By Mark B. Johnson, Adam Gilberston, Scott McKnight

With the recent liberalization of cannabis control laws, increasingly larger numbers of drivers are testing positive for cannabis. Research suggests many cannabis users believe driving under the influence of the drug is relatively safe. The purpose of this multiphase project was to understand cannabis users’ thoughts, perceptions, and reasons for driving under the influence of cannabis and develop public health messages that might deter users from impaired driving in the future. The project had three main phases: message development, message ranking, and message validation. In the message development phase, the research team conducted 11 focus groups with subgroups of 88 cannabis users with a history of drugged driving. Subgroups included older adults, middle-aged adults, younger adults, medical cannabis users, recreational cannabis users, habitual users, occasional users, those in recreational-legal states, those in recreational-illegal states, and those who regularly use alcohol and cannabis together. Drawing on focus group discussions, the research team developed messages designed to persuade cannabis users not to drive under the influence. These were supplemented with messages edited from a ChatGPT query “What are some messages to convince people not to drive under the influence of cannabis?” In the message ranking phase, two samples of cannabis users were recruited to help identify message effectiveness. Using an online survey platform, the first sample of cannabis users (n=63) was asked to rank the messages within randomized blocks in terms of their perceived effectiveness. Results identified the top ranked individual messages. Next, a second sample of cannabis users (n=50) were asked to rank the most promising messages head-to-head. Once the messages were ranked, the research team selected three messages to evaluate in the message validation phase. To validate the messages, participants were presented with a hypothetical scenario where a person consumed cannabis to the point of feeling high, but suddenly realized that they needed to go somewhere and it was important to leave almost immediately. One of the risk messages was then integrated into the scenario. After reading it, participants were asked to imagine themselves in that situation and indicate how likely it would be (percent) that they would drive in that situation (as opposed to taking an Uber or following some other path). Participants also answered questions about demographics, cannabis use, and personality characteristics. Finally, the most promising message from this stage was compared with a poorer scoring message to validate the viability of the message. Analysis of the focus groups discussions identified six broad themes that may be useful in developing messages to deter cannabis-impaired driving:    • Legal and financial consequences • Safety concerns • Statistics and science • Narrative or testimonial • Personal responsibility • Separating cannabis use from driving. The analysis showed little evidence that different cohorts of users identified more strongly with specific themes or message types. In general, however, focus group discussants suggested the most effective messages would be those that (a) were positive, (b) were realistic, (c) avoided stereotypes, and (d) reflected diversity. The ranking exercise indicated that messages that highlighted personal responsibility and safety concerns performed better than messages based on legal risks and separating cannabis use from driving. The top-rated messages from the ranking study were the following: • Driving high isn't just reckless; it's selfish. Think twice before getting behind the wheel after using marijuana. • You wouldn't drink and drive, so why drive high? Don’t drive under the influence of marijuana. • Marijuana impairs your judgement, slows your reactions, and increases your risk of crashing. Don’t drive high. In the validation study, exposing participants to the top-rated “Driving high isn’t just reckless; it’s selfish…” message resulted in significantly lower willingness to drive scores (19.9%) than a poorer scoring message from the ranking study (34.2%). The relatively large effect of the “Driving high isn’t just reckless; it’s selfish…” message on willingness to drive persisted for high-risk users including habitual users, those who frequently drove under the influence, recreational users, and those who lived in recreational-legal states. While this study produced a list of messages to deter driving after cannabis use, the message that “Driving high isn’t just reckless; it’s selfish…” seemed more effective than other messages in terms of lowering participants’ willingness to drive under the influence in a hypothetical scenario. Notably, this message was developed by ChatGPT, rather than the focus group process, a finding that warrants further exploration. Participants’ ranking of messages appeared relatively consistent with findings on message effectiveness (as measured by participant reports of willingness to engage in the behavior). Strategically, to increase efficiency, future message development approaches could consider quickly constructing many messages (with less concern for quality), followed by an inexpensive ranking process to narrow down the most effective messages. However, even the best messages will only affect a portion of the people exposed to them. Multimethod, multifaceted approaches are needed to achieve sizeable population reductions in impaired driving.

Washington DC: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety; 2025l 53p.

 By Jonathan Moreno-Medina r Aurelie Ouss r Patrick Bayer r Bocar A. Ba 

This paper examines language patterns in US television news coverage of police killings. We first document that the media use semantic structures—such as passive voice, nominalizations, and intransitive verbs—that obscure responsibility more often in cases of police killings than in cases of civilian killings. Through an online experiment, we demonstrate the significance of these semantic differences, revealing that participants are less likely to hold police officers morally responsible and demand penalties when exposed to obfuscatory language, particularly in cases involving unarmed victims. Further analysis of news data shows greater use of obfuscatory language when the victims are unarmed or video footage is available—situations where obfuscation may have the greatest impact. Exploring the causes of this differential obfuscation, we do not find evidence that it is driven by either demand-side factors or supply-side factors associated with TV station ownership and political leaning. Instead, our results suggest that narratives crafted by police departments are a more likely driver of media obfuscation. Our study underscores the importance of semantic structures in how media shape perceptions, extending beyond considerations of coverage volume and bias.

Cambridge, MA:   NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH, 2022.   66p.

By Francis A. Citera, Greenberg Traurig Julia Steiner

Opioids have been used both medicinally and recreationally since ancient times. While their recreational functions have long since been denounced, their medicinal value remains legitimate. Yet, since the pain management revolution began in the mid-1990s, many Americans have become opioid-dependent—fueling an illicit drug market and costing many lives. The tragedy that is today’s opioid epidemic has prompted robust federal and state legislative and regulatory interventions in both the legal and illicit opioid markets—albeit with mixed success. As these initiatives have been slow to quell the opioid crisis, public nuisance claims have taken center stage. After the Big Tobacco litigation invoked the common law doctrine and ultimately resulted in the historic Master Settlement Agreement, public nuisance captured the attention of state governmental entities in the firearm and lead paint industries. Those litigations produced varying results among the states. While some courts properly rejected the novel application of public nuisance to the manufacture, sale, and distribution of lawful products, others permitted claims to survive past the motion to dismiss stage, prompting product manufacturers, distributors, and retailers to agree to exorbitant settlements. Perhaps unsurprisingly then, the legal theory has gained popularity in claims against deep-pocketed opioid industry actors. However, like the tobacco, firearm, and lead paint industries, public nuisance does not fit within the historically recognized definition of public nuisance, which has long been understood as being limited to unlawful activities and real property contexts.

In addition to being, at best, unorthodox and novel, and at worst, legally deficient and unsupported by history and precedent, public nuisance is a poor vehicle to address a national, highly political problem—particularly in the legal prescription drug market, which touts many benefits and is already heavily regulated by the duly elected members of the legislative and executive branches of government.

 79 U. Mia. L. Rev. 317 (2025), 30p.

By Mary E. Richmond

“The Long View” serves both as a historical document and as a critique of the limitations and challenges facing social work in the early 20th century. The title itself suggests her forward-thinking approach, urging practitioners to consider the long-term effects of their interventions rather than focusing solely on immediate relief. In this sense, the book represents a call for a more holistic and preventive approach to social work rather than a reactive or crisis-driven model. A key strength of her work is Richmond’s insistence on the importance of professionalization in social work. She argues for a rigorous, research-informed approach to casework, emphasizing the need for training, standardization, and ethical responsibility. This argument anticipates later debates in the field about the tension between bureaucratic efficiency and personalized, client-centered care. Richmond’s work in this book also highlights her concern with the social and structural determinants of poverty, distinguishing her from social workers who focus primarily on individual moral failings.

Originally published 1930 Russell Sage Fdn. Read-Me.Org Inc. 2025. 411p.

Edited by Kurt J. Engemann, Cathryn F. Lavery and Jeanne M. Sheehan

This volume explores the understanding, analysis and applications of mitigating social and political risks and the devastating consequences of mishandling of incidences. Contributors use evidence based practices, theories and real-life scenarios to explore how social and political risk mitigation is essential for the survival of an organization and how positive restructuring can take place after negative consequences occur.

Berlin/Boston, De Gruyter 2023, 277p.

By Jordyn D. Laird & Philip G. Laird

One hundred and twenty-one White participants made judgments about a hypothetical rape and murder scenario with race of perpetrator and victim systematically varied and completed the Defining Issues Test Version 2-Short Form (DIT2-SF) Independent variables were race of the accused and victim, dependent variables consisted of judgment about accused’s and victim’s behaviors, relative blameworthiness, and moral reasoning. White accused were judged more harshly than Black and Indigenous accused. Perpetrators of crimes against White victims were judged more harshly than perpetrators of crimes against Black and Indigenous victims. Participants who used more principled reasoning blamed victims less than those who employed less principled reasoning. Explicit and implicit racism and the role of principled moral reasoning are discussed.

Washington, DC: CAIR, 2025. 22p.

By Ashmini Kerodal, Kelly Officer, Emma Dunn

During the 2019 legislative session, the legislature passed, and the Governor signed Senate Bill 577. Section 5 of the bill created a collection process for data on the prosecution of bias crimes, and requires the Criminal Justice Commission (CJC) to analyze these data to identify gaps or weaknesses in the investigation, presentation, prosecution and sanctioning of crimes motivated by bias. This study pools the county District Attorney (DA) data submitted per SB 577 and ORS 137.676, with data from the Oregon State Police (OSP) and Oregon Judicial Department (OJD) to conduct a pre-post evaluation of SB 577 on bias crime prosecutions. The pre-SB 577 group covers all defendants with a bias crime court case or arrest between January 1, 2012 and July 14, 2019, while the post-SB 577 group covers all defendants with a bias crime court case or arrest between July 15, 2019 and December 31, 2022.1 Key Findings One thousand and nine bias crime cases were identified for the 11-year study period. This number excludes cases deemed unfounded by law enforcement (LE)2 and thus not referred to the deputy district attorney (DDA) for review for criminal charges, but includes fingerprintable arrests that were no filed, i.e., bias crime arrests for which no charges were filed by the prosecutor. A case with at least one conviction charge – guilty plea, jury or bench conviction, or no contest plea – was classified as a conviction, which was further divided into bias and non-bias convictions. Sentences and probation conditions were compared for bias conviction and non-bias conviction in the pre- and post-SB 577 periods to determine if conviction charge influenced sentence lengths and probation conditions, and thereafter compared for the pre-post periods to determine the effect of SB 577 on bias crime prosecution. • Eighty percent of filed cases in the pre- and 78.5% in the post-SB 577 group were disposed with a conviction on either a bias or non-bias charge; convictions in the post-SB 577 group are expected to increase as open cases (14.8%) are disposed (see Figure 4). • Slightly over half of defendants sentenced to probation on any conviction charge pre-SB 577 had at least one complex need – identified via post-conviction court mandated substance abuse, mental health or anger management treatment, or houseless status – which increased to 6 in 10 post-SB 577 (see Table 14). • There were no differences in sentencing for bias vs non-bias convictions, aside from the higher use of jail for bias convictions: 67.4% of defendants convicted on a bias vs 44.8% convicted on a non-bias charge in the pre-SB 577 group were sentenced to any jail time, while 54.8% of defendants convicted on a bias vs 41.1% convicted on a non-bias charge in the post-SB 577 group were sentenced to any jail time (see Table 9). • In the absence of formal bias crime treatment and restorative justice (RJ) programs, Clackamas, Multnomah, Wasco and Washington counties are assigning online courses and books/essays to improve defendants’ cultural awareness; community service in culturally appropriate community based organizations (CBOs); and RJ dialogue at the community level. Due to the lack of data on deferred sentences in the OJD Odyssey database, it is possible that these strategies are more prevalent than found in this study, and some creative RJ and sensitivity trainings were not identified. • Insufficient evidence, victim issue, 3 and defendant (in)ability to aid and assist were the most frequently cited reasons bias charges were no filed/no complaint, removed from the charging instrument, or dismissed – in the rare instance when details are provided in Odyssey (see Table 7). The county DA data is crucial to close this knowledge gap and identify challenges faced by DDAs when prosecuting bias crimes. Supplemental data from the Multnomah County District Attorney’s Office (MCDA) indicate that aid and assist concerns were confirmed (22.5%) or suspected (29.8%) in over half of bias crime referrals between 2020 and 2022 (see Table A8 in the Appendix). • Some DDAs communicate justifications for no filing, filing/issuing a case as non-bias, plea bargaining, and deferred sentences to the referring officer, but this is not a consistent practice. Community members who share identity with the victim and who research shows are similarly psychologically harmed when a community member is targeted, have no right to be informed of these decisions and occurrences.4 Recommendations This report focuses on the prosecution and sanctioning of bias crimes, which is a necessary first step to formulate research design(s) 5 to identify gaps in the investigation and presentation of bias crimes. When bias convictions, global plea agreements, and non-bias convictions’ probation conditions are considered, it shows that the criminal justice system contains more accountability than is apparent when one queries a single criminal justice system data point. While accountability is a good start, CJC recommends: • Continuation of the current probation practice of utilizing a 4th generation risk assessment instrument with integrated case management (e.g., LS/CMI), mandating programming recommended by the assessment, and treating housing insecurity to reduce reoffending. • The DA, victim advocates at the DA office, or victim advocates at LEAs typically attempt to inform victims of case outcomes, but communication may be stymied due to justice system capacity, language barriers, time constraints, and other barriers. To improve future bias crime reporting and procedural justice, victims should be informed of which charges were filed, justifications for no filed decisions, their rights to participate in plea bargaining negotiations, case outcomes including probation conditions, and other efforts to hold the defendant accountable. • Additional, rigorous research that utilizes administrative criminal justice, victim services, prosecutors, law enforcement, and community perspectives is required to determine the extent of bias crime and non-criminal bias incidents, barriers to reporting, and resources service providers and the justice system require to ensure defendant accountability and meet the needs of victims and affected communities. Academics, policy researchers and graduate students can help fill these knowledge gaps with qualitative and mixed-methods studies. Interested researchers should contact the CJC.

Salem, OR: Oregon Criminal Justice Commission, 2024. 54p.

By Robin Joy

The purpose of this study was to test the effectiveness of the Arnold Ventures’ Public Safety Risk Assessment (PSA) in Vermont. This report presents the findings of the study. The Arnold PSA measures the risk of a person failing to appear for a court date (FTA) and engaging in new criminal activity (NCA) or committing a new violent crime (NCV) while out on bail. The PSA relies on criminal histories, the current charged offenses, and the age of the defendant to score the likelihood of a person engaging in the measured behavior. This research was conducted at the request of the Vermont stakeholder group of the National Criminal Justice Reform Project (NCJRP). The NCJRP was supported by the National Governors Association, Arnold Ventures, and the National Criminal Justice Association. This report was funded by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Key Findings Overall, the PSA did not perform well in Vermont, and we do not recommend its adoption. It was unable to accurately predict who would not appear while on bail, commit a new crime, or commit a new crime of violence. Additionally, there are racial equity concerns about using criminal histories in criminal justice decision making. The PSA may have performed poorly for a variety of reasons. First, the overall rate of failure to appear (FTA) for the cohort (people arraigned on felony charge in 2016-2017) was 11%. This is low; however, the real number of FTAs are likely higher, but they are not appearing in the official data. Because the PSA relies on criminal histories, the completeness and accuracy affect the score. Not all states report the same level of detail and completeness of records, therefore, the scores are likely off. New crimes of violence while out on bail were also low, with 14% of the cohort being arrested or arraigned with a new crime of violence. About 25% of the cohort committed a new criminal offense (excluding Violations of Conditions of Release), but the PSA did not accurately predict who would commit a new crime.   

Montpelier, VT: Crime Research Group, 2022. 16p.

Edited by Avis Whyte, Patricia Tuitt & Judith Bourne

In 1965 the UK enacted the Race Relations Act while the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) opened for signature and ratification. In the US, the changes that brought down the walls of segregation, conveying some equality to black people essentially began with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These ground-breaking instruments marked a commitment—domestically and internationally by the state parties to the ICERD—to address racial injustice and inequality through legal means. Yet, the intervening years reveal the challenges of pursuing racial justice and equality through the medium of law. In recent years, allegations of institutional racism have been levelled against numerous public institutions in the UK, while the rise of populism globally has challenged the ability of law to effect change. This edited collection draws attention to the need to reflect on the persistence of racial inequalities and injustices despite law’s intervention and arguably because of its ‘unconscious’ role in their promotion. It does so from a multiplicity of perspectives ranging from the doctrinal, socio-legal, critical and theoretical, thereby generating different kinds of knowledge about race and law. By exploring contemporary issues in racial justice and equality, contributors examine the role of law—whether domestic or international, hard or soft—in advancing racial equality and justice and consider whether it can effect substantive change.

London: University of Westminster Press, 2024. 222p.

By The University of Massachusetts Amherst. Campus Demonstration Policy Taskforce

Formed by Chancellor Reyes on June 17, 2024, the Campus Demonstration Policy Taskforce was charged with: • Reviewing demonstration-related policies/guidelines including, but not limited to, the land-use policy, picketing code, and demonstration guidelines and make recommendations to the appropriate university governing bodies. • Making recommendations, based on best practices in higher education, regarding methods of demonstration-related intervention, including, but not limited to, the deployment of and composition of the Demonstration Response and Safety Team (DRST). • Making recommendations, based on best practices in higher education, regarding how to increase awareness of university policies and First Amendment protections as they apply to on-campus demonstrations. Between its formation on June 17, 2024, and the delivery of this report on August 30, 2024, the taskforce met six times. The subcommittees met ten times. Significant asynchronous discussion and document review was also completed via a shared Teams channel. The Campus Demonstration Policy Taskforce (CDPT) was guided by and fully endorses the text and spirit of the UMass Amherst Picketing Code, excerpted above, which is itself informed and backed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The importance of clear policies – and the consistent application of them without regard to the subject matter of demonstrations (content neutrality) or the viewpoints expressed in them (viewpoint neutrality) - was a near-universal theme in a national workshop co-hosted by UMass Amherst during the CDPT’s work. This underscored the criticality of the CDPT’s charge. Throughout its work, the CDPT set out to ensure that the university’s policies reflect a commitment to the free and open exchange of ideas while equally protecting the rights of all to live, work, teach, and learn in a community of inquiry. The CDPT makes several recommendations in three areas: • clarify policy where reasonable interpretations could lead to divergent understandings; • strengthen the ability of the Demonstration Response and Safety Team (DRST) to serve the campus through its role providing demonstration-related safety, education, and deescalation; and • delineate the e distinct roles of university administrators and UMPD in terms of handling violations of policy and illegal acts, respectively. Specifically, we make the following substantive recommendations regarding the Land Use Policy: 1) adopt a definition of “Structure” informed by Massachusetts law; and 2) clarify the role of the University of Massachusetts Police Department (UMPD) in relation to policy enforcement and law enforcement Regarding the DRST, the CPDT recommends the following: 1) create an advisory council to the DRST that includes representatives from outside the university administration; 2) actively seek out post-action reports from other universities for review by the DSRT and advisory board; 3) develop off-ramps oriented towards de-escalating the potential for conflict, including building up a mediation infrastructure; 4) specify procedures for the identification of demonstrators that are UMass community members; and 5) clarify the use of law enforcement in relation to illegal acts, including violent acts, threats of public safety, substantial disorder, trespass, and the invasion of the rights of others, as opposed to policy violations. This also applies to a recommended edit in the Land Use Policy. The CDPT was also asked to provide guidance around “increasing awareness” of demonstration related policies. To that end, the task force 1) created a Free Expression FAQ, attached to this report, that we recommend sharing with the university community; 2) updated DRST handouts that can be shared with demonstrators; and 3) recommends a central website that shares all demonstration-related policies and guidance. e distinct roles of university administrators and UMPD in terms of handling violations of policy and illegal acts, respectively. Specifically, we make the following substantive recommendations regarding the Land Use Policy: 1) adopt a definition of “Structure” informed by Massachusetts law; and 2) clarify the role of the University of Massachusetts Police Department (UMPD) in relation to policy enforcement and law enforcement Regarding the DRST, the CPDT recommends the following: 1) create an advisory council to the DRST that includes representatives from outside the university administration; 2) actively seek out post-action reports from other universities for review by the DSRT and advisory board; 3) develop off-ramps oriented towards de-escalating the potential for conflict, including building up a mediation infrastructure; 4) specify procedures for the identification of demonstrators that are UMass community members; and 5) clarify the use of law enforcement in relation to illegal acts, including violent acts, threats of public safety, substantial disorder, trespass, and the invasion of the rights of others, as opposed to policy violations. This also applies to a recommended edit in the Land Use Policy. The CDPT was also asked to provide guidance around “increasing awareness” of demonstrationrelated policies. To that end, the task force 1) created a Free Expression FAQ, attached to this report, that we recommend sharing with the university community; 2) updated DRST handouts that can be shared with demonstrators; and 3) recommends a central website that shares all demonstration-related policies and guidance.

Amherst: University of Massachusetts Amherst, 2024. 11p.

By Heather MacLeod, et al., GAO

The U.S. economy depends on the quick and efficient flow of millions of tons of cargo each day throughout the global supply chain. However, U.S.- bound vessels and maritime cargo shipments are vulnerable to criminal activity or terrorist attacks that could disrupt operations and limit global economic growth and productivity. The James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 includes a provision for GAO to assess federal efforts to secure U.S.-bound vessels and maritime cargo from national security-related risks. This report addresses (1) how DHS secures these vessels and cargo from supply chain risks, (2) the extent that DHS used selected leading collaboration practices, and (3) the extent that DHS assessed its approach. GAO reviewed agency policies, procedures, and collaboration efforts and government-wide strategy documents, and assessed DHS collaboration efforts against five relevant leading practices identified in prior GAO work. GAO also interviewed Coast Guard and CBP officials from 16 field locations at a non-generalizable sample of eight U.S. seaports selected for varying volumes of cargo and diversity of geographic regions. What GAO Recommends GAO recommends that the Coast Guard, with sector partners, develop objective, measurable, and quantifiable performance goals and measures and use this performance information to assess progress towards the goals and effectiveness of the layered approach to securing vessels and maritime cargo on an ongoing basis. DHS concurred with our recommendations.

Washington, DC: United States Government Accountability Office, 2025. 56p.

By Axel Muganwa RUDAKUBANA (AMR

This Prevent Learning Review (hereafter ‘Review’) was commissioned to examine the Prevent involvement with Axel Muganwa Rudakubana (AMR) prior to the tragic attack which led to the loss of three young lives, which AMR is alleged to have committed, on 29 July 2024 in Southport. This is done with the aim of identifying effective practice, organisational learning opportunities and any further areas for development. It is fully recognised that at commencement of this review, prosecution has commenced with authorisation of charges. Criminal proceedings are therefore active (sub judice). The Reviewer is therefore mindful that the Review must not jeopardise or influence the ongoing judicial and coronial processes and has complied with guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in undertaking the Review. AMR was referred to Prevent three times. The first referral was received from AMR’s teacher on 5 December 2019. The teacher reported a number of concerns regarding behaviours which included being excluded from his previous school for carrying a knife and searching for mass school shootings on the internet using his school account. After a discussion with Prevent officers (CTCOs) in which AMR accounted for his internet searches, the case was closed on the Prevent system on 31 January 2020. Acknowledgement is made that AMR is extremely vulnerable but there are no CT/DE concerns and appropriate agencies are already in place to support him. A second referral was received from AMR’s previous school on 01 February 2021. It was reported that a pupil had showed them [social media] posts by AMR which they were concerned about and felt AMR was being radicalised. The CTCO acknowledged the previous referral, however considered the [social media] posts to be not CT/DE relevant and the case was closed on 17 February 2021. A third referral was received from AMR’s teacher on 26 April 2021. It reported that AMR had been observed with internet tabs open during a lesson showing a search for London Bomb and seemed to have a passionate interest in Israel/Palestine conflict, MI5 and the IRA. The CTCO acknowledged the previous two referrals but considered that AMR’s needs were currently met outside of Prevent and there were no CT/DE concerns to address. The case was closed on 10 May 2021. Overall, the Reviewer considers there to have been a high level of compliance by the Prevent officers with process timescales, assessment completion and adherence to policy that were in place at the time. However, although processes and polices have been largely followed, it is the subjective decisions that have come into focus and AMR should have been referred to Channel. The Review identifies several areas for learning to strengthen risk assessments, particularly around understanding indicators of radicalisation where a coherent ideology is not present and recognising the potential risk from repeat referrals. A number of recommendations have been identified through this review. These include strengthening training and guidance, changes to terminology used within Prevent, and improving assurance processes.

Prevent (Homeland Security Group, Home Office) and Counter Terrorism Policing Headquarters , 2025. 55p.

By Equal Justice Initiative

In 1865, after two and a half centuries of brutal enslavement, Black Americans had great hope that emancipation would finally mean real freedom and opportunity. Most formerly enslaved people in the United States were remarkably willing to live peacefully with those who had held them in bondage despite the violence they had suffered and the degradation they had endured. Emancipated Black people put aside their enslavement and embraced education, hard work, faith, and citizenship with extraordinary enthusiasm and devotion. By 1868, over 80 percent of Black men who were eligible to vote had registered, schools for Black children became a priority, and courageous Black leaders overcame enormous obstacles to win elections to public office. The new era of Reconstruction offered great promise and could have radically changed the history of this country. However, it quickly became clear that emancipation in the United States did not mean equality for Black people. The commitment to abolish chattel slavery was not accompanied by a commitment to equal rights or equal protection for African Americans and the hope of Reconstruction quickly became a nightmare of unparalleled violence and oppression. Between 1865 and 1876, thousands of Black women, men, and children were killed, attacked, sexually assaulted, and terrorized by white mobs and individuals who were shielded from arrest and prosecution. White perpetrators of lawless, random violence against formerly enslaved people were almost never held accountable—instead, they frequently were celebrated. Emboldened Confederate veterans and former enslavers organized a reign of terror that effectively nullified constitutional amendments designed to provide Black people equal protection and the right to vote. In a series of devastating decisions, the United States Supreme Court blocked Congressional efforts to protect formerly enslaved people. In decision after decision, the Court ceded control to the same white Southerners who used terror and violence to stop Black political participation, upheld laws and practices codifying racial hierarchy, and embraced a new constitutional order defined by “states’ rights.” Within a decade after the Civil War, Congress began to abandon the promise of assistance to millions of formerly enslaved Black people. Violence, mass lynchings, and lawlessness enabled white Southerners to create a

regime of white supremacy and Black disenfranchisement alongside a new economic order that continued to exploit Black labor. White officials in the North and West similarly rejected racial equality, codified racial discrimination, and occasionally embraced the same tactics of violent racial control seen in the South.

It was during Reconstruction that a century-long era of racial hierarchy, lynching, white supremacy, and bigotry was established—an era from which this nation has yet to recover. Most Americans know very little about the Reconstruction era and its legacy. Historians have frequently overlooked this critical 12-year period that has had profound impact on life in the United States. Our collective ignorance of what happened immediately after the Civil War has contributed to misinformed stereotypes and misguided false narratives about who is honorable and who is not and has allowed bigotry and a legacy of racial injustice to persist. In 2015, the Equal Justice Initiative issued a new report that detailed over 4,400 documented racial terror lynchings of Black people in America between 1877 and 1950. We now report that during the 12- year period of Reconstruction at least 2,000 Black women, men, and children were victims of racial terror lynchings. Thousands more were assaulted, raped, or injured in racial terror attacks between 1865 and 1876. The rate of documented racial terror lynchings during Reconstruction is nearly three times greater than during the era we reported on in 2015. Dozens of mass lynchings took place during Reconstruction in communities across the country in which hundreds of Black people were killed. Tragically, the rate of unknown lynchings of Black people during Reconstruction is also almost certainly dramatically higher than the thousands of unknown lynchings that took place between 1877 and 1950 for which no documentation can be found. The retaliatory killings of Black people by white Southerners immediately following the Civil War alone likely number in the thousands. EJI presents this report to provide context and analysis of what happened during this tragic period of American history and to describe its implications for the issues we face today. We believe our nation has failed to adequately address or acknowledge our history of racial injustice and that we must commit to a new era of truth-telling followed by meaningful efforts to repair and remedy the continuing legacy of racial oppression. We hope this report sparks much needed conversation and encourages communities to join us in the important task of advancing truth and justice.

Montgomery, AL Equal Justice Initiative, 2021. 119p.

By Ioli Filmeridis, Rachel Hodel, Thomas Oliver,

Targeted threats, harassment, and the perpetration of physical violence against elected officials are increasingly prevalent around the world. The United States and Southern California are no exception. Local leaders - the most foundational representatives of the democratic processes that undergird our system of government - face unprecedented levels of uncivil and anti- democratic threats, harassment, and attacks. 1 The language, actions and mobilization targeting elected officials is often intended to

intimidate and silence individuals and can lead to their resignation, self-censorship, or disengagement from public meetings and interactions with constituents. The tactics are often purposeful, intended to achieve a political goal with a chilling effect on politics and policy. This type of political violence (the use of force or violence to achieve political objectives) has been increasingly common and prevalent, marked by an increase in threats against public officials at all levels of government. 2 By nearly all measures, political violence is considered to be more acceptable in the US than it was five years ago. 3 Faith in the government's ability to resolve issues and ‘do the right thing’ has declined to the lowest levels in over 70 years. 4 This disillusionment and polarization is concomitant with the rising number of threats targeting public officials. 5 According to the United States Capitol Police, the number of threats targeting members of Congress went up 45% between 2018 and 2022 (from 5,206 to 7,501 over five years),

requiring additional investment of resources and funding to investigate, protect and mitigate threats. Other research reveals a spike in federal charges in response to threats made against public officials - almost doubling between 2016 and 2022. During the 2013- 2016 period there were 38 federal charges per year, in the subsequent six-year period this reached 62 charges per year. Initial research for 2023 and 2024 has recorded an even higher number of charges.

San Diego: University of San Diego, Kroc Institute for Peace and Justice. 2024. 51p.

By Amnesty International

Peaceful protest is a powerful and public way for people to make their voices heard. It has long been a vital means for advancing human rights around the world. However, in Europe, the right of peaceful assembly is increasingly coming under attack, with state authorities stigmatizing, impeding, deterring, punishing and cracking down on those organizing and participating in peaceful protests.

This report documents an array of trends and patterns of human rights violations that curtail this right, and contains detailed recommendations for states to ensure that everyone’s right to protest is protected, respected and fulfilled.

London: Amnesty International, 2024. 209p.

By Zhuoer Lin, Yi Wang, Thomas M. Gill, Xi Chen:

Disparities in cognition persist between non-Hispanic Black (hereafter, Black) and non-Hispanic White (hereafter, White) older adults, and are possibly influenced by early educational differences stemming from structural racism. However, the relationship between school racial segregation and later-life cognition remains underexplored. We examined a nationally sample of older Americans from the Health and Retirement Study. Utilizing childhood residence data and cognitive assessment data (1995-2018) for Black and White participants aged 65 and older, Black-White dissimilarity index for public elementary schools measuring school segregation, multilevel analyses revealed a significant negative association between school segregation and later-life cognitive outcomes among Black participants, but not among White participants. Potential mediators across the life course, including educational attainment, explained 58-73% of the association, yet the associations remained large and significant among Black participants for all outcomes. Given the rising trend of school segregation in the US, educational policies aimed at reducing segregation are crucial to address health inequities. Clinicians can leverage patients' early-life educational circumstances to promote screening, prevention, and management of cognitive disorders.

IZA DP No. 17466

Bonn: IZA – Institute of Labor Economics. 2024. 64p.

By Sarah Anderson, Logan Seacrest, Christi M. Smith, and Jillian Snider

In the past five years, tragic police-citizen interactions have led to increased community engagement, as citizens across the country rallied to protest police violence. In this changing environment, law enforcement agencies have begun experimenting with new types of de-escalation training with support from federal funding. This paper explores the current landscape of de-escalation training in law enforcement, its uses and effectiveness, and the existing availability and impact of federal grants. We focus on understanding how funding has changed since 2020 and what opportunities exist to improve upon existing practices; assessing police perceptions of the grant process and efficacy of funding; and making recommendations on the types of de-escalation programs that should be made eligible for funding as the federal curriculum is developed. We identify barriers to de-escalation implementation and training funding in communities where it is most needed and make recommendations to improve awareness of and access to federal resources. The recommendations are intended to help reduce police use of force by ensuring federal funding streams are effective. Key Points: 1. Despite recent definition in federal legislation and prominence among law enforcement, de-escalation remains ambiguous in practice. Many variations of de-escalation training exist, which allows for customization to local issues. However, agencies across the country would benefit from a federal program to serve as a foundation for training and evaluation. 2. In recent years, law enforcement agencies have learned from crisis intervention teams and conflict resolution practitioners and created trainings for individual officers. Effective de-escalation training is a long-term investment in reducing the costs of the policing system and limiting government size and impact in the communities that law enforcement serves. 3. Federal resources for police de-escalation training have significantly increased since calls for policing system changes grew louder in 2020, yet law enforcement agencies still face barriers in accessing these resources. Fortunately, a new federal program currently being implemented seeks to alleviate many of these barriers, which will empower law enforcement to employ best-practice de-escalation training.

R Street Policy Study No. 307 July 2024, 16p.

By Christi M. Smith

Since 2018, nearly half of states have either passed clean slate automated record-sealing laws, adopted legislation to expunge cannabis convictions, or initiated campaigns to seal certain criminal records. These efforts acknowledge the perpetual, often lifelong barriers that people with publicly available criminal records face. The collateral consequences of a record, even for people who have been arrested but not convicted, make it exceedingly difficult to obtain and maintain basic life stability. For the one in three adults with a criminal record, this often means a lifetime of poverty and negative generational outcomes for dependents.

When people are unable to establish stability or advance in life because of records-based discrimination, the public also suffers negative effects. Being unemployed, underemployed, or employed “off the books” means less money cycling back into the community and reduced tax revenue. This translates to an $87 billion per year loss to the national economy. The social cost of cyclical incarceration and increased likelihood of homelessness among this population is an estimated $1.2 trillion annually. And without legitimate opportunities to provide for oneself and one’s family—combined with a lack of affordable products—people may be disincentivized to remain law-abiding. This can result in increased crime and escalating product costs as stores attempt to reduce retail theft. Our streets are less safe when people who have paid their debt to society and remained law-abiding continue to be excluded from the basic resources they need to survive.

Explainer, Washington, DC: R Street, 2024. 2p.

By Lisel Petis

This paper responds to municipalities' concerns about the increase in visible homelessness and its perceived impact on community safety. The overlap between the criminal justice system and homelessness is well-documented, but debates on how to best address these issues remain divisive. Many stakeholders entrenched in their viewpoints, often overlooking the complexity of homelessness and the need for a multifaceted approach. However, the reality is that singular solutions have proven insufficient. We must combine strategies and offer multiple options to address the diverse needs of different individuals. Arrest and jail should always be a last resort for addressing homelessness, as criminalizing survival behaviors only perpetuates the cycle of homelessness and incarceration. This approach is costly, can be harmful, and fails to address the underlying causes of homelessness. To break this cycle, it is crucial to find better solutions, some of which we explore in this piece. Key conclusions: • Immediate Actions: Providing jobs—such as trash cleanup in an encampment— to homeless individuals, managing public spaces, and offering safe parking lots for those living in vehicles can prove impactful. Additionally, involuntary hospitalization and scattered sites programs can offer immediate support to those needing urgent assistance. Homeless outreach teams can also play a crucial role by building trust, offering immediate assistance, and connecting individuals to essential services, ultimately reducing reliance on emergency services and jails. • Long-Term Strategies: Expanding transportation and housing options is critical for reducing homelessness, as doing so provides greater access to jobs and shelter. Innovative solutions like using vacant hotels for immediate housing, employing community courts for rehabilitative justice, creating “one-stop shops” for essential services, and using shelter-finder apps can help stabilize individuals and connect them to necessary resources. • Early Intervention: Providing financial training and support equips individuals with the skills to manage money effectively and plan for major life events, which can help prevent one setback from snowballing into homelessness. Predictive analytics can identify at-risk individuals before eviction, enabling targeted early intervention to stabilize their housing situation. Expanding supportive housing and improving access to mental health and substance use treatment are crucial for those transitioning from incarceration or facing behavioral health challenges. Efforts like the Clean Slate Initiative and the creation of “third places” help reintegrate individuals into society and build community-support networks.

R Street Policy Study No. 311 Washington, DC: R Street, 2024 23p.

By Christi M. Smith

One in three Americans, roughly 70 to 100 million, have a criminal record that limits their earning capacity and options for suitable housing, as well as makes it more challenging to remain law-abiding. These records are often not the result of serious or violent crime, but rather due to the ever-widening net of “tough-on-crime” legislation that criminalizes poverty, substance use and mental illness. Socioeconomic and behavioral health issues combined with the collateral consequences of an arrest or criminal record make it nearly impossible for individuals to secure or maintain minimum standards of social stability. Absent legitimate opportunities to provide for themselves and their families, some may feel compelled to resort to crime to mitigate stress and account for their most basic needs. This situation subjects law-abiding members of the community to additional crime and escalating product costs associated with increased security-related expenses. Taxpayers also incur the ballooning expense of funding low-level law violator involvement in the justice system and bear the burden of the social costs of record-based discrimination, including a rise in homelessness, a lack of generational mobility and the need for various forms of public assistance. Record-based discrimination is extremely costly to taxpayers and the overall economy, resulting in an estimated $78-$87 billion loss in the national gross domestic product. While the majority of states offer some form of petition-based record sealing, fewer than 10 percent of eligible individuals pursue the option, owing to the cost and complexity of the process. Clean Slate legislation bridges the gap between eligibility and opportunity by automating the process of sealing old records at no cost to the individual. Public safety carve-outs that exclude certain convictions from eligibility; provide access to the records under speci昀椀c and limited circumstances; and include provisions for employer immunity reduce the risk of sealing records from community access. When these records are not available to the general public, the collateral consequences of arrest or conviction no longer present a pervasive barrier to the resources people need to fully reintegrate into the community. Armed with the ability to provide for oneself and thrive in mainstream society, individuals are less likely to return to crime and be琀琀er equipped to contribute to the overall economy. Clean Slate legisla琀椀on is the pathway to prosperity for all Americans. It is a model policy with bipar琀椀san, bicameral and public support. Free, automatic record clearing is smart public policy that reduces recidivism, increases public safety and stimulates the economy. Key Points: 1. Individuals with prior arrests or convictions records experience a host of collateral consequences that limit their access to stable housing, employment, education, food and financial assistance. These barriers unduly burden the individual, their families and communities long after the initial sentence has been served and the debt to society has been repaid. 2. The majority of states offer petition-based record sealing to remove these records from public view, though fewer than 10 percent of eligible individuals take advantage of this opportunity owing to the complexities and costs associated therewith. 3. Individuals who have demonstrated the ability to remain law-abiding in the years following the completion of their sentence are no more likely to reoffend than their counterparts without criminal histories. Automatic record sealing through Clean Slate legislation prioritizes public safety and ends the cycle of punishment in perpetuity for eligible people by allowing them to fully reintegrate into their communities and contribute to the overall economy.

R Street Policy Study No. 279, Washington, DC: R Street, 2023. 19p.