While federal law prohibits firearm possession by individuals who have been convicted of a disqualifying offense and those who are subject to certain domestic violence protective orders (DVPOs), it does not provide a mechanism for enforcing firearm dispossession. Some states have adopted relinquishment laws to enforce firearm possession restrictions among prohibited persons following a disqualifying status or conviction. To date, limited research has assessed the statutory characteristics of firearm relinquishment laws related to DVPOs. We build on this work by assessing DVPO and conviction-based relinquishment statutes, including legislative changes over time, to identify gaps in policy. Our analysis revealed that many states still lack statutory elements that are expected to increase the likelihood of firearm dispossession, such as requiring the court to order relinquishment, strict standards for providing proof of firearm transfer or some form of compliance verification, and provisions that authorize law enforcement to recover unrelinquished firearms. The absence of such elements may facilitate unlawful firearm retention by those who become prohibited possessors. States might consider adopting relinquishment provisions that outline clear requirements for actors (i.e., judges, prohibited possessors, law enforcement) at each stage of the process to ensure that firearms are relinquished following a disqualifying conviction or DVPO.

Our understanding of how immigration enforcement impacts crime has been informed by data from the police crime statistics. This study complements existing research by using longitudinal multilevel data from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) for 2005-2014 to simultaneously assess the impact of the three predominant immigration policies that have been implemented in local communities. The results indicate that the activation of Secure Communities and 287(g) task force agreements significantly increased violent victimization risk among Latinos, whereas they showed no evident impact on victimization risk among non-Latino Whites and Blacks. The activation of 287(g) jail enforcement agreements and anti-detainer policies had no significant impact on violent victimization risk during the period. Contrary to their stated purpose of enhancing public safety, our results show that the Secure Communities program and 287(g) task force agreements did not reduce crime, but instead eroded security in American communities by increasing the likelihood that Latinos experienced violent victimization. These results support the Federal government's ending of 287(g) task force agreements and its more recent move to end the Secure Communities program. Additionally, the results of our study add to the evidence challenging claims that anti-detainer policies pose a threat to violence risk.

This article explores the role of cognitive transformations in the process of desistance from crime. Based on our own and others' subsequent research, clearly, some aspects of our initial theorizing warrant revisiting and adjustment. The discussion describes changes to ideas about the sequencing of various types of cognitive shifts, suggests the importance of emotional processes in tandem with changes in perspective, and highlights the need to move out of the comfort zone of crime itself when thinking about redefinitions that support desistance. Yet, a consistent notion remains that social and broader structural factors are deeply implicated-directly and indirectly-in all aspects of the change process. This includes the important area of "derailments" from a pattern of forward progress, where additional processual research is needed. The discussion concludes with the argument that individualistic policies and programs centered on cognitive deficits requiring correction are likely to be limited in their effectiveness.

Research Summary Driving under the influence (DUI) represents a significant threat to public safety in the United States, and a significant proportion of first-time DUI offenders go on to become repeat offenders. Substantial resources have been expended to identify variables that predict DUI recidivism, but less progress has been made in developing clinically useful tools to predict recidivism accurately. In the current study, we developed a brief empirically based tool containing markers of recidivism risk and treatment need and conducted a small study to examine the ability of items to discriminate between first-time and repeat DUI offenders. Analyses identified several criminal risk and treatment need variables that discriminated between the two groups; however, blood alcohol concentration (BAC) did not. Policy Implications Further validation of these findings and the refinement of the triage tool could provide a practical, evidence-based means of screening and triaging first-time DUI offenders and help to inform and refine policy and sentencing guidelines.

The aftermath of the global recession has encouraged policy makers to confront the staggering public burden of crime (Cohen, 1988, 2005; Ludwig, 2010; McCollister, French, and Fang, 2010; Miller, Cohen, and Rossman, 1993). In this context, there is growing acceptance that many “tough-on-crime” policies have become primary drivers of crime’s increasing societal cost (Andrews and Bonta, 2010; Artello, 2013; Becker, 1968; Braga and Weisburd, 2011; Cameron, 1988; Cohen, 2005; Paternoster, 2010; Rikard and Rosenberg, 2007; Vitiello, 2013). Policy makers have responded with growing interest in making strategic investments in youth that prevent the development of lifetime offenders, instead of continuing to institute harsher punishments that lead to costly mass incarceration (Dodge, 2001; Farrington, 1994; Heckman, 2006; Homel, 2013; O’Connell, Boat, and Warner, 2009). In response, innovative strategies for preventing crime and controlling costs are being engaged (Barnett and Masse, 2007; Guyll, Spoth, and Crowley, 2011; Welsh and Farrington, 2010). At the forefront are developmental prevention programs that intervene early in life to reduce risk factors for delinquent and criminal behaviors (Durlak, 1998; Eckenrode et al., 2010; Hawkins, Catalano, and Miller, 1992; Hawkins and Weis, 1985; Reynolds, Temple, White, Ou, and Robertson, 2011). As a growing body of evidence illustrates, when implemented appropriately, these developmental prevention efforts not only effectively prevent crime but also are cost-effective solutions that save public resources (Crowley, Hill, Kuklinski, and Jones, 2013; Crowley, Jones, Greenberg, Feinberg, and Spoth, 2012; Heckman, Moon, Pinto, Savelyev, and Yavitz, 2010; Klietz, Borduin, and Schaeffer, 2010; Kuklinski, Briney, Hawkins, and Catalano, 2012; Reynolds et al., 2011). Manning, Smith, and Homel (2013, this issue) outline an innovative approach for valuing these programs to guide policy making. Their work draws on Saaty’s analytical hierarchy process (AHP), often used in the private sector, but less frequently in policy settings (Saaty, 1988). This method ultimately provides an important framework for discussing how to build effective and efficient crime prevention efforts informed by developmental science (Gifford-Smith, Dodge, Dishion, and McCord, 2005; Lerner et al., 2005; Osgood, 2005). In this essay, I expand on Manning et al.’s (2013) discussion by highlighting how this new approach can complement current efforts to value developmental crime prevention programs for evidence-based policy making. I then discuss the importance of considering local programming capacity when investing in prevention and the economic value of prevention approaches that invest in both youth and their families (i.e., dual-generation approaches). Next, I provide a forward look at two approaches policy makers can engage when seeking to fund developmental prevention. I then conclude with four action steps for research and policy that can facilitate the dissemination of effective and efficient developmental crime prevention efforts.