By Susan Olzak

This study examines the effect of violent and nonviolent tactics in gaining support for social movements using information on protests by the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. The theoretical dispute over whether violence benefits or harms a movement remains unsettled, and the empirical evidence is inconclusive. Violence increases media attention and generates recognition of a movement and its goals, but violence also raises fears of instability and risks disapproval. This article aims to bring coherence to this debate by arguing that while violence can benefit a movement by emphasizing the contrast between peaceful and violent protesters, the costs associated with the use of violence ought to diminish support for a movement. The analysis that uses a hybrid model to analyze panel data from two national surveys finds evidence that both peaceful and violent BLM protests are associated with higher support for BLM, but they do not change individuals’ support over time.

Mobilization: An International Quarterly (2024) 29 (3): 287–307.

By Maureen A. Eger https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9023-7316 and Susan Olzak 

While radical right parties championing anti-immigrant platforms have made electoral gains throughout Europe, anti-immigrant sentiment—a key indicator of radical right support—has not dramatically increased during this same period. In this article, we seek to help make sense of this paradox by incorporating a contextual factor missing from previous studies: levels of anti-immigrant violence. Our key argument is that higher levels of collective violence targeting immigrants raise the salience of the immigrant/native boundary, which activates both positive and negative views of immigrants and makes these attitudes more cognitively accessible and politically relevant. This argument implies that exposure to violence against immigrants should strengthen existing prejudice (or empathy) toward immigrants and engender feelings of affinity (or antipathy) for radical right parties. Analyses of the German portion of the European Social Survey (ESS 2014 − 2019) and the Anti-Refugee Violence in Germany (ARVIG 2014 − 2017) datasets reveal a powerful interaction effect: exposure to higher levels of collective violence increased the probability of feeling closest to radical right parties among those who held neutral, negative, and extremely negative views of immigrants. However, these events were not associated with radical right sympathies among those holding pro-immigrant attitudes. We conclude that when violence against immigrants resonates with public opinion on immigrants, it opens new political opportunities for radical right parties. These findings should inform future research on the politicization of international migration, especially studies investigating how anti-immigrant attitudes translate into political outcomes.

International Migration ReviewVolume 57, Issue 2, June 2023, Pages 746-777

By Susan Olzak

Influential studies of right-wing extremist violence offer evidence that such violence is motivated by grievances intensified by a perceived loss in status or by economic dislocations. This article moves away from an emphasis on grievances by turning to theories of ethno-nationalism and group conflict. Ethno-nationalism is in part driven by attitudes of dominant groups favoring ethnic exclusion, whereas group threat theories explain that ethnic diversity increases the salience of ethnic boundaries and fuels a collective response to group threat. Such threats encourage violence to contain this threat and restore dominance. Exclusionary attitudes and support for expanded gun rights in America further legitimize a culture of ethno-nationalism that encourages violent acts. I test these arguments with data from the Pew Research Center, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Extremist Crime Database on right-wing violence. The state-level and county-level results support the claim that rising ethnic diversity raises the rate and volume of right-wing violence significantly. State-level results also find that rising memberships in the National Rifle Association increase the rate of right-wing violence significantly.

Sociological Science 10(2):197-226, March 20, 2023

By South Australia Department of Education (SA)

This strategy has been developed by the Education Department through the South Australian Bullying Prevention Coalition, which includes Catholic and Independent school sectors, the Commissioner for Children and Young People, government departments and leading bullying prevention researchers.

Actions within the school gates include:

• strengthening bully prevention policy requirements and compliance measures in schools

• providing evidence-based curriculum content for children to learn about bullying, cyberbullying and online safety

• a targeted expansion of the PEACE Pack program based on the findings of the pilot

• providing all teachers with access to foundational training about supporting students who are at higher risk of bullying

• piloting the Friendly Schools program across all public schools in the Greater Gawler partnership

• providing new resources and training for teachers, students and families about bullying; and

• a partnership with the Youth Affairs Council of South Australia to support student-led bullying prevention initiatives in schools.

Actions beyond the school gates include:

• piloting a community recreation program in the City of Playford council area, strengthening children’s involvement in community programs

• an initiative that will see young people advise decision makers and urban planners about the establishment of safe child and youth-oriented spaces; and

• a comprehensive consultation process across the major sporting codes, led by the Commissioner for Children and Young People, to develop child-designed bullying prevention initiatives.

Adelaide: Government of South Australia 2019. 32p.

By Queensland Audit Office

This report examines whether the Queensland Department of Education’s (the department) strategies are effective in protecting students from bullying. The audit specifically focused on the role of the Department of Education in setting the strategic direction, providing support, and monitoring the implementation of bullying prevention initiatives across Queensland state schools.

The audit involved site visits to five schools, analysis of student behaviour data, and consultation with stakeholders including parents, teachers, principals, and peak bodies.

Key findings

• The department’s strategies and procedures are effectively designed in line with better practice research on bullying, and these provide its schools with an evidence-based approach to manage bullying on a day-to-day basis. However, the department could be more explicit and better communicate how its strategies are intended to address bullying.

• The strategies lack specific objectives, targets, and measures for monitoring progress.

• Communication of school codes of conduct could be improved. The codes of conduct are lengthy and often omit mandatory elements, such as details about staff training and reporting thresholds.

• Data collection on students who experience bullying is limited, hindering the department's understanding of the extent and impact of bullying and its ability to provide targeted support.

Recommendations for the department

1. Clearly document its approach to bullying.

2. Support more effective communication of schools' codes of conduct.

3. Enhance data collection to include information on students who experience bullying, including cyberbullying.

4. Enhance monitoring of student bullying by: collecting and analysing information on experiences of bullying, establishing processes for monitoring school implementation of bullying policies, and evaluating the effectiveness of its policies and resources.

5. Review the Parent and Community Engagement framework to provide specific guidance on engaging parents on complex policy issues such as bullying.

6. Provide readily available resources for school staff on preventing and responding to bullying behaviour. 

 Report 6: 2024–25

Brisbane: The State of Queensland (Queensland Audit Office). 2024. 48p.

By Courtney Burke and Asmaul Shukh

Across the nation, a large number of adults, children, and their loved ones are grappling with substance-use disorders and mental health challenges. Many are people seeking the behavioral health services they need to address these issues, however, can face months or even years of waiting for urgently needed care, during which time their conditions can worsen, leading to preventable and devastating life-altering outcomes, including overdose or suicide.These effects ripple through families and communities, with disparities in access to care further impacting marginalized communities, such as racial and ethnic groups, LGBTQ+ individuals, and people living with disabilities. Access to behavioral health services is challenged by underfunding the service system, reimbursement rates that may fail to cover the full cost of care, and, at times, constraints imposed by rules and regulations. These systemic issues also contribute to widespread staffing shortages in behavioral health, further reducing the availability of essential services. While there are multiple factors that contribute to delays in access to substance use disorder and mental health services, this paper examines barriers arising from insurance-related challenges. It provides examples of existing and proposed policies and initiatives from several states that demonstrate ways to improve access to care through insurance policy reforms. Finally, it provides options and opportunities to improve access to care through both public and private insurance at the state and federal levels.

Albany, NY: Rockefeller Institute of Government, 2024. 32p.

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 C. Jarrett Dieterle

Introduction In January 2020, the world of alcohol rules seemed to be mired in a kind of stasis. It had been 85 years since Prohibi琀椀on, but the broad legal structure governing alcohol remained remarkably unchanged. Just three months later, in March 2020, everything changed. The COVID-19 global pandemic that gripped America and the broader world led to unprecedented realignments in our way of life. Governments began issuing mask mandates, social distancing orders, and even rules around how—and if—businesses could con琀椀nue opera琀椀ng. In response, innova琀椀ons like to-go and delivery alcohol took hold across the country, leading to a substan琀椀al shi昀琀 in how alcohol was regulated. Now, three years later, opposi琀椀on to these changes has started to become more prevalent. Most of the pushback has been focused on concerns that less stringent alcohol regula琀椀on could create nega琀椀ve externali琀椀es. One of the prime areas of concern has been underage drinking and whether enhanced alcohol delivery will lead to a spike in youth drinking across the country. This study breaks down the latest underage drinking data to help provide a more informed debate around America’s pandemic-era alcohol reforms.

R Street Shorts No. 128, Washington, DC: R Street, 2023. 7p.

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.

By Chelsea Boyd

The United States is in the midst of an overdose crisis. One promising harm reduction intervention that could prevent overdoses and curb the crisis is overdose prevention centers (OPCs). OPCs are facilities where people who use drugs (PWUD) can consume pre-obtained substances under medical supervision. In addition to supervised consumption services, OPCs o昀琀en provide other harm reduction and basic services, such as syringe exchange, treatment referrals, wound care, public assistance referrals and more. The first OPC opened in Switzerland in the 1980s, and OPCs now exist in at least 11 countries Evidence supporting OPCs largely comes from the facilities operating in Canada and Australia. Evaluations of these centers have shown that they are remarkably effective at decreasing health harms associated with drug use, and there has never been a reported overdose death at an OPC. Additionally, OPCs have been shown to reduce syringe and consumption equipment sharing, decrease overdose deaths in the area around the center, prevent new HIV and hepatitis C infections, increase treatment uptake and decrease public injecting and syringe litter. Studies also have found that OPCs do not increase crime or drug use. Nevertheless, in both Canada and Australia, advocates who wanted to open the facilities faced uphill battles that left the OPCs in legal limbo for many years before ultimately receiving permanent legal authorization. The United States currently has two locally sanctioned OPCs in operation in New York City, and several states and cities are working toward opening OPCs despite their federally illegal status under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Although no jurisdiction other than New York City has opened an OPC in the United States, these centers have been authorized by policymakers at the state, county and local levels. In addition to New York City, Philadelphia, Seattle, Rhode Island and California have made progress toward authorizing OPCs. Policymakers at every level of government can take action to facilitate the opening of OPCs. Local policymakers and groups, such as mayors or city councils, can authorize OPCs, although this path provides the least protection from state or federal interference. States can pass legislation that authorizes OPCs through pilot programs, which allows them to be rigorously evaluated and ensures that an OPC’s existence does not conflict with state law. Nevertheless, federal action legitimizing OPCs is also necessary. Congress could consider amending the CSA to clarify that OPCs do not violate the act or stipulate that federal funds cannot be used to enforce the CSA in regard to OPCs. Alternatively, the administration could release a memorandum stating that the federal government will not interfere with OPCs operating under state or local authorization, or the Department of Justice could release a similar statement. The challenge with either of those actions is that future administrations could decide not to honor these statements. Regardless of how OPCs are authorized, policymakers can apply pragmatic approaches to authorize them in their jurisdictions. These include getting community buy-in, working with law enforcement, formalizing requirements for operation and evaluation and ensuring that the facilities and policies are designed to meet the needs of the populations they serve.

R Street Policy Study No. 265, Washington, DC: R Street, 2022. 19p.

By Stacey McKenna

To combat rising rates of drug overdoses, the United States government has begun to embrace a public health response that has been saving lives for decades: harm reduction. This pragmatic public health approach aims to mitigate the health risks associated with a range of behaviors rather than insisting people quit them altogether. Despite the benefits of harm reduction programs, stigma, paraphernalia laws and weak or inconsistent protections from such laws can undermine the uptake of their services. In addition, a small but growing body of evidence indicates that, despite the legalization and expansion of these programs, successful implementation may also be limited by outdated local, state and federal policy. To better understand how outdated policy might create barriers to providing optimal harm reduction services, we interviewed 10 harm reduction providers serving diverse populations across the United States. These interviews revealed two primary areas of concern that harm reduction providers perceived as hindering the services they offered, both of which relate to government overreach: the overregulation of operations and the excessive restrictions on how funding can be used. To remove these barriers and enable harm reduction organizations to save more lives, we suggest that—instead of supporting legislation that regulates the details of harm reduction practice—lawmakers support bills that emphasize organizational autonomy for these groups. Doing so would allow harm reduction providers to tailor programs as needed, remain flexible in the face of changing science and provide more effective services to their communities.

R Street Policy Study No. 262 July 2022, 9p.

By C. Jarrett Dieterle

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the concept of to-go alcohol was largely unheard of in America. Certain locales, such as New Orleans, offered so-called “go-cups” for alcoholic beverages, and a handful of municipalities across the country had open-container zones that allowed consumers to walk from restaurant to restaurant with a drink in hand. But by and large, alcohol purchased at a bar or restaurant had to be consumed inside the restaurant. When COVID-19 hit and dining inside turned into a public health liability, most restaurants and bars pivoted to a takeout and delivery model of service to keep their doors open. While food was readily convertible to this format, alcohol was not. In most states, antiquated laws governing the sale of alcoholic beverages prevented alcohol from being sold either as a curbside to-go opt-on or via delivery. In response, governors and alcohol regulatory agencies around the country issued emergency orders that granted both on-premise and off-premise establishments the ability to sell alcohol in a to-go or delivery capacity. This rapid reaction resulted in some of the fastest alcohol regulation changes in the last hundred years. To-go and delivery privileges provided a badly needed lifeline to restaurants, bars and liquor stores during an unprecedented time of government-imposed lockdowns and social distancing orders. As one example of the impact of these reforms, states that permitted to-go and delivery drinks saw higher rates of furloughed employees being hired back by restaurants during the pandemic. Given this measurable success, many states have since made the decision to legisla琀椀vely extend, or make permanent, to-go and delivery alcohol. As of last fall, 29 states had extended or made permanent to-go drinks, and 32 states had passed to-go or delivery reforms of some kind (either from on- or off-premise retailers). Despite this reform wave, opposition has begun to develop against to-go and delivery alcohol reform—specifically around concerns that it could raise the prevalence of drunk driving. This paper examines that opposition and presents research to determine if to-go alcohol has had any impact on alcohol-impaired driving fatalities over the past two years.

R Street Shorts No. 114, June 2022, 6p.

By C. Jarrett Dieterle

When it comes to having alcoholic beverages delivered to our doors, America is in a very different place today than it was 24 months ago. As COVID-19 spread across the world, markets were forced to adapt to the delivery economy model that has dominated throughout the pandemic. Although the sale of most goods could readily be converted from brick-and-mortar purchases to doorstep shipping, alcohol was a notable exception. Many states still prohibited liquor stores, grocery stores and alcohol producers from delivering alcohol locally to consumers’ homes, and nearly every state prohibited restaurants and bars from selling alcohol “to-go” or via delivery. And while wineries were able to ship their bottles to customers in most states, distilleries and breweries were largely barred from the direct-to-consumer (DtC) shipping market. The COVID-19 effect on alcohol delivery and shipping has been both broad and deep. As of last fall, the vast majority of states had passed at least some type of alcohol delivery reform, if not multiple reforms. In fact, many states are still actively considering alcohol delivery legislation or planning to do so in the years ahead. As alcohol delivery has taken off, pushback has emerged. Although much of the pushback can be attributed to protectionist impulses by industry stakeholders, some of the concern stems from health and safety concerns like underage drinking as well as driving under the influence. As more lawmakers across the country consider the future of alcohol delivery in their states, it is important to understand these concerns and engage in data-driven investigations of their legitimacy.

R STREET SHORTS NO. 113 April 2022, 5p.

By Lisel Petis

Law enforcement agencies across the country, regardless of state or jurisdiction population size, are facing challenges on a daily basis, including exhaustion and frustration from dealing with “frequent flyers” and “repeat callers;” continued stress and pressure caused by agency staffing shortages and negative public sentiment; and increased rates of community mental health and substance abuse issues leading to potentially dangerous outcomes. In response, some conservative areas have found a way to better support their local law enforcement and the communities they serve through pre-arrest diversion programs. Pre-arrest diversion models—such as Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD), co-responder and community responder—have become some of the most successful trends in criminal justice. These programs already exist across the nation and have proven efficient and effective in diverting low-level offenders from the criminal justice system. By looking at the execution of LEAD in Laramie County, Wyo., Behavioral Health Connect (BHCON) in El Paso County, Colo. and Community Assistance and Life Liaison (CALL) in St. Petersburg, Fla., other jurisdictions can understand how pre-arrest diversion reduces calls for service, saves police officers’ time and decreases jail populations. Furthermore, these districts serve as an example that allows us to explore how to successfully implement a diversion program and navigate potential challenges.

Key Points: 1. Conservative jurisdictions are turning to novel prearrest diversion models to help with staffing shortages, court backlogs and “frequent flyers” who are often suffering from mental health or addiction issues. 2. Pre-arrest diversion models—such as LEAD, corresponder or community responder—prioritizes police time, court resources and jail space for serious offenses and violent crimes while also repairing law enforcement’s relationship with the community, connecting individuals with services and reducing recidivism. 3. Communities can better support their local law enforcement and overcome concerns of logistics, safety and funding when implementing their own diversion programs.

R STREET POLICY STUDY NO. 252 March 2022, 12p

By Marina Zaloznaya, Jennifer L. Glanville, Jennifer Haylett

Although men are overrepresented among the perpetrators of high-profile, white-collar crime, examinations of public-sector corruption typically reveal little-to-no gender differences in participation. Drawing from Steffensmeier's theory of gender inequality in the criminal underworld and Tomaskovic-Devey and Avent-Holt's relational theory of inequality, we argue that this apparent equality conceals systematically different patterns of engagement. We hypothesize that bureaucrats and other facilitators are more willing to collaborate with men than with women. Because public-sector corruption markets are not male dominated, we argue that “gatekeepers” of both genders systematically exclude women from lucrative illegal collaborations. We further hypothesize that patterns of gender inequality are more pronounced in riskier and more profitable public-sector corruption. We test these hypotheses with data from an original nationally representative survey conducted in Russia in 2018 using models that incorporate controls for explanations that locate gender differences in crime engagement in offender attributes. Our results demonstrate that gender differences in public-sector corruption are a function of coordination among multiple actors. These relational dynamics advantage Russian men over women in that they are more likely to use less costly types of remuneration and to engage in high-stakes exchanges with bigger material yields.

Criminology, Volume 62, Issue 4, 2024, pages 739-768

By Holly Nguyen, Lee Ann Slocum

Despite extensive theorizing on the employment–crime link, little discussion has taken place on the mechanisms through which job gains and losses affect behavior. We draw on prospect theory and the loss aversion principle, which suggests people are more sensitive to losses than gains, to assess how individuals contend with transitions in employment and income. Using fixed-effects and asymmetrical fixed-effects models, we analyze 36 months of retrospective information for a sample of incarcerated males collected as part of the Second Nebraska Inmate Study. First, we assess whether job losses are more likely than job gains to generate financial stress and find support for the loss aversion principle. Second, we explore how people might compensate for changes in job and income status by engaging in risk-taking behaviors (illegal earnings, gun carrying, and offending versatility). We find the positive relationship between job and income loss on the probability of reporting illegal earnings and crime versatility is stronger than the negative relationship between job and income gain and these behaviors. Financial stress, however, does not attenuate the relationship between losses and risk-taking behaviors. We discuss the implications for theory and policy.

Criminology, Volume 62, Issue 4, 2024, pages 799-829

By Lydia Bates, et al.

Why this guide? A wide variety of forms of misogyny and gender-based bigotry have spiked in recent years. This includes a documented rise in forms of male supremacist violence that are now recognized as part of the spectrum of domestic violent extremism, including threats, plots and attacks from misogynist incels. Everyday forms of misogyny and hostile sexism, especially online, have also increased, with one study showing that misogynistic tweets positively predict domestic and family violence in the United States. Further, anti-feminist sentiments have been rising among Generation Z boys and young men. This rise in gender-based bigotry includes a surge of anti-LGBTQ+ ideas and beliefs, evidenced through the hundreds of discriminatory bills introduced across the United States in 2024. At the intersection of anti-Black racism, anti-LGBTQ+ hate and misogyny, Black women, girls and transgender women experience an outsized amount of harm and violence. On the community level, these harms manifest from harassment at Pride month events and attacks on LGBTQ+ friendly businesses to unequal reproductive health care access and deadly transmisogynist violence. These surges are partially explained by the sheer breadth of online spaces where gender-based hate is fostered and thrives, such as video game chats, comment trolls on mainstream social media sites, and dedicated Reddit pages focused on ways to manipulate and denigrate women. Because hateful comments, memes and short-form videos are often infused with irony, satire or other forms of humor, gender-based hate online is sometimes disguised as “just a joke” or hidden behind the excuse of having two different meanings. Hate and policing individuals’ gender have also been legitimized and normalized by politicians, elected officials, and online influencers who peddle supposed success stories of wealth and status that rely on the exploitation and domination of women. And extremist groups who embrace racism and political violence, like the Proud Boys, have joined the fray by directly targeting bookstores that host Drag Story Hours and demonstrations advocating for abortion rights. Falsely linking drag performances and LGBTQ+ people with sexual predation, sometimes called “grooming,” they have sought new ways to build sympathy among mainstream conservatives. Collaboration & Scope A collaborative team of experts from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and the Polarization & Extremism Research & Innovation Lab (PERIL) drafted this guide. It is part of a broader public health approach for the prevention of violence and harm stemming from extremism, manipulative disinformation and dehumanizing rhetoric. Our organizations root our development of this approach in communities’ needs and by centering support for targeted individuals and survivors. And our approach is necessarily noncarceral, so that we can emphasize education and prevention over monitoring, surveillance and other security-based approaches. This guide is a resource for caregivers who surround and support young people – parents and relatives, teachers and educators, counselors and therapists, coaches and youth mentors, and more. It includes an overview and introduction to the concepts, trends and risks related to gender-based bigotry alongside the tools to build resilience and awareness, as well as ways to intervene. It also provides strategies and resources to support survivors and targeted individuals and communities. While this guide cannot cover every harm that young people will encounter related to gender-based bigotry, we aim for as wide a breadth as possible. 

Montgomery, AL: Southern Poverty Law Center, 2024. page 1-28.

UNITED STATES. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. CHIEF DIGITAL AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE OFFICE

From the document: "On December 11th, the Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Office (CDAO) launched the Artificial Intelligence Rapid Capabilities Cell (AI RCC), charged with accelerating the adoption and delivery of frontier and advanced AI capabilities for the Department of Defense (DoD). Through targeted initiatives aimed at putting advanced AI in the hands of warfighters, the AI RCC will allow the Department to move at speed to capitalize on emerging technologies, like Generative AI (GenAI), while building the foundational technical enablers to scale these technologies across DoD. The AI RCC will be managed by the CDAO and executed in partnership with the Defense Innovation Unit (DIU). The AI RCC is leveraging the findings from Task Force Lima (TFL) [hyperlink] to accelerate and scale the deployment of cutting-edge AI-enabled tools across 15 use cases for Generative AI covering warfighting and enterprise management."

UNITED STATES. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.. 2024. 3p.