By Paige Vaughn, Richard Rosenfeld

Focused deterrence is a particularly promising approach for significantly reducing gang, group, and individual criminal behavior. Typical focused deterrence approaches involve bringing together individuals at high risk for violence in face-to-face group interventions, usually called “offender notification meetings” or “call-ins.” In the St. Louis Police Partnership, individuals at high risk for violence were instead targeted using customized, individual in-person meetings with detectives and parole officers assigned to the program. This novel approach was found to be effective using a randomized controlled trial evaluation. This implementation guide summarizes the basic features of the St. Louis Police Partnership, discusses challenges and lessons learned, and details key steps that must be taken to implement similar programs effectively in other jurisdictions

Arlington, CA: CNA, 2024. 17p.

By Anchorage Police Department

In July 2024, the Anchorage Police Department (APD) began a 15-year review of officer-involved shootings (OIS) to answer three (3) primary questions:

1. First, what trends exist longitudinally regarding OIS?

2. Second, are there policy recommendations that may impact OIS events?

3. Third, are there training recommendations that may impact OIS events?

Forty-five (45) OIS were included in the dataset. The information in this report was analyzed from a statistical perspective and included 28 data points. OIS were also qualitatively analyzed after reviewing police reports, video evidence, criminal interviews and administrative interviews.

The following are recommendations based on the review:

• Increase the use of team tactics when responding to incidents where there is an elevated risk to the public or officers.

• Enhance the department’s less lethal capabilities to increase stand-off distance and effectiveness increasing reaction time.

• Emphasize the role of on-scene leadership and communication during high-risk responses.

• Ensure adequate tools and resources are being utilized in the field of operation

The Anchorage Police Department (APD) analyzed circumstances, officers and subjects involved in 45 incidents in which APD officers discharged a weapon under the color of authority while on-duty or off-duty, irrespective of injuries to subjects, officers or third parties (OIS)1 from Jan. 1, 2009, through Dec. 31, 2023. The eight (8) OIS that occurred in 2024 were not included in this report as they are a part of on-going investigations.

Anchorage, Anchorage Police Department, 2024. 22p.

By National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; Erin Hammers Forstag, Rapporteur

On June 24 and 25, 2024, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine held a two-day public workshop exploring law enforcement’s use of person-based and place-based predictive policing strategies. Predictive policing strategies are approaches that use data to attempt to predict either individuals who are likely to commit crime or places where crime is likely to be committed, to enable crime prevention. The workshop was held in response to Executive Order 14074,1 which discusses enhancing public trust and safety through accountable policing and criminal justice practices, and Executive Order 14110,2 which addresses the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in law enforcement. David Weisburd (George Mason University and Chair of the workshop planning committee) began by noting that these executive orders reflected strong public concerns surrounding the idea of predictive policing, as well as critiques of specific implementations—in particular for these strategies’ disparate impact on communities of color. While planning the workshop, Weisburd said that the planning committee confronted several challenging issues. First, there is a lack of precise and clear definitions of what exactly constitutes predictive policing. Second, the term “predictive policing” is often avoided, even when approaches appear to meet conventional definitions. Predictive technologies include “automated,” “dynamic,” or “data-driven,” approaches. However, predictive policing is generally seen as involving predictive algorithms that identify individuals and locations that are more likely to be associated with crime in the future. Whatever the definition, law enforcement agencies routinely use tools that collect and analyze data to anticipate crime and facilitate police response. Weisburd highlighted that the method and extent to which police should rely on algorithmic approaches remain as real-world challenges for law enforcement officials.

This workshop, said Weisburd, comes at a time when original applications of predictive policing have come and gone, while algorithmic and big data technologies advance and continue to be applied in law enforcement contexts. “We may be on the precipice of a new era of predictive policing,” he said, “with the time and wisdom to consider what that could and should look like.”

Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2024. 13p.

By The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)

Race discrimination has been a significant issue in policing for many years. It underpins the creation of our predecessor, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) following Sir William Macpherson’s inquiry and subsequent report into the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence. By ensuring that serious complaints and conduct matters are handled impartially and thoroughly, we play a vital role in driving improvements in policing through learning and accountability. However, tackling race discrimination in policing is a complex and highly sensitive issue. The historical backdrop of racial bias and discrimination in policing has led to deep seated mistrust between affected communities and the police, which becomes prominent during critical moments in policing. The murder of George Floyd by a US police officer and the Black Lives Matter protests during the summer of 2020 served as a catalyst, sparking greater scrutiny of policing in England and Wales. We repeatedly hear through our engagement work that Black communities in particular feel over-policed as suspects and under-protected as victims. This is attributed to a perception of ongoing race discrimination, evidenced by our engagement with communities and stakeholders. Disproportionate use of police powers, such as stop and search and use of force, contribute to this ongoing perception, particularly when no explanation can be provided for the racial disparities that exist. These disparities, reported each year without a definitive explanation, suggest the potential presence of underlying systemic issues and structural inequalities. While we recognise that policing has taken meaningful steps towards ensuring that all communities receive fair and impartial treatment, there are still considerable issues involving race within policing. Our findings, along with data on racial disparities and feedback from both communities and stakeholders, provides clear evidence and there is broad consensus both within policing and wider society that these systemic problems still exist. However, there is a reluctance in some quarters to use the phrase ‘institutional racism’. Macpherson was clear on what institutional racism is - a collective failure to provide an appropriate professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin. We think it is important that those communities who are most affected by these systemic issues should be listened to and they are clear: language matters. The aim of this work is not to make political statements, brand all police officers as racist or disregard the valuable progress that has been made. This is about being being clear that a problem still exists and to talk about it in a way that resonates with those communities most affected, so they feel heard and confident to work with the police to continue to make progress. It is only by working with those communities that policing can hope to achieve Macpherson’s aim to eliminate racist prejudice and disadvantage and to demonstrate fairness in all aspects of policing. This report brings together our thematic work to explore, challenge and address race discrimination in policing. Alongside this report we have published revisions to the guidelines for handling allegations of discrimination, that were originally created by the IPCC, and a toolkit for police complaint handlers. We are sharing the learning from our work to help forces take action to rebuild trust and confidence in policing and the complaints system. Our earlier publications - focusing on Taser, stop and search and complaint handling - in conjunction with our independent investigations and reviews, form part of our ongoing effort to help policing drive improvements in this longstanding area of concern.

Sale, UK: The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), 2024. 64p.

By Jo Lovett, Liz Kelly, Fiona Vera-Gray

A strong focus in recent policy and media coverage has been the increase in reporting of rape coupled with an associated fall in the charge rate, often attributed to victim withdrawal. Drawing on an analysis of 741 police case files as part of Operation Soteria we question each of these positions. We argue that changes to the Home Office Counting Rules since 2014 have resulted in the recording of a significant proportion of cases which are not reports from victim-survivors and which they did not consent to. Closing such cases at outcomes which make victim-survivors responsible is both inaccurate and leads to misperceptions of where the problems lie in rape investigations.

Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, Volume 18, 2024, paae086, https://doi.org/10.1093/police/paae086

By The Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund

Surveys suggest that the American public increasingly agrees with the persistent media narrative that fatal police shootings and use of excessive force are common, racist, and getting worse.

Activists and political leaders frequently refer to these fatal incidents and police use of force broadly as “police violence.” In 2021, then-Speaker of the US House of Representatives called “police brutality” an “epidemic.”

But the facts don’t support those claims. In reality, fatal police shootings and all uses of force are exceedingly rare, very limited, and overwhelmingly justified. The myths around police force and fatal shootings are both false and pernicious, yet pervasive.

This report seeks to set the record straight.

THE FACTS:

• Police rarely use force.

• When police use force, it is usually limited and proportional.

• Fatal police shootings are extremely uncommon.

• Unarmed fatal police shootings are both exceedingly rare and largely justified.

• Public perceptions around fatal police shootings and race are distorted.

Alexandria, VA: The Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund 2024. 11p.

By David Spencer

1. The Government should legislate to abolish, in its entirety, the recording of Non-Crime Hate Incidents by the police. Should the Government choose to retain the NCHI regime, they should issue an updated Code of Practice which leads to a substantial reduction in the number of NCHIs record – increasing ‘freedom of expression’ protections and reducing the distraction of police officers from their core mission of fighting crime. This should include no longer record any NCHIs which do not contain personal data.

2. The definitions used to meet the threshold for recording of NCHIs should be raised to genuinely meet the standard of ‘Hate’, rather than the current low standard which includes “unfriendliness” and “dislike”. The current standard for “hostility” grossly distorts the perception of the prevalence of genuine ‘Hate’ incidents.

3. The Home Office should collate and publish on an annual basis the number of NCHIs recorded per force (splitting out the number of NCHIs containing personal data and the number which do not contain personal data). This data should be published for the previous decade and in future years.

4. Should the Government choose not to abolish the NCHI regime, they should pass legislation to mandate police forces to follow the provisions of the NCHI Code of Practice.

5. His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services should include compliance with the provisions of the NCHI Code of into NCHIs within their annual PEEL force inspection regime.

6. All police forces should be required to publish their full policies and procedures in relation to the recording of NCHIs – including making clear on their websites (and other public information systems) the difference between hate crimes and NCHIs.

7. The National Audit Office should examine the costs in their totality of the NCHI regime to provide a clear understanding of its impact on policing, national government and local government resources.

8. The Government should conduct and publish a rapid, standalone, review identifying how often the recording of NCHIs is: (a) genuinely leading to the prevention of crime and harm, given that this is the principal justification for the recording of NCHIs and (b) the level of distraction from the core mission of policing to prevent and detect crime.

9. The Government should review the current Policing Protocol relating to ‘Operational Independence’. The current expansive understanding adopted by many chief constables leads to police forces failing to properly take account of the views of both Police and Crime Commissioners and the Home Secretary – who are accountable to the public and Parliament for crime and policing. It must be made clear that the limits of ‘Operational Independence’ concern directly operational matters.

Policy Exchange, 2024. 38p.

By The High Level Group, European Commission

The European Union constitutes an area of freedom, security and justice where fundamental rights and the different legal systems and traditions of the Member States are respected. It endeavours to ensure a high level of security1 through measures to prevent and combat crime and to facilitate coordination and cooperation between law enforcement, judicial and other competent authorities. Technological developments and the digitalisation of our societies have led both to significant changes in citizens’ daily lives and to new challenges for law enforcement and judicial authorities in ensuring a high level of security, at both national and EU level. In today’s digital age, almost every criminal investigation has a digital component. This was addressed in April 2023 in the scoping paper for the High-Level Expert Group on access to data for effective law enforcement: Technologies and tools […] are also abused for criminal purposes. This development makes it increasingly challenging to maintain effective law enforcement across the EU to safeguard public security and to prevent, detect, investigate, and prosecute crime, and to meet victims’ legitimate expectations of justice and compensation. If not properly addressed, there is a real risk that this current trend will enable criminals to go ‘dark’ […]. This is a serious threat to individuals’ and society’s security and can ultimately impede on the positive obligation of the state to continue ensuring the rule of law and a democratic society2 . The right to respect for private and family life, home and communications, and the right to the protection of personal data, are guaranteed under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. Confidentiality of communication, be it in writing or on the phone, has been a major achievement of democratic societies, ensuring that neither the state nor private actors may interfere in peoples’ freedom of expression and enabling the establishment of a flourishing civil society. The enjoyment of those rights can be subject to limitations under the law, in particular with regard to measures intended to safeguard national security, defence or public security and for the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences or of unauthorised use of electronic communication systems, provided these measures are necessary, appropriate and proportionate within a democratic society. Therefore, law enforcement and judicial authorities may open and read written communications, intercept phone calls and listen to conversations, if deemed necessary, proportionate and justified, if such measures are in line with the applicable legal provisions and if they are carried out with due respect for fundamental rights. This possibility should be available to all competent authorities, irrespective of technological developments. The proliferation of new forms of interpersonal communication that has occurred in recent years means that all of society has to adapt to new realities. We must ensure that communication among citizens remains protected, and at the same time that law enforcement and judicial authorities continue to be able to fulfil their duty of protecting citizens by preventing and fighting serious and organised crime and terrorism. The need for adaptation is urgent, and the experts call on policymakers to act promptly as law enforcement authorities (LEAs) are already behind the pace of technological developments, which directly affects their ability to uphold citizens’ rights. At the informal meeting of justice and home affairs ministers on 26 January 2023, home affairs ministers reflected on the challenges posed by technological developments for law enforcement in the digital age. They also expressed concern that the applicable rules and their interpretation through case-law, together with practical and operational impediments, are making it increasingly challenging for LEAs to carry out their work, in particular when it comes to the retention of and access to data necessary to investigate and prosecute crime3 . Following this discussion, the Council endorsed the establishment of a group to develop a strategic forward-looking vision on effective and lawful access to data, electronic evidence and information in the digital age for judicial and law enforcement authorities: the High-Level Group on access to data for effective law enforcement (HLG)4 . The HLG’s goal was to find solutions to the challenge inherent in permitting lawful access to data in order to uphold a high level of security for all people living in the EU, while ensuring compliance with fundamental rights, including the rights to privacy and to data protection, as well as a high level of cybersecurity, through efficient and future-proof solutions. The 42 recommendations5 , the main deliverable resulting from the work of the HLG, come at a time when calls for online accountability are increasing. The recommendations address current and anticipated challenges in view of technological developments, aiming to enable a comprehensive EU approach to ensuring effective criminal investigations and prosecutions. The recommendations are clustered in three blocks: capacity building; cooperation with industry and standardisation; and legislative measures. They emphasise the challenges law enforcement faces in accessing data in a readable format for criminal investigations due to the lack of harmonised data retention obligations and stringent requirements of EU case-law, the growing use of end-to-end encryption and the lack of cooperation by certain non-traditional telecommunications services. While welcoming the e-evidence rules, the recommendations highlight their limits in addressing challenges posed by encryption and call for stronger cooperation between law enforcement and judicial authorities and service providers to nurture a permanent dialogue and a mutual understanding of operational, technical and business needs and to overcome difficulties in accessing encrypted data. According to experts, stronger cooperation between law enforcement and service providers will improve the situation to a certain extent, but a future-proof solution also requires that obligations upon service providers to cooperate be enforced by legislation, without weakening encryption in a generalised or systematic way for the users of a service.

Brussels: European Commission, 2024. 51p.

By Reed T. DeAngelis

This research note provides new evidence consistent with systemic anti-Black racism in police killings across the United States. Data come from the Mapping Police Violence Database (2013–2021). I calculate race-specific odds and probabilities that victims of police killings exhibited mental illness, were armed with a weapon, or attempted to flee the scene at the time of their killing. Multilevel, multivariable logistic regression techniques are applied to further account for the victim's age, gender, year of killing, and geographical clustering. I find that White victims are underrepresented, and Black victims overrepresented in the database. Relative to White victims, Black victims also have 60% lower odds of exhibiting signs of mental illness, 23% lower odds of being armed, and 28% higher odds of fleeing. Hispanic victims exhibit 45% lower odds of being armed relative to their White peers but are otherwise comparable. These patterns persist regardless of the victim's age, gender, year of killing, or geographical location (state, zip code, and neighborhood type). Thus, the threshold for being perceived as dangerous, and thereby falling victim to lethal police force, appears to be higher for White civilians relative to their Black or Hispanic peers. Current findings provide empirical support for political initiatives to curb lethal police force, as such efforts could help to reduce racial disparities in deaths by police nationwide.

Race and Justice, Volume 14, Issue 3, July 2024, Pages 413-422

By Nicolas S. Rothbacher

Predictive policing has quickly become widespread in the United States. Practitioners claim it can greatly increase police efficiency and base decisions on objective statistics. Critics say that these algorithms reproduce discriminatory outcomes in a biased justice system. In this thesis, I investigate fare enforcement in New York City and what might happen if predictive policing were applied. First I analyze legal precedents on discrimination law to create a framework for understanding whether policy is legally discriminatory. In this framework the fairness of a government policy is judged based on how different groups are treated by the process of carrying out the policy. Three elements must be examined: a comparison group that is treated fairly, discriminatory burden for the disadvantaged group, and government negligence or intent. Next, using this framework, I perform data analysis on fare evasion arrests in New York City, and find evidence of discrimination. Finally, I examine predictive policing to determine what its effect on fare enforcement might be. I conclude that predictive policing algorithms trained on the arrests will be ineffective and seen as unfair due to the institutional practices that impact the data. This examination sheds light on how machine learning fairness could be analyzed using societal expectations of fairness.

Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology m Institute for Data, Systems, and Society, 2020 . 54p.

By Tom Gash and Rick Muir

This discussion document aims to promote debate about the best ways to organise our national policing institutions, resources, and processes to support effective policing, reduce crime and promote safer communities. We hope to contribute to the development of options prior to the government publishing a white paper on police reform in the coming months. We believe that a big reform to the landscape could unlock major benefits in terms of police efficiency, effectiveness and legitimacy.

The ideas and analysis in this document are based on the work of each of the authors at the interface of national and local policing over the past 15 or more years, the Police Foundation’s Strategic Review of Policing in England and Wales, and informal conversations with leaders across policing and home affairs policy. The work has not been commissioned by anybody. We have written it because we think reform could deliver significant improvements in the service the police provide to the public.

An earlier version of this paper was shared privately with those leading national policing institutions and considering police reform in December 2023. We are sincerely grateful for the insightful comments and feedback received from these leaders and from those we have shared drafts of this paper (please see acknowledgements).

We now welcome further feedback from readers and hope that the paper will stimulate debate and discussion as the government moves forward with its police reform agenda.

The case for change

There is a clear case for greater (and more coherent) national policing action

Much of policing today is as local a profession as it ever was. Robberies and violence in public spaces, hidden harms taking place in homes across the country, theft affecting local retailers, public reassurance and victim care all require a local policing response. These harms can all, to some extent, be controlled through local activity by the police and their public sector and community partners. Community confidence in policing is still mainly shaped by local experiences and direct contact. And it remains the case that trust in local institutions and services in the UK is often higher than in national ones.

There is no doubt, however, that effective policing also requires extensive national coordination and action. This need for national action is increasing due to:

• The growing role of digital technology, which has increased ‘remote’ and borderless criminality – for example in relation to fraud, online criminal exploitation, and computer misuse. Local forces alone are simply not able to tackle increasingly large volumes of internet enabled crime.

• The long-present but much underestimated role of national and increasingly multi-national companies in creating (or restricting) criminal opportunities - for example, vehicle manufacturers’ work on car security, or social media company identity management and reporting policies. To prevent crime in the 21st century the UK requires national relationships with global corporations.

• More extensive citizen exposure to national and global information on crime and policing, with public views of policing increasingly shaped by non-local events, social media comment and video footage.

• Changing public expectations for services, including expectations of consistency, partly drive by customer experiences elsewhere.

These factors are in addition to other long-standing reasons for national action, including:

• Efficiency: when police forces face common problems or opportunities, it will often be more efficient to design solutions once at a national level, rather than many times locally – though attention needs to be paid to ensuring national action will ‘work’ in local environments. As a positive example, Single Online Home is clearly assisting public contact – albeit with different levels and speed of uptake. However, in most cases, digital, data and technology investment is still determined entirely locally, resulting in multiple procurement processes and creating myriad local systems that struggle to share essential data.

• Effectiveness: There are clear effectiveness gains, for example, from national analysis and sharing of data: on crime patterns, and offenders, on ‘what works’ in tackling crime, and on how to organise policing resources to best effect (as the recent Home Office-sponsored Productivity Review demonstrated) - even though local contextual qualifiers will always need to be taken into account. In areas of specialist police work, there are benefits to be gained from concentrating expertise in ‘centres of excellence’ as opposed to dispersing it throughout the country. Indeed, the benefits of effectiveness in tackling serious and organised crime and counter-terrorism across a larger geographical scale are already reflected in the existence the National Crime Agency (NCA), the Counter Terrorism Command, and the network of regional organised crime units (ROCUs).

• Legitimacy: when the public expect (or need) a consistent response, it can be helpful to ensure this through national standards or action. Given that confidence in policing is clearly shaped by national (and even international) media and events, policing would often benefit from a single policing voice on key issues

Current approaches to national action are often ad hoc, undermining efficiency and effectiveness

In recognition of the need for national action, there have been several examples of recent national initiatives that have aimed to overcome the limitations or inefficiency of local-only solutions, including:

• Operation Talla, which drove a more coordinated and consistent Covid-19 policing response.

• The Police Uplift Programme, which supported the delivery of the 20,000 officer number increase and developed new pan-policing data sets that allow for more informed workforce planning.

• The National Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) strategy and Operation Soteria Bluestone, which is aiming to drive an improved policing response to rape and serious sexual offences.

• The Policing Productivity Review identified model processes that ought to be adopted by all forces where they can show there are more effective and efficient ways of doing things.

• New light-touch support from the College of Policing for forces in (or at risk of entering) HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) ‘Engaged’ status (policing’s equivalent of ‘special measures’).

• A very wide range of activities – ranging from research to guidance to ‘on-the-ground’ projects – led by Chairs of National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) Coordinating Committees (e.g. for Performance Management, or Prevention), often undertaken with minimal dedicated funding or resource ‘borrowed’ from the force of the Chair or Committee members.

Each initiative has been helpful to some extent. Yet it is striking that each such initiative is much like a business ‘start-up’. Funding streams are often ad hoc and insecure. There is no consistency of governance. Teams supporting initiatives are ‘stood up’ and ‘stood down’, meaning there is little scope for learning and continuously improving the model for driving local improvement through national work. In short, there is no standard operating model for national improvement or the running of many ongoing critical national policing capabilities – and each initiative has therefore not been able to operate with optimal efficiency and effectiveness. Matters are not helped by the wider recent trend towards one-year funding settlements.

Nowhere is this gap better demonstrated – or known – than in relation to police technology. The Home Office has set a clear direction of travel for policing: that the NPCC should eventually take over from the Home Office the commissioning and assurance of national technology programmes. However, models of funding, the approach to effective commissioning, the governance of the ever-expanding Police Digital Service (the envisaged main delivery body), and many other issues are still being worked through. Approaches are, again, being developed in isolation – creating a risk that the model created will again add complexity, and not interact neatly with linked areas such as digital forensics, procurement or service improvement initiatives.

In the arena of serious and organised crime, we are also currently building core national capabilities in different places. Fraud data is held separately from money laundering and cybercrime data. The serious and organised crime picture is being assembled in a different place to the counter-terrorism picture. There is a clear need to move over time to joint capabilities, so the system adds up to more than (not less than) the sum of its parts and scarce resource is used to the greatest effect across the system.

London: Police Foundation, 2024. 20p.

By Shane D. Johnson

Traditional crime has been falling for some time in most countries. However, developing technologies and our use of them are creating new opportunities for offending. For example, estimates from the Crime Survey of England and Wales indicate that in the UK, online fraud and related offences account for as many crimes as do “traditional” offences. To date, academia, law enforcement and governments have been reactive both in terms of identifying new and emerging forms of offending and in developing approaches to address them. In this paper, I will discuss the future crime agenda, and how futures thinking can help identify future crime opportunities and security threats including online fraud, crimes involving artificial intelligence, and crime in the metaverse. The paper will close with a discussion of the implications for theory and crime prevention.

Security Journal, Volume 37, pages 515–534, (2024)

By: Keeva Baxter

In July 2024, a stabbing at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class in Southport left three young children murdered and 10 others injured. Following this attack, widespread racist and Islamophobic violence and unrest spread across the UK. This was fuelled by misinformation online, political and media commentary and other socio-economic factors in the communities most affected.

Following this violence, many communities have been looking for ways to repair the harm, move forward and prevent future unrest. In this report, based on a consultation session with the sector, we explore how Restorative Justice can play a part in the journey towards healing.

London: Why me? Transforming lives through Restorative Justice, 2024. 13p.

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 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 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 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

By Emily A. Greene-Colozzi, Joshua D. Freilich

Situational crime prevention (SCP) is an environmental crime control perspective with enormous practical and policy relevance due to its practitioner-friendly theoretical approach. This study examines whether SCP interventions reduce incident casualty outcomes in active shooter incidents. We used an inductive, open-source data set of 555 active shooter and mass public shooting sites to study the applicability of SCP to active shooter and mass public violence. Our findings suggest a harm mitigation role for SCP: active shooter sites with stronger holistic SCP had fewer casualties. We assessed perpetrator motivation to test displacement, a core critique of SCP, and found that the harm mitigation potential of SCP persists even in the presence of a highly motivated offender.

Policy summary

SCP could be a practical and effective method to decrease casualties in the event of an active shooting, which is a highly motivated crime type that is difficult to predict and prevent. Public locations may select a range of appropriate SCP techniques based on individual resources and needs. The totality and interactions of these techniques may contribute to public safety in general, with diffuse benefits. This policy solution is highly oriented toward practice and real-life application, and may be used to supplement existing preventative measures like threat assessment and gun legislation.

Criminology & Public Policy Volume 23, Issue 4 Nov 2024 Pages 801-1017