By Michael Heise and Jason P. Nance

Nationwide calls to “Defund the Police,” largely attributable to the resurgent Black Lives Matter demonstrations, have motivated derivative calls for public school districts to consider “defunding” (or modifying) school resource officer (“SRO/police”) programs. To be sure, a school’s SRO/police presence—and the size of that presence—may influence the school’s student discipline reporting policies and practices. How schools report student discipline and whether that reporting involves referrals to law enforcement agencies matters, particularly as reports may fuel a growing “school-to-prison pipeline.” The school-to-prison pipeline research literature features two general claims that frame debates about changes in how public schools approach student discipline and the growing number of calls for schools to defund SRO/police programs. One claim is that public schools’ increasingly “legalized” approach toward student discipline increases the likelihood that students will be thrust into the criminal justice system. A second distributional claim is that these adverse consequences disproportionately involve students of color, boys, students from low-income households, and other vulnerable student sub-groups. Both claims implicate important legal and policy dimensions, as students’ adverse interactions with law enforcement agencies typically impose negative consequences on students and their futures. We study both claims using the nation’s leading data set on public school crime and safety, supplemented by data on state-level mandatory reporting requirements and district-level per pupil spending, and explore three distinct analytic approaches in an effort to assess the independent influence of a school’s SRO/police presence on that school’s student discipline reporting behavior. Results from our analyses provide mixed support for the two claims. We find that a school’s SRO/police presence corresponds with an increased likelihood that the school will report student incidents to law enforcement agencies. However, we do not find support in the school-level data for the distributional claim.

111 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 717 (2021).

By Vania Ceccato and Andy Newton

This book offers a comprehensive overview of areas with elevated levels of crime, which we consider ‘risky places.’ These can be facilities, nodes, or paths and can be found everywhere, from small towns to megacities. Crime and fear are examined from the perspective of those who use these places, based on examples from the US, the UK, Sweden, Nigeria, Brazil, China, Australia, and more. Advocating for a systems thinking approach, the book shows what can be learned from risky places and identifies ways to address their inherent problems. The book also assesses current barriers to applying systems thinking and identifies ways to foster interconnected long-term crime prevention strategies that meet the diverse needs of multiple stakeholders. Aimed at academics, students, and professionals in urban planning, criminology, geography, and related fields, this book is a vital resource for those dedicated to creating safer, more inclusive, and sustainable environments.

London; New York: Routledge, 2025. 

May Contain Mark-Ups

Designing Out Crime from Products and Systems Edited by Ronald V. Clarke & Graeme R. Newman

The book “Designing Out Crime from Products and Systems,” edited by Ronald V. Clarke and Graeme R. Newman, provides a comprehensive overview of how effective design can significantly reduce crime. It explores various successful initiatives from around the world, focusing on modifying products and systems to make them less susceptible to criminal exploitation. The book covers a wide range of topics, including the role of government and the corporate sector in crime prevention, the fundamentals of crime-proofing design, and specific case studies such as the U.K. vehicle licensing system and the security coding of electronic products. By analyzing these examples, the editors highlight the importance of incorporating crime prevention into the design process from the outset, rather than relying on reactive measures. One of the key themes of the book is the concept of“situational crime prevention,” which involves altering the environment or the design of products to reduce opportunities for crime. The editors argue that many crimes can be prevented by making relatively simple changes to the design of everyday objects and systems. For instance, the book discusses how the introduction of tamper-proof packaging for pharmaceuticals significantly reduced incidents of product tampering. It also emphasizes the need for collaboration between designers, manufacturers, and policymakers to create products that are both functional and secure. Overall, the book serves as a valuable resource for anyone interested in understanding how design can be used as a tool for crime prevention

Criminal Justice Press, 2005, 265 pages

By  Elizabeth Monkus, Kaitlyn Filip, Jennifer Won Young Lee, and Hanna Sharif-Kazemi

Since early 2020, Chicago Appleseed Center for Fair Courts and the Chicago Council of Lawyers have been evaluating the Domestic Violence Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County, with a specific focus on the Domestic Violence Courthouse at 555 West Harrison in Chicago. Today, we release our findings in our report, “Slipping through the Cracks” – An Evaluation of Cook County’s Domestic Violence Division in Chicago. The consolidated Domestic Violence Courthouse opened in 2005 at 555 West Harrison in Chicago, in response to growing concerns about crowding, case processing times, and safety concerns with the conditions in the existing court buildings at 1340 South Michigan (for criminal proceedings) and at 28 North Clark Street (for civil proceedings). The consolidated courthouse hears all Orders of Protection cases, both criminal and civil, and was structured to create secure waiting areas with the intent of keeping petitioners and respondents away from each other in the courthouse. In addition to safety goals, the courthouse was intended to improve case efficiency. In 2010, the Circuit Court of Cook County established the Domestic Violence Division to further these goals. Beyond a task force study of the DV Court in 2008 and another more limited study in 2021, both convened by Chief Judge Evans, there has been no comprehensive study of the efficacy of the courthouse. Our report seeks to remedy this.

Background & History

When the Courthouse opened in 2005, there were around 50 dedicated domestic violence courts in the country. By 2010, there were over 200. This growth in domestic violence courts offers an opportunity to examine the successes and failures of Cook County’s courthouse while discovering alternatives to the processes which may improve its functionality. The courts are increasingly called upon to fill in gaps for diminishing social safety resources. This is especially evident in family courts, like those hearing domestic violence issues, and has profound implications for understanding systemic bias. Just as society’s conception of domestic violence has shifted over 50 years, so has our understanding of how poverty and marginalized identities are criminalized and otherwise punished by systems of power. It is incumbent on courts to examine if and how practices support biased systems and seek correction to those practices.  In February 2020, Chicago Appleseed Center for Fair Courts was invited by a group of advocates and attorneys working in the Domestic Violence Division to join them in designing and implementing a court-watching project, given rising concerns over management and culture in the Division. Our goal in doing so was to improve not only access to courts, but the quality and function of justice within those courts.  For this study, Chicago Appleseed and the Council conducted interviews with more than 35 attorneys, non-attorney advocates, community service providers, court staff, and judges between July 2020 and March 2022. These interviewees provided information about their direct experiences in the Domestic Violence Division—in both the branch courts and the Chicago courthouse—as well as about their general experiences serving the needs of both survivors, their families, and perpetrators of harm. Likewise, Chicago Appleseed’s court-watching program deployed volunteers to observe 188 domestic violence cases in the Circuit Court of Cook County February and March of 2022. This qualitative information, along with background research into jurisdictional differences and best practices, provided information for our analysis. Nonetheless, we ran into several limitations in our research, including an inability to access quantitative data on the courts, which meant we could not fully understand things like sociodemographic information of litigants or length/outcome of cases, as well as issues connecting with litigants to interview about their direct experiences in the courthouse. Our findings and recommendations, therefore, are based in the analysis of interviews and observations with reference to background research.

Summary of Findings & Recommendations

Our findings stress that the courthouse is critical infrastructure and the Division is structured in an appropriate manner, but identify four major deficiencies:

1. Systemic racism and sexism, which is evident in the structures and procedures of the Domestic Violence Courthouse;

2. A general disconnect between judges and court staff and the needs of litigants, which is exacerbated by technology and training issues and limited operational capacity;

3. Judicial culture and bias, lack of trauma-informed practice, and the need for training, which severely impacts quality of justice; and

4. Issues with the Clerk of the Court’s Office, which are consistent and pervasive, creating barriers to access for both litigants and attorneys.

Broadly, it appears that the Domestic Violence Division is under-resourced to address these needs and (at least until recently) there has been a cycle of neglect regarding community concerns about the court, which exacerbated these barriers to justice.

 Chicago: Chicago Appleseed Center for Fair Courts and the Chicago Council of Lawyers., 2022.    91p.

By Ben Grunwald

Beginning in 2020, law enforcement experts widely claimed that a surge in police separations triggered a national retention crisis and that political activism after George Floyd's murder was a principal cause. We lack data, however, to track such trends in the national police labor market. Using information from Police Officer Safety and Training (POST) agencies, I construct an Interstate Police Employment Database (IPED) on every job held by every officer in all 6,800 local law enforcement agencies across fifteen states that, together, cover half the U.S. population. I then conduct the largest empirical study of the law enforcement labor market to date. My findings show that the increase in separations in IPED agencies after the summer of 2020 was smaller, later, less sudden, and possibly less pervasive than the retention-crisis narrative suggests. All told, the cumulative impact on the labor force by the end of 2021 was just 1%. Aggregate figures, however, mask variation at the agency level. As I show, a substantial minority of large agencies meaningfully shrank by the end of 2021. I also provide evidence that local political activism cannot explain local separation rates, raising some doubt about whether the protests were a principal cause of rising turnover.

Duke Law School Public Law & Legal Theory Series No. 2024-41

By Nick Cowen

This chapter discusses what crime is, why it provokes government action and the problems of both private and public approaches to crime prevention. For classical liberals, crime is deliberate or reckless harm imposed on persons and their property through violence or deception. Besides violating people’s interests as moral equals, crime weighs heavily on commercial societies as it raises the costs of production, trade, and exchange with strangers. Crime is a significant challenge because it is: a) a disequilibrium phenomenon resulting from an information asymmetry between potential victim and offender; b) imposes externalities on the community that are hard for isolated actors to internalize; c) frequently causes more harm than apprehended offenders could realistically compensate. Private crime prevention strategies use insurance, security, reputation, and bargaining with potential offenders to face this challenge. The success of private crime prevention is often underrated. Nevertheless, only capable states have so far managed to reduce violent crime to low levels by historical standards. State solutions bring their problems as they allow for predation and the imposition of externalities through the ‘legitimate’ political process.  

Forthcoming, 2024.

By Brady United

On February 5, 2019, a group of New Mexico Sheriffs, acting under the umbrella of the New Mexico Sheriffs’ Association (NMSA), surprisingly issued a Declaration opposing common sense gun violence prevention (GVP) bills being considered by the state legislature. These sheriffs pressured local and state politicians to oppose these measures that aim to protect the public safety and lives of New Mexicans. The sheriffs’ effort resulted in 25 counties passing so-called “Second Amendment Sanctuary resolutions,” including resolutions designed to undermine the American system of checks and balances by expressing support for sheriffs who unilaterally announced that they would not enforce such public safety laws. Brady immediately suspected that the gun lobby was behind the effort to encourage these sheriffs to go rogue and not enforce the law. Accordingly, Brady filed requests for documents from each of these sheriffs’ offices under New Mexico’s public records act (IPRA). The documents that Brady has obtained thus far show how the NRA infiltrated the NMSA; the prevalence of conspiracy theories among these sheriffs; their disregard for the American system of checks and balances and the rule of law; and a worrisome dedication to not enforcing laws aimed at protecting the lives and public safety of their own constituents.  

Washington, DC: Brady United Against Gun Violence, 2019. 8p.

By Nancy Lieberman Charities 

  In 2016, the Dallas, Texas, community and its police department faced one of its most brutal days. That summer, a standoff and shooting in downtown Dallas resulted in the deaths of four Dallas Police Department (DPD) officers and a Dallas Area Rapid Transit officer. The lone shooter was motivated by his perceptions of police racism and brutality toward African American people. Barely a week after the shooting, then-chief David Brown called Basketball Hall of Famer Nancy Lieberman to discuss using Dream Courts, a core program of Nancy Lieberman Charities that builds state-of-the-art outdoor basketball courts in underserved areas, as a tool to help heal divisions in the city. The mission of Nancy Lieberman Charities was not originally oriented toward law enforcement. Nancy Lieberman Charities is an education and wellness nonprofit organization focused on assisting underserved youth in the educational field. But as a result of that conversation, we developed our Kids & Cops programming, which has now been deployed in partnership with law enforcement agencies on Dream Courts across the country. The Kids & Cops initiative aims to make basketball more accessible to kids by giving them an inexpensive recreational outlet, a safe place to play, the chance to interact socially, and a path to learning the importance of teamwork and good sportsmanship. It is a sustainable program to help build and strengthen the bond between local officers and their communities. Our goal is for this guide to give law enforcement agencies an alternative perspective on serving the community as a law enforcement agency or agency partner. Nancy Lieberman Charities is not a task force or law enforcement agency—rather, we are an organization with an outside perspective on positive community relationship building.   

Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.  2023. 24p.

By Shani Buggs

This essay argues for increased recognition and support of community-based violence intervention (CVI) as an integral element of public safety strategies to reduce community violence. While the work of CVI has long been important to the communities in which they were created, the unprecedented rise in gun violence since 2020, coupled with growing recognition from community members, elected officials and law enforcement that violence reduction strategies rooted in community are necessary for community safety, make this work more vital than ever. Achieving sustained reductions in violence will require not just the incorporation of CVI into public safety plans, but also the intentional investment in an ecosystem of human capital development and community stability for the people and neighborhoods most impacted by violence.

New York: Arnold Ventures, 2022, 14p

By Shani Buggs, Mia Dawson & Asia Ivey

Community violence, or interpersonal violence between non-intimate partners that occurs in public places, is rooted in poverty and trauma, which, particularly in the United States, are undergirded by racial capitalism and white supremacy. Community-based outreach has been well documented as an integral strategy for reaching historically marginalized and disenfranchised populations in multiple fields. Community-based violence intervention (CVI) approaches that utilize outreach workers—professionals who identify and engage youth and adults who have a high risk of violence involvement—have the potential to quell violence in cities around the country. Indeed, the Biden-Harris Administration has not only highlighted CVI as an important element of community safety, but it has also committed federal dollars to CVI programs.

This amplification of CVI as a promising violence-reduction approach has also led to greater scrutiny of the various challenges these initiatives face in their implementation and operation, capacity, staffing needs, and the contexts for which they are employed. Without a more precise grasp of the elements that make these approaches effective and the challenges that must be mitigated for successful implementation and operation, outreach-based violence intervention programs, regardless of the intent or passion of the staff, may fail to achieve their goal of significantly reducing violence in their communities. However, if properly funded, supported, implemented, and evaluated, CVI has the potential to expand the paradigm of community safety without furthering over-reliance on law enforcement and the criminal legal system. This report seeks to fill gaps in our understanding of how best to implement, support, and sustain outreachbased CVI efforts by synthesizing existing literature and drawing on interviews with over a dozen CVI program leaders with deep expertise in the field.

Outreach-Based CVI Program Models and Their Needs

The majority of outreach-based CVI programs today are individualized interventions that operate as independent community-based organizations. They require identifying individuals who are most likely to engage in violence, through community contacts, law enforcement, research, or voluntary participation, and then getting proximate to these individuals, building relationships and relentlessly pursuing connection in order to link them to resources, such as case management, therapy, professional development, or substance abuse treatment that will allow them to make different choices.

Some of these organizations use the health care system, rather than the community, as an entry point to locate those who are most affected by violence and who may be caught in violent cycles. (continued)

New York: LISC 2022. 66p.

By Jorja Leap, Jeffrey Brantingham, Todd Franke, Susana Bonis

The Community Safety Partnership emerged as a comprehensive violence reduction and community safety strategy first implemented in four public housing developments in 2011 by the Los Angeles Police Department, the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA), and the City of Los Angeles’ Office of Gang Reduction and Youth Development (GRYD). On the basis of its impact in these settings, CSP has been recognized as a state‐of‐ the‐art counter‐violence strategy and has received extensive coverage in the media. However, despite the commendation and media attention, there has been limited external assessment of the CSP.1 Beyond this, there have been no formal evaluations of the program to determine if it, in fact, works. Additionally, despite the promise and early successes CSP encountered, as time passed, challenges arose surrounding fidelity to the CSP model, leading to a need for the model to be documented and formalized.

This evaluation of the LAPD Community Safety Partnership (CSP) was designed to examine both the impacts and challenges that have emerged over eight years of experience with this non‐traditional, community safety initiative. Over the course of the last year, three teams of researchers from UCLA have rigorously evaluated this model, using both quantitative and qualitative research methods to examine crime data as well as draw upon the viewpoints of law enforcement, residents, institutional partners, and community‐based organizations.

Ultimately, the evaluation study set out to holistically assess the CSP and its impact, focusing on two of the four public housing developments where CSP was originally implemented: Nickerson Gardens in Watts and Ramona Gardens in Boyle Heights. The evaluation plan, detailed in the first chapter of the report (“Overview of the CSP Evaluation: Methodology and Origins”), was established prior to engaging in any research activities. Over the past year, the goal of the evaluation study was to assess whether the CSP model actually works and – if CSP is determined to be effective – how the key elements of this model of law enforcement can be implemented nationally. To accomplish this, it was critical to offer recommendations on what is required to retain CSP’s effectiveness as it expanded, improved its operations, and was institutionalized within the LAPD. The meta‐analysis of all data collection led to the following conclusions regarding the effectiveness of the CSP model and the challenges it faces.

KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS

It is clear from the data collection, analysis, and findings described in the research chapters in the report that the CSP Comprehensive Safety Model effectively works by building trust and relationships between CSP officers and community residents and stakeholders. These relationships and the actions they give rise to, in turn, ensure that the community feels protected and strengthened. As trust increases between residents and the LAPD, the evaluation research indicates that residents do reach out to officers when there are problems. This also contributes to a greater sense of safety, further reflected by the decreases in violent crime. The key evaluation findings consisted of the following: 

• CSP’s trust and relationship‐based partnership policing improves resident perceptions of safety. 

• Implementation of CSP helps reduce the dangerous conditions at CSP sites that historically fueled violent crime and enhanced gang control. 

• By disrupting gang intimidation and control of public spaces, CSP increases residents’ ability to gather and enjoy public spaces, facilities, and programs. 

• As CSP works to reduce dangerous and high‐risk conditions that fuel crime, residents’ and stakeholder trust grows. 

• Analysis of LAPD crime statistics demonstrates that crime reductions associated with CSP sites are even greater than overall crime declines across the City. 

• It is clear that the impact of CSP is not narrowly limited to reducing gang violence; instead, its efficacy for other epidemic crises, such as homelessness, is promising and should be implemented.

Los Angeles: UCLA, 2020. 212p.

By Farhang Heydari

This Article connects the administrative state and the criminal system—two dominant modes of governance that too often are discussed in isolation. It presents an original account of how the policies and the failures of federal administrative agencies drive criminal law enforcement at the local level. In doing so, this Article exposes a significant driver of criminal policy and possible interventions to correct some of its failures. The primary vehicle for this analysis is an in-depth case study of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)—the federal agency best known for crash test dummies and five-star ratings as part of its traffic-safety mission—and its support for pretextual traffic stops. This Article unearths a series of NHTSA programs that have, for decades, trained state and local police to use traffic stops to ferret out drug traffickers, violent criminals, and even terrorists. NHTSA’s embrace of a policing mindset has become an unexpected enabler of pretextual stops, one that has pulled agency resources away from systemic regulation of the auto industry. The impact of NHTSA’s quiet campaign has been significant, engraining its view of traffic stops within policing agencies across the country without public visibility or oversight. These revelations come at a critical moment for a nation struggling with twin crises of traffic safety and policing. Learning from NHTSA and moving to the broader administrative state, this Article draws on a diverse set of agencies to identify a pattern of non-law-enforcement agencies shirking their systemic regulatory duties in favor of individual criminal law enforcement. The result is that parts of the administrative state have become systemic drivers of overpolicing and criminalization in ways that have, until now, received virtually no attention.

76 STAN. L.REV. 1 (2024)

By Lonnie M. Schaible

The oversight of law enforcement agencies, particularly at the local level, is crucial for ensuring accountability, transparency, and adherence to community standards. Historically, law enforcement controlled administrative mechanisms for investigating misconduct, determining discipline, and identifying areas for improvement of policy and practice have been inadequate. Moreover, law enforcement misconduct and accountability shortcomings have increasingly been subject to public scrutiny and calls for reform. As independent entities, civilian oversight agencies play a vital role in improving accountability by examining complaints, conducting or reviewing investigations, analyzing policies and practices, and/or making recommendations for improvement of law enforcement. Most cities with civilian oversight either have multiple oversight entities or a single entity with multiple responsibilities. Hybrid oversight models combining these powers are prevalent. Across initiatives and models, oversight confronts a variety of challenges. Drawing on interviews with oversight practitioners, empirical analysis of local statutes governing oversight, and analysis of the broader political context in which oversight operates, this report explores the landscape of civilian oversight, focusing on its powers, responsibilities, and challenges, and legislative trends that affect civilian oversight. Oversight Practitioners’ Perspectives on Principles of Effective Oversight Between August of 2022 and April of 2023, thirty-six oversight practitioners and community members were interviewed, representing twenty-six states and the District of Columbia. Interviewees included individuals with diverse backgrounds in oversight, ranging from those implementing new programs to retired veterans of the field. Interviewees also represented the perspectives of practitioners working in each of the four dominant models of oversight: commissions, review boards, investigative agencies, and auditor/monitors, as well as hybrid combinations of these. The interviews revealed a shared understanding of the significance of oversight work for promoting accountability, transparency, and trust between law enforcement and the communities that law enforcement serves. Practitioners also shared the value of ensuring fair treatment of both officers and community members, and addressing broader systemic concerns about police policies and practices. However, practitioners also identified significant impediments to effective oversight, especially: legal constraints, limited resources, and resistance from law enforcement agencies. Despite these challenges, practitioners indicated a commitment to overcoming impediments and advancing the goals of civilian oversight. They especially emphasized the importance of building strong relationships with law enforcement agencies, community stakeholders, and policymakers to garner support for oversight initiatives. Practitioners viewed collaboration and dialogue as essential for overcoming resistance and effecting meaningful change within police departments. Additionally, practitioners advocated for increased funding and resources to bolster the capacity of oversight entities and enhance their effectiveness in addressing systemic issues. Practitioners also widely noted the importance of local charters and ordinances and advocated for careful consideration of local needs and improvement of these statutes consistent with the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement’s (NACOLE) thirteen principles for effective oversight. Powers and Responsibilities of Civilian Oversight Entities Considering the importance of local charters and ordinances guiding oversight, and their adherence to NACOLE’s thirteen principles, a thorough empirical review of these is presented in this report, with a particular focus on statutes in the top one hundred most populous cities. Findings suggest that more robust oversight authorities tend to be more prevalent in the one hundred most populated cities; however, powers and authorities of oversight widely vary across these cities. Powers held by oversight entities include: reviewing internal investigations, conducting independent investigations, analyzing policy and practice, mediating complaints, making recommendations about discipline, and rarely, directly adjudicating or administrating of discipline. The most common blend of responsibilities includes reviewing internal investigations, conducting independent investigations, and analyzing policies and practices. While many entities benefit from statutory authority to conduct investigations, findings suggest the scope of investigative authority remains very limited in some jurisdictions. Likewise, provisions in charters and ordinances statutorily requiring adequate access to key personnel and data remains a challenge. In part such challenges result from the broader political context which oversight entities are subject to, and especially efforts by state legislatures to preempt local oversight authorities. State-level Legislative Trends in Civilian Oversight With limited federal legislation focused on police and civilian oversight, states have become battlegrounds for reform efforts. Between 2020 and 2023, over 37 states have passed legislation impacting civilian oversight. While most of these reforms advance oversight authority in a manner consistent with NACOLE’s thirteen principles for effective oversight, several states have enacted legislation that significantly impedes oversight. These impediments are especially likely to arise due to variations in home rule authority, with some states preempting local control over oversight efforts through legislation. Such legislation poses significant obstacles to implementation, maintenance, or reform of civilian oversight, and more broadly, policing. Notably, Florida, Arizona, Utah, Tennessee, and Wisconsin have recently implemented laws targeting existing oversight entities and/or imposing stringent requirements on new ones. These laws often limit the authority of oversight boards, impose unreasonable training requirements, or restrict the ability of oversight entities to influence law enforcement policies and practices. Despite such legislative constraints, existing oversight entities have adapted to comply with state statutory limitations, albeit often with authorities limited to advisory roles and restricted powers. Nonetheless, the limitations imposed by state laws can significantly hinder the effectiveness and independence of civilian oversight efforts and generally present a broader ongoing threat to the advancement of fair and effective civilian oversight. Conclusion The landscape of civilian oversight reflects a complex interplay of powers, responsibilities, legislative trends, and challenges. While oversight agencies play a critical role in promoting accountability and transparency in law enforcement, they also face significant obstacles, including local political and resource constraints, and increasingly, state-level preemption and legislative restrictions. Despite these challenges, efforts to adapt and uphold principles of effective oversight continue, highlighting the ongoing importance of civilian oversight in ensuring law enforcement accountability and community trust. To address these challenges, those seeking to advance and promote effective civilian oversight of law enforcement should advocate for legislative reform, engage in community outreach and education, invest in capacity building and training, foster collaborative partnerships, and prioritize continuous evaluation and improvement. By taking proactive and collaborative action, stakeholders can work together to overcome obstacles and strengthen civilian oversight, thereby advancing the principles of accountability, transparency, and trust.

Indianapolis, IN: National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE) , 2024. 46p

By Michael Vitoroulis, Cameron McEllhiney, Liana Perez

In the 2010s, viral videos of seemingly routine police encounters depicting tragedy have sent shockwaves through both communities and law enforcement agencies across the country, setting off a national conversation on the relationship communities have with law enforcement. At the national level, these encounters have coincided with reduced public confidence in American policing, particularly among youth and minority populations. While low levels of trust have existed in certain communities throughout history, the most recent wave of high-profile incidents has prompted widespread calls to meaningfully address issues of community concern, such as officer-involved shootings and excessive force, discriminatory policing, aggressive crime fighting strategies, and accountability for misconduct. Across the nation, law enforcement leaders, academics, and government officials have seemingly reached a consensus that addressing such issues with a focus on public trust and legitimacy is integral to fair and effective public safety in an increasingly diverse nation. The response by governments, law enforcement executives, community groups, and technical advisors to the challenge of mending police-community relations has been significant. In the aftermath of unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, and elsewhere, then President Barack Obama established the Task Force on 21st Century Policing to identify policing practices that promote public safety and build community trust in law enforcement. The Final Report of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, published in May 2015, offered several recommendations, including many relating to public trust, procedural justice, and legitimacy; accountability and transparency; community policing efforts; and the inclusion of community members in policy development, training programs, and review of force incidents. In addition, the task force’s report recommended that civilian oversight of law enforcement be established in accordance with the needs of the community and with input from local law enforcement stakeholders.4 Civilian oversight of law enforcement can contribute significantly to the implementation and institutionalization of many of the task force’s recommendations and further the development of public trust, legitimacy, cooperation, and collaboration necessary to improve police-community relations and enhance public safety. At its core, civilian oversight can be broadly defined as the independent, external, and ongoing review of a law enforcement agency and its operations by individuals outside of the law enforcement agency being overseen. Civilian oversight may entail, but is not limited to, the independent investigation of complaints alleging officer misconduct, auditing or monitoring various aspects of the overseen law enforcement agency, analyzing patterns or trends in activity, issuing public reports, and issuing recommendations on discipline, training, policies, and procedures. Taken together, these functions can promote greater law enforcement accountability, increased transparency, positive organizational change, and improved responsiveness to community needs and concerns. By acting as an independent and neutral body reviewing the work of the law enforcement agency and its sworn staff, civilian oversight of law enforcement offers a unique element of legitimacy that internal accountability and review mechanisms simply cannot. Similarly, a civilian oversight agency’s impartiality, neutrality, and adherence to findings of fact can alleviate officer skepticism in internal systems and bolster procedural fairness within the law enforcement agency as a whole. The organizational structure and authority of civilian oversight agencies in the United States varies widely. While civilian oversight agencies can be broadly categorized into review-focused, investigation-focused, or auditor/ monitor-focused models, no two oversight agencies are identical. Effective civilian oversight systems will reflect the particular needs of their local partners and incorporate feedback from community members, law enforcement and their unions, and government stakeholders in order to achieve the most sustainable and appropriate structure. As the field of civilian oversight grows in sophistication, cities are frequently combining various aspects of traditional oversight models to produce hybrid forms best suited for their local context. As a whole, this report, the nine case studies, and the online toolkit are part of NACOLE’s work to expand, improve, and assist civilian oversight of law enforcement efforts throughout the country. This work provides comprehensive guidance for oversight practitioners, law enforcement, community organizations, and local officials to further develop effective civilian oversight. Additional research, guidance, and understanding will be necessary as the field of oversight continues to evolve and grow.

Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. 2021. 34p.

By James D. Sewell

Since 2000, law enforcement executives have become increasingly aware of the impact of occupational stress on the safety and wellness of their sworn and civilian employees. As a consequence, agencies have devoted increased attention to enhanced leadership practices, a greater emphasis on physical fitness, and the expansion of programs that support the psychological and emotional health of their personnel.

Included among the latter efforts have been a proliferation of employee assistance programs; increased use of in-house and contract psychologists, especially in assessing fitness for duty; expanded use of agency chaplains; and better paraprofessional support for their personnel through the development and use of peer support teams.

The idea of peer support dates back to the early 1970s with efforts within agencies—such as those in Boston, New York, and Chicago—to deal with alcoholism in their police ranks. Citing the successes of groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous, Police Officer Ed Donovan, who had been attending AA meetings to deal with his own abuse issues, formed the Boston Police Stress Program. Donovan and his colleagues were able to convince the Boston Police Commissioner to implement what we would now call a peer support program for police officers and their families, perhaps the first of its kind in the nation.

The peer support concept holds that police employees are more likely to discuss psychological and emotional issues with someone who understands their job and the types of stress they may undergo than with a psychological professional who brings expertise but no such understanding to the conversation. This approach at ensuring the emotional health of law enforcement personnel assumes that a basic level of training is necessary—and empathy is particularly critical—in allowing the paraprofessional to provide necessary support and to be able to listen, assess, and (as necessary and appropriate) refer a troubled colleague to proper and professional assistance. As Kamena and his co-authors have noted:

The mission of a peer support program is to provide emotional, social, and practical support to police personnel during times of personal or professional crisis. It may also offer peer-to-peer assistance in anticipating and addressing other potential challenges or difficulties. (Kamena et al. 2011, 80)

The literature discussing the use of peer support programs to effectively deal with the stress of police employees points to the strengths and weaknesses of such programs. In an early work on using peer supporters, Finn and Tomz (1998) identified benefits and weaknesses of peer supporters. Among the positives, they suggest that peer support personnel

• provide instant credibility and ability to empathize;

• assist fellow employees who are reluctant to talk with mental health professionals;

• recommend the program to other employees by attesting credibly to their confidentiality and concern;

• provide immediate assistance due to accessibility;

• detect incipient problems because of their daily contact with coworkers;

• are less expensive than professionals. Yet, they caution, peer support members

• cannot provide the professional care that licensed mental health practitioners can;

• may try to offer full-scale counseling that they are not equipped to provide;

• may be rejected by employees who want to talk only with a professional counselor;

• may be avoided by employees because of the fear that problems will not be kept confidential;

• require time, effort, and patience to screen, train, and supervise;

• may expose themselves and the department to legal liability.

Recognizing that peer support programs offer an effective complement to the provision of professional mental health services in contemporary law enforcement agencies, this paper will examine three areas:

1. The elements of an effective peer support program

2. Confidentiality in such a program

3. The activities of five existing peer support programs

Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. 2021. 88p.

By The Police Executive Research Forum.

This report is about two opposite but related issues: (1) the use of drones by police agencies to protect public safety and (2) the use of drones by malicious actors to commit various crimes such as acts of terrorism. Thus, the story of drones is about two radically different sides of the same coin. This report should be seen as two separate reports. The bulk of the document, chapters 1 and 2, provides guidance to police and sheriffs’ departments about how to identify the ways in which drones could facilitate their work and how to create a drone program to accomplish those goals. The remainder of the document, chapter 3, is about the malicious use of drones. As of early 2020, the United States is extremely vulnerable to drone attacks because only in late 2018 were federal law enforcement agencies given the legal authority to use the most effective types of technologies to detect and mitigate drone threats. Local police and sheriffs’ departments still are unable to purchase or use most counter-drone technologies because of concerns they might break the law when employing them and the danger of interference with air traffic in the National Airspace System. This is not merely oversight by Congress and federal agencies; there are important reasons for limiting drone detection and mitigation technologies. Careless or unskilled use of these technologies could result in disaster. For example, technologies that use radio signals to jam an incoming malicious drone or seize control of it, improperly used, might interfere with radio signals used by commercial or private airplanes or air traffic controllers. A number of federal and local law enforcement agencies have begun to explore counter-drone strategies at major events and mass gatherings such as the Super Bowl. But this work is still developing. Federal, state, and local lawmakers and government officials, including law enforcement officials, should accelerate their efforts to address these issues as soon as possible. The drone strikes against oil facilities in Saudi Arabia in September 2019, which temporarily disrupted approximately half of that kingdom’s oil production capacity, demonstrate how much harm can be done by the malicious use of drones. The United States must not wait until it suffers a drone attack to undertake large-scale efforts to develop strategies by law enforcement agencies at all levels of government for (1) identifying drone threats and (2) mitigating drone threats in real time.

The research behind this report In 2018 and 2019, the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), with support from the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Office of Community Oriented Policing Services and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Office for State and Local Law Enforcement, conducted research, disseminated a survey of law enforcement agencies, and hosted a two-day forum to discuss police use of drones and the police response to the threat of drones being used maliciously. This project consisted of three major components: (1) an informal survey of 860 law enforcement agencies nationwide; (2) interviews with more than 50 police executives and personnel in agencies that operate a drone program or have plans to implement one; and (3) a two-day national conference in which police executives, federal stakeholders, and other experts from across the country discussed and debated the considerations associated with police use of drones. The purpose of this report is to assist police agencies interested in establishing their own drone programs.1 Key findings and recommended practices This report is divided into three chapters:

1. Pre-Implementation Considerations

2. Establishing a Drone Program

3. Malicious Use of Drones

Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.2020..128p.

By Steve Kirkwood

Mentoring is an increasingly popular approach for supporting people who have a history of offending. Previous research provides some evidence that it may contribute to reductions in offending behavior and support desistance from crime. The present study analyzed interviews with 33 people who used mentoring services in Scotland to examine the relationships between mentoring, motivation, and desistance. The findings suggest that the offer of mentoring may translate a general desire to change into motivation by providing the means to achieve this change. Mentoring may help people develop ‘hooks for change’ through practical assistance that leads to positive changes and by encouraging people to see the value of such changes. Mentors can also model ways of being that outline possible future selves and services can be structured in pro-social activities that support stakes in conformity. The article contributes to theoretical understandings of motivation and desistance by specifying the interplay of agency and structure.

Criminology & Criminal JusticeVolume 23, Issue 2, April 2023, Pages 183-199

By Timothy Hsiao

Critics of American policing often make the claim that it is a direct descendant of antebellum slave patrols, the mostly voluntary groups organized to capture runaway slaves and stifle slave rebellions in the early eighteenth century. Consider just a few examples:

• “The origins of modern-day policing can be traced back to the ‘Slave Patrol.’” — NAACP

• “Policing itself started out as slave patrols. We know that.” — Rep. James Clyburn.

• “Slave patrols . . . morphed directly into police.” — Nikole HannahJones.

• “[M]odernized police actually emerged in the South during slavery— they literally were slave catchers.” — Scalawag Magazine.

Even pro-law enforcement organizations such as the National Law Enforcement Memorial and Museum in Washington, D.C. have come to accept this claim. According to one criminal justice textbook, it is “widely recognized that law enforcement in the 20th-century South evolved directly from these 18th and 19th-century slave patrols.”

While it is true that slave patrols were a form of American law enforcement that existed alongside other forms of law enforcement, the claim that American policing “traces back” to, “started out” as, or “evolved directly from,” slave patrols, or that slave patrols “morphed directly into” policing, is false. This widespread pernicious myth falsely asserts a causal relationship between slave patrols and policing and intimates that modern policing carries on a legacy of gross injustice. There is no evidence for either postulate.

In order to demonstrate causation, one must show that modern policing drew its distinctive practices and structure from slave patrols. But the evidence shows that American law enforcement—whether in the form of sheriffs, town watches, constables, or police—all emerged from distinctly English influences. Both slave patrols and modern police departments drew from these influences. The fact that the latter did so after the former does not mean that the latter emerged from the former.

New York: National Association of Scholars, 2023. 6p.

By HM Inspector of Constabulary and HM Inspector of Fire & Rescue Services

This report focuses on the police response to antisocial behaviour. It also highlights examples of positive practice and joint working between the police and other organisations to address antisocial behaviour.

We drew on evidence from academic research, national guidance and findings from:

• our police effectiveness, efficiency and legitimacy (PEEL) programme;

• force management statements (self-assessments that chief constables and their London equivalents prepare and give to us each year);

• a request for promising practice to all forces by the College of Policing; and publicly available data.

HM Inspector of Constabulary and HM Inspector of Fire & Rescue Services 2024. 60p.

By Eon Kim, Kate Bowers , Dan Birks Shane D. Johnson

If and how policing affects crime has long been studied. On the relationship between police force size and crime, different authors come to different conclusions. This study examines the relationship between police resourcing, including workforce size, structure and stability over time using data for 42 police forces in the UK over a 13-year period.

We construct two novel panel datasets. The first comprises measures of police workforce Size, Structure and Stability. The second provides measures of both crime frequency and crime severity. Issues of endogeneity make the modelling of the police-crime association complicated. Consequently, we analyse the data using a panel vector autoregression (PVAR) model which is capable of forecasting a temporal sequence of the interdependencies between police-crime relationships.

Changes in total police personnel play an important role in reducing both crime frequency and severity, but the findings are more nuanced than this. Results highlight that the structure and stability of police organisations are important although these impacts are not always the same for crime volume and crime severity. We find that increases in frontline (non-sworn) support staff are associated with reductions in crime, while turnover rates of police staff are associated with increases in crime. In contrast, changes to the number of sworn police officers do not appear to be a good predictor of crime volume.

The findings suggest that investment in frontline support staff and the development of strategies to retain skills and knowledge by reducing staff turnover may be efficient approaches for Police Forces to maximise the impact on crime of their workforce in resource-pressed policing settings. While previous research has found that police force size has a limited effect on crime, our findings indicate that more nuanced measurements of police resourcing are necessary to understand how police impact upon crime risk. The idea of police forces using basic officer-to-population ratios to make staffing decisions appears outdated and over-simplistic.

Journal of Criminal Justice, Volume 95, November–December 2024, 102291