By Aaron Chalfin and Brittany Street

This paper reviews and distills a wide array of recent social science literature and offers an evidence-based vision for how public safety can be maintained while relying less on the use of incarceration. We offer the following lessons from the literature. First, while interventions that increase economic opportunities have been shown to be effective in reducing criminal behavior, particularly income generating crime, interventions which change how people think appear to be even more effective at reducing the types of crimes that most frequently lead to incarceration. Second, a wide variety of investments targeted towards children in disadvantaged neighborhoods appear to be effective and likely pay for themselves over time. Third, while there is a natural concern that diverting criminal defendants from traditional prosecution will erode the deterrence value of criminal sanctions, the evidence suggests that for first-time and younger offenders, individuals who have been diverted – either through a formal program or informally via “non-prosecution” – tend to be less likely to be rearrested in the future. Fourth, the evidence suggests that law enforcement can play an important role in reducing the use of incarceration when police are visible and engage in high-value activities that deter crime or focus their arrest powers more intensively on violent and/or high-volume offenders; in doing so, they have the ability to reduce crime through deterrence and focused incapacitation without increasing the footprint of the justice system. Finally, there is potential to meaningfully reduce incarceration levels through sentencing reforms without compromising public safety – so long as the reforms are structured in such a way as to target the least criminally productive offenders, while retaining in custody those offenders who are most likely to commit the costliest offenses or who are likeliest to offend in high volumes.

Institute for the Quantitative Study of Inclusion, Diversity, and Equity,, 2023. 69p

By VERED ANDRE’EV, OMAR MOHAMMED, LARA PORTNOY

Often referred to as the “world’s oldest hatred”, antisemitism, Jew-hatred, or Judeophobia has led to mass expulsions, pogroms, massacres, and the largest genocide in human history – the Holocaust. Hatred against the Jewish people can be traced across history and geography, evolving with global events, trends, and local cultures. Today, antisemitism is experiencing a worldwide revival, with the events of October 7th, 2023, and the resulting Israel-Hamas war serving as an impetus to major spikes in hateful rhetoric and violent action. Antisemitic incidents were already at historic highs; they have increased further. Antisemitism is an issue of serious concern that requires public attention and policy response. As stated in November 2022 by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), “antisemitic incidents and hate crimes violate fundamental rights, especially the right to human dignity, the right to equality of treatment and the freedom of thought, conscience and religion”. According to the Anti-Defamation League’s Audit of Antisemitic Incidents 2023, “In 2023, ADL tabulated 8,873 antisemitic incidents across the United States. This represents a 140% increase from the 3,698 incidents recorded in 2022 and is the highest number on record since ADL began tracking antisemitic incidents in 1979.” When assessing antisemitism in Arabic-speaking countries, the situation is even more disturbing. The ADL’s Global 100 survey, first launched in 2014, measures antisemitic beliefs across 100 countries, revealing notably high levels in Arab countries of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), with index scores reaching 74% in Saudi Arabia and 93% in the West Bank and Gaza (Weiberg, 2020). Antisemitism in the Arab world has deep historical roots, intensified by figures like Muhammad Rashid Rida in the early 20th century, who used antisemitic rhetoric in response to political Zionism. This hatred has been embedded in Arab political discourse for over a century, often framed in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict, where conspiracy theories portray Jews as a global malevolent force. Islamist movements, emerging in the 1920s, have perpetuated these antisemitic views, depicting Jews as historical enemies and untrustworthy partners in peace. The legacy of antisemitism includes influential texts like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which were widely disseminated in the Arab world and continue to influence perceptions today (Winter & Link, 2024).

Washington, DC: Program on Extremism at George Washington University , 2025. 35p.

By Rebecca Hubble

The Learning Disabilities and Challenge (LDC) suite are accredited offending behaviour programmes delivered by His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) in custody and the community for adults assessed as having mild impairments in intellectual and adaptive functioning. There are four programmes within the suite: Becoming New Me Plus (BNM+), New Me Strengths (NMS), Living as New Me (LNM), and the Heathy Sex Programme (HSP). Our interim outcome evaluation attends to BNM+ and NMS only. This is because LNM and HSP are secondary programmes, i.e., they are intended to be delivered after completion of a primary programme. BNM+ is for men with LDC assessed as high or very high risk of reoffending, who present with at least one or more strong criminogenic needs across multiple domains and have a general violence, intimate partner violence and/or sexual offending conviction(s). NMS is designed for people with any offence convictions, who have been assessed as medium or above risk of reoffending, with sufficient levels of criminogenic need addressed by the programme. The aim of this interim outcome evaluation was to determine whether BNM+ and NMS participants were making positive progress against programme targets reflected in the Success Wheel Measure (SWM). The SWM, designed by HMPPS, is the core metric for measuring participant progress against programme targets for participants of BNM+ and NMS. The assessment domains are: (1) Managing Life’s Problems, (2) Healthy Thinking, (3) Positive Relationships, (4) Healthy Sex (for those with a sexual offence conviction only), and (5) Sense of Purpose (desistance from crime). The research also aimed to identify if individual (relating to the person) or programme delivery factors affected changes in SWM scores, and whether these changes varied between assessment domains.

Ministry of Justice Analytical Series 2024

London: Ministry of Justice, 2024. 48p.