By David J. Knight and Vesla M. Weaver

This review integrates recent scholarship outside of criminology with primary source material from a broadened source base to trace underappreciated histories of political struggle to secure safety and address harm in Black communities. Much of the existing literature in criminology and related social science fields tends to overlook bottom-up sources and the creative safety practices and sites of safety provision that exist and, in so doing, contributes to a lopsided empirical narrative of policing in the United States. This review, however, highlights the centrality of Black-led political mobilization, formal and informal, to articulating alternate visions of safety beyond policing and building alternate structures to transform the legal system and challenge racial criminalization. Examples include community patrols, the efforts of Black police to confront violence in their own departments and stand up structures of responsiveness, and national campaigns to challenge punitive legislation and offer alternatives. Unearthing these often marginalized and misrecognized histories and sources of Black-led struggle for community safety enables an analysis of not only the forms that community-led practices and interventions can take but also the ongoing state-produced conditions—referred to in this review as safety deprivation—that give rise to them. More broadly, this review uses these histories as a lens through which to consider how empirical narratives of policing and safety are transformed when community-derived, bottom-up knowledge sources are accounted for both substantively and methodologically and offers the field a guide of available databases.

Annu. Rev. Criminol. 2025. 8:25–52

By The Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services

The Community Policing Act of 2020 (HB 1250; “the Act") mandated that the Virginia State Police (VSP) and other state and local law enforcement agencies, including police departments (PDs) and sheriff’s offices (SOs), begin collecting and reporting data on traffic stops as of July 1, 2020. State law enforcement agencies, PDs, and SOs are required to collect data on the race, ethnicity, and other characteristics of the drivers stopped, and on other circumstances of the stop such as the reason for the stop, whether any individuals or vehicles were searched, and the outcome of the stop (arrest, citation, warning, etc.). All reporting agencies are to submit this data to VSP, who maintain the data in the Community Policing Database.

The Act also mandated that the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) periodically obtain data from the Community Policing Database and produce an annual report “for the purposes of analyzing the data to determine the existence and prevalence of the practice of bias-based profiling and the prevalence of complaints alleging the use of excessive force." Such reports shall be produced and published by July 1 of each year.

This is the third of these reports from DCJS. It contains a review of how the data was collected and analyzed as well as preliminary findings of data from 650,387 traffic stops reported in Virginia during the nine-month period between July 1, 2022, and March 31, 2023. This report also presents the findings from analyses of statewide data; aggregated data from the seven VSP Divisions; and data from each individual law enforcement agency that reported sufficient data to the Community Policing Database.

The information presented in this report is preliminary and should be interpreted with caution. Although this analysis identified disparities in traffic stop rates related to race/ethnicity, it does not allow us to determine or measure specific reasons for these disparities. Most importantly for this study, this analysis does not allow us to determine the extent to which these disparities may or may not be due to bias-based profiling or to other factors that can vary depending on race or ethnicity. These other factors include differences in locations where police focus their patrol activities, differences in underlying regional populations, differences in driving patterns among individuals, and the lack of a scientifically established baseline for determining the number of drivers in each racial/ethnic group who are on the road and subject to being stopped while driving.

The analysis of racial disparity is a complex field with a vast array of potential contributing factors. Many data elements could play influential roles in racial/ethnic patterns of traffic enforcement but are unavailable to DCJS. Factors like the race of the officer performing the stop, agency policies and community priorities driving enforcement patterns, police report narratives outlining legal justifications for stop, search, and arrest can all inform stop patterns but are not within the current purview of available Community Policing Act data. Additionally, the data presented in this report cannot reflect any stop trends from agencies which did not provide data or records that were excluded for completeness issues. As such, while the report presents stop, search, and arrest disparities based on the available data, they should not be construed as complete and final proof of disparity OR any explanation of contributing factors which drive genuine disparities which may exist.

This report does not tabulate the many positive actions that can occur for a traffic stop such as seizures of guns, confiscation of drugs, and ensuring valid and current drivers’ licenses. The Community Policing Act imposes narrow requirements for data collection and analysis, and any benefits of traffic or pedestrian stops are not within the scope of the law.

While DCJS and VSP have introduced process improvements based on lessons learned in past reporting, the Community Policing Act is still in the early stages of implementation. More and better data, as noted in the recommendations, is needed to make the observations in this report more than directional, and the costs of such data gathering need further evaluation. As the report notes, many PDs and SOs − especially smaller agencies with limited resources − continue to face challenges establishing the data collection and reporting required under the Act. The majority of local law enforcement agencies (LEAs) in Virginia (255, or 74%) employ 50 or fewer sworn officers, including 118 (or 34%) employing 10 or fewer sworn officers. Many of these agencies have faced challenges fulfilling all requirements imposed by the Act and aligning their collection practices with the changes introduced since first implementation of the Act. For this reason, some agencies were unable to report complete data responsive to the Community Policing Act for the entire year, and in some cases the quality of the data was limited. Additionally, a substantial number of smaller agencies reported so few traffic stops that it was not possible to interpret data related to driver race/ethnicity. The state may wish to consider providing additional resources to LEAs, particularly smaller agencies, to support their ability to comply with the data-related provisions of the Act.

Another important limitation to the data and findings presented in this report relates to the race/ethnicity data in the Community Policing Database itself. Because the state lacks a standardized mechanism for reporting the race or ethnicity of a given driver, law enforcement officers must either make their own determination about a driver’s race/ethnicity (which may or may not be accurate) or ask for that information in the course of the traffic stop, which could raise constitutional concerns or escalate the perception of conflict in certain situations. Virginia does not collect and store information about a driver’s race/ethnicity, whether in driver-related databases maintained by the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles or on individual driver’s licenses. Whether and to what extent the data related to driver race/ethnicity in the Community Policing Database accurately captures this information cannot be determined without further review.

The factors described above limited the ability of DCJS staff to conduct any complex statistical analysis of the data or to draw any firm conclusions about the existence and prevalence of the practice of bias-based profiling in a given agency or jurisdiction. It is anticipated that the reporting, analysis, and interpretation of Community Policing Act data will improve in the future as the program matures.

Richmond: Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services, 2021. 73p.

By Stephen Rushin

This Article argues that, if effectively regulated, policing represents a fundamentally important social institution that advances the community interest in public safety, justice, equality, and the rule of law.

In recent years, a significant and growing body of legal scholarship has called for the shrinking of police responsibilities, the defunding of police budgets, or the complete abolition of local police departments. A countervailing body of scholarly literature has questioned the wisdom of some of these proposals, arguing that they could unintentionally make policing worse or have unintended public safety effects.

This Article enters this debate by affirmatively defending the importance of the institution of policing. It argues that effectively regulated policing is critical to the investigation of harmful criminal behavior, the responses to public safety emergencies, the deterrence of future harmful conduct, the physical protection of historically marginalized communities, and the rule of law.

However, policing can only serve these important functions if it is effectively regulated and accountable to the community it serves. Too often, the failure of policymakers to properly regulate police behavior has led to unaccountable policing agencies that regularly violate the constitutional rights of their constituents, particularly the rights of historically marginalized populations. However, that represents an ongoing regulatory challenge rather than an indictment of the fundamental importance of the institution of policing.

Understanding the importance of policing as a social institution has more than mere academic significance. As some scholars push for a fundamental reimagination of public safety, it is vital for these proposals to understand the value conferred by the institution of policing. Only by understanding the importance of policing can both abolitionists and reformers develop solutions that balance public safety and the protection of constitutional rights.

76 South Carolina Law Review 133 (2024), 47p.

By David Spencer and Alexander Tait

British policing, and the criminal justice system more widely, is in crisis. Great swathes of the public believe that those who commit crimes do not suffer sufficient consequences for their actions.1 They witness police officers being told to consider making fewer arrests,2 and a low likelihood of offenders being charged or summonsed to court.3 When they look at the criminal courts, the public see huge delays4 and lenient sentences for those that have broken the law.5 The public observe individuals in their neighbourhoods continuing a life of crime, when they should be in prison. There is a significant distance between how tough on crime and criminals the public believe the police and criminal justice system should be, and how tough on crime and criminals the public believe the police and criminal justice system currently are. We call this the ‘Toughness Gap’. And this is not just about public perception. While overall crime may have fallen over the 30 years, this headline obscures an explosion in many types of crime – including an increase in criminal offences by 12% over the last year alone.6 Robbery increased from 62,354 offences in 2021 to 82,437 in the year to September 2024.7 Knife crime increased by 88.6% between 2015 and 2024.8 Police recorded incidents of shoplifting increased by 23% between 2023 and the year to September 2024 – the highest levels since current records began over 20 years ago.9 Fraud increased by 19% over the last year.10 Between 2010 and 2018 over 70% of police stations in London were closed.11 Between 2010 and 2017 the number of police officers in England and Wales was cut by 19%, before a rapid recruitment exercise replaced some of the officers lost.12 By 2024 the number of police officers was still 3% below 2010 levels.13 As part of its ‘A Portrait of Modern Britain’ project, Policy Exchange commissioned exclusive polling on the views of the British public across a wide range of areas – including on crime and policing. This report reveals that a distinctive electoral battleground has opened on crime and policing. We reveal two key trends. (i) Firstly, there is a clear mandate for the police to adopt a tougher approach to crime than they are currently perceived to be taking. This finding is observed across every major demographic group (age, sex, ethnicity), every economic grouping and amongst supporters of every political party. (ii) Secondly, Reform UK is establishing itself as the political home for those who are most likely to be dissatisfied with policing and those who believe there is the greatest gap between how tough olicing should be and how tough policing currently is. These two trends come with lessons and warnings for other political parties – particularly the incumbent Labour Government.

London: Policy Exchange, 2025. 35p.

By Rick Muir and Felicity O’Connell 

Emily is on the phone to a 999-call handler. She is worried because a man who has been stalking her has been seen by a neighbour in a nearby street. While the call handler is talking to Emily and trying to reassure her, the call is being automatically transcribed into an artificial intelligence (AI) system that can search police databases. When Emily mentions the man’s name and address, the AI software discovers that the man has a firearms licence and alerts the call handler that the police need to get to Emily’s house straight away. Police Constable Tony Williamson1 has come across an elderly woman of British Pakistani heritage seemingly distressed in the street. He asks her if he can help, but she does not speak English. PC Williamson turns on the live translation tool on his mobile device and he asks her again. As she speaks, the woman’s words are translated in real time into his earpiece. She says that she is worried because her son Mohammed did not come home from school. This was three hours ago, and she has been trying to look for him. She says her son has a history of mental health problems and often goes missing. PC Williamson types ‘what’s your son’s name and date of birth?’ into the translation app on his phone and intuitively the keyboard is offered in Urdu. The woman types in the answer. The officer can run an immediate search across police databases for any information about her son. A full profile of her son Mohammed Iqbal1 is generated, including a list of addresses with which he is associated. The officer calls the case in and escorts Mrs Iqbal home while reassuring her that officers are now looking for her son. These are just two examples of the way AI powered technology could enhance the way that the police are able to serve the public. Policing is at its heart a complex information business, but it has struggled to make full use of the data stored on its many often outdated systems. AI could be transformative in policing because it can turn this wealth of data into actionable intelligence at the touch of a button. However, the AI revolution poses a whole set of legal and ethical questions for the police and society. How far should the police go in using AI to keep communities safe? Could these technologies make the police too effective, in that they may be able to know much more about us and pry into our private lives to an unprecedented degree? How can we be assured of the reliability and accuracy of the AI tools being deployed? How do we feel about machines making or guiding decisions as to whether a crime should be investigated, or someone should be charged with a criminal offence? Which policing decisions ought to be reserved for human beings? There are important technical, organisational and cultural questions too. Is the data the police hold ready for the AI revolution? Do police leaders understand the technology they are using? Are there the skills in the police workforce to properly exploit the potential of AI? Is the police service organised in such a way that it can properly make use of these new technologies? In this report we explore these and other questions in the following ways: 1. We set out a brief history of the development of AI and define some of the terms used to describe its different forms. 2. We describe some of the ways in which AI is currently being used by UK policing and explore how it might be used in the future. 3. We identify eight challenges for the more widespread use of AI for policing purposes. 4. We make a number of recommendations for policymakers and police leaders intended to help policing make the most of the AI revolution, while maintaining public trust and confidence and protecting rights and freedoms. The report is based on research undertaken between March and September 2024. This included a review of relevant academic and grey literature, interviews with 18 operational and strategic police leaders, policy makers, industry and civil liberties representatives, and a survey of chief information officers in English and Welsh police forces. 

London: Police Foundation, 2025. 28p.

By Kristin Turney

 A family systems perspective suggests the repercussions of adolescent police contact likely extend beyond the adolescent to proliferate to the broader family unit, but little research investigates these relationships. I used data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, a longitudinal survey of children who became adolescents during an era of proactive policing, to examine the relationship between adolescent police contact and four aspects of family life: mothers’ parenting stress, mothers’ monitoring, mothers’ discipline, and the mother-adolescent relationship. Adolescent police contact, especially invasive police contact, is associated with increased parenting stress, increased discipline, and decreased engagement, net of adolescent and family characteristics that increase the risk of police contact. There is also evidence that suggests adolescent police contact is more consequential for family life when mothers themselves had experienced recent police contact. These findings suggest the repercussions of police contact extend beyond the individual and proliferate to restructure family relationships.  

Social Problems 70(1): 2023, 256–273

By Kristin Turney

Police stops are a pervasive form of criminal justice contact among adolescents, particularly adolescents of color, that have adverse repercussions for mental health. Yet, the mental health consequences of adolescent police stops likely proliferate to parents of adolescents exposed to this form of criminal justice contact. In this article, I conceptualize adolescent police stops as a stressor, drawing on the stress process perspective to examine how and under what conditions this form of criminal justice contact damages the mental health of adolescents’ mothers. The results, based on data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, suggest three conclusions. First, the mental health consequences of adolescent police stops proliferate, increasing the likelihood of depression and anxiety among adolescents’ mothers. These relationships persist across modeling strategies that adjust for observed confounders, including adolescent characteristics such as delinquency and substance use. Second, the relationship between adolescent police stops and mothers’ mental health is contingent, concentrated among mothers with prior exposure to the criminal justice system (either via themselves or their adolescents’ fathers). Third, mothers’ emotional support buffers the relationship between adolescent police stops and mothers’ mental health. Taken together, this research highlights the role of police exposure as a stressor that is experienced vicariously and that has contingent consequences and, accordingly, documents the expansive and proliferating repercussions of police contact. Given the concentration of police contact among marginalized adolescents, including adolescents of color, these findings highlight another way the criminal justice system exacerbates structural inequalities. 

Social Forces 100(3):1142–1169.2022, 28 p.

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.