By Rasheed Olaniyi

Kano is a city where a multi-layered form of community policing was established in the era of the rollback of the state in social provisioning in the midst of ever-increasing armed banditry and crime. Between 1985 and 2005, vigilante groups were established in almost all the neighbourhoods of Kano with the support of the traditional authority and community leaders. However, government interference, political instrumentalisation and inadequate support undermined its critical rote. Part of the rationale for the Police Community Relations Committee (PCRC) in Sabongari lies not in the efficacy of such initiative in reducing the incidence of crime but to confer a sense of identity, control of crime and security. The contradiction in PCRC could be located in the pathological fixation of police on corruption, which alienated and depressed the public from providing valuable information for crime control. The activities of vigilante groups and Hisba have reduced the high rate of juvenile delinquency in metropolitan Kano. The litmus test for Hisba in the implementation of Sharia law would be how it could reconcile the social diversity in a multicultural society such as Kano to ensure security and social harmony. The study concludes that the gap between different forms of vigilante groups, conflicting political motivations and the near discordant relations with the police, produced a dysfunctional mechanism for crime control.

Ibadan: IFRA-Nigeria: 2005

By Emily Rogers.  Katie Holihen, et al.

Homelessness is a growing crisis in America, increasing by 12% between 2022 and 2023 alone. While there are a range of ideas about how to address this issue, in many places across the country, law enforcement officers are still typically the default first responders to these kinds of community concerns. This publication details how communities can strategically plan for and assess their law enforcement homelessness response efforts, using a shared vision, a logic model, and regular assessments to determine if the response is achieving its intended goals. It also discusses the importance of expanding the knowledge base of law enforcement practices and strategies to establish a set of national standards for effective and successful homelessness responses.

New York: The Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2025. 29p.

By Casey Witte and Emily Mooney

  Law enforcement agencies are the gatekeepers of the criminal justice system. Charged with responding to calls for service and investigating crimes, they also exercise a great deal of authority and discretion when it comes to how individuals are held accountable for misbehavior. Depending on the alleged act, state and agency, police officers can correct wrongdoing without an arrest or any court involvement. In some cases, police officers may be authorized to give an individual a warning or citation or to refer someone to community-based programming or services. Colloquially termed “diversion” opportunities due to their movement away from the formal court process, these decisions can be life-changing, particularly when a child is accused of committing a crime. Adolescents are especially prone to partake in risky behaviors, be affected by negative peer influences and struggle to adequately account for  the consequences of their actions—all of which put them at greater risk of coming into contact with the justice system. Youth misbehavior can also be a reflection of trauma or a mislabeling of typical child actions due to overbroad criminal laws, such as those that punish youth for “disorderly conduct.” Fortunately, what we know about child development suggests children naturally age-out of crime as their cognitive functions develop, and trauma can be treated outside of the justice process. Police officers can likewise work collaboratively with other community actors to ensure overbroad laws do not result in criminal justice responses to actions better dealt with by schools and parents. After all, when people are arrested, processed and marked with a criminal record all before the age of 18, the long-term consequences can be devastating. Simply being stopped by police can have detrimental effects on a young person’s future, with some research suggesting it can amplify the young person’s likelihood of future criminal activity. After an arrest, a youth is on track to earn less income over their lifetime and be substantially less-educated than their peers. And when a youth arrest is followed by a stint of detention or incarceration, research suggests young people are even more likely to return to crime, particularly when they have had few prior interactions with the justice system. This means that when we introduce our youngest to the justice system, without full consideration of effective alternatives to hold them accountable, we are at risk of crippling their future and accelerating further societal harm. In response to this problem, states and individual law enforcement agencies have begun to establish formal youth diversion programs with set eligibility criteria. These programs allow youth to avoid being formally processed further in the justice system if they complete certain requirements, such as community service. Often, they provide resources— such as referrals to counseling or job services—aimed at meeting the needs of the youth that enter these programs and addressing the factors that led to law enforcement contact. However, there is no uniform design for diversion programs nor is there a uniform understanding of which youth should be diverted. As a result, program components and utility can vary wildly from state to state or even town to town. Such is the case in the state of Maryland. From Allegany to Worcester, law enforcement-driven diversion programs— which for the purposes of this paper are defined as programs managed by law enforcement agencies to which youth can be referred rather than having their case sent to the Department of Juvenile Services (DJS)—have started to take hold, though successful iterations with proven efficacy are still few and far between.6 In recent years, many law enforcement agencies have taken a step in the right direction by creating or forming relationships with existing youth diversion programs in their communities. In some cases, diversion programs driven by State’s Attorney’s Offices have worked to divert young people prior to a DJS referral as well. However, there are still a substantial number of jurisdictions that have no law enforcement-driven diversion programs whatsoever. Accordingly, this policy study will address the importance of police diversion, the state of law enforcement-driven diversion programs in Maryland, and ultimately recommend policies aimed at creating a statewide environment in which all Maryland youth have opportunities to be diverted by law enforcement earlier and with more efficacy. 

Washington, DC: R Street, 2021. 15p