, sanctions, and requirements for program completion and their impacts on program outcomes.   

Chicago:  Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority., 2022. 33p 

By Tara Wheeler, Julia Bergeron-Smith, George Shaler, Lisa Sampson

Sex offender recidivism data can be difficult to comprehend, especially when conducting research across states. For example, sex offenders can be categorized in numerous ways: by the type of crime committed (e.g., rape, assault, exhibitionism), by offense severity, by victim age (adult or child). Likewise, recidivism definitions (e.g., rearrest, reconviction, or reincarceration) and timeframes (e.g., one-year, two-year, or three-years following release) can vary across local, state, and federal agencies. Thus, there is no single measure systemically used across jurisdictions. Recognizing the public’s concerns about sex offender recidivism, the Maine and Massachusetts Statistical Analysis Centers (SACs), proposed and received funding for a retrospective sex offender recidivism study through the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice. This collaboration marks the first time either state has undertaken this type of study. This project studied the recidivism rates of Maine sex offenders who were released from prison between 2005 and 2019 and Massachusetts sex offenders released between 2009 and 2018. In total, the Massachusetts cohort was composed of 1,210 offenders and the Maine study of 905 offenders. Criminal history records were obtained for each offender from their respective states to determine whether the offender recidivated (i.e., committed post-release offenses that resulted in a conviction). To be included in the recidivism portion of this study, there must have been at least a five-year window between the time of release and the time the criminal history data was pulled. Overall, 880 offenders were included in the Massachusetts recidivism analysis and 661 in the Maine recidivism analysis. A primary interest area was to determine whether recidivism rates differed by offense severity (i.e., rape or non-rape) and victim age (i.e., child or adult), however, these two groupings are not entirely separate from one another— while rape is considered more severe than other types of sex offenses, crimes against children are also deemed to be more egregious than crimes against adults. Therefore, an offender typology—based on the original sex offenses associated with the commitment and subsequent release—was created that incorporates both victim type and offense severity. The first, and most severe, category is child rapist, which includes all offenders who committed a child rape offense, followed by the rapist category, which includes all other offenders who committed a rape offense. Next is child predator and is used for those who committed a sex offense against a child but did not commit a rape offense. Last, is the other category and captures those who did not fall within one of the prior three categories. To gain a better understanding of recidivism among the sex offender population, survival analysis (specifically, the Cox Proportional Hazards regression method) was conducted to determine which offender characteristics, if any, influenced recidivism rates. Using this approach, researchers were able to control for other known attributes. The attributes tested in this study were: • offender type • severity of sex offense(s) (Maine only) • number of sex offense(s) • commitment length (Maine only) • release type (supervision or discharge) • security level of facility offender was released from (Massachusetts only) • release age Key Findings • Age at earliest sex offense associated with commitment varied by offender type for both Maine and Massachusetts. Interestingly, child predators had a mean age that was statistically higher than that of rapists and child rapists. o In Massachusetts, the average offense age of child predators was 36.6 years old, which was significantly higher than the offense age of rapists (31.1 years old) and child rapists (33.9 years old). o For Maine, child predators were, on average, 35.0 years old at the time of their earliest sex offense associated with commitment, compared to 30.4 years old for child rapists and 31.1 years old for rapists. • Maine’s five-year recidivism rate (43%) was much higher than the Massachusetts five year recidivism rate (25%). While there are numerous potential scenarios that could explain the differences in recidivism rates, it is important to note that each state has its own criminal laws and procedures that, in turn, impacts the underlying study population and their recidivism rates. For instance, an offense that resulted in commitment to state prison in Maine might result in a county jail commitment for Massachusetts. Therefore, caution should be taken when making comparisons between the two states. • Offender type, severity of sex offense, and release age were found to be associated with Maine recidivism rates. When coupled with release age, release type was also found to have an influence on recidivism rates. Holding all other attributes constant: o Individuals whose most severe sex offense was a misdemeanor are expected to recidivate at a rate 45% higher than those with a felony level offense. o ‘Other’ type offenders (those whose offenses fell short of rape and did not target children) have an expected recidivism rate 45% higher than offenders who committed sex offenses against children (child predators and child rapists) o Age at release, both by itself and as an interaction with release type, is associated with recidivism rates. For every 10-year increase in age at release, the predicted recidivism rate decreased by 21%. However, for offenders who were released to supervision, the hazard rate decreases even further, with supervised offenders having a 38% decrease in risk for every 10-year increase of age at release. • Of the attributes tested, offender type, release type, release level, and release age were found to be associated with Massachusetts recidivism rates. Holding all other attributes constant: o Offenders released from a maximum-security level facility are predicted to recidivate at a rate 2.4 times higher than that of offenders released from a medium security level facility or lower. o ‘Other’ type sex offenders are predicted to recidivate at a rate 115% higher than those who committed child-based sex offenses (child predators and child rapists). Meanwhile, non-child rape offenders are expected to recidivate at a rate 58% higher than child offenders. o Discharged offenders released without supervision have an expected recidivism rate 61% higher than offenders who were supervised following release. o For every 10-year increase in age, the recidivism rate is expected to decrease by 37%.    

 Portland:  Maine Statistical Analysis Center;   Massachusetts Statistical Analysis Center, 2023. 50p.

By Jeanette Hussemann; Malore Dusenbery; Jeanette Hussemann; Malore Dusenbery; Jennifer Yahner; Robbie Dembo; Elena Navarro; Genevieve Citrin Ray; Joshua Fording

This document lays out the research goals, methods, and findings of a research study that sought to update knowledge about victim compensation programs by administering a survey to victim compensation program administrators in each state, and by partnering with four states to perform a deep-dive assessment of their programs to examine how different programs operate and distribute compensation. It also includes a bibliography of sources cited and five appendixes: Comparison of National Survey of Victim Compensation Administrators, 2003 and 2023; National Survey of Victim Compensation Administrators; Victim Compensation Claimant Survey; Interview Questionnaire for Victim Compensation Staff; and Interview Questionnaire for Community- and Legal System-Based Victim Assistance Providers. Chicago: NORC at the 

University of Chicago and Washington DC:: Urban Institute, 2024. 101p.

By Julia Tolmie, Rachel Smith, and Denise Wilson

How intimate partner violence (IPV) is conceptualized affects what we see when we look at situations involving IPV and what we think the solutions to the problem of IPV are—either in individual cases or in the development of broader legal and policy responses. In this article, it is suggested that while conceptualizing IPV as coercive control is an improvement over previous understandings, it does not go far enough. Coercive control must be located within a broader conceptualization of IPV as a form of social and systemic entrapment if it is not to operate in a harmful manner for victim-survivors.

Violence Against WomenVolume 30, Issue 1, January 2024, Pages 54-74