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 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 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 Timothy Hsiao

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Rick Muir

This report, produced in partnership with Virgin Media O2 Business, provides a strategic roadmap for police forces to make the most of digital systems, data and technology. It addresses the challenges with using technology, including upgrading outdated technology and unifying data management systems – both of which will be critical to modernisation.

We found that police forces are grappling with outdated legacy systems, complex procurement procedures, fragmented data-sharing, and a lack of digital knowledge and skills at all levels of policing. These challenges are stifling the full potential of data, digital and technology to transform modern policing.

With expertise from an advisory panel of leaders across national policing, the report makes a number of recommendations to enable officers to work more efficiently and use data to empower them with real-time insights:

• Develop a national strategy for interoperability enabling all 43 police forces to integrate their technology and share data.

• Invest in modern, scalable technology to transition from outdated systems to cloud-based platforms, real-time data and AI insights.

• Change the leadership culture to promote technological literacy at senior and executive leadership levels, ensuring that decision-makers understand the benefits of innovation and act accordingly.

London: Police Foundation, 2024. 28p.

By Mia Karisa Dawson, Asia Ivey and Shani Buggs

Community violence—defined as unsanctioned violence between unrelated individuals in public places—has devastating physical, psychological, and emotional consequences on individuals, families, and communities. Immense investments in policing and incarceration in the United States have neither prevented community violence nor systemically served those who have been impacted by it, instead often inflicting further harm. However, the logics that uphold policing and incarceration as suitable or preventative responses to community violence are deeply ingrained in societal discourse, limiting our ability to respond differently. In this perspective, we draw from interviews with leading voices in the field of outreach-based community violence intervention and prevention to consider alternative ways to address community violence. We begin by demonstrating that policing and incarceration are distinguished by practices of retribution, isolation, and counterinsurgency that are counterproductive to the prevention of community violence. Then, we identify alternative practices of outreach-based community violence intervention and prevention that include (1) fostering safety nets through relationships among individuals, families, and neighborhoods, (2) fighting poverty and increasing access to resources, and (3) building political capacity among organizations to transform the broader systems in which they are embedded. They also include accountability practices that are preventative and responsive to the needs of those who are harmed. We conclude that elevating the language, narratives, and values of outreach-based community violence intervention and prevention can transform our responses to violence, interrupt cycles of harm, and foster safer communities

Front Public Health 2023 Apr 17:11:1143516. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1143516. eCollection 2023.

By BARRY VAUGHAN

The problem of policing is often portrayed as providing sufficient personnel to sate demand. Pluralism, however, complicates the issue since the public disagree among themselves over which activities or individuals should be policed. In turn, police priorities may differ from these demands, inciting public discontent. In these circumstances, how can public policing sustain its legitimacy? Lessons can be learnt from how political theories have grappled with pluralism and legitimacy. This article analyses how three major political theorists, John Rawls, Michael Walzer and Friedrich Hayek, dealt with these issues. It mines their insights to nominate the principle of non- domination, defined as freedom from interference on an arbitrary basis, as best suited to justify policing in an era of pluralism.

Vol. 11(3): 347–366; 1362–4806