By The Task Force; Tricia Everest, Chair

On February 2, 2024, Oklahoma’s MODERN (Modernized Operations through Data and Evidence-based Restoration Now) Justice Task Force released its much-anticipated report with 15 data-driven recommendations to address jail populations, recidivism, cost-effectiveness, and public safety across the state. The report is the culmination of over a year of rigorous review of Oklahoma’s jails at the state and local level as part of a Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI). The JRI effort began in August 2022, when Governor Kevin Stitt, Senate Pro Tem Greg Treat, House Speaker Charles McCall, and Administrative Director of the Courts Jari Askins jointly requested JRI technical support from the Crime and Justice Institute (CJI). The Task Force spent months analyzing Oklahoma’s jail system using a sample of jail data provided by six counties across the state, evaluating current programs, discussing best practices and models from other states, and engaging in in-depth policy discussions. To ensure a balanced perspective, the Task Force gathered feedback from a variety of stakeholders including law enforcement officials, county leadership, behavioral health services, victims and survivors of crime, and formerly incarcerated individuals.  

Tulsa, OK: The Task Force, 2023. 43p.

By European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) to Correlation – European Harm Reduction Network (C-EHRN)

Drug consumption rooms (DCRs) are fixed or mobile spaces in which people who use drugs are provided with sterile drug use equipment and can use illicit drugs under the supervision of trained staff. They exist in several European countries, Australia, Canada, Mexico and the USA, and are usually located in areas where there is an open drug scene and injecting in public places is common. Their primary goal is to reduce morbidity and mortality by providing a safer environment for drug use and training clients in safer forms of drug use. Other explicit objectives may be providing a conduit to other care services and reducing public nuisance. A main aim of this report is to inform discussions on DCRs by examining the available evidence, as well as reviewing the various models being adopted and their characteristics. Two operational models are typically used in Europe: (1) integrated DCRs, operating within low-threshold facilities, where the supervision of drug use is just one of several services offered; and (2) specialised DCRs, which provide a narrower range of services directly related to supervised consumption. Services typically available within DCRs include: provision of a supervised environment for drug use; clean drug use equipment, including sterile syringes; and rapid interventions if overdose occurs. In addition, DCRs may offer counselling services; primary medical care; training for clients in safer forms of drug use, overdose awareness and the use of naloxone; and referral to social, healthcare and treatment services. Access to consumption facilities may be restricted to registered service users, and often certain conditions have to be met, for example minimum age and local residency. Typically, drugs used in these facilities must be obtained prior to entry. Drug dealing and drug sharing are not allowed within the facilities (staff may be required to call in the police if necessary), and staff can advise but do not directly assist clients in administering their drugs. As frontline, low-threshold services, drug consumption rooms are often among the first places where insights can be gained into new drug use patterns, and, thus, they also can have a role to play in the early identification of new and emerging trends among high-risk populations using their services. The operation and functioning of DCRs has adapted to changes in the profiles and needs of their target groups, and to new patterns of use, as well as to new types of drugs emerging on the market. DCRs may also therefore be well placed to identify and inform strategies to mitigate harms related to developments in the illicit drug market that present new health challenges.

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2023. 52p.

By  Kate Bowers , Lisa Tompson and Shane D. Johnson

In many disciplines, there is a wealth of primary evaluation research on what works, and systematic reviews that synthesize that evidence. This is, of course, extremely positive. However, the sheer scale of the information and the way in which it is indexed and presented can mean that it is difficult for practitioners to locate the best available evidence. For this reason, in health, education, and other disciplines, using techniques from information science, researchers have systematically assembled databases such as those hosted on healthevidence.org and educationendowmentfoundation.org which bring together the most reliable evidence. Hitherto, no such database has existed for crime and criminal justice interventions. This article sets out some of the challenges and early findings of one exercise which aims to produce such a database, being completed as part of the What Works Centre for Crime Reduction initiative in collaboration with the College of Policing. 

Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, Volume 17, 2023

By Lenny Roth

The issue of criminal responsibility for workplace deaths has generated debate in NSW and nationally for many years. In October 2023, the New South Wales government announced that it would introduce an industrial manslaughter offence in the first half of 2024, with severe penalties for serious work health and safety breaches that result in death.

The purpose of this paper is to put the proposed reforms in their current and historical context. The paper discusses the general criminal offence of manslaughter, outlines the key offences in current work health and safety laws, summarises the debate, and examines industrial manslaughter laws in other Australian jurisdictions.

Sydney: State of New South Wales through the Parliament of New South Wales , Parliamentary Research Service, 2024. 28p.

By Rafael A. Mangual

After a long period of continuous violent-crime declines throughout the U.S.—spanning from the mid-1990s through the early 2010s—many American cities are now seeing significant increases in violence. Nationally, in 2015 and 2016, murders rose nearly 11% and 8%, respectively. The national homicide rate declined slightly in 2017 and 2018, before ticking upward in 2019. In 2020, the nation saw its largest single-year spike in homicides in at least 100 years—which was followed by another increase in murders in 2021, according to CDC data and FBI estimates. In the last few years, a number of cities have seen murders hit an all-time high. In addition to homicides, the risk of other types of violent victimizations rose significantly, as well. While various analyses estimated a slight decline in homicides for the country in 2022, many American cities still find themselves dealing with levels of violence far higher than they were a decade ago. While violent crime—particularly murder—is the most serious due in large part to its social costs, there have also been worrying increases in crimes such as retail theft, carjacking, and auto theft, as well as in other visible signs of disorder in public spaces (from open-air drug use and public urination to illegal street racing and large-scale looting and riots). Although several contributing factors are likely, this general deterioration in public safety and order was unquestionably preceded and accompanied by a virtually unidirectional shift toward leniency and away from accountability in the policing, prosecutorial, and criminal-justice policy spaces. That shift is evidenced by, among other things, three major trends in enforcement: • A 25% decline in the number of those imprisoned during 2011–2212 • A 15% decline in the number of those held in jail during 2010–2113 • A 26% decline in the number of arrests effected by law-enforcement officers during 2009–1914 Notable contributing factors to the decline in enforcement include: • A sharp uptick in public scrutiny and interventions—in the form of investigations and legal action taken by state attorneys general and the federal Department of Justice—against local law-enforcement agencies • The worsening of an ongoing police recruitment and retention crisis, particularly in large urban departments • The electoral success of the so-called progressive prosecutor movement, which, by 2022, had won seats in 75 jurisdictions, representing more than 72 million U.S. residents • Perhaps most important, the adoption of a slew of criminal-justice and policing reform measures at all levels of government Those who are skeptical of the criminal-justice reform movement have devoted most of their efforts to arguing against the movement’s excesses and explaining why it would be unwise to enact certain measures. Less effort has been devoted to the extremely important task of articulating a positive agenda for regaining what has been lost on the safety and order front. This paper seeks to add to that positive agenda for safety by proposing three model policies that, if adopted, would help, directly and indirectly, stem the tide of rising crime and violence, primarily by maximizing the benefits that attend the incapacitation of serious criminals (especially repeat offenders) and by encouraging the collection and public reporting of data that can inform the public about the downside risks that are glossed over by decarceration and depolicing activists.

New York: Manhattan Institute, 2023. 19p.