By Dmytro Bukhanevych,

• Rayan Succar,

• Maurizio Porfiri

Social media platforms have become a key tool for politicians to signal their policy positions and communicate about issues that are salient to them and their constituency. One such issue is gun violence. Grounded in framing and issue-attention cycle theories, this paper analyzes the response of members of the United States (US) Congress to mass shootings on social media. We analyzed 785,881 gun-related tweets from members of the 117th US Congress on X (formerly Twitter) between January 2021 and January 2023. We used logistic regression to model the main effects, implemented the PCMCI+ algorithm for causal discovery, and applied latent Dirichlet allocation topic modeling to evaluate the substantive differences between gun-related tweets from the two parties. Higher fatality counts were positively correlated with the probability of gun-related tweets by Congress members (OR=1.13, 95% CI=[1.12, 1.15], p < 0.001). A causal link was detected between mass shootings and subsequent legislators’ activity on X (ρ=0.122, p=0.001). Democrats were more likely to tweet about guns following mass shootings than Republicans (OR=3.60, 95% CI=[3.03, 4.28], p < 0.001), with qualitative differences in tweet substance between parties (community, families, victims, and mass shootings themselves are recurrent topics for Democrats, while Second Amendment rights and crime are frequent for Republicans). The paper suggests that while mass shootings elevate the level of discussion on guns in Congress, they trigger different reactions depending on party affiliation. Congress members tend to focus on topics aligned with party issues, likely reducing the opportunity for policy-making alignmen

PLOS Global Public Health, Dec. 2025.

By Joshua Hochman

 In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that laws prohibiting the carrying of firearms in sensitive places were presumptively constitutional. Since Bruen, several states and the District of Columbia have defended their sensitive-place laws by analogizing to historical statutes regulating firearms in other places, like schools and government buildings. Many judges, scholars, and litigants appear to have assumed that only statutescan count as evidence of the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. This Note is the first expansive account since Bruen to challenge this assumption. It argues that courts should consider sources of analogical precedent outside of statutory lawmaking when applying the Court’s Second Amendment jurisprudence. Taking public transportation as a case study, the Note surveys rules and regulations promulgated by railroad corporations in the nineteenth century and argues that these sources reveal a historical tradition of regulating firearm carriage on public transportation. Bruen permits courts to engage in more nuanced analogical reasoning when dealing with unprecedented concerns or dramatic changes. One such change is the shift in state capacity that has placed sites that were privately or quasi-publicly operated before the twentieth century under public control in the twenty-first century. As in the case of schools, which the Court has already deemed sensitive, a substantial portion of the nation’s transportation infrastructure in the nineteenth century was not entirely publicly owned and operated. For this reason, courts should consider evidence of historical firearm regulations enacted not just by legislatures but by quasi-public or private corporations. This case study instructs that courts and litigants can best honor Bruen’s history-based test by considering all of the nation’s history of firearm regulation.

Yale Law Review,  133:1676 2024

By Devair Monteiro, Laryssa Suemy Oumoriz , Carmen Silvia Molleis Galego Miziara , Ivan Dieb Miziara

This study examines the relationship between the incidence of willful homicides committed with firearms and economic factors in the subprefectures of São Paulo (Brazil) in the year 2023. The analysis involved comparing records of willful homicides with the average family income in the locations where the crimes occurred. The results indicate a lack of significant statistical correlation between the incidence of such crimes and the economic conditions of the analyzed regions. Therefore, one possible conclusion is that family income alone is not a determinant factor in the observed crime patterns. In summary, although the average family income provides valuable insights into the socioeconomic scenario of the subprefectures, it is insufficient to elucidate the complexity of urban crime in São Paulo. So, this study suggests that other factors, possibly related to social, cultural, or public policy dynamics, should be considered for a more comprehensive understanding of the homicide patterns in the city.

Forensic Science International: Reports, Dec. 2025

By John R. Lott, et al.

After peaking in 2022, the number of Concealed Carry Permit holders across the United States has declined for the third year in a row. The total now sits at 20.88 million, representing a 2.7% drop from last year. A major factor behind this ongoing decrease is the widespread adoption of Constitutional Carry laws. Following Louisiana’s implementation of permitless carry on July 4, 2024, 29 states now allow residents to carry without a permit. As a result, 46.8% of Americans (157.6 million) now live in Constitutional Carry States, with 67.7% of the land in the country (2.57 million square miles). Although no additional states enacted such laws this year, the broader trend remains unchanged. Unlike gun ownership surveys that may be affected by people’s unwillingness to answer personal questions, concealed handgun permit data is the only really “hard data” that we have, but it becomes a less accurate measure as more states become Constitutional Carry states.

Among the findings of our report:

-- Last year, the number of permit holders fell by 0.59 million to 20.88 million—the third consecutive annual decline. The total had previously peaked at 22.0 million in 2022. The primary reason for the decrease is that permit numbers tend to drop gradually in Constitutional Carry states, even though it is evident that more people are legally carrying.

-- 7.8% of American adults have permits.  Outside of the restrictive states of California and New York, about 9.3% of adults have a permit. 

After peaking in 2022, the number of Concealed Carry Permit holders across the United States has declined for the third year in a row. The total now sits at 20.88 million, representing a 2.7% drop from last year. A major factor behind this ongoing decrease is the widespread adoption of Constitutional Carry laws. Following Louisiana’s implementation of permitless carry on July 4, 2024, 29 states now allow residents to carry without a permit. As a result, 46.8% of Americans (157.6 million) now live in Constitutional Carry States, with 67.7% of the land in the country (2.57 million square miles). Although no additional states enacted such laws this year, the broader trend remains unchanged. Unlike gun ownership surveys that may be affected by people’s unwillingness to answer personal questions, concealed handgun permit data is the only really “hard data” that we have, but it becomes a less accurate measure as more states become Constitutional Carry states.

Among the findings of our report:

-- Last year, the number of permit holders fell by 0.59 million to 20.88 million—the third consecutive annual decline. The total had previously peaked at 22.0 million in 2022. The primary reason for the decrease is that permit numbers tend to drop gradually in Constitutional Carry states, even though it is evident that more people are legally carrying.

-- 7.8% of American adults have permits.  Outside of the restrictive states of California and New York, about 9.3% of adults have a permit.  

After peaking in 2022, the number of Concealed Carry Permit holders across the United States has declined for the third year in a row. The total now sits at 20.88 million, representing a 2.7% drop from last year. A major factor behind this ongoing decrease is the widespread adoption of Constitutional Carry laws. Following Louisiana’s implementation of permitless carry on July 4, 2024, 29 states now allow residents to carry without a permit. As a result, 46.8% of Americans (157.6 million) now live in Constitutional Carry States, with 67.7% of the land in the country (2.57 million square miles). Although no additional states enacted such laws this year, the broader trend remains unchanged. Unlike gun ownership surveys that may be affected by people’s unwillingness to answer personal questions, concealed handgun permit data is the only really “hard data” that we have, but it becomes a less accurate measure as more states become Constitutional Carry states.

Among the findings of our report:

-- Last year, the number of permit holders fell by 0.59 million to 20.88 million—the third consecutive annual decline. The total had previously peaked at 22.0 million in 2022. The primary reason for the decrease is that permit numbers tend to drop gradually in Constitutional Carry states, even though it is evident that more people are legally carrying.

-- 7.8% of American adults have permits.  Outside of the restrictive states of California and New York, about 9.3% of adults have a permit.  

Working paper, 

Salt Lake City UK: Crime Prevention Research Center, 2025

By Shani Buggs, Sheyla Delgado, Jocelyn Fontaine, Stephanie Hawkins, Talib Hudson, Tanya Sharpe

This report makes the case for the importance of more equitable and community-engaged research to address gun violence and the need to invest in and grow the field of Black, Brown, and historically underrepresented scholars committed to centering equity in the research process.

By The Justice Collaboratory, Yale Law School

The primary goal of this project was to explore how gun violence prevention work impacts individuals considered at high risk of being directly impacted by gun violence. The current study aimed to elevate the voices of gun violence prevention program participants and impacted communities who can best attest to the influence and power of the message and services received. Gun Violence Prevention Models and Projects The Group Violence Intervention (GVI) model used in this work is a focused-deterrence strategy that targets groups of people at high risk of gun violence. GVI is facilitated by law enforcement agencies that identify individuals who are associated with or members of groups responsible for shootings. These individuals receive an anti-violence message from law enforcement agencies partnered with community representatives and social services providers. In New Haven, CT, Project Safe Neighborhoods (2002) and Project Longevity (2012) are current initiatives modeled after the GVI strategy. Cure Violence is a public health approach to address violence as a disease to be treated by violence interrupters in the community that mediate conflicts. One prominent community-based organization that modeled the Cure Violence Approach in New Haven, CT is Connecticut Violence Intervention Program (CTVIP). The Community Perspective Numerous evaluations across the nation highlight the success of the GVI and Cure Violence programs. However, many of these policy evaluations do not include the perspectives of the people closest to the problem and they also fall short of addressing the complexities and concurrent, environmental factors underlying participation within GVI initiatives. To this end, the current study explored how individuals at high risk of gun violence benefit from gun violence prevention services whether simultaneously participating in a GVI strategy or not. The current study emphasized why the field of gun violence prevention policy needs studies that are designed to elucidate the critical components of such programs from the community perspective, with results that show that the theory of change accurately represents the impact mechanisms at work on the ground. This project, therefore, proposed an exploratory, qualitative study of initiatives to address gun violence in New Haven, CT. The goal was to explore how gun violence prevention work impacts individuals considered at high risk of being perpetrators or victims of gun violence. 

New Haven, CT: Justice Collaboratory, Yale Law School, 2025. 49p.

By Sofia Molina, Andrei Serbin Pont

The enduring proliferation of illicit Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW) remains a critical factor in the security and stability challenges facing Latin America. These armaments fuel organized crime, exacerbate violence, and empower non-state armed actors, thereby undermining governance and public safety. The foundational analysis presented by Andrei Serbin Pont and Alex Miller in the "Small Arms and Light Weapons Black Markets in Latin America" story map established a comprehensive framework for understanding these dynamics (Serbin Pont & Miller, 2022). This report builds upon that essential work, leveraging a new database of open-source seizure incidents to provide a current and granular update on the state of the illicit arms market.

The data analyzed, derived from police operations and journalistic reports compiled in the SALW dashboard from Brazil, Argentina, Panama, and Guatemala, reveals a market that is not only robust but also increasingly sophisticated and adaptive. A rigorous examination of the new dataset uncovers two significant phenomena that represent an evolution in the illicit arms trade. First, there is a proliferation of fake Colt markings on assault rifles. Second, the presence of other specific markings such as the "Punisher" skull, on seized firearms introduces another layer of analysis, indicating that weapons are not merely tools of violence but are also powerful symbols of criminal identity and ideology.

Miami: Florida International University, 2025. 9p.

By Leslie M. Barnard 

,

Wei Perng ,

Ashley Brooks-Russell,

Talia L. Spark,

Marian E. Betz,

Carolyn DiGuiseppi

Background: Firearms are the most common and lethal method of suicide. Previous studies showed that households with firearms have a higher risk of suicide. It is unclear whether this is due to higher underlying risk of suicide among groups who have firearms or those who store their firearms securely. Methods: This cross-sectional analysis used Colorado Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data from the period 2020–2022, which is weighted to represent the Colorado population. We used survey-weighted Poisson regression to calculate adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR) for associations of selected suicide risk factors (depressive disorder, excessive alcohol use, poor mental health, poor physical health) with firearm presence and storage practices. Results: One-third (36.5%; 95% CI: 35.8–37.7) of respondents said that they kept at least one firearm in/around their home; of those, 15.0% (95% CI 13.8–16.2) said at least one firearm was loaded and unlocked. Overall, 13.7% (95% CI 13.0–14.4) of adult Colorado residents reported poor mental health, 9.5% (95% CI 8.9–10.0) reported poor physical health, 20.4% (95% CI 19.6–21.2) reported a depressive disorder, and 30.5% (95% CI 29.4–31.7) reported excessive alcohol use. Only excessive alcohol use was more common among those keeping a firearm in/around the home compared to those not doing so (aPR 1.09 [95% CI 1.01–1.17]), and none were associated with unsecure firearm storage. Conclusions: These findings suggest that the association between household firearms and suicide is not explained by an increase in suicidality among those with firearms but rather may be explained by the presence or unsecure storage of a firearm.

2025, Academia Mental Health and Well-Being Volume 2; Issue 4

By Ali Malik

The increasing frequency and severity of extreme weather events in the UK, such as storms, flooding, heatwaves, and severe cold spells, recognised as consequences of the climate crisis, have placed significant operational and organisational pressures on police, emergency responders and local authorities. This research adopts an in-depth qualitative case study design and a temporal analogues approach, which draws on past experiences and events to develop an understanding of the present and inform future learning. Doing this provides insights into the role of the police and Local Resilience Forums (LRFs) in preparing for and responding to extreme weather eventsThe findings highlight that LRFs are essential for locally led emergency planning. However, due to resource constraints, these partnerships often rely on relational capital, negotiated agreement and goodwill. Decisive leadership, situational awareness, experience from past events and routine work were also described as key factors for effective emergency response. LRFs cannot mitigate the impacts of the climate crisis without national support. Local preparedness depends on safe homes, green spaces, reliable transport networks and affordable clean energy. The research also points to the need for greater professional, analytical, and specialist support for LRFs, along with targeted funding to resource localised efforts for preparedness, recovery, and long-term climate adaptation.

By Mia Savicevic and Ethan Miner

This report is a focused look at the growing use of automated license plate readers (ALPRs) by law enforcement agencies across Iowa—a surveillance tool that poses serious risks to Iowans’ privacy and civil liberties. ALPRs are not speed cameras. They are not “red light” cameras. Instead, they are cameras used along roadways throughout Iowa that quickly take thousands of snapshots of license plates as vehicles drive by. That information can then be fed into a network of nationally shared databases that has too few privacy protections and is subject to abuse. More details about ALPRs generally can be found on the ACLU of Iowa website. Unlike other traffic cameras, ALPRs aren’t activated because you violated a law. They record you and every other person who drives by, simply to build a database of vehicle information. ALPRs can take hundreds of photos in a matter of minutes. And unlike ordinary surveillance cameras, where data is either not shared or shared in a more limited manner, the main purpose of ALPRs is to feed this information into a database. To investigate how this technology is being used, the ACLU of Iowa engaged the Technology Law Clinic at the University of Iowa College of Law to conduct independent research on the use of ALPRs in Iowa. We sent open records requests to a broad cross-section of 48 law enforcement agencies across the state, to larger towns, to smaller communities, and to Iowa’s college towns. The study was not comprehensive of all ALPRs in Iowa. Of the 48 agencies that were selected, 5 did not respond to our records request before publication: the Des Moines Police Department, the Clinton Police Department, the Fayette Police Department, the Fremont Police Department, and the Mills Police Department.While researching this project, the clinic also identified agencies (see Appendix D) that have accessed other Iowa cities’ or counties’ ALPR databases, whether they have their own ALPRs or not.

Technology Law Clinic at the University of Iowa College of Law and ACLU of Iowa, 2025. 63p.

By Devon W. Carbado 

This Article employs the Law Review’s Discourse symposium on my book, Unreasonable: Black Lives, Police Power, and the Fourth Amendment, as a starting point to foreground and elaborate on an idea that I reference in that text: police power abolition. The Article begins by describing the central insight that motivates Unreasonable—namely, that simply limiting the frequency with which the police interact with Black people could save Black lives. If the police have fewer opportunities to stop and question Black people, they have fewer opportunities to kill us. That observation led me to think about the range of structural forces that facilitate contact between Black people and the police. Fourth Amendment law is one such force. From pedestrian checks, to traffic stops, to stops and frisks, to searches and seizures at the border, Fourth Amendment law permits the police to interact with and enact violence against Black people on the thinnest, most unreasonable of suspicions. The Article does not reprise precisely how Fourth Amendment law performs that racially subordinating work. For that, you will have to read Unreasonable and the broader body of work on which the book is based. Instead, the Article summarizes the core arguments Unreasonable propounds, links them to what I call “police power abolition,” and explains how police power abolition can provide an entry into and render more legible broader discourses about abolition. Throughout the Article, I draw on and react to the generous and generative review essays that participants in this symposium have written about the book. In the context of doing so, I explain why, notwithstanding the limitations of law as space for antiracist interventions, the legal terrain should remain a critical (though not the only or most important) site for advancing

racial justice.

UCLA School of Law, Public Law Research Paper Forthcoming

69 Pages Posted: 20 Nov 2025

By William Downs

Police misconduct is behaviour by a police officer that falls below the standards of professional behaviour for the police.

Cases of police misconduct can arise from concerns raised by police officers or staff, or following incidents where members of the public have been harmed by the actions of the police.

What are the laws on police misconduct?

Legislation specifies how allegations of police misconduct should be handled, though the framework is complex. In short, most allegations of police misconduct are handled in line with rules set out in the Police Act 1996 and Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020. This legislation is designed to support the police in maintaining a disciplined force. The Home Office provides statutory guidance on implementing this legislation.

However, some serious conduct matters (particularly where a member of the public has been adversely affected) are handled under schedule 3 of the Police Reform Act 2002 and the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2020. The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) publishes statutory guidance on this legislation.

This legislative framework also provides for how public complaints are handled. The Commons Library briefing Police Standards: Complaints provides more information.

The legislative framework applies to the 43 territorial police forces in England and Wales. There are different arrangements for the British Transport Police, the Civil Nuclear Constabulary and the Ministry of Defence Police officers. There are also different arrangements in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

How are misconduct allegations investigated?

Conduct matters are initially handled by a police force’s professional standards department (PSD). PSDs are responsible for logging all conduct matters and, in most cases, investigating them.

However, PSDs must refer the most serious conduct matters to the IOPC, including those that involve:

death or serious injury

a serious assault, sexual offence or other specified offence

serious corruption, including abuse of position for a sexual purpose

a criminal offence or behaviour which is liable to lead to disciplinary proceedings and which was aggravated by discriminatory behaviour, or

allegations concerning a chief officer

The IOPC decides how matters it is referred should be investigated. It can:

decide the matter does not need formal investigation and leave it to the relevant PSD to handle

instruct the PSD to conduct a local investigation

instruct the PSD to investigate the matter under its direction, or

independently investigate the matter itself

How are investigations concluded?

When the PSD or the IOPC have completed an investigation, they must produce a report saying whether the person under investigation has a case to answer for misconduct or gross misconduct.

Police misconduct is any behaviour or action that breaches the standards of professional behaviour and warrants disciplinary action of at least a written warning. Gross misconduct is any behaviour or action that could breach the standards to such a serious degree that it warrants dismissal.

Force management or the IOPC will decide whether (and what sort of) disciplinary proceedings should be initiated. A misconduct panel or misconduct hearing will base its judgment on whether misconduct is proven on the balance of probabilities (the civil standard of proof).

As outlined in the Commons Library briefing Police standards: Discipline, if a case of misconduct or gross misconduct is proven, there are four main sanctions that can be imposed:

a written warning

a final written warning

a reduction in rank, or

dismissal

London: UK Parliament, House of Commons Library, 2025. 23p. 

By William Downs

Police disciplinary proceedings are brought in cases where it is agreed, following an investigation, that a police officer has a case to answer for: • misconduct (meaning a breach of the standards of professional behaviour that justifies disciplinary action of at least written), or • gross misconduct (meaning a breach of the standards of professional behaviour that is so serious to justify dismissal) A decision on whether there is a case to answer is based on whether there is sufficient evidence upon which a misconduct panel “could make a finding on the balance of probabilities” that an officer’s behaviour amounted to misconduct or gross misconduct. The Commons Library briefings Police standards: Complaints and Police Standards: Conduct explain in more detail how allegations of police wrongdoing are investigated.

London: UK Parliament. House of commons Library.. 2025. 19p.

By William Downs

Who handles complaints against the police?

A member of the public can make a complaint if they are dissatisfied with the police. 

There are three crucial actors in the police complaints system:

• Professional standards departments (PSDs) are specialist teams based within every police force in England and Wales. They are responsible for handling most complaints for their force.

• The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) is an independent body that oversees the police complaints system. It also conducts independent investigations into some of the most serious police complaints and conduct matters.

• Local policing bodies (either the police and crime commissioner or the deputy mayor for policing and crime, depending on the area) are responsible for monitoring their force’s complaint handling and conducting some complaint reviews.

How are police complaints handled?

Police complaints can be handled in different ways, depending on the seriousness of the complaint and the specific arrangements of the local area.

However, most complaints will follow this process:

• When a complaint is made, it will be logged by the PSD of the local force.

• The PSD will decide whether the complaint can be resolved informally or whether it must be formally recorded, and whether it requires an investigation.

• The PSD will handle most complaints from start to finish, including conducting any investigation and compiling a report of its findings.

• The PSD will only refer the most serious complaints to the IOPC, according to the mandatory referral criteria. On receiving a referral, the IOPC will assess (based on a mandatory referral criteria) if and how the complaint should be investigated.

• Whoever is investigating the complaint (the PSD or the IOPC) will determine whether there is any indication of police misconduct, whether there is any learning which can be identified, or if no further action is required.

• If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of their complaint, they can usually request a review of how their complaint was handled. Depending on the complaint, the review body is either the IOPC or the local policing body. Complaints handled by the IOPC can’t be reviewed.

In some areas, local policing bodies will be involved in the logging and initial handling of complaints.

This system applies only to the 43 territorial police forces in England and Wales. In Scotland, Police Scotland, the Scottish Police Authority and the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner are involved in the delivery of the police complaints system. In Northern Ireland, police complaints are handled by the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland.

What are the laws on police complaints?

The statutory rules governing the police complaints system in England and Wales are explained in Statutory guidance published by the IOPC. The rules themselves are legislated for in the Police Reform Act 2002 and Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2020.

The police complaints system can be complex. This briefing provides an introductory overview of the system, and aims to support MPs and members of the public to better understand and navigate it.Who handles complaints against the police?

A member of the public can make a complaint if they are dissatisfied with the police.

There are three crucial actors in the police complaints system:

Professional standards departments (PSDs) are specialist teams based within every police force in England and Wales. They are responsible for handling most complaints for their force.

The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) is an independent body that oversees the police complaints system. It also conducts independent investigations into some of the most serious police complaints and conduct matters.

Local policing bodies (either the police and crime commissioner or the deputy mayor for policing and crime, depending on the area) are responsible for monitoring their force’s complaint handling and conducting some complaint reviews.

How are police complaints handled?

Police complaints can be handled in different ways, depending on the seriousness of the complaint and the specific arrangements of the local area.

However, most complaints will follow this process:

When a complaint is made, it will be logged by the PSD of the local force.

The PSD will decide whether the complaint can be resolved informally or whether it must be formally recorded, and whether it requires an investigation.

The PSD will handle most complaints from start to finish, including conducting any investigation and compiling a report of its findings.

The PSD will only refer the most serious complaints to the IOPC, according to the mandatory referral criteria. On receiving a referral, the IOPC will assess (based on a mandatory referral criteria) if and how the complaint should be investigated.

Whoever is investigating the complaint (the PSD or the IOPC) will determine whether there is any indication of police misconduct, whether there is any learning which can be identified, or if no further action is required.

If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of their complaint, they can usually request a review of how their complaint was handled. Depending on the complaint, the review body is either the IOPC or the local policing body. Complaints handled by the IOPC can’t be reviewed.

In some areas, local policing bodies will be involved in the logging and initial handling of complaints.

This system applies only to the 43 territorial police forces in England and Wales. In Scotland, Police Scotland, the Scottish Police Authority and the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner are involved in the delivery of the police complaints system. In Northern Ireland, police complaints are handled by the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland.

What are the laws on police complaints?

The statutory rules governing the police complaints system in England and Wales are explained in Statutory guidance published by the IOPC. The rules themselves are legislated for in the Police Reform Act 2002 and Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2020.

The police complaints system can be complex. This briefing provides an introductory overview of the system, and aims to support MPs and members of the public to better understand and navigate it.

By Anna Cook, Jon Lloyd, Fablina Sharara, Jennifer Key,

When someone is in a crisis, a police response can lead to help — or harm. Across the country, communities are trying something new: sending mental health specialists, peer specialists or other trained professionals to crisis calls instead of police through alternative response programs (ARPs). Research on ARPs has focused on case studies and standout programs like CAHOOTS in Oregon and Denver STAR, but we know relatively little about the broader trends in this growing field. Comprehensive information about where and how jurisdictions are implementing ARPs is crucial so that policymakers, funders and advocates can make better informed strategic decisions regarding public safety innovation. To address this gap, we created a novel database of 216 ARPs established since the early 1970s and operational as of 2024 to produce one of the first overviews of these programs throughout the United States. By summarizing the design, scale and geographic distribution of ARPs, we provide a broad look at the field to help inform and empower community leaders to build stronger public safety systems while reducing dependence on traditional policing. Our findings underscore critical choices in how ARPs are implemented and raise important questions about their scope, accessibility and long-term potential. As policymakers, practitioners and advocates continue to explore alternatives to police response, this report provides a foundation for understanding the current landscape and identifying paths for growth. Given current gaps in ARP implementation, future research and innovation are needed to explore how these programs can evolve to handle a higher volume and wider range of calls, understand the benefits and limitations of different call lines, and expand to meet the needs of smaller or underserved communities.

 Key findings: • Recent proliferation: Public officials and other decisionmakers established nearly 120 ARPs from 2020 through 2024, reflecting a surge in interest and political willpower following national Black Lives Matter protests. • Limited scale: Most programs serving large populations respond to fewer than five calls per 1,000 residents per year. • Narrow scope: Mental and behavioral health are a stated focus for 94% of programs; far fewer are designed to address issues like traffic safety, interpersonal conflict or homelessness. • 911 reliance: Despite their focus on mental crisis calls, only 18% of ARPs use the 988 national mental health crisis line, while 50% use 911 for dispatch. • Urban concentration: Programs are concentrated in large, racially diverse, urban areas.

West Hollywood, CA,

WeWest Hollywood, CA,West Hollywood, VThe Center for Policing Equity’s (CPE) , 2025. 23p.

Assessing Multi-disciplinary Response Mechanisms

Edited by Paromita Chattoraj

Child Protection in India: Assessing Multi-disciplinary Response Mechanisms offers a comprehensive exploration of the institutional, legal, and social frameworks surrounding child protection in India. Anchored in a multidisciplinary approach, the book brings together insights from law, social work, psychology, education, and public policy to examine how various systems interact in addressing the issues related to protection of children from abuse, neglect, trafficking, and exploitation. This book is intended for researchers, academicians, legal professionals, social workers, policymakers, child rights activists, and students engaged in child welfare and protection studies. It critically analyses existing response mechanisms by stakeholders such as the Juvenile Justice Boards, Child Welfare Committees, Child Care Institutions, police, and the judiciary, and the implementation of various laws, including Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, the POCSO Act, Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, while also highlighting challenges in inter-agency coordination. By combining chapters under four broad themes focusing on empirical research, policy review, and case studies, this volume equips readers with a nuanced understanding of the gaps and strengths in current practices and highlights of best practices around the world. The book aims to foster a rights-based and child-centric approach, encouraging collaboration across disciplines and sectors. It is a valuable resource for anyone seeking to engage meaningfully with child protection frameworks in India and to contribute to more effective, sustainable interventions.

London: Routledge, 2026. 

By Cornelius Friesendorf

For post-conflict stabilisation and peacebuilding efforts to have a chance of success, security gaps need to be closed. Domestic law enforcement agencies tend to be too weak or unreliable after war to enforce the law and fight serious crime. As a consequence, operations against organised crime, the arrest of suspected war criminals and the protection of minorities depend on international intervention forces. Much attention has been paid to domestic police reform and the problems of deploying international civilian police. This book examines the under-explored role of international military missions in post-conflict law enforcement, with a focus on serious crime. The military is under pressure to fill security gaps. Yet military involvement in crime-fighting is problematic practically (soldiers are generally not trained and equipped for it), politically (crime-fighting is seen as military mission creep) and normatively (it undermines the delineation of military and policing functions). Military support of law enforcement poses a major dilemma in peace operations. Decision-makers continue to struggle with this dilemma in an ad-hoc fashion, while scholars have so far provided few empirical accounts. This book focuses on post-war Bosnia-Herzegovina (BiH) and Kosovo. It argues that the pros of military involvement in law enforcement outweigh the cons, given the continuing lack of strong police forces, the criminalised nature of contemporary wars and the negative influence of spoilers onstabilisation and peacebuilding efforts. Military support of the fight against serious crime is not sufficient for these efforts to succeed, but it is necessary. This book has three objectives. It describes the role of NATO and EU military missions in law enforcement in BiH and Kosovo from the 1990s through early 2009, thus filling an empirical knowledge gap. By formulating a strategy for military involvement in law enforcement, the book also makes a normative contribution to the debate on peace operations. Drawing on, among other sources, interviews in these two ‘international protectorates’, the book shows that military support of the fight against serious crime has lacked effectiveness, efficiency and legitimacy, examples of success notwithstanding. Third, the book adds conceptual value to the debate on peace operations, by drawing on security governance, Security Sector Reform and Security Sector Governance. These concepts help to understand the military role in post-conflict law enforcement and to guide improved efforts.

Geneva: Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF) , 2010. 207p.

By Nicolas Florquin with Victor de Oliveira

SITUATION UPDATE: LATIN AMERICA

Based on UN Comtrade data, reported global small arms and light weapons (hereafter ‘small arms’) exports rose sharply from USD 5 billion in 2019 to USD 9.2 billion in 2024. Consistent with previous trade updates, ammunition remains the most traded weapon category, accounting for 35% of the value of reported global imports for the period 2019–24, followed by sporting and hunting shotguns and rifles (21%), and pistols and revolvers (18%).

The Authorized Trade in Small Arms: Latin America from a Global Perspective—a Situation Update from the Mapping the Transnational Circulation and Control of Small Arms in Latin America project—examines the global authorized trade in small arms between 2019 and 2024, with a particular focus on trends in Latin America. It finds the region to be a comparatively small player in the global authorized small arms trade, accounting for 2.8% of global small arms imports and 6.3% of exports. Yet military firearms represented about 10% of all Latin American small arms imports during this period—almost double the global average of 5.6%.

The Situation Update also identifies a significant increase in European—and in particular Eastern European—imports during this period, which seem to have fuelled the growing trade. Indeed, European imports accounted for 40% of all reported global imports in 2024, while the value of Eastern European imports multiplied by more than ten between 2019 and 2024.

Geneva: Small Arms Survey, 2025. 16p.

By Alina D. Machande 

The burgeoning field of cyberdeviance lacks a unified conceptual framework, hindering classification and understanding of its subtypes and underlying psychological mechanisms. To address this gap, we conducted two studies. In Study 1 (N = 20), employing the repertory grid technique, we identified five key dimensions of cyberdeviance. In Study 2 (N = 268), participants rated 16 cyberdeviant behaviors on these dimensions, revealing three subtypes: data-oriented, interpersonal, and non-prototypical cyberdeviance. Our findings suggest a shift from singular cyberdeviance investigation toward recognition of its diverse subtypes, each necessitating tailored interventions. By adopting a dimensional approach, we transcend categorical and technocentric perspectives, enabling examination of behavior clusters across cultural and temporal contexts. Our work underscores the importance of integrating foundational deviance theories and expanding conceptual frameworks to comprehensively grasp cyberdeviance phenomena.

The Information Society, 1–19. 2025.

By Steven Schuetz, et al.

  Context Service weapon activity, including instances where an officer’s firearm is drawn, pointed, or discharged, plays an important role in understanding events transpiring during a police–public encounter. Detection, documentation, and communication of these events in a way that is accurate, timely, and dependable is vital for enhancing transparency and accountability of law enforcement service weapon use. About this Report The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) requested the Criminal Justice Technology Testing and Evaluation Center (CJTTEC) to investigate the landscape of commercially available and emerging technologies that could meet this need. CJTTEC conducted a review of technologies capable of detecting when a service weapon has been unholstered, pointed, or discharged; documenting when a law enforcement officer discharges their service weapon (or initiating documentation such as body-worn camera (BWC) recordings in such incidents); and communicating the information to dispatchers. CJTTEC’s methodology to understand this technology landscape included secondary research (e.g., reviewing patents, trade literature, press releases, news articles, and publications) and primary research with technology experts, product representatives, and researchers. This brief provides a high-level summary of technology systems capable of documenting, detecting, and communicating service weapon activity, focusing specifically on technology integrated into or onto the weapon, in a holster, in a BWC, in a wearable device, or in environmental sensing tools. Conclusion Although no single commercially available tool is capable of detecting, documenting, and communicating service weapon activity, law enforcement agencies may be able to rely on a suite of products to help them address these needs.  Key Takeaways ¡ Agencies are facing increased pressure to document service weapon activity. From 2015 through 2020, on average, an estimated 1,769 people were injured annually—979 fatally and 790 nonfatally— from shootings by police in the United States.1 Because of the impact that officer-involved shootings (OISs) have on the community, law enforcement agencies are facing increased public pressure and policy mandates to document service weapon activity. ¡ There is a need for tools or technologies that can objectively detect, document, and communicate service weapon activity. OISs are stressful incidents that can occur quickly and under poor visual circumstances, which can impact accurate documentation of events. Further, obtaining reliable service weapon activity data can be challenging because of noncompliance with body-worn camera (BWC) policies, lack of BWCs, or inaccurate witness and officer accounts. ¡ There is no single commercially available product that meets service weapon activity needs. No single product can currently (1) detect service weapon activity, such as recording actual shots fired in an incident involving law enforcement weapons; (2) document the activity, such as initiating BWC recordings; and (3) communicate information about service weapon activity to police dispatchers. ¡ Agencies can rely on a suite of products to address these needs or choose specific products, each with strengths and limitations. Available technologies may be integrated into or onto the weapon, in a holster, in a BWC, in a wearable device, or in environmental sensing tools. Weapon-integrated tools offer the most functionality to detect and document multiple types of service weapon activity during a use-of-force incident, but many of these products, such as those developed by Armaments Research Company and Yardarm, are not commercially available. These products often lack the capability to communicate updates in real-time with dispatch. Holster-integrated tools can sense officer unholstering activity, activate BWC, and communicate with dispatch, but they cannot detect activity related to pointing or firing a weapon. BWCs, activated by multiple types of triggers, can document audio and video of the incident and communicate with dispatch, but they cannot specifically detect officer firearm activities (e.g., weapon unholstering, pointing, gunshot detection). Wearable devices can detect officer firearm activities, document metadata, and communicate with dispatch, but most products are still in a development phase for law enforcement applications. Environmental sensing tools may detect and document activities transpiring within a certain area, including shots fired in an incident, and communicate information to dispatch, but they cannot detect or attribute gunshot activities specifically to an officer's service weapon. ¡ Technology advancements and independent testing, evaluation, and implementation research are needed to accelerate adoption. Technology developers are currently working through several technical hurdles and are leveraging insights from BWC to improve technology uptake. Some commercially available products have been evaluated for performance, but more studies are needed as technologies are further developed and released into the market.  

Criminal Justice Testing (and Evaluation Consortium, 2024. 15p.