By Crest Advisory with RSM UK Consulting

Economic growth is the number one mission of the Government in the UK, seeking to restore stability, increase investment and reform the economy to improve productivity, prosperity, and living standards. This commitment has been made in the context of a sustained period of economic stagnation, throughout which there has been an ongoing conversation as to whether the right levers are being pulled to achieve economic growth. The Office of the Chief Scientific Adviser for the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) commissioned us to understand the role of policing as a lever - our research seeks to collate existing evidence as well as identify where there are opportunities to develop this evidence in the future. This research also falls within the wider discussion on police funding, police productivity and police reform which is particularly relevant given that the Home Office will be looking to find savings ahead of this year’s spending review as an unprotected government department, ongoing debate about the police funding formula and growing financial pressures on police forces. Science and technology has a significant role to play in police efficiency and effectiveness, but also growth. The NPCC’s Science and Technology Strategy sets a clear ambition for policing “to deliver the most science and technology led police service in the world”. Often, our understanding of policing impact is focused on implementation and public safety outcomes, but economic outcomes have the potential to shift the narrative in terms of how we define an effective and efficient police response. Our work, in partnership with RSM UK Consulting, has sought to understand the evidence between policing and economic outcomes, from which we have produced a logic model to understand these relationships (a logic model conceptualises the links between activities and key outcomes). While we have not been able to estimate the scale of impact of UK policing on economic growth, we hope this logic model can act as a framework for partners to use to further develop the evidence base around the impact of policing on economic outcomes, specifically designing evaluations with these outcomes in mind. In time, this evidence may begin to change how we understand the positive impact of policing on individuals, businesses and communities in England and Wales - with the potential for positive economic outcomes influencing future decisions on funding allocations and commitments to specific policing initiatives and operational interventions. Furthermore, growth could sit alongside efficiency and effectiveness as key metrics for success in policing.

London: Crest Advisory, 2025. 69p.

By Justice

1. Artificial intelligence (“AI”) is rapidly reshaping public services, and policing is no exception. The pace of innovation, the scale of private sector investment, and the UK Government’s explicit ambition to “mainline AI into the veins of the nation” mean that AI deployment in policing is not a distant prospect but an accelerating reality. This brings significant opportunities: enhanced investigative capability, faster processing of digital evidence, improved risk assessment, and the potential to intervene earlier to prevent harm. Yet it also carries profound risks for human rights, the rule of law, and public trust. The police occupy a uniquely powerful position in our democratic society; integrating AI into that environment without the right safeguards risks entrenching discrimination, undermining lawful decision making, and eroding communities’ confidence in policing2. This report asks a central question: what must be in place for AI in policing to be trustworthy, value for money, effective in achieving policing goals, and compliant with human rights and the fair administration of justice? To answer this, JUSTICE carried out international research, examined domestic developments, and convened stakeholders across policing, government, civil society, regulators, academia, and industry. Across this work, five lessons emerged, each of which signals not only what must be done, but the urgency of acting now while the UK remains at a crossroads.

London: Justice, 2025. 62p.

By Jaclyn Kelley-Widmer and  Alisa Whitfield

Immigrants held in United States detention centers experience a de facto denial of their right to access to counsel. The 38,000 immigrants detained each day are largely held in remote facilities, where they experience extremely poor—often abusive—conditions; the inability to contact counsel or prepare their cases; and a legal framework that is stacked against them. Many scholars have studied the overlapping challenges detained immigrants face in a hostile regime and have proposed solutions ranging from ending immigration prison to providing universal representation for all those detained to revising legal rationales for detention. These ideas are good ones. However, as we work towards such goals, tens of thousands remain detained with little recourse. As a partial way to bridge that gap, we argue for a transformative, collaborative model of access to justice that focuses on community empowerment and combines the work of organizers, attorneys, and law students in clinics.

 This article uniquely blends both theory and practical perspectives to advance a theory of abolition-minded provision of legal services in detention. First, we explore the legal right of access to counsel for detained immigrants, with an overview of Constitutional and international human rights models. We then examine the severe barriers to this counsel that immigration detention creates. We then use theories of abolition and legal pedagogy to explore an innovative and critical model for expanding justice in immigration detention. We propose primary goals of increasing access to counsel, empowering communities, and supporting organizing to work towards the end of immigration detention.

 This article was inspired by our experiences representing detained immigrants in a clinical setting, with law students, and in coalition with agencies and organizers working on the ground. Through examples, stories, and even photographs, we weave in insights from this ongoing collaborative project to advance a framework for bridging the immigration detention justice gap.

Cornell Legal Studies Research Paper 25-18, 2024

By Vasiliki Georgoulas-Sherry & Hanna Hernandez

Data is needed to understand and assess the demographic differences—and at times, disparities and disproportionalities—in how the criminal justice system serves our communities and administers justice. Understanding these disparities and disproportionality in the criminal justice system is crucial for addressing systemic inequities. Disparities and disproportionalities within the criminal justice system are present in all stages of the criminal justice system, from arrest to incarceration (Brame et al., 2014; Kim & Kiesel, 2018; Kovera, 2019; Monk, 2019). This topic continues to draw significant attention from a variety of resources such as local, state, and federal government agencies, advocacy groups, policymakers and lawmakers, researchers and scholars, and the community. Evaluating these disparities and disproportionality is critical for addressing systemic inequalities and promoting fairness in the administration of justice. To respond to these impacts, the Criminal Justice Research & Statistics Center. the Washington Statistical Analysis Center (SAC) applied for and received the 2023 State Justice Statistics (SJS) grant from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) to assess this work. Through the use of publicly available data from the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) to evaluate sex and racial disparities and disproportionalities, this report, which is part of a series of NIBRS reports, will endeavor to better understand more about the different demographic groups that are most impacted, and how these trends vary by time. Furthermore, this report will assess the demographic differences in the presence of injury, the presence of bias motivation, the use of weapons and/ or force, and the presence of familiarity in victimization in NIBRS crimes against property (i.e., criminal acts that destroy or deprive another's property against the owner's will - generally considered less serious than crimes against persons, but they can still be felonies).

Olympia: Washington State Statistical Analysis Center, 2024. 74p.

By Siobhan Lawler

As gatekeepers to restorative justice (RJ) programs for domestic and family violence (DFV) and sexual violence, stakeholders in referring agencies perform the critical role of assessing the suitability of cases for entry into these programs. This article draws on interviews with 47 stakeholders in an RJ program for DFV and sexual violence in the Australian Capital Territory to better understand stakeholder decision-making about referrals. Findings show stakeholders’ decisions around which matters to refer to RJ centre on assessments of victim‑survivors’ safety and offender accountability. Many stakeholders are risk averse when deciding whether to make a referral, which may inadvertently reduce opportunities for victim-survivors to benefit and achieve their justice goals.

Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice no. 707, Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. 2025. 15p.