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 the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)

In the summer of 2024, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) surveyed its member agencies to better understand the challenges police agencies are facing regarding recruitment and retention. The IACP received responses from 1,158 U.S. agencies. More than 80% of these respondents were from local municipal police agencies. Highlights from the survey results include RECRUITMENT – More than 70% of respondents reported that recruitment is more difficult now than five years ago. On average, agencies are operating at approximately 91% of their authorized staffing levels, indicating a nearly 10% deficit. HIRING PROCESSES – In response to recruitment challenges, about 75% of respondents reported making policy and procedural changes to enhance recruitment and retention. Such changes include loosened restrictions on tattoos, facial hair, and appearance; increased investment in recruitment efforts; and increases in salary. Many agencies also tried to simplify the hiring process. Most agencies are now able to extend a job offer within three months of a candidate’s application. RETENTION – Respondents indicated that resignation is most likely within the first five years of hire, and that retaining officers during the recruit/training phase may be more challenging than retaining officers long-term. Moving to another agency for higher salary was the reason most commonly cited for voluntary resignation. Retirements also seem to be increasing due to both the large number of officers hired in the 1990s now reaching retirement eligibility and officers’ unwillingness to work beyond immediate retirement eligibility. OPERATIONS – About 65% of respondents reported that they had reduced services or specialized units because of staffing challenges, prioritizing essential patrol functions over specialized assignments. SUCCESS STORIES – Agencies also reported some success in improving recruitment and retention through intentional strategies. These included creating new pathways for young people to become police officers, emphasizing a healthy organizational culture, prioritizing employee health and wellness, and investing in the professional growth and development of employees. CUSTOMIZED SOLUTIONS – What some agencies saw as a detriment or challenge, other agencies leveraged as an asset. Responses made clear that what works for one agency may not work for another, and a variety of factors must be considered in creating an effective police recruitment and retention strategy. These conclusions are detailed along with supporting evidence from the survey responses in the report that follows.   

Alexandria, VA:  International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) ,2024. 28p.

By Hannah D. McManus,  Robin S. Engel,  Jennifer Calnon Cherkauskas,  Sarah C. Light, Amanda M. Shoulberg,

Despite evidence of gradually declining rates of violent crime over the last several decades, violence continues to pose a serious problem for many urban communities (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2018). Indeed, recent trends in violent crime within the United States suggest violence is a chronic problem, producing substantial costs to communities and individuals, and requiring immediate response from a coalition of stakeholders. As such, finding effective interventions to target violence is essential for restoring communities and enhancing public health and safety. This literature review examines the available empirical evidence on a variety of police-led violence reduction strategies (offender-focused, place-based, and community-based), as well as community-led, public health-based violence prevention interventions. The purpose of this review is to summarize for practitioners, policymakers, and researchers the state of the evidence regarding the effectiveness of various approaches to reduce violence, highlight implications for practice (see Appendix A), and identify the remaining gaps in this knowledge needing to be addressed by future research.   

Cincinnati, OH: Center for Police Research and Policy, University of Cincinnati, 2020. 97p.

By The High Level Group, European Commission

The European Union constitutes an area of freedom, security and justice where fundamental rights and the different legal systems and traditions of the Member States are respected. It endeavours to ensure a high level of security1 through measures to prevent and combat crime and to facilitate coordination and cooperation between law enforcement, judicial and other competent authorities. Technological developments and the digitalisation of our societies have led both to significant changes in citizens’ daily lives and to new challenges for law enforcement and judicial authorities in ensuring a high level of security, at both national and EU level. In today’s digital age, almost every criminal investigation has a digital component. This was addressed in April 2023 in the scoping paper for the High-Level Expert Group on access to data for effective law enforcement: Technologies and tools […] are also abused for criminal purposes. This development makes it increasingly challenging to maintain effective law enforcement across the EU to safeguard public security and to prevent, detect, investigate, and prosecute crime, and to meet victims’ legitimate expectations of justice and compensation. If not properly addressed, there is a real risk that this current trend will enable criminals to go ‘dark’ […]. This is a serious threat to individuals’ and society’s security and can ultimately impede on the positive obligation of the state to continue ensuring the rule of law and a democratic society2 . The right to respect for private and family life, home and communications, and the right to the protection of personal data, are guaranteed under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. Confidentiality of communication, be it in writing or on the phone, has been a major achievement of democratic societies, ensuring that neither the state nor private actors may interfere in peoples’ freedom of expression and enabling the establishment of a flourishing civil society. The enjoyment of those rights can be subject to limitations under the law, in particular with regard to measures intended to safeguard national security, defence or public security and for the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences or of unauthorised use of electronic communication systems, provided these measures are necessary, appropriate and proportionate within a democratic society. Therefore, law enforcement and judicial authorities may open and read written communications, intercept phone calls and listen to conversations, if deemed necessary, proportionate and justified, if such measures are in line with the applicable legal provisions and if they are carried out with due respect for fundamental rights. This possibility should be available to all competent authorities, irrespective of technological developments. The proliferation of new forms of interpersonal communication that has occurred in recent years means that all of society has to adapt to new realities. We must ensure that communication among citizens remains protected, and at the same time that law enforcement and judicial authorities continue to be able to fulfil their duty of protecting citizens by preventing and fighting serious and organised crime and terrorism. The need for adaptation is urgent, and the experts call on policymakers to act promptly as law enforcement authorities (LEAs) are already behind the pace of technological developments, which directly affects their ability to uphold citizens’ rights. At the informal meeting of justice and home affairs ministers on 26 January 2023, home affairs ministers reflected on the challenges posed by technological developments for law enforcement in the digital age. They also expressed concern that the applicable rules and their interpretation through case-law, together with practical and operational impediments, are making it increasingly challenging for LEAs to carry out their work, in particular when it comes to the retention of and access to data necessary to investigate and prosecute crime3 . Following this discussion, the Council endorsed the establishment of a group to develop a strategic forward-looking vision on effective and lawful access to data, electronic evidence and information in the digital age for judicial and law enforcement authorities: the High-Level Group on access to data for effective law enforcement (HLG)4 . The HLG’s goal was to find solutions to the challenge inherent in permitting lawful access to data in order to uphold a high level of security for all people living in the EU, while ensuring compliance with fundamental rights, including the rights to privacy and to data protection, as well as a high level of cybersecurity, through efficient and future-proof solutions. The 42 recommendations5 , the main deliverable resulting from the work of the HLG, come at a time when calls for online accountability are increasing. The recommendations address current and anticipated challenges in view of technological developments, aiming to enable a comprehensive EU approach to ensuring effective criminal investigations and prosecutions. The recommendations are clustered in three blocks: capacity building; cooperation with industry and standardisation; and legislative measures. They emphasise the challenges law enforcement faces in accessing data in a readable format for criminal investigations due to the lack of harmonised data retention obligations and stringent requirements of EU case-law, the growing use of end-to-end encryption and the lack of cooperation by certain non-traditional telecommunications services. While welcoming the e-evidence rules, the recommendations highlight their limits in addressing challenges posed by encryption and call for stronger cooperation between law enforcement and judicial authorities and service providers to nurture a permanent dialogue and a mutual understanding of operational, technical and business needs and to overcome difficulties in accessing encrypted data. According to experts, stronger cooperation between law enforcement and service providers will improve the situation to a certain extent, but a future-proof solution also requires that obligations upon service providers to cooperate be enforced by legislation, without weakening encryption in a generalised or systematic way for the users of a service.

Brussels: European Commission, 2024. 51p.

By Reed T. DeAngelis

This research note provides new evidence consistent with systemic anti-Black racism in police killings across the United States. Data come from the Mapping Police Violence Database (2013–2021). I calculate race-specific odds and probabilities that victims of police killings exhibited mental illness, were armed with a weapon, or attempted to flee the scene at the time of their killing. Multilevel, multivariable logistic regression techniques are applied to further account for the victim's age, gender, year of killing, and geographical clustering. I find that White victims are underrepresented, and Black victims overrepresented in the database. Relative to White victims, Black victims also have 60% lower odds of exhibiting signs of mental illness, 23% lower odds of being armed, and 28% higher odds of fleeing. Hispanic victims exhibit 45% lower odds of being armed relative to their White peers but are otherwise comparable. These patterns persist regardless of the victim's age, gender, year of killing, or geographical location (state, zip code, and neighborhood type). Thus, the threshold for being perceived as dangerous, and thereby falling victim to lethal police force, appears to be higher for White civilians relative to their Black or Hispanic peers. Current findings provide empirical support for political initiatives to curb lethal police force, as such efforts could help to reduce racial disparities in deaths by police nationwide.

Race and Justice, Volume 14, Issue 3, July 2024, Pages 413-422

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 Charlotte Howell, Martin Gill and Janice Goldstraw-White

The aim of the research was to explore the forms of joint working that take place between the security sector and the police, and the barriers that can prevent this work from progressing. The research is based on the views of security professionals from in-house security, security suppliers, other security experts and some individuals working for, or recently retired from the police.

The research sets out different forms of police and private security engagement:

• Crime reduction

• CCTV surveillance/co-operation

• Crime investigation and reporting

• Education and awareness raising

• Facilitating access to a site for police training exercises

• Joint patrolling

• Private security adopting specific policing powers

• Funding police time

• Emergency response

• Public events

• Assisting vulnerable individuals/victims of crime

• Critical infrastructure

Further, the research identifies 6 key opportunities for improving engagement and overcoming barriers:

Understand what the private security sector does now

There is a need to change the flawed assumption that public protection is possible without the private security sector. The spaces protected by private security are places where the public work, live and spend leisure time, largely with minimal police input. Private security also assumes responsibility for protecting critical national infrastructure. There was a view that a better understanding of what private security does, would facilitate greater collaboration.

Stress the similarities

While the police and private security may have different philosophies, the similarities are striking and need to be brought to the fore. Both are committed to reducing crime, gathering intelligence and being visible. Protecting people and places is complex, it is a skilled task which both mostly do well. Both have come under fire at times for poor performance.

Be clear how private security benefits

Our survey of security professionals showed that the vast majority believe collaboration has huge potential and results in better protection of the public and of organisations, and in an increased capacity to respond to crime. Other benefits include that clients view police engagement positively, it increases the knowledge and skills of private security and improves morale; and a good rapport with the police can lead to more activity on site (such as training, presentations, patrols) which is seen as a positive in some contexts.

Be clear how the police (and public) benefits

The private security sector offers resources, expertise, and data/intelligence; it protects people, places, and infrastructure; and it mostly operates in domains the police cannot realistically cover without extensive additional support. All private security work helps policing. There is an opportunity to better tap into this work to enhance efforts to protect the public. All parties benefit from effective collaborative working.

Joint working does not have to be onerous

There are different ways of working together. More formal collaborations can be important but are not always necessary; there is enormous opportunity at the informal levels. Private security acts not only as the ‘eyes and ears’ of the police but as a voice too in sharing key messages about safety and security. Often joint working is not about the police transferring responsibility or granting police powers for security staff.

There is a need for strong leadership (on both sides)

Our survey of security professionals showed that three quarters thought there is a need for strong leadership on joint working, on both sides. Each is difficult to deal with; private security has no identifiable single voice while each police force acts autonomously. The statutory regulation of the security sector does not include police input, and police argue that it is difficult to know who we are dealing with. Concerns can only be solved or ameliorated with good leadership, which is also needed to solve a variety of other very solvable barriers such as: identifying appropriate partners operating at the right level; understanding mutual risks and rewards; providing continuity and consistency; avoiding unnecessary data sharing complications and leading on new ideas and ways of working.

Professor Martin Gill who led the research noted:

‘Our research indicates that security professionals saw significant value in collaborative working with the police, particularly to better protect the public as well as organisations. There were many examples of joint initiatives which were considered beneficial. However, it was also apparent that much potential was untapped; that there is a general lack of joint working and that partnerships often do not achieve their full potential because of common barriers. Further, security professionals consider themselves to be more enthusiastic about collaborative working than they perceive the police to be. The Policing Vision 2030 sets an objective to collaborate more to prevent crime, and this includes with businesses. What is needed now is strong leadership with a strategy to move collaboration forward.’

Tunbridge Wells, UK: Perpetuity Research, 2024. 91p.

By Janice Goldstraw-White, Martin Gill and Mark Button

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

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

• To highlight some successful examples of engagement;

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

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

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

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

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

By Shane D. Johnson

Traditional crime has been falling for some time in most countries. However, developing technologies and our use of them are creating new opportunities for offending. For example, estimates from the Crime Survey of England and Wales indicate that in the UK, online fraud and related offences account for as many crimes as do “traditional” offences. To date, academia, law enforcement and governments have been reactive both in terms of identifying new and emerging forms of offending and in developing approaches to address them. In this paper, I will discuss the future crime agenda, and how futures thinking can help identify future crime opportunities and security threats including online fraud, crimes involving artificial intelligence, and crime in the metaverse. The paper will close with a discussion of the implications for theory and crime prevention.

Security Journal, Volume 37, pages 515–534, (2024)

By: Keeva Baxter

In July 2024, a stabbing at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class in Southport left three young children murdered and 10 others injured. Following this attack, widespread racist and Islamophobic violence and unrest spread across the UK. This was fuelled by misinformation online, political and media commentary and other socio-economic factors in the communities most affected.

Following this violence, many communities have been looking for ways to repair the harm, move forward and prevent future unrest. In this report, based on a consultation session with the sector, we explore how Restorative Justice can play a part in the journey towards healing.

London: Why me? Transforming lives through Restorative Justice, 2024. 13p.

By  Arron Lewis Cullen

Established news organizations have covered crime and law enforcement news for centuries. As a result, it should come as no surprise that the media is frequently the source from which the public learns the most about police activity in their communities. The purpose of this thesis is to investigate police social media activities and organizational structures to acquire a better understanding of how the police present themselves on digital platforms. Contributions to the field of police communications, specifically to the rapidly expanding field of police and social media studies, are made throughout this thesis. The conceptual framework of this research draws upon police image work, elements of community policing, and the digital society we live in. Through a pragmatic mixed methods approach, three empirical studies come together to contribute knowledge that does not currently exist regarding police forces in England and Wales. Data analyzed stems from the Twitter platform, interviews with communication experts, and a national survey of police forces. The research argues that police communications have gone through significant changes over the past decade, shifting from professionalization to the digitalization of police image work. The findings indicate that police communications have expanded and provide new opportunities to show the human side of policing through creative content. While police forces continue to be cautious, the study outcomes indicate that digital channels are vital for operational policing and enhancing customer service-related duties. However, opportunities for interactions within digital communities remain an area for development. Overall, this thesis provides an exploratory investigation into police social media activities, contributing to the existing knowledge base by demonstrating why digital society has changed how police forces carry out image work and community policing practices.   

Cardiff:  School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, 2022. 294p.

By Jonathan Booth

This Article places the birth and growth of the Atlanta police in context by exploring the full scope of Atlanta’s criminal legal system in the four decades after the end of slavery. To do so, it analyzes the connections Atlantans made between race and crime, the adjudication and punishment of minor offenses, and the variety of Bla protests against the criminal legal system. This Article is based in part on a variety of archival sources, including decades of arrest and prosecution data that, for the first time, allow for a quantitative assessment of the impact of the new system of policing on Atlanta’s residents. This Article breaks new ground in four ways. First, it demonstrates that Atlanta’s police force responded to the challenges of freedom: it was designed to maintain white supremacy in an urban space in which residents, theoretically, had equal rights.  Second, it shows that White citizens’ beliefs about the causes of crime and the connections between race and crime, which I call “lay criminology,” influenced policing strategies.  Third, it adds a new layer to our understanding of the history of order maintenance policing by showing that mass criminalization for minor offenses such as disorderly conduct began soon after emancipation. This type of policing caused a variety of harm to the city’s Black residents, leading thousands each year to be forced to pay fines or labor for weeks on the chain gang. Fourth, it shows th the complaints of biased and brutal policing that animate contemporary police reform activists have been present for a century and a half.  Atlanta’s Black residents, across class lines, protested the racist criminal legal system and police abuses while envisioning a more equitable city where improved social conditions would reduce crime.

University of Colorado Law Review, Forthcoming 76 Pages Posted: 22 Apr 2024

By Michael Heise and Jason P. Nance

Nationwide calls to “Defund the Police,” largely attributable to the resurgent Black Lives Matter demonstrations, have motivated derivative calls for public school districts to consider “defunding” (or modifying) school resource officer (“SRO/police”) programs. To be sure, a school’s SRO/police presence—and the size of that presence—may influence the school’s student discipline reporting policies and practices. How schools report student discipline and whether that reporting involves referrals to law enforcement agencies matters, particularly as reports may fuel a growing “school-to-prison pipeline.” The school-to-prison pipeline research literature features two general claims that frame debates about changes in how public schools approach student discipline and the growing number of calls for schools to defund SRO/police programs. One claim is that public schools’ increasingly “legalized” approach toward student discipline increases the likelihood that students will be thrust into the criminal justice system. A second distributional claim is that these adverse consequences disproportionately involve students of color, boys, students from low-income households, and other vulnerable student sub-groups. Both claims implicate important legal and policy dimensions, as students’ adverse interactions with law enforcement agencies typically impose negative consequences on students and their futures. We study both claims using the nation’s leading data set on public school crime and safety, supplemented by data on state-level mandatory reporting requirements and district-level per pupil spending, and explore three distinct analytic approaches in an effort to assess the independent influence of a school’s SRO/police presence on that school’s student discipline reporting behavior. Results from our analyses provide mixed support for the two claims. We find that a school’s SRO/police presence corresponds with an increased likelihood that the school will report student incidents to law enforcement agencies. However, we do not find support in the school-level data for the distributional claim.

111 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 717 (2021).

By Vania Ceccato and Andy Newton

This book offers a comprehensive overview of areas with elevated levels of crime, which we consider ‘risky places.’ These can be facilities, nodes, or paths and can be found everywhere, from small towns to megacities. Crime and fear are examined from the perspective of those who use these places, based on examples from the US, the UK, Sweden, Nigeria, Brazil, China, Australia, and more. Advocating for a systems thinking approach, the book shows what can be learned from risky places and identifies ways to address their inherent problems. The book also assesses current barriers to applying systems thinking and identifies ways to foster interconnected long-term crime prevention strategies that meet the diverse needs of multiple stakeholders. Aimed at academics, students, and professionals in urban planning, criminology, geography, and related fields, this book is a vital resource for those dedicated to creating safer, more inclusive, and sustainable environments.

London; New York: Routledge, 2025. 

May Contain Mark-Ups

Designing Out Crime from Products and Systems Edited by Ronald V. Clarke & Graeme R. Newman

The book “Designing Out Crime from Products and Systems,” edited by Ronald V. Clarke and Graeme R. Newman, provides a comprehensive overview of how effective design can significantly reduce crime. It explores various successful initiatives from around the world, focusing on modifying products and systems to make them less susceptible to criminal exploitation. The book covers a wide range of topics, including the role of government and the corporate sector in crime prevention, the fundamentals of crime-proofing design, and specific case studies such as the U.K. vehicle licensing system and the security coding of electronic products. By analyzing these examples, the editors highlight the importance of incorporating crime prevention into the design process from the outset, rather than relying on reactive measures. One of the key themes of the book is the concept of“situational crime prevention,” which involves altering the environment or the design of products to reduce opportunities for crime. The editors argue that many crimes can be prevented by making relatively simple changes to the design of everyday objects and systems. For instance, the book discusses how the introduction of tamper-proof packaging for pharmaceuticals significantly reduced incidents of product tampering. It also emphasizes the need for collaboration between designers, manufacturers, and policymakers to create products that are both functional and secure. Overall, the book serves as a valuable resource for anyone interested in understanding how design can be used as a tool for crime prevention

Criminal Justice Press, 2005, 265 pages

By  Elizabeth Monkus, Kaitlyn Filip, Jennifer Won Young Lee, and Hanna Sharif-Kazemi

Since early 2020, Chicago Appleseed Center for Fair Courts and the Chicago Council of Lawyers have been evaluating the Domestic Violence Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County, with a specific focus on the Domestic Violence Courthouse at 555 West Harrison in Chicago. Today, we release our findings in our report, “Slipping through the Cracks” – An Evaluation of Cook County’s Domestic Violence Division in Chicago. The consolidated Domestic Violence Courthouse opened in 2005 at 555 West Harrison in Chicago, in response to growing concerns about crowding, case processing times, and safety concerns with the conditions in the existing court buildings at 1340 South Michigan (for criminal proceedings) and at 28 North Clark Street (for civil proceedings). The consolidated courthouse hears all Orders of Protection cases, both criminal and civil, and was structured to create secure waiting areas with the intent of keeping petitioners and respondents away from each other in the courthouse. In addition to safety goals, the courthouse was intended to improve case efficiency. In 2010, the Circuit Court of Cook County established the Domestic Violence Division to further these goals. Beyond a task force study of the DV Court in 2008 and another more limited study in 2021, both convened by Chief Judge Evans, there has been no comprehensive study of the efficacy of the courthouse. Our report seeks to remedy this.

Background & History

When the Courthouse opened in 2005, there were around 50 dedicated domestic violence courts in the country. By 2010, there were over 200. This growth in domestic violence courts offers an opportunity to examine the successes and failures of Cook County’s courthouse while discovering alternatives to the processes which may improve its functionality. The courts are increasingly called upon to fill in gaps for diminishing social safety resources. This is especially evident in family courts, like those hearing domestic violence issues, and has profound implications for understanding systemic bias. Just as society’s conception of domestic violence has shifted over 50 years, so has our understanding of how poverty and marginalized identities are criminalized and otherwise punished by systems of power. It is incumbent on courts to examine if and how practices support biased systems and seek correction to those practices.  In February 2020, Chicago Appleseed Center for Fair Courts was invited by a group of advocates and attorneys working in the Domestic Violence Division to join them in designing and implementing a court-watching project, given rising concerns over management and culture in the Division. Our goal in doing so was to improve not only access to courts, but the quality and function of justice within those courts.  For this study, Chicago Appleseed and the Council conducted interviews with more than 35 attorneys, non-attorney advocates, community service providers, court staff, and judges between July 2020 and March 2022. These interviewees provided information about their direct experiences in the Domestic Violence Division—in both the branch courts and the Chicago courthouse—as well as about their general experiences serving the needs of both survivors, their families, and perpetrators of harm. Likewise, Chicago Appleseed’s court-watching program deployed volunteers to observe 188 domestic violence cases in the Circuit Court of Cook County February and March of 2022. This qualitative information, along with background research into jurisdictional differences and best practices, provided information for our analysis. Nonetheless, we ran into several limitations in our research, including an inability to access quantitative data on the courts, which meant we could not fully understand things like sociodemographic information of litigants or length/outcome of cases, as well as issues connecting with litigants to interview about their direct experiences in the courthouse. Our findings and recommendations, therefore, are based in the analysis of interviews and observations with reference to background research.

Summary of Findings & Recommendations

Our findings stress that the courthouse is critical infrastructure and the Division is structured in an appropriate manner, but identify four major deficiencies:

1. Systemic racism and sexism, which is evident in the structures and procedures of the Domestic Violence Courthouse;

2. A general disconnect between judges and court staff and the needs of litigants, which is exacerbated by technology and training issues and limited operational capacity;

3. Judicial culture and bias, lack of trauma-informed practice, and the need for training, which severely impacts quality of justice; and

4. Issues with the Clerk of the Court’s Office, which are consistent and pervasive, creating barriers to access for both litigants and attorneys.

Broadly, it appears that the Domestic Violence Division is under-resourced to address these needs and (at least until recently) there has been a cycle of neglect regarding community concerns about the court, which exacerbated these barriers to justice.

 Chicago: Chicago Appleseed Center for Fair Courts and the Chicago Council of Lawyers., 2022.    91p.

By Ben Grunwald

Beginning in 2020, law enforcement experts widely claimed that a surge in police separations triggered a national retention crisis and that political activism after George Floyd's murder was a principal cause. We lack data, however, to track such trends in the national police labor market. Using information from Police Officer Safety and Training (POST) agencies, I construct an Interstate Police Employment Database (IPED) on every job held by every officer in all 6,800 local law enforcement agencies across fifteen states that, together, cover half the U.S. population. I then conduct the largest empirical study of the law enforcement labor market to date. My findings show that the increase in separations in IPED agencies after the summer of 2020 was smaller, later, less sudden, and possibly less pervasive than the retention-crisis narrative suggests. All told, the cumulative impact on the labor force by the end of 2021 was just 1%. Aggregate figures, however, mask variation at the agency level. As I show, a substantial minority of large agencies meaningfully shrank by the end of 2021. I also provide evidence that local political activism cannot explain local separation rates, raising some doubt about whether the protests were a principal cause of rising turnover.

Duke Law School Public Law & Legal Theory Series No. 2024-41