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 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 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 Janice Goldstraw-White, Martin Gill and Mark Button

Levels of economic crime have soared to alarming levels in the last decade. Even with significant underreporting, the volume of offences has placed a strain on police resources and this has served to undermine the ability of law enforcement to respond effectively. Meanwhile, parts of the private and not-for profit sectors dedicate significant resources to combatting economic crime. Banks and insurance companies for example, employ thousands of staff in antifraud roles. This expertise is largely invisible to the police, representing a massive, wasted opportunity. Efforts to harness the work of the private and not-for-profit sectors to assist public policing initiatives to tackle economic crime have been slight, an observation as true for the UK as it is other countries. Much of the focus, where it does exist, appears to centre on data sharing while there are many other initiatives. Indeed, the link between the lack of resources and the potential to harness the work of others is rarely made. How can such a glaring gap exist? The overall aim of this project was to begin to address this question, more specifically:

• To identify the forms of joint efforts taking place that can serve as a reference point to inspire and guide future initiatives;

• To highlight some successful examples of engagement;

• To indicate the factors that are needed to replicate success;

• To lay the foundations for a larger scale study examining the ways in which additional resources from the private and not-for-profit sectors can cost effectively be harnessed to significantly improve the law enforcement response to fraud.

To understand the landscape of organisations working together we employed three key methodologies. First, we mapped the services provided by both private and not-for-profit entities that support (or have the potential to support) law enforcement responses to economic crime. Second, we developed a set of five illustrative case studies to demonstrate diverse forms of engagement. Third, we conducted in-depth interviews with stakeholders involved in various aspects of fraud prevention and enforcement to identify both the potential opportunities and the existing barriers to working together.

The output is designed to provide a resource for law enforcement, counter-fraud leaders and policymakers. Our mapping of existing initiatives will serve as a reference guide, facilitating opportunities to benefit from current provisions and inspiring replication and new ways of working.

Tunbridge Wells, UK: Perpetuity Research and Consultancy International Ltd and CCEC, Portsmouth, UK: University of Portsmouth , 2024. 61p.

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 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 John S. Hollywood, Dulani Woods, Samuel Peterson, Michael J. D. Vermeer, Brian A. Jackson

Deficiencies in the quality and interoperability of law enforcement data have been identified as major problems that hamper law enforcement decisionmaking and operations. Data governance and data management (DG/DM) can address these issues by improving the quality and shareability of data. On behalf of the National Institute of Justice, the Police Executive Research Forum and RAND convened a panel to identify the most-pressing needs to leverage DG/DM knowledge to enable major improvements in the quality, availability, and interoperability of law enforcement data.

The panelists identified five themes: improving law enforcement's DG/DM capabilities; improving protections on law enforcement data; improving community participation in data decisionmaking; developing novel data and processes to support broad, multiagency conceptions of community safety; and improving the value of traditional law enforcement data. The panelists rated the problems and potential solutions they described to identify a set of high-priority needs for improving the quality and integrity of community safety data for law enforcement agencies and all other agencies and groups involved in the community safety enterprise. These needs and supporting context are described in this report. The highest-priority theme emerging from the workshop was using DG/DM to improve community safety data protections in various ways, including developing guidelines, core processes, training, and guidance for agencies to work with vendors and improving community participation in data decisionmaking.

RAND - Sep. 11, 2024

By: Dustin A. Richardson, Jeremy D. Barnum, Meagan E. Cahill, Dulani Woods, Kevin D. Lucey, Michael J. D. Vermeer, Brian A. Jackson

Individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDDs) are at a higher risk of being victimized, arrested, and charged with a crime (The Arc, undated-a). They are also more likely to serve longer prison sentences than individuals without IDDs (The Arc, undated-a). Despite their overrepresentation, individuals with IDDs who are involved in the criminal justice system are often overlooked or neglected, and the body of research on this topic is lacking (The Arc, undated-a; Wilkerson, Lopez-Wright, and Davis, 2022). As gatekeepers of the criminal justice system, police officers are often the first point of contact for individuals with IDDs, yet rarely are they trained on how to respond to this population effectively (Melendrez et al., undated; Watson, Phan, and Compton, 2022; Watson, Compton, and Pope, 2019). Consequently, justice system professionals may have limited experience with or insufficient knowledge about IDDs, which can lead to the “misidentification of disability, a heightened risk of false confessions, inaccurate assumptions about competency and credibility, inappropriate placement in institutions, and the unknowing waivers of rights” (The Arc, undated-a). In the absence of proper training, officers are forced to rely on traditional approaches that do not account for the unique needs of those with IDDs. Therefore, it is critical to identify ways in which the law enforcement response to persons with IDDs can be improved.

This report documents an effort to do just that as part of the Priority Criminal Justice Needs Initiative, a multiyear collaboration to develop expert-identified research and policy needs on issues affecting the criminal justice system. On behalf of the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), RAND and the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) convened a workshop to address the law enforcement response to persons with IDDs. The purpose of this workshop was to inform a research agenda for NIJ and other stakeholders to discover and implement novel law enforcement responses to individuals with IDDs. The meeting occurred on July 12 and 13, 2023, in Washington, D.C., at the NIJ offices within the Office of Justice Programs. PERF staff consulted the research literature and identified practitioners, academics, and individuals associated with advocacy organizations to serve as participants. PERF also received input from federal partners and law enforcement agencies (LEAs) attempting to improve their response to the IDD community, taking care to include perspectives from various geographic regions.

RAND - Sep 23, 2024

By Nick Sawhney

Fare Evasion and its enforcement is an ever-more relevant issue in New York City. In this paper, a data set of fare evasion arrests and weighted census data is created and analyzed using a difference-in-differences regression model in order to understand the impact of the Manhattan District Attorney’s 2018 policy to curtail the prosecution of those arrested for fare evasion in the New York City Subway. Results suggest that, despite an overall reduction in arrests, Black and Hispanic communities still saw an increase in fare evasion policing. Income inequality is suggested as an indicator of the number of arrests as well. Furthermore, the proportion of Black arrests was found to increase following the implementation of the policy, especially in areas which contain greater Black and Hispanic populations.

Published 2020.

By: Terry L. Whiting

Simple Summary: In any federation of states, societal oversight of farm animal welfare (agriculture policy arena, prevention) is more difficult to achieve than providing punishment of individuals abusing of companion animals (post injury). The constitutional division of powers and historical policy related to animal agriculture and non-government organization policing cruelty of companion animals may be entrenched. With changing societal expectations of agriculture production, each level of government may hesitate to take the lead, due to financial or ideological beliefs and simultaneously, obstruct the other government level from taking the lead, based on constitutional grounds. The tradition of private policing of companion animal abuse offences may be unworkable in the provision of protection for animals used in industrial production.

Abstract: In recent European animal welfare statutes, human actions injurious to animals are new “offences” articulated as an injury to societal norms in addition to property damage. A crime is foremost a violation of a community moral standard. Violating a societal norm puts society out of balance and justice is served when that balance is returned. Criminal law normally requires the presence of mens rea, or evil intent, a particular state of mind; however, dereliction of duties towards animals (or children) is usually described as being of varying levels of negligence but, rarely can be so egregious that it constitutes criminal societal injury. In instrumental justice, the “public goods” delivered by criminal law are commonly classified as retribution, incapacitation and general deterrence. Prevention is a small, if present, outcome of criminal justice. Quazi-criminal law intends to establish certain expected (moral) standards of human behavior where by statute, the obligations of one party to another are clearly articulated as strict liability. Although largely moral in nature, this class of laws focuses on achieving compliance, thereby resulting in prevention. For example, protecting the environment from degradation is a benefit to society; punishing non-compliance, as is the application of criminal law, will not prevent the injury. This paper will provide evidence that the integrated meat complex of Canada and the USA is not in a good position to make changes to implement a credible farm animal protection system.

Animals 2013, 3, 1086-1122; doi:10.3390/ani3041086

By Camello, M., Planty, M., Krebs, C. P., & Faris, B

Measuring community perceptions and opinions of law enforcement can help agencies, government officials, and the communities they serve to understand the community’s feelings and perceptions about law enforcement and safety, which may be influenced by both crime and non-crime-related issues. Having this information enables agencies to learn, evaluate the effectiveness of interventions, refine their policies and practices, and improve their performance while building trust through increased transparency and responsiveness to public concerns. The objectives of this landscape report are to provide foundational principles on survey methodology, highlight three different approaches that can be used to measure community perceptions (general population surveys, post-contact surveys, and leveraging of data from existing sources), and describe novel modes for carrying out the various approaches.

Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International, 2023. 77p.

By Brett Cowell,  Maria Valdovinos Olson,  Eiryn Renouard Jennifer Calnon Cherkauskas,  Ryan Fisher

Law enforcement culture, particularly the normalization and acceptance of voluntary risk-taking, can result in officers taking unnecessary risks when driving and working on or near a roadway. These dangerous behaviors— including not wearing a seat belt, reflective vest, or body armor, driving at excessive speeds, and driving while fatigued or distracted—are major risk factors for officer-involved motor vehicle collisions and struck-by incidents. Given the significant number of officers who are injured or killed in these types of roadway-related incidents each year, the National Law Enforcement Roadway Safety Program (NLERSP) team sought to examine how law enforcement culture may be contributing to these behaviors and provide law enforcement leaders with guidance on how to shift organizational culture to improve roadway safety. Through a review of the available literature on law enforcement culture and roadway-related incidents and the findings from a focus group comprised of law enforcement executives, supervisors, trainers, and officers, the NLERSP team identified several actionable steps agencies can take to address roadway-related safety risks. In addressing these risks, law enforcement leaders must strive to create a culture of safety within their agency—one that emphasizes and values “safety first” in law enforcement operations. While changing culture in law enforcement is not easy, the highly successful crash prevention program implemented by the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, whose case study is featured in this brief, demonstrates that it is possible. As focus group participants explained, establishing a culture of safety for roadway operations can be accomplished by setting expectations through policy and training, communicating these expectations, providing unyielding support, and emphasizing accountability at all levels of the agency  

Arlington, VA:  The National Policing Institute, 2024. 34p.

By The National Policing Institute

Large and small law enforcement agencies across the United States use specialized police units to solve community problems that traditional patrol units lack the resources or expertise to address. Throughout the decades, specialized units—most notably specialized enforcement units focused on crime control in certain areas—have at times run afoul of law enforcement’s mission and of the Constitution. These instances of police misconduct can destroy the legitimacy of their own and other agencies and severely undermine community and officer safety. In the wake of Tyre Nichols’s tragic death in 2023 at the hands of officers assigned to a Memphis (Tennessee) Police Department specialized enforcement unit, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) heard from police chiefs across the country who were assessing their use of specialized units. The DOJ committed to providing a guide to assist law enforcement leaders, mayors, and communities in assessing the appropriateness of specialized units and ensuring the effective management and necessary accountability of such units. This guide is intended to benefit all state, local, tribal, and territorial (SLTT) agencies irrespective of their history with specialized units or those units’ size. In early 2023, the DOJ’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office) and the National Policing Institute (NPI) partnered to hold a series of convenings, roundtable discussions, and interviews with law enforcement and community stakeholders to inform this guide. Law enforcement participants represented many types and sizes of SLTT agencies and included active supervisors of specialized units; other participants included individuals from several civil rights and community advocacy groups, many of whom work in and have a deep understanding of the perspectives of communities impacted by specialized units. The participants’ wide range of experiences, expertise, and perspectives played an indispensable role in forming the considerations represented in this guide. The information presented in this guide was gleaned from many dedicated experts concerned with improving policing and creating safe communities. It is presented as considerations because they are just that: considerations, not edicts. Every law enforcement agency is different, serving unique communities and with unique public safety concerns. Recognizing these disparate needs, each agency should use the considerations in this guide in the manner that works best for it. The COPS Office and NPI strongly believe that using these considerations will strengthen an agency’s ability to police in an effective and just manner. The goal of the guide is to give practical, actionable considerations for agencies and communities to help determine whether to form a specialized unit, and if so, how to ensure appropriate management, oversight, and accountability for any such unit. The guide looks at four critical stages of a specialized unit’s development: (1) formation, (2) personnel selection and supervision, (3) management and accountability, and (4) community engagement. For document organization and ease of reading, the stages are presented as chronological or linear, spanning the life cycle of a specialized unit, but the authors realize that many agencies already have existing specialized units and can tailor the use of this guide to their unique needs. Several key considerations are put forth for each section of the guide.   

Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. 2024. 72p.  

By: KENT R. KERLEY & MICHAEL L. BENSON

Advocates of community-oriented policing contend that it has great potential to reduce crime and fear because it strengthens community social organization and cohesion. Previous studies of community policing, however, fail to include community process variables as outcome measures and instead focus on outcome measures such as crime rates and fear of crime. Despite the recent focus by criminologists on community context in general studies of crime and delinquency, no direct attempt has been made to investigate the potential relationship between community policing and broader community processes such as community organization, cohesion, and cooperative security. Using data from a comprehensive community policing study conducted in Oakland, California, and Birmingham, Alabama, from 1987 to 1989, this article investigates whether community policing strategies have effects on community processes. Findings indicate that community policing tactics do not have strong effects on community processes. These results may help explain why community policing has so far had little measurable impact on crime and fear of crime, and may be instructive for the design and evaluation of future community policing studies.

POLICE QUARTERLY Vol. 3 No. 1, March 2000 46–69

By: Josef Racz

Kábítószerptoblémák kezelése a magyar rendőrségen belül. A kábítószer-bűncselekmények ismertetése és a rendőri fellépés lehetőségei. Rendőrség és társadalmi kontroll.

NEMZETI KÁBÍTÓSZERÜGYI KOORDINÁCIÓS IGAZGATÓSÁG, ORSZÁGOS BŰNMEGELŐZÉSI BIZOTTSÁG, Budapest 2009