By Jonathan Klick and John MacDonald

Objectives This study examines the impact of alcohol consumption in a Major League Baseball (MLB) stadium on area level counts of crime. The modal practice at MLB stadiums is to stop selling alcoholic beverages after the seventh inning. Baseball is not a timed game, so the duration between the last call for alcohol at the end of the seventh inning and the end of the game varies considerably, providing a unique natural experiment to estimate the relationship between alcohol consumption and crime near a stadium on game days. Methods Crime data were obtained from Philadelphia for the period 2006–2015 and geocoded to the area around the MLB stadium as well as popular sports bars. We rely on difference-in-differences regression models to estimate the change in crime on home game days around the stadium as the game time extends into extra innings to other areas of the city and around sports bars in Philadelphia relative to days when the baseball team plays away from home. Results When there are extra innings and more game-time after the seventh inning alcohol sales stoppage crime declines signifcantly around the stadium. The crime reduction beneft of the last call alcohol policy is undone when a complex of sports bars opens in the stadium parking lot in 2012. The results suggest that alcohol consumption during baseball games is a contributor to crime. Conclusions The fndings provide further support for environmental theories of crime that note the congregation of people in places with excessive alcohol consumption is a generator of violent crime in cities. The consumption of alcohol in MLB stadiums appears to increase crime.

Journal of Quantitative Criminology (2021) 37:813–834

By A. Bukten , I. Skjærvø , M.R. Stavseth

Introduction: Despite a high prevalence of opioid use disorder (OUD) among people in prison, there is little knowledge of how many receive the recommended opioid agonist treatment (OAT) and what characterizes those who receive OAT and those who do not when it comes to mental health comorbidities. We aimed to describe people with OUD in Norwegian prisons over a ten-year period and their OAT status, and to investigate comorbidity of mental health disorders stratified by gender.

Methods: Data from the PriSUD study, including all people (≥19 years old) imprisoned in Norway between 2010 and 2019, linked to national patient registry data, including ICD-10 codes. We calculated the prevalence (1-year and 10-year) of OUD and OAT, and mental health comorbidity stratified on OAT-status and gender.

Results: Among the cohort (n=51,148), 7 282 (14.2%) were diagnosed with OUD during the period of observation. Of those, 4 689 (64.4%) received OAT. People with OUD had high levels of comorbidity, including other drug use disorders (92.4% OAT, 90.3% non-OAT), alcohol use disorder (32.1% OAT, 44.4% non-OAT) and any other mental health disorders (61.6% OAT, 68.2% non-OAT). The proportion receiving OAT among people with OUD increased markedly during the ten years of observation; from 35.7% in 2010–70.9% in 2019.

Conclusion. People with OUD, both receiving OAT and not, had substantially more mental health comorbidities than the non-OUD population. Understanding how the prison population changes over time especially in terms of mental health needs related to OUD, is important for correctional health service planning.

Drug and Alcohol Dependence. Volume 250, 1 September 2023, 110896

By Jon E. Zibbell , Arnie Aldridge, Megan Grabenauer , David Heller , Sarah Duhart Clarke, , DeMia Pressley, Hope Smiley McDonald

Summary Background The overdose epidemic in the United States (US) continues to generate unprecedented levels of mortality. There is urgent need for a national data system capable of yielding high-quality, timely, and actionable information on existing and emerging drugs. Public health researchers have started using law enforcement forensic laboratory data to obtain surveillance information on illicit drugs. This study is the first to use drug reports from the entire US to examine correlations between a changing drug supply and increasing opioid-involved overdose deaths (OOD) on a national scale. Methods This study is observational and investigates associations between law enforcement drug reports and OOD for the US from 2014 to 2019. OOD data are from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Vital Statistics System restricted-use multiple cause of death files. The US Drug Enforcement Administration’s National Forensic Laboratory Information System (NFLIS) contains forensic laboratory–tested drug exhibit information for the entire US (NFLIS-Drug). Counts of forensic laboratory reports and OOD were aggregated for each state by month, quarter, and year. A two-way fixed effects model was used to estimate contemporaneous and lagged associations. Findings Between 2014 and 2019 in the US, 249,522 OOD were reported, with the annual number nearly doubling from 28,723 to 50,179. OOD involving illicitly manufactured fentanyls (IMF) also increased substantially during this period, from 19.4% to 72.9%. In addition, 3,817,438 forensic laboratory reports in the US that were reported to NFLIS-Drug contained an opioid, stimulant, or benzodiazepine. Reports of fentanyl and fentanyl-related compounds (FFRC) had the strongest association with OOD. Each additional FFRC exhibit was associated with a 2.97% (95% CI: 1.7%, 4.1%) increase in OOD per 100,000 persons per quarter. Interpretation Adding to the emerging consensus, protracted growth in IMF supply was more strongly associated with OOD than all other illicit drugs reported to NFLIS-Drug over the study time period. Findings demonstrate NFLIS-Drug data usefulness for research that require proxy indicators for the illicit drugs supply. A concerted effort between public health and public safety to make NFLIS-Drug more timely could strengthen its utility as a national, public health, drug surveillance system.

The Lancet Regional Health - Americas. Volume 25, September 2023, 100569

By Paul J. Larkin

The raw, agricultural form of cannabis is not capable of being approved for use by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)—regardless of whether Congress or the U.S. Attorney General reschedules it downward from Schedule I. Rescheduling cannabis would not allow the drug to be distributed under federal law unless the FDA finds that it is a safe, effective, and uniform drug. The FDA could not do so under existing law, and the Attorney General cannot waive the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act’s requirements. Congress could do so by statute—but any such law would put at risk the health of users and nonusers in order to satisfy the desires of a minority for a transient high.

Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation, 2023. 57p.

By the United States Government Accountability Office; Triana McNeil

Since 1999, more than 800,000 people have died from a drug overdose in the United States, with over 86,000 occurring during the 12-month period ending in July 2020, according to the most recent provisional data available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics. In recent years, some states have enacted Good Samaritan and Naloxone Access laws to help reduce overdose deaths and respond to opioid overdoses. The Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016 included a provision for GAO to review these laws. This report addresses the following: (1) the efforts ONDCP has taken to collect and disseminate information on Good Samaritan and Naloxone Access laws, (2) the extent to which states, territories, and D.C. have these laws and the characteristics of them, and (3) what research indicates concerning the effects of Good Samaritan laws. To answer these questions, GAO collected and reviewed ONDCP documents and interviewed agency officials. GAO also reviewed and analyzed selected characteristics of jurisdictions’ Good Samaritan and Naloxone Access laws. Further, GAO conducted a literature review of empirical studies published from 2010 through May 2020 that examined the effects of Good Samaritan laws. GAO provided a draft of this report to ONDCP for comments. ONDCP provided technical comments which we incorporated, as appropriate.

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2021. 57p.

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 Jan van Amsterdam , Wim van den Brink

It is generally believed that the use of alcohol and cocaine alone and especially in combination elicits aggression and violent behaviour. Though there is overwhelming proof that heavy alcohol use is associated with violence, this is not the case for cocaine. Still, in the popular press and by spokesmen of the police, cocaine use is seen as a cause of violent incidents. In the current systematic review, available data from human studies on the relation between cocaine and violent behaviour is presented. In particular, we present scientific data on the acute induction of violence by cocaine alone, as well as, that by the combination of cocaine and alcohol known to be frequently used simultaneously.

Results: show that there is only weak scientific evidence for the acute induction of violent behaviour by cocaine, either when used alone or in combination with alcohol. Based on these data we were also able to refute misconceptions about the relation between cocaine and violence published in the popular press and governmental reports, because it appeared that there was hardly any empirical support for this widely shared opinion. Probably, contextual factors, including cocaine use disorder and personality disorder, may better explain the assumed association between cocaine and violence.

Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine. Volume 100, November 2023, 102597

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 The National Audit Office (NAO) (UK)

The distribution, sale and consumption of illegal drugs causes significant harm to individuals, families and communities. In 2021, almost 3,000 people in England died because of drug misuse and thousands more suffered complex health problems. The government also estimated that around three million people in England and Wales take illegal drugs at a cost to society of approximately £20 billion a year. The drugs trade generates significant levels of violence and is believed to be responsible for around half of all murders in England and Wales.

Tackling the problems caused by illegal drugs is complex. It involves disrupting the organised gangs which supply and distribute drugs, and providing effective treatment and recovery services to help people with addictions. The government announced a £900 million increase in funding for 2022-23 to 2024-25 and committed to long-term targets to reduce drug use and drug-related crime and deaths. The government established the cross-government Joint Combating Drugs Unit (JCDU) to co-ordinate and oversee the development and implementation of the strategy.

t is almost two years since the government introduced its latest drugs strategy and less than 18 months remain in the current funding period to March 2025. This report examines whether the government is well positioned to achieve the strategy’s 10-year ambitions. It covers:

the development of the 2021 drugs strategy, its objectives and funding

progress in implementing the strategy

the approach to achieving the strategy’s long-term outcomes

It is too early to conclude whether the 2021 strategy will reduce the harm from illegal drugs. It will take time for new funding and interventions to address a complex set of issues, and many of the indicators used to measure progress lag behind activity. This report therefore assesses whether departments are making the planned progress in implementing the strategy, and whether the JCDU has an effective approach to understanding the impact it is having and managing the risks to achieving the strategy’s aims. It does not examine the effectiveness of interventions at the local level.

Conclusions

In 2021 the government estimated that the harm caused by illegal drugs costs society £20 billion each year. Its 2021 drugs strategy, led by the cross-government Joint Combating Drugs Unit, has provided new impetus to efforts to address these harms, and committed £900 million to 2024-25.

The strategy has established new partnerships across central and local government, and local authorities are taking steps to rebuild the workforce that was lost over the past decade. But these measures alone will not address all of the barriers to achieving a long-term reduction in drug use, deaths and related crime. The issues are complex and will require a sustained long-term response.

To inform government’s response, the JCDU and relevant departments need to develop a deeper understanding of the impacts of government spending, working closely with local service providers to understand and help address the practical challenges they face. The JCDU and departments need to be realistic about what is achievable in the first three years and assess how to adapt their approach to achieve the strategy’s 10-year outcomes.

In doing so, the JCDU should seek to provide confidence to local government: that this is a long-term commitment. It must also urgently develop a plan to reduce the demand for illegal drugs. The current lack of emphasis on preventing illegal drug use means that departments risk only addressing the consequences, rather than the causes, of harm. The government will only achieve value for money if it builds on the initial momentum of the new strategy and develops a longer-term, funded plan that delivers a joined-up, holistic response.

London: The National Audit Office (NAO), 2023. 56p.

By Matthew P. J. Ashby

The COVID-19 pandemic led to substantial changes in the daily activities of millions of Americans, with many businesses and schools closed, public events cancelled and states introducing stay-at-home orders. This article used police-recorded open crime data to understand how the frequency of common types of crime changed in 16 large cities across the United States in the early months of 2020. Seasonal auto-regressive integrated moving average (SARIMA) models of crime in previous years were used to forecast the expected frequency of crime in 2020 in the absence of the pandemic. The forecasts from these models were then compared to the actual frequency of crime during the early months of the pandemic. There were no significant changes in the frequency of serious assaults in public or (contrary to the concerns of policy makers) any change to the frequency of serious assaults in residences. In some cities, there were reductions in residential burglary but little change in non-residential burglary. Thefts of motor vehicles decreased in some cities while there were diverging patterns of thefts from motor vehicles. These results are used to make suggestions for future research into the relationships between the coronavirus pandemic and different crimes.

Crime Science 2020 9:6

By Eric Halford, Anthony Dixon, Graham Farrell, Nicolas Malleson and Nick Tilley

Governments around the world restricted movement of people, using social distancing and lockdowns, to help stem the global coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. We examine crime effects for one UK police force area in comparison to 5-year averages. There is variation in the onset of change by crime type, some declining from the WHO ‘global pandemic’ announcement of 11 March, others later. By 1 week after the 23 March lockdown, all recorded crime had declined 41%, with variation: shoplifting (−62%), theft (−52%), domestic abuse (−45%), theft from vehicle (−43%), assault (−36%), burglary dwelling (−25%) and burglary non-dwelling (−25%). We use Google Covid-19 Community Mobility Reports to calculate the mobility elasticity of crime for four crime types, finding shoplifting and other theft inelastic but responsive to reduced retail sector mobility (MEC=0.84, 0.71 respectively), burglary dwelling elastic to increases in residential area mobility (−1), with assault inelastic but responsive to reduced workplace mobility (0.56). We theorise that crime rate changes were primarily caused by those in mobility, suggesting a mobility theory of crime change in the pandemic. We identify implications for crime theory, policy and future research

Crime Science 2020 9:11

By Manne Gerell, Johan Kardell and Johanna Kindgren

The covid-19 disease has a large impact on life across the globe, and this could potentially include impacts on crime. The present study describes how crime has changed in Sweden during ten weeks after the government started to implement interventions to reduce spread of the disease. Sweden has undertaken smaller interventions than many other countries and is therefore a particularly interesting case to study. The first major interventions in Sweden were implemented in the end of week 11 (March 12th) in the year 2020, and we analyze police reported crimes through week 21 (ending May 24th). Descriptive statistics are provided relative to expected levels with 95% confidence intervals for eight crime types. We found that total crime, assaults, pickpocketing and burglary have decreased significantly, personal robberies and narcotics crime are unchanged. Vandalism possibly increased somewhat but is hard to draw any frm conclusions on. The reductions are fairly small for most crime types, in the 5–20% range, with pickpocketing being the biggest exception noting a 59% drop relative to expected levels.

Crime Science 2020 9:19

By Gian Maria Campedelli, Serena Favarin, Alberto Aziani and Alex R. Piquero

Recent studies exploiting city-level time series have shown that, around the world, several crimes declined after COVID-19 containment policies have been put in place. Using data at the community-level in Chicago, this work aims to advance our understanding on how public interventions affected criminal activities at a finer spatial scale. The analysis relies on a two-step methodology. First, it estimates the community-wise causal impact of social distancing and shelter-in-place policies adopted in Chicago via Structural Bayesian Time-Series across four crime categories (i.e., burglary, assault, narcotics-related offenses, and robbery). Once the models detected the direction, magnitude and significance of the trend changes, Firth’s Logistic Regression is used to investigate the factors associated with the statistically significant crime reduction found in the first step of the analyses. Statistical results first show that changes in crime trends differ across communities and crime types. This suggests that beyond the results of aggregate models lies a complex picture characterized by diverging patterns. Second, regression models provide mixed findings regarding the correlates associated with significant crime reduction: several relations have opposite directions across crimes with population being the only factor that is stably and positively associated with significant crime reduction.

Crime Science 2020 9:21

By Martin A. Andresen and Tarah Hodgkinson

The COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically affected social life. In efforts to reduce the spread of the virus, countries around the world implemented social restrictions, including social distancing, working from home, and the shuttering of numerous businesses. These social restrictions have also affected crime rates. In this study, we investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the frequency of offending (crimes include property, violence, mischief, and miscellaneous) in Queensland, Australia. In particular, we examine this impact across numerous settings, including rural, regional and urban. We measure these shifts across the restriction period, as well as the staged relaxation of these restrictions. In order to measure the impact of this period we use structural break tests. In general, we find that criminal offences have significantly decreased during the initial lockdown, but as expected, increased once social restrictions were relaxed. These findings were consistent across Queensland’s districts, save for two areas. We discuss how these findings are important for criminal justice and social service practitioners when operating within an extraordinary event.

Crime Science 2020 9:25

By Samuel Langton, Anthony Dixon and Graham Farrell

Governments around the world have enforced strict guidelines on social interaction and mobility to control the spread of the COVID-19 virus. Evidence has begun to emerge which suggests that such dramatic changes in people’s routine activities have yielded similarly dramatic changes in criminal behavior. This study represents the frst ‘look back’ on six months of the nationwide lockdown in England and Wales. Using open police-recorded crime trends, we provide a comparison between expected and observed crime rates for fourteen diferent ofence categories between March and August, 2020. We fnd that most crime types experienced sharp, short-term declines during the frst full month of lockdown. This was followed by a gradual resurgence as restrictions were relaxed. Major exceptions include anti-social behavior and drug crimes. Findings shed light on the opportunity structures for crime and the nuances of using police records to study crime during the pandemic.

Crime Science 2021 10:6

By David Buil-Gil, Yongyu Zeng and Steven Kemp

Much research has shown that the first lockdowns imposed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic were associated with changes in routine activities and, therefore, changes in crime. While several types of violent and property crime decreased immediately after the first lockdown, online crime rates increased. Nevertheless, little research has explored the relationship between multiple lockdowns and crime in the mid-term. Furthermore, few studies have analysed potentially contrasting trends in offline and online crimes using the same dataset. To fill these gaps in research, the present article employs interrupted time-series analysis to examine the effects on offline and online crime of the three lockdown orders implemented in Northern Ireland. We analyse crime data recorded by the police between April 2015 and May 2021. Results show that many types of traditional offline crime decreased after the lockdowns but that they subsequently bounced back to pre-pandemic levels. In contrast, results appear to indicate that cyber-enabled fraud and cyber-dependent crime rose alongside lockdown-induced changes in online habits and remained higher than before COVID-19. It is likely that the pandemic accelerated the long-term upward trend in online crime. We also find that lockdowns with stay-at-home orders had a clearer impact on crime than those without. Our results contribute to understanding how responses to pandemics can influence crime trends in the mid-term as well as helping identify the potential long-term effects of the pandemic on crime, which can strengthen the evidence base for policy and practice.

Crime Science 2021 10:26

By Theodore S. Lentz, Rebecca Headley Konkel, Hailey Gallagher and Dominick Ratkowski

Restrictions resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic interrupted people’s daily routine activities. Rooted in crime pattern and routine activity theories, this study tests whether the enactment of a Safer-at-Home mandate was associated with changes in the distance between individuals’ home addresses and the locations of where they committed crimes (i.e., residence-to-crime distance). Analyses are based on violent (N=282), property (N=1552), and disorder crimes (N=1092) reported to one police department located in a United States’ Midwest suburb. Multilevel models show that residence-to-crime distances were significantly shorter during the Safer-at-Home order, compared to the pre- and post-Safer-at-Home timeframes, while controlling for individual and neighborhood characteristics. Additionally, these relationships varied by crime type. Consistent with the literature, the findings support the argument that individuals tend to offend relatively near their home address. The current findings extend the state of the literature by highlighting how disruptions to daily routine activities stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic led to alterations in crime patterns, in which analyses indicated shorter distances between home address and offense locations.

Crime Science 2022 11:12

By Paul G. Cassell

Recently, major cities across the country have suffered dramatic spikes in homicides. These sudden spikes are remarkably large and widespread. At this rate, 2020 will easily be the deadliest year in America for gun-related homicides since at least 1999, while most other major crime categories are trending stable or slightly downward.

This article attempts to explain why so many cities have seen extraordinary increases in murder during the summer of 2020. A close analysis of the emerging crime patterns suggests that American cities may be witnessing significant declines in some forms of policing, which in turn are producing the homicide spikes. Crime rates are increasing only for a few specific categories—namely homicides and shootings. These crime categories are particularly responsive to reductions in proactive policing. The data also pinpoint the timing of the spikes to late May 2020, which corresponds with the death of George Floyd while in police custody in Minneapolis and subsequent antipolice protests—protests that likely led to declines in law enforcement.

The thesis of this article is that the recent spikes in homicides have been caused by a “Minneapolis Effect,” similar to the earlier “Ferguson Effect.” Specifically, law enforcement agencies have been forced to divert resources from normal policing to patrolling demonstrations. And even as the anti-police protests have abated, police officers have scaled back on proactive or officer-initiated law enforcement, such as street stops and other forms of policing designed to prevent firearm crimes. If this thesis is correct, it is reasonable to estimate that, as a result of de-policing during June and July 2020, approximately 710 additional victims were murdered and more than 2,800 victims were shot. Of course, this estimate relies on various assumptions, and further research on the issues surrounding the homicide spikes should be an urgent priority.

If this article’s thesis about a Minneapolis Effect is correct, an important implication is that policy makers in major cities should proceed cautiously before taking steps to “defund” the police in ways that might reduce the proactive policing that is important in preventing gun violence.\

Federal Sentencing Reporter (2020) 33 (1-2): 83–127.