By The Institute of Economics and Peace

This is the first edition of the Lloyd’s Register Foundation Safety Perceptions Index (SPI), produced by the Institute for Economics and Peace using data from the Lloyd’s Register Foundation’s World Risk Poll.

The purpose of the index is to better understand how perceptions of safety differ across countries, and how the different aspects of risk are connected. The SPI measures the levels of worry, likelihood and experience of risk across five domains: health, personal, violence, environment, and the workplace. These domains and themes are combined into a composite score which reflects perceptions of safety at the country level. A high score indicates a high level of concern with safety issues The SPI measures the levels of worry, likelihood and experience of risk across five domains: health, personal, violence, environment, and the workplace. Future versions of the index will be able to track trends and changes in perceptions of safety over time, and to see if perceptions of safety have changed across different regions. This will be particularly important as the world begins to recover from the COVID19 pandemic. Data for the first iteration of the SPI was collected before the onset of the pandemic in early 2020. As such, it is highly likely that attitudes towards different risks will have shifted significantly over the past two years.

Sydney: IEP, 2022. 35p.

By Yvon Dandurand, Paul Maxim and Darryl Plecas

This study was undertaken as a step toward understanding how the relationship between police services and their host communities has evolved over the years. It examined the extent to which police efforts aimed at improving police-minority relations over the past 20 years have improved perceptions of the police among visible minority groups in Canada (with special attention to British Columbia). More specifically, the study examined the degree to which attitudes of visible minorities over that 20-year period between 1999 and 2019 can be distinguished from those of the overall population in Canada and British Columbia – with special attention to the matter of crime victims’ contacts with police. The core analysis for this 5 study involved a comparison of data from Statistics Canada’s General Social Survey (GSS) panels on Canadians’ Safety (Victimization) conducted in 1999, 2004, 2009, 2014 and 2019.

Vancouver BC; International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy, 2022. 62p.

By Katheryne Pugliese, Paul Odér, Talib Hudson, and Jeffrey A. Butts

The crime and justice field recently started to label a wide array of violence prevention strategies as Community Violence Interventions (or CVI). Many of these strategies depend on law enforcement and social services, but the most innovative approaches are community-centered and community-sourced. They are grassroots efforts that rely on the resources of neighborhoods and residents themselves, operating separately from law enforcement and traditional human services. These strategies could be called Community Violence Interventions at the Roots (or CVI-R). The most established CVI-R programs are Cure Violence and Advance Peace. They offer highly localized and potentially cost-effective approaches to public safety, but do they work? Evaluation evidence is recent and not yet consistent, but the grassroots approach to community violence prevention is highly promising. To build sustainable CVI-R models, communities and researchers must collaborate in designing rigorous evaluations to produce reliable and actionable evidence.

New York: John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 2022. 19p.

By The John Jay College Research Advisory Group on Preventing and Reducing Community

Arnold Ventures asked the Research and Evaluation Center at John Jay College of Criminal Justice to review and summarize research on policies and programs known to reduce community violence without relying on police. To accomplish this goal, the Research and Evaluation Center assembled a diverse group of academic consultants across the fields of criminology, social and behavioral sciences, public health, epidemiology, law, and public policy. The group met several times during the summer of 2020 to produce an accessible synthesis of research evidence. Key questions were: • Can communities ensure the health and security of residents without depending on law enforcement, • What is the strongest research evidence to aid in the selection of violence-reduction strategies, • How can community leaders and funding organizations like Arnold Ventures draw upon existing evidence while building even better evidence, and • How can funding organizations use this report to elevate discussions about violence, improve outcomes in communities affected by violence, and help local and national partners to identify evidence-based interventions that are ready to be scaled. The consultants used a broad lens to define community violence as the type of interpersonal violence that occurs in public places, but they considered the personal and structural antecedents of violence as well. By identifying the precursors of violence and emphasizing both their practical salience and theoretical relevance, the group sought to identify the most useful evidence for preventing and reducing community violence. This report represents the consultants’ best advice for funding organizations and community leaders, but it is not a technical synthesis of research or a meta-analysis of the most rigorous studies. (There are sources for that information already, see CrimeSolutions.gov, a site hosted for the U.S. Department of Justice.) This report summarizes the collective judgment of an experienced group of researchers who were free to consider all evidence, unconstrained by the conventional priority given to randomized controlled trials (RCT). The most rigorous studies in the field of community violence are RCTs, but many 4 focus on individual behaviors only, failing to account for the full social context giving rise to those behaviors, including social and economic inequities, institutionalized discrimination, and the racial and class biases of the justice system itself.

New York: John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 2020. 40p.

By National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; Committee on Law and Justice; Committee on Evidence to Advance Reform in the Global Security and Justice Sectors

Scholars, policymakers, and the public view police legitimacy and community trust in the police alike as essential components of an effective police organization. An extensive network of international and regional organizations, bilateral donors, international financial institutions, and civil society organizations aims to work with governments to improve policing practices and enhance police legitimacy. As a part of that network, the U.S. Department of State, through its Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL), provides foreign assistance to and supports capacity building for criminal justice systems and police organizations in approximately 90 countries. Like many donors, it strives to direct its resources to the most effective approaches to achieve its mission.

Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2022. 56p.

By The Center for Policing Equity (CPE)

Reimagining Public Safety in the City of St. Louis: A Vision for Change approaches the city's public safety systems holistically, concluding with recommendations for several key actors. The report incorporates quantitative and qualitative research, close analyses of 911 calls, response outcomes, and data on racial disparities in policing practices. It identifies specific areas of concern and concludes with actionable recommendations for law enforcement, including ending pretextual stops and other low-level violation stops; improving data collection; and instituting regular analysis of racial disparities in vehicle and pedestrian stops. The report also recommends appropriate language to ensure that SLMPD's procedures integrate best practices that are clear, specific, and enforceable. Recommendations for the mayor’s office include strengthening the city’s response to family and intimate partner violence and engaging the community in the development and implementation of public safety strategies. Recommendations for the St. Louis Department of Public Safety include establishing a community-centered process to examine the effectiveness of the city’s Civilian Oversight Board.

West Hollywood, CA: Center for Policing Equity, 2022. 110p.

By Ed Chung and Betsy Pearl

In June 2020, amid widespread protests against systemic police brutality and misconduct against Black Americans, elected officials and the public began to seriously reconsider the role of law enforcement in U.S. society. For years, grassroots campaigns and local advocates have called for an approach to public safety that does not rely solely—or even primarily—on the police. Now, the push from activists to shrink the role of policing and invest in social services and community-based strategies is gaining national attention. Reducing the role of policing and the criminal justice system as a whole is not a radical concept and is based on the widely acknowledged idea that the justice system has taken on an outsize role in society. For too long, American communities have allowed—and in many ways mandated—that the criminal justice system serve as the de facto response to a broad swath of social issues, from behavioral health crises to substance misuse to school discipline. Police officers are expected to address situations that they are neither trained nor equipped to handle, which can significantly exacerbate harm for civilians. In establishing a commission on law enforcement in January 2020, even Attorney General William Barr acknowledged this point, saying, “[O]ur officers must confront a wave of social problems, such as homelessness, drug addiction, and mental illness – problems that demand solutions beyond their authority and expertise.”

Washington, DC: Center for American Progress, 2020. 10p.

By Mike Crowley and Betsy Pearl

Federal public safety and criminal justice grants are in dire need of modernization in the United States. The primary statutes funding these grants were enacted in the mid1990s during the height of the “tough-on-crime” era that espoused crime suppression through mass incarceration.1 The U.S. Congress and the executive branch have not comprehensively reviewed the goals of these grants in more than 25 years, during which time academics have widely documented the failures of tough-on-crime approaches. As the Vera Institute of Justice has noted, “Research consistently shows that higher incarceration rates are not associated with lower violent crime rates.”2 The overreliance on incarceration has instead created undue harm for communities of color, particularly Black Americans, who have been unjustly targeted by the justice system. 3 Today, the movement to end mass incarceration and police violence is gaining steam. Communities are calling for a smaller justice system that is no longer the primary response to many social issues, from behavioral health disorders to homelessness to school discipline. These are not new priorities; rather, national public awareness has started to catch up to what many communities have been advocating for years. Yet federal funding mechanisms are still stuck in the 1990s. Instead of pushing jurisdictions toward justice reform, the largest available justice-related grants incentivize deference to law enforcement and criminal justice agencies, which have historically perpetuated approaches that drive up arrest and incarceration rates. Dedicated funding streams for reform-minded strategies are much smaller and are generally awarded on a competitive basis, thereby limiting the number of jurisdictions that can use federal funds to promote change.

Washington, DC: Center for American Progress, 2020. 15p.

By The Reimagining Public Safety Taskforce

The purpose of the Reimagining Public Safety Taskforce (active from September 2020 through March 2021) is to rapidly reimagine and reconstruct the public safety system in Oakland by developing recommendations for Council consideration to increase community safety through alternative responses to calls for assistance, and investments in programs that address the root causes of violence and crime (such as health services, housing, jobs, etc), with a goal of a 50% reduction in the OPD General Purpose Fund (GFP) budget allocation.

Oakland, CA: The Taskforce, 2022. 259p.

By United States. Government Accountability Office

From the document: "Critical infrastructure provides essential functions--such as supplying water, generating energy, and producing food--that underpin American society. Disruption or destruction of the nation's critical infrastructure could have debilitating effects. CISA [Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency] is the national coordinator for infrastructure protection. The William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 includes a provision for GAO [Government Accountability Office] to report on the effectiveness of sector risk management agencies in carrying out responsibilities set forth in the act. This report addresses (1) how the act changed agencies' responsibilities, and the actions agencies have reported taking to address them; and (2) the extent to which CISA has identified and undertaken efforts to help agencies implement their responsibilities set forth in the act. GAO analyzed the act and relevant policy directives, collected written responses from all 16 sectors using a standardized information collection tool, reviewed other DHS documents, and interviewed CISA officials."

Wasginton D.C. United States. Government Accountability Office. 2023.

By Klare, Michael T.,

From the document: "Increasingly in recent years, advanced military powers have begun to incorporate and rely on new kinds or new applications of advanced technologies in their arsenals, such as artificial intelligence, robotics, cyber, and hypersonics, among others. The weaponization of these technologies may potentially carry far-ranging, dangerous consequences that expand into the nuclear realm by running up the escalation ladder or by blurring the distinction between a conventional and nuclear attack. Arms control, therefore, emerges as a tool to slow the pace of weaponizing these technologies and to adopt meaningful restraints on their use. This report examines four particular new kinds or new applications of technologies-- autonomous weapons systems, hypersonic weapons, cyberattacks, and automated battlefield decision-making--and proposes a framework strategy aimed at advancing an array of measures that all contribute to the larger goal of preventing unintended escalation and enhancing strategic stability."

Washington, D.C.. Arms Control Association. 2023. 76p.

By Macdonald, Bruce W.; Freeman, Carla P. (Carla Park), 1962-; Mcfarland, Alison

From the document: "Strategic competition between the United States and China is intensifying in the domain of outer space. [...] This report spotlights three sources of instability in space that merit immediate attention because of the growing risks they pose to space security specifically and to global security more broadly[.] [...] The report is organized as follows: It begins with a discussion of how the space environment is changing and the ways in which global space governance has failed to keep pace with those changes. It then considers China's activities in this evolving environment and key dimensions of US-China competition in space, along with the risks that attendant dynamics pose to global stability. The report looks in turn at each of the three drivers of instability in this context. The report concludes with recommendations geared toward US policymakers for actions that can be taken unilaterally, as well as in cooperation with other space powers, to strengthen space governance and mitigate the risks of a congested, debris-strewn, or entangled space environment."

United States Institute Of Peace . 2023. 28p.

By Romanoff, Tom; Farshchi, Jamil; Neschke, Sabine; Lord, Ben; Draper, Danielle; Douglas, Ahmad

From the document: "The Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) convened a working group of leaders to strengthen America's cybersecurity. The group's approach was to identify the nation's top cybersecurity risks to raise awareness so policymakers and businesses can take pragmatic action and invest in countermeasures. In assembling the working group, the co-chairs sought broad inclusivity from strategically important industries, government, and civil society. Every sector with a stake in cybersecurity was included--banking, communications, digital platforms, health, energy, and more. The working group drew from a wide range of important perspectives, including stakeholders representing privacy concerns and digital identities. [...] Identifying cybersecurity risks is the first step in managing them. This report--unlike other, more technical sources that identify cyber risks--frames them for the strategic audience of business and government decision-makers. We intentionally focused on identifying risks, not solutions, because various stakeholders may need to take different approaches. There are no one-size-fits-all fixes. Rather, these top risks must be considered individually by companies and collectively by the nation. Many will require a multifaceted response, across business and government, who will need to work various levers including policy, organizational culture, technology, and processes."

Bipartisan Policy Center 2023. 28p.

By Goldstein, Josh A.; Sastry, Girish; Musser, Micah; Diresta, Renee; Gentzel, Matthew; Sedova, Katerina

From the Executive Summary: "This report aims to assess: how might language models change influence operations, and what steps can be taken to mitigate these threats? This task is inherently speculative, as both AI [artificial intelligence] and influence operations are changing quickly. Many ideas in the report were informed by a workshop convened by the authors in October 2021, which brought together 30 experts across AI, influence operations, and policy analysis to discuss the potential impact of language models on influence operations. The resulting report does not represent the consensus of workshop participants, and mistakes are our own. We hope this report is useful to disinformation researchers who are interested in the impact of emerging technologies, AI developers setting their policies and investments, and policymakers preparing for social challenges at the intersection of technology and society."

Georgetown University. Walsh School Of Foreign Service. Center For Security And Emerging Technology; Openai; Stanford Internet Observatory. 2023. 85p.

By Barton, Delilah; Mcnamara, Jason; Fletcher, Kim; Vogler, Sarah

From the Executive Summary: "In 2014 and 2015, FEMA reengineered the Public Assistance (PA) Program into a 'new delivery model.' The program goals were to increase accuracy and efficiency, bring consistency and simplicity, and improve timeliness and accessibility to the PA Program [...]. Introducing an 'assembly line' standardization of project development, FEMA created nodes called Consolidated Resource Centers (CRCs), where technical aspects of the PA projects would be performed in seven distinct phases, from request for public assistance (RPA) to obligation. The four CRCs were responsible for supporting specific geographic regions but were also required to support incident operations outside of those areas as national needs dictated. They were designed to validate, develop, review, and process PA Program grant applications based on information and documentation provided by the field staff via a new cloud-based information management system-- Grants Manager/Grants Portal--that served to connect the CRC nodes with state recipients/applicants and project applicants, as well as regional PA and field office PA operations. FEMA initiated this concept in Oregon in 2016. An initial assessment of the program was conducted in late 2016 but proved inconclusive as to whether the new model was successful in its original intent. In 2017, the program--renamed the National Delivery Model--was launched nationally in time for the record-breaking 2017-2018 disaster season, followed by the 2020-2022 COVID-19 pandemic. This report assesses whether the National Delivery Model has met its original intent in increasing accuracy, efficiency, and simplicity and improving timeliness and accessibility."

CNA Corporation; United States. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2023. 108p.

By David Garland

From the cover: The past 30 years have seen vast changes in our attitudes toward crime. More and more of us live in gated communities; prison popula­tions have skyrocketed; and issues such as racial profiling, community policing, and “zero- tolerance” policies dominate the headlines. How is it that our response to crime and our sense of criminal justice have come to be so dramatically reconfigured? David Garland charts the changes in crime and criminal jus­tice in America and Britain over the past twen­ty-five years, showing how they have been shaped by two underlying social forces: the dis­tinctive social organization of late modernity and the neoconservative politics that came to dominate the United States and the United Kingdom in the 1980s. Garland explains how the new policies of crime and punishment, welfare and security— and the changing class, race, and gender rela­tions that underpin them—are linked to the fundamental problems of governing contempo­rary societies, as states, corporations, and pri­vate citizens grapple with a volatile economy and a culture that combines expanded person­al freedom with relaxed social controls. It is the risky, unfixed character of modern life that underlies our accelerating concern with con­trol and crime control in particular. It is not just crime that has changed; society has changed as well, and this transformation has reshaped criminological thought, public policy, and the cultural meaning of crime and crimi­nals. David Garland’s The Culture of Control offers a brilliant guide to this process and its still-reverberating consequences..

Chicago. University of Chicago Press. 2001. 304p.

By Center For Countering Digital Hate

From the Introduction: "Two-thirds of American teenagers use TikTok, and the average viewer spends 80 minutes a day on the application. The app, which is owned by the Chinese company, Bytedance, rapidly delivers a series of short videos to users and has overtaken Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube in the bid for young people's hearts, minds, and screen time. [...] For our study, Center for Countering Digital Hate researchers set up new accounts in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia at the minimum age TikTok allows, 13 years old. These accounts paused briefly on videos about body image and mental health, and liked them. What we found was deeply disturbing. Within 2.6 minutes, TikTok recommended suicide content. Within 8 minutes, TikTok served content related to eating disorders. Every 39 seconds, TikTok recommended videos about body image and mental health to teens. The results are every parent's nightmare: young people's feeds are bombarded with harmful, harrowing content that can have a significant cumulative impact on their understanding of the world around them, and their physical and mental health."

Center for Countering Digital Hate. 2022. 48p.

By Internet Society

From the introduction:

In 2023, we will:

• Engage in at least 900 advocacy activities

• Urge government officials to make pro-

  encryption statements at least 10 times

• Encourage governments or press to reference Internet Society encryption-focused documents or statements at least 30 times

Internet Society.2023. 21p.

By Special Advisor Board of Police Commissioners on Civil Disorder in Los Angeles.

Motion: “In light of the events that have consumed this City since the verdict in the criminal prosecution of the four officers involved in the arrest of Rodney King, the Police Commission will undertake an investigation to examine the Police Department's preparations in the event of a civil disturbance and to understand what worked and what did not work In the days following April 29, 1992, with a view toward improving Departmental systems intended for that purpose.”

Board of Police Commissioners on Civil Disorder in Los Angeles. 1992. 227p.

By William H. Webster.

“The firestorm of April, 1992 burned deeply into the fabric of Los Angeles. The toll of death, destruction and human misery left this time compels us to recall another such tragedy — one that scorched the ground of the City and its people lust over a quarter of a century ago. To read the reporr of the Governor's Com­mission impaneled to study that tragedy causes us to experience a profound sense that, while much has changed since 1965, much remains the same,…..We have discovered a general lack of emer­gency preparedness, and a specific lack in the period before the Simi Valley verdicts of preparedness for the possibility of civil disor­der. As we describe in Chapters Three and Four of our report, the City and the police department each have created general mecha­nisms intended to cope with emergencies. As we describe in Chapters Five and Six. to varying degrees, each has devoted modest effort to preparedness planning and training, However, the preparedness efforts of neither have resulted in anything that reasonably can he considered a "plan" for response to an emergency. Rather, it appears to be more accurate to state that each has collected and summarized a variety of materials having to do generally with emergency powers of gov­ernment and the subject of emergency re­sponse. However, neither the City nor the police department has produced much in the way of substantive guidance with regard to specific emergency response objectives, pri­orities, tasks or assignments….”